Book "1079"

[Star man]

First of all I liked it.  The narrative is well laid out with the different time lines progressively becoming more and more integrated, and each rich in detail with facts and information from the case files and witness statements, as well as new information from other sources.   It gives a real sense of the level of control, bureaucracy, and the harshness of the penalties (fair and unfair), for stepping out of line with the ruling cliques.  Also, the opportunities and inevitability of corruption within such a system.  I like the way that each character important to the narrative  has their own summary of their background.

The level of detail, research and analysis behind the words on each page is truly amazing, and necessary to resolve the case.  I am not sure how many will recognise the depth that has been achieved in the book .  The book is obviously written by people with passion, conviction tenacity and after reading it I realise my own efforts have only ever been a minor scratch on the surface.  Therefore I take my hat off to you both. 

Saying all that, I do have questions.  Clearly you have presented a very compelling argument, that would surely defy any laws of natural coincidences.  I am interested in understanding how much evidence there actually is.  For example when relaying information from the archival materials of the Ivdel city soviet executive committee and information recalled by the 6 sappers that were sent to assist in the search, ( do you have copies of the records of the meetings?  did the sappers make signed witness statements)?  If you do have such evidence then I would think there can be no doubt about the events that followed the incident. 

Will leave it there for now as I have run out of time.

Regards

Star man

[Teddy]

The book is a patchwork of information from documents.
Half of the text, if not more is in italics, which means it is citation.
Since the book became cumbered with reference notes from the start we decided to have all the supporting documents and photos listed on the site per chapter.
https://dyatlovpass.com/1079

You can find the chapter where you have read about the participation of the sappers and see what documentation we have to show for that.
You mean Chapter 6  but the mother lode of the search documents is in Chapter 7.

Shestopalov's identity was discovered November 2020 by Natalya Varsegova (Komsomolskaya Pravda). Till that moment we only knew his last name. Please follow the links above to see the documents that support his role in the case.

As for Nigel Evans - this our own garden variety of a hater. This is what keeps me away from forums. There is nothing productive in pollinating with hatred every post that addresses the book. Nothing I say would change his mind because he is not quoting things from the book.

[Teddy]

We never said the diaries are not genuine.
Ivanov apologized 30 years after the fact that he didn't do his job.
Urakov and Khrushchev were not in the know of the conspiracy.
Nothing we say would make Nigel Evans shut his trap so what's the point.
He is breathing hatred.

[Teddy]

We inked a contract with the Dyatlov Foundation to print the book in Russian. They do not have 75 books about the case. Something must have impressed them in our book to want to publish it.

"Приобрёл вашу электронную книгу. Круто! Столько материала обработано!
И версия из разряда бином Ньютона. Впечатляет!
— Александр (Шура) Алексеенков, исследователь
-----------------------------
"Got your e-book. Cool! So much material processed!
And the version from the category of Newton's binomial. Impressive!
- Alexander (Shura) Alekseenkov, researcher

From today's mail:

"Just finished my first read through and found it to be the most realistic and researched version of the events—and I have read probably all published books. I believe that this is most likely how it all went down. Kudos to the authors, well done." - Robert Templeton

"Well, I read it. Not an easy task, but the authors must have suffered much more compiling and filtering all this information, so it's a fair deal. The solution of the mystery? It's the most plausible, no - the only plausible solution I have seen so far. Most people will not like it though, there are no supernatural forces involved and the motivation of the people with power at the time is difficult to understand by someone who have not lived under communism of some form. So, for me the case is closed. Thank you Teodora Hadjiyska, well done!" - Dobrin Botev

[GKM]

