Recent Posts
I'm referring to Ivanov's description of burned treetops. I'm quite surprised you have to ask.
Or he stole explosives from Yudin who was a geologist and that's why Yudin left.Yudin was an engineering economics major. He wasn't really a geologist...well, maybe he was an amateur geologist. After all, he did agree to bring back some core samples from the trip, to the university.
What burning on the tops of trees do you refer to?. Why and how would a group of hikers transport explosives on train , bus , back of a lorry then a sledge , on skis , on back backs for 200km , whilst falling and sliding , carrying enough food and shelter for 2 weeks?For the "Igor used explosives" idea to have any viability at all, I think we would need to assume that he found some abandoned explosives at Second Northern.
Then how does this explosion burn the tops of trees and not the hikers ? What is the explosive power of what they carried through domestic civilization, including schools and train stations ?
What trees were burned?
I believe Lev Ivanov, and ONLY Lev Ivanov, reported seeing scorched treetops.
What burning on the tops of trees do you refer to?. Why and how would a group of hikers transport explosives on train , bus , back of a lorry then a sledge , on skis , on back backs for 200km , whilst falling and sliding , carrying enough food and shelter for 2 weeks?For the "Igor used explosives" idea to have any viability at all, I think we would need to assume that he found some abandoned explosives at Second Northern.
Then how does this explosion burn the tops of trees and not the hikers ? What is the explosive power of what they carried through domestic civilization, including schools and train stations ?
What trees were burned?
I tried adding this with the original post after the final statement for effect, but it didn't want to work so I renamed it. I think you and I are basically on the same page.
I tend to think the injuries were caused by Igor using explosives, which geologists were known to carry. It would also explain the burning on the tops of the trees.
I tried adding this with the original post after the final statement for effect, but it didn't want to work so I renamed it. I think you and I are basically on the same page.
I tend to think the injuries were caused by Igor using explosives, which geologists were known to carry. It would also explain the burning on the tops of the trees.
Propaganda
I tried adding this with the original post after the final statement for effect, but it didn't want to work so I renamed it. I think you and I are basically on the same page.
I tend to think the injuries were caused by Igor using explosives, which geologists were known to carry. It would also explain the burning on the tops of the trees.
Hi all,
Interesting idea, ahabmyth. A fresh angle is always welcome, but it may be worth stepping back and asking whether we are adding extra layers that the evidence does not really demand.
What the record already tells us:
Tent damage – multiple investigators, including Lev Ivanov, agreed the cuts originated from inside. That squares neatly with a rapid-exit scenario, whether triggered by snow loading, wind pressure, or a shallow slab letting go above the tent.
Documented injuries – the autopsies note bruises and abrasions consistent with slips on hard snow and ice; they do not flag deep muscle tears or major sprains. Absent radiology, a minor strain is possible, but we would expect at least one of nine diaries to mention a hobbling teammate. None do.
Sequence of events – the mixture of undress and the orderly footprints down-slope already imply the group thought they would be right back, so a single urgent trigger (slab, sudden sagging roof, booming wind) is enough to explain the knife, the cuts, and the fast evacuation.
Why more moving parts can muddy the water
Every extra “must-have-happened” step—someone badly injured on approach, knife search in total darkness, widening of cuts by wind, collective decision to shelter downhill—adds uncertainty without solving any clear contradiction in the evidence. Occam’s razor is our friend here; the slab-plus-panic model handles the same facts with fewer assumptions.
A quick word on red herrings
We have all seen the yeti, UFO, and secret-weapon narratives. They draw clicks, but each one shifts focus away from the small, mundane details that actually are in the case files. If the goal is clarity, trimming away the sensational helps the core puzzle stand out.
Friendly suggestion
Maybe keep digging into the autopsy tables first; if you can tie a specific soft-tissue injury to one hiker and show how it cascades into the tent cuts, you will have something solid. Until then, the simpler slab-and-panic route still explains the evidence with fewer leaps.
Cheers, and thanks for keeping the discussion civil.
