Inconsistencies in photos of finding the tent

[Osi]

The snow pile in the red circle has remained as it was the first day the tent was erected, and has not been destroyed. The blue line contains information about the slope towards the top according to the original snow condition. Normally, seekers had to pose on this blue line. They are sitting in the pit. Where did the snow here go? Is the red circle the entrance to the tent? If it was the entrance, it must have been trampled, or after everyone entered the tent, a lot of snow fell and it was not trampled again. The L line is more rugged and must resist snow retention. The snow in the L section has blown away or melted. The K section is in a smoother state and why has there been no snow blowing from here?
Can't see the scrolling plate?

[Osi]

We need to prove that this photo was actually taken at Kholat shaykl. If this photo is from that day; Children who are 1.80 tall have cut at least 90 cm of snow and are preparing a flat area. I imagine Koptelov from its original place through time travel and the day the tent was pitched. He was probably sitting where the bags were. He had to see the tent in a pit inside a 90 cm cut snow wall. Imagine the view taken from the person taking the photo at 45 degrees from behind. How can Koptelov be on the same plane as the tent?

[Osi]

Most of the officials involved in the search thought there would be no avalanche there. The tent was in the open. There were a few items scattered around. What were the workers at the bottom of the tent looking for in the snow? If the tent is open and there is no possibility of an avalanche falling there, there is no one under the snow.
Also, where did these excavations come from? It looks like it could be set up as a tent by flattening it a bit. If there was no excavation in the tent area, where did all the excavated material at the bottom of the tent come from?

[Ziljoe]

Hi Osi

I can only guess by reading the case files and trying logic, I might not be correct.

We don't know if the photo of the DP9 digging the trench for the tent is true but there is little reason to doubt it as authentic. It's been in the public domain for many years and no other hikers came forward to say it was from their hike , the photo is in the case files and there would be little reason to fake it . There seems to be no deliberate lies in the case files, just a little confusion it the retelling of events .

I'm not sure why we don't have a 90cm trench in the photo when it's discovered, this may have been eroded by the wind over 3 weeks.

The lumps of snow are from the searchers digging around the tent , the possible reason for them digging around the tent comes from the statements and what was believed may have happened . It was first thought one of the hikers went to the toilet and was blown down the slope , then the others chased to help but the wind was too strong for them to return. We must remember when the photo with the searchers was taken. It was taken after the first 4 bodies were found and there was no autopsy /ravine 4 or any other information. All they knew was that Dyatlov and zina had been found buried on the slope , so I would guess they started digging around and below the tent for that reason.

Also, I believe one of the early searchers  said they had dug up around the tent and taken skis( I believe these were for the sappers )  and items out of the tent before the official investigation/ inventory had taken place  , this is perhaps why we get different reports about what was in the tent and lying about. It was all a bit clumsy and we have to accept there was a lot going on the 26th and 27th of February.  That's , several search parties in the forest and other mountain tops, the lead investigators trying to land, sappers , dog handlers,being called in and instructions to find a campsite for the searchers tents and make a landing zone for a helicopter in the forest.  Radios, stoves , food all had to be dropped off  and transported to a suitable site . On the same day the two Yuri's were found , then Dyatlov and then Zina , everyone was running about with very limited resources and trying to help.

I guess very few protocols were followed, no one was given instruction what to do or not do, radiograms would take time , digging up the bodies and collecting the bodies to boot rock , bagging them etc. A busy and stressful day for all.

[Axelrod]

Conspiracy theories, manipulations and hoaxes appear from time to time, but I see this explanation:

1) you can endlessly repeat the same thing from the official picture endlessly;

2) you can add something and invent that we have a picture of deception in front of us.

Thus, a conspiracy theorist can do 2 things:

1) be silent;

2) invent something.

Since we do not observe a picture of silence, we see a picture of conspiracy. Otherwise, there would be a picture of silence.

[Osi]

Ziljoe, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree with you about the dark film stills. I believe this is actual footage of the trip, taken from a partially damaged film that was not officially recorded. The tent photo of Sharavin and Koptelov is a photo of a 3-legged action. Come, see and photograph. I think the first thing to do about these two photos was to take photos and no search activity has started yet. They cleared the snow, searched the tent, moved the tarp aside, and then dug around. There is no information yet about the 3 on the slope. Koptelov; In his statement, he stated that the tent entrance faces the passage, that is, the entrance, on the right side of the picture. The problem at the tent entrance; How to protect tent entrance if there is enough wind shear to eliminate a trench? Under normal circumstances, the tent entrance should have been damaged due to constant chewing by 9 young people. The original mound at the entrance of the tent caught my attention. All 4 corners of the tent were visible, only some snow in the middle. There was a pair of light slippers just ahead. There was a lantern and an outfit. I would expect blowing winds to blow these lightweight objects into the forest.

