RIAP bulletin - Vol 08 No 3-4 - July-December 2002

Magazine Overview

Title: RIAP BULLETIN
Volume: 8
Issue: 3-4
Date: July-December 2002
Publisher: Research Institute on Anomalous Phenomena (RIAP)
Country: UKRAINE

This issue of the RIAP Bulletin is dedicated to the exploration of paleovisitology, historical anomalies, and the broader implications of the ancient astronaut theory. It presents a collection of articles that delve into the scientific, historical, and theoretical aspects of these subjects, reflecting the institute's focus on anomalous phenomena and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).

Editorial: Paleovisitology: Still at the Crossroads...

In this editorial, V. V. Rubtsov frames the issue's focus on "historical anomalistics," defining a historical anomaly as any find that contradicts the commonly accepted historical or scientific picture of the past. He distinguishes between general historical anomalies (like Phoenician inscriptions in America or the Antikythera mechanism) and those that challenge our understanding of what was possible in antiquity (e.g., ancient aircraft or nuclear weaponry). Rubtsov notes that the anomalous character of such finds often emerges during examination and interpretation. He points out that science often struggles to incorporate these anomalies, as established knowledge is highly valued by specialists, leading to a conflict between historians and anomalists. Rubtsov advocates for a rational anomalistic view that leans on scientific knowledge rather than flatly contradicting it. He highlights the interest of paleovisitologists, who, from theoretical considerations, believe ancient visits from space are possible and would leave traces. The article also touches upon the contributions of "historical ufology" in the 1950s and the concept of "preceding civilizations" discussed by Atlantologists. The editorial concludes by emphasizing the need for paleovisitology to be both a historical discipline and a branch of SETI, noting its current position between the two fields.

On the Development of the Idea of Paleocontacts in the USSR at the Beginning of the 1960s

Matest M. Agrest recounts his personal journey in developing the idea of paleocontacts. He describes how an article in Scientific American about a proposed US defense shield sparked his imagination, leading him to consider Saturn's rings as a potential shield for Saturnians. This led to a broader conviction that intelligent life in the universe is not unique. Agrest discusses Michael Hart's later formulation of the "cardinal question" about why extraterrestrial civilizations haven't visited Earth. Agrest, however, reframed this question to investigate whether there *are* indications of past visits. He found support in biblical texts, particularly the mention of "Nephilim" (translated as "giants" or "fallen ones") in Genesis, and the apocryphal Book of Enoch, which describes angels descending to Earth. He also draws parallels between the description of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and a nuclear explosion. Agrest details his efforts to share his hypothesis in the USSR in 1959, facing significant challenges due to the political climate. He recounts presenting his findings at a scientific workshop in Sukhumi, which was surprisingly well-received, leading to an invitation to publish. However, the premature death of Academician I. V. Kurchatov, who had shown interest in his work, complicated matters. Agrest's hypothesis was eventually published in a shortened form in Literaturnaya Gazeta in 1960, generating widespread interest but also significant criticism, notably from Komsomolskaya Pravda. The article details the ensuing debate, the attempts to discredit Agrest, and the eventual cancellation of planned lectures denouncing his hypothesis. Agrest concludes by noting the difficulty of publishing his full work and the suppression of the paleocontact hypothesis in the Soviet Union due to its perceived conflict with religious belief.

Search for Paleovisit Traces: General Principles and Some Problems

Yuriy N. Morozov addresses the fundamental questions of paleovisitology: what to search for, where, and how. He defines a paleovisit (PV) as the temporary presence of an extraterrestrial civilization on Earth in the past, with traces being the primary source of information. Morozov categorizes these traces into direct (material remains of the expedition) and indirect (alterations of terrestrial objects, including physical, biological, and mental aspects). He outlines the general investigative process: selection, reconstruction, and identification of potential PV traces from historical sources. Morozov acknowledges the difficulties in this process, citing the ambiguity of interpreting myths and legends, and the need for material evidence, as suggested by Carl Sagan and F. D. Drake. He argues that while direct traces are desirable, they are not guaranteed, and indirect traces must also be considered. Morozov discusses the challenges of developing a specific ET-model, suggesting an analogy with human civilization's technology and adaptation to terrestrial conditions. He warns of potential "traps" in this approach, illustrating with the Australian aboriginal myth of the "white eucalyptus," which he interprets as a description of a rocket launch, aligning with observations of Russian space rocket launches.

