Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: tekumze on January 30, 2021, 11:52:42 PM
-
Well, here we are. Now what?
The first analyzes of the response are fully expected for now. For once, no reaction that would be different than expected. For now, you’re all behaving like you have a computer virtual game. In fact, something that will turn everyday boredom into a moment of fun. Like going to the movies. You hope no one spoils the end of the game for you. As elementary school students, you thank a teacher in the spectrum of a cultivated form of civilization.
In fact, it really shows how a historical moment with a time lag, by definition, turns into something abstract. And in our information age, it is changing from an analogous tragedy to a purely digital concept of understanding. And I would ask you not to respond to the book as a product, but as a set of thoughts that have been presented as a solution to a problem. Not your personal satisfaction.
Share your creative thoughts at the presentation given to you. Because only in this way will you really contribute to the mosaic of the forum. As Teddy said, this forum was created because she always wanted to get as close to the truth as possible.
-
tekumze, I promise that we will spill our guts, just give me enough time to finish and recuperate from the devastating process of digital publishing, which left me brain dead.
I want to participate in the discussion, give me till Feb 2nd, will ya?
-
Of course. I just want to encourage people to step out of the box. Above all, I can tell you that there are quite a few thinkers on this forum who are capable of giving a lot. Just to shake off all norms, taboos, prejudices, piety, parental upbringing, humility ...
-
We encourage this. Also, we are not afraid to be criticized and Igor can be very helpful disclosing the process of reaching certain conclusion.
I will give a little example - the name of dog that found Zina.
In Igor's manuscript the name was Alta. Very confidently I asked him - you mean Alma, right?
The name Alma is from Anna Matveeva's book "Dyatlov Pass" and later on Buyanov's book "Mystery of the Dyatlov group". Their source is an interview with Boris Leonidovich Suvorov from Mar 12, 1999:
"We got early in the morning. Kurikov was telling us where do we go today. The probe is a 3 meter stick with a hook at the end; push, twist, take out. We didn't get straight to the creek, but followed some pointers. For example melted things, broken branches, the dog Alma helped a lot. Passed many kilometers abreast. The expedition headed by Colonel Artyukov, and specifically led by students - Askenadzi. Artyukov decides to dig on suggestive objects."
Ed. note - I am citing the name of Colonel "Artyukov" as it is hand written by Suvorov. His name is Ortyukov.
Igor responded with the following:
Воспоминания 1999-го. Скорее всего именно от Суворова попало в книгу Матвеевой, а потом и к Буянову.
Но Суворов был на поисках после Блинова. У Блинова была Альта. Т.е или собаки сменялись, или Суворов ошибся.
Suvorov recollections are published in 1999. Most likely Matveyeva got the name from Suvorov, and same with Buyanov.
But Suvorov was on a search after Blinov. Blinov had an Alta. That is, either the dogs were replaced, or Suvorov was mistaken.
I didn't budge. I said: "in Cyrillic handwritten "t" and "m" can look alike".
In 2 min Igor produced the following scrap of paper from Blinov's diary:
(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Dyatlov-pass-Blinov-Alta.jpg)
This is how exchange goes with Igor. It is because of him I have so much information on the site. The book is the precedent that made him come out of hiding.
-
I like it.
-
a set of thoughts that have been presented as a solution to a problem. Not your personal satisfaction.
Can I disagree with this?
Thinking about the Dyatlov incident, reading, writing, and debating solutions to it, are precisely for that reason. To quench our curiosity, in other words, for our personal satisfaction.
It will not resurrect the dead and if it was a crime, the perpetrators will never get their punishment as they are most likely also dead by now.
-
Can I disagree with this?
Thinking about the Dyatlov incident, reading, writing, and debating solutions to it, are precisely for that reason. To quench our curiosity, in other words, for our personal satisfaction.
It will not resurrect the dead and if it was a crime, the perpetrators will never get their punishment as they are most likely also dead by now.
[/quote]
Of course you can. Rhetoric without anthropological ignorance.
Research actually shows that personal satisfaction is a pre-set program of consciousness that makes sure that virtually any individual can move through space and time. Without personal satisfaction, there is no continuation of the species, which for once is the only purpose of life as such.
