Book "1079"

[Ziljoe]

The theory about a tree causing the injuries can be thrown out of the window I think.
From what I have seen there is'nt any tree around at this elevation. Probably looking at 1klm from the top before any scrub like trees are found.

I think you might have miss understood teddy's book and explanation.

Teddy proposes that the hickers followed their original route . They did not pitch their tent on the slope where it was later found.That is ,they went over the pass which is to the east of boot rock.  They got to the ceder with skis and their tent and this is where they pitched the tent . The tent is designed to be hung between two trees .

Where the two Yuri's were found, next to the ceder there is another large ceder that had fallen. From checking the growth rings, teddy found that the tree fell in 1958-59 but did not have a full growth ring for 1959 . Plus the tree can be seen on the ground in the 1959 search photos in late February.

Coincidence,perhaps..... but there is more to it  and it will take a bit of reading to understand which is worth the investment.

[bertie]

Ahabmyth, why on earth are you posting in the book thread, when you have no idea what this book is about?
Go and find something more constructive to do.

[GlennM]

Bertie, perhaps you could,  in a nutshell explain to our forum friend the two theories regarding the tent ?

[ahabmyth]

.
 

[GlennM]

Ahabmyth, congratulations on making a brief summary of the 1079 theory. Every one of your numbered questions has been addresses in the forum at sometime or another. The important difference is that in Teddy's 1079 theory, the unknown compelling force is the treefall. Alternately, on the slope where the tent was discovered,  the unknown compelling force is unidentified and an open question.

One would expect that a fallen tree would leave evidence upon the tent, and those injured inside would leave evidence upon the tent inside.There is nothing in the case files to suggest a tree fell on the tent, nor blood stains within the tent. The tent was kept for a long time before being discarded. In all that time, no one pursued that line of inquiry and looked form supporting evidence.

There is also a question about crushed material items not being found.

In either situation, slope or woods, there are actions you would expect reasonable people to do. In each case, there is nothing we can point to that says, " because of this one partical truth, be it a person, place or thing, the tragedy had to have happened this certain way". This is why sometimes we take the grand view and other times we pick nits. Do not dispair, the Jack the Ripper mystery is older.

[ahabmyth]

Thanks for that GlennM ,I am going to find it hard to find all my numbered questions in the case files.
 
I have already solved Jack the Ripper case .

Trees fell on all these 6 women and it just happened that the same guy was in the area and tried to help. He was a tree removalist that used to do artwork on tree stumps and was incredibly smart with a chainsaw.

 Anyhow back to the tree theory which IMHO was impossible.
"If" the two trees that the tent was anchored to were roughly the same size and I heard somewhere they were 15+ mtrs tall , the tent being 4mtrs long, the (now known fallen tree ) if it indeed was rotten and fell on the tent it wouldnt have fallen in a straight line as branches would force the tree to one side and perhaps hit nobody. Only people who were 2-3 mtrs away from the tent would be injured or crushed. And like you say there were no pine needles (which are hard to find on cedars) on the tent. And by the way if they rolled the tree off the injured they would find the rotten tree was dry enough for fuel.

[GlennM]

Ahabmyth, I enjoyed the humor and appreciate your assessment of the whole tree and tent conundrum. I would expect that once the occupants left the tent, there would also be the reaching back in for necessities until the situation got corrected and the tent got back into service. There is no evidence of this happening, unless Teddy's condensed milk tin qualiifies. I have my doubts.

Ultimately, the 1079 book is an other conspiracy theory/ coverup story. I feel that the premise for obfuscating the forest site and misdirecting rescuers to the slope of 1079 was a pointless exercise, fooling no one and accomplishing less. I favor a natural cause on 1079, a slab slide perhaps accelerated by a catabatic wind got them out of the tent. The wind itself may have ripped the tent over time. I think it more likely than a tree fall.

[ahabmyth]

 I fixed the tent (found 6 tins of condensed milk underneath and it still tasted good). I counted 11 slash marks so whoever did this wasnt in that much of a rush to get outI wonder if it was Igor saying to himself maybe they will give them a new tent this time.

[GlennM]

The top picture did not post, or I can not reference it.

Consider this, if an old canvas stitched together tent is getting blown apart in a fierce wind, the occupants might weigh the benefit of staying ve leaving. On the one hand, staying keeps them near their supplies, even if the essentials like skis can only be gotten to if the tent gets taken down. They have access to the stove, but not fuel. They have blankets and the canvas side of the tent for protection. They have each other.

On the other hand, remaining at the tent does not improve their circumstances. If they need heat, they must find wood. If they were impacted with a snow slide, it could happen again. If they all leave together, they may survive together. Ski boots have less benefit without skis. If the crisis develops in the dark (evidenced by flashlight on slope) and if wind driven snow obscures vision, the distance to the tree line may be under estimated. Once the decision to go down slope is agreed on, there is no good reason to turn around at any point and try to go back. That would not change the situation  for the better.The scouring effect of snow on the slope and buildup in the ravine attests to the conditions.

Their situation could be reduced to the choice of staying in a deteriorating tent gradually and eventually freezing, or trying their luck in the shelter of trees and a warming fire. When you are young, you are immortal and death is something for old people. Nature is indifferent to human opinion.

[ahabmyth]

Only hours left.

