Recent Posts

21

General Discussion / Re: New Suspect In Case

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 03:59:37 PM »

All behavior is motivated. In this scenario, the motivation is economic. If it could be demonstrated that governmental negligence produced the light in the sky ( read missile) then the victim's families would demand compensation. However, despite numerous fly overs by rescue and supply helicopters and the alleged light aircraft used by geologists, not a single bit of confirmation reached the case files. Add to this that Mansi and later tourists were not restricted by an exclusion zone and you simply have no case for human agency causing the disaster. Conspiracy advocates can not demonstrate that the families, the investigators or the Mansi benefited financially by a cover up. No need to read between the lines. The lines are clear enough.

Actually, there was an exclusion zone for some time after the events. I say events because this case suggests more than one event. It suggests an event that forced them to camp on the mountainside. An event that drove them from their tent. An event that had them fighting for survival at the forest. An event that killed some of them brutally.

22

General Discussion / Re: New Suspect In Case

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 03:55:21 PM »

Lights in ths sky might be used to explain the evacuation of the tent or the demise of the R4, but not both, or neither. The condition of the forest fir trees did not make anyone think it was scorched other than Ivanov. The crush on Zolo and Lyuda was not seen on others, so one would have to argue they were exposed while others sheltered and were consequently blown back. Who is going to see the lights in the sky and stand to face it when everyone else has the sense to hide from it?

The lights in the sky must be man made or natural. Of course consliracy theorists like man made. There was no debris, nor burns. Radiation was inconsistent with a warhead. Was it consistent with a powered spy satellite?  I think the rocket was launched in the wrong direction.

If any conspiracy theorist wants this idea to stick then the answer will be found in printed records,  not on the slope. Show us something we have not seen and you get your courthouse park statue.

I thought you had already decided that it was all a weather event?

23

General Discussion / Re: New Suspect In Case

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 03:52:23 PM »

All behavior is motivated. All behavior is motivated. There is no actual motivation for killing eight productive educated and valuable Soviet youth and an honorable Soviet veteran. None. Instead, there is ample motivation for conspiracy theorists to invent what they can not prove to support a belief which they can only defend by the invented constructs. This circular type of reasoning does not move the needle toward truth. It is useful for the making of media.

In spite of all the expeditions to the Pass, and all the ceremony, and examinations, the reality is that there is nothing to find. Nothing will be found because Nature is not motivated. That is the difference. Conspiracy advocates anthropomorphize weather into something attributable to things with legs. The interesting thing is how tenacious the beliefs are.

So you are suggesting that all the research expeditions to the Dyatlov Pass are a waste of time. You have decided that it was a weather event that caused all those injuries in various locations, including the mutilations. 

24

General Discussion / Re: New Suspect In Case

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 03:49:34 PM »

When a motive and selective killing are present, what else would you call it? Ivanov knew perfectly well what he was investigating, don't you think? And if that doesn't align with your theory, then you probably have the wrong theory.
[/quote]

How do you know that Ivanov knew perfectly well what he was investigating?

25

General Discussion / Re: Route to Otorten

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 03:46:46 PM »

If we factor in that they were fatigued from their deep snow climb to the high pass and beaten back once by the weather, then we can understand them rising late in the morning around 11 o'clock. Then, add in the additional time spent in creating a cache site, deciding what to stow in it and securing it. More time is used up. Next consider that camp was broken after the cache was made. Now we have a late in the afternoon start. If they choose to break camp, they mean to make progress. They know they won't get that far, but it is OK. Supposedly the next day they would have gotten to Ortoten along the ridge route. Any progress is good progress.

It has been said their camping gear was servicable. One does not destroy servicable outdoor gear without reason.
Since there were no prints around the tent indicating two or four legged intruders,,this leaves weather as the likely cause for damaging the tent. That would be most necessary if the risk of suffocation under a snow packed canvas happened. Further, since knifing out of a tent is said to be basic avalanche training technique, some accumulation of snow on the tent would elicit that response. In short, the last camp was made late in the day. It was pushed down by a snow pile, probably wind driven. Everything else follows as an attempt to clear the area, get warm, survive the night and return. Easy to say, fatally hard to do.

It's been decided so many times that an avalanche was not possible on that slope, but you are still suggesting that! And if they were so tired, why would they want to slog up onto the mountainside and pitch camp in bad weather conditions? That doesn't make sense at all.

26

UFO / Re: picture yeti

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 03:38:40 PM »

Have you ever seen a “yeti” wearing a jacket of one color and pants of another?
We often tend to strike peculiar “poses”!
The cameras used aren’t “SLRs,” and the background comes out blurry when the settings are off!
In any case, it’s the same pose as in photo #7 from the unidentified camera, and the same build, same shoulders, same proportions, same hood on the head, and same “V” neckline—surely just a coincidence, right?
In one photo, the subject is shown in a three-quarter view; in the other, more in profile.

In the photo that is unidentifiable, the body, arms and legs appear to be longer. The arms are thinner, suggesting no outer covering like a jacket. 

27

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by Ziljoe on August 10, 2026, 03:09:04 PM »

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?

28

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by SURI on August 10, 2026, 01:46:02 PM »

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.

29

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by Senior Maldonado on August 10, 2026, 12:20:43 PM »

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.

30

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by Ziljoe on August 10, 2026, 11:07:48 AM »

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?