RIAP bulletin - Vol 02 No 2-3 - April-September 1995

Magazine Overview

This issue of the RIAP Bulletin, Volume 2, Number 2-3, dated April-September 1995, features an editorial titled "Something in the Making" by V.V.Rubtsov. It also includes a detailed paper on "The Petrozavodsk Phenomenon" by L.M.Gindilis and Yu.K.Kolpakov, and an obituary for Dr. Alexey Zolotov.

Editorial: Something in the Making

The editorial discusses the historical trajectory of ufology, particularly within the Soviet Union, characterizing it as having an 'evident wavy pattern.' These waves, occurring roughly in 1961, 1967, and 1976, involved periods where ufologists attempted to bring attention to the phenomenon, followed by official bewilderment, and ultimately, state intervention to halt such activities. During these periods, a small ufological community emerged, accumulating empirical information and theoretical considerations in Samizdat manuscripts. The editorial notes that this pattern was external and 'social.'

However, the editorial argues that the ufological movement worldwide, despite different social conditions, also exhibits a non-cumulative or 'anti-cumulative' character, which is internal. Until the late 1970s, mainstream ufology aimed to objectivize its empirical basis by focusing on physical evidence like CE-II (Close Encounter of the Second Kind) and radar-visual (RV) cases, and by searching for statistical regularities in UFO reports.

A peculiar characteristic of these regularities was their 'falsifiability,' described by Pierre Guerin as the 'only law of ufology': 'In Ufology, any law is immediately falsified by subsequent sightings just as soon as it is formulated.' Aime Michel is cited as having amended this law, though not falsifying it. The editorial suggests that this peculiarity, whether due to ufology's immature methodology or the nature of the UFO phenomenon, has contributed to a shift towards 'soft data,' particularly stories about abductions and UFO crashes.

The current stage of ufology is symbolized by the Roswell incident, especially the alien autopsy film, which is characterized more as investigative journalism ('Roswell-gate') than scientific research. While scientific trends in ufology persist (e.g., within MUFON), they are not dominant. The editorial questions whether this deviation from hard data is accidental and probes the extent to which ufology can be considered a science.

Comparing sciences to natural and historical types, the editorial places ufology closer to historical sciences due to its focus on non-reproducible phenomena investigated indirectly through eyewitness reports. It notes the difficulty in finding regularities and the 'lawlessness' that may arise if the phenomenon has an 'alien' component.

The editorial criticizes the 'journalistic' and 'detective' character of contemporary ufology, which leads to a constant renewal of its empirical basis, causing older cases to fall into oblivion. This is deemed an incorrect approach for a historical research discipline.

The 'Petrozavodsk phenomenon' of 1977 is presented as a significant case study. Its publication in Soviet newspapers made it widely known and prompted the USSR authorities to investigate UFOs, leading to increased censorship and making ufological activities more difficult. Despite this, the 'officialization' partly countered the dominant tendency of superficial negation, leading to a halt in the 'waves' and an alteration in the level of UFO analysis.

The Petrozavodsk phenomenon is described as 'anomalous,' though not necessarily supernatural, possibly explainable by large-scale atmospheric processes triggered by technical experiments. It is considered a crucial part of the 'ufological jig-saw puzzle.'

Regarding Roswell, the editorial acknowledges potential military lies and enigmas but questions their direct connection to the UFO problem. It suggests that if the 'Roswell crash' is real, it would be a major stage in the problem's history, but not its conclusion. Conversely, if it's a 'gumboil,' it should be allowed to end naturally.

The editorial highlights the methodological limitations of modern science, particularly its tendency to work 'with experiment' rather than directly 'with nature.' While science excels at creating useful artificial systems, it often ignores or discredits non-reproducible events. Ufologists, in contrast, are seen as more akin to naturalists who studied phenomena like lightning and meteorites. The editorial concludes by emphasizing the strong need to move from collecting accidental stories to an active and systematic search for hard data on UFOs, which will form the real empirical foundation for ufology.

The Petrozavodsk Phenomenon

This section details the investigation of the 'Petrozavodsk Phenomenon' that occurred on September 20, 1977. The paper, originally written in 1978 for the journal 'Priroda,' was delayed due to Soviet censorship but is presented here with minor corrections.

