81
General Discussion / Re: 100 questions to Askinadzi
« Last post by SURI on May 06, 2026, 09:40:02 PM »You still don't realize that Ivanov had irrefutable evidence of the crime - diaries and photographs. Not even AI can change that.
|
|
Recent Posts
82
General Discussion / Re: 100 questions to Askinadzi
« Last post by Ziljoe on May 06, 2026, 08:29:10 PM »Yes, probably all Intertwined, saves everyone from any real consequences. I think that's why Ivanovo was annoyed that there was no serious action taken against the hike organisers.
I also think hikes were improved after the DPI , it was used as a model to improve oversights etc.
It is a nodding to a shoulder shrug for sure and I suppose when lighting strikes and kills it is or was classed as an act of God. so in English it would read something more like, "the action of an unspecified natural force".
I also think hikes were improved after the DPI , it was used as a model to improve oversights etc.
It is a nodding to a shoulder shrug for sure and I suppose when lighting strikes and kills it is or was classed as an act of God. so in English it would read something more like, "the action of an unspecified natural force".
83
General Discussion / Re: 100 questions to Askinadzi
« Last post by GlennM on May 06, 2026, 07:52:47 PM »The sloppy methodology is like saying, " Who can say?" with a shoulder shrug. It could also be understood as a somewhat soft way of saying " an act of God," in a country who says religion is the opiate of the people. Too, being described as unknown, it rules out murder, mayhem and other known uses of force. It is a way of saying" we can not say for sure what happened to your sons and daughters, but we certainly do not believe there was human agency in their deaths. It preserves Igor's reputation because it is too vague to imply he made a bad decision as leader.. For that matter, it preserves everyone's honor because infighting is ruled out.
84
General Discussion / Re: 100 questions to Askinadzi
« Last post by Ziljoe on May 06, 2026, 06:35:33 PM »That’s how I see it at the moment as well, and it’s broadly what the original conclusion was pointing toward. The context is that a weather‑driven event forced them out of the tent, and once they committed to leaving, they simply couldn’t recover from the situation. The “unknown force” is only “unknown” because it was unwitnessed and transient — not because it was exotic.
As for the investigation, the replies make it clear that it was sloppy in places, probably for a mix of reasons: accountability, inexperience, and the fact that mountain tragedies weren’t treated as forensic crime scenes in 1959. People died in the mountains every year; this was seen as another such case until the injuries complicated things.
The answers about the discovery of the den and the handling of the bodies were very revealing.
I’m still on the fence about how exactly the ravine filled. I missed a good opportunity to ask Askinadzi what was directly under the den branches or how far the running water was from the flooring. I still wrestle with whether it was a snow‑load collapse or whether the stream bed was open and flowing — the fire at the cedar does suggest they were trying to dry things, which complicates the picture.
Still, the replies were articulate and consistent, and they give a clearer sense of how chaotic and physically demanding the search actually was.
As for the investigation, the replies make it clear that it was sloppy in places, probably for a mix of reasons: accountability, inexperience, and the fact that mountain tragedies weren’t treated as forensic crime scenes in 1959. People died in the mountains every year; this was seen as another such case until the injuries complicated things.
The answers about the discovery of the den and the handling of the bodies were very revealing.
I’m still on the fence about how exactly the ravine filled. I missed a good opportunity to ask Askinadzi what was directly under the den branches or how far the running water was from the flooring. I still wrestle with whether it was a snow‑load collapse or whether the stream bed was open and flowing — the fire at the cedar does suggest they were trying to dry things, which complicates the picture.
Still, the replies were articulate and consistent, and they give a clearer sense of how chaotic and physically demanding the search actually was.
