Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: sarapuk on February 15, 2026, 01:18:58 PM
-
Not quite sure, how we arrived at UFOs from names and their origin.
But the damages to Dubininas face is most likely due to her lying in the thawing snow for weeks. There might be damages due to bacteria and microorganisms or maybe even due to small rodents or the like. I'd go as far as accept the chance that the missing eyes might be caused by some pressure wave that was created by an explosion, as someone suggested in another thread.
Why for the love of all gods should an UFO take Dubinina and cut out her eyes and tongue?
Thats the usual cop out. To say that the injuries were due to being in water, or and due to little animals or micro life forms. But they were significant injuries highly unlikely to have been caused by water or little creatures that prey on dead matter.
What indicators are there pointing to her injuries being UNLIKELY to be caused by water or terrestrial life forms?
sarapuk,
In all of the speculation about anything connected to the DPI, the missing eyes and tongue are the easiest to explain. All of the ravine 4 had missing skin around their scalp, eyes , hairline etc. it would be complete madness to expect other wise. Eyeballs shrink rapidly after 24 hours of death plus they probably went through several processes of thawing and freezing in water as the season continued.
The orifices are precisely the areas of where flesh starts to decay. As much is said about the alleged cattle mutilations. It's certainly not a cop out, it's a rational and logical as we can be .
One of my interests is the paranormal, and UFO's etc. And in recent times I have become interested in the phenomenon of cattle and animal mutilations. And most of them are not water related events. In fact many occurring in dry conditions and the bodies were found shortly after their demises. Not enough time for animal predation or decomposition. Also I have come across some human mutilations in some parts of the World. All of them having similar injuries and similar to the injuries on 2 of the Dyatlov group.
-
8.23 billion people on this spaceship. Surely Sarapuk will find something coincidentally similar.
UFO? Funny how they can travel from Proxima Centauri all that way through interstellar space, come to earth and they have to use their parking lights
-
8.23 billion people on this spaceship. Surely Sarapuk will find something coincidentally similar.
UFO? Funny how they can travel from Proxima Centauri all that way through interstellar space, come to earth and they have to use their parking lights
Funny how I haven't even suggested that UFO's do such things. Unidentified Flying Objects could be anything. And they could be from anywhere !
-
Funny how I haven't even suggested that UFO's do such things. Unidentified Flying Objects could be anything. And they could be from anywhere !
Yes. When Ivanov concluded that the only thing left (that is, unexplored or not able to be ruled out) that could be responsible for the DPI deaths was the lights in the sky, he was careful to point out that these lights did not have to be "piloted" objects. In other words, they could be anything, such as weather phenomena.
-
A grounded discussion of lights in the sky may certainly shine a spotlight on what is and what isn't a flight of fantasy.
-
Let's start with a simple question: what is most likely to kill a person in such a remote place?
First: an event obviously related to weather and natural phenomena (avalanche, rockfall, hypothermia, slip, fall, worsening weather conditions, etc.). The main reasons for the death of climbers and hikers in high mountains, snowy and wild areas.
Second: a slightly less likely reason: another person. History and criminal chronicles are full of people killed by other people. A common phenomenon in human society. This also includes suicide and government conspiracy. Of course, rare enough in remote areas
Third: UFOs, jetis, spirits, teleportation, etc. The frequency of proven cases is unknown in the world. Even less known in remote places
The first two are common and have occurred in the past. Without a doubt, the cause of the Dyatlov Pass incident with a 99.99% probability.
The probability of the third option is less than 0.01% (my estimate), and therefore it is completely irrelevant to spend your time on this possibility. It is more of a thrill-seeking and fantasy syndrome.
These three groups, of course, include less likely subgroups (such as a meteor strike, ball lightning, or going crazy and fighting among themselves, etc.).
The percentages are my personal and arbitrary estimate (and divide the division of groups into subgroups) and an arbitrary understanding of common sense.
This was a post with a slighth irony.
-
What happened ? !.
I've been teleported to another thread where the other posts are missing!
-
Not quite sure, how we arrived at UFOs from names and their origin.
But the damages to Dubininas face is most likely due to her lying in the thawing snow for weeks. There might be damages due to bacteria and microorganisms or maybe even due to small rodents or the like. I'd go as far as accept the chance that the missing eyes might be caused by some pressure wave that was created by an explosion, as someone suggested in another thread.
Why for the love of all gods should an UFO take Dubinina and cut out her eyes and tongue?
Thats the usual cop out. To say that the injuries were due to being in water, or and due to little animals or micro life forms. But they were significant injuries highly unlikely to have been caused by water or little creatures that prey on dead matter.
What indicators are there pointing to her injuries being UNLIKELY to be caused by water or terrestrial life forms?
sarapuk,
In all of the speculation about anything connected to the DPI, the missing eyes and tongue are the easiest to explain. All of the ravine 4 had missing skin around their scalp, eyes , hairline etc. it would be complete madness to expect other wise. Eyeballs shrink rapidly after 24 hours of death plus they probably went through several processes of thawing and freezing in water as the season continued.
The orifices are precisely the areas of where flesh starts to decay. As much is said about the alleged cattle mutilations. It's certainly not a cop out, it's a rational and logical as we can be .
One of my interests is the paranormal, and UFO's etc. And in recent times I have become interested in the phenomenon of cattle and animal mutilations. And most of them are not water related events. In fact many occurring in dry conditions and the bodies were found shortly after their demises. Not enough time for animal predation or decomposition. Also I have come across some human mutilations in some parts of the World. All of them having similar injuries and similar to the injuries on 2 of the Dyatlov group.
I too , have been interested in UFO's and the paranormal for many year's. I am also reasonably familiar with animal mutilation . Unfortunately, after many years of researching and looking into things, ( I used to buy UFO monthly) not one bit of evidence has been presented.
The ravine 4 were in water with air pockets . They had been lying in that ravine from the beginning of February, until May , that is 3 months of exposure. Think of the 2 Yuri's at the cedar if they had been lying in the open for another 2 months , their bodies would be different to how they were first found .
There has been an enormous amount of time for decomposition of the ravine 4.
-
Funny how I haven't even suggested that UFO's do such things. Unidentified Flying Objects could be anything. And they could be from anywhere !
Yes. When Ivanov concluded that the only thing left (that is, unexplored or not able to be ruled out) that could be responsible for the DPI deaths was the lights in the sky, he was careful to point out that these lights did not have to be "piloted" objects. In other words, they could be anything, such as weather phenomena.
I don't think he concluded anything and I'm cautious that the journalist or later interviews were misstatements.
Depending on what article you are referring to , it notes the two eye witness statements for the 17th of February 1959 .
-
I don't think he concluded anything ...
I think we can safely say that the written statements below serve as ivanov's "conclusions," at least based on the English language definition of "conclusion."
Title of the Piece: Mystery of the Fireballs
Author: Lev Ivanov
"It was clear to me in what sequence did they die - all this from thorough study of the bodies, the clothes, other data. All that remained was the sky and its contents - energy unknown to us, which turned out to be higher than human forces.
"The study of the case now fully convinces, and even then I stuck to the version of the death of student hikers from exposure to an unknown flying object. Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious. Correspondent Bogomolov, whom I gave an interview, his publication claims that the criminal prosecutor Ivanov at that time clearly highlighted: the cause of the deaths was an unidentified object,although he encoded it in the final document with the words "force majeure". To the correspondent’s question, have I changed my view of the causes of death of the hikers over these thirty years, I replied that I only changed my view of the impact technique. If earlier I believed that the ball exploded, releasing completely unknown, but radioactive energy, I believe that the action of the energy from the ball was selective, it was aimed only at three people.
-
Poor Lev, born in the '20's or 30's, saw the development of flight from fixed wing aircraft to rockets, experienced the fear of nuclear annihilation and distrustful of things that go bump in the night and shine in the sky. He was a man of the times.
If he wandered into manned UFO territory, his knowledge of the distances involved was wanting. Alternately, unmanned mechanical UFO's would suggest in this situation that Mother Russia or foreigners screwed up. If Mother Russia, then shut up! If others, then find them and become a hero of the People. Opportunity lost! If an atmospheric phenomona, then it is much ado about nothing, but an easy out, in terms of attribution.
The importance, in my opinion, is that he adhers to the idea that every effect has a cause. All causes may not be known, but can be guessed at. Was the UFO cause valid? Yes, in broad strokes of the brush. Reliable? Not so much.
-
It's also what he's not saying. He was only at the pass for 4 -6 days into March and then didn't return until he was told the ravine 4 were found in May for a couple of day's. Those around him said he showed no interest in the found bodies. He also claims he was in a storm at the pass and the group were going to ski to the next village. He then goes on to blame the UPI and sports committee, then he blames lights in the sky and fire balls. He makes his wild claims before the case files are released to the public and then changes them.
-
Where I'm stuck with Ivanov is the release of the DPI mystery in to the wider public domain. It seems to start from his , or the article from 1990. I think this is before the full case files are public. Ivanov says , or is quoted as saying various things that were not in the case files , or rather , that he did not write in the 1959 case files . In his letters from 1991 there are contradictions.
