Solved yet again - tent cut from inside.

[Senior Maldonado]

The statement you quote is the interviewer quoting what Stanislav Evgenievich Bogomolov, author of the article "Mystery of the fireballs", said ivanov said ?

My understanding is that in July 1990 Lev Ivanov was interviewed by Stanislav Bogomolov, and that interview was published "as is". The quote, whiich I shared earlier, was from that interview. Then in November 1990 the article "Fireballs Mystery" was published, and it was already not in form of interview, but rather Mr.Ivanov's narrative. And further, in a few years, Stanislav Bogomolov was interviewed himself by another journalist. In that most recent interview the journalist returned to some aspects of the initial July 1990 interview, that's why Ivanov's remarks about the device are repeated there.

More information about Mr.Kikoin's activities on the slope was provided by Peter Bartolomey, participant of Mr.Kikoin's search team.

"Tests for radioctivity levels on the spot, where the hikers died, were performed by well-known physicist Abram Konstantinovich Kikoin, currently RIP. He also was a head of climbers' sport team at UPI, physics teacher, Ph.D. Mr.Kikoin arrived to the slope equipped with the most advanced radiometer, developed by Yuri Shtein, who also was former UPI student. In spite the radiometer was quite bulky, it was considered to be very efficient. It was used to measure radiation levels in the area affected by the Mayak accident near town of Chelyabinsk."

Sergei Sogrin, another participant of the rescue team, also talks about radiation investigation run by Mr.Kikoin. Mr.Sogrin even took liberty to ask Mr.Kikoin about outcome of the investigation. The answer was "nothing found". But I guess we should not believe that answer, as Mr.Kikoin definetely was under NDA.

[Ziljoe]

Ziljoe:
„My point is , it's someone saying someone else's said this and this is from someone who is writing an article titled "mystery of the fire balls" , hardly a respectable or academic paper and he can't seem to remember what would be important facts to the case.“

When someone says that someone told someone something, it really doesn't sound credible.

Agree , it is a problem and it's not easy to follow all the material regarding the DPI.

[Senior Maldonado]

My understanding is that in July 1990 Lev Ivanov was interviewed by Stanislav Bogomolov, and that interview was published "as is". The quote, whiich I shared earlier, was from that interview.

Yes, that is correct. For those, who is not against practicing reading in russian ). The exact quote is marked by rectangle.

[sarapuk]

My problem is I don't see outsiders or demons allowing much of the above actions to take place but I do see some logic in the choices made by the hikers which implies that they had some control over their decisions .

It might be not a problem but rather looking at the right direction. In the investigation's closing statement Lev Ivanov clearly wrote that investigation had revealed nobody at the spot on February 1st and 2nd besides the hikers. Numerous members of the serach party confirm that they have not found traces of other humans or animals there.

So the model of DPI looks the following: something happened, which made the hikers to cut the tent (their only home there!) and leave in a hurry, as staying not only in the tent but also nearby might mean immediate death. They retreated 1.5km downhill and set temporary camp at the Cedar tree, at the distance they felt was safe. Their intention was to return back to the tent as soon as possible. However, time played not in their favor, so Zina made desperate attempt to reach the tent before the threat has gone. But she managed just half way up. Rustam and Igor, who attempted to rescue her, did not manage either. By the way, this means that the initial event was not an avalanche. If 9 hikers were not able to reach the tent buried in avalance and fetch necessary things, how could Zina alone do that?

I don't think they moved 1.5 km to where they felt safe or to be a certain distance away from the tent , I think it was the most suitable location that they chose due to the resources of the ravine , cedar and to be out of any wind . If the tent and equipment cannot be used then the only choice is to go to the treeline . There would be no advantage in going further into the forest and certainly not in the direction from the tent because the Mansi , labaz and civilization were in the other direction. It was highly unlikely that they could go further in the forest due to the drifted snow and this is also reported.

The location they chose was the  most sheltered and closest to the tent .

