September 20, 2021, 02:23:11 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Questions about the case - could anyone provide more info on these gaps?  (Read 469 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

May 18, 2021, 12:08:23 AM
Read 469 times
Offline

EBE


Hi all,

I am new to the forum, but not to the DPI. First, I would like to thank Teddy and other collaborators for creating the website and forum, it is a great source of information about the case. Special thanks for English translation of case files and other documents.

I will not talk about any specific theory here, I would like to discuss what I perceive as major discrepancies and gaps in the case. I hope that other members of this forum who studied the case more thoroughly than me could help to provide more information.

What I will present here is based only on information available in 1959, not later additions and recollections.

THE TENT:

The tent was cut with a sharp object on many places, even next to the entrance. These cuts are too small to be used for exit. As far as I know, the knives were found in their sheets in the tent (in their parkas - can anyone confirm this please?). This is inconsistent with the general theory that the Dyatlov group made the cuts by themselves. Even if for example Kolevatov would have his knife with him, the cuts are too many and could not be made with one person trying to get out by cutting the tent, as the cuts are visible also on the side opposite to the entrance. Basically along the whole length of the tent, and probably even on the other side.

The photo of the tent shows that it was severely damaged and the group tried to repair it with pieces of fabric - there are 3 pieces of white(ish) cloth visible on the photo, one of them is quite large (on the right). This is inconsistent with the presumption that the tent was abandoned quickly after the cuts were made.



From Grigoriev's NB (part 2, scan 35): "Metal container with films. There are 20 films in it. A small stove in a duffel bag and folding pipes in it, a wire. In Zolotaryov's backpack a notebooks with new songs and hikers' songs.". I don't think those 20 films were examined (but they could be new, not used), and I am not aware of Zolotaryov's notebook being among evidence.. It also seems that the stove was not filled with wood, but with pipes for the chimney.

THE SLOPE:

The investigators concluded that there was no presence of other people near the tent. This does not seem to be correct: the photo made by the search party on the slope - the footprint in the center looks to be fresh, as the edges are sharp and not eroded by wind/sun. However, what is more interesting is the long print that is definitely older and looks like it was made by a ski:



Also, from Maslennikov NB (scan 47): "A lighted flashlight was found 450 meters below the tent; 20 meters from the tent - a piece of broken skis." Whose broken ski was it? Was any of the Dyatlov group's ski broken (at the location of the tent)?

Again from Maslennikov NB (scan 8): "The closest Kolmogorova 500 meters broken head". It seems that she did not just freeze, but could be hit to her head first, then fell on the ground unconscious and froze. Similar situation with Slobodin - his skull was broken on both sides, difficult to imagine the situation in which this could be caused by just falling to the ground, even repeatedly. The icy bed under him also suggests that he fell unconscious and then froze. It is also possible that he laid down for some time (hiding?) and then froze. Of the whole group, most of them had injuries to the side of their head.. this is hardly a mere coincidence, but I don't want to speculate:)

THE CEDAR:

From Grigoriev's NB (part 3, scan 29), at the location of the Cedar: "The branches on it are bright green, in places dangling the hair of thick moss." This hanging moss/lichen burns exceptionally well and is ideal for starting a fire. This moss/lichen grows abundantly also on birches and other trees, so can be found in large amounts in the area of the cedar (this is obvious from the Grigoriev's diary). It is also a very good insulator, I wonder why the group did not use it..

In general, what really puzzles me is the fire. Based on information from the search party, there was a small fireplace near the cedar, there were thicker branches in the fireplace but it seemed that the fire was not maintained. But in the situation of the group, fire was the only real option that they had. It seems that they managed to start a fire, why did they not make the fire bigger? They should have placed the fire right next to the cedar tree trunk, which would protect it from wind. Two people could have stand right next to the trunk from both sides, in order to provide even better wind protection. There was a lot of firewood - green cedar and spruce branches burn really well (the needles are full of resin), the birch bark and dangling moss are the best fire starters you can ever imagine, birch wood burns well even if wet.. They could have even put the whole cedar on fire. There were enough people for maintaining the fire, shading it from the wind, collecting the firewood etc. Something is not right here.. does anyone know what was the position of the fireplace from the cedar? Was the cedar in fact protecting the fire from the wind (slope direction)? How about the loose partially burnt logs found outside of the fireplace? It seems that even if there were no attacker involved in the case, the group did not really cooperate near the cedar, or the group was divided before arriving at the cedar and did not regroup before both Juris who started the fire were already dead..

