Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: GlennM on August 07, 2026, 05:19:27 PM
-
Pyotr Bartolomey took part in the search Mar 13-23, 1959.
"I spent two weeks huddled down in a tent with Ivanov. He was asking me about everything and everybody.
After the first five bodies were found, he was summoned and we parted with the promise that we will continue the conversation. When Ivanov arrived back on the pass (as well as in Ivdel and Sverdlovsk) he was withdrawn, and didn't want to talk even to Maslennikov (the head of the search operation). Ivanov said to me – I can't talk to you, I am not allowed. It was obvious to me that he was told what happened, sworn to silence and he was afraid.
This reads like Ivanov was told something. I think what he was told is something like if you want to keep climbing higher as a civil servant, you should stick to the facts and not make up stories.
-
It was obvious to him that they were killed.
-
If the testimony is not made up, and I have no reason to believe so, then Ivanov was advised to stop speculating. Why?
I am thinking that his speculation could filter all the way back to the home of the hikers by way of returning college students. Further, if we use the party game of telephone as an example, each retelling of the story gets filtered by each reporter's perception. It is conceivable that an unsubstantiated rumor of lights in the sky could morph into a botched Soviet military test.
It could also be that Ivanov was reminded of his role in the investigation and how his handling of it might play out in terms of career advancement. So, casual speculations with companions could have more gravitas because Ivanov was the one to say it. It matters little if it is factual or not, it is about who said what.
Then, there is the matter that Ivanov found out something of the truth. That truth would somehow involve the deep pockets of the Soviet government,meaning someone is going to lawyer up and go to court and sue the Bear. That, in turn will rile the populace and the lid could blow off the whole thing. To give any credence to this idea, one would speculate that the debris were picked up and carted away before the first rescue and perhaps without the knowledge of the hikers being in the area. After all, the event need not happen in their midst, only in the vicinity.
-
For me it just adds to a frustrating loop.
I'm in a lazy mood so I'll have to work from memory . Not one iota of all these post statements add up.
Ivanov seemed to be rarely at the pass . I tried trying to work out when he was there and for how long. Pytor says he , he himself was there from the 13-23 of March. That's 10 days by my math's and not two weeks.
Ivanov gives no details of him being at the pass for any length of time. He touches on things about a storm and being in the artic(?) in his 1990 article. But no descriptive writings about being in the tent , what he looked at , what he found etc.
We also have the statements about the light in the sky witnessed by other groups and they are not secret or withheld from the other hiking reports
I can't work out from Pyotr what two weeks he had with Ivanov and which tent he means? What date he was summoned and which day he came back?
Other sources imply that ivanov wasn't at the pass more than maybe 3 days ?.
-
I can't work out from Pyotr what two weeks he had with Ivanov and which tent he means? What date he was summoned and which day he came back?
Other sources imply that ivanov wasn't at the pass more than maybe 3 days ?.
Everything indicates that Ivanov was on the Pass 3 times:
> March 1-3
> March 13-15 (that was together with Pyotr)
> May 6
On March 15th Ivanov was urgently called back from the Pass. A helicopter arrived to get him back to Ivdel, and next day he was already in Sverdlovsk. That was the breakpoint, when medical lab in Sverdlovsk had been ready with chemical analysis of tissue fragments of the first 5 hikers. At this point it became clear that the hikers not just fled in terror from the rocket, but evaporations from the rocket's tanks did affect them. Direct linkage of their deaths with the rocket crash was established. Ivanov was asked to switch his investigation in full secret mode.
-
I would think that in over 60 years of free, unrestructed hiking and hunting in this part of the Urals that someone would have found evidence. Nope.
I prefer weather. Much simpler
-
I can't work out from Pyotr what two weeks he had with Ivanov and which tent he means? What date he was summoned and which day he came back?
Other sources imply that ivanov wasn't at the pass more than maybe 3 days ?.
Everything indicates that Ivanov was on the Pass 3 times:
> March 1-3
> March 13-15 (that was together with Pyotr)
> May 6
On March 15th Ivanov was urgently called back from the Pass. A helicopter arrived to get him back to Ivdel, and next day he was already in Sverdlovsk. That was the breakpoint, when medical lab in Sverdlovsk had been ready with chemical analysis of tissue fragments of the first 5 hikers. At this point it became clear that the hikers not just fled in terror from the rocket, but evaporations from the rocket's tanks did affect them. Direct linkage of their deaths with the rocket crash was established. Ivanov was asked to switch his investigation in full secret mode.
I've tried to find sources but I can't confirm anything. 2 days is not two weeks . If Ivanov left on the 15th of march then he would have had to come back before the 23rd of March to say to Pyotr that he couldn't talk to him. That would be 4 visits.
But who of us would expect a police officer , all the way up to prosecutor, to inform you of any investigative information?. There's an investigation going on , Mansi are being questioned at the same time as helping the search effort. If there's any truth in pyotr's claim , I would suspect it's a mundane reason.
It is complete speculation that he was sworn to silence and was afraid. This is more a post retrospective narrative with inbuilt ambiguity. Ivanov wouldn't have been able to say anything, even if it was an avalanche, drugs or rocket.
Ivanov would have been in secret mode from the start , not halfway through and there's no evidence of crashed rockets or explosions unfortunately.
I would expect students to be the first people removed from the search if a rocket had landed nearby.
-
I've tried to find sources but I can't confirm anything. 2 days is not two weeks . If Ivanov left on the 15th of march then he would have had to come back before the 23rd of March to say to Pyotr that he couldn't talk to him. That would be 4 visits.
Yes, Ivanov left the Pass on March 15th, and he took the same helicopter flight to Ivdel as Kikoin, who had completed his radioactivity level measurements by the time. On March 16th Ivanov was in Sverdlovsk and issued an order to investigate the hikers' tent in the criminal lab.
The words "Ivanov said to me – I can't talk to you, I am not allowed." are GlennM's invention. Pyotr did not say that. At least, I have never heard Pyotr saying that in his numerous interviews. Ivanov just stopped talking to any member of the search party, including Bartolomey and Maslennikov.
There is no information that Ivanov returned to the Pass / Ivdel in the 2nd half of March.
-
The words "Ivanov said to me – I can't talk to you, I am not allowed." are GlennM's invention. Pyotr did not say that. At least, I have never heard Pyotr saying that in his numerous interviews. Ivanov just stopped talking to any member of the search party, including Bartolomey and Maslennikov.
They are not GlennM's invention, it's copied and pasted from the home page of dyatlovpass.com
https://dyatlovpass.com/#mainmenua
-
They are not GlennM's invention, it's copied and pasted from the home page of dyatlovpass.com
If the above words really belong to Bartolomey, we are in a big trouble. Because earlier he kept saying very different story. From his earlier words it is clear that:
- Ivanov had never returned to the Pass in March 1959;
- Pyotr himself had not had chance to talk again to Ivanov.
Such contradictory sayings mean we cannot trust Pyotr's recollections at all. neg1
=======================================
Бартоломей на Перевале с 13.03. по 25.03. группа Кикоина.
Интервью Навигу 02.2008.
Навиг: А вот Иванов в своём поведении... в моменты его посещений не было изменений?
Бартоломей: Были изменения. Когда мы начинали, он живо интересовался характеристикой ..., что могло произойти? Он был в таком же недоумении, как и все остальные. Потому что мы действительно не понимали, что там могло произойти. И он, как нормальный человек, интересовался, строил рассуждения кто, в какой последовательности мог выскакивать? чьи это носки? телогрейка или что это за палатка, почему она изрезана изнутри?, и так далее и так далее. Он много что расспрашивал. "Почему она заштопана таким образом странным?".
Навиг: А после?
Бартоломей: на второй день, по-моему, это был второй или третий день моего пребывания там, мы вечером уже в сумерках возвращались с перевала вниз. Подлетает вертолёт прямо там, наверху. "Ребята, подойдите сюда!". Мы подходим. "Вы вниз туда идёте, на базу?".- "Да". - "Следователя Иванова позовите, его срочно в город вызывают". Когда мы пришли, мы ему сказали: " Вот, Вас вызывают". Он стал собирать свои вещи и говорит: "Ну ладно, на пару дней меня наверное вызывают, я вернусь и продолжим наши разговоры". И он исчез и больше мы его не видели. И более того, те люди которые…
Навиг: Он что, больше вообще не вернулся?
Бартоломей: Он больше сюда не вернулся.
Навиг: То есть, когда последних нашли, его там не было?
Бартоломей: Вот это я не знаю. Но в моё присутствие он больше здесь не был.
Навиг: А потом Вы с ним общались, когда приехали в город?
Бартоломей: Я был студентом -пятикурсником, а были более старшие товарищи - туристы, Евгений Поликарпович Масленников, Карелин, Аксельрод, выпускники института, которые уже работали. Они пытались наладить контакт с Ивановым, но у них ничего не получалось. Он либо не принимал, либо говорил "Не суйте нос".
Навиг: Так и говорил?
Бартоломей: Евгению Поликарповичу Масленникову, секретарю Визовского райкома партии так и говорил: "Не суйте нос".
-
They are not GlennM's invention, it's copied and pasted from the home page of dyatlovpass.com
If the above words really belong to Bartolomey, we are in a big trouble. Because earlier he kept saying very different story. From his earlier words it is clear that:
- Ivanov had never returned to the Pass in March 1959;
- Pyotr himself had not had chance to talk again to Ivanov.
Such contradictory sayings mean we cannot trust Pyotr's recollections at all. neg1
Hence my deep scepticism about all post incident interviews.
If there's inconsistencies in the case files , there's 10 times more contradictions in the later retellings, and with a common pattern of ambiguity where what's being said can actually be read with multiple interpretation.
We have to rely heavily on modern day independent Russian's forum members for context and interpretation of many of the documents, culture and the era.
Ivanovs story is complicated and his involvement at various stages is very contradictory. He claims he was at the pass for months or weeks in his letters to the newspaper but it doesn't seem as if he was?
I don't know if it's artistic licence by Ivanov or those that collected and shared his letter although it seems to be missing pages.
But if there's any truth to bits of the story, Ivanov would not be at liberty to discuss any findings with people not involved. Whether the outcome was a rocket, UfO , avalanche or internal fight etc. Ivanov's response to not discussing it with searchers is confidential at every level. Even from the possibility of the sports community not following procedure of proper oversight is a massive failing. That's what Ivanov refers to in the first part of his letter, it's not about how they died , it's that they shouldn't have left to go so far away from civilization with out some safety net or communication if an accident happened. This is the" semi wild" and "full wild "state he refers to.
I believe that in the years that followed, the Dyatlov incident was used as an example to improve the lack of oversight. Ivanov seems angry that nothing was done to those involved .
If we step back, even the search response was sloppy, that's another failing , no one knew and it was the family's that pushed it to the Kremlin as nothing was getting done .
When I think about it, even I get angry, if it was my child out on a hike and was missing but the university or organisation didn't react instantly I would blame them and take it higher. To then find out that they didn't even know the route of Dyatlov is even more shocking.
This informality possibly happened in various degrees before and after the dpi but without the deaths of an entire group.
-
If you take these words of Ivanov and connect them together, guess what you get:
● Absolute guilt
● Wildness of the group
at the final stage
● Motive
● Selective killing
Do you think this is just a simple failure? Ivanov didn’t just drop these words out of nowhere; he didn’t pull them out of thin air. He had plenty of evidence for these claims – evidence you don't see yet because you don't believe him.
-
If you take these words of Ivanov and connect them together, guess what you get:
● Absolute guilt
● Wildness of the group
at the final stage
● Motive
● Selective killing
Do you think this is just a simple failure? Ivanov didn’t just drop these words out of nowhere; he didn’t pull them out of thin air. He had plenty of evidence for these claims – evidence you don't see yet because you don't believe him.
Hi Suri .
Ivanov says it was . Do you not believe Ivanov? He says he lived in the mountains for four months without a break? But everyone else was rotated ?
