Dyatlov Pass Forum

Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: tenne on March 05, 2021, 11:08:18 AM

Title: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 05, 2021, 11:08:18 AM
After doing quite a bit, although not nearly as much as a lot of other people, of research, I have decided to my own satisfaction what happened. Of course, very few will agree with it and that's just fine as well because we don't know and most likely never will.

Igor was very vague about his planned route and I think that started some suspicion on the part of the authorities. When he hadn't filed a final route, they pulled Slavaka out of the party and inserted Zolotaryov.

Lyudia's diary: At first nobody wanted this Zolotaryov, for he is a stranger, but then we all agreed, because you can't refuse. Thus, as we were ten, and remained ten, for Slavka was not released by the faculty bureau.

I think they did it for a few reasons. Aleksander was being groomed by the KGB, or higher, and the powers that be wanted Zolotaryov to both keep an eye on him to see how he handled himself and to protect him if it came down to it.

I believe the tent was folded up when warm and carried on skis behind them, which worked just fine on flat, hard snow

Jan 28   Yuri Yudin goes back with the sled due to poor health (sciatica), the group now consist of 9 members
they spend the night on the banks of Lozva river

Morning of Jan 29, they realize they can't fold the tent up that small, being frozen, heavy canvas and its too heavy for one person to carry and the ski sled doesn't work in deep snow. (which is why sleds are off the ground to carry stuff, a big heavy tent on skis would be like pulling a snowplow.

So the group decided to just stay there, fake their diaries and pretend the trip had happened. I believe they took a few trips skiing around that area, no way they would just sit there and took some photos to try to fake the trip.

Because it was a sensitive military area and there were worries about people escaping Russia over the borders I think there was an incident with the military attacking them with a explosive device, either thinking they were deserters or escapees or spies.

Then the military realized they had killed 9 students who had been given permission to go through the area (although they were not supposed to be there at that time) and killed two KGB agents.

The helicopter(s) carrying the bodies, tent and back packs dropped them and men off because it was an isolated, deserted place that would have few witnesses but on a possible route. Crime scene was faked and the military men skied back to civilization, those are the tracks they "followed"

So the military covered it up, to hide they had killed KGB agents.

I talked to an old trapper and an ex military soldier from South Africa who had experience with those big heavy canvas tents and they, and friends they talked to, said NO WAY! a frozen canvas tent can be folded up that small and carried by one man on his back.

so for better or worse, I'm happy with it

modified to add: I didn't realize that this would make people think I wasn't interested in feed back. I am certainly willing to listen to anything (other than insulting people because they are not university educated). I am happy with my idea, doesn't mean its right or it can't be corrected or more added to it.

Title: Re: My theory
Post by: KFinn on March 05, 2021, 11:45:13 AM
My only question would be, how did all of the other hiking groups in the area that week carry their tents without sleds?  We know the other groups didn't stay in one spot; Atmanaki's group traveled through the Mansi settlement, the Rostov Pedagogical group traveled through various spots, Karelin and Blinov's groups were in the area, the Sverdlovsk Pedagogical group...
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 05, 2021, 11:53:08 AM
Well if your happy with your Theory thats fine. Many members in this Forum have their Theories.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 05, 2021, 11:53:16 AM
We don't know how big their tents were, how they pulled them or carried them (other groups). there is no mention of a sled in the inventory or in any of the photos for this trip. plus they had a stove and stove pipes they had to carry some how (Dyatlov group)
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 05, 2021, 11:54:48 AM
Well if your happy with your Theory thats fine. Many members in this Forum have their Theories.

Yup, but this is the only one that fills in all the gaps as far as I'm concerned. the helicopter(s) bringing in the bodies explains the lights that were seen
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 07, 2021, 05:49:46 AM
 (https://i.ibb.co/gwnhqFQ/1-32.jpg) (https://ibb.co/XpwM0k6)




this is believed to be a photo of the tent being carried?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 07, 2021, 08:16:43 AM
yes it is believed to be that. The tent was a 10 man heavy canvas tent that according to people I know who used them and some in those conditions, there is no way it was carried like that. Frozen heavy canvas doesn't fold up that small. it might if done when warm but not in freezing weather and they calculated a minimum of 100lbs.

I think that photo is of someone carrying a large back pack. they had to do small trips around 1. because they were there to ski and 2. to make it look like they did carry the tent
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: KFinn on March 07, 2021, 09:11:20 AM
yes it is believed to be that. The tent was a 10 man heavy canvas tent that according to people I know who used them and some in those conditions, there is no way it was carried like that. Frozen heavy canvas doesn't fold up that small. it might if done when warm but not in freezing weather and they calculated a minimum of 100lbs.

I think that photo is of someone carrying a large back pack. they had to do small trips around 1. because they were there to ski and 2. to make it look like they did carry the tent

I've folded 14 oz canvas in freezing conditions (A frame style tent, 12x12 foot, with a 6' ridge.)  I did not carry it myself because I'm small and weak lol, but three of our other members took turns. 

I think the reason I, myself, don't agree with this theory is that faking a hike for certification goes against everything in their natures (as far as the people who actually knew them.)  But, its not my theory, it is yours and you've said you are satisfied. 
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 07, 2021, 09:33:24 AM
I don't know what gauge the canvas was for the hikers tent so I have no idea if your comparison would be valid or not. there are different weights of canvas. plus there was a heavy stove pipe and stove to carry.

I think that given their characters in that time and place it made sense. Given the need to get permission from everyone to do this, book the time off etc, there was a very good chance, if I read the rules for getting different levels right, that they would not get permission to do this again or for a very long time if they didn't do it then.

I think they planned on meeting the requirements the best they could on trips around the area. so while they didn't do the exact route, they would still do what was necessary, to the best of their ability.

Or they were not going to lie about what they did but having the time off to ski, they decided to stay and have a vacation.  They were young adults on a fun sking trip, they would enjoy the chance to ski and have a holiday



Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 07, 2021, 10:24:19 AM
yes it is believed to be that. The tent was a 10 man heavy canvas tent that according to people I know who used them and some in those conditions, there is no way it was carried like that. Frozen heavy canvas doesn't fold up that small. it might if done when warm but not in freezing weather and they calculated a minimum of 100lbs.

I think that photo is of someone carrying a large back pack. they had to do small trips around 1. because they were there to ski and 2. to make it look like they did carry the tent

Well we have the fact that the tent was used over several expeditions and a supporting photo. We know the tent needed constant repairs which supports a lightweight canvas so i'd say that's enough to dismiss your theory.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 07, 2021, 10:56:02 AM
Just doing some maths - https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search?flp=1#the-tent (https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search?flp=1#the-tent)
Gives me a floor area of (say) 2m x 4m = 8m. Times 4 for each side, a groundsheet and the end walls gives 32 sqm.
Using this site - https://www.esvocampingshop.com/en/customer-service/extra-en/tent-canvas/ (https://www.esvocampingshop.com/en/customer-service/extra-en/tent-canvas/) as a guide gives 250gsm, so 4sqm = 1kg.

32 / 4 = 8kg.

So 8kg for the fabric, maybe 10kg? Multiply that 2 for wet fabric and you've got 16-20kg?
From memory the men's backpacks went up to 30kg?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 07, 2021, 01:39:44 PM
These are much more modern textiles than were used back then. We don't know the weight of the canvas that they used  (dry weight)  but if you have ever camped in a tent in the winter, the tent canvas freezes pretty solid from the snow and the moisture inside the tent. so not only is it much heavier than the listed weights because its frozen, it also doesn't fold down.

That tent would have been a minimum estimated weight of 50kg, so well above the 30kg.

This is from people who camped in the winter in that time in northern ontario, fur trappers who used the old canvas tents. I trust their real life experiments more than a modern calculator.

Plus, they were hauling heavy stove pipes and a stove on top of the at least 110lbs tent. plus food, clothing, bedding, emergency supplies and they had one member drop out, which meant they to carry even more. One diary mentions the extra weight it would mean.

Aluminum was not yet popular for hiking supplies, the camping craze of the 1970's brought nylon tents and aluminum poles into the price range of more people.

What was the stove pipe and stove made of? those would add considerable weight
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 07, 2021, 02:49:16 PM
These are much more modern textiles than were used back then. We don't know the weight of the canvas that they used  (dry weight)  but if you have ever camped in a tent in the winter, the tent canvas freezes pretty solid from the snow and the moisture inside the tent. so not only is it much heavier than the listed weights because its frozen, it also doesn't fold down.

That tent would have been a minimum estimated weight of 50kg, so well above the 30kg.

This is from people who camped in the winter in that time in northern ontario, fur trappers who used the old canvas tents. I trust their real life experiments more than a modern calculator.

Plus, they were hauling heavy stove pipes and a stove on top of the at least 110lbs tent. plus food, clothing, bedding, emergency supplies and they had one member drop out, which meant they to carry even more. One diary mentions the extra weight it would mean.

Aluminum was not yet popular for hiking supplies, the camping craze of the 1970's brought nylon tents and aluminum poles into the price range of more people.

What was the stove pipe and stove made of? those would add considerable weight


Modern tent canvas is 320gsm so 10kg dry weight (for 32sqm). I don't understand why canvas weaving in the 1950s would have been heavier?




The tent wouldn't have been freezing that day as the stove was in use. It occurs to me that this explains why they carried wood in the stove, to warm everything up in the morning, boots, outerwear, tent etc.




The stove was a bespoke design by that group so i think they understood the weight issue.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 07, 2021, 03:02:35 PM
This is on thing that could be easily solved
buy a 1959 canvas tent, that big and use it in -20, then try to fold it and carry it. add the weight of the stove pipe and stove and let me know. The people I talked to, did things like that fur trapping back in the 1960's, in the winter. That's why I trust their real life experience more than calculation about modern materials on a website.

There are different weights of canvas, like cotton comes in different weights.

The only wood stoves for tents that I can find, and its hard not knowing exactly what theirs was made of etc, say at least 50-60lbs is the most common weight. I can't find any weight for the stove pipe.

"The next day on February 26th they discovered the tent on the slope of Kholat Syakhl in the Dyatlov Pass. Ironically Slobtsov was among those who actually helped to construct the tent three years earlier from two tents, making it longer and larger. He recognized it immediately"

so no, they didn't build it for the trip, they didn't have any experience with it. it was made for another trip that I know nothing about. whether it was for a summer trip or a sled was going to be on the trip it was built for.



Title: Re: My theory
Post by: KFinn on March 07, 2021, 03:33:17 PM
This is on thing that could be easily solved
buy a 1959 canvas tent, that big and use it in -20, then try to fold it and carry it. add the weight of the stove pipe and stove and let me know. The people I talked to, did things like that fur trapping back in the 1960's, in the winter. That's why I trust their real life experience more than calculation about modern materials on a website.

There are different weights of canvas, like cotton comes in different weights.

The only wood stoves for tents that I can find, and its hard not knowing exactly what theirs was made of etc, say at least 50-60lbs is the most common weight. I can't find any weight for the stove pipe.

"The next day on February 26th they discovered the tent on the slope of Kholat Syakhl in the Dyatlov Pass. Ironically Slobtsov was among those who actually helped to construct the tent three years earlier from two tents, making it longer and larger. He recognized it immediately"

so no, they didn't build it for the trip, they didn't have any experience with it. it was made for another trip that I know nothing about. whether it was for a summer trip or a sled was going to be on the trip it was built for.

The tent and stove were both built for the sports club.  Both were used for hikes in both summer and winters, between 1957 and 1959.  I believe the stove continued to be used for winter hikes after, as it was returned to the university. 

There were plenty of other hikers who had hiked with that equipment during winters and had no problems.  None of the other students who were in the club, or the expert mountaineers brought in for the search, thought the equipment could not be used for winter; it was fine on other winter hikes.  I don't know why this one would suddenly be different.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 07, 2021, 03:50:41 PM
Well since this group is the only one that didn’t come back alive obviously there was a difference. But beyond that, being used for winter does mean being used for conditions like those. skiing on hard packed is totally different than skiing in deep snow, in trees etc.

We have no knowledge of what hikes it was used on, unless you know something that hasn't been posted and that is a possibility. we have no idea if it was pulled on sled, carried on the back or anything. I hope you are using hiking as interchangeable with cross country skiing in the winter because they are very different activities

Can you please point me to a source that shows that exact tent and stove being used by cross country ski trips, in the deep snow and up a mountain, and carried on the back
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 07, 2021, 03:58:47 PM
This is on thing that could be easily solved
buy a 1959 canvas tent, that big and use it in -20, then try to fold it and carry it. it wouldn't be -20 if the stove was running?
add the weight of the stove pipe and stove and let me know. i doubt if the stove weighed 10kg, also it could be carried by someone else, it was a set of pipes and a drum that collapsed in  The people I talked to, did things like that fur trapping back in the 1960's, in the winter. That's why I trust their real life experience more than calculation about modern materials on a website. and i bet they didn't build radios or work as nuclear engineers, the DP group were bright bunnies.

