Recent Posts

81

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by GlennM on September 17, 2026, 07:30:30 AM »

Once again, I must interject a semantic difference. A slab slip is quantitatively different from an avalanche.. in this case it is a matter of volume. A 30 degree slope
Subjected to snow deposition of soft snow over older compacted snow can indeed slip. The movement can be triggered by a build up of light snow at the tent. Further, when the hikers levelled the base for their tent, they could have cut through the horizontal boundary between one and new snow layers facilitating eventual release.

Then the topic takes a spin. It always does. This time, yet another published expert who was not there hears,filters and expresses an opinion. All behavior is motivated. Money is a tried and true motivator.


So far, I make a distinction between cover up and down play. So far I make a distinction between slab slip and avalanche. Ziljoe is right minded by looking at science to explain physical evidence. That said, attributing a gnawed knuckle to a numb burnt shin makes for a better novel.

82

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by SURI on September 17, 2026, 06:20:59 AM »

@Ziljoe

Unlike you, Yuri Yudin does not question this photograph at all. On the contrary, he directly connects this image with a flashlight shining on the tent and a sudden command to abandon the tent—a command that is, by the way, mentioned in the "unknown diary". This explains a lot and completes the overall picture of the incident. It shows that the group was not fleeing from an avalanche, but was responding to a specific light source that Krivonischenko attempted to photograph.

So according to you, Krivonischenko did not feel his own leg charring and burning, yet at that very same moment, out of unbearable pain from an external traumatic shock, he bit off a piece of his own skin from his hand? This makes absolutely no sense

83

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by Axelrod on September 17, 2026, 05:35:43 AM »

Пётр Бартоломей (Из жизни семьи репрессированного)
Pyotr Bartolomey (From the Life of a Family of a Repressed Person)

84

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by Senior Maldonado on September 17, 2026, 03:39:35 AM »

Ivanov does not reference any probing of radioactivity on the slope , neither does he say there were any readings found in his later letters regarding the slope.

Not exactly. Newspaper reporter Bogomolov refers to Ivanov's direct speach:
"Ivanov: I only managed to conduct a radiation examination. Even had to carry on location a device in a large wooden box.
Bogomolov: Geiger counter?
Ivanov: Yes, it looks like it. It was clicking a lot... I am sure there was radiation. But nobody told me how much, and I didn't find out."

Petr Bartolomey and Sergei Sogrin both remember very well that Kikoin had performed radioactivity checks with his advanced measurement device. Sogrin even dared to ask Kikoin about results, and received expected answer - nothing found.

85

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by Ziljoe on September 17, 2026, 03:26:09 AM »

A snow slab avalanche hitting the tent does not align with Krivonischenko’s final photograph of the light source.

Snow slab and avalanche do not justify probing the slope for radioactivity (Kikoin) either. Checking the hikers' tissues and clothes for radioactivity (Ivanov) cannot be inspired by snow movement theories also.

Ivanov does not reference any probing of radioactivity on the slope , neither does he say there were any readings found in his later letters regarding the slope.

Snow movement and radioactivity are not mutually exclusive .The presence of one does not preclude the other, and neither phenomenon automatically implies a missile accident.

86

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by Ziljoe on September 17, 2026, 03:01:09 AM »

It was down played as an unfortunate circumstance where I contend unprepared hikers were caught out by a slab slip, hypothermia and a collapsed temporary shelter.

A snow slab avalanche hitting the tent does not align with Krivonischenko’s final photograph of the light source. Hypothermia fails to explain Krivonischenko's extensive burn injuries to his left leg and the fact that he bit off a piece of his own skin in agony and died. Furthermore, the collapse of the temporary shelter in the ravine is completely inconsistent with Zolotaryov having a camera wrapped around his hand—his final activity was certainly not digging a snow cave.

And I would name Krivonischenko as the greatest hero in the fight against the "elements."

The last photo is the end of the film shot in Krivonischenko's camera. No one is taking photos in the dark with these cameras . If you reach for one of these cameras to take a photo , it means you have time for your subject matter. It's not point and click and you don't go digging for a camera with one photo left in it. The camera was packed in the tent.

