Recent Posts

1

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on Today at 04:11:08 AM »

In your version, everyone would never run out of the tent at once without shoes. Why would Slobodin run out of the tent in one shoe? It's also nonsense that they would cut up the tent because of this.

Another nice illusion that everyone believes is that the "returning" trio on the slope voluntarily froze to death without cause, and the couple by the fire also voluntarily froze to death without cause. All of this is a naive idea.


It all happened because there was a threat that Krivonischenko captured in the last shot of his camera, and from which he and Doroshenko were hiding on a cedar tree. The threat from the tent continued up the slope to the cedar, but there was no escape from it. It left a trail of destruction on the slope and by the cedar. Its consequences is captured in Zolotaryov's damaged photographs.

That's all.
It may feel a little mysterious, but it's not.

One camera captures the threat, the other captures its consequences, and that is the key to everything.

Nature only finished the work, but did not begin it.

I've thought of Rustem with one shoe and isn't it possible he lost the other to deep snow? Either by the snow pulling it off or maybe he used it as a shovel. Unless they accounted for the other shoe being in the tent? And I find it odd as well that this theory calls for a tent being cut up over Zolo yelling for help.

2

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by SURI on Today at 01:06:53 AM »

In your version, everyone would never run out of the tent at once without shoes. Why would Slobodin run out of the tent in one shoe? It's also nonsense that they would cut up the tent because of this.

Another nice illusion that everyone believes is that the "returning" trio on the slope voluntarily froze to death without cause, and the couple by the fire also voluntarily froze to death without cause. All of this is a naive idea.


It all happened because there was a threat that Krivonischenko captured in the last shot of his camera, and from which he and Doroshenko were hiding on a cedar tree. The threat from the tent continued up the slope to the cedar, but there was no escape from it. It left a trail of destruction on the slope and by the cedar. Its consequences is captured in Zolotaryov's damaged photographs.

That's all.
It may feel a little mysterious, but it's not.

One camera captures the threat, the other captures its consequences, and that is the key to everything.

Nature only finished the work, but did not begin it.

3

General Discussion / Re: Book "1079"

« Last post by Axelrod on Today at 12:59:28 AM »

I like the idea of a slab slide on 1079 being the impetus for all subsequent choices including actions at the cedar and the ravine.

You are already constantly repeating this spam about a snow slide, and you write it in almost every topic. Do you want people to believe this? Do you think you are so smart? Then write this text in your signature and do not clutter your messages with this text
You can think for yourself as you like. If this solution calms you down, then think for yourself, but what is the point of conducting propaganda for those who do not believe in it?
What is the point of repeating this spam in every topic if it is not confirmed by observations after the incident? After all, according to the laws of physics and mathematical calculations, this cannot be.
With the same success, you can talk about fireballs that rolled down the mountain and scared tourists (according to the stories of the Mansi). Maybe the Mansi are smart too.
Yes, my relative (Axelrod Moisei Abramovich) after thinking about this problem in his old age had problems with his head and thinking, and he decided that there was a landslide, although he did not write this in his testimony of 1959. He wrote that the slope of the mountain did not play any role. Only these words of his have legal force.

I hope that the readers of the forum are sensible.

4

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by ZuriDog on July 05, 2025, 07:55:29 PM »

Thank you all for your feedback so far - I think several good objections were raised, which highlighted key areas where the theory needs refinement.
Here I want to collate and address those issues.

An Early Camp

Many assume the hikers were roused at night, citing their meal (likely dinner) and torch use as evidence of nighttime activity. However, winter sunset at 17:00 and pitch-black by 19:00 mean their last meal could have been a late lunch or a quick bite after pitching the tent between 14:00 and 16:00. The varying undress levels, scattered food, maps, and half a cup of cocoa suggest they were still active when disturbed. Maps (dyatlovpass.com) show they covered less distance that day due to steep terrain and poor weather, leading to a strategic early camp to correct their course the next day.


Firewood Expedition

Wood scarcity, noted in the last diary entry, was critical—damp ground wood was unusable, and a single log carried from the prior camp (1959 reports) underscored the need for more. With daylight fading but still available until 17:00, the nearby woods offered a prime chance to replenish stock for that night and the next—firewood isn’t a luxury but a necessity. Tibo and Zolotarev, well-equipped (no hypothermia or frostbite, autopsies) and rested after a short break, had the energy and incentive to hike to the woods. This was a planned excursion.


At the Cedar

Tibo climbed the cedar for dry, windburned branches (facing the tent, cleared 5 m, green ones discarded), but fell 3–5 m, suffering a 6x8 cm skull fracture (autopsy) that left him unresponsive but showing signs of life for up to three hours. Searchers noted the systematic branch removal. Moving Tibo was challenging — likely prompting Zolotarev to leave him briefly to seek help.


