December 05, 2022, 10:36:56 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Alleged slab slide that left no trace  (Read 1073 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

October 23, 2022, 09:04:30 PM
Reply #30
Online

GlennM


Manti, thanks for the clarification. Charles is really bring a lot of information to the avalanche/slab slip thread. If I understand it correctly, the people who proposed the slab explanation did not conduct their investigation at or near 1079, but rather at a mile or so away.

When I inquired about the blocks of snow just downhill from the tent, he explains that they were cut out by rescuers. If so, that is a lot of compacted snow removed from on and around the tent. How did it get there? Were they chopping up snow to check for bodies? I thought they used probes.



I can not readily accept that conspirators harmed the hikers and then put their tent in a most unlikely location to obfuscate the crime.I understand that cutting your way out of a collapsed tent is accepted practice. I think nine people in a collapsed tent under a pile of snow are going to be more concerned about breathing than crawling over each other to find their boots in the dark.

Then again, I am shown pictures of rock piles. We know the tent was not covered with rocks, but if compressed snow was resting on these stones,  could a disturbance caused by wind and preparing the tent have caused the rocks to resettle?

I am also a bit surprised at the rescue photographs from 1959. Some of the landscape photos would not be high on my list. I'd save my film for the really important stuff.

I guess that if these specialists want to discount the possibility of the collapse of the tent by unfortunate natural events, they should have another explanation that adheres to Occam's Razor. So far, what I've read all involves an elaborate set of circumstances and unlikely behaviors by bad actors. I've said it before, "Follow the money". If there is evil doings, someone, somewhere is cashing in on it... and, you don't leave corpses around.

« Last Edit: October 23, 2022, 09:14:25 PM by GlennM »
 

October 24, 2022, 08:34:39 AM
Reply #31
Offline

Charles


If I understand it correctly, the people who proposed the slab explanation did not conduct their investigation at or near 1079, but rather at a mile or so away.

There was a man, Dmitry Borisov, who took a picture of an avalanche on a much steeper slope, kilometers away from the tent, but Puzrin and Gaume never went to Kholyat Syakhl. Puzrin and Gaume went to Hollywood and Disney Studios.

When I inquired about the blocks of snow just downhill from the tent, he explains that they were cut out by rescuers. If so, that is a lot of compacted snow removed from on and around the tent. How did it get there? Were they chopping up snow to check for bodies? I thought they used probes.

Rescuers said:

the entrance of the tent came from under the snow, and the rest of the tent was under snow. The snow on the tent was 15-20 cm thick, it was clear that the snow was fluffy on top of the tent, it was hard. ( the snow was accumulated by the wind on top of the tent, and then hardened by the cold into a crust - ed. note). On February 26, 1959, we removed the snow from over the tent and made sure that there were no people inside, (Slobtsov's testimony)

The rest, after dismantling the tent, began to probe the snow cover on the pass with ski poles. The tent is set on the slope of height 1079. Entrance to the south. The steepness of the slope in this area approx. 20-25 °. Depth of snow up to 1.5 meters. A shallow pit is dug for the horizontal installation of the tent. Thanks to the dense snow cover, the tent was installed very firmly. Everything is covered with already clammy snow, except for the southern end, fortified on a ski pole and tied to a pair of skis. Snow was cleared with the help of skis and ski poles. Ten people worked without any system. (Brusnitsyn's testimony)

There was snow on the tent and snow accumulated around the tent like at the entry, the rescuers dug that snow out, and you can see the lumps of snow just around, and below, just a bit farther, there was a barrow, and covered with snow it gives that picture you misunderstand as the remains of an avalanche:



But you claim to be rational and suppose that time destroyed the trench left in the very structured layers of crust but spared the lumps of snow fully exposed to wind action... If you pretend to see lumps and blocks of snow, caused by an avalanche, that are still visible on Feb 28, then you have to see the trench and the lines of fracture of the slab...

