SUNlite - Vol 10 No 05

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 10, Number 5
Date: September-October 2018
Subtitle: Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs

This issue of SUNlite delves into various aspects of UFOlogy, offering critical analysis of recent trends and historical cases. The editor expresses a sentiment of stagnation within the UFO community, noting that much of the current discourse, particularly concerning 'To The Stars Academy' (TTSA), is repetitive.

Editor's Introduction

The editor opens by referencing H.G. Wells' "The War of the Worlds" in conjunction with the recent Mars opposition, suggesting that the planet's visibility may have generated UFO reports. The current state of UFOlogy is described as being stuck in a cycle of collecting reports, attending conventions, and awaiting revelations from TTSA, which the editor views with skepticism. The Canadian UFO Survey is highlighted as a significant recent event, though the editor offers a critical assessment, finding it unoriginal and unimpressive.

The editor also notes the dominance of TTSA in the "Who's blogging UFOs?" section and expresses a lack of personal inspiration to write on topics beyond specific case reviews. Input from Herb Taylor regarding UFO reports involving the Moon from the Blue Book files is included. A correction is made regarding a previous article on the BOAC case, clarifying the aircraft type involved based on reader feedback.

Who's Blogging UFOs?

This section critically examines various online discussions and initiatives within UFOlogy. The History Channel's program on Project Blue Book is criticized for potentially misrepresenting facts. The upcoming release of Jesse Marcel Sr.'s journal is met with skepticism regarding its authenticity and timing. Tom Delonge's TTSA is accused of hyping its organization with unsubstantiated claims, such as a "pill bottle" of "unknown origin." George Knapp's compilation of studies submitted to the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program (AATIP) is questioned, with the editor suggesting these studies are speculative and unrelated to identifying advanced aviation threats. The AATIP is deemed a waste of taxpayer money. M. J. Banias's work on TTSA's meta-materials analysis program (ADAM) is also met with skepticism, particularly regarding the lack of analysis on recovered materials and the slow pace of disclosure. Documents related to AATIP and TTSA, allegedly leaked by Chris Mellon, are discussed, noting their disappearance and lack of significant revelations, except for a resignation letter from Luis Elizondro and a re-release of the Nimitz incident report with more details. Roger Glassel's discovery of a congressional record mentioning AATIP is noted as potentially leading to public record releases. An unconfirmed report of a tall alien crossing a highway in Ohio is dismissed due to lack of evidence. Paul Dean's research into old UFO reports is mentioned, with his latest revelation described as a "bombshell" regarding the USAF's continued investigation of UFOs after Project Blue Book.

The editor further elaborates on the USAF's post-Blue Book investigations, stating that while Blue Book was terminated, reports affecting national security continued to be handled through standard Air Force procedures. The Bolender memo is cited as evidence that the USAF did not cease all UFO-related investigations. The editor considers this information to be not new, despite Paul Dean's characterization of it as a "bombshell."

The Roswell Corner

This section offers a counter-perspective to Kevin Randle's recent article on the Roswell incident. Randle's shift in argument, from dismissing government documents to suggesting they might cover up an alien spaceship crash, is noted. The editor contends that Randle struggles to fully detach from the Roswell legend and continues to present biased interpretations. The article reiterates arguments previously made in SUNlite, suggesting that Project Mogul is the most likely source for the debris, and that evidence presented by proponents is often speculative or based on biased interpretation. Specific rebuttals to Randle's arguments include the explanation of the "Crashology's last stand" article, the testimony of Thomas Dubose regarding a switch of debris, Marcel's expertise as a radar operator, the nature of the photographed debris as off-the-shelf balloon materials, and the insufficiency of debris from a Mogul flight to account for Brazel's description. The editor concludes that while skeptics are open to verifiable evidence, current evidence does not conclusively falsify the Mogul hypothesis.

October 2, 1955 Ohio

This article details a UFO sighting over Akron and Alliance, Ohio, on October 2, 1955. Eight observers reported a hovering disc-like object that changed shape and faded out. The investigation is criticized for being inadequate, with angular sizes not being properly determined. The object's visibility at sunset and its changing appearance as the sun set are noted, suggesting it was illuminated by the sun. The wide range of observation locations indicates the object was high, large, and far away. The most likely explanation offered is a research balloon, specifically mentioning the "Moby Dick Hi" project from Lowry AFB, which involved payloads of radar chaff. A subsequent report of a balloon found in the ocean on October 4, 1955, is linked to the 456th Troop Carrier Wing, which was practicing airborne retrieval of Genetrix balloons, suggesting a possible connection to the Ohio sighting.

Conclusion (October 2, 1955 Ohio Case)

The conclusion suggests that the Ohio sighting was likely a research balloon reflecting the setting sun, acknowledging that pertinent data is missing for a definitive solution. The possibility of it being a "manifestation of extraterrestrial life" is dismissed.

