NARCAP multi-witness pilot/EMI-effects [China, 1982] -- a Russian rocket launch?

I'd like to discuss this case in NARCAP's data base and whether it might be explained by a Soviet rocket launching occurring more-or-less-simultaneously.

The visual descriptions seem pretty classic 'Russian rocket'.

Sadly, the report never provides information on the direction the apparition was seen in.

How would the reported EMI effects be accounted for?

Could a rocket launching cause such effects, perhaps through EMI interference from its own equipment, ground tracking equipment, or natural EM effects triggered in the ionosphere, or other direct influence?

Could the flight crews have triggered the effects through excitement and distraction due to the apparition?

Could the effects be purely coincidental and the apparition merely a convenient excuse for the local airfield to shift the blame from poor maintenance?

This is ALL the information I have, it is a sincere request for candid give-and-take over the possibility that a prosaic explanation was overlooked [or never even looked for] by NARCAP.

My intuition is that the case is indeed a consequence of a surprise spectacular sky show. But I know that serious, sincere folks here will want to disagree and I want to hear their best arguments. Thanks!

www.narcap.org...
Case 49 score : 24
June 18, 1982 21:57 [assume Beijing time, GMT + 8] Hence, GMT 13:57 [1310 to 1453]
Gong Heui area, Hubei, China (44°20 N / 114°31 E)
Jeo: Northwestern Manchuria, Sunset, 20:16 beijing time, sun azimuth 309 degrees
[jeo – Kosmos-1310 SL-4 from Baikonur, 1300 GMT, viewed after sunset backlit by sun ??]

In Northern China on June 18, 1982, many sightings were reported from Heilongjiang Province, between 21:10 and 22:53. One of the most interesting case is that reported by five Chinese Air Force pilots on patrol over north China’s military frontier. At about 21:57 the jet fighter’s electrical systems malfunctioned ; communications and navigation systems failed. Suddenly the pilots encountered and UFO of a milky yellowish-green luminous color, about the size of the full moon. The object grew larger and picked up speed, at which point it looked « as big as a mountain of mist ». Then black spots were seen in the interior of the phenomenon. One pilot stated in his report : « When I first saw the object, it flew toward me at a high rate of speed as it whirled rapidly. While it was rotating it generated rings of light. In the center of the light ring was fire. In ten seconds the center of the ring exploded, then the body of the object expanded rapidly The planes were forced to return to base because of the equipment failures. The other four pilots also prepared reports. It is not known if gun-camera film was taken. After 30 seconds, the beam of light disappeared completly and replaced by a yellow sphere with clear edges. This sphere climbed rapidly and increased its size and brightness………The instruments returned to normal when the pilot went down to 500 meters altitude. At 22:01, One of the pilot arrived to his first turn at Cong Huei. Then after he flew for 3 mn toward his second step when his radio began to jamm : big noises resounded in the receiver, as if rain clouds and thunderstorm were in front of him, and the voice of the control tower operator became less audible. The radio compass instead of giving the direction of the tracking station direction gave a direction 30° on his right. He climbed to 6,000 then 7,000 meters, then he flew horizontally but the unusual noises continued to be heard in the receivers and the radio compas was still indicating a wrong direction 30° on the right. The pilot saw a bright object above the horizon. Very quickly this object became a beam of yellow light like a car headlight This beam of light was directed vertically toward the ground, in the same direction indicated by the radio compass.

Sources :Beyond Top Secret, Timothy Good, 1996

reply to post by JimOberg

I'd like to discuss this case in NARCAP's data base and whether it might be explained by a Soviet rocket launching occurring more-or-less-simultaneously.

Do you have confirmation of a Soviet rocket launch at the approximate time and date of the UFO report Jim ?
I guess it could have been a rocket launch and the interference caused by other forces or equipment malfunction , this part of the description does sound like a stage separation to my mind .

While it was rotating it generated rings of light. In the center of the light ring was fire. In ten seconds the center of the ring exploded,

Here's another Chinese UFO rocket this time from an Ariane 5 rocket ...

Amateur astronomers in China's Sichuan and Yunnan provinces reported seeing the weird phenomenon on Nov. 11. They watched as a luminous object moved through the heavens, shimmering with rays or rings of light.
cosmiclog.nbcnews.com...

Many of the details in that account are rather vague, but several bits do indeed sound similar to the "Norway spiral" UFO-slash-rocket-launch. It certainly doesn't fit any of the typical patterns that have appeared among decent UFO reports over the past 60 years or so. It's hard to draw any conclusions from such scant info, but I'd say you're on the right track with this one.

