September 27, 2021, 11:54:43 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Thoughts on the book  (Read 14158 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

February 23, 2021, 01:15:26 PM
Reply #30
Offline

Manti


I think "would you camp on the ridge yes/no" is not so useful a question because many many such questions can be asked. Would you walk/ski on the snow-covered ice of a river where you can't even see the ice, so you don't know how strong or weak it might be? Nobody would. They did. Would you take stuffed animals and a mandolin on a hiking trip in subzero temperatures but no sleeping bag? Nobody would...

I agree that camping on the ridge makes no sense and camping at the cedar would, it's on their planned route, protected from wind, there's firewood nearby etc. But they also didn't camp at the cedar if we assume the book's scenario, because then there would be signs of the incident near the cedar. So that fallen tree and consequently the original campsite must have been somewhere else a considerable distance away, as it would not make sense to stage the tent in a place where the original site is visible from.


So where was the original campsite? And what happened at the cedar then? Is the den staged? And the campfire?



 

February 23, 2021, 02:04:56 PM
Reply #31
Offline

KFinn


Thinking on it, i think the state of undress is the killer for this theory. If you've just cut your way out of the tent because a tree has fallen on it and you're now standing in the cold snow in your socks, what's the first thing you would do?




Get dressed!!!

I think the first thing I would do is change my pants, lol! 
-Ren
 

February 23, 2021, 04:29:08 PM
Reply #32
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Thinking on it, i think the state of undress is the killer for this theory. If you've just cut your way out of the tent because a tree has fallen on it and you're now standing in the cold snow in your socks, what's the first thing you would do?




Get dressed!!!

Probably try to save your friends.  The thing is we don't know if those who got out of the tent did get dressed, if the scene staged.  They may have managed to get some clothes.  A tree landing on the tent in the dark while you are sleeping is a pretty shocking thing though.  You wake up in the dark hear your colleagues screams, you may be concussed or disorientated.  Those under the tree are likely trapped. Krivo may have been trapped with the stove on his leg.  The pain so bad he bit the skin off his finger?  The first thing you would do if you had your faculties in tact is try to save your friends.  Dorishenko's injuries may be a result of a desperate attempt to move the tree?  I think Zina was badly injured by a tree branch too.  I suppose there is always tge question - why did a tree fall?  High winds?  Or something else?

Regards

Star man
 

February 23, 2021, 04:41:07 PM
Reply #33
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The thing about camping on the ridge is that it's not just the location that is wrong.  Its the scene at the tent.  It's  mental.  I have considered it many times and tried to find an explanation and the only answers that seem to make sense are weird ones:

Infrasound
Radiation
Yeti

And even then there are problems.

In the end you have to accept that either something exceptionally strange happened, or you conclude that the only thing that makes sense at the tent is that it is nonsense.

Regards

Star man
 

February 23, 2021, 05:00:59 PM
Reply #34
Offline

KFinn


The thing about camping on the ridge is that it's not just the location that is wrong.  Its the scene at the tent.  It's  mental.  I have considered it many times and tried to find an explanation and the only answers that seem to make sense are weird ones:

Infrasound
Radiation
Yeti

And even then there are problems.

In the end you have to accept that either something exceptionally strange happened, or you conclude that the only thing that makes sense at the tent is that it is nonsense.

Regards

Star man

It would be so much easier if 1079 were high altitude and we could blame hypoxia for everything.  Burned hands and feet make sense in the context of frostbite.  Strange behavior happens.  Even some of the rib fractures could be explained by severe coughing from high altitude pulmonary edema (not all of the rib fractures but still.)  High altitude sickness is like being drunk and having the flu at the same time.  To me, that would make sense for almost everything.  But the Urals are not Eight-Thousanders and not anywhere near enough of an altitude that would have these results.  There are just no easy answers, anywhere :(
-Ren
 

February 23, 2021, 06:07:47 PM
Reply #35
Offline

ash73


I'm struggling with this theory. How does it explain:

- Rustem, Igor and Zina's injuries, they'd been in a fight
- The hikers leaving shoes, coats, hats and wood cutting tools in the tent
- Dyatlov's jacket and a knife sheath found outside the tent
- 30cm horizontal cuts on the downslope side of the tent
- Ski pole being cut
- Footprints down the slope
- Spent lantern found at the bottom of the slope
- Photos of the hikers digging out the tent base
- Lighting a fire by the cedar, exposed to the wind, rather than in the ravine
- All their clothes being unbuttoned
- The rav4 not being on the platform
- Missing cameras
- Radiation on clothes

Most can only be explained by the hikers being forced out of the tent (on the ridge) by persons unknown, imo.

I doubt the rav4's injuries are compatible with being hit by a falling tree. In that scenario other bones would be broken, e.g. Zolotarev's ribs were injured on one side, if he was lying on one side his arm would also be injured, no objects in the tent were crushed, and the survivors had time to record what happened (avalanche theory has the same problems).
 

February 23, 2021, 06:46:25 PM
Reply #36
Offline

KFinn


I'm struggling with this theory. How does it explain:

- Rustem, Igor and Zina's injuries, they'd been in a fight
- The hikers leaving shoes, coats, hats and wood cutting tools in the tent
- Dyatlov's jacket and a knife sheath found outside the tent
- 30cm horizontal cuts on the downslope side of the tent
- Ski pole being cut
- Footprints down the slope
- Spent lantern found at the bottom of the slope
- Photos of the hikers digging out the tent base
- Lighting a fire by the cedar, exposed to the wind, rather than in the ravine
- All their clothes being unbuttoned
- The rav4 not being on the platform
- Missing cameras
- Radiation on clothes

Most can only be explained by the hikers being forced out of the tent (on the ridge) by persons unknown, imo.

