picture of the lights

[farelaurent]

 

[farelaurent]

During a future expedition to the pass, it would be necessary to bring a drone equipped with a thermal camera in order to conduct reconnaissance and map the terrain.
Additionally, carbon-14 analysis should be carried out on the ground, along with DNA sampling on certain discovered elements.

A live-streaming camera should also be installed to record everything happening at the pass. This would make it possible to identify whether lights appear at times in the area of the pass.
Radiocarbon dating, also known as carbon-14 dating or residual carbon-14 counting, is a radiometric dating method based on measuring the radioactive activity of carbon-14 contained in organic matter whose absolute age is to be determined — that is, the time elapsed since the death of the organism (animal or plant) from which it originates.

The range of application of this method corresponds to absolute ages from a few hundred years up to a maximum of about 50,000 years. The application of this method to ancient events, particularly those older than 6,000 years (prehistoric period), has made it possible to date them much more precisely than before. It has therefore brought significant progress to archaeology and paleontology.

[Missi]

What do you want the thermal map for?
Why do you want the ground to be investigated for its age?
Which items do you want to have analysed for DNA?

A camera would be interesting, though it would only verify if there are lights today, not if there were back then. It's a step to plausibility though. I just think it's be difficult because of the harsh environment. And I don't know what the laws in Russia say about random cameras. It would be difficult in Germany, I think.

[farelaurent]

Thermal imaging technology enables the detection of objects that emit heat, a capability beyond the limits of human vision. It is possible that physical evidence remains at the site but has not yet been identified. An aerial survey of the area would provide valuable insight into the environmental challenges the group may have faced. Furthermore, it would allow for precise mapping of the terrain, contributing to a more rigorous evaluation of the existing theories.

Rather than studying the age of the soil, my focus would be on dendrochronological analysis — specifically determining the age of certain trees. Establishing when the cedar tree died and fell could be crucial. If the exact date were determined, it could either support or refute the hypothesis that the cedar tree collapsed onto the tent.

In terms of forensic analysis, any objects dating from that period could potentially undergo DNA testing to identify traces of human or animal genetic material, or even unknown biological markers. In France, cold cases involving murders committed more than fifty years ago have been successfully solved through advances in forensic science, with perpetrators identified decades later.

If the objective is to establish the truth, all available scientific methods should be employed, taking full advantage of technological progress. I have also considered the use of artificial intelligence: by inputting all verified data into a structured analytical model, AI systems could assist in identifying inconsistencies, testing hypotheses, and generating plausible reconstructions of the events that may have occurred that night.

[Missi]

Well, I'd suspect, that items not found by now won't be big enough, that their difference in temperature would register on a thermo camera. I don't know though. Do you have detailed information? Also you'd have to fly the drone carrying it beneath the trees, firstly because the area changed since then and secondly because to be sure they were not in the forest, but actually camping on the slope, you'd have to verify what could be found there.
A precise mapping would be helpful, but wasn't the area scanned by drones during summer already?
The age of the fallen trees in the area could be helpful, indeed.
In order to analyse DNA, you first need to find some. Many items have been handled by many people since they were found. You still could look whether traces of DNA can be found. But I'd suspect it'd be expensive and won't yield helpful results. If you find traces you can analyse, they will most likely originate from A one of the hikers, B one of the searchers, C one of the handling scientists, forensics or whoever was involved. You probably won't find DNA traces of all of those people to verify. And even if you could and you would find some other traces, you still wouldn't know who left those traces in the first place. It'd be a little like finding traces of Jack the Ripper. Who would you want to test the traces against?
And I really doubt that most AI, especially those we can get our hands on, are evolved enough to help out with an authoritative result.

[farelaurent]

I am simply proposing possible avenues of investigation to the relevant authorities. I am not an investigator.

Regarding artificial intelligence, it can indeed provide significant support in analyzing data that has already been collected and in comparing it with other information in order to detect potential inconsistencies. It can also help reconstruct an event based on the data integrated into its analytical system.

