Voronezh 1989: the children said a giant emerged from the sphere
Three eyes, a robot and children in a park. Video, drawings and archival photographs from the encounter that reached the Soviet news agency.
Orion is an AI writing and research partner. Avi Moas is the responsible editor.
The sphere that returned
The children were playing football. In the account published by the local newspaper Kommuna, a pink light appeared overhead and became a dark red sphere. It hovered over the park, vanished and returned. A hatch opened, revealing an unusually tall figure.
That story brought a park in southern Voronezh into international headlines in autumn 1989. Avi’s video is embedded here, followed by published testimony, drawings and the story’s journey from the children to the Soviet news agency.
Voronezh: the video from Avi’s channel
What they described
The local account described a sphere about ten metres across and a figure roughly three metres tall: silver overalls, bronze coloured boots, a chest disc and three eyes. A smaller companion was described as a robot. These are dimensions and descriptions reported in the testimony, not measured specifications.
The strangest episodes involved a child freezing under the figure’s gaze and a teenager disappearing when a tube like object was aimed at him, then returning after the sphere departed. We did not locate an independently identified account from that teenager. His story reaches us through others. Details also vary: the reproduced early account gives the tube as half a metre long; the later KP article says one and a half metres.
The children behind the names
Vasya Surin, Zhenya Blinov and Yulia Sholokhova were named in the reports. The attached archival photograph shows Vasya beside a photograph of the tree presented as part of the site.
In notes attributed to investigator Alexander Mosolov, Vasya described the robot being activated at its chest. His mother reported a reddish object on a separate occasion. Mosolov described the children guiding him to the tree and depressions in the ground. These notes survive here through a private archival reproduction, not a complete scan of the original investigation notebook.
What the drawings show
The reproduced drawings show a sphere with an opening, a flatter object with circular marks and figures with different body shapes. One contains a sign resembling the Cyrillic letter Ж. The sheets differ, and the image archive does not identify who drew each one.
The archive connects the sheets to the case but does not adequately identify each artist and date. We therefore have not assigned an individual drawing to Vasya or Yulia. Professional reconstructions also circulated: KP credits one to M. Kaygorodov and S. Romanov. An artist’s interpretation of testimony and a witness’s own drawing are different records.
How many witnesses, and which date?
The date associated with the case is 27 September 1989. In a later KP interview, Mosolov said it happened on 23 September. The famous forty adult witnesses also requires correction: Kommuna’s 21 October follow up acknowledged that adults had not seen the figures in the park.
Separate reports concerned objects overhead. Policeman Sergei Matveyev described a flying object, not an encounter with the figures. Keeping these accounts separate avoids turning every sighting in the city into another witness to the landing.
When TASS took it worldwide
The local story appeared on 3 October. On 9 October, TASS, the official Soviet news agency, carried the report. Publication by that institution gave it international weight, particularly during glasnost and the opening of Soviet media.
The local newspaper’s follow up records more than thirty people contacting the newsroom with reports. Investigators recorded accounts on video, while a multidisciplinary commission examined soil and vegetation. That response describes a wave of reports across the city, not thirty people witnessing one event together.
The tree, the rocks and the tests
The park photograph shows children identifying the location they presented as the landing site. It documents that visit and gesture, not the sphere. The leaning tree is likewise visible; establishing why it leaned requires additional evidence.
The extraterrestrial rock claim was subsequently corrected. In his 1990 review, Paul Kurtz reported Genrikh Silanov’s objection to statements attributed to him and his description of terrestrial material. Kurtz also relayed test results that did not substantiate a landing. In the same review, he noted that James Oberg’s check had not identified a nearby launch or space debris that readily explained the report. That does not supply a settled alternative identification.
Back to the recorded voices
Kommuna's local report and published correction show how the claimed number of witnesses to the figures changed. Complete, identified recordings of the children would also help establish which details each supplied before publication.
The video, photographs and drawings are assembled here for comparison. We have not located a complete, individually attributed set of every account and drawing. Precise authorship of the sheets and direct testimony from the allegedly disappearing teenager remain two concrete avenues for further work.
Sources and context
This article brings together published accounts, archival photographs and drawings associated with the case.
Sources include local reporting, a contemporary review and a private archive. Missing originals or authorship are identified alongside the material.