The Manuals

[Ziljoe]

We are talking about the cedar branches that come out of trunk of the tree. This is the wood that drys under the canopy as the tree grows, it's these dead , dry branches that is easy to burn . It's not on the ground under snow and been subjected to water.

See this tree here, see the dead branches. That's what you want , anyone into outdoor activities would know.

These three sentences are involved:

"In addition, the side of the cedar facing the slope on which the tent stood was cleared of branches at an altitude of 4-5 m. These raw branches were not used and partially fell on the ground, partially suspended on the lower branches of the cedar. It looked like people had done something like a window, so they could look from the top of that side of the cedar where they came from and where their tent was."


from: https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-209-220?rbid=17743

They are not about the lower branches. But from the branches above them, which are cut off, but they are stuck above on the lower branches. And they leave them there!

1) For this you had to climb the tree. (you denied that. How to cut branches at a height of 5 meters?)
2) Why were the branches cut off if they are not used later? (the window explains this)

By the way, it is such a tree:
https://alchetron.com/Pinus-sibirica

It's not really cedar!

On the cedar, there are traces of fresh kinks.

 

Sheet 217

- 9 -

Most dry branches up to 5 m high were broken. In addition, the side of the cedar facing the slope on which the tent stood was cleared of branches at an altitude of 4-5 m. These raw branches were not used and partially fell on the ground, partially suspended on the lower branches of the cedar. It looked like people had done something like a window, so they could look from the top of that side of the cedar where they came from and where their tent was.

Or

The cedar itself still showed traces of fresh breaks. It was broken.
Most of the dry branches reached a height of up to 5 meters. Furthermore, the side of the cedar tree facing the slope where the tent stood had been cleared of branches at a height of 4-5 meters. These damp branches had not been used and were partly lying on the ground, partly hanging from the lower branches of the cedar. It looked as if the people had created something like a window so they could look down from above at the side of the cedar tree where they had come from and where their tent was located .

It does not mean the lowest branches or every low branch , it's the dry branches that are accessible, if look at my image of a pine tree , you can see live branches and dead branches . That's all , to cut is different from break, you break a branch by force until it snaps , you cut a branch with a saw or axe.

The branches were broken , then they were burned , one of the yuris was lying on one of the branches.

1) I don't know what I'm denying, to climb a tree is possible but you only need to get to a branch at 3.5 meters to snap a branch at 5 meters .

2) no branches were cut off, they were broken off, they needed the branches , not the ends or green branches although suitable for flooring and I think some of those branches got caught in the lower branches and couldn't be reached.

I'm sorry but I don't understand  your picture of a tree. Small trees like that were cut for den flooring I believe.

We can see Yuri Yudin climbing the tree almost to 5 meters reach.

[GlennM]

And no gloves

[Hunter]

For tent grounds, they cut down spruce branches—soft, needle-studded branches—not trees. Trunks were sometimes chopped down to make tent grounds, but this was done only when there were no spruce trees nearby. The trunks were carefully cleared of branches and knots. Cedar branches were broken off rather than cut.

[bongyi]

That was originally claimed on your part:

Your claim that the cedar branches were unburnable or went unused directly contradicts the official criminal case files.

 They weren't performing acrobatic stunts or precision knife carvings; they were snapping dry, resin-heavy wood under extreme physical duress.

By now you have managed to get to the point where you are talking about cedar branches stuck on the lower branches and falling to the ground, which were not used for anything.
I'm glad you finally saw it!

The question remains, if these branches were not used for anything, why were they cut or broken? They put their strength into it, they had to go up the tree to a height of 5 meters, they had to cut or break the branches! Why did they do this? Did they do this? We don't know!

I didn't know these pictures! Thanks for showing me!

You can see that climbing this tree is a very acrobatic challenge, even in warm weather and shoes.  You can imagine this stunt in winter, in a snowy and frozen environment, -30 degrees, without shoes! But it's hard enough to imagine!

