Dyatlov Pass Forum

Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: sparrow on June 11, 2020, 11:19:26 PM

Title: Back to the Rav4
Post by: sparrow on June 11, 2020, 11:19:26 PM
I was just reading the autopsy reports again.  For Lyuda,  Simon and Alexander, their histological analysis' state that there is present hemorrhages with the presence of brown pigment.  That sounds like there was bleeding at these sites. 
 
Also, if we were to assume that they received their injuries while walking toward the cedar, then why so many small injuries on some of the hikers (apparently from falling down and running into trees and bushes) with none on the rav4 and the rav4 with major injuries.  Most sources (listed in the books) state that Nicholas would have been unconsious and Lyuda would not have been able to walk.  So, their injuries had to have been sustained while in the area where they were found. Therefore, none of the rav4 tripped and fell  on the way to the cedar and did not participate in the building of the den (provided it was built by the hikers).  bang1 bang1
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Teddy on June 11, 2020, 11:29:04 PM
Yea, that's right. Sorry, one bang relays the message, I got mesmerized....
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: sparrow on June 11, 2020, 11:34:07 PM
Ahhh Teddy, I really like those little guys.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Teddy on June 14, 2020, 10:36:32 AM
Ahhh Teddy, I really like those little guys.

You get two, no more.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Tony on July 01, 2020, 12:16:03 PM
I thought it strange too that none of the 4 in the ravine had injuries to the hands like the others. I also find it strange that, like the missing boots, none of the group were wearing gloves. I think that Thibeux-Brignolle had gloves found in his pockets and not on his hands (which is even more strange).

I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory, I think this makes the most sense for the injuries. In the US, falling is the third most leading cause of accidental deaths. Even falls from a very short height can result in severe injuries. In the autopsy reports the medical examiner even states that a fall is a possible explanation for the injuries. Still, there are a lot of unknowns and reasons why this doesn't make a lot of sense. But, I think it's the most logical of all the theories.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Marchesk on July 01, 2020, 12:59:11 PM
I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory,

One question would be, why was the ravine exposed such that they could fall into it onto the rocks in early February but not three months later when the bodies had to be dug out from meters of snow? Could be wrong, but my assumption would be the ravine should already have a fair amount of snow in it by February.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Tony on July 01, 2020, 02:18:49 PM
I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory,

One question would be, why was the ravine exposed such that they could fall into it onto the rocks in early February but not three months later when the bodies had to be dug out from meters of snow? Could be wrong, but my assumption would be the ravine should already have a fair amount of snow in it by February.

Yes, this could be the case and this is one of the problems with the theory. Since we don't know the state of the ravine on that night, it is possible that rocks could have still been exposed.

Here is a video of the area of the ravine.

https://youtu.be/I_f_F1zTjSw

It is entirely possible that one of these ravines is the ravine were they were found.

There are areas where the snow builds around the outer edges of the ravine, but the ravine itself does not fill with snow or, only partially fills with snow. In the video it shows, what looks like, exposed rock in some of these ravines. It is possible that the edges of the ravine accumulated snow and they simply fell into the ravine onto the rocks.

Just outside my work there is a ravine with a river. In the early parts of the winter, when it is still filled with a small amount of water, the rocks will remain exposed even though the banks accumulate snow. As winter continues and the water freezes, eventually, the bed will fill with snow.

I think it's possible that this is what happened. They fell in and died. As winter progressed, the water froze and the bed eventually filled with snow. In one part of the video, if you listen, you can hear running water.

Another problem is why they sustained injuries on their chest but not arms and hands as they tried to block the fall. Several years ago I was snowboarding and accidentally entered an area with extremely large jumps. It was very foggy so I decided to just continue through. As I came around the side a fairly large jump I fell into the area between the jump and the landing area. The drop off was about 10 feet and I didn't see it. It happened so fast that I had no way of reacting. One moment I was snowboarding and the next I was crumpled on the ground. I could feel myself falling but it was very quick. Luckily, I fell onto snow and not hard rocks and, other than a sore back, didn't receive any injuries.

But, you're right, it has problems. How did so much snow accumulate - enough that it took several months to find them? I think the one hiker who didn't fall, Kolevatov, built the den further up and into the side of the ravine. He intended to move them but finally succumbed and gave up next to his friends. Another problem - is it possible that Kolevatov made several trips back and forth from the cedar to gather clothing and branches to build the den, climbing in and out of the ravine each time? I don't know. One last problem is that, from the video, the snow in that area is very soft and they would have likely been up to their knees or waist in snow. Is it possible to fall into a ravine in deep snow. It seems more likely that they would have slid down in rather than an abrupt, vertical fall. An even bigger question is, why did they leave the fire to begin with?


There are a lot of questions and the ravine is only a small part of the mystery.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Georgi on July 01, 2020, 10:04:28 PM
I thought it strange too that none of the 4 in the ravine had injuries to the hands like the others. I also find it strange that, like the missing boots, none of the group were wearing gloves. I think that Thibeux-Brignolle had gloves found in his pockets and not on his hands (which is even more strange).

I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory, I think this makes the most sense for the injuries. In the US, falling is the third most leading cause of accidental deaths. Even falls from a very short height can result in severe injuries. In the autopsy reports the medical examiner even states that a fall is a possible explanation for the injuries. Still, there are a lot of unknowns and reasons why this doesn't make a lot of sense. But, I think it's the most logical of all the theories.

Problem with that theory is that none of their injuries are consistent with a fall, the serious injuries could be from a fall, but what are the chances that all 4 of them fell from high enough to cause those injuries without breaking their arms or legs or creating more significant injuries consistent with a fall? Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov seem to have similar head injuries that could have come from a fall or being hit(butt of a rifle, baton, rock). Thibeaux-Brignolle and Dubinina have identical head injuries on opposite sides of their head, Zolotaryov and Kolevatov also have similar injuries on opposite sides of their heads. Those injuries could have been from a rifle or a baton as a means to get them on the ground, Thibeaux-Brignolle received the hardest hit and was likely out of it if not unconscious, Kolevatov might have struggled and received a broken neck for his troubles but the remaining two received severe injuries that wouldn't necessarily kill them immediately which might have been because they pissed off whoever eventually killed them bad enough that they were made to suffer a little extra.

One person falling and dying because of weird injuries would be acceptable/understandable since they were likely scared, exhausted, cold, hungry and also it was dark, but all of them getting serious head injuries followed by one person with a broken neck and two people with severe chest injuries and possibly facial injuries. What are the chances that all of them suffered very similar head injuries in the same way only for 3 of them to get up and suffer further injuries all without once instinctively trying to break their fall in some way. I mean Dubinina and Thibeaux-Brignolle hit the sides of their head, an impact of that sort should also cause serious shoulder injuries, neck injuries, broken fingers, broken arm etc...
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 02, 2020, 02:35:36 AM
The fall theory doesn't work. It's either crushed or murdered and buried. The ravine would have been full of snow by say october and they were 3.5m underneath in a tight grouping consistent with occupying the den or burial.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: MDGross on July 02, 2020, 07:42:05 AM
I think the critical injuries to the Rav4 are an even greater mystery than the flight from the tent. I know WAB has done calculations and theorizes a fall onto rocks was sufficient to cause the injuries. I heard Teddy say on her radio interview that it would haven taken a fall from the sixth story of a building to result in such injuries. Of course, the key question is this: are the injuries related to exiting the tent (a terrible fight with assailants, beating and torture from the KGB/CiA) or are the tent and the injuries two separate events.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Marchesk on July 02, 2020, 08:05:34 AM
I think the critical injuries to the Rav4 are an even greater mystery than the flight from the tent. I know WAB has done calculations and theorizes a fall onto rocks was sufficient to cause the injuries. I heard Teddy say on her radio interview that it would haven taken a fall from the sixth story of a building to result in such injuries. Of course, the key question is this: are the injuries related to exiting the tent (a terrible fight with assailants, beating and torture from the KGB/CiA) or are the tent and the injuries two separate events.

Another key question is why did the group split up? It seems only the two Yuri's were left to attend the fire, which they failed to do. I've never understood the three "going back to the tent". It just doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 02, 2020, 08:19:49 AM
The fall theory doesn't work. It's either crushed or murdered and buried. The ravine would have been full of snow by say october and they were 3.5m underneath in a tight grouping consistent with occupying the den or burial.

You're talking complete nonsense.
1. In order to say that a fall is not the cause of injuries, you need to know the biomechanics of impact injuries. You don't know her at all if you say those words.
2. There was no murder there at least because other people couldn't get there for the usual reasons: strong remoteness of the terrain and lack of possible routes. So, you don't know the terrain and the logistics of communication routes for a given place either.
3. Neither by October, nor until mid-March, there is not much snow in the ravines, even now that the climate has become warmer, and therefore there is much more rainfall. Here is a photo - as a place in a small ravine (there is a depth of about 1.5 m (5 ft) looks like in November:
 (https://d.radikal.ru/d36/2007/82/d4b1c78af66at.jpg) (https://d.radikal.ru/d36/2007/82/d4b1c78af66a.jpg)

The snow depth there is about 20 cm (8 in). In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in). I would like to remind you that the winter of 1959 was abnormally low in snow.
4.   In May 1959, there was about 2.5 metres of snow above the bodies and about 30 cm underneath. That is, after the events in February, March and April, it fell out and was moved from above, this amount of snow.
It turns out so that you not only use unreliable information, but also compose it on purpose.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 02, 2020, 09:56:59 AM

You're talking complete nonsense.
1. In order to say that a fall is not the cause of injuries, you need to know the biomechanics of impact injuries. You don't know her at all if you say those words.
2. There was no murder there at least because other people couldn't get there for the usual reasons: strong remoteness of the terrain and lack of possible routes. So, you don't know the terrain and the logistics of communication routes for a given place either.
3. Neither by October, nor until mid-March, there is not much snow in the ravines, even now that the climate has become warmer, and therefore there is much more rainfall. Here is a photo - as a place in a small ravine (there is a depth of about 1.5 m (5 ft) looks like in November:
 (https://d.radikal.ru/d36/2007/82/d4b1c78af66at.jpg) (https://d.radikal.ru/d36/2007/82/d4b1c78af66a.jpg)

The snow depth there is about 20 cm (8 in). In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in). I would like to remind you that the winter of 1959 was abnormally low in snow.
4.   In May 1959, there was about 2.5 metres of snow above the bodies and about 30 cm underneath. That is, after the events in February, March and April, it fell out and was moved from above, this amount of snow.
It turns out so that you not only use unreliable information, but also compose it on purpose.
As usual you push your nonsense hard.

1. First Okishev is dismissed, then Ivanov, now Vozrozhdenny? (rolls eyes).2. So the Soviet military couldn't have killed them because it's too remote for them? (rolls eyes again).3. Tempalov made his formal statement wrt his visit on 28.02.59 - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312?rbid=17743"At the bottom of the mountain flows a river up to 70 cm deep in a ravine where the depth of the snow in places reaches 2 to 6 m thick."4. In February the ravine snow was too deep to probe. Eventually they built a dam to catch any bodies traveling downstream in the spring thaw and following advice from the Mansi removed 1 meter of snow to probe the 2.5 metres below with extra long probes. The search photos show that they were not lying on 30cm of snow.



Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Marchesk on July 02, 2020, 11:51:19 AM
In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in)

Wouldn't that be enough to cushion the bodies from severe injury? They're wading through the snow in the dark and slide into a ravine with a layer of snow over the rocks and that's enough to cause high impact injuries? Did this happen somewhere deeper and the bodies were moved?

BTW, your English is much improved.

Title: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Monty on July 02, 2020, 02:00:07 PM
One foot of snow would mean it was impossible to dig out a den. So the den was simply an arrangement of cut branches on a flat spot. And then between 2m to 6m of snow fell in three weeks, or perhaps drifted?
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Tony on July 02, 2020, 08:24:31 PM
I thought it strange too that none of the 4 in the ravine had injuries to the hands like the others. I also find it strange that, like the missing boots, none of the group were wearing gloves. I think that Thibeux-Brignolle had gloves found in his pockets and not on his hands (which is even more strange).

I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory, I think this makes the most sense for the injuries. In the US, falling is the third most leading cause of accidental deaths. Even falls from a very short height can result in severe injuries. In the autopsy reports the medical examiner even states that a fall is a possible explanation for the injuries. Still, there are a lot of unknowns and reasons why this doesn't make a lot of sense. But, I think it's the most logical of all the theories.

Problem with that theory is that none of their injuries are consistent with a fall, the serious injuries could be from a fall, but what are the chances that all 4 of them fell from high enough to cause those injuries without breaking their arms or legs or creating more significant injuries consistent with a fall? Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov seem to have similar head injuries that could have come from a fall or being hit(butt of a rifle, baton, rock). Thibeaux-Brignolle and Dubinina have identical head injuries on opposite sides of their head, Zolotaryov and Kolevatov also have similar injuries on opposite sides of their heads. Those injuries could have been from a rifle or a baton as a means to get them on the ground, Thibeaux-Brignolle received the hardest hit and was likely out of it if not unconscious, Kolevatov might have struggled and received a broken neck for his troubles but the remaining two received severe injuries that wouldn't necessarily kill them immediately which might have been because they pissed off whoever eventually killed them bad enough that they were made to suffer a little extra.

One person falling and dying because of weird injuries would be acceptable/understandable since they were likely scared, exhausted, cold, hungry and also it was dark, but all of them getting serious head injuries followed by one person with a broken neck and two people with severe chest injuries and possibly facial injuries. What are the chances that all of them suffered very similar head injuries in the same way only for 3 of them to get up and suffer further injuries all without once instinctively trying to break their fall in some way. I mean Dubinina and Thibeaux-Brignolle hit the sides of their head, an impact of that sort should also cause serious shoulder injuries, neck injuries, broken fingers, broken arm etc...

The autopsy reports actually states a fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. At the end of Sasha's it states:

"The above mentioned multiple fractures of Zolotaryov’s ribs with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity were caused in vivo as an effect of a high-power impact to the chest of Zolotaryov at the moment of his fall, squeezing or throwing."

But, you're right, as other posters have pointed out, there are problems with the fall theory. I don't think that Kolevatov fell but, it would be strange that the other 3 would all fall and sustain such traumatic injuries. It also seems unreasonable that they would fall in a manner that would cause injuries to their chest and head and not to arms or legs. However, if they were unable to see because of the lack of moon (which I think was the case) a sudden and abrupt fall from a short height could happen so quickly that they would not be able to react. A fall from under 6 feet would probably happen in less than a second. Couple that with the fact that all of them were probably in the beginning (or even final) stages of hypothermia and it easy to see them not reacting quickly.

The fact that all four were found in water and on top of rocks is significant. From watching the videos below, I think it is possible that there were either exposed or partially exposed rocks in some of the ravines. Sometimes you'll get a bridge of snow that forms over a stream where it appears that the ground is stable but underneath is running water with rocks. Even a fall from a very short height of 5 feet on to rocks would cause significant injuries. Or, if they slid down a hill and into the ravine. There are so many scenarios because no one knows the exact location of the ravine. I think if someone were able to locate the ravine and where they were found, it would be much easier to prove or disprove this theory.

The problems I have with the foul play theory is there is always some little action by the group that causes reasonable doubt. In the case of the ravine - who built the den? Why, if they were under some watchful eye bent on their demise, would they be allowed to build a den? If they built the den after the guilty party had caused their injuries and left how, if they had sustained those types of injuries, would they be able to built the den? The den is significant as it probably took a lot of effort to build.

https://youtu.be/I_f_F1zTjSw

https://youtu.be/uZCR3TBEiL0

Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Georgi on July 02, 2020, 10:58:41 PM
I think the critical injuries to the Rav4 are an even greater mystery than the flight from the tent. I know WAB has done calculations and theorizes a fall onto rocks was sufficient to cause the injuries. I heard Teddy say on her radio interview that it would haven taken a fall from the sixth story of a building to result in such injuries. Of course, the key question is this: are the injuries related to exiting the tent (a terrible fight with assailants, beating and torture from the KGB/CiA) or are the tent and the injuries two separate events.

They couldn't have received the injuries at the tent, if they had they would have died at the site of the tent or shortly after on the way down, they wouldn't have been able to make it down to the ravine and survive hours with such injuries.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Georgi on July 02, 2020, 11:06:50 PM


Another key question is why did the group split up? It seems only the two Yuri's were left to attend the fire, which they failed to do. I've never understood the three "going back to the tent". It just doesn't make sense.
Slobodin and the two men under the tree died, at this point Dyatlov decides to go back to the tent seeing as their chances of survival are slim, Zinaida goes with him, the other three go with Zolotaryov seeing as he has experience with winter survival since he made it through the entire war. Dyatlov could have gone back out of guilt or sense of responsibility, he could have felt guilty for them being in that predicament because he was the leader and he might have felt responsible to keep the few surviving members alive and the only way he saw that happening was to go back to the tent and hope for the best.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Georgi on July 02, 2020, 11:45:01 PM


The autopsy reports actually states a fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. At the end of Sasha's it states:

"The above mentioned multiple fractures of Zolotaryov’s ribs with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity were caused in vivo as an effect of a high-power impact to the chest of Zolotaryov at the moment of his fall, squeezing or throwing."
I agree, the autopsy might have merit for one person, because the doctor would do the autopsy and focus on the injuries of the person in front of him, what the investigators should have done and what we should be looking at is all the injuries combined. One person falling backwards, hitting his/her head getting up in confusion and then falling into a whole and suffering horrific injuries is a distinct possibility, having 4 people fall and hit their heads in very similar fashion, get up only for 3 of them to fall and suffer even more horrific injuries upon a second fall while the third dies from his initial injuries seems less likely.

Quote
A fall from under 6 feet would probably happen in less than a second. Couple that with the fact that all of them were probably in the beginning (or even final) stages of hypothermia and it easy to see them not reacting quickly.
Is six feet high enough to cause those injuries though?

Quote
The problems I have with the foul play theory is there is always some little action by the group that causes reasonable doubt. In the case of the ravine - who built the den? Why, if they were under some watchful eye bent on their demise, would they be allowed to build a den? If they built the den after the guilty party had caused their injuries and left how, if they had sustained those types of injuries, would they be able to built the den? The den is significant as it probably took a lot of effort to build.
My personal theory is that whoever the attackers were, they wanted this to look as close to natural death as possible, they send them out to the treeline with enough clothes and equipment to let the hikers think they have a chance and thus go willingly but not enough equipment to actually give them a chance. Turned out the hikers were highly motivated and skilled which allowed them to survive much longer than anticipated, they had no choice but to build shelter, so by the time the attackers came down and found them the four in the ravine were the only once still alive. The worked on the den because they knew they were going to die of the elements or by the attackers, but the attackers might leave, they might have a change in heart or someone could come and interrupt them but without shelter all 4 would eventually have succumbed to the elements. As long as there was a chance of survival you deal with the problem at hand which was shelter, hell even without a hope of survival many people will still work on solving the most immediate problem, once that was solved they would have dealt with the next problem and the problem after than, unfortunately they didn’t get that far as they were attacked again in the morning and killed.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 03, 2020, 01:12:37 PM

You're talking complete nonsense.
1. In order to say that a fall is not the cause of injuries, you need to know the biomechanics of impact injuries. You don't know her at all if you say those words.
2. There was no murder there at least because other people couldn't get there for the usual reasons: strong remoteness of the terrain and lack of possible routes. So, you don't know the terrain and the logistics of communication routes for a given place either.
3. Neither by October, nor until mid-March, there is not much snow in the ravines, even now that the climate has become warmer, and therefore there is much more rainfall. Here is a photo - as a place in a small ravine (there is a depth of about 1.5 m (5 ft) looks like in November:
 (https://d.radikal.ru/d36/2007/82/d4b1c78af66at.jpg) (https://d.radikal.ru/d36/2007/82/d4b1c78af66a.jpg)

The snow depth there is about 20 cm (8 in). In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in). I would like to remind you that the winter of 1959 was abnormally low in snow.
4.   In May 1959, there was about 2.5 metres of snow above the bodies and about 30 cm underneath. That is, after the events in February, March and April, it fell out and was moved from above, this amount of snow.
It turns out so that you not only use unreliable information, but also compose it on purpose.
As usual you push your nonsense hard.

You even don't have other words not to repeat what you were just told? It's called pinched self-love without intellectual support.

1. First Okishev is dismissed, then Ivanov, now Vozrozhdenny? (rolls eyes).

Don't make up fiction. Where did you find Renaissance here?
Rolling your eyes and telling you trivial things with pathos judging by what you're writing is professional.
You, however, constantly twist other people's words to suit your own opinion. I specifically said that they both have words that are not true. You obviously ignore that. In other words, you're trying to misrepresent the distorted information as absolute truth. That's where it all comes from.
I have much more knowledge now (at the moment of analysis) than Okishin has with Ivanovo in 1959, with the addition of the fact that the age of both of them at the moment of their interview and the period after the events were significant. This is not conducive to the objectivity of information, if only because the more time has passed, the more noisy information appears .Do you even know what it is? Or should you tell us about it? This "noise information" outweighs what is factual after it is checked.

2. So the Soviet military couldn't have killed them because it's too remote for them? (rolls eyes again).

Your eyes will roll up all the time because you don't know what you're talking about. Or rather, you've made up your own situation, but it turns out to be false. Neither the military nor anybody else showed up at that place in winter. And now they have nothing to do there, because they are not interested in this area. Military operations are for infrastructure, not empty taiga.
Even Mansi hunters used walk their permanent trails (once in 3 weeks or one month) no closer than 12...15 km (~ 9 mi) from the pass. They would check the traps for sable beasts. Otherwise, to the nearest place, where at least sometimes people lived permanently, there was at least 60 ... 80 km (35 ... 50 mi). In order get to the place where Dyatlov's group died it was necessary to walk on snow with depth from 1 to 2 meters (3 ... 7 ft) in frost which in Western Europe is met once in 50 ... 100 years... And here it holds almost half of the winter.
If you have no idea what it is, then our conversation on this topic makes no sense until you (without any help!) go through it all, at least in less severe frost than it was in 1959.
Besides, the military needs to have at least some goal for its actions. It is completely absent here. A reasonable target, anyway. If you consider others stupider than yourself, it will have a big impact on your own reputation and not only on it. For example, you can't even come up with such a goal, but you operate with abstractions.

3. Tempalov made his formal statement wrt his visit on 28.02.59 - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312?rbid=17743"At the bottom of the mountain flows a river up to 70 cm deep in a ravine where the depth of the snow in places reaches 2 to 6 m thick."