[GlennM]

Is the assumption that photographs represent the scene or situation before things have been manipulated? The implications affect the interpretations.

[Arjan]

Thank you Osi for starting this post.

My considerations on the authenticity of photos, diaries and documents
During the '50s of last century - while printing - competent black&white photographers had access in the dark room to all options as are available nowadays in Photoshop: it only took far more time to achieve the same result. At that time, the Communist Party has added or removed many politicians to/from official photos, even family photos had been adapted to add children to family photos.

Russian bloggers have shown that it is doubtfull that all photos from the film rolls 1 to 6 and the loose photos are authentic.

Based on information available via DyatlovPass.com it is hard to make a final verdict on the authenticity of photos made by film rolls 1 to 6 and the loose photos.

The 'last two photos of 5/6 group members digging a hole' has at least one flaw: too many skis visible without any bindings.

Without sound proof, the journalist collective Aleksej Rakitin suggests that the last two loose photos of the Dyatlov Group digging in the snow are 'pure propaganda', with Yuri Kri as 'heroic hero'.
Unfortunately I cannot confirm or proof otherwise, but I doubt the authenticity of both photos.

My considerations on the authenticity of photos, and documents from the two search party and from the mortuary
It will be hard to find a sound solution if these photos and documents are not authentic.
I even take the self statement made by Yuri Yudin as authentic, althought I am not fully convinced on the content of this statement: he may well have received orders to describe in his statement what was in line with 'historic materialism' according to the Communist Party at that time.

Let's assume that the photo of the tent as found by the first search party is authentic
No proof at all, but you may have noted that Yuri Dor's ski pole is visible down hill of the tent.

Snow conditions may alter considerable during three/four weeks.

The photo shows very favourable snow conditions around the camp site, with arguable additional snow at the entrancy that may be piled at the entrance by the wind.
One or two members of the first search party may already have been digging in the snow to see how deep the layer of snow was at the end of February.

Some 50 to 100 meters in the direction of the ravine, there is not much snow visible.
This is not by definition a sign that the condition of the terrain had been favourable: the underground may well have been icy and prone for sliding downhill.
No proof, but the photos of Zinaida in the Mortuary show her with natural fiber on her trousers: this may/might be an indication that she had layed herself for the last time on the ground that had only a tiny layer of snow on it

In my interpretation, this photo shows, that:
- the re-erected tent may/might have served as an adequate emergency bivac during a cold night for two or three group members
- both skis - now with binding! - may have served as mark for the place of the tent for Zinaida, Rustem (and arguable a 10th group member).
In the timeline I have drafted, Zinaida and Rustem descended on Feb 2nd around 9 am to the ravine to see what had happened to the seven other group members. Zinaida and Rustem had always had the intention to return to the tent and from there to return to Ivdel.

Remark:
This photo does not show any trace of an avalanche of a big snow slab hitting the tent causing that all group members had to leave the tent site


 

 









 

[GlennM]

Arjan, how do you reconcile the physical evidence of footprint traces going to the forest with the movements of the tourists? I believe that those prints are made and raised under a particular set of circumstances. I find it troubling to think that those conditions persist long enough for a divided group to walk the same trail at different times and achieve those snowprints. Further, since there is nothing particularly sacred about footprints in the snow, I would predict that if Rustem and Zina left the tent later and last, they would either trample the prints of others or make their own trail. The data does not support either in my opinion. Comment?

[Axelrod]

Normally, seekers had to pose on this blue line.

I don't understand why you decide for the seekers where they should pose? They posed wherever they wanted.
In general, the small number of photos with the tent tells us that they dodn't wanted to fix this moment.

[Arjan]

@GlennM

Elevated footprint in snow
Elevated footprints in snow are caused by tiny/partly melting/stabilising of snow under the weight/mass of the person making the footprint.
After partly 'refrosting' the footprint is stabilised and set partly in ice.
The wind will blow the 'loose' snow later away from the 'stabilised' footprint and this footprint remains elevated on the surface.

