July 01, 2025, 10:40:22 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up  (Read 1214 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

June 23, 2025, 10:37:23 AM
Read 1214 times
Online

OLD JEDI 72


I've been carefully considering the Dyatlov Pass Incident, specifically focusing on why a cover‑up would have been critical in the context of Soviet society at the height of the Cold War. One theory that continues to resonate with me involves a mutiny among the group—internal conflict leading to drastic actions that were subsequently obscured from public knowledge.

Igor Dyatlov was known for his strong leadership and his determination to push boundaries, even beyond what was strictly necessary. Given this was already classified as a Grade 3 hike without the added challenge of camping exposed on the mountainside, Dyatlov's insistence on choosing such a vulnerable campsite likely stirred disagreement among the group. It's quite plausible that Semyon Zolotaryov, being older and significantly more experienced, recommended setting up camp in the relative safety of the nearby forest, a suggestion that may have found support among several others.

This divergence in opinions probably undermined Dyatlov’s authority, creating palpable tension. It’s easy to envision a heated dispute in which Dyatlov, asserting his authority—and perhaps his pride—took drastic measures such as cutting open the tent from the inside as a defiant gesture, effectively saying: “If you don’t like my decisions, then leave my tent.”

A Snow‑Slab Catalyst?

Importantly, a snow‑slab event could have triggered the immediate evacuation. A slab sliding onto the tent might have convinced everyone they were in mortal danger, but the after‑shock could just as easily have devolved into finger‑pointing and “I told you so” recriminations—further fueling the mutiny narrative. In other words, natural hazard and human conflict are not mutually exclusive; they can intertwine with disastrous results.

Investigator Ivanov & the Need for Silence

Investigator Lev Ivanov, in his initial approach, seemed genuinely committed to uncovering the truth, yet his investigation was soon curtailed—likely once he realized the political hazard of revealing internal discord among idealistic Soviet citizens. During this era the USSR projected carefully curated images of unity, strength, and ideological purity. Admitting that comrades turned on each other would have been devastating to that facade.

Historical context reinforces the motive for silence: the Soviet government was famously secretive and fiercely protective of its image. From the suppression of dissent after Stalin’s death to the glossing over of the Hungarian Revolution (1956), inconvenient truths were routinely buried so that no cracks appeared in the ideological armor.

Outlandish Theories as Possible Red Herrings

Some point to more exotic explanations—Yetis, UFOs, secret weapons tests, KGB hit squads—but these ideas are likely red herrings (pun intended) that distract from the far more plausible mix of bad judgment, extreme conditions, and clashing egos. Conspiracy‑colored folklore makes for compelling campfire stories, but it may also serve the same purpose a cover‑up would: to steer attention away from the very human failings at the heart of the tragedy.

Why a Cover‑Up Was Essential

Given this backdrop, a cover‑up designed to shield the Soviet public—and the world—from a narrative of comrades turning violently on each other makes considerable sense. Such an admission would have struck at the heart of Soviet propaganda, especially at the most precarious juncture of the Cold War. It explains why Ivanov was pressured into premature conclusions, why certain files were sealed, and why, even today, central questions remain officially unanswered.

Visualize the symbolism: the Soviet flag, once unblemished and whole, now bears a stark crack down the middle—internal divisions the authorities could never allow to reach daylight.

"Just the facts, ma'am."
 

June 23, 2025, 12:02:50 PM
Reply #1
Offline

eurocentric


I generally agree, but not that Igor cut the tent, I think the mutineers did so when their only exit was blocked, and that precipitated the later abandonment of the tent by the remaining five. Alternatively had their been a fight inside the tent, and a knife was brandished, then the tent could suffer similar damage.

Igor likely took a risk, hoping to shave hours off the next day's early start to Otorten, making it possible to complete the route and back to the well-stocked cache in the same day, but an older and more experienced outdoorsman, due to his war years, and a general feeling among a total of half of Igor's crew that this was an unnecessary risk as the weather might change, challenged this decision, at the moment of highest stress and exhaustion and when they discovered how bad it was up there.

