RIAP bulletin - Vol 07 No 2-3 - April-September 2001

Magazine Overview

Title: RIAP BULLETIN
Issue: Volume 7, Number 2-3
Date: April-September 2001
Publisher: Research Institute on Anomalous Phenomena (RIAP)
Country: UKRAINE
Language: English

This issue of the RIAP Bulletin, published by the Research Institute on Anomalous Phenomena (RIAP), focuses on the history of UFO studies in the Soviet Union, with a particular emphasis on the "Petrozavodsk Trigger" phenomenon. RIAP, established in 1992, is an independent scientific research body dedicated to studying anomalous atmospheric phenomena, non-traditional energy sources, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).

The Petrozavodsk Trigger

Lev M. Gindilis, a participant in the study of the Petrozavodsk phenomenon, provides a detailed historical account. He notes that over twenty years later, many details have faded, but the broader significance of the event remains clear. The Petrozavodsk phenomenon was closely associated with the UFO problem and significantly impacted ufological studies in the USSR.

UFO Studies in the USSR

Gindilis explains that UFO studies in the USSR were historically suppressed due to ideological reasons, contradicting the official stance of the USSR Academy of Sciences that UFOs did not exist. This led to amateur-driven ufology, often circulated through "Samizdat" channels, with generally low-quality information. Despite the ban, Soviet military and secret services reportedly paid attention to the issue.

Early unofficial lectures on UFOs were given by Y. A. Fomin in 1960, followed by F. Y. Zigel. In 1961, the newspaper *Pravda* published an interview with Academician L. A. Artsimovich, which attributed UFO sightings to natural atmospheric optical effects, temporarily reducing public interest.

In 1967, a UFO Commission was established under the All-Union Space-Exploration Committee, headed by Major-General P. A. Stolyarov with Dr. F. Y. Zigel as Deputy for Science. Articles discussing UFO origins appeared in *Vokrug Sveta*, but the commission was disbanded shortly after appealing to the public for reports.

By the mid-1970s, public interest revived, spurred by lectures from Zigel and V. G. Azhazha. Despite ideological pressure, the problem attracted the attention of secret services and officials who had experienced UFO sightings. A letter from Soviet aircraft designers to Chairman Alexey N. Kosygin in 1968 led to a joint consideration of the UFO origin by the USSR Academy of Sciences, the State Committee on Hydrometeorology, the Ministry of Defense, and other bodies.

An agreement between the USSR and the USA in 1971 regarding nuclear war danger included a clause to notify each other about unidentified objects detected by early warning systems, suggesting UFOs might have been included in this category.

Why I Became Interested in UFOs

Gindilis explains his initial focus on SETI studies, where the prevailing view was that interstellar flights were impractical for contact due to the vast distances and limitations of rocket propulsion. The photon rocket, using matter-antimatter propulsion, offered theoretical relativistic speeds, but required immense energy. A significant hurdle was the "twins paradox," where time dilation would make returning cosmonauts alien to their home society. Thus, remote (radio) contacts were considered more feasible than direct visits.

However, Gindilis became intrigued by the strong bias and "dishonest polemics" in debunking articles that appeared after lectures by F. Y. Zigel and V. G. Azhazha. He felt that if UFOs were fiction, the explanations should be simple and convincing, prompting him to investigate the UFO problem himself. He found that the prevailing negative opinion was based on ignorance, prejudice, and unwillingness to study the subject objectively.

He notes that no UFO case had been instrumentally detected and that existing photographs were often considered forgeries. However, after studying firsthand materials and serious UFO literature, he became convinced that while many sightings could be explained by natural phenomena or technical experiments, a significant number of reports required serious investigation. He also highlighted that many UFO witnesses were credible individuals, including scientists, engineers, and pilots.

First Reports from Petrozavodsk

On September 22, 1977, Gindilis was contacted by Felix Yurievich Zigel about a phenomenon observed over Petrozavodsk. The same evening, A. N. Makarov from the USSR Academy of Sciences' Department of General Physics and Astronomy (DGPA) also contacted him, providing reports and proposing to share materials. The next day, Gindilis visited the DGPA and reviewed teletype reports from Y. A. Gromov, Director of the Petrozavodsk Hydrometeorological Observatory. These reports had official status.

Newspapers reported the phenomenon, and Makarov gathered more materials, negotiating with the press and showing significant interest, likely with superior approval. The DGPA heads were informed and did not initially prevent these activities.