I doubt the rav4's injuries are compatible with being hit by a falling tree. In that scenario other bones would be broken, e.g. Zolotarev's ribs were injured on one side, if he was lying on one side his arm would also be injured, no objects in the tent were crushed, and the survivors had time to record what happened (avalanche theory has the same problems).

The book does answer some of your questions within the parameters of the theory presented.  If you haven't had the chance to read it, there is some really excellent information in there, whether we come to the same conclusions as the authors or not.

I can only really add that Zolotaryev did have a broken shoulder on the same side as his ribs, which was found during the exhumation, in 2018 (I think it was that year.)  The fact that no items in the tent were damaged is very valid.  Plus, the tent itself did not show the same damage as it should had it been hit.  I've had many canvas tents over the years, even made a couple.  Although they are a different weight of canvas undoubtedly, they still take damage when they get hit with falling debris.  At the very least, I would expect tears at the stress points of the canvas from the strike, which I do not see in any of the pictures. 
-Ren
 

February 23, 2021, 07:11:44 PM
Reply #37
Offline

ash73


...If you haven't had the chance to read it, there is some really excellent information in there, whether we come to the same conclusions as the authors or not.

Yep will do, I'm still reading Rakitin at the moment, Teddy's book is on my list.
 

February 23, 2021, 08:29:22 PM
Reply #38
Offline

ahohti


I bought the kindle version of book and read it very intensively. It was
a great & comprehensive historical account of the events in January-May 1959 in the
Dyatlov search and investigation operation.

As a mathematician myself, it was interesting to see that the book
introduced "overdetermined systems". In the section
"Dyatlov Pass for Dummies",  we have that an

"overdetermined system is almost always inconsistent, it has no solution."

After reading several books and articles about the incident, I had
come to my own belief that the evidence is inconsistent. In mathematical
logic, Gödel's completeness theorem says that any consistent list of
statements ("evidence") has a model, or a "solution".
After 60 years there are all these theories but they all seem to be only
partially convincing. Why is that? My guess is that the evidence is
inconsistent. It has no model.

One the authors suggests that by breaking up inappropriate
connections (assumptions) in the evidence, the system may become consistent and have a solution (or in
the logical setting, by removing inconsistencies from the list of evidence
it may have a model).

The authors present a model that explains the extensive injuries on three
of the Dyatlov group members in a new and most natural way (tree falling
on the tent). This model becomes possible when some of the evidence, for
example the footprints leading down the hill, is re-evaluated as belonging
to a staging, not to the event itself.

Of course, their solution is dependent on the assumption that the "last photo"
(loose photos # 12 on the site) - thought to show the location of the tent
being prepared on Feb 1st - is not authentic or last. However, in this case the
coverup has to be even deeper than described in the book: This photo
shares an important detail with the famous tent picture of the Slobtsov
group finding the tent on Feb 26th. There is a ski pole looking object at similar
position with respect to the tent (photo #12 and the Slobtsov photo being
taken from opposite sides wrt tent). A coverup would have to have 1) developed
the films before Feb 26th, 2) removed any photos after #12 3) staged the scene
carefully with respect to the detail in the photo OR they would have needed to
fabricate photo #12.
 

February 24, 2021, 03:50:08 AM
Reply #39
Offline

ash73


Thinking on it, i think the state of undress is the killer for this theory. If you've just cut your way out of the tent because a tree has fallen on it and you're now standing in the cold snow in your socks, what's the first thing you would do?




Get dressed!!!

Probably try to save your friends.  The thing is we don't know if those who got out of the tent did get dressed, if the scene staged.  They may have managed to get some clothes.  A tree landing on the tent in the dark while you are sleeping is a pretty shocking thing though.  You wake up in the dark hear your colleagues screams, you may be concussed or disorientated.  Those under the tree are likely trapped. Krivo may have been trapped with the stove on his leg.  The pain so bad he bit the skin off his finger?  The first thing you would do if you had your faculties in tact is try to save your friends.  Dorishenko's injuries may be a result of a desperate attempt to move the tree?  I think Zina was badly injured by a tree branch too.  I suppose there is always tge question - why did a tree fall?  High winds?  Or something else?

Regards

Star man
Igor had no obvious wounds and Zinaida bruise would have hurt but not more serious than that. There's nothing in the injury profile that precludes a small group of survivors from a tree fall and they would know that to help others they must protect themselves from the cold.

That's how I see it too, after the initial shock they'd put their felt boots on, probably their coats too, and help their friends as best they could. After that, they've got all the resources in the tent to hand, and only minor injuries, and they're not on a mountain facing a 1 mile walk in their socks in this scenario; so they should survive the night and go for help the next day. They could panic when people started dying, even the most experienced people lose their heads, but where would they go? All they can do is keep warm and sit tight.

As I understand it they should already have their felt boots on in the tent, anyhow.
 

February 24, 2021, 08:00:56 AM
Reply #40
Offline

GKM


I am beginning to wonder if people who claim to have read the book actually read the book. One can read the book and draw their own conclusions, and Teddy made that clear. Draw your own dotted line. It doesn't have to match perfectly the line drawn in the book. I have read several posts that insist their was a cover up yet when presented with one it's shouts of " No not that cover up. A different cover up" , but no one ever offers up their own version of what that cover up could be. Let's have a challenge. Present your own cover up. Maybe yours will be better. This is not addressed to any certain member of the forum but to all who believe in the ideal of some form of cover up by Soviet authorities.
 

February 24, 2021, 10:25:27 AM
Reply #41
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I bought the kindle version of book and read it very intensively. It was
a great & comprehensive historical account of the events in January-May 1959 in the
Dyatlov search and investigation operation.

