SUNlite - Vol 10 No 02

Magazine Overview

SUNlite, Volume 10, Number 2, published March-April 2018, is a magazine dedicated to UFOlogy and UFOs, aiming to shed light on the subject. The cover features a night sky scene with a distant airplane and an arc of stars, accompanied by a quote from R.V. Jones.

Key Articles and Content

Don't panic!

This section addresses concerns about receiving credit for UFO discoveries, particularly in the context of evaluating UFO videos and cases. The author apologizes for any oversight in giving credit and emphasizes that independent discoveries are common. It also touches upon a libel suit threat from Tony Bragalia regarding a previous issue's "Roswell Corner" and discusses "The To The Stars Academy" (TTSA), led by Luis Elizondo, questioning the origin and evidence of their UFO videos, suggesting they might be from Bigelow rather than the Pentagon.

Who's blogging UFOs?

This section reviews current discussions in the UFO community, noting a lack of significant news but highlighting the buzz around TTSA and the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). It mentions a post from the Above Top Secret Forum by "Mirageman" questioning Robert Bigelow's involvement and the use of taxpayer money for UFO studies. Dave Brewer's FOIA request about AATIP being delayed is also noted. A skeptic check podcast featuring James Oberg, James McGaha, and Ben Radford is discussed, with McGaha suggesting the "Gimball" video might be jet exhaust. The article criticizes Seth Shostak for associating the "Gimball" video with the 2004 Nimitz sighting without clarification. Kevin Randle's mention of AATIP is deemed uninformative, and Robert Hastings' comment about Hal Puthoff providing UFO books to AATIP is mentioned. John Greenewald's suggestion that only two AATIP reports were written by Dr. Eric Davis, focusing on "teleportation" and "Advanced propulsion," is presented, with skepticism about their value and the program's $22 million cost. Wired magazine's Sarah Scoles is praised for her critical questions to TTSA, and a Pentagon spokesperson's statement about unclassified AATIP files is discussed, implying the data came from outside the Pentagon, likely Bigelow.

The article also revisits the Nimitz FLIR video, clarifying that it was shot by a different pilot than the one who experienced the event. It mentions an "igoddard" analysis of the "Gimbal" video from Metabunk, but notes that Goddard's past involvement in the TWA800 conspiracy theory might affect his credibility. The analysis of artifacts recovered from UFO events by Bigelow is discussed, with Jon Austin's interview with Alejandro Rojas highlighting "metamaterials" claimed to be "not of this earth." The author expresses skepticism, noting Elizondo's financial ties to TTSA and the lack of response from TTSA and Bigelow regarding these materials. Luis Elizondo's appearance at an International UFO congress, where he answered softball questions, is criticized for avoiding tough interviews and dismissing expert opinions, particularly regarding the "ringing" in the videos. His misrepresentation of metabunk's analysis of the "Gimbal" video is also pointed out.

Finally, a brief mention is made of an unknown aircraft event in the northwestern US in October of the previous year, which pilots and radar reportedly tracked.

Falcon Heavy upper stage UFO reports

This section details reports of unusual sightings following Elon Musk's SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket launch on February 6th. The upper stage, which sent a Tesla Roadster into solar orbit, created a display visible from the western United States around 0224 UTC on February 7th. Eyewitnesses described a bright, cloud-like object moving southeastward, evolving into a comet-like object with twin tails before dissipating. Reports came from as far north as Oregon, Idaho, and Colorado, with estimates placing its altitude at about 600 miles. The article notes MUFON's tracking feature and presents a table of reported sighting times and locations, highlighting significant discrepancies and potential data entry errors. A comparison with NUFORC and American Meteor Society databases reveals similar issues with time accuracy, with only about 60-80% of reports having accurate timing. The article concludes that time recorded for events can be erroneous, which is crucial when identifying potential sources like satellites or aircraft.

Night intensifier video requirements

This section addresses the challenges of analyzing UFO videos, particularly concerning Mr. Freeman's explanation of a video he believed was the ISS. The author admits being wrong and points out that satellite tracking applications may not be accurate for dates outside their download period. The article suggests guidelines for videographers to improve the scientific validity of their recordings, including listing the location, date, and time, and checking for visible satellite passes and Iridium flares before recording. Identifying the location in the sky, such as constellations or bright stars, is also recommended to help eliminate obvious explanations and strengthen cases for exotic phenomena.

