Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case

[WAB]

Dear Nigel Evans  !

I promised make comments for long time on your theses from this message. I should apologise for delay, but these are my circumstances.
I have made it just now.

Hey Nigel, as I understand with my limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, is the conclusion that a potential action is possible in theory if all the complex factors coincide. I sent his work (WAB) to our institute and I will let you know  what is their opinion as soon as possible.

============================
My understanding of avalanche conditions including slab slides etc is that as snow builds up during the winter it consists of layers of different consistency which can include graupel which is dangerous because it has little friction, essentially a layer of little ball bearings made of ice. As the snow accumulates above this layer and it's mass increases and then it can be prone to sliding forward which then encourages more of the slope to do the same and you have an avalanche/slab slide depending on gradients etc.
So wrt the DPI my questions would be :-

• If the above is theoretically possible on slopes of almost any gradient in any year, what is the merit in investigating the snow conditions at the tent site in 2019? What does it tell us about 1959?

If approach to this experiment from position: “ I (that is - to you) anything it is impossible prove to me, because I do not want it the nobility!”, anything new or original in it is not present. We have simply made series standard researches of snow by which to us anybody and never did on this place. But we have information on snow condition in different years and in different months. Then on the basis this complex information it is possible draw conclusion that avalanche activity in this place is myth. Especially well it proves be true statistics poll different groups of travellers which took place this place in different years and in different conditions. Such groups it has been interrogated more than twenty.
For last 60 years the climate became warmer, therefore possibility formation avalanches (or even snow motions) became more. Therefore for 1959 this conclusion can be applied with more confidence.

   

• But why the interest in the avalanche theory at all? It doesn't explain the ravine injuries, the footsteps where of at least 8 able bodied people walking down the hill. If fewer people had made more journeys then why not put their boots on?

To these conclusions many human have come very much long time ago. It is More than 10 years ago. However you here think out hypothetical situation, and then start it deny with the big pathos. All these contradictions and absurdities of the avalanche theory very much are already published for long time. Personally I wrote all basic objections in 2008 before there was book Evgenie Buianov be pubished. There was consist 12 different positions of objections on 2 … 4 pages in everyone. Evgenie has simply ignored these objections as though they at all were not.

If the footsteps are invented then you have a different theory.[/li][/list]

It is not necessary invent anything. This is artificial removal from true. It is necessary have accurate knowledge. My knowledge is that anybody, except Dyatlov group there was not and could not be because district conditions and logistics of this place no present. For the present nobody could deny this my thesis.

   

• There are photos of before and after the event showing skis and poles pushed in the snow and undisturbed.

I at all do not understand that you wanted tell in this phrase. If it is probably "decipher" these thoughts. Please.

   

• It doesn't explain skin discolouration.

I already some (tens) times explained it of a variety of skin colours. I would not like to do it in … х10 time. Besides, skin colour is not connected in any way with avalanche event. It is necessary to consider all in the section. At us speak in the people (and Vladimir Putin too spoke it to officials): «It is necessary to display all separately - separately flies, separately beef steak!» (c) 

   

• It doesn't explain the high level coverup clearly stated by Okishev and Ivanov.

No "cover" existed. It is fake statements which have appeared in unofficial conversations and widely extend "yellow press" and at forums separately being there conspirology-man. This history has not trivial explanations, therefore those who does not want to study deeply all this event prefer all to dump in false conspirology.

   

• It doesn't explain Ivanov's fascination with "fire orbs firing directed heat rays". Which is a very curious and specific assertion from a state prosecutor/barrister! Unless he was simply crazy he must have seen some evidence for this view. Okishev spoke highly of Ivanov - "thorough and meticulous".

Okishev it is «the separate song» … 
Ivanov explained this event as result of meeting with UFO because he could not explain it other (more real) reasons. He is the lawyer, instead of the physicist and not the clairvoyant. All can be mistaken in understanding of processes. As far as I understand - we (as well as all the others) cannot be exception. It is not necessary dump all on Ivanov it result of level his knowledge of that period. Therefore it is not necessary jump over all time from concepts level for that time for modern level and back. So it is possible confuse more only all, instead find out all event.

