SUNlite - Vol 11 No 02

Magazine Overview

SUNlite, Volume 11, Number 11, dated March-April 2019, is a magazine dedicated to shedding light on UFOlogy and UFOs. The cover features a serene image of a white balloon floating in a blue sky over a grassy field and trees, with the title 'SUNlite' prominently displayed.

Editorial Content

The editorial content of this issue begins with a quote from Dr. William Hartmann, who discusses how erroneous concepts in UFOlogy are often popularized in the literature, leading to a low signal-to-noise ratio in reporting. He suggests that social forces conflict with clear reporting, and a body of literature exists due to sensationalism rather than logic.

The magazine expresses skepticism towards current UFOlogy pursuits, finding them unconvincing and boring. While acknowledging the interest in the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), the author suggests it may have been a means to funnel money without significant accomplishment. The focus shifts to older data from Project Blue Book and NICAP, highlighting a lack of data and investigation in many "unknown" cases. The author notes a significant increase in UFO reports in the latter half of 1956, speculating it might be influenced by the release of the film "Unidentified Flying Objects: The True Story of Flying Saucers." Mars, during its early fall opposition, is identified as a significant source of these reports.

Recent news concerning MUFON and the "To the Stars Academy" (TTSA) is also discussed, with MUFON facing internal dissension and TTSA acquiring an alleged alien implant from MUFON. The author predicts MUFON will continue its internal issues and TTSA will continue to hype mysterious phenomena, leading to stagnation in UFOlogy.

Who's Blogging UFOs?

This section covers various opinions and recent discussions in the UFO community:

• David Clarke discussed the Rendlesham explanation involving SAS units, dismissing an idea involving pyrotechnics and stating that SAS veterans found no basis for such an explanation.
• Tom Delonge's postings about US submarines tracking underwater UFOs are met with skepticism, drawing on the author's twenty years of experience on submarines, where such secrets would not be kept.
• Harry Reid is noted for his interest in UFOs, advocating for congress to investigate and for pilots to have reporting channels, though existing organizations like NARCAP, MUFON, and NUFORC are mentioned.
• John Greenewald has made progress on FOIAs regarding AATIP, confirming the 'A' stands for aerospace and that the program was not primarily a UFO study but focused on potential aviation threats from other nations. The DIA reportedly canceled AATIP due to a lack of progress.
• Jason Colavito and Robert Sheaffer commented on a History Channel documentary about Project Blue Book, with the author finding it unimpressive and warning that uninformed viewers might mistake it for a documentary.
• Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal are criticized for promoting bug videos and an airplane contrail as UFO evidence, with the author suggesting they parrot UFO group talking points.
• Kean is also mentioned for questioning Marc O'Connell about Hynek's alleged experiences with alien bodies and UFO dogfights, with O'Connell dismissing these as nonsense.
• Keith Basterfield posted an article about Douglas Aircraft's interest in UFOs in 1955, noting that while Baker's evaluation of the Marianna film is interesting, it doesn't falsify aircraft explanations.
• Basterfield also obtained slides about the AATIP briefing, which Robert Sheaffer noted contained pseudoscience where extraordinary claims were not challenged.
• Jan Harzan celebrated MUFON's 50th anniversary, presenting a 2014 case that was later determined to be a hoax (a spot on a windshield), suggesting MUFON's review board either failed to evaluate it properly or ignored evidence.
• Jack Brewer commented on a critique by Phil Leech regarding MUFON's internal problems and the transfer of an implant obtained by MUFON to the TTSA.
• An old UFO case from Maui in 1993, involving a video from an observatory, is discussed. While initially considered evidence by TTSA's Chris Mellon, Dr. Bruce Macabee and Metabunk's Mick West suggest it was likely an airplane, with camera technology creating an illusion. The author raises questions about the video's time stamp and the visibility of stars during daytime.
• John Greenewald has formed his own UFO report investigative team, which is seen as a significant improvement over some MUFON investigations.
• Robert Hastings is seeking USAF missile veterans who claim abduction, with the author cautioning about the dangers of hypnosis in abduction investigations.