85
General Discussion / Re: 100 questions to Askinadzi
« Last post by GlennM on May 06, 2026, 06:12:20 PM »Order=accountability
Sloppiness= deflection
I still feel that the unknown force is labeled that way because, aside from translation diffuculties, the DP9 were not found in or near the tent. The mysterious force, a transient weather driven event. is by definition unwitnessed and undocumented in diaries, therefore unknown (unattested).Compelling? Yes, enough for persuade them to shelter in the forest. Their diffuculties stemmed from the failure of the tent to protect them, the immediacy of their need to make a decision,, the distance to shelter, the drop in temperature, and hazards along the descent. Once they elect to leave the tent, there was no reason to return until conditions improved. The clock ran out.
Sloppiness= deflection
I still feel that the unknown force is labeled that way because, aside from translation diffuculties, the DP9 were not found in or near the tent. The mysterious force, a transient weather driven event. is by definition unwitnessed and undocumented in diaries, therefore unknown (unattested).Compelling? Yes, enough for persuade them to shelter in the forest. Their diffuculties stemmed from the failure of the tent to protect them, the immediacy of their need to make a decision,, the distance to shelter, the drop in temperature, and hazards along the descent. Once they elect to leave the tent, there was no reason to return until conditions improved. The clock ran out.
86
General Discussion / Re: 100 questions to Askinadzi
« Last post by Ziljoe on May 06, 2026, 02:25:06 PM »We are a grumpy lot, I found the answers quite revealing , I used AI to try and understand Russian in it's context. It may be wrong , but the short answer as I understand it , to my questions at least , was that the search was sloppy and early errors had been made. AI notes that it was easier to be sloppy because it avoids responsibility.
We can see from the other questions and replies the logic of the discovery of the den and the handling of the of the bodies, first into sleeping bags liners, then rubber bags and then man handled into the helicopter. The ravine 4 body positions would have arrived at the morgue in a very different state as to how they were found. A small chance of some cross contamination too.
AI below if you're interested.
Here is a more literal, closer‑to‑the‑Russian rendering of Askinadzi’s answer to Question 23.
This version keeps the Russian structure, tone, and implications intact — without smoothing it into natural English.
---
⭐ Literal English Translation of #23
> “The entire history of ‘Dyatlov‑studies’ shows that no one, even now, can understand what this force really was… the force that the group was unable to overcome. From this come the many versions — from more or less plausible to outright absurd.
>
> It very much looks as though, during the search, someone was constantly directing us onto a false path — starting with slipping in, supposedly, their tracks, and ending with the blurring of the search strategy. After all, Atmanaki had already paid attention to the little fir trees with their tops cut off that led us to the den, and Blinov noted this too, but these thoughts remained only thoughts.
>
> The lack of system in the search process was needed by someone.”
---
⭐ Notes on the literal meaning
To keep it literal, I preserved:
- “направлял по ложному пути” → “directing us onto a false path”
(idiomatic in Russian for misleading/confusing, not necessarily malicious)
- “подсовывания, якобы, их следов” → “slipping in, supposedly, their tracks”
(he is criticising misidentification, not claiming planted evidence)
- “размывания стратегии поисков” → “blurring of the search strategy”
(loss of clarity, confusion)
- “кому-то была нужна” → “was needed by someone”
(Soviet bureaucratic phrasing meaning: someone benefited from the chaos, not a killer)
This version stays as close to the Russian as possible without becoming unreadable.
Hyper‑literal translation of #23
> “All the history of ‘Dyatlov‑studies’ says that no one up to now can understand what represents in reality the force… which the group was not able to overcome. From here also the mass of versions — from more‑or‑less plausible to openly absurd.
>
> Very similar to (it seems very much like) that someone during the search all the time was directing them onto a false path — beginning from the slipping‑in, supposedly, of their tracks, up to the blurring of the search strategy. After all, about the little fir trees with cut‑off tops, which led us to the den, Atmanaki had already paid attention, and Blinov noted this too, but these thoughts remained only thoughts.
>
> The lack‑of‑system of the search process was needed by someone.”