There are different weights of canvas, like cotton comes in different weights. yes and 320gsm seems to be the common weight for tent canvas

The only wood stoves for tents that I can find, and its hard not knowing exactly what theirs was made of etc, say at least 50-60lbs is the most common weight. I can't find any weight for the stove pipe. as above.

"The next day on February 26th they discovered the tent on the slope of Kholat Syakhl in the Dyatlov Pass. Ironically Slobtsov was among those who actually helped to construct the tent three years earlier from two tents, making it longer and larger. He recognized it immediately"

so no, they didn't build it for the trip, they didn't have any experience with it. it was made for another trip that I know nothing about. whether it was for a summer trip or a sled was going to be on the trip it was built for. i meant the UPI group including people like Slobtsov.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 07, 2021, 05:15:28 PM
I am horrified that you are so arrogant as to dismiss the real life experiences of people who lives and living depended on them being able to survive in these conditions for entire seasons, working their trap  lines as "i bet they didn't build radios or work as nuclear engineers, the DP group were bright bunnies." i.e. university educated people who played in the snow.

They were not university educated, they were life educated and they made it through conditions that killed unprepared people.




Title: Re: My theory
Post by: KFinn on March 07, 2021, 05:58:16 PM
Well since this group is the only one that didn’t come back alive obviously there was a difference. But beyond that, being used for winter does mean being used for conditions like those. skiing on hard packed is totally different than skiing in deep snow, in trees etc.

We have no knowledge of what hikes it was used on, unless you know something that hasn't been posted and that is a possibility. we have no idea if it was pulled on sled, carried on the back or anything. I hope you are using hiking as interchangeable with cross country skiing in the winter because they are very different activities

Can you please point me to a source that shows that exact tent and stove being used by cross country ski trips, in the deep snow and up a mountain, and carried on the back

This is an honest and sincere question.  If I collate this information for you, will it even make a difference?  You have stated that you are satisfied with your beliefs, regardless.  Will refuting your opinions with different information change anything?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: RMK on March 07, 2021, 06:05:39 PM
I am horrified that you are so arrogant as to dismiss the real life experiences of people who lives and living depended on them being able to survive in these conditions for entire seasons, working their trap  lines as "i bet they didn't build radios or work as nuclear engineers, the DP group were bright bunnies." i.e. university educated people who played in the snow.
Nigel, I'm with tenne on this one.  Your casual dismissal of the lived experience of people who made their livelihood in the wilderness comes across as condescending and classist.  I trust you didn't mean it that way, and you were curt only because you were posting from your phone?

tenne, I am not (yet) satisfied with your theory.  But, if it's good enough for you, then why put up the effort to defend it, like a thesis, in front of strangers on the Internet?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: RMK on March 07, 2021, 06:17:55 PM
Well since this group is the only one that didn’t come back alive obviously there was a difference. But beyond that, being used for winter does mean being used for conditions like those. skiing on hard packed is totally different than skiing in deep snow, in trees etc.

We have no knowledge of what hikes it was used on, unless you know something that hasn't been posted and that is a possibility. we have no idea if it was pulled on sled, carried on the back or anything. I hope you are using hiking as interchangeable with cross country skiing in the winter because they are very different activities

Can you please point me to a source that shows that exact tent and stove being used by cross country ski trips, in the deep snow and up a mountain, and carried on the back

This is an honest and sincere question.  If I collate this information for you, will it even make a difference?  You have stated that you are satisfied with your beliefs, regardless.  Will refuting your opinions with different information change anything?
I say, go ahead and collate it if you're psyched to do so.  I'd certainly read whatever might result from your effort.  N.B. I am more interested in there being a summary of the available information relevant to the topic than I am in anything having to do with tenne's theory.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: KFinn on March 07, 2021, 07:54:12 PM
Well since this group is the only one that didn’t come back alive obviously there was a difference. But beyond that, being used for winter does mean being used for conditions like those. skiing on hard packed is totally different than skiing in deep snow, in trees etc.

We have no knowledge of what hikes it was used on, unless you know something that hasn't been posted and that is a possibility. we have no idea if it was pulled on sled, carried on the back or anything. I hope you are using hiking as interchangeable with cross country skiing in the winter because they are very different activities

Can you please point me to a source that shows that exact tent and stove being used by cross country ski trips, in the deep snow and up a mountain, and carried on the back

This is an honest and sincere question.  If I collate this information for you, will it even make a difference?  You have stated that you are satisfied with your beliefs, regardless.  Will refuting your opinions with different information change anything?
I say, go ahead and collate it if you're psyched to do so.  I'd certainly read whatever might result from your effort.  N.B. I am more interested in there being a summary of the available information relevant to the topic than I am in anything having to do with tenne's theory.

As tenne initiated this thread, I don't want to go beyond what tenne is wanting.  Not everyone wants discussion and that is okay.  I want to respect their wishes, here. 
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 08, 2021, 01:34:18 AM
From the group diary - 31/01/59 - "Had a surprisingly good overnight, air is warm and dry, though it’s -18°C to -24°C. "

Q. But hang on, how can they pack their tent in those freezing conditions?
A. Ah the stove filled with wood is the solution.


Q. And what did they have at the ridge?
A. A stove filled with wood! So that's why it was filled with wood perhaps, to guarantee that they could break camp in the morning.

The tent and stove had served them well over that expedition and previous ones and it's puerile to keep arguing that the equipment couldn't have performed or was too heavy (because old timers say so) when it clearly did/wasn't. They knew what they were doing, Semyon was a WW2 vet and ski tourism instructor who would have calculated the risks even if the others couldn't. They were 10mins on skis from the forest, half an hour on foot. There is a case that they were maintaining a two man watch with both staying fully dressed as a precaution.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 08, 2021, 02:50:08 AM
...So the group decided to just stay there, fake their diaries and pretend the trip had happened...

This scenario is not possible because they were required to doposit a letter in a cairn at the top of Mt Otorten.

The search team found one there from a previous Dyatlov hike, iirc.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 08, 2021, 05:45:38 AM
I am more than happy for anyone to do anything, that isn't insulting the intelligence of people who lived their lives doing this. I like my theory but it is just that, I can't prove it any more than anyone else can prove theirs. if anyone comes up with something that can't be proved, i.e. they used that exact tent and stove in those exact conditions, then i have zero interest in listening until you can prove it. exactly I'm sure as people are saying about why I think they didn't go and where it happened and what happened. That is speculation for sure on my part.

But, this and numerous other forums have tried for years to make the scene fit the evidence. We can't. nothing explains them camping there, leaving the tent, walking down, lighting a fire in the cedars, leaving the cedars for a place that is worse (they could have easily built a wind screen around the cedars and there was firewood there) and nothing explains the injuries.

My theory looks outside the box that everyone seems to want to fit into that round hole.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 08, 2021, 05:56:23 AM
...So the group decided to just stay there, fake their diaries and pretend the trip had happened...

This scenario is not possible because they were required to doposit a letter in a cairn at the top of Mt Otorten.

The search team found one there from a previous Dyatlov hike, iirc.

Good point. Then, IMO, they weren't planning on lying about it (or were going to say they forgot) but decided to stay and ski for their time off because it wasn't safe to camp like they had planned
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 08, 2021, 07:31:38 AM
...if anyone comes up with something that can't be proved, i.e. they used that exact tent and stove in those exact conditions, then i have zero interest in listening until you can prove it...

There are pictures of the tent and stove being used above the treeline on previous hikes. But I have my doubts about the stove being tested in blizzard conditions on a mountain top; I read somewhere Igor was keen to test it, which does not equate with "proven". It's an interesting question whether the canvas would freeze, I don't know is all I can say... it would be interesting to test.

They were planning to be above the treeline for several days, returning along the ridge, so anyone questioning the logic of camping there has to also explain why they were returning that way. Also they would need enough wood for several nights. Their original planned route would have given them an opportunity to gather more wood before the ascent, which makes the apparent diversion to 1079 questionable.

(https://i.ibb.co/KXYKQ62/tent.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 08, 2021, 07:49:25 AM
I'm not aware of any proof of "They were planning to be above the treeline for several days,"?
I can see a good case for a one night "hop" back down to the forest next to the foot of Ortorten and maybe the same on the return. They couldn't drink water without a campfire, plus no one would sleep well in those winds, so potentially dangerous to go for longer.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: RMK on March 08, 2021, 07:59:32 AM
...So the group decided to just stay there, fake their diaries and pretend the trip had happened...

This scenario is not possible because they were required to doposit a letter in a cairn at the top of Mt Otorten.

The search team found one there from a previous Dyatlov hike, iirc.
A search team found a note at the summit of Otorten, left there by a team from Moscow State University in 1956 (per Akselrod's testimony).
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 08, 2021, 08:27:52 AM
I'm not aware of any proof of "They were planning to be above the treeline for several days,"?
I can see a good case for a one night "hop" back down to the forest next to the foot of Ortorten and maybe the same on the return. They couldn't drink water without a campfire, plus no one would sleep well in those winds, so potentially dangerous to go for longer.

Yes that's possible, but it seems unlikely to me they'd want to concede altitude every night, and there's no way they'd put storage on the ridge if they were planning to camp in the trees.

Unfortunately the route plans don't have campsites on them. Maybe we could find out by looking at previous hikes to see what they did on other mountain routes.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 08, 2021, 08:28:43 AM
...if anyone comes up with something that can't be proved, i.e. they used that exact tent and stove in those exact conditions, then i have zero interest in listening until you can prove it...

There are pictures of the tent and stove being used above the treeline on previous hikes. But I have no doubts about the stove being tested in blizzard conditions on a mountain top; I read somewhere Igor was keen to test it, which does not equate with "proven". It's an interesting question whether the canvas would freeze, I don't know is all I can say... it would be interesting to test.

I will take your word it is the same tent, how did it get there? do you have any proof it was carried by back pack? was the route through deep snow and trees?
They were planning to be above the treeline for several days, returning along the ridge, so anyone questioning the logic of camping there has to also explain why they were returning that way. Also they would need enough wood for several nights. Their original planned route would have given them an opportunity to gather more wood before the ascent, which makes the apparent diversion to 1079 questionable.

(https://i.ibb.co/KXYKQ62/tent.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 08, 2021, 08:39:49 AM
I'm not aware of any proof of "They were planning to be above the treeline for several days,"?
I can see a good case for a one night "hop" back down to the forest next to the foot of Ortorten and maybe the same on the return. They couldn't drink water without a campfire, plus no one would sleep well in those winds, so potentially dangerous to go for longer.

Yes that's possible, but it seems unlikely to me they'd want to concede altitude every night, and there's no way they'd put storage on the ridge if they were planning to camp in the trees.

Unfortunately the route plans don't have campsites on them. Maybe we could find out by looking at previous hikes to see what they did on other mountain routes.
Storage on the ridge is just a nuts idea. The diary dismisses the case for storage at the treeline (due to high winds), never mind the ridge.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: KFinn on March 08, 2021, 08:43:15 AM
I am more than happy for anyone to do anything, that isn't insulting the intelligence of people who lived their lives doing this.

Then should we *not* discount all of the other sportsmen and family who *knew* the Dyatlov group and attested to the fact that they had, could and did do this?  By tossing this off as though the group would just simply fake a hike, we are insulting the integrity of a group who highly valued honor.  The reason this one specific aspect of your theory isn't widely accepted is because it is not plausible; for them to not attempt Mt. Otorten would be theft.  They'd gave stolen money from the university sports club, Krivo, Slobodan and Thibo would be stealing from their employers by being absent without excuse.  It just simply wasn't done.  This group in particular would need to all be complicit and with how carefully Dubinina counted and budgeted money, there is no way anyone would have made the proposition palatable for her.  On a previous hike when a member stole a can of condensed milk from the group, Dyatlov told him he had to pay back the sports club when they returned.  But in this scenario he's now okay with stealing 1100 rubles from the sports club? 

Many theories think outside the box.  But even looking beyond that box, one cannot change the very nature of the people involved.  That would be changing the evidence to fit a scenario. 
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 08, 2021, 08:52:26 AM
I'm not aware of any proof of "They were planning to be above the treeline for several days,"?
I can see a good case for a one night "hop" back down to the forest next to the foot of Ortorten and maybe the same on the return. They couldn't drink water without a campfire, plus no one would sleep well in those winds, so potentially dangerous to go for longer.

Yes that's possible, but it seems unlikely to me they'd want to concede altitude every night, and there's no way they'd put storage on the ridge if they were planning to camp in the trees.

Unfortunately the route plans don't have campsites on them. Maybe we could find out by looking at previous hikes to see what they did on other mountain routes.
Storage on the ridge is just a nuts idea. The diary dismisses the case for storage at the treeline (due to high winds), never mind the ridge.

Well they were digging something on the ridge... so either they were putting storage there, in which case they wouldn't be camping in the trees (on the way back), or they were putting the tent there, in which case they might be camping there in both directions.