Reports also emerged about sightings on September 14 and 26, including one in the Ivanovo Region. Gindilis notes that many Petrozavodsk inhabitants woke up anxious on the night of September 19-20.

The phenomenon on September 20 was observed by researchers from a geophysical expedition of IZMIRAN near Lehta, Karelia. An ionospheric sounding experiment was also conducted, though its authors admitted it couldn't explain the observed effects. Skeptics in the DGPA seized on this information.

Gindilis decided to investigate older UFO observations, including a case from December 3, 1967, involving scientific workers from the Research Institute of Civil Aviation (RICA). He contacted RICA and also learned about the French UFO study group GEPAN.

On September 27, Gindilis met with Orlov from the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences, who was tasked with preparing a report. They discussed anomalous phenomena, and Gindilis provided Zigel's collected sightings and information on GEPAN.

On September 28, Gindilis met with Deputy Academician-Secretary V. V. Migulin of the DGPA (also Director of IZMIRAN) to discuss the Petrozavodsk affair. Migulin agreed to forward a letter to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Subsequently, Migulin headed work on anomalous phenomena within state programs.

It became clear that the Petrozavodsk phenomenon had attracted high-level attention, possibly from a member of the Politburo of the Communist Party. Gindilis hypothesizes that Yuriy Vladimirovich Andropov, having ties to Karelia, might have initiated the inquiry.

On September 29, Makarov asked Gindilis to help write a memorandum about the Petrozavodsk event for high authorities. The memo was to summarize data from eyewitness reports and discuss interpretations. Three hypotheses were considered: a single object flying at low altitude, a single object at high altitude, or multiple objects flying concurrently. The third hypothesis was deemed most preferable.

The memorandum also considered a possible connection to the launch of the satellite Kosmos-955 on September 20. While some foreign and Soviet specialists favored this explanation, Gindilis noted details that did not fit the satellite version, such as the westerly component of velocity observed by some witnesses.

Information from meteorologists at the Sortavala Hydrometeorological Station indicated an object moving from north-east to south-west, opposite to the satellite's trajectory.

The memorandum, about seven pages long, recommended establishing a special center for investigating anomalous phenomena within the USSR Academy of Sciences or the State Committee on Science and Technology. As a preliminary step, a study group was proposed.

Gindilis notes that while he doesn't know the memorandum's fate, a study group on anomalous phenomena was formed within the DGPA, including himself, A. N. Makarov, and I. G. Petrovskaya.

Meeting at the Institute of Space Studies

In October 1977, reports continued to arrive. Gindilis, along with I. G. Petrovskaya and her husband D. A. Men'kov, and his wife Nelli Khachikovna Martirosyan, worked on analyzing the data. The geographical region of observations was identified as the north-western USSR (Karelia, Leningrad and Pskov Regions, Baltic republics) and Finland, with some reports from Byelorussia and near Moscow.

The temporal characteristics were ambiguous, with the event lasting about three hours (3 AM to 6 AM Moscow time). Three phases were distinguished: an initial phase of one or several luminous bodies, a main phase (4.00-4.15 AM) with a luminous object and a shell, and a third phase of stable glow until dawn.

Simultaneous observations during the second phase suggested a single object at high altitude (over 200 km), but spatial modeling proved difficult. The altitude was also debated, with some measurements suggesting around six kilometers, while others indicated much higher. Eyewitnesses also reported aurora borealis.

On October 3, Gindilis was invited to meet with Academician B. N. Petrov, who had discussed the Petrozavodsk problem with the President of the Academy of Sciences. It was decided to involve the Department of Mechanics in the investigation.

On November 1, 1977, a joint meeting was held at the Institute of Space Studies (ISS) of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Participants included DGPA officials, members of the Department of Mechanics, military personnel, and scientists like Professor G. S. Narimanov, Dr. N. S. Kardashev, Dr. A. G. Masevich, and Colonel-General G. S. Legasov.

Gindilis presented a preliminary report outlining the region, time, appearance, number of objects, and estimated altitude and energy release. The main conclusion was that the phenomenon's scale was too large to be explained by technical experiments on satellite orbits, suggesting a possible involvement of an unknown space factor.

To determine the altitude and spatial position, additional data from various governmental bodies were needed, necessitating the creation of an interdepartmental commission.

Bureaucratic Games

President Alexandrov was informed of the ISS conference. A decision was made not to create a special commission but to hold a meeting at the office of L. V. Smirnov, Deputy Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers. The intention was to invite officials responsible for the phenomenon's "creation" to "confess." Gindilis feared this approach aimed to hush up the affair and emphasize only the technical experiment version.

