December 08, 2022, 02:23:12 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Wolverine  (Read 12683 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

November 25, 2022, 05:52:01 PM
Reply #90
Offline

GlennM


Ziljoe, thanks for the synopsis. I regret it digressed into fly swatting.

 I understand the search dogs were reluctant to land.That could very well be evidence.  Wouldn't the wolverine musk be noted by the rescuers? Do you have an idea how long before it dissipates?

The DP nine  go to the woods. They have two choices, both important. One choice is to get out of the wind.  The other choice is to get warm. It seems to me that getting warm would come in second. Why? Because if there is no windbreak, the warmth of the fire will not last. Therefore, I would guess the hikers would find a windbreak, such as the ravine first, and build a warming fire there. They did not. To me this is counterintuitive. I would go as far as to propose that they could carry fire to the ravine if they decided to warm up first. The cedar appears to be a poor place to maintain a fire, especially compared to a sheltered ravine.

It appears that the official interpretation of events and the chronology is closely linked to the sequence of the discovery of the bodies. Thus they went to the tree first and at the tree, the fire came first. Next there was a schism among the survivors with some going back to the tent and others digging in at the ravine. Of course, neither group prevailed. I would think they all would have gone to the ravine, or they all would have returned, buddy style back to the tent. Going to the ravine is the better choice. Why? They just left the tent and going back immediately would be idiotic.

If indeed they all went to the ravine, it is strange that all did not perish there. What affected the four who died should have impacted them all. It did not.  Those who would have survived the ravine knew exactly what direction to go to regain the tent, but their strength failed them. For me, this implies that their physical reserves of energy were depleted. I do not think their last meal was,sufficient after hiking all day, excavating a level place their tent and so on.

In summary, I still believe the hikers made camp on 1079 and were driven to the woods below. I do not think they were driven out by other people. There is no good reason that I've read. Further, the location and disposition of the bodies did not produce any claims by the finders that pointed to murder, that I am aware of. Finally, you don't leave corpses around unless it is symbolic. There was nothing symbolic, just tragic. If there is any record that points to wolverine spray as opposed to a slab slip, I'll hold to the crush of snow. It is a shame the tent was finally destroyed, but that too is telling. Would you keep a tent that was sprayed by a skunk locked up in the basement of a building form even a day? A wolverine? Surely it would have reeked to high heaven!
 
The following users thanked this post: Ziljoe

November 25, 2022, 09:06:21 PM
Reply #91
Offline

Игорь Б.


Случаев когда скунс брызгал внутри палатки в США и Канаде должно быть немало.
Если кто-нибудь найдёт ещё описания подобных случаев разместите здесь ссылку пожалуйста.

Quote
"I was hiking the Appalachian trail in Georgia and a freezing snow storm came up, so I put up my tent, got in and around 1 o'clock in the morning, a skunk came up to get warm," the man wrote.

"He tried to get in my backpack, then he tried to drag it away after I kept shooing him off. He bit me later and I just got my last rabies shot today!"
https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2017/04/07/Man-films-confrontation-with-tent-invading-skunk-in-Georgia/6171491591452/



Если бы скунс не укусил а брызнул, то что случилось с дятловцами повторилось бы в точности.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2022, 09:54:15 PM by Игорь Б. »
The answers to all the questions related to the death of Dyatlov group:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=110407
Evidence of the death of the Dyatlov group from the Wolverine chemical weapon:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=69286
 
The following users thanked this post: GlennM

November 26, 2022, 01:50:11 AM
Reply #92
Offline

Ziljoe


The following are topics that Igor B addressed. They are in the link at the bottom of his name. It is in Russian but if you put on auto translation in Google it should just click to your chosen language. It would take forever to copy and paste. But I'm happy to try if any of the questions below spark interest. He answers them all....







Answers to all questions related to the death of the Dyatlov group. By Igor B.