The point being , has he been used by the media.
-
Let's start with a simple question: what is most likely to kill a person in such a remote place?
First: an event obviously related to weather and natural phenomena (avalanche, rockfall, hypothermia, slip, fall, worsening weather conditions, etc.). The main reasons for the death of climbers and hikers in high mountains, snowy and wild areas.
Second: a slightly less likely reason: another person. History and criminal chronicles are full of people killed by other people. A common phenomenon in human society. This also includes suicide and government conspiracy. Of course, rare enough in remote areas
Third: UFOs, jetis, spirits, teleportation, etc. The frequency of proven cases is unknown in the world. Even less known in remote places
The first two are common and have occurred in the past. Without a doubt, the cause of the Dyatlov Pass incident with a 99.99% probability.
The probability of the third option is less than 0.01% (my estimate), and therefore it is completely irrelevant to spend your time on this possibility. It is more of a thrill-seeking and fantasy syndrome.
These three groups, of course, include less likely subgroups (such as a meteor strike, ball lightning, or going crazy and fighting among themselves, etc.).
The percentages are my personal and arbitrary estimate (and divide the division of groups into subgroups) and an arbitrary understanding of common sense.
This was a post with a slighth irony.
You are correct with the first reason, weather is a cause of many accidents in the wild. But was this Dyatov incident an accident. And to say that the 3rd reason is completely irrelevant is incorrect. Any thing could be possible.
-
Not quite sure, how we arrived at UFOs from names and their origin.
But the damages to Dubininas face is most likely due to her lying in the thawing snow for weeks. There might be damages due to bacteria and microorganisms or maybe even due to small rodents or the like. I'd go as far as accept the chance that the missing eyes might be caused by some pressure wave that was created by an explosion, as someone suggested in another thread.
Why for the love of all gods should an UFO take Dubinina and cut out her eyes and tongue?
Thats the usual cop out. To say that the injuries were due to being in water, or and due to little animals or micro life forms. But they were significant injuries highly unlikely to have been caused by water or little creatures that prey on dead matter.
What indicators are there pointing to her injuries being UNLIKELY to be caused by water or terrestrial life forms?
sarapuk,
In all of the speculation about anything connected to the DPI, the missing eyes and tongue are the easiest to explain. All of the ravine 4 had missing skin around their scalp, eyes , hairline etc. it would be complete madness to expect other wise. Eyeballs shrink rapidly after 24 hours of death plus they probably went through several processes of thawing and freezing in water as the season continued.
The orifices are precisely the areas of where flesh starts to decay. As much is said about the alleged cattle mutilations. It's certainly not a cop out, it's a rational and logical as we can be .
One of my interests is the paranormal, and UFO's etc. And in recent times I have become interested in the phenomenon of cattle and animal mutilations. And most of them are not water related events. In fact many occurring in dry conditions and the bodies were found shortly after their demises. Not enough time for animal predation or decomposition. Also I have come across some human mutilations in some parts of the World. All of them having similar injuries and similar to the injuries on 2 of the Dyatlov group.
I too , have been interested in UFO's and the paranormal for many year's. I am also reasonably familiar with animal mutilation . Unfortunately, after many years of researching and looking into things, ( I used to buy UFO monthly) not one bit of evidence has been presented.
The ravine 4 were in water with air pockets . They had been lying in that ravine from the beginning of February, until May , that is 3 months of exposure. Think of the 2 Yuri's at the cedar if they had been lying in the open for another 2 months , their bodies would be different to how they were first found .
There has been an enormous amount of time for decomposition of the ravine 4.
Ive got an extensive library of books on the paranormal and UFO phenomenon etc. There are also many good YouTube channels dealing with the subject these days and also on Sky TV we have a lot of stuff. Skinwalker Ranch in the USA crops up a lot. I found an article on a human mutilation in South America with photos and there was a similarity to 2 of the bodies in the Dyatlov incident. The body in question hadnt been exposed to nature for long, certainly not long enough for predation or decomposition. The same occurs with many cattle mutilations. Farmers find the cattle shortly after their death. There have been cases in Britain but farmers apparently have been told to not report it to the public.
I have been told by farmers of strange attacks on horses and deer and cattle.
-
Where I'm stuck with Ivanov is the release of the DPI mystery in to the wider public domain. It seems to start from his , or the article from 1990. I think this is before the full case files are public. Ivanov says , or is quoted as saying various things that were not in the case files , or rather , that he did not write in the 1959 case files . In his letters from 1991 there are contradictions.
The point being , has he been used by the media.
After the fall of the USSR a lot of things started to emerge. Looks like the Dyatlov incident was just one of many things that started to gain an interest.
-
After the fall of the USSR a lot of things started to emerge
Yep, capitalism and manipulation.
-
I think we can safely say that the written statements below serve as ivanov's "conclusions," at least based on the English language definition of "conclusion."
Title of the Piece: Mystery of the Fireballs
Author: Lev Ivanov
"It was clear to me in what sequence did they die - all this from thorough study of the bodies, the clothes, other data. All that remained was the sky and its contents - energy unknown to us, which turned out to be higher than human forces.
"The study of the case now fully convinces, and even then I stuck to the version of the death of student hikers from exposure to an unknown flying object. Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious. Correspondent Bogomolov, whom I gave an interview, his publication claims that the criminal prosecutor Ivanov at that time clearly highlighted: the cause of the deaths was an unidentified object,although he encoded it in the final document with the words "force majeure". To the correspondent’s question, have I changed my view of the causes of death of the hikers over these thirty years, I replied that I only changed my view of the impact technique. If earlier I believed that the ball exploded, releasing completely unknown, but radioactive energy, I believe that the action of the energy from the ball was selective, it was aimed only at three people.
If I may, I would take liberty to comment that not all "conclusions" of Lev Ivanov should be taken seriously. He claims to know the right sequence in which the hikers died, while it's clear that he understood it wrong. In his theory, the "ball" exploded (his early idea) or shot a beam at the three selected hikers (his late idea), when the group just descended and approached the treeline. So he believed that Dubinina, Thibo, and Zolotarev died the first. In reality, those three were the last to die, and the dull explosion did not need to select anybody, it just killed those who kept alive.
From all the above Ivanov's "conclusions" we should accept only one, which is really important - the whole group was killed by unknown flying object.
-
Dyatlov Pass. Conference, May 20, 2023 - Duration: 5 hours. Elena [KOSKINA] reports at the beginning of the last hour:
https://youtu.be/-x3HnJZy81k
[–] Stas Bogomolov contacted reporters from a newspaper, I don't remember the name, and from them we received information that investigator Lev Nikitich Ivanov was still alive and living in Kostanay. So, from Uralsky Rabochy, I left for Kostanay, where I was met by reporters from a local newspaper.
And that very evening, we met with Lev Nikitich Ivanov. It was an unforgettable meeting. A very intelligent family, his wife and daughters. And he, too, was very happy that someone was interested in the case. Many years had passed, 30 years, and he, too, was retired. Unfortunately, he no longer had an archive. They were renovating their apartment. But he still had some photos from the search and rescue missions, and he gave them to us. He also remembered all the guys by name and patronymic (like Vozrozhdenny).
And I'd like to say something else. It seemed to me that he felt some kind of guilt about not being able to complete the job. He was reassigned to another job. And this guilt lingered until the last years of his life.
Later, he wrote me another letter. Of course, I tried to ask him what happened? What was his opinion? He wasn't ready to answer then. He didn't give me a precise answer, although he said he didn't think it was related to any military testing. He spoke honestly; he expressed a lot of his opinion. We discussed a lot.
He sent me another letter before he passed away, before he died. He thanked me very much for our work, for caring about the fate of these tourists. And in this letter, he wrote that until his last moment he would be convinced that it was the work of extraterrestrial civilizations, aliens. He explained this by the fact that everything he saw there, and everything that happened there, was far removed from our material reality. He said it couldn't have happened.
It couldn't have been caused by the usual factors of our materialistic world, by the military or anyone else. Because it was so tragic, so massive, this intense impact, that he couldn't explain it away as mere military intervention or missile testing. He said "no."
But those were different times, and he couldn't express that theory, because he would have been immediately taken to a mental hospital, a psychiatric hospital. So! And in this letter, he stated that his point of view was that it was aliens, and he would hold to this opinion until the last moment of his life.
-
I think we can safely say that the written statements below serve as ivanov's "conclusions," at least based on the English language definition of "conclusion."
Title of the Piece: Mystery of the Fireballs
Author: Lev Ivanov
"It was clear to me in what sequence did they die - all this from thorough study of the bodies, the clothes, other data. All that remained was the sky and its contents - energy unknown to us, which turned out to be higher than human forces.