Challenge of only nine (or eight?) pair of elevated footprints found
One of the challenges for finding sound solutions for this 'cold case' is finding an explanation for only nine (or eight?) pair of elevated footprints found by the first search party.

These nine pair of footprints hint on absence of outsiders that may/might have interfered with the activities of the Dyatlov group around the tent, before the group members had descended to the cedar/ravine.
These outsiders would have left traces by their footprint.

In the timeline that I have drafted (after many, many trials and errors like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle), the explanation for non interference of these footprint is:
- Lyudmila, Semyon and Thibo have walked side by side to the ravine area around 15:00 pm on Feb 1st
- On Feb 1st around sunset, Alexander, Igor, Yuri Dor., Yuri Kri walked two by two (side by side) on both sides of the footprints made by Lyudmila/Semyon/Thibo in order to check if one of the three might have deviated to another direction.
- On Feb 2nd around 9:00 am, Zinaida and Rustem had walked each on both side of the track made by the seven in order to check any deviations made by the seven.

If this assumption is correct, then the result is: nine pair of footprints next to each other, and no footprints from outsiders visible.

Remark
Eight group members were (former) students of an University of Technology who had been trained several years to handle difficult situations only in a methodically logic manner.
As former student of a similar University of Technology, it is second nature to avoid trampling through source material.
Arguable these eight group members had the same attitude to the footprints made before.

In mountaineering there are exceptions like, placing one's foot in the footprint of others while ascending a steep hill, in order to have a better step to avoid sliding downhill.

[Ziljoe]

Normally, seekers had to pose on this blue line.

I don't understand why you decide for the seekers where they should pose? They posed wherever they wanted.
In general, the small number of photos with the tent tells us that they dodn't wanted to fix this moment.

I may be wrong but I think Osi is saying that the blue line is where the snow level should be roughly according to the last two photos of the hikers building the trench/ platform for the tent.

He is asking why the searchers are basically at the floor level of the tent as opposed to 90 cm higher . Where did the trench wall go ,that is seen in the last two photos?. ( I think this is what Osi is asking.

[Arjan]

Of course I may have misinterpreted these two photos as available from the first search party.





From both photos above, I conclude that the person in front of the tent has always been on ground - snow - level: no digging had been needed for him to be squatted as seen on the photo in question.

There are two explanations for any inconsistency with 'loose photos 11 and 12':
- the wind had blown the snow around the tent away or
- both loose photos 11 and 12 are not authentically reflecting the situation while setting up the tent.

Personally I regard the 'loose photos 11 and 12' as not-authentic: it is likely that both photos are produced in the dark room (as propaganda for honouring group members, - especially Yuri Kri. - as the journalist collective Aleksej Rakitin suggests).

[Axelrod]

I think I understood what the confusion was about.
The things were taken out of the tent, and the empty tent was moved 10-15 meters to the right (in the next photo),

Someone thinks that the tent is in one constant place in each photo.
Perhaps I understood the question incorrectly.

[Osi]

We have reason to assert that in the days after the tent was abandoned there was no wind strong enough to blow away the wall of the trench in which the tent was erected. Toilet slippers were next to the tent. Like a lantern in a tent. I remember reading that searchers reported other light objects near the tent. I also know that those who reject the plate theory claim that the snow there is not soft enough to blow away, but rather hard-shelled snow. Tourists; If they had chewed through the dry snow crust, they would have appeared as shallow, crystallized tracks, and it would not have been possible to determine whether they were stepped on with shoes or bare feet. Raised footprints can form in freshly fallen snow or when you're chewing through avalanche layer on your path. Because fresh snow or avalanche snow is wet and can be blown away by the wind.
Maybe I wrote the title wrong. It would be more accurate to "compare the last two pictures of the tent setup with the tent reconnaissance pictures".

[Ziljoe]

From what I can remember , from what I have read in the case files and witnesses closer at the time.( Not old memories or other people's speculation).

1) 2 types of footprints were reported in the case files, one being the raised footprints, the other being foot prints that had broken through a layer of firm/ hard snow and left the more traditional type holes that we imagine.

