Theories Discussion > General Discussion
Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Investigator:
--- Quote from: KFinn on April 06, 2021, 07:46:46 PM ---When discussing fact from possibly scenarios, the hard part is not ascribing intent, as that is the unknown element in behavior. I'd even go so far as to say it isn't a definitive fact that Zina was attempting to go back to the tent; she, Dyatlov and Rustem might very well have fallen on the way down from the tent. I think that is less likely but because it is a possibility, we can't necessarily rule that as fact, either way.
--- End quote ---
It's a matter of wanting certainty in every detail versus wanting a "big picture" that makes sense (or in some cases there's more than one), and if you think you are going to get the former in any investigation you likely won't be able to get beyond your first investigation! In the DPI, because we know at least 6 of the 9 got down to the tree line, it would not make sense, nor would it be consistent with anything else known about them or about hikers in general, that they would leave 3 to die on the way down, so this possibility should be discarded for the time being, until evidence came to light that was consistent with it. But if you are going to bring up these kinds of highly unlikely possibilities, then again we are in that place where you wouldn't get beyond your first investigation. The best approach, in my experience, is to figure out at least one "big picture" if you can, then move on to something else, and let the ideas "kick around" in the "back of your mind" until you come up with a new idea. In the meantime, as I did, you can research similar incidents, such as other hiking/climbing tragedies, in order to try and come up with some new ideas. That led to me thinking that there's no way that tent (two World War II canvas tents sewn together) could stay intact the entire night in that location under those weather condtions, and with no heat.
KFinn:
--- Quote from: Investigator on April 07, 2021, 10:39:19 AM ---
--- Quote from: KFinn on April 06, 2021, 07:46:46 PM ---When discussing fact from possibly scenarios, the hard part is not ascribing intent, as that is the unknown element in behavior. I'd even go so far as to say it isn't a definitive fact that Zina was attempting to go back to the tent; she, Dyatlov and Rustem might very well have fallen on the way down from the tent. I think that is less likely but because it is a possibility, we can't necessarily rule that as fact, either way.
--- End quote ---
It's a matter of wanting certainty in every detail versus wanting a "big picture" that makes sense (or in some cases there's more than one), and if you think you are going to get the former in any investigation you likely won't be able to get beyond your first investigation! In the DPI, because we know at least 6 of the 9 got down to the tree line, it would not make sense, nor would it be consistent with anything else known about them or about hikers in general, that they would leave 3 to die on the way down, so this possibility should be discarded for the time being, until evidence came to light that was consistent with it. But if you are going to bring up these kinds of highly unlikely possibilities, then again we are in that place where you wouldn't get beyond your first investigation. The best approach, in my experience, is to figure out at least one "big picture" if you can, then move on to something else, and let the ideas "kick around" in the "back of your mind" until you come up with a new idea. In the meantime, as I did, you can research similar incidents, such as other hiking/climbing tragedies, in order to try and come up with some new ideas. That led to me thinking that there's no way that tent (two World War II canvas tents sewn together) could stay intact the entire night in that location under those weather condtions, and with no heat.
--- End quote ---
I mean, I had a pretty decent track record for investigations in my career, but thank you for the advice ;)
The subject of this post is separating fact from fiction. When you start assigning intent behind behavior, you have veered from factual and into supposition. An integral part of a successful investigation is establishing the facts, first. In this particular thread, we are discussing what is perceived to be fact vs. what is actually known. Supposition is great but that is not what was asked for specifically in this thread.
Nigel Evans:
--- Quote from: Investigator on April 07, 2021, 10:39:19 AM ---
--- Quote from: KFinn on April 06, 2021, 07:46:46 PM ---When discussing fact from possibly scenarios, the hard part is not ascribing intent, as that is the unknown element in behavior. I'd even go so far as to say it isn't a definitive fact that Zina was attempting to go back to the tent; she, Dyatlov and Rustem might very well have fallen on the way down from the tent. I think that is less likely but because it is a possibility, we can't necessarily rule that as fact, either way.
--- End quote ---
It's a matter of wanting certainty in every detail versus wanting a "big picture" that makes sense (or in some cases there's more than one), and if you think you are going to get the former in any investigation you likely won't be able to get beyond your first investigation! In the DPI, because we know at least 6 of the 9 got down to the tree line, it would not make sense, nor would it be consistent with anything else known about them or about hikers in general, that they would leave 3 to die on the way down, so this possibility should be discarded for the time being, until evidence came to light that was consistent with it. I would disagree, if the group split into two on the way down and then one group got struck by "it" then the surviving group would (a) not know the location of the now possibly scattered members and (b) might be fearful of risking the same fate if they searched for them. Maybe better to light a fire on an exposed knoll to act as a beacon for surviving stragglers (like the 2yuris). A WW2 vet might well argue it was every man for themselves as would be common in war. But if you are going to bring up these kinds of highly unlikely possibilities, then again we are in that place where you wouldn't get beyond your first investigation. The best approach, in my experience, is to figure out at least one "big picture" if you can, then move on to something else, and let the ideas "kick around" in the "back of your mind" until you come up with a new idea. In the meantime, as I did, you can research similar incidents, such as other hiking/climbing tragedies, in order to try and come up with some new ideas. That led to me thinking that there's no way that tent (two World War II canvas tents sewn together) could stay intact the entire night in that location under those weather condtions, and with no heat.
