SUNlite - Vol 13 No 01

Magazine Overview

SUNlite, Volume 13, Number 1, published January-February 2021, is a magazine dedicated to shedding light on UFOlogy and UFOs. The cover features a quote from Dr. Carl Sagan about the difficulty of clear thinking on the subject of UFOs, highlighting the magazine's critical and analytical approach.

UFO News Alert Falls Flat....Again

The issue begins by addressing a highly anticipated Facebook post by UFO promoter James Fox regarding a UAP task force statement. The author expresses skepticism, a sentiment that proved correct as little significant information was revealed. The main 'disclosure' was a photograph of an object taken from a military jet, which the author suggests could be a toy mylar balloon, citing observations by John Greenewald Jr. The article also notes the departure of key members from the To The Stars Academy (TTSA), including Luis Elizondo, Chris Mellon, and Steve Justice, speculating on the reasons behind their simultaneous exit and questioning the claim that TTSA had completed its 'mission'. The author suggests the need for a new, larger UFO organization to pursue cases more effectively, but doubts their success given the limited progress of existing organizations like MUFON and CUFOS. The article also criticizes Kevin Randle for promoting a video of re-entering space debris as 'unidentified,' despite expert analysis by James Oberg and others, arguing that Randle's comparisons were flawed and that UFOlogy seems more interested in promoting mysteries than solving them.

Weeding Out the Weinstein Catalogue: January 15, 1975

This section meticulously examines UFO sightings reported on January 15, 1975, in Groton, CT, and Rhode Island, as compiled by Donald Todd from an APRO bulletin. The author argues that most of these sightings were likely related to a Wallops Island Aeronomy test, which involved releasing Boron-Titanium-Aluminum chemicals into the atmosphere. The timing of the sightings, many occurring around the launch of the test, and the descriptions of blue-greenish, spherical, or disc-shaped objects moving eastward align with the visual effects of the chemical release. While Donald Todd rejected this explanation, the author finds it to be the most plausible, noting that the descriptions match photographs taken during the experiment. The article includes a table detailing the sources, times, locations, and descriptions of the reported sightings.

January 20, 1952 Fairchild AFB, Washington

This case file reviews a report from two master sergeants at Fairchild AFB who observed a large, bluish-white spherical object with a long blue tail moving below a solid overcast at an estimated speed of 1400 mph. While Edward Ruppelt, head of Project Blue Book, initially considered it a meteor, the sergeants' report included the detail of a thick overcast, which seemed too low for a meteor. However, the analysis in SUNlite suggests that the overcast was not solid and that the object could have been a bright meteor visible through breaks in the clouds, similar to a fireball event. The article questions Ruppelt's calculations regarding the object's altitude and speed, suggesting they may have been influenced by a desire to believe in something extraordinary. Ultimately, the analysis concludes that the meteor explanation is the most plausible and agrees with Project Blue Book's classification.

The 701 Club: Case 275 January 4, 1949 Hickam Field, Hawaii

This section analyzes a UFO sighting from January 4, 1949, at Hickam Field, Hawaii, reported by USAF pilot Capt. Paul Storey. The object was described as a flat white, elliptical object with a matte top, oscillating and circling before speeding away. The Blue Book file indicates the time of the sighting was between 1407-1435, with scattered clouds. The object's size was estimated to be that of an AT-6 aircraft at 3000 feet, moving at approximately 85 mph. The analysis suggests that the object's behavior, including its oscillating motion and eventual rapid ascent, is consistent with that of a balloon. The article notes that the witness was the only one to report the object, and considering the wind data for the day, a balloon driven by crosswinds could explain its displacement and visibility duration. The conclusion is that the object was likely a balloon and should be removed from the list of unknowns.

Project Blue Book Case Review: July - December 1961

This extensive review examines cases from the Project Blue Book files for the latter half of 1961. For each case, the magazine presents the date, location, the official Blue Book explanation, and the author's evaluation. The evaluations frequently agree with Blue Book's conclusions, often identifying sightings as aircraft, meteors, satellites (including Echo Satellites), Venus, Arcturus, or balloons. In several instances, the Blue Book explanation is deemed insufficient or incorrect, with the author providing alternative explanations or agreeing with the unidentified status. Notable cases include a potential ashcan balloon from Goodfellow AFB, a possible Mirfak (alpha Perseii) or Capella sighting, and a missile in the Caribbean Sea. The review highlights the challenges in analyzing historical UFO reports due to insufficient data, second-hand accounts, and potential misinterpretations.