I can not readily accept that conspirators harmed the hikers and then put their tent in a most unlikely location to obfuscate the crime.I understand that cutting your way out of a collapsed tent is accepted practice. I think nine people in a collapsed tent under a pile of snow are going to be more concerned about breathing than crawling over each other to find their boots in the dark. 

So you make the issue about faith. The fact is that there was no avalanche and you have to accept it, and stay in ignorance if you don't want to risk to make mistakes. It is perfectly honorable to accept the fact and recognize that we don't have explanation, that we can't make any steps beyond the fact. But you speak very differently: because there is a kind of explanation that you cannot accept because of your "feelings", you deny the fact... and begin to imagine all unrealistic possible statements to deny the fact. It is pure anti-rational thinking.

On Feb. 10, 2022, I wrote on this same forum: "My personal conviction goes to the avalanche hypothesis, the most probable according to me.". But I had to change my opinion, because I can't deny the fact.

Then again, I am shown pictures of rock piles. We know the tent was not covered with rocks, but if compressed snow was resting on these stones,  could a disturbance caused by wind and preparing the tent have caused the rocks to resettle?

What???

they should have another explanation that adheres to Occam's Razor

You quote Occam's razor but you imagine the most unrealistic and complex explanations to save your idea of avalanche ("the rocks to resettle")? You sacrifice the phenomenon to the idea?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2022, 04:43:39 PM by Charles »
 

October 24, 2022, 12:22:57 PM
Reply #32
Offline

Manti


Recently I have been reading more about one of the least discussed theories: methanol poisoning.

There is a decent description several pages down here: https://www.dyatlov-pass-incident.com/ (search "methanol") Seems like it can explain almost everything






 

October 24, 2022, 05:20:31 PM
Reply #33
Offline

Ziljoe


Hi Charles

Georgiy Karpushin the navigator also said he observed the body  of a female next to the tent because he could see  long hair and another body not far away. He also states he saw the tent cut from the north side. All this being noted whilst from the plane. ( I think it was the 24th)Yet ,when the first rescuers found the tent , it was collapsed, covered with hard snow and no bodies next to the tent? said" By the way, I was already struck by the fact that the tent was improperly set up, on a gradient of about 30 degrees, open to all winds and rock falls ... What made the guys do this - I can not imagine."

Someone is telling fibs .


Alexander Puzrin and Johan Gaume also say that two avalanches were observed in 2022 by experienced hikers. I believe it was the location 1.8 miles /3km from the tent but what is interesting is that any signs of the avalanche were gone in a few hours.

The photo you put your lines on , suggesting that depressions would show is not necessarily true or accurate. The tent had also been moved by that point so the red lines would be more to the right and the person that took the photo might not have been standing at the steepest part of the proposed slope/slide. I would guess it's of to the left. However , I do fail to understand someone argue about angles/lines and illustrations by calling it pseudoscience when others do the same and claim it's fact because it's theirs....


Anyway, the snow goes up and down on the slope and gets blown away, it settles in depressions of different depths of layers. Some of the hikers got covered with snow on the slope. The snow came and went , there were warmer days and colder, wind and no wind. Oh, and almost four weeks for the weather conditions to change the scene, no matter what we choose to believe.

There does seems to be a lot of conflicting statements and observations on the discovery of the tent and observations within 48 hours and what followed. Maybe we should look at the contradictions during this time frame?


I will continue to subscribe to the Wolverine theory because it fits the most variables for me.

 

October 24, 2022, 05:50:39 PM
Reply #34
Offline

Charles


However , I do fail to understand someone argue about angles/lines and illustrations by calling it pseudoscience when others do the same and claim it's fact because it's theirs....

Read https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00081-8 and https://dyatlovpass.com/borzenkov?rbid=18461 , and you'll stop failing.
 

October 24, 2022, 06:15:01 PM
Reply #35
Offline

Ziljoe


I have, it's why I posted.... They also updated their information saying avalanches /slides have been recorded and they disappear quickly at that area. Their demonstration on the video is an example of concept, not actual fact.

The navigator ,Georgiy Karpushin that you use as an example also said .

