September 20, 2021, 10:14:51 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Question List  (Read 2221 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

September 18, 2020, 07:05:01 PM
Read 2221 times
Offline

mk


Do we have a list of unanswered questions anywhere? 

I find myself getting sidetracked on a handful of questions and forgetting about the others.  It helps me to see it all laid out, so I made a list of the questions I could think of off-hand.  Please feel free to add to the list--I'm sure there are plenty I've overlooked.

Obvious Questions (in no particular order)
1. Why did they leave the tent?
2. Did they cut the tent themselves?
   A. If so, why?
   B. If not, who cut it?
3. If it was an emergency, what sort of emergency would cause them to leave the tent and then walk more or less calmly for quite some distance to the forest?
4. Who took the last pictures on the film?
   A. If the hikers, what were they photographing?
5. Why were they incompletely dressed when they left the tent?
6. Why didn’t they stay together?
7. Why didn’t Zolotaryov write a final message with the notebook and pencil he had?
   A. Or, if he did write a message, what happened to it?
8. Why did they climb the cedar?
9. Why didn’t they keep the fire going?
10. Did the Ravine Four really build a shelter in the snow? 
11. What accounts for the variety of injuries of all the hikers?
12.  How many actually died of hypothermia?
13.  What did the others die from?
14. Is the amount of radiation found on the clothing significant?
   A. If so, where did it come from?
   B.  Why did the officials feel it necessary to test the clothing for radiation?
15. Why are the case files so unorthodox and missing key components?
16.  Why, in the middle of their investigations, were Ivanov and Okishev suddenly and inexplicably ordered to close the file and tell the families of the hikers that it was all an accident?
17. Was Bienko intentionally removed from the group in order to make space for Zolotaryov?
18.  Why was the area closed off for 3 years following the incident?

Rumors – true, false, or irrelevant? (in no particular order)
* Fire orbs in the sky (reported by people in the area)
* Burned marks on trees (reported by Ivanov)
* Unusual number of dead fowl/birds in the area (reported by rescue workers)
* Escaped captives from the Ivdel gulag
* Faces and skin of hikers discolored orange
* Tent found two days earlier than reported
* Criminal investigation opened on the death of the hikers before they were reported missing.
* DNA from Zolotaryov’s grave doesn’t match that of his family.

September 19, 2020, 10:13:10 AM
Reply #1
Offline

WAB



I am rarely visit to this forum, but if I happen to be, I want answer to questions that are considered unanswered, although I have specific answers to specific questions.
These are already repeated answers to many questions in this forum.
I don't know how often I can appear here, but I will gladly read comments to these answers.

Do we have a list of unanswered questions anywhere? 

I find myself getting sidetracked on a handful of questions and forgetting about the others.  It helps me to see it all laid out, so I made a list of the questions I could think of off-hand.  Please feel free to add to the list--I'm sure there are plenty I've overlooked.

Do we have a list of unanswered questions anywhere? 
Obvious Questions (in no particular order)
1. Why did they leave the tent?

Because they felt that they could no longer be there. The presence of danger is not obligatory, because insurmountable feelings in everyone's head are more than common sense and sober calculation. It must be noted that this feeling occurred to everyone at the same time and within a short period of time.
If you think differently, there are always logical contradictions.

2. Did they cut the tent themselves?

Of course, by themselves. Others simply couldn't reveal it, because no one was there. You don't have to think that you can only get there from the doors of your ranch. In 1959, not many people could get there at all because of the conditions that had to be overcome and the dangers that few could overcome.


   A. If so, why?

Why did you open up your tent? – It I wrote two points above. Why were they opened by themselves? - It I wrote one point higher.


   B. If not, who cut it?

This has no bearing on the entire course of events. It could have been any of them. Perhaps, except for the girls.


3. If it was an emergency, what sort of emergency would cause them to leave the tent and then walk more or less calmly for quite some distance to the forest?

Regardless of the nature of this situation, they did so. The specific reason is covered by a wall of misunderstanding of the physical processes in the natural environment and a lack of the necessary knowledge. The biggest part of those who discuss this problem. I won't talk about the details, because those who have discussed it with (except academic specialists) say a lot, but there is no physical sense in these conversations.
Only highly qualified specialists can deal with false questions about natural phenomena. All the more so because in this case a symbiosis of several sciences in different fields of knowledge is required.
I have to make a comment on this: there is no sign that they have walked this distance "quietly" or "not quietly", and that they all acted together.

4. Who took the last pictures on the film?

Which photograph (or about which photographs) is this question asked?

   A. If the hikers, what were they photographing?

If this question is about the photo "#34 from Krivonischenko", you can read everything on the link https://dyatlovpass.com/frame-34?rbid=18461 .

5. Why were they incompletely dressed when they left the tent?

Because their feelings did not allow them to stay in place even for a short time. And before that, they were in a tent in a state of complete rest for the whole night.

6. Why didn’t they stay together?

Because when you leave the tent, nature (weather and psychological condition) scattered them far enough apart. Their ability to see and hear each other was very limited (a few metres or several tens of feet).

7. Why didn’t Zolotaryov write a final message with the notebook and pencil he had?

Why did he have to write something? Especially after he had been injured, which was almost fatal in those conditions. It's not like he's terminator in Hollywood`s film.

   A. Or, if he did write a message, what happened to it?

What can happen to something that did not happen?
The conversations from this note are a myth. Even Vladimir Askinazi himself wrote to me (in his letter to me) that these are vague memories after 50+ years. Apart from him, nobody talked about it. Rumours spread faster than common sense. And if you look at a photo in a stream before the bodies have been removed, it is finally clear that even a crumpled piece of paper cannot be kept there.

8. Why did they climb the cedar?

It was the only place they could go and where there was at least even bad firewood.

9. Why didn’t they keep the fire going?

Because they had already lost consciousness from the cold and could not add wood to the fire.

10. Did the Ravine Four really build a shelter in the snow?

No.
1.  This does not make any sense. This shelter couldn't protect them from anything. There is no wind at the cedar or the place where they were found. The cold is the same everywhere.
2. This is impossible even when there is a lot of snow. And when they had little snow there. Den was found at a height of 30 cm (1 ft from the ground) is the thickness of compacted snow. So the thickness of fresh snow should be 40 ... 45 cm (8 ... 9 in).

11. What accounts for the variety of injuries of all the hikers?

Because they received them in different places and under different conditions. It was very easy get hurt at that time and under those conditions. One might wonder that there aren't as many as there could have been.

12.  How many actually died of hypothermia?

That's it. We can assume that Tibo and Luda Dubinina could have died before the cold finally hit them, but the others died of hypothermia for sure. If immediate, qualified and external assistance could have been provided, almost everyone else could have survived with different consequences. But there was nowhere to wait for help and there was no way to report what had happened.
Even now, if something happened to others and there was a connection to the rescue service, help could appear on the second or third day.

13.  What did the others die from?

Tibo and Luda Dubinina both died from injuries that were almost incompatible with life. The cold made their deaths worse and faster.

14. Is the amount of radiation found on the clothing significant?

No. The maximum emission level obtained from the examination is 135 Bq (Becquerels). This is the same amount as gives 2 kG (140 pdl) bananas in the Ka-40 isotope. The type of emitter is irrelevant.

