Thank you for the added info about the likely unreliable article. With so many theories out there and everyone trying to prove their own theory, it's hard to sort through what is fact and what is not. I have watched/read so many articles/docs about this case and the "facts" are always different and often contradictory. ElizabethHarris
, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Rakitin's essay is "unreliable", but merely that it was written to argue for a specific theory about the Dyatlov Pass Incident. Therefore, it offers a particular interpretation
of the basic facts of the case that is consistent with that theory. I do not recall that the essay actually has any significant factual errors, though I haven't read it recently. For what it's worth: while I do not accept Rakitin's cloak-and-dagger, "spy thriller" theory of the Incident, their essay was what first led me to take homicide theories of the DPI seriously.
Manti, one of the reasons this is such an interesting and damn frustrating case is because of all conflicting pieces of evidence. Like you said, it's impossible to figure out which details are correct and which are not, not only because of all of the different "interpretations and theories" but because we are relying on 60+ years of evolving stories and "evidence" AND, even worse, translations!! We all know how things get misinterpreted or misstated in translation so how are we to know which of these are in fact correct and which are errors in 60 year old translated files that were classified by the Soviet govt for years and locked away somewhere?? Even the autopsies likely have omissions or misstatements, so it's hard to rely on that too. The fact that the Russians just recently tucked this case away as an "avalanche" accident, is absurd and suggests that they are STILL afraid to publicize the truth. Whether it's military/Mansi/aliens/Yeti, they are likely afraid of a public backlashing of some kind.ElizabethHarris
The only thing that is probably undoctored would be the crime scene photos.
, you seem to be frustrated with distinguishing primary facts of the case from secondary interpretation. I second Manti
's advice to read the primary legal documents of the DPI, i.e. the actual case files (start here
). Also, I started a thread, Which commonly "known" facts are not factual?
, which may interest you. I agree that the crime scene photos are also a trustworthy primary source.
We don't know if it was morning or evening that the event took place . We don't know the weather conditions at that exact time either.
Whoa, hang on Ziljoe
. I thought Igor B
. was quite clear that his theory posits that (1) the Dyatlov hikers pitched their tent on the slope of Kholat Syakhl around mid-day of February 1st, and that the wolverine interrupted their lunchtime; and (2) that it was relatively warm at that time, but they froze to death because of a sudden cold snap later in the afternoon. Those seem like pretty crucial elements of the theory.
Or, maybe I misunderstand you. After all, it is certainly true that we don't
actually know when the events took place, or exactly what the weather was like at that place and time.
Also, she is the one who was said to have argued with a Mansi at their stopover which would make sense for a removed tongue but again, that could be fiction. ElizabethHarris
, I'm going to need to see a good source for that, because it does not sound familiar to me at all.
Edit: fixed link to other thread.