Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: OLD JEDI 72 on August 17, 2025, 04:01:16 AM
-
I've been stuck on this diary for a few days now, and thought a thread devoted to it would be appropriate. Whose was it? And what are some peoples opinions on all the holes that seemed to be there already?
https://dyatlovpass.com/unknown-diary (https://dyatlovpass.com/unknown-diary)
"Lyuda quickly got tired and sat down by the fire. Nick Tibo changed his clothes. He began to write a diary. The law is that until all the work is done, do not approach the fire. And so they had a long argument, of who will sew the tent. Finally K. Tibo gave up and took a needle. Lyuda remained seated. And we sewed the hole (and there were so many that there was enough work for all except two attendants and Lyuda. Guys are terribly outraged."
Where were these sewn holes? Why were they there (because it was too hot?), and could these holes have been the tears and cuts that were already there?
-
Where were these sewn holes? Why were they there (because it was too hot?), and could these holes have been the tears and cuts that were already there?
Yep read this diary many times it was under Zina I think. Dont get me going about the cuts and tears as many times I have written about the tent being rotten.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes common sense isnt all that common.
-
I think this translation is more accurate regarding Lyuda.
"Люда быстро отработалась, села у костра."
"Lyuda quickly finished her work and sat down by the fire."
-
I think this translation is more accurate regarding Lyuda.
"Люда быстро отработалась, села у костра."
"Lyuda quickly finished her work and sat down by the fire."
Fixed
-
I think this translation is more accurate regarding Lyuda.
"Люда быстро отработалась, села у костра."
"Lyuda quickly finished her work and sat down by the fire."
I must have missed something, I thought I was just pasting what was already there, but after checking, it changed to your translation on the main page. Using deductive reasoning and seeing Teddy saying "fixed," I assume it's been corrected at the source. Interesting how similar yet different it is. One implying that she was lazy, the other implying she was fast. I wonder why the guys would be outraged then? Doesn't it seem like the tone of author of this diary is 'matter of fact' without showing too much emotion? It's like someone is going out of their way to be a tattle-tale.
-
Where were these sewn holes? Why were they there (because it was too hot?), and could these holes have been the tears and cuts that were already there?
Yep read this diary many times it was under Zina I think. Dont get me going about the cuts and tears as many times I have written about the tent being rotten.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes common sense isnt all that common.
Thanks for the reply. I understand it can be frustrating repeating oneself, and I have seen some of your comments about the tent being rotten. I don't remember anything said about these many holes in the tent that required everyone basically to sew (except 2 attendents, probably T-Bo and Koletov and Lydia briefly). Where did these sewn holes go? Or were they re-ripped open again whenever what happened, happened?
-
I am convinced that Zina did not write this diary. In his real personal diary, he writes about Doroshenko and his birthday, but he doesn't mention anything about the tangerine. While here, a tangerine is given to Kolevatov for his birthday, even though it was not his birthday. Why would she write one way one time and another way the next? The author is someone else. This diary is about something completely different.
-
I think that they were not sewing up the holes in the tent, but the holes in the shoe covers.
As we know, Lyuda Dubinina bought 5 meters of cambric with the money allocated for the hike (200 rubles from the hike project).
It turns out that each one is half a meter high, like the height of the boots, and the width of the roll is equal to the girth (one and a half or two meters).
Dmitry Kireyev from Serov told me his vision that Zina Kolmogorova cut shoe covers from this fabric at a school near the train station in the city of Serov. This can be seen in the last photo on film #2. Since cambric is a fragile fabric, there could be problems with it.
Therefore, all the tourists were angry and Lyuda hid in the tent.
All the others sewed up their shoe covers while sitting by the fire.
It is hard to imagine several people spreading out inside or outside to sew a tent. One person is enough for this job.
To Z. Kolmogorova also belong: vigogne socks almost black color (tinted), white woolen socks, mended tarpaulin, mittens wool blue brown pattern, cotton, blue ski gauntlet gloves ("Краги" - russ.), dark brown woolen gloves, mended tent cover (old), home cloth slippers, new, on the sole outside herringbone pattern.
Ladies quilted jacket with artificial dark brown collar with a rubber band at the bottom and fastened hood made of blue satin. The show covers are made of decorative cloth (in the form of bags)
-
I think that they were not sewing up the holes in the tent, but the holes in the shoe covers.
As we know, Lyuda Dubinina bought 5 meters of cambric with the money allocated for the hike (200 rubles from the hike project).
It turns out that each one is half a meter high, like the height of the boots, and the width of the roll is equal to the girth (one and a half or two meters).
Dmitry Kireyev from Serov told me his vision that Zina Kolmogorova cut shoe covers from this fabric at a school near the train station in the city of Serov. This can be seen in the last photo on film #2. Since cambric is a fragile fabric, there could be problems with it.
Therefore, all the tourists were angry and Lyuda hid in the tent.
All the others sewed up their shoe covers while sitting by the fire.
It is hard to imagine several people spreading out inside or outside to sew a tent. One person is enough for this job.
To Z. Kolmogorova also belong: vigogne socks almost black color (tinted), white woolen socks, mended tarpaulin, mittens wool blue brown pattern, cotton, blue ski gauntlet gloves ("Краги" - russ.), dark brown woolen gloves, mended tent cover (old), home cloth slippers, new, on the sole outside herringbone pattern.
