Evidence

[sarapuk]

I, for one, have always enjoyed hearing all the other peoples' ideas on this forum, regardless of evidence. I have always thought the Dyatlov Pass case could be solved with or without evidence. Sometimes, just thinking, and asking questions about a subject can bring about a resolution. I am very curious to see how this case was solved because it could just be someone asking a question about something as simple as clothing or the tent or where something was or wasn't and not necessarily a premise built on evidence.

Its not really possible to have a resolution to the Dyatlov Case without the facts to back it up. And that means Evidence. Otherwise its really a Theory at best. Plenty of Theories have passed this way.

[Star man]

Well, the lack of analysis of the foot prints, and the cuts in the tent near the entrance through the seams have been a problem for me for a while now.  This line of thinking makes it clear why. 

Also, why Yuri D would be climbing a tree with severe frost bite on hands and feet.  Why they were burnt - it doesn't make sense if they were either alive or dead.  If they were alive why would they allow their skin to burn like that, and if they died before the fire did, why did they die?  The flashlight on the 10cm of snow at the tent, the tidy nature of the tent - given the impression that they cut their way out in a panic.

Ok.  So if we cant rely on the evidence at the scene.  How do we figure out what really happened to them?  Solter's statement.  The bodies were very dirty, washed, prepared for burial ( with no relatives to formerly identify them and no autopsy) - odd.  11 bodies overall - odd.  Were the bodies, cleaned, possibly decontaminated, and then air lifted back to Kholat Syakhl for placement?  11 bodies?  Did Solter see two of the same bodies twice, at different times?  First in Feb, when they were prepped, and then in March when they were found again?  Lyuda - burned hair and face, Semyon?  Authorities need to make some changes to their appearance and then place them somewhere where they would decompose.  Missing eyes, tongue?  Chest injuries -  they were thrown by a wind blast, or accidentally dropped from a helicopter when being air lifted back? 

The tent - did the hikers actually  cut it?  Was it shredded by debris from something and made to look like it was cut.  Could there have been an incident that threw up a major amount of dirt, mud, or caused a landslide onto the tent?   Possible chemical weapon - chlorine, heavier than air so hugs the ground, will burn eyes and mucous membranes, - no toxicology report.  Might induce them to cut and tear themselves out of the tent.  Chlorine -  oxidising agent, poison, skin colour?  Oxidised skin may make them look dirty.  Yuri D lungs, grey fluid.  Chlorine causes fluid in the lungs, so you kind of drown.  Nitrogen dioxide would fo the same.  The tent - is there a record somewhere about its recovery and cleaning, prepping it to set back up on Kholat?

If you can't make the hikers disappear, you can always make the scene dissappear instead

Lots and lots of questions.  Needs further thought to piecei t together. 

Regards

Star man

Ok.  Lets continue with this line of thought.

To understand what happened to the hikers, we need to filter out the facts that cannot be faked so easily or  covered up.  If they couldn't or didn't want to make the hikers disappear, you make the scene disappear.  So that leaves the hikers - the bodies - the injuries.  Lets split the hikers into two groups.  Those with significant injuries and those with superficial injuries.  Who has the significant injuries?  - The rav 4 - convenient.  If the scene is faked, then Kolevatov, is not hugging Semyon.  Kolevatov - he didn't die last - he died first.  He was thrown by some kind of wind blast.  He landed awkwardly - deformed neck - spinal damage - severed spinal cord - cut signal through vegus nerve.  He dies almost instantly.  He didn't die of hypothermia - no frost bite.  Lyuda and Thibo are next.  Difficult to say which.  Both are thrown.  Semyon is next, he is thrown.  Maybe these were outside the tent sitting or standing when it happened?  The remaining 5 survive the initial wind blast.  Chemical weapon - NO.  Chlorine gas - NO.  Chemical weapon unlikely to create a large wind blast.  Chlorine would bleach skin and hair.  Would have distinct smell like bleach.  What else?  "Very very dirty" -Zina's grubby oily looking hands - localised burns to skin and hair - wind blast- flame front - pressure wave- no eye brows, no eyes.  Couldn't be high explosives.  Would be localised, closer - disingrating bodies.  Very very dirty - finger tips and finger nails look ok -  they weren't buried -  SMOKE -  oily sooty, not fully combusted smoke - smoke inhalation -  Yuri D grey foam.  Large fire ball, wind blast and pressure wave - oily sooty smoke - - -  thermobaric device -  Fuel air bomb?  Uses up all oxygen?  Possibly would fit.  Military test gone wrong?  Accident?  Strontium 90 used as tracer?