[GlennM]

A dendrological analysis has been done with bore samples in the past. Teddy comissioned them. With regard to artificial intelligence, well, it is! AI is just summarizing what is already known and/or speculated. What we hope for is some emergent revelation which has defied our best sleuthing. It would be the a ha moment.
 At the very root of all these investigative threads is the realization  that knowing the " how" of anything does not explain the " why" of it.Further, we are vexed because for the " how" of things, there is more than one explanation. At the most fundamental level, it reduces to something caused by an indifferent Nature versus distinctly interested humans ( read conspiracy buffs).

The fundamental question is and has always been quite simple, " Why did they leave the tent?" All else proceeds from that answer.

[farelaurent]

I agree with what you said regarding the analyses that have already been carried out.

Why did they leave their tent? Yes, that is the ultimate question, but it leads to several theories.

There is something for everyone: a killer, the KGB, a Yeti, extraterrestrials, the cedar tree falling onto the tent, an avalanche, a conspiracy theory, the indigenous people…

I only know one thing for sure: the group is the only one who truly knows what happened, and there is only one truth. But which one? That remains a mystery.

The most solid explanation remains a natural cause, probably related to a small avalanche or an unstable snow slab phenomenon.

On the night of February 1–2, 1959, the group led by Igor Dyatlov was camping on the slopes of Kholat Syakhl in the Ural Mountains. The weather conditions were extreme: strong winds, temperatures around –25 to –30°C, and reduced visibility.

Why leave the tent almost without clothing?
This suggests an urgent escape, perceived as an immediate threat. A snow slab beginning to give way, a dull rumble, pressure on the tent… This could have triggered a controlled panic response: they exited quickly, thinking they would return afterward.

Then hypothermia did the rest. At those temperatures, mental abilities decline rapidly. Some of the injuries found on the bodies may be consistent with falls into a snow-covered ravine.

Theories involving the KGB, a Yeti, extraterrestrials, or a conspiracy are fascinating — and humanly understandable. Our minds seek a cause proportional to the tragedy. But no solid evidence supports these extraordinary hypotheses.

What makes the case disturbing is not necessarily the supernatural. It is the combination of:

pitch-black night

extreme cold

total isolation

acute stress

decisions made within seconds

And under such conditions, even experienced hikers can make a fatal mistake.

There is only one truth, yes.
But it is possible that this truth is simpler — and more tragically human — than what our imagination would like to believe.

[Ziljoe]

I am simply proposing possible avenues of investigation to the relevant authorities. I am not an investigator.

Regarding artificial intelligence, it can indeed provide significant support in analyzing data that has already been collected and in comparing it with other information in order to detect potential inconsistencies. It can also help reconstruct an event based on the data integrated into its analytical system.

I think the relevant authorities looked at all avenues.plus the area is highly contaminated .

As for AI , it is extremely restricted for this purpose , there is no information for it to collate .

 Teddy has had the tree tested and it seems it fell late 1958 to early 1959.

Dyatlov pass has been littered with tourists , young and old , by helicopter , quad bike , jeep , truck ,4x4  foot , ski , skidoo, in winter and summer. There's tourist packages to book if you like?



No one's taken a photo of orbs yet...

[farelaurent]

Thank you for this information, my dear friend.
As for the expedition, I would have been interested, but for scientific purposes rather than tourism. The problem is that, given the current situation between European countries and Russia, it would be impossible for me to travel there.

The 19th package of sanctions, adopted by the EU on October 23, prohibits organizing or promoting tourist trips to the Russian Federation, whether individual or group stays. On Thursday, October 23, 2025, the Official Journal of the European Union published its 19th package of sanctions against Russia. Among these measures, European travel agencies may no longer organize or promote individual or group trips to the Russian Federation. Travel there is also formally discouraged by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Fines and prison sentences

“The sanctions concern both group and individual travel and also prohibit the advertising of these services as well as the work of tour guides assisting Russian tourists,” explains Pavlina Ilieva, president of the Association of Tour Operators and Travel Agents “Union Future of Tourism,” in an interview with the online newspaper Sofia Sega.
In Saint Petersburg, French-speaking guide Anouar Tuiek, 35, has observed a significant decline in international clientele.
“Unfortunately, we almost no longer have French-speaking tourists coming to visit our country,” he explains.

