BBC

[Nigel Evans]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/SoLiOdJyCK/mystery_of_dyatlov_pass

[Teddy]

Thank you!

[Nigel Evans]

Thank you!

Happy New Year.

[Ian Jones]

Nigel,
This was the article and podcast which introduced me to DPI.
At the time I thought is was a fascinating story, another BBC triumph.....
Until I came across this site.  Now I think the beeb really failed to do the story justice, especially the magazine edition.

[Nigel Evans]

Hi Ian, well to be fair to the BBC it's a big subject and still a complete mystery so reasonable i think that the jounalist painted things with a broad brush. Otherwise you'd have to write a book! 

[Ian Jones]

Fair point.  It is a huge subject.  But highlighting the more sensational elements, in order to tell a good story, is a bit lazy.  Also the pictures they used in the magazine piece were misleading.  Especially the one of the tent, (which was from a previous expedition) and the picture of the 'Yeti', which was just snowy trees, not the photograph that purported to show the said beast (lol)

[Zorah]

Fair point.  It is a huge subject.  But highlighting the more sensational elements, in order to tell a good story, is a bit lazy.  Also the pictures they used in the magazine piece were misleading.  Especially the one of the tent, (which was from a previous expedition) and the picture of the 'Yeti', which was just snowy trees, not the photograph that purported to show the said beast (lol)

Ian---I totally agree. And sloppiness of detail is not excusable. Photos were mislabeled (they mixed up Tibo and Zolotaryov, if I remember); they described Igor as being discovered face down (photos clearly show the opposite); described how the last 4 bodies were discovered after the snow had melted (they were discovered by avalanche probes under, I believe, about 4 m of snow).
I'm not usually so pedantic. However. Those are all pretty basic and easily discoverable mistakes. And as you say, it's a lazy writer's tactic to over-sensationalize.

[brad112]

The most interesting thing about this article is it talks about student searchers first finding the tent and rummaging through the tent before trained investigators were able to investigate the site. One of the students (Mikhail Sharavin) even claims to have taken a flask containing alcohol from the tent on the first day of discovery and drank it that night at the student searcher campsite. What else was taken? moved around?  Did they move the stove?

brad

[sarapuk]

The most interesting thing about this article is it talks about student searchers first finding the tent and rummaging through the tent before trained investigators were able to investigate the site. One of the students (Mikhail Sharavin) even claims to have taken a flask containing alcohol from the tent on the first day of discovery and drank it that night at the student searcher campsite. What else was taken? moved around?  Did they move the stove?

brad

This type of topic pops up now and again. The point is when the search began no one knew that it would become a potential Crime Scene, or similar. So no trained investigators were in the original search parties as far as we know. And even when the bodies were found in mysterious circumstances even then investigators didnt really do much investigating at the locations, certainly not while the search parties were still around. Who knows what happened after that. In fact the place was LOCKED DOWN for several years.

[brad112]

Thanks Sarapunk and you are getting at exactly my point. The information we have can only be taken as somewhat reliable because the first people to find the tent were students not trained to investigate and at least one of them admits looking through the tent moving things around and even taking an item from the tent for his personal use. This goes along with a theory(and previous theories from others) I posted in the "stove" section about the reliability of the stove being used that last night. The students may have tried to organize the tent (stove?) while searching or cataloging items in the tent. Then when other investigators came, they concluded the stove appeared to not have been used. The stove being used that night "could" answer a lot of questions about the supposed quick and confused exit from the tent.

This could also explain "missing knives"... as posted on this site, you had have a license of sorts to own/carry a "finnish" knife like some of them were carrying. One of the student searches may have taken one of the knives to keep for themselves as it seems it would not be so easy to obtain them through normal means due the licensing and they may be expensive.

brad

[Nigel Evans]

The prosecutor Tempalov instructed the rescue party to not disturb the tent area or it's contents but the discovering team only received the message at the end of the first day when they returned in the evening to the base camp which held the radio. This mistake might have been instrumental in his replacement with Ivanov. Imo the case files should be believed as to the condition of the stove. With those winds and exposed position, it makes complete sense that it wasn't used. The tent could be pitched "high profile" or "low profile", high - stove could be used, low - the stove couldn't be used.

[Wyndford]

It was the BBC website which  got me interested in this mystery.
I also found a good podcast on the subject: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07grys7