Grigoriev's NB (part 3, scan 33): "When I found something soft near that cedar and began to dig one and a half meter of snow, at first one student decided to help me, but when I got closer to the ground, he ran away. It was hide covered with (thick) moss." - this looks like presence of other people in the area of the cedar. But maybe the hide was old, left there by the Mansi before the event of the tragedy. But still - in the sheer vastness of Ural taiga, the Dyatlov group suddenly left the tent and went down to the nearest forest, and they end up in a place used by Mansi or other people.. what a coincidence:).

THE DEN:

Radiogram from excavating the "den": "one soldier's puttee from an ordinary military material with sewn brown galloon about a meter long, I can't explain the presence of the puttee". There are no military-style putees with the length of 1m visible on any of the Dyatlov group photos - were there any comments from Yuri Yudin whether anyone in the group had similar putees? Was the other putee found in the tent (I don't think so)?

Autopsy report of Kolevatov says that the neck was deformed. What does this mean? Was his neck broken? Similar statements regarding Lyuda's neck..

OTHER STRANGE THINGS:

Although most of them did not have a proper footwear, according to the autopsy reports, only Doroshenko had frostbite on his feet. This is very strange. The others without shoes should have severe frostbites too, mostly Dyatlov, Slobodin and especially Zina. How is this possible? (I have a theory:).

The Dyatlov group followed the track of a Mansi hunter(s?), just one day or two before the incident. This person could have provided invaluable information about the weather, possible light phenomena, or other unusual events. Did the investigators found out who was this hunter? Can his testimony be found anywhere? If not, this is another reason to believe that the investigation was not done properly.

From Maslennikov NB (scan 21): "Meteorological rockets of a new type, launched beyond Sverd in the Southern Urals over the Urals, landed in this region. I ask you to request an urgent inquiry whether such a rocket was in the area on the night of February 2". - does anyone has any documents regarding this inquiry?

That's it for now, thank you for reading:) and I hope anyone could answer at least some of my questions above. Thanx.

May 22, 2021, 03:40:48 PM
Reply #1
Offline

Manti


All very good questions.

I can't provide any answers unfortunately but here are my thoughts:

The tent

Is it possible, that the fabric's side that was facing in is lighter? The areas you circled could be areas where we see the inner side because the fabric is flipped.
Nevertheless the tent's condition in this photo is astonishing. If you set up a tent in a bear's enclosure in a zoo it wouldn't look this bad after weeks... If you run over a tent with a tank it wouldn't be this damaged. If you have a psychotic person with a knife they would get bored or stopped by others before making this many cuts to the tent...
I used to think the dark areas are mildew or some other stain.. but on the upper right side from the way the fabric is stretched it can be seen these are also cuts or at least holes.


The footprint and skiprint

Whether it's a ski's print, in which case the ski was simply dropped there and didn't move much and also had little weight on it, or left by something that was dragged... even though the skiprint is older, both it and the footprint are left since the last snowfall. Whereas the bodies were buried under snow. So these are not from the Dyatlov group or anyone else from the time of the incident. These prints are recent. I don't think we know which day the photos were taken exactly... to me it makes no sense for the searchers to photograph their own prints from the previous day of search, so assuming first day searching that area. But if it's not theirs, then it's from someone else who has been there weeks after the incident but before the search. Certainly strange, but might or might not be relevant to the case...

The puttee

Zolotaryov was an ex-soldier, maybe it was his? But if not, then there is record of both Mansi items (hide, also piece of "belt") around the cedar and also military items. I hope it's only one or the other, otherwise the explanation must get really wild.




May 27, 2021, 09:05:18 AM
Reply #2
Offline

Tony


Hi all,

I am new to the forum, but not to the DPI. First, I would like to thank Teddy and other collaborators for creating the website and forum, it is a great source of information about the case. Special thanks for English translation of case files and other documents.

I will not talk about any specific theory here, I would like to discuss what I perceive as major discrepancies and gaps in the case. I hope that other members of this forum who studied the case more thoroughly than me could help to provide more information.

What I will present here is based only on information available in 1959, not later additions and recollections.

