Recent Posts

91

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by Ziljoe on June 25, 2025, 05:15:05 PM »

Ziljoe,

You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t match your tone entirely, but I’ll address your points head-on.

No, I didn’t “have a dictionary for breakfast” or consult a vocal coach—though thanks for the backhanded compliment. As I’ve said before, I do make use of AI tools at times to assist with formatting, citations, or trimming the fat from a longer thought—but the ideas? Those are mine. Always have been. I’ve been clear about that. The difference is I treat AI like a research assistant, not a ghostwriter. If that offends the academic sensibilities of the forum, well, we’re having a modern conversation about a Cold War mystery—expect modern tools.

Now, regarding windburn—yes, I’m aware of what it is. I even agree it's a potential explanation. But let’s be accurate:
Ivanov didn’t describe browning needles or dry foliage. He described scorching—and not on broadleaf evergreens but on young trees’ tops, selectively, and with no noted epicenter. It’s a strange observation, and I’m not the one who made it—he did.

Which brings us to the real issue:
You’ve implied Ivanov was either incompetent or spinning a tale for cash. That's a pretty serious charge to throw at the lead investigator of a sealed Soviet case—especially when your critique is based on what he didn’t collect rather than what he did. Maybe he was working under orders. Maybe he was shut down before he could follow through. Or maybe he suspected something he couldn’t say out loud in 1959.

You can question Ivanov’s later theories—that’s fair. But don’t pretend his early observations don’t matter just because he later leaned into things that made you uncomfortable. That’s not critical thinking, that’s selective skepticism.

So let’s stay focused:

Windburn? Possible, but not confirmed.

Scorch marks on tree crowns? Still an open question.

AI-assisted phrasing? Maybe. But the arguments are mine. You’re not debating a bot—you’re debating me.

Now, shall we move forward?

 

Thank....you,,,,old Jedi....... I.....am......chat bot AI v 4567.03.

Everything you have mentioned has been discussed, so it means doing the searching that you can't find or won't bother looking for to cite and correct your AI.

If your going to use AI then I cannot take you seriously, especially when you don't declare it. By all means use a separate debate section and thread but please don't add more confusion to the debate by trusting AI.

Have you read anything?

Let's start here, What does a scorched tree look like?

92

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by Ziljoe on June 25, 2025, 05:02:43 PM »

But once again, I must insist on ceasing the non-sequiturs. You continually commit that fallacy.

Are you or your AI having a laugh?

A fallacy from a fallacy .....

93

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on June 25, 2025, 04:58:13 PM »

Ziljoe,

You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t match your tone entirely, but I’ll address your points head-on.

No, I didn’t “have a dictionary for breakfast” or consult a vocal coach—though thanks for the backhanded compliment. As I’ve said before, I do make use of AI tools at times to assist with formatting, citations, or trimming the fat from a longer thought—but the ideas? Those are mine. Always have been. I’ve been clear about that. The difference is I treat AI like a research assistant, not a ghostwriter. If that offends the academic sensibilities of the forum, well, we’re having a modern conversation about a Cold War mystery—expect modern tools.

Now, regarding windburn—yes, I’m aware of what it is. I even agree it's a potential explanation. But let’s be accurate:
Ivanov didn’t describe browning needles or dry foliage. He described scorching—and not on broadleaf evergreens but on young trees’ tops, selectively, and with no noted epicenter. It’s a strange observation, and I’m not the one who made it—he did.

Which brings us to the real issue:
You’ve implied Ivanov was either incompetent or spinning a tale for cash. That's a pretty serious charge to throw at the lead investigator of a sealed Soviet case—especially when your critique is based on what he didn’t collect rather than what he did. Maybe he was working under orders. Maybe he was shut down before he could follow through. Or maybe he suspected something he couldn’t say out loud in 1959.

You can question Ivanov’s later theories—that’s fair. But don’t pretend his early observations don’t matter just because he later leaned into things that made you uncomfortable. That’s not critical thinking, that’s selective skepticism.

So let’s stay focused:

Windburn? Possible, but not confirmed.

Scorch marks on tree crowns? Still an open question.

AI-assisted phrasing? Maybe. But the arguments are mine. You’re not debating a bot—you’re debating me.

Now, shall we move forward?

