Book "1079"

[Teddy]

Borzenkov said what he had to say about the book, and since he is leaving the forum I have no incentive to answer. Even if he wasn't leaving the forum I need this contemptuous outburst to be broken down into questions I can answer. But Borzenkov doesn't need answers, he is just bickering. For those of you who want to continue conversing with Borzenkov you can do so on this board: Farewell from Borzenkov in case he decides to get back.

[sigaffa]

I am coming into this thread a little late, but I finished "1079" today. To Teddy and Igor I wish to say sincere congratulations - I am awestruck as to the amount and depth of the information and facts that the book contains!  The reason it took me so long to get to the end was my constant desire to further research the information that was presented in the book - both from the mountain of additional information on this forum/website and from other sources on the internet.

As to the book's ending, I am going to say equally and sincerely - well done!

With respect to the DPI (and the other "mysteries that I "follow"  ), I am not primarily driven by a need for them to be "solved" ... personally I get far more satisfaction from facts, investigations, forensics etc.

But in saying this, I did find Teddy and Igor's final chapters intriguing - and well worthy of consideration. Now I think what is in order - is a immediate re-read - and then perhaps a few questions!

Once again, bravo to you both!

Kind regards.

[Teddy]

Thanks sigaffa.

I myself am using the book as a tool. It lists everyone present at a given time and event. Here is an example from what I am working on right now. I am in the process of translating a series of interviews with Sharavin who was on the pass Feb 23-Mar 4 and Apr 6-17. I found this very important drawing he did of the tent the way they found it. While deciphering the writings I had questions I had to clarify. Everything has to be checked with first hand witness testimonies, and the closer to the events the better. There is also a strong tendency of hearsay sneaking into this case. "1079" helps you to track down the best sources of information. Here is an example: I was looking at the writing that says Ru: куски (или шкурка) буженины (of course Igor stepped in) En: wedges of ham (I decided on ham, although literally it should be boiled pork). Now, in the original drawing it seems like they are outside the tent. But then the original drawing is cramped and the arrow pointing inside for the Diaries and Flashlight could be applying to the slices of ham, but then the Diaries were inside the tent, and the Flashlight was on top of the tent, so I searched for a testimony given in 1959 that describes the items found in the tent. I also remember that there were rusks scattered. Sharavin made this drawing in 1999. I wanted the account of the items found in the tent made in 1959 by someone that was present, not a hearsay. And here the book comes handy, the part that so many find tedious and encumbering to read. Go to Chapter 7: February 27 - March 10, 1959. Dyatlov Five.

In the morning, Tempalov, Chernyshev, and about ten more men, including Maslennikov, Brusnitsyn, Sharavin, Lebedev, Karelin, Atmanaki, and Koptelov, went to dig out the tent. Maslennikov instructed Brusnitsyn to make a list of items recovered in the process of digging out the tent, but the latter was continuously distracted by other matters and could not keep a systematic record. There was no thorough examination of the items on‑site – they would be properly protocolled only in Ivdel. Soon after they began stripping down the tent: there was an order to wind down the inspection of its contents, to put everything back inside the tent, and to bring it to the landing site. Brusnitsyn and Sharavin dragged the tent with its contents for half a mile towards the rock outlier now known as the Boot rock. Three of the four discovered corpses were as well moved up to the pass under heavy wind. The corpses were taken uphill by eight people so that not to damage the frozen bodies. The body of Krivonischenko would be moved to the pass only on March 1.

So we go to read what Brusnitsyn managed to put down Case files 362-369:

Under the tent were laid 8 pairs of skis with their fasteners facing down. Thanks to the dense snow cover, the tent was installed very firmly. Everything is covered with already clammy snow, except for the southern end, fortified on a ski pole and tied to a pair of skis. No stick was found under the northern end; there was no pole.
Snow was cleared with the help of skis and ski poles. Ten people worked without any system. In most cases things everything was pulled out directly from under the snow, so it's very difficult to determine where and how each thing was.
First they took out several blankets, frozen in a ball, then buckets, a stove, 2-3 sacks of rusks, boots, etc. The things in the tent were arranged in the following order. At the bottom were laid rucksacks. Then 2-3 blankets. Next were the quilted jackets and personal belongings of the participants. Buckets, stove, ax, saw were lying at the entrance to the right. Here was part of the products: rusks, sugar, condensed milk, open bag with a loin. The rest of the products were in the far right corner. Most of the shoes lying were placed on the left side of the tent. Two pairs - right in the middle. The rest of the things were in disarray in the tent.
Apparently the group was in the final stage of dressing and preparing for the night at the time of the incident. In the area of the tent near the entrance were found a few wedges from the loin. There are rusks scattered all over inside the tent.