In Igor Tyitov's murder theory, fire has a completely different role. He assumes that the group does not leave the tent at the same time. And these separations appear in the way they are found. The 5s set up the tent. Meanwhile, the 4 go to the forest for firewood. They never see each other again. The tent is ready, but they won't come back with firewood. What should the 5s do? They decide that the two Doroshenko and Krivonischenko will go after them. The three remain in the tent are Gyatlov, Zina and Slobodin. But no one is coming back. From the tent, the Gyatlovs notice a fire, a source of light in the forest. They think it's a sign. The three of them go there together! We don't know exactly what they saw! The murderers, the bodies of their companions, perhaps. They fled, they fought. We do not know! In this case, the killers were working around the cedar.

What do the manuals say against murderers?

There are many things against this theory as well. But no worse than the avalanche theory or any other theory. Because neither theory is possible, no possible theory can be imagined! I will explain this in more detail in metatheory.

[Ziljoe]

Bongyi , something is getting confused in the interpretation, it might be me.

The single cedar tree where two yuris were found is the tree where the branches that were dry were snapped off , they were used in a fire . The black and white photos are from the 1963 trip, that's Yuri Yudin . Climbing trees is something hikers did, to find landmarks etc. it's is not high up .

The branches stuck on other branches doesn't have any significance other than a stick branch. The thin needle ends was not the aim , it was the girthy branches.

Someone climbed the tree to break branches , it doesn't matter if it was the murderers or the hikers or stagers they are all using survival skills .

The only wood in the fire pit for all to see was from the tree. If you don't think the hikers did it , then you have to invent a reason for murders or stagers to climb a tree to stage the hikers making a fire.

If stagers read a manual saying the best wood in an emergency are the low ones on the cedar tree, then the info existed.

I hope this makes sense,

 1)the hikers need wood to burn with no tools = cedar

2) murder's, climb the tree to stage that the hikers climbed the tree whilst everyone was alive. The murderer doesn't have an axe or saw so he's got to climb the cedar to get the best wood for a fire to burn the hikers.

3) stagers come later and climb a tree to burn people and make it look like the hikers climbed a tree to start a fire but there was better wood lying around so the stagers messed up by only using the cedar branches.

From all our options, all three parties only select the dry branches from the cedar to burn. No one process dead wood , not murderers or stager's?

So someone did climb the tree to break the dry branches. And someone made a fire with them.

[Hunter]

The more I examine the actions of hikers, the more they remind me of a "struggle for survival" by people who don't know what to do or how to do it right. That is, they have experience hiking (in the field), but they have no experience in emergency situations, when the adrenaline rush and stress are swirling in their blood... Therefore, their actions are partially correct, but collectively meaningless.

Here's an article on building a shelter with a knife. It's in Russian, though. The knife is a Cold Steel SRK, comparable in performance to the Krivonischenko knife, which, according to the criminal case file, was used by hikers in the forest. In other words, they could have handled it if they'd known how.

[GlennM]

Were not those Finnish knives contraband for civilians?

[Hunter]

Until 1935, Finnish-style knives weren't considered weapons. In modern terms, they were classified as utility knives. This made Finnish knives popular among petty criminals—they were inexpensive, easy to part with in times of danger, and if the police or militia (after the collapse of the Russian Empire and the formation of the USSR) found such a knife, its owner couldn't be charged with anything illegal. Given the rise in street crime after the Civil War and the industrialization process, the state needed a quick and legal way to reduce crime. Therefore, in 1935, Finnish-style knives were classified as weapons, and even their possession without a permit from law enforcement was severely punishable (up to five years in prison). With a permit, a Finnish knife could be purchased, carried, and stored. Given that at the time, there were no uniform requirements for what constituted a weapon, virtually any homemade or dangerous-looking knife was considered a bladed weapon. But if people needed a knife they couldn't obtain legally, they simply ignored the law. And these weren't always criminals. Military personnel, hunters, tourists, and geologists ordered homemade knives for their own use. Among tourists, owning a homemade knife was considered cool.

Three people in the group were carrying knives, which could have potentially caused their owners a lot of trouble if discovered. Zolotarev also stands out.