---
⭐ Notes on the hyper‑literal meaning
This version preserves:
“направлял по ложному пути”
→ “directing onto a false path”
(does not imply a villain; can mean confusion, misdirection, poor leadership)
“подсовывания, якобы, их следов”
→ “slipping‑in, supposedly, their tracks”
(he is criticising misidentification, not claiming planted evidence)
“размывания стратегии поисков”
→ “blurring of the search strategy”
(loss of clarity, muddling)
“кому‑то была нужна”
→ “was needed by someone”
(Soviet bureaucratic idiom: someone benefited from the chaos — usually meaning officials avoiding responsibility)
Here’s the thing, — when Askinadzi says:
“Бессистемность процесса поисков кому‑то была нужна.”
“The lack of system in the search process was needed by someone.”
…he is not talking about killers, saboteurs, or attackers.
In Soviet bureaucratic language, that phrase has a very specific meaning.
It means:
“Someone in authority preferred chaos because it protected them.”
Not because they were hiding a crime —
but because order creates responsibility, and responsibility creates blame.
Let me break down the logic in a way that fits the 1959 Soviet context.
---
⭐ 1. Sloppiness protects people from accountability
In the Soviet system:
- If you document everything properly → you can be blamed for mistakes.
- If you run a tight, systematic search → you can be held responsible for failures.
- If you follow procedure → you can be punished for not following it perfectly.
But if everything is:
- chaotic
- undocumented
- contradictory
- improvised
- confused
…then no one can be blamed, because no one can prove who made which decision.
This is what “benefited someone” means.
---
⭐ 2. Chaos prevents a clear chain of responsibility
If the search is sloppy:
- no one can say who missed what
- no one can say who failed to document the tent
- no one can say who misinterpreted tracks
- no one can say who ignored the cut trees
- no one can say who gave the wrong orders
In a system where careers could be destroyed for “incorrect actions,”
chaos is safer than clarity.
---
⭐ 3. It also protects the leadership from criticism
Maslennikov, Tempalov, and the local authorities were under pressure.
A systematic search would have revealed:
- procedural mistakes
- poor coordination
- missed clues
- contradictory decisions
- lack of proper documentation
A chaotic search hides all of that.
So “benefited someone” =
benefited the people in charge, because it prevented scrutiny.
---
⭐ 4. It also prevents Moscow from asking uncomfortable questions
If the search had been:
- well‑documented
- systematic
- precise
- professional
…then Moscow could have asked:
- Why was the tent not photographed properly?
- Why were the tracks not measured?
- Why were the cedar and ravine scenes not secured?
- Why were decisions inconsistent?
- Why were search groups not coordinated?
But if everything is a mess, the answer becomes:
“It was chaos, comrade. Hard conditions. No one’s fault.”
That is a very Soviet way to avoid trouble.
---
⭐ 5. It does NOT imply a conspiracy or staged evidence
This is important.
In Russian, the phrase:
“кому‑то была нужна”
does not imply:
- murderers
- attackers
- secret agents
- staged scenes
- planted bodies
It implies:
- bureaucratic self‑protection
- avoiding responsibility
- covering incompetence
- not wanting to be blamed
It’s about administrative psychology, not a hidden enemy.
---
⭐ 6. So how could sloppiness benefit someone?
✔ It prevents blame
✔ It hides mistakes
✔ It avoids paperwork
✔ It avoids Moscow’s scrutiny
✔ It protects careers
✔ It avoids having to explain failures
✔ It lets everyone say “we did our best”
In short:
Sloppiness = safety.
Order = danger.
That’s the Soviet logic.
We can see from the other questions and replies the logic of the discovery of the den and the handling of the of the bodies, first into sleeping bags liners, then rubber bags and then man handled into the helicopter. The ravine 4 body positions would have arrived at the morgue in a very different state as to how they were found. A small chance of some cross contamination too.
AI below if you're interested.
Here is a more literal, closer‑to‑the‑Russian rendering of Askinadzi’s answer to Question 23.
