SUNlite - Vol 10 No 03

Magazine Overview

SUNlite, Volume 10, Number 3, published May-June 2018, is a magazine dedicated to shedding light on UFOlogy and UFOs. The cover features a split image of a highway at night with a celestial light and highlights "Case 37 of the Condon report."

Tangled Webs: Editorial

The editorial section addresses several contemporary issues in ufology. It begins by criticizing MUFON for its handling of members like John Ventre, who made racial comments on Facebook, suggesting that the organization's inaction implies approval of such behavior. The author expresses weariness with 'To The Stars Academy's' (TTSA) tactics of releasing 'compelling' videos to solicit funding, advising skepticism due to the lack of transparency. The editorial also notes the passing of Art Bell, reflecting on his program's role in showcasing UFOlogical 'craziness' and the influence of pop culture on astronomical understanding.

Who's Blogging UFOs?

This section delves into various online discussions and activities within the UFO community. It mentions a Fox television program that showed lights attributed to seagulls, with Mick West providing an explanation. Robert Sheaffer's investigation into TTSA's financial relationship with a 'Our two dogs,' a hot dog stand, is highlighted, raising questions about the TTSA's financial dealings and transparency. Kevin Randle's series of articles questioning UFOlogy is discussed, with the author disagreeing with Randle's inclusion of Project Mogul and advocating for criticism of more substantive issues within UFOlogical research. The 'Go Fast' and 'Gimbal' videos released by TTSA are analyzed, with skepticism regarding their claims of extreme speed and suggestions that they may have originated from Bob Bigelow. The section also touches upon John Greenewald's attempts to contact Luis Elizondo regarding AATIP, Roger Glassel's investigation into the AATIP/AAWSA program, and Stanton Friedman's retirement from UFOlogy. An airplane UFO incident over Arizona is mentioned, with a possible link to a daylight fireball. Finally, the resignation of Chris Cogswell as MUFON's director of research is reported, again citing MUFON's inability to dismiss John Ventre.

AN ANSWER TO "Don't Forget UFOlogy: The Influence of UFO Lore in Pop Culture" by Luis R. Gonzales

This article by Luis R. Gonzales challenges the notion that UFO lore is solely influenced by science fiction. While acknowledging the significant impact of SF, particularly in shaping the image of the 'alien abduction' experience and the 'Grey' alien, Gonzales argues that dismissing the influence of SF is too simplistic. He points to early SF stories and comics that predated many popular UFO narratives, suggesting a reciprocal relationship. The article critiques the audiovisual chauvinism of the internet and highlights how pre-internet media like television series, comics, and radio also contributed to UFO lore. It references H.G. Wells' '1.000.000 A.D.' as an early description of big-headed aliens and discusses how such imagery became prevalent in SF pulp novels. The author also notes that pre-abduction UFO literature featured a variety of alien descriptions, often anthropomorphic and sometimes dwarfish, and that cataloging them is difficult. The article suggests that the influence of films like Spielberg's 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' and James Cameron's 'Avatar' on UFO reports is not as direct as some claim, and that censorship by witnesses or investigators can obscure connections. It posits that subtle details in films like 'CE3K' may have influenced witness accounts, particularly the depiction of aliens with big heads and thin necks.

May 29, 1961 Newark Ohio film

This section details a case involving a 16-year-old boy, Craig Seese, who filmed an unidentified light in Newark, Ohio. NICAP received the report and arranged for a meeting with A. B. Ledwith, a NICAP member with technical expertise, to assess the film. Ledwith recommended analysis and advised Seese to make copies. A copy was sent to Max B. Miller for analysis, but the process was delayed and the film eventually disappeared. The film, shot with a Brownie 8 mm camera, reportedly showed three objects, and Ledwith tentatively ruled out reflections and film defects. The article notes that the film seems to have vanished, possibly due to poor quality or a potential explanation. Additional information from the Newark Advocate newspaper describes the object moving north with a larger 'tail' section pointed south, and appearing as a solid mass with a smaller dot of light. A science teacher, Virgil Ashcroft, was skeptical but acknowledged that something was seen and recorded.