[bongyi]

The branches stuck on other branches doesn't have any significance other than a stick branch. The thin needle ends was not the aim , it was the girthy branches.

I understand, you are not willing to deal with this problem, rather you suppress or trivialize its existence and talk about something else!
Why are you talking about thin needle ends? Why can you rate branches like this? You pretend it's a insignificant matter! This is manipulation! How can you do this?
Is it an insignificant matter? No! How do we know this? That's how we know that searchers think it's important to talk about it. They were there. They saw it. They say they thought someone had cut a window to the tent!

You don't think there were any acrobatic stunts. Then you bring a picture of Yudin climbing the tree. To this tree! I wonder why Yudin is climbing this tree in the picture? To test whether it is possible to climb on it? Why did he want to test this? He wanted to test it because there is an idea that someone climbed up there in February 1959! The existence of this idea is proven by Yudin's action!

[bongyi]

One more interesting one:

"Krivonischenko's knife used to cut off the young firsts near the fire was found near the bodies."

from: 386 sheets. Ivanov: Resolution to close the case May 28, 1959.

It is interesting that no searcher saw the knife. And they didn't even return it to the relatives.
But!
Why would the knife be next to the bodies? If the clothes were cut off from them, after their death, why did whoever did this leave the only knife there? Is this an essential means of survival and is it just left?
It's pretty weird, isn't it?

At all, why did the clothes have to be cut? Why wasn't it taken off?  Unharmed clothes are warmer than cut clothes! How exactly were these clothes cut?

But in May, cut branches lead to finding the den. Then either there was another knife, or Krivonischenko's knife was at the den.
-----

Ahh, I misunderstood!  Sorry! The knife was found near the bodies of the 4. Also, not a knife, but only its case. The knife was not found.

[GlennM]

Again, jumping up and down on a tree means nothing. It does not prove how the Yuris died. It does not prove that the tree was climbed to look for the tent, assasins, or little green men.

 What does mean something is the need to get two kinds of wood. One kind is wood to burn. Not a lot of it is needed all at once.In time, more will need to be obtained if a fire is to be lit in the snow cave. The other kind is wood to get you off the cold ground. This can be gathered over a longer period of time, but could be done in conjunction with excavating the ravine.In a perfect world, the branches you sit on could also be branches you burn. I suspect they did not plan to stay in a hole in the snow for that long.

[Ziljoe]

Bongyi ,

No one cared once the hikers were found dead , everyone on that search were amateurs, local volunteers or student friends. Every part of the scene was contaminated and touched. Everyone speculated and said how they thought things were.

They statements were musings of the mind and not based on anything forensic. Most of the statements are ramblings from memory as no one was documenting what they saw as they weren't expected to.

I think we both still have a problem articulating what you think is a branch , which bits are important for burning and which bits are not.

I'm going to simplify this .

Some branches were broken off the cedar , these branches were burned in a controlled manner at the base of the tree on the ground. The ground is ideal as building a fire on snow is not.

Some small young fir or spruce trees were cut or split at the base of these young trees . These trees with green branches were for lying on.

They are different branches for different uses. Thick dry branch for a fire, thing branches with green needles for a bed .

Someone speculated that it looked like a space of branches in the tree had been broken to create a window. But this is speculation, it could be just that these were the branches that were easily broken. It just means a gap was created by those removed branches or it looked like it. There's no proof of anything in that statement.

You are treating noise as evidence.

[Hunter]

Bongyi, the cedar branches weren't cut or chopped with a knife. The knife was used to cut down the trees below. Apparently, all (or most) of them were used for the decking.
Regarding Krivonischenko's knife ending up in the ravine with the bodies, it's possible that at moment X, when it was necessary to leave the tent, someone else grabbed the knife, not the owner. And so he ended up with it. Another possibility is that the knife was given to the best-dressed man down below to prepare tree trunks for the decking. There's also a theory that four people in the ravine died after Krivonischenko and Doroshenko. Therefore, the knife was "inherited" by the survivors, and ended up in the ravine with them. You mention a sheath, but it's mentioned near the tent in the report on the discovery of the bodies in the ravine, not with the bodies. The knife itself is mentioned in the decision to close the criminal case - page 386.