"The study of the case now fully convinces, and even then I stuck to the version of the death of student hikers from exposure to an unknown flying object. Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious. Correspondent Bogomolov, whom I gave an interview, his publication claims that the criminal prosecutor Ivanov at that time clearly highlighted: the cause of the deaths was an unidentified object,although he encoded it in the final document with the words "force majeure". To the correspondent’s question, have I changed my view of the causes of death of the hikers over these thirty years, I replied that I only changed my view of the impact technique. If earlier I believed that the ball exploded, releasing completely unknown, but radioactive energy, I believe that the action of the energy from the ball was selective, it was aimed only at three people.
If I may, I would take liberty to comment that not all "conclusions" of Lev Ivanov should be taken seriously. He claims to know the right sequence in which the hikers died, while it's clear that he understood it wrong. In his theory, the "ball" exploded (his early idea) or shot a beam at the three selected hikers (his late idea), when the group just descended and approached the treeline. So he believed that Dubinina, Thibo, and Zolotarev died the first. In reality, those three were the last to die, and the dull explosion did not need to select anybody, it just killed those who kept alive.
From all the above Ivanov's "conclusions" we should accept only one, which is really important - the whole group was killed by unknown flying object.
It is a bit confusing. His claim about this ray gun was from his belief of the alleged burns on the trees .( which was probably natural windburn) and viewed from 1079.
There were no reports of lights in the sky on the night of the incident , there is nothing found on the ground by the searchers or Ivanov that suggests rocket or missile. There's no debris field , no blown off body parts , no blast to the many trees and shrubs on the slope so I'm stuck with ivanovs thinking.
He was at the pass for 5-6 days then 2 -3 days and did no physical examination of anything. No soil samples, no burnt tree examples , no water samples , no snow samples and no radiation tests from the location . He doesn't even test the tent for radiation, although may be that's where the two big squares went?.
1)No lights in the sky on the night of the incident . The lights on the other nights are rocket stages or activity high in the atmosphere.
2) No evidence of any burns to the tent only the burnt branches and small areas to one of the hikers at the cedar where a fire was found to be made . Some burnt clothing was found in this extinguished fire .
3) Small amount of radiation found on the clothing after being tested in a lab in isolated conditions. No samples taken from any other part of the search site,including the searchers .
Ivanov was either playing a game later in life , to gain money for his family , being used by the media , or was suffering mental health issues.
If it's a rocket or missile , he just had to say but he didn't...
-
He was at the pass for 5-6 days then 2 -3 days and did no physical examination of anything. No soil samples, no burnt tree examples , no water samples , no snow samples and no radiation tests from the location . He doesn't even test the tent for radiation, although may be that's where the two big squares went?.
Mind over matter. I don't mind, he don't matter.
-
His claim about this ray gun was from his belief of the alleged burns on the trees .( which was probably natural windburn) and viewed from 1079.
Probably that was the secondary reason. Ivanov's investigation showed that all hikers went downhill together, there were no separate subgroups. And then, at the bottom of the hill, three of them were wounded severely. Initially, he considered injuries due to the "ball" explosion. But he could not explain how the explosion injured 3 people, while the rest who kept very close were not affected at all. So he dismissed an explosion and started to consider targeted attack. Thus he came to the idea of a ray gun and 3 targets that were selected.
There were no reports of lights in the sky on the night of the incident
Even if you restrict yourself with the case files, it's possible to see on the Sheet 167:
"The reason could be some kind of extreme natural phenomenon or the flight of a meteorological rocket that was seen on 1/II in Ivdel".
Then on Sheet 273 we have the following info provided by father of Yuriy Krivonischenko:
"After the funeral of my son on March 9, 1959, I had students over at the apartment, participants in the search for the nine hikers. Among them were those hikers who at the end of January and the beginning of February were on an expedition in the north, a little bit to the south of Mount Otorten. There were apparently at least two such groups, at least the participants of the two groups said that they had seen the light phenomenon that struck them on February 1 north of the location of these groups: the extremely bright glow of some kind of rocket or projectile. The glow was so strong, that some of the hikers that were already inside the tent and getting ready to go to sleep, were alarmed by this glow, went out of the tent and observed this phenomenon. After a while they heard a sound like a strong thunder from far away."
If we go beyond the case files, we will find more:
E.Okishev:
"We met with a worker of one of the prison camps in the North Urals. He described strange flashes of light which he and his wife saw late that evening on their way home from the cinema. The light came from the direction of the supposed accident with the hikers. We also received evidence from other local residents, and all of them spoke about a similar phenomenon, all testimonies were entered on our records of interrogation."
V.Korotaev:
"The testimony of the Mansi witnesses Anyamov and Sambindanov has been removed from the Dyatlov case I was working on. They said they had seen an elongated body flying over the taiga, with flames coming out of its back".
He doesn't even test the tent for radiation, although may be that's where the two big squares went?.
It could be one of the options.
Small amount of radiation found on the clothing after being tested in a lab in isolated conditions. No samples taken from any other part of the search site,including the searchers .
The amount can be called small only in that respect that it was not lethal. For a few samples of clothes it exceeded accepatble level of contamination for nuclear workers' garments. In other words, a nuclear worker would be asked to change his/her clothes, if such level was detected. To continue wearing the garment will be risky for his/her health.
If it's a rocket or missile , he just had to say but he didn't...
Okishev as well.
-
I think we can safely say that the written statements below serve as ivanov's "conclusions," at least based on the English language definition of "conclusion."
Title of the Piece: Mystery of the Fireballs
Author: Lev Ivanov
"It was clear to me in what sequence did they die - all this from thorough study of the bodies, the clothes, other data. All that remained was the sky and its contents - energy unknown to us, which turned out to be higher than human forces.
"The study of the case now fully convinces, and even then I stuck to the version of the death of student hikers from exposure to an unknown flying object. Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious. Correspondent Bogomolov, whom I gave an interview, his publication claims that the criminal prosecutor Ivanov at that time clearly highlighted: the cause of the deaths was an unidentified object,although he encoded it in the final document with the words "force majeure". To the correspondent’s question, have I changed my view of the causes of death of the hikers over these thirty years, I replied that I only changed my view of the impact technique. If earlier I believed that the ball exploded, releasing completely unknown, but radioactive energy, I believe that the action of the energy from the ball was selective, it was aimed only at three people.
If I may, I would take liberty to comment that not all "conclusions" of Lev Ivanov should be taken seriously. He claims to know the right sequence in which the hikers died, while it's clear that he understood it wrong. In his theory, the "ball" exploded (his early idea) or shot a beam at the three selected hikers (his late idea), when the group just descended and approached the treeline. So he believed that Dubinina, Thibo, and Zolotarev died the first. In reality, those three were the last to die, and the dull explosion did not need to select anybody, it just killed those who kept alive.
From all the above Ivanov's "conclusions" we should accept only one, which is really important - the whole group was killed by unknown flying object.
Maybe Ivanov was on the right track, so to speak. Many reports of cattle and animal mutilations at the same time as lights in the sky, and also witnesses have seen cattle or animals lifted into the sky towards such objects and then dropped down again at some point in time.
-
Many reports of cattle and animal mutilations at the same time as lights in the sky, and also witnesses have seen cattle or animals lifted into the sky towards such objects and then dropped down again at some point in time.
Do those cattle and animals demonstrate any level of radioactive contamination?
-
I think we can safely say that the written statements below serve as ivanov's "conclusions," at least based on the English language definition of "conclusion."
Title of the Piece: Mystery of the Fireballs
Author: Lev Ivanov
"It was clear to me in what sequence did they die - all this from thorough study of the bodies, the clothes, other data. All that remained was the sky and its contents - energy unknown to us, which turned out to be higher than human forces.
"The study of the case now fully convinces, and even then I stuck to the version of the death of student hikers from exposure to an unknown flying object. Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious. Correspondent Bogomolov, whom I gave an interview, his publication claims that the criminal prosecutor Ivanov at that time clearly highlighted: the cause of the deaths was an unidentified object,although he encoded it in the final document with the words "force majeure". To the correspondent’s question, have I changed my view of the causes of death of the hikers over these thirty years, I replied that I only changed my view of the impact technique. If earlier I believed that the ball exploded, releasing completely unknown, but radioactive energy, I believe that the action of the energy from the ball was selective, it was aimed only at three people.
If I may, I would take liberty to comment that not all "conclusions" of Lev Ivanov should be taken seriously. He claims to know the right sequence in which the hikers died, while it's clear that he understood it wrong. In his theory, the "ball" exploded (his early idea) or shot a beam at the three selected hikers (his late idea), when the group just descended and approached the treeline. So he believed that Dubinina, Thibo, and Zolotarev died the first. In reality, those three were the last to die, and the dull explosion did not need to select anybody, it just killed those who kept alive.
From all the above Ivanov's "conclusions" we should accept only one, which is really important - the whole group was killed by unknown flying object.
It is a bit confusing. His claim about this ray gun was from his belief of the alleged burns on the trees .( which was probably natural windburn) and viewed from 1079.
There were no reports of lights in the sky on the night of the incident , there is nothing found on the ground by the searchers or Ivanov that suggests rocket or missile. There's no debris field , no blown off body parts , no blast to the many trees and shrubs on the slope so I'm stuck with ivanovs thinking.
