Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: sanmigel on March 14, 2026, 05:51:04 AM
-
Hi
Title: The Dyatlov Pass Case is Solved. Here Are the Facts.
Author: Михаил Орлов (Mikhail Orlov)
I’ve spent years studying the Dyatlov Pass case. I’ve read the criminal case files, the autopsy reports, the witness testimonies. And I’ve come to a conclusion that explains every single anomaly in this tragedy.
There is no need for yet another "theory." This is a reconstruction based on documents, logic, and one simple fact: the criminal case was opened on February 6, 1959. That’s three weeks before the bodies were found.
Here’s what actually happened, point by point.
The Seven Facts That Kill the "Official" Version
The Wrong River. The group was supposed to follow the Lozva river and turn onto the Auspiya. In bad weather, they missed the turn and followed the Purma river instead. This led them to the foot of Mount Puramunitur — a mountain that looks man-made from above. It is the perfect natural target for a military exercise.
The War Games. In February 1959, the Soviet military was testing the S-75 "Desna" surface-to-air missile system. Puramunitur was the target. The group was at the wrong place at the wrong time. They witnessed a launch or an impact.
The First Blast. Dubinina, Zolotaryov, and Thibeaux-Brignolles were closest to the explosion. The forensic expert, Vozrozhdenny, explicitly stated their injuries (crushed ribs, skull fracture) looked like those from a shockwave. The others were knocked down but alive.
The Capture. Soldiers appeared. They took the survivors. This explains the total lack of signs of struggle near the tent — the tent site was staged later.
The Weeks in Isolation. This is the smoking gun. Look at the autopsy reports:
Krivonischenko’s beard: 0.5 cm. That’s 12–17 days of growth. He died in mid-February, not on the 2nd.
Thibeaux-Brignolles’ beard: 1.0 cm. That’s 25–30 days. He was alive until February 20–22.
They were kept alive. Questioned. Housed somewhere warm. Then, when the decision came from above, they were executed.
The Staging. The bodies were flown back to the Kholat Syakhl slope by helicopter (military unit 32979 was stationed nearby). The tent was set up and cut from the inside to fake panic. The bodies were arranged.
Why is Dubinina’s face down but her lividity on her back? Because she died lying on her back elsewhere, and was turned over later.
Why is there radiation on the four bodies from the ravine (up to 9900 decays/min) but not on the others? Because they were closer to the blast, and the water in the ravine didn’t wash it all away.
The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth.
The Conclusion
The Dyatlov group did not die in a "spontaneous force" accident. They did not die in a panic, or an avalanche, or an infrasound hallucination.
They were killed by men in uniform following orders, to protect a state secret.
The case was opened on February 6th because the military knew exactly what happened, and they needed to control the investigation from day one. The bodies were staged to look like a freezing death. And everyone who knew the truth was silenced — just like the 45,000 soldiers at the Totskoye "Snowball" exercises in 1954, who never spoke a word about the nuclear blast they walked through.
The evidence has been in the case files for 60 years. It just needed someone to connect the dots.
You can read the full investigation (in Russian) here: https://author.today/work/564250
I am working on a full English translation.
-
This interesting theory does explain a couple of things. For example, I remember reading in the autopsy reports that at least one of the hikers had wounds or bruises that had begun to heal over, indicating that their injuries had occurred days before death.
And also, Yuri Yuden was always puzzled by the clean feet and socks of the hikers; that is, how did their feet stay so clean after walking down from the tent in snow and ice?
And lastly, if there was a government cover-up, this would explain why. I imagine the government would never want to admit that it had killed the hikers.
In this theory, did the soldiers deposit and position the Ravine 4?
-
machine translation of the full version
https://disk.yandex.ru/i/z5LnNwGkwdeZ0A
and some pictures
Krivonischenko
(https://i.ibb.co/zW0KZ3MC/05.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0pdPr071)
(https://i.ibb.co/wZ7Y82r6/3139278-original.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HLCXR9pg)
(https://i.ibb.co/wrp5cvtP/1.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
possible wrong route (red). Although this does not particularly affect the version, they could have wandered to another place.
-
In this theory, did the soldiers deposit and position the Ravine 4?
All the dead bodies were brought to the pass. Similarly, all the items were also brought by the soldiers.
-
Why Puramunitur Could Not Have Been a Target for an S‑75 Missile Test
The claim that Mount Puramunitur served as a “target” for an S‑75 Desna surface‑to‑air missile test shows a basic misunderstanding of both the weapon and Soviet military practice. A surface‑to‑air missile cannot be aimed at a mountain: it requires a radar lock on a moving aerial target, continuous command guidance, and open airspace. A stationary landform cannot be tracked, cannot be locked onto, and cannot serve as a valid target for the S‑75 guidance system. Even if someone attempted such a launch, the missile would lose guidance and self‑destruct long before reaching terrain. More importantly, the Northern Urals were never a missile test zone. All S‑75 launches in the 1950s occurred at established military ranges such as Kapustin Yar, Sary‑Shagan, and Ashuluk — thousands of kilometres away, with the required radar infrastructure, telemetry stations, and safety corridors. There is no record, no log, no veteran testimony, and no physical evidence of S‑75 activity anywhere near Dyatlov Pass. The idea that Puramunitur was a “target” is not supported by military history, physics, or the missile’s design; it appears only in the author’s narrative, not in the factual record.
-
A gentle reminder, "Plausibility does not substitute for proof."
-
On the Author’s Background and Authority
Before accepting any reconstruction of the Dyatlov Pass incident, it’s reasonable to ask a basic question: who is the author, and what qualifies him to reinterpret the case? In this instance, the answers are unclear. The writer presents himself as someone who has “studied the case for years,” yet there is no trace of him in any recognised Dyatlov research circles, no publications in historical or forensic journals, no interviews, no archival work, and no involvement with the Dyatlov Foundation or the Russian researchers who have spent decades with the primary materials. His name does not appear in academic literature, investigative reporting, or the glasnost‑era releases that brought the case back into public view.
The only place his work appears is on a self‑publishing platform used primarily for fiction, speculative narratives, and amateur investigations. That doesn’t disqualify him — but it does mean his authority rests entirely on the accuracy of his claims. And when the central pillars of his argument depend on misunderstandings of weapon systems, incorrect timelines, and events that contradict the case file, it raises a fair question about whether he is reconstructing history or constructing a dramatic story. A theory can be imaginative, but imagination is not the same as evidence. When an author’s background is opaque and the factual foundation is unstable, scrutiny isn’t hostility — it’s basic due diligence.
-
who is the author, and what qualifies him to reinterpret the case?
It doesn't matter who, it's important what you say.
Could the C-75 have deliberately fired at the mountain? ok. the rocket could have fallen in an emergency situation.
They could have been missiles and not the S-75. It could have been in ANOTHER place, but in the same area. What does this change for the version? Nothing. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. IT ALSO WORKS THE SAME WAY.
-
A gentle reminder, "Plausibility does not substitute for proof."
Could it be? IT COULD HAVE. Do you think otherwise? PROVE the opposite.
-
There is no need to rely on the personality of the author or the properties of the C-75. See the main thing. For 67 years, everyone has been hammering on the same night on February 1-2. The tourists were last seen on January 28 and found on February 26. AND NO ONE CAN RELIABLY SAY what happened to them during this month.
-
Group Diary Jan 27
Second North is an abandoned geological site consisting of 20-25 houses. Only one is suitable for living. In complete darkness we found a village and the house. We started a fire with wood boards. Smoke came form the stove. Several people hurt their hands on old nails. Everything is well. Then the horse came. We were talking and joking till 3 in the morning.
Doroshenko
January 27 - Dyatlov group leaves 41st district with uncle Slava, backpacks on a sled pulled by a horse, skiing towards 2nd Norther setlement
Location, location, location thumb1
-
Group Diary Jan 27
Second North is an abandoned geological site consisting of 20-25 houses. Only one is suitable for living. In complete darkness we found a village and the house. We started a fire with wood boards. Smoke came form the stove. Several people hurt their hands on old nails. Everything is well. Then the horse came. We were talking and joking till 3 in the morning.
Doroshenko
January 27 - Dyatlov group leaves 41st district with uncle Slava, backpacks on a sled pulled by a horse, skiing towards 2nd Norther setlement
Location, location, location thumb1
Second North
61°37'40.8"N 59°57'24.5"E
41 District approximate coordinates
61.4340°N, 59.9423°E
The coordinates for the village of the second northern were found quite accurately, because the Severnoye Oboe deposit has an official passport in the Rosgeolfond system. The coordinates there are indicated as 61.6280° n, 59.956800° E (with an error of ± 60 minutes) . These data are used for state accounting of mineral deposits and have a high degree of reliability.
The Territorial Fund of Geological Information for the Ural Federal District contains detailed geological reports on this area. For example:
The report "Geological structure of the iron ore deposit of the second Northern mine" (author Ovchinnikov L.N., 1946-1950) with inventory number 12178.
A document with inventory number 26198 for the same deposit .
These materials contain accurate maps and diagrams that can be used to verify the location.
(https://i.ibb.co/5h3r00Hn/2026-03-15-191052.png) (https://ibb.co/1GNrggWd)
-
If the weapon, location, mechanism, and evidence can all be swapped freely, then we’re no longer discussing a theory — we’re discussing a story. A theory requires specific claims that can be tested against the case file.
-
If the weapon, location, mechanism, and evidence can all be swapped freely, then we’re no longer discussing a theory — we’re discussing a story. A theory requires specific claims that can be tested against the case file.
Specific statements will be limited in the absence of CONCRETE FACTS, that is, they will cease to be SPECIFIC.
I'M NOT SAYING that this version is absolutely accurate and specifically describes what happened. I say this version describes WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN. If you think something COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED, PROVE IT.