Why wasn't the knife recovered? The knife was classified as Finnish, meaning that in order to obtain it, one of Krivonischenko's heirs had to obtain permission to possess a Finnish-type knife. Without such permission, the knife could not be returned. There is speculation that the knife was returned, as they say in the former Soviet Union, "off the record." This is indirectly supported by pages 40 and 41 of the observation proceedings, also known as the second volume of the criminal case.

[bongyi]

Bongyi, the cedar branches weren't cut or chopped with a knife. The knife was used to cut down the trees below. Apparently, all (or most) of them were used for the decking.
Regarding Krivonischenko's knife ending up in the ravine with the bodies, it's possible that at moment X, when it was necessary to leave the tent, someone else grabbed the knife, not the owner. And so he ended up with it. Another possibility is that the knife was given to the best-dressed man down below to prepare tree trunks for the decking. There's also a theory that four people in the ravine died after Krivonischenko and Doroshenko. Therefore, the knife was "inherited" by the survivors, and ended up in the ravine with them. You mention a sheath, but it's mentioned near the tent in the report on the discovery of the bodies in the ravine, not with the bodies. The knife itself is mentioned in the decision to close the criminal case - page 386.

Why wasn't the knife recovered? The knife was classified as Finnish, meaning that in order to obtain it, one of Krivonischenko's heirs had to obtain permission to possess a Finnish-type knife. Without such permission, the knife could not be returned. There is speculation that the knife was returned, as they say in the former Soviet Union, "off the record." This is indirectly supported by pages 40 and 41 of the observation proceedings, also known as the second volume of the criminal case.

Let's try to reconstruct the path of the knife!

We assume it's Krivonischenko's knife!
He had the knife. With this, he cut the tree branches to the fire and floor.
After they died at the cedar, he and Doroshenko, their clothes cut off. I assume with this knife. So after they died, someone went over and cut off their clothes with the knife, which he took with the knife to the 4 to the den.
Near the den also found pine, the top of which was cut off.
This is how the case of the knife gets close to the bodies of the 4s.

from: https://dyatlovpass.com/the-den :

"15 m from the den, they found a spoon and a knife sheath. Official criminal investigation, Decision to dismiss criminal case:

"The bodies were found few meters away from the clothes found of Krivonischenko and Doroshenko - pants, sweater. All clothes had been cut when they were taken from the bodies of Doroshenko and Krivonischenko. Bodies of Thibault-Brignoles and Zolotaryov were better dressed, Dubinina’s fur jacket and hat were found on Zolotaryov, her leg was wrapped in woolen trousers that belong to Krivonischenko. Krivonischenko's knife was found close to the bodies, it was used to cut off branches of young fir trees."

Here is a very strange fact – knife was never found in the area, only a knife sheath. Lead investigator Lev Ivanov could not have mistaken a sheath for a knife. The branches were cut with tool, that could not be misinterpreted, but the absence of this tool could not be explained without having somebody taken the knife from the crime scene, and that meant that the case could be closed as a "calamity or overwhelming force"."


The knife is a proof. It cannot disappear during the procedure! Its discovery and subsequent fate must be documented! Ivanov claims they found the knife. Okay! Where is the documentation on this and where is the knife? Well, that's nowhere...another scandalous circumstance regarding the official procedure!

[Hunter]

The knife could have ended up in the hands of another hiker when it was time to cut down the tent. Or it could have been given down below to the hiker who would be cutting up the logs for the groundsheet. As for the criminal case file, reading the original reveals a different picture. In the original, the sheath was found near the tent at the pass. I've encountered many times in my life that translators (both human and electronic) often make inaccuracies in the nuances. That is, the general meaning is correct, but some details are not.

[bongyi]

The knife could have ended up in the hands of another hiker when it was time to cut down the tent. Or it could have been given down below to the hiker who would be cutting up the logs for the groundsheet. As for the criminal case file, reading the original reveals a different picture. In the original, the sheath was found near the tent at the pass. I've encountered many times in my life that translators (both human and electronic) often make inaccuracies in the nuances. That is, the general meaning is correct, but some details are not.

