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]

So I gather the main gist of this topic is the fact that the tent was not on the mountain but in the treeline and that authorities had moved the tent up to the mountain level that we see in "most" of photographic evidence. And that the tent being specifically made to be hung between two trees with the assumption that the Cedar and the Fallen Cedar were the trees used to facilitate the erection of the tent.This would also demand that the task of erecting the tent meant that practically all of the 9 were there, when a small contingent of 4 was tasked with finding more firewood the concept of them all falling in the ravine without being heard dosnt make sense as the Cedar and the rest of the group were found only 260ft away and screams for help would easily be heard. Again this would indicate that the rest of the group had already set off up the mountain leaving the 2 too keep the fire going (without fuel) possibly hearing screams for help but being unable to help due to the cold.

Not being as familiar with this subject as many others I need to fire some questions at you.1.Have the roots of the fallen tree been found to be near enough for the other end of the tent to be supported.ie more than 9-10mtrs between them.
2. Was the heater still in its box and unused on the fateful  night.
3.What could have been the excuse for not having a bigger fire if all the hikers had made it to this spot.
4. What would be the reason for climbing the tree and snapping off branches for the fire when they had 7 others looking for fuel (speaking of which ,unless already drunk the Vodka would have been great for starting a fire ).
5.Why were not many more footprints ie compacted snow found around the Cedar and treed areas.
6.Why were the bodies of the three found going up the mountain.( Zina actually made it through the rocky area )and maybe had the flashlight that was found in sight.
7.Why was Igor the most experienced in the group in the 3 found going up the mountain. Whatever the reason he lacked the skill to keep up with the other 2 (although I suppose he was tired after carrying the tent maybe).
8. OK I havnt read the book which may have answered many of these questions ( I am not a book person ) and I must congratulate all of you for not divulging what was a probably good theory of what happened.
9. NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE - It is mentioned and seen that  many times these types of tent are erected using skis. Now unless the ground is really soft you wouldnt have a cat in hells chance of penetrating the soil and holding them firm enough with snow wouldnt IMHO be possible so how do they do it. Small tent maybe but this tent was 4mtrs long, and I know IGOR wanted to test something for erecting ( I love this word). But may have given this a miss due to the harshness of the weather.
11.I cant get my head around this tree theory. Thinking ok the last slice of the fallen tree was rotten, but in 1959 it would have had a lot more normal wood inside (its been 60 years). However the snapping of the roots and indeed the tree itself if it is still attached the roots would have made a terrifying noise which certainly would have inspired concern in the tent even over the sounds of the howling gale. But again was the damage done to the hikers enough to warrant them leaving what was left of the tent.
12. Anybody know if the rope of the tent snapped or ripped off the attaching eyelets.  Ok enough for now.        .

[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 5-6+ 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 read somewhere that Teddy had rearranged all the known pics in an order so easier to understand. I saw them and didnt understand most of them. Can someone tell me why such an emphasis is put on the searchers.To me they seem unnecessary,Ok you would want to thank all involved but seems to me a bit over the top. With all due respect does anyone research these people. Just thought I'd try out these green oversized letters. Going back to the cedar now. .

[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]

Blumin eck thats right Ziljoe  The guys in the picture are digging what I thought to be because of slope on the mountain. They seem to be digging a bit deep. If you look at  another similar pic you can see it looks to be about 3ft deep and on the other side too, what could the reason be for this. I am thinking this could have been their den or labaz. Unless it was one of the last pics taken I (we) seem to assume that because of what the weather looks like it was one of the last pics. . Anyhow I'm off to chop down a cedar now.

[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]

Hey Berty if you find a button or otherwise where you can delete posts like this please let me know -i had been a relatively new member and have been a bit confused by this web-pages format.

[GlennM]

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

[ahabmyth]

Ok thanks GlennM. That is what I have realised. I have already talked to Amishlu about this and the Iffy posting of pics so will see what he can do. On my way down to 'the cedar" with my chainsaw at the moment.
NB I am pretty sure I have seen "and" used a delete button somewhere. (I will make a fuss if I find it).