THE TENT:

The tent was cut with a sharp object on many places, even next to the entrance. These cuts are too small to be used for exit. As far as I know, the knives were found in their sheets in the tent (in their parkas - can anyone confirm this please?). This is inconsistent with the general theory that the Dyatlov group made the cuts by themselves. Even if for example Kolevatov would have his knife with him, the cuts are too many and could not be made with one person trying to get out by cutting the tent, as the cuts are visible also on the side opposite to the entrance. Basically along the whole length of the tent, and probably even on the other side.

As far as I know only 3 cuts were documented. The analysis of these three cuts can be found in the examination of the tent in the case files. While two of the three are small, the one in the middle is very large. The rest of the damage to the tent was either tears or cuts that were not documented. As far as the knives, several knives were found in the tent. And while no knife was found outside the tent, investigators concluded that the small firs cut around the cedar were done so with a knife. It's possible that the knife was never found or, that someone found it and didn't report it. It's also important to note that a sheath was later found.

Back to the cuts in the tent. The cuts to the tent are strange to say the least. I think if a better examination of the tent had been done we would have a better idea of who made the cuts to the tent and why. Personal opinion is that the hikers made the cuts to the tent as they were done from the inside (this is also documented and explained in the case files). Sometimes when many people are trying to exit a small space (like a tent), it's possible that one or more of the hikers became impatient and made the cuts. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that they exited through the cuts.


The photo of the tent shows that it was severely damaged and the group tried to repair it with pieces of fabric - there are 3 pieces of white(ish) cloth visible on the photo, one of them is quite large (on the right). This is inconsistent with the presumption that the tent was abandoned quickly after the cuts were made.



I think the the white fabric was an inner layer to the tent itself. M. Sharavin talks about this inner fabric in his interview. It wasn't used to repair the tent.

From Grigoriev's NB (part 2, scan 35): "Metal container with films. There are 20 films in it. A small stove in a duffel bag and folding pipes in it, a wire. In Zolotaryov's backpack a notebooks with new songs and hikers' songs.". I don't think those 20 films were examined (but they could be new, not used), and I am not aware of Zolotaryov's notebook being among evidence.. It also seems that the stove was not filled with wood, but with pipes for the chimney.

THE SLOPE:

The investigators concluded that there was no presence of other people near the tent. This does not seem to be correct: the photo made by the search party on the slope - the footprint in the center looks to be fresh, as the edges are sharp and not eroded by wind/sun. However, what is more interesting is the long print that is definitely older and looks like it was made by a ski:



It's possible that this footprint is from one of the searchers and was mistaken for a footprint from that night. The only footprints that we can be sure were not from any of the searchers or investigators are the raised footprints found further down the slope. Since it takes a good amount of time for these footprints to form, it's most likely that these prints were made on, or around, that night. Since there is only a single photograph of these prints, all we can go on is witness testimony. All of the searchers that made statements regarding these prints said that they appeared to be made by either bare feet or socks with a couple of them being made by someone in shoes.

Also, from Maslennikov NB (scan 47): "A lighted flashlight was found 450 meters below the tent; 20 meters from the tent - a piece of broken skis." Whose broken ski was it? Was any of the Dyatlov group's ski broken (at the location of the tent)?

Again from Maslennikov NB (scan 8): "The closest Kolmogorova 500 meters broken head". It seems that she did not just freeze, but could be hit to her head first, then fell on the ground unconscious and froze. Similar situation with Slobodin - his skull was broken on both sides, difficult to imagine the situation in which this could be caused by just falling to the ground, even repeatedly. The icy bed under him also suggests that he fell unconscious and then froze. It is also possible that he laid down for some time (hiding?) and then froze. Of the whole group, most of them had injuries to the side of their head.. this is hardly a mere coincidence, but I don't want to speculate:)

Not sure about Zina having a head injury - not seeing this on the autopsy report but could have missed it.

This is what the examiner stated regarding Slobodin:

"The fracture of the left frontal lobe bone could have occurred during a fall by Slobodin or the impact of the head on a hard object such as rocks, ice, etc. A blunt object caused the above-mentioned trauma. When this happened it would have caused Slobodin to become stunned and allowed for his rapid freezing. The absence of explicit bleeding under the meninges allows for the assumption that Slobodin’s death came as a result of his freezing."


THE CEDAR:

From Grigoriev's NB (part 3, scan 29), at the location of the Cedar: "The branches on it are bright green, in places dangling the hair of thick moss." This hanging moss/lichen burns exceptionally well and is ideal for starting a fire. This moss/lichen grows abundantly also on birches and other trees, so can be found in large amounts in the area of the cedar (this is obvious from the Grigoriev's diary). It is also a very good insulator, I wonder why the group did not use it..

