Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

[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.

Was Ivanov a trained botanist , it would seem he wasn't as he doesn't mention the possibility of wind burn on the trees . Neither does he quote or supply any evidence or research to determine what caused this appearance of scorched fir needles/branches . As an investigator , one should investigate and supply evidence, yet Ivanov only states that he saw burn marks on trees at the treeline . This is not the action of a trained investigator , especially as he is at the scene .


[

🧩 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.

The reported burned treetops are easily explained by wind burn and then the further description by Ivanov of what he saw on the treeline without it having an epicenter. 

[OLD JEDI 72]

Wind burned and burned are two different things. You can't post a picture of a green tree with all the snow melted and blown off and cite that is what Ivanov described.

[Ziljoe]

Wind burned and burned are two different things. You can't post a picture of a green tree with all the snow melted and blown off and cite that is what Ivanov described.

Fair enough, but you can't cite what Ivanov seen as a ray gun or st Elmo's fire?..

The concept of the language description serves a purpose on ceders, fir trees etc. The words wind burn / wind scorch have a reason in language. This is because it looks like a burn or scorch to the tree, exactly the same if the tree was burnt by a flame. It's due to several reasons , one being that the tree can't supply the water from its roots to the branches due to wind drying out these branches and/ or poor roots.

It is not rocket science, the clue is in the description. A burnt tree looks exactly like a tree that is exposed to wind burn.

Ivanov did not collect any data to eliminate one from the other . This is poor investigation in my opinion

When you say they are two different things , you are correct, but ivanov supplied no argument, or context.

Do you understand?

[Ziljoe]

Fire damage.