He was at the pass for 5-6 days then 2 -3 days and did no physical examination of anything. No soil samples, no burnt tree examples , no water samples , no snow samples and no radiation tests from the location . He doesn't even test the tent for radiation, although may be that's where the two big squares went?.
1)No lights in the sky on the night of the incident . The lights on the other nights are rocket stages or activity high in the atmosphere.
2) No evidence of any burns to the tent only the burnt branches and small areas to one of the hikers at the cedar where a fire was found to be made . Some burnt clothing was found in this extinguished fire .
3) Small amount of radiation found on the clothing after being tested in a lab in isolated conditions. No samples taken from any other part of the search site,including the searchers .
Ivanov was either playing a game later in life , to gain money for his family , being used by the media , or was suffering mental health issues.
If it's a rocket or missile , he just had to say but he didn't...
No reports of lights in the sky from what location, though! Obviously, we don't have any witnesses at the site of the incident. The Urals cover a huge area. If there were lights in the sky at the site of the incident, then the Dyatlov Group would have been the only witnesses. The incident appears to have started at the tent site, but didn't end there. So any extra-terrestrial weaponry may have been different at the tent site than at the other sites, such as the Cedar tree site and the Ravine site. Hence unknown force. Or should that be forces?
-
Many reports of cattle and animal mutilations at the same time as lights in the sky, and also witnesses have seen cattle or animals lifted into the sky towards such objects and then dropped down again at some point in time.
Do those cattle and animals demonstrate any level of radioactive contamination?
Yes, apparently, some radiation has been detected on some of the mutilated bodies. I think I will start a new post with what has developed over the last few years. It is relevant to the Dyatlov Case because of the similarities.
-
His claim about this ray gun was from his belief of the alleged burns on the trees .( which was probably natural windburn) and viewed from 1079.
Probably that was the secondary reason. Ivanov's investigation showed that all hikers went downhill together, there were no separate subgroups. And then, at the bottom of the hill, three of them were wounded severely. Initially, he considered injuries due to the "ball" explosion. But he could not explain how the explosion injured 3 people, while the rest who kept very close were not affected at all. So he dismissed an explosion and started to consider targeted attack. Thus he came to the idea of a ray gun and 3 targets that were selected.
There were no reports of lights in the sky on the night of the incident
Even if you restrict yourself with the case files, it's possible to see on the Sheet 167:
"The reason could be some kind of extreme natural phenomenon or the flight of a meteorological rocket that was seen on 1/II in Ivdel".
Then on Sheet 273 we have the following info provided by father of Yuriy Krivonischenko:
"After the funeral of my son on March 9, 1959, I had students over at the apartment, participants in the search for the nine hikers. Among them were those hikers who at the end of January and the beginning of February were on an expedition in the north, a little bit to the south of Mount Otorten. There were apparently at least two such groups, at least the participants of the two groups said that they had seen the light phenomenon that struck them on February 1 north of the location of these groups: the extremely bright glow of some kind of rocket or projectile. The glow was so strong, that some of the hikers that were already inside the tent and getting ready to go to sleep, were alarmed by this glow, went out of the tent and observed this phenomenon. After a while they heard a sound like a strong thunder from far away."
If we go beyond the case files, we will find more:
E.Okishev:
"We met with a worker of one of the prison camps in the North Urals. He described strange flashes of light which he and his wife saw late that evening on their way home from the cinema. The light came from the direction of the supposed accident with the hikers. We also received evidence from other local residents, and all of them spoke about a similar phenomenon, all testimonies were entered on our records of interrogation."
V.Korotaev:
"The testimony of the Mansi witnesses Anyamov and Sambindanov has been removed from the Dyatlov case I was working on. They said they had seen an elongated body flying over the taiga, with flames coming out of its back".
He doesn't even test the tent for radiation, although may be that's where the two big squares went?.
It could be one of the options.
Small amount of radiation found on the clothing after being tested in a lab in isolated conditions. No samples taken from any other part of the search site,including the searchers .
The amount can be called small only in that respect that it was not lethal. For a few samples of clothes it exceeded accepatble level of contamination for nuclear workers' garments. In other words, a nuclear worker would be asked to change his/her clothes, if such level was detected. To continue wearing the garment will be risky for his/her health.
If it's a rocket or missile , he just had to say but he didn't...
Okishev as well.
The dates of the 1st of February by Yuriy Krivonischenko father had missed me. That is of interest to me. He has the least reason to manipulate a story and then a story from the students. When he mentions the seventh, this may be an error on his part or the person taking the notes as we know for definite that there was something in the sky on the 17th.
Interestingly, the date of the 17th February is in the case files of observations with quite detailed accounts but there are none for the 1st of February.
I think there's at least 4 statements for the rocket on the 17th of February and I'm sure it is also stated in Karelin's own report of their group hike so that wasn't a secret to the public.
I've been searching for years to find dates of launches of rockets that match the dates but I know the Soviets didn't keep dates of failed launches.
I believe they were doing tests in the atmosphere of some sort of nuclear experiments but again I can't find dates or locations.
My problem with Ivanov and Okishev is that they don't say it was a rocket or missile, they give no proof . They imply they think it was a cover up and maybe a rocket and that's it. If it was a rocket that fell, I don't see the big deal of covering it up to the families in the aid of protecting military secrets, there's no need for Ivanov to get emotionally connected or have guilt. It's a random accident and if so , I'm sure someone would have come out and said so.
There's a website of soviet accidents that are filed under secret and KGB etc, the dyatlov pass is nothing in comparison to the many mass deaths and accidents caused by military, infrastructure, murders, drinking, messing about in airplanes , nuclear waste , U2 spy plane , train crashes, numerous tourist deaths etc and on it goes. The point being , there's nothing that could have happened in the dyatlov case that could possibly outway far worse secrets that have already been released to the public.
-
The dates of the 1st of February by Yuriy Krivonischenko father had missed me. That is of interest to me. He has the least reason to manipulate a story and then a story from the students. When he mentions the seventh, this may be an error on his part or the person taking the notes as we know for definite that there was something in the sky on the 17th.
Interestingly, the date of the 17th February is in the case files of observations with quite detailed accounts but there are none for the 1st of February.
I think there's at least 4 statements for the rocket on the 17th of February and I'm sure it is also stated in Karelin's own report of their group hike so that wasn't a secret to the public.
That's true, you will find very little information related to February 1st in the case files. This is very strange, since the investigation's aim is to reveal what happened with the hikers on February 1st, 1959. We could expect a lot of questions asked to witnesses: Do you know anything about incident with the hikers on February 1st? But we do not see such questions. Natural doubt arises - do these case files really reflect genuine investigation process of DPI?
I fully agree that Yuriy's father talks about "lights in the sky" on February 1st and 17th. Then those two hikers' groups he mentioned were Anatoly Shumkov's group and Vladislav Karelin's groups. As Karelin saw "light in the sky" early in the morning on Feb 17th, the sound effect should have been heared by Shumkov's group late in the evening on Feb 1st. And this fits to the logic of DPI. At about 7pm Shumkov and Vladimirov saw a rocket flying over Urals from the top of Chistop, then their group heard sound of explosion at about 11pm, when they got ready for sleep.
-
I fully agree that Yuriy's father talks about "lights in the sky" on February 1st and 17th. Then those two hikers' groups he mentioned were Anatoly Shumkov's group and Vladislav Karelin's groups. As Karelin saw "light in the sky" early in the morning on Feb 17th, the sound effect should have been heared by Shumkov's group late in the evening on Feb 1st. And this fits to the logic of DPI. At about 7pm Shumkov and Vladimirov saw a rocket flying over Urals from the top of Chistop, then their group heard sound of explosion at about 11pm, when they got ready for sleep.
I did read somewhere and it might have been teddy's book, that there was geological work going on.
I can't for the life of me remember the details but if my memory serves me correctly, the searchers requested that these explosions or geological works stop while the search went on. I'll need to check teddy's book as there are valuable documents and statements in it.
-
I did read somewhere and it might have been teddy's book, that there was geological work going on.
I can't for the life of me remember the details but if my memory serves me correctly, the searchers requested that these explosions or geological works stop while the search went on. I'll need to check teddy's book as there are valuable documents and statements in it.
I doubt very much it is about geologists and their works. Not a single geologist was interrogated. Geological works are not mentioned in the case files.
The only relevant episode was described by former soldier Syunikaev here: https://dyatlovpass.com/syunikaev-2009?rbid=18461
"Syunikaev: Well, the day... the day, probably, the second day had passed, something like that... well, the radio operator was with us... I heard explosions, pops. I said: look, explosions, they are shooting at us again. What do you think was in our heads? I immediately went up to the radio operator and said: look, tell them that we, the search group, won't proceed with the search because we are afraid for our lives."
-
Silly geologists! You are supposed to blast the ground, not the sky! There will be much less vodka and singing about freedom and such until you all have blasted sufficient holes and knocked over sufficient trees to justify to any passing spy plane that you are farmers clearing land.