Analysis

The analysis of the Newark film notes it was shot between 10 PM and midnight. The lack of astronomical events and Blue Book records for that date raises questions. The film's speed makes recording nocturnal lights difficult, suggesting the object would need to be very bright. The possibility of it being an aircraft with a bright light and contrail is considered. The provenance of the film is questioned, with Allan Hendry's observation that hoaxes are common with photographs and films being cited. The possibility that a known stimulus was filmed and a story created to make it appear mysterious is raised.

Conclusion

The conclusion is that the still images from the newspaper are unimpressive, and the film is not 'best evidence.' It is considered at best a nocturnal light with a potential earthly explanation, and at worst, a hoax. Without the actual film, the case is deemed insufficient evidence, and even with it, the accuracy of the details is questionable. The film is recommended to be removed from the 'best evidence' category.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue include skepticism towards UFO organizations and their public relations, the pervasive influence of pop culture and science fiction on UFO narratives, and the critical examination of evidence presented by various UFO groups. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical, advocating for rigorous scientific standards, transparency, and a critical approach to claims, particularly those made by organizations like MUFON and TTSA. The magazine emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between genuine phenomena and hoaxes or misinterpretations, often highlighting the role of media and fiction in shaping public perception of UFOs.

This issue of "The 701 Club" focuses on UFO Case 8836, which occurred on May 26, 1964, in Pleasantville, Pennsylvania. The magazine is dated May 22, 1964, and is published by THE DERRICK.

Case 8836: Pleasantville, PA Sighting

The case begins with an account from Don Berlinner, listing the case details: May 26, 1964, 11 p.m., Pleasantview, Pennsylvania. The witness, Rev. H.C. Shaw, reported seeing a yellow-orange light, shaped like the bottom of a ball, in a field and chasing it down the road for 2 miles. Brad Sparks' entry is similar, offering little additional information.

The article then delves into the "Blue Book file" for this case, which contains letters and notes from a phone interview, likely conducted by Dr. Hynek. The sighting is broken down into three phases:

• Phase 1: The witness was driving west on route 36-27 and saw a very bright yellow-orange light that required squinting.
• Phase 2: The witness saw a less bright light to their right, above the treeline. Upon exiting the car to observe, the object appeared to take off, prompting a pursuit.
• Phase 3: After driving another two miles, the witness stopped again and watched the object for two more minutes. They then drove down a dirt road to pursue it further. The object rose, resembled the setting sun, and rapidly disappeared to the west.

Additional details emerge from a letter written to Blue Book in December 1964 by the witness. This account places Phase 1 approaching Pleasantville, Phase 2 in Pleasantville (light above treetops), and Phase 3 on a hill between Pleasantville and Titusville. The light was described as being to the left (south) in Phase 1, disappearing and reappearing multiple times.

A NICAP document suggests the sighting began after leaving Mr. McDonald's driveway, with the light seen on the south side of State Street, then reappearing on the north side. The pursuit led westward to White City hill, where the object disappeared westward after the witness got out of the car.

A map is included to illustrate the general direction of the object's movement based on these accounts, showing a trend between Azimuth 280 and 320 degrees.

Possible Solution

The article proposes a possible solution, examining astronomical data for May 26th at 11 PM. It notes that Daylight Saving Time (DST) was likely in effect, making the time 11 PM EDT (0300 UTC). The planet Venus is identified as a prime candidate. Venus was at azimuth 303 degrees and 2-3 degrees elevation, with a magnitude of -4.44. The road SR 36-27 runs west-northwest, and Venus would have been on the left side of the road during Phase 1 and the right side during Phase 2. The low elevation of Venus would explain its disappearance and reappearance. The dimming of Venus as it set due to atmospheric extinction also matches the witness's description of the object disappearing. Venus set around 0318 UTC (1118 PM EDT), closely matching the estimated end time of the sighting.