Case Reviews

April 4, 1958 - Santa Monica, California

This case involves a 9-year-old boy who reported seeing a "cigar-shaped" UFO with windows hovering near his home and then shooting straight up. The analysis suggests the report is "insufficient information." Possible explanations include a weather balloon or an aircraft. The boy's age and the sensational nature of the news clipping lead the author to consider it possibly a balloon/aircraft and not significant evidence.

The 701 Club: Case 9345 April 4, 1965 Keesler AFB Mississippi

This case details a sighting by USAF A/2c Corum of a black, oval object with four lights, observed for 15 seconds. The Blue Book file mentions confirmation by a college student and possible radar contact, though the author could not find radar evidence. The object moved from Southwest to Northeast, with no sound or trail, and was seen in and out of clouds at 1200 feet. Other related sightings in Wiggins, Mississippi, and Pensacola, Florida, are discussed. Dr. Hynek interviewed the witness, noting a discrepancy in the reported duration of the sighting. The analysis suggests that the Keesler sighting, along with the Wiggins and St. Petersburg sightings, might be related to a fragmenting meteor, although the timing and direction of the Keesler event make a direct link unlikely. The conclusion is that the sighting should be reclassified as a "possible meteor."

Project Blue Book Case Review: July-December 1956

This section provides an evaluation of Project Blue Book cases from the second half of 1956. Each case is listed with its location, the Blue Book explanation, and the author's evaluation. The author attempts to determine if the Blue Book conclusions had merit and adds comments for clarification. Many cases are evaluated as "Agreed" with the Blue Book explanation, while others are noted as "Insufficient data" or have alternative explanations suggested, such as meteors, planets, balloons, aircraft, fireworks, or imagination. For example, a sighting in Cairo, Egypt, was attributed to birds, and a case in Crescent City, FL, was deemed possibly fireworks. A case in Jackson, MS, was identified as a meteor, and sightings in Stanton, NE, and Saugerties, NY, were attributed to Venus and Mars respectively. Some cases, like the one in Amarillo, TX, involving artillery firing, are noted as unreliable due to delayed reporting.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of SUNlite revolve around a critical and skeptical examination of UFOlogy. The magazine consistently questions the validity of UFO reports, emphasizing the need for rigorous investigation and conventional explanations. There is a strong critique of sensationalism and the lack of scientific rigor in much of the UFO literature. The editorial stance appears to be one of promoting a more grounded and evidence-based approach to understanding unexplained aerial phenomena, often favoring explanations such as misidentified aircraft, balloons, meteors, or astronomical objects over extraordinary claims. The magazine also highlights the internal issues and perceived lack of progress within prominent UFO organizations.

This document is a compilation of unidentified flying object (UFO) and unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) reports from July through December 1956, presented in a tabular format. Each entry details the date, location, a brief explanation of the reported phenomenon (BB explanation), and a subjective evaluation of the sighting.

July 1956 - Reclassification

The document begins with a section on reclassifications from July 1956. It states that out of 404 cases evaluated from the Blue Book files, 69 (approximately 17%) were considered improperly classified. The table lists specific cases from July, providing their original classification, a reclassification, and the reason for the change. Reasons for reclassification include lack of report in file, daylight sighting of Venus, possible fireworks display, identification as Saturn or Spica, and daylight sighting of Venus with specific azimuth and elevation.