Yes! Tempalov 28.02.59 made a statement about the depth of snow that was in May? Or did you decide to play demagoguery again, with the expectation that no one would notice it?
Then you obviously do not perceive adequately what you are writing: 6 meters of snow at a depth of 0.7 meters is nonsense.
Besides, you are deceiving the readers, neither in the protocol of 28.02 nor in the description of the camp site of the group from 27.02 there are no such words. You can not deceive me, I know it well and from the first source. I read the documents in photocopies of the original text in my native language and I understand perfectly well, even where I could have made a mistake automatically when reprinting them on a typewriter.
And we can do the rest, especially those who just showed up. For a while. Then everyone will understand who they're dealing with and stop reacting to you. Apparently, that's what you're trying to do.
Who do you believe more:
- You are the same fictitious words of Tempalov, who was there for 3 days, and who has absolutely no knowledge about the peculiarities of this place (because he has never been there before and said it from the words of less literate people);
- or Vladislav Karelin, who was a professional in such travels, had been in the area many times before, and spent almost 3 weeks in search of the total time?
Their readings are too different.
By the way, the protocol, the date of which is 28.02, Tempalov wrote much later, already in Ivdel. You have absolutely no idea how such documents are prepared, where and when they are written.
However, you are constantly playing the connoisseur with reference to words whose meaning you do not understand in principle.

4. In February the ravine snow was too deep to probe.

Where'd you get that from? The source, please, make it public?

Eventually they built a dam to catch any bodies traveling downstream in the spring thaw

It's a good illustration of what I'm talking about all the time: you jump from one to the other every time, and it confuses other readers. And yourself, too.
It was in May, so it had nothing to do with what we just talked about.
What were we talking about? About the amount of snow in February?  Then what does May's condition have to do with it?
The amount of snow in February 01 and May was very different. And you all fall into one pile and try to assert something on it. Sort out your thoughts before you assert something.

and following advice from the Mansi removed 1 meter of snow to probe the 2.5 metres below with extra long probes.

Don't make up fiction. The Mansi know even less about the use of avalanche probes than African tribes know about building igloo huts. You've misrepresented it again.
Mansi (Stepan Kurikov - that's specific) pointed out that pieces of herringbone (fir - to be more precise), which like a path went down - under the snow, can mean that something is below. And that's it. The decision about the rest and the search technology was made by Vladimir Askinazi together Colonel Ortjukov. Nobody "removed 1 meter of snow" (c) did anything - this is your fiction. It does not make the slightest sense. They first conducted probing, and when they found the artifacts of Lyudmila's body, they started digging in this place, and then near it.
2.5 meters of snow you put in the wrong place. That's the amount of protocol snow that was over the bodies. If you analyze the depth of snow from photographs where there is an avalanche (snow probe) of maximum length, it turns out that the snow is slightly more than 2 meters. Therefore, there was no "1 meter of snow removed"(s) from above. You constantly compose some fairy tales, and then confuse the readers in them. And you get confused in them yourself. Almost nobody can object to your luck, because almost nobody here has such information as I do. And I have my knowledge practical and obtained directly on the spot, and in the same exact conditions.
So you show your stupidity here yourself and very clearly.

The search photos show that they were not lying on 30cm of snow.

You can't show it in photos, don't make up nonsense. It is written in the protocol: "den is 30 cm above ground level." Read carefully and do not distort the real picture.
If you talk about how they were lying, they were directly in the water, that is, directly on the ground. The snow under them thawed. It should be noted that this is only a part of their bodies, which can be seen in the photo. The participants of the search describe that the other part - which was closer to their feet, was embedded in snow of different thickness, but not more than 30 ... 40 cm above the ground. There was no melt water from the stream flowing in that place. It was slightly elevated in height.
By the way, Vladislav Karelin also said that the snow in February was about 30 cm or slightly more. I don't think you know the amount of snow better than the person who was there then and saw everything. His skill level leaves no doubt about his objectivity.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 03, 2020, 01:20:20 PM
In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in)

Wouldn't that be enough to cushion the bodies from severe injury?
They're wading through the snow in the dark and slide into a ravine with a layer of snow over the rocks and that's enough to cause high impact injuries?


Yes. Snow doesn't have good kresher (shock absorbing) properties. Especially since there wasn't much snow in February (or, to be more precise, for the whole January - all events were on February 01!). Karelin estimates its quantity in the place where I assume their fall, about 30 cm (12 in).

Did this happen somewhere deeper and the bodies were moved?

Yes. Only the distance they were able to move was small - about 50 meters (~ 150 ft). The height of the slope that I assume for this event was between 6.5 and 8 meters (~ 20...27 ft). The angle of slope there is about 40 degrees. Rolling down it and stopping there, it can not protect a layer of snow 30 cm thick (12 in). The ground was very freeze, which means it is very hard.

BTW, your English is much improved.

Thank you, but it does not matter for those who want understand what is being said, but not looking for reason not to do so.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: PJ on July 03, 2020, 03:15:22 PM
In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in)

Wouldn't that be enough to cushion the bodies from severe injury?
They're wading through the snow in the dark and slide into a ravine with a layer of snow over the rocks and that's enough to cause high impact injuries?


Yes. Snow doesn't have good kresher (shock absorbing) properties. Especially since there wasn't much snow in February (or, to be more precise, for the whole January - all events were on February 01!). Karelin estimates its quantity in the place where I assume their fall, about 30 cm (12 in).

How do they find out that there was just 30cm of snow? The group members wrote in the diaries that the snow cover was about 120cm, as well from the photos(taken by the group members) you could see that there was lots of snow.

In my opinion, the fact that they found the den floor just 30cm above the ground and under 3.5m of snow mean that it was build in cave created by a snow drift.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 04, 2020, 12:54:08 PM
In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in)

Wouldn't that be enough to cushion the bodies from severe injury?
They're wading through the snow in the dark and slide into a ravine with a layer of snow over the rocks and that's enough to cause high impact injuries?


Yes. Snow doesn't have good kresher (shock absorbing) properties. Especially since there wasn't much snow in February (or, to be more precise, for the whole January - all events were on February 01!). Karelin estimates its quantity in the place where I assume their fall, about 30 cm (12 in).

How do they find out that there was just 30cm of snow? The group members wrote in the diaries that the snow cover was about 120cm, as well from the photos(taken by the group members) you could see that there was lots of snow.

Dyatlov wrote in his diary about 120 cm in another valley. It also says that "this is the most accumulating place for snow". There are different level amounts of snow in different valleys.
They found out very simply: they spread snow with their feet to the ground in a certain small place. We estimated it the same way, but when there was a lot of snow (in the middle of March, for example), we had to use skis for it. It should be noted that in January, relative to March, there was much less snow even visually. And second note: there is more snow now than in 1959, because the climate has become warmer and therefore more snowy.  Additional information: 1959 was one of the snowiest years. Look at the photo when you took a tent - https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-002.jpg  and compare it with any photo taken now. Even in November 2016 there is much more snow than at the very end of February (28 - the last day of February) - the beginning of March 1959.

In my opinion, the fact that they found the den floor just 30cm above the ground and under 3.5m of snow mean that it was build in cave created by a snow drift.


No, it's not possible at all. I wanted to say - it is impossible to dig a cave there in any snow level, even in mid-March now. We tried to do it in that very place in 2019. That's what happened when you have the right tool, good visibility and good snow condition (it is already a little compacted). There is no need to repeat other people's mistakes - nowhere is the snow thicker than 2.5 meters. But it's somewhere else. At the place where they found 4, there is a little less than 2.5 meters in the photo, where the search participant Boris Suvorov stands and there is a probe, it is clearly visible https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-01.jpg . There you can see 3 sections of the standard avalanche probe 60 cm each, that is, its total length is ~ 190 cm. The height of the snow edge above the probe is not much higher than the length of the probe itself. It is necessary to take into account that there is a slope of the terrain towards the photographer. Therefore, on the place where the probe and Boris Suvorov are standing, the snow height is not more than 60 cm.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: PJ on July 04, 2020, 03:27:51 PM
WAB, the Den was found under about 3m of snow it is a fact confirmed by written statements and as well by photographs. The photo with Boris Suvorov https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-01.jpg that you linked is made at the front of the Den, not in the place where bodies were found.
Yes, Dyatlov wrote in his diary about 120 cm in another valley, but we could expect same conditions in all valleys around, there was little snow on the slopes because all of it was blown down and drifted to the valleys, this always happens during high winds and as you know in Ural the wind is always very strong. This is why I believe that the ravine was filled with snow before end of the January.
You are right that it is not possible to dig a snow cave without tools, it is very hard job but they could find naturally created cave/snow roof:
(https://twilight73.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/100_6274.jpg)
and make the Den floor under something like this.
It was no sense to make just a floor on a open space, there have to be some cover from elements and because only floor was found there was some kind of snow protection over it. Nothing else was found.

And we can't compare conditions in 1959 to what you found there in 2016 or now, not because of the difference in snow fall. The biggest difference is that the forest around ravine is much more dense than in 1959 (you could clearly see it on the photos) so it is not possible for the snow to be drifted from slopes by wind that deep into the forest and be deposited in the ravin because it is stopped by vegetation much earlier.
Just a random fact: Two years ago, in March, in Ireland was a snow fall about 30cm during 24h, because of high wind during the snow fall there was snow drifts as deep as 4m in some places, so you don't need much snow to create big snowdrifts if there is strong wind.
(http://webdesignstudio.ie/images/city_snowdrift.jpg)

So I believe that they made the Den in a snow drift/cave that was created in a natural process, and there is a lot of facts supporting this possibility.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 05, 2020, 03:26:27 AM
This photo shows the one metre of snow that was removed to probe the remaining 2-2.5m?
 (https://i.ibb.co/9cLBwbw/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-347.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mbwdv9v)
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 05, 2020, 11:04:56 AM
WAB, the Den was found under about 3m of snow it is a fact confirmed by written statements and as well by photographs. The photo with Boris Suvorov https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-01.jpg that you linked is made at the front of the Den, not in the place where bodies were found.

No. Boris Suvorov stands exactly where the den is. This is the first one.
The second one. There's never been 3 meters of snow anywhere. What's near Boris is about 2.5 meters, and that's the absolute maximum.
A lot of places have been written, however, if you start checking all this directly with those who were there then, you get a less optimistic scenario. I constantly consult with Vladimir Askinazi on what happened in May 1959, and I talked a lot with Anatoly Mokhov while he was alive. My information follows from there. I compare it with what is "written" and what these witnesses analyze at my request. In addition, we (Shura Alekseyenkov and I) made many observations on the spot at different times of the year in conditions when there was much more snow. All of this adds up to the estimates that I bring in. I think we should not be dogmatic about what someone said under unknown circumstances. You have to compare it to what exists in that particular area.

Yes, Dyatlov wrote in his diary about 120 cm in another valley, but we could expect same conditions in all valleys around, there was little snow on the slopes because all of it was blown down and drifted to the valleys, this always happens during high winds and as you know in Ural the wind is always very strong. This is why I believe that the ravine was filled with snow before end of the January.

You have the right count anything you want. However, without knowing the specific conditions, we may be very much mistaken. As it is happens in this case. The conditions in these two valleys (at least at distance of 2...3 km) are very different. The dynamics of winds and snow are different there in autumn. Therefore, one cannot draw conclusions only from their general considerations. Most of the precipitation is carried away by the winds directly to the Auspia and Lozva river valleys. Therefore, there is much more snow there than in the sources of the Lozva River tributaries, near Mount 1079 (Holatchahl). This is a direct consequence of the landscape conditions.

You are right that it is not possible to dig a snow cave without tools, it is very hard job but they could find naturally created cave/snow roof:
(https://twilight73.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/100_6274.jpg)
and make the Den floor under something like this.

I must upset you. The snow conditions there are much poorer than in the photos you brought.

It was no sense to make just a floor on a open space, there have to be some cover from elements and because only floor was found there was some kind of snow protection over it.

No. You're the one who's wrong.
The idea of making a temporary den (of the type described) was straightforward - temporary stacking of the wounded while the others are carried to the fire. The point is that you consider the course of events in statics, but there the whole process was dynamic. Nobody but two came to the fire from the very beginning. There's no sign of that. When four wounded men appeared (they came much later), then Kolevatov started to carry them to the fire from the place where Zolotaryov and Lyudmila had been injured. Tibo got the injury even earlier and in another place - on the 3 stone ridge, where the second lantern was found later. The three of them carried it downwards. As such carrying for one takes a lot of time, Kolevatov (after he went to the fire!) temporarily (!) built this den and wanted to put everyone (that is, two) there, except for the one he wanted to drag first. But he didn't have time to do that. His strength dried up and he started to overcool. So this den is located exactly on the snow surface and he does not need any protection. It's a temporary structure for its intended purpose.
This is in addition to the fact that there were no conditions for digging up some cave.
And there's another addition. This "protection" didn't make any sense. The wind was going down (or weakening very much) already on the place that is a little higher than where Zina was found. In any case, at the cedar and near it is not felt at all, even if the wind above is about 20 ... 25 m/s. We tested this in practice in January 2015.

Nothing else was found.
And we can't compare conditions in 1959 to what you found there in 2016 or now, not because of the difference in snow fall.
The biggest difference is that the forest around ravine is much more dense than in 1959 (you could clearly see it on the photos) so it is not possible for the snow to be drifted from slopes by wind that deep into the forest and be deposited in the ravin because it is stopped by vegetation much earlier.

No. It's not right. The forest has become thicker - it's the fact. But it's not dense enough change the snow pattern much. Especially since the specific amount of snow has increased due to climate warming. By the way, the vegetation near the ravine hasn't changed much either. Separate birches with a height of about 2 ... 3 meters and a diameter of no more than 10 cm appeared, but they stand so rarely (not less than 3 ... 4 m from each other) that it has practically no impact on snow transport. In addition, I remind you that the wind there is horseback (if it is near mountain very strong) and it has no effect on its transport near the ravine. If you look at the picture along the channel 4 of the tributary from Zina to the first stream (which is near the cedar), then the picture of snow transport has not changed much since 1959. There is not much new vegetation there. These are features of the ecology of this place.
As for the main snow deposit, I can say that most of the snow is transported from the upper parts of the mountain to the field of the third stone ridge and for the bend of the slope slightly above the place where Zina was found. Therefore, she (and Slobodin !) was found under snow layer, and Dyatlov, who was slightly lower, was not completely snow covered.

Just a random fact: Two years ago, in March, in Ireland was a snow fall about 30cm during 24h, because of high wind during the snow fall there was snow drifts as deep as 4m in some places, so you don't need much snow to create big snowdrifts if there is strong wind.
(http://webdesignstudio.ie/images/city_snowdrift.jpg)

There is no need transfer conditions from other places to this place mechanically. Especially if these conditions are well known and practically known. If in the Caucasus up to 5 ... 6 m of snow can be spread overnight, it does not mean that in Moscow (or in Turin - if you like it better  ) will be the same. It's all about the small details, which are the most important. For reference: in 2013, when there was no wind and it was constantly snowing on the mountain, 30 cm of snow fell in three days, which was not moved down. This is the average statistical intensity of snowfall in this place. The North Urals climate is sharply continental. Ireland – it has maritime climate. Make your conclusions.

So I believe that they made the Den in a snow drift/cave that was created in a natural process, and there is a lot of facts supporting this possibility.

Please set out these facts point by point and we will deal with them together. I do not yet see such obvious facts.

*****************************************
PS. Unfortunately, I won't be able answer you for while. So you'll accumulate questions for now, and I'll try answer them all at once.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Tony on July 06, 2020, 02:26:56 PM


The autopsy reports actually states a fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. At the end of Sasha's it states:

"The above mentioned multiple fractures of Zolotaryov’s ribs with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity were caused in vivo as an effect of a high-power impact to the chest of Zolotaryov at the moment of his fall, squeezing or throwing."
I agree, the autopsy might have merit for one person, because the doctor would do the autopsy and focus on the injuries of the person in front of him, what the investigators should have done and what we should be looking at is all the injuries combined. One person falling backwards, hitting his/her head getting up in confusion and then falling into a whole and suffering horrific injuries is a distinct possibility, having 4 people fall and hit their heads in very similar fashion, get up only for 3 of them to fall and suffer even more horrific injuries upon a second fall while the third dies from his initial injuries seems less likely.

Autopsies for Sasha, Dubinina, and Thibeaux-Brignolle all list fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. Kolevatov's does not. I don't think the medical examiner would have listed fall as a possible cause of injury if it wasn't a possibility. The injuries would have happened during a single fall. For example, it's possible that Dubinina's fractured ribs, bruise to the quadricep, and nose and throat damage happened due to a fall. The only exception would be in the case of Sasha when, after

Quote
A fall from under 6 feet would probably happen in less than a second. Couple that with the fact that all of them were probably in the beginning (or even final) stages of hypothermia and it easy to see them not reacting quickly.
Is six feet high enough to cause those injuries though?

Quote
The problems I have with the foul play theory is there is always some little action by the group that causes reasonable doubt. In the case of the ravine - who built the den? Why, if they were under some watchful eye bent on their demise, would they be allowed to build a den? If they built the den after the guilty party had caused their injuries and left how, if they had sustained those types of injuries, would they be able to built the den? The den is significant as it probably took a lot of effort to build.
My personal theory is that whoever the attackers were, they wanted this to look as close to natural death as possible, they send them out to the treeline with enough clothes and equipment to let the hikers think they have a chance and thus go willingly but not enough equipment to actually give them a chance. Turned out the hikers were highly motivated and skilled which allowed them to survive much longer than anticipated, they had no choice but to build shelter, so by the time the attackers came down and found them the four in the ravine were the only once still alive. The worked on the den because they knew they were going to die of the elements or by the attackers, but the attackers might leave, they might have a change in heart or someone could come and interrupt them but without shelter all 4 would eventually have succumbed to the elements. As long as there was a chance of survival you deal with the problem at hand which was shelter, hell even without a hope of survival many people will still work on solving the most immediate problem, once that was solved they would have dealt with the next problem and the problem after than, unfortunately they didn’t get that far as they were attacked again in the morning and killed.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Georgi on July 06, 2020, 08:26:59 PM


Autopsies for Sasha, Dubinina, and Thibeaux-Brignolle all list fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. Kolevatov's does not. I don't think the medical examiner would have listed fall as a possible cause of injury if it wasn't a possibility. The injuries would have happened during a single fall. For example, it's possible that Dubinina's fractured ribs, bruise to the quadricep, and nose and throat damage happened due to a fall. The only exception would be in the case of Sasha when, after

Like I said, I am not discounting a fall as a cause of death but looking at all of them is it likely? Saying one person died because of a freak accident its a possibility, but that's looking at just one, now having 4 people die from 4 similar but independent freak accidents at the same time under the same circumstance seems a little more unlikely. Looking individually it very well could have been a fall that caused the injuries to the back/side of all 4 people's heads, a fall could have caused the injuries to Dubinina and Zolotaryov but when you step back and look at all the injuries and more importantly what is missing(arm injuries, shoulder injuries, leg injuries etc...). Plus what are the chances they all fell on the same rock or they all fell on 4 rocks that just happened to be at the right place to cause injuries to the back of the head of all the individuals rather than other parts of their bodies. All received the same type of head injuries, to me it indicates that 4 people who were trained in the same manner injured those people in the same way rather than all 4 happening to fall and receive those injuries.

Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Tony on July 07, 2020, 04:35:29 PM


Autopsies for Sasha, Dubinina, and Thibeaux-Brignolle all list fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. Kolevatov's does not. I don't think the medical examiner would have listed fall as a possible cause of injury if it wasn't a possibility. The injuries would have happened during a single fall. For example, it's possible that Dubinina's fractured ribs, bruise to the quadricep, and nose and throat damage happened due to a fall. The only exception would be in the case of Sasha when, after

Like I said, I am not discounting a fall as a cause of death but looking at all of them is it likely? Saying one person died because of a freak accident its a possibility, but that's looking at just one, now having 4 people die from 4 similar but independent freak accidents at the same time under the same circumstance seems a little more unlikely. Looking individually it very well could have been a fall that caused the injuries to the back/side of all 4 people's heads, a fall could have caused the injuries to Dubinina and Zolotaryov but when you step back and look at all the injuries and more importantly what is missing(arm injuries, shoulder injuries, leg injuries etc...). Plus what are the chances they all fell on the same rock or they all fell on 4 rocks that just happened to be at the right place to cause injuries to the back of the head of all the individuals rather than other parts of their bodies. All received the same type of head injuries, to me it indicates that 4 people who were trained in the same manner injured those people in the same way rather than all 4 happening to fall and receive those injuries.

Sorry about the previous fragmented response. Not sure what happened there.

I think there is some confusion as to the events with the fall - I'll try and clarify:

After Yuri D. and Yuri K. passed at the cedar, the remaining seven took clothing, left the fire and cedar, and traveled deeper into the forest. In complete dark, without the moon or flashlight, they were probably in two groups walking very close or holding on to each other. By this point they were all in the beginning or mid stages of hypothermia and reaction time would have been limited. Stumbling onto the ravine, it's possible that they heard water, but they would not have been able to see the ravine. There are a hundred different scenarios for how they could have fallen but I believe they stumbled in the deep snow or fell through snow (snow bridge) and, holding onto each other, 3 of them fell onto a number of large rocks (imaging falling down a flight of stairs on to rocks in the dark). They didn't fall onto a single rock and the rocks weren't in the "right place" - it was just a bunch of rocks that lined the entire bed of the ravine. It would have happened quickly and with hypothermia setting in, they probably didn't realize what had happened and were unable to block the fall or protect themselves. Sasha fell and landed on his chest breaking his ribs and cutting the top of his head. Thibeux-Brignolle landed on his head knocking him unconscious. Lyuda landed breaking her ribs and received bruising on her quadricep and damage to her face. All of these injuries could occur with an uninterrupted fall onto large rocks. A 170 lb person falling 6 feet would generate around 4,800 newtons of force which would be more than enough to break ribs. This is all arm-chair science but we've already concluded that the medical examiner stated a fall as a possibility.

After they fell, the remaining 3 (or four) made their way into the ravine and, hoping to save their friends and themselves, began to build the den into a snow drift on the banks of the ravine, returning to the cedar to retrieve more clothing and cut fir branches for the bed. The 3 that fell remained on the rocks where they were found months later. The building of the den would have been done in absolute darkness and it probably took a substantial amount of effort. Running out of options, the remaining three (Igor, Zina, and Rustem) abandoned the ravine and attempted a return to the tent. Over the next 3 weeks its possible that the water level in the ravine decreased and froze allowing snow to accumulate and cover the rocks and hikers. As far as I know there is no mention of a search in the area of the ravine during the initial stages of the investigation.

