According to the autopsy report Igor Dyatlov appeared to have rope tie injures around his ankles suggesting that he had been bound by someone.. one of his wrist also appears to have a rope tie injury.
I have read on the Dyatolov.com site where it is said that in the later photos the hikers appear to have a stark change in their demeanor and looks of worry, foreboding, and anxiety in there faces. As if they are very concerned or worried about something.
I have tried and tried and I am unable to find these pictures that show this.
At least one of the hikers climbed 20 feet in the cedar tree. I do not believe he was doing this to gather firewood. He was most likely climbing the tree to either get away from something. Or possibly gaining a better view to look back toward the tent to see if the threat was still there.
I simply do not believe that infrasound caused this event. (mainly because of the hiker's injuries)
Occam's razor is the principle that the simplest answer (lots of assumptions don't have to be proven) is often the best answer. I can see how that concept fits the scenario of the hikers splitting into two opposing groups and ending up in a serious fight. But intervention by the Soviet military or KGB involves all kinds of complexities. Most importantly, what was the motive to murder/execute the hikers? Did they see something that put their lives at risk? If so, what was it? Was one or more of them carrying secret documents? Which hiker? Why? Why choose the night of Feb. 1 to kill them? Why force them to march down to the woods instead of quickly executing them and disposing of the bodies? These and other questions would need believable answers.Did I say or mention KGB - nope - could’ve been the Mansi tribesman or someone from the logging/mining camp followed them. There were numerous injuries- these young people were fighting for their lives - that is obvious-There was someone or something that caused them to flee the tent- and the hikers that climbed the cedar was looking to see if the threat was still at the tent, to see if it was safe to return & retrieve there boots & clothing. At least I got everyone thinking and talking- that is good - like I said before- we may never know what really happened.
Yes, most or all of the hikers succumbed to hypothermia, this is an indisputable fact. The rav4 didn't and YuriK probably died of shock. Some pathologists have stated that only Igor clearly died of cold. However several of the Hikers suffered severe and very traumatic, and debilitating injuries. These injuries were likely cause by outside parties or possibly the hikers were actually fighting amongst themselves. We may never know. But there can be no doubt, there was human involvement here. This was undoubtedly a crime scene. So why did the Soviet authorities shut down the case as soon as the rav4 were discovered in May? Leaving nine deaths unsolved? Answer - because it wasn't a crime scene.
According to the autopsy report Igor Dyatlov appeared to have rope tie injures around his ankles suggesting that he had been bound by someone... one of his wrist also appears to have a rope tie injury. Or stumbling through brambles etc
Their tent was almost utterly destroyed. The hiker's tracks down the mountainside into the ravine appeared to be orderly and in a fairly straight line and not an indication of scattered footprints of someone running in panic helter skelter. There was order in their steps, no panic, not running amok in terror of something. For the most part the hikers appeared to stay together on the descent to the cedar tree and ravine.
At least one of the hikers climbed 20 feet in the cedar tree. I do not believe he was doing this to gather firewood. He was most likely climbing the tree to either get away from something. Or possibly gaining a better view to look back toward the tent to see if the threat was still there.
I simply do not believe that infrasound caused this event. (mainly because of the hiker's injuries) agreed.
We must also keep in mind that the area may have been staged by the perpetrators after the murders to throw off investigators.
As far as there were no tracks left by the attackers. The attackers could've easily use cedar branches to wipe away their tracks.
The had plenty of time to doctor the scene and remove their foot prints and traces before the search party showed up.
the haunting blurry out of focus photo showing a figure of a man. Could this have been one of their attackers following them?
I have read on the Dyatolov.com site where it is said that in the later photos the hikers appear to have a stark change in their demeanor and looks of worry, foreboding, and anxiety in there faces. As if they are very concerned or worried about something.
I have tried and tried and I am unable to find these pictures that show this. If this is true then this tells us that the hikers were either quarreling among each other or they were being stalked by someone. Apparently something was going on. If anyone on here can locate and share these photos with me, please do, I would appreciate it. I have looked and looked and cannot find them anywhere on that site.
Like I said before - we all long to know what happened. but alas we may never know.
its been so long, memories fade, and evidence gets lost or misplaced.
For me, having BOTH chief investigators into the case ending up with "murder" is more than enough.?????
The first chiev investigator, Tempalov , said that he thought that they were murdered.For me, having BOTH chief investigators into the case ending up with "murder" is more than enough.?????
Ivanov (and his superior Okishev) stated that they were ordered to invent a cover story of hypothermia for the first 5 deaths. When the rav4 were discovered it was clear that hypothermia couldn't apply to them so (after seeking permission from the hierarchy) the case was given "unknown compelling force". In 1990 during glasnost Ivanov apologised to the relatives for the coverup and suggested "fireorbs possibly piloted" as a cause. N.B. he didn't explore the species of the possible pilots.The first chiev investigator, Tempalov , said that he thought that they were murdered.For me, having BOTH chief investigators into the case ending up with "murder" is more than enough.?????
The second chiev investigator, Lev Ivanov, wrote in 1959 that they succumbed to "an unknown compelling force" , and wrote an article in 1990, in which he wrote that he thought they were murdered by the mystery fireballs.
Whomever climbed the tree did so to look at something. Nearly all of the investigators emphasized how difficult it was to break the branches and that the branches were broken specifically to clear a window to gain visibility to something.
Whomever climbed the tree did so to look at something. Nearly all of the investigators emphasized how difficult it was to break the branches and that the branches were broken specifically to clear a window to gain visibility to something.