I will put forward the generative thesis:
T (time) + S (space) + C (consciousness) = 0 (zero) vs Manti statement: our personal satisfaction satisfies curiosity. thanky1
-
Just got to the end of the book after a speed read. Phew.
First thoughts are negative, it's all somewhat garbled with masses of padding, so off the top of my head without giving the story away :-- The theory has to presumably explain Igor's last entry in the diary as an excellent fraud written by others which fools everyone?
- The date of the photos of them setting up camp in very high winds in a treeless area in deep snow have to be misunderstood although the film roll should place it exactly? Which is what Ivanov said?
- YuriK's burn included one half of one toe charred, that's charred not burnt and the other toes aren't burnt at all?
- YuriD's hair was singed and he had charred fingers?
- Zinaida gets a bleeding bruise at the waist but Semyon, Lyudmila and Nicolai get their extensive fractures without any bruising?
- Ditto Alexander had bad bruising on the knee but the above three don't?
- Ditto Rustem who gets a bruised head but the above three don't?
- If you want to hide an accidental killing they could all be dumped in the same river under the ice that Rustem ended up in? This is a really remote region and there's an extremely good chance they'd never be found?
- The strange photos are not mentioned once? Including Eagle that enjoys a consensus of expert opinion of it being genuinely of a light in the sky.
- Zinaida was found face down with the case files stating - "face in blood". In English that suggests that she bled at that location but of course there could be a translation issue here. Either way her facial injuries don't fit with this theory?
- The strange subsequent colouration of the hands and faces of Zinaida, YuriD and to some extent Lyudmila are ignored?
I'll add to the list as or if they come to me.
-
Just got to the end of the book after a speed read. Phew.
- The theory has to presumably explain Igor's last entry in the diary as an excellent fraud written by others which fools everyone?
I don't have time to read further, but there is nothing like this in the book.
-
- The date of the photos of them setting up camp in very high winds in a treeless area in deep snow have to be misunderstood although the film roll should place it exactly? Which is what Ivanov said?
Nigel, what book are you reading? The photos from which Ivanov has established the time of erecting the tent do not belong to any film. They are loose.
-
Just got to the end of the book after a speed read. Phew.
First thoughts are negative, it's all somewhat garbled with masses of padding, so off the top of my head without giving the story away :-- The theory has to presumably explain Igor's last entry in the diary as an excellent fraud written by others which fools everyone?
- The date of the photos of them setting up camp in very high winds in a treeless area in deep snow have to be misunderstood although the film roll should place it exactly? Which is what Ivanov said?
- YuriK's burn included one half of one toe charred, that's charred not burnt and the other toes aren't burnt at all?
- YuriD's hair was singed and he had charred fingers?
- Zinaida gets a bleeding bruise at the waist but Semyon, Lyudmila and Nicolai get their extensive fractures without any bruising?
- Ditto Alexander had bad bruising on the knee but the above three don't?
- Ditto Rustem who gets a bruised head but the above three don't?
- If you want to hide an accidental killing they could all be dumped in the same river under the ice that Rustem ended up in? This is a really remote region and there's an extremely good chance they'd never be found?
- The strange photos are not mentioned once? Including Eagle that enjoys a consensus of expert opinion of it being genuinely of a light in the sky.
- Zinaida was found face down with the case files stating - "face in blood". In English that suggests that she bled at that location but of course there could be a translation issue here. Either way her facial injuries don't fit with this theory?
- The strange subsequent colouration of the hands and faces of Zinaida, YuriD and to some extent Lyudmila are ignored?
I'll add to the list as or if they come to me.
This is a big waste of time. None of Nigel issues are from this book. I don't know where does he find his translation of the case files, but they are definitely fictitious. "face on blood", "bleeding" bruise, "Eagle" something... people please do not try to insert here discussion of all the legends on the case. Discuss things that are in the book, and the book is the closest you will ever get to facts.
I am not going to answer points that are not not true. Life is too short for that.
-
Just got to the end of the book after a speed read. Phew.
