March 28, 2024, 11:23:31 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: The fault with conspiracy theories  (Read 11139 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

August 23, 2022, 10:59:10 AM
Read 11139 times
Offline

GlennM


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.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2022, 03:13:12 PM by GlennM »
 
The following users thanked this post: Dimitris68, Manti, Ziljoe

August 23, 2022, 02:28:00 PM
Reply #1
Offline

Ziljoe


One of the best summaries of this case good-posting good-posting good-posting
 
The following users thanked this post: GlennM, Dimitris68

August 25, 2022, 12:57:58 PM
Reply #2

Charles

Guest
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 08:35:32 PM by Charles »
 

August 25, 2022, 04:52:57 PM
Reply #3
Offline

GlennM


 I refer to the most recent finding from Russian authorities. This finding is a slab slip exacerbated by catabatic wind. 
 

August 25, 2022, 06:58:51 PM
Reply #4
Offline

Ziljoe


The official"unknown compelling force"  is not a conclusion..... Just a statement that they don't know. 

Unknown- meaning-synonym- unknown (vs. known), chartless, uncharted, unmapped, little-known, unbeknown(predicate), unbeknownst(predicate), undiagnosed, undiscovered, unexplored, unheard-of, unidentified, inglorious, unacknowledged, unfamiliar.

Compelling=

interesting

gripping

riveting

fascinating

intriguing


Force=Some common synonyms of force are coerce, compel, constrain, and oblige. While all these words mean "to make someone or something yield," force is the general term and implies the overcoming of resistance by the exertion of strength, power, or duress. forced to flee for their lives.

In other words, it is ukown why they left the the tent.its interesting and confused why they did? Something of force must be responsible.

That's my interpretation of it all. It's just vanilla/ magnolia. They don't know. It could be a snow slide, yeti, bad people, aliens , Wolverine , outsiders . They do not state a conspiracy.

It was cold, it was remote.

 

August 26, 2022, 07:38:15 AM
Reply #5

Charles

Guest
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 08:35:46 PM by Charles »
 

August 26, 2022, 09:37:55 AM
Reply #6

Charles

Guest
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 08:36:00 PM by Charles »
 

August 26, 2022, 05:11:50 PM
Reply #7
Offline

Ziljoe


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 ?

I'm a bit confused Charles. My interpretation is they, or the powers that be , who investigated, just don't know. Hence the statement" unknown overwhelming force"
 

August 26, 2022, 09:57:24 PM
Reply #8
Offline

GlennM


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.
 

August 27, 2022, 01:35:41 AM
Reply #9

Charles

Guest
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 08:36:11 PM by Charles »
 

August 27, 2022, 02:02:11 PM
Reply #10
Offline

Jean Daniel Reuss



              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?
................................


This sentence betrays a total lack of knowledge or understanding of the general mechanisms of terrorism to which the DPI massacre is quite directly linked.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Generally speaking, terrorist movements in a country want to show their power and their desire to destabilise the government in place, by carrying out spectacular actions that should be made known to the widest possible audience (such as more or less targeted murders or assassinations).

The country's governmental authorities seek instead to minimise the importance of their opponents through censorship, withholding of information, disinformation, etc. and a multitude of processes that are of great interest to the country's internal security agents.

The official versions will therefore always prefer the versions of the type: " Move along, there is nothing to see"  or : "It is a natural accident, no or a precise (but unconvincing) human intervention in it".


°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

In my TOK theory, which I think is sufficiently complete and coherent to merit, I hope, being called conspiratorial, this kind of questioning simply does not exist:

The criminals (sponsors + 3 hired killers) wanted, on the contrary, to show to the eyes of all, at least as widely as possible, the terrible fate that risks striking those who dare to taunt or neglect the authority of the sponsors who are socially powerful.

The criminals naively thought that :
 • 3 visible corpses spread on a bare slope,
 • two corpses arranged at the foot of the great cedar,
 • plus 4 corpses carefully piled up in the ravine,
 could leave no doubt about the reality of a human action (i.e. a surprise attack by a troika of more or less sadistic killers operating without a firearm).

But as Joseph Goebbels, who knew a lot about disinformation, advised in his time: "Don't hesitate: the more implausible the lie, the easier it will be to accept."

In this spirit, the Khrushchev government, which wanted to protect the KGB (on which it relied) from the shame and ridicule of having been incompetent and ineffective by proving incapable of protecting the 9 hikers (who represented, at least for this government, the elite of the Soviet youth), reacted quickly and simply as follows:

After the discovery of the last four bodies on 5 May, the Kremlin ordered Lev Ivanov to close the case quickly.
This is what Lev Ivanov did on 28 May with the well-known formula here:

It is concluded that the cause of their demise was overwhelming force, which the hikers were not able to overcome.

This is quite clever because this expression means nothing, while not being false in the strict sense.

Jean Daniel Reuss

Rational guidance =

• There is nothing supernatural and mysterious about the injuries suffered by the Dyatlov group. They are all consistent with an attack by a group of professional killers who wanted to take the lives of the nine  [Per Inge Oestmoen].

• Now let us search for answers to: WHO ? WHY ? HOW ?

• The scenario must be consistent with the historical, political and psychological  contexts.

• The solution takes in consideration all known findings.
 

August 27, 2022, 05:36:43 PM
Reply #11
Offline

Manti


I always interpreted "unknown compelling force" as a description of what made them leave the tent in a haste and "compelled" them to the forest.

It can be internal (perceived) as well as external (real), and it can be natural or exerted by (wo)men.