"It was a difficult expedition. We lived in the Arctic, in the mountains, for four months without a break. Frankly, by the end of this period I had already pulled myself up as an athlete, but and at the beginning I lived with some curios misconceptions. On the first day of skiing in the mountains, I usually had breakfast and could not go along with everyone. It turns out that it was necessary to eat very little, but high-calorie food."
Then he tells us his thoughts, this i believe is 'after ' his fire balls story in the newspaper.
"But there were those who benefited from silence. First of all, the director (or whatever he was) Gordo kept silent. He was one of the culprits in the accusation that the group made a lot of mistakes. The head of the city sports committee was silent (I don’t remember his last name), because he was also guilty of the fact that the group went "semi-savage", moving into the stage of "savagery" at the final stage.
I was quite surprised that these two absolutely guilty people in the death of the guys were lightly punished at the bureau. Seems like they were given a reprimand. And this meant that it was impossible to bring them to criminal liability, because they were members of the CPSU, and until very recently, until 1986, the instruction of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the instruction letter of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, signed by Stalin and Molotov in 1939, were in force on the elimination of serious distortions in the fight against enemies of the peoples. This letter stated that many cases of unjustified bringing people to criminal responsibility are allowed in the localities, abuses are allowed in the bodies of the NKGB and the NKVD in this case, and it was proposed that a member of the CPSU(b) could be prosecuted only with the consent of the party committee, and it was possible to arrest them only with the sanction of the first secretary personally. So, the city committee and the regional committee did not give such consent to the involvement of these two people. And that's it, the issue was solved."
That is someone's English translation. As I understand it the words полудикий and дикость in that passage don’t mean “savagery.” In Soviet bureaucratic language of the 1950s, дикий meant unregulated, unsupervised, or outside official control — the same way дикий турист meant an unregistered hiker.
The author is criticising the sports committee for letting the group operate without proper oversight. This is supported by dictionary definitions, Soviet-era administrative usage, collocations, and the context of the letter itself.
He is describing administrative disorder, not violent behaviour.
He says it wasn't murder and it was an accident.
Which claims of Ivanov do you believe?
-
If you take these words of Ivanov and connect them together, guess what you get:
● Absolute guilt
● Wildness of the group
at the final stage
● Motive
● Selective killing
I am afraid, we will get complete mess.
Everything from Ivanov can be safely ignored except these two phrases:
1) "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: the former first secretary of the regional committee A.P. Kirilenko, the second secretary of the regional committee A.F. Eshtokin, the regional prosecutor N. I. Klinov and the author of these lines, who were investigating the case."
The above phrase explains us that the statement about "elemental force" from the Criminal case closing paragraph was a fake, and true cause of DPI was not frost, wind, avalanche, snow slab, or any combination of those.
2) "The study of the case now fully convinces, and even then I stuck to the version of the death of student hikers from exposure to an unknown flying object. Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious."
And this phrase openly says that DPI occurred because of unknown flying object. But any UFO remains unknown only until we securely map it to some known object, e.g. a rocket that contains radioactive material onboard and which tanks are full of explosive fuel.
-
Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious."
I keep telling you that Ivanov had plenty of evidence. The "UFO" were absolutely guilty.
-
Ivanovs article is full of error's. He quotes the day of the sighting of lights as the 1st of February when it's the 17th of February. Why would an investigator get this wrong , why try to fit the wrong dates to make the reader think their were lights on the 1st?
-
Pyotr Bartolomey took part in the search Mar 13-23, 1959.
"I spent two weeks huddled down in a tent with Ivanov. He was asking me about everything and everybody.
After the first five bodies were found, he was summoned and we parted with the promise that we will continue the conversation. When Ivanov arrived back on the pass (as well as in Ivdel and Sverdlovsk) he was withdrawn, and didn't want to talk even to Maslennikov (the head of the search operation). Ivanov said to me – I can't talk to you, I am not allowed. It was obvious to me that he was told what happened, sworn to silence and he was afraid.
This reads like Ivanov was told something. I think what he was told is something like if you want to keep climbing higher as a civil servant, you should stick to the facts and not make up stories.
It's good to remind us all occasionally that various people have come forward since the events in 1959 to tell us their stories, no matter how small they may be. And here we have another person, Bartolomey, giving us his story. Such stories are useful even if they may be false. However, there is no way for us to know if they are false unless we can compare them with other stories, etc. And even then there will be doubt. The present Russian Government continues the tradition of the USSR. Secrecy.
-
If the testimony is not made up, and I have no reason to believe so, then Ivanov was advised to stop speculating. Why?
I am thinking that his speculation could filter all the way back to the home of the hikers by way of returning college students. Further, if we use the party game of telephone as an example, each retelling of the story gets filtered by each reporter's perception. It is conceivable that an unsubstantiated rumor of lights in the sky could morph into a botched Soviet military test.
It could also be that Ivanov was reminded of his role in the investigation and how his handling of it might play out in terms of career advancement. So, casual speculations with companions could have more gravitas because Ivanov was the one to say it. It matters little if it is factual or not, it is about who said what.
Then, there is the matter that Ivanov found out something of the truth. That truth would somehow involve the deep pockets of the Soviet government,meaning someone is going to lawyer up and go to court and sue the Bear. That, in turn will rile the populace and the lid could blow off the whole thing. To give any credence to this idea, one would speculate that the debris were picked up and carted away before the first rescue and perhaps without the knowledge of the hikers being in the area. After all, the event need not happen in their midst, only in the vicinity.
Well, speculation is certainly rife in this Dyatlov Forum.
-
They are not GlennM's invention, it's copied and pasted from the home page of dyatlovpass.com
If the above words really belong to Bartolomey, we are in a big trouble. Because earlier he kept saying very different story. From his earlier words it is clear that:
- Ivanov had never returned to the Pass in March 1959;
- Pyotr himself had not had chance to talk again to Ivanov.
Such contradictory sayings mean we cannot trust Pyotr's recollections at all.
Speculation was rife in 1959, and it's rife in 2026. In fact, it's becoming a speculative Forum. I suppose that's because there is still no real evidence we need to take things further. The Russian Government are carrying on the USSR traditions of secrecy.
-
Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious."
I keep telling you that Ivanov had plenty of evidence. The "UFO" were absolutely guilty.
Therefore lets move things along a little. What are the UFOs that Ivanov was referring to? Because UFO to most people conjures up aliens from other worlds, etc. Are these the type of UFO that Ivanov and some others may have believed to have been responsible for the Dyatlov tragedy?
-
The present Russian Government continues the tradition of the USSR. Secrecy.
That in itself is a sign that times have changed, but that the “cover-up” is significant enough to still be relevant today
That might explain why the fresh footprints in the snow were staged !
(https://i.ibb.co/Z6cKNN6W/footprints-lie.jpg)
😜
-
We can all keep in mind that when the time came to make a final statement in this case, Ivanov and anyone else in the position of authority had their chance, and had nothing to say. Some people today will claim that this is because weather killed them and weather is a temporary condition. Yet, it would have been so much easier then to say it was weather and be done with it! To instead say an unknown compelling force appears to deliberately sidestep the easiest and most obvious explanation.
Others might claim that there actually was something Ivanov could say, but it was suppressed. I could accept that except for the sheer number of people involved with the whole operation. They all saw the same things. They all discussed their ideas over dinner. If Ivanov was paid off to suppress some truth, he would have been smarter to blame it on weather. Leaving it ipen ended is akin to never letting a wound heal. That would always follow him as it does to this very day.
The thing for me is that Ivanov, the army rescue team, thc college students and the Mansi could have come up with the truth when it mattered. Nothing said or found since then has made a bit of difference.
-
The present Russian Government continues the tradition of the USSR. Secrecy.
That in itself is a sign that times have changed, but that the “cover-up” is significant enough to still be relevant today
That might explain why the fresh footprints in the snow were staged !
(https://i.ibb.co/Z6cKNN6W/footprints-lie.jpg)
😜
Topaze, a quick Google will explain the raised foot prints . There's videos about them on the site and the forum , done by later expeditions and forum members. Experienced hikers have got the same results at dyatlov pass, they even occur in the UK.
You should know how snow works from low levels to mountains . You claim to have experience skiing and been in the alpine mountain troops .
Snow drifts behave like slow‑motion waves. Wind moves snow the same way it moves sand in deserts,through creep, saltation, and suspension. This creates dune‑like shapes that migrate gradually, with erosion on the windward side and deposition on the leeward side. Drifts rise and fall over days, smoothing surfaces and erasing tracks, which is why snow can bury and later expose hardened footprints or people.
This video might help but I'm sure you already know from your experience .
https://youtu.be/LgK2kXfvwZY?si=6XJ_hXUGERMxdh7F
-
That’s correct, provided the footprints weren’t left in powder snow, which means they would have had time to freeze before the next snowfall; otherwise, they are immediately erased. Whether on the plains or on a mountain pass, it is not the condition of the snow that changes, but simply the wind.
-
Yet, it would have been so much easier then to say it was weather and be done with it! To instead say an unknown compelling force appears to deliberately sidestep the easiest and most obvious explanation.
I think they did say it was the weather, this is the problem of translation.
For anyone checking the original case files, the closing resolution with the famous phrase is on Sheet 387 (archival pagination).
Here is the authentic wording:
> «…следует считать, что причиной гибели туристов явилась стихийная сила, преодолеть которую туристы были не в состоянии.»
This simply means:
> “The cause of the hikers’ deaths was a natural force which they were not able to overcome.”
The confusion comes from later English retellings that paraphrased this as “unknown compelling force.”
That dramatic phrase does not appear anywhere in the Russian case files.
The key term стихийная сила is a standard Soviet legal expression meaning natural / elemental force, not something mysterious or supernatural.
You can find the same phrase used in other Soviet accident reports:
- Avalanche deaths: “Причиной гибели явилась стихийная сила в виде схода снежной массы…”
(“The cause of death was a natural force in the form of a snow mass release.”)
- Storm‑related drownings: “Гибель наступила от воздействия стихийной силы (шторм).”
(“Death occurred due to the action of a natural force (storm).”)
- Exposure cases in the Urals and Siberia: “Смерть наступила от переохлаждения вследствие воздействия стихийной силы.”
(“Death occurred from hypothermia as a result of the action of a natural force.”)
In all these examples, стихийная сила refers to weather, cold, wind, avalanche conditions, or environmental hazards.
It’s just bureaucratic language.
Nothing “unknown,” nothing “compelling,” nothing supernatural.
-
If it were just weather or a wolverine, we wouldn't have a case file without a number. If it were a rocket, we wouldn't be reading any case file at all. So why do we have a folder without a number and we are allowed to read it? Because it is a staged product of deliberate manipulation for someone's benefit. A theater backdrop.
-
If it were just weather or a wolverine, we wouldn't have a case file without a number. If it were a rocket, we wouldn't be reading any case file at all. So why do we have a folder without a number and we are allowed to read it? Because it is a staged product of deliberate manipulation for someone's benefit. A theater backdrop.
SURI, your comment is straight to the point!
The folder with the investigation related papers which we have privilege to read and discuss is not the same case files, where DPI was investigated in 1959. And this folder has no number on purpose, as it makes it concealed from official registration, which further means it has never existed officially.
The case without a number was created much later than February 1959, Tempalov had even forgotten what date the first corpses were found and wrote "Feb 26th", which was wrong. The folder contains low value and no value papers that had been produced in course of real investigation, which was fully driven from Moscow and ran in a secret mode. The No-number case was very special but still legal way to archive documents that had been produced by the investigation but were not needed for real case files.
-
It is no compliment to Russian intelligence when a simple ," death by inclement weather". would have closed the case.
-
It is no compliment to Russian intelligence when a simple ," death by inclement weather". would have closed the case.
Absolutely, I don't think soviet intelligence was involved. Missing hikers , students , locals , sappers and some military resources , searching and recovering dead hikers . Free to roam over the whole area in a radius of at least 20km and have full view from helicopters when travelling in and out for 3 months . Monument erected, celebration's of the students for years after and then the monument erected by students in 1963.