There is a Russian saying "you can't see the forest behind the trees." This is exactly what has been happening for 67 years with this story. All versions took several facts and tried to explain them, but inevitably there were facts that contradict the version. Here we propose a version that CAN EXPLAIN ALL the FACTS and allows for the variability of the rest.
This is a paradigm shift. At least that you don't have to try to put what happened in one night. There is NO reason to think that NOTHING happened from January 29 to February 25.
-
Absolutely independently of the version indicated here, this article was published in the Russian media.
https://www.fontanka.ru/2026/03/15/76312565/
-
Why the Fontanka Article Cannot Be Treated as Evidence
The article can’t even get the anniversary right — it says 77 years instead of 67.
If a publication can’t handle basic chronology, its dramatic claims about mirrors, generals, and breathing bodies aren’t reliable evidence.
And this matters, because Fontanka is not an investigative journal. It’s a St. Petersburg online outlet known for:
- sensationalised Dyatlov pieces
- dramatic retellings
- unverified “new revelations”
- mixing real experts with fictionalised anecdotes
- publishing entertainment‑style narratives to drive clicks
This isn’t a criticism — it’s simply the genre they operate in.
They publish Dyatlov stories the same way tabloids publish “new Titanic theories” every year.
So when an article from Fontanka:
- misstates the timeline by a decade
- describes a medically impossible mirror test
- claims frozen bodies were “breathing”
- introduces unnamed “officers” and “generals”
- describes secret orders and tribunals
- contradicts the 1959 case file at every point
…it tells you you’re reading a dramatic narrative, not a factual report.
And the final detail makes the whole story collapse:
the article claims they brought in a helicopter and then used an air‑turbine to clear an airfield.
But a helicopter doesn’t need an airfield, and an airfield turbine is a multi‑ton runway machine that cannot be transported into a mountain ravine, cannot operate on slopes, and cannot erase footprints in deep snow. It’s runway equipment, not wilderness equipment. The logistics make no sense.
When a story contradicts basic physics, basic terrain, basic aviation, and basic chronology, it stops being evidence and becomes exactly what it reads... theatre.
-
A couple of times recently,an idea has been put forward and refuted. The reply was what I believe is a " tu quoque" logical fallacy. The translation is " if I am one, you are another", or " if I can't prove my point, you can't prove yours either, go ahead and try it", This is poor thinking and a deflection. It is also a bit too obvious.
The idea that the hikers took a different route, stumbled into a military death trap and then conspirators staged what is found in the case is an entertaining make believe story. The forum is more interested in stitching together a story from the available evidence than literary invention. Thinking outside the box does not get one into the box, where the truth is.
Several amateur authors and podcasters have come and gone on the forum, each taking snippets of truth and buckets of spin in order to get some measure of fortune and fame off nine dead Soviets. My advice, don't give up your day job,
-
You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.
-
This interesting theory does explain a couple of things. For example, I remember reading in the autopsy reports that at least one of the hikers had wounds or bruises that had begun to heal over, indicating that their injuries had occurred days before death.
And also, Yuri Yuden was always puzzled by the clean feet and socks of the hikers; that is, how did their feet stay so clean after walking down from the tent in snow and ice?
And lastly, if there was a government cover-up, this would explain why. I imagine the government would never want to admit that it had killed the hikers.
In this theory, did the soldiers deposit and position the Ravine 4?
You mean this pure speculation. Bruises could have been gotten at any time during the hike. Well, the snow in those parts is going to be clean, I would have thought.
-
In this theory, did the soldiers deposit and position the Ravine 4?
All the dead bodies were brought to the pass. Similarly, all the items were also brought by the soldiers.
I'm surprised that this pure speculation is getting attention. Might as well join in the fun. The USSR is still seen by many as a sort of extreme regime that didn't care about the occasional demise of its own harmless people. Deliberately or accidentally. Provide clues/evidence that USSR soldiers brought the dead bodies and other items to the pass!
-
A gentle reminder, "Plausibility does not substitute for proof."
You said it. This so-called theory is pure speculation. There is no concrete, verifiable evidence whatsoever, obviously.
-
On the Author’s Background and Authority
Before accepting any reconstruction of the Dyatlov Pass incident, it’s reasonable to ask a basic question: who is the author, and what qualifies him to reinterpret the case? In this instance, the answers are unclear. The writer presents himself as someone who has “studied the case for years,” yet there is no trace of him in any recognised Dyatlov research circles, no publications in historical or forensic journals, no interviews, no archival work, and no involvement with the Dyatlov Foundation or the Russian researchers who have spent decades with the primary materials. His name does not appear in academic literature, investigative reporting, or the glasnost‑era releases that brought the case back into public view.
The only place his work appears is on a self‑publishing platform used primarily for fiction, speculative narratives, and amateur investigations. That doesn’t disqualify him — but it does mean his authority rests entirely on the accuracy of his claims. And when the central pillars of his argument depend on misunderstandings of weapon systems, incorrect timelines, and events that contradict the case file, it raises a fair question about whether he is reconstructing history or constructing a dramatic story. A theory can be imaginative, but imagination is not the same as evidence. When an author’s background is opaque and the factual foundation is unstable, scrutiny isn’t hostility — it’s basic due diligence.
There are plenty of exceptional amateur investigators, just like there are plenty of exceptional people in all walks of life. So we really need to look at what this particular investigator has to say and if it makes any kind of sense.
-
If the weapon, location, mechanism, and evidence can all be swapped freely, then we’re no longer discussing a theory — we’re discussing a story. A theory requires specific claims that can be tested against the case file.
Specific statements will be limited in the absence of CONCRETE FACTS, that is, they will cease to be SPECIFIC.
I'M NOT SAYING that this version is absolutely accurate and specifically describes what happened. I say this version describes WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN. If you think something COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED, PROVE IT.
There is a Russian saying "you can't see the forest behind the trees." This is exactly what has been happening for 67 years with this story. All versions took several facts and tried to explain them, but inevitably there were facts that contradict the version. Here we propose a version that CAN EXPLAIN ALL the FACTS and allows for the variability of the rest.
This is a paradigm shift. At least that you don't have to try to put what happened in one night. There is NO reason to think that NOTHING happened from January 29 to February 25.
You state, 'Here we propose a version that CAN EXPLAIN ALL the FACTS and allows for the variability of the rest'. But it doesn't explain all the facts. Analyse it closely. It falls short on most of the supposed facts that it's trying to explain.
-
Hi
Title: The Dyatlov Pass Case is Solved. Here Are the Facts.
Author: Михаил Орлов (Mikhail Orlov)
I’ve spent years studying the Dyatlov Pass case. I’ve read the criminal case files, the autopsy reports, the witness testimonies. And I’ve come to a conclusion that explains every single anomaly in this tragedy.
There is no need for yet another "theory." This is a reconstruction based on documents, logic, and one simple fact: the criminal case was opened on February 6, 1959. That’s three weeks before the bodies were found.
Here’s what actually happened, point by point.
The Seven Facts That Kill the "Official" Version
The Wrong River. The group was supposed to follow the Lozva river and turn onto the Auspiya. In bad weather, they missed the turn and followed the Purma river instead. This led them to the foot of Mount Puramunitur — a mountain that looks man-made from above. It is the perfect natural target for a military exercise.
The War Games. In February 1959, the Soviet military was testing the S-75 "Desna" surface-to-air missile system. Puramunitur was the target. The group was at the wrong place at the wrong time. They witnessed a launch or an impact.
The First Blast. Dubinina, Zolotaryov, and Thibeaux-Brignolles were closest to the explosion. The forensic expert, Vozrozhdenny, explicitly stated their injuries (crushed ribs, skull fracture) looked like those from a shockwave. The others were knocked down but alive.
The Capture. Soldiers appeared. They took the survivors. This explains the total lack of signs of struggle near the tent — the tent site was staged later.
The Weeks in Isolation. This is the smoking gun. Look at the autopsy reports:
Krivonischenko’s beard: 0.5 cm. That’s 12–17 days of growth. He died in mid-February, not on the 2nd.
Thibeaux-Brignolles’ beard: 1.0 cm. That’s 25–30 days. He was alive until February 20–22.
They were kept alive. Questioned. Housed somewhere warm. Then, when the decision came from above, they were executed.
The Staging. The bodies were flown back to the Kholat Syakhl slope by helicopter (military unit 32979 was stationed nearby). The tent was set up and cut from the inside to fake panic. The bodies were arranged.
Why is Dubinina’s face down but her lividity on her back? Because she died lying on her back elsewhere, and was turned over later.
Why is there radiation on the four bodies from the ravine (up to 9900 decays/min) but not on the others? Because they were closer to the blast, and the water in the ravine didn’t wash it all away.
The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth.
The Conclusion
The Dyatlov group did not die in a "spontaneous force" accident. They did not die in a panic, or an avalanche, or an infrasound hallucination.
They were killed by men in uniform following orders, to protect a state secret.
The case was opened on February 6th because the military knew exactly what happened, and they needed to control the investigation from day one. The bodies were staged to look like a freezing death. And everyone who knew the truth was silenced — just like the 45,000 soldiers at the Totskoye "Snowball" exercises in 1954, who never spoke a word about the nuclear blast they walked through.
The evidence has been in the case files for 60 years. It just needed someone to connect the dots.
You can read the full investigation (in Russian) here: https://author.today/work/564250
I am working on a full English translation.
From the beginning, this was my most accurate theory, but the forum members did not share it; however, I still think that something very similar could have happened to the group of hikers.
A few days ago, I listened to an interview about 'The Dyatlov Pass incident' with the Russian-born writer and anthropologist, Mercedes Pullman, in which she suspects that the deaths of the hikers were a consequence of the Soviet army, for unclear reasons, but possibly something they saw that they were not supposed to see, and as a drastic result, the bodies were thrown from helicopters into the forest, with the intention of getting rid of the bodies, because there, in the middle of nowhere in a Siberian forest, the army assumed they would not be found, (I suppose that’s the reason for the severe injuries, trauma, scratches, fractures, etc.
