August 10, 2020, 12:50:19 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: The case for atmospheric electricity  (Read 910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

June 20, 2020, 04:56:26 AM
Read 910 times
Offline

Nigel Evans


The purpose of this thread is to collect the evidence for the case for atmospheric electricity being the cause of the Dyatlov Pass incident.
.
  • It was Lev Ivanov's chosen theory.
  • This region is rich in reports of lights, etc including during Feb 1959.
  • Electrical discharge results in the formation of nitrous oxides which when combined with water forms nitric acid which is the primary chemical under consideration in "The case for chemicals" thread - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=653.0 i.e. there was a corrosive chemical mist traveling east-west with the wind over the tent and down the slope.
  • I've been following the DPI case for some years now and (very) rarely someone makes a stunning observation that adjusts my thinking. Such an event has happened recently with the thread - "Photographs" - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=648.0  This observation that the three heads photo can be explained as the "three shrubs" perhaps tips the balance in favour of Ivanov's belief. He was very familiar with the area and how the treeline becomes the "shrub line" and probably had no problem with interpreting the photo. Well done Marley! :)
  • Sometime ago there was a website - www.looo.ch which had a fascinating section on the DPI. N.B. it also had some less than fascinating articles about sexual freedom for children which has resulted in the Russian government apparently acting against it (I should state that i completely distance myself from those matters). In order to see this DPI article now you have to purchase an .epub (and you'll need Adobe's Digital Edition (free) to read it). However this document is truly fascinating as it marries the mythology of the region with reports of lights, spirits, electrical phenomena etc etc in an extended discussion (93 slides). Here's a quote :- "There is also a recollection of a Colonel of Railway Troops, Kupriyanov, related by Mikhail Vladimirov: On New Year’s Eve of 1960, all of us hikers met in the house of Colonel Kupriyanov, the father of our classmate, Rita Kupriyanova. The conversation turned to the dead tourists from the Polytechnic Institute once again. The Colonel told us in secret, that when all the search parties left the area of the incident, soldiers from his regiment arrived there. One night, a sergeant reports on the R/T:
    “A fireball is rolling down the mountain. It is dividing into several balls, and all of them are heading for us. What should we do?” “Act as is appropriate.” The soldiers hid in their tent and survived. However, they suffered from severe nervous shock.”
  • It is my assertion that the deaths of the ravine four are best explained as crushed under the snow whilst occupying the den - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=398 and there are few explanations for this crushing (1) vehicle, (2) ball lightning has been observed to demonstrate high mass (Fitzgerald event, Donegal, Ireland) - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236397333_Extreme_ball_lightning_event_of_August_6_1868_in_County_Donegal_Ireland   https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1107768
  • that's all i've got for now, i'll update this post from time to time so could be worth re-reading in the future.
  • YuriK's leg badly burnt and one toe on one side charred.
  • Lyudmila's missing tongue, eyes, lips and left cheek are common cattle mutilation injuries, explanations of which include electro magnetic phenomena.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2020, 03:20:30 AM by Nigel Evans »

June 20, 2020, 07:47:22 AM
Reply #1
Offline

MDGross


Certainly a plausible scenario. I have next to no understanding of the physics of ball lightning. Do repeated lightning strikes create electrified air molecules that over time condense into a tightly packed ball of electromagnetic energy? So you have the creation of a laser weapon of sorts that randomly discharges laser beams. These could strike trees, people, etc. Perhaps the "fireball" described by the soldier in your quoted lines is such a tightly packed ball that somehow makes in to the ground and starts rolling down the mountain where previously the Dyatlov group had pitched their tent. Bottom line – it's important to keep an open mind and explore the possibilities.

June 21, 2020, 05:13:30 AM
Reply #2
Offline

Nigel Evans


Certainly a plausible scenario. I have next to no understanding of the physics of ball lightning. Do repeated lightning strikes create electrified air molecules that over time condense into a tightly packed ball of electromagnetic energy? So you have the creation of a laser weapon of sorts that randomly discharges laser beams. These could strike trees, people, etc. Perhaps the "fireball" described by the soldier in your quoted lines is such a tightly packed ball that somehow makes in to the ground and starts rolling down the mountain where previously the Dyatlov group had pitched their tent. Bottom line – it's important to keep an open mind and explore the possibilities.
Our physics has many theories for "ordinary" ball lightning but none of them have been proven so far. "Ordinary" meaning a globular light emitting object that floats along for a short period of time. I've posted some of these theories from time to time. Much more problematic is the explanation of a sub type of BL that has high mass = "rollers", afaik no respectable physicist has ventured a theory so far. It maybe that science is reluctant to even accept their existence. Relativistic electrons would seem to be a theory that holds promise.

June 21, 2020, 09:40:58 PM
Reply #3
Offline

Monika


Good theory on the topic:
https://sites.google.com/site/mezoelectric/dyatlov-pass-incident-1

The book of  Alexander Popoff - The Dyatlov Pass Incident
Here is a small sample from the book:
https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=271057

I would love to own this book, but unfortunately ... unhap1

June 22, 2020, 06:41:31 AM
Reply #4
Offline

Nigel Evans


I would love to own this book, but unfortunately ... unhap1
unfortunately what? dunno1

June 22, 2020, 08:46:33 AM
Reply #5
Offline

MDGross


Thanks for the informative articles Monika. I can envision a scenario where plasma is striking the iron-rich rocks and exploding. Maybe a ball of fire forms on the slope and begins rolling toward the tent. I believe anyone would flee hurriedly into the cold and snow with all this happening.

June 22, 2020, 03:30:46 PM
Reply #6
Offline

Nigel Evans


Sometime ago there was a website - www.ball-lightning.info that was a treasure of collected reports on all the various forms that the phenomena can take. It now seems to have taken down which is a great pity. Also before this forum on this website there was a simpler forum (single thread) which had the virtue of allowing you to download the entire thread which i did before it was closed off.

Here's a report of a roller that i discussed back then copied from ball-lightning.info. N.B. "GLO" was short for "Globular Light emitting Object"

