Recent Posts

81

General Discussion / Re: Was it a macabre game?

« Last post by sarapuk on October 28, 2026, 01:22:28 PM »

Ivanov's words are not just empty talk. He points out in them that the hikers did not freeze to death and that the real cause of death was hidden, which also corresponds to the unpublished forensic results for the first five dead bodies.

Maybe if you started trusting him as well, you would be closer to the truth.

Ivanov is certainly an important person in this Dyatlov Mystery. He was a high-ranking official, and he was there not long after the event. Unfortunately, over the years, he has come under unjustified criticism.
 

82

General Discussion / Re: Operation Carrington and the 1959 Sverdlovsk Incident

« Last post by sarapuk on October 28, 2026, 01:07:22 PM »

It's an interesting story. I don't use the word theory. Obviously, it's someone else's story with additions. I don't subscribe to any involvement by the USSR military in the Dyatlov Incident. And that includes the secret military services like the KGB. 

83

General Discussion / Re: The Manuals

« Last post by Hunter on October 28, 2026, 01:06:52 PM »

Bongyi, the cedar branches weren't cut or chopped with a knife. The knife was used to cut down the trees below. Apparently, all (or most) of them were used for the decking.
Regarding Krivonischenko's knife ending up in the ravine with the bodies, it's possible that at moment X, when it was necessary to leave the tent, someone else grabbed the knife, not the owner. And so he ended up with it. Another possibility is that the knife was given to the best-dressed man down below to prepare tree trunks for the decking. There's also a theory that four people in the ravine died after Krivonischenko and Doroshenko. Therefore, the knife was "inherited" by the survivors, and ended up in the ravine with them. You mention a sheath, but it's mentioned near the tent in the report on the discovery of the bodies in the ravine, not with the bodies. The knife itself is mentioned in the decision to close the criminal case - page 386.

Why wasn't the knife recovered? The knife was classified as Finnish, meaning that in order to obtain it, one of Krivonischenko's heirs had to obtain permission to possess a Finnish-type knife. Without such permission, the knife could not be returned. There is speculation that the knife was returned, as they say in the former Soviet Union, "off the record." This is indirectly supported by pages 40 and 41 of the observation proceedings, also known as the second volume of the criminal case.

84

General Discussion / Re: Occam's razor says- homicide

« Last post by sarapuk on October 28, 2026, 12:38:58 PM »

Interesting line of thought.  If there were details of the Dyatlov case that central authorities wanted to keep secret, they could have been omitted from the publicly available case files, or worse, parts of the case files could contain fabricated falsehoods.  A possible combination of "missing information plus misinformation", one might say.

However, I think the withholding of sensitive details, plus deliberate vagueness on the part of the investigators (I have Ivanov and Vorozhdenny in mind), is a lot more believable than outright fabrication of documents or physical evidence.  Besides, we would never get anywhere trying to make sense of this case if we could arbitrarily dismiss documented facts as fabrications--we would have no "ground truth" from which to start.  We'll have to give documented facts a rebuttable presumption of veracity, that is, "true until proven dubious".

The truthfulness of the facts has become doubtful for the reason that in the last more than 60 years no one has been able to put forward a single possible theory for the Dyatlov incident, which could tell the events without contradiction and logically within the framework defined by the current facts.
We have to assume that the reason for this is that the facts contradict each other internally and in hidden way and thus exclude the possibility of a theory that fits them. This can only happen if the facts are at least partially false
We must uncover the hidden contradictions of the facts! We must reject the documented facts because of their falsity, even if this ultimately leaves nothing on the basis of which the events of the Gyatlov incident can be told! The consequence of this is that we will be forced to establish the intractability of the case and refer it back to the Russian authorities, with the request that they present the real facts they have hidden!

If the facts in the Gyatlov-incident were real, then in the past 60 years it would have been possible to establish several possible theories! (Then our problem would be that we cannot choose which of them corresponds to the truth)

Assumptions can be dangerous, especially in this case. Facts are facts. It's a fact that the Dyatlov Group consisted of 10 hikers. And it's a fact that one of the hikers had to leave the group. You don't alter those facts. 