He also noted a fact that seemed strange to him, and points out that Semyon Zolotaryov commented during his journey that upon his return he would be famous. This comment from Semyon Zolotaryov to Mercedes Pullman did not make sense to her, and she wondered why a physical education teacher would return famous for undertaking a mountain journey. Another fact that Mercedes Pullman does not believe is that the group could walk so many kilometers with their backpacks over those Siberian terrains, because in later expeditions with very modern mountain equipment, they could hardly complete the same journey that Diatlov's group did. I think the matter of the footprints, they could have faked and erased them. I personally have never stepped on snow.
-
A couple of times recently,an idea has been put forward and refuted. The reply was what I believe is a " tu quoque" logical fallacy. The translation is " if I am one, you are another", or " if I can't prove my point, you can't prove yours either, go ahead and try it", This is poor thinking and a deflection. It is also a bit too obvious.
The idea that the hikers took a different route, stumbled into a military death trap and then conspirators staged what is found in the case is an entertaining make believe story. The forum is more interested in stitching together a story from the available evidence than literary invention. Thinking outside the box does not get one into the box, where the truth is.
Several amateur authors and podcasters have come and gone on the forum, each taking snippets of truth and buckets of spin in order to get some measure of fortune and fame off nine dead Soviets. My advice, don't give up your day job,
Sounds a bit tough on amateur investigators. But you have a point. Everyone really needs to try to stay on track and not drift badly off course into realms of make-believe.
-
The issue here isn’t whether someone is an amateur or a professional — it’s whether the claims match the documented evidence.
A reconstruction that relies on weeks of secret detention, executions, helicopter staging, soldiers transporting all bodies and items, and a missile test at a specific place and time that isn’t evidenced anywhere in the case file isn’t “explaining the facts,” it’s replacing them.
>Saying “this could have happened” is not the same as showing that it did happen. And shifting the burden to “prove it couldn’t have happened” is just reversing logic. The burden of proof sits with the person making the positive claim, especially when that claim contradicts the existing record.
A theory that can explain everything only because it allows itself to change the weapon, the location, the mechanism, the timeline, and the handling of the bodies whenever needed isn’t really explaining the facts — it’s absorbing them into a story.
That’s why Glenn’s point about the tu quoque fallacy matters. Critique isn’t hostility. It’s how we separate evidence‑based reasoning from narrative invention.
Nobody is being hard on amateur investigators. Plenty of excellent ones exist. The point is simply that evidence has to lead the theory, not the other way around.
To title a thread " a version that explains ALL the facts" is a claim that i cannot support. It is a stupid and pointless claim. It is not evidence . It doesn't even suggest that Mikhail Orlov read the case files?.
-
I draw comparison to Philip P. Dick's The Man in the High Castle. The gist of it is that there are parallel realities which by dint of luck, or serious inquiry, some people get a peek through the "looking glass". The sub rosa message is that everything changes,. That is the norm, not the exception.
The alternate reality posted in this thread has given several of us a chance to use the " looking glass" and attest to what we understand to be real and true. It is different from the point of view of the alternate scenario of the event. The comparison allows us to confirn that our deductions are logical based on evidence be understand to be truthful. It is saying " this thing( the case files) could be real and true because that thing( alternate parallel scenario) could never be real and true". Again, the alternative reality of the DP9 event allows us to slip between parallel explanations for the tragedy and get insight into what does and does not fit.
Time and again we come up against the question of whether if what is real and true actually are real and true. Some of us have no faith at all and will argue anything just for the sake of doing so. Alternate realities are all well and good, but remembering that we are grounded in reality will get us to the why of things.
There is a trap. Most people in the world have little if any understanding of the Dyatlov Pass Incident. Their ignorance/ naivety makes them ripe for sensationalism. That separates them from their money. We, at the forum stitch the how of it to get to the why of it. If an alternative reality scenario is seen as a tool, it is of some use. If it is a proposition to " throw the baby out with the bath water", then it becomes more of an annoyance than a curiosity.
-
The idea that the hikers took a different route, stumbled into a military death trap and then conspirators staged what is found in the case is an entertaining make believe story. The forum is more interested in stitching together a story from the available evidence than literary invention. Thinking outside the box does not get one into the box, where the truth is.
There is one small nuance. This "story" explains ALL THE KNOWN FACTS. At the same time, it does not require anything extraordinary for its existence.
-
You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.
COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,
-
I'm surprised that this pure speculation is getting attention. Might as well join in the fun. The USSR is still seen by many as a sort of extreme regime that didn't care about the occasional demise of its own harmless people. Deliberately or accidentally. Provide clues/evidence that USSR soldiers brought the dead bodies and other items to the pass!
This story attracts attention. because it EXPLAINS ALL THE KNOWN FACTS. tongue2 tongue2 tongue2
-
But it doesn't explain all the facts. Analyse it closely. It falls short on most of the supposed facts that it's trying to explain.
Give the facts that he DOESN'T EXPLAIN.
-
The issue here isn’t whether someone is an amateur or a professional — it’s whether the claims match the documented evidence.
A reconstruction that relies on weeks of secret detention, executions, helicopter staging, soldiers transporting all bodies and items, and a missile test at a specific place and time that isn’t evidenced anywhere in the case file isn’t “explaining the facts,” it’s replacing them.
>Saying “this could have happened” is not the same as showing that it did happen. And shifting the burden to “prove it couldn’t have happened” is just reversing logic. The burden of proof sits with the person making the positive claim, especially when that claim contradicts the existing record.
A theory that can explain everything only because it allows itself to change the weapon, the location, the mechanism, the timeline, and the handling of the bodies whenever needed isn’t really explaining the facts — it’s absorbing them into a story.
That’s why Glenn’s point about the tu quoque fallacy matters. Critique isn’t hostility. It’s how we separate evidence‑based reasoning from narrative invention.
Nobody is being hard on amateur investigators. Plenty of excellent ones exist. The point is simply that evidence has to lead the theory, not the other way around.
To title a thread " a version that explains ALL the facts" is a claim that i cannot support. It is a stupid and pointless claim. It is not evidence . It doesn't even suggest that Mikhail Orlov read the case files?.
You say that the materials of the criminal case do not mention the activities of the military. If it were said, it would not be a case, but a sincere confession.
Say "substitutes facts." Okay, let's be specific. Which fact is "substituted", what it really is. Can't you bring it? So don't say that.
To prove it is to provide facts, documents or witness statements. And where is the EVIDENCE of avalanches, yetis, gas clouds, panic, and more? In this respect, ALL VERSIONS ARE EQUAL.
Criticism can be different. Specifically, "NO, author, you're wrong, because...". And demagogy (the Russians, again, have a good joke on the subject) And "prove it!" can be applied to any version. AND NO ONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING.
An anecdote about an elephant.
The new Russian shows off to his sidekick:
- I bought an elephant here, great!!! He knows how to do everything: he opens the gates when I arrive, and waters my garden, and works instead of guards, in short, I get high.
Well, the second one, of course, also wanted to.
"Sell it to me!"
- I can't, I need it myself.
- Well, sell it like a sidekick, I'll give you five million!
- No, I can't.
"Ten!"
- no.
"Fifteen!"!!! Well, sell it!!!!!!
- Well, okay, it's not a pity for a friend.
The next day, the call:
- What the **** did you sell me??? I brought the elephant home, and he broke my fence, trampled my lawn, took a **** everywhere, and crushed my car!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Not a brother, you can't sell an elephant like that...
The evidence has already been discussed above. Mikhail Orlov read the materials of the criminal case. Have you read it? Apparently not, as do most of the "researchers," because the autopsy reports of Dubinina and Zolotarev, along with the testimony of the medical examiner, at least kill most versions at once. If you're interested, I can show you where to look.
-
It's clear that this version is completely incorrect, despite its catchy name.
There's also the problem that those who have been studying this topic for a long time can't distinguish between the correct and incorrect moments.
Some people stick to their own invented concept for years (for example, the date February 6th categorically), and then they consider anything that contradicts this concept to be incorrect, even if it's correct (reasonable).
-
It's clear that this version is completely incorrect, despite its catchy name.
There's also the problem that those who have been studying this topic for a long time can't distinguish between the correct and incorrect moments.
Is it obvious? Where, how and why? Don't make unfounded statements, justify your words.
Some people stick to their own invented concept for years (for example, the date February 6th categorically), and then they consider anything that contradicts this concept to be incorrect, even if it's correct (reasonable).
I assume that you want to demonstrate by personal example your long-term faith in the version (avalanche, presumably), which contradicts the facts from the criminal case, but you have stubbornly believed in it for many years no matter what.
-
Thank you for your contribution.
-
Hi Sanmigel,
You are among friends and people who share the same interest.
I don't know how much you have read about the Dyatlov case but many , if not all the points from your example have been largely dismissed unfortunately. I've read a little of the book and the links you supplied . I'll note some points as much of it is not new.
The beard growth or what looks like beared growth is more than likely skin shrinkage. The skin tightens after death and cold adds other elements, thus exposing more of the hair follicle.
That people can't walk in socks 1.5 km in snow is utter nonsense . Its been proven many times which means the author is extremely ignorant of what can be done by humans in that environment.
And there is no need to test a rocket in the Urals and in winter. Its an extremely complex thing to and when you are testing you want to control everything, you need access , telemetry readings, radar , filming and to do such a thing in the wilderness in what can be an extreme environment of weather conditions is not logical. The rocket wasn't nuclear and the area is basically a national park for the local people and tourists.
We must understand the logistics of all the machinery, people, technicians , launchers ,paper work that would be needed.