He compiled a memo for participants, emphasizing that all facts needed strict verification. The memo was handed over on November 20.

Before Alexandrov's letter was dispatched, Gindilis attempted to draft a working plan for studying UFOs, with support from G. S. Narimanov. They received interesting UFO reports from the military, and Narimanov initiated their investigation. He advocated for state-level UFO studies, proposing the term "anomalous aerospace phenomena" or "anomalous phenomena" to replace the discredited term "UFO."

In December, MIC Deputy Chairman N. S. Stroev and CST Chairman B. A. Kiyasov met with V. V. Migulin. The Academy was tasked with preparing a questionnaire for official bodies. Gindilis prepared and submitted the questionnaire, but sensed a tendency to hush up the affair.

Trip to Petrozavodsk

Despite bureaucratic hurdles, reports continued to arrive. By the end of 1977, dozens of UFO reports were accumulated. A supplement to the initial report was completed in January 1978.

A trip to Petrozavodsk was deemed necessary. Preparatory to the trip, letters of appreciation were sent to N. P. Milov and Y. A. Gromov. Official letters requesting assistance were sent to the Karelian branch of the Academy of Sciences and the Karelian regional committee of the Communist Party.

In January 1978, an interdepartmental group, supervised by B. A. Kiyasov, was planned. The group included academic and industrial parts. The academic group consisted of L. M. Gindilis, A. N. Makarov, I. G. Petrovskaya, and B. A. Sokolov. N. Kh. Martirosyan also assisted.

The trip aimed to meet witnesses, verify observations, and contact local scientific bodies. They met with the Regional Committee of the Communist Party and the Karelian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The army commander also wished to meet with them, convening an army council.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The RIAP Bulletin consistently promotes the serious scientific study of anomalous phenomena, including UFOs. The editorial stance appears to be one of open inquiry, accepting various theories and demanding factual evidence. The publication aims to provide a platform for researchers and to document significant events and historical developments in the field, particularly within the context of Soviet and Russian ufology. There is a clear emphasis on distinguishing between credible reports and speculation, and on advocating for official, systematic investigation of unexplained phenomena.

Title: RIAP Bulletin
Issue: Vol. 7, No. 2-3
Date: 2001
Publisher: RIAP
Country: Ukraine
Language: English

This issue of the RIAP Bulletin features extensive discussions on UFO phenomena, particularly the Petrozavodsk event, and the state of scientific inquiry into anomalous phenomena within the former USSR and the West. It includes a detailed report on the Petrozavodsk phenomenon, an interview with Dr. Lev M. Gindilis, and a letter to the editor discussing the history and methodology of Soviet UFO research.

The Petrozavodsk Phenomenon

The issue begins with an account of a meeting where a report on UFO observations was presented, followed by a question regarding the response of Leningrad astronomers to the phenomenon observed on the night of September 19-20. It was explained that cloudy weather in Leningrad prevented astronomical monitoring, but air traffic controllers and pilots at Pulkovo airport observed the event. The author recounts an incident in Petrozavodsk where he was detained by the militia for passport inspection, a situation described as a possible provocation.

Eyewitness accounts from Petrozavodsk provided a clearer picture of the phenomenon. Yuriy Vladimirovich Linnik, a poet and philosopher, described seeing the object with the naked eye and through a telescope, offering a unique perspective on its motion. The investigation involved retrospective questioning of eyewitnesses using a theodolite to determine the spatial position of the object. This method, though approximate, suggested a distance of 11 to 19 km from the city center and an altitude of 6 to 11 km (20,000 to 62,000 ft.). This complex picture contradicted simpler models, such as a satellite, and suggested multiple objects or a different type of phenomenon.

Preliminary Conclusions and Further Research

Following the return to Moscow, a "Supplement to the Report" was completed in January 1978. New data helped refine the observation area, excluding regions like the Kola Peninsula and Arkhangelsk Region. Meteorological data indicated no unusual conditions that would explain the phenomenon. The precise timing of the phenomenon's second stage over Leningrad was determined to be between 3:55-3:57 AM, based on reports from air traffic controllers, suggesting it began before the Kosmos-955 satellite lift-off. While some descriptions might correspond to satellite launches, the overall picture pointed to a more complex event with high illumination levels, deceleration, hovering, and sharp changes in direction.