I would say that there is no need to break off branches to "gain visibility". You can easily peer between leaves or branches, the same way a small hole on the door (peekhole) is enough to see who's outside. In fact, leaving the branches intact is better if the tree is used as a lookout, because they conceal the observer.
On the other hand, I think it makes sense to leave lower branches and break off higher ones when harvesting firewood. They provide a way for you to climb back onto the tree for more branches.
You don't need to break branches to see out of a cedar tree, unless they're covered in snow. Then if you also need firewood you break off the branches in the direction you want to view.
Why did they climb a tree. They could have got all the firewood they need from the various smaller trees / bushes.
You don't need to break branches to see out of a cedar tree, unless they're covered in snow. Then if you also need firewood you break off the branches in the direction you want to view.
This is true. Although the snow could have been shaken off.Why did they climb a tree. They could have got all the firewood they need from the various smaller trees / bushes.
Also true.
Maybe the smaller bushes didn't burn well, but then again cedarwood doesn't either, but maybe they had no other choice.
To me the most logical reason to climb a tree is to escape something that can't climb, or hide from someone. But then, you wouldn't start breaking branches which is loud...
My understanding is that cedar wood does burn well and would be dry compared to the green sapling wood at ground level.
The quality of the photos isn't great, regardless this looks like a live tree. So its branches wouldn't be dry, and not burn much better than saplings.
You don't need to break branches to see out of a cedar tree, unless they're covered in snow. Then if you also need firewood you break off the branches in the direction you want to view.
This is true. Although the snow could have been shaken off.Why did they climb a tree. They could have got all the firewood they need from the various smaller trees / bushes.
Also true.
Maybe the smaller bushes didn't burn well, but then again cedarwood doesn't either, but maybe they had no other choice.
To me the most logical reason to climb a tree is to escape something that can't climb, or hide from someone. But then, you wouldn't start breaking branches which is loud...
You don't need to break branches to see out of a cedar tree, unless they're covered in snow. Then if you also need firewood you break off the branches in the direction you want to view.
This is true. Although the snow could have been shaken off.Why did they climb a tree. They could have got all the firewood they need from the various smaller trees / bushes.
Also true.
Maybe the smaller bushes didn't burn well, but then again cedarwood doesn't either, but maybe they had no other choice.
To me the most logical reason to climb a tree is to escape something that can't climb, or hide from someone. But then, you wouldn't start breaking branches which is loud...
My understanding is that cedar wood does burn well and would be dry compared to the green sapling wood at ground level.
My understanding is that cedar wood does burn well and would be dry compared to the green sapling wood at ground level.
Green sapling wood, in January/February? I would expect that in the spring.
Also, thinking about it, "cedar" is perhaps a mistranslation? Cedar as far as I know doesn't grow anywhere near the Urals. Maybe larch is meant?
The quality of the photos isn't great, regardless this looks like a live tree. So its branches wouldn't be dry, and not burn much better than saplings.
(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-319.jpg)
Nothing grows very quickly in Siberia, green saplings = young trees i think. The cedar could (must?) be of the fir/pine family which always burn well in my experience. Ever set light to a Xmas tree in January?
The quality of the photos isn't great, regardless this looks like a live tree. So its branches wouldn't be dry, and not burn much better than saplings.
I don't know much about the species of trees in Russia, but obviously the higher the water content, the more difficult it is to burn. Large trees with fir-like shape, however, often have many smaller dead branches inside & lower down. This is true for most trees with heavy, thick crowns, including the pine, juniper, and water oak where I live. The thick crowns shade the smaller branches underneath and the trees sort of self-prune. It's quite possible that the hikers could have broken off enough small, dry branches to make a fire hot enough to burn small green branches. In addition, if there were any conifers around, cones usually make excellent kindling. It's true that starting a fire with green wood (i.e., any wood that has recently been alive and has higher water content) is very difficult, but a well-established fire can burn green wood.
In passing, Christmas trees burned in January have usually been dead for at least 3 weeks--sometimes even 6 weeks. They are rather small, as trees go, and the smaller-diameter trunk and limbs dry out more quickly in the environment of a warm, dry house.
I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has experience starting fires with the wood available in the Urals or other places similar to where they were hiking.
https://www.hunker.com/12318038/the-flammability-of-pine-trees
Nothing grows very quickly in Siberia, green saplings = young trees i think. The cedar could (must?) be of the fir/pine family which always burn well in my experience. Ever set light to a Xmas tree in January?
Well I havnt noticed the Pine tree to be a quick burner just after its been cut down.
Well, interesting. Since they had a knife, there are perhaps easier ways, although both knife and stone cause a lot of pain..... I have obviously no experience but maybe the cold is the most comfortable way to go.
I think there are other explanations for (some) of the injuries, I don't know if there has been analysis on whose skin was found on the tree, but what if many of them climbed, and then fell down? Certainly falling on a branch from a few meters up could break ribs and break the branch too. Not that sure about skull fracture though.
Although that doesn't explain why apparently those with the most serious injuries lived longest...
Nothing grows very quickly in Siberia, green saplings = young trees i think. The cedar could (must?) be of the fir/pine family which always burn well in my experience. Ever set light to a Xmas tree in January?
Well I havnt noticed the Pine tree to be a quick burner just after its been cut down.
The base of the "cedar" would have old fallen branches likely to be drier.
I think it is difficult to apply the principles Occam's Razor when there are so many variables involved and not enough information about the starting conditions. Its like trying to use Occam's Razor to determine which butterfly was responsible for Hurricane Irma. Well maybe not quite that difficult, but still very difficult.
