October 16, 2021, 04:01:04 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Fact check on The New Yorker article  (Read 1582 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

May 11, 2021, 08:58:12 AM
Read 1582 times
Offline

Teddy

Administrator

A well written article came out in The New Yorker on May 10, 2021, titled: Has an Old Soviet Mystery at Last Been Solved? by Douglas Preston.

I, Teodora Hadjiyska, and Igor Pavlov consulted the author with information on the case since Dec 22, 2020. Unfortunately our theory was not included and we were not given credit in the article for the assistance we provided. However, as consolation Douglas Preston left me the following endorsement:

"The Dyatlov Pass Incident is one of the most confounding mysteries of the 20th century. Since it occurred in the Soviet Union sixty two years ago, it has gained world-wide fame and an international following, resulting in dozens of books, articles, and documentary films. Teodora Hadjiyska is one of the world’s foremost authorities on the Dyatlov enigma and also the creator of Dyatlovpass.com, the most comprehensive website on the subject. I highly recommend her work!"
— Douglas Preston, International bestselling author and journalist

To be worthy of the praise we were compelled to take one final look over the article for fact check. I am keeping the original comments by Igor in Russian for the benefit of our Russian visitors (we have an increased traffic from Russia). The highlighted in blue lines are from the article.

Igor Dyatlov was a tinkerer, an inventor, and a devotee of the wilderness.
He was an ordinary student. Yes, he had hobbies, but he was not the genius that those who knew him turned him into over the years.
Он был обычным студентом. Да, у его были хобби, но он не был гением, в которого с годами его превратили те, кто его знал.

Dyatlov led a number of arduous wilderness trips, often using outdoor equipment that he had invented or improved on.
We only know about the stove, and most likely the idea is not Igor, but his father. And about the standard walkie-talkie. Again an exaggeration.
Известно только о печке, причем скорее всего идея не Игоря, а отца. И о стандартной рации. Опять преувеличение.

on a route that no Russian, as far as anyone knew, had taken before.
Not true. Akselrod group found on Otorten on Feb 27, 1959 the following note left in 1956 by a Moscow hiking group.
Чушь. Как там не было русских, если на Отортене была записка московской группы туристов.

Dyatlov recruited his classmate Zina Kolmogorova
They were in the same faculty but in different groups.
Они учились на одном курсе факультета, но в разных группах.

They were among the élite of Soviet youth and all highly experienced winter campers and cross-country skiers.
They didn't even have official sports grades because their papers were not in order. They were no elite, just ordinary hikers. Check their hiking experience.
У них даже не было официальных спортивных разрядов. О какой элите идет речь?

Lyuda Dubinina, an economics major, a track athlete, and an ardent Communist
There is nothing to confirm this. She didn't stand out as "ardent Communist" but it seem like we have to paint some character on each of them.
Откуда вдруг появилась информация, что она была пылкой коммунисткой? Она ничем не отличалась от остальных.

A couple of days before the group was due to set off, the U.P.I. administration unexpectedly added a new member, much older than the others and largely unknown to them: Semyon Zolotaryov
The UPI administration had nothing to do with the organization of the trek or with Zolotaryov. The whole organization went through the UPI sports club and through the city hiking section.
Администрация УПИ не имела никакого отношения ни к организации похода, ни к Золотареву. Вся организация шла через СК УПИ и через городскую секцию туризма.

Several of them hid under seats to avoid buying tickets.
Only Dubinina, the alleged "stickler to the rules".
Только одна Дубинина.

About a hundred feet downhill, the search party found “very distinct” footprints of eight or nine people, walking (not running) toward the tree line
For the first time the footprints are observed and mentioned in the the testimonies on February 28, which is 2 days after the discovery of the tent.
Первое упоминание об обнаружении следов - только 28 февраля, через 2 дня после обнаружения палатки.

on the trunk bits of skin and torn clothes were found.
There is nothing in the case files about this. Only the emotional words of Ivanov in the "Mystery of the fireballs" published 30 years after the events, where he also speaks about UFOs.
Документальных подтверждений нет. Только со слов Иванова через десятки лет после событий.

