Dyatlov Pass Forum

Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Star man on February 06, 2019, 09:00:49 AM

Title: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 06, 2019, 09:00:49 AM
Just thought I would start this topic to discuss specific details about the DPI.

Here is my first detail topic.

Kolevatov’s Finnish knife was found in the tent and the sheath was found just outside the entrance to the tent. Any ideas as to why this is the case?

Also Dyatlov’s jacket is found just outside the tent entrance? Same question?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on February 06, 2019, 12:15:15 PM
Just thought I would start this topic to discuss specific details about the DPI.

Here is my first detail topic.

Kolevatov’s Finnish knife was found in the tent and the sheath was found just outside the entrance to the tent. Any ideas as to why this is the case?

Also Dyatlov’s jacket is found just outside the tent entrance? Same question?

Wouldnt it be better to deal with these in the various POSTS  !  ? 
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 06, 2019, 02:43:01 PM
Just thought I would start this topic to discuss specific details about the DPI.

Here is my first detail topic.

Kolevatov’s Finnish knife was found in the tent and the sheath was found just outside the entrance to the tent. Any ideas as to why this is the case?

Also Dyatlov’s jacket is found just outside the tent entrance? Same question?


Wouldnt it be better to deal with these in the various POSTS  !  ?



Possibly, but the questions don't necessarily relate to a specific theory.  They may lead into a specific theory though.  Example: why wasn't Kolevatov's knife in the sheath and why wasn't his sheath on his belt.  It may indicate an altercation in or around the tent, or it could just be that the sheath was kicked out of the tent in the scramble to get out of the entrance.  The same with Dyatlov' jacket.  Did Dyatlov take his jacket off outside the tent?  Or was it simply hanging up on a ski pole or ski and it later blew off in the wind onto the floor.

Another detail question:  Luda's position in the ravine.  Arms above her chest lying face against the rocks.  Did she die in that position or did she slip into that position as the snow melted.  If she died in a different position then would rigomortis allow the arms and body to slip up above her chest?  It's strange that someone with such severe chest injuries would lie against a rock with their arms held up like that.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on February 06, 2019, 03:03:36 PM
Just thought I would start this topic to discuss specific details about the DPI.

Here is my first detail topic.

Kolevatov’s Finnish knife was found in the tent and the sheath was found just outside the entrance to the tent. Any ideas as to why this is the case?

Also Dyatlov’s jacket is found just outside the tent entrance? Same question?
Demonstrates the haste with which they had to get away from the poisonous cloud?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 06, 2019, 03:28:33 PM
Just thought I would start this topic to discuss specific details about the DPI.

Here is my first detail topic.

Kolevatov’s Finnish knife was found in the tent and the sheath was found just outside the entrance to the tent. Any ideas as to why this is the case?

Also Dyatlov’s jacket is found just outside the tent entrance? Same question?
Demonstrates the haste with which they had to get away from the poisonous cloud?

Possibly.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 07, 2019, 03:10:17 PM
Just noticed this statement in witness testimonies:

10-15 m from the tent were found sneakers, socks and Dyatlov fur jacket. Also a storm jacke

A previous account I  had read Dyatlov''s Jacket was "just outside the entrance of the tent".  10 to 15 metres is not just outside.  There were also some sneakers and socks and a storm jacket.  Doesn't make sense unless these were deliberately taken off?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on February 07, 2019, 03:56:41 PM
Just noticed this statement in witness testimonies:

10-15 m from the tent were found sneakers, socks and Dyatlov fur jacket. Also a storm jacke

A previous account I  had read Dyatlov''s Jacket was "just outside the entrance of the tent".  10 to 15 metres is not just outside.  There were also some sneakers and socks and a storm jacket.  Doesn't make sense unless these were deliberately taken off?

Maybe someones idea of just outside was actually 10 or 15 metres away. Its like someone saying that the Ship was near Port when in fact it was actually 10 or 15 miles away. 10 or 15 miles could be construed as near the Port.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Marchesk on February 07, 2019, 10:36:02 PM
10-15 m from the tent were found sneakers, socks and Dyatlov fur jacket. Also a storm jacke

Is the 10-15 meters actually part of the official documentation? Because that's a pretty significant detail. It lends support to the murder theory. Would the hikers have dropped those in their haste to get away from the tent under other scenarios?

If they were poisoned and not thinking clearly, maybe. If they were running for their lives 10 to 15 meters from the tent, sure. But then the footprints don't tend to support that.

Wind and avalanche would probably be ruled out for depositing those items there, because the rest of the tent and its contents stayed in place.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 07, 2019, 11:30:51 PM
10-15 m from the tent were found sneakers, socks and Dyatlov fur jacket. Also a storm jacke

Is the 10-15 meters actually part of the official documentation? Because that's a pretty significant detail. It lends support to the murder theory. Would the hikers have dropped those in their haste to get away from the tent under other scenarios?

If they were poisoned and not thinking clearly, maybe. If they were running for their lives 10 to 15 meters from the tent, sure. But then the footprints don't tend to support that.

Wind and avalanche would probably be ruled out for depositing those items there, because the rest of the tent and its contents stayed in place.

Yes I believe it is part of the witness statements in the case files.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on February 08, 2019, 03:44:31 AM
10-15 m from the tent were found sneakers, socks and Dyatlov fur jacket. Also a storm jacke

Is the 10-15 meters actually part of the official documentation? Because that's a pretty significant detail. It lends support to the murder theory. Would the hikers have dropped those in their haste to get away from the tent under other scenarios?

If they were poisoned and not thinking clearly, maybe. If they were running for their lives 10 to 15 meters from the tent, sure. But then the footprints don't tend to support that.

Wind and avalanche would probably be ruled out for depositing those items there, because the rest of the tent and its contents stayed in place.
I couldn't rule out the wind on a 20-25% gradient.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on February 08, 2019, 04:21:42 AM
10-15 m from the tent were found sneakers, socks and Dyatlov fur jacket. Also a storm jacke

Is the 10-15 meters actually part of the official documentation? Because that's a pretty significant detail. It lends support to the murder theory. Would the hikers have dropped those in their haste to get away from the tent under other scenarios?

If they were poisoned and not thinking clearly, maybe. If they were running for their lives 10 to 15 meters from the tent, sure. But then the footprints don't tend to support that.

Wind and avalanche would probably be ruled out for depositing those items there, because the rest of the tent and its contents stayed in place.

Official documentation or not, it doesnt really say much. Its any ones guess as to how items ended up in the locations that they were found. We dont know all the details on footprints because the search parties would have trampled over the Dyatlov Footprints near the Tent. We dont know the exact weather conditions at the time, so how can we know the strengh of any winds that were blowing. or any snow falling.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 08, 2019, 04:40:49 AM
10-15 m from the tent were found sneakers, socks and Dyatlov fur jacket. Also a storm jacke

Is the 10-15 meters actually part of the official documentation? Because that's a pretty significant detail. It lends support to the murder theory. Would the hikers have dropped those in their haste to get away from the tent under other scenarios?

If they were poisoned and not thinking clearly, maybe. If they were running for their lives 10 to 15 meters from the tent, sure. But then the footprints don't tend to support that.

Wind and avalanche would probably be ruled out for depositing those items there, because the rest of the tent and its contents stayed in place.

Official documentation or not, it doesnt really say much. Its any ones guess as to how items ended up in the locations that they were found. We dont know all the details on footprints because the search parties would have trampled over the Dyatlov Footprints near the Tent. We dont know the exact weather conditions at the time, so how can we know the strengh of any winds that were blowing. or any snow falling.

But why would anyone leave their sneakers and jackets outside, over 30 feet from the tent and go down the slop in their socks?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on February 08, 2019, 04:42:55 AM
10-15 m from the tent were found sneakers, socks and Dyatlov fur jacket. Also a storm jacke

Is the 10-15 meters actually part of the official documentation? Because that's a pretty significant detail. It lends support to the murder theory. Would the hikers have dropped those in their haste to get away from the tent under other scenarios?

If they were poisoned and not thinking clearly, maybe. If they were running for their lives 10 to 15 meters from the tent, sure. But then the footprints don't tend to support that.

Wind and avalanche would probably be ruled out for depositing those items there, because the rest of the tent and its contents stayed in place.

Official documentation or not, it doesnt really say much. Its any ones guess as to how items ended up in the locations that they were found. We dont know all the details on footprints because the search parties would have trampled over the Dyatlov Footprints near the Tent. We dont know the exact weather conditions at the time, so how can we know the strengh of any winds that were blowing. or any snow falling.

But why would anyone leave their sneakers and jackets outside, over 30 feet from the tent and go down the slop in their socks?

Well I did say its any ones guess etc etc.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 11, 2019, 03:34:43 PM
10-15 m from the tent were found sneakers, socks and Dyatlov fur jacket. Also a storm jacke

Is the 10-15 meters actually part of the official documentation? Because that's a pretty significant detail. It lends support to the murder theory. Would the hikers have dropped those in their haste to get away from the tent under other scenarios?

If they were poisoned and not thinking clearly, maybe. If they were running for their lives 10 to 15 meters from the tent, sure. But then the footprints don't tend to support that.

Wind and avalanche would probably be ruled out for depositing those items there, because the rest of the tent and its contents stayed in place.

Your right.  It could support the murder theory. 

Is it possible that Dyatlov grabbed some shoes, his jacket and storm as he was exiting the tent in haste, and for some reason dropped them before he had a chance to put them on?

There seems to be evidence that at least some of the group left the tent via the entrance in a hurry, and possibly dragged things out of the entrance as they fled.

Does anyone know where Dyatlov's jacket was found in relation to the tent?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on February 12, 2019, 12:18:32 AM
10-15 m from the tent were found sneakers, socks and Dyatlov fur jacket. Also a storm jacke

Is the 10-15 meters actually part of the official documentation? Because that's a pretty significant detail. It lends support to the murder theory. Would the hikers have dropped those in their haste to get away from the tent under other scenarios?

If they were poisoned and not thinking clearly, maybe. If they were running for their lives 10 to 15 meters from the tent, sure. But then the footprints don't tend to support that.

Wind and avalanche would probably be ruled out for depositing those items there, because the rest of the tent and its contents stayed in place.

Your right.  It could support the murder theory. 

Is it possible that Dyatlov grabbed some shoes, his jacket and storm as he was exiting the tent in haste, and for some reason dropped them before he had a chance to put them on?

There seems to be evidence that at least some of the group left the tent via the entrance in a hurry, and possibly dragged things out of the entrance as they fled.

Does anyone know where Dyatlov's jacket was found in relation to the tent?

From the tent in the direction of the wind, i.e. in the direction where there were traces of people's feet, at a distance of about 0.5-1 m, we found several slippers from different pairs, and ski caps and other small objects were scattered.https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743A weatherproof jacket hung at the entrance. As it turned out, it was Dyatlov's.

Lobatcheva, Irina. Dyatlov Pass Keeps Its Secret (p. 35). Parallel Worlds' Books. Kindle Edition.

Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 12, 2019, 08:52:09 AM
10-15 m from the tent were found sneakers, socks and Dyatlov fur jacket. Also a storm jacke

Is the 10-15 meters actually part of the official documentation? Because that's a pretty significant detail. It lends support to the murder theory. Would the hikers have dropped those in their haste to get away from the tent under other scenarios?

If they were poisoned and not thinking clearly, maybe. If they were running for their lives 10 to 15 meters from the tent, sure. But then the footprints don't tend to support that.

Wind and avalanche would probably be ruled out for depositing those items there, because the rest of the tent and its contents stayed in place.

Your right.  It could support the murder theory. 

Is it possible that Dyatlov grabbed some shoes, his jacket and storm as he was exiting the tent in haste, and for some reason dropped them before he had a chance to put them on?

There seems to be evidence that at least some of the group left the tent via the entrance in a hurry, and possibly dragged things out of the entrance as they fled.

Does anyone know where Dyatlov's jacket was found in relation to the tent?

From the tent in the direction of the wind, i.e. in the direction where there were traces of people's feet, at a distance of about 0.5-1 m, we found several slippers from different pairs, and ski caps and other small objects were scattered.https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743A weatherproof jacket hung at the entrance. As it turned out, it was Dyatlov's.

Lobatcheva, Irina. Dyatlov Pass Keeps Its Secret (p. 35). Parallel Worlds' Books. Kindle Edition.

But Dyatlov jacket hanging near the entrance contradicts the late witness statement that you posted recently that said the jacket and sneakers were 10 metres from the tent?  Am I getting mixed up?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on February 12, 2019, 09:40:07 AM
10-15 m from the tent were found sneakers, socks and Dyatlov fur jacket. Also a storm jacke

Is the 10-15 meters actually part of the official documentation? Because that's a pretty significant detail. It lends support to the murder theory. Would the hikers have dropped those in their haste to get away from the tent under other scenarios?

If they were poisoned and not thinking clearly, maybe. If they were running for their lives 10 to 15 meters from the tent, sure. But then the footprints don't tend to support that.

Wind and avalanche would probably be ruled out for depositing those items there, because the rest of the tent and its contents stayed in place.

Your right.  It could support the murder theory. 

Is it possible that Dyatlov grabbed some shoes, his jacket and storm as he was exiting the tent in haste, and for some reason dropped them before he had a chance to put them on?

There seems to be evidence that at least some of the group left the tent via the entrance in a hurry, and possibly dragged things out of the entrance as they fled.

Does anyone know where Dyatlov's jacket was found in relation to the tent?

From the tent in the direction of the wind, i.e. in the direction where there were traces of people's feet, at a distance of about 0.5-1 m, we found several slippers from different pairs, and ski caps and other small objects were scattered.https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743A (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743A) weatherproof jacket hung at the entrance. As it turned out, it was Dyatlov's.

Lobatcheva, Irina. Dyatlov Pass Keeps Its Secret (p. 35). Parallel Worlds' Books. Kindle Edition.

But Dyatlov jacket hanging near the entrance contradicts the late witness statement that you posted recently that said the jacket and sneakers were 10 metres from the tent?  Am I getting mixed up?
Possibly. There are different accounts of the state of the tent area. This is Koptelov's - http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=347.msg3472#msg3472
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on February 12, 2019, 12:26:56 PM
The jacket was actually stuffed into a hole in the tent.  IIRC

The tent had is share of issues by this time in the trip.   Small rips can turn into  large rips/holes pretty rapidly in high winds as well, not to mention high winds for over three weeks.  There is a reason why quality flags have the end doubled over and stitched dozens of times.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 12, 2019, 03:36:28 PM
Yes I remember reading that his jacket was stuffed in a hole.

So according to various accounts it was:

Stuffed in a hole
Hanging just at the entrance to the tent
10 metres from the entrance to the tent

So I think it safe to conclude that nothing can be concluded from the evidence on Dyatlov's jacket.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on February 13, 2019, 02:10:19 AM
Captain Chernyshov stated: ‘About 10-15 metres from the tent we saw slippers and Dyatlov’s fur jacket.

Oss, Svetlana. Don't Go There: Post Mortem (p. 192). LiberWriter.com. Kindle Edition.

From the tent in the direction of the wind, i.e. in the direction where there were traces of people's feet, at a distance of about 0.5-1 m, we found several slippers from different pairs, and ski caps and other small objects were scattered.https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743A (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743A) weatherproof jacket hung at the entrance. As it turned out, it was Dyatlov's.

Lobatcheva, Irina. Dyatlov Pass Keeps Its Secret (p. 35). Parallel Worlds' Books. Kindle Edition.


Vasily Tempalov, the man with zero experience on such cases, has arrived at last. He gets to work on catching himself up on the day’s events, cataloguing the tent’s contents, and making his official report. He notes the following facts: The tent was set on the slope at a height of 1,079 meters. An even spot was made under the tent, with skis laid at the bottom. The tent was covered with snow. The entrance was partly open, with sheet curtains sticking out. Urine traces were found where someone had been “taking a leak.” When the tent was dug out, a tear in the tent on the slope-facing side close to the entrance was found, with a fur jacket sticking out of the hole. The descent-facing side was torn to pieces. A pair of bound skis was lying in front of the tent entrance. Arrangement of things inside the tent are catalogued.

Eichar, Donnie. Dead Mountain (pp. 121-122). Chronicle Books LLC. Kindle Edition.




Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on February 13, 2019, 01:22:29 PM
Yes I remember reading that his jacket was stuffed in a hole.

So according to various accounts it was:

Stuffed in a hole
Hanging just at the entrance to the tent
10 metres from the entrance to the tent

So I think it safe to conclude that nothing can be concluded from the evidence on Dyatlov's jacket.

Good points. So many things about this Case do not follow logic, thats for sure. Logic would suggest that people would get the facts correct and yet we keep getting contradictions.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 13, 2019, 03:58:47 PM
Another specific detail worthy of discussion: the flash light on the tent.