General Outline of the Phenomenon

On the night of September 20, 1977, unusual light phenomena were observed over a vast area in the northwestern European part of the USSR. These involved the formation and motion of bright luminous bodies surrounded by shells, emitting light rays. The shells diffused within 10-15 minutes, leaving a stable glow, particularly in the northeast. These events coincided with disturbances in the geomagnetic field and upper atmosphere, and aurora borealis was also observed.

The phenomenon was witnessed by various professionals, including workers from the Hydrometeorological Service, civil aviation, military personnel, scientists, and others. Reports were received by the USSR Academy of Sciences and other organizations.

The Area of the Observations

The observations were scattered across the Kola Peninsula, Karelia, Leningrad, Pskov Regions, Estonia, and Byelorussia. Reports also came from Finland (Helsinki, Turku). Unexplained light phenomena were also reported in Tbilisi, Ochakov, the Chelyabinsk Region, and over the Altai Mountains, with some similarities noted in the Troitsk area.

The Time of the Observation

The phenomenon lasted from approximately 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. Moscow time and comprised three phases:

1. First Phase (until ~4 a.m.): Isolated observations of varied phenomena, not always similar in appearance.
2. Second Phase (Main Phase, ~3:55-4:15 a.m.): A synchronized event observed at numerous sites, involving similar (though not identical) phenomena. This phase accounts for most of the reported observations.
3. Third Phase (until daybreak): Characterized by a stable, lasting glow, mostly in the northeast, with some instances of moving luminous bodies.

Description of the Phenomenon Based on Visual Observations

First Phase:

• Around 3:00 a.m., Leningrad port inspectors observed a bright oblong body in the northeast sky emitting light rays, surrounded by five bright arcs. It moved towards the horizon and disappeared.
• An inhabitant of Leningrad saw a flying body with a pronounced core and a trident-shaped tail.
• In Kirovsk, a lenticular-shaped body was observed.
• The crew of the fishing vessel 'Primorsk' saw a swiftly moving, brightly luminous body with a luminous shell, moving east, then turning sharply north. It left a luminous trace. Later, a second 'descending object' of a spherical shape was observed.
• In Kovdor, two luminous bodies were observed moving in a clear sky, one with a gradually developing wide tail, moving east to west, then north-west. A second point object appeared, brighter and bigger, as the first faded.

Second Phase (Main Phase):

This phase was complex and varied regionally. In southern Karelia and adjacent areas, a brightly luminous spherical body appeared in the northeast, ascending. A semi-transparent shell formed around it, becoming maximal in size (several degrees), resembling an umbrella or parachute. A bright 'radiant' or 'jet' structure formed, with bent 'rays' or luminous matter. The glow spread, and rhythmic variations were noted. The body then moved north at an angle, while the shell thinned. Total absence of sound was noted, along with high illumination levels, comparable to a full moon.

In central and northern Karelia, the phenomenon was different, involving multiple luminous bodies observed simultaneously. In Lehta, three luminous star-like objects formed, evolving into spheres and then into a dome that divided into white strips. A fan-like glow appeared in the northeast. This phase lasted about 10 minutes.

Common features across observations included:

1. A bright spherical core.
2. Formation and evolution of a semi-transparent expanding shell.
3. A developing radiant or jet-like structure.
4. High illumination of the ground.
5. Movement with course alteration and hovering.
6. Recess of one object to the north.
7. Total silence.

Third Phase:

This phase, lasting from about 4:20 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., was characterized by a stable, lasting glow, predominantly red, seen low in the northeast. Light-colored features resembling jet trails were observed, sometimes forming quaint shapes. Flight of luminous bodies also occurred during this phase. Unusual colors of clouds at dawn (light-blue and pink) were noted in Petrozavodsk.

Instrumental Observations

Most observations were made with the naked eye, with a few exceptions using binoculars and a telescope. Workers in Lehta took color slides. All-sky cameras at three stations (Sodankyla, Loparskaya, Voznesenye) photographed a luminous object with a core and shell moving northwards, which disappeared after 5 minutes. At Sodankyla, intense aurora borealis was seen simultaneously.

