Bartolomey

[GlennM]

Pyotr Bartolomey took part in the search Mar 13-23, 1959.
"I spent two weeks huddled down in a tent with Ivanov. He was asking me about everything and everybody.
After the first five bodies were found, he was summoned and we parted with the promise that we will continue the conversation. When Ivanov arrived back on the pass (as well as in Ivdel and Sverdlovsk) he was withdrawn, and didn't want to talk even to Maslennikov (the head of the search operation). Ivanov said to me – I can't talk to you, I am not allowed. It was obvious to me that he was told what happened, sworn to silence and he was afraid.

This reads like Ivanov was told something. I think what he was told is something like if you want to keep climbing higher as a civil servant, you should stick to the facts and not make up stories.

[SURI]

It was obvious to him that they were killed.

[GlennM]

If the testimony is not made up, and I have no reason to believe so, then Ivanov was advised to stop speculating. Why?

I am thinking that his speculation could filter all the way back to the home of the hikers by way of returning college students. Further, if we use the party game of telephone as an example, each retelling of the story gets filtered by each reporter's perception. It is conceivable that an unsubstantiated rumor of lights in the sky could morph into a botched Soviet military test.

It could also be that Ivanov was reminded of his role in the investigation and how his handling of it might play out in terms of career advancement. So, casual speculations with companions could have more gravitas because Ivanov was the one to say it. It matters little if it is factual or not, it is about who said what.

Then, there is the matter that Ivanov found out something of the truth. That truth would somehow involve the deep pockets of the Soviet government,meaning someone is going to lawyer up and go to court and sue the Bear. That, in turn will rile the populace and the lid could blow off the whole thing.  To give any credence to this idea, one would speculate that the debris were picked up and carted away before the first rescue and perhaps without the knowledge of the hikers being in the area. After all, the event need not happen in their midst, only in the vicinity.

[Ziljoe]

For me it just adds to a frustrating loop.

I'm in a lazy mood so I'll have to work from memory . Not one iota of all these post statements add up.

Ivanov seemed to be rarely at the pass . I tried trying to work out when he was there and for how long. Pytor says he , he himself was there from the 13-23 of March. That's 10 days by my math's and not two weeks.

Ivanov gives no details of him being at the pass for any length of time. He touches on things about a storm and being in the artic(?) in his 1990 article. But no descriptive writings about being in the tent , what he looked at , what he found etc.

We also have the statements about the light in the sky witnessed by other groups and they are not secret or withheld from the other hiking reports

I can't work out from Pyotr what two weeks he had with Ivanov and which tent he means? What date he was summoned and which day he came back?

Other sources imply that ivanov wasn't at the  pass more than maybe 3 days ?.

[Senior Maldonado]

I can't work out from Pyotr what two weeks he had with Ivanov and which tent he means? What date he was summoned and which day he came back?

Other sources imply that ivanov wasn't at the  pass more than maybe 3 days ?.

Everything indicates that Ivanov was on the Pass 3 times:
> March 1-3
> March 13-15 (that was together with Pyotr)
> May 6

On March 15th Ivanov was urgently called back from the Pass. A helicopter arrived to get him back to Ivdel, and next day he was already in Sverdlovsk. That was the breakpoint, when medical lab in Sverdlovsk had been ready with chemical analysis of tissue fragments of the first 5 hikers. At this point it became clear that the hikers not just fled in terror from the rocket, but evaporations from the rocket's tanks did affect them. Direct linkage of their deaths with the rocket crash was established. Ivanov was asked to switch his investigation in full secret mode.

[GlennM]

I would think that in over 60 years of free, unrestructed hiking and hunting in this part of the Urals that someone would have found evidence. Nope.

I prefer weather. Much simpler

[Ziljoe]

I can't work out from Pyotr what two weeks he had with Ivanov and which tent he means? What date he was summoned and which day he came back?

Other sources imply that ivanov wasn't at the  pass more than maybe 3 days ?.

