Extraterrestrial Research in Ukraine

In mid-December 2021, I received some American friends at my house in Barcelona. We have known each other for years and we are also neighbors of the same urbanization on the island of Menorca, in fact I encouraged them that this place was the ideal place for a good retirement. The reason for his visit to Barcelona was a stopover from New York, Barcelona, Menorca. Before moving to the island, they had already planned to visit me and comment and chat about some of the interests that unite us. Of course our only interest has always been ufological research. After the after-meal conversation where we were downing the last sips of a sweet sherry, one of them asked me

— -Do you still have Aleksei Arkhipov’s research in your files?
I was a little perplexed because it had been a long time since I had heard from the founder of one of the most serious and objective entities in UFO research in Ukraine UKUFAS (Ukrainian Ufological Association).

I replied that maybe I had something in the files. That they specify more about what they wanted to know about Aleksei Arkhipov and that anyway that would be from a period in the 70s or 80s. In those years I maintained very close contacts with different ufologists from different parts of northern Europe who in turn also belonged to UFO-SVERIGE and among them several of Russian and Ukrainian origin. And I remember the kindness of Juan Manzanares who from Sweden translated his research from Russian to Spanish for me.
But going back to my North American friend’s question, he did not leave me indifferent, in the three of them, in their faces, I noticed a certain complicity.

The three also noticed that I sensed that something else was hidden behind that question and that I was playing a strange game to try to find out the final origin and meaning of the interest in those reports by Aleksei Arkhipov.
I have to admit that my answer also caused them an even bigger question mark.

— -Does this have something to do with Red Blackbird?.

Red Blackbird — Documentary by J.J. Benítez (2004)

— -No, but if you have something from those years and you could provide it to us, it would be of great help.

— -Are you working on something… about the Moon again?

— -We have never stopped working on the Moon.

— -Well, the Chinese are also very interested lately in our satellite. What’s new that you could tell me?

— -Well… if we started I think we would miss our flight to Menorca….

— -But since you have opened the melon… if you can pass me something I would be grateful.

— -We’ll see… when we’re in Menorca we’ll talk about all this. In the meantime try to locate the archives and this summer to see if you can give us some data on those years to link them to our investigations.

— -Does it have something to do with “Cota 611”?

Another question that they did not expect from me and they realized that I was decomposing part of the puzzle that they had outlined beforehand.

— -No, not at all, that’s another matter. It doesn’t have any relationship.

— -Well, it’s a shame we don’t have more time to discuss all this. I suspect that maybe it could be related. Aleksei Arkhipov was in those years very interested in research on life and materials of extraterrestrial origin observed on the moon. “Red Mirlo” J.J. Benitez gives (not all) top secret information that affirms that there were already alien constructions on the Moon long before man stepped on the Moon for the first time. Subsequently, a discrediting campaign is looming against him so that this does not prosper. We recently learned that NASA hid flights to the moon and that attempts were also made to discredit Héctor Rojas, who, according to his investigations, traveled to the moon twice on secret flights for more than three years. The event of “Cota 611” in Dalnegorsk an extraterrestrial ship crashes before the eyes of hundreds of Russian citizens of that region and hundreds of samples are collected at the impact site that coincidentally have the same composition that the Chinese find in the face hidden from the Moon in some strange formations. And that is without counting on the claims of the Slovakian ufologist Martin Mikuas who was able to photograph and record this structure and who claims that the specialists of the American space agency NASA saw this anomaly a long time ago.

— -We are sorry that we do not have more time or we will miss the flight to Menorca, but we will resume this interesting conversation.

My three American friends said goodbye to me with great affection and we promised to resume our conversation. They sensed that I had important archive material of great interest to them. I find it curious how Ufology in the United States in recent years has entered into a process of trying to cooperate with other Ufologists from different parts of the world. I have to say in favor of my three friends who visit me that they are honest people and that they are far from this wave of sensationalist Ufologists, they and I think part of me too, are not making Ufology our way of subsistence. We do not publish books with sweet covers for the unwary. We don’t attend the gatherings that have proliferated on YouTube lately, with long talks whose only purpose is to increase the ego of each speaker “to see who has it bigger” In all this new batch of new “investigators” (to call it in some form) I have noticed a tremendous lack of UFO culture. Of these three friends and neighbors of summer residence, I am united by the friendship of many years of exchanging opinions, of many letters written and from the years in which there was a joint Military Base in Seville. In the early hours of May 12, 1970, a ship of extraterrestrial origin landed near the Morón de la Frontera Base. I was 20 years old at the time and I was accompanying my uncle, a great researcher. The notice of the event was provided to us by a commander of the Civil Guard. The North Americans at the Moron Base wanted a Spanish civilian who knew the area and who would interact with the witnesses. The purpose was to gain trust to obtain more information about what happened I in turn discovered these three Americans with different ranks at the base and from then until today we have maintained close friendship contact. I suppose that they, in turn, also have their contacts and although I sense it, they cannot provide me with all the information they would like to provide, but they trust me and although they say they are all three retired, I know from more than my deductions that they are pretty into the subject. Their wives live all year in Menorca. The three of them, the ones who from time to time travel to the United States for their affairs that I don’t know about.

Here is some more or less extensive data on the question that I was asked.

Whenever I have to resolve doubts about cases related to Ukraine or Russia, I turn to my friendship with Mercedes Pullman, she has a degree in Social and Cultural Anthropology from UNED (Spain) and a well of knowledge and sympathy.

I asked him if he had data on “Red Sun”. I was sure that if so, it would lead me indirectly to the Ukrainian astronomer and mathematician Aleksei Arkhipov. I got in touch with Mercedes on Messenger.

30 January 2022 17:29

— -Greetings Mercedes I would like to know if you have information about this event and if so where I can get it. Thank you very much and all the best for this year 2022. THE ALIEN SUN PHENOMENON
In the autumn of 1971, two military men came to the Department of Experimental Atmospheric Physics of the Leningrad Hydrometeorological Institute and asked for advice on an unusual phenomenon that they recorded…

31 January 2022 9:38

— -Good morning, José Antonio. I have not found much material on this phenomenon. The same information is repeated on the web. This is the link: https://www.pravda.ru/mysterious/33919-ufologia/
You already know with the right button you give to translate and you can read it.
There are many things about Lake Ladoga, I attach another link https://www.nboroda.com/...
cachurin book
Kachurin LG Physical bases of influence on atmospheric processes.
The book is devoted to the physical foundations of impact on atmospheric processes. The introductory chapters deal with the theory of phase transitions to the extent necessary in the main chapters that follow. A model of vertical movements in natural and artificially created clouds has been built, the possibilities of stimulating convection are being studied, as well as cleaning local air pools of impurities. The principles of influence on electrical processes in the atmosphere and on hurricanes are considered. A large place in the book is occupied by process control problems in clouds and fogs. Methods for causing precipitation, combating hail, scattered clouds, and fog are discussed. The final chapter is dedicated to climate change.

31 January 2022 21:00

— -Thank you very much for the material you provide me, I will try to squeeze it as soon as possible and I reiterate a thousand thanks!

31 January 2022 21:08

— -You’re welcome, sweetheart. Glad to help.

Solving the Question

Do you still have Aleksei Arkhipov’s research in your files?

Why do three ex-military men interested in Ufology want to obtain information from a radio astronomer?

Alexey V. Arkhipov was born in Kharkov (Eastern Ukraine) in 1959.
Founder of UKUFAS (Ukrainian Ufological Association) today known as the primary Ukrainian specialist in cosmic anomalies. A researcher at the Radioastronomy division at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Arkhipov authored over one hundred articles on the subject of radio transmission in space. He has been active in the international ufological community since 1987, and defended a dissertation on the potential habitability of the moon in 1998. The study of intelligent non-human life in space was intermittently encouraged, censored and classified by the Soviet state.