UFO EVIDENCE UNDER REVIEW/701 CLUB CASE 671: MARCH 20, 1950 STUGGART, ARKANSAS

This is a detailed examination of a UFO case listed in both the Blue Book files as UNIDENTIFIED and in UFO evidence collections. The case involves Chicago & Southern Airlines pilots Captain Jack Adams and First Officer G. W. Anderson, Jr., who reported seeing a circular UFO with "portholes" and a strong blue-white light. The object was described as disc-shaped, approximately 100 feet in diameter, with 8-10 lighted windows on the underside emitting a soft purple light. It was estimated to be moving at 700 to 1,000 mph and passed above their plane. The pilots believed it was a secret experimental craft. The article notes an erroneous date in one document and presents descriptions from various sources, including Don Berlinner and Brad Sparks, highlighting slight variations in details like size, number of portholes, and speed estimates. Loren Gross's historical account of UFOs is also referenced. The Blue Book record is summarized, noting that the object was visible for 25-35 seconds, about half a mile away and 1000 feet above the airliner. A sketch by pilot Adams is mentioned but not in the file, though Loren Gross provided a copy. The Blue Book concluded no definitive explanation, with Ed Ruppelt suggesting it might have been a meteor.

Portholes or something else?

This section discusses the possibility that the Stuggart sighting was a meteor. Ruppelt's account of USAF investigators suggesting a meteor to Captain Adams is recounted, with Adams reportedly feeling foolish and insisting it was not a meteor. The article compares the Stuggart sighting description to the Chiles-Whitted sighting of 1948, another case often described as a bright fireball. It notes that fireballs can be described as objects with disc or cigar shapes and include portholes, citing Zond IV and Chiles-Whitted as examples. A sketch from an April 25, 1966 fireball event also shows portholes. The "airship effect," where witnesses interpret multiple light sources as windows and create a craft around them, is mentioned. The primary challenge to the fireball explanation is the duration of the sighting, reported between 25 and 45 seconds. The article presents data from 2017 and previous years showing long-duration fireball events, some lasting up to 20-30 seconds. However, it also discusses experiments indicating that people tend to overestimate time durations, citing a 1935 experiment by Bemrose Boyd and a 1987 study by Elizabeth Loftus et al. The article also examines a known meteor fireball event from June 15, 1955, reported by a USAF pilot as lasting 40 seconds, suggesting that the pilot's estimate might have been inaccurate. The article concludes that the Stuggart sighting's duration might have been overestimated and could fall within the 10-20 second range typical for bright fireballs.

The flashing light

This section addresses the "flashing light" description, which some argue rules out a fireball explanation. The article notes that fireballs can have multiple bursts of brightness, and these could be interpreted as a flashing light. It references videos of meteor events showing such bursts. The Stuggart sighting's flashing light, described as about 3 flashes per second, is compared to the possibility of multiple bursts. The faint "soft purple light" from the portholes is also discussed, suggesting that after the main fireball fragmented, fainter objects might have appeared as portholes, and subsequent flares could have given the impression of a continuous flashing light.

It was not a meteor!

This section presents the argument against the fireball explanation, primarily based on Captain Adams' conviction that it was not a meteor. The author acknowledges that people unfamiliar with long-duration, fragmenting fireballs might misidentify them. However, the article notes that Adams' insistence, along with the spectacular nature of the events, makes it hard to dismiss his testimony. The spring fireball radiant and evening fireball rates are discussed, noting that sporadic fireballs and meteorite falls are more common in spring, and fireballs are more likely to occur in the evening. While this doesn't prove the Stuggart event was not a fireball, it indicates that a fireball was more likely to occur during that time.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently questions official explanations and emphasizes the need for rigorous evidence and critical analysis in UFOlogy. There is a recurring theme of skepticism towards organizations like TTSA and AATIP, particularly regarding their claims and the use of public funds. The publication advocates for transparency and the release of data. The Stuggart case review highlights the challenges of eyewitness testimony and the potential for misidentification, while also acknowledging the conviction of witnesses. The overall stance appears to be one of open-minded inquiry, demanding solid evidence and critical evaluation of all claims within the UFO field.

This document is a review of cases from the Project Blue Book files, covering the period from July to December 1953. It functions as a second edition of a case review, building upon a previous evaluation of the first half of the year. The author's objective was to examine each case, assess the validity of its explanation, and provide commentary or corrections where necessary.