The division of the phenomenon into phases became problematic as time frames eroded. The events suggested a two-hour period of luminous bodies appearing or forming in the atmosphere over the Russian North-West, from 3 to 5 AM, peaking around 4 AM. The authors emphasized that the data were gathered in a "half-amateurish" way and recommended a more serious stage of investigation with specialists, a recommendation that was unfortunately not implemented.

Anomalous Phenomena and Scientific Approach

The issue highlights that the Petrozavodsk phenomenon, while vivid, was not unique. A class of anomalous atmospheric and near-Earth phenomena exists that defies current scientific explanation. The USSR had, until recently, paid little attention to studying these phenomena, a stance deemed unreasonable. Steps were urged for systematic investigation.

RB Questions and Answers: Dr. Lev M. Gindilis

This section features an interview with Dr. Lev Gindilis, a renowned Russian radio astronomer and SETI specialist. He defines contemporary anomalistics as the study of phenomena outside the scope of conventional science, with the task of revealing their nature and place in the scientific worldview.

Dr. Gindilis states that the UFO problem is not currently a scientific one because it does not fit the current science paradigm and has not been consistently studied using scientific methods like experiment and reproducibility. However, he emphasizes that it is not "antiscientific" but rather a problem "in the making." He believes the solution lies in establishing the true nature and place of UFOs in the scientific picture of the world, advocating for a positive attitude from the scientific community and the utilization of modern science's potential.

Regarding the modern state of the UFO problem, Dr. Gindilis notes that in the former USSR, the "informational environment" has been polluted, discrediting serious study, which he finds more effective than state censorship. He believes UFOs have become an integral part of mass culture. He expresses skepticism about "big science" participating in UFO studies due to the problem's unconventional nature and its discrediting by enthusiasts and the media. He sees anomalistics as indirectly contributing by advancing natural sciences.

Dr. Gindilis posits that UFOs represent a borderland phenomenon between the three-dimensional world of contemporary science and higher dimensions with different natural laws. He suggests that as science progresses towards understanding higher dimensions, the UFO phenomenon will find a natural explanation.

Letter to the Editor: Soviet UFO Research

This section discusses the publication of the paper "History of State-Directed UFO Research in the USSR" by Yuliy Platov and Boris Sokolov. The author, who participated in the 'Setka AN' and 'Galaktika' UFO study programs, notes that this paper breaks the secrecy surrounding Soviet UFO studies from 1978–1991. He acknowledges the impartiality of the survey in describing the program's establishment under pressure and the Academy of Sciences' initial lack of enthusiasm.

The author points out that the research focused on "mysteries of the military-industrial complex" (secret illuminations) rather than natural phenomena. He mentions that some recorded natural phenomena, like those described by M. Minnaert, are known to science, but others are new and not studied by mainstream disciplines. He notes that the UFO problem has been "privatized" by a bipolar structure involving informal groups and state intelligence agencies.

The survey by Platov and Sokolov is criticized for omitting key researchers like Dr. Felix Zigel and for not citing results from the Setka AN and Galaktika programs, particularly those from Nizhniy Novgorod scientists and expeditions to the Altai and Sayan Mountains. The author recalls his own analysis during the Setka AN program, which predicted the accumulation of data on objects with flight characteristics beyond current aerospace technology, suggesting these phenomena appear by chance.

The letter highlights the reluctance of scientists to accept "unpleasant" facts, such as objects that defy scientific study or known physical laws, often leading to dismissal of such reports. The author disputes Platov and Sokolov's assertion that no UFO landing or abduction cases were recorded, citing examples like the abduction of two workers near Orsk and encounters in an Altai village, which were known to organizers of the Galaktika program. He attributes the lack of reported cases to the program's severe underfinancing and the decision to ignore such incidents as too complex or inconvenient to investigate.

The author concludes by suggesting that despite the "ineffective over-frugality" and flawed methodology of past research, a Second State Program of UFO Studies is likely in the future, with new generations of researchers seeking the truth.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue consistently emphasizes the need for a more rigorous and scientific approach to studying anomalous phenomena, particularly UFOs. There is a critique of the historical lack of attention and resources dedicated to these studies within the USSR and a call for greater openness and collaboration. The role of "big science" and the challenges posed by the unconventional nature of the UFO problem are recurring themes. The editorial stance appears to be one of advocating for serious scientific investigation into unexplained phenomena, while acknowledging the difficulties and historical shortcomings in this field.