Nothing of evidence put forward afterwards other than "somebody knows something" yet not a single person has come forward to say anything of substance.
-
Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious."
I keep telling you that Ivanov had plenty of evidence. The "UFO" were absolutely guilty.
Therefore lets move things along a little. What are the UFOs that Ivanov was referring to? Because UFO to most people conjures up aliens from other worlds, etc. Are these the type of UFO that Ivanov and some others may have believed to have been responsible for the Dyatlov tragedy?
Just change the letters and you will instantly know what Ivanov meant and where he was aiming.
-
Changing the letters isn't so hard...until I look at my unabridged dictionary. You can sure make a lot of combunations out of those 26 letters. I think Aardvark is a good one to start with.
-
Hi Suri .
Ivanov says it was . Do you not believe Ivanov? He says he lived in the mountains for four months without a break? But everyone else was rotated ?
"It was a difficult expedition. We lived in the Arctic, in the mountains, for four months without a break.
Maybe if you had a more accurate translation, it would be clear to you who actually spent four months in the mountains and never left at all:
"Сложная это была экспедиция. Мы просидели в Заполярье, в горах, четыре месяца безвыездно."
''It was a difficult expedition. We sat there in the Arctic region, in the mountains, for four months without leaving."
-
@ suri
Thanks for the correction but Ivanov wasn't in the artic or at the pass for four months . ?
So I remain unsure of your claims at the moment. I wait for your break down of what occured.
-
Therefore lets move things along a little. What are the UFOs that Ivanov was referring to? Because UFO to most people conjures up aliens from other worlds, etc. Are these the type of UFO that Ivanov and some others may have believed to have been responsible for the Dyatlov tragedy?
Just change the letters and you will instantly know what Ivanov meant and where he was aiming.
You say just change the letters ? Enlightenment please !
-
Changing the letters isn't so hard...until I look at my unabridged dictionary. You can sure make a lot of combunations out of those 26 letters. I think Aardvark is a good one to start with.
Aardvark ? An African animal !
-
@ suri
Thanks for the correction but Ivanov wasn't in the artic or at the pass for four months . ?
So I remain unsure of your claims at the moment. I wait for your break down of what occured.
Ivanov was not there for four months, of course, but he had in mind those who were there for those 4 months – or rather, lay there.
-
Changing the letters isn't so hard...until I look at my unabridged dictionary. You can sure make a lot of combunations out of those 26 letters. I think Aardvark is a good one to start with.
Aardvark ? An African animal !
It's known to be the first word the first word in the English dictionary.
-
@ suri
Thanks for the correction but Ivanov wasn't in the artic or at the pass for four months . ?
So I remain unsure of your claims at the moment. I wait for your break down of what occured.
Ivanov was not there for four months, of course, but he had in mind those who were there for those 4 months – or rather, lay there.
Nobody was there for 4 months. Think about it.
-
@ suri
Thanks for the correction but Ivanov wasn't in the artic or at the pass for four months . ?
So I remain unsure of your claims at the moment. I wait for your break down of what occured.
Ivanov was not there for four months, of course, but he had in mind those who were there for those 4 months – or rather, lay there.
Nobody was there for 4 months. Think about it.
February, March, April, May
-
The Thread has become tedious. It is about a second hand report someone who shared gossip with another guy who later on did not want to do it any more. From this I get UFO's (again) and the Let's read my mind ploy (again).
I commend Ziljoe for constantly coming up with well reasoned answers.
My point in posting this topic was point out that for all his involvement with the case Ivanov knew as much as anyone else. My suggestion is that if Ivanov or anyone else who had thunderbolts to throw in this case they could simply close the case by saying the cause of death was weather, a known compelling force. Yhat would be the end of it and their nefarious secrets are cloaked in a custom made conspiracy coverup. But, then and now, there are people who will believe what they want to believe. An unknown compelling force is the absolute worst way of trying to deflect attention away from an open and shut case. I do not consider any person who was involved in the case to be a hero willing to stick his neck out with the goal of endicting the government, military or Mansi for a criminal act.
-
Therefore lets move things along a little. What are the UFOs that Ivanov was referring to? Because UFO to most people conjures up aliens from other worlds, etc. Are these the type of UFO that Ivanov and some others may have believed to have been responsible for the Dyatlov tragedy?
Just change the letters and you will instantly know what Ivanov meant and where he was aiming.
You say just change the letters ? Enlightenment please !
If you actually know this case, you don't need to guess any letters. You don't need 26 letters of the alphabet. The acronym associated with this tragedy comes up automatically. Ivanov's "UFO," against which he discovered absolute guilt, was of purely earthly origin.
-
The Thread has become tedious. It is about a second hand report someone who shared gossip with another guy who later on did not want to do it any more. From this I get UFO's (again) and the Let's read my mind ploy (again).
I commend Ziljoe for constantly coming up with well reasoned answers.
My point in posting this topic was point out that for all his involvement with the case Ivanov knew as much as anyone else. My suggestion is that if Ivanov or anyone else who had thunderbolts to throw in this case they could simply close the case by saying the cause of death was weather, a known compelling force. Yhat would be the end of it and their nefarious secrets are cloaked in a custom made conspiracy coverup. But, then and now, there are people who will believe what they want to believe. An unknown compelling force is the absolute worst way of trying to deflect attention away from an open and shut case. I do not consider any person who was involved in the case to be a hero willing to stick his neck out with the goal of endicting the government, military or Mansi for a criminal act.
Most threads can become tedious. It's up to us all to try to avoid that. The unknown compelling force statement is a good way to wrap up an unknown event or events. Especially in the former USSR and indeed in today's Russia.
-
Except that here we are...
-
Except that here we are...
Yes, here we are with the unknown compelling force statement. That is the statement upon which this whole mystery hinges.
-
This force can be unknown and unknowable. The force can be unknown but knowable. The forum exists because as reasonable people,me believe the unknown will be made known.
It that regard the unknown and unknowable could be grouped into the categories of fantasy or science fiction. In fantasy, elves, fairies,demons and spirits would be associated with the disaster. These constructs are not real and never were. We can rule out boogie man type explanations Any explanation of a fantastic nature can be dismissed.
Science fiction, on the other hand are plausible causes except the discovery of them, then technology to produce them and the laws that govern them are yet to be realized. This encompasses cryptid life forms terrestrial and otherwise. It includes wave and beam technologies and mechanisms which were not there in '59.
-
Except that here we are...
Yes, here we are with the unknown compelling force statement. That is the statement upon which this whole mystery hinges.
It's says this in translation I believe.
Given the absence of external bodily injuries or signs of a struggle on the bodies, the fact that all the group's valuables remained intact, and the forensic medical findings regarding the cause of death, it must be concluded that the hikers perished due to a natural force they were unable to overcome.
The whole paragraph has to read in context and from a legal viewpoint. This is not a vague suggestion or multi meaning secret message. It is the documented conclusion . It is not written for the world of social media and entertainment, it's written to state how they came to their conclusion.
To break it down.
Учитывая отсутствие... и признаков борьбы = Considering the absence of external body injuries... and signs of a struggle
наличие всех ценностей группы =
the presence of all the group's valuables (proving they were not robbed by local tribes or
bandits)
заключение судебно-медицинской экспертизы = conclusion of the forensic medical examination
стихийная сила (stikhiynaya sila) = elemental force / force of nature / natural
disasterпреодолеть которую... были не в состоянии = which they were unable/powerless to overcome
-
Ivanov's later admission:
„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...“
That's why we have a case file without a number...
-
Ziljoe writes "Given the absence of external bodily injuries or signs of a struggle on the bodies, the fact that all the group's valuables remained intact, and the forensic medical findings regarding the cause of death, it must be concluded that the hikers perished due to a natural force they were unable to overcome."
Natural forces in this case are cold, wind, elevation, gravity and snow. Some Natural forces that may be germane are crevasses and slippery ground.
A single explanation such as snow is responsible is insufficient because any natural occurrence is the sum total of numerous conditions present, modified by time. So, the question of what compelled them to leave the tent is not likely explained by a single factor. The evidence of a collapsed tent in snow is clear enough to attribute snow, wind and gravity. The evacuation of the tent by cutting speaks to previous training and instinctive behavior. Leaving the tent speaks to the immediate prioritizing of mitigating heat loss. Walking away from the tent is exercise which is warming, arguably not enough though. Nothing suggests they ran. What happened subsequently is understood by the effects of relentless cold.
I do not understand why a fire was not maintained and a lean-to shelter not made around it at the cedar. Too, there would eventually become a time when even if personal warmth was insured that hunger would become an issue., I think it reasonable for a delegation to go back to the tent and forage. If you subscribe to the "blind in the cedar" they could be on the lookout for the tent. In my simple imagining, hot rocks in pockets would be kept for warming hands and bodies. Clothes would be redistributed so that those returning to the tent were best dressed. Those who remain have the fire to tend.
It baffles me that the den and mat have no fire pit. I can see the wisdom of getting into a ravine for shelter. I can accept a cornice collapse and a fall into running water, but I struggle with prioritizing excavating snow and laying a mat over insuring body heat. Surely the same effort that went into harvesting wood for a mat is at least as important as making a fire pit..
The force they could not overcome is called the Russian Winter. It had a similar effect of the German Army.
-
My thinking about the fire , lack of lean-to shelter and rocks revolves around the practical mechanics of it .
There's several aspects that fit the senorio that we see. They only had knives to process wood. We only know of one found on Rustem and another pen knife found in 2009 in the ravine. There may have been a finish one lost on the night and never found.
Given that they only had a knife , and a small one is cut small green trees, green meaning alive trees.
Dead wood does not look readily available in that part of the forest , it's small birch scattered with spruce and cedar . To find a vertical dried dead tree would be a task in itself , to manipulate it or process it with out a saw or axe would be impossible. Dead wood on the ground will probably be water logged and frozen , plus everything is hidden by snow.
To dry that wood , you need a big fire in the first instance as the frozen moisture would sap the small fire. The cedar may have been chosen as it was easy to climb, the lower branches are the ones that die and are sheltered from the branches above . This is how cedars grow. Without tools to process any wood in the environment , breaking the lower cedar branches is the only option to have a chance of a fire.
( The photo of the Mansi wood pyramid or chum does seem a possible wood stack for drying wood to burn at times of passing through the area, it's processed wood to burn , if they had found that , then that would have made a great fire)
However , they would know the cedar was the only option for wood and a snow hole is the best way to stay warm.
The fire wouldn't have been big enough to heat stones and frozen stones cause another problem, exploding . heated stones are used in different scenarios and usually heated in the embers but again we have snow covered ground , the only place for maybe fetching stones is the stream bed , that means sticking ones hands in the water and they are wet. I don't think it's a practical option but I could be wrong.
So , by process of elimination , they only built a fire from what they could scavenge and what was available. To me it suggests a need to warm extremities, perhaps after cutting the small trees, getting wet at the ravine, walking down the slope from the tent, digging a snow hole. The fire might have been a triage station whilst they did the cold hand work.
The cutting of the trees for the flooring wouldn't have been an easy job either and quite possibly is related to miner injuries around the hands. Again there's no way to process enough branches or material to build a heat retaining shelter , a snow hole or cave is the chosen method to survive where air is trapped.
During the world wars and Napoleonic war and retreats from Moscow , there's descriptions of men dying next to a fire. The back is exposed , the heat loss is not replaced by the fire in open air unless it's a large fire.
To me, it looks like they worked within these restrictive windows and options to the very maximum of their resources at hand. No signs of outsiders , 14 cut stumps around the cedar and ravine, 14 branches found at the den. Branches broken from the cedar , branches found in the fire . Burn marks on hikers next to the fire with burns on the clothes and discarded clothing in and around the fire. Flooring found at the bottom of a ravine where snow drifts and creates the potential for the very best survival shelter needed for the hikers.
Text book attempt to survive in their situation by experienced winter people in my opinion.
-
It's says this in translation I believe.