Quote from the case files:

On the side of the tent on top of 10 cm of snow laid Dyatlov's flashlight (made in China). Boris Slobtzov picked it up and turned it on - the flashlight was in working condition. From Slobtsov witness testimony (sheet 299) "we couldn’t understand why the snow under the flashlight was 10 cm thick, yet there wasn’t any on the flashlight itself".

We're any fingerprints ever taken from the this flash light?  Why did Slobtzov pick it up? Hopefully using gloved hands?  Why wouldn't you compare finger prints on flash light with the groups finger prints?  Maybe it was unlikely that even if someone else had held the light that they would have done so with bare hands given the cold conditions.

So why was there no snow on the flashlight and 10cm of snow underneath it?  Is there a logical explanation? Is it possible that the flashlight was simply being blown around by the wind?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on February 14, 2019, 01:32:05 AM
Another specific detail worthy of discussion: the flash light on the tent.

Quote from the case files:

On the side of the tent on top of 10 cm of snow laid Dyatlov's flashlight (made in China). Boris Slobtzov picked it up and turned it on - the flashlight was in working condition. From Slobtsov witness testimony (sheet 299) "we couldn’t understand why the snow under the flashlight was 10 cm thick, yet there wasn’t any on the flashlight itself".

We're any fingerprints ever taken from the this flash light?  Why did Slobtzov pick it up? Hopefully using gloved hands?  Why wouldn't you compare finger prints on flash light with the groups finger prints?  Maybe it was unlikely that even if someone else had held the light that they would have done so with bare hands given the cold conditions.

So why was there no snow on the flashlight and 10cm of snow underneath it?  Is there a logical explanation? Is it possible that the flashlight was simply being blown around by the wind?
My theory #1. It was the "toilet flashlight". If you have to go in the middle of the night you don't want to wake everyone up to find the flashlight. So it's left outside the tent in a known place. So the 10cm of snow is what was on the tent before the last time it was used (maybe YuriD?).
Theory #2. It was kept inside the tent but someone forgot and left it outside (maybe N2O involved).
No snow on the object itself must be due to the wind. Don't see it as suspicious.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 14, 2019, 04:36:33 AM
Why was the flashlight on the tent at all?

The sides of the tent were sloped so if had been dropped or left on the tent when it was fully set up then it should just slide off- unless it was tethered somehow?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on February 14, 2019, 04:43:56 AM
Why was the flashlight on the tent at all?

The sides of the tent were sloped so if had been dropped or left on the tent when it was fully set up then it should just slide off- unless it was tethered somehow?
The tent was rigged to be wide and low. If meant to be there it's valid to ask why not tethered? But perhaps it was left by someone reentering the tent urgently with something else on their mind?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Monika on February 14, 2019, 06:14:09 AM
Captain Chernyshov stated: ‘About 10-15 metres from the tent we saw slippers and Dyatlov’s fur jacket.

Oss, Svetlana. Don't Go There: Post Mortem (p. 192). LiberWriter.com. Kindle Edition.

From the tent in the direction of the wind, i.e. in the direction where there were traces of people's feet, at a distance of about 0.5-1 m, we found several slippers from different pairs, and ski caps and other small objects were scattered.https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743A (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743A) weatherproof jacket hung at the entrance. As it turned out, it was Dyatlov's.

Lobatcheva, Irina. Dyatlov Pass Keeps Its Secret (p. 35). Parallel Worlds' Books. Kindle Edition.


Vasily Tempalov, the man with zero experience on such cases, has arrived at last. He gets to work on catching himself up on the day’s events, cataloguing the tent’s contents, and making his official report. He notes the following facts: The tent was set on the slope at a height of 1,079 meters. An even spot was made under the tent, with skis laid at the bottom. The tent was covered with snow. The entrance was partly open, with sheet curtains sticking out. Urine traces were found where someone had been “taking a leak.” When the tent was dug out, a tear in the tent on the slope-facing side close to the entrance was found, with a fur jacket sticking out of the hole. The descent-facing side was torn to pieces. A pair of bound skis was lying in front of the tent entrance. Arrangement of things inside the tent are catalogued.

Eichar, Donnie. Dead Mountain (pp. 121-122). Chronicle Books LLC. Kindle Edition.


Sorry dunno1,
I still did not understand if the jacket was protruding from the cut hole in the side of the tent through which they fled  out or if the jacket protruded from the front entrance that was buttoned? Can you draw it for me? grin1
I read that every night they leaving  jacket hanging inside of tent just behind the entrance as a winter barrier.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 14, 2019, 12:10:28 PM
Captain Chernyshov stated: ‘About 10-15 metres from the tent we saw slippers and Dyatlov’s fur jacket.

Oss, Svetlana. Don't Go There: Post Mortem (p. 192). LiberWriter.com. Kindle Edition.

From the tent in the direction of the wind, i.e. in the direction where there were traces of people's feet, at a distance of about 0.5-1 m, we found several slippers from different pairs, and ski caps and other small objects were scattered.https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743A (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743A) weatherproof jacket hung at the entrance. As it turned out, it was Dyatlov's.

Lobatcheva, Irina. Dyatlov Pass Keeps Its Secret (p. 35). Parallel Worlds' Books. Kindle Edition.


Vasily Tempalov, the man with zero experience on such cases, has arrived at last. He gets to work on catching himself up on the day’s events, cataloguing the tent’s contents, and making his official report. He notes the following facts: The tent was set on the slope at a height of 1,079 meters. An even spot was made under the tent, with skis laid at the bottom. The tent was covered with snow. The entrance was partly open, with sheet curtains sticking out. Urine traces were found where someone had been “taking a leak.” When the tent was dug out, a tear in the tent on the slope-facing side close to the entrance was found, with a fur jacket sticking out of the hole. The descent-facing side was torn to pieces. A pair of bound skis was lying in front of the tent entrance. Arrangement of things inside the tent are catalogued.

Eichar, Donnie. Dead Mountain (pp. 121-122). Chronicle Books LLC. Kindle Edition.


Sorry dunno1,
I still did not understand if the jacket was protruding from the cut hole in the side of the tent through which they fled  out or if the jacket protruded from the front entrance that was buttoned? Can you draw it for me? grin1
I read that every night they leaving  jacket hanging inside of tent just behind the entrance as a winter barrier.

That's just it.  We don't know where it really was because of the mixed up accounts.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on February 14, 2019, 02:40:27 PM
Another specific detail worthy of discussion: the flash light on the tent.

Quote from the case files:

On the side of the tent on top of 10 cm of snow laid Dyatlov's flashlight (made in China). Boris Slobtzov picked it up and turned it on - the flashlight was in working condition. From Slobtsov witness testimony (sheet 299) "we couldn’t understand why the snow under the flashlight was 10 cm thick, yet there wasn’t any on the flashlight itself".

We're any fingerprints ever taken from the this flash light?  Why did Slobtzov pick it up? Hopefully using gloved hands?  Why wouldn't you compare finger prints on flash light with the groups finger prints?  Maybe it was unlikely that even if someone else had held the light that they would have done so with bare hands given the cold conditions.

So why was there no snow on the flashlight and 10cm of snow underneath it?  Is there a logical explanation? Is it possible that the flashlight was simply being blown around by the wind?

No report of any finger printing done on anything as far as I know. And yet this was to become a criminal investigation  !  ? 
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 14, 2019, 02:48:43 PM
Another specific detail worthy of discussion: the flash light on the tent.

Quote from the case files:

On the side of the tent on top of 10 cm of snow laid Dyatlov's flashlight (made in China). Boris Slobtzov picked it up and turned it on - the flashlight was in working condition. From Slobtsov witness testimony (sheet 299) "we couldn’t understand why the snow under the flashlight was 10 cm thick, yet there wasn’t any on the flashlight itself".

We're any fingerprints ever taken from the this flash light?  Why did Slobtzov pick it up? Hopefully using gloved hands?  Why wouldn't you compare finger prints on flash light with the groups finger prints?  Maybe it was unlikely that even if someone else had held the light that they would have done so with bare hands given the cold conditions.

So why was there no snow on the flashlight and 10cm of snow underneath it?  Is there a logical explanation? Is it possible that the flashlight was simply being blown around by the wind?

No report of any finger printing done on anything as far as I know. And yet this was to become a criminal investigation  !  ?

I think the scene around the tent in particular was lacking any kind of preservation when discovered by the search and rescue party.  Without accurate sketches of where things were we have to rely on witness testimonies which are not accurate.  There is still important information there but it should be treated with caution.  One thing is becoming clear, the lack of any kind of foot prints around the immediate area of the tent does not mean anything.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on February 14, 2019, 02:56:52 PM
Another specific detail worthy of discussion: the flash light on the tent.

Quote from the case files:

On the side of the tent on top of 10 cm of snow laid Dyatlov's flashlight (made in China). Boris Slobtzov picked it up and turned it on - the flashlight was in working condition. From Slobtsov witness testimony (sheet 299) "we couldn’t understand why the snow under the flashlight was 10 cm thick, yet there wasn’t any on the flashlight itself".

We're any fingerprints ever taken from the this flash light?  Why did Slobtzov pick it up? Hopefully using gloved hands?  Why wouldn't you compare finger prints on flash light with the groups finger prints?  Maybe it was unlikely that even if someone else had held the light that they would have done so with bare hands given the cold conditions.

So why was there no snow on the flashlight and 10cm of snow underneath it?  Is there a logical explanation? Is it possible that the flashlight was simply being blown around by the wind?

No report of any finger printing done on anything as far as I know. And yet this was to become a criminal investigation  !  ?

I think the scene around the tent in particular was lacking any kind of preservation when discovered by the search and rescue party.  Without accurate sketches of where things were we have to rely on witness testimonies which are not accurate.  There is still important information there but it should be treated with caution.  One thing is becoming clear, the lack of any kind of foot prints around the immediate area of the tent does not mean anything.

We know all this  ! ?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 15, 2019, 04:18:00 PM
Anyone have any thoughts on how Luda was found? Her body position against the rocks in the stream, arms tretched above her head.  Did she die there, or did her body slip down when the snow thawed?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on February 16, 2019, 04:32:49 AM
Anyone have any thoughts on how Luda was found? Her body position against the rocks in the stream, arms tretched above her head.  Did she die there, or did her body slip down when the snow thawed?
Continuing with the NO2 theory. One of the rescuers noted that there was less snow downhill than expected, from memory "as if it had melted". This with the persistent footsteps, general lack of frostbite even though lightly dressed and sastrugi supports the theory that the air (and snow) was warm, being blown downwind from a hot source that was also producing nitrogen oxides of course. So there is a case for the following. That the snow below the tent was to some extent sheltered from this warm air but further across the hill there was more melting and hence more melt water which of course ends up in the ravine. The ravine was then full of packed snow as it was found by the rescue team weeks later. But the melt water had created a "cave" with an unstable roof above. The ravine deaths were caused by the group falling through the roof, probably some landing on top of others and/or the roof falling on top of them afterwards. Some like Rustem and possibly Zinaida could get out but the ravine four were dead or too injured to move. The remaining three went to get supplies from the tent to assist but never returned. The close grouping of the bodies is from the water then and later in May pushing the bodies along until the ice and rocks stopped them. Hence they where found so close together. When they dug down to find the rav4 they noted that the snow was very compact - it taking a team of men all day to dig down 4? metres. This will be due to the melt water warming the snow allowing it to settle and increasing its density which contributing to it's crushing force. So i think Lyudmila slipped over the edge either because the blockage had melted or the diggers disturbed it.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: WAB on February 16, 2019, 01:52:56 PM
Anyone have any thoughts on how Luda was found? Her body position against the rocks in the stream, arms tretched above her head.  Did she die there, or did her body slip down when the snow thawed?

Thoughts are available.
It could be as consequence of that unique who had no trauma in this four of people - Alexander Kolevatov - carry she from place where it has got wound and has temporarily put down she on this place. After that he did den.
The body could not slide off. It was possible so that is simple thaw through snow under she because it has washed away the thawed water and she has fallen to stone.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sug2h on February 16, 2019, 09:02:05 PM
But the melt water had created a "cave" with an unstable roof above. The ravine deaths were caused by the group falling through the roof, probably some landing on top of others and/or the roof falling on top of them afterwards
Now that's an interesting theory about the ravine!  thumb1  Snow can get pretty heavy when it's compacted, so this roof could be "the large mass" that hit Lyudmila and Semyon, causing those fatal injuries. But would this cave be deep enough, though? 
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on February 17, 2019, 12:01:04 AM
But the melt water had created a "cave" with an unstable roof above. The ravine deaths were caused by the group falling through the roof, probably some landing on top of others and/or the roof falling on top of them afterwards
Now that's an interesting theory about the ravine!  thumb1  Snow can get pretty heavy when it's compacted, so this roof could be "the large mass" that hit Lyudmila and Semyon, causing those fatal injuries. But would this cave be deep enough, though?
Apparently a cubic metre of powder snow weighs 60kg but when compacted can weigh 200kg or even 300kg. Ice even more or course (nearly 1000kg?). If the ravine is 5 metres deep then one cubic metre falling 4 metres could create those injuries or a larger mass moving less distance. Compacted snow wouldn't create much tissue damage.

Someone else has posed the excellent question - "if the ravine was full of snow at the end of Feb, how was it empty of snow at the beginning of Feb?" this in Siberia of course. This is an excellent question and the answer would seem to be one of :-
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 17, 2019, 12:47:18 AM
Some interesting thoughts and ideas. 

So Kelevatov carries his injured friends and puts them there.  It's simple and makes sense.

A snow cave forms and they fall through sustaining the injuries. - possible

Snow falls on the bodies and causes the injuries - also possible

Going back to Luda's position.  Given that rigor Morris would set in not long after death. Is it possible that she could have moved after death into that position?  Seems unlikelymtomme but interested in others thoughts?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: WAB on February 17, 2019, 11:44:14 AM
But the melt water had created a "cave" with an unstable roof above. The ravine deaths were caused by the group falling through the roof, probably some landing on top of others and/or the roof falling on top of them afterwards
Now that's an interesting theory about the ravine!  thumb1  Snow can get pretty heavy when it's compacted, so this roof could be "the large mass" that hit Lyudmila and Semyon, causing those fatal injuries. But would this cave be deep enough, though?
Apparently a cubic metre of powder snow weighs 60kg but when compacted can weigh 200kg or even 300kg.

On our measurements of density of snow in 2015 on this pass the cubic metre of powder snow weighed 358,1 kg of force or 351,227 kg of weight on 1 cubic metre.

Ice even more or course (nearly 1000kg?).

Ice there was not even when there was a snow impregnated with water in May.

If the ravine is 5 metres deep

Depth of coast is equal in that place where have found these 4 body is  2 … 2,5 m. Therefore big heights cannot be. In consequence documents it is written: “They have been dug out from under snow by depth from 2,5 metres to 2 metres.” (c) if deeper sizes it exists only as result different conversation with distortion have been resulted.

then one cubic metre falling 4 metres could create those injuries or a larger mass moving less distance. Compacted snow wouldn't create much tissue damage.

I can add only that snow at thawing is below washed by away water, leaving the big cavities, instead of falls downwards entirely. In a photo such result in the form of the big tunnels is visible:
 
(https://d.radikal.ru/d00/1902/1f/111a96001d19t.jpg) (https://d.radikal.ru/d00/1902/1f/111a96001d19.jpg)

But all top part of snow remained at that height where it was when snow has settled to the biggest density.
Therefore at snow thawing its top part does not fall downwards because the snow adjoining to coast forms an arch.

Snow drops out everywhere gradually. It can be anywhere, though on Ural Mountains, though on Siberia, though on Alaska, though on California, though on Sahara (if there it sometime was).
Therefore in its January there was a little. There is a big difference where there is a concrete place for snow loss in mountains. For example, in a valley of its river Auspia was much (Dyatlov writes that it was 1,2 … 1,5 metres) - and still it is possible to find places where it was and 2 metres as we met places in January 2015 and February 2014. And at a cedar in 1959, it was no more than 30 … 40 cm (it spoke Vladislav Karelin and Michael Sharavin). Then snow gradually collected and to the beginning of its May was already about 1 metre on flat places and much more in ravines.

Someone else has posed the excellent question - "if the ravine was full of snow at the end of Feb, how was it empty of snow at the beginning of Feb?" this in Siberia of course.

In the end of February of snow was more than in the beginning, but it is not enough. A body of Zina have found under snow about 10 cm, and a body of Rustem have found under snow nearby 30 cm and Distance between these places of equally 150 metres see. It turns out that on distance in 400 foots of snow became in 3 times more! It means that it is postponed non-uniformly in different places.
But even if over bodies in a ravine there was no more than 30 cm (12 inches) that them could not see. They were under snow.


