Ahhh Teddy, I really like those little guys.
I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory,
I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory,
One question would be, why was the ravine exposed such that they could fall into it onto the rocks in early February but not three months later when the bodies had to be dug out from meters of snow? Could be wrong, but my assumption would be the ravine should already have a fair amount of snow in it by February.
I thought it strange too that none of the 4 in the ravine had injuries to the hands like the others. I also find it strange that, like the missing boots, none of the group were wearing gloves. I think that Thibeux-Brignolle had gloves found in his pockets and not on his hands (which is even more strange).
I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory, I think this makes the most sense for the injuries. In the US, falling is the third most leading cause of accidental deaths. Even falls from a very short height can result in severe injuries. In the autopsy reports the medical examiner even states that a fall is a possible explanation for the injuries. Still, there are a lot of unknowns and reasons why this doesn't make a lot of sense. But, I think it's the most logical of all the theories.
I think the critical injuries to the Rav4 are an even greater mystery than the flight from the tent. I know WAB has done calculations and theorizes a fall onto rocks was sufficient to cause the injuries. I heard Teddy say on her radio interview that it would haven taken a fall from the sixth story of a building to result in such injuries. Of course, the key question is this: are the injuries related to exiting the tent (a terrible fight with assailants, beating and torture from the KGB/CiA) or are the tent and the injuries two separate events.
The fall theory doesn't work. It's either crushed or murdered and buried. The ravine would have been full of snow by say october and they were 3.5m underneath in a tight grouping consistent with occupying the den or burial.
As usual you push your nonsense hard.
You're talking complete nonsense.
1. In order to say that a fall is not the cause of injuries, you need to know the biomechanics of impact injuries. You don't know her at all if you say those words.
2. There was no murder there at least because other people couldn't get there for the usual reasons: strong remoteness of the terrain and lack of possible routes. So, you don't know the terrain and the logistics of communication routes for a given place either.
3. Neither by October, nor until mid-March, there is not much snow in the ravines, even now that the climate has become warmer, and therefore there is much more rainfall. Here is a photo - as a place in a small ravine (there is a depth of about 1.5 m (5 ft) looks like in November:
(https://d.radikal.ru/d36/2007/82/d4b1c78af66at.jpg) (https://d.radikal.ru/d36/2007/82/d4b1c78af66a.jpg)
The snow depth there is about 20 cm (8 in). In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in). I would like to remind you that the winter of 1959 was abnormally low in snow.
4. In May 1959, there was about 2.5 metres of snow above the bodies and about 30 cm underneath. That is, after the events in February, March and April, it fell out and was moved from above, this amount of snow.
It turns out so that you not only use unreliable information, but also compose it on purpose.
In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in)
I thought it strange too that none of the 4 in the ravine had injuries to the hands like the others. I also find it strange that, like the missing boots, none of the group were wearing gloves. I think that Thibeux-Brignolle had gloves found in his pockets and not on his hands (which is even more strange).
I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory, I think this makes the most sense for the injuries. In the US, falling is the third most leading cause of accidental deaths. Even falls from a very short height can result in severe injuries. In the autopsy reports the medical examiner even states that a fall is a possible explanation for the injuries. Still, there are a lot of unknowns and reasons why this doesn't make a lot of sense. But, I think it's the most logical of all the theories.
Problem with that theory is that none of their injuries are consistent with a fall, the serious injuries could be from a fall, but what are the chances that all 4 of them fell from high enough to cause those injuries without breaking their arms or legs or creating more significant injuries consistent with a fall? Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov seem to have similar head injuries that could have come from a fall or being hit(butt of a rifle, baton, rock). Thibeaux-Brignolle and Dubinina have identical head injuries on opposite sides of their head, Zolotaryov and Kolevatov also have similar injuries on opposite sides of their heads. Those injuries could have been from a rifle or a baton as a means to get them on the ground, Thibeaux-Brignolle received the hardest hit and was likely out of it if not unconscious, Kolevatov might have struggled and received a broken neck for his troubles but the remaining two received severe injuries that wouldn't necessarily kill them immediately which might have been because they pissed off whoever eventually killed them bad enough that they were made to suffer a little extra.
One person falling and dying because of weird injuries would be acceptable/understandable since they were likely scared, exhausted, cold, hungry and also it was dark, but all of them getting serious head injuries followed by one person with a broken neck and two people with severe chest injuries and possibly facial injuries. What are the chances that all of them suffered very similar head injuries in the same way only for 3 of them to get up and suffer further injuries all without once instinctively trying to break their fall in some way. I mean Dubinina and Thibeaux-Brignolle hit the sides of their head, an impact of that sort should also cause serious shoulder injuries, neck injuries, broken fingers, broken arm etc...
I think the critical injuries to the Rav4 are an even greater mystery than the flight from the tent. I know WAB has done calculations and theorizes a fall onto rocks was sufficient to cause the injuries. I heard Teddy say on her radio interview that it would haven taken a fall from the sixth story of a building to result in such injuries. Of course, the key question is this: are the injuries related to exiting the tent (a terrible fight with assailants, beating and torture from the KGB/CiA) or are the tent and the injuries two separate events.
Slobodin and the two men under the tree died, at this point Dyatlov decides to go back to the tent seeing as their chances of survival are slim, Zinaida goes with him, the other three go with Zolotaryov seeing as he has experience with winter survival since he made it through the entire war. Dyatlov could have gone back out of guilt or sense of responsibility, he could have felt guilty for them being in that predicament because he was the leader and he might have felt responsible to keep the few surviving members alive and the only way he saw that happening was to go back to the tent and hope for the best.
Another key question is why did the group split up? It seems only the two Yuri's were left to attend the fire, which they failed to do. I've never understood the three "going back to the tent". It just doesn't make sense.
I agree, the autopsy might have merit for one person, because the doctor would do the autopsy and focus on the injuries of the person in front of him, what the investigators should have done and what we should be looking at is all the injuries combined. One person falling backwards, hitting his/her head getting up in confusion and then falling into a whole and suffering horrific injuries is a distinct possibility, having 4 people fall and hit their heads in very similar fashion, get up only for 3 of them to fall and suffer even more horrific injuries upon a second fall while the third dies from his initial injuries seems less likely.
The autopsy reports actually states a fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. At the end of Sasha's it states:
"The above mentioned multiple fractures of Zolotaryov’s ribs with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity were caused in vivo as an effect of a high-power impact to the chest of Zolotaryov at the moment of his fall, squeezing or throwing."
A fall from under 6 feet would probably happen in less than a second. Couple that with the fact that all of them were probably in the beginning (or even final) stages of hypothermia and it easy to see them not reacting quickly.Is six feet high enough to cause those injuries though?
The problems I have with the foul play theory is there is always some little action by the group that causes reasonable doubt. In the case of the ravine - who built the den? Why, if they were under some watchful eye bent on their demise, would they be allowed to build a den? If they built the den after the guilty party had caused their injuries and left how, if they had sustained those types of injuries, would they be able to built the den? The den is significant as it probably took a lot of effort to build.My personal theory is that whoever the attackers were, they wanted this to look as close to natural death as possible, they send them out to the treeline with enough clothes and equipment to let the hikers think they have a chance and thus go willingly but not enough equipment to actually give them a chance. Turned out the hikers were highly motivated and skilled which allowed them to survive much longer than anticipated, they had no choice but to build shelter, so by the time the attackers came down and found them the four in the ravine were the only once still alive. The worked on the den because they knew they were going to die of the elements or by the attackers, but the attackers might leave, they might have a change in heart or someone could come and interrupt them but without shelter all 4 would eventually have succumbed to the elements. As long as there was a chance of survival you deal with the problem at hand which was shelter, hell even without a hope of survival many people will still work on solving the most immediate problem, once that was solved they would have dealt with the next problem and the problem after than, unfortunately they didn’t get that far as they were attacked again in the morning and killed.
As usual you push your nonsense hard.
You're talking complete nonsense.
1. In order to say that a fall is not the cause of injuries, you need to know the biomechanics of impact injuries. You don't know her at all if you say those words.
2. There was no murder there at least because other people couldn't get there for the usual reasons: strong remoteness of the terrain and lack of possible routes. So, you don't know the terrain and the logistics of communication routes for a given place either.
3. Neither by October, nor until mid-March, there is not much snow in the ravines, even now that the climate has become warmer, and therefore there is much more rainfall. Here is a photo - as a place in a small ravine (there is a depth of about 1.5 m (5 ft) looks like in November:
(https://d.radikal.ru/d36/2007/82/d4b1c78af66at.jpg) (https://d.radikal.ru/d36/2007/82/d4b1c78af66a.jpg)
The snow depth there is about 20 cm (8 in). In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in). I would like to remind you that the winter of 1959 was abnormally low in snow.
4. In May 1959, there was about 2.5 metres of snow above the bodies and about 30 cm underneath. That is, after the events in February, March and April, it fell out and was moved from above, this amount of snow.
It turns out so that you not only use unreliable information, but also compose it on purpose.
1. First Okishev is dismissed, then Ivanov, now Vozrozhdenny? (rolls eyes).
2. So the Soviet military couldn't have killed them because it's too remote for them? (rolls eyes again).
3. Tempalov made his formal statement wrt his visit on 28.02.59 - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312?rbid=17743"At the bottom of the mountain flows a river up to 70 cm deep in a ravine where the depth of the snow in places reaches 2 to 6 m thick."
4. In February the ravine snow was too deep to probe.
Eventually they built a dam to catch any bodies traveling downstream in the spring thaw
and following advice from the Mansi removed 1 meter of snow to probe the 2.5 metres below with extra long probes.
The search photos show that they were not lying on 30cm of snow.
In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in)
Wouldn't that be enough to cushion the bodies from severe injury?
They're wading through the snow in the dark and slide into a ravine with a layer of snow over the rocks and that's enough to cause high impact injuries?
Did this happen somewhere deeper and the bodies were moved?
BTW, your English is much improved.
In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in)
Wouldn't that be enough to cushion the bodies from severe injury?
They're wading through the snow in the dark and slide into a ravine with a layer of snow over the rocks and that's enough to cause high impact injuries?
Yes. Snow doesn't have good kresher (shock absorbing) properties. Especially since there wasn't much snow in February (or, to be more precise, for the whole January - all events were on February 01!). Karelin estimates its quantity in the place where I assume their fall, about 30 cm (12 in).
In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in)
Wouldn't that be enough to cushion the bodies from severe injury?
They're wading through the snow in the dark and slide into a ravine with a layer of snow over the rocks and that's enough to cause high impact injuries?
Yes. Snow doesn't have good kresher (shock absorbing) properties. Especially since there wasn't much snow in February (or, to be more precise, for the whole January - all events were on February 01!). Karelin estimates its quantity in the place where I assume their fall, about 30 cm (12 in).
How do they find out that there was just 30cm of snow? The group members wrote in the diaries that the snow cover was about 120cm, as well from the photos(taken by the group members) you could see that there was lots of snow.
In my opinion, the fact that they found the den floor just 30cm above the ground and under 3.5m of snow mean that it was build in cave created by a snow drift.
WAB, the Den was found under about 3m of snow it is a fact confirmed by written statements and as well by photographs. The photo with Boris Suvorov https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-01.jpg that you linked is made at the front of the Den, not in the place where bodies were found.