If theres any possible argument, it could be said that they were testing against a drone jet high in the sky and things went wrong but to target a mountain in a small populated area could kill anyone. Its still the same problem for those that fired a missile.
The secret is , there is no secret....
-
The secret is , there is no secret....
It's not true.
-
Hi Sanmigel,
You are among friends and people who share the same interest.
I don't know how much you have read about the Dyatlov case but many , if not all the points from your example have been largely dismissed unfortunately. I've read a little of the book and the links you supplied . I'll note some points as much of it is not new.
The beard growth or what looks like beared growth is more than likely skin shrinkage. The skin tightens after death and cold adds other elements, thus exposing more of the hair follicle.
That people can't walk in socks 1.5 km in snow is utter nonsense . Its been proven many times which means the author is extremely ignorant of what can be done by humans in that environment.
And there is no need to test a rocket in the Urals and in winter. Its an extremely complex thing to and when you are testing you want to control everything, you need access , telemetry readings, radar , filming and to do such a thing in the wilderness in what can be an extreme environment of weather conditions is not logical. The rocket wasn't nuclear and the area is basically a national park for the local people and tourists.
We must understand the logistics of all the machinery, people, technicians , launchers ,paper work that would be needed.
If theres any possible argument, it could be said that they were testing against a drone jet high in the sky and things went wrong but to target a mountain in a small populated area could kill anyone. Its still the same problem for those that fired a missile.
The secret is , there is no secret....
I haven't read much, just the Wikipedia article and the criminal case. Well, of course the forums are different. and so it's been 16 years :) About beards, yes, there is such an effect when the skin shrinks and the stubble "grows", but this manifests itself within 1 millimeter, not by 5 and, moreover, by 10.
What does it have to do with the statement that a person cannot walk 1.5 km in socks? On the contrary, I was looking for information about this, and the documentary is mentioned in the book, where they practiced the survival of astronauts after landing in the taiga in winter. A lightly dressed person can survive for more than a day without fire. But this is not the main thing, differently dressed, in different conditions, of different ages and genders, etc. people will freeze in DIFFERENT WAYS.
As for the tests, they are still being produced there :))) Well, not right on the pass, but in that region. For example, the Pemboy polygon. At the same time, it is not necessary to say that the goal was precisely the mountain where the tourists found themselves. It could have been some kind of emergency, a fall of something, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ESSENCE. Some remnants of missiles and other things have been repeatedly found in that region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalmer-Yu In 2019, people there almost got hit by rockets from firing practice. And what was happening there at the height of the cold War and the nuclear race?...
You made a good joke about the national park. The town of Ivdel, which tourists reached by train. It developed there in the 20th century as a place of mining (mines and mines, tourists also went to geological sites) and prisoners who were held in the camps of the Ivdellag worked there. And there were specialized military units guarding these camps, they even took part in the search later (Chernyshov and his men). Penal servitude is an area historically and the protection of convicts is not a national park. Even Uncle Slava, who was met by tourists on the way, who brought their things on a horse, is an ex-prisoner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivdel
And about the logistics of military equipment. In 1959, 19 air defense units with S-75 installations were deployed in that region. A year later, such an installation will bring down the American spy Powers in this region. The remains of his plane and personal belongings are still in the Museum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in Moscow. I saw it personally :)))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Gary_Powers
-
Thanks for the detailed response — it’s good to see someone engaging with the material rather than just throwing out one‑liners.
Just to clarify a couple of points so we don’t mix different things together.
1. Penal servitude and the Ivdel camps
Ivdellag definitely existed, but it was centred around the town and the logging/mining areas, not the northern mountains.
The Dyatlov route wasn’t inside any camp zone, and the tourism bureau wouldn’t have approved it if it were restricted.
Camp guards were internal‑troops security, not specialised military units, and they weren’t deployed out in the mountains. Their job was guarding barracks and work sites, not running missile systems.
2. “National park”
I didn’t mean an official national park — just that the area was open wilderness used by tourists and by the Mansi.
It wasn’t a closed military range, and there’s no record of it ever being one.
3. Test ranges
Pemboy and Khalmer‑Yu are hundreds of kilometres away and have fixed infrastructure, radar, roads, and safety corridors.
The Dyatlov area has none of that.
That’s why it was used for tourism and hunting, not weapons testing.
4. S‑75 deployment
The S‑75 sites were positioned around Sverdlovsk city to protect industrial and military targets.
They weren’t firing into the northern mountains, and there’s no evidence of launches or debris anywhere near Kholat Syakhl.
5. Accidents
Accidents can happen anywhere, but the searchers didn’t report blast damage, shrapnel, burns, or impact debris.
If anything like that had been present, it would have been the first thing they noted.
I’m not saying the USSR was gentle or transparent — just that the specific geography and logistics of the Dyatlov area don’t match missile testing or military exercises.
There were 2 other hikes or groups of tourists at the same time , their paths and routes covered a vast area and they were never stopped from going anywhere.
About the beard growth,the 1 mm figure is for early post‑mortem change.
In prolonged cold exposure, especially with wind and dehydration, the skin can contract several millimetres.
That’s why mountaineering and avalanche victims often show 5–10 mm of apparent stubble. We also have to add a few days of normal growth from when they were alive in the days before and then up to 3 months before discovery.
And to add, the link you supplied states that you can't walk more than a 100meters in socks. That is just not true and shouldn't be stated as fact.
The 2019 incident i believe was some journalists on or in a bombing range and from air to ground missiles. Bombs on a bombing range is not unusual.
-
No, in 2019, an incident occurred with nomadic reindeer herders.
Speaking of beards.
https://0209gorojanin.blogspot.com/2020/01/monthly-stubble-of-thibo-brignoles.html
-
Sanmigel,
Thanks for raising the point about Thibeaux‑Brignolle’s stubble — it’s a topic that comes up often, so it’s worth looking at it with what we know from actual forensic work in cold‑weather fatalities.
1. Post‑mortem “beard growth” isn’t growth — it’s skin contraction
In cold environments, the skin dehydrates and contracts.
This exposes more of the hair shaft that was already under the skin.
It’s well‑documented in avalanche victims, mountaineering deaths, and polar expeditions.
It’s not hair growing — it’s the skin shrinking.
2. The 1 mm figure online is for early post‑mortem change
The “maximum 1 mm” claim you see on blogs applies to bodies kept at room temperature for a short time.
It doesn’t apply to:
- weeks of sub‑zero exposure
- wind desiccation
- freeze–thaw cycles
- partial mummification
Under those conditions, 5–10 mm of exposed stubble is normal.
Forensic literature on alpine fatalities confirms this.
3. Facial hair follicles are deeper than the blogger claims
Human beard follicles can sit 3–5 mm below the skin surface, sometimes more in dense‑bearded individuals.
If the skin recedes by that amount — which it does in prolonged cold — the stubble appears dramatically longer.
This is why Everest victims and avalanche victims often look like they “grew a beard” after death.
4. Thibeaux was a dark‑haired, heavy‑bearded man
On someone with dark, dense facial hair, even a few millimetres of exposed shaft looks like a lot.
The Dyatlov bodies were exposed for weeks, so the appearance is exactly what you’d expect.
5. Nothing about this requires forgery or altered dates
The photos of Thibeaux alive show normal stubble.
The post‑mortem photo shows cold‑weather skin recession.
There’s no contradiction — just physiology.
If the expedition or the photos had been forged, we’d expect inconsistencies in equipment, clothing, weather, shadows, camera models, or film stock.
None of that appears in the case file.
6. The forensic report doesn’t suggest anything unusual
The pathologists in 1959 didn’t treat the stubble as evidence of a later death.
They’d seen cold‑weather bodies before.
If something had looked inconsistent, they would have noted it.
So the “1 cm stubble = staged expedition” idea doesn’t really hold up once you look at how the human body behaves in prolonged cold.
Near misses happen in bombing ranges in the uk too.
Happy to keep discussing — it’s good to go through these details carefully rather than jump to dramatic conclusions.
-
2.54 cm = 1 inch. That is the distance between the lower two knuckles on your index finger.An inch of beard might be worth noting. A centimeter, not so much.
-
I draw comparison to Philip P. Dick's The Man in the High Castle. The gist of it is that there are parallel realities which by dint of luck, or serious inquiry, some people get a peek through the "looking glass". The sub rosa message is that everything changes,. That is the norm, not the exception.
The alternate reality posted in this thread has given several of us a chance to use the " looking glass" and attest to what we understand to be real and true. It is different from the point of view of the alternate scenario of the event. The comparison allows us to confirn that our deductions are logical based on evidence be understand to be truthful. It is saying " this thing( the case files) could be real and true because that thing( alternate parallel scenario) could never be real and true". Again, the alternative reality of the DP9 event allows us to slip between parallel explanations for the tragedy and get insight into what does and does not fit.
Time and again we come up against the question of whether if what is real and true actually are real and true. Some of us have no faith at all and will argue anything just for the sake of doing so. Alternate realities are all well and good, but remembering that we are grounded in reality will get us to the why of things.
There is a trap. Most people in the world have little if any understanding of the Dyatlov Pass Incident. Their ignorance/ naivety makes them ripe for sensationalism. That separates them from their money. We, at the forum stitch the how of it to get to the why of it. If an alternative reality scenario is seen as a tool, it is of some use. If it is a proposition to " throw the baby out with the bath water", then it becomes more of an annoyance than a curiosity.
Most people in the World have probably never heard of the Dyatlov Pass Incident. You are suggesting that most people in the World are ignorant? Strange things to say.
-
The idea that the hikers took a different route, stumbled into a military death trap and then conspirators staged what is found in the case is an entertaining make believe story. The forum is more interested in stitching together a story from the available evidence than literary invention. Thinking outside the box does not get one into the box, where the truth is.
