December 3, 1967 - Kamenny Cape, USSR

The source of this information is from Vallée ’s “UFO Chronicles of the Soviet Union”. There are no other additional sources listed.

Source information

In Jacques Vallée ’s “UFO chronicles of the Soviet Union”, there is one short paragraph describing the incident:

Beams of light were also reported in a case involving the crew and passengers of a test flight for the State Scientific Institute for Civil Aviation. The date was December 3, 1967, and the plane was at 2,700 feet altitude in the region of Cape Kamenny when an intensely luminous object began following them. Witnesses saw the object for ten minutes before it flew away.2 

There is not a lot to go on here but further searching revealed that James Oberg wrote about this event as well. He mentioned that William Moore had additional information. 

“On December 3, [1967] at 3:04 p.m.,” wrote Moore, several crewmen and passengers of an IL-18 aircraft on a test flight for the State Scientific Institute of Civil Aviation sighted an intensely bright object approaching them in the night sky.” Moore reported that the object “followed” the evasive turns of the aircraft.3

So, we now have a time for the event as well as a date. Oberg also noted that he had determined that the flight was near the city of Vorkuta. This adds a specific location for the event instead of a general area like Cape Kamenny.

Analysis

I think it is important at this point that James Oberg has already identified this case in his writings as the launch of a Kosmos-194 spy satellite from Plesetsk. This analysis will verify if his identification has merit. 

A check of the Astronautix website indicates that the Kosmos 194 launch was at 1200 GMT using a Voskhod 11A57 booster.4 Like many Soviet/Russian rockets, it had four strap-on boosters that gave it a unique appearance. However, it is not only the boosters that produce effects during a rocket launch. A phenomenon called the “twilight effect” is often seen in rocket launches that are made about 30-60 minutes before sunrise or after sunset.5,6 Depending on latitude and time of year, this is between the end of civil and nautical twilight. The rocket plume of the first and second stages become illuminated by the sun that is below the horizon. This illumination of the exhaust trail with the darkening sky background, results in quite spectacular displays for observers. 

It just so happens that the time given by Moore indicated that the sighting was at 1204 GMT (Vorkuta time zone is GMT+3), which was only four minutes after the recorded launch time. Additionally, 3:04 PM was near the end of Nautical twilight. Therefore, the rocket launch probably produced the “twilight effect” for those in the region if the rocket’s trajectory was near Vorkuta. 

The inclination of the launch and latitude of the launch site determines the launch azimuth. In this case, the inclination was 65.60 degrees and the latitude was 62.9 degrees, which indicates a launch in roughly an East-Northeast direction (around 65 degrees azimuth). The resultant track passes close to Vorkuta and Cape Kamenny. 

Conclusion

Assuming all the information available is correct, then I agree with Oberg on this conclusion. This sighting was produced by the launch of the Kosmos-194 satellite. The rocket plume, as well as staging/side booster drop-offs, probably produced the effects reported by the observers. This case does not belong on the list since it has an acceptable explaination.

+++

An observation

I was under the impression that Jacques Vallée was one of the more thorough UFO researchers. However, this case makes me wonder about his methodology. How can one indicate that this case was something extraordinary worth studying when one does not have a time, a specific location, direction of observation, or direction of travel? This appears to be more rumor and second-hand information than actually talking to the witness and asking for the pertinent details. Either Dr. Vallée did not talk to any of the witnesses, he did but did not bother to ask for the information, or they could not give any details whatsoever. In the first two cases, it is sloppy work. In the latter instance, Vallée should have rejected the case as “insufficient data”. A final possibility is that Dr. Vallée had all of this information but chose not to present it. All of these scenarios paint a very disappointing picture about his work. Does this mean that Dr. Vallée is just another one of those UFO researchers who is more than willing to pad his book/list with bad cases just to fill pages and sensationalize the subject? This is the same problem I have with the Weinstein catalog. The bottom line is one has to be skeptical of any extraordinary claim no matter who the source is.  

Quelle: SUNlite 6/2021