Everything indicates that Ivanov was on the Pass 3 times:
> March 1-3
> March 13-15 (that was together with Pyotr)
> May 6

On March 15th Ivanov was urgently called back from the Pass. A helicopter arrived to get him back to Ivdel, and next day he was already in Sverdlovsk. That was the breakpoint, when medical lab in Sverdlovsk had been ready with chemical analysis of tissue fragments of the first 5 hikers. At this point it became clear that the hikers not just fled in terror from the rocket, but evaporations from the rocket's tanks did affect them. Direct linkage of their deaths with the rocket crash was established. Ivanov was asked to switch his investigation in full secret mode.

I've tried to find sources but I can't confirm anything. 2 days is not two weeks . If Ivanov left on the 15th of march then he would have had to come back before the 23rd of March to say to Pyotr that he couldn't talk to him. That would be 4 visits.

But who of us would expect a police officer , all the way up to prosecutor, to inform you of any investigative information?. There's an investigation going on , Mansi are being questioned at the same time as helping the search effort. If there's any truth in pyotr's claim , I would suspect it's a mundane reason.

It is complete speculation that he was sworn to silence and was afraid. This is more a post retrospective narrative with inbuilt ambiguity. Ivanov wouldn't have been able to say anything, even if it was an avalanche, drugs or rocket.

Ivanov would have been in secret mode from the start , not halfway through and there's no evidence of crashed rockets or explosions unfortunately.

I would expect students to be the first people removed from the search if a rocket had landed nearby.

[Senior Maldonado]

I've tried to find sources but I can't confirm anything. 2 days is not two weeks . If Ivanov left on the 15th of march then he would have had to come back before the 23rd of March to say to Pyotr that he couldn't talk to him. That would be 4 visits.

Yes, Ivanov left the Pass on March 15th, and he took the same helicopter flight to Ivdel as Kikoin, who had completed his radioactivity level measurements by the time. On March 16th Ivanov was in Sverdlovsk and issued an order to investigate the hikers' tent in the criminal lab.

The words "Ivanov said to me – I can't talk to you, I am not allowed." are GlennM's invention. Pyotr did not say that. At least, I have never heard Pyotr saying that in his numerous interviews. Ivanov just stopped talking to any member of the search party, including Bartolomey and Maslennikov.

There is no information that Ivanov returned to the Pass / Ivdel in the 2nd half of March.

[Ziljoe]

The words "Ivanov said to me – I can't talk to you, I am not allowed." are GlennM's invention. Pyotr did not say that. At least, I have never heard Pyotr saying that in his numerous interviews. Ivanov just stopped talking to any member of the search party, including Bartolomey and Maslennikov.

They are not GlennM's invention, it's copied and pasted from the home page of dyatlovpass.com

https://dyatlovpass.com/#mainmenua


 

[Senior Maldonado]

They are not GlennM's invention, it's copied and pasted from the home page of dyatlovpass.com

If the above words really belong to Bartolomey, we are in a big trouble. Because earlier he kept saying very different story. From his earlier words it is clear that:
- Ivanov had never returned to the Pass in March 1959;
- Pyotr himself had not had chance to talk again to Ivanov.
Such contradictory sayings mean we cannot trust Pyotr's recollections at all. 

=======================================
Бартоломей на Перевале с 13.03. по 25.03. группа Кикоина.

Интервью Навигу 02.2008.

