SUNlite

[Frank Stalter]

Too many credible witnesses seeing incredible things . . . too much thoroughly documented government interest. There's something to all this UFO business.

- Frank Stalter, Philadelphia, USA, 09/11/2010 03:10

Hey look everyone it's Jesus.

Ooooh look....Frank discovered the "real" MJ-12.

http://ufopartisan.blogspot.com/2009/10 ... 52-dc.html

Gosh I'm so impressed....what journalistic prowess. *bow*

-Ry

Thanks for the plug! Yeah, that is a compelling find. A documented Presidential meeting about a famous UFO incident . . . those happen just about every day!

[ryguy]

Thanks for the plug! Yeah, that is a compelling find. A documented Presidential meeting about a famous UFO incident . . . those happen just about every day!

So do those amateur assumptions by bad so-called "journalists."

Maybe you should try to act a bit differently than all of the other old-school ufologists and actually pay attention to evidence that contradicts your assumptions, rather than explaining it all away as part of some mythical cover-up. It's unoriginal...try thinking outside the box of Ufology for a change.

BTW, Steve, how do we make that link a nofollow in the forum? lol

[astrophotographer]

From the article on the "real MJ-12".

Aside from that, if the case was nothing more than a natural weather phenomenon, shouldn't we have had the same sort of incidents on at least an infrequent basis?

The CAA saw similar returns on August 13th and 15th of that year. They did an analysis of the returns and it is a paper that discussing the problem.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/wash_nat/CAA_Radar_Study.pdf

In the conclusions, they write:

Unidentified radar targets of the type described in this report have been noticed since the early days of radar. Unusual weather conditions prevailing in the Washington area during the summer of 1952 were exceptionally conducive to the formation of these phenomena. (page 14)

No sense in letting research get in the way of UFOs. BTW, yes I know Dr. McDonald (the patron saint of all UFOlogists) came to a different conclusion but one has to wonder about his bias. After all, Dr. Luis Alvarez was on the Robertson panel and he was one of those involved with the development of radar and later won a nobel prize (not related to his radar research). He examined the case and felt there was nothing to it that could not be explained. Additionally, Dr. Thayer wrote the following in the Condon study (btw, there are plenty of cases of AP listed here) and case #35 describes AP causing returns on missile tracking radars.

In summary, the following statements appear to be correct:

1. The atmospheric conditions during the period 19-20 and 25-27 July, 1952, in the Washington, D. C., area, were conducive to anomalous propagation of radar signals;

2. The unidentified radar returns obtained during these incidents were most likely the result of anomalous propagation (AP);

3. The visual objects were, with one or two possible exceptions, identifiable as most probably meteors and scintillating stars.

The bottom line is your "question" is answered. Yes, these kinds of conditions do exist and do cause false returns. Therefore, it is probable that the DC sightings were caused by AP. Truman wanted to be informed because of all the hype in the media. There is nothing unusual about that. A President would be not very bright if he did not wanted to be briefed on what was happening.

[Frank Stalter]

The bottom line is your "question" is answered. Yes, these kinds of conditions do exist and do cause false returns. Therefore, it is probable that the DC sightings were caused by AP. Truman wanted to be informed because of all the hype in the media. There is nothing unusual about that. A President would be not very bright if he did not wanted to be briefed on what was happening.

Thanks for the link, additional info on the Condon report and your acknowledgment that the premise of the article is correct (see bolded). That was really my focus, the meeting itself and the attendees, and not so much on the incident, but I may append to it with more detail about the incident itself.

[Gilles F.]

Greetings,

A little come back to the "Scarborough UFO footage" :

It seems the "starlings" or other birds hypothesis are hardly challenged by the "Smoke-Ring" hypothesis, due to the presence of a McCain's factory near the sightings site, as pictures of smoke-rings have been taken at dusk on 12th November, around the same day and around same time then.

The investigation is still ongoing by that team.

http://ufophenomenon.weebly.com/local-sightings.html


Thank you to Nablator who warned me about that link^^

Regards,

Gilles F.

[astrophotographer]

In case you are not on my mailing list:

Happy New Year to all. You may now enjoy the latest issue of SUNlite at:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_1.pdf

I hope it is to everyone’s liking. There is mention on page one of an error that was made by Marty Kottmeyer in SUNlite 2-6. He seemed upset by the mistake and I mention it there to acknowledge it. To me it is a small thing (confusing the words echelon and “V formation”) but to some it seems to be a major point of contention. As Marty told me, “It is just UFOs. If you aren’t enjoying it, keep watching and something silly will come along again.”
Needless to say the recent showing on the History channel regarding Rendlesham will enjoy my criticism next issue. Aliens supposedly downloaded Binary code to Penniston’s brain and he is compared to Moses, St. Paul, Joan of arc, Abraham, etc.??? Are we supposed to really believe that St. Penniston of the Rendlesham forest is the next “chosen one”?????? Forgive my skepticism.

[Gilles F.]

Thank you very much, Tim and SUNlite contributors! Relayed in France and Québec "francophonies" (as Tim Hebert's last article).