So I don't get the interest in the avalanche theory, to me it seems one of the least probable theories and unable to explain key facts.

Basis for interest should be at first - possibility occurrence of this event in reality. And then maybe all the rest.
My personal opinion is that any avalanche (or similar) the phenomena on this place are impossible because it physical (natural) conditions no be present.

[tekumze]

Dear WAB,
First I must apologize for the glaciologist. I believe that he is a great man and an expert in his field.
That's exactly why I joke about his report in August. Since after all these years, when everyone is clear about the snow avalanche, it is necessary to admit that it is silly to wait for one more expert conclusion which will tell us, that there  was no snow avalanche.
It is also quite clear that the re-opening of the Dyatlov pass does not exist at all like you said. All together on this anniversary year,  is only one media theater that everyone has succumbed to.
And if in 60 years we have not come to an objective conclusion, which would explain things once for all, then I am sure that this year will be no different. And not for the next years.
Perhaps 60 years ago, on the day of the tragedy, nothing really happened, except an ordinary accident that followed the complex coincidence.
And according to my syndrome (I can be mistaken), it seems to me that this tragedy will always remain the starting point for endless theories and guesses.
People enjoy it.
Because it seems to me that you are skilfully avoiding certain explanations in the forum, I would ask you a single personal question:
After so many years of yours engaging in the Dyatlov's tragedy, what do you personally think about what happened that fateful night (if you have any opinion)
Best regards from Slovenia and no offense.

[Nigel Evans]

Dear WAB, good to hear from you. I'm currently busy but will reply soon.

[Teddy]

June 26 in Yekaterinburg will be held a press conference about preliminary results of the Prosecutors office expedition in March 2019 testing theories on Dyatlov Pass. WAB has been invited as an expert. We expect him to report back to us.

[tekumze]

We all expect this and we are grateful to Mr WAB if he will report to this forum.

[sarapuk]

If there is a Press Conference on June 26 2019, then we should expect Local and National and maybe International Press in attendance.

[tekumze]

I agree with you Sarapuk. That's the least what we expect on June 26. from the Prosecutor's Office.

[Nigel Evans]

Dear WAB, replying as promised, (in red)

Dear Nigel Evans  !

I promised make comments for long time on your theses from this message. I should apologise for delay, but these are my circumstances.
I have made it just now.

Hey Nigel, as I understand with my limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, is the conclusion that a potential action is possible in theory if all the complex factors coincide. I sent his work (WAB) to our institute and I will let you know  what is their opinion as soon as possible.

============================
My understanding of avalanche conditions including slab slides etc is that as snow builds up during the winter it consists of layers of different consistency which can include graupel which is dangerous because it has little friction, essentially a layer of little ball bearings made of ice. As the snow accumulates above this layer and it's mass increases and then it can be prone to sliding forward which then encourages more of the slope to do the same and you have an avalanche/slab slide depending on gradients etc.
So wrt the DPI my questions would be :-

• If the above is theoretically possible on slopes of almost any gradient in any year, what is the merit in investigating the snow conditions at the tent site in 2019? What does it tell us about 1959?

If approach to this experiment from position: “ I (that is - to you) anything it is impossible prove to me, because I do not want it the nobility!”, anything new or original in it is not present. We have simply made series standard researches of snow by which to us anybody and never did on this place. But we have information on snow condition in different years and in different months. Then on the basis this complex information it is possible draw conclusion that avalanche activity in this place is myth. Especially well it proves be true statistics poll different groups of travellers which took place this place in different years and in different conditions. Such groups it has been interrogated more than twenty.
For last 60 years the climate became warmer, therefore possibility formation avalanches (or even snow motions) became more. Therefore for 1959 this conclusion can be applied with more confidence.
It seems we agree that no avalanche happened. But i'd suggest some caution concerning temperature. There are a substantial set of facts suggesting it was unusually warm that night - persistent footsteps, lack of frostbite.