 

94

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by Ziljoe on June 25, 2025, 04:54:44 PM »

🛸 Ivanov’s “UFO” Language Misunderstood?
First off, “UFO” doesn’t mean aliens—especially not in the 1959 Soviet lexicon. To Ivanov, and others in that era, a “UFO” simply meant an unidentified flying object, not “little green men.” When Ivanov talks about “fireballs” or “stars” in the sky, he’s not necessarily promoting fringe ideas. In fact, read closely and you can detect a subtler possibility:

He describes one of these “stars” splitting apart—a larger object ejecting a smaller, glowing one. That’s an almost textbook description of a solid-fuel rocket booster separation, potentially tied to an early Sputnik-era launch vehicle or orbital payload.

The USSR was in the thick of space race development in '59. These early-stage booster separations, re-entries, and orbital burns could have produced:

Flame-like streaks in the night sky

Fragmentation or cascading “fireballs”

Pulsing light from booster stage tumbling or venting

Ivanov may have been trying to point people toward Soviet aerospace activity without outright saying it. That would make sense during a time when admitting military launch failures—or even successes—was politically risky.

🪐 Fireball ≠ Fantasy
We often think of “UFOs” as tinfoil hat stuff, but historically, advanced human tech often looks alien to people without context. Just a few examples:

Cargo cults in the South Pacific saw WWII airplanes and thought they were gods.

Ancient petroglyphs sometimes depict wheel-like or saucer shapes after meteor sightings.

In 1561, the “celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg” described aerial shapes that, today, resemble high-altitude atmospheric events—perhaps even rocketry or meteors.

In the Dyatlov case, villagers and hikers reported “glowing orbs” in the sky on multiple nights. If those were re-entering boosters, early missile tests, or high-altitude illumination flares, they would’ve appeared completely inexplicable—unless you worked for the military.

👨‍✈️ Ivanov’s Dilemma
So maybe Ivanov wasn’t off-base. Maybe he wasn’t indulging in science fiction. Maybe he was carefully signaling that the hikers—and later, the search teams—witnessed something related to classified aerospace activity. He couldn’t say “military,” so he said “fireballs.”

The treetop scorching, the silence from officials, the sealed files... they may all align better with Soviet space testing secrecy than with anything paranormal.

🧭 Conclusion
Instead of laughing off Ivanov’s “fireballs,” maybe we should be reading between the lines. He may have been pointing directly at the Soviet space program, without permission to name it. That’s not wild speculation—that’s Cold War context.

This has all been discussed by the way videos put forward  and theories .

Some dates have been identified and the space program. The USSR Kremlin was having meetings with the west about disarming nuclear weapons, they were hiding stuff from each other at the same time as the incident, the lights in the sky are documented in other reports too.

95

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on June 25, 2025, 04:52:40 PM »

But once again, I must insist on ceasing the non-sequiturs. You continually commit that fallacy.

96

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on June 25, 2025, 04:51:18 PM »

I think I made it quite clear in this post. And then everyone started making posts about AI. I am not pumping anything into anything except my own arguments. And my elocution has always been fine lol. https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1779.0

97

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by Ziljoe on June 25, 2025, 04:45:51 PM »

Ziljoe — interesting points. That said, I think it’s worth stepping back and giving Ivanov a bit more credit on the tree scorch issue.

He did note burning on the tops of young trees near the cedar, and while it’s tempting to dismiss this as overreach or Cold War dramatics or sensationalism, the fact is: those observations were made at the time, by a trained investigator, at the actual scene. There’s value in that.

🔥 Can Wind Cause Burns?
Short answer: no. Wind isn't a heat source. It can intensify an existing fire or redirect electrical phenomena like ball lightning or plasma discharge, but it cannot scorch tree crowns by itself. Ivanov’s phrasing ruled out a classic burn pattern too—no concentric scorch marks, no ground-level charring, just isolated burning on upper branches. That’s odd enough to warrant pause, not dismissal.

If we take that observation seriously, then:

It’s not consistent with an explosion (no epicenter, no residue).

It’s not consistent with fire spread (no surface ignition).

It might be consistent with aerial electrical discharge, like plasma arcs or rare meteorological phenomena (cold fireballs, St. Elmo’s fire, etc.).

🧠 Re: Dismissing Ivanov Entirely
Many researchers side-eye Ivanov because:

He later leaned into UFO/paranormal speculation.

He refused to retract those ideas when pressured.