The remaining 5 live longer than the rav 4.  Were they lying in the tent?  The tent must have been damaged -  did the side that faced the flame front catch fire?  The other side survived?  Shredded by debris?  Was the Kholat tent a different tent altogether?  Its difficult to say.  Wzs the tent even set up, or still packed when it happened?

Yuri D significant frost bite.  Yuri K had frost bite too.  Were they trying to survive without the tent?  Died of frost bite, hypothermia and smoke inhalation.  Inhalation of unburned toxic FAB fuel?  They must have survived for a while to get the frost bite. Could they have survived with their outer clothing and no tent?
 Dyatlov, Zina and Rustem - Rustem may have been knocked about in the wind blast - both temporal lobes?  Odd?  Did the survivors fight?    Could they see.?  Were they blinded by the unburned chemicals and smoke?  Ah blinded -  couldn't find or use their gear and clothing?  That would be desperate.  Geese.  If that's what happened - poor guys.

Other options -  nuclear?  Possible.  Would still generate fire ball, wind blast and oily dirty rainy fallout.  Plus radioactive contamination.  Think FAB is probably more likely.  Anything else?  Where did it happen?  When did it happen?  Lots more questions.

Regards

Star man

Another option is a crashed missile of some kind - hits the ground, and fuel explodes creating a fire ball, wind blast and lots of oily smoke.  Some burning  fuel is thrown onto the hikers - as per Nigel's theory.  Yuri K's burned leg, burned clothing (later removed and replaced) and hair. 

If we assume that those with the most superficial injuries and frost bite survived the longest, then it would mean that the two Yuris would have lived the longest.  Did Zina, Dyatlov and Rustem die relatively quickly?  None of them have significant frost bite.  Could they have died from internal injuries from the blast, or toxic substances inhaled.  Thermovaric bomb uses ethylene oxide which is toxic, narcotic and anaesthetic.  Could they have been deliberately targeted?  A thermobaric grenade might have the same effect?  Its less likely to destroy the tent completely?  Seems unlikely to me as the two Yuris appear to have survived long enough to get severe frost bite.

Air mines? 

Looks like it was some kind of explosion.  Takes out the rav4 all in one go.  Thermobaric device still fits better.  Oily smoke and toxic aftermath.

Where did it happen?  If not on Kholat then most likely on the planned route somewhere. Before the 6th Feb.  Before they made the labaz?

Regards

Star man

If the incident involved a contaminant which would hang around, such as something radioactive, which would either take ages to clean up or be left where it was to naturally decay, for example the neutron bomb's tritium has a half life of 10.43 years, then they'd likely want to resite the tent and hikers' demise well away from the original scene, not in that forest, or there'd be risk of the rescue teams being affected and then the cover-up is blown.

The book may even suggest they died the night before, at their previous campsite, in which case all the military needed do was continue their ski trail up to the Dyatlov Pass, something which may also explain the hikers being off their planned route (an unfamiliar military mistake).

Perhaps something in the air, a toxic chemical, which in concentration or direct contact burns skin, and burned the inside of Lyuda's mouth if she began to mouth breathe, something which would tend to linger in a sheltered forest, where hikers have less chance to run away fast from it, whereas out in the open, up on the ridge, the wind should disperse it.

