October 19, 2019, 12:52:38 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: New petition to the head of the Investigative Committee of Russia  (Read 1176 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

July 22, 2019, 10:28:46 AM
Reply #30
Offline

tekumze


Dear members,
Thank you for your advice on where to look for the disclosure of Wab theory.
I must say that I have read all his articles, dialogues with other members ... But to notice any empirical thesis (which would indicate why basically a tragedy actually occurred) from his side, I must admit that I did not find it . It is full of academic lectures, advocacy of Russian legislation, persuasion and discrediting of differently thinking people, avoidance of certain questions posed by people in the forum ... So that I actually got the feeling that it's all just a defense of the thesis that in fact it is not nothing happened, for which the state and the authorities would be guilty or responsible. In fact, nothing more than a continuation of the thesis of an 'unexplained force that could not be resisted'.
If I miss anything for negligence, I apologize.
Of course this is only my personal opinion and does not reflect the views of this forum.

July 22, 2019, 10:58:25 AM
Reply #31
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
So? What does it matter how one builds its theory. Or not. If one has any theory at all. I don't. If you can find something - good, if not - leave it be. Seriously - what's your fascination with WAB?
« Last Edit: July 22, 2019, 11:19:08 AM by Teddy »

July 22, 2019, 11:41:01 AM
Reply #32
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
He may not have posted a 1, 2, 3 sequence of events, but from what I can see, he believes one was injured on the third rock ridge down the slope, several fell into the ravine at a location with considerable height some meters from where the RAV4 were found, and the others died of exposure attempting to rescue the injured. 

Basically

Pretty good theory in my opinion however, I don't know his version of why they left the tent to begin with.
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

July 22, 2019, 11:55:32 AM
Reply #33
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
There is a sequence here - his words. I only translated.

https://dyatlovpass.com/ravine-borzenkov

How did the events unfold
"Lyuda, Semyon and Aleksander Kolevatov found wounded Tibo on the 3rd stone ridge (where Maslennikov drawing shows the dropped flashlight) and carry him from there following the easiest and most even route. In this area this is the most probable way. They have come on a place marked as 8 high slope. From there the cedar can be seen in the afternoon. At night the reflexion of the fire lit by Doroshenko and Krivonischenko will be well visible. From the top of the slope of white snow against white snow the edge and drop are not clear. While carrying Tibo they didn't notice it and the whole group tumble down the slope. Lyuda and Semyon were injured. Only Aleksander Kolevatov remained mobile and went in the direction of the fire for help. He found Doroshenko and Krivonischenko dead and removed some clothes repositioning them next to each other. Kolevatov went back (dropping some clothes found before the bodies in May 1959) at made a temporary den to lay down the injured hikers on branches while moving them to the fire. He then went to the place of fall where there are now three injured hikers and start transporting them one by one in the following order: Lyuda, Nikolay and Semyon. The work Kolevatov did was very exhausting, he didn't manage to transfer not a single person from the den to the fire. The strength of a man is not infinite even in survival mode."


July 22, 2019, 12:38:36 PM
Reply #34
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Not sure where Igor and Zina were during all this, or why dig a den if the ultimate goal was to relocate them to the cedar next to the fire... If the fire was started by the 2Yuries it may have already been out.   I dunno....  See my signature line.   whacky1
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

July 22, 2019, 12:52:52 PM
Reply #35
Offline

Teddy

Administrator

July 22, 2019, 01:20:42 PM
Reply #36
Offline

tekumze


What I wrote It was just my opinion. Nothing else. Democratic right to thought. It was just an opinion, not a claim. Of course It does not any matter how one builds its theory. Like it does not matter who has found who. In the end, everyone was found dead. Important is why these young people died if, according to normal logic, they had to live for at least 50 years. Important is that things remain hidden in the name of state law. Important is that somebody is allowed to ignor a recognized pathologists like Mr Thumanov and on the other hand is offended  when somebody has been given a joke at the expense of the 375 (or more) discussion on whether the  snow avalanche was or not. There is much more important things than proving who is more clever than the other. And I totally agree with you, Teddy, if someone puts out some theory or thesis, let him develop it. Not that immediately appears a person who, due to his great ego, tries to deny it in any way. And immediately everyone is satisfied with demagogic rhetoric.
Nothing else matters.
P.s.:Where everyone thinks the same no one thinks


July 22, 2019, 01:36:36 PM
Reply #37
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
So we are on one page. Only a note - who found who does matter. Here is an example:
Akselrod saw Slobodin's body and noticed the icy bed. So we say his dying place wasn't doctored and probably he died first because he was still warm when he fell.
Yes, but Akselrod didn't see the rest of the bodies so if he is the only one noticing the ice under bodies we can't be sure the rest didn't have it too.
This a small example. I think it is important who found who, or in other words - who was present. Or else how can we believe the testimonies for people that haven't seen the bodies, or the tent or the labaz? Of course we need to know who found them. And when.

July 22, 2019, 03:03:01 PM
Reply #38
Offline

tekumze


So we are on one page again.
Only a note:
 Who is found who is relevant only if  it leads to conclusions which is basically important and that is:  Why Slobodin was at that night in the snow and not in the tent as he should be? As long as this (who found who) does not give an absolute answer to the basic question, it is not relevant at all. And we all know where we are now with the solution of DPI problem. At the same point as in 1959. For now.
That is for once the definition of generative semantics. Linearity of the syntax is for now only known communication. The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage more critical and dissident views. This gives people the sense that there is free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are reinforced by the limits placed on the range of the debate.