March 28, 2024, 02:17:26 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Evidence  (Read 55617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 16, 2021, 07:31:13 PM
Reply #120
Offline

mk


I am genuinely enjoying this conversation. 

Star Man was reminding me of some kind of Poirot/Miss Marple who refuses to spill the beans until the last chapter because he might be wrong and doesn't want to hurt the innocent.  But now I'm cracking up over the metaphor which keeps getting more and more complicated and actually confusing, rather than elucidating, the issue.

Maybe it's neither a horse nor a dolphin.  Maybe it's a hippokampos.   popcorn1

 

January 17, 2021, 01:21:44 AM
Reply #121
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I am genuinely enjoying this conversation. 

Star Man was reminding me of some kind of Poirot/Miss Marple who refuses to spill the beans until the last chapter because he might be wrong and doesn't want to hurt the innocent.  But now I'm cracking up over the metaphor which keeps getting more and more complicated and actually confusing, rather than elucidating, the issue.

Maybe it's neither a horse nor a dolphin.  Maybe it's a hippokampos.   popcorn1

Agree -  was simply trying to point out that not all the facts are relevant and if you try to fit the non relevant ones into the puzzle you will not see the bigger picture.  Forget everything at the tent and the footprints The hikers were never at the tent on Kholat.

Regards

Star man
 

January 17, 2021, 02:38:41 PM
Reply #122
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

It is possible that one piece of evidence at the tent isn't nonsense -  "The Evening Otorten" -  the snowman does exist

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

Regards

Star man

So you are linking the Snowman with the UFO. Thats not a bad idea. And lets not forget where that Newsletter was found. It was found pinned to the Tent near the entrance.

No, I dont think UFO.  I do wonder why the pamphlet was left in the tent.  Can understand why it disappeared too.

Regards

Star man

Why do you think it disappeared  !  ?


Because everything was confiscated. Diaries, Semyon's notebook, Ortorten News etc, etc. We only have Semyon's photos because Ivanov seems to have hoarded them.

     
Seized by the  Authorities ! ?  I wonder why. Why would they want to seize a newsletter or Diaries unless they contained something which was of importance. For instance if the Dyatlov Group were being followed by something then they would have written something down for sure. Or if they saw something in the Sky.
DB
 

January 17, 2021, 02:40:59 PM
Reply #123
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

It is possible that one piece of evidence at the tent isn't nonsense -  "The Evening Otorten" -  the snowman does exist

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

Regards

Star man

So you are linking the Snowman with the UFO. Thats not a bad idea. And lets not forget where that Newsletter was found. It was found pinned to the Tent near the entrance.

No, I dont think UFO.  I do wonder why the pamphlet was left in the tent.  Can understand why it disappeared too.

Regards

Star man

Why do you think it disappeared  !  ?

I think it may be the only piece of evidence at the tent of any relevance.

Regards

Star man

What interests me is the fact that it was found pinned to the Tent near the Tents entrance. As if they did it quickly before leaving the Tent.
DB
 

January 17, 2021, 02:44:36 PM
Reply #124
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I am genuinely enjoying this conversation. 

Star Man was reminding me of some kind of Poirot/Miss Marple who refuses to spill the beans until the last chapter because he might be wrong and doesn't want to hurt the innocent.  But now I'm cracking up over the metaphor which keeps getting more and more complicated and actually confusing, rather than elucidating, the issue.

Maybe it's neither a horse nor a dolphin.  Maybe it's a hippokampos.   popcorn1

Maybe using Jigsaws is not the best way to proceed in the Dyatlov Case. Which is after all, complicated enougth.
DB
 

January 17, 2021, 02:48:13 PM
Reply #125
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I am genuinely enjoying this conversation. 

Star Man was reminding me of some kind of Poirot/Miss Marple who refuses to spill the beans until the last chapter because he might be wrong and doesn't want to hurt the innocent.  But now I'm cracking up over the metaphor which keeps getting more and more complicated and actually confusing, rather than elucidating, the issue.

Maybe it's neither a horse nor a dolphin.  Maybe it's a hippokampos.   popcorn1

Agree -  was simply trying to point out that not all the facts are relevant and if you try to fit the non relevant ones into the puzzle you will not see the bigger picture.  Forget everything at the tent and the footprints The hikers were never at the tent on Kholat.