Unlike on the ridge, where it's assumed they would all be in the same position, inside the tent, a campsite in the forest allows for some to be in the tent, some outside by a fire, and perhaps others collecting wood, when the incident happens, to explain different exposure and injury levels.

If you were trying to capture a Yeti.  How would you do it?

Regards

Star man

[mk]

Any intro to the DPI brainwashes the reader or viewer with the notion that "they cut their way out and fled in panic, half-dressed into the freezing night",

This idea was introduced by Maslennikov in the very beginning, while still in the middle of the search & before the 4 were found in the ravine.  He does not shy away from asserting his theories via radiograms:

№1712 27/2
To Sulman
Urgent. Right after the descend we dug out and identified the four bodies found as Dyatlov Zolotaryov Krivanischenko Kolmogorova the deceast were thrown out of the tent by a hurricane, some without boots or pants jackets. The direction of the hurricane was northeast-east so all of them are on one line from the discovered tent the furthest approximately two kilometers from the tent....
Maslennikov

Received by Temnikov
27/2
To Sulman
To determine the time of the accident request the weather report between January 30 and February 2 position and placing of the bodies is indicative of a hurricane
Maslennikov Nevolin

Received by Temnikov
1/3 1025 msk
To Sulman
...the catastrophe was precisely established to be on the night of the second of February. 31/1 in bad weather the group left Auspiya from the overnight which was found first and climbed to the pass but the wind stopped them and they returned to the forest border in the sources of Auspiya and set a camp. It's about the place where our camp is now. In the morning they made a storage and left part of the food here at 15:00 they again went to the pass to Lozva and climbed to the place where the tent was found. Probably they took the slope at the time of the blizzard at altitude 1079, the main ridge behind the slope from the Auspiya to the ravine ascended to the crest, driven by a hurricane wind decided against it and set camp at this place. The tent is installed very tightly under all the rules under the tent all the skis then empty backpacks quilted jackets from one side stacked products on the other shoes, not all the blankets are here all personal things. The tent is set taking into account the strong wind from the top the group had supper in the tent left the food and began to change to take off the wet clothes and shoes and put on a dry ones. It was at this moment that something happened that made the group half-dressed run out of the tent and rush down the slope. Maybe someone dressed went out to relief himself and he was blown away. Jumped to his scream - the rest were also taken down tent is pitched in the most dangerous windy place here is the strongest wind. It was impossible to climb back fifty meters since the tent was torn down the ones further down may have commanded to abandoned it and go into the woods advancing on the slope towards xxxxxxxxxxxxx Auspya where the forest was closer to them they wanted to hide here they could try to find the place of their previous campsite but the terrain is very stony and to the forest is 2-3 times farther. Dyatlov and Kolmogorova lit the fire they were better dressed and went back to look for clothes. They couldn't and they fell. The position of their bodies speaks of this. Everyone agrees on this version of the disaster....
Maslennikov
 

which then generates the big 'Guess The Emergency' game which has kept this mystery alive across 62 years.

I wonder whether this was intentional or accidental.

...Insidiously they use the last diary entry Igor made, which incredibly some here take as a literal plan to be where he expressly did not want to be, away from the sole redeeming feature of his then bleak situation, his comforting warmth, up on that ridge, or they have his handwriting forged to that effect.

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the case files only contain a typed copy of the group diary in which this was written.  Very convenient for adding anything--no handwriting forgery needed.

... As told it makes no sense, and that is most likely because it was nonsense all along.

Cue reference to Occam's razor.

[Star man]

Rule number 1:  you can't make sense of nonense.

Regards

Star man

[Nigel Evans]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

[sarapuk]

If you were trying to capture a Yeti.  How would you do it?

Regards

Star man
« Last Edit: January 13, 2021, 04:11:17 PM by Star man »

In North America there are guys who go out in to the wilderness and set big traps, sometimes very big cages.

