UFO. Russia

The Korchaginikh family, who lives on the Petrogradskaya side of St. Petersburg, reported an interesting UFO sighting to the Anomaly editorial office.

It happened in the first decade of July 1992 at about 17.00 pm. That evening, Tamara Fyodorovna's son Anton decided to start taking old photographs of his grandmother on the windowsill.

(When studying this observation, it was found that the window faces west towards the TV tower, which is clearly visible from the window).

The weather was sunny, the sky was not covered with high solid white-gray clouds, through which the sun was not bright. The window sill was well lit, although the sun was on the left and behind relative to the panorama observed from the window. This prompted Anton to start taking old photographs. He charged the Agat 18K camera with 64 GOST Svema film and installed 8,

and the shutter speed is "sunny", spread out the photos on the windowsill and began to shoot.

(It should be noted that the outer frame was closed, the right wing of the inner frame was open into the room. There were jars between the frames, which did not allow the doors of the outer frame to be opened, they also open into the room).

Anton took 12 pictures and was already preparing to finish his work. When he accidentally looked up, he saw a strange disc-shaped object above the roof of the house, which was a tear in the panorama of the window.

"I immediately thought it was a UFO," Anton said.

It was "dark blue-blue". Anton began to shoot frame by frame. The second frame was taken after about 30 seconds, a total of 14 frames were taken. It took about 7 minutes of time.

I was overwhelmed by the extraordinary joy that I managed to photograph a UFO.

At the time of photographing, the UFO was moving along a complex trajectory, moving away and approaching. At first, he moved the tear to the right, then from right to left, and at the end he went right again and instantly disappeared from view. Anton, just in case, took two more frames of the panorama observed from the window. He took these pictures through a closed window, maneuvering in the room and choosing the most comfortable position in front of the window.

The next day, he developed the film and found that he had planted a frame on a frame (so it seemed to him). He swore he wouldn't take pictures anymore. Then the holidays began.

After the vacation, Anton began to develop country films and found, on the film, which he shot at the cottage, shots of UFOs and photographs of his grandmother. Apparently, in July, as he said

Anton, he developed the wrong films.

Anton has seen UFOs before. The first time he saw him was 2 years ago, in August at about 12 o'clock at night.

The editorial board's expert group conducted a study of the eyewitness's report and came to a conclusion about the reality of this event. The trajectory of the object in front of the eyewitness is constructed by superimposing sequentially captured frames.

The photographs and negatives were examined by the Forensic Department. The expert's certificate says the following:

1. The presented three segments of the photographic film previously formed a single whole.

2. The weak density of the negative in frames with reshaped old photos is explained by insufficient lighting during the shooting.

3. It is not possible to determine the distance to the object from the photographer.

4. Examination of the film using the MBS-9 microscope in various lighting and magnification modes, no damage to the emulsion and the substrate of the photographic film was detected, therefore the image of the object on the photographic film is neither industrial

the defect of the film is not its mechanical damage, nor can it be damage to the lenses of the camera lens.

That would seem to be all. We can put an end to this. However, there is a question that does not allow this to be done yet.

The fact is that an eyewitness presented three segments of the captured photographic film to the editorial office. After the examination of the issue of whether the three segments of the presented photographic film formed a single whole, it was established that photography was initially carried out at the cottage, then photographing an unidentified object, and then reshooting old photographs. Otherwise, if the photos were re-photographed first, the numbering of frames in the photos will have the opposite sequence, and this contradicts the eyewitness's story.

And then another question arises: why were two shots without an object taken before the shooting, which, according to an eyewitness, he made at the end. In this case, the trajectory of the object shown in the diagram will be reversed.

Anton himself cannot explain how he did it all.

Until an answer to this question is received, it is premature to put a final point.