Regards

Star man

But thats the whole point of Facts. Its the way all Law works. You cant just pick and choose Facts, you need them all. Even in something as unusual as the Dyatlov Mystery.
DB
 

January 17, 2021, 03:39:41 PM
Reply #126
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

It is possible that one piece of evidence at the tent isn't nonsense -  "The Evening Otorten" -  the snowman does exist

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

Regards

Star man

So you are linking the Snowman with the UFO. Thats not a bad idea. And lets not forget where that Newsletter was found. It was found pinned to the Tent near the entrance.

No, I dont think UFO.  I do wonder why the pamphlet was left in the tent.  Can understand why it disappeared too.

Regards

Star man

Why do you think it disappeared  !  ?


Because everything was confiscated. Diaries, Semyon's notebook, Ortorten News etc, etc. We only have Semyon's photos because Ivanov seems to have hoarded them.

     
Seized by the  Authorities ! ?  I wonder why. Why would they want to seize a newsletter or Diaries unless they contained something which was of importance. For instance if the Dyatlov Group were being followed by something then they would have written something down for sure. Or if they saw something in the Sky.

If my theory is correct, then if did contain something of importance.

Regards

Star man
 

January 17, 2021, 03:52:08 PM
Reply #127
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

It is possible that one piece of evidence at the tent isn't nonsense -  "The Evening Otorten" -  the snowman does exist

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

Regards

Star man

So you are linking the Snowman with the UFO. Thats not a bad idea. And lets not forget where that Newsletter was found. It was found pinned to the Tent near the entrance.

No, I dont think UFO.  I do wonder why the pamphlet was left in the tent.  Can understand why it disappeared too.

Regards

Star man

Why do you think it disappeared  !  ?

I think it may be the only piece of evidence at the tent of any relevance.

Regards

Star man

What interests me is the fact that it was found pinned to the Tent near the Tents entrance. As if they did it quickly before leaving the Tent.

Interesting.  Left somewhere where it would be easily found.  Think about this -  they wrote the note and pinned it near the entrance to the tent, just before the panic and cutting through the side of the tent and decending to the forest in their socks? 

The scene at the tent makes no sense.  Previously I have thought that the only way to explain it is if the hikers had been affected by something that impacted their cognitive functions- hence radiation or infrasound.  But there is a simpler explanation -  they were never there.

Regards

Star man

 

January 17, 2021, 03:58:30 PM
Reply #128
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I am genuinely enjoying this conversation. 

Star Man was reminding me of some kind of Poirot/Miss Marple who refuses to spill the beans until the last chapter because he might be wrong and doesn't want to hurt the innocent.  But now I'm cracking up over the metaphor which keeps getting more and more complicated and actually confusing, rather than elucidating, the issue.

Maybe it's neither a horse nor a dolphin.  Maybe it's a hippokampos.   popcorn1

Agree -  was simply trying to point out that not all the facts are relevant and if you try to fit the non relevant ones into the puzzle you will not see the bigger picture.  Forget everything at the tent and the footprints The hikers were never at the tent on Kholat.

Regards

Star man

But thats the whole point of Facts. Its the way all Law works. You cant just pick and choose Facts, you need them all. Even in something as unusual as the Dyatlov Mystery.

The scene at the tent has little bearing on what actually happened to the hikers.  I suppose that is the main fact, so it is evidence, but only if thought of in the correct way.

Regards

Star man
« Last Edit: January 17, 2021, 04:02:36 PM by Star man »
 

January 18, 2021, 11:47:07 AM
Reply #129
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The big argument against "you can't make sense of nonsense" is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov (who saw all the evidence first hand, photographs, hand written diaries etc), clearly stated his opinion (fireorbs) and made no reference to other avenues other than apologising to the relatives that he was acting under duress/orders.
So for it to be a big coverup then he has to be THE key player in the same and was still maintaining it 30 years later, but doing so for some unknown reason, i mean why publish a sensationalist article about fireorbs 30 years later if the whole point of the original coverup was to bury the incident?
Ditto Okishev who at the age of 94 seems to have felt it necessary to set the record straight for posterity and nothing he stated contradicts Ivanov.
Imo, deciding that the evidence is nonsense is more nonsensical than accepting it as genuine. As said many times, Ivanov's opinion is the key ingredient, everything else is froth.
and Ivanov said fireorbs and i think the evidence fits that. Also very telling is the legend of the nine hunters, no case there for a state coverup....