There is one small nuance. This "story" explains ALL THE KNOWN FACTS. At the same time, it does not require anything extraordinary for its existence.
[/quote
That is a very bold statement. And not correct.
-
You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.
COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,
It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.
-
I'm surprised that this pure speculation is getting attention. Might as well join in the fun. The USSR is still seen by many as a sort of extreme regime that didn't care about the occasional demise of its own harmless people. Deliberately or accidentally. Provide clues/evidence that USSR soldiers brought the dead bodies and other items to the pass!
This story attracts attention. because it EXPLAINS ALL THE KNOWN FACTS. tongue2 tongue2 tongue2
Well, sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't.
-
But it doesn't explain all the facts. Analyse it closely. It falls short on most of the supposed facts that it's trying to explain.
Give the facts that he DOESN'T EXPLAIN.
Well, first of all, Puramunitur was not a missile range. Missiles were tested at designated ranges, not willy-nilly all over the place. The injuries to the Dyatlov Group are not consistent with injuries that may be received from a missile explosion.
-
The secret is , there is no secret....
It's not true.
What's not True?
-
From Grigoriev’s diary: "He went against the wind that blew on the rocks. Then he landed on gas, the wheels jumped, the wind blew away the helicopter. The engine and the wind roared. Soldiers quickly jumped out of it, one carrying a pipe for the stove, so that build it up in a tent. Wind and a stream of air from the huge propeller knocked down the soldier with the stovepipe, the pipe jumped over the stones. Then we ducked into the jumping helicopter, removing the footboard and slamming the door on the fly. The second helicopter made several attempts, but could not land. Protyazhenko landed." Grigoriev's "Snowstorm in the Mountains" - 3
A good reason to think that the tent was helicoptered in on 1079.
-
The idea that the hikers took a different route, stumbled into a military death trap and then conspirators staged what is found in the case is an entertaining make believe story. The forum is more interested in stitching together a story from the available evidence than literary invention. Thinking outside the box does not get one into the box, where the truth is.
There is one small nuance. This "story" explains ALL THE KNOWN FACTS. At the same time, it does not require anything extraordinary for its existence.
That is a very bold statement. And not correct.
ARE YOU CLAIMING that it IS INCORRECT? PROVE IT. Surely, there is nothing easier than to cite a FACT, at least one that this version does not explain. Can'T you? Stop selling the elephant, so you won't sell it.
-
You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.
COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,
It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.
Once more and for the last time. If some version had EVIDENCE, then there would be no discussion about this story at all. But since it just so happens that we don't have a documentary video, we have to build versions. And NONE of the versions has any evidence. Because there is no way to find them decades later. Do you think otherwise? Please provide an evidence-based version.
Apparently, you consider the UFO version to be such a version. Of course, there is such "EVIDENCE" that there is simply nothing nearby. lol2 lol2 lol2
-
I'm surprised that this pure speculation is getting attention. Might as well join in the fun. The USSR is still seen by many as a sort of extreme regime that didn't care about the occasional demise of its own harmless people. Deliberately or accidentally. Provide clues/evidence that USSR soldiers brought the dead bodies and other items to the pass!
This story attracts attention. because it EXPLAINS ALL THE KNOWN FACTS. tongue2 tongue2 tongue2
Well, sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't.
ARE YOU CLAIMING that it doesn't explain? Prove it. Please provide AT LEAST ONE FACT that the version does not explain. There's nothing easier. But you prefer to chant meaningless mantras. As the Russian proverb says, no matter how much you say "halva," it won't get sweeter in your mouth.
-
But it doesn't explain all the facts. Analyse it closely. It falls short on most of the supposed facts that it's trying to explain.
Give the facts that he DOESN'T EXPLAIN.
Well, first of all, Puramunitur was not a missile range. Missiles were tested at designated ranges, not willy-nilly all over the place. The injuries to the Dyatlov Group are not consistent with injuries that may be received from a missile explosion.
ок. The Puramunitur may indeed not be the target. it can be a place of chance. What does it change? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
About injuries. Have you read the criminal case?
This is a direct quote from the medical examiner's interrogation from the criminal case.
Question: How can we explain the origin of the injuries in Dubinina and Zolotarev - can they be combined by one cause?
Answer: I believe that the nature of the injuries in Dubinina and Zolotarev is multiple rib fractures.: Dubinina's is bilateral and symmetrical, Zolotarev's is unilateral, as well as hemorrhage into
the heart muscle in both Dubinina and Zolotarev with hemorrhage into the pleural cavities indicate their vitality and are
the result of exposure to a large force, approximately the same as
It was applied to Thibault. The specified damages, namely
with this picture and without violating the integrity of the soft tissues of the chest, they are very similar to the injury caused by an air blast wave.
-
"Similar to an air blast wave” ≠ “caused by an air blast wave.”
He’s using a comparison, not a diagnosis.
Forensic language often uses analogies: “like a car crash”, “like a fall from height”, etc.
- Many mechanisms can produce that pattern of injury.
Bilateral rib fractures + internal hemorrhage + minimal external damage can come from:
- heavy compressive loading (snow slab, collapse, log, rock)
- being crushed between surfaces
- a fall with chest impact against a broad object
- avalanche‑type loading
- If it were a missile or explosive blast, we’d expect other signs:
- burns
- shrapnel wounds
- embedded fragments
- blast damage to clothing
- damage to trees, ground, tent, and surrounding snow
None of that is in the case file.
- The same doctor also says the injuries are compatible with compression.
In other parts of the material, the experts explicitly mention:
- heavy weight
- broad area impact
- no soft‑tissue tearing
That’s classic for compression, not fragmentation or direct blast.
-
The secret is , there is no secret....
It's not true.
What's not True?
It is not true that there is no secret.
Ivanov's words:
„Everyone was told that hikers were in an extreme situation and froze.
However, that was not true. The true causes of the deaths were hidden from the people...“
-
"Similar to an air blast wave” ≠ “caused by an air blast wave.”
He’s using a comparison, not a diagnosis.
Forensic language often uses analogies: “like a car crash”, “like a fall from height”, etc.
- Many mechanisms can produce that pattern of injury.
Bilateral rib fractures + internal hemorrhage + minimal external damage can come from:
- heavy compressive loading (snow slab, collapse, log, rock)
- being crushed between surfaces
- a fall with chest impact against a broad object
- avalanche‑type loading
- If it were a missile or explosive blast, we’d expect other signs:
- burns
- shrapnel wounds
- embedded fragments
- blast damage to clothing
- damage to trees, ground, tent, and surrounding snow
None of that is in the case file.
- The same doctor also says the injuries are compatible with compression.
In other parts of the material, the experts explicitly mention:
- heavy weight
- broad area impact
- no soft‑tissue tearing
That’s classic for compression, not fragmentation or direct blast.
Don't engage in demagoguery and don't try to make white black. He said, "IT COULD HAVE BEEN A BLAST WAVE." He did not state, "IT DEFINITELY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A BLAST WAVE."
Again, no one can say EXACTLY what WAS THERE. THAT'S WHY the medical examiner uses the phrase "COULD HAVE BEEN." If you are so smart, then give examples of versions about which you can say not "could have been", but "definitely was". Was there an avalanche? Was there a UFO? Stop making my sneakers laugh.
-
Demagoguery is:
- emotional manipulation
- appeals to fear or outrage
- attacking the person
- using ridicule
- using absolutist language
- trying to sway the crowd through heat rather than clarity
Now, of course the injures could be caused by a number of things. By process of elimination we can maybe get closer.
-
Demagoguery is:
- emotional manipulation
- appeals to fear or outrage
- attacking the person
- using ridicule
- using absolutist language
- trying to sway the crowd through heat rather than clarity
Now, of course the injures could be caused by a number of things. By process of elimination we can maybe get closer.
Demagoguery is a set of oratorical and polemical techniques aimed at misleading the audience, manipulating feelings and achieving selfish (often political) goals through false reasoning, substitution of concepts and distortion of facts. SO, DON'T TRY TO TURN "IT COULD HAVE BEEN" into "IT DEFINITELY COULDN'T HAVE BEEN."
-
Demagoguery is:
- emotional manipulation
- appeals to fear or outrage
- attacking the person
- using ridicule
- using absolutist language
- trying to sway the crowd through heat rather than clarity
Now, of course the injures could be caused by a number of things. By process of elimination we can maybe get closer.
Demagoguery is a set of oratorical and polemical techniques aimed at misleading the audience, manipulating feelings and achieving selfish (often political) goals through false reasoning, substitution of concepts and distortion of facts. SO, DON'T TRY TO TURN "IT COULD HAVE BEEN" into "IT DEFINITELY COULDN'T HAVE BEEN."
Sanmigel,
I’m not turning “could have been” into “couldn’t have been.”
I’m saying that an analogy in a forensic interview doesn’t uniquely identify a cause.
“Could have been” applies to several mechanisms that produce the same injury pattern.
That’s why the examiner also mentions compression as compatible.
It’s not a contradiction — it’s how forensic comparisons work.
The only reason to talk about burns, shrapnel, embedded fragments, or environmental blast damage is because those are the physical signatures that would support an actual explosion. They aren’t present in the case file or the search reports.
So the point isn’t to claim certainty about what wasn’t there.
It’s simply to look at what is there, and what isn’t, and narrow the field based on evidence rather than analogy alone.
-
It is not true that there is no secret.
Ivanov's words:
„Everyone was told that hikers were in an extreme situation and froze.
However, that was not true. The true causes of the deaths were hidden from the people...“
@SURI:
Although the above remark is right to the spot, I am afraid that majority of the active Forum members will not agree. They think that Ivanov wrote the article "Mystery of the Fireballs" in 1990 because he wanted public's attention and money, and his words should not be taken into account. Meanwhile, his words are of great value, because he gave us a hint how he had received information about true cause of the DPI. He has named other people who knew about the DPI true cause: Klinov, Kirilenko, and Eshtokin. These 3 men were top leaders of Prosecutor's office and Communist party in the region. They had neither visisted the Pass nor investigated the case themselves, they got information from reports and other people. That makes to think that all of them received the information about true DPI cause from an external source, and it is not that difficult to guess who that source was.
