Vestnik UFO - 2009 No 6

Magazine Overview This issue of "Tekhnika - Molodezhi" (Technology for Youth) focuses on the contributions and controversies surrounding two significant figures in Russian science fiction and ufology: Alexander Kazantsev and Felix Zigel.

Alexander Kazantsev: A Pioneer of Russian Science Fiction The article details the life and literary career of Alexander Kazantsev, a writer whose early works were instrumental in shaping the "close-range" and "anti-imperialist" trends in Soviet science fiction. Kazantsev, a military engineer during World War II, began writing after experiencing the horrors of war and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which he linked to the mysterious Tunguska event. His early novels, such as "Arctic Bridge" and "Northern," were praised for their adherence to the party line and their reflection of contemporary ideological stances. However, by the 1960s, his style was perceived as archaic compared to newer authors like Ivan Yefremov. Kazantsev maintained a conservative position throughout his life, often critiquing other authors based on their alignment with party ideology. He returned to active writing in the 1970s, producing novels like "Stronger than Time" and "Faets," which, while stylistically dated, remained ideologically sound. He also became a prominent figure in the "Young Guard" school of science fiction. Kazantsev's later works explored historical fiction themes, and he published an autobiography, "Punctured Memories," in 1981. He passed away in 2002.

Felix Zigel: The Father of Russian Ufology The issue also features a biographical sketch of Felix Zigel (1920-1988), a professor, astronomer, and ufologist often called the 'Father of Russian ufology.' Zigel's interest in ufology began after encountering a book by American astrophysicist Donald Menzel, who dismissed UFO sightings. Zigel, however, became convinced of the reality of UFOs and established the first Soviet section for UFO research in 1967. He faced significant opposition from the scientific establishment and party authorities, with his research often labeled as pseudoscience. Despite attempts to suppress his work, including the confiscation of his manuscript "Inhabited Cosmos," Zigel continued to lecture and publish, gaining a devoted following. The article highlights his academic career at MAI (Moscow Aviation Institute), where he taught mathematics and cosmonautics, and how he integrated ufological discussions into his lectures. Zigel's efforts to promote ufology were often met with censorship and criticism, as exemplified by a harsh article in "Pravda" in 1968 that dismissed UFO reports. His work was also characterized by a rivalry with other ufologists, notably Vladimir Georgievich Azhazha, who recounts his difficult relationship with Zigel.

Kazantsev's Theory of Parallel Worlds and UFOs An interview with Alexander Kazantsev presents his hypothesis about the origin of UFOs, which he bases on the concept of three parallel three-dimensional worlds with differing time flows. He suggests that time in these worlds flows differently, and that the "shadows" or landing sites of flying saucers exhibit temporal anomalies, with time lagging by two seconds per day. Kazantsev posits the existence of a "pramir" (an ancient, less developed world) and a "neomir" (a highly advanced world). He believes beings from these worlds possess the ability to penetrate other dimensions and appear in our world, explaining phenomena like sightings of snowmen or yetis. He also links this theory to the Tunguska event and the landing site near Serpukhov, where unusual force fields and a lack of microorganisms were observed.

The Struggle for Ufology in the USSR The articles detail the challenges faced by ufologists in the Soviet Union. Felix Zigel's attempts to organize research and disseminate information were frequently hampered by censorship and political pressure. His committee for studying UFOs was disbanded after a critical article in "Pravda." The issue also touches upon the personal and professional conflicts Zigel experienced, including a bitter dispute with Vladimir Georgievich Azhazha, who accuses Zigel of monopolizing the field and engaging in personal attacks. The article by Azhazha, in particular, serves as a testament to the difficult and often contentious environment in which ufological research was conducted in the USSR.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The issue highlights the intersection of science fiction, scientific inquiry, and ideological control in the Soviet Union. It showcases the pioneering spirit of writers like Kazantsev and researchers like Zigel, who pushed the boundaries of knowledge despite significant societal and political obstacles. The articles implicitly critique the suppression of scientific curiosity and the imposition of ideological conformity on intellectual pursuits. The overall stance appears to be one of appreciation for those who dared to explore unconventional ideas, even in the face of adversity.

This document is an excerpt from a book titled "UFO Phenomenon - Preliminary Results and Proposals" by F. Yu. Siegel. It presents an analysis of UFO observations and proposes a framework for future research.

Reality of the UFO Phenomenon Siegel asserts that the persistence of UFO forms, such as crescent-shaped objects and discs, is evidence of the phenomenon's reality. He argues against dismissing UFO reports as mere deception or mass hallucination, citing his consultations with psychiatrists and the fact that many witnesses are responsible professionals like scientists, pilots, and engineers. He states that the UFO observations presented in Soviet collections are from mentally and morally sound individuals.

