SUNlite - Vol 13 No 02

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 13, Number 2
Date: March-April 2021
Theme: Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs

This issue of SUNlite, dated March-April 2021, focuses on examining UFOlogy and UFO sightings with a critical and analytical approach. The cover features a quote from LT. Colonel Dale Shafer Jr. about his experience on March 8, 1950, where he felt foolish chasing what he thought was a star or celestial body.

Key Articles and Discussions

2021 - More of the same old stuff?

The editorial section begins by critiquing the current state of UFOlogy, noting a lack of change in how some promote the subject. It specifically calls out Anthony Bragalia for his claims of having FOIA evidence of US military recovery and scientific study of debris from UFO crashes, including Roswell. This claim was refuted by John Greenewald and Susan Gough from the Department of Defense, who stated that only known sources were analyzed and no 'debris' was studied. The author expresses skepticism about Bragalia's interpretation, suggesting his case is weak.

The article also references an article by Ethan Siegal in Forbes, which explains how science views the 'aliens' explanation critically, recommending it for UFO proponents. It also notes John Greenewald Jr.'s effort in making CIA UFO files available on his website, The Black Vault, praising it as a reliable source. Dr. David Clarke's blog on radar and UAPs, particularly concerning UK sightings like the Lakenheath-Bentwaters incident, is also mentioned.

A correction is issued regarding a previous article where the author failed to acknowledge Kevin Randle's blog post identifying a Hawaiian video as a re-entry, not an unidentified object.

Weeding out the Weinstein Catalogue: April 9, 1948 - Montgomery, Alabama

This section delves into a specific case file from Project Blue Book concerning an event on April 9, 1948, near Montgomery, Alabama. Lt. Colonel Robert Hughes, flying a P-51H, reported seeing a silver, disc-shaped object with a dark cable and a silver sphere underneath. He described it as an 8-foot diameter, silver parachute-like object with a 5-foot cable. The object was seen for about 5 seconds at an airspeed of 310 mph and disappeared horizontally. Project Sign classified this as a balloon, a conclusion supported by J. Allen Hynek's review.

The analysis section examines wind data from nearby locations to determine if a balloon could have produced the observed motion. While winds were generally from the West-Northwest, the object was reported moving Northwest. The author suggests that Hughes' own aircraft motion and rapid turn might have created the illusion of the object moving in the opposite direction or that he simply flew past it. The possibility of it being a weather balloon launched from Maxwell AFB is considered, as well as Project Mogul balloons released from Alamogordo, New Mexico. Flight #46, launched between April 7 and 13, is noted as potentially ending up over Montgomery. The article concludes that the object resembled and acted like a balloon with a payload, and Blue Book's classification as a balloon is deemed correct.

A near miss with an airliner?

This section discusses an incident on February 21, 2021, where an American Airlines aircraft reported a "long cylindrical object" flying over New Mexico. Initially considered a daylight meteor, the American Meteor Society database had no related reports. Further investigation on the Metabunk forum suggested the object was likely a Lear jet flying at 41,000 feet in an opposite direction. The intersection of the two aircraft occurred about eight to nine minutes before the aircrew reported the event. The author concludes that this was likely a 'probable aircraft' and should not be entered into UFO databases.

March 8, 1950 Dayton, Ohio

This detailed case review examines the March 8, 1950 sighting involving a TWA airliner crew, radar, and two F-51 pilots near Dayton, Ohio. The NICAP document states the UFO was tracked by radar and chased by F-51s. The Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA) received reports, and Wright-Patterson AFB sent up interceptors. The UFO was visible to control tower operators and Air Technical Intelligence Center personnel, and radar detected an unidentified target.

Two F-51 pilots described the UFO as huge and metallic. However, clouds moved in, forcing them back. A Master Sergeant operating radar reported a 'good solid return' that climbed vertically at high speed. The case was initially investigated by ATIC, which concluded the object was Venus, citing its visibility in the southeast and the radar return being caused by ice-laden clouds. The report also mentions that the radar contact did not appear until after the UFO was no longer visible and was to the east, while the visual sighting was to the south.