As a mathematician myself, it was interesting to see that the book
introduced "overdetermined systems". In the section
"Dyatlov Pass for Dummies",  we have that an

"overdetermined system is almost always inconsistent, it has no solution."

After reading several books and articles about the incident, I had
come to my own belief that the evidence is inconsistent. In mathematical
logic, Gödel's completeness theorem says that any consistent list of
statements ("evidence") has a model, or a "solution".
After 60 years there are all these theories but they all seem to be only
partially convincing. Why is that? My guess is that the evidence is
inconsistent. It has no model.

One the authors suggests that by breaking up inappropriate
connections (assumptions) in the evidence, the system may become consistent and have a solution (or in
the logical setting, by removing inconsistencies from the list of evidence
it may have a model).

The authors present a model that explains the extensive injuries on three
of the Dyatlov group members in a new and most natural way (tree falling
on the tent). This model becomes possible when some of the evidence, for
example the footprints leading down the hill, is re-evaluated as belonging
to a staging, not to the event itself.

Of course, their solution is dependent on the assumption that the "last photo"
(loose photos # 12 on the site) - thought to show the location of the tent
being prepared on Feb 1st - is not authentic or last. However, in this case the
coverup has to be even deeper than described in the book: This photo
shares an important detail with the famous tent picture of the Slobtsov
group finding the tent on Feb 26th. There is a ski pole looking object at similar
position with respect to the tent (photo #12 and the Slobtsov photo being
taken from opposite sides wrt tent). A coverup would have to have 1) developed
the films before Feb 26th, 2) removed any photos after #12 3) staged the scene
carefully with respect to the detail in the photo OR they would have needed to
fabricate photo #12.

Put simply, there is not enough Evidence. It is highly likely that much Evidence is missing.
DB
 

February 24, 2021, 10:33:55 AM
Reply #42
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I am beginning to wonder if people who claim to have read the book actually read the book. One can read the book and draw their own conclusions, and Teddy made that clear. Draw your own dotted line. It doesn't have to match perfectly the line drawn in the book. I have read several posts that insist their was a cover up yet when presented with one it's shouts of " No not that cover up. A different cover up" , but no one ever offers up their own version of what that cover up could be. Let's have a challenge. Present your own cover up. Maybe yours will be better. This is not addressed to any certain member of the forum but to all who believe in the ideal of some form of cover up by Soviet authorities.
The coverup (by the Soviet hierarchy) isn't a theory, both Ivanov and Okishev stated it as fact. The official line was that the first five died of hypothermia although the autopsies showed fractured skulls, third degree burns, facial abrasions, weeping bruises, hand wounds etc etc. When Ivanov got excited about fireorbs he was read the riot act, his words - "Beria was gone but his methods remained". When the last four were discovered with massive trauma the case was simply closed down by Urakov in person travelling from Moscow to Sverdlovsk a distance of 930 miles. A group of nine people have all died a violent death and the Deputy Prosecutor General travels a thousand miles to close the investigation down. Read Okishev's interview.

Nicely put Nigel. We certainly dont need much Evidence to suspect some kind of action, stratagem, or other means of concealing or preventing investigation or exposure. Some use the words Cover Up.
DB
 

February 24, 2021, 11:13:17 AM
Reply #43
Offline

GKM


Oh I agree there was a cover up, no doubt, I guess I should add the usual "in my opinion ". Definitely a cover up of some form and that is almost impossible to argue against.
 

February 24, 2021, 12:18:37 PM
Reply #44
Offline

Marchesk


How can a sensible, thinking person not see how the DPI played out? And how can any reasonably intelligent person believe the group camped on that exposed ridge? This forum has turned into a mockery and that is very unfortunate because those nine people deserve better.

Because there's almost 80 theories now, with quite a few coming from people who have done their research, travelled to Dyatlov Pass, and written books. Are we going to forget that WAB was a regular here? He thought the tent was pitched on the ridge. So did the Swedish team who proposed the Katabatic wind theory, and so did the poster who was adamant that the hikers were murdered.

How has this forum turned into a mockery just because people find different theories convincing or not so convincing? That's always been the case. There's never been consensus as to what happened, and there's always been a broad discussion of what it could have been.
 

February 24, 2021, 12:21:44 PM
Reply #45
Offline

Marchesk


Nigel's not a hater just because he points out issues he sees with the latest book/theory. Which I read and is interesting. It makes a lot of sense. But that doesn't mean I or anyone has to be compelled into thinking it is the one true theory. Can someone explain how the footprints going in two directions could have been confused for only going downhill?
 

February 24, 2021, 12:40:00 PM
Reply #46
Offline

Monty


Perhaps through frustration we mock and ignore. I wish I had the ability to write a book. My beliefs about the case still remain the same as i documented them, here some time ago. But I won't write off another.
 

February 24, 2021, 04:32:55 PM
Reply #47
Offline

Mark II


Why the tent was staged on the ridge?

Unless there’s a compelling reason, consider this: it’s far more likely that experienced hikers camp on a ridge (for unknown or contingency reasons), that a staging party chooses to stage a camp on a ridge, while giving their best to set up something in a credible way.
 

February 24, 2021, 04:39:20 PM
Reply #48
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
It is possible that there is more to the mystery than just a tree falling onto the tent.  It does fit the injuries.  There is also a compelling argument for a cover up.  A tree may have fallen on the tent, but it may not have been just bad weather, although it would be the simplest explanation. .  The book presents a wealth of information around the activities pointing towards the cover up.  I do wonder though if the searchers, (even the geophysics ground team) found the tent with a tree on it, why they did not just call in the rest of the search parties?  These sorts of accidents seem quite common at the time and if the others found a tent with a tree on it, and no evidence of anti tank mine detonation, then would anyone still blame the northern geological expedition?  I think it is only natural to have questions about the theory in the book.  The book is still an excellent piece of work though, that warrants further thought.