Ladies quilted jacket with artificial dark brown collar with a rubber band at the bottom and fastened hood made of blue satin. The show covers are made of decorative cloth (in the form of bags)
I remember her using group money to buy fabric she fancied, on a whim. I don't see how you can make the jump to shoe covers, though. Even if they did use the cambric for that. That seems like conflation. "And so they had a long argument, of who will sew the tent. Finally K. Tibo gave up and took a needle. Lyuda remained seated. And we sewed the hole (and there were so many that there was enough work for all except two attendants and Lyuda. Guys are terribly outraged."
-
I am convinced that Zina did not write this diary. In his real personal diary, he writes about Doroshenko and his birthday, but he doesn't mention anything about the tangerine. While here, a tangerine is given to Kolevatov for his birthday, even though it was not his birthday. Why would she write one way one time and another way the next? The author is someone else. This diary is about something completely different.
I keep reading in different places that they were talking about Zolo as Sasha. His BD is either Feburary 2 or March 1 but who's to say what he told the group? Or maybe it was a "pre birthday" present. What do you think the diary is about?
-
I remember her using group money to buy fabric she fancied, on a whim. I don't see how you can make the jump to shoe covers, though.
Please do not try to convince me of the mythology associated with the Dyatlov Pass. You are not a witness, but rather a victim of the imagination.
Who is trying to convince you of anything? Certainly not I, sir. And as far as imaginations and victims go, what an ironic thing to say! I am not the one relying on "visions" from someone else and rewriting "tent" with "shoe covers."
-
I am not the one relying on "visions" from someone else and rewriting "tent" with "shoe covers."
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-11-20
In addition, some things remain unidentified, such as:
boots covers (all torn - 9 pairs);
-
I've been stuck on this diary for a few days now, and thought a thread devoted to it would be appropriate. Whose was it? And what are some peoples opinions on all the holes that seemed to be there already?
https://dyatlovpass.com/unknown-diary (https://dyatlovpass.com/unknown-diary)
"Lyuda quickly got tired and sat down by the fire. Nick Tibo changed his clothes. He began to write a diary. The law is that until all the work is done, do not approach the fire. And so they had a long argument, of who will sew the tent. Finally K. Tibo gave up and took a needle. Lyuda remained seated. And we sewed the hole (and there were so many that there was enough work for all except two attendants and Lyuda. Guys are terribly outraged."
Where were these sewn holes? Why were they there (because it was too hot?), and could these holes have been the tears and cuts that were already there?
Once again we are at a loss because we do not have the tent to examine. It was disposed of for some reason. Or maybe it was hidden away in some secret archive.
-
Posts about higher power punishment and Holy Scripture were reported to me and I agree they are disturbing and offensive. I do not want this in my forum.
You can start all this over again here: Religious Connections (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?board=67.0)
-
Posts about higher power punishment and Holy Scripture were reported to me and I agree they are disturbing and offensive. I do not want this in my forum.
You can start all this over again here: Religious Connections (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?board=67.0)
I am in total agreement with you Teddy, I dont think these comments are necessary or wanted on these posts. I do however feel it strange that there is an area where you can post these comments, maybe best idea is to remove the area. There maybe a place for this but personally I dont want it here. We dont want preachers taking over any part of this serious narrative on the mystery. Cheers.
-
I've been stuck on this diary for a few days now, and thought a thread devoted to it would be appropriate. Whose was it? And what are some peoples opinions on all the holes that seemed to be there already?
https://dyatlovpass.com/unknown-diary (https://dyatlovpass.com/unknown-diary)
Yeda quickly got tired and sat down by the fire. Nick Tibo changed his clothes. He began to write a diary. The law is that until all the work is done, do not approach the fire. And so they had a long argument, of who will sew the tent. Finally K. Tibo gave up and took a needle. Lyuda remained seated. And we sewed the hole (and there were so many that there was enough work for all except two attendants and Lyuda. Guys are terribly outraged."
Where were these sewn holes? Why were they there (because it was too hot?), and could these holes have been the tears and cuts that were already there?
Once again we are at a loss because we do not have the tent to examine. It was disposed of for some reason. Or maybe it was hidden away in some secret archive.
Yes reminds me of "Raiders of the lost Ark" where the Holy Grail is in a box being taken for storage in a huge repository. lol4
-
I've been stuck on this diary for a few days now, and thought a thread devoted to it would be appropriate. Whose was it? And what are some peoples opinions on all the holes that seemed to be there already?
https://dyatlovpass.com/unknown-diary (https://dyatlovpass.com/unknown-diary)
Yeda quickly got tired and sat down by the fire. Nick Tibo changed his clothes. He began to write a diary. The law is that until all the work is done, do not approach the fire. And so they had a long argument, of who will sew the tent. Finally K. Tibo gave up and took a needle. Lyuda remained seated. And we sewed the hole (and there were so many that there was enough work for all except two attendants and Lyuda. Guys are terribly outraged."
Where were these sewn holes? Why were they there (because it was too hot?), and could these holes have been the tears and cuts that were already there?
Once again we are at a loss because we do not have the tent to examine. It was disposed of for some reason. Or maybe it was hidden away in some secret archive.
