My theory

[tenne]

well, then if the obviously extremely detailed, accurate and totally 100% honest and available information didn't mention it then it must not be an issue, because as we all know, they were totally 100% accurate and efficient in their investigation. No mistakes or omissions or missing stuff in this very accurate and trustworthy investigation. No sir! not in any way.

We have to go with the Information that we have. The Evidence that we have. Yes some Evidence has gone missing and yes some of the Investigation leaves a lot to be desired.

If investigators only went with staged scenes then many crimes would not be solved. Now, I think the evidence we have only proves that the scene was staged and very badly at that. Like a murder disguised as a botch robbery. Good thing the cops don't just go with the evidence they are presented with. Imagine if they said "well, this is what it looks like so we won't investigate any possibilities it could be staged" While more than a few murderers would be happy, as the victim I would prefer they investigate a bit more than "we will take it at face value.

In Fact, so many murders have tried to be disguised as suicide, that should be a clue we don't just assume the evidence is correct when it doesn't add up

[Nigel Evans]

But i'd stress that the condition of the tent is imo pointing at the event that forced them to flee. Probably chemical in nature.


 But the Tent doesnt look like its been affected by some kind of Chemical  !  ?

It's in a very bad way, there's no way they would have gone to the ridge with it in that state

[Nigel Evans]

But i'd stress that the condition of the tent is imo pointing at the event that forced them to flee. Probably chemical in nature.

I never said that the tent had anything to do with them fleeing. I believe they were never there and were killed elsewhere and the scene staged. The tent being rotten could be a factor in their decision to not go any further.

Ivanov states in the casefiles that the photos of the ascent and digging in are consistent (on the film rolls) with being taken on Feb 1. From his statement thirty years later he takes no issue with the written diaries which he saw first hand that include the decision to camp on the ridge. Theories that want to discount these facts in favour of "elsewhere" need to explain how these facts were falsified.

[tenne]

But i'd stress that the condition of the tent is imo pointing at the event that forced them to flee. Probably chemical in nature.

I never said that the tent had anything to do with them fleeing. I believe they were never there and were killed elsewhere and the scene staged. The tent being rotten could be a factor in their decision to not go any further.

Ivanov states in the casefiles that the photos of the ascent and digging in are consistent (on the film rolls) with being taken on Feb 1. From his statement thirty years later he takes no issue with the written diaries which he saw first hand that include the decision to camp on the ridge. Theories that want to discount these facts in favour of "elsewhere" need to explain how these facts were falsified.

There is absolutely no way to know where or when those photos were taken. Period. its all conjecture being taken as gospel, the gospel being they were there because the bodies and tent were there. I can't prove where or when the photos were taken anymore than anyone else can (other than of course ones with other people in them so we can tell when and some show were for sure but not when). So prove to me that they were taken there, you can't. there is no time stamp, no date stamp, no GPS embedded, it is simple conjecture on all our parts and when the scene doesn't' fit the evidence, it has been faked. This is hardly the first time a crime has been tried to be concealed by staging it. Only in this case everyone wants to force the evidence to fit the scene and we can't make it because......... it doesn't

[Nigel Evans]

But i'd stress that the condition of the tent is imo pointing at the event that forced them to flee. Probably chemical in nature.

I never said that the tent had anything to do with them fleeing. I believe they were never there and were killed elsewhere and the scene staged. The tent being rotten could be a factor in their decision to not go any further.

Ivanov states in the casefiles that the photos of the ascent and digging in are consistent (on the film rolls) with being taken on Feb 1. From his statement thirty years later he takes no issue with the written diaries which he saw first hand that include the decision to camp on the ridge. Theories that want to discount these facts in favour of "elsewhere" need to explain how these facts were falsified.

There is absolutely no way to know where or when those photos were taken. Period. its all conjecture being taken as gospel, the gospel being they were there because the bodies and tent were there. I can't prove where or when the photos were taken anymore than anyone else can (other than of course ones with other people in them so we can tell when and some show were for sure but not when). So prove to me that they were taken there, you can't. there is no time stamp, no date stamp, no GPS embedded, it is simple conjecture on all our parts and when the scene doesn't' fit the evidence, it has been faked. This is hardly the first time a crime has been tried to be concealed by staging it. Only in this case everyone wants to force the evidence to fit the scene and we can't make it because......... it doesn't

The photos were taken above the treeline in high winds (exposed terrain) and hence could only be taken that day or the day before. The last two seem to be setting up camp and cannot be Jan 31. They were in the forest for all the other days. Given that it fits that they would use so many frames (6?) on the "big day" = Feb 1. Plus Ivanov stated that the position in the rolls fitted with Feb 1.