His education includes an M.S. in astronomy (Kharkov State University 1981) and a Ph.D. in astrophysics and radio astronomy (Main Astronomical Observatory of Nat. Acad. Sci. of Ukraine, Kyiv, 1998). His Dissertation was titled “New approaches to the problem of search for extra-terrestrial intelligence”.
Alexy’s professional experience includes the following SETI-related positions:
1980–84 Engineer, Scientific Researcher, Institute of Radiophysics and Radiophysics and Electronics, Acad. Sci. Ukrainian SSR.
1984- Scientific Researcher, Institute of Radio Astronomy, Nat. Acad. Sci. of Ukraine.
In addition to SETI, his area of specialization includes studying the Decametric radio emissions of Jupiter.
Alexey is a member of the Society for Planetary Research (SPSR), and of the SETI Center, Moscow, Russia. Here are abstracts of two of his current research activities:
Project SAAM (Search for Alien Artifacts on the Moon) was developed by the author in 1992. The justifications of Lunar SETI, the wording of specific principles of lunar archaeology and the search for promising areas on the Moon were the first stage of the project (1992–95). Already obtained results of lunar exploration show that the search for alien artifacts on the Moon is a promising SETI-strategy especially in context of the lunar colonization plans.
The purpose of the second SAAM stage is the search for promising objects on the Moon for archaeological reconnaissance in the future. Computer algorithms are proposed and realised for automatic search for unusual formations on Clementine’s HIRES images. This survey is in progress.
The author has shown that finds of extraterrestrial artifacts are possible on the Earth, even if visits of extraterrestrials to the Earth were not realised. Even without interstellar flights, the spontaneous leakage of interplanetary debris into the interstellar medium is inevitable (by e.g. gravitational interaction with the planets). That is why I am collecting information about promising finds in prehuman layers and among pseudo meteorites.

Science papers:
Source: The Strolling Astronomer, Journal of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers, Volume 39, Number 3, pp. 135–138, February 1997.

Fast Moving Lunar Phenomena
By: Alexey V. Arkhipov, Institute of Radio Astronomy, Kharkov
Abstract
From time to time reports have appeared in the literature describing fast-moving objects (FMOs) moving across or near the lunar surface. Typically, these take the form of either light or dark spots, with apparent velocities of 0.001–0.1 deg./sec. and a duration under one minute. We have evaluated the hypothesis that such phenomena are of terrestrial origin and only appear projected against the Moon by chance. Statistical analysis, however, reveals a significant excess of sightings in the Mare Imbrium area relative to the Mare Nectaris-Foecinditatis area. These unexpected results, as well as the trajectory angle of some of these objects, imply that FMOs may be of lunar origin. Clearly, further systematic patrols are warranted.

Introduction
This article addresses the phenomenon of sporadic, fast-moving objects (FMOs) which reportedly appear and disappear across and near the lunar disc. Observations of birds, insects, terrestrial meteors, and so forth that occasionally pass across the line of sight have naturally been excluded from this analysis. FMOs have been reported by a number of prominent observers, including Schroeter (1791), Schafarik (1885), Haas (1947) and Firsoff (1960). They have been listed in the NASA Lunar Transient Phenomena Catalogue (Cameron 1978).
Scharfarik (1885) emphasized the difference between terrestrial meteors and the star-like FMOs in the following report:
“In class I, I should place an object of so peculiar a character that I do not know what to make of it. 1874, April 24, at about 3 1/2 h.p.m. I observed the moon (illuminated nearly 3/4 in bright sunshine, with power 66, field 34', of a fine 4-inch achromatic by Dancer, when I was surprised by the apparition, on the disc of the moon, of a dazzling white star, which traveled slowly from E.S.E. to W.N.N., and after leaving he bright disc, shone on the deep blue sky like Sirius or Vega in daylight and fine air. The star was quite sharp and without a perceptible diameter… It was absolutely sharp, and its flight so slow (about 5 s.) that even a trace of indistinctness would have been perceptible.”
Haas (1947) argued that fast-moving lunar objects exhibited properties statistically different from those of terrestrial meteors, particularly with respect to their short path lengths and small angular dimensions. In the 1940’s, he thought that meteors could actually be observed in the lunar atmosphere, although it is now clear that such an atmosphere is far too rarefied for this to occur. It is primarily for that reason that most modern observers a priori favor a terrestrial explanation for FMOs. This postulate can be usefully tested, however.

FMO Categories
Although the author has collected reports of fast-moving objects on the Moon for many years, including observations recorded in the literature as well as direct correspondence with individual observers, to date only 114 cases have been compiled. Reports of FMOs are indeed rare and comprise only about 5 percent of current reported lunar Lunar Transient Phenomena (LTP). From an analysis of the available LTP reports, Arkhipov (1994a) recognized three types of moving objects:
(a) Permanent lunar spots exhibiting very slow movement due to libration and periodic illumination effects.
(b) Cloud-like objects, lasting several minutes to three hours, with angular velocities of 0.0000001–0.001 deg./sec., and possibly the result of charged dust particles rising in electric fields on the lunar surface.

(c)Fast-moving objects, lasting<1 min. and moving between 0.001–1 deg./sec.
Only the latter category constitutes a sample large enough to warrant statistical evaluation. Accordingly, only FMOs whose duration and location on the lunar surface have been reported were selected for the analysis (see Table 1, p. 136). In Table 1: Xi=cos (latitude[i]) x sin (longitude[i]); Yi= sin (latitude [i]); the rectangular coordinates of the starting (i = 1) or the terminal (i = 2) points of the FMO trajectories; n = the number of objects or clusters of objects; t = duration of the event; * = personal communication with the observer (from the author’s files, unpublished).

Note: The author has not seen FMOs personally. The reference ‘Arkhipov 1994b’ is a catalog of FMO events which were reported by various observers.

Table 1: FMO Distribution on the Moon
Since only 66 usable data points were available from our list, a contour-smoothing technique had to be utilized to demonstrate FMO distribution patterns across the lunar surface. The number (k) of points inside a circle with a circle of 0.3 lunar radii was calculated. This procedure was applied by scanning the entire lunar disc with this circle. For every position of the circle center, the ratio (f) of k and its average value were calculated. The resulting map of the f parameter is shown in Figure 1 (p.137).
The only statistically significant feature on the map is the excess of points in the Mare Imbrium region (A) relative to the Mare Nectaris-Mare Foecunditatis region (B). Indeed, 19 data points fall inside the f=1.5 contour of Region A. The area within this contour constitutes 0.131 of the entire visible lunar disk. The probability that >19 points would fall within this contour by chance on the basis of the binominal distribution is found as follows:

where M=19 and N=66. This gives a probability of 0.0006. With respect to Region B only one data point falls within the f<0.5 radius, yeilding a probability of <1 point inside this area, comprising 0.148 of the visible surface, of WB=0.0003. Obviously these calculated probabilities are sufficiently low to contradict the expected uniform distribution of FMO events should they be of terrestrial origin.
The apparent correlation of FMO events with certain lunar regions for what are presumably random events is certainly unusual, however, possible selection effects must also be considered.
First, it is possible that the probability of observing lunar meteors is affected by the albedo of the lunar background. The ratio of the visual albedo of the brightest crater Aristarchus to the darkest Grimaldi, is only 3 or a magnitude difference of 1.19 (Fessenkov, 1962). The cumulative number of meteors brighter than magnitude m is proportional to 10(0.3*m) for -10<m<+10 (Astapovich, 1958). Consequently, the background effect cannot account for the differences in meteor visualization by a factor of 100.3*1.19 or 2.28 times. The average value of the f-parameter is M/Np=2.20 in Region A (where f>1.5). Clearly the lunar background differences cannot account for a 22-fold difference.