"By the way, I was already struck by the fact that the tent was improperly set up, on a gradient of about 30 degrees, open to all winds and rock falls ... What made the guys do this - I can not imagine."

He suspects Rock falls? Says the gradient is about 30 degrees. Women lying next to the tent and the tent was poorly placed with the side cut open.

You just stated that he saw no sign of an avalanche and Karpushin said: " I remember we made a lot of runs over the tent. It was clearly visible that it was cut from the north."

How did Karpushin see the tent was cut from the north when it was found with snow on top and what happened to the female and other body he seen?
 

October 24, 2022, 09:04:31 PM
Reply #36
Online

GlennM


Holy cats! On the one hand the slab slip hypothesis is supported,  but a girl by the tent? Could this lost clothing? A scavenging animal perhaps? It appears there are one too many females to be accounted for.

The explanation about the hikers pitching camp at elevation 880 so as to not lose hard won ground seems right. If conditions were harsh, then so does making a hasty camp, poorly set on that slope. A volunteer expedition is only going to work as hard as they want to and leadership is by the consent of the participants. As such, the leader can not be too didactic when getting cooperation to get things done. It seems that they worked well enough getting there, laying the cache and making camp. I suppose it met their immediate needs, even if the pilot was critical after the fact.

I feel the importance of getting to the bottom of the mystery is to prevent future occurrences precipitated by similar environmental conditions. If a conspiracy,  then the bad boys got away with it, taking their guilt to the grave. There is no value in that.

Getting to the truth is the standard response for why the DPI endures. But, is more?
 

October 25, 2022, 12:19:39 AM
Reply #37
Offline

Ziljoe



This is what is said by G Karpushin. If I remember correctly , he may have been dismissed as having a poor memory. I'm sure I read he had a hard time. But this has a strong link to the staging hypothesis.

https://dyatlovpass.com/interview-karpushin

Here is some of what he says in this interview.

February 25, the weather was just wonderful. Mountains against the background of a clear, clear sky created a calm, gracious mood. From Ivdel airport almost simultaneously in the air soared 7 aircraft. To the village of Burmantovo we flew in V formation. There, at an altitude of 300 m, were divided, as was agreed earlier. Kholat Syakhl (Mountain of the Dead), marked simply as "altitude 1079" on the pilot maps, was directly at the rate of the leading aircraft. "Approximately 25-30 km to the mountain," recalls navigator Karpushin, "we saw very clearly the tent stuck to the eastern slope of the mountain ...

"To avoid the accumulation of aircraft, I instructed the rest of the crafts to return to Ivdel.I remember we made a lot of runs over the tent. It was clearly visible that it was cut from the north. Straight by the tent, a corpse of a woman lay judging by her long hair.A little further away lay another body. It was evident that the students left the tent in panic. By the way, I was already struck by the fact that the tent was improperly set up, on a gradient of about 30 degrees, open to all winds and rock falls ... What made the guys do this - I can not imagine. I can assume that, having reached the top, they were so tired that they decided not to go down to the foot of the mountain. This mistake became fatal for them.

The pilots marked the tent position on the map and contacted Ivdel, where they received the command to return to the airfield. After a while, the helicopter Mi-4 flew to the place of the death of students with investigators on board. The landing of a group of investigators was borderline foul. The cloudiness was so great that the rotor was not visible. Landing on the mountain failed, so the helicopter passengers had to jump out of it from a height of several meters. In parallel, helicopter pilots evacuated other search groups. Then, at the end of the search, there was no more need for us, and in March the civil aviation pilots left for Sverdlovsk."

------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously this raises more questions, how can he see hair and tell the gender of one of the bodies?  There would be snow fall for the length of time that the bodies were missing and the tent was collapsed with snow on top when found. How did he see that it was cut? He says that some investigators had to jump out of the helicopter , could they have gone to the tent to interfere and look for things?

Karpushin's memory is either wrong, he's fabricating the story for attention or something completely different happened .

There are a number of contradictions on how the tent was found and when things were found.