However, the article presents a dissenting view from the Master Sergeant who operated the radar, who argued that the return was not from weather but a 'good, solid object.' The F-51 pilot also disagreed with the Venus explanation, stating the UFO was definitely round and got bigger and more distinct. He also noted that Venus was not in that part of the sky the next day. The article also references a True magazine account and Captain Rabeneck's observation through binoculars, who, as an amateur astronomer, stated it was not a star, planet, or meteor.

The analysis section compares the reported azimuth and elevation of the object with those of Venus for Dayton, Ohio, finding a close correlation. It dismisses the possibility of a research balloon due to the object's described shape and visibility from 38,000 feet. The author suggests that Mr. Barnes' initial observation of a moving, bullet-shaped object with a trail might have been a meteor that merged with the Venus observation. The radar contact is deemed unrelated to the visual sightings and likely due to weather.

The conclusion is that the verifiable information indicates Venus was seen. While acknowledging the radar contact issue, the article states that experts had their say. Barnes' initial observation might have been a meteor, but subsequent observations were likely Venus. The sighting is deemed not to be 'Best Evidence'.

An observation about Ruppelt

This section critically examines Edward Ruppelt's book, 'The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects,' questioning its accuracy. The author notes that some details, like the 'Estimate of the situation,' seem to exist only in memory and lack solid evidence. Drawing parallels with historical accounts of battles (Battle of Midway, Prokhorovka) where myths were created and perpetuated, the author suggests Ruppelt may have misrepresented facts, relied on faulty memory, or altered stories to make them more compelling. The inconsistencies between Ruppelt's account of the March 8, 1950 case and the Blue Book file, media reports, and witness statements are highlighted. The author concludes that while Ruppelt may not have been a liar, his writings contain too many inconsistencies with the known record to be considered 100% accurate.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of UFO evidence, the importance of scientific methodology in analyzing sightings, and the debunking of sensationalist claims within UFOlogy. The magazine advocates for a skeptical approach, emphasizing that many unexplained phenomena can be attributed to conventional explanations such as aircraft, planets, or weather conditions. The editorial stance is one of rigorous analysis and a commitment to presenting evidence-based conclusions, even if they contradict popular beliefs or established narratives within the UFO community.

This document is an excerpt from "The 701 Club," focusing on Case 7359, which details an unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) sighting on April 24, 1961. The issue also includes a review of Project Blue Book cases from January to June 1962.

Case 7359: Pacific April 24, 1961

The primary focus is a sighting described by Don Berlinner, involving an aircraft commander Capt. H.J. Savoy and navigator Ist Lt. M.W. Rand of a USAF RC-121D patrol plane. The incident occurred at 3:34 a.m. PST, approximately 200 miles southwest of San Francisco, California, at an altitude of 11,000 feet. The witnesses observed a reddish-white, round object or light, described as similar to a satellite, with an angular size of a pinhead at arm's length. It was observed for 8 minutes, moving from west to east, with a clear sky and no sound or trail.

Brad Sparks' account corroborates the date, location, and time, adding details about the object's elevation (29°55′) and azimuth (140° relative bearing, which the analysis suggests might be 280° azimuth). The object was described as planet-like, round, and reddish-white. The observers initially thought it resembled the Echo satellite.

The Blue Book File and Analysis

The Blue Book file for this case was minimal, containing only a single message with the basic particulars. Project Blue Book checked with Space Track, which stated the Echo satellite was not visible at that time. However, the author, in discussing the case with Herb Taylor, decided to re-examine the Echo satellite's track using Jonathan's space page and the Two Line Elements (TLEs) for April 25, 1961.