There can be several knife cases! They can also find a case at the tent. Or even more knives. But the question for us is, what kind of knife was there at the forest? Who found it?  Where did he find it? Where is the documentation on this? What happened to the further fate of the evidence? In connection with an official procedure, they should be able to give satisfactory answers to these questions! But what this Ivanov did cannot be considered a valid procedure!

[Hunter]

The criminal case doesn't correspond at all to how it should have been conducted. One of the researchers of the tragedy, who worked in law enforcement and the judicial system, speaks directly about this. Just examining the tent and documenting the items in it must have taken up to a hundred pages with photographs.
Who found the knife is unknown. The same is true for the sheath. As for the evidence, personal belongings, or other items, their fate could have been as follows:
1. Returned to relatives/friends/heirs or owners;
2. Destroyed by order of the court/investigator in certain cases;
3. Retained with the criminal case file;
4. Could have been transferred to the forensic lab as visual aids or teaching aids.

[bongyi]

I tend to accuse Ivanov. And I accuse him not of error, but of deliberate fraud.
I saw a video with Teddy where she talked about how many tragic accidents happened to hikers in the CCCP area that year. And such a large-scale search operation, with planes, helicopters, university students, GULAG guards, and soldiers, was nowhere to be found.
Now this is a bit strange, because we expect such a search operation from the authorities! We see that e.g. after avalanche accidents, such rescues take place nowadays. Mountain rescue service, technology, helicopters are available for search and rescue. Today it is natural. But then, in 1959, it must have been a very special thing!
Why was this a more special case than other tragedies?
Maybe because of the party congress? Because of Kolevatov's sister's letter to Khrushchev? Did the authorities cover something, paradoxically, precisely by organizing a large-scale search operation?
Whatever actually happened there, they didn't have much time to prepare the ground! They had to hurry a lot and made a lot of mistakes in the process. Their biggest mistake is that they confused the clues and evidence in such a way that they made the case unsolvable. This was the most messed up! They should have paid attention to leaving an opportunity to set up at least one possible narrative. The facts should be false in such a way that at least one wrong narrative can be told in some way! But they didn't pay attention to that! There is no way to tell what is happend. No one has succeeded in more than 60 years! And this is proof of fraud!

[GlennM]

So you tell me the branches were broken on the side of the tree that faces the tent. This was done so that somebody could look in the direction of the tent and be seen or not be seen. Which way is it?

Breaking branches makes noise.  Breaking branches exposes the person standing breaking the branches. Bresking branches 12 to 15 feet up in the air without boots or gloves after being exposed to the winter conditions for no less than a half hour in sub zero temperatures seems exceptionally risky.

Somebody may have gotten it wrong.

[Hunter]

As for the idea that all this rescue work was a cover-up for an accident involving tourists, caused by the failure of some secret device (like a missile) near them? That's nonsense. In that case, everything would have been simpler: the parents would have been summoned to the local KGB office, where they would have been given urns containing ashes and death certificates, and would have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements. That's all.

[bongyi]

As for the idea that all this rescue work was a cover-up for an accident involving tourists, caused by the failure of some secret device (like a missile) near them? That's nonsense. In that case, everything would have been simpler: the parents would have been summoned to the local KGB office, where they would have been given urns containing ashes and death certificates, and would have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements. That's all.

If we assume that the authorities do not have to account for the lives and deaths of nine people, then there is no case! Would you like to make the deaths of nine people disappear by forcing their relatives to make some kind of confidentiality statement?  What kind of bullshit is this?  They didn't get back in time! They started looking for them! It was no longer possible to stop the matter without open conflict! Could they have done that they wouldn't let college students who were looking for them there? Surely, the military could have sealed off the area. But there would have been consequences. Are the searchers there for their companions from UPI, but the soldiers take up arms against them so they can't enter the area? Would you have done it that way?