[GlennM]

The den and labaz (cache) have all been identified with confidence. I suggest you go to DyatlovPass.com and look at Teddy's latest post. She has re-arranged case photos in a way that makes sense for her. There is no particular connection between the fallen tree and the den or cache. As I understand it, the fallen tree is somewhere close to the cedar tree. The advantage of the fallen tree, other than inflicting all the wounds in one fell swoop, is
On the other hand, there is a very large logistical problem surrounding moving a fallen pine tree to get stuff out. This is for the hikers as well as the conspirators. I would imaging tent contents and the skis would all suffer from an impact . If the tent were set up in the woods, I would expect to find the on site remains of an outdoor cooking fire as well as a functional tent stove with ashes. Moreover, if the stove was used ( as I think it would ), the tent would likely catch fire.There are burns on several of the hikers, but no burns on the tent.

[Ziljoe]

The guys in the top picture digging what I thought to be because of slope on the mountain seem to be digging a bit deep. But due to Teddys falling tree theory is there any chance this could have been their den or labaz.

I am guessing that you are talking about the photo with one of the group holding a ski looking at the camera and the others crouching and digging , the back packs are on the slope to the right and all the skis and ski poles are sticking out of the snow on the slope above the trench that's being dug. If this is the photo you mean , then there are at least 5 hikers along the trench line . Allowing 1 meter for each hiker to dig and rotate, then that equals a 5 meter trench minimum.

Teddy does suggest that this may have been the labaz but I would have to argue that 5 meters is too big for a labaz and it would be questionable to build a labaz on an exposed slope . How easy would it be to find on your return , especially when the weather could be doing anything?  . when building the labaz and then digging and retrieving the stored goods , first you have to unpack the back packs which would be slightly easier , but then on your return you have to pack your kit again. These are two unefficient extra stops with variables( finding the labaz in poor weather condition s for example)   , it would make more sense to build a labaz at a campsite when you have all your kit out for the evening , when cutting wood for a fire at that campsite and building the labaz it would also be good to have ready chopped wood for your return , this would then be a good rest night , all that's needed is to pitch the tent .

[ahabmyth]

.

[GlennM]

Ahabmyth, you can modify your post by deleting everything in it except for a period. Then save.

[ahabmyth]

Are there any theories in the group that suggest that the reason for abandoning the tent was because the tent just fell down in the storm because of not tying up the ends correctly or a ski was pulled out. I know its a long shot as these hikers could probably tie a knot simply by looking at it. A far as we know the entrance was of the type that was closed by using wooden toggles and then just pushed through an open rope knot which would be a pain especially in the weather at the time and in total darkness.. Then a brave decision was made to cut the tent to get out.
As for the Tree Theory I keep thinking why I think it would be impossible. I visualise the two trees with the ends tied up to them
and think of the tension on the rope. Then the high wind, then visualise the tree collapsing near the tied off rope, but this would cut through the tree which would virtualy snap and jump away from its roots before falling down, but straight onto the tent ??? nah.
According to photos the tree fell down and uprooted.The uprooted tree would need to have stood 10mtrs or more from "The Cedar" did it ??? I wonder if the hole and remnants of the root system is still there. Surely the distance would have been measured a thousand times. And suppose we only guess at how large the diameter of  "The Cedar" would have been all those years ago.

 

[GlennM]

Take a look at their bios. There is enough information to give you a feel for who they were individually. In the diaries, you get a sense of how rigidly the hike was structured. For me, they had high ideals, but in reality, they were far more relaxed fun-loving and even moody. They were kids, save one!

The case files lead me to believe the group was cohesive but somewhat lax at their last camp. They moved to the forest as a group. They all likely went to the ravine as a group. From there, three went back toward the tent as a group. The ravine 4 died,as a group. Loyalty and obedience can be mandated as in the military, or earned as in civilian affairs. The test comes in a crisis. Soldiers abandon their post, sailors mutiny and civilians revolt...or they stick together.

For me, they got caught out in poor conditions and no matter their choices, the clock ran out. I would suspect, without proof, that they waited too long before committing to action.  I like the idea of a slab slide on 1079 being the impetus for all subsequent choices including actions at the cedar and the ravine.

[Axelrod]

I like the idea of a slab slide on 1079 being the impetus for all subsequent choices including actions at the cedar and the ravine.

You are already constantly repeating this spam about a snow slide, and you write it in almost every topic. Do you want people to believe this? Do you think you are so smart? Then write this text in your signature and do not clutter your messages with this text
You can think for yourself as you like. If this solution calms you down, then think for yourself, but what is the point of conducting propaganda for those who do not believe in it?
What is the point of repeating this spam in every topic if it is not confirmed by observations after the incident? After all, according to the laws of physics and mathematical calculations, this cannot be.
With the same success, you can talk about fireballs that rolled down the mountain and scared tourists (according to the stories of the Mansi). Maybe the Mansi are smart too.
Yes, my relative (Axelrod Moisei Abramovich) after thinking about this problem in his old age had problems with his head and thinking, and he decided that there was a landslide, although he did not write this in his testimony of 1959. He wrote that the slope of the mountain did not play any role. Only these words of his have legal force.

I hope that the readers of the forum are sensible.

[GlennM]

Axelrod, it is called an " ad hominum" logical fallacy.