RIAP bulletin - Vol 06 No 2-3 - April-September 2000

Magazine Overview

Title: RIAP BULLETIN
Volume: 6
Issue: 2-3
Date: April-September 2000
Publisher: Research Institute on Anomalous Phenomena (RIAP)
Country: UKRAINE

This issue of the RIAP Bulletin delves into critical discussions surrounding pseudoscience in Russia, the history of UFO research in the former USSR, and a personal account of a mysterious cave discovery.

Editorial: New Times, Old Songs

The editorial addresses the Russian Academy of Sciences' (RAS) recent review of its Commission for the Struggle Against Pseudoscience. It highlights concerns raised by Academician E. P. Krugliakov about the proliferation of pseudoscientific publications and the establishment of "public academies." The editorial notes that while the RAS leadership supports efforts to combat pseudoscience, some members, like Academicians A. L. Yanshin and E. P. Chelyshev, expressed caution about potentially discarding unstudied phenomena along with pseudoscience. The piece contrasts the current academic landscape in Russia with the Soviet era, suggesting that the loss of state control over scientific discourse has led to a more complex environment. It also touches upon the financial challenges facing scientific research and the potential for "pseudoscience" to exploit budget allocations. The editorial concludes by suggesting that while the "Hydra of pseudoscience" is a real concern, it's crucial for science to investigate unknown phenomena rigorously rather than dismiss them, as this refusal can inadvertently fuel pseudoscience.

The Moonshaft

This section features a reprint of an article by the late Dr. Antonin T. Horak, originally published in NSS News in March 1965. Horak recounts his discovery of a strange "moonshaft" in a cave in Czechoslovakia during World War II, specifically on October 23, 1944. While retreating with his wounded soldiers, they were sheltered by a peasant named Slavek, who led them to a grotto. Inside, Horak discovered a peculiar, cylindrical structure with blue-black, glass-smooth walls, approximately 25 meters in diameter and 2 meters thick. He describes a crack in the wall that tapers upwards, leading to a void. Horak's subsequent explorations involved entering the crack, encountering a solid, lime-paved floor, and discovering a finely grooved pattern on the back wall. He speculates about the structure's origin, considering it a possible artifact of unknown technology or a natural formation. The article details his struggles with injuries, limited supplies, and the harsh conditions, as well as his interactions with Slavek and his family. Horak also mentions finding adult cave bear teeth near the crack, suggesting a possible connection between the cave and the surface. He expresses a desire for speleologists to further study this enigmatic find.

Letters to the Editor: Let's Formulate It Differently

This section includes a letter from Lev M. Gindilis, Ph.D., Full Member of K. E. Tsiolkovsky Academy of Cosmonautics, responding to a paper titled "History of State-Directed UFO Research in the USSR" by Yuliy Platov and Boris Sokolov, published in the RIAP Bulletin and the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Gindilis acknowledges the paper's importance in dispelling rumors of suppression of UFO studies in the USSR. He notes that the Russian Academy of Sciences' involvement in UFO research, particularly after the Petrozavodsk phenomenon in 1977, was influenced by official inquiries and possibly directives from higher authorities, including Yuriy Andropov. Gindilis details his own involvement in the State program of UFO studies, which lasted 13 years and involved monitoring approximately 3000 reports, with over 90% explained by technical experiments like rocket launches. He criticizes the paper's "explanatory bias," arguing that it focuses on explained cases and omits significant unexplained UFO incidents. Gindilis also points out factual inaccuracies in the paper, such as the dating of meetings and the description of the censorship process within the Academy. He suggests that the current scientific paradigm may be insufficient to solve the UFO problem and that the "polluted" atmosphere of pseudo-ufology in Russia hinders serious scientific investigation. He praises the RIAP team for their rational approach to examining the problem.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue consistently emphasizes the importance of rigorous scientific inquiry in the face of pseudoscience and the challenges of investigating anomalous phenomena. The editorial and the letter to the editor both highlight the need for science to remain open-minded and to investigate the unknown, rather than dismissing it. There is a critical stance towards the "explanatory bias" often found in UFO research, which tends to favor conventional explanations over unexplained cases. The RIAP Bulletin positions itself as a platform for rational, evidence-based discussion of anomalous phenomena, avoiding extreme positions and encouraging further research.

This issue of the RIAP Bulletin, dated 2000, Volume 6, Numbers 2-3, focuses on the theme of 'Bureaucratized Pseudoscience,' particularly in the context of Soviet and Russian scientific approaches to anomalous phenomena like UFOs. It features critical letters and a book review that delve into the methodologies, limitations, and potential biases within scientific investigations of controversial topics.

