Nigel's thoughts on the book

[Nigel Evans]

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.

[Nigel Evans]

Ivanov apologized 30 years after the fact that he didn't do his job.

Where did he say that?
Whilst i'm waiting for an answer i'll have to breath in and out a few times...

[Nigel Evans]

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.

It's spelt ball lightning and it's an accepted physical phenomena, attracting theories from many highly regarded scientists.

[Teddy]

Ivanov apologized 30 years after the fact that he didn't do his job.

Where did he say that?
Whilst i'm waiting for an answer i'll have to breath in and out a few times...

"I asked the correspondent to publish my apologies to the relatives of the victims for distorting the truth, to hide the truth from them, and since there were no places for this in the four issues of the newspaper, I bring this publication to the families of the victims, especially to apologize to the relatives of Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Zolotaryov."
https://dyatlovpass.com/lev-ivanov

Are you sticking our your tongue out to me? This is a joke for you?

[Nigel Evans]

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.

One things for sure the old nigel is even older. I've provided many alternate ideas enough to fill several books.

[Nigel Evans]

Ivanov apologized 30 years after the fact that he didn't do his job.

Where did he say that?
Whilst i'm waiting for an answer i'll have to breath in and out a few times...

"I asked the correspondent to publish my apologies to the relatives of the victims for distorting the truth, to hide the truth from them, and since there were no places for this in the four issues of the newspaper, I bring this publication to the families of the victims, especially to apologize to the relatives of Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Zolotaryov."
https://dyatlovpass.com/lev-ivanov

Are you sticking our your tongue out to me? This is a joke for you?

He's apologising to the relatives for having to obey orders and front a coverup of death by freezing face to face with irate parents something Okishev admitted gave him sleepless nights. Ivanov hints at the consequences of disobedience with "Beria was gone but his methods remained" and quickly adds that all orders were obeyed. He's not apologising for being a poor investigator. His first duty was to the hierarchy. Which raises the question why were sverdlovsk officials forced into a coverup?


Apologies for the smiley if it offended, but maybe best not to answer criticism with stuff like "full of hatred" eh?

[GKM]

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.   

[Nigel Evans]

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?

[Nigel Evans]

https://dyatlovpass.com/labaz?lid=1


I don't think so, try again guys.

[Nigel Evans]

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.

I don't think so, try again guys...

Dyatlov group diary 31 January 1959
 Weather today is a bit worse – wind (west), snowing (probably from the pines), since the sky is perfectly clear.
 Started relatively early (around 10 am). Got back on the Mansi trail. (Up to now we are following a Mansi trail on which not so long passed a hunter with deer.)
 Yesterday it seems we stumbled upon his resting stop. Deer didn't go any further. The hunter took the beaten trail by himself, we are following in his steps.
 Had a surprisingly good overnight, air is warm and dry, though it’s -18C to -24C. Walking is especially hard today. We can't see the trail, have to grope our way through at times. Can’t do more than 1.52 km (1 mile) per hour.
 Trying out new ways to clear the path. The first in line drops his backpack, skis forward for five minutes, comes back for a 10-15 minute break, then catches up with the group. That’s one way to keep laying ski tracks non-stop. Hard on the second hiker though, who has to follow the new trail with full gear on his back. We gradually leave the Auspiya valley, it’s upwards all the way but goes rather smoothly. Thin birch grove replaces firs. The end of forest is getting closer. Wind is western, warm, piercing, with speed like the draft from airplanes at take off. Firn, open spaces. I can't even think of setting up storage here. It's nearly 4. Have to start looking for a place to pitch the tent. We go south in the Auspiya valley. Seems this place has the deepest snow. Wind not strong, snow 1.22 m deep. We’re exhausted, but start setting up for the night. Firewood is scarce, mostly damp firs. We build the campfire on the logs, too tired to dig a fire pit. Dinner’s in the tent. Nice and warm. Can’t imagine such comfort on the ridge, with howling wind outside, hundreds of kilometers away from human settlements.


It would be madness to setup a storage cache on an exposed ridge with 100mph winds when the forest is less than 60 minutes away downhill. Those winds could scatter your provisions over such a wide area and cover them with feet of wind drift so that you'd never find half of them again. Worst case you could lose the lot.