Hypothermia seems to explains everything about the burns and behaviour at the cedar . It's known that people freezing stick there limbs into fires. We can't just dismiss the known evidence. They can't feel there limbs burn but they know they are cold.

I fail to see your link about how collapse of a cave is inconsistent with Zolo allegedly holding a camera case. Zolo could still hold a camera or have it on his person. We don't know what his final activity was.

87

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by Senior Maldonado on September 17, 2026, 02:58:44 AM »

A snow slab avalanche hitting the tent does not align with Krivonischenko’s final photograph of the light source.

Snow slab and avalanche do not justify probing the slope for radioactivity (Kikoin) either. Checking the hikers' tissues and clothes for radioactivity (Ivanov) cannot be inspired by snow movement theories also.

88

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by SURI on September 17, 2026, 01:13:33 AM »

It was down played as an unfortunate circumstance where I contend unprepared hikers were caught out by a slab slip, hypothermia and a collapsed temporary shelter.

A snow slab avalanche hitting the tent does not align with Krivonischenko’s final photograph of the light source. Hypothermia fails to explain Krivonischenko's extensive burn injuries to his left leg and the fact that he bit off a piece of his own skin in agony and died. Furthermore, the collapse of the temporary shelter in the ravine is completely inconsistent with Zolotaryov having a camera wrapped around his hand—his final activity was certainly not digging a snow cave.

And I would name Krivonischenko as the greatest hero in the fight against the "elements."

89

General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey

« Last post by GlennM on September 16, 2026, 09:13:34 PM »

It is a semantic distinction, cover up versus down play. You do not cover up a tragedy by sending both civilians and military to find and retrieve the victims. You can down play the tragedy by wanting to exert control on the final services. This happened.

 The Soviet government, if anything did not bring the awareness of a hiking accident into the national spotlight. That would lead to criticisms of the system, especially when the Soviet was instituting programs to promote world class youthful excellence in sport. That said, heads did roll in the aftermath in that period of adjustment where someone had to shoulder the blame. This was in the organization or sports club Igor and the others belonged to. They, the DP9  if all went well,could even earn certifications culminating in Master of Sport. The government was all for it.

On the other hand, when such endeavors end badly, there is little incentive to make a big deal out of it, unless the story can be spun into a tale of heroism, like an astronaut. That was not the case here. In fact, it was somewhat the opposite. Hikers took on a winter challenge poorly equipoed, supervised and against local advice. Other than bragging rights to have rounded Ortoten in winter, there was not much to crow about. This failure could be seen as a random chance event, hubris, but not heroism. The deceased were treated well and laid to rest with love and ceremony. The treatment of the case was certainly not a cover up, it was known then as well as now. We all understand there were aspects of the case which raise our eyebrows, but these were sins of omission, rather than deliberate obfuscation. It was down played as an unfortunate circumstance where I contend unprepared hikers were caught out by a slab slip, hypothermia and a collapsed temporary shelter. Again, to my point, a down play, which is being quiet about unfortunate truths is not a cover up which is the deliberated obfuscation of evidence to hide a homicidal conspiracy.

90

General Discussion / Re: The Anatomy of a Collapse: Resolving the Dyatlov Pass Ravine injuries

« Last post by GlennM on September 16, 2026, 05:27:47 PM »

I believe that animals degrading the corpse of any of the R4 is worth considering. However, in a broader picture, all the rest of the deceased were much more exposed and accessible to scavengers. As such I have a problem supporting the idea that a scavenger would burrow to eat if food was readily available at ground level.

We must take into consideration a roll call of those predatory creatures. Quadrapeds like Fox, badger, wolf and wolverine would conceivably leave prints as well as spoor. A raven, crow or some raptor would not leave prints, but they are not equipped to dig. Pulling and tearing are more to their way of eating.

I completely rule out canabalisn, trophy taking and LGM as having any merit in this discussion.

In any circumstance an argument for mutilation of a corpse implies that the corpse exists before mutilation. Mutilation is not the cause of death. But a consequence. Therefore, the whole topic is a misdirection and gets us no closer to understanding the why or the how of the case.