The 701 Club: Case 3212 - September 18, 1954 Kimpo AFB, Korea

This section analyzes a UFO case from Kimpo Air Base, Korea, on September 18, 1954. Witnesses, including control tower operators and weather personnel, reported a round, polished aluminum object flying straight and level for 11-13 minutes. The Blue Book file contained a seven-page Air Intelligence Report. The object was observed between 2055Z and 2108Z by five observers. Three described it as round, while two noted its brightness. Initial estimates placed it at azimuth 175 degrees and 50 degrees elevation, moving to 180 degrees azimuth and 50 degrees elevation before disappearing into clouds. It was described as pea-sized at arm's length and brighter than a star. A weather balloon was released at 2100Z and was traveling east, while the object moved west. The reporting officer, 2nd LT. Anthony Ingrad, found no explanation, noting the weather balloon's trajectory did not match. Explanations considered were a star (Sirius or possibly Rigel) or a high-flying aircraft. The analysis dismisses the aircraft explanation due to the object's slow movement and duration. A research balloon is considered, but no records were found. The star Sirius is favored, though the estimated elevation and azimuth were off by almost 20 degrees, attributed to estimation inaccuracies in twilight conditions.

Conclusion (Kimpo AFB Case)

The conclusion suggests that the Kimpo AFB sighting was likely the star Sirius, despite discrepancies in the estimated elevation and azimuth. Rigel is considered a closer match in terms of location but not brightness. The case is recommended for reclassification as "possibly the star Sirius."

Canadian UFO Survey Results

This article critically reviews the 2017 Canadian UFO survey. While commending the effort involved in compiling the data, the author finds that the survey offers no new insights into the UFO phenomenon. The data presented in charts and tables, such as case breakdown by month, duration, and time of day, largely confirms what was already known from previous studies like Project Blue Book. The survey's findings on peak observation times during summer and around 9-11 PM are considered unsurprising. The author questions the methodology for classifying cases as "unknown," suggesting that reports with insufficient data should be categorized differently. The "high-quality unexplained UFO reports" are based on subjective "strangeness" and "reliability" ratings, which the author finds ambiguous. Specific cases, such as a trail camera incident potentially showing the moon and an airliner report of a flashing light, are analyzed and suggested to have plausible, non-UFO explanations.

The Really Good Unknowns

This section continues the critique of the Canadian UFO survey, focusing on cases classified as "high-quality unknowns." The "reliability" rating is questioned, particularly concerning blurry images or nocturnal lights. The trail camera case is analyzed, with the overlay from Stellarium suggesting the object was the moon. The airliner report is examined, noting the possibility of a weather balloon with an anti-collision strobe, given the location and launch times of balloons from Vernon, British Columbia. The lack of detailed information, such as azimuth and elevation from the aircraft, prevents a definitive conclusion, but a weather balloon is presented as a plausible explanation. Another "good" case involving a photograph and video from January 5, 2017, is mentioned as a MUFON case, with potential explanations including celestial bodies.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of SUNlite include a critical examination of contemporary UFOlogy, particularly the activities of TTSA and the findings of the Canadian UFO Survey. The magazine maintains a skeptical stance towards sensational claims and emphasizes the importance of rigorous investigation and evidence-based conclusions. Historical UFO cases are revisited with an aim to provide mundane explanations, such as research balloons or astronomical phenomena. The editorial stance appears to favor a rational, evidence-based approach to UFOlogy, often challenging the prevailing narratives within the community and highlighting the limitations of current data and interpretations.

This issue of SUNlite, identified as issue number 10, focuses on the critical evaluation of UFO research methodologies and presents a detailed review of Project Blue Book cases from January to June 1955. The cover headline, 'A new frontier?', sets the tone for a discussion on advancing the study of unexplained phenomena.

A New Frontier?

The lead article critiques the current state of UFO research, particularly referencing the Canadian UFO Survey. The author commends the survey's work but argues that merely listing cases does not significantly advance the field. Drawing upon the words of Dr. J Allen Hynek, the piece emphasizes the need to alter methodologies to prevent Identified Flying Objects (IFOs) from being misconstrued as UFOs, thereby avoiding misinformation and misguidance. The author questions the bias in classifying cases and asks what is being done with the collected data, proposing a more proactive approach to data collection during peak observation times.

A significant suggestion is to adopt methods used by astronomers for studying meteor showers and setting up fireball networks. The author proposes that UFOlogists should create and deploy camera systems on a large scale, similar to amateur astronomers who invest their own money in scientific endeavors. The article questions why UFOlogists are not more forthcoming with such systems if they exist.

