August 24, 2019, 12:53:29 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case  (Read 2114 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

June 05, 2019, 12:30:35 PM
Reply #60
Offline

WAB



I want no be erroneous, but it seems to me that that you write, is a syndrome of the person which has decided that he knows others all better. As in nature you saw nothing and try do from  position of the nonspecialist the definitive conclusions. It is not necessary hurry up and do conclusions superficial estimations.

A few days ago, I spoke with a Slovenian pathologist. I asked him to examine the publicly available report of the autopsy of 1959.  And he wondered how on the basis of previous basic autopsies no criminal prosecution was initiated against an unknown third person? He fully agrees with the findings of Mr. Eduard Tumanov.

I spoke with Tumanov too, and I still had opinion that it as all medical workers very poorly understands the physicist, especially in the biomechanic reception of traumas. Its estimations are based on the statistican of city criminal cases or traumas in the result, received in conditions of life, on transport and at building. It absolutely does not have experience with climbing or ski travellers. Its visit on pass consisted from this that it has passed way part (incomplete way) and has sat nearby place where has been Dyatlov found. By the way, at mark which we have left week earlier. About it knew the correspondent of the newspaper which Shura has informed on it.
I was engaged biomechanics of shock conditions professionally. We developed devices of rescue and protection for aircraft and space flights. At us very serious work on working out of the theory human head, as mechanical system has been done. Though we were engaged not only head mechanics, but also bodies of the person entirely. Though it were already less important directions of researches. When I have shown Tumanov mathematical calculation of head injury of Tibo, and he at all has not understood that this such though I there specially did not begin use the differential equations, tensor calculation, and tried state all on base of physics average link of the preparatory school. Therefore I can tell that Tumanov estimates that Boris Vozrozhdenny not better than he wrote. The estimation is made taking into account the amendment on medicine progress for 60 years and that he already knows result and numerous opinions in view of that. Itself Tumanov alive did not see a body at opening, therefore it can домысливать that wrote Revived somehow. It is elementary psychology: when a lot of not clear and all say that there is a crime, involuntarily fantasy to this direction. If understand deeply there all according to physics laws, is more exact than mechanics + very unevident changes from decomposition of bodies which are found in May. I faced the such, when was engaged in search and research works with travellers in the winter and in the spring in 1973.
That standing from outsets Dyatlov bakhils he tries give out attritions for linkage of his feet was very indicative also. Though that such bakhils and as they are applied (especially with what they were then) he does not know in general.
In general, I have left very disappointed from he.
I assure you that anybody another on this place during a case with Dyatlov group was not, and could not be. Owing to features of district, logistics and level development of traficabilities at that time
I have made this addition for this purpose that people would not be fond superfluous essence, as for example of crime. It just as consider that at landing of Americans to the moon, there too there were strangers. Who that would not speak from theorists, who not can independently (only using the forces and possibilities) there get. If the person there have resulted also it there «did not look neither to the right, nor to the left» he of anything cannot tell, be it any expert, only from other section of knowledge.

Already only on the findings of external injuries anyone with a basic knowledge of medicine will have a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense.

Suspicions it is emotions, profound knowledge, not only medicine, but also applied sciences because the mechanics of get damages to city conditions and on the nature will be different though signs of damages (but only signs without studying of important details) will be approximately identical is necessary. Here it is very easy change for one another. That about what I tell (biomechanic) can calculate physical parametres precisely enough. It not too most what he must remember: «Was, if I correctly remember, such case at autofailure ….» and consider that if the admission it is + / - 100 %, this it is one and too.

It agrees that, according to data and photos (otherwise poor), no serious pathologist can ignore at least the suspicion of physical violence against these people.

Once again I want remind - suspicion, these are emotions, it would be desirable that that more tangible - for example calculation of mechanics of damages.
If you read in Russian, here is the reference to all my elementary statements mechanics of traumas (with instructions to the most probable places of their reception) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ey2F7ROB6ZXNJkp49tKPJE24iPP0nKRG/view?usp=sharing 

It is absurd to go all the way together with the finding of all the general sub cooling. In the case of three victims, it is obvious that they were hit by a "train" and the official final conclusion is:  "Unknown compelling force". These are the injuries that were not incurred by 9 people because they are slipped on the snow or hit the stone or tree by accident ...