Jumping to the conclusion of homicide is to not really look at the subtle details of the case.
My understanding is that cedar Wood was the best available for making a fire. But, why Yuri D would climb the tree with severe frost bite to get fire wood does raise an eyebrow. Wny would he do this?
The rav 4 injuries are strange too. Chest injuries inflicted by a very large force, either a very powerful blow, or a fall. A fall that results in two very similar flail chest injuries, but with no extremity injuries is very strange. A powerful blow from a Yeti? Actually, it would work, but there is another possibility.
Is it possible that the chest injuries and Thibo's head injury were an act of mercy? If they knew they were going to die a slow painful death, they may have decided to accelerate their own deaths. The chest injuries could have been inflicted by two people, lifting a very large round boulder, of say 150kg and dropping it onto the chests. Kolevatov and Thibo help Lyuda and Semyon, then Kolevatov uses a smaller rock to help Thibo? Unfortunately there is nobody to help Kolevatov. In some respects, he may have drawn the short straw.
Regards
Star man
I have always thought it very strange for them to climb a tree to break off green branches for a fire. As many of you have pointed out, it simply doesn't make sense: they don't burn. Also, breaking green limbs is kind of hard--have any of you tried it? They generally have to be pretty darn small--like a couple inches in diameter--to break just using your hands and weight. Green branches tend to bend and string and require a good deal of twisting to get them off with just your hands.
(Or did they have knives with them to cut the pieces?)
So is it possible they were breaking dead branches on purpose? For a fire?
But if they were breaking dead branches, how was it known that the branches in the tree were broken? I mean, if you look up into a healthy pine and see several places where the white inner wood is showing on the ends of broken branches, you might conclude that those branches were recently broken. But if you see pieces of dead branches in the tree, there would be nothing to call your attention to the fact that the branches had been broken by human hands. Dead branches break--it's what they do, no big deal and no way to tell which ones were broken recently.
Weren't there branches from the cedar/pine in the bottom of the snow den? (Is that a real thing, or just a myth?) If so, perhaps that is why the green branches were broken? Green fir/cedar/pine branches would offer more insulation and they wouldn't have to be very big.
I'm trying to exhaust all the reasons they may have climbed the cedar to break branches before moving to a conclusion that they climbed for another reason. (Although, of course, they may have climbed for more than one reason.)
If they needed branches for any reason then they didnt need to climb up that particular tree. Plenty of smaller trees around and bushes.Fair enough.
Cheers, new here so my apologies if the cedar branch issue has been discussed to death already.Good point. I can imagine that happening. Hadn't thought about it being brittle, but of course it would be. Even if the dead ones still decay a bit while clinging to the trunk, they don't sit in the wet earth and absorb water like the ones on the ground do. Does this fit all the other information we have about the broken branches in the tree?
i agree that still growing pine tree is pretty useless as firewood (good for a makeshift shelter, though). Given the hikers' experience and background they would have known that. But low(ish) hanging dead pine branches may well have been the best firewood available to them. Collecting them makes a lot of sense, in my opinion.
Dead branches still attached to the tree have been drying there for years and will catch fire as long as they're truly dead. They are fairly easy to reach and gather, and if the tree is old, you can find quite thick branches too. The small branches and twigs found on smaller trees and bushes near the ground are good starters, but if you're building an open fire for keeping warm in winter conditions (instead of, say, boiling water for a cup of tea), you'll need something more substantial. Branches already fallen to the ground will not be as good as they start to decay at some point, and they would have been hidden beneath the snow anyway.
If you can reach the branches and pull them down with your weight, you'll get more and better fuel than by foraging around in the snowy ground. You'll likely get a few cuts and bruises in the process as well, because dead and dried pine wood is hard, it doesn't bend much and when it brakes, it'll do so suddenly.
Any Detective worth his salt would not use Occams Razor in trying to solve a case , no matter what that case was.
So can someone explain to me how Occam's razor explains the facts as homicide? The facts seem to be that 9 people died on the side or bottom of a hill with strange injuries, signs of chemical poisoning, third degree burns difficult to explain as caused from a modest campfire, heavily crushed bodies with no bruising consistent with the necessary point loads for blows from humans. A professional investigator (Ivanov) described by his superior (Okishev) as "thorough and meticulous" who had no interest in a homicide theory, simply a non starter.QuoteAny Detective worth his salt would not use Occams Razor in trying to solve a case , no matter what that case was.
The opposite. Occam is the basis of the principle of deduction. Without it, every theory is induction - which never works. Occam is like the lowest common denominator: once it fits, you stay put.
So can someone explain to me how Occam's razor explains the facts as homicide? The facts seem to be that 9 people died on the side or bottom of a hill with strange injuries, signs of chemical poisoning, third degree burns difficult to explain as caused from a modest campfire, heavily crushed bodies with no bruising consistent with the necessary point loads for blows from humans. A professional investigator (Ivanov) described by his superior (Okishev) as "thorough and meticulous" who had no interest in a homicide theory, simply a non starter.
The murder theory it’s the only one I heard of that explains why they left with no shoes. Either they were forced by someone to leave, or we must invent some supernatural occurrence, Yetis, UFOs and such. Ps: or we must assume that the people in the group were downright dumb, that’s not really an explanation.So can someone explain to me how Occam's razor explains the facts as homicide? The facts seem to be that 9 people died on the side or bottom of a hill with strange injuries, signs of chemical poisoning, third degree burns difficult to explain as caused from a modest campfire, heavily crushed bodies with no bruising consistent with the necessary point loads for blows from humans. A professional investigator (Ivanov) described by his superior (Okishev) as "thorough and meticulous" who had no interest in a homicide theory, simply a non starter.QuoteAny Detective worth his salt would not use Occams Razor in trying to solve a case , no matter what that case was.
