Dear Ziljoe,The official"unknown compelling force" is not a conclusion..... Just a statement that they don't know.
Not a conclusion, a statement that they can't reach a conclusion, that they can't make a statement about the case, I understand. But therefore, can we understand that they knew the truth as "Those who know don’t talk" and that, when others later said "slab slip exacerbated by catabatic wind", these ones didn't know the truth as "Those who talk don’t know" ? Or is it incorrect ?
And would you say that "Those who know don’t talk." is a conspiracist statement ? Or not ?
Reply #8
..........................
it makes no sense to leave corpses to be discovered. Discovery leads to cause of death investigation, which leads to ruling foul play in or out. Why risk that if you are a murderer?
................................
I believe this to be true because there were autopsies, and no determination of foul play was had.
Autopsies and testimonies are full of blood, wounds, cuts, bruises, fractures, burns, they are full of violence of many kinds.They offended no one as evidenced by journal entries.
Punishing grown adults enjoying their holidays for "being late" is not an offense ? Excluding a girl who was just too tired and probably had her period is not an offense ? Making stupid jokes about sex in presence of girls and being rude is not an offense ? Pushing comrades to limits during never ending arguments is not offense ? Being privileged tourists from the big city and pretending to be a beggar is not an offense ? The policeman at Serov was outraged and he was right, that stupid game was dirty and humiliating for the locals. Tourists from the upper class playing beggars in a small town ? In any country, they would be happy not to be beaten...
You just didn't read the diaries.I think enough snow could have covered the tent to make staying inside a suffocation hazard.
Bright idea !
They offended no one as evidenced by journal entries.
When upper-class tourist Dubinina told sub-proletarian Vanya that she "liked him", then that it was just for "joking"... what was it ? Not an offense ? It was even worse: a double-bind, a contradictory statement, the kind of one Gregory Bateson (Palo Alto School of Psychology) discovered that when they happened inside the family circle, they were so violent they could cause schizophrenia... And "they offended no one as evidenced by journal entries" ? Please...
Dear Ziljoe,by
Last night the boys made stupid jokes. In my opinion, if we don't pay attention to them, maybe they will be less rude. (Kolmogorova's diary, Jan. 28)
About what kind of stupid jokes made by rude men in heir twenties could she complain ? Jokes about the regime, about Khrouchtchev and the quinquennial plan ? It is however elementary my dear Ziljoe...
"If we don't pay attention to them, maybe they will be less rude"... what could be the issue ? What could be the basis of their disagreement? Hum... Hegelian foundations of Marxism? Struggle of classes? Heterodoxy of Trotskyism?
PS: I begin to think that you asked for correction: are you in this kind of fetish ?
They offended no one as evidenced by journal entries.
When upper-class tourist Dubinina told sub-proletarian Vanya that she "liked him", then that it was just for "joking"... what was it ? Not an offense ? It was even worse: a double-bind, a contradictory statement, the kind of one Gregory Bateson (Palo Alto School of Psychology) discovered that when they happened inside the family circle, they were so violent they could cause schizophrenia... And "they offended no one as evidenced by journal entries" ? Please...
I see Gregory Bateson (Palo Alto School of Psychology) got married and divorced three times. Probably his partners failings or the poor choice in partner given his credentials?
One of my favorite film directors, David Lean, had a few women in his life, and his artistic production is at the highest level in the understanding of man-woman relationship, and at he highest level in the absolute. The private lives of Archimedes, Newton or Einstein had no impact on their intellectual fertility. We know that Socrates had to bear the pain of his wife, and that in the contrary Robert Shumman was inspired and supported by Clara. We also know that St Augustine was in a deep sorrow when his teenage son died. But in the end, intellectual breakthrough is the product of spirit, whatever the circumstances. Your attack against Bateson is at the lowest level, very vulgar. I am very disappointed.
Ziljoe,
so we don't have any common ground, and it is not up to me to give you the education your parents didn't give (and to be honest, I have no inclination into volunteering)...
Ciao ciao Ziljoe!
Ziljoe,
so we don't have any common ground, and it is not up to me to give you the education your parents didn't give (and to be honest, I have no inclination into volunteering)...