Below,Sharavin recollects how he found the tent on the 26th of February.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Question: How dense was the snow on the tent that you had to chop it up with an ice ax? Do you agree that the two skis were not set up as the center ridgepoles of the tent?

M.Sharavin: The snow on top of the tent was really so hard that it had to be chopped off with an ice axe. And the skis were in front of the tent and were not used as ridgepoles.

Question: About the rope at the entrance - did it tie the skate of the entrance with skis or an ice axe, or tied it to another pole?

M.Sharavin: I can't say anything about a rope. I don't remember such.

(However Slobtsov Boris Efimovich statement says the following)

Sheet 298

PROTOCOL
witness testimony

Near the entrance of the tent on the snow
an ice ax was stuck, on the canvas of the tent, in the snow lay a pocket flashlight, Chinese make, which, as it was subsequently established, belonged to Dyatlov. It was strange that while there was a layer of snow let say 5-10 cm thick under the flashlight, there was no snow on top of it, and it was snowed slightly on either side. I took the flashlight first and found that it was not turned on. When I turned on it lit. I did not notice that day, but then I heard from other people involved in the search that there was a trace of urine in the snow near the tent.
In the immediate vicinity of the tent there were no footprints.


 

October 25, 2022, 06:40:34 AM
Reply #38
Offline

Charles


Ziljoe,

I am no more interested in discussing with you as I understand that your only interest is to avoid any firm step forward. Whatever the evidence, you refuse to make hierarchies, to assess the values of evidences... That is to say, you are only interested in keeping everything at the same level of interest. It is called "relativism". A fairy skunk has the same value as an angle or as a parallel structure... it's impossible to discuss with you. As the domain, here, is material and contingent world, there is "more or less", there are scales, hierarchies, but you treat the world of contingency as a pancake, flat and without any relief. What's the point? If nothing is never dismissed? Yeti and UFO? Why not? Avalanche and mermaid skunk? The same, why not? There will never be any evidence able to make a difference and dismiss an hypothesis. Because the world is flat and everything is worth everything. You could hang a Bellini's painting close to a Pollock's without seeing any difference...  shock1
 

October 25, 2022, 08:51:10 AM
Reply #39
Offline

Ziljoe


Charles,

Perhaps I am avoiding assuming the next step forward is firm , I do not wish to take that step only to find when I put my weight on it , I fall through a hole.  It is like we are all in the dark , at night on top of a mountain, there is fog, we have blindfolds on and our eyes closed tightly shut . Everyone is pulling or pushing in a different direction from there own fixed view point.

When lost, sometimes it's best to pause, even retrace ones steps back to where one came off the path.

I'm not sure what you mean by making hierarchies and everything put in front of you, you call a fairy or fantasy ,yet, if you don't like the idea you close your mind and eyes. You criticised the work of the scientists for the avalanche by claiming they went to Walt Disney , their illustrations were wrong and whatever else about the research etc, yet you select quotes without the full sentence or context, make your own diagrams with 29 fractures ,add lines , angles and theories etc. But your examples are scientifically based?  You haven't put anything forward to explain what happened in detail although you have supplied a possible motive for outsiders, which I appreciate.

I was looking at YouTube today and randomly it came up with those two scientist's about the avalanche, it just repeated that there has been several other reports of avalanches this year in the area by explorer's.

If I am flat, like a pancake , it is because there seems to be a counter argument for every theory. I spent six years reading almost every thread here and on other forums that I could find before I even registered on this forum.

  Igor B goes a long way long way to give plausible explanations for many of the event's that occurred. It So happens , that Wolverine's exist, as do snowdrifts/caves. It also covers the dilated pupils, the reason to exit the tent, the search dog's behaviour , spots on clothing and skin reaction on one of the investigators hands. The injuries to the four in the ravine are consistent with a collapse of mass.

As for scales, hierarchies and the world of contingency, I have no idea what you mean but I believe we have all reached a plateau, you on the other hand have decided to chip away at others to elevate your position.



. You could hang a Bellini's painting close to a Pollock's without seeing any difference...  shock1

I  could hang a child's painting between a Bellini's and a Pollock's and you would refuse to look at the child's painting, say it's not art and have it thrown away....





