September 17, 2019, 03:20:29 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Awaiting Extraction  (Read 2260 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

May 30, 2018, 05:53:42 PM
Read 2260 times
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
S. N. SOGRIN WITNESS TESTIMONY
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-330-339?rbid=17743


Quote
On the first of March I, Axelrod, Tipikin, Ivanov LN. were landed at the scene of the accident. We were greeted by a large group of people tightly wrapped in trunks. The wind threw snow in the face and tried to throw it off the plateau. Quickly loaded into the helicopter things Dyatlova and several people. Behind the large stone lay 3 bodies already pulled up to the helipad.



All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

May 30, 2018, 06:28:45 PM
Reply #1
Offline

CalzagheChick


This is Krivo and I'm guessing Zinaida closest to Boot Rock? This photo is heart-wrenching. Just look at the lack of any clothing on Krivo's body... or is that Yuri D.?

May 30, 2018, 06:32:15 PM
Reply #2
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
This is Krivo and I'm guessing Zinaida closest to Boot Rock? This photo is heart-wrenching. Just look at the lack of any clothing on Krivo's body... or is that Yuri D.?

Its Yuri K and Zina....  but...

Quote
Behind the large stone lay 3 bodies already pulled up to the helipad.

And it looks like another unidentified body to the right of Zina.  The white sheet appears an attempt to cover both bodies closer to the rock.  In addition....  notice the very bad weather conditions in which the picture happened.   wink1





All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

May 31, 2018, 07:56:13 AM
Reply #3
Offline

Vietnamka


This is Krivo and I'm guessing Zinaida closest to Boot Rock? This photo is heart-wrenching. Just look at the lack of any clothing on Krivo's body... or is that Yuri D.?
Krivo on front. U can see Zina's back and Yura Doroshenko is behind Zina.

June 02, 2018, 11:45:21 AM
Reply #4
Offline

CalzagheChick


When I first joined this site as a member, I was really only familiar with the obviously different members of the Dyatlov party in terms of likeness. I could readily identify Lyudmila, Zinaida, and Semyon. I couldn't say all ten names from memory. I certainly couldn't put names to faces.

Now it's like nothing. Igor, 3 Yuris, Tibo, Semyon, Sasha, Lyudmila, Zinaida and Rustem. I know their faces. I know their names. I can tell you how each one died and where they were found in relation to the slope of the moutain. I know that Rustem is thought to be the first fatality and Kolevatov is accepted to be the final fatality, but everybody in between is speculation.

I don't know why I'm so pulled to this event, but I am and it bothers me because it just seems so irrational. It's 60 years old and in reality I know that we will never definitively solve this case unless by some miracle.

June 02, 2018, 10:00:08 PM
Reply #5
Offline

Marchesk


It's 60 years old and in reality I know that we will never definitively solve this case unless by some miracle.

Do you have a preferred theory? Or are you okay with not knowing?

There are some unsolved cases in which upon hearing/reading enough of the evidence, I can reach a definitive conclusion as to what I think happened. But this one doesn't lend itself so well to that.

June 03, 2018, 03:52:22 AM
Reply #6
Offline

blackjackie


Krivo on front. U can see Zina's back and Yura Doroshenko is behind Zina.

I can't spot Zina and Yuri D. instead, it's not so clear to me. How did you distinguish them?

Now it's like nothing. Igor, 3 Yuris, Tibo, Semyon, Sasha, Lyudmila, Zinaida and Rustem. I know their faces. I know their names. I can tell you how each one died and where they were found in relation to the slope of the moutain. I know that Rustem is thought to be the first fatality and Kolevatov is accepted to be the final fatality, but everybody in between is speculation.

I don't know why I'm so pulled to this event, but I am and it bothers me because it just seems so irrational. It's 60 years old and in reality I know that we will never definitively solve this case unless by some miracle.

It's the same for me. And I feel sympathy for them as if I really knew them. Do you?