If they wanted to dip down as you say, a more sensible route would be to ascend AND descend Otorten on the shortest path possible, and stay below the treeline as much as possible, but the route plan is to head South along the ridge all the way to Oyko-Chakur.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Tony on March 08, 2021, 09:02:25 AM
This is on thing that could be easily solved
buy a 1959 canvas tent, that big and use it in -20, then try to fold it and carry it. add the weight of the stove pipe and stove and let me know. The people I talked to, did things like that fur trapping back in the 1960's, in the winter. That's why I trust their real life experience more than calculation about modern materials on a website.

There are different weights of canvas, like cotton comes in different weights.

The only wood stoves for tents that I can find, and its hard not knowing exactly what theirs was made of etc, say at least 50-60lbs is the most common weight. I can't find any weight for the stove pipe.

"The next day on February 26th they discovered the tent on the slope of Kholat Syakhl in the Dyatlov Pass. Ironically Slobtsov was among those who actually helped to construct the tent three years earlier from two tents, making it longer and larger. He recognized it immediately"

so no, they didn't build it for the trip, they didn't have any experience with it. it was made for another trip that I know nothing about. whether it was for a summer trip or a sled was going to be on the trip it was built for.

A photo previously posted is one of the hikers carrying the tent. Here is another:

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Krivonischenko-camera-film1-33.jpg)

The hiker furthest to the front is carrying the tent. Notice how much larger compared to the other hikers' backpacks. This was after storing supplies at the labaz so they were probably carrying light. This is the tent.

I have a large thick canvas Springbar tent that is about 10 ft. in length and 6 ft. tall. When rolled up with all the poles (the Dyatlov groups tent had 3 poles I believe) the thing weights about 15 or 20 lbs. I would imagine the Dyatlov groups' tent probably weighed around 25 - 30 lbs and they could have taken turns carrying it. 30 lbs. for a fit adult with hiking experience is nothing too out of the ordinary.

Here's a picture the morning of the ascent up the pass:

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Unknown-origin-Dyatlov-photos-06.jpg)

I'm sure they knocked off any ice buildup. Not sure there are any photos of the stove but it probably packs up pretty small and light. The pipes fit inside the stove which fit in a case. They probably just packed it with the tent. My brother made something similar out of an old ammo can for a hunting trip a few years back. When I saw it I thought "hmm, that's probably similar to what the Dyatlov group packed." I would say the thing weighed about 20 lbs. Theirs was probably half that size.

All in all, there is nothing to suggest they didn't pack their own tent or that packing such a tent would entail superhuman feats of strength. Dyatlov had used the tent in previous winter expeditions.



Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 08, 2021, 09:03:06 AM
I will take your word it is the same tent, how did it get there? do you have any proof it was carried by back pack? was the route through deep snow and trees?

Nope, can't prove anything, but it looks the same.

https://dyatlovpass.com/gallery-1958-Subpolar-Ural

I can't see any sign of a sledge. I doubt they could use one ascending the slope in photo #11, I thought initially photo #36 might show something being towed on a downslope but they are just dropped backpacks, you can see the ski tracks leading to where the photo is being taken.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 08, 2021, 09:06:32 AM
I'm not aware of any proof of "They were planning to be above the treeline for several days,"?
I can see a good case for a one night "hop" back down to the forest next to the foot of Ortorten and maybe the same on the return. They couldn't drink water without a campfire, plus no one would sleep well in those winds, so potentially dangerous to go for longer.

Yes that's possible, but it seems unlikely to me they'd want to concede altitude every night, and there's no way they'd put storage on the ridge if they were planning to camp in the trees.

Unfortunately the route plans don't have campsites on them. Maybe we could find out by looking at previous hikes to see what they did on other mountain routes.
Storage on the ridge is just a nuts idea. The diary dismisses the case for storage at the treeline (due to high winds), never mind the ridge.

Well they were digging something on the ridge... so either they were putting storage there, in which case they wouldn't be camping in the trees (on the way back), or they were putting the tent there, in which case they might be camping there in both directions.

If they wanted to dip down as you say, a more sensible route would be to ascend AND descend Otorten on the shortest path possible, and stay below the treeline as much as possible, but the route plan is to head South along the ridge all the way to Oyko-Chakur.
Igor stated in the diary they were camping on the ridge, if people want to reinvent that entry as an "invention by the bad guys" that's their prerogative, but reassigning the location of the labaz to the ridge is just nuts imo.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 08, 2021, 09:17:50 AM
I'm not aware of any proof of "They were planning to be above the treeline for several days,"?
I can see a good case for a one night "hop" back down to the forest next to the foot of Ortorten and maybe the same on the return. They couldn't drink water without a campfire, plus no one would sleep well in those winds, so potentially dangerous to go for longer.

Yes that's possible, but it seems unlikely to me they'd want to concede altitude every night, and there's no way they'd put storage on the ridge if they were planning to camp in the trees.

Unfortunately the route plans don't have campsites on them. Maybe we could find out by looking at previous hikes to see what they did on other mountain routes.
Storage on the ridge is just a nuts idea. The diary dismisses the case for storage at the treeline (due to high winds), never mind the ridge.

Well they were digging something on the ridge... so either they were putting storage there, in which case they wouldn't be camping in the trees (on the way back), or they were putting the tent there, in which case they might be camping there in both directions.

If they wanted to dip down as you say, a more sensible route would be to ascend AND descend Otorten on the shortest path possible, and stay below the treeline as much as possible, but the route plan is to head South along the ridge all the way to Oyko-Chakur.
Igor stated in the diary they were camping on the ridge, if people want to reinvent that entry as an "invention by the bad guys" that's their prerogative, but reassigning the location of the labaz to the ridge is just nuts imo.

I made a couple of comments about this on my intro thread but nobody picked up on it.

https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=803.msg13842#msg13842
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Tony on March 08, 2021, 09:28:47 AM
Here is a guy backpacking with a very large canvas tent and metal stove.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emYgULUkmSM

The Dyatlov groups' tent was, most likely, a heavier canvas. When I first joined the Army 20+ years ago we used shelter halves which was heavy canvas with wooded poles and almost surely the same type of canvas the dyalov group used. The two shelter halves together probably weighed 5 lbs. and would fit two. While the Dyatlov group tent might have been heavier it probably added only 5-10 lbs. of weight to what you're seeing in the video.

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/37/0f/54/370f540b350dcd5ad54a1b39455c84d5.jpg)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9b/82/af/9b82afa2fe078a044f1151d62f1229b9.jpg)

This should clear up any doubt as to whether or not they packed their tent up the pass.

Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 08, 2021, 10:22:49 AM
...if anyone comes up with something that can't be proved, i.e. they used that exact tent and stove in those exact conditions, then i have zero interest in listening until you can prove it...

There are pictures of the tent and stove being used above the treeline on previous hikes. But I have my doubts about the stove being tested in blizzard conditions on a mountain top; I read somewhere Igor was keen to test it, which does not equate with "proven". It's an interesting question whether the canvas would freeze, I don't know is all I can say... it would be interesting to test.

They were planning to be above the treeline for several days, returning along the ridge, so anyone questioning the logic of camping there has to also explain why they were returning that way. Also they would need enough wood for several nights. Their original planned route would have given them an opportunity to gather more wood before the ascent, which makes the apparent diversion to 1079 questionable.

(https://i.ibb.co/KXYKQ62/tent.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)

This photo shows a Tent pitched near to a rising rockface. Presumably there was no Avalanche risk. In which case this would have been a good sheltered location to pitch a Tent rather than an exposed Mountainside.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 08, 2021, 10:43:50 AM
...Presumably there was no Avalanche risk...

I have my doubts about that too, it looks like a prime spot!
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 08, 2021, 03:17:41 PM
I'm not aware of any proof of "They were planning to be above the treeline for several days,"?
I can see a good case for a one night "hop" back down to the forest next to the foot of Ortorten and maybe the same on the return. They couldn't drink water without a campfire, plus no one would sleep well in those winds, so potentially dangerous to go for longer.

Yes that's possible, but it seems unlikely to me they'd want to concede altitude every night, and there's no way they'd put storage on the ridge if they were planning to camp in the trees.

Unfortunately the route plans don't have campsites on them. Maybe we could find out by looking at previous hikes to see what they did on other mountain routes.
Storage on the ridge is just a nuts idea. The diary dismisses the case for storage at the treeline (due to high winds), never mind the ridge.

Well they were digging something on the ridge... so either they were putting storage there, in which case they wouldn't be camping in the trees (on the way back), or they were putting the tent there, in which case they might be camping there in both directions.

If they wanted to dip down as you say, a more sensible route would be to ascend AND descend Otorten on the shortest path possible, and stay below the treeline as much as possible, but the route plan is to head South along the ridge all the way to Oyko-Chakur.
Igor stated in the diary they were camping on the ridge, if people want to reinvent that entry as an "invention by the bad guys" that's their prerogative, but reassigning the location of the labaz to the ridge is just nuts imo.

I made a couple of comments about this on my intro thread but nobody picked up on it.

https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=803.msg13842#msg13842

I did notice your thread, the part that makes no sense to me, besides sitting around a cold tent in a dangerous place in less than optimal clothing for the conditions and the leaving the tent like that, is why leave the cedar trees to go where there is no wood to keep warm. According to the searchers, the fire burnt out for lack of tending, not lack of fuel. it would be very easy to build a wind screen around the cedar or in the tree well of a tree close and stay where there is fuel.

There is no logical reason to leave a fire under those conditions
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 08, 2021, 03:26:28 PM
The cedar was on a small hill, probably quite exposed. Maybe the heat was escaping and not warming them up sufficiently. Not sure why they didn't light it in a more sheltered spot, e. g. the ravine. Could be they couldn't see well enough with no lantern (and no Moon).
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 08, 2021, 03:44:14 PM
...Presumably there was no Avalanche risk...

I have my doubts about that too, it looks like a prime spot!

Prime spot to pitch a Tent  ?  Rock faces but no where for Snow to accumulate to such an extent that Avalanche would result.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 08, 2021, 03:46:06 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/0K1VTWj/cedar.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ZSv15w6)

It would have been more practical to move to the tree well to the right or behind the cedar for less work or to take the snow and pile it up around the cedar with branches like they cut to make walls and a seat to keep up from the cold. Leaving a fire in those temps is suicide
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 08, 2021, 03:54:01 PM
The cedar was on a small hill, probably quite exposed. Maybe the heat was escaping and not warming them up sufficiently. Not sure why they didn't light it in a more sheltered spot, e. g. the ravine. Could be they couldn't see well enough with no lantern (and no Moon).

The Cedar Tree in question was just one of many at the edge of the Forest. The Dyatlov Group must have been desperate having abandoned their Tent.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 08, 2021, 04:38:59 PM
Yes so leaving a fire makes even less sense
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 08, 2021, 05:07:22 PM
... Leaving a fire in those temps is suicide

Two people had already died so they probably thought they must try something else, things were getting desperate.

They did everything they could to stay alive, but it was probably a no win scenario from the moment they cut the tent.

I think I would have set fire to the whole tree!
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 09, 2021, 09:43:32 AM
I am reading the book, 1079 the overwhelming force of Dyatlov pass and on page 12 there is an english translation of the groups combat pamphlet

TECHNOLOGICAL NEWS
Hiking drag sled
good while riding train, car or horseback.
Not recommended for freight transport on snow
For further information contact chief constructor com. Kolevatov

I just saw this so didn't include it with my first post. I think it shows that they were planning on carrying the tent or something heavy by sled and found out it didn't work. fits my theory so of course I like it :)
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 09, 2021, 03:06:14 PM
Yes so leaving a fire makes even less sense

Looks like some of the Group looked for somewhere to build a snow den.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 09, 2021, 03:15:39 PM
I am reading the book, 1079 the overwhelming force of Dyatlov pass and on page 12 there is an english translation of the groups combat pamphlet

TECHNOLOGICAL NEWS
Hiking drag sled
good while riding train, car or horseback.
Not recommended for freight transport on snow
For further information contact chief constructor com. Kolevatov

I just saw this so didn't include it with my first post. I think it shows that they were planning on carrying the tent or something heavy by sled and found out it didn't work. fits my theory so of course I like it :)

Not necessarily. They were used to travelling in the outdoors, so they would be used to carrying loads by backpack. They may have talked about some kind of sled but it doesnt mean that they intended to make or use one.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: MDGross on March 10, 2021, 09:16:06 AM
tenne, I respect your attempt to think outside of the box. A person can think outside of the box with sound, thoughtful reasoning, or a person can present haphazard and strange ideas that are outside of the box, but make little sense. Excluding your opinion of the tent, the remainder of your theory is strange to say the least. Why was this area restricted by the military? What was the military hiding there? Why were the nine hikers killed and how? Was it a bomb dropped on top of them from a plane? Who were the two KGB agents? The point is you present no details about any of this. What proof do you have?