It's all pointing that it was Feb 1.

[tenne]

There is no way to prove where they were or when they were there. Show me proof. You can't, anymore than I can. Those photos are assumed to be taken at those times and those places but they can't be proven.

Saying that they had to be taken there, isn't proof. it is a supposition. same as me saying they weren't taken there. I can't prove it. no one can prove it. That's why people took photos with newspapers in their hand and identifiable landmarks before modern tech. Because all the photo proves is it was taken.

You think that is where they were taken, you can't prove it

[Investigator]

There is no way to prove where they were or when they were there. Show me proof. You can't, anymore than I can. Those photos are assumed to be taken at those times and those places but they can't be proven.

Saying that they had to be taken there, isn't proof. it is a supposition. same as me saying they weren't taken there. I can't prove it. no one can prove it. That's why people took photos with newspapers in their hand and identifiable landmarks before modern tech. Because all the photo proves is it was taken.

You think that is where they were taken, you can't prove it

There are two reasonable things one can do with the DPI.  One is to think of all kinds of possibiities.  UFO/ET involvement?  Sure, now look for the evidence.  Totally staged?  Again, look for the evidence.  The other thing you can do is to examine the evidence that exists and eventually you may be able to generate one or a small number of explanations that fit.  In a legal case, you might have enough for an indictment (in the USA), and then if the case goes forward (criminal), there's the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.  Talking about proving things is not helpful, as even in science the best your claim can be is a theory.  There are also precise observations, which can only be done by those with the training and equipment, such as certain types of measurements.  With the DPI, it's important to note that it wasn't an unusual tragedy, unfortunately, and there simply isn't any evidence to suggest it was anything else.  We might even get a very good sense of exactly what happened if there was a recreation that got all the details correct (like the two old canvas tents sewn together and the type of clothing and footwear  they were wearing, and where they placed those items during the night).

[Nigel Evans]

There is no way to prove where they were or when they were there. Show me proof. You can't, anymore than I can. Those photos are assumed to be taken at those times and those places but they can't be proven.

Saying that they had to be taken there, isn't proof. it is a supposition. same as me saying they weren't taken there. I can't prove it. no one can prove it. That's why people took photos with newspapers in their hand and identifiable landmarks before modern tech. Because all the photo proves is it was taken.

You think that is where they were taken, you can't prove it

Yes of course, we can't "prove" that the DPI even happened. What we can say is that the items of evidence have different weights and that collectively they support this narrative more than another. So we can say that the timeline given in the diaries is supported by the photographs. That there is good reason to believe they were above the treeline on Feb 1 and that they made camp above the treeline. This is specifically supported by Ivanov who handled all original materials especially the film rolls and understood the frame order. Hence the narrative best supported by the evidence is that they camped on the ridge.

[tenne]

There is no way to prove where they were or when they were there. Show me proof. You can't, anymore than I can. Those photos are assumed to be taken at those times and those places but they can't be proven.

Saying that they had to be taken there, isn't proof. it is a supposition. same as me saying they weren't taken there. I can't prove it. no one can prove it. That's why people took photos with newspapers in their hand and identifiable landmarks before modern tech. Because all the photo proves is it was taken.

You think that is where they were taken, you can't prove it

Yes of course, we can't "prove" that the DPI even happened. What we can say is that the items of evidence have different weights and that collectively they support this narrative more than another. So we can say that the timeline given in the diaries is supported by the photographs. That there is good reason to believe they were above the treeline on Feb 1 and that they made camp above the treeline. This is specifically supported by Ivanov who handled all original materials especially the film rolls and understood the frame order. Hence the narrative best supported by the evidence is that they camped on the ridge.

If that narrative was the best one supported by the evidence, then everything would add up. it doesn't. If the evidence fit the scene, it would explain why they camped there, with no stove, why they were dressed like that in an unheated tent, why they walked down the slope, why they left a fire to go to a ravine, how they got their injuries, It doesn't, there fore it isn't the best evidence. It is like the police finding a guy with a rifle in his hand and shot in the head and ignoring the fact that he was right handed and the rifle was in the left hand and there was no way he could fit the gun to his head because it is too long and declaring its a suicide, because he is dead there and there is a rifle in his hand and then insisting for years that it had to happen like that because of the scene, even though the evidence doesn't fit.