Deceptive Similarities

This section, continuing Yuriy N. Morozov's article, explores the challenges of identifying genuine paleovisit traces due to "deceptive similarities." Morozov proposes a general model for identifying ET beings based on their origin from space, biological distinctiveness, or advanced knowledge and abilities. However, he notes that this model is too abstract for practical search and can lead to a surplus of false PV traces. He suggests developing a more specific ET-model by analogy with human civilization, assuming ET technology would obey known physical laws and their equipment would be adapted to terrestrial conditions. Morozov uses the Australian aboriginal myth about the "white eucalyptus" and the origin of the Southern Cross constellation as a case study. He interprets the myth as a possible reflection of a real event, specifically a space rocket launch, drawing parallels with the observed phenomena of Russian space rocket launches like Vostok, Voskhod, and Soyuz. The myth's details, such as the "big white eucalyptus" (rocket), the "hatch" (spaceship entrance), the "thunderclap" (rocket noise), and the "fiery eyes" (rocket engines), are analyzed in relation to a rocket launch sequence. Morozov concludes that the myth's narrative aligns with the physical aspects of a space rocket launch, suggesting that such myths might contain echoes of past extraterrestrial technological activities.

The Bimini Enigma

This section is a brief mention of a paper by Talbot Shaw Lindström titled "The Bimini Enigma," which is published in this issue of RIAP Bulletin. The paper is noted as testifying that the search for ancient artifacts on the seabed of the Atlantic Ocean is not senseless, implying it relates to historical anomalies and potentially paleovisits.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are paleovisitology, historical anomalies, and the ancient astronaut theory. The editorial stance, as articulated by V. V. Rubtsov, is one of advocating for a rational and scientific approach to anomalistics. While acknowledging the importance of investigating anomalies and considering unconventional theories, the editorial stresses the need to ground these investigations in established scientific knowledge and rigorous methodology. The issue highlights the historical development of these ideas, particularly within the Soviet context, and the challenges faced by researchers in pursuing them within the mainstream scientific community. There is an emphasis on the importance of evidence, whether direct (artifacts) or indirect (textual, iconographic), and the need for critical analysis to distinguish genuine anomalies from misinterpretations or hoaxes.

Title: RIAP Bulletin
Issue: Vol. 8, No. 3-4
Date: 2002
Publisher: RIAP (Ukraine)
Focus: Paleovisitology, anomalistics, and the investigation of alleged extraterrestrial influences on Earth's history.

RB QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Dr. Yuriy N. Morozov

Dr. Yuriy N. Morozov, a folklorist and paleovisitologist, addresses several key questions regarding contemporary anomalistics and the problem of paleovisits.

1. Contemporary Anomalistics and its Tasks

Morozov questions whether anomalistics, as a field, forms a unified cognitive system. He notes that ufologists, parapsychologists, cryptozoologists, and 'ghost hunters' may belong to an 'invisible college' but lack a cohesive system. The commonality seems to be an awareness of 'forbidden' fields and a more trusting approach to phenomena than classical science. Anomalistics is characterized by its willingness to accept 'elusive reality' – phenomena that are difficult to instrumentally record or reproduce. While classical science demands objective, reproducible evidence, anomalistics is more liberal with its criteria. The primary task of anomalistics, according to Morozov, is to describe anomalous phenomena and gather information without immediate judgment on their physical reality. He acknowledges the contradictory status of anomalistics, stemming from its peculiar properties. While the scientific study of the world involves separating fact from fiction, anomalous phenomena often do not fit classical scientific criteria. Anomalistics has not yet developed its own strict criteria for differentiating fact from fiction. Consequently, most investigations remain parascientific. Morozov hopes that with time, students grounded in science will develop a scientific component of anomalistics, aiming for objective cognition and potentially evolving into 'nonclassical' science.