Running the data through Heavensat, the author discovered that the Echo satellite did indeed make a pass over the region during the time in question. The computed track showed the satellite emerging from Earth's shadow at azimuth 290° and elevation 10°, reaching a maximum altitude near Polaris, and disappearing over the horizon around azimuth 70° at 1144Z. While there were some minor conflicts between the computed track and the witness reports (e.g., regarding azimuth and elevation), the author found the match to be satisfactory.

The author considered the possibility of errors in Space Track's calculations or in the information exchange between Project Blue Book and Space Track. The analysis suggests that the differences could be attributed to observational error, minor errors in the TLEs, or the tracking program itself. The author also checked two other cases where Space Track identified the Echo satellite and found good matches, reinforcing the idea that an error might have occurred in the April 24th case.

Conclusion

The author concludes that Case 7359 is solved as the Echo satellite, acknowledging minor differences but deeming them not significant enough to doubt the explanation. The case is recommended for removal from the Blue Book unknowns and the Weinstein catalogue.

Project Blue Book Case Review: January - June 1962

This section presents a review of 195 cases from the Project Blue Book files between January and June 1962. The author examined each case to assess the validity of its explanation and added comments where necessary.

January 1962

• Morgantown, WV (Jan-Feb): Classified as Meteor, agreed. The author notes insufficient data due to no exact date but finds the description consistent with a fragmenting meteor.
• Santurce, Puerto Rico (Jan): Classified as Balloon, agreed. Insufficient data due to no exact date, but the description sounds like a balloon.
• West Germany (Jan 2): Classified as Insufficient data, agreed.
• Ohio - Indiana area (Jan 3): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Xenia, OH (Jan 4): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Pacific (Jan 5): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite.
• Pacific (Jan 5): Classified as Satellite, agreed. No satellite visible; brightness of Venus observed. Possible aircraft.
• Adak, AK (Jan 6): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite (contrary to Blue Book notes).
• Humboldt, KS (Jan 6): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Pacific (Jan 8): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite (contrary to Blue Book notes).
• ESE Pacific (Jan 9): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Pacific (Jan 14): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite (contrary to Blue Book notes).
• Monroe, LA (Jan 15): Classified as Stars, reclassified as Insufficient data. The author suggests military flares dropped by aircraft as a possible cause.
• Atlantic (Jan 15): Classified as Aircraft, agreed.
• Las Cruces, NM (Jan 15): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Vandalia, OH (Jan 16): Classified as Aircraft, agreed.
• Lynn, MA (Jan 17): Classified as Unreliable report, reclassified. A 14-year-old reported the sighting, possibly confusing stars Vega and Capella.
• Kirksville, MO (Jan 22): Classified as Balloon, agreed.
• Miami, FL (Jan 26): Classified as Aircraft, reclassified. Possible birds; photographs showed vague shapes, not sharp points of light.
• Pacific (Jan 28): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Bethel, AK (Jan 28): Classified as Aircraft, agreed.
• Morehead, KY (Jan 28): Classified as Birds, agreed.
• South Carolina - Puerto Rico (Jan 29): Classified as Missile, agreed. Titan missile launch.
• Ganado, AZ (Jan 29-3/1): Classified as Mirage, reclassified. Witness likely viewed Regulus through an inexpensive refractor, causing purple fringing and a blurry image.
• St. Paul, MN (Jan 30): Classified as Meteor, agreed.