From E.Okishev recollections:
"The deputy General Prosecutor of RSFSR, Urakov, arrived and took the case files in a hurry. He ordered to issue the case resolution statement. He went with Klinov to the regional party committee and Ivanov went with them."
It's not hard to understand that at the Committee Urakov, Klinov, and Ivanov met Kirilenko and Eshtokin. Thus we can see all the group together, and Urakov obviously told them something...
-
Ivanov was a very smart and insightful person. He knew what had happened, but he couldn't say it. Even after so many years, he could not speak directly, only in hints. The truth was too devastating.
-
Ivanov was a very smart and insightful person. He knew what had happened, but he couldn't say it. Even after so many years, he could not speak directly, only in hints. The truth was too devastating.
Ivanov should have known the truth only to certain extent. Urakov, who in my opinion had the main criminal case related to DPI, had not provided all the detaiis to the regional team. As Urakov had to intervene and urgently drive regional investigation to its closure, his bosses obviously decided that he failed to do a good job with the main case. Soon, Urakov was downgraded from republican Prosecutor's office to a regional one. Ivanov had been asked to relocate to Kazakhstan, where he was out of reach for hikers' relatives and friends, who kept asking questions.
-
Are these demotions and transfers the result of the added expenses associated with the search? Are they associated administrative shuffling for political advantage? I could accept any of those reasons before believing that their changes in circumstance had anything at all to do with sadistic spooks driving college kids out into the cold.
-
From Grigoriev’s diary: "He went against the wind that blew on the rocks. Then he landed on gas, the wheels jumped, the wind blew away the helicopter. The engine and the wind roared. Soldiers quickly jumped out of it, one carrying a pipe for the stove, so that build it up in a tent. Wind and a stream of air from the huge propeller knocked down the soldier with the stovepipe, the pipe jumped over the stones. Then we ducked into the jumping helicopter, removing the footboard and slamming the door on the fly. The second helicopter made several attempts, but could not land. Protyazhenko landed." Grigoriev's "Snowstorm in the Mountains" - 3
A good reason to think that the tent was helicoptered in on 1079.
A good reason !? It isn't even a reason.
-
The idea that the hikers took a different route, stumbled into a military death trap and then conspirators staged what is found in the case is an entertaining make believe story. The forum is more interested in stitching together a story from the available evidence than literary invention. Thinking outside the box does not get one into the box, where the truth is.
There is one small nuance. This "story" explains ALL THE KNOWN FACTS. At the same time, it does not require anything extraordinary for its existence.
That is a very bold statement. And not correct.
ARE YOU CLAIMING that it IS INCORRECT? PROVE IT. Surely, there is nothing easier than to cite a FACT, at least one that this version does not explain. Can'T you? Stop selling the elephant, so you won't sell it.
Once again, I say, it's up to you to prove, and you haven't. You are defending something which is mostly speculation.
-
You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.
COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,
It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.
Once more and for the last time. If some version had EVIDENCE, then there would be no discussion about this story at all. But since it just so happens that we don't have a documentary video, we have to build versions. And NONE of the versions has any evidence. Because there is no way to find them decades later. Do you think otherwise? Please provide an evidence-based version.
Apparently, you consider the UFO version to be such a version. Of course, there is such "EVIDENCE" that there is simply nothing nearby. lol2 lol2 lol2
Well, once again, I say, I don't do versions, I do facts and what evidence we have. As for UFOs, well, unidentified lights were seen in the area at roughly the time of the incident. And the behaviour of the lights makes them UFOs.
-
I'm surprised that this pure speculation is getting attention. Might as well join in the fun. The USSR is still seen by many as a sort of extreme regime that didn't care about the occasional demise of its own harmless people. Deliberately or accidentally. Provide clues/evidence that USSR soldiers brought the dead bodies and other items to the pass!
This story attracts attention. because it EXPLAINS ALL THE KNOWN FACTS. tongue2 tongue2 tongue2
Well, sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't.
ARE YOU CLAIMING that it doesn't explain? Prove it. Please provide AT LEAST ONE FACT that the version does not explain. There's nothing easier. But you prefer to chant meaningless mantras. As the Russian proverb says, no matter how much you say "halva," it won't get sweeter in your mouth.
Well, it's you who are pushing this stuff. So I have a right to respond. And as I said, I don't do versions, I do facts. And I don't see any facts that can or need to be explained because this so-called version thing doesn't make sense.
-
But it doesn't explain all the facts. Analyse it closely. It falls short on most of the supposed facts that it's trying to explain.
Give the facts that he DOESN'T EXPLAIN.
Well, first of all, Puramunitur was not a missile range. Missiles were tested at designated ranges, not willy-nilly all over the place. The injuries to the Dyatlov Group are not consistent with injuries that may be received from a missile explosion.
ок. The Puramunitur may indeed not be the target. it can be a place of chance. What does it change? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
About injuries. Have you read the criminal case?
This is a direct quote from the medical examiner's interrogation from the criminal case.
Question: How can we explain the origin of the injuries in Dubinina and Zolotarev - can they be combined by one cause?
Answer: I believe that the nature of the injuries in Dubinina and Zolotarev is multiple rib fractures.: Dubinina's is bilateral and symmetrical, Zolotarev's is unilateral, as well as hemorrhage into
the heart muscle in both Dubinina and Zolotarev with hemorrhage into the pleural cavities indicate their vitality and are
the result of exposure to a large force, approximately the same as
It was applied to Thibault. The specified damages, namely
with this picture and without violating the integrity of the soft tissues of the chest, they are very similar to the injury caused by an air blast wave.
But what about the following !? Nothing about air blasts!?
''They were crushed with immense force. Doctors compared the extent of the damage to being hit by a car''.
''Based on the forensic examination of the body of L. A. Dubinina, I think that the death of Dubinina was caused by massive hemorrhage into the right ventricle, multiple bilateral rib fractures, and internal bleeding into the thoracic cavity''.
''The said damage was probably caused by an impact of great force, causing severe, closed lethal trauma to the chest of Dubinina. The trauma was caused during life and is the result of a high-impact force with subsequent fall, throw or bruise to the chest of Dubinina.
-
The secret is , there is no secret....
It's not true.
What's not True?
It is not true that there is no secret.
Ivanov's words:
„Everyone was told that hikers were in an extreme situation and froze.
However, that was not true. The true causes of the deaths were hidden from the people...“
I have often believed that things were hidden and still are hidden from public view. And since the fall of the USSR, much information has been brought to light. This would be a very different Forum if we were still in the days of the USSR.
-
It is not true that there is no secret.
Ivanov's words:
„Everyone was told that hikers were in an extreme situation and froze.
However, that was not true. The true causes of the deaths were hidden from the people...“
@SURI:
Although the above remark is right to the spot, I am afraid that majority of the active Forum members will not agree. They think that Ivanov wrote the article "Mystery of the Fireballs" in 1990 because he wanted public's attention and money, and his words should not be taken into account. Meanwhile, his words are of great value, because he gave us a hint how he had received information about true cause of the DPI. He has named other people who knew about the DPI true cause: Klinov, Kirilenko, and Eshtokin. These 3 men were top leaders of Prosecutor's office and Communist party in the region. They had neither visisted the Pass nor investigated the case themselves, they got information from reports and other people. That makes to think that all of them received the information about true DPI cause from an external source, and it is not that difficult to guess who that source was.
From E.Okishev recollections:
"The deputy General Prosecutor of RSFSR, Urakov, arrived and took the case files in a hurry. He ordered to issue the case resolution statement. He went with Klinov to the regional party committee and Ivanov went with them."
It's not hard to understand that at the Committee Urakov, Klinov, and Ivanov met Kirilenko and Eshtokin. Thus we can see all the group together, and Urakov obviously told them something...
I'm not sure it's correct to say that most Forum members believe that Ivanov was after money by telling a sensational story. I think Ivanov was a very interesting source of information. He didn't come out and say what he said while the USSR was still functioning.
-
Those who deal only in facts in this forum have, without exception, taken a leap of faith to propose a solution in whole or in part of the mystery. It is why we are here. It is also helpful to note that those who only deal in facts do reply to others with an opinion. it is a double standard. So far nobody has a universally agreed upon explanation for the DPI. It does not make us bad people. Encouragement help more than challenges.
-
The idea that the hikers took a different route, stumbled into a military death trap and then conspirators staged what is found in the case is an entertaining make believe story. The forum is more interested in stitching together a story from the available evidence than literary invention. Thinking outside the box does not get one into the box, where the truth is.
There is one small nuance. This "story" explains ALL THE KNOWN FACTS. At the same time, it does not require anything extraordinary for its existence.
That is a very bold statement. And not correct.
ARE YOU CLAIMING that it IS INCORRECT? PROVE IT. Surely, there is nothing easier than to cite a FACT, at least one that this version does not explain. Can'T you? Stop selling the elephant, so you won't sell it.
Once again, I say, it's up to you to prove, and you haven't. You are defending something which is mostly speculation.
What do I have to prove? That you cannot object to the essence of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the above version and point out a contradiction to the FACTS? There's no need to prove anything. This is OBVIOUS, and you're doing a great job demonstrating it on your own. lol2 lol2 lol2 ARE you SAYING that this is fiction? PROVE IT,
-
You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.
COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,
It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.
Once more and for the last time. If some version had EVIDENCE, then there would be no discussion about this story at all. But since it just so happens that we don't have a documentary video, we have to build versions. And NONE of the versions has any evidence. Because there is no way to find them decades later. Do you think otherwise? Please provide an evidence-based version.