A STRANGE TRAGEDY ON THE MALVERN HILLS

If the GLO ‘Fireball’ might be compared to an aerial bomb, artillery shell, or depth-charge, and the ‘Apparition’ to a floating mine, then the ‘Roller’ is perhaps best described as the ‘battle tank’ of these phenomenal invaders. The following case, surely one of the weirdest and most chilling events of a phenomenal nature ever recorded, certainly bears out the latter analogy.On a fine day at the height of the English summer, the three daughters and the eldest son of Joseph Hill, a wealthy resident of Lindridge, an attractive village in the valley of the River Teme, Worcestershire, set out for a walk over the nearby Malvern Hills. They were accompanied by several young ladies, staying as guests of the family, and a manservant bearing their provisions in a small handcart.
Around 15:00, the party reached the Worcestershire Beacon, at 425 metres above sea level the highest point in the range, and upon which there was a solitary building that had been erected on the orders of a Lady Harcourt. The robust structure, designed as a storm shelter and intended for the use of people walking on the hills, was built of stone and covered with a roof of iron plates. It consisted of a single room with a stone table in the centre and seats on each side; it had two apertures: a doorway and a window sited opposite the door.
Shortly after their arrival the sky took on an ominous appearance, and soon a great and furious electric storm advanced upon the hill. Brilliant discharges of lightning flashed from the skies almost incessantly, producing a succession of thunderclaps, the violence of which was so great as to make the ground itself shudder. Quite understandably the young people became fearful of being in the open at the mercy of the elements, and the entire party, with the exception of the servant, abandoned their picnic and fled into the shelter. No doubt feeling reasonably secure once they were within its sturdy walls, Eliza and Joannah Hill, and a friend, Ellen Woodyatt of Hereford, seated themselves at the table, while the rest stood and waited for the storm to pass. What none could have been aware of was the approach of a menacing phenomenon with all the energetic potential of the deadliest lightning bolt ever hurled into the earth, and yet so lethally different from an ordinary electrical discharge that it rendered those within as vulnerable as the poor servant left outside to face the tempest.
After a while, Margaret Hill, aged about 15, who had been extremely upset by the storm, went to the door hoping to see some sign that the disturbance was moving away.
Deliverance, however, was certainly not at hand instead she saw the remorseless approach of a thing unearthly and absolutely terrifying: a huge ball of ‘electric fire’ was rolling at high velocity along the surface of the hill, and directly towards the entrance of the party’s retreat! So rapid was the advance of this dreadful object that no sooner had the poor girl recovered from her initial shock, and before she could alert those within, it was upon her and she was hurled violently to the ground. Quite remarkably, though her shoes, and part of her dress, were burned, Margaret survived. Her brother, who had been standing nearby, was injured in much the same manner.
Some other members of the party, however, were tragically and quite horribly less fortunate. The rolling fireball rushed into the building through the doorway and struck the stone table, which was instantly shattered into fragments. It then passed straight across the room and exited through the window, tearing out the frame and surrounding stonework. In its passage, the rampaging fireball also smashed apart many of the large stones that comprised the walls. Of the three young women seated around the table, two, Eliza and Ellen, were killed on the spot, and Joannah was left apparently more dead than alive.
The horror of the scene left the manservant, who alone had suffered no physical injury, almost deranged. When he looked into the shelter, it must have seemed like a massacre, for all the young persons had been affected; most had been struck down and lay dead or injured on the ground. He began to scream with hysteria, his pitiful cries alerting a labourer working nearby.
This man rendered whatever assistance he could before seeking help. Eventually a physician reached the scene, examined the badly injured Joannah and, having discovered that vital signs were still present, proceeded to open a vein and relieve the victim of a quantity of blood - still a standard procedure in 1826. She was then taken to Great Malvern and lodged in the Unicorn Inn where she remained, possibly conscious but certainly unable to speak. Doctors were pessimistic as to her chances of recovery (optimism being somewhat unfashionable in the medical circles of those days).
An examination of the dead bodies, and the severe injuries to Joannah, revealed that all three had suffered burns to the face, neck, and breast, and that the hair on their heads was intact on one side while burnt off on the other. The clothes of each girl were also partly destroyed. A coroner’s inquest on the deceased would have been held within a few days, but, to the best of my knowledge, no further details were printed in subsequent issues of the two London newspapers* from which I have compiled this account.
According to a paper in the Transactions of the Worcestershire Archaeological Society for 1957, an entry in the diary of Charles Dunne (1783-1850), rector of the manor of Earl’s Croome, refers to three women having died in the tragedy, while a footnote states that the victims were a party of seven, and that all three of the Hill girls were killed along with Miss Woodyat.
The true number of fatal victims could be traced through burial records, and it is probable that at least one of the victims is interred in the churchyard at Lindridge where some form of memorial should be extant. The fate of poor Joanna is no doubt described in an article, or announcement in a local newspaper which should eventually be located.
The nature of this terrible rolling fireball, if examined in terms of conventional atmospheric physics is totally inexplicable: An ‘ordinary’ discharge of lightning would have immediately gone to earth in or close to its point of contact in a fraction of a second, but this fearsome peripatetic manifestation was sustained, coherent in form, and evidently under control.
The destruction of the stone table was an example of the awesome power of the GLO Roller, while its effects on the three victims seated around the table, demonstrates the complex nature of what was clearly a violent, yet curiously selective outpouring of energy. The dramatic fracturing of this rather formidable item of furniture would have actually been caused by heat, generated when electrical energy from the fireball penetrated this poor conductor and obstacle to its progress. Energetic discharges, projected out like tentacles, had much the same effect on the wall stones they contacted, and also removed the window and its surround in a violent but mechanical fashion.
Contact with human tissue and clothing evidently brought about an almost instantaneous change of amperage and frequency in these electric and electromagnetic projections, a factor that prevented the victims’ bodies from superheating and exploding into fragments. Whatever the nature of the mechanism housed within the envelope of the GLO, it clearly operated at a phenomenal speed and seems to have endowed the object with a crude sense of purpose.
The Times, 07.07.1826, p3f; The Age v2, p482, 09.07.1826




June 23, 2020, 02:21:28 AM
Reply #7
Offline

alecsandros


Thanks for some excellent posts !

I'll add a story that I've read many years ago, in a Romanian UFO book, called "Enigme pe cerul istoriei" ("Enigmas on history's sky"), by Ion Hobana.
One of the stories related in the book is called "zmeul vine pe-nserat" ("the monster comes at dusk"), and depicts what appears to be a manifestation of globular lightning. I don't have the book at hand, but I'll hopefully be able to retrieve it from my parent's house in a few weeks from now.

In short, the story is about two spherical glowing objects that hovered for many hours above a small Romanian village in the early 1920s. At dusk, the two objects entered the chimney of a house, and exploded inside, causing fractures and severe burns to the two inhabitants (two women).

Best,

June 23, 2020, 03:21:38 PM
Reply #8
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Its the old BALL LIGHTNING stuff again that we have seen in other Posts on this Forum.  Nothing new.
DB

June 24, 2020, 06:56:57 AM
Reply #9
Offline

Nigel Evans


Here's a golden oldie i've posted before. It's interesting because of the credibility of the witnesses and that it describes a lightning strike converting into a modest roller.
https://hgss.copernicus.org/articles/9/79/2018/hgss-9-79-2018.html
« Last Edit: June 25, 2020, 02:52:26 AM by Nigel Evans »

June 24, 2020, 11:50:46 PM
Reply #10
Offline

BobbyCollins


How do you capture electricity from air?
convert any texttospeech.onl here...
mortgagecalculator.tech
« Last Edit: June 25, 2020, 08:56:50 PM by BobbyCollins »

June 25, 2020, 02:53:13 AM
Reply #11
Offline

Nigel Evans


How do you capture electricity from air?
I don't know, how do you capture electricity from air?

June 25, 2020, 07:50:11 AM
Reply #12
Offline

MDGross


Air plays a part in the formation of lightning, but doesn't create it. The air around us contains water vapor, which is a gas. When water vapor turns to water molecules in the colder upper atmosphere, "clouds" of water and ice molecules form. These densely packed molecules collide with one another at high speed creating electromagnetic energy that results in lightning that can move through the air to the ground. So the air plays a role in the creation of clouds and lightning, but electrical discharges (lightning) are not "captured" or created from air, only from clouds.

June 28, 2020, 09:06:35 AM
Reply #13
Offline

Nigel Evans


Here's a good discussion with a bias towards the fireorb theory. It's in Portuguese so you'll have to use google translate but some original stuff. There's several pages of it.

https://www.viafanzine.jor.br/site_vf/pag/5/dyatlov_part01.htm

June 30, 2020, 02:54:35 AM
Reply #14
Offline

WAB


The purpose of this thread is to collect the evidence for the case for atmospheric electricity being the cause of the Dyatlov Pass incident.

Dear Nigel Evans, you need to go straight to Shura Alexeyenkov, my comrade and expedition partner to the pass. However, he will not write in English and he has a slightly different view on the physics of this phenomenon, which you are talking about.
First let us cut off your false (rather unreliable) statements:

.
  • It was Lev Ivanov's chosen theory.