2)It would also seem the tent was tampered  with and searched twice, before the "official" recording of the contents of the tent and how it was found. This may explain the discrepancy in some of the statements, everyone is telling the truth from their own experience and possibly didn't know exactly what had been moved or why. Without checking and from memory, a number of items were taken on the first night by Sharovin the 26th, the next day he went to either look for a campsite for the HQ at the ceder , as this was the instruction according to the next searcher that came from Otorten, everyone was on different areas on the slope ,  and surrounding area , boot rock seemed to be the general meeting area for searchers in skis and the helicopter dropping off people and supplies. It seems one of the searchers said they ( someone)had already dug up around the tent and given some of Dyatlov's skis to the dog handlers, it also seems they had emptied some of the contents and some light objects were on the slope .As I was understanding it , it seems there was a realisation that things should be put back together as they were found . This is possibly after the two Yuri's and Dyatlov are found , the timing for finding these , or the reporting of finding the Yuri's and Dyatlov seem close together. So, the real-time for those searching is delayed, obviously there is a radio , I don't know if there's hand radios but some of the orders are to make a base camp and take supplies from boot rock etc. Basically we can't take the exact details of how the tent was found for granted or the photo. People have been digging the snow off it and all around it . If we look at the far right of the tent , it looks like there's material from the side wall that shouldn't be there , perhaps this is one of the ripped open parts by the searchers?

3)The snow layers definitely changed on the slope , we have the raised foot prints, that means the snow was even higher than the top of the raised footprints at the time when they were made , that's fresh snow and it is the hard firm snow that helps to make that foot print occur . All that soft snow of that night is blown away, that's just a fact , then we have the three on the slope buried under snow , that snow drifted over them and also turned in to hard , firm snow .  I'm sure one of the searchers says there was no footprints around the tent as we had dug up the snow.

Basically, the photo we see , is not an untouched tent , they have been in that tent and broken the hard snow on top and looked at stuff , probably from  cutting in through the side , hence the state of the tent .

[Arjan]

Thank you Ziljoe for your extensive - and correct - reply.

As illustration for your answer and explanation on the footprints, I hint to the following photos made by first search party as available via:
https://dyatlovpass.com/search-photos

5-001: Footprints. Photo from Feb 28. The photo was included in the case files vol.2 sheets 117, 119.
5-002: Footprints. Photo from Feb 28. The photo was included in the case files vol.2 sheet 118.
5-003: Footprints. Photo from Feb 28. Is this a footprint with a heel?
5-004: Footprints. Photo from Feb 28. The photo was included in the case files vol.1 sheet 402.
5-005: Footprints. Photo from Feb 28. The photo was included in the case files vol.2 sheet 114. It's possible that this could be a trace from a sled runner.
5-006: Footprints. Photo from Feb 28. The photo was included in the case files vol.1 sheet 401.

These photos show raised footprints, sunken footprints and one footprint with a heel.

The footprint with heel may be made by Semyon, because the autopsy report states: 'Black quilted felt boots with leather soles with woolen brown socks in them'.

For those of us who are investigating the snow conditions, the next photos of the footprints show revealing details:
5-002: Footprints. Photo from Feb 28. The photo was included in the case files vol.2 sheet 118.
5-003: Footprints. Photo from Feb 28. Is this a footprint with a heel?
5-004: Footprints. Photo from Feb 28. The photo was included in the case files vol.1 sheet 402.
5-005: Footprints. Photo from Feb 28. The photo was included in the case files vol.2 sheet 114. It's possible that this could be a trace from a sled runner.

On the four photos above, grass and twigs are visible who appear to grow through the snow layer!

Another details reveiling the snow conditions between the tent and the ravine may be:
- The last two photos of Zinaida - still fully frozen - in the mortuary.

Both photos show the natural fibers fixed on the trousers of Zinaida in the mortuary where she had been lying on the ground.

These details as found by the first search party hint on favourable snow conditions - with a thin layer of snow - between the tent site and the cedar/ravine.

Extrapolating this conclusion derived from these details (photos of footprints and natural fiber on paint of Zinaida) to the tent site:
- it is unlikely that the first search party had found the tent standing on a very thick layer of snow.

Arguably the snow as seen around the tent had been drifted around the tent by the wind.

The photos of the tent site made by the first search party in combination with the conclusion for the snow conditions between the tent and cedar/ravine don't provide any support for an avalanche or snowslab theory at the tent site.

Until now I have not read (or seen on photos) any detail at all - as found by the first search party - , that supports an 'avalanche or snow slab theory' that had caused the group to leave the tent site.

Only the last two loose photos might give rise to a snow slab theory, but too many skis visible without bindings give rise to suspicion of being a composition made in the dark room at least a month later.
Unfortunately it is impossible to provide a sound verdict/proof the authenticity of both photos showing 5/6 group members digging a hole in the snow.

