Feb. 6 – Unimportant or a Crucial Clue?

[MDGross]

Case File No. 1's  (as always much thanks to Teddy's translation) contemporary cover (I'm not sure what "contemporary" means in this context) lists the start date of the Dyatlov group investigation as Feb. 6, 1959. Also, a forestry service employee, V.M. Popov, was questioned by Captain Chudinov, head of the Vizhay police department, on Feb. 6. Popov reported seeing two groups of hikers (one group being the Dyatlov party) in Vizhay "in the second part of January." He didn't talk to members of either group. I'm uncertain who authorized the interrogation of Popov on this early date. But here's a possible scenario:
• A missile explodes near the Dyatlov group on Feb. 1, releasing a dangerous amount of nitric oxide. The hikers, already unnerved by a thunderous explosion, are now exposed to toxic nitric oxide. In fear of their lives, they immediately exit their tent.
• Soldiers are dispatched on Feb. 2 to recover all the missile pieces they can find. In the course of their search, they come upon the nine bodies. Soldiers tell their commanding officer, who tells his commanding officer, and so forth. By Feb. 6, someone authorizes the Vizhay police to check around and make certain no one knows exactly what happened (the start of a coverup). It's reasonable to start with Popov, since he helps oversee a large area of land, including where the Dyatlov group died.
• Then the coverup begins in earnest. Pressure from family members finally forces a criminal investigation to begin. On Feb. 26, Ivdel prosecutor Tempalov opens the investigation.

In a scenario like this one, Feb. 6 is a crucial date because it proves that someone (the military?) knew that something went wrong (a missile explosion?) on the night of Feb. 1. As always, only an educated guess on my part.

[Beluga1303]

Allegedly no further footprints were found.

[mk]

...
In a scenario like this one, Feb. 6 is a crucial date because it proves that someone (the military?) knew that something went wrong (a missile explosion?) on the night of Feb. 1. As always, only an educated guess on my part.

Yes, I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you.  I wouldn't go so far as to propose a scenario, but I tend to think that the "incorrect" date should not be overlooked or dismissed.

[MDGross]

Yes, that's the point. This post has gotten almost no response (thanks for yours), but the Feb. 6 date could be absolutely crucial. It raises so many questions: Were the bodies seen by someone between Feb. 2 and Feb. 6? Who saw them? Who tipped off the Vizhay police department? Why was Popov interviewed and then no one else for weeks? Was a coverup ordered until the parents of the dead hikers complained all the way to Khrushchev? Was police captain Chudinov or Popov ever questioned when the investigation was formally opened?

[Nigel Evans]

Absolutely crucial or just a typo? From memory neither Ivanov or Okishev placed any importance on this?

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

As a Frenchman, I am perhaps more aware than in other countries of the importance and the spectacular effectiveness of terrorism.
       I therefore believe that the DPI is an attack of a terrorist nature reflecting the internal conflicts in the USSR between Stalinist conservatives and Khrushchevian "reformers" during the thaw period (1953-1964).

My ideas are gradually becoming clearer and you can get an idea of them by reading my recent posts.
            https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=613

In my current senario (hypothesis N°3) the commando of the 3 attackers (a trinomial of mercenary killers) who had received on their faces the vigorous punches sent by Kolmogorova, Slobodin, Dyatlov (and perhaps also to a lesser extent by Doroshenko and Krivonischenko) were back in the Vizhay region as early as February 3, 1959.

    As the attackers had the reputation of being brutal and not very recommendable characters, they were immediately reported to the authorities as presenting strange bruises on their faces.

    Thus the three attackers were arrested on February 4 and "effectively interrogated" on February 5 by the KGB.

   So on February 6, 1959 the KGB knew the essential, i.e. that the 9 corpses of the hikers were lying on or near the slope of the Kholat Saykl.

The KGB investigators did not take the trouble, nor did they make the unnecessary expense, of going to check on the spot full of cold snow, all they had to do was to wait comfortably in their heated premises for what was to follow as soon as something happened. (This happened as early as February 26 with the discovery of the tent).

Naturally the KGB left a trace of its activity on February 6 (in the form of a document bearing the date February 6, 1959), all the more so as the KGB wanted to make the public forget its improvidence and incompetence in not having been able to protect nine members of the elite of Soviet youth.

I intend to clarify and develop all my arguments one day, but only in the appropriate topic=411, namely :

    Theories Discussion > Altercation on the pass > Altercation on the pass
                    https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=411.30

[mk]

Absolutely crucial or just a typo? From memory neither Ivanov or Okishev placed any importance on this?

