Ufology News - No 27 - February March 2016

Magazine Overview

Title: НОВОСТИ УФОЛОГИИ (Ufology News)
Issue: #27
Date: February – March 2016
Publisher: Edited by Kalytyuk Igor and Chvartkovsky Andrey
Content Focus: This issue of "Ufology News" delves into UFO-related investigations, government secrecy, and historical aviation incidents, with a particular focus on German declassified documents and the controversial crash of Yuri Gagarin.

Interview with Robert Fleischer

The magazine features an interview with Robert Fleischer, a German journalist, film director, and television presenter from Leipzig. Fleischer, who worked for ZDF, Spiegel TV, and MDR, received declassified documents from the German Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst) concerning UFOs from the years 1982-1986 in 2014. He highlights that, unlike many other countries, official German government institutions treat the UFO topic as a taboo. When asked about the status of UFO document declassification in Germany, Fleischer states that if one asks the Minister of Internal Affairs, there is no federal agency tasked with UFO reports. Similarly, the German military (Bundeswehr) claims to have never seen anything unusual on radar screens. The government spokesperson asserts that the UFO topic is not even on the periphery of their concerns, despite over 20 countries having declassified their files. However, Fleischer managed to obtain some materials from the state archives of the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag). One document from the Bundestag's scientific research service examined why certain United Nations resolutions regarding UFO research were never implemented in Germany.

German UFO Research and Declassification

The UN Resolution A/33/426 from 1978 invited all UN member states to conduct large-scale UFO research and report their findings. The German government, however, considered this merely an invitation, not an obligation. The Bundestag document also explored the extent to which German authorities could participate in UFO investigations, concluding that the Federal Government lacked the knowledge for a reliable assessment of extraterrestrial life. The landing of aliens on German territory was deemed outside the competence of the German government. Nevertheless, the Bundestag's research service noted that the German government was involved in unofficial UFO research, suggesting that if the UK and France had dealt with possible UFOs and extraterrestrial life and published their previously secret information online, then German authorities might also have been involved or are still involved.

Frank Reitermayer filed a lawsuit against the Bundestag, seeking the publication of secret UFO research documents. He won the first stage of the legal battle, and the court ordered the Bundestag to publish the previously secret UFO research. In the spring of 2014, it became known that the Bundestag scientists' assumption was correct. From 1982 to 1986, the German intelligence service (Bundesnachrichtendienst) BND conducted a secret investigation into UFOs along the border of West and East Germany, aiming to identify potential spy planes. Their investigation involved collecting and analyzing eyewitness accounts of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). The results were compiled into a 66-page dossier, which was supposed to be fully declassified. However, Fleischer was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement regarding the BND dossier, and only some stories with obvious explanations were to be publicized.

Fleischer notes that, in contrast to many other countries that have dealt with UFOs, there are likely many more UFO files, especially within the Bundeswehr, which continues to deny any information on the subject. When it comes to UFO sightings reported by German police officers, such reports are now to be forwarded to the "National Situation and Command Center for Security in Airspace" (SiLuRa), located at the joint Air Operations Center of NATO in Geilenkirchen, North Rhine-Westphalia. However, a spokesperson for the German Ministry of Defense declined to comment officially.

A German UFO Case Example

Fleischer provides an example of a UFO case in Germany. Due to the silence of the German authorities, few cases with multiple witnesses and radar confirmations are publicly known. He recounts a case from 1952 where Oscar Link, a former mayor, and his 11-year-old daughter witnessed the landing of a "flying ashtray" and saw creatures in a forest in East Germany (GDR). Recently, the CIA released a dossier describing this incident as "unassessed information." However, in a recent interview, the daughter, Gabriella, confirmed the details. The editor notes this case as highly controversial.

Wishes for UFO Researchers in Ukraine

Fleischer congratulates UFO researchers in Ukraine for their dedication despite difficult times in their country. He expresses a strong desire for the professionalism of Ukrainian researchers to become widely known in Western countries, as Germany rarely hears news from former Soviet Union countries regarding UFOs. He notes that the extensive declassified documents available on their website have provided significant insight into their work and hopes for ways to overcome language barriers to exchange more information.

Ufology News Briefs

Protocols of the "Zond" Center Meetings (2015): The protocols of the meetings of the Ukrainian Coordination Scientific Research Center for the Study of Anomalies "Zond" for 2015 are available on the official website. The Center's materials page has also been updated.