 

August 27, 2022, 07:18:09 PM
Reply #12
Offline

GlennM


I enjoy the thoughtful comments, I'd prefer it without the vinegar.
 

August 28, 2022, 04:37:19 AM
Reply #13

Charles

Guest
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 08:36:26 PM by Charles »
 

August 28, 2022, 07:37:03 AM
Reply #14
Offline

WarpedWing


The frustrating part of the DPI is that the official explanations also hinge on inexplicable leaps of faith, which makes them no more plausible than many conspiracy theories.

A slab avalanche… ok, fine. I want to believe it. It’s a clear-cut, simple explanation. But the tent and poles are still on the slope, not strewn down the slope. Nothing inside the tent was crushed. There was some snow on the tent, but I have a hunch that the hikers weren’t too scared of snow at this point.

Then the hikers could get out but not retrieve proper clothing… Then they fled from an avalanche or possible avalanche by going directly downhill. They were terrified and in a hurry, but walked… They walked and walked and never once looked back up and thought, “maybe we overreacted. Let’s go back and get our clothing, at least.” Somehow, the mere threat of an avalanche was more onerous to the hikers than the actual concern of freezing to death.

Several members were seriously injured in the slab avalanche but somehow hiked a mile in deep snow. Or they weren’t injured but were scared enough to leave everything behind. Not even a backpack was grabbed.

Four hikers apparently all fell into a ravine and died like lemmings, one after the other, or somehow, all together. And the rest of these experienced hikers just laid down and died although had they all focused on keeping a good fire going, might have lasted the night.

Maybe it’s true that there are rare incidents in this world that are just so unlucky that we struggle to come to terms with so many bad events happing at once, even if true. I would say that it’s vanishingly rare, though, for such a dose of unluckiness to be distributed equally to nine people for no readily apparent reason. It’s senseless.

And I think that’s why we all struggle with this case. No theory, valid or not, official or not, makes total sense, either factually or emotionally. And if there is any real “secret” to this case, that info has probably already gone to the grave.
 
The following users thanked this post: marieuk, Dimitris68, amashilu

August 28, 2022, 03:42:58 PM
Reply #15
Offline

Игорь Б.


Представьте, что в палатку пробрался скунс и с испугу выстрелил весь запас вонючей жидкости. Ваши действия?
An example of the impact of chemical weapons of a skunk (wolverine) in a tent:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=117054
 

August 28, 2022, 03:56:22 PM
Reply #16

Charles

Guest
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 08:36:37 PM by Charles »
 

August 28, 2022, 04:16:43 PM
Reply #17

Charles

Guest
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 08:36:57 PM by Charles »
 

August 28, 2022, 04:36:00 PM
Reply #18
Offline

GlennM


Warped Wing, I like what you said. The condition of the tent, the tracks in the snow, the fire at the cedar and all else deepen the mystery. My contention is that the tourists were not attacked by man, nor beast. I believe this to be true because there were autopsies, and no determination of foul play was had. There were enough people involved in the entirety of the incident to convince me that criminal activity would be discovered. It did not happen. It was the dead of winter, they were in the middle of nowhere. They offended no one as evidenced by journal entries. And, as I've said before, you don't leave corpses around.

I think enough snow could have covered the tent to make staying inside a suffocation hazard. No footprints leaving the tent suggest foot dragging. If this happened in blowing snow at night, the distance to the woods could be misjudged. I can't figure out for the life of me why they would leave the tent without bundling up first, but they did. I do feel certain that they did not do it at the point of a gun.

Thanks for posting your thoughts in a constructive and businesslike manner. It makes the forum a great place to reason and discuss.
 
The following users thanked this post: Dimitris68, WarpedWing

August 28, 2022, 04:51:00 PM
Reply #19

Charles

Guest
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 08:37:08 PM by Charles »
 

August 28, 2022, 05:00:10 PM
Reply #20

Charles

Guest
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 08:37:25 PM by Charles »
 

August 28, 2022, 06:25:04 PM
Reply #21
Offline

Ziljoe


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 !

Charles

Superficial injuries are reported. Those with fractures are found under several feet of snow.

Where's the reference to sex jokes? And the rest of your statement.

"
 

August 28, 2022, 06:30:38 PM
Reply #22
Offline

Ziljoe


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?
 

August 28, 2022, 06:49:27 PM
Reply #23

Charles

Guest
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 08:37:37 PM by Charles »
 

August 28, 2022, 06:53:02 PM
Reply #24
Offline

Ziljoe


Dear Ziljoe,

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 ?
by

Hang on in there Charles, I'm going to have to Google some of your highbrow phrase's , words etc.
 

August 28, 2022, 06:56:12 PM
Reply #25
Offline

Ziljoe


Hi Charles,

Having had Google , I am at a loss. What is the fetish you refer to?
 

August 28, 2022, 06:59:47 PM
Reply #26

Charles

Guest
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 08:37:49 PM by Charles »
 

August 28, 2022, 07:32:12 PM
Reply #27
Offline

Ziljoe


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.


David lean is a stero type on top of a stereo type..

I suggest you read,Thinking, Fast and Slow
Book by Daniel Kahneman . It should float your boat.

I have no attack against baetson but if he's that psychological he should know his partner before he enters it or or be able to save the relationship. Seems he's got got problems in my opinion? Yet you champion him...

 

August 28, 2022, 07:42:10 PM
Reply #28

Charles

Guest
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 09:57:34 PM by Charles »
 

August 28, 2022, 07:59:50 PM
Reply #29
Offline

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!

Common ground is where we should be. Not bigoted. Why blame my parents ?