Yes, I keep asking myself this.  It's very clearly written 6 on the contemporary case files, but I'm having a hard time finding it on the original case file cover.  All I can see is "Opened" and the year written in the blank. 

It's not technically a typo, is it?  It's handwriting--which means that, if it's a mistake, someone had to take pen in hand and miswrite the date.  I suppose the case could be made that the person intended to write "26" and just left off the 2.  But then, why wasn't it corrected?  And as far as that goes, if one wrote the actual date (the 6th) and then officials decided that it should be officially opened the 26th to divert suspicion, you'd think that they would go to the trouble to add a 2 to the original date and make it all look correct.

On the other hand, when you're accustomed to writing by hand, you know when you're in the two-digit section of the month or the one-digit section of the month.  Or, if you're glancing at a calendar to see the date, you might get a week off and write the date for last friday instead of this friday.  But the 6th is a long way from the 26th on a calendar.  It just seems like a very strange mistake to make.  It's not like when you're accustomed to writing 1995 and the year changes to 1996.

As far as Ivanov goes, I'm not completely convinced he has told everything he knows/suspects.   Maybe I'm just in the habit of not taking anyone at their word, but reading his interviews and things he has written, I get the feeling that there's still something he is holding back on.  Don't know what or why, though.

[Nigel Evans]

It could be a failure of dictation or a phone call over a bad line for instance. But imo the big question is that if the 6th was correct then this would dominate Okishev's and Ivanov's thinking and it clearly doesn't?

[MDGross]

Or more likely Ivanov and Okishev were ordered by Urakov or someone of higher rank to ignore the date. Why wasn't a "2" written in front of the 6 at a later date? I don't know. Perhaps an oversight. Or no one thought it important since Feb. 26 became the "official" day the investigation was opened. Or, as Jean Daniel Reuss suggests, the document was faked by the KGB or someone else and that Popov was never interviewed at all.

[Nigel Evans]

Or more likely Ivanov and Okishev were ordered by Urakov or someone of higher rank to ignore the date. Why wasn't a "2" written in front of the 6 at a later date? I don't know. Perhaps an oversight. Or no one thought it important since Feb. 26 became the "official" day the investigation was opened. Or, as Jean Daniel Reuss suggests, the document was faked by the KGB or someone else and that Popov was never interviewed at all.

Ivanov's Leninsky Put article was 30 years after the event. Okishev gave his interview aged 94. From memory neither have concerns wrt this date.

[eurocentric]

Case File No. 1's  (as always much thanks to Teddy's translation) contemporary cover (I'm not sure what "contemporary" means in this context) lists the start date of the Dyatlov group investigation as Feb. 6, 1959. Also, a forestry service employee, V.M. Popov, was questioned by Captain Chudinov, head of the Vizhay police department, on Feb. 6. Popov reported seeing two groups of hikers (one group being the Dyatlov party) in Vizhay "in the second part of January." He didn't talk to members of either group. I'm uncertain who authorized the interrogation of Popov on this early date. But here's a possible scenario:
• A missile explodes near the Dyatlov group on Feb. 1, releasing a dangerous amount of nitric oxide. The hikers, already unnerved by a thunderous explosion, are now exposed to toxic nitric oxide. In fear of their lives, they immediately exit their tent.
• Soldiers are dispatched on Feb. 2 to recover all the missile pieces they can find. In the course of their search, they come upon the nine bodies. Soldiers tell their commanding officer, who tells his commanding officer, and so forth. By Feb. 6, someone authorizes the Vizhay police to check around and make certain no one knows exactly what happened (the start of a coverup). It's reasonable to start with Popov, since he helps oversee a large area of land, including where the Dyatlov group died.
• Then the coverup begins in earnest. Pressure from family members finally forces a criminal investigation to begin. On Feb. 26, Ivdel prosecutor Tempalov opens the investigation.

In a scenario like this one, Feb. 6 is a crucial date because it proves that someone (the military?) knew that something went wrong (a missile explosion?) on the night of Feb. 1. As always, only an educated guess on my part.

To play Devil's Advocate, there were no footprints or signs of any vehicular activity on the ground, and certainly near the tent this would be preserved. You could not hope to disguise them long-term due to wind scour creating raised platforms above weight-compacted snow. Likewise the crash site of a missile would be evidenced, even after a clean-up operation on the surface.

It's hard to imagine a toxic gas or aspirating liquid not quickly dispersing on a windy mountain top. And we know from their footprints the hikers assembled as a group some 50 paces away from the tent, which doesn't sound like the contamination zone would be especially wide or their egress all that urgent.

