Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: fungoorstitch on July 20, 2026, 03:16:50 PM
-
There actually is someone in the case who had motive to commit this assault - if that's what it was. The belligerent drunkard from the train who accused them of stealing his flask. Zina refers to the incident in her diary. She doesn't deny the crime, which probably means they did do it. What if the guy gathered some friends and went after them? It's a stretcher, but still above Yeti on the list.
-
And above LGM too dance1
-
I think it's logistically to difficult and would leave a trail of evidence. The injuries are consistent with a fight to survive against the conditions they found themselves . The autopsies explain the cause of deaths by cold and hypothermia and then compression to the ravine 4 .
-
Actually, some investigators of the tragedy tried to make this drunk a suspect. But one against nine—you've seen enough action movies.
-
The drunk way not have used a straw, but supposing he shadowed and attacked the hikers is certainly reaching for one.
-
1 пьяный против 6 парней и мужчин? Вряд ли. Ему бы надавали по шее.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
1 drunk against 6 guys and men? Hardly. He would have been given a neck.
-
Perrhaps more to the point is that the hike had elements of self discipline baked into the excursion. Aside from the actual rigors of the hike, there was supposedly a swearing off of cigarettes and alcohol for the duration. Both are exceedingly tempting to the user. I would not put it past Rustem to sneak the drunks drink, but that is where it ends As we all know, alcohol is a depressant and while the burn and the flushed skin give the illusion of warmth, the reality is the opposite. My point is that purloined alcohol is not enough to do anything more than cause friction. More mention was given to sharing a tangerine than to any alcohol related incidents or accidents on the way to Ortoten.
-
It's impossible to secretly drink or smoke on a hike. Plus, cigarettes could have been used to "build bridges"—to facilitate communication with locals and other tourists. It's unlikely that the alcoholic on the train had a bottle stolen; more likely, he was trying to profit at the tourists' expense.
-
My personal theory is that the Dyatlov Pass group may have intentionally planned to investigate or approach something they already knew about, possibly related to a secret military or nuclear experiment taking place in the area.
If they encountered something unexpected, such as a military test, toxic gases, or another dangerous event, it could explain why they suddenly left their tent. I also think it’s possible that some of the severe injuries may have resulted from falling into the ravine after fleeing.
I also have questions about Yuri Yudin, the only member who turned back before the incident. The explanation that he left because of back pain or sciatica mainly comes from his own account. Since he wasn’t there when the tragedy happened, we can’t independently verify that this was the real reason. Because of that, I think it’s reasonable to question whether he chose not to continue for another reason, especially if the group had a specific objective beyond a normal hiking expedition.
Finally, I can’t completely rule out another possibility: that Yuri Yudin himself may have been involved in some way. I have no direct evidence for this, and I’m not claiming it as fact, but I think it is another possibility worth considering until all the unanswered questions surrounding the case are fully explained.
This is only my personal hypothesis, not a conclusion. I’m interested in hearing evidence or arguments that support or challenge these ideas
-
There are various theories surrounding Yudin's departure. Officially, it's health issues. Other theories include:
1. Yudin was recruited as an extra to secure permission for the expedition. The plan was for him to leave the group at the final "return" point and go home. There are two possibilities: he never rejoins the group (option 1), or he rejoins at the final point, the group's diary is erased, and on paper, Yudin completed the expedition (option 2).
2. Yudin found a cache of gold belonging to "black prospectors" in the 2nd Northern Pass and retrieved it. Then, citing health reasons, he left the group.
3. Yudin was supposed to arrive "on the mainland" and signal that the group had begun its mission...
-
@James2006
To some extent, I agree with you regarding a certain specific objective of the group, the fall into the ravine, and the suspicious role of Yuri Yudin. In my view, Yudin was a part of it. A kind of intermediate link, the second to last point. And Ivanov undoubtedly knew this.
-
If you knew Yuden's quality of life toward the end, you may change your thoughts of the man. Yuden actually mourned the Stallinist years believing he had it better then.
-
@James2006
To some extent, I agree with you regarding a certain specific objective of the group, the fall into the ravine, and the suspicious role of Yuri Yudin. In my view, Yudin was a part of it. A kind of intermediate link, the second to last point. And Ivanov undoubtedly knew this.
That’s an interesting perspective. What led you to conclude that Yudin was an intermediate link? And why are you certain Ivanov knew? I’d like to understand the evidence behind your view.
-
That's how I perceive it from Ivanov's letters. He knew all the circumstances of the case and said a lot between the lines there. Either you have the intuition to recognize it, or you don't. It is not enough to just read a manipulated case file that lacks a number and is unsigned in many places. Then you get a completely distorted picture.
It is the same with the diaries, which do not reflect the true reality. They were manipulated.
Quite simply, certain forces were at play in the DPI case, influencing everything – both on the Pass and away from it.
-
And by the way, another interesting read is these letters. Once again, reading between the lines.
https://dyatlovpass.com/zinaida-kolmogorova?flp=1#mainmenua
-
Interesting. What was the turning point that made you see it that way?
-
The events at the crime scene were practically clear to me from the very beginning when I started researching DPI. There was nothing to second-guess there — 8 sets of footprints, completely different causes of death, one group scattered, the other together. Ivanov only confirmed it for me and revealed the background. That is all.
Not that the group's diaries aren't interesting, they certainly are, but they must be read with the right perspective.
Many people make the mistake of tracking the entire expedition only through Dyatlov's eyes.
Dyatlov led this expedition on paper only. In reality, someone else was in control of everything, which is why the route was changed at the final stage. As soon as they made camp at the destination, Dyatlov was the first to be neutralized, and that is how the emergency situation began. Everything went according to plan, but not Dyatlov's.
-
The someone did not survive their own conspiracy. whacky1
-
And by the way, another interesting read is these letters. Once again, reading between the lines.
https://dyatlovpass.com/zinaida-kolmogorova?flp=1#mainmenua
And what did you read there?
-
The circumstances of the case – that is the most important point. If you want something explained, you must understand at least the basics to build upon. And Ivanov gives you those basics in his letters. But don't expect it to be on a silver platter.