[Nigel Evans]

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.

It makes more sense if you maintain a watch through the night.

[Nigel Evans]

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'm not getting it? Why would only the tent be absent?

[Nigel Evans]

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.

I'd say not possible, the abrasions are too even.

[Nigel Evans]

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

As shown below the labaz was built in the forest?????

[Nigel Evans]

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?

The question is answered by the fact that a camera was on a tripod? In a crowded tent with nine berths?

[Nigel Evans]

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.

Why would you build a den if you had a tent?

[Nigel Evans]

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

If the tent became spent, you'd get dressed? I can't see a case for the tent being at the cedar and most of the group half dressed and in their socks (even if a tree fell on the tent, it wouldn't kill everyone, someone cut their way out so why not reach in and grab some boots? Once a tree has fallen it's no longer a threat?

[Nigel Evans]

Thinking on it, i think the state of undress is the killer for this theory. If you've just cut your way out of the tent because a tree has fallen on it and you're now standing in the cold snow in your socks, what's the first thing you would do?




Get dressed!!!

[Nigel Evans]

I bought the kindle version of book and read it very intensively. It was
a great & comprehensive historical account of the events in January-May 1959 in the
Dyatlov search and investigation operation.

As a mathematician myself, it was interesting to see that the book
introduced "overdetermined systems". In the section
"Dyatlov Pass for Dummies",  we have that an

"overdetermined system is almost always inconsistent, it has no solution."

After reading several books and articles about the incident, I had
come to my own belief that the evidence is inconsistent. In mathematical
logic, Gödel's completeness theorem says that any consistent list of
statements ("evidence") has a model, or a "solution".
After 60 years there are all these theories but they all seem to be only
partially convincing. Why is that? My guess is that the evidence is
inconsistent. It has no model.

One the authors suggests that by breaking up inappropriate
connections (assumptions) in the evidence, the system may become consistent and have a solution (or in
the logical setting, by removing inconsistencies from the list of evidence
it may have a model).

The authors present a model that explains the extensive injuries on three
of the Dyatlov group members in a new and most natural way (tree falling
on the tent). This model becomes possible when some of the evidence, for
example the footprints leading down the hill, is re-evaluated as belonging
to a staging, not to the event itself.

Of course, their solution is dependent on the assumption that the "last photo"
(loose photos # 12 on the site) - thought to show the location of the tent
being prepared on Feb 1st - is not authentic or last. However, in this case the
coverup has to be even deeper than described in the book: This photo
shares an important detail with the famous tent picture of the Slobtsov
group finding the tent on Feb 26th. There is a ski pole looking object at similar
position with respect to the tent (photo #12 and the Slobtsov photo being
taken from opposite sides wrt tent). A coverup would have to have 1) developed
the films before Feb 26th, 2) removed any photos after #12 3) staged the scene
carefully with respect to the detail in the photo OR they would have needed to
fabricate photo #12.

Ivanov would have liked the "inconsistent evidence theory" having joked that the only way to explain the incident was as the work of the devil.
But i think that Urakov's behaviour both in shutting Ivanov up in March (someone high in the hierarchy did it) and then shutting the case down in May is shouting too loudly that the Soviet hierarchy had much to gain from making the case go away. And there were excessive levels of radiation. As said before multiple times, Okishev has stated the central question - when the last four bodies were discovered why did Urakov the second most senior member of the Soviet legal system travel from Moscow to Sverdlovsk to ensure that the case was shutdown?

[Nigel Evans]

I'm struggling with this theory. How does it explain:

- Rustem, Igor and Zina's injuries, they'd been in a fight
- The hikers leaving shoes, coats, hats and wood cutting tools in the tent
- Dyatlov's jacket and a knife sheath found outside the tent
- 30cm horizontal cuts on the downslope side of the tent
- Ski pole being cut
- Footprints down the slope
- Spent lantern found at the bottom of the slope
- Photos of the hikers digging out the tent base
- Lighting a fire by the cedar, exposed to the wind, rather than in the ravine
- All their clothes being unbuttoned
- The rav4 not being on the platform
- Missing cameras
- Radiation on clothes

Most can only be explained by the hikers being forced out of the tent (on the ridge) by persons unknown, imo.