Death of 6 persons has come from overcooling (freezing), it is the medical fact. Other real reasons are not present. At the others death from the traumas, complicated by cold. For certain Slobodin could remain is live, if to it in time have rendered the qualified medical aid. Too most it is possible tell and about Simeon Zolotarev. Though at he trauma is heavier. Tibo and Dubinina hardly could survive with the big degree of probability. With such traumas there are not enough chances survive. The reason here not available strangers, and that in such conditions and at such possibilities it is simply impossible. Very few people can theoretically present itself (himself) conditions and possibilities of that place to that time. Therefore people also try simplify all to crime. Bernard Shaw spoke: «If people do not know anything, they replace it with conjectures». (c)

The solution to this question is to dig out all the corpses and make a complete DNA analysis and 99.999999% answer is there. But it's clear to everyone that this will not happen.

What will give DNA analysis? What there (in tombs) there are other people? That would be already ridiculous, if it was not so sadly. Already there was exhumation Zolotaryov body. And than it has come to end? Anything, except new conjectures which gradually too have died. At those soils which are in Ural Region`s, in 60 years it is impossible even distinguish details of crises. Places of crises can be defined. But it and so it is known from reports of the pathologist. What additional information will be appear? There acid soils, calcium fragments very quickly degrade. It at the analysis of Russian imperator family should be established who there is. It is they or not they? And what is the time and forces on it was required? Who and for what means will do similar analyses for Dyatlov group? Or you consider what important only loudly speak all, and the volume let will be everything? The main thing – it is designate itself…

And this is exactly what is becoming an interesting for the outside observer:
The 2019 "Reopening Dyatlov Pass Incident" opens with the only snow slide theory and they hysterically claim again and again:“Crime is out of the question. There is not a single proof, even an indirect one, to favor this version. It was either an avalanche, a snow slab or a hurricane." (Quoted Mr. Alexander Kurennoi)

1.It is not Reopening, is check of separate parts old criminal case at the desire of public organisations and private persons. Reopening it is impossible owing to in force in general law. Besides there were no new facts, there are only loud statements and articles in press.
2.Nobody is going approve anything, it is check «could be so, or could not». The answer to it yet was not, and the criticism already goes with might and main though it is intervention in check action.
3.They have chosen only these 3 directions because they were widespread in books, and they cannot be denied in advance legally. In difference from other criminal and conspyrologe theories. If you are assured of these theories, please result your arguments, and proofs. If they are not present, and there are only suspicions it is necessary wait while there will be proofs, and only after that it will be necessary check these theories.
4.   They did not spend logistics and psychological experiment on place because Tumanov has drawn the conclusion that it is dangerous. I and Shura many times did these experiments with logistics on slope. In January and February, day and night, but we do not consider, it is dangerous though our possibilities (us was only two, and the nearest people for 60 km from us) were much weaker, than in expeditions of Office Public Prosecutor, the newspaper and TV. A difference that at us vocational training minimum 10 times more, than at this expedition. Psychological experiments should be spent in public which are not familiar with place because I and Shura has told, know place not worse than own ranch. I offered these experiments to Discavery channel group when they in January travelled to pass. But they even did not react in any way to it. I with Shura could there was be stand by this experiment, but it interested nobody. Too most is and with this expedition. The correspondent of the newspaper knew about it, but it was not interesting to them also it too does not happen. If spend what that experiments on logistics or on psychology in other place, especially near to city, it is similar to what spend them in Africa.

There is a well-founded question: WHAT is the real reason that this year the authorities officially opened the case of Dyatlov?

It is reaction to numerous articles in newspapers and TV expedition. The leading role is played here by the newspaper with very big circulation and foreign groups of TV which go to pass. And they, in turn, were inspired by that this year 60 years since event were executed. Besides there were some references of private persons. In them there was nothing concrete, but them was much. It is as no rather. As it is known: “the quantity passes to quality”. It has bothered them also they has solved that make.
In Main Investigatory Committee one of their veterans has written article which was engaged earlier in mountaineering. How much I can understand, he has seen on the book of Buianov and Slobtsov “The mysteries of Dyatlov group dead” familiar surname as Boris Slobtsov because he somewhere met it in mountains. Therefore he has believed to that there is written as truth without check. At lawyers, as well as in medicine:  “If the higher chief so has told, it is impossible doubt!”. There have decided that they well know he, that it is all means it correctly.
However, I was very well sign with Boris Slobtsov, and he did not consider that there could be an avalanche, or that that of this kind. It was persuaded by Evgenie Buianov become the co-author, and Slobtsov when has once one's consent, did not want it break. Therefore supported Buianov a little. However he said to me that though does not trust in avalanche, but recede from the given word cannot.
Here such intrigue develops with this check.
To us do not want listen, because we people modest, the book we do not write, but actual material at us more than at all the others. A case not in the one who knows, and in the one who is more known more.
Too most occurs also many participants of searches. Very many we can tell Vladislav Karelin, Sergey Sogrin, Peter Bartolomei … With all from them repeatedly I talked and periodically we correspond on an e-mail. At all of us opinion concerning these reasons obviously is negative, but there use other experts.