 

 

October 25, 2022, 09:00:06 PM
Reply #40
Online

GlennM


Well. Is seems certain that is anyone is skipping their prescription medicines, they should get regulated soon.

On the other hand, with the wolverine theory, is the idea the animal got into the tent? Is there witness statements to support the wolverine theory?
 
With regard to tearing down other points of view to elevate one's own, I suppose it is natural, though small minded. Far better to bolster one's own theory with evidence. The evidence is not going to come from what is already known. None of us are going to puzzle out this tragedy by recombining thrice told reminiscences. What is needed is original research. Teddy and her team go to the mountain and dig. That is good. Other avenues of research are checking the financials of suspicious characters. This could include promotions, transfers and even deathbed confessions. Follow the money! If there is malicious behavior, someone knows and someone will tell.

The natural explanation of slab slide requires the fewest assumptions. The question is how do contemporary explorers avoid the same fate.




 

October 25, 2022, 09:13:24 PM
Reply #41
Offline

Ziljoe


Hi GlennM


The idea is the Wolverine got into the tent.there are no witness statements because , unfortunately, they all the hikers died.

No one was even contemplating a Wolverine at the time. My guess is that it was a standard search and rescue. What followed all revolves around why the left the tent?
 
The following users thanked this post: GlennM

October 26, 2022, 01:03:40 PM
Reply #42
Offline

Charles


Follow the money for both the author(s) of the theory as well as the players.

You want to follow the money? Please help yourself:

https://books.openedition.org/pumi/33136?lang=fr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharof_Rashidov

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1366199014

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naftali_Frenkel

I was never employed by NKVD, I had never ever received one ruble from NKVD, MVD or any Soviet or Russian state organisation, but Prodanov was "head of the production division of the VostUralLag of the NKVD (Fabrichniy, TAVDA)" and Sergey Kolevtov was "financial director" at the same Tavda wood Kombinat.

And Ivedllag, Ivdel City Council and Ivdel City Committe were thigthly intricated. You can check all the people who where rewarded at the occasion of March 1959 election. Search in the Who's Who, who was promoted at the end of the investigation and who met a sad ending... follow the money, alright, but follow as well the rewards and fatal hazards...










« Last Edit: October 26, 2022, 02:31:46 PM by Charles »
 
The following users thanked this post: GlennM

October 27, 2022, 07:35:18 PM
Reply #43
Online

GlennM


Charles, I think you are starting to see my point. Congratulations. Please proceed. I do not need to follow the money, since natural events are not paid. If you turn up something compelling that supports your theory, let us know. Fewer people are interested as time goes on.
 

October 28, 2022, 12:09:38 PM
Reply #44
Offline

Charles


Dear GlennM,

Charles, I think you are starting to see my point. Congratulations. Please proceed. I do not need to follow the money, since natural events are not paid. If you turn up something compelling that supports your theory, let us know. Fewer people are interested as time goes on.

Ha ha ha! What a joke! Natural events are not paid (Is it a souvenir of Kant's Critique of Judgment?) and many things are possible, but among the possible, we only care about evidence and highest probabilities. You don't even have the beginning of an evidence, only possible, and probable at the lowest, even under the limit of possible. But Brownian motion tells us that there is a probability, a very small but very real one, that all atoms of oxygen leave the room where you sit at your computer, the possibility does not mean that it happened if we found you dead at your seat... You can't make the difference between possible and real, and it could be caused by the absence of subjunctive mood in English language... In French, we have imperative, indicative, conditional and subjunctive moods which allows us to think the difference between the real and the possible (the difference between what we want, what is real, what is real under a condition, what is possible). Search about "subjunctive mood" on the internet or in grammar books, and meditate...

« Last Edit: October 29, 2022, 07:08:56 AM by Charles »
 

October 28, 2022, 03:05:17 PM
Reply #45
Online

GlennM


« Last Edit: October 28, 2022, 08:06:32 PM by GlennM »