Theories Discussion > Reindeer
Stampede
Teddy:
Not a joke.
Ziljoe:
--- Quote from: kylecorbin on October 07, 2023, 09:46:19 PM ---As a new member, I don't know the types of humor that appear here, so can anyone tell me for certain whether this scientific-looking article is a joke? It's about deer (which we know were not in the area due to absence of deer tracks) causing some of the nine victims to travel in a direction we know they did not travel (due to absence of their tracks there) dragging things we know they didn't (due to lack of drag marks) leaving behind clothes and boots that they knew they would die without since they were in a windy snowstorm on a deadly-cold mountainside in the dark. I only read as far as I did because I kept looking for "April Fools" or some such banner. I did skim to the end, and there is no "gotcha" notice anywhere. Is this website full of these sorts of parodies? This is the first one I've encountered in my week of researching here. I was pretty sure it was a parody at first, because it seemed akin to "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras" in that it was suggesting deer instead of the obvious weather causes.
.
--- End quote ---
I would argue that we don't know if deer were there or not , at that moment in time at least, we know there was a deer trail close by, from memory I think it was about 500 m away. There was a 3 week gap between the incident and the discovery of the tent , so that leaves time for tracks to be swept away or covered.
We don't know if the incident took place during a snow storm or at night . The temperature was probably mild at the time, relative to winter conditions.
The variables of the case are huge and we all speculate due to lack of solid reports and data. I suggest reading all the theories, many contradict but all have at least one element of plausible explanation to what may have happened. What may seem obvious at first can become much less obvious as you read on. I lean towards a natural event ,but even I am unsure.
It is like opening Pandora's box , something that creates a lot of new problems that you did not expect.
Good luck and happy reading.
kylecorbin:
--- Quote from: Ziljoe on October 08, 2023, 05:16:24 AM ---I would argue that we don't know if deer were there or not , at that moment in time at least, we know there was a deer trail close by, from memory I think it was about 500 m away. There was a 3 week gap between the incident and the discovery of the tent , so that leaves time for tracks to be swept away or covered.
We don't know if the incident took place during a snow storm or at night . The temperature was probably mild at the time, relative to winter conditions.
The variables of the case are huge and we all speculate due to lack of solid reports and data. I suggest reading all the theories, many contradict but all have at least one element of plausible explanation to what may have happened. What may seem obvious at first can become much less obvious as you read on. I lean towards a natural event ,but even I am unsure.
It is like opening Pandora's box , something that creates a lot of new problems that you did not expect.
Good luck and happy reading.
--- End quote ---
Oops, didn't see this reply until now. sorry. Yes, lots of things to consider with any theory that claims to solve the whole case, but for this discussion's theory, no, there's no need to consider much detail since the theory fails at the VERY start, literally the very first word. We KNOW with certainty that there were no large animals at the tent area at the time of the disaster because of the victims' "raised-footprints" next to the tent that play a huge part in the real solution. Those prove that any weighty moving entity there at that time left prints that compressed the snow underfoot and were then wind-scoured down to just the compressed part remaining at the end of the month. All human/animal intruders there near the time the victims made those prints were subject to the same laws of physics as the nine victims, and since searchers/investigators desperate to find survivors followed every lead and reported NO prints of any intruders and NO drag marks, there must not have been any. There literally is no reason to consider any part of the theory in this discussion thread; it has zero evidence, in fact "negative evidence" since its claimed events MUST have left evidence but did NOT leave any and therefore could NOT have happened. The absence of hoof marks on the tent and in the snow, and the orderliness of items inside the tent, prove that nothing trod on the tent or in the snow nearby and nothing caused the victims inside to thrash around in panic. If we start discussing things that CANNOT have happened, then we do indeed, as you said, open Pandora's Box. While "free speech" etc. means we should allow such, the problem with allowing such here is that it leads legitimate researchers down the paths left by that terrible Box's loosed spirits and confuses them to the point of giving up. Imagine how much sooner this case would have been solved if some of the hundreds of people trying to solve it over the decades had not been sidetracked by Pandora!
Ziljoe:
--- Quote from: kylecorbin on November 03, 2023, 07:17:41 PM ---
--- Quote from: Ziljoe on October 08, 2023, 05:16:24 AM ---I would argue that we don't know if deer were there or not , at that moment in time at least, we know there was a deer trail close by, from memory I think it was about 500 m away. There was a 3 week gap between the incident and the discovery of the tent , so that leaves time for tracks to be swept away or covered.
We don't know if the incident took place during a snow storm or at night . The temperature was probably mild at the time, relative to winter conditions.
The variables of the case are huge and we all speculate due to lack of solid reports and data. I suggest reading all the theories, many contradict but all have at least one element of plausible explanation to what may have happened. What may seem obvious at first can become much less obvious as you read on. I lean towards a natural event ,but even I am unsure.
It is like opening Pandora's box , something that creates a lot of new problems that you did not expect.
Good luck and happy reading.
