Recent Posts71
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. 👌
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. 👌