If the three were returning to the tent , it is most likely that they died from the cold doing so. It is evident that things didn't go well at the ravine and trying to get resources from the tent would be the last chance and hope. To sit freezing is a one way ticket to death to move gives you some chance. Many people freezing and suffering from hypothermia crawl for help.

If it were an avalanche, it does not need to big , it just has to be a threat in the night. If it was a wolverine , elk or rocket the same applies . That is, try and stay warm , choose a location close to your main equipment and go back to the tent when the beast has gone or conditions improve .

But surely there would be less snow in the forest than outside of the forest. They avoided going into the forest for some reason. But they stayed near the tree line. They were really scared of something, even terrified, and it wasn't the weather.

[sarapuk]

It is evident that things didn't go well at the ravine

Yes, and the question is 'why?'. The bonfire at the Cedar tree should provide warmth, but two Yuras managed to freeze to death near its flame. The ravine should provide safe shelter, however 4 hikers found their death there. Zina, when staring back to the tent, obviously expected to walk all way up and then return to the Cedar tree with so badly needed clothes and equipment, but she was able to cover just half way up. Rustem and Igor managed even shorter distance. Why did not experienced and strong hikers resist frost and wind much longer?

Probably because of the unknown force. The weather was not helping them, but it wasn't the weather that caused the demise of the Dyatlov Group. It may have finished some of them off, but it didn't cause the event.

[sarapuk]

It is evident that things didn't go well at the ravine

Yes, and the question is 'why?'. The bonfire at the Cedar tree should provide warmth, but two Yuras managed to freeze to death near its flame. The ravine should provide safe shelter, however 4 hikers found their death there. Zina, when staring back to the tent, obviously expected to walk all way up and then return to the Cedar tree with so badly needed clothes and equipment, but she was able to cover just half way up. Rustem and Igor managed even shorter distance. Why did not experienced and strong hikers resist frost and wind much longer?

The fire at the cedar was not adequate to warm the hikers against the cold and we don't know if it was a last attempt for survival or to warm the two Yuri's alone or the whole group . To make a den flooring and a fire with flooring 70 meters apart suggests the two locations had different priorities or their initial plan changed . It would make more sense if the den flooring was found next to a fire.

My thoughts have changed endlessly about possible scenarios but I work a model from the basis of a wind slab, snow collapse , animal , wind or some other natural force of nature that made them leave the tent . So this has some connection to my thought process and is not meant to dismiss other people's ideas and I try to take baby steps where I can with as little leaps of faith as I can.

From the moment the hikers leave the tent , the clock of hypothermia starts ticking , this will have a host of variables, how warm they were initially in the tent , the energy they used to get over the pass ,erect the tent platform and if they were already damp from those activities for example . We don't know the wind chill, humidity, temperature, visibility or time of day but we know the biggest danger is the cold and it was cold .

Ultimately the hikers died of hypothermia which is when the body core temperature drops to a point where it can't heat itself. They also suffered varying levels of frostbite which is the start of freezing to the body but not the cause of death.

So as for the 'why ?' To your question , they were exposed to the elements, as time passes the body starts to shut down , including the brain , hands and joints start to stiffen up , feeling and touch are lost .

Some potential scenarios are that they fell in to the ravine and some hikers got partially wet , this would greatly amplify the seriousness of the situation and may explain an effort to try and dry some clothing that was found with burns in and around the fire and on the hikers. People with cold and frostbite will stick their limbs into a fire as there can be no feeling plus the potential of severe hypothermia affects the ability to think.

There may have been some collapse of snow on the ravine four and I have suggested a snow cave collapse given the amount of snow that was above them but I know it's not a perfect solution. The ravine 4 location , body positions and injuries are one of the most difficult things to explain with any of the theories although the autopsy reports seem to suggest crush injuries .

I would think Zina , Igor etc would be starting to fail  and if they lasted the longest it may just be the luck of DNA or being female and carrying a bit more fat cells with strong will power to save the others  . It was probably a crawl back up the slope if this is what they were doing , there would be no choice .

There are numerous examples of people and other Soviet hikers failing in similar conditions from hypothermia, some make it against the odds , others don't .