   

• But why the interest in the avalanche theory at all? It doesn't explain the ravine injuries, the footsteps where of at least 8 able bodied people walking down the hill. If fewer people had made more journeys then why not put their boots on? [/l][/l]

To these conclusions many human have come very much long time ago. It is More than 10 years ago. However you here think out hypothetical situation, and then start it deny with the big pathos. All these contradictions and absurdities of the avalanche theory very much are already published for long time. Personally I wrote all basic objections in 2008 before there was book Evgenie Buianov be pubished. There was consist 12 different positions of objections on 2 … 4 pages in everyone. Evgenie has simply ignored these objections as though they at all were not.

If the footsteps are invented then you have a different theory.[/q][/q]


It is not necessary invent anything. This is artificial removal from true. It is necessary have accurate knowledge. My knowledge is that anybody, except Dyatlov group there was not and could not be because district conditions and logistics of this place no present. For the present nobody could deny this my thesis.

So you agree that the group walked down the hill uninjured?

   

• There are photos of before and after the event showing skis and poles pushed in the snow and undisturbed.

I at all do not understand that you wanted tell in this phrase. If it is probably "decipher" these thoughts. Please.
The photos of vertical ski poles (before and after) argue against an avalanche/slide.

   

• It doesn't explain skin discolouration.

I already some (tens) times explained it of a variety of skin colours. I would not like to do it in … х10 time. Besides, skin colour is not connected in any way with avalanche event. It is necessary to consider all in the section. At us speak in the people (and Vladimir Putin too spoke it to officials): «It is necessary to display all separately - separately flies, separately beef steak!» (c) 
Your answer does not translate very well. As we have discussed 10x  , i like the theory that the group were exposed to nitric acid at the tent with Yuri D getting the worst exposure (darkest skin and signs of pulmonary edema) due to him being outside going to the toilet. The asymmetric colouring of the groups faces suggests to me that their exposure to the cause of this colouring was also asymmetric. Imo this argues against "erythema of cold" which does not fit with the description of the colouring (orange brown not red) and doesn't explain Yuri D's foam and could be expected to affect the group more equally.As to the source of the nitric acid the best theory is missile propellant such as used with the second stage of the SA75 being developed at the time and to down a U2 spy plane 15 months later. Military activity then fits with other facts - a team of sappers deploying metal detectors ostensibly to search for bodies and commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel!!!! (that single fact solves the case imo!  )As you know the ravine deaths can (imo) be best explained by crushing by a tracked vehicle.So i'm with the military theory solution and that the answer lies within state archives. If that's not the case then the only other possible theory is atmospheric  electrical phenomena.

   

• It doesn't explain the high level coverup clearly stated by Okishev and Ivanov.

No "cover" existed. It is fake statements which have appeared in unofficial conversations and widely extend "yellow press" and at forums separately being there conspirology-man. This history has not trivial explanations, therefore those who does not want to study deeply all this event prefer all to dump in false conspirology.
Well it's a question of weight. Lets say your opinion weighs 10kg and my opinion weighs 5kg. Now lets say Ivanov's opinion weighs 100kg and Okishev's opinion weighs 200kg. I think that's fair. If you can show that these interviews are complete fabrications by disingenuous people then you have the burden of proving this. Otherwise i have to accept what is printed. And what is printed is unequivocal, when they found the ravine bodies the state removed the case from civilian jurisdiction. Now there are only two reasons for this, (1) they knew the answer and wanted to enforce secrecy. (2) they didn't know the answer and were concerned as to the possibilities and hence took control full control of the case.

   

• It doesn't explain Ivanov's fascination with "fire orbs firing directed heat rays". Which is a very curious and specific assertion from a state prosecutor/barrister! Unless he was simply crazy he must have seen some evidence for this view. Okishev spoke highly of Ivanov - "thorough and meticulous".

Okishev it is «the separate song» … 
That doesn't translate well. I'm assuming that you are negative concerning Okishev. I'd be interested in your explanation for this.