This is an excellent question and the answer would seem to be one of :-
  • it wasn't empty (and supports the ice cave theory) however we then have a problem with the den being found on the ravine floor.
I already wrote that in the end of February of snow was little quantity. Even now, when it is more than it there a cave it is impossible to dig snow friable and it is sprinkled.
Den it is found on a thickness of snow 30 it see means that even if it was condensed, its height was no more than 35 … 40 cm (no more than 1,5 foots)

The den could be explained away as a previously constructed shelter for mansi hunters except that they didn't seem to hunt up there (dead mountain).[/li][/list]

Mansi there do not go. Their line of hunting is approximately in 15 km (~ 10 mi) from pass. On a grief and nearby they do not have object for hunting.

   
  • it was empty and the den was built by them. Now this is the big one. If the wind drift could fill this ravine in three weeks or so how could it possibly be empty at the beginning of Feb?
It can be the same as it has closed bodies of Ziny and Rustema snow of a different thickness. The more low on a slope the more snow takes down downwards a wind. In a wood zone snow is not transferred any more by a wind. There all deposits be collect all time.

And the only possible answer imo is that it had been previously filled up by the Siberian winter but something had recently emptied it of  snow.... Now if we have theory of warm or hot air blowing across the hill fitting other evidence it would seem that this case would support that theory also.[/li]
[/list]

No. There blow same a wind, as around. From the West warmer air comes, but it does not mean that it absolutely warm. For example, if the average temperature of February is equal in this place-23...-27С (- 10 …-17 F)/ If from the West air blow contain temperature -15 …-18C (0 …-5 F).it is up 5 … 10 degrees "more warmly" by Celsius and up 10 … 12 degrees by Farenheit. It air blow is “warmly”.  grin1
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: WAB on February 17, 2019, 11:51:52 AM
Some interesting thoughts and ideas. 

So Kelevatov carries his injured friends and puts them there.  It's simple and makes sense.

A snow cave forms and they fall through sustaining the injuries. - possible

There, where have found these 4 people it is impossible dig out a cave. Snow in this place very friable and it is showered when it dig. In 1959 was not enough snow. It is told by very knowing person and the participant of searches Vladislav Karelin.
Therefore there it is impossible to receive traumas in a position of principle.
They have been received near to this place, but not on this place.

Snow falls on the bodies and causes the injuries - also possible

Let's spread out all on the different parties …
Snowfalls a field of failure Dyatlov group have closed bodies so that them have not seen and have not found. It is very big territory of searches, also it is impossible to check up all.
Traumas have turned out before they have got on this place.

Going back to Luda's position.  Given that rigor Morris would set in not long after death. Is it possible that she could have moved after death into that position?  Seems unlikelymtomme but interested in others thoughts?

This case is not such as usual happens in the conditions of a city. But here there are other conditions, therefore it can quite be.
If to consider that water washed Lyudmila's body already long, and snow under it has thawed because of the same water cadaveric frosts (severity of Morris) could be allowed to (be gone) when the general has taken place body defrosting. For this body specially thaw (defreeze) in heat before opening.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sug2h on February 17, 2019, 11:56:29 AM
Mansi there do not go. Their line of hunting is approximately in 15 km (~ 10 mi) from pass. On a grief and nearby they do not have object for hunting.

WAB, I have read that too, but it contradicts the fact that a Mansi man and his dog found the clues that led to the discovery of the RAV4.

"When in May the snow start melting a Mansi native Kurikov with his dog noticed some cut branches that were forming sort of trail which they followed and 50 m from the cedar they found black cotton sweat pants, the right leg cut off with a knife."

So I guess the Mansi people do go there.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: WAB on February 17, 2019, 01:47:52 PM
Mansi there do not go. Their line of hunting is approximately in 15 km (~ 10 mi) from pass. On a grief and nearby they do not have object for hunting.

WAB, I have read that too, but it contradicts the fact that a Mansi man and his dog found the clues that led to the discovery of the RAV4.

"When in May the snow start melting a Mansi native Kurikov with his dog noticed some cut branches that were forming sort of trail which they followed and 50 m from the cedar they found black cotton sweat pants, the right leg cut off with a knife."

So I guess the Mansi people do go there.

Dear sug2h !
Let's understand under separate points of this fact.
1.I wrote that usual life (hunting and stage of deer after 1950) Mansi there do not go because this it is not present such necessity.
2.Those Mansi about which you write were specially and for good payment are employed for this purpose what to participate in search.
These are different positions.
I collected the information directly at local Mansi. For example, at the man which father participated in search expedition.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 17, 2019, 03:56:52 PM
Mansi there do not go. Their line of hunting is approximately in 15 km (~ 10 mi) from pass. On a grief and nearby they do not have object for hunting.

WAB, I have read that too, but it contradicts the fact that a Mansi man and his dog found the clues that led to the discovery of the RAV4.

"When in May the snow start melting a Mansi native Kurikov with his dog noticed some cut branches that were forming sort of trail which they followed and 50 m from the cedar they found black cotton sweat pants, the right leg cut off with a knife."

So I guess the Mansi people do go there.

Ok, so I think what you are saying is that it's likely that Kolevatov moved his injured friends there, and that it's quite possible that during the thaw Luda's body moved into that position.

Ok thanks.  Seems reasonable.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on February 17, 2019, 05:09:05 PM
But the melt water had created a "cave" with an unstable roof above. The ravine deaths were caused by the group falling through the roof, probably some landing on top of others and/or the roof falling on top of them afterwards
Now that's an interesting theory about the ravine!  thumb1  Snow can get pretty heavy when it's compacted, so this roof could be "the large mass" that hit Lyudmila and Semyon, causing those fatal injuries. But would this cave be deep enough, though?


NOTE ; Obviously at some stage of this Dyatlov story everyone will be drawn to the serious injuries to one person in particular, DUBININA.  And the injuries that stand out are [1] MISSING EYES [2] MISSING TONGUE [3] CRUSHED RIBS. [3] would have needed a concentrated force so avalanche or snow fall can virtually be ruled out.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on February 17, 2019, 05:15:39 PM
Some interesting thoughts and ideas. 

So Kelevatov carries his injured friends and puts them there.  It's simple and makes sense.

A snow cave forms and they fall through sustaining the injuries. - possible

Snow falls on the bodies and causes the injuries - also possible

Going back to Luda's position.  Given that rigor Morris would set in not long after death. Is it possible that she could have moved after death into that position?  Seems unlikelymtomme but interested in others thoughts?

I would have thought that it was more likely that the 4 at the ravine made it there on their own effort. The serious injuries wouldnt have been caused by any kind of snow fall at the Ravine because the Ravine isnt substantial enough. Snow falling on bodies wouldnt have caused those extraordinary injuries. I would have thought that DUBININA met her demise at the Ravine.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on February 18, 2019, 01:31:42 AM
Hi thanks for your reply.

If the ravine is 5 metres deep

Depth of coast is equal in that place where have found these 4 body is  2 … 2,5 m. Therefore big heights cannot be. In consequence documents it is written: “They have been dug out from under snow by depth from 2,5 metres to 2 metres.” (c) if deeper sizes it exists only as result different conversation with distortion have been resulted.
But could they have been injured upstream and then carried downstream? Is there a bigger fall upstream?



In the end of February of snow was more than in the beginning, but it is not enough. A body of Zina have found under snow about 10 cm, and a body of Rustem have found under snow nearby 30 cm and Distance between these places of equally 150 metres see. It turns out that on distance in 400 foots of snow became in 3 times more! It means that it is postponed non-uniformly in different places.
But even if over bodies in a ravine there was no more than 30 cm (12 inches) that them could not see. They were under snow.
My assumption here is that wind drift can fill the ravine quickly, but you seem to be saying that in the forest this is not likely? So the den was somehow accessible under 2m of snow.



No. There blow same a wind, as around. From the West warmer air comes, but it does not mean that it absolutely warm. For example, if the average temperature of February is equal in this place-23...-27С (- 10 …-17 F)/ If from the West air blow contain temperature -15 …-18C (0 …-5 F).it is up 5 … 10 degrees "more warmly" by Celsius and up 10 … 12 degrees by Farenheit. It air blow is “warmly”.  grin1
The theory is that the warm wind would be from the electro magnetism producing the NO2 as evidenced by the sastrugi, hot spot, lack of frostbite etc. Warm means above freezing, maybe +20C!


Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sug2h on February 20, 2019, 11:03:16 AM
Dear sug2h !
Let's understand under separate points of this fact.
1.I wrote that usual life (hunting and stage of deer after 1950) Mansi there do not go because this it is not present such necessity.
2.Those Mansi about which you write were specially and for good payment are employed for this purpose what to participate in search.
These are different positions.
I collected the information directly at local Mansi. For example, at the man which father participated in search expedition.
Thank you WAB for making it clear for me, now I understand!!!  thumb1 thumb1
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on February 22, 2019, 04:01:50 PM
Kolevatov's Fink.  The knife was found in the tent.  The sheath for the knife was later found in a place outside the tent.

Did Kolevatov draw his knife from the sheath outside, throw the sheath to the ground and then went into the tent with his knife?  Or maybe he threw the knife back into the tent?

Did he draw the knife inside the tent, and sheath was dragged outside by people's feet as they rapidly left the tent?

Had he lost his sheath outside while he was using his knife?

Why had he drawn his knife from its sheath?  Was he using it to cut the loin?

Why didn't he take the knife with him?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Clacon on March 13, 2019, 10:01:25 AM
Hi All, in particular Starman - new here and was just reading through the post you started entitled "Specific Details". Hoping I'm not overstepping here being such a novice, but here it goes:

Specific details are so important and are what I'm into (lol) which is what drew me to your post in the first place. With regards to the fink and knives in general (and adding to the mystery in the first place) I am not entirely sure we can trust searchers' or authorities' accounts of what was found in the tent, outside the tent, at the cedar, in the ravine and areas inbetween.


I don't know if its because there's a coverup or they felt they were still alive and focussed on finding them instead of cataloguing everything they found, but there is a frustrating lack of or conflict between, specific details and evidence found and Igor's jacket is a great example of this.


Getting back to the first point, are there ANY accounts of any cutting tools found outside of the tent?? There are accounts of branches being cut and the tops of shrubs also (plus clothes were cut from corpses), so what did they use if it was all left in the tent???


The accounts of the whereabouts of Kolevatov's fink, maybe perhaps as was concluded with accounts of the tent in earlier posts, I think is fallible.  Perhaps if this is a coverup, someone planted the knife in the tent? Perhaps the account of it being in the tent and the sheath out of it are not accurate?


What do you believe??


Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on March 13, 2019, 03:53:19 PM
Hi All, in particular Starman - new here and was just reading through the post you started entitled "Specific Details". Hoping I'm not overstepping here being such a novice, but here it goes:

Specific details are so important and are what I'm into (lol) which is what drew me to your post in the first place. With regards to the fink and knives in general (and adding to the mystery in the first place) I am not entirely sure we can trust searchers' or authorities' accounts of what was found in the tent, outside the tent, at the cedar, in the ravine and areas inbetween.


I don't know if its because there's a coverup or they felt they were still alive and focussed on finding them instead of cataloguing everything they found, but there is a frustrating lack of or conflict between, specific details and evidence found and Igor's jacket is a great example of this.


Getting back to the first point, are there ANY accounts of any cutting tools found outside of the tent?? There are accounts of branches being cut and the tops of shrubs also (plus clothes were cut from corpses), so what did they use if it was all left in the tent???


The accounts of the whereabouts of Kolevatov's fink, maybe perhaps as was concluded with accounts of the tent in earlier posts, I think is fallible.  Perhaps if this is a coverup, someone planted the knife in the tent? Perhaps the account of it being in the tent and the sheath out of it are not accurate?


What do you believe??

You are right to be cautious about the information presented on the scene at the tent and the camp.  It is likely that some of the evidence wasn't properly preserved.  When the search and rescue team found the tent, they still hoped that the tourists would be found alive, so were unlikely to treat the scene with the level of care required.  I agree that the fink and the sheath may have been a result of how the scene was treated and the items including the tent recovered.  If my memory serves me right, the sheath was found only after the snow had melted.  There are 3 witness statements that place Igors jacket in different places, including shoved in a hole in the side of the tent, just outside the entrance and 10 metres from the entrance, so yes it's difficult to make solid conclusions.

I think the cedar and ravine are probably better preserved.

There investigation appears to have a lot of missing information and seems unreasonably sloppy, which does lead people to think there was some kind of cover up.

They had at least one knife.  Rustem Slobodin had a pen knife in his pocket when he was found.  There may have been another knife.  The fir trees around the cedar appEared to be cut with a knife.

I think the details are important.  It's easy to to overlook things  that seems simple and obvious but may hold additional information.  For instance the black and grimy appearance of Dyatlov's hands.  Some think the colour is due to frost  bite of the skin (could be) but it also might indicate that he didn't die before he got to the cedar tree and that those hands did a lot of work before he died.  Climbing trees, digging dens, cutting tree branches or making a fire.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sug2h on March 20, 2019, 08:26:16 PM
So I have a question regarding another specific detail.

When in may 1959, Kurikov and his dog found the clues about the location of the Rav4 bodies, they found 2 pieces of clothing: part of a sweat pants and part of a sweater.
My question is: how come these pieces of clothing were ON TOP of the snow? (or almost)
Compare these 2 pictures, you will see that the den and the other pieces of clothing are burried deep, under FEET of snow... I don't understand how the sweat pants and the sweater could be so visible for Kurikov.

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-04.jpg)

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-08.jpg)
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 21, 2019, 12:46:43 AM
So I have a question regarding another specific detail.

When in may 1959, Kurikov and his dog found the clues about the location of the Rav4 bodies, they found 2 pieces of clothing: part of a sweat pants and part of a sweater.
My question is: how come these pieces of clothing were ON TOP of the snow? (or almost)
Compare these 2 pictures, you will see that the den and the other pieces of clothing are burried deep, under FEET of snow... I don't understand how the sweat pants and the sweater could be so visible for Kurikov.

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-04.jpg)

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-08.jpg)
A plausible narrative is that they tore some of the clothing retrieved from the 2 Yuris to make seats for the den and these were redundant/not used. That they were found on top of the snow strengthens the argument that the level of snow in the ravine didn't change.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Clacon on March 21, 2019, 06:54:42 AM
So bizarre looking at that picture of the clothes on the branches (the 4 seats) in the den. They have no snow covering them, but the branches do. It was obviously recreated to take a picture right?

God knows what else was.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 21, 2019, 07:20:59 AM
So bizarre looking at that picture of the clothes on the branches (the 4 seats) in the den. They have no snow covering them, but the branches do. It was obviously recreated to take a picture right?

God knows what else was.
It's reasonable that in digging the den out they moved the clothing to look under it? They've also dug a trench along the side presumably before uncovering the seats?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: GeneralFailure on March 21, 2019, 07:38:57 AM
So bizarre looking at that picture of the clothes on the branches (the 4 seats) in the den. They have no snow covering them, but the branches do. It was obviously recreated to take a picture right?
God knows what else was.

It's not bizarre. It is impossible (my opinion). Clothes that have spent 3 months under 4 meters of packed snow are full of snow, frozen. In the picture we see normal, clean clothes. Also the piece of clothing on top of the snow, the others being located 4 meters under it. Impossible. At the moment of death, all the pieces of clothing were at the same level. In the meanwhile, it snowed a lot so ALL of them were covered with 4 meters of snow. There's no way one of them was teleported on top of the snow, the rest remaining 4 meters below.
We are looking at a very bad scenario.
In my opinion the entire scene is a setup.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on March 21, 2019, 09:33:54 AM
So I have a question regarding another specific detail.

When in may 1959, Kurikov and his dog found the clues about the location of the Rav4 bodies, they found 2 pieces of clothing: part of a sweat pants and part of a sweater.
My question is: how come these pieces of clothing were ON TOP of the snow? (or almost)
Compare these 2 pictures, you will see that the den and the other pieces of clothing are burried deep, under FEET of snow... I don't understand how the sweat pants and the sweater could be so visible for Kurikov.

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-04.jpg)

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-08.jpg)

It’s a good question.  I suppose it could be explained by snow drifting to different depths?

Regards
Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sug2h on March 21, 2019, 09:07:30 PM
yes, I thought of that too. But then, another question comes up: how come these 2 pieces of clothing, if they were at a different spot where the snow didn't cumulate, were a clue for finding the den?
I mean, the guys seem to have found it very precisely. Look at the picture. They only shoveled this area! Several feet deep of snow shoveled, and bam! directly on the spot of the den... how bizarre...

The more I think of it, and the less it seems possible.

And if I add to this the new picture revealed recently on Russian Channel 1, I am tempted to conclude that the whole ravine area is staged.
I believe the man on the new picture is Aleksander Kolevatov, and he has clearly not just been taken out of the creek, otherwise his clothes would be wet (and would appear darker on the picture, just like on the May pictures)
I think the Rav4 have been discovered in February like the other ones, and probably closer to their teammates, and the rescue team decided to stage the ravine area. Why? Well, to hide something, obviously... I'm not sure what, but it must have to do with the wounds, since the Rav4 have the most bizarre wounds of the group... I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Monika on March 21, 2019, 11:59:17 PM
What was the exact depth of the den?

