Unveiling the Truth: Scientist's perspective challenges popular beliefs about the mysterious phenomenon in the sky

The pilots of three planes met a mysterious object (or phenomenon) in the air, and for some of them the meeting in the air was fatal: a mysterious ray of light that came from somewhere carried a deadly dose of unknown radiation. Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people from earth saw the same thing when they looked up at the sky...

From the very beginning, a well-known St. Petersburg scientist, at that time a member of the Leningrad branch of the Commission for the Study of Anomalous Phenomena, Konstantin Konstantinovich Khazanovich, took part in the study of the phenomenon. It is no exaggeration to say that no one knows more about this case than he does, and any attempt to analyze "Exactly at 4.10..." without the materials he has collected will be incomplete and inaccurate. His opinion is fundamentally at odds with the opinion of most ufologists, but not with the facts and common sense.

K.K. Khazanovich

Introduction

In February 1984, with the USSR on the basis of the All-Union Scientific and Technical Society (VSNTO), a commission was organized to study anomalous phenomena (AP) in the environment, which primarily included UFOs. The results of the appearance of such a commission were not long in coming: the first publications devoted to this problem began to appear in the official press. Especially actively involved in the discussion of the range of issues related to UFOs, the newspaper "Trud" (Work) thanks to the activities of its journalist Vladimir Vostrukhin.

The greatest sensation was caused by his article "Exactly at 4.10" ("Trud" of January 30, 1985). It told about the observation by the crew of  from the TU-134A plane of an unusual luminous object that accompanied their flight from Minsk to Tallinn. The material nature of the object was allegedly confirmed by the Tallinn airport dispatcher, who recorded it on his locator. On the basis of this, the deputy chairman of the Commission on AP, a corresponding member of the "ANSSR" N. A. Zheltukhin, commenting on the article, said that " the pilots were dealing with what we call UFOs."

N. A. Zheltukhin

The article caused an incredible stir in our country and was widely discussed everywhere. Still-the UFO witnesses were experienced pilots who flew tens of thousands of kilometers! The veracity of what was stated did not cause any doubts…

Numerous letters from witnesses of a wide variety of phenomena were sent to the AP Commission, whose address was given in the "Trud". In a short period of time, about 12,000 letters were received, which was not so easy to deal with.

The first batch of messages containing information about the events of September 7, 1984 (it was then that everything happened) came to me for investigation from the Leningrad branch of the AP Commission at the end of 1985, the second at the end of 1986, the third at the beginning of 1987. The total number of letters was about 110.

In the process of studying the materials, I met with many eyewitnesses of the event, in particular with members of the aircrews who observed the extraordinary phenomenon.

In the summer of 1987. I finished my investigation and reported its results to the members of the Leningrad Branch of the Commission on Nuclear Weapons (Chairman A. I. Mordvin-Shchodro, Deputy Chairman G. K. Kolchin). My report on the investigation was also submitted to the Commission.

Chapter 1. Observations in the air. Testimony of the members of the Tallinn crew of the TU-134A aircraft

August 14, 17, and 21, 1986 Natasha and I met in Tallinn with the crew members of the TU-134A aircraft - the commander of the ship I. A. Cherkashin and the co-pilot G. I. Lazurin. Our conversation lasted a total of 11 hours, during which we clarified all the obscure passages in the publication of "Trud" and wrote down some new details. Below I present the information received in chronological order, illustrating it with drawings by Lazurin

The development of the anomalous event from the position of the pilots of the Tallinn crew according to the drawings of the co-pilot G. I. Lazurin.

1. 4:07. At this time, G. I. Lazurin, who as a co-pilot occupied a place in the cockpit of the ship ahead on the right, saw on the right at an angle of about 90° to the course, i.e. on the traverse of the aircraft, above the horizon, a bright star in the form of an ellipse, "the size of a nickel". The course of the ship at this time, according to I. A. Cherkashin, passed along the azimuth of 300-310°, i.e. the azimuth to the "star" was north-east 30-40°.

2. 4:07+30-40 s. A vertical, thin, thread-like beam of light fell from the" star " to the ground.

3. 4: 08+10 s. The beam opened into a bluish-white vertical cone; on closer inspection, it was found that it consisted of three cones as if embedded in one another, the inner cone is the brightest, the second glowing fainter, and the third quite pale. In accordance with the intensity of the glow of the cones, as it seemed to Lazurin, the surface of the earth was also illuminated differently. The brightest illumination took place in the inner circle corresponding to the inner cone. Within this circle, the co-pilot even managed to make out elements of the landscape - houses, roads, a bridge, and a river. According to Cherkashin, there was nothing inside the spot and could not be seen, since the distance to it, according to his estimate - 100-120 km, excluded such a possibility. The pilots equally determined the height of the hovering light source in 40-50 km, based on the assumption of the distance to the center of the inner light spot in 120 km.

4. Around 4: 09. Within 1-2 seconds, the pilots watched as the light spot moved on the ground in their direction, "the beam rose from the ground and stared at the plane." From the crew's point of view, the plane was inside the beam. The observed picture was a "blinding white dot" surrounded by concentric circles-hoops that stood motionless, like a halo. Each hoop represented one of the colors of the spectrum, alternating in regular order from red in the center to dark purple on the outer edge. At the same time, the latter was no longer visible through the side window, and only by raising his head, Lazurin could see it through the upper window directly above the plane. The crew had the impression that the diameter of the rainbow circle was 22-24 km, and its lower part, about 1/10 of the diameter, is "cut off" by the surface of the earth, and the beam itself breaks off in the vertical plane of the aircraft track. The last impression is related to the observation of both the outer, purple, hoop and the illumination of the aircraft skin from the beam side ("the skin shone") in the absence of illumination inside the cabin. Lazurin also claims that on the course of the aircraft, directly from its nose, there was a straight line boundary between the illuminated and unlit space.

TU-134A

5. 4:10. The light source flashed brightly, but not blindingly, with a greenish light, which gradually began to fade, being covered by a swirling green cloud that appeared around it, which within 5 seconds grew and took the form of an absolutely round ball (Lapis Lazuli) or an ellipsoid (Cherkashin) of a sky-blue color, with clear and sharp edges, with a diameter of about half the moon. At the same time, the rainbow circle began to fade. The growth of the cloud caused the commander of the ship the impression of a rapid approach to the plane of the whole phenomenon, including the rainbow circles. And if before that Cherkashin was in no hurry to report what he saw to the ground, despite the persistent advice of flight mechanic G. M. Kozlov, now, very frightened, he ordered the navigator E. M. Ognev: "Report to the ground!". "I wanted to start the descent, so as not to crash into this thing, but after assessing its size, I realized that it was useless," the first pilot told us. Meanwhile, within about one minute, another ball formed in the center of the resulting ball, darker color with clear sharp edges, 4-5 times smaller in diameter than the first one.

6. 4:12. Within a few seconds, the crew observes rapid movements of the object ("we only had time to turn our head behind it"); a sharp fall down, a vertical takeoff up (the angle between the extreme positions of the object was, according to Lazurin, 40°), then - a sharp shift to the right and left (60°) and stop in the original position. At this point, we paid special attention and asked each pilot individually whether the displacement of the object could not be visible in connection with the resulting rocking of the aircraft. In response, we heard a categorical "No". The weather conditions of the flight precluded the presence of any air holes, and even if they did appear, the experience of all the crew members would allow them to immediately notice even the most insignificant rocking of the ship. The pilots perceived the movement of the object as an alarm addressed to them, and responded to it by turning on and off the aircraft's headlights and navigation lights on the wings and tail.

7. 4: 13. Against the background of the dark core of the object, colorful flashes-sparks began to play, and a green tail began to grow from it, resembling a tornado, directed to the ground and to the left. After a minute and a half or two, the tail touched the ground with its sharp tip, then it gradually began to rise, took a horizontal position, and finally turned about five degrees above the horizontal. At the last stage of its development, zigzag pinkish flashes of lightning, which did not go beyond the outer sphere, went from the core to the right and left. It was these flashes, according to the crew, that the Minsk dispatcher saw on the horizon. Then there was another event that was not mentioned in article B.Vostrukhina. Immediately after the "lightning" from the spherical part of the object to the left and up at an angle of 35-40° to the horizon (Cherkashin believes that the angle was much less), "hit a powerful, very thin beam" of bluish-silver light. "At first, we decided that this was an inversion trace from the launch of some other, smaller object from the" side " of the object, but then we abandoned this idea since the inversion trace could not move in space while maintaining its rectilinear shape unchanged and keeping up with the main object," Lazurin said. The pilots had the impression that the beam goes as if to infinity, since the intensity of its glow decreased as it moved away from the object, and the end of the beam gradually "dissolved" in space.

8. Approximately 4: 19. If until now the change in the shape of the AP was associated with the growth and orientation of the tail, now the spherical part of it has also begun to blur. Within a few minutes, the tail sharpened, straightened, and rose slightly upward, turning into a figure resembling a wingless airplane or a smoking pipe. This figure, with minor changes, was preserved throughout the entire further flight to the southern border of Estonia, where the plane went down. As for the apparent location of the object relative to the plane, it gradually changed: the object slowly "overtook" the plane, and when the latter, as it approached the southern border of Latvia, lay on a northerly course, the object was to the north-northeast of it at an azimuth of 20°. It was over g.Rokiskis. After the object left the control zone of the Minsk dispatcher, its flight was viewed on the radar screens of first Vilnius and then Riga airports. None of the three controllers detected any foreign object accompanying the plane on the radar screen. Neither did the locators of the local air defense units, which were notified by the Minsk dispatcher after the message from the TU-134A, detect it. At the same time, all the controllers observed a strange glow in the direction of the plane or ahead of it on the course.

9. 4:43. At about this time, according to Lazurin, the plane entered the 360° track in the area of Moscow, Rokiskis. At the same time, the "cloud plane" was observed by the crew at an angle of 70° to the traverse, i.e. - at an azimuth of north-east 20°. At the moment when the plane, AP, and Pskov Lake were on the same straight line, the pilots were able to estimate the angular dimensions of the flying object: they corresponded to the size of Pskov Lake! At that moment, another ray shot down from the object, illuminating a thin layer of cloud that had risen over the Pskov and Peipsi Lakes. A blood-red glow appeared on the clouds, which shifted and gradually lightened, changing the red light to yellow. The beam itself was also yellow. From the object, the beam did not come vertically, but with an inclination at an angle of 35-40° in the direction of movement, i.e. to the north. At the same time, Lazurin notes that almost the entire "cloud plane" was already visible against the background of the earth, and only the upper part of its "tail" rose slightly above the brightening horizon in the Leningrad region. The last report is not confirmed by the observations of the commander of the ship, according to which the AP was above the horizon. There are other discrepancies in the readings that are important for reconstructing the event. So, Cherkashin claims that the beam from the object was not inclined, but vertical and that the object was located directly above the Pskov Lake, and not to the west of it.

Having reached the northern course to the city of Vykhma, the plane changed course and went down at an azimuth of 330°. At an altitude of 3,300 m, the beam from the object was no longer observed, while the spot on the clouds remained. At an altitude of 2500 m, the beam again became visible over the northern edge of Lake Peipus. The "cloud plane" was now moving northwest, towards Tallinn, that is, it continued to follow a parallel course with the plane. On the approach to Tallinn at the previous course of 330°, the object, according to Lazurin, went to the area of g. Rakvere, and then - to the village.Kuusalu. Changing course before landing at 270°, the pilots saw the object already to the right behind them. At the same time, Lazurin notes that he literally had to press his head against the glass to see AP at the end of the plane's wing.