It is possible that one piece of evidence at the tent isn't nonsense -  "The Evening Otorten" -  the snowman does exist

There is a very good chance that there were orbs of fire.  Ivanov also referred to scorched tree tops, but in a kind of straight line as if a beam of energy had hit the trees.  I don't think that Ivanov was lying. He may have been telling the truth.  He just wasn't explaing it fully.  For example there is another explanation for the scorch marks other than an energy beam.

Regards

Star man

So you are linking the Snowman with the UFO. Thats not a bad idea. And lets not forget where that Newsletter was found. It was found pinned to the Tent near the entrance.

No, I dont think UFO.  I do wonder why the pamphlet was left in the tent.  Can understand why it disappeared too.

Regards

Star man

Why do you think it disappeared  !  ?

I think it may be the only piece of evidence at the tent of any relevance.

Regards

Star man

What interests me is the fact that it was found pinned to the Tent near the Tents entrance. As if they did it quickly before leaving the Tent.

Interesting.  Left somewhere where it would be easily found.  Think about this -  they wrote the note and pinned it near the entrance to the tent, just before the panic and cutting through the side of the tent and decending to the forest in their socks? 

The scene at the tent makes no sense.  Previously I have thought that the only way to explain it is if the hikers had been affected by something that impacted their cognitive functions- hence radiation or infrasound.  But there is a simpler explanation -  they were never there.

Regards

Star man

A simpler explanation ! ?  Sounds like a more complicated one if you reckon they may not have been at the Tent in the first place. And why would any outsider want to pin a newsletter to the Tent near the Entrance   !  ?
DB
 

January 18, 2021, 11:51:16 AM
Reply #130
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I am genuinely enjoying this conversation. 

Star Man was reminding me of some kind of Poirot/Miss Marple who refuses to spill the beans until the last chapter because he might be wrong and doesn't want to hurt the innocent.  But now I'm cracking up over the metaphor which keeps getting more and more complicated and actually confusing, rather than elucidating, the issue.

Maybe it's neither a horse nor a dolphin.  Maybe it's a hippokampos.   popcorn1

Agree -  was simply trying to point out that not all the facts are relevant and if you try to fit the non relevant ones into the puzzle you will not see the bigger picture.  Forget everything at the tent and the footprints The hikers were never at the tent on Kholat.

Regards

Star man

But thats the whole point of Facts. Its the way all Law works. You cant just pick and choose Facts, you need them all. Even in something as unusual as the Dyatlov Mystery.

The scene at the tent has little bearing on what actually happened to the hikers.  I suppose that is the main fact, so it is evidence, but only if thought of in the correct way.

Regards

Star man

Well its true we do have a scene at the Tent. We have a Tent thats empty of bodies but full of personal belongings etc. That is a fact. That is Evidence. But not a fact or Evidence as to where the bodies were. In other words its just speculation regarding the theory that the Dyatlov Group were never at the Tent.
DB
 

January 18, 2021, 04:05:59 PM
Reply #131
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I am genuinely enjoying this conversation. 

Star Man was reminding me of some kind of Poirot/Miss Marple who refuses to spill the beans until the last chapter because he might be wrong and doesn't want to hurt the innocent.  But now I'm cracking up over the metaphor which keeps getting more and more complicated and actually confusing, rather than elucidating, the issue.

Maybe it's neither a horse nor a dolphin.  Maybe it's a hippokampos.   popcorn1

Agree -  was simply trying to point out that not all the facts are relevant and if you try to fit the non relevant ones into the puzzle you will not see the bigger picture.  Forget everything at the tent and the footprints The hikers were never at the tent on Kholat.

Regards

Star man

But thats the whole point of Facts. Its the way all Law works. You cant just pick and choose Facts, you need them all. Even in something as unusual as the Dyatlov Mystery.

The scene at the tent has little bearing on what actually happened to the hikers.  I suppose that is the main fact, so it is evidence, but only if thought of in the correct way.

Regards

Star man

Well its true we do have a scene at the Tent. We have a Tent thats empty of bodies but full of personal belongings etc. That is a fact. That is Evidence. But not a fact or Evidence as to where the bodies were. In other words its just speculation regarding the theory that the Dyatlov Group were never at the Tent.

