On the night the DG group died was there one single event that ended all their lives? Was there three separate events starting at the tent, another at the cedar tree, and yet another at the ravine? Are the three hikers dead on the slope a different event also? I believe one event set in motion a chain of semi events leading to their deaths. Three separate events seems impractical. My opinion is everything is connected therefore one event, in one way or the other, was the downfall of all the group. Something set off a chain reaction that they could not stop or perhaps were unable to stop, and I believe, my opinion only, that it started early in the hike, without their knowledge, and finally caught up with them.
Let's see if we can discuss this without involving a yeti or a UFO.
I also believe the order of their deaths and the placement of the bodies will tell us a great deal about what EXACTLY happened that night......or day.
On the night the DG group died was there one single event that ended all their lives? Was there three separate events starting at the tent, another at the cedar tree, and yet another at the ravine? Are the three hikers dead on the slope a different event also? I believe one event set in motion a chain of semi events leading to their deaths. Three separate events seems impractical. My opinion is everything is connected therefore one event, in one way or the other, was the downfall of all the group. Something set off a chain reaction that they could not stop or perhaps were unable to stop, and I believe, my opinion only, that it started early in the hike, without their knowledge, and finally caught up with them.
it's the 'Incident Pit' theory at work. A decision in a situation at certain times leads to action, then another decision..and action...and consequences to those decisions...
On the night the DG group died was there one single event that ended all their lives?
I'd agree with eurocentric that Semyon's camera is an interesting feature of the case and if (as everyone believes?) the Eagle photo is genuinely of a light in the sky then it points at the answer. But natural or man made? Ivanov saw all the evidence first hand and Okishev described him as thorough and meticulous and we all know what Ivanov thought.... But then we're back to ufos which no one wants to talk about because that's silly.
Absolutely! kewl1I'd agree with eurocentric that Semyon's camera is an interesting feature of the case and if (as everyone believes?) the Eagle photo is genuinely of a light in the sky then it points at the answer. But natural or man made? Ivanov saw all the evidence first hand and Okishev described him as thorough and meticulous and we all know what Ivanov thought.... But then we're back to ufos which no one wants to talk about because that's silly.
Well Iam always happy to talk about UFO's Nigel. Its those 3 letters that put people off, but whats the alternative, because the letters clearly stand for Unidentified Flying Object, yet straight away its got to be Aliens in a Flying Saucer. Well maybe it is. But it may be something else as well and thats a good reason why people should take more notice. Thats what Investigation is all about. Fire away.
and I believe, my opinion only, that it started early in the hike, without their knowledge, and finally caught up with them.
What I find very interesting is that the bodies appear to be grouped by injury. I believe that the two under the cedar were murdered by having their neck snapped, then the 4 bodies in the ravine had violent injuries and the 3 on the way up to the tent? seemed to have died from exposure. I personally think they were put there after death and didn't die in those places.
yes, but I've been kicked off a forum for suggesting that. Because some idiots got their panties in a bunch for daring to discuss male anatomy, even though it perfectly fine to discuss if the women were sexually active.Well, this forum has no rules (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=2.0) against mere discussion of human genitalia, as long as such discussion remains civil and respectful. And I certainly have no objection to such a topic.
yes, but I've been kicked off a forum for suggesting that. Because some idiots got their panties in a bunch for daring to discuss male anatomy, even though it perfectly fine to discuss if the women were sexually active.
https://dyatlovpass.com/death?flp=1#Krivonischenko
click on the post mortem photos and check it out. I was looking at them and comparing them to the autopsy reports when I noticed. As to why it was a problem? Pathetic people enjoy being pathetic
https://dyatlovpass.com/death?flp=1#Krivonischenko
click on the post mortem photos and check it out. I was looking at them and comparing them to the autopsy reports when I noticed. As to why it was a problem? Pathetic people enjoy being pathetic
I definitely see bulk but I'm not certain that I see erection. Now, I also don't see petechiae in either his open eye or the skin around his eyes. It is not mentioned in the autopsy report. There are no abrasions on his neck and the autopsy states that, "The bones of the base of the skull are intact." So, how else could we support this theory? It doesn't look like a rope hanging, but that not does rule out asphyxiation necessarily, although you would most likely see petechiae. The autopsy report doesn't find broken bones in the neck, so I'd think it would have to involve asphyxiation if we follow this route.