In early May, when the snow began to melt, a Mansi hunter and his dog came across the remains of a makeshift snow den in the woods two hundred and fifty feet from the cedar tree: a floor of branches laid in a deep hole in the snow. Pieces of tattered clothing were found strewn about: black cotton sweatpants with the right leg cut off, the left half of a woman’s sweater. Another search team arrived and, using avalanche probes around the den, they brought up a piece of flesh.
It didn't go down quite like that. It sounds like a Mansi hunter accidentally found the den and called the search party. The Mansi only joined the party that was already ordered to dig because of some other traces - pine needles, stubs etc. Mansi didn't discover the den.
Ощущение, что настил случайно нашел охотник-манси и вызвал поисковую группу. На самом деле манси были в составе поисковой группы, которая продолжала поиск и нашла настил.

Many of them wrote to officials, including Khrushchev, demanding a more thorough investigation.
A telegram to Khrushchev was sent on February 27 urging to start looking for their children. Nothing after that and nothing about "thorough investigation".
Хрущеву писали в самом начале поисков, а не после.

For decades, the families and the Dyatlov Group Memorial Foundation pressed for a new investigation; two years ago, elderly relatives of several victims finally succeeded in getting the case reopened.
The case (investigation) was never reopened. A prosecutor's preliminary check was carried out on the materials of the 1959 case. The Foundation has nothing to do with this procedure. It was held on the initiative of Komsomolskaya Pravda, whose correspondent (Varsegova) represented the interests of Zolotaryov's relatives.
Дело (расследование) не было вновь открыто. Проводилась прокурорская проверка по материалам дела 1959 года. Фонд не имеет никакого отношения к этой проверке. Она проводилась по инициативе Комсомольской Правды, корреспондент которой (Варсегова) представляла интересы родственников Золотарева.

As Kuntsevich wrote to me sarcastically, Kuryakov was shunted off to “felling trees.”
Not sure if it is evident from the text in the article that Kuntsevich made a very unceremonious remark on Kuryakov's current position as director of the forestry department. In the late 1950s, the Soviet counterpart of this department was engaged in logging (Ivdellag). We think Kuntsevich meant that Kuryakov is now felling trees i.e. logging, meaning sent to the Gulag.
Мне кажется, что ДП скорее не понял Кунцевича. Курьяков же теперь директор департамента лесного хозяйства. В конце 50-х годов советский аналог этого департамента занимался лесозаготовками (Ивдельлаг). Думаю, что Кунцевич говорил, что Курьякова перевели на вырубку деревьев=лесозаготовки, имея в виду исторические аналогии.


Note from the authors of "1079 - the Overwhelming Force of Dyatlov Pass"
There is no need to turn the members of the Dyatlov group into martyrs. Finding the truth about their tragic death will remain a cause worth fighting for without presenting them as perfect, virtuous individuals. We have long lived in countries where there was a constant impetus for people to be turned into exemplary statues. This is like burying a broken body in a golden sarcophagus. Let's remember the Dyatlov group as normal, ordinary, young people, not monuments.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 03:41:46 AM by Teddy »
 

May 11, 2021, 09:45:53 AM
Reply #1
Offline

KFinn


Human nature seems directed toward elevating those who die.  When I had a close, sudden loss twenty years ago, it was hard not to fall into the trap of putting him on a pedestal; I think we often feel guilt for speaking ill of the dead, yet we are all fallible and we all make mistakes.  He was not perfect, lol.  But he became a martyr in my eyes for many years after. 

It is always good to be reminded that the Dyatlov group wasn't elite in the sense that we try to paint them to be.  They were (with the exception of Zolotaryov,) young adults.  In 1959 Soviet Siberia, that may come with more responsibility than modern day USA, but I do look back at my early twenties and often wonder how I survived, lol! 

Thank you for the clarification on this article!  The untruths that pervade Dyatlov research, even today in 2021, just cloud the situation, which is why fact checking is so vastly important! 
-Ren
 

May 14, 2021, 06:20:11 PM
Reply #2
Offline

sigaffa


I subscribe to the New Yorker magazine, so I was, of course, very excited and interested when I came across Douglas Preston's article! However, it ultimately was a disappointing read for me - for a couple of reasons.