After landing the plane at 5: 20 and taxiing to the airport terminal, the pilots saw their object for the last time: now it had the shape of a boomerang and was in the north-east direction from them over the Gulf of Finland without any signs of movement. The airport's floodlights prevented them from continuing their observations from the ground.

According to both pilots, when they met with the Tallinn dispatcher who was monitoring their flight, they learned that on the radar screen, the mark of their ship was accompanied by two other marks of unknown origin from behind. Recall that it was the message about the second label that appeared in the article In. Vostrukhina was crucial for the members of the Commission on AP in the interpretation of the observed phenomenon as a true UFO. However, it seems that the author of the article "Exactly at 4.10..." was misinformed by the pilots (he could not have come up with such an important detail of the event himself!), and the ill-fated label actually simply did not exist.

During our conversation with the pilots in 1986, the source of disinformation was the dispatcher. Allegedly, he first told them about the observed second label, and then refused to confirm this data. However, in the article "I was a skeptic until I saw it with my own eyes" ("Youth of Estonia" of July 25, 1990), Lazurin stated that "... according to the "Trud" it turned out that a second mark appeared on the survey locator, but it was not really there" (!) So, over time, a new version appeared, according to which the culprit of disinformation was still V. Vostrukhin himself.

But anyway, one thing is important: the Tallinn dispatcher, like his colleagues in Minsk, Vilnius, and Riga, did not register anything suspicious on the locator that could point to some material object that accompanied the Estonian plane.

In conclusion, we present additional interesting information received from Lazurin and Cherkashin. It turns out that the tape recording onboard the plane, which recorded the crew's negotiations with the ground, turned out to be of very poor quality - the voices were barely audible. According to Lazurin, this was not observed either before or after September 7. And none of the crew members during the observation of AP did not remember that there was a radiometer onboard the plane: it was never used to check the level of radiation.

Testimony of the passenger of the Estonian plane P. M. Hwan

Another witness observed AP in the air: it was the passenger of the Estonian plane P. M. Hwan. Here is what he wrote to the Commission on AI after the publication of the article " Exactly at 4.10…":

...Everything was according to the story of the pilots with slight changes in my perception. I was sitting in the right row of the plane at the window. A yellow spot appeared at the top right, and a ray of light appeared from the spot to the ground. My first impression is of a plane. When later cones of light began to form around the beam to the ground, I realized that it was not an airplane.

I don't remember the moment when the object illuminated the plane, although I saw a bright white dot; I can't describe the color of the concentric circles. Then the dot disappeared, and a cloud of rounded outlines appeared, but its color was not green, but greenish-bluish, as if from welding, but with a yellowish tinge. We began to approach this object, as it seemed to me. Such movements of the object as described in the article (up-down, right-left-Kh.) I didn't notice, but I remember that our plane was changing course.

Finally, the object became stationary, meaning I realized that it was flying with us, without changing course. There were lights like garlands, but I did not see any fiery zigzags ( I have a vision of 1.0). Then we saw what looked like a plane without wings emerging from a cloud, and the core was a nozzle.

Here's what he wrote:

In the second letter, in response to my questions, P. M. Hwang writes:

The illumination of the area from the cone of light coming from the AI was observed. I saw on the ground some points, dashes, denoting settlements, houses. Besides, I remember seeing a river.

Neither I nor my family members had a deterioration in health for 2 months, no one was ill.

Here's what he wrote:

Testimony of the second pilot of the Tbilisi plane Yu. I. Kabachnikov

Now let's turn to another witness of AP, who also observed him from the air: this is the co-pilot of another TU-134, which, performing the Leningrad-Tbilisi flight when approaching Minsk, went along the same air corridor as the Tallinn plane, but 500 m lower.

After the Tallinn crew reported the observed AI to the Minsk dispatcher, he informed the pilots of the Tbilisi plane about it. The response of the Tbilisi crew to the question of whether they could see AP from their plane was negative. This circumstance allowed Cherkashin to further put forward a complex version of the polarized nature of the light emitted by the AP, that is, UFOs. However, after some time, the members of the Tbilisi crew seemed to see clearly: the anomalous phenomenon was finally discovered by them. What was the real reason for this epiphany, the reader will become clear from the following narrative?

How did the events in the sky develop in the interpretation of the only witness from the Tbilisi plane, whose testimony I had at the beginning of the investigation? We give verbatim, with the preservation of all the flight "jargon", which we will then decipher, the explanatory note of the co-pilot Yu. I. Kabachnikov.

Explanatory note

I report that on September 7, 1984, the crew of the c-ta TU-134A N 65798 347 l / o TOAO GUGA as part of: KVS-Gotsiridze V. V., co-pilot-Kabachnikov Yu. I., navigator-Tomashvili I. D., b / mechanic-Gvenetadze M. Sh. performed flight 7084 on the route Leningrad-Boryspil-Batumi-Tbilisi. The take-off to Leningrad airport was made at 04.01 m. The flight was performed at a given flight level H=10100 m.

This height was occupied at 0428 m. At this altitude and above, there was no cloud cover. Below the flight, at an altitude of about 8000 m (ocular), there was a thin layer of translucent clouds with a thickness of up to 7-8 points. Wind on the Npaul.= 250-270° with a speed of up to 10 km / h.

The flight took place calmly, there was no boltanka. At 0449 hours, the s-t on the Nzad entered the ATC zone of the Minsk RC. After entering the ATC zone of the Minsk RC and establishing a control connection with the dispatcher "Minsk-Control" when listening to the broadcast, I determined that in addition to our board, another (oncoming) TU-134 is in contact with "Minsk-Control", the next one at Nes=10600 m.

When listening to the radio conversations of this board with the dispatcher "Minsk-Control", I realized that the oncoming board to the right of itself observes a luminous object located above the NPA of this aircraft. The ATC dispatcher turned to us: "65798, Minsk-Control, look to the left and up.

Do you observe anything?" I replied that I was not observing anything. However, after 1-2 minutes of flight in the direction indicated by the dispatcher, I found a glowing object of bright green color. The course of our plane at this time was equal to 108°. The observed object was located to the left of the flight line by about 20° and above the flight line by 15-20° (see the situation in Fig.2.2-K. H.).

The object had a cigar-shaped shape at this moment, and three bright rays of light were radiating from it (Fig. 2. 3.). The color intensity and shape of the rays were different, but all the rays were bluish-white in color and were perceived by me as the light of bright quartz lamps of very high radiation power. At the same time, two more expanding light rays of lower intensity, but more saturated in color and having a purple hue, were moving up from the object. The object at this time was moving from the northeast to the southwest, without changing the altitude.

I took a pencil in my hand, stretched out my hand, and tried to determine the angular size of the object. At this time, the angular dimensions of the object were equal to one and a half lengths of the pencil, and the height of the object in its widest (middle) part is slightly larger than the width of the index finger (when the hand is extended).

At the direction of the ATC dispatcher: "65798, Minsk-Control, turn left 20°. Follow this course in the direction of the object until the command " the crew followed the instructions of the dispatcher, and the plane went to approach the object. After 2-3 minutes, the object turned sharply to the left and stopped. The front beam of the object (the brightest) focused (i.e., compressed as much as possible), headed towards our plane, and then illuminated our plane briefly with a very bright light. After that, this beam dropped sharply and took a vertical position again, expanded (opening angle to 10-15°) and refocused (narrowed) at high speed.

Then this ray quickly and evenly drew the outline of a rectangle on the earth's surface, after which, with sharp zigzag movements, it consecutively illuminated the entire area of this rectangle. At the time when this ray had an expanding downward shape, its bright luminous spot of a round shape was clearly visible on the cloud layer. Our plane was located slightly to the north of the village of Pleshanitsy-70 km from Minsk.

The area of the earth's surface illuminated by the object was located at a distance of 25-35 km from our plane, near the city of Borisov, and the area of the rectangle was about 10x15 km. Then the object dropped sharply and took an altitude slightly lower than the altitude of our plane, while moving away again to the northeast. Our aircraft was deployed to the calculated course on the instructions of the ATC controller.

On the next communication with the dispatcher of the Department of Internal Affairs < he> was given a recommendation to contact the MGA CDU and report on the observed object. The dispatcher said that the relevant authorities concerned have been notified and are aware of the situation.

Then he said: "The guys at the top are also observing the object (meaning the pilots of the Tallinn plane-K. H.)." At the time around 5: 00, the object again turned sharply to the left. At the same time, it was quite clearly visible that lights of different colors were moving along the side "surface" of the object, and the sequence of color changes did not correspond to the sequence of color changes in the usual visible light spectrum. At this time, the object had a shape close to the shape and proportions of the fuselage of the TU aircraft, with a slightly elongated "keel-rudder". Then the object repeatedly changed its height abruptly.

At the time of divergence from the oncoming TU-134 (following at H = 10600 m), the observed object was at the same altitude and, while we were not able to observe it, followed parallel with the oncoming side and was slightly to the right of this aircraft. The object was observed until 05: 10.

P.S. This note was written by me personally on the basis of personal observations (from memory) on 18.02.1985. Kabachnikov (signed). APPLICATION. Flight performance of the TU-134A aircraft No. 65798 on September 7, 1984.: Leningrad, take-off - 4.01 Rokiskis - 4.40 Ptich - 5.13 Sillamae - 4.14 Svir - 4.49 Chernobyl - 5.23 Vykhma - 4.26 Pleshanitsy - 4.56 Boryspil - 5.34 Ergli - 4.33 Glusk - 5.07 Landing - 5.41 Flight altitude-10100m Sunrise: Leningrad-7.06; Kiev (Boryspil) - 7.26

Here's what it says:

So, let's decipher some abbreviations: c-t-aircraft; TOAO GUGA-Tbilisi Joint Air Squadron of the Georgian Civil Aviation Administration; FAC - aircraft commander; a / p-airport; N-altitude (Npoll-flight altitude, Nes-flight height, Nzad-set altitude); ATC - Air Traffic Control; RC - radar Center; MGA Central Control Center - Central Dispatching Service of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

Yu. I. Kabachnikov illustrated his memo with two drawings.

The flight path of the Tbilisi plane near Minsk after the flight of Svir and the location of the cigar-shaped UFO relative to it (according to the drawing by Yu. I. Kabachnikov).

This is what a UFO that emits rays looked like (drawing by Yu. I. Kabachnikov)

Let us draw the reader's attention here to only one circumstance so far: the compilation of the note was completed by Kabachnikov on February 18, 1985, that is, almost five and a half months after the described event and 18 days after the publication of the article " Exactly at 4.10...". What prompted the co-pilot to address this note to the leadership of the civil aviation of Georgia after he read Vostrukhin's article in "Trud"?

In addition, it is impossible not to pay attention to the blatant inaccuracy in the indication of the time of the discrepancy with the Tallinn plane: Kabachnikov claims that it occurred after 5.00, although in fact at that time the Estonian airliner was already approaching Tallinn.

The message of the pilot of the AN-26 aircraft

The testimony of the Tallinn and Tbilisi crews was so contradictory that it did not clarify the true picture of the event. So let's turn to the other witnesses who were in the air at the time.