You're very much mistaken here. Lev Ivanov considered the cause of UFOs of extraterrestrial origin, knew nothing, as well as all other people who refer to UFOs. If properties of some phenomenon are not known reliably (there is no actual confirmation of these properties), then any properties can be attributed to it (this phenomenon). But this is a very destructive approach to the study of such phenomena.

   
  • This region is rich in reports of lights, etc including during Feb 1959.

If there was a lot of talk, but there were no specific descriptions, dates or correlations with other events (or there are many discrepancies in the evidence), it does not say anything. What is needed is credible and verified information, not idle conversations. Only two observations, 17 February and 31 March 1959, are known and confirmed so far. They coincide with missile launches from Baikanur Cosmodrome to the nearest minute. There are no such random coincidences. In other conversations there are only conversations themselves, but there is no confirmation of this.  If you are trying to use incorrect information, what result can you expect?

   
  • Electrical discharge results in the formation of nitrous oxides which when combined with water forms nitric acid which is the primary chemical under consideration in "The case for chemicals" thread - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=653.0 i.e. there was a corrosive chemical mist traveling east-west with the wind over the tent and down the slope.

Before talking about "electrical discharges", you need to have reliable information that they were there for sure. There's no such information and it can't come from anything. Therefore, it is very premature to talk about all the consequences of "electrical discharges".
From east to west (towards the wind), no fog could spread ... It is contrary to the laws of nature.

   
  • I've been following the DPI case for some years now and (very) rarely someone makes a stunning observation that adjusts my thinking. Such an event has happened recently with the thread - "Photographs" - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=648.0  This observation that the three heads photo can be explained as the "three shrubs" perhaps tips the balance in favour of Ivanov's belief. He was very familiar with the area and how the treeline becomes the "shrub line" and probably had no problem with interpreting the photo. Well done Marley! :)

Please do not invent anything beyond the natural if you have little knowledge of film photography and the defects it contains.
What Marley refers to is that there is an ordinary piece of unexposed film with defects broaching the film in small abrasive pieces (dust, dried chemical residues (crystals) are parallel strips) and three fragments of perforation holes (at the edges of the film) that were caught in the frame during scanning. And there's nothing more.

   
  • Sometime ago there was a website - www.looo.ch which had a fascinating section on the DPI. N.B. it also had some less than fascinating articles about sexual freedom for children which has resulted in the Russian government apparently acting against it (I should state that i completely distance myself from those matters). In order to see this DPI article now you have to purchase an .epub (and you'll need Adobe's Digital Edition (free) to read it). However this document is truly fascinating as it marries the mythology of the region with reports of lights, spirits, electrical phenomena etc etc in an extended discussion (93 slides). Here's a quote :- "There is also a recollection of a Colonel of Railway Troops, Kupriyanov, related by Mikhail Vladimirov: On New Year’s Eve of 1960, all of us hikers met in the house of Colonel Kupriyanov, the father of our classmate, Rita Kupriyanova. The conversation turned to the dead tourists from the Polytechnic Institute once again. The Colonel told us in secret, that when all the search parties left the area of the incident, soldiers from his regiment arrived there. One night, a sergeant reports on the R/T:
    “A fireball is rolling down the mountain. It is dividing into several balls, and all of them are heading for us. What should we do?” “Act as is appropriate.” The soldiers hid in their tent and survived. However, they suffered from severe nervous shock.”

In this case you have a typical case of thoughtless retelling gossip that has no basis. In particular, there was a reference to what Vladislav Karelin said, but as he told me himself, he wasn't there and they didn't talk about anything like that, although they sometimes met with their entire group, in which Rita Kupriyanova also took part.
It's even more interesting what Colonel Kupriyanov could talk about if he's never been to a pass, and this at best is a paraphrase from the second or third person, when everyone can add everything he could think of.
Once again I suggest using reliable and verified information, otherwise all conversations will go to waste.
By the way, how "authentic" Mikhail Vladimirov's stories are, I understood when I analyzed his description of the campaign in the winter of 1959. There are also many speculations and inaccuracies.
If you want I will give the reference to article (in Russian).
Once again I remind you that if you use only reliable information about the "Fireballs" (which have nothing to do with the ball lightning), these are visual observations of distant missile launch trajectories from Baikonur range. There are several different confirmations and descriptions of those observations from different sources, which coincide in time with minute accuracy.

   

I carefully read these descriptions and realized that there is nothing definite and similar to the Dyatlov incident.
The only complete and detailed description of the ball lightning interaction with people in similar (but only by type of activity, but not by weather and landscape conditions) is in the case of Vladimir Kavunenko's group of climbers in the Caucasus in 1978. I wrote about it in detail in this forum. There is nothing similar in the case of Dyatlov's group. About the rest it is possible to speak only much, but the words "Ball lightning" and nothing else will be common here.

   
  • that's all i've got for now, i'll update this post from time to time so could be worth re-reading in the future.

This is very good, but I would like the conversation to be concrete: about this case, not just about anything else.
You can say a lot of words, but from this case study will not go any further than one millimeter (or neither 0.0039 in) and the words will remain waste of time.

----------------------------------

It follows from my objection to your text that you are giving false information with reference to other people who also did not check their information for validity. In many cases, I tried to check it with those who are referred to or similar known cases of which there is reliable information, but immediately began to contradict the laws of nature or the statements of the authors to which you refer.
Therefore, I cannot consider your statements correct. You need to find something more credible or real.

June 30, 2020, 04:11:34 AM
Reply #15
Offline

Nigel Evans


The purpose of this thread is to collect the evidence for the case for atmospheric electricity being the cause of the Dyatlov Pass incident.

Dear Nigel Evans, you need to go straight to Shura Alexeyenkov, my comrade and expedition partner to the pass. However, he will not write in English and he has a slightly different view on the physics of this phenomenon, which you are talking about.
First let us cut off your false (rather unreliable) statements:
It would be good to share opinions, but i have to limit my time that i spend on the DPI to reasonable levels so i restrict myself to this forum.

.
  • It was Lev Ivanov's chosen theory.

You're very much mistaken here. Lev Ivanov considered the cause of UFOs of extraterrestrial origin, knew nothing, as well as all other people who refer to UFOs. If properties of some phenomenon are not known reliably (there is no actual confirmation of these properties), then any properties can be attributed to it (this phenomenon). But this is a very destructive approach to the study of such phenomena.
No you are mistaken!  kewl1   in the English translation of the Leninsky Put article, Ivanov states : "Incidentally, UFO's i.e. unidentified flying objects are often associated with aliens. I do not agree with this. UFOs need to be understood as unidentified flying objects, and only so. Many data suggest that these can be clots of energy that are not understood by modern people and unexplained by modern data of science and technology, affecting animate and inanimate nature encountered in their path."
He then confusingly also states - "But what about the astronauts of the fireballs? If they exist, then sooner or later they will manifest themselves, and circumstances will bring them to our civilization. I have no doubt about that."Imo there's some poor journalism here. I think if Ivanov controlled the text he would have stated the second sentence better which i assume to be wider conjecture. But the first sentence is clear.
.


   
  • This region is rich in reports of lights, etc including during Feb 1959.

If there was a lot of talk, but there were no specific descriptions, dates or correlations with other events (or there are many discrepancies in the evidence), it does not say anything. What is needed is credible and verified information, not idle conversations. Only two observations, 17 February and 31 March 1959, are known and confirmed so far. They coincide with missile launches from Baikanur Cosmodrome to the nearest minute. There are no such random coincidences. In other conversations there are only conversations themselves, but there is no confirmation of this.  If you are trying to use incorrect information, what result can you expect?
I think there are more reports than the two that you mention. I'll do some research and reply to this more fully later..