Ivanov explained this event as result of meeting with UFO because he could not explain it other (more real) reasons. He is the lawyer, instead of the physicist and not the clairvoyant. All can be mistaken in understanding of processes. As far as I understand - we (as well as all the others) cannot be exception. It is not necessary dump all on Ivanov it result of level his knowledge of that period. Therefore it is not necessary jump over all time from concepts level for that time for modern level and back. So it is possible confuse more only all, instead find out all event.
Your statement is fair, however Ivanov was describing a rare phenomena, and exactly so, that does seem to exist. I have (many times, much more than 10x  ) posted reports of ball lightning included ones "firing directed heat rays". This is a remarkable guess from a lawyer and non physicist! Unless this remarkable guess was assisted by photographic evidence perhaps?

So I don't get the interest in the avalanche theory, to me it seems one of the least probable theories and unable to explain key facts.

Basis for interest should be at first - possibility occurrence of this event in reality. And then maybe all the rest.
My personal opinion is that any avalanche (or similar) the phenomena on this place are impossible because it physical (natural) conditions no be present.
I am pleased we agree on this part of the case.
Best regards.

[/list]

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

My personal opinion is that any avalanche (or similar) the phenomena on this place are impossible because it physical (natural) conditions no be present.

That is very true, and it is very important.

There is no reason to assume that an avalanche or other form of natural disaster was responsible for the deaths of the nine.

Sadly, since a thorough and impartial forensic examination was not performed in 1959 we today have this fruitless discussion about what caused the tragedy. Even if the injuries are strongly indicative of homicide by some very resourceful attackers who used a combination of exposure and physical force to accomplish their mission, people still discuss motives. Which is a blind alley.

When dead people are found, the first and only correct way to proceed with an investigation is to find out the cause of death.

The first investigators must have known the fact that the nine students were murdered, but they could not tell the truth.

[Nigel Evans]

The first investigators must have known the fact that the nine students were murdered, No Ivanov believed they were killed by fire orbs, firing directed heat rays, possibly piloted. N.B. the internet provides reports of similar objects which presumably Ivanov never saw.
but they could not tell the truth. Ivanov gave his "fire orbs" opinion 30 years later when he felt it was safe to do so. Ditto his superior Okishev who clearly stated that there was a coverup. It would be fair comment that a lot of this (the deaths, the fire orbs and the coverup) could be explained by highly secretive testing of surface to air missiles capable of downing U2 spy planes (Gary Powers incident in May 1960). But Ivanov doesn't seem to agree with this view.

[jarrfan]

If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

[sarapuk]

If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?

[Nigel Evans]

If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

The clothes did show signs of being burnt as did two of the victims.

[Nigel Evans]

If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?

Or natural phenomena.

[Morski]

If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?

And those very advanced species happened to be exactly at Kholat Syakhl, just in time to annihilate nine fine young people. Using advanced technology from their spaceship. NO.

[sarapuk]

If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?

And those very advanced species happened to be exactly at Kholat Syakhl, just in time to annihilate nine fine young people. Using advanced technology from their spaceship. NO.

Or YES. Because there is no proof either way. YET.

[Morski]

If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?

And those very advanced species happened to be exactly at Kholat Syakhl, just in time to annihilate nine fine young people. Using advanced technology from their spaceship. NO.

Or YES. Because there is no proof either way. YET.

This hardly makes the alien spaceship above Kholat Syakhl a YES, but fine, whatever makes you happy then.

[tekumze]

Hello everyone

As this year is slowly coming to an end and with it the anniversary of the tragedy on Dyatlov Pass. And in fact, we still don't know exactly if there exists a reopening case or not. I have a question. Because throughout the year, in spite of all the experts involved, all of them failed to move from zero to nowhere. Has Victor Popovnin's very high level (international) expert already managed to compile his report? It was said that it would be in August. Does anyone know if the Office of Public Prosecutor already interprets its conclusion?