Looks like about 3m? I wonder how long it took for four people to build it with bare hands? Can anyone estimate it? dunno1  It had to be really hard work, I can't even image it, make it without gloves, barefoot, in despair, perhaps they were being driven by adrenaline.

The fact that the den was just so big that four people could fit there means they didn't count on the return of the trio. They were divided into two groups and each of them dealt with their situation separately? Or after the trio did not return for a long time, the four decided that they would build the den because they already knew the trio could not return to the tent?
Either way, the four seem to have survived as the last.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on March 22, 2019, 12:07:14 AM
yes, I thought of that too. But then, another question comes up: how come these 2 pieces of clothing, if they were at a different spot where the snow didn't cumulate, were a clue for finding the den?
I mean, the guys seem to have found it very precisely. Look at the picture. They only shoveled this area! Several feet deep of snow shoveled, and bam! directly on the spot of the den... how bizarre...

The more I think of it, and the less it seems possible.

And if I add to this the new picture revealed recently on Russian Channel 1, I am tempted to conclude that the whole ravine area is staged.
I believe the man on the new picture is Aleksander Kolevatov, and he has clearly not just been taken out of the creek, otherwise his clothes would be wet (and would appear darker on the picture, just like on the May pictures)
I think the Rav4 have been discovered in February like the other ones, and probably closer to their teammates, and the rescue team decided to stage the ravine area. Why? Well, to hide something, obviously... I'm not sure what, but it must have to do with the wounds, since the Rav4 have the most bizarre wounds of the group... I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

If the new photo is Kolevatov, then that would be a significant finding.  One way to confirm is to try to match the clothes of the bodies and also look at other evidence on the clothing.   

I'm not an expert on tracking so can't really add much as to how they knew exactly where to dig.

It is interesting that the rag 4 had the most serious injuries and were the hardest to find.  However it could easily be explained if they had got those injuries and the den was built to keep them sheltered as they could not return to the tent.  The others then attempted to return but failed to get there?

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 22, 2019, 04:35:13 AM
So I have a question regarding another specific detail.

When in may 1959, Kurikov and his dog found the clues about the location of the Rav4 bodies, they found 2 pieces of clothing: part of a sweat pants and part of a sweater.
My question is: how come these pieces of clothing were ON TOP of the snow? (or almost)
Compare these 2 pictures, you will see that the den and the other pieces of clothing are burried deep, under FEET of snow... I don't understand how the sweat pants and the sweater could be so visible for Kurikov.

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-04.jpg)

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-08.jpg)
A plausible narrative is that they tore some of the clothing retrieved from the 2 Yuris to make seats for the den and these were redundant/not used. That they were found on top of the snow strengthens the argument that the level of snow in the ravine didn't change.
Another narrative is that (assuming the crushed in the den by extreme force theory) any loose items would have been ejected from the den and thrown into the air landing on top of the snow.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 22, 2019, 06:26:29 AM
However it could easily be explained if they had got those injuries and the den was built to keep them sheltered as they could not return to the tent. 
No it doesn't fit, the den was built for able bodied seated occupants, not people with flail chests or crushed skulls.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on March 22, 2019, 09:34:53 AM
However it could easily be explained if they had got those injuries and the den was built to keep them sheltered as they could not return to the tent. 
No it doesn't fit, the den was built for able bodied seated occupants, not people with flail chests or crushed skulls.

We don’t really know that it was built for able bodied people.  The seats were just a reconstruction.

Regards
Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 22, 2019, 10:10:16 AM
However it could easily be explained if they had got those injuries and the den was built to keep them sheltered as they could not return to the tent. 
No it doesn't fit, the den was built for able bodied seated occupants, not people with flail chests or crushed skulls.

We don’t really know that it was built for able bodied people.  The seats were just a reconstruction.

Regards
Star man
Looks like they found four seats to me.(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-169.jpg)

Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sug2h on March 22, 2019, 01:01:54 PM
Quote
Another narrative is that (assuming the crushed in the den by extreme force theory) any loose items would have been ejected from the den and thrown into the air landing on top of the snow.
Well, if the clothes were thrown in the air February 1 or 2, then they would have been under feet of snow in May. Just like the den.

Quote
The fact that the den was just so big that four people could fit there means they didn't count on the return of the trio. They were divided into two groups and each of them dealt with their situation separately? Or after the trio did not return for a long time, the four decided that they would build the den because they already knew the trio could not return to the tent?
Or maybe this den was for the group of 3, and another den was built for the Rav4, and was not found. (carried away by the river?)

Or this den is a setup.

Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 23, 2019, 04:47:03 AM
Quote
Another narrative is that (assuming the crushed in the den by extreme force theory) any loose items would have been ejected from the den and thrown into the air landing on top of the snow.
Well, if the clothes were thrown in the air February 1 or 2, then they would have been under feet of snow in May. Just like the den.It's my assumption that the snow depth in the ravine was constant through the winter. This is a sub polar climate. The ravine filled up with snow in say October/November and then when it was full the wind pushed the snow along elsewhere. So the snow depth didn't change from December to June.

Quote
The fact that the den was just so big that four people could fit there means they didn't count on the return of the trio. They were divided into two groups and each of them dealt with their situation separately? Or after the trio did not return for a long time, the four decided that they would build the den because they already knew the trio could not return to the tent?
Or maybe this den was for the group of 3, and another den was built for the Rav4, and was not found. (carried away by the river?)

Or this den is a setup.Maybe they kept a watch at the fire and rotated usage of the den? I don't think the den was a setup. They died in the den, under the snow.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: User45 on March 23, 2019, 12:02:10 PM
Did all the cloth found in the den also ALL belong to the hikers?

The tree branches were cut (thick tree braches), but this I have read was supposedly only possible with a small axe? I cannot see how such thick branches can be cut with a pocket knife? Or one could have fallen from the top of the tree and fell on the branches with his body causing it to split but would this be the case? My question is: Where is this axe? Wasn't one axe missing in the tent?

Please correct me if I am wrong with my information
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on March 23, 2019, 06:07:29 PM
However it could easily be explained if they had got those injuries and the den was built to keep them sheltered as they could not return to the tent. 
No it doesn't fit, the den was built for able bodied seated occupants, not people with flail chests or crushed skulls.

We don’t really know that it was built for able bodied people.  The seats were just a reconstruction.

Regards
Star man
Looks like they found four seats to me.(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-169.jpg)

I thought that the four seats, or pieces of clothing were put there by the rescue team trying to reconstruct tHe den? 

Look at the positions of the clothes on the branches.  They are about as far away from each other as you can get.  In the four corners of the rectangular branch base.  Do you really think that in those conditions they would  try to keep as far apart as possible?  Doesn't seem right to me.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on March 23, 2019, 07:09:03 PM
If I remember correctly, only one or two items of clothing were said to have been found under the snow and on top of the reported sticks making up the den floor.  The other articles of clothing were found on top of the snow some distance away between the ravine and the cedar.  There are other photos of the 'den floor' showing the sticks packed down, then at some point the search crew fluffed up the sticks and placed the other clothing in the picture shown above.  The sticks shown in the picture are said to be from juvenile trees (think 3 to 4 feet tall) and are not evergreen.  If I recall they were spruce?  lt is apparent in the photos these are basically twigs which would have been easy to snap off by hand.l, especially if you tear downward where they meet the trunk.

Hope this helps. 
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 24, 2019, 02:26:55 AM
However it could easily be explained if they had got those injuries and the den was built to keep them sheltered as they could not return to the tent. 
No it doesn't fit, the den was built for able bodied seated occupants, not people with flail chests or crushed skulls.

We don’t really know that it was built for able bodied people.  The seats were just a reconstruction.

Regards
Star man
Looks like they found four seats to me.(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-169.jpg)

I thought that the four seats, or pieces of clothing were put there by the rescue team trying to reconstruct tHe den? 

Look at the positions of the clothes on the branches.  They are about as far away from each other as you can get.  In the four corners of the rectangular branch base.  Do you really think that in those conditions they would  try to keep as far apart as possible?  Doesn't seem right to me.

Regards

Star man
I think that's how they found it. There's several photos of "the uncovering".
Nicolai was found with his jacket unbuttoned and his gloves in his pockets, it wasn't that cold.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: User45 on March 24, 2019, 05:31:37 AM
If I remember correctly, only one or two items of clothing were said to have been found under the snow and on top of the reported sticks making up the den floor.  The other articles of clothing were found on top of the snow some distance away between the ravine and the cedar.  There are other photos of the 'den floor' showing the sticks packed down, then at some point the search crew fluffed up the sticks and placed the other clothing in the picture shown above.  The sticks shown in the picture are said to be from juvenile trees (think 3 to 4 feet tall) and are not evergreen.  If I recall they were spruce?  lt is apparent in the photos these are basically twigs which would have been easy to snap off by hand.l, especially if you tear downward where they meet the trunk.

Hope this helps.

Hello,

I absolutely appreciate your response!

Do you know how these branches were possibly broken? I am trying to have a better understanding with the details of the cedar tree.

(https://i.ibb.co/SKkP6kt/cdtuykdtukd.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gD03r0S)

(https://i.ibb.co/rZTYZbh/tuykfdtukfduk-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/19h19sN)

And if I understand correctly there were no 'undentified' clothing found that could possibly not belong to one of the hikers?

Thanks again!

Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on March 24, 2019, 06:14:26 AM
No sir, this photo clearly shows it in a less fluffed and staged/reconstructed state.

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-13.jpg)
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on March 24, 2019, 04:05:20 PM
If I remember correctly, only one or two items of clothing were said to have been found under the snow and on top of the reported sticks making up the den floor.  The other articles of clothing were found on top of the snow some distance away between the ravine and the cedar.  There are other photos of the 'den floor' showing the sticks packed down, then at some point the search crew fluffed up the sticks and placed the other clothing in the picture shown above.  The sticks shown in the picture are said to be from juvenile trees (think 3 to 4 feet tall) and are not evergreen.  If I recall they were spruce?  lt is apparent in the photos these are basically twigs which would have been easy to snap off by hand.l, especially if you tear downward where they meet the trunk.

Hope this helps.

Hello,

I absolutely appreciate your response!

Do you know how these branches were possibly broken? I am trying to have a better understanding with the details of the cedar tree.

(https://i.ibb.co/SKkP6kt/cdtuykdtukd.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gD03r0S)

(https://i.ibb.co/rZTYZbh/tuykfdtukfduk-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/19h19sN)

And if I understand correctly there were no 'undentified' clothing found that could possibly not belong to one of the hikers?

Thanks again!

The particular broken branch on the cedar that you are highlighting looks as if it has been pulled and snapped off.  I'm not an expert but I remember reading somewhere that the cedar tree branches are not too hard to break?

Regards

Star man

Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on March 27, 2019, 04:21:05 PM
Some thoughts on Igor, Rustem and Zina. 

If they were all together heading back to the tent, and one of them can't go any further. Why would the others continue?

Let's say Igor falls first being less well dressed.  What would the other two do?  Would they try to help Igor?  Attempt to support him and carry him?  Would they stay with him until he died?  Or would they just leave him and continue on.  Igor was much closer to the cedar than the tent when he stopped.  Why would you continue on to the tent knowing that one of your friends has already collapsed after a short distance and you still have a significant way to go?  Why wouldn't you stop and realise that you are unlikely to make it, then turn around and go back to the cedar/ravine?

Where they really together travelling up the slope toward the tent?

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 27, 2019, 04:24:44 PM
Some thoughts on Igor, Rustem and Zina. 

If they were all together heading back to the tent, and one of them can't go any further. Why would the others continue?

Let's say Igor falls first being less well dressed.  What would the other two do?  Would they try to help Igor?  Attempt to support him and carry him?  Would they stay with him until he died?  Or would they just leave him and continue on.  Igor was much closer to the cedar than the tent when he stopped.  Why would you continue on to the tent knowing that one of your friends has already collapsed after a short distance and you still have a significant way to go?  Why wouldn't you stop and realise that you are unlikely to make it, then turn around and go back to the cedar/ravine?

Where they really together travelling up the slope toward the tent?

Regards

Star man
I'd opt for Zina and Rustem travelling together, Igor separately. They were on a path heading for the tent.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Clacon on March 28, 2019, 10:49:51 AM
Hmmm, I don't know...my woman's intuition tells me that Igor had a thing for Zina - why else would he have a photo of her on his person??

Because it seems the feeling wasn't mutual (based on her diary entries...not explicitly stated that she wasn't interested or even that he expressed interest, just the lack of mention of him in particular in her diary makes me think this), I think he would have stuck with her; attempting to keep her safe. Or maybe she did feel something for him and stuck with him? Either way, I don't think its random that they were found grouped together.

Rustem's body being so close to them is a mystery...and then there's evidence that all 3 were involved in some sort of fist fight....perhaps I'm wrong about Zina and Igor - perhaps they fought and somehow Rustem was involved?

How many agree that they never made it to the ravine? Someone mentioned they help build it and then went back to the tent....however if the den was relatively warm and they were making a perilous journey back up a windy slope....wouldn't those in the ravine have given them any extra clothing??
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on March 28, 2019, 02:23:30 PM
Some thoughts on Igor, Rustem and Zina. 

If they were all together heading back to the tent, and one of them can't go any further. Why would the others continue?

Let's say Igor falls first being less well dressed.  What would the other two do?  Would they try to help Igor?  Attempt to support him and carry him?  Would they stay with him until he died?  Or would they just leave him and continue on.  Igor was much closer to the cedar than the tent when he stopped.  Why would you continue on to the tent knowing that one of your friends has already collapsed after a short distance and you still have a significant way to go?  Why wouldn't you stop and realise that you are unlikely to make it, then turn around and go back to the cedar/ravine?

Where they really together travelling up the slope toward the tent?

Regards

Star man

This question crops up now and again in the Forum. There is no way we can tell If they were going up or down the Mountain slope. All we know is that they were found head up towards their last campsite. They may have died going down the slope, how can we know  !  ? 
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on March 28, 2019, 02:25:59 PM
Hmmm, I don't know...my woman's intuition tells me that Igor had a thing for Zina - why else would he have a photo of her on his person??

Because it seems the feeling wasn't mutual (based on her diary entries...not explicitly stated that she wasn't interested or even that he expressed interest, just the lack of mention of him in particular in her diary makes me think this), I think he would have stuck with her; attempting to keep her safe. Or maybe she did feel something for him and stuck with him? Either way, I don't think its random that they were found grouped together.

Rustem's body being so close to them is a mystery...and then there's evidence that all 3 were involved in some sort of fist fight....perhaps I'm wrong about Zina and Igor - perhaps they fought and somehow Rustem was involved?

How many agree that they never made it to the ravine? Someone mentioned they help build it and then went back to the tent....however if the den was relatively warm and they were making a perilous journey back up a windy slope....wouldn't those in the ravine have given them any extra clothing??

What evidence is there that there was a fist fight  !  ?  We dont know if it was a Den as such.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on March 28, 2019, 04:25:20 PM
Hmmm, I don't know...my woman's intuition tells me that Igor had a thing for Zina - why else would he have a photo of her on his person??

Because it seems the feeling wasn't mutual (based on her diary entries...not explicitly stated that she wasn't interested or even that he expressed interest, just the lack of mention of him in particular in her diary makes me think this), I think he would have stuck with her; attempting to keep her safe. Or maybe she did feel something for him and stuck with him? Either way, I don't think its random that they were found grouped together.

Rustem's body being so close to them is a mystery...and then there's evidence that all 3 were involved in some sort of fist fight....perhaps I'm wrong about Zina and Igor - perhaps they fought and somehow Rustem was involved?

How many agree that they never made it to the ravine? Someone mentioned they help build it and then went back to the tent....however if the den was relatively warm and they were making a perilous journey back up a windy slope....wouldn't those in the ravine have given them any extra clothing??

I would agree that Dyatlov had a thing for Zina and may have been very protective of her.  There may have been a fight of some kind within the group, brought on by the stress of the situation and having to make life or death decisions.  Dyatlov was the leader, but under the circumstances they may have decided not to follow his survival plan and the group split.

I am beginning to think that they did not hang around until any of the other group members died, which would explain why they didn't have any clothes.  Saying that Dyatlov did have Yudin's sweater which Yudin gave to Krivonischenko.  Not sure how to explain that one without Dyatlov being at the cedar after Yuri K died.

I must admit its puzzling.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Monika on March 29, 2019, 12:06:01 AM
Hmmm, I don't know...my woman's intuition tells me that Igor had a thing for Zina - why else would he have a photo of her on his person??

Because it seems the feeling wasn't mutual (based on her diary entries...not explicitly stated that she wasn't interested or even that he expressed interest, just the lack of mention of him in particular in her diary makes me think this), I think he would have stuck with her; attempting to keep her safe. Or maybe she did feel something for him and stuck with him? Either way, I don't think its random that they were found grouped together.