Ciao ciao Ziljoe!
Thanks for posting your thoughts in a constructive and businesslike manner. It makes the forum a great place to reason and discuss.
But to return to the main point, if the hikers were deliberately killed, directly or indirectly, it makes no sense to leave corpses to be discovered. Discovery leads to cause of death investigation, which leads to ruling foul play in or out. Why risk that if you are a murderer? We are reminded that bodies were easily found initially. Far better to hide the bodies or feed them to the beasts than to give the authorities evidence to be used against you when you get caught.Too, as I suggested, if the killings were ritualistic, then the remains are going to be posed to send a message. I think conspiracy theorists try too hard to force an exotic explanation.
The hikers were exhausted from breaking new trail, going uphill in snow and across Dyatlov Pass. They sheltered at elevation 880 so as not to lose ground. Their cold camp was pitched where a slab slip could happen if conditions were right. They were. The hikers misjudged the distance to the forest to wait out the weather and the night.,Everything else that transpired was an effort to survive.
It is hard to support an open season on college kids arguement unless the motivation for a mass murder is abundantly clear.
It is hard to support an open season on college kids arguement unless the motivation for a mass murder is abundantly clear.
In the Dyatlov case, accidents, strife among the students, hypothermia, UFOs, animals, poisoning, madness, avalanche and snow slabs can all be excluded. The injuries are only consistent with murder by other humans.
Since that is clear, it is totally irrelevant to ask for a motive since we can only establish the cause of death and not what the killers' motivation was.
When people are found dead, the first thing is to establish the cause of death.
The injuries are only consistent with murder by other humans.
Yes,
The injuries are only consistent with murder by other humans.
Yes,
No ,
The injuries are only consistent with murder by other humans.
Yes,
No ,
Yes, they are. They are completely consistent with human attack with lethal intent.
The injuries are only consistent with murder by other humans.
Yes, and these injuries even had Russian nicknames: fracture the ribs, they named it "to crack the plywood".Since that is clear, it is totally irrelevant to ask for a motive since we can only establish the cause of death and not what the killers' motivation was.
When people are found dead, the first thing is to establish the cause of death.
Yes but the investigators were not very keen on solving the case: they preferred to conclude to "unknown compelling force" rather than to x-ray the bodies.
When the case was re-opened they did x-rays of Zolotaryov and found new fractures. If they did their job seriously, they would have done x-rays of all hikers. But I think finding new fractures on Zolotaryov was an extra reason not to x-ray the other hikers...
That is to say, the motive to hide the cause of death in 1959 is still standing today: the contemporary Russian authorities inherited the motive to hide the truth. And there is a clue here, because there are not so many such motives that could be transmitted from generation to generation.
The had an eminent Moscow forensic expert with them too....
Yes and previously they had Criminal Prosecutor L.N. Ivanov who said that alien spaceships killed the hikers but don't worry they are peaceful in nature most of the time and one day they will reveal themselves to our civilization...
https://dyatlovpass.com/lev-ivanov
The attackers were not relying only on instant freeze, I guess... travelling tens of kilometers through the frozen taiga, if they were so professional as you say. If 1 hour was needed to freeze the hikers to death, or 3 hours, or 6, it would not make any difference for the attackers.
The obvious conclusion is that they the DP9 were not driven to death by other humans. That scenario presupposes a whole lot of speculative "what if`s" that are not established fact, but rather additional layers of creative spins and embellishments. Occam's Razor has been mentioned numerous times on the forum and it has merit. To wit, the explanation of their demise with the fewest assumptions is that they were affected by a weather related event which caused them to seek temporary shelter elsewhere. Everything else that has been observed and documented is a consequence of their failed attempts at survival. To circle back to this reply, we know the corpses were not hidden, but should have been, given the wilderness location.. There is nothing in the official record indicative of symbolic action public or private. Nothing points to human intervention of the malicious kind that is unequivocal. Rather, everything could and could more easily be explained by natural causes. Conspiracies make for good theater and titillating reading. A tragedy from natural causes, not so much. If a DPI investigator insists on a conspiracy, I say, " Follow the money!" Either the perpetrators or the writers about the perpetration are or were paid. That in my opinion about where the proverbial smoking gun is. Follow the money!