The opposite. Occam is the basis of the principle of deduction. Without it, every theory is induction - which never works. Occam is like the lowest common denominator: once it fits, you stay put.
QuoteAny Detective worth his salt would not use Occams Razor in trying to solve a case , no matter what that case was.
The opposite. Occam is the basis of the principle of deduction. Without it, every theory is induction - which never works. Occam is like the lowest common denominator: once it fits, you stay put.
So can someone explain to me how Occam's razor explains the facts as homicide? The facts seem to be that 9 people died on the side or bottom of a hill with strange injuries, signs of chemical poisoning, third degree burns difficult to explain as caused from a modest campfire, heavily crushed bodies with no bruising consistent with the necessary point loads for blows from humans. A professional investigator (Ivanov) described by his superior (Okishev) as "thorough and meticulous" who had no interest in a homicide theory, simply a non starter.QuoteAny Detective worth his salt would not use Occams Razor in trying to solve a case , no matter what that case was.
The opposite. Occam is the basis of the principle of deduction. Without it, every theory is induction - which never works. Occam is like the lowest common denominator: once it fits, you stay put.
So can someone explain to me how Occam's razor explains the facts as homicide? The facts seem to be that 9 people died on the side or bottom of a hill with strange injuries, signs of chemical poisoning, third degree burns difficult to explain as caused from a modest campfire, heavily crushed bodies with no bruising consistent with the necessary point loads for blows from humans. A professional investigator (Ivanov) described by his superior (Okishev) as "thorough and meticulous" who had no interest in a homicide theory, simply a non starter.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about Occam's Razor, especially when it involves solving mysteries. It is often presented "the simplest explanation is the best" and then people define "simple" and "best" however they like in order to give credence to their preferences. It is sometimes misinterpreted to mean, "We should not assume the presence of things we cannot see/hear/verify/etc." With a little imagination it is easy to see how this could be taken to absurdity.
A better way to conceptualize it, particularly as it relates to DPI and solving mysteries, is to say, "The tightest explanation is the best." In other words, the explanation that leaves the least room for variation is the most preferable. In a good high school algebra equation, you can find the variable because all parts of the equation are related and changing the variable will necessarily change other parts of the equation. The most satisfying murder mystery story is one where, once all the facts are known, the murderer could only be one person and all the clues are explained. The pieces (clues) fit tightly; if there were any variation (some important part of the story changed), it would mess up everything. The butler did it because only the butler could have done it given the story as it is; not because the author flipped a coin when he started writing the last chapter.
Most of us would agree that it is not a very good explanation to say that the nine died at Dyatlov Pass because of fate. There is too much room for variation there--it doesn't actually explain anything--even though, in many ways, it is one of the simplest explanations possible. Likewise, attributing the tragedy to magic, or even to God's will, is not really a good explanation. It may be true that it was God's will that they were fated to die that night and the KGB used magic to make it happen, but that is not a good explanation because the relationships between the elements/facts are not made clear. A good explanation would show how the KGB was forced to use a particular magical spell which caused the specific injuries and why fate could have it no other way. Most of us are searching for an explanation that is tight, that explains all relevant facts and identifies which facts are irrelevant.
From reading the initial post, I can't see that Occam's Razor has anything to do with homicide in particular. I believe hoosiergose was simply trying to approach the problem without preconceptions and seeing where that got him. Saying something to himself like, "When people die with injuries, and there is nothing obvious around to explain those injuries, the most common explanation is that other humans attacked & killed them." As you point out, this seems to be gaining "simplicity" at the cost of omitting important facts, rather than presenting a tight explanation with little room for variation.
The murder theory it’s the only one I heard of that explains why they left with no shoes. Either they were forced by someone to leave, or we must invent some supernatural occurrence, Yetis, UFOs and such. Ps: or we must assume that the people in the group were downright dumb, that’s not really an explanation.So can someone explain to me how Occam's razor explains the facts as homicide? The facts seem to be that 9 people died on the side or bottom of a hill with strange injuries, signs of chemical poisoning, third degree burns difficult to explain as caused from a modest campfire, heavily crushed bodies with no bruising consistent with the necessary point loads for blows from humans. A professional investigator (Ivanov) described by his superior (Okishev) as "thorough and meticulous" who had no interest in a homicide theory, simply a non starter.QuoteAny Detective worth his salt would not use Occams Razor in trying to solve a case , no matter what that case was.
The opposite. Occam is the basis of the principle of deduction. Without it, every theory is induction - which never works. Occam is like the lowest common denominator: once it fits, you stay put.
(What do you mean by chemical poisoning? Radiations, or other?)
A few key questions to be answered are:
1. Why did they deviate from the planned route and pitch the tent in an exposed area on the mountain?
2. Why did they leave the tent without adequate clothing and equipment and decend to the forest?
3. Why was the tent cut and damaged the way it was?
4. How did they receive the various injuries and in particular the flail chest, skins burns and skull fractures?
5. Why was there so much fuss about radiation?
Is the answer to questions 1 and 2 a coincidence?
Regards
Star man
Could the simplest explanation of why no theory seems to cover everything, be that something we believe to be true actually isn't?
Well the Occam Razor’s concept has been explained at least a couple of times in the previous posts but I see some don’t get it.
