...
In a scenario like this one, Feb. 6 is a crucial date because it proves that someone (the military?) knew that something went wrong (a missile explosion?) on the night of Feb. 1. As always, only an educated guess on my part.
Absolutely crucial or just a typo? From memory neither Ivanov or Okishev placed any importance on this?
Or more likely Ivanov and Okishev were ordered by Urakov or someone of higher rank to ignore the date. Why wasn't a "2" written in front of the 6 at a later date? I don't know. Perhaps an oversight. Or no one thought it important since Feb. 26 became the "official" day the investigation was opened. Or, as Jean Daniel Reuss suggests, the document was faked by the KGB or someone else and that Popov was never interviewed at all.Ivanov's Leninsky Put article was 30 years after the event. Okishev gave his interview aged 94. From memory neither have concerns wrt this date.
Case File No. 1's (as always much thanks to Teddy's translation) contemporary cover (I'm not sure what "contemporary" means in this context) lists the start date of the Dyatlov group investigation as Feb. 6, 1959. Also, a forestry service employee, V.M. Popov, was questioned by Captain Chudinov, head of the Vizhay police department, on Feb. 6. Popov reported seeing two groups of hikers (one group being the Dyatlov party) in Vizhay "in the second part of January." He didn't talk to members of either group. I'm uncertain who authorized the interrogation of Popov on this early date. But here's a possible scenario:
• A missile explodes near the Dyatlov group on Feb. 1, releasing a dangerous amount of nitric oxide. The hikers, already unnerved by a thunderous explosion, are now exposed to toxic nitric oxide. In fear of their lives, they immediately exit their tent.
• Soldiers are dispatched on Feb. 2 to recover all the missile pieces they can find. In the course of their search, they come upon the nine bodies. Soldiers tell their commanding officer, who tells his commanding officer, and so forth. By Feb. 6, someone authorizes the Vizhay police to check around and make certain no one knows exactly what happened (the start of a coverup). It's reasonable to start with Popov, since he helps oversee a large area of land, including where the Dyatlov group died.
• Then the coverup begins in earnest. Pressure from family members finally forces a criminal investigation to begin. On Feb. 26, Ivdel prosecutor Tempalov opens the investigation.
In a scenario like this one, Feb. 6 is a crucial date because it proves that someone (the military?) knew that something went wrong (a missile explosion?) on the night of Feb. 1. As always, only an educated guess on my part.
So he's carrying a camera around his neck, at night in a snowstorm to take pictures of helicopters?
So he's carrying a camera around his neck, at night in a snowstorm to take pictures of helicopters?
Evidently he did, unless you have another credible explanation for that photo, which to me is the smoking gun of the DPI. I don't, for example, see why it needs to be an alien spacecraft or ball lightning when it looks like something running on 12V or 24V DC.
Prior to the arrival of the military the most exciting things they photographed were Mansi tree carvings. If they found themselves caught up in the middle of a military search zone, whether there for a downed missile or escapees, why wouldn't they attempt to document it, in much the same way you seem to imagine Semyon's body was found clasping a notepad and pen (although the autopsy mentions he had a compass in his left hand).
But there is an additional element; they may have felt their lives were in danger, even if only through a case of mistaken identity in the dark, and wish to leave some clues should the worst happen.
Just re-read the autopsy notes (in English) and it does mention the compass. A thread on that subject would be interesting. Should we discount the pencil and paper as an urban legend?
Reply #16
.......................
I do remember reading someone's recount of the finding of the Rav 4 in which it was stated that Semyon had a notebook in his hand and some official .........
....................
but I'd like to know a little more about the origins of the story...............
Colonel Georgiy Semyonovich Ortyukov (1914-1979)
• Overall logistics and helicopter support
• Teacher of the Special department of UPI
Georgiy S. Ortyukov witness testimony :
When you dug them out, supposedly Semen Zolotaryov had a notebook in one hand, and in another pencil?
- Yes, the memory of the episode with a notebook made a big impression on me. Because Colonel Ortyukov, who directed the searches, somehow behaved inadequately. He jumped like a madman when he saw that there was a notebook in the hands of one of the bodies. We couldn’t say who that was. We didn’t know the guys, and they were practically unrecognizable. So, Ortyukov grabbed the notebook and began to turn the pages, and I stood beside him. He flipped the pages back and forth, but they were blank. And Ortyukov cursed under his breath, I don't remember his words exactly, but he said something like: "Ah, slug, couldn’t write anything ..."....
Add me to the list of people who finds it hard to believe that an investigator twice wrote the wrong date on an official document and never corrected it. There is nothing in the testimony itself that contradicts the date of 6 February.
The other thing I find bizarre about the testimony of Mr Popov is that it is so random. He saw two groups of hikers and the weather was bad in early February. I imagine just about anyone in Vizhay could have said as much. So where is the context? Where is the connection between the two issues? Why are the subjective perceptions of the weather by someone who has lived in the area less than ten years worth taking down as official testimony?
Taken at face value, it does appear to indicate that the authorities knew the hikers were dead, approximately when they died, and saw an early need to provide a plausible explanation.
The wind as an explanation crops up many times in searchers' testimony and the conversations reported by the journalist Grigoriev. It doesn't seem to have got traction, and yet Mr Popov's testimony remained in the case files.
@eurocentric - just a thought about helicopters. Snow is good at reflecting light, so how is it possible that a helicopter could result in the Eagle photo and the reflected light not show the fuselage/rotors?