June 13, 2021, 07:40:25 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1

....................................
What is CLEAR FOR ME PERSONALLY:

1. No one in the group belittled anyone, we just looked at it from a different angle.
2. The relationship in the group was good.

3. But... Kolevatov's birthday in the fall, and then winter! How so?
Again, to hell with that theory for now.
There is such a thing as"Second birthday","Second time born". What does it mean?
This is the day when a person was on the verge of life and death, and miraculously survived.
A. Kolevatov - a child of war, maybe what happened in childhood that could kill him, and when he survived-he was "born a second time".
That's all, share your opinion in the comments! thanky1

It is rather Semyon Alekseevich Zolotaryov (Born on 2 Feb 1921), who can be qualified as a child of war since he was integrated in the Soviet army from October 1941 to May 1946. And all those who have an idea, even fuzzy, of what could be the Eastern Front are very impressed !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

Aleksander Sergeevich Kolevatov  (Born on 16 Nov 1934) was an arguably bright student of nuclear physics, he was a 4th year student as a Physics Major at the UPI University.

In my opinion, the episode of the sharing of the tangerine as well as the manner in which Kolevatov's birthday or anniversary is related are irrelevant to the resolution of the DPI problem.

I think that Eduard Tumanov himself, who since the post of April 08, 2019 - (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=411.0) - has intervened several times in Russian TV shows now agrees with the expression : "the hikers took part in a fight, againt outsiders."

 Consequently, the reasons for the transformation of Dubinina's mood is an important purely psychological element which is closely connected with the arrival of the (probably) trinome of attackers on the slope of the Kholat, Syakhl on the evening of 1 February 1959.
See :
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=433.0


Reply #2
Yes, I've never put stock in the theories that the hikers fought amongst themselves.  There may have been arguments, disagreements, tiffs, or even quarrels, but only children allow disagreements to turn into fistfights.  Their very survival depended on working together, and they knew this well. 

The members of the hike had to apply to join the hike, and then had to be accepted.  The team must contain people who work well together and who could follow the leader's instructions.  Dyatlov had a hand in choosing the members; having been on hikes with them before, he would have a good sense for the interpersonal dynamics at play. 

This, I believe, is one reason Lyuda writes that they didn't really want Zolotaryov to join the group: no one knew him.  Everyone else knew each other; they knew what the group dynamics would be; they had a good idea of how the interactions would play out.  A new person in the mix could make it awkward.  Zolotaryov, however, seems to have been agreeable enough not to make problems for anyone.

Whatever caused the tragedy, it wasn't a fight amongst themselves.

Congratulations mk, this is very well said and explained in few words.


Hello, dear friends!
I use Google Translate, so there may be some stupid mistakes.

On the internet you can find several free machine translation programs that seem fairly adequate for the translation and the theme.

Personally I use  DeepL for various European languages: French, English, Russian, German, Polish, Romanian, Czech...
https://www.deepl.com/translator

But I do not understand the little round yellow hieroglyphs that sometimes appear in some posts.

grin1 kewl1 nea1 wink1 tongue2 quiet1 shock1 whist1 lol1 lol2 clap1 explode1 cry2 dance1 dunno1 lalala1 loco1 bat1 nose1 thanky1 okey1 whacky1 thumb1 neg1 vroom1 bang1  bow7 twitch7 excuseme bigjoke lol4

Code: [Select]
grin1 kewl1 nea1 wink1 tongue2 quiet1 shock1 whist1 lol1 lol2 clap1 explode1 cry2 dance1 dunno1 lalala1 loco1 bat1 nose1 thanky1 okey1 whacky1 thumb1 neg1 vroom1 bang1  bow7 twitch7 excuseme bigjoke lol4       ???
2
Diaries and letters / Re: Yuri Doroshenko's Diary
« Last post by RidgeWatcher on June 11, 2021, 05:54:50 PM »
My take is:

We are travelling with Blinov's group. We're having fun, we're singing. We arrive at Serov around eight o'clock in the morning.