I could not be silent on this matter. There are many on this forum who do not want this case solved. There are many that want a supernatural explanation for what happened. A ufo, yeti, and, of course, there is the ball lightening theory, and many more completely incomprehensible theories. Refusal to accept that it was a tragic accident is to refuse reality. The disbelief that it would be covered up in the way it was is completely understandable something the Soviets were masters of and still are to this day. A perfect example of this was the sinking of the Kursk, another tragic accident that was covered up by high ranking military. No one wanted to be the bearer of bad news because heads rolled when news arrived that no one wanted to hear and absolutely nothing got done to try and help those poor sailors trapped within that submarine until Putin was alerted to exactly how bad it was by the intelligence of countries such as America, England, and Norway, only then did his people have to come forward with the entire truth and heads did roll over it and he finally ordered his navy to accept international help. That is a perfect example of how things work in Russia. How can a sensible, thinking person not see how the DPI played out? And how can any reasonably intelligent person believe the group camped on that exposed ridge? This forum has turned into a mockery and that is very unfortunate because those nine people deserve better.

[Star man]

The book is a patchwork of information from documents.
Half of the text, if not more is in italics, which means it is citation.
Since the book became cumbered with reference notes from the start we decided to have all the supporting documents and photos listed on the site per chapter.
https://dyatlovpass.com/1079

You can find the chapter where you have read about the participation of the sappers and see what documentation we have to show for that.
You mean Chapter 6  but the mother lode of the search documents is in Chapter 7.

Shestopalov's identity was discovered November 2020 by Natalya Varsegova (Komsomolskaya Pravda). Till that moment we only knew his last name. Please follow the links above to see the documents that support his role in the case.

As for Nigel Evans - this our own garden variety of a hater. This is what keeps me away from forums. There is nothing productive in pollinating with hatred every post that addresses the book. Nothing I say would change his mind because he is not quoting things from the book.

Thanks Teddy.  Will delve into the details when I get a chance.  I am sure there are many more discussions to have.  Well done, and you have written something to be proud of imo.

Regards

Star man

[MDGross]

I miss the "old" Nigel. The one who offered intriguing and well-considered ideas in the forum. Especially ideas about the military exercise/exploded missile scenario or the ball lightning scenario. Pointing out someone's spelling error contributes nothing. Or criticizing others without providing alternate ideas.

[KFinn]

I will admit; I have some questions that are mainly curiosity based (like the mention of seeing a red haired man holding one of the women, who both had died crawling together.  I just wonder which guy that was?  I'm mostly curious because I'm a red head, lol!  I got the impression Dyatlov had reddish hair, and Slobodan?  Again, its just curiosity that has no bearing on anything.)

Otherwise, even if you don't come to the same conclusions, the amount of information in this book is staggering.  There is more packed into this one book than any other on the market, regardless of theorem.  That alone has helped change my entire view of the incident and parts of my world view, to be absolutely honest.  I always wanted to know more; we all do.  But this book makes me want more than I did before, if that makes sense? 

At any rate, thank you, Teddy.  Both of you.  Your passion for this is unquestionable. 

[marieuk]

i've just finished reading it and feel overwhelmed with all the research and details that must have gone into it.  Well done to both of you for writing it.  I learnt so many things I didn't know from the book and would definitely recommend it.  I'm also curious about the man with red hair that was apparently dragging/pulling Zina?, who had broken arms and legs to the tent - or is that a fake report?  It would be incredibly painful to be dragged with broken limbs, so maybe that is not true?  It's always haunted me thinking they had to strip the clothes off their dead friends to survive, so I'm glad that has turned out not to be true. 

[Star man]

We're not reading the same book....
Imo it's a good explanation for the ravine crushing and not much else.