   A. If so, where did it come from?

This is an external pollution that could have been received in any of the three cases:
1) From the fallout from the Novaya Zemlya test site, where a record number of nuclear explosions in the atmosphere were carried out in 1958 (before the moratorium). These particles were then transported by the wind and dropped out over a large area. They were then washed away by water in a stream (from the slopes of the surrounding mountains) and then applied to clothes.
2) They came from the clothes of Georgy Krivonishchenko, who worked at the "Mayak" combine immediately after the accident in 1957. This is the South Urals Radioactive Trace.
3. a small amount of contamination could have come from the clothes of Aleksandr Kolevatov, who studied at the university in a specialisation related to work with radioactive substances and worked directly with these substances. At the time, radiation control was not as strict as it is now.

   B.  Why did the officials feel it necessary to test the clothing for radiation?

This was decided by Lev Ivanov himself, who at that time was undergoing additional training under the radioactive research programme. He did not know what had happened (nobody knows for sure until now) and tried to find the reason by "going to the sky with his finger".
Radioactivity, along with missiles, was a very common meme at the time (as they say now!). It was the peak of anticipation of nuclear war, so many people were talking about it, kittens had almost no precise knowledge at the time.

15. Why are the case files so unorthodox and missing key components?

This was decided by Lev Ivanov himself, who at that time was undergoing additional training under the radioactive research programme. He did not know what had happened (nobody knows for sure until now) and tried to find the reason by "going to the sky with his finger".
Radioactivity, along with missiles, was a very common meme at the time (as they say now!). There was a peak of waiting for nuclear war, so many people talked about it, although almost no one had any precise knowledge at the time.

16.  Why, in the middle of their investigations, were Ivanov and Okishev suddenly and inexplicably ordered to close the file and tell the families of the hikers that it was all an accident?

This is fake statement. I have already written about it several times.
We look at the facts and requirements of the law on conducting such investigations:
1.   The law requires a period of 2 months to carry out a preliminary investigation.
2.   The regional prosecutor can extend this period by one month.
3.   Further extensions are only possible at the federal level, provided that there is undeniable evidence that a crime has been committed.
Now we are looking at the facts:
The case was opened on 26 (28) February 1959.
The case was extended on 28 April 1959. By the way, there is the signature of Okishev himself, who temporarily replaced his boss, Stepan Lukin, who was on holiday.
The case was buried on 28 May 1959, although work continued there, because there are documents that did not have time to draw up and they cost the date 29 May 1959.
Now questions for you:
Who could break the law and extend the investigation if the deadline had expired and no evidence was found that there was a crime?
Why did the Federal authorities have to extend the case if there was no reason to do so?
Talking about someone interfering and ordering only remains unreasonable. Because there is no confirmation of this. There are only very biased interpretations of various events.

17. Was Bienko intentionally removed from the group in order to make space for Zolotaryov?

Why did you decide that? Bienko was sent to other work from the university and it was known before - a few days before his release.
Zolotarev was preparing to go on a trip to the Circumpolar Urals in the group of Sergei Sogrin, and a few days before the exit of the group of Dyatlov, he decided to abandon the group of Sogrin, because he was not satisfied with the terms of return. Dyatlov was looking for a replacement for Bienko, Sogrin recommended Zolotarev to Dyatlov. This is the whole combination that was here. It is possible to look for a black cat for a long time in a dark room, only what result do you want to get?
I don't understand at all why everybody, except those who are closely connected with such a journey, sucked so hard on Zolotarev. There is nothing special about the fact that a person older than the rest of the group is going on a journey. It is in every 8th or 10th group of travelers. When we went on a ski trip to the islands Severnaya Zemlya in the Arctic in 1980, we had Peter Lukoyanov in the unser group, who was 26 years older than me. What is so special about it? That's why such a powerful discussion of Semen Zolotarev's personality only distracts from the essence of what happened and prevents us from moving towards the truth.

18.  Why was the area closed off for 3 years following the incident?

There was no closure of the "territory". There was limited access for travelers from the city of Sverdlovsk to this local place. It was an exceptionally bureaucratic decision, which had no effect on the travel of people from other cities even in the summer of 1959.

Rumors – true, false, or irrelevant? (in no particular order)
* Fire orbs in the sky (reported by people in the area)

If they coincide with rocket launches from Baikonur Cosmodrome (17.02.1959 and 31.03.1959) with the accuracy to minutes, it means that this is a visible reflection of these launches. Such coincidences do not happen by chance. If it is different and there are no repetitions in confirmation by objective information, it means rumors. There were a lot of rumors then, but they did not find any confirmation.
However, anyone can consider then it is UFO.

* Burned marks on trees (reported by Ivanov)

No one, except Ivanov himself (30 years after that) did not talk about it. Even the numerous search participants who were there from February to May.

* Unusual number of dead fowl/birds in the area (reported by rescue workers)

There were rumors about it. However, they had no confirmation. Talks of people who were not there and did not see it themselves, but talked about it, have no value.

* Escaped captives from the Ivdel gulag

At first, we should note that the Gulag will cease to exist in 1953...1956. They were ordinary criminal offenders who had long terms of imprisonment - 12, 25 and 6 years for serious crimes (the first two). They escaped their usual prison camp, which had nothing to do with political reasons.
They escaped on 19 February 1959 and were caught on 21 February 1959 at a distance of no more than 10 ... 20 km (6 ... 12 mi) from the camp. Let me remind you that before the pass at least 200 km (125 mi), and caught them in the opposite direction from the path to the pass. They were moving towards to the transport ways.

* Faces and skin of hikers discolored orange

https://dyatlovpass.com/chivruay-incident-2?lid=1  on page #16 has photo. Read it, everything is written there.

* Tent found two days earlier than reported

These are also the next fake conversations. There are a lot of such conversations, but it is clear to everyone who even little can think and analyze what is said.

* Criminal investigation opened on the death of the hikers before they were reported missing.

It is also a fake. I have already written here many times that the date of February 6 appeared on the cover because the archivists write it by the date of the very first document, but not by the fact of the location in the case of the first document, which is the order to start a criminal case. This document (with the date of February 06) is located in the middle of the folder, where the document for March 6 and beyond is located. This date appeared as a result of a mistake, because March had just begun and police officer used to write "February". By the way, there is absolutely nothing in this document that says that we should start the case.
So if a doctor accidentally writes about you that you died (God forbid, of course, I'm speaking as for example), having confused you with another person, will you really die or will he consider it mistake?

* DNA from Zolotaryov’s grave doesn’t match that of his family.

Where did you get this from? I have already written here too. This is a traditional trick of journalists: first they say they have doubts, then they say they are not, then there is a mistake...
In April 2018, right after this exhumation Galina Sazonova (Vietnamka) - she was present there - together with Alexander Alexeyenkov (Shura) were at my home. We talked about this exhumation. I then said that in the newspaper it will be in four stages: first there will be an article with discussion, then there will be a conclusion that it is not him, then there will be an article about doubts, then there will be a conclusion that it is him.
That's how it happened afterwards. Journalists earn their money by writing a lot, so what they write in the press should be treated very critically.

September 19, 2020, 01:55:21 PM
Reply #2
Offline

Monty


Very well grounded and impossible to dispute. But it leaves us uncultured participants with the only explanation of the hikers leaving the tent confused about something that only occurred in their minds. It is difficult to contest your thorough and detailed explanation. I think you are nearest the mark. But we still have to ponder why death became them, when sitting next to the tent for a few hours might have seen just one survive.

September 19, 2020, 03:55:23 PM
Reply #3
Offline

Investigator


Beginner, some of your questions can't be answered or are outside the scope of the evidence on the ground and in the diaries, which is what I feel comfortable addressing.

