November 30, 2022, 09:39:14 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: The fault with conspiracy theories  (Read 1121 times)

1 Member and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

August 28, 2022, 08:07:29 PM
Reply #30
Online

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!

Infact, I'd appreciate your apology to my parents. You can call me for anything you want, I will take the criticism but you talk ubuot social systems and privileged people even in Soviet Russia.yet you are the judge of others?;
 

August 29, 2022, 08:06:04 AM
Reply #31
Online

GlennM


At an earlier date, I posted a comment and Teddy replied. I wondered if there were qualifications for a grade 3 certificate that required a " survival exercise" like leaving the tent and roughing it in the woods. She says, " no".  I would think that as elitists, the hikers might thumb their nose at the elements and rough it for bragging rights back home. However, because they didn't really prep for it, I don't think they left the tent out of hubris and vanity. Too, I believe that being a loyal Communist would confer a bit of additional pride and security. By this I mean that murdering a communist is going to arouse more interest than murdering a nobody, yes?

The diaries give me the impression of young people who were making an attempt to suppress some of their physical desires and substitute intellectual activity. To a modern day reader, this could be interpreted as elitism. Too, with the rise of " wokeness", the sexual banter and dominance gambits of that time are large triggers for modern investigators like us.

It may be their pride that got them into trouble, but I doubt it. I think they were following best practices when they made their last camp, but Nature prevailed. Why did they leave their tent? Because they couldn't stay in it. Why? Covered in snow, it was hard to see, move and breathe. Why leave? They couldn't stay.  Why? Too dark, too cold, too uncertain of the snow ledge. It is illogical to clear the snow crush from the tent, go back inside and risk the same thing happening again. Why not grab extra clothes before departure?  They thought the forest was closer.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2022, 07:26:29 PM by GlennM »
 

September 09, 2022, 03:46:36 PM
Reply #32
Offline

WarpedWing


Thanks for posting your thoughts in a constructive and businesslike manner. It makes the forum a great place to reason and discuss.

Likewise, GlennM. I can't honestly believe some of the more antagonistic or histrionic discourse on this forum. We all should be here, together, to explore the mystery, not peddle theories like used car salespeople. "What do I have to do to get you to exclusively consider theory X today?"
 
The following users thanked this post: GlennM, Manti

November 27, 2022, 04:07:59 PM
Reply #33
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


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.


If the killers killed out of rage or criminal intent, they would try to hide the corpses.

However, if the killers are professional, trained killers, they will arrange an "accident," so that nobody can prove what happened. Since the killers must have been special forces from the state agency, most likely the KGB, they are sophisticated enough to understand that if the nine had simply disappeared everyone would realize what had happened. Special forces who intend to create an "accident," would make sure that it looked like one. Numerous "accidents," "heart attacks" and "suicides" have been created by the KGB.

Since the nine students were loyal Soviet citizens belonging to the respectable strata in society, their relatives would raise hell if they had just disappeared without trace.

There was no avalanche and no snow slab, and the injuries are not consistent with that theory either. Still, the Russian authorities insist that this is the explanation - even if it is impossible. That is telling.

The Dyatlov killing would have been a perfectly executed mission if there had not been a sudden rise of temperature at the time of attack. When the attackers forced their nine victims out from their tent in order to let the cold to the job, it miscarried because it was a little too mild in the weather. Therefore the students had to be killed by force, and if you look closely at the injuries you will realize that it is the only rational explanation of what actually happened.
 
The following users thanked this post: Charles

November 27, 2022, 05:47:38 PM
Reply #34
Online

GlennM


It is hard to support an open season on college kids arguement unless the motivation for a mass murder is abundantly clear.
 

November 27, 2022, 06:14:24 PM
Reply #35
Offline

Charles


Hello Per Inge Oestmoen,

When the attackers forced their nine victims out from their tent in order to let the cold to the job, it miscarried because it was a little too mild in the weather. Therefore the students had to be killed by force

Yes but it was only a question of time... even with relatively "mild" temperature, the hikers were condemned and Kolmogorova for example  actually died of hypothermia.