Навиг: А вот Иванов в своём поведении... в моменты его посещений не было изменений?
Бартоломей: Были изменения. Когда мы начинали, он живо интересовался характеристикой ..., что могло произойти? Он был в таком же недоумении, как и все остальные. Потому что мы действительно не понимали, что там могло произойти. И он, как нормальный человек, интересовался, строил рассуждения  кто, в какой последовательности мог выскакивать? чьи это носки? телогрейка или что это за палатка, почему она изрезана изнутри?, и так далее и так далее. Он много что расспрашивал. "Почему она заштопана таким образом странным?".
Навиг: А после?
Бартоломей: на второй день, по-моему, это был второй или третий день моего пребывания там, мы вечером уже в сумерках возвращались с перевала вниз. Подлетает вертолёт прямо там, наверху. "Ребята, подойдите сюда!". Мы подходим. "Вы вниз туда идёте, на базу?".- "Да". - "Следователя Иванова позовите, его срочно в город вызывают". Когда мы пришли, мы ему сказали: " Вот, Вас вызывают". Он стал собирать свои вещи и говорит: "Ну ладно, на пару дней меня наверное вызывают, я вернусь и продолжим наши разговоры". И он исчез и больше мы его не видели. И более того, те люди которые…
Навиг: Он что, больше вообще не вернулся?
Бартоломей: Он больше сюда не вернулся.
Навиг: То есть, когда последних нашли, его там не было?
Бартоломей: Вот это я не знаю. Но в моё присутствие он больше здесь не был.
Навиг: А потом Вы с ним общались, когда приехали в город?
Бартоломей: Я  был студентом -пятикурсником, а были более старшие товарищи - туристы, Евгений Поликарпович Масленников, Карелин, Аксельрод, выпускники института, которые уже работали. Они пытались наладить контакт с Ивановым, но у них ничего не получалось. Он либо не принимал, либо говорил "Не суйте нос".
Навиг: Так и говорил?
Бартоломей: Евгению Поликарповичу Масленникову, секретарю Визовского райкома партии так и говорил: "Не суйте нос".

[Ziljoe]

They are not GlennM's invention, it's copied and pasted from the home page of dyatlovpass.com

If the above words really belong to Bartolomey, we are in a big trouble. Because earlier he kept saying very different story. From his earlier words it is clear that:
- Ivanov had never returned to the Pass in March 1959;
- Pyotr himself had not had chance to talk again to Ivanov.
Such contradictory sayings mean we cannot trust Pyotr's recollections at all. 

Hence my deep scepticism about all post incident interviews.

If there's inconsistencies in the case files , there's 10 times more contradictions in the later retellings, and with a common pattern of ambiguity where what's being said can actually be read with multiple interpretation.

We have to rely heavily on modern day independent Russian's forum members for context and interpretation of many of the documents, culture and the era.

Ivanovs story is complicated and his involvement at various stages is very contradictory. He claims he was at the pass for months or weeks in his letters to the newspaper but it doesn't seem as if he was?

I don't know if it's artistic licence by Ivanov or those that collected and shared his letter although it seems to be missing pages.

But if there's any truth to bits of the story, Ivanov would not be at liberty to discuss any findings with people not involved. Whether the outcome was a rocket, UfO , avalanche or internal fight etc. Ivanov's response to not discussing it with searchers is confidential at every level. Even from the possibility of the sports community not following procedure of proper oversight is a massive failing. That's what Ivanov refers to in the first part of his letter, it's not about how they died , it's that they shouldn't have left to go so far away from civilization with out some safety net or communication if an accident happened. This is the" semi wild" and "full wild "state he refers to.

I believe that in the years that followed, the Dyatlov incident was used as an example to improve the lack of oversight. Ivanov seems angry that nothing was done to those involved .

If we step back, even the search response was sloppy, that's another failing , no one knew and it was the family's that pushed it to the Kremlin as nothing was getting done .

When I think about it, even I get angry, if it was my child out on a hike and was missing but the university or organisation didn't react instantly I would blame them and take it higher. To then find out that they didn't even know the route of Dyatlov is even more shocking.

This informality possibly happened in various degrees before and after the dpi but without the deaths of an entire group.

[SURI]

If you take these words of Ivanov and connect them together, guess what you get:

●  Absolute guilt
●  Wildness of the group
    at the final stage
●  Motive
●  Selective killing

Do you think this is just a simple failure? Ivanov didn’t just drop these words out of nowhere; he didn’t pull them out of thin air. He had plenty of evidence for these claims – evidence you don't see yet because you don't believe him.

[Ziljoe]

If you take these words of Ivanov and connect them together, guess what you get:

●  Absolute guilt
●  Wildness of the group
    at the final stage
●  Motive
●  Selective killing

Do you think this is just a simple failure? Ivanov didn’t just drop these words out of nowhere; he didn’t pull them out of thin air. He had plenty of evidence for these claims – evidence you don't see yet because you don't believe him.

Hi Suri .