June 03, 2018, 07:17:34 AM
Reply #7
Offline

CalzagheChick


Oh I absolutely do feel a profound sympathy for them. As though I knew them in life! It's crazy. The autopsy photos tend to get to me a little too much and the funeral photos are intensely dreary. It's rather fitting that everything is in black and white because it lends to the difficulty of their time and general despair. In my mind, I like to imagine that had they survived, a group of them would have defected to Norway to escape the USSR.

As far as a preferred theory: Knowing everything that I know right now from months ago, I lean more towards a natural disaster than murder, military, drugs, KGB, dead drop or any other man-made incident or extraterrestrial incident. And I say that with reservation as well. I truly HATE that nothing fits. I really HATE that there are red herrings within our evidence pile and we just don't know what they are in order for one theory to stick here. I've got my money that the beta particle radiation on the clothing is one of those red herrings. I often exclude it when playing around with a theorem.  What about you, Marchesk? I don't believe I've seen you married to any particular theorem on the board. Not in the manner of say, Inge who is convinced completely that this is murder anyway.

June 04, 2018, 03:41:40 AM
Reply #8
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


Oh I absolutely do feel a profound sympathy for them. As though I knew them in life! It's crazy. The autopsy photos tend to get to me a little too much and the funeral photos are intensely dreary. It's rather fitting that everything is in black and white because it lends to the difficulty of their time and general despair. In my mind, I like to imagine that had they survived, a group of them would have defected to Norway to escape the USSR.

As far as a preferred theory: Knowing everything that I know right now from months ago, I lean more towards a natural disaster than murder, military, drugs, KGB, dead drop or any other man-made incident or extraterrestrial incident. And I say that with reservation as well. I truly HATE that nothing fits. I really HATE that there are red herrings within our evidence pile and we just don't know what they are in order for one theory to stick here. I've got my money that the beta particle radiation on the clothing is one of those red herrings. I often exclude it when playing around with a theorem.  What about you, Marchesk? I don't believe I've seen you married to any particular theorem on the board. Not in the manner of say, Inge who is convinced completely that this is murder anyway.


It is only a well-planned and intelligently executed murder which can explain the deaths and all the injuries.

Many people are understandably misled by some factors like:

Misleading factor 1. No traces of other people at the site were found.

- Of course no traces of others were found. First, almost a month had passed from the night of the death of the hikers to the day when the first search and rescue team arrived. So not only were there any traces of others, there were barely any traces of the hikers themselves. Their footprints when they left the tent were only visible for a short distance. Attackers who can be expected to have moved around on skis - and most likely broad mountain skis - would not leave few if any trails that were visible after nearly four weeks. The absence of traces from others is no proof that there were no others, and judged from the damage and injuries of the hikers it is overstepping the limits of possibility that these could have been the results of natural disasters or accidents.

Misleading factor 2. There is no motive.

- When dead people are found, it is a unscientific approach to assume that if there is no obvious motive there it cannot be homicide. A dead body does not tell about what motives the killer might have had. The correct scientific approach is to use the principle of exclusion, and the most reasonable approach is to exclude the worst possibility first. That means, the possibility of murder. After having excluded all the possibilities, the conclusion of homicide is the one that is left with by far the greatest weight. The question of motive belongs to a later stage, after it has been established what actually happened. There is a motive behind also when we do not know it.

Misleading factor 3. The place was inaccessible.

- The place was perfectly accessible as a matter of course, as the presence of the search and rescue team's helicopter at the site demonstrates. It was accessible by either helicopter or skis, or a combination of these. We are not talking about a murder committed by drunken street thugs or common criminals.

Misleading factor 4. Nothing of the hikers' belongings were stolen.

- Since the target were the hikers and the purpose of the attack must have been to take their lives, their belongings were naturally uninteresting and irrelevant for the assailants. It was not a robbery.

Misleading factor 5. The murder was done in a "clumsy" and irrational way. It would have been much more rational and intelligent to just let the nine students "disappear" or shoot them and then bury them in closed coffins.