From the letter of the pilot S. B. (who asked to keep his incognito):

"...on September 7, an event took place (I almost wrote - a visit), which can be described as reliable.

My friend, the co-pilot of the AN-26, told me that when landing in Pulkovo, in the immediate vicinity of the airfield, an object was attached to them, illuminating them with a beam; after a radio request to the landing controller, the beam "went out", and the object left. At my request, he described the phenomenon in detail and sketched it as best he could.  I attach a description of my friend:

"Pulkovo, September 7, 1984, 4 hours 06 min. The flight altitude is 500 m., the distance from the airfield is about 12 km, the course is 280°. We entered the glide path. Out of the corner of my eye, I caught a glimpse of something standing out against the black sky. Strictly to the right (north-east 10° - KH) at the top at an angle of about 45°, above us for about 2-3 km, a very bright intense light source was moving towards us with a decrease. It felt like a beam of light was directed at your eyes, although the beam was not visible. But there was a pear-shaped patch of light hanging over the city, apparently coming from this light source. Only the bright circle of the "searchlight" was visible, and a trail similar to the trail that remains behind an aircraft flying at high altitude (for example, a TU-154 at 10,000 m). The impression is that this trace glowed against the sky and went up from the light source at the same angle of 45°. The color of the light coming from the "spotlight" is yellow-white. The spot of light that hung over the city was the same shade.

 

Pear-shaped yellow-white light spot coming from an upward light source, which was observed by the crew of the AN-26 aircraft after 4.06. Drawing of the co-pilot of this aircraft.

When we were at an altitude of 200-250 m, the light source seemed to "hang" and shine on us. At an altitude of 130 m, we asked the landing controller: "What is there on the top right of us and flying at us? Don't you see?" The dispatcher replied that he did not see it. Immediately after the request, the light intensity dropped sharply, and the light source itself went up sharply and quickly and went out after three seconds (this point is shown in the figure with a cross).

It took 2-3 minutes, we taxied to the parking lot. There was a pear-shaped patch of light in the sky, but less than twice as large. It did not reach the earth's surface by about 1.5-2 of its magnitude. The color was blue-green, even and even bright. It stood out very clearly in the cloudless sky.

This spot was seen by the crew and technicians...

The light source was spotted about three minutes before us over Veliky Island in the Kandalaksha Bay by the crew of a TU-134 flying to Leningrad.

The pear-shaped spot retained its shape for two and a half hours. At seven in the morning, it was shaped like an angle, flying almost horizontally. In the rising sun, the color was already light green. The shape of the spot may have changed under the influence of air currents.

The pear-shaped yellow-and-white light spot barely reached the light field from the city's ground-based light sources, but there was no clear boundary between them.

The co-pilot of the AN-26 (signed)".

Testimony of passenger G. I. Moiseeva

The witness took off at night at 2.25 from Kirov in the direction of Ukhta, that is, in the direction of the northeast, and, taking a seat at the window on the left side of the plane, could observe the north-western part of the sky.

"...I began to look out the window and noticed two of the brightest stars among all the stars... at a small distance from each other. And suddenly a bright ray of light burst out of one of them... Then it went out, and immediately a wider and more powerful beam of light appeared, but not as bright as the first, and it changed direction as if it was looking for something; ...for a moment, he turned in our direction, and I saw a blinding white dot surrounded by concentric circles. Then it went back to its original position and went out, like it was turned off, and the light slowly dissipated, turning green."

* * *

This is the end of the testimony of the" air " witnesses of the AI. Before proceeding to the evidence of the "earth eyewitnesses" of the event, let us summarize the data obtained.

So, at the same time, after 4 o'clock in the morning on September 7, 1984, the following was observed:

1. AP accompanied the TU-134A aircraft from the Minsk area to Tallinn;
2.  AP was accompanied in the Minsk area by another TU-134A aircraft flying in the opposite direction;
3.  AP "attached" (in the words of the pilot) to the AN-26 aircraft, which was landing in Pulkovo (Leningrad);
4.  AP was located over the island of Veliky in the Kandalaksha Bay;
5. The crew members of each plane saw only one object.

This situation (without the Kandalaksha Lip) is shown in Fig.

The scheme of the routes of the aircraft and the position of the UFO relative to them from the point of view of the various crews. Symbols: 1,2-flight routes of Tu-134 aircraft: Tbilisi (1) and Tallinn (2); 3 - the time of passage of the aircraft settlements: Tallinn (left) and Tbilisi (right); 4 - the route of the UFO flight from the position of the pilots of the Tallinn aircraft; 5-the position of the UFO relative to the crew of the AN-26 aircraft coming to land in Pulkovo; 7-the position of the aircraft on the route "exactly at 4.10": Tbilisi (top) and Tallinn (bottom)

Before trying to solve this logical problem, we will give the floor to the witnesses who were not floating in the clouds on that memorable night but were awake on the ground.

Chapter 2. Observations from the earth

More than a hundred reports of eyewitnesses to the mysterious phenomena of the early morning of September 7, 1984, came to my disposal. Below, we will limit ourselves only to those that most fully and reliably reflect the development of the AI, help to determine the contours of the area of its visibility and the approximate direction in which it was observed. All the witnesses were sent letters with additional questions about the nature of the development of the AYA and with a request to determine the azimuthal direction to it, if possible. However, most of the witnesses were unable to comply with this request "due to the lack of a compass".

When reading the testimony of eyewitnesses, it should be borne in mind that, basically, they were compiled 5 months after the observed event, which, of course, justifies numerous inaccuracies and discrepancies in individual details in the descriptions, including the dates of the event and the time of its development. Try to draw on paper the details of the object that you have seen thousands of times in the sky - the Moon-and you will see what you will get.

At the same time, the main details of the phenomenon - the rising light object, the cone-shaped beam emanating from it, and the green cloud-can be traced in most descriptions. The absence of some of these details in the testimony indicates that the witness did not observe the full picture of the development of AP, but only a separate fragment of it. So, for example, the pilot of the AN-26 aircraft when landing in Pulkovo observed only the rise of a light object until the formation of a green cloud. And the crew of the Tbilisi plane, as we will see later, recorded only the last stage of the development of the AI - "wingless aircraft".

So, here are the most important ground-based eyewitness accounts from various places in the northwest of the USSR.

F. G. Fedulaev's testimony about the observation in Leningrad

"A phenomenon similar to the one described in the newspaper "Trud", I happened to observe on the night of September 6 to 7 from the window of my house.

A large ray of light in the sky caught my attention. Going to the window, I observed the picture shown in the figure. A source of yellow-white color, several times larger than the visible size of the stars, was moving up in the sky. The movement was carried out with a small but clearly visible speed and was observed for 1-3 minutes. All the time, from the very beginning of the observation, a conical beam of white light was radiating from the object to the visible horizon line. Its brightness was uniform along its entire length, and its borders were clear. Then the object went out, after which a spherical wave was observed spreading in the sky (the speed of its propagation, as it was found out when meeting with an eyewitness, was 20-30° per second-Kh.). Then, against the background of the preserved beam, a green luminous spot of uniform brightness and with clear boundaries appeared."

Special attention was paid to the position of this spot relative to the object and the beam when meeting with an eyewitness. Unlike the Tallinn crew, who claimed that the cloud appeared at the place of the glowing object, that is, at the top of the light cone, F. G. Fedulaev had good reference points for linking the details of the AP (the roof of the house opposite, chimneys, etc.), which allowed him to claim that the green spot appeared significantly below the light object.

"After some time, the beam gradually disappeared," the witness continues his testimony, " and only a green cloud remained, which was observed for another 20 minutes, after which the observation was stopped. Towards the end, the shape of the spot changed somewhat and its brightness decreased somewhat, but it was clearly observed in the same place where it appeared. The elevation of the object above the horizon is 30-40°." The magnetic azimuth, measured by our compass from the witness room, was northeast 11°.

A generalized picture of the AP observed by F. G. Fedulaev from the Pertsovsky house on Ligovsky Prospekt. By the time the green cloud formed (at the base of the beam), the "star" and the beam had already gone out. Reconstruction of the phenomenon according to the story of an eyewitness-artist Igor Smirnov

Testimony of a group of cadets from Kronstadt

"We, cadets of the Higher Naval School, while in the waters of the Gulf of Finland, observed a strange atmospheric phenomenon. On September 7 of this year (the letter was written at the end of 1984-K. H.) at 4: 06 in the morning, we did not sleep, as we were on the signal watch and were on the upper deck of the ship…At the specified time, at a bearing of 20 degrees from Kronstadt, a bright, luminous arc of regular shape began to rise above the horizon; it gradually spread out across the entire sky and dimmed. Under this arc, there was a faint glow that was also gradually dimming; exactly under the arc, a brightly glowing triangular body rose, from which glowing "whiskers" also extended downwards in different directions. Beneath this body, a ball of bright blue-green color rose symmetrically.

The time of lifting the body was about 3 minutes, then it seemed to dissolve. The ball stopped, and from it, also in different directions, something like a glowing gas was slowly spreading out across the sky. As the distance increased, this gas dimmed. For 20 minutes, the ball hung unchanged, then it began to spread out, taking different shapes. At 4:50, when we climbed the fortress, we saw bright glowing lines that were under the ball and looked like contrails from an airplane, with the difference that they were painted in different colors-pink, green, bluish-colors. These lines were intertwined very often so that no plane could leave them. The blurred orb became shapeless, and these lines remained in the sky until sunrise when they gradually disappeared.

The whole scene made quite an impression on us, as we had never seen anything like it before. We are not naive people and do not undertake to claim that it was some kind of alien ship, but still, we ask you to explain to us what it was…"

The testimony of N. F. Shatalin about the observation at the Msta station

"In the summer, I live with my wife and granddaughters in der. Gogolino Udomelsky district at a distance of about three km from the Msta station. On the night of the 7th to the 8th (undoubtedly, the eyewitness was mistaken for one day - K. H.) at 3.30 I left the house to catch the Msta station to the Ivanovo-Leningrad train by 4.22. It was dark and very dirty. About halfway from the village to the station, I came to a stream.

Suddenly, it was about 4 o'clock in the morning, a light appeared behind me (judging by the diagram drawn by an eyewitness, in the north - KH.). I looked back and saw that a searchlight was shining from above, and a light source the size of a car headlight was moving behind me. I safely crossed a muddy stream and I think that's lucky, you can see the plane is shining a spotlight, but strangely, I did not hear the sound of the plane. The searchlight shone from a height about as high as a traffic police helicopter flies.

Then this light source, when I turned to face it, began to rise up and to the right. One bright spot became visible, and this spot began to spread out in a greenish circle more and more and captured half the sky, and in place of the light spot, a greenish cloud of irregular shape formed and lasted for a long time. I watched this cloud from the train, passing the station Bologoe and further, until it was fully dawn. And even when the Sun rose, this cloud was visible in the clear blue sky..."

Testimony of V. A. Petrov about the observation in Cherepovets

"On September 7 of last year (i.e., 1984-K. H.), at the beginning of the fifth hour, I went to the dentist for my son's number. When I left the house, I saw a beam of light falling from above. At first I thought it was a searchlight from a construction site, but when I got closer, I saw that there was no construction site in this place. The beam "hung" from the sky motionless. I watched this for 5-7 minutes; then the beam disappeared and a greenish cloud appeared in the sky and began to quickly recede..."