[GlennM]

Holy cats, you argue in circles. As I see it, you entered the forum with the idea that since the event still gains attention the particulars have been deliberately obfuscated. You argue that every existing explanation must be discarded in favor of a meta theory, which of course is just  spin with the added advantage of being able to selectively decide what is true and false to curate the case history to arrive at a preconceived solution.

[Hunter]

As for the idea that all this rescue work was a cover-up for an accident involving tourists, caused by the failure of some secret device (like a missile) near them? That's nonsense. In that case, everything would have been simpler: the parents would have been summoned to the local KGB office, where they would have been given urns containing ashes and death certificates, and would have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements. That's all.

If we assume that the authorities do not have to account for the lives and deaths of nine people, then there is no case! Would you like to make the deaths of nine people disappear by forcing their relatives to make some kind of confidentiality statement?  What kind of bullshit is this?  They didn't get back in time! They started looking for them! It was no longer possible to stop the matter without open conflict! Could they have done that they wouldn't let college students who were looking for them there? Surely, the military could have sealed off the area. But there would have been consequences. Are the searchers there for their companions from UPI, but the soldiers take up arms against them so they can't enter the area? Would you have done it that way?

You misunderstood. If the Dyatlov group's deaths had been the result of a failed weapons test (or perhaps the transfer of radioactive underwear, as per Rakitin), then there would have been no search and rescue operations at all. I described how the situation would have unfolded in that case in my post.

[bongyi]

You misunderstood. If the Dyatlov group's deaths had been the result of a failed weapons test (or perhaps the transfer of radioactive underwear, as per Rakitin), then there would have been no search and rescue operations at all. I described how the situation would have unfolded in that case in my post.

In your previous comment, it is said that the parents of hikers should make some kind of confidentiality statement!
Would you make such a statement if your child had died? I don't think you would make such a statement! No way! Why do you think that e.g. would Lyuda's dad do it?
But the whole confidentiality statement you raised makes no sense! It's not just their parents who miss the children, but their friends, fellow hikers, and a number of people who are citizens of the university! Why do you think the parents' confidentiality statement would solve anything? Just suppose, for example, that they sign such a statement and do not talk about a case. And then what changes? Nothing! An explanation must be given to the other people who miss the missing hikers! The bottom line is that the authority must produce an alternative, false narrative for the deaths of 9 people. This was Lev Ivanov's real task! Forgery and manipulation!
Seekers were exploited and used to reinforce the false narrative. The seekers are completely pure and benevolent [except maybe Maslennikov] but they were just taken advantage of. In the whole case, the most authentic information comes directly from the searchers, because they don't lie.Ivanov searched for the bodies with the searchers in such a way that he knew exactly where they were! They let the searchers work directly so that they could find the bodies! It is absolutely possible that this investigation and the handling of the whole case are not in order.
9 people disappear and no one would talk because of state terror? There is no such thing! It is not possible to keep the matter quiet using a terrorist method. Under Stalin, this might be conceivable, but there is a different era!
I am, of course, aware of the argument that if there had been something to hide, the authorities would have been able to cover up what happened more effectively than that! I hear this argument many times! I've heard it from Teddy too! I'm not sure about that! The authority had to try very hard to cover up what happened. And even though Ivanov was commissioned, but he could not fulfill his task because he could not present a plausible alternative and false narrative for what happened. All he managed to achieve was to confuse the clues and evidence so much that it is impossible to put forward any possible narrative of what happened in the context of the false facts that have arisen.
Maybe the communication between the authorities went wrong! They may have originally developed a false narrative that would have avoided search action. But in the meantime, the parents started moving along the party line and started the search. And Ivanov could start inventing a new narrative because he couldn't stop the search anymore.
We remember e.g. to the narrative that when the 5s are already found, but the bodies of the 4s are not there, it arises that the 4s killed the 5s and then they defected to the west! What bullshit! So the authorities really thought about the false narrative!
It is also worth considering that those responsible for the tragedy may want to cover up what happened in front of the higher management, saving themselves. Thus, the situation may arise where instructions are issued in higher management to begin the search, by plane and helicopters.  And the responsible persons cannot prevent this in any way! For example, the weapon experiment was not even known to the top management. The military or middle management conducted experiments without receiving instructions from their superiors.  And tragedy struck. Now the case must be covered up both upwards and towards relatives and the public! They are desperately trying to solve this!