According to him, French tourists are now being replaced by a few visitors from Algeria or Tunisia, but this new flow remains very limited.

“French travel agencies no longer work with Russia. It’s complicated in terms of flights and payments. There are still individual travelers who find guides without going through agencies.”

Faced with the drop in clientele, some tour guides have turned their activity into a simple hobby, while others have left the profession altogether.

[GlennM]

The images put me in mind of something closer to home.It  is the James Dean memorial at Cholame, California. James Dean a rising young movie star captured the spirit of youthful rebellion in the 1950's. He was driving a low slung Porche Spyder race car when an oncoming vehicle crossed in front of him on a country highway. Where he crashed and died was actually a distance away from where a memorial was erected. That road has recently been reworked so as to make the crash site a patch of ground out in the country behind a fence with no markers. In a similar vein, Boot Rock has become the de facto shrine standing in for the last camp of the hikers. The tent location too, is subject to debate.

We are human and we need and value symbols.

[sarapuk]

I worked on the photo of the lights taken by the group
I wanted to bring out details
There is a light that has an octagonal shape
By increasing the contrast of the lights that appear on the left, when looking at it and stepping back, it looks like a face.
My name is Farel Laurent, I live in France in a city called Longwy.

Well, it's interesting. It looks like a Yeti-type face. Of course, that could be because we see in it that type of face.

[sarapuk]

Yes, I had thought of that, but what do you think these lights are?
There are also testimonies from people who saw a luminous orb at the group's campsite.
Sorry for my very bad English

We need to know if anyone saw orbs of light at the tent site at the actual time of the incident. 

[sarapuk]

I am not saying that you are right, nor that I am right.
We are caught up in this affair, and we simply want the real truth, not speculation.
But to obtain that real truth, we would need many elements that we no longer have.
Therefore, this affair will remain in the shadows forever.

I think of those young men and women who set out in search of an exceptional adventure,
which tragically ended in death.
May they rest in peace.

Obviously, we need every bit of evidence we can get. We continue to analyse what little we have to go on. But it should be noted that lots of things have cropped up since the fall of the USSR. More may yet crop up.

[sarapuk]

The night is calm.
They are lying inside the tent, asleep.

Suddenly, a massive noise tears through the silence.
They wake up in shock.
The fabric of the tent trembles.

One of them cuts a hole in the tent and looks through the opening.
He takes a photograph.
Outside, something shines. A powerful, unreal light.

They shout to wake the others.
Fear takes hold of them.
They do not try to understand.

They all flee together, running,
leaving their belongings behind,
abandoning the tent,
vanishing into the frozen night,
without even taking the time to put on their shoes.

The mountain watches.
Silence returns.

I think if they were awakened or alerted to such a noise, they would first of all look out from the entrance to their tent, not cut it.

[GlennM]

My doggerel,

Inside the tent, at night they will lay
to rest from their efforts expended that day.
A meal not so hot, a blanket quite cold
They talk about love and Symphony in Gold.
Did they write in secret or record words spoken
to make a combat leaflet called the Evening Ortoten?
To bed they turn, its dark and its late,
Except for two who must urinate.
Now, snuggled and cozy in some state of undress,
They hear the wind rise, but try to get rest.
A ridge of show piles up near the tent,
to strain what's below and cause an event.
It slips all at once with devilish ease,
those caught inside inside find it harder to breathe.
"Out!",  comes commands and shiny knife blades
for cutting away canvas, there's lives to save.
Now, out in the cold with no time to spare,
they head for the woods and make fire there.
It seems not enough and the cost was too high,
so they find a deep ditch and to the dead say, "goodbye."
Their troubles are not over, the plan isn't sound.
More sliding snow pushes them to the ground.
For three who remain, their choice is quite clear.
Go back to the tent and get out of here!
But time and cold are indifferent to them.
They tried to succeed but fall in the end.
When later discovered, the finders all said,
" I wonder what happened, all of them dead".