The murderers could tie up the hikers, wait, untie them and go (perfectly arranged "natural" death). No need to cause that mess. The time scale of such an attack is counted in days, the attackers could wait hours for the cold to kill the hikers.

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.




« Last Edit: November 27, 2022, 06:26:48 PM by Charles »
 

November 27, 2022, 06:22:01 PM
Reply #36
Offline

Charles


P.S.: the fault with "official theory", is that prosecutor Ivanov who doctored the Resolution to close the case in 1959 (denying the 80 external wounds and signs of fight he witnessed himself during autopsies), publicly supported in 1990 that alien spaceships attacked the hikers.


 

November 27, 2022, 06:25:01 PM
Reply #37
Offline

Charles


@ GlennM

Prosecutor Ivanov said he knew that alien spaceships attacked the hikers, do you think Ivanov was himself an alien?
 

November 28, 2022, 02:10:31 AM
Reply #38
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


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.
 

November 28, 2022, 02:32:52 AM
Reply #39
Online

Ziljoe


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.


Hi per Inge Oestmoen,

How are the injuries only consistent with murder by other humans?

Which injuries, and how were they done?

 

November 28, 2022, 03:05:12 AM
Reply #40
Offline

Charles


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, after Zolotaryov was exhumed and they found new fractures, if they did their job seriously, they would have exhumed all hikers. But I think finding new fractures on Zolotaryov was an extra reason not exhume 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.

« Last Edit: Today at 06:17:59 PM by Charles »
 

November 28, 2022, 03:07:38 AM
Reply #41
Online

Ziljoe


 

November 28, 2022, 03:59:35 AM
Reply #42
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


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.
 

November 28, 2022, 04:19:56 AM
Reply #43
Online

Ziljoe


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.

How are they "completely" consistent with human attack? Which injuries are you referring to. The reason I ask , is that I want to understand and question because I don't think they are "only consistent "with a human attack. I can not rule out some kind of human interaction , so I am open minded.

Why do you think it can only be human attack?

 

November 28, 2022, 05:44:02 AM
Reply #44
Online

GlennM


It reduces to means, motive and opportunity. This is what is necessary in a court of law..  Of the three , the lack of motive is the strongest indicator that there was no foul play. We can speculate that the bad boys used some combination of threats, physical force and exposure to effect their violence. We can speculate that the malcontents snuck up in the snow, or hid in the woods to assault or spring a trap. Then there is the business of why some bad bodies would go out in crazy cold and take on 9 innocent people.

For me, if the murderers had the means to kill, I would think the rescue team and the medical examiner's would have made that clear. The murderes would not be so careless as to leave their victims dressed as they were and equipped with tools, camera, writing implements and an opportunity to regain the tent. Too, you don't leave corpses around to spoil your "perfect crime".

Opportunity? More like serendipity when you consider they were tucked in to a small tent a mile off the beaten track with a clear view all around.  In photos, the tent looks like a mere spot in the distance. If this happened in the woods instead, , it is deucedly clever of the killers to think that people are going to be drawn to some tree in the woods.Plus, killers gotta eat and relieve themselves too, I would think an ambush at the rocky outcrop on 1079 would be more attractive to any alleged perpetrator.

Motive? Follow the money. Who benefits from this? Who gets paid for their silence? Who else gets silenced?  Given the alleged prison rumor mill and the tongue loosening effect of strong drink, the cat should have been let out of the bag long, long ago. There is no creditable reason for nine people in the middle of nowhere in the dead of winter to be stalked and then allegedly killed in the most amateurish way imaginable.

Means, motive and opportunity.  Mother Nature has the means, needs no motive and exists as an opportunity.
 

November 29, 2022, 09:31:42 AM
Reply #45
Online

Ziljoe


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 reason for the exhumation of Zolotaryov was not to re-open case.