[sarapuk]

Any intro to the DPI brainwashes the reader or viewer with the notion that "they cut their way out and fled in panic, half-dressed into the freezing night",

This idea was introduced by Maslennikov in the very beginning, while still in the middle of the search & before the 4 were found in the ravine.  He does not shy away from asserting his theories via radiograms:

№1712 27/2
To Sulman
Urgent. Right after the descend we dug out and identified the four bodies found as Dyatlov Zolotaryov Krivanischenko Kolmogorova the deceast were thrown out of the tent by a hurricane, some without boots or pants jackets. The direction of the hurricane was northeast-east so all of them are on one line from the discovered tent the furthest approximately two kilometers from the tent....
Maslennikov

Received by Temnikov
27/2
To Sulman
To determine the time of the accident request the weather report between January 30 and February 2 position and placing of the bodies is indicative of a hurricane
Maslennikov Nevolin

Received by Temnikov
1/3 1025 msk
To Sulman
...the catastrophe was precisely established to be on the night of the second of February. 31/1 in bad weather the group left Auspiya from the overnight which was found first and climbed to the pass but the wind stopped them and they returned to the forest border in the sources of Auspiya and set a camp. It's about the place where our camp is now. In the morning they made a storage and left part of the food here at 15:00 they again went to the pass to Lozva and climbed to the place where the tent was found. Probably they took the slope at the time of the blizzard at altitude 1079, the main ridge behind the slope from the Auspiya to the ravine ascended to the crest, driven by a hurricane wind decided against it and set camp at this place. The tent is installed very tightly under all the rules under the tent all the skis then empty backpacks quilted jackets from one side stacked products on the other shoes, not all the blankets are here all personal things. The tent is set taking into account the strong wind from the top the group had supper in the tent left the food and began to change to take off the wet clothes and shoes and put on a dry ones. It was at this moment that something happened that made the group half-dressed run out of the tent and rush down the slope. Maybe someone dressed went out to relief himself and he was blown away. Jumped to his scream - the rest were also taken down tent is pitched in the most dangerous windy place here is the strongest wind. It was impossible to climb back fifty meters since the tent was torn down the ones further down may have commanded to abandoned it and go into the woods advancing on the slope towards xxxxxxxxxxxxx Auspya where the forest was closer to them they wanted to hide here they could try to find the place of their previous campsite but the terrain is very stony and to the forest is 2-3 times farther. Dyatlov and Kolmogorova lit the fire they were better dressed and went back to look for clothes. They couldn't and they fell. The position of their bodies speaks of this. Everyone agrees on this version of the disaster....
Maslennikov
 

which then generates the big 'Guess The Emergency' game which has kept this mystery alive across 62 years.

I wonder whether this was intentional or accidental.

...Insidiously they use the last diary entry Igor made, which incredibly some here take as a literal plan to be where he expressly did not want to be, away from the sole redeeming feature of his then bleak situation, his comforting warmth, up on that ridge, or they have his handwriting forged to that effect.

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the case files only contain a typed copy of the group diary in which this was written.  Very convenient for adding anything--no handwriting forgery needed.

... As told it makes no sense, and that is most likely because it was nonsense all along.

Cue reference to Occam's razor.

Good observation about Maslennikov. He seemed quick to push the Hurricane or Tornado Theory. Imagine being thrown nearly 1000 metres thats nearly 3000 feet. I think we could have expected some rather twisted bodies and more injuries. As for the Diaries like with the Newsletter that was found near the entrance to the Tent. Originals seem to be missing.

[sarapuk]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

I agree that something is starring us in the faces and we seem to find ways of going round it. Ivanov. The Fire Orbs or whatever they were. I say UFO's.

[marieuk]

A close encounter with a UFO would certainly make me forget to take my shoes, coat etc with me

[Star man]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

It is possible that one piece of evidence at the tent isn't nonsense -  "The Evening Otorten" -  the snowman does exist

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

If you were trying to capture a Yeti.  How would you do it?

Regards

Star man
« Last Edit: January 13, 2021, 04:11:17 PM by Star man »

In North America there are guys who go out in to the wilderness and set big traps, sometimes very big cages.