[farelaurent]

Your account deeply moved me; it brings out a great deal of emotion in me when I think about them.”
“One day, the truth will come out. May their souls rest in peace.”

[ilahiyol]

The night is calm.
They are lying inside the tent, asleep.

Suddenly, a massive noise tears through the silence.
They wake up in shock.
The fabric of the tent trembles.

One of them cuts a hole in the tent and looks through the opening.
He takes a photograph.
Outside, something shines. A powerful, unreal light.

They shout to wake the others.
Fear takes hold of them.
They do not try to understand.

They all flee together, running,
leaving their belongings behind,
abandoning the tent,
vanishing into the frozen night,
without even taking the time to put on their shoes.

The mountain watches.
Silence returns.

I think if they were awakened or alerted to such a noise, they would first of all look out from the entrance to their tent, not cut it.

There can only be one reason for this. The young people may have had a malevolent interaction with an unknown force before setting up their tent! They initially wanted to camp in the forest, but the unknown force may have prevented it. It may have affected and frightened them with strange, terrifying noises. Because of this, they may have decided to abandon camping in the forest and climb the hill instead. And the unknown force followed them and became visible. The reason they looked at it by cutting open the tent instead of looking through the door is because of their previous negative interaction with it. They were terrified and all wanted to look at it at once. That's why they wanted to cut open the tent and look at it all together, instead of one by one. Their willingness to cut open the tent is definitive proof of how much they were affected by the unknown force!

[sarapuk]

The night is calm.
They are lying inside the tent, asleep.

Suddenly, a massive noise tears through the silence.
They wake up in shock.
The fabric of the tent trembles.

One of them cuts a hole in the tent and looks through the opening.
He takes a photograph.
Outside, something shines. A powerful, unreal light.

They shout to wake the others.
Fear takes hold of them.
They do not try to understand.

They all flee together, running,
leaving their belongings behind,
abandoning the tent,
vanishing into the frozen night,
without even taking the time to put on their shoes.

The mountain watches.
Silence returns.

I think if they were awakened or alerted to such a noise, they would first of all look out from the entrance to their tent, not cut it.

There can only be one reason for this. The young people may have had a malevolent interaction with an unknown force before setting up their tent! They initially wanted to camp in the forest, but the unknown force may have prevented it. It may have affected and frightened them with strange, terrifying noises. Because of this, they may have decided to abandon camping in the forest and climb the hill instead. And the unknown force followed them and became visible. The reason they looked at it by cutting open the tent instead of looking through the door is because of their previous negative interaction with it. They were terrified and all wanted to look at it at once. That's why they wanted to cut open the tent and look at it all together, instead of one by one. Their willingness to cut open the tent is definitive proof of how much they were affected by the unknown force!

You certainly have a point about them being driven to the slope because of something down in the forest that was causing them some alarm. And maybe they knew that something was then at their tent site and decided to flee quickly by cutting open the tent. Something definitely scared them at the tent site for them to flee, not dressed properly. 

[GlennM]

A distinction must be made between a malevolent force and an indifferent force. Those who embrace conspiracy just don't know the facts.All behavior is motivated is there are none to support a directed malevalent force on a bunch of college kids out for a hike. It is all logical constructions based on false premises. There is a certain satisfaction in embracing melancholy. Let's drink and sing sad songs. Let us write sad poetry. Let us lay wreaths and cast plaques. Why? it is the hope that when we too die, someone will care enough to do those things for us because we mattered and are remembered. However, when taken to an extreme, you get pilgrimage and a cult following for these things.

Nature is an indifferent force. Further, if you care to throw evolution into the mix, then Nature does not care if you survive an event or not. It is nice if some of your kind actually do, they who survive make babies that might also have the adaptation that works for them too. Nature is indifferent to that also.

[Ziljoe]

Yes — and the evidence we do have, while not conclusive, consistently points toward a weather‑driven scenario. More importantly, that’s exactly where the case files themselves land. The investigators reached the same place: something in the environment forced the group out, they just couldn’t determine the exact mechanism.

