April 24, 2025, 03:18:23 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by Ziljoe on April 23, 2025, 04:54:30 PM »
I think there's too much text to paste. I'm getting an error, and it's telling me to contact an admin. And I don't know how to post a PDF. Bummer. It blames the snow slab and a second collapse of a second den. Why would they be digging a separate den with a good one with pine flooring not three feet away?

The den and where the ravine 4 are in a window of 6 meters or less I think. What I mean and think to be correct is the den with wooden flooring from the cut/ snapped young trees was no further than 6 meters but could be less. The possible reasons for digging a second den has a number of variables, one being, as they were building the flooring for a den( which makes sense for surviving a period of time in the cold)  there may have been an natural snow cave over the ravine that was discovered whilst they were making the initial den. It is this cutting of the natural snow  cave by using feet and arms to elongate the natural formed snow arch that may have brought a mass of snow down upon them ,causing the injury of the ravine 4. This is not my idea alone, it was suggested before I entered the debate by several sources. So a den with wood flooring is good  but a den with a roof is better.

So perhaps the algorithms or whatever are picking up on this theory.
2
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on April 23, 2025, 04:19:12 PM »
I think there's too much text to paste. I'm getting an error, and it's telling me to contact an admin. And I don't know how to post a PDF. Bummer. It blames the snow slab and a second collapse of a second den. Why would they be digging a separate den with a good one with pine flooring not three feet away?
3
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by Ziljoe on April 23, 2025, 03:39:26 PM »
Go with it and see what we get. Does only search English, or does it do all languages? ..

If the www crashes tomorrow we will know it's you! Lol
4
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on April 23, 2025, 03:24:00 PM »
I used one of my deep researches and asked it to use reasoning and not necessarily go with the most popular theories unless it really felt it was the answer. It's been researching over an hour lol. It's been crawling across this website reading and examining photos and autopsy findings. I'll post it when it's done. Hopefully it's not so large I have to convert it to PDF. I'm not even sure if it's allowed here..
5
General Discussion / Re: What do the footsteps say?
« Last post by amashilu on April 23, 2025, 02:32:06 PM »
Ziljoe, yes, and you are right about the two options: 1) They all agreed that the tent was now uninhabitable— they couldn't even return for their shoes. So they organized into a safe and cautious line, holding onto one another, and started to descend to the treeline.  Or 2) a person wearing boots walked behind them with a gun.

I don't see infighting as an option.
6
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by Ziljoe on April 23, 2025, 01:43:00 PM »
Seems a fun project. It might be worth a shot of inputting the data without opinions of others. Start with the facts of what we think we know.

9 hikers on a hike with cross country skis

Canvas tent , pitched on low gradient slope 15-30 degrees. Temp range -10 to -35. C. Wind speed potential up to x

Bodies found ( mention raised foot prints) , frostbite burns etc

Injuries found with locations of bodies. Etc. See what happens with a neutral input but stay away from Dyatlov pass data?

I don't know if what I'm asking can be done but if we can start from neutral, then add or take away additional info like rockets, lights in the sky , outsiders 1 by 1 and see what the AI comes up with. ?

7
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on April 23, 2025, 01:16:59 PM »
I didn't plug in any additionals like I did for the fight argument. But this one is different in that it actually staged a mock debate for both pro and con.
8
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by Ziljoe on April 23, 2025, 01:06:06 PM »
Interesting but it seems to be missing some arguments. The search dogs reaction when coming out of the helicopter, written statements of wolverines in tents, the 3 weeks before the searchers got there etc.

Also the input of the ravine 4 at the time of discovery. That is being found under 3meters of snow at ground level and other researchers suggesting the fractured ribs were similar to crush injuries from an avalanche or snow hole collapse and not forgetting the tree dated by teddy that fell in 1959 which could also be an explanation for many of the injuries.

Interesting concept though and maybe we can refine ?
9
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on April 23, 2025, 11:33:37 AM »
Here's an argument for the wolverine theory in less than seven minutes, and at the end it makes a negative statement advocating for the snow slab or a fight lmao.

Introduction

A formal collegiate-style debate will examine whether the Dyatlov Pass hikers were driven from their tent by wildlife—specifically mustelids like wolverines or skunks, or large ungulates such as elk—rather than by more commonly proposed forces.

Affirmative Constructive (Pro–Animal Theory)
Opening Statement
The sudden, inexplicable flight of nine experienced hikers from the relative safety of their tent at night can be plausibly attributed to an acute animal‐induced panic. Defensive sprays from skunks, stealthy scent‐marking by wolverines, or a startling interaction with elk could each produce the sensory shock necessary to force rapid evacuation into subzero conditions—explaining the tent being cut from the inside and footprints in varied directions.

Citations: Skunks can spray sulfurous thiols up to 3 m with such potency they induce temporary blindness and severe irritation¹²; wolverines possess anal scent glands with complex volatiles comparable to skunk secretions³; elk roam the Urals’ forested zones and their shallow, two‐toed tracks have been noted near the campsite⁴⁵.

Argument 1: Skunk Spray as Trigger for Panic
Potent Chemical Defense. Striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) eject a thiol‐rich spray detectable at 5.6 km and capable of causing eye irritation and temporary blindness¹.