Given the absence of external bodily injuries or signs of a struggle on the bodies, the fact that all the group's valuables remained intact, and the forensic medical findings regarding the cause of death, it must be concluded that the hikers perished due to a natural force they were unable to overcome.
The whole paragraph has to read in context and from a legal viewpoint. This is not a vague suggestion or multi meaning secret message. It is the documented conclusion . It is not written for the world of social media and entertainment, it's written to state how they came to their conclusion.
To break it down.
Учитывая отсутствие... и признаков борьбы = Considering the absence of external body injuries... and signs of a struggle
наличие всех ценностей группы =
the presence of all the group's valuables (proving they were not robbed by local tribes or
bandits)
заключение судебно-медицинской экспертизы = conclusion of the forensic medical examination
стихийная сила (stikhiynaya sila) = elemental force / force of nature / natural
disasterпреодолеть которую... были не в состоянии = which they were unable/powerless to overcome
correct translation is "elemental force" (стихийная сила) not "natural force" (природная сила, естественная сила)
-
It's says this in translation I believe.
Given the absence of external bodily injuries or signs of a struggle on the bodies, the fact that all the group's valuables remained intact, and the forensic medical findings regarding the cause of death, it must be concluded that the hikers perished due to a natural force they were unable to overcome.
The whole paragraph has to read in context and from a legal viewpoint. This is not a vague suggestion or multi meaning secret message. It is the documented conclusion . It is not written for the world of social media and entertainment, it's written to state how they came to their conclusion.
To break it down.
Учитывая отсутствие... и признаков борьбы = Considering the absence of external body injuries... and signs of a struggle
наличие всех ценностей группы =
the presence of all the group's valuables (proving they were not robbed by local tribes or
bandits)
заключение судебно-медицинской экспертизы = conclusion of the forensic medical examination
стихийная сила (stikhiynaya sila) = elemental force / force of nature / natural
disasterпреодолеть которую... были не в состоянии = which they were unable/powerless to overcome
correct translation is "elemental force" (стихийная сила) not "natural force" (природная сила, естественная сила)
Thank you Axelrod.
While "elemental force" is the literal translation of стихийная сила, arguing that the prosecutor meant something biblical or supernatural like "fire and stone" is a linguistic misunderstanding caused by viewing a Russian text through an English pop-culture lens.
To clear this up, we have to look at how these words are actually defined in both languages.
1. The Real Meaning in Russian Law and Language
The text is a formal, atheist Soviet legal decree closing a criminal file. In 1959, a Soviet prosecutor would never use poetic, religious, or mystical imagery.
The Language Dictionary: If you open the authoritative Ozhegov Dictionary of the Russian Language, the word used (стихийный) is strictly defined by real-world physical examples: “floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, and avalanches.”The Legal Meaning: In Soviet Legal Dictionaries, the precise phrase “стихийная сила” is the standard technical term for Force Majeure or an Act of Nature.
In Russian, this word has absolutely zero connection to biblical wrath, angels, or magic. The prosecutor was using legal boilerplate to state a cold fact: the hikers succumbed to the harsh environmental weather conditions (the blizzard and freezing elements), ruling out any human crime.
2. Why "Elemental" Causes Confusion in EnglishThe belief that this phrase implies something mystical comes from how the word "elemental" evolved in English fiction, fantasy, and pop culture:
In gaming (Dungeons & Dragons, World of Warcraft), "Elementals" are literal magical monsters made of living Fire, Earth, or Water.
In superhero media (like Marvel's Spider-Man), "The Elementals" are mythical, catastrophic entities.In fantasy literature, "elemental forces" refer to supernatural magic systems.Because of these modern pop-culture associations, an English speaker reading the word "elemental" might mistakenly think of biblical fire, divine intervention, or something paranormal.
A 1959 Soviet prosecutor was not writing a fantasy novel or a biblical text. When he wrote стихийная сила, he meant "exposure to the physical weather elements"—the extreme wind, cold, and snow. Turning this into a multi-meaning, supernatural event relies on English fantasy definitions that simply do not exist in the original Russian legal text.
If you wish to challenge the use of the wording in the final report and the phrase to mean anything else other than a "natural force of the physical elements in the environment " , then please do so. But please make it factual with context of what Ivanov was trying to communicate in a legal document.
-
The term of the elements is very ancient. In the Jewish mystical tradition (Kabbalah), the four letters of the name of God - the tetragrammaton YHVH (Yahweh, יהוה) - are symbolically associated with the four world elements: fire, air, water and earth. Correspondence of letters and elementsEach letter of the unpronounceable name reflects a certain element of the universe and a spiritual level:
Yud (י) - is associated with fire (the starting point of creation, a spark of divine energy).
He (ה) - is associated with air (breath, space, expansion).
Vav (ו) - is associated with water (flow, connection, life).
He (ה) - is associated with earth (materialization, density, final form).
-
That is a fascinating history of the Kabbalah, but it highlights why looking at modern texts through a purely mystical lens can distort things.Historically, the concept of the four elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water) belongs to ancient Greek pagan philosophy—formulated by Empedocles around 450 BCE. Jewish mysticism actually adopted and mapped their alphabet to this existing Greek framework centuries later. Long before any of it was written down, pagan cultures—from the Druids and the Vikings to Indigenous Australians—all lived by and revered the physical elements of nature. No single culture has a monopoly on the elements.
I believe the Kabbalistic texts connecting the Tetragrammaton (\(YHVH\)) to these four elements weren't written until the Middle Ages (around the 13th century CE), borrowing a Greek scientific framework that was already nearly 2,000 years old.
If we trace the roots of almost any word in a text, we can find a path leading back to ancient Hebrew, Latin, or Greek mysticism. But that doesn't mean the writer intended it as a secret code.Ivanov was writing in a strictly atheist Soviet legal setting. The phrase 'стихийная сила' (stikhiynaya sila) was just standard, real-world legal boilerplate for 'an act of nature.' He wasn't invoking the Tetragrammaton; he was simply stating that the hikers succumbed to the harsh, freezing weather elements of the physical environment.
-
We can agree that language is a two edged sword. Countless historical examples point to that. I appreciate that our two leading forum members agree that mysticism has no place in the events of 1959.. Where Axelrod points out how language has deep historical roots, Ziljoe reminds us of the effort required to communicate in precise unequivocal terms is neither easy, but abundantly necessary.
There can e little doubt that weather compelled them to abandon their shelter.Weather also removed evidence of itself. It is clear to me that weather elicited every decision that followed. I believe the expectation at thee time was that the weather would abate, but even as it did, the deterioration of the hikers was faster. Finally, any explanation put forward to close the case is necessarily second hand information. There were no survivors.
-
Weather could not have forced them to abandon the tent, because the Dyatlov Pass tragedy began to be written even before the expedition. Nor could weather remove the material evidence of a planned crime. Neither the diaries nor Zolotaryov’s camera disappeared.
-
Weather could not have forced them to abandon the tent, because the Dyatlov Pass tragedy began to be written even before the expedition. Nor could weather remove the material evidence of a planned crime. Neither the diaries nor Zolotaryov’s camera disappeared.
Weather could have forced them to leave the tent , there is no arguing that possibility.
If you have evidence of something being written before the expedition, then please share it , otherwise it is just a comment.
I have yet to see or hear evidence of a planned crime .
I do so wish you would supply a break down of your reasoning.
-
@Ziljoe:
What is the point of presenting evidence to you when you won't understand or believe it anyway?
1) First of all, there are ivanov’s words, which you already know:
● „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...“
● „Someone needed to frighten or punish people, or show their strength, and they did this, killing three people."
2) Furthermore, there are diaries and letters. We can also include the case file without a number.
https://dyatlovpass.com/zinaida-kolmogorova?flp=1#letter1
3) And last but not least, there is Zolotaryov’s camera, which he kept with him until his final moments for a specific assignment.
-
Suri, the point is that when you, as a forum member, suggest that we individually or collectively are too dull to follow your trail of crumbs, it may have the opposite effect you intend. My advice is that you go forward and author your book. Perhaps if we have to actually pay to enjoy your insights that might be the most satisfying solution.
-
When forum members write that they reject mystical theories, they themselves don't realize they're putting forward mystical theories.
The Dyatlov group mysteriously perishes from wind and snow. A mystical, imaginary avalanche descends on the tourists' tent. Then they mystically freeze to death.
All of this is constructed in the mind, as if this is how it should be. Do you have a more rational explanation?
-
Axelrod, that IS the rational explanation! I have considered the idea of nine people on a barren mountainside in the cold, in the wind and in the snow. Their tent is damaged, their support poles for the tent are broken. Since the tent is damaged and cut several times, the stove can not be used for heat, even if kindling was packed.
The grade 3 hike could be salvaged if they could repair the tent. This means the canvas can not be cut for shawls. The skis are laid under the tent and not accessible. Boots are of little use without skis. If the tent is further damaged the contents will blow away. Rescuers reported some of that anyway. What I find hard to understand is that if they could crawl out of the tent to avoid suffocation, surely someone could go back in, with help and throw out additional clothing, a backpack or valenki. Perhaps someone did, they had a flashlight with them and one at the tent A flashlight would be uncomfortable to sleep upon, so it was specifically taken from elsewhere within the tent. They were all dressed. The biggest argument about their descent to safety is not the outerwear It is the footwear. I leave it to those who know if sleeping with valenkis is practiced in winter tent camping. If sleeping in felt boots is not common, then those boots were put on inside or just outside the tent. For those who want to make an issue of it, are you certain that every hiker had valenki? That needs proof.
I reason that they made a quick decision to make for the woods to get out of the.elements.Once committed, there was no turning back regardless of the distance to the forest. I do not consider this a fantasy. I think it is a fantasy to believe they were persuaded to leave their shelter by something other than weather. Why? Every other theory depends on some thing that can not be produced, but rather assumed. Snow was self evident.No assumption is necessary.
-
This force can be unknown and unknowable. The force can be unknown but knowable. The forum exists because as reasonable people,me believe the unknown will be made known.
It that regard the unknown and unknowable could be grouped into the categories of fantasy or science fiction. In fantasy, elves, fairies,demons and spirits would be associated with the disaster. These constructs are not real and never were. We can rule out boogie man type explanations Any explanation of a fantastic nature can be dismissed.
Science fiction, on the other hand are plausible causes except the discovery of them, then technology to produce them and the laws that govern them are yet to be realized. This encompasses cryptid life forms terrestrial and otherwise. It includes wave and beam technologies and mechanisms which were not there in '59.
Sounds a bit contradictory. You are ruling out explanations of a fantastic nature and then say science fiction is plausible !?
-
correct translation is "elemental force" (стихийная сила) not "natural force" (природная сила, естественная сила)
Let's face it, people can make mistakes or just say something that may mean something slightly different than what they intended to convey. We have a force that caused the demise of the Dyatlov Group. We don't know what that force was. We don't need to keep making mountains out of mole hills, do we?
-
Weather could not have forced them to abandon the tent, because the Dyatlov Pass tragedy began to be written even before the expedition. Nor could weather remove the material evidence of a planned crime. Neither the diaries nor Zolotaryov’s camera disappeared.
Weather may have played a part, but not necessarily the part or parts that killed the entire Dyatlov Group. It still seems strange to me that they chose to pitch a tent on that very exposed mountain slope. Exposed to strong winds, which certainly force temperatures down considerably. The slope wasn't steep, so it was not a dangerous place as far as potential snow slides were concerned. Just very exposed to wind. If anyone has been out in exposed locations in temperatures well below freezing, they will know just how brutal the wind factor can be.
-
When forum members write that they reject mystical theories, they themselves don't realize they're putting forward mystical theories.
The Dyatlov group mysteriously perishes from wind and snow. A mystical, imaginary avalanche descends on the tourists' tent. Then they mystically freeze to death.
All of this is constructed in the mind, as if this is how it should be. Do you have a more rational explanation?
You have a point.
I believe that nothing should be ruled out in this Dyatlov Mystery. It was an unusual event or events that led to the demise of the Dyatlov Group.