With respect

[sarapuk]

Hello everyone

As this year is slowly coming to an end and with it the anniversary of the tragedy on Dyatlov Pass. And in fact, we still don't know exactly if there exists a reopening case or not. I have a question. Because throughout the year, in spite of all the experts involved, all of them failed to move from zero to nowhere. Has Victor Popovnin's very high level (international) expert already managed to compile his report? It was said that it would be in August. Does anyone know if the Office of Public Prosecutor already interprets its conclusion?

With respect

'All Quiet On The Western Front' as they say. And maybe 'No News Is Good News' as they say.  But with the Dyatlov Case anything is possible.

[gypsy]

Hello everyone

As this year is slowly coming to an end and with it the anniversary of the tragedy on Dyatlov Pass. And in fact, we still don't know exactly if there exists a reopening case or not. I have a question. Because throughout the year, in spite of all the experts involved, all of them failed to move from zero to nowhere. Has Victor Popovnin's very high level (international) expert already managed to compile his report? It was said that it would be in August. Does anyone know if the Office of Public Prosecutor already interprets its conclusion?

With respect

I never believed that crap about "actual" reopening of the case. Since only selected theories were to be examined, there was no real interest to pursue the research properly.

[tekumze]

I find it very interesting to me from a sociological point of view how systems function and man as an individual in these systems. After a year, it is quite clear that nothing new will be discovered in the Dyatlov case. The system, with all its subjects, takes care to pretend that something is being tested and researched at the level of the authorities as well as at the civil level (forums, interviews, TV shows ...).
 However, if you look carefully at the discourse and rhetoric that is taking place here, you will see that endlessly discussing about already recycled things and skilfully avoiding  (for example discrediting Mr Tumanov and others who do not conform to avalanches, winds and small landslide theories...), some embarrassing questions and facts about the current "reopening case". Therefore, the definition of a pyramid scheme for each authority (in every state) is absolutely valid, as follows: The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage more critical and dissident views. This gives people the sense that there is free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are reinforced by the limits placed on the range of the debate.

This theater will run until the end of the year and then again will start in ten years (but then there will no longer be emotionally involved people and the truth will become increasingly blurred).

Just a little and story will be just myth and legend suitable for TV documentaries, book writing and other ways to raise money.

These things they are always been the same...
 

[Star man]

Very deep.  What you have described is similar to a term that I have come across called - “social engineering “ which is a very powerful tool from what I understand.  This form of mass manipulation is taking a prominent position in social media utilising data mining.  It happens in all societies to varying degrees and even at an individual level.  But if anyone tries to sell you an idea or concept or places artificial boundaries on something that are obviously incorrect then it just becomes nonsense.  There needs to be a sufficient level of doubt in people’s minds for it to work.  I am sure there will be some level of social engineering ongoing with the reopening of the dpi case.

Regards

Star man

[Nigel Evans]

"Social Engineering" - it could have begun with Ivanov's published account of fire orbs.

[Star man]

"Social Engineering" - it could have begun with Ivanov's published account of fire orbs.

Nigel - could you elaborate on this?  Are you suggesting that Ivanov's fire balls were an attempt to create a particular mind set to throw people further away from the truth?

Regards

Star man

[tekumze]

Very good thinking.
 We need to know that human memory is something very selective and misleading. Our brains cheat us every step of the way. And that is precisely why it is extremely easy to manipulate the masses (a little harder with the individual, but also without a problem).
 The fact is that in the case of the Dyatlov, a story of some "facts" was created in the 1960s. And today we are all working together on the illusion they created to conceal certain facts. In fact, we are dealing with the story of a system that was created to cover up the real facts. We will never know exactly what. For it is more than obvious that the transition from the system did not disappear completely from 1960s. Just by reading the interviews of people who were historically present at the time of this tragedy, it is clear to every forensic profiler that all these people are telling in the name of the truth (and really believing it) a story that the public should actually hear.
And, in fact, maybe the story only became intensely complicated because it was in someone's interest to make it complicated to cover up the simplicity of the event. If we listen to Mr. Tumanov (our pathologists agree with him), then from the very beginning, the story is different. But not then and not today is it in the interest to tell a different story. And throughout the history of criminology it has always been so necessary to follow the flow of concealment. Those who have an interest in concealing and misleading will lead us to the culprit, and many times it is he himself.
For starters, it should be done with the story that they were alone on the slope that night. And there were no yeti, extraterrestrials or anything like that from children's fairy tales, but someone or something that made the state government of the time intertwine this whole story. And they knew exactly what...