Your expertise as someone who makes his living in the Canadian wilderness is a valuable contribution to this forum. Others bring medical expertise or scientific knowledge and so forth. I find many of your posts interesting and from a unique perspective. But such broad and unsubstantiated statements in the theory you offer do not further anyone's understanding of this unfathomable mystery.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 10, 2021, 09:36:53 AM
1. The two suspected KGB agents were Aleksander Koleatov and Semyon Zolotaryov. This has been speculated by more than me and where I got the idea from. I just assumed that people on the forum were up to date on this idea. my bad

2. The information that the area was restricted by the military, I also got from a lot of sources about this incident. Again I thought this was common knowledge

3.what were they hiding? your guess would be as good as mine but my suspicion is dumped nuclear waste that they didn't want to admit to. Again, I htought this is a common idea that the area was military sensitive area.

4. I think they stumbled across a boobie trap and the first to get the blast were the 4 found in the ravine, then the 2 placed under the cedar and then finally the last 3 were knocked unconscious by the blast and froze. They were not supposed to be in that area at that time and when their bodies were found the military had to disguise the fact that they had killed two KGB members.

5. Bodies, tent and equipment was taken by helicopter to the pass, the furthers known place they should be, it was all set up and then the military skied back so there was tracks to be found.

6. they set up the cache etc to make it look like the skiers had made it that far, rather than have anything think they died where they did

I hope this helps clear it up, again, I just assumed people knew and obviously I was wrong to think that and should have filled in more detail

The other thing I noticed about the tent is the canvas was obviously rotten, and by that I mean it had rotted and weakened, most likely from not being able to dry out completely before being stored. Its not normal to have to sew up a canvas tent every time you use it or have jackets plugging holes. Canvas is a very strong durable fabric but it is a natural one and rots. We have a tent trailer many years ago that had canvas bedrooms (not sure how to describe it if you don't know what a tent trailer is) and if we packed it up wet to go home, we had to open it up and let it totally dry out before re packing it or else it rotted and got mold in it. I can't imagine anyone camping on a slope with a rotten tent and no heat. the wind would go right through it. If they were there and didn't have a stove, they would have had to be very warmly dressed because the canvas itself wasn't stopping much of the cold.



Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 10, 2021, 10:49:09 AM
...
Because it was a sensitive military area and there were worries about people escaping Russia over the borders I think there was an incident with the military attacking them with a explosive device, either thinking they were deserters or escapees or spies.

Then the military realized they had killed 9 students who had been given permission to go through the area (although they were not supposed to be there at that time) and killed two KGB agents.

The helicopter(s) carrying the bodies, tent and back packs dropped them and men off because it was an isolated, deserted place that would have few witnesses but on a possible route. Crime scene was faked and the military men skied back to civilization, those are the tracks they "followed"

So the military covered it up, to hide they had killed KGB agents.
...

I was interested in murder theories initially, but the first problem is the weather, look at the last couple of photos... it was a blizzard / whiteout; they'd never find them on the slope of 1079. The second problem is the lack of evidence anyone else was there, the few question marks - puttees, mansi belt, broken ski, cut ski pole, slits in the tent - can be explained in other ways. The third problem is motive, rogue Mansi/Khanty seem more likely to me than far-fetched spy games, but it's a bit flimsy.

Plus you don't need murder to explain what happened, all you need is a MacGuffin to make them leave the tent; the rest is natural consequences. The MacGuffin could be a military device exploding on the mountain, but it's likely to be an accident which was then covered up.

It's obvious Zolotaryov was a KGB agent, but I expect he was just there to observe them, which would be commonplace in those days. The thing is he didn't hide what he was, they all knew ("we can't refuse").
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 10, 2021, 11:16:06 AM
1. There is no way that anyone with 1/2 a brain would camp on a slope, in a tent that was rotten, with no heat, dressed like they were. No way that I can see they would walk away from the tent, and according to a map in the book 1079 if I'm looking at it right they not only walked down the slope but took a right and walked that way before turning left into where the cedar was, so they didn't even go to it in a straight line.

Then if they were there, there is no way they would leave a fire to go to a ravine that had no source of heat and no way to easily get heat. at the cedars they are least had fuel for the fire, could have built a shelter from the wind.

We have absolutely no idea when the blizzard was, where it was or anything. everything about the dates, other than where there were other people, is pure conjecture because there was no time, date or location stamp on the photos.

There is no evidence that anyone else was there because there is no evidence, it was either ignored or wiped out in the "search"

The tent and the bodies could have very easily been planted there. It would be easy for the military to cover it up by staging it.

I don't think they were ever at that location alive.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 10, 2021, 11:39:35 AM
We have absolutely no idea when the blizzard was, where it was or anything. everything about the dates, other than where there were other people, is pure conjecture because there was no time, date or location stamp on the photos.

Nothing is certain... but we've got photos of a blizzard at the foot of the mountain and while setting camp, and snow build up at the entrance of the tent, testimony from locals saying the wind was higher than they can remember, local weather reports of cold temperatures and high winds, and the fact 3 of the hikers only made it 200-300m up the exposed slope before collapsing and dying of hypothermia, and 2 others died in close proximity of a fire.

I doubt helicopters were targetting them, or spies or gangs of locals were chasing around after them in that weather. Experienced Mansi maybe, but unlikely. Far more likely it was an accident combined with bad weather, bad decisions and bad luck, imo.

I think Moscow are actually telling us what happened, indirectly. It's the classic politican's partial truth. An avalanche in a place where there can't be an avalanche; something external caused it (the MacGuffin), and they don't want us to know what.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 10, 2021, 11:54:14 AM
Where is any evidence of an avalanche? the snow on the tent looked shoveled on to me and an avalanche started by other means would still take out the ski poles etc and the tent would have been swept down the mountain with the snow.

How do you know where the photo of the blizzard was taken? it could have been anywhere. its only conjecture it was setting up the tent on the slope
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 10, 2021, 01:11:22 PM
1. The two suspected KGB agents were Aleksander Koleatov and Semyon Zolotaryov. This has been speculated by more than me and where I got the idea from. I just assumed that people on the forum were up to date on this idea. my bad

2. The information that the area was restricted by the military, I also got from a lot of sources about this incident. Again I thought this was common knowledge

3.what were they hiding? your guess would be as good as mine but my suspicion is dumped nuclear waste that they didn't want to admit to. Again, I htought this is a common idea that the area was military sensitive area.

4. I think they stumbled across a boobie trap and the first to get the blast were the 4 found in the ravine, then the 2 placed under the cedar and then finally the last 3 were knocked unconscious by the blast and froze. They were not supposed to be in that area at that time and when their bodies were found the military had to disguise the fact that they had killed two KGB members.

5. Bodies, tent and equipment was taken by helicopter to the pass, the furthers known place they should be, it was all set up and then the military skied back so there was tracks to be found.

6. they set up the cache etc to make it look like the skiers had made it that far, rather than have anything think they died where they did

I hope this helps clear it up, again, I just assumed people knew and obviously I was wrong to think that and should have filled in more detail

The other thing I noticed about the tent is the canvas was obviously rotten, and by that I mean it had rotted and weakened, most likely from not being able to dry out completely before being stored. Its not normal to have to sew up a canvas tent every time you use it or have jackets plugging holes. Canvas is a very strong durable fabric but it is a natural one and rots. We have a tent trailer many years ago that had canvas bedrooms (not sure how to describe it if you don't know what a tent trailer is) and if we packed it up wet to go home, we had to open it up and let it totally dry out before re packing it or else it rotted and got mold in it. I can't imagine anyone camping on a slope with a rotten tent and no heat. the wind would go right through it. If they were there and didn't have a stove, they would have had to be very warmly dressed because the canvas itself wasn't stopping much of the cold.

Yes its pure speculation that there where any KGB Agents in the Dyatlov Group.
Yes it seems to be a well known fact that the Military closed the area down for several years after the Incident.
There is nothing to suggest that the Military where hiding anything.
Non of the injuries to Dyatlov Group bodies suggest Blast of any kind.
There is absolutely no Evidence that suggests any kind of Military accident and cover up as a result of such an accident.
The Tent was not rotten.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 10, 2021, 01:32:52 PM
yup, cause people have to sew their tent up every time they use it. why didn't I know that? I must have missed that in my camping time. opps


Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 10, 2021, 01:34:27 PM
They didn't close the area down, they just banned official sports hikes for a period of 3 years.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 10, 2021, 01:59:19 PM
Where is any evidence of an avalanche? the snow on the tent looked shoveled on to me and an avalanche started by other means would still take out the ski poles etc and the tent would have been swept down the mountain with the snow.

I think quite a lot of work was done clearing snow before the photo was taken. We're only talking about a few cubic metres of snow above the tent collapsing, where they cut into the slope; and you'll notice two people are standing precisely where that layer should be. Why is the near side of the tent flush with the slope, there should be a drop? Unfortunately we don't have any photos looking up the slope, more search team incompetence.

How do you know where the photo of the blizzard was taken? it could have been anywhere. its only conjecture it was setting up the tent on the slope

Well, they were digging something. If it wasn't the tent it must be the storage, and there are some problems with that as you know.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 11, 2021, 03:57:01 PM
yup, cause people have to sew their tent up every time they use it. why didn't I know that? I must have missed that in my camping time. opps

Do you really think that an experienced Group of Hikers would go on such an expedition with a rotten Tent ! ? They would have inspected all of their equipment beforehand.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 11, 2021, 04:00:30 PM
They didn't close the area down, they just banned official sports hikes for a period of 3 years.

To all intents and purposes the Authorities closed the area off for several years. I had a minor debate in this Forum with WAB about it.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: ash73 on March 12, 2021, 08:50:03 AM
They didn't close the area down, they just banned official sports hikes for a period of 3 years.

To all intents and purposes the Authorities closed the area off for several years. I had a minor debate in this Forum with WAB about it.

Do you have a link? I'd be interested to read it.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 12, 2021, 11:15:15 AM
yup, cause people have to sew their tent up every time they use it. why didn't I know that? I must have missed that in my camping time. opps



Do you really think that an experienced Group of Hikers would go on such an expedition with a rotten Tent ! ? They would have inspected all of their equipment beforehand.

Then what is your explanation for having to constantly repair the tent as indicated in the diaries?

Canvas is an extremely strong fabric. I have never had to sew a tent when I put it up
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Investigator on March 12, 2021, 11:26:59 AM
yup, cause people have to sew their tent up every time they use it. why didn't I know that? I must have missed that in my camping time. opps



Do you really think that an experienced Group of Hikers would go on such an expedition with a rotten Tent ! ? They would have inspected all of their equipment beforehand.

Then what is your explanation for having to constantly repair the tent as indicated in the diaries?

Canvas is an extremely strong fabric. I have never had to sew a tent when I put it up

From what I understand, they were using two World War II tents that were sewn together.  Until you recreate that under the same conditions you will always be guessing.  However, you can try to do something similar to see if the tent starts to ice up or build up with heavy snow, to a degreee that it might start to collapse two old, worn canvas tents sewn together in the middle.  If one claims the diaries were faked, the burden would be on that person to present strong evidence to that effect, not "strange coincidences" and the like (the stuff of the typical "conspiracy theory").
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 12, 2021, 01:20:33 PM
Well, I was reading the diaries to the old trapper and he was the one who said wait, why are they sewing it that often? Canvas doesn't need to be sewn every time you use it unless its rotten.

Two old WW2 tents would be as a minimum 14 years old if they were made at the end of the war. From what I could find
"How long can you keep a canvas tent in the winter?
On that basis, you could use it for 2 summers if up for half the year, or 3 summers if up for less. Canvas would deteriorate over summer due to UV exposure"

"The dutch measure tents 'age' in weeks of use rather than years. They say that a De Waard or similar with high quality canvas has on average 50 weeks use lifespan."


So at least 14 year old canvas tent?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 12, 2021, 01:25:30 PM
yup, cause people have to sew their tent up every time they use it. why didn't I know that? I must have missed that in my camping time. opps

Do you really think that an experienced Group of Hikers would go on such an expedition with a rotten Tent ! ? They would have inspected all of their equipment beforehand.

Do you really think an experienced Group of Hikers would camp in on an open slope in winter without heat and leave in their barefeet?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 12, 2021, 02:06:26 PM
They didn't close the area down, they just banned official sports hikes for a period of 3 years.

To all intents and purposes the Authorities closed the area off for several years. I had a minor debate in this Forum with WAB about it.

Do you have a link? I'd be interested to read it.

You will have do a lot of reading, I cant remember exactly where in the Forum.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 12, 2021, 02:08:17 PM
yup, cause people have to sew their tent up every time they use it. why didn't I know that? I must have missed that in my camping time. opps



Do you really think that an experienced Group of Hikers would go on such an expedition with a rotten Tent ! ? They would have inspected all of their equipment beforehand.

Then what is your explanation for having to constantly repair the tent as indicated in the diaries?

Canvas is an extremely strong fabric. I have never had to sew a tent when I put it up

The question is what is meant by constantly ?  Once a day ? Once a week. Or what ?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 12, 2021, 02:15:46 PM
Well, I was reading the diaries to the old trapper and he was the one who said wait, why are they sewing it that often? Canvas doesn't need to be sewn every time you use it unless its rotten.