There is no good reason to believe they were above the treeline. the only thing that can be shown conclusively by the photos are they were in a very small area with no trees in the photo; that could be a meadow, and that they were digging. that's it. nothing more. Diaries can be faked, photos can be faked, bodies can be planted. when the evidence fits the scene, it will explain everything. my theory does, the evidence fits the scene. that's about all I can do.

[Nigel Evans]

There is no way to prove where they were or when they were there. Show me proof. You can't, anymore than I can. Those photos are assumed to be taken at those times and those places but they can't be proven.

Saying that they had to be taken there, isn't proof. it is a supposition. same as me saying they weren't taken there. I can't prove it. no one can prove it. That's why people took photos with newspapers in their hand and identifiable landmarks before modern tech. Because all the photo proves is it was taken.

You think that is where they were taken, you can't prove it

Yes of course, we can't "prove" that the DPI even happened. What we can say is that the items of evidence have different weights and that collectively they support this narrative more than another. So we can say that the timeline given in the diaries is supported by the photographs. That there is good reason to believe they were above the treeline on Feb 1 and that they made camp above the treeline. This is specifically supported by Ivanov who handled all original materials especially the film rolls and understood the frame order. Hence the narrative best supported by the evidence is that they camped on the ridge.

If that narrative was the best one supported by the evidence, then everything would add up. it doesn't. If the evidence fit the scene, it would explain why they camped there, with no stove, why they were dressed like that in an unheated tent, why they walked down the slope, why they left a fire to go to a ravine, how they got their injuries, It doesn't, there fore it isn't the best evidence. It is like the police finding a guy with a rifle in his hand and shot in the head and ignoring the fact that he was right handed and the rifle was in the left hand and there was no way he could fit the gun to his head because it is too long and declaring its a suicide, because he is dead there and there is a rifle in his hand and then insisting for years that it had to happen like that because of the scene, even though the evidence doesn't fit.

There is no good reason to believe they were above the treeline. the only thing that can be shown conclusively by the photos are they were in a very small area with no trees in the photo; that could be a meadow, and that they were digging. that's it. nothing more. Diaries can be faked, photos can be faked, bodies can be planted. when the evidence fits the scene, it will explain everything. my theory does, the evidence fits the scene. that's about all I can do.

The evidence is that they went to the ridge to photograph "fireorbs" (camera on tripod, decision in diary, photos of ascent), photographed them (several contentious images and Eagle which is universally recognised as a genuine image of an aerial light emitting object) and fled the tent and eventually the fire because fireorbs are reported as being capable of large mass that can burn, explode and kill. That was the best theory of the chief investigator TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE. There is also a parallel narrative that Moscow was involved at the highest level to shutdown the case which introduces the probability of top secret military ordnance adding to or supplanting the fireorb theory. That's what the evidence says. It doesn't matter which hand is holding a rifle to know he's died from a bullet in the head. They died from ordnance, natural, man made or both. That's what the evidence shouts. That's what the autopsies are saying. The only qualification i'd make on the above is that a slab slide due to unusual warming at the ravine could explain the last four deaths but the first five shout strong force, heat, airborne chemicals, skin marks from objects with right angles (man made).

[tenne]

well, it does make a huge difference the hand that the rifle is in. For 1. a right handed person will shoot themselves with their right hand, not left. You can't shoot yourself in the head with a rifle, its too long. So not only was that crime scene staged (this is a real case) but it was done very stupidly. for the evidence to fit a suicide the revolver would have to be in the right hand. a rifle in the left shows murder.

So  Yes, totally unprovable photos of anywhere absolutely prove that they were on the ridge because that's the only place that there wouldn't be trees (cause obviously meadows don't exist in Siberia) they were digging a hole there, because that's the only place they could build a hole. The date is obviously right because there is no way diaries can be faked, hitler's famous fake one was obviously real because according to you, they can't be faked.

they camped where no one with a brain would, did not dressed properly for not having a heat source, cut their way out of a tent to calmly walk down the slopes because they felt like it. left a fire under the cedars to go make a den where there is no heat source and guaranteed death and then received injuries from the snow falling on them.