Rustem's body being so close to them is a mystery...and then there's evidence that all 3 were involved in some sort of fist fight....perhaps I'm wrong about Zina and Igor - perhaps they fought and somehow Rustem was involved?

How many agree that they never made it to the ravine? Someone mentioned they help build it and then went back to the tent....however if the den was relatively warm and they were making a perilous journey back up a windy slope....wouldn't those in the ravine have given them any extra clothing??


Hello, here is my point of view.
Since the den was to build only four people, it is evident that the trio Igor, Zina and Rustem decided to address the situation of their own way.The group split, one managed by Igor and the other by Zolotarev. Why? I do not know. Pieces of clothing could be scattered on the way between the cedar and the den by the "ravine group" for the trio if they changed their minds and wanted to come to them later.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Clacon on March 29, 2019, 08:28:24 AM
Hey Monika - I think you're right. I think there was a division in the group and I think the 2 personalities that would have taken control were Dyatlov (being the expedition leader) and Zolotaryov (being the oldest by quite a few years and probably the most experienced).

I'm really not sure about Semyon - he's a mystery. I think I read somewhere on the website that he was quiet and sort stuck to himself. So it doesn't strike me that he tried to take control from the start and that there is "tension" between Igor and him in the pictures of them together. Of which there are not many - that may be telling in itself. However, based on his military experience and age, I think he would have been compelled to step up as a leader when things got bad.

I've always been suspicious of him though - why was he even there?? I'm not saying he murdered the group - but he's certainly sketchy enough to warrant suspicion. I think he "knew people" (and what about his supposed tattoos??!!). But that's all I can say for certain.

Star Man - thanks for backing me up! Lol. With respect to him having Yudin's/Krivonischenko's sweater....perhaps the Yuris' deaths are what triggered the group to split?

Sarapuk: we don't know there was a fistfight, however there is evidence of abrasions on all of Igor's knuckles. It even says "This is common injury in hand to hand fights. To get a better idea of the injuries just make a fist. This is the part of the hand which you use to hit someone." It also appears his face a little beaten up: 3.brown-red abrasions above the left eyebrow
4.minor abrasions on the left cheek
5.brown-red abrasions on both cheeks
6.dried blood on lips

All of Zina's knuckles also had abrasions, plus she had abrasions on her cheekbones and face. Rustem as well.

I know you're skeptical of the reports, but something was going on....either it was a fistfight or they got the hand injuries digging (??)….not sure how to explain the face abrasions, but perhaps it was the beginnings of frostbite or decay??
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on March 29, 2019, 02:50:30 PM
Hey Monika - I think you're right. I think there was a division in the group and I think the 2 personalities that would have taken control were Dyatlov (being the expedition leader) and Zolotaryov (being the oldest by quite a few years and probably the most experienced).

I'm really not sure about Semyon - he's a mystery. I think I read somewhere on the website that he was quiet and sort stuck to himself. So it doesn't strike me that he tried to take control from the start and that there is "tension" between Igor and him in the pictures of them together. Of which there are not many - that may be telling in itself. However, based on his military experience and age, I think he would have been compelled to step up as a leader when things got bad.

I've always been suspicious of him though - why was he even there?? I'm not saying he murdered the group - but he's certainly sketchy enough to warrant suspicion. I think he "knew people" (and what about his supposed tattoos??!!). But that's all I can say for certain.

Star Man - thanks for backing me up! Lol. With respect to him having Yudin's/Krivonischenko's sweater....perhaps the Yuris' deaths are what triggered the group to split?

Sarapuk: we don't know there was a fistfight, however there is evidence of abrasions on all of Igor's knuckles. It even says "This is common injury in hand to hand fights. To get a better idea of the injuries just make a fist. This is the part of the hand which you use to hit someone." It also appears his face a little beaten up: 3.brown-red abrasions above the left eyebrow
4.minor abrasions on the left cheek
5.brown-red abrasions on both cheeks
6.dried blood on lips

All of Zina's knuckles also had abrasions, plus she had abrasions on her cheekbones and face. Rustem as well.

I know you're skeptical of the reports, but something was going on....either it was a fistfight or they got the hand injuries digging (??)….not sure how to explain the face abrasions, but perhaps it was the beginnings of frostbite or decay??

Yes we know about the abrasion type injuries from the Autopsy Reports. But lets not forget that those who carried out the Autopsies didnt have much to go by, ie , they would have been told as much as we know. And we simply dont know if there was any fighting. Its not like your average pub brawl with lots of witnesses etc. The abrasion type injuries could have been the result of them hitting something other than another human. And the facial abrasion type injuries could have been the result of something hitting them in the face. Or there may be another explanation.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on July 03, 2019, 04:53:56 AM
The cedar.

There seems to be some puzzling things about the scene at the cedar.  Particularly when trying to understand the context of:

Who was there and when?
What the timeline was
The circumstances around the death of the two Yuris.

I think it is fair to assume that the two Yuris died there.

I also think it is fair to assume that they climbed the cedar given the location of scratches, bruises and abrasions.  Also the needles in Yuri Ds hair.

So if they arrived at the cedar with other group members who were probably better dressed, less likely to be suffering from frost bite, hypothermia and therefore more capable of climbing the cedar to collect fire wood or to look back towards the tent- why would the two Yuris have climbed the tree? Why would they not just rely on those in better shape?

So if they arrived at the cedar alone and managed to climb the tree and build a fire large enough to last an hour or so, why did they die of hypothermia given that they had a good fire going and why did Yuri K sustain a significant burn to his leg either during or after his death?

We know that at some point one or more members of the ravine 4 were there and they removed some of their clothing but we don’t know for sure if they were there before or after the Yuris died.

In either of the above scenarios there is something that doesn’t add up.

Even if the fire was made by others while  the two Yuris were struggling to survive why had the Yuris climbed the tree?

Were they trying to get away from someone or something and thought the tree would provide more safety?

If they were alone and climbed the tree to get fire wood how did they manage to make a good fire using matches and then die next to the fire when the fire was still sufficiently hot enough to cause severe burns to Yuri Ks leg?

Regards
Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on July 03, 2019, 08:53:07 AM
Another question:

Irrespective of whatever reason the group left the tent given the conditions and lack of good outer clothing the group would know they had a better chance of surviving if they stayed together and worked as a team. But there are indications that they split up on the slope?  If they did split up what reason(s) could there be for this?

Is it possible that someone or something was persuing them and they inadvertently split up while trying to evade them?

Regards
Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on July 03, 2019, 03:29:47 PM
There certainly is a puzzle regarding the CEDAR TREE. Along with the other BIG PUZZLES at THE TENT, THE SLOPE, THE SO CALLED RAVINE. My thoughts are that whoever climbed the Cedar Tree did so to avoid something, not to look out for something or to gather wood.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on July 03, 2019, 03:33:06 PM
Another question:

Irrespective of whatever reason the group left the tent given the conditions and lack of good outer clothing the group would know they had a better chance of surviving if they stayed together and worked as a team. But there are indications that they split up on the slope?  If they did split up what reason(s) could there be for this?

Is it possible that someone or something was persuing them and they inadvertently split up while trying to evade them?

Regards
Star man


I think that that is probably the case or near enough the case. Something scared them out of the Tent and likely followed them down the slope. Question is then WHAT  !  ? 
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on July 03, 2019, 04:01:49 PM
Another question:

Irrespective of whatever reason the group left the tent given the conditions and lack of good outer clothing the group would know they had a better chance of surviving if they stayed together and worked as a team. But there are indications that they split up on the slope?  If they did split up what reason(s) could there be for this?

Is it possible that someone or something was persuing them and they inadvertently split up while trying to evade them?

Regards
Star man


I think that that is probably the case or near enough the case. Something scared them out of the Tent and likely followed them down the slope. Question is then WHAT  !  ?

Yes.  That is what I am trying to understand too.   There are other scenarios that could  explain the scene at the cedar, but they become more and more unlikely and require a very specific set of events.

The most obvious reason for leaving the tent without shoes or outdoor gear is some kind of significant and immediate threat to life.

It seems to me on the face of it, that there is reasonable evidence/indications to suggest that group split up on the slope.  This flies in the face of all logical action that a group of skilled people who would have clearly understood their best options for survival.  Unless of course they were being pursued by the same threat that forcednthem from the tent and had to at some point scatter to evade that threat.

At the cedar - why did the Yuris climb that tree?  If it was for fire wood and they managed to make a fire then how come they died of hypothermia while the fire was still hot enough to burn them.  If other group members had been with them then  surely they would have climbed the tree to collect the wood?  And yet there is evidence that Yuris were in that tree.  So were they in the tree to evade the threat?

There is a single explanation that can answer all of the above stages of the event.

1. They left the tent in a hurry because there was a significant threat
2. They split up on the slope because there was a significant threat and they were forced to scatter in an act of self preservation.
3. The Yuris and maybe others, climed the cedar to find a place of safety away from the threat.

but what was the threat?

Maybe it's time to explore the Yeti theory in more detail.  Even if they don't exist  twitch7

Regards

Star man.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Morski on July 04, 2019, 12:02:00 AM
WAB said it in another comment, but Confucious words fit perfectly in the Yeti theme  - "It is difficult to find a black cat in a dark room. Especially when there is no cat in the room."   bigjoke
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Morski on July 04, 2019, 12:53:21 AM
Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on July 04, 2019, 05:44:55 AM
Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?

Yeah.  I think rational and irrational behaviour and decisions has to be considered.  But why would there be sudden step change in behaviour?  For example the scene inside the tent appears to be reasonably orderly (apart from the shoes).  Also it seems that the pamphlet (if it existed) was clearly written and logical and wouldn’t indicate anything abnormal.  Also they seemed to be in the process of eating or just finished eating which is quite a rational and orderly process.  Then suddenly they start behaving irrationally?  Just seems odd.

Regards
Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on July 04, 2019, 11:39:03 AM


[[  Maybe it's time to explore the Yeti theory in more detail.  Even if they don't exist  ]]

There are plenty of reports of strange large and tall ape like creatures going back hundreds of years probably.  Its like with many other strange creatures, plenty of reports. And also of course the UFO phenomenon. Problem is regarding the Dyatlov Incident, we have no WITNESSES or REAL EVIDENCE of any such creature. We do have reports of UFO's in the area of the Dyatlov Incident though.  Could there be a connection between these MYSTERY CREATURES and UFO's  !  ? 
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on July 04, 2019, 11:40:44 AM
WAB said it in another comment, but Confucious words fit perfectly in the Yeti theme  - "It is difficult to find a black cat in a dark room. Especially when there is no cat in the room."   bigjoke

Well I dont think this Confucious saying helps us much. More like Confucious CONFUSION.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on July 04, 2019, 11:43:36 AM
Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?

Irrational behaviour  !  ?  HIGHLY UNLIKELY.  Behaviour of people who are scared stiff more like. Injuries of a MUTILATION TYPE not by any other Human Being.  Radiation unexplained ETC ETC.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Morski on July 04, 2019, 12:29:00 PM
Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?

Yeah.  I think rational and irrational behaviour and decisions has to be considered.  But why would there be sudden step change in behaviour?  For example the scene inside the tent appears to be reasonably orderly (apart from the shoes).  Also it seems that the pamphlet (if it existed) was clearly written and logical and wouldn’t indicate anything abnormal.  Also they seemed to be in the process of eating or just finished eating which is quite a rational and orderly process.  Then suddenly they start behaving irrationally?  Just seems odd.

Regards
Star man

Good points.

As for the inside of the tent, I agree it is somehow ok; even the pile of shoes does not seem that much out of order.

The pamphlet is interesting. We don`t know for sure, whether it even existed, but on the other hand, why would someone fabricate it? The content sounds plausible for a company of young adventurers – jokes, love theme and so. Apart from the content, the other point is when (if, of course) it was written? Since we don`t have info on that, we can speculate: it could be in the trek breaks during the day time, or it could be after they set up the tent (for their last night?). But if we assume, that they were having troubles during the last day, and they put more effort to set up the tent in the late afternoon, and were probably trying to get in as fast as possible because of the weather, I think they wouldn`t have been in the mood to write satirical jokes. Probably they wanted to get inside, change some clothes, get rid of the wet/frozen shoes, and eat something. At least, with my experience, I would do that. Just an opinion.
 
The process of eating, or shortly after they finished eating. As you say, whatever happened, it must have happened during or shortly after. I see (at least) two options:

1. It was pure coincidence – someone/something disturbed their dinner (or briefly after the dinner), and they had to flee away;
 
2. They fled the tent because of the dinner (here I imply the poisoning/contamination, which led them to irrational behavior – leaving the shelter), or some sort of natural phenomenon forced them, creating real, or not real (imaginary?) threat;
I understand, that a sudden strike of not rational decision making sounds far stretched, but could it have been a process of overlaying? I mean, the grounds for the irrational actions were set some time before the actual event, and during the night of the first of February it just kicked in. Because of that, they might have had a hassle or something between them, or who knows what else.

I agree, though, it is odd indeed.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Morski on July 04, 2019, 12:52:39 PM
WAB said it in another comment, but Confucious words fit perfectly in the Yeti theme  - "It is difficult to find a black cat in a dark room. Especially when there is no cat in the room."   bigjoke

Well I dont think this Confucious saying helps us much. More like Confucious CONFUSION.

More like sense of humor, but you know, whatever makes you happy.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Morski on July 04, 2019, 01:07:55 PM
Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?


Irrational behaviour  !  ?  HIGHLY UNLIKELY.  Behaviour of people who are scared stiff more like. Injuries of a MUTILATION TYPE not by any other Human Being.  Radiation unexplained ETC ETC.

They were by no doubt scared. But I am focusing on the reason for that fear - real, or not. And because of the nature of that threat/fear, they did both some irrational actions, and such decisions, and some relevant acts. I am questioning their abilities to behave reasonable in the beginning of the event, which later become the reason for their struggle to survive.
 
As for the mutilations, I am absolutely not convinced, that there were any injuries, which we cannot try to explain scientifically, without the need of Chupacabra or siblings.

Yes, the point I raise now is probably highly unlikely. But I see it a few hundred times more likely than a flying saucer sending a Yeti-like-alien (or a real Yeti?!) down to Earth, to kill 9 hikers. That must have been way more bad luck, compared to even the most ridiculous natural explanation.
 
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on July 04, 2019, 03:13:29 PM
Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?

Yeah.  I think rational and irrational behaviour and decisions has to be considered.  But why would there be sudden step change in behaviour?  For example the scene inside the tent appears to be reasonably orderly (apart from the shoes).  Also it seems that the pamphlet (if it existed) was clearly written and logical and wouldn’t indicate anything abnormal.  Also they seemed to be in the process of eating or just finished eating which is quite a rational and orderly process.  Then suddenly they start behaving irrationally?  Just seems odd.

Regards
Star man

Good points.

As for the inside of the tent, I agree it is somehow ok; even the pile of shoes does not seem that much out of order.

The pamphlet is interesting. We don`t know for sure, whether it even existed, but on the other hand, why would someone fabricate it? The content sounds plausible for a company of young adventurers – jokes, love theme and so. Apart from the content, the other point is when (if, of course) it was written? Since we don`t have info on that, we can speculate: it could be in the trek breaks during the day time, or it could be after they set up the tent (for their last night?). But if we assume, that they were having troubles during the last day, and they put more effort to set up the tent in the late afternoon, and were probably trying to get in as fast as possible because of the weather, I think they wouldn`t have been in the mood to write satirical jokes. Probably they wanted to get inside, change some clothes, get rid of the wet/frozen shoes, and eat something. At least, with my experience, I would do that. Just an opinion.
 
The process of eating, or shortly after they finished eating. As you say, whatever happened, it must have happened during or shortly after. I see (at least) two options:

1. It was pure coincidence – someone/something disturbed their dinner (or briefly after the dinner), and they had to flee away;
 
2. They fled the tent because of the dinner (here I imply the poisoning/contamination, which led them to irrational behavior – leaving the shelter), or some sort of natural phenomenon forced them, creating real, or not real (imaginary?) threat;
I understand, that a sudden strike of not rational decision making sounds far stretched, but could it have been a process of overlaying? I mean, the grounds for the irrational actions were set some time before the actual event, and during the night of the first of February it just kicked in. Because of that, they might have had a hassle or something between them, or who knows what else.

I agree, though, it is odd indeed.

A good point about the pamphlet.  It could have been written in installments and not all on the 1st Feb.

Of course it is possible that there was some kind of poisoning  of the food that led to confused behaviour.  However, they were already several days into the trip and had not been affected by their food supplies on previous days?  Why on this night would they all or at least even some of them find a batchnofmpoisoned food?  It's unlikely.

They may have consumed some mind altering drugs deliberately as some kind of experiment as in the shrooms theory.  But these guys were experienced hikers who new the risks of the environment they were in.  They wanted to gain their certificates so I doubt that they would do this.

So to me although possible, the poisoning scenario leading to changed behaviour seems very unlikely.