It’s not the “simplest” answer but the “tighest”.
It is: “It’s useless to explain something through many means, when you can explain it with less”.
About the proposed gravity example, both theories satisfy the Occam Razor. In fact, both are true.
The difference is, that at some point *new evidence* showed up that required a more complex theory.
Sticking to the facts, which evidence in the DPI cannot be explained through the murder theory?
A few key questions to be answered are:
1. Why did they deviate from the planned route and pitch the tent in an exposed area on the mountain?
2. Why did they leave the tent without adequate clothing and equipment and decend to the forest?
3. Why was the tent cut and damaged the way it was?
4. How did they receive the various injuries and in particular the flail chest, skins burns and skull fractures?
5. Why was there so much fuss about radiation?
Is the answer to questions 1 and 2 a coincidence?
Regards
Star man
So clearly not a simple matter is it. So why are we even bothering with this Occams Razor road ! ?
Could the simplest explanation of why no theory seems to cover everything, be that something we believe to be true actually isn't?Interesting line of thought. If there were details of the Dyatlov case that central authorities wanted to keep secret, they could have been omitted from the publicly available case files, or worse, parts of the case files could contain fabricated falsehoods. A possible combination of "missing information plus misinformation", one might say.
Well the Occam Razor’s concept has been explained at least a couple of times in the previous posts but I see some don’t get it.
It’s not the “simplest” answer but the “tighest”.
It is: “It’s useless to explain something through many means, when you can explain it with less”.
About the proposed gravity example, both theories satisfy the Occam Razor. In fact, both are true.
The difference is, that at some point *new evidence* showed up that required a more complex theory.
Sticking to the facts, which evidence in the DPI cannot be explained through the murder theory?
Can you explain the following in a credible way:
The lack of any obvious outsider foot prints?
The fact that nothing was taken, including money, food and equipment?
The orderly state within the tent?
Why the hikers were allowed to take a flashlight, matches, knives?
Why the murderers didn't just kill them at the tent?
How the murderers inflicted the flail chest injuries? Or alternative explanation?
The radiation found on the clothing?
Regards
Star man
Well the Occam Razor’s concept has been explained at least a couple of times in the previous posts but I see some don’t get it.
It’s not the “simplest” answer but the “tighest”.
It is: “It’s useless to explain something through many means, when you can explain it with less”.
About the proposed gravity example, both theories satisfy the Occam Razor. In fact, both are true.
The difference is, that at some point *new evidence* showed up that required a more complex theory.
Sticking to the facts, which evidence in the DPI cannot be explained through the murder theory?
Can you explain the following in a credible way:
The lack of any obvious outsider foot prints?
The fact that nothing was taken, including money, food and equipment?
The orderly state within the tent?
Why the hikers were allowed to take a flashlight, matches, knives?
Why the murderers didn't just kill them at the tent?
How the murderers inflicted the flail chest injuries? Or alternative explanation?
The radiation found on the clothing?
Regards
Star man
Star man, I don’t have a coeherent theory, it’s more like I try to put things in their place, one after another, and sort out the mess that’s the DPI.
Also, let me specify that I don’t subscribe literally to the murder theory, but more to a confrontation theory (my bad, because I used the wrong term in my previous posts).
That being said, here’s what I think about your points:
- The lack of any obvious outsider foot prints?
This prevented me to subscribe to the theory for some time. Then, I realized that it’s possible that they would not be preserved. We have a set of prints starting several meters from the tent. We can assume that nobody followed the group on the slope, but maybe that wind conditions on the other sides of the hill didn’t blow away the fresh snow (because of different angles, force, etc). If so, the outsider foot prints remained buried. I’d like to know if this can be technically possible in that specific conditions. As a general occurrence, I think it’s possible given that not all the prints of the group were preserved.
- The fact that nothing was taken, including money, food and equipment?
The orderly state within the tent?
This has to do with motive. Honestly I can’t think of a valid motive to force them out, but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. As of now, it’s just as mysterious as the motive that would lead 9 guys to walk a mile without shoes by their own will.
- Why the hikers were allowed to take a flashlight, matches, knives?
I’m sure these were the things they already had on their clothes at the very moment they left. Otherwise it’s unclear why they did not take shoes and axes with them.
- Why the murderers didn't just kill them at the tent?
Unclear motive
- How the murderers inflicted the flail chest injuries? Or alternative explanation?
They didn’t. Rib injuries like that, by all account, would be extremely painful, to the point that they couldn’t walk, let alone for a mile in the snow. Those injuries happened at the ravine. The most likely explanation is snow collapsing upon them (injuries consistent with avalanches, by some accounts).
- The radiation found on the clothing?
This is the easiest question to answer, IMO. Most of the clothes (by far) had no radiation, so it must have occurred before the trip in an unrelated event.
In my opinion the only puzzling things in this theory are motive-related. For all the rest of factual evidence there are reasonable explanations.
I think its unlikely that nature will selectively remove all evidence of outsiders and leave evidence of the hikers.
I can relate to them taking matches and knives in pockets, but Semyon was wearing a camera around his neck, that could have had incriminating evidence of the attackers. Why let him take it? Its possible he had already fled before the attackers got to the tent though.
The chest injuries could have been achieved through a fall, but we know have to stack tragedy on top of tragedy.
The attacker theory is weak IMO.
regards
Star man
Well the Occam Razor’s concept has been explained at least a couple of times in the previous posts but I see some don’t get it.
It’s not the “simplest” answer but the “tighest”.