Because it's more than obvious that they do not want to find anything, regardless what Russian glaciologist will announce August (which year?) in his conclusions.

What for you have started attack to glaciologist? To it have appointed term of granting conclusion till August, therefore it there has given it already. It are results of check will be declare in August. At them such term according by plan.
With Victor Popovnin we are familiar for long time. I have passed to he my records, it has considered it. That will be in its conclusion, it will be known only when the Office of Public Prosecutor declares result. What for before this time attack the expert, at all without knowing, what he has written? Popovnin is expert of very high level (international), it the serious man and it is still not clear, how the Office of Public Prosecutor will interpret its conclusion.
Principle: «I did not read, but already I condemn!» (c), this very bad relation to problem. It is very assessment.

June 16, 2019, 11:33:32 AM
Reply #61
Offline

WAB


Dear Nigel Evans  !

I promised make comments for long time on your theses from this message. I should apologise for delay, but these are my circumstances.
I have made it just now.

Hey Nigel, as I understand with my limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, is the conclusion that a potential action is possible in theory if all the complex factors coincide. I sent his work (WAB) to our institute and I will let you know  what is their opinion as soon as possible.
============================
My understanding of avalanche conditions including slab slides etc is that as snow builds up during the winter it consists of layers of different consistency which can include graupel which is dangerous because it has little friction, essentially a layer of little ball bearings made of ice. As the snow accumulates above this layer and it's mass increases and then it can be prone to sliding forward which then encourages more of the slope to do the same and you have an avalanche/slab slide depending on gradients etc.
So wrt the DPI my questions would be :-
  • If the above is theoretically possible on slopes of almost any gradient in any year, what is the merit in investigating the snow conditions at the tent site in 2019? What does it tell us about 1959?

If approach to this experiment from position: “ I (that is - to you) anything it is impossible prove to me, because I do not want it the nobility!”, anything new or original in it is not present. We have simply made series standard researches of snow by which to us anybody and never did on this place. But we have information on snow condition in different years and in different months. Then on the basis this complex information it is possible draw conclusion that avalanche activity in this place is myth. Especially well it proves be true statistics poll different groups of travellers which took place this place in different years and in different conditions. Such groups it has been interrogated more than twenty.
For last 60 years the climate became warmer, therefore possibility formation avalanches (or even snow motions) became more. Therefore for 1959 this conclusion can be applied with more confidence.

   
  • But why the interest in the avalanche theory at all? It doesn't explain the ravine injuries, the footsteps where of at least 8 able bodied people walking down the hill. If fewer people had made more journeys then why not put their boots on?
To these conclusions many human have come very much long time ago. It is More than 10 years ago. However you here think out hypothetical situation, and then start it deny with the big pathos. All these contradictions and absurdities of the avalanche theory very much are already published for long time. Personally I wrote all basic objections in 2008 before there was book Evgenie Buianov be pubished. There was consist 12 different positions of objections on 2 … 4 pages in everyone. Evgenie has simply ignored these objections as though they at all were not.

If the footsteps are invented then you have a different theory.[/li][/list]

It is not necessary invent anything. This is artificial removal from true. It is necessary have accurate knowledge. My knowledge is that anybody, except Dyatlov group there was not and could not be because district conditions and logistics of this place no present. For the present nobody could deny this my thesis.

   
  • There are photos of before and after the event showing skis and poles pushed in the snow and undisturbed.

I at all do not understand that you wanted tell in this phrase. If it is probably "decipher" these thoughts. Please.

   
  • It doesn't explain skin discolouration.