Yes reminds me of "Raiders of the lost Ark" where the Holy Grail is in a box being taken for storage in a huge repository. lol4
[ Well, funny enough, you may be on to something there. The actual tent was kept for a reason, under lock and key, presumably, during the Soviet era. But after the collapse of the USSR, it went missing, supposedly destroyed because it was not in good condition. Or was it secreted somewhere else for safety and security reasons. ]
-
The tent was unfit for further use, so they didn't take it back. According to Ankundinov, as a forensic expert, he saw it in the basement of the building where the forensic facility was located. But after the water main burst, it became unusable even as a teaching aid, and they threw it away.
It's unlikely they would have bought the wrong fabric for shoe covers. More likely, they bought the cambric for sewing bags for groceries, especially bulk items. Nowadays, they might use plastic bottles for storing cereals.
-
The tent was unfit for further use, so they didn't take it back. According to Ankundinov, as a forensic expert, he saw it in the basement of the building where the forensic facility was located. But after the water main burst, it became unusable even as a teaching aid, and they threw it away.
It seems implausible that the wet tent would be thrown away. It was the Dyatlov tent, and it was kept for a reason.
-
The tent was unfit for further use, so they didn't take it back. According to Ankundinov, as a forensic expert, he saw it in the basement of the building where the forensic facility was located. But after the water main burst, it became unusable even as a teaching aid, and they threw it away.
It seems implausible that the wet tent would be thrown away. It was the Dyatlov tent, and it was kept for a reason.
Sarapuk. I hope you are well. I wonder if you could be more careful when editing the replies. The way you are replying makes it look the person you are replying to is saying your actual quote . It doesn't read well for others and is confusing.
Anyway, why keep the tent , Who cares to keep a shredded tent forever .
Scenario 1)
If it was a cover up of some sort , UFO , rocket , KGB it would be written in the case files . The case would be concluded and there would be no need to keep the tent.
Scenario 2) if it was an avalanche, animal , infrasound etc. ( Which is basically what the case files say) . There would be no need to keep the tent.
Basically, no one cares about the tent, from the beginning of the search where it is ripped apart and dragged to the helicopter and eventually being left in a cupboard.
-
Are you aware of the practice in the USSR regarding items that were considered evidence or material proof, or not?
-
Are you aware of the practice in the USSR regarding items that were considered evidence or material proof, or not?
Hunter, please could you enlighten us, as to this practice you are referring to?
-
I write in Russian and then Google translate.
In short, for each item seized from the scene of an incident or crime, the investigator is obliged to make a decision and record it by drawing up a corresponding document. Depending on the situation, the item may be returned to the owner or his heirs, transferred to the state, destroyed, or left in the laboratory as a visual or auxiliary material.
The tent could have been left in the laboratory as a demonstration (capable) material, since the tourist club did not want to take it due to the fact that its use for its intended purpose was impossible.
The investigator couldn't simply leave the item. But that's de jure. De facto, situations varied.
-
The tent was unfit for further use, so they didn't take it back. According to Ankundinov, as a forensic expert, he saw it in the basement of the building where the forensic facility was located. But after the water main burst, it became unusable even as a teaching aid, and they threw it away.
It seems implausible that the wet tent would be thrown away. It was the Dyatlov tent, and it was kept for a reason.
Sarapuk. I hope you are well. I wonder if you could be more careful when editing the replies. The way you are replying makes it look the person you are replying to is saying your actual quote . It doesn't read well for others and is confusing.
Anyway, why keep the tent , Who cares to keep a shredded tent forever .
Scenario 1)
If it was a cover up of some sort , UFO , rocket , KGB it would be written in the case files . The case would be concluded and there would be no need to keep the tent.
Scenario 2) if it was an avalanche, animal , infrasound etc. ( Which is basically what the case files say) . There would be no need to keep the tent.
Basically, no one cares about the tent, from the beginning of the search where it is ripped apart and dragged to the helicopter and eventually being left in a cupboard.
On the contrary. Re scenario 1. If it was some sort of cover up then the tent would be kept under lock and key if the cover up was concerning something extraordinary that may have involved UFO, Aliens.
-
I write in Russian and then Google translate.
In short, for each item seized from the scene of an incident or crime, the investigator is obliged to make a decision and record it by drawing up a corresponding document. Depending on the situation, the item may be returned to the owner or his heirs, transferred to the state, destroyed, or left in the laboratory as a visual or auxiliary material.
The tent could have been left in the laboratory as a demonstration (capable) material, since the tourist club did not want to take it due to the fact that its use for its intended purpose was impossible.
The investigator couldn't simply leave the item. But that's de jure. De facto, situations varied.
The USSR was very much a secretive society when it came to certain matters. Certain matters that is. The KREMLIN would certainly have had an interest in the Dyatlov Mystery if it was suspected that there was some sort of paranormal or Alien intervention.
-
I write in Russian and then Google translate.
In short, for each item seized from the scene of an incident or crime, the investigator is obliged to make a decision and record it by drawing up a corresponding document. Depending on the situation, the item may be returned to the owner or his heirs, transferred to the state, destroyed, or left in the laboratory as a visual or auxiliary material.
The tent could have been left in the laboratory as a demonstration (capable) material, since the tourist club did not want to take it due to the fact that its use for its intended purpose was impossible.
