Recent Posts

1

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by Senior Maldonado on Today at 12:05:51 AM »

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.

2

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by Ziljoe on August 09, 2026, 10:19:39 PM »

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.

3

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by GlennM on August 09, 2026, 03:13:15 PM »

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

4

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by Senior Maldonado on August 09, 2026, 12:00:26 PM »

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.

5

General Discussion / Re: An experiment with psychostimulants that reportedly went very wrong

« Last post by GlennM on August 09, 2026, 11:40:33 AM »

OK, we have some of these pills. I know they are not legal. I can make enough for all of us if I cut them with my Flemish knife.

6

General Discussion / Re: An experiment with psychostimulants that reportedly went very wrong

« Last post by Ziljoe on August 08, 2026, 08:26:08 PM »

Hi

I’m not looking for a confrontation at all, as I appreciate impartiality and logic too! My theory doesn’t explain the injuries—collapsed rib cages and skull fractures—but it could account for the irrational nature of the DP9’s behavior and the apparent cover-up of the investigation by the authorities.
😉

No confrontation at all. Your theory doesn't actually have to explain the other stuff. For me the other injuries look like they happened by the environment.

If you can solve the reason for leaving the tent in the first place then that would be a mile stone and an anchor for everything else.

I'll sit on the fence about it being a cover-up.

7

General Discussion / Re: An experiment with psychostimulants that reportedly went very wrong

« Last post by Ziljoe on August 08, 2026, 08:21:22 PM »

@Topaze

I have a lot of respect for the work done by Igor B — he’s built a long, structured, and rational sequence of events, and whether anyone agrees with it or not, it’s a plausible model worth engaging with.

Wolverine defensive musk isn’t comparable to flatulence. Chemically, it contains volatile sulfur compounds — thiols and thioacetates — which activate the same sensory pathways triggered by military riot‑control agents such as CS and CR gas. These compounds cause acute ocular irritation, temporary visual impairment, coughing, airway irritation and disorientation. In a confined space like a tent, even a small discharge produces a high‑concentration aerosol that forces immediate evacuation — exactly the same behavioural response seen with engineered irritants.

It’s a theory, and it shouldn’t be sniffed at.

Regarding your hypothesis, please continue. However, it is going to be critiqued — that’s the nature of running a hypothesis, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want people agreeing with you for the sake of it.

For me, if medical clinical evidence and studies have found that hypothermia victims retain fluid in their bladder, I will mention that point — not to criticise your theory, but to debate the flaw in the reasoning. Your argument that a stimulant is the only reason for bladder retention can’t stand on its own when clinical evidence states otherwise.

8

General Discussion / Re: An experiment with psychostimulants that reportedly went very wrong

« Last post by Topaze on August 08, 2026, 07:51:26 PM »

Hi

I’m not looking for a confrontation at all, as I appreciate impartiality and logic too! My theory doesn’t explain the injuries—collapsed rib cages and skull fractures—but it could account for the irrational nature of the DP9’s behavior and the apparent cover-up of the investigation by the authorities.
😉

9

General Discussion / Re: An experiment with psychostimulants that reportedly went very wrong

« Last post by GlennM on August 08, 2026, 04:36:45 PM »

Topaz, thank you for the correction. Like all theories, your's has merit. Also, like all theories it is selective in what evidence supports it and whad additional speculation is employed to defend it. Nothing new there either. Ziljoe is the most fair-minded and impartial in investigator on this forum. It would be unwise to cross swords with him. You can certainly tilt your lance at me though.

I do not have any evidence pointing to psychoactive drug abuse, though I toyed with ergot poisoning in their bread. I can allow for amphetamine use if they could source it. The 50s and 60s were rife with drug experimentation. As I mentioned before, the tissue samples did not yield reports in the case files. Therefore, though you can actually prove nothing but make a strong argument for plausibility, it puts your idea in the same box as every other one, mine included!

If in time a revelation proves you right, you get to say I told you so. Until then please suffer our critiques and posts, because if we stop, the forum will be the worse for it.

10

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by Ziljoe on August 08, 2026, 03:23:23 PM »

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 ?.