February 1962

• Pacific (Feb 31): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite (contrary to Blue Book notes).
• Muskwa, BC, Canada (Feb 2): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Atlantic (Feb 2): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Iceland (Feb 3): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite.
• Carswell AFB, TX (Feb 11): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Hutchinson, KS (Feb 12): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Winnemucca AFB, NV (Feb 12): Classified as Insufficient data, agreed. Radar data only included altitude.
• Rolesville, NC (Feb 12): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. Possible aircraft; no duration listed.
• Pacific (Feb 12): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite.
• Miami, FL (Feb 14): Classified as Aircraft, reclassified. Echo Satellite; witness stated it disappeared near the moon.
• Childers, TX (Feb 15): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Pacific (Feb 17): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Shreveport, LA (Feb 18): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Baldwinsville, MA (Feb 18): Classified as Meteor, reclassified. Witness was 13 years old and reported traveling at 7500 mph; form filled out later with errors.
• Mobile, AL (Feb 19): Classified as Venus, agreed.
• Aliwal North, South Africa (Feb 21): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Physical specimen, evaluated as part of John Glenn's Atlas Booster.
• Pacific (Feb 21): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite.
• Pacific (Feb 22): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite.
• Luzon, Philippines (Feb 23): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite.
• San Juan, Puerto Rico (Feb 23): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• St. Croix, West Indies (Feb 23): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. Probably same meteor seen from San Juan.
• Near Bermuda (Feb 23): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Kotzebue, AK (Feb 25): Classified as UNIDENTIFIED, reclassified. UNIDENTIFIED.
• Panama Canal (Feb 26): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite.
• Brazil (Feb 27): Classified as Radio beacon from missile, agreed. Physical specimen, evaluated as part of Atlas Booster.

March 1962

• Adana, Turkey (Mar 1): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. Possible aircraft.
• Salem, NY (Mar 1): Classified as UNIDENTIFIED, reclassified. Birch photographs, probable hoax.
• Sheffield, England (Mar 4): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. Probable hoax.
• Pacific (Mar 4): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite.
• Miami, FL (Mar 6): Classified as Aircraft, reclassified. Possible birds; photograph shows an airplane.
• New York, NY (Mar 10): Classified as Aircraft, agreed.
• Bethel, AK (Mar 12): Classified as Moon, agreed.

April 1962

• West Manchester, OH (Apr): Classified as 1. Hoax, 2. Hoax, reclassified. Possible meteor observation and mistaken identity; witness saw a rock fall and then produced the object.
• Brooklyn, NY (Apr): Classified as Venus, agreed.
• Springfield, OH (Apr/May): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. 13-year-old making a report one year after the fact.
• Goose Bay, Labrador (Apr 2): Classified as Balloon, agreed.
• Lake View, SC (Apr 3): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. Possible contrails; 12-year-old on newspaper route.
• Atlantic (Apr 3): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite.
• Pacific (Apr 4): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite.
• Wurtland, KY (Apr 4): Classified as UNIDENTIFIED, reclassified. Possible Balloon.
• Pacific (Apr 5): Classified as Missile, reclassified. Comet Seki-lines; no missile launch.
• Pacific (Apr 5): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. Contrail.
• Northern Hemisphere (Apr 6-10): Classified as Comet-Seki Lines, reclassified. Agreed.
• Keesler AFB, MS (Apr 7): Classified as Balloon, agreed. Physical specimen.
• Formosa (Apr 7): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Echo Satellite.
• San Juan, Puerto Rico (Apr 8): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Hereford Inlet, NJ (Apr 9): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. Only mentions an orange-red flashing in the sky.
• Thayer, KS (Apr 10): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Atlantic (Apr 11): Classified as Meteor, agreed.
• Mayer, AZ (Apr 12): Classified as Chaff, agreed. Physical specimen.
• Pacific (Apr 12): Classified as Satellite, agreed. Courier 1B rocket.
• Estacada, OR (Apr 12): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. Venus; 12-year-old sighting, appears to be star-like object.
• Pacific (Apr 12): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. Radar UFO; insufficient information.