• There are four? photos of them ascending above the treeline and building their last camp. Ivanov was satisfied that the position of these photos on the roll(s) fitted with them ascending and making camp on the ridge on Feb 1? He even guessed the time?
• Ivanov was satisfied that the hand written entries in the diaries (particularly Igor's concern about camping on the ridge) were genuine.
• Zinaida's facial injuries don't fit.
• Ditto Rustem's head injuries on both sides of the head don't really fit.
• The stove burnt YuriK's leg, charred one half of one toe and YuriD's hands and singed his hair?
• This red hot stove badly burns YuriK through his trousers and socks but magically doesn't even singe the tent?
• The dark hands and faces are just ignored because there is no explanation within this narrative?
• The rest of the story about creating the campsite, positioning the bodies on the slope and creating the footsteps is just bonkers imo. Why not just pack everything up, dress them, strap them into their backpacks and skis and put them in the river under the ice? If they were ever found at all in such a remote region there's an easy explanation that they fell through weak ice and the fish did the rest.
• After the last four were found and defection concerns were satisfied,  Urakov travelled from Moscow to Sverdlovsk to shut the case down? Urakov's boss sat at the same table with Khrushchev and he's protecting some goons in Ivdel? Most unlikely.

As said before there were 75 theories, now there are 76. Sorry.

Yeah I think its credible Nigel.  They may have been digging the labaz not setting camp.
After all this time it is clear to me that it would be insane to make camp there and the staged tent presents a picture of complete nonsense.
The injuries do seem to fit overall although I would need to look at Zina'a and Rustems in more detail to understand
If Yuri K was unconscious then the burns could have been sustained as stated.  If the stove was lying on his leg then it prevent damage to the tent but some items inside may have been singed.
Why stage instead of hide them? - I think that given the snow they might not have recovered everything which could then be found later, hence stage at the existing scenes prevents this.

Regards

Star man

[GKM]

I agree with you you Star man. You just provided an excellent response to Nigel's misgivings. The idea that the photos are of the hikers building the labaz seems, in my opinion, the only credible explanation for those photos and for them being on the ridge. Well done. 

[Monty]

No way the photo in question was taken in trees (i.e. Where the labaz was found)
It's just too windy.

[marieuk]

i think the suggestion in the book, is that the tent was pitched in the woods and the labaz was dug out on the slope as per Igor's original plan.  When they re-staged the scene, they used the dug out labaz on the slope, to pitch the tent there.  So the labaz was not where we thought it was.  hope I've got that right. 

[KFinn]

i think the suggestion in the book, is that the tent was pitched in the woods and the labaz was dug out on the slope as per Igor's original plan.  When they re-staged the scene, they used the dug out labaz on the slope, to pitch the tent there.  So the labaz was not where we thought it was.  hope I've got that right.

That was my understanding, as well. 

[marieuk]

phew thank you

[Monty]

Call me old fashioned but I would never forgive myself if the mandolin was buried and lost under the snow...
Not convinced the labaz would even be considered to be dumped on the ridge. It makes little sense.

[marieuk]

I'm not saying it's right.  The thread is about the book, so just repeating what it says in the book. 

[Monty]

No ill intended. When I  joined the forum I was always tickled at the thought of the mandolin being lugged around.

[KFinn]

Call me old fashioned but I would never forgive myself if the mandolin was buried and lost under the snow...
Not convinced the labaz would even be considered to be dumped on the ridge. It makes little sense.

True.  But its also not a good place for a tent and all of your belongings, either...  The tent does not make sense, either.

[Monty]

Interestingly - suppose everything was found as it was, but no tent was ever located. I know i would assume they camped at the cedar, and something or some event happened there, by the cedar. The absent tent would become part of the enigma.

[KFinn]

Interestingly - suppose everything was found as it was, but no tent was ever located. I know i would assume they camped at the cedar, and something or some event happened there, by the cedar. The absent tent would become part of the enigma.

I absolutely agree, my friend!

[Star man]

i think the suggestion in the book, is that the tent was pitched in the woods and the labaz was dug out on the slope as per Igor's original plan.  When they re-staged the scene, they used the dug out labaz on the slope, to pitch the tent there.  So the labaz was not where we thought it was.  hope I've got that right.

That's right, the labaz was on the route of the return journey more or less. 

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

Nigel, what do you believe caused the wounds to Zina's face? I am only curious.I guess I don't understand what sets off the alarm bells. They are rather jagged but I have seen worse. I'm not being flippant merely, like I said, curious.   