Project Blue Book Case Review: August 1961

Continuing the review of Project Blue Book cases, this section covers August 1961. Similar to the previous section, the magazine analyzes each reported sighting, providing the date, location, Blue Book explanation, and the author's evaluation. Many cases are attributed to known phenomena such as aircraft, satellites, meteors, planets (Jupiter, Fomalhaut, Antares), and balloons. The review notes instances where photographs were not submitted or where reports were deemed hoaxes. The analysis often concludes that the sightings were explainable by conventional means, reinforcing the magazine's skeptical yet thorough approach to UFO investigation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of SUNlite include the critical examination of UFO claims, the importance of rigorous scientific analysis, and the debunking of misidentified phenomena. The magazine consistently favors conventional explanations for UFO sightings, such as aircraft, natural celestial bodies, atmospheric events, and man-made objects like balloons and space debris. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards extraordinary claims, emphasizing the need for verifiable evidence and objective analysis, as exemplified by the critique of UFO promoters and the detailed re-evaluation of historical cases.

SUNlite, Issue 19, covers UFO case reclassifications from July through December 1961. The issue highlights challenges in evaluating reports, particularly those from young witnesses or those with emotional accounts, and notes the frequent appearance of 'Echo satellite' explanations.

Reclassification Analysis

The magazine details the reclassification of 279 cases, finding that 70 (approximately 25%) were improperly classified. Of these reclassified cases, 27 (about 38.6%) were categorized as 'insufficient information'. The document presents a table detailing these reclassifications, including the original date, location, the 'BB explanation' (likely from Project Blue Book), and the author's reclassification and reasoning.

Common explanations for sightings included meteors, aircraft, balloons, satellites (particularly the 'Echo satellite'), and planetary bodies like Venus, Jupiter, Sirius, and Arcturus. Several cases were attributed to atmospheric phenomena like contrails, mirages, or light refraction.

Key Case Study: Cape Canaveral, September 7, 1961

A prominent case discussed is the sighting at Cape Canaveral on September 7, 1961, initially classified as Gamma Piscium. The author critically examines the assessment by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, suggesting Hynek may not have fully researched the case. The event was recorded by the Boston University Telescope during a rocket launch. The analysis indicates that the object recorded was likely a star, possibly Gamma Piscium, which is a faint star, and not a UFO. The author points out that the telescope operator was tracking the missile and that the star's position was consistent with the rocket's trajectory. The quote, "It is absurd to think that a person professionally qualified to track missile launches would be puzzled by one particular star out of a great many," is attributed to Dr. Hynek in relation to this case, though the author implies Hynek's assessment might have been hasty.

Technical Details and References

The issue includes a photograph of the Boston University Telescope used in the Cape Canaveral case. The article references several sources, including the Project Blue Book archive, NOAA's Radiosonde Database, and publications related to stratospheric balloons and space history. It also cites E. U. Condon's "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects" and J. Allen Hynek's "The Hynek UFO Report."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the challenges of UFO case evaluation, the importance of accurate data, and the tendency for misidentification of celestial objects and known aircraft as UFOs. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical analysis, aiming to provide more accurate classifications for reported sightings, often debunking UFO claims by identifying conventional explanations. The author emphasizes the need for thorough research and careful consideration of all available data.

Title: The Roswell corner: History's lamest mysteries
Issue: 21
Volume: 4
Date: January 2000 (estimated based on ISSN and content)
Publisher: SUNlite
Country: USA
Price: $4.95

This issue of SUNlite critically examines the television program 'History's Greatest Mysteries' and its three two-hour episodes dedicated to the Roswell incident. The author expresses that the program was a "mind-numbing" rehashing of old testimonies and new, often dubious, accounts, stretching the narrative thin.