-
I did read somewhere and it might have been teddy's book, that there was geological work going on.
I can't for the life of me remember the details but if my memory serves me correctly, the searchers requested that these explosions or geological works stop while the search went on. I'll need to check teddy's book as there are valuable documents and statements in it.
I doubt very much it is about geologists and their works. Not a single geologist was interrogated. Geological works are not mentioned in the case files.
The only relevant episode was described by former soldier Syunikaev here: https://dyatlovpass.com/syunikaev-2009?rbid=18461
"Syunikaev: Well, the day... the day, probably, the second day had passed, something like that... well, the radio operator was with us... I heard explosions, pops. I said: look, explosions, they are shooting at us again. What do you think was in our heads? I immediately went up to the radio operator and said: look, tell them that we, the search group, won't proceed with the search because we are afraid for our lives."
Have you read 1079, Teddy's book?
-
Have you read 1079, Teddy's book?
No. With all respect, I prefer to focus on more plausible theories, which imply:
- the tent was set on the slope, where it was found on Feb 26th;
- fallen trees have nothing to do with DPI;
- there were no stagers on the spot;
- the icy footsteps belonged to the hikers.
-
Have you read 1079, Teddy's book?
No. With all respect, I prefer to focus on more plausible theories, which imply:
- the tent was set on the slope, where it was found on Feb 26th;
- fallen trees have nothing to do with DPI;
- there were no stagers on the spot;
- the icy footsteps belonged to the hikers.
I would say there's definitely plausibility to many aspects to the book and work in " 1079 ". My biggest problem was and is the staging aspect and how people could fly about without it being recorded. However, recently I came across evidence of soviets with access to helicopters and planes basically going for joy rides . It only came to light because they crashed.
Talking of lights, and explosions for that matter , there was some sort of geological surveying taking place in the area in 1959 . It seemed to be done by some sort of exploding ( old 5kg anti tank mines are suggested) to release dust or debris and then magnetic readings are taken or something. ( I'm having to learn some of this and it might be inaccurate).
I do wonder if some of these activities may be connected, at least with the description of lights in the sky's and noise?
-
Talking of lights, and explosions for that matter , there was some sort of geological surveying taking place in the area in 1959 . It seemed to be done by some sort of exploding ( old 5kg anti tank mines are suggested) to release dust or debris and then magnetic readings are taken or something. ( I'm having to learn some of this and it might be inaccurate).
I do wonder if some of these activities may be connected, at least with the description of lights in the sky's and noise?
Geologists use surface and underground explosions to do their work, they do not blast anything in the air. Also they use classic devices for their explosions, and Ivanov had checked thoroughly for traces of usual blast, at least he said so. A few members of the Search party recall that they had tasks to investigate wide area surrounding 1079 in attempt to find traces of strangers and predators. They had found nothing. If geologists performed some works nearby, they would have been spotted for sure. Geological works at long distance do not count, they could not have hurt the hikers nor frighten them.
Voting strongly against stagers, I do consider strangers, who arrived to the spot by air (helicopters?) shortly after Feb 1st. They discovered the collapsed tent, which was empty. That finding was reported to their local headqurters and then to Moscow. Moscow demanded to start investigation, and local detectives started series of interrogations (see Mr.Popov's interrogation).
DPI investigation was top-down story, not a local excercise.
-
Talking of lights, and explosions for that matter , there was some sort of geological surveying taking place in the area in 1959 . It seemed to be done by some sort of exploding ( old 5kg anti tank mines are suggested) to release dust or debris and then magnetic readings are taken or something. ( I'm having to learn some of this and it might be inaccurate).
I do wonder if some of these activities may be connected, at least with the description of lights in the sky's and noise?
Geologists use surface and underground explosions to do their work, they do not blast anything in the air. Also they use classic devices for their explosions, and Ivanov had checked thoroughly for traces of usual blast, at least he said so. A few members of the Search party recall that they had tasks to investigate wide area surrounding 1079 in attempt to find traces of strangers and predators. They had found nothing. If geologists performed some works nearby, they would have been spotted for sure. Geological works at long distance do not count, they could not have hurt the hikers nor frighten them.
Voting strongly against stagers, I do consider strangers, who arrived to the spot by air (helicopters?) shortly after Feb 1st. They discovered the collapsed tent, which was empty. That finding was reported to their local headqurters and then to Moscow. Moscow demanded to start investigation, and local detectives started series of interrogations (see Mr.Popov's interrogation).
DPI investigation was top-down story, not a local excercise.
Yes , yes, of course but I wasn't thinking along the lines of blasting anything in the air, I was thinking of by products , fine dust , electric magnetic particles, discharge from gasses .
At the moment, I'm chewing through "chlopinite" and "Bauxite".
Chlopinite (a variety of samarskite) is a rare-earth mineral containing tantalum, niobium, and uranium, typically mined as a source of radioactive and rare-earth elements. Historical mining, particularly in the mid-20th century, involved intensive prospecting and drilling for rare metals in the Soviet Union (e.g., Northern Urals).
Bauxite mining and the subsequent Bayer process for producing alumina often involve handling materials containing Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM). While bauxite generally has low levels of radioactivity, the process of refining it into alumina concentrates these radioactive elements into the waste byproduct known as bauxite residue or "red mud".
Syunikaev in the search. In 1959 he was a cadet of the division team in military unit 6602 (Ivdel). He remembers the cannonade of explosions that were so loud they had to send a request to Moscow to stop the blasting so they could work. The distance in his approximation was not more than 10 km from the search base camp, and the blasts were on the northern side of the ridge, on the side of the cedar tree. The searchers couldn’t stand it even though a mountain separated them from the explosions. The distance between Otorten and Dyatlov Pass is 13 km. The blasting was somewhere in between.
We know that geophysical work was taking place over 1079 and the rest of the area in 1959, it's just what months?.
If there were explosives used , then perhaps it can explain some of the lights? .
Lights in the sky associated with geophysical work or geological activity are generally known as earthquake lights (EQL). These phenomena, which include glowing globes, blue flashes similar to lightning, or steady luminous glows, can occur near areas of tectonic stress, seismic activity, or volcanic eruptions.
Causes and Theories
While not universally understood, several scientific theories explain how geological stress causes these lights:
Piezoelectric Effect: Intense electric fields can be created when quartz-containing rocks (such as granite) are stressed, causing electrical charges to build up and release.
Rock Stress and Ionization: High stress before or during an earthquake can break peroxy bonds in rocks, releasing positive charge carriers (holes) that travel through the rock to the surface, ionizing the air and creating plasma that emits light.
Triboluminescence: Light released when chemical bonds are broken through rubbing, crushing, or scratching rocks.
Atmospheric/Electrical Discharges: Tectonic stress can release electric charges that rise into the atmosphere.
-
I was thinking of by products , fine dust , electric magnetic particles, discharge from gasses .
That is challenging direction of the investigation. Ivanov talked about people who might had been in the "fireballs" or handled them from the ground. It's hard to imagine that clouds of dust, particles, etc can be controlled... Anyway, good luck with developing this idea!
Syunikaev in the search. In 1959 he was a cadet of the division team in military unit 6602 (Ivdel). He remembers the cannonade of explosions that were so loud they had to send a request to Moscow to stop the blasting so they could work. The distance in his approximation was not more than 10 km from the search base camp, and the blasts were on the northern side of the ridge, on the side of the cedar tree. The searchers couldn’t stand it even though a mountain separated them from the explosions. The distance between Otorten and Dyatlov Pass is 13 km. The blasting was somewhere in between.
The bad thing is that nobody besides Syunikaev remembers cannonade at the Pass. Syunikaev arrived at the spot on March 8th, and the only suitable timeslot for him to listen to cannonade was next few days. On March 13th the second group of UPI students arrived to the Pass headed by Kikoin, and they had not heard cannonade during their tenure. Another cadet, Klimenko, believed that Syunikaev was wrong talking about cannonade. Most probably, it was not cannonade but fireball's flight on March 31st. And indeed, a radiogram was sent to Ivdel, which expressed concern about that event. And people at the Pass had no opportunity to send anything to Moscow -- to Sverdlovsk only via Ivdel.
-
That is challenging direction of the investigation.
It's is just an exploration to what might have been seen in some instances and certainly no more challenging than ray beams or piloted fire balls
Ivanov talked about people who might had been in the "fireballs" or handled them from the ground.
The problem is , Ivanov saw nothing , he didn't see any fireballs , rockets, northern lights , plasma gas or UFO's. His view point , if it is his own view point and not that of the journalists, is that he saw burnt bushes and concluded that some sort of ray gun or beam was singling out the hikers and targeting the hikers. It is then said that the reason for the clothes been tested was they were glowing.
His name and reputation has either been hijacked for sensation to the mystery or he got something out of it.
It's hard to imagine that clouds of dust, particles, etc can be controlled...
I'm not sure you fully understand my context of the the clouds and particles. You are the one saying that ivanov thinks these fireballs that he's never seen are piloted?
