SUNlite - Vol 11 No 03

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 11 Number 3
Date: May-June 2019
Publisher: SUNlite
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of SUNlite celebrates its 10th anniversary, being the 61st issue produced. The editor reflects on the magazine's original intent to discuss UFOlogy and recent news, noting a shift over the years towards a more critical examination of cases due to a perceived repetition of old arguments and a lack of new methods for gathering evidence. The editor expresses a personal fatigue with examining old, often anecdotal, cases that are not convincing to outsiders and a preference for focusing on "UFO Evidence" cases and Blue Book unknowns. The issue features several articles, including a review of Roman UFOs by Marty Kottmeyer.

Cover Story and Editorial

The cover features a nighttime photograph of a rocket launch, with the headline "Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs." The prominent quote on the cover is from Carl Sagan, dated July 29, 1968, which posits that the interest in UFOs stems from "unfulfilled religious needs" and that flying saucers serve as a replacement for deposed gods. Sagan's quote emphasizes the need for "rigorous logic and the most convincing evidence" when evaluating UFO observations, stating that "there is no evidence that unambiguously connects the various flying saucer sightings and contact tales with extraterrestrial intelligence."

The editorial section, titled "SUNlite's 10th anniversary," reiterates the editor's sentiment that UFOlogy tends to repeat itself with the same arguments and that many compelling cases are not convincing to those outside the field. The editor finds many cases to be based on anecdotal reports or rumors, questioning why proponents focus on such weak cases. The "UFO Evidence" section aims to demonstrate that it is not a compilation of convincing evidence, and the review of Blue Book unknowns is an ongoing, challenging project. The editor thanks Marty Kottmeyer for an article on Roman UFOs and mentions a second article on the topic will appear in the next issue.

Articles and Case Reviews

Who's blogging UFOs? Hot topics and varied opinions
This section discusses current trends and opinions in UFOlogy. It mentions the To The Stars Academy (TTSA) producing a UFO program with the History Channel, raising skepticism about the inclusion of informed skeptical opinions. The article questions the credibility of new witnesses coming forward decades after an event, citing the Pascagoula case as suspect and finding a witness for the 1997 Arizona event more credible due to matching visible details. It also questions the long delay in reporting. The section highlights John Greenewald's efforts to determine the role of Luis Elizondo and the AATIP, suggesting AATIP was a mechanism for a senator to funnel money. The Scientific Coalition for UFOlogy (SCU) is mentioned for its study on the Nimitz UFO event of 2004, with the article noting that the SCU's paper relies heavily on FOIA requests and commentary, with limited new data beyond a low-resolution video. The SCU's argument against the balloon explanation for the Aguadilla case is also discussed, with the editor claiming their rebuttal is selective and erroneous. Finally, the section notes the US Navy's new policy for reporting unidentified aircraft incursions, comparing it to the past failures of Project Blue Book.

June 1, 1954 Boston, Massachusetts
This article reviews a UFO sighting by a TWA pilot and crew near Boston. The object was described as a large, white, disc-shaped UFO that paced the airliner. The Air Force initially suggested it was a weather balloon, but the pilots questioned this, noting it traveled against the wind. Project Blue Book's investigation record is noted to consist of a witness form completed later, where the pilot's attitude had changed, and he agreed it was a large research balloon launched from Grenier AFB. The article includes a description of the "Moby Dick" balloon and its purpose. Dr. James McDonald is quoted, noting the object could not have been a balloon due to the plane's speed. The analysis suggests that a high altitude plastic balloon launched from Grenier airfield could explain the observations, as it was also seen by ground personnel. A news clipping from The Sun describes a similar event attributed to an experimental weather balloon.

Conclusion: The article concludes that it is "very likely that the pilot saw a high altitude balloon launched from Manchester that morning" and the case should be labeled "possible moon."

THE 701 CLUB: CASE 4706 APRIL 25, 1957 RINGGOLD, LA
This section details a case from Project Blue Book involving a military witness named Robertson. The case was reportedly missing from official files but was found and investigated by the local Air Force base. The witness, on a fishing expedition, saw a large red, half-moon shaped object after a storm. He attempted to alert residents of a nearby house, but the object disappeared. The witness described the object as more crescent than half-moon and stated it descended to ground level over 25 minutes. The analysis discusses confusion in the reported times (0830Z vs. 0730Z) and uses Google Earth and historical aerial photographs to identify the sighting location. The article explores the possibility of the moon as an explanation, noting its rising azimuth and appearance over the tree line, matching the description of "half-moon" and "red like blood." Arguments against the moon explanation include the reported time being prior to moonrise and that it was raining. However, counterarguments suggest the time could be wrong, the weather might have had clear patches, and the angle of elevation might be overestimated. The article concludes that the case should be reclassified as "possible moon."