[Nigel Evans]

"Social Engineering" - it could have begun with Ivanov's published account of fire orbs.

Nigel - could you elaborate on this?  Are you suggesting that Ivanov's fire balls were an attempt to create a particular mind set to throw people further away from the truth?

Regards

Star man

It's a possibility that should be considered. Either he was genuine or he was disingenuous (i don't think he was crazy which is the third possibility).
Some thoughts.
A man with a career in forensic thinking, retired but still freelancing as a barrister writes an article detailing his belief in fire orbs firing directed heat rays being responsible for the DPI. He does this for the first time 30 years after the event and apologises (for the first time?) to the relatives for the huge coverup.
I have read that witnesses have stated that Ivanov was summoned to Moscow talking about fire orbs during 1959 and "came back a changed man" not talking about fire orbs.


The case for him being genuine - He saw all the evidence which he states (as does his superior) was confiscated and remains so. The article is curious in that it details the phenomena but gives virtually no justification for what is such a fantastic theory. E.g. we know that there are missing frames from the cameras particularly Semyon's. But surely Ivanov, a logical thinker, couldn't construct a theory so fantastic as that without some good evidence? We have in the public domain some mysterious photos. Maybe he saw the missing "real stuff" before it was confiscated. Personally i don't think the "Plane 1+2" photos are water damage. The article makes clear that he had been silent for so long for good reason "Beria was gone but his methods remained". His strong criticism of the Soviet years lending credibility to the truth of the article.

The case for him not being genuine - This was a military / KGB matter from the very start and a lot of the evidence points to "something special" happening that had to be covered up (sappers with metal detectors commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel? A team of KGB always onsite? In a civilian rescue mission?). Ivanov came back from Moscow a changed man and stayed in line for thirty years. When during the freer speech of perestroika things that had stayed long suppressed began to reignite the public interest the article is published to "muddy the waters" and confuse the public. He makes a fantastic assertion with no attempt to state his reasons for it. How can an intelligent logical man form this opinion without stating his reasons? All he gives is burnt treetops. Quite a construction from some burnt treetops.


I'll just add my current theory.
There was atmospheric electrical phenomena that night and Semyon photographed some of it (Plane 1+2) but the same phenomena showed up on radar and triggered invasion protocols possibly with a low yield nuclear weapon(s). This resulted in a clear up and then a coverup that can never be made public. It's just too embarrassing to admit that you mistakenly attacked yourself with nuclear weapons. 

[tekumze]

  Nigel, Now let's talk about it. We are going in the right direction. Each system is embarrassed to admit its own mistakes. Especially if nine young people were accidentally lost (a promising staff for the system). Someone has fucked something up somewhere (At the state or military level) and it's not talked about and won't be. Mr Ivanov, however, was only a fraction in this system, which strictly followed the instructions from above. Because if he hadn't, his life story would have ended differently. In the end, he was haunted by the overlaps, so he also apologized to ease his conscience. This story of his was the most appropriate. But he never told the whole true story until the end. Because he was afraid. And that is why, after more than half a century, the Office of Public Prosecutor has not released an official statement all year long (if it does, it will be pure demagogy) because it fears that it would still threaten national security.
P.s.: It amazes me that no ¨recognized expert" has still not yet engaged in this debate and explained to us that we have no idea what we are saying and thinking ...