Regards

Star man
 

February 25, 2021, 08:07:48 AM
Reply #49
Offline

KFinn


Oh I agree there was a cover up, no doubt, I guess I should add the usual "in my opinion ". Definitely a cover up of some form and that is almost impossible to argue against.
Yes but the central case of the book is that the coverup was local to Ivdel? Which it very clearly wasn't. The Sverdlovsk office was being overruled (with some force) by Moscow.

I'm personally of the opinion there was at the very least some beaurocratic cover-up, by different parties for different reasons.  The UPI sports club tried to cover their butts (or at least Gordo) when he claimed he'd received a telegram saying the group would be late.  The families and friends of the rav 4 were not told the state of the injuries until into the nineties, according to accounts (other than Dubinina's father who saw her and passed out.)  That right there is an attempt to cover up, even if it was to avoid the families distress (but we don't know if that was the reason or not.)  The case being closed so quick after the last bodies were found does indicate an attempt to cover something.  Whether the locals or the geo-scientists were involved in their own cover up would really amount to the longest game of Weekend at Bernie's.  Is it possible?  Yes, but I don't see the evidence of it being as concluded in the book.  I think the tent would have sustained more damage, their belongings as well.  So possible, yes.  Plausible?  Less so than other theories.  I really want it to have happened that way, because I don't want them to have died due to violence perpetrated by others or human error.  But wanting it doesn't make it true.  Obviously, as we take in information,  my thoughts could change.  They have pretty regularly, lol. 
-Ren
 

February 25, 2021, 10:01:38 AM
Reply #50
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
 

February 25, 2021, 10:03:08 AM
Reply #51
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Es geschah im Schnee

Orkanartiger Wind, minus 40 Grad Kälte, seltsame Himmelserscheinungen - und plötzlich sind neun junge Menschen tot. Stecken dahinter CIA-Agenten, Radioaktivität oder schlicht eine ungewöhnliche Lawine? Über eine mysteriöse Katastrophe im Ural im Winter 1959.

Von Hans Holzhaider

In der Nacht vom 1. zum 2. Februar 1959 starben während einer Skiwanderung in der Wildnis des nördlichen Uralgebirges, nahe der Grenze zwischen Europa und Asien, neun junge Leute, zwei Frauen und sieben Männer. Die Stelle, an der sie ums Leben kamen, wurde später nach dem Führer der Gruppe benannt: der Djatlow-Pass. Die Umstände ihres Todes geben bis heute Rätsel auf. Die Theorien über das, was sich in jener Winternacht an der östlichen Flanke des Berges ereignete, den die Mansen, die indigenen Bewohner dieser Gegend, Cholat Sjachl, den "kahlen Berg" nennen, füllen mehrere Bücher und Tausende Internetseiten.

Die Mitglieder der Wandergruppe kamen aus Swerdlowsk (heute Jekaterinburg), der Millionenmetropole im südlichen Ural. Fünf von ihnen - Igor Djatlow (23), Juri Doroschenko (21), Ljudmila Dubinina (20), Sinaida Kolmogorowa (22) und Alexander Kolewatow (24) waren Studenten am Polytechnischen Institut des Ural (UPI). Nikolaj Thibeaux-Brignolle (23) hatte sein Studium am UPI 1958 beendet und arbeitete als Bauleiter. Auch Georgi Kriwonischtschenko (23) hatte am UPI studiert und arbeitete danach in einer streng abgeschirmten Produktionsstätte für waffenfähiges Plutonium in Tscheljabinsk. Rustem Slobodin (23), war Ingenieur in einem Forschungsinstitut für Chemiemaschinen, aber er hatte auch eine Musikschule besucht, und er nahm seine Mandoline mit auf die Skitour. Und schließlich Semjon Solotarjow, der zumindest vom Alter her gar nicht zu der Gruppe passte. Er war 38, hoch dekorierter Weltkriegsveteran und zuletzt als leitender Führer in einem Wanderzentrum tätig. Alle neun waren erfahrene Skiwanderer, körperlich fit und absolut qualifiziert für die als sehr schwierig eingestufte Tour, die sie in knapp drei Wochen von der Ortschaft Wischai, 600 Kilometer nördlich von Swerdlowsk, durch menschenleere Wildnis und meterhohen Schnee auf die Berge Otorten und Ojko-Tschakur führen sollte.

Die Gruppe fährt mit dem Zug von Swerdlowsk nach Iwdil, dem Standort eines Straflagers, in dem 1959 noch mehr als 15 000 Verurteilte Zwangsarbeit leisten müssen, und von dort weiter mit dem Bus nach Wischai. Am 26. Januar nimmt sie ein Lastwagen mit zur Holzfällersiedlung Distrikt 41. Von dort geht es auf Skiern weiter, aber ein freundlicher Förster leiht ihnen einen Pferdeschlitten, der ihre schweren Rucksäcke noch bis zu einer verlassenen Bergwerkssiedlung transportiert. Hier verabschieden sie sich vom zehnten Mitglied der Gruppe: Ein entzündeter Ischiasnerv zwingt Juri Judin zur Umkehr. Die anderen machen sich am Morgen des 28. Januar auf den Weg zum Otorten, zunächst nördlich entlang des Flusses Loswa und dann nordöstlich dessen Nebenfluss Auspija folgend. Am Abend des 30. Januar lagern sie am Fuß des Passes, über den sie wieder ins Tal der Loswa gelangen wollen. Aber der nächste Tag verläuft nicht wie geplant.