- On the contrary, the murder of the nine students were a brilliant and extremely intelligent operation. This is demonstrated by the result: Many people cannot bring themselves to believe that the nine were indeed homicide victims. This must have been exactly what those who planned the killings have reasoned would happen. And the intelligent plan worked. Further: It is a misunderstanding to believe that it would have been "easier" to let the nine "disappear" or to bury them in closed coffins after having shot them. If they had "disappeared" most people would have understood that something criminal had happened. There would have been speculation, as there is speculation now, but a complete disappearance of nine students would most probably have led to more people assuming murder. The same if the victims had been put in closed coffins and buried without anyone having been allowed to see the dead bodies. That would also have been truly suspect.

- To force the nine victims out from the tent badly dressed and let the cold do the dirty work is a very smart way to do it. Since the weather was not excruciatingly cold on the night of February 02, 1959, the nine did not die as soon as the assailants had probably expected. When they routinely hunted them down, almost certainly on skis, the attackers found that their victims were still alive. So they had to be expedited, and those who were better dressed than the others were killed with greater force whereas those who were most badly dressed only needed lighter beatings to ensure their deaths - they must have been severely weakened by the cold. Rustem Slobodin is believed to have died first, and that makes sense since he was very athletic and could be expected to put up a fight - when he probably sensed that the attackers did not want to use the firearms they most certainly carried. But his skull injury tells its tale, as did the severe injuries of Kolevatov with his broken larynx/windpipe which is frightfully consistent with a lethal technique I personally have learned in jiu jitsu, the crushed skull of Thibeaux-Brignolle as well as the crushed breast cages of Dubinina and Zolotarev. It is also more than probable that the injuries of Kolmogorova were caused by a human attack, and the damages to the bodies of Doroshenko and Krivonishenko likewise. Doroshenko and Krivonishenko had so desperately tried to climb the cedar tree that their fingers were completely destroyed, and is not likely that this was done because they wanted to collect firewood. It is far more likely that they made a last desperate and futile attempt to flee from their attackers.

The world history is full of intelligently planned murders which have been carefully performed to look like "accidents," "heart attacks," "suicides" and other non-criminal and natural causes. We have a tendency to think that murder is an act of brutal stupidity and primitivity, but that mindset may often prevent us from seeing clearly when we are confronted with a combination of utter disregard for human life and highly intelligent planning and execution. When we encounter something out of the ordinary, we are prone to ascribe it to stupidity.

For example, the Russian dictator Iosif Stalin is mostly believed to be a half-stupid and limited man because he was so boundlessly merciless in the pursuit of what he saw as the interests of the Soviet Union. But in actual fact Stalin possessed an extraordinary mind that enabled him to excel in everything from singing to poetry to any of the school's various subjects from boyhood on. In his private library he had over 20 000 books, all bore marks of being read. The ruthless Soviet chief prosecutor Andrej Vyshinskij is another example. In the West, the Moscow trials are considered a phenomenon of boundless stupidity, but in actual fact they were brilliant. The Moscow trials deceived many in the West, and they had a strong chilling effect on the opposition to the Soviet government. Significantly, Vyshinskij admitted openly that it could not be avoided that the state's judicial system also condemned innocent people. But when the ends are by principle believed to justify the means, it is natural to sacrifize 99 innocents to eliminate one who might possibly be - or become - guilty. If there was the slightest possibility that an individual could be a security risk to the state for any reason, the way to his death was short. And death could be and was accomplished by countless methods. The most intelligent methods make the result look like natural death, and therefore minimize popular unrest.

I believe that without an understanding of a mentality which is very different from the one that is based on the humanitarian principles, we are blocked from understanding what happened to the nine hikers on the fateful night of February 01-02, 1959.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 05:27:32 AM by Per Inge Oestmoen »

June 04, 2018, 07:11:18 AM
Reply #9
Offline

Mash


Question to Per Inge Oestmoen: And what motive did "the murderers" have?
Wer schweigt stimmt nicht immer zu. Er hat nur manchmal keine Lust mit Idioten zu diskutieren (Albert Einstein)

June 05, 2018, 04:50:05 AM
Reply #10
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


Question to Per Inge Oestmoen: And what motive did "the murderers" have?


