RIAP bulletin - Vol 04 No 3 - July-September 1998

Magazine Overview

Title: RIAP BULLETIN
Issue: Volume 4, Number 3
Date: July-September 1998
Publisher: Frontier Sciences Foundation
Country: UKRAINE
Language: English

This issue of the RIAP Bulletin focuses on the "human dimensions" of Soviet ufology, tracing its history from the Soviet era through the post-Soviet period. It highlights the unique challenges and developments of UFO research within a totalitarian regime characterized by censorship and official skepticism.

Soviet Ufology in its Human Dimensions

1. A Memoir

The article begins with a personal account by Vladimir V. Rubtsov, recalling the impact of a 1968 Pravda article that officially declared UFOs nonexistent. This statement crushed the hopes of early Soviet ufologists who had begun organizing in 1967 with the formation of the UFO Department of DOSAAF, led by Major-General P.A.Stolyarov and Dr. F.Y.Zigel. Despite initial public interest and the collection of reports by Zigel, the organization was disbanded, and a resolution against UFO research was passed by the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Rubtsov notes that Dr. Zigel, despite stating he would move on to other work, remained dedicated to the UFO problem until his death in 1988. Zigel produced seven volumes of UFO observations in Samizdat (clandestine publications), which were tolerated by authorities as they were not overtly anti-Soviet. His daughter later published some of these materials.

2. A Theoretical Introduction

Rubtsov emphasizes Zigel's tenacity in organizing UFO studies in the USSR, laying the foundation for Soviet ufology as a field distinct from official science. He defines "ufologists" as researchers and distinguishes them from "UFO adherents" or "believers." The paper posits that the existence of UFOs, defined as incomprehensible phenomena, is indisputable, and even when narrowed to objects unexplained by current theories, the problem remains real.

The author discusses the psychological impact of UFOs, suggesting that their appearance challenges an individual's sense of a regularized personal world. He notes that while phenomena like rainbows and earthquakes were accepted, UFOs, being ephemeral and requiring constructed narratives from reports, only gained attention in the 20th century.

3. UFOs Before Ufology

Historical UFO reports from Russia are scarce before the 20th century. The period between 1900 and the 1917 Revolution saw sightings of strange lights, "phantom airships," and "mystery planes." Information from 1917 to 1953 is limited due to the dispersal of reports in official archives. Early reports included descriptions of crescent-shaped objects, predating rocket launches, suggesting they were not simply missile warheads. Examples include a "flying moon" sighting in 1923 and "Fiery Serpent" sightings near Suzdal in the 1940s, which resembled "motor-car headlamps" or "luminous balls."

During World War II, crescent-shaped UFOs were observed, such as one seen by Gennadiy Shalaginov near the Kursk salient in 1943, described as a "crescent-shaped object that flew at a very great speed."

Western ufology experienced waves of sightings after WWII, but the USSR press initially scoffed at the problem. The first official mention of UFOs occurred in 1952 by M.G.Pervukhin. Despite official disinterest, enthusiasts like Y.A.Fomin began collecting information and giving lectures. Soviet eyewitnesses, unlike their Western counterparts, were less influenced by existing UFO models, leading to potentially "cleaner" reports.

4. Rises and Falls of the UFO Tide

Despite observations, the official Soviet view remained unshakeable. Attempts by Y.A.Fomin to generate public interest were met with standard replies from institutions like the Moscow Planetarium, attributing sightings to experiments with sodium clouds. In 1961, Academician L.A.Artsimovich denied the existence of "flying saucers," attributing them to "unscrupulous and antiscientific information" and suggesting they were reflections or rainbows. This "Menzel's mirage" theory became a convenient explanation.

Amateur ufology temporarily disappeared but resurfaced in April 1967 with Dr. Felix Zigel's article in "Smena." This led to a surge of articles in various publications, reaching millions. As the Soviet Union relaxed its totalitarian grip, a new generation became more open to such topics. Rubtsov himself witnessed a UFO sighting over Kharkov on May 17, 1967, describing a "small round body (a disk, or a ball)" with a long orange tail.

In the late 1970s, analysis of Zigel's reports by scientists L.M.Gindilis, D.A.Men'kov, and I.G.Petrovskaya concluded that one-third of the reports lacked conventional explanations. The ban on public UFO studies in 1968 was partly due to military-industrial concerns about uncontrolled information regarding new rocketry and spacecraft.