1.  Too cold to survive or the tent appeared to be in dire shape (about to be blown open or collapse; the winds coming off the top of that mountain are fierce).
2.  Never assume such things, as even "experts" can be totally wrong.  What usually resolves things in these cases is a reconstruction, which in this case would involve the same two types of tents (sewn together) that are ripping apart under much better weather conditions, as we read about in the diaries, the people wearing the same type of clothing, no sleeping bags, etc.  However, if the tent had iced up it might be collapsing and they couldn't do anything else but to secure it as best they could.  It's also possible Igor set up this scenario (considering the position of the tent) in order to sort of teach the others a lesson (both in surviving as well as complaining about having to sew the tent up each day, as we read about in the diaries).
3.  They thought the tent would collapse or blow away, but once the tent was secured (part 1 of the plan), they could focus on part 2, which was to get down to the trees and start a fire, sitting on cedar branches, which they did.  In fact, at least one secondary plan was implemented (the "den"), and 3 going back to the tent may have been part of the general plan or a new one.
 5.  They put their coats and heavy boots around the sides, after they had been sweated up from the inside and had a coating of snow/ice on the outside, so these froze and could not be used at that point.
6.  The two Yuris die so the fire isn't going to work; another plan is required.  I think Zina may have decided on her own to go back to the tent and the other two guys went after her, but it will never be known for sure what all the details of the plan were.  As I often tell people, if you expect an incident to be explained down to the last detail, you'll have to let everyone out of prison because there are always unresolved issues.  Moreover, other incidents like this are usually far murkier.  Just read through the "Missing 411" books and you'll see what I mean.
7.  He froze to death before he could, clearly.  The hands can be hard to use when very cold.  I have that problem personally, and I never had frostbite or even nearly had frostbite.
8.  Branches are needed to sit on (that's why campers use a foam pad under their sleeping bags to this day) and to burn.  Also, they may have wanted to try and see if the tent was blown open, all the contents strewn about the mountainside.
9.  They were dying anyway, so that plan didn't work, probably because the wind was too strong and the location was too open to the wind.  I have read that a whole bunch of used matches were found near the site of the fire, so at some point they also may have thought that they had to stop or else they wouldn't  have any matches to survive another day or two that would likely be needed to get help, and at some point there could have been a switch to the den plan.  Or the plan may have been to get warmed up, dry out the clothes a bit near the fire (some were burned, being too near the fire, presumably), then spend the rest of the night in the den.  Or perhaps three were supposed to go back to the tent, the idea being they could huddle in the corner of the tent that had not collapsed and at least survive a few hours before dawn.  The problem with the DPI isn't that a good explanation doesn't exist, but that it's likely a series of incidents, decisions, probable accidents, etc., each having one or more reasonable explanations.
10. Seriously?  You think the rescuers faked that?  If so, no reason to talk any more because nothing will satisfy your inquiry.
11. The mountainside is studded with rocky protrusions and they were using one flashlight.  Then they were ripping branches off the trees with their bare hands; they may have fought with each other, for all we know (the diaries suggest quite a bit of animosity).  At least one of the two Yuris may have fallen from the cedar, perhaps on another member or two.  The Ravine 4 fell into a depression above a creek (this is what one would expect, sort of a mini crevace), and Luda probably fell first, with the other three fallintg onto the rocks or each other.
12. That was the COD for all of them, from what I understand, but Luda would not have survived, apparently, regardless of the cold.
18.  This is not unusual, apparently.  After the 1973 Chivruay incident, that area was closed for a while too, from what I understand.  How many people is a government going to allow to risk their lives under such dangerous conditions?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2020, 06:45:59 PM by Investigator »

September 20, 2020, 12:40:11 AM
Reply #4
Offline

Marchesk


I'd add:

19. Why were Zina, Rustem and Igor found on the exposed slope between the cedar and tent?
      a. If they were headed back, why would they attempt to do this?
      b. Did Rustem collapse on the way down because of a head injury?
20. Why do some of the hikers have injuries on their hands and heads consistent with a fight?
21. Why did Zolotaryov have a camera around his neck?
      a. Was he photographing something outside the tent?
      b. Were he or Tibo better dressed because they were using the bathroom?
22. Why were two flashlights left behind?
      a. Why was the flashlight at the tent still in working condition?
      b. Why was the other one with a drained battery dropped several hundred meters down the slope?

September 20, 2020, 04:40:00 AM
Reply #5
Offline

WAB


I'd add:


And I will answer at once...  grin1

19. Why were Zina, Rustem and Igor found on the exposed slope between the cedar and tent?

Because they were walking in this place where they were found. But this does not mean that they were together or at least two of them.

      a. If they were headed back, why would they attempt to do this?

This is almost impossible. The analysis of the things that all of them contain suggests that they have not reached downwards. Perhaps, there is an exception - Igor Dyatlov. It is impossible say for sure that he was going down or up, from cedar. There is 50% chance of it going up or down.

      b. Did Rustem collapse on the way down because of a head injury?

Probably, it will be the opposite: he collapsed because he had head injury. Therefore, he could not continue moving.

20. Why do some of the hikers have injuries on their hands and heads consistent with a fight?

I think that this is the opinion of city experts, who do not know the conditions in that place.  In such conditions (frost and many abrasive objects) the hands are always damaged. I cannot say about head injuries in this question because I did not understand the meaning of the question you asked. Please specify exactly which head injuries you are asking about?

21. Why did Zolotaryov have a camera around his neck?

Because he did not shoot it after they came after the route. It is more likely that he did not have camera, but only case from it. Because 4 cameras were found in the tent, one of which was given to Semen Zolotarev's mother. He could take out the camera and give it to the tent, and the case from it was not taken off his clothes.

      a. Was he photographing something outside the tent?

This is almost impossible, because with such camera and such film he could not shoot anything. There were absolutely no conditions for any shooting for the techniques of that time. They came to the tent place around 05.00...05.30 RM, it was already twilight and very low light. For their film sensitivity (~ 60 ASA) these are the conditions when it makes no sense to shoot something.

      b. Were he or Tibo better dressed because they were using the bathroom?

He and Tibo were dressed better, because they were camp duty officers. They had to do the work that was outside the tent, but at night they lay down from the edges of the tent. It is much colder there, so they are better dressed. To be more precise, they did not undress after coming from the route.

22. Why were two flashlights left behind?

They had few more flashlights that were left in the tent. They were found by the search participants.

      a. Why was the flashlight at the tent still in working condition?

This is the very start version of Boris Slobtsov, which he wrote down in the protocol, because he had already rewritten it several times. Much later he and I analyzed this case and he confessed that he wrote any nonsense into the protocol because he was tired of rewriting it. Investigators have this technique: they force witnesses write the same thing several times at different times  find out from statistics how true it is. They are the ones who find out some details of events that are sometimes difficult understand at the first time.
Boris Slobtsov in his future life was connected with electronic equipment by profession and he knew well that the batteries of that time could not stay in the frost for 3 weeks and work like new.
In 2014 we made experiment at the pass: we hung modern alkaline batteries on the stand inside the tent (there were no such batteries at that time, but they are more resistant to cold). The flashlight stopped working for the fourth day at average temperature of -20...-24C (-4...-11F).


      b. Why was the other one with a drained battery dropped several hundred meters down the slope?

It is most likely that someone from the group was injured and the lantern fell into the snow. They could not find him later. The most likely candidate for injury in this place is Nikolai Thibeaux- Brignolle. There are all necessary and sufficient conditions for this.