It is: “It’s useless to explain something through many means, when you can explain it with less”.
About the proposed gravity example, both theories satisfy the Occam Razor. In fact, both are true.
The difference is, that at some point *new evidence* showed up that required a more complex theory.
Sticking to the facts, which evidence in the DPI cannot be explained through the murder theory?
Could the simplest explanation of why no theory seems to cover everything, be that something we believe to be true actually isn't?Interesting line of thought. If there were details of the Dyatlov case that central authorities wanted to keep secret, they could have been omitted from the publicly available case files, or worse, parts of the case files could contain fabricated falsehoods. A possible combination of "missing information plus misinformation", one might say.
However, I think the withholding of sensitive details, plus deliberate vagueness on the part of the investigators (I have Ivanov and Vorozhdenny in mind), is a lot more believable than outright fabrication of documents or physical evidence. Besides, we would never get anywhere trying to make sense of this case if we could arbitrarily dismiss documented facts as fabrications--we would have no "ground truth" from which to start. We'll have to give documented facts a rebuttable presumption of veracity, that is, "true until proven dubious".
Having said all that, I find it interesting that you didn't say "something we know to be true", but rather, "something we believe to be true". The distinction is really important, because much of what many of us believe about the Dyatlov Pass Incident (DPI) is not a matter of "known" fact, but instead, inference from the bare facts.
For example, many DPI aficionados believe "the hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape", and still more would believe the less-specific "the hikers cut their tent from the inside". But, based on the case files alone, Loose}{Cannon has done an excellent job convincing me that the state of the tent has near-zero evidential value ( see https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0 ).
Further, many DPI aficionados believe that some of the Dyatlov company dug a "den", with a flooring of tree branches and "seats" made from spare clothing, in or near the ravine. I have some serious misgivings about that ( having read https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=17.0 ). All we know is that the searchers found a flooring of branches, laid down by someone, beneath at least two meters of snow in the ravine...and "hit the bullseye" ontheir firsttheir only photographed attempt to dig it out.
Of course, there are other widely accepted DPI "facts" that are not actually facts, but merely inferences from facts. For instance, "the Dyatlov hikers descended Kholat Syakhl in a calm and orderly manner". Footprints preserve trajectory and pace; they do not preserve mental or emotional state.
Another would be that Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolles were better dressed than the others because they were outside the tent when the triggering event occurred. I actually agree that is the most plausible scenario by far, but again, it's an inference from facts. Instead, perhaps they were better dressed than the others because they lingered in/near the tent longer than the others? Seven of the nine blankets were found crumpled up, but two were found spread out (if I recall correctly). I think it's more likely that the two spread-out blankets belonged to Krivonischenko and Doroshenko, who would have been the first to undress for bed and turn in for the night. But, what if those two blankets belonged to Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolles, who took the time to "make their beds" and put on their boots while their comrades exited the tent in more of a hurry?
Still another would be that the Dyatlov hikers descended the slope and abandoned their campsite due to fear of a lethal threat in or around the tent. I honestly have major difficulty imagining any other reason why they would leave their campsite. But, again, "fear of lethal threat" is also an inference from facts.
My point is that maybe we DPI sleuths have put on "cognitive blinders" concerning some aspect of this case, and maybe we need to re-examine what weknowbelieve.
I think its unlikely that nature will selectively remove all evidence of outsiders and leave evidence of the hikers.
I can relate to them taking matches and knives in pockets, but Semyon was wearing a camera around his neck, that could have had incriminating evidence of the attackers. Why let him take it? Its possible he had already fled before the attackers got to the tent though.
The chest injuries could have been achieved through a fall, but we know have to stack tragedy on top of tragedy.
The attacker theory is weak IMO.
regards
Star man
Tragedy on top of tragedy is unlikely, I agree, but still possible.
Fair point about the Semyon camera.
About the footprints, as I explained better in another thread, the only realistic occurrence in this theory is that the attackers came and left from another direction where the the footprints were erased/buried by natural agents or overlooked.
I think its unlikely that nature will selectively remove all evidence of outsiders and leave evidence of the hikers.
I can relate to them taking matches and knives in pockets, but Semyon was wearing a camera around his neck, that could have had incriminating evidence of the attackers. Why let him take it? Its possible he had already fled before the attackers got to the tent though.
The chest injuries could have been achieved through a fall, but we know have to stack tragedy on top of tragedy.
The attacker theory is weak IMO.
regards
Star man
Tragedy on top of tragedy is unlikely, I agree, but still possible.
Fair point about the Semyon camera.
About the footprints, as I explained better in another thread, the only realistic occurrence in this theory is that the attackers came and left from another direction where the the footprints were erased/buried by natural agents or overlooked.
Could the simplest explanation of why no theory seems to cover everything, be that something we believe to be true actually isn't?Interesting line of thought. If there were details of the Dyatlov case that central authorities wanted to keep secret, they could have been omitted from the publicly available case files, or worse, parts of the case files could contain fabricated falsehoods. A possible combination of "missing information plus misinformation", one might say.
However, I think the withholding of sensitive details, plus deliberate vagueness on the part of the investigators (I have Ivanov and Vorozhdenny in mind), is a lot more believable than outright fabrication of documents or physical evidence. Besides, we would never get anywhere trying to make sense of this case if we could arbitrarily dismiss documented facts as fabrications--we would have no "ground truth" from which to start. We'll have to give documented facts a rebuttable presumption of veracity, that is, "true until proven dubious".