85

General Discussion / Re: Occam's razor says- homicide

« Last post by sarapuk on October 28, 2026, 12:33:24 PM »

Most researchers have a genuine interest in investigating the case. Until strict rules are applied to the concrete evidence we have, Occam's Razor is useless. We must either investigate the case at the outermost layer—that is, focusing on what happened on Mountain 1079 that night—or apply those same rules to theories covering deeper layers, such as the detention at the train station, the three contaminated garments, Yudin returning alone, the mysterious school, the handwriting in the diaries, the extra skis, the blanket, and the photos from 2nd Severny. Then we can see that the events of February 1st are just the tip of the iceberg.

So you are saying that there was something much bigger than the actual incident going on !? 

86

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by sarapuk on October 28, 2026, 12:26:33 PM »

To get a clear picture of events, we need to distinguish assumptions from assertions and avoid making unnecessary claims.
In other words, we need to separate the cutlets from the flies that have swarmed over them and covered them.

To get a clear picture, we certainly don't need to be setting any rules. It's complicated enough. Ever know of a criminal investigation where rules were set as to what should or should not be included?

87

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by sarapuk on October 28, 2026, 12:22:35 PM »

SURI, the challenge was to reconstruct within the three rules. That's not difficult. Of course, I've already read a good portion of Ivanov's material, and it's not possible to conclude murders.

Well, it's interesting to hear that an investigator is setting rules. Rules do not get set to prevent a proper investigation of any case, whatever nature that case may be. A criminal investigation never sets rules; it is always completely open to any possibility.   

88

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by sarapuk on October 28, 2026, 12:18:54 PM »

I answered as far as it was necessary. Further, I will leave it without comment and refer you to the letters of Lev Ivanov. There you will find what you want to know.

All his questions are all over this site, along with numerous answers. Not sure what he is getting at.

89

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by sarapuk on October 28, 2026, 12:16:23 PM »

Hello everyone, I study the Dyatlov Case and I'm new here. I know that many theories and questions have already been formulated here hundreds of times, but I'd like to invite you to a new debate, to reconstruct new theories, based on four questions that I always ask everyone who creates their reconstructions:

1- Why did the group choose to descend the slope in the worst direction? (northeast direction). (The direction is considered the worst possible because the group was unfamiliar with that route, in addition to it being the route against the freezing winds. So why did the group CHOOSE (given the fact that they descended in an orderly fashion, and with flashlights) to go there instead of going to the southern region? (where they already knew, had done the Labaz and it was the least vulnerable region to the winds)

2- How to justify the distance of the bodies of Zina, Slobodin (and his injuries) and Dyatlov? (given that they probably climbed up to the tent, given the direction of the bodies and the exhausted position from the walk)

3- How to explain the existence and function of the campfire in the cedar tree and its distance from the ravine? (if it was only to keep warm, the ideal would be to make a campfire inside the forests, not in a place vulnerable to the wind, and we know that the fire did not burn for very long and Doroshenko and Krivonischenko died of hypothermia)

4- How to explain the fact that the dead in the ravine had injuries Serious injuries, but why is Kolevatov the only one without them? (I'm not necessarily asking about the origin of the injuries, but why one of them wasn't injured in that way.)

To help with the reconstruction, I will set the following rules:

1- Answer only with data that we are certain of and that is plausible.

2- It is not permitted to include impossible external factors (Yeti, Aliens, Magic Portals) to avoid answering difficult parts.

3- The inclusion of each argument/factor that is not in the case as we know it must be justified with concrete evidence and real examples.

The answers to the four questions should obviously fit into the same story.

Well, you said it! Your 4 questions are plastered all over this site along with all manner of answers. Take your pick.

90

General Discussion / Re: Metatheory

« Last post by sarapuk on October 28, 2026, 12:12:47 PM »

So now we have metatheory. As if things weren't becoming complicated enough. Why stop there? Why not have other metas to make it even more complicated and less likely to find the answer from the point of view of the Dyatlov Mystery?