Project Blue Book Case Review: January-June 1955

The bulk of the magazine is dedicated to a comprehensive review of Project Blue Book cases from the first half of 1955. The reviewer meticulously examines each case, comparing the official 'BB explanation' with their own evaluation. The goal is to determine if the original conclusion had merit or if it was inadequate.

January 1955

In January, 31 cases are reviewed. Many are classified as 'Agreed' with the Project Blue Book explanation, which often involved aircraft, meteors, balloons, or astronomical objects like Venus and Jupiter. Some cases are noted as 'UNIDENTIFIED' due to insufficient data. For instance, a sighting in Williamsburg, VA, is noted as 'Possibly Venus, which was a bright morning star.' A case in St. Ignace, MI, is identified as 'Seen to the NW. Probably Vega.' Several entries are marked 'Insufficient data,' with evaluations like 'Possible meteor based on description' or 'Possible Aircraft.' A notable entry for Winterset, IA, on January 29th, mentions a sighting at 0307Z, with weather balloons being launched nearby at 0300Z, suggesting a possible lit weather balloon, similar to the Gorman incident in 1948.

February 1955

February presents another 30 reviewed cases. Similar to January, many are agreed upon, with explanations ranging from aircraft and meteors to astronomical bodies. 'UNIDENTIFIED' appears for some cases due to lack of reports or data. A case in Del Ray Beach, FL, is evaluated as 'Possibly Jupiter.' A sighting in Saipan on February 12th is identified as Venus, with detailed notes on time discrepancies and azimuth/elevation readings. A case in New Orleans, LA, on February 15th, is described as a probable balloon, possibly released during Mardi Gras. Reports of possible birds are also noted, such as in San Diego and Pacific Beach, CA, and Edwards AFB, CA.

March 1955

March includes 31 reviewed cases. Explanations continue to be varied, including aircraft, meteors, balloons, and astronomical objects. A case in Charleston, WV, on March 8th, is noted as a 'Possible balloon. 4602nd AISS revealed balloon released in area that might explain event.' A sighting in Farmingdale, Long Island, NY, on March 19th, is described as 'Possible birds. Formation of dull red lights flying north at night. Visible only 10 seconds.'

April 1955

April features 30 reviewed cases. Explanations include meteors, aircraft, balloons, and astronomical objects. A sighting in Bryn Mawr, PA, on April 27th, is evaluated as Sirius, with the witness report of direction being more applicable to Sirius than Jupiter. A case in Dahlgreen, VA, on April 28th, involves both Jupiter and a radar balloon, with the evaluation suggesting Venus as the likely object based on elevation angles. A case in Travis County, TX, is marked 'UNIDENTIFIED' due to lack of information.

May 1955

May presents 30 reviewed cases. Explanations include aircraft, meteors, balloons, and astronomical objects. A sighting in Limestone, ME, on May 3rd, is noted as 'Possibly Venus. Venus rising in the east. Aircraft on Northeast track to Newfoundland.' A case in NY City, NY, on May 3rd, is described as a 'Possible cloud. Dark object hovering near cloud bank. Changed shape and slowly disappeared.' Another case in NY City, NY, on May 15th, is identified as 'Possible meteor.' A sighting in Munday, NY, on May 11th, is evaluated as 'Characteristics more indicative of scintillating star. Probably Capella.'

June 1955

June includes 28 reviewed cases, plus a summer entry. Many are agreed upon, with explanations like aircraft, meteors, and balloons. Some are noted as 'Unreliable report,' with evaluations like 'Report made nine years after event. Witness was seven years old at the time.' A case in Del Ray Beach, FL, on February 2nd (listed under June's reclassification section), is evaluated as 'Possibly Jupiter.' A sighting in Dallas, TX, on July 20th (also under June's reclassification), is noted as 'No aircraft in vicinity discovered by 4602nd. No radar contacts. Object (or objects) traveling north with lights. UNIDENTIFIED.'

Reclassification

The issue concludes with a 'Reclassification' section, summarizing 38 cases from January to June 1955 that the reviewer felt should have been reclassified. These include cases with 'Insufficient data' that were reclassified as 'Possible meteor,' 'Possible Aircraft,' or 'Possible lit weather balloon.' For example, a sighting in St. Albans, NY, on January 11th, initially listed as 'Insufficient data,' is reclassified as 'Possible meteor based on description.' Similarly, a case in Sullivan Island, SC, on January 14th, is reclassified as 'Possible Aircraft.' The sighting in Winterset, IA, on January 29th, is noted as being similar to the Gorman incident in 1948, suggesting a possible lit weather balloon.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of UFO research methodologies, the importance of rigorous data analysis, and the need for more scientific approaches to studying unexplained aerial phenomena. The editorial stance is one of advocating for a more systematic and evidence-based approach, moving beyond simple cataloging of sightings to a deeper understanding of the underlying causes, whether they be misidentified conventional objects or truly unknown phenomena. The issue implicitly supports the idea that many sightings can be explained by conventional means, but acknowledges the need for continued investigation into the remaining unexplained cases.

