Book "1079"

[Teddy]

I want to elaborate on Zolotaryov's exhumation in 2018. Everyone was on the edge of the chair watching (rather listening). This wasn't his relative's idea. Komsomolskaya Pravda journalist Natalya Varsegova worked hard for two years to find a loophole and not having a body or a body of a different person would have most certainly led to reopening the case. But the man in the grave was Zolotaryov himself rpoved by expert Sergey Nikitin through a skull superimposition. What is appalling is the aftermath, what the media did with the event. Natalya Varsegova was no longer in control of what she started. She kept in strictest confidence her sources and his relatives till one day Zolotaryov's step daughter decided she would look good on TV and started talking how bad her step dad was because he made her tidy up her room etc. Zolotaryov's character was obviously not all smelling of roses, his common law wife left a baby on a porch to try to get him back for Pete's sake. And we will learn every teeny-tiny detail in the lives of each of these people. Do we really need this? As a result of the botched DNA match Zolotaryov was made worse than the devil. He died a horrible death. Each grave will be treated by the media like Jack in the box. Thank God there is a statute of limitations on the case.
Statute of limitations means only the Prosecutor's office can investigate. Not good if there is a cover up from the highest level. But it prevents parties to turn the case into Cinco de Mayo. Isn't it strange that the bodies were found on May 5th?

[bertie]

The only such joint activity that came to my mind was blasting. But nothing was known about such works in the area of the pass. And the main confirmation of the theory I received when friends helped me to get acquainted with the materials of the geophysical report on possible work in the area of the pass in February 1959. That was the moment when the theory "ticked all the boxes". It happened in 2016.

🙏Many thanks for those insights into exactly how the matter unfolded!

I can forgive anyone for baulking at the 'staging' theory since conspiracies generally require the silence of too many people to be credible. In this case, however, I am inclined to think the explanatory power of your theory makes it worthy of serious consideration.  In particular, I like the fact that it allows us to view the actions of the Tourists as intelligent and rational at all times, without invoking hopelessly contrived events to account for their sad end. I am also hopeful that your theory may prove to have some predictive power, in the sense that your highly specific theory may bring to light even more material that nobody would otherwise have even thought to look for!

Again, well done on the book.
Can I ask, lastly, is the book gaining postive attention within Russia?

Thanks Bertie

[Teddy]

Can I ask, lastly, is the book gaining positive attention within Russia?

Russia doesn't know about this book yet. While I can reach the English spoken audience Russia is completely different ball game. Russia is saturated with opinions. They are much worse than this forum, their forums are brutal. They have heard it all... or so they think. I don't have presence there, and I already mentioned that Igor is not someone that will start advertising his own book. If asked he answers questions, but he is not going to fly the red flag. They are going to eat him alive.

In this post I mentioned that I had a setback with the Russian paperback
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=818.msg15621#msg15621

Also in general the book is expensive for Russians.

Having said that, important for us people - researchers who really want to find out the truth read the book. As Igor said about Alekseenkov: Feedback from people like him are much more important (make me happy [sic]) to me than information in the social media.

Igor had received (and forwarded to me) many mails from Russians that know him and highly appreciate the book.
From The Dyatlov Foundation: "This is incredible! You have systematized so much information. Can't put the book down. We have never seen such a detailed account of the events in 1959. Hats down!" and they are now printing the book in Russian. It is due in a month or two. We get paid close to nothing, but we don't do it for the money.

Here Kuntsevich says:
This book will be published in Russian this year. And I very much advise everyone not to miss it. We will contribute to this. And I'll tell you more about it later. In the meantime, it should be noted that this is a very serious work (and do not be confused by its apparent foreign origin). So Coming Soon!

Bottom line in Russia "1079" is still Coming soon.

[EBE]

Teddy, you said you have 2 fracture lines from one accident. But Lyuda had 3 fracture lines.

Also, you said that the exhumation of Zolotaryov brought nothing new. This is not true, as the pathologist found out that he had three additional fractures:

"We looked at the right shoulder blade, there were three fractures. The act of this was not noted. I assumed first that this is a posthumous injury. The whole grave was covered with pieces of granite, the pressure on the bones of the skeleton can't be ignored. But then I reassessed, because the left shoulder was intact. If there were posthumous damages, it is logical to assume that both the left shoulder blade would be broken and in general would be other multiple fractures on the bones of the skeleton."

So the original autopsy report was not accurate. No one really wants to exhume dead bodies, but I think that there is a possibility that unreported fractures could be found also on other bodies. That would bring at least some new evidence to this case. Without new hard evidence, all theories, no matter how sophisticated, remain just theories..