Analysis of the photographs suggested an altitude of the object around 200 ± 50 km and dimensions of the shell (180 ± 40)×(260±60) km, with a core size of 20 km. The object was illuminated by sunlight, as the earth's shadow altitude was 130 km.

Unfortunately, no negatives were available for more detailed analysis.

Conditions Surrounding the Development of the Phenomenon

Heliographic Conditions: The phenomenon occurred during a geomagnetic disturbance. Solar flares on preceding days (September 16-19) induced geomagnetic disturbances. A magnetic storm began on September 19, and by the time of the phenomenon (around 4 a.m. on September 20), a strong magnetic storm with several substorms was recorded.

Proton Flux: On September 19-21, there were heavy invasions of solar protons. The maximum proton flux on September 20 was between 3 a.m. and 12 p.m. Moscow time. These particles caused aurora borealis.

Ionosphere: Disturbances included a sudden increase in atmospherics, collapse of short-wave communication, and phase anomalies.

Radio Astronomy: A powerful pulsed radio-frequency emission on a wavelength of about 50 cm was recorded by radio astronomers in Gorki several hours before the main phase.

Meteorological Conditions: The weather was unstable, with showers and snow in some areas, followed by clearing skies. Strong north-to-south winds were present at higher altitudes.

Meteor Showers: The date of September 20 was not noteworthy for meteor showers; the Perseids ended in August, and the Orionids had not yet begun.

Discussion

The phenomenon was complex, involving several stages and local variations. Determining the spatial position of the luminous bodies is crucial for understanding their altitude and dimensions. Reliable spatial position data is scarce, especially for the first phase.

For the second (main) phase, simultaneous observations suggest a high-altitude object. Attempts to determine its position using theodolite measurements in Petrozavodsk yielded an azimuth of 40° and a distance of 19 ± 10 km, with an altitude of 6 to 9 km. Independent determinations agreed, suggesting a close position and high illumination of the ground. The object's apparent proximity was supported by observations of the shell moving over observers and stars being visible through it.

In Leningrad, altitude estimates were indirect, suggesting several kilometers, aligning with observations from Pulkovo and Lahta. However, the S-stage altitude estimate of approximately 200 km contradicts these findings.

The S-stage is likely related to effects from the launch of the 'Kosmos-955' satellite. Its short duration and wide glow might explain the lack of specific reports. The phenomenon's westward observation sites suggest anisotropic radiation.

The S-stage cannot fully account for the entire phenomenon, which lasted two hours. While it might correlate with the main phase, the timing (S-stage starting at 4:04 a.m., main phase at 3:55-3:57 a.m.) shows a slight discrepancy.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue consistently explores the challenges of studying anomalous phenomena like UFOs. The editorial highlights the historical struggles of ufology, its methodological limitations, and the tension between empirical data and anecdotal reports. The detailed account of the Petrozavodsk phenomenon underscores the complexity of such events and the difficulties in obtaining reliable data. The overall stance suggests a need for rigorous scientific investigation, moving beyond mere storytelling towards systematic data collection and analysis, while acknowledging the unique nature of phenomena that may not fit conventional scientific models.

Title: RIAP Bulletin
Issue: Vol. 2, No. 2 - 3
Date: 1995
Publisher: RIAP
Country: Ukraine
Language: English

This issue of the RIAP Bulletin delves into the complexities of anomalous atmospheric phenomena, particularly focusing on the widely reported event of September 20, 1977, near Petrozavodsk. It also features an obituary for Dr. Alexey Zolotov and discusses the current state and future prospects of ufology.

Analysis of the Petrozavodsk Phenomenon (September 20, 1977)

The article critically examines eyewitness accounts and observational data from the September 20, 1977, phenomenon, often referred to as the 'Petrozavodsk phenomenon.' It begins by analyzing the 'S-stage' hypothesis, which posits the observation of a single object, the 'S-body,' at high altitudes. However, the authors present numerous discrepancies between this hypothesis and eyewitness testimonies from various locations, including Helsinki, Leningrad, Sortavala, Petrozavodsk, and Lahta.