The discovery of 4 badly injured bodies in a ravine a few metres away from a snow den with 4 seats must have made it obvious to the search team what had likely taken place, especially when autopsies found no corresponding attempts of the victims to break their fall, meaning they were unconscious before they ended up in that ravine, and while finding the remaining bodies after many months meant everything was complete they immediately closed the case, sealing it with a cryptic reference to an unknown compelling force, when ironically the survival instinct provides the complusion to do anything if your group is vied against another, and is not unknown.

Internecine warfare and a battle for a sole survivor resource in lethal conditions as a hypothermic clock ticked down at night is the theory which ticks the most boxes, and it also satisfies Occams Razor. But everyone prefers to believe they all died as one happy group, stricken by an outside force and so all of these theories hit more hurdles than they clear.

Ivanov created a smokescreen about UFOs and formally the mystery was sealed as an unknown in order to protect the propaganda of the time, the very idea that Russians had killed Russians, even if only to survive when pitched against each other, and this included  university students, so it was something a Communist system would wish to stage manage. And maybe also, in terms of some compassion, and because all had died, they wished to spare the families and university friends the unpalatable truth.
My DPI approach - logic, probability and reason.
 

June 23, 2025, 01:02:15 PM
Reply #2
Online

OLD JEDI 72





I tried adding this with the original post after the final statement for effect, but it didn't want to work so I renamed it. I think you and I are basically on the same page.
 
I tend to think the injuries were caused by Igor using explosives, which geologists were known to carry. It would also explain the burning on the tops of the trees.
"Just the facts, ma'am."
 

June 23, 2025, 06:12:36 PM
Reply #3
Offline

Ziljoe


I've been carefully considering the Dyatlov Pass Incident, specifically focusing on why a cover‑up would have been critical in the context of Soviet society at the height of the Cold War. One theory that continues to resonate with me involves a mutiny among the group—internal conflict leading to drastic actions that were subsequently obscured from public knowledge.

Igor Dyatlov was known for his strong leadership and his determination to push boundaries, even beyond what was strictly necessary. Given this was already classified as a Grade 3 hike without the added challenge of camping exposed on the mountainside, Dyatlov's insistence on choosing such a vulnerable campsite likely stirred disagreement among the group. It's quite plausible that Semyon Zolotaryov, being older and significantly more experienced, recommended setting up camp in the relative safety of the nearby forest, a suggestion that may have found support among several others.

This divergence in opinions probably undermined Dyatlov’s authority, creating palpable tension. It’s easy to envision a heated dispute in which Dyatlov, asserting his authority—and perhaps his pride—took drastic measures such as cutting open the tent from the inside as a defiant gesture, effectively saying: “If you don’t like my decisions, then leave my tent.”

A Snow‑Slab Catalyst?

Importantly, a snow‑slab event could have triggered the immediate evacuation. A slab sliding onto the tent might have convinced everyone they were in mortal danger, but the after‑shock could just as easily have devolved into finger‑pointing and “I told you so” recriminations—further fueling the mutiny narrative. In other words, natural hazard and human conflict are not mutually exclusive; they can intertwine with disastrous results.

Investigator Ivanov & the Need for Silence

Investigator Lev Ivanov, in his initial approach, seemed genuinely committed to uncovering the truth, yet his investigation was soon curtailed—likely once he realized the political hazard of revealing internal discord among idealistic Soviet citizens. During this era the USSR projected carefully curated images of unity, strength, and ideological purity. Admitting that comrades turned on each other would have been devastating to that facade.

Historical context reinforces the motive for silence: the Soviet government was famously secretive and fiercely protective of its image. From the suppression of dissent after Stalin’s death to the glossing over of the Hungarian Revolution (1956), inconvenient truths were routinely buried so that no cracks appeared in the ideological armor.