The investigator couldn't simply leave the item. But that's de jure. De facto, situations varied.
The USSR was very much a secretive society when it came to certain matters. Certain matters that is. The KREMLIN would certainly have had an interest in the Dyatlov Mystery if it was suspected that there was some sort of paranormal or Alien intervention.
The USSR filed ordinary accidents under secrets . It's just how they did things . The Kremlin hardly bothered with the hikers and only got involved because the hikers family wrote for help as the UPI was not taking any urgent action. There was no high military presence or different secret tents for a KGB command base. They supplied some sappers and metal detectors and some dogs to try and locate the bodies . The metal detectors were found to be of little use and a plan was made to probe for bodies on the slope and around the cedar. Mansi ,students and some of the locals with knowledge were drafted in on rotation. It was pretty standard search and rescue by the looks of it.
There was major discussions going on about reducing nuclear threats and ibnm's during February between the UK government , France and the USSR . Everyone was hiding their capabilities at the exact same time as ivanov was taking about the obvious rocket tests witnessed in the sky. It looks like ivanov had added 2+2 and came up with 5 . I would suspect that they did not want to waste anymore time on the matter and just closed the case .
-
If the tent was important to concealing the truth, it would not have been left behind by the forensic labs.
-
I write in Russian and then Google translate.
In short, for each item seized from the scene of an incident or crime, the investigator is obliged to make a decision and record it by drawing up a corresponding document. Depending on the situation, the item may be returned to the owner or his heirs, transferred to the state, destroyed, or left in the laboratory as a visual or auxiliary material.
The tent could have been left in the laboratory as a demonstration (capable) material, since the tourist club did not want to take it due to the fact that its use for its intended purpose was impossible.
The investigator couldn't simply leave the item. But that's de jure. De facto, situations varied.
The USSR was very much a secretive society when it came to certain matters. Certain matters that is. The KREMLIN would certainly have had an interest in the Dyatlov Mystery if it was suspected that there was some sort of paranormal or Alien intervention.
The USSR filed ordinary accidents under secrets . It's just how they did things . The Kremlin hardly bothered with the hikers and only got involved because the hikers family wrote for help as the UPI was not taking any urgent action. There was no high military presence or different secret tents for a KGB command base. They supplied some sappers and metal detectors and some dogs to try and locate the bodies . The metal detectors were found to be of little use and a plan was made to probe for bodies on the slope and around the cedar. Mansi ,students and some of the locals with knowledge were drafted in on rotation. It was pretty standard search and rescue by the looks of it.
There was major discussions going on about reducing nuclear threats and ibnm's during February between the UK government , France and the USSR . Everyone was hiding their capabilities at the exact same time as ivanov was taking about the obvious rocket tests witnessed in the sky. It looks like ivanov had added 2+2 and came up with 5 . I would suspect that they did not want to waste anymore time on the matter and just closed the case .
A pretty standard search and rescue using a Geiger Counter! Hardly standard, I would have thought. Maybe initially it was standard until things started to crop up.
-
If the tent was important to concealing the truth, it would not have been left behind by the forensic labs.
It wasn't left behind, though, was it! It was recovered from the site, obviously, and apparently investigated properly. And kept under lock and key until the end days of the USSR, when apparently it was destroyed because it was in bad condition. To be honest, I find that reason implausible.
-
sarapuk, they wanted to return the tent to the UPI tourist club, but the tourist club did not want to take it, since it was unfit for further use. That's why the tent was stored in the basement—the tourist club didn't take it, and there was no procedural document that would have sent it to the stove or the landfill.
-
sarapuk, they wanted to return the tent to the UPI tourist club, but the tourist club did not want to take it, since it was unfit for further use. That's why the tent was stored in the basement—the tourist club didn't take it, and there was no procedural document that would have sent it to the stove or the landfill.
Well, is that the official line? I believe that certain things are missing from this Dyatlov Mystery, apart from documents. For instance, a camera's film may be missing. It may well be that the authorities no longer needed the tent, having decided that its usefulness as evidence was done. Or maybe that they got rid of it because modern forensic techniques could have revealed something not to their liking. Or maybe they still have it.
-
Among the researchers is Vladimir Ankundinov. He worked in the Sverdlovsk forensic lab and saw this tent with his own eyes.
And he apparently said that the UPI travel club didn't want to take it back because it couldn't be used for its intended purpose. It's quite possible it had already been written off the travel club's balance sheet.
-
sarapuk, they wanted to return the tent to the UPI tourist club, but the tourist club did not want to take it, since it was unfit for further use. That's why the tent was stored in the basement—the tourist club didn't take it, and there was no procedural document that would have sent it to the stove or the landfill.
Well, is that the official line? I believe that certain things are missing from this Dyatlov Mystery, apart from documents. For instance, a camera's film may be missing. It may well be that the authorities no longer needed the tent, having decided that its usefulness as evidence was done. Or maybe that they got rid of it because modern forensic techniques could have revealed something not to their liking. Or maybe they still have it.
Russians don't throw away such items and evidence. It's likely hidden somewhere. But it may have decayed over the past 66 years because adequate preservation conditions likely haven't been provided. So, even if it were found, examining it would be impossible.