[Nigel Evans]

Nigel, Now let's talk about it. We are going in the right direction. Each system is embarrassed to admit its own mistakes. Especially if nine young people were accidentally lost (a promising staff for the system). Someone has fucked something up somewhere (At the state or military level) and it's not talked about and won't be. Mr Ivanov, however, was only a fraction in this system, which strictly followed the instructions from above. Because if he hadn't, his life story would have ended differently. In the end, he was haunted by the overlaps, so he also apologized to ease his conscience. This story of his was the most appropriate. But he never told the whole true story until the end. Because he was afraid. And that is why, after more than half a century, the Office of Public Prosecutor has not released an official statement all year long (if it does, it will be pure demagogy) because it fears that it would still threaten national security.
P.s.: It amazes me that no ¨recognized expert" has still not yet engaged in this debate and explained to us that we have no idea what we are saying and thinking ...

Hi there. I agree that Ivanov never told the whole story and took it to his grave and that his apology to the relatives was genuine. But you don't offer a theory of fire orbs firing heat rays based on dead people, lights in the sky and burnt tree tops. So either he was making it up (disingenuous) or he saw clear evidence that he couldn't discuss. Ditto Okishev who in his interview was happy to detail many aspects of the case including for example naming the military officers who he personally met, but nothing on what might have happened, nothing on Ivanov's theory or the justifications for it. As if Okishev and Ivanov never met, never discussed the case.

[Star man]

"Social Engineering" - it could have begun with Ivanov's published account of fire orbs.

Nigel - could you elaborate on this?  Are you suggesting that Ivanov's fire balls were an attempt to create a particular mind set to throw people further away from the truth?

Regards

Star man

It's a possibility that should be considered. Either he was genuine or he was disingenuous (i don't think he was crazy which is the third possibility).
Some thoughts.
A man with a career in forensic thinking, retired but still freelancing as a barrister writes an article detailing his belief in fire orbs firing directed heat rays being responsible for the DPI. He does this for the first time 30 years after the event and apologises (for the first time?) to the relatives for the huge coverup.
I have read that witnesses have stated that Ivanov was summoned to Moscow talking about fire orbs during 1959 and "came back a changed man" not talking about fire orbs.


The case for him being genuine - He saw all the evidence which he states (as does his superior) was confiscated and remains so. The article is curious in that it details the phenomena but gives virtually no justification for what is such a fantastic theory. E.g. we know that there are missing frames from the cameras particularly Semyon's. But surely Ivanov, a logical thinker, couldn't construct a theory so fantastic as that without some good evidence? We have in the public domain some mysterious photos. Maybe he saw the missing "real stuff" before it was confiscated. Personally i don't think the "Plane 1+2" photos are water damage. The article makes clear that he had been silent for so long for good reason "Beria was gone but his methods remained". His strong criticism of the Soviet years lending credibility to the truth of the article.

The case for him not being genuine - This was a military / KGB matter from the very start and a lot of the evidence points to "something special" happening that had to be covered up (sappers with metal detectors commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel? A team of KGB always onsite? In a civilian rescue mission?). Ivanov came back from Moscow a changed man and stayed in line for thirty years. When during the freer speech of perestroika things that had stayed long suppressed began to reignite the public interest the article is published to "muddy the waters" and confuse the public. He makes a fantastic assertion with no attempt to state his reasons for it. How can an intelligent logical man form this opinion without stating his reasons? All he gives is burnt treetops. Quite a construction from some burnt treetops.


I'll just add my current theory.
There was atmospheric electrical phenomena that night and Semyon photographed some of it (Plane 1+2) but the same phenomena showed up on radar and triggered invasion protocols possibly with a low yield nuclear weapon(s). This resulted in a clear up and then a coverup that can never be made public. It's just too embarrassing to admit that you mistakenly attacked yourself with nuclear weapons. 

Interesting analysis and idea.  An electrical weather phenomenon that appears on radar as some kind of an attack and triggers a military response.  There maybe variants to it also, like an accident with an missile system resulting in an inadvertent launch, or a rogue military element that deliberately launched something without approval.  Where would you find evidence to support that though?

Regards

Star man

[Nigel Evans]

"Where would you find evidence to support that though?"
https://dyatlovpass.com/rocket-2