[Teddy]

I want to add that the book reads in Russian much better than in English. Igor did me a favor of withholding the information so it can come out in both languages simultaneously. This is a precedent when we know something before the Russians do. I couldn't afford to take the time to polish my translation so I am doing it now. I constantly update the Amazon content to improve the narrative. Part 1 is rewritten. I can't do anything about the Russian abbreviations. I unfolded them in the text so you don't have to constantly consult a cheat sheet. It is hard to read, I am aware of that. But I made my decision that I will get the theory out and work on the style later.

[bertie]

That's all brilliant news then, Teddy👍
Also interesting to hear about the Russian news landscape.

I believe that a truly good idea will always find its way into the spotlight. 
Anyway you already have very well-respected supporters over there.

[Teddy]

Teddy, you said you have 2 fracture lines from one accident. But Lyuda had 3 fracture lines.

Zolotaryov had two fracture lines and the mechanism is the same. She was lying down on her back, he was lying down on his side.

Also, you said that the exhumation of Zolotaryov brought nothing new. This is not true, as the pathologist found out that he had three additional fractures:
...
So the original autopsy report was not accurate.

I showed Zolotaryov's exhumation photos to Marina Miteva M.D. and Plamen Dimitrov M.D., the Head of Forensic Medicine Department. This is the autopsy of a man that fell from the 5th floor in a work related accident. The body has been through a computed tomography scan (CT scan) and they see that the neck, spine and scapula are broken. Unless they have an indication for it, the body is not cut from the back. Zolotaryov's scapula is not visible from an autopsy done with only one cut from the front, and she is showing me this in this photo. Unless cut from the back the scapula injury would not be visible with an autopsy done only with one frontal opening. And if you see the cause of death you don't cut from the back. The autopsy in 1959 was fairly accurate by the opinion of the forensic examiners.
Here Marina is talking about the scapula and showing me how you can't see the fractures. They are small and you can't feel that anything is broken. The injuries on the torax are so brutal that you don't have to look any further for the cause of death. The exhumation brought nothing.

[Teddy]

The scapula was thoroughly discussed here.
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=187.msg880#msg880

And the opinion of Dr. Schultz is that the injuries were caused by a single blow.

[EBE]

Yes the autopsy in 1959 showed the cause of death, so they did not examine the whole body and did not find those 3 additional fractures.

But that only proves that there may have been other fractures on all bodies that were not noticed in 1959. Especially on those whose death was attributed to freezing. The only way how this can be found out is the autopsy.

By the way, if the injuries would have been caused by a tree, there would be punctures on the bodies from broken branches, traces of wood and bark in the wounds, etc. No one seems to have noticed anything like that back then..

[EBE]

Dr Schultz concluded that: "I do not see that pattern as due to multiple blows (but not impossible of course)."

The way I read his statement is that one impact would be sufficient to cause these injuries, but it does not exclude the possibility of two impacts.

On the other hand, the article shows that another pathologist thinks that the injury was caused by two impacts.

So the truth is that we don't know and we cannot be sure.

By the way, thank you for posting this, I haven't read it before, it is very interesting.

[bertie]

By the way, if the injuries would have been caused by a tree, there would be punctures on the bodies from broken branches, traces of wood and bark in the wounds, etc. No one seems to have noticed anything like that back then..

I don't see that as self-obvious?  In the theory, there was a tent and clothes/blankets between the bark and the skin. As far as skin punctures from branches go, everything depends at which exact point each branch of relevance ended up severing, as the branches presumably had some opportunity to depress the ground at either side of each body and also to prop the tree up a little above ground level. To my thinking, perhaps a better question is why the tent (with wider surface area) wasn't obviously punctured...

[EBE]

If a tree fell on the hikers, the tree would almost certainly be a coniferous tree (spruce, cedar, pine..). I find it impossible that the broken branches and twigs would not puncture anyone and would not leave any trace of bark and wood chips in their wounds.

That is my opinion, of course yours may be different and I don't want to persuade you.

[bertie]

That is my opinion, of course yours may be different and I don't want to persuade you.

We agree perfectly there, in time an authority can speak to this matter and I'm sure we will both follow the science as we both want to know the truth👍🙏

[Igor Pavlov]

In the theory, there was a tent and clothes/blankets between the bark and the skin.

Absolutely right

To my thinking, perhaps a better question is why the tent (with wider surface area) wasn't obviously punctured...

The tent had a large amount of damage (tears). This can be seen at the 1959 photos. Very often, this is not paid attention to, because the expert describes only the cuts of the tent. The experts were asked only about the nature of the cuts, so they did not pay attention to the description of the tears of the tent.

