Theories Discussion > General Discussion
The DEN...I know, I know..
Lyndasez:
You think they dug a 9ft den with their hands then constructed a seat and did not attempt a fire, after fleeing in mortal fear?! twitch7
This was a government cover-up for sure...they bungled up anything they could, they didn’t preserve the scene, took minimal pictures and measurements..then hid the rest in secret files, and there’s the 3yr ban on travel to the area....
For instance: “a film of a nuclear test conducted by the Soviet military on Sept. 14, 1954, in which an atomic bomb was exploded in the air near 45,000 Soviet Army troops and thousands of civilians in the Ural Mountains. In the film, which was shown in Paris as a part of a documentary, Soviet veterans said that soldiers had never received adequate medical treatment for the radiation exposure. "Many died not knowing the reason why," said Mikhail Sokolov, left, a veteran. (Photographs from "Human Nuclear Guinea Pigs") “
This info wasn’t known till the ‘90s.
Loose}{Cannon:
MK.. I think there may be a misunderstanding here, so I will attempt to clarify.
--- Quote ---Digging a snow den without shovels? I just figured they used their hands and sticks and stuff. And likely that's some of the reason for the scratches and cuts on their knuckles. If the snow hadn't melted and refrozen, then it wouldn't be too solid to dig through. In my experience, snow that falls in far northern climates is generally lighter and fluffier than snow that falls here in the south. And, out in the wilderness like that, it wouldn't have been packed down by feet.
--- End quote ---
I would normally agree. Accept the very facts of how you describe the characteristics of snow in these circumstances as easy to dig, light and fluffy etc would also make it nearly impossible to dig out a mini cave without the opening sliding/falling in on itself to begin with. For the den to even have existed means the snow would have to have a certain level of 'pack-ability'. Make sense? So in my mind, either the snow was not soft, fluffy, and powder like, or it wasn't dug in the first place. I would tend to think you are correct in the characteristics of the snow, which would indicate..... there was no den.
--- Quote ---I'm confused about the idea that the rescuers found them quickly and easily in the ravine, or that they seemed to know where to dig. The ones in the ravine were so well hidden that the rescuers didn't find them until three months later, after the snow began to melt. Of course they began by digging: the search crew knew that the bodies would be under at least a couple months' snowfall by that time.
--- End quote ---
I wasn't implying the bodies were found quickly or that they seemed to know where to dig for the bodies. I was talking specifically in reference to the den.
The body of LYUDMILA DUBININA was found using an avalanche probe fixed with a meat hook on the end to pull up flesh as they know the victims at this point would not be alive...... thats how they found the rav4.
The 'den' on the other hand had no bodies within it and was meters away from the rav4 bodies.
My quote
--- Quote ---#2. I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe the search team just happened to not only know to dig, but to know exactly where to dig, AND hit an exact bull's-eye perfect location. I mean... They didn't find the corner and then shift the trench in that direction.
--- End quote ---
Point being... how are you to know a den floor exists under meters of snow when a probe does not bring up flesh or anything else for that matter.... how would you know its there to begin with? You wouldn't. On top of that... I am expected to believe the crew dug down on the EXACT location on the first attempt to locate said den they didnt know was there without shifting the hole in any direction after finding part of it? No, apparently they dug the exact size square hole corresponding to the size of the 'den' floor and precisely hit all 4 corners. I call major BS.
--- Quote ---"Immaculate seats"??? What do you mean?
--- End quote ---
What I think Lyndasez was saying, is that we know they staged the pictures with the den floor and the clothing located at all 4 corners... why should we believe it existed in the first place? The clothing was found in melting snow some distance from the 'den' and they staged the 'seats' with the clothing. They also "reconstructed" the branches that made up the 'den floor' itself.
Why would the search crew apparently dig a hole, put branches in it, put clothing in the corners, and say see... lookie, we found a den, we dug one hole in all of the urual mountains and hit paydirt. The entire 'den' IMHO was staged, and you only stage something to create a false narrative.
mk:
Thanks for clarifying, LC. I see what you mean about the snow. I wish I had more first-hand experience with cold climates in order to understand those kinds of details better.
A quick google of building snow caves with hands indicates that, of course, it is very difficult and not generally recommended. However, most sources note that, with sufficient motivation and several people working, a small emergency snow cave is certainly possible. Also, it seems that powdery snow hardens once it's been disturbed; it doesn't exactly have to melt and refreeze in order to harden. http://www.survivopedia.com/how-to-build-a-snow-shelter/
Obviously there's more to it than what I've read, but I would expect Russians who frequently go on winter hiking & camping treks to be pretty familiar with building a snow cave in less-than-ideal circumstances. In other words, if it could be done, I'd expect these guys to be able to do it.
And, of course, if you're going to do some kind of difficult and nearly-impossible feat, it would only be in a situation similar to fleeing in mortal terror. You don't go digging snow dens with your bare hands for fun.
Lyndasez, I'm not sure I understood point about the fire. You mean, as you see it, they ought to have built another fire rather than a snow cave? Fair enough. Except that they already had a fire, right? Under the cedar. So, presumably, they thought another one was unnecessary or ill-advised. Or, is that your point: that they wouldn't have needed a snow cave since they already had the fire and/or could build another one?
BTW, I googled "snow den" first, and got all kinds of stuff on the military and Snowden! waaaaaaaaay off track, lol!
kenne:
--- Quote from: mk on October 20, 2017, 06:43:25 PM ---Thanks for clarifying, LC. I see what you mean about the snow. I wish I had more first-hand experience with cold climates in order to understand those kinds of details better.
A quick google of building snow caves with hands indicates that, of course, it is very difficult and not generally recommended. However, most sources note that, with sufficient motivation and several people working, a small emergency snow cave is certainly possible. Also, it seems that powdery snow hardens once it's been disturbed; it doesn't exactly have to melt and refreeze in order to harden. http://www.survivopedia.com/how-to-build-a-snow-shelter/
Obviously there's more to it than what I've read, but I would expect Russians who frequently go on winter hiking & camping treks to be pretty familiar with building a snow cave in less-than-ideal circumstances. In other words, if it could be done, I'd expect these guys to be able to do it.
And, of course, if you're going to do some kind of difficult and nearly-impossible feat, it would only be in a situation similar to fleeing in mortal terror. You don't go digging snow dens with your bare hands for fun.
Lyndasez, I'm not sure I understood point about the fire. You mean, as you see it, they ought to have built another fire rather than a snow cave? Fair enough. Except that they already had a fire, right? Under the cedar. So, presumably, they thought another one was unnecessary or ill-advised. Or, is that your point: that they wouldn't have needed a snow cave since they already had the fire and/or could build another one?
BTW, I googled "snow den" first, and got all kinds of stuff on the military and Snowden! waaaaaaaaay off track, lol!
--- End quote ---
IIRC there is no evidence of a den being dug, just speculation. A fire in the ravine would of been out of the wind and much better for warming if they would have started one there. but In guess they did not start one.
itWasTheCIA:
How do we know how deep the den was dug? Reading a few comments here, people seem to be certain about the deepness the den was dug by hand or at most by knife. However, how do we know how much snow was laying around a few weeks before? Since the hikers did not die in the den, I initially thought the vertical distance between the hikers bodies and the flooring on the den would give us the depth they had to overcome. But bodies had enough time to shift vertically, so this logic is flawed. I'm curious anyway:
* How far above solid ground has the den flooring been found?
* How far above solid ground have the 4 bodies been found? Were they vertically all in the same height?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version