-
For Sarapuk. To clarify my comment, consider a comparison between a fairy tale like Peter Pan and Science Fiction 20000 Leagues. Fairies like Tinkerbelle are not real, never were and never will be. Please do not go simple on me .
In 20000 leagues, the Nautilus was not real, but even at the time with certain future developments in propulsion and metallurgy, it could be developed into a real machine. Today, of course, we have submarines , but no Tinkerbelles.
I think you already knew this but were argumentative just to keep a bit of energy going in the forum.
If you want something to ponder, then rationalize which came first, the fire at the cedar or the digging at the ravine.
-
When forum members write that they reject mystical theories, they themselves don't realize they're putting forward mystical theories.
The Dyatlov group mysteriously perishes from wind and snow. A mystical, imaginary avalanche descends on the tourists' tent. Then they mystically freeze to death.
All of this is constructed in the mind, as if this is how it should be. Do you have a more rational explanation?
You have a point.
I believe that nothing should be ruled out in this Dyatlov Mystery. It was an unusual event or events that led to the demise of the Dyatlov Group.
think we need to clear up the definitions here. You are mixing up 'mystical' with 'mysterious' or 'unproven.'The word mystical comes from the Greek mystikos, meaning a secret spiritual or divine power. Wind, cold weather, and avalanches are physical, natural phenomena. Even if you think the avalanche theory is imaginary, that makes it a disputed hypothesis—not a mystical theory. There is nothing spiritual about freezing to death.
-
When forum members write that they reject mystical theories, they themselves don't realize they're putting forward mystical theories.
The Dyatlov group mysteriously perishes from wind and snow. A mystical, imaginary avalanche descends on the tourists' tent. Then they mystically freeze to death.
All of this is constructed in the mind, as if this is how it should be. Do you have a more rational explanation?
You have a point.
I believe that nothing should be ruled out in this Dyatlov Mystery. It was an unusual event or events that led to the demise of the Dyatlov Group.
think we need to clear up the definitions here. You are mixing up 'mystical' with 'mysterious' or 'unproven.'The word mystical comes from the Greek mystikos, meaning a secret spiritual or divine power. Wind, cold weather, and avalanches are physical, natural phenomena. Even if you think the avalanche theory is imaginary, that makes it a disputed hypothesis—not a mystical theory. There is nothing spiritual about freezing to death.
I read Axelrod's comment to mean that an avalanche-freezing theory is so impossible, it is actually out of the realm of even the hypothetical, and we should look for something more realistic.
-
I read Axelrod's comment to mean that an avalanche-freezing theory is so impossible, it is actually out of the realm of even the hypothetical, and we should look for something more realistic.
An avalanche or snow slide is not impossible. But let's park that thought for a minute . Freezing to death is highly possible, it's what's written in the autopsy. A snow slip , slide , wind driven build up of snow is the most probable and I doubt scientists would say impossible, hence why they look at , snow , wind , ultra sound as a cause.
So I'm interested to read what is more realistic from axelrod without mystical theories or sarapuk with UFOs , yetis and cattle mutilations.
So pleased define your and axelrods definition of realistic .
-
I'm interested to read what is more realistic
Then you are welcome to listen to Petr Bartolomey. He keeps saying that the slope, where Dyatlov pitched his tent on Feb 1st, had a strong thermal impact. Area of about 500 x 500 meters became icy, the groups' footprints were fixed into ice and had been staying intact for about 2 months.
-
I'm interested to read what is more realistic
Then you are welcome to listen to Petr Bartolomey. He keeps saying that the slope, where Dyatlov pitched his tent on Feb 1st, had a strong thermal impact. Area of about 500 x 500 meters became icy, the groups' footprints were fixed into ice and had been staying intact for about 2 months.
Thank you. Certainly a realistic hypothesis
There is speculation by Petr Bartolomey that it was caused by fuel etc but there are no remains or debris.
That to me is a problem as how any fuel get distributed in the air or on the slope. My understanding is that the r 12 rocket is one stage plus its war head. The launch sites are specific and remote. The distance means the fuel would be spent , the fuel stage is traveling at 8000 mph , as it hits the earns atmosphere again it basically goes through a very violent process and ultimately collapses . The only parts that would hit the ground are heavy engine parts and piping, they would be scattered over the area with deep impact holes.
This is my understanding at least. It's the altitude , the speed and distance that prohibits the possibility. Fuel can't get anywhere near the slope or the atmosphere. It's either used up on the launch where the r12 only travels 200km horizontaly until it hits the upper atmosphere. If there was any residual fuel and a leak in the upper atmosphere it would just get lost there and it would be a small amount. If it fell back to earth at 8000 mph , the fuel would get burnt up instantly with the speeds involved. ?
-
Then too, if it was the rocket's chemicals I liquid or vaporous form, it would coat or infiltrate the tent. Given how long the tent existed after the February event, surely an odor, stain or holes would indicate contamination. Additionally, though much has been made of radioactive contaminated clothes, absolutely nothing ever pointed to the tent being exposed to beta contamination. We can surmise that if the tent was not contaminated through these vectors and given that the tent had the widest surface area of any item on the hike, it is a certainty that chemical or radiological contamination did not cause the evacuation.
We understand that contamination can be washed from fabric. This example was used in determining the effect of rinsing radioactive clothes. The operant word is rinsing, which implies running water. We know that not to be the case on 1079. Too, those familiar with chemistry understand the extreme corrosive news of nitric acid. Anyone familiar with blood and food stains, can appreciate that once infiltrated in canvas, it will linger.
If the 500 by500 area Maldonado mentions was supposed to be snow melted to ice from an aerial detonation, is interesting. Perhaps it might even be testable. I am doubtful.
As a final pile on, I discount the argument that the tent was struck by a tree and conspirators moved it to 1079. It is impossible for a tree to crush a tent and leave no trace. I find it impossible to believe hikers could be crushed in the tent under a fallen tree and not blood stain the tent interior. I can easily believe they could be crushed under snow and not bleed.
-
I discount the argument that the tent was struck by a tree and conspirators moved it to 1079. It is impossible for a tree to crush a tent and leave no trace. I find it impossible to believe hikers could be crushed in the tent under a fallen tree and not blood stain the tent interior.
Completely true. Trees have nothing to do with DPI. Of course, we should keep in mind the Cedar tree, which the hikers used as a source of dry branches for the fire. The key point is that the tent was pitched on the slope by the group. It had never been moved, and it was discovered on its original place by two UPI students on Feb 26th.
That to me is a problem as how any fuel get distributed in the air or on the slope. My understanding is that the r 12 rocket is one stage plus its war head. The launch sites are specific and remote. The distance means the fuel would be spent , the fuel stage is traveling at 8000 mph , as it hits the earns atmosphere again it basically goes through a very violent process and ultimately collapses . The only parts that would hit the ground are heavy engine parts and piping, they would be scattered over the area with deep impact holes.
What you say is correct, one-stage rocket would have reached the Pass with nearly empty tanks. That means R-12 and other one-stage rockets can be safely excluded. The focus should be on multi-stage rockets, where the last stage is expected to start its engine high in atmosphere and far from the launching pad. Up to that point the last stage keeps its tanks full. Also, at that point the previous stage separates and falls on the ground. That means that zones of stages separation should be set over remote and low populated areas, and North Urals is a good candidate.
Most probably, we face a non-public Moon mission, where they made an attempt to send to the Moon a probe with primitive nuclear engine or nuclear electricity generator. The Jan 2nd Moon mission was a partial success, and to reach full success in a month, at the time of Communist Party congress, was quite obvious goal.
-
That to me is a problem as how any fuel get distributed in the air or on the slope. My understanding is that the r 12 rocket is one stage plus its war head. The launch sites are specific and remote. The distance means the fuel would be spent , the fuel stage is traveling at 8000 mph , as it hits the earns atmosphere again it basically goes through a very violent process and ultimately collapses . The only parts that would hit the ground are heavy engine parts and piping, they would be scattered over the area with deep impact holes.
What you say is correct, one-stage rocket would have reached the Pass with nearly empty tanks. That means R-12 and other one-stage rockets can be safely excluded. The focus should be on multi-stage rockets, where the last stage is expected to start its engine high in atmosphere and far from the launching pad. Up to that point the last stage keeps its tanks full. Also, at that point the previous stage separates and falls on the ground. That means that zones of stages separation should be set over remote and low populated areas, and North Urals is a good candidate.
Most probably, we face a non-public Moon mission, where they made an attempt to send to the Moon a probe with primitive nuclear engine or nuclear electricity generator. The Jan 2nd Moon mission was a partial success, and to reach full success in a month, at the time of Communist Party congress, was quite obvious goal.
The first stages fall short of the pass, the rocket flies up to the atmosphere in an arc. The only stage that can be above the pass is firing it's stage and burning fuel.
The Re-entry Incineration wall If that third stage suffered a catastrophic failure right above the pass, two things happen:In Space: Because it is in a vacuum, any ruptured tank would cause the fuel to instantly flash-boil into a cloud of tiny frozen gas crystals that disperses into orbit. It cannot fall downward as a liquid.On the Way Down: For any structural pieces to fall back to Earth, they must plunge back through the atmosphere at Mach 20. The resulting friction creates a 2,000°C plasma furnace. The thin aluminum tanks would violently buckle, shred, and vaporize miles up in the sky. Any residual fuel would be instantly incinerated. I believe the Luna/R-7 space launches ran on Liquid Oxygen and Kerosene—not the highly toxic nitric acid that rocket theorists blame for the "chemical ice." Liquid oxygen evaporates into invisible gas, and kerosene leaves a highly pungent, greasy oil slick. The 1959 searchers found completely pristine, odorless snow, and zero metal debris or impact craters.Even with a multi-stage space failure, the laws of aerodynamics and thermodynamics dictate that nothing liquid could ever make it down to the tent area.
This is my problem with any concept of a rocket involved. It's either too big, too far away or too high and the physics doesn't work. I've looked at the missiles from submarines and artillery. The only possibility is some kind of flying aircraft but we have no wreckage.
-
Liquid oxygen evaporates into invisible gas, and kerosene leaves a highly pungent, greasy oil slick. The 1959 searchers found completely pristine, odorless snow, and zero metal debris or impact craters.
AI can argue with you a little bit:
"A high-pressure kerosene leak can create a fine aerosol or mist cloud. If that cloud mixes with air or oxygen and finds an ignition source, it can cause a flash fire or vapor cloud explosion. Near a rocket, there are many possible ignition sources: sparks, static electricity, hot surfaces, or open flames."
"Kerosene itself is not very volatile at room temperature, but in rocketry it is often hot, pressurized, sprayed as a mist, and used near liquid oxygen. Under those conditions, a kerosene cloud can explode, especially if ignition is delayed or if fuel and oxidizer mix outside the engine."
"A simplified combustion reaction:
Kerosene + O₂ → CO₂ + H₂O + energy"
So, products of kerosene combustion are CO₂ which simply goes to the air, H₂O which can pour snowy slope and fix footprints in ice, and energy which can throw unlucky people on the stones.
-
Liquid oxygen evaporates into invisible gas, and kerosene leaves a highly pungent, greasy oil slick. The 1959 searchers found completely pristine, odorless snow, and zero metal debris or impact craters.
AI can argue with you a little bit:
"A high-pressure kerosene leak can create a fine aerosol or mist cloud. If that cloud mixes with air or oxygen and finds an ignition source, it can cause a flash fire or vapor cloud explosion. Near a rocket, there are many possible ignition sources: sparks, static electricity, hot surfaces, or open flames."
"Kerosene itself is not very volatile at room temperature, but in rocketry it is often hot, pressurized, sprayed as a mist, and used near liquid oxygen. Under those conditions, a kerosene cloud can explode, especially if ignition is delayed or if fuel and oxidizer mix outside the engine."
"A simplified combustion reaction:
Kerosene + O₂ → CO₂ + H₂O + energy"
So, products of kerosene combustion are CO₂ which simply goes to the air, H₂O which can pour snowy slope and fix footprints in ice, and energy which can throw unlucky people on the stones.