Two old WW2 tents would be as a minimum 14 years old if they were made at the end of the war. From what I could find
"How long can you keep a canvas tent in the winter?
On that basis, you could use it for 2 summers if up for half the year, or 3 summers if up for less. Canvas would deteriorate over summer due to UV exposure"

"The dutch measure tents 'age' in weeks of use rather than years. They say that a De Waard or similar with high quality canvas has on average 50 weeks use lifespan."


So at least 14 year old canvas tent?

If you look at the Photos of the Tent after it was recovered for Investigation you will notice that it doesnt look Rotten. The Cuts look positive with no signs or Fabric falling off etc.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 12, 2021, 02:23:02 PM
yup, cause people have to sew their tent up every time they use it. why didn't I know that? I must have missed that in my camping time. opps

Do you really think that an experienced Group of Hikers would go on such an expedition with a rotten Tent ! ? They would have inspected all of their equipment beforehand.

Do you really think an experienced Group of Hikers would camp in on an open slope in winter without heat and leave in their barefeet?

Well obviously they did camp in an exposed location. They did abandon their Tent not dressed properly. They may have camped there because they were frightened of something en route.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 12, 2021, 02:41:16 PM
Then I don't see why you are having trouble understanding that a minimum 14 year canvas tent that was rotten would be used,given their lack of good judgment in this case. If it has to be sewn every time they use it. its rotten
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: KFinn on March 12, 2021, 03:06:49 PM
Then I don't see why you are having trouble understanding that a minimum 14 year canvas tent that was rotten would be used,given their lack of good judgment in this case. If it has to be sewn every time they use it. its rotten

Testimony by other students in the UPI Sports club discuss the poor quality and condition of club equipment.  See Sogrin's statement in the case times.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Investigator on March 12, 2021, 06:03:54 PM
yup, cause people have to sew their tent up every time they use it. why didn't I know that? I must have missed that in my camping time. opps

Do you really think that an experienced Group of Hikers would go on such an expedition with a rotten Tent ! ? They would have inspected all of their equipment beforehand.

Do you really think an experienced Group of Hikers would camp in on an open slope in winter without heat and leave in their barefeet?

How about what the Chivrauy group did, more than a dozen years later!  And the Dyatlov group did not leave the tent without at least two pair of socks on, from what I understand.  If your boots are frozen, you simply can't use them, and that's what happens if you place them away from a source of heat (I've read more than one account in which hikers/climbers say they sleep with their boots next to them, in the sleeping bag, for this reason).  So your tent is collapsing, let's say because it's got a layer of ice or heavy snow on one of the long sides, and you can't get that off no matter what you can think of or try, what do you do then?  They decided to make sure the tent wasn't totally destroyed and thought they could sew it up again in the morning.  There were a lot of branches torn off trees down by the treeline, so perhaps the idea was to bring some of that back to the tent and use the stove to warm up/dry out the frozen items as well as sew up the tent.

And think about what would have happened if they set up the tent down at the treeline and the same thing happened to the tent, how much better off are they?  They may have still tried to dig out a "den" and then accidentally fell onto the rocky creek.  The key mistake seems to have been not using the stove to prevent heavy snow or ice buildup, though perhaps that would not have happened down at the treeline.  Most videos on Youtube show you how to surive under such conditions, not how to fail and get yourself in trouble, which is why a reconstruction would really help in this case.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 13, 2021, 04:29:24 AM
yup, cause people have to sew their tent up every time they use it. why didn't I know that? I must have missed that in my camping time. opps

Do you really think that an experienced Group of Hikers would go on such an expedition with a rotten Tent ! ? They would have inspected all of their equipment beforehand.

Do you really think an experienced Group of Hikers would camp in on an open slope in winter without heat and leave in their barefeet?

How about what the Chivrauy group did, more than a dozen years later!  And the Dyatlov group did not leave the tent without at least two pair of socks on, from what I understand.  If your boots are frozen, you simply can't use them, and that's what happens if you place them away from a source of heat (I've read more than one account in which hikers/climbers say they sleep with their boots next to them, in the sleeping bag, for this reason).  So your tent is collapsing, let's say because it's got a layer of ice or heavy snow on one of the long sides, and you can't get that off no matter what you can think of or try, what do you do then?  They decided to make sure the tent wasn't totally destroyed and thought they could sew it up again in the morning.  There were a lot of branches torn off trees down by the treeline, so perhaps the idea was to bring some of that back to the tent and use the stove to warm up/dry out the frozen items as well as sew up the tent.

And think about what would have happened if they set up the tent down at the treeline and the same thing happened to the tent, how much better off are they?  They may have still tried to dig out a "den" and then accidentally fell onto the rocky creek.  The key mistake seems to have been not using the stove to prevent heavy snow or ice buildup, though perhaps that would not have happened down at the treeline.  Most videos on Youtube show you how to surive under such conditions, not how to fail and get yourself in trouble, which is why a reconstruction would really help in this case.


They all had ski boots and felt boots (valenki) which were kept dry for wearing around camp. Nicolai was wearing his, Rustem only had one.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 13, 2021, 07:12:02 AM
Well, I was reading the diaries to the old trapper and he was the one who said wait, why are they sewing it that often? Canvas doesn't need to be sewn every time you use it unless its rotten.

Two old WW2 tents would be as a minimum 14 years old if they were made at the end of the war. From what I could find
"How long can you keep a canvas tent in the winter?
On that basis, you could use it for 2 summers if up for half the year, or 3 summers if up for less. Canvas would deteriorate over summer due to UV exposure"

"The dutch measure tents 'age' in weeks of use rather than years. They say that a De Waard or similar with high quality canvas has on average 50 weeks use lifespan."


So at least 14 year old canvas tent?

If you look at the Photos of the Tent after it was recovered for Investigation you will notice that it doesnt look Rotten. The Cuts look positive with no signs or Fabric falling off etc.

You can't tell canvas is rotten from looking at a photo of it. The way to tell is have it in your hands and pull. when it rips, its rotten. Cuts are not rips. cuts have clean edges, rips usually don't. so how the fact the cuts have clean edges prove it isn't rotten is escaping me as why you think that is proof
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 13, 2021, 10:22:41 AM
Well, I was reading the diaries to the old trapper and he was the one who said wait, why are they sewing it that often? Canvas doesn't need to be sewn every time you use it unless its rotten.

Two old WW2 tents would be as a minimum 14 years old if they were made at the end of the war. From what I could find
"How long can you keep a canvas tent in the winter?
On that basis, you could use it for 2 summers if up for half the year, or 3 summers if up for less. Canvas would deteriorate over summer due to UV exposure"

"The dutch measure tents 'age' in weeks of use rather than years. They say that a De Waard or similar with high quality canvas has on average 50 weeks use lifespan."


So at least 14 year old canvas tent?

If you look at the Photos of the Tent after it was recovered for Investigation you will notice that it doesnt look Rotten. The Cuts look positive with no signs or Fabric falling off etc.

You can't tell canvas is rotten from looking at a photo of it. The way to tell is have it in your hands and pull. when it rips, its rotten. Cuts are not rips. cuts have clean edges, rips usually don't. so how the fact the cuts have clean edges prove it isn't rotten is escaping me as why you think that is proof


Title: Re: My theory
Post by: RMK on March 13, 2021, 10:55:44 AM
Then I don't see why you are having trouble understanding that a minimum 14 year canvas tent that was rotten would be used,given their lack of good judgment in this case. If it has to be sewn every time they use it. its rotten

Testimony by other students in the UPI Sports club discuss the poor quality and condition of club equipment.  See Sogrin's statement in the case times.
Yes, good point.  Sogrin (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-330-339?rbid=17743) says: "About the equipment. the provision of the equipment was as for any other hiking group. And the equipment is disgusting...Tents are 4-5 years old."
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: KFinn on March 13, 2021, 11:33:32 AM
So, we have to do regular upkeep on our canvas tents (about once a year.)  That includes sewing up tears or patching holes at the stress points, cleaning them so that dirt or mildew does not degrade the fibers, replacing grommets and stake loops.  Admittedly, our professionally made tents require less upkeep than the ones we made, lol.  But we do keep repair kits with us on all trips (waxed thread, canvas needles, extra grommets, extra canvas, the special rubber cement type stuff if you need a heavier duty patch, etc.)  Sometimes a bad wind storm is all it takes to tear along a stress points. It happens. 

If you read Churkina's forensic report, I believe she mentions several marks on the canvas where the knife that made the cuts to the fabric did not puncture.  To me, that would indicate that, at least those parts, of the tent canvas were fairly healthy.  Rotten canvas can be very brittle and if a sharp blade did not puncture the fabric...  At the same time, we have to consider whether the canvas was taut at the time it was cut, or if it was slackened any (making it harder to cut,) and any other confounding variables.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Investigator on March 13, 2021, 01:39:53 PM
So, we have to do regular upkeep on our canvas tents (about once a year.)  That includes sewing up tears or patching holes at the stress points, cleaning them so that dirt or mildew does not degrade the fibers, replacing grommets and stake loops.  Admittedly, our professionally made tents require less upkeep than the ones we made, lol.  But we do keep repair kits with us on all trips (waxed thread, canvas needles, extra grommets, extra canvas, the special rubber cement type stuff if you need a heavier duty patch, etc.)  Sometimes a bad wind storm is all it takes to tear along a stress points. It happens. 

If you read Churkina's forensic report, I believe she mentions several marks on the canvas where the knife that made the cuts to the fabric did not puncture.  To me, that would indicate that, at least those parts, of the tent canvas were fairly healthy.  Rotten canvas can be very brittle and if a sharp blade did not puncture the fabric...  At the same time, we have to consider whether the canvas was taut at the time it was cut, or if it was slackened any (making it harder to cut,) and any other confounding variables.

I agree.  While the seams between the two tents may have been pulling apart a bit that night, I think the more likely and major problem would have been an icy/heavy snow buildup on at least one of the long sides of the tent.  They see it bending inward and try to punch it off (hence the bruises to some of their knuckles).  That doesn't work and perhaps the situation looks like it is going to be critical (collapse) very soon, so they try to cut it in a way that might make sense if we knew the details.  Eventually they "succeed," but then have to figure out how to survive the night with no tent.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 14, 2021, 02:46:04 PM
Well, I was reading the diaries to the old trapper and he was the one who said wait, why are they sewing it that often? Canvas doesn't need to be sewn every time you use it unless its rotten.

Two old WW2 tents would be as a minimum 14 years old if they were made at the end of the war. From what I could find
"How long can you keep a canvas tent in the winter?
On that basis, you could use it for 2 summers if up for half the year, or 3 summers if up for less. Canvas would deteriorate over summer due to UV exposure"

"The dutch measure tents 'age' in weeks of use rather than years. They say that a De Waard or similar with high quality canvas has on average 50 weeks use lifespan."


So at least 14 year old canvas tent?

If you look at the Photos of the Tent after it was recovered for Investigation you will notice that it doesnt look Rotten. The Cuts look positive with no signs or Fabric falling off etc.

You can't tell canvas is rotten from looking at a photo of it. The way to tell is have it in your hands and pull. when it rips, its rotten. Cuts are not rips. cuts have clean edges, rips usually don't. so how the fact the cuts have clean edges prove it isn't rotten is escaping me as why you think that is proof

If you have read about the Inspection of the Tent at the Laboratory after the Incident you will notice that there is no mention of Rotten Canvas.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 14, 2021, 02:49:00 PM
So, we have to do regular upkeep on our canvas tents (about once a year.)  That includes sewing up tears or patching holes at the stress points, cleaning them so that dirt or mildew does not degrade the fibers, replacing grommets and stake loops.  Admittedly, our professionally made tents require less upkeep than the ones we made, lol.  But we do keep repair kits with us on all trips (waxed thread, canvas needles, extra grommets, extra canvas, the special rubber cement type stuff if you need a heavier duty patch, etc.)  Sometimes a bad wind storm is all it takes to tear along a stress points. It happens. 

If you read Churkina's forensic report, I believe she mentions several marks on the canvas where the knife that made the cuts to the fabric did not puncture.  To me, that would indicate that, at least those parts, of the tent canvas were fairly healthy.  Rotten canvas can be very brittle and if a sharp blade did not puncture the fabric...  At the same time, we have to consider whether the canvas was taut at the time it was cut, or if it was slackened any (making it harder to cut,) and any other confounding variables.

The point is that if the issue of Rotten Canvas was so important then it would have been mentioned in the Laboratory Investigation. There was no mention of the Tent being Rotten.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 15, 2021, 09:05:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 15, 2021, 09:38:41 AM
I think it's in the case files that the people who dragged the tent from it's position to boot rock for helicopter pickup noted the poor condition of the tent resulting in tears.However it's interesting that the drawings from  the forensic analysis in no way match the photograph, as if the tent suffered damage between the two events. Do we know the date of the photograph?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 15, 2021, 09:45:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 15, 2021, 01:24:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 15, 2021, 01:32:39 PM
I think it's in the case files that the people who dragged the tent from it's position to boot rock for helicopter pickup noted the poor condition of the tent resulting in tears.However it's interesting that the drawings from  the forensic analysis in no way match the photograph, as if the tent suffered damage between the two events. Do we know the date of the photograph?