Ivanov says it was . Do you not believe Ivanov? He says he lived in the mountains for four months without a break? But everyone else was rotated ?

"It was a difficult expedition. We lived in the Arctic, in the mountains, for four months without a break. Frankly, by the end of this period I had already pulled myself up as an athlete, but and at the beginning I lived with some curios misconceptions. On the first day of skiing in the mountains, I usually had breakfast and could not go along with everyone. It turns out that it was necessary to eat very little, but high-calorie food."



Then he tells us his thoughts, this i believe is 'after ' his fire balls story in the newspaper.

 "But there were those who benefited from silence. First of all, the director (or whatever he was) Gordo kept silent. He was one of the culprits in the accusation that the group made a lot of mistakes. The head of the city sports committee was silent (I don’t remember his last name), because he was also guilty of the fact that the group went "semi-savage", moving into the stage of "savagery" at the final stage.

I was quite surprised that these two absolutely guilty people in the death of the guys were lightly punished at the bureau. Seems like they were given a reprimand. And this meant that it was impossible to bring them to criminal liability, because they were members of the CPSU, and until very recently, until 1986, the instruction of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the instruction letter of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, signed by Stalin and Molotov in 1939, were in force on the elimination of serious distortions in the fight against enemies of the peoples. This letter stated that many cases of unjustified bringing people to criminal responsibility are allowed in the localities, abuses are allowed in the bodies of the NKGB and the NKVD in this case, and it was proposed that a member of the CPSU(b) could be prosecuted only with the consent of the party committee, and it was possible to arrest them only with the sanction of the first secretary personally. So, the city committee and the regional committee did not give such consent to the involvement of these two people. And that's it, the issue was solved."


That is someone's English translation. As I understand it the words полудикий and дикость in that passage don’t mean “savagery.” In Soviet bureaucratic language of the 1950s, дикий meant unregulated, unsupervised, or outside official control — the same way дикий турист meant an unregistered hiker. 

 The author is criticising the sports committee for letting the group operate without proper oversight. This is supported by dictionary definitions, Soviet-era administrative usage, collocations, and the context of the letter itself. 

He is describing administrative disorder, not violent behaviour.

He says it wasn't murder and it was an accident.

Which claims of Ivanov do you believe?

[Senior Maldonado]

If you take these words of Ivanov and connect them together, guess what you get:

●  Absolute guilt
●  Wildness of the group
    at the final stage
●  Motive
●  Selective killing

I am afraid, we will get complete mess.

Everything from Ivanov can be safely ignored except these two phrases:

1) "Everyone was told that hikers were in an extreme situation and froze. However, that was not true. The true causes of the deaths were hidden from the people, and only a few knew these reasons: the former first secretary of the regional committee A.P. Kirilenko, the second secretary of the regional committee A.F. Eshtokin, the regional prosecutor N. I. Klinov and the author of these lines, who were investigating the case."

The above phrase explains us that the statement about "elemental force" from the Criminal case closing paragraph was a fake, and true cause of DPI was not frost, wind, avalanche, snow slab, or any combination of those.

2) "The study of the case now fully convinces, and even then I stuck to the version of the death of student hikers from exposure to an unknown flying object. Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious."

And this phrase openly says that DPI occurred because of unknown flying object. But any UFO remains unknown only until we securely map it to some known object, e.g. a rocket that contains radioactive material onboard and which tanks are full of explosive fuel.

[SURI]

Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious."

I keep telling you that Ivanov had plenty of evidence. The "UFO" were absolutely guilty.

[Ziljoe]

Ivanovs article is full of error's. He quotes the day of the sighting of lights as the 1st of February when it's the 17th of February. Why would an investigator get this wrong , why try to fit the wrong dates to make the reader think their were lights on the 1st?

[sarapuk]

Pyotr Bartolomey took part in the search Mar 13-23, 1959.
"I spent two weeks huddled down in a tent with Ivanov. He was asking me about everything and everybody.
After the first five bodies were found, he was summoned and we parted with the promise that we will continue the conversation. When Ivanov arrived back on the pass (as well as in Ivdel and Sverdlovsk) he was withdrawn, and didn't want to talk even to Maslennikov (the head of the search operation). Ivanov said to me – I can't talk to you, I am not allowed. It was obvious to me that he was told what happened, sworn to silence and he was afraid.