August 1956 Sightings

The majority of the document details sightings from August 1956. Numerous locations across the United States and some international locations (Potma, USSR; Azores; Bentwaters, Lakenheath, England) are listed. The 'BB explanation' column often identifies the phenomenon as 'Aircraft', 'Meteor', 'Balloon', 'Mars', 'Venus', 'Stars/Planets', 'Hoax', 'Lenticular cloud', 'Insufficient data', or 'UNIDENTIFIED'. The 'My evaluation' column provides the assessment of the report, with many being 'Agreed' or 'Agreed' with specific caveats. Some evaluations highlight issues such as insufficient information, unreliable reports due to delayed witness accounts, or potential misidentification of known objects. For instance, a sighting in Amarillo, TX, on July 31st (also reported in August) was deemed unreliable because the witness reported it five months later and it was evaluated as possible artillery firing. A sighting near Fallon Navy Station, NV, involved an object visible due to sun reflection. The Bentwaters, Lakenheath, England case is noted as involving anomalous propagation, astronomical objects, and a weather balloon, with a reference to a summary by David Clarke.

September 1956 Sightings

This section continues the tabular format for September 1956, listing sightings from various locations. Similar to August, explanations range from celestial bodies (Moon, Venus, Mars, stars like Arcturus), aircraft, balloons, meteors, to 'UNIDENTIFIED' and 'Insufficient data'. Evaluations are predominantly 'Agreed', with some noting missing positional data, duration, or confusing reports. A sighting in Dallas, TX, was marked 'UNIDENTIFIED' for both explanation and evaluation. A case in Concord, NH, involved objects moving fast but visible for an hour, with confusing data.

October 1956 Sightings

The October 1956 entries follow the established pattern. Locations include various US states and some international sites (Ashford, Kent, England; Cumberland, VA; West Haven, CT; Cheyenne, WY). Explanations include 'Aircraft', 'Meteor', 'Balloon', 'Mars', 'Venus', 'Stars', 'Rayon Residue', 'UNIDENTIFIED', and 'Insufficient data'. Evaluations are mostly 'Agreed', with specific notes about possible balloons, stars, meteors, or the need for more data. A sighting in Cincinnati, OH, involved 'Internal telescope reflection' and was evaluated as photographs taken through a telescope of the moon, showing an overexposed moon.

November 1956 Sightings

November 1956 sightings are detailed, with locations spanning the US and Canada (Montreal-Prestwick, Canada; Goose Bay-Frobisher Bay, Labrador). Explanations include 'Rocket firing', 'Aurora', 'Stars/Planets', 'Meteor', 'Balloon', 'Aircraft', 'UNIDENTIFIED', and 'Insufficient data'. Evaluations are generally 'Agreed', with some noting missing positional data, course, or duration. A 'Rocket firing' report near Montreal-Prestwick, Canada, was clarified to be related to USS Rushmore firing rockets in November, but not on the specific date, suggesting a possible meteor. A sighting in Buffalo, NY, involved objects listed as 15,000 feet in diameter, with a note about probable typographic error and missing positional data.

December 1956 Sightings

The final section covers December 1956 sightings. Locations include US states and one international site (Guam). Explanations include 'Meteor', 'Flare', 'Balloon', 'Aircraft', 'Mars', 'UNIDENTIFIED', and 'Insufficient data'. Evaluations are mostly 'Agreed', with some noting specific identifications like 'Stars. Probably Capella', 'Possible aircraft', 'Possible meteor', or 'Agreed. Launch of Jupiter missile from Cape Canaveral'. A sighting in Guam was marked 'UNIDENTIFIED'.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

A recurring theme throughout the document is the systematic evaluation of reported aerial phenomena. The editorial stance appears to be one of careful, albeit sometimes subjective, analysis, aiming to identify known causes for sightings. The frequent use of 'Agreed' suggests that many reports, after investigation, were found to be consistent with known phenomena or lacked sufficient evidence to be considered truly anomalous. The document highlights the challenges in evaluating such reports, particularly when information is incomplete, delayed, or contradictory. The emphasis on identifying celestial bodies, aircraft, and meteorological phenomena as explanations underscores a rational approach to the subject matter. The inclusion of a reclassification section indicates an ongoing effort to refine the categorization of these reports based on available evidence.