-
After a criminal case is closed, evidence may be destroyed (discarded), returned to its owner, or stored with the case file. Sometimes evidence that should have been destroyed ends up in the "private collections" of police or prosecutors.
-
sarapuk, they wanted to return the tent to the UPI tourist club, but the tourist club did not want to take it, since it was unfit for further use. That's why the tent was stored in the basement—the tourist club didn't take it, and there was no procedural document that would have sent it to the stove or the landfill.
Well, is that the official line? I believe that certain things are missing from this Dyatlov Mystery, apart from documents. For instance, a camera's film may be missing. It may well be that the authorities no longer needed the tent, having decided that its usefulness as evidence was done. Or maybe that they got rid of it because modern forensic techniques could have revealed something not to their liking. Or maybe they still have it.
Russians don't throw away such items and evidence. It's likely hidden somewhere. But it may have decayed over the past 66 years because adequate preservation conditions likely haven't been provided. So, even if it were found, examining it would be impossible.
Having stored a big canvas fishing umbrella for nigh on 50 years, my umbrella is still ok. If something is stored in reasonable conditions it should last a very long time.
-
sarapuk, they wanted to return the tent to the UPI tourist club, but the tourist club did not want to take it, since it was unfit for further use. That's why the tent was stored in the basement—the tourist club didn't take it, and there was no procedural document that would have sent it to the stove or the landfill.
Well, is that the official line? I believe that certain things are missing from this Dyatlov Mystery, apart from documents. For instance, a camera's film may be missing. It may well be that the authorities no longer needed the tent, having decided that its usefulness as evidence was done. Or maybe that they got rid of it because modern forensic techniques could have revealed something not to their liking. Or maybe they still have it.
Russians don't throw away such items and evidence. It's likely hidden somewhere. But it may have decayed over the past 66 years because adequate preservation conditions likely haven't been provided. So, even if it were found, examining it would be impossible.
Having stored a big canvas fishing umbrella for nigh on 50 years, my umbrella is still ok. If something is stored in reasonable conditions it should last a very long time.
The tent had been used for multiple seasons . In hot and cold weather , it had also been subjected to strong winds , out side fires and an internal wood stove. It had been stitched together, had many holes that had been repaired and left for three weeks to get blown about. To finish it all , it was ripped apart and dragged 800 metres .
Please be serious and don't compare the tent to a fishing umbrella. We have been told a number of times that it was just left on a shelf and thrown out.
-
sarapuk, they wanted to return the tent to the UPI tourist club, but the tourist club did not want to take it, since it was unfit for further use. That's why the tent was stored in the basement—the tourist club didn't take it, and there was no procedural document that would have sent it to the stove or the landfill.
Okay, let's look into this particular aspect a bit closely. Let's look at what we know about what happened after the tent was recovered and investigated. I refer you to the Case Files. Interview Maria Piskareva published 5/29/2013. Her mother was Genrieta Eliseevna, and she signed a non-disclosure of the secrets of the investigation in Dyatlov case, which she had access to as a forensic expert, and under no circumstances violated it. However, the known reports are obviously recorded for all to see.
''MP: Please allow me to disturb you again, for this reason. I read a new interview with the journalist A.Gushtin, he says the following: "Anatoly Gushtin: In the late nineties I had the opportunity to repeatedly communicate with a very important witness of those events - Genrietta Eliseevna Makushkina (in 1959 she had a different surname - Churkina). She did the examination of Dyatlov group tent, which is believed to be cut off by hikers with a knife when, in a panic, scared to death of something or someone, barely clad fled from it down the slope of the Otorten mountain, where then everyone died...
Genrietta Eliseevna was sure that the tent was cut not with an ordinary knife, but with a special one, clearly made of cold steel, but, on the other hand, she perfectly understood that this truth was contraindicated and could even be dangerous. Therefore, she recorded in the examination exactly what was required of her."
Igor Olegovich, maybe you know what your mother said about the blade? What were her assumptions?
As I see from the case materials, the knives were not sent for examination, the expert had nothing to compare the cuts of the tent with and whether it was cut precisely by their knives.
But maybe in the family circle, your mother could express her doubts about the blade, what was it like?
Afterword
I really wanted Igor Olegovich to tell someday about what impressions his mother had after she visited the scene. After all, no one knew about this, that forensic expert Genrietta Eliseevna Churkina was at the scene of the tragedy, and, according to her professional duties, studied the footprints found in the snow. In the Criminal Case, there is no information that the traks were studied by professionals. And this caused new bewilderment about the work of the investigation. Now I understand that the work on the slope was carried out, moreover professionally, but not all the results of the work done by the experts were included in the criminal case known to us, as well as other very important documents.
I would also like to get answers on questions about the physical and technical examination of Dyatlov group tent, and read the notes of Igor Makushkin on the so-called "royal examination" - identification of the remains of the family of Nikolai the Second.
With deep respect to Igor Makushkin, Genrietta Churkina and the entire glorious team of forensic experts,
Maria Piskareva.