- The theory has to presumably explain Igor's last entry in the diary as an excellent fraud written by others which fools everyone?
I don't have time to read further, but there is nothing like this in the book.
The last entry in the group diary (which from memory the book quotes) includes Igor questioning the merit of camping on the ridge? So that entry is used by most people to explain that camping on the ridge was deliberate yes? But the book would have to offer another theory for that diary entry?
-
- The date of the photos of them setting up camp in very high winds in a treeless area in deep snow have to be misunderstood although the film roll should place it exactly? Which is what Ivanov said?
Nigel, what book are you reading? The photos from which Ivanov has established the time of erecting the tent do not belong to any film. They are loose.
No, from the case files, Ivanov states :-
In one of the cameras the last frame shows the moment of excavation of snow for the installation of the tent. Considering that this frame was shot with an exposure of I/25 seconds, with a diaphragm of 5.6 at a film sensitivity of 65 Un. GOST (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed?flp=1#GOST), and taking into account the density of the frame, we can assume that the hikers started the installation of the tent around 5 pm 1.II.59. A similar picture was taken with another camera.https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-384-387?rbid=17743
-
The last entry in the group diary (which from memory the book quotes) includes Igor questioning the merit of camping on the ridge?
Say this in other words, simpler words, I have used up my brain.
-
In one of the cameras the last frame shows the moment of excavation of snow for the installation of the tent. Considering that this frame was shot with an exposure of I/25 seconds, with a diaphragm of 5.6 at a film sensitivity of 65 Un. GOST (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed?flp=1#GOST), and taking into account the density of the frame, we can assume that the hikers started the installation of the tent around 5 pm 1.II.59. A similar picture was taken with another camera.https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-384-387?rbid=17743
And Ivanov is known to have done a very good job solving the case and understanding the circumstances of the case, especially closing the case.
https://dyatlovpass.com/ivanov-resolution
-
I apologize to the rest of the followers of this board, but I have to sign off if I am going to publish the book for tomorrow.
I need to prepare the PDF and ePub files.
-
Just got to the end of the book after a speed read. Phew.
First thoughts are negative, it's all somewhat garbled with masses of padding, so off the top of my head without giving the story away :-- The theory has to presumably explain Igor's last entry in the diary as an excellent fraud written by others which fools everyone?
- The date of the photos of them setting up camp in very high winds in a treeless area in deep snow have to be misunderstood although the film roll should place it exactly? Which is what Ivanov said?
- YuriK's burn included one half of one toe charred, that's charred not burnt and the other toes aren't burnt at all?
- YuriD's hair was singed and he had charred fingers?
- Zinaida gets a bleeding bruise at the waist but Semyon, Lyudmila and Nicolai get their extensive fractures without any bruising?
- Ditto Alexander had bad bruising on the knee but the above three don't?
- Ditto Rustem who gets a bruised head but the above three don't?
- If you want to hide an accidental killing they could all be dumped in the same river under the ice that Rustem ended up in? This is a really remote region and there's an extremely good chance they'd never be found?
- The strange photos are not mentioned once? Including Eagle that enjoys a consensus of expert opinion of it being genuinely of a light in the sky.
- Zinaida was found face down with the case files stating - "face in blood". In English that suggests that she bled at that location but of course there could be a translation issue here. Either way her facial injuries don't fit with this theory?
- The strange subsequent colouration of the hands and faces of Zinaida, YuriD and to some extent Lyudmila are ignored?
I'll add to the list as or if they come to me.
This is a big waste of time. None of Nigel issues are from this book. I don't know where does he find his translation of the case files, but they are definitely fictitious. "face on blood", "bleeding" bruise, "Eagle" something... people please do not try to insert here discussion of all the legends on the case. Discuss things that are in the book, and the book is the closest you will ever get to facts.
I am not going to answer points that are not not true. Life is too short for that.