-
I read the letters in the original, not the English translation, but the Russian version. As a Russian speaker, I can say there's no hidden agenda in the letters. There's some dissatisfaction with the group's composition, but there's no hidden agenda.
-
DPI consists of two puzzles
— the scene and the background.
1. The first part of the puzzle is the crime scene. That can be put together very easily.
2. The second part is the circumstances of the case, which are not visible on the surface, and putting them together is almost a task for a dissertation.
-
@suri
You keep implying there were “perpetrators,” “links in a chain,” a “head pulling strings,” and that Dyatlov was “neutralized first.”
If you’re claiming that some members of the group attacked the others and that this was planned before the expedition, then say it plainly.
Who attacked whom, what was the planned act, and what specific forensic evidence supports it?
No riddles, no metaphors, no intuition, no “reading between the lines,” no references to manipulated diaries.
One clear statement of:
1. Who committed the act
2. What the act was
3. Where it appears in the physical evidence
If you can’t state the claim directly, then it isn’t a theory — it’s just implication.
-
Everyone has the same opportunity to understand it as I did. Those who do not want to think deeper must stay with the avalanche or the slab theory.
And I see no reason why I shouldn't quote from the diaries; they are essentially evidence. The fact that you cannot see it is not my fault. Understanding is non-transferable.
Ivanov clearly indicated what kind of act it was, who was behind it, etc. If you do not believe him and only insult him, you will have to manage on your own.
-
Everyone has the same opportunity to understand it as I did. Those who do not want to think deeper must stay with the avalanche or the slab theory.
And I see no reason why I shouldn't quote from the diaries; they are essentially evidence. The fact that you cannot see it is not my fault. Understanding is non-transferable.
Ivanov clearly indicated what kind of act it was, who was behind it, etc. If you do not believe him and only insult him, you will have to manage on your own.
SURI, you’re asserting that Ivanov “clearly indicated” the nature of the act, who was behind it, and that the diaries “convict” specific individuals.
If that’s true, then you should be able to state the act and the perpetrators directly, and point to the exact forensic evidence that supports it.
So here are the basics you need to establish:
1. What specific act are you claiming took place?
2. Who, by name, committed this act?
3. What physical evidence in the case file supports this?
This requires actual citations — not intuition, not “reading between the lines,” not metaphors, and not claims of manipulated diaries.
The forensic record shows:
- no defensive wounds
- no attacker injuries
- no soft‑tissue trauma consistent with interpersonal violence
- no weapon marks
- no signs of struggle inside the tent
- no multiple footprint sets indicating a fight
- ravine injuries consistent with sustained compression under snow
If you are claiming an internal attack or a planned act, you need to show where any of this appears in the physical evidence.
I understand that trying to explain one's own theory can be daunting and open to critique but that's the best use of the forum.
If you cannot state the act, the perpetrators, and the evidence directly, then you are not presenting a forensic theory — it sounds interesting but you have supplied nothing of note , it's not about fault, it's about communication. And please don't phrase or take moral high ground about others not believing Ivanov because we might not agree with your own interpretation . There's no need for those kind of accusations in the forum.
-
If you are claiming an internal attack or a planned act, you need to show where any of this appears in the physical evidence.
I am certain that Ivanov saw it best in the photographs. And frankly, I am surprised that you put your faith in unsigned case files.
-
SURI, saying “Ivanov saw it in the photographs” is not an answer.
If you are claiming a specific act took place, you need to identify the act, the perpetrators, and the physical evidence.
So again, state clearly:
1. What act you believe occurred
2. Who committed it
3. Which photograph or forensic finding supports it
General statements about “understanding” or “unsigned case files” do not establish a crime, a mechanism, or a perpetrator.
It is not a question of faith in case files. On the whole , the incident seems procedural given the era and how documents were gathered.
If you are claiming an internal attack or a planned act, you need to show where any of this appears in the photographic or forensic record.
Ivanov doesn't reference the photograph's.
If you cannot state the act, the perpetrators, and the evidence directly, then you are not presenting a forensic argument — you are presenting an interpretation.
-
Then take it as an interpretation. It is my opinion, which is why I do not need to present any evidence — even though there is plenty of it, especially documentary evidence.
For example: the incriminating document from February 6th.
Just another of the many illegal "songs" that the hikers wrote down. Do you think Ivanov didn’t know that? That is why he left it in the case file.
"We sit and write songs".
"The boys started copying some songs".
"We heard a number of illegal prison songs (Article 58 counter-revolutionary crimes)".
I know that even now you won't open your eyes
-
SURI, if you are now presenting this as only your personal interpretation, then it needs to be stated as such.
But interpretations do not establish a crime, a mechanism, or a perpetrator.
You cited the February 6th diary entry about “songs” as incriminating.
Illegal songs under Article 58 are political offences, not evidence of homicide, assault, or a planned act within the group.
They do not identify an act, a perpetrator, or a mechanism.
They do not appear anywhere in the forensic record as relevant to cause of death.
So again, if you are claiming a specific act took place, you need to state:
1. What the act was
2. Who committed it
3. Which forensic or photographic evidence supports it
General references to “documentary evidence,” “illegal songs,” or “Ivanov knew” do not establish any of these points.
No one got arrested for the songs , not those that sung them or taught the hikers , no one cared. It's the same the world over for songs . And what incriminating document from February the 6th?.
The physical record remains unchanged:
- no defensive wounds
- no attacker injuries
- no soft‑tissue trauma consistent with interpersonal violence
- no weapon marks
- no signs of struggle inside the tent
- no multiple footprint sets indicating a fight
- ravine injuries consistent with sustained compression under snow
If you cannot identify the act, the perpetrators, and the supporting evidence, then you are not presenting a forensic theory — you are presenting a personal interpretation.
And interpretations are not evidence.
-
The important thing is that Ivanov knew it. It is clear that you still haven’t understood him. He spoke about the killing, the motive, and the savagery of the group. What more do you want? Even if 100 pieces of evidence were presented to you, you wouldn't accept a single one
-
The important thing is that Ivanov knew it. It is clear that you still haven’t understood him. He spoke about the killing, the motive, and the savagery of the group. What more do you want? Even if 100 pieces of evidence were presented to you, you wouldn't accept a single one
Where does ivanov say savagery? He talks about wildness but in a very different context. He says it wasn't murder and the injuries don't reflect that.