Figure 1: Contour map of the relative density (f) of the start & end points of FMO trajectories across the lunar disk, where 1.0 is the mean of f. The selenographic orientation is also indicated.
Second, some regions of the Moon might be observed more frequently due to favorable solar illumination and the restricted field of view of the telescope. However, lighting conditions should be identical for the lunar Southern and Northern hemispheres, yet there is asymetry with respect to the distribution of points; 39 in the north and 25 in the south. The probability of such a difference being due to chance is 0.052 (M=39; N=64; p=0.5), implying at a 95 percent confidence level that the north-south asymetry is real. in addition, most observers whose data were analyzed here, used small telescopes with low magnification, and thereby examined almost the entire lunar disk. Conceivably, the search for LTP in the Plato region could draw an observer’s attention towards Mare Imbrium, resulting in an unintentional bias toward observing that area. However, Aristarchus, the “Mecca” of all LTP hunters (Cameron 1977), is outside region A, suggesting such a bias is in fact unimportant in this context. Collectively, the above indicate that biased selection effects do not explain the reported asymmetry in FMO distribution patterns.
Finally, some FMOs exhibit curved, nonmeteoric trajectories. Let me cite one such original report. On 1995 AUG. 15, using a small refractor, Yaremenko (1983) stated: “A luminous body similar to a 3rd magnitude star flew at about 0.2 lunar radii above the disk, parallel to its edge (limb). The body flew about a third of the circumference (it continued for 4–5 seconds) and [apparently] landed on the lunar surface with a steep trajectory.” his drawing is reproduced in Figure 2. Similar examples of paths are shown in Figure 3–5 (p. 138). Although curved trajectories are very rare events, they must be taken into account.

Figure 2: The circular trajectory of a starlike object near the lunar limb observed by V.V. Yaremenko, in mid-August, 1955 at about 17h00m UT, from Novocherkask, USSR, with a home-made refracter (aperture and magnification not given). Original drawing by the observer.

Figure 3: Trajectory of white line circling the Full Moon for 5–6 s before merging with the lunar surface. This phenomenon was observed in October or November, 1954–55 with the naked eye by V.I. Timkov from Ordjonikidze, USSR. Drawing by observer.

Figure 4. The curious trajectory of a starlike object near the crescent Moon, observed on 1968 Jul by M. Beres from Tusnad-Bai, Rumania (Hobana and Weverbergh, 1976). The object appeared to disappear behind the Moon. (No telescope or other details given.)

Figure 5: The twisted trajectory of a dark object observed by E.V. Arsykhin on 1992 Mar 15, 16h45m UT and lasting about 2.5 s. Observed with a 65-mm Newtonian from Moscow, Russia. Drawing by observer.
Conclusions
Reports about lunar FMOs clearly warrant serious attention. It can be argued that at least some FMOs occupy circumlunar locations, but clearly more data are needed before this can be verified. The author would greatly appreciate receiving reports about any moving phenomena in the vicinity of, or over, the lunar disk. Please contact: Alexey V. Arkhipov, Institute of Radio Astronomy, 4, Krasnoznamennaya St., Kharkov 310002, Ukraine.

The Radio Astronomy Institute building.

Progress in the Search for Extraterrestrial Life

ASP Conference Series, Vol. 74, 1995 G. Seth Shostak (ed.), pp. 259–264.
A Search For Alien Artifacts On The Moon

ABSTRACT
The moon is an attractor of alien artifacts, hence, the search for alien artifacts on the moon (SAAM) is a promising unique project developed by the Research Institute on Anomalous Phenomena (RIAP). SAAM activity and current results are reviewed.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, interest has grown among researchers in the search for traces of extraterrestrial intelligence within the solar system. It has been shown earlier that within the time of existence of our planet, approximately 10 stars capable of having inhabited planets approached the Son to distances within 1.5 pc (Arkhipov, 1994a). Such distances can be covered by space probes even at the present day level of science and technology (Project Daedalus 1978).
These researchers have chiefly concentrated on a search for artifacts which are in orbit, on the Earth, or on asteroids. It seems that this list should also include the moon (Graham 1990, Arkhipov, 1993a).
THE MOON AS AN ATTRACTOR OF ARTIFACTS
As early as the 1950s it was noticed that the moon was of great strategic importance for military and weather forecasting observations of our planet. It is reasonable to expect that intelligent beings that might have explored the solar system were interested in the Earth as a unique planet having a rare oxygen- containing atmosphere, and hence a biosphere. Thus, the natural satellite of the Earth could be used as a convenient site for long term observations of Earth.
Additionally, there is a variety of other substantial arguments for placing equipment for prolonged Earth monitoring on the moon rather than in orbit or on the Earth (Arkhipov 1993b, 1994b):
1. The maximum lifetime of probes is at least doubled because the moon shields the device from meteoroids for 2 steradians.

2. Electronic devices will enjoy more stable performance and for longer times because the moon shields equipment from half of the ionizing radiation.
3. Stabilization of apparatus is simple.
4. The mission is easily camouflaged.
5. Lunar soil can be used for life support and repair of equipment.
6. The unfavorable atmospheric, geological, and biological factors of the
Earth are lacking on the moon.
It should be emphasized that because of these reasons, landing on the moon would be for ET visitors a necessity rather than a convenience. The indisputable advantages of the moon as an intermediate base for interplanetary flights are clearly demonstrated by the rise of interest of the USA and Japanese space agencies in the moon (Burnham 1991). Thus, the moon should be an attractor of alien artifacts too.
THE UNKNOWN MOON
Only about 0.5 percent of the lunar surface has been photographed with a resolution of 1–10 m (Hansen 1970). But even the 1 m resolution photography can prove to be insufficient for an artifact discovery. For example, a photograph taken by Lunar Orbiter 3 shows the Surveyor 1 station on the lunar surface merely as a light-colored boulder (Jaffe and Steinbacher 1970). Modern lunar base projects (Shevchenko and Chikmachey 1989) contemplate placing manned modules under the lunar surface to protect them from radiation and meteorites. It is not improbable that our predecessors did the same billions of years ago. Since that time traces of their constructions could be destroyed by erosion, making objects hard to find. Indeed, the rock layer of 1–2 m must have been broken during one billion years (Horz et al. 1975). However, a few centimeters-thick layer of lunar regolith is redistributed, i.e., “gardened” every 106 years. So, the search for any small artificial imprints in the soil of more than 107 years age is naive. In this manner we can explore only about a fraction of a percent of the age of the lunar crust.
But the main obstacle in the search for artifacts is the principle of Occam’s razor which makes researchers regard a priori an artificial object on the moon as a giant natural formation or as an image defect. A geologist, for instance, will hardly identify a separately standing stone as a menhir even in England, let alone on the moon. It is only a criminalist who can distinguish an artificially exploded crater from a natural one. But the moon is usually studied by geologists, geophysicists, geochemists, and astronomers accustomed to dealing with natural formations. All of this is enough to suggest that the moon is practically untouched in terms of the search for alien artifacts on its surface.