I already some (tens) times explained it of a variety of skin colours. I would not like to do it in … х10 time. Besides, skin colour is not connected in any way with avalanche event. It is necessary to consider all in the section. At us speak in the people (and Vladimir Putin too spoke it to officials): «It is necessary to display all separately - separately flies, separately beef steak!» (c)  grin1

   
  • It doesn't explain the high level coverup clearly stated by Okishev and Ivanov.

No "cover" existed. It is fake statements which have appeared in unofficial conversations and widely extend "yellow press" and at forums separately being there conspirology-man. This history has not trivial explanations, therefore those who does not want to study deeply all this event prefer all to dump in false conspirology.

   
  • It doesn't explain Ivanov's fascination with "fire orbs firing directed heat rays". Which is a very curious and specific assertion from a state prosecutor/barrister! Unless he was simply crazy he must have seen some evidence for this view. Okishev spoke highly of Ivanov - "thorough and meticulous".

Okishev it is «the separate song» …  grin1
Ivanov explained this event as result of meeting with UFO because he could not explain it other (more real) reasons. He is the lawyer, instead of the physicist and not the clairvoyant. All can be mistaken in understanding of processes. As far as I understand - we (as well as all the others) cannot be exception. It is not necessary dump all on Ivanov it result of level his knowledge of that period. Therefore it is not necessary jump over all time from concepts level for that time for modern level and back. So it is possible confuse more only all, instead find out all event.


So I don't get the interest in the avalanche theory, to me it seems one of the least probable theories and unable to explain key facts.

Basis for interest should be at first - possibility occurrence of this event in reality. And then maybe all the rest.
My personal opinion is that any avalanche (or similar) the phenomena on this place are impossible because it physical (natural) conditions no be present.

June 17, 2019, 09:40:29 AM
Reply #62
Offline

tekumze


Dear WAB,
First I must apologize for the glaciologist. I believe that he is a great man and an expert in his field.
That's exactly why I joke about his report in August. Since after all these years, when everyone is clear about the snow avalanche, it is necessary to admit that it is silly to wait for one more expert conclusion which will tell us, that there  was no snow avalanche.
It is also quite clear that the re-opening of the Dyatlov pass does not exist at all like you said. All together on this anniversary year,  is only one media theater that everyone has succumbed to.
And if in 60 years we have not come to an objective conclusion, which would explain things once for all, then I am sure that this year will be no different. And not for the next years.
Perhaps 60 years ago, on the day of the tragedy, nothing really happened, except an ordinary accident that followed the complex coincidence.
And according to my syndrome (I can be mistaken), it seems to me that this tragedy will always remain the starting point for endless theories and guesses.
People enjoy it.
Because it seems to me that you are skilfully avoiding certain explanations in the forum, I would ask you a single personal question:
After so many years of yours engaging in the Dyatlov's tragedy, what do you personally think about what happened that fateful night (if you have any opinion)
Best regards from Slovenia and no offense.

June 17, 2019, 03:40:44 PM
Reply #63
Offline

Nigel Evans


Dear WAB, good to hear from you. I'm currently busy but will reply soon.



June 19, 2019, 06:19:19 AM
Reply #64
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
June 26 in Yekaterinburg will be held a press conference about preliminary results of the Prosecutors office expedition in March 2019 testing theories on Dyatlov Pass. WAB has been invited as an expert. We expect him to report back to us.

June 19, 2019, 07:06:03 AM
Reply #65
Offline

tekumze


We all expect this and we are grateful to Mr WAB if he will report to this forum.

June 19, 2019, 11:51:37 AM
Reply #66
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
If there is a Press Conference on June 26 2019, then we should expect Local and National and maybe International Press in attendance.
DB

June 21, 2019, 05:33:29 AM
Reply #67
Offline

tekumze


I agree with you Sarapuk. That's the least what we expect on June 26. from the Prosecutor's Office.

June 29, 2019, 10:18:26 AM
Reply #68
Offline

Nigel Evans


Dear WAB, replying as promised, (in red)
Dear Nigel Evans  !

I promised make comments for long time on your theses from this message. I should apologise for delay, but these are my circumstances.
I have made it just now.

Hey Nigel, as I understand with my limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, is the conclusion that a potential action is possible in theory if all the complex factors coincide. I sent his work (WAB) to our institute and I will let you know  what is their opinion as soon as possible.
============================
My understanding of avalanche conditions including slab slides etc is that as snow builds up during the winter it consists of layers of different consistency which can include graupel which is dangerous because it has little friction, essentially a layer of little ball bearings made of ice. As the snow accumulates above this layer and it's mass increases and then it can be prone to sliding forward which then encourages more of the slope to do the same and you have an avalanche/slab slide depending on gradients etc.
So wrt the DPI my questions would be :-
  • If the above is theoretically possible on slopes of almost any gradient in any year, what is the merit in investigating the snow conditions at the tent site in 2019? What does it tell us about 1959?