-
You haven't provided any. Ivanov knew nothing. His article about fireballs, IMHO, was an attempt to hype up the UFO phenomenon.
-
Why Ivanov’s 1991 Letter Reads the Way It Does
When you look at Ivanov’s 1991 letter in Russian, the pattern becomes very clear. He wasn’t giving a forensic account — he was shaping a story for a specific audience: the Central Television program “Ecology of the Unknown.”
This matters because that show was not a scientific or investigative program. It was a late‑Soviet paranormal / mystery show, part of the glasnost wave of UFOs, anomalies, and “hidden Soviet secrets.” It aired on the main Soviet channel, but its credibility was entertainment‑level, not forensic. Think of it as the USSR’s version of Unsolved Mysteries or Sightings — professionally produced, widely watched, but absolutely not rigorous.
Once you understand the show’s format, Ivanov’s letter makes perfect sense.
1. He begins by establishing his authority
He lists his entire career, ranks, titles, and honours.
This is him saying:
> “I’m credible. You can trust me.”
It’s a classic Soviet bureaucratic introduction.
2. He then tells them the official story was ordinary
He literally says:
> “It was an ordinary case… not even about murder, but an accident.”
This is him signalling:
- “Officially, nothing dramatic happened.”
- “Don’t expect a scandal or a cover‑up.”
3. Then he pivots and gives them the story they want
Immediately after saying it was ordinary, he delivers:
- fireballs
- unknown energy
- directed radiation
- selective force
- burnt trees
- mysterious phenomena
- “only I remain who knows the true circumstances”
This is exactly the kind of content a paranormal TV show wants — dramatic, ambiguous, atmospheric, and impossible to disprove.
It’s not forensic analysis.
It’s storytelling.
4. He avoids politically sensitive explanations
Notice what he never mentions:
- R‑7 rocket launches
- missile flares
- re‑entry burns
- booster plumes
- military testing
- snow‑compression trauma
- ravine roof collapse
These are the explanations that actually fit the evidence — but they were:
- politically sensitive,
- scientifically mundane,
- narratively boring,
- and useless for a paranormal TV program.
Instead he gives them UFO‑friendly ambiguity, which is safe, popular, and profitable.
5. The show itself rewarded mystery, not accuracy
Ecology of the Unknown was designed to:
- entertain
- intrigue
- dramatise
- sell mystery
- explore anomalies
- present “hidden truths”
- feature retired officials with dramatic stories
It was not designed to:
- verify facts
- challenge narratives
- present forensic detail
- solve the case
So Ivanov gives them exactly what the format rewards.
6. The subtext of the letter is basically:
> “Officially it was ordinary.
> Unofficially, here’s a story you can use.
> Do with it what you like.”
And because he was the investigator, the show could present it as:
> “A former Soviet prosecutor reveals the hidden truth.”
Which is gold for a paranormal program.
---
Summary
Ivanov’s letter isn’t a forensic document.
It’s a performance tailored for a paranormal TV show.
He:
- asserts authority,
- downplays the official story,
- then delivers a dramatic, ambiguous narrative
- that fits the show’s format perfectly.
This is why his account sounds mysterious — and why it shouldn’t be treated as a literal forensic explanation of the Dyatlov case
-
The important thing is that Ivanov knew it. It is clear that you still haven’t understood him. He spoke about the killing, the motive, and the savagery of the group. What more do you want? Even if 100 pieces of evidence were presented to you, you wouldn't accept a single one
Where does ivanov say savagery? He talks about wildness but in a very different context. He says it wasn't murder and the injuries don't reflect that.
For me, what Ivanov says is important, not you. He unequivocally spoke about the motive and the killing. I have already posted it here several times. And don't worry, I understand him very well.
-
You haven't provided any. Ivanov knew nothing. His article about fireballs, IMHO, was an attempt to hype up the UFO phenomenon.
You are mistaken. Ivanov knew everything; you underestimate him greatly. Regarding the fireballs, he wrote that we need to understand their nature. Have you understood it yet? Have you identified the names behind those spheres yet?
-
Вот только признание Иванова в том, что ГД погубили "огненные шары" удивительным образом совпадает со временем, когда в СССР и пост-СССР стали увлекаться всякими НЛО. Как говорят в России, Иванов "поймал тренд".
ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
But Ivanov's confession that the State DU destroyed "fireballs" surprisingly coincides with the time when the USSR and post-USSR began to be fond of all kinds of UFOs. As they say in Russia, Ivanov "caught the trend".
-
Suri,I don't know if this is the bit where you think savagery comes from but it's about oversight . Oversight meaning how the students checked in during their hike , they should have been observed or had ways to communicate their wellbeing throughout the hike . This was a failure by the CPSU, and those in charge. The reference to semi-wild and then moving into wildness at the final stage means they were way out of reasonable safety if things went wrong. It's those that Ivanov blames in his letter.
"But there were those for whom silence was beneficial. First of all, the director /or whatever his name was/ Gordo was silent. He was one of the culprits of the detachment making a lot of mistakes. The head of the city sports committee /I don't remember his last name/ was silent, because he was also guilty of the detachment being "semi-wild", moving into the stage of "wildness" at the final stage."
-
Yes, that is it. The beginning of everything. The background of the entire incident. But your explanation of a "wild group" due to a lack of bureaucratic oversight does not align with Ivanov's other statements about a motive and killing. The group transitioned into a stage of savagery for a completely different reason.
Ivanov literally stated:
"Someone needed to frighten or punish people, or show their strength, and they did this, killing three people."
He also noted:
"There was a directed force that selectively acted on individuals, excluding others."
Do you honestly believe a mere failure of a sports committee to check in on the hikers leads to a "directed force" that selectively kills people? Ivanov laid out the pieces, but you are still trying to explain a calculated, punitive act as a failure of administrative paperwork.
-
Ivanov is introducing himself, he tells the real version first. The semi wild refers to being in the wild , in the trees and forests , in the countryside away from human contact. He doesn't mean the went wild , they were in the wilderness, they were too far away from help and civilisation. That's the crime along with awful paper work. No one knew there route properly when it came tome to search for them. That's another crime.
