RIAP bulletin - Vol 01 No 3-4 - July-December 1994

Magazine Overview

Title: RIAP BULLETIN
Issue: Volume 1, Number 3-4
Date: July-December 1994
Publisher: Research Institute on Anomalous Phenomena (RIAP), Kharkov, Ukraine.
Document Type: Magazine Issue

Editorial: Alternative Science?

The editorial questions the necessity of "alternative science" for studying anomalous phenomena, arguing that rigorous scientific methods applied to these "anomalous problems" can be fruitful. It notes that while attempts to approach these issues scientifically are limited, they merit attention. The editorial highlights the Tunguska explosion as a prominent example, which science initially approached within the framework of meteoritics.

It recounts the events of June 30, 1908, when a fiery body exploded over Central Siberia, leveling vast areas of taiga. Early expeditions led by L.A. Kulik aimed to find a meteorite crater, but the absence of one and the upright standing trees at the epicenter were noted. The hypothesis shifted to a meteorite shower, with the forest leveled by a ballistic wave. Kulik's misidentification of thermokarst holes as craters is mentioned.

The editorial points out that the "overground character" of the explosion was grasped later. Alexander Kazantsev proposed an extraterrestrial spaceship hypothesis in 1951, drawing parallels with nuclear explosions. The Interdisciplinary Independent Tunguska Expedition (KSE), formed in 1958, became central to Tunguska studies, adopting an unconventional yet rigorous scientific approach.

The editorial emphasizes the importance of the "technogene" (artificial) versus "natural" debate in Tunguska studies. It credits A.V. Zolotov's research for establishing key points, such as the blast wave's role and the TSB's low final velocity, and the explosion's energy concentration. While acknowledging that some data support a nuclear explosion, the editorial suggests that the evidence favors an artificial origin and an unconventional explosion, though "big science" may not be mature enough to treat this unbiasedly.

The Tunguska Meteorite: A Dead-Lock or the Start of a New Stage of Inquiry? Part I (N.V. Vasilyev)

This paper, the first part of a comprehensive survey of anomalous aspects of the Tunguska phenomenon, aims to fill a gap in Western and CIS literature. Dr. Nikolay V. Vasilyev, Deputy Chairman of the KM SOAN and head of KSE since 1963, leads the discussion.

The paper details the Tunguska meteorite fall on June 30, 1908, describing it as a cosmic phenomenon involving an explosion of an object of unknown origin. The event was accompanied by sound, seismic, and electrophonic effects, and the object's brightness rivaled the Sun. Despite the lack of a crater, the explosion leveled taiga over approximately 2150 km² and caused a forest fire.

It notes that the summer of 1908 saw other natural anomalies, including atmospheric optical anomalies across the Northern Hemisphere, such as mesospheric clouds and unusual twilights. The paper discusses the challenges in interpreting these combined effects.

Early explorations by L.A. Kulik and subsequent studies found no impact craters or large fragments. The search for finely-dispersed space material has been inconclusive. However, biogeochemical and isotopic anomalies have been found in the catastrophe area, though their interpretation is complicated by volcanic activity.

The paper outlines ecological consequences, including accelerated tree growth and population-genetic effects. It categorizes hypotheses into two groups: those based on kinetic energy transfer (asteroidal, cometary) and those emphasizing internal energy release (chemical, nuclear, antimatter, black hole, solar energophore, technogeneous).

1. On the direction of the TSB flight

Initial investigations suggested a south-to-north trajectory, with E.L. Krinov's trajectory (135° east of true meridian) being considered realistic. However, analysis of the forest destruction pattern revealed a "corridor" suggesting a trajectory closer to 95° E from N (99° east of true meridian). Later, based on witness accounts, the trajectory was revised to ESE to WNW. A significant issue is the conflict between Angara and Nizhnyaya Tunguska eyewitness accounts, suggesting potentially different bolides. The paper questions which bolide is associated with the main destruction area and notes the discrepancy in the reported time of flight (afternoon for Angara, early morning for Nizhnyaya Tunguska).

Attempts to reconcile these discrepancies are discussed, including the debate over whether to prioritize physical evidence over eyewitness testimonies. The paper argues that eyewitness reports, especially official ones, should be taken seriously. The possibility of the TSB having a non-ballistic trajectory is raised.

2. On some peculiarities of the evidence of eye-witnesses who were close to the Tunguska explosion epicenter

This section discusses reports from Evenks near the epicenter. I.M. Suslov's paper, based on interviews with the Shenyagir kin, describes five explosions and light flashes, with the last occurring far to the north. Trees began to fall and fire started after the first explosion.

Another report from Ivan Ivanovich Aksenov, an elderly Evenk shaman, describes seeing a "devil"-like object flying down the Chamba river after the explosion. The paper notes Aksenov's distrust of expedition members and suggests his first version of events, given to V.G. Konenkin, might be more authentic.

3. On some specific features of destruction of the forest at the Tunguska explosion epicenter

The main cause of destruction is attributed to an explosion at an altitude of 5.5-8.0 km, creating a spherical shock wave. The "telegraphnik" zone of dead, scorched trees at the epicenter is described, along with radial forest falling outside this area. However, the paper notes that the destruction pattern is not uniform, with surviving groups of trees and undamaged trees alongside thermally affected ones. This suggests a high nonuniformity of the kinetic factors and complexity of the physical processes.