Yes, Dyatlov wrote in his diary about 120 cm in another valley, but we could expect same conditions in all valleys around, there was little snow on the slopes because all of it was blown down and drifted to the valleys, this always happens during high winds and as you know in Ural the wind is always very strong. This is why I believe that the ravine was filled with snow before end of the January.
You are right that it is not possible to dig a snow cave without tools, it is very hard job but they could find naturally created cave/snow roof:
(https://twilight73.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/100_6274.jpg)
and make the Den floor under something like this.
It was no sense to make just a floor on a open space, there have to be some cover from elements and because only floor was found there was some kind of snow protection over it.
Nothing else was found.
And we can't compare conditions in 1959 to what you found there in 2016 or now, not because of the difference in snow fall.
The biggest difference is that the forest around ravine is much more dense than in 1959 (you could clearly see it on the photos) so it is not possible for the snow to be drifted from slopes by wind that deep into the forest and be deposited in the ravin because it is stopped by vegetation much earlier.
Just a random fact: Two years ago, in March, in Ireland was a snow fall about 30cm during 24h, because of high wind during the snow fall there was snow drifts as deep as 4m in some places, so you don't need much snow to create big snowdrifts if there is strong wind.
(http://webdesignstudio.ie/images/city_snowdrift.jpg)
So I believe that they made the Den in a snow drift/cave that was created in a natural process, and there is a lot of facts supporting this possibility.
I agree, the autopsy might have merit for one person, because the doctor would do the autopsy and focus on the injuries of the person in front of him, what the investigators should have done and what we should be looking at is all the injuries combined. One person falling backwards, hitting his/her head getting up in confusion and then falling into a whole and suffering horrific injuries is a distinct possibility, having 4 people fall and hit their heads in very similar fashion, get up only for 3 of them to fall and suffer even more horrific injuries upon a second fall while the third dies from his initial injuries seems less likely.
The autopsy reports actually states a fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. At the end of Sasha's it states:
"The above mentioned multiple fractures of Zolotaryov’s ribs with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity were caused in vivo as an effect of a high-power impact to the chest of Zolotaryov at the moment of his fall, squeezing or throwing."
Autopsies for Sasha, Dubinina, and Thibeaux-Brignolle all list fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. Kolevatov's does not. I don't think the medical examiner would have listed fall as a possible cause of injury if it wasn't a possibility. The injuries would have happened during a single fall. For example, it's possible that Dubinina's fractured ribs, bruise to the quadricep, and nose and throat damage happened due to a fall. The only exception would be in the case of Sasha when, afterQuoteA fall from under 6 feet would probably happen in less than a second. Couple that with the fact that all of them were probably in the beginning (or even final) stages of hypothermia and it easy to see them not reacting quickly.Is six feet high enough to cause those injuries though?QuoteThe problems I have with the foul play theory is there is always some little action by the group that causes reasonable doubt. In the case of the ravine - who built the den? Why, if they were under some watchful eye bent on their demise, would they be allowed to build a den? If they built the den after the guilty party had caused their injuries and left how, if they had sustained those types of injuries, would they be able to built the den? The den is significant as it probably took a lot of effort to build.My personal theory is that whoever the attackers were, they wanted this to look as close to natural death as possible, they send them out to the treeline with enough clothes and equipment to let the hikers think they have a chance and thus go willingly but not enough equipment to actually give them a chance. Turned out the hikers were highly motivated and skilled which allowed them to survive much longer than anticipated, they had no choice but to build shelter, so by the time the attackers came down and found them the four in the ravine were the only once still alive. The worked on the den because they knew they were going to die of the elements or by the attackers, but the attackers might leave, they might have a change in heart or someone could come and interrupt them but without shelter all 4 would eventually have succumbed to the elements. As long as there was a chance of survival you deal with the problem at hand which was shelter, hell even without a hope of survival many people will still work on solving the most immediate problem, once that was solved they would have dealt with the next problem and the problem after than, unfortunately they didn’t get that far as they were attacked again in the morning and killed.
Like I said, I am not discounting a fall as a cause of death but looking at all of them is it likely? Saying one person died because of a freak accident its a possibility, but that's looking at just one, now having 4 people die from 4 similar but independent freak accidents at the same time under the same circumstance seems a little more unlikely. Looking individually it very well could have been a fall that caused the injuries to the back/side of all 4 people's heads, a fall could have caused the injuries to Dubinina and Zolotaryov but when you step back and look at all the injuries and more importantly what is missing(arm injuries, shoulder injuries, leg injuries etc...). Plus what are the chances they all fell on the same rock or they all fell on 4 rocks that just happened to be at the right place to cause injuries to the back of the head of all the individuals rather than other parts of their bodies. All received the same type of head injuries, to me it indicates that 4 people who were trained in the same manner injured those people in the same way rather than all 4 happening to fall and receive those injuries.
Autopsies for Sasha, Dubinina, and Thibeaux-Brignolle all list fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. Kolevatov's does not. I don't think the medical examiner would have listed fall as a possible cause of injury if it wasn't a possibility. The injuries would have happened during a single fall. For example, it's possible that Dubinina's fractured ribs, bruise to the quadricep, and nose and throat damage happened due to a fall. The only exception would be in the case of Sasha when, after
Like I said, I am not discounting a fall as a cause of death but looking at all of them is it likely? Saying one person died because of a freak accident its a possibility, but that's looking at just one, now having 4 people die from 4 similar but independent freak accidents at the same time under the same circumstance seems a little more unlikely. Looking individually it very well could have been a fall that caused the injuries to the back/side of all 4 people's heads, a fall could have caused the injuries to Dubinina and Zolotaryov but when you step back and look at all the injuries and more importantly what is missing(arm injuries, shoulder injuries, leg injuries etc...). Plus what are the chances they all fell on the same rock or they all fell on 4 rocks that just happened to be at the right place to cause injuries to the back of the head of all the individuals rather than other parts of their bodies. All received the same type of head injuries, to me it indicates that 4 people who were trained in the same manner injured those people in the same way rather than all 4 happening to fall and receive those injuries.
Autopsies for Sasha, Dubinina, and Thibeaux-Brignolle all list fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. Kolevatov's does not. I don't think the medical examiner would have listed fall as a possible cause of injury if it wasn't a possibility. The injuries would have happened during a single fall. For example, it's possible that Dubinina's fractured ribs, bruise to the quadricep, and nose and throat damage happened due to a fall. The only exception would be in the case of Sasha when, after
I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.
I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.
So the falling theory seems almost impossible.Medical examiner listed fall as a possible explanation for the fractures
- Bruising occurs but doesn't exist for the fractures.
If you landed on your chest or head you wouldn't have broken limbs
- No broken limbs.
Ok
- From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
No. If a 170 lb person fell 6 feet onto rocks it is possible to fracture ribs (see my previous post). This spring I fell while riding a skateboard in a concrete bowl. I fell from approximately 4 feet and the back of my head slammed into the concrete. Luckily I was wearing a helmet that absorbed the shock otherwise I would have cracked my skull. The helmet I was using cracked in 3 different places and is now unusable. Also, it happened so fast that I had not time to block the fall and had zero injuries to my hands, arms, or legs. Again, the medical examiner listed fall as a possible cause of injuries.
- I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
?
- In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
They were found almost 4 months later - it snowed and they were covered.
- They were found under 3.5m.
[/list]The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.
I can not find a single case where someone died of a snowcave collapse where the cause of death was anything but asphyxiation. They were not in the den when they died. Falling is the most logical explanation for the injuries. The medical examiner listed falling as a possible cause of injury on Lyuda, Sasha, and Thibeaux-Brignolle.
I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.
So the falling theory seems almost impossible.The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.
- Bruising occurs but doesn't exist for the fractures.
- No broken limbs.
- From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
- I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
- In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
- They were found under 3.5m.
Medical examiner listed fall as a possible explanation for the fracturesor blast wave or a car impact. He's not favouring a fall, just including it in a list of possible high energy events. Quoting this is a very thin argument imo.
I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.
So the falling theory seems almost impossible.[/q][/q]
- Bruising occurs but doesn't exist for the fractures.
If you landed on your chest or head you wouldn't have broken limbsIt's possible for one person. But three? And how to explain Alexander?
- No broken limbs.
Ok
- From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
No. If a 170 lb person fell 6 feet onto rocks it is possible to fracture ribs (see my previous post). This spring I fell while riding a skateboard in a concrete bowl. I fell from approximately 4 feet and the back of my head slammed into the concrete. Luckily I was wearing a helmet that absorbed the shock otherwise I would have cracked my skull. The helmet I was using cracked in 3 different places and is now unusable. Also, it happened so fast that I had not time to block the fall and had zero injuries to my hands, arms, or legs. Again, the medical examiner listed fall as a possible cause of injuries.But he specifically ruled out falling over as the cause. It needs a longer drop.
- I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
?
- In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
They were found almost 4 months later - it snowed and they were covered.No you're missing the point. Tempalov stated the depth of snow in the ravine as seen on 28th Feb to be 2-6m (i.e. it was full of snow too deep to be probed). So it is central to the falling theory that this 2-6m of snow all happened in the 4 weeks of Feb. As with all things with this theory it is possible but improbable. [/q]The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.
- They were found under 3.5m.
I can not find a single case where someone died of a snowcave collapse where the cause of death was anything but asphyxiation. It seems to be the opinion of the experts that they were not equipped to dig a snow cave, so the theory is that they exploited a natural feature carved by the wind etc and walled it up. This then explains why no asphyxiation (unless the pathologist missed it in 3 month old corpses of course). They were not in the den when they died. Falling is the most logical explanation for the injuries. The medical examiner listed falling as a possible cause of injury on Lyuda, Sasha, and Thibeaux-Brignolle.
I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.
So the falling theory seems almost impossible.The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.
- Bruising occurs but doesn't exist for the fractures.
- No broken limbs.
- From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
- I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
- In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
- They were found under 3.5m.
No it does not. You have no idea what caused their injuries, all you have is the injuries themselves, which are all high energy injuries with no relevant bruising across three bodies. NO other evidences. No way this small "ravine" could cause such severe injuries. Correct you need an external force, falling doesn't cut it. And I have no idea what caused the injuries ...
- Medical examiner listed fall as a possible explanation for the fracturesor blast wave or a car impact. He's not favouring a fall, just including it in a list of possible high energy events. Quoting this is a very thin argument imo.
- But he specifically ruled out falling over as the cause. It needs a longer drop.
A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries. But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries. When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases.
.
Hi there, I struggle with a fall of 4m causing a double fracture in the rib cage of a healthy young woman. Do you any evidence to support this?
It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries. Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries..
A localised crushing force fits the bill exactly.
Regards
Star man
Wrt lack of broken limbs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/)."The mean height of the fall was 4.54 meters (range: 0.6-12 meters).""A total of 126 fractures occurred in 101 patients: 55 in the upper limbs, 50 in the lower limbs, 14 in the spine, and 7 in the pelvis. Associated injuries included head (n = 17), chest (n = 9) and abdominal injuries (n = 6).".
So 105 broken limbs from 101 patients with an average drop of 4.5m... Says it all?
A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries. But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries. When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases.
.
Hi there, I struggle with a fall of 4m causing a double fracture in the rib cage of a healthy young woman. Do you any evidence to support this?
