Recent Posts

1

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by ZuriDog on Today at 08:02:06 AM »

It was definitely not necessary to break branches up to 5 m high because of the fire. The purpose of breaking branches was different.

Those above needed shelter, those below used the branches as torches.

Atmanaki
”Most of the dry branches up to 5 m were broken. Beside this, the side of the tree facing the slope and the tent was completely cleared of branches. These were not dry; they were young and were not used. Some of them were just lying on the ground, and the others were hanging on the lower branches of the cedar. It looked as if someone had created a viewing hide facing the site from where they came.”

It is precisely the side of the tree facing the direction of the tent were you'd expect to find dry branches. As already mentioned in this thread, these are the branches exposed to windburn.
And as mentioned in the quote, all the dry branches were broken off, the ones that were not suitable were just left there.
Someone climbed the tree and systematically broke off the branches exposed to windburn, the dry branches were collected, the rest ignored.
If you're up a tree looking for dry branches, and the tree you're on has dry branches, why would you come down and look for another one? You'd just go a little higher and keep going right?

2

General Discussion / Re: The Cedars.

« Last post by GlennM on Today at 06:28:55 AM »

None show a fallen tree and disturbed ground. The tent was not pitched in the forest,  nor near the cedar tree.

3

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by SURI on Today at 05:35:54 AM »

It was definitely not necessary to break branches up to 5 m high because of the fire. The purpose of breaking branches was different.

Those above needed shelter, those below used the branches as torches.

Atmanaki
”Most of the dry branches up to 5 m were broken. Beside this, the side of the tree facing the slope and the tent was completely cleared of branches. These were not dry; they were young and were not used. Some of them were just lying on the ground, and the others were hanging on the lower branches of the cedar. It looked as if someone had created a viewing hide facing the site from where they came.”

4

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on Today at 03:45:44 AM »

I’ve always thought the same thing about the branches. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to climb up a tree and snap off limbs when you could grab whatever was lying around, unless you look at the details in the reports. The investigators noted, “At the bottom of the ravine, a flooring of branches of fir and birch trees was discovered, and on top were fragments of clothing.” That’s not something you build fast if you’re already freezing to death unless you have a reason.

Rescuers said, “On the slope at the cedar were freshly broken limbs of about 2-3 cm thickness. The ends were torn and splintered. Some pieces were lying at the foot of the tree, others had been carried.” That right there tells you they weren’t just collecting wood for a fire. Those branches were used as tools.

Ivanov wrote, “The den appeared to be dug hastily, perhaps with improvised tools, hands, and footwear.” No shovel marks anywhere. Later forensic analysis confirmed, “No evidence of shovel marks. Snow removal was performed manually or with sticks.” That lines up exactly with what you’d expect if they were snapping branches to scrape out the snow and make a platform.

I’d also add that those same branches could have been used as clubs. People don’t like that idea because it sounds too dark, but if there was any kind of confrontation, it would make sense. Some of the injuries, like Rustem’s skull fracture, have been called out as proof of massive blunt force trauma, but it’s worth noting there was reportedly no major tissue damage over the fracture itself. That could easily be explained by a thick hat or padded hood absorbing the energy. You can hit someone hard enough to crack bone without leaving an obvious laceration if there’s a layer of insulation. It’s not unheard of in forensic cases. Same with Lydias and Zolos crushed ribs. Not necessarily caused by a beat down with sticks but a fall, which their coats protected from tissue damage.

This is why the simplest explanations often get ignored. They didn’t have to be overthinking it. They were just improvising because they had no other choice, and maybe trying to keep control of a situation that was falling apart.

5

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by ZuriDog on July 01, 2025, 10:00:46 PM »

My diffuculty with the descent to the woods theory is Otorten. If they could spend one cold night and then get to Ortoten, they would be in a better condition for the return trip.

 Sending someone on 1079 out in lousy conditions in snow and ice for a couple of miles, half of which was uphill speaks of remarkably poor planning and unnecessary risk taking for the comfort of those in the tent. After all, they did eat and they had their clothes. Nobody was going to die in that tent, all things considered. For me, what changed was a snow slide which impacted the tent and resulted in sufficient doubt of their safety.

There are parts of your theory that do fit nicely with the facts.

Traversing difficult terrain is what they were in for, and on that particular day the would have had the time and energy due to having set up camp early.
As for incentive - Though I haven't yet found an official statement of just how much wood was in the tent, I remember reading they had one log, that they had carried with them from their previous camp. If they had to carry wood it means they couldn't rely on it being readily available. They didn't just need wood for that night but possibly for their next camp as well. With the extra time available to them, and the nearby woods, a 3 km hike seems worth the effort. And yes half of it is uphill, but half of it is downhill.
Also, neither Zolotarev nor Tibo died of hypothermia, meaning they were both well equipped and prepared for the hike to the woods.

6

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by Ziljoe on July 01, 2025, 08:00:35 PM »

It was not necessary to climb to a height of 4-5 m to get firewood.

And yet... They did climb that tree, to a height of 4-5m, and broke branches off it. That is part of the evidence.

It makes sense to get fire wood from the ceder tree. The branches that are broken were probably the easiest to break, they would be the driest on the tree as they faced the wind which would have caused windburn etc.. . The ceder branches were reported to have been burned and the bodies were found on an insulation layer of gree branches . There would also be sap in the branches which would aid with starting a fire. 5 meters is not that high and it's especially not high if wood is needed .

7

Maps and charts / Re: Brand spanking new Google map not.

« Last post by Ziljoe on July 01, 2025, 07:53:09 PM »

Someone must have noticed this or am I missing something.

As we (me) can clearly see the location of the bodies are back to front , as in Zina, Slobodin and Igor were going "up" the hill to the tent.

This hand drawn picture is from somewhere around the location of the tent . It looks down towards the ceder. Zina is the closest to the tent . The hill to  1079 is out of view and two the right of the picture . On the far right of the drawing we can see boot rock in the little formation . Hope that helps.

8

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by GlennM on July 01, 2025, 07:14:51 PM »

My diffuculty with the descent to the woods theory is Otorten. If they could spend one cold night and then get to Ortoten, they would be in a better condition for the return trip.

 Sending someone on 1079 out in lousy conditions in snow and ice for a couple of miles, half of which was uphill speaks of remarkably poor planning and unnecessary risk taking for the comfort of those in the tent. After all, they did eat and they had their clothes. Nobody was going to die in that tent, all things considered. For me, what changed was a snow slide which impacted the tent and resulted in sufficient doubt of their safety.

There are parts of your theory that do fit nicely with the facts.

9

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on July 01, 2025, 06:59:41 PM »

Maybe they wanted live branches to use as clubs or they were clearing away branches to be able to observe the tent area uphill. Kinda hard to burn live wood. Which makes me wonder how the heck they even started a fire with only matches.

10

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by ZuriDog on July 01, 2025, 06:16:23 PM »

It was not necessary to climb to a height of 4-5 m to get firewood.

And yet... They did climb that tree, to a height of 4-5m, and broke branches off it. That is part of the evidence.