THE SAAM PROJECT
The unique Ukrainian establishment now involved in SETI is the new Research Institute on Anomalous Phenomena (RIAP). An interesting project “Search for Alien Artifacts on the Moon” (SAAM) is being developed here.
The SAAM activity is the following (Arkhipov 1994b):
Methods of search for rare traces of intelligence on the moon;
a. Recommendations for an archaeological reconnaissance of the moon;
b. Analysis of reports concerning lunar transient phenomena (LTP)
c. (Cameron 1978) as part of a search for possible manifestations of
extraterrestrial intelligence;
d. Most probable scenario of interaction between human and non-human
cultures on our satellite.
An LTP network of observers from Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine has been formed for the SAAM project. There is cooperation with the American Lunar Society and ALPO. Of course, LTPs cannot be regarded as evidence of artifacts; rather they are only hints. Nevertheless, a list of possible SETI areas on the moon would be used during some lunar missions of the future. The first complex scientific analysis of this problem has been performed by the author (Arkhipov 1994c).
We cite some interesting, preliminary results below.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASPECT
Recently the evolution of small (1–10 cm) artifacts and optical surfaces on the moon has been considered by the author (Arkhipov 1994d). For the first time, the theory of chaotic motions of small objects by the shocks of weak meteoroids was constructed. The following principles of lunar archaeology could be formulated as a consequence of this theory:
1. Only big (> 1 m) ancient artifacts could be found on the lunar surface.
2. The discovery of small (< 1–10 cm) artifacts is most probable in regolith
layers at depths of 10 m, and in craters especially.
3. The original site of the artifact usually is different from its discovery site.
4. The excavation must be done within a radius of = 1 km (to cover the
dispersal area of non-rolling artifacts at least).
5. The old stand sites localized with high accuracy if the smallest and most
dense artifacts are used.
Lava tubes and strange depressions only 10 years old (Shultz 1991) seem to be promising sites for archaeological reconnaissance.

LUNAR TRANSIENT PHENOMENA
Star-like phenomena of 20–60 minutes duration on the lunar surface appear to be possible manifestations of artifacts on the moon. The reflection of sunlight from a motionless lunar mirror would look like this. But the mirror area must decrease exponentially from 1 km2 to only 1 m2 during ~3 105 years because of the lunar dust cover (Arkhipov 1994d). Nevertheless there are reports (Arkhipov 1993b, 1993c, 1994c)of observations of reflection-like transient points in lunar formations that are too old: Aristarchus, Gassendi, Furnerius, Stevinus, etc. (Cameron 1978), Obviously possible natural mirrors from the active geological past of the moon (> 109 years ago) must be destroyed and covered now (Arkhipov 1993b, 1994c, 1994d). But allow us to note that flat polished surfaces are typical of our own space probes and satellites.
There are many reports (e.g., cases №74, 137, 140, 151, 152, 153, 312; Cameron 1978) of nocturnal points of light on the moon. The long life-time of these point phenomena (from 15 minutes to > 2 hours) and absence of visible variability contradict all traditional explanations of nocturnal LTPs (electrical discharges, luminescence of gas, meteor strikes; Robinson 1986). It is not impossible that some fraction of the nocturnal lights on the moon could be artificial.
Of course, the “presumption of naturality,” a principal component of current SETI programs, is ineffective in a search for camouflaged activity. But the well- known intelligence scheme of provocation for responsive reaction seems quite pertinent. The invasions by Earth vehicles in certain lunar regions stimulate a statistically significant, real, temporary increase in the probability of LTPs there (Arkhipov 1994c, 1994e). The first impact of Luna 2 and its booster on September 13, 1959 was accompanied by simultaneous LTPs (flashes, dust clouds) from at least four distant sites (Fielder 1960). The reports of those LTPs were confirmed. Moreover, a clear “invasion effect” was also noted in Mare Tranquilitatis (1964–1969) and in the crater Gassendi (1966–1967). Observational selection cannot be an adequate explanation of this effect (Arkhipov 1994c, 1994e). That is why the “artificial” interpretation of the “invasion effect” is worth discussion.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on these considerations, it must be concluded that:
1. The moon may be an indicator of alien presence in the solar system and beyond during past 4 10’ years.
2. Although the moon is the best studied celestial body, it evidently has not been studied well enough for bioastronomy.

3. There are some phenomena on the moon which could be possible manifestations of alien artifacts.
4. It must be expected that alien artifacts, if they exist on the moon, are concentrated in the region of the crater Aristarchus (lava tubes, nocturnal lights, possible mirrors etc. ), on the peak of the southern wall of the crater Malapert (the optimal site for alien reconnaissance devices because the Earth can always be seen there and sunlight is accessible about 94% of the time), in the crater Herodotus (possible mirror), in the crater Gassendi (possible mirror, invasion effect), in Mare Tranquilitatis (unusual depressions, invasion effect),etc.
So, the selenological approach seems very promising for SETI. The work is quite contemporary in the context of modern plans for exploration and colonization of the moon.

Many unanswered questions.
The one that intrigues me the most:
Why are ex-US soldiers worried about the files and research of Ufologist and Radioastronomer Aleksei Arkhipov before the year 2022 begins?
Was the United States aware of the Russian invasion of Ukraine months before and was it feared that the Kharkov Radio Astronomer’s documents would be lost?
The answer may have to wait until the end of the summer…

Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP)

It is necessary to insist on a fact of great actuality and of no less scientific interest, related to the Moon. I am referring to transient lunar phenomena (TLP in its international acronym). These are sporadic luminescences, they have been observed for more than a century on our satellite. The following observations, recorded by George Langelaen, in his work (Les faits maudits) (Planete Encyclopedia, Paris 1967) serve as a reliable example.

In 1821, Sir John Henschel (son of Sir William) discovered bright spots on the Moon and, shortly after, a bright spot near the Moon, which is not a star because it moves with our satellite.
In 1824, at 5 in the morning, the astronomer Gruytihulsen distinguished in the dark part of the Moon, in the Sea of Clouds, a light that extended in the direction of Copernicus, for a length of almost 100 kilometers (calculating its width in about 20 km.) Minutes later it disappears, But six minutes later a pale light shines for a few moments. Anyway, from half past five until dawn there is a series of blinking lights.
Gruythuisen himself, on February 13, 1826, observed the double crater of Messier, in the Sea of Fecundity, and discovered a mysterious white trace, in whose less bright part numerous luminous points appeared. (He writes later that they did not remain in the same position).

In 1832 (July 4), the astronomer Webb witnesses a true illumination from Sea of Crises by numerous luminous points.
In 1847, 1864 and 1865, several astronomers insist on lunar luminescence. But it is in 1866/67 when we find an observation of the greatest interest, since it is the Aristarchus crater, the same one that has been the object of a detailed study by TLP during the last flights (Apollo). In the aforementioned years, Temple and Denning luminous points and lights inside said circus. These observations were verified by astronomers from Marseille, Athens and Lisbon, which already showed that Aristarchus is a center of special activity of an endogenous type (currently held concept about TLPs).

In 1869 new luminescences are observed in the Sea of Crises, and the Royal Astronomical Society of Great Britain asks all its members to pay attention. For two years the R.S.A. receives more than a hundred communications and sketches, until in 1871 the strange luminescence abruptly disappears.
Skipping a few years for brevity, February 11–20, 1877, when the Meudon astronomer M. Trouvelot observes a clear line of light at the bottom of the Eudoxus crater… “It looks like a thick luminous cable over the crater…” , he says.
On March 21 of the same year, C. Barrett observes a bright illumination (not caused by the Sun) at the bottom of the Proclus crater.
We come to March 3, 1903, when Rey of the Marseille observatory and Maurice Gheury of London identify another bright light in Aristarchus.

