Simplest Possible Credible Explanation

[sarapuk]

Ummm....when do you think that model in the video was made???

We're talking 1959 here!!

 

And I guarantee it weighs a lot more then 2 tons. 

My theory would prefer heavier rather than lighter. The British Scorpion scout weighs in at 8 tonnes and was designed about 10 years after this event. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV101_Scorpion

I dont think you are going to solve anything by guessing. Guessing that a heavy vehicle was involved. Guessing what type of vehicle. And so. Just guesses.

Everything that is said here is conjecture? The only people who can solve anything is the Russian state.

Not everything in this Forum is based on conjecture. And a good example of that is that weather forecasts are based on evidence.

[sarapuk]

What the hell is a 'superman'?

Unknown coercive and overwhelming force .... But I can say that ... My feelings are strong and my guess is that ...

Well I think thats what the Authorities may have been thinking at the time. And what has changed ?  NOTHING.  This Forum has come at this Dyatlov Mystery from every conceivable angle with no result whatsoever. So maybe we are dealing with an UNKNOWN OVERWHELMING FORCE. And that could be called a SIMPLE EXPLANATION.

That is not even an explanation.

Yes it is.  Just because the OVERWHELMING FORCE is UNKNOWN doesnt mean it isnt an explanation. Physicists often have to explain things using an unknown quantity.

I'll rephrase. It is a childish explanation and argument. Saying "unknown force" is not an explanation for anybody of more than 5 years of age. (Why superman and not Captain America?) Most of your recent statements here are just about saying the opposite with no reasoning. With that attitude we are not getting anywhere...

All of My statements make sense. I make sure of that. I may occasionally make an error but it doesnt distract from the facts. When you start using silly phrases like you have just done it means you are losing the argument.

[sarapuk]

Yes yes ...  because they have done such a good job thus far.   

The Soviet/Russian state has been withholding the case files and information. I agree they have enough resources to solve it but I also think they won't...

How do you know that the Soviet / Russian State  has been withholding  the case files and information  !  ? 

[sarapuk]

What the hell is a 'superman'?

Unknown coercive and overwhelming force .... But I can say that ... My feelings are strong and my guess is that ...

Well I think thats what the Authorities may have been thinking at the time. And what has changed ?  NOTHING.  This Forum has come at this Dyatlov Mystery from every conceivable angle with no result whatsoever. So maybe we are dealing with an UNKNOWN OVERWHELMING FORCE. And that could be called a SIMPLE EXPLANATION.

That is not even an explanation.

This is the most logical explanation for this event .... All other explanations are ridiculous and unscrupulous and imaginative and unreasonable.

All explanations than an unknown force of a non-existent Superman are unreasonable? Is that some kind of Monty Python & Catch22 crossover?

I really do not see how explaining the DPI by a fairy tale or other non-existent entity involvement is a credible explanation.

You're gonna decide what's going on in this world and what's not? Only God decides. We are not .... And there are so many events in the world that there are many things like superman and so on. There are not only humans and animals in the world ... And the KGB must know more evidence. But the KGB hasn't figured it out.

Only God decides? Which one?

Any entity not defined and not proved is non-existent. Stating otherwise is a logical fallacy.

This superman stuff should be moved to fantasy section.

An entity does not have to be defined or proved. Physicists are often dealing with unknown and unseen quantities. Those quantities could be described as entities.

[sarapuk]

There is no undefined and proven existence. This sentence is irrational in itself.You don't have to prove every existence. If you can't prove it. You don't have to prove and recognize. You don't know everything in the universe. Because human observations and perceptions are very weak. If you believe in a god, you understand that.But if you don't believe it, it's normal not to understand.

In that case I do not understand why you keep referring to a superman, which is a made up fantasy with no definition or proof of existence. This thread is about CREDIBLE explanation. That excludes things that don't conceivably exist in this world.
My beliefs have no consequences on the existence of anything. That is exactly why we should stick with logic and reality.

The unknown is a credible explanation. Ask a PHYSICIST who is worth their salt.

[sarapuk]

LOL - 1950's Communist Tourist humour - an acquired taste.

Very ironical though, as I suppose the answer was unfortunately "no".

I'm skeptical about the "Evening Ortoten" even existing. It seems like it casually plants questions into the minds of those who "read" it....possible explanations about their deaths - in fact the very statement about the stove and the blanket is rhetorical and places the seed in the mind...."no, they were not enough - they obviously froze to death"?

