Recent Posts

1

General Discussion / Was it a macabre game?

« Last post by Javier on Today at 04:24:50 AM »

Ladies and gentlemen of the forum, The case of the Diatlot group was a macabre game by high-ranking Russian government officials.
I point out here obvious mistakes that the Dyatlov group wouldn't have made:
They strayed from the established route and camped in an area very exposed to the weather.
With very low temperatures, they didn't turn on the stove.
At night the whole group went out barefoot and without clothes, knowing it would be a sure death from hypothermia.
Some of the hikers had injuries with signs of fighting and trauma that result from heavy hand-to-hand fights.
Some hikers had burns on their feet and hands. This might be because they were tortured when their killers suspected they had a chance of surviving after lighting a fire.
How many hikers who died on Mount Everest are subjected to radiation tests in their autopsies? As far as I know, none. The prosecutor who handled the case was subjected to strong threats, and he added this information to create confusion.
Why did they move the participants' bodies after they died? The hikers died somewhere else, and they moved them away from their planned route to hinder and delay the investigation.
Some of the hikers' injuries were caused by strong blows and they didn't use rifles to prolong their human hunting game.

2

General Discussion / Re: 2 Chinese lanterns

« Last post by Osi on Today at 03:32:40 AM »

The fact that two flashlights were found outside the tent—despite other vital equipment being left inside—is evidence that both flashlights had been actively used within the tent. Had the flashlights merely been stashed away while turned off, it would have been impossible to locate them beneath the collapsed snow.
Let us assume they pitched their tents on the crusty snow that had fallen prior to the final camp. This type of snow is dry and crystallized; stepping on it causes the snow to crumble, preventing the formation of distinct imprints that would reveal whether one was walking in military socks, barefoot, or in *valenki* (felt boots). This holds true even with 10 cm of fresh snow, as the wind would disperse such a light layer within hours. The tracks that actually exist were formed by trampling through much deeper fresh snow. While the snow was significantly deeper at the valley mouth—where they entered the forest—one would expect to see deep, 50–60 cm post-hole footprints there; yet, none exist. This indicates the following: there was a substantial amount of fresh snow that night. The area containing the tracks was a zone of wind-blown snow, whereas the valley entrance—where the tracks vanished—was the zone where snow blown from above accumulated. Part of the snow cover in this area consisted of wind-blown debris from the avalanche that had been triggered by the accumulation of snow on the tent.

3

General Discussion / Re: That pesky footwear

« Last post by Osi on Today at 12:35:49 AM »

Regarding Gleen: In cases of hypothermia and death by freezing, it has been observed that most victims breathed their last in sheltered spots—such as against a wall, beneath a bench, or at the base of a tree. This reflects a primal instinct where consciousness attempts to protect the body. Consciousness does not concern itself with whether a branch can actually shield the body from the cold; it simply tries to use it as a covering. As Igor succumbed to hypothermia, he too took shelter at the base of that tree and tried to cover his face and chest with its branches. Due to the lack of standardization in the skis and boots of the 1950s, skiers had to use extra cords to secure their boots and ankles to the skis to ensure a snug fit; the scars on his ankles are directly attributable to this. If you were to wedge a shoelace between your shoe and your foot and walk all day, you would find your feet injured along the line where that cord pressed against them.

4

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by Ziljoe on October 11, 2026, 07:39:51 PM »

Ramsey, had they climbed from the northwest of the pass—that is, from an elevation of around 800 meters—they would have spotted that cedar tree before sunset. Sixty years ago, there weren't many trees as mature as that cedar. Even in a snowfall, you can see that tree from a mile away. You have to try it sometime: after walking a mile in 25-degree cold—shivering and gritting your teeth—you burn the dry wood the moment you find it. You don't have time to look for a comfortable spot. Since there isn't much snow beneath the cedar, it makes for an ideal location. There is a glass of water in your cupboard, yet you want to drink from Lake Baikal.

Good point in there Osi. Yes, I was forgetting the knowledge. Another reason for the fire at the cedar , the ground! Shallow snow , easy to get to ground level and have a firepit without digging one or needing a flooring of logs when you can't make one without the cutting tools.

5

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by Ziljoe on October 11, 2026, 07:35:41 PM »

Additional questions:

Does anything prove that the members of the group left the tent at the same time?