How do you see his death? Smothering, hanging, etc? Smothering could be possible. It leaves less traces than a broken neck. More covert and if the killers wanted to make it look less suspicious, that would be less obvious. (I'm typing as I think through the possibilities so if it seems to be a weird jump from one sentence to another its me, lol!)
https://dyatlovpass.com/death?flp=1#Krivonischenko
click on the post mortem photos and check it out. I was looking at them and comparing them to the autopsy reports when I noticed. As to why it was a problem? Pathetic people enjoy being pathetic
I definitely see bulk but I'm not certain that I see erection. Now, I also don't see petechiae in either his open eye or the skin around his eyes. It is not mentioned in the autopsy report. There are no abrasions on his neck and the autopsy states that, "The bones of the base of the skull are intact." So, how else could we support this theory? It doesn't look like a rope hanging, but that not does rule out asphyxiation necessarily, although you would most likely see petechiae. The autopsy report doesn't find broken bones in the neck, so I'd think it would have to involve asphyxiation if we follow this route.
How do you see his death? Smothering, hanging, etc? Smothering could be possible. It leaves less traces than a broken neck. More covert and if the killers wanted to make it look less suspicious, that would be less obvious. (I'm typing as I think through the possibilities so if it seems to be a weird jump from one sentence to another its me, lol!)
I think he was in a fight and his necked was broken. Other than that, no idea
I definitely see bulk but I'm not certain that I see erection. Now, I also don't see petechiae in either his open eye or the skin around his eyes. It is not mentioned in the autopsy report. There are no abrasions on his neck and the autopsy states that, "The bones of the base of the skull are intact." So, how else could we support this theory? It doesn't look like a rope hanging, but that not does rule out asphyxiation necessarily, although you would most likely see petechiae.I think I'm with Ren on this one. I do not think Krivonischenko died via anything having to do with his neck. Likewise, while I can see the presence beneath clothes of an adult male's penis and testicles, I do not see that his penis is erect.
No there isn't anything in the reports about it. But that leaves the question how accurate anything is. I haven't read anything that indicates to me that the autopsy wasn't covered up like the rest of itI've posted my take on potential fabrication of the case files (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=652.msg11774#msg11774) before. My position is that we need to accept the case files as valid until we have sufficient evidence to the contrary. If we can just dismiss any available evidence as "covered up" out of hand, we'd have no ground truth from which to start making sense of the Incident.
https://dyatlovpass.com/death?flp=1#Krivonischenko
click on the post mortem photos and check it out. I was looking at them and comparing them to the autopsy reports when I noticed. As to why it was a problem? Pathetic people enjoy being pathetic
I definitely see bulk but I'm not certain that I see erection. Now, I also don't see petechiae in either his open eye or the skin around his eyes. It is not mentioned in the autopsy report. There are no abrasions on his neck and the autopsy states that, "The bones of the base of the skull are intact." So, how else could we support this theory? It doesn't look like a rope hanging, but that not does rule out asphyxiation necessarily, although you would most likely see petechiae. The autopsy report doesn't find broken bones in the neck, so I'd think it would have to involve asphyxiation if we follow this route.
How do you see his death? Smothering, hanging, etc? Smothering could be possible. It leaves less traces than a broken neck. More covert and if the killers wanted to make it look less suspicious, that would be less obvious. (I'm typing as I think through the possibilities so if it seems to be a weird jump from one sentence to another its me, lol!)
I think he was in a fight and his necked was broken. Other than that, no idea
Other than erection, do you see anything in the post mortem photos that could indicate a broken neck (an area that looks swollen, bruised, or out of place?) I know the photos are not the easiest for distinguishing details, unfortunately. Same question for Doroshenko; you mentioned previously that the injuries were in groups. Do you see anything on his photos suspicious?