Having said all that, I find it interesting that you didn't say "something we know to be true", but rather, "something we believe to be true". The distinction is really important, because much of what many of us believe about the Dyatlov Pass Incident (DPI) is not a matter of "known" fact, but instead, inference from the bare facts.
For example, many DPI aficionados believe "the hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape", and still more would believe the less-specific "the hikers cut their tent from the inside". But, based on the case files alone, Loose}{Cannon has done an excellent job convincing me that the state of the tent has near-zero evidential value ( see https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0 ).
Further, many DPI aficionados believe that some of the Dyatlov company dug a "den", with a flooring of tree branches and "seats" made from spare clothing, in or near the ravine. I have some serious misgivings about that ( having read https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=17.0 ). All we know is that the searchers found a flooring of branches, laid down by someone, beneath at least two meters of snow in the ravine...and "hit the bullseye" ontheir firsttheir only photographed attempt to dig it out.
Of course, there are other widely accepted DPI "facts" that are not actually facts, but merely inferences from facts. For instance, "the Dyatlov hikers descended Kholat Syakhl in a calm and orderly manner". Footprints preserve trajectory and pace; they do not preserve mental or emotional state.
Another would be that Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolles were better dressed than the others because they were outside the tent when the triggering event occurred. I actually agree that is the most plausible scenario by far, but again, it's an inference from facts. Instead, perhaps they were better dressed than the others because they lingered in/near the tent longer than the others? Seven of the nine blankets were found crumpled up, but two were found spread out (if I recall correctly). I think it's more likely that the two spread-out blankets belonged to Krivonischenko and Doroshenko, who would have been the first to undress for bed and turn in for the night. But, what if those two blankets belonged to Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolles, who took the time to "make their beds" and put on their boots while their comrades exited the tent in more of a hurry?
Still another would be that the Dyatlov hikers descended the slope and abandoned their campsite due to fear of a lethal threat in or around the tent. I honestly have major difficulty imagining any other reason why they would leave their campsite. But, again, "fear of lethal threat" is also an inference from facts.
My point is that maybe we DPI sleuths have put on "cognitive blinders" concerning some aspect of this case, and maybe we need to re-examine what weknowbelieve.
I think the search and rescue party picked up and followed the Dyatlov group ski tracks to find the tent. So if their tracks to the site were still visible I find it harder to think that any attackers could have covered their own tracks, or that nature would cover them. Unless, the attackers came and left by helicopter. And even then the facts don't add up to an attack. I have looked into several of the theories in detail, and on occasion you think you might have the answer, but the devil is in the detail on this one. Your view can change as you dig deeper into the subtleties. The dpi is definitely an interesting mystery that gets the grey matter going.
Regards
Star man
Could the simplest explanation of why no theory seems to cover everything, be that something we believe to be true actually isn't?
I think the search and rescue party picked up and followed the Dyatlov group ski tracks to find the tent. So if their tracks to the site were still visible I find it harder to think that any attackers could have covered their own tracks, or that nature would cover them. Unless, the attackers came and left by helicopter. And even then the facts don't add up to an attack. I have looked into several of the theories in detail, and on occasion you think you might have the answer, but the devil is in the detail on this one. Your view can change as you dig deeper into the subtleties. The dpi is definitely an interesting mystery that gets the grey matter going.
Regards
Star man
I agree, it’s extremely difficult to think of an all-encompassing theory in this case. It’s unbelievably hard to concile all the evidence.
I think the search and rescue party picked up and followed the Dyatlov group ski tracks to find the tent. So if their tracks to the site were still visible I find it harder to think that any attackers could have covered their own tracks, or that nature would cover them. Unless, the attackers came and left by helicopter. And even then the facts don't add up to an attack. I have looked into several of the theories in detail, and on occasion you think you might have the answer, but the devil is in the detail on this one. Your view can change as you dig deeper into the subtleties. The dpi is definitely an interesting mystery that gets the grey matter going.
Regards
Star man
I agree, it’s extremely difficult to think of an all-encompassing theory in this case. It’s unbelievably hard to concile all the evidence.
I'd disagree, i think it's almost certainly a case of "ordnance". Possibly man made, probably natural, possibly both. The only other theory i'd consider is the Menk, particularly wrt the ravine 4. The legend of the nine mansi hunters is imo the key clue that is rarely discussed.
The dpi wasn't the first time that something like this happened in the Urals.
I think the search and rescue party picked up and followed the Dyatlov group ski tracks to find the tent. So if their tracks to the site were still visible I find it harder to think that any attackers could have covered their own tracks, or that nature would cover them. Unless, the attackers came and left by helicopter. And even then the facts don't add up to an attack. I have looked into several of the theories in detail, and on occasion you think you might have the answer, but the devil is in the detail on this one. Your view can change as you dig deeper into the subtleties. The dpi is definitely an interesting mystery that gets the grey matter going.
Regards
Star man
I agree, it’s extremely difficult to think of an all-encompassing theory in this case. It’s unbelievably hard to concile all the evidence.
I'd disagree, i think it's almost certainly a case of "ordnance". Possibly man made, probably natural, possibly both. The only other theory i'd consider is the Menk, particularly wrt the ravine 4. The legend of the nine mansi hunters is imo the key clue that is rarely discussed.
The dpi wasn't the first time that something like this happened in the Urals.
I think the search and rescue party picked up and followed the Dyatlov group ski tracks to find the tent. So if their tracks to the site were still visible I find it harder to think that any attackers could have covered their own tracks, or that nature would cover them. Unless, the attackers came and left by helicopter. And even then the facts don't add up to an attack. I have looked into several of the theories in detail, and on occasion you think you might have the answer, but the devil is in the detail on this one. Your view can change as you dig deeper into the subtleties. The dpi is definitely an interesting mystery that gets the grey matter going.
