Recent Posts

81

General Discussion / Re: That pesky footwear

« Last post by bongyi on October 11, 2026, 07:06:17 PM »

The question is, how deep was the snow at the bottom of the slope?  Anyone who has already been torn into waist-deep snow understands that the snow would immediately pull the socks off their feet!

82

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by bongyi on October 11, 2026, 06:54:40 PM »

Additional questions:

Does anything prove that the members of the group left the tent at the same time?

Can the campfire lit by the cedar be seen from the alleged location of the tent in winter at night or during the day?

83

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by Osi on October 11, 2026, 05:39:14 PM »

Ramsey, had they climbed from the northwest of the pass—that is, from an elevation of around 800 meters—they would have spotted that cedar tree before sunset. Sixty years ago, there weren't many trees as mature as that cedar. Even in a snowfall, you can see that tree from a mile away. You have to try it sometime: after walking a mile in 25-degree cold—shivering and gritting your teeth—you burn the dry wood the moment you find it. You don't have time to look for a comfortable spot. Since there isn't much snow beneath the cedar, it makes for an ideal location. There is a glass of water in your cupboard, yet you want to drink from Lake Baikal.

84

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by Ramsay on October 11, 2026, 05:18:08 PM »

SURI, citing or referring to Ivanov's recent articles or personal speculations does not replace the physical evidence found at the scene.

If you believe Ivanov's writings prove premeditated murder or a "hunt" for humans, simply point out the physical data from the investigation that supports this theory:
Where are the footprints of the perpetrators coming from outside?
Why were no signs of a struggle or defensive wounds found on the bodies?
Why would "killers" let Dyatlov, Zina, and Slobodin walk 1 km back up the slope instead of eliminating them at the tree line?

It is easy to claim that someone "didn't read carefully." What really matters is presenting a timeline that answers these four questions while adhering to the topic's rules. If you have such a timeline, I am all ears. Otherwise, let's make room for those who wish to analyze the physical evidence.
(Of course, Ivanov knew the investigation had been handled very poorly.)

85

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by Ramsay on October 11, 2026, 05:06:43 PM »

I understand, Osi. From what I see, you argue that the group's initial priority was the fire. However, I incline toward the idea that their primary objective was to build the snow shelter (den).

I have a few questions about that sequence:

First, could the group really have been certain of the cedar's exact location from the tent on a pitch-black, stormy night? It is hard to believe that the cedar was visible enough to dictate their entire descent route from Mount 1079 under those severe conditions, especially given how hastily the tent was evacuated (to the point of leaving without boots).

Second, regarding the location of the fire: if the shelter in the ravine was the primary refuge, why was the fire built right under the exposed cedar? Krivonischenko and Doroshenko froze and died right there before the ravine group. This suggests a specific factor prevented them from leaving the cedar to join the others in the ravine.

How does your reconstruction connect these physical constraints and timeline events with what happened next?

86

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by SURI on October 11, 2026, 04:55:39 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.

Of course it is possible, apparently you haven't read them carefully.

87

General Discussion / Re: That pesky footwear

« Last post by Osi on October 11, 2026, 04:45:01 PM »

I believe the group preferred using skis at every stage of the trek—even in the most grueling conditions. Sending a scout ahead to break a trail had become a tedious and exhausting chore; traversing the slopes on skis was the better option. Skis and boots are heavy to carry, and boots tend to get damp and cold. A few people with cold feet inside the tent might have been wearing *valenki* (felt boots). Perhaps Rüstem, too, would have put them on and promptly gone to sleep. I am of the opinion that, within the forest, the division of labor prioritized the fire. They had even considered the possibility that the fire might fail to light.

88

General Discussion / Re: That pesky footwear

« Last post by GlennM on October 11, 2026, 04:36:10 PM »

Thanks guys for the replies.  What I am thinking about is that Igor's medical examination describes injury to his ankles. I got to thinking that if on the 31st, on their first attempt on Ortoten, he might have been a scout for the group. Sometime during that day I am thinking he may have turned (sprained) an ankle. That would explain nicely him leaving his ski boots at the labaz. It also fits nicely with the group getting a late start and an early camp, again because he was hurt.

Where I get bogged down when the hikers abandoned the tent. I think it would make perfect sense for Igor to make use of a ski pole to help him down hill with all the others. Consequently, I expect that the trail from tent to forest would be punctuated with stabs from his ski pole all the way down. The case files do not have that finding. I do note that he was not well fitted with footwear when he was found.

Then again, instead of a ski pole perhaps an actual ski as a crutch was used.  I seem to recall there was some mention of a ski either on the slope or the forest. It does not prove anything, but it is interesting.

There was also some discussion about a leg wrapping being found down in the woods. Anything to immobilize a bad ankle would be to the good. Igor was also carrying Spectracide, an anti inflammatory medication.

Igor was found to be grasping a branch in his arms when his body was found. I can believe he was holding that branch to block  an icy blast to his face. I can believe he was thinking of laying three set of branches in the snow as a distress signal to aircraft. I have a hard tine thinking an unstripped branch made any useful sort of crutch.

All of this reasoning goes back to the fact that on their last day, the DP9 did not cover as much ground to Ortoten as I might expect.  From that I reason that the group is going to move as fast as the slowest member. I am not aware of any other member having a leg injury that would slow the hiking party down. Again, this is a speculative answer, but it does knit some things together. It also highlights how a single accident or injury can throw the dynamic of the hiking expedition off of a thought out plan and replaced by a modified/improvised one.

89

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by Osi on October 11, 2026, 04:26:52 PM »

As altitude increases in the Ural Mountains—particularly in the upper reaches where the main branches of the Auspiya or Lozva rivers originate—one no longer encounters mature pine trees suitable for firewood; they are extremely rare. There are no fallen old trees on the ground; only young saplings aged three, five, or ten years can be found. The group members must have spotted that cedar tree from above while pitching their tents; the mental image of it would prove useful later that night. When left barefoot and unclothed, the nearest tree is the first place one heads toward. A mature cedar tree offers an abundant source of firewood. The distance between the *labaz* (food cache) and the cedar tree is twice the distance between the tent and the tree. The cache contained only food and a pair of boots; in other words, the group was not facing the threat of starvation. Attempting to traverse that rugged terrain would have resulted in death from hypothermia. The group had been exposed to the cold until they descended into the wooded area; once they reached the cedar tree, their immediate priority was to light a fire right beside it. As a backup plan, they identified a spot 75 meters further down—where the snow had accumulated deeply—to build a shelter. Presumably, two people were trying to light the fire while the others prepared the shelter. They must have considered the possibility that the fire might not catch.

90

General Discussion / Re: four questions and some answers

« Last post by Ramsay on October 11, 2026, 04:21:17 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.