[Ziljoe]

It's just a logic loop. Which is fine but we need to work that logic loops into conspiracy theories too.

The hypothetical argument is that if the hikers were up to no good like the stupid argument of giving radioactive clothes or secret information to some spies from the west , we wouldn't even know about the dyatlov incident. At all, the KGB or whomever would of just sealed the case , your children were found dead , here's the ashes. No questions . They would just erased the whole incident, they wouldn't waste time of processing films, putting them back in cameras, staging the cameras firms back into the cameras , back into a tent , get ivanov to give these films to the students to re-develope and then give them back to ivanov to then keep for the case files.

It's a pointless inefficient exercise, they didn't need to create a narrative through forging film negatives.

Let's think of the logistics . Find some hikers, dead or alive around the 1st of February, kill them, move their bodies, stage a campsite , remove cameras, get back to civilization, develope the films, re edited  them back into undeveloped films , wind them to the right sequence in the film sprocket without light exposure, put them back into the tent to be found by random searcher's. The plan for that to go correct is off the rational scale. Then we have the footprints without other footprints.

The logistics for the searchers was difficult let alone any possible stagers. That's food, heat , fire , cutting trees , the cold, the winds , helicopters breaking down, not being able to land etc.

Where exactly is this window of opportunity of outsiders to come to the pass where there's nomadic Mansi hunters, student hikes , snow that leaves trails  and all sorts of problems that stagers would incur?

Even any stagers have to run their own logistics , that's food , fuel , pilots , medics, saws, tents, helicopters , skis, shovels , special services for this camera film developing thing, a team of thinkers to build a narrative, where to stage tent, what to do with diaries, rewrite them? So on and so on.

I do not think the soviets had such a facility to react in such a way for some secret special service to reconstruct a death scene in a such an elaborate way in the middle of the Urals in winter.

[Hunter]

bongyi, you simply didn't live in the USSR. If a citizen was summoned to the KGB, they'd prefer to sleep with their teeth against the wall, and for good measure, with a gag between their teeth, so as not to let on why the "state horror" people were interested in them. Therefore, if there had been an accident involving some military device at the pass, or if the group had been acting under the control (in the interests) of the KGB, none of this would have happened. It would have simply been another group of dead hikers. Maybe they would have died from carbon monoxide poisoning in a tent, or maybe they'd have been poisoned by canned food containing botulism. They would have been found by the right people, and no one would have bothered with the criminal case and the accompanying materials.

Ziljoe, many emergency situations were kept secret in the USSR. Not just those related to military operations or mass unrest. There was a case where a pilot, due to his wife's machinations (he had lost his ability to fly abroad), flew a plane into her apartment. The case was classified.

[Ziljoe]

Hunter

Thank you, I am aware that all sorts of incidents were filed under the confidential or secret label. It just means everything was . I've read about russian prisoners of wars under the Germans written on the same boiler plate of the interrogation statements, I've read about a helicopter crashing after they took to go fishing, the numerous fires in schools and cinemas, drunks in tractors driving in front of trains , avalanches on hikers , the launch explosions at tests sites, an unexploded bomb on a street where three kids were killed, several suicide attempts that went a bit wrong.

So I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm talking about the logistics to cover anything up at the dyatlov pass and any worth while reason to do so. A murder by a Mansi or some internal fight is about the only two options that come into play for me under that criteria.

So , the USSR covered up , or rather filed any old incident under confidential or secret. That doesn't get us any further forward , however, the difference being , when these files were realised to the public and all the secret bases etc , nucker leaks and many of the above listed, the truth was found , some really horrific accidents, murders etc.

It just so happens that the case files for the Dyatlov case says , we don't really know or unknown, and many archived cases also stated unknown. To me there is no secret being covered up.