Despite the fact that more information can be obtained from this report about the level of medical care for Cherepovets children than about the nature of the development of AYA, the very fact of observing the already well - known details of the phenomenon - the ray and the green cloud-in the Vologda region seems important. Moreover, Cherepovets is the easternmost observation point of the AI.

Testimony of A. Kiseleva about the observation from Tosno

On September 7, 1984, she was woken up by her mother and ran out into the yard. " ... We saw something immediately that shocked us!

It was quite cool, there were no stars in the sky, and from a great height it was cut by a huge, wide, bright ray. Its white-yellow color contrasted sharply with the black sky. Almost immediately, a small speck of gaseous matter appeared under the beam (the point of its emission)... sea-green with a bright yellow spot in the center. Then the beam was gone - turned off, but the gas was growing and phosphorescent. Soon, it formed a large, rounded cloud in the black sky that stood in one place... Then it was like this: the cloud began to slowly turn into a comma, then stretched out into a pipe (horizontal) and began to gradually move away from us. When the cloud was still round, the whole sky around it was covered with black smoke, a huge black cloud... The other day we tried to determine the coordinates of what we saw. Using a compass and a map, we came to the conclusion that it was in the area of Lake Ladoga, in the north-east of Leningrad."

A. A. Mishkin's testimony about the observation from Podporozhye

"On September 7, 1984, we, a group of employees of the Upper Svir forestry enterprise, had to go on an excursion to Tallinn... At 4 o'clock in the morning, everyone was already at the Podporozhye bus station. The sky was black and starry. At the beginning of the fifth, chief accountant L. P. Gromyko noticed in the northern part of the sky high above the earth at an angle of about 30-40° something like a small ball of bright yellow color, from which a cone-shaped ray of yellow-orange color fell on the ground. Then the ball disappeared, and in its place was formed a cloud of green-azure color. I noticed that the cloud was slightly below the constellation Ursa Major. Its distance and size were difficult to determine, but it seemed to me that it was far away. By size (angular. - Kh.) it corresponded to a large balloon lying on an outstretched arm."

Testimony of M. M. Trukhin about the observation from the Volosovsky district

"At the beginning of September 1984, we were at agricultural work in the state farm of Soglitsa... Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact date when this event occurred… At 4 o'clock in the morning, we left the barracks where we had spent the night and went outside. I saw that in the direction of the north, at an angle to the horizon of about 20°, a large bright red dot was hanging. The night was starry, and this point stood out well against the background among the stars...

Suddenly, a ray (very bright) fell from a point on the ground, and for about a minute there was no change... The beam, like a fan, unfolded into a cone with a solution angle of about 30° and it became so bright that we could see individual blades of grass on the ground. At the same time, the point itself began to rise and move towards the camp. At 4.15, a second cone emerged from it.

Three concentric circles with blurred borders began to diverge around it, but the boundary between the first and second cones was very sharply defined. At 4.17, a third cone appeared, and the point stopped at a height at an angle of about 70°... Then the dot began to shrink in size, fade, and disappear completely, but the cones and concentric circles remained. Instead of a dot, a comma appeared with a small short tail. We waited until 4.30 - there were no changes, and returned to the barracks...".

Testimony of V. E. Ait about the observation from the Ostrov station in the Pskov region.

"...On September 7, 1984, my father-in-law and I were returning from Kiev along the Kiev-Leningrad highway, and at about 4.15 near the town of Ostrov, on the right side of the road, about two hundred meters away and at an altitude of 100 m, I saw a small luminous spot, from which a strong beam fell on the ground. At first I thought it was a searchlight illuminating a construction site, but... then I decided it was a helicopter... But I was confused by the shape of the beam - it looked like a pear. I stopped the car, but when I got out of it, I was surprised that there was no sound of the engine, although there was no wind that night and it was quiet. I woke my father-in-law, who was sleeping in the car, and showed him a strange "spotlight". And the "searchlight" stood in one place for half a minute, began to move towards us, and after moving a short distance, rose a little up and, as if turning away from us, disappeared. No sound was heard during his movement.

The most interesting thing is that the" searchlight " disappeared, and the beam of light remained. It had the shape of a pear, and on top of the pear there was a kind of reflection in the form of an umbrella. The boundaries between the beam, the glow, and the sky were clear. This ray remained unchanged for a minute, and then began to increase in size, fading, but without changing the shape and clarity of the borders. At its lower end, we noticed a small blue spot, which also increased in size with the increase in the beam. And when the ray and the reflection took up a quarter of the firmament, they seemed to dissolve. And from the blue spot by this time grew a small cloud, which continued to grow all the time, until it took the size of a large cloud. At first, when the cloud was small, it had a comma-shaped tail at the bottom. Then, as it grew larger, the tail took on a strictly horizontal position and took on the shape of a cigar.

We watched this phenomenon for 15-20 minutes, and then drove on. And this cloud we saw from the right side (in the northeast). After Pskov, we turned to Riga, and the cloud remained behind us. It was visible until dawn began to break."

These statements have much in common with the story of F. G. Fedulaev: a green cloud appeared in the lower part of the beam. Its pear-shaped shape was previously described in the testimony of the co-pilot of the AN-26 aircraft.

The testimony of Yu.Bogatintseva on the observation from the city of Sortavala.

This entry was made on the day of the observation (September 7), but the observation time is clearly indicated with an error of 1 hour.

"I served tonight. At 3 o'clock, a "star" appeared in the sky in the north direction. It began to approach (increase) and recede (decrease). After 5-10 minutes. it came closer and stopped, began to radiate light down, and from above it formed a kind of chandelier and began to spread waves of white color to the right-left-down. In the center, two colors alternately turned on-green and crimson. Duration-10-15 minutes, maybe 20. After that, something like a light green cloud formed, which shifted to the right, i.e. to the northeast, and held until dawn. Next to this cloud was a band, which over time began to change and turned into a "plane", painted in the following colors: burgundy, white, blue and some other..."

Testimony of the captain of the icebreaker "Semyon Dezhnev" L. S. Isachenko about the observation of the AP from the port of Ventspils, Latvian SSR.

These readings are particularly important, since, first, the ship's watch service on the night of September 7, 1984 recorded its observations of the AP in the ship's log as it developed and consistently sketched all the stages of the development of the AP, and secondly, instrumental measurements were carried out, so necessary to detect the true place of the development of the phenomenon. Captain L. S. Isachenko in his letter to the Commission on the AP gives an extract from the ship's log:

"...04.10. Watch sailor Zavyalov... observed at a bearing of 25° at an angle of 25° above the horizon at an indefinite distance, a matte-silver disk, the boundaries are blurred, about 0.5 spherical degrees in size, placed vertically and radiating a white-yellow beam at an angle of about 30° in an easterly direction, resembling a searchlight beam with clearly defined lateral boundaries. The lower boundary is at an angle of 5° to the horizon, not expressed. The glow was observed for several minutes.

04.12. At an angle of 5-7° above the horizon, a blue-green dim glow with a radius of about three spherical degrees appeared in the place of the intended illumination by the beam in the eastern part of the illumination... At 04.15 from the shore, where they reported what they saw, they reported that the radiation level was average. The ship's KAU instrument, which was switched on, did not detect any radiation.

04.30. The area of blue-green glow is slowly blurring, increasing in size, slowly shifting in a general southerly direction in the north-eastern quarter of the horizon.

06.30. The area of blue-green glow disappeared in the rays of the rising sun."

Observation from Finland.

The Finnish journal "Stars and the Universe" (1984, No. 6) published data on the events of the early morning of September 7. Here is what the author of the article "Light phenomena of September" writes":

"Early in the morning on Friday, September 7, I was at the tower, where I wanted to take the first autumn pictures. Shortly before three o'clock (4 o'clock Moscow time-KH), the sky began to close with clouds, and I was about to go home, when suddenly at 3.15 in the north - eastern sky I found a light blue cloud... When I started taking pictures, the whole sky brightened up. In the constellation Leo, a cloud measuring 15x10°was observed. Its brightness far exceeded that of the Northern Lights. At the same time, on the northern part of the sky, at an altitude of 45°, a faint, narrow, northern lights-like semicircle was visible, the second end of which rested directly on this phenomenon..."

So where did this mysterious phenomenon actually develop and what was it? The reader will learn about this in the next chapter.

Chapter 3. Data synthesis

Familiarity with the stories of eyewitnesses has probably already prompted readers to the idea that the AP of September 7, 1984, so colorfully described by the Estonian pilots, did not take place at all where they identified it: after all, without exception, ground observers from various places in the north-west of the European part of the USSR point the northern direction to it. None of the eyewitnesses confirms the version of either the Tallinn or Tbilisi crews.

Despite the fact that the area of events that night is already generally clear - it was somewhere north of Lake Ladoga, there are still a number of details that require special clarification. Here they are.

True distance to the phenomenon

The pilots of the Tallinn plane were not the only observers who thought that AYA was relatively close to them. The reason for this is its brightness and huge size, which created the illusion of proximity. The pilots determined this distance at 120 km, but a number of eyewitnesses were closer to the truth, pointing to a very high altitude and distance of the object.

In order to determine the location of the development of the AP, we used the data of instrumental measurements of the azimuth on the phenomenon, which was made by members of the crew of the icebreaker "Semyon Dezhnev" from the port of Ventspils, and measurements made from Leningrad. The intersection of the" Leningrad "and" Ventspils " rays determined the true location of the AP-the area of the Rybachy Peninsula in the Barents Sea.

A situational diagram showing the apparent and true location of the AP after 4 a.m. on September 7, 1987. Symbols: 1. The flight path of the Tallinn TU-134A aircraft and its location at 4.06; 2. The flight path of the Tbilisi TU-134A aircraft and its location at 4.06; 3. Localities, the time of their passage by the Tbilisi (right) and Tallinn (left) aircraft; the arrow indicates the location of the "object" from the position of the Tallinn crew; 4. The visible flight path of the AP that "accompanied" the Tallinn aircraft; 5. The locations of some ground observations of the AP; the arrow indicates the direction of the "object"; 6. Accurate instrumental measurements on the AP: from the icebreaker " Semyon Dezhnev "(I) and numerous measurements in Leningrad (II); 7. The actual location of the source of the AP; 8. The location of the cloud - "wingless aircraft" - and its true size on the scale of the scheme.

The height of the location of the AP

Eyewitnesses called different angles of ascent of AP above the horizon-from 10 to 70°. In order to determine the maximum height that the light source reached before its extinction, we used the most reliable data.

On the territory of Leningrad, we clarified the measurements of F. G. Fedulaev from the last floor of the Pertsovsky house on Ligovsky Prospekt: the elevation of the AP above the horizon was 40°here. The resulting measurement is consistent with the data of the AN-26 co-pilot, who determined this angle at 45°. According to the experienced ufologist I. N. Baturin, who measured this angle from the apartment of one of the eyewitnesses, it was 50°. Thus, we have the right to assume that the angle AP above the horizon for Leningrad is approximately 45°. Knowing the approximate distance to the point of maximum elevation of the light object (about 1100 km), it is easy to calculate that it reached its apogee at an altitude also equal to about 1100 km from the earth's surface (since our approximate calculations do not take into account the curvature of the Earth, the actual height of the apogee should be slightly higher, but this does not matter in principle for us).