5. Underground-1

In contrast to the USSR, the US faced a similar situation with the Condon Committee's report concluding that UFOs posed no threat and further study was not justified. The Soviet establishment reacted with articles, while government instructions were issued for "official bodies" to record and investigate UFO events. However, these instructions were not very effective. Independent ufologists went "underground," though no one was imprisoned. They continued their work individually or in informal groups, collecting reports and sharing them within a small community. This "microactivities" approach, while low-profile, kept the research field "clean" by filtering out pseudo-observers and researchers.

By the late 1960s, only 25-30 people were actively engaged in UFO studies in the Soviet Union. They knew each other well, exchanging letters and meeting personally. Their families were not always supportive of these time-consuming activities.

6. No Happy Landings

In 1975, Dr. Zigel managed to initiate a state-financed UFO study project at the Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI). However, an article in "Komsomolskaya Pravda" by Eremey Parnov, declaring the problem nonexistent or solved by Menzel, led to MAI withdrawing its support. The institute stated that Zigel was incompetent and his work did not align with Marxist-Leninist theory. Consequently, Zigel was expelled from the Znaniye Society, and the status quo was restored.

7. Underground-2

Soviet ufologists returned to low-profile activities, but the informal study group led by Zigel became more active. Dr. L.M.Gindilis and colleagues published a statistical analysis of Soviet UFO reports. An informal study group in Leningrad and scientists in Gorky also showed interest. Provincial enthusiasts engaged in "grass-root" work, collecting local UFO data. A notable case is the "Robozero Miracle" from 1663, described in the "Znaniye-Sila" journal, detailing a "great fire" over a lake with unusual characteristics.

8. A Turning Point

The "Petrozavodsk phenomenon" on September 20, 1977, involving a luminescent object emitting ray spurts, marked a turning point. This event, reported in national newspapers, led to the initiation of a special project at IZMIRAN to investigate anomalous atmospheric phenomena. This was the first UFO-related project by the Academy of Sciences, leading to the formation of an Expert Group on Anomalous Atmospheric Phenomena. The military also became more attentive, with a Ministry of Defense institute collecting UFO reports and foreign literature, though much of this was confiscated due to censorship.

9. From Alleged “Pseudoscience” to Real Pseudoufology

During perestroika, censorship on UFO reports was largely lifted. Membership in amateur societies grew rapidly. However, "big science" did not engage with the UFO problem, and ufology itself fragmented into three camps: tabloid ufology, "principally amateurish" ufology (organized into the Soviet Ufological Association - SUA), and "pseudoufology" focused on sensationalism.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of RIAP Bulletin are the historical suppression and eventual emergence of UFO research in the Soviet Union, the role of key individuals like Felix Zigel, the impact of government policy and censorship, and the distinction between scientific inquiry and popular belief. The editorial stance appears to be one of documenting and analyzing the history of Soviet ufology, presenting it as a legitimate field of study despite its challenging past, and highlighting the intellectual contributions made by its researchers even under difficult circumstances.

Title: RIAP Bulletin
Issue: Vol. 4, No. 3
Date: 1998
Publisher: RIAP
Country: Ukraine
Language: English

This issue of the RIAP Bulletin delves into the complex landscape of UFO research, particularly focusing on the post-Soviet era and the challenges faced by ufologists in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

The State of Ufology in the CIS

The article begins by categorizing ufology into two main streams: 'tabloid ufology' and 'scientific ufology'. Tabloid ufology is characterized as lacking a research basis, often sensationalizing UFO sightings and focusing on contactees and abductees. In contrast, scientific ufology aims to establish the field as a legitimate area of scientific inquiry. The author notes that after the collapse of the USSR and the formation of the CIS, 'big science' became less engaged with the UFO problem, leading some amateurs to pursue spiritualistic communications. However, the author expresses optimism about the presence of serious researchers, UFO study groups, and organizations in the CIS dedicated to scientific investigation. A key point is the existence of scientists, scholars, and engineers who are open-minded and willing to study the UFO phenomenon seriously, which could lead to its assimilation by science.

Soviet Man and the UFO Phenomenon

The article then shifts to an analysis of how Soviet citizens reacted to the UFO phenomenon, contrasting the 'comfortable world' of the Soviet era with the new reality. In the Soviet Union, the printed word was considered sacred, and official pronouncements from the Party and State held significant weight. The author describes two main patterns of behavior when encountering the unknown: as an individual human being and as an element of Soviet society. Interestingly, UFO witnesses often followed the first pattern, accepting the objective reality of the phenomenon. Conversely, many scholars and scientists, influenced by societal norms, tended to sacrifice the phenomenon's objective reality to fit their socially-induced worldview. This is exemplified by a professor who initially reported a UFO sighting but later retracted it.