Whoever wrote this knows "Blinov", there is a connotation that there is comradery between them and also familiarity, what else would you have but singing and fun with friends and acquaintances.

If Semyon had wrote this it would written as: We met up with "The Blinov group" and they were a lot of fun, we sang and I had a good time with them. Semyon had never met Blinov before.

I go with Doroshenko.
3
General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on the book
« Last post by Andysek77 on June 11, 2021, 01:51:21 PM »

Yeah,
That's what I meant. Sorry my bad english.  The conspirators had the theater made. Tent, bodies for official investigators to find what the conspirators wanted and draw the conclusion the conspirators wanted. And it's likely they put someone on the oficial search team.
4
Diaries and letters / Re: Group Journal
« Last post by WinterLeia on June 11, 2021, 01:35:12 PM »
When I look at the group journal, it suggests to me they were taking turns. Everyone just wrote one entry except for Tibo, and considering his first entry was one line it doesn’t require too much imagination to think that maybe the group told him he needed to do another entry and put something more substantial in it this time. In addition, it would explain his comment about “witless writing”. If that is the case, then Zolortaryov could have been the one that wrote the first entry for 1/30, the one that begins with it stating that the entry was written on the go. I think there’s a picture for 1/30 that shows Zolortaryov and Zina writing in diaries while stopping for a rest or to study the Mansi signs. Of course, Zina would be writing in her own diary. Zolortaryov could be writing in the group diary, however, and the entry does specifically mention Mansi signs, which seems to have captivated everyone’s attention in that series of photographs.

Oddly, January 30 is the only day that has two entries. The second entry seems to have been written just as they were ready to go to sleep that night. If my theory is correct, this would either be a second entry by Zolortaryov, and why would he add a second entry with the same date? Or it could be Slobodin since he was the only one who hadn’t written an entry in the group diary except Dyatlov who puts an entry in the next day. Did Slobodin or whoever it was just not realize that there was already an entry there for that day?
5
General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on the book
« Last post by Teddy on June 11, 2021, 01:24:59 PM »
4) Then they sent another group to officially search and they found everything as we know it.

The official search was not sent by the conspirators. It was sent by Sverdlovsk and Moscow. The conspirators inserted themselves into the search when they had other problems to take care of - mining, building railroads, catching escaped prisoners... Their participation in the search is not justified... unless they wanted to be closer to what will be found, and to be able to make last moment adjustments to the discoveries e.g. the storage (aka labaz).
6
Diaries and letters / Re: Yuri Doroshenko's Diary
« Last post by WinterLeia on June 11, 2021, 01:19:13 PM »
Maybe it’s the way I’m reading it, but mentioning Bienko in the way that it does still comes across as rather strange and contradictory to me. It’s like the writer is explaining why there’s only ten of them. But there would only be ten anyway. The only difference is that the tenth member is Zolortaryov and not Bienko, and it’s odd that no comment is made about a brand-new person being added to the group like Luda mentions in her diary. Was Doroshenko just more used to strangers being added to the group hikes he went on? And maybe he thought there were supposed to be eleven and didn’t realize that Bienko was being replaced by Zolortaryov instead of just being a new addition. I’m not arguing about it. These are just questions that came to my mind when I read the posts.
7
General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on the book
« Last post by Andysek77 on June 11, 2021, 01:11:48 PM »
Of course.
1) They learned of the dead bodies from the plane. The girl and the man in the hug were frozen if I remember correctly.
2) They sent someone to get the bodies. Six bodies were found and taken to the morgue. So far, normal procedure as you wrote. The dead awaiting identification and burial. Only six bodies and not nine or the tent in the woods was found during the first search. Otherwise, nine would have been brought in. At least that's what I think.

3) The news of the lost expedition came and panic and the idea of getting rid of responsibility arose. The conspirators sent a group to find the area again. They found rest of bodies, tent and moved tent  to the hillside. Threw four bodies into the ravine and spread the other corpses. Igor, Zina and Slobodin up the slope. Dora and Krivo to the cedar.
4) Then they sent another group to officially search and they found everything as we know it.