GEIPAN Documentation Package (March 2016): This package contains documents from the GEIPAN (Groupe d'études et d'informations sur les phénomènes aérospatiaux non identifiés) of the French Space Agency CNES. Cases that could not be identified, despite high-quality and quantitative data (categories D, D1, D2), are presented. Examples include sightings in Lambersart (June 17, 2012) and Tey-sur-Meulan (January 28, 2014). The reports, including scans, drawings, photographs, and diagrams, are available via links. Other cases are categorized as A, B, and C.

500 Planets in One Picture: Young designer Martin Vargic created an illustration depicting 500 planets and exoplanets outside the Solar System, arranged according to proportion, temperature, atmospheric density, and metal content. This is described as an analog to the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram for stars. While the appearance of most exoplanets is speculative, the information is based on scientific data as of October 2015. A high-resolution image is available for download.

Special Investigations: The Cause of Yuri Gagarin's Death - An Aerial Encounter with an Unknown Object

This section investigates the death of Yuri Gagarin and pilot-instructor Vladimir Seregin on March 27, 1968, during a training flight in a MiG-15UTI jet. The official explanation remains unclear, as the government commission did not reach a consensus or release a definitive conclusion. Over the years, numerous private investigations and theories have emerged, but none have definitively explained the tragedy.

The official report, based on the commission's findings, suggested that the crash was caused by a sharp turn to avoid a balloon-sounding device, leading the aircraft into a stall due to complex meteorological conditions. However, Professor Sergey Belotserkovsky, who was involved in the investigation, expressed that "something extraordinary happened." He questioned the official explanation, stating that "only the last version, however exotic it may seem, provides the only hints of the truth," referring to an encounter with a UFO.

Several factors challenge the official explanation:

1. Engine Performance: According to pilot Alexander Spravtsev, the engine was at approximately 11,000 RPM at the time of impact, which is characteristic of horizontal flight, not a stall. A stall typically involves a reduction in engine RPM.
2. Missing Parts: The anti-flutter device for the right wing and over half of the cockpit canopy were not found at the crash site. This suggests a partial destruction of the aircraft in flight due to some forceful impact.
3. Witness Testimony: Pilot-cosmonaut Pavel Vinogradov stated that the cockpit canopy was broken from the outside before impact, and a wing console was found far from the crash site, indicating it broke off in flight. The blood analysis of the pilots showed normal adrenaline levels, suggesting the event was sudden and instantaneous.
4. Expert Group Findings: A group of test pilots, including Sedov and Ilyushin, concluded that the aircraft's movement could not be explained by any conscious actions of the crew. They suggested that the movement was likely due to a temporary loss of consciousness caused by some external influence on the crew.
5. Cosmonauts' Letter: A letter from cosmonauts A. Nikolaev, P. Popovich, V. Bykovsky, G. Titov, and P. Belyayev to the Central Committee of the CPSU highlighted factors ignored or misinterpreted by the commission, such as the missing canopy parts and the claim that trees destroyed the right side of the fuselage, which was not supported by evidence.

These factors collectively point to a destructive cause preceding the final moments of the flight, which Belotserkovsky alluded to as "except..." and Vladimir Tkachenko more explicitly termed an "encounter with a UFO." It is suggested that Gagarin might have aborted his exercise prematurely to avoid this unusual object, but was still affected by its influence, possibly through an energy emission or plasma sheath, leading to paralyzing effects on the pilots and the crash.

Witness Accounts of a Glowing Object: Several witnesses reported seeing a bright, glowing object in the sky around the time of the crash. A forest ranger saw a plane collide with a large, glowing sphere. Another witness described an orange sphere approaching the plane, which then merged with it and disappeared. A zookeeper described a falling plane that seemed to be descending silently. An engineer-lieutenant colonel confirmed the absence of gas temperature in the engine's reaction pipe and noted that witnesses heard a whistling sound, not the usual engine hum, and saw no smoke from the falling plane. Many local residents reported seeing a bright, glowing ball in the sky before the crash, which some described as resembling a balloon or a second sun.

Official Discreditation of UFO Phenomena: The article details efforts by Soviet authorities and scientific bodies to discredit UFO phenomena. In 1968, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences, led by E. Mustel, attempted to explain UFO sightings as mass psychosis. A critical article in "Pravda" by Mustel, Professor A. Martynov, and V. Leshkovtsev dismissed UFOs as a "myth" and "speculation." This atmosphere of denial likely influenced the government commission's reluctance to acknowledge the possibility of an encounter with an unknown object, opting instead for a more "realistic" explanation like a balloon-sounding device to avoid contradicting the official scientific paradigm.