Outlandish Theories as Possible Red Herrings

Some point to more exotic explanations—Yetis, UFOs, secret weapons tests, KGB hit squads—but these ideas are likely red herrings (pun intended) that distract from the far more plausible mix of bad judgment, extreme conditions, and clashing egos. Conspiracy‑colored folklore makes for compelling campfire stories, but it may also serve the same purpose a cover‑up would: to steer attention away from the very human failings at the heart of the tragedy.

Why a Cover‑Up Was Essential

Given this backdrop, a cover‑up designed to shield the Soviet public—and the world—from a narrative of comrades turning violently on each other makes considerable sense. Such an admission would have struck at the heart of Soviet propaganda, especially at the most precarious juncture of the Cold War. It explains why Ivanov was pressured into premature conclusions, why certain files were sealed, and why, even today, central questions remain officially unanswered.

Visualize the symbolism: the Soviet flag, once unblemished and whole, now bears a stark crack down the middle—internal divisions the authorities could never allow to reach daylight.

.
 

June 23, 2025, 06:14:02 PM
Reply #4
Offline

Ziljoe





I tried adding this with the original post after the final statement for effect, but it didn't want to work so I renamed it. I think you and I are basically on the same page.
 
I tend to think the injuries were caused by Igor using explosives, which geologists were known to carry. It would also explain the burning on the tops of the trees.

Propaganda
 

June 23, 2025, 06:23:40 PM
Reply #5
Online

OLD JEDI 72





I tried adding this with the original post after the final statement for effect, but it didn't want to work so I renamed it. I think you and I are basically on the same page.
 
I tend to think the injuries were caused by Igor using explosives, which geologists were known to carry. It would also explain the burning on the tops of the trees.

Propaganda

Of course. Like everything.
"Just the facts, ma'am."
 

June 23, 2025, 06:27:45 PM
Reply #6
Offline

Ziljoe





I tried adding this with the original post after the final statement for effect, but it didn't want to work so I renamed it. I think you and I are basically on the same page.
 
I tend to think the injuries were caused by Igor using explosives, which geologists were known to carry. It would also explain the burning on the tops of the trees.

What burning on the tops of trees do you refer to?. Why and how would a group of hikers transport explosives on train , bus , back of a lorry then a sledge , on skis , on back backs for 200km , whilst falling and sliding , carrying enough food and shelter for 2 weeks?

Then how does this explosion burn the tops of trees and not the hikers ? What is the explosive power of what they carried through domestic civilization, including schools and train stations ?

What trees were burned?
 

June 24, 2025, 08:12:13 AM
Reply #7
Online

OLD JEDI 72


I'm referring to Ivanov's description of burned treetops. I'm quite surprised you have to ask.
"Just the facts, ma'am."
 

June 24, 2025, 08:15:06 AM
Reply #8
Offline

RMK


What burning on the tops of trees do you refer to?. Why and how would a group of hikers transport explosives on train , bus , back of a lorry then a sledge , on skis , on back backs for 200km , whilst falling and sliding , carrying enough food and shelter for 2 weeks?

Then how does this explosion burn the tops of trees and not the hikers ? What is the explosive power of what they carried through domestic civilization, including schools and train stations ?

What trees were burned?
For the "Igor used explosives" idea to have any viability at all, I think we would need to assume that he found some abandoned explosives at Second Northern.

I believe Lev Ivanov, and ONLY Lev Ivanov, reported seeing scorched treetops.
 

June 24, 2025, 08:57:59 AM
Reply #9
Online

OLD JEDI 72


What burning on the tops of trees do you refer to?. Why and how would a group of hikers transport explosives on train , bus , back of a lorry then a sledge , on skis , on back backs for 200km , whilst falling and sliding , carrying enough food and shelter for 2 weeks?