This is how to use the book. Read how it really happened, do look for answers in the popular articles and fictional books who present an obfuscated truth already burdened with the edits to make it easy to read or comply with the rest of the rules of "easy science" or marketing assignment. "1079" is the closest account you will ever find about what happened. If we had had an editor and publisher they would have made this book into a Hollywood movie, and at the end Igor's manuscript would have been still published in some Russian forum, but it is the TRUE ACCOUNT of what happened. These words have been so heavily corrupted by so many titles about the Dyatlov case that they are rendered meaningless.

"1070" was never meant to entertain. It is a tool. Use it or don't, we had to provide it and in doing so I feel relieved.

[sigaffa]

It has been five days since I finished the book - and four sleepless nights since then (Teddy/Igor - you my expect a note of thanks to arrive from the Australian Red Cross sometime soon if these sleepless nights continue!)

I am not much of a DPI "theorist", but the final chapter of this book intrigues me. One reason for this is that it presents a theory that puts the "acute" deaths of the three (Dubinina, Zolotarvov & Thibeaux-Brignolle) as the "commencement" of the DPI. This theory - that what happened on the night of Feb 1/2 started with these tragic & violent deaths - has always interested me as a possibility - and I am intending to author a "pseudo-theory" post elsewhere on this forum to invite further discussion on this possibility.

Before I do this, could I raise a few questions here for comments/consideration, please?

Firstly, the comments written on pages 233/234 speak of Dyatlov's intention for a "day of rest", which I had not read about before. If the suggestion is that this "easier" day was before the assent to Mt. Otorten, then was this "easy" day, indeed, the day of February 1st?  With the weather deteriorating and the collective experience of the hikers it is logical to expect that they would make a decision at the start of the day to make that day's hike and activities as easy as possible to 1) make the assent to Mt. Ortorten achievable on February 2nd, but 2) allow also them plenty of time to set up a cache/storage/labaz and then an adequate/comfortable camp (with tent/wood-stove/outside fire, etc)?

Secondly, The map and comments on page 284 suggest the cache/storage/labaz was placed at the approximate (or secondary - according to the book's theory) location of the tent-site prior to the descent to the forest-line to set-up a camp. Apart from Dyatlov'e suggested insistence on this, is it at least possible that the group followed a more direct route from the January 31st campsite to their February 1st campsite (below the forest-line as suggested in the book) and set up the cache/storage/labaz in the immediate proximity of the camp-site? This would mean that they reached the forest-line even earlier in the day and would allow more time for the group to set up an suitably adequate camp in deteriorating weather (e.g. the group divides into three upon arrival - one group sets up the tent and internal stove, the second group constructs the cache/storage/labaz and the third group collects fire-wood and starts an external fire)?

Finally, on page 294, I read the quote from Maslennikov about the "notched" birch trees - I have never seen this quote before - was it part of the final investigate documentation/reports (if so it is VERY frustrating to not have an investigators photograph of it!)?  Of this quote - it certainly suggests that the cuts/notches could be of the type that campers learn to make to suspend objects off the ground (I have done this while camping) - and if the two birches were a sufficient distance from each other - to hang a suspension-style tent from them?

I look forward to feed-back.  Kind regards.

[Teddy]

Finally, on page 294, I read the quote from Maslennikov about the "notched" birch trees - I have never seen this quote before - was it part of the final investigate documentation/reports (if so it is VERY frustrating to not have an investigators photograph of it!)?  Of this quote - it certainly suggests that the cuts/notches could be of the type that campers learn to make to suspend objects off the ground (I have done this while camping) - and if the two birches were a sufficient distance from each other - to hang a suspension-style tent from them?