It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries. Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries..
A localised crushing force fits the bill exactly.
Regards
Star man
Hi Morski, what's the difference, 30cms of snow? Can't be 3.5m?Wrt lack of broken limbs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/)."The mean height of the fall was 4.54 meters (range: 0.6-12 meters).""A total of 126 fractures occurred in 101 patients: 55 in the upper limbs, 50 in the lower limbs, 14 in the spine, and 7 in the pelvis. Associated injuries included head (n = 17), chest (n = 9) and abdominal injuries (n = 6).".
So 105 broken limbs from 101 patients with an average drop of 4.5m... Says it all?
Hardly. Unless all those 101 patients got injured near Kholat Syakhl, so we can deduct a plausible conclusion, that falling is out of question.
How much force to snap the rib twice?A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries. But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries. When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases.
.
Hi there, I struggle with a fall of 4m causing a double fracture in the rib cage of a healthy young woman. Do you any evidence to support this?
It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries. Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries..
A localised crushing force fits the bill exactly.
Regards
Star man
I did the analysis myself Nigel using the biomechanical properties of ribs and forced required to break a typical rib. I did present it in the Low Yield nuke theory for a fall from a tree.
Regards
Star man
How much force to snap the rib twice?A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries. But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries. When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases.
.
Hi there, I struggle with a fall of 4m causing a double fracture in the rib cage of a healthy young woman. Do you any evidence to support this?
It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries. Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries..
A localised crushing force fits the bill exactly.
Regards
Star man
I did the analysis myself Nigel using the biomechanical properties of ribs and forced required to break a typical rib. I did present it in the Low Yield nuke theory for a fall from a tree.
Regards
Star man
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/).
"Generally, the mortality rate is greater with falls from higher places compared with lower places.[5 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref5)] The reported mortality rates of falls from ≥12 meters and ≥18 meters were 50% and 100%, respectively.[13 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref13)] However, a survivor who fell from 19 stories (57 meters) has also been reported.[14 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref14)] Liu et al[15 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref15)] found that the mortality rate due to falls from >6 meters was 22.7% and while Velmohos et al[16 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref16)] found that it was 9.6% for falls from >9 meters. In our series, the mortality rate from falls from >9 meters was 23.5%, which is compatible with the literature.
So this seems to support the 6 stories = 60 feet = 20 meters theory. If four of you want to end it all by jumping make sure it's a drop >18m. If there's 7 of you and you want a 50% survival rate then choose 12m.
I've personally witnessed a suicide that was a drop of 18 stories/60m. He lived for about 30 minutes similar to Semyon.
Reading another publication it remarked that a common injury in longer drops is heart/aorta rupture due to the deceleration which from memory did not occur in the rav4. Lyudmila's heart was punctured by a broken rib but not relevant.
Regards.
Hi Morski, what's the difference, 30cms of snow? Can't be 3.5m?Wrt lack of broken limbs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/)."The mean height of the fall was 4.54 meters (range: 0.6-12 meters).""A total of 126 fractures occurred in 101 patients: 55 in the upper limbs, 50 in the lower limbs, 14 in the spine, and 7 in the pelvis. Associated injuries included head (n = 17), chest (n = 9) and abdominal injuries (n = 6).".
So 105 broken limbs from 101 patients with an average drop of 4.5m... Says it all?
Hardly. Unless all those 101 patients got injured near Kholat Syakhl, so we can deduct a plausible conclusion, that falling is out of question.
Like I said, I am not discounting a fall as a cause of death but looking at all of them is it likely? Saying one person died because of a freak accident its a possibility, but that's looking at just one, now having 4 people die from 4 similar but independent freak accidents at the same time under the same circumstance seems a little more unlikely. Looking individually it very well could have been a fall that caused the injuries to the back/side of all 4 people's heads, a fall could have caused the injuries to Dubinina and Zolotaryov but when you step back and look at all the injuries and more importantly what is missing(arm injuries, shoulder injuries, leg injuries etc...). Plus what are the chances they all fell on the same rock or they all fell on 4 rocks that just happened to be at the right place to cause injuries to the back of the head of all the individuals rather than other parts of their bodies. All received the same type of head injuries, to me it indicates that 4 people who were trained in the same manner injured those people in the same way rather than all 4 happening to fall and receive those injuries.
Autopsies for Sasha, Dubinina, and Thibeaux-Brignolle all list fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. Kolevatov's does not. I don't think the medical examiner would have listed fall as a possible cause of injury if it wasn't a possibility. The injuries would have happened during a single fall. For example, it's possible that Dubinina's fractured ribs, bruise to the quadricep, and nose and throat damage happened due to a fall. The only exception would be in the case of Sasha when, after
Sorry about the previous fragmented response. Not sure what happened there.
I think there is some confusion as to the events with the fall - I'll try and clarify:
After Yuri D. and Yuri K. passed at the cedar, the remaining seven took clothing, left the fire and cedar, and traveled deeper into the forest. In complete dark, without the moon or flashlight, they were probably in two groups walking very close or holding on to each other. By this point they were all in the beginning or mid stages of hypothermia and reaction time would have been limited. Stumbling onto the ravine, it's possible that they heard water, but they would not have been able to see the ravine. There are a hundred different scenarios for how they could have fallen but I believe they stumbled in the deep snow or fell through snow (snow bridge) and, holding onto each other, 3 of them fell onto a number of large rocks (imaging falling down a flight of stairs on to rocks in the dark). They didn't fall onto a single rock and the rocks weren't in the "right place" - it was just a bunch of rocks that lined the entire bed of the ravine. It would have happened quickly and with hypothermia setting in, they probably didn't realize what had happened and were unable to block the fall or protect themselves. Sasha fell and landed on his chest breaking his ribs and cutting the top of his head. Thibeux-Brignolle landed on his head knocking him unconscious. Lyuda landed breaking her ribs and received bruising on her quadricep and damage to her face. All of these injuries could occur with an uninterrupted fall onto large rocks. A 170 lb person falling 6 feet would generate around 4,800 newtons of force which would be more than enough to break ribs. This is all arm-chair science but we've already concluded that the medical examiner stated a fall as a possibility.
After they fell, the remaining 3 (or four) made their way into the ravine and, hoping to save their friends and themselves, began to build the den into a snow drift on the banks of the ravine, returning to the cedar to retrieve more clothing and cut fir branches for the bed. The 3 that fell remained on the rocks where they were found months later. The building of the den would have been done in absolute darkness and it probably took a substantial amount of effort. Running out of options, the remaining three (Igor, Zina, and Rustem) abandoned the ravine and attempted a return to the tent. Over the next 3 weeks its possible that the water level in the ravine decreased and froze allowing snow to accumulate and cover the rocks and hikers. As far as I know there is no mention of a search in the area of the ravine during the initial stages of the investigation.
The outlier is Kolevatov. I don't know what his circumstances would have been. It's possible that after the fire the 3 attempted a return to the tent and the other four walked into the forest with all but Kolevatov falling into the ravine. Kolevatov alone constructed the den and the bed and then gave up. But I don't see him being able to construct the bed and den alone. It's also possible that he fell as well which would account for his neck injury.
There are also injuries to Sasha's scapula that were found later that are hard to account for.
Yes, it's unusual that 3 (or 4) people would all fall at the same time and incur such extreme injuries but it is the most likely scenario. Even if they were forced from the tent by a third party and left to fend for themselves I think it is still a more likely scenario for the injuries. Finding a small group of people in a ravine in complete darkness in a large, forested area with only a flashlight in -15 F weather and in snow a mile from the tent would have been near impossible at best.
If you happened upon someone lying on top of rocks at the bottom of a small ravine with injuries what would be the mostly likely cause of injury?
Yes i get the glass analogy. Her rib cage "shattered".
It's a good question and one of the reasons I am inclined to think that the injuries were caused by a fast impact. If I remember correctly a typical rib bone has a lateral breaking stress of about 50 mega pascals. Combing that with a typical cross section of a rib gives a breaking force in the region of 250Kg. Apparently bone is very strong and tough up towards its breaking stress at which point it yields considerably before breaking. This means that any force that is applied slowly would eventually cause a break at the point where the breaking stress is exceeded first, relieving further stresses on other parts of the bone. But a force applied rapidly could over stress the bone in multiple places before any single point yields and breaks, which could result in multiple fractures.
A not great analogy, but one that may help explain this is glass. Glass is a super cooled liquid, which under the slow application of stress/force flows very slowly, but give it sharp fast shock and it behaves in a brittle manner and breaks into many pieces.
The pathologists were correct when they said the injuries are typical of a car accident, falling or being thrown IMO.
Regards
Star man
I appreciate the data set isn't perfect but i think it's good enough to make the point.
Hi, Nigel.
My point is, that you are using data for skeletal injuries pretty much in general. According to this article the landing surface consisted mainly of
concrete (n=63, 62.3%), ground (n=28, 27.7%) and wooden decks (n=10, 9.9%), plus the 101 patients are a mixture of children, adults and elderly people, which is a huge variety in bone density and strength. And the main period for the research is summer to monsoon months. It is not even in the winter, not to mention the different surface.
I think, that in order to refute falling as cause for the injuries, we need to consider not only height, but the season and the specifics of the terrain around Kholat Syakhl, which unfortunately very few of us in the forum know in detail.
Nigel, if you think there is no place high enough from them to fallWell Lyudmila had a pierced heart and lived for just minutes so i don't think she could have survived anywhere.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/).
"Generally, the mortality rate is greater with falls from higher places compared with lower places.[5 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref5)] The reported mortality rates of falls from ≥12 meters and ≥18 meters were 50% and 100%, respectively.[13 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref13)] However, a survivor who fell from 19 stories (57 meters) has also been reported.[14 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref14)] Liu et al[15 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref15)] found that the mortality rate due to falls from >6 meters was 22.7% and while Velmohos et al[16 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref16)] found that it was 9.6% for falls from >9 meters. In our series, the mortality rate from falls from >9 meters was 23.5%, which is compatible with the literature.
So this seems to support the 6 stories = 60 feet = 20 meters theory. If four of you want to end it all by jumping make sure it's a drop >18m. If there's 7 of you and you want a 50% survival rate then choose 12m.
I've personally witnessed a suicide that was a drop of 18 stories/60m. He lived for about 30 minutes similar to Semyon.
Reading another publication it remarked that a common injury in longer drops is heart/aorta rupture due to the deceleration which from memory did not occur in the rav4. Lyudmila's heart was punctured by a broken rib but not relevant.
Regards.
But those are survival rates with medical help, presumably. For people not already weakened by hypothermia.
Also, if they had been trapped under the snow, they would have lived for 10 minutes max. At least Thibo would've died of asphyxiation, not hypothermia.
Hello everyone.
Has anyone ever wondered why none of the hikers had bruises on the bottoms of their feet? The ground was quite rocky, they walked about a mile and it was supposedly quite dark so they would not have been able to see where they were putting their feet. Frostbite was mentioned but no scratches,cuts or bruises.
Hello,
The problem with your theory is as follows.
The den had to be built before trio from quarteto was injured. Four seats from pieces of clothing and branches were put inside the den. This means that they had to be uninjured, otherwise they could not be there in a sitting position. Rather, it seems to me that after building the den, they went out of the den, maybe to pee, or they were interrupted by something, or they wanted to look at something... and there something terrified happened.