Key facts of the incident:

1.) Dilated pupils in those who are frozen sober:


2.) Leaving the tent with a slow and careful step:


3.) Getting rid of jackets already taken out of the tent:


4.) Building a fire in a very windy place:


5.) Fright of service dogs when landing at the pass:


6.) Yellow-orange stains on clothes:



Typical misconceptions about the wolverine and its chemical weapons:

One wolverine kicked out of the tent nine strong and brave tourists? Seriously?
Yes. Even if it were not a wolverine, but a small skunk, the result would be the same.
Against chemical weapons there is no means of protection other than a gas mask.

Wolverines are not found on the Dyatlov Pass. They have nothing to do there.?


Wolverine will never climb into a tent with people. And if she climbed in, she would have bitten and scratched everyone.?


Wolverine would leave traces at the tent.?


Wolverine would return and ate food in the tent.?


Wolverine's chemical weapons are nonsense. You can endure or ventilate.?


Wolverine's chemical weapons are no nonsense. Doesn't fade for a long time. The searchers would smell it.?


If the tourists had abandoned the tent because of the stench and tearing, they would have taken clothes.?


Search engines, investigators and experts would have seen the yellow stains from the wolverine's chemical weapons on the tourists' clothes.?


Service dogs are not afraid of anyone, including wolverines.?

The smell of wolverine would have long been weathered. Dogs wouldn't feel it.?


How long does the smell of a skunk (wolverine) last?


Did the Dyatlovites have a chance to escape?
Yes, there was one way.




Answers to all questions related to the death of the Dyatlov group.
Part 2.

Refutation of the avalanche version based on the photo:


Refutation of versions related to the beating or murder of Dyatlovites :


The myth about the closure of the area of ​​the incident:


Why the case was classified and closed.
Due to the signs of intoxication of unknown origin discovered by the examinations, as indicated by the dilation of the pupils of those who are frozen sober:


The authorities considered that it will not be possible to prove the non-involvement of the state in the intoxication of tourists and the results of the examinations were hidden.


About brown skin color :


The reason for stopping the Dyatlov group on the slope was the complete lack of visibility:


How the flashlight found on the tent ended up in the middle of the snow mass:



Animals are afraid of the smell of wolverine.


Getting rid of jackets already taken out of the tent:


Why, having come to the forest, the Dyatlovites made a fire in a windy place, and dug snow shelters in places protected from the wind and even climbed into a snow cave?


The reason for the rapid hypothermia of the Dyatlovites was damp clothing and wind:


Fractures of the ribs from compression:


The shape of the ceiling could be the reason for the collapse of the snow cave:
.

Slobodin's head injury - post-mortem cracking of the skull bones at the seams:


Kolmogorova was asleep at the time of death:


How the time of the incident was determined:

 The incident happened while eating:


_ wolverines:


On the impact on humans and the timing of the weathering of the smell of a skunk (wolverine):


All evidence of the death of the Dyatlov group from the wolverine's "chemical weapon":
 

November 26, 2022, 01:55:24 AM
Reply #93
Offline

Ziljoe


Thank you GlennM.

I believe the smell would have disappeared after 4 weeks , at least to the level that humans cant detect.. Dogs have a higher sensitivity for smells, it's their skill set. They were most likely search dog's as opposed to hunting dogs. They would not be used to the musk, obviously this musk evolved to be a defence weapon for the skunk family.

I totally agree about getting out of the wind, although there may have been no wind at that moment in time. The location of the fire sounds exposed given how little snow was covering the ground at the ceder .  As you suggest , they may have gone to the ravine first, to build the den. Some make the den and others start to gather the flooring material. The ceder wood is gathered from the higher branches as this is the only useful wood to burn.

It would seem that something happened  at the ravine. It is here that we have the injuries of the fractured ribs and these fractured ribs are what seem to confuse all of us. It is how we explain these rib breaks that defines our interpretation of events.

A) the ribs we're broken by human hand.

B) a tree fell and broke the ribs.

C) a snow collapse broke the ribs.

Depending on which one we choose, it changes our perspective on how we perceive all the other evidence. Hence our squabbles.

