Recent Posts

81

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

82

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?

83

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.

84

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.

85

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.

86

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on June 25, 2025, 04:01:54 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. 👌

87

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by Ziljoe on June 25, 2025, 12:44:54 PM »

quote author=OLD JEDI 72 link=topic=1858.msg26809#msg26809 date=1750847088]

https://dyatlovpass.com/lev-ivanov

It's in this. He thinks fireballs and his description of the February event resembles a craft separating from a solid rocket booster. He calls it a star but could be anything. Even a cold fireball. https://dyatlovpass.com/lev-ivanov

This is old ground and some what sensationalism. What would you think burnt trees in a winter land Scape look like? Could trees look like they were burnt by nature's own mean, or such a thing not occur?

Attacking and dismissing the source rather than the content is a non-sequitur. It's all old ground. And rather than ask me how, why don't you cite some examples of how it was burnt instead of being vague?
[/quote]

He talks a lot of nonsense, or rather ,perhaps the author / publisher . The article was written 30 years ago and is contradictory to some of the case files and timelines. It also coincides conveniently with the media trend in UFO in the west. No one mentions burnt trees until way after the event, once the water has been muddied it becomes  difficult to unravel what's been said . There are natural occurring wind burn in winter trees .

88

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

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on June 25, 2025, 04:06:52 AM »

Yes can admit the theory of adding extra layers to the obvious explanations to what actually happened is dangerous, but until we find eye-witnesses to the event we are left with assumptions which is what this page /group is all about. I will endevour to research any injuries that may have happened to the group that could explain a crutch or stretcher being used.
People are still of the opinion that a slab slide or avalanche could have occurred when it has been proven to be highly illogical, less than 30deg slope, tent not inundated with snow, no flattened bushes, no buildup of snow anywhere. This I think is layer number one.

I see no-one has commented of another post of mine "The Cedars " which also could be a reason for "fleeing" the tent.
 Yep go on have a laugh, but you or your great or great great grandchildren will know of this and will be frightened of sleep for years.

The thing about a slab that tends to get overlooked is that drifting snow could make the slab itself over 30 degrees. And they cut into the side of it, essentially weakening everything behind the tent to piling snow. I find it difficult to believe people with crush injuries could walk a mile even with help.

89

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

« Last post by ahabmyth on June 25, 2025, 03:50:35 AM »

Yes can admit the theory of adding extra layers to the obvious explanations to what actually happened is dangerous, but until we find eye-witnesses to the event we are left with assumptions which is what this page /group is all about. I will endevour to research any injuries that may have happened to the group that could explain a crutch or stretcher being used.
People are still of the opinion that a slab slide or avalanche could have occurred when it has been proven to be highly illogical, less than 30deg slope, tent not inundated with snow, no flattened bushes, no buildup of snow anywhere. This I think is layer number one.

I see no-one has commented of another post of mine "The Cedars " which also could be a reason for "fleeing" the tent.
 Yep go on have a laugh, but you or your great or great great grandchildren will know of this and will be frightened of sleep for years.

90

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on June 25, 2025, 03:24:48 AM »

https://dyatlovpass.com/lev-ivanov

It's in this. He thinks fireballs and his description of the February event resembles a craft separating from a solid rocket booster. He calls it a star but could be anything. Even a cold fireball. https://dyatlovpass.com/lev-ivanov

This is old ground and some what sensationalism. What would you think burnt trees in a winter land Scape look like? Could trees look like they were burnt by nature's own mean, or such a thing not occur?

Attacking and dismissing the source rather than the content is a non-sequitur. It's all old ground. And rather than ask me how, why don't you cite some examples of how it was burnt instead of being vague?