   
  • Electrical discharge results in the formation of nitrous oxides which when combined with water forms nitric acid which is the primary chemical under consideration in "The case for chemicals" thread - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=653.0 i.e. there was a corrosive chemical mist traveling east-west with the wind over the tent and down the slope.

Before talking about "electrical discharges", you need to have reliable information that they were there for sure. There's no such information and it can't come from anything. Therefore, it is very premature to talk about all the consequences of "electrical discharges".
From east to west (towards the wind), no fog could spread ... It is contrary to the laws of nature.
My apologies, i meant West to East. Doh!  kewl1 .
   
  • I've been following the DPI case for some years now and (very) rarely someone makes a stunning observation that adjusts my thinking. Such an event has happened recently with the thread - "Photographs" - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=648.0  This observation that the three heads photo can be explained as the "three shrubs" perhaps tips the balance in favour of Ivanov's belief. He was very familiar with the area and how the treeline becomes the "shrub line" and probably had no problem with interpreting the photo. Well done Marley! :)

Please do not invent anything beyond the natural if you have little knowledge of film photography and the defects it contains.
What Marley refers to is that there is an ordinary piece of unexposed film with defects broaching the film in small abrasive pieces (dust, dried chemical residues (crystals) are parallel strips) and three fragments of perforation holes (at the edges of the film) that were caught in the frame during scanning. And there's nothing more.
If you look at the frames, 32, 33 and 34 you'll see that frames 32 and 34 show "abrasions" and frame 33 shows none at all?
.
   
  • Sometime ago there was a website - www.looo.ch which had a fascinating section on the DPI. N.B. it also had some less than fascinating articles about sexual freedom for children which has resulted in the Russian government apparently acting against it (I should state that i completely distance myself from those matters). In order to see this DPI article now you have to purchase an .epub (and you'll need Adobe's Digital Edition (free) to read it). However this document is truly fascinating as it marries the mythology of the region with reports of lights, spirits, electrical phenomena etc etc in an extended discussion (93 slides). Here's a quote :- "There is also a recollection of a Colonel of Railway Troops, Kupriyanov, related by Mikhail Vladimirov: On New Year’s Eve of 1960, all of us hikers met in the house of Colonel Kupriyanov, the father of our classmate, Rita Kupriyanova. The conversation turned to the dead tourists from the Polytechnic Institute once again. The Colonel told us in secret, that when all the search parties left the area of the incident, soldiers from his regiment arrived there. One night, a sergeant reports on the R/T:
    “A fireball is rolling down the mountain. It is dividing into several balls, and all of them are heading for us. What should we do?” “Act as is appropriate.” The soldiers hid in their tent and survived. However, they suffered from severe nervous shock.”

In this case you have a typical case of thoughtless retelling gossip that has no basis. In particular, there was a reference to what Vladislav Karelin said, but as he told me himself, he wasn't there and they didn't talk about anything like that, although they sometimes met with their entire group, in which Rita Kupriyanova also took part.

It is not thoughtless to make a case by including all sources. If you know some of these to be incorrect i welcome your extremely valuable input.
.
It's even more interesting what Colonel Kupriyanov could talk about if he's never been to a pass, and this at best is a paraphrase from the second or third person, when everyone can add everything he could think of.
Once again I suggest using reliable and verified information, otherwise all conversations will go to waste.I would disagree, we converge on the truth by contesting all information. Be assured i value your input.
.

By the way, how "authentic" Mikhail Vladimirov's stories are, I understood when I analyzed his description of the campaign in the winter of 1959. There are also many speculations and inaccuracies.
If you want I will give the reference to article (in Russian).
Yes please..
Once again I remind you that if you use only reliable information about the "Fireballs" (which have nothing to do with the ball lightning), these are visual observations of distant missile launch trajectories from Baikonur range. There are several different confirmations and descriptions of those observations from different sources, which coincide in time with minute accuracy.As said i will return to this matter on this thread later.

   

I carefully read these descriptions and realized that there is nothing definite and similar to the Dyatlov incident.
The only complete and detailed description of the ball lightning interaction with people in similar (but only by type of activity, but not by weather and landscape conditions) is in the case of Vladimir Kavunenko's group of climbers in the Caucasus in 1978. I wrote about it in detail in this forum. There is nothing similar in the case of Dyatlov's group. About the rest it is possible to speak only much, but the words "Ball lightning" and nothing else will be common here.

   
  • that's all i've got for now, i'll update this post from time to time so could be worth re-reading in the future.

This is very good, but I would like the conversation to be concrete: about this case, not just about anything else.
You can say a lot of words, but from this case study will not go any further than one millimeter (or neither 0.0039 in) and the words will remain waste of time.

----------------------------------

It follows from my objection to your text that you are giving false information with reference to other people who also did not check their information for validity. In many cases, I tried to check it with those who are referred to or similar known cases of which there is reliable information, but immediately began to contradict the laws of nature or the statements of the authors to which you refer.
Therefore, I cannot consider your statements correct. You need to find something more credible or real.
WAB, so if Lev Ivanov was still alive would you chastise him with the accusation of "false information and gossip?". I think not. True i am operating at a distance both geographically and linguistically but i have Mr Ivanov's authority on my side......
Best Regards


June 30, 2020, 09:15:57 AM
Reply #16
Offline

Nigel Evans


@WAB - getting back to you over the observations of "lights" during that period. You state - "Only two observations, 17 February and 31 March 1959, are known and confirmed so far.".

Okishev's interview :-
  • Why was the military involved in the search?
  • This was on our request. And there were reasons for that. Shortly before that we met with a worker of one of the prison camps in the North Urals. He described strange flashes of light which he and his wife saw late that evening on their way home from the cinema. The light came from the direction of the supposed accident with the hikers. We also received evidence from other local residents, and all of them spoke about a similar phenomenon, all testimonies were entered on our records of interrogation. We got a suspicion of existence of a military test field somewhere around, could that be true? Could flashes be caused by a failed rocket launch that had killed the hikers?
I know you will dismiss them but there are named reports from looo.ch via this website - https://sites.google.com/site/mezoelectric/dyatlov-pass-incident-1.

The looo.ch article also claims that Tempalov noticed bomb craters on the opposite slope of Kholat.
McCloskey states that an anonymous source told him two Tu 95M bombers flew over the region on the night of 1/2 Feb from their base in Uzyn, Ukraine.
Maybe time for a thread titled "The case for the military theory"?  whacky1


July 01, 2020, 01:33:38 AM
Reply #17
Offline

WAB


The purpose of this thread is to collect the evidence for the case for atmospheric electricity being the cause of the Dyatlov Pass incident.

Dear Nigel Evans, you need to go straight to Shura Alexeyenkov, my comrade and expedition partner to the pass. However, he will not write in English and he has a slightly different view on the physics of this phenomenon, which you are talking about.
First let us cut off your false (rather unreliable) statements:
It would be good to share opinions, but i have to limit my time that i spend on the DPI to reasonable levels so i restrict myself to this forum.

.
  • It was Lev Ivanov's chosen theory.