Noch ehe sie den Pass erreichen, zwingt sie ein orkanartiger Wind zur Umkehr. Sie müssen noch einmal im Auspijatal lagern. Igor Djatlow schreibt ins Gruppentagebuch: "Wir sind erschöpft. Feuerholz ist knapp und feucht. Abendessen im Zelt. Schön und warm. Oben auf dem Grat wäre es bestimmt ungemütlicher, heulender Wind, hundert Kilometer von der nächsten menschlichen Siedlung entfernt."

Es ist das letzte Lebenszeichen der neun Wanderer.

Die Rückkehr der Gruppe nach Wischai war für den 12. Februar geplant, aber angesichts der Schnee- und Wetterverhältnisse hatte Djatlow schon eine Verzögerung von zwei bis drei Tagen angekündigt. Aber als es auch am 16. Februar noch keine Nachricht von den Wanderern gab, drängten besorgte Angehörige die Funktionäre des UPI und der örtlichen Parteiorganisation in Swerdlowsk zu einer Suchaktion. Es vergingen weitere vier Tage, bis sich die ersten Suchtrupps an die Arbeit machten, unterstützt vom Militär mit Suchhunden und Helikoptern.

Fußspuren von acht oder neun Personen führten vom Zelt in Richtung des Passes

Am 26. Februar entdeckten zwei Studenten des UPI und ein Förster aus Wischai an der Ostflanke des Cholat Sjachl in etwa 900 Meter Meereshöhe das verlassene Zelt der Djatlow-Gruppe. Der Cholat Sjachl steigt westlich des Passes auf, den die Wanderer überqueren wollten. Der Berghang ist völlig kahl mit einer Neigung von 15 bis 20 Grad. Die Wanderer hatten den Schnee so abgestochen, dass eine waagerechte Fläche entstand. Das Zelt war in der Mitte eingesackt und teilweise mit einer 20 bis 30 Zentimeter hohen Schneeschicht bedeckt. Die dem Berg abgewandte Seite war durch mehrere lange Schnitte zerfetzt. Unter dem Zeltboden lagen acht Paar Skier. Auf dem Zeltboden verteilt fanden sich verstreut fast die gesamten Habseligkeiten der Wanderer: neun Rucksäcke, acht Windjacken, acht Wattejacken, 13 Paar Handschuhe, acht Paar Skischuhe, sieben Filzstiefel, Äxte, eine Säge, zwei Eimer, zwei Kessel, der zylinderförmige Ofen, den Djatlow selbst konstruiert hatte, vier Fotoapparate, das Tagebuch. Vor dem Zelteingang steckte ein Eispickel im Schnee, daneben lag Djatlows Windjacke. Der seltsamste Fund aber war eine funktionsfähige Taschenlampe, die auf dem Zeltdach auf einer Schneeschicht lag, während auf der Lampe selbst kein Schnee war.

Die ersten Suchmannschaften, die das Zelt erreichten, achteten offensichtlich wenig auf Spuren. Die Berichte stimmen darin überein, dass Fußspuren von acht oder neun Personen vom Zelt in Richtung des Passes führten, die etwa einen halben Kilometer weit deutlich sichtbar waren, weiter unten aber, wo mehr Schnee angeweht war, verschwanden. Niemand berichtete von anderen Spuren, sei es von Menschen oder von größeren Tieren, was aber nicht heißen muss, dass es solche Spuren nie gab. Insbesondere flache Spuren von Skiern oder Schneeschuhen wären nach fast vier Wochen wahrscheinlich nicht mehr sichtbar gewesen.

Das Zelt war gefunden - aber wo waren die Wanderer? Der nächste Tag brachte schreckliche Gewissheit. Wenige Meter auf der Nordseite des Passes, unter einer hohen Zirbelkiefer über dem Steilufer eines Baches wurden die Leichen von Juri Doroschenko und Georgi Kriwonischtschenko entdeckt. Sie lagen nebeneinander, nur von einer dünnen Schneeschicht bedeckt, spärlich bekleidet - Hemd und lange Unterhose, keine Schuhe, keine Kopfbedeckung. Neben den Leichen erkannte man die Überreste eines Lagerfeuers. Um die Zirbelkiefer herum gab es etwa ein Dutzend Stümpfe abgeschnittener junger Tannen.

Die Entfernung vom Standort des Zeltes bis zum Fundort der ersten beiden Leichen beträgt etwa 1500 Meter. Noch am gleichen Tag fand man die Leichen von Igor Djatlow und Sinaida Kolmogorowa. Sie lagen fast exakt auf der Linie zwischen Zelt und Kiefer, Djatlow etwa 400 Meter, Kolmogorowa etwa 900 Meter von dem Baum entfernt. Auch sie trugen keine Schuhe. Erst weitere sechs Tage später, am 5. März, kam unter einer zehn Zentimeter hohen, festgepressten Schneedecke auch die Leiche von Rustem Slobodin zum Vorschein, etwa halbwegs zwischen Djatlow und Kolmogorowa. Die Obduktion ergab, dass alle fünf erfroren waren, aber der Gerichtsmediziner notierte, abgesehen von einer Vielzahl von Schürfwunden, auch einige Besonderheiten: Slobodin hatte eine sechs Zentimeter lange Fissur im linken Schläfenbein. Doroschenkos linke Wange war mit einer grauen, schaumigen Substanz bedeckt, die aus dem Mund ausgetreten war - kein Symptom einer Erfrierung. Kriwonischtschenko hatte am linken Unterschenkel eine 30 Zentimeter lange, schwere Brandverletzung. Keiner dieser Befunde konnte zufriedenstellend erklärt werden.