The author contrasts the Soviet situation with the West, where an educated opinion is generally against anomalous phenomena. However, the challenge in the Soviet Union was more significant due to the totalitarian state, where defying the official stance could have serious consequences. The intellectual level of Soviet UFO debunkers is noted as high because they understood the risks involved.

Reactions to UFO Sightings

When encountering a UFO, individuals typically display their best qualities, including the ability to face the truth. Theoretical considerations about whether a phenomenon 'can' exist lose importance in the moment of encounter. The article outlines four main patterns of reaction for individuals who have not personally witnessed a UFO but are aware of reports: indifference ('an ostrich reaction'), denial (debunkers), whole-hearted acceptance (UFO adherents), and research work. The author considers the research approach to be the most rational, acknowledging the phenomenon's reality without jumping to conclusions and recognizing the need to establish ufology as a scientific field.

The Case of Nikolay Zinov

To illustrate the human reaction to UFOs, the article recounts an incident involving Nikolay Zinov, a Soviet driver in 1969. While on a prospecting expedition in Kazakhstan, Zinov and his colleagues encountered a flying 'man' in a silvery space suit. The entity landed near their truck, and when Zinov approached, it rose and flew off, seemingly guiding them to a road and helping them find their way after they had become lost.

Opposition to UFO Research in the USSR

The latter part of the article details the suppression of UFO research in the Soviet Union. It highlights the efforts of individuals like P.A.Stolyarov and F.Y.Zigel, who attempted to establish a UFO Department within DOSAAF and collect reports. Despite initial successes, such as the publication of a collection of UFO observations, opponents of UFO studies became active. The article criticizes lectures given by Moscow Planetarium workers V.A.Bronshten and I.F.Shevlyakov, suggesting their influence contributed to the disbandment of the UFO Department. Prominent scientists like B.N.Petrov and M.A.Leontovich participated in discussions, with Petrov acknowledging the existence of UFOs but questioning their nature. However, the article argues that the fate of the UFO problem was decided not by open debate but by machinations, with powerful forces deeming it not a subject for investigation but a 'battle of faith'.

Academician L.A.Artsimovich is identified as a key figure in 'closing' the UFO problem, advocating for a ban on UFO studies and personally censoring papers on the subject. The article criticizes the resolution adopted by the Branch of General & Applied Physics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which condemned UFO studies without examining evidence, adhering to the principle of struggling against 'heretics' rather than engaging in scientific debate. The article points to a Pravda article from February 29, 1968, signed by E.Mustel, D.Martynov, and V.Leshkovtsev, as an example of 'cultivated ignorance' and incompetence in discussing the UFO phenomenon.

Criticism of Scientific Debunking

The authors of the Pravda article are accused of misrepresenting the state of UFO research, claiming that American scientists had concluded that UFO reports lacked evidence of reality. The article counters this by mentioning the 'Condon Committee' and the officially recognized UFO cases that remained unexplained. It also highlights the dissenting opinion of Dr. J.A.Hynek, who compared the UFO problem to the Copernican revolution. The article questions the scholarly integrity and honesty of the authors, noting that E.Mustel, despite signing the Pravda article, had previously admitted that UFO objects are observed but their study is unknown.

Academician Artsimovich's role in suppressing UFO research is further detailed, with his opposition dating back to the early 1960s. The article suggests that his actions, along with those of his colleagues, have left the Soviet Union helpless in terms of UFO research, requiring a significant effort to 'overtake and surpass' the lack of systematic observations.

The 'Crime' Against Scientific Progress

The author expresses strong disapproval of the intentional distortion of facts and the ban on developing a promising field of study, calling it a 'crime against the country'. The article concludes by quoting Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky on the importance of embracing new ideas and criticizing the tendency in less civilized countries to suppress them. The author laments that the Soviet Union, despite its achievements in space exploration, has stifled UFO research, akin to a meteorologist being confined to a hermetically sealed room.

References

The issue includes an extensive list of references, citing various Soviet and international publications on UFOs, dating from 1958 to 1996. These references cover books, articles, and manuscripts related to UFO observations, phenomena, and scientific assessments.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific study of UFOs, the contrast between rigorous research and sensationalism, the historical suppression of UFO inquiry in the Soviet Union, and the importance of open-mindedness in scientific exploration. The editorial stance, particularly evident in the anonymous article and the editor's note, is one of strong advocacy for serious, scientific UFO research and a condemnation of the bureaucratic and ideological obstacles that have hindered its progress. The editor's note frames the anonymous paper as a 'relic of the epoch' and an 'interesting' document that reflects the author's sincere, albeit naive, desire to help the Soviet state lead in ufological studies, a wish that was met with deafness from the authorities.