Personal belongings yes, but missing cameras, missing photographs, missing, pamphlet, and later a missing tent.  That is suspicious.  Also,  there is no evidence that they were at the tent.

Regards

Star man
 

January 19, 2021, 03:48:32 AM
Reply #132
Offline

Nigel Evans


There's no evidence that they weren't at the tent?
 

January 19, 2021, 08:50:40 AM
Reply #133
Offline

MDGross


Perhaps Teddy's book will help to elucidate whether the group was ever in the tent or not on the tragic night. I've always thought the group pitched the tent where it was eventually found. And once they were in the woods, members of the group built a fire, climbed the cedar, dug out a snow den, removed clothing from the frozen bodies and so forth. But wonder if the group did none of these things. Wonder if outsiders (KGB?, military? both?) did these things to elaborately cover up that the hikers had died in a manner that had to remain a secret. 
 

January 19, 2021, 01:19:31 PM
Reply #134
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I am genuinely enjoying this conversation. 

Star Man was reminding me of some kind of Poirot/Miss Marple who refuses to spill the beans until the last chapter because he might be wrong and doesn't want to hurt the innocent.  But now I'm cracking up over the metaphor which keeps getting more and more complicated and actually confusing, rather than elucidating, the issue.

Maybe it's neither a horse nor a dolphin.  Maybe it's a hippokampos.   popcorn1

Agree -  was simply trying to point out that not all the facts are relevant and if you try to fit the non relevant ones into the puzzle you will not see the bigger picture.  Forget everything at the tent and the footprints The hikers were never at the tent on Kholat.

Regards

Star man

But thats the whole point of Facts. Its the way all Law works. You cant just pick and choose Facts, you need them all. Even in something as unusual as the Dyatlov Mystery.

The scene at the tent has little bearing on what actually happened to the hikers.  I suppose that is the main fact, so it is evidence, but only if thought of in the correct way.

Regards

Star man

Well its true we do have a scene at the Tent. We have a Tent thats empty of bodies but full of personal belongings etc. That is a fact. That is Evidence. But not a fact or Evidence as to where the bodies were. In other words its just speculation regarding the theory that the Dyatlov Group were never at the Tent.

Personal belongings yes, but missing cameras, missing photographs, missing, pamphlet, and later a missing tent.  That is suspicious.  Also,  there is no evidence that they were at the tent.

Regards

Star man

Did the Apollo 11 Astronauts land on the Moon  ! ?  I say that they did because there is Evidence of them actually going to the Moon. Some people say that the actual landing was faked. I say that the Dyatlov Group went to the Mountainside because there is Evidence of them going there and I also say that they were at the Tent because of that Evidence.
DB
 

January 19, 2021, 01:21:19 PM
Reply #135
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Perhaps Teddy's book will help to elucidate whether the group was ever in the tent or not on the tragic night. I've always thought the group pitched the tent where it was eventually found. And once they were in the woods, members of the group built a fire, climbed the cedar, dug out a snow den, removed clothing from the frozen bodies and so forth. But wonder if the group did none of these things. Wonder if outsiders (KGB?, military? both?) did these things to elaborately cover up that the hikers had died in a manner that had to remain a secret.

Well we will need Evidence. Otherwise as I say many times, its just speculation.
DB
 

January 19, 2021, 02:30:26 PM
Reply #136
Offline

MDGross


Agreed sarapuk. Evidence is at the heart of every theory. I fear hard evidence was destroyed in 1959 or the years following. So we're left with circumstantial evidence on which to build theories. Perhaps, with the permission of present-day family members, the bodies of several hikers could be exhumed. The hikers may yet be able to tell us what happened on that fateful night.
 

January 19, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Reply #137
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
There's no evidence that they weren't at the tent?

Not yet.

Regards

Star man
 

January 19, 2021, 03:32:17 PM
Reply #138
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Perhaps Teddy's book will help to elucidate whether the group was ever in the tent or not on the tragic night. I've always thought the group pitched the tent where it was eventually found. And once they were in the woods, members of the group built a fire, climbed the cedar, dug out a snow den, removed clothing from the frozen bodies and so forth. But wonder if the group did none of these things. Wonder if outsiders (KGB?, military? both?) did these things to elaborately cover up that the hikers had died in a manner that had to remain a secret.