Awesome SUNlite release, tons of informations and quasi all recent ufology events and news covered!
It was a great moment to start the new year to read this 3.1 issue. Merci !
Respect and regards,

Links (France): http://sceptic-ovni.forumactif.com/t424-sunlite
http://sceptic-ovni.forumactif.com/t114 ... ions#28593
Link (Quebec): http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/forum/ovnis ... 5-100.html

Gilles F.

[Access Denied]

I hope it is to everyone’s liking.

Thoroughly enjoyed it, especially your review of the “Battle” of LA case. Well done…

Needless to say the recent showing on the History channel regarding Rendlesham will enjoy my criticism next issue.

No doubt. Peter’s article which I also enjoyed turned out to be timely. One wonders exactly what the Eggnog served at the base Christmas party was spiked with?

Tom

[astrophotographer]

SUNlite 3-2 is out:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_2.pdf

It is a little short but I have been busy on some personal items and other projects. Sorry, UFOs is not the top of my hobby list.

[James Carlson]

Well, if they say big things come in small packages, they're right! It's a great issue, Tim, and I swear, it doesn't seem small at all -- you've got a lot of very good stuff in here. I didn't realize Matt Graeber had an article in it; since I published "The Bunny's Retort" on scrib'd I've been carrying on a very pleasant correspondance with him -- he's been helping me spread the issue around a bit, and I've been very grateful -- He's a good guy, and I'll read his article with pleasure, as I will the rest of it, too!

James

[James Carlson]

Just a side note: upon reading Matt's contribution to your newsletter, I was reminded of some of the research I recently conducted during the Bunny response, specifically the realization that the definition of "UFO" used by the Department of Defense is very different from the definition of "UFO" that was proposed by McDonald, Hynek, and probably a score of other UFO advocates over the years. This tends to result more often than not in a number of claims that a particular event or whatever wasn't investigated as a UFO by the USAF; it also suggests that the USAF refuses to investigate "UFOs" even when it's clear to everybody that such a refusal is a huge security risk. The truth is, the USAF is simply unwilling to state that what they consider to be a "UFO" is very different from what UFO enthusiasts consider to be a "UFO", and when a threat exists, they certainly do investigate it, and they always will. The revelation that the UFO advocate community was making silly claims on the basis of sytax they refuse to clarify or otherwise discuss struck me as one of the single most hypocritical arguments in U.S history -- one right up there with President Nixon's insistence that "I am not a crook," simply because he was never tried on charges of theft. I already knew that most of their arguments were baseless or the result of faulty logic; after the syntax follies, I realized how blatantly dishonest many of them are. I mean really -- insisting that the USAF has lied because a UFO is technically the same thing as a U.F.O. is pretty ridiculous from any angle.

[Zep Tepi]

It is a great issue, well done Tim. I don't normally have the time to read all the way through in one go, but I did today.
The Rendlescam article is my favourite, nice one

[Buckwild]

Hi Tim,

I did try to rationalize that MIG21 video in the past. Like other people, I noticed that the ejection seat was either from an F-15 (two seater) or from a Mitsubishi F-2B, because of it's reinforced canopy with a bow frame* (unlike the F-16). Other aircrafts using the same ejection seat were not good candidates from what I remember.

I also remember that reflections were not a good candidate.

* : required for low-level flight capabilities and the attendant increased risk of bird strikes

I'm just happy to see that you found the original video. One thing that looked odd if you ask me, is that the cameraman (hand-held) did not try at all to keep the "tube" in the center of the FOV. Some would say that g-force might explain this, since the plane was making a steep turn on the right, which would increase g-forces and make it harder for the cameraman to compensate. But hey, if the camera was kept up close to his body with his arms & elbows close to his upper body, he would not have to compensate much. That is exactly what I would have done to keep track of it and I am only a private pilote but I remember taking some pics when we were doing 3 g turns. (pushing the DR400 to the limit)

What a bunch of liars we got there !

Cheers,
Buck

[astrophotographer]

Actually, the person who identified the video at the Youtube link is the one to get credit. I simply got the video and checked to make sure it was correct.

[Buckwild]

Hi Tim,

Auguste Meessen wants to "restore the truth" regarding this article* and Roger Paquay's statistical study of the Belgian Ufo wave.

* SUNLite, vol. 2, num. 6, p. 21-23
The beginning of the Belgian UFO wave
By Jean-Michel Abrassart
Source : http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_6.pdf

The Belgian Wave and the photos of Ramillies
By Auguste Meessen

Abstract. We restore the truth, since two UFO-skeptics distorted basic data concerning the
beginning of the Belgian wave in 1989 and the observations made at Ramillies, in 1990. We
also provide more detailed information about these observations and the associated photos.
Their analysis confirms that the visually observed lights left no trace, while other lights were
documented. We explain these facts by means of the Herschel effect, with intervention of
infrared and ultraviolet light. Results of complementary photographic tests are also reported

Source : http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/Ramillies.pdf

Thought you might be interested...

Cheers,
Buck