The weather conditions wouldn't help the Dyatlov Group. But it's highly unlikely to be the reason for the event. The event that caused the group to flee their tent, the way that they did. Leaving them at the mercy of not only the weather but whatever was responsible for driving them from their tent in the first place. Most of the injuries had nothing to do with weather conditions. 

[sarapuk]

From the moment the hikers leave the tent , the clock of hypothermia starts ticking , this will have a host of variables, how warm they were initially in the tent , the energy they used to get over the pass ,erect the tent platform and if they were already damp from those activities for example . We don't know the wind chill, humidity, temperature, visibility or time of day but we know the biggest danger is the cold and it was cold .

Ultimately the hikers died of hypothermia which is when the body core temperature drops to a point where it can't heat itself. They also suffered varying levels of frostbite which is the start of freezing to the body but not the cause of death.

I would not be that certain that both Yuras died from hypothermia. When the hikers had to leave the tent, they found themselves in approximately same conditions -- outside tempratures, wind, etc. They had to walk the same distance and arrived together to the Cedar tree. How could it be that Yuras got frozen to death, while others continued to be more or less OK? Zina and two guys felt fit to go back to the tent, while Ravine 4 group had enough energy to remove clothes from Yuras, lay them in a row, and relocate to the ravine to make a den? Is it possihble that hypothermia dismisses two strong guys within 2,5 hrs? We can do rough estimation how long Yuras were alive. Moving from the tent to the Cedar tree takes no longer than 30 min (1,5 km downhill). Another 30 min is required to break Cedar's dry branches and to light bonfire. The bonfire lasted for about 1,5 hrs, which gives us in total 2,5 hrs since tent's departure. It is very unlikely that the bonfire would not be kept if Yuras were alive -- attempts to rescue them would have continued.

This all makes me think that Yuras had another problem besides hypothermia. And that problem started already on the slope, at the tent's site. On coming to the Cedar tree Dyatlov's group had to fight for Yuras lifes first of all. Keeping themselves warm was secondary task.

The weather conditions get lots of treatment in the Dyatlov Mystery. But it's most certain that the weather was not the reason for the event that brought about the situation that led to the group abandoning their tent, etc. The injuries should be a clue, but many researchers still hang on to the hypothermia theory.

[sarapuk]

The autopsy found nothing unusual with the two Yuri's.

Yes, but we should not forget that we are talking about visual inspection only. We know that Mr.Vozrozhdenny ordered to perform chemical and hystological analysis of the samples taken from first 5 hikers' bodies. And at that point strange things started to happen. The results have been never announced. Shortly after the results were to be ready, Mr.Kikoin came to the slope with very advanced device and measured radiation levels there. It had taken about a day, then he quickly left together with Lev Ivanov. They say, after being called back from the Dyatlov Pass on March 15th, Lev Ivanov stopped to discuss the incident with members of the search party, reporters, etc. We can suspect that analysis results and terrain measurements revealed something, which rank and file people better not to know.

If the fire had been started for the Yuri's, then why not keep it going instead of making a den?

Maybe low temperatures actually were not that low? And Ravine 4 team just preferred to protect themselves from the wind, not from the temperatures? The Cedar tree is located at quite open space, exposed to all winds...

Yes, the weather theory gets a bit overdone. Obviously, in an event such as this, the weather will play a part, but it doesn't mean that it was the weather that caused the event, and we only have to look at some of the injuries to realise that the weather didn't cause them.
 

[Senior Maldonado]

... many researchers still hang on to the hypothermia theory.

Probably, these researchers are right. At least, if we look at 3 hikers' deaths, which occurred surprisingly quickly after they left temporary camp at the Cedat tree and attempted to return to the tent, they died from hypothermia. In my view, Zina was the only one, who intended to return to the tent. When she fell into snow and was not able to proceed, Rustem ran to rescue her. He also fell and was not able to proceed. Then Igor Dyatlov himself made an attempt to rescue Rustem and Zina, but the distance he managed to cover turned to be even shorter. All three died from hypothermia in few minutes, which makes to think that cold wind and low temperatures received some support to act as turbo-freezers.