The outlier is Kolevatov. I don't know what his circumstances would have been. It's possible that after the fire the 3 attempted a return to the tent and the other four walked into the forest with all but Kolevatov falling into the ravine. Kolevatov alone constructed the den and the bed and then gave up. But I don't see him being able to construct the bed and den alone. It's also possible that he fell as well which would account for his neck injury.

There are also injuries to Sasha's scapula that were found later that are hard to account for.

Yes, it's unusual that 3 (or 4) people would all fall at the same time and incur such extreme injuries but it is the most likely scenario. Even if they were forced from the tent by a third party and left to fend for themselves I think it is still a more likely scenario for the injuries. Finding a small group of people in a ravine in complete darkness in a large, forested area with only a flashlight in -15 F weather and in snow a mile from the tent would have been near impossible at best.

If you happened upon someone lying on top of rocks at the bottom of a small ravine with injuries what would be the mostly likely cause of injury?

Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 08, 2020, 03:34:12 AM
So Tony, if they broke their rib cages and skull on rocks why wasn't there any surface bruising? Their hearts continued to beat afterwards as evidenced by the internal bleeding. Then they were deep frozen until shortly before discovery. Look at the morgue photo of Lyudmila. The rhs of her chest (facing the camera)  has two longitudinal fractures but there's no bruising to be seen in explanation.Nicolai - extensive skull fracture with no surface bruising at all.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: MDGross on July 08, 2020, 07:34:09 AM
I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 08, 2020, 08:27:35 AM
I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?
The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.

So the falling theory seems almost impossible. The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.


Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Tony on July 08, 2020, 10:19:40 AM
I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?
The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.

So the falling theory seems almost impossible.
  • Bruising occurs but doesn't exist for the fractures.
Medical examiner listed fall as a possible explanation for the fractures
   
  • No broken limbs.
If you landed on your chest or head you wouldn't have broken limbs
   
  • From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
Ok
   
  • I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
No. If a 170 lb person fell 6 feet onto rocks it is possible to fracture ribs (see my previous post). This spring I fell while riding a skateboard in a concrete bowl. I fell from approximately 4 feet and the back of my head slammed into the concrete. Luckily I was wearing a helmet that absorbed the shock otherwise I would have cracked my skull. The helmet I was using cracked in 3 different places and is now unusable. Also, it happened so fast that I had not time to block the fall and had zero injuries to my hands, arms, or legs. Again, the medical examiner listed fall as a possible cause of injuries.
   
  • In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
?
   
  • They were found under 3.5m.
They were found almost 4 months later - it snowed and they were covered.
[/list]The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.

I can not find a single case where someone died of a snowcave collapse where the cause of death was anything but asphyxiation. They were not in the den when they died. Falling is the most logical explanation for the injuries. The medical examiner listed falling as a possible cause of injury on Lyuda, Sasha, and Thibeaux-Brignolle.

Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: firefox on July 08, 2020, 10:36:59 AM
I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?
The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.

So the falling theory seems almost impossible.
  • Bruising occurs but doesn't exist for the fractures.
  • No broken limbs.
  • From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
  • I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
  • In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
  • They were found under 3.5m.
The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.

No it does not.  You have no idea what caused their injuries, all you have is the injuries themselves, NO other evidences.  No way this small "ravine" could cause such severe injuries.  And I have no idea what caused the injuries ...
 
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 08, 2020, 10:56:59 AM
Medical examiner listed fall as a possible explanation for the fracturesor blast wave or a car impact. He's not favouring a fall, just including it in a list of possible high energy events. Quoting this is a very thin argument imo.   
  • No broken limbs.
If you landed on your chest or head you wouldn't have broken limbsIt's possible for one person. But three? And how to explain Alexander?   
  • From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
Ok
   
  • I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
No. If a 170 lb person fell 6 feet onto rocks it is possible to fracture ribs (see my previous post). This spring I fell while riding a skateboard in a concrete bowl. I fell from approximately 4 feet and the back of my head slammed into the concrete. Luckily I was wearing a helmet that absorbed the shock otherwise I would have cracked my skull. The helmet I was using cracked in 3 different places and is now unusable. Also, it happened so fast that I had not time to block the fall and had zero injuries to my hands, arms, or legs. Again, the medical examiner listed fall as a possible cause of injuries.But he specifically ruled out falling over as the cause. It needs a longer drop.    
  • In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
?
   
  • They were found under 3.5m.
They were found almost 4 months later - it snowed and they were covered.No you're missing the point. Tempalov stated the depth of snow in the ravine as seen on 28th Feb to be 2-6m (i.e. it was full of snow too deep to be probed). So it is central to the falling theory that this 2-6m of snow all happened in the 4 weeks of Feb. As with all things with this theory it is possible but  improbable. [/q]The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.

I can not find a single case where someone died of a snowcave collapse where the cause of death was anything but asphyxiation. It seems to be the opinion of the experts that they were not equipped to dig a snow cave, so the theory is that they exploited a natural feature carved by the wind etc and walled it up. This then explains why no asphyxiation (unless the pathologist missed it in 3 month old corpses of course). They were not in the den when they died. Falling is the most logical explanation for the injuries. The medical examiner listed falling as a possible cause of injury on Lyuda, Sasha, and Thibeaux-Brignolle.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 08, 2020, 11:04:11 AM
I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?
The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.

So the falling theory seems almost impossible.
  • Bruising occurs but doesn't exist for the fractures.
  • No broken limbs.
  • From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
  • I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
  • In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
  • They were found under 3.5m.
The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.

No it does not.  You have no idea what caused their injuries, all you have is the injuries themselves, which are all high energy injuries with no relevant bruising across three bodies. NO other evidences.  No way this small "ravine" could cause such severe injuries.  Correct you need an external force, falling doesn't cut it. And I have no idea what caused the injuries ...

Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Tony on July 08, 2020, 04:17:32 PM

  • Medical examiner listed fall as a possible explanation for the fracturesor blast wave or a car impact. He's not favouring a fall, just including it in a list of possible high energy events. Quoting this is a very thin argument imo.
  • But he specifically ruled out falling over as the cause. It needs a longer drop.
   

I give 6 feet because I think that is the minimum height to cause significant injuries. I believe that they either fell from a height higher than 6 feet or that they were carried by momentum (a stumble for example) which increased impact.

Here are the exact quotes from Vozrozhdenny:

Sasha

"The above mentioned multiple fractures of Zolotaryov’s ribs with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity were caused in vivo as an effect of a high-power impact to the chest of Zolotaryov at the moment of his fall, squeezing or throwing."

Lyuda

"The trauma was caused during life and is the result of high force impact with subsequent fall, throw or bruise to the chest of Dubinina."

Thibeaux-Brignolle

"The above-mentioned extensive comminuted fracture of the base and the vault of the cranium are of in vivo origin and are the result of a great force with the subsequent falling, hurling and concussion of Thibeaux-Brignolle."

"Question: From what kind of force could Thibeaux-Brignolle have received such injury?

Answer: In the conclusion, it’s shown the damage to Thibeaux-Brignolle’s head could have been the result of the throwing, fall or jettisoning of the body. I don’t believe these wounds could have been the result of Thibeaux-Brignolle simply falling from the level of his own height, i.e. falling and hitting his head. The extensive, depressed, multi-splintered (broken fornix and base of the skull) fracture could be the result of an impact of an automobile moving at high speed. This kind of trauma could have occurred if Thibeaux-Brignolle had been thrown and fallen and hit his head against rocks, ice, etc., by a gust of strong wind."

Lyuda, Sasha

"Question: How is it possible to explain the cause of the damage to Dubinina and Zolotaryov? Is it possible to combine them into one cause?

Answer: I think the character of the injuries on Dubinina and Zolotaryov – a multiple fracture of the ribs – on Dubinina were bilateral and symmetrical, and on Zolotaryov were one-sided. Both had hemorrhaging into the cardiac muscle with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity, which is evidence of them being alive [when injured] and is the result of the action of a large force, similar to the example used for Thibeaux-Brignolle. These injuries, especially appearing in such a way without any damage to the soft tissue of the chest, are very similar to the type of trauma that results from the shock wave of a bomb.
"



I think it's fair to note that Vozrozhdenny gave car crash as a possible explanation but I think it is safe to assume that he was likening the injuries to that of injuries sustained in a automobile collision and not the possibility that they were involved in a car crash.

I think it's also noteworthy that they were similar to trauma that results from a bomb blast.

In all, Vozrozhdenny gives 5 ways that they could have received the injuries:


Here are photos from ravines in the area. It is likely that one of these is the actual ravine. Notice the steep slope on either side of some of the ravines.


(https://i.ibb.co/jk4J8xq/ravine-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pjXh1sN)

(https://i.ibb.co/DVJyGCN/ravine-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ngGv3cT)

(https://i.ibb.co/WGv9dP4/ravine-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/q7YG4W3)

(https://i.ibb.co/wSvSMNn/ravine-4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5r7rBWQ)

(https://i.ibb.co/Mn4vpgj/ravine-5.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PxnL4rb)

Knowing that they were likely found in one of these ravines, out of the 4 mentioned above, what is the most likely scenario?




Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Star man on July 08, 2020, 04:27:13 PM
A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries.  But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries.  When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases. 

It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries.  Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 09, 2020, 02:28:21 AM
A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries.  But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries.  When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases. 
.
Hi there, I struggle with a fall of 4m causing a double fracture in the rib cage of a healthy young woman. Do you any evidence to support this?
It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries.  Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries..
A localised crushing force fits the bill exactly.

Regards

Star man



Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 09, 2020, 09:31:59 AM
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/).
"Generally, the mortality rate is greater with falls from higher places compared with lower places.[5 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref5)] The reported mortality rates of falls from ≥12 meters and ≥18 meters were 50% and 100%, respectively.[13 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref13)] However, a survivor who fell from 19 stories (57 meters) has also been reported.[14 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref14)] Liu et al[15 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref15)] found that the mortality rate due to falls from >6 meters was 22.7% and while Velmohos et al[16 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref16)] found that it was 9.6% for falls from >9 meters. In our series, the mortality rate from falls from >9 meters was 23.5%, which is compatible with the literature.
So this seems to support the 6 stories = 60 feet = 20 meters theory. If four of you want to end it all by jumping make sure it's a drop >18m. If there's 7 of you and you want a 50% survival rate then choose 12m.

I've personally witnessed a suicide that was a drop of 18 stories/60m. He lived for about 30 minutes similar to Semyon.

Reading another publication it remarked that a common injury in longer drops is heart/aorta rupture due to the deceleration which from memory did not occur in the rav4. Lyudmila's heart was punctured by a broken rib but not relevant.

Regards.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 09, 2020, 09:53:11 AM
Wrt lack of broken limbs.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/)."The mean height of the fall was 4.54 meters (range: 0.6-12 meters).""A total of 126 fractures occurred in 101 patients: 55 in the upper limbs, 50 in the lower limbs, 14 in the spine, and 7 in the pelvis. Associated injuries included head (n = 17), chest (n = 9) and abdominal injuries (n = 6).".


So 105 broken limbs from 101 patients with an average drop of 4.5m... Says it all?
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Morski on July 09, 2020, 11:06:49 AM
Wrt lack of broken limbs.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/)."The mean height of the fall was 4.54 meters (range: 0.6-12 meters).""A total of 126 fractures occurred in 101 patients: 55 in the upper limbs, 50 in the lower limbs, 14 in the spine, and 7 in the pelvis. Associated injuries included head (n = 17), chest (n = 9) and abdominal injuries (n = 6).".


So 105 broken limbs from 101 patients with an average drop of 4.5m... Says it all?

Hardly. Unless all those 101 patients got injured near Kholat Syakhl, so we can deduct a plausible conclusion, that falling is out of question.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Star man on July 09, 2020, 11:58:59 AM
A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries.  But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries.  When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases. 
.
Hi there, I struggle with a fall of 4m causing a double fracture in the rib cage of a healthy young woman. Do you any evidence to support this?
It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries.  Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries..
A localised crushing force fits the bill exactly.

Regards

Star man

I did the analysis myself Nigel using the biomechanical properties of ribs and forced required to break a typical rib.  I did present it in the Low Yield nuke theory for a fall from a tree.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 09, 2020, 12:19:23 PM
Wrt lack of broken limbs.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/)."The mean height of the fall was 4.54 meters (range: 0.6-12 meters).""A total of 126 fractures occurred in 101 patients: 55 in the upper limbs, 50 in the lower limbs, 14 in the spine, and 7 in the pelvis. Associated injuries included head (n = 17), chest (n = 9) and abdominal injuries (n = 6).".


So 105 broken limbs from 101 patients with an average drop of 4.5m... Says it all?

Hardly. Unless all those 101 patients got injured near Kholat Syakhl, so we can deduct a plausible conclusion, that falling is out of question.
Hi Morski, what's the difference, 30cms of snow? Can't be 3.5m?


Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 09, 2020, 01:13:24 PM
A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries.  But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries.  When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases. 
.
Hi there, I struggle with a fall of 4m causing a double fracture in the rib cage of a healthy young woman. Do you any evidence to support this?
It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries.  Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries..
A localised crushing force fits the bill exactly.

Regards

Star man

I did the analysis myself Nigel using the biomechanical properties of ribs and forced required to break a typical rib.  I did present it in the Low Yield nuke theory for a fall from a tree.

Regards

Star man
How much force to snap the rib twice?
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Star man on July 09, 2020, 04:27:27 PM
A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries.  But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries.  When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases. 
.
Hi there, I struggle with a fall of 4m causing a double fracture in the rib cage of a healthy young woman. Do you any evidence to support this?
It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries.  Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries..
A localised crushing force fits the bill exactly.

Regards

Star man

I did the analysis myself Nigel using the biomechanical properties of ribs and forced required to break a typical rib.  I did present it in the Low Yield nuke theory for a fall from a tree.

Regards

Star man
How much force to snap the rib twice?

It's a good question and one of the reasons I am inclined to think that the injuries were caused by a fast impact.  If I remember correctly a typical rib bone has a lateral breaking stress of about 50 mega pascals.  Combing that with a typical cross section of a rib gives a breaking force in the region of 250Kg.  Apparently bone is very strong and tough up towards its breaking stress at which point it yields considerably before breaking.  This means that any force that is applied slowly would eventually cause a break at the point where the breaking stress is exceeded first, relieving further stresses on other parts of the bone.  But a force applied rapidly could over stress the bone in multiple places before any single point yields and breaks, which could result in multiple fractures. 

A not great analogy, but one that may help explain this is glass.  Glass is a super cooled liquid, which under the slow application of stress/force flows very slowly, but give it sharp fast shock and it behaves in a brittle manner and breaks into many pieces.

The pathologists were correct when they said the injuries are typical of a car accident, falling or being thrown  IMO.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: lucid-nonsense on July 09, 2020, 06:38:28 PM
Nigel, if you think there is no place high enough from them to fall
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/).
"Generally, the mortality rate is greater with falls from higher places compared with lower places.[5 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref5)] The reported mortality rates of falls from ≥12 meters and ≥18 meters were 50% and 100%, respectively.[13 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref13)] However, a survivor who fell from 19 stories (57 meters) has also been reported.[14 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref14)] Liu et al[15 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref15)] found that the mortality rate due to falls from >6 meters was 22.7% and while Velmohos et al[16 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref16)] found that it was 9.6% for falls from >9 meters. In our series, the mortality rate from falls from >9 meters was 23.5%, which is compatible with the literature.
So this seems to support the 6 stories = 60 feet = 20 meters theory. If four of you want to end it all by jumping make sure it's a drop >18m. If there's 7 of you and you want a 50% survival rate then choose 12m.

I've personally witnessed a suicide that was a drop of 18 stories/60m. He lived for about 30 minutes similar to Semyon.

Reading another publication it remarked that a common injury in longer drops is heart/aorta rupture due to the deceleration which from memory did not occur in the rav4. Lyudmila's heart was punctured by a broken rib but not relevant.

Regards.

But those are survival rates with medical help, presumably. For people not already weakened by hypothermia.

Also, if they had been trapped under the snow, they would have lived for 10 minutes max. At least Thibo would've died of asphyxiation, not hypothermia.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Morski on July 10, 2020, 12:07:02 AM
Wrt lack of broken limbs.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/)."The mean height of the fall was 4.54 meters (range: 0.6-12 meters).""A total of 126 fractures occurred in 101 patients: 55 in the upper limbs, 50 in the lower limbs, 14 in the spine, and 7 in the pelvis. Associated injuries included head (n = 17), chest (n = 9) and abdominal injuries (n = 6).".


So 105 broken limbs from 101 patients with an average drop of 4.5m... Says it all?

Hardly. Unless all those 101 patients got injured near Kholat Syakhl, so we can deduct a plausible conclusion, that falling is out of question.
Hi Morski, what's the difference, 30cms of snow? Can't be 3.5m?

Hi, Nigel.
My point is, that you are using data for skeletal injuries pretty much in general. According to this article the landing surface consisted mainly of
concrete (n=63, 62.3%), ground (n=28, 27.7%) and wooden decks (n=10, 9.9%), plus the 101 patients are a mixture of children, adults and elderly people, which is a huge variety in bone density and strength. And the main period for the research is summer to monsoon months. It is not even in the winter, not to mention the different surface.

I think, that in order to refute falling as cause for the injuries, we need to consider not only height, but the season and the specifics of the terrain around Kholat Syakhl, which unfortunately very few of us in the forum know in detail. 
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Monika on July 10, 2020, 12:22:28 AM


Autopsies for Sasha, Dubinina, and Thibeaux-Brignolle all list fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. Kolevatov's does not. I don't think the medical examiner would have listed fall as a possible cause of injury if it wasn't a possibility. The injuries would have happened during a single fall. For example, it's possible that Dubinina's fractured ribs, bruise to the quadricep, and nose and throat damage happened due to a fall. The only exception would be in the case of Sasha when, after

Like I said, I am not discounting a fall as a cause of death but looking at all of them is it likely? Saying one person died because of a freak accident its a possibility, but that's looking at just one, now having 4 people die from 4 similar but independent freak accidents at the same time under the same circumstance seems a little more unlikely. Looking individually it very well could have been a fall that caused the injuries to the back/side of all 4 people's heads, a fall could have caused the injuries to Dubinina and Zolotaryov but when you step back and look at all the injuries and more importantly what is missing(arm injuries, shoulder injuries, leg injuries etc...). Plus what are the chances they all fell on the same rock or they all fell on 4 rocks that just happened to be at the right place to cause injuries to the back of the head of all the individuals rather than other parts of their bodies. All received the same type of head injuries, to me it indicates that 4 people who were trained in the same manner injured those people in the same way rather than all 4 happening to fall and receive those injuries.

Sorry about the previous fragmented response. Not sure what happened there.

I think there is some confusion as to the events with the fall - I'll try and clarify:

After Yuri D. and Yuri K. passed at the cedar, the remaining seven took clothing, left the fire and cedar, and traveled deeper into the forest. In complete dark, without the moon or flashlight, they were probably in two groups walking very close or holding on to each other. By this point they were all in the beginning or mid stages of hypothermia and reaction time would have been limited. Stumbling onto the ravine, it's possible that they heard water, but they would not have been able to see the ravine. There are a hundred different scenarios for how they could have fallen but I believe they stumbled in the deep snow or fell through snow (snow bridge) and, holding onto each other, 3 of them fell onto a number of large rocks (imaging falling down a flight of stairs on to rocks in the dark). They didn't fall onto a single rock and the rocks weren't in the "right place" - it was just a bunch of rocks that lined the entire bed of the ravine. It would have happened quickly and with hypothermia setting in, they probably didn't realize what had happened and were unable to block the fall or protect themselves. Sasha fell and landed on his chest breaking his ribs and cutting the top of his head. Thibeux-Brignolle landed on his head knocking him unconscious. Lyuda landed breaking her ribs and received bruising on her quadricep and damage to her face. All of these injuries could occur with an uninterrupted fall onto large rocks. A 170 lb person falling 6 feet would generate around 4,800 newtons of force which would be more than enough to break ribs. This is all arm-chair science but we've already concluded that the medical examiner stated a fall as a possibility.

After they fell, the remaining 3 (or four) made their way into the ravine and, hoping to save their friends and themselves, began to build the den into a snow drift on the banks of the ravine, returning to the cedar to retrieve more clothing and cut fir branches for the bed. The 3 that fell remained on the rocks where they were found months later. The building of the den would have been done in absolute darkness and it probably took a substantial amount of effort. Running out of options, the remaining three (Igor, Zina, and Rustem) abandoned the ravine and attempted a return to the tent. Over the next 3 weeks its possible that the water level in the ravine decreased and froze allowing snow to accumulate and cover the rocks and hikers. As far as I know there is no mention of a search in the area of the ravine during the initial stages of the investigation.

The outlier is Kolevatov. I don't know what his circumstances would have been. It's possible that after the fire the 3 attempted a return to the tent and the other four walked into the forest with all but Kolevatov falling into the ravine. Kolevatov alone constructed the den and the bed and then gave up. But I don't see him being able to construct the bed and den alone. It's also possible that he fell as well which would account for his neck injury.

There are also injuries to Sasha's scapula that were found later that are hard to account for.

Yes, it's unusual that 3 (or 4) people would all fall at the same time and incur such extreme injuries but it is the most likely scenario. Even if they were forced from the tent by a third party and left to fend for themselves I think it is still a more likely scenario for the injuries. Finding a small group of people in a ravine in complete darkness in a large, forested area with only a flashlight in -15 F weather and in snow a mile from the tent would have been near impossible at best.

If you happened upon someone lying on top of rocks at the bottom of a small ravine with injuries what would be the mostly likely cause of injury?

Hello,

The problem with your theory is as follows.
The den had to be built before trio from quarteto was injured. Four seats from pieces of clothing and branches were put inside the den. This means that they had to be uninjured, otherwise they could not be there in a sitting position. Rather, it seems to me that after building the den, they went out of the den, maybe to pee, or they were interrupted by something, or they wanted to look at something... and there something terrified happened.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 10, 2020, 03:29:35 AM

It's a good question and one of the reasons I am inclined to think that the injuries were caused by a fast impact.  If I remember correctly a typical rib bone has a lateral breaking stress of about 50 mega pascals.  Combing that with a typical cross section of a rib gives a breaking force in the region of 250Kg.  Apparently bone is very strong and tough up towards its breaking stress at which point it yields considerably before breaking.  This means that any force that is applied slowly would eventually cause a break at the point where the breaking stress is exceeded first, relieving further stresses on other parts of the bone.  But a force applied rapidly could over stress the bone in multiple places before any single point yields and breaks, which could result in multiple fractures. 

A not great analogy, but one that may help explain this is glass.  Glass is a super cooled liquid, which under the slow application of stress/force flows very slowly, but give it sharp fast shock and it behaves in a brittle manner and breaks into many pieces.