For me, the most logical of those 3 options is a snow collapse at the ravine. From there I work backwards and like you GlennM, I think their reserves were depleted. I can imagine the snow collapse and them burning more energy to try and dig out their friends but it would be impossible. There ,a sense of darkness would overcome the other 5 on how to survive or retrieve equipment to dig out the ravine 4.

The reason for leaving the tent could of been a number of things, snow slip , wind etc but I think they would have taken more equipment, grab a blanket , knife, axe etc.

 

November 26, 2022, 09:41:56 AM
Reply #94
Offline

Charles


What would x-rays bring to the story?

This sentence is so telling, it's almost beautiful.

The point here is a general issue, that supporters of "accidental" or "natural" theories also claim their positions are more reasonable, more rational... but their claim is absolutely not legit. These theories are not less speculative than others, they lack of realism, they are not better grounded, and far from better grounded. This arrogance is particularly annoying. You can invent any legendary snow cave, any skunk mermaid, any uphill avalanche, no problem, but please avoid to write your explanations as if you were the rationalists and if the case was not rotten to the core. You pretend to be rationalists? Then behave like rationalists. Follow René Descartes:  "il est de la prudence de ne se fier jamais entièrement à ceux qui nous ont une fois trompés" (Meditationes de Prima Philosophia)... "it is prudent never to trust entirely those who have once deceived us"... Forensic expert Churkina wrote a disgraceful report and drew a ridiculously false sketch of the tent, prosecutor Tempalov asked the families of the victims what was their relation to "the accused", prosecutor Ivanov dared to write "considering the absence of external injuries" in his Resolution to close the case, forensic physicist Vozrozhdenny was lazy to ask for x-rays, Urakov gave the prosecutors an "express order" to close the case and to tell the parents "it was an accident"... You speculate like the rest of us and pretend to be on the rationalist side, but you don't acknowledge that your premises are rotten. It is here a general issue. The first task of a rationalist would be to deal with the "express order" given by higher authorities to close the case and to tell the families "it was an accident" and with the lie of the prosecutor who wrote "given the absence of external injuries", with Churkina's misleading sketch and doctored photo, and so on. First you deal with these problems and after, if you still feel the need, you speculate about the freeze causing fractures... So, was Dr Vozrozhdenny lazy to ask for x-rays, or was he forbidden by Ivanov or someone else to have the bodies x-rayed? Was there a reluctance to have the bodies x-rayed? The same kind of reluctance which made the Soviet authorities attempt not to bring the bodies to Sverdlovsk and burry them in Ivdel? Are these questions not rationalistic? Our "scientist" friend who likes infrasound and claims that everything he says "is based on 100% reality"... he does not have any measurement of infrasound to show us. You claim to be rationalists? Show us clean measurements, clean radiographies, clean photos, clean testimonies, any clean and reliable material... nothing doctored nor tampered, and if you can't, then stop pretending that you are the rationalists. You're not, you imagine and speculate just like everybody else.  grin1



P.S.: And yes, indeed, if it's only about "story" telling, better not to have any x-rays of the hikers.

« Last Edit: November 26, 2022, 02:48:42 PM by Charles »
 

November 26, 2022, 11:44:08 AM
Reply #95
Offline

Игорь Б.


В России при вскрытиях трупов рентген не используется. Использование рентгена ещё только обсуждается в качестве альтернативы обычному вскрытию:
Quote
На сегодняшний день в качестве методик проведения альтернативных форм патологоанатомических вскрытий называют как неинвазивное в целом (например, с помощью рентгена, магнитно-резонансной или компьютерной томографии), так и малоинвазивное (например, взятие биопсии) вскрытие.