In general, what really puzzles me is the fire. Based on information from the search party, there was a small fireplace near the cedar, there were thicker branches in the fireplace but it seemed that the fire was not maintained. But in the situation of the group, fire was the only real option that they had. It seems that they managed to start a fire, why did they not make the fire bigger? They should have placed the fire right next to the cedar tree trunk, which would protect it from wind. Two people could have stand right next to the trunk from both sides, in order to provide even better wind protection. There was a lot of firewood - green cedar and spruce branches burn really well (the needles are full of resin), the birch bark and dangling moss are the best fire starters you can ever imagine, birch wood burns well even if wet.. They could have even put the whole cedar on fire. There were enough people for maintaining the fire, shading it from the wind, collecting the firewood etc. Something is not right here.. does anyone know what was the position of the fireplace from the cedar? Was the cedar in fact protecting the fire from the wind (slope direction)? How about the loose partially burnt logs found outside of the fireplace? It seems that even if there were no attacker involved in the case, the group did not really cooperate near the cedar, or the group was divided before arriving at the cedar and did not regroup before both Juris who started the fire were already dead..

According to M. Sharavin the fire was on the leeward side and right next to the cedar protecting it from the wind. Based off the thickness of the branches burned, investigators concluded that the fire burned for over an hour and burned out due to lack of maintenance. Yeah, the fire is weird. Why leave the fire? Why not try and make it larger? It seems that the wind would have been significantly less in the forest area and the fire, once it got going, would have been easy to attend. It's possible that the cold and wind was just too much and they weren't able to get the fire going enough to keep warm - who knows. It's also possible that they had to leave the fire because of some other reason. The fire is just one of many strange events that occurred that night.

Grigoriev's NB (part 3, scan 33): "When I found something soft near that cedar and began to dig one and a half meter of snow, at first one student decided to help me, but when I got closer to the ground, he ran away. It was hide covered with (thick) moss." - this looks like presence of other people in the area of the cedar. But maybe the hide was old, left there by the Mansi before the event of the tragedy. But still - in the sheer vastness of Ural taiga, the Dyatlov group suddenly left the tent and went down to the nearest forest, and they end up in a place used by Mansi or other people.. what a coincidence:).

THE DEN:

Radiogram from excavating the "den": "one soldier's puttee from an ordinary military material with sewn brown galloon about a meter long, I can't explain the presence of the puttee". There are no military-style putees with the length of 1m visible on any of the Dyatlov group photos - were there any comments from Yuri Yudin whether anyone in the group had similar putees? Was the other putee found in the tent (I don't think so)?

Sasha had spent some time in the military and it's possible that he brought these but did not use them. It's also possible that one of the other hikers brought this since these would probably not be uncommon in households - many of the hikers' parents probably served during the war. Why they were found far from the tent is strange. Could they be worn under valenki?

Autopsy report of Kolevatov says that the neck was deformed. What does this mean? Was his neck broken? Similar statements regarding Lyuda's neck..

The examiner is not clear on this at all. It is weird. I think if it had been significant he would have commented on it more. Is it possible that it was something from birth?

OTHER STRANGE THINGS:

Although most of them did not have a proper footwear, according to the autopsy reports, only Doroshenko had frostbite on his feet. This is very strange. The others without shoes should have severe frostbites too, mostly Dyatlov, Slobodin and especially Zina. How is this possible? (I have a theory:).

Yes, it is strange that there wasn't more frostbite on feet.

The Dyatlov group followed the track of a Mansi hunter(s?), just one day or two before the incident. This person could have provided invaluable information about the weather, possible light phenomena, or other unusual events. Did the investigators found out who was this hunter? Can his testimony be found anywhere? If not, this is another reason to believe that the investigation was not done properly.

From Maslennikov NB (scan 21): "Meteorological rockets of a new type, launched beyond Sverd in the Southern Urals over the Urals, landed in this region. I ask you to request an urgent inquiry whether such a rocket was in the area on the night of February 2". - does anyone has any documents regarding this inquiry?

That's it for now, thank you for reading:) and I hope anyone could answer at least some of my questions above. Thanx.
"If there exists a fact which can only be thought of as sinister. A fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning, you will never be able to think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact."
- Josiah Thomson