Got it, I can see how all of that is explained by they camped there because the photos and dates prove it.  I am very grateful that none of you are police, or at least I hope not because if you are, that murder is going down in the files as a suicide and a murderer is very grateful that you think the evidence isn't important

[Nigel Evans]

well, it does make a huge difference the hand that the rifle is in. For 1. a right handed person will shoot themselves with their right hand, not left. You can't shoot yourself in the head with a rifle, its too long. So not only was that crime scene staged (this is a real case) but it was done very stupidly. for the evidence to fit a suicide the revolver would have to be in the right hand. a rifle in the left shows murder.

So  Yes, totally unprovable photos of anywhere absolutely prove that they were on the ridge because that's the only place that there wouldn't be trees (cause obviously meadows don't exist in Siberia) they were digging a hole there, because that's the only place they could build a hole. The date is obviously right because there is no way diaries can be faked, hitler's famous fake one was obviously real because according to you, they can't be faked.

they camped where no one with a brain would, did not dressed properly for not having a heat source, cut their way out of a tent to calmly walk down the slopes because they felt like it. left a fire under the cedars to go make a den where there is no heat source and guaranteed death and then received injuries from the snow falling on them.

Got it, I can see how all of that is explained by they camped there because the photos and dates prove it.  I am very grateful that none of you are police, or at least I hope not because if you are, that murder is going down in the files as a suicide and a murderer is very grateful that you think the evidence isn't important

Meadows rarely have the wind strength as photographed and are almost always bordered by trees offering better shelter?

[tenne]

lol, if that's your proof the photos are accurate, well, I can't argue with that insanity. I take it you have never lived in a country that had real snow because yes, fields and meadows and banks of rivers and highways and dirt roads  can have blowing snow. lots of it. trust me, I have to drive through it on a regular basis. not that that matters because of course its proof that it had to be taken in that location because snow only looks like that on a slope according to you and that is what matters. real life experience? not important. like the rifle being in the left hand, not important to the verdict of suicide instead of murder

[Nigel Evans]

You wanted to talk about meadows, i'm just pointing out that they tend to occur below the treeline between a river and a forest. Forests offer shelter, ridges don't.

[tenne]

You do realize you are talking to someone who has lived 53 years in the Canadian Rockies and is accustomed to snow and how it handles and what it does? I have cross country skied, down hill skied, snowshoed, snow machined and driven in more snow in one season than I'm sure you have seen in your entire life.  That photo could have easily been taken in a meadow, or along a river bank. there are many possibilities besides the slope of a mountain. If there are trees just out of sight of the photo, that much snow can blow off the branches in a good wind. Doesn't last long but a photo takes less than a second

[Nigel Evans]

You do realize you are talking to someone who has lived 53 years in the Canadian Rockies and is accustomed to snow and how it handles and what it does? I have cross country skied, down hill skied, snowshoed, snow machined and driven in more snow in one season than I'm sure you have seen in your entire life.  That photo could have easily been taken in a meadow, or along a river bank. there are many possibilities besides the slope of a mountain. If there are trees just out of sight of the photo, that much snow can blow off the branches in a good wind. Doesn't last long but a photo takes less than a second

Lol, a few weeks ago that photo could have been taken anywhere in the UK. I was in a remote area that got cut off for a day. No fireorbs though.

[tenne]

too bad, I would love to see fireballs. Snow storms are so passe here but fireballs? All we get is weak green northern lights

[sarapuk]

well, then if the obviously extremely detailed, accurate and totally 100% honest and available information didn't mention it then it must not be an issue, because as we all know, they were totally 100% accurate and efficient in their investigation. No mistakes or omissions or missing stuff in this very accurate and trustworthy investigation. No sir! not in any way.

We have to go with the Information that we have. The Evidence that we have. Yes some Evidence has gone missing and yes some of the Investigation leaves a lot to be desired.

If investigators only went with staged scenes then many crimes would not be solved. Now, I think the evidence we have only proves that the scene was staged and very badly at that. Like a murder disguised as a botch robbery. Good thing the cops don't just go with the evidence they are presented with. Imagine if they said "well, this is what it looks like so we won't investigate any possibilities it could be staged" While more than a few murderers would be happy, as the victim I would prefer they investigate a bit more than "we will take it at face value.