Yeah I think I saw something like that.  How did the attempt to lure a Sasquatch into the trap?

Regards

[Star man]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

I agree that something is starring us in the faces and we seem to find ways of going round it. Ivanov. The Fire Orbs or whatever they were. I say UFO's.

I have a new theory in mind.  Well a few really, but one stands out.  I have been following Teddy's trail of bread crumbs and it has lead me to it.  It is something I had considered before but dismissed it as I believed the date I saw on another document.  You can fit the facts together in a different way and it seems to make sense.  This might sound strange -  but the scenes presented in the dpi might be a reflection of the human subconscious of those at the time.  I might be wrong too.  I have no evidence to back it up.  Am just looking at the existing facts in a different way.  It is like having about half of the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle but not having the original picture to work too.  If you start putting the pieces together in the right order, you start to see the first part of the picture.  It is only then do you notice the bits that are missing and can ask -  what could this part of the picture be?

It isn't UFO's though.

 Regards

Star man

[Nigel Evans]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

I agree that something is starring us in the faces and we seem to find ways of going round it. Ivanov. The Fire Orbs or whatever they were. I say UFO's.

I have a new theory in mind.  Well a few really, but one stands out.  I have been following Teddy's trail of bread crumbs and it has lead me to it.  It is something I had considered before but dismissed it as I believed the date I saw on another document.  You can fit the facts together in a different way and it seems to make sense.  This might sound strange -  but the scenes presented in the dpi might be a reflection of the human subconscious of those at the time.  I might be wrong too.  I have no evidence to back it up.  Am just looking at the existing facts in a different way.  It is like having about half of the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle but not having the original picture to work too.  If you start putting the pieces together in the right order, you start to see the first part of the picture.  It is only then do you notice the bits that are missing and can ask -  what could this part of the picture be?

It isn't UFO's though.

 Regards

Star man

So are you going to tell us?

[Ziljoe]

@starman

"It is like having about half of the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle but not having the original picture to work too."

Great analogy  sums it up.

[Marchesk]

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

The problem is that it was 30 years later and there's no evidence of burned tree tops in the case files to back it up. Nobody else reported seeing that at the time. I have difficulty trusting decades old recollections. Human memory is fallible.

[Nigel Evans]

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

The problem is that it was 30 years later and there's no evidence of burned tree tops in the case files to back it up. Nobody else reported seeing that at the time. I have difficulty trusting decades old recollections. Human memory is fallible.

Okishev stated that Ivanov would have certainly removed information from the case files to comply with his orders and Ivanov hints at this in the Leninsky Put article. So it's a valid argument to say you have it the wrong way round, the case files are like a swiss cheese, lots of stuff but with voids and the real story is stated 30 years later during glasnost when Beria ( and his methods ) were both long gone.

[sarapuk]

A close encounter with a UFO would certainly make me forget to take my shoes, coat etc with me

Well that depends. Lets not forget that UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. So the so called Fire Orbs would come under that classification.

[sarapuk]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

It is possible that one piece of evidence at the tent isn't nonsense -  "The Evening Otorten" -  the snowman does exist

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

Regards

Star man

So you are linking the Snowman with the UFO. Thats not a bad idea. And lets not forget where that Newsletter was found. It was found pinned to the Tent near the entrance.

[sarapuk]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

I agree that something is starring us in the faces and we seem to find ways of going round it. Ivanov. The Fire Orbs or whatever they were. I say UFO's.

I have a new theory in mind.  Well a few really, but one stands out.  I have been following Teddy's trail of bread crumbs and it has lead me to it.  It is something I had considered before but dismissed it as I believed the date I saw on another document.  You can fit the facts together in a different way and it seems to make sense.  This might sound strange -  but the scenes presented in the dpi might be a reflection of the human subconscious of those at the time.  I might be wrong too.  I have no evidence to back it up.  Am just looking at the existing facts in a different way.  It is like having about half of the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle but not having the original picture to work too.  If you start putting the pieces together in the right order, you start to see the first part of the picture.  It is only then do you notice the bits that are missing and can ask -  what could this part of the picture be?

