Miscellaneous > Non-DP Related Mysteries!

The Pont-Saint-Esprit “incident”

<< < (3/3)

Nigel Evans:
Two good posts from Morski and gypsy.

Wrt the criticism of the investigation, i think it's relevant to point out that an unknown quantity of material was confiscated and the investigation we see and the one that was made could be substantially different. For instance it seems highly likely that there are missing photos and we have Ivanov's complete conviction over fire orbs. I struggle with branding him as a UFO freak, agent for the state perhaps. But then why would the state want to push the fire orb "smokescreen" 31 years later in 1990? Or how could a state prosecutor / barrister be genuinely convinced of fire orbs unless there was clear evidence?


For me the most interesting part of the DPI is the reopening of the case focusing on an avalanche/snow slide. If it was a (possibly embarrassing) military accident with fire orbs used as a cover why not just admit it?


Or are they as baffled now as they were then? But why focus on a theory that cannot possibly justify the coverup, that just doesn't make sense?


Maybe that's the point, keep us going round in circles like a dog chasing it's tail, you never get there... dance1

gypsy:
"UFO freak" was an exaggeration of course. Technically it was an unknown flying object for him, I just strongly doubt outer space origin of the fire orbs as some people would claim.

Nigel Evans:

--- Quote from: gypsy on May 22, 2019, 05:12:52 AM ---"UFO freak" was an exaggeration of course. Technically it was an unknown flying object for him, I just strongly doubt outer space origin of the fire orbs as some people would claim.

--- End quote ---
From Ivanov's interview in 1990 :-I questioned many eyewitnesses of overflight, hovering and, quite simply, visits of unidentified flying objects in the Subpolar Urals. Incidentally, UFO's i.e. unidentified flying objects are often associated with aliens. I do not agree with this. UFOs need to be understood as unidentified flying objects, and only so. Many data suggest that these can be bundles of energy that are not understood by modern people and unexplained by modern data of science and technology, affecting animate and inanimate nature encountered in their path. Apparently, we met with one of them.

gypsy:

--- Quote from: Nigel Evans on May 22, 2019, 06:45:56 AM ---
--- Quote from: gypsy on May 22, 2019, 05:12:52 AM ---"UFO freak" was an exaggeration of course. Technically it was an unknown flying object for him, I just strongly doubt outer space origin of the fire orbs as some people would claim.

--- End quote ---
From Ivanov's interview in 1990 :-I questioned many eyewitnesses of overflight, hovering and, quite simply, visits of unidentified flying objects in the Subpolar Urals. Incidentally, UFO's i.e. unidentified flying objects are often associated with aliens. I do not agree with this. UFOs need to be understood as unidentified flying objects, and only so. Many data suggest that these can be bundles of energy that are not understood by modern people and unexplained by modern data of science and technology, affecting animate and inanimate nature encountered in their path. Apparently, we met with one of them.

--- End quote ---

Fully agree with that. I'll rephrase:Ivanov's UFO statement created the basis for association with aliens despite his explanation being completely rational (just too vague).
Uncertainty leads to misinterpretation and eventually false conclusions... It is pretty much how disinformation works (I'm guilty as well this time).

Too bad Ivanov's observations were not acted upon and investigated further. Instead they were at least partially the reason why his inquiry was shut down.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page