Presumably the photos were taken at the same time as the examination.  ''The examination was conducted in Sverdlovsk Forensic Laboratory 3-16 April 1959 by senior forensic expert Genrietta Eliseevna Churkina''.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 15, 2021, 01:38:18 PM
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  !  ?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 15, 2021, 02:29:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 15, 2021, 02:33:01 PM
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
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 15, 2021, 02:52:39 PM
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
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 15, 2021, 03:06:24 PM
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.



Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 15, 2021, 03:24:03 PM
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
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 15, 2021, 04:08:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 15, 2021, 04:18:27 PM
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
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Investigator on March 15, 2021, 07:46:20 PM
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).
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 16, 2021, 02:46:09 AM
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.

Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 16, 2021, 05:24:28 AM
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.

Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 16, 2021, 07:52:33 AM
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).
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 16, 2021, 08:17:15 AM
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
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 16, 2021, 08:57:33 AM
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?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 16, 2021, 10:17:39 AM
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
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 16, 2021, 10:34:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 16, 2021, 10:54:32 AM
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
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 16, 2021, 11:39:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 16, 2021, 12:45:48 PM
too bad, I would love to see fireballs. Snow storms are so passe here but fireballs? All we get is weak green northern lights
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 16, 2021, 12:55:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 16, 2021, 12:58:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 16, 2021, 01:10:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 16, 2021, 01:14:15 PM
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  !  ?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 16, 2021, 01:34:35 PM
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....
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 16, 2021, 01:39:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 16, 2021, 02:42:09 PM
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
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 16, 2021, 02:52:51 PM
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?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 16, 2021, 03:13:23 PM
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
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 16, 2021, 03:14:34 PM
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
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 16, 2021, 03:32:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 16, 2021, 03:42:08 PM
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
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 16, 2021, 04:22:21 PM
What colour was the sausage?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 16, 2021, 04:37:34 PM
glowing fuzzy white, like a fire. about an inch and a half  long flying down the valley, very low, too low for a plane unless it was landing but it didn't land. and flew very slowly, so slow I thought it would crash
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 16, 2021, 04:50:48 PM
Was there an airport/airfield in the valley?  If it was a helicopter would that be obvious? How wide was the sausage?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 16, 2021, 05:33:16 PM
No airport in the area. Not a helicopter for sure, I work at the airport here and even the Sea Kings, the extremely large Canadian Air Force helicopters aren't that big and they have flashing lights on them plus they are loud, this was just one giant glowing silent light. width maybe 1/2 cm ? it was years ago but it was a sausage shape. My husband just reminded me about the 4th time. it was last year and 3 round orange balls in a sorta triangle shape flying very low. I saw it and my neighbour did. They were seen a few months ago by a few other people as well, not at the same time I saw them and I didn't see them this time. I didn't think to takea video of it, I'm old enough that I just enjoy seeing stuff, my first thought isn't to take a video or photo.

So seeing strange things in the sky isn't unusual for me so I really want to see a fire ball. ball lightening would really make my day (or night)
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 17, 2021, 02:22:09 AM
No airport in the area. Not a helicopter for sure, I work at the airport here and even the Sea Kings, the extremely large Canadian Air Force helicopters aren't that big and they have flashing lights on them plus they are loud, this was just one giant glowing silent light. width maybe 1/2 cm ? it was years ago but it was a sausage shape. My husband just reminded me about the 4th time. it was last year and 3 round orange balls in a sorta triangle shape flying very low. I saw it and my neighbour did. They were seen a few months ago by a few other people as well, not at the same time I saw them and I didn't see them this time. I didn't think to takea video of it, I'm old enough that I just enjoy seeing stuff, my first thought isn't to take a video or photo.

So seeing strange things in the sky isn't unusual for me so I really want to see a fire ball. ball lightening would really make my day (or night)
Just for clarity, it sounds like your dimensions are as if holding up a ruler on a distant much larger object?"ball lightening would really make my day (or night)" - would you camp on a ridge to get closer for that video?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 17, 2021, 04:54:13 AM
Yes, , like miles away the sausage was that long and glowing. It looked more like a comet if that makes sense slowly moving along the foothills, way below the mountains. No pulsing lights like a helicopter or plane, no search light on the ground if it was doing a rescue. This is the closest imagine I can find to what I saw, it was a long time ago. basically this slowly moving along the foothills. last for about 10 min then went out of sight around a bend


No way in winter, in the middle of no where would I camp on a slope to take a photo. We learn early in life that you don't play around with the cold. You play in it but not with it. Camp where its warm and you can change out of wet clothing and into dry and let your wet stuff dry. that's one of the main killers, losing body heat through wet clothing. which is why wool was so popular, it kept the body heat in when wet more than anything else. not great but better. I would dress really warm and hike up to a spot to take a photo but I would have a safe place to go back to


(https://i.ibb.co/W5VPgrV/ufo.jpg) (https://ibb.co/yP4YWz4)
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 17, 2021, 05:14:22 AM
 Maybe a longer version of this "sausage"?

(https://i.ibb.co/zrSXMc4/Zolotaryov-camera-07.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
I would dress really warm and hike up to a spot to take a photo but I would have a safe place to go back to - yes but if the conditions prevented that, say it would be one hours walk/climb to the ridge from the forest facing into snow/ice laden extremely high winds in the dark, then the choice is to give up the opportunity to observe and photograph or camp up there. Camping up there also buys you a great next day were you use the height to cruise down to the forest at the foot of Ortorten for a "luxurious" evening of hot food and drinks, sleep etc. You can create a snow fort to protect the tent and using the stove in the morning will warm up all your outer clothing, boots, tent etc. So that's the choice, do you throw away a historical opportunity or seize it?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 17, 2021, 07:16:07 AM
well for me NO NO NO NO AND DID I SAY NO? It would be complete and utter stupidity to risk those temperature, that far away from help and with no way to signal for help. Maybe if I was younger and was accustomed  to have a cell phone to call for help and then almost instantly I get rescued I might risk it? But I wasn't.  Maybe that is why younger people think they would camp there, its possible.

For me,  growing up pre-cell phone, we thought about those things. Help was a long way away and there was no way to signal other than stamping an SOS into the snow and hoping someone saw it and/or if I was with other people, some one hiking out to get help.

The important thing to remember is the no heat. When you ski in the winter (or anything) you sweat. your clothing gets damp, your socks, shoes etc get damp. You have to be able to get out of the wet/damp clothing, get into warm dry clothing and get your other clothing dried out.

Maybe on e person alone might, stretching it two might. but 9 experienced outdoor people risking it to get a photo? I can't imagine that. And with an experienced ex soldier whom I assume learned to not panic or take stupid risks and he was older than them and they knew he was KGB (if that is what the comment "we can't refuse") so no.

I can see them camping and a couple of them hike up to take a photo while others stayed with the fire and if needed, could grab them and bring them back.

If I'm reading what you posted properly. you think they saw a light, decided to ski up a slope, set up camp, have a bite to eat and then head out to take a photo. I've personally never heard of a UFO hanging around for hours for people to get a photo but even if it did. camp at the cedar, hike up take photo, come back to tent, get warm.

The photo I posted was more like the one i saw. The only you posted I would call oval
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 17, 2021, 08:45:20 AM
If I'm reading what you posted properly. you think they saw a light, decided to ski up a slope, set up camp, have a bite to eat and then head out to take a photo. No i'm thinking that this was a goal from before setting off (to photograph the lights which might have been well known by then based on pilot reports). Semyon boasted to friends that he would return famous and it's difficult to think of anything else that would find fame. N.B. it's believed he was outside with a camera....


At the labaz they could have ensured that they had spare dry clothing to wear as underclothes for that night. But i also think that their style of camping was a tougher experience. Personally i've backpacked with overnight stays in the snow in a nylon tent with a canvas inner tent in a down sleeping bag and high levels of humidity were just something i tolerated. Granted it was -5C not -15C and a modern foam bedroll helped but i think it's doable.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 17, 2021, 09:23:31 AM
I don't think it was doable, not only was it cold but their tent was exposed to the wind, which considerably lowers the temperature, especially if it had holes or rips in it (a jacket was stuffed into a hole for sure), they had no way to get into dry clothing the next morning for the rest of the trip and that could easily have killed them then. Sleeping with your clothing helps it dry but not enough that I would risk putting on yesterday's clothing for a winter ski. I am sure they would have thought that through, no one in their right mind goes out the next day in wet clothing from the day before in those temps. Remember that clothing technology has come a huge way for being warm and light and able to keep you dry. Wool and canvas are heavy, take forever to dry and nothing like starting out the next day in modern clothing.

A mile isn't a huge distance to have to make up the next day if it means a hot meal that night, the ability to dry clothing out, sleep comfortably and have a hot meal to start the long day.

They were young and fit. I can't imagine them saying "lets take the chance of freezing to death here on a slope with no heat and maybe get a photo" or "lets camp down here, have a hot meal, get the clothing drying and hike up to see if we can get a photo"
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 17, 2021, 12:08:52 PM
one more thing. while camping overnight in modern equipment in those warmer temperatures make it seem doable, don't forget: you have a cell phone (or way to contact help most likely) you are not a week away from any help if things go wrong. camping one or two nights and then going home to dry clothing, warm food and a soft bed is in no way comparable to camping for 16 days straight.

So if you want to understand what I think the mind set of the group would be the only way it so go camping in -20, with old fashioned equipment that doesn't dry well, cook, hike, set up and take down the tent every night etc.

Your mind set is much different for a 16 days out in the wilderness with only yourself or your group to count on, you don't take stupid chances.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Manti on March 17, 2021, 12:57:43 PM
Aluminum was not yet popular for hiking supplies, the camping craze of the 1970's brought nylon tents and aluminum poles into the price range of more people.
In the photos from the search you can see multiple aluminium ski poles.


But another question I had after reading your theory is, what do you make of the cache site (labaz)? Was that also faked? Also why would there be a fear of them emigrating via the "borders"? This happened very far from any external border of Russia or the SU. Answered earlier in the thread
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 17, 2021, 01:47:08 PM
I read on ? that they were worried that Semyon was going to try to defect to find his son. There was also talk that part of the search was to make sure that  Aleksander? didn't defect and was found deceased. I thought it was strange myself as they seemed quite a ways from the border but more than a few mentions of it. P

Yes I think the Cache was faked, I think the soldiers, military skied back along the route and made it look like the 9 had come that way.

The part about the aluminum poles I found on line, talking about how equipment had changed and how heavy etc the old stuff was. I know the ski poles are metal but I have no idea what type. That could be wrong but according to what i read, it was uncommon to have expensive aluminum poles.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 17, 2021, 02:10:43 PM
Tenne. I like your descriptions of the experiences you had when you were younger. And what you have described is definitely not Fire Balls that fly randomly around and eventually burn out or just disappear. They are classic UFO descriptions. Even the timing. 4am is a typical time for such Events. I was on the phone to someone recently with over 30 years experience of UFO Research etc. He knows many people around the World and has contacts with the Military etc. You should equate your experience to what may have happened in 1959 to the Dyatlov Group.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 17, 2021, 02:13:02 PM
one more thing. while camping overnight in modern equipment in those warmer temperatures make it seem doable, don't forget: you have a cell phone (or way to contact help most likely) you are not a week away from any help if things go wrong. camping one or two nights and then going home to dry clothing, warm food and a soft bed is in no way comparable to camping for 16 days straight.

So if you want to understand what I think the mind set of the group would be the only way it so go camping in -20, with old fashioned equipment that doesn't dry well, cook, hike, set up and take down the tent every night etc.

Your mind set is much different for a 16 days out in the wilderness with only yourself or your group to count on, you don't take stupid chances.


You seem to be ignoring that the nights in the forest were warm and dry and the only exception was at the ridge. I think one night behind a snow wall is doable, they were young and fit and keen to push themselves. Worst case is that you get the stove going and leave before sunrise.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Manti on March 17, 2021, 02:41:30 PM
yup, cause people have to sew their tent up every time they use it. why didn't I know that? I must have missed that in my camping time. opps

Do you really think that an experienced Group of Hikers would go on such an expedition with a rotten Tent ! ? They would have inspected all of their equipment beforehand.

Do you really think an experienced Group of Hikers would camp in on an open slope in winter without heat and leave in their barefeet?

How about what the Chivrauy group did, more than a dozen years later!  And the Dyatlov group did not leave the tent without at least two pair of socks on, from what I understand.  If your boots are frozen, you simply can't use them, and that's what happens if you place them away from a source of heat (I've read more than one account in which hikers/climbers say they sleep with their boots next to them, in the sleeping bag, for this reason).  So your tent is collapsing, let's say because it's got a layer of ice or heavy snow on one of the long sides, and you can't get that off no matter what you can think of or try, what do you do then?  They decided to make sure the tent wasn't totally destroyed and thought they could sew it up again in the morning.  There were a lot of branches torn off trees down by the treeline, so perhaps the idea was to bring some of that back to the tent and use the stove to warm up/dry out the frozen items as well as sew up the tent.

