Recent Posts

81

General Discussion / Re: Book "1079"

« Last post by ahabmyth on June 27, 2025, 09:24:56 PM »

Thanks for that GlennM ,I am going to find it hard to find all my numbered questions in the case files.
 
I have already solved Jack the Ripper case .

Trees fell on all these 6 women and it just happened that the same guy was in the area and tried to help. He was a tree removalist that used to do artwork on tree stumps and was incredibly smart with a chainsaw.

 Anyhow back to the tree theory which IMHO was impossible.
"If" the two trees that the tent was anchored to were roughly the same size and I heard somewhere they were 5-6+ mtrs tall , the tent being 4mtrs long, the (now known fallen tree ) if it indeed was rotten and fell on the tent it wouldnt have fallen in a straight line as branches would force the tree to one side and perhaps hit nobody. Only people who were 2-3 mtrs away from the tent would be injured or crushed. And like you say there were no pine needles (which are hard to find on cedars) on the tent. And by the way if they rolled the tree off the injured they would find the rotten tree was dry enough for fuel.

82

General Discussion / Re: Clothes

« Last post by GlennM on June 27, 2025, 08:47:44 PM »

Is it Igor? Is it the Ortoten hike? There are fingered gloves as well as mitts. My opinion is that the only person not wearing gloves pressed the shutter button, put on gloves, turned around and joined the hike.

83

General Discussion / Re: Book "1079"

« Last post by GlennM on June 27, 2025, 08:40:49 PM »

Ahabmyth, congratulations on making a brief summary of the 1079 theory. Every one of your numbered questions has been addresses in the forum at sometime or another. The important difference is that in Teddy's 1079 theory, the unknown compelling force is the treefall. Alternately, on the slope where the tent was discovered,  the unknown compelling force is unidentified and an open question.

One would expect that a fallen tree would leave evidence upon the tent, and those injured inside would leave evidence upon the tent inside.There is nothing in the case files to suggest a tree fell on the tent, nor blood stains within the tent. The tent was kept for a long time before being discarded. In all that time, no one pursued that line of inquiry and looked form supporting evidence.

There is also a question about crushed material items not being found.

In either situation, slope or woods, there are actions you would expect reasonable people to do. In each case, there is nothing we can point to that says, " because of this one partical truth, be it a person, place or thing, the tragedy had to have happened this certain way". This is why sometimes we take the grand view and other times we pick nits. Do not dispair, the Jack the Ripper mystery is older.

84

General Discussion / Re: Book "1079"

« Last post by ahabmyth on June 27, 2025, 07:59:17 PM »

So I gather the main gist of this topic is the fact that the tent was not on the mountain but in the treeline and that authorities had moved the tent up to the mountain level that we see in "most" of photographic evidence. And that the tent being specifically made to be hung between two trees with the assumption that the Cedar and the Fallen Cedar were the trees used to facilitate the erection of the tent.This would also demand that the task of erecting the tent meant that practically all of the 9 were there, when a small contingent of 4 was tasked with finding more firewood the concept of them all falling in the ravine without being heard dosnt make sense as the Cedar and the rest of the group were found only 260ft away and screams for help would easily be heard. Again this would indicate that the rest of the group had already set off up the mountain leaving the 2 too keep the fire going (without fuel) possibly hearing screams for help but being unable to help due to the cold.