I will answer this one with my morning coffee and then I have to get out.
Of course you have seen the quoted text but never in this context - last sentence from the first paragraph on p. 69 of E. P. Maslennikov witness testimony (case file 62-75)
And yes, these two trees could be the two from which the tent hung on Feb 1, 1959. There is no way to knowing the distance between them unless we go and find them.

More to come, maybe Igor will take over before I get back to it.

[Igor Pavlov]

Firstly....
Secondly...
Finally...

Yes, Yes & Yes. Our assumptions are the same

[Teddy]

More on the labaz. On my Google map the lines are too straight, I was allowed certain number of points per line so the route looks "choppy".

But the fact is that where the tent was found is the point where the intended route back from Otorten is crossing the route to Otorten. If you are to leave supplies for the way back wouldn't you do it at the location where you intend to pass on the way back?

[sigaffa]

Finally, on page 294, I read the quote from Maslennikov about the "notched" birch trees - I have never seen this quote before - was it part of the final investigate documentation/reports (if so it is VERY frustrating to not have an investigators photograph of it!)?  Of this quote - it certainly suggests that the cuts/notches could be of the type that campers learn to make to suspend objects off the ground (I have done this while camping) - and if the two birches were a sufficient distance from each other - to hang a suspension-style tent from them?

I will answer this one with my morning coffee and then I have to get out.
Of course you have seen the quoted text but never in this context - last sentence from the first paragraph on p. 69 of E. P. Maslennikov witness testimony (case file 62-75)
And yes, these two trees could be the two from which the tent hung on Feb 1, 1959. There is no way to knowing the distance between them unless we go and find them.

More to come, maybe Igor will take over before I get back to it.

... to me, this is yet another of countless examples where the investigative process seems almost unbelievably amateurish. To discover something like this at the site and then not photograph it - or at least describe it with investigative accuracy (e.g. distance between the two notched trees, height of the notches above the ground, distance and heading from, say, the Cedar) ... it just makes me want to 

[Teddy]

My understanding is that the investigators didn't bring cameras to the scene. They used the cameras of the dead to take photos, and then some of the searchers (not the investigation) had their own cameras. Only after printing the photos it was decided which ones to include in the case files. Nothing was shot in the course of real investigation work, only on a whim. Then the rolls were sent by a helicopter to be developed in students' bathrooms turned into dark rooms (Bienko); or students (not forensic technicians) called to develop the films in the regional prosecutor's office at 2B Malysheva St.  On the same films that the hikers were smiling were the photos of their dead bodies.

Bychkov's recollections:
"We had to print as many photographs from the films of the members of the deceased group as possible in order to distribute the pictures to the families of the deceased, as well as to our friends and members of the UPI hiking club. To our question: why?, Lev Ivanov gave a strange, as it seemed to us, explanation: In case someone wants to imply that what happened is the result of improper leadership and confrontation inside the group... On some films, hiking photographs were followed by photos of corpses taken by those who found the dead."

Askinadzi's recollections about the discovery of the bodies in May:
"Ivanov behaved surprisingly detached. He didn’t even take enough photos of the crime scene. If I was an investigator, I would be all over the place, documenting everything. And he was indifferent, hands in his pockets. Apparently, everything was clear to him and that's why everything is already indifferent. In my opinion, he did not even approach the bodies."

[Ziljoe]

Hi teddy,

All extremely interesting. Do you think the bodies ( of at least the first 5 )were taken to somewhere ,then taken back to the slope and the forest and placed in those positions? .

[Teddy]

All extremely interesting. Do you think the bodies ( of at least the first 5 )were taken to somewhere ,then taken back to the slope and the forest and placed in those positions? .

Haven't you read the book?

[Ziljoe]

Sorry teddy,

Not yet. I have personal reasons for not being able to. But I have all intentions to do so. I suppose I shouldn't ask until I have read what you have probably already explained. I apologise.

It was just curiosity from Yuri k's shirt in the photo at where he was found and then at the morgue. I asked the question when I joined the forum. It an interesting small difference. I don't want you to have to explain every single thing when you have probably covered it all.

Z,x

[Teddy]

This is half of the book.

[Manti]

I am nearing the end of the book, and I came across this fragment: "the stove, which fell during the avalanche". I think instead of "avalanche", what was meant here is the incident with the tree, right?

Or is it not ok to post fragments like this here?