If approach to this experiment from position: “ I (that is - to you) anything it is impossible prove to me, because I do not want it the nobility!”, anything new or original in it is not present. We have simply made series standard researches of snow by which to us anybody and never did on this place. But we have information on snow condition in different years and in different months. Then on the basis this complex information it is possible draw conclusion that avalanche activity in this place is myth. Especially well it proves be true statistics poll different groups of travellers which took place this place in different years and in different conditions. Such groups it has been interrogated more than twenty.
For last 60 years the climate became warmer, therefore possibility formation avalanches (or even snow motions) became more. Therefore for 1959 this conclusion can be applied with more confidence.
It seems we agree that no avalanche happened. But i'd suggest some caution concerning temperature. There are a substantial set of facts suggesting it was unusually warm that night - persistent footsteps, lack of frostbite.

   
  • But why the interest in the avalanche theory at all? It doesn't explain the ravine injuries, the footsteps where of at least 8 able bodied people walking down the hill. If fewer people had made more journeys then why not put their boots on? [/l][/l]
To these conclusions many human have come very much long time ago. It is More than 10 years ago. However you here think out hypothetical situation, and then start it deny with the big pathos. All these contradictions and absurdities of the avalanche theory very much are already published for long time. Personally I wrote all basic objections in 2008 before there was book Evgenie Buianov be pubished. There was consist 12 different positions of objections on 2 … 4 pages in everyone. Evgenie has simply ignored these objections as though they at all were not.

If the footsteps are invented then you have a different theory.[/q][/q]


It is not necessary invent anything. This is artificial removal from true. It is necessary have accurate knowledge. My knowledge is that anybody, except Dyatlov group there was not and could not be because district conditions and logistics of this place no present. For the present nobody could deny this my thesis.

So you agree that the group walked down the hill uninjured?
   
  • There are photos of before and after the event showing skis and poles pushed in the snow and undisturbed.

I at all do not understand that you wanted tell in this phrase. If it is probably "decipher" these thoughts. Please.
The photos of vertical ski poles (before and after) argue against an avalanche/slide.

   
  • It doesn't explain skin discolouration.

I already some (tens) times explained it of a variety of skin colours. I would not like to do it in … х10 time. Besides, skin colour is not connected in any way with avalanche event. It is necessary to consider all in the section. At us speak in the people (and Vladimir Putin too spoke it to officials): «It is necessary to display all separately - separately flies, separately beef steak!» (c)  grin1
Your answer does not translate very well. As we have discussed 10x  kewl1 , i like the theory that the group were exposed to nitric acid at the tent with Yuri D getting the worst exposure (darkest skin and signs of pulmonary edema) due to him being outside going to the toilet. The asymmetric colouring of the groups faces suggests to me that their exposure to the cause of this colouring was also asymmetric. Imo this argues against "erythema of cold" which does not fit with the description of the colouring (orange brown not red) and doesn't explain Yuri D's foam and could be expected to affect the group more equally.As to the source of the nitric acid the best theory is missile propellant such as used with the second stage of the SA75 being developed at the time and to down a U2 spy plane 15 months later. Military activity then fits with other facts - a team of sappers deploying metal detectors ostensibly to search for bodies and commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel!!!! (that single fact solves the case imo!  kewl1 )As you know the ravine deaths can (imo) be best explained by crushing by a tracked vehicle.So i'm with the military theory solution and that the answer lies within state archives. If that's not the case then the only other possible theory is atmospheric  electrical phenomena.


   
  • It doesn't explain the high level coverup clearly stated by Okishev and Ivanov.

No "cover" existed. It is fake statements which have appeared in unofficial conversations and widely extend "yellow press" and at forums separately being there conspirology-man. This history has not trivial explanations, therefore those who does not want to study deeply all this event prefer all to dump in false conspirology.
Well it's a question of weight. Lets say your opinion weighs 10kg and my opinion weighs 5kg. Now lets say Ivanov's opinion weighs 100kg and Okishev's opinion weighs 200kg. I think that's fair. If you can show that these interviews are complete fabrications by disingenuous people then you have the burden of proving this. Otherwise i have to accept what is printed. And what is printed is unequivocal, when they found the ravine bodies the state removed the case from civilian jurisdiction. Now there are only two reasons for this, (1) they knew the answer and wanted to enforce secrecy. (2) they didn't know the answer and were concerned as to the possibilities and hence took control full control of the case.