And why not mention the Yeti for those looking for more of an exciting/supernatural cause of the deaths? Or Armenians? Why an "Armenian quiz"?

And what the heck does this even mean???:

"GREETING THE XXI CONVENTION OF INCREASED BIRTHRATE AMONG HIKERS!

PHILOSOPHICAL SEMINAR on the topic of "Love and tourism" takes place daily on the tent premises (central hall). Lectures are given by Dr. Thibeaux and postdoctorate of Love science Dubinina."

Perhaps laying the foundation for the "romance, jealousy and possible infighting explanation"?

Also we dont have the original document only a transcription, ie what someone else wrote  !  ?  Could it have been a plant ie someone doing it to throw any real investigation off the scent so to speak. Or what.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Alright, alright.....   lets all take a breather and find a corner. 

[Clacon]

Can I come out of the corner now??

Sarapuk - that's exactly what I'm saying - Why would it have been confiscated at all? Something must have been omitted if the original was confiscated or what was the point of confiscating it?

Also, I think NkZ posted after Teddy's translation of Akselrod's testimony (yes, Nigel, I read it) that it seems as if Akselrod caught wind of the equipment and first 3 bodies being found via message dropped from a plane?? He seems to speak of arriving at the scene of the bodies waiting to be picked up?

"We immediately had to change our boots with felt boots and take part in the loading of the tent and
Sheet 322
Dyatlov group belongings into the helicopter. Three bodies - Kolmogorova, Dyatlov and Doroshenko, lay already brought from the valley near the boot rock on the pass."

So I and NkZ seem to agree he never saw the original tent as it was found? And yet he describes details of how it was set up so incredibly well, its hard to believe he wasn't there. Or he has a great imagination....or he is prone to making things up??

What does this mean: 
"Warned on the responsibility for the first part of Art. 92 of the Criminal Code for refusing to testify and under Art. 95 Criminal Code of the RSFSR for deliberately giving false testimony.
Akselrod (signature)"

Did he see the "Evening Otorten" afterwards and where did he see it?

[gypsy]

Yes yes ...  because they have done such a good job thus far.   

The Soviet/Russian state has been withholding the case files and information. I agree they have enough resources to solve it but I also think they won't...

How do you know that the Soviet / Russian State  has been withholding  the case files and information  !  ?

Evgeniy Okishev states in his interview that the evidence was confiscated (=withholded by the state) by an officer with the rank of colonel, we have missing photos, missing Kolevatov's "device", no toxicology report and a fine volume of transcrips instead of actual scans. There must have been basis for that and it was discussed many times before. Apart from that, the exclusion zone was imposed. Why? It is not somethig the state does for the fun of it...

All of My statements make sense. I make sure of that. I may occasionally make an error but it doesnt distract from the facts. When you start using silly phrases like you have just done it means you are losing the argument.

I am not talking about errors, everybody makes errors. I am referring to the statements such as "is is a guess" "there is no evidence" etc. that defeat the purpose of analyzing anything. I also find it very cynical to say that the death of 9 young people (who certainly did not die voluntarily or naturally) was caused by an unknown force and we shoud all just deal with it. Saying "we do not know" is not an explanation.

To be constructive, let's get back to the topic.

I keep referring to the Soviet/Russian state because the whole manner how this case was treated stinks. The reasoning to close the case is nonsense, the state attempted to make the funeral less public. No proper experts in respective fields such as medicine, psychology, military experts (there were SAM batteries nearby that shot down G. Powers and there must have been a procedure of recovery for used missiles), scientists (electric event theory), wildlife and native cultures expertsetc... all opinions of such people would have been helpful to establish a better balance of probability of what have happened . Of course, the state chose not to do that. Even recent "reopening" of the case sounds pretty much like bullshit. All of that points to the version that it was more likely the intention of the state to treat this case in certain manner, not just their incompetence. The state had enough resources, technolgies and manpower to do better. Let's not make the same mistakes and pay more respect to the victims than the Soviet/Russian state did until now.

[Nigel Evans]

The actions of the state in 1959 are understandable if they believed national security was at risk. What's harder to understand is the current behaviour, which suggests to me that we're still not there in understanding this.