[EBE]

I agree that the tent had many holes, but it seems that the hikers tried to repair those holes, pls see the pieces of cloth, especially the large one on the right:



If a (coniferous) tree would fall on them, the needles from the tree would be absolutely everywhere, also in their hair, clothes, equipment etc. There would be punctures from broken branches on their bodies, traces of bark, twigs etc.

I have to say that I spent quite a large part of my life in coniferous forests, very similar to the area of DP. I have seen many fallen trees, damage caused by fallen trees, I had injures from working with the trees etc. In my opinion, there is no evidence of any damage done by a tree on the bodies. There were traces of needles, moss on the hair of both Juris, but that's all I think.

I don't want to say that the tree is impossible, I just don't see any evidence for that.

[Teddy]

• High velocity trauma does not break or bruise the skin. I had one lung totaled (all pulp) and not a single scratch from outside. Even my clothes were intact. The man on the graphic photo above was absolutely fine from outside and what they call "bone soup" inside.
• The tent certainly had burn marks from the stove, not even from the accident but because there were always sparkles, but no mention about them. Because they were not of any interest. Grigoriev (notebook 3) says Nevolin called the holes in the tarpaulin Planetarium.
• Speaking of pine needles - Zina was found on a barren slope. What are these on her then?

[Teddy]

I don't want to say that the tree is impossible, I just don't see any evidence for that.

I have never seen anyone change their opinion on the case because you show them evidence. You have made up your mind and that's it. You were just told that between them and the tree there was a tent, clothes and that they have been cleaned in the morgue once. What else do you want to be told? We can show but we can not make you see.

[Teddy]

One last thing, not that it will matter to you. The forest is not just coniferous. This is my photo from the pass.

[Teddy]

I don't want to say that the tree is impossible, I just don't see any evidence for that.

It all depends where are you looking.

I want to go on the pass again with this theory in mind.

[EBE]

The birches on your photo are small, they grow on the upper tree line and in these conditions they rarely reach more than 5m in height. Their trunks are narrow, and  would hardly cause much damage. Also, as they don't have leaves in winter, strong wind or a blast wave would probably not break them, as there is not enough mass for that. That's why I said that if a tree would fall on them, it would probably be a coniferous tree, as they grow larger in that area and break more easily in wind.

Regarding photo of Zina, yes, that could have been bark and needles, but only on a limited body surface, most probably from sitting on a log of dragging cut branches. I am not sure if you have ever seen a coniferous tree fall. The needles would be everywhere, and I really mean it.

I am sorry, but my mind is open here. I don't exclude possibilities, just trying to find some direct hard evidence. I wanted to be polite, but I think it is you who is married to a theory. I am just trying to tell that there is no direct evidence that it was all caused by a tree. There is no evidence that the tent was even moved. There is no evidence that there was any cleanup. It is all just speculations. Anything could have happened, if it fits into your theory. But in case you find new evidence for your theory in the pass, I will happily let myself to be convinced..

[Teddy]

I didn't say it is a birch tree. I said the forest is not just coniferous.
I am not trying to convince you, on the contrary, what I am proving is that if someone doesn't want to see we can't make them.

As for being married to a theory - we can be helpful to explain how did we come to our conclusion. It would be weird to contradict our own conviction.
You are not convinced and please stay that way. You may find your own explanation and prove it.

[Teddy]

Look at real photos and video https://dyatlovpass.com/ravine-alekseenkov-and-kan
The coniferous trees are minority.
Which is not even the point since we are not arguing what kind of tree fell on top of the tent.
This is your argument and I have to tackle if to admit the argument itself.
It is obvious that you will stay unconvinced.

[Teddy]

There is no evidence that there was any cleanup. It is all just speculations. Anything could have happened, if it fits into your theory. But in case you find new evidence for your theory in the pass, I will happily let myself to be convinced.

We never said we have evidence. As far as I know no theory has showed evidence. We claim to explain better than any other theory the facts surrounding the case. We can connect all the dots. Other theories have very low point count. A theory has to explain most facts, not just some facts.
I would use the word evidence against. There are no evidences against our theory. While I can point out evidence against the rest of the theories, which means facts they can not fit into their scenario, or facts that contradict their scenario.

So far your argument against our theory is that you see no pine needles. I say the tree doesn't need to be coniferous.
You say you don't see damage on the tent consistent with fallen tree. I tell you that the tents I saw were completely flattened. It depends how the tree hits the tent. Also I have never seen a tent more damaged than the one of Dyatlov group. And if you tell me that you can find a better explanation for cuts made from inside other than trying to get from under a tree, then we really won't be able to convince you of anything. Give it a try - what is your explanation for cuts made from inside?