Проведение таких форм вскрытия всецело соответствует принципу достойного отношения к телу и сохранения его анатомической формы, установленному п. 8 ст. 67 Федерального закона № 323-ФЗ. На сегодняшний день назрела необходимость закрепления альтернативных форм патологоанатомических вскрытий, которые позволят достоверно устанавливать патологоанатомический диагноз в случае отказа от рутинного исследования (например, по религиозным мотивам)
https://neonatology-nmo.ru/ru/jarticles_neonat/540.html?SSr=32013465a711ffffffff27c__07e50b0b0b2039-2b5a

А теперь вернитесь в 1959 год.
The answers to all the questions related to the death of Dyatlov group:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=110407
Evidence of the death of the Dyatlov group from the Wolverine chemical weapon:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=69286
 

November 26, 2022, 02:41:30 PM
Reply #96
Offline

Ziljoe


В России при вскрытиях трупов рентген не используется. Использование рентгена ещё только обсуждается в качестве альтернативы обычному вскрытию:
Quote
На сегодняшний день в качестве методик проведения альтернативных форм патологоанатомических вскрытий называют как неинвазивное в целом (например, с помощью рентгена, магнитно-резонансной или компьютерной томографии), так и малоинвазивное (например, взятие биопсии) вскрытие.

Проведение таких форм вскрытия всецело соответствует принципу достойного отношения к телу и сохранения его анатомической формы, установленному п. 8 ст. 67 Федерального закона № 323-ФЗ. На сегодняшний день назрела необходимость закрепления альтернативных форм патологоанатомических вскрытий, которые позволят достоверно устанавливать патологоанатомический диагноз в случае отказа от рутинного исследования (например, по религиозным мотивам)
https://neonatology-nmo.ru/ru/jarticles_neonat/540.html?SSr=32013465a711ffffffff27c__07e50b0b0b2039-2b5a

А теперь вернитесь в 1959 год.

Translation of the above.

In Russia, X-rays are not used during autopsies of corpses. The use of x-rays is still being discussed as an alternative to conventional autopsy:

Quote:
To date, both non-invasive in general (for example, using X-ray, magnetic resonance or computed tomography) and minimally invasive (for example, taking a biopsy) autopsy are called as alternative forms of pathoanatomical autopsies

Carrying out such forms of autopsy is fully consistent with the principle of a decent attitude towards the body and the preservation of its anatomical shape, established by paragraph 8 of Art. 67 of Federal Law No. 323-FZ. Today, there is a need to consolidate alternative forms of pathoanatomical autopsies, which will make it possible to reliably establish a pathoanatomical diagnosis in case of refusal from routine examination (for example, for religious reasons)

Now go back to 1959.



 

November 26, 2022, 03:28:07 PM
Reply #97
Offline

Ziljoe


What would x-rays bring to the story?

This sentence is so telling, it's almost beautiful.

The point here is a general issue, that supporters of "accidental" or "natural" theories also claim their positions are more reasonable, more rational... but their claim is absolutely not legit. These theories are not less speculative than others, they lack of realism, they are not better grounded, and far from better grounded. This arrogance is particularly annoying. You can invent any legendary snow cave, any skunk mermaid, any uphill avalanche, no problem, but please avoid to write your explanations as if you were the rationalists and if the case was not rotten to the core. You pretend to be rationalists? Then behave like rationalists. Follow René Descartes:  "il est de la prudence de ne se fier jamais entièrement à ceux qui nous ont une fois trompés" (Meditationes de Prima Philosophia)... "it is prudent never to trust entirely those who have once deceived us"... Forensic expert Churkina wrote a disgraceful report and drew a ridiculous sketch of the tent, prosecutor Tempalov asked the families of the victims what was their relation to "the accused", prosecutor Ivanov dared to write "considering the absence of external injuries" in his Resolution to close the case, forensic physicist Vozrozhdenny was lazy to ask for x-rays, Urakov gave the prosecutors an "express order" to close the case and to tell the parents "it was an accident"... You speculate like the rest of us and pretend to be on the rationalist side, but you don't acknowledge that your premises are rotten. It is here a general issue. The first task of a rationalist would be to deal with the "express order" given by higher authorities to close the case and tell the families "it was an accident" and with the lie of prosecutor who wrote "given the absence of external injuries", and so on. First you deal with these problems and after, if you still feel the need, you speculate about the freeze causing fractures... So, was Dr Vozrozhdenny lazy to ask for x-rays, or was he forbidden by Ivanov or someone else to have the bodies x-rayed? Was there a reluctance to have the bodies x-rayed? The same kind of reluctance which made the Soviet authorities to try not to bring to bodies to Sverdlovsk but keep them and burry them in Ivdel? Are these questions not rationalistic? Our "scientist" friend who likes infrasound and claims that everything he says "is based on 100% reality"... he does not have any measurement of infrasound to show us. You claim to be rationalists? Show us clean measurements, clean radiographies, clean photos, any clean and reliable material... and if you can't, then stop pretending that you are the rationalists. You're not, you imagine and speculate just like everybody else.  grin1