Teddy did provide several clues.  Like its all about the tent and where it was found.  More importantly where it was not found.  Also, if the three on the slope  were climbing the ridge it was not to go back to the tent.

Regards

Star man
 

January 19, 2021, 03:39:20 PM
Reply #139
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I am genuinely enjoying this conversation. 

Star Man was reminding me of some kind of Poirot/Miss Marple who refuses to spill the beans until the last chapter because he might be wrong and doesn't want to hurt the innocent.  But now I'm cracking up over the metaphor which keeps getting more and more complicated and actually confusing, rather than elucidating, the issue.

Maybe it's neither a horse nor a dolphin.  Maybe it's a hippokampos.   popcorn1

Agree -  was simply trying to point out that not all the facts are relevant and if you try to fit the non relevant ones into the puzzle you will not see the bigger picture.  Forget everything at the tent and the footprints The hikers were never at the tent on Kholat.

Regards

Star man

But thats the whole point of Facts. Its the way all Law works. You cant just pick and choose Facts, you need them all. Even in something as unusual as the Dyatlov Mystery.

The scene at the tent has little bearing on what actually happened to the hikers.  I suppose that is the main fact, so it is evidence, but only if thought of in the correct way.

Regards

Star man

Well its true we do have a scene at the Tent. We have a Tent thats empty of bodies but full of personal belongings etc. That is a fact. That is Evidence. But not a fact or Evidence as to where the bodies were. In other words its just speculation regarding the theory that the Dyatlov Group were never at the Tent.

Personal belongings yes, but missing cameras, missing photographs, missing, pamphlet, and later a missing tent.  That is suspicious.  Also,  there is no evidence that they were at the tent.

Regards

Star man

Did the Apollo 11 Astronauts land on the Moon  ! ?  I say that they did because there is Evidence of them actually going to the Moon. Some people say that the actual landing was faked. I say that the Dyatlov Group went to the Mountainside because there is Evidence of them going there and I also say that they were at the Tent because of that Evidence.

There is irrefutable evidence that mankind has been to the moon.  An example - A mirror was left, so that we could bounce a laser beam off it and measure the distance to the nearest centimetre.  That is how we have confirmed that the moon is receding from the Earth by about 2cm a year.  That is an easy one to test. 

What irrefutable evidence is there that the hikers were at the tent on Kholat?

Regards

Star man
 

January 19, 2021, 04:52:21 PM
Reply #140
Offline

Manti


Not only is there no irrefutable evidence they were at the tent... there can't be. Even with today's technology if DNA samples were taken, and matched, even that would not mean they were at the tent because of course they would have touched it before. Perhaps they would have posted an Instagram story from the slope though... that would be evidence.

Nevertheless it seems the most likely scenario. If they weren't at the tent, how did it and their belongings get there and why?


 

January 19, 2021, 11:25:08 PM
Reply #141
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Not only is there no irrefutable evidence they were at the tent... there can't be. Even with today's technology if DNA samples were taken, and matched, even that would not mean they were at the tent because of course they would have touched it before. Perhaps they would have posted an Instagram story from the slope though... that would be evidence.

Nevertheless it seems the most likely scenario. If they weren't at the tent, how did it and their belongings get there and why?

Its not the most likely scenario if you give credit to Solter's statement and consider what one thing could cause the vast majority of the injuries in a single event.

Regards

Star man
 

January 20, 2021, 01:31:30 PM
Reply #142
Offline

Manti


Sorry what is "Solter's statement"? Where can I read it?


 

January 20, 2021, 03:49:11 PM
Reply #143
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Sorry what is "Solter's statement"? Where can I read it?

It is on Dyatlov Pass web page.  Try this link.

https://dyatlovpass.com/interview-solter?rbid=18461


Recently I have been looking at the case from a different perspective.  As suggested by Teddy.  If you give credit to Solter's statement then there is clear evidence that things are not right with the scenes or the protocols followed.

I have tried to look at it starting with only several pieces of info:

1. Solter's statement
2. The bodies/injuries/autopsy reports
3.  The hikers own information/diaries etc.  Basically the journey they had planned and where they were

Nothing else

Forget everything you think you know and start from scratch just with the above information and try to determine how you think they died.   When you have a conclusion you will have 50% of the story. 