Actually is there a subforum planned where people who have read the book can ask questions without spoiling it for others? Some questions came up as I am reading but if I posted them here, it would practically reveal everything.

[Teddy]

"the stove, which fell during the avalanche"

is now "the stove, which broke away during the fall"

Or is it not ok to post fragments like this here?
Actually is there a subforum planned where people who have read the book can ask questions without spoiling it for others? Some questions came up as I am reading but if I posted them here, it would practically reveal everything.

You input is greatly appreciated. It is ok to ask question that give away the theory. Secrecy is an exit we passed long time ago. I will be traveling the next two days but I will address all issues and questions you post in this topic.

This is great help. I was hoping to get support from the forum. I had proof readers for some chapters hence inconsistencies like this. That's the problem with getting help from people that are not fully aware of the case - fall becomes an avalanche.

Thank you again, for buying, reading and trying to help. This is exactly what I need. I say "I" because Igor's manuscript is ok, only the book in English is faulty at times due to the short terms I had for translation and publishing.

Please keep it coming.

[Andysek77]

Hi, Teddy.

I'm from the Czech Republic and unfortunately I don't speak English very well. I bought your fascinating book in Kindle version and read it using deepl translator. I just want to ask if I understood everything.

1) The hikers set up a tent in the forest where a tree fell on them, causing various injuries.

2) When the authorities learned of the group's disappearance, they wanted to bring a report to find them immediately. And before they were found, they reported a successful operation. Little did they know that a major investigation was about to unfold. That's why they created the illusion of discovery, and because they announced that they had discovered the tent and the six bodies, they created an illusion. They took the first five bodies and some other unknowns to keep the management happy. Do I understand correctly?

3) They dumped the bodies of Zolo, Ljuda, Tibo into the ravine because the reason for death in the plowing was hypothermia? Later, when the fear of trouble with the authorities had passed, they were "found" again? So the whole action was only because they reported the successful discovery of the tent and the bodies on the hillside, and they couldn't afford to show the tent in the forest and the bodies fatally injured by the tree because it would turn out they were lying?

4) The bodies of Datlov, Zina and Slobodin, as well as Dorosenko and Krivonisenko were manipulated and set up to create a perfect "Potemkin village" perfect deception?

5) The reason for this action was then only because of the lying of the authorities?

6) with the exception of Slobodin, all died in the forest?

7) I ask because I'm not sure I've got this right. It's a huge amount of data and information. Admirable work.

Thanks for answer.
Andy

[Igor Pavlov]

1) The hikers set up a tent in the forest where a tree fell on them, causing various injuries.   Yes

2) When the authorities learned of the group's disappearance, they wanted to bring a report to find them immediately. And before they were found, they reported a successful operation. Little did they know that a major investigation was about to unfold. That's why they created the illusion of discovery, and because they announced that they had discovered the tent and the six bodies, they created an illusion. They took the first five bodies and some other unknowns to keep the management happy. Do I understand correctly? No. The local authorities mistakenly decided that the tourists were killed because of the works carried out in that area. To avoid responsibility, it was decided to explain it by natural causes. Before the search began, no one from Ivdel reported on finding the dead. But the search began, and the plan had to be changed.

3) They dumped the bodies of Zolo, Ljuda, Tibo into the ravine because the reason for death in the plowing was hypothermia? Later, when the fear of trouble with the authorities had passed, they were "found" again? So the whole action was only because they reported the successful discovery of the tent and the bodies on the hillside, and they couldn't afford to show the tent in the forest and the bodies fatally injured by the tree because it would turn out they were lying? The bodies were hidden in the stream because they had injuries that did not correspond to the version of death from natural causes

4) The bodies of Datlov, Zina and Slobodin, as well as Dorosenko and Krivonisenko were manipulated and set up to create a perfect "Potemkin village" perfect deception? Yes, so that an official investigation can draw a conclusion about the natural causes of death on their basis

5) The reason for this action was then only because of the lying of the authorities? see above (2)

6) with the exception of Slobodin, all died in the forest? Tourists with serious injuries died in the forest. The others tried to save them, lost their strength and froze in the forest and on the slope

7) I ask because I'm not sure I've got this right. It's a huge amount of data and information. Admirable work. Thank you

[Andysek77]

Amazing. Thank you very much for your reply.