[gypsy]

The actions of the state in 1959 are understandable if they believed national security was at risk. What's harder to understand is the current behaviour, which suggests to me that we're still not there in understanding this.

In that case (and I am also inclined to believe that rather that simple incompetence) I believe is is the right course of our "investigation" to look further into how matters of national security were treated at that time and establish some balance of probability of the causes that led to demise of the Dyatlov group.

For me, the simplest credible expalnation is one with highest rate of probability. Based on statistics, we can rule out avalanche (never happened on that slope), natural causes of death, suicide and everything with unproven existence (like yeti, aliens, superman etc.) The rest can be broken down by questions such as:

Involvement of other people? Yes/No, What other people? Soldiers/KGB/Khanty/Prisoners/Y.Yuden etc.
If not others, what happened betwwen the group?
Natural event? Yes/No
Weapon test, misguided missile etc...

To all of these it is possible to allocate some probability rate if we had enough knowledge from experts in respective fields. The combination gives us the simplest crdible explanation based on numbers.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Likely more to be national embarrassment rather then national security. 

[Nigel Evans]

Likely more to be national embarrassment rather then national security.

Firing missiles at a ghost radar signature (perhaps from Plane1/2) would be pretty embarrassing but it wouldn't justify the expense of what followed. They clearly were acting under an imperative to find all the bodies possibly as a cover for searching for debris in parallel.

[Clacon]

Wouldn't the simplest possible credible explanation rely on the evidence we do have?

I am a believer in the missile/rocket theory based upon the serious injuries inflicted upon the bodies (which could not have been inflicted by another human being based on the force), however I just keep thinking that there would be evidence of something on the ground - a crater perhaps. Burn marks?

Would there have been sufficient time and snow fall to have covered the crater up? Or do you believe they simply "failed" to report their finding BECAUSE it would prove they fouled up? I believe this is more likely than deploying a secret "clean up" team, don't you?

[Star man]

The actions of the state in 1959 are understandable if they believed national security was at risk. What's harder to understand is the current behaviour, which suggests to me that we're still not there in understanding this.

In that case (and I am also inclined to believe that rather that simple incompetence) I believe is is the right course of our "investigation" to look further into how matters of national security were treated at that time and establish some balance of probability of the causes that led to demise of the Dyatlov group.

For me, the simplest credible expalnation is one with highest rate of probability. Based on statistics, we can rule out avalanche (never happened on that slope), natural causes of death, suicide and everything with unproven existence (like yeti, aliens, superman etc.) The rest can be broken down by questions such as:

Involvement of other people? Yes/No, What other people? Soldiers/KGB/Khanty/Prisoners/Y.Yuden etc.
If not others, what happened betwwen the group?
Natural event? Yes/No
Weapon test, misguided missile etc...

To all of these it is possible to allocate some probability rate if we had enough knowledge from experts in respective fields. The combination gives us the simplest crdible explanation based on numbers.

Probably the simplest explanation with high probability is:

1. Some natural event - excluding avalanche . Example- Storm that damaged tent and led to them getting so cold that they could not use their hands?
2. Internal fighting that got out of hand.
3. Possible that one of the group planned to cause their demise.

Given that there is no evidence of anything strange or of any other people being there all other theories must be less likely?

[Nigel Evans]

The actions of the state in 1959 are understandable if they believed national security was at risk. What's harder to understand is the current behaviour, which suggests to me that we're still not there in understanding this.

In that case (and I am also inclined to believe that rather that simple incompetence) I believe is is the right course of our "investigation" to look further into how matters of national security were treated at that time and establish some balance of probability of the causes that led to demise of the Dyatlov group.

For me, the simplest credible expalnation is one with highest rate of probability. Based on statistics, we can rule out avalanche (never happened on that slope), natural causes of death, suicide and everything with unproven existence (like yeti, aliens, superman etc.) The rest can be broken down by questions such as:

Involvement of other people? Yes/No, What other people? Soldiers/KGB/Khanty/Prisoners/Y.Yuden etc.
If not others, what happened betwwen the group?
Natural event? Yes/No
Weapon test, misguided missile etc...

To all of these it is possible to allocate some probability rate if we had enough knowledge from experts in respective fields. The combination gives us the simplest crdible explanation based on numbers.