Anyway, good luck with developing this idea!
There is no idea to develop, it's merely a possibility to the lights that are seen and the noises heard.
The bad thing is that nobody besides Syunikaev remembers cannonade at the Pass. Syunikaev arrived at the spot on March 8th, and the only suitable timeslot for him to listen to cannonade was next few days.
One man's cannode is anothers man's thunder . The alleged explosions stopped a day after they were radioed in and many heard rumbles or explosions.
Geophysical research was taking place and no rocket was reported to have crashed ? and there is a fallen tree at the cedar.
-
Voting strongly against stagers, I do consider strangers, who arrived to the spot by air (helicopters?) shortly after Feb 1st. They discovered the collapsed tent, which was empty. That finding was reported to their local headqurters and then to Moscow. Moscow demanded to start investigation, and local detectives started series of interrogations (see Mr.Popov's interrogation).
DPI investigation was top-down story, not a local excercise.
It's much simpler. Popov's interrogation took place on March 6, and February was mistakenly listed as the date. No outsiders were present. The UPI began the search, and after a telegram sent by Kolevatov's sister to Khrushchev, local authorities became involved, enlisting the military in the search. The prosecutor's office began an investigation when the first bodies were discovered. The Moscow authorities' involvement was minimal.
And Syunikaev isn't mistaken, he's simply lying with inspiration. He told many other stories, and there wasn't a single word of them that was supported by anything. Fantasy upon fantasy, each one more outrageous than the last.
-
It's much simpler. Popov's interrogation took place on March 6, and February was mistakenly listed as the date. No outsiders were present. The UPI began the search, and after a telegram sent by Kolevatov's sister to Khrushchev, local authorities became involved, enlisting the military in the search. The prosecutor's office began an investigation when the first bodies were discovered. The Moscow authorities' involvement was minimal.
No, it is much more complex. Even prosecutor Kuryakov made a public statement that Cpt.Chudinov's interrogation of Mr.Popov was from another criminal case.
When we accept that all members of the Sverdlovsk region detectives were making mistakes in official documents, we step on a curvy road. If Chudinov's clear writing "February 6th" is a mistake, then I immediatly will suggest that Ivanov's writing "overwhelming force" was a mistake as well, and he intended to write "accident with rocket".
By the way, this is a good video for watching: https://youtu.be/aOtId8w_AC0
-
Have you read 1079, Teddy's book?
No. With all respect, I prefer to focus on more plausible theories, which imply:
- the tent was set on the slope, where it was found on Feb 26th;
- fallen trees have nothing to do with DPI;
- there were no stagers on the spot;
- the icy footsteps belonged to the hikers.
I will go with the first 3 of those, but we can't be sure whether the footprints belonged to the hikers.
-
No, it is much more complex. Even prosecutor Kuryakov made a public statement that Cpt.Chudinov's interrogation of Mr.Popov was from another criminal case.
There were no other cases involving tourists in those areas. Prosecutor Kuryakov didn't consider it necessary to delve deeply into the situation surrounding Popov's interrogation. In particular, he doesn't consider the fact that subsequent interrogations conducted by Chudinov in a village located just 20 km from Popov were dated March 7. Incorrect dating of various documents is nothing unusual, and this particular case has been thoroughly studied and analyzed on Russian forums. Rest assured, this is an error.
-
As for Ivanov, he was unable to establish a specific cause for the group's death and limited himself to a general explanation: "An elemental force that the tourists were unable to overcome."
He couldn't possibly write that the investigation was unable to understand what happened.
-
Any rocketry incident or geological mishap is going to put the liability squarely on the government's shoulders. The families of the deceased hikers have varying levels of political influence. If there was any chance of getting financial compensation for their losses, surely money from the aggrieved families would loosen tongues at some level and then with blood in the water, the sharks gather.
If curious lights in the sky elicited some kind of fright or threat, who would rather stick their head under a blanket and get small instead of slicing open a tent and boldly proclaiming, " Here we are, come and get us!" I, for one would hunker down and not offer myself as a target.
One might reasonably expect a "Wow, that was scary!" Then after a lot of back and forth, everyone goes to sleep. No tent cutting involved.
On the other hand, if some light was associated with some noise and that noise triggered a shift in a slab of snow above the tent, then suffocation is justification enough to cut the canvas. This could be much simplified by not requiring, light, nor sound. Just shifting snow will suffice.
-
As for Ivanov, he was unable to establish a specific cause for the group's death and limited himself to a general explanation: "An elemental force that the tourists were unable to overcome."
He couldn't possibly write that the investigation was unable to understand what happened.
This is the only thing that makes sense. He writes the cause of the deaths was an unknown force from nature. It does not mean the this force was a new force.
One of the forces of nature forced them to leave their tent. This unknown force was one of the known forces, wind, snow, hurricane etc. that's all the statement says .
There are other reports that say the same from soviet disasters . They use the word " unknown" in their conclusions and statements. Basically it like this , there was a fire , the fire killed the people but what caused the fire to start is unknown
In other statements they will know the cause of the fire , and they will say like above but , the cause of the fire was a disbanded cigarette
Ivanov had his chance to say what happened and he never left a clue and there in lies the problem.
There is no secret that can be worse than others secrets that have already been released.
-
Any rocketry incident or geological mishap is going to put the liability squarely on the government's shoulders. The families of the deceased hikers have varying levels of political influence. If there was any chance of getting financial compensation for their losses, surely money from the aggrieved families would loosen tongues at some level and then with blood in the water, the sharks gather.
If curious lights in the sky elicited some kind of fright or threat, who would rather stick their head under a blanket and get small instead of slicing open a tent and boldly proclaiming, " Here we are, come and get us!" I, for one would hunker down and not offer myself as a target.
One might reasonably expect a "Wow, that was scary!" Then after a lot of back and forth, everyone goes to sleep. No tent cutting involved.
On the other hand, if some light was associated with some noise and that noise triggered a shift in a slab of snow above the tent, then suffocation is justification enough to cut the canvas. This could be much simplified by not requiring, light, nor sound. Just shifting snow will suffice.
The times this snow theory crops up. It's been shown that it's highly unlikely that any kind of avalanche took place either at the tent site or the ravine. And therefore the serious injuries could not have been caused by snow.
-
I make a quantitative distinction between avalanche and slab slip, the latter being a localized slump in a slab of snow. That snow could be the weight of a car if sufficiently large. I feel the crush on the tent may be sufficient.It has two effects. One effect is that it damages any external support poles, the other is that it reduces the living space in the tent. From the photographic evidence, I believe both conditions are met.
My feeling is that any attempt to clear snow after cutting out of the tent is a futile exercise. I compare it to trying to dig a hole in beach sand. It keeps back filling. This plus the amount of material deposited on the tent made re-enrty difficult. Further, there was no real benefit in getting ski boots, they have slick soles and of course the skis themselves are under the tent which is under the snow. I can believe a flashlight was temporarily stuck in the snow on the tent for illumination, but in the confusion and decision making to get out of the cold, the light was simply forgotten.
It is my opinion that the team sensibly made for the forest and not Boot Rock. The rock is a wind break, the forest represents both warmth and shelter. What they could not control was the distance, the condition of the slope and the persistence of the inclement conditions.
Bad things happen to good people. Nature is indifferent.
-
It is my opinion that the team sensibly made for the forest and not Boot Rock. The rock is a wind break, the forest represents both warmth and shelter. What they could not control was the distance, the condition of the slope and the persistence of the inclement conditions.
Though a forest offers much better conditions for night accommodation than a windy slope, there are a few things that might be very handy in a forest - an axe, a saw, valenki, some food, a bottle of ethanol, etc. Even ski boots are better in a forest than barefeet. And if I were to go to a forest, I would put on both valenki, not just one. Of course, it's a matter of preference, some people may try to go to a forest "as is", but this way they increase chance of frostbites, pneumonia, and even death...
-
All you say is true, but not verified in the case files. We could speculate that the supplies were not needed or needed but unavailabe. In the first case, the distance from tent to woods may have been umderestimated. In the latter case, the conditions did not support a prolonged dig at the torn tent.
Unless one is an advocate of the idea they were driven out of the tent, then we might charitably believe that they all had their wits about them and all nine were of one mind regarding spending time exposed to the weather versus going to the woods prepared for an extended stay. Who knows,they may have thought of it as a sporting exercise...until it wasn't.
-
I make a quantitative distinction between avalanche and slab slip, the latter being a localized slump in a slab of snow. That snow could be the weight of a car if sufficiently large. I feel the crush on the tent may be sufficient.It has two effects. One effect is that it damages any external support poles, the other is that it reduces the living space in the tent. From the photographic evidence, I believe both conditions are met.
My feeling is that any attempt to clear snow after cutting out of the tent is a futile exercise. I compare it to trying to dig a hole in beach sand. It keeps back filling. This plus the amount of material deposited on the tent made re-enrty difficult. Further, there was no real benefit in getting ski boots, they have slick soles and of course the skis themselves are under the tent which is under the snow. I can believe a flashlight was temporarily stuck in the snow on the tent for illumination, but in the confusion and decision making to get out of the cold, the light was simply forgotten.