Can the campfire lit by the cedar be seen from the alleged location of the tent in winter at night or during the day?

Good questions bongyi but the OP is inviting us to look at his 4 questions and respond to them with a criteria. It is a shared logic , which I suspect is to guide our observations, a thought exercise so to speak. It's transparent and might lead to ideas that have been missed.

Join in, let it flow , I'm sure you will have some thoughts but stick to the specific questions.

6

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by Ziljoe on October 11, 2026, 07:27:50 PM »

1) my understanding is that the wind flows from with in the range of the north west to south west to the east It comes from above the tent. I don't agree with an assumption that it's the "worst direction" . Worst has no context in the statement because we don't know the variables. For an extreme example , if there was a blazing fire ,North , west , and South , moving east is the logical reason to do so.

We assume there was a wind and if so its direction is most likely from the tent to the ravine , behind them , it is why they theorised that someone got blown down the slope  and the various arguments if you could regain the slope from the wind stoping you going up it. There was only one flashlight found later on the slope. Even in the dark , visibility can be quite good because the snow reflects light. It can be easier to see without a torch . If a wind is blowing , it is blowing in the labaz area and all along that route also, you will be exposed to the wind for longer going back to the labaz. The only advantage of the labaz is the potential processed wood . Visibility in that direction could be compromised also, plus they would have to walk under the much steeper slope of 1079 where the winds would be stronger. The rational would be to get as low as possible as quickly as possible and get shelter in a snow bank and try to start a fire if possible.

2) the distance may just be random as the physical strength left. ( I do wonder if there's a visibility restriction)

3) my suspicion about the fire are a few. A temporary heat source to try and protect the extremities whilst building the snow hole or accidentally get parts wet at the ravine and trying to dry clothing. Exposed hands or poorly covered hands going down the slope are the first exposure,then breaking the small den flooring tree's , digging snow holes , going up or down embankments of the ravine , climbing tree's and all their activities will be affecting the dexterity. The wind cannot of been so extreme as to prevent the fire as this is where it was lit . The fire was estimated to have burned for 90 minutes but ultimately went out as it was no longer maintained.

The selection of the cedar may be because it was the easiest to climb in their condition. There were a forest of cedars available. It seemed to be the gathering point for a number of the hikers and the general area for processing the den flooring.

4)because Kolevatov never suffered they same force as the others in a snow collapse at the ravine.

7

General Discussion / Re: That pesky footwear

« Last post by bongyi on October 11, 2026, 07:06:17 PM »

The question is, how deep was the snow at the bottom of the slope?  Anyone who has already been torn into waist-deep snow understands that the snow would immediately pull the socks off their feet!

8

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by bongyi on October 11, 2026, 06:54:40 PM »

Additional questions:

Does anything prove that the members of the group left the tent at the same time?

Can the campfire lit by the cedar be seen from the alleged location of the tent in winter at night or during the day?

9

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by Osi on October 11, 2026, 05:39:14 PM »

Ramsey, had they climbed from the northwest of the pass—that is, from an elevation of around 800 meters—they would have spotted that cedar tree before sunset. Sixty years ago, there weren't many trees as mature as that cedar. Even in a snowfall, you can see that tree from a mile away. You have to try it sometime: after walking a mile in 25-degree cold—shivering and gritting your teeth—you burn the dry wood the moment you find it. You don't have time to look for a comfortable spot. Since there isn't much snow beneath the cedar, it makes for an ideal location. There is a glass of water in your cupboard, yet you want to drink from Lake Baikal.

10

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by Ramsay on October 11, 2026, 05:18:08 PM »

SURI, citing or referring to Ivanov's recent articles or personal speculations does not replace the physical evidence found at the scene.

If you believe Ivanov's writings prove premeditated murder or a "hunt" for humans, simply point out the physical data from the investigation that supports this theory:
Where are the footprints of the perpetrators coming from outside?
Why were no signs of a struggle or defensive wounds found on the bodies?
Why would "killers" let Dyatlov, Zina, and Slobodin walk 1 km back up the slope instead of eliminating them at the tree line?

It is easy to claim that someone "didn't read carefully." What really matters is presenting a timeline that answers these four questions while adhering to the topic's rules. If you have such a timeline, I am all ears. Otherwise, let's make room for those who wish to analyze the physical evidence.
(Of course, Ivanov knew the investigation had been handled very poorly.)