Behavioral Response. Human encounters prompt immediate, panicked flight from enclosed spaces to avoid repeated sprays².

Tent Cut From Inside. Cutting the tent would be the quickest means of escape if spray infiltrated seams more rapidly than unzipping could permit.

Citations: Skunk spray is flammable, accurate, and can incapacitate vision¹; survivors of skunk encounters report disorientation that compels flight².

Argument 2: Wolverine Scent and Stealth Provocation
Anal Gland Secretion. Wolverines (Gulo gulo) have potent anal glands producing a pungent odor nicknamed “skunk bear,” chemically similar to other mustelids³.

Nocturnal Stealth. Their low, broad bodies and plantigrade posture allow them to climb over obstacles and investigate dens undetected³.

Persistent Odor. Unlike a single skunk spray, wolverine scent‐marks can linger, creating prolonged discomfort that would drive occupants outdoors.

Citations: Wolverines’ glandular secretions contain dozens of volatile compounds³; mustelid stealth behavior allows approach to human shelters without leaving conspicuous tracks³.

Argument 3: Elk Collision or Disturbance
Regional Presence. Elk (Alces alces) inhabit the Urals’ forested zones along with other large fauna⁴.

Tent Interaction. A curious or startled elk could brush or trip tent lines, tearing fabric and unbalancing occupants.

Footprint Evidence. Forum records document shallow, split–hoof prints interpreted as elk near the camp⁵—consistent with lighter ungulate tracks in deep snow.

Citations: Britannica confirms elk among the Urals’ richest fauna⁴; Dyatlov‐Pass forum observers have identified two-toed, shallow impressions matching elk hooves⁵.

Negative Constructive (Con–Standard Theories)
Opening Statement
The official investigation found no evidence of animal involvement. Searchers reported no non-human tracks, and the hikers’ methodical footprint patterns undercut panic due to a wildlife threat. Moreover, the severity of injuries on some bodies (crushed ribs, skull fractures) cannot be explained by animal contact.

Citations: Investigators ruled out wildlife attacks due to absence of animal footprints and the deliberate nature of tracks⁶; autopsies revealed traumatic force exceeding any likely animal encounter⁶.

Affirmative Rebuttal
Tracks Covered by Snow. Footprints of the hikers themselves were noted to be quickly obscured within 500 m by fresh snow⁷—similarly, any light elk or mustelid prints close to camp could have been erased by drifting snow.

Selective Evidence Loss. Investigators focused on human prints and may have overlooked subtle animal sign; heavy wind could homogenize fresh snow, masking non‐human prints.

Injury Explanation. Panic‐induced falls onto concealed rocks or tree roots in the dark could account for rib and skull fractures without invoking improbable military or extradimensional forces.

Citations: Search records state footprints were rapidly covered by snow⁷; mistimed forensic emphasis can obscure light animal prints⁵.

Cross-Examination
Affirmative   Negative
Q: How could skunk spray penetrate a sealed tent?   A: Tents are typically wind-tight; spray particles may not infiltrate fully.
Q: Why no skunk odor noted in official diaries?   A: Weather conditions (strong wind) could dissipate smell immediately.
Q: Could an elk actually breach tent fabric?   A: Elk avoid humans and might skirt rather than collide with a shelter.
Q: Why no animal hair found on clothing?   A: Snow and wind could remove superficial hair deposits before discovery.
Closing Statements
Affirmative
Unexplained panic, the tent cut from the inside, and varied footprint directions are coherently explained by sudden, noxious or frightening wildlife encounters. Chemical defenses of skunks or wolverines and incidental contact with elk offer a unified, natural‐world explanation that aligns with known animal behaviors and regional fauna.

Negative
The absence of direct animal evidence—no tracks, no hair, no eyewitness odor reports—and the nature of the hikers’ injuries strongly favor explanations such as snow slab collapse or internal panic, rather than wildlife provocation.

References
Wikipedia contributors. “Skunk.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2025.

A-Z Animals. “Why Do Skunks Spray? 6 Animals That Use Smell as a Weapon.” 2023.

Wikipedia contributors. “Wolverine.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2025.

Britannica editors. “Ural Mountains.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2025.

Ehtnisba & Radim. “Elk(s) attack.” Dyatlov Pass Forum, April 10, 2019.

Wikipedia contributors. “Dyatlov Pass incident.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, last edited April 16, 2025.

Wikipedia contributors. “Dyatlov Pass incident – Search and discovery.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2025.










10
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on April 23, 2025, 11:15:53 AM »
Of course, it follows the users instructions. I asked it to compile me an argument for a fight amongst the hikers. I can also take the con approach or the wolverine theory for that matter. The instructions for making those hyperlinks active was way too tedious yesterday as I was a bit on the lash lol. I'll look back into it tomorrow but an index is just as good, just not as convenient. You should have seen it working, it tracked down every citation and source and I could see it flashing up. It's called ChatGPT and they have a free version, I'm using the $20 month plus plan which has access to advanced reasoning and 10 deep researchs a month. I can't wait to try that out! You can ask it to do pretty much everything. It made me a profile picture for this site that would fit without using an actual editor. Took 20 seconds lol
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10