Originally posted by bigfootgurl
Many of the details in that account are rather vague, but several bits do indeed sound similar to the "Norway spiral" UFO-slash-rocket-launch. It certainly doesn't fit any of the typical patterns that have appeared among decent UFO reports over the past 60 years or so. It's hard to draw any conclusions from such scant info, but I'd say you're on the right track with this one.

Thanks. The detailed nature of so many of these online reports allows a search for taxonomic 'types' and repeat characteristics, and speculation on their significance. This is only one example.

It is only possible because of the vast amount of 'grunt work' done by the collectors and cataloguers, to me among the unsung heroes of ufology. When/if sense is made, and generally accepted. about any portion of this raw data, it will be due to these steady, careful compilers of data bases.

They have been part of the solution, not part of the problem, for decades. Kudos.

What I WISH we had from this Chinese report is a description of the sky location -- azimuth and elevation -- and angular motion and rate. This is the kind of raw data that can either confirm, or refute, a suggested 'rocket explanation', as it did with the Obama Nobel Prize commemmorative Norway spiral. But sadly it's the kind of critical data that all too often never gets documented fresh after the perception.

I'd love to say this case was the Soviet rocket, and the EMI effects were coincidental or even pilot-induced. But I don't think enough data is in the raw report to clinch that case. Suggestive, yes, but settled, I hate to admit it, no.

Do we have any Chinese contacts who may have access to other media reports of the time?

reply to post by JimOberg

Jim,

Think you are probably right on this one.

I’ve been studying Haines’s paper and was shocked to see him quote Timothy Good as a source for this case. Not only is Good a secondary source, I’ve found him to be unreliable.

I still think Haines and NARCAP have done good work, some of it excellent. But if he were wiser, he would check with you beforehand before publishing cases like this.

(And if you were wiser, you would check with him before publishing your amateurish speculations on pilot psychology.)

As far as possible EM effects of rocket trajectories in the ionosphere are concerned, I’ve tried to research this a little but found that much of the relevant material was, understandably, classified. So we must assume that the reported EM effects in this case could have been linked with a rocket trajectory.

But you are an expert in this field. Would I be right in assuming that, as a journalist, albeit a well-known and respected one, your security clearances have not been high enough to obtain the relevant information?

Anyway, Haines should now remove case 49 from his list. And another good Oberg contribution to this forum.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Lowneck
(And if you were wiser, you would check with him before publishing your amateurish speculations on pilot psychology.)

I am well rebuked and teased -- as deserved.

Where I hope I've gotten wiser here is that we have no adequate data on how more/less likely pilots are to misperceive an apparition. So there is no grounds to judge if they are or are not 'better' or 'worse' witnesses than ordinary folks, and I'm withdrawing any claims I've made that suggest that -- thanks in large part to serious discussions on ATS.

What I think is MORE important is that pilots, when they DO misperceive an aerial phenomenon [and plenty of examples show that they DO, on rare occasion], more often than 'normal' folks they interpret it in terms of phenomena they are professionally familiar with -- flying craft. This is generally true -- under ambiguity, people cue up memories most resembling what they are perceiving.

And that can be helpful in cases such as the one under discussion.

Originally posted by JimOberg
What I WISH we had from this Chinese report is a description of the sky location -- azimuth and elevation -- and angular motion and rate. This is the kind of raw data that can either confirm, or refute, a suggested 'rocket explanation',

Hi Jim,

Have you already obtained and checked the underlying report?

All the best,

Isaac

Well, the EMI stuff is a legit concern during rocket launches.
The Alaskan Aerospace Corporation launches satellites out of Kodiak Island. During launches, they are required to shut down their wildlife game cameras that happen to be operable along the Southern trajectory these launches take due to EMI hazards to the rockets.

So I assume that would work both ways, wouldn't it?

I imagine if we could get the Russian reports of the rocket launch, they'd probably report anomalous behaviour as well.

Very surprised this thread gets no attention.
Good stuff, Jim.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by JimOberg
What I WISH we had from this Chinese report is a description of the sky location -- azimuth and elevation -- and angular motion and rate. This is the kind of raw data that can either confirm, or refute, a suggested 'rocket explanation',

Hi Jim,

Have you already obtained and checked the underlying report?

All the best,

Isaac

I really overlooked your reply, sorry. What part of the report are you suggesting is relevant.

Wow, BTW, big thanks for getting the translated Zigel material on line. I've asked Haines for years for it but he never complied.

I've seen vol 2, where is vol 1 and 3, please?