In Fact, so many murders have tried to be disguised as suicide, that should be a clue we don't just assume the evidence is correct when it doesn't add up

Staged scenes  !  ?  What do you mean by this  !  ?  Investigators have to go by Facts and Evidence. They cant go into a Court of Law and present a load of speculations. Having been in a Jury in a Court of Law I wasnt presented with speculations. Evidence and Facts and then a decision has to be made. And sometimes there isnt enough Evidence or Facts to find some one guilty, end of Case.

[sarapuk]

But i'd stress that the condition of the tent is imo pointing at the event that forced them to flee. Probably chemical in nature.


 But the Tent doesnt look like its been affected by some kind of Chemical  !  ?

It's in a very bad way, there's no way they would have gone to the ridge with it in that state

Yes it was cut up a bit. And no doubt suffered from several weeks of exposure on that Mountainside. It should never have been on that Mountainside. But something forced them to camp there.

[sarapuk]

But i'd stress that the condition of the tent is imo pointing at the event that forced them to flee. Probably chemical in nature.

I never said that the tent had anything to do with them fleeing. I believe they were never there and were killed elsewhere and the scene staged. The tent being rotten could be a factor in their decision to not go any further.

Ivanov states in the casefiles that the photos of the ascent and digging in are consistent (on the film rolls) with being taken on Feb 1. From his statement thirty years later he takes no issue with the written diaries which he saw first hand that include the decision to camp on the ridge. Theories that want to discount these facts in favour of "elsewhere" need to explain how these facts were falsified.

There is absolutely no way to know where or when those photos were taken. Period. its all conjecture being taken as gospel, the gospel being they were there because the bodies and tent were there. I can't prove where or when the photos were taken anymore than anyone else can (other than of course ones with other people in them so we can tell when and some show were for sure but not when). So prove to me that they were taken there, you can't. there is no time stamp, no date stamp, no GPS embedded, it is simple conjecture on all our parts and when the scene doesn't' fit the evidence, it has been faked. This is hardly the first time a crime has been tried to be concealed by staging it. Only in this case everyone wants to force the evidence to fit the scene and we can't make it because......... it doesn't

There was no GPS in 1959. The Digital World was still in the making. Cameras varied from crap to excellent. Russian Camera Lens were considered some of the best in the World.
The Searchers who were looking for the Dyatlov Group had no idea what had happened. The weather conditions for that area were considered normal. There was no Military Testing in that area. All the Photographs are genuine. There was and is no reason to fake anything.

[sarapuk]

There is no way to prove where they were or when they were there. Show me proof. You can't, anymore than I can. Those photos are assumed to be taken at those times and those places but they can't be proven.

Saying that they had to be taken there, isn't proof. it is a supposition. same as me saying they weren't taken there. I can't prove it. no one can prove it. That's why people took photos with newspapers in their hand and identifiable landmarks before modern tech. Because all the photo proves is it was taken.

You think that is where they were taken, you can't prove it

The Photographs are genuine. They have not been faked. Its up to you to prove that they have been faked and how are you going to do that  !  ?

[Nigel Evans]

too bad, I would love to see fireballs. Snow storms are so passe here but fireballs? All we get is weak green northern lights

Careful what you wish for....

[Nigel Evans]

But i'd stress that the condition of the tent is imo pointing at the event that forced them to flee. Probably chemical in nature.


 But the Tent doesnt look like its been affected by some kind of Chemical  !  ?

It's in a very bad way, there's no way they would have gone to the ridge with it in that state

Yes it was cut up a bit. And no doubt suffered from several weeks of exposure on that Mountainside. It should never have been on that Mountainside. But something forced them to camp there.

No i'd argue that three weeks on the mountain shouldn't have mattered and they would never have gone to the ridge with a tent in that condition, but they did because it wasn't. The tent suffered from the same fate as did their hands and faces.

[tenne]

too bad, I would love to see fireballs. Snow storms are so passe here but fireballs? All we get is weak green northern lights

Careful what you wish for....

I have seen more than enough strange stuff in the sky that I’m not the least bit worried about seeing fireballs and what it could mean

[Nigel Evans]

too bad, I would love to see fireballs. Snow storms are so passe here but fireballs? All we get is weak green northern lights

Careful what you wish for....

I have seen more than enough strange stuff in the sky that I’m not the least bit worried about seeing fireballs and what it could mean

What strange stuff?