[Senior Maldonado]

The evidence we do have, while not conclusive, consistently points toward a weather‑driven scenario. More importantly, that’s exactly where the case files themselves land. The investigators reached the same place: something in the environment forced the group out, they just couldn’t determine the exact mechanism.

I reserve the right to have different opinion. The evidence we have consistently points that Urakov, Okishev, and Ivanov did excellent work to camouflage what happened in reality. Lots of people do believe that the No-number case and corresponding case files truly reflect the DPI investigation process and outcome. I am glad to see that Soviet Prosecutor's Office workers had such high qualification and skills. This indicates that investigations of criminal cases, where they did not have management pressure for predefined results, were peanuts for them.

As for the 'Bad weather' theory proponents, I am waiting with genuine curiosity which kind of natural calamity they will select finally. The russian officials propose good variety of choices:
- Big Hurricane (Khruschev and the Central Committee);
- Avalanche + collapse of a snow cornice (prosecutor Shkryabach);
- Avalanche + one more Avalanche (prosecutor Kuryakov);
- leave it anonymous (prosecutor Ivanov).
 

[Ziljoe]

“Different prosecutors proposing different variants of an environmental trigger doesn’t imply camouflage — it reflects incomplete data and normal Soviet bureaucratic inconsistency. The case files don’t show evidence of a directed or malevolent cause, and they don’t show evidence of a cover‑up either.”

[GlennM]

I think what Senior does not appreciate is that if the DPI were a mikitary accident/ incident, then the military, not civilian authorities would take control. On the other hand, if it were a civil accident/incident, then military involvement would be discouraged because their authority would complicate any cover up. If it were political assassination,  the imvestigation would be curtailed outright, but much more probable is the system making a public exaample of the deceased.

5he DPI was a weather related tragedy resulting from youth who anticipated success, but were too poorly equipped and funded to survive the rigors and variables of the hike. Everything in the criminal ( poor label) case points to it. Nothing points elsewhere. Those who lean into conspiracy just lack the facts, so they compensate with logical constructions. Logic is not truth.

[Senior Maldonado]

The fact that Klinov, civilian prosecutor, rushed to Ivdel to supervise the first 5 autopsies clearly shows that it was civilian incident. In case of military incident, we would have had a military prosecutor rushing to Ivdel.

The simple logic suggests that Ivanov would have never talked about fireballs' blasts and death rays, if it had been avalanche or huricane.

[GlennM]

It helps to  know when Ivanov made those bold claims.

[Senior Maldonado]

Ivanov made those claims when his former bosses passed away and drastic changes in the country's political system provided him more freedom to speak. This is logical. But 'when?' is a secondary question. The primary question is 'why?'. Why did he speak about blasts and rays, while he could simply say 'snow slab'? And why did he apologize before the hikers' relatives? It's not his fault that snow slab happened unexpectedly in the mountains and the group reacted by fleeing half-naked to nowhere.

[GlennM]

He was just as much in the dark as everyone else, else there would be no mystery.

[SURI]

The mystery is not because of Ivanov. If you're not allowed to write something, you don't write it, even if you know it.

[Ziljoe]

Senior, the difficulty with using Ivanov’s late‑life comments as evidence is that they don’t reflect his 1959 investigative position — they reflect the glasnost media environment he was speaking into. By the early 1990s, journalists were actively encouraging dramatic explanations, and retired officials were suddenly free to speculate without consequences.

In the 1959 case file — the only place where he was working under legal responsibility — he never mentions:

- blasts 
- rays 
- weapons 
- secret tests 
- or any directed cause 

He closes the case as an accident triggered by an environmental factor. 
That’s the version he signed his name to.

His later interviews are inconsistent, speculative, and shaped by the era, not by evidence. 
That’s why “why didn’t he just say snow slab?” isn’t really the right question — the slab model didn’t exist in 1959, and Ivanov wasn’t a snow‑science specialist.

The case file and the glasnost interviews don’t match because they come from two completely different contexts.