I know the ethics and red tape for exhumations are deep but this would be a time where an exhumation could very much help rule in/out. If the skeleton showed broken bones in the neck or hyoid bone, that would help add plausibility. There is SO much we could learn from exhumations!
I definitely see bulk but I'm not certain that I see erection. Now, I also don't see petechiae in either his open eye or the skin around his eyes. It is not mentioned in the autopsy report. There are no abrasions on his neck and the autopsy states that, "The bones of the base of the skull are intact." So, how else could we support this theory? It doesn't look like a rope hanging, but that not does rule out asphyxiation necessarily, although you would most likely see petechiae.I think I'm with Ren on this one. I do not think Krivonischenko died via anything having to do with his neck. Likewise, while I can see the presence beneath clothes of an adult male's penis and testicles, I do not see that his penis is erect.
At any rate, per Wikipedia as I posted upthread (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection), postmortem priapism is not exclusive to death by hanging, although it is particularly associated with that cause of death. Also, let's not forget that Krivonischenko is presumed to have died under hypothermic conditions. When the human body is cold, it constricts blood flow to its extremities to keep its core warm. For males, it likewise also retracts the penis and testicles. I can only guess at how the forces causing postmortem priapism and the biological response to hypothermia might interact dunno1...No there isn't anything in the reports about it. But that leaves the question how accurate anything is. I haven't read anything that indicates to me that the autopsy wasn't covered up like the rest of itI've posted my take on potential fabrication of the case files (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=652.msg11774#msg11774) before. My position is that we need to accept the case files as valid until we have sufficient evidence to the contrary. If we can just dismiss any available evidence as "covered up" out of hand, we'd have no ground truth from which to start making sense of the Incident.
I definitely see bulk but I'm not certain that I see erection. Now, I also don't see petechiae in either his open eye or the skin around his eyes. It is not mentioned in the autopsy report. There are no abrasions on his neck and the autopsy states that, "The bones of the base of the skull are intact." So, how else could we support this theory? It doesn't look like a rope hanging, but that not does rule out asphyxiation necessarily, although you would most likely see petechiae.I think I'm with Ren on this one. I do not think Krivonischenko died via anything having to do with his neck. Likewise, while I can see the presence beneath clothes of an adult male's penis and testicles, I do not see that his penis is erect.
At any rate, per Wikipedia as I posted upthread (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection), postmortem priapism is not exclusive to death by hanging, although it is particularly associated with that cause of death. Also, let's not forget that Krivonischenko is presumed to have died under hypothermic conditions. When the human body is cold, it constricts blood flow to its extremities to keep its core warm. For males, it likewise also retracts the penis and testicles. I can only guess at how the forces causing postmortem priapism and the biological response to hypothermia might interact dunno1...No there isn't anything in the reports about it. But that leaves the question how accurate anything is. I haven't read anything that indicates to me that the autopsy wasn't covered up like the rest of itI've posted my take on potential fabrication of the case files (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=652.msg11774#msg11774) before. My position is that we need to accept the case files as valid until we have sufficient evidence to the contrary. If we can just dismiss any available evidence as "covered up" out of hand, we'd have no ground truth from which to start making sense of the Incident.
The evidence to the contrary is the facts and the scene do not add up. It isn't hard to put evidence to a scene when all is on the same page. Like I posted, a scene that is a murder tried to be covered up as a botched robbery doesn't add up. the evidence doesn't fit the scene.
When nothing adds up, then either the evidence is faked, the scene is staged or both.
We can't even come up with how they could start a fire under the cedars. That isn't a hard thing to put evidence and scene together. As it stands, there was a fire, there seems to be no way they started it. therefore, if we can't prove how they did it, to assume that they did simply because there was one, is to ignore common sense
I definitely see bulk but I'm not certain that I see erection. Now, I also don't see petechiae in either his open eye or the skin around his eyes. It is not mentioned in the autopsy report. There are no abrasions on his neck and the autopsy states that, "The bones of the base of the skull are intact." So, how else could we support this theory? It doesn't look like a rope hanging, but that not does rule out asphyxiation necessarily, although you would most likely see petechiae.I think I'm with Ren on this one. I do not think Krivonischenko died via anything having to do with his neck. Likewise, while I can see the presence beneath clothes of an adult male's penis and testicles, I do not see that his penis is erect.