You're very much mistaken here. Lev Ivanov considered the cause of UFOs of extraterrestrial origin, knew nothing, as well as all other people who refer to UFOs. If properties of some phenomenon are not known reliably (there is no actual confirmation of these properties), then any properties can be attributed to it (this phenomenon). But this is a very destructive approach to the study of such phenomena.
No you are mistaken!  kewl1   in the English translation of the Leninsky Put article, Ivanov states : "Incidentally, UFO's i.e. unidentified flying objects are often associated with aliens. I do not agree with this. UFOs need to be understood as unidentified flying objects, and only so. Many data suggest that these can be clots of energy that are not understood by modern people and unexplained by modern data of science and technology, affecting animate and inanimate nature encountered in their path."
He then confusingly also states - "But what about the astronauts of the fireballs? If they exist, then sooner or later they will manifest themselves, and circumstances will bring them to our civilization. I have no doubt about that."Imo there's some poor journalism here. I think if Ivanov controlled the text he would have stated the second sentence better which i assume to be wider conjecture. But the first sentence is clear.
.


   
  • This region is rich in reports of lights, etc including during Feb 1959.

If there was a lot of talk, but there were no specific descriptions, dates or correlations with other events (or there are many discrepancies in the evidence), it does not say anything. What is needed is credible and verified information, not idle conversations. Only two observations, 17 February and 31 March 1959, are known and confirmed so far. They coincide with missile launches from Baikanur Cosmodrome to the nearest minute. There are no such random coincidences. In other conversations there are only conversations themselves, but there is no confirmation of this.  If you are trying to use incorrect information, what result can you expect?
I think there are more reports than the two that you mention. I'll do some research and reply to this more fully later..

   
  • Electrical discharge results in the formation of nitrous oxides which when combined with water forms nitric acid which is the primary chemical under consideration in "The case for chemicals" thread - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=653.0 i.e. there was a corrosive chemical mist traveling east-west with the wind over the tent and down the slope.

Before talking about "electrical discharges", you need to have reliable information that they were there for sure. There's no such information and it can't come from anything. Therefore, it is very premature to talk about all the consequences of "electrical discharges".
From east to west (towards the wind), no fog could spread ... It is contrary to the laws of nature.
My apologies, i meant West to East. Doh!  kewl1 .
   
  • I've been following the DPI case for some years now and (very) rarely someone makes a stunning observation that adjusts my thinking. Such an event has happened recently with the thread - "Photographs" - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=648.0  This observation that the three heads photo can be explained as the "three shrubs" perhaps tips the balance in favour of Ivanov's belief. He was very familiar with the area and how the treeline becomes the "shrub line" and probably had no problem with interpreting the photo. Well done Marley! :)

Please do not invent anything beyond the natural if you have little knowledge of film photography and the defects it contains.
What Marley refers to is that there is an ordinary piece of unexposed film with defects broaching the film in small abrasive pieces (dust, dried chemical residues (crystals) are parallel strips) and three fragments of perforation holes (at the edges of the film) that were caught in the frame during scanning. And there's nothing more.
If you look at the frames, 32, 33 and 34 you'll see that frames 32 and 34 show "abrasions" and frame 33 shows none at all?
.
   
  • Sometime ago there was a website - www.looo.ch which had a fascinating section on the DPI. N.B. it also had some less than fascinating articles about sexual freedom for children which has resulted in the Russian government apparently acting against it (I should state that i completely distance myself from those matters). In order to see this DPI article now you have to purchase an .epub (and you'll need Adobe's Digital Edition (free) to read it). However this document is truly fascinating as it marries the mythology of the region with reports of lights, spirits, electrical phenomena etc etc in an extended discussion (93 slides). Here's a quote :- "There is also a recollection of a Colonel of Railway Troops, Kupriyanov, related by Mikhail Vladimirov: On New Year’s Eve of 1960, all of us hikers met in the house of Colonel Kupriyanov, the father of our classmate, Rita Kupriyanova. The conversation turned to the dead tourists from the Polytechnic Institute once again. The Colonel told us in secret, that when all the search parties left the area of the incident, soldiers from his regiment arrived there. One night, a sergeant reports on the R/T:
    “A fireball is rolling down the mountain. It is dividing into several balls, and all of them are heading for us. What should we do?” “Act as is appropriate.” The soldiers hid in their tent and survived. However, they suffered from severe nervous shock.”

In this case you have a typical case of thoughtless retelling gossip that has no basis. In particular, there was a reference to what Vladislav Karelin said, but as he told me himself, he wasn't there and they didn't talk about anything like that, although they sometimes met with their entire group, in which Rita Kupriyanova also took part.

It is not thoughtless to make a case by including all sources. If you know some of these to be incorrect i welcome your extremely valuable input.
.
It's even more interesting what Colonel Kupriyanov could talk about if he's never been to a pass, and this at best is a paraphrase from the second or third person, when everyone can add everything he could think of.
Once again I suggest using reliable and verified information, otherwise all conversations will go to waste.I would disagree, we converge on the truth by contesting all information. Be assured i value your input.
.

By the way, how "authentic" Mikhail Vladimirov's stories are, I understood when I analyzed his description of the campaign in the winter of 1959. There are also many speculations and inaccuracies.
If you want I will give the reference to article (in Russian).
Yes please..
Once again I remind you that if you use only reliable information about the "Fireballs" (which have nothing to do with the ball lightning), these are visual observations of distant missile launch trajectories from Baikonur range. There are several different confirmations and descriptions of those observations from different sources, which coincide in time with minute accuracy.As said i will return to this matter on this thread later.

   

I carefully read these descriptions and realized that there is nothing definite and similar to the Dyatlov incident.
The only complete and detailed description of the ball lightning interaction with people in similar (but only by type of activity, but not by weather and landscape conditions) is in the case of Vladimir Kavunenko's group of climbers in the Caucasus in 1978. I wrote about it in detail in this forum. There is nothing similar in the case of Dyatlov's group. About the rest it is possible to speak only much, but the words "Ball lightning" and nothing else will be common here.

   
  • that's all i've got for now, i'll update this post from time to time so could be worth re-reading in the future.

This is very good, but I would like the conversation to be concrete: about this case, not just about anything else.
You can say a lot of words, but from this case study will not go any further than one millimeter (or neither 0.0039 in) and the words will remain waste of time.

----------------------------------

It follows from my objection to your text that you are giving false information with reference to other people who also did not check their information for validity. In many cases, I tried to check it with those who are referred to or similar known cases of which there is reliable information, but immediately began to contradict the laws of nature or the statements of the authors to which you refer.
Therefore, I cannot consider your statements correct. You need to find something more credible or real.
WAB, so if Lev Ivanov was still alive would you chastise him with the accusation of "false information and gossip?". I think not. True i am operating at a distance both geographically and linguistically but i have Mr Ivanov's authority on my side......
Best Regards


Dear Nigel Evans!
I have asked you several times not to write your answers in a formatted text. Trying to answer in this format is a disastrous waste of time. Therefore, I will not respond to such messages.
The only thing I will do is bring the link which I promised.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xpr12X_aTZZ6TfFl906RcOrxBVR3LH6M

Then, either change the way you write messages, or I will finally stop responding to such messages....


July 01, 2020, 01:46:05 AM
Reply #18
Offline

WAB


@WAB - getting back to you over the observations of "lights" during that period. You state - "Only two observations, 17 February and 31 March 1959, are known and confirmed so far.".

Okishev's interview :-
  • Why was the military involved in the search?
  • This was on our request. And there were reasons for that. Shortly before that we met with a worker of one of the prison camps in the North Urals. He described strange flashes of light which he and his wife saw late that evening on their way home from the cinema. The light came from the direction of the supposed accident with the hikers. We also received evidence from other local residents, and all of them spoke about a similar phenomenon, all testimonies were entered on our records of interrogation. We got a suspicion of existence of a military test field somewhere around, could that be true? Could flashes be caused by a failed rocket launch that had killed the hikers?