Apparently, you consider the UFO version to be such a version. Of course, there is such "EVIDENCE" that there is simply nothing nearby. lol2 lol2 lol2
Well, once again, I say, I don't do versions, I do facts and what evidence we have. As for UFOs, well, unidentified lights were seen in the area at roughly the time of the incident. And the behaviour of the lights makes them UFOs.
"Having evidence"? Provide AT LEAST ONE proof of ANY version. Someone saw something, IT's NOT PROOF, it's just empty chatter. And yes, you are again very clearly demonstrating that you are very poorly acquainted with the materials of the criminal case. Fireballs are indeed mentioned in the case. Only on the date 02/17/1959.
-
I'm surprised that this pure speculation is getting attention. Might as well join in the fun. The USSR is still seen by many as a sort of extreme regime that didn't care about the occasional demise of its own harmless people. Deliberately or accidentally. Provide clues/evidence that USSR soldiers brought the dead bodies and other items to the pass!
This story attracts attention. because it EXPLAINS ALL THE KNOWN FACTS. tongue2 tongue2 tongue2
Well, sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't.
ARE YOU CLAIMING that it doesn't explain? Prove it. Please provide AT LEAST ONE FACT that the version does not explain. There's nothing easier. But you prefer to chant meaningless mantras. As the Russian proverb says, no matter how much you say "halva," it won't get sweeter in your mouth.
Well, it's you who are pushing this stuff. So I have a right to respond. And as I said, I don't do versions, I do facts. And I don't see any facts that can or need to be explained because this so-called version thing doesn't make sense.
Did you understand what you wrote well? You deal with the facts, but you don't see ANY FACTS. So you don't see ANY CONTRADICTIONS. Of course, your writing is meaningless, it's just banging your head against the wall, because you just said that YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to OBJECT to. Oh, yes, about "NONSENSE". ARE you SAYING that this is nonsense? PROVE it with your favorite FACTS.
-
But it doesn't explain all the facts. Analyse it closely. It falls short on most of the supposed facts that it's trying to explain.
Give the facts that he DOESN'T EXPLAIN.
Well, first of all, Puramunitur was not a missile range. Missiles were tested at designated ranges, not willy-nilly all over the place. The injuries to the Dyatlov Group are not consistent with injuries that may be received from a missile explosion.
ок. The Puramunitur may indeed not be the target. it can be a place of chance. What does it change? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
About injuries. Have you read the criminal case?
This is a direct quote from the medical examiner's interrogation from the criminal case.
Question: How can we explain the origin of the injuries in Dubinina and Zolotarev - can they be combined by one cause?
Answer: I believe that the nature of the injuries in Dubinina and Zolotarev is multiple rib fractures.: Dubinina's is bilateral and symmetrical, Zolotarev's is unilateral, as well as hemorrhage into
the heart muscle in both Dubinina and Zolotarev with hemorrhage into the pleural cavities indicate their vitality and are
the result of exposure to a large force, approximately the same as
It was applied to Thibault. The specified damages, namely
with this picture and without violating the integrity of the soft tissues of the chest, they are very similar to the injury caused by an air blast wave.
But what about the following !? Nothing about air blasts!?
''They were crushed with immense force. Doctors compared the extent of the damage to being hit by a car''.
''Based on the forensic examination of the body of L. A. Dubinina, I think that the death of Dubinina was caused by massive hemorrhage into the right ventricle, multiple bilateral rib fractures, and internal bleeding into the thoracic cavity''.
''The said damage was probably caused by an impact of great force, causing severe, closed lethal trauma to the chest of Dubinina. The trauma was caused during life and is the result of a high-impact force with subsequent fall, throw or bruise to the chest of Dubinina.
How is it nothing about the blast wave??? In plain text.
-
You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.
COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,
It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.
Once more and for the last time. If some version had EVIDENCE, then there would be no discussion about this story at all. But since it just so happens that we don't have a documentary video, we have to build versions. And NONE of the versions has any evidence. Because there is no way to find them decades later. Do you think otherwise? Please provide an evidence-based version.
Apparently, you consider the UFO version to be such a version. Of course, there is such "EVIDENCE" that there is simply nothing nearby. lol2 lol2 lol2
Well, once again, I say, I don't do versions, I do facts and what evidence we have. As for UFOs, well, unidentified lights were seen in the area at roughly the time of the incident. And the behaviour of the lights makes them UFOs.
Do you like facts and evidence? Would you share any thoughts about the existence of UFOs?
-
The forum has about 20 different theories that explain all the facts to someone's satisfaction, By loose reckoning, the " can't read a compass and map" theory has a 20:1 chance of being wrong. Instead, if we are charitable and accept only one other theory, as being the right one, then it reduces to 50/50. There can only be one truth. That consensus has not happened. People can be logicsl thinkers with contrary attitudes. It does not make them correct, only loud. We see it frequently on the forum when someone's sacred cow is led to slaughter.. There is a lot at steak, or should I say stake?
-
The forum has about 20 different theories that explain all the facts to someone's satisfaction, By loose reckoning, the " can't read a compass and map" theory has a 20:1 chance of being wrong. Instead, if we are charitable and accept only one other theory, as being the right one, then it reduces to 50/50. There can only be one truth. That consensus has not happened. People can be logicsl thinkers with contrary attitudes. It does not make them correct, only loud. We see it frequently on the forum when someone's sacred cow is led to slaughter.. There is a lot at steak, or should I say stake?
Are they really explaining??? Give me an explanation about the method of getting injured by Dubinina, the words of the medical examiner that she could live for 10-20 minutes from getting injured and the location of cadaverous spots on her body. FOR THE BEGINNING.
DO YOU CLAIM that they explain? PROVE IT. Well, here's an example of at least one Dubinina.
-
Sanmigel
Its for you to prove your believe. You quote a book and article that are know to sensationalise .
They get the dates wrong of the incident by 10 years.
Invent special forces.
Invent rockets that can't travel the distance required.
Claim its impossible to walk in socks.
Don't understand what happens to the human body after death.
Explain no shrapnel wounds.
Claim that there was an airfield , where was the airfield?) then they use a wind machine to hide everything. What is this wind machine? , how did it get there and removed?
Zolo wasn't even meant to be on that hike and was no KGB agent. In fact it was a random group that ended up on the hike as others had pulled out.
The area was full of random tourists and Mansi so you don't fire rockets in to that area.
They didn't go to an area they weren't supposed to and hadn't already been planned.
The case files weren't top secret .
The ravine wouldn't have been ideal place to dump bodies , as it was either empty all the way to full. There would be no way to know if it would fill with snow .
The injuries are against the hard surface of the ground , this is indicative of compression and what about the cardaverous spots?.
Its a bunch of random ideas stitched together to make a story.
Ps: your caps lock button seems to be getting stuck. I suggest some WD-40.
-
Sanmigel
Its for you to prove your believe. You quote a book and article that are know to sensationalise .
They get the dates wrong of the incident by 10 years.
Invent special forces.
Invent rockets that can't travel the distance required.
Claim its impossible to walk in socks.
Don't understand what happens to the human body after death.
Explain no shrapnel wounds.
Claim that there was an airfield , where was the airfield?) then they use a wind machine to hide everything. What is this wind machine? , how did it get there and removed?
Zolo wasn't even meant to be on that hike and was no KGB agent. In fact it was a random group that ended up on the hike as others had pulled out.
The area was full of random tourists and Mansi so you don't fire rockets in to that area.
They didn't go to an area they weren't supposed to and hadn't already been planned.
The case files weren't top secret .
The ravine wouldn't have been ideal place to dump bodies , as it was either empty all the way to full. There would be no way to know if it would fill with snow .
The injuries are against the hard surface of the ground , this is indicative of compression and what about the cardaverous spots?.
Its a bunch of random ideas stitched together to make a story.
Ps: your caps lock button seems to be getting stuck. I suggest some WD-40.
Prove it? Easy. In mathematics, this is called a proof to the contrary. Are there any facts that contradict this version or evidence that it is incorrect? No, it means it's true. AND IT WILL BE TRUE UNTIL YOU PROVE OTHERWISE, THAT's all the proof for you. At the same time, there are such facts for the other versions. The same injuries of Dubinina.
-
Its for you to prove your believe.
And try to EXPLAIN to me why I HAVE to prove my words, but you don't? All people are equal, why did you decide that you have an exclusive right that allows you to carry all sorts of UNSUBSTANTIATED nonsense?
-
Its for you to prove your believe.
And try to EXPLAIN to me why I HAVE to prove my words, but you don't? All people are equal, why did you decide that you have an exclusive right that allows you to carry all sorts of UNSUBSTANTIATED nonsense?
Sanmigel,
I’m not asking you to prove anything in a personal sense.
I’m only saying that when any of us propose a specific scenario — whether it’s missiles, special forces, an airfield, or anything else — the version has to match the physical evidence and the documents. That’s the same standard for every explanation, including mine.
Pointing out contradictions isn’t an attack, it’s just part of checking whether a version fits what we know.
I’m not claiming exclusive rights or certainty — just trying to keep the discussion grounded in the material we have.
-
Just between us, I do not think there will be any progress on this thread, only knives out.
-
Just between us, I do not think there will be any progress on this thread, only knives out.
Agree, i will by pass this thread. Many thanks sanmigel .
-
You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.
COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,
It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.
Once more and for the last time. If some version had EVIDENCE, then there would be no discussion about this story at all. But since it just so happens that we don't have a documentary video, we have to build versions. And NONE of the versions has any evidence. Because there is no way to find them decades later. Do you think otherwise? Please provide an evidence-based version.
