SUNlite

[Sean Elifritz]

Was checking out a skeptical journal called SUNlite. Many of you probably already know about it but it had escaped my attention until now. I've skimmed over 3-4 issues and read several of the articles so far. Most have been pretty good, such as articles on Rendlesham, lack of UFO photographs, darkside of ufology, etc. So far only one I've read has struck me as absurd zealotry, an analysis of the Belgium triangle photograph. But overall, seems like a pretty decent journal.

SUNlite

 

[stphrz]

Thanks for this. It will give me lots to read, and think about.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Apparently this journal was once headed by the late Phil Klass. I imagine I wouldn't have liked it under his leadership as he was far too egotistical, mean spirited, and smart-alecky. But the new editor seems to have his head on pretty straight.

---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------

That Belgium photo analysis really got my goat. Was a submission from someone else. First of all, the guy tries to bury the reader with a bunch of techno-babble. And his reasoning is ridiculous. Hasn't it always been the case that skeptics believe eyewitness testimony shouldn't be trusted? Well, this guy uses the opposite viewpoint to try to debunk the picture. He says that what's in the photograph doesn't exactly match what the witness described therefor it's a fake. Ughh, what?! Talk about trying to use both sides of the coin. Then he continues with strange reasoning by saying since the guy has avoided the spotlight and hasn't appeared to care an iota about the picture that also means it's a fake. In fact, this guy was so unconcerned with it that he simply tossed it into a drawer and only submitted it after the case became huge in the news. Since then he has remained anonymous and hasn't attempted to seek publicity for it at all. That sure doesn't sound like what a hoaxer does to me, quite the opposite of what charlatans do, in fact. But again, that's the only comically bad article I've read in this journal so far.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Tim Printy's journal was created more in homage to Klass's SUN (which was an excellent publication and uncovered much of the skullduggery of the UFO field). It is a different publication.

Wicker, can you point out the Issue that contains the article you are referring to?

Thanks,

Lance

You mean the Belgium photo article? It was SUNlite 3_2. Then in the following issue he did a follow-up (I didn't bother reading the second one as I was already pretty convinced the guy was a cultist after the first one) to defend criticisms the original had generated.

He even tossed out some weakly backed speculation about Photoshop and yada yada yada, all the while not bothering to mention that digitally faking a picture in 2011 is several universes removed from doing so in 1990. Did Adobe Photoshop even exist in 1990? I don't know if it did or not. If it did I have to imagine it was quite primitive. But that article just struck me as ludicrous from every angle, a mockery of skepticism.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I am going to read the article and then let's have a nice discussion? Photoshop 1.0 came out in 1990. I believe I started using it late in that year or early 1991. Tim is very level headed and I would be surprised if he went far afield of the evidence at hand. But I don't remember reading the article so I will check it out.

Lance

I can't even remember the editor's name but I liked every article I read by him (Read 4 or so by him back to back and was impressed). This other one was written by someone else, was a submission.

---------- Post added at 06:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

Tim Printy's journal was created more in homage to Klass's SUN (which was an excellent publication and uncovered much of the skullduggery of the UFO field). It is a different publication.

Wicker, can you point out the Issue that contains the article you are referring to?

Thanks,

Lance

OK, so the original was called SUN then, and this one is SUNlite and is more of an "in the spirit of" kind of thing. I don't know much about it yet, just discovered it a few hours ago. Couldn't even remember the editor's name but you went ahead and listed it for me. I liked the articles I've read from Tim so far, hence the reason I recommended the journal. His stuff struck me as a cut above what I usually see in skeptical journals. The Belgium article (Written by someone else), however, made me feel like I had suddenly been whisked away to one of the other more abrasive, sometimes-bordering-on-religious, skeptical journals. Recently several of us were pretty critical of the papers presented by Sean Meers. I would rate this Belgium photograph article to be of equal quality, just shorter. A lot of desperate tosses at the wall, all of them gimpy.

 

[uforadio]

Leslie Kean holding the Petit Rechain's slide at General de Brouwer's house in Belgium during filming for the new documentary that will be soon broadcast on History channel and it is based on Leslie's book:

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3tqnjk2

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Hi Wicker,

Is it mainly the author's analysis that you object to? At least 2/3 of the article is recapping the case and describing another analysis done by someone else. Did you find these earlier parts also problematic or do you agree with them.

These skeptical points seem to me to be the main ones made in the article (which was apparently written by a non-english speaker and suffers from some imprecise and awkward wording):

1. Photographer chooses to remain anonymous.
2. Date photo taken in question.
3. Size of object does not jibe with description of event.
4. Blurring not consistent with description of event (but I don't understand how this was determined).