She was found "face in blood" and the pathologist described them as abrasions. So this seems to (strongly?) suggest that she was still alive when she fell. People don't bleed like that when they're dead? She's been cleaned up for the morgue photo. Given that the abrasions include her eye lid it would seem that the agent was wind born. N.B. the young trees at the treeline had their uphill sides stripped of bark. Like sand blasted but with ice? High speed winds? Aggressive chemicals?

Couldn't tree branches cause those facial injuries though?   Could the facial abrasions and injuries give the appearance of the face being covered in blood?  I didn't think that you can see her face in the photo where her body is uncovered on the mountain.  Am not saying it is not an interesting point though.  There is a lot to discuss and pick through.

[Star man]

I agree with you you Star man. You just provided an excellent response to Nigel's misgivings. The idea that the photos are of the hikers building the labaz seems, in my opinion, the only credible explanation for those photos and for them being on the ridge. Well done. 

Thanks.  Another reason for not making the bodies disappear is the timeline and the concern that the death of the hikers could be linked to the geophysics surveys.  If the hikers disappeared while hiking in the same area as the geophysics operation, then that would point a finger at them anyway, and if the discovered bodies and their deaths  were not attributed to some natural event then that also points the finger. More importantly, if they had not recovered all of the bodies there is not much benefit in making 6 or even 8 of them disappear as the remaining bodies would be found later and that is even more suspicious The only way out and to divert suspicion is to recreate the event of a natural tragedy. 

Regards

Star man

[GKM]

No one answered my question. Would anyone on this forum camp on that exposed ridge? It is a simple yes or no question. I wouldn't camp there. I would have more common sense then to camp there. Are members of the forum saying that the DG was so lacking in experience and common sense that they camped on the ridge? What an insult to the dead hikers. I ask each of you to answer the question. Would any of you camp there?

[KFinn]

No one answered my question. Would anyone on this forum camp on that exposed ridge? It is a simple yes or no question. I wouldn't camp there. I would have more common sense then to camp there. Are members of the forum saying that the DG was so lacking in experience and common sense that they camped on the ridge? What an insult to the dead hikers. I ask each of you to answer the question. Would any of you camp there?

I would not.  I am not as young as I once was and I used to be much more athletic however, I don't think I'd have camped there in my prime, either.  It would have to be an emergency situation where there was no other choice and we needed to set camp right then due to someone needing medical care or something else extenuating. 

[ash73]

No one answered my question. Would anyone on this forum camp on that exposed ridge?

It's only useful to ask that question of experienced hikers, who know the area. I gather some said yes, some no.

I certainly wouldn't bury supplies there, the marker would get blown away and you'd never find them again.

The more puzzling question for me is why did they walk such a short distance that day.

[Monty]

Nigel, reply 32. Was just a hypothetical statement. Clearly the tent was located in it's final position, as evidenced by photos. But how would the theory change if no tent was ever located? All the other evidence may point to a camp site under the cedar.

[Investigator]

No one answered my question. Would anyone on this forum camp on that exposed ridge? It is a simple yes or no question. I wouldn't camp there. I would have more common sense then to camp there. Are members of the forum saying that the DG was so lacking in experience and common sense that they camped on the ridge? What an insult to the dead hikers. I ask each of you to answer the question. Would any of you camp there?

Professional investigators examine the evidence that exists.  If you say to yourself, "I can't imagine myself doing this or that," you would solve many fewer cases!  And in similar situations, the Chivruay and Korovina groups made mistakes that are beyond "head scratching," considerably worse than the DG made, IMO.  You can also read about an expedition that also made huge mistakes in a similar situation in the book, "Denali's Howl," which led to several deaths. but we know about the disagreements and huge mistakes made, and have some sense about why those mistakes were made, due to there being survivors (or in the case of Chivruay, the evidence was never seriously questioned and apparently most people don't' think there's anything strange, other than a really bad decision).

[Monty]

If the tent became spent then you may need temp shelter. I still think den is over describing what was made.