It isn't UFO's though.

 Regards

Star man

Iam a bit confused about your new theory. One could say that most Cases are a bit like jigsaw puzzles. Real Detectives who hunt for Criminals, etc, have to gather what Evidence they can as well as all the facts that they can find and put it all together. And presumably in most Cases there will be pieces missing.

[sarapuk]

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

The problem is that it was 30 years later and there's no evidence of burned tree tops in the case files to back it up. Nobody else reported seeing that at the time. I have difficulty trusting decades old recollections. Human memory is fallible.

Yes this question of Burnt Trees is one of the iffy ones in this Dyatlov Case. Because we have no Evidence, surprise surprise, and very liitle has been said about any Burnt Trees by the original Searchers and Investigators. Burnt Trees would surely have warranted someone taking Photographs of them  !  ? 

[Star man]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

I agree that something is starring us in the faces and we seem to find ways of going round it. Ivanov. The Fire Orbs or whatever they were. I say UFO's.

I have a new theory in mind.  Well a few really, but one stands out.  I have been following Teddy's trail of bread crumbs and it has lead me to it.  It is something I had considered before but dismissed it as I believed the date I saw on another document.  You can fit the facts together in a different way and it seems to make sense.  This might sound strange -  but the scenes presented in the dpi might be a reflection of the human subconscious of those at the time.  I might be wrong too.  I have no evidence to back it up.  Am just looking at the existing facts in a different way.  It is like having about half of the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle but not having the original picture to work too.  If you start putting the pieces together in the right order, you start to see the first part of the picture.  It is only then do you notice the bits that are missing and can ask -  what could this part of the picture be?

It isn't UFO's though.

 Regards

Star man

So are you going to tell us?

Hi Nigel -  for now I am just going to continue to think it through.  There are several reasons for this:

1.  Teddy provided some clues to the theory in her book to give people a chance to solve it before the book is published.  It wouldn't be fair to take that opportunity away for others.
2.  My theory might not be correct anyway.
3. Putting aside the aspect of a compelling mystery to be solved.  If the theory I have in mind is correct, then I can only see victims and great sadness, like a painful wound, the re-opening of which might only lead to more sadness.  The truth usually finds its way in the end though and I am sure it will be revealed one day.

Maybe you should have a go yourself.  You have vast knowledge of this case.  Here are some of Teddys clues:

1.  Nothing is as it seems
2. Its all about the tent and where it was found.  More importantly where it was not found.  My own embellishment would be - assume the hikers were never at the camp site.
3.  Solter's statement
4.  Only half of the facts are available in the case files.  I will embellish a little - the information in the case files only presents half of the story.
5. The facts can be put together in a different way.

This is a clue about the theory I have in mind -  The Discovery Channel Documentary is not all over dramatised

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

The problem is that it was 30 years later and there's no evidence of burned tree tops in the case files to back it up. Nobody else reported seeing that at the time. I have difficulty trusting decades old recollections. Human memory is fallible.

True, and I dont think its key anyway.

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

It is possible that one piece of evidence at the tent isn't nonsense -  "The Evening Otorten" -  the snowman does exist

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

Regards

Star man

So you are linking the Snowman with the UFO. Thats not a bad idea. And lets not forget where that Newsletter was found. It was found pinned to the Tent near the entrance.

No, I dont think UFO.  I do wonder why the pamphlet was left in the tent.  Can understand why it disappeared too.

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

I agree that something is starring us in the faces and we seem to find ways of going round it. Ivanov. The Fire Orbs or whatever they were. I say UFO's.