In 1922, the astronomer F. Burned discovered three mounds (which did not exist before) inside the Archimedes crater.
And again Aristarchus. First, in 1958, the astronomer N. A. Kozyrev, from the great Pulkovo observatory (USSR), pointed out eruptions in the Alfonso crater, and two years later he recorded another similar phenomenon, but already in Aristarchus, with the peculiarity that this time was prepared to take the spectrum of the eruption, which showed the presence of carbon, potassium or hydrogen in the form of gas and very close to the aforementioned crater.
American astronomers at the Lovell Observatory confirmed Kozyrev’s observations on October 29, 1963 and later on November 27 of the same year. Thanks to his 24-inch telescope they were able to observe reddish, ruby-red spots in the vicinity of Aristarchus, spots that moved several kilometers during their long series of observations.
We can well assure that since then interest in the Moon grew and, particularly, in the study of mysterious transient phenomena.
By last, I mean — you understand — to the most recent information I had at the time of writing these notes. Information that came, as usual, from the very active Sabadell Astronomical Association, an entity with which I maintain close contact.

Here is an urgent note sent to me by the indefatigable secretary, José María Oliver: “Sabadell, August 9, 1969 — In the early hours of today, Saturday, from 4:00 a.m. to 5:23 a.m. there was a transitory lunar phenomenon (name given, in scientific terms, to the supposed volcanic or gaseous lunar eruptions), whose development could be perfectly observed by Mr. José María Gómez, director of the Sabadell Astronomical Association, through the 30 cm telescope of his observatory located in Mollet. The phenomenon occurred on the SE wall of the Herodotus crater, presenting the appearance of a series of luminous oscillations. At 4:00 a.m. there was a bright spot that had disappeared at 4:22 a.m.; at 4:33:50 a.m. , a very intense “flare” emerged that lasted about 4 seconds, after which a weak glow with slight oscillations in intensity remained. At 4:41:36 a new flare lasting 10 seconds was observed, and finally at 5:03:2 1 hour another almost instantaneous.

Sabadell Astronomical Association

The note partially reproduced here recalled that the Sabadell Astronomical Association has been paying special attention to lunar studies for a few months, since it is attached to an international network of observatories created precisely to study this class of phenomena and directed by the Center for Short -Lived Phenomena of the United States, which was immediately and telegraphically transmitted the news of the observation -for the first time- of a TLP in the Herodotus crater, 38 km. in diameter and 1,350 meters high in its inner walls.
The phenomenon detected by Mr. Gómez constitutes the third discovery of this type made in Spain since the international network of specialized observatories in TLP was created. The two previous discoveries that took place on May 20 and July 19, 1969, were also made by members of the Sabadell Astronomical Group, with the particularity that the first of them was also the work of [mentioned Mr. Gómez . The TLP discovered on July 19, was detected by the diligent secretary of the aforementioned Group, Mr. Oliver.

Finally, I think it is interesting to underline that the TLPs of May 20 and July 19 were observed in the active Aristarchus crater, which allows launching the hypothesis that this crater not only shows unequivocal signs of activity (remember what we have written before about observations dating back more than a century), but, given the results obtained by the International Network of TLP Observers, that said activity can be considered as periodic: approximately once every lunation and within the last third of every month, Aristarchus shows that the Moon continues to be a geologically living star. These are, at least, the consequences that can be drawn in principle, and logically, from the latest observations of transient phenomena on the Moon.
But we have also cited some cases that seem to fall out of the ordinary, such as displacements of lights, moving luminosities and apparent surface changes observed in the last century, and also in this one. This is another no less interesting aspect of the mysterious phenomena that occur on the Moon. And this invites us to reconsider an aspect, whose paternity corresponds to Father Segundo Reyna, S. J. and about which I sincerely believe that it would be convenient to point out, not a little, but quite a lot.

The “UFOs” of Father Reyna
In my work “Heads and tails of UFOs” (number 13 of the Cyclops Encyclopedia, page 197) I published a photograph of the Moon, taken by Fr. Reyna, in which he denounced the evident difficulty of accepting that the spots recorded on the disk of the satellite were authentic “UFOs”. I must insist on this same question, without refuting other more credible observations. And, in view of the fact that Fr Reyna was very angry with me -surely excessively- I feel compelled to demonstrate that the aforementioned photograph -as well as others that accompanied it- does not deserve the slightest scientific credit. In other words: the “UFOs” and P Reyna are two different issues, they have nothing to do with each other. First of all, because a matter as serious and at the same time as slippery as the issue of the “Unidentified”, requires the utmost seriousness and it is convenient to denounce any case that, not offering sufficient guarantees, is given to hype and cymbals publicity, like this famous photograph of the Argentine astronomer.

I am referring, of course, to the famous photo of November 14, 1964, in which large spots appear on the Moon (one of which is much larger than the gigantic Clavius ​​crater) that Fr. Reyna assures were “UFOs”. “. In order to avoid false interpretations, since I do not want my refusal regarding this “case” to be interpreted as a personal matter, I am going to give the floor to Antonio Ribera, from whom I reproduce the following comments. of his work “Flying Saucers in Latin America and Spain” (Pomaire, Barcelona l969): “The photographs provided (by Fr. Reyna) are “specular”, that is, they present the enantiomorphic image, so to speak, of the lunar hemisphere photographed The central “object” or rather “spot” located to the north of the great Cirque of Archimedes, allows to see through it an accident of the lunar soil that will be found in any photographic chart of the Moon, which seems to indicate that it is a “shadow” and not of a solid body (pp. 196–97, op cit).
The “object” in question, for those who take the trouble to examine the photograph of November 14 and compare it with the detailed map of their area, will immediately see that it is none other than the Spitzbergen Mountains located -as Ribera says- at the north of Archimedes Crater. In a good lunar atlas (the Hallwag Map at a scale of 1: 5,000,000, published in 1967 in Bern, Switzerland, can be used for the case) it will be possible to locate said accident (supposed “spot” according to P. Reyna) at about 35º West longitude and 6º North latitude. It is clear, then, as I said in my work “Heads and tails of UFOs”, that it could never be an “Unidentified” but rather a blot of cliché. As Antonio Ribera says. “Without intending to diminish the undoubted scientific merits of Fr. Reyna, these photographs raise serious doubts” (p. 196, op. cit.). And this, both due to the excessive size of the “object” or stain, as well as the “Apollo VIII” I put for a case, since what it was about was to distinguish the ship indirectly. At the time of its engine firing, if this operation was taking place on or around the visible hemisphere of the Moon.
These are not simple questions of detail, as the attentive reader will have been able to observe, but rather matters of the utmost importance, since we all have in them the good name of “UFOs” (which is ours), already so mistreated by many visionaries. And who says “good name”, I want to allude to seriousness and scientific objectivity, which is the least that can be asked of those who study the delicate subject of the “Unidentified” under the prestige that an observatory dome always provides.
Hence, without insisting on the “P. Reyna case”, I want to end these notes where I started them. That is to say, remembering that sporadic phenomena and also “unusual” phenomena occur on the Moon, and adding that “amateur” observatories such as the one in Sabadell have earned a just reputation for their efficient and objective collaboration with NASA and the International Network of TLP , on the occasion of the surveillance to which the Moon has been subjected during the last flights of the “Apollo” Program.
Now, mission accomplished: I just wanted to compare two work procedures on the same celestial body and, basically, on the great problem that interests us all.
This is all, and let each one freely choose their path.-
MARIUS LLEGET

CYCLOPE Encyclopedia, 1968

Hill 611 Dalnegorsk

Simulation of the Dalnegorsk UFO

This internationally famous UFO incident took place in 1986, on January 29, at 7:55 p.m.The information concerning this incident was sent to us by a number of Russian ufologists.