Most of us assume - using as proof the Yuri Dor's ski pole visible in front of the last loose photo - that both photos show the group digging in the snow at the tent site.
Unfortunately the issue of authenticity of both last loose photos - in combination with photos and details as found by the first search party - does not give a sound ground for this assumption.
 


   

[Ziljoe]

Thank you Arjan.

The foot print may have been done by Zolotaryov and the others with felt boots. We can see that some of these boots have a heel.




Likewise, the print looks a bit too fresh and it may have been done by one of the searchers.

The snow on the slope , around boot rock and on the ridge is, and can be very shallow . The snow will not settle if the wind blows it away . There will be deep snow in the hollow areas and shallow on the raised areas . Zina definitely has some grass on here clothes but she was also laid to rest at boot rock where there would be raised grass. Also it must be considered if she made it to the ceder where it's reported that there was melted snow around the fire. There were fir branches from the ceder laid to insulate the hikers from the ground, the snow was also very shallow at the ceder , wet snow and freezing may have been the contact point for such grass to be on her clothes . That is 3 places for the potential for the debris to stick to her clothes.

The snow between the tent and ceder had varying depths , they were probing with sticks that passed the depth of Slobidin and zina.

It does not conclude that the first search party did not find the tent  on top of a thick layer of snow, from the other photos we can see various ski poles stuck in the ground , these ski poles are around 1.3 meters in depth , the photos show approximately 30 cm above ground which means 1m in depth is possible. Likewise, later videos of people replicating the trench show depths of over 1 meter on the slope.

Some parts of the slope will always be deeper than others. If snow is drifted about the tent , it would also rise and fall over three weeks , snow does not stay stable on an exposed wind blown slope , it moves in a slow fashion like waves on the sea. The winter season is long and the snow layers would have changed from November to February and beyond.


There is a collapsed tent that supports the theory of some sort of snow avalanche, plus the evacuation of the hickers from that location. 600 m on the slope of 1079 to the south west , an avalanche/ snowslide was observed in the last few years, the evidence of the avalanche disappeared within the hour due to the winds.

If the last two photos have no  authenticity , then nothing does, not the statements, any photos or the diary and combat leaflet. We either believe that the case files are true and work from that stand point, or , anything goes, aliens and the yeti included. To cherry pick evidence from potential false evidence is not a case of a theory worth any respect . First it must be proved that the case files are false?.

Then we start from there. 

[Arjan]

Thank you Ziljoe for your reply.

On most I agree.
Based upon your answer, I have checked the depth of the skis in the snow surface: personally I estimate around max. 40 cm.
Add to it a fully 'solid' snow surface under the backside of the ski of around max. 20 to 30 cm.
This will give an estimated max. snow surface of around 70 cm. (estimated 95 percentile) under the tent as found by the first search party.
The average estimation (50 percentile) will vary around 30 - 40 cm.

Solving this case poses many challenges, like:
1. studying the source material
2. estimating the relevance of the source material
3. estimating the reliability of the source material
4. interpreting the source material, e.g. the posture of Igor
5. arranging the source material in a possible timeline, like arranging jigsaw pieces in a puzzle.

During my process of estimating the reliability of source material, I have used - next to studying secundaire sources - a primitive manner of bayesian statistics.
I have estimated the reliability interval for "debatible" source material, in my mind I regards the change that the last two loose photos are reflecting the situation while preparing the tent site between 5 - 20 % reliable.

Suppose the last two loose photos are compositions made afterwards in the dark room, then the purpose of both photos may well have served to honour and remember the efforts made by the group members.
If this is the purpose - for me with a reliability of 60 - 80 %, then these photos are certainly not false, but these prints serve its purpose very very well.
And around 10 % reliability left?
As the journalists' collective Aleksej Rakitin suggests: a big brown bear with small eyes and ears - that see and hear all around it - does not like outsiders sniffling in its backyard with Uranium mines: this bear has had ample opportinities to amend the case files according its needs so it meets 'Communist historic materialism' or just before releasing the case files amending sensitive information.

After studying the maps: I have noted Ushma.
No entry in the diaries and photos for a visit to Ushma while long lists of Mansi words are included in the diaries.
Who leaves Vishay at 16.00 pm - one hour before sunset - to start skiing over a frozen river to head to 2nd: sorry, this is really stupid and hard to believable.
With at least 60 % reliability the group had visited Ushma in one way or another.   