Historical UFO Encounters with Aircraft: The article cites several historical cases of UFO encounters with aircraft to support the possibility of such an event involving Gagarin's flight:

• May 6, 1949: Test pilot Arkady Apraksin encountered a cigar-shaped object at 15 km altitude, which emitted a bright beam that disabled his aircraft's systems.
• September 1967: A cigar-shaped UFO dived towards an An-24 passenger plane, causing its engines to stop and lights to go out before ascending and disappearing. The plane regained altitude.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently promotes the investigation of UFO phenomena and challenges official narratives that dismiss or conceal information. It highlights the importance of declassified documents and witness testimonies in understanding these events. The editorial stance appears to be one of open inquiry, critical of government secrecy and scientific dogma that prevents the exploration of anomalous phenomena. The article on Gagarin's crash strongly advocates for the UFO encounter theory, presenting it as the most plausible explanation based on available evidence and witness accounts, while criticizing the official commission for its secrecy and lack of thoroughness.

Title: Новости Уфологии (Ufology News)
Issue: №2
Volume: 15
Date: March 2016
Publisher: ООО ИИД «Новости космонавтики»
Country: Russia
Language: Russian
Cover Headline: Странные объекты на фотографиях – блики (Strange objects in photographs – glare)

This issue of 'Novosti Ufologii' presents a dual focus: investigating historical and contemporary unexplained aerial phenomena (UAP) and analyzing photographic evidence of alleged UAP, with a strong emphasis on expert debunking of common optical illusions.

Unexplained Flight Incidents

The issue revisits several notable flight incidents, suggesting possible UAP involvement.

Colonel Kopeikin's Incident (1980)

The article details an incident in 1980 involving Colonel Alexander Kopeikin, who was flying an L-29 aircraft at an altitude of 3000 meters. During a test flight, his aircraft was suddenly and inexplicably thrown into a severe spin. He managed to recover the aircraft just meters above the ground. Intrigued, he attempted to replicate the conditions, but the aircraft again entered a spin, with instruments failing. The author notes the similarity of this event to the circumstances surrounding Gagarin's crash.

The Gagarin Tragedy (March 27, 1968)

A significant portion of the article is dedicated to the fatal flight of Yuri Gagarin and Vladimir Seregin in a UTI MiG-15 near Kirzhach. The author, O.P. Pruss, a test pilot and expert, posits that the crash may have been caused by a tragic encounter with an unknown flying object. This theory is supported by witness testimonies regarding the final moments of the flight. The article references a list of 13 sources, including articles from 'Pravda,' 'Nauka i Zhizn,' and 'Grazhdanskaya Aviatsiya,' as well as books on the subject, suggesting a thorough investigation into the event.

MiG-21 Incident (April 6, 1984)

Another incident described involves a MiG-21 training flight on April 6, 1984. A pilot and instructor received a warning of an unidentified flying object on their radar. Shortly after, the instructor reported a jolt, engine failure, and system malfunctions, leading to the aircraft entering a spin and the crew being forced to eject. The UFO was not visually confirmed.

Photographic Analysis: "Phantoms in Photos" - Glare

The magazine then shifts to a more contemporary investigation of photographic evidence.

Reader Submission: Andrey M.

Andrey M. submitted a photograph to 'Novosti Ufologii' asking for an explanation of "glowing points" on the image. The photos were sent to experts for analysis.

#### Expert Mikhail Gerstein's Analysis

Gerstein suggests that the "glowing points" are likely sun glare, possibly reflections from a bright object off-camera, such as the photographer's equipment or jewelry. He points to the sun's rays being fragmented by tree leaves and the approximate alignment of the bright spots with these fragments. He notes that with image compression, only the brightest parts of the glare are visible.

#### Expert Sergey Efimov's Analysis

Efimov agrees that the points could be sun glare from small, reflective surfaces like parts of a camera, jewelry, or clothing. He suggests asking the photographer if other similar photos exist and if the subject was wearing any reflective jewelry. He also notes that the size of the points is comparable to the overall cluster in the photo.

#### Administrator Andrey Chvartkovsky's Role

Andrey Chvartkovsky, the administrator of 'Novosti Ufologii,' facilitates the process, forwarding materials to experts and requesting further information from the photographers.

#### Expert Sergey Shpakovsky's Opinion

Shpakovsky definitively states, "These are sun glare, I have no doubt about it."