I am skeptical about the yeti theory.  I don't believe in yetis.  But I can't completely rule them out.  I have been doing some research into the cryptozoology and although there are some very obvious hoaxes, there are some stories and even videos that are incredibly convincing.  Also, I refer back to some of the more experienced DPI expert comments such as WAB who is convinced that there could not have been any other people there that night, or large predatory animals.  I am sure he would say the same thing about yetis too but there something nigling me about it. 

If you look at the pattern of clothing and compare this to the different groups (I.e.rav 4, the two Yuris, zina, Rustem and Dyatlov). 

The rag 4 had Zolatriov and Thibo both of which had they shoes on and some outer clothing.  Solmwith his camera around his neck.  They were most likely already outside when they fled.  Lyuda and Kolevatov had quite warm clothing on and hats,mfur coats but no shoes.  I think they were outside too when they fled.  I Thibo and Xol could have seen something and alerted the others.  Lyuda and akolevatov clambered out of the tent without their shoes to see what was going on and joined Thibo and Zol.  This group makes up the rav 4.  Then suddenly this group realised the danger they were in and fled first down the slope, while the others were still in the tent.  Let's assume now that this threat is approaching the tent.  The rav 4 would have been panicked and those in the tent would clearly realise at this point there was significant danger.  Rustem scrambles for his boots, disturbing the pile of shoes in the process.  He manages to get one boot on before the threat is at the front of tent near the entrance, possibly even peering inside.  There exit is blocked.  There is only one option to get out of the tent and that is through the side by cutting some slices in the fabric.  The axes and ice pick are at the front near the entrance so it is too risky to try and get them.  In a panic those left in the tent cut their way out and begin to defend the slope, but the threat is soon following them so they split up to evade this threat.  The two Yuris stick together while Rustem, zina and Dyatlov split off.  They quickly lose each other in the dark.  The rest is history.  At the moment the evasion of some kind of threat on the ground is the only explanation for the two Yuris to have climbed the cedar in the poor state they would have been given their lack of clothing.  Was the fire just to keep warm or was it to ward away some kind of wild creature?

The chest injuries of Zol Lyuda and head injury of Thibo could be explained by a fall at some point.  But it could also be explained by them being picked and thrown. Or beaten with super human force.

These are just ideas of course.  Wild speculations?  But they pull at something in the back of mind.

One other thing That has been on my mind.  If there was a yeti where are the foot prints?  The hikers left traces.  Raised foot prints sculpted from the compressed snow by the wind.  So where are the yeti foot prints.  Maybe they never existed.  But what exactly is the physics for the formation of the sculpted foot prints?  I am not an expert, but my understanding  is that the foot print is caused by the foot compressing the snow underneath.  The depth of the print being proportional to the weight of the person and foot surface area in contact with snow ( that is foot pressure).  The wind then blows away the surface layer of snow around the compressed part of the print, leaving raised prints above the new snow level.  But what if something much heavier than a human made deeper foot prints.  Deep enough that the wind could not scour away enough snow to leave elevated prints.  In fact if the foot prints were deep enough, the as the wind scours away the surface snow wouldn't it fill in the remaining depression covering up the print, instead of leaving a raised print? Must a thought.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: lucid-nonsense on July 07, 2019, 09:14:05 PM
Yes I remember reading that his jacket was stuffed in a hole.

So according to various accounts it was:

Stuffed in a hole
Hanging just at the entrance to the tent
10 metres from the entrance to the tent

So I think it safe to conclude that nothing can be concluded from the evidence on Dyatlov's jacket.

Maybe he had more than one jacket. They seemed to have spares of most things.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on July 07, 2019, 10:53:08 PM
Yes I remember reading that his jacket was stuffed in a hole.

So according to various accounts it was:

Stuffed in a hole
Hanging just at the entrance to the tent
10 metres from the entrance to the tent

So I think it safe to conclude that nothing can be concluded from the evidence on Dyatlov's jacket.

Maybe he had more than one jacket. They seemed to have spares of most things.

It's possible, but only one leather jacket with fur is listed in the protocol of items in the case files.  However, there is a fair bit of subjectivity in the identification of things.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on July 08, 2019, 04:47:40 PM
Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?


Irrational behaviour  !  ?  HIGHLY UNLIKELY.  Behaviour of people who are scared stiff more like. Injuries of a MUTILATION TYPE not by any other Human Being.  Radiation unexplained ETC ETC.

They were by no doubt scared. But I am focusing on the reason for that fear - real, or not. And because of the nature of that threat/fear, they did both some irrational actions, and such decisions, and some relevant acts. I am questioning their abilities to behave reasonable in the beginning of the event, which later become the reason for their struggle to survive.
 
As for the mutilations, I am absolutely not convinced, that there were any injuries, which we cannot try to explain scientifically, without the need of Chupacabra or siblings.

Yes, the point I raise now is probably highly unlikely. But I see it a few hundred times more likely than a flying saucer sending a Yeti-like-alien (or a real Yeti?!) down to Earth, to kill 9 hikers. That must have been way more bad luck, compared to even the most ridiculous natural explanation.

If you are scared of something you are not being irrational you are being normal. Because normal people do get scared of things. And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour. I have mentioned the word MUTILATIONS but not the reason or reasons for those MUTILATIONS. UFO sightings are a fact and so are sightings of strange creatures. These type of sightings have a long history.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: lucid-nonsense on July 08, 2019, 08:35:38 PM
And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: lucid-nonsense on July 08, 2019, 08:44:07 PM
We dont know all the details on footprints because the search parties would have trampled over the Dyatlov Footprints near the Tent. We dont know the exact weather conditions at the time, so how can we know the strengh of any winds that were blowing. or any snow falling.

I'm pretty sure there was just no footprints left around the tent -- there aren't any in the pictures. Most of the footprints would've been erased by the snow and wind. The preserved footprints are the exception and not the rule. Otherwise they would've found easily found all the bodies the first day.

And about the weather, we don't know for sure, but we do know that it was bad! The entry for the day before describes the wind as like the wash of an airplane. The visibility was terrible in the pictures they took while they were setting up the tent, in the afternoon.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on July 08, 2019, 11:03:11 PM
And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?

If the scary thing was moving around the tent and examining it then it could quite easily have peered in through the entrance sparking a panic and the remaining group to make a new exit?

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Morski on July 09, 2019, 02:17:01 AM
Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?


Irrational behaviour  !  ?  HIGHLY UNLIKELY.  Behaviour of people who are scared stiff more like. Injuries of a MUTILATION TYPE not by any other Human Being.  Radiation unexplained ETC ETC.

They were by no doubt scared. But I am focusing on the reason for that fear - real, or not. And because of the nature of that threat/fear, they did both some irrational actions, and such decisions, and some relevant acts. I am questioning their abilities to behave reasonable in the beginning of the event, which later become the reason for their struggle to survive.
 
As for the mutilations, I am absolutely not convinced, that there were any injuries, which we cannot try to explain scientifically, without the need of Chupacabra or siblings.

Yes, the point I raise now is probably highly unlikely. But I see it a few hundred times more likely than a flying saucer sending a Yeti-like-alien (or a real Yeti?!) down to Earth, to kill 9 hikers. That must have been way more bad luck, compared to even the most ridiculous natural explanation.

If you are scared of something you are not being irrational you are being normal. Because normal people do get scared of things. And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour. I have mentioned the word MUTILATIONS but not the reason or reasons for those MUTILATIONS. UFO sightings are a fact and so are sightings of strange creatures. These type of sightings have a long history.

It is normal to be scared, of course, and fear is a natural sense.
 
But the very reason for it is a different thing. There seem to be a difference, let`s say, if you are scared because of a real (physical or other natural phenomenon) threat, and if you see a purple half-werewolf/half-dragon creature. If you can`t make a difference between the real and not real, that means your actions are triggered by something irrational – could be hallucinations or panic attack or who knows.

Have you ever seen a delusional person? One can be so stressed and scared of something he things he sees or feel, and that is an authentic fear to him, even though it is irrational. But the fact he feels “real” threat, does not imply his following actions are necessarily rational.
 
And whatever made them flee the refuge brings mixed emotions. They seem to left the tent in a hurry, some half-dressed, some without shoes, valuable and potentially live saving items left behind, and still – calmly going down the slope. Also other things – the happening under and onto the Cedar, the scattered clothes on the slope, some of them had gloves in pockets and etc., a strange combination and distribution of clothes in general. They probably split sometime before the forest, which is also odd (could be hassle between them, could be a fist fight as well; decision to split in order to gather wood, to build a fire, to find a place for shelter – like allocating responsibilities; or they were acting not rational, for an unknown reason).
 
It is indeed very difficult for me to see only a bunch of scared young men, who were all about rational conduct. That is why I argue, that the whole ordeal looks like a creepy mixture of both irrational and rational actions, and maybe it is not so pointless to speculate, that whatever made them leave the tent, wasn’t really there, or was only in their heads, or was actually there, but was not material - the result of geographical and landscape shapes, strong winds and winter night, which caused fear and/or delusions. Or some sort of food/water contamination, which affected them in different ways and to a different extent.
 
As for the “mutilations”, and you probably describe Lyuda, since you mention this every once in a while, I still struggle to see it so strange. Rotting for months in snow, thaw and later running water in a creek, plus probably rodents and small predators, seems like a good natural explanation, compared to any kind of deliberately caused injuries and/or torture, done by someone or something not from the known world. People leave traces, so do the bigger animals, and I believe, so would Yeti or any other legendary humanoid. And as far as we know – there were none.
 
UFO`s and strange creatures are millennia old sightings, you are right. But most of them still remain unexplained. UFO`s are unidentified by definition, and out of the hundreds strange creatures people claim to see from time to time – we have nothing. Not one such creature caught, not one body found, nothing. Only people`s claims, which does not irrefutably prove that they do not exist, but even hardly proves the opposite as well.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: cennetkusu on July 09, 2019, 01:44:27 PM
And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?
There are two choices. 1. First
 They heard horrible sounds and saw possible images. Superman entered the tent. And the youth was very scared in the dark, and they ripped the tent apart and ran away. 2. Superman didn't go into the tent, but the sounds and images came very close to the tent. And the young people couldn't stand in the tent anymore and ran away. The first option comes to mind and logic. But the second option is a possible scenario. Or maybe both. First they heard terrible sounds from outside and they saw terrible images. They were terrified. And this creature suddenly felt inside the tent. At that moment, the young people couldn't find a way out. Semyon and his friend thought about the possibility of going out. And they put on their shoes and Semyon took the camera. The fact that others did not wear shoes is a sign that the incident was short. Because if it had been long, the others would have had time to consider wearing their shoes. I guess the whole event in the tent lasted between 2-4 minutes.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: cennetkusu on July 09, 2019, 01:52:24 PM
And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?
One possible scenario is that young people have contacted the superman directly. Superman ordered them out of the tent. But this was not likely Russian. He ordered them to go out in his own language, but in a way that young people would understand. Young people listened to the order in fear and horror. It also explains why these young people did not run after leaving the tent.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: cennetkusu on July 09, 2019, 02:02:09 PM
And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?
If you pay attention to the knife cuts in the tent, it is understood that young people do not want to leave the tent. Because there are many tears. So there is coercion directly or indirectly. If the teens were willing, they would make a single or double big cut with a knife and they would all get out of there. But there are many large and small oblique trapezoid cutouts in the tent !!! However, the other side of the tent was cut off (?) So young people unwillingly and hurried out of the tent. Only fear can be caused by young people tearing up the tent. Other than that, nothing comes to mind.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: cennetkusu on July 09, 2019, 02:26:56 PM
Olay gecesi soğuk olduğu bir gerçek. Çünkü ateş yakmak istediler. Muhtemel ateşi gençler yakmak istedi. Supermanın ateş yakmak istiyeceğini sanmıyorum. Ateşi de elbette soğuk hava yüzünden yakmak istediler.  Fakat burada dikkat edilmesi gereken durum neden daha büyük ateş yakamadıklarıdır(?) Ya da devam ettiremedikleridir(?) Sanırım Sedir ağacına geldikten sonra fazla vakitleri olmadı. Önce büyük bir ateş yakmak istediler. Sanırım bunu başaramadılar. Ve çözüm aradılar. Uyanık davranan 4 tanesi karda bir mağara yapmak istedi. En cesur 3 tanesi de çadıra geri dönüp gerekli malzemleri almak istedi. En zayıf 2 genç de ateşin yanında kalmak istedi. Bu ayrılıktan 5-10 dakka içinde Superman saldırdı. Muhtemel tüm olay yaklaşık 1 saat içinde bitti.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: cennetkusu on July 09, 2019, 02:34:05 PM

And burn marks are evidence that they were on fire when Superman attacked. It is also a question of who took them by the fire (?) 1. Superman 2. The local hunter may have found and moved their places. If the hunters found it, why didn't they report it to the authorities (?) If the superman did it, why did it? There may be a possibility that the two Yuri will freeze to death separately from the others. But I don't think that's unlikely .... Because if there was a danger of dying from the cold, they'd dig a cave in the snow. They wouldn't wait to freeze there.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on July 09, 2019, 03:12:21 PM
Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?


Irrational behaviour  !  ?  HIGHLY UNLIKELY.  Behaviour of people who are scared stiff more like. Injuries of a MUTILATION TYPE not by any other Human Being.  Radiation unexplained ETC ETC.

They were by no doubt scared. But I am focusing on the reason for that fear - real, or not. And because of the nature of that threat/fear, they did both some irrational actions, and such decisions, and some relevant acts. I am questioning their abilities to behave reasonable in the beginning of the event, which later become the reason for their struggle to survive.
 
As for the mutilations, I am absolutely not convinced, that there were any injuries, which we cannot try to explain scientifically, without the need of Chupacabra or siblings.

Yes, the point I raise now is probably highly unlikely. But I see it a few hundred times more likely than a flying saucer sending a Yeti-like-alien (or a real Yeti?!) down to Earth, to kill 9 hikers. That must have been way more bad luck, compared to even the most ridiculous natural explanation.

If you are scared of something you are not being irrational you are being normal. Because normal people do get scared of things. And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour. I have mentioned the word MUTILATIONS but not the reason or reasons for those MUTILATIONS. UFO sightings are a fact and so are sightings of strange creatures. These type of sightings have a long history.

It is normal to be scared, of course, and fear is a natural sense.
 
But the very reason for it is a different thing. There seem to be a difference, let`s say, if you are scared because of a real (physical or other natural phenomenon) threat, and if you see a purple half-werewolf/half-dragon creature. If you can`t make a difference between the real and not real, that means your actions are triggered by something irrational – could be hallucinations or panic attack or who knows.

Have you ever seen a delusional person? One can be so stressed and scared of something he things he sees or feel, and that is an authentic fear to him, even though it is irrational. But the fact he feels “real” threat, does not imply his following actions are necessarily rational.
 
And whatever made them flee the refuge brings mixed emotions. They seem to left the tent in a hurry, some half-dressed, some without shoes, valuable and potentially live saving items left behind, and still – calmly going down the slope. Also other things – the happening under and onto the Cedar, the scattered clothes on the slope, some of them had gloves in pockets and etc., a strange combination and distribution of clothes in general. They probably split sometime before the forest, which is also odd (could be hassle between them, could be a fist fight as well; decision to split in order to gather wood, to build a fire, to find a place for shelter – like allocating responsibilities; or they were acting not rational, for an unknown reason).
 
It is indeed very difficult for me to see only a bunch of scared young men, who were all about rational conduct. That is why I argue, that the whole ordeal looks like a creepy mixture of both irrational and rational actions, and maybe it is not so pointless to speculate, that whatever made them leave the tent, wasn’t really there, or was only in their heads, or was actually there, but was not material - the result of geographical and landscape shapes, strong winds and winter night, which caused fear and/or delusions. Or some sort of food/water contamination, which affected them in different ways and to a different extent.
 
As for the “mutilations”, and you probably describe Lyuda, since you mention this every once in a while, I still struggle to see it so strange. Rotting for months in snow, thaw and later running water in a creek, plus probably rodents and small predators, seems like a good natural explanation, compared to any kind of deliberately caused injuries and/or torture, done by someone or something not from the known world. People leave traces, so do the bigger animals, and I believe, so would Yeti or any other legendary humanoid. And as far as we know – there were none.
 
UFO`s and strange creatures are millennia old sightings, you are right. But most of them still remain unexplained. UFO`s are unidentified by definition, and out of the hundreds strange creatures people claim to see from time to time – we have nothing. Not one such creature caught, not one body found, nothing. Only people`s claims, which does not irrefutably prove that they do not exist, but even hardly proves the opposite as well.

Hi Mop,

Induced psychosis triggered by infra sound or food contamination - seems to me that these are worthy candidates for further investigation.  There is something that I struggle with though.  There seems to be a contradiction of behaviour.  On the one hand they are spurred into irrational behaviour -fear induced by infrasound or food contaminants forcing them to leave the tent and the camp.  Whilst on the other hand, they decent the slope in an orderly manner and take what appears to be sensible action to try to survive.  Collecting fire wood, build a fire, retrieve clothes from dead friends and use those clothes to survive.  Something doesn't add up.