Don't worry , I argue with AI. I've been trying to find a model that works.
your AI quotes are perfectly correct about how kerosene behaves inside a factory or a pressurized engine compartment, but they seem to fall apart when applied to a rocket miles high in the open, freezing Siberian atmosphere.Here is the actual science that disproves this "exploding kerosene water" theory:1. The "Water" Would Be a Blinding Flash of Vapor, Not RainThe AI notes that kerosene combustion produces \(H_{2}O\) (water) and energy. However, because a rocket explosion releases massive, instantaneous thermal energy (thousands of degrees), that water is created as superheated, invisible gas vapor (steam).In a sub-zero, high-wind alpine environment, that steam would instantly flash-freeze into microscopic ice crystals and blow away in the wind like a puff of smoke. It would not neatly descend through the air as a concentrated liquid downpour to delicately "fix" individual footprints on the ground.2. A Vapor Explosion Leaves Heavy Carbon SootThe reaction formula your AI provided is a perfect combustion model. In the real world, rocket explosions are highly imperfect and messy. When kerosene explodes in the open air, it produces massive amounts of unburned carbon (soot) and black smoke.If a kerosene flash fire or explosion had occurred close enough to the ground to throw the hikers onto the stones, the snowpack, the trees, the canvas tent, and the hikers' clothes and skin would have been heavily coated in thick, oily, jet-black soot. The 1959 searchers found completely white, pristine, odorless snow and clean clothing.3. Blast Injuries vs. The Autopsy Reality .if the "energy" from this kerosene blast threw the unlucky hikers onto the stones, causing their famous fractures. This contradicts basic forensic pathology:No External Trauma: A vapor cloud explosion powerful enough to fracture a human skull and shatter ribs would cause massive external blast trauma. It would blow out the hikers' eardrums, burn their hair, scorch their skin, and shred their thin clothing.The Medical Verdict: Dr. Boris Vozrozhdenny, the original 1959 coroner, explicitly noted that the severe internal injuries (like Dubinina and Zolotaryov’s shattered ribs) had zero external bruising, zero burns, and zero blast marks. He explicitly concluded that the trauma was caused by a continuous, massive hydrostatic pressure—exactly like being compressed under a heavy slab of packed snow or an avalanche—not a sudden, concussive military explosion.At the end of the day, using an AI to find generic combustion equations doesn't change the laws of thermodynamics on Kholat Syakhl. A supersonic, burning rocket failure miles high in the air cannot neatly manufacture liquid water to freeze footprints while simultaneously leaving the snow perfectly white and odorless.
The rocket stage can't get to the pass in a form that can hold fuel.
-
He explicitly concluded that the trauma was caused by a continuous, massive hydrostatic pressure—exactly like being compressed under a heavy slab of packed snow or an avalanche—not a sudden, concussive military explosion.
It's a pity, but in the documents available in the case files the medical expert did not speak about a slab of snow or an avalanche. For Thibo he suggested a blast of wind throwing him on the rocks or an automobile at speed. For Lyudmila and Semyon he suggested a blast airwave. As far as I know, Bartolomey says "no avalanche", and the same with Sogrin and Karelin. And these are people, who came to the slope one of the first and had chance to see the setup close to initial one.
Lack of soot is very strong argument against kerosene burning, I agree. That's why I prefer to consider the 3rd stage to be an experimental nuclear powered module on hydrogen. Hydrogen combustion formula is even simpler:
2H₂ + O₂ → 2H₂O + energy
No soot is expected, when hydrogen burns.
-
Ivanov
"Someone needed to frighten or punish people, or show their strength, and they did this, killing three people."
Anyone who believes Ivanov's letters doesn't need to deal with rockets, avalanches, or snow slabs. These things don't purposefully punish or kill anyone. That is why it can't work out for either of you. The evidence points in a completely different direction.
-
@SURI
My approach is that we should not be selective in what Lev Ivanov had said. We should accept that he did not have a solid theory what had happened at the Pass. Here is his quote:
"To the correspondent’s question, have I changed my view of the causes of death of the hikers over these thirty years, I replied that I only changed my view of the impact technique. If earlier I believed that the ball exploded, releasing completely unknown, but radioactive energy, now I believe that the action of the energy from the ball was selective, it was aimed only at three people."
And impact technique is very important, as "ball explosion" and "aimed attack" trace back to completely different root causes. Aimed attack means deliberate killing, while ball explosion most proibably means an accident. Ivanov's problem was that he did not manage to define right order of hikers' deaths. He believed that Ravine-4 died first, when the whole group kept together. That's why he talks about selective attack. If we assume that Ravine-4 were the last to survive, then any non-selective explosion would kill them and only them.
-
@Senior Maldonado
Ivanov knew exactly what had happened.
"I know all the details of this incident."
And at the forefront of it all was a motive. It seems you didn't fully understand his sentence and, consequently, failed to decipher what kind of "balls" he was actually talking about.
"...and many associated these mysterious phenomena, including unidentified flying objects with military tests, but investigative actions indicated that the case of Dyatlov group had nothing to do with military tests."
Therefore, it is first necessary to correctly determine the nature of these "balls" that possessed a motive.
"It is only necessary not to hush up their appearance, but to deeply understand their nature."
-
And at the forefront of it all was a motive. It seems you didn't fully understand his sentence and, consequently, failed to decipher what kind of "balls" he was actually talking about.
There was no motive at all for anybody to kill 8 UPI students and ex-students, as well as a war veteran. Who might have wanted to kill Zina, for instance? And even if somebody had wanted, a normal criminal case with number would have been created, the criminal would have been captured and sentenced to death publicly. But we have very different story.
-
And at the forefront of it all was a motive. It seems you didn't fully understand his sentence and, consequently, failed to decipher what kind of "balls" he was actually talking about.
There was no motive at all for anybody to kill 8 UPI students and ex-students, as well as a war veteran. Who might have wanted to kill Zina, for instance? And even if somebody had wanted, a normal criminal case with number would have been created, the criminal would have been captured and sentenced to death publicly. But we have very different story.
Typical denial of facts that don't fit your narrative. Ivanov knew best whether a motive existed, and he explicitly mentioned it. The case file without a number stands as evidence against the perpetrators. As for why the perpetrators were never sentenced, you can find the answer directly in Ivanov’s letters. The "different story" you are talking about exists only in your imagination.
"...and many associated these mysterious phenomena, including unidentified flying objects with military tests, but investigative actions indicated that the case of Dyatlov group had nothing to do with military tests."
-
He explicitly concluded that the trauma was caused by a continuous, massive hydrostatic pressure—exactly like being compressed under a heavy slab of packed snow or an avalanche—not a sudden, concussive military explosion.
It's a pity, but in the documents available in the case files the medical expert did not speak about a slab of snow or an avalanche. For Thibo he suggested a blast of wind throwing him on the rocks or an automobile at speed. For Lyudmila and Semyon he suggested a blast airwave. As far as I know, Bartolomey says "no avalanche", and the same with Sogrin and Karelin. And these are people, who came to the slope one of the first and had chance to see the setup close to initial one.
Lack of soot is very strong argument against kerosene burning, I agree. That's why I prefer to consider the 3rd stage to be an experimental nuclear powered module on hydrogen. Hydrogen combustion formula is even simpler:
2H₂ + O₂ → 2H₂O + energy
No soot is expected, when hydrogen burns.
Regarding the comments of the medical expert. , they are below. We have the sustained bleeding into the lungs. This is constant with a continuous crushing force . It is what is found in victims of compression or land slides and collapsed snow caves. It is the foam and bleeding during life that imply their chests were being compressed after the initial trauma. There is no evidence of a blast wave in other injuries reported that would be easily found.
The aforementioned multiple rib fractures, accompanied by bleeding into the pleural cavity, occurred during Zolotarev's life and are the result of a strong force being applied to his chest during his fall, compression, or being thrown.
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 high force impact with subsequent fall, throw or bruise to the chest of 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 above-mentioned extensive comminuted fracture of the base and the vault of the cranium are of in vivo origin and are the result of a great force with the subsequent falling, hurling and concussion of Thibeaux-Brignolle
The extensive, depressed, multi-splintered (broken fornix and base of the skull) fracture could be the result of an impact of an automobile moving at high speed
These injuries, especially appearing in such a way without any damage to the soft tissue of the chest, are very similar to the type of trauma that results from the shock wave of a bomb.
The problem with any rocket stage getting near the pass is how they work. The need a main launge pad, we only have two. For the remotest possibility for the last stage to get over the pass it needs to be cruising in the upper atmosphere, if it comes down from there it's traveling at speed and breaks up . The rocket stage can't get there by a lower alltiduded as it would break up against the density of the air at lower altitudes . The acceleration is the problem. The previous photos you sent of largely intact rocket stages are the first stages of modern rockets that don't go into the upper atmosphere.
That's my problem with it anyway. How do we get a rocket stage above the pass that's not travelling at 7000mph and 200km up in the air?
-
I have trouble with any sort of blast or detonation..What is overlooked is the cardinal sign of blast damage, ruptured ear drums. None of them had ruptured ear drums! None had blood issuing from their ears. Case histories tell us that with blast damage to ears, equilibrium is compromised. You do not produce a linear trail in the snow of a mile made by those with vertigo. No demonstrable blast damage affected anybody at the tent, nor the tent itself..
The same energy that blows out ear drums also compresses organs, notably lungs. If you can not breathe owing to damaged bloody lungs you are not going to walk a mile. You are certainly not going to turn around and climb back toward the tent with blast lung. There was nobody found with an apron of blood on their outerwear. Additionally, blast lung is not selective. If one is affected, so are others. Again, the evidence of the bodies speaks to selective injuries.
Bones break and limbs get severed owing to projectile debris. Limbs were not broken on victims, nor trees.
A detonation will result in observable burns and/or chemical damage. We find no burned faces, scorched clothes nor damage to the tent consistent with a blast making thermal or chemical burns. Campfire burns to fingers and toes, yes, detonation , no.
What we have an abundance of is damage consistent with exposure to cold and failed attempts to cope with it, including crushed bodies from snow at the ravine.
When the pathologist opines that Zolo and Lyuda have injuries reminiscent of a blast or a sudden impact, what is not said is that all the R4 group should have been hit and propelled backwards. That is not what we find. Being crushed from the front or pressed from the back are equally likely. They are two sides of the same coin. A crushed snow cave or tunnel pressing it's victim against hard ground can not be ruled out. This is compression from the back affecting the front.
My position is that weather drove them out of the tent. They underestimated both the distance and duration. Those who made a fire sustained burns. Those who dug a snow cave got crushed. Those who thought they could return to the tent could not stand the weather. All natural, all understandable all necessitating no outside agency.
-
My position is that weather drove them out of the tent. They underestimated both the distance and duration. Those who made a fire sustained burns. Those who dug a snow cave got crushed. Those who thought they could return to the tent could not stand the weather. All natural, all understandable all necessitating no outside agency.
"All natural, all understandable"? Only in your imagination.
What drove them out of the tent was the light captured in Krivonischenko's final photograph. How could the two Yuris have started a fire when they didn't have any matches on them? A dead Slobodin up on the slope couldn't give them anything, and Kolevatov hadn't even arrived at the cedar tree at that time. And how could Zolotaryov have been digging a snow cave with a camera in his hand?
You believe whatever narrative makes you feel comfortable, but the evidence completely disproves your theory.
-
Lack of soot is very strong argument against kerosene burning, I agree.