--- End quote ---
sarapuk:
--- Quote from: RMK on April 06, 2021, 03:56:34 PM ---This post by Manti in another thread inspired me to start this thread:
--- Quote from: Manti on April 04, 2021, 05:16:10 PM ---I suspect much of the oft-repeated facts of the case aren't, in fact, facts..
--- End quote ---
As I've remarked before, a lot of commonly known "facts" about the DPI are not actually factual. To be clear: you rarely encounter credulously asserted, blatantly inaccurate falsehoods about the DPI. Instead, most of these so-called "facts" are inferences from the bare facts of the case. As such, they have some basis in fact, but they are not necessarily true. What follows are a few examples of what I mean.
"Fact": The Dyatlov hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape.
Actually: According to the forensic examination documented in the case file, there were cuts on the inner surface of the tent fabric. But, we do not know for certain how or why those cuts came to be. Loose}{Cannon takes a good, skeptical look at the commonly accepted origin of those cuts here.
"Fact": Some of the Dyatlov hikers dug a den in the snow near the ravine, and furnished it with a flooring of tree branches, and with spare pieces of clothing on which to sit.
Actually: While that is a possible scenario, there are legitimate reasons to question (1) the evidential value of the "den" as found by searchers, (2) its origins, and even (3) its existence at the material time of the DPI--see here.
"Fact": Lyudmila Dubinina's tongue was cut out / ripped out / etc.
Actually: The autopsy report notes only that her tongue was "missing". We do not know for certain why it was missing. Also, we cannot be certain that she lost her tongue via some perimortem act of violence, since there are credible natural explanations for its absence.
"Fact": The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and ran down Kholat Syakhl in a panic.
Actually: Perhaps, but that is inconsistent with the footprint evidence still apparent when the official search party found their tent. For that matter, we cannot be certain they ever camped where their tent was found in the first place.
"Fact": The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and descended Kholat Syakhl in a calm and orderly manner. Therefore, they were not scared or panicked.
Actually: Not necessarily. Their footprints show that they moved at a normal walk. But, footprints preserve pace and direction, not mental/emotional state. And again, we cannot be certain that those footprints were theirs.
"Fact": "Igor Dyatlov and Zinaida Kolmogorova were (possibly secretly) in a romantic relationship when they began their last trek"; or, the weaker assertion, "Igor Dyatlov was in love with Zinaida Kolmogorova".
Actually: Dyatlov had a photo of Kolmogorova in his notebook. It is certainly possible that he wanted to be "more than just comrades" with her. However, it is clear from a letter she sent a friend near the beginning of their fatal trek that she was still in love with Yuri Doroshenko.
In my experience, the vast majority of YouTube videos about the DPI report at least one of the above "facts" as being uncontroversially true!
What are some other commonly known "facts" that are not, in fact, facts?
--- End quote ---
Who presented the so called Facts in the first place ! ? The Authorities ! ? For instance, the Authorities made public that the Tent was cut from the inside. Etc.
Manti:
--- Quote from: Investigator on April 06, 2021, 06:45:26 PM ---In a sense, I agree, in that any one detail (or even a few) could be wrong or misconceived, so the best you are going to get here is a "big picture" tentative explanation. Since there is only one such explanation that makes sense, this is not that much of a mystery (and in fact, it's more interesting to me in the context of how people conceptualize "mysteries"). The "den" seems straightforward. Igor likely believed the fire would keep them alive, but the World War II vet thought that what soldiers did to survive the harsh Russian winters was a better idea (and if he decided to do this after one or both Yuris perished, that doesn't change the "big picture"). The next step is to try and do a precise reconstruction, then assess that data to see if any other explanation emerges. Otherwise, the tent was damaged, then decided to secure it to prevent further damage (or have their gear blown all over the mountainside), and try to survive the night as best they could (fire and "den"). My hypothesis is that (at least among the 7 who had the lightest clothing) they did a lot of physical work (huge number of broken brances, the rescuers noted) and then when they sat around the fire, they got really sweated up, so that once the fire was clearly not going to save them under those circumstances, the "den" was dug (or one or more wanted to dig the "den" as a backup plan, or the idea was to sleep in the "den" after they warme up). After the two Yuris perish, Zina gets angry/upset, and decided to go back to the tent. Slobodin tries to get her to come back, slips, hits his head, and is rendered unconscious. Igor then goes after her, but they are too sweated up and freeze to death. The "ravine 4" fall through the snow and onto a rock creek, with those who fall first getting nasty injuries from the others falling on top (Luda likely fell first). It was a series of bad decisions, but pitching the tent where they did with no heat was the major mistake.
--- End quote ---
Well, I don't want to make this off-topic but...
In this big picture scenario, wouldn't have they put on their coats first?
Now a "fact": a campfire was started under the cedar where the Yuris sustained their burn injuries.
Actually: I don't know, do we have any photos of campfire remains?
"Fact" 1: there was order inside the tent except the shoes in the corner were not neatly arranged, vs "fact" 2: there were loins and rusks found on the blankets, and buckets, a saw, etc. inside, in front of the entrance.
Only one of these can be accurate.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version