Letters to the Editor

Bureaucratized Pseudoscience by Pyotr N. Rybalko

Pyotr N. Rybalko, M.S., from Lviv, Ukraine, writes a critical letter to the editor, expressing concern over the publication of a paper titled "History of State-Directed UFO Research in the USSR" by Yuliy Platov and Boris Sokolov. Rybalko argues that this paper, and the broader approach of the Soviet/Russian Academy of Sciences to the UFO problem, exemplifies "bureaucratized pseudoscience." He contends that Soviet science was deeply integrated into the totalitarian system, where scientists, particularly those in management roles, acted as bureaucrats prioritizing orders and rewards from the state over objective research. Rybalko suggests that the Soviet scientific establishment viewed the UFO problem as a "pseudoproblem" or a "materialized nightmare" with an "open solution," which was less desirable than problems with guaranteed results. He criticizes the lack of normal funding for the UFO program, viewing it as evidence of its secondary importance, despite its 13-year duration. Rybalko dismisses the idea that the program was a sophisticated cover for serious research, suggesting that the "setka" (camouflage net) of a "stupid and only half-secret" program was the "final truth" and that no "inexplicable residue" was genuinely investigated. He concludes that "Big science of this age and day cannot and does not want to solve the UFO problem."

Rybalko also addresses the paper's claim that Soviet science proved UFOs do not exist, stating that if science's main function is the quest for truth, it failed in this instance. He contrasts this with the possibility that science's function might be to provide a "comfortable lie."

These Strange Disks of Bayan-Kara-Ula... by Yuriy N. Morozov

Dr. Yuriy N. Morozov, Ph.D., from Moscow, Russia, discusses the historical investigation of the "disks of Bayan-Kara-Ula." He traces the story's origin to a 1967 paper by Russian philologist Vyacheslav K. Zaitsev, who referenced a German periodical. Morozov notes that Zaitsev's work was based on secondary sources and that attempts to find original publications have been challenging. He highlights the efforts of British ufologist Gordon Creighton and German investigator Joerg Dendl in tracing the story's transmission chain through publications like Das Vegetarische Universum, UFO-Nachrichten, and BUFOI. Morozov emphasizes that many details presented by Zaitsev are missing from the original publications, suggesting they emerged in later links of the chain. He proposes that a thorough comparative analysis of early publications is necessary to determine if the story contains grains of truth or is purely fictitious. Morozov also notes that official inquiries to Chinese scientific bodies and Western researchers' trips to China have yielded no new information, making the historiographical approach a more viable alternative.

The Editor of RIAP Bulletin adds a note clarifying that the book "Sungods in Exile" by Karyl Robin-Evans is fiction and satire, not a travel diary, as some researchers believe it to be proof of the existence of the mysterious discs and the Dzopa tribe. This clarification aims to dispel what the editor considers "vain hopes."

Book Review

Introduction to Paleovisitology by Vladimir Rubtsov

Vladimir Rubtsov reviews Yuriy N. Morozov's 1991 book, "Traces of Ancient Astronauts?" published in Russian. Rubtsov notes that despite a large print run, the book went largely unnoticed by specialists. He argues that the book is significant as it remains the only Russian-language publication analyzing the problem of "paleovisits" (hypothetical ancient extraterrestrial visits to Earth) at a professional level. Rubtsov describes the book's context within the "Ancient Astronaut theory" (preastronautics) and the emerging field of "paleovisitology," while also acknowledging the "anti-preastronautics" stance of organizations like CSICOP.

Morozov, a folklorist, has studied paleovisits since the late 1960s and advocates for paleovisitology as a research direction, rather than defending a priori conclusions. The book is divided into chapters covering:

• "To the Reader": States that the question of whether Earth was visited by extraterrestrials in the past is unresolved and has not been attacked using scientific methods.
• Chapter 1 - "Genealogy of an Idea": Discusses the prehistory of the paleovisit idea, outlining three conceivable answers to the main question.
• Chapter 2 - "The Ancient Astronaut Theory": Traces the history of the problem from the late 1950s, initiated by mathematician Matest M. Agrest, and discusses the role of popular science press and figures like Erich von Daeniken.
• Chapter 3 - "Inside a Wide Range of Problems": Questions what exactly is being looked for, suggesting that "space visitors" are intelligent beings, but distinguishing them from earthly people is difficult due to human fantasy creating similar figures in folklore.
• Chapter 4 - "Direct Traces": Analyzes "unidentified fossil objects" (UFOs) as potential direct traces, but notes their primitive appearance and the rarity of their detailed examination. It also touches upon the Borisoglebsk aircraft accidents.
• Chapter 5 - "The Dogon Miracle": Discusses the astronomical lore of the Dogon people and the controversy surrounding it, concluding it is a good basis for further scrutiny.
• Final Chapter - "Task for Tomorrow": Examines other supposed paleovisit traces, such as ancient models of gliders, gold "airplanes," Indian "sky chariots" (vimanas), and folklore motifs of time dilatation, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary research.

Rubtsov notes that the situation in paleovisitology has not significantly changed since 1991, with the field remaining embryonic. He suggests that translating Morozov's book into English and German would be beneficial for intelligent skeptics and enthusiasts, potentially via the internet.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of scientific methodology, particularly when applied to controversial or anomalous phenomena. There is a strong critique of how bureaucracy can stifle genuine scientific inquiry, leading to "pseudoscience" rather than discovery. The issue also highlights the historical development and ongoing challenges within ufology and the related field of paleovisitology, emphasizing the need for rigorous, objective, and interdisciplinary approaches. The editorial stance appears to be one of promoting critical thinking, questioning established narratives, and encouraging deeper, more scientific investigations into unexplained phenomena, while also cautioning against uncritical acceptance of claims or the influence of bureaucratic structures on scientific integrity.