It is my opinion that the team sensibly made for the forest and not Boot Rock. The rock is a wind break, the forest represents both warmth and shelter. What they could not control was the distance, the condition of the slope and the persistence of the inclement conditions.
Bad things happen to good people. Nature is indifferent.
There is nothing sensible about wandering down to the forest after your tent has been destroyed if you are not equipped for the extreme cold conditions. If, on the other hand, you are scared of something
so much that you fear for your life, then you may scarpa down to the forest.
-
I make a quantitative distinction between avalanche and slab slip, the latter being a localized slump in a slab of snow. That snow could be the weight of a car if sufficiently large. I feel the crush on the tent may be sufficient.It has two effects. One effect is that it damages any external support poles, the other is that it reduces the living space in the tent. From the photographic evidence, I believe both conditions are met.
My feeling is that any attempt to clear snow after cutting out of the tent is a futile exercise. I compare it to trying to dig a hole in beach sand. It keeps back filling. This plus the amount of material deposited on the tent made re-enrty difficult. Further, there was no real benefit in getting ski boots, they have slick soles and of course the skis themselves are under the tent which is under the snow. I can believe a flashlight was temporarily stuck in the snow on the tent for illumination, but in the confusion and decision making to get out of the cold, the light was simply forgotten.
It is my opinion that the team sensibly made for the forest and not Boot Rock. The rock is a wind break, the forest represents both warmth and shelter. What they could not control was the distance, the condition of the slope and the persistence of the inclement conditions.
Bad things happen to good people. Nature is indifferent.
There is nothing sensible about wandering down to the forest after your tent has been destroyed if you are not equipped for the extreme cold conditions. If, on the other hand, you are scared of something
so much that you fear for your life, then you may scarpa down to the forest.
We agree that the tent was destroyed, they were not equipped for extreme cold and they feared for their lives. I see no contradiction. Nature can produce this result or something living could. I opt for Nature.
-
There is nothing sensible about wandering down to the forest after your tent has been destroyed if you are not equipped for the extreme cold conditions. If, on the other hand, you are scared of something so much that you fear for your life, then you may scarpa down to the forest.
Descent to the forest in bad weather conditions and in darkness takes about 35 minutes. If the hikers had spent 5 more minutes for getting their clothes and equipment from the tent, the descent would have taken 40 minutes. 35 against 40 minutes is not a big difference. 40 minutes might even had an advantage, as the hikers would have gone fully dressed, much better protected against wind and frost.
For me their decision to leave the tent's spot "as is" says the following:
- the hikers did not intend to go far (not to the forest);
- they did not intend to leave the tent for a long time (for hours);
- they did not have even 5 minutes to penetrate the collapsed tent and get what was needed during a long absence.
-
- the hikers did not intend to go far (not to the forest);✅
- they did not intend to leave the tent for a long time (for hours);✅
- they did not have even 5 minutes to penetrate the collapsed tent and get what was needed during a long absence.❌
✅ ✅ ❌
-
The idea that anyone would grab a knife and cut open a tent without first grabbing their jacket seems counterintuitive and just plain wrong! Not going into the tent and retrieving some necessities before leaving the tent seems ridiculous. Is there an explnation? Of course there is, in fact there are many posted all over this forum. Generally speaking, if you subscribe to the idea that conspirators relocated the tent from the forest, your problem is solved. If, however, the evidence seems lacking, then the tent was always where it was found. What persuaded them to leave? Was it animal (2 or 4 legged), vegetable (food, not a fallen tree), or mineral ( weather and elemental forces)?
I keep going back to a crush of snow on the tent, breaking support poles and stifling everyone's ability to breathe. In that case, grabbing a coat is of secondary importance. Further if the tent is flattened by an overburden of snow, getting back in might not be as easy as we imagine in the comfort of our writing desk. We may imagine they dug straight up and out, so getting back in should be simple, but what if it was not so? What would defeat the combined efforts of nine people on their knees, shoulder to shoulder digging like dogs to get back inside? I can only think that with bare hands it would be hard. Against backfilling snow, that much harder. Facing blowing snow and hurricane force winds, hardest of all. Perhaps turning their back to the wind, retreating the 35 minutes for a bit of shelter and a warming fire made better sense. Then again, I wasn't there.
-
I keep going back to a crush of snow on the tent, breaking support poles and stifling everyone's ability to breathe. In that case, grabbing a coat is of secondary importance. Further if the tent is flattened by an overburden of snow, getting back in might not be as easy as we imagine in the comfort of our writing desk. We may imagine they dug straight up and out, so getting back in should be simple, but what if it was not so? What would defeat the combined efforts of nine people on their knees, shoulder to shoulder digging like dogs to get back inside? I can only think that with bare hands it would be hard. Against backfilling snow, that much harder. Facing blowing snow and hurricane force winds, hardest of all. Perhaps turning their back to the wind, retreating the 35 minutes for a bit of shelter and a warming fire made better sense. Then again, I wasn't there.
This would be very plausible scenario, but we should not forget about 3 hikers attempting to return back to the tent. If 9 people were not able to fetch their clothes and equipment from the tent covered by thick layer of snow, how could one, two ot three people do that in a couple of hours? What was the reason to go back if the forest provided excellent shelter from bad weather conditions?
-
I did not understand the group to be separated when the trouble developed. If the three hikers Igor, Rustem and Zina are the ones, then I am getting the suggestion that they froze to death returning to the tent to help their stricken comrades. That is a problem for me, especially since none were bringing firewood back.
-
I did not understand the group to be separated when the trouble developed. If the three hikers Igor, Rustem and Zina are the ones, then I am getting the suggestion that they froze to death returning to the tent to help their stricken comrades. That is a problem for me, especially since none were bringing firewood back.
Exactly. If those 3 hikers expected to help their stricken friends, the question is "How?". The only way seems to be to get from the tent and to bring back to the Cedar tree all the necessities -- overcoats, boots/valenki, gloves, instruments, medicine. But in your theory the whole group was not able to dig out those things just a couple hours earlier. How could those three cope with the task after being exhausted by moving 1,5km down and up?
-
I did not understand the group to be separated when the trouble developed. If the three hikers Igor, Rustem and Zina are the ones, then I am getting the suggestion that they froze to death returning to the tent to help their stricken comrades. That is a problem for me, especially since none were bringing firewood back.
Exactly. If those 3 hikers expected to help their stricken friends, the question is "How?". The only way seems to be to get from the tent and to bring back to the Cedar tree all the necessities -- overcoats, boots/valenki, gloves, instruments, medicine. But in your theory the whole group was not able to dig out those things just a couple hours earlier. How could those three cope with the task after being exhausted by moving 1,5km down and up?
They may not have being trying to help their stricken friends but rather trying to help themselves?
Glennm does not imply a that they couldn't dig things out a couple of hours earlier to dig , rather they couldn't dig things out at the time of the incident. We don't know the hours from incident to death.
I also don't think they would be exhausted by covering 1.5 km up or down , that's only 3 km and is nothing to any average fit person. Moving in the cold would help.
Obviously there would be stress and cold but they were young and active people. The cold on the other hand would take its toll , this would , depending on exposure, wind ,wetness etc .
Ignoring other theories and contemplating that the group were trying to build shelter and start fires to combat the cold as there is strong evidence for this , we could look at things from that perspective. If there was further accidents like falling in the ravine, out of the tree, or snow collapse at the den/ravine , those left alive have no other choice but to try to regain equipment from the tent. Even if Igor, Zina , Rustem survived the night as the others had perished , there is only one option left , and that is to try and get what they can from the tent for themselves.
It looks like the two yuris were moved and probably away from the fire. The ravine 4 are positioned in a strange orientation that doesn't seem to equate with the nature of the ravine as we have seen from post expeditions to the area.
-
They may not have being trying to help their stricken friends but rather trying to help themselves?
The dead can't help anyone.
-
They may not have being trying to help their stricken friends but rather trying to help themselves?
The dead can't help anyone.
I'm not sure i understand you Suri?. The context is as to why Igor,Zina , Rustem could be going back to the tent . The possibility is they waited till first light to try and regain the tent for the only items that would save them or whilst failing like their friends they decided to get equipment to help the others that came to harm.
-
They may not have being trying to help their stricken friends but rather trying to help themselves?
There were no signs that Zina, Rustem, and Igor made any attempts to keep warm by putting on clothes of their dead friends. And this is the first action (in my opinion) to help themselves. Especially before starting a long climb against the wind. If you will say that those 3 hikers decided to leave their struggling with frost but still alive friends and switched to helping themselves, it looks like desertion and is in contrary to their group's spirit.
I also don't think they would be exhausted by covering 1.5 km up or down , that's only 3 km and is nothing to any average fit person. Moving in the cold would help.
The fact is that all three did not manage even 2.5 km. If they were not exhausted, how would you call that?