Description of the phenomenon

And now let's try to reconstruct the true picture of the development of AP, using the available data.

At 4.06 am on September 7, 1984, from the area of the Rybachy Peninsula, a light object began to rise, which, according to many eyewitnesses, had the shape of a triangle, and from more distant areas looked like a large star. The ascent took place on a steep trajectory with a slope to the north for 3-4 minutes.

The speed of its ascent is easy to calculate-1100 km :4: 60 s = 4.6 km/s.

Down from the object was a light cone, the shape of which many "close" observers estimate as pear-shaped. The cone grew in size as the object rose. Distant observers (more than 1000 km from the AP) noted one or two brighter cones inside it.

When the object reached its apogee and was observed from Leningrad at an angle of 45°, it suddenly went out, and the light cone continued to remain visible for some time.

The whole picture described is quite consistent with the well-known light effects accompanying the launch of space or ballistic missiles, and, apparently, would not have caused much surprise to eyewitnesses, especially pilots, if not for the further development of events: shortly before the object went out below the top of the cone (the inversion trace of the rocket, which was already in the zone of illumination by the Sun), a green-blue ball suddenly appeared, and its appearance was preceded by a bright flash, perceived by many observers as a ray directed personally at them. This mythical ray still does not give rest to some ufologists, who still do not lose hope to see in the development of the described events the participation of representatives of our "brothers in mind". What is this beam, - they ask, - that illuminates for 1000 km !? Let us reassure them: there was no ray, there was no ray! There was only a flash.

Then the cone went out, and the ball began to increase in size, taking the form of a comma, and then-a cloud that looked from long distances (more than 1000 km) like a wingless plane. Like the Moon ,which "accompanies" our movement in space on any form of transport, this object "accompanied" the flight of the Tallinn plane.

Taking into account the fact that from the position of its crew, the angular dimensions of the "wingless plane" and the Pskov lake were the same, the true size of the cloud object that rose in the area of the Rybachy Peninsula was at least 300 km.

What was it?

This was the end of each witness ' letter. Perhaps the first answer to this question we received in a letter from a seventh-grader Lyuba Borovikova from Lyuban, Leningrad region. Without waiting for publication in the newspaper "Trud", she sent her description of what she saw on the night of September 7 to the Pulkovo Observatory. And this is the answer she got from there:

"This is not an astronomical phenomenon or a natural phenomenon at all. You accidentally observed an unusual lighting experiment. As a matter of fact, any experiment is unusual, which is why the phenomenon seemed unusual. We have reason to attribute this phenomenon to the category of artificial (technical) processes, because such phenomena are not observed in nature, and even more so in space. That's all we can say about it."

The last phrase can be regarded as an indication of the higher level of competence of the Pulkovo Observatory in the clearly classified question of the nature of the AP on September 7, 1984.

In order to understand what really happened in the night sky north of the Kola Peninsula, it is enough to refer to the brochure "Environmental aspects of Cosmonautics" from the series "Cosmonautics, Astronomy" (1986, No. 5). The authors of this work write that the study of the near-Earth environment is carried out in our country by "active experiments" with the help of artificially created clouds, which are formed as a result of the injection (release) of alkali metal vapors - lithium, sodium, barium or caesium - from rockets or spacecraft. When did these experiments begin? In ... September 1984!

A. A. Plaksin ("Earth and the Universe", 1995, No. 2) gives additional information on this subject: "a luminous cloud" is a technogenic aerospace phenomenon that is specially formed in the Earth's atmosphere to solve scientific and practical problems. Such a cloud goes through three stages of its development: a sphere, an ellipse, and stratification into layers-strata (similar stages were observed by our eyewitnesses on that memorable night). The size of such clouds reaches 500 km ( in our case - about 300 km).

To ensure the best observation conditions, Plaksin continues his explanations, such clouds are thrown out in the morning or evening twilight during moonless periods. This leads to the fact that against the background of the black sky, the rocket's inversion trace and the artificial cloud are already (or still) in the zone of sunlight and themselves, like the Moon, are a source of reflected sunlight. This is the reason for the illumination of the area in huge areas, although many thought that the reason for this was a light beam. Therefore, it is not surprising that from an altitude of more than 10,000 m, the pilots and passengers of the Estonian plane could distinguish individual elements of the landscape.

So, the picture of the mysterious phenomena that night, in general terms, is clear: it is connected with the launch of a ballistic missile (space launches in our region are possible only from the cosmodrome in Plesetsk), accompanied by a grandiose lighting experiment in the upper atmosphere.

In all this pseudo-mythological history, it would be possible to put an end to it, if not for two circumstances:

a) the testimony of the co-pilot of the Tbilisi plane completely does not fit into the painted picture of the launch and does not correspond to the testimony of all other eyewitnesses;

b) for some members of the crew of the Tbilisi plane, the consequences of the memorable night were tragic.

Chapter 4. The picture is clear, the investigation continues. Two versions

It was not difficult to meet Yu.I. Kabachnikov: it turned out that he and his family live in Leningrad (now he lives in Israel).

If the reader remembers, in his memo, Yuri Isaakovich described how the front beam of the object focused and headed towards the plane, and then illuminated it with a short-term very bright light. After that, the beam descended, "drew" the outline of a rectangle on the ground and shaded it, as it were.

At a meeting with the co-pilot of the Tbilisi plane in 1987, new details were revealed. It turns out that the narrow beam of light that illuminated the cockpit rested first on the stomach of the first pilot, and then shifted to Kabachnikov himself. "At this time, within a few seconds, I felt an internal burn on the left side of my face and the left side of my chest. I covered my face with the forearm of my left hand. I felt like I was being stripped of the matrix."

The question arises why such an important detail of the meeting with the object was not reflected in the memo: after all, it was with the action of the beam that Kabachnikov undoubtedly associated the medical consequences of the" contact " (we will talk about them later). Another thing is also unclear: how did the pilots of the Tallinn plane, who continuously observed the object accompanying them, not notice any operations with the beam on the surface of the Earth? But the most important thing is that according to Kabachnikov's testimony, the glowing object was located in a completely different place - in the area of G. Borisov, while according to the Estonian pilots, after 4.49 AP accompanied their plane already somewhere in the area of Lake Pskov.

These contradictions in the course of the investigation initially even led me to the conclusion that Kabachnikov observed a completely different object-AP No. 2.

Naturally, there was a second, secret version: isn't the copilot's testimony a fiction? Having learned that the author of the article "Exactly at 4.10..." V. Vostrukhin has tape cassettes with recordings of his conversations with the other members of the Tbilisi crew, I called him in Moscow and asked him to send them to me. I must pay tribute to Vladimir Vladimirovich: despite the fact that he knew about the results of my investigation, discrediting his "alien" version of the event, the truth was more expensive for him. The tapes were sent. When I listened to them, everything became completely clear to me.

What is the evidence of the Tbilisi crew?

Before proceeding to the examination of the testimony of the Tbilisi pilots, we will raise a number of questions:

- was the object really observed in an easterly direction at an azimuth of 88°, as Kabachnikov claims?
- did the rays come from the "UFO", did it draw a rectangle of light on the Ground, did the beam illuminate the cockpit of the aircraft?
- whether the plane changed its course and went on a criminal (otherwise it can not be called!) the command of the Minsk dispatcher to approach the anomalous object?

Let's start with the testimony of the commander of the ship V. V. Gotsiridze. However, before you get acquainted with them, you need to take into account one important circumstance. The fact is that, according to the oral report of Yu. A. Kabachnikov in a personal conversation with him, he himself led the flight and flew the plane, while the commander of the ship after departure from Leningrad rested and slept peacefully in his chair. We have not been able to determine at what point unexpected events caused the crew members to wake him up and when he joined the collective monitoring of the AYA. But one thing is clear: when this happened, the commander did not have time to understand for himself what section of the route his plane was on and what azimuth its course was. From the testimony of the navigator and the flight mechanic of the aircraft, we know that the object was observed by them on the traverse of the aircraft, that is, in the north direction, after entering the zone of the Minsk dispatcher in the area of Svir. From the flight diagram illustrating the testimony of Yu. I. Kabachnikov, we also know that it was in this section that the plane changed its course from the meridian to the sublatitudinal and flew to the city of Pleshanitsa in the direction of east-southeast at an azimuth of 108° (see Kabachnikov's memo) or 113° (see his drawing).

The period of course change in the area of Svir did not remain unnoticed for the commander (he will tell us later that the plane changed course), which means that he ended his short rest immediately after the crew members heard the conversation of the Tallinn crew with the Minsk dispatcher, that is, even before the approach to Svir and the change of course. On the one hand, the commander seems to confirm Kabachnikov's testimony about the appearance of a UFO in the east direction from their ship, and on the other-there is reason to believe that after his awakening, he did not have time to correctly assess the position of their plane on the highway (below I will explain why). It is also impossible to take into account his report that the object was observed at an angle of about 30° to the left of the plane's course before entering the Minsk zone: none of the crew members saw any AI before the plane turned towards Pleshanitsa (see the diagram in Fig. 2.2, 2.7). At the same time, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the commander, the only one of the pilots who were in the Minsk zone at that time, correctly estimated the stationary position of the object relative to their aircraft.

So, let's move on to the conversation of the journalist V. V. Vostrukhin (hereinafter-B) with the commander of the ship (hereinafter-K). Here and further, I highlight particularly important places in the verbatim and literary raw testimony of pilots recorded on tape.

K: We were going, as you know, along the Tallinn-Minsk route, which is one corridor, and in parallel, in the east, somewhere at a distance of 200 km, the Moscow highway passes, and there we also had to observe, especially since it was on the traverse of our plane, to Moscow. And the distance of this object from us was over 100 km, although at night it is difficult to navigate in the air.

Q: And what are the criteria for indicating such a figure?

K: In our work, we have to determine the distance to the clouds in the air, their height, the distance to the flying planes, when the locator does not take. It's purely professional. I could see It perfectly - it was like an airplane, but without a stabilizer; against the dark background, the object's color, flashing, changed, somehow pulsed. Its nose had a constant shape, but the keel somehow changed the angle of its section. Its color was from white to bluish-salad.

Q: What else did you see? Just this silhouette and nothing else?

K: And nothing else. The object was on our beam, and its nose was oriented strictly to the north. So we went, and as long as I did not watch it, but I did not notice that it changed altitude and course. We changed the altitude and course, but the object did not. Before we entered the Minsk zone and got in touch, we saw an object, but it was not clear what it was. When we entered the Minsk zone, the dispatcher began to ask us if we could see the object. We were silent. We didn't observe it on the locator ourselves, and we have greater capabilities than "earth". We passed the object on the beam, then I turned it slightly away - the object was in one place, so it seems to me.

Q: Did the Minsk dispatcher ask you to turn in the direction of the object?

K: Yes, we changed the altitude and course, turning both to and from the object. But it was never designed, never changed.

Q: So the object hung at one point in space and did not change its height or position?

K: For me personally, it is. We changed the course, but the object of the course did not change.

Q: So the object was in one place?

Q: Yes.

Q. And no rays came from it? Haven't you seen it?

K: No. Only the pattern of the keel moved a little, the light wavered, a vague light, not directed, but a vague light came from behind. And something was not directed, the light was scattered.