This reads like Ivanov was told something. I think what he was told is something like if you want to keep climbing higher as a civil servant, you should stick to the facts and not make up stories.

It's good to remind us all occasionally that various people have come forward since the events in 1959 to tell us their stories, no matter how small they may be. And here we have another person, Bartolomey, giving us his story. Such stories are useful even if they may be false. However, there is no way for us to know if they are false unless we can compare them with other stories, etc. And even then there will be doubt. The present Russian Government continues the tradition of the USSR. Secrecy. 

[sarapuk]

If the testimony is not made up, and I have no reason to believe so, then Ivanov was advised to stop speculating. Why?

I am thinking that his speculation could filter all the way back to the home of the hikers by way of returning college students. Further, if we use the party game of telephone as an example, each retelling of the story gets filtered by each reporter's perception. It is conceivable that an unsubstantiated rumor of lights in the sky could morph into a botched Soviet military test.

It could also be that Ivanov was reminded of his role in the investigation and how his handling of it might play out in terms of career advancement. So, casual speculations with companions could have more gravitas because Ivanov was the one to say it. It matters little if it is factual or not, it is about who said what.

Then, there is the matter that Ivanov found out something of the truth. That truth would somehow involve the deep pockets of the Soviet government,meaning someone is going to lawyer up and go to court and sue the Bear. That, in turn will rile the populace and the lid could blow off the whole thing.  To give any credence to this idea, one would speculate that the debris were picked up and carted away before the first rescue and perhaps without the knowledge of the hikers being in the area. After all, the event need not happen in their midst, only in the vicinity.

Well, speculation is certainly rife in this Dyatlov Forum.

[sarapuk]

They are not GlennM's invention, it's copied and pasted from the home page of dyatlovpass.com

If the above words really belong to Bartolomey, we are in a big trouble. Because earlier he kept saying very different story. From his earlier words it is clear that:
- Ivanov had never returned to the Pass in March 1959;
- Pyotr himself had not had chance to talk again to Ivanov.
Such contradictory sayings mean we cannot trust Pyotr's recollections at all. 

Speculation was rife in 1959, and it's rife in 2026. In fact, it's becoming a speculative Forum. I suppose that's because there is still no real evidence we need to take things further. The Russian Government are carrying on the USSR traditions of secrecy.

[sarapuk]

Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious."

I keep telling you that Ivanov had plenty of evidence. The "UFO" were absolutely guilty.

Therefore lets move things along a little. What are the UFOs that Ivanov was referring to? Because UFO to most people conjures up aliens from other worlds, etc. Are these the type of UFO that Ivanov and some others may have believed to have been responsible for the Dyatlov tragedy?

[Topaze]

The present Russian Government continues the tradition of the USSR. Secrecy.

That in itself is a sign that times have changed, but that the “cover-up” is significant enough to still be relevant today

That might explain why the fresh footprints in the snow were staged !



😜

[GlennM]

We can all keep in mind that when the time came to make a final statement in this case, Ivanov and anyone else in the position of authority had their chance, and had nothing to say. Some people today will claim that this is because weather killed them and weather is a temporary condition. Yet, it would have been so much easier then to say it was weather and be done with it! To instead say an unknown compelling force appears to deliberately sidestep the easiest and most obvious explanation.

Others might claim that there actually was something Ivanov could say, but it was suppressed. I could accept that except for the sheer number of people involved with the whole operation. They all saw the same things. They all discussed their ideas over dinner. If Ivanov was paid off to suppress some truth, he would have been smarter to blame it on weather. Leaving it ipen ended is akin to never letting a wound heal. That would always follow him as it does to this very day.

The thing for me is that Ivanov, the army rescue team, thc college students and the Mansi could have come up with the truth when it mattered. Nothing said or found since then has made a bit of difference.

[Ziljoe]

The present Russian Government continues the tradition of the USSR. Secrecy.