So why is all this important and related to the whereabouts of the tent? Firstly, it's apparent that investigators were sworn to secrecy for some reason! If something is an ordinary accident or similar, it doesn't get sworn to secrecy. Non-Disclosure Documents had to be signed, and they lasted 25 years. Until the fall of the USSR, in fact. Also check out this: In memory of Igor Olegovich Makushkin
March 10, 2025. Olga Litvinova's conversation with Igor Makushkin took place on December 25, 2022. He was the son of the forensics expert who inspected the tent and other objects. Suggestion that the tent was indeed still classified as evidence until its 25-year expiration date regarding the Non-Disclosure Documents. The 25 years coincide nicely with the alleged damage caused by water flooding.
So, if you would like to post the evidence that the tent was offered back to the UPI Tourist Club?
-
From other parts of the interview with the son of the woman who inspected the tent and worked in the same building in the same job as his mother . i don't even know if this is true but it sounds reasonable. No one cared and after 25 years why not bin it?
Igor Olegovich Makushkin (son of Genrietta Eliseevna Churkina who inspected the tent) replies to the below questions about the tent and the false comments regarding his mother being able to tell what knife made the cut .
-One of the investigators in this case recalls that the tent was examined by a seamstress before it was sent for examination to Sverdlovsk.
"Well, some seamstress expressed her opinion. And right before my eyes, this tent was taken out and thrown into the trash."
– Have you seen Dyatlov’s tent?
- Well, yes. So I even came later and told my mother, "That's it, we've thrown out that tent of yours." The thing is, my mother quit that lab in '67, and I came to work there in '81. I worked there from '81 to '93.
- Was it kept there for that long?
"Yes, and they threw it out in '85 or '87, so basically, from '59 to '85, that's 25 years, and it sat there. Not only that—nowadays they call it corporate events, but back then, they went on outings, and they'd take this tent along so they wouldn't have to sit on the cold ground."
- Apparently because by then it had long since ceased to be considered material evidence.
Well, if only anyone had needed it. But it lay around, they moved it, moved it again, then the sewer burst, everything flooded, it started to mold, they threw it out, and that was it. And no one paid much attention to it back then; it was a routine matter for everyone. But maybe if no one had flown north by plane back then, if, say, Vozrozhdenny hadn't climbed into a barrel of alcohol after the autopsies, no one would have paid any attention at all. A routine criminal case.
The following also shows a sensible reply answer to your quote sarapuk .
MP: Please allow me to disturb you again, for this reason. I read a new interview with the journalist A.Gushtin, he says the following: "Anatoly Gushtin: In the late nineties I had the opportunity to repeatedly communicate with a very important witness of those events - Genrietta Eliseevna Makushkina (in 1959 she had a different surname - Churkina). She did the examination of Dyatlov group tent, which is believed to be cut off by hikers with a knife when, in a panic, scared to death of something or someone, barely clad fled from it down the slope of the Otorten mountain, where then everyone died...
Genrietta Eliseevna was sure that the tent was cut not with an ordinary knife, but with a special one, clearly made of cold steel, but, on the other hand, she perfectly understood that this truth was contraindicated and could even be dangerous. Therefore, she recorded in the examination exactly what was required of her."
Igor Olegovich, maybe you know what your mother said about the blade? What were her assumptions?
As I see from the case materials, the knives were not sent for examination, the expert had nothing to compare the cuts of the tent with and whether it was cut precisely by their knives.
But maybe in the family circle, your mother could express her doubts about the blade, what was it like?
- 10 -
IOM: Maya, it’s embarrassing for me to listen to your apology at the expense of my concern. I am glad to communicate with you, I am glad that at least with a small certainty I can bring clarity to some controversial issues.
About the blade. There was no talk about this. I think that if there was such a topic, it would be discussed more than once. There were always enough knives in the house, including some very interesting specimens. As a rule, experts have a certain amount of such "stuff".
There were cut damages on the tent, not stab cuts. By cut damage, it is not even possible to determine the shape of the blade. Only the presence of a cutting edge - the blade. You can’t even say if it was double-edged blade (a dagger having 2 cutting blades), or it was a knife. And as for cold weapons - this, in my opinion, is a far-fetched and given special significance. Cold weapons are only the presence of certain properties on the weapon, which are mainly characteristic of causing bodily harm. In the classical sense, cold weapons should not have household and industrial purposes. Very controversial issue. There are special knives, for example, medical or used for slaughtering cattle and carvinf meat. Despite the special conditions of use, such knives will never be considered cold weapons. It is impossible to determine the type of knife from the cuts in the tent.
-
Regarding the expert examination, we need to look at the documents from those years—when an expert had the right to take the initiative in the examination, and when they could only examine an item and answer only the questions posed. Regarding the words "bladed weapon" in the expert examination text, it's worth disregarding—at that time, there were no clear criteria for classifying an item as a weapon. And even on a single knife, two experts could give conflicting conclusions back then.
-
From other parts of the interview with the son of the woman who inspected the tent and worked in the same building in the same job as his mother . i don't even know if this is true but it sounds reasonable. No one cared and after 25 years why not bin it?
Igor Olegovich Makushkin (son of Genrietta Eliseevna Churkina who inspected the tent) replies to the below questions about the tent and the false comments regarding his mother being able to tell what knife made the cut .
-One of the investigators in this case recalls that the tent was examined by a seamstress before it was sent for examination to Sverdlovsk.
"Well, some seamstress expressed her opinion. And right before my eyes, this tent was taken out and thrown into the trash."