Critique of Existing Hypotheses The author dismisses the "optical" hypothesis, finding that optical models do not adequately explain the reported UFO sightings. He notes that crescent-shaped UFOs have been observed for decades and cannot be identified with existing aerospace technology. While some specialists suggest that crescent shapes might be glowing atmospheric plasma from rocket engines, Siegel points out that approximately 30% of reports describe the crescent moving with its pointed ends forward, which contradicts this explanation. He also notes that some "crescents" hover, which is impossible for rockets moving on ballistic trajectories. Furthermore, "crescents" exhibit fantastic maneuverability and can transform into "cigars," sometimes attacking aircraft. Mysterious "stars" are also reported to launch from or fly near the crescents.

Gupil's Apparatus and Discoplans Siegel finds that no specialists in aviation or space technology can explain crescent-shaped UFOs. He suggests that Gupil's hypothetical cigar-shaped apparatus, which uses unknown propulsion principles and generates plasma effects, might be a suitable model. He believes Gupil's model is promising and warrants further theoretical and laboratory development.

Similarly, Siegel notes the resemblance between disc-shaped UFOs and projected discoplans, which feature vertical takeoff, hovering, and high maneuverability. He references a monograph by V.P. Burdakov and Yu.I. Danilov, "Physical Problems of Cosmic Propulsion," which discusses Soviet and foreign discoplan projects, highlighting their utility for planetary exploration. He acknowledges that while discoplans might explain some UFO sightings, the historical prevalence of disc-shaped UFOs suggests they are not solely terrestrial aircraft.

One specialist suggested that about 70% of UFO observations could be explained by models of advanced aerospace engines, particularly ion engines. However, Siegel's twenty years of studying UFOs lead him to believe that only the hypothesis of UFOs as extraterrestrial, possibly automated or piloted, spacecraft can adequately explain most observations. He emphasizes that the similarity between UFOs and advanced (though not yet flying) terrestrial aircraft and their engines cannot be coincidental.

Proposed Research Methodology Siegel proposes a structured approach to UFO research:

1. Selection and Classification of Verified Reports: This involves distinguishing between mere "reports" from "observations," filtering out misidentifications (like Venus or satellites) and potential hoaxes or psychological issues. Reports that cannot be trivially explained are then classified by UFO type (discs, cigars, crescents, etc.). He notes that this classification is necessarily conditional, as an object can appear differently from various angles.
2. Analysis of UFO Observations: This stage involves constructing theoretical models for the phenomenon and comparing them with observations. The goal is to achieve the greatest possible explanation of facts, acknowledging that discrepancies may arise from imperfect observations or incomplete scientific knowledge. He suggests starting with less exotic models and aiming to explain UFOs as known natural phenomena or technological artifacts (referred to as "Known Flying Objects" or ILOs).
3. Modeling UFOs: Siegel suggests that some UFO types can be modeled in laboratory conditions, such as testing Gupil's apparatus in an aerodynamic tube to observe plasma effects or experimenting with discoplan models. He believes laboratory modeling of many plasma phenomena related to UFOs is possible.
4. Building a Theory of UFOs: Experimental data can form the basis of a UFO theory. Siegel suggests that theories involving advanced, not yet realized, aerospace technology might be most effective. He references the work of physicist I.L. Gorlov, suggesting the possibility of non-reactive propulsion methods drawing energy from the physical vacuum.

Principles of Objectivity and International Cooperation Siegel stresses the importance of objectivity and impartiality in UFO research, urging that no hypothesis should be rejected prematurely. He advocates for using all available human intellect to solve the complex mysteries of UFOs.

He envisions the problem of UFOs as having both a "submerged" (secret) and a "surface" (open) part, akin to an iceberg. Secrecy is inevitable due to military involvement and the sensitive nature of advanced aerospace technology development. However, he believes a small, "surface" part of the problem should be open to the public.

Siegel warns against sensationalism, which he believes harms serious research and is exploited by charlatans. He suggests that open UFO organizations should consist of serious individuals capable of conducting scientific work without undue hype. He proposes that such groups be established within institutes whose profiles align with UFO research questions. He does not believe UFO research is suitable for mass youth organizations like Pioneer Palaces.

He advocates for a state-level approach to UFO research, given its global nature. He notes the existence of national UFO research centers in the US, Italy, and Japan and suggests that Soviet researchers should cooperate with them. He mentions projects for an International Scientific Research Institute for UFOs. He believes that if UFOs are indeed extraterrestrial spacecraft, this would revolutionize our understanding of space and extraterrestrial civilizations and pose three fundamental questions:

1. What is the purpose of UFOs observing Earth's civilization for centuries?
2. Do UFOs influence Earth's events and human lives?
3. How can contact be established with UFO "pilots" or their senders?

Siegel dismisses objections to these questions as mere prejudice and a desire to suppress the problem, asserting that the UFO phenomenon will undoubtedly be solved.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The document consistently advocates for a scientific, objective, and systematic approach to UFO research. It emphasizes the reality of the phenomenon and challenges dismissive attitudes. The author promotes the extraterrestrial hypothesis as the most plausible explanation for many observations, while also remaining open to other possibilities and stressing the need for rigorous investigation. There is a strong call for international cooperation and a state-sponsored approach to research, underscoring the global significance and complexity of the UFO phenomenon. The editorial stance is one of open-minded scientific inquiry, seeking to demystify the phenomenon through evidence-based analysis and theoretical development.