"The grave under the obelisk with the inscription "Semyon Zolotaryov" is not listed to belong to anybody. In other words, according to the documentation, Semyon Zolotaryov was never buried at the Ivanovskoe cemetery!"

 
"When Semyon's relatives asked us to help understand this story, we studied the documentation of all the cemeteries in Yekaterinburg, including, of course, Mihailovskoye. It turned out that Semyon Zolotaryov has never been buried in this city, and where his remains are is unknown.

So who then rests under the obelisk of Zolotaryov? And who is buried there? With all these questions on their mind, Semyon's relatives asked us to do an exhumation.

How difficult it was to get permission to open a non-existent (according to the documents) grave is a whole different story. Let's just say that it took us more than a year to achieve this.
"

The had an eminent Moscow forensic expert with them too....
 

November 29, 2022, 09:52:44 AM
Reply #46
Offline

Charles


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
 

November 29, 2022, 10:35:27 AM
Reply #47
Online

Ziljoe


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

Do you think forensic expert is lying too?
 

November 29, 2022, 10:51:02 AM
Reply #48
Offline

Charles


So you admit that Criminal Prosecutor Ivanov of Sverdlovsk was lying. But when?

When writing:

"Considering the absence of external injuries" (in the Resolution to close the case, 1959) ?

Or when writing:

"And again about the fireballs. They were and still are. It is only necessary not to hush up their appearance, but to deeply understand their nature. The vast majority of the witnesses that I met talk about the peaceful nature of their behavior, but, as you see, there are also tragic exceptions. Someone needed to frighten or punish people, or show their strength, and they did this, killing three people. I know all the details of this incident and I can say that only those who were in these balls know more about me than these circumstances." (In the newspaper "Leninskiy Put", 1990) ?
 

Today at 07:35:47 AM
Reply #49
Online

GlennM


I agree that murderers don't leave incriminating evidence ( read corpses) unless they are making some statement with the remains. This statement will either be in the form of public or private symbolism. I find absolutely nothing in this tragedy that suggests public symbolism, neither have the original investigators. There is absolutely nothing to show that the killing of the hikers was intended as a grim warning, an offering or any thing else. Additionally, the location and nature of the deceased do not indicate some sort of private symbolism, whose message makes sense to the murderers. Some imaginative members of this forum have tried to invent a private symbolism interpretation  but  it is the symbolism of the poster, not the assailants, for there were none. No, the DP9 had an odd mix of resources and deprivations at the time of their crisis. It would surely be an amateurish and sloppy assassination to have the victims fitted out as they were and then having the perpetrating agents rolling the dice to see if this sort of thing would work, in the meantime freezing themselves during the wait.

 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!
 

Today at 11:29:33 AM
Reply #50
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen



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 attackers may very well have been in a hurry.

The indigenous Mansi people were in the area, and the killing squad as well as the orchestrators above knew that. The longer they stayed, the greater the risk of being observed by the Mansi.

As it turned out, the Mansi were told in no uncertain terms what would happen should they ever tell anyone.

First; some of the Mansi were interrogated and they were informed that they were under suspicion. Needless to say, to be under suspicion under these circumstances meant mortal danger. After a while, the authorities found a seamstress and let her state that the tent was cut from inside, and the story was fabricated that the nine students had cut their way through the tent. Of course, there was no scientific examination, no statement of proof that the tent was cut from the inside. In other words; no proof, just unsubstantiated statement from a seamstress.

What exactly was the purpose behind that sequence of events?

More than likely it was this: The Soviet authorities realized that the Mansi must have seen the corpses after the fact, and of course also the tracks left by the attackers. The Mansi might not know the precise identity of the killers, but they of course understood that the attackers were no common criminals but rather professional special operations forces from a state agency. The Mansi needed to be silenced, but to exterminate whole villages would be too drastic even in the Soviet Union and such mass killing was also not necessary when the silence of  the Mansi could be ensured in a much more sophisticated way.