Das größte Rätsel sind die Obduktionsberichte

Und es fehlten ja auch noch vier Mitglieder der Wandergruppe. Die Suche nach ihnen blieb lange ergebnislos. Erst Anfang Mai gab der abschmelzende Schnee eine Spur frei: abgeschnittene Tannenzweige, die eine Art Pfad in die Schlucht des nach Norden fließenden Baches bildeten. Diesem Pfad folgend, grub sich die Suchmannschaft durch die mehr als vier Meter dicke Schneeschicht am Grunde der Schlucht, und dort, in einem reißenden Strom aus Schmelzwasser, lagen die Leichen von Ljudmila Dubinina, Alexander Kolewatow, Nikolai Thibeaux-Brignolle und Semjon Solotarjow. Nicht weit entfernt vom Fundort der Leichen entdeckte die Suchmannschaft unter zweieinhalb Meter Schnee eine ebene Fläche von etwa drei Quadratmetern, die mit abgeschnittenen Tannenbäumchen ausgelegt war. Darauf lagen mehrere Kleidungstücke der verstorbenen Wanderer, aber auch die Überreste einer militärischen Wickelgamasche aus grauem Tuch, die nach allem, was man weiß, nicht zur Ausrüstung der Djatlow-Gruppe gehörte.

Es sind die Obduktionsbefunde dieser vier Leichen, die das größte Rätsel der Djatlow-Katastrophe aufgeben. Denn jedenfalls Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle und Solotarjow waren nicht erfroren, sondern an den Folgen ihrer schweren Verletzungen gestorben. Bei Thibeaux-Brignolle wurde eine schwere Schädelfraktur festgestellt. Das rechte Schläfenbein war auf einer Fläche von 2,5 mal 3 Zentimetern zwei Zentimeter tief eingedrückt - eine tödliche Verletzung. Dubinina und Solotarjow erlitten multiple Rippenbrüche - bei Dubinina vier Rippen rechts und fünf links, mit der Folge einer massiven Einblutung in der rechten Herzkammer. Bei Solotarjow waren vier Rippen auf der rechten Seite gebrochen, in der Pleurahöhle fand sich ein Liter Blut - ohne medizinische Hilfe musste er in kurzer Zeit ersticken. Und darüber hinaus fehlten bei Dubinina und Solotarjow beide Augäpfel, bei Dubinina auch die Zunge.

Die Leitung der Ermittlungen lag in der Hand des Swerdlowsker Staatsanwalts Lew Iwanow. Er ordnete eine Untersuchung der Leichen und der Bekleidungsstücke auf Radioaktivität an. Das Ergebnis: Drei Kleidungsstücke wiesen Spuren radioaktiver Verstrahlung auf. Dafür könnte es eine simple Erklärung geben: 1957 hatte sich in der Atomanlage, wo Kriwonischtschenko arbeitete, ein Unfall ereignet, der dem von Tschernobyl kaum nachstand. Aber man könnte natürlich auch auf andere Gedanken kommen. 2012 erschien in Russland das Buch eines anonymen Autors, der eine exotische Theorie entwarf: Der sowjetische Geheimdienst KGB habe zwei Agenten in die Wandergruppe eingeschleust, um durch die fingierte Übergabe von radioaktivem Material ein Spionageteam des CIA zu enttarnen. Das verabredete Treffen sei aus dem Ruder gelaufen, mit dem Ergebnis, dass die US-Agenten die russischen Kontaktpersonen teils brutal ermordet, teils dem Erfrieren preisgegeben hätten.

Absurd? Gewiss. Aber 1959, zwei Jahre nach dem Start von Sputnik, als die USA und die UdSSR sich einen gnadenlosen Wettlauf um die atomare Vorherrschaft lieferten, mag es einiges an Absurditäten im Kampf zwischen den Geheimdiensten gegeben haben. Und bis heute ist nicht klar, warum der Staatsanwalt Iwanow auf die eigentlich abwegige Idee kam, die Leichen auf Radioaktivität untersuchen zu lassen. Iwanow selbst gab später an, es seien Berichte über unerklärliche Himmelsphänomene in der Uralregion gewesen, die ihn dazu veranlasst hätten. Tatsächlich beobachteten viele, durchaus seriöse Zeugen unter anderem am 1. und 17. Februar und noch einmal am 31. März 1959 leuchtende Objekte in der Größe eines Vollmondes, die sich mehrere Minuten lang über den Nachthimmel bewegten und dann verschwanden. Er sei nach wie vor überzeugt, schrieb Iwanow noch 1990, dass die neun Wanderer durch eine unbekannte Energie getötet wurden, die von diesen "Feuerbällen" ausging. Der Verdacht liegt nicht fern, dass ein Staatsanwalt, der solchen Unsinn verbreitet, in Wirklichkeit eine andere, unerwünschte Wahrheit verschleiern will. Andererseits erinnert das Szenario eines US-Agententeams mitten in der sibirischen Wildnis schon sehr an die Fantasien eines zweitklassigen Thrillerautors. Dazu passt, dass sich hinter dem Namen Alexej Rakitin, den sich der anonyme Autor zulegt, ein vielköpfiges Autorenteam verbirgt, das auch Science-Fiction-Romane produziert. Und um das Fehlen von Augäpfeln und Zunge zu erklären, muss man keine CIA-Folterknechte bemühen. Dazu reicht auch ein Schwarm Krähen oder ein Horde kleiner Krebstiere im Gebirgsbach.

Aber auch, oder gerade wenn man alle Mutmaßungen über die Aktivitäten von KGB, CIA und Aliens ins Reich der Verschwörungstheorien verbannt, gibt das Schicksal der neun Frauen und Männer am Djatlow-Pass Rätsel auf. Was kann neun kräftige, gesunde Menschen veranlasst haben, bei tiefster Dunkelheit und Temperaturen unter minus 20 Grad Celsius ohne Windjacken, Schuhe, Mützen und Handschuhe das Zelt zu verlassen und mehr als einen Kilometer weit in den nahezu sicheren Tod zu laufen? Wie kamen Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle und Solotarjow zu ihren tödlichen Verletzungen?