Probably the simplest explanation with high probability is:

1. Some natural event - excluding avalanche . Example- Storm that damaged tent and led to them getting so cold that they could not use their hands?
2. Internal fighting that got out of hand.
3. Possible that one of the group planned to cause their demise.

Given that there is no evidence of anything strange or of any other people being there all other theories must be less likely?

Completely disagree, see - http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=430.0    post #8
One thing is clear that the cause was a state secret and had to remain so, hence they had to account for all the bodies.

[gypsy]

Wouldn't the simplest possible credible explanation rely on the evidence we do have?

I am a believer in the missile/rocket theory based upon the serious injuries inflicted upon the bodies (which could not have been inflicted by another human being based on the force), however I just keep thinking that there would be evidence of something on the ground - a crater perhaps. Burn marks?

Would there have been sufficient time and snow fall to have covered the crater up? Or do you believe they simply "failed" to report their finding BECAUSE it would prove they fouled up? I believe this is more likely than deploying a secret "clean up" team, don't you?

As for the missile, the crater is not necessary (would be in case of an explosion). For example, S-75 Dvina that shot down USAF/CIA U2 with G. Powers is a two-stage missile, warhead is in the front. The second part of the missile is detached in-flight (not sure if it has a parachute) and does not explode. Even that can cause some damage or panic, but not necessarily a crater. As I mentioned before, total of 14 missiles were fired at G.Powers, only 2 were a hit, one killed a soviet pilot. The rest crashed somewhere in the area of Sverdlovsk, most likely in less populated area. We know it was not the first attempt to shoot down a spyplane and these missiles had to undergo testing first (with dummy warheads) and used parts of missiles had to be recovered by the army. I find it far from impossible that one or more tests went wrong or something went wrong in the aftermath. BTW, Ivanov mentioned burned trees in one of the interviews.

Concerning the investigation, I agree that to an extent it could have been just a blatant incompetence. On the other hand, there were more high-ranked officers involved and I find it unlikely that not one of them could have done a better job. Unless, of course it was not the actual objective to conclude the investigation properly (or present it to the public properly).

[Star man]

The actions of the state in 1959 are understandable if they believed national security was at risk. What's harder to understand is the current behaviour, which suggests to me that we're still not there in understanding this.

In that case (and I am also inclined to believe that rather that simple incompetence) I believe is is the right course of our "investigation" to look further into how matters of national security were treated at that time and establish some balance of probability of the causes that led to demise of the Dyatlov group.

For me, the simplest credible expalnation is one with highest rate of probability. Based on statistics, we can rule out avalanche (never happened on that slope), natural causes of death, suicide and everything with unproven existence (like yeti, aliens, superman etc.) The rest can be broken down by questions such as:

Involvement of other people? Yes/No, What other people? Soldiers/KGB/Khanty/Prisoners/Y.Yuden etc.
If not others, what happened betwwen the group?
Natural event? Yes/No
Weapon test, misguided missile etc...

To all of these it is possible to allocate some probability rate if we had enough knowledge from experts in respective fields. The combination gives us the simplest crdible explanation based on numbers.

Probably the simplest explanation with high probability is:

1. Some natural event - excluding avalanche . Example- Storm that damaged tent and led to them getting so cold that they could not use their hands?
2. Internal fighting that got out of hand.
3. Possible that one of the group planned to cause their demise.

Given that there is no evidence of anything strange or of any other people being there all other theories must be less likely?

Completely disagree, see - http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=430.0    post #8
One thing is clear that the cause was a state secret and had to remain so, hence they had to account for all the bodies.

Are there any other examples of high ranking military personnel being involved with similar tragic incidents?

Regards
Star man

[Star man]

If we are discussing simple explanations and motives, when it comes to unvoluntary deaths, statistically the most likely options involve money (highly unlikely in this case) or love affair. There could have been some twisted stuff going on until somebody got angry...Given the profiles of the hikers and life stories, I would not be surprised if Semyon an Tibo were a gay couple, the others saw them doing some funny stuff so the two decided to play a revenge prank on them and things got nasty, who knows....Other version may include any of the girls and more than one man who fancied them.

Please bear in mind that it is a far-fetched speculation at best.

I think the jealousy motive is credible.  Could this have resulted in infighting?

Regards
Star man

[Star man]

I don't think an in-group fight would explain all of them perishing. Why would they all leave the tent in the situation? Why wouldn't cooler heads break up the fight? Why wouldn't they return to the tent? If the conditions that night were bad enough outside that returning to the tent was an impossibility, then having a serious brawl without it cooler heads prevailing makes no sense.