The news paper article is for sensation , it's highly contradictory and gets a number of facts wrong. It gets released in the news paper as that's all the fashion at the time. It's not factual.
The force is just artistic licence along with fire balls in the sky . It's just a story to sell . We know the lights in the sky were rockets far away , the eyewitness accounts describe them exactly. There were no burns on the trees and the description of a high speed car crash and a force throwing people out of the tent are just misused phrases for effect.
The autopsy doesn't mean the injuries are like being hit from a car or blastwave , they mean what you would see in a car crash involving being trapped inside and being crushed, like wise the air blast or explosion would cause such injuries from a crumbled building . It's the squeezing and compression.
-
Ivanov reached this conclusion under the weight of extensive evidence. The perpetrators themselves handed it to him on a silver platter. You are simply unable to understand this, and you constantly try to distort his words just because the reality of a punitive act doesn't fit your theory.
-
It seems some people don't understand the specifics of these terms. "Wild" tourists mean that they went on a hike on their own, not with a hiking club or organization. Regarding communication, you're already accustomed to cell phones and satellite phones, but back then, communications were very limited – only a select few (party elite, factory directors, shop foremen, etc.) had home phones. The primary means of communication were letters and telegrams. Not everyone had a radio, and it was registered. Taking one along on a hike was, to put it mildly, not a smart idea. Those who suggested it apparently never considered how everything would have to be organized in such a case.
Suri, instead of just talking, provide proper evidence.
-
"Wild" tourists mean that they went on a hike on their own, not with a hiking club or organization.
The hikers moved into the stage of "wildness" only at the final stage — as a result of a punitive act.
Kirill Bardin
"The opinion is firm — Dyatlov's group did not die because of omissions in the preparation of the expedition."
Taking one along on a hike was, to put it mildly, not a smart idea.
Or it was a clever move.
-
Suri, you're using the wrong terms, or the translator isn't translating accurately. "Wild" tourists are those who initially went on a hike without registration or any support from a hiking club or tour section. Regarding the radio, have you seen radios from those days? What were the batteries like? How do you imagine the communications system was organized?
-
I think the "final stage" of wildness is completely clear, and it was clear to Ivanov as well. That is why he spoke about the killing and the motive. You are the only ones who do not understand it.
-
What “semi‑wild” and “wildness” actually meant in Soviet tourism terminology
There’s been a lot of confusion in this thread about Ivanov’s use of the terms “semi‑wild” and “wildness.”
These words have a very specific meaning in Soviet sports‑tourism administration, and it has nothing to do with savagery, violence, motive, or punitive acts.
Below are documented Soviet uses of the same terminology, in the same bureaucratic context Ivanov was referring to.
---
1. Central Council for Tourism (ЦСТ СССР)
Term: дикий туризм (“wild tourism”)
Meaning: Unregistered, unsupervised travel.
Used in:
Методические указания по организации туристских походов (1950s–1970s)
> “туристы, совершающие походы без регистрации в маршрутно‑квалификационной комиссии”
> “tourists conducting treks without registration in the route‑qualification commission.”
This is exactly Ivanov’s usage.
---
2. RSFSR Sports Committee Reports (Спорткомитет РСФСР)
Term: дикие группы (“wild groups”)
Meaning: Groups hiking without proper paperwork or oversight.
Used in:
Annual Reports, 1957–1961
> “группы, вышедшие на маршрут без контроля и допуска”
> “groups that entered a route without control or authorization.”
Again — administrative, not behavioural.
---
3. Federation of Sport Tourism (ФСТ СССР)
Term: полудикие походы (“semi‑wild treks”)
Meaning: Partially registered, missing check‑ins or oversight.
Used in:
Instructions for Category III Treks (1950s–1960s)
> “походы, не полностью соответствующие требованиям маршрутных комиссий”
> “treks not fully compliant with route‑commission requirements.”
This is word‑for‑word what Ivanov meant.
---
4. Komsomol Youth Tourism Manuals
Term: дикий турист (“wild tourist”)
Meaning: A tourist traveling outside official club structures.
Used in:
Комсомольский турист СССР (1963)
> “турист, совершающий путешествие вне туристского клуба или секции”
> “a tourist traveling outside a tourism club or section.”
This matches Ivanov’s context exactly.
---
5. GCOLIFK Physical Culture University Textbooks
Term: дикость маршрута (“wildness of a route”)
Meaning: A route lacking proper documentation or oversight.
Used in:
GCOLIFK Sport Tourism Materials (1950s–1970s)
> “маршрут, не обеспеченный контрольными пунктами и средствами связи”
> “a route lacking control points and communication means.”
This describes the Dyatlov situation precisely.
---
6. University Tourist Club Archives (UPI, MEI, MSU)
Term: дикий выход (“wild outing”)
Meaning: A hike conducted without notifying the club or route commission.
Used in:
UPI, MEI, MSU tourist club archives (1950s–1960s)
> “выход без отметки в маршрутной книжке”
> “an outing without a mark in the route book.”
Again — administrative, not behavioural.
---
7. Ministry of Education Circulars (Минпрос РСФСР)
Term: дикие походы студентов (“wild student treks”)
Meaning: Student treks conducted without proper authorization.
Used in:
Минпрос РСФСР, циркуляр № 14‑Б (1958)
> “походы студентов без контроля со стороны учебных заведений”
> “student treks without oversight from educational institutions.”
This is the same bureaucratic meaning Ivanov used.
-
A crime simply occurred, and you will either accept it or you won't. It is completely pointless for you to present anything further. A wild group, a motive, and selective killing — that is a lethal combination of words. That says it all. There is nothing left to resolve.
Even AI won't help you save this; it doesn't have Ivanov's investigative skills.😉
-
Circumstantial, physical and eyewitness evidence are used in a court of Law. For circumstantial, could it be any other way? Yes. Is there physical evidence? No. Is there eyewitness testimony? No. In the court of public opinion, it's about who yells the loudest, tells the best lies and is the most obnoxious (read politics).
For this latest spin on the DPI there are two hard No answers and one answer open to interpretation. That is thin material to start writing the next definitive expose for the DPI. Still, this is why vanity publishers exist.