September 20, 2020, 04:43:11 AM
Reply #6
Offline

WAB


Very well grounded and impossible to dispute. But it leaves us uncultured participants with the only explanation of the hikers leaving the tent confused about something that only occurred in their minds. It is difficult to contest your thorough and detailed explanation.

Thank you for this assessment, however, are still very far from this ultimate goal. And I am one of them. Because, in addition to the consistent and logical version requires strong evidence. However, I can not prove my hypothesis, because it requires a very large amount of time, highly qualified scientific experts (which are very few in the world, not only in our country) and huge amount of money that no one can and will not want give for such purposes. There are no commercial benefits that can cover the costs.

I think you are nearest the mark. But we still have to ponder why death became them, when sitting next to the tent for a few hours might have seen just one survive.

I did not understand: who was near the tent and who could survive. Please tell me more detailed.

September 20, 2020, 04:49:31 AM
Reply #7
Offline

WAB


Beginner, some of your questions can't be answered or are outside the scope of the evidence on the ground and in the diaries, which is what I feel comfortable addressing.

I would like answer in detail, but it is no longer possible.
I would just like to note that the diaries are not the only source of information. There are memories of the search participants, conversations with Yuri Yudin, thorough study of the terrain in the same conditions, experience similar and much more complex travel, participation in similar and more difficult searches...
As result of the symbiosis of this knowledge, I draw conclusions about this and similar incidents.


....................................................

I will only answer the last clarification of the previous question:

18.  This is not unusual, apparently.  After the 1973 Chivruay incident, that area was closed for a while too, from what I understand.  How many people is a government going to allow to risk their lives under such dangerous conditions?

You make perfectly correct assessment, but the conclusions about the closure of the "1973 incident in Chivruay" district are incorrect. The district was not closed for a single minute. Groups passed this pass even after 2 days (when the weather at this location became acceptable) and then without restrictions.
Immediately to all possible travel clubs were given information on this occasion, and then, all reasonable travelers made the right conclusions and passed this place with caution and correct internal weather forecast.
The country's government has nothing to do with this. These actions are regulated by regional authorities only in case of permanent danger for all residents of the area. However, it was short event (1...2 days), so they did not introduce emergency regime.  At that time the issue of travelers' activities was regulated by the department of the All-Union trade union organization, and they believed that it would only be possible bring the information to the  travelers attention. As it turned out, it was enough.
It should be added that the conditions for passing the group of KuAU were unique for this place, when there were people there. So far, there were no such repetitions, at least because their followers additionally know what pay attention to.


September 20, 2020, 05:56:40 AM
Reply #8
Offline

Nigel Evans


  • Zinaida found with her "face in blood". What caused her abrasions? Ice particles in high winds? Or some corrosive agent? Or did she vomit blood?
  • Igor's lips encrusted with blood presumably from vomiting.
  • YuriK's weird burns - 30cm 3rd degree burn on his leg and fingertips and the top half of one toe described as charred! That's some burn profile from a modest campfire.
  • Metal from the sky? - Igor's left cheek, YuriK's left thigh and YuriD's forearm all show strange marks/wounds as if metal fragments coated in a corrosive agent impacted them. Further YuriK has a "scalpel wound across the whole of the back of the hand" and Zinaida a bad gash on her hand plus a large bruise on the waist still oozing blood when found. Igor's and Yuri's marks/wounds include right angles which are unnatural, leading to a perspective that only man made objects could produce them.
  • A significant number of discarded pieces of burnt clothing at the campfire. A curious fact when cold is the enemy and people don't have shoes or gloves. Nicolai is found with his gloves in his jacket pocket.
  • A lot of spent matches used to light the campfire. These guys were experts at lighting campfires in the snow, vision problems?
  • Semyon's moustache is described in the autopsy as "remnants of a light brown mustache". Look at his photographs and ask yourself a question :). Of course if you want to substitute a corpse and the eye colour doesn't match there's a simple if grim solution. Best do it to another body as well so as not to focus attention. A private lab found that his exhumed body's DNA didn't match whilst a second test at a state facility did find it matched. The shape of the skull is a match for Semyon though, indeed the morgue photos support that.
  • The Plane 2 photo has two "blotches" that imo fit ice particles melting on the lens. If so then this strongly supports the view that the photos are genuine but as some of them are clearly magnifications then to support the above we'd need to see the Plane 2 negative. N.B. if genuine some of these frames are photos of a uniform intense light.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2020, 08:22:20 AM by Nigel Evans »

September 20, 2020, 09:46:13 AM
Reply #9
Offline

Monty


Hi WAB, reply #6.
My point was that all it would have required for one person to survive the ordeal was to sit it out at the tent. The photos on discovery show it survived, and it had everything needed for survival. Perhaps if only one of the hikers had refused to abandon the tent, the events could have been so different. But it's pure speculation on my part.
I think your pragmatic timeline is the most fluid. I still have my own version but not without many leaps of faith.
Best wishes from Edinburgh.

September 20, 2020, 11:18:48 AM
Reply #10
Offline

Investigator


Marchesk, as i pointed out to Beginner. there are always aspects of an incident/crime/decision/accident that will appear strange or even absurd.  And in this case we have hypothermia among all the people!  if you don't know, being close to death by hypothermia can cause hallucinations, and if you overlook an obvious overall explanation due to what might be an insignificant detail you are only going to waste a lot of time and never come to any kind of resolution.  As to your specific questions:

19. More than one good explanation, so A., since the original survival by campfire idea didn't work, a few were going to go back and huddle in the corner while the other 4 went with the "den"' idea.  Or B., Zina was upset at the deaths of the two Yuris and decided on her own to go back.  Slobodin went after her, to try and get her to come with him to the den, but hit his head and died unconscious, and then Igor went after her.  Or C., there was a fight between Igor and Slobodin and she tried to intervene, was injured by one of them, then decided to go back to the tent, and here we are back to B.  Or D., they thought they would need at least the blankets to survive the night and were trying to get them, then bring them to the den (possibly part of the original plan).

20. There may have been a fight.  Did you read the diaries?  There was apparently issues they had that generated a lot of anger.  However, there were a larger number of branches ripped off the trees with their bare hands, which might also hit them in the face as they do it, so that explains those injuries.  The mountainside also has a large number of rocky protrusions, which can cause all kinds of injuries.

21. Could be any number reasons that are consistent with tourist photo-taking or general curiosity.   Two blankets were not used and from what I understand two would stay up for a while to act as sentries, so they were likely the sentries at the time the tent became unstable in some way.

22. One flashlight apparently stopped working, and I remember someone speculating that one of them threw it off to the side, being disgusted at the situation.  Without an extra battery for it, it's just more weight you wouldn't want to take with you, so that's another possibility.  The one that was turned off and worked when turned on by the rescuers was located on top of the tent, under a layer of snow, indicating that they tried to secure the tent (probably against blowing away) by putting some snow on top.  The flashlight could have been placed there for different reasons, A. part of the plan was to use it as a beacon, which would fit with the idea that three going back to the tent was part of an original plan.  Or B, they thought they'd be going back to it before the light of dawn, so they wanted to make sure they knew where it was.  Why didn't they take the blankets that at least 7 were using?  The incident required "all hands on deck" and you can't do much work if you are wrapped up in a blanket.  Once the den was ready, they could go back and get such items to give themselves a better chance of surviving the night in the den.   Igor had survived being charged at by wild horses in a previous trip, and we have no idea how dangerous they thought things would be.   Pitching a tent that is actually two tents sewn together (which rips apart during the night when the weather is much better and when they are using the stove for heat) in the location they did (without heat) demonstrates they were taking some major chances, for whatever reason, but this kind of incident is not uncommon.  I think it became more well-known than the others because the person in charge of writing the final report was a "UFO nut" type individual, so decades later it found its way onto the internet as a "great mystery,' which is how I learned about it a decade or so ago (I just did a google search for "list of great mysteries").  However, being an investigator, I was surprised at how much evidence there was and how obvious what one might call the general expanation likely is.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2020, 05:05:50 PM by Investigator »

September 20, 2020, 12:03:14 PM
Reply #11
Offline

WAB


Hi WAB, reply #6.