Not being as familiar with this subject as many others I need to fire some questions at you.1.Have the roots of the fallen tree been found to be near enough for the other end of the tent to be supported.ie more than 9-10mtrs between them.
2. Was the heater still in its box and unused on the fateful  night.
3.What could have been the excuse for not having a bigger fire if all the hikers had made it to this spot.
4. What would be the reason for climbing the tree and snapping off branches for the fire when they had 7 others looking for fuel (speaking of which ,unless already drunk the Vodka would have been great for starting a fire ).
5.Why were not many more footprints ie compacted snow found around the Cedar and treed areas.
6.Why were the bodies of the three found going up the mountain.( Zina actually made it through the rocky area )and maybe had the flashlight that was found in sight.
7.Why was Igor the most experienced in the group in the 3 found going up the mountain. Whatever the reason he lacked the skill to keep up with the other 2 (although I suppose he was tired after carrying the tent maybe).
8. OK I havnt read the book which may have answered many of these questions ( I am not a book person ) and I must congratulate all of you for not divulging what was a probably good theory of what happened.
9. NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE - It is mentioned and seen that  many times these types of tent are erected using skis. Now unless the ground is really soft you wouldnt have a cat in hells chance of penetrating the soil and holding them firm enough with snow wouldnt IMHO be possible so how do they do it. Small tent maybe but this tent was 4mtrs long, and I know IGOR wanted to test something for erecting ( I love this word). But may have given this a miss due to the harshness of the weather.
11.I cant get my head around this tree theory. Thinking ok the last slice of the fallen tree was rotten, but in 1959 it would have had a lot more normal wood inside (its been 60 years). However the snapping of the roots and indeed the tree itself if it is still attached the roots would have made a terrifying noise which certainly would have inspired concern in the tent even over the sounds of the howling gale. But again was the damage done to the hikers enough to warrant them leaving what was left of the tent.
12. Anybody know if the rope of the tent snapped or ripped off the attaching eyelets.  Ok enough for now.        .

85

General Discussion / Re: Vodka

« Last post by ahabmyth on June 27, 2025, 07:03:49 PM »

If implying that booze (maybe after erecting the tent and settling down during that furious snowstorm) ,I think not. Although he may have been able to hide a bottle the bottle itself would not have been 1ltr or something, more likely he decanted it into a hip flask and that certainly would not have been enough to get blotto and devise an insurrection at 1079.

Great drawings by the way - AI ???..

86

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by Ziljoe on June 27, 2025, 06:13:45 PM »

Fire damage.

87

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by Ziljoe on June 27, 2025, 06:12:11 PM »

Wind burned and burned are two different things. You can't post a picture of a green tree with all the snow melted and blown off and cite that is what Ivanov described.

Fair enough, but you can't cite what Ivanov seen as a ray gun or st Elmo's fire?..

The concept of the language description serves a purpose on ceders, fir trees etc. The words wind burn / wind scorch have a reason in language. This is because it looks like a burn or scorch to the tree, exactly the same if the tree was burnt by a flame. It's due to several reasons , one being that the tree can't supply the water from its roots to the branches due to wind drying out these branches and/ or poor roots.

It is not rocket science, the clue is in the description. A burnt tree looks exactly like a tree that is exposed to wind burn.

Ivanov did not collect any data to eliminate one from the other . This is poor investigation in my opinion

When you say they are two different things , you are correct, but ivanov supplied no argument, or context.

Do you understand?

88

General Discussion / Vodka

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on June 27, 2025, 04:40:33 PM »

Let's consider a whimsical supposition, purely speculative, of course. Imagine Zolo nicking that bottle from the drunk man on the train. Typically, that would've been Yudin's job, right? They're often painted as mere kids, and while Zolo was indeed older at 35, he was hardly ancient; still a hardy young man full of wit and guile. I notice some don't care for Zolo, labeling him a quitter or worse, but we should ask ourselves: if he was such a problematic figure, why was he even permitted to join? Why did he always carry that camera around? He certainly wasn't some secret KGB operative; more likely, he was just an older guy needing that final certification. Honestly, I'd prefer Zolo as a companion on a grade 2 hike over the immature Igor any day.
Regarding Ivanov, let's ease up on the criticism. He was simply trying to do his job as an investigator. He wasn't looking for fame or money; he had a family, a daughter, and his motivations weren't sensationalistic.

And speaking of non-sequiturs and ad hominems, let’s keep the discussion constructive. Sure, some of us may not have access to the latest research tools (not me), but that's no reason to dismiss anyone's ideas outright. We all bring something valuable to this discussion, even if some of our spelling suffers after a bit of vodka! (guilty as charged, haha).

89

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov Mutiny Cover Up

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on June 27, 2025, 03:00:18 PM »

Wind burned and burned are two different things. You can't post a picture of a green tree with all the snow melted and blown off and cite that is what Ivanov described.

90

General Discussion / Re: Igor Did It

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on June 26, 2025, 08:54:14 AM »

That's quite the vague accusation you're leveling at someone in reference to a public case.