I'll write a summary, please correct me if I'm getting anything wrong.

1) Datlov's group was at peace in the tent. It says it's nice and warm. They fell asleep. A tree fell. The lightly wounded were dragging out the heavily wounded. They were dying. The rest froze to death, either in the woods or trying to find help.
2) Authorities received a report of the disappearance of the expedition. They feared the tourists were killed by those working for the geologists or by accident. They were afraid they would be held responsible and punished. Disposal.
3) They sent a group not listed anywhere to look for the tourists. (From the plane, a frozen man/woman couple in a hug could be seen). The group found them and the others in the woods. Those who matched the description of "hypothermia" were selected and scattered around the area. So they were "found" later.
4) Those with injuries ended up at the creek where they were later found. Why was Kolevatov among those who succumbed to their wounds and they didn't use his body as well, and an unknown body was used instead? If I understand the references to six bodies and Kolevatov being pulled out of the river with Zolo, Tibo and Lyuda. What did I miss?

The work is amazing. So far I've liked Svetlana Os and her Mansi theory but this is truly incredible. It was a shock to me, I always see them running away from the tent downstairs. By the way, what do you think of the slab avalanche simulation when there was no tent at all. It's interesting that the Marie Celeste case has always been the most shocking with the claim that everything was as if they had left a minute before the ship was discovered and it was a lie. It was the same with the tent. There was no chaos, everything was in order. Now we know why. Interesting what a mystery they've inadvertently created. If they had waited to claim hypothermia and actually found the tent in the woods it wouldn't be one of the most remarkable mysteries of the 20th century.

[Igor Pavlov]

I'll write a summary, please correct me if I'm getting anything wrong.

1) Datlov's group was at peace in the tent. It says it's nice and warm. They fell asleep. A tree fell. The lightly wounded were dragging out the heavily wounded. They were dying. The rest froze to death, either in the woods or trying to find help. Yes
2) Authorities received a report of the disappearance of the expedition. They feared the tourists were killed by those working for the geologists or by accident. They were afraid they would be held responsible and punished. Disposal. The authorities couldn't get a report of the disappearance of the expedition, because the bodies were discovered from the air in early February, when no one in Sverdlovsk knew about the disappearance of the group
3) They sent a group not listed anywhere to look for the tourists. (From the plane, a frozen man/woman couple in a hug could be seen). The group found them and the others in the woods. Those who matched the description of "hypothermia" were selected and scattered around the area. So they were "found" later. Yes
4) Those with injuries ended up at the creek where they were later found. Why was Kolevatov among those who succumbed to their wounds and they didn't use his body as well, and an unknown body was used instead? If I understand the references to six bodies and Kolevatov being pulled out of the river with Zolo, Tibo and Lyuda. What did I miss? Most likely, the injured could not be pulled out from under the tree. They were later found by a search party. The conclusion about the possibility of their injury was made on the basis of the discovery of bodies under a tree (autopsy was not performed). Most likely Kolevatov was also under the tree

[Andysek77]

Timeline


1) Some tourists die under a tree. Others in forrest, others manage to get to the slope, where they also die
2) A plane crew working for a geological survey sees the dead bodies and mentions it.
3) The authorities learn that Datlov's expedition has disappeared. They have a report of the bodies from the plane. They report finding the bodies and zhat death was by hypothermia.
4) A special group sent by them arrives at the site, finds a tent in the woods, the bodies and positions them as needed, some hides and moves the tent. The theatre is ready.
5) Official search teams arrive, already on record, and find everything as we know it. The tent, the bodies of the five victims. The. Picture known to world.

Authorities reported finding six, so a sixth/stranger was added?

Btw thank you for answers you gave me.

[Teddy]

1) Some tourists die under a tree. Others in forrest, others manage to get to the slope, where they also die

2) A plane crew working for a geological survey sees the dead bodies and mentions it.

4) A special group sent by them arrives at the site,

finds a tent in the woods,

Solter says she washed six bodies early February. All six are returned to the pass to be found again after the Dyatlov group was reported missing.

3) The authorities learn that Datlov's expedition has disappeared. They have a report of the bodies from the plane. They report finding the bodies and zhat death was by hypothermia.

the bodies and positions them as needed, some hides and moves the tent. The theatre is ready.