Three sets of witnesses reported seeing orange orbs, they didn't mention the fireworks of missiles or hearing loud explosions.

I do believe the military were up there in some capacity that night, in the only vehicle capable of doing so without leaving tracks, and one remaining still enough to be photographed, including an image of a lens as clear as this:

cropped and colourised version of one of Semyon's photo's:



That vehicle, a helicopter, would be the vehicle of choice to go find where any missile may have crashed, but equally it may have been up there looking for escapees. It may have landed the next day to examine the visible bodies of 3 hikers on the pass, explaining the movement after death, determining from their checked-shirt clothing, their age, and the inclusion of a female, that they were not the escapees they were looking for, and which the hikers possibly pitched their tent where they did to avoid contact with.

That then explains how the military would know of dead hikers early, and provide another potential explanation for them doing nothing, because if they admitted they were there on the night in question, for whatever reason, people would ask why they didn't rescue the "children of the Motherland", and if they attempted to play the innocent and recover the bodies people would still be suspicious of the coincidental find if the military had no operational reason to be there.

[Nigel Evans]

So he's carrying a camera around his neck, at night in a snowstorm to take pictures of helicopters?

[eurocentric]

So he's carrying a camera around his neck, at night in a snowstorm to take pictures of helicopters?

Evidently he did, unless you have another credible explanation for that photo, which to me is the smoking gun of the DPI. I don't, for example, see why it needs to be an alien spacecraft or ball lightning when it looks like something running on 12V or 24V DC.

Prior to the arrival of the military the most exciting things they photographed were Mansi tree carvings. If they found themselves caught up in the middle of a military search zone, whether there for a downed missile or escapees, why wouldn't they attempt to document it, in much the same way you seem to imagine Semyon's body was found clasping a notepad and pen (although the autopsy mentions he had a compass in his left hand).

But there is an additional element; they may have felt their lives were in danger, even if only through a case of mistaken identity in the dark, and wish to leave some clues should the worst happen.

[Nigel Evans]

So he's carrying a camera around his neck, at night in a snowstorm to take pictures of helicopters?

Evidently he did, unless you have another credible explanation for that photo, which to me is the smoking gun of the DPI. I don't, for example, see why it needs to be an alien spacecraft or ball lightning when it looks like something running on 12V or 24V DC.

Prior to the arrival of the military the most exciting things they photographed were Mansi tree carvings. If they found themselves caught up in the middle of a military search zone, whether there for a downed missile or escapees, why wouldn't they attempt to document it, in much the same way you seem to imagine Semyon's body was found clasping a notepad and pen (although the autopsy mentions he had a compass in his left hand).

But there is an additional element; they may have felt their lives were in danger, even if only through a case of mistaken identity in the dark, and wish to leave some clues should the worst happen.

Well its good that we seem to have several posters who defy the "experts" and think these photos are highly significant which has been my view from day 1. As to photographing helicopters we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm sure you'll be aware that my favourite theory is the same as Ivanov's. But i'm extremely grateful to you for the compass observation. Although i've been a regular visitor to this subject for years i've missed this and from memory no one else has considered it either. I'll start a thread on this later.


Regards

[Monty]

Just re-read the autopsy notes (in English) and it does mention the compass. A thread on that subject would be interesting. Should we discount the pencil and paper as an urban legend?

[Monty]

Great observation btw. Sorry to take this interesting topic off piste.

[mk]

Just re-read the autopsy notes (in English) and it does mention the compass. A thread on that subject would be interesting. Should we discount the pencil and paper as an urban legend?

 I do remember reading someone's recount of the finding of the Rav 4 in which it was stated that Semyon had a notebook in his hand and some official snatched it up to see what was written in it--and the official was annoyed that he found nothing written down.  I don't know whether that was a true and accurate account, but I remember reading it (will go search in a minute). 

If it wasn't true, then it's actually even more interesting: Was the witness confused?  Did the official keep the notebook so it wasn't included in the autopsy?  Was the story entirely made up?  If so, why?   Perhaps it does need to be discounted, but I'd like to know a little more about the origins of the story other than simply Urban Legend.

[Naufragia]

Add me to the list of people who finds it hard to believe that an investigator twice wrote the wrong date on an official document and never corrected it. There is nothing in the testimony itself that contradicts the date of 6 February.

The other thing I find bizarre about the testimony of Mr Popov is that it is so random. He saw two groups of hikers and the weather was bad in early February. I imagine just about anyone in Vizhay could have said as much. So where is the context? Where is the connection between the two issues? Why are the subjective perceptions of the weather by someone who has lived in the area less than ten years worth taking down as official testimony?