Q: Do you remember the approximate content of your negotiations with the Tallinn board and the Minsk dispatcher?

Q: (hesitantly): The Tallinn board asked us: do you see the < object>? But I said at the beginning-we don't see it.

Q: But did you or did you not see him?

K: You saw it, you saw it, but you said you didn't see it (? - K. H.). I saw, but was not surprised: well, there is, so there is. But then that board said: how is it that we see and you don't? Well, I said we were watching. And that board says that the object is following us. And that they change course and the object changes course with them. And we changed course, but there was absolutely nothing. Then we passed Minsk, left the zone and communication with them stopped. Then the object was no longer visible.

Q: Did you go from Korsava to Minsk?

Q: Yes.

Q: And the object was seen in what direction?

K: We went from Riga somewhere more than halfway to Minsk. In the direction from here - to the east, towards Moscow.

Q: And by level: higher or lower?

K: And on the level, on the left side, like this (shows).

Q: That is, at what angle in the direction of flight?

K: At first, when we moved away from Korsava, he was ahead of us, at about 30 degrees to the direction of flight.

Q: And then?

K: And then, when Minsk was still more than half way away, the object was observed at about 70 degrees. And somewhere along the way, he was already on the beam.

Q: Over what points did your flight pass - Korsava, and then what:

K: There (very hesitantly, after a long pause)…

Q: The navigator remembers.

K: Yes, he would definitely say that.

Q: Was the outline of the object clear or blurry?

K: Clear, the boundaries were clear. The nose was slightly raised.

Q: How would it go to takeoff?

Q: Yes, yes.

Q: Did its shape change in any way during the flight? After all, the projection of the angle of view changed. Did it change according to how the flight changed?

K: No. I've seen him raised up like this… Just when it came to the traverse, the contour was more clearly visible, the fuselage was more elongated.

Q: So the shape of this object changed as it should have if you were passing by a stationary object?

Q: Yes.

Q: When you passed him, did he stay behind you?

K: Yes, he was in front, then on the beam, and then he left.

Q: Where was the oncoming plane at the time?

K: (very hesitantly): He was ... almost ... on the beam ... somewhere at an angle of 45° to the course.

Q: Where was the object in relation to the aircraft?

K: He was on our left, and they were on their right.

Q: How far away was the object from you? More than 100 km? No further than how many?

K: It's hard to say.

Q: Could he have been more than 1,000 km away from you?

Q: No! Such a distance - no!

Q: Why do you think that?

Q: Well, how come? Because… We have seen mountains from such a distance, such as Elbrus, but we will not see them from such a distance…

Q: Have you ever seen satellite launches?

K: No.

Q: So you can't evaluate whether it looks like a launch or not?

K: No.

Q: So the distance to the object was somewhere between 100 and 200 km?

Q: Yes.

Q: Was there any radio interference?

K: No, absolutely nothing.

Q: Have you contacted the Minsk dispatcher and asked him to inform you about the object"where you need to go"?

Q: No, we haven't.

Q: At that time, there was not a single plane in the air except for the one from Tallinn and yours.

Q: And on the Moscow highway?

Q: And there was no one on Moskovskaya Street, unfortunately. How long have you been observing the object?

Q: About half an hour. From the beginning of the observation to the end.

Q: So, the object was standing still, and you flew over it.

Q: Yes.

Q: At what angle did you observe the object?

K: Almost at the same height as us.

Q: But a little higher, a little lower?

K: Maybe a little higher.

Q: Well, how many degrees? 3, 5, 1, gender? Less than 10?

Q: How many degrees is the funicular? (!?- K. H.)

That was the end of the ship's commander's interview.

Testimony of flight mechanic Murman Gvenetadze.

Flight mechanic (hereinafter-BM): The Minsk dispatcher requested us: are you observing an unidentified object? I looked-I can't see anything yet. And then I looked - probably this one, I say, shines! I said to the copilot, " Maybe this one?" (on duty, the flight engineer should have turned to the commander of the ship, but he was probably still asleep-K. H.) We looked at it. The dispatcher keeps asking: what object, what forms? Well, we watched it for about 15 minutes.

Q: Please describe what you saw, what the object looked like, how did you personally see it?

BM: It took different forms.

Q: Please draw it.

BM (drawing): These are the shapes. It glowed and followed us.

Q: Triangle shapes?

BM: No, not really. But of some unusual shape. I think he was cheating on her.

Q: How did you cheat?

BM: It was sometimes like a ball, but it lit up most of the area.

Q: In heaven or on earth?

BM: Behind him, in the sky, as if he left a trace.

Q: Did the dispatcher ask you to change course towards the object?

BM: No, he didn't tell us.

Q. Did you change the height?

BM: No. But we saw that he was following the opposite side.

Q: Did he change the altitude, the course? (this refers to the object-Kh.)

BM: It's hard to say. It's so huge, but I think it changed altitude... its tail was bigger than its nose ... (from this phrase it becomes clear that on paper the BM depicted something like an airplane-KH).

Q: What color was it?

BM: The color is yellowish, but it changes color, turns green.

Q: And you went on opposite courses? (with the plane-K. H.)

BM: Yes. Until we were level, we did not notice the object (at the time when the Tbilisi plane entered the sublatitudinal route after Svir, the Tallinn airliner was already approaching the Estonian capital; both crews missed the moment of their meeting in the general flight corridor-KH).

BM: Yes. Until we were level, we did not notice the object ( at the time when the Tbilisi plane entered the sublatitudinal route after Svir, the Tallinn airliner was already approaching the Estonian capital; both crews missed the moment of their meeting in the general flight corridor-KH).

Q: Did you see any rays coming from the object up or down? Was there ground lighting?

BM: I think it was.

Q: Do you remember the place he lit up?

BM: No.

Q: Can you estimate the approximate distance to the object?

BM: 10-12 kilometers.

Q: And how did you determine this distance?

BM: I had the impression that the object was following very close to the oncoming side, and it was 10-12 kilometers away.

Q: Has the object's position changed relative to your aircraft?

BM: He was following an oncoming plane. From a distance, it was not very visible, we do not see the plane at night, but we only see its lighthouse. So, in relation to this lighthouse, the object did not change its position (once again, we emphasize that around 5 o'clock in the morning, when the Tbilisi plane changed its course near Svir to sublatitudinal, as a result of which, on the traverse - in the north direction - the pilots were finally able to observe the "wingless plane", the Tallinn crew was already over the territory of Estonia! - Kh.).

Q: In what direction did you see the object in relation to the course of your aircraft?

BM: Almost parallel. Because when we parted with the oncoming side, we watched the object for a long time, another 13-15 minutes.

Q: At what angle to the plane's course did you see the object? Show me! So, 70 degrees…

BM: 80-90 degrees.

Q: Do you think that the object was very far away? Well, say, for 1000 km? Have you ever watched a launch?

BM: No, only on TV.

Q: So you saw the object at an angle of 90 degrees. Imagine that you are in the cockpit and put your hand in the direction of the object.

BM: The dispatcher requested: "Are you watching?" And we didn't observe anything. Then I noticed something glowing. And I say: maybe THAT's what they mean? (he points with his hand.)

Q. So, it means 60-70 degrees to the course. Was the object very large?

BM: Big - small - I can't say. But it was a big object. The trail behind him moved and was bigger than him. It's like a huge plane is flying.

Q: Was the plane's outline clear?

BM: Clear, but blurry (! - Kh.)

Q: Did you have any special feelings?

BM: No, there was a feeling (! - K. H.).

Q: Have you ever seen such cases in your practice?

BM: No, this has not yet been met...(further-an incomprehensible place in the record)... There was a communication pause of 1-1. 5 minutes between the Riga and Minsk zones. We saw the object about 3-4 minutes after this pause.

Q: Did you ask the dispatcher to contact the MCC or the CDC (Central Flight Control or Central Dispatch Service-KH) and report to them what is happening?

BM: No. The dispatcher knew, and we heard him well... (unclear place in the recording)…

Q: Was anything seen on your locator?

BM: The navigator has the locator.

Q: How long have you been observing this object?

BM: For about 15 minutes. From start to finish. After we separated from the oncoming side, we continued to observe it.

Q: And then they stopped watching?

BM: Yes. And then we broke up

Q: They stopped watching because he disappeared, or..

BM: No, we broke up with him.

Q: So you just couldn't see him from the window anymore?

BM: Yes.

Q: The fact that the object was accompanied by an oncoming plane is quite clear in your opinion?

BM: Yes, it's quite clear.

Of all the indications, the most accurate and reliable are those of the navigator I. Tomashvili (hereinafter - T.), who, due to his direct duties, continuously monitored the course and location of the ship. In the TU-134A aircraft, the navigator takes a seat in the very nose and does not have the opportunity to directly communicate with the rest of the crew. In front of him is the glassed-in nose of the plane in the shape of a hemisphere, which makes it possible, without leaving the place, to survey the space along the course of the ship at an angle of about 45°. If you leave the seat and stick your head inside the "hemisphere", you can observe what is happening to the right and left on the traverse of the aircraft. This circumstance should be taken into account when reading the following conversation, recorded by Vostrukhin:

T. (shows on the map): "There is such a place here - Svir. This is the entrance area of the Minsk dispatcher. Here, we entered this zone, I switched to another frequency and heard the voice of the Minsk dispatcher on the air, but I could not contact him, because he was already talking to some other board, and I have no right to interfere until he finishes. And now I hear this conversation: the board says that it is being chased by an object, that it has changed course several times, and the object is on a parallel course and accompanies it. That was the end of their relationship. Then I contacted the dispatcher. He says to me: do you see the goal? And we used to mean by the word "target" an oncoming plane. I looked and said: no, I can't see, although the visibility was excellent, it was very clear, the stars above, the stars below (the light bulbs on the ground are lit and look like stars). The dispatcher then says: look at the angle (to the course-Kh.) degrees under 45 at a distance of about 50 km, that is, the dispatcher was guided by the data of that board. I looked in that direction and said, no, I don't see it. Another three minutes passed. Then I looked out (in the" hemisphere " - K. H.), I looked-something was shining, at first you could think that the Sun was rising... I say, I see. What, the dispatcher asks, do you see? I see, I say, a glowing point, or rather, a glowing object so healthy, although the object as such (i.e., something material-Kh.) was not visible there. I drew the attention of our guys to it. This target was approaching us from the left side. The dispatcher says: keep in touch and constantly report how it changes. And I saw her constantly in the same form.

Then, when we were approaching Minsk, the dispatcher asks:: can you show where the object is and give its bearing? I say, you go out, look, and see him. Then there was silence, three minutes passed, he says: yes, there really is some kind of glow there. Yes, I told him: you will look due north and see.

Well, here we went with the oncoming side, and the object accompanied him. We saw him all the time, even from the Ptici area. And the oncoming plane was already in the Riga zone, we did not keep in touch with it. But we saw the object. The Minsk dispatcher asked: is the object moving away from you or approaching? I say it is being deleted because it has been shrinking. And then I looked out again, and I saw that it was getting bigger. I tell the dispatcher: and now it increases. Then I looked out again and saw that the object was shrinking again. So he disappeared.

Q: How long did you observe the object?

T: Ten minutes, that is, at a distance of 150 km.

Q: And then you lost sight of him?