A Call for Help

Hearing Zolotarev’s shouts, the hikers slashed the tent and rushed out in a staged response. The plan was always to return—some, misled by the prior day’s “warm wind” (diary) about the -25°C cold (Ivdel data), underdressed, while others added layers and took torches. The orderly 8–9 footprints 30 m downhill (1959 reports), showing no limping, reflect their discipline, not a panicked flight. Snow (30–50 cm) or searchers likely erased initial tracks, but this was a purposeful rescue mission, not an abandonment.

Shelter Decision at the Cedar
Reaching Tibo, the hikers grasped the severity of his head injury. Carrying him 1.5 km back to the tent over snowy, steep terrain proved impractical in the worsening weather. Instead, they opted to construct a small shelter in a nearby ravine, big enough for Tibo and a caregiver to spend the night. Other theories attribute the idea to construct the shelter to Zolotarev, the reasoning being that he likely survived similar conditions outside during his time in the front-line.
The hikers split into two groups and delegated tasks - The suitably dressed hikers, Zolotarev, Dubinina and Kolevatov, would find a suitable location for and begin construction of a shelter. The remaining hikers would remain near a fire, and gather suitable materials for the construction of the shelter. The hikers also made a temporary snowhole for Tibo until he could be transported.

Outcome
When enough material had been gathered the under dressed hikers attempted to return to the tent, but died of hypothermia.
The suitably dressed group, when attempting to transport Tibo the completed shelter suffered a three meter drop into the ravine. Dubinina and Zolotarev suffured their fatal injuries. Kolevatov remained sharing body heat with Zolotarev until he too died of hypothermia.

Internal conflict
An internal conflict is not central to this theory, the sequence of the events would be the same whether a fight within the group occurred or not. I only include it to explain some of the autopsy findings were some injuries can potentially be attributed to a fist fight. If a fight took place, it could only have taken place within the group as there is no evidence of any other persons having been there that night. If a fight indeed took place, only the cedar group were involved.

Your feedback has been crucial—please share any further insights

5

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by ZuriDog on July 04, 2025, 12:50:07 PM »

As I understand it , sometimes the translation jumps between fir and spruce tree. There are the broken branches from the ceder and they are used in the fire , some of the remaining branches do not reach the ground , some of these are raw ( or not as dry). There are fir or spruce branches under the two Yuri's ( insulation)

In parallel, there's a number of small spruce trees cut or broken off . These range  up to 20 and I would suspect the trees found in the den flooring are those trees plus one birch. There is speculation that these young trees were used for a snow hole in this testimony and this is exactly what is found in May.

Somewhere in my gut feeling I think the group, or some of the group got wet . To make a fire and a den at separate locations seems a bit counter intuitive . It would seem the group followed the creek down from 1079 and perhaps up the ravine to where they were found .( Path of least resistance?).

Once past the first 2 meters on the ceder , I think it would be relatively easy to climb ,a bit like a ladder . They would just feel for the easy branches to break, the dryer ones would give way.

That is why I think the two teams had been working together. The ravine offered better protection for the night, it was built by those hikers who could survive without fire. The others remained with Tibo until he could be transported, maintained the fire and gathered materials for the shelter. From the start I thought the snow hole had been made as a temporary measure for Tibo instead of letting him just lie on the snow, it was not large enough to accommodate all of the cedar group.

6

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by Ziljoe on July 04, 2025, 03:04:39 AM »

It was definitely not necessary to break branches up to 5 m high because of the fire. The purpose of breaking branches was different.

Those above needed shelter, those below used the branches as torches.

Atmanaki
”Most of the dry branches up to 5 m were broken. Beside this, the side of the tree facing the slope and the tent was completely cleared of branches. These were not dry; they were young and were not used. Some of them were just lying on the ground, and the others were hanging on the lower branches of the cedar. It looked as if someone had created a viewing hide facing the site from where they came.”

I'm not sure why they would need the branches as torches or if these branches would burn like torches. There should be tree sap of the branches at the join to the tree trunk but probably not enough to keep alight but good for a fire.

Here is some more from Atmanaki witness testimony.( It is one of the better statements and is very detailed). https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-209-220

"Finally, about 1.5 km from the tent under the cedar, the bodies of Krivonischenko and Doroshenko were found (earlier that day), lying side by side on a thin layer of fir branches..."

"Meters in two from the place of their death for the cedar have left traces of a fire, quite large, judging by the fact that the remaining logs with a diameter of up to 80 mm, burned in half, everything was powdered with snow, but under the cedar were found someone's checkered shirt, a handkerchief, several socks,..."