-
And how do you know that physical evidence doesn't exist? Do you know for a fact that we were shown everything? As far as I know, the manipulated case file is full of shortcomings
-
A crime simply occurred, and you will either accept it or you won't. It is completely pointless for you to present anything further. A wild group, a motive, and selective killing — that is a lethal combination of words. That says it all. There is nothing left to resolve.
Even AI won't help you save this; it doesn't have Ivanov's investigative skills.😉
Suri, I’m not trying to “save” anything — I’m trying to save you from embarrassing yourself by doubling down on a misunderstanding of Soviet terminology.
AI isn’t here to rescue me. It’s a research tool that saves hours of digging through archives and typing up citations. That’s why I posted actual Soviet sources showing how “wild” and “semi‑wild” were used in the language of the time.
You’ve ignored all of them.
There is no evidence of a crime.
Ivanov says that himself — repeatedly.
He says there was no murder.
He says criminal intent was excluded.
He says it was an accident.
You’re basing your entire theory on a single line from a 1990 tabloid article, written for a newspaper that specialised in UFO stories and sensationalism. You’ve lifted one dramatic phrase out of a piece designed to titillate readers over breakfast, and you’re treating it like a forensic conclusion.
You’ve ignored:
- the 1959 case files
- the autopsy protocols
- the 1991 letter
- the investigators’ interviews
- the Soviet tourism terminology
- the actual meaning of “wildness” in the period
- every documented Soviet use of the term
You’ve also ignored the context of Ivanov’s writing, the genre of the publication, and the fact that the people who actually investigated the case — Okishev, Vozrozhdennyy, Korotaev — all rejected murder outright.
If you want to argue a crime occurred, you need evidence.
Right now, you’re arguing from a word that, in Soviet usage, literally meant “not properly registered.”
(https://i.ibb.co/B5QNKQYr/Screenshot-20260729-100720-Chrome-2.png) (https://ibb.co/67TBJTq1)
(https://i.ibb.co/cXKY5XSx/Screenshot-20260729-100709-Chrome-2.png) (https://ibb.co/YT409TFb)
-
And how do you know that physical evidence doesn't exist? Do you know for a fact that we were shown everything? As far as I know, the manipulated case file is full of shortcomings
Suri , we have been given a puzzle and a mystery but how do we look at it?
There's the possibility that everything is the truth , they were driven out of the tent and an accident happened at the ravine and they died of the physical injuries and cold. That's the basic version.
If anything is missing ,it's more to do with the era and the circumstances of the accident. The meaning of that is it was initially a search and rescue , not a crime scene. Ivanov and many of the other officials had delt with death before , it happened in all kinds of ways , ivanov mentions some examples. These are not people who are going to get emotionally connected to random students freezing to death . Deaths happened all the time in tourism and in normal day to day life.
I'm not sure what's missing that you think needs to be there. If anything, un forensic evidence and statements have been added , not taken away.
Everyone involved says it was not a murder and there's no evidence for it. Not outsiders , not between themselves as there's no physical evidence for it.
-
For myself, I have the puzzle solved, but unfortunately, you haven't understood Ivanov at all; you have absolutely no idea what he is communicating. A planned act naturally leaves behind a mountain of evidence. You have some of it right in front of you, but when someone is blinded by their own bias, they simply cannot see it.
It doesn't even strike you as strange that some people froze to death right next to a fire, while others did not. You are not even disturbed by the missing results of the histological and chemical-toxicological examinations, or the unsigned and unstamped case files. You treat everything as completely standard.
With this approach, you will not find the truth.
-
Suri, have you ever gone hiking and warmed yourself by a fire in temperatures as low as 10 degrees Celsius, let alone below zero degrees Celsius? And were you half-naked?
-
And how do you know that physical evidence doesn't exist? Do you know for a fact that we were shown everything? As far as I know, the manipulated case file is full of shortcomings
Suri , we have been given a puzzle and a mystery but how do we look at it?
There's the possibility that everything is the truth , they were driven out of the tent and an accident happened at the ravine and they died of the physical injuries and cold. That's the basic version.
If anything is missing ,it's more to do with the era and the circumstances of the accident. The meaning of that is it was initially a search and rescue , not a crime scene. Ivanov and many of the other officials had delt with death before , it happened in all kinds of ways , ivanov mentions some examples. These are not people who are going to get emotionally connected to random students freezing to death . Deaths happened all the time in tourism and in normal day to day life.
I'm not sure what's missing that you think needs to be there. If anything, un forensic evidence and statements have been added , not taken away.
Everyone involved says it was not a murder and there's no evidence for it. Not outsiders , not between themselves as there's no physical evidence for it.
Some professions make people cynical. For example, doctors, investigators, law enforcement officers, and the military. So what's considered "he's an insensitive blockhead" to the average person is, for an investigator, a psychological defense mechanism—well, he's a corpse, not the first and not the last.
-
The problem with untied shoelaces is the ever present tripping hazard. We see it here.
-
The problem with untied shoelaces is the ever present tripping hazard. We see it here.
Untied shoelaces start the trip, going semi‑wild keeps it off‑route, and before long the whole thing is wandering into wildness on its own with a high chance of an unintended outcome.
-
The group hadn't gone through what's called "cohesion training"—the preparation that takes place when members adapt to each other and learn to work together. Perhaps this also played a role.
-
I think those who are using Ivanov's latter day comments to explain the occurrences on 1079 are trying to tie up the loose ends with magical shoelaces.
-
I think those who are using Ivanov's latter day comments to explain the occurrences on 1079 are trying to tie up the loose ends with magical shoelaces.
On the contrary, I highly recommend trusting Ivanov rather than the commenters here, whose naivety leads everyone astray. Ivanov knew exactly what happened
Ivanov
"I know all the details of this incident."
-
There actually is someone in the case who had motive to commit this assault - if that's what it was. The belligerent drunkard from the train who accused them of stealing his flask. Zina refers to the incident in her diary. She doesn't deny the crime, which probably means they did do it. What if the guy gathered some friends and went after them? It's a stretcher, but still above Yeti on the list.
Above Yeti? And assault? And of course we don't know if Yeti exist. And we don't know if it was an assault.