This is what I thought. I mean, someone brought the bodies to the morgue. The second then made Potemkin Village, and the third was the one who had no idea he was moving in a setup prepared by the conspirators. That's how I thought it went down.
May be i am wrong not sure.
8
General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on the book
« Last post by Teddy on June 11, 2021, 10:48:12 AM »
Then came the information about the loss of the expedition and the interest of Moscow and Sverdlovsk to find it. Then the panic began, an unknown group of searchers discovered the whole situation / tent and all the bodies. Those that might look like victims of violence (and thus investigation ) were tidied up to the river under the snow. That is, Zolo, Tibo and Ljuda. Kolevatov, too, for some reason.
Why unknown, the people that found the tent and bodies end of February are very well known.
The conspirators didn't know the injuries. Igor told you that perhaps Kolevatov was found trapped in the tent, or trying to help someone in the tent, and his injuries may have been presumed severe.

The rest of them formed the familiar illusion. Thus "from the tent on the mountainside, the tourists fled into the forest and gradually died in a heroic struggle with nature". The groups sent out have already found this scene. Within months everything disappeared from sight and then the remaining four were found but by then the injuries no longer mattered because everything was closed as an accident.
I am confused by all this.

Here is someone's famous summary of the plot:
-------------------------------------------------------
The group never pitched their tent on the slope – they were too experienced to make that mistake and in any case it made no sense as they had much better shelter from the wind, as well as access to firewood and running water in the forest at the foot of the slope. So that is where they camped on the night of Feb 1st.

A freak accident – a falling tree - caused the traumatic injuries suffered by five members of the group. Lyudmila who suffered the worst injuries probably died 15 minutes afterwards. The others tried their best to liberate their friends from under the tree and attend to their injuries but they didn’t manage and they eventually froze to death. Leaders in Ivdel (Ivdellag, railway troops and Northern Geological Expedition) feared they might be blamed for the hikers’ deaths – maybe they had failed to observe safety regulations in some way? So they colluded with party members and local police to cover up the real reason for the young people’s deaths. The bodies were taken from the morgue and spread out on the slope and under the cedar tree and pitched their tent up the slope to make it look like a case of hypothermia  but threw the four  students with the most serious traumas from the tree accident  into a crevice/pit so they wouldn’t be discovered until much later and the cause of their deaths would be hard to determine.
-------------------------------------------------------

9
General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on the book
« Last post by Andysek77 on June 11, 2021, 09:17:14 AM »

Oh, I see, I hope so.

So, after several bodies were spotted by plane, six bodies were brought to the mortuary and nothing was known about them. It can be assumed that they were part of an expedition. I thought the first search party had found the tent in the woods, and therefore all the bodies of Datlov's expedition. That's not what happened. Six bodies were found and taken to the morgue. There was no further search. So the tent may not have been found at all at this point in time and therefore not all the bodies.

Then came the information about the loss of the expedition and the interest of Moscow and Sverdlovsk to find it. Then the panic began, an unknown group of searchers discovered the whole situation / tent and all the bodies. Those that might look like victims of violence (and thus investigation ) were tidied up to the river under the snow. That is, Zolo, Tibo and Ljuda. Kolevatov, too, for some reason.

The rest of them formed the familiar illusion. Thus "from the tent on the mountainside, the tourists fled into the forest and gradually died in a heroic struggle with nature". The groups sent out have already found this scene. Within months everything disappeared from sight and then the remaining four were found but by then the injuries no longer mattered because everything was closed as an accident.

I apologize for all the questions but the fate of the Datlov expedition is a very debated topic , unfortunately there are only known sources about the "mysterious forces" I do not want to in any way misinterpret your work when we discuss the fate of the expedition with other curious people. I don't know if the book will ever be translated into Czech.