Doesn't sound like this is going to be a constructive conversation. Just to answer some more points :-
Translating - https://sites.google.com/site/hibinaud/home/protokol-osmotra-mesta-proissestvia (https://sites.google.com/site/hibinaud/home/protokol-osmotra-mesta-proissestvia)
Gives me :-
On the head is a woolen pink hat. The body is wearing a ski jacket, underneath a T-shirt and a cowboy shirt. Ski pants are worn on the legs, leggings and underwear under them. Woolen socks on my feet. Blood on my face. There were abrasions on the back near the lower back, blood came out. It can be assumed that Kolmogorova, according to the location of the body, tried not to climb the mountain, but to keep in place. The corpse is photographed.
-
I don't really know why are you arguing - I lost track of what do you want to prove? Yes, there is blood although your translation is no good, but there is mentioning of blood.
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-3-6?rbid=17743
And what was the point for this again?
I am really leaving the forum for now.
-
It's because you blew his theory out of the water. I am sorry to say this, Teddy, but I feel as if you and Igor can expect the same from many on this forum.
-
Just got to the end of the book after a speed read.
Speed read is always a problem. You did not notice Teddy's: "The facts don’t have a mold to fill, they can only make a dot or line on the investigation wall, and how to connect the dots is up to the reader. The more dots a theory connects, the stronger it is - but people tend to put dots where they don’t exist". Yours 11 questions - that are yours 11 dots. That does not mean our dots are the same. That does not mean also we are to discuss your dots. Sorry.
-
Dear GKM, given the number of contributions of enthusiasm, I would ask you to justify at what point in the book did you find that this is closest to the potential truth of an event from more than 60 years ago? Thanks in advance.
-
I enjoyed the book, it's very detailed, calling upon the case files and presenting them in an order you don't experience when browsing links on a web site, and even if you don't agree with the cause of the hikers' demise, which I would say is possible, but no more probable then other alternatives, with only the "it's plausible" validation of a Bulgarian pathologist to evidence it, it's still worth buying for a Dyatlov obsessive.
I'm sure most people will opt for the download, which is the price of a takeaway, and if the revenue helps part finance this site, which like any other has overheads to meet and no advertising, so that one labour of love helps finance another, then nobody should feel robbed if they don't agree with the book's conclusions.
The only issue I had with the book is that it builds a conspiracy but then concludes in the final chapter that they died in a way which was nobody's fault, so that there was no real need for any cover up in the first place. This plot twist at the eleventh hour was like the ending of Lost.
-
The presence of a tall living being and a cover up ? bigjoke
-
Just got to the end of the book after a speed read.
Speed read is always a problem. You did not notice Teddy's: "The facts don’t have a mold to fill, they can only make a dot or line on the investigation wall, and how to connect the dots is up to the reader. The more dots a theory connects, the stronger it is - but people tend to put dots where they don’t exist". Yours 11 questions - that are yours 11 dots. That does not mean our dots are the same. That does not mean also we are to discuss your dots. Sorry.
Hi, well wishing you both commercial success of course after a lot of effort both with the book and this site. With the DPI there are lots of theories that explain a subset of the dots (75 or more?) but the challenge for the front runners is that they have to have an answer to all the dots. Otherwise it's not a front runner, it's just another subset theory, #76? Having said that the fallen tree is an excellent theory for the ravine injuries, from memory Starman and myself have discussed it in the past. But beyond that it has problems, Zinaida's face, strange tans, burns on YuriD's head, hands and YuriK's leg and feet!? Btw i think i've got more than 11 dots but if people don't want a discussion....
-
The only issue I had with the book is that it builds a conspiracy but then concludes in the final chapter that they died in a way which was nobody's fault, so that there was no real need for any cover up in the first place. This plot twist at the eleventh hour was like the ending of Lost.
[/quote]
An interesting explanation of Eurocentric's observation regarding the structure of the story. The story is presented in a tried and tested way, which is preferred by all documentary television programs (Discovery, various channels dealing with murders and other crimes). That is, despite flirting with scientific discourse, it must maintain a pleasing appearance that is understandable to the masses. The formula for this is: an introduction, a complication that keeps the consumer in suspense (with various hints, possible conspiracies ...) and of course in the end following the example of Greek drama (deus ex machina), as much as possible unfolding.