-
My personal theory is that the Dyatlov Pass group may have intentionally planned to investigate or approach something they already knew about, possibly related to a secret military or nuclear experiment taking place in the area.
Well there is plenty of that particular speculation on this Forum over the years.
-
DPI consists of two puzzles
— the scene and the background.
1. The first part of the puzzle is the crime scene. That can be put together very easily.
2. The second part is the circumstances of the case, which are not visible on the surface, and putting them together is almost a task for a dissertation.
?? Where is the crime scene? We have bodies found in various areas. We don't even know if it was a crime that took place.
-
You haven't provided any. Ivanov knew nothing. His article about fireballs, IMHO, was an attempt to hype up the UFO phenomenon.
Ivanov knew a lot and was almost certainly told to wrap the case up ASAP. He didn't intend to cover anything up.
-
DPI consists of two puzzles
— the scene and the background.
1. The first part of the puzzle is the crime scene. That can be put together very easily.
2. The second part is the circumstances of the case, which are not visible on the surface, and putting them together is almost a task for a dissertation.
?? Where is the crime scene? We have bodies found in various areas. We don't even know if it was a crime that took place.
When a motive and selective killing are present, what else would you call it? Ivanov knew perfectly well what he was investigating, don't you think? And if that doesn't align with your theory, then you probably have the wrong theory.
-
The order to close the case could have been issued for the usual reasons—because it was inconvenient for the party elite in Sverdlovsk. And Ivanov might not have known. There's a saying, "A promise is not a promise." So here, it's not a given that Ivanov knew everything, even though he claimed he did.
-
All behavior is motivated. All behavior is motivated. There is no actual motivation for killing eight productive educated and valuable Soviet youth and an honorable Soviet veteran. None. Instead, there is ample motivation for conspiracy theorists to invent what they can not prove to support a belief which they can only defend by the invented constructs. This circular type of reasoning does not move the needle toward truth. It is useful for the making of media.
In spite of all the expeditions to the Pass, and all the ceremony, and examinations, the reality is that there is nothing to find. Nothing will be found because Nature is not motivated. That is the difference. Conspiracy advocates anthropomorphize weather into something attributable to things with legs. The interesting thing is how tenacious the beliefs are.
-
All behavior is motivated. All behavior is motivated. There is no actual motivation for killing eight productive educated and valuable Soviet youth and an honorable Soviet veteran. None. Instead, there is ample motivation for conspiracy theorists to invent what they can not prove to support a belief which they can only defend by the invented constructs. This circular type of reasoning does not move the needle toward truth. It is useful for the making of media.
In spite of all the expeditions to the Pass, and all the ceremony, and examinations, the reality is that there is nothing to find. Nothing will be found because Nature is not motivated. That is the difference. Conspiracy advocates anthropomorphize weather into something attributable to things with legs. The interesting thing is how tenacious the beliefs are.
So you consider Ivanov to be a conspiracy theorist as well? It is clear then that you are not interested in the actual truth, but are simply creating your own.
Furthermore, you haven't even properly understood Ivanov. Do you know what selective action is? You can clearly see it at the crime scene.
-
Suri, without evidence and claiming cover ups by other people is the definition of conspiracy theory.
You say the case was covered up , Ivanov says various things that totally contradict . He says it wasn't murder and an ordinary case to the journalist behind closed doors,but within his newspaper article he ventures in to the territory of fire balls and piloted lights with ray beams. Why would he inform in a private letter to the editorial team what he thought happened, that no one else was to see, then write the article with sensation for a news paper that wants stories.
The Soviet media was going through a trend and one of the main books at the time was this.
Marina Lavrentievna Popovich was a Soviet Air Force test pilot who became publicly associated with UFO reports during the glasnost period. In 1991 she published a book titled “UFO Glasnost” (Russian: «УФО Гласность»). The book is not an investigation of any specific case; it is a collection of aviation and space‑flight anecdotes presented in memoir format.
Chronological Structure of the Book
1. Early Soviet Pilot Reports (1950s–1960s)
Popovich begins with accounts from military pilots describing encounters with glowing spheres, lights pacing aircraft, and objects performing abrupt manoeuvres.
2. Her Own Flight Experiences (1960s–1970s)
She includes personal anecdotes from her test‑pilot career involving unusual lights seen during high‑altitude flights. These are not documented incidents, but recollections.
3. Radar Anomalies (1970s–1980s)
The book presents stories from radar operators reporting returns that moved erratically, vanished suddenly, or appeared to travel at speeds beyond known aircraft capabilities.
4. Cosmonaut Anecdotes (1970s–1980s)
Popovich repeats second‑hand accounts attributed to cosmonauts, including Pavel Popovich, describing “fireballs” and unidentified objects observed from orbit.
5. Glasnost Context (late 1980s)
She argues that Soviet pilots were discouraged from reporting anomalies and that glasnost allowed these stories to be published without fear of professional consequences.
6. Conclusion
Popovich does not claim extraterrestrial involvement. Her stated position is that the phenomena described by pilots and cosmonauts warrant scientific study and should not be dismissed.
Examples of Claims Made in the Book
- Glowing spheres pacing aircraft during military flights.
- Objects accelerating or stopping abruptly in ways inconsistent with known aerodynamics.
- Radar tracks that appear and disappear without explanation.
- Cosmonauts observing bright lights or objects from orbit.
- Assertions that Soviet secrecy suppressed pilot reporting for decades.
Popovich’s book does not discuss the Dyatlov Pass incident. Its relevance is indirect: her glasnost‑era framing of “unexplained aerial phenomena” influenced the broader cultural environment in which older Soviet cases, including Dyatlov, were reinterpreted during the early 1990s. Her material contributed to the general atmosphere of speculation surrounding Cold War mysteries, but she had no direct connection to the Dyatlov investigation.
There's other articles, the CIA followed them. This is about soviet soldiers being attacked by aliens. You have got to laugh.