And we don't have any evidence that they were on the verge or murdering one another over some resentment or love interest. That's pretty extreme.

Is it possible that one of them had psychotic and suicidal tendencies?

There was a very sad story in the news a few years ago where a copilot locked the cockpit door while the captain was outside and flew a passenger plane into a mountain.

Is it possible that something similar could have happened on Kholat Syakhl that night?

Regards
Star man

[Nigel Evans]

The actions of the state in 1959 are understandable if they believed national security was at risk. What's harder to understand is the current behaviour, which suggests to me that we're still not there in understanding this.

In that case (and I am also inclined to believe that rather that simple incompetence) I believe is is the right course of our "investigation" to look further into how matters of national security were treated at that time and establish some balance of probability of the causes that led to demise of the Dyatlov group.

For me, the simplest credible expalnation is one with highest rate of probability. Based on statistics, we can rule out avalanche (never happened on that slope), natural causes of death, suicide and everything with unproven existence (like yeti, aliens, superman etc.) The rest can be broken down by questions such as:

Involvement of other people? Yes/No, What other people? Soldiers/KGB/Khanty/Prisoners/Y.Yuden etc.
If not others, what happened betwwen the group?
Natural event? Yes/No
Weapon test, misguided missile etc...

To all of these it is possible to allocate some probability rate if we had enough knowledge from experts in respective fields. The combination gives us the simplest crdible explanation based on numbers.

Probably the simplest explanation with high probability is:

1. Some natural event - excluding avalanche . Example- Storm that damaged tent and led to them getting so cold that they could not use their hands?
2. Internal fighting that got out of hand.
3. Possible that one of the group planned to cause their demise.

Given that there is no evidence of anything strange or of any other people being there all other theories must be less likely?

Completely disagree, see - http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=430.0    post #8
One thing is clear that the cause was a state secret and had to remain so, hence they had to account for all the bodies.

Are there any other examples of high ranking military personnel being involved with similar tragic incidents?

Regards
Star man

Okishev stated he thought the case to be unique. The heavy investment in finding the bodies can be excused as concerns for defection but not a senior member of the state's legal hierarchy travelling hundreds of miles to witness the autopsies which curiously determined death by cold even though only Igor had clear signs of hypothermia.
Imo any theory that doesn't require state secrecy isn't applicable to this case.

[Star man]

The actions of the state in 1959 are understandable if they believed national security was at risk. What's harder to understand is the current behaviour, which suggests to me that we're still not there in understanding this.

In that case (and I am also inclined to believe that rather that simple incompetence) I believe is is the right course of our "investigation" to look further into how matters of national security were treated at that time and establish some balance of probability of the causes that led to demise of the Dyatlov group.

For me, the simplest credible expalnation is one with highest rate of probability. Based on statistics, we can rule out avalanche (never happened on that slope), natural causes of death, suicide and everything with unproven existence (like yeti, aliens, superman etc.) The rest can be broken down by questions such as:

Involvement of other people? Yes/No, What other people? Soldiers/KGB/Khanty/Prisoners/Y.Yuden etc.
If not others, what happened betwwen the group?
Natural event? Yes/No
Weapon test, misguided missile etc...

To all of these it is possible to allocate some probability rate if we had enough knowledge from experts in respective fields. The combination gives us the simplest crdible explanation based on numbers.

Probably the simplest explanation with high probability is:

1. Some natural event - excluding avalanche . Example- Storm that damaged tent and led to them getting so cold that they could not use their hands?
2. Internal fighting that got out of hand.
3. Possible that one of the group planned to cause their demise.

Given that there is no evidence of anything strange or of any other people being there all other theories must be less likely?

Completely disagree, see - http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=430.0    post #8
One thing is clear that the cause was a state secret and had to remain so, hence they had to account for all the bodies.

Are there any other examples of high ranking military personnel being involved with similar tragic incidents?

Regards
Star man

Okishev stated he thought the case to be unique. The heavy investment in finding the bodies can be excused as concerns for defection but not a senior member of the state's legal hierarchy travelling hundreds of miles to witness the autopsies which curiously determined death by cold even though only Igor had clear signs of hypothermia.
Imo any theory that doesn't require state secrecy isn't applicable to this case.