If the food was contaminated - why hadn't it affected them on previous days of the trip?  Even if it was methanol is it likely that they all would have drank some of it, then acted irrationally, followed by rationally?

Then there's the major injuries - the two flail chests and thibos skull fracture - each could have been caused by a fall.  But three falls on the same night?  Two very similar chest injuries?  How could that happen? 

If there was a Yeti, then you would expect there to be traces.  The tourists left some foot prints.  These were raised footprints preserved for several weeks after they were made.  So where are the Yeti foot prints.  I have been thinking about this.  If you think about how the raised footprints are made.  A person of a given weight and foot size compresses the snow under their feet creating an indentation in the snow.  Let's say the depth of the deepest footprint is X cm.  the wind then blows the surface snow picking up the less compressed snow and blowing it around and eventually away.  After a while the original human footprint depression is filled with less compressed snow again covering it up.  As the wind continues to blow away the snow the overall level of snow falls until x cm of the snow surface is removed by the wind.  The wind continues to blow and remove the less dense snow, but the compressed snow at the base of the footprint is not removed so quickly.  After another y cm of snow is removed, we are left with a raised footprint of about y cm.  now consider the same process for a much heavier deeper foot print.  Let's say that the yeti footprints are Z cm deep.  Where Z is greater than x+y cm.  the yeti footprints now remain covered by the snow.  Filled in as the snow is blown around.  If insufficient snow is removed to get to the more compressed snow underneath.  The overall result is that we can see the raised human foot prints but the deeper yeti footprints remain covered.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on July 11, 2019, 02:33:49 PM
And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?

We do not know in what shape or form the alleged scary thing took or its movements. I try to avoid assumptions but this Dyatlov Case can test anyone. Therefore I do not assume that they left their Tent in a scared mode, but all indications point to that.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on July 11, 2019, 02:36:16 PM
And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?

If the scary thing was moving around the tent and examining it then it could quite easily have peered in through the entrance sparking a panic and the remaining group to make a new exit?

Regards

Star man

Absolutely. All indications suggest that they were scared stiff of something.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on July 11, 2019, 02:56:00 PM
 QUOTED from Морски


It is normal to be scared, of course, and fear is a natural sense.  [[ CORRECT ]]
 
But the very reason for it is a different thing. There seem to be a difference, let`s say, if you are scared because of a real (physical or other natural phenomenon) threat, and if you see a purple half-werewolf/half-dragon creature. If you can`t make a difference between the real and not real, that means your actions are triggered by something irrational – could be hallucinations or panic attack or who knows.  [[ WE DONT KNOW THE REASON SO ITS PURE SPECULATION ]]


 
And whatever made them flee the refuge brings mixed emotions. They seem to left the tent in a hurry, [[ THEY CERTAINLY LEFT IN A HURRY BY ALL INDICATIONS ]]
 
It is indeed very difficult for me to see only a bunch of scared young men, who were all about rational conduct. That is why I argue, that the whole ordeal looks like a creepy mixture of both irrational and rational actions, [[ IT CAN BE ARGUED, BUT THE ESSENCE IS THE SAME, THEY WERE SCARED OF SOMETHING AND BEHAVED ACCORDINGLY ]]
 
As for the “mutilations”, and you probably describe Lyuda, since you mention this every once in a while, I still struggle to see it so strange. Rotting for months in snow, thaw and later running water in a creek, plus probably rodents and small predators, seems like a good natural explanation, [[ SO YOU SEE NOTHING STRANGE IN THE FACT THAT ONLY A CERTAIN PART OF THE BODY WAS AFFECTED. AND WHAT ABOUT THE MENTION OF THE HYOID BONE IN THE AUTOPSY, ONE OF THE STRONGEST BONES IN THE HUMAN BODY. AND WHERE ARE THE REPORTS OF ANY ANIMALS OR BACTERIA  ]]
 
UFO`s and strange creatures are millennia old sightings, you are right. But most of them still remain unexplained. [[ CORRECT  ]]
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Morski on July 13, 2019, 05:59:45 AM
Hi Star man, sorry for the late reply.

I find the infra sound and the contamination somehow relevant theories, at least, good points to speculate, since we can`t do much more anyway.  wink1
 
The very manner of going down the slope – seemingly in order, while just a few moments ago they`ve left the tent seemingly in a hurry (by the way, the “cutting from the inside” is something very mythological to me, especially considering the way the tent was treated by the searching parties. I still don’t believe, they`ve cut their way out of the tent that night), makes me think there is something wrong. You flee in panic, barely taking any vital stuff with you, but then you go down just like ok? Or, if we take for granted, that they did cut their own tent to escape, then again – why just calmly going down after such efforts to get out or their shelter? Maybe that was an act of irrational behavior?  kewl1

To me, it would make more sense if there were all kinds of mixed footsteps outside - you would expect that from people, who feel mortal threat and it is corresponding to the panic state in which they seem to have left the tent.

Absolutely, the decision to head for the forest is sane. But when you think about it – where else? Up the slope would be strange, so it is quite natural to head down. But why walking in order, if they were so scared? If we consider, that they were so terrified, to the point where they leave their refuge in the middle of the night, then even the terrain difficulties wouldn`t have stopped them to run an Usain Bolt style to save their skins. Or maybe they did just that – hence some of the fractures and various injuries? No signs of struggle or rolling/fighting in the snow (could be, that those traces were covered because of the winds and snowfall, of course). But why their visible traces suggest order?

I agree that a lot of the things they did after the tent happening are actually sound. Fire, clothes changing/stripping (even though they kinda didn`t seem to have used everything they could – not all clothes, since there were some scattered on the slope, and I still find some things strange – like the gloves in pockets, two wrist watches on one hand and so.

As for the food/water contamination, and why it didn`t struck them the previous days, I really can`t say why. The way I try to speculate about it, is that it was a process of overlying. They were eating/drinking for days, and maybe during their last night the contamination effect kicked in with full power. Or, they ate/drunk something the very same day of the disaster, something they didn`t touch before that. As for the effect – first irrational (leaving the tent not quite prepared to face the night with what they took with them) and after that – rational (fire, clothes), it could be that the contamination effect was slowly fading away, or, which sounds more likely, not all of them were affected to the same extent. Some of them were able to think and act relevantly according to the situation, but was already too late, or they didn`t have the strength to cope with it because of the exposure and the elements.

The injuries – chest and skull – it is hard to imagine how some of them suffered so bad, that is true. To be honest, after all the descriptions, the photos, all the maps and stuff, I still can`t get a clear picture in my mind about the terrain. I tend to stick to the idea, that there were enough natural obstacles – rocks, falls, to cause them. (I am in the process of planning to do a trip there, by the way. May be I will get a real impression.)

I get your idea about the footsteps. But honestly, I can`t see how a heavy, raged animal/humanoid will not leave any other trace, but only the injuries on some of the hikers. If a creature eliminated them, there must have been at least some evidence of struggle, other than the suffered injuries. Deliberately hiding the footprints/traces, is out of the question to me. That, along with the lack of any other signs, that would suggest that other people or whatever entities were there, except for the Dyatlov`s group, makes me exclude the murder/KGB/CIA theories. Especially the Yeti one.

But that just my two cents, of course. 
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Morski on July 13, 2019, 08:36:28 AM
Hello, Sarapuk.

It is normal to be scared, of course, and fear is a natural sense.  [[ CORRECT ]]
 
But the very reason for it is a different thing. There seem to be a difference, let`s say, if you are scared because of a real (physical or other natural phenomenon) threat, and if you see a purple half-werewolf/half-dragon creature. If you can`t make a difference between the real and not real, that means your actions are triggered by something irrational – could be hallucinations or panic attack or who knows.  [[ WE DONT KNOW THE REASON SO ITS PURE SPECULATION ]]

Of course we don`t know the true reason, that is why we are here. To speculate.

 
And whatever made them flee the refuge brings mixed emotions. They seem to left the tent in a hurry, [[ THEY CERTAINLY LEFT IN A HURRY BY ALL INDICATIONS ]]

All indications, except the footprints.

 
It is indeed very difficult for me to see only a bunch of scared young men, who were all about rational conduct. That is why I argue, that the whole ordeal looks like a creepy mixture of both irrational and rational actions, [[ IT CAN BE ARGUED, BUT THE ESSENCE IS THE SAME, THEY WERE SCARED OF SOMETHING AND BEHAVED ACCORDINGLY ]]

They were scared, and behaved strange. They got out of the tent, suspiciously dressed and organized. Or you suggest, that it is alright to get out in panic from a tent in the middle of the winter night, in a remote area, and then calmly go down a slope for a 1,5km? 

 
As for the “mutilations”, and you probably describe Lyuda, since you mention this every once in a while, I still struggle to see it so strange. Rotting for months in snow, thaw and later running water in a creek, plus probably rodents and small predators, seems like a good natural explanation, [[ SO YOU SEE NOTHING STRANGE IN THE FACT THAT ONLY A CERTAIN PART OF THE BODY WAS AFFECTED. AND WHAT ABOUT THE MENTION OF THE HYOID BONE IN THE AUTOPSY, ONE OF THE STRONGEST BONES IN THE HUMAN BODY. AND WHERE ARE THE REPORTS OF ANY ANIMALS OR BACTERIA  ]]

Of course I don`t see it that strange. It is not necessarily the whole body, that is exposed to the elements or predators to the same extent. Lyuda wasn`t lying on her back in a plain and simple pose in an open field. None of the rav4 was. Her specific body positon might explain what you call a “mutilation”. The thyroid bone provides attachment to the muscles of the floor of the mouth and the tongue above, the larynx below, and the epiglottis and pharynx behind. When the muscles are gone, like it is mentioned by the coroner,  you are likely to observe “extraordinary mobility”, as it is stated in the autopsy report. The coroner never mentioned, that the bone was broken or twisted, ot something.

We don’t know if there are any reports about animals or bacteria, but we can use some common sense, can`t we? You can find bacteria everywhere, especially where a body is rotting. Also, I think it is safe to blame small predators and rodents, which we all know that exist.


 
UFO`s and strange creatures are millennia old sightings, you are right. But most of them still remain unexplained. [[ CORRECT  ]]

“Unexplained” is not equal to “they exist”. Until we have actual empirical experience, not just claims, they will remain simply unexplained.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on July 13, 2019, 04:53:12 PM
Hi Mop,

No worries about slow responses on here.  It is usual for these discussions to take some time.  I have written some comments to you post below:

The infrasound theory is interesting.  WAB has presented some interesting posts on how the effect could have been created.  Some complicated fluid dynamics. Think had something to do with rotating air mass impinging on a separate flow creating Eddie currents similar to Kharmen Vortex.

In experiments it has had a significant effect on some individuals.  Inducing a sense of fear or dread.  But from what I understand it only affects about 30 to 40% of people.  It is definitely worth further investigation.

Going down the slope is a very logical action - I agree.  But obviously leaving the tent without shoes and clothing and essential equipment is not logical without a very real reason.  So is it possible that they were acting lofically and illogically at the same time?  Maybe if they had induced fear then it is still logical to run down the hill even though the sense of fear is unreal?

Did they cut their way out of the tent?  A difficult question.  I agree that much of the damage to the tent was caused by the sloppy recovery digging it out of the snow and dragging it across the slope.  But I would like to draw your attention to page 304 (I think). Of the case file.  Notingnthatnpage 303 is missing.  Have read of page 303 of the criminalistics forensics of the tent in the case files and let me know what you think.

I don't recall anything in the case files about the food and if it was tested.  Given the fridges conditions I think it would have been well preserved in the tent, even after several weeks?

Here's an interesting question:  if the infrasound only affected a fraction of the group or if it was food then is it likely that all except Thibo and Semyon would be found without footwear?  Also the scene inside the tent is depicted as quite orderly.  Seven crumpled blankets, 2 layer out?  Which two were layed out?  Thibo and Semyon?  Because they were on duty and the others had settled into theirs?  Why is the scene in the tent orderly, apart from the shoes?  Very strange.

I understand your skepticism about the Yeti theory.  It is difficult to understand how such a creature could exist undiscovered with no scientific evidence.  I am skeptical too.  I have explored some of the other theories and even presented the Low Yield Nuke Theory, but given the vast number of eye witness accounts and stories I still think its worth looking at it objectively.  At the end of the day none of the other theories have produced conclusive arguments or evidence yet.

When Charles Darwin first presented his theory on the origin of species at the Royal Socienty can imagine the reception he received?  If there is one thing that I know it is that we don't know everything.

Regards

Star man




Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Morski on July 14, 2019, 07:26:35 AM
Hi Mop,

No worries about slow responses on here.  It is usual for these discussions to take some time.  I have written some comments to you post below:

The infrasound theory is interesting.  WAB has presented some interesting posts on how the effect could have been created.  Some complicated fluid dynamics. Think had something to do with rotating air mass impinging on a separate flow creating Eddie currents similar to Kharmen Vortex.

In experiments it has had a significant effect on some individuals.  Inducing a sense of fear or dread.  But from what I understand it only affects about 30 to 40% of people.  It is definitely worth further investigation.

Going down the slope is a very logical action - I agree.  But obviously leaving the tent without shoes and clothing and essential equipment is not logical without a very real reason.  So is it possible that they were acting lofically and illogically at the same time?  Maybe if they had induced fear then it is still logical to run down the hill even though the sense of fear is unreal?

Did they cut their way out of the tent?  A difficult question.  I agree that much of the damage to the tent was caused by the sloppy recovery digging it out of the snow and dragging it across the slope.  But I would like to draw your attention to page 304 (I think). Of the case file.  Notingnthatnpage 303 is missing.  Have read of page 303 of the criminalistics forensics of the tent in the case files and let me know what you think.

I don't recall anything in the case files about the food and if it was tested.  Given the fridges conditions I think it would have been well preserved in the tent, even after several weeks?

Here's an interesting question:  if the infrasound only affected a fraction of the group or if it was food then is it likely that all except Thibo and Semyon would be found without footwear?  Also the scene inside the tent is depicted as quite orderly.  Seven crumpled blankets, 2 layer out?  Which two were layed out?  Thibo and Semyon?  Because they were on duty and the others had settled into theirs?  Why is the scene in the tent orderly, apart from the shoes?  Very strange.

I understand your skepticism about the Yeti theory.  It is difficult to understand how such a creature could exist undiscovered with no scientific evidence.  I am skeptical too.  I have explored some of the other theories and even presented the Low Yield Nuke Theory, but given the vast number of eye witness accounts and stories I still think its worth looking at it objectively.  At the end of the day none of the other theories have produced conclusive arguments or evidence yet.

When Charles Darwin first presented his theory on the origin of species at the Royal Socienty can imagine the reception he received?  If there is one thing that I know it is that we don't know everything.

Regards

Star man

Yeah,I`ve read WAB`s posts about the Infrasound theory back in the day. My field of competence is different, but I really think infra sound is a good natural explanation, at least for the beginning of the events. I`ve watched WAB`s videos during his trips to the Pass, and hell yeah, wind is blowing there. Karman Vortex is a rare case phenomenon outside laboratories, but it gives food for thought.

I agree that it is natural to run for your life when you are scared, no matter the reason – real, or imaginary. But I don`t get why they left in a hurry, and then just walked away. It is irrational to me.

Thank you for the remark on the tent.

According to the report (sheet 303), “With a careful examination of these damages, it is established that some of them /and in particular conditionally marked damages №1,2,3/ have a completely different nature compared to all the other damages that are on the tent. The edges of these three lesions have even, not elongated ends of the threads, are damaged at different angles, breaking both the weft threads and the warp threads.”
To me, the different angles suggest, that it might be due to the work of the searching parties – shovels, or other tools.

Also (sheet 304): “In the camping tent of Dyatlov group on the right slant of the canopy forming the roof, three damages of approximately 32, 89, and 42 cm in length /conditionally numbered 1, 2, 3 / are made with some sharp weapon /knife/ i.e. are cuts.”

The size of the cuts is very important: the biggest cut is only 89cm. I think, that if they cut the tent in order to escape a lethal threat, the cut would have been much larger, probably not in a straight line, or at least, there would have been traces of both the initial cut, and then tearing apart of the fabric. We should consider, that 9 or 7 people had to get out through these holes. Those “cuts” were clear cuts, and as far as I see it, they were relatively small to serve the purpose of emergency exit for 9/7 people. And that brings yet another question: If it is a fact, that the tent was cut from the inside, why the cuts are so small? Observation? Illogical actions? Damage? So confusing  dunno1

As far as I know, there were no tests on the food/water. If I am not mistaken, the report says that there were no traces of alcohol in the bodies. I really can`t recall now, but I think that it is the report for the first bodies (Dyatlov, Zina, Rustem, the Yuri`s) found on the spot.