– Have you seen Dyatlov’s tent?
- Well, yes. So I even came later and told my mother, "That's it, we've thrown out that tent of yours." The thing is, my mother quit that lab in '67, and I came to work there in '81. I worked there from '81 to '93.
- Was it kept there for that long?
"Yes, and they threw it out in '85 or '87, so basically, from '59 to '85, that's 25 years, and it sat there. Not only that—nowadays they call it corporate events, but back then, they went on outings, and they'd take this tent along so they wouldn't have to sit on the cold ground."
- Apparently because by then it had long since ceased to be considered material evidence.
Well, if only anyone had needed it. But it lay around, they moved it, moved it again, then the sewer burst, everything flooded, it started to mold, they threw it out, and that was it. And no one paid much attention to it back then; it was a routine matter for everyone. But maybe if no one had flown north by plane back then, if, say, Vozrozhdenny hadn't climbed into a barrel of alcohol after the autopsies, no one would have paid any attention at all. A routine criminal case.
The following also shows a sensible reply answer to your quote sarapuk .
MP: Please allow me to disturb you again, for this reason. I read a new interview with the journalist A.Gushtin, he says the following: "Anatoly Gushtin: In the late nineties I had the opportunity to repeatedly communicate with a very important witness of those events - Genrietta Eliseevna Makushkina (in 1959 she had a different surname - Churkina). She did the examination of Dyatlov group tent, which is believed to be cut off by hikers with a knife when, in a panic, scared to death of something or someone, barely clad fled from it down the slope of the Otorten mountain, where then everyone died...
Genrietta Eliseevna was sure that the tent was cut not with an ordinary knife, but with a special one, clearly made of cold steel, but, on the other hand, she perfectly understood that this truth was contraindicated and could even be dangerous. Therefore, she recorded in the examination exactly what was required of her."
Igor Olegovich, maybe you know what your mother said about the blade? What were her assumptions?
As I see from the case materials, the knives were not sent for examination, the expert had nothing to compare the cuts of the tent with and whether it was cut precisely by their knives.
But maybe in the family circle, your mother could express her doubts about the blade, what was it like?
- 10 -
IOM: Maya, it’s embarrassing for me to listen to your apology at the expense of my concern. I am glad to communicate with you, I am glad that at least with a small certainty I can bring clarity to some controversial issues.
About the blade. There was no talk about this. I think that if there was such a topic, it would be discussed more than once. There were always enough knives in the house, including some very interesting specimens. As a rule, experts have a certain amount of such "stuff".
There were cut damages on the tent, not stab cuts. By cut damage, it is not even possible to determine the shape of the blade. Only the presence of a cutting edge - the blade. You can’t even say if it was double-edged blade (a dagger having 2 cutting blades), or it was a knife. And as for cold weapons - this, in my opinion, is a far-fetched and given special significance. Cold weapons are only the presence of certain properties on the weapon, which are mainly characteristic of causing bodily harm. In the classical sense, cold weapons should not have household and industrial purposes. Very controversial issue. There are special knives, for example, medical or used for slaughtering cattle and carvinf meat. Despite the special conditions of use, such knives will never be considered cold weapons. It is impossible to determine the type of knife from the cuts in the tent.
But lets look at this a bit more closely.
"Yes, and they threw it out in '85 or '87, so basically, from '59 to '85, that's 25 years, and it sat there. Not only that—nowadays they call it corporate events, but back then, they went on outings, and they'd take this tent along so they wouldn't have to sit on the cold ground."
''Apparently because by then it had long since ceased to be considered material evidence''.
So according to that he does think that it was material evidence.
''Well, if only anyone had needed it. But it lay around, they moved it, moved it again, then the sewer burst, everything flooded, it started to mold, they threw it out, and that was it. And no one paid much attention to it back then; it was a routine matter for everyone. But maybe if no one had flown north by plane back then, if, say, Vozrozhdenny hadn't climbed into a barrel of alcohol after the autopsies, no one would have paid any attention at all. A routine criminal case.''
Well it certainly was not a routine criminal case. It was subject to the USSR's version of an Official Secrets Act. The area where the incident took place was also sealed off for a long time. It may have started as a search for hikers involved in an accident but it then became something else.
-
If the tent were evidence in the case, it wouldn't have been stored in a simple basement, and it wouldn't have been dragged to picnics as a mat.
-
If the tent were evidence in the case, it wouldn't have been stored in a simple basement, and it wouldn't have been dragged to picnics as a mat.
But do we have any information on the building where it was kept. Was it a simple basement. And what proof do we have that it was dragged away to picnics, other than one persons word that may or may not be correct. Do we have multiple witnesses to this story.
-
If the tent were evidence in the case, it wouldn't have been stored in a simple basement, and it wouldn't have been dragged to picnics as a mat.
But do we have any information on the building where it was kept. Was it a simple basement. And what proof do we have that it was dragged away to picnics, other than one persons word that may or may not be correct. Do we have multiple witnesses to this story.
At some point we have to work with facts or at least assumed facts and the evidence we have. The tent was no longer of use as a tent. The person that says that the tent was thrown out was the son of the woman that did the investigation and worked in the same building as his mother as I understand it. He may still be alive.
He himself highlights the issues with the case and why certain things reported are just not how they happen. I believe he means how later written statements have little or no meaning.