The pathologists were correct when they said the injuries are typical of a car accident, falling or being thrown  IMO.

Regards

Star man
Yes  i get the glass analogy. Her rib cage "shattered".
.
A car accident, falling, being thrown or a blast wave.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 10, 2020, 03:40:28 AM


Hi, Nigel.
My point is, that you are using data for skeletal injuries pretty much in general. According to this article the landing surface consisted mainly of
concrete (n=63, 62.3%), ground (n=28, 27.7%) and wooden decks (n=10, 9.9%), plus the 101 patients are a mixture of children, adults and elderly people, which is a huge variety in bone density and strength. And the main period for the research is summer to monsoon months. It is not even in the winter, not to mention the different surface.

I think, that in order to refute falling as cause for the injuries, we need to consider not only height, but the season and the specifics of the terrain around Kholat Syakhl, which unfortunately very few of us in the forum know in detail.
I appreciate the data set isn't perfect but i think it's good enough to make the point.
To recap, the falling theory needs :-
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: sparrow on July 10, 2020, 03:47:57 AM
Hello everyone.

Has anyone ever wondered why none of the hikers had bruises on the bottoms of their feet? The ground was quite rocky, they walked about a mile and it was supposedly quite dark so they would not have been able to see where they were putting their feet.  Frostbite was mentioned but no scratches,cuts or bruises.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 10, 2020, 05:57:11 AM
Nigel, if you think there is no place high enough from them to fall
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/).
"Generally, the mortality rate is greater with falls from higher places compared with lower places.[5 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref5)] The reported mortality rates of falls from ≥12 meters and ≥18 meters were 50% and 100%, respectively.[13 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref13)] However, a survivor who fell from 19 stories (57 meters) has also been reported.[14 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref14)] Liu et al[15 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref15)] found that the mortality rate due to falls from >6 meters was 22.7% and while Velmohos et al[16 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref16)] found that it was 9.6% for falls from >9 meters. In our series, the mortality rate from falls from >9 meters was 23.5%, which is compatible with the literature.
So this seems to support the 6 stories = 60 feet = 20 meters theory. If four of you want to end it all by jumping make sure it's a drop >18m. If there's 7 of you and you want a 50% survival rate then choose 12m.

I've personally witnessed a suicide that was a drop of 18 stories/60m. He lived for about 30 minutes similar to Semyon.

Reading another publication it remarked that a common injury in longer drops is heart/aorta rupture due to the deceleration which from memory did not occur in the rav4. Lyudmila's heart was punctured by a broken rib but not relevant.

Regards.

But those are survival rates with medical help, presumably. For people not already weakened by hypothermia.

Also, if they had been trapped under the snow, they would have lived for 10 minutes max. At least Thibo would've died of asphyxiation, not hypothermia.
Well Lyudmila had a pierced heart and lived for just minutes so i don't think she could have survived anywhere.
Semyon died of internal bleeding within 20-30 minutes so his chances with medical help would have been slim.
Nicolai's skull had a basal fracture as well as the compound side fracture so much so that the shape of his head was deformed. So survival could be say 50/50 with long term issues.
Wrt the rav4, people don't discuss Rustem but he should imo be included. He had very similar injuries - head trauma and internal bleeding which probably was the cause of death. So it's plausible that he was a fifth member of this event and managed to stagger away. Ditto Zinaida who had a bleeding bruise at her waist. Plus her face of course.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 10, 2020, 06:00:24 AM
Hello everyone.

Has anyone ever wondered why none of the hikers had bruises on the bottoms of their feet? The ground was quite rocky, they walked about a mile and it was supposedly quite dark so they would not have been able to see where they were putting their feet.  Frostbite was mentioned but no scratches,cuts or bruises.

Igor had scratches around his ankles. His bladder volume strongly indicates hypothermia as cause of death. So stumbling through snow covered undergrowth before succumbing is a good explanation. Or they're rope marks.

But you make a good point.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: MDGross on July 10, 2020, 10:20:34 AM
Shock waves from a large blast can break ribs and fracture skulls without bruising. They could damage tissue in the abdomen, which could explain Igor vomiting blood. But WAB will scold me and rightfully so for not providing any scientific proof. So only speculation.
By the way, I spoke with a man yesterday about the Dyatlov mystery. Turns out his father worked in military intelligence from WWII until 1967, focusing on the Soviet Union after the war. He told me that were his father presented with the Dyatlov case, he would immediately say that espionage was at the center of it. For what that's worth.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Tony on July 10, 2020, 12:32:49 PM

Hello,

The problem with your theory is as follows.
The den had to be built before trio from quarteto was injured. Four seats from pieces of clothing and branches were put inside the den. This means that they had to be uninjured, otherwise they could not be there in a sitting position. Rather, it seems to me that after building the den, they went out of the den, maybe to pee, or they were interrupted by something, or they wanted to look at something... and there something terrified happened.

There are two scenarios for the den and bed being built:

A: The group split at the cedar after Yuri D. and Yuri K. died. Igor, Zina, and Rustem left and tried returning to the tent. The other four took clothes from Yuri D. and Yuri K. and traveled further into the forest where Lyuda, Sasha, and Thibeaux-Brignolle fell into the ravine onto rocks and were mortally wounded. Kolevatov did not fall and, in an attempt to save himself and the others, constructed the den from clothing and fir branches that he cut near the cedar. Kolevatov eventually gave up due to exhaustion and hypothermia and laid down next to his friends where he later died. In this scenario, I don't know how to explain the neck deformation of Kolevatov. It's possible that he too later fell while constructing the den and this added to his already precarious situation.

B: After Yuri D. and Yuri K. died, the remaining 7 took clothing from the two hikers and traveled further into the forest. Lyuda, Sasha, and Thibeaux-Brignolle (and possibly Kolevatov) fell into the ravine and were mortally wounded. Igor, Zina, and Rustem built the den from clothing from Yuri D. and Yuri K. and branches they cut from small fir trees near the cedar. This might explain why they were not wearing additional clothing from Yuri D. and Yuri K. as they used their additional clothing to construct the den. This also might explain why they had so many hand injuries as opposed to the others. After some time and fearing their friends had died, the remaining 3 gave up on the den and attempted a return to the tent (why is anybody's guess). This also might explain why they didn't get very far when returning as all three were probably in the later stages of hypothermia as they began their ascent to the tent.

Out of the 2 scenarios I think the second is the most plausible as I don't believe Kolevatov alone could have constructed the den and bed. Lyuda, Sasha, and Thibeaux-Brignolle (and possibly Kolevatov) had no part in building the den and bed as they had already sustained their injuries and probably didn't move too far from where they had been injured.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: lucid-nonsense on July 10, 2020, 12:42:31 PM
Nigel, if you think there is no place high enough from them to fall
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/).
"Generally, the mortality rate is greater with falls from higher places compared with lower places.[5 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref5)] The reported mortality rates of falls from ≥12 meters and ≥18 meters were 50% and 100%, respectively.[13 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref13)] However, a survivor who fell from 19 stories (57 meters) has also been reported.[14 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref14)] Liu et al[15 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref15)] found that the mortality rate due to falls from >6 meters was 22.7% and while Velmohos et al[16 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref16)] found that it was 9.6% for falls from >9 meters. In our series, the mortality rate from falls from >9 meters was 23.5%, which is compatible with the literature.
So this seems to support the 6 stories = 60 feet = 20 meters theory. If four of you want to end it all by jumping make sure it's a drop >18m. If there's 7 of you and you want a 50% survival rate then choose 12m.

I've personally witnessed a suicide that was a drop of 18 stories/60m. He lived for about 30 minutes similar to Semyon.

Reading another publication it remarked that a common injury in longer drops is heart/aorta rupture due to the deceleration which from memory did not occur in the rav4. Lyudmila's heart was punctured by a broken rib but not relevant.

Regards.

But those are survival rates with medical help, presumably. For people not already weakened by hypothermia.

Also, if they had been trapped under the snow, they would have lived for 10 minutes max. At least Thibo would've died of asphyxiation, not hypothermia.
Well Lyudmila had a pierced heart and lived for just minutes so i don't think she could have survived anywhere.
Semyon died of internal bleeding within 20-30 minutes so his chances with medical help would have been slim.
Nicolai's skull had a basal fracture as well as the compound side fracture so much so that the shape of his head was deformed. So survival could be say 50/50 with long term issues.
Wrt the rav4, people don't discuss Rustem but he should imo be included. He had very similar injuries - head trauma and internal bleeding which probably was the cause of death. So it's plausible that he was a fifth member of this event and managed to stagger away. Ditto Zinaida who had a bleeding bruise at her waist. Plus her face of course.

My point was that if enough snow had fallen on them to cause these injuries, they would've been trapped under the snow and died of asphyxiation.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Tony on July 10, 2020, 01:38:39 PM


Hi, Nigel.
My point is, that you are using data for skeletal injuries pretty much in general. According to this article the landing surface consisted mainly of
concrete (n=63, 62.3%), ground (n=28, 27.7%) and wooden decks (n=10, 9.9%), plus the 101 patients are a mixture of children, adults and elderly people, which is a huge variety in bone density and strength. And the main period for the research is summer to monsoon months. It is not even in the winter, not to mention the different surface.

I think, that in order to refute falling as cause for the injuries, we need to consider not only height, but the season and the specifics of the terrain around Kholat Syakhl, which unfortunately very few of us in the forum know in detail.
I appreciate the data set isn't perfect but i think it's good enough to make the point.
To recap, the falling theory needs :-
  • A fall from sufficient height to create the injuries which is very hard to explain unless they take turns diving off the top of the cedar.
  • A freak result that there are no broken limbs on three bodies or ruptured heart/aorta.
  • A landing that gives no relevant bruising again on three bodies.
  • Snow doesn't reach the ravine for the whole winter until after Feb2, when it then fills with 2 to 6 meters as estimated by Tempalov @ 28/02/59.

As pointed out by Star Man it is entirely possible to receive significant injuries from as little as 3 meters (if falling on a hard surface i.e. concrete, rock, etc.)
   By that time it's almost certain that all of the group were in some stage of hypothermia. If this is the case, their reaction time would have been significantly hampered. Couple that with the fact that they could not see due to lack of moonlight and it's understandable that they probably wouldn't have even reacted to a fall. They probably didn't even realize they had fallen. If, by chance, the main body absorbed the majority of the impact there would not be any injury to limbs.
   The medical examiner stated fall as a possibility. If he had determined that a fall would have 100% resulted in bruising, he wouldn't have stated fall as a possibility.
   Yes. In the video I posted above, it shows a few ravines where the ground is exposed. It is also possible to hear running water in parts of the video. The video was taken in March of 2013. If there is running water in the ravine, snow will not accumulate or, it will form a bridge between the two sides of the ravine but is hollow underneath and water continues to flow. Ski resorts will often block off areas around ravines with flowing water because skiers can easily fall through the snow and injure themselves. As winter progressed the water volume decreases and the stream either stops or it freezes and snow will begin to accumulate. In the mountains near where I live, the resorts have sometimes had a meter of snow in a single day and night.
[/list]

For what it's worth, below is a compilation video of skateboard falls. There are several falls by the same individual, but the one at :43 is significant. Not sure exactly how high, but it looks as though it could be around 3 meters. In the fall he sustained head injury, ruptured spleen, internal bleeding. Interesting that even though he partially landed on his arm he had no limb injuries. It's easy to see how much more the injuries would have been if he landed on a large rock.

[viewer discretion]

https://youtu.be/kBHHE-sKGEY?t=43

Although he's skateboarding he isn't going that much faster than a brisk walk. I think there's this idea that you have to fall from an incredible height to sustain significant injuries when that is not necessarily true.

I'm not saying that 100% they fell. Only that a fall is the most logical scenario given the fact that they were found at the bottom of a ravine (in an area where a majority of the ravines have large rocks) with injuries that the medical examiner listed as possibly occurring due to a fall.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 10, 2020, 02:30:40 PM

I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?
The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.

So the falling theory seems almost impossible.
  • Bruising occurs but doesn't exist for the fractures.
  • No broken limbs.
  • From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
  • I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
  • In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
  • They were found under 3.5m.
The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.

No it does not.  You have no idea what caused their injuries, all you have is the injuries themselves, which are all high energy injuries with no relevant bruising across three bodies.

Let's be clear: you have no idea. It may not apply to others. So you shouldn't generalize about others.
What you emphasized doesn't mean anything. It exists in many cases. Look at the statistics. Not selectively, but whole, in large array.

NO other evidences. 

You have strange understanding of evidence. If you don't know them, then they don't exist?

No way this small "ravine" could cause such severe injuries. 

Absolutely. Only you're looking for the cause of your injuries in the wrong place. It's somewhere else and very close to here. This is your traditional mistake.
You're the only one who doesn't know the area exactly, so you deny it for no reason at all.

Correct you need an external force,  

External forces can be very different. For example, the force of gravity is also is external force. And what could be objected to here?

falling doesn't cut it.  

Where'd you get that from? Or it is dogmatic religious belief for you?
A blow from fall may well be the cause of such injuries. The impact itself is very complex phenomenon in the perception of some people. But there's nothing special about it. All processes are subject to the law of movement impulse conservation, which is expressed by the formula (this I give in the simplest case, get into "high spheres" in conversation with you I do not risk, it is useless):
M*(V1 - M2) = F*(t1 - t2), where such parameters are specified:
M – it is the mass that moves,
V1 - it is initial speed (before impact),
V2- it is final speed (after impact),
F - it is force value, during time (t1 - t2),
t1 -  it is the starting point of impact time,
t2 – it is the final point of impact time,
thus, if there is complete stop, V2 is the final speed (after impact) = 0.
The time interval (t1 - t2) is very small, the F value can be very large. Of course, this is true if the mass M does not change.
M*(V1 - M2) = F*(t1 - t2), where these are indicated Let's see what this force will be for the Tibo case. In the case of simple fall from the height of his own height (174 cm) to stone that lies on the ground and has the size of 2 cm x 3.5 cm in the original contact part – it is the shard that is indicated in the act of the doctor, and which lies on the body of the brain. That is to say, it is penetrating breakdown of the temporal part of the head.
velocity V1 = sqrt(2*g*h),
Where it exists:
 Sqrt - square root
g - free fall acceleration
h - height of growth Tibo, minus 7 cm (this is the distance from the top of the skull to the temporal area in the sagittal plane).
So, in this case, the velocity of V1 will be equal to 5.72 m/s. Since V2 = 0 (the stone, together with the ground, does not move in this closed system, and the mass of the head is approximately equal to 5 kg), even for process lasting 10 mS (0.01 seconds), the force of bone destruction will be equal to 2862 Newton or ~ 300 kGs (kilogram of force). But this is true for the whole head area in the sagittal plane (it fell this side, which is equal to the area ~ 0.38 square meters). Since the through-pass of the temporal part of the head was in the area of 2 cm x 3.5 cm = 0.007 square meters, the pressure on this part of the head will be as much as on the whole head. If the virtual pressure "for the whole head" can be calculated as 2862 N / 0.38 square meters = 7531 Ra, then due to the redistribution (concentration!) of the pressure it will be in 0.38 / 0.007 = 54.28 times more. And it will be 155365 Pa or 155 kPa, which is more than 5 times the strength of this part of the skull, which was studied in the works of Professor Alexander Gromov and Sergei Korsakov. We worked on the development of head protection equipment for aircraft and helicopter pilots, so these characteristics we studied well. We have created the theory of head injuries evaluation, as well as the head model working on impact (patent : SU 841022 A1 by 23.06.1981). Therefore all this is not only theoretical reasoning, but also confirmed by practical works of high scientific level.
All digits are taken from the handbooks on ergonomics and statistics provided at international conferences on aviation and space ergonomics.
Such calculations can be made by any person with an education equal to that of regular school, who studied in the USSR. I do not know how in England, but we have any student of this level can do it, if he is not behind in learning and wants achieve something. There would be desire understand this in detail. Of course, there are students in any country who do not study well because they do not make much effort to do so, but I would not like think that you relate to such people.
Thus, I want to say that it is possible get all the injuries that are described in the group of woodpeckers in natural way, and it does not require anything beyond the natural. You just need know everything well.
It doesn't require high altitude, and if the impact process (very fast braking against the barrier) is even shorter (if the speed is higher), then there will be inordinate local loads.
Do not consider something that was done too carelessly and amateurishly, it will give the wrong result.

And I have no idea what caused the injuries ...

But you're on 200% right about that.  grin1
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 10, 2020, 02:37:35 PM

  • Medical examiner listed fall as a possible explanation for the fracturesor blast wave or a car impact. He's not favouring a fall, just including it in a list of possible high energy events. Quoting this is a very thin argument imo.
  • But he specifically ruled out falling over as the cause. It needs a longer drop.
   

I give 6 feet because I think that is the minimum height to cause significant injuries. I believe that they either fell from a height higher than 6 feet or that they were carried by momentum (a stumble for example) which increased impact.

Here are the exact quotes from Vozrozhdenny:

Sasha

"The above mentioned multiple fractures of Zolotaryov’s ribs with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity were caused in vivo as an effect of a high-power impact to the chest of Zolotaryov at the moment of his fall, squeezing or throwing."

Lyuda

"The trauma was caused during life and is the result of high force impact with subsequent fall, throw or bruise to the chest of Dubinina."

Thibeaux-Brignolle

"The above-mentioned extensive comminuted fracture of the base and the vault of the cranium are of in vivo origin and are the result of a great force with the subsequent falling, hurling and concussion of Thibeaux-Brignolle."

"Question: From what kind of force could Thibeaux-Brignolle have received such injury?

Answer: In the conclusion, it’s shown the damage to Thibeaux-Brignolle’s head could have been the result of the throwing, fall or jettisoning of the body. I don’t believe these wounds could have been the result of Thibeaux-Brignolle simply falling from the level of his own height, i.e. falling and hitting his head. The extensive, depressed, multi-splintered (broken fornix and base of the skull) fracture could be the result of an impact of an automobile moving at high speed. This kind of trauma could have occurred if Thibeaux-Brignolle had been thrown and fallen and hit his head against rocks, ice, etc., by a gust of strong wind."

Lyuda, Sasha

"Question: How is it possible to explain the cause of the damage to Dubinina and Zolotaryov? Is it possible to combine them into one cause?

Answer: I think the character of the injuries on Dubinina and Zolotaryov – a multiple fracture of the ribs – on Dubinina were bilateral and symmetrical, and on Zolotaryov were one-sided. Both had hemorrhaging into the cardiac muscle with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity, which is evidence of them being alive [when injured] and is the result of the action of a large force, similar to the example used for Thibeaux-Brignolle. These injuries, especially appearing in such a way without any damage to the soft tissue of the chest, are very similar to the type of trauma that results from the shock wave of a bomb.
"



I think it's fair to note that Vozrozhdenny gave car crash as a possible explanation but I think it is safe to assume that he was likening the injuries to that of injuries sustained in a automobile collision and not the possibility that they were involved in a car crash.

I think it's also noteworthy that they were similar to trauma that results from a bomb blast.


In all, Vozrozhdenny gives 5 ways that they could have received the injuries:

  • Fall
  • Being thrown
  • Blast wave
  • Being crushed
  • Car Crash (which I think we can rule out)

Here are photos from ravines in the area. It is likely that one of these is the actual ravine. Notice the steep slope on either side of some of the ravines.


(https://i.ibb.co/jk4J8xq/ravine-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pjXh1sN)

(https://i.ibb.co/DVJyGCN/ravine-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ngGv3cT)

(https://i.ibb.co/WGv9dP4/ravine-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/q7YG4W3)

(https://i.ibb.co/wSvSMNn/ravine-4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5r7rBWQ)

(https://i.ibb.co/Mn4vpgj/ravine-5.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PxnL4rb)

Knowing that they were likely found in one of these ravines, out of the 4 mentioned above, what is the most likely scenario?


Dear Tony !
You are absolutely right about say (look my mark text) everything, but give the wrong pictures where they could have gotten chest injuries.
That place is very close to those places that exist in your photo. The distance is about 40...50 meters. Here's a photo of Yuri Yudin standing on the top of that slope (Yuri Yudin is in circle):
 
(https://b.radikal.ru/b03/2007/f4/dc91bca39d4et.jpg) (https://b.radikal.ru/b03/2007/f4/dc91bca39d4e.jpg).
The height of this slope is about 6 ... 8 meters, steepness is at least 40 degrees. The nature of the bottom is exactly the same as in the photo you brought.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 10, 2020, 02:42:59 PM
A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries.  But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries. 

I'm all on your side, except for a little clarification: for a 3...4 meter vertical fall, injuries are much heavier than what we have. I wrote the reason for that in previous posts. This ("3 to 4 meters is enough" (c) ) is only valid for an auxiliary fall, for example, roll off steep from slope.

When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases. 

It's normal case. In addition, the person in this process must be aware of what is happening and use the reaction time to the situation. Which is often not possible because the time is shorter than these processes. It is for this reason, as well as because of different accidents, there are not always limb injuries or others that "theorists" expect.

It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries. 

It wouldn't be surprising if you understood that they received them at the same time and as result of the same event.

Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries.

This injury was sustained under completely different conditions and in different place. You don't have put everything in one pile, or it'll be harder deal with.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 10, 2020, 02:45:46 PM
Wrt lack of broken limbs.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/)."The mean height of the fall was 4.54 meters (range: 0.6-12 meters).""A total of 126 fractures occurred in 101 patients: 55 in the upper limbs, 50 in the lower limbs, 14 in the spine, and 7 in the pelvis. Associated injuries included head (n = 17), chest (n = 9) and abdominal injuries (n = 6).".


So 105 broken limbs from 101 patients with an average drop of 4.5m... Says it all?

Hardly. Unless all those 101 patients got injured near Kholat Syakhl, so we can deduct a plausible conclusion, that falling is out of question.


It's good read you text again, Mr. Morski.  grin1
I'm ready support you because Mr. Nigel Evans is once again trying take completely different terms and bases his arguments on it. It's a substitution of concepts and so it can't be fair at all. He ignores the arguments of direct observation in the real place and in similar conditions, as well as the scientific basis for analysis (for example, mathematical calculations and adequate models). And this is very sad and counterproductive.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 10, 2020, 02:54:03 PM
A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries.  But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries.  When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases. 
.
Hi there, I struggle with a fall of 4m causing a double fracture in the rib cage of a healthy young woman. Do you any evidence to support this?
It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries.  Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries..
A localised crushing force fits the bill exactly.

Regards

Star man

I did the analysis myself Nigel using the biomechanical properties of ribs and forced required to break a typical rib.  I did present it in the Low Yield nuke theory for a fall from a tree.