-
They may not have being trying to help their stricken friends but rather trying to help themselves?
There were no signs that Zina, Rustem, and Igor made any attempts to keep warm by putting on clothes of their dead friends. And this is the first action (in my opinion) to help themselves. Especially before starting a long climb against the wind. If you will say that those 3 hikers decided to leave their struggling with frost but still alive friends and switched to helping themselves, it looks like desertion and is in contrary to their group's spirit.
I also don't think they would be exhausted by covering 1.5 km up or down , that's only 3 km and is nothing to any average fit person. Moving in the cold would help.
The fact is that all three did not manage even 2.5 km. If they were not exhausted, how would you call that?
There in lies the problem. We would think if anyone was going back to the tent , they would take the boots of the hikers at the very minimum , even if they were still alive. So, Igor , Zina and Rustem don't take the boots to help them back up the slope ,( if thats what they were doing) , there is the possibility that they couldn't get to the ravine four as this is where a potential snow cave collapse happened.
Or it could be that their hands were just too frostbitten and dysfunctional that all feeling had gone. I would expect the loss of hand movement within a couple of hours in poor conditions but this is variable . At least one of the hiker's had gloves but wasn't wearing them when found, again this suggests they didn't lie down and then die in the cold, it suggests that they died whilst doing something and when they died no one else searched him or used his clothing . It suggests that they're clothing couldn't be utilised by any survivors and that the ravine 4 weren't utilising all of their own clothing.
You missed this bit from my post
. If there was further accidents like falling in the ravine, out of the tree, or snow collapse at the den/ravine , those left alive have no other choice but to try to regain equipment from the tent
If I,R and Z were the last alive then it is not desertion .
To take refuge in the forest , start a fire and build what is at least the start of a den with flooring , shows intention to survive. All the activity found suggests this . It shows they moved as a group , and it shows collective work by the group by means of the only tools and resources they had. If we were all asked for two things we would expect to do in a survival situation in winter and cold we would all say fire and shelter. This is exactly what we have .
As to why i wouldn't call it exhausted, is its not the activity or distance that cause the exhaustion but the cold . ( Its also meant to say" moving in the cold wouldn't help", not would) .
Even if we have rockets , fights , tree's , avalanche's or whatever among the group as the reason for their migration to the forest from the tent, at some point they would have to get back to their only chance of survival,that is the tent and its contents . To sit and wait is death.
-
The fact is that all three did not manage even 2.5 km. If they were not exhausted, how would you call that?
They couldn't even manage 1 km, so exhaustion is an understatement.
-
I make a quantitative distinction between avalanche and slab slip, the latter being a localized slump in a slab of snow. That snow could be the weight of a car if sufficiently large. I feel the crush on the tent may be sufficient.It has two effects. One effect is that it damages any external support poles, the other is that it reduces the living space in the tent. From the photographic evidence, I believe both conditions are met.
My feeling is that any attempt to clear snow after cutting out of the tent is a futile exercise. I compare it to trying to dig a hole in beach sand. It keeps back filling. This plus the amount of material deposited on the tent made re-enrty difficult. Further, there was no real benefit in getting ski boots, they have slick soles and of course the skis themselves are under the tent which is under the snow. I can believe a flashlight was temporarily stuck in the snow on the tent for illumination, but in the confusion and decision making to get out of the cold, the light was simply forgotten.
It is my opinion that the team sensibly made for the forest and not Boot Rock. The rock is a wind break, the forest represents both warmth and shelter. What they could not control was the distance, the condition of the slope and the persistence of the inclement conditions.
Bad things happen to good people. Nature is indifferent.
There is nothing sensible about wandering down to the forest after your tent has been destroyed if you are not equipped for the extreme cold conditions. If, on the other hand, you are scared of something
so much that you fear for your life, then you may scarpa down to the forest.
We agree that the tent was destroyed, they were not equipped for extreme cold and they feared for their lives. I see no contradiction. Nature can produce this result or something living could. I opt for Nature.
Interesting that you say something living. What if it's not nature and not living !? Or a combination of 3 things.
-
There is nothing sensible about wandering down to the forest after your tent has been destroyed if you are not equipped for the extreme cold conditions. If, on the other hand, you are scared of something so much that you fear for your life, then you may scarpa down to the forest.
Descent to the forest in bad weather conditions and in darkness takes about 35 minutes. If the hikers had spent 5 more minutes for getting their clothes and equipment from the tent, the descent would have taken 40 minutes. 35 against 40 minutes is not a big difference. 40 minutes might even had an advantage, as the hikers would have gone fully dressed, much better protected against wind and frost.
For me their decision to leave the tent's spot "as is" says the following:
- the hikers did not intend to go far (not to the forest);
- they did not intend to leave the tent for a long time (for hours);
- they did not have even 5 minutes to penetrate the collapsed tent and get what was needed during a long absence.
Interesting. You are saying that whatever it was that scared them out of the tent didn't scare them enough for them to go all the way down to the forest !? Or are you saying that they left the tent and something scared them again, and then they decided it was too dangerous to go back to the tent, so they fled to the forest !?
-
The idea that anyone would grab a knife and cut open a tent without first grabbing their jacket seems counterintuitive and just plain wrong! Not going into the tent and retrieving some necessities before leaving the tent seems ridiculous. Is there an explnation? Of course there is, in fact there are many posted all over this forum. Generally speaking, if you subscribe to the idea that conspirators relocated the tent from the forest, your problem is solved. If, however, the evidence seems lacking, then the tent was always where it was found. What persuaded them to leave? Was it animal (2 or 4 legged), vegetable (food, not a fallen tree), or mineral ( weather and elemental forces)?
I keep going back to a crush of snow on the tent, breaking support poles and stifling everyone's ability to breathe. In that case, grabbing a coat is of secondary importance. Further if the tent is flattened by an overburden of snow, getting back in might not be as easy as we imagine in the comfort of our writing desk. We may imagine they dug straight up and out, so getting back in should be simple, but what if it was not so? What would defeat the combined efforts of nine people on their knees, shoulder to shoulder digging like dogs to get back inside? I can only think that with bare hands it would be hard. Against backfilling snow, that much harder. Facing blowing snow and hurricane force winds, hardest of all. Perhaps turning their back to the wind, retreating the 35 minutes for a bit of shelter and a warming fire made better sense. Then again, I wasn't there.
But many investigators have analysed the tent site and found it highly unlikely to have been affected by an avalanche. Look at avalanches in the big mountain ranges of the world. Terrific events. Nothing like that could have happened on the relatively gentle slopes of the hill where they pitched their tent for the last time.
-
I keep going back to a crush of snow on the tent, breaking support poles and stifling everyone's ability to breathe. In that case, grabbing a coat is of secondary importance. Further if the tent is flattened by an overburden of snow, getting back in might not be as easy as we imagine in the comfort of our writing desk. We may imagine they dug straight up and out, so getting back in should be simple, but what if it was not so? What would defeat the combined efforts of nine people on their knees, shoulder to shoulder digging like dogs to get back inside? I can only think that with bare hands it would be hard. Against backfilling snow, that much harder. Facing blowing snow and hurricane force winds, hardest of all. Perhaps turning their back to the wind, retreating the 35 minutes for a bit of shelter and a warming fire made better sense. Then again, I wasn't there.
This would be very plausible scenario, but we should not forget about 3 hikers attempting to return back to the tent. If 9 people were not able to fetch their clothes and equipment from the tent covered by thick layer of snow, how could one, two ot three people do that in a couple of hours? What was the reason to go back if the forest provided excellent shelter from bad weather conditions?
We have to be careful here. Many investigators assume that the 3 you are talking about were actually going back up to their tent site. But what if they weren't?
-
I did not understand the group to be separated when the trouble developed. If the three hikers Igor, Rustem and Zina are the ones, then I am getting the suggestion that they froze to death returning to the tent to help their stricken comrades. That is a problem for me, especially since none were bringing firewood back.
The problem for investigators is not being able to have a definite timeline of events. For instance, it is assumed that the 3 in question were returning to their tent site.
-
...well, things were going poorly in the forest, maybe it was time to IRZ to cut their losses and get back to the tent, suit up and bug out for the labaz and Vizhay.
-
...well, things were going poorly in the forest, maybe it was time to IRZ to cut their losses and get back to the tent, suit up and bug out for the labaz and Vizhay.
They should have suited up before they left their tent. If something scared them so much that they fled their tent, not properly dressed, then I doubt that they would have been keen to go back to their tent.
-
...well, things were going poorly in the forest, maybe it was time to IRZ to cut their losses and get back to the tent, suit up and bug out for the labaz and Vizhay.
They should have suited up before they left their tent. If something scared them so much that they fled their tent, not properly dressed, then I doubt that they would have been keen to go back to their tent.
Yet, that is exactly where they were headed. Being scared is an assumption. Suiting up takes time and the availability of the clothes. A snow covered collapsed tent makes that difficult, not impossible. They really did not have much chance for success. Once the body core temp falls to 85 degrees, death is not too far away.