T: You understand, I'm sitting in such an uncomfortable place - in the nose of the plane, you need to lean out to look out, and there is no time to go out into the cockpit - I'm going about my business. The object was visible far away, because the guys said that it was still glowing.

Q: But some time later, the object disappeared from view?

T: In the area of Ptici, we began to decline and lost sight of it. It seems to me that if we were not going down, we would still see it.

Q: How far do you think the object was from you?

T: It's hard to say, because its size is not quite clear, especially at night. It felt like it was 10-15 km away.

Q: Could it have been an optical illusion? Maybe this thing was 1000 km away, and you saw it nearby?

T (hesitantly): - Yes, no, probably.

Q: Did you see that the plane is accompanied by another plane?

T: I didn't see that side. The object was shaped like an airplane, and its fuselage glowed with a turquoise light."

So, let's make some generalizations.

The location of the object on the traverse of the aircraft, on the left side, was confirmed by the ship's commander, navigator and flight engineer. Taking into account the sub-latitude course of the ship after Svir, when the crew members finally saw the ill-fated object, the direction to it should have been north. When asked by a journalist whether the dispatcher asked to change course towards the object, the flight engineer replied "no". The commander of the ship also did not confirm this version, but said that the plane changed its course (as it really took place over the city of Svir); at the same time, from his point of view, the object hung at one point in space and did not change its height or position.

What did the crew members see? The navigator, the commander, the flight mechanic and the flight attendant * confirmed that the object resembled an airplane in shape without a stabilizer in color from white to bluish-salad or green. There is no doubt that this is the same object that was observed by the Tallinn pilots and dozens of other eyewitnesses.

* Note. There was no tape recording of the conversation with the flight attendant, and I use the data from the interview that was taken from her at my request by the chairman of the Tbilisi branch of the AP commission, L. I. Akopov, in 1987.

What about the rays? "No rays came from the object," the ship's commander answered this question, " only the keel pattern moved a little, the light fluctuated, blurry, undirected, and went back. Something was not directed, the light was scattered." None of the other crew members also noticed any rays coming from the object, especially those directed at the plane, its cockpit and pilots. No one observed any light rectangles on the earth's surface in the area of Borisov.

So, the testimonies of the members of the Tbilisi crew completely fit into the reconstructed picture of the development of the event. Once again, we emphasize that the pilots witnessed only the final phase of the development of the AI, while its earlier stages - "star", ray, cone, flash, blue ball, "comma" - developed outside the field of view of the pilots, since their plane to Svir flew in the direction from north to south and was turned towards the AP with its tail. Having changed its course after the city of Svir, the plane moved further on a sublatitudinal course, and here the pilots finally got the opportunity to see the mysterious object - it was on the traverse of the plane, that is, in the north. The observation of the wingless plane lasted, according to the crew members, 10-15 minutes, after which it disappeared from the field of view. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that over the city of Pleshanitsy, the plane again changed its course to a more southern one, and the object "went" to the left back out of sightю

The testimony of Kabachnikov, who, firstly, saw something completely different, secondly, in a completely different direction, and, thirdly, did not see what the members of his own crew observed, to put it mildly, does not climb into any gate. There is a clear hoax. However, what prompted him to mislead thousands of people who believed in his testimony, given in numerous publications at home and abroad, we will be able to understand only after we get acquainted with another aspect of the night incident on September 7, 1984 - the medical one...

Medical complications

There is reason to believe that the events of the memorable night of September 7, 1984 are associated with the tragic medical consequences that cost the life of the first pilot of the Tbilisi plane V. V. Gotsiridze and turned the second pilot Yu. I. Kabachnikov into a disabled person. Flight attendant S. A. Orlova also became seriously ill.

However, first we will turn to the document, a copy of which is available in my archive:

Ministry of Health of the Georgian SSR
Research Institute of
Experimental and Clinical Therapy,
Tbilisi-59, Digomsky massif, Lublinskaya str., 4
No. 704/2 June 23, 1986

 

CONCLUSION

Kabachnikov Yu. I., born in 1938, 7/IX-1984, performed flight No. 7084 on the route Leningrad-Boryspil-Batumi-Tbilisi as a co-pilot. Next to him was the commander of the aircraft Gotsiridze V. V. In the area of the Minsk air zone, the plane met an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT. When the plane was located within 35 km from the UFO, the plane was exposed to radiation. As a result of irradiation, Yu. I. Kabachnikov received damage to the head and heart, and V. V. Gotsiridze-in the spleen. October 18, 1985 Gotsiridze was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, which resulted in death and gangrene in November 1985.

Kabachnikov Yu. I. was examined by the Kiev Medical and Flight Expert Commission, then by the Central Medical and Flight Expert Commission of the Ministry of Civil Aviation of the USSR, and in 1986 by the Radioimmunological Center of the Ministry of Health of the GSSR and at the Institute of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology named after Yu. Tsinamdzgvrishvili of the Ministry of Health of the Georgian SSR. VLEK established the diagnosis of myocardiodystrophy and recognized Yu. I. Kabachnikov unfit for flight work. During the inpatient examination at the Research Institute of Cardiology with the use of radiobiological, biochemical, electrocardiographic and electroencephalographic methods of research, the diagnosis of coronary heart disease was established.

Attention should be paid to the marked electrical alternation of the heart muscle of unknown etiology, as well as to the electrical alternation of the electroencephalogram. In addition, there are signs of direct damage to the heart muscle in the form of chronic coronary insufficiency and heart rhythm disorders.

Hence, it should be concluded that Yu. I. Kabachnikov was exposed to electromagnetic radiation of an unknown physical characteristic. According to the ECG and EEG data, the impact was a relatively narrow beam from the areas of the frontal lobes of the brain to the heart. The impact was local in nature and caused damage to brain tissue and heart muscle. Direct damage to the heart muscle led to the development of cardiomyopathy with the phenomena of chronic coronary insufficiency of a non-arterosclerotic nature.

The damage to the brain and heart tissue has not stopped for a year and a half, as evidenced by the persistent electrical alteration of the heart and brain muscles.

So, Kabachnikov Yu. I. was injured in the form of a unique injury to the heart muscle and brain in the performance of official duties.

The detected abnormalities in the heart muscle and on the electroencephalogram are unique, since they are not described in the practice of medicine due to the unusual and unique situation in which the pilot Kabachnikov Yu. I. was injured. Cardiomyopathy and chronic ischemic heart disease in Kabachnikov Yu.I. can be qualified as an industrial injury resulting from radiation exposure in the performance of official duties.

Signed: Head of the Department. department of Pathophysiology of the Research Institute of Experimental and Clinical Therapy of the Ministry of Health of the Georgian SSR, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor K. I. TSINTSADZE

At my request, L. I. Akopov, a member of the Tbilisi Commission on AYA, interviewed S. A. Orlova, a flight attendant (after her marriage, Lomtatidze), in 1987. It turned out that some time after the memorable night (unfortunately, L. Akopov does not specify what time it is) she felt something wrong with her vision: she began to see poorly in the light of the daylight lamps, and it was painful to look at them. Two years after the event, at the 5th month of pregnancy, she began to have severe dermatitis all over her body, and a crust formed on her stomach around the navel, from which a viscous, smelling liquid constantly oozed (I apologize to Svetlana Anatolyevna for publishing such details of her illness, but I do this with the hope of receiving additional comments about the disease from medical readers).

"By the end of the pregnancy, blisters formed on the hands," writes L. I. Akopov, " Gynecologists assumed a toxic pregnancy, but did not claim anything. Before giving birth for 5 days, the pressure rose, so she went to the hospital earlier. The delivery was very easy. After them, it was very swollen, did not fit on the bed, blisters increased and spread all over the body; in them - the same liquid. In short, it was rotting and dying. On the third week (after giving birth), the temperature rose to 40°. The doctors could do nothing but trust in God. Only the dermatologist continued to make soothing lotions and said that this is a crisis, and if she survives it, she will recover. Suggested During's dermatitis. The fever subsided on the third day, but the blisters did not go away until three months later. Now there are reddish marks on the skin."

"I read about During's dermatitis," Leonid Ivanovich writes in conclusion, " the description matches. The reasons are unknown. A glimpse in the medical encyclopedia says that this disease is caused by electromagnetic radiation."

So, three diseases in the crew members of the same aircraft associated with electromagnetic radiation-this already gives serious reasons to assume one common cause.

And what about the crew of the Tallinn plane? Only the oldest-a flight mechanic-two months later, that is, in early November 1984, was recorded poor blood tests, heart failure was detected, as a result of which he, like his Tbilisi colleagues, was written off from the flight crew on the ground. A coincidence?

Was the technical experiment conducted environmentally safe?

How can we not recall the message of G. I. Lazurin that the tape recording on board the plane, which recorded the negotiations of the crew with the ground on that enchanting night, turned out to be of poor quality - the voices on the tape were barely audible. This was not observed either before or after. Is this also due to an increase in the intensity of the electromagnetic field?

Logically, another question arises: was the grand experiment over the Kola Peninsula limited to the environmentally safe process of artificial cloud formation at high altitudes, or was it accompanied by the initiation of some other unknown and probably secret processes? From the collection "Artificial Particle Beams in Space" (Mir, 1985), I found out that numerous research groups in different countries use artificial particle beams injected from space rockets and satellites to study atmospheric, ionospheric and magnetospheric processes. It was noted, in particular, that artificial beams lead to various phenomena that surprise even the authors of the experiment. Are the pilots ' illnesses related to exposure to such artificial electron beams or something else that we don't even know about?

Developing this idea, let us pay attention to one circumstance: a bright flash, which was perceived by many observers as a searchlight aimed at them and which may have been associated with the emission of electron beams, occurred exactly (this time - without quotes) at 4.10 (see Figure 2.1). At this time, the Tbilisi plane, which took off from Pulkovo airport at 4.01, was still approaching the border with Estonia, moving in a south-westerly direction and gaining the planned altitude; at 4.10 it was supposed to be at an altitude of about 3500 meters. At the time of this outbreak, the Tallinn plane was still approaching Osipovichi, being about 700 km further from the experimental site than its Georgian "counterpart" (see Figure 2.2). Perhaps this difference in distance determined the difference in the scale of the harmful effects of the experiment on people who were in the air and, unlike its terrestrial observers, were not protected by the low layers of the atmosphere. However, in this case, the medical consequences of the experiment should have taken place among the passengers of the Tbilisi plane. What do we know about it? Nothing! I appealed to L. I. Akopov with a request to continue the investigation in Tbilisi, but, alas,I did not receive any further information from him. In vain, through the newspaper "Anomaly", where the materials of my investigation were first published in late 1996-early 1997, I appealed to the staff of academic organizations - V. V. Migulin, Yu. V. Platov (IZMIRAN), S. A. Chernous (Polar Geophysical Institute in Apatity on the Kola Peninsula) and to other specialists in anomalous atmospheric phenomena with a request to help us understand this issue. No one sent any explanation to the paper. So all the above arguments are purely hypothetical.

Moreover, there are even doubts that the medical consequences of the members of the Tbilisi crew are connected with the events of this particular night, September 7, 1984. The reason for these doubts is the fact that the flight mechanic of the Georgian crew, Murman Gvenetadze, who was during the fatal flight between the two injured pilots, in August 1989, that is, five years later, did not complain at all about his health and continued to fly (the newspaper "Youth of Georgia" of August 19, 1989). What does this mean? Is it not about the fact that electromagnetic radiation V. Gotsiridze, Yu. Kabachnikov and S. Orlova were received on another day of their joint flight, when the flight mechanic M. Gvenetadze was absent from the crew? However, I also failed to clarify this issue.