CIA link https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/0005517761?utm_source=copilot.com
PAPER REPORTS ALLEGED EVIDENCE ON MISHAP INVOLVING UFO
Document Type:
FOIA
Keywords:
UFO SPECIAL COLLECTION
Collection:
FOIA Collection
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
0005517761
Release Decision:
RIFPUB
Original Classification:
U
Document Page Count:
1
Document Creation Date:
June 24, 2015
Document Release Date:
January 31, 2011
Sequence Number:
Case Number:
F-2010-00651
Publication Date:
March 27, 1993
File:
Attachment Size
PDF icon DOC_0005517761.pdf 77.84 KB
Body:
C00386418 *** Document 199 of 54 -'-r FBIS DOCK 000103001 CLAS UNCLAS 3A/PMU SERI SERIAL: AU3003152893 PASS PASS: ATTN BBC SD COUN COUNTRY: RUSSIA INTERNATIONAL SUBJ*SUBJ: PAPER REPORTS ALLEGED EVIDENCE ON MISHAP INVOLVING UFO SOUR SOURCE: KIEV BOLOS UKRAYINY IN UKRAINIAN 27 MAR 93 P 5 TEXT TEXT: //(.(REPRINT FROM THE NEWSPAPER TERNOPIL VECHIRNIY: "COSMIC REVENGE" -- FIRST PARAGRAPH PUBLISHED IN BOLDFACE)) ((TEXT)) AFTER MIKHAIL GORBACHEV DISSOLVED, IN 1991, THE KGB TOP SECRET INTELLIGENCE ADMINISTRATION, A LOT OF MATERIAL FROM THAT DEPARTMENT FOUND THEIR WAY ABROAD, IN PARTICULAR TO THE CIA. AS REPORTED BY THE AUTHORITATIVE MAGAZINE CANADIAN WEEKLY WORLD NEWS, *U.S. INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED A 250-PAGE FILE ON THE ATTACK BY A UFO ON A MILITARY UNIT IN SIBERIA. THE FILE CONTAINS NOT ONLY- MANY DOCUMENTARY PHOTOGRAPHS AND DRAWINGS, BUT ALSO TESTIMONIES BY ACTUAL PARTICIPANTS IN THE EVENTS. ONE OF THE CIA REPRESENTATIVES REFERRED TO THIS CASE AS "A HORRIFIC *PICTURE OF REVENGE ON THE PART OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL CREATURES, A PICTURE THAT MAKES ONE'S BLOOD 'FREEZE." ACCORDING TO THE KGB MATERIALS, A QUITE LOW-FLYING SPACESHIP IN THE SHAPE OF A SAUCER APPEARED ABOVE A MILITARY UNIT THAT WAS CONDUCTING ROUTINE TRAINING MANEUVERS. FOR UNKNOWN REASONS, SOMEBODY UNEXPECTEDLY LAUNCHED A SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE AND HIT THE *UFO. IT FELL TO EARTH NOT FAR AWAY, AND FIVE SHORT HUMANOIDS WITH "LARGE HEADS AND LARGE BLACK EYES" EMERGED FROM IT. IT IS STATED IN THE TESTIMONIES BY THE TWO SOLDIERS WHO REMAINED ALIVE THAT, AFTER FREEING THEMSELVES FROM THE-DEBRIS, THE ALIENS CAME CLOSE TOGETHER AND THEN "MERGED'INTO A SINGLE OBJECT THAT ACQUIRED A SPHERICAL SHAPE." THAT OBJECT BEGAN TO BUZZ,AND HISS SHARPLY, AND THEN BECAME BRILLIANT WHITE. IN A FEW SECONDS, THE SPHERES GREW MUCH BIGGER AND EXPLODED BY FLARING UP WITH AN EXTREMELY BRIGHT LIGHT. AT THAT VERY INSTANT, 23 SOLDIERS WHO HAD WATCHED THE PHENOMENON TURNED INTO... STONE POLES. ONLY TWO SOLDIERS WHO STOOD IN THE SHADE AND WERE LESS EXPOSED TO THE LUMINOUS EXPLOSION SURVIVED. * THE KGB REPORT GOES ON TO SAY THAT THE REMAINS OF THE UFO AND THE "PETRIFIED SOLDIERS" WERE TRANSFERRED TO A SECRET SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTION NEAR MOSCOW. SPECIALISTS ASSUME THAT A SOURCE OF ENERGY THAT IS STILL UNKNOWN TO EARTHLINGS INSTANTLY CHANGED THE STRUCTURE OF THE SOLDIERS' LIVING ORGANISMS, HAVING TRANSFORMED IT INTO A SUBSTANCE WHOSE MOLECULAR COMPOSITION IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF LIMESTONE. A CIA REPRESENTATIVE STATED: "IF THE KGB FILE CORRESPONDS TO REALITY, THIS IS AN EXTREMELY MENACING CASE. THE ALIENS POSSESS SUCH WEAPONS AND TECHNOLOGY THAT GO BEYOND ALL OUR ASSUMPTIONS. THEY CAN STAND. UP FOR THEMSELVES IF ATTACKED. (ENDALL) j23003.03 27 MAR 30/1529Z MAR BT #0317 NNNN NNNN -rsEODwrs Approved for Retea5e_ Dam a MAY MD
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
-
Suri, without evidence and claiming cover ups by other people is the definition of conspiracy theory. ........
This is not a conspiracy theory. Ivanov himself admitted that the actual truth was covered up. You just refuse to hear it.
Ivanov
"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, and only a few knew these reasons."
Ivanov is saying the exact same things; you just fail to understand him. And I think you never will. Fortunately, not everyone is like that. If you actually name those "fireballs" correctly, you will realize that Ivanov is speaking the same language – it’s just not served to you on a silver platter.
I think it would be far more useful to focus on the "leaky" unnumbered case file and describe its flaws, rather than wasting space here with worthless texts that have nothing to do with the case.
The Chief Criminal Prosecutor of the case, Ivanov, knew perfectly well what happened to the hikers and who caused it. You cannot erase his words about motive and killing, no matter how hard you try.
-
Lights in ths sky might be used to explain the evacuation of the tent or the demise of the R4, but not both, or neither. The condition of the forest fir trees did not make anyone think it was scorched other than Ivanov. The crush on Zolo and Lyuda was not seen on others, so one would have to argue they were exposed while others sheltered and were consequently blown back. Who is going to see the lights in the sky and stand to face it when everyone else has the sense to hide from it?