--- End quote ---
Oops, didn't see this reply until now. sorry. Yes, lots of things to consider with any theory that claims to solve the whole case, but for this discussion's theory, no, there's no need to consider much detail since the theory fails at the VERY start, literally the very first word. We KNOW with certainty that there were no large animals at the tent area at the time of the disaster because of the victims' "raised-footprints" next to the tent that play a huge part in the real solution. Those prove that any weighty moving entity there at that time left prints that compressed the snow underfoot and were then wind-scoured down to just the compressed part remaining at the end of the month. All human/animal intruders there near the time the victims made those prints were subject to the same laws of physics as the nine victims, and since searchers/investigators desperate to find survivors followed every lead and reported NO prints of any intruders and NO drag marks, there must not have been any. There literally is no reason to consider any part of the theory in this discussion thread; it has zero evidence, in fact "negative evidence" since its claimed events MUST have left evidence but did NOT leave any and therefore could NOT have happened. The absence of hoof marks on the tent and in the snow, and the orderliness of items inside the tent, prove that nothing trod on the tent or in the snow nearby and nothing caused the victims inside to thrash around in panic. If we start discussing things that CANNOT have happened, then we do indeed, as you said, open Pandora's Box. While "free speech" etc. means we should allow such, the problem with allowing such here is that it leads legitimate researchers down the paths left by that terrible Box's loosed spirits and confuses them to the point of giving up. Imagine how much sooner this case would have been solved if some of the hundreds of people trying to solve it over the decades had not been sidetracked by Pandora!
--- End quote ---
I would argue that no signs of animal prints is not a sign of no animals. The Wolverine has fat feet to not sink in to the snow. The deer , elk or whatever have narrow feet , the wolf is similar , bears have large feet but heavy weight. The compression of snow is a science, under certain circumstances, trails are left. Humans are perhaps in-between. Their weight to foot compression leaves different prints to other animals. We have the report or statements that there were human foot prints , in raised patterns. That's what is written in the testimony of observations. . I do not have the knowledge if the same happens for all animals.
I would argue that we don't know if there were large , or small animals for that matter. Although the laws of physics might apply to all beasts . Due to weight ratio and foot area , weather conditions etc . Not all tracks will be left. For example, the trail of the hikers on skis was not visible when reaching the pass but was visible lower down.
Again, however, there was the raised footprints within a certain area below the tent towards the ceder tree. These prints were not directly from the tent and came and went. It only shows people walked there. It does not show all foot prints . Animals may have come and gone . The animals may have nothing to do with the mystery, but because there's no fott prints does not mean there's no animals.
kylecorbin:
--- Quote from: Ziljoe on November 03, 2023, 08:24:14 PM ---I would argue that no signs of animal prints is not a sign of no animals.
--- End quote ---
A standard in the worlds of logic and investigations is "almost" what you're citing there, but you must use the entire standard:
"Absence of evidence of X is not evidence of absence of X UNLESS evidence of X necessarily would exist under the circumstances."
And the other key issue is a factual one that I did not realize that you had read a wrong version of somewhere (among the countless wrong versions and mistaken memories of things in the case files!): you're thinking these "raised-footprints" were further away than they were:
That photo, and the many witness descriptions of those raised-footprints, and the famous "last photo" of the trench being dug for the tent, prove that there was deep snow in the tent area when the tragedy happened and that any heavy entity compressed the snow there that day such that when wind scoured away non-compressed snow over the weeks that followed, the compressed snow was left, and the sun hardened it into ice. If you don't believe me, you'll have to dredge through the witness statements as I did. Use DyatlovPass.com's main page's search box for the words "compressed", "raised", "columns", "platforms", and read these witness-statement excerpts (two of many describing this) to give yourself a fuller idea (and perhaps ideas for other search terms):
"And when we discovered the footprints, they were as if on pillars, that is, as if all the loose snow had been blown out, blown away by the wind. The soft snow had hardened underfoot and when the wind blew away the loose snow the footprint remained a little higher. As on platforms. There were impression. It is not what happens on firn snow, let’s say that they were embossed. The snow is blown out so that they remain like pillars, a little higher series of tracks ... The tracks began about 8 (eight) meters from the tent, but no further. Immediately behind the tent, this is how the wind acts... it blows away the snow behind the barrier, then the snow rises a little ... and as soon as it rises a little, then [tracks] began to be visible."
"Starting 30-40 m from the tent were found well preserved, clearly distinguishable traces of human feet. The traces stretched in parallel tracks close to each other, as if people were holding on to each other. Footprints stretched in kind of two directions - we counted on the tent down to the valley 6 or 7 pairs of tracks, and 20 m to the left of them went 2 more pair of tracks. Then in 30-40 m these two groups (2 and 7 tracks) came together and do not part. Traces disappeared on the stone ridges, and below the stones they appeared again, and then were lost. The tracks were very well distinguished. In some footprints could be seen that the person was walking barefoot or in cotton sock, because the toes were imprinted. Due to peculiarities of the winds in the mountains the tracks were well preserved, and they are not visible in the form of depressions but elevations in the form of bars - the snow is compressed under the track and not blown out, and the snow is blown around the tracks. Under the exposure of sunlight the snow tracks further harden and they are stored in this form through the winter."