   
  • It doesn't explain Ivanov's fascination with "fire orbs firing directed heat rays". Which is a very curious and specific assertion from a state prosecutor/barrister! Unless he was simply crazy he must have seen some evidence for this view. Okishev spoke highly of Ivanov - "thorough and meticulous".

Okishev it is «the separate song» …  grin1
That doesn't translate well. I'm assuming that you are negative concerning Okishev. I'd be interested in your explanation for this.

Ivanov explained this event as result of meeting with UFO because he could not explain it other (more real) reasons. He is the lawyer, instead of the physicist and not the clairvoyant. All can be mistaken in understanding of processes. As far as I understand - we (as well as all the others) cannot be exception. It is not necessary dump all on Ivanov it result of level his knowledge of that period. Therefore it is not necessary jump over all time from concepts level for that time for modern level and back. So it is possible confuse more only all, instead find out all event.
Your statement is fair, however Ivanov was describing a rare phenomena, and exactly so, that does seem to exist. I have (many times, much more than 10x  kewl1 ) posted reports of ball lightning included ones "firing directed heat rays". This is a remarkable guess from a lawyer and non physicist! Unless this remarkable guess was assisted by photographic evidence perhaps?


So I don't get the interest in the avalanche theory, to me it seems one of the least probable theories and unable to explain key facts.

Basis for interest should be at first - possibility occurrence of this event in reality. And then maybe all the rest.
My personal opinion is that any avalanche (or similar) the phenomena on this place are impossible because it physical (natural) conditions no be present.
I am pleased we agree on this part of the case.
Best regards.

[/list]

August 23, 2019, 03:10:28 AM
Reply #69
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


My personal opinion is that any avalanche (or similar) the phenomena on this place are impossible because it physical (natural) conditions no be present.


That is very true, and it is very important.

There is no reason to assume that an avalanche or other form of natural disaster was responsible for the deaths of the nine.

Sadly, since a thorough and impartial forensic examination was not performed in 1959 we today have this fruitless discussion about what caused the tragedy. Even if the injuries are strongly indicative of homicide by some very resourceful attackers who used a combination of exposure and physical force to accomplish their mission, people still discuss motives. Which is a blind alley.

When dead people are found, the first and only correct way to proceed with an investigation is to find out the cause of death.

The first investigators must have known the fact that the nine students were murdered, but they could not tell the truth.

August 23, 2019, 10:47:05 AM
Reply #70
Offline

Nigel Evans


The first investigators must have known the fact that the nine students were murdered, No Ivanov believed they were killed by fire orbs, firing directed heat rays, possibly piloted. N.B. the internet provides reports of similar objects which presumably Ivanov never saw.
but they could not tell the truth. Ivanov gave his "fire orbs" opinion 30 years later when he felt it was safe to do so. Ditto his superior Okishev who clearly stated that there was a coverup. It would be fair comment that a lot of this (the deaths, the fire orbs and the coverup) could be explained by highly secretive testing of surface to air missiles capable of downing U2 spy planes (Gary Powers incident in May 1960). But Ivanov doesn't seem to agree with this view.


August 23, 2019, 11:17:59 AM
Reply #71
Online

jarrfan


If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

August 23, 2019, 11:38:02 AM
Reply #72
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?
DB

August 23, 2019, 01:52:55 PM
Reply #73
Offline

Nigel Evans


If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...
The clothes did show signs of being burnt as did two of the victims.

August 23, 2019, 01:55:08 PM
Reply #74
Offline

Nigel Evans


If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?
Or natural phenomena.

August 23, 2019, 02:22:22 PM
Reply #75
Online

Morski


If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?

And those very advanced species happened to be exactly at Kholat Syakhl, just in time to annihilate nine fine young people. Using advanced technology from their spaceship. NO.

Today at 11:57:04 AM
Reply #76
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?

And those very advanced species happened to be exactly at Kholat Syakhl, just in time to annihilate nine fine young people. Using advanced technology from their spaceship. NO.

Or YES. Because there is no proof either way. YET.
DB