2. The Problem of Paleovisits

Paleovisits are defined as hypothetical visitations to Earth by extraterrestrial intelligent beings in the distant past. Modern science, Morozov states, does not rule out this possibility, making the question of whether it occurred a scientific one. This forms the core of the paleovisit problem. Research involves numerous mini-problems, such as determining if specific historical facts are evidence of a paleovisit. Methodological challenges arise because our understanding of how paleovisit traces might appear is limited, and selecting them with confidence from the background of other past relics is difficult. Thus, the paleovisit problem is a complex of interconnected issues at various levels.

3. Solving the Paleovisit Problem

Morozov outlines the conditions for solving the paleovisit problem. A positive solution ('a paleovisit did occur') requires finding one convincing trace of a space visit, such as an 'indubitably extraterrestrial' artifact. A negative solution ('our planet has never been visited') is harder to establish definitively, as the absence of evidence does not prove non-occurrence. However, if after a long period of intensive, scientifically-driven search, no definite evidence is found, the hypothesis can be rejected with certainty. To conduct such studies, a sufficient number of interested, scientifically trained individuals are needed, ideally with authority in related scientific fields (archaeology, geology, ethnology). These researchers should establish regular information channels and possibly form an organizational structure. Morozov laments that this is not happening, citing unsuccessful attempts to create committees and journals. He believes the lack of a research community is the main problem. He notes that the paleovisit idea was first formulated in the USSR by Matest Agrest in the late 1950s/early 1960s, leading to productive discussions. However, current Russian paleovisitology has largely stalled, with many publications rehashing old ideas or foreign work, often descending into plagiarism. Hypotheses often focus on decoding 'extraterrestrial wisdom' in ancient structures like the Egyptian pyramids or Stonehenge. Morozov pins hopes on the RIAP for progress in CIS countries, though admitting their activities have not yet been very fruitful.

In English-speaking countries, the paleovisit problem is often dissolved within the broader UFO subject matter, attracting limited interest, with Z. Sitchin's 'The Earth Chronicles' being a notable contribution. The French school of paleovisitology has largely ceased to exist. Conversely, German-speaking countries have seen a surge in activity, with a tendency to elevate paleovisitological studies to a scientific level.

The main positive result of forty years of discussion is the initial search for and examination of possible paleovisit traces. The negative result is that the search and examination have been conducted by different people: enthusiasts lacking professional scholarly knowledge and experience, and scholars who perceive the paleovisit idea as an extraneous irritant contradicting their views.

4. Modern State of Paleovisit Problem

Morozov reiterates that the paleovisit problem in the former USSR is in a sorry state, with current research often amounting to rehashing old ideas or foreign publications, sometimes with open plagiarism. He expresses hope for progress through RIAP. In the West, the problem is often subsumed under UFO studies, with limited interest except for works like Z. Sitchin's. The French school has declined, while German-speaking countries show increased scientific rigor. The primary achievement over 40 years is the initial search for traces, but a significant shortcoming is the disconnect between those who search (often non-experts) and those who examine (often scholars dismissive of the idea).

5. Role of 'Big Science' in Paleovisitological Studies

Morozov uses the example of Carl Sagan, who initially supported the possibility of paleocontacts but later dismissed 'ancient astronaut' theories as ridiculous. This reflects a broader trend where 'big science' often withdraws from paleovisit problems once it becomes clear that historical sources are prone to speculation rather than definitive solutions. Consequently, the field is largely developed by non-scientists. Morozov believes that if funding were available, many scientists would engage, but he fears their contributions might be of modest importance, similar to the Condon Committee's work in ufology. He stresses that serious progress requires 'normal human curiosity' and relies on individual scientists with personal interest.

6. Role of Anomalistics in Paleovisit Problem

Morozov does not consider paleovisits to be inherently 'anomalous phenomena' at present. However, he anticipates that as extraterrestrial intelligence becomes better understood, paleovisitology might require close collaboration with ufology and other branches of anomalistics, particularly in theoretical and methodological aspects. He notes existing common ground for joint work, citing a group studying an anomalous zone in Russia with folklore describing contacts with humanoids and legends of paleocontacts.