There is no way to understand the impossibility of the reindeer and wolverine hypotheses without fully understanding the physical situation found at the tent area, and there is no way to gain that understanding without many days of examining the many photos/witness statements/interviews. Just reading "some" will not help and in fact might give the wrong impression. Many people here have gotten an excellent understanding of some parts of the case while having a wrong impression of other parts. Indeed, the most famous scientists in the entire case, Gaume & Puzrin, astonishingly embarrassingly misunderstood that the broken bones could NOT have happened at the tent because the victims walked a mile while freezing and couldn't have done so with many broken bones. Fully half of the famous 2021 analysis was wasted due to that misunderstanding!
Witnesses agreed that right beside the tent the snow was flattened due to overlapping prints of many people (as we'd know anyway, since nine people skied to there and dug a trench and set up a tent and departed the tent to where they were found later), then a few meters away the raised-footprints began and went directly toward the trees, becoming normal depression-footprints further down, then becoming more filled-in prints, then disappearing under the deeper snow before reaching the trees. All heavy entities left traces in the snow at the tent that night. No one is saying that every entity left pristine prints that all were perfectly preserved, simply that traces were necessarily left due to laws of physics. Necessarily, anything entering/leaving the area that night left a trace in the snow. www.amusingplanet.com/2013/04/raised-footprints-in-snow.html shows many more examples of this phenomenon.
--- Quote from: Ziljoe on November 03, 2023, 08:24:14 PM ---The Wolverine has fat feet to not sink in to the snow.... I would argue that we don't know if there were large , or small animals for that matter. Although the laws of physics might apply to all beasts . Due to weight ratio and foot area , weather conditions etc . Not all tracks will be left. For example, the trail of the hikers on skis was not visible when reaching the pass but was visible lower down... Again, however, there was the raised footprints within a certain area below the tent towards the ceder tree. These prints were not directly from the tent and came and went. It only shows people walked there. It does not show all foot prints . Animals may have come and gone . The animals may have nothing to do with the mystery, but because there's no [prints] does not mean there's no animals.
--- End quote ---
https://cascadeswolverineproject.org/wolverine-tracks
https://www.wolverinewatch.org/wolverine-tracks (see examples of deep-snow wolverine prints)
Yes, because there are no prints DOES mean there are no heavy animals, due to the peculiar situation that one night. Your quote above indicates an idea that prints were basically just "here and there", but in fact the print situation was the opposite - a criminologist's dream! There was no way for entities heavy enough to affect the victims to enter or leave the tent area on the snow that night without leaving preserved prints. Literally case closed. Confusing accounts on this website can give readers a different impression, but a full reading is convincing. (Alas, it's that "full reading" that is so difficult and that causes so many here to give up.) The raised-footprints WERE indeed directly from the tent and were NOWHERE NEAR the cedar. All heavy entities left some impression in the snow at the tent area that night. Of course an eagle or other lightweight entity's print would not have been noticed, but anything heavy enough to affect the people in the tent would have been. The fact that NONE of the dozens of searchers/investigators desperately looking for survivors mentioned any such intruders means we can disregard that possibility. Further, in my reply I cited other issues (no hoof/claw marks on tent, multiple witnesses' accounts of orderly tent contents means no panic, etc.). Again, use the full axiom I cited at the beginning above: when evidence WOULD be there but is NOT, we can conclude something did NOT happen. When desperate searchers did NOT do something and did NOT say something that they necessarily WOULD have, we can make conclusions now from that absence. When animals WOULD have left tent marks and WOULD have caused panic inside the tent, we can make conclusions from that absence. When animals entering/leaving the area WOULD have left traces in the snow that would have been preserved, we can make conclusions from that absence.
And we haven't even mentioned the "elephant in the room" on the slope. No animals would have gone onto that slope that night. The only thing that high up from the trees was a high sense of adventure. All the animals had sense enough to stay away.
Again, this discussion thread was about heavy hoofed animals, and those would have compressed snow far more than the human feet did. If after all of the above we are still going to discuss a heavy hoofed animal that necessarily would have left dozens of preserved snowprints coming into and going out of the tent area in the peculiar conditions that formed the other preserved prints we have, then we literally may as well discuss why Santa's reindeer leave no prints in snow on roofs next to chimneys. I'm not willing to let Pandora distract anyone else by continuing to discuss impossibilities:
"The absence of hoof marks on the tent and in the snow, and the orderliness of items inside the tent, prove that nothing trod on the tent or in the snow nearby and nothing caused the victims inside to thrash around in panic. If we start discussing things that CANNOT have happened, then we do indeed, as you said, open Pandora's Box."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version