Regards
Star man
I agree, it’s extremely difficult to think of an all-encompassing theory in this case. It’s unbelievably hard to concile all the evidence.
I'd disagree, i think it's almost certainly a case of "ordnance". Possibly man made, probably natural, possibly both. The only other theory i'd consider is the Menk, particularly wrt the ravine 4. The legend of the nine mansi hunters is imo the key clue that is rarely discussed.
The dpi wasn't the first time that something like this happened in the Urals.
I think the search and rescue party picked up and followed the Dyatlov group ski tracks to find the tent. So if their tracks to the site were still visible I find it harder to think that any attackers could have covered their own tracks, or that nature would cover them. Unless, the attackers came and left by helicopter. And even then the facts don't add up to an attack. I have looked into several of the theories in detail, and on occasion you think you might have the answer, but the devil is in the detail on this one. Your view can change as you dig deeper into the subtleties. The dpi is definitely an interesting mystery that gets the grey matter going.
Regards
Star man
I agree, it’s extremely difficult to think of an all-encompassing theory in this case. It’s unbelievably hard to concile all the evidence.
I'd disagree, i think it's almost certainly a case of "ordnance". Possibly man made, probably natural, possibly both. The only other theory i'd consider is the Menk, particularly wrt the ravine 4. The legend of the nine mansi hunters is imo the key clue that is rarely discussed.
The dpi wasn't the first time that something like this happened in the Urals.
If the legend of the 9 Mansi Hunters is rarely discussed then perhaps we should start to discuss it in a separate Post.
I'd disagree, i think it's almost certainly a case of "ordnance". Possibly man made, probably natural, possibly both. The only other theory i'd consider is the Menk, particularly wrt the ravine 4. The legend of the nine mansi hunters is imo the key clue that is rarely discussed.
The dpi wasn't the first time that something like this happened in the Urals.
How do you leave the tent with no shoes, and do not come back, walking for a mile, because of ordnance. It makes no sense. This is too often overlooked.
I'd disagree, i think it's almost certainly a case of "ordnance". Possibly man made, probably natural, possibly both. The only other theory i'd consider is the Menk, particularly wrt the ravine 4. The legend of the nine mansi hunters is imo the key clue that is rarely discussed.
The dpi wasn't the first time that something like this happened in the Urals.
How do you leave the tent with no shoes, and do not come back, walking for a mile, because of ordnance. It makes no sense. This is too often overlooked.
Well you state the following ; ''For example, many DPI aficionados believe "the hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape", and still more would believe the less-specific "the hikers cut their tent from the inside". But, based on the case files alone, Loose}{Cannon has done an excellent job convincing me that the state of the tent has near-zero evidential value ( see https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0 ).No, I believe you misunderstand me. I don't doubt that the tent was cut from the inside. I have no reason to doubt the investigators that examined it. Instead, my point is: (1) I don't believe that the Dyatlov Nine cut their tent from the inside, but rather, I think the searchers who found the tent did, while extracting it from the ice and dragging it to the helicopter; (2) irrespective of who cut the tent from the inside, the datum "the tent was cut from inside" has near-zero relevance to figuring out what happened to the Dyatlov company.
Well its because the original Investigation states that the cuts were made from the inside. So what are we to do ! ? Disregard the original Investigation ! ? It would help if we still had the Tent as Evidence.
I think you make a good point, about assumption/belief, based on high level superficial information.Much appreciated, Star Man.
So in just one page i read (1) a refusal to connect Igor's last entry in the diary with the tent location (eurocentric) and (2) a refusal to connect the tent cuts with the group's action in exiting the tent (RMK).
Time for a sanity check guys?
Says the man who accepts the Eagle photo as genuine but needs invisible helicopters or non reflective snow to explain it.So in just one page i read (1) a refusal to connect Igor's last entry in the diary with the tent location (eurocentric) and (2) a refusal to connect the tent cuts with the group's action in exiting the tent (RMK).
Time for a sanity check guys?
Asks the man who, across only the space of a few months, has posted theories ranging from the hikers being crushed in a den by a passing vehicle, (with bodies then mysteriously moving to a ravine 16m away), to downed missiles full of noxious fumes which somehow prevent hikers retrieving items from their tent on a windswept mountain but still assembling nearby, to men being electrocuted but their third-degree burns do not prevent them walking down a pass, possibly by way of a 3-legged race, to UFOs explaining some of Semyon's photo's, and whatever other entertaining nuggets I missed.
Well you state the following ; ''For example, many DPI aficionados believe "the hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape", and still more would believe the less-specific "the hikers cut their tent from the inside". But, based on the case files alone, Loose}{Cannon has done an excellent job convincing me that the state of the tent has near-zero evidential value ( see https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0 ).No, I believe you misunderstand me. I don't doubt that the tent was cut from the inside. I have no reason to doubt the investigators that examined it. Instead, my point is: (1) I don't believe that the Dyatlov Nine cut their tent from the inside, but rather, I think the searchers who found the tent did, while extracting it from the ice and dragging it to the helicopter; (2) irrespective of who cut the tent from the inside, the datum "the tent was cut from inside" has near-zero relevance to figuring out what happened to the Dyatlov company.
Well its because the original Investigation states that the cuts were made from the inside. So what are we to do ! ? Disregard the original Investigation ! ? It would help if we still had the Tent as Evidence.