I have a new theory in mind.  Well a few really, but one stands out.  I have been following Teddy's trail of bread crumbs and it has lead me to it.  It is something I had considered before but dismissed it as I believed the date I saw on another document.  You can fit the facts together in a different way and it seems to make sense.  This might sound strange -  but the scenes presented in the dpi might be a reflection of the human subconscious of those at the time.  I might be wrong too.  I have no evidence to back it up.  Am just looking at the existing facts in a different way.  It is like having about half of the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle but not having the original picture to work too.  If you start putting the pieces together in the right order, you start to see the first part of the picture.  It is only then do you notice the bits that are missing and can ask -  what could this part of the picture be?

It isn't UFO's though.

 Regards

Star man

Iam a bit confused about your new theory. One could say that most Cases are a bit like jigsaw puzzles. Real Detectives who hunt for Criminals, etc, have to gather what Evidence they can as well as all the facts that they can find and put it all together. And presumably in most Cases there will be pieces missing.

Apologies for talking cryptically about this.  The point I was making is that everyone might be trying to use the 50% of the jigsaw pieces they have to make a picture of a horse, instead of a dolphin, and so they will never notice that the dolphin is swimming in the sea.

Regards

Star man

[Nigel Evans]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

I agree that something is starring us in the faces and we seem to find ways of going round it. Ivanov. The Fire Orbs or whatever they were. I say UFO's.

I have a new theory in mind.  Well a few really, but one stands out.  I have been following Teddy's trail of bread crumbs and it has lead me to it.  It is something I had considered before but dismissed it as I believed the date I saw on another document.  You can fit the facts together in a different way and it seems to make sense.  This might sound strange -  but the scenes presented in the dpi might be a reflection of the human subconscious of those at the time.  I might be wrong too.  I have no evidence to back it up.  Am just looking at the existing facts in a different way.  It is like having about half of the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle but not having the original picture to work too.  If you start putting the pieces together in the right order, you start to see the first part of the picture.  It is only then do you notice the bits that are missing and can ask -  what could this part of the picture be?

It isn't UFO's though.

 Regards

Star man

So are you going to tell us?

Hi Nigel -  for now I am just going to continue to think it through.  There are several reasons for this:

1.  Teddy provided some clues to the theory in her book to give people a chance to solve it before the book is published.  It wouldn't be fair to take that opportunity away for others.
2.  My theory might not be correct anyway.
3. Putting aside the aspect of a compelling mystery to be solved.  If the theory I have in mind is correct, then I can only see victims and great sadness, like a painful wound, the re-opening of which might only lead to more sadness.  The truth usually finds its way in the end though and I am sure it will be revealed one day.

Maybe you should have a go yourself.  You have vast knowledge of this case.  Here are some of Teddys clues:

1.  Nothing is as it seems
2. Its all about the tent and where it was found.  More importantly where it was not found.  My own embellishment would be - assume the hikers were never at the camp site.
3.  Solter's statement
4.  Only half of the facts are available in the case files.  I will embellish a little - the information in the case files only presents half of the story.
5. The facts can be put together in a different way.

This is a clue about the theory I have in mind -  The Discovery Channel Documentary is not all over dramatised

Regards

Star man

All very mysterious.... Well i'm with the mansi (their legend) and Ivanov. So atmospheric electricity is the one to beat imo.

[sarapuk]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

It is possible that one piece of evidence at the tent isn't nonsense -  "The Evening Otorten" -  the snowman does exist

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

Regards

Star man

So you are linking the Snowman with the UFO. Thats not a bad idea. And lets not forget where that Newsletter was found. It was found pinned to the Tent near the entrance.

No, I dont think UFO.  I do wonder why the pamphlet was left in the tent.  Can understand why it disappeared too.

Regards

Star man

Why do you think it disappeared  !  ? 

[sarapuk]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

I agree that something is starring us in the faces and we seem to find ways of going round it. Ivanov. The Fire Orbs or whatever they were. I say UFO's.