Nigel, if you think there is no place high enough from them to fallWell Lyudmila had a pierced heart and lived for just minutes so i don't think she could have survived anywhere.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/).
"Generally, the mortality rate is greater with falls from higher places compared with lower places.[5 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref5)] The reported mortality rates of falls from ≥12 meters and ≥18 meters were 50% and 100%, respectively.[13 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref13)] However, a survivor who fell from 19 stories (57 meters) has also been reported.[14 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref14)] Liu et al[15 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref15)] found that the mortality rate due to falls from >6 meters was 22.7% and while Velmohos et al[16 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717375/#ref16)] found that it was 9.6% for falls from >9 meters. In our series, the mortality rate from falls from >9 meters was 23.5%, which is compatible with the literature.
So this seems to support the 6 stories = 60 feet = 20 meters theory. If four of you want to end it all by jumping make sure it's a drop >18m. If there's 7 of you and you want a 50% survival rate then choose 12m.
I've personally witnessed a suicide that was a drop of 18 stories/60m. He lived for about 30 minutes similar to Semyon.
Reading another publication it remarked that a common injury in longer drops is heart/aorta rupture due to the deceleration which from memory did not occur in the rav4. Lyudmila's heart was punctured by a broken rib but not relevant.
Regards.
But those are survival rates with medical help, presumably. For people not already weakened by hypothermia.
Also, if they had been trapped under the snow, they would have lived for 10 minutes max. At least Thibo would've died of asphyxiation, not hypothermia.
Semyon died of internal bleeding within 20-30 minutes so his chances with medical help would have been slim.
Nicolai's skull had a basal fracture as well as the compound side fracture so much so that the shape of his head was deformed. So survival could be say 50/50 with long term issues.
Wrt the rav4, people don't discuss Rustem but he should imo be included. He had very similar injuries - head trauma and internal bleeding which probably was the cause of death. So it's plausible that he was a fifth member of this event and managed to stagger away. Ditto Zinaida who had a bleeding bruise at her waist. Plus her face of course.
I appreciate the data set isn't perfect but i think it's good enough to make the point.
Hi, Nigel.
My point is, that you are using data for skeletal injuries pretty much in general. According to this article the landing surface consisted mainly of
concrete (n=63, 62.3%), ground (n=28, 27.7%) and wooden decks (n=10, 9.9%), plus the 101 patients are a mixture of children, adults and elderly people, which is a huge variety in bone density and strength. And the main period for the research is summer to monsoon months. It is not even in the winter, not to mention the different surface.
I think, that in order to refute falling as cause for the injuries, we need to consider not only height, but the season and the specifics of the terrain around Kholat Syakhl, which unfortunately very few of us in the forum know in detail.
To recap, the falling theory needs :-
- A fall from sufficient height to create the injuries which is very hard to explain unless they take turns diving off the top of the cedar.
- A freak result that there are no broken limbs on three bodies or ruptured heart/aorta.
- A landing that gives no relevant bruising again on three bodies.
- Snow doesn't reach the ravine for the whole winter until after Feb2, when it then fills with 2 to 6 meters as estimated by Tempalov @ 28/02/59.
I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.
So the falling theory seems almost impossible.The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.
- Bruising occurs but doesn't exist for the fractures.
- No broken limbs.
- From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
- I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
- In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
- They were found under 3.5m.
No it does not. You have no idea what caused their injuries, all you have is the injuries themselves, which are all high energy injuries with no relevant bruising across three bodies.
NO other evidences.
No way this small "ravine" could cause such severe injuries.
Correct you need an external force,
falling doesn't cut it.
And I have no idea what caused the injuries ...
- Medical examiner listed fall as a possible explanation for the fracturesor blast wave or a car impact. He's not favouring a fall, just including it in a list of possible high energy events. Quoting this is a very thin argument imo.
- But he specifically ruled out falling over as the cause. It needs a longer drop.
I give 6 feet because I think that is the minimum height to cause significant injuries. I believe that they either fell from a height higher than 6 feet or that they were carried by momentum (a stumble for example) which increased impact.
Here are the exact quotes from Vozrozhdenny:
Sasha
"The above mentioned multiple fractures of Zolotaryov’s ribs with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity were caused in vivo as an effect of a high-power impact to the chest of Zolotaryov at the moment of his fall, squeezing or throwing."
Lyuda
"The trauma was caused during life and is the result of high force impact with subsequent fall, throw or bruise to the chest of Dubinina."
Thibeaux-Brignolle
"The above-mentioned extensive comminuted fracture of the base and the vault of the cranium are of in vivo origin and are the result of a great force with the subsequent falling, hurling and concussion of Thibeaux-Brignolle."
"Question: From what kind of force could Thibeaux-Brignolle have received such injury?
Answer: In the conclusion, it’s shown the damage to Thibeaux-Brignolle’s head could have been the result of the throwing, fall or jettisoning of the body. I don’t believe these wounds could have been the result of Thibeaux-Brignolle simply falling from the level of his own height, i.e. falling and hitting his head. The extensive, depressed, multi-splintered (broken fornix and base of the skull) fracture could be the result of an impact of an automobile moving at high speed. This kind of trauma could have occurred if Thibeaux-Brignolle had been thrown and fallen and hit his head against rocks, ice, etc., by a gust of strong wind."
Lyuda, Sasha
"Question: How is it possible to explain the cause of the damage to Dubinina and Zolotaryov? Is it possible to combine them into one cause?
Answer: I think the character of the injuries on Dubinina and Zolotaryov – a multiple fracture of the ribs – on Dubinina were bilateral and symmetrical, and on Zolotaryov were one-sided. Both had hemorrhaging into the cardiac muscle with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity, which is evidence of them being alive [when injured] and is the result of the action of a large force, similar to the example used for Thibeaux-Brignolle. These injuries, especially appearing in such a way without any damage to the soft tissue of the chest, are very similar to the type of trauma that results from the shock wave of a bomb."
I think it's fair to note that Vozrozhdenny gave car crash as a possible explanation but I think it is safe to assume that he was likening the injuries to that of injuries sustained in a automobile collision and not the possibility that they were involved in a car crash.
I think it's also noteworthy that they were similar to trauma that results from a bomb blast.
In all, Vozrozhdenny gives 5 ways that they could have received the injuries:
- Fall
- Being thrown
- Blast wave
- Being crushed
- Car Crash (which I think we can rule out)
Here are photos from ravines in the area. It is likely that one of these is the actual ravine. Notice the steep slope on either side of some of the ravines.
(https://i.ibb.co/jk4J8xq/ravine-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pjXh1sN)
(https://i.ibb.co/DVJyGCN/ravine-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ngGv3cT)
(https://i.ibb.co/WGv9dP4/ravine-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/q7YG4W3)
(https://i.ibb.co/wSvSMNn/ravine-4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5r7rBWQ)
(https://i.ibb.co/Mn4vpgj/ravine-5.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PxnL4rb)
Knowing that they were likely found in one of these ravines, out of the 4 mentioned above, what is the most likely scenario?
A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries. But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries.
When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases.
It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries.
Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries.
Wrt lack of broken limbs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/)."The mean height of the fall was 4.54 meters (range: 0.6-12 meters).""A total of 126 fractures occurred in 101 patients: 55 in the upper limbs, 50 in the lower limbs, 14 in the spine, and 7 in the pelvis. Associated injuries included head (n = 17), chest (n = 9) and abdominal injuries (n = 6).".
So 105 broken limbs from 101 patients with an average drop of 4.5m... Says it all?
Hardly. Unless all those 101 patients got injured near Kholat Syakhl, so we can deduct a plausible conclusion, that falling is out of question.
How much force to snap the rib twice?A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries. But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries. When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases.
.
Hi there, I struggle with a fall of 4m causing a double fracture in the rib cage of a healthy young woman. Do you any evidence to support this?
It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries. Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries..
A localised crushing force fits the bill exactly.
Regards
Star man
I did the analysis myself Nigel using the biomechanical properties of ribs and forced required to break a typical rib. I did present it in the Low Yield nuke theory for a fall from a tree.
Regards
Star man
It's a good question and one of the reasons I am inclined to think that the injuries were caused by a fast impact. If I remember correctly a typical rib bone has a lateral breaking stress of about 50 mega pascals.
Combing that with a typical cross section of a rib gives a breaking force in the region of 250Kg.
Apparently bone is very strong and tough up towards its breaking stress at which point it yields considerably before breaking. This means that any force that is applied slowly would eventually cause a break at the point where the breaking stress is exceeded first, relieving further stresses on other parts of the bone. But a force applied rapidly could over stress the bone in multiple places before any single point yields and breaks, which could result in multiple fractures.
A not great analogy, but one that may help explain this is glass. Glass is a super cooled liquid, which under the slow application of stress/force flows very slowly, but give it sharp fast shock and it behaves in a brittle manner and breaks into many pieces.
The pathologists were correct when they said the injuries are typical of a car accident, falling or being thrown IMO.
Hello everyone.
Has anyone ever wondered why none of the hikers had bruises on the bottoms of their feet?
The ground was quite rocky, they walked about a mile and it was supposedly quite dark so they would not have been able to see where they were putting their feet.
Frostbite was mentioned but no scratches,cuts or bruises.
Shock waves from a large blast can break ribs and fracture skulls without bruising. They could damage tissue in the abdomen, which could explain Igor vomiting blood. But WAB will scold me and rightfully so for not providing any scientific proof. So only speculation.
By the way, I spoke with a man yesterday about the Dyatlov mystery. Turns out his father worked in military intelligence from WWII until 1967, focusing on the Soviet Union after the war. He told me that were his father presented with the Dyatlov case, he would immediately say that espionage was at the center of it. For what that's worth.
Wrt lack of broken limbs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22792820/)."The mean height of the fall was 4.54 meters (range: 0.6-12 meters).""A total of 126 fractures occurred in 101 patients: 55 in the upper limbs, 50 in the lower limbs, 14 in the spine, and 7 in the pelvis. Associated injuries included head (n = 17), chest (n = 9) and abdominal injuries (n = 6).".
So 105 broken limbs from 101 patients with an average drop of 4.5m... Says it all?
Hardly. Unless all those 101 patients got injured near Kholat Syakhl, so we can deduct a plausible conclusion, that falling is out of question.
It's good read you text again, Mr. Morski. grin1
I'm ready support you because Mr. Nigel Evans is once again trying take completely different terms and bases his arguments on it. It's a substitution of concepts and so it can't be fair at all. He ignores the arguments of direct observation in the real place and in similar conditions, as well as the scientific basis for analysis (for example, mathematical calculations and adequate models). And this is very sad and counterproductive.
Challenging the crushing theory is perfectly valid, but not as a defence of the falling theory.
My point was that if enough snow had fallen on them to cause these injuries, they would've been trapped under the snow and died of asphyxiation.
I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.
So the falling theory seems almost impossible.The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.
- Bruising occurs but doesn't exist for the fractures.
- No broken limbs.
- From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
- I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
- In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
- They were found under 3.5m.
No it does not. You have no idea what caused their injuries, all you have is the injuries themselves, which are all high energy injuries with no relevant bruising across three bodies.