Regards

Star man
How much force to snap the rib twice?

It's a good question and one of the reasons I am inclined to think that the injuries were caused by a fast impact.  If I remember correctly a typical rib bone has a lateral breaking stress of about 50 mega pascals.

Yes, this is roughly the right figure, but you have understand that the rib itself is very different in all the points where the force is applied.
Conditionally speaking, the edge it is curved beam of variable cross-section with two half-clamped ends. "Half pinched ends" - this means that the cartilage near the spine and near the sternum create some mobility and therefore they partially absorb energy. The process that we have consider is dynamic, so this part cannot be neglected. At the same time we have understand that the local force applied to the different thickness of the cross-section of this bone will be different. This is true for people of the same age, with the same conditions of bone formation and the same physical development.

Combing that with a typical cross section of a rib gives a breaking force in the region of 250Kg. 

In our case, we cannot operate on the "force" as factor if it is considered constant. Since the process is dynamic and the force is constantly changing, it is necessary clearly follow the law of conservation of the force impulse, and it will depend on the magnitude of time, which in turn depends on the speed of interaction of objects involved in it.

Apparently bone is very strong and tough up towards its breaking stress at which point it yields considerably before breaking.  This means that any force that is applied slowly would eventually cause a break at the point where the breaking stress is exceeded first, relieving further stresses on other parts of the bone.  But a force applied rapidly could over stress the bone in multiple places before any single point yields and breaks, which could result in multiple fractures.

This is correct, but we must add that it is only true for local load. If there is process of squeezing (dynamic!), especially if the area of the object of influence is larger than the area of perception (the chest or the whole set of ribs - as in our case), then the destruction will begin in the weakest place, and then there will be "domino effect" - the bones will break in sequence until all the energy of movement is spent.
We have this particular case. If you have noticed, then the fracture lines are located in the very places where the weakest parts of the chest are located in certain pattern of interaction. If you do not understand this, then the whole picture of this injury will be abstract and you can say anything, but not about the real picture.
 
A not great analogy, but one that may help explain this is glass.  Glass is a super cooled liquid, which under the slow application of stress/force flows very slowly, but give it sharp fast shock and it behaves in a brittle manner and breaks into many pieces.

That's not very good example. Glass has very little impact toughness, so it's still fragile. The only difference in gift and fracture will be the position of the fault lines. I'm only talking about glass in normal living room conditions. The yield strength of glass can only be large at high temperatures close to the "melting point".

The pathologists were correct when they said the injuries are typical of a car accident, falling or being thrown  IMO.

It's right that you noticed that they were comparing these conditions, but you didn't claim that they were the same accidents, which are complete analogue. They were used to working in urban environments, so they chose the subject for comparison from what surrounded them. They had no experience of similar accidents like the one in the Dyatlov group. How this is not the case with almost no one who is now drawing conclusions about this accident without being expert on such (or similar) travels or having participated in practical analysis of such accidents. I speak about Eduard Tumanov, Vladimir Ediger, Michael Kornev and others.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 10, 2020, 02:58:44 PM
Hello everyone.

Has anyone ever wondered why none of the hikers had bruises on the bottoms of their feet?

I have question for you: why should there be bruising on your legs as compulsory? Where can it come from? Shura and I used walk around this place lot in winter (including socks without shoes) and we didn't have bruises either. By the way, since the records of the court physician contain no text about bruises, but that doesn't mean that there couldn't have been. The fact is that many dark spots on the surface of bodies in the morgue some people take as injuries. That's not true. These are the stains on the bodies that came out of postmortem exposure. For example, during transport. These are so typical that the forensic physician may have mixed up the bruise on a still living person and these stains, so he didn't describe them as they hadn't been done before (like in 1959). I met with such explanations from the forensic physician when we were analyzing documents in similar accidents.

The ground was quite rocky, they walked about a mile and it was supposedly quite dark so they would not have been able to see where they were putting their feet. 

Yes, you've pointed that out correctly, but it's not necessarily always what people who don't have practice walking in this very place expect.

Frostbite was mentioned but no scratches,cuts or bruises.

Perfectly correct, but if the frostbite was all convex because it was winter, then minor injuries (including bruising) may not have been indicated by the doctor, because it was lot (I mean all together, not just bruises, which should have been few). From my own practice I can say that after such trips there are always lot of small scratches, cuts and bruises. Such terrain and such conditions make it inevitable. After one such trip, we were at conference on the Dyatlov group. Someone there said that it was strange that there were lot of such minor injuries. I got up and showed my own hands after that trip. There was lot of such damage. This is due to the fact that we often had work without mittens and the frost is very conducive to these injuries. But this man still continued argue that it was wrong, although he himself had never been on such journey...
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 10, 2020, 03:02:38 PM
Shock waves from a large blast can break ribs and fracture skulls without bruising. They could damage tissue in the abdomen, which could explain Igor vomiting blood. But WAB will scold me and rightfully so for not providing any scientific proof. So only speculation.

No, Mr. MDGross, I won't scold you because you often write very correct messages.
But now I have to tell you that you've made a mistake. Igor Dyatlov didn't vomit with blood. You mixed it up with Zina, but she had blood on her face not from vomiting, but because she broke her nose or a small part of her face when she fell on rocks. And I can report that there's no factual evidence at this time - we have no bodies to examine. All we can do is interpret what the forensic doctor wrote. With varying degrees of certainty. But it's better to do it closer to the text that's written there. In addition, we need professional and practical knowledge about the subject on which we are talking. It is desirable to discuss it knowing even very small details.

By the way, I spoke with a man yesterday about the Dyatlov mystery. Turns out his father worked in military intelligence from WWII until 1967, focusing on the Soviet Union after the war. He told me that were his father presented with the Dyatlov case, he would immediately say that espionage was at the center of it. For what that's worth.

But he didn't pay attention to where it was or what opportunities there were to get there. It is especially important that there are much better conditions much closer to the place of residence and existing communications.
I have not yet met in the history of any intelligence agency that someone would designate a place to transmit information at the North Pole.  grin1 The place where Dyatlov's group died is not much better accessible than the North Pole.  grin1
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Morski on July 10, 2020, 11:31:10 PM
Wrt lack of broken limbs.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/)."The mean height of the fall was 4.54 meters (range: 0.6-12 meters).""A total of 126 fractures occurred in 101 patients: 55 in the upper limbs, 50 in the lower limbs, 14 in the spine, and 7 in the pelvis. Associated injuries included head (n = 17), chest (n = 9) and abdominal injuries (n = 6).".


So 105 broken limbs from 101 patients with an average drop of 4.5m... Says it all?

Hardly. Unless all those 101 patients got injured near Kholat Syakhl, so we can deduct a plausible conclusion, that falling is out of question.


It's good read you text again, Mr. Morski.  grin1
I'm ready support you because Mr. Nigel Evans is once again trying take completely different terms and bases his arguments on it. It's a substitution of concepts and so it can't be fair at all. He ignores the arguments of direct observation in the real place and in similar conditions, as well as the scientific basis for analysis (for example, mathematical calculations and adequate models). And this is very sad and counterproductive.


Hello, WAB! Good to hear from you as well!

Yes, I was referring to the medical article from pubmed, which Nigel was citing about skeleton injuries, and in my opinion referring to cases of falls and injuries in entirely different circumstances and places - such as urban surroundings, is not at all enough to conclude, that falling in the environment of the Pass is not the cause for the hikers injuries. It is not only because of that specific article, but I think Nigel is using information in a very selective manner to conveniently fit his adventurous way of thinking about the events at the Pass.  kewl1 


Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: sparrow on July 11, 2020, 12:36:51 AM
WAB thank you for the math problem.  I do so enjoy them.

I also enjoy reading about all the little facts that make up the whole.  I do not believe that facts(?) that are not given or facts that are eliminated will end up giving us the answer we are searching for.  If you add to the whole or take away from the whole then it is no longer "the whole", it is something else. thumb1



Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 11, 2020, 07:05:29 AM

My point was that if enough snow had fallen on them to cause these injuries, they would've been trapped under the snow and died of asphyxiation.
Challenging the crushing theory is perfectly valid, but not as a defence of the falling theory.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 11, 2020, 07:38:51 AM

I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?
The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.

So the falling theory seems almost impossible.
  • Bruising occurs but doesn't exist for the fractures.
  • No broken limbs.
  • From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
  • I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
  • In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
  • They were found under 3.5m.
The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.

No it does not.  You have no idea what caused their injuries, all you have is the injuries themselves, which are all high energy injuries with no relevant bruising across three bodies.

Let's be clear: you have no idea. It may not apply to others. So you shouldn't generalize about others.
What you emphasized doesn't mean anything. It exists in many cases. Look at the statistics. Not selectively, but whole, in large array.

NO other evidences. 

You have strange understanding of evidence. If you don't know them, then they don't exist?

No way this small "ravine" could cause such severe injuries. 

Absolutely. Only you're looking for the cause of your injuries in the wrong place. It's somewhere else and very close to here. This is your traditional mistake.
You're the only one who doesn't know the area exactly, so you deny it for no reason at all.

Correct you need an external force,  

External forces can be very different. For example, the force of gravity is also is external force. And what could be objected to here?

falling doesn't cut it.  

Where'd you get that from? Or it is dogmatic religious belief for you?
A blow from fall may well be the cause of such injuries. The impact itself is very complex phenomenon in the perception of some people. But there's nothing special about it. All processes are subject to the law of movement impulse conservation, which is expressed by the formula (this I give in the simplest case, get into "high spheres" in conversation with you I do not risk, it is useless):
M*(V1 - M2) = F*(t1 - t2), where such parameters are specified:
M – it is the mass that moves,
V1 - it is initial speed (before impact),
V2- it is final speed (after impact),
F - it is force value, during time (t1 - t2),
t1 -  it is the starting point of impact time,
t2 – it is the final point of impact time,
thus, if there is complete stop, V2 is the final speed (after impact) = 0.
The time interval (t1 - t2) is very small, the F value can be very large. Of course, this is true if the mass M does not change.
M*(V1 - M2) = F*(t1 - t2), where these are indicated Let's see what this force will be for the Tibo case. In the case of simple fall from the height of his own height (174 cm) to stone that lies on the ground and has the size of 2 cm x 3.5 cm in the original contact part – it is the shard that is indicated in the act of the doctor, and which lies on the body of the brain. That is to say, it is penetrating breakdown of the temporal part of the head.
velocity V1 = sqrt(2*g*h),
Where it exists:
 Sqrt - square root
g - free fall acceleration
h - height of growth Tibo, minus 7 cm (this is the distance from the top of the skull to the temporal area in the sagittal plane).
So, in this case, the velocity of V1 will be equal to 5.72 m/s. Since V2 = 0 (the stone, together with the ground, does not move in this closed system, and the mass of the head is approximately equal to 5 kg), even for process lasting 10 mS (0.01 seconds), the force of bone destruction will be equal to 2862 Newton or ~ 300 kGs (kilogram of force). But this is true for the whole head area in the sagittal plane (it fell this side, which is equal to the area ~ 0.38 square meters). Since the through-pass of the temporal part of the head was in the area of 2 cm x 3.5 cm = 0.007 square meters, the pressure on this part of the head will be as much as on the whole head. If the virtual pressure "for the whole head" can be calculated as 2862 N / 0.38 square meters = 7531 Ra, then due to the redistribution (concentration!) of the pressure it will be in 0.38 / 0.007 = 54.28 times more. And it will be 155365 Pa or 155 kPa, which is more than 5 times the strength of this part of the skull, which was studied in the works of Professor Alexander Gromov and Sergei Korsakov. We worked on the development of head protection equipment for aircraft and helicopter pilots, so these characteristics we studied well. We have created the theory of head injuries evaluation, as well as the head model working on impact (patent : SU 841022 A1 by 23.06.1981). Therefore all this is not only theoretical reasoning, but also confirmed by practical works of high scientific level.
All digits are taken from the handbooks on ergonomics and statistics provided at international conferences on aviation and space ergonomics.
Such calculations can be made by any person with an education equal to that of regular school, who studied in the USSR. I do not know how in England, but we have any student of this level can do it, if he is not behind in learning and wants achieve something. There would be desire understand this in detail. Of course, there are students in any country who do not study well because they do not make much effort to do so, but I would not like think that you relate to such people.
Thus, I want to say that it is possible get all the injuries that are described in the group of woodpeckers in natural way, and it does not require anything beyond the natural. You just need know everything well.
It doesn't require high altitude, and if the impact process (very fast braking against the barrier) is even shorter (if the speed is higher), then there will be inordinate local loads.
Do not consider something that was done too carelessly and amateurishly, it will give the wrong result.

And I have no idea what caused the injuries ...

But you're on 200% right about that.  grin1

Hey WAB. There's a lot of words and schoolboy maths there for a man who accuses me of pushing my ideas hard. Change of velocity and mass creates force. Wow, it's like arguing against Albert Einstein.
Excuse me for a moment ..... lol1
Ah that's better..
It's very simple, Lyudmila had three chest fractures including two on her right side. Nicolai had a huge compound fracture to the side of the skull and the base of his skull was split as far as 0.4cm with the shape of his head deformed. Semyon had his ribs broken and the exhumation determined that a shoulder blade had a hairline fracture. Also although the bodies carried bruises there are no bruises relevant to these injuries even though the internal bleeding proves that they survived for a period after.
.
Imo there is only one explanation for this evidence - a rapid and strong crushing force applied broadly enough to not create local hemorrhaging. I submit that it is impossible to split the base of a skull by a falling impact to the side of the head. The head would simply rotate sideways until the neck snapped which did not happen in this case. Ditto Semyon, fractured ribs and a fractured shoulder blade? From a fall?
.

In both cases these bodies were already lying on hard ground when the force was applied.
.
Lyudmila's double fracture simply adds weight to the above.
.
So given that they were found under the snow, crushed under the snow is a natural fit for the evidence.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 11, 2020, 08:09:52 AM


Hi, Nigel.
My point is, that you are using data for skeletal injuries pretty much in general. According to this article the landing surface consisted mainly of
concrete (n=63, 62.3%), ground (n=28, 27.7%) and wooden decks (n=10, 9.9%), plus the 101 patients are a mixture of children, adults and elderly people, which is a huge variety in bone density and strength. And the main period for the research is summer to monsoon months. It is not even in the winter, not to mention the different surface.

I think, that in order to refute falling as cause for the injuries, we need to consider not only height, but the season and the specifics of the terrain around Kholat Syakhl, which unfortunately very few of us in the forum know in detail.
I appreciate the data set isn't perfect but i think it's good enough to make the point.
To recap, the falling theory needs :-
  • A fall from sufficient height to create the injuries which is very hard to explain unless they take turns diving off the top of the cedar.
  • A freak result that there are no broken limbs on three bodies or ruptured heart/aorta.
  • A landing that gives no relevant bruising again on three bodies.
  • Snow doesn't reach the ravine for the whole winter until after Feb2, when it then fills with 2 to 6 meters as estimated by Tempalov @ 28/02/59.

  • A fall from sufficient height to create the injuries which is very hard to explain unless they take turns diving off the top of the cedar.
As pointed out by Star Man it is entirely possible to receive significant injuries from as little as 3 meters (if falling on a hard surface i.e. concrete, rock, etc.)The falling theory has to explain how Nicolai's skull base split as much as 0.4cm without snapping the neck?   
  • A freak result that there are no broken limbs on three bodies or ruptured heart/aorta.
By that time it's almost certain that all of the group were in some stage of hypothermia. If this is the case, their reaction time would have been significantly hampered. Couple that with the fact that they could not see due to lack of moonlight and it's understandable that they probably wouldn't have even reacted to a fall. They probably didn't even realize they had fallen. If, by chance, the main body absorbed the majority of the impact there would not be any injury to limbs.Not so, Semyon and Nicolai were fully dressed, none of the rav4 demonstrate any frostbite concerns?   
  • A landing that gives no relevant bruising again on three bodies.
The medical examiner stated fall as a possibility. If he had determined that a fall would have 100% resulted in bruising, he wouldn't have stated fall as a possibility.This is sophistry.   
  • Snow doesn't reach the ravine for the whole winter until after Feb2, when it then fills with 2 to 6 meters as estimated by Tempalov @ 28/02/59.
Yes. In the video I posted above, it shows a few ravines where the ground is exposed. It is also possible to hear running water in parts of the video. The video was taken in March of 2013. If there is running water in the ravine, snow will not accumulate or, it will form a bridge between the two sides of the ravine but is hollow underneath and water continues to flow. Ski resorts will often block off areas around ravines with flowing water because skiers can easily fall through the snow and injure themselves. As winter progressed the water volume decreases and the stream either stops or it freezes and snow will begin to accumulate. In the mountains near where I live, the resorts have sometimes had a meter of snow in a single day and night.I'm interested in the snow conditions in 1959 not 2013?[/q]

For what it's worth, below is a compilation video of skateboard falls. There are several falls by the same individual, but the one at :43 is significant. Not sure exactly how high, but it looks as though it could be around 3 meters. In the fall he sustained head injury, ruptured spleen, internal bleeding. Interesting that even though he partially landed on his arm he had no limb injuries. It's easy to see how much more the injuries would have been if he landed on a large rock.and no fractures at all? You're proving my case not yours?

[viewer discretion]

https://youtu.be/kBHHE-sKGEY?t=43 (https://youtu.be/kBHHE-sKGEY?t=43)

Although he's skateboarding he isn't going that much faster than a brisk walk. I think there's this idea that you have to fall from an incredible height to sustain significant injuries when that is not necessarily true.

I'm not saying that 100% they fell. Only that a fall is the most logical scenario given the fact that they were found at the bottom of a ravine (in an area where a majority of the ravines have large rocks) with injuries that the medical examiner listed as possibly occurring due to a fall.

Here's a video for you, where the victim survives due to the snow depth which looks to me to be say......... several metres, maybe say 3.5m...... Hey that's the depth of the ravine snow! What a coincidence, maybe i should tell WAB this!  bigjoke .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4JFBN3WSls (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4JFBN3WSls).
I've done some static line jumping from 2500 feet so very big respect to this kid. Apparently UK paratrooper basic training involves jumping from a static balloon because stepping off a platform in complete stillness is psychologically tougher than from an aircraft.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Star man on July 11, 2020, 04:40:18 PM
A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries.  But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries. 

I'm all on your side, except for a little clarification: for a 3...4 meter vertical fall, injuries are much heavier than what we have. I wrote the reason for that in previous posts. This ("3 to 4 meters is enough" (c) ) is only valid for an auxiliary fall, for example, roll off steep from slope.

When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases. 

It's normal case. In addition, the person in this process must be aware of what is happening and use the reaction time to the situation. Which is often not possible because the time is shorter than these processes. It is for this reason, as well as because of different accidents, there are not always limb injuries or others that "theorists" expect.

It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries. 

It wouldn't be surprising if you understood that they received them at the same time and as result of the same event.

Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries.

This injury was sustained under completely different conditions and in different place. You don't have put everything in one pile, or it'll be harder deal with.

Yes, when I say a fall of 3 to 4 metres, I dont necessarily mean that it had to be a vertical fall.  Just that it was a fast impact of similar magnitude. 

When you say their reaction time was impaired or not sufficient is this in relation to their physical and mental state, and therefore their cognitive ability at the time?

Yes, Thibo's I jury is different.  Agreed.

If you have time could you relay your thoughts on how Lyuda and Semyon re eived such similar injuries, given the number possible variables involved in a fall?

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Star man on July 11, 2020, 05:20:26 PM
A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries.  But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries.  When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases. 
.
Hi there, I struggle with a fall of 4m causing a double fracture in the rib cage of a healthy young woman. Do you any evidence to support this?
It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries.  Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries..
A localised crushing force fits the bill exactly.

Regards

Star man

I did the analysis myself Nigel using the biomechanical properties of ribs and forced required to break a typical rib.  I did present it in the Low Yield nuke theory for a fall from a tree.

Regards

Star man
How much force to snap the rib twice?

It's a good question and one of the reasons I am inclined to think that the injuries were caused by a fast impact.  If I remember correctly a typical rib bone has a lateral breaking stress of about 50 mega pascals.

Yes, this is roughly the right figure, but you have understand that the rib itself is very different in all the points where the force is applied.
Conditionally speaking, the edge it is curved beam of variable cross-section with two half-clamped ends. "Half pinched ends" - this means that the cartilage near the spine and near the sternum create some mobility and therefore they partially absorb energy. The process that we have consider is dynamic, so this part cannot be neglected. At the same time we have understand that the local force applied to the different thickness of the cross-section of this bone will be different. This is true for people of the same age, with the same conditions of bone formation and the same physical development.

Combing that with a typical cross section of a rib gives a breaking force in the region of 250Kg. 

In our case, we cannot operate on the "force" as factor if it is considered constant. Since the process is dynamic and the force is constantly changing, it is necessary clearly follow the law of conservation of the force impulse, and it will depend on the magnitude of time, which in turn depends on the speed of interaction of objects involved in it.

Apparently bone is very strong and tough up towards its breaking stress at which point it yields considerably before breaking.  This means that any force that is applied slowly would eventually cause a break at the point where the breaking stress is exceeded first, relieving further stresses on other parts of the bone.  But a force applied rapidly could over stress the bone in multiple places before any single point yields and breaks, which could result in multiple fractures.

This is correct, but we must add that it is only true for local load. If there is process of squeezing (dynamic!), especially if the area of the object of influence is larger than the area of perception (the chest or the whole set of ribs - as in our case), then the destruction will begin in the weakest place, and then there will be "domino effect" - the bones will break in sequence until all the energy of movement is spent.
We have this particular case. If you have noticed, then the fracture lines are located in the very places where the weakest parts of the chest are located in certain pattern of interaction. If you do not understand this, then the whole picture of this injury will be abstract and you can say anything, but not about the real picture.
 
A not great analogy, but one that may help explain this is glass.  Glass is a super cooled liquid, which under the slow application of stress/force flows very slowly, but give it sharp fast shock and it behaves in a brittle manner and breaks into many pieces.

That's not very good example. Glass has very little impact toughness, so it's still fragile. The only difference in gift and fracture will be the position of the fault lines. I'm only talking about glass in normal living room conditions. The yield strength of glass can only be large at high temperatures close to the "melting point".

The pathologists were correct when they said the injuries are typical of a car accident, falling or being thrown  IMO.

It's right that you noticed that they were comparing these conditions, but you didn't claim that they were the same accidents, which are complete analogue. They were used to working in urban environments, so they chose the subject for comparison from what surrounded them. They had no experience of similar accidents like the one in the Dyatlov group. How this is not the case with almost no one who is now drawing conclusions about this accident without being expert on such (or similar) travels or having participated in practical analysis of such accidents. I speak about Eduard Tumanov, Vladimir Ediger, Michael Kornev and others.