4. The energy balance of the Tunguska explosion

The explosion's TNT equivalent is estimated at 10-40 megatons. While a significant portion of energy was consumed by the shock wave, a substantial amount was released as flash. Early assumptions of a nuclear explosion based on luminous energy yield have been challenged. Mathematical modeling suggests that kinetic energy alone does not fully explain the observed destructions, requiring an "addition" from the TSB's internal energy, leaving the energy source open to question.

5. On the geophysical effects of the Tunguska catastrophe

A striking effect was the local geomagnetic disturbance detected in Irkutsk shortly after the explosion, which lagged behind. This lag was initially attributed to the shock wave entering the ionosphere. However, later analysis of seismic wave velocities suggests a longer lag, making the shock wave mechanism dubious and leaving the geomagnetic effect unexplained.

Other geophysical effects include changes in polarimetric properties of the twilight sky and "light nights" in late June and early July 1908. Explanations involving comet tail dispersal or transport of space aerosols are deemed unconvincing due to contradictions with observed timing and intensity patterns.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the investigation of the Tunguska phenomenon, with a strong emphasis on scientific rigor and the questioning of purely speculative or "alternative" explanations. The editorial stance advocates for a methodical, evidence-based approach to anomalous phenomena, even when they challenge established scientific paradigms. The publication highlights the work of the KSE as an example of how to conduct such investigations, combining unconventional research with normal scientific methods. There is a clear skepticism towards hypotheses that lack empirical support or contradict known physics, while remaining open to the possibility that the Tunguska event may represent something beyond conventional meteoritic explanations.

Title: RIAP Bulletin
Issue: Vol.1, No.3 - 4
Date: 1994
Publisher: RIAP
Country: Ukraine

This issue of the RIAP Bulletin features a letter from A.V. Arkhipov detailing the discovery of a potential extraterrestrial artifact near Kharkov, Ukraine. The issue also contains a list of references related to meteoritics and the Tunguska event, and an editorial by V.V. Rubtsov.

Letter: An Extraterrestrial Artifact?

A.V. Arkhipov reports on a significant event that occurred on May 15, 1994, when a bright white bolide, estimated to be of -7th stellar magnitude, was observed flying over the Kursk, Belgorod, and Kharkov regions of Ukraine from north to south. The bolide's trajectory was gently sloping, and its flight time was approximately 10 seconds. The observed velocity, estimated at about 30 km/s, exceeded the maximum possible velocity for an artificial satellite on an elliptical circumterrestrial orbit, leading to speculation about its nature.

The impact site was discovered by a local resident, V.I. Samoylov, approximately 40 km south-southwest of Kharkov, near Okhocheye village. Dr. Vladimir A. Zakhozhay, director of the Kharkov University Astronomical Observatory, led an expedition to the site on May 27. According to Zakhozhay's report, a crater approximately 4 meters in diameter and 1.5 meters deep was found, exhibiting characteristics of an explosive origin. The energy of the explosion was estimated to be equivalent to at least 60 kg of TNT. Approximately 10 kg of metallic substance was recovered within a 40-50 meter radius of the explosion center. The surrounding forest showed signs of impact, with trees falling up to 10 meters from the crater and some trees being burnt.

Arkhipov personally examined the debris, describing the largest piece as a crumpled and exploded threaded tube, about 50 cm long and 2-3 cm thick. He estimated that the intact object might have been around 10 cm across. The chemical composition of the debris was analyzed, revealing a high iron content (99%), with trace amounts of copper (0.3%), nickel (0.04%), and titanium (0.02%). Magnesium and aluminum were not detected. Arkhipov notes that this composition is unusual for natural meteorites and more suited to heavy machinery than a lightened satellite. He also mentions that the explosion was not attributed to old World War II weaponry and observed ablation furrows and a black crust on the debris surface.

Zakhozhay consulted military experts, who could not clarify the situation. Arkhipov suggests that this artifact of unknown origin, potentially from deep space, could be a piece of extraterrestrial trash. He emphasizes the importance of studying such findings, especially for understanding alien civilizations.

Editorial

The editorial, written by V.V. Rubtsov, discusses the challenges in funding research into anomalous phenomena, including UAP investigations. Rubtsov acknowledges that such investigations often remain "alternative" and struggle for funding within the established scientific system. He references Arkhipov's letter about the Kharkov object, noting its intriguing nature and resemblance to a "rusty fragment of a starship."

Rubtsov also comments on the author of the letter, A.V. Arkhipov, and his quoting of Dr. V.A. Zakhozhay's report. He points out that Arkhipov omitted Zakhozhay's final paragraph, which, according to Rubtsov, is worthy of attention. This omitted paragraph likely contained Zakhozhay's assessment of the find's curious character and the observatory's lack of financial means to conduct further research. Rubtsov concludes that in light of such circumstances, discussions about the "principal" normality or anomalousness of investigations become less important.

References

The issue includes extensive lists of references, primarily related to the Tunguska event and meteoritics, citing numerous publications and authors. These references cover topics such as shock waves from meteoric bodies, mathematical modeling of natural disasters, and the problem of the Tunguska catastrophe.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the investigation of anomalous aerial phenomena (UAP) and meteoritic events, with a particular focus on the potential extraterrestrial origin of certain objects. The editorial stance, as presented by V.V. Rubtsov, acknowledges the scientific curiosity surrounding such events while also highlighting the practical difficulties in securing funding for their study within mainstream scientific institutions. The publication appears to be a platform for reporting on unusual findings and fostering discussion within the field of ufology and related sciences.