His later interviews sometimes blurred lines between fact and theory.

But that doesn’t mean everything he said is invalid. He was the lead investigator, on-site early, and had access to unredacted files, autopsies, and military inputs. You can disagree with his conclusions, but not the value of his raw observations. To ignore those just because he later chased “fireballs” is to, well, throw the baby out with the bathwater.

🧩 Bottom Line
Burned treetops aren’t proof of anything exotic. But they’re not easily explained by wind, either. Unless we’re willing to explain them away entirely, it’s more productive to consider rare but natural events—electrical discharge, ionization bursts, etc.—than to discard the detail just because Ivanov recorded it.

Appreciate the debate, as always. Your counterpoints keep the discussion honest. 👌

Old Jedi , did you have a dictionary for breakfast  and elocution lessons  last week?

Or are you just pumping this debate into some AI chat bot?. If you are using AI , I ask that's you cease using it or declare that you are, so all forum members are clear .

Windburn on trees in winter, also known as winter burn or desiccation, occurs when cold, dry winds draw moisture from evergreen foliage faster than the roots can replace it, especially when the ground is frozen. This leads to browning and drying of leaves and needles, often on the side of the plant facing the wind.

Here is an example .






The question is , is this what Ivanov saw , was it winter or spring, what dates was he at the slope?  etc.

Is the book about cash for a great story that will sell in the west ?

If he was such a great investigator then why did he not take samples of the said burn trees or investigate them . It has also got me thinking about the radiation reports , even that doesn't make much sense.

If you or Ai didn't know what wind burn is on trees then what to do?

98

General Discussion / Re: Solved yet again - tent cut from inside.

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on June 25, 2025, 04:33:46 PM »

That's definitely not 33 degrees but you get the point lol.

99

General Discussion / Re: Solved yet again - tent cut from inside.

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on June 25, 2025, 04:32:32 PM »

Here's a visual I did.

100

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on June 25, 2025, 04:22:50 PM »

🛸 Ivanov’s “UFO” Language Misunderstood?
First off, “UFO” doesn’t mean aliens—especially not in the 1959 Soviet lexicon. To Ivanov, and others in that era, a “UFO” simply meant an unidentified flying object, not “little green men.” When Ivanov talks about “fireballs” or “stars” in the sky, he’s not necessarily promoting fringe ideas. In fact, read closely and you can detect a subtler possibility:

He describes one of these “stars” splitting apart—a larger object ejecting a smaller, glowing one. That’s an almost textbook description of a solid-fuel rocket booster separation, potentially tied to an early Sputnik-era launch vehicle or orbital payload.

The USSR was in the thick of space race development in '59. These early-stage booster separations, re-entries, and orbital burns could have produced:

Flame-like streaks in the night sky

Fragmentation or cascading “fireballs”

Pulsing light from booster stage tumbling or venting

Ivanov may have been trying to point people toward Soviet aerospace activity without outright saying it. That would make sense during a time when admitting military launch failures—or even successes—was politically risky.

🪐 Fireball ≠ Fantasy
We often think of “UFOs” as tinfoil hat stuff, but historically, advanced human tech often looks alien to people without context. Just a few examples:

Cargo cults in the South Pacific saw WWII airplanes and thought they were gods.

Ancient petroglyphs sometimes depict wheel-like or saucer shapes after meteor sightings.

In 1561, the “celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg” described aerial shapes that, today, resemble high-altitude atmospheric events—perhaps even rocketry or meteors.

In the Dyatlov case, villagers and hikers reported “glowing orbs” in the sky on multiple nights. If those were re-entering boosters, early missile tests, or high-altitude illumination flares, they would’ve appeared completely inexplicable—unless you worked for the military.

👨‍✈️ Ivanov’s Dilemma
So maybe Ivanov wasn’t off-base. Maybe he wasn’t indulging in science fiction. Maybe he was carefully signaling that the hikers—and later, the search teams—witnessed something related to classified aerospace activity. He couldn’t say “military,” so he said “fireballs.”

The treetop scorching, the silence from officials, the sealed files... they may all align better with Soviet space testing secrecy than with anything paranormal.

🧭 Conclusion
Instead of laughing off Ivanov’s “fireballs,” maybe we should be reading between the lines. He may have been pointing directly at the Soviet space program, without permission to name it. That’s not wild speculation—that’s Cold War context.