P.S.: And yes, indeed, if it's only about "story" telling, better not to have any x-rays of the hikers.



Where do I start... nea1

Charles ,When I say "what would x-rays bring to the story" means it would make no difference to you. Your mind is made up. You have convinced yourself what happened, it was homicide.

If they had done x-ray's and found more fractures you would add them to your illustration of fractures and say murder, if they found no more fractures you would still say murder . If they exhumed the bodies and did x-rays today and found no more fractures you would still say they are lying. You said slobodin's skull was smashed.

I have read a lot of everyone's theories, hypothesis, ideas. It is complicated and difficult to understand what happened. I remain open to all possibilities and try to look at it from as many angles as I can.

So for arguments sake, I've tried to look at from the perspective of those in charge of the investigation . What if it's all true. No cover up. They started the search , found the tent, then the bodies. They did the autopsies , recorded what they found. Fractures, abrasions, dylated pupils , bruises , small cuts.

They interviewed the Mansi, so looked at them possibly being involved. That was a dead end.

They could have framed anybody if they wanted to end the case. There is a possibility they just didn't know or know what to look for. We have nothing else.

All we can do is speculate and put forward ideas. It just so happens I like what Igor B is saying. It is not the Wolverine that is important with what Igor B puts forward but the events afterwards. Just like the the possibility of slobodin's skull fracture by freezing , it gives an explanation, all be it, one you don't like.



Please try not to destroy this thread with your combative nature. You have your own post,have your rants on there.



 

November 26, 2022, 04:10:32 PM
Reply #98
Offline

Charles


In Russia, X-rays are not used during autopsies of corpses.

What a joke! When prosecutors, investigators and forensics have 9 dead bodies at the morgue and prefer the humiliation of concluding to "unknown compelling force" rather than to use X-rays they had at their disposal, it's a major failure. It's completely abnormal, in Russia like in any country. On Mar. 15, they suddenly raised military unit 6602 at night in alarm and sent them by helicopter to search for documents and diaries in the snow at Kholyat Syakhl... But using x-rays for the autopsies of the 9 victims? Oh no! In Russia, they never change their daily routine, ever!

Anyway an "express order" was given to tell the families "it was an accident", prosecutor Ivanov lied in a legal document when he issued the Resolution to close the case "considering the absence of external injuries", forensic Churkina botched and doctored her photo of the tent and concealed informations with her ridiculously misleading drawing. Was it regular procedure? They violated any regulations when it was convenient to them, but they didn't want to step out of the habit not to use x-rays for autopsies? It's laughable.

Because it was not a case about a peasant who fell asleep in a snowy ditch behind a barn when being zapoi... or was it? Why do you try to say that in Russia X-rays are not used during autopsies? Why do you do that? As if the list of all the abnormal actions of the investigators was not long enough? In Russia, is it usual that the prosecutor of a case is interrogated as a witness? The cause of the death in a criminal case is given by order of the hierarchy? A prosecutor who attended all autopsies and witnessed the forensic expert listing more than 80 external injuries during "external examination" closes the case "considering the absence of external injuries"? Is it Russian daily routine?