I have a new theory in mind.  Well a few really, but one stands out.  I have been following Teddy's trail of bread crumbs and it has lead me to it.  It is something I had considered before but dismissed it as I believed the date I saw on another document.  You can fit the facts together in a different way and it seems to make sense.  This might sound strange -  but the scenes presented in the dpi might be a reflection of the human subconscious of those at the time.  I might be wrong too.  I have no evidence to back it up.  Am just looking at the existing facts in a different way.  It is like having about half of the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle but not having the original picture to work too.  If you start putting the pieces together in the right order, you start to see the first part of the picture.  It is only then do you notice the bits that are missing and can ask -  what could this part of the picture be?

It isn't UFO's though.

 Regards

Star man

Iam a bit confused about your new theory. One could say that most Cases are a bit like jigsaw puzzles. Real Detectives who hunt for Criminals, etc, have to gather what Evidence they can as well as all the facts that they can find and put it all together. And presumably in most Cases there will be pieces missing.

Apologies for talking cryptically about this.  The point I was making is that everyone might be trying to use the 50% of the jigsaw pieces they have to make a picture of a horse, instead of a dolphin, and so they will never notice that the dolphin is swimming in the sea.

Regards

Star man

I thought jigsaw pieces were meant to be able to fit together. I mean if a piece fits to another piece then how can your analogy work. Its an horse or a dolphin, one or the other.

[Nigel Evans]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

It is possible that one piece of evidence at the tent isn't nonsense -  "The Evening Otorten" -  the snowman does exist

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

Regards

Star man

So you are linking the Snowman with the UFO. Thats not a bad idea. And lets not forget where that Newsletter was found. It was found pinned to the Tent near the entrance.

No, I dont think UFO.  I do wonder why the pamphlet was left in the tent.  Can understand why it disappeared too.

Regards

Star man

Why do you think it disappeared  !  ?

Because everything was confiscated. Diaries, Semyon's notebook, Ortorten News etc, etc. We only have Semyon's photos because Ivanov seems to have hoarded them.

[Star man]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

It is possible that one piece of evidence at the tent isn't nonsense -  "The Evening Otorten" -  the snowman does exist

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

Regards

Star man

So you are linking the Snowman with the UFO. Thats not a bad idea. And lets not forget where that Newsletter was found. It was found pinned to the Tent near the entrance.

No, I dont think UFO.  I do wonder why the pamphlet was left in the tent.  Can understand why it disappeared too.

Regards

Star man

Why do you think it disappeared  !  ?

I think it may be the only piece of evidence at the tent of any relevance.

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

I agree that something is starring us in the faces and we seem to find ways of going round it. Ivanov. The Fire Orbs or whatever they were. I say UFO's.

I have a new theory in mind.  Well a few really, but one stands out.  I have been following Teddy's trail of bread crumbs and it has lead me to it.  It is something I had considered before but dismissed it as I believed the date I saw on another document.  You can fit the facts together in a different way and it seems to make sense.  This might sound strange -  but the scenes presented in the dpi might be a reflection of the human subconscious of those at the time.  I might be wrong too.  I have no evidence to back it up.  Am just looking at the existing facts in a different way.  It is like having about half of the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle but not having the original picture to work too.  If you start putting the pieces together in the right order, you start to see the first part of the picture.  It is only then do you notice the bits that are missing and can ask -  what could this part of the picture be?

It isn't UFO's though.

 Regards

Star man

Iam a bit confused about your new theory. One could say that most Cases are a bit like jigsaw puzzles. Real Detectives who hunt for Criminals, etc, have to gather what Evidence they can as well as all the facts that they can find and put it all together. And presumably in most Cases there will be pieces missing.

Apologies for talking cryptically about this.  The point I was making is that everyone might be trying to use the 50% of the jigsaw pieces they have to make a picture of a horse, instead of a dolphin, and so they will never notice that the dolphin is swimming in the sea.

Regards

Star man

I thought jigsaw pieces were meant to be able to fit together. I mean if a piece fits to another piece then how can your analogy work. Its an horse or a dolphin, one or the other.

The pieces that make the picture of the horse were not originally in the box.

Regards

Star man