November 21, 2019, 07:03:10 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: All the theories require a speculative leap  (Read 809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

May 14, 2018, 11:26:56 PM
Read 809 times
Offline

Marchesk


    Given what evidence we do have, every single theory requires imagining a scenario and fitting the evidence to it.

    • Avalanche: no actual evidence there was one of any kind other than some snow on the tent, or that the hikers thought there was one. The most convincing avalanche theory I've heard requires imagining that the wind blew the evidence away.
    • Paradoxical Undressing: no evidence this happened inside the tent.
    • Infrasound: no evidence this has ever caused that sort of panic or occurred on that mountain.
    • Ball Lightning, Meteor: no evidence other than possibly burned top of trees, which isn't documented, and the camera negatives.
    • Stove: no evidence it was used that night, except conflicting reports of what was inside the stove.
    • Ergot, Mushrooms, Methanol: no evidence from toxicology report and food not tested (?)
    • Mansi, Special Forces, Other Humans: no evidence anyone else was there that night.
    • Military Testing: no debris of any kind, radiation source, etc. other than possibly camera negatives.
    • Illness: no evidence from autopsy reports.

    I've seen quite a few people say online this isn't really a mystery, and that there is a simple explanation (usually the first or second one above). But that's not really true at all. We have a bunch of theories without enough evidence to confirm any one theory. And depending on who you ask, a given theory is more or less plausible.

    It's also really hard to tell whether some of the evidence is actually relevant, or even real, given conflicting accounts and lack of photos or documentation for some of the scene before disturbing it.
     
    Edit: fix list formatting

« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 11:26:14 PM by Marchesk »

May 15, 2018, 03:37:38 AM
Reply #1
Offline

CalzagheChick


Yes this pretty much sums it up. This is why I refuse to marry a theory but remain open in the even new scientific evidence should come to light although HIGHLY improbable. I have a major issue with the fact that we can't even tell what, based upon what was left to be found on that slope, is evidence of what happened to these kids and what is just their luggage. I find is disheartening that Teddy's site is the only real attempt to put all of the documentation from the case in 60 years time in one place and in some kind of order rather than spread out over the interwebz abyss in several languages so that nobody knows what's what, the source of the information, or context of the original documents.

Something is always lost in translation unfortunately, so even I know that off the top I'm in a massive imposition in regards to the original case files. I'm also bothered that I can't look up and read the massive amounts of Russian-written articles on it. I'm stuck with English versions that may or may not be completely accurate.

One thing that I feel is absolutely necessary before examining all of the theories is having a solid background on Western Civilization, particularly Soviet Russian history. There's no better way to approach this from the beginning of events than with an understanding of the times these people were living in and what they'd suffered through within living memory beforehand.

May 16, 2018, 07:29:23 AM
Reply #2
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


The fundamental problem with the Dyatlov pass deaths, is that no proper investigation was ever made. When the Dyatlov group's camp was found, nobody thought about securing evidence. In addition, it is certain that during the long period from the fateful night of February 1-2 and February 26 important evidence must have disappeared. Ski trails, and in particular ski trails left by mountain skis, would almost certainly have completely disappeared.

On top of the already serious difficulties mentioned above, there came orders from governmental authorities which dictated that the case be closed with the conclusion that the nine died as a result of a combination of accident by "a compelling natural force" and hypothermia. Then we need to try to find out whether accidents, natural forces and hypothermia provide an explanation for the death of nine people during one single night. Evidently, the investigators in 1959 refrained from doing that - and they were pressurized to do so. For this reason, the official documents fail to delve sufficiently deep into the forensic evidence that was and to some degree still is available to us.

After the tragedy, the government decreed that common people were forbidden to enter the area for a period for three years. There is no rational reason why such a ban should be enforced if the official conclusions were correct. The natural terrain in that area is not particularly dangerous in any way either, so there could be no need to prevent people from entering for reasons of safety. 

Today, in my opinion the best we can do is to focus on the starting point: Nine people died. Their bodies were found. Dead people tell their own tale. We must simply re-analyze the available evidence as best we can, and start with the bodies. That is the best we can do.

August 01, 2018, 03:57:11 PM
Reply #3
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
We may not have all the evidence. We could think of it as a jigsaw puzzle, but some parts are missing. Where are those parts.
DB