Reader Submission: Daniel M.

Daniel M., an amateur photographer from Moldova, submitted photos taken in Arzamas, Nizhny Novgorod Oblast, on July 25, 2015. He captured unusual greenish lights in the sky, visible only during long-exposure shots with his Nikon D7000. The lights appeared to change shape and emanate from the sky itself, not from a ground-based source like a laser or projector. He provided 12 photos and offered RAW files for further examination.

#### Expert Analysis of Daniel M.'s Photos

Experts Mikhail Gerstein and Sergey Efimov analyzed Daniel M.'s photos. Gerstein identified the phenomena as "typical glare, characteristic of shooting bright light sources (not necessarily at night)." He refers to this as "ghosting" and notes that large light sources can produce large glare effects. He also mentions the possibility of comatic aberration in the lens. He provides links to articles on optical ghosting and camera artifacts.

Sergey Efimov further elaborates, stating that while modern lenses are well-protected against internal reflections, the brightest glare can still break through. He suggests the most probable source in Daniel M.'s photos is a spotlight near a large temple. He points out the symmetry between the light source and the glare relative to the center of the frame, a characteristic of such artifacts. He provides annotated images (Figs. 2 and 3) to illustrate this symmetry.

Sergey Shpakovsky concurs with the assessment that the objects are "glare in the lenses."

Conclusion on Photographic Evidence

In both cases of photographic submissions, the experts unanimously concluded that the "strange objects" were not UAP but rather common optical phenomena, specifically lens flares or sun glare.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently explores the possibility of UAP encounters, particularly in aviation incidents, drawing on historical cases and witness accounts. However, it also maintains a rigorous approach to photographic evidence, employing expert analysis to identify and explain phenomena that are often mistaken for UAP. The editorial stance appears to be one of open inquiry into unexplained phenomena, coupled with a commitment to scientific and logical explanations when available, particularly in the realm of photographic interpretation. The postscript suggests that access to declassified documents might be necessary for definitive answers regarding certain historical events.

This document is a web page from "ufology-news.com" detailing an analysis of a photograph taken in Madonna-di-Campiglio, Italy. The main focus is on a mysterious glowing object captured by photographer Tatiana S. The page presents the photographer's query, the initial assessment by the website's administrator, and the final conclusions from photographic experts.

Photographer's Report

Tatiana S. sent an email to "Novosti Ufologii" (Ufology News) with several photographs, asking for an explanation of a strange, glowing object she had captured. She stated that she took the photos today in Madonna-di-Campiglio, on Grosté Mountain. She noted that the object appeared in different locations within the frame in four consecutive photos, and then again in photos taken later, even after checking that the lens was clean. She expressed concern and asked, "What is this?"

Administrator's Initial Assessment

Andrey Chvartkovsky, the administrator of "Novosti Ufologii," responded to Tatiana S. He acknowledged receipt of the photographs and stated his initial opinion: "My opinion is that the object in the photo is a glare. These often appear when shooting the Sun." He provided a link to an example image (http://ilanocka.livejournal.com/40785.html) and assured her that her materials would be sent to experts for photo analysis, with the final result to be provided in a few days.

Expert Analysis

Three experts provided their analysis of the photographs:

• Sergey Shpakovsky (СШ) stated unequivocally: "Lens flares - glare in the lenses. 100%."

• Sergey Efimov (CE) explained: "A bright object in different parts of the frame, but always symmetrically located relative to the Sun. If the Sun is in one corner, it is in the opposite. This is a characteristic sign of glare in lenses (parasitic reflections)."

• Mikhail Gerstein (МГ) confirmed: "Yes, this is a typical glare. They often spoil the picture when you need to shoot towards the Sun, for example, when trying to capture a halo (see photo)."

Accompanying the expert opinions are two images: Figure 1, labeled "Example of glare. Source photo: ilanocka.livejournal.com," and Figure 2, labeled "Halo and glare." Figure 2 clearly shows a bright sun with a halo and a distinct glare artifact within the frame.

Conclusion

The "Причина" (Cause) section explicitly states: "Блик." (Glare.)

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The editorial stance of "Novosti Ufologii," as demonstrated in this post, is to investigate and explain phenomena reported by the public, utilizing expert analysis. While open to investigating unusual reports, the publication also provides clear, evidence-based explanations when phenomena can be attributed to known optical or natural causes, such as lens flares. The theme of distinguishing between genuine unexplained phenomena and common photographic artifacts is central to this article.