That in itself is a sign that times have changed, but that the “cover-up” is significant enough to still be relevant today

That might explain why the fresh footprints in the snow were staged !



😜

Topaze, a quick Google will explain the raised foot prints . There's videos about them on the site and the forum , done by later expeditions and forum members. Experienced hikers have got the same results at dyatlov pass, they even occur in the UK.

You should know how snow works from low levels to mountains . You claim to have experience skiing and been in the alpine mountain troops .


Snow drifts behave like slow‑motion waves. Wind moves snow the same way it moves sand in deserts,through creep, saltation, and suspension. This creates dune‑like shapes that migrate gradually, with erosion on the windward side and deposition on the leeward side. Drifts rise and fall over days, smoothing surfaces and erasing tracks, which is why snow can bury and later expose hardened footprints or people.

This video might help but I'm sure you already know from your experience .

https://youtu.be/LgK2kXfvwZY?si=6XJ_hXUGERMxdh7F

[Topaze]

That’s correct, provided the footprints weren’t left in powder snow, which means they would have had time to freeze before the next snowfall; otherwise, they are immediately erased. Whether on the plains or on a mountain pass, it is not the condition of the snow that changes, but simply the wind.

[Ziljoe]

Yet, it would have been so much easier then to say it was weather and be done with it! To instead say an unknown compelling force appears to deliberately sidestep the easiest and most obvious explanation.

I think they did say it was the weather, this is the problem of translation.

For anyone checking the original case files, the closing resolution with the famous phrase is on Sheet 387 (archival pagination).

Here is the authentic wording:

> «…следует считать, что причиной гибели туристов явилась стихийная сила, преодолеть которую туристы были не в состоянии.»

This simply means:

> “The cause of the hikers’ deaths was a natural force which they were not able to overcome.”

The confusion comes from later English retellings that paraphrased this as “unknown compelling force.” 
That dramatic phrase does not appear anywhere in the Russian case files. 
The key term стихийная сила is a standard Soviet legal expression meaning natural / elemental force, not something mysterious or supernatural.

You can find the same phrase used in other Soviet accident reports:

- Avalanche deaths: “Причиной гибели явилась стихийная сила в виде схода снежной массы…” 
  (“The cause of death was a natural force in the form of a snow mass release.”)

- Storm‑related drownings: “Гибель наступила от воздействия стихийной силы (шторм).” 
  (“Death occurred due to the action of a natural force (storm).”)

- Exposure cases in the Urals and Siberia: “Смерть наступила от переохлаждения вследствие воздействия стихийной силы.” 
  (“Death occurred from hypothermia as a result of the action of a natural force.”)

In all these examples, стихийная сила refers to weather, cold, wind, avalanche conditions, or environmental hazards. 
It’s just bureaucratic language. 
Nothing “unknown,” nothing “compelling,” nothing supernatural.

[SURI]

If it were just weather or a wolverine, we wouldn't have a case file without a number. If it were a rocket, we wouldn't be reading any case file at all. So why do we have a folder without a number and we are allowed to read it? Because it is a staged product of deliberate manipulation for someone's benefit. A theater backdrop.

[Senior Maldonado]

If it were just weather or a wolverine, we wouldn't have a case file without a number. If it were a rocket, we wouldn't be reading any case file at all. So why do we have a folder without a number and we are allowed to read it? Because it is a staged product of deliberate manipulation for someone's benefit. A theater backdrop.

SURI, your comment is straight to the point!

The folder with the investigation related papers which we have privilege to read and discuss is not the same case files, where DPI was investigated in 1959. And this folder has no number on purpose, as it makes it concealed from official registration, which further means it has never existed officially.

The case without a number was created much later than February 1959, Tempalov had even forgotten what date the first corpses were found and wrote "Feb 26th", which was wrong. The folder contains low value and no value papers that had been produced in course of real investigation, which was fully driven from Moscow and ran in a secret mode. The No-number case was very special but still legal way to archive documents that had been produced by the investigation but were not needed for real case files.

[GlennM]

It is no compliment to Russian intelligence when a simple ," death by inclement weather". would have closed the case.  I conclude the Russians were not hiding anything.