My respects, sir!

My point was that all it would have required for one person to survive the ordeal was to sit it out at the tent. The photos on discovery show it survived, and it had everything needed for survival. Perhaps if only one of the hikers had refused to abandon the tent, the events could have been so different. But it's pure speculation on my part.

Yes, I understand you now. There's logic to this, but it's different from what we have in terms of what happened. I also think that if someone could stay in the tent, they could stay alive almost exactly. But that didn't happen. From here we can logically conclude that no one was able to do that.
By the way, then other people could have stayed, not just one person.
All the theories, when one person, two or more, leaves the tent deliberately or by order ignore it. But above all, the meaning of this action is ignored. The question always comes up: "Why?". You cannot find reasonable answer to this question.
So there is external impact on the psyche for everyone at once.
Even military or criminal coercion is illogical here. In those conditions, people would simply run away in the dark, and it would be very difficult find them if there were fewer attackers than army platoon (> 30 people). Then the pattern of detection would be very different.

I think your pragmatic timeline is the most fluid.

I shaped it through thorough study of the terrain, down to the smallest detail. Even taking into account the historical realities of the time, which is the edge same time.

I still have my own version but not without many leaps of faith.

It's good that there is theory, and defects can always be corrected. The most important thing here will be to keep up with reality. And the most difficult thing, as far as I understand from the texts of those who put forward their theories here, is very little knowledge about the weather and the terrain in these places. Especially in winter conditions, this is essential. Alaskans in the USA, northern Canada, Scandinavia and Danish Greenland are well aware of similar (but not exactly the same!) conditions. Only the climate in this (and more northern) part of the Urals is more continental than there. This increases the extremes of many weather factors. Rather, it increases the amplitude of different conditions.

Best wishes from Edinburgh.

Thank you, sir!

September 20, 2020, 11:47:47 PM
Reply #12
Offline

Marchesk


Marchesk, as i pointed out to Beginner. there are always aspects of an incident/crime/decision/accident that will appear strange or even absurd.  And in this case we have hypothermia among all the people!  if you don't know, being close to death by hypothermia can cause hallucinations, and if you overlook an obvious overall explanation due to what might be an insignificant detail you are only going to waste a lot of time and never come to any kind of resolution. 

Hypothermia is because they left the tent to be exposed by the wind and cold for hours. But it does not explain why they left the tent, how they ended up in three groups, or their various injuries.

19. More than one good explanation, so A., since the original survival by campfire idea didn't work, a few were going to go back and huddle in the corner while the other 4 went with the "den"' idea.

Yeah, but why didn't it work when the entire group was around the fire? Why did they leave just the two Yuris?

However, being an investigator, I was surprised at how much evidence there was and how obvious what one might call the general expanation likely is.

There's almost 80 theories, and you have knowledgeable people convinced it was murder, infrasound, military accident, snow slab, ball lightning, etc. There's no consensus. Many books have been written in the last decade, all espousing different theories.

There's no general explanation, just a bunch of different opinions because the evidence is inconclusive. The original investigation failed to find a reason, and then they had to conclude the case with an unknown.

I don't think they would have been experiencing hypothermia inside their tent, because they had nine bodies close together, blankets, a stove they could have used, and the bottom half of tent would have been protected from the wind. But if they did get cold inside the tent, I don't understand leaving the tent without shoes, hats, gloves and whatever else wasn't frozen. I don't understand how walking an hour or more down the exposed slope in the dark to try and find a place to start a fire would have been a better idea than getting the stove working inside the tent.

Leaving the tent under those conditions was a death sentence. You can suggest that Igor challenged them to try and do a little survival test that went wrong, but it sounds too irresponsible for a group with any experience.

But who knows, problem is we can speculate a hundred ways to fill in the gaps, but there's little to confirm those gaps.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2020, 12:14:30 AM by Marchesk »

September 21, 2020, 06:53:31 AM
Reply #13
Offline

mk


I'd add:

19. Why were Zina, Rustem and Igor found on the exposed slope between the cedar and tent?
      a. If they were headed back, why would they attempt to do this?
      b. Did Rustem collapse on the way down because of a head injury?
20. Why do some of the hikers have injuries on their hands and heads consistent with a fight?
21. Why did Zolotaryov have a camera around his neck?
      a. Was he photographing something outside the tent?
      b. Were he or Tibo better dressed because they were using the bathroom?
22. Why were two flashlights left behind?
      a. Why was the flashlight at the tent still in working condition?
      b. Why was the other one with a drained battery dropped several hundred meters down the slope?

Excellent additions--thanks!

September 21, 2020, 06:56:51 AM
Reply #14
Offline

mk


  • Zinaida found with her "face in blood". What caused her abrasions? Ice particles in high winds? Or some corrosive agent? Or did she vomit blood?
  • Igor's lips encrusted with blood presumably from vomiting.
  • YuriK's weird burns - 30cm 3rd degree burn on his leg and fingertips and the top half of one toe described as charred! That's some burn profile from a modest campfire.
  • Metal from the sky? - Igor's left cheek, YuriK's left thigh and YuriD's forearm all show strange marks/wounds as if metal fragments coated in a corrosive agent impacted them. Further YuriK has a "scalpel wound across the whole of the back of the hand" and Zinaida a bad gash on her hand plus a large bruise on the waist still oozing blood when found. Igor's and Yuri's marks/wounds include right angles which are unnatural, leading to a perspective that only man made objects could produce them.
  • A significant number of discarded pieces of burnt clothing at the campfire. A curious fact when cold is the enemy and people don't have shoes or gloves. Nicolai is found with his gloves in his jacket pocket.
  • A lot of spent matches used to light the campfire. These guys were experts at lighting campfires in the snow, vision problems?
  • Semyon's moustache is described in the autopsy as "remnants of a light brown mustache". Look at his photographs and ask yourself a question :). Of course if you want to substitute a corpse and the eye colour doesn't match there's a simple if grim solution. Best do it to another body as well so as not to focus attention. A private lab found that his exhumed body's DNA didn't match whilst a second test at a state facility did find it matched. The shape of the skull is a match for Semyon though, indeed the morgue photos support that.
  • The Plane 2 photo has two "blotches" that imo fit ice particles melting on the lens. If so then this strongly supports the view that the photos are genuine but as some of them are clearly magnifications then to support the above we'd need to see the Plane 2 negative. N.B. if genuine some of these frames are photos of a uniform intense light.
Brilliant!  Very specific and helpful.

I've wondered about that description of Semyon's mustache, but thought perhaps I was being unnecessarily picky.

September 21, 2020, 07:34:52 AM
Reply #15
Offline

mk


Beginner, some of your questions can't be answered or are outside the scope of the evidence on the ground and in the diaries, which is what I feel comfortable addressing.