After having made the five steps described above some five years ago, I noted that the nothing fits together: outsiders had made a cover up.

As challenge I have started a study taking as facts with 100 % reliability:
1. the post mortem reports
2. the photos of the group members in the mortuary
3. the photos made by both search parties
4. the timeline for progress of Hypothermia as included in one of my posts

Within this study I have taken into account secondary sources, on:
- survival
- hypothermia
- mountaineering
- blast wave and pressure wave.
I took these sources as 100 % reliable, while of course I am aware that these sources have a reliability interval as well.

While arranging the jigsaw pieces derived from this study, I noted that a timeline is possible without interference of outsiders in case:
1. the group members had decended in subgroups at separate times: there is not any proof that states they did!
2. two or three group members had survived the fatal night in order to place the other group members in postures as found by both search parties
3. as far as I am aware there is only one place where thest group member may survive a cold night: the re-erected tent on one skipole!
4. the group had wounded members: this makes sense for:
- choosing the campsite and two/three group members staying behind to take care for one wounded group member and
- for four group members sacrifying their lifes to take care for three wounded group members.
5. the next day two group members had placed the death/unconscious group members in the postures as found
6. arguably one group member had returned to Ushma of 2nd the day after to alert the authorities: this group member had a good chance to survive the tour.
 
After arranging and re-arranging these 'stated' facts: my conclusion is:
- Lyudmila's broken ribcage can only be explaned by a pressure wave as cause: I have not found another reliable cause
- it is possible to design a timeline for the last two days, that meets all details as found by the two search parties.

Looking critically at this timeline for the last two days:
- the natural fibers on Zinaida's trousers may as well be caused during her transport to Ivdel in a train carriage.

[Axelrod]

I think that the heel print was accidentally left by searchers.
Recently I was walking along a road between houses, on asphalt.
When a car passed me, I was forced to step onto the grass.
After me, exactly the same print was left, one print in one place.

Theoretically, the print could have been from the Dyatlov group, for example, by Zolotaryv.
But I doubt that it could have been preserved there for a month.
As for the print of strangers on February 1/2, I doubt doubly that such people existed and that prints remained intact.

[Ziljoe]

Thank you Arjan.

A couple of questions if I may, why does Ushma play any importance and who returned to Ushma on the 2nd?

I don't fully understand the reason to put fake photos of the hikers digging in the snow ? There is no need to create a narrative or add confusion and if the snow only gets to 40cm deep , why show a different depth in the last two photos? What purpose did these photos serve very very well?

[Arjan]

@ Ziljoe

Ushma is one of the mysteries in this case, because:
- it was a large settlement
- it is on the fork of two rivers leading to the Dyatlov Pass, so it is hard to miss
- three diaries include large lists of Mansi words: the lists made by Zinaida and Rustem are quite similar; the small list made by Lyudmila is quite similar to the beginning of both other list, while maybe the next pages are missing from her diary. I don't exclude that Lyudmila had given these pages to Zinaida and Rustem to copy. This lists don't fall as holy bread from heaven: there are two places where the three group members had acquired this information: at Vizhay or at Ushma. My calculated guess is Ushma.
- leaving around 16.00 pm - one hour before sunset - with uncle Slava for a tour over a frozen river is peculiar at least.

In case a tragedy had happened and if one group member may have been able to return from the tent site to 'civilisation', then Ushma will very probably the first destination to return to.
After the descend and moving in the tracks made before, it is feasible to return from the tent site to Ushma within daylight in one day.

Coming back on reliability of photos for solving the case:
- Russian bloggers - and I as well - are quite certain that the photos of Yuri Yudin leaving (frame 33 and 34 from film 6) the group are manipulated afterwards in a dark room, because Yuri Yudin had been around 185 cm tall, his coat is 'female buttoned', Yuri Yudin's left arm and hand are too short/small, Lyudmila standing upright with 25 kg rucksack doesn't meet the laws of classical mechanics (she will topple backward), Yuri Yudin standing upright 185 cm tall before Zinaida 162 cm tall, Zinaida visible without straps of the rucksack, Zinaida standing upright with a 25 kg rucksack.
- the last two loose photos show too many skis without bindings, while these should be visible, even on both photos showing bad light conditions.

In general photos are made with a purpose.

As far as I am aware these prints are not made solely to solve a cols case, within this forum many may assume otherwise.