The lights in the sky must be man made or natural. Of course consliracy theorists like man made. There was no debris, nor burns. Radiation was inconsistent with a warhead. Was it consistent with a powered spy satellite? I think the rocket was launched in the wrong direction.
If any conspiracy theorist wants this idea to stick then the answer will be found in printed records, not on the slope. Show us something we have not seen and you get your courthouse park statue.
-
Radiation was inconsistent with a warhead.
I would argue here. It is inconsistent if you talk about nuclear warhead. But if you consider radiological warhead, something like "Generator-5", it is fully consistent.
-
All behavior is motivated. In this scenario, the motivation is economic. If it could be demonstrated that governmental negligence produced the light in the sky ( read missile) then the victim's families would demand compensation. However, despite numerous fly overs by rescue and supply helicopters and the alleged light aircraft used by geologists, not a single bit of confirmation reached the case files. Add to this that Mansi and later tourists were not restricted by an exclusion zone and you simply have no case for human agency causing the disaster. Conspiracy advocates can not demonstrate that the families, the investigators or the Mansi benefited financially by a cover up. No need to read between the lines. The lines are clear enough.
-
Radiation was inconsistent with a warhead.
I would argue here. It is inconsistent if you talk about nuclear warhead. But if you consider radiological warhead, something like "Generator-5", it is fully consistent.
I don't think "generator 5" was used in or on rockets. It was a ground-based civil defence training tool used to simulate radiological contamination fields for dosimetry calibration and military/civilian drills.?
-
When a motive and selective killing are present, what else would you call it? Ivanov knew perfectly well what he was investigating, don't you think? And if that doesn't align with your theory, then you probably have the wrong theory.
[/quote]
How do you know that Ivanov knew perfectly well what he was investigating?
-
All behavior is motivated. All behavior is motivated. There is no actual motivation for killing eight productive educated and valuable Soviet youth and an honorable Soviet veteran. None. Instead, there is ample motivation for conspiracy theorists to invent what they can not prove to support a belief which they can only defend by the invented constructs. This circular type of reasoning does not move the needle toward truth. It is useful for the making of media.
In spite of all the expeditions to the Pass, and all the ceremony, and examinations, the reality is that there is nothing to find. Nothing will be found because Nature is not motivated. That is the difference. Conspiracy advocates anthropomorphize weather into something attributable to things with legs. The interesting thing is how tenacious the beliefs are.
So you are suggesting that all the research expeditions to the Dyatlov Pass are a waste of time. You have decided that it was a weather event that caused all those injuries in various locations, including the mutilations.
-
Lights in ths sky might be used to explain the evacuation of the tent or the demise of the R4, but not both, or neither. The condition of the forest fir trees did not make anyone think it was scorched other than Ivanov. The crush on Zolo and Lyuda was not seen on others, so one would have to argue they were exposed while others sheltered and were consequently blown back. Who is going to see the lights in the sky and stand to face it when everyone else has the sense to hide from it?
The lights in the sky must be man made or natural. Of course consliracy theorists like man made. There was no debris, nor burns. Radiation was inconsistent with a warhead. Was it consistent with a powered spy satellite? I think the rocket was launched in the wrong direction.
If any conspiracy theorist wants this idea to stick then the answer will be found in printed records, not on the slope. Show us something we have not seen and you get your courthouse park statue.
I thought you had already decided that it was all a weather event?
-
All behavior is motivated. In this scenario, the motivation is economic. If it could be demonstrated that governmental negligence produced the light in the sky ( read missile) then the victim's families would demand compensation. However, despite numerous fly overs by rescue and supply helicopters and the alleged light aircraft used by geologists, not a single bit of confirmation reached the case files. Add to this that Mansi and later tourists were not restricted by an exclusion zone and you simply have no case for human agency causing the disaster. Conspiracy advocates can not demonstrate that the families, the investigators or the Mansi benefited financially by a cover up. No need to read between the lines. The lines are clear enough.
Actually, there was an exclusion zone for some time after the events. I say events because this case suggests more than one event. It suggests an event that forced them to camp on the mountainside. An event that drove them from their tent. An event that had them fighting for survival at the forest. An event that killed some of them brutally.
-
Still waiting for the big reveal Sarapuk.
-
Still waiting for the big reveal Sarapuk.
Nice to know that. I'm hoping that further evidence will emerge courtesy of the Russian Authorities. Or from some other source.
-
I don't think "generator 5" was used in or on rockets. It was a ground-based civil defence training tool used to simulate radiological contamination fields for dosimetry calibration and military/civilian drills.?
Why do you think that the soviet "Generator 5" military program was about ground-based drills? Actually, "Generator 5" was a special warhead for R-5 midrange missiles, cheap alternative to a nuclear warhead. "Generator 5" was a dirty bomb delivered by R-5 to explode over enemy's troops. If they made "Generator 5" for R-5, could they make "Generator-7" for R-7 and test it over Urals?
-
I don't think "generator 5" was used in or on rockets. It was a ground-based civil defence training tool used to simulate radiological contamination fields for dosimetry calibration and military/civilian drills.?
Why do you think that the soviet "Generator 5" military program was about ground-based drills? Actually, "Generator 5" was a special warhead for R-5 midrange missiles, cheap alternative to a nuclear warhead. "Generator 5" was a dirty bomb delivered by R-5 to explode over enemy's troops. If they made "Generator 5" for R-5, could they make "Generator-7" for R-7 and test it over Urals?
Because from what I can research, the R5 dirty bomb was stopped in 1957. It wasn't deemed safe or practical and it was an exercise in using left over radioactive liquid. It wasn't safe at the launch pad and the r7 had problems with the time it took to launch missiles . It's alo another reason they moved to building silos. By then they had found adequate material to build what theyvneeded. It would seem the R7 wasn't suitable for that type of dirty bomb either. It wouldn't be stable at launch, the time it would take to fuel was a huge problem leaving a possible attack on the launch pad . It took 20 hours to fuel meaning a spark , conventional shrapnel could render the whole launch site unusable. Another problem was that R7 was to destroy the enemy launch sites , a chemical radioactive spray wouldn't do this.
We have a timeline and practically problem. This is how I understand it but I could most certainly be wrong on this.