In terms of the shape of the ribs, (curved beam), variablibility of cross section and attachment to the spine there will be variability I agree  this adds some complexity to the problem.  There are a number of variables and some unknowns that add additional complexity, such as the clothing, muscle and fat that contributes to the overall force/time curve of the compression of the chest during the impact.  Also, the shape of the thing that impacts the body and surface area and shape of the area that makes contact.  Defining these accurately would be difficult which means it's difficult to estimate with a high degree of accuracy.  But it is possible to get an idea of the type of impact and its magnitude I think. 

Agree that it is a dynamic process and complicated by the force time profile and particularly the time of compression.  I have thought about this and it would benefit from analytical data from similar experiments such as car crash test dummies.

Yes,  I have thought about the added complication of angle of the impact and the potential for "unzipping" effect of the ribs at the weakest points.  Such an impact would require a lesser resultant force overall.  For a fall the chances are there will be some rolling of the body onto impacted object which would result in this effect.  But a larger force applied at a shallow angle would probably result in the ribs breaking at the weaker points too.

The glass analogy isn't brilliant, but hopefully it helps people understand the principle.

When I said I agree with the pathologists, I probably should have qualified my statement a bit more by saying that I agree that it was the result of some king of large, fast impact.

Regards

Star man


Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: lucid-nonsense on July 12, 2020, 02:51:30 PM
They also could've slid down a steep slope and hit some trees, that can easily kill you. I remember someone had a bruise consistent with a blow from a baton, that would also work if you hit a branch.

IMO the best argument against the fall is that they all fell at the same time? It's possible, if they were crossing a steep slope and the person highest up the slope fell and knocked down the others. People also sometimes die trying to stop someone's fall and failing.

Overall I think they went mountaineering in remote Siberia and now they're at the bottom of a ravine with injuries consistent with a fall? No need to overthink this.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Tony on July 13, 2020, 09:41:49 AM


Hi, Nigel.
My point is, that you are using data for skeletal injuries pretty much in general. According to this article the landing surface consisted mainly of
concrete (n=63, 62.3%), ground (n=28, 27.7%) and wooden decks (n=10, 9.9%), plus the 101 patients are a mixture of children, adults and elderly people, which is a huge variety in bone density and strength. And the main period for the research is summer to monsoon months. It is not even in the winter, not to mention the different surface.

I think, that in order to refute falling as cause for the injuries, we need to consider not only height, but the season and the specifics of the terrain around Kholat Syakhl, which unfortunately very few of us in the forum know in detail.
I appreciate the data set isn't perfect but i think it's good enough to make the point.
To recap, the falling theory needs :-
  • A fall from sufficient height to create the injuries which is very hard to explain unless they take turns diving off the top of the cedar.
  • A freak result that there are no broken limbs on three bodies or ruptured heart/aorta.
  • A landing that gives no relevant bruising again on three bodies.
  • Snow doesn't reach the ravine for the whole winter until after Feb2, when it then fills with 2 to 6 meters as estimated by Tempalov @ 28/02/59.

  • A fall from sufficient height to create the injuries which is very hard to explain unless they take turns diving off the top of the cedar.
As pointed out by Star Man it is entirely possible to receive significant injuries from as little as 3 meters (if falling on a hard surface i.e. concrete, rock, etc.)The falling theory has to explain how Nicolai's skull base split as much as 0.4cm without snapping the neck?   
  • A freak result that there are no broken limbs on three bodies or ruptured heart/aorta.
By that time it's almost certain that all of the group were in some stage of hypothermia. If this is the case, their reaction time would have been significantly hampered. Couple that with the fact that they could not see due to lack of moonlight and it's understandable that they probably wouldn't have even reacted to a fall. They probably didn't even realize they had fallen. If, by chance, the main body absorbed the majority of the impact there would not be any injury to limbs.Not so, Semyon and Nicolai were fully dressed, none of the rav4 demonstrate any frostbite concerns?   
  • A landing that gives no relevant bruising again on three bodies.
The medical examiner stated fall as a possibility. If he had determined that a fall would have 100% resulted in bruising, he wouldn't have stated fall as a possibility.This is sophistry.   
  • Snow doesn't reach the ravine for the whole winter until after Feb2, when it then fills with 2 to 6 meters as estimated by Tempalov @ 28/02/59.
Yes. In the video I posted above, it shows a few ravines where the ground is exposed. It is also possible to hear running water in parts of the video. The video was taken in March of 2013. If there is running water in the ravine, snow will not accumulate or, it will form a bridge between the two sides of the ravine but is hollow underneath and water continues to flow. Ski resorts will often block off areas around ravines with flowing water because skiers can easily fall through the snow and injure themselves. As winter progressed the water volume decreases and the stream either stops or it freezes and snow will begin to accumulate. In the mountains near where I live, the resorts have sometimes had a meter of snow in a single day and night.I'm interested in the snow conditions in 1959 not 2013?[/q]

For what it's worth, below is a compilation video of skateboard falls. There are several falls by the same individual, but the one at :43 is significant. Not sure exactly how high, but it looks as though it could be around 3 meters. In the fall he sustained head injury, ruptured spleen, internal bleeding. Interesting that even though he partially landed on his arm he had no limb injuries. It's easy to see how much more the injuries would have been if he landed on a large rock.and no fractures at all? You're proving my case not yours?

[viewer discretion]

https://youtu.be/kBHHE-sKGEY?t=43 (https://youtu.be/kBHHE-sKGEY?t=43)

Although he's skateboarding he isn't going that much faster than a brisk walk. I think there's this idea that you have to fall from an incredible height to sustain significant injuries when that is not necessarily true.

I'm not saying that 100% they fell. Only that a fall is the most logical scenario given the fact that they were found at the bottom of a ravine (in an area where a majority of the ravines have large rocks) with injuries that the medical examiner listed as possibly occurring due to a fall.

Here's a video for you, where the victim survives due to the snow depth which looks to me to be say......... several metres, maybe say 3.5m...... Hey that's the depth of the ravine snow! What a coincidence, maybe i should tell WAB this!  bigjoke .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4JFBN3WSls (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4JFBN3WSls).
I've done some static line jumping from 2500 feet so very big respect to this kid. Apparently UK paratrooper basic training involves jumping from a static balloon because stepping off a platform in complete stillness is psychologically tougher than from an aircraft.

Well, probably no convincing you. For what it's worth, here are a few videos of skateboarders falling less than a meter and breaking ribs.

https://youtu.be/yACJTNJ4rZU?t=347

https://youtu.be/qeOEwjuuHkA?t=6

https://youtu.be/WBNGSykJMR8

https://youtu.be/jQ9fWJeNBno

https://youtu.be/C6NBKOpMQko

There is little to no doubt that if the skateboarder video that I had previously posted had landed on a rock that he would have had massive rib fractures. The fact that he landed on his arm and flat probably saved him from more severe injury.

Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 13, 2020, 09:51:10 AM
Overall I think they went mountaineering in remote Siberia and now they're at the bottom of a ravine with injuries consistent with a fall? No need to overthink this.
Agreed there's no need to overthink this, Nicolai's head was deformed (squashed). Falls from the heights under consideration can't achieve this.

Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 13, 2020, 09:52:45 AM

Well, probably no convincing you. For what it's worth, here are a few videos of skateboarders falling less than a meter and breaking ribs.

When you post a vid of a skateboarder getting a deformed head i'll take notice.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: sarapuk on July 13, 2020, 12:07:46 PM
Yes its possible to break bones by short falls. But that may not explain how 2 of the Dyatlov Group got their very severe and unusual injuries that almost certainly resulted in their deaths. As Nigel says re the Skull injury.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: lucid-nonsense on July 13, 2020, 05:01:55 PM

Well, probably no convincing you. For what it's worth, here are a few videos of skateboarders falling less than a meter and breaking ribs.

When you post a vid of a skateboarder getting a deformed head i'll take notice.

A guy I know got a severe skull fracture just from falling his own height on smooth concrete. He had a epilepsy attack and collapsed and hit his head. He actually had brain damage and had trouble with his speech for a while. That's a 0 meter fall. A 3 meter fall can easily lead to a smashed skull.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 13, 2020, 10:43:34 PM

Well, probably no convincing you. For what it's worth, here are a few videos of skateboarders falling less than a meter and breaking ribs.

When you post a vid of a skateboarder getting a deformed head i'll take notice.

A guy I know got a severe skull fracture just from falling his own height on smooth concrete. He had a epilepsy attack and collapsed and hit his head. He actually had brain damage and had trouble with his speech for a while. That's a 0 meter fall. A 3 meter fall can easily lead to a smashed skull.
Actually more like a 2 metre fall. What is it about the phrase "deformed skull" that seems to be so easily ignored by so many people?
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Morski on July 13, 2020, 11:31:35 PM
Overall I think they went mountaineering in remote Siberia and now they're at the bottom of a ravine with injuries consistent with a fall? No need to overthink this.
Agreed there's no need to overthink this, Nicolai's head was deformed (squashed). Falls from the heights under consideration can't achieve this.

Falls from heights contribute to severe skull fractures though. Once you have a fracture like Tibo, which clearly compromises the integrity of the skull, and after several months under heavy snow and eventually running water, and considering the process of decomposition, it is not so surprising that the head looks deformed, if that is what you mean.

By the way, are the terms "deformed" or "squashed" your interpretations? I don`t remember them being used in the official coroner report.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 14, 2020, 06:52:13 AM
Overall I think they went mountaineering in remote Siberia and now they're at the bottom of a ravine with injuries consistent with a fall? No need to overthink this.
Agreed there's no need to overthink this, Nicolai's head was deformed (squashed). Falls from the heights under consideration can't achieve this.

Falls from heights contribute to severe skull fractures though. Once you have a fracture like Tibo, which clearly compromises the integrity of the skull, and after several months under heavy snow and eventually running water, and considering the process of decomposition, it is not so surprising that the head looks deformed, if that is what you mean.

By the way, are the terms "deformed" or "squashed" your interpretations? I don`t remember them being used in the official coroner report.
Correct, he used - "On the whole, the length of the crack in the area of the base of the skull is 17 cm. In addition, there is asymmetry due to the compression fracture of this area."
.
I maintain my argument that a side impact to the skull from falling from modest heights cannot result in splitting the base of the skull by almost 7 inches. I assert it is impossible.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: RidgeWatcher on July 14, 2020, 12:12:16 PM
I have seen thousands of fractured skulls (craniums) in my life. The fractures that bother me the most in the Dyatlov group are the rib fractures. Dubinina and Semyon's rib fractures had to have taken a powerful force at a flat angle to cause those types of fractures.

I sometimes wonder if they were unconscious near frozen, and then slammed or forcefully dropped upon one another to accomplish such "double barrel" type fractures. These are not easy fractures to accomplish.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Frankie on July 14, 2020, 02:55:41 PM
What strikes me most about Dubinina’s fractures were that there were essentially 3 fracture lines across her ribs. Ribs 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the right side were bilaterally fractured along both the mid-clavicular line and the mid-axillary line. The mid-clavicular line is basically along the middle of the nipple and the mid-axillary line is along the side, under the armpit. The left side showed fractures of ribs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

This means going across the chest, nearly each rib had 3 fracture lines. THAT, my friends, is indicative of a tremendous impact, maybe a long fall whereby she landed flat on her chest/stomach. I am attempting to find any other cases of such fractures.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: sarapuk on July 14, 2020, 03:30:08 PM
Well Rib injuries and Skull injury could both be the result of Squeezing. A Bear could possibly cause those kind of injuries, but we should expect to see much more damage to skin and bone. And when a Bear goes for the head its usually very brutal.

Here we have a Russian Bear attacking an Hunter.
(https://i.ibb.co/Z64RPyP/Medvedattack.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 15, 2020, 03:06:42 AM
I have seen thousands of fractured skulls (craniums) in my life. The fractures that bother me the most in the Dyatlov group are the rib fractures. Dubiniaa and Semyon's rib fractures had to have taken a powerful force at a flat angle to cause those types of fractures.

I sometimes wonder if they were unconscious near frozen, and then slammed or forcefully dropped upon one another to accomplish such "double barrel" type fractures. These are not easy fractures to accomplish.
Hi, RidgeWatcher it sounds like you have some professional medical experience?
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Jean Daniel Reuss on July 15, 2020, 02:03:06 PM


I have seen thousands of fractured .......... fractures that bother me the most in the Dyatlov group are the rib fractures... These are not easy fractures to accomplish........

What strikes me most about Dubinina's fractures were that there were essentially 3 fracture lines across her ribs. Ribs 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the right side..............
............. indicative of a tremendous impact, maybe a long fall whereby she landed flat on her chest/stomach. I am attempting to find any other cases of such fractures...........

Hello ! RidgeWatcher and Frankie, so you've had a "chance" to observe in reality human bone fractures.

I am currently working on my hypothesis N°2 which is inspired by Eduard Tumanov, in his "fight against outsiders version", by Aleks Kandr ( http://mystery12home.ru/t-ub-gr-dyatlova ) and by several others such as Per Inge Oestmoen...etc, according to the bone fractures of the 4 du den are not due to falling.

Then, 3 aggressors, armed with blunt objects and without firearms, would have reached the tent, around 8 am on February 1, 1959....

I know how to quickly make effective blunt objects by pruning tree branches with a knife and a hatchet. This can also be called a bludgeon or a two-handed club, with one end having a diameter of 3 cm for a good hand hold, while the center of gravity is close to the other end which is much thicker.
 - Typically length=120 cm, weight=4 kg - strongly depending on the user's stature and musculature  -

However I have no certainty because I have neither human skeletons, nor corpses to make sure how bones can be broken.

 
•••   I would be glad to have the opinion of experimented or professional members of DPI with real knowledge about human bone fractures.   •••


For me, the blunt objects, which Tumanov  talks about ( https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?board=53.0 ), are pieces of birch trunks that are available for free and in abundance in the Taiga around Vizhay.
 
Theoretical study of inelastic shocks is difficult so in a first preminilary approach, I content myself with estimates of the energies involved with blunt objects of length 1.20 m  and weight 4 kg.

  • Potential energy of a 4 kg mass at 3 m altitude = 120 joules
  • Muscular energy provided by a aggressor-beater = (2.5)*120 = 300 joules  ---  (factor 2.5 to be discussed)
  • Total energy corresponding to a single club hit = 420 joules

A bludgeon blow has a breaking power comparable to the impact of a birch wood sphere, 23 cm in diameter, moving at a speed of 51 km/h.
 (birch wood sphere ---> diameter=23 cm || weight=4 kg || speed=14,1 m/s || kinetic energy=400 joules)


According to my hypopthesis N°2, there were probably 3 aggressors: 2 beaters and an organizer carrying a lighter baton.
I also suppose that each aggressor-beater cannot repeat more than 10 strokes in a row, because then the aggressor is forced to stop momentarily because he is tired.

So Dubinina and Zolotariov, once lying stunned on the ground, could have received 20 separate blows to the chest from two blunt objects
which corresponds to a total energy of 8 kilojoules = 2*10*400 joules.

Now my question is: what do you think about the possibility of performing Dubinina and Zolotariov's rib fractures with blunt objects ?


The objection, sometimes put forward, of the absence of external trace does not seem to me to be relevant:
   a) - The blunt object striking has a very rounded, almost spherical shape.
   b) - The state of rottenness of the bodies of the four of the den was advanced when they were examined and no conclusion was possible.
( If you want to see: https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Semyon-Zolotaryov-post-mortem.jpg )

Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Star man on July 15, 2020, 04:37:36 PM


I have seen thousands of fractured .......... fractures that bother me the most in the Dyatlov group are the rib fractures... These are not easy fractures to accomplish........

What strikes me most about Dubinina's fractures were that there were essentially 3 fracture lines across her ribs. Ribs 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the right side..............
............. indicative of a tremendous impact, maybe a long fall whereby she landed flat on her chest/stomach. I am attempting to find any other cases of such fractures...........

Hello ! RidgeWatcher and Frankie, so you've had a "chance" to observe in reality human bone fractures.

I am currently working on my hypothesis N°2 which is inspired by Eduard Tumanov, in his "fight against outsiders version", by Aleks Kandr ( http://mystery12home.ru/t-ub-gr-dyatlova ) and by several others such as Per Inge Oestmoen...etc, according to the bone fractures of the 4 du den are not due to falling.

Then, 3 aggressors, armed with blunt objects and without firearms, would have reached the tent, around 8 am on February 1, 1959....

I know how to quickly make effective blunt objects by pruning tree branches with a knife and a hatchet. This can also be called a bludgeon or a two-handed club, with one end having a diameter of 3 cm for a good hand hold, while the center of gravity is close to the other end which is much thicker.
 - Typically length=120 cm, weight=4 kg - strongly depending on the user's stature and musculature  -

However I have no certainty because I have neither human skeletons, nor corpses to make sure how bones can be broken.

 
•••   I would be glad to have the opinion of experimented or professional members of DPI with real knowledge about human bone fractures.   •••


For me, the blunt objects, which Tumanov  talks about ( https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?board=53.0 ), are pieces of birch trunks that are available for free and in abundance in the Taiga around Vizhay.
 
Theoretical study of inelastic shocks is difficult so in a first preminilary approach, I content myself with estimates of the energies involved with blunt objects of length 1.20 m  and weight 4 kg.

  • Potential energy of a 4 kg mass at 3 m altitude = 120 joules
  • Muscular energy provided by a aggressor-beater = (2.5)*120 = 300 joules  ---  (factor 2.5 to be discussed)
  • Total energy corresponding to a single club hit = 420 joules

A bludgeon blow has a breaking power comparable to the impact of a birch wood sphere, 23 cm in diameter, moving at a speed of 51 km/h.
 (birch wood sphere ---> diameter=23 cm || weight=4 kg || speed=14,1 m/s || kinetic energy=400 joules)


According to my hypopthesis N°2, there were probably 3 aggressors: 2 beaters and an organizer carrying a lighter baton.
I also suppose that each aggressor-beater cannot repeat more than 10 strokes in a row, because then the aggressor is forced to stop momentarily because he is tired.

So Dubinina and Zolotariov, once lying stunned on the ground, could have received 20 separate blows to the chest from two blunt objects
which corresponds to a total energy of 8 kilojoules = 2*10*400 joules.

Now my question is: what do you think about the possibility of performing Dubinina and Zolotariov's rib fractures with blunt objects ?


The objection, sometimes put forward, of the absence of external trace does not seem to me to be relevant:
   a) - The blunt object striking has a very rounded, almost spherical shape.
   b) - The state of rottenness of the bodies of the four of the den was advanced when they were examined and no conclusion was possible.
( If you want to see: https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Semyon-Zolotaryov-post-mortem.jpg )

Hello Jean,

I have undertaken a relatively simple analysis of Lyuda and Semyon being hit with blunt objects.  What I can say is that if they were it was not by a human.  To put it blunty ( pun intended) , the force required to cause those injuries is equivalent to them having fallen from about 3 to 4 meters.  To create similar injuries with a blunt object would mean that the blunt object would need to impart a similar amount of force/energy by hand.  Now imagine the amount of strength it would require to knock a person 3 to 4 metres into the air with a blunt instrument?

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: RidgeWatcher on July 15, 2020, 06:47:35 PM
Monsieur Reuss, I have seen thousands of fractured ribs but the condition that Semyon and Dubininahad was what we called Flail Chest, where a series of single ribs were fractured in 2 different areas along the rib. They both had a free floating panel of ribs not connected to anything but being held together by intercostal muscles and veins and arteries and some cartilage. This would have been extremely painful if they were conscious which I am sure they were not. This had to have happened at the ravine.

The only way this could have happened by the Cedar tree is if they both were unconscious and carried to the ravine, which I doubt, because by that time Tibo was impaired and Kolevatov couldn't have done it all. Besides, if it happened at the Cedar tree and they were carried then the attackers would have been able to follow the very rough, torn up trail to the ravine, if two people were carried or dragged there.

I haven't seen flail chest too much because a lot of those people die out in the field, there are usually lung and cardiac injuries under a flail chest. We saw this with mostly with MVA's motor vehicle accidents, big wide steering wheels could smash a rib cage like this. Once a man made it to the Surgery but somehow during the accident he became dislodged from his vehicle which ended upside down with the roof pinning him to the ground and then catching on fire. The underlying internal chest cavity soft tissue could help determine the cause but the stream water interfered with that process.

Doroshenko, back at the Cedar had some grey sputum frozen on his face which also portends to traumatic prolonged chest compression. Maybe someone jumped on him from the Cedar? and then stayed on his chest to torture him?

Back at the ravine, for me, it is difficult to imagine Semyon's and Dubinina's flail chest being caused by falling 12 feet, especially onto brush below. a fractured rib or two, perhaps much harder to cause a flail chest.

Someone would have to be very, very strong, like a sawyer or lumberjack, loggers/forrester, perhaps. Very strong and very big and in a very big rage. I wish more of the Rav4's soft tissue had been preserved. It is still hard for me to believe this was done by a human. Did anyone ever find a large log or wide diameter tree trunk that had been cut?
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 16, 2020, 03:46:07 AM
Monsieur Reuss, I have seen thousands of fractured ribs but the condition that Semyon and Dubininahad was what we called Flail Chest, where a series of single ribs were fractured in 2 different areas along the rib. They both had a free floating panel of ribs not connected to anything but being held together by intercostal muscles and veins and arteries and some cartilage. This would have been extremely painful if they were conscious which I am sure they were not. This had to have happened at the ravine.

The only way this could have happened by the Cedar tree is if they both were unconscious and carried to the ravine, which I doubt, because by that time Tibo was impaired and Kolevatov couldn't have done it all. Besides, if it happened at the Cedar tree and they were carried then the attackers would have been able to follow the very rough, torn up trail to the ravine, if two people were carried or dragged there.

I haven't seen flail chest too much because a lot of those people die out in the field, there are usually lung and cardiac injuries under a flail chest. We saw this with mostly with MVA's motor vehicle accidents, big wide steering wheels could smash a rib cage like this. Once a man made it to the Surgery but somehow during the accident he became dislodged from his vehicle which ended upside down with the roof pinning him to the ground and then catching on fire. The underlying internal chest cavity soft tissue could help determine the cause but the stream water interfered with that process.

Doroshenko, back at the Cedar had some grey sputum frozen on his face which also portends to traumatic prolonged chest compression. Maybe someone jumped on him from the Cedar? and then stayed on his chest to torture him?

Back at the ravine, for me, it is difficult to imagine Semyon's and Dubinina's flail chest being caused by falling 12 feet, especially onto brush below. a fractured rib or two, perhaps much harder to cause a flail chest.