7. Conclusions on Paleovisits

Morozov's conclusions remain consistent: the reality of paleovisits cannot be ruled out but has not been proved. Over decades, alleged paleovisit traces have often been found to be of terrestrial origin. However, unsolved mysteries persist, such as the astronomical lore of the Dogon and the Nazca lines. He is impressed by research demonstrating that ancient 'gold airplanes' from Colombia are models of sophisticated aircraft. Based on intuition, Morozov admits that extraterrestrial guests might have impacted terrestrial cultures, but this impact was limited and research-oriented, not benevolent enlightenment. He does not believe in 'space gurus' who guided humanity and then disappeared.

THE BIMINI ENIGMA

Author: Talbot Shaw Lindström

This article details the investigation into underwater formations off the coast of the Bahamas, particularly the 'Bimini Roadway' and 'Proctor's Roadway'.

Discovery and Initial Investigations

In 1968, Florida newspapers reported pilots (Trig Adams and Robert Brush) observing underwater wall-like formations off the western Bahamas. A Canadian marine archaeological team was also reportedly surveying man-made looking subsurface features in Cuban waters. In Summer 1971, the author met Trig Adams to discuss his sightings off North Bimini. Following this, the author joined Dr. John A. Gifford, a marine geologist and archaeologist from the University of Miami, in November 1971 for follow-up work on the marine geological survey of the formation off North Bimini. This formation, popularly known as the Bimini Roadway, was described as an elongated 'J' shape. It had been previously photographed by the U.S. Army in the 1940s.

The Bimini Roadway Controversy

Dr. Manson Valentine and Dimitri Rebikoff asserted the Bimini Roadway was man-made due to its rectangular blocks. However, cores taken by Dr. John Gifford indicated it was more likely a natural phenomenon. Gifford suggested it formed when the beach rock, exposed to tidal waters as part of a prior beach, fractured into rectangular blocks, supported by similar modern beach rock formations on South Bimini. This occurred when sea levels were lower, estimated between 5,000 to 7,000 BC.

Discovery of Proctor's Roadway and Humanoid Figure

Further investigation in 1972, directed by Dr. Gifford and the author, uncovered several underwater groupings of column sections made of fluted marble and a hard, man-made material off the South Point of North Bimini. Preliminary to this, Dr. Steve Proctor conducted a new aerial survey. This survey revealed two straight, parallel lines of large stones or boulders on the seabed north of Paradise Point, running diagonally towards three small rock reefs. Subsequent expeditions confirmed this feature, now named Proctor's Roadway, was approximately three meters wide, with stones/boulders over a meter high and a length of nearly one kilometer. The upright, isolated nature of these stones made a natural explanation difficult.

Between Proctor's Roadway and the curved part of the Bimini Roadway, near the Crossing Rocks off Paradise Point, another feature was discovered: an amorphous humanoid figure. It had a heart-shaped stone head, a three-round stone 'necklace', and a body with arms and legs made of rectangular stones. The figure was four to five meters long and about two meters wide at the shoulders. Its vertical axis appeared parallel to Proctor's Roadway and at the same angle east of Magnetic North.

This underwater survey work was carried out by SEAS (Scientific Exploration and Archeology Society, Inc.) under the author's direction from 1971 to 1997.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue highlights a critical approach to claims of extraterrestrial visitation in the past. It emphasizes the need for rigorous scientific methodology, distinguishing between genuine anomalies and natural phenomena or misinterpretations. The articles underscore the challenges in paleovisit research, including the lack of clear criteria and the difficulty in separating fact from speculation. There is a clear editorial stance favoring scientific investigation and caution against accepting unsubstantiated claims, while acknowledging that some mysteries remain unresolved. The publication, RIAP Bulletin, appears to be a platform for such research, aiming to bring a more scientific perspective to the study of anomalous phenomena and paleocontacts.