P.S.: How do you say in Russian: "a legal document whose content has been deliberately made false", "a false writing with an intent to defraud"? In French, the legal word is "un faux en écriture publique", I am curious of the Russian word. Because the "Resolution to close the case" issued by Ivanov is such a document. Are you going to say that in Russia, prosecutors generally do not issue true documents, but only false ones? I hope you won't... dear Igor.  wink1





« Last Edit: November 28, 2022, 01:39:37 AM by Charles »
 

November 26, 2022, 05:39:46 PM
Reply #99
Offline

GlennM


Ziljoe, how can any of us prevail against the rapier wit of the "expert"? Now, back to the matter of the disaster.

At that time,   I imagine some imaginary conspirators thinking, " Now, what are we going to do with this tent? I know, let's set it up way,,way over there on the hill. That is going to fool everyone!" I think not! The tent got there because the hikers put it there. Or perhaps the bad boys trekked around and found the labaz and said " Hey,this is here, so let's put the tent up over there"." Now, who is going to carry it up from a mile away?"" Who is bringing the pots and pans up? " Lets flip for it." None of this scenario works for me. If you know the tent is going to be found, you are going to make the scene as " vanilla" as possible. The fewer questions about the tent,the better.  There are too many questions.

If a tree fell on the hikers, then why in the world would you find three freezing to death going up hill towards the tent at elevation 880? I recall that ice formed under Rustem. That meant he was warm when he fell. That means he was alive, not a planted corpse.

Too, if two of the DP9 hikers were supposedly relieving themselves outside, it would be deucedly hard for troublemakers to sneak up unobserved. I think it would also be hard for a critter to get past them, but timing is everything, yes?

A slab slip seems the simplest event to compel people to leave their shelter. Yet, it seems unreasonable for sane people to walk half dressed the better part of a mile. It also seems odd that if they did leave the tent half dressed, that those who were better dressed would not share or otherwise assist.. If indeed the tent collapsed on the hikers and they cut their way out, they may have underestimated the distance to the woods for a fire. There was a flashlight mentioned, so it surely happened at night, a dark and stormy night.

 If a wolverine or other creature invaded the tent, that would be completely out of character for an animal (except for a bear). Bears hibernate.I would immediately fear rabies if a random wild animal attacked the shelter. I know that I would cut my way out of any tent if I thought a rabid critter was in my space. That is reasonable. 

It would have been so simple if the rescuers detected the odor of an animal. As it was, they snagged the vodka and probably snacked on some of the unspoiled stores. My point being, it, wasn't like they were put off by the smell.


« Last Edit: November 26, 2022, 08:15:24 PM by GlennM »
 

November 27, 2022, 02:30:44 AM
Reply #100
Offline

Ziljoe


Hi Glenn

I too have numerous problems with outsiders, Wolverine , snow slip, staging.

I am happy we can debate the details , pros and cons and hopefully fine tune our observations.

The imbalance of clothing amoungst the group ,along with odd socks adds to the confusion with any of the theories. If it were outsiders I would have suspected them to be told to take off all their boots. Likewise I think the camera films would have been destroyed, there's no way that outsiders would know or take the risk with what was on the film.

I also struggle to understand why they would separate ,Even the three that look like they are returning to the tent. I would have thought they would of stuck together?

It is reported that Rustem Slobidin had ice under him and I agree with your thoughts. I believe this fact led Igor B to his findings on what possibly caused the skull fracture. As Slobidin tunnelled in to the snow, we can see his hat is positioned back from the forehead and that his neck is exposed . As he cooled the fluids in the skull would freeze , possibly at the neck first thus the expansion of in the skull. His hat would act as insulation. I'm no expert and Igor B goes into more detail.

As for the critter getting in to the tent, I don't think it's an issue. As testimonies from his posts in Russia and skunks in the USA , they get in. They may have all been in the tent at the time , I was just trying to think why they would have footwear on especially only 1 boot?

To me the torch could of been in a pocket and doesn't necessarily mean it was night. Odd that it was where it was.I'm just trying to juggle my thinking. If it was daylight , how might this change our perspective on the event's?.

I struggle with the suggestion of the cache been buried at the place of the tent on the slope. I just don't think that's practical. It would be a struggle to find on the return journey and they would have to dig it up in any number of weather conditions, empty there back packs and rearrange the contents in the possibility of bad weather. If they could locate it?