Taken at face value, it does appear to indicate that the authorities knew the hikers were dead, approximately when they died, and saw an early need to provide a plausible explanation.

The wind as an explanation crops up many times in searchers' testimony and the conversations reported by the journalist Grigoriev. It doesn't seem to have got traction, and yet Mr Popov's testimony remained in the case files.

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

                               Reply #16
.......................
 I do remember reading someone's recount of the finding of the Rav 4 in which it was stated that Semyon had a notebook in his hand and some official .........
....................
 but I'd like to know a little more about the origins of the story...............

   "...some official..." : He is
Colonel Georgiy Semyonovich Ortyukov (1914-1979)
           • Overall logistics and helicopter support
           • Teacher of the Special department of UPI
Georgiy S. Ortyukov witness testimony :
   https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-307-308

°°°°°°

You can watch the interview from  Askinadzi conducted by Nikolay Varsegov and Natalya Varsegova
Askinadzi Vladimir Mihaylovich    :   UPI student, Askinadzi group, found Liudmila's body on May 5, 1959

    https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Dyatlov-pass-Askinadzi-interview-03.jpg
    https://dyatlovpass.com/askinadzi
       
"......................................
When you dug them out, supposedly Semen Zolotaryov had a notebook in one hand, and in another pencil?

- Yes, the memory of the episode with a notebook made a big impression on me. Because Colonel Ortyukov, who directed the searches, somehow behaved inadequately. He jumped like a madman when he saw that there was a notebook in the hands of one of the bodies. We couldn’t say who that was. We didn’t know the guys, and they were practically unrecognizable. So, Ortyukov grabbed the notebook and began to turn the pages, and I stood beside him. He flipped the pages back and forth, but they were blank. And Ortyukov cursed under his breath, I don't remember his words exactly, but he said something like: "Ah, slug, couldn’t write anything ...".

The book was submerged in the water. Maybe it blurred the records?

- May be.

And where is this notebook now?

- I don’t know. But there is a photo of Ortyukov holding this notebook in his right.
........................."

°°°°°°
To be continued and specified    -->   Altercation on the pass > Altercation on the pass

[eurocentric]

According to this site the account of the notepad was made 59 years later during a media communication. There were no records of the notepad in the recovery team inventory at the time.

"He was also found holding a pen in one hand and a small notepad in the other. Vladimir Askinadzi recalls that Colonel Ortyukov grabbed the notepad, looked at it, cursed and said: "He’s written nothing." He seems to be the only one that has seen the notepad. The whereabouts of this notepad is unknown, it was never filed in evidence or seen by anyone else. On the other hand we hear only from Askinadzi about the whole episode with the pen, notepad and Colonel Ortyukov, and that 59 years after the fact in a recent letter of Askinadzi to Ural Pathfinder magazine."



There were previous mentions in this forum of the compass, but some posters seemed to think it was on his wrist, worn like a watch, not in his hand. Clearly the pathologist would know the difference between a wrist and a hand, and this is what he writes as part of Semyon's external autopsy observation:"There is a compass in the left hand of the body."

Originally, before I read of the compass, and challenged by the seemingly improbable idea of a small notepad surviving months of immersion in running water without swelling, preserved enough for a Colonel to expect to be able to easily read it, I wondered if it was instead a light meter, because it's the right size and shape.

Their cameras didn't have TTL (thru-the-lens) metering so they used handheld devices to measure light intensity and then manually set their camera aperture (f-number) before every photo was taken. Igor looks to be holding one in this photo from the same hike, you can see how it's secured to his clothing with a strap, and how that might fall down into the apparent position of someone's hand:



A light meter may even look vaguely like a compass to the unfamiliar, with a gauge and moving pointer/needle, but the pathologist was also a photographer as part of his job so I doubt he would be mistaken.

As to the recovery photo, if it's the same object, and odd they removed it from the hand and placed it back there if so, then because it appears to have some sort of dial it's either a compass or a light meter, I doubt it's a notepad:



example of a vintage Soviet military compass, the sort ex-soldier Semyon might have:


examples of Soviet light meters of that era:

[Monty]

I hope Mr Evans starts the thread as promised. Some very good reasoning above. I have high hopes for a discussion on why and how.
Best, Paul

[Nigel Evans]

@eurocentric - just a thought about helicopters. Snow is good at reflecting light, so how is it possible that a helicopter could result in the Eagle photo and the reflected light not show the fuselage/rotors?

