August 10, 2022, 04:21:54 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Enumeration/taxonomy of theories?  (Read 452 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 19, 2022, 03:00:06 PM
Read 452 times


This article on the main site quotes Aleksander Kurennoy, who was then Press Secretary of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, as follows:
Why do it now? Both relatives, the press and public activists appeal to the prosecutors to establish the truth. They do not hide the suspicion that then the law enforcement agencies have hidden something. This, by the way, gives rise to many versions of what happened. At the moment, their number reaches 75. There is even quite odious, like an alien intervention.
Ever since I first read the article about a year and a half ago, I've been struck that someone speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the Attorney General's office was willing to give an exact count of of how many theories there are about the Dyatlov Pass Incident!  So, apparently someone has counted up the various theories about the DPI, and there are 75 of them?  Does a numbered list of theories exist anywhere (perhaps in Russian)?  If so, what criteria does it use to decide whether two similar theories should be counted as one, or are distinct enough to be counted separately?

The question of how to distinguish between similar theories naturally leads one to consider what genera of theories there might be, with each specific theory regarded as a species within its respective genus.  Although the words "species" and "genus" might remind one of biological taxonomy, I guess what I really have in mind might be something more like the classification systems that folklore scholars use to classify folktales, such as the Aarne-Thompson-Uther Index.

As a first approximation, consider how the Russian forum on names its subforums about different groupings of DPI theories (English names courtesy of Yandex Translate): there is one non-content-related grouping, "From the literature", for theories explicated in print media; the rest are the content-related groupings of "Forces of Nature", "Criminal", "Technogenic", "Household", "Mystical", "Other", and "Rakitin 's version" (note that Rakitin's theory would seemingly fall into the "Criminal" category, but I guess for historical reasons, it is treated as sui generis.)

January 20, 2022, 01:15:55 AM
Reply #1


So, apparently someone has counted up the various theories about the DPI, and there are 75 of them?

You mean Andrey Kuryakov and the article is this one:

Yuri Kuntsevich boasted before Amurskie (movie "Hunters for the truth") that everyone takes his word for granted and when he said 75 Kuryakov repeated it. No one is keeping any enumeration/taxonomy of theories.

Kuntsevich sometimes behaved strangely. One time he even produced yet another camera that allegedly belonged to Zolotaryov.
The whole transcript:
There is no humor section, unfortunately. I didn’t find where to post this enchanting episode of Kuntsevich’s efforts in creating Dyatlov legends but  I really wanted to share!
Meeting of local historians hosted by Gurin.

Aleksander Dmitrievich Hanzhin spoke first. The point was this. Three years ago, Kuntsevich came from Yekaterinburg and talked about the Dyatlov Pass. At the meeting Yuri Kuntsevich suddenly pulled out some "evidence from the past" from his briefcase and said:

- I have a second Zolotaryov camera.

Zolotaryov, if you remember, was the oldest of the Dyatlov group. And on his fatal expedition sixty years ago, he took two cameras. This was a common practice at the time. Before the advent of modern technology capable of accumulating thousands of pictures on a memory card, tourists took several devices and heaps of films with them. Suddenly, an interesting fox will run across the road, and the camera needs to be recharged just at that moment. This is how you lose a good picture.

After the end of the investigation into the death of the Dyatlov group, all their property was returned to their families. They gave the Zolotaryov family one camera. And they forgot about the second one. So it lay for sixty years in a special room with Kuntsevich at the UPI. It was shown to all visitors. And then suddenly they caught on.

- It's has tape in it! It lay there for sixty years. It might have something important on it.

Suddenly Kuntsevich realized that something might be caught on that film that sheds light on the Dyatlov pass incident. Only now, it was necessary to open the old "Jack in the box" very carefully so as not to damage the film. The device itself was produced in the thirties in Kharkov by the same commune of former homeless children and, perhaps, remembered Makarenko himself. And with this Kuntsevich turned to Hanzhin.

- You know how to work with film. I could use your help.

The ability to work with film and film cameras used to be very widespread. And with the advent of digital devices, it disappeared sharply somewhere. The skill that probably every third person possessed in Soviet times has completely disappeared. And only a few today know what the developer, fixer and red lantern are for. Aleksander Dmitrievich took reagents from the museum, which he himself gave there. Some kind of "methyl-benzide-hydroxyl" had to be added to the developer. It is added specifically for developing old films, so as not to damage them, so that the emulsion does not crack. I locked myself in a dark bathroom, gropingly found how the camera opens. He took out a reel of film, rewound it onto a cassette. And then I decided to look at the negative, because the film has a negative image. What should be white is black, and what should be black is white. And only what should be gray remained gray. And here a surprise awaited him. It wasn't film. Inside the mysterious camera was a filmstrip with paintings by Surikov. Boyarynya Morozova raising hand, crossing everyone.

And so another hope to learn at least something new about the death of the Dyatlov group perished. We got Streltsy execution. Who and when changed the film in the camera is unknown. Kuntsevich doesn't give up:

- Maybe it's the KGB?

Or maybe it was done by some nimble students, visitors to the "Dyatlov" room. Jokers. But most likely, the film was not there initially. After all, during the investigation, all the films should have been seized in the first place.

Our local newspaper Neiva wrote about this story with the film.


January 20, 2022, 02:45:46 PM
Reply #2


No one is keeping any enumeration/taxonomy of theories.
Aww, too bad!

Kuntsevich sometimes behaved strangely.
Perhaps he did so for attention, in order to keep the memorial foundation in the public eye?

January 29, 2022, 05:27:41 PM
Reply #3


A film strip in a film camera? Hmmm? Was the actual film replaced with a film strip only to be rediscovered as fake film? I think not. Could the film strip have microfiche embedded in it? Let's check. Was the film not a filmstrip but actual photographs of another subject than the hike? Lets check. Film strip images and candid shots of the same thing will be of different quality.

January 30, 2022, 05:49:14 PM
Reply #4


Case-Files Achievement Recipient
There are many permutations. A theory can have bits added or taken away. What there is a lack of is evidence to back up the various theories.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2022, 03:30:05 PM by sarapuk »

January 31, 2022, 02:37:20 PM
Reply #5


Sarapuk, I second that observation and would add that things tend to get distorted in translation and retelling. It is like that party game "telephone" where the initially whispered message becomes very different after being filtered by everyone in turn. In that regard, who in their right mind would have a roll of anything but film in a film camera?