1.  Too cold to survive or the tent appeared to be in dire shape (about to be blown open or collapse; the winds coming off the top of that mountain are fierce).
2.  Never assume such things, as even "experts" can be totally wrong.  What usually resolves things in these cases is a reconstruction, which in this case would involve the same two types of tents (sewn together) that are ripping apart under much better weather conditions, as we read about in the diaries, the people wearing the same type of clothing, no sleeping bags, etc.  However, if the tent had iced up it might be collapsing and they couldn't do anything else but to secure it as best they could.  It's also possible Igor set up this scenario (considering the position of the tent) in order to sort of teach the others a lesson (both in surviving as well as complaining about having to sew the tent up each day, as we read about in the diaries).
3.  They thought the tent would collapse or blow away, but once the tent was secured (part 1 of the plan), they could focus on part 2, which was to get down to the trees and start a fire, sitting on cedar branches, which they did.  In fact, at least one secondary plan was implemented (the "den"), and 3 going back to the tent may have been part of the general plan or a new one.
 5.  They put their coats and heavy boots around the sides, after they had been sweated up from the inside and had a coating of snow/ice on the outside, so these froze and could not be used at that point.
6.  The two Yuris die so the fire isn't going to work; another plan is required.  I think Zina may have decided on her own to go back to the tent and the other two guys went after her, but it will never be known for sure what all the details of the plan were.  As I often tell people, if you expect an incident to be explained down to the last detail, you'll have to let everyone out of prison because there are always unresolved issues.  Moreover, other incidents like this are usually far murkier.  Just read through the "Missing 411" books and you'll see what I mean.
7.  He froze to death before he could, clearly.  The hands can be hard to use when very cold.  I have that problem personally, and I never had frostbite or even nearly had frostbite.
8.  Branches are needed to sit on (that's why campers use a foam pad under their sleeping bags to this day) and to burn.  Also, they may have wanted to try and see if the tent was blown open, all the contents strewn about the mountainside.
9.  They were dying anyway, so that plan didn't work, probably because the wind was too strong and the location was too open to the wind.  I have read that a whole bunch of used matches were found near the site of the fire, so at some point they also may have thought that they had to stop or else they wouldn't  have any matches to survive another day or two that would likely be needed to get help, and at some point there could have been a switch to the den plan.  Or the plan may have been to get warmed up, dry out the clothes a bit near the fire (some were burned, being too near the fire, presumably), then spend the rest of the night in the den.  Or perhaps three were supposed to go back to the tent, the idea being they could huddle in the corner of the tent that had not collapsed and at least survive a few hours before dawn.  The problem with the DPI isn't that a good explanation doesn't exist, but that it's likely a series of incidents, decisions, probable accidents, etc., each having one or more reasonable explanations.
10. Seriously?  You think the rescuers faked that?  If so, no reason to talk any more because nothing will satisfy your inquiry.
11. The mountainside is studded with rocky protrusions and they were using one flashlight.  Then they were ripping branches off the trees with their bare hands; they may have fought with each other, for all we know (the diaries suggest quite a bit of animosity).  At least one of the two Yuris may have fallen from the cedar, perhaps on another member or two.  The Ravine 4 fell into a depression above a creek (this is what one would expect, sort of a mini crevace), and Luda probably fell first, with the other three fallintg onto the rocks or each other.
12. That was the COD for all of them, from what I understand, but Luda would not have survived, apparently, regardless of the cold.
18.  This is not unusual, apparently.  After the 1973 Chivruay incident, that area was closed for a while too, from what I understand.  How many people is a government going to allow to risk their lives under such dangerous conditions?

Haha--are you calling me "Beginner"?  My username is MK; "beginner" is my current description (like yours!) because I prefer to read and listen than to post/talk much.  I've been a part of this forum since it was opened at the beginning of October 2017.

I wasn't expecting people to post their answers here, although it's perfectly fine to do so.  I feel like the entire forum is a discussion of these questions (and others).  I already have my own opinions as to the answers of many of them. 

I am trying to summarize the questions that people, in general, are attempting to answer on this forum and elsewhere regarding the Dyatlov Incident.  For me, it helps to see the whole problem laid out item-by-item.  For example, question#10--to which you responded so amusingly.  I'd never thought to question that aspect until I read the "death by snowmobile" article in which the author argues that someone else (soviet soldiers, I believe he says) cut the branches and used the location as a tent site, leaving behind a spoon. Interesting idea.

Before beginning a jigsaw puzzle, it is customary to turn all the pieces face-up on the table and arrange them so they can be seen clearly.  Teddy is doing a thorough job of that on this site--but it is so thorough & detailed that it is sometimes difficult for me to keep them all in mind.  A simple list of questions can be a good way of identifying all the puzzle pieces and not losing a few under the table.

Many (most?) of the questions may have mundane answers.  I expect that the truth, if it's ever known, will be less sensational than many imagine. 
« Last Edit: September 21, 2020, 07:45:30 AM by mk »

September 21, 2020, 07:42:12 AM
Reply #16
Offline

Nigel Evans


I've wondered about that description of Semyon's mustache, but thought perhaps I was being unnecessarily picky.
I've considered that he might have dyed his hair (and moustache) out of vanity which would have course washed off under the snow but both Semyon and Nicolai are sporting some stubble in this picture and it doesn't look like light brown to me.

 

September 21, 2020, 07:50:25 AM
Reply #17
Offline

mk


I've considered that he might have dyed his hair (and moustache) out of vanity which would have course washed off under the snow but both Semyon and Nicolai are sporting some stubble in this picture and it doesn't look like light brown to me.

I agree.  Especially since we can compare it to Lyuda's hair & eyebrows in the same picture. 

And why "remnants"?  Does that just indicate natural decomposition/deterioration?

September 21, 2020, 08:44:01 AM
Reply #18
Offline

Nigel Evans


And why "remnants"?  Does that just indicate natural decomposition/deterioration?
Think so - "The hair present slides from the scalp when touched.", is indicating the degree of decomposition.

September 21, 2020, 04:11:22 PM
Reply #19
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Makes good reading.  Seems like a logical approach mk.  Define the key questions and piece the answers together like a jigsaw.

Some good answers too.  I do find myself really wanting to believe WAB's theory.  There is definitely a clear logic to it.  I feel that the behaviour of the hikers at the tent isn't entirely consistent with rational behaviour.  If that is true, the key question for me is why?  Infrasound is one possible explanation, but as WAB states proving it would be difficult without the funding and the will to investigate it.  Such an investigation might finally put at end to the mystery.

I also think that massive exposure to neutron and gamma radiation from a test could also have the same effect on the hikers.  What about the deliberate taking of some kind of drug.  Can these be ruled out?  If so how?

Regards

Star man

September 21, 2020, 08:47:04 PM
Reply #20
Offline

Marchesk


I do find myself really wanting to believe WAB's theory.  There is definitely a clear logic to it.  I feel that the behaviour of the hikers at the tent isn't entirely consistent with rational behaviour.  If that is true, the key question for me is why?  Infrasound is one possible explanation, but as WAB states proving it would be difficult without the funding and the will to investigate it.

Agreed, but poisoning, radiation and hypothermia could also account for confused behavior. That their behavior was confused is an inference in the absence of compelling evidence for something or someone else forcing them out of the tent. There was no recording equipment on the slope that night or surviving eyewitnesses, as far as we know, so how would one prove such a thing?

September 22, 2020, 09:43:24 AM
Reply #21
Offline

Jean Daniel Reuss





 •••  I am now almost completely finished my own version, called my hypothesis N°3 . It is the narration of a logical sequence of events that has the advantage of being able to answer all the important questions (1, 2, 3...............etc) about the DPI, in a rational, plausible and consistent approach,  with the exception of the mystery of Dubinina's psychology.