May 1962

• Athens County, OH (May): Classified as Chaff, reclassified. Agreed. Physical specimens.
• USSR (May): Classified as Aircraft, reclassified. No case file.
• Clinchco, VA (May 1): Classified as Balloon, agreed. Capella.
• Alexandria, LA (May 1): Classified as Balloon, agreed.
• Pacific (May 1): Classified as Meteor, agreed. Echo satellite.
• Pacific (May 1): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. Sirius.
• Dayton, OH (May 2): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. Aircraft.
• Kirksville, MO (May 5): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. Aircraft observed by school children.
• Kansas City, MO (May 10): Classified as Insufficient data, reclassified. Possible aircraft.
• Louisiana (May 19): Classified as Mirage, reclassified. Five reports; one confused moon for UFO, others Venus.
• Philadelphia, PA (May 23): Classified as Reflection, reclassified. Venus; witness observed object in NW.
• Troy, NH (May 27-9): Classified as Stars/Planets, reclassified. Insufficient information.
• Pacific (June 6): Classified as Meteor, reclassified. Aircraft witnessed a blue flash.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the reviewed cases is the frequent misidentification of celestial objects (Venus, Jupiter, stars) and conventional aircraft as UAPs. The author consistently reclassifies cases where the original Project Blue Book explanation is deemed inadequate or incorrect, often favoring more mundane explanations like meteors, balloons, or atmospheric phenomena. There is a clear editorial stance favoring rigorous analysis and a skeptical approach to UAP reports, aiming to remove cases from the "unknown" category when a plausible explanation can be found. The analysis of Case 7359 highlights the potential for errors in official investigations and the importance of cross-referencing data from multiple sources.

This document is a summary section from issue 21 of the "UFO Investigator" magazine. It focuses on the reclassification of UFO cases and presents two specific case studies along with a personal astronomical observation.

Summary of Cases and Observations

Case Reclassification Challenges The author notes that reclassifying UFO cases remains challenging, with a significant portion of reported sightings (35 cases or 18%) involving the Echo satellite. A recurring observation is that many reports come from teens and per-teens. The author also points out that the way reports are written can be influenced by popular saucer literature, sometimes questioning their reliability, similar to how adult reports can be influenced.

Miami Sightings (January and March) Two particularly interesting cases involved sightings from Miami in January and March. Initially, the author considered birds at night as a possibility. However, a photograph from the second sighting, showing four solid streaks, seemed to disprove this. The analysis suggests the witness used a telephoto lens (likely 135mm) and that the lights were very bright, appearing in straight lines and converging at a consistent rate. The author concludes that these were likely bright lights, possibly from an airplane, moving away from the photographer. A less likely possibility considered was illuminated telephone or power lines, which would suggest a planned hoax rather than mistaken identity.

Personal Observation: Meridian 3 Satellite On February 6, the author, while in New Hampshire, observed an unusual phenomenon: a "new" star above the Hyades in the constellation of Taurus. This object was not very bright and faded, reappeared, and cycled through visibility with a 12-second period. It was also drifting slowly southward. The author initially suspected a high-altitude satellite. After recording the observation and making a sketch, the object disappeared. The next day, the author contacted Ted Molczan, who identified it as the Meridian 3 satellite, which was no longer functioning and in a Molniya orbit, approximately 18,000 km away. Heaven's Above indicated the satellite should have been only eighth magnitude, but it was observed as +3 to +4 magnitude. The author suspects the satellite was tumbling and reflecting the sun, making it visible. This observation leads the author to reconsider the rule of rejecting satellites listed as below naked eye visibility in Blue Book evaluations. The author emphasizes that amateur astronomers do witness strange events but rarely large, spaceship-like objects.

References

The document lists six references, including:
1. "Project Blue Book investigations" from Fold 3 web site.
2. Project Blue Book archive (noting its current inactivity).
3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ESRL Radiosonde Database.
4. "Stratospheric balloons: Chronological lists of launches worldwide since 1947" from StratoCat.
5. "Space History Chronology" from Astronautix.
6. E. U. Condon et al.'s "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects" (1968).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this summary are the challenges of UFO case analysis, the influence of popular culture on witness reports, and the distinction between misidentified conventional objects (like satellites or airplanes) and potentially genuine anomalous phenomena. The author maintains a skeptical but open-minded approach, emphasizing rigorous analysis and a willingness to reconsider established criteria based on new evidence. There is a clear stance that while amateur astronomers are valuable observers, their reports of conventional objects are more common than reports of large, unidentified craft.