Theories Discussion > General Discussion
Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
RMK:
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?
KFinn:
I came here to say the exact same thing about Dyatlov and Kolmogorova!
Investigator:
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.
KFinn:
--- 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 ---
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.
KFinn:
--- 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 ---
How about that it is commonly said the group left the tent undressed or in their underwear, when in fact no one was naked or only in their under clothes. They were *under* dressed as far as no shoes, no coats, few head coverings. But Doroshenko and Krivonischenko had clothing with them; it was cut from them as evidenced by their cut clothing about the site and on the four in the ravine.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version