Let's be clear: you have no idea. It may not apply to others. So you shouldn't generalize about others.
What you emphasized doesn't mean anything. It exists in many cases. Look at the statistics. Not selectively, but whole, in large array.NO other evidences.
You have strange understanding of evidence. If you don't know them, then they don't exist?No way this small "ravine" could cause such severe injuries.
Absolutely. Only you're looking for the cause of your injuries in the wrong place. It's somewhere else and very close to here. This is your traditional mistake.
You're the only one who doesn't know the area exactly, so you deny it for no reason at all.Correct you need an external force,
External forces can be very different. For example, the force of gravity is also is external force. And what could be objected to here?falling doesn't cut it.
Where'd you get that from? Or it is dogmatic religious belief for you?
A blow from fall may well be the cause of such injuries. The impact itself is very complex phenomenon in the perception of some people. But there's nothing special about it. All processes are subject to the law of movement impulse conservation, which is expressed by the formula (this I give in the simplest case, get into "high spheres" in conversation with you I do not risk, it is useless):
M*(V1 - M2) = F*(t1 - t2), where such parameters are specified:
M – it is the mass that moves,
V1 - it is initial speed (before impact),
V2- it is final speed (after impact),
F - it is force value, during time (t1 - t2),
t1 - it is the starting point of impact time,
t2 – it is the final point of impact time,
thus, if there is complete stop, V2 is the final speed (after impact) = 0.
The time interval (t1 - t2) is very small, the F value can be very large. Of course, this is true if the mass M does not change.
M*(V1 - M2) = F*(t1 - t2), where these are indicated Let's see what this force will be for the Tibo case. In the case of simple fall from the height of his own height (174 cm) to stone that lies on the ground and has the size of 2 cm x 3.5 cm in the original contact part – it is the shard that is indicated in the act of the doctor, and which lies on the body of the brain. That is to say, it is penetrating breakdown of the temporal part of the head.
velocity V1 = sqrt(2*g*h),
Where it exists:
Sqrt - square root
g - free fall acceleration
h - height of growth Tibo, minus 7 cm (this is the distance from the top of the skull to the temporal area in the sagittal plane).
So, in this case, the velocity of V1 will be equal to 5.72 m/s. Since V2 = 0 (the stone, together with the ground, does not move in this closed system, and the mass of the head is approximately equal to 5 kg), even for process lasting 10 mS (0.01 seconds), the force of bone destruction will be equal to 2862 Newton or ~ 300 kGs (kilogram of force). But this is true for the whole head area in the sagittal plane (it fell this side, which is equal to the area ~ 0.38 square meters). Since the through-pass of the temporal part of the head was in the area of 2 cm x 3.5 cm = 0.007 square meters, the pressure on this part of the head will be as much as on the whole head. If the virtual pressure "for the whole head" can be calculated as 2862 N / 0.38 square meters = 7531 Ra, then due to the redistribution (concentration!) of the pressure it will be in 0.38 / 0.007 = 54.28 times more. And it will be 155365 Pa or 155 kPa, which is more than 5 times the strength of this part of the skull, which was studied in the works of Professor Alexander Gromov and Sergei Korsakov. We worked on the development of head protection equipment for aircraft and helicopter pilots, so these characteristics we studied well. We have created the theory of head injuries evaluation, as well as the head model working on impact (patent : SU 841022 A1 by 23.06.1981). Therefore all this is not only theoretical reasoning, but also confirmed by practical works of high scientific level.
All digits are taken from the handbooks on ergonomics and statistics provided at international conferences on aviation and space ergonomics.
Such calculations can be made by any person with an education equal to that of regular school, who studied in the USSR. I do not know how in England, but we have any student of this level can do it, if he is not behind in learning and wants achieve something. There would be desire understand this in detail. Of course, there are students in any country who do not study well because they do not make much effort to do so, but I would not like think that you relate to such people.
Thus, I want to say that it is possible get all the injuries that are described in the group of woodpeckers in natural way, and it does not require anything beyond the natural. You just need know everything well.
It doesn't require high altitude, and if the impact process (very fast braking against the barrier) is even shorter (if the speed is higher), then there will be inordinate local loads.
Do not consider something that was done too carelessly and amateurishly, it will give the wrong result.And I have no idea what caused the injuries ...
But you're on 200% right about that. grin1
I appreciate the data set isn't perfect but i think it's good enough to make the point.
Hi, Nigel.
My point is, that you are using data for skeletal injuries pretty much in general. According to this article the landing surface consisted mainly of
concrete (n=63, 62.3%), ground (n=28, 27.7%) and wooden decks (n=10, 9.9%), plus the 101 patients are a mixture of children, adults and elderly people, which is a huge variety in bone density and strength. And the main period for the research is summer to monsoon months. It is not even in the winter, not to mention the different surface.
I think, that in order to refute falling as cause for the injuries, we need to consider not only height, but the season and the specifics of the terrain around Kholat Syakhl, which unfortunately very few of us in the forum know in detail.
To recap, the falling theory needs :-
- A fall from sufficient height to create the injuries which is very hard to explain unless they take turns diving off the top of the cedar.
- A freak result that there are no broken limbs on three bodies or ruptured heart/aorta.
- A landing that gives no relevant bruising again on three bodies.
- Snow doesn't reach the ravine for the whole winter until after Feb2, when it then fills with 2 to 6 meters as estimated by Tempalov @ 28/02/59.
As pointed out by Star Man it is entirely possible to receive significant injuries from as little as 3 meters (if falling on a hard surface i.e. concrete, rock, etc.)The falling theory has to explain how Nicolai's skull base split as much as 0.4cm without snapping the neck?
- A fall from sufficient height to create the injuries which is very hard to explain unless they take turns diving off the top of the cedar.
By that time it's almost certain that all of the group were in some stage of hypothermia. If this is the case, their reaction time would have been significantly hampered. Couple that with the fact that they could not see due to lack of moonlight and it's understandable that they probably wouldn't have even reacted to a fall. They probably didn't even realize they had fallen. If, by chance, the main body absorbed the majority of the impact there would not be any injury to limbs.Not so, Semyon and Nicolai were fully dressed, none of the rav4 demonstrate any frostbite concerns?
- A freak result that there are no broken limbs on three bodies or ruptured heart/aorta.
The medical examiner stated fall as a possibility. If he had determined that a fall would have 100% resulted in bruising, he wouldn't have stated fall as a possibility.This is sophistry.
- A landing that gives no relevant bruising again on three bodies.
Yes. In the video I posted above, it shows a few ravines where the ground is exposed. It is also possible to hear running water in parts of the video. The video was taken in March of 2013. If there is running water in the ravine, snow will not accumulate or, it will form a bridge between the two sides of the ravine but is hollow underneath and water continues to flow. Ski resorts will often block off areas around ravines with flowing water because skiers can easily fall through the snow and injure themselves. As winter progressed the water volume decreases and the stream either stops or it freezes and snow will begin to accumulate. In the mountains near where I live, the resorts have sometimes had a meter of snow in a single day and night.I'm interested in the snow conditions in 1959 not 2013?[/q]
- Snow doesn't reach the ravine for the whole winter until after Feb2, when it then fills with 2 to 6 meters as estimated by Tempalov @ 28/02/59.
For what it's worth, below is a compilation video of skateboard falls. There are several falls by the same individual, but the one at :43 is significant. Not sure exactly how high, but it looks as though it could be around 3 meters. In the fall he sustained head injury, ruptured spleen, internal bleeding. Interesting that even though he partially landed on his arm he had no limb injuries. It's easy to see how much more the injuries would have been if he landed on a large rock.and no fractures at all? You're proving my case not yours?
[viewer discretion]
https://youtu.be/kBHHE-sKGEY?t=43 (https://youtu.be/kBHHE-sKGEY?t=43)
Although he's skateboarding he isn't going that much faster than a brisk walk. I think there's this idea that you have to fall from an incredible height to sustain significant injuries when that is not necessarily true.
I'm not saying that 100% they fell. Only that a fall is the most logical scenario given the fact that they were found at the bottom of a ravine (in an area where a majority of the ravines have large rocks) with injuries that the medical examiner listed as possibly occurring due to a fall.
Here's a video for you, where the victim survives due to the snow depth which looks to me to be say......... several metres, maybe say 3.5m...... Hey that's the depth of the ravine snow! What a coincidence, maybe i should tell WAB this! bigjoke .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4JFBN3WSls (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4JFBN3WSls).
I've done some static line jumping from 2500 feet so very big respect to this kid. Apparently UK paratrooper basic training involves jumping from a static balloon because stepping off a platform in complete stillness is psychologically tougher than from an aircraft.
A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries. But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries.
I'm all on your side, except for a little clarification: for a 3...4 meter vertical fall, injuries are much heavier than what we have. I wrote the reason for that in previous posts. This ("3 to 4 meters is enough" (c) ) is only valid for an auxiliary fall, for example, roll off steep from slope.When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases.
It's normal case. In addition, the person in this process must be aware of what is happening and use the reaction time to the situation. Which is often not possible because the time is shorter than these processes. It is for this reason, as well as because of different accidents, there are not always limb injuries or others that "theorists" expect.It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries.
It wouldn't be surprising if you understood that they received them at the same time and as result of the same event.Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries.
This injury was sustained under completely different conditions and in different place. You don't have put everything in one pile, or it'll be harder deal with.
How much force to snap the rib twice?A fall from between 3 to 4 metres is enough to cause the chest injuries. But when you fall the injuries significantly depend on how you land, which means you might expect less consistent injuries. When a conscious person falls they usually try to break their fall with their hands/feet and this leads to broken wrists and ankles in many cases.
.
Hi there, I struggle with a fall of 4m causing a double fracture in the rib cage of a healthy young woman. Do you any evidence to support this?
It does seem unusual that Lyuda and Semyon suffered such similar injuries. Also Thibo had a significant head injury but no other significant injuries..
A localised crushing force fits the bill exactly.
Regards
Star man
I did the analysis myself Nigel using the biomechanical properties of ribs and forced required to break a typical rib. I did present it in the Low Yield nuke theory for a fall from a tree.
Regards
Star man
It's a good question and one of the reasons I am inclined to think that the injuries were caused by a fast impact. If I remember correctly a typical rib bone has a lateral breaking stress of about 50 mega pascals.
Yes, this is roughly the right figure, but you have understand that the rib itself is very different in all the points where the force is applied.
Conditionally speaking, the edge it is curved beam of variable cross-section with two half-clamped ends. "Half pinched ends" - this means that the cartilage near the spine and near the sternum create some mobility and therefore they partially absorb energy. The process that we have consider is dynamic, so this part cannot be neglected. At the same time we have understand that the local force applied to the different thickness of the cross-section of this bone will be different. This is true for people of the same age, with the same conditions of bone formation and the same physical development.Combing that with a typical cross section of a rib gives a breaking force in the region of 250Kg.
In our case, we cannot operate on the "force" as factor if it is considered constant. Since the process is dynamic and the force is constantly changing, it is necessary clearly follow the law of conservation of the force impulse, and it will depend on the magnitude of time, which in turn depends on the speed of interaction of objects involved in it.Apparently bone is very strong and tough up towards its breaking stress at which point it yields considerably before breaking. This means that any force that is applied slowly would eventually cause a break at the point where the breaking stress is exceeded first, relieving further stresses on other parts of the bone. But a force applied rapidly could over stress the bone in multiple places before any single point yields and breaks, which could result in multiple fractures.