Apparently, you consider the UFO version to be such a version. Of course, there is such "EVIDENCE" that there is simply nothing nearby. lol2 lol2 lol2
Well, once again, I say, I don't do versions, I do facts and what evidence we have. As for UFOs, well, unidentified lights were seen in the area at roughly the time of the incident. And the behaviour of the lights makes them UFOs.
Do you like facts and evidence? Would you share any thoughts about the existence of UFOs?
How long are you going to bang on with all this nonsense? I've already brought up the subject of UFOs over the years. Go look at some of the old posts; Many of them are very good.
-
Just between us, I do not think there will be any progress on this thread, only knives out.
I agree. It's getting nowhere, time to depart this one and move on to pastures new. Well, pastures that we've probably been to before, but let's try to seriously look for anything that might shed some light on where we all are these days, if that makes sense.
-
Its for you to prove your believe.
And try to EXPLAIN to me why I HAVE to prove my words, but you don't? All people are equal, why did you decide that you have an exclusive right that allows you to carry all sorts of UNSUBSTANTIATED nonsense?
Sanmigel,
I’m not asking you to prove anything in a personal sense.
I’m only saying that when any of us propose a specific scenario — whether it’s missiles, special forces, an airfield, or anything else — the version has to match the physical evidence and the documents. That’s the same standard for every explanation, including mine.
Pointing out contradictions isn’t an attack, it’s just part of checking whether a version fits what we know.
I’m not claiming exclusive rights or certainty — just trying to keep the discussion grounded in the material we have.
Fine. The version outlined in the first post of this topic corresponds to ALL KNOWN FACTS. What don't you like?
There is only one way to evaluate versions - compliance or non-compliance with known facts. At the moment, no one has provided any facts that the version discussed here does not correspond to. If you think otherwise, give facts, not just words.
Regarding the article on fontanka.ru . I did not say that the article fully confirms or corresponds to the version. I just said that it was released on the same day as the book's publication. The only interesting thing about the article is that the media started talking about military involvement. So don't waste your time refuting the article. And yes, the demonstrated method "I refute one thesis, so everything else is wrong, using the example of 77 years" does not work.
-
Just between us, I do not think there will be any progress on this thread, only knives out.
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Because this version explains ALL the facts. Therefore, it will not be possible to find contradictions.
-
You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.
COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,
It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.
Once more and for the last time. If some version had EVIDENCE, then there would be no discussion about this story at all. But since it just so happens that we don't have a documentary video, we have to build versions. And NONE of the versions has any evidence. Because there is no way to find them decades later. Do you think otherwise? Please provide an evidence-based version.
Apparently, you consider the UFO version to be such a version. Of course, there is such "EVIDENCE" that there is simply nothing nearby. lol2 lol2 lol2
Well, once again, I say, I don't do versions, I do facts and what evidence we have. As for UFOs, well, unidentified lights were seen in the area at roughly the time of the incident. And the behaviour of the lights makes them UFOs.
Do you like facts and evidence? Would you share any thoughts about the existence of UFOs?
How long are you going to bang on with all this nonsense? I've already brought up the subject of UFOs over the years. Go look at some of the old posts; Many of them are very good.
lol1 lol2 dance1
Nonsense? Can you prove that this is nonsense? UFOs? prove that it exists.
I didn't start it, you have everything you need to stop it.
And for a LONG TIME, the Aztecs sacrificed captives for centuries so that the sun would continue to rise and be kind to their empire. It didn't help. So your long-term fascination with fairy tales does not translate quantitatively into quality.
-
By the way, I looked at the essence of what they are writing, I will give a few general explanations, regardless of the versions.
About the secrecy of the criminal case. It was indeed classified on July 1, 1959 and formally declassified in 1989. But not completely, fragments of it have been removed, that is, they are still classified.
about the ravine
It seems that some people think of it as a gorge in the mountains. in fact, this is a small washout from the stream that a person can jump over.
what it looked like in 1959
(https://nashural.ru/assets/uploads/nastil-Dyatlova_1-e1615832362230.jpg)
and now
(https://nashural.ru/assets/uploads/nastil-Dyatlova_5.jpg)
(https://cs13.pikabu.ru/post_img/2023/07/19/6/1689757213139384505.webp)
about snow
the wind blows almost constantly in that place and blows the wind down from above. That is, it is easily moved by the wind. If it is necessary to create artificial wind, everything is trivial.
(https://uraloved.ru/images/history/sv-obl/dyatlovci/reconstr-ivleva-9.jpg)
(https://habrastorage.org/r/w1560/files/361/f56/752/361f56752b7b419ea04edcfa539ac758.jpg)
-
Friend, if this was done by soldiers, why would they come back to the mountain and place the bodies one by one in the valley, next to the trees and on the mountainside, instead of destroying them? Then why would they try to erase all traces? Then why would they try to cut down the tent? If the soldiers or the KGB wanted to kill someone at that time, they would have killed them immediately and destroyed the bodies. Nobody would have known what happened. They would have said they disappeared or escaped. The case would have been closed. Why would the KGB or the soldiers choose the difficult, even very difficult, option instead of the easy one? This is a situation that is completely impossible under normal circumstances... It is very clear that there is a paranormal event in this case. There can be no other explanation.
-
Friend, if this was done by soldiers, why would they come back to the mountain and place the bodies one by one in the valley, next to the trees and on the mountainside, instead of destroying them? Then why would they try to erase all traces? Then why would they try to cut down the tent? If the soldiers or the KGB wanted to kill someone at that time, they would have killed them immediately and destroyed the bodies. Nobody would have known what happened. They would have said they disappeared or escaped. The case would have been closed. Why would the KGB or the soldiers choose the difficult, even very difficult, option instead of the easy one? This is a situation that is completely impossible under normal circumstances... It is very clear that there is a paranormal event in this case. There can be no other explanation.
The disappearance of the bodies leaves an open ending. There is no reason to stop the search, tourists become missing. They must be searched for. Every year, enthusiasts from their native institute would organize search expeditions with the probability of finding what they don't need. The disappearance of the bodies in this case raises more questions. And how, in principle, to explain the disappearance of 9 people? This is generally a residential area, not an ocean, for example. Moreover, the traces are preserved much better in winter than in summer :) (if anyone didn't know) because there's snow on the ground. And having tried to repeat the planned route, it is quite easy to restore the path of tourists (which, by the way, SURPRISINGLY, was not done), which will end.. in an interesting place. So, on the contrary, the case would have been open for years and, under the influence of the public, the authorities would have to continue the search.
in accordance with the Russian laws of that time, the case of a missing person could be terminated (and the search accordingly), recognizing him as dead after 3 years. That is, the authorities and law enforcement agencies would have been under pressure from relatives and the public for 3 years. And the law would oblige them to search.
As for "there can be no other way," it was paranormal. Prove that the above COULD NOT BE and prove that the paranormal exists.
-
Friend, if this was done by soldiers, why would they come back to the mountain and place the bodies one by one in the valley, next to the trees and on the mountainside, instead of destroying them? Then why would they try to erase all traces? Then why would they try to cut down the tent? If the soldiers or the KGB wanted to kill someone at that time, they would have killed them immediately and destroyed the bodies. Nobody would have known what happened. They would have said they disappeared or escaped. The case would have been closed. Why would the KGB or the soldiers choose the difficult, even very difficult, option instead of the easy one? This is a situation that is completely impossible under normal circumstances... It is very clear that there is a paranormal event in this case. There can be no other explanation.
The disappearance of the bodies leaves an open ending. There is no reason to stop the search, tourists become missing. They must be searched for. Every year, enthusiasts from their native institute would organize search expeditions with the probability of finding what they don't need. The disappearance of the bodies in this case raises more questions. And how, in principle, to explain the disappearance of 9 people? This is generally a residential area, not an ocean, for example. Moreover, the traces are preserved much better in winter than in summer :) (if anyone didn't know) because there's snow on the ground. And having tried to repeat the planned route, it is quite easy to restore the path of tourists (which, by the way, SURPRISINGLY, was not done), which will end.. in an interesting place. So, on the contrary, the case would have been open for years and, under the influence of the public, the authorities would have to continue the search.
in accordance with the Russian laws of that time, the case of a missing person could be terminated (and the search accordingly), recognizing him as dead after 3 years. That is, the authorities and law enforcement agencies would have been under pressure from relatives and the public for 3 years. And the law would oblige them to search.
As for "there can be no other way," it was paranormal. Prove that the above COULD NOT BE and prove that the paranormal exists.
I think you're thinking incorrectly and incompletely! If the KGB had said that the young people had disappeared and run away, they could have fabricated a lot of false evidence. And they would have closed the investigation quickly. It certainly wouldn't have taken 3 years. And there wouldn't have been a need for so many discussions, forums, and investigations. The incident would have ended in 1969 and been forgotten. So, I don't think the state or the KGB had any involvement in this incident, but I'm sure they knew more than we did.
-
Ilahiyol,
Just to clarify a couple of points from the forensic and historical side.
The eyes and tongue weren’t ripped out.
The autopsy reports describe post‑mortem soft‑tissue loss caused by:
- water flow in the ravine
- natural decomposition
- small scavengers
- pressure from snow and meltwater
There were no signs of cutting, tearing, or deliberate removal.
The tissue edges were smooth and consistent with natural processes.
On the human side of things, there’s also nothing in the case file that points to a KGB operation. No restricted zone, no classified weapons testing, no military debris, no shrapnel, no burns, no blast damage, no witness statements suppressed. The searchers, rescuers, and investigators all acted openly, and the case was handled like a normal regional investigation of the time.
And in terms of “unknown forces,” the only unusual elements documented by the people actually present were the weather conditions — strong winds, low visibility, drifting snow, and rapidly changing temperatures. Those are the factors that shaped the group’s decisions and the environment they were found in.
Whatever explanation we consider — natural, human, or something else — it still has to match the injuries, the terrain, and the documented behaviour of the group. That’s the only reason I keep returning to those elements.