[tenne]

too bad, I would love to see fireballs. Snow storms are so passe here but fireballs? All we get is weak green northern lights

Careful what you wish for....

I have seen more than enough strange stuff in the sky that I’m not the least bit worried about seeing fireballs and what it could mean

What strange stuff?

I have seen 3 UFO's and by that I mean 3 unidentified flying objects. They weren't flying saucers, no little green men got out and demanded I take them to my leader. They were just 3 very strange experiences I had, all 3 had witnesses and all of us were very confused by what we saw. The worst of it was my mind seemed to shut off, that I hated because I'm a very curious person and all I did was go to sleep. UGH! That has always made me very unhappy with myself. I grew up in the country, I'm not a chicken, strange noises out side, grab a gun (my dad is a hunter and I grew up eating game) and investigate and in all 3 events, I hid. I'm not proud of it, in fact I still kick myself over it

[tenne]

too bad, I would love to see fireballs. Snow storms are so passe here but fireballs? All we get is weak green northern lights

Careful what you wish for....

I have seen more than enough strange stuff in the sky that I’m not the least bit worried about seeing fireballs and what it could mean

What strange stuff?

I have seen 3 UFO's and by that I mean 3 unidentified flying objects. They weren't flying saucers, no little green men got out and demanded I take them to my leader. They were just 3 very strange experiences I had, all 3 had witnesses and all of us were very confused by what we saw. The worst of it was my mind seemed to shut off, that I hated because I'm a very curious person and all I did was go to sleep. UGH! That has always made me very unhappy with myself. I grew up in the country, I'm not a chicken, strange noises out side, grab a gun (my dad is a hunter and I grew up eating game) and investigate and in all 3 events, I hid. I'm not proud of it, in fact I still kick myself over it. I didn't panic and run outside or anything dumb like that, just hid my head

[Nigel Evans]

too bad, I would love to see fireballs. Snow storms are so passe here but fireballs? All we get is weak green northern lights

Careful what you wish for....

I have seen more than enough strange stuff in the sky that I’m not the least bit worried about seeing fireballs and what it could mean

What strange stuff?

I have seen 3 UFO's and by that I mean 3 unidentified flying objects. They weren't flying saucers, no little green men got out and demanded I take them to my leader. They were just 3 very strange experiences I had, all 3 had witnesses and all of us were very confused by what we saw. The worst of it was my mind seemed to shut off, that I hated because I'm a very curious person and all I did was go to sleep. UGH! That has always made me very unhappy with myself. I grew up in the country, I'm not a chicken, strange noises out side, grab a gun (my dad is a hunter and I grew up eating game) and investigate and in all 3 events, I hid. I'm not proud of it, in fact I still kick myself over it. I didn't panic and run outside or anything dumb like that, just hid my head

That's a common experience, but you haven't detailed the events? I'd be interested.

[tenne]

They were pretty boring, not like the movies in any way.

First one I was about 10, my parents and I were coming home from a drive in (yes I'm that old) so it was about 3am. a flashing disc followed us home. I dove under the seat and hid my head (ugh) and the disc followed us for 15 miles or so, then stopped above a pond and just sat there, then went back down the mountain and followed another car up to the area. then it just took off. I was happy according to my parents to see it go

2nd one I was a teenager, my bedroom was in the basement and I saw lights outside and heard voices and that went on until I went to sleep (ugh again) No one was outside, we lived 20 miles from anywhere and no one came on the property without the dogs barking. That is what made me realize something was weird, lights and voices sorta. if you are old enough to remember the old tvs with antenna and how it was snowy and distorted, that is what the lights and voices were like. I say voices but I couldn't understand what they were saying. No dogs barking and they used to chase bears off so that was strange. Both my parents confirmed that they didn't go outside, it was again about 4am and we didn't have company (not that we would at that time other than the incident where my boyfriend came to visit me after the bar closed and my dad and mom pulled a gun on him) There is a bit more that I'm not going to post about.

3rd time I had gone out of town with a friend, I was in my 20's and we were sitting in my car, just talking when this really long sausage shaped light? floated down the valley. really really really slow. I couldn't understand why it didn't crash and no airports in the area, besides it wasn't a plane, unless we have sausage shaped planes and I don't know it

that's it, boring as can be. I would have thought seeing a UFO would be more exciting but then again, it just means unidentified flying object, doesn't mean aliens or anything like that

[Nigel Evans]

What colour was the sausage?