This is correct, but we must add that it is only true for local load. If there is process of squeezing (dynamic!), especially if the area of the object of influence is larger than the area of perception (the chest or the whole set of ribs - as in our case), then the destruction will begin in the weakest place, and then there will be "domino effect" - the bones will break in sequence until all the energy of movement is spent.
We have this particular case. If you have noticed, then the fracture lines are located in the very places where the weakest parts of the chest are located in certain pattern of interaction. If you do not understand this, then the whole picture of this injury will be abstract and you can say anything, but not about the real picture.
A not great analogy, but one that may help explain this is glass. Glass is a super cooled liquid, which under the slow application of stress/force flows very slowly, but give it sharp fast shock and it behaves in a brittle manner and breaks into many pieces.
That's not very good example. Glass has very little impact toughness, so it's still fragile. The only difference in gift and fracture will be the position of the fault lines. I'm only talking about glass in normal living room conditions. The yield strength of glass can only be large at high temperatures close to the "melting point".The pathologists were correct when they said the injuries are typical of a car accident, falling or being thrown IMO.
It's right that you noticed that they were comparing these conditions, but you didn't claim that they were the same accidents, which are complete analogue. They were used to working in urban environments, so they chose the subject for comparison from what surrounded them. They had no experience of similar accidents like the one in the Dyatlov group. How this is not the case with almost no one who is now drawing conclusions about this accident without being expert on such (or similar) travels or having participated in practical analysis of such accidents. I speak about Eduard Tumanov, Vladimir Ediger, Michael Kornev and others.
I appreciate the data set isn't perfect but i think it's good enough to make the point.
Hi, Nigel.
My point is, that you are using data for skeletal injuries pretty much in general. According to this article the landing surface consisted mainly of
concrete (n=63, 62.3%), ground (n=28, 27.7%) and wooden decks (n=10, 9.9%), plus the 101 patients are a mixture of children, adults and elderly people, which is a huge variety in bone density and strength. And the main period for the research is summer to monsoon months. It is not even in the winter, not to mention the different surface.
I think, that in order to refute falling as cause for the injuries, we need to consider not only height, but the season and the specifics of the terrain around Kholat Syakhl, which unfortunately very few of us in the forum know in detail.
To recap, the falling theory needs :-
- A fall from sufficient height to create the injuries which is very hard to explain unless they take turns diving off the top of the cedar.
- A freak result that there are no broken limbs on three bodies or ruptured heart/aorta.
- A landing that gives no relevant bruising again on three bodies.
- Snow doesn't reach the ravine for the whole winter until after Feb2, when it then fills with 2 to 6 meters as estimated by Tempalov @ 28/02/59.
As pointed out by Star Man it is entirely possible to receive significant injuries from as little as 3 meters (if falling on a hard surface i.e. concrete, rock, etc.)The falling theory has to explain how Nicolai's skull base split as much as 0.4cm without snapping the neck?
- A fall from sufficient height to create the injuries which is very hard to explain unless they take turns diving off the top of the cedar.
By that time it's almost certain that all of the group were in some stage of hypothermia. If this is the case, their reaction time would have been significantly hampered. Couple that with the fact that they could not see due to lack of moonlight and it's understandable that they probably wouldn't have even reacted to a fall. They probably didn't even realize they had fallen. If, by chance, the main body absorbed the majority of the impact there would not be any injury to limbs.Not so, Semyon and Nicolai were fully dressed, none of the rav4 demonstrate any frostbite concerns?
- A freak result that there are no broken limbs on three bodies or ruptured heart/aorta.
The medical examiner stated fall as a possibility. If he had determined that a fall would have 100% resulted in bruising, he wouldn't have stated fall as a possibility.This is sophistry.
- A landing that gives no relevant bruising again on three bodies.
Yes. In the video I posted above, it shows a few ravines where the ground is exposed. It is also possible to hear running water in parts of the video. The video was taken in March of 2013. If there is running water in the ravine, snow will not accumulate or, it will form a bridge between the two sides of the ravine but is hollow underneath and water continues to flow. Ski resorts will often block off areas around ravines with flowing water because skiers can easily fall through the snow and injure themselves. As winter progressed the water volume decreases and the stream either stops or it freezes and snow will begin to accumulate. In the mountains near where I live, the resorts have sometimes had a meter of snow in a single day and night.I'm interested in the snow conditions in 1959 not 2013?[/q]
- Snow doesn't reach the ravine for the whole winter until after Feb2, when it then fills with 2 to 6 meters as estimated by Tempalov @ 28/02/59.
For what it's worth, below is a compilation video of skateboard falls. There are several falls by the same individual, but the one at :43 is significant. Not sure exactly how high, but it looks as though it could be around 3 meters. In the fall he sustained head injury, ruptured spleen, internal bleeding. Interesting that even though he partially landed on his arm he had no limb injuries. It's easy to see how much more the injuries would have been if he landed on a large rock.and no fractures at all? You're proving my case not yours?
[viewer discretion]
https://youtu.be/kBHHE-sKGEY?t=43 (https://youtu.be/kBHHE-sKGEY?t=43)
Although he's skateboarding he isn't going that much faster than a brisk walk. I think there's this idea that you have to fall from an incredible height to sustain significant injuries when that is not necessarily true.
I'm not saying that 100% they fell. Only that a fall is the most logical scenario given the fact that they were found at the bottom of a ravine (in an area where a majority of the ravines have large rocks) with injuries that the medical examiner listed as possibly occurring due to a fall.
Here's a video for you, where the victim survives due to the snow depth which looks to me to be say......... several metres, maybe say 3.5m...... Hey that's the depth of the ravine snow! What a coincidence, maybe i should tell WAB this! bigjoke .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4JFBN3WSls (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4JFBN3WSls).
I've done some static line jumping from 2500 feet so very big respect to this kid. Apparently UK paratrooper basic training involves jumping from a static balloon because stepping off a platform in complete stillness is psychologically tougher than from an aircraft.
Overall I think they went mountaineering in remote Siberia and now they're at the bottom of a ravine with injuries consistent with a fall? No need to overthink this.Agreed there's no need to overthink this, Nicolai's head was deformed (squashed). Falls from the heights under consideration can't achieve this.
When you post a vid of a skateboarder getting a deformed head i'll take notice.
Well, probably no convincing you. For what it's worth, here are a few videos of skateboarders falling less than a meter and breaking ribs.
When you post a vid of a skateboarder getting a deformed head i'll take notice.
Well, probably no convincing you. For what it's worth, here are a few videos of skateboarders falling less than a meter and breaking ribs.
Actually more like a 2 metre fall. What is it about the phrase "deformed skull" that seems to be so easily ignored by so many people?When you post a vid of a skateboarder getting a deformed head i'll take notice.
Well, probably no convincing you. For what it's worth, here are a few videos of skateboarders falling less than a meter and breaking ribs.
A guy I know got a severe skull fracture just from falling his own height on smooth concrete. He had a epilepsy attack and collapsed and hit his head. He actually had brain damage and had trouble with his speech for a while. That's a 0 meter fall. A 3 meter fall can easily lead to a smashed skull.
Overall I think they went mountaineering in remote Siberia and now they're at the bottom of a ravine with injuries consistent with a fall? No need to overthink this.Agreed there's no need to overthink this, Nicolai's head was deformed (squashed). Falls from the heights under consideration can't achieve this.
Correct, he used - "On the whole, the length of the crack in the area of the base of the skull is 17 cm. In addition, there is asymmetry due to the compression fracture of this area."Overall I think they went mountaineering in remote Siberia and now they're at the bottom of a ravine with injuries consistent with a fall? No need to overthink this.Agreed there's no need to overthink this, Nicolai's head was deformed (squashed). Falls from the heights under consideration can't achieve this.
Falls from heights contribute to severe skull fractures though. Once you have a fracture like Tibo, which clearly compromises the integrity of the skull, and after several months under heavy snow and eventually running water, and considering the process of decomposition, it is not so surprising that the head looks deformed, if that is what you mean.
By the way, are the terms "deformed" or "squashed" your interpretations? I don`t remember them being used in the official coroner report.
I have seen thousands of fractured skulls (craniums) in my life. The fractures that bother me the most in the Dyatlov group are the rib fractures. Dubiniaa and Semyon's rib fractures had to have taken a powerful force at a flat angle to cause those types of fractures.Hi, RidgeWatcher it sounds like you have some professional medical experience?
I sometimes wonder if they were unconscious near frozen, and then slammed or forcefully dropped upon one another to accomplish such "double barrel" type fractures. These are not easy fractures to accomplish.
I have seen thousands of fractured .......... fractures that bother me the most in the Dyatlov group are the rib fractures... These are not easy fractures to accomplish........
What strikes me most about Dubinina's fractures were that there were essentially 3 fracture lines across her ribs. Ribs 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the right side..............
............. indicative of a tremendous impact, maybe a long fall whereby she landed flat on her chest/stomach. I am attempting to find any other cases of such fractures...........
I have seen thousands of fractured .......... fractures that bother me the most in the Dyatlov group are the rib fractures... These are not easy fractures to accomplish........What strikes me most about Dubinina's fractures were that there were essentially 3 fracture lines across her ribs. Ribs 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the right side..............
............. indicative of a tremendous impact, maybe a long fall whereby she landed flat on her chest/stomach. I am attempting to find any other cases of such fractures...........
Hello ! RidgeWatcher and Frankie, so you've had a "chance" to observe in reality human bone fractures.
I am currently working on my hypothesis N°2 which is inspired by Eduard Tumanov, in his "fight against outsiders version", by Aleks Kandr ( http://mystery12home.ru/t-ub-gr-dyatlova ) and by several others such as Per Inge Oestmoen...etc, according to the bone fractures of the 4 du den are not due to falling.
Then, 3 aggressors, armed with blunt objects and without firearms, would have reached the tent, around 8 am on February 1, 1959....
I know how to quickly make effective blunt objects by pruning tree branches with a knife and a hatchet. This can also be called a bludgeon or a two-handed club, with one end having a diameter of 3 cm for a good hand hold, while the center of gravity is close to the other end which is much thicker.
- Typically length=120 cm, weight=4 kg - strongly depending on the user's stature and musculature -
However I have no certainty because I have neither human skeletons, nor corpses to make sure how bones can be broken.
••• I would be glad to have the opinion of experimented or professional members of DPI with real knowledge about human bone fractures. •••
For me, the blunt objects, which Tumanov talks about ( https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?board=53.0 ), are pieces of birch trunks that are available for free and in abundance in the Taiga around Vizhay.
Theoretical study of inelastic shocks is difficult so in a first preminilary approach, I content myself with estimates of the energies involved with blunt objects of length 1.20 m and weight 4 kg.
• Potential energy of a 4 kg mass at 3 m altitude = 120 joules
• Muscular energy provided by a aggressor-beater = (2.5)*120 = 300 joules --- (factor 2.5 to be discussed)
• Total energy corresponding to a single club hit = 420 joules
A bludgeon blow has a breaking power comparable to the impact of a birch wood sphere, 23 cm in diameter, moving at a speed of 51 km/h.