Project Blue Book Case Review: January-June 1954

This section presents a review of 203 cases from the Project Blue Book files from January to June 1954. The author evaluated these cases, reclassifying 45 of them. The review notes that many sightings lacked sufficient information for evaluation, while others had potential explanations that were not adequately addressed by Project Blue Book.

The review is presented in a table format, listing the Date, Location, BB explanation, and the author's "My evaluation." Notable reclassifications and explanations include:

• Millbrook, AL (Jan 8): Classified as Balloon, with the author suggesting a possible moon sighting due to its azimuth and altitude, and "half moon" shape.
• Westminster, MD (Jan 10): Classified as Meteor and Jupiter, but the author found the data insufficient/confusing, with witness reports varying from seconds to 25 minutes, making identification impossible.
• Seneca Lake, NY (Jan 28): Classified as Balloon, with the author suggesting a possible moon sighting due to its waning crescent phase and visibility through clouds.
• Van Nuys, CA (Feb 21): Classified as Aircraft, with the author suggesting a possible balloon due to wind direction and flight path descriptions.
• Nellis AFB, NV (Feb 23): Classified as Jupiter, but the author noted that the sighting time made Jupiter impossible and conditions described as "dusk" could cause confusion.
• Oakland, CA (Mar-Apr): Classified as 1. Meteor, 2. Ball lightning, with the author deeming both as insufficient data.
• Milwaukee, WI (Mar 6): Classified as Jupiter, but the author identified it as a Moby Dick balloon K11.
• Fort Worth, TX (Mar 27): Classified as Aircraft, with the author identifying it as a possible Moby Dick balloon E173.
• Andarko, OK (Apr 1): Classified as Insufficient data, with the author suggesting a possible balloon from Holloman AFB.
• Savannah, GA (Apr 6-13): Classified as Balloon, with the author noting "No reports. Just record card. Additional data required."

Conclusion

The author concludes that while they cannot definitively prove Venus was the source of the Pleasantville sighting, there is strong reason to suspect it. The witnesses did not report seeing Venus, even though it was in the same direction. The object disappeared around the same time Venus set. Therefore, the author suggests listing this case as probably Venus and removing it from the list of 701 unknowns.

Notes and References

The article provides a list of references, including "The Bluebook unknowns" by Don Berlinner, NICAP website, various letters to Blue Book and a congressman, and an article from The Derrick newspaper.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme in this issue is the critical examination of UFO reports, particularly through the lens of astronomical explanations. The magazine appears to adopt a skeptical but open-minded stance, aiming to demystify UFO sightings by identifying mundane explanations like planets, balloons, or atmospheric phenomena. The detailed review of Project Blue Book cases highlights a systematic approach to re-evaluating historical UFO data, suggesting that many unexplained sightings might have simpler solutions with further investigation. The editorial stance leans towards rational explanation, as evidenced by the strong case made for Venus being the cause of the Pleasantville sighting.

This issue of UFO Investigator, identified by its page number '20', presents a chronological log of unidentified flying object (UFO) sightings from the first half of 1954. The publication focuses on detailed descriptions of each sighting, including date, location, and the reported object type, along with preliminary explanations or classifications.

Sighting Log (January-June 1954)

The issue meticulously lists numerous sightings, often providing brief explanations or potential identifications. Key entries include:

• April 11, 1954, Kansas City, MO: A possible balloon sighting, with wind conditions suggesting movement against the wind and possibly westward.
• April 15-19, 1954, South Korea: Classified as a meteor, with insufficient data beyond a record card.
• April 23, 1954, Myrtle Beach, SC: Insufficient data, possibly a meteor.
• April 25, 1954, Coral Gables, FL: Insufficient data, possibly a meteor.
• April 25, 1954, Kadena AFB, Okinawa: A possible bird illuminated by lighting.
• May 4, 1954, St. Lawrence Island, AK: Described as a ship, with insufficient data. It could also be Jupiter setting.
• May 10, 1954, East Point, GA: Reported as aircraft, possibly birds.
• May 12, 1954, Dayton, OH: Reported as aircraft, possibly a contrail reflecting the sunset.
• May 24, 1954, Schuyerville, NY: Classified as Jupiter, but possibly a balloon observed in daylight.
• May 24, 1954, Chicago, IL: Insufficient data, but described as objects traveling SE over two hours, possibly a high altitude balloon cluster.
• May 30, 1954, Las Vegas, NV: Insufficient data, described as a possible small airborne object (balloon, bird, or debris) moving in the opposite direction of the aircraft.
• May 31, 1954, Mississippi City, MS: Reported as aircraft, with insufficient data.
• June 1954, Mooresville, IN: Classified as stars/planet, but appears to be an out-of-focus point source, possibly Venus visible in the evening sky. It was compared to Mars in a book.
• June 2, 1954, San Juan, PR: Reported as a balloon, but possibly the moon, as the witness described it looking like the moon but discounted it due to motion. Moonset was approximately 30 minutes after the listed sighting time.
• June 5, 1954, Pasco, WA: Insufficient data, described as two objects forming into one as it disappeared on the horizon. The first quarter moon set approximately 20 minutes prior to the sighting.
• June 11, 1954, Pasadena, CA: Reported as aircraft, possibly a balloon.
• June 15, 1954, Vero Beach, FL: Insufficient data, but described as a bright object to WNW that hovered, disappeared, and reappeared, identified as Venus at an azimuth of 290 degrees and an elevation of 11 degrees.
• June 18, 1954, NY City, NY: Insufficient data, possibly an aircraft.
• June 21, 1954, Savannah, GA: Insufficient data, possibly a meteor.
• June 23, 1954, Columbus, OH: Reported as aircraft, possibly Venus.
• June 23, 1954, Madeira, OH: Insufficient data, possibly Venus.
• June 23, 1954, Denver, CO: Reported as aircraft, possibly a meteor.
• June 24, 1954, Dayton, OH: Insufficient data, possibly an aircraft.
• June 24, 1954, Dayton, OH: Insufficient data, possibly Venus.
• June 24, 1954, Waynesville, OH: Reported as aircraft, possibly a meteor.
• June 27, 1954, Covington, KY: Reported as aircraft, with insufficient data.
• June 30, 1954, Labrador, Canada: Classified as Mars, but possibly Venus. The plane headed NE and the object was off the port wing. Venus was low in the WNW at the time of sighting.

Summary and Analysis

The accompanying text provides a summary and analysis of the data presented. The author notes that the 22% incorrect evaluation value for the 1954 data was significantly higher than that of 1953. This is attributed to a lack of thorough investigations by entities like the 4602nd Air Intelligence Squadron or Dr. Hynek, leaving the evaluation to officers who collected reports or the limited staff at Blue Book. This lack of investigation is seen as a reason for the increased number of mistakes.

The author highlights the interesting finding that four cases could have been the moon, with witnesses describing objects as "half-moon" when the crescent or quarter moon was visible. The summary also points out a "mini-wave of" sightings near Dayton in late June 1954, which were confusing and should have received more follow-up. While possible explanations existed, more information was needed for definitive identification.

The issue concludes by stating that the next installment will cover the second half of 1954, with expectations of finding more cases that were not properly evaluated.

References

The issue includes a list of references used, which include:

1. "Project Blue Book investigations” on the Fold 3 web site.
2. The Project Blue Book archive.
3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) / NOAA/ESRL Radiosonde Database.
4. "Stratospheric balloons: Chronological lists of launches worldwide since 1947” from StratoCat.
5. "Space History Chronology” from Astronautix.
6. Condon, E. U., et al., eds. Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. New York: Bantam 1968.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the detailed cataloging of UFO sightings and the analysis of potential misidentifications. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical examination, highlighting the shortcomings in official investigations (like Project Blue Book) and advocating for more thorough analysis of unexplained phenomena. The emphasis is on data collection and the identification of patterns, such as the frequent misidentification of celestial bodies and atmospheric phenomena as UFOs, while also acknowledging cases that remain puzzling.