10
General Discussion / Re: The ravine deaths - a theory
« Last post by WinterLeia on June 11, 2021, 08:05:37 AM »
I’m somewhat confused by the fact that everyone is calculating differences in snow depths between what may have been when they either dug or found the snow den to what it was when the bodies were found. There were snowstorms in the time between those two events as well as a spring thaw. Unless we know how much snow fell and how much snow thawed, all we are left with are assumptions based on rough estimates. Considering what we’re dealing with, even being off by a little amount could change the dynamics significantly.

Secondly, I don’t doubt for a second that water can move a human body. I do doubt that it could move a body, but not the loose items of clothing on the den floor. They were not smashed into the floor. Once the body slid off it, if there was even a body on it, the garment would have been carried downstream as well. And I’m sorry, but the placement of those pads, four of them in each one of the corners, is a bit too symmetrical for me to believe that clothes and tree branches just happen to fall or be cast off like that. And I have yet to see an explanation for why they cut clothes off their dead friends or even ripped their own clothes in half and/or discarded them all over the place. The case file reads like a modern day Hansel and Gretel story, follow the breadcrumbs (or clothes, in this instance) to find the den. Did Luda believe she was wearing too many clothes, so she ripped her sweater in half? If she didn’t need it for something else, then there’s no reason she would have done that.

As far as there being pockets of empty air and den collapses, yes, these are possible, but so are a lot of other things. However, I have become extremely suspicious of any theory that has them buried in snow, as it seems to be the one theory that keeps getting pushed time and time again. First it was an avalanche at the tent, then it was a slab avalanche at the tent, and now it’s an avalanche at the den. If that’s ever put into serious question, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone didn’t start arguing that snow fell from the cedar and caused the injuries.

I agree, however, that the only way they could have built that den is that it is either a natural formation or required a small amount of digging through loose powdery snow. It’s not just a lack of snow shovels, but also the lack of proper attire coupled with the fact that they had already walked a fair distance through freezing temperatures from the tent to the cedar. Digging in snow with their bare hands or even gloves would have dropped their body temperature even more. The most likely scenario is that they would have froze to death before they got very far in the construction.

I’m all for simple explanations. And I realize we will not have all the answers or there won’t be contradictions even if we happen to alight on what really did happen. However, it should at least answer the most pertinent questions. The theory of a den collapse doesn’t answer what happened at the tent that put them in that situation to begin with. It doesn’t answer why Luda’s brown sweater was literally the most radiated of all the clothing. It doesn’t explain why the protocol to close the case stated she was wearing George’s radiated clothing when neither the official autopsy, the description submitted by the people who found her body, or the radiation testing support this. Was that just an honest mistake or was that put in because radiation on George’s clothing is a lot easier to explain than radiation on Luda’s clothing? Why does the written description of how the bodies were found in the ravine differ from what the pictures show? They say that the men’s’ heads were lying north along the stream and Luda’s head was lying in the opposite direction against the current? She was lying perpendicular to the men, so if the current was flowing north and her head was pointing south, the men’s heads were facing east. Again, a honest mistake? Is it just a coincidence that the bodies, if found in the position described in the case file, would have made the theory of them being carried there by the natural movement of water to be more likely? The water would have had a lot easier time of doing that if it wasn’t facing the resistance of the full horizontal length of three grown adult male bodies stacked one after the other (If you hold your hand outside the window of a moving car, you’ll understand what I mean. Turn your palm to the wind and there’s a lot of resistance. Turn your hand so the wind hits one side and there’s a lot less resistance). How many mistakes can be explained away before we’re allowed to wonder if they’re really mistakes? It doesn’t answer why there were foot bindings found at the scene that belonged to no one. It doesn’t explain why the searchers would have dug ten centimeters down to find some clothing and then not used the avalanche probes, but instead decided to just dig down ten meters more without any idea something was even down there other than the discarded clothes. They had found discarded clothes all over the place. Were they digging ten meter holes at every spot where clothes had been found? I would think the avalanche probes were there to save them from expending their energy fruitlessly. So the one place they dug just happened to be where the den was? Common sense would suggest they would find the bodies first, not flattened branches and clothes under ten meters of snow.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10