This issue of "PROJECT BLUE BOOK MOON IFOS" focuses on the phenomenon of the moon being misidentified as an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) within the context of Project Blue Book investigations. The publication highlights that a surprising number of people have misidentified the moon over the decades, and this remains a relevant issue even today.

The Moon as a Common Misidentification

The central argument is that the moon is a frequent source of UFO reports, and UFOlogists should be diligent in ruling out this possibility before classifying a sighting as 'unidentified'. The article cites Allan Hendry's observation that 2% (22 reports) of his nocturnal light UFO sightings were attributed to the moon. It also mentions a case where multiple police officers pursued the setting moon, believing it to be a UFO.

The publication critiques the tendency of some UFOlogists to dismiss skeptical explanations, referencing a comment about astronomer Jill Tarter being ridiculed for failing to immediately recognize the moon. The author suggests that this skepticism overlooks the reality that the moon can indeed be mistaken for a UFO, especially under certain conditions.

Case Studies and Analysis

The issue presents extensive lists of cases where the moon was considered a potential explanation, drawing from sources like Herb Taylor's compilation and other "SUNlite" cases. Each entry typically includes the date, location, and a brief comment on the investigation's conclusion, such as 'Agreed,' 'Disagree. Probably Venus,' or 'Disagree. Possible meteor.'

Several specific cases are detailed:

• May 25, London, England: Described as a 'Psychological' case, the witness was an enthusiast who tracked an object with binoculars. The report suggests the object was likely astronomical, possibly Jupiter, and movement was attributed to the use of binoculars and biased observation.
• May 26, Chitose AB, Japan: This case involves a potential time error in the report (0018Z vs. 0918 JST or 1018Z) and a weather report from 1912. The author considers this 'conflicting data' due to the ambiguity of the time and conditions.
• Summer, Woodside, CA: An 'Unreliable report' made nine years after the event by a witness who was seven years old at the time.
• June 5, Camp San Luis Obispo, CA & June 5, Santa Margarita, CA: Both listed as 'Insufficient data' with a 'Possible balloon' explanation.
• June 10, Ontario, CA: 'Insufficient data' with a 'Possible balloon (Moby Dick Hi balloon from Lowry AFB in vicinity)' explanation.
• June 15, Anita, IA: 'Insufficient data' with a 'Meteor. Same as Minnesota and Kansas sightings' explanation.
• June 20, Dallas, TX: Listed as 'Aircraft' but with no aircraft found in the vicinity by the 4602nd, no radar contacts, and the object traveling north with lights, marked as 'UNIDENTIFIED'.

Specific Moon Misidentification Cases:

• January 29, 1967, Knox City, MO: A witness initially reported a UFO but later realized it was the moon. The report notes the object was red and not round, and the witness never saw the actual moon. The object ascended and changed color. The case is presented with a sketch.
• March 17, 1967, Kansas City, MO: A letter from Colonel James C. Manatt of the Air Force to a witness acknowledges their inquiry and requests completion of a form. The witness admits they believe their UFO sighting was the moon, which was very cloudy and foggy at the time.
• April 4, 1968, Cochrane, WI: A discussion between Herb Taylor and the author regarding a case where the witness stated there was no moonlight, leading to reservations about the moon explanation.

Sketches and Visual Evidence

The issue includes several sketches made by witnesses, some of which clearly depict the moon. Examples provided are from LaCrosse, Wisconsin (3/29/66), Columbus, Ohio (5/7/66), Dayton, Ohio (6/20/66), and Sharpesville, Pennsylvania (4/11/66). These sketches are used to illustrate how witnesses perceived and recorded their observations.

Summary of Evaluation

The author notes that the "17% incorrect evaluation value was a bit higher than I expected," an increase from the previous year. Two cases were reclassified as "UNIDENTIFIED" due to the lack of potential solutions. While the 4602nd unit was helpful in some cases, many reports were based on single messages or letters, making evaluation difficult.

References

The article provides a comprehensive list of references, including websites for "Project Blue Book investigations," the "Project Blue Book archive," NOAA data, information on stratospheric balloons, and space history chronologies. It also references the Condon Report.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critical importance of thoroughly investigating potential mundane explanations for UFO sightings, with the moon being a primary candidate for misidentification. The editorial stance is one of caution and skepticism towards claims of 'unidentified' phenomena, emphasizing the need for rigorous analysis and the avoidance of premature conclusions. The author advocates for an open mind but stresses that this should not preclude the examination of all possible conventional explanations, including astronomical bodies like the moon.