Someone would have to be very, very strong, like a sawyer or lumberjack, loggers/forrester, perhaps. Very strong and very big and in a very big rage. I wish more of the Rav4's soft tissue had been preserved. It is still hard for me to believe this was done by a human. Did anyone ever find a large log or wide diameter tree trunk that had been cut?
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Jean Daniel Reuss on July 16, 2020, 08:28:37 AM

............
I have undertaken a relatively simple analysis of Lyuda and Semyon being hit with blunt objects.  What I can say is that if they were it was not by a human.  To put it blunty ( pun intended) , the force required to cause those injuries is equivalent to them having fallen from about 3 to 4 meters.  To create similar injuries with a blunt object would mean that the blunt object would need to impart a similar amount of force/energy by hand.  Now imagine the amount of strength it would require to knock a person 3 to 4 metres into the air with a blunt instrument?...............

I had just imagined the fall of a person weighing 80 kg.

80 kg falling from 3 m ---> 2.4 kilojoules
80 kg falling from 4 m ---> 3.2 kilojoules

and I had considered many blows to one chest from two blunt objects
which corresponds to a total energy of ---> 8 kilojoules

But indeed my argument by energy is worthless ( wrong ) because the bones of a living mammal are elastic and the brittleness by fatigue of the bone material is negligible. See for example :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material)


°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

 It was WAB who explained that in the case of blows and shocks it is the instantaneous force that plays the important role and not the energy involved.
See..:
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=655.msg9956#msg9956

WAB  : July 10, 2020, 02:30:40 ----> Reply #58


 "The impact itself is very complex phenomenon... "
 "All processes are subject to the law of movement impulse conservation, which is expressed by the formula  ..."

M*(V1 - V2) = F*(t1 - t2)

   M  : it is the mass that moves,
   V1 : it is initial speed (before impact),
   V2 : it is final speed (after impact),
   F   : it is force value, during time (t1 - t2),
   t1  : it is the starting point of impact time,
   t2  : it is the final point of impact time.

Thus with the modeling of a blunt object blow by the impact of sphere (Ø=23 cm, made of birch wood) we obtain,
( M =4 kg || V1=14 m/s || V2=0 || t1-t2=0.01 seconds ) :

 
F= 5600 Newton or approximately 560 kilogram of force

In both cases the bodies of Dubinina and Zolotariov were supposed already lying on hard ground when the blows was applied.

Here is an instructive didactic example with very hard glass or steel - then  : t1-t2 =0.1 milliseconds,
( M=1 kg || V1=1 m/s || V2=0 || t1-t2=0.1 ms=0.0001 seconds ) :

F= 10000 Newton = approximately 1000 kilogram of force

Which explains why you can drive down nails in with a hammer...

However, the theoretical approach by the law of movement impulse conservation does not allow us to reach certain conclusions because the values of "t1-t2" are generally unknown.

To evaluate the value of "t1-t2" in a particular case, one possibility would be to use ultra-fast cinematography. 


°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

 • Conclusion - When it comes to estimating the effects of blows and shocks the theoretical considerations are disappointing. It is impossible to dispense with the observations and tests carried out in the real physical world

Personally I have no experience in combat sports but I read on the website of a French systema teacher :
(There are certainly other websites in English language on which you can read equivalent informations)

" Typical of percussion combat sports. The ribs break easily during a big hit under which one puts oneself in opposition. However, they also break easily on a small hit with a good angle. Be careful on some floor exercises, when the chest is stretched with little mobility and a big weight falls on it, the risk of breaking is also important.
             Recommendations:
Unfortunately, there is not much to do apart from rest and painkillers, a broken rib can be very painful with each breath... Count 3 to 6 weeks for the healing (more than 6 than 3 by the way...)."


 • Finally I think that Eduard Tumanov is not mistaken: the blunt objects can explain the totality of the injuries reported on the corpses of the 9 hikers.


Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: RidgeWatcher on July 16, 2020, 11:00:50 AM
Hello Nigel,
I have seen fractured ribs without bruising but out in the field, I used to swim on a triathlon team, get tidied up and then volunteer in the med-tents. I saw a lot of broken bones without any bruising but that doesn't mean the capillary breakage or free blood cells didn't settle near the dermal or epidermal skin layers later.

Yuri's grey foam, results of pulmonary edema, were also indicative of a certain type of torture known at the time. Pulmonary edema, when seen in Severe Hypothermia cases is usually suggestive of faults of the rewarming process. That goes back to the saying I heard in Alaska a lot. You don't die of Hypothermia unless you are warm and dead.

Hello Jean,

 I want to thank you for the mathematics. It looks like you are really trying to scientifically formulate the movements and possibility of a wooden bludgeon attack, and succeeding. It definitely looks like a possibility, although I don't understand, completely the physics of a flail chest, it does look possible. If Semyon and Dubinina were already down in the den and someone from above jumped on them, somehow, without damaging too much surface soft tissue, what do you think of that? If it was wooden weapons that caused the multitude of injuries then I wonder what kind of a human would go through all that just to satisfy their urges? A hunter, perhaps.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Star man on July 16, 2020, 11:19:22 AM

............
I have undertaken a relatively simple analysis of Lyuda and Semyon being hit with blunt objects.  What I can say is that if they were it was not by a human.  To put it blunty ( pun intended) , the force required to cause those injuries is equivalent to them having fallen from about 3 to 4 meters.  To create similar injuries with a blunt object would mean that the blunt object would need to impart a similar amount of force/energy by hand.  Now imagine the amount of strength it would require to knock a person 3 to 4 metres into the air with a blunt instrument?...............

I had just imagined the fall of a person weighing 80 kg.

80 kg falling from 3 m ---> 2.4 kilojoules
80 kg falling from 4 m ---> 3.2 kilojoules

and I had considered many blows to one chest from two blunt objects
which corresponds to a total energy of ---> 8 kilojoules

But indeed my argument by energy is worthless ( wrong ) because the bones of a living mammal are elastic and the brittleness by fatigue of the bone material is negligible. See for example :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material)


°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

 It was WAB who explained that in the case of blows and shocks it is the instantaneous force that plays the important role and not the energy involved.
See..:
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=655.msg9956#msg9956

WAB  : July 10, 2020, 02:30:40 ----> Reply #58


 "The impact itself is very complex phenomenon... "
 "All processes are subject to the law of movement impulse conservation, which is expressed by the formula  ..."

M*(V1 - V2) = F*(t1 - t2)

   M  : it is the mass that moves,
   V1 : it is initial speed (before impact),
   V2 : it is final speed (after impact),
   F   : it is force value, during time (t1 - t2),
   t1  : it is the starting point of impact time,
   t2  : it is the final point of impact time.

Thus with the modeling of a blunt object blow by the impact of sphere (Ø=23 cm, made of birch wood) we obtain,
( M =4 kg || V1=14 m/s || V2=0 || t1-t2=0.01 seconds ) :

 
F= 5600 Newton or approximately 560 kilogram of force

In both cases the bodies of Dubinina and Zolotariov were supposed already lying on hard ground when the blows was applied.

Here is an instructive didactic example with very hard glass or steel - then  : t1-t2 =0.1 milliseconds,
( M=1 kg || V1=1 m/s || V2=0 || t1-t2=0.1 ms=0.0001 seconds ) :

F= 10000 Newton = approximately 1000 kilogram of force

Which explains why you can drive down nails in with a hammer...

However, the theoretical approach by the law of movement impulse conservation does not allow us to reach certain conclusions because the values of "t1-t2" are generally unknown.

To evaluate the value of "t1-t2" in a particular case, one possibility would be to use ultra-fast cinematography. 


°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

 • Conclusion - When it comes to estimating the effects of blows and shocks the theoretical considerations are disappointing. It is impossible to dispense with the observations and tests carried out in the real physical world

Personally I have no experience in combat sports but I read on the website of a French systema teacher :
(There are certainly other websites in English language on which you can read equivalent informations)

" Typical of percussion combat sports. The ribs break easily during a big hit under which one puts oneself in opposition. However, they also break easily on a small hit with a good angle. Be careful on some floor exercises, when the chest is stretched with little mobility and a big weight falls on it, the risk of breaking is also important.
             Recommendations:
Unfortunately, there is not much to do apart from rest and painkillers, a broken rib can be very painful with each breath... Count 3 to 6 weeks for the healing (more than 6 than 3 by the way...)."


 • Finally I think that Eduard Tumanov is not mistaken: the blunt objects can explain the totality of the injuries reported on the corpses of the 9 hikers.

It looks to me that the chest injuries were accomplished via 1 and possibly 2 blows for Lyuda.  To achieve them with a club like weapon would probably require the victim to be on the floor as the angle of impact down the ribs must have been shallow.  But a club is long and rigid, and if someone was standing over the victim the end of the club would hit them at a greater angle causing a more localised injury.  Now several people lifting a large boulder a d dropping it on them seems more consistent with the type of injury.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Tony on July 16, 2020, 01:04:23 PM

Back at the ravine, for me, it is difficult to imagine Semyon's and Dubinina's flail chest being caused by falling 12 feet, especially onto brush below. a fractured rib or two, perhaps much harder to cause a flail chest.


If they both fell onto large rocks from 12 feet would it cause those types of fractured ribs?
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Georgi on July 16, 2020, 07:37:05 PM



Sorry about the previous fragmented response. Not sure what happened there.

I think there is some confusion as to the events with the fall - I'll try and clarify:

After Yuri D. and Yuri K. passed at the cedar, the remaining seven took clothing, left the fire and cedar, and traveled deeper into the forest. In complete dark, without the moon or flashlight, they were probably in two groups walking very close or holding on to each other. By this point they were all in the beginning or mid stages of hypothermia and reaction time would have been limited. Stumbling onto the ravine, it's possible that they heard water, but they would not have been able to see the ravine. There are a hundred different scenarios for how they could have fallen but I believe they stumbled in the deep snow or fell through snow (snow bridge) and, holding onto each other, 3 of them fell onto a number of large rocks (imaging falling down a flight of stairs on to rocks in the dark). They didn't fall onto a single rock and the rocks weren't in the "right place" - it was just a bunch of rocks that lined the entire bed of the ravine. It would have happened quickly and with hypothermia setting in, they probably didn't realize what had happened and were unable to block the fall or protect themselves. Sasha fell and landed on his chest breaking his ribs and cutting the top of his head. Thibeux-Brignolle landed on his head knocking him unconscious. Lyuda landed breaking her ribs and received bruising on her quadricep and damage to her face. All of these injuries could occur with an uninterrupted fall onto large rocks. A 170 lb person falling 6 feet would generate around 4,800 newtons of force which would be more than enough to break ribs. This is all arm-chair science but we've already concluded that the medical examiner stated a fall as a possibility.

After they fell, the remaining 3 (or four) made their way into the ravine and, hoping to save their friends and themselves, began to build the den into a snow drift on the banks of the ravine, returning to the cedar to retrieve more clothing and cut fir branches for the bed. The 3 that fell remained on the rocks where they were found months later. The building of the den would have been done in absolute darkness and it probably took a substantial amount of effort. Running out of options, the remaining three (Igor, Zina, and Rustem) abandoned the ravine and attempted a return to the tent. Over the next 3 weeks its possible that the water level in the ravine decreased and froze allowing snow to accumulate and cover the rocks and hikers. As far as I know there is no mention of a search in the area of the ravine during the initial stages of the investigation.

The outlier is Kolevatov. I don't know what his circumstances would have been. It's possible that after the fire the 3 attempted a return to the tent and the other four walked into the forest with all but Kolevatov falling into the ravine. Kolevatov alone constructed the den and the bed and then gave up. But I don't see him being able to construct the bed and den alone. It's also possible that he fell as well which would account for his neck injury.

There are also injuries to Sasha's scapula that were found later that are hard to account for.

Yes, it's unusual that 3 (or 4) people would all fall at the same time and incur such extreme injuries but it is the most likely scenario. Even if they were forced from the tent by a third party and left to fend for themselves I think it is still a more likely scenario for the injuries. Finding a small group of people in a ravine in complete darkness in a large, forested area with only a flashlight in -15 F weather and in snow a mile from the tent would have been near impossible at best.

If you happened upon someone lying on top of rocks at the bottom of a small ravine with injuries what would be the mostly likely cause of injury?

1) The first problem from my point of view is that Zolotaryov and Dubinina suffered injuries from opposite directions, meaning their head injuries while their chest injuries appear to be from the front for Dubinina and side for Zolotaryov. This leads me to believe that it would have to be some very unique set of circumstances to have both of them to suffer injuries from opposing forces(one from the back and the other Front/Side).

2) Kolevatov on the other hand also suffered injuries inconsistent with one fall, again one injury was back of the head behind the ear while the other was a broken neck.

3) They had to have had a really good reason to leave the fire to go out without at least using all of their firewood, there were enough people who were sufficiently well dressed to be able to go and gather more wood to increase the size of the fire. There had to be compelling reasons to force them to abandon their tent and then abandon their fire while they still had firewood and a means to gather more. A big enough fire might have bought them just enough time to survive to daylight and find their way back to the tent, or at least the best dressed of the hikers can go and get clothes and shoes for the rest.

4) By all accounts Slobodin was the first to die, and if the ice under his body was anything to go by he died before he suffered through the cold for prolonged time before collapsing.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Georgi on July 16, 2020, 07:39:39 PM
I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?
The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.

So the falling theory seems almost impossible.
  • Bruising occurs but doesn't exist for the fractures.
  • No broken limbs.
  • From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
  • I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
  • In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
  • They were found under 3.5m.
The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.
If they were crushed by the  show they would have suffered significantly more injuries than they did suffer. Injuries to arms, legs etc... and all 4 would have somewhat similar injuries.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Georgi on July 16, 2020, 07:53:15 PM


My point was that if enough snow had fallen on them to cause these injuries, they would've been trapped under the snow and died of asphyxiation.
And the list of injuries would have been more uniform and there would have been significantly more injuries.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Georgi on July 16, 2020, 08:21:36 PM


There is little to no doubt that if the skateboarder video that I had previously posted had landed on a rock that he would have had massive rib fractures. The fact that he landed on his arm and flat probably saved him from more severe injury.
If you are falling on A rock it might cause the injuries and nothing else, if you are falling on a lot of rocks then there should be injuries to other parts of the body. Zolotaryov was injured from the side, which means the serious arm injuries that should be there are not there. All 4 received similar injuries to the back of their heads, 2 of the people suffered serious injuries to their ribs(one from the front and one from the side) while the other two had a deformed/broken neck and a significantly more powerful hit to the head than the others. And all this without a single injury to the arms or legs to indicate a reaction?
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 17, 2020, 02:09:59 AM
Hello Nigel,
I have seen fractured ribs without bruising but out in the field, I used to swim on a triathlon team, get tidied up and then volunteer in the med-tents. I saw a lot of broken bones without any bruising but that doesn't mean the capillary breakage or free blood cells didn't settle near the dermal or epidermal skin layers later.
I can understand that ribs can fracture with no bruising (or delayed) but Nicolai's skull? How can the scalp transfer this impact into the skull and not result in large scale capillary breakage immediately?  Could the temperature of the skin be relevant?

I'd be interested in your opinion of my "crushed in the den theory" if you haven't seen it. - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=398.120Imo crushed in the den answers the key question - why no limb fractures?
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 17, 2020, 02:11:49 AM
If they were crushed by the  show they would have suffered significantly more injuries than they did suffer. Injuries to arms, legs etc... and all 4 would have somewhat similar injuries.
Not if the force was localised - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=398.120
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Frankie on July 18, 2020, 02:17:43 PM

Back at the ravine, for me, it is difficult to imagine Semyon's and Dubinina's flail chest being caused by falling 12 feet, especially onto brush below. a fractured rib or two, perhaps much harder to cause a flail chest.


If they both fell onto large rocks from 12 feet would it cause those types of fractured ribs?

That is what I am attempting to either prove or disprove. My thoughts are that those rib fractures are unique enough that there must be medical data about them somewhere. There must be information about such linear fractures in 3 places (or even in 1 or 2) and what caused them so we can compare Dubinina’s injuries to someone else’s with a known cause. Still researching...
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: lucid-nonsense on July 18, 2020, 08:18:29 PM
If they fell down a steep slope and bounced off several trees on the way down, that could explain the localized injuries that seem to come from multiple directions.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Star man on July 19, 2020, 02:35:08 AM
Falling down a steep slope could explain the various superficial injuries such the bruise on Lyuda's thigh, her crushed nose cartilage, the cut behind Semyon ear etc.  It could also provide an impact powerful enough to cause the chest injuries.  What I think needs more detailed consideration is how and why did both Lyuda and Semyon have such similar impacts/damage to their chests with such similar amounts of force applied.

The superficial injuries could also be explain by being dragged around violently (same as following down a slope)  and receiving very large powerful blows from an ape/creature.  Easier to explain the similarity in the chest injuries and does not require an explanation as to why both Lyuda and Semyon both fell down a slope.  A large apes hand is big, 30cm ish long.  Thibo's depressed fracture matches the shape of the ball of the thumb of 30 cm hand.  Looks like his skull could have been crushed against the ground by a powerful hand.  Very strange but I don't think you should rule this out either.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 19, 2020, 04:23:04 AM
Falling down a steep slope could explain the various superficial injuries such the bruise on Lyuda's thigh, her crushed nose cartilage, the cut behind Semyon ear etc.  It could also provide an impact powerful enough to cause the chest injuries.  What I think needs more detailed consideration is how and why did both Lyuda and Semyon have such similar impacts/damage to their chests with such similar amounts of force applied.

The superficial injuries could also be explain by being dragged around violently (same as following down a slope)  and receiving very large powerful blows from an ape/creature.  Easier to explain the similarity in the chest injuries and does not require an explanation as to why both Lyuda and Semyon both fell down a slope.  A large apes hand is big, 30cm ish long.  Thibo's depressed fracture matches the shape of the ball of the thumb of 30 cm hand.  Looks like his skull could have been crushed against the ground by a powerful hand.  Very strange but I don't think you should rule this out either.

Regards

Star man
No i wouldn't rule out an attack by a menk whilst they were in the den - https://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/vladimir-putin-sights-a-yeti-family-in-remote-siberian-mountains/.
The fire didn't burn out which supports the narrative that they chose to extinguish it and move to the den.
.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: sparrow on July 19, 2020, 04:41:44 AM
I have so many problems with every theory I have read about, even the simplest ones.  If the rav4 were walking  along slowly, which seems logical, then when they came to the ravine, would not they have fallen over and slid a ways?  If that were the case then why are there no scratches or any bruises except for the one on Lyuda? If the snow cushioned their fall then how did they get broken bones?  If they were in the den and it collapsed on them then why didn't at least one of them die from asphyxiation?  If they died where they fell then how did Lyuda end up at a right angle and further away ( from the top edge of the ravine) than the three guys?  If you believe they were washed to where they were found then how could it look like Alexander was holding Simon? If Simon was too cold to write a message (or whatever) then why is he still able to hold a pencil and notebook?  And on and on the questions go.  bang1
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: sparrow on July 19, 2020, 04:47:30 AM
I have so many problems with every theory I have read about, even the simplest ones.  If the rav4 were walking  along slowly, which seems logical, then when they came to the ravine, would not they have fallen over and slid a ways?  If that were the case then why are there no scratches or any bruises except for the one on Lyuda? If the snow cushioned their fall then how did they get broken bones?  If they were in the den and it collapsed on them then why didn't at least one of them die from asphyxiation?  If they died where they fell then how did Lyuda end up at a right angle and further away ( from the top edge of the ravine) than the three guys?  If you believe they were washed to where they were found then how could it look like Alexander was holding Simon? If Simon was too cold to write a message (or whatever) then why is he still able to hold a pencil and notebook?  And on and on the questions go.  bang1
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: sparrow on July 19, 2020, 04:58:41 AM
Sorry about the post being posted twice.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Star man on July 19, 2020, 06:25:25 AM
One piece of evidence from an eye witness at the cedar I find interesting is the reported presence of a ladies handkerchief burned through in places.  Who's handerkerchief was this?  Presumably one of the girls.  Which one?  It suggests that Yuri K and Yuri D were not there alone.  So who was with them?  Between the cedar and the den some dropped clothing is found.  Is there a slope sufficient to cause those injuries to Lyuda and Semyon along that route?  If the handkerchief were Lyuda's it would help us understand if there was a credible fall down a slope, or at least help us understand the probability better.

Regards

Arar nan
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 19, 2020, 08:58:10 AM
One piece of evidence from an eye witness at the cedar I find interesting is the reported presence of a ladies handkerchief burned through in places.  Who's handerkerchief was this?  Presumably one of the girls.  Which one?  It suggests that Yuri K and Yuri D were not there alone.  So who was with them?  Between the cedar and the den some dropped clothing is found.  Is there a slope sufficient to cause those injuries to Lyuda and Semyon along that route?  If the handkerchief were Lyuda's it would help us understand if there was a credible fall down a slope, or at least help us understand the probability better.

Regards

Arar nan
Imo more curious are a sock, a cowboy shirt and a cap left by the fire. Why strip the bodies but leave those?
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Ting on July 19, 2020, 09:59:10 AM
Imo more curious are a sock, a cowboy shirt and a cap left by the fire. Why strip the bodies but leave those?
[/quote] Nigel Evans

Perhaps they dropped them because they were in a rush. 
Maybe they were carrying other things and couldn't hold onto everything.
Or maybe it was the effects of hypothermia on co-ordination and movement. 
Or maybe they got wet from melting snow next to the fire and therefore useless. 
Or maybe the yeti was trying them on at the time.
It seems as though there are no simple answers to anything in this case.  bang1

Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Frankie on July 19, 2020, 10:40:16 AM
Some of the information I have found about the rib fractures:


“...pliability of ribs results also in the facilitation of transfer of force along the bone. This causes its failure, or fracture, to be away from the impact site more often than in other bones (Watson-Jones, 1941). Clinical studies have indicated that when force is applied to the chest anteroposteriorly, the ribs tend to break at the point of curvature—anterolaterally (DiMaio and DiMaio, 1989). This type of force is often seen in MVAs and in patients who receive CPR. If force is applied in a way that compacts the chest laterally, the reverse is true. Lateral compaction results in rib fractures along the sternum and the spinal column (Galloway, 1999).”

If this is true, then it appears the force resulting in Dubinina’s fractures was anteroposterior - directed from the front toward the back.

And this:

“A significant amount of force to the chest is required to fracture ribs 1 to 3, and the likelihood of thoracic soft tissue injury is high. Similarly, fractures in ribs 8 to 11 increase the likelihood of having abdominal soft tissue injury (Burke, 2012). Ribs 6 to 8 are the most commonly fractured ribs (Galloway, 1999).”