Personally I think that the last 'loose photos' are composed to commemorate and honour the group members who have faced impossible challenges setting up a tent in a snow storm in arctic circumstances as 'heros of the revolution'. Within this purpose these photos are genuine and serve this purpose very well in my opinion.

The farewell photos of Yuri Yudin are very moving as 'commemoration' of the tour and the manner he had to leave. These two photos serve this purpose excellently.

So the photos I have mentioned are not false, but these may well have been composed with another purpose in mind.

Frame 36 of film 6 shows Zinaida making a slide.
Frames 13 to 15 show Thibo falling backwards.
In my timeline, Zinaida had made a slide during the ascend and Thibo had made a fall in the ravine.
At that time, it was rather unusual to make photos of fallen group member: non is available from other tours.
Why are these photos made? Or composed afterwards in a dark room? I don't have an answer.

Next to this, I am amazed that Yuri Yudin had returned while showing very healthy and enthousiastic.
It is common sense to accompany a injured/ill group member back with two healthy group members, in case of trouble with the wounded, one to guard the wounded and the second leaving to alert others for help.
I remember that Yuri Yudin had travelled with one companion according to documents.

Surviving a cold night in the re-erected tent - with many blankets - is feasible for two group member (one wounded): three group members is ideal, because on a rotary basis the middle can be rewarmed by the outside members, and two healthy will guard the wounded.

Adding all above - without full sound proof - I would not be amazed that Yuri Yudin had left the tour at a later moment.
If so:
- the three in the tent had agreed that Yuri Yudin would return to Ushma and Ivdel to alert the authorities: he may/might have made it.
- the authorities had been lax and lazy: they would like to put a cover on the group being victim of a pressure wave in the backyard of the 'big brown bear etc.'
- Yuri Yudin had been ordered that the tour had been a State Secret from the moment the group had left 2nd settlement (and 'storycraft' had been used for authoring his statement as available in the Case File, etc.)

There is an interview with Yuri Yudin as old man, where he had been interviewed in an inpolite direct manner.
In my opinion he had not deserved these way too forward/impolite questions, because he had been a man of his time in Russia at the late 50s of last century, nothing more, nothing less.










 


It keeps pondering in my mind why

[Ziljoe]

@ Arjan

I'll need to have a deeper look. I thought Ushma was the river.

All the photos look normal to me , straps , gravity and length of arms.

I'll need to look closer at the things you suggest .

[GlennM]

Ushma may be a red herring. Just because something appears logical does not mean it is truthful.

[Osi]

-I don't know how Ushma is today. In 1959, maximum 8-10 households; I think it is a Mansi village with a population of 50-70, with no school or hospital.Maybe much less.
 -I don't think the group had any preparations or plans to visit Ushma. They could get the necessary things from Vizhaz. When you go to Ushma, you will be surrounded by curious children and you will need to give them gifts. As a gesture to adults too. They were people who had difficulty making ends meet. They may be embarrassed to host you. Since they are always working to collect wood and hunt, they may not be available and may not be able to take care of you. Or they may not be happy to see such a large group in their village.
 -After Vizhai, you will no longer see the Russians you are familiar with. The only people you can meet in the mountains are Mansi. As you go deeper into the Amazon, you learn the tribe's culture, lifestyle, words, greeting rituals, etc. you will see. You can think of this as a preliminary preparation. I think the Mansi lyrics were written in Vizhai or the foresters' camp.
-Old Slava; He may have advised the young people either to travel by the river or not to travel by the river. They may have made a tour to verify river conditions.

[SURI]

No one turned Slobodin after his death. How could he die on his back with his legs bent in the air?

[Osi]

As for ski bindings; Old technology, low pixels, poor quality printing results. For example, like the bus ride photo above. Kriveshenko's right ear has surrendered to black constast. This does not mean that he does not have an ear. I think that in long-shot shots, the small details of people and objects cannot be seen against the prevailing contrast. It is like the small branches of a dark stick planted in snow white disappear in the white. Or it is normal for the laces to appear white due to icing and snow.

[SURI]

If 2-3 people spent the night in a tent, why weren't there more urine marks around the tent? And what did those people in the cold tent drink that they were in such good condition to undertake such a long and strenuous walk the next day?

[SURI]

And most importantly, why wouldn't they wear shoes for such a long walk? What prevented them from doing so?

[SURI]

If they couldn't put on their shoes even though they wanted to (see Slobodin), then you see that this timeline has cracks and it couldn't have happened this way.