"Twenty meters around the cedar were left traces of how one of those present at the cedar cut young fir trees with a knife, we saw about twenty such cuts, but we didn't find the cut branches except one. It is not very likely that they have been used for heating, because in the first place, they don't burn well, and besides there was relatively lots of dry materials around them. In addition, there was no need to cut or chop, because all these young shoots easily broke even from a small effort. One might think that people who did this were very weak, or with a clouded mind. On the cedar, there are traces of fresh kinks."

"Most dry branches up to 5 m high were broken. In addition, the side of the cedar facing the slope on which the tent stood was cleared of branches at an altitude of 4-5 m. These raw branches were not used and partially fell on the ground, partially suspended on the lower branches of the cedar. It looked like people had done something like a window, so they could look from the top of that side of the cedar where they came from and where their tent was..."

"The amount of work done around the cedar, as well as the presence of many things that obviously could not belong to the two comrades found, indicates that the fire had gathered most, if not the whole group, and after making a fire left some of the people there, part decided to go back, to dig up the tent and bring warm clothes and equipment, and the remaining comrades engaged in making something like a hole where the harvested fir branches was used to wait out the weather and wait for the dawn..."

"The area adjoining directly to the fire was dug up; a layer of well trampled melted snow was found around the fire, which indicates that
there were a lot of people gathered around the fire..."


As I understand it , sometimes the translation jumps between fir and spruce tree. There are the broken branches from the ceder and they are used in the fire , some of the remaining branches do not reach the ground , some of these are raw ( or not as dry). There are fir or spruce branches under the two Yuri's ( insulation)

In parallel, there's a number of small spruce trees cut or broken off . These range  up to 20 and I would suspect the trees found in the den flooring are those trees plus one birch. There is speculation that these young trees were used for a snow hole in this testimony and this is exactly what is found in May.

Somewhere in my gut feeling I think the group, or some of the group got wet . To make a fire and a den at separate locations seems a bit counter intuitive . It would seem the group followed the creek down from 1079 and perhaps up the ravine to where they were found .( Path of least resistance?).

Once past the first 2 meters on the ceder , I think it would be relatively easy to climb ,a bit like a ladder . They would just feel for the easy branches to break, the dryer ones would give way.

7

General Discussion / Re: Book "1079"

« Last post by GlennM on July 02, 2025, 07:16:05 PM »

Take a look at their bios. There is enough information to give you a feel for who they were individually. In the diaries, you get a sense of how rigidly the hike was structured. For me, they had high ideals, but in reality, they were far more relaxed fun-loving and even moody. They were kids, save one!

The case files lead me to believe the group was cohesive but somewhat lax at their last camp. They moved to the forest as a group. They all likely went to the ravine as a group. From there, three went back toward the tent as a group. The ravine 4 died,as a group. Loyalty and obedience can be mandated as in the military, or earned as in civilian affairs. The test comes in a crisis. Soldiers abandon their post, sailors mutiny and civilians revolt...or they stick together.

For me, they got caught out in poor conditions and no matter their choices, the clock ran out. I would suspect, without proof, that they waited too long before committing to action.  I like the idea of a slab slide on 1079 being the impetus for all subsequent choices including actions at the cedar and the ravine.

8

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by ZuriDog on July 02, 2025, 08:02:06 AM »

It was definitely not necessary to break branches up to 5 m high because of the fire. The purpose of breaking branches was different.

Those above needed shelter, those below used the branches as torches.

Atmanaki
”Most of the dry branches up to 5 m were broken. Beside this, the side of the tree facing the slope and the tent was completely cleared of branches. These were not dry; they were young and were not used. Some of them were just lying on the ground, and the others were hanging on the lower branches of the cedar. It looked as if someone had created a viewing hide facing the site from where they came.”

It is precisely the side of the tree facing the direction of the tent were you'd expect to find dry branches. As already mentioned in this thread, these are the branches exposed to windburn.
And as mentioned in the quote, all the dry branches were broken off, the ones that were not suitable were just left there.
Someone climbed the tree and systematically broke off the branches exposed to windburn, the dry branches were collected, the rest ignored.
If you're up a tree looking for dry branches, and the tree you're on has dry branches, why would you come down and look for another one? You'd just go a little higher and keep going right?

9

General Discussion / Re: The Cedars.

« Last post by GlennM on July 02, 2025, 06:28:55 AM »

None show a fallen tree and disturbed ground. The tent was not pitched in the forest,  nor near the cedar tree.

10

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by SURI on July 02, 2025, 05:35:54 AM »

It was definitely not necessary to break branches up to 5 m high because of the fire. The purpose of breaking branches was different.

Those above needed shelter, those below used the branches as torches.

Atmanaki
”Most of the dry branches up to 5 m were broken. Beside this, the side of the tree facing the slope and the tent was completely cleared of branches. These were not dry; they were young and were not used. Some of them were just lying on the ground, and the others were hanging on the lower branches of the cedar. It looked as if someone had created a viewing hide facing the site from where they came.”