Then how does this explosion burn the tops of trees and not the hikers ? What is the explosive power of what they carried through domestic civilization, including schools and train stations ?

What trees were burned?
For the "Igor used explosives" idea to have any viability at all, I think we would need to assume that he found some abandoned explosives at Second Northern.

I believe Lev Ivanov, and ONLY Lev Ivanov, reported seeing scorched treetops.

Or he stole explosives from Yudin who was a geologist and that's why Yudin left.
"Just the facts, ma'am."
 

June 24, 2025, 09:35:07 AM
Reply #10
Offline

RMK


Or he stole explosives from Yudin who was a geologist and that's why Yudin left.
Yudin was an engineering economics major.  He wasn't really a geologist...well, maybe he was an amateur geologist.  After all, he did agree to bring back some core samples from the trip, to the university.

Anyway, to reiterate Ziljoe's point, it's really hard to believe that the hikers were carrying explosive materials with them for their whole journey.  Why would they do that?  Why carry something that's extra weight, potentially dangerous, and could get them into trouble with the law, for no apparent purpose?
 

June 24, 2025, 11:39:20 AM
Reply #11
Online

OLD JEDI 72


I'm probably muddying the waters myself. Typically I try and avoid what I call the second event because the first event is still so elusive. I'm definitely not sold on the idea of explosives. But in my gut I am sold on the idea of a mutiny. Either as a standalone event or part of another event such as a snow slab.
"Just the facts, ma'am."
 

June 24, 2025, 04:26:44 PM
Reply #12
Offline

Ziljoe


I'm referring to Ivanov's description of burned treetops. I'm quite surprised you have to ask.

What was Ivanov's evidence of burnt trees?

This is why I ask. You have added explosives and burnt trees what could be the reason that Ivanov could say such a statement?
 

June 24, 2025, 05:07:10 PM
Reply #13
Online

OLD JEDI 72


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
"Just the facts, ma'am."
 

June 24, 2025, 05:30:00 PM
Reply #14
Offline

Ziljoe


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? 
 

June 25, 2025, 03:24:48 AM
Reply #15
Online

OLD JEDI 72


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?
"Just the facts, ma'am."
 

June 25, 2025, 12:44:54 PM
Reply #16
Offline

Ziljoe


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 .
 

June 25, 2025, 04:01:54 PM
Reply #17
Online

OLD JEDI 72


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. 👌
"Just the facts, ma'am."
 
The following users thanked this post: RMK

June 25, 2025, 04:22:50 PM
Reply #18
Online

OLD JEDI 72


🛸 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.
"Just the facts, ma'am."
 

June 25, 2025, 04:45:51 PM
Reply #19
Offline

Ziljoe


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?
 

June 25, 2025, 04:51:18 PM
Reply #20
Online

OLD JEDI 72


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
"Just the facts, ma'am."
 

June 25, 2025, 04:52:40 PM
Reply #21
Online

OLD JEDI 72


But once again, I must insist on ceasing the non-sequiturs. You continually commit that fallacy.
"Just the facts, ma'am."
 

June 25, 2025, 04:54:44 PM
Reply #22
Offline

Ziljoe


🛸 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.
 

June 25, 2025, 04:58:13 PM
Reply #23
Online

OLD JEDI 72


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?

 dance1
"Just the facts, ma'am."
 

June 25, 2025, 05:02:43 PM
Reply #24
Offline

Ziljoe


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 .....
 

June 25, 2025, 05:15:05 PM
Reply #25
Offline

Ziljoe


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?

 dance1

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?
 

June 25, 2025, 05:34:15 PM
Reply #26
Online

OLD JEDI 72


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?

 dance1

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?

You’ve been throwing elbows for a while now, and I’ve let it go because every forum needs a character. But if you’re going to keep swinging at me with the “AI ghostwriting” angle, at least be honest about your intent. You’re not uncovering anything; I’ve openly stated I use AI tools as an assistant, not an author. If the polish bothers you, maybe question why you’re so used to the mud.