This version keeps the Russian structure, tone, and implications intact — without smoothing it into natural English.
---
⭐ Literal English Translation of #23
> “The entire history of ‘Dyatlov‑studies’ shows that no one, even now, can understand what this force really was… the force that the group was unable to overcome. From this come the many versions — from more or less plausible to outright absurd.
>
> It very much looks as though, during the search, someone was constantly directing us onto a false path — starting with slipping in, supposedly, their tracks, and ending with the blurring of the search strategy. After all, Atmanaki had already paid attention to the little fir trees with their tops cut off that led us to the den, and Blinov noted this too, but these thoughts remained only thoughts.
>
> The lack of system in the search process was needed by someone.”
---
⭐ Notes on the literal meaning
To keep it literal, I preserved:
- “направлял по ложному пути” → “directing us onto a false path”
(idiomatic in Russian for misleading/confusing, not necessarily malicious)
- “подсовывания, якобы, их следов” → “slipping in, supposedly, their tracks”
(he is criticising misidentification, not claiming planted evidence)
- “размывания стратегии поисков” → “blurring of the search strategy”
(loss of clarity, confusion)
- “кому-то была нужна” → “was needed by someone”
(Soviet bureaucratic phrasing meaning: someone benefited from the chaos, not a killer)
This version stays as close to the Russian as possible without becoming unreadable.
Hyper‑literal translation of #23
> “All the history of ‘Dyatlov‑studies’ says that no one up to now can understand what represents in reality the force… which the group was not able to overcome. From here also the mass of versions — from more‑or‑less plausible to openly absurd.
>
> Very similar to (it seems very much like) that someone during the search all the time was directing them onto a false path — beginning from the slipping‑in, supposedly, of their tracks, up to the blurring of the search strategy. After all, about the little fir trees with cut‑off tops, which led us to the den, Atmanaki had already paid attention, and Blinov noted this too, but these thoughts remained only thoughts.
>
> The lack‑of‑system of the search process was needed by someone.”
---
⭐ Notes on the hyper‑literal meaning
This version preserves:
“направлял по ложному пути”
→ “directing onto a false path”
(does not imply a villain; can mean confusion, misdirection, poor leadership)
“подсовывания, якобы, их следов”
→ “slipping‑in, supposedly, their tracks”
(he is criticising misidentification, not claiming planted evidence)
“размывания стратегии поисков”
→ “blurring of the search strategy”
(loss of clarity, muddling)
“кому‑то была нужна”
→ “was needed by someone”
(Soviet bureaucratic idiom: someone benefited from the chaos — usually meaning officials avoiding responsibility)
Here’s the thing, — when Askinadzi says:
“Бессистемность процесса поисков кому‑то была нужна.”
“The lack of system in the search process was needed by someone.”
…he is not talking about killers, saboteurs, or attackers.
In Soviet bureaucratic language, that phrase has a very specific meaning.
It means:
“Someone in authority preferred chaos because it protected them.”
Not because they were hiding a crime —
but because order creates responsibility, and responsibility creates blame.
Let me break down the logic in a way that fits the 1959 Soviet context.
---
⭐ 1. Sloppiness protects people from accountability
In the Soviet system:
- If you document everything properly → you can be blamed for mistakes.
- If you run a tight, systematic search → you can be held responsible for failures.
- If you follow procedure → you can be punished for not following it perfectly.
But if everything is:
- chaotic
- undocumented
- contradictory
- improvised
- confused
…then no one can be blamed, because no one can prove who made which decision.
This is what “benefited someone” means.
---
⭐ 2. Chaos prevents a clear chain of responsibility
If the search is sloppy:
- no one can say who missed what
- no one can say who failed to document the tent
- no one can say who misinterpreted tracks
- no one can say who ignored the cut trees
- no one can say who gave the wrong orders
In a system where careers could be destroyed for “incorrect actions,”
chaos is safer than clarity.