I doubt the rav4's injuries are compatible with being hit by a falling tree. In that scenario other bones would be broken, e.g. Zolotarev's ribs were injured on one side, if he was lying on one side his arm would also be injured, no objects in the tent were crushed, and the survivors had time to record what happened (avalanche theory has the same problems).

The book does answer some of your questions within the parameters of the theory presented.  If you haven't had the chance to read it, there is some really excellent information in there, whether we come to the same conclusions as the authors or not.

I can only really add that Zolotaryev did have a broken shoulder on the same side as his ribs, which was found during the exhumation, in 2018 (I think it was that year.)  The fact that no items in the tent were damaged is very valid.  Plus, the tent itself did not show the same damage as it should had it been hit.  I've had many canvas tents over the years, even made a couple.  Although they are a different weight of canvas undoubtedly, they still take damage when they get hit with falling debris.  At the very least, I would expect tears at the stress points of the canvas from the strike, which I do not see in any of the pictures.

Plus no scorching on the tent from a red hot stove that gave YuriK a third degree burn.

[Nigel Evans]

Thinking on it, i think the state of undress is the killer for this theory. If you've just cut your way out of the tent because a tree has fallen on it and you're now standing in the cold snow in your socks, what's the first thing you would do?




Get dressed!!!

Probably try to save your friends.  The thing is we don't know if those who got out of the tent did get dressed, if the scene staged.  They may have managed to get some clothes.  A tree landing on the tent in the dark while you are sleeping is a pretty shocking thing though.  You wake up in the dark hear your colleagues screams, you may be concussed or disorientated.  Those under the tree are likely trapped. Krivo may have been trapped with the stove on his leg.  The pain so bad he bit the skin off his finger?  The first thing you would do if you had your faculties in tact is try to save your friends.  Dorishenko's injuries may be a result of a desperate attempt to move the tree?  I think Zina was badly injured by a tree branch too.  I suppose there is always tge question - why did a tree fall?  High winds?  Or something else?

Regards

Star man

Igor had no obvious wounds and Zinaida's bruise would have hurt but not more serious than that. There's nothing in the injury profile that precludes a small group of survivors from a tree fall and they would know that to help others they must protect themselves from the cold.

[Nigel Evans]

Thinking on it, i think the state of undress is the killer for this theory. If you've just cut your way out of the tent because a tree has fallen on it and you're now standing in the cold snow in your socks, what's the first thing you would do?




Get dressed!!!

Probably try to save your friends.  The thing is we don't know if those who got out of the tent did get dressed, if the scene staged.  They may have managed to get some clothes.  A tree landing on the tent in the dark while you are sleeping is a pretty shocking thing though.  You wake up in the dark hear your colleagues screams, you may be concussed or disorientated.  Those under the tree are likely trapped. Krivo may have been trapped with the stove on his leg.  The pain so bad he bit the skin off his finger?  The first thing you would do if you had your faculties in tact is try to save your friends.  Dorishenko's injuries may be a result of a desperate attempt to move the tree?  I think Zina was badly injured by a tree branch too.  I suppose there is always tge question - why did a tree fall?  High winds?  Or something else?

Regards

Star man

Igor had no obvious wounds and Zinaida bruise would have hurt but not more serious than that. There's nothing in the injury profile that precludes a small group of survivors from a tree fall and they would know that to help others they must protect themselves from the cold.

That's how I see it too, after the initial shock they'd put their felt boots on, probably their coats too, and help their friends as best they could. After that, they've got all the resources in the tent to hand, and only minor injuries, and they're not on a mountain facing a 1 mile walk in their socks in this scenario; so they should survive the night and go for help the next day. They could panic when people started dying, even the most experienced people lose their heads, but where would they go? All they can do is keep warm and sit tight.

As I understand it they should already have their felt boots on in the tent, anyhow.