Apparently, you don't fully understand what it says... dunno1
The last two questions are not allegations, but doubts. Okishev himself was quite far from the issues he had been asked to discuss. He is not an expert, so draw conclusions for yourself. In addition, keep in mind that he was already 90 years old at the time, so much has already shifted in his memory and concepts.
The conclusion can only be that he is confused about a lot of things. For example, the reference to the fact that "he and his wife saw late at night on their way home from the cinema" (c) was due to the fact that it was not "an employee of one of the prison camps in the North Urals" (c), but is a badly remembered quote from the memoirs of the UPI University search participants, which was published only in 1992. And these are the words of Moses Axelrod after 33 years ago, that they were walking to home from the UPI University`s music festival , which was held at the end of March every year. So it can have nothing to do with the events at the pass.
In addition, I can say that two different sources spoke with Okishev: correspondents of the newspaper "Komsomolskaya Pravda" and lawyer Leonid Proshkin. They have "very different" memories of this "interview". They often have opposite memories in different places.  They had  joint conversation in my presence before the TV show. So I know what I am saying from the first source.


[/list]I know you will dismiss them but there are named reports from looo.ch via this website - https://sites.google.com/site/mezoelectric/dyatlov-pass-incident-1.

Earlier I read the information on this site (looo.ch). If to put it mildly, there is a lot of "questionable information". It's just a retelling of what was previously published on some Russian forums with great distortions.
 Now there are a lot of bloggers and "writers" who openly speculate with information on this topic. That's why it's becoming more and more difficult to refute fake information.
Look at the ratio of how much you have brought such information and what I have to write to refute. Then you will understand that the more bad information is disseminated, the further all interested people are from the truth.

The looo.ch article also claims that Tempalov noticed bomb craters on the opposite slope of Kholat.

Please read carefully. This is not "Tempalov noticed", but some of the paraphrases by other people (among searchers and their friends in the 90s!) Tempalov allegedly paraphrased the words of the municipal judge Novokreshchenov. However, Novokreschenov himself was not at the pass. In any case, no matter what anyone said, no trace of such funnels was found within a few kilometers from the tent. This it is a reliable fact.
So there's no need to tell anybody else's rumors or gossip. That's how you lose credibility in this forum.

McCloskey states that an anonymous source told him two Tu 95M bombers flew over the region on the night of 1/2 Feb from their base in Uzyn, Ukraine.
Maybe time for a thread titled "The case for the military theory"?  whacky1

1. McCloskey's "Anonymous Source" is called Yuri Kuntsevich, who understands such issues an order of magnitude worse than McCloskey himself. This exists on the condition that McCloskey does not know anything about it at all.
2. Uzin is located from 2200 km from the pass (this is ~1300 miles in distance) and there was no flight route in the area of the pass then. I don't have to tell you where and how planes fly. I'm aviation navigator myself with is my military specialty. They can't fly anywhere. The flights of any aircraft are strictly regulated. Especially in peacetime. So the nearest point where they could appear is 600...700 km from the pass. That's 370... 450 miles in distance.
3. Information about where and where exactly the planes flew from Uzin in 1959 now (and 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 30 years ago) was impossible to obtain. It has a very limited shelf life. So where Kuntcevihc, and even more so where McCloskey himself got it, remains a fantasy. It resembles a literary technique in a book that would intrigue readers and make it more interesting to read a book. But this information has nothing to do with authenticity.
4. Standard flight routes from Uzin in any direction are located even further. The main task of aviation on this airfield is military operations in the Atlantic, that is, the western direction

July 01, 2020, 03:16:21 AM
Reply #19
Offline

Nigel Evans


Dear Nigel Evans!
I have asked you several times not to write your answers in a formatted text. Trying to answer in this format is a disastrous waste of time. Therefore, I will not respond to such messages.

Then, either change the way you write messages, or I will finally stop responding to such messages....

Dear WAB. I struggle to understand why you cannot simply append your reply in a different text colour.

However i appreciate that you are operating through translation software which is laborious so i will attempt to comply with your request.


Regards.



July 01, 2020, 03:33:11 AM
Reply #20
Offline

WAB


Dear Nigel Evans!
I have asked you several times not to write your answers in a formatted text. Trying to answer in this format is a disastrous waste of time. Therefore, I will not respond to such messages.

Then, either change the way you write messages, or I will finally stop responding to such messages....

Dear WAB. I struggle to understand why you cannot simply append your reply in a different text colour.

However i appreciate that you are operating through translation software which is laborious so i will attempt to comply with your request.


Thank you. Although it's not matter of translation, it's matter of difficulty with this format of text of Internet technologies.

July 01, 2020, 03:47:01 AM
Reply #21
Offline

Nigel Evans



Apparently, you don't fully understand what it says... dunno1
The last two questions are not allegations, but doubts. Okishev himself was quite far from the issues he had been asked to discuss. He is not an expert, so draw conclusions for yourself. In addition, keep in mind that he was already 90 years old at the time, so much has already shifted in his memory and concepts.
The conclusion can only be that he is confused about a lot of things. For example, the reference to the fact that "he and his wife saw late at night on their way home from the cinema" (c) was due to the fact that it was not "an employee of one of the prison camps in the North Urals" (c), but is a badly remembered quote from the memoirs of the UPI University search participants, which was published only in 1992. And these are the words of Moses Axelrod after 33 years ago, that they were walking to home from the UPI University`s music festival , which was held at the end of March every year. So it can have nothing to do with the events at the pass.
In addition, I can say that two different sources spoke with Okishev: correspondents of the newspaper "Komsomolskaya Pravda" and lawyer Leonid Proshkin. They have "very different" memories of this "interview". They often have opposite memories in different places.  They had  joint conversation in my presence before the TV show. So I know what I am saying from the first source.

Well Ivanov also refers to this event in his Leninsky Put article. So for you to challenge both of their statements as being false is a serious step. Are you saying that there is no record in the case files of these interviews?

Earlier I read the information on this site (looo.ch). If to put it mildly, there is a lot of "questionable information". It's just a retelling of what was previously published on some Russian forums with great distortions.
 Now there are a lot of bloggers and "writers" who openly speculate with information on this topic. That's why it's becoming more and more difficult to refute fake information.
Look at the ratio of how much you have brought such information and what I have to write to refute. Then you will understand that the more bad information is disseminated, the further all interested people are from the truth.
I understand your point that gossip on the internet grows like rampant weeds, but i've studied reports of ball lightning phenomena etc for some time now and my hunch is that the reports on looo.ch are very intriguing. "Where the Kompolen roams is known as the spellbound". Checkout - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=246.0 In English we have a saying - "If you're one step ahead you're a genius, two steps ahead and you're crazy". You're calling looo.ch crazy but i'm intrigued.

Please read carefully. This is not "Tempalov noticed", but some of the paraphrases by other people (among searchers and their friends in the 90s!) Tempalov allegedly paraphrased the words of the municipal judge Novokreshchenov. However, Novokreschenov himself was not at the pass. In any case, no matter what anyone said, no trace of such funnels was found within a few kilometers from the tent. This it is a reliable fact.
So there's no need to tell anybody else's rumors or gossip. That's how you lose credibility in this forum.
Not so, having carefully reread it, looo.ch states that Tempalov (a former artillery officer) noticed the craters from a helicopter. Tempalov was at the DP, that is in the case files. "So there's no need to tell anybody else's rumors or gossip. That's how you lose credibility in this forum."  kewl1


2. Uzin is located from 2200 km from the pass (this is ~1300 miles in distance) and there was no flight route in the area of the pass then. I don't have to tell you where and how planes fly. I'm aviation navigator myself with is my military specialty. They can't fly anywhere. The flights of any aircraft are strictly regulated. Especially in peacetime.
Not so, Russian bombers routinely travel over Western European airspace (the most crowded airspace in the world?) without filing flight plans - https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/30/raf-chief-scorns-russia-after-two-planes-intercepted-near-scotland/


Hopefully you approve of this format?