-
Tekumze, I can't find a "box" that Igor and Teddy did not check. However, the most "truthfully" convincing facts for me was the overwhelming promotions and deaths that happened so soon after February 1959. Something like that is not exclusive to the former Soviet Union of course, consider the recently removed administration in America, but speaks heavily of payment or punishment for a job well done. I can't prove Igor and Teddy have solved the DPI but I, and it is only MY opinion, have indeed done just that. And I do not believe I have to justify my belief in their theory. Just as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of what it is, be it a yeti, ufo or Siberian viper. Right or wrong it was a good book, I just happen to believe they are right. I agree with you that the majority of responses have been fairly predictable.
-
Tekumze, what do you think happened?
-
Dear GKM, nice point.
Thank you.
-
I would like to point out that things can very quickly become negatively negative for an author in terms of credibility if he reacts too aggressively to consumer claims which doesn’t like. However, since it must be emphasized with all due respect that it is a commercial and not an academic product, it is mine
opinion that the theory should be defended regarding the comments of Mr. Nigel Evans.
-
The only issue I had with the book is that it builds a conspiracy but then concludes in the final chapter that they died in a way which was nobody's fault, so that there was no real need for any cover up in the first place. This plot twist at the eleventh hour was like the ending of Lost.
An interesting explanation of Eurocentric's observation regarding the structure of the story. The story is presented in a tried and tested way, which is preferred by all documentary television programs (Discovery, various channels dealing with murders and other crimes). That is, despite flirting with scientific discourse, it must maintain a pleasing appearance that is understandable to the masses. The formula for this is: an introduction, a complication that keeps the consumer in suspense (with various hints, possible conspiracies ...) and of course in the end following the example of Greek drama (deus ex machina), as much as possible unfolding.
[/quote]
The delivery method is not really the issue, it's a question of programme content. If I watched a crime mystery documentary which contained a tenuous link to a 'who stood to gain' motive and then just before the end credits rolled it was updated that the victim actually died in an accident, with 'God' the perp, and didn't die in mysterious circumstances after all but people had messed up the crimescene worried they'd lose their jobs or otherwise be held accountable for something which wasn't their fault if they didn't, then I'm not sure I'd tune in to the same format next time.
-
thanky1
-
Dear Ziljoe,
Teddy asked us to start a serious debate after February 2nd. I think it is right that we stick to this. And then...
-
Dear Ziljoe,
Teddy asked us to start a serious debate after February 2nd. I think it is right that we stick to this. And then...
No problem tekumze. I was just interested if you had your own theory. I wasn't looking to analyze Teddy's theory. I'll wait for that.
-
Eurocentric thumb1
The format has been spinning in a circle since the emergence of human civilization. More or less.
-
Iam glad I havnt attempted to read the book so far. I will wait till its officially launched which we were told was February 1st.
-
I saw the Amazon preview of the book and in it there is a graphic in blue which shows the positions of the bodies when found, etc. It makes it appear that the "returning three" had gotten very close to the tent before succumbing to hypothermia/unconsciousness. And it shows that other than the very top of the mountain, there was basically fairly dense forest all about. Is that what you are contending or is the graphic just an approximation? By contrast, on one of the DPI sites, someone posted this reconstruction a while back: https://imgur.com/a/2vEc4oH
-
Dear Investigator,
I was at the DPI venue this year. And I have to say that the forest is (not very pronounced at all) along the entire slope (of course about 1 km from the point where the tent is supposed to be). But there is no forest at the top of the mountain (I would call it a hill). It should be noted that this mountain is also much less steep than I imagined. There could not have been any avalanche there either in theory.
Above all, this is an area that was completely different for me than I expected.
Most of all, I was surprised by the "ravine" which is approx. 100 m from the cedar. There is no ravine at all, but just a plain stream. Where even if you want you have nowhere to fall. Above all you get the feeling that nothing can happen in such an area. You feel safe.
-
Sorry, mistake. I was there last summer. grin1
-
Personally I do not believe a "speed read" is the best way to read this book. When I began reading the book I was intending to do the same but abandoned it pretty quickly. I decided it was more beneficial to read at a steady pace and absorb every word. That still did not stop me from having to reverse back a couple of pages ever so often. I actually intend to read it again just for my own benefit but I really do not believe it will change my mind about the book.