5) Official search teams arrive, already on record, and find everything as we know it. The tent, the bodies of the five victims. The. Picture known to world.

Authorities reported finding six, so a sixth/stranger was added?

[Andysek77]

Thanks again


I hope I'm beginning to understand. So the expedition members really died in early February as officially reported. Several of the bodies were seen by an observer from the plane. A key moment.

The authorities sent a team to check what happened. The bodies were found and taken away. washed and no more was done. The discovery was not reported "upstairs".
Then came the news of the loss of the expedition. So the authorities announced that they had found the students from the expedition and that they had died of hypothermia.

 Then they took the dead bodies back to the pass and created this spectacle.  They moved the tent and hid the remaining bodies that didn't fit by the river to avoid suspicion that they were responsible for their deaths. They weren't frozen, but the wounds killed them.

I just don't understand why they took the six bodies back there and didn't show the dead bodies immediately that they were found and brought back. What was stopping them? Why did they take the bodies back again and make a spectacle of it? Was the reason a sixth body that didn't belong to the expedition?
I'm not quite sure yet. I'm trying understand whole story.

[Teddy]

You keep saying authorities and sixth body.
The parties that knew are Ivdellag, railway troops and Northern Geological Expedition.
Sverdlovsk, Moscow, and Khrushchev were on in the clear.
There are six bodies brought to the morgue. They are not necessarily the five bodies found in Feb-Mar + 1. Sending bodies to the nearest morgue is routine. The bodies are not identified. There is nothing to report "upstairs". They are waiting for someone to be declared missing.
The perfect storm is because of the telegram to Khrushchev and the 21st mid-term or "​Extraordinary" Congress that took place in Moscow 27 January - 5 February 1959.
They don't expect higher levels to get involved in the search. The external examination in the morgue should have been followed by a funeral. But things went sideways in this particular case.

[Andysek77]

Oh, I see, I hope so.

So, after several bodies were spotted by plane, six bodies were brought to the mortuary and nothing was known about them. It can be assumed that they were part of an expedition. I thought the first search party had found the tent in the woods, and therefore all the bodies of Datlov's expedition. That's not what happened. Six bodies were found and taken to the morgue. There was no further search. So the tent may not have been found at all at this point in time and therefore not all the bodies.

Then came the information about the loss of the expedition and the interest of Moscow and Sverdlovsk to find it. Then the panic began, an unknown group of searchers discovered the whole situation / tent and all the bodies. Those that might look like victims of violence (and thus investigation ) were tidied up to the river under the snow. That is, Zolo, Tibo and Ljuda. Kolevatov, too, for some reason.

The rest of them formed the familiar illusion. Thus "from the tent on the mountainside, the tourists fled into the forest and gradually died in a heroic struggle with nature". The groups sent out have already found this scene. Within months everything disappeared from sight and then the remaining four were found but by then the injuries no longer mattered because everything was closed as an accident.

I apologize for all the questions but the fate of the Datlov expedition is a very debated topic , unfortunately there are only known sources about the "mysterious forces" I do not want to in any way misinterpret your work when we discuss the fate of the expedition with other curious people. I don't know if the book will ever be translated into Czech.

[Teddy]

Then came the information about the loss of the expedition and the interest of Moscow and Sverdlovsk to find it. Then the panic began, an unknown group of searchers discovered the whole situation / tent and all the bodies. Those that might look like victims of violence (and thus investigation ) were tidied up to the river under the snow. That is, Zolo, Tibo and Ljuda. Kolevatov, too, for some reason.

Why unknown, the people that found the tent and bodies end of February are very well known.
The conspirators didn't know the injuries. Igor told you that perhaps Kolevatov was found trapped in the tent, or trying to help someone in the tent, and his injuries may have been presumed severe.

The rest of them formed the familiar illusion. Thus "from the tent on the mountainside, the tourists fled into the forest and gradually died in a heroic struggle with nature". The groups sent out have already found this scene. Within months everything disappeared from sight and then the remaining four were found but by then the injuries no longer mattered because everything was closed as an accident.

I am confused by all this.