The scene at the tent is very confusing, and as we all agree I think, whatever happened, started near/inside the tent. I do think, that Thibo and Semyon were outside during the start of the whole ordeal. Or at least they were preparing themselves to go out.

About the Yeti, I am really skeptical. I know, like you mentioned in previous posts, that a huge number of things were “doomed” to be non-existent or myths, but I just can`t help myself feeling, that the Yeti is a pure hoax. The only, objectively speaking, way to reflect on Yetis, is why and how different people, from different parts of the world claim that they`ve seen one? And it dates back to who knows how far ago. If it was a recent claim, we can blame the informational environment, since barely everyone has access to internet and is able to read and share. Apart from that, I struggle to find reasons to even speculate about the Yeti involvement in the whole event. We barely “know” something about those creatures, let alone blaming them for the Pass tragedy.

You are right, no theory has ever provided clear evidence of what had happened on Kholat Syakhl. By the way, I am familiar with your Low yield nuclear theory. You do seem to back up and argument a lot the possible happenings. Personally, I think it is somehow too complicated. The other one that you suggested - the most simple reason for the whole event, is according to my view.

I agree, we can`t and we don`t know everything. I think most of the theories we have now, are worth debating, until proven irrelevant. I just feel, that some of the theories are just more “on the table”, compared to others. 

Regards,
Martin
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on July 14, 2019, 03:08:47 PM
Hi Mop,

On page 304 it also mentions that of the three cuts (I think) some of them have scratches on the inside of the fabric before whatever it was actually pierced the fabric.  There are also other scratches that did not pierce the fabric. This is fairly strong evidence that at lease those three cuts were made from the inside.  By who and for what is another question.   I agree that given the size of them it is unlikely they were for escape, although one is almost a metre so it would be possible to escape through it.  You are correct though that it's difficult to know if it was a result of rational or irrational behaviour.  I am not a psychologist but am familiar with some principles.  Have you ever heard of "group think"?  It's basically when someone within a group who has charisma or credentials makes an assumption and everyone else in the group then takes that as fact.  It can lead to all sorts of problems.  In the Dyatlov mystery it is assumed that they cut their way out of tent.  But what if they weren't trying to cut their way out.  What if - there was a threat outside the tent and they were frightened to go out an confront it and instead tried to slash at it through the tent?  Just another possibility.

I  Think being skeptical about the Yeti theory is perfectly normal and I doubt that it will be my final conclusion if I ever come to a conclusion.  But I will suspend my disbelief and apply some objectivity.  I think that given the Evenening Otorten entry (assuming they had written it) we might do the 9 tourists a disservice if we don't look at it objectively.

Yes - I am leaning towards the simple credible explanation.  The nuke theory I have to admit is unlikely.  But what I do like to do is tease out a way in which my theories can be proven or disproven.  For the nuke it's the tree rings.  For the simplest credible explanation I haven't got to a single most credible explanation yet so haven't been able to find a way to prove or disprove it.

For the Yeti theory I think I will be able to come up with something.  I am going make another post on the "exploring the Yeti theory" now that may be interesting to some.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on July 15, 2019, 02:20:16 PM
Hello, Sarapuk.

It is normal to be scared, of course, and fear is a natural sense.  [[ CORRECT ]]
 
But the very reason for it is a different thing. There seem to be a difference, let`s say, if you are scared because of a real (physical or other natural phenomenon) threat, and if you see a purple half-werewolf/half-dragon creature. If you can`t make a difference between the real and not real, that means your actions are triggered by something irrational – could be hallucinations or panic attack or who knows.  [[ WE DONT KNOW THE REASON SO ITS PURE SPECULATION ]]

Of course we don`t know the true reason, that is why we are here. To speculate.
[[[[ Well some of us are here to try other things other than pure SPECULATION]]]]

 
And whatever made them flee the refuge brings mixed emotions. They seem to left the tent in a hurry, [[ THEY CERTAINLY LEFT IN A HURRY BY ALL INDICATIONS ]]

All indications, except the footprints.

 
It is indeed very difficult for me to see only a bunch of scared young men, who were all about rational conduct. That is why I argue, that the whole ordeal looks like a creepy mixture of both irrational and rational actions, [[ IT CAN BE ARGUED, BUT THE ESSENCE IS THE SAME, THEY WERE SCARED OF SOMETHING AND BEHAVED ACCORDINGLY ]]

They were scared, and behaved strange. They got out of the tent, suspiciously dressed and organized. Or you suggest, that it is alright to get out in panic from a tent in the middle of the winter night, in a remote area, and then calmly go down a slope for a 1,5km?    [[[[ I REPEAT, THEY WERE SCARED OF SOMETHING AND BEHAVED ACCORDINGLY ]]]][[[[  I have not suggested that they got out in a panic and calmly went down a slope for a 1.5 km.  ]]]]

 
As for the “mutilations”, and you probably describe Lyuda, since you mention this every once in a while, I still struggle to see it so strange. Rotting for months in snow, thaw and later running water in a creek, plus probably rodents and small predators, seems like a good natural explanation, [[ SO YOU SEE NOTHING STRANGE IN THE FACT THAT ONLY A CERTAIN PART OF THE BODY WAS AFFECTED. AND WHAT ABOUT THE MENTION OF THE HYOID BONE IN THE AUTOPSY, ONE OF THE STRONGEST BONES IN THE HUMAN BODY. AND WHERE ARE THE REPORTS OF ANY ANIMALS OR BACTERIA  ]]

Of course I don`t see it that strange. It is not necessarily the whole body, that is exposed to the elements or predators to the same extent. Lyuda wasn`t lying on her back in a plain and simple pose in an open field. None of the rav4 was. Her specific body positon might explain what you call a “mutilation”. The thyroid bone provides attachment to the muscles of the floor of the mouth and the tongue above, the larynx below, and the epiglottis and pharynx behind. When the muscles are gone, like it is mentioned by the coroner,  you are likely to observe “extraordinary mobility”, as it is stated in the autopsy report. The coroner never mentioned, that the bone was broken or twisted, ot something.
[[[[ I find it interesting that the AUTOPSY mentions the HYOID BONE, so I take it from that that there is some importance to this particular mention, of which there is, like so much else in the Dyatlov Case, very little detail. Or some times NO DETAIL AT ALL. ]]]]

We don’t know if there are any reports about animals or bacteria, but we can use some common sense, can`t we? You can find bacteria everywhere, especially where a body is rotting. Also, I think it is safe to blame small predators and rodents, which we all know that exist.

 [[[[ Common sense seems to be missing from much of the original investigation !  ?  NO SPECIFIC DETAILS OF PREDATORS OR BACTERIA. ]]]] NO SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE ROTTING OF BODIES. ]]]]

 
UFO`s and strange creatures are millennia old sightings, you are right. But most of them still remain unexplained. [[ CORRECT  ]]

“Unexplained” is not equal to “they exist”. [[[[ who said it was ]]]]Until we have actual empirical experience, not just claims, they will remain simply unexplained. [[[[ Sightings and such like can be considered as evidence. Evidence of something, whatever that something is.]]]]
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Morski on July 16, 2019, 02:18:49 PM
Hello, Sarapuk.

It is normal to be scared, of course, and fear is a natural sense.  [[ CORRECT ]]
 
But the very reason for it is a different thing. There seem to be a difference, let`s say, if you are scared because of a real (physical or other natural phenomenon) threat, and if you see a purple half-werewolf/half-dragon creature. If you can`t make a difference between the real and not real, that means your actions are triggered by something irrational – could be hallucinations or panic attack or who knows.  [[ WE DONT KNOW THE REASON SO ITS PURE SPECULATION ]]

Of course we don`t know the true reason, that is why we are here. To speculate.
[[[[ Well some of us are here to try other things other than pure SPECULATION]]]]

Fair enough. Good luck with that. 

And whatever made them flee the refuge brings mixed emotions. They seem to left the tent in a hurry, [[ THEY CERTAINLY LEFT IN A HURRY BY ALL INDICATIONS ]]

All indications, except the footprints.

 
It is indeed very difficult for me to see only a bunch of scared young men, who were all about rational conduct. That is why I argue, that the whole ordeal looks like a creepy mixture of both irrational and rational actions, [[ IT CAN BE ARGUED, BUT THE ESSENCE IS THE SAME, THEY WERE SCARED OF SOMETHING AND BEHAVED ACCORDINGLY ]]

They were scared, and behaved strange. They got out of the tent, suspiciously dressed and organized. Or you suggest, that it is alright to get out in panic from a tent in the middle of the winter night, in a remote area, and then calmly go down a slope for a 1,5km?    [[[[ I REPEAT, THEY WERE SCARED OF SOMETHING AND BEHAVED ACCORDINGLY ]]]][[[[  I have not suggested that they got out in a panic and calmly went down a slope for a 1.5 km.  ]]]]

You did not explicitly, but it seem that those are the clues we have.

As for the “mutilations”, and you probably describe Lyuda, since you mention this every once in a while, I still struggle to see it so strange. Rotting for months in snow, thaw and later running water in a creek, plus probably rodents and small predators, seems like a good natural explanation, [[ SO YOU SEE NOTHING STRANGE IN THE FACT THAT ONLY A CERTAIN PART OF THE BODY WAS AFFECTED. AND WHAT ABOUT THE MENTION OF THE HYOID BONE IN THE AUTOPSY, ONE OF THE STRONGEST BONES IN THE HUMAN BODY. AND WHERE ARE THE REPORTS OF ANY ANIMALS OR BACTERIA  ]]

Of course I don`t see it that strange. It is not necessarily the whole body, that is exposed to the elements or predators to the same extent. Lyuda wasn`t lying on her back in a plain and simple pose in an open field. None of the rav4 was. Her specific body positon might explain what you call a “mutilation”. The thyroid bone provides attachment to the muscles of the floor of the mouth and the tongue above, the larynx below, and the epiglottis and pharynx behind. When the muscles are gone, like it is mentioned by the coroner,  you are likely to observe “extraordinary mobility”, as it is stated in the autopsy report. The coroner never mentioned, that the bone was broken or twisted, ot something.
[[[[ I find it interesting that the AUTOPSY mentions the HYOID BONE, so I take it from that that there is some importance to this particular mention, of which there is, like so much else in the Dyatlov Case, very little detail. Or some times NO DETAIL AT ALL. ]]]]

I have to say, I am not too aware of the procedure during autopsies back in the 1950s Soviet era, not to mention in a case like that, and specifically in the time period with regard to the whole atmosphere there, but to me it sounds like a routine check-up, which was just remarked as strange. You check the bone, it is out of ordinary mobile, so you mention it. But there is a good reason for that, obviously.

We don’t know if there are any reports about animals or bacteria, but we can use some common sense, can`t we? You can find bacteria everywhere, especially where a body is rotting. Also, I think it is safe to blame small predators and rodents, which we all know that exist.

 [[[[ Common sense seems to be missing from much of the original investigation !  ?  NO SPECIFIC DETAILS OF PREDATORS OR BACTERIA. ]]]] NO SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE ROTTING OF BODIES. ]]]]

Again, you would expect bacteria and predators/rodents in conditions like that. The fact that the coroner does not mention it, does not exclude it. That is a common sense. Apart from that, we can say that common sense is missing in a lot of points during the whole investigation, I agree.

 
UFO`s and strange creatures are millennia old sightings, you are right. But most of them still remain unexplained. [[ CORRECT  ]]

“Unexplained” is not equal to “they exist”. [[[[ who said it was ]]]]

Some people, actually, I wasn`t pointing at you, even though you tend to be a fan. Who can prove it? No one. Material evidence? Not even one.

Until we have actual empirical experience, not just claims, they will remain simply unexplained.
[[[[ Sightings and such like can be considered as evidence. Evidence of something, whatever that something is.]]]]
I don`t see how this is to be taken for granted. People say a lot of things and lie or just make up too often for different reasons.  They can stage clips and photos, not to mention sightings. Could be everything. So, unless we have an actual evidence - not just claims and fishy photos/videos/words - why bother?
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on July 16, 2019, 02:41:14 PM
The flashlight 400 metres down from the tent.

 Why was it found there?

Why did they take it with them?

If they thought it was important to take with them why drop it, and why not stop to pick it back up?

How did they have time to collect a flashlight and not their clothing or shoes?  Who was carrying it?

Regards

Star man

Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: cennetkusu on July 16, 2019, 09:11:25 PM
The flashlight 400 metres down from the tent.

 Why was it found there?

Why did they take it with them?

If they thought it was important to take with them why drop it, and why not stop to pick it back up?

How did they have time to collect a flashlight and not their clothing or shoes?  Who was carrying it?

Regards

Star man
The lantern probably fell near the tent. And with the help of the slope and the wind of the mountain rolled down. In 25 days the lantern can be rolled down 400 meters. This is possible. 400/25 = 16 meters ... It can only be rolled down an average of 16 meters per day. The lighthouse can only take Semyon and Tibo. If they left the lighthouse on purpose, it could only be because they did not disturb the unknown power due to the light. There's no other reason. It may be from horror, but it's rarely seen. Because the walks are calm and they are wearing Semyon and Tibo shoes.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on July 16, 2019, 11:32:16 PM
The flashlight 400 metres down from the tent.

 Why was it found there?

Why did they take it with them?

If they thought it was important to take with them why drop it, and why not stop to pick it back up?

How did they have time to collect a flashlight and not their clothing or shoes?  Who was carrying it?

Regards

Star man
The lantern probably fell near the tent. And with the help of the slope and the wind of the mountain rolled down. In 25 days the lantern can be rolled down 400 meters. This is possible. 400/25 = 16 meters ... It can only be rolled down an average of 16 meters per day. The lighthouse can only take Semyon and Tibo. If they left the lighthouse on purpose, it could only be because they did not disturb the unknown power due to the light. There's no other reason. It may be from horror, but it's rarely seen. Because the walks are calm and they are wearing Semyon and Tibo shoes.

So you think it.rolled 400 metres down the slope.  Not the simplest explanation but ok.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on August 24, 2019, 02:00:51 AM
Just a thought on the histological elimination of the rav 4 in the case files:

In all cases the report talks of the absence or complete absence of the epidermis.  This sounds odd to me.  The question is what does it mean?  Would the outer layer of skin be absent due to decomposition?  Doesn't sound like it should. 

Does it mean the bodies have been scrubbed to remove the outer skin layer and any radiation?

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Nigel Evans on August 24, 2019, 04:32:37 AM
Just a thought on the histological elimination of the rav 4 in the case files:

In all cases the report talks of the absence or complete absence of the epidermis.  This sounds odd to me.  The question is what does it mean?  Would the outer layer of skin be absent due to decomposition?  Doesn't sound like it should. 

Does it mean the bodies have been scrubbed to remove the outer skin layer and any radiation?

Regards

Star man
Decomposition works for me. Fits with explaining the loss of eyes and tongue.
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: jarrfan on August 24, 2019, 09:11:50 AM
By my understanding, the epidermis is the outer layer of flesh that keeps moisture in the skin. If there is loss of the epidermis, it would  mean the skin was "drying out" as in the process of death/decomposition, but it happens as a course of death, not animal presence.

Jarrfan
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: sarapuk on August 24, 2019, 12:04:43 PM
Just a thought on the histological elimination of the rav 4 in the case files:

In all cases the report talks of the absence or complete absence of the epidermis.  This sounds odd to me.  The question is what does it mean?  Would the outer layer of skin be absent due to decomposition?  Doesn't sound like it should. 

Does it mean the bodies have been scrubbed to remove the outer skin layer and any radiation?

Regards

Star man

Excellent. Maybe this will help some of our Forum Members. Why do they talk of the absence of something rather than the decomposition of something  !  ?  It is highly likely that the reason is that we are not dealing with decomposition but the REMOVAL of the outer layer of skin by some other means. So what removed that skin  !  ? 
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on August 24, 2019, 12:19:07 PM
 lol1

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71ZelsUByML._SX425_.jpg)
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on August 24, 2019, 01:38:48 PM
lol1

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71ZelsUByML._SX425_.jpg)

Lol like it.  There was no grater found with the bodies though.  The mystery deepens.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Specific details
Post by: Star man on August 24, 2019, 01:41:00 PM
Just a thought on the histological elimination of the rav 4 in the case files:

In all cases the report talks of the absence or complete absence of the epidermis.  This sounds odd to me.  The question is what does it mean?  Would the outer layer of skin be absent due to decomposition?  Doesn't sound like it should. 

Does it mean the bodies have been scrubbed to remove the outer skin layer and any radiation?

Regards

Star man

Excellent. Maybe this will help some of our Forum Members. Why do they talk of the absence of something rather than the decomposition of something  !  ?  It is highly likely that the reason is that we are not dealing with decomposition but the REMOVAL of the outer layer of skin by some other means. So what removed that skin  !  ?

Well it sounds like the outer layer of skin was removed to me.  Probably not with a grater though.  So how and by what?

What about potassium permanganate and sodium meta bisulphate?

Regards

Star man