Your response here isn’t about windburn, and it’s definitely not about Dyatlov. It’s about tone policing. The “dictionary for breakfast” crack, the jab about elocution lessons—none of that relates to the content. That’s called a non-sequitur. You’ve made a habit of it; throwing in jokes about alien abductions, selling books to the West, or whether Ivanov should have personally bottled the burn marks into a thermos. You leap from topic to topic because you’re not interested in narrowing anything down—you’re interested in keeping the waters stirred.

You build plausible doubt by distraction. You seed confusion by mocking clarity. That’s your whole game. You purposely use misspellings and slang to sound casual, to dodge being held to the same level of scrutiny you demand from others. It's performance. You're not asking for precision, you're baiting overreach so you can slap people for being too sure of themselves.

Now, about Ivanov. You’re trying to erase his role entirely because he used the word “fireball.” You call his work suspect because he didn’t take bark samples? Come on. The man was lead investigator on a closed Soviet case in a system famous for shutting mouths. He took photos, wrote observations, and was eventually stonewalled. You can dismiss his conclusions, but pretending his raw observations are worthless is a cheap way to avoid dealing with them.

You asked earlier if the book is just for cash and western drama. That's rich considering you speculate wildly then play hall monitor when someone threads a coherent narrative. What I’m doing is building a case based on known data, testimony, photos, autopsy reports, and yes—Ivanov's logs. You can throw spaghetti at the wall all day; I’m fine with it. But don’t get territorial when some of us come in with clean hands and sharper tools.

So here’s the deal. If you want to keep things grounded, I’m game. But if you’re just here to heckle tone and accuse anyone articulate of being a chatbot, then don’t be surprised when the responses get cleaner, faster, and more complete than you’re ready for.

I’ll take accuracy over ankle-biting any day.

 dance1
"Just the facts, ma'am."
 

June 25, 2025, 07:11:25 PM
Reply #27
Offline

Ziljoe


Thanks for letting it go .... So moving forward,

What jokes about alien abduction, what slang words are you talking about ?. Why am I trying to erase his role and you do understand the concept of media and books being read to make profit . Many authors and people speak to the press and they are misquoted for the sensationalism for the need to sell a story.

You have not offered any accuracy old jedi, it's the polar opposite.

So let's start with the tree wind burns that you don't seem to understand .

You say

"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."


What do you think Ivanov might have seen , was it young trees and what kind of young trees? Why do you mention  broadleaf greens?

Would not having an epicenter add to the conclusion that it is in fact wind burn?

 

June 26, 2025, 03:49:47 AM
Reply #28
Online

ahabmyth


I did read a few weeks ago something about singed tips of trees but thought nothing of it because this happens just about everywhere at this time of year (Winter ).. I might be interested a bit more in the orbs reportedly seen as I have actually seen one, I hate to repeat myself as I have mentioned it in another post. But hard luck, it wasnt anything dashing up and down doing impossible maneuvers but in a level straight line, traveling low ,maybe 500ft or so ,going faster than any aircraft I have ever seen and I have seen a few. I was ready to cover my ears for a sonic boom but nothing, as it reached in the front of me it veered off and went behind trees in any case, seemed to slow down but that was probably because of a turn. It was mind boggling a ball of what looked like fire only with no aura around it.No it wasnt an aircraft on afterburners they cant be seen coming towards you. Just a short story I thought I would throw into the pot. If any of you guys want to read my other explanation for exiting the tent so quick ,its written up in The Cedars > General Discussion.
 

June 26, 2025, 04:08:45 AM
Reply #29
Online

OLD JEDI 72


There you go again, asking rhetorical questions instead of providing.

"What do you think Ivanov might have seen , was it young trees and what kind of young trees? Why do you mention  broadleaf greens?

Would not having an epicenter add to the conclusion that it is in fact wind burn?"
"Just the facts, ma'am."