Dalnegorsk is a small mining town in the Far East of Russia. That cold January day a reddish sphere flew into this town from the southeastern direction, crossed part of Dalnegorsk, and crashed at the Izvestkovaya Mountain (also known as Height or Hill 611, because of its size). The object flew noiselessly, and parallel to the ground; it was approximately three meters in diameter, of a near-perfect round shape, with no projections or cavities, its colour similar to that of burning stainless steel. One eyewitness, V. Kandakov, said that the speed of the UFO was close to 15 meters per hour. The object slowly ascended and descended, and its glow would heat up every time it rose up. On its approach to Hill 611 the object “jerked”, and fell down like a rock.

Dalnegorsk

All witnesses reported that the object “jerked” or “jumped”. Most of them recall two “jumps”. Two girls remember that the object actually “jumped” four times. The witnesses heard a weak, muted thump. It burned intensively at the cliff’s edge for an hour. A geological expedition to the site, led by V. Skavinsky of the Institute of Geology and Geophysics of the Siberian Branch of the Soviet Academy of Sciences (1988), had confirmed the object’s movements through a series of chemical and physical tests of the rocks collected from the site. Valeri Dvuzhilni, head of the Far Eastern Committee for Anomalous Phenomena, was the first to investigate the crash. With the help of our colleagues in Russia this is the most accurate account of the incident to date.
Dr. Dvuzhilni arrived at the site two days after the crash. Deep snow was covered the area at the time. The site of the crash, located on a rocky ledge, was devoid of snow. All around the site remnants of silica splintered rocks were found: (due to exposure to high temperatures), and “smoky” looking. Many pieces, and a nearby rock, contained particles of silvery metal, some “sprayed”-like, some in the form of solidified balls. At the edge of the site a tree-stump was found. It was burnt and emitted a chemical smell. The objects collected at the site were later dubbed as “tiny nets”, “little balls”, “lead balls”, “and glass pieces” (that is what each resembled).
Closer examination revealed very unusual properties. One of the “tiny nets” contained torn and very thin (17 micrometers) threads. Each of the threads consisted of even thinner fibers, tied up in plaits. Intertwined with the fibers were very thin gold wires. Soviet scientists, at such facilities as the Omsk branch of the Academy of Sciences, analyzed all collected pieces. Without going into specific details suffice it to say that the technology to produce such materials was not yet available on Earth…except for one disturbing account.
To give an idea of the complexity of the composition of the pieces, let us look at the “iron balls”. Each of them had its own chemical composition: iron, and a large mixture of aluminum, manganese, nickel, chromium, tungsten, and cobalt.
Such differences indicate that the object was not just a piece of lead and iron, but some heterogeneous construction made from heterogeneous alloys with definite significance. When melted in a vacuum, some pieces would spread over a base, while at another base they would form into balls. Half of the balls were covered with convex glass-like structures. Neither the physicists nor physical metallurgists can say what these structures are, what their composition is. The “tiny nets” (or “mesh”) have confused many researchers. It is impossible to understand their structure and nature of the formation.

A witness indicates the place of the population from where the UFO was seen

A. Kulikov, an expert on carbon at the Chemistry Institute of the Far Eastern Department of the Academy of Sciences, USSR, wrote that it was not possible to get an idea what the “mesh” is. It resembles glass carbon, but conditions leading to such formation are unknown. Definitely a common fire could not produce such glass carbon. The most mysterious aspect of the collected items was the disappearance, after vacuum melting, of gold, silver, and nickel, and the appearance-from nowhere-of molybdenum, that was not in the chamber to begin with.
The only thing that could be more or less easily explained was the ash found on site. Something biological was burned during the crash. A flock of birds, perhaps, or a stray dog; or someone who was inside the crashed object?
Dr. Dvuzhilni’s article was published in a Soviet (Uzbekistan) Magazine NLO: Chto, Gde, Kogda? (Issue 1, 1990, reprint of an article in FENOMEN Magazine, March 23, 1990). In his article Dalnegorski Phenomen V. Dvuzhilni provides details unavailable elsewhere.
The southwesterly trajectory of the object just about coincides with the Xichang Cosmodrome of People’s Republic of China, where satellites are launched into geo synchronous orbit with the help of the Great March-2 carrier rockets. There is no data of any rocket launches in the PRC at the end of January. At the same time, Sinxua Agency reported on January 25, 1988, that there was a sighting of a glowing red sphere not far from the Cosmodrome, where it hovered for 30 minutes. Possibly, UFOs had shown interest toward the Chinese Cosmodrome in the years 1989 and 1988.

Aerial view of the UFO sculpture at the site where the events occurred

There is another curious detail: at the site of the Height 611 small pieces of light gray color were discovered, but only in the area of the contact. These specimens did not match any of the local varieties of soil. What is amazing, the spectroscopic analysis of the specimens matched them to the Yaroslavl tuffs of the polymetalic deposits (i.e. the specimens possessed some characteristic elements of the Yaroslavl, but not the Dalnegorsk, tuffs). There is a possibility that the object obtain pieces of tuff in the Yaroslavl area. Tuffs experience metamorphosis under the effect of high temperatures .
The site of the crash itself was something like an anomalous zone. It was “active” for three years after the crash. Insects avoid the place. The zone affects mechanical and electronic equipment. Some people, including a local chemist, actually got very sick.

A UFO sculpture at the site where the events occurred
A UFO sculpture at the site where the events occurred

This Hill 611 is located in the area of numerous anomalies; according to an article in the Soviet digest Tainy XX Veka (Moscow, 1990, CP Vsya Moskva Publishing House). Even photos taken at the site, when developed, failed to show the hill, but did clearly show other locations. Members of an expedition to the site reported later that their flashlights stopped working at the same time. They checked the flashlights upon returning home, and discovered burned wires.
Eight days after the UFO crash at Hill 611, on February 8, 1986, at 8:30 p.m., two more yellowish spheres flew from the north, in the southward direction. Reaching the site of the crash, they circled it four times, then turned back to the north and flew away. Then on November 28, 1987 (Saturday night, 11:24 p.m.), 32 flying objects had appeared from nowhere. There were hundreds of witnesses, including the military and civilians.
The objects flew over 12 different settlements, and 13 of them flew to Dalnegorsk and the site. Three of the UFOs hovered over the settlement, and five of them illuminated the nearby mountain. The objects moved noiselessly, at an altitude between 150 to 800 meters. None of the eyewitnesses actually thoughts they were UFOs. Those who observed the objects assumed they were aircraft involved in some disaster, or falling meteorites. As the objects flew over houses, they created interference (television, telegraph functions).
The Ministry of Internal Affairs officers, who were present, testified later that they observed the objects from a street, at 23:30 (precise time). They saw a fiery object, flying in from the direction of Gorely settlement. In front of the fiery “flame” was a lusterless sphere, and in the middle of the object was a red sphere. Another group of eyewitnesses included workers from the Bor quarry. They observed an object at 11:00 pm. A giant cylindrical object was flying straight at the quarry. Its size was like that of a five-story building, its length around 200 or 300 hundred meters. The front part of the object was lit up, like a burning metal. The workers were afraid that the object would crash on them. One of the managers of the quarry observed an object at 11:30 pm.

