Ufology News - No 28 - May June 2016

Magazine Overview

This issue of "НОВОСТИ УФОЛОГИИ" (Ufology News), dated May-June 2016 (Issue #28), is primarily dedicated to an interview with Milton Urquhart and a review of a scientific collection on anomalous phenomena.

Interview with Milton Urquhart

The magazine features an extensive interview with Milton Urquhart, a journalist from Uruguay who has been active in journalism since 1965 and worked for Voice of America from 1989 to 2007. Urquhart is a specialist in science, technology, and medicine, and has coordinated seminars for the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ). He is the author of four books on UFO phenomena, including "Fenómeno OVNI: Desafío a la Ciencia" (1978), "Elementos de Ovnilogía – Guia para la Investigación" (1989), "OVNIs: La Agenda Secreta" (2006), and "In Search of Real UFOs" (2011).

Urquhart recounts his initial interest in UFOs, sparked by an article in the Brazilian magazine "O Cruzeiro" in late 1957. Finding no one investigating UFOs in Uruguay, he co-founded CIOVI (Center for Research of Unidentified Flying Objects) in 1958, which operated for 50 years across Latin America. In 1982, he was appointed Uruguay's representative for CUFOS by J. Allen Hynek, and in 1983, he joined MUFON as an investigator. He also participated in the UNICAT project and is a member of 'Project 1947'. Urquhart has appeared on numerous television programs and given interviews to various media outlets.

He discusses the status of UFO document declassification in Uruguay, stating that nothing has been declassified, despite the existence of around 1200 reports with only 40 unexplained cases.

Urquhart also details the activities of the Unusual Aerial Phenomena Study Group (UAPSG), an international organization of 31 researchers from 11 countries, which analyzes UAP photos and cases. He mentions their blog at www.uapsg.com.

Regarding interesting UFO cases in Uruguay, Urquhart notes that in 50 years of CIOVI research, only one case from May 5, 1958, remains unexplained: a pilot observed a metallic spinning-top-shaped object. The pilot died before his investigation could be completed.

He introduces the concept of "New Ufology," which prioritizes material evidence over anecdotal accounts and advocates for on-site investigations using advanced technology. Approximately 42 scientists are involved in this approach.

Urquhart reflects on the benefits of studying UFOs, likening it to the question of a newborn's usefulness. He suggests that such study could reveal unknown natural phenomena, expose secret military projects, and potentially lead to interaction with other intelligences, with outcomes ranging from human extinction to a leap forward for humanity.

He advises Ukrainian researchers to improve their English, adhere to scientific principles like Occam's Razor, and avoid accepting eyewitness accounts uncritically, as most sightings can be explained with thorough investigation.

"Zond" Scientific Collection

The magazine announces the availability of a collection of scientific papers titled "Anomalous Phenomena: Methodology and Practice of Research," published by the Ukrainian Scientific Research Center for Anomalies "Zond" to mark its 10th anniversary. The collection, published in 2015, features articles on the current state of research and understanding of anomalous phenomena. The materials are available online, with titles and authors listed, including papers in English, Ukrainian, and Russian.

Notable articles include "Foreword. Anomalies and the Inevitability of Humanity's Cosmic Future" (Bilyk A.S., Kirichenko A.G.), "The Future of Ufology" (Ballester-Olmos V.-H.), and "Investigation of Anomalous Phenomena: From Concept to Experiment" (Kirichenko A.G.). Other topics cover UFO history in the USSR and Ukraine, radar detection methods for anomalous objects, the potential cause of Yuri Gagarin's death, methods for measuring anomalous factors, and the design of mobile research modules.

Correspondence and Expert Analysis

The magazine includes a section on incoming correspondence and expert analysis of reported sightings.

Case 1: Gatchina Object

On April 19, 2016, "Ufology News" received an email from Yulia N. from Gatchina, Leningrad Oblast, Russia, describing a silent, flying object she photographed while aiming for the constellation Orion. The object appeared as a "red fiery ball." Administrator Andrey Chvartkovsky requested additional photos, and expert Mikhail Gershtein analyzed the images. While the EXIF data indicated the time was 19:52, not 19:30, Gershtein noted the poor quality of the image. He concluded that the object was likely a Chinese lantern, a conclusion later confirmed by the eyewitness's additional photos and the submission of an eyewitness questionnaire.