The authorities simply let the Mansi know that they were under suspicion, which must have instilled great fear in their communities. That was exactly the purpose. Thereafter, the same authorities made that seamstress state that the tent was cut by the students. The Mansi were freed.

However, the message to the Mansi was very clear, unspoken and brilliant in its brutal cleverness: "We let you off the hook now, but be aware that if you ever speak about what you saw we will invent any evidence necessary to make you pay dearly. We want you to stay silent." 

This is in my opinion a very probable explanation of the mysterious circumstances around the tent, why the seamstress made her unscientific statement, and also why the tent disappeared forever. 
 

Today at 11:50:33 AM
Reply #51
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


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!


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."

To hide or remove the corpses would make every Soviet citizen aware what happened. To shoot them and put them into closed coffins, the same. To use firearms or knives to accomplish the killing, the same. Thus, both the disappearance of the students and their killing by shooting would create social unrest among friends, relatives and other people who would be incensed by the brutal killing of nine loyal Soviet citizens. These students were resourceful people, with similarly resourceful connections in society. Those who decided that the students must die - almost certainly because they had observed something ordinary citizens were not allowed to know  about - understood that their murder must be performed in such a way as to make it look like an accident.

The fact that the first leader of the investigation, Ivanov, was told that he must conclude that the death of the nine was the result of unfortunate circumstances and natural forces is a clear sign that this tragedy was anything but an accident. It was an "accident," cleverly planned by the highest authorities and probably performed by the most formidable and merciless intelligence agency known to Man. In other words, this was a "wet affair," and the fact that some people still dispute the obvious telltale signs on the corpses that they were all killed by humans is testimony to the supreme skills of the murderers.

Please, look at the results of the autopsies, which, even if deliberately incomplete, tell their unmistakable tale.

Lastly; how could the authorities know about the fate of the students, and even complete preparations for a search and an "investigation" on February 6th, many days before anyone in Sverdlovsk or Ivdel had any reason to think that the students were in trouble? it was not until February 12th when friends and relatives began to worry. Then, the authorities had already prepared their show.

Think about it; there is only one possible explanation.
« Last Edit: Today at 11:55:41 AM by Per Inge Oestmoen »
 

Today at 02:42:02 PM
Reply #52
Online

GlennM


If these assassins could persuade the Mansi to be silent, then that same persuasion should have worked for the hikers. In fact, the Mansi needed no persuasion, nor were they persuaded. The idea that thugs came and intimidated them is wishful thinking. If anything, they may have stumbled on the accidental tragedy and chose to not get involved. It is doubtful, Human Nature being what it is.

All behavior is motivated. There is no legitimate motivation for a homicide of nine Soviet citizens who were highly educated and productive in the Communist regime. If there was some motivation, the families of the deceased and certainly Yuri Yuden would have sung out decades ago, calling for revenge/justice.

The simple answer to "Why?" is " Because".  A natural catastrophe is the " because" that requires the least assumptions. Conspiracies are a top heavy construct which needs shoring up, often cemented with righteous indignation and glowing tempers. For conspiracists, the " Why" is because they got paid. Any benefit is payment. Follow the money.
 
The following users thanked this post: Ziljoe

Today at 04:58:24 PM
Reply #53
Online

Ziljoe


Per Inge Oestmoen

How would breaking ribs in the wilds be making it "look like an accident". What accident were they trying to make it look like.

By the way I have not come to a conclusion. That's the difference.

 

Today at 06:16:02 PM
Reply #54
Online

GlennM


Ziljoe teaches us. Scepticism is healthy, cynicism is not. Appreciated.
 

Today at 06:25:43 PM
Reply #55
Offline

Charles


 

Today at 06:32:52 PM
Reply #56
Online

Ziljoe


Scepticism is healthy, cynicism is not.



Ha ha haaaaa, that's actually very funny Charles.... I was having a beer and it came out my nose. Fair play
 

Today at 06:43:21 PM
Reply #57
Online

Ziljoe