Neighbors of the place where the events occurred

The object was slowly moving at an altitude of 300 meters. It was huge, and cigar-shaped. The manager, whose last name was Levakov, stated that he was well acquainted with aerodynamics, knew theory and practice of flight, but never knew that a body could fly noiselessly without any wings or engines. Another eyewitness, a kindergarten teacher, saw something else. It was a bright, blinding sphere at an altitude of a nine-story building. It moved noiselessly. In front of the sphere Ms. Markina observed a dark, metallic-looking elongated object of about 10 to 12 meters long. It hovered over a school. There the object emitted a ray (its diameter about half a meter). The colour of the ray was violet-bluish. The ground below illuminated, but there were no shadows from objects below. Then the object in the sky approached a mountain and hovered over it. It illuminated the mountain, emitted a reddish projector-like light, as if searching for something, and then departed, flying over the mountain.
No rocket launches took place at any of the Soviet cosmodromes either on January 29, 1986, or November 28, 1987.
Dr. Dvuzhilni’s conclusion is that it was a malfunctioning alien space probe that crashed into the Hill 611. Another hypothesis has it that the object managed to ascend, and escape (almost in one piece) in the north-easterly direction and probably crashed in the dense taiga.

There are opposing opinions. V. Psalomschikov, an expert on aircraft crashes, and a well-known journalist, stated that the object was manufactured in the USSR, the technology to produce it dates back to 1970’s, and that he has similar ultra thin filaments in his possession. However, a Soviet probe would self-destruct immediately, whereas the object reportedly did try to ascend several times. Actually, Psalomschikov believes the crashed object was a Soviet-built intelligence remotely piloted vehicle.
A Russian ufologist and scientist, Gennady Belimov, presented information in 1993 that a Soviet military probe had crashed at the Hill 611. His proof was based on similar crashed of highly classified Soviet probes, and he concludes that ufologists misinterpreted the probe which to be a UFO crashed in the Far East. As for the lead collected at the site, Belimov believes it was extracted from the Kholodnensky deposit in the Northern Baikal region.
A new generation of Russian UFO researchers have reached a conclusion that the probe was an aerostatics reconnaissance vehicle possibly equipped to make infrared photographs. The speed of the probe was estimated to be approximately 54 kilometers per hour, which would negate Dr. Dvuzhilni’s data. But even among them there is no consistent belief as to the origin of the probe. Vladimir Smoly, for example, does not believe there was a thermite self-destruction device aboard the probe. The self-destruction would be expected to be immediate, unlike to what had happened at Height 611 to the crashed object.
Was this a NATO probe? V. Psalomschikov mentioned that previously the NATO reconnaissance balloons did contain trotyl (TNT) self-destruction devices. One such apparatus fell on a house in the USSR and “self-destroyed” it; fortunately, there was no one inside the dwelling at the time. The Soviets raised hell, the scandal was heard even in the UN, and since that time the NATO probes contained only thermite self-destruction devices. Smoly believes the object was aerostatics apparatus created for entertainment purposes. However, M. Gershtein indicated that the object had a clearly defined trail, and could not have been a balloon moving at the speed of the wind carrying it.
Would the military later stage fake “UFO” flights to confuse and mislead ufologists, and the Western intelligence services? The objects observed on November 28, 1987 consisted of different shapes: cigar-like, cylindrical, and spherical. Their flight was noiseless, smooth, at various altitudes. Actually, not one of the eyewitnesses (including the police) mistook them for UFOs. The impression was that they observed some aircraft, or falling meteorites. While in flight, the objects affected power lines throughout the area.

Lieutenant Zhivayev of the Interior Ministry troops described the object he observed as a flame with a lusterless sphere in the front and a reddish ball in the rear. And the workers from the Bor Quarry-Bistryancev, Anokhin, Grigoriyev-reported a giant cylindrical object at an altitude of 300 meters. Its fore part was illuminated-like melting metal. There are many other witness accounts in the Dvuzhilni report. To remind our readers, the area of the crash is not that far away from the Tunguska Phenomenon site.
Something else, heretofore unknown in the West, took place in the region, that could shed some light on both incidents.
Alexander Rempel published his report in Priroda newspaper (Vladivostok) in July of 1991. A fiery object was observed over the Khabarovsk city on August 24, 1978, at night. It was about a meter and a half in diameter. At one point in its flight, it emitted a hissing (or wheezing) sound, like a jet engine does. The area around it became illuminated, like daylight. The object descended slowly, and lit up brightly. The soil, albeit full of water, burned up. Coal-like pieces were found in the area, they had holes and glass-like structures. For ten years thereafter the soil remained unchanged, and nothing grew at the site of the explosion.
The eyewitnesses reported that a dark object flew away just before the explosion. It was not found. Ten years later Rempel and his colleagues received numerous reports about an anomalous zone near Khabarovsk. Few explorers who have returned from the area confirmed that the object fell there, and that fantastic things have been observed there. Yet at the time Rempel could not confirm their reports: the military had sealed the area off. But his group was able to research the area of the Dalnegorsk Object alleged fall after it flew off the Hill 611. They found out about unusual animal mutations.
Russian newspaper Komsomol’skaya Pravda in its December 1, 2000 issue published an article about the Dalnegorsk case (NLO svili v Primorje gnezdo). Most interesting was Andrey Pavlov’s (the author of the newspaper article) reference to the fact that in the early 1990s Russian generals from the anti-aircraft forces became concerned about the UFO activity in the area, and contacted local UFO researchers. An exchange of information ensued. It is newsworthy when a major Russian newspaper mentions such fact (the author actually quoted Dr. Dvuzhilni, the chief investigator of the Height 611 UFO crash).
According to Alexander Rempel (NLO Magazine, 1999) very few Russian ufologists recall the crash, or pay attention to it.
Alexander Rempel informed participants of the UFOMIND Russian UFO Forum that fragments of the crashed object have been examined in Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, and Munich, Liege and other places. In 2000, four Japanese and Korean expeditions examined the Height 611.
Ufologists from Korea and Japan have made offers to purchase the “balls”. The current price for one gram of any fragment is $500.00, and the price has been going up. There are offers of $1,500 per gram, but the demand exceeds the supply. Rempel is aware that there have been numerous conclusions of a number of institutes and laboratories in Russia and abroad, and yet all of them differ from each other. There is no final conclusion that the object was made on Earth, but at the same time, there is no definite conclusion that the object was of extraterrestrial origin. Some peculiarities of the object still cannot be explained. Since 2000 there has not been anything anomalous in the area. But Russians ufologists show little or no interest in the famous case, states Rempel, except for those in Vladivostok. Two exhibits of the Height 611 incident have been made and are active; one is in the Dalnegorsk museum, and the other in the UFO Museum in Vladivostok.

There are hundreds of witnesses, and dozens of the actual eyewitnesses, and many drawings of the incident, but there are no photographs. Numerous “kontaktyori” (those who claim to be in contact with extraterrestrial civilizations) had made predictions that never came true, claimed to be in contact with alien civilizations, wrote books and made paintings of the event. They even claimed that a UFO would land at the Dalnegorsk stadium. This prediction had attracted attention of a great number of Russians, thousands of them arrived in Dalnegorsk, but nothing happened. Some of those who had arrived to meet the aliens still remain in the Dalnegorsk mental asylum.
The RUFORS Round Table members (Anatoly Kutovoy and others), as well as Vladimir Smoly’s UFO Forum participants, have discussed the case, and actively exchanged scientific information about it. As for the Russian media, it has paid some attention to the crash recently, too.
We must mention another interpretation of the Dalnegorsk crash. It was published in Soviet newspaper Ribak Primorya (Issue 14, 1991). The author of the article about the Dalnegorsk Object was Y. Vasilyev. He states several interesting points. According to him, V. Dvuzhilni and a group of his students arrived to the site of the crash. They searched the area three times, quite thoroughly, and found tiny metallic drops. All required measurements were taken, and took photographs.
Then they initiated physical and chemical analyses of the findings. The temperature of the melting was 390 degrees. Silvery metal was very soft; it was easy to break it with a pair of tweezers. On February 8, 1986, V. Dvuzhilni and V. Berliozov, a geologist (who had studied the Sikhote-Alin’ meteorite) again ascended the hill. The geologist confirmed that the crashed body was of a cosmic origin, and the traces affirmed this. Its luminescence was similar to that of usual meteorites. Five years later, V. Dvuzhilini came up with further details (“fantastic details”, according to Y. Vasilyev).
Then the author comes up with his own hypothesis. On January 28, 1986, American shuttle Challenger exploded in the sky. The force of the explosion was such that the fragments were thrown all over the Atlantic. It is possible that one of the fragments, flying from the southwest, landed in Dalnegorsk the next day.
There seems to a consensus of opinion that the Hill 611 crash may well a conventional explanation, but exactly what remains to be seen. It does have its parallel’s in the West, the Roswell case being one of them, but there are others. Irrespective of this, it is a fascinating case, which is sure to divulge more information and more theories in the years to come.