Das nächstliegende Szenario, das schon während der Bergungsarbeiten und der Ermittlungen für das wahrscheinlichste gehalten wurde, war eine Lawine. Die neun Wanderer im Zelt, einige noch mit Kochen beschäftigt, andere, die sich erschöpft hingelegt hatten, und dann wird das Zelt urplötzlich unter einer Schneemasse begraben. Oder hatte sich das Unglück schon durch ein Geräusch angekündigt, und einer oder zwei konnten noch rechtzeitig ins Freie entkommen? Die anderen schneiden die Zeltwand von innen auf, buddeln sich nach draußen, und alle zusammen flüchten aus Furcht vor weiteren Lawinenabgängen bergabwärts zum Pass.

Allerdings versichern Fachleute, dass ein Lawinenabgang bei einer Hangneigung von weniger als 30 Grad sehr unwahrscheinlich ist. Und multiple Rippenbrüche sind keineswegs eine typische Lawinenverletzung. In einer kürzlich im Fachmagazin Communications Earth & Environmentveröffentlichten Studie allerdings relativieren die Schweizer Forscher Johan Gaume und Alexander Puzin diesen Einwand. Die Wanderer hatten die Schneedecke senkrecht angestochen, um das Zelt aufzustellen. Wenn unter einer Deckschicht schweren, vom Wind zusammengepressten Schnees eine dünne, sehr instabile Schneeschicht lag, und wenn der hangabwärts wehende Wind im Lauf einiger Stunden eine kleine Schneewehe über dem Zelt anhäufte, dann könnte sich auch bei der geringen Hangneigung unvermittelt ein Schneebrett lösen. Wenn diese Schneemasse einen Menschen trifft, der flach auf einer harten Unterlage - hier den unter dem Zeltboden ausgelegten Skiern - liegt, dann könnte dies auch die festgestellten Einbrüche des Brustkorbs verursachen.

Die Theorie hat aber einen Haken: Mit den geschilderten Verletzungen hätten Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle und Soltarjow nie und nimmer den Weg bis zum Pass und noch weiter in die Schlucht, wo sie gefunden wurden, schaffen können. Und es steht außer Frage, dass diese drei ihre beiden Kameraden, die bei der Kiefer gefunden wurden, überlebten, denn sie hatten Kleidungsstücke bei sich, die sie den beiden ausgezogen hatten, und das sicherlich nicht, als diese noch lebten. Der Swerdlowsker Staatsanwalt Andrej Kurjakow, der 2018 auf Initiative von zwei Journalisten der Komsomolskaja Prawdanoch einmal Ermittlungen im Fall Djatlow aufnahm, kam zwar auch zu dem Ergebnis, dass eine Lawine die Katastrophe auslöste. Aber er geht davon aus, dass die vier zuletzt aufgefundenen Wanderer nach dem Tod ihrer Gefährten versuchten, sich in der Schlucht einen notdürftigen Unterschlupf zu bauen, und dass sie dabei in dem steilen Gelände von abrutschenden Schneemassen getötet wurden. Djatlow, Slobodin und Kolmogorowa, die am Berghang zwischen Zirbelkiefer und Zelt gefunden wurden, hätten versucht, das Zelt zu erreichen, um wärmende Kleidung zu holen, hätten aber bei dem stürmischen Wind, der die gefühlte Temperatur auf unter minus 40 Grad sinken ließ, keine Überlebenschance gehabt.

Das neueste Szenario im Fall Djatlow stammt von dem russischen Kernphysiker Igor Pawlow, der sich sehr tief in das umfangreiche Archivmaterial eingearbeitet hat. Seine Theorie: Das Zelt der Djatlow-Gruppe stand ursprünglich nicht auf dem Hang des Cholat Sjachl, sondern in der Nähe der Kiefer, und wurde nachts von einem umstürzenden Baum getroffen. Weil einige Armeeoffiziere und Parteifunktionäre glaubten, das Unglück sei durch in der Nähe durchgeführte Sprengungen verursacht worden, und fürchteten, zur Rechenschaft gezogen zu werden, arrangierten sie das Zelt und die Leichen in aller Heimlichkeit so, dass der wahre Ablauf vertuscht wurde. Das würde einiges erklären: In der Tat erscheint es sehr ungewöhnlich, dass die Wanderer ihr Zelt auf dem ausgesetzten, unwirtlichen Berghang aufschlugen, statt im Schutz der Bäume, wo sie leichten Zugang zu Wasser und Feuerholz hatten. Die schweren Brustverletzungen wären durch einen umstürzenden Baum zwanglos zu erklären. Und schließlich wären die Rätsel der Militärgamasche und der Taschenlampe auf dem Zeltdach gelöst, für die es bisher keinerlei andere Erklärung gibt. Aber es gibt auch einige entscheidende Einwände: Die ganze Geschichte beruht auf bloßen Mutmaßungen. Die Risse im Zelt waren eindeutig von einem scharfen Werkzeug, nicht von einem umstürzenden Baum erzeugt worden. Es lag auch nirgends ein umgestürzter Baum. Es gibt nicht den kleinsten Beleg dafür, dass eine Sprengung einen Baum zum Umstürzen brachte, und es gab deshalb auch keinerlei Grund für die angeblichen Verschwörer, eine so aufwendige Operation in Gang zu setzen, die nach menschlichem Ermessen niemals geheim bleiben konnte.

Und so bleibt die Katastrophe vom Djatlow-Pass bis heute, was sie seit 62 Jahren ist: ein Mysterium.
 