Case 2: "Spheres" in Perm Krai

On June 1, 2016, a reader named Alexander K. sent photos taken in Perm Krai, Russia, showing what appeared to be "spheres" moving upwards. Expert Mikhail Gershtein initially suggested they might be raindrops, and Sergey Shpakovsky agreed, identifying them as a common phenomenon. The explanation provided was that the "tail" effect was an optical illusion caused by the camera's flash interacting with falling raindrops or dust particles.

Case 3: Pulsating Object near St. Petersburg

On June 1, 2016, Marina G. reported observing a pulsating, star-like object with an unusual blue glow from her loggia near St. Petersburg. She managed to record a video of the object. Administrator Andrey Chvartkovsky requested more information, including a completed questionnaire and camera details. The eyewitness provided a link to the video and filled out the questionnaire. The camera used was a Nikon COOLPIX S3300. The materials were forwarded to experts for analysis.

Global Archive of UFO Identification and UAP Research

The magazine provides an update on the global archive of UFO identification and UAP research, noting its expansion with an additional 15.2 GB of data across 36 countries. Developers are listed as I.M. Kalytuk and M.B. Gershtein. Interested parties can contact them via the feedback form for material exchange or access to the archive, with the possibility of receiving updates.

Detailed statistics are provided for the number of files related to various countries in Eurasia, South America, North America, Australia, and Oceania. Notably, files for Africa are absent, and there are entries for "countries that no longer exist" (e.g., CCCP) and "International" entries.

A subsequent section details "Supplement No. 9" for the global archive, adding 5.4 GB of data across 17 countries, with the same developers and contact method. A breakdown of file distribution by region is again provided.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently focuses on UFO and UAP phenomena, presenting both investigative journalism and scientific analysis. The editorial stance appears to favor rigorous investigation and a scientific approach, as exemplified by the "New Ufology" concept and the expert analyses that often identify mundane explanations for sightings. There is a clear emphasis on collecting and analyzing data, as well as engaging with eyewitnesses and researchers globally. The publication also highlights the importance of international collaboration in UFO research, as evidenced by the global archive and the international nature of the UAPSG.

This issue of UFO-Informant, Volume 1, Issue 1, dated June 2016, focuses on an exchange between expert Sergey Efimov (CE) and an eyewitness identified as M.G., with correspondence from A.Ch. The primary content revolves around M.G.'s sighting of an unusual aerial object and expert analysis of the provided information and video evidence.

Expert Questions to the Eyewitness (Sergey Efimov)

Expert Sergey Efimov (CE) poses several questions to the eyewitness:

1. Object Color: Why did the object appear unusual in color? CE notes that bright stars are typically white-blue and asks if the object was a different color, like green or red.
2. Documentation: CE requests sketches and photos of the object's movement, contours of houses, and landmarks, including compass bearings and star positions. He also suggests taking daytime photos of the same scene.
3. Timing: CE inquires about when the second object appeared and how long it was visible.
4. Previous Sightings: CE asks if the object was the same 'jellyfish' UFO previously reported in Petrozavodsk or a different one.
5. Corroboration: CE asks if other witnesses reported seeing the same object and requests links if available.
6. Future Observation: CE asks M.G. to observe the same direction on a clear night around 1 AM to report any similar phenomena.

Expert's Initial Assessment (Sergey Shpakovsky)

Expert Sergey Shpakovsky (СШ) provides a brief assessment, stating that he could not discern anything from the provided video on his computer monitor, even with adjusted brightness. He concludes that there is too little information for a concrete conclusion.

Eyewitness Response (M.G.)

Eyewitness M.G. responds to the questions:

1. Color: M.G. states the color was perceived as bluish, which is why it caught their attention.
2. Documentation: M.G. confirms sending drawings and photos separately. They do not have a compass and cannot describe constellations but recall a star in the observation sector.
3. Second Object: M.G. reports that the second object flew by 3-5 minutes after the first. They believe the second object might have been a regular airplane, as it flew along a known flight path. However, unlike typical airplanes that blink at night, this object glowed like a light bulb and did not blink. It flew at airplane speed. M.G. notes that they had previously mistaken similar glowing objects for Chinese lanterns.
4. Previous Sighting in Petrozavodsk: M.G. describes a different object seen in Petrozavodsk while traveling to St. Petersburg in August. They saw a 'flying star' that stopped, enlarged, and developed neon rings. This sighting frightened M.G. due to fears of atomic bombs at the time. Later, they read about UFOs in Petrozavodsk in a newspaper, which sparked their interest in the topic.
5. Internet Discussion: M.G. states they have not discussed this online but had asked for the contact of the Organization of ufologists in St. Petersburg, which led them to Andrey (presumably A.Ch.). They note that many people suggested consulting a psychiatrist, which they consider a typical reaction from those with conventional thinking.
6. Local Sightings: M.G. mentions a friend told them that people in their area frequently see strange hovering objects. M.G.'s district is noted as the former Komendantsky Aerodrome.