The Marcel Journal

The article discusses a journal found among Jesse Marcel Sr.'s effects, presented by his grandchildren. Initially appearing to be just "rambling thoughts," the program suggested it contained a secret message in code. A code-breaking expert failed to decode it, leading investigators to hypothesize it was a communication method used by the 509th. Handwriting analysis pointed to Patrick Saunders as a possible author, and his children provided testimony based on stories he privately told them. These stories, however, were noted to be similar to those told by other Roswell witnesses, such as Frank Kaufmann, suggesting Roswell technology was used in stealth planes. The author dismisses the journal's complexity, stating, "Sometimes, a bunch of rambling writings are just a bunch of rambling writings."

Marcel's Testimony

Jesse Marcel Sr.'s testimony was given significant air time. An expert on lie detection evaluated his testimony and found no lies, but the author clarifies this only means Marcel believed his account to be true, referencing Dr. Elizabeth Loftus on the fallibility of memory over decades. The article acknowledges that Marcel likely believed his story, but points out that his retellings contained details that suggested the recovered material was not exotic. Specifically, Marcel mentioned that some debris was seen by newspaper reporters, implying it was visible in photographs, which the author states do not show alien spaceship debris. Linda Corely also appeared, discussing Marcel's statement that the "I-beams" mentioned by Jesse Marcel Jr. were inaccurate, and that the actual material looked like wood but "would not burn." Corely also attempted to decipher Marcel's writings, suggesting they were Roman shorthand, a claim the author finds unlikely. A key point of contention is Marcel's claim that he placed the real debris under brown paper on the floor, a detail not supported by photographs, raising questions about his account.

The author notes that Jesse Marcel Sr.'s testimony is an "essentially a dead end" because critical questions about what newspaper reporters saw and which photographs showed the real debris were not adequately addressed. The program is accused of "cherry picking" testimony to fit its narrative.

Multiple Debris Fields

The analysis of the debris field revealed a "small geomagnetic anomaly" that was deemed not very significant. Former FAA investigator David Soucie examined the debris and found confusing gamma ray readings that did not align with ground penetrating radar. The author is skeptical of Soucie's conclusion that the difference might indicate neoprene from balloons, arguing that such material from Flight #4 would have degraded or been removed. The program also examined another impact site north of Roswell, where witnesses described the spacecraft's resting place. Despite fragments being dug up by Frank Kimbler, nothing significant was found. Chuck Wade claimed multiple crashes and presented debris he collected, which was tested and found not to be from an extraterrestrial craft.

Trying to Debunk Flight #4

In the second episode, the program presented the "Flight #4 explanation." David Soucie examined the Brazel debris site and concluded that a balloon debris field was not possible based on the terrain and wind patterns described by witnesses. The author questions Soucie's analysis, suggesting it was based on decades-old witness descriptions rather than Brazel's original account, and calls for a written presentation of Soucie's conclusions.

The Ramey Memo Again

The article revisits the "Ramey Memo," noting that previous examinations, including one by SUNlite, suggested the word "Victims" might be "viewing." In this program's version, the "V" was interpreted as a "P," implying the word could be "Pending." The author reiterates that the memo's poor film grain makes any confident reading impossible.

Trying to Prop Up a Myth

Don Schmitt is identified as the primary source for the Roswell fable in these television shows, with Kevin Randle playing a secondary role. The author believes these shows enable Schmitt's "fantasies about Roswell and his ego." The program is characterized as another "crashed saucer show" that, despite attempting to appear objective, consistently found remote possibilities to support its claims, even when faced with negative evidence. The article concludes that "solving a mystery does not sell as well as maintaining one."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the article is a critical and skeptical examination of the Roswell narrative as presented in popular media, particularly the 'History's Greatest Mysteries' program. The author consistently questions witness testimonies, the interpretation of evidence like the Marcel Journal and the Ramey Memo, and the methods used by researchers and investigators. The editorial stance is one of debunking sensationalism and advocating for rigorous, evidence-based analysis, suggesting that many claims are simply "rambling writings" or attempts to perpetuate a myth for entertainment and profit. The article emphasizes the unreliability of memory and the selective use of evidence in constructing the Roswell story.