Recent Posts

81

General Discussion / Re: Regarding the photos from the camera found on Zolotaryov

« Last post by GlennM on August 21, 2026, 02:58:51 PM »

Who in the world would photoshop a camera on Zolo's neck and why in the world would it be done. It is clear that the camea is faked but, how does that have any bearing on anything? Certainly no insights have come from the developed photos so far.

82

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

« Last post by GlennM on August 21, 2026, 07:26:35 AM »

There are experimental drugs and recreational drugs.  In both cases, in the broadest terms,  a drug is a pain killer.The pain could be real or imagined. I can not argue for an experimental drug being implicated in the DPI. By definition, experimental implies having a control which is standard of comparison in order to determine if the outcomes of the variable being tested are valid and reliable. Recreational drug consumption have no such requirement. Their use becomes a demonstration of an effect, a show and tell experience.

Ten people, reduced to nine set out to achieve a legitimate goal. In the process they experience Nature and each other's company. Anyone who takes a psychoactive drug is going to compromise the safety and progress of the group especially if we are considering LSD type drugs. Stimulants, such as amphetamines might be of service, but there is nothing in the case files to support it. Additionally, a person can not escape from themself.  there is always the lingering thought, " Was it me, or was it the drug in me that completed the challenge?" Think about doping in bicycle racing or any endeavor where a performance enhancing drug was at work. Again, you can't escape from yourself. Amphetamines can not be equated with coffee in this example.

I like the idea that the hikers exhibited a mixture of inertia, focus, attitude and fun all evidenced by the diaries and case records. I believe that leaving the tent on 1079 was not drug induced behavior. I find it more probable that slashing another person with a Finnish knife is more likely than attacking old canvas by someone in a drugged state. To extend the idea, if the canvas were slashed, wrestling the knife away from the berserker is sure to result in cut wounds. No hiker had knife wounds.

I am putting this idea to rest.

83

General Discussion / Re: Route to Otorten

« Last post by GlennM on August 18, 2026, 01:48:35 PM »

You are right. As of today, we have no unifying explanation for all the why or the how questions of the tragedy, so like the six blind men describing an elephant, we each add something to the investigation.

If we have fresh data in the form of weather reports,toxicology, diaries, artifacts and reminices, we get closer to the true closing of the case or another hand on the elephant.

The forum is currently quite slow. Then again there is always the Voynich mauscript.

84

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by GlennM on August 18, 2026, 01:43:34 PM »

Except that here we are...

85

General Discussion / Re: Boot rock as a choice

« Last post by GlennM on August 18, 2026, 01:42:30 PM »

Thank you for comment. I maintain that it was an external force and not an internal one precipitated the group decision the make for the forest. I think that in either case, the state of dress or undress of the hikers gives no additional clues. I do think that because weather was mentioned kn the diary, it was certainly a factor. I still think it curious that when given the chance to tie off their tent to Boot rock, or camp out in the open, they chose the latter. I do not see that this gives them any more credability points over camping at the rock. I can only reason that they found snow enough to be able to level a base for their skis and use the spoil to make a berm or low wall outside the tent. This too is a concern because were I doing the excavation, I would just throw the snow behind me, downwind and call it good.

I agree that there is strong evidence of multiple crises, but they are all secondary to the tent on 1079. There is no defendable evidence that the tent was planted there by conspirators. There was nothing reported ablut the interior of the tent suggesting animal nor chemical odor. There was no scorch marks. The outside of the tent did not have tree damage residue in the form of sap nor needles. On the other hand, when the tent was found in its collapsed state there were broken supports. I contend that an accumulation of wind driven snow built up outside the tent and when it necame became sufficiently heavy, i might have taken nothing more than an innocent foot kick from someone on their back taking aim at a sagging stretched canvas, to precipitate a loosening of enough snow to crush the tent and those within in a slab slip. With suffocation an immediate threat, out come the knives for escape to the woods.

86

General Discussion / Re: Boot rock as a choice

« Last post by sarapuk on August 18, 2026, 01:16:49 PM »

I am holding onto the idea of nine people caught under canvas and a pile of shifted snow as the reason why they left. All else is a consequence of that choice. They could have tied off on Boot Rock, but as Ziljoe comments, the rock affords little protection.

You are holding onto an idea that many people who have actually been to the site over the years say is unlikely to produce an avalanche of any kind that could have caused the event at that site. The way it looks to me is that there were several events, and the tent site was the scene of one of those events.

87

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by sarapuk on August 18, 2026, 01:10:29 PM »

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. 

88

General Discussion / Re: Route to Otorten

« Last post by sarapuk on August 18, 2026, 01:05:33 PM »

GlennM did a pretty good job there. Thanks for repeating it.

Well its worth pointing out similarities. There isn't one set theory, and there isn't one set speculation. We must allow for overlapping.

89

General Discussion / Re: Boot rock as a choice

« Last post by GlennM on August 17, 2026, 09:07:33 PM »

The hikers passed boot rock in order to camp closer to Ortoten. I can understand how the day before they got a late start. If they had passed the night in the open on 1079, they could make an early start to Ortoten in order to achieve their goal at the cairn and make camp near both water and wood. Those things take time. So, their last camp site further from Boot Rock is understandable.

Now, considering they were out in the open on 1079, does it make sense to look for some low spot to pitch the tent? I believe so. Any low spot will have the effect of increasing the angle of the ground upslope from the tent. I am doubtful the slope could produce a large scale avalanche,  but a small scale slab slip could be just enough to smother them in a collapsed tent.

I am holding onto the idea of nine people caught under canvas and a pile of shifted snow as the reason why they left. All else is a consequence of that choice. They could have tied off on Boot Rock, but as Ziljoe comments, the rock affords little protection.

90

General Discussion / Re: New Suspect In Case

« Last post by Ziljoe on August 14, 2026, 12:30:20 PM »

I don't think "generator 5" was used in or on rockets. It was a ground-based civil defence training tool used to simulate radiological contamination fields for dosimetry calibration and military/civilian drills.?

Why do you think that the soviet "Generator 5" military program was about ground-based drills? Actually, "Generator 5" was a special warhead for R-5 midrange missiles, cheap alternative to a nuclear warhead. "Generator 5" was a dirty bomb delivered by R-5 to explode over enemy's troops. If they made "Generator 5" for R-5, could they make "Generator-7" for R-7 and test it over Urals?

Because from what I can research, the R5 dirty bomb was stopped in 1957. It wasn't deemed safe or practical and it was an exercise in using left over radioactive liquid. It wasn't safe at the launch pad and the r7 had problems with the time it took to launch missiles . It's alo another reason they moved to building silos. By then they had found adequate material to build what theyvneeded. It would seem the R7 wasn't suitable for that type of dirty bomb either. It wouldn't be stable at launch, the time it would take to fuel was a huge problem leaving a possible attack on the launch pad . It took 20 hours to fuel meaning a spark , conventional shrapnel could render the whole launch site unusable. Another problem was that R7 was to destroy the enemy launch sites , a chemical radioactive spray wouldn't do this.

We have a timeline and practically problem. This is how I understand it but I could most certainly be wrong on this.