Regards

July 01, 2020, 06:30:23 AM
Reply #22
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Well Iam not impressed with this Atmospheric Theory.  A bit confusing to say the least and Iam sure other Dyatlov Forum users will find it a bit confusing.  Please try to avoid using hundreds of words when a few will do.
DB

July 01, 2020, 09:31:50 AM
Reply #23
Offline

Nigel Evans


Well Iam not impressed with this Atmospheric Theory.  A bit confusing to say the least and Iam sure other Dyatlov Forum users will find it a bit confusing.  Please try to avoid using hundreds of words when a few will do.
Actually it's the "atmospheric electricity" theory. Granted that's two words not one word.
If anyone's getting confused this wont help - https://www.quora.com/What-did-Einstein-mean-when-he-asked-Abraham-Pais-whether-he-really-believed-that-the-moon-only-exists-when-you-look-at-it

July 02, 2020, 08:31:39 AM
Reply #24
Offline

WAB



Apparently, you don't fully understand what it says... dunno1
The last two questions are not allegations, but doubts. Okishev himself was quite far from the issues he had been asked to discuss. He is not an expert, so draw conclusions for yourself. In addition, keep in mind that he was already 90 years old at the time, so much has already shifted in his memory and concepts.
The conclusion can only be that he is confused about a lot of things. For example, the reference to the fact that "he and his wife saw late at night on their way home from the cinema" (c) was due to the fact that it was not "an employee of one of the prison camps in the North Urals" (c), but is a badly remembered quote from the memoirs of the UPI University search participants, which was published only in 1992. And these are the words of Moses Axelrod after 33 years ago, that they were walking to home from the UPI University`s music festival , which was held at the end of March every year. So it can have nothing to do with the events at the pass.
In addition, I can say that two different sources spoke with Okishev: correspondents of the newspaper "Komsomolskaya Pravda" and lawyer Leonid Proshkin. They have "very different" memories of this "interview". They often have opposite memories in different places.  They had  joint conversation in my presence before the TV show. So I know what I am saying from the first source.

Well Ivanov also refers to this event in his Leninsky Put article. So for you to challenge both of their statements as being false is a serious step. Are you saying that there is no record in the case files of these interviews?

After 30 years, and if he couldn't explain why this event started (why they ran away from the tent), he could write anything. This is not an indicator of the objectivity of information. Besides the reference to authority, one should also understand why he was writing like that. As we talked (in emails) to Lev Ivanov's daughter, he never understood the reason and thought it was a UFO, because he couldn't understand the other one. He was neither a physicist nor a rocket scientist, so he could at least approach the concept of such phenomena. Judging by your answers, you don't understand much here either, but you talk your ideas hard.

Earlier I read the information on this site (looo.ch). If to put it mildly, there is a lot of "questionable information". It's just a retelling of what was previously published on some Russian forums with great distortions.
 Now there are a lot of bloggers and "writers" who openly speculate with information on this topic. That's why it's becoming more and more difficult to refute fake information.
Look at the ratio of how much you have brought such information and what I have to write to refute. Then you will understand that the more bad information is disseminated, the further all interested people are from the truth.
I understand your point that gossip on the internet grows like rampant weeds, but i've studied reports of ball lightning phenomena etc for some time now and my hunch is that the reports on looo.ch are very intriguing. "Where the Kompolen roams is known as the spellbound". Checkout - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=246.0 In English we have a saying - "If you're one step ahead you're a genius, two steps ahead and you're crazy". You're calling looo.ch crazy but i'm intrigued.

First of all.
Don't make up things for me that I didn't do or intend to do. I didn't call anybody "crazy". If there's wrong information on that website, that's what I'm talking about.
Second of all.
I have to say again: to talk about the ball lightning, you have to have accurate information that it was there. Since there are not even conscious signs or similar manifestations of this phenomenon, one can only speak about it with very great doubt. And only as an abstract assumption. And it doesn't matter who's going to be there or what.


Please read carefully. This is not "Tempalov noticed", but some of the paraphrases by other people (among searchers and their friends in the 90s!) Tempalov allegedly paraphrased the words of the municipal judge Novokreshchenov. However, Novokreschenov himself was not at the pass. In any case, no matter what anyone said, no trace of such funnels was found within a few kilometers from the tent. This it is a reliable fact.
So there's no need to tell anybody else's rumors or gossip. That's how you lose credibility in this forum.
Not so, having carefully reread it, looo.ch states that Tempalov (a former artillery officer) noticed the craters from a helicopter. Tempalov was at the DP, that is in the case files. "So there's no need to tell anybody else's rumors or gossip. That's how you lose credibility in this forum."  kewl1

As usual, you keep repeating what you think is important (although not in practice) and throwing away what you've been told. I repeat: "In any case, no matter what anyone says, no trace of such funnels was found few kilometers from the tent. That's a credible fact. » (с). If there are no signs of what was being talked about... it doesn't matter who - Tempalov or Novokreshchenov... there's nothing talk about. What doesn't exist won't come from anyone talking about it thousand times.

2. Uzin is located from 2200 km from the pass (this is ~1300 miles in distance) and there was no flight route in the area of the pass then. I don't have to tell you where and how planes fly. I'm aviation navigator myself with is my military specialty. They can't fly anywhere. The flights of any aircraft are strictly regulated. Especially in peacetime.
Not so, Russian bombers routinely travel over Western European airspace (the most crowded airspace in the world?) without filing flight plans - https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/30/raf-chief-scorns-russia-after-two-planes-intercepted-near-scotland/

Again, you're talking about something you don't know at all. No "Russian bombers" are "travelling through the airspace of Western Europe." Air routes are strictly regulated and military aircraft are flying on their routes. In particular, "Russian bombers" move on international routes over neutral waters in the Baltic Sea or any other sea, in full compliance with international rules.
If there was an entry into the sovereign airspace of NATO countries, it would either be shot down or the IIIWW would start as result.
One of the routes runs near Scotland, so RAF aircraft could accompany our scouts' flights for training (unlike the Americans, our bombers with nuclear warheads did not fly in international waters after the Caribbean crisis).
So don't say something you don't know at all.

July 02, 2020, 09:25:15 AM
Reply #25
Offline

Nigel Evans


After 30 years, and if he couldn't explain why this event started (why they ran away from the tent), he could write anything. This is not an indicator of the objectivity of information. Besides the reference to authority, one should also understand why he was writing like that. As we talked (in emails) to Lev Ivanov's daughter, he never understood the reason and thought it was a UFO, because he couldn't understand the other one. He was neither a physicist nor a rocket scientist, so he could at least approach the concept of such phenomena. Judging by your answers, you don't understand much here either, but you talk your ideas hard.
Not as hard as your attacks on my ideas, to rubbish Okishev's and Ivanov's statements is not good for your credibility imo.

First of all.
Don't make up things for me that I didn't do or intend to do. I didn't call anybody "crazy". If there's wrong information on that website, that's what I'm talking about.
You're calling them "open speculators", "authors of questionable information", creators of "fake information". So either you are calling them stupid or dis-ingenious or crazy?