On this only unresolved issue of DPI, (that is Dubinina's mental state after January 26th), I hope to have the help of mk one day because :

  mk : General Discussion / Re: Did Dyatlov suffer a schizophrenic break?   =>  « on: April 13, 2020, 01:04:04 PM »     ; Reply #1
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=615.msg8835#msg8835

                                               
mk ==> "....As a mental health therapist myself...."



 •••  Starting from Eduard Tumanov = " hikers took part in a fight between outsiders " ( https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=411.msg4945#msg4945  ), several members registered on :https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/
have found the main explanations most probable, because they were the simplest. Just read them carefully. They are :

Per Inge Oestmoen, hoosergose, Aleks Kandr (on some of his well-argued sites in Russian), alecsandros, Mishka, NightLurker ... and others whom I apologize for omitting.

And you can read a first approximation of my answers to "  WHY ? WHO ? HOW ?  ", here: ( Publications / Media / Ivdellag breaks in 1959 ;  Reply #1 )
            https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=714.msg10800#msg10800

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Reply #15
.......................
A simple list of questions can be a good way of identifying all the puzzle pieces and not losing a few under the table.

Many (most?) of the questions may have mundane answers.  I expect that the truth, if it's ever known, will be less sensational than many imagine. 

 ••• It would take a lot of work and time to answer to all the questions, here I propose my answer only to the question N°1 (leaving the tent) which was correctly formulated by :
   
         alecsandros   :  Altercation on the pass / Altercation on the pass =>  June 26, 2020, 07:06:40 AM  ;   Reply #32
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=411.msg9765#msg9765

" why didn't the members of Dyatlov Group use the axes at hand ? where they to heavily engaged (attacked) to be able to take anything for self defense ? "


      Reply #11
......................................
Even military or criminal coercion is illogical here. In those conditions, people would simply run away in the dark, and it would be very difficult find them if there were fewer attackers than army platoon (> 30 people). Then the pattern of detection would be very different.
................................................

Dear WAB : You are absolutely right when you say that military or criminal coercion could not explain the exit of the tent.

Only you are forgetting another possibility that has been indicated recently by Mishka. The killers got out of the tent, unsuspecting and without axe in hand, by ruse (cunning, deception, false flag ...).

That is to say without coercion or threat, but only with words, kind, gentle and well chosen words to be plausible (though false and deceitful).

First, I will give you a summary of a historical example that you probably know about.
     When - in 1940 - Stalin wanted to eliminate Leon Trotsky who was a refugee in Mexico City, he did not use coercion. Stalin sent only one man, Ramon Mercader, who was a good comedian. And Ramon Mercader wrote to Trotsky, conversed with Trotsky for several months and assured him of his great admiration and deep friendship. So one day (August 20, 1940) arrived when Marcader was able to stay alone in a secluded room with Trotsky. Then Ramon Marcader grabbed the short-handled ice axe that he had hidden under his clothes and hit Trotsky mortally.

Ruse and deception are subtle, delicate, particular to use, but there are many other examples in the great History. Not to mention the cases of some sea pirates who feign to be shipwrecked, so they are rescued on board (of a small boat) in order to kill the crew and thus take over the ship.

Mishka has had the idea that cunning (ruse, deception...) could simply explain the exit of the tent.

Mishka => General Discussion / Re: Who cut open the tent?   , August 10, 2020, 12:04:43 AM  --->  Reply #16
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=690.msg10439#msg10439

         ".....they heard some people arrived .................they were asked to leave the tent immediately because the place was in danger...."


°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°


  •••  To emphasize Mishka's idea, I quickly improvise a short imaginary complement whose spirit must be retained and not the letter.

In the tent on the slope of the Kholat Syakl, in the darkness, on February 1, 1959, around 8 pm, unexpectedly the 9 hikers heard... the leader of the (probably only 3) attackers - who was a good comedian - who shouted in a firm but almost panicky voice :

 - Sorry to bother you here.
 - You do not know me, but I am the general in charge of missile tests in the Sverdlovsk region...
( or Ivdel ...or xxx base ...there, to be more credible, the false and misleading speech can add some details about the current state of Soviet military technology in 1959. These are precisions or details which are certainly known by any student of the UPI.

( It is the "art" of deception (cheating) to incorporate exact details known to the person you want to fool (deceive) into the main important lie).

 - The place where you set up your tent three hours ago must be cleared immediately.

 - We have lost control of an experimental missile (here indication of a model that might be known to hikers) and I personally rush to warn you :

 - I have just learned that the latest prediction calculations indicate that the mad explosive projectile will fall exactly where your tent is. Luckily we succeeded in finding you so that we could warn you in time!

 - Hurry! Hurry! We  must all leave immediately, otherwise death is assured.  Let us all go down quickly in the taiga where there is almost no wind. It is very close. (another lie that goes unnoticed despite the fact that Dyatlov knew his position on the slope).

After hearing these friendly words, the hikers feel grateful to these new friends who come running in the bad weather and the darkness to save their lives.

So the 9 hickers leaved the tent immediately, (so to speak instinctively, because in case of unforeseen danger we have to react quickly), thinking that they will be able to go back in a few minutes.

It is here that it is useful to read Vietnamka :
Quote
         Vietnamka   : General Discussion / Clothes => « on: March 26, 2019, 09:35:48 AM »
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=396.msg4583#msg4583

"...Acute phase of stress.
At this moment, in the cerebral cortex is formed a center of dominant arousal, all human mental activity is directed towards one thing - to get out from under the influence, to weaken its effect, to cope.
If the house is on fire - people jump out in shorts and do not think that they will be cold. If there is a child in the house, the mother in the nightgown will run around the house and scream, not realizing how she looks and that she is cold.
This is always accompanied by changes in the endocrine function (adrenaline is released) and the autonomic nervous system (the pupils dilate or contract, the heart begins to beat, the pressure rises, etc.).
     It is a fact that all these reactions are also protective against cold - heat production increases and a person not only may not feel cold, but may be feel hot.
............"

And thus all the 12 (=3+9) people started to descend along the line of greatest slope without undue haste (a military expression indicating that awareness of danger does not imply panic).  -

 
End of my answer to question 1.

Jean Daniel Reuss

Rational guidance =

• There is nothing supernatural and mysterious about the injuries suffered by the Dyatlov group. They are all consistent with an attack by a group of professional killers who wanted to take the lives of the nine  [Per Inge Oestmoen].

• Now let us search for answers to: WHO ? WHY ? HOW ?

• The scenario must be consistent with the historical, political and psychological  contexts.

• The solution takes in consideration all known findings.

September 22, 2020, 02:39:03 PM
Reply #22
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
A Post full of questions and theories that crop up throughout this Forum.
DB

September 22, 2020, 03:20:55 PM
Reply #23
Offline

Tony


Do we have a list of unanswered questions anywhere? 

I find myself getting sidetracked on a handful of questions and forgetting about the others.  It helps me to see it all laid out, so I made a list of the questions I could think of off-hand.  Please feel free to add to the list--I'm sure there are plenty I've overlooked.