(birch wood sphere ---> diameter=23 cm || weight=4 kg || speed=14,1 m/s || kinetic energy=400 joules)
According to my hypopthesis N°2, there were probably 3 aggressors: 2 beaters and an organizer carrying a lighter baton.
I also suppose that each aggressor-beater cannot repeat more than 10 strokes in a row, because then the aggressor is forced to stop momentarily because he is tired.
So Dubinina and Zolotariov, once lying stunned on the ground, could have received 20 separate blows to the chest from two blunt objects
which corresponds to a total energy of 8 kilojoules = 2*10*400 joules.
Now my question is: what do you think about the possibility of performing Dubinina and Zolotariov's rib fractures with blunt objects ?
The objection, sometimes put forward, of the absence of external trace does not seem to me to be relevant:
a) - The blunt object striking has a very rounded, almost spherical shape.
b) - The state of rottenness of the bodies of the four of the den was advanced when they were examined and no conclusion was possible.
( If you want to see: https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Semyon-Zolotaryov-post-mortem.jpg )
Monsieur Reuss, I have seen thousands of fractured ribs but the condition that Semyon and Dubininahad was what we called Flail Chest, where a series of single ribs were fractured in 2 different areas along the rib. They both had a free floating panel of ribs not connected to anything but being held together by intercostal muscles and veins and arteries and some cartilage. This would have been extremely painful if they were conscious which I am sure they were not. This had to have happened at the ravine.
The only way this could have happened by the Cedar tree is if they both were unconscious and carried to the ravine, which I doubt, because by that time Tibo was impaired and Kolevatov couldn't have done it all. Besides, if it happened at the Cedar tree and they were carried then the attackers would have been able to follow the very rough, torn up trail to the ravine, if two people were carried or dragged there.
I haven't seen flail chest too much because a lot of those people die out in the field, there are usually lung and cardiac injuries under a flail chest. We saw this with mostly with MVA's motor vehicle accidents, big wide steering wheels could smash a rib cage like this. Once a man made it to the Surgery but somehow during the accident he became dislodged from his vehicle which ended upside down with the roof pinning him to the ground and then catching on fire. The underlying internal chest cavity soft tissue could help determine the cause but the stream water interfered with that process.
Doroshenko, back at the Cedar had some grey sputum frozen on his face which also portends to traumatic prolonged chest compression. Maybe someone jumped on him from the Cedar? and then stayed on his chest to torture him?
Back at the ravine, for me, it is difficult to imagine Semyon's and Dubinina's flail chest being caused by falling 12 feet, especially onto brush below. a fractured rib or two, perhaps much harder to cause a flail chest.
Someone would have to be very, very strong, like a sawyer or lumberjack, loggers/forrester, perhaps. Very strong and very big and in a very big rage. I wish more of the Rav4's soft tissue had been preserved. It is still hard for me to believe this was done by a human. Did anyone ever find a large log or wide diameter tree trunk that had been cut?
............
I have undertaken a relatively simple analysis of Lyuda and Semyon being hit with blunt objects. What I can say is that if they were it was not by a human. To put it blunty ( pun intended) , the force required to cause those injuries is equivalent to them having fallen from about 3 to 4 meters. To create similar injuries with a blunt object would mean that the blunt object would need to impart a similar amount of force/energy by hand. Now imagine the amount of strength it would require to knock a person 3 to 4 metres into the air with a blunt instrument?...............
............
I have undertaken a relatively simple analysis of Lyuda and Semyon being hit with blunt objects. What I can say is that if they were it was not by a human. To put it blunty ( pun intended) , the force required to cause those injuries is equivalent to them having fallen from about 3 to 4 meters. To create similar injuries with a blunt object would mean that the blunt object would need to impart a similar amount of force/energy by hand. Now imagine the amount of strength it would require to knock a person 3 to 4 metres into the air with a blunt instrument?...............
I had just imagined the fall of a person weighing 80 kg.
80 kg falling from 3 m ---> 2.4 kilojoules
80 kg falling from 4 m ---> 3.2 kilojoules
and I had considered many blows to one chest from two blunt objects
which corresponds to a total energy of ---> 8 kilojoules
But indeed my argument by energy is worthless ( wrong ) because the bones of a living mammal are elastic and the brittleness by fatigue of the bone material is negligible. See for example :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material)°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
It was WAB who explained that in the case of blows and shocks it is the instantaneous force that plays the important role and not the energy involved.
See..:
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=655.msg9956#msg9956
WAB : July 10, 2020, 02:30:40 ----> Reply #58
"The impact itself is very complex phenomenon... "
"All processes are subject to the law of movement impulse conservation, which is expressed by the formula ..."M*(V1 - V2) = F*(t1 - t2)
M : it is the mass that moves,
V1 : it is initial speed (before impact),
V2 : it is final speed (after impact),
F : it is force value, during time (t1 - t2),
t1 : it is the starting point of impact time,
t2 : it is the final point of impact time.
Thus with the modeling of a blunt object blow by the impact of sphere (Ø=23 cm, made of birch wood) we obtain,
( M =4 kg || V1=14 m/s || V2=0 || t1-t2=0.01 seconds ) :
F= 5600 Newton or approximately 560 kilogram of force
In both cases the bodies of Dubinina and Zolotariov were supposed already lying on hard ground when the blows was applied.
Here is an instructive didactic example with very hard glass or steel - then : t1-t2 =0.1 milliseconds,
( M=1 kg || V1=1 m/s || V2=0 || t1-t2=0.1 ms=0.0001 seconds ) :F= 10000 Newton = approximately 1000 kilogram of force
Which explains why you can drive down nails in with a hammer...
However, the theoretical approach by the law of movement impulse conservation does not allow us to reach certain conclusions because the values of "t1-t2" are generally unknown.
To evaluate the value of "t1-t2" in a particular case, one possibility would be to use ultra-fast cinematography.°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
• Conclusion - When it comes to estimating the effects of blows and shocks the theoretical considerations are disappointing. It is impossible to dispense with the observations and tests carried out in the real physical world
Personally I have no experience in combat sports but I read on the website of a French systema teacher :
(There are certainly other websites in English language on which you can read equivalent informations)
" Typical of percussion combat sports. The ribs break easily during a big hit under which one puts oneself in opposition. However, they also break easily on a small hit with a good angle. Be careful on some floor exercises, when the chest is stretched with little mobility and a big weight falls on it, the risk of breaking is also important.
Recommendations:
Unfortunately, there is not much to do apart from rest and painkillers, a broken rib can be very painful with each breath... Count 3 to 6 weeks for the healing (more than 6 than 3 by the way...)."
• Finally I think that Eduard Tumanov is not mistaken: the blunt objects can explain the totality of the injuries reported on the corpses of the 9 hikers.
Back at the ravine, for me, it is difficult to imagine Semyon's and Dubinina's flail chest being caused by falling 12 feet, especially onto brush below. a fractured rib or two, perhaps much harder to cause a flail chest.
Sorry about the previous fragmented response. Not sure what happened there.
I think there is some confusion as to the events with the fall - I'll try and clarify:
After Yuri D. and Yuri K. passed at the cedar, the remaining seven took clothing, left the fire and cedar, and traveled deeper into the forest. In complete dark, without the moon or flashlight, they were probably in two groups walking very close or holding on to each other. By this point they were all in the beginning or mid stages of hypothermia and reaction time would have been limited. Stumbling onto the ravine, it's possible that they heard water, but they would not have been able to see the ravine. There are a hundred different scenarios for how they could have fallen but I believe they stumbled in the deep snow or fell through snow (snow bridge) and, holding onto each other, 3 of them fell onto a number of large rocks (imaging falling down a flight of stairs on to rocks in the dark). They didn't fall onto a single rock and the rocks weren't in the "right place" - it was just a bunch of rocks that lined the entire bed of the ravine. It would have happened quickly and with hypothermia setting in, they probably didn't realize what had happened and were unable to block the fall or protect themselves. Sasha fell and landed on his chest breaking his ribs and cutting the top of his head. Thibeux-Brignolle landed on his head knocking him unconscious. Lyuda landed breaking her ribs and received bruising on her quadricep and damage to her face. All of these injuries could occur with an uninterrupted fall onto large rocks. A 170 lb person falling 6 feet would generate around 4,800 newtons of force which would be more than enough to break ribs. This is all arm-chair science but we've already concluded that the medical examiner stated a fall as a possibility.
After they fell, the remaining 3 (or four) made their way into the ravine and, hoping to save their friends and themselves, began to build the den into a snow drift on the banks of the ravine, returning to the cedar to retrieve more clothing and cut fir branches for the bed. The 3 that fell remained on the rocks where they were found months later. The building of the den would have been done in absolute darkness and it probably took a substantial amount of effort. Running out of options, the remaining three (Igor, Zina, and Rustem) abandoned the ravine and attempted a return to the tent. Over the next 3 weeks its possible that the water level in the ravine decreased and froze allowing snow to accumulate and cover the rocks and hikers. As far as I know there is no mention of a search in the area of the ravine during the initial stages of the investigation.
The outlier is Kolevatov. I don't know what his circumstances would have been. It's possible that after the fire the 3 attempted a return to the tent and the other four walked into the forest with all but Kolevatov falling into the ravine. Kolevatov alone constructed the den and the bed and then gave up. But I don't see him being able to construct the bed and den alone. It's also possible that he fell as well which would account for his neck injury.
There are also injuries to Sasha's scapula that were found later that are hard to account for.
Yes, it's unusual that 3 (or 4) people would all fall at the same time and incur such extreme injuries but it is the most likely scenario. Even if they were forced from the tent by a third party and left to fend for themselves I think it is still a more likely scenario for the injuries. Finding a small group of people in a ravine in complete darkness in a large, forested area with only a flashlight in -15 F weather and in snow a mile from the tent would have been near impossible at best.
If you happened upon someone lying on top of rocks at the bottom of a small ravine with injuries what would be the mostly likely cause of injury?
If they were crushed by the show they would have suffered significantly more injuries than they did suffer. Injuries to arms, legs etc... and all 4 would have somewhat similar injuries.I'm just asking, could being buried in snow for 3 months change the color of bruises so that they no longer look like bruises?The four bodies carry several bruises. But no bruise that explains the fractures.
So the falling theory seems almost impossible.The evidence points to dying under the snow from crushing. Or the evidence is a fabrication and it was murder. Falling is as probable as aliens.
- Bruising occurs but doesn't exist for the fractures.
- No broken limbs.
- From memory two corpses demonstrate unusual throat mobility (Alex and Lyudmila).
- I'm no expert but my understanding is that you would need a fall of six stories/60 feet.
- In late Feb Tempalov estimated the snow depth to be 2-6m.
- They were found under 3.5m.
And the list of injuries would have been more uniform and there would have been significantly more injuries.
My point was that if enough snow had fallen on them to cause these injuries, they would've been trapped under the snow and died of asphyxiation.
If you are falling on A rock it might cause the injuries and nothing else, if you are falling on a lot of rocks then there should be injuries to other parts of the body. Zolotaryov was injured from the side, which means the serious arm injuries that should be there are not there. All 4 received similar injuries to the back of their heads, 2 of the people suffered serious injuries to their ribs(one from the front and one from the side) while the other two had a deformed/broken neck and a significantly more powerful hit to the head than the others. And all this without a single injury to the arms or legs to indicate a reaction?