• Key inconsistencies highlighted include:
• Timing: While the main phase of the phenomenon is estimated to have lasted 10-20 minutes, the 'S-stage' duration is considered shorter, possibly contributing to the overall picture but not fully explaining it.
• Altitude and Elevation: Eyewitness reports of object elevations, particularly in Sortavala (60°) and Petrozavodsk (21°), are inconsistent with the calculated high-altitude position of the 'S-body' (estimated at 200 km).
• Azimuth Differences: Discrepancies in azimuth readings between the 'S-body' and observed objects in places like Petrozavodsk suggest that other luminous bodies were present.
• Inconsistent Observations: Data from Petrozavodsk, in particular, describes multiple objects and scenarios inconsistent with a single 'S-body.' The observations from Lehta (Karelia) also did not align with the 'S-stage' position.

The article suggests that during the main phase, other luminous bodies were observed, some at lower altitudes (around 10 km), which would explain why they were not photographed by high-altitude cameras but also complicates the interpretation of their behavior (turning, hovering, moving against wind).

Explanations and Hypotheses

The authors dismiss earlier explanations, such as the fall of a large bolide or ball lightning, as unfounded. They argue that the simultaneous appearance of such phenomena over a vast area, without thunderstorms, is improbable. Furthermore, the estimated dimensions of the observed objects (core ~100m, shell ~5km) far exceed known characteristics of ball lightning.

Instead, the article explores the possibility of other types of plasma phenomena. It discusses M.T.Dmitriev's hypothesis that the phenomenon was a result of 'chemiluminescence (CL) zones' formed by the break-through of stratospheric ozone into the troposphere. This mechanism, according to Dmitriev, could lead to a significant increase in ozone, ion, and electron concentrations, potentially causing anomalous glows, spurious radar returns, and even disappearances of aircraft (like those in the Bermuda Triangle).

However, the authors express caution regarding Dmitriev's hypothesis, noting that it is still speculative and lacks quantitative development. They point out that the proposed mechanism of ozone break-through and air down-flows was not clearly observed during the event, and the cause of any temporary cessation of the tropopause remains unclear. Dmitriev's claim of a 'strong smell of ozone' in Petrozavodsk is also questioned, as it was not mentioned in over 70 reports from the area.

The article concludes that while recourse to chemiluminescence for explaining anomalous atmospheric glows is legitimate, it is premature to draw general conclusions due to the underdeveloped nature of the hypothesis. The authors lament that some papers presented these explanations as factual rather than hypothetical.

Editorial: The Future of Ufology

The editorial section reflects on the current state of ufology, suggesting it has reached a 'highest point' in its 'soft' stage of development. The author anticipates a transition to a 'hard' stage, contingent on solving the 'main quasi-ufological problem' of funding. Ufology is described as a 'living' system that evolves, sometimes faces illness, and may eventually mature or become extinct. The current moment is characterized as a 'point of bifurcation,' with 'something in the making.'

Obituary: Dr. Alexey Zolotov

The issue includes an obituary for Dr. Alexey V. Zolotov, a prominent investigator of the Tunguska explosion. His significant contributions included introducing A.P. Kazantsev's 'artificial' model of the Tunguska phenomenon into scientific discourse. Dr. Zolotov determined key characteristics of the phenomenon, defended his Ph.D. thesis on the subject, and published a scientific monograph. The obituary notes his tragic death, having been fatally stabbed near his home in Tver, Russia, and mentions the recent disposal of his Tunguska-related archives.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of the RIAP Bulletin consistently engages with the scientific investigation of unexplained aerial phenomena. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical analysis, favoring evidence-based explanations while acknowledging the limitations of current scientific understanding. There is a clear emphasis on rigorous research, questioning speculative hypotheses, and distinguishing between established facts and theoretical possibilities. The publication also serves as a platform for disseminating research within the ufological community, as evidenced by the references to other publications and the inclusion of an obituary for a notable figure in the field. The future of ufology is presented as an evolving and uncertain landscape, dependent on scientific progress and funding.