Obvious Questions (in no particular order)
1. Why did they leave the tent? This is the mystery
2. Did they cut the tent themselves? I think a better question is: who cut it from the inside? Were the hikers the only ones who could have made cuts from the inside?
   A. If so, why?
   B. If not, who cut it?
3. If it was an emergency, what sort of emergency would cause them to leave the tent and then walk more or less calmly for quite some distance to the forest? Again, this is the mystery.
4. Who took the last pictures on the film? One of the hikers
   A. If the hikers, what were they photographing? Probably just documenting the trip
5. Why were they incompletely dressed when they left the tent? Clothes were probably a little wet and they were getting ready for bed. It is not unusual, even in very cold weather, to not sleep in heavy coats - especially if they are wet.
6. Why didn’t they stay together? This is another mystery. Either A. there was a disagreement or B. unknown events caused the hikers to split. Although there is a lot of evidence, there is not enough to conclude which hikers were in which areas and for how long other than where they were found.
7. Why didn’t Zolotaryov write a final message with the notebook and pencil he had? Only Sasha knows this
   A. Or, if he did write a message, what happened to it? Only Colonel Ortyukov knows this
8. Why did they climb the cedar? This is a head scratcher. Although the new theory suggests that they climbed the tree because branches lower on the tree were wet, I find this hard to believe. For one, searchers testified that the larger branches broken further up the tree had not been used as firewood and were found where they fell. Personal opinion is that one of them climbed the tree to try and see something i.e. tent or other hikers? But this is also strange because it was a moonless night and they would not have been able to see even a few feet. We will probably never know.
9. Why didn’t they keep the fire going? Again, another mystery. It seems like the obvious answer would be to build the largest fire they could. The new theory has a good reason as to why they may have left the fire.
10. Did the Ravine Four really build a shelter in the snow? Well, many theories. Personal opinion is that they only built a bed of branches and clothes. They did not build a snow shelter. This was done by either A. Kolevatov or B. The three found returning to the tent. The other 3 found in the ravine were critically injured and did not build the bed. 
11. What accounts for the variety of injuries of all the hikers? A majority were probably from falls.
12.  How many actually died of hypothermia? 6
13.  What did the others die from? Trauma
14. Is the amount of radiation found on the clothing significant? Yes, the amount was excessive. No, it had no bearing on the events.
   A. If so, where did it come from? Previous employment of Kolevatov and Krivonischenko
   B.  Why did the officials feel it necessary to test the clothing for radiation? Not sure.
15. Why are the case files so unorthodox and missing key components? I didn't know that they were. What is missing?
16.  Why, in the middle of their investigations, were Ivanov and Okishev suddenly and inexplicably ordered to close the file and tell the families of the hikers that it was all an accident? Not sure.
17. Was Bienko intentionally removed from the group in order to make space for Zolotaryov? ?
18.  Why was the area closed off for 3 years following the incident? This is not unusual. This sometimes happens in the mountains around where I live. If there is an accident, authorities will often close off the area until it can be determine whether or not the area poses a risk. Also, I think this was a rumor and not something that actually happened.

Rumors – true, false, or irrelevant? (in no particular order)
* Fire orbs in the sky (reported by people in the area)I think Donnie Eichar debunks this in his book
* Burned marks on trees (reported by Ivanov) True, although it was discovered months later and Ivanov gets details wrong (as far as who was there).
* Unusual number of dead fowl/birds in the area (reported by rescue workers) Never heard this.
* Escaped captives from the Ivdel gulag ?
* Faces and skin of hikers discolored orange True, although I think it was later determined to be natural causes
* Tent found two days earlier than reported Yes, 3 hikers reported finding the tent two days earlier. You can read their (2 of the hikers) testimonies in the case files.
* Criminal investigation opened on the death of the hikers before they were reported missing. Possibly
* DNA from Zolotaryov’s grave doesn’t match that of his family. There are two articles on this site that clarifies this. Basically, it was determined that it was Sasha.
"If there exists a fact which can only be thought of as sinister. A fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning, you will never be able to think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact."
- Josiah Thomson

September 22, 2020, 03:40:01 PM
Reply #24
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I do find myself really wanting to believe WAB's theory.  There is definitely a clear logic to it.  I feel that the behaviour of the hikers at the tent isn't entirely consistent with rational behaviour.  If that is true, the key question for me is why?  Infrasound is one possible explanation, but as WAB states proving it would be difficult without the funding and the will to investigate it.

Agreed, but poisoning, radiation and hypothermia could also account for confused behavior. That their behavior was confused is an inference in the absence of compelling evidence for something or someone else forcing them out of the tent. There was no recording equipment on the slope that night or surviving eyewitnesses, as far as we know, so how would one prove such a thing?

I think that is the million dollar question.  How do you prove any of these  theories.

Regards

Star man


September 22, 2020, 04:58:08 PM
Reply #25
Offline

Investigator


Star man, that is a good question.  A lot of people have their own notion of "proof."  In a criminal case, proof beyond a reasonable doubt can vary quite a bit.  Then there is proof in logic and math.  In science, something can be demonstrated, such as different states of matter, or one can put forth an hypothesis, which is supposed to be tested (as much as possible and by those without a conflict of interest); if it is ever fails, it's supposed to be discarded or reworked (not that this happens all the time).  In a case such as the DPI, one can do a precise, complete reconstruction.  I think if this was done, we would learn that the tent situation was not survivable for more than a short period of time, either due to it ripping apart (as it had under much better weather conditions), or ice forming on the outside (since they didn't use their stove for heat that night), or the strong winds, or some combination.  However, it's also possible that something unusual occurred, such as if one of them "lost his mind" and cut the tent open, but the evidence is not consistent with this idea, and that brings us to another concept that is in the realm of "proof beyond reasonable doubt," and that is if the notion is consistent with the evidence that seems to be solid.  You look at that evidence and you construct possible hypotheses, even if those are not appealing to you for one reason or another.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2020, 08:33:22 PM by Investigator »

September 23, 2020, 02:35:05 PM
Reply #26
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Star man, that is a good question.  A lot of people have their own notion of "proof."  In a criminal case, proof beyond a reasonable doubt can vary quite a bit.  Then there is proof in logic and math.  In science, something can be demonstrated, such as different states of matter, or one can put forth an hypothesis, which is supposed to be tested (as much as possible and by those without a conflict of interest); if it is ever fails, it's supposed to be discarded or reworked (not that this happens all the time).  In a case such as the DPI, one can do a precise, complete reconstruction.  I think if this was done, we would learn that the tent situation was not survivable for more than a short period of time, either due to it ripping apart (as it had under much better weather conditions), or ice forming on the outside (since they didn't use their stove for heat that night), or the strong winds, or some combination.  However, it's also possible that something unusual occurred, such as if one of them "lost his mind" and cut the tent open, but the evidence is not consistent with this idea, and that brings us to another concept that is in the realm of "proof beyond reasonable doubt," and that is if the notion is consistent with the evidence that seems to be solid.  You look at that evidence and you construct possible hypotheses, even if those are not appealing to you for one reason or another.

I think a reconstruction would be interesting.  But, it would need to be organised and funded, and the will would need to be there.  To do an accurate reconstruction would require an understanding of the starting conditions or the initiator of the event.  Or, you would need to test different initiators to see which one fits best.  A true reconstruction would also require the same conditions and terain which would be difficult to simulate.  Would need to be done on Kholat itself.  I think some simple information such as how long it would take them all to leave the tent by the door would be useful.  This would help gauge whether cutting the tent was justified in order to get out quicker.  Also, reconstruct the cuts.  How long would it take to cut the tent including the seams in order to get out.  If its concluded that the fastest escape route is via the door, then it leans us toward understanding that cutting the tent was not rational.  There is probably at least some useful information that could be gained.

Regards

Star man