---
⭐ 3. It also protects the leadership from criticism
Maslennikov, Tempalov, and the local authorities were under pressure.
A systematic search would have revealed:
- procedural mistakes
- poor coordination
- missed clues
- contradictory decisions
- lack of proper documentation
A chaotic search hides all of that.
So “benefited someone” =
benefited the people in charge, because it prevented scrutiny.
---
⭐ 4. It also prevents Moscow from asking uncomfortable questions
If the search had been:
- well‑documented
- systematic
- precise
- professional
…then Moscow could have asked:
- Why was the tent not photographed properly?
- Why were the tracks not measured?
- Why were the cedar and ravine scenes not secured?
- Why were decisions inconsistent?
- Why were search groups not coordinated?
But if everything is a mess, the answer becomes:
“It was chaos, comrade. Hard conditions. No one’s fault.”
That is a very Soviet way to avoid trouble.
---
⭐ 5. It does NOT imply a conspiracy or staged evidence
This is important.
In Russian, the phrase:
“кому‑то была нужна”
does not imply:
- murderers
- attackers
- secret agents
- staged scenes
- planted bodies
It implies:
- bureaucratic self‑protection
- avoiding responsibility
- covering incompetence
- not wanting to be blamed
It’s about administrative psychology, not a hidden enemy.
---
⭐ 6. So how could sloppiness benefit someone?
✔ It prevents blame
✔ It hides mistakes
✔ It avoids paperwork
✔ It avoids Moscow’s scrutiny
✔ It protects careers
✔ It avoids having to explain failures
✔ It lets everyone say “we did our best”
In short:
Sloppiness = safety.
Order = danger.
That’s the Soviet logic.
87
General Discussion / Re: 100 questions to Askinadzi
« Last post by SURI on May 06, 2026, 12:38:40 PM »Zolo had a camera. Snap, snap...
88
General Discussion / Re: 100 questions to Askinadzi
« Last post by amashilu on May 06, 2026, 12:07:06 PM »It is now certain that Zolo wore no camera.
I don't think this is certain.
89
General Discussion / Re: 100 questions to Askinadzi
« Last post by GlennM on May 06, 2026, 11:57:02 AM »What a perfectly worded May 5th question and answer session! That notebook may exist somewhere! It is now certain that Zolo wore no camera. The theory of a collapsed snow cave was not confirmed. The cut trousers are evidence that the Yuris preceeded the Ravine 4 in death.
The new lines of inquiry might be why the trousers were found above and not on the mat branches? What does that difference in depth imply?
Was the location of the running stream known when the den was discovered?
Of course all of these things do nothing to address why the Ravine 4 died as they did.
Appreciated!
The new lines of inquiry might be why the trousers were found above and not on the mat branches? What does that difference in depth imply?
Was the location of the running stream known when the den was discovered?
Of course all of these things do nothing to address why the Ravine 4 died as they did.
Appreciated!
90
General Discussion / Connection between broken ribs and missing eyes
« Last post by amashilu on May 06, 2026, 07:27:10 AM »I am sure someone on some forum (maybe even this one) has brought this up, but I don't recall reading anything about it.
High pressure blast waves can blow out the eyes, as well as break the ribs. If, for example, there was a high pressure blast wave and Lyuda and Zolo were positioned right in front of the blast and thus were hardest hit of the group members, this could explain both their rib injuries and their missing eyes.
AI notes damage to eyes: "Globe Trauma (Eye Damage): Rupture of the eyeball or severe damage due to sudden compression."
High pressure blast waves can blow out the eyes, as well as break the ribs. If, for example, there was a high pressure blast wave and Lyuda and Zolo were positioned right in front of the blast and thus were hardest hit of the group members, this could explain both their rib injuries and their missing eyes.
AI notes damage to eyes: "Globe Trauma (Eye Damage): Rupture of the eyeball or severe damage due to sudden compression."