I really have to agree that this article is very hard to follow and and frankly, a bit of mess. The followup article is even worse.

Lance

Aside from the silly techno-babbling (Lots of numbers and big words to make himself sound all professor-like. I've seen that sort of thing in pro-UFO papers as well and it's often a pretty good sign the author is spinning BS) the guy's reasoning is nonsensical to me. The date is meaningless because it's already been established the photographer didn't think much of the picture. It was no big deal to him (At least part of this might be due to the fact that the original doesn't look as good. The version we're accustomed to seeing has been light-blasted and that's what makes the triangle visible. Until the light-blasting was done by someone else after the picture went public he thought it hadn't turned out). That the description is not dead-on with what the picture shows (According to his techno-babble anyway which he made no effort to explain for us Earthlings. He may be flat-out wrong about this but who can understand what he's talking about to make a determination?) means nothing because it has been shown again, and again, and again that eyewitness descriptions are often rife with inconsistencies and inaccuracies. In fact, a few of us discussed that point at length in the Phoenix video thread. The blurring thing just sounded like voodoo science to me (Reminded me of some of the jibber-jabber I heard from OJ's defense team all those years ago). He wanted to arrive at a certain kind of conclusion and jumped through hoops to do just that. My money says he's full of it and he had to write a follow-up to defend his position because some others felt his conclusions were wrong. And it's a hoax because the guy wants to remain anonymous? That is one of the most celebrated UFO pictures ever taken. Don't hoaxers tend to enjoy attention, to get interviewed and appear on TV and all of that? This guy has been doing precisely the opposite of what hoaxers typically do. Then he flippantly speculates about digital trickery (A case of throwing something at the wall and hoping it sticks if ever there was such a thing) as though that were somehow a common and easy thing to do in 1990 (And apparently it was done so well it's managed to fool everyone ever since...except for him, of course). Just a silly paper all the way around.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Thanks Wicker,

The size issue is important, it seems to me. I just saw a photo of the original slide and the size of the object does not match the description of the event.

Lance

Well, Lance. You look up in the sky at some lights without any point of reference and see how accurate you are.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Oh, I agree with that. But I wouldn't mistake a jet plane at 30,000 ft for a jet plane at a few hundred feet.

Lance

I think the Phoenix lights are a good example. Plenty of people described a solid boomerang the size of a football field, some said it was miles long, one guy said it was so big all of our stealth bombers could be landed on the wing of it. Another guy even described it as a rectangle. I also remember seeing a UFO documentary quite a few years ago where some guy would put on a UFO hat, just a saucer-shaped metal thing with blinking lights on it that fit on his head, and would walk along the road with it on to see what kinds of reports might spring up. Surprisingly (Or not surprisingly if you've been looking at this stuff for 20 years and have become very familiar with how distorted eyewitness descriptions can be) people were phoning the cops to describe a saucer the size of a football field along the road (Why is the football field analogy used so often? Has always been curious to me). But it was nothing more than a hat on a guy's head.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I think the Phoenix lights are a good example. Plenty of people described a solid boomerang the size of a football field, some said it was miles long, one guy said it was so big all of our stealth bombers could be landed on the wing of it. Another guy even described it as a rectangle. I also remember seeing a UFO documentary quite a few years ago where some guy would put on a UFO hat, just a saucer-shaped metal thing with blinking lights on it that fit on his head, and would walk along the road with it on to see what kinds of reports might spring up. Surprisingly (Or not surprisingly if you've been looking at this stuff for 20 years and have become very familiar with how distorted eyewitness descriptions can be) people were phoning the cops to describe a saucer the size of a football field along the road (Why is the football field analogy used so often? Has always been curious to me). But it was nothing more than a hat on a guy's head.

How do people mistake a hat on a guy's head for a UFO the size of a football field? That just goes to show how terrible humans can be at judging things that they see.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

How do people mistake a hat on a guy's head for a UFO the size of a football field? That just goes to show how terrible humans can be at judging things that they see.

Seems unbelievable but time and time again eyewitness descriptions can be truly outrageous.

 

[boomerang]

I recently glanced over a few of Mr. Printy's analyses of famous UFO cases, and I think they are worth taking into account. My cursory take on his explanation of Rendlesham is not positive as he seems to shrug it off as elite U.S. personnel on a foolish lark, with subsequent cover-ups. But it probably deserves a more thorough read.