Then, forgetting all of the scenes ask why and how it could have happened,  and why would there be a need to cover it up.  This is the other 50% of the story.

I think I have the first 50%.  I have several ideas about the second 50%.  It is difficult to pin down the second 50% without any additional information.  There is one idea I find interesting though.

Regards

Star man
 

January 20, 2021, 04:37:28 PM
Reply #144

eurocentric

Guest
I'd say the last 50% is the easier part to imagine.
 
The odds of a stray missile randomly landing near hikers, while possible, is going to be millions-to-one considering all the potential impact zones it could have landed. But the focus of a case of mistaken identity, a 'friendly fire' incident at night, with victims under the canopy of trees, when a tired helicopter crew have already been out looking for escapees for most of the day, is much more likely.

There was only 8 hours of available daylight to search a region, and I think they would tend to concentrate on escapees being on the move then, and seeing them in the snow between forests and on passes, and when darkness fell at 4:29pm I can't see them knocking-it-on-the-head and would instead continue until the evening, adopting a new approach of anticipating escapees seeking shelter in forests and lighting a fire.

They may even have followed the hiker tracks to the forest, and the moment they saw a fire their adrenaline would pump and they'd convince themselves "this is them". If the hikers ran or hid, even from fear, it would further suspicion from the air. Some warning shots may have been fired, followed by ordnance, perhaps involving gas, if wishing to explain burns and breathing problems, something designed to subdue.

The next day they'd return and realise they have killed hikers, explaining the military knowing about them before the official alert was given. Had this been a group of Mansi, or Russian hunters, rural people living off grid, then nobody would care enough, they could probably get away with admitting to it. But this was a group of townies, "a bunch of kids"; uni students, their young mechanic friends, and a war veteran, so it would require special handling - a cover-up, rather than admitting to a tragic case of mistaken identity. The secret would die with the helicopter crew not only because of the secrecy required, but because through shame they would never want to publicly admit what they did.

To me, this photo, an enhanced and colourised version of what is the clearest image from Semyon's film, is the smoking gun of the DPI. I have every confidence that if, away from this forum, 1000 people were randomly asked what they thought it was, and perhaps told it was taken at night up a mountain, very few of them would suggest it's a shapeshifting glowing entity, 'fireorb', fireball, ball lightning, UFO or other rare phenomena or folklore, and will instead suggest a headlight of a helicopter or possibly a ground vehicle.

That's because the light has a distinctive, vaguely familiar shape, and is of uniform luminence, usually achieved with a reflector around the bulb. If they looked further and noticed how the beam shines down through cold air they may logically decide on a helicopter. Because only the Soviet military had access to helicopters in 1959 this then places them at the scene, and Semyon's objective in attempting to take photo's of the night sky with his rudimentary camera, in this theory, would be to try to leave clues as to what happened to them.

He would not flee his tent in panic without taking the tools to survive away from that tent, if sited on a mountain ridge, instead grabbing only a camera, but that is something he would be more likely to grab if their tent was already in the forest, the place they supposedly travelled to, when the incident unfolded.




« Last Edit: January 20, 2021, 04:57:55 PM by eurocentric »
 

January 20, 2021, 04:54:26 PM
Reply #145
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Agreed sarapuk. Evidence is at the heart of every theory. I fear hard evidence was destroyed in 1959 or the years following. So we're left with circumstantial evidence on which to build theories. Perhaps, with the permission of present-day family members, the bodies of several hikers could be exhumed. The hikers may yet be able to tell us what happened on that fateful night.

Its up to the Authorities. Maybe one day they will divulge all the Information. But as you are probably aware, Governments sometimes have to keep hidden Information that is not in the public interest to divulge.
DB
 

January 20, 2021, 04:56:53 PM
Reply #146
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Perhaps Teddy's book will help to elucidate whether the group was ever in the tent or not on the tragic night. I've always thought the group pitched the tent where it was eventually found. And once they were in the woods, members of the group built a fire, climbed the cedar, dug out a snow den, removed clothing from the frozen bodies and so forth. But wonder if the group did none of these things. Wonder if outsiders (KGB?, military? both?) did these things to elaborately cover up that the hikers had died in a manner that had to remain a secret.