-
Dear GKM,
I'm happy for you. Could you tell me what your interpretation of the tragic event was before the book enlightened you? And did your previous opinion in any way match the explanation in the book that finally satisfied you?
-
Tekumze, if you read all the posts I made on this forum, and I cannot blame you if you decided not to waste time on that, I always had trouble with the issue of clothing. I never believed ANYONE would walk off into a sub zero polar night dressed as they were. I considered murder but could never come up with a motive. I never put any stock into the "photos of something in the night sky". I felt they were unimportant or just defects on the film. The footprints set off no alarm bells because I never believed they camped on the ridge. At this point I faltered. I simply could not make sense out of anything about the dead bodies and where they were found. So I guess I was open to any theory that made logical sense but until the book none of them did. For me it put a check mark in every box. I hope that doesn't sound like a cop out but, in all honesty, I had no personal theory about their deaths.
-
Dear GKM, thanks for the explanation.
Far from thinking you're a cop.
You seem like an educated person to me (by that I don’t mean formal education).
Above all, you try to understand life as it is and you do not give yourself the illusion that life owes you something.
The only thing I would say is that sometimes it happens to you (just like me) that you start believing in something because you want to.
But that’s another story and there’s nothing wrong with it.
It is an evolutionarily more complex setting of the human brain. But we won't talk about it. thanky1
-
Dear Investigator,
I was at the DPI venue this year. And I have to say that the forest is (not very pronounced at all) along the entire slope (of course about 1 km from the point where the tent is supposed to be). But there is no forest at the top of the mountain (I would call it a hill). It should be noted that this mountain is also much less steep than I imagined. There could not have been any avalanche there either in theory.
Above all, this is an area that was completely different for me than I expected.
Most of all, I was surprised by the "ravine" which is approx. 100 m from the cedar. There is no ravine at all, but just a plain stream. Where even if you want you have nowhere to fall. Above all you get the feeling that nothing can happen in such an area. You feel safe.
I've seen Youtube videos of people walking that mountain, supposedly taking the same route that the group did down to around where they started the fire, and of course the photos from that time (and the Discovery Channel documentary). There are a lot of rocky protrusions, apparently, but not much tree cover (as you said, "no very pronounced at all"), and yes, it's not steep. Now when the rescuers took photos, the "den" apparently needed to be dug out and was deep under the snow, the point being that we don't know if there was a snow drift the "ravine 4" fell through, nor do we know what injuries were sustained, if any, prior to the apparent fall at least some of the 4 took onto the rocky creek. I think it's also important to point out that the group did a whole lot of work that night, after leaving the tent. The fire was said to be robust, lasting 1 to 2 hours, and there was a large amount of tree branches scattered throughout that entire area (from the fire to the "den"), along with what they did with the "den" itself, and however much work it took to secure the tent. To me this is important because when you aren't dressed well and you do that much work under those conditions, as soon as you stop, you may feel overheated for a few minutes but then you get super cold (I experimented with this when I was much younger and shoveled snow), so instead of "paradoxical undressing," it seems that after they started the fire (which apparently was not easy, with lots of used match sticks around the area), they then realized it wasn't keeping them warm enough (and also it seems like they recognized that the winds were the major problem, hence the need for the "den"). Simply, they had a plan but it was the wrong one (they should have taken the blankets and found a spot fairly protected from the winds and huddled together wrapped in the blankets), though there's no way to know for sure if any plan would have worked. I think Zina had this thought, blamed Igor (read the diaries), and decided to go back to tent. Slodobin and Igor then decided to go after her, to try and get her to come back, but it was far too late, in terms of hypothermia. They didn't have much evidence of frostbite on their bodies, which is also consistent with my notion about working too much under those conditions wearing the clothes they had on, but while you are working hard you feel fine. The problem is you can only do so much before you lose energy and have to stop, and that's when the situation becomes so dangerous.
-
I would like to hear a comment on the book from Vladimir Borzenkov - WAB. He has not been present on the forum for quite some time. I hope everything is fine with his health. And that the reason for the absence is somewhere else.