Given the timing of publication, it was a serious omission of the author not to give even a passing mention to Teddy's/Igor's publication, especially as both acted in a capacity of consultants to Preston's piece - I guess this must be put down to the competitive nature of journalistic-style authoring?!?  nea1

As Teddy mentions (I am very new here (2nd post) - so I hope that it is OK to be calling you by "Teddy" - after all - we hardly know each other  bow7 ), this article shows just how easy, even in small ways, it becomes to distort & embellish facts ... and I understand that Teddy has done a phenomenal job (here, as well as in her published book) to present DPI "facts" as clearly and accurately as possible.

I have been following the DPI mystery for about 10 years now, the "Somerton Man" mystery (which is VERY local to me) since the internet was a baby, and the investigation of the Romanov massacre since the late 1970's - reading thousands of pages on all of these topics it becomes very apparent that, especially with time, so many "facts" are, in fact, just a collection of generally agreed-upon half-truths, embellishments and inventions.

Despite the finished New Yorker article, bravo to Teddy's & Igor for their contributions to Preston's piece.
... I try to get nearer, but as it gets clearer, there's something appears in the way
 

May 15, 2021, 12:09:26 AM
Reply #3
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Hi Teddy,

I’m truly sorry they cut out the section about you, the website, and the tree theory. Quite a bit had to be cut.

As for Eichar, I did criticize his theory, which is quite ridiculous. I am sure he is not happy today. The rest of his book is good, in the sense that he went to Russia and interviewed a lot of relevant people and gathered important information.

I know you don’t accept the Kuryakov theory. But I have to say that the more I read about the mystery, the more I thought about it, the more I came to believe that the Kuryakov explanation, and Shkryabach’s before him, is the only one that fit the facts. The problem with all the theories that involve “staging” the scene, is that there was no evidence in the snow of the people and vehicles that would have left a trace if such a thing had happened. Also, the staging itself, with bodies scattered about the landscape, clothes cut off and put on other people, branches broken, snow den built, makes no sense and is far too complicated to have been done without leaving major traces in the snow. I grew up in northern New England and have a lot of winter camping, winter mountain climbing, and cross-country skiing experience. There is no way a group of people could have staged the scene and left no or few traces in the snow.

I greatly appreciate your help with the piece and the website, which is a tremendous reference for anyone working on Dyatlov. I am sorry they cut out what I wrote regarding all that.

With best wishes,
Doug
 

May 15, 2021, 12:39:26 AM
Reply #4
Offline

sigaffa


... and here is a perfect tale as to why you should never jump to conclusions without be adequately informed of the facts!

Thank you for sharing, Teddy. I had assumed that it was the author's own choice to exclude your book from his New Yorker article, but his explanation as to the true reason seems valid - and clearly something ended up being out of his hands.
... I try to get nearer, but as it gets clearer, there's something appears in the way
 

May 15, 2021, 01:42:52 AM
Reply #5
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Someone had the final say because the design department asked for bunch of hi-res photos and permission to use them. They were not used either. Instead we have this very depictive illustration.
 

May 15, 2021, 06:35:15 AM
Reply #6
Offline

Dona


re Doug

There is no way a group of people could have staged the scene and left no or few traces in the snow.

There are also no footprints leading from the cedar tree to the ravine..where we know they walked. Nor are there any footprints from  where Zena, Igor and Rustem went up the slope.

I think footprints, or lack thereof, are irrelevant in this case.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2021, 08:28:33 AM by Teddy »
 

May 15, 2021, 02:07:01 PM
Reply #7

eurocentric

Guest
What troubles me is it was felt necessary to diminish the hikers as part of what, however it is presented, seems like a retaliatory take down of a writer's article, to discredit him as not knowing what he was writing about.

In this line-by-line dissection he wasn't even allowed to warmly respect their memories by describing the individual promise and abilities of those snuffed out before they could fully realise their potential, something which is based on the testimony of those who actually knew the hikers and were alive when they were.

Instead they are drubbed down into ordinariness, yet even on paper Aleksander Kolevatov was hardly an average student.

It then turns out they were used as ammunition for no substantive reason at all since the writer had no editiorial control.