The point is that Sergey Korolev's rockets flew on kerosin + liquid oxygen. There were other fuel+oxydizer pairs that included cryogenic component. Having cryogenic component on board, a rocket can eject it in case of an accident. And cryogenic component could add a good deal of cold to the air. If we consider the rocket theory and assume that the rocket leaked some cryogenic gas into air, the wind blowing downhill might have been really frosty.

[sarapuk]

... many researchers still hang on to the hypothermia theory.

Probably, these researchers are right. At least, if we look at 3 hikers' deaths, which occurred surprisingly quickly after they left temporary camp at the Cedat tree and attempted to return to the tent, they died from hypothermia. In my view, Zina was the only one, who intended to return to the tent. When she fell into snow and was not able to proceed, Rustem ran to rescue her. He also fell and was not able to proceed. Then Igor Dyatlov himself made an attempt to rescue Rustem and Zina, but the distance he managed to cover turned to be even shorter. All three died from hypothermia in few minutes, which makes to think that cold wind and low temperatures received some support to act as turbo-freezers.

The point is that Sergey Korolev's rockets flew on kerosin + liquid oxygen. There were other fuel+oxydizer pairs that included cryogenic component. Having cryogenic component on board, a rocket can eject it in case of an accident. And cryogenic component could add a good deal of cold to the air. If we consider the rocket theory and assume that the rocket leaked some cryogenic gas into air, the wind blowing downhill might have been really frosty.

The rocket theory keeps cropping up, as do so many other theories, but where is the evidence for a rocket event? Sure, the weather played its part. Imagine if this had happened in a warm climate. Would there have been a different outcome? Would some of the group have survived the event?

[Senior Maldonado]

The rocket theory keeps cropping up, as do so many other theories, but where is the evidence for a rocket event? Sure, the weather played its part. Imagine if this had happened in a warm climate. Would there have been a different outcome? Would some of the group have survived the event?

If we had clear evidence of anything, we would not have discussed theories. I am afraid, with all the data we have there is no chance to prove that certain theory is correct. We need more data, and it will come, I hope.

The rocket theory, in my opinion, has a big chance to win. Ivanov ran investigation and came to understanding that "flying object" had been the cause of DPI. At the beginning, he thought that the object chased the hikers and exploded at the bottom of the slope. Later, he changed his mind and thought that the object had certain intellect (astronauts inside?). He could not undesrtand why three hikers were severely injured, while others were not. But both his theories are mistakes, imho. The last 4 hikers were dismissed by a blast, which was not selective at all. They were the last, who kept alive, that's why the blast affected them only.

How could they survive? First, one should not approach unknown "flying object". Second, one should not light a fire, when flamable substance is dispersed in the air.

[sarapuk]

The rocket theory keeps cropping up, as do so many other theories, but where is the evidence for a rocket event? Sure, the weather played its part. Imagine if this had happened in a warm climate. Would there have been a different outcome? Would some of the group have survived the event?

If we had clear evidence of anything, we would not have discussed theories. I am afraid, with all the data we have there is no chance to prove that certain theory is correct. We need more data, and it will come, I hope.

The rocket theory, in my opinion, has a big chance to win. Ivanov ran investigation and came to understanding that "flying object" had been the cause of DPI. At the beginning, he thought that the object chased the hikers and exploded at the bottom of the slope. Later, he changed his mind and thought that the object had certain intellect (astronauts inside?). He could not undesrtand why three hikers were severely injured, while others were not. But both his theories are mistakes, imho. The last 4 hikers were dismissed by a blast, which was not selective at all. They were the last, who kept alive, that's why the blast affected them only.

How could they survive? First, one should not approach unknown "flying object". Second, one should not light a fire, when flamable substance is dispersed in the air.

Well, theories should be discussed, obviously and dissected, etc. So, where is the evidence for blast injuries? No blast injuries were given as a reason for any of the Dyatlov Group's demise in the autopsy reports.