Well, for what it's worth, there is this:
Re: Memorial conference (memory evening) of the Dyatlov group. February 2, 2024
8. The testimony of G.Batalova.
https://taina.li/forum/index.php?topic=695.0&ysclid=ln1m8wltjg818949476
"Batalova G. - 04/25/2006
According to Galina Batalova, who heard from the stories of the search engine Boris Slobtsov (they worked together on p/ya 320), who, by the way, together with Mikhail Sharavin, were the first to discover the abandoned tent of the Dyatlovites, barely noticeable on the snow-covered slope of Mount Holat-Chakhl:
"There was a layer of black dust (black precipitation) under a layer of snow on the upper slopes of the tent of the dead Woodpeckers found. The tent was apparently shaken off during the subsequent evacuation, and cleared of suspicious dust before the final inspection in the Department. Eyewitnesses of the search work suggested one of the assumptions that this dust may have been formed from exploded rocket fuel (such as heptyl), which is toxic in terms of human effects." (from the archive of E.Zinoviev)".
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1593.0
-
That’s a fair reading. “I’m not allowed” doesn’t automatically mean he was given the full truth about some hidden cause — it can also mean he was warned to stop discussing hypotheses, especially with students and searchers, while the investigation was still active.
Ivanov may have been under pressure from above simply to keep the case controlled and avoid speculation. In the Soviet setting, that alone could make a person withdrawn and cautious. Bartolomey’s impression is valuable, but it still tells us more about Ivanov’s changed behavior than about what exactly he was told.
-
Woodpeckers as in the bird?
-
"There was a layer of black dust (black precipitation) under a layer of snow on the upper slopes of the tent of the dead Woodpeckers found.".
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1593.0
Well, Lena has provided very straightforward translation of what Mrs.Batalova said:
"На верхних скатах найденной палатки погибших Дятловцев под слоем снега находился слой чёрной пыли".
Igor's surname should not be translated, and Dyatlov's group should not be called Woodpeckers.
Anyway, I am afraid we cannot fully rely on Mrs.Batalova's words, as she refers to Boris Slobtsov, who had excellent chance to mention a layer of black dust on the tent's roof in his interrogation, but never did. When I talked to Sergey Sogrin, he clearly explained that the environment on the slope was clean - no black dust, no unusual colours, just white snow and ice. And the tent could not be affected exclusively, surrounding snow should have also contained black dust, but it did not.
-
SM, thanks for the additional clarifications. When we try to sleuth out a mystery based on twice retold reminiscences, it is no easy task. A deposit of soot would be a real consideration, but then we would go down a new rabbit hole.
I've no use for the lights in the sky explainer for the tragedy. That does not mean that I can connect all the dots though. I do feel that what killed them happened in the woods and not at the tent. Of all the ideas I've heard, the cutting of the tent to escape being suffocated by snow makes the most sense to me. I would like to believe that this same crush of snow figured into the upper body injuries some suffered, but the trail of footprints does not support that idea.
-
Pyotr Bartolomey took part in the search Mar 13-23, 1959.
"I spent two weeks huddled down in a tent with Ivanov. He was asking me about everything and everybody.
After the first five bodies were found, he was summoned and we parted with the promise that we will continue the conversation. When Ivanov arrived back on the pass (as well as in Ivdel and Sverdlovsk) he was withdrawn, and didn't want to talk even to Maslennikov (the head of the search operation). Ivanov said to me – I can't talk to you, I am not allowed. It was obvious to me that he was told what happened, sworn to silence and he was afraid.
This reads like Ivanov was told something. I think what he was told is something like if you want to keep climbing higher as a civil servant, you should stick to the facts and not make up stories.
There's a few inconsistencies in Pytor's recollection's but the most obvious reason would be the Mansi being possible suspects . This was being discussed along with potential other murderer's and Ivanov would not be able to discuss the accusation or even the suspicion with searchers or students.
It is not permitted for Ivanov to speak about any line of inquiry as it is now a criminal investigation . ?
-
For Sarapuk. To clarify my comment, consider a comparison between a fairy tale like Peter Pan and Science Fiction 20000 Leagues. Fairies like Tinkerbelle are not real, never were and never will be. Please do not go simple on me .
I could say that anything is possible. Certainly, science fiction can become science fact eventually. So you mention fairies like Tinkerbell, but who's to say that they may not have an element of fact?
-
As a case files achievement recipient, can you share which achievement moved the forum to a more complete understanding of the DPI? Asking for a friend.
-
think we need to clear up the definitions here. You are mixing up 'mystical' with 'mysterious' or 'unproven.'The word mystical comes from the Greek mystikos, meaning a secret spiritual or divine power. Wind, cold weather, and avalanches are physical, natural phenomena. Even if you think the avalanche theory is imaginary, that makes it a disputed hypothesis—not a mystical theory. There is nothing spiritual about freezing to death.
[/quote]
Well, actually, mystical can be considered to be beyond human understanding. And the same applies to mysterious. The avalanche theory is not imaginary its a real theory, but I don't subscribe to it. And spiritual is also beyond understanding if it relates to non-physical things.
-
Ivanov
"Someone needed to frighten or punish people, or show their strength, and they did this, killing three people."
Anyone who believes Ivanov's letters doesn't need to deal with rockets, avalanches, or snow slabs. These things don't purposefully punish or kill anyone. That is why it can't work out for either of you. The evidence points in a completely different direction.
Only killing 3 people? Whatever was the cause of this incident, it ended up killing 9 people. Directly or indirectly.
-
@SURI
My approach is that we should not be selective in what Lev Ivanov had said. We should accept that he did not have a solid theory what had happened at the Pass.
No one can really have a solid theory if so many things are missing. Missing at the time that the rescuers found the bodies, and missing now. Ivanov is one of the most important people in this whole investigation. Of course, he can change his mind about what may have happened. And after the fall of the USSR, he certainly came out with information that he had kept bottled up all those years.
-
@Senior Maldonado
Ivanov knew exactly what had happened.
"I know all the details of this incident."
And at the forefront of it all was a motive. It seems you didn't fully understand his sentence and, consequently, failed to decipher what kind of "balls" he was actually talking about.
"...and many associated these mysterious phenomena, including unidentified flying objects with military tests, but investigative actions indicated that the case of Dyatlov group had nothing to do with military tests."
Therefore, it is first necessary to correctly determine the nature of these "balls" that possessed a motive.
"It is only necessary not to hush up their appearance, but to deeply understand their nature."
And balls there where. Many investigators concluded that they were fireballs of some kind. But they could also fit into the descriptions of orbs, a popular subject these days amongst the UFO brigade. Orbs under control.
-
What drove them out of the tent was the light captured in Krivonischenko's final photograph. How could the two Yuris have started a fire when they didn't have any matches on them? A dead Slobodin up on the slope couldn't give them anything, and Kolevatov hadn't even arrived at the cedar tree at that time. And how could Zolotaryov have been digging a snow cave with a camera in his hand?
I think we are getting somewhere by saying that a light drove the group from their tent. And could the so-called balls of light be that light? Or, as I suggest, those orbs?
-
As a case files achievement recipient, can you share which achievement moved the forum to a more complete understanding of the DPI? Asking for a friend.
That's an easy one to answer. No particular achievement. We have a collection of information. Some of it may be false; some of it may be true. Take your pick. We are definitely missing evidence, and we hope one day that evidence will show itself, or should I say that it will be shown. And presumably only the Russian Government can do that, or someone or something that releases that evidence.
-
What drove them out of the tent was the light captured in Krivonischenko's final photograph. How could the two Yuris have started a fire when they didn't have any matches on them? A dead Slobodin up on the slope couldn't give them anything, and Kolevatov hadn't even arrived at the cedar tree at that time. And how could Zolotaryov have been digging a snow cave with a camera in his hand?
I think we are getting somewhere by saying that a light drove the group from their tent. And could the so-called balls of light be that light? Or, as I suggest, those orbs?
Personally, I believe Yuri Yudin knew best what was actually shining out there. And it was a command...
This immediately reminded me of an encrypted command that is recorded in their unknown diary:
"In the evening it was decided that we will leave the tent exactly 8 minutes after waking up. Therefore, all have been awake and waiting for the command."
You can see his testimony here with English subtitles, starting from 9:30:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tDVtlZqzYlk
-
What drove them out of the tent was the light captured in Krivonischenko's final photograph. How could the two Yuris have started a fire when they didn't have any matches on them? A dead Slobodin up on the slope couldn't give them anything, and Kolevatov hadn't even arrived at the cedar tree at that time. And how could Zolotaryov have been digging a snow cave with a camera in his hand?
I think we are getting somewhere by saying that a light drove the group from their tent. And could the so-called balls of light be that light? Or, as I suggest, those orbs?
Personally, I believe Yuri Yudin knew best what was actually shining out there. And it was a command...
This immediately reminded me of an encrypted command that is recorded in their unknown diary:
"In the evening it was decided that we will leave the tent exactly 8 minutes after waking up. Therefore, all have been awake and waiting for the command."
You can see his testimony here with English subtitles, starting from 9:30:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tDVtlZqzYlk
Well found. Andrei Kirilenko
was one of the most influential men in the USSR. He nearly became the top man. A real worker with experience in the DONBAS Ukraine he rose to specialise in economics. Between 1955 and 1962 First Secretary of the Sverdlovsk Regional Party Committee. Appointed by Nikita Khrushev to do other economic work. Very close to Leonid Brezhnev. At the time of the Dyatlov incident Kirilenko would have been close to Khruschev. And as far as the Dyatlov incident is concerned its just a bit more evidence to suggest that the USSR Government had something to cover up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL3klZd8KTw
-
It is a semantic distinction, cover up versus down play. You do not cover up a tragedy by sending both civilians and military to find and retrieve the victims. You can down play the tragedy by wanting to exert control on the final services. This happened.
The Soviet government, if anything did not bring the awareness of a hiking accident into the national spotlight. That would lead to criticisms of the system, especially when the Soviet was instituting programs to promote world class youthful excellence in sport. That said, heads did roll in the aftermath in that period of adjustment where someone had to shoulder the blame. This was in the organization or sports club Igor and the others belonged to. They, the DP9 if all went well,could even earn certifications culminating in Master of Sport. The government was all for it.
On the other hand, when such endeavors end badly, there is little incentive to make a big deal out of it, unless the story can be spun into a tale of heroism, like an astronaut. That was not the case here. In fact, it was somewhat the opposite. Hikers took on a winter challenge poorly equipoed, supervised and against local advice. Other than bragging rights to have rounded Ortoten in winter, there was not much to crow about. This failure could be seen as a random chance event, hubris, but not heroism. The deceased were treated well and laid to rest with love and ceremony. The treatment of the case was certainly not a cover up, it was known then as well as now. We all understand there were aspects of the case which raise our eyebrows, but these were sins of omission, rather than deliberate obfuscation. It was down played as an unfortunate circumstance where I contend unprepared hikers were caught out by a slab slip, hypothermia and a collapsed temporary shelter. Again, to my point, a down play, which is being quiet about unfortunate truths is not a cover up which is the deliberated obfuscation of evidence to hide a homicidal conspiracy.
-
It was down played as an unfortunate circumstance where I contend unprepared hikers were caught out by a slab slip, hypothermia and a collapsed temporary shelter.
A snow slab avalanche hitting the tent does not align with Krivonischenko’s final photograph of the light source. Hypothermia fails to explain Krivonischenko's extensive burn injuries to his left leg and the fact that he bit off a piece of his own skin in agony and died. Furthermore, the collapse of the temporary shelter in the ravine is completely inconsistent with Zolotaryov having a camera wrapped around his hand—his final activity was certainly not digging a snow cave.
And I would name Krivonischenko as the greatest hero in the fight against the "elements."
-
A snow slab avalanche hitting the tent does not align with Krivonischenko’s final photograph of the light source.
Snow slab and avalanche do not justify probing the slope for radioactivity (Kikoin) either. Checking the hikers' tissues and clothes for radioactivity (Ivanov) cannot be inspired by snow movement theories also.
-
It was down played as an unfortunate circumstance where I contend unprepared hikers were caught out by a slab slip, hypothermia and a collapsed temporary shelter.
A snow slab avalanche hitting the tent does not align with Krivonischenko’s final photograph of the light source. Hypothermia fails to explain Krivonischenko's extensive burn injuries to his left leg and the fact that he bit off a piece of his own skin in agony and died. Furthermore, the collapse of the temporary shelter in the ravine is completely inconsistent with Zolotaryov having a camera wrapped around his hand—his final activity was certainly not digging a snow cave.