Teddy did provide several clues.  Like its all about the tent and where it was found.  More importantly where it was not found.  Also, if the three on the slope  were climbing the ridge it was not to go back to the tent.

Regards

Star man

Clues but not Evidence. Well the Dyatlov Mystery is generally speaking about the Tent and what happened at the Tent and afterwards.
DB
 

January 20, 2021, 05:05:27 PM
Reply #147
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I am genuinely enjoying this conversation. 

Star Man was reminding me of some kind of Poirot/Miss Marple who refuses to spill the beans until the last chapter because he might be wrong and doesn't want to hurt the innocent.  But now I'm cracking up over the metaphor which keeps getting more and more complicated and actually confusing, rather than elucidating, the issue.

Maybe it's neither a horse nor a dolphin.  Maybe it's a hippokampos.   popcorn1

Agree -  was simply trying to point out that not all the facts are relevant and if you try to fit the non relevant ones into the puzzle you will not see the bigger picture.  Forget everything at the tent and the footprints The hikers were never at the tent on Kholat.

Regards

Star man

But thats the whole point of Facts. Its the way all Law works. You cant just pick and choose Facts, you need them all. Even in something as unusual as the Dyatlov Mystery.

The scene at the tent has little bearing on what actually happened to the hikers.  I suppose that is the main fact, so it is evidence, but only if thought of in the correct way.

Regards

Star man

Well its true we do have a scene at the Tent. We have a Tent thats empty of bodies but full of personal belongings etc. That is a fact. That is Evidence. But not a fact or Evidence as to where the bodies were. In other words its just speculation regarding the theory that the Dyatlov Group were never at the Tent.

Personal belongings yes, but missing cameras, missing photographs, missing, pamphlet, and later a missing tent.  That is suspicious.  Also,  there is no evidence that they were at the tent.

Regards

Star man

Did the Apollo 11 Astronauts land on the Moon  ! ?  I say that they did because there is Evidence of them actually going to the Moon. Some people say that the actual landing was faked. I say that the Dyatlov Group went to the Mountainside because there is Evidence of them going there and I also say that they were at the Tent because of that Evidence.

There is irrefutable evidence that mankind has been to the moon.  An example - A mirror was left, so that we could bounce a laser beam off it and measure the distance to the nearest centimetre.  That is how we have confirmed that the moon is receding from the Earth by about 2cm a year.  That is an easy one to test. 

What irrefutable evidence is there that the hikers were at the tent on Kholat?

Regards

Star man

The Mirrors could have been left by another mission to the Moon without any one having stepped on the Moon. But I have no doubt that Armstrong and Aldrin did step on the surface of the Moon. Back to the Tent, or should I say the Dyatlov Group at the Tent. All indications point to the Dyatlov Group having set up the Tent and having prepared to sleep in the Tent at night when something appears to have happened. Where is the Evidence to say otherwise  !  ? 
DB
 

January 20, 2021, 05:12:01 PM
Reply #148
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Not only is there no irrefutable evidence they were at the tent... there can't be. Even with today's technology if DNA samples were taken, and matched, even that would not mean they were at the tent because of course they would have touched it before. Perhaps they would have posted an Instagram story from the slope though... that would be evidence.

Nevertheless it seems the most likely scenario. If they weren't at the tent, how did it and their belongings get there and why?

Thats a reasonable way of putting it.  Another way is that if its a question of Evidence then the long accepted line wins, ie, we have the Tent and its Contents and Footprints nearby and Diaries and Photographs charting their journey up towards the Mountain. Against that we have nothing, no Evidence against that, just pure speculation.
DB
 

January 20, 2021, 05:13:56 PM
Reply #149
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Not only is there no irrefutable evidence they were at the tent... there can't be. Even with today's technology if DNA samples were taken, and matched, even that would not mean they were at the tent because of course they would have touched it before. Perhaps they would have posted an Instagram story from the slope though... that would be evidence.

Nevertheless it seems the most likely scenario. If they weren't at the tent, how did it and their belongings get there and why?

Its not the most likely scenario if you give credit to Solter's statement and consider what one thing could cause the vast majority of the injuries in a single event.

Regards

Star man

There wasnt a single Event. There were several at least. The Tent. The Cedar Tree. The Ravine.
DB