Here is someone's famous summary of the plot:
-------------------------------------------------------
The group never pitched their tent on the slope – they were too experienced to make that mistake and in any case it made no sense as they had much better shelter from the wind, as well as access to firewood and running water in the forest at the foot of the slope. So that is where they camped on the night of Feb 1st.

A freak accident – a falling tree - caused the traumatic injuries suffered by five members of the group. Lyudmila who suffered the worst injuries probably died 15 minutes afterwards. The others tried their best to liberate their friends from under the tree and attend to their injuries but they didn’t manage and they eventually froze to death. Leaders in Ivdel (Ivdellag, railway troops and Northern Geological Expedition) feared they might be blamed for the hikers’ deaths – maybe they had failed to observe safety regulations in some way? So they colluded with party members and local police to cover up the real reason for the young people’s deaths. The bodies were taken from the morgue and spread out on the slope and under the cedar tree and pitched their tent up the slope to make it look like a case of hypothermia  but threw the four  students with the most serious traumas from the tree accident  into a crevice/pit so they wouldn’t be discovered until much later and the cause of their deaths would be hard to determine.
-------------------------------------------------------

[Andysek77]

Of course.
1) They learned of the dead bodies from the plane. The girl and the man in the hug were frozen if I remember correctly.
2) They sent someone to get the bodies. Six bodies were found and taken to the morgue. So far, normal procedure as you wrote. The dead awaiting identification and burial. Only six bodies and not nine or the tent in the woods was found during the first search. Otherwise, nine would have been brought in. At least that's what I think.

3) The news of the lost expedition came and panic and the idea of getting rid of responsibility arose. The conspirators sent a group to find the area again. They found rest of bodies, tent and moved tent  to the hillside. Threw four bodies into the ravine and spread the other corpses. Igor, Zina and Slobodin up the slope. Dora and Krivo to the cedar.
4) Then they sent another group to officially search and they found everything as we know it.

This is what I thought. I mean, someone brought the bodies to the morgue. The second then made Potemkin Village, and the third was the one who had no idea he was moving in a setup prepared by the conspirators. That's how I thought it went down.
May be i am wrong not sure.

[Teddy]

4) Then they sent another group to officially search and they found everything as we know it.

The official search was not sent by the conspirators. It was sent by Sverdlovsk and Moscow. The conspirators inserted themselves into the search when they had other problems to take care of - mining, building railroads, catching escaped prisoners... Their participation in the search is not justified... unless they wanted to be closer to what will be found, and to be able to make last moment adjustments to the discoveries e.g. the storage (aka labaz).

[Andysek77]

Yeah,
That's what I meant. Sorry my bad english.  The conspirators had the theater made. Tent, bodies for official investigators to find what the conspirators wanted and draw the conclusion the conspirators wanted. And it's likely they put someone on the oficial search team.

[Earthland]

I watched the fictional Russian series about the incident, and I found the way they depicted the avalanche and all that followed as very convincing (especially after the new scientific study that was made this year). However, I knew how heavily fictionalized everything was and I didn't want to live with the impression that avalanche is the most probable explanation, if I had got this idea in fact from a fictionalized TV series. That prompted me to buy the book from Amazon and get myself really to know the facts.

I can see that a huge work has gone into this book, but frankly, it was difficult for me to read this. Even when I skipped the life stories of people, there was too much detail. I think it went downhill for me after the endless listing of the different search groups began, it was hard to digest all the information (the part before this, description of the hike before the accident, was very good!). At first I skipped the chapter "so turns the wheel", as it looked to me as just a background information of prior accidents. Now, of course, I understand that this is probably the most important chapter in the book. I read the last chapter of the book - very well written - and then turned back to "so turns the wheel", but it's still hard to detect where the important stuff begins in this chapter, and I'm still kind of at loss with understanding, what was this conspiracy about and why was it needed.

I agree the important part was to get the theory out, but now that it is out, I also hope the book will be continuously improved, it certainly has material of a bestseller - but in current form I feel as if it needs the willpower of a dedicated dyatlovist to go through all the details and understand what it is really about.

[Teddy]

I watched the fictional Russian series about the incident, and I found the way they depicted the avalanche and all that followed as very convincing

I loved the movie but the avalanche part was pulled out of thin air for the lack of better idea.

It needs the willpower of a dedicated dyatlovist to go through.

Very well said. I wanted to put this in the cover.