Unless they're subsequently murdered and clothing is removed to fit the storyline. Igor does have ankle injuries consistent with being bound or stumbling through snow covered vegetation which is my favourite, his boxer position is classic rigor mortis. However it's also true that the ravine four don't have hand injuries whilst the others (most likely to survive a tree fall) do....

[Nigel Evans]

I am beginning to wonder if people who claim to have read the book actually read the book. One can read the book and draw their own conclusions, and Teddy made that clear. Draw your own dotted line. It doesn't have to match perfectly the line drawn in the book. I have read several posts that insist their was a cover up yet when presented with one it's shouts of " No not that cover up. A different cover up" , but no one ever offers up their own version of what that cover up could be. Let's have a challenge. Present your own cover up. Maybe yours will be better. This is not addressed to any certain member of the forum but to all who believe in the ideal of some form of cover up by Soviet authorities.

The coverup (by the Soviet hierarchy) isn't a theory, both Ivanov and Okishev stated it as fact. The official line was that the first five died of hypothermia although the autopsies showed fractured skulls, third degree burns, facial abrasions, weeping bruises, hand wounds etc etc. When Ivanov got excited about fireorbs he was read the riot act, his words - "Beria was gone but his methods remained". When the last four were discovered with massive trauma the case was simply closed down by Urakov in person travelling from Moscow to Sverdlovsk a distance of 930 miles. A group of nine people have all died a violent death and the Deputy Prosecutor General travels a thousand miles to close the investigation down. Read Okishev's interview.

[Nigel Evans]

Nigel's not a hater just because he points out issues he sees with the latest book/theory. Which I read and is interesting. It makes a lot of sense. But that doesn't mean I or anyone has to be compelled into thinking it is the one true theory. Can someone explain how the footprints going in two directions could have been confused for only going downhill?

Yes i'm not sure about this hate stuff, maybe Teddy gets trolled and has assumed i'm one of them. I can assure everyone i'm far too handsome to be confused with a troll.

I think the idea is that there was helicopter involved? Or they just went around again on skis? Not sure.
Whatever it was pretty clever to make the footprints look like "8 or 9 pairs" just like if a limping man had been assisted down the slope....

[Nigel Evans]

Oh I agree there was a cover up, no doubt, I guess I should add the usual "in my opinion ". Definitely a cover up of some form and that is almost impossible to argue against.

Yes but the central case of the book is that the coverup was local to Ivdel? Which it very clearly wasn't. The Sverdlovsk office was being overruled (with some force) by Moscow.

[Nigel Evans]

So currently my thoughts are, that the book's case is implausible because :-

• A hot stove that created third degree burns (through clothing) somehow magically doesn't even mark the tent fabric even though YuriD's injuries are explained as attempted movement of the stove to rescue YuriK. Highly improbable (extremely?).
• Ivanov comments in the casefiles that the order of the two frames on their respective rolls showing the last campsite being dug out (one is the last frame) indicate that the date is Feb 1. These photos are clearly not in the forest.
• Urakov's behaviour indicates a very strong interest from the Moscow office (reporting directly to Khrushchev) to make the case go away. Permission for a summer inspection of the DP area is flatly refused. This after maintaining a 30 strong team for 3 months by helicopter to find the last four bodies.

[Nigel Evans]

you can't make something radioactive by firing high energy particles at it.

thats how c14 is formed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14


a concentration of c14 being an explanation for the higher radiation levels.

[Nigel Evans]

This is the only scenario that can explain why the opening of the tent was not used as exit

That's ever so slightly not true..... 

[Teddy]

This is the only scenario that can explain why the opening of the tent was not used as exit

That's ever so slightly not true..... 

I am not saying it lightly. I have ruminated for 9 years over this detail alone, talked with mountaineers and visited incident sites.
And arguing with you is not getting me anywhere.

[Nigel Evans]

This is the only scenario that can explain why the opening of the tent was not used as exit

That's ever so slightly not true..... 

I am not saying it lightly. I have ruminated for 9 years over this detail alone, talked with mountaineers and visited incident sites.
And arguing with you is not getting me anywhere.

Electrical phenomena, noxious gases to think of two that have been frequently discussed, fighting, hey even a slab slide. That's four.