If you ask me, I shall answer that since the act happened almost sixty years ago and a proper criminal investigation was never made it may be that we will never know what considerations were behind the decision to take the lives of these nine hikers. Those responsible would have been adult men in 1959, and few if any of them are likely to be still alive in 2018. Someone may know, and there is some hearsay "evidence" - which of course would and should never hold in a court of law.

It is very important to bear in mind that if we find one or several dead people, the first thing we need to do is to try to find out what happened. We must ask whether the analyzed evidence points to natural death, accidents or something else. Even if it is found that the death was not natural, that in itself does not say anything about why the killing(s) were made. Unless the murderer is caught, it may be impossible to establish a motive. That does not alter the fact if there was a murder.

It is therefore possible that we have to accept that unless someone finally talks, we shall never able to answer the "why" question with any more precision than to suggest that some who had the resources and the motivation to send a group of assailants to commit the act judged that the nine hikers were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

June 05, 2018, 06:23:15 AM
Reply #11
Offline

CalzagheChick


When I first joined the site a few months back, I was happy with declaring murder as my preferred theory. It's just that since  then, I've read so much and taken so much in. Plus all of the debates that we have in the forum... especially regarding that darn tent! How we continue to try to establish what evidence in this crap show is not really evidence at all but a red herring.

Over time my knowledge, my opinions, my understanding of events and people involved--they've all evolved drastically. I've grown so so so so much in this forum in a very short period of time. I love building the forum as well. I love resurrecting old threads that don't have an answer. I love filling the theories section with threads where there were none before. I love seeing things that we've never seen before in the Victims section. I love asserting my position that the Dyatlov Party were a group of individuals that had lives and they didn't deserve this death at such tender ages (even 37!)... they should have raised families and explored the world. But they never got that chance. And although their deaths are fascinating and thrilling to debate and research, we should afford the victims at least SOME emphasis on their short lives. We should celebrate their lives. They deserve that. Their families deserve that.

October 04, 2018, 12:09:32 PM
Reply #12
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
It would help if everyone tried to keep in the Topic rather than wonder off course. I know some Topics lend to that drifting more easily than others. But here the Topic is about AWAITING EXTRACTION, and then its drifting off into MURDER etc etc.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2018, 03:45:35 PM by sarapuk »
DB

October 26, 2018, 03:16:39 PM
Reply #13
Offline

Marchesk


What about you, Marchesk? I don't believe I've seen you married to any particular theorem on the board.

I didn't see this back in June. I agree with everything you said in your post. I favor a natural explanation, but nothing fits completely, and we can't be certain about the all the evidence.

December 04, 2018, 08:55:32 AM
Reply #14
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


What about you, Marchesk? I don't believe I've seen you married to any particular theorem on the board.

I didn't see this back in June. I agree with everything you said in your post. I favor a natural explanation, but nothing fits completely, and we can't be certain about the all the evidence.


Without new evidence, we cannot go further.

Still I would like to point out that the circumstances and the injuries point in the direction of a well planned homicide. There is no way these injuries could be caused by accidents and non-existent avalanches.

The murder theory is the one which fits all the available evidence - but since the conclusive proof is lacking and there are no witnesses we are stuck and will remain so until there is new evidence in addition to what we already have.

December 04, 2018, 09:11:53 AM
Reply #15
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Quote
circumstances and the injuries point in the direction of a well planned homicide. There is no way these injuries could be caused by accidents and non-existent avalanches.

Pure conjecture


All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

December 04, 2018, 06:52:35 PM
Reply #16
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
What about you, Marchesk? I don't believe I've seen you married to any particular theorem on the board.

I didn't see this back in June. I agree with everything you said in your post. I favor a natural explanation, but nothing fits completely, and we can't be certain about the all the evidence.


Without new evidence, we cannot go further.


Its true, unfortunately, that we lack more evidence, but remember we have much more information before us than when the USSR existed. So progress as been made and there is no reason to suppose that more progress will not be made eventually. Obviously we have to be patient and work with what evidence and other findings we have.

DB