Title: UFO Investigator
Issue: Vol. 1 No. 1
Date: 1957
Publisher: NICAP
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of UFO Investigator provides a detailed chronological listing and summary of numerous unidentified flying object (UFO) sightings that occurred primarily in late 1956. The magazine aims to analyze these reports, offering explanations and highlighting the difficulties in obtaining conclusive data.

Chronological Sightings Log (Late 1956)

The bulk of the issue is dedicated to a table listing sightings by date, location, and the reported object or explanation. Key entries include:

• September 30, Dallas, PA: A sighting of Arcturus from an aircraft, described as visible for only one second.
• October 3, Lamesa, TX: Another aircraft sighting where the object was visible for a brief moment, with insufficient data.
• October 7, Norwalk, OH & Castel AFB, Merced, CA: Reports with insufficient data.
• October 8, Portland, AR: Identified as a hoax, with a time (233206Z) that made source determination impossible.
• October 11, Crane, IN: An unreliable report lacking positional data.
• October 13, Pottsville, PA: A confusing report where the stated time of sighting conflicted with the description of daylight.
• October 28, Tehachapi, CA: Insufficient data.
• November 4, Montreal-Prestwick, Canada: A rocket firing was reported, but records indicated no rockets were fired on that date, suggesting a possible meteor.
• November 11, Goose Bay-Frobisher Bay, Labrador: Similar to the November 4 entry, rocket firing was reported but not confirmed, with a possible meteor explanation.
• November 17, East Gary, IN: Two balloons were launched from Minnesota on this date, and this sighting might have been one of them.
• November 25, West Los Angeles, CA: Sighting of Venus and Jupiter.
• November 26-7, Kadoka and Clear Lake, SD: Identified as Betelgeuse (Kadoka) or Mars (Clear Lake).
• November 28, Washington DC: A star (Capella, Procyon, or Sirius) was seen through a window with a plastic coating.
• December 9, Woodstock, MN: A "half-sphere" object was seen, identified as the Moon near its last quarter and setting in the west.
• December 17, Newberryport, NH: Venus was observed, but it did not rise until three hours later; the object was likely a star or planet, possibly Sirius or Jupiter.
• December 26, Defuniak Springs, FL: Identified as an aircraft.
• December 31, Denver, CO: Identified as stars, probably Capella.

Analysis and Explanations

The magazine discusses how astronomical phenomena were often misidentified as UFOs. Specifically, the planet Mars was frequently cited, especially when it appeared red and was visible in the evening sky. The issue notes that the "17% incorrect evaluation value was less than the 20% from the first half of 1956," indicating a trend in how reports were classified. However, it also points out that "a few of them were not" correctly identified, and some probable Mars sightings were missed.

Other astronomical explanations included Venus, Jupiter, and various stars like Arcturus, Capella, Rigel, and Sirius. The Moon was also identified in at least two cases. The magazine also mentions that some reports were identified as missile sightings, particularly due to a message about the USS Rushmore firing missiles, though these were likely meteors.

Challenges in Investigation

A recurring theme is the "lack of information" which "continues to be a big problem" in evaluating UFO reports. Many entries in the log are marked with "Insufficient data" or "No positional data." This lack of detail made it difficult to verify sightings or determine their source.

The role of Dr. Hynek, the scientific consultant for the programs (presumably Project Blue Book), is mentioned. The article suggests that either he was too busy to comment or that Blue Book did not send him all the reports, implying a potential gap in expert analysis for some cases.

References

The issue concludes with a list of references used in the analysis, including:

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

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The primary theme of this issue is the systematic analysis of UFO reports, with a strong emphasis on providing conventional explanations, particularly astronomical ones. The editorial stance appears to favor rational explanations and highlights the shortcomings in data collection and reporting that plague UFO investigations. The magazine seems to be a publication of NICAP, suggesting an interest in UFO phenomena but with a methodical approach to evaluating evidence, often pointing to the limitations of the available information and the investigative process itself.