Case Review: July-December 1953

The core of the document is a detailed table that lists cases by date, location, the original 'BB explanation' (presumably from Project Blue Book), and the author's 'My evaluation'. This evaluation often agrees with the original explanation, but frequently offers alternative interpretations, identifies potential errors, or classifies the case as 'UNIDENTIFIED' with further comments.

July 1953 saw numerous entries, with many cases attributed to Venus, balloons, aircraft, or meteors. For instance, a sighting at Shaw AFB, SC on July 2 was evaluated as likely Capella, Venus, and Jupiter. A case at Tinker AFB, OK on July 2 was considered a possible balloon launch. An 'UNIDENTIFIED' sighting at Atlantic City, NJ on July 22 involved multiple objects coming out of clouds with a vapor trail, with the author noting a lack of information but suggesting it should have been identifiable.

August 1953 continued this pattern, with explanations ranging from meteors and aircraft to Venus/Jupiter and 'UNIDENTIFIED' cases. Amarillo, TX and California area reports were marked 'UNIDENTIFIED'. A case in Greenville, MS was identified as possibly birds in a V formation.

September 1953 included cases like Goat Rock, GA (Star/planet, deemed unreliable report) and Sidi Slimane, French Morocco (UNIDENTIFIED). Rapid City, SD had a case with a balloon explanation and a second 'star' explanation, with the author noting confusing information and a possible balloon.

October 1953 featured more cases, with explanations including meteors, aircraft, balloons, and celestial bodies. A case in Catalina, CA was linked to the 'Moby Dick Balloon'. A sighting in Phoenix, AZ was identified as Jupiter for night viewing or Venus for pre-sunrise.

November 1953 continued the review. A case in Ashley, ND was linked to the 'Moby Dick Balloon T140'. Long Beach AFB, CA reported Mars, but the author suggested it was probably Venus. A case in Dayton, OH was listed as insufficient data with a possible meteor.

December 1953 concluded the review period. Cases included insufficient data, meteors, balloons, and celestial bodies. A sighting in Catalina, CA was again linked to the 'Moby Dick Balloon'. A case in Phoenix, AZ was identified as Jupiter or Venus.

Reclassification

Following the detailed case-by-case review, a section titled 'Reclassification' summarizes findings that suggest 29 out of 187 cases (approximately 16%) were improperly classified. This table lists specific cases, their original classification, and the author's proposed reclassification with a reason. Examples include:

• Godman AFB, KY (July 11): Reclassified from Venus to Capella, noting Venus had not yet risen.
• Atlantic City, NJ (July 22): Reclassified from Aircraft to UNIDENTIFIED, highlighting the presence of multiple objects and lack of aircraft.
• Dayton, OH (July 27): Reclassified from Insufficient data to Possible Balloon.
• San Rafael, CA (August 28): Reclassified from Insufficient data to Possible birds in a V formation.
• Goat Rock, GA (September 1): Reclassified from Star/planet to Unreliable reports.
• Harrisville, MI (October 1): Reclassified from Insufficient data to Possible Aircraft reflection.

Summary and Conclusion

The author concludes that the 16% improper classification rate is slightly lower than the 18% found in early 1953. The primary challenges in classifying these cases stemmed from a lack of feedback from various organizations and issues with the witness reports themselves. Specifically, the author notes that many potential meteor observations had durations listed in minutes, while witnesses described objects as extremely fast. This discrepancy, along with minimal and conflicting data, made accurate identification difficult. The author also points out instances of multiple reports from single individuals, raising questions about the reliability of such accounts. The review emphasizes the importance of comparing object behavior with known phenomena to determine possible solutions.

References

The document concludes with a list of references, including websites related to Project Blue Book investigations, archives, meteorological data from NOAA, information on stratospheric balloons, and historical space chronology, as well as the Condon Report.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes throughout this issue are the critical analysis of UFO reports, the identification of potential misclassifications, and the emphasis on scientific explanations such as meteors, balloons, aircraft, and celestial bodies. The author's stance is one of rigorous examination, seeking to demystify UFO sightings by applying logical reasoning and available data, while acknowledging the limitations and challenges inherent in analyzing such reports. There's a clear effort to move cases out of the 'unknown' category where possible, often by suggesting more mundane explanations or highlighting insufficient data for a definitive conclusion.