At any rate, per Wikipedia as I posted upthread (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection), postmortem priapism is not exclusive to death by hanging, although it is particularly associated with that cause of death. Also, let's not forget that Krivonischenko is presumed to have died under hypothermic conditions. When the human body is cold, it constricts blood flow to its extremities to keep its core warm. For males, it likewise also retracts the penis and testicles. I can only guess at how the forces causing postmortem priapism and the biological response to hypothermia might interact dunno1...No there isn't anything in the reports about it. But that leaves the question how accurate anything is. I haven't read anything that indicates to me that the autopsy wasn't covered up like the rest of itI've posted my take on potential fabrication of the case files (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=652.msg11774#msg11774) before. My position is that we need to accept the case files as valid until we have sufficient evidence to the contrary. If we can just dismiss any available evidence as "covered up" out of hand, we'd have no ground truth from which to start making sense of the Incident.
The evidence to the contrary is the facts and the scene do not add up. It isn't hard to put evidence to a scene when all is on the same page. Like I posted, a scene that is a murder tried to be covered up as a botched robbery doesn't add up. the evidence doesn't fit the scene.
When nothing adds up, then either the evidence is faked, the scene is staged or both.
We can't even come up with how they could start a fire under the cedars. That isn't a hard thing to put evidence and scene together. As it stands, there was a fire, there seems to be no way they started it. therefore, if we can't prove how they did it, to assume that they did simply because there was one, is to ignore common sense
The evidence to the contrary is the facts and the scene do not add up. It isn't hard to put evidence to a scene when all is on the same page. Like I posted, a scene that is a murder tried to be covered up as a botched robbery doesn't add up. the evidence doesn't fit the scene.It sounds like you might be receptive to the new book by this forum's Admin, Teddy Hadjiyska, and her co-author, Igor Pavlov (if you haven't read it already, that is). Teddy has said that, after she visited Dyatlov Pass in person, she could no longer accept that the Dyatlovites had really pitched their tent where the search party found it. I'm not completely sold on the book's theory, but it's my "current favorite theory".
When nothing adds up, then either the evidence is faked, the scene is staged or both.
We can't even come up with how they could start a fire under the cedars. That isn't a hard thing to put evidence and scene together. As it stands, there was a fire, there seems to be no way they started it. therefore, if we can't prove how they did it, to assume that they did simply because there was one, is to ignore common senseWell, Teddy's book is neutral with regard to whether anyone from the Dyatlov company built the fire beneath the tree, or whether someone outside the group built it. I'll point out, though, that the searchers found a lot of spent matches under the tree, so it's possible that if Dyatlovites started the fire, it took them quite a few attempts to succeed at doing so.
I am just trying to make the evidence match the scene. I have yet to see any proof that the tent was there, if someone could point me towards a photo showing the tent in the pass with the background to prove it I would love to see it. I don't really have a theory as to what happened, I am just struggling to get the evidence to fit the scene. It should add up if both are the same thing but its like trying to push a round peg into a square hole. it just isn't working with all the corners filled
I am just trying to make the evidence match the scene. I have yet to see any proof that the tent was there, if someone could point me towards a photo showing the tent in the pass with the background to prove it I would love to see it. I don't really have a theory as to what happened, I am just struggling to get the evidence to fit the scene. It should add up if both are the same thing but its like trying to push a round peg into a square hole. it just isn't working with all the corners filled
I have seen those photos and they seem pretty generic to me but thank you for posting the link.
I have seen those photos and they seem pretty generic to me but thank you for posting the link.
Yes, as grist to the mill, Igor noted in his diary words to the effect that camping in the slope, compared to the forest would be rough. However, I believe he wrote it in anticipation of doing so and ironically saving the expedition because conditions were worse than they initially anticipated. I think they did just that, camped on the slope, but were driven off by circumstance. You can not reason with snow and ice. You can not reason with a pack of wolves. It wasn't wolves, it was the snow that surely sent them downhill.