Theories Discussion > General Discussion

The DEN...I know, I know..

(1/10) > >>

The dens whole existence is a mystery to me. No shovels were recovered. You wouldn’t exhaustively dig a den an not build a fire where everyone could warm themselves and swap clothes off to those who ventured back to the tent for investigation and supplies.

The searchers dug down a dozen feet to uncover an immaculate seat with torn clothes at the corner, no, doesn’t make any sense. 

At this point I have to consider the possible reason it exists is to cover up something that had occurred there.

I have a HUGE issue with the den!

#1. its reported that the clothing supposedly used for butt protection were actually found in the melting snow somewhere between tue cedar and ravine and were placed on top of the reconstructed twig floor of the den.

#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.  No....  I have several major issues with the 'den' in general.   bat1

I’ve been wondering, did the searchers, police or military take a photo of the view from the tent position down towards the ravine, well any we can view now? Also, I don’t mean to cause extra work but if you do know of any could you label it, I have trouble identifying what I am looking at exactly in some photos.

Like the den. I have a photo where someone drew in the den position, and it seemed like it was a the end of the ravine, or rather came after it, where all along I had thought it was alongside an a path came between...them?!

At the bottom of the ridge from the tent site, in the valley, there is a seasonal drainage area for melting run-off.  In the valley floor area and mainly on the treeline side there are small random and sparse bush/saplings (where igor was found) that eventually turn into a full blown large tree line. Set back into the treeline a little ways and 300m from Igor is the cedar.  If you go 75 yards farther past the cedar and slightly to the left, you drop down into the ravine that also carries melting run-off from melting snow. 

Basically if you walk down the slope away from the tent, you hit the valley floor which is a washout area, then small saplings start, then they turn into a real forest at the cedar. If you continue in the same straight line past the cedar in 50m you come to a ravine that runs from your right to left and at an angle... Like your 4 o'clock position to your 10 o'clock position.  If you follow the ravine downstream (10 o'clock direction) another 25m....  Your at the den. 

I'm not following the objections y'all have. 

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.

A huge coincidence to place it in the ravine in the middle of the night? I didn't assume they were necessarily aiming for the ravine--though, if one is looking for protection, it makes sense to go downhill.  As it turned out, the ravine didn't offer them the protection they needed, so it wasn't exactly a brilliant move on their part.  Also, of course, a lot of the snow that the rescuers dug through fell after the fatal night, obscuring it even further than it would been have for the Dyatlov group.

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.

"Immaculate seats"???  What do you mean?

And what sort of cover-up?  By the government?  By the search crews? I'm confused.

At this point, I'm convinced there was no organized governmental cover-up.  First, my understanding is that the Soviet Government of the time generally only tried to cover up things that would make them look incompetent; not things that would make them look cruel or threatening.  Second, that's a pretty shabby attempt at a cover-up; I'm absolutely certain the Soviet Government could have done better. 

There's a distinct feel of uncertainty about the whole thing, though.  Authorities seemed confused and edgy, unclear which information to suppress and which to allow.  If they were determined to cover it up completely, they would have.  They would have gotten in there before the amateur rescue crews arrived, wiped it clean, and invented a plausible story for the whole thing.  At the very least, they would have prepared a reasonable explanation for the deaths and then stuck to it.  But I can definitely see middle management getting scared that they might accidentally leak something that was supposed to be secret, and so just calling off the investigation or hushing things up in order to protect themselves.

It amuses me to imagine a conversation, much later, among officials:
"Why did you go to so much trouble to cover it up?"
"Well, if you'd done it, wouldn't you want it covered up?"
"But no one did it--it was just some kids on drugs [or lightning, or scary noises, etc.]"
"How was I to know that?  I was just doing my job!"

Anyhow, I'm not trying to present and defend a position, here.  I'm just inviting you to explore your thoughts on the den and help me understand them.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

There was an error while thanking
Go to full version