If the tent had some sort of hard evidence in ,or on it, then so would everything else , all the blankets , clothes and equipment that were returned for example. Many of the searchers saw and cut the tent , it was years old and had been dragged from the tent location, put in a helicopter and eventually taken to where it was examined. A basement is a perfectly adequate place to store old case file materials as they do in museums and many other organisations. Something might be stored on a top shelf, eventually it goes to the bottom shelf regarding it's importance over time.
It's an old tent , many people saw it and touched it , it has no use left ,1 year or 60 years later . Given the state of it , I don't even imagine it would be much use as a ground sheet but that is irrelevant. At some point you clear stuff out as there's more important things ....
-
If the tent had been of any significance to "plainclothesmen" (a colloquial term for KGB officers), it wouldn't have been left in the Sverdlovsk Ministry of Internal Affairs forensics lab. It would have been taken away. And it would have been burned or stored in the KGB basements.
-
If the tent had been of any significance to "plainclothesmen" (a colloquial term for KGB officers), it wouldn't have been left in the Sverdlovsk Ministry of Internal Affairs forensics lab. It would have been taken away. And it would have been burned or stored in the KGB basements.
I would have to agree. It would seem no one was interested in it and if for example there was some cover up , it probably still had no significance to be used at a later date.
-
The tent didn't contain any information that would contradict the official version. If there had been traces of fuel, radiation, or anything else, it wouldn't have been offered to the hiking club for safekeeping, nor would it have been left with forensic investigators.
-
If the tent were evidence in the case, it wouldn't have been stored in a simple basement, and it wouldn't have been dragged to picnics as a mat.
But do we have any information on the building where it was kept. Was it a simple basement. And what proof do we have that it was dragged away to picnics, other than one persons word that may or may not be correct. Do we have multiple witnesses to this story.
At some point we have to work with facts or at least assumed facts and the evidence we have. The tent was no longer of use as a tent. The person that says that the tent was thrown out was the son of the woman that did the investigation and worked in the same building as his mother as I understand it. He may still be alive.
He himself highlights the issues with the case and why certain things reported are just not how they happen. I believe he means how later written statements have little or no meaning.
If the tent had some sort of hard evidence in ,or on it, then so would everything else , all the blankets , clothes and equipment that were returned for example. Many of the searchers saw and cut the tent , it was years old and had been dragged from the tent location, put in a helicopter and eventually taken to where it was examined. A basement is a perfectly adequate place to store old case file materials as they do in museums and many other organisations. Something might be stored on a top shelf, eventually it goes to the bottom shelf regarding it's importance over time.
It's an old tent , many people saw it and touched it , it has no use left ,1 year or 60 years later . Given the state of it , I don't even imagine it would be much use as a ground sheet but that is irrelevant. At some point you clear stuff out as there's more important things ....
It was the USSR era so I guess things worked a little differently in those times. No doubt that the tent was examined forensically. And no doubt that it was stored away, along with other items. Any radiation on the tent could have long dispersed. Same as with clothing. So there would naturally come a point in time when those items were no longer considered important enough to keep. That time could have been days or months or years. As far as the tent is concerned its alleged removal coincided with the end of the USSR.
-
If the tent had been of any significance to "plainclothesmen" (a colloquial term for KGB officers), it wouldn't have been left in the Sverdlovsk Ministry of Internal Affairs forensics lab. It would have been taken away. And it would have been burned or stored in the KGB basements.
As it happened it was stored for up to 25 years before its disappearance.
-
The tent didn't contain any information that would contradict the official version. If there had been traces of fuel, radiation, or anything else, it wouldn't have been offered to the hiking club for safekeeping, nor would it have been left with forensic investigators.
I'm still waiting for the evidence that it was offered straight away to the hiking club. Any radiation on the tent would not necessarily pose a risk. Depending on the type of radiation dispersal could be days or weeks or months or years. Same with clothing.
-
One of the modern-day researchers of the tragedy worked for the forensic service where the tent was stored. He repeated Churkina's son's account of the tent's fate. He also claimed that after the investigation, the hiking club was offered the tent, but refused.
If there had been anything on the tent that undermined the theory that the group died as a result of natural causes, not only would it not have been offered back, but it would have either been destroyed or taken away from the Ministry of Internal Affairs forensic experts.
-
One of the modern-day researchers of the tragedy worked for the forensic service where the tent was stored. He repeated Churkina's son's account of the tent's fate. He also claimed that after the investigation, the hiking club was offered the tent, but refused.
If there had been anything on the tent that undermined the theory that the group died as a result of natural causes, not only would it not have been offered back, but it would have either been destroyed or taken away from the Ministry of Internal Affairs forensic experts.
So someone simply repeated Churkina's son's account. Hardly evidence though.
-
Sarapuk, it's not just anyone. This man worked in the Sverdlovsk forensic lab. He saw the tent and spoke with the Resurrectionist. His name is Vladimir Ankundinov.
-
Sarapuk, it's not just anyone. This man worked in the Sverdlovsk forensic lab. He saw the tent and spoke with the Resurrectionist. His name is Vladimir Ankundinov.
But he wasn't at the original investigation. He has studied the autopsy reports. He has his own theories. Lots of people have seen the tent.