I hope the commercial ambition for this book doesn't see it develop into an all-consuming monster.
 

May 16, 2021, 01:47:06 AM
Reply #8
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Thank you for calling me a monster. In the article there is not a word of Kolevatov. Dyatlov ain't genius. Lyudmila is not an ardent Communist.
You can't make up shite like ... Dyatlov’s group would ski two hundred miles, on a route that no Russian, as far as anyone knew, had taken before.
Why is he making up stuff?
How can there be a note found on Otorten if no one has been there? As far as anyone knew, more like as far New Yorker knew.
The whole article is political. From the very beginning all Douglas Preston wanted is to get Kuryakov on the line, to get his side of the story, because he sniffed a scandal.
I am the monster? Because I am trying not see what the press is doing with the truth?

The monster is telling me to continue posting true facts, you can do with them whatever you want.
The way things are right now soon you will be able to say or write anything about Dyatlov Pass and it would fly. Why bother with the truth, right? If all you want is build a monument. Who cares abut the truth.

I can't wrap my mind around this eurocentric: you are calling me a all-consuming monster for trying to preserve their memory for nine years now by publishing every fact I can get my hand on and spending all my time on the case, and you are glorifying someone that got an assignment, got paid and checked out, and didn't get it right?

Commercial ambition - no. I am trying to get the truth into your tiny brain by making it a book. It seems like this is the format people get to read information cover to cover.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2021, 03:43:03 AM by Teddy »
 

May 16, 2021, 02:29:36 AM
Reply #9
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Instead they are drubbed down into ordinariness

I am not drubbing them down into ordinariness. If you presume they were very advanced then it is one step to jump to the conclusion that they might have tried something advanced, try to do something no one had done before, pitch the tent on the ridge, attempt a longer leg of the hike, take unnecessary risk. I am trying to avoid portraying them as super hikers which they were not to keep in check what could be presumed they might have tried. For the sake of the truth, not to drub them down into ordinariness.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2021, 03:42:24 AM by Teddy »
 

May 16, 2021, 03:51:54 AM
Reply #10
Offline

WAB


I agree with almost all points of this statement, but I would like to clarify something and add my small comments …
I read the article as soon as I accidentally came across it on the Internet.

In the article there is not a word of Kolevatov. Dyatlov ain't genius. Lyudmila is not an ardent Komsommol member.

As far as I know this well, it is absolutely certain. Just don't take these (much less opposing) statements to the point of fanaticism. Unfortunately, such a tendency has been present here for some time .
Yes, they were just regular guys of that generation, completely typical of all students of that time. The differences in the status of their parents were not perceived by them in any way and it did not affect their relationships in any way. On the contrary, the richer ones tried to help their poorer fellows as much as they could and did not make any charity out of it. The help was usually by their own actions in pursuit of a common goal. They had more opportunities to do so. Which they used for the common good.
And the excessive politicization of this case is unnecessary here, too. It can only be purposely "stirred up", but that will only confuse things and lead to the wrong result. There was no politics in this event, even those political events that took place they only played around with jokes.


You can't make up shite like ... Dyatlov’s group would ski two hundred miles, on a route that no Russian, as far as anyone knew, had taken before.
Why is he making up stuff?

Well, this is quite easy to understand. Many journalists have a very superficial knowledge of the subject, with a complete lack of knowledge of the details that determine the degree of truthfulness of the description. I think the author didn't mean to distort it on purpose, but his lack of knowledge did. Although sometimes journalists purposely distort texts in order to create fake scoops.
If he has the desire and need to continue the topic in a more truthful way of presentation, I can write him personally(!) a review of this article with a full and detailed justification of all objections and "bloopers" (as we say about errors in the press). Then have him write to my address, which you know well. Only I can't guarantee very fast and large volume of answers due to my understandable physical capabilities. Sometimes I can't read or write anything for days on end.


How can there be a note found on Otorten if no one has been there? As far as anyone knew, more like as far New Yorker knew.
The whole article is political. From the very beginning all Douglas Preston wanted is to get Kuryakov on the line, to get his side of the story, because he sniffed a scandal.