Wolverine's seem happy to wander into tents. Good point about rabies , never thought of that!

And yes the smell. It would have dissipated by then, I assume. Igor goes into more detail and evidence through science etc.

As for the vodka, I've a feeling that the searcher that took it got a telling off for it.
If I remember correctly ,he says they had to return what the took from the tent and then says they weren't told what they should do if they found the tent. This idea adds a bit of normality to the whole thing. No one was being controlled, the people in charge didn't know the location of the tent or its contents. It was just search for the tourists.

Maybe we should all chip in and send one of our brave forum members to the Urals with a canvas tent and put a Wolverine in? See what happens?



 

November 27, 2022, 12:37:43 PM
Reply #101
Offline

GlennM


Or at least a guy in a wolverine suit. I know someone on the forum who likes to bare his teeth from time to time. You know him too. If the suit fits, wear it!  We all know that water expands when frozen. I wonder if skull fractures of this sort are a diagnostic indicator in forensics. Of course, if it is, there are a whole slew of other bodies and injuries that need explanation. I think those who favor conspiracies are particularly reinforced by those findings. If one accepts the conspiracy, then all the injuries are checked off the list.

I thought that if the goal of the DP9 was to loop Otorten in a day, they would be better off camping on 1079 at 880ft.as opposed to trekking through the forest for sake of efficiency,if nothing else. It is clear that the elevation advantage and obstruction of the forested land's disadvantage both factor in if the hikers elected to make camp elsewhere. Given the group's record of hitching rides and otherwise keeping exertion to a minimum, I believe that Igor envisioned the return loop from Otorten and planned the approach accordingly.

There is no indication of rivalry between hiking groups in the area, so misbehavior of a malicious sort may be ruled out. The dearth of additional footprints appears to rule out any poorly executed practical joke or prank by others. No, it all points to something circumstantial, a " compelling force".  Early on in my participation, I felt that if the military were doing training aerial exercises, that might be the cause. There is no evidence of that, nor of an aborted rocket crash. At any rate, those are transient things and insufficient for a sane group to do what they did. I toyed with the idea that leaving the tent for the woods was a challenge or a qualifier. Teddy thinks not. Nothing in grade certification calls for what they did.

Zoloft was about to write something. Would you think it would have been personal or situational?
 

November 27, 2022, 01:14:45 PM
Reply #102
Offline

Ziljoe


I don't know if you looked before GlennM. There's a case study here , number six that mentions a skull fracture.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6474461/#!po=63.8889

I thought that it might have been foul play early into my introduction to DPI but as I read other accounts it doesn't seem to me that outsiders were involved. It can't be filled out but I would expect the injuries to be more obvious if it were other people.

I'm not sure how accurate the report of Zolotaryov having a en and paper in his hand was?
 
The following users thanked this post: GlennM

November 27, 2022, 01:41:15 PM
Reply #103
Offline

Ziljoe


Also, I think it was only six miles Otorten, I had the same thought, from that elevation , without all the equipment they could have gone there and back to the tent quickly, weather permitting.
 

November 27, 2022, 09:38:00 PM
Reply #104
Offline

GlennM


Ziljoe, I looked at the forensic link and it was instructive, not only for the skull fracture, but for the reminder that a person  of sound body and mind can succumb to elemental conditions.  We are only capable of enduring so much.

I think the DP9 had the plan to lay their cache and take to the high ground as a labor saving strategy. I think that they would not plow through deep, soft snow on the exposed slope versus at the accumulation at the forest below. They would have the advantage of line of sight at a higher elevation. If the circuit was 6 miles, they could round trip it and return to their tent already set up.

When they abandoned their tent, they could have made the dash to their labaz. I think they went down slope instead to keep the wind at their backs. They did not ski down because the foundation for the tent was already laid. Too, if they went to their cache, that would have been tantamount to calling off the hike because of time, distance and the using of their reserves.