It's a really good point Nigel.

Regards

Star man

[Nigel Evans]

Missiles possibly attacking a ghost radar signature is the best fit for the facts :-

• signs of nitric acid.
• SAM's wouldn't produce craters just scatter debris, and burn treetops and anyone who had climbed a tree could get burnt or thrown from it.
• You'd need a cleanup operation to collect the debris (large snow ring and a hotspot from hovering helicopters, sappers metal detecting commanded by a ridiculously senior staff officer, close the area off before the snow had thawed on the peaks to collect all the other debris, some still being found today).
• Plausible theory for the ravine four deaths is crushed by a tracked vehicle assisting the cleanup.

But that imo wouldn't justify the level of secrecy and clampdown that we see here. For this we need something extra, tactical nuclear or natural electrical phenomena displaying lethal capability that could be weaponised? It's curious that all the evidence stated above has the alternative explanation of ball lightning and this was Ivanov's preference and that has to be because he saw evidence to support it. Wrt photographic evidence we have some curious photos and the knowledge that others were confiscated. Yudin said that nearly everyone had a camera and yet we only know of five.
There is another explanation for the secrecy and that's the struggle between Khrushchev and the Stalinists.  Khrushchev was a peacemaker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchev_Thaw) seeking friendlier relations with the West and arguing for huge reforms which included a reduction of the military industrial complex which dominated the Russian economy (it still does today). He visited the US trying to build a relationship and trust with President Eisenhower, sadly this all evaporated in 1960 with the US reinstating U2 flights to investigate nuclear buildup and then Gary Powers which then escalated into the Cuban missile crisis. Obviously the military would resist all these reforms and the stakes would be high, Beria had been executed only 6 years earlier. So in these tensions at home and abroad the case for total secrecy and obedience (or else) can be seen.

[gypsy]

Can a ball lightning, or other electric phenomenon appear as a ghost signature on Soviet radar from 1950s? I don't dismiss this theory, it just needs more (at least circumstantial) evidence.

[Nigel Evans]

Can a ball lightning, or other electric phenomenon appear as a ghost signature on Soviet radar from 1950s? I don't dismiss this theory, it just needs more (at least circumstantial) evidence.

Well that lightning can show up on radar is well known - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar
So it's extremely plausible that other atmospheric electrical phenomena could produce a similar effect.

Radar systems are designed to attempt to ignore this clutter which can be caused by anything from air currents to cosmic rays but whether Soviet radar in 1959 could do this i don't know. However it would probably be the case that if the Soviet military had concerns they would scramble jets to investigate and it's my assertion that the Plane1/2 photos are of a static light emitting object probably discharging ion streams (that commonly result in lightning). So the pilot would report an unknown structure hovering above Kholat Syakhl and that triggered their attack protocol. So the visual confirmation is probably more important than the radar image for the narrative.
A lot depends on the answer to the question - "what is this photo of?"


 

[Loose}{Cannon]

Damaged film from being in a creek for months.

Please remember, this is a very small portion of the negative and was magnified many times.  This 'object' or damaged area was not the focal point of a subject in which the photographer would have naturally and instinctively centered the frame. 

It does not even have wings for petes sake, and if you say its a swept-wing aircraft... Then it would be traveling too fast to photograph. 

[Nigel Evans]

Damaged film from being in a creek for months.

Please remember, this is a very small portion of the negative and was magnified many times.  This 'object' or damaged area was not the focal point of a subject in which the photographer would have naturally and instinctively centered the frame. 
This is true for some of the other frames but do we have the negatives for the two Plane shots? I know i'm biased but i'm seeing a cloud of snow and a bit of the slope lit up by a bright object.

It does not even have wings for petes sake, and if you say its a swept-wing aircraft... Then it would be traveling too fast to photograph.

As stated before i think it's a version of this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujGL8QT0lVYN.B. to prevent a headache put it on pause and move along the timebar for the best zoom.
Also as stated before Eagle is a very good fit for credible eyewitness reports of a light surrounded by a mist.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Same old foil balloon eh Nigel....

[Nigel Evans]

Same old foil balloon eh Nigel....

Look closer, foil balloons aren't surrounded by a blue violet glow. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionized-air_glow

[Nigel Evans]

Here's a stranger object but the main body of it demonstrates the theory.