Further Correspondence and Analysis

Eyewitness M.G. (continued):

7. Current Observation: M.G. reports not seeing any objects currently. They recall seeing something strange from their loggia 1-13 years ago, before owning a camera. A neighbor also witnessed it but later passed away. The next day at work, colleagues reported seeing something similar near Belooostrov.

M.G. attached files labeled №1, №2, №3, №4.

A.Ch. (Correspondent):

A.Ch. thanks M.G. for the answers and states that the information will be forwarded to experts.

Expert Sergey Efimov (CE) - Analysis of Second Object:

CE strongly believes the second object observed was the International Space Station (MKS). He states it flew along the southern horizon from west to east on May 31st between 1:15 and 1:24 AM, reaching an altitude of about 16 degrees at its peak. He provides a link for a reconstruction of its trajectory.

Expert Sergey Efimov (CE) - Analysis of First Object:

CE finds the first UFO sighting unclear. He suggests Mars, which was bright and red at the time, as a possible identification for a bright astronomical object in the south. However, he considers that the observed bluish object might have been lights from a flying toy like a quadcopter or a laser beam reflecting off thin clouds or haze. Without further observations, the object is likely to remain unidentified (UFO = Unidentified Flying Object).

CE analyzes the video, noting a shimmering spot that is not red (like Mars) or blue, but gray. This spot appears consistently in the same frame location, which is unusual for handheld filming. He suspects it is not a real object but a 'glitch' from the camera itself, possibly a 'hot pixel' that appears under low light conditions. Image processing with Registax 6 did not reveal new details, showing a uniform dark background.

A.Ch. (Correspondent) - Follow-up Questions:

A.Ch. sends further questions, noting that M.G. stated a tripod was not used. The consistent appearance of the shimmering spot in the same frame location is puzzling for handheld footage. A.Ch. asks if M.G. used any other means to stabilize the camera. He also requests a short (30-second) video clip of the same location, at the same time of night, with similar camera settings, to check for extraneous effects.

Eyewitness M.G. - Second Video Submission:

M.G. sends a link to a video made between 2:00 AM and 3:00 AM on June 7-8, 2016. M.G. notes that a flickering dot appears in the same place on all videos but is different from the pulsating object in the first video. M.G. had low expectations for the video's quality due to using a basic camera but considers it unique. M.G. expresses a desire to have had more experience and better equipment to capture such an event more thoroughly.

Eyewitness M.G. - Further Thoughts on Object Behavior:

M.G. muses that the object initially hovered, then began to pulsate, and finally moved. They theorize that the pulsation is linked to the object's movement, suggesting it's a form of propulsion. M.G. recalls hearing about NATO exercises in the Baltic region at the time. They believe their civilization does not yet possess such hovering and multi-directional flying objects, though NATO might have secret technology.

M.G. adds that the 'haze' or 'blizzard' visible on the video was not visible to the naked eye, indicating it was captured by the camera in an invisible spectrum. The object mimicked an airplane, making it potentially mistaken for one. After the object passed, the weather in St. Petersburg reportedly worsened significantly with cold, wind, and rain.

Expert Sergey Efimov (CE) - Final Assessment:

CE provides his final opinion:

1. First Object: Insufficient data for reliable identification. Possible explanations include a multicopter, a balloon with an LED, or a laser beam through thin clouds or haze. The video is uninformative, and the object was not clearly captured, likely due to camera sensitivity limitations. The shimmering spot is most likely a 'hot pixel' defect.
2. Second Object: Very likely identified as the MKS (ISS).

Summary of Likely Causes:

• First Object: Possibly a multicopter, a balloon with an LED, or a laser beam through thin clouds or haze.
• Second Object: MKS (ISS).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine appears dedicated to investigating UFO and UAP phenomena, presenting eyewitness accounts, and seeking expert analysis. The editorial stance seems to encourage detailed reporting and scientific scrutiny, as evidenced by the thorough questioning and analysis. There is an acknowledgment of skepticism towards such phenomena, with M.G. noting the common suggestion to consult a psychiatrist, but the publication itself engages with the topic seriously.