Of course he does. Even if he does not live in New York, since he writes in this newspaper, "his ".... existence, defines his consciousness"(c) What can write a person who has no experience of such travel, who knows almost nothing about the given area and the history of another country 60 years ago?
First of all one has to wonder what is the ultimate purpose of his publication? If it is just a way to make money for a sensation, then what questions can there be to him. The subject is already too hyped in the world, which is very surprising to me. It would be worse if there was a political order here, but that seems very unlikely to me.

I am the monster? Because I am trying not see what the press is doing with the truth?

As far as I understand contemporary reality, this is practically a mainstream trend in today's press world. It's very sad, but that's just the way it is.  For the press, truth is always secondary, it is important that as many people as possible read them and buy their information. Nobody cares about its quality anymore.

The monster is telling me to continue posting true facts, you can do with them whatever you want.
The way things are right now soon you will be able to say or write anything about Dyatlov Pass and it would fly. Why bother with the truth, right? If all you want is build a monument. Who cares abut the truth.

This is also true in today's world. You can't make much money from the truth. You have to go deeper into knowledge, which means fewer people will read. You have to put a lot of effort and time into acquiring knowledge, and most readers don't like that. You can't get by with Wikipedia alone.

I can't wrap my mind around this eurocentric: you are calling me a all-consuming monster for trying to preserve their memory for nine years now by publishing every fact I can get my hand on and spending all my time on the case, and you are glorifying someone that got an assignment, got paid and checked out, and didn't get it right?

Teddy, I very much appreciate your efforts, your activities and your results of this, but there is still a lot to be refined here in terms of reliability and accuracy of information. Because so much is built on "opinions", "statements" and "quasi-scientific approach" (this is when some knowledge is exchanged for others, although the "words" may coincide).
This is all needed to solve this "puzzle" correctly and objectively to the end. The puzzle can be put together without some elements, if you know the general patterns of what should be there, in accordance with the laws of nature. But it cannot be put together if some (if not too many) elements are wrong (e.g., replaced from another puzzle).

Commercial ambition - no. I am trying to get the truth into your tiny brain by making it a book. It seems like this is the format people get to read information cover to cover.

I can't say anything definite about the book, since I haven't read it in full, but even from the fragment that I have access to with "the falling tree and the transfer of the tent" I can say that it is as fantastic as Rakitin's "fiction". By the way, I have a great suspicion that Igor is one of the "company called _Rakitin_ proper." There were several people there, but some turns of speech and logic of reasoning very much resemble the same. Unfortunately he has a very weak (or even complete lack of knowledge of the details of a particular area, which allows the same to nullify this hypothesis.)
The entire plot is built on Kuntsevich's earlier statement about everything described about "the tree and carrying the tent", although he himself did not say "about the tree" but replaced it with "mopping up", but this is completely wrong both in terms of building the tactics of such trips and in terms of the expediency of their actions. All these details with a lot of details I have already described on various forums and in books, which was published Kuntsevich himself.
We have good and friendly relations for many decades, but, as Aristotle said: " Amicus Kuntsevich Platon, sed magis amica est veritas "(c).  grin1
If he speaks nonsense, I object to him so directly and sharply always. Unfortunately, he quite often does not say to the public and the press what is really there. However, our disagreements do not prevent us both from doing business in the direction of researching the case of the Dyatlov group together and to both our mutual benefit.
 

May 16, 2021, 04:15:47 AM
Reply #11
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Dear WAB, you always speak the truth about the case, so what is you opinion about me, Igor or the book doesn't matter, especially since you haven't read it. I take no offense from you because you know the case and you have put up the time to be considered an expert. I am for ever grateful for any of your time here, and I hear your words. I can take criticism from you because you have the knowledge. Your feedback is not emotional or ad hominem.
 

May 16, 2021, 10:03:57 AM
Reply #12
Offline

Ziljoe


Hi Teddy,

I don't think Eurocentric was attacking you. I think he was referring to the article or another book.

The press just write what will sell.
 

May 16, 2021, 10:07:52 AM
Reply #13
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Hi Teddy,

I don't think Eurocentric was attacking you. I think he was referring to the article or another book.

The press just write what will sell.

If this is the case I will retract my comment with an apology. It's eurocentric's turn to clarify who is the all-consuming monster.