Scepticism is healthy, cynicism is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxropSO0xl4
Reply #58
I am at a complete loss to understand why some still resist the obvious conclusion that the Dyatlov group was murdered, and murdered by professional killers who took great care to make the whole mission look like an "accident."
Murder is a conclusion, but not an obvious one. The professional killers knew where the DP9 were going, how? Did they get a copy of the itinerary? Did they pick someone's brain? Nobody seems to recall being asked where the hikers were in any of the transcripts. Were these pros helicoptered in? That is not too subtle. And, why on earth would these pros want to kill 9 valuable Soviet patriots?
The operant word in this is line of inquiry is " professional" , not volunteer, not random, not by mistake. No, " professional" is the word. Professionals get paid. Follow the money! Who benefits financially by killing nine people? Unfortunately, conspiracy theorists can not follow the money, which rules out professional killers.
One last thing. Professional killers do not need a reason to kill. Their employer does. Another line of inquiry is to find someone with sufficient hatred for the DP9 and the money to pay for dispatching them, and your case will receive high praise from the forum.
(Coming from Per Inge Oestmoen :)The word professional is imprecise. The 3 killers were big, brutish guys, warmly dressed and very well trained to kill with only big sticks.
..........murdered by professional killers..................
(Coming from Per Inge Oestmoen :).......?? !! No. The DPI does not look like an accident at all, but rather like an attack to impress the Kremlin.
.......... who took great care to make the whole mission look like an "accident..."
............ The .....killers knew where the DP9 were going, how?...............•• The hikers had (naively) talked (too much) to Vizhay and to settlement 41.
................ Were these pros helicoptered in? ..........No helicopters were used until the search began around 20 February.
............ why these...... want to kill 9 valuable Soviet patriots? ..........These 9 "valuable Soviet patriots" were propagandists of Khrushchev's de-Stalinisation policy.
...............conspiracy theorists can not follow the money, ..........•• " Follow the money" is not completely wrong, but it is insufficient, because it does not account for the power struggles between conservative Stalinists (Stalin, Brezhnev...) and reformist Soviets (Khrushchev, Gorbachev).
............ killers do not need a reason to kill. Their employer does. Another line of inquiry is to find someone with sufficient hatred for the DP9 and the money to pay for dispatching them..........•• It often happens that the big boss (employer, sponsor, commander, client...) first expresses a somewhat vague wish and then his subordinates take care of the actual implementation.
In the canon of DPI conspiracy theories, the prevailing notions are that they were actually in the forest, not on 1079, or they were driven from their shelter on 1079 to the forest. There, they died in order to (1) cover up a mistake (2) stop covert spying operations (3) atone for violating sacred territory (4) killed by escaped convicts (5) assassinated by the military for any number of reasons. I dismiss them all. Why?
You don't leave corpses around! If you are going to the trouble of relocating a tent, as some argue, you will bury the corpses and their tell tale injuries. If you want to make a statement, you display and pose the corpses to send a message. If you kill them for what they saw, did or what they have, you bury the corpses and steal their stuff. If you are an incensed hunter/shamen, you chop the bodies up and feed the bears somewhere else. Since the hikers were far from their goal of going around Otorten, a search party could spend years searching the route if there were no bodies immediately to be found.
The locations and the nature of the remains is a clear indication that there was no outside influence, nor internal strife that produced this result. It may be unsatisfying for families looking for compensation, but it won't happen. It certainly would displease a conspiracy theorist who reasons from a logical, but false premise. The prevailing explanation of hikers being caught out in dangerous weather conditions after suffering a collapse of their temporary shelter and underestimating the distance to a secondary shelter is the correct explanation of the tragedy.
There is then the issue of items not belonging to the hikers found around the scene of their demise, and certainly bodies being turned after death conclusively proves that a third party had been there,Not necessarily. I can see a scenario where snow that the body was on simply melts or shifts or is blown away partially, causing the body to shift. This happened on a slope and there is a strongly preferred wind direction so will naturally be an asymmetric process. I have always thought about the cedar area as mostly level and protected from the wind, but even that is shown to be incorrect by Oleg and Olga's videos: https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1410.0