Yet there is no mention of so much as a bruise on Dubinina’s torso. From this, I am led to believe the force was something like falling a long distance and landing flat on the front of the body. But what to make of those “middle” fractures? Could there have been two separate falls or injuries?

I am still researching specifically these fractures. I think they are meaningful in determining what happened. I will continue to post what I find, unless this doesn’t interest anyone but me.


(Sources: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=6718&context=etd, https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/rg.2017160100)
Title: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Monty on July 19, 2020, 11:36:24 AM
Obviously you realize any yeti wouldn't be seen dead in a cowboy shirt and single sock.
Title: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Monty on July 19, 2020, 11:40:02 AM
Frankie - I have always found the way the injuries are described on this forum as complex to visualize. Please continue with your interpretation as it is simple and revealing.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 19, 2020, 01:09:11 PM
Obviously you realize any yeti wouldn't be seen dead in a cowboy shirt and single sock.
Hmm, might clash with it's nail polish.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Star man on July 19, 2020, 01:15:45 PM
Some of the information I have found about the rib fractures:


“...pliability of ribs results also in the facilitation of transfer of force along the bone. This causes its failure, or fracture, to be away from the impact site more often than in other bones (Watson-Jones, 1941). Clinical studies have indicated that when force is applied to the chest anteroposteriorly, the ribs tend to break at the point of curvature—anterolaterally (DiMaio and DiMaio, 1989). This type of force is often seen in MVAs and in patients who receive CPR. If force is applied in a way that compacts the chest laterally, the reverse is true. Lateral compaction results in rib fractures along the sternum and the spinal column (Galloway, 1999).”

If this is true, then it appears the force resulting in Dubinina’s fractures was anteroposterior - directed from the front toward the back.

And this:

“A significant amount of force to the chest is required to fracture ribs 1 to 3, and the likelihood of thoracic soft tissue injury is high. Similarly, fractures in ribs 8 to 11 increase the likelihood of having abdominal soft tissue injury (Burke, 2012). Ribs 6 to 8 are the most commonly fractured ribs (Galloway, 1999).”


Yet there is no mention of so much as a bruise on Dubinina’s torso. From this, I am led to believe the force was something like falling a long distance and landing flat on the front of the body. But what to make of those “middle” fractures? Could there have been two separate falls or injuries?

I am still researching specifically these fractures. I think they are meaningful in determining what happened. I will continue to post what I find, unless this doesn’t interest anyone but me.


(Sources: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=6718&context=etd, https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/rg.2017160100)

Keep the info coming Frankie.  Its all useful.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Star man on July 19, 2020, 01:17:33 PM
One piece of evidence from an eye witness at the cedar I find interesting is the reported presence of a ladies handkerchief burned through in places.  Who's handerkerchief was this?  Presumably one of the girls.  Which one?  It suggests that Yuri K and Yuri D were not there alone.  So who was with them?  Between the cedar and the den some dropped clothing is found.  Is there a slope sufficient to cause those injuries to Lyuda and Semyon along that route?  If the handkerchief were Lyuda's it would help us understand if there was a credible fall down a slope, or at least help us understand the probability better.

Regards

Arar nan
Imo more curious are a sock, a cowboy shirt and a cap left by the fire. Why strip the bodies but leave those?

Do you think they were in ah hurry or just incapacitated by cold?

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 19, 2020, 01:24:25 PM
@Frankie - fire away.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 19, 2020, 06:43:04 PM
I have so many problems with every theory I have read about, even the simplest ones. 

Dear sparrow !
Strange as it may seem, these questions already have answers if you just include the logic and knowledge of a particular area, as well as the conditions that are there all the time.
We will disassemble everything separately.

If the rav4 were walking  along slowly, which seems logical, then when they came to the ravine, would not they have fallen over and slid a ways?

It is necessary to consider everything here in more detail, but you asked the question too abstractly. Please formulate the question in more specific way.
From what is already clear, I can say this:
1. They were walking slowly and came much later than the two Yura were at the cedar because they had carry Nikolai Tibo from the place where he was wounded.
2. On a slope they have fallen because they have not seen an edge of snowy top of a ravine against a white bottom. The white background is not visible in the darkness at all. But they saw the reflections of the cedar fire from above and went there because the fire meant warmth (as they thought it burned well) and they had already frozen in the cold.

If that were the case then why are there no scratches or any bruises except for the one on Lyuda?

First you have to understand why they have to be?
Further it is necessary to take into account, that in the big cold and fast (relatively) death they may not form. In addition, it should be taken into account that they were wearing clothes that to some extent protect it. And the most important thing is that on partially decomposed bodies it is either impossible to detect or Dr. Revived did not describe it, because it is very difficult to distinguish it from postmortem changes associated with additional efforts during transportation.
There is a very "slippery" question, which cannot be answered with a completely accurate answer. There are it is so many options.

If the snow cushioned their fall then how did they get broken bones? 

Everything works only within the limits of the possibility commit such events. Snow can soften a fall, but only within very small limits. You have to understand the relationship between the energy of a fall and the ability of snow to absorb that energy. According to Vladislav Karelin (he is one of the few people who could assess this situation well and correctly - he was well qualified for it), there was very little snow, so do not focus on the properties of snow to absorb movement. How much do you think can absorb 30 or 50 cm (0.5...0.7 ft) of snow (especially if it is not dense) if mans rolls down a slope 8m high (25 ft) and stops abruptly?

If they were in the den and it collapsed on them then why didn't at least one of them die from asphyxiation?

This is a typical misconception of those who do not know this place and conditions at all, but are trying to say something of their own. It's very fantastic. It's more fantastic than a UFO.
There's no way something's gonna collapse, especially if there's a lot of snow.
In March, there is more than an order of magnitude (~10 times) more snow there. In addition, it should be said that the snow is loose there until the intensive melting begins. It happens only in the second half of April or the very beginning of May.
In the stories of our March expedition 2019 (a week before the prosecutors arrived there) we tried to dig a cave in the snowiest place. That's what it looked like:
(https://c.radikal.ru/c06/2007/ea/71136cbcf527t.jpg) (https://c.radikal.ru/c06/2007/ea/71136cbcf527.jpg).
For reference: the full height of the measured river is 130 cm (4.3 ft). If you understand correctly, the diameter of the entrance (and in general the cave) is about 1 m (3.3 ft), so even for two people there will be tight, low and it will be difficult to get the right length along the slope.
In order to build this, we had all the necessary tools (avalanche shovel, skis, snow knives, good visibility and a complete understanding of what we are doing and why we are doing it), which they did not even have partially.
Even if the whole top part (~ 40 cm or 1.3 ft) collapses (this is very easy - the snow there is very loose even in March), nothing special will happen, this snow can be easily thrown off by hand. There will be no excesses, no one can suffocate or get hurt.
Let me remind you that there was much more snow this time than there was in March 1959. According to the available landmarks in the 1959 photos, the 2019 level was 0.5 ... 1, 2 m (1.5 ... 4 ft) more. This was measured in different places. We measured 8 points, which we were able to identify from the photo.
So nothing fell anywhere, and nobody died from suffocation because there were no such conditions.

If they died where they fell then how did Lyuda end up at a right angle and further away ( from the top edge of the ravine) than the three guys?

First, it is necessary to understand that the place where people were injured and the place where people died may be different, although it is not far from one another.


If you believe they were washed to where they were found then how could it look like Alexander was holding Simon?

Regarding the term " hollow out", I would prefer not to think in fantastic categories. It's not physically possible. In addition, the protocol states that the bodies (except for Luda) were placed with their feet in a layer of snow. So they could have shifted (bent) very slightly where the water was flowing and they didn't touch the old snow, but they couldn't have moved on if they weren't completely broken. According to my calculations on the ground this distance was about 40 m (20 ft).

If Simon was too cold to write a message (or whatever) then why is he still able to hold a pencil and notebook?  And on and on the questions go.  bang1

It was just a vague memory of Vladimir Askinazi. I tried to clarify it several times in his e-mails, but he gives different answers each time and said that he remembers it very vaguely and does not want to confirm it exactly.
Additionally, you can take close look at the photo of the bodies in the stream taken before they were extracted:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Kolevatov-Zolotaryov-Thibeaux-Brignolle.jpg 
and
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Dyatlov-pass-Kolevatov-Zolotaryov-bodies_1.jpg 

these photos show no notebooks or pencils. Even if you assume that it is not visible there, try to imagine in what hand he could hold it, if the fate that Semen was behind Alexander's back (it can be considered that he carried Semen)?

As you can see, when you look at the whole picture in detail and throw away what is physically impossible to do, everything is quite simple.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: sparrow on July 20, 2020, 01:29:41 AM
WAB, thank you for your input.  Your answers really helped.  Here are a couple more questions for any one who wishes to take a stab at them  Your answers would truly be appreciated.

Does any one, besides me, think the flooring that was found could have been placed there by someone else shortly after the hikers died?
Could the de-comp, the rav4 ended up with, cover up signs of frost bite?
Do we still know the exact spot where the rav4 ended up or is it kind of guess work on our part?  I have read that we do and that we don't.
All replies are welcome. 

 
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: MDGross on July 20, 2020, 09:08:20 AM
Question 1: Avid Dyatlov researcher, Mr.Borzenkov, believes Kolevatov dug out the den and then moved Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Zolotaryov, who were already injured in a steep fall, into the den.
Question 2: Don't know.
Question 3: No agreement on the precise location of the den and the four bodies. According to Borzenkov's map, the den and bodies were to the left of the Lozva tributary that runs through the area. Findings from 1959 when the bodies were found, place them to the right of the tributary.
WAB has travelled to the area several times and probably has his own opinion where the four bodies were found.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 20, 2020, 09:31:51 AM
From memory the boulder that Lyudmila was draped over is easy to identify?
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: sarapuk on July 20, 2020, 02:09:21 PM
Well I am reading with interest the various possibilities. The Event at the Ravine is obviously critical to ever being able to solve the Dyatlov Mystery. However, just a reminder about the position of Dubinina. Her final resting place is in a stream. The Authorities, who we can not really trust to have given all of the information or evidence, push the DECOMPOSITION THEORY and PREDATOR THEORY to explain the missing Eyes and Tongue and Facial Tissue. Low temperature slows the rate of decomposition.  Predators would eat away any body parts not just the parts that we see. Therefore the body of Dubinina should be very putrified and well eaten.  But that is not what we see with the body of Dubinina. In fact we dont see it with any of the bodies of the Dyatlov Group. What we do see is very unusual injuries not caused by decomposition or putrefaction.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Frankie on July 20, 2020, 04:31:42 PM
Well I am reading with interest the various possibilities. The Event at the Ravine is obviously critical to ever being able to solve the Dyatlov Mystery. However, just a reminder about the position of Dubinina. Her final resting place is in a stream. The Authorities, who we can not really trust to have given all of the information or evidence, push the DECOMPOSITION THEORY and PREDATOR THEORY to explain the missing Eyes and Tongue and Facial Tissue. Low temperature slows the rate of decomposition.  Predators would eat away any body parts not just the parts that we see. Therefore the body of Dubinina should be very putrified and well eaten.  But that is not what we see with the body of Dubinina. In fact we dont see it with any of the bodies of the Dyatlov Group. What we do see is very unusual injuries not caused by decomposition or putrefaction.


Well she was missing soft tissue above her eyes, revealing bone, and also around her lips. This is indicative of decomp.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Morski on July 21, 2020, 02:45:17 AM
Well I am reading with interest the various possibilities. The Event at the Ravine is obviously critical to ever being able to solve the Dyatlov Mystery. However, just a reminder about the position of Dubinina. Her final resting place is in a stream. The Authorities, who we can not really trust to have given all of the information or evidence, push the DECOMPOSITION THEORY and PREDATOR THEORY to explain the missing Eyes and Tongue and Facial Tissue. Low temperature slows the rate of decomposition.  Predators would eat away any body parts not just the parts that we see. Therefore the body of Dubinina should be very putrified and well eaten.  But that is not what we see with the body of Dubinina. In fact we dont see it with any of the bodies of the Dyatlov Group. What we do see is very unusual injuries not caused by decomposition or putrefaction.

Pushing the theory? Decomposition or scavengers (or probably both) is the most realistic and natural explanation for a months old corpse in the wilderness, so if they are "pushing" anything, that is the common sense.

Although it is hard to establish feeding patterns, it is known that most scavengers (especially birds or small rodents) will go for the soft tissue, face, lips, nose, tongue and eyes first, not just any part, especially if it is hard get access to, or presumably solid frozen. On the other hand, low temps do slow down decomposition and bacterial activity, but cannot stop the overall process, which is obvious from the photos and the coroner report, no matter how clumsy it is.
By the way, interesting thing for the “color-of-the-skin” fans - cold temperatures can prevent decomposition, except for the change in coloration of the skin from its natural color to orange or black (Byers, 2017; Dix & Graham, 2000; Mann et al. 1990; Vass, 2001). (https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2059&context=etd)

Plus, Lyuda was not just in the stream, she was exposed to running water pouring through her open mouth for who knows how long. Nothing so extraordinary about the tongue and eyes, unless you want it to be like that. 
In the end, the only thing that I find odd, is that Lyuda was known for her harsh talking sometimes, her “edgy” tongue… In a twisted way, it is ironical, that she ends up without her tongue eventually.

Interesting readings:
1.   Byers, S. N. (2017). Introduction of forensic anthropology. New York: Taylor & Francis;
2.   Dix, J., & Graham M. (2000). Time of death, decomposition, and identification: An atlas. New York: CRC Press;
3.   Mann, R. W., Bass, W. M., & Meadows, L. (1990). Time since death and decomposition of the human body: variables and observations in case and experimental field studies. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 35, 103-111., 1990;
4.   Vass, A. A. (2001). Beyond the grave-understanding human decomposition. Microbial Today, 28, 190-193.
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: WAB on July 21, 2020, 04:27:16 AM
Well I am reading with interest the various possibilities. The Event at the Ravine is obviously critical to ever being able to solve the Dyatlov Mystery. However, just a reminder about the position of Dubinina. Her final resting place is in a stream. The Authorities, who we can not really trust to have given all of the information or evidence, push the DECOMPOSITION THEORY and PREDATOR THEORY to explain the missing Eyes and Tongue and Facial Tissue. Low temperature slows the rate of decomposition.  Predators would eat away any body parts not just the parts that we see. Therefore the body of Dubinina should be very putrified and well eaten.  But that is not what we see with the body of Dubinina. In fact we dont see it with any of the bodies of the Dyatlov Group. What we do see is very unusual injuries not caused by decomposition or putrefaction.

Pushing the theory? Decomposition or scavengers (or probably both) is the most realistic and natural explanation for a months old corpse in the wilderness, so if they are "pushing" anything, that is the common sense.

Although it is hard to establish feeding patterns, it is known that most scavengers (especially birds or small rodents) will go for the soft tissue, face, lips, nose, tongue and eyes first, not just any part, especially if it is hard get access to, or presumably solid frozen. On the other hand, low temps do slow down decomposition and bacterial activity, but cannot stop the overall process, which is obvious from the photos and the coroner report, no matter how clumsy it is.
By the way, interesting thing for the “color-of-the-skin” fans - cold temperatures can prevent decomposition, except for the change in coloration of the skin from its natural color to orange or black (Byers, 2017; Dix & Graham, 2000; Mann et al. 1990; Vass, 2001). (https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2059&context=etd)

Plus, Lyuda was not just in the stream, she was exposed to running water pouring through her open mouth for who knows how long. Nothing so extraordinary about the tongue and eyes, unless you want it to be like that. 
In the end, the only thing that I find odd, is that Lyuda was known for her harsh talking sometimes, her “edgy” tongue… In a twisted way, it is ironical, that she ends up without her tongue eventually.

Dear Morski !
One. I want congratulate you on your jubilee (100th) post on this forum!  grin1
The second. You are absolutely right in all the details that are set out here, only I would like to clarify a bit. The rodents probably had nothing to do with this. They leave traces of teeth that are not marked in the protocol. It could also be the result of decomposition of biological tissue, so I can't insist on it. However, I have very bad idea of how they can live and eat in very narrow channels in the snow that the water has drilled. By the way, the water should have been running tightly through them when the snow melted heavily.
Third. I was talking about microfauna - very small (visible only through microscope) "animals". They are abundant in melting water because there is lot oxygen. Much more than in normal water. Oxygen is additional chemical factor that affects decomposition.
The fourth. Thank you very much for your message, it's (as usual) literate, balanced and concrete. Unfortunately, there are very few people here who can write like this.

Interesting readings:
1.   Byers, S. N. (2017). Introduction of forensic anthropology. New York: Taylor & Francis;
2.   Dix, J., & Graham M. (2000). Time of death, decomposition, and identification: An atlas. New York: CRC Press;
3.   Mann, R. W., Bass, W. M., & Meadows, L. (1990). Time since death and decomposition of the human body: variables and observations in case and experimental field studies. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 35, 103-111., 1990;
4.   Vass, A. A. (2001). Beyond the grave-understanding human decomposition. Microbial Today, 28, 190-193.

That's interesting. We'll have look at it in more detail. Too bad I have very little time for the Dyatlov incident...
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: Morski on July 21, 2020, 02:11:34 PM
Well I am reading with interest the various possibilities. The Event at the Ravine is obviously critical to ever being able to solve the Dyatlov Mystery. However, just a reminder about the position of Dubinina. Her final resting place is in a stream. The Authorities, who we can not really trust to have given all of the information or evidence, push the DECOMPOSITION THEORY and PREDATOR THEORY to explain the missing Eyes and Tongue and Facial Tissue. Low temperature slows the rate of decomposition.  Predators would eat away any body parts not just the parts that we see. Therefore the body of Dubinina should be very putrified and well eaten.  But that is not what we see with the body of Dubinina. In fact we dont see it with any of the bodies of the Dyatlov Group. What we do see is very unusual injuries not caused by decomposition or putrefaction.

Pushing the theory? Decomposition or scavengers (or probably both) is the most realistic and natural explanation for a months old corpse in the wilderness, so if they are "pushing" anything, that is the common sense.

Although it is hard to establish feeding patterns, it is known that most scavengers (especially birds or small rodents) will go for the soft tissue, face, lips, nose, tongue and eyes first, not just any part, especially if it is hard get access to, or presumably solid frozen. On the other hand, low temps do slow down decomposition and bacterial activity, but cannot stop the overall process, which is obvious from the photos and the coroner report, no matter how clumsy it is.
By the way, interesting thing for the “color-of-the-skin” fans - cold temperatures can prevent decomposition, except for the change in coloration of the skin from its natural color to orange or black (Byers, 2017; Dix & Graham, 2000; Mann et al. 1990; Vass, 2001). (https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2059&context=etd)

Plus, Lyuda was not just in the stream, she was exposed to running water pouring through her open mouth for who knows how long. Nothing so extraordinary about the tongue and eyes, unless you want it to be like that. 
In the end, the only thing that I find odd, is that Lyuda was known for her harsh talking sometimes, her “edgy” tongue… In a twisted way, it is ironical, that she ends up without her tongue eventually.

Dear Morski !
One. I want congratulate you on your jubilee (100th) post on this forum!  grin1
The second. You are absolutely right in all the details that are set out here, only I would like to clarify a bit. The rodents probably had nothing to do with this. They leave traces of teeth that are not marked in the protocol. It could also be the result of decomposition of biological tissue, so I can't insist on it. However, I have very bad idea of how they can live and eat in very narrow channels in the snow that the water has drilled. By the way, the water should have been running tightly through them when the snow melted heavily.
Third. I was talking about microfauna - very small (visible only through microscope) "animals". They are abundant in melting water because there is lot oxygen. Much more than in normal water. Oxygen is additional chemical factor that affects decomposition.
The fourth. Thank you very much for your message, it's (as usual) literate, balanced and concrete. Unfortunately, there are very few people here who can write like this.

Interesting readings:
1.   Byers, S. N. (2017). Introduction of forensic anthropology. New York: Taylor & Francis;
2.   Dix, J., & Graham M. (2000). Time of death, decomposition, and identification: An atlas. New York: CRC Press;
3.   Mann, R. W., Bass, W. M., & Meadows, L. (1990). Time since death and decomposition of the human body: variables and observations in case and experimental field studies. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 35, 103-111., 1990;
4.   Vass, A. A. (2001). Beyond the grave-understanding human decomposition. Microbial Today, 28, 190-193.

That's interesting. We'll have look at it in more detail. Too bad I have very little time for the Dyatlov incident...

Hello, dear WAB, and thank you for the kind words in your comment!

It took me only 2 years to get to 100  grin1

About your second point – now that you said it, I realize the actual limitation of possibilities for small rodents and bigger scavengers in those circumstances, and I absolutely agree about the microfauna organism-scavengers and de-composers. It makes way more sense.
To be honest, I still haven’t studied thoroughly the sources I`ve listed, but the more I read from them, the more I understand the natural preconditions. As long as we can reasonably explain certain problematic points, there is definitely no need for extraterrestrial or other unnatural or unreal explanations.

Better stick with simplicity and reason, I think.

Time is precious as they say, so we need to have priorities when distributing it. 

That being said, I appreciate the time you spend in this wonderful forum.  okey1
Title: Re: Back to the Rav4
Post by: sarapuk on July 21, 2020, 03:18:19 PM
Well I am reading with interest the various possibilities. The Event at the Ravine is obviously critical to ever being able to solve the Dyatlov Mystery. However, just a reminder about the position of Dubinina. Her final resting place is in a stream. The Authorities, who we can not really trust to have given all of the information or evidence, push the DECOMPOSITION THEORY and PREDATOR THEORY to explain the missing Eyes and Tongue and Facial Tissue. Low temperature slows the rate of decomposition.  Predators would eat away any body parts not just the parts that we see. Therefore the body of Dubinina should be very putrified and well eaten.  But that is not what we see with the body of Dubinina. In fact we dont see it with any of the bodies of the Dyatlov Group. What we do see is very unusual injuries not caused by decomposition or putrefaction.


Well she was missing soft tissue above her eyes, revealing bone, and also around her lips. This is indicative of decomp.

Indicative indeed. But only indicative and not PROOF.  There is no proof of serious DECOMPOSITION or PUTREFACTION of any of the bodies.  Look at the photos and then have a look at photos of people who have been found in the wild after a few weeks. And that includes water. And low temperatures. And no mention of finding any flesh eating bacteria or predators during the Autopsy Investigation.  You can read as many reports as possible and I have read many but you will find that there is no simple be all and end all explanation regarding how bodies decompose. All cases are unique. And with Dubinina, very unique. Extraordinary. The closest I have seen to those photos of her body are of the phenomenon of CATTLE MUTILATIONS.