[mk]

Colonel Georgiy Semyonovich Ortyukov (1914-1979)
           • Overall logistics and helicopter support
           • Teacher of the Special department of UPI
Georgiy S. Ortyukov witness testimony :
 
When you dug them out, supposedly Semen Zolotaryov had a notebook in one hand, and in another pencil?

- Yes, the memory of the episode with a notebook made a big impression on me. Because Colonel Ortyukov, who directed the searches, somehow behaved inadequately. He jumped like a madman when he saw that there was a notebook in the hands of one of the bodies. We couldn’t say who that was. We didn’t know the guys, and they were practically unrecognizable. So, Ortyukov grabbed the notebook and began to turn the pages, and I stood beside him. He flipped the pages back and forth, but they were blank. And Ortyukov cursed under his breath, I don't remember his words exactly, but he said something like: "Ah, slug, couldn’t write anything ..."....

Thank you; this is what I was remembering.

I suppose it's possible that it wasn't Semyon holding the notebook, since the witness says he didn't know or recognize any of the bodies?

I don't have any problem believing the memories of witnesses when it comes to stuff like this.  They may have misunderstood the situation at the time, and that would become a part of the memory, but, unless they are outright lying and intentionally making stuff up, the event itself is probably true.  Barring dementia or other severe memory loss, 50-70 years or more doesn't usually  erase or seriously corrupt memories made under emotional stress like that.  The moment sort of burns itself into your brain.

[mk]

Add me to the list of people who finds it hard to believe that an investigator twice wrote the wrong date on an official document and never corrected it. There is nothing in the testimony itself that contradicts the date of 6 February.

The other thing I find bizarre about the testimony of Mr Popov is that it is so random. He saw two groups of hikers and the weather was bad in early February. I imagine just about anyone in Vizhay could have said as much. So where is the context? Where is the connection between the two issues? Why are the subjective perceptions of the weather by someone who has lived in the area less than ten years worth taking down as official testimony?

Taken at face value, it does appear to indicate that the authorities knew the hikers were dead, approximately when they died, and saw an early need to provide a plausible explanation.

The wind as an explanation crops up many times in searchers' testimony and the conversations reported by the journalist Grigoriev. It doesn't seem to have got traction, and yet Mr Popov's testimony remained in the case files.

Yes!  I, too, was thinking how strangely empty that testimony sounded.  What was the point of it?

[eurocentric]

@eurocentric - just a thought about helicopters. Snow is good at reflecting light, so how is it possible that a helicopter could result in the Eagle photo and the reflected light not show the fuselage/rotors?

The 'Eagle 1 Light' image I posted is cropped from a larger one, where the helicopter would be higher off the ground than perceived. The light will be a fixed headlamp which forward projects its light, so most of the reflectivity would travel forward due to the angle the light hits the ground. If the helicopter was much lower in the sky, or coming into land, then you'd anticipate the snow would begin to illuminate it.





This colourised image of the rescue mission shows what appears to be at least 2 helicopters, possibly using more powerful lights than standard, and the helicopters are not visible.



In order for the helicopter to be more reliably shown, such as in 'Plane 2', where the light is not on, it would need a light source underneath. I suggest that would come from flares. To search the forests the DPI helicopter would need to keep manoeuvering to compensate for the fixed light being defeated by the canopy of evergreen trees and the long shadows cast by tree trunks, with forest the ideal place for escapees to hide and shelter, so flares might be dropped beneath the helicopter for better visibility, some of them lodging in the tree tops, acting like a 2-minute firework, potentially explaining some of the burnt tree tops.

Semyon's 'Mushroom With A Face' photo, a tiny feature on the edge of a negative, may image a flare, small because it was distant from the camera.

[Nigel Evans]

My gut feeling is that light source in Eagle is much closer, too close for your argument.


That night shot has a lot of light sources at least four, probably more demonstrating the investment that was involved in this incident.

[Manti]

Regarding the date on the "original" cover, here is what I see:

It had the following pre-printed on the form:
Nachato ___________ 195_ g.

Which was then filled in with seemingly different pens/writing styles/ink (i'll use blue and orange here),
Nachato6 _II.1959g.__ 1959 g.


Nachato means start. Because 195_ was already pre-printed, it is odd to fill in the year again redundantly, and only the year.It is apparent that the date was then added afterwards in the insufficient space left.
What this tells us I don't know. It can be said that a mistake was certainly made in filling in the year twice. But then, look at the end date too.It looks like "28 IV 1959g." to me. April??