Second of all.I have to say again: to talk about the ball lightning, you have to have accurate information that it was there. Since there are not even conscious signs or similar manifestations of this phenomenon, one can only speak about it with very great doubt. And only as an abstract assumption. And it doesn't matter who's going to be there or what.
I only need Ivanov's and the Mansi's opinions to justify discussing ball lightning wrt the DPI. Your opinion is trivial in comparison and the force with which you pursue it hints at a hidden agenda. All discussion on the DPI is speculation and conjecture.

Again, you're talking about something you don't know at all. No "Russian bombers" are "travelling through the airspace of Western Europe." Air routes are strictly regulated and military aircraft are flying on their routes. In particular, "Russian bombers" move on international routes over neutral waters in the Baltic Sea or any other sea, in full compliance with international rules.
If there was an entry into the sovereign airspace of NATO countries, it would either be shot down or the IIIWW would start as result.
One of the routes runs near Scotland, so RAF aircraft could accompany our scouts' flights for training (unlike the Americans, our bombers with nuclear warheads did not fly in international waters after the Caribbean crisis).
So don't say something you don't know at all.
I'm quoting the chief of the UK's air force  - https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/30/raf-chief-scorns-russia-after-two-planes-intercepted-near-scotland/ 
"These Russian bombers are relics of the Cold War, do not comply with international air traffic regulations and are a hazard to civilian and military aircraft"Maybe you should email himand tell him he doesn't know what he is talking about? However my point is not to be partisan but to point out that military aircraft do not always play by the rules. I doubt if Gary Powers filed a flight plan, perhaps if he had, he wouldn't have collided with a SAM?  lol1


July 03, 2020, 01:33:51 PM
Reply #26
Offline

WAB


After 30 years, and if he couldn't explain why this event started (why they ran away from the tent), he could write anything. This is not an indicator of the objectivity of information. Besides the reference to authority, one should also understand why he was writing like that. As we talked (in emails) to Lev Ivanov's daughter, he never understood the reason and thought it was a UFO, because he couldn't understand the other one. He was neither a physicist nor a rocket scientist, so he could at least approach the concept of such phenomena. Judging by your answers, you don't understand much here either, but you talk your ideas hard.
Not as hard as your attacks on my ideas, to rubbish Okishev's and Ivanov's statements is not good for your credibility imo.

Are you again trying to substitute the actual state of the terrain with words you do not understand? Or have you decided show at any cost (even by substituting notions) that you are right, not objective reality?

First of all.
Don't make up things for me that I didn't do or intend to do. I didn't call anybody "crazy". If there's wrong information on that website, that's what I'm talking about.
You're calling them "open speculators", "authors of questionable information", creators of "fake information". So either you are calling them stupid or dis-ingenious or crazy?

You want demonstrate that you lack the intelligence not confuse one with another? Then it's not clear how we can talk to each other? I will try answer you for  while longer, but if it comes across this syndrome again, I will stop wasting time.

Second of all.I have to say again: to talk about the ball lightning, you have to have accurate information that it was there. Since there are not even conscious signs or similar manifestations of this phenomenon, one can only speak about it with very great doubt. And only as an abstract assumption. And it doesn't matter who's going to be there or what.
I only need Ivanov's and the Mansi's opinions to justify discussing ball lightning wrt the DPI. Your opinion is trivial in comparison and the force with which you pursue it hints at a hidden agenda. All discussion on the DPI is speculation and conjecture.

You are also shamans from the Khimba African tribe, ask, maybe they will tell you something definite about what is on the Dyatlov Pass.  grin1
But I completely agree with your opinion: "All DPI discussions are speculation and conjecture." (c) and you're showing it perfectly well.
At least I'm constantly getting specific data from the pass, backed up by photos, weather and conditions, calculations and videos from the same places and in similar conditions. So I object to you not allow the development of fairy information...

Again, you're talking about something you don't know at all. No "Russian bombers" are "travelling through the airspace of Western Europe." Air routes are strictly regulated and military aircraft are flying on their routes. In particular, "Russian bombers" move on international routes over neutral waters in the Baltic Sea or any other sea, in full compliance with international rules.
If there was an entry into the sovereign airspace of NATO countries, it would either be shot down or the IIIWW would start as result.
One of the routes runs near Scotland, so RAF aircraft could accompany our scouts' flights for training (unlike the Americans, our bombers with nuclear warheads did not fly in international waters after the Caribbean crisis).
So don't say something you don't know at all.
I'm quoting the chief of the UK's air force  - https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/30/raf-chief-scorns-russia-after-two-planes-intercepted-near-scotland/ 
"These Russian bombers are relics of the Cold War, do not comply with international air traffic regulations and are a hazard to civilian and military aircraft"Maybe you should email himand tell him he doesn't know what he is talking about?

He knows what he's talking about. It's simple political statement. It's briefly called propaganda. He doesn't say word here, not about the tracks, not about any violation. It's constant statement in spirit of hostility. As usual, they contain no evidence or at least no indication of specific actions. All of this is called political demagoguery, and it has nothing to do with the specific aspects that I mentioned earlier. And you are trying replace knowledge of the subject with political declarations that have no basis. What are you trying accomplish?

However my point is not to be partisan but to point out that military aircraft do not always play by the rules.

You're twitching everything again, like in card game. Military "play by the wrong rules" during war. In peacetime, all developed countries have effective air defense, which works well. As long as there is no evidence of concrete cases and actions, everything remains only propaganda, which must follow the policy. And you have perfectly confirmed this with your statement. There are only words that are not supported by any facts. And that is the main thing.

I doubt if Gary Powers filed a flight plan, perhaps if he had, he wouldn't have collided with a SAM?  lol1

As a true demagogue, you turned your head upside down.
I'm telling you in person:
1. Powers flew this route for the first time (as it was planned at the CIA). Before that, there were only separate flights into the country near the borders, not crossing the country completely.
2.  No one was going to announce an unauthorized secret flight. Quite the opposite - it was hidden as much as possible. That's what they got the full program for. No camouflage or temporary advantages in the height of the flight helped.
3. You, however, as usual, pass from a sick head to a healthy head. It was the Americans (CIA! - I don't mean the people of this country) who flew over our territory, not us who flew over American territory or over Europe. This is a flagrant violation of international law. So what is to be offended if they are clearly shown that this is not the way to do it.
4. Can you give one example of similar flights by Soviet or Russian aviation over the territory of the US or Great Britain?

July 04, 2020, 05:33:06 AM
Reply #27
Offline

Nigel Evans


Another source to corroborate looo.ch's account of soldier's seeing fireballs on the mountain :- https://dyatlovpass.com/stanislav-bogomolov-1?rbid=18461"Well, for example, such a story that reached us through third parties (or language?). As you know, the military helped to find the guys. А young lieutenant with a group of soldiers set their tent near the last campsite of the Dyatlov group. One night the attendant woke him up, and together they watched as a white luminous ball was approaching them. The closer it came, the more deadly horror gripped their souls. He felt like fleeing. But the lieutenant was ambitious and did not want to lose face in the eyes of his soldiers... In the end, the ball lost interest in them and retired about its business."

July 04, 2020, 01:55:22 PM
Reply #28
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Well Iam not impressed with this Atmospheric Theory.  A bit confusing to say the least and Iam sure other Dyatlov Forum users will find it a bit confusing.  Please try to avoid using hundreds of words when a few will do.
Actually it's the "atmospheric electricity" theory. Granted that's two words not one word.
If anyone's getting confused this wont help - https://www.quora.com/What-did-Einstein-mean-when-he-asked-Abraham-Pais-whether-he-really-believed-that-the-moon-only-exists-when-you-look-at-it

Ok fair enough I guess this particular Topic is one that requires plenty of words.  And you and WAB are certainly providing them. I guess its what makes this Forum very interesting. Keep up the good work.
DB