[EBE]

I plan to buy your book and go through all the "boring" stuff:).

Regarding the tree: The photo you have posted shows the recent photo of the area. In 1959, the tree line was lower, the trees were smaller (especially the birches). This can be visible from the search photos. However, there were quite large birches here and there even back then, so I cannot exclude a possibility that one of the larger birches fell. My point was also that a coniferous tree would fall much more easily in winter.

However, if you claim that a tree fell on the tent, I think you should present some hard evidence of that. For example photo of that tree, remains of the tree found on their equipment, broken stove (as the stove would be the first item to be hit), injuries showing marks of wood chips and bark, etc. As far as I know, nothing is available at this moment. Therefore it is just another theory, that's all.

If you will manage to go back to the pass to find the particular tree, how do you think you would be able to identify the right one after >60 years? There are probably many old fallen trees over there..

But I wish you luck and all the best.. I agree with some points of your theory that you presented in interviews (for example with Natasha Cooper) - especially about the fire (ordinary one, not emergency one). But there are many points where your theory is not really based on evidence.

[Teddy]

We don't have evidence. Our theory is circumstantial at best.
But it is the best theory there is.
Remember that it is not my theory, I chose to be an ambassador of Igor's theory because I have heard them all and this is the only one that makes sense to me.
Thank you in advance for planning to read the book.
I will come back with a plan what I would do if (when) I go back to the pass.
All I can say is that there is a real chance for this to happen, and I was requested to come up with a plan. 

[EBE]

Sorry, you have posted another reply before I hit the "post" button:).

I agree that other theories don't explain all details. That is why I am not really a fan of any of them:). What I think is needed here is more hard evidence, and in my view there is a chance that new evidence could be obtained (exhumations).

However, I don't agree with evidence against. There should be "evidence for", and not "no evidence against". For example some freaks would say that the hikers were all killed by aliens, and there is "no evidence against". :)

Regarding the tent - it is obvious from the photo I posted above that the large holes were there before the accident happened (large pieces of cloth with which the group repaired the tent). As for the cuts inside, there are more possibilities and I don't want to stick to just one:

1. As the cuts were too close to the entrance (which was still standing), and too small for anyone to pass through, it is possible that someone else was involved and cut the tent..
2. There was a strong snowfall in the area, a dust-snow avalanche hit the tent, the group cut the tent in order to get out. The dust snow was then blown off by the wind, so no traces of avalanche remained.. I remember there was a similar case in our mountains, where a group of tourists died in their tent in an avalanche, only one has survived and went down the slope to be rescued - he was in socks.
3. The cuts were made by the hikers because a tree fell on them:).

And maybe more explanations are possible..

[Igor Pavlov]

I plan to buy your book and go through all the "boring" stuff:)... I agree with some points of your theory that you presented in interviews (for example with Natasha Cooper) - especially about the fire (ordinary one, not emergency one). But there are many points where your theory is not really based on evidence.

EBE, nothing personal, but it seems to me that it is not correct to criticize the theory without even reading the book. The book and Teddy's interviews are completely different things and have different goals. Including the difference in presentation of information for the reader or listener. If your criticism is based on information from the interview, then your comments are more suitable for posting on Natasha's channel. We are ready to discuss all the questions with you on the forum after you read the book. I think it would be more correct.

[bertie]

I will come back with a plan what I would do if (when) I go back to the pass.
All I can say is that there is a real chance for this to happen, and I was requested to come up with a plan. 

How about a plan that doesnt involve the Dyatlov case!!   some well-meant advice might be to kick back and just enjoy life for a while... not everyone can say they have published a book!

Anyway, about the theory, I am really hopeful if for no other reason that it has demonstrated the possibily that genuinely new info (geological survey & magnetic anomoly) can still be brought to light after 60 years!

[bertie]

We are ready to discuss all the questions with you on the forum...

Marvellous
Have you considered complaining to the site owner about your 'Beginner' status on the forum :-)

[EBE]

EBE, nothing personal, but it seems to me that it is not correct to criticize the theory without even reading the book. The book and Teddy's interviews are completely different things and have different goals. Including the difference in presentation of information for the reader or listener. If your criticism is based on information from the interview, then your comments are more suitable for posting on Natasha's channel. We are ready to discuss all the questions with you on the forum after you read the book. I think it would be more correct.

Igor, I think you are partially right, I will read your book.

Don't take my posts badly, the critique from my side is meant mainly to show some weak points, it is up to you if you take them into consideration or not. I think having doubts is healthy:).