Project Blue Book case review: January-June 1957
This is the sixth edition of a review of Project Blue Book cases from the first half of 1957. The author examines each case to assess the merit of the official conclusion and adds comments for clarification. The review is presented in a table format, listing the date, location, Project Blue Book explanation, and the author's evaluation for each case. For January 1957, many cases are agreed upon as meteors, aircraft, balloons, flares, or astronomical objects like Sirius and Jupiter. Some cases are noted as having insufficient data or being unreliable reports. For February 1957, similar explanations are given, with some cases being agreed upon and others noted for insufficient data or delayed reports. The March 1957 section includes cases such as a probable auroral display, a possible balloon/blimp, and a case with "no case file" from the USSR. The evaluations generally agree with the Blue Book explanations unless the data is insufficient or the explanation seems inadequate.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

Recurring themes in this issue include a critical examination of UFO evidence, a skepticism towards sensationalism in UFOlogy, and a focus on rigorous analysis of historical cases, particularly those from Project Blue Book. The editor's stance is one of caution and a demand for strong evidence, moving away from accepting anecdotal accounts at face value. There is a clear emphasis on debunking or reclassifying cases based on logical explanations, such as weather balloons or astronomical phenomena. The magazine appears to position itself as a source for a more grounded and analytical approach to the UFO phenomenon, contrasting with more speculative or belief-driven narratives within the UFO community.

This document is an article titled "Roman Ufos" by Marty Kottmeyer, published in a magazine. It delves into the historical accounts of potential UFO sightings in ancient Rome, critically examining the work of researchers like W. Raymond Drake and others who have compiled lists of such phenomena.

UFOs in Ancient Rome: Drake's Research and Its Legacy

The article begins by discussing W. Raymond Drake's 1963 article, "UFOs over Ancient Rome," in which he selected about 50 writers of antiquity and scrutinized their main works through a UFO lens. Drake tallied 63 records of celestial phenomena from historians like Obsequens, Livy, Pliny, Dio Cassius, and Cicero. He presented a breakdown of the types of phenomena and a list of 10 quotes from classical history that he believed indicated sightings of celestial objects that predated the concept of flying saucers. Drake's intent was to demonstrate that UFOs of antiquity were real and that modern phenomena are consistent with them.

However, the article points out that Drake's work, while influential, contained errors and idiosyncrasies that were repeated by others. These include mis-datings, mis-spellings of names and places, and problematic translations. The article then proceeds to analyze several specific cases cited by Drake and other researchers, highlighting discrepancies and potential misinterpretations.

Case Analysis and Critiques

• 222 B.C.: Drake noted "three moons have appeared at once." The article clarifies this occurred during the consulship of Gnaeus Domitius and Gaius Fannius, which actually happened in 122 B.C., not 222 B.C. as Drake implied.
• 218 B.C.: Drake cited an appearance of "men in white garments" in Amiterno, along with a shrinking sun, glowing lamps, a shield in the sky, two moons, and phantom ships. The article notes that the Arpi prodigy, often linked to this date, might be more accurately dated to 217 or 216 B.C.
• 214 B.C.: Drake mentioned an "altar in the sky" at Hadria. The article states Drake gave the date as 214 B.C., but it was actually set in 213 B.C.
• 213 B.C.: Drake described a "light like the day" at Ariminium. The article corrects Drake's dating, stating it should be 223 B.C., not 213 B.C.
• 175 B.C.: Drake reported "three suns shone at the same time" and stars glided across the sky at Lanuvium. The article notes that Pliny speaks of three suns at the same time during the consulship of Sp. Postumius and L. Mucius (174 B.C.), and that the proper setting for the described events was 173 B.C.
• 122 B.C.: Drake wrote of "three suns and three moons" seen in Gaul. The article clarifies that Obsequens, cited by Drake, missed that Obsequens had misread Pliny, who mentioned only three moons and termed them "nocturnal suns."
• 91 B.C.: Drake described a "gold-colored fireball" near Spoletium that increased in size and blotted out the sun. The article notes this is the only record of its occurrence and was seen by the proconsul Silenus and his suite.
• 85 B.C.: Drake wrote of a "burning shield scattering sparks" in the sky. The article notes that Chris Aubeck and Jacques Vallee correctly identified the consuls for this event as serving in 100 B.C., not 85 B.C.
• 66 B.C.: Drake mentioned a "spark" from a star that increased in size and became a torch. The article corrects the year to 76 B.C. and notes that the consuls were Gnaeus Octavius and Gaius Scribonius Curio Burbulieus, not Gnaeus Octavius and Gaius Suetonius as Drake stated.
• 42 B.C.: Drake noted "three suns" were seen at Murtino. The article points out that Drake got the year right, but the term "Murtino" is a rendering of "Mutinensi," a province in Italy.