The above is an extract from Philip Mantle & Paul Stonehill’sbook ‘UFO CASE FILES OF RUSSIA’ now available from Healings of Atlantis

Appearance of a strange sun

The beginning of this story was a detective adventure. In the fall of 1971, two military men went to the Department of Experimental Atmospheric Physics of the Leningrad Hydrometeorological Institute and asked for advice on an unusual phenomenon, which they recorded on sensitive film in the infrared region of the spectrum.

. cinema booth and, turning the 16mm film projector towards the sheet of paper hanging on the wall, we began to see the film that had been brought…

They gave us only a minimum of information about the place of action — a military-scientific training camp in Karelia. A movie camera installed in a special cabin at a height of about ten meters above the ground filmed a panorama of a distant forest area through an image intensifier tube (electronic-optical converter). Shooting continued for about a minute every half hour (this was determined by the limit of film on the cassette). What, why and why, we must not know. The only additional information, that the camera was installed in a northerly direction, was given to us very reluctantly. Unfortunately, I do not know the purpose of this shooting.

That day, the camera was turned on for the first time around 10 p.m. m. and until 1 a.m. m. there was nothing remarkable about the frame, especially on the black-and-white film. On the image intensifier tube screen there would be a slightly different image: it glowed green, and a strip of lighter green distant forest stood out against the dark sky. And in the footage, shot around one in the morning, an incomprehensibly shaped luminous edge appeared over the edge of the forest. During the shoot (one minute), that something rose up, becoming a segment of a huge luminous disk, as if the sun of some alien planet was rising over the forest.

A minute passed, and shots taken over the next half hour abruptly appeared. In them, the “alien sun” peeped out almost half of the forest and, frankly, it looked very creepy — it was ten times larger than ours in terms of angular dimensions! We were looking forward to the next shots, but at half past one the image returned to the original: the “alien sun” was sinking rapidly behind the forest. And that is. The guests said that they had seen such a phenomenon only once during the filming.

Has anyone seen anything in optical range? No, there were no people there, and those within a ten kilometer radius were already asleep. Only the picture was taken, no sound was recorded.
Unfortunately, my boss and I just shrugged our shoulders: none of us had seen such a thing and had not read about such phenomena in the literature. I just joked that I saw such a big sun in an illustration from Wells’s novel “The Time Machine” — that’s how the hero of the novel saw it millions of years later. But the guests objected that his “sun” was rising in the north.
Perhaps this story would have been forgotten over the years (“Science can make a lot of freaks”, physicists joke in those cases), but at the end of the same seventies I had to see this with my own eyes, and without image some. intensifier tubes, as they say, with my own eyes. In the summer of that year, I and my college friend, Nikita Dubrovich, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, rested on a boat near the eastern shore of Lake Ladoga. Due to the negligence of the science doctor who forgot to top up the oil, the diesel crankshaft liners burned out and we were left stranded on an uninhabited island with the prospect of sharing the fate of Robinson Crusoe.

Deciding that morning was wiser than evening, the ship’s crew (which included three other students from our institute) built a fire and began preparing dinner. Since I went to the shore in search of water, I saw this phenomenon first, and in nature it looked even more terrible: over the east coast of Ladoga, invisible from here, a blood-red glow slowly began to appear from behind the horizon. which at first I mistook for a great fire on the shore. But when it rose higher, becoming the edge of a huge dark red disk, I was reminded of images from a war movie. In about ten minutes, the disk of the “alien sun” crawled from behind the horizon by about a third, and only then did I come to my senses and call the others. This time the Moon shone in the sky, and it was possible to compare the angular sizes of these two luminaries: the disk was thirty times larger than the Moon, that is, its angular dimensions exceeded 15 degrees. But this is only for the moment when it rose only a third of the horizon!

We all had a terrible feeling, both because of the lack of understanding of what was happening, and because of the blood red color of the disc. I want to remind you that the witnesses of the phenomenon were two high-level scientists and three people with incomplete higher meteorological studies, that is, people accustomed to natural phenomena. This phenomenon took place in complete silence, only the splashing of the waves could be heard. It lasted a total of about half an hour, after which the disc began to sink below the horizon. But even after complete submersion, a faint red glow was noted over that spot for some time.
Returning to Leningrad, I told what I saw to the head of the atmospheric electricity laboratory of the Main Geophysical Observatory, Professor I.M. Imyanitov. But even he could not explain what he saw, however, he found in his card index a similar case described by a cadet sailor V. Dobosh:
“I still remember the phenomenon that I observed in the city of Gubakha, Perm region, in November 1975. Around nine in the evening, the guys and I played hockey. Suddenly, a red glow appeared behind the forest, which grew and expanded. When it filled a quarter of the sky from the horizon, the oval rim of red turned first yellow, then green. After that, a tongue of fire shot out of the glow in a vertical direction, a red speck separated from it, which began to rapidly recede until it disappeared from sight. And the glow began to slowly decrease in size and gradually disappeared behind the trees. Furthermore, a quiet noise was heard, similar to the sound of waves. The whole phenomenon lasted about 20 minutes.
Two years later, he was on a business trip at the Central Asian Hydrometeorological Institute (SARNIGMI). Two of his co-workers told me the story of how they observed the “appearance of an alien sun” during the day. They were driving a UAZ along the Kazakh steppe, the sky was clear, but somehow whitish, apparently due to a fine dust haze. And now, from behind the horizon in the direction they were going, a gray disk darker than the sky began to rise. Rising higher and higher, it took on gigantic dimensions, occupying a fifth of the visible horizon at maximum phase. Startled by the sight, people got out of the car. It even seemed to them that the rather strong wind blowing towards them had decreased considerably. The radio that was in the car the whole time went silent. As in previous cases, the disk rose above the horizon by only half the diameter, and then began to sink again.

There are several more cases of observations of the “alien sun” phenomenon. His explanation also appeared, which doesn’t really explain anything, replacing one riddle with another. Supposedly, we really look at the sun, located in a parallel world, but for some reason, the barrier between our worlds sometimes becomes translucent. So far, there is no other more reasonable explanation for this phenomenon.

Valentín Psalomshchikov

--

--

--

Painter, Graphic Designer, Seville Spain, Member of the Center for Interplanetary Studies of Barcelona. Research Correspondent at UFO-SVERIGE

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Galán Vázquez

Galán Vázquez

Painter, Graphic Designer, Seville Spain, Member of the Center for Interplanetary Studies of Barcelona. Research Correspondent at UFO-SVERIGE

More from Medium

Men in Black

The Gods Within and Without

It’s Either God or Aliens, Not Both. Or is it?

Is The Caudate-Putamen An Antenna For Anomalous Information?