As for the reasons that prompted Yu. I. Kabachnikov to resort to fabricating a picture of a meeting with a UFO, then they are quite understandable in a purely human way: a seriously ill person had to prove to the Ministry of Civil Aviation that he had been injured in the line of duty, and thereby achieve material compensation in the form of an increased pension (by the way, he did not manage to achieve this). That is why the memo was written by him not immediately after the completion of the memorable flight, but 5 months later, when his health had already deteriorated. We will not judge it strictly, especially since the probability of electromagnetic radiation of pilots in the air as a result of some experiment is more than just an assumption. Representatives of alien civilizations this time should be fully rehabilitated.

Hole in the parallel anti-world and other versions

In the course of the investigation, the author adhered to the rule of treating with caution those details in the description of the phenomenon that were described only by one eyewitness and were not confirmed by the testimony of other, independent, witnesses. Otherwise, the subjective nature of perception, the emotionality and level of observation of eyewitnesses, and sometimes the involuntary desire to embellish your story with details that actually did not exist - all this would serve as a reason for the appearance in the scenario of the night event of a number of AI, the alien nature of which could be suspected.

When analyzing the testimony of eyewitnesses who observed the same phenomenon from the same place (for example, launch effects or combustion in the atmosphere of a spacecraft that descended from orbit), various UFO commissions of Russia and neighboring countries have established their significant difference from each other (G. K. Kolchin rightly writes about this in his book "The UFO Phenomenon...").

It is likely that if our "brothers in mind" were present at the grandiose light extravaganza, they would be in the area of the rocket launch. Unfortunately, the northern part of the Kola Peninsula, judging by the testimony of eyewitnesses living there, was covered with clouds, and therefore the residents of this area could not observe the development of the experiment in the upper atmosphere, and saw only the initial phases of the launch.

A peculiar version of the participation in the experiment of the "object of unearthly technology" was proposed at the time by a specialist in the field of atmospheric physics, Candidate of Physical and mathematical sciences V. F. Psalomshchikov, with whom we have long been connected by warm friendly relations. According to Valentin Filippovich ("Trud", July 22, 1990), the drawings of G. Lazurin "...they clearly show that there were two events that were synchronous in time, but separated in space, which, without being connected, overlapped one on top of the other." From the point of view of Psalomshchikov, the "large star" or "light oval spot" with a ray observed by the pilots at the first stages of development is an extraterrestrial object, which in the further development of events was superimposed in the form of a dark spot on a green cloud; the latter, in his opinion, was formed as a result of the launch of another satellite of the Cosmos series from Plesetsk.

It is difficult to agree with this interpretation. First, the launch of the satellite from the Plesetsk cosmodrome took place on this day at a completely different time and has nothing to do with the event "4.10". Secondly ,the "product of extraterrestrial intelligence" must have been constantly in a straight line with the plane and the cloud, moving relative to the latter at the same angular velocity as the plane; this seems very unlikely. And, finally, and most importantly, the dark core in the green cloud was observed by many other witnesses from completely different places in the north-west, in particular from Leningrad (Fig. 2. 8). This clearly indicates that the core was an integral part of the cloud, and not an overlay on it of some other object or phenomenon.

a-г. 4 stages of development of the green cloud and its dark core according to observations from Leningrad. Drawings of the eyewitness L. V. Moskovkina. The dark core in Fig. "a-б" at the last stage turns into a dark band (Fig. "г"). In Figure "б", the ball begins to transform into a "comma"."

The nature of such a core is most likely due to the fact that during the formation of an artificial cloud when injecting a reagent that reacts with oxygen, an "oxygen hole" is formed inside the cloud, i.e., a zone of oxygen depletion, which causes a decrease in the apparent brightness of the core to the center.

It is likely that the version of the dark core as a product of extraterrestrial intelligence could not fully satisfy V. F. Psalomshchikov himself: in the next publication dedicated to " 4.10 "(the almanac" Man and the Elements-92"), he already offers two options: the core is either an object of unearthly technology, or a physical phenomenon - a" hole " in a parallel anti-world. Any other interpretation of this kernel, from his point of view, is unacceptable (!).

Without waiting for the end of the publication of the results of our investigation in the newspaper "Anomaly", V. F. publishes an article "UFO that shook the whole country" ("UFO", 1997, No. 2, p. 7), where he again writes about the central part of the artificial cloud, as a product of unearthly technology.

What, after all, can at least somehow testify in favor of the bold, but clearly fantastic, ideas of the physicist Psalomshchikov? Perhaps, there is the only evidence of the appearance of an extraterrestrial object on a memorable night that deserves attention. Unfortunately, this certificate was not addressed to the AIA Commission and did not come into my possession. Its description is given in all the above-mentioned articles by V. F. Psalomshchikov. In short: according to the former pilot, retired Lieutenant Colonel A. Kovalchuk, at the beginning of the first night of September 7, 1984, 40 km south-west of the city. Baranovichi (180 km southwest of Minsk), he and his companions observed a cigar-shaped object in the sky, surrounded by a thin greenish luminous shell. "In its bow and stern there were two powerful searchlights, the bluish light of which fell vertically. When the object was moving, a sound similar to the humming of a transformer was heard." The approximate length of the object was estimated by observers at 100 m, diameter-about 20 m, flight height and distance-500 m. When the bow beam crossed the high-voltage line, there was a strong crack, after which the lights went out in the nearby village.

Unfortunately, the witnesses do not specify in which direction the cigaroid continued its flight. And did he even fly to the area of the upcoming tests? I once again carefully reviewed all the eyewitness accounts available to me: only the well-known details of the phenomenon appear everywhere - the "star", the cone, the flash, the green ball, the cloud... Unfortunately, there are no descriptions of any "airships", except in the testimony of Yu.I. Kabachnikov. It is impossible, of course, to take on faith the story of A. Kovalchuk in the absence of the testimony of other independent witnesses, and, unfortunately, there are no such witnesses yet. It is possible that A.Kovalchuk or those who took statements from him, confused the time of observation, and in fact it was not the beginning of the first, but the beginning of the fifth. In this case, he could take for a blimp the same "wingless plane", which was observed by hundreds of other witnesses. The reader will be able to learn about what incidents are possible when observing the AI in the chapter "The Chronicle checks for reliability", which describes the case of the engineer Novozhilov, who also observed a cigar-shaped object.

In the summer of 2000, one of the programs of the ORT channel "As it was" was dedicated to what happened 16 years ago "exactly at 4.10". Unfortunately, most of the gathered witnesses and experts on this issue, including V.Vostrukhin and an employee of IZMIRAN Yu.Platov, did not mention the existence of the results of my investigation, published in the newspaper" Anomaly " and in one of the issues of the magazine "Miracles and Adventures" for 1998, although some of them, for sure, were familiar with these publications. As a result, most of the people present in the studio, with the approval of the host of the program Shklovsky, defended the alien version of the event, misleading millions of viewers. And only Yu.Platov confirmed the information about the launch of a ballistic missile" exactly at 4.10", although he could not (or did not have time) to say anything about the experiment that accompanied the launch.

CONCLUSION

For the first time, researchers were able to analyze the most common errors in the observations of launches and aerospace experiments, using a large database. It makes sense to focus on them again, so that these mistakes will not be repeated in the future.

Many eyewitnesses thought that the object was ”very close". The distance to the object was also ambiguously determined by experienced pilots-from 4 to 120 km. The reason for these errors is beyond doubt: none of them could even imagine that the "wingless plane" reaches a size of 300 km and is located at a distance of more than 1500 km from them! So if the observer did not have clear guidelines, his characteristics of the size of the AI and the distances to it should always be treated very carefully; otherwise, you can become a "co-author" of such an interpretation of the phenomenon, which in a monstrous way will not correspond to the true picture of the event.

Many eyewitnesses indicated in their testimony that a light beam was directed at them from the object. Once again, no directional beams actually came from AYA; there was a bright flash of light that led many observers to assume that he was in the center of the illumination by a beam aimed directly at him.

If we had the testimony of only one group of eyewitnesses, it would be possible to come to the wrong conclusion that they were specifically illuminated by the "UFO" beam. And if there are several eyewitness accounts from different places that UFOs hovered over them at about the same time and illuminated them with rays, then you can make another incorrect (but sensational!) conclusion about the mass appearance of UFOs. Something like this was the case in the early stages of the study of the famous "Petrozavodsk phenomenon" in 1977.

As for the rays "advancing" from the "UFO", the case "4.10" well simulates the conditions under which the inversion trace of a rocket taking off can be taken for such a ray. So, the pilots of the Tallinn plane, unlike terrestrial observers, did not see the rise of the "star" above the horizon and perceived its position as stationary (this could be due, for example, to the lack of clear landmarks and visibility of the horizon in the sky). In fact, the pilots first observed the rocket in the shadow zone of the Earth, where the inversion trace is not visible. Then the rocket crossed the border of light and shadow and continued to move away from it; the inversion trail in the Sun's rays gradually lengthened and expanded as the rocket ascended, taking on a conical shape. This picture could be interpreted by observers in another way: the light source ("UFO") hangs motionless, and from it gradually extends a sharply cut-off beam of light from below.

It is not superfluous to recall once again that the rocket's contrail served as a "reflective screen" of the sun's rays, being a source of illumination for a huge area of the territory.

The apparent movements of the AY relative to the observers were due solely to changes in the angular dimensions of the AP. Do you remember the reaction of the Tallinn pilots to the formation of a swirling green cloud, which after a flash for 5 seconds grew and took the form of a ball of sky-blue color? The effect of the object approaching the plane was so strong that the commander of the ship wanted to launch his ship in a dive in order to avoid a collision with the"UFO". Thank God he didn't!

Another source of errors of the Tallinn pilots is associated with the change in the position of the aircraft in space relative to the AP, which they perceived as the movement of the phenomenon itself. Other than this, it is impossible to explain the sharp jumps of the object to the right-left-up-down (see Figure 2.1), which were allegedly observed by the pilots, but which are not confirmed by the testimony of other eyewitnesses. And even without the help of the latter, it is quite obvious that the resulting cloud could not jump in different directions for distances whose true values would be hundreds of kilometers.

The authors of experiments in the atmosphere and space are not very worried about whether the observers will perceive what they see correctly. When there are reports in the press that these phenomena were again mistaken for UFOs, the authors, for sure, quite rub their hands: they deceived, they say, again these simpletons-ufologists! Given the "new amazing effects" that accompany these experiments (and they have been conducted in our country since the late 60s!), one can imagine how much information about them has accumulated in the archives of domestic and foreign ufologists over the past 30 years!

And isn't it time to start warning the population in advance about the upcoming extravaganza in the sky?

Sources:
1. K. K. Khazanovich-A pseudo-mythological story that shocked the world

---

About author:

Serg Toporkov Ufologist, Ph.D., blogger, I go on my own expeditions for UFOs. I use scientific methods to investigate the UAP phenomenon. Write to me

---

Related tags:

UFO  ufo sightings  1984  USSR  rocket  spacex