And think about what would have happened if they set up the tent down at the treeline and the same thing happened to the tent, how much better off are they?  They may have still tried to dig out a "den" and then accidentally fell onto the rocky creek.  The key mistake seems to have been not using the stove to prevent heavy snow or ice buildup, though perhaps that would not have happened down at the treeline.  Most videos on Youtube show you how to surive under such conditions, not how to fail and get yourself in trouble, which is why a reconstruction would really help in this case.


They all had ski boots and felt boots (valenki) which were kept dry for wearing around camp. Nicolai was wearing his, Rustem only had one.
I think this is key, Rustem wearing only one valenki and its pair missing. Among the many indicators this is probably the clearest that they fled as fast as they could. This means there was a severe, immediate threat at the tent. "Tent collapsing due to ice/snow buildup" is not such a threat. I think it is a good mental exercise to imagine that YOU are camping on that slope in that tent, no matter for what reason. What could make you flee without putting on the other valenki?


I think this is a good because there are so few possible answers. For example, you notice a bear walking toward the tent... Walking away is not any safer than staying put, the bear might naturally follow fleeing prey. Or, a meteorite explodes in the sky. Sure you would jump out of the tent to look... and then go back in a few minutes later. Or... Someone appears with a shotgun and asks you to leave, in this case you might run away but instead of all nine running in the same direction you'd all want to run in different directions and ones that offer more "cover" like uphill for example.


Anyone who can answer this is closer to the solution and yes I do believe "they never camped there" is a possible explanation.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 17, 2021, 05:40:18 PM
I agree and when we find out what really happened, it will fill in all the blanks. The fact we can't fill them in means we haven't found the right answer yet.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 18, 2021, 03:42:05 AM
Electrical discharge is very sudden and it burns... Tempalov said that there were signs that the group stood nearby as if to assess to situation.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 18, 2021, 08:49:34 AM
Doing more research it seems that one of the motivations behind the intense search was to find Aleksander's body because they were worried he had defected. If they had that worry after then they had it before, which would make sense why Seymon was inserted into the group.  It also means that THEY knew the group was in that area and I think that is important

I think that Aleksander was being groomed for a position with the KGB or something like that. He was sent to the university  to develop relationships within that base of workers as a mole.

So Seymon would have two objectives, keep an eye on Aleksander to see if he is going to run and to see how he handles himself under pressure, can he work with a team, is he willing to put the hardwork in etc

Group gets to where they parted ways and the first time they try the sled they know it won't work. they even put something about it in the satirical newsletter they made, about a sled only working on the train.

They decide that since they are there, they might as well stick around and have a holiday. I didn't realize that they had to leave a letter on the top of the pass to prove they were there so I no longer think they were trying to fool anyone. Most of the money had been spent on food etc, so to go back would be a waste. Perhaps they decided they would pay the club back. That would fit in with what is said about their character.

So they spent time skiing around that area and end up setting off a land mine or a boobie trap. The 4 that are found in the ravine were the closest to it and received the worst injuries, then the two under the cedar and lastly the 3 but they were just knocked out by the blast and froze to death.

When the military arrives on scene, alerted either by the blast or an alarm, they find that they have killed the two KGB members that they knew were in the area, but they didn't  know they hadn't left the area

So the cover up begins. They do not want to admit that they killed two KGB members so they need to come up with a cover story. they knew where the group was going and decide that the furthest away point is the pass. that will buy them more time to "find" them

bodies, tent and equipment and soldiers are loaded on helicopters and flown to the pass and dropped off on the slope. I am going to assume that their original plan was to implicate the Mansi in the attack so they staged the tent to look like they had cut their way out because they were afraid, then soldiers walked down to the cedar (to leave footprints to be found) and dropped off the 2 bodies. because of the injuries they had sustained in the blast the soldiers made a fire, cut down tree branches etc.



the 3 who froze where dumped off to make it look like they were walking back up the slope, one may have still been alive or kept in a warmer place and that explains the melted snow under the body.

the 4 with the most horrific injuries are dropped from the top of the ravine to the creek below to make it look like they fell

Their clothing was adjusted to make it look like they had been in the tent and two outside for guard duty because if the group was afraid of the Mansi, they would place a guard or at least that is what the soldiers would do so that is what they thought the group would do. they didn't notice the camera around Seymon neck, it fell out after some time in the water. The photos of the lights could be what drew them to the area that the blast happened or it could be some tech issue, I've read both ideas and both makes sense to me

now the soldiers start to ski back, make up the cache, which would be standard practice for a group attempting the pass and they would know that. ski back to civilization so now there is a ski trail to follow to the  bodies.

last known confirmed contact was jan 28, Feb 26, they find the tent. that is almost a month for the skiers to spend some time skiing around, taking photos of the fun they are having, that's why they didn't bother with landmark photos or photos to prove the days. and plenty of time for the bodies and equipment to be flown there, things set up and the soldiers ski back

Problem is, the cover up was done in a hurry and not well done. which is why the evidence doesn't fit the scene.

Given the amazing cover ups done in history, like the suicide victim that made the German's believe a different location for the invasion to the fact that Patton had a fake army that they managed to convince the axis was real, this isn't even a blip on the difficult cover up business.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: trekker on March 18, 2021, 11:34:03 AM
So they spent time skiing around that area and end up setting off a land mine or a boobie trap.

None of them had wounds matching to typical land mine wounds. 50 grams of explosive with contact fuze is enough to tear off feet from ankle. None of them had shrapnel wounds typical to bounding anti-personnel mine like OZM family of mines.

Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 18, 2021, 03:05:57 PM
I have no idea what sort of explosion went off. There has been a lot of speculation of different types of explosions that would leave those types of injuries.  There are too many types of boobie traps for me to speculate what it could have been the one to cause it.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Manti on March 18, 2021, 08:10:04 PM
Ok so here's one thing.. I've read about the army staying there after the student search party left from March to May and perhaps beyond, and continuing the search... if there was a coverup it makes sense to have the students conduct and bungle the initial search but if the army (at least someone higher up in the chain) know exactly what happened, why waste military resources and time continuing the search after that?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 19, 2021, 02:47:59 AM
It wasn't just a student search party, there was a team of KGB always on site and one mystery group all dressed in the same black sheepskin coats appeared for awhile, others included a military unit to sweep with mine detectors! The leader of the whole group was a Colonel connected to the university so military.


But the use of civilians is curious imo given the heavy hand of Moscow controlling the Sverdlovsk Prosecutors office (having moved the case from Ivdel). It suggests that they were unconcerned with common gossip as long as the official line was death from hypothermia.



Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Manti on March 19, 2021, 03:43:00 AM
As far as I know in the beginning there were student (and ex-student) only search parties. Before finding the tent. For example the group that went to Otorten. They could very well have been the ones finding the bodies so it's a risk not to add KGB there.


To me the fact that the search was continued until all were found means the "authorities" didn't know what happened. So if it's a coverup it's by some intermediate, almost "rogue" element who didn't inform Moscow or even the local party leadership in Sverdlovsk.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 19, 2021, 04:36:23 AM
As far as I know in the beginning there were student (and ex-student) only search parties. Before finding the tent. For example the group that went to Otorten. They could very well have been the ones finding the bodies so it's a risk not to add KGB there. Ok there's the search party 1 = finding the tent and search party 2 = looking for the last four bodies.


To me the fact that the search was continued until all were found means the "authorities" didn't know what happened. So if it's a coverup it's by some intermediate, almost "rogue" element who didn't inform Moscow or even the local party leadership in Sverdlovsk. No it's a paradox, i'd agree with your statement except that Okishev and Ivanov clearly state the intense control of the situation from Moscow. Klinov is listed as attending all of the first five autopsies (presumed to be to ensure a verdict of death from hypothermia). When the ravine four are discovered their condition turns that upside down but Urakov travels from Moscow to Sverdlovsk to ensure that the case is just shutdown.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 19, 2021, 07:54:52 AM
Ok so here's one thing.. I've read about the army staying there after the student search party left from March to May and perhaps beyond, and continuing the search... if there was a coverup it makes sense to have the students conduct and bungle the initial search but if the army (at least someone higher up in the chain) know exactly what happened, why waste military resources and time continuing the search after that?

Because they can't admit they know. They would rather waste resources and pretend to not know
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 19, 2021, 07:55:47 AM
As far as I know in the beginning there were student (and ex-student) only search parties. Before finding the tent. For example the group that went to Otorten. They could very well have been the ones finding the bodies so it's a risk not to add KGB there.


To me the fact that the search was continued until all were found means the "authorities" didn't know what happened. So if it's a coverup it's by some intermediate, almost "rogue" element who didn't inform Moscow or even the local party leadership in Sverdlovsk.

That is 100% possible and an excellent idea. thank you
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 19, 2021, 07:57:42 AM
It wasn't just a student search party, there was a team of KGB always on site and one mystery group all dressed in the same black sheepskin coats appeared for awhile, others included a military unit to sweep with mine detectors! The leader of the whole group was a Colonel connected to the university so military.


But the use of civilians is curious imo given the heavy hand of Moscow controlling the Sverdlovsk Prosecutors office (having moved the case from Ivdel). It suggests that they were unconcerned with common gossip as long as the official line was death from hypothermia.

Yup, as long as the deaths were being investigated as happening in the pass and not where it actually happened, they were fine. Don't forget, they wanted the bodies found and wanted everyone to believe it happened there. they just didn't do a good job of it.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 19, 2021, 08:42:43 AM
It wasn't just a student search party, there was a team of KGB always on site and one mystery group all dressed in the same black sheepskin coats appeared for awhile, others included a military unit to sweep with mine detectors! The leader of the whole group was a Colonel connected to the university so military.


But the use of civilians is curious imo given the heavy hand of Moscow controlling the Sverdlovsk Prosecutors office (having moved the case from Ivdel). It suggests that they were unconcerned with common gossip as long as the official line was death from hypothermia.

Yup, as long as the deaths were being investigated as happening in the pass and not where it actually happened, they were fine. Don't forget, they wanted the bodies found and wanted everyone to believe it happened there. they just didn't do a good job of it.
Do you understand that when i'm talking about Moscow i'm talking about Urakov (Deputy Prosecutor General) the second most senior officer in the entire Soviet legal system. Urakov's boss (Prosecutor General) sat at the same table as Khrushchev (i presume). So i cannot accept that this was some unfortunate bungle by some local goons or a scruffy murder that cost nine lives, something very very important had to be hidden. But they didn't know what happened to Alexander who would have been of interest to the West, so they had to find his body. But on his discovery Urakov went to Sverdlovsk to shut the case down in person.

So this seems to be one of the core questions - "What was it that Moscow had to keep hidden?", remember Ivanov hinted that the price of disobedience would be worse than a firing squad.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 19, 2021, 01:08:04 PM
Electrical discharge is very sudden and it burns... Tempalov said that there were signs that the group stood nearby as if to assess to situation.

What were those signs ! ?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 19, 2021, 01:16:30 PM
Doing more research it seems that one of the motivations behind the intense search was to find Aleksander's body because they were worried he had defected. If they had that worry after then they had it before, which would make sense why Seymon was inserted into the group.  It also means that THEY knew the group was in that area and I think that is important

Problem is, the cover up was done in a hurry and not well done. which is why the evidence doesn't fit the scene.

Given the amazing cover ups done in history, like the suicide victim that made the German's believe a different location for the invasion to the fact that Patton had a fake army that they managed to convince the axis was real, this isn't even a blip on the difficult cover up business.

Can you give us some proof about that motivation  ! ?  Problem is there is absolutely no proof that this was a cover up.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 19, 2021, 01:18:14 PM
So they spent time skiing around that area and end up setting off a land mine or a boobie trap.

None of them had wounds matching to typical land mine wounds. 50 grams of explosive with contact fuze is enough to tear off feet from ankle. None of them had shrapnel wounds typical to bounding anti-personnel mine like OZM family of mines.

Correct. This whole Theory is seriously flawed.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 19, 2021, 01:21:57 PM
I have no idea what sort of explosion went off. There has been a lot of speculation of different types of explosions that would leave those types of injuries.  There are too many types of boobie traps for me to speculate what it could have been the one to cause it.

Well you must know what injuries from Landmines looks like. There have been enough films and documentaries on wars that include such topics. Non of the injuries to any of the Dyatlov Group were from explosives.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 19, 2021, 01:40:34 PM
It wasn't just a student search party, there was a team of KGB always on site and one mystery group all dressed in the same black sheepskin coats appeared for awhile, others included a military unit to sweep with mine detectors! The leader of the whole group was a Colonel connected to the university so military.


But the use of civilians is curious imo given the heavy hand of Moscow controlling the Sverdlovsk Prosecutors office (having moved the case from Ivdel). It suggests that they were unconcerned with common gossip as long as the official line was death from hypothermia.

