Recent Posts
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.
I've been carefully considering the Dyatlov Pass Incident, specifically focusing on why a cover‑up would have been critical in the context of Soviet society at the height of the Cold War. One theory that continues to resonate with me involves a mutiny among the group—internal conflict leading to drastic actions that were subsequently obscured from public knowledge.
Igor Dyatlov was known for his strong leadership and his determination to push boundaries, even beyond what was strictly necessary. Given this was already classified as a Grade 3 hike without the added challenge of camping exposed on the mountainside, Dyatlov's insistence on choosing such a vulnerable campsite likely stirred disagreement among the group. It's quite plausible that Semyon Zolotaryov, being older and significantly more experienced, recommended setting up camp in the relative safety of the nearby forest, a suggestion that may have found support among several others.
This divergence in opinions probably undermined Dyatlov’s authority, creating palpable tension. It’s easy to envision a heated dispute in which Dyatlov, asserting his authority—and perhaps his pride—took drastic measures such as cutting open the tent from the inside as a defiant gesture, effectively saying: “If you don’t like my decisions, then leave my tent.”
A Snow‑Slab Catalyst?
Importantly, a snow‑slab event could have triggered the immediate evacuation. A slab sliding onto the tent might have convinced everyone they were in mortal danger, but the after‑shock could just as easily have devolved into finger‑pointing and “I told you so” recriminations—further fueling the mutiny narrative. In other words, natural hazard and human conflict are not mutually exclusive; they can intertwine with disastrous results.
Investigator Ivanov & the Need for Silence
Investigator Lev Ivanov, in his initial approach, seemed genuinely committed to uncovering the truth, yet his investigation was soon curtailed—likely once he realized the political hazard of revealing internal discord among idealistic Soviet citizens. During this era the USSR projected carefully curated images of unity, strength, and ideological purity. Admitting that comrades turned on each other would have been devastating to that facade.
Historical context reinforces the motive for silence: the Soviet government was famously secretive and fiercely protective of its image. From the suppression of dissent after Stalin’s death to the glossing over of the Hungarian Revolution (1956), inconvenient truths were routinely buried so that no cracks appeared in the ideological armor.
Outlandish Theories as Possible Red Herrings
Some point to more exotic explanations—Yetis, UFOs, secret weapons tests, KGB hit squads—but these ideas are likely red herrings (pun intended) that distract from the far more plausible mix of bad judgment, extreme conditions, and clashing egos. Conspiracy‑colored folklore makes for compelling campfire stories, but it may also serve the same purpose a cover‑up would: to steer attention away from the very human failings at the heart of the tragedy.
Why a Cover‑Up Was Essential
Given this backdrop, a cover‑up designed to shield the Soviet public—and the world—from a narrative of comrades turning violently on each other makes considerable sense. Such an admission would have struck at the heart of Soviet propaganda, especially at the most precarious juncture of the Cold War. It explains why Ivanov was pressured into premature conclusions, why certain files were sealed, and why, even today, central questions remain officially unanswered.
Visualize the symbolism: the Soviet flag, once unblemished and whole, now bears a stark crack down the middle—internal divisions the authorities could never allow to reach daylight.