Subsequent Researchers and Their Contributions

The article then discusses other researchers who have compiled lists of Roman-era UFOs, including Dr. Raymond Bernard and Warren Smith. Bernard's work, presented in "The Hollow Earth," is shown to be heavily based on Drake's list, repeating many of his errors. Bernard also adds new entries, such as a Cicero quote about Fauns, Castor & Pollux, and items concerning a fissure in the sky, events in 163 B.C., and Caesar & Pompey in 48 B.C. The article questions the relevance of some of Bernard's additions, particularly the 48 B.C. item about a fire in Pompey's camp.

Warren Smith's "UFO Trek" is also examined. His list adopts Drake's mid-datings and idiosyncrasies, adding further errors such as misdating the Ariminium prodigy to 222 B.C. (should be 223 B.C.) and the Arpi, Capua, and ships over Italy prodigies to 216 B.C. Smith also includes an unexplained prodigy of sheep enveloped in flames and misdates a "weapon or missile rose" event to 42 B.C. (should be 43 B.C.).

Wilkins is noted for an error not present in Smith's list: misidentifying Lanupium as a place where a "fleet of ships" was seen. The article clarifies that Lanupium does not exist and is a misspelling of Lanuvium.

More recent additions to Roman UFO chronologies include errors concerning a comet (Halley's comet in 12 B.C.) and a flame-like body misdated to 73 B.C. (should be 74 B.C.). The article concludes that these lists have become a pool of contaminated knowledge, with authors like Stephen Spignesi directly copying from Raymond Bertrand's work and perpetuating its errors.

Data Analysis and UFO Types

The article includes a section on "Roman ufo types" presented as a pie chart, categorizing sightings by terms like "voice," "unspecified," "War," "armies," "men (ascending)," "men," "Gods," "skyships," "ships," "sun at night," "Suns," "moons," "oval (shields)," "fireballs," "star (falling)," "star (new)," "light (falling)," and "lights." Another chart displays "Shapes of UFOs in NUFORC," showing a wide variety of shapes like "Sphere," "Disk," "Cigar," "Triangle," and "Oval." The author observes that Roman era UFO descriptions have different distributions of terms and shapes compared to modern NUFORC database entries, suggesting that the phenomenon, if it existed in ancient times, might have been understood or described differently.

Summary of Reports and Reclassification

The "Summary" section notes a significant drop in reported cases from the second half of 1956, but a rise in cases requiring reevaluation. This is attributed to a lack of personnel for investigations and fewer on-site interrogations. Many Ground Observer Corps (GOC) reports lacked positional data, making analysis difficult. The author expresses frustration with cases that lack sufficient information for identification or solution, often consisting of single messages or witness letters. One case was reclassified as "UNIDENTIFIED" due to a lack of potential solution, while another "UNIDENTIFIED" case was felt to have a possible solution.

References

The article concludes with a list of references, including "Project Blue Book investigations," the "Project Blue Book archive," NOAA data, "Stratospheric balloons: Chronological lists of launches," "Space History Chronology," and the "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects" by Condon et al.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critical examination of historical UFO accounts, particularly those from Roman times. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards unverified claims and a call for rigorous analysis of historical data, highlighting the prevalence of errors, misinterpretations, and misinformation in UFO literature. The article emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between genuine historical phenomena and later interpretations or fabrications, suggesting that the way ancient events are described and categorized may differ significantly from modern UFO reports.

This document, titled "MORE BLUE BOOK MOON IFOS," is an addendum to previous lists concerning UFO cases from the Blue Book files where the moon was used as an explanation. It was compiled based on additional cases found by Herb Taylor, who contacted the author via e-mail in April 2019. The content consists of a table detailing these cases, along with a brief introductory and concluding note.

Additional Blue Book Moon IFOS

The core of the document is a table listing specific incidents. Each entry includes the Date, Location (City, State), and a Comment. The dates span from May 4, 1949, to August 31, 1968. The locations are spread across various states in the U.S., including Florida, Texas, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, New York, and Missouri.

The 'Comment' column predominantly states 'Agreed,' indicating that the moon was accepted as the explanation for the reported sighting in these instances. However, one entry stands out:

• Date: 2/15-16/1966
• Location: Greenville, OH
• Comment: "Insufficient information/unreliable report. Witness did not know exact date and referenced it as being a certain week in February. She wrote her letter to the USAF on March 23rd. It could have been the moon if the date was a few days earlier than she remembered."

This particular case highlights the challenges in definitively classifying explanations, especially when witness testimony is vague or the exact date is uncertain. The note suggests that even with these limitations, the moon remained a plausible explanation.

Notes and References

Below the table, a single reference is provided: "1. Taylor, Herb. E-mail to author. 4/13/2019." This confirms the source of the additional information and the date it was communicated. The page number "20" is visible at the bottom, indicating this is likely a page from a larger publication.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the use of the moon as a common explanation for UFO sightings documented in the Air Force's Project Blue Book. The editorial stance appears to be one of cataloging and verifying these explanations, acknowledging the limitations of some reports while confirming the validity of others. The document serves as a factual compilation of specific instances where a natural celestial body was identified as the cause of a reported anomalous aerial phenomenon.