February 25, 2021, 10:05:34 AM
Reply #52
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Too bad the author pointed as a weakness one of the facts only our theory can explain - the cuts from inside.
The hikers cut the tent from inside to get from under the tree. This is the only scenario that can explain why the opening of the tent was not used as exit.
This is how you get out from under a fallen tree - you cut your way out. Also a tree flattens the tent, does not tear it down.
 

February 25, 2021, 10:17:34 AM
Reply #53
Offline

KFinn


We made it into Süddeutsche Zeitung and New York Times.

That was the first time I've seen mention of the altitude and sun being too blame for the radiation.  Has that been discussed before?  I mean, the rav 4 weren't exposed to the sun and they were the ones who had positive tests.  It seems a bit of a stretch to me; 1079 isn't like the Everest Summit where you burn your corneas in twenty minutes without eye protection. 

Well done on the article, Teddy!!
-Ren
 

February 25, 2021, 11:31:46 AM
Reply #54
Offline

ash73


That was the first time I've seen mention of the altitude and sun being too blame for the radiation.  Has that been discussed before?  I mean, the rav 4 weren't exposed to the sun and they were the ones who had positive tests.  It seems a bit of a stretch to me; 1079 isn't like the Everest Summit where you burn your corneas in twenty minutes without eye protection. 

They're conflating two different things - radioactive elements spontaneously decay and emit high energy particles (radiation), cosmic rays ARE high energy particles; you can't make something radioactive by firing high energy particles at it.
 

February 25, 2021, 11:51:50 AM
Reply #55
Offline

Nigel Evans


 

February 25, 2021, 12:45:18 PM
Reply #56
Offline

ash73


you can't make something radioactive by firing high energy particles at it.

thats how c14 is formed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14


a concentration of c14 being an explanation for the higher radiation levels.

I stand corrected, but a half life of 5700 years... that's going to be a tiny amount, would a geiger counter even pick it up?

And it only affected the clothes of Krivonischenko, who happened to work in a nuclear facility on the Kyshtym disaster cleanup?
 

February 25, 2021, 01:39:55 PM
Reply #57
Offline

KFinn


you can't make something radioactive by firing high energy particles at it.

thats how c14 is formed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14


a concentration of c14 being an explanation for the higher radiation levels.

I stand corrected, but a half life of 5700 years... that's going to be a tiny amount, would a geiger counter even pick it up?

And it only affected the clothes of Krivonischenko, who happened to work in a nuclear facility on the Kyshtym disaster cleanup?


I'm pretty sure that Lyudmila's sweater was tested as well.

I'm going to ask some questions about this on the radiation thread, so as not to get more off track on this post about the book. (I greatly do apologize; I do that often and am actively working on it.)
-Ren
 

February 25, 2021, 08:01:00 PM
Reply #58
Offline

Manti


Sorry this is not related to the book but as mentioned above, the investigation can be shut down for innocent reasons. For example, Ivanov for whatever reason ordered radiation testing, but when word of this gets to Moscow... This is information they would not want to become public either because it can lead to rumors about the Kyshtim incident and the extent of contamination (even though I would say that can almost certainly be ruled out as the source of the radiation on the clothes, but they wouldn't know at the time), or it can raise suspicions in the US about a nuclear test and thus a treaty violation. And we know pages pertaining to the radiation report were removed from the case files and only reinstated in modern times. Such a "coverup" can be carried out without the soviet state or radiation having to do anything with the actual incident.
 

February 26, 2021, 03:26:09 AM
Reply #59
Offline

Nigel Evans


Sorry this is not related to the book but as mentioned above, the investigation can be shut down for innocent reasons. For example, Ivanov for whatever reason ordered radiation testing, but when word of this gets to Moscow... This is information they would not want to become public either because it can lead to rumors about the Kyshtim incident and the extent of contamination (even though I would say that can almost certainly be ruled out as the source of the radiation on the clothes, but they wouldn't know at the time), or it can raise suspicions in the US about a nuclear test and thus a treaty violation. And we know pages pertaining to the radiation report were removed from the case files and only reinstated in modern times. Such a "coverup" can be carried out without the soviet state or radiation having to do anything with the actual incident.
The timeline is more like :-
  • The Ivdel prosecutor's office is replaced by the Sverdlovsk office within days.
  • The autopsies of the first five state cause of death as hypothermia even though there are obvious injuries that could only have resulted from "energy", human or otherwise. The autopsies state that Klinov (the head of the Sverdlovsk office) was present. This is Okishev's boss attending five autopsies?
  • The relatives demand answers from the Sverdlovsk office, Okishev and Ivanov have to toe the official line in face to face meetings with them. Okishev admits to having sleepless nights.
  • Concurrent with (3) the film rolls are developed and Ivanov gets excited about fireorbs.
  • Ivanov is told to shut up about fireorbs probably because it was drawing attention to ICBM rocket testing. It is said "he returned from the meeting a changed man". 30 years later he mentions "Beria's methods".
  • The case is classified and the Sverdlovsk office hands over all original materials to a staff officer of the rank of Colonel.
  • The office coordinating the radiograms has a visit from "competent persons" who remove a lot of the radiogram record.
  • The bodies are found in the ravine in May.
  • Ivanov privately (and at considerable risk) has the clothing tested for radiation, sadly the lab isn't equipped to determine the isotope.
  • The Sverdlovsk office requests that cause of death be changed to "unknown compelling force" and this is granted.
  • The Sverdlovsk office requests that there is a summer inspection of the DP site and this is not granted.
  • Urakov travels from Moscow to Sverdlovsk to close the case down in person.
It's fair comment to suggest an innocent explanation for a cover up but there's a deeper sense (for me) that the case was from start to finish a problem for Moscow requiring personal intervention of high ranking officials to guide things along. It seems clear to me that the case would have been closed down much sooner had it not been for the involvement of nuclear workers and the need to confirm that Alexander had died (not defected).