I think there is often a misconception of what life was like in the Soviet Union in the years after the death of Stalin. Things changed fairly dramatically. Many people were poor as indeed some still are today in Russia. The Military and the Secret Service were what they have always been. But the people were and still are friendly. The Russians are very proud of their history. Nothing wrong with that. When you see those famous Military Parades in Moscow and other Cities each year you will notice how much the Veterans are loved. Veterans were Military and even Secret Service and also they were the people.  Check this very rare archive out  :  https://www.rferl.org/a/manhoff-archive-part-three-on-the-road/28406244.html
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 20, 2021, 07:07:52 AM
So they spent time skiing around that area and end up setting off a land mine or a boobie trap.

None of them had wounds matching to typical land mine wounds. 50 grams of explosive with contact fuze is enough to tear off feet from ankle. None of them had shrapnel wounds typical to bounding anti-personnel mine like OZM family of mines.

Correct. This whole Theory is seriously flawed.

The entire theory is seriously flawed because you think those wounds would not have come from land mines while you conveniently ignore the other part of the idea that it could have been a boobie trap. I never said the OZM family of mines, I never said what type of explosive. Don't put words in my mouth

Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 20, 2021, 07:17:01 AM
I have no idea what sort of explosion went off. There has been a lot of speculation of different types of explosions that would leave those types of injuries.  There are too many types of boobie traps for me to speculate what it could have been the one to cause it.

Well you must know what injuries from Landmines looks like. There have been enough films and documentaries on wars that include such topics. Non of the injuries to any of the Dyatlov Group were from explosives.

Again, you have ignored the idea of a boobie trap or any of the other types of explosions that have been talked about on here. Curious how that is
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 20, 2021, 07:21:44 AM
The other thing that my idea solves for me is the problem of the photos. These were scientific and engineering students. they were well aware of the necessity of measurements, proving your theory and they didn't take any photos that would do that. Why? that makes no sense given their back ground. but if they were on holiday now, instead of the level 3 certification, then they make more sense.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 20, 2021, 08:01:58 AM
I just had a thought, according to the authorities Igor didn't turn in his final route so it was harder to find them. what if he did? because it seems very odd to me that he wouldn't but they "lost" it so it gave them more time to "find" the bodies.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 20, 2021, 02:46:00 PM
So they spent time skiing around that area and end up setting off a land mine or a boobie trap.

None of them had wounds matching to typical land mine wounds. 50 grams of explosive with contact fuze is enough to tear off feet from ankle. None of them had shrapnel wounds typical to bounding anti-personnel mine like OZM family of mines.

Correct. This whole Theory is seriously flawed.

The entire theory is seriously flawed because you think those wounds would not have come from land mines while you conveniently ignore the other part of the idea that it could have been a boobie trap. I never said the OZM family of mines, I never said what type of explosive. Don't put words in my mouth

No one is putting words in your mouth. You are doing that with your Theory.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 20, 2021, 02:47:57 PM
I have no idea what sort of explosion went off. There has been a lot of speculation of different types of explosions that would leave those types of injuries.  There are too many types of boobie traps for me to speculate what it could have been the one to cause it.

Well you must know what injuries from Landmines looks like. There have been enough films and documentaries on wars that include such topics. Non of the injuries to any of the Dyatlov Group were from explosives.

Again, you have ignored the idea of a boobie trap or any of the other types of explosions that have been talked about on here. Curious how that is

Well if its an explosive then its going to leave traces on bodies etc. But there where no such traces found on any of the Dyatlov Group bodies.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 20, 2021, 02:50:19 PM
The other thing that my idea solves for me is the problem of the photos. These were scientific and engineering students. they were well aware of the necessity of measurements, proving your theory and they didn't take any photos that would do that. Why? that makes no sense given their back ground. but if they were on holiday now, instead of the level 3 certification, then they make more sense.

I think many people think that there is missing Evidence, I certainly do. Missing Photos. Missing Paperwork. Etc. Etc.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 20, 2021, 04:37:58 PM
So they spent time skiing around that area and end up setting off a land mine or a boobie trap.

None of them had wounds matching to typical land mine wounds. 50 grams of explosive with contact fuze is enough to tear off feet from ankle. None of them had shrapnel wounds typical to bounding anti-personnel mine like OZM family of mines.

Correct. This whole Theory is seriously flawed.

The entire theory is seriously flawed because you think those wounds would not have come from land mines while you conveniently ignore the other part of the idea that it could have been a boobie trap. I never said the OZM family of mines, I never said what type of explosive. Don't put words in my mouth

No one is putting words in your mouth. You are doing that with your Theory.

I never ever even once said OZM mines, you did. You are saying my idea doesn't work because of a brand you named, not me
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 20, 2021, 04:40:05 PM
I have no idea what sort of explosion went off. There has been a lot of speculation of different types of explosions that would leave those types of injuries.  There are too many types of boobie traps for me to speculate what it could have been the one to cause it.

Well you must know what injuries from Landmines looks like. There have been enough films and documentaries on wars that include such topics. Non of the injuries to any of the Dyatlov Group were from explosives.

Again, you have ignored the idea of a boobie trap or any of the other types of explosions that have been talked about on here. Curious how that is

Well if its an explosive then its going to leave traces on bodies etc. But there where no such traces found on any of the Dyatlov Group bodies.

No evidence? I guess the strange colour that they found on the bodies (or not depending on the source) the radiation and the wounds are just from having a really good party
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: Manti on March 20, 2021, 05:00:26 PM
Another thought...
If they stepped on a landmine, why is there even a need to cover it up? It's not the authorities fault.

If they entered some military booby-trap, maybe the local military would want to cover it up but according to what Nigel raised above.. the second most senior person in the SU was involved, surely if a local military branch is to blame they could just put them on trial and save face.


Moscow's involvement would hint at some national security concern. Here is some wild guess.. what if the deaths are somehow actually related to nukes. Not a nuclear test (we know there hasn't been one at the time due to the treaty with the US, and it would be detected from abroad), but what if they just came across an abandoned nuclear facility or uranium mine? Maybe they developed radiation sickness days later, even if it's not the ultimate cause of their death, the authorities might want to cover up...

Why? Because they would be afraid the incident might spark widespread anti-nuke protests. In the previous year, 1958, the anti-nuke movement was already gaining momentum in Western Europe and maybe they were afraid it would spread and undermine the Soviet atomic programme and by proxy also their competitiveness with the US military?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 21, 2021, 08:04:41 AM
another excellent idea and why I post on the forum, to get an intelligent response that I didn't think of. good idea
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: trekker on March 21, 2021, 09:36:30 AM
So they spent time skiing around that area and end up setting off a land mine or a boobie trap.

None of them had wounds matching to typical land mine wounds. 50 grams of explosive with contact fuze is enough to tear off feet from ankle. None of them had shrapnel wounds typical to bounding anti-personnel mine like OZM family of mines.

Correct. This whole Theory is seriously flawed.

The entire theory is seriously flawed because you think those wounds would not have come from land mines while you conveniently ignore the other part of the idea that it could have been a boobie trap. I never said the OZM family of mines, I never said what type of explosive. Don't put words in my mouth

No one is putting words in your mouth. You are doing that with your Theory.

I never ever even once said OZM mines, you did. You are saying my idea doesn't work because of a brand you named, not me

Anti-personnel mines may be classified into blast mines or fragmentation mines, the latter may or may not be a bounding mine. There was not matching injuries to blast mines or fragmentation mines. Booby traps have basically same effects - blast of fragmentation injuries. So there is none evidence of mines or booby traps.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 21, 2021, 10:22:55 AM
Humanity has devised so many ways of maiming and killing each other that I am certain this is a possibility. Whether or not this type would be declassified or not is not my area of expertise, nor do I want it to be. They had evidence of a massive violent force hitting some of them, injuries that look they were thrown on their backs, I can't imagine anyone freezing to death, lying on their back with their arms over their heads, strange colour to them and their clothing (if you trust that source) radiation on two of the worst hurt.

There is evidence of an explosion for sure, what type? no idea and I have zero interest in researching the ways we kill each other so if you wish to dismiss my idea out of hand because you don't know of an explosive that would do that type of damage, by all means do so.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 21, 2021, 04:23:32 PM
I have no idea what sort of explosion went off. There has been a lot of speculation of different types of explosions that would leave those types of injuries.  There are too many types of boobie traps for me to speculate what it could have been the one to cause it.

Well you must know what injuries from Landmines looks like. There have been enough films and documentaries on wars that include such topics. Non of the injuries to any of the Dyatlov Group were from explosives.

Again, you have ignored the idea of a boobie trap or any of the other types of explosions that have been talked about on here. Curious how that is

Well if its an explosive then its going to leave traces on bodies etc. But there where no such traces found on any of the Dyatlov Group bodies.

No evidence? I guess the strange colour that they found on the bodies (or not depending on the source) the radiation and the wounds are just from having a really good party

Not traces from an explosion though.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 21, 2021, 04:29:28 PM
Another thought...
If they stepped on a landmine, why is there even a need to cover it up? It's not the authorities fault.

If they entered some military booby-trap, maybe the local military would want to cover it up but according to what Nigel raised above.. the second most senior person in the SU was involved, surely if a local military branch is to blame they could just put them on trial and save face.


Moscow's involvement would hint at some national security concern. Here is some wild guess.. what if the deaths are somehow actually related to nukes. Not a nuclear test (we know there hasn't been one at the time due to the treaty with the US, and it would be detected from abroad), but what if they just came across an abandoned nuclear facility or uranium mine? Maybe they developed radiation sickness days later, even if it's not the ultimate cause of their death, the authorities might want to cover up...

Why? Because they would be afraid the incident might spark widespread anti-nuke protests. In the previous year, 1958, the anti-nuke movement was already gaining momentum in Western Europe and maybe they were afraid it would spread and undermine the Soviet atomic programme and by proxy also their competitiveness with the US military?

Wild Theories with no proof whatsoever. The Dyatlov Group went to one of the Soviet Unions best Colleges. There where KGB and Military connections but not in the way portrayed by many Members in this Forum, who seem to have a fixation with Cover Ups etc. The area would not have been chosen if it was a danger zone. The Mansi Tribe have spoken about many things, but nothing about any Military operations etc.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 21, 2021, 04:31:23 PM
So they spent time skiing around that area and end up setting off a land mine or a boobie trap.

None of them had wounds matching to typical land mine wounds. 50 grams of explosive with contact fuze is enough to tear off feet from ankle. None of them had shrapnel wounds typical to bounding anti-personnel mine like OZM family of mines.

Correct. This whole Theory is seriously flawed.

The entire theory is seriously flawed because you think those wounds would not have come from land mines while you conveniently ignore the other part of the idea that it could have been a boobie trap. I never said the OZM family of mines, I never said what type of explosive. Don't put words in my mouth

No one is putting words in your mouth. You are doing that with your Theory.

I never ever even once said OZM mines, you did. You are saying my idea doesn't work because of a brand you named, not me

Anti-personnel mines may be classified into blast mines or fragmentation mines, the latter may or may not be a bounding mine. There was not matching injuries to blast mines or fragmentation mines. Booby traps have basically same effects - blast of fragmentation injuries. So there is none evidence of mines or booby traps.

Correct, there is absolutely no Evidence of booby traps or explosions by bombs or whatever.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 21, 2021, 04:55:42 PM
other than the injuries, reports of chemicals on their bodies and radiation you mean
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 22, 2021, 05:20:57 PM
other than the injuries, reports of chemicals on their bodies and radiation you mean

You seem to not be getting the point. The injuries show no signs of having been caused by explosions. Explain the reports of chemicals on their bodies  ! ? And Traces of Radiation doesnt mean from explosions.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 23, 2021, 04:40:59 AM
 Traces of Radiation also doesn't exclude an explosion, the force injuries could be from an explosion, the abrasions can be from being thrown violently against something from the force of the explosion so yes, there is evidence of a blast IMO
 you don't have to agree with me either, I'm fine with that.

I see evidence of a blast, you don't.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 23, 2021, 11:55:03 AM
Traces of Radiation also doesn't exclude an explosion, the force injuries could be from an explosion, the abrasions can be from being thrown violently against something from the force of the explosion so yes, there is evidence of a blast IMO
 you don't have to agree with me either, I'm fine with that.

I see evidence of a blast, you don't.

I can understand what you are suggesting. There are plenty of marks on the bodies that havnt been completely explained. But I would have thought if there was any kind of explosion then those carrying out the Autopsy would be able to confirm that ! ?
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 23, 2021, 01:16:09 PM
While I would normally agree with you, in this case I have to say that the autopsy had other objectives besides finding the complete truth.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: sarapuk on March 23, 2021, 04:42:12 PM
While I would normally agree with you, in this case I have to say that the autopsy had other objectives besides finding the complete truth.

Well I actually agree with you to a certain extent. The Autopsy Reports leave a lot to be desired. In particular they say very little about the Missing Tongue of Dubinina. Thats what makes this Dyatlov Mystery intriguing and gets us all going around in circles sometimes.
Title: Re: My theory
Post by: tenne on March 23, 2021, 04:45:20 PM
100% agree.