And I would name Krivonischenko as the greatest hero in the fight against the "elements."
The last photo is the end of the film shot in Krivonischenko's camera. No one is taking photos in the dark with these cameras . If you reach for one of these cameras to take a photo , it means you have time for your subject matter. It's not point and click and you don't go digging for a camera with one photo left in it. The camera was packed in the tent.
Hypothermia seems to explains everything about the burns and behaviour at the cedar . It's known that people freezing stick there limbs into fires. We can't just dismiss the known evidence. They can't feel there limbs burn but they know they are cold.
I fail to see your link about how collapse of a cave is inconsistent with Zolo allegedly holding a camera case. Zolo could still hold a camera or have it on his person. We don't know what his final activity was.
-
A snow slab avalanche hitting the tent does not align with Krivonischenko’s final photograph of the light source.
Snow slab and avalanche do not justify probing the slope for radioactivity (Kikoin) either. Checking the hikers' tissues and clothes for radioactivity (Ivanov) cannot be inspired by snow movement theories also.
Ivanov does not reference any probing of radioactivity on the slope , neither does he say there were any readings found in his later letters regarding the slope.
Snow movement and radioactivity are not mutually exclusive .The presence of one does not preclude the other, and neither phenomenon automatically implies a missile accident.
-
Ivanov does not reference any probing of radioactivity on the slope , neither does he say there were any readings found in his later letters regarding the slope.
Not exactly. Newspaper reporter Bogomolov refers to Ivanov's direct speach:
"Ivanov: I only managed to conduct a radiation examination. Even had to carry on location a device in a large wooden box.
Bogomolov: Geiger counter?
Ivanov: Yes, it looks like it. It was clicking a lot... I am sure there was radiation. But nobody told me how much, and I didn't find out."
Petr Bartolomey and Sergei Sogrin both remember very well that Kikoin had performed radioactivity checks with his advanced measurement device. Sogrin even dared to ask Kikoin about results, and received expected answer - nothing found.
-
https://youtu.be/GDlyasc5hjI
Пётр Бартоломей (Из жизни семьи репрессированного)
Pyotr Bartolomey (From the Life of a Family of a Repressed Person)
-
@Ziljoe
Unlike you, Yuri Yudin does not question this photograph at all. On the contrary, he directly connects this image with a flashlight shining on the tent and a sudden command to abandon the tent—a command that is, by the way, mentioned in the "unknown diary". This explains a lot and completes the overall picture of the incident. It shows that the group was not fleeing from an avalanche, but was responding to a specific light source that Krivonischenko attempted to photograph.
So according to you, Krivonischenko did not feel his own leg charring and burning, yet at that very same moment, out of unbearable pain from an external traumatic shock, he bit off a piece of his own skin from his hand? This makes absolutely no sense
-
Once again, I must interject a semantic difference. A slab slip is quantitatively different from an avalanche.. in this case it is a matter of volume. A 30 degree slope
Subjected to snow deposition of soft snow over older compacted snow can indeed slip. The movement can be triggered by a build up of light snow at the tent. Further, when the hikers levelled the base for their tent, they could have cut through the horizontal boundary between one and new snow layers facilitating eventual release.
Then the topic takes a spin. It always does. This time, yet another published expert who was not there hears,filters and expresses an opinion. All behavior is motivated. Money is a tried and true motivator.
So far, I make a distinction between cover up and down play. So far I make a distinction between slab slip and avalanche. Ziljoe is right minded by looking at science to explain physical evidence. That said, attributing a gnawed knuckle to a numb burnt shin makes for a better novel.
-
@Ziljoe
Unlike you, Yuri Yudin does not question this photograph at all. On the contrary, he directly connects this image with a flashlight shining on the tent and a sudden command to abandon the tent—a command that is, by the way, mentioned in the "unknown diary". This explains a lot and completes the overall picture of the incident. It shows that the group was not fleeing from an avalanche, but was responding to a specific light source that Krivonischenko attempted to photograph.
So according to you, Krivonischenko did not feel his own leg charring and burning, yet at that very same moment, out of unbearable pain from an external traumatic shock, he bit off a piece of his own skin from his hand? This makes absolutely no sense
So it's a photograph of a torch shinning in a tent or on a tent?.
We can look at the data we have, Krivonischenko was in a cold environment, not very well dressed for the temperature or conditions. However , he made the transition from the tent to the ravine and cedar .
We don't know exactly what happened at the ravine or the cedar but the evidence strongly points to activities that create a narrative of efforts to survive or battle the cold. There is nothing to suggest otherwise . Flooring to insulate bodies from the ground and a fire made from the only viable wood that could be resourced quickly given the tools and time they had.
I do not know of the unbearable pain that you speak off . There are a number of logical reasons for a peace of skin in his mouth, injury from breaking branches , dried out by trying to warm his hands , trying to gain feeling and use his mouth and violent chattering of teeth although that's the early stage of hypothermia.
We don't know the timing of the events at the fire or his injuries. What we do know from other case studies is people freezing will stick their limbs in naked flames , the limbs are dying and the cold and frostbite stop the surface nerves from giving sensation. When anyone gets to that stage , it's quite serious with out the proper care needed to stop amputation .
Krivonischenko has recorded frostbite on his hands and feet , this only happens whilst alive and this tells us the compromise situation the hikers were in. Their hands stop functioning, it's basically game over if you can't rectify the situation as you can't use your hands. If there is not even a shelter available or already made then nothing can be made to even keep you alive knowing that you will probably lose fingers even if you survive.
The only option is a snow shelter , they can't gather enough wood for a bonfire because of the environment and lack of tools and you can't just sit on some twigs hoping for the best and sunrise.
-
@Ziljoe
The light object is in motion. According to Yudin, someone came and shone a flashlight on them. I have no reason to disbelieve him. I hold the same opinion.
During the activities you described, skin does not just stay in your mouth. You spit it out. But here, Krivonischenko no longer had the strength to do so; he lost consciousness from the pain and died.The bitten finger proves he was conscious and reacting to the unbearable trauma of being burned, and he died shortly after. There is certainly no doubt, and the evidence suggests, that a fight for survival took place at the cedar.
This case is specific and cannot be compared to others as you so often do. It needs to be addressed on its own, otherwise, you will fall into a trap.
-
It is a semantic distinction, cover up versus down play. You do not cover up a tragedy by sending both civilians and military to find and retrieve the victims. You can down play the tragedy by wanting to exert control on the final services. This happened.
The Soviet government, if anything did not bring the awareness of a hiking accident into the national spotlight. That would lead to criticisms of the system, especially when the Soviet was instituting programs to promote world class youthful excellence in sport. That said, heads did roll in the aftermath in that period of adjustment where someone had to shoulder the blame. This was in the organization or sports club Igor and the others belonged to. They, the DP9 if all went well,could even earn certifications culminating in Master of Sport. The government was all for it.
On the other hand, when such endeavors end badly, there is little incentive to make a big deal out of it, unless the story can be spun into a tale of heroism, like an astronaut. That was not the case here. In fact, it was somewhat the opposite. Hikers took on a winter challenge poorly equipoed, supervised and against local advice. Other than bragging rights to have rounded Ortoten in winter, there was not much to crow about. This failure could be seen as a random chance event, hubris, but not heroism. The deceased were treated well and laid to rest with love and ceremony. The treatment of the case was certainly not a cover up, it was known then as well as now. We all understand there were aspects of the case which raise our eyebrows, but these were sins of omission, rather than deliberate obfuscation. It was down played as an unfortunate circumstance where I contend unprepared hikers were caught out by a slab slip, hypothermia and a collapsed temporary shelter. Again, to my point, a down play, which is being quiet about unfortunate truths is not a cover up which is the deliberated obfuscation of evidence to hide a homicidal conspiracy.
More strangeness. You are making statements as if you know the facts when no one does. And this post is full of made-up stuff. The Dyatlov Group were not poorly equipped for a start. They were well organised for such an expedition. How do you know what the USSR government was doing at the time of the incident and after? Much of the info became classified. And there was an exclusion zone around the site of the incident for some time afterwards.
-
A snow slab avalanche hitting the tent does not align with Krivonischenko’s final photograph of the light source.
Snow slab and avalanche do not justify probing the slope for radioactivity (Kikoin) either. Checking the hikers' tissues and clothes for radioactivity (Ivanov) cannot be inspired by snow movement theories also.
Ivanov does not reference any probing of radioactivity on the slope , neither does he say there were any readings found in his later letters regarding the slope.
Snow movement and radioactivity are not mutually exclusive .The presence of one does not preclude the other, and neither phenomenon automatically implies a missile accident.
Ivanov was fully aware of what went on during the search for the bodies. A Geiger counter was used in that search.
-
Ivanov does not reference any probing of radioactivity on the slope , neither does he say there were any readings found in his later letters regarding the slope.
Not exactly. Newspaper reporter Bogomolov refers to Ivanov's direct speach:
"Ivanov: I only managed to conduct a radiation examination. Even had to carry on location a device in a large wooden box.
Bogomolov: Geiger counter?
Ivanov: Yes, it looks like it. It was clicking a lot... I am sure there was radiation. But nobody told me how much, and I didn't find out."
Petr Bartolomey and Sergei Sogrin both remember very well that Kikoin had performed radioactivity checks with his advanced measurement device. Sogrin even dared to ask Kikoin about results, and received expected answer - nothing found.
Ivanov was leading the investigation at the site of the incident, and he knew exactly what was going on. He was aware that a Geiger counter was being used at the site. There are no reports of radiation being found at the site, but that doesn't mean that radiation wasn't found. It was certainly found on the bodies later on.
-
https://youtu.be/GDlyasc5hjI
Пётр Бартоломей (Из жизни семьи репрессированного)
Pyotr Bartolomey (From the Life of a Family of a Repressed Person)
It won't translate to English.
-
Once again, I must interject a semantic difference. A slab slip is quantitatively different from an avalanche.. in this case it is a matter of volume. A 30 degree slope
Subjected to snow deposition of soft snow over older compacted snow can indeed slip. The movement can be triggered by a build up of light snow at the tent. Further, when the hikers levelled the base for their tent, they could have cut through the horizontal boundary between one and new snow layers facilitating eventual release.
Then the topic takes a spin. It always does. This time, yet another published expert who was not there hears,filters and expresses an opinion. All behavior is motivated. Money is a tried and true motivator.
So far, I make a distinction between cover up and down play. So far I make a distinction between slab slip and avalanche. Ziljoe is right minded by looking at science to explain physical evidence. That said, attributing a gnawed knuckle to a numb burnt shin makes for a better novel.
You sound like you are describing yourself. Another published expert who was not there. Etc.
-
Ill take that as a compliment since we dipping into ad hominem logical fallacies. I have a book deal with the Tuna Fish publishing company, but it seems fishy to me.
A slab slide does not equate with an avalanche with regard to scale and volume. A cover up is categorically different from down play. I prefer the slab slide as the impetus and down play as the consequence.
-
Ill take that as a compliment since we dipping into ad hominem logical fallacies. I have a book deal with the Tuna Fish publishing company, but it seems fishy to me.
A slab slide does not equate with an avalanche with regard to scale and volume. A cover up is categorically different from down play. I prefer the slab slide as the impetus and down play as the consequence.
I'm certainly not attacking anyone. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. So long as their opinions are not foisted on us as if the opinions were the law or were what actually happened. No one knows. YET.
-
Conference 2024
In this video, looking at this new photograph, Pyotr Bartolomey completely rules out an avalanche. There could not have been an avalanche there. This also aligns with Ivanov's letters, in which Ivanov implies something else entirely.
(https://i.ibb.co/ccgNnz9b/1000062152.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pN6nIsQaND8
-
The "new photo" is a fake and photo shopped. You can see the repeating and overlaid snow patterns copied plus it seems to originate from an earlier book that believes it was an avalanche .