There is little to no doubt that if the skateboarder video that I had previously posted had landed on a rock that he would have had massive rib fractures. The fact that he landed on his arm and flat probably saved him from more severe injury.
Hello Nigel,
I have seen fractured ribs without bruising but out in the field, I used to swim on a triathlon team, get tidied up and then volunteer in the med-tents. I saw a lot of broken bones without any bruising but that doesn't mean the capillary breakage or free blood cells didn't settle near the dermal or epidermal skin layers later.
I can understand that ribs can fracture with no bruising (or delayed) but Nicolai's skull? How can the scalp transfer this impact into the skull and not result in large scale capillary breakage immediately? Could the temperature of the skin be relevant?
I'd be interested in your opinion of my "crushed in the den theory" if you haven't seen it. - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=398.120Imo crushed in the den answers the key question - why no limb fractures?
If they were crushed by the show they would have suffered significantly more injuries than they did suffer. Injuries to arms, legs etc... and all 4 would have somewhat similar injuries.Not if the force was localised - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=398.120
Back at the ravine, for me, it is difficult to imagine Semyon's and Dubinina's flail chest being caused by falling 12 feet, especially onto brush below. a fractured rib or two, perhaps much harder to cause a flail chest.
If they both fell onto large rocks from 12 feet would it cause those types of fractured ribs?
Falling down a steep slope could explain the various superficial injuries such the bruise on Lyuda's thigh, her crushed nose cartilage, the cut behind Semyon ear etc. It could also provide an impact powerful enough to cause the chest injuries. What I think needs more detailed consideration is how and why did both Lyuda and Semyon have such similar impacts/damage to their chests with such similar amounts of force applied.No i wouldn't rule out an attack by a menk whilst they were in the den - https://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/vladimir-putin-sights-a-yeti-family-in-remote-siberian-mountains/.
The superficial injuries could also be explain by being dragged around violently (same as following down a slope) and receiving very large powerful blows from an ape/creature. Easier to explain the similarity in the chest injuries and does not require an explanation as to why both Lyuda and Semyon both fell down a slope. A large apes hand is big, 30cm ish long. Thibo's depressed fracture matches the shape of the ball of the thumb of 30 cm hand. Looks like his skull could have been crushed against the ground by a powerful hand. Very strange but I don't think you should rule this out either.
Regards
Star man
One piece of evidence from an eye witness at the cedar I find interesting is the reported presence of a ladies handkerchief burned through in places. Who's handerkerchief was this? Presumably one of the girls. Which one? It suggests that Yuri K and Yuri D were not there alone. So who was with them? Between the cedar and the den some dropped clothing is found. Is there a slope sufficient to cause those injuries to Lyuda and Semyon along that route? If the handkerchief were Lyuda's it would help us understand if there was a credible fall down a slope, or at least help us understand the probability better.Imo more curious are a sock, a cowboy shirt and a cap left by the fire. Why strip the bodies but leave those?
Regards
Arar nan
Obviously you realize any yeti wouldn't be seen dead in a cowboy shirt and single sock.Hmm, might clash with it's nail polish.
Some of the information I have found about the rib fractures:
“...pliability of ribs results also in the facilitation of transfer of force along the bone. This causes its failure, or fracture, to be away from the impact site more often than in other bones (Watson-Jones, 1941). Clinical studies have indicated that when force is applied to the chest anteroposteriorly, the ribs tend to break at the point of curvature—anterolaterally (DiMaio and DiMaio, 1989). This type of force is often seen in MVAs and in patients who receive CPR. If force is applied in a way that compacts the chest laterally, the reverse is true. Lateral compaction results in rib fractures along the sternum and the spinal column (Galloway, 1999).”
If this is true, then it appears the force resulting in Dubinina’s fractures was anteroposterior - directed from the front toward the back.
And this:
“A significant amount of force to the chest is required to fracture ribs 1 to 3, and the likelihood of thoracic soft tissue injury is high. Similarly, fractures in ribs 8 to 11 increase the likelihood of having abdominal soft tissue injury (Burke, 2012). Ribs 6 to 8 are the most commonly fractured ribs (Galloway, 1999).”
Yet there is no mention of so much as a bruise on Dubinina’s torso. From this, I am led to believe the force was something like falling a long distance and landing flat on the front of the body. But what to make of those “middle” fractures? Could there have been two separate falls or injuries?
I am still researching specifically these fractures. I think they are meaningful in determining what happened. I will continue to post what I find, unless this doesn’t interest anyone but me.
(Sources: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=6718&context=etd, https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/rg.2017160100)
One piece of evidence from an eye witness at the cedar I find interesting is the reported presence of a ladies handkerchief burned through in places. Who's handerkerchief was this? Presumably one of the girls. Which one? It suggests that Yuri K and Yuri D were not there alone. So who was with them? Between the cedar and the den some dropped clothing is found. Is there a slope sufficient to cause those injuries to Lyuda and Semyon along that route? If the handkerchief were Lyuda's it would help us understand if there was a credible fall down a slope, or at least help us understand the probability better.Imo more curious are a sock, a cowboy shirt and a cap left by the fire. Why strip the bodies but leave those?
Regards
Arar nan
I have so many problems with every theory I have read about, even the simplest ones.
If the rav4 were walking along slowly, which seems logical, then when they came to the ravine, would not they have fallen over and slid a ways?
If that were the case then why are there no scratches or any bruises except for the one on Lyuda?
If the snow cushioned their fall then how did they get broken bones?
If they were in the den and it collapsed on them then why didn't at least one of them die from asphyxiation?
If they died where they fell then how did Lyuda end up at a right angle and further away ( from the top edge of the ravine) than the three guys?
If you believe they were washed to where they were found then how could it look like Alexander was holding Simon?
If Simon was too cold to write a message (or whatever) then why is he still able to hold a pencil and notebook? And on and on the questions go. bang1
Well I am reading with interest the various possibilities. The Event at the Ravine is obviously critical to ever being able to solve the Dyatlov Mystery. However, just a reminder about the position of Dubinina. Her final resting place is in a stream. The Authorities, who we can not really trust to have given all of the information or evidence, push the DECOMPOSITION THEORY and PREDATOR THEORY to explain the missing Eyes and Tongue and Facial Tissue. Low temperature slows the rate of decomposition. Predators would eat away any body parts not just the parts that we see. Therefore the body of Dubinina should be very putrified and well eaten. But that is not what we see with the body of Dubinina. In fact we dont see it with any of the bodies of the Dyatlov Group. What we do see is very unusual injuries not caused by decomposition or putrefaction.
Well I am reading with interest the various possibilities. The Event at the Ravine is obviously critical to ever being able to solve the Dyatlov Mystery. However, just a reminder about the position of Dubinina. Her final resting place is in a stream. The Authorities, who we can not really trust to have given all of the information or evidence, push the DECOMPOSITION THEORY and PREDATOR THEORY to explain the missing Eyes and Tongue and Facial Tissue. Low temperature slows the rate of decomposition. Predators would eat away any body parts not just the parts that we see. Therefore the body of Dubinina should be very putrified and well eaten. But that is not what we see with the body of Dubinina. In fact we dont see it with any of the bodies of the Dyatlov Group. What we do see is very unusual injuries not caused by decomposition or putrefaction.
Well I am reading with interest the various possibilities. The Event at the Ravine is obviously critical to ever being able to solve the Dyatlov Mystery. However, just a reminder about the position of Dubinina. Her final resting place is in a stream. The Authorities, who we can not really trust to have given all of the information or evidence, push the DECOMPOSITION THEORY and PREDATOR THEORY to explain the missing Eyes and Tongue and Facial Tissue. Low temperature slows the rate of decomposition. Predators would eat away any body parts not just the parts that we see. Therefore the body of Dubinina should be very putrified and well eaten. But that is not what we see with the body of Dubinina. In fact we dont see it with any of the bodies of the Dyatlov Group. What we do see is very unusual injuries not caused by decomposition or putrefaction.
Pushing the theory? Decomposition or scavengers (or probably both) is the most realistic and natural explanation for a months old corpse in the wilderness, so if they are "pushing" anything, that is the common sense.
Although it is hard to establish feeding patterns, it is known that most scavengers (especially birds or small rodents) will go for the soft tissue, face, lips, nose, tongue and eyes first, not just any part, especially if it is hard get access to, or presumably solid frozen. On the other hand, low temps do slow down decomposition and bacterial activity, but cannot stop the overall process, which is obvious from the photos and the coroner report, no matter how clumsy it is.
By the way, interesting thing for the “color-of-the-skin” fans - cold temperatures can prevent decomposition, except for the change in coloration of the skin from its natural color to orange or black (Byers, 2017; Dix & Graham, 2000; Mann et al. 1990; Vass, 2001). (https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2059&context=etd)
Plus, Lyuda was not just in the stream, she was exposed to running water pouring through her open mouth for who knows how long. Nothing so extraordinary about the tongue and eyes, unless you want it to be like that.
In the end, the only thing that I find odd, is that Lyuda was known for her harsh talking sometimes, her “edgy” tongue… In a twisted way, it is ironical, that she ends up without her tongue eventually.
Interesting readings:
1. Byers, S. N. (2017). Introduction of forensic anthropology. New York: Taylor & Francis;
2. Dix, J., & Graham M. (2000). Time of death, decomposition, and identification: An atlas. New York: CRC Press;
3. Mann, R. W., Bass, W. M., & Meadows, L. (1990). Time since death and decomposition of the human body: variables and observations in case and experimental field studies. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 35, 103-111., 1990;
4. Vass, A. A. (2001). Beyond the grave-understanding human decomposition. Microbial Today, 28, 190-193.
Well I am reading with interest the various possibilities. The Event at the Ravine is obviously critical to ever being able to solve the Dyatlov Mystery. However, just a reminder about the position of Dubinina. Her final resting place is in a stream. The Authorities, who we can not really trust to have given all of the information or evidence, push the DECOMPOSITION THEORY and PREDATOR THEORY to explain the missing Eyes and Tongue and Facial Tissue. Low temperature slows the rate of decomposition. Predators would eat away any body parts not just the parts that we see. Therefore the body of Dubinina should be very putrified and well eaten. But that is not what we see with the body of Dubinina. In fact we dont see it with any of the bodies of the Dyatlov Group. What we do see is very unusual injuries not caused by decomposition or putrefaction.
Pushing the theory? Decomposition or scavengers (or probably both) is the most realistic and natural explanation for a months old corpse in the wilderness, so if they are "pushing" anything, that is the common sense.
Although it is hard to establish feeding patterns, it is known that most scavengers (especially birds or small rodents) will go for the soft tissue, face, lips, nose, tongue and eyes first, not just any part, especially if it is hard get access to, or presumably solid frozen. On the other hand, low temps do slow down decomposition and bacterial activity, but cannot stop the overall process, which is obvious from the photos and the coroner report, no matter how clumsy it is.
By the way, interesting thing for the “color-of-the-skin” fans - cold temperatures can prevent decomposition, except for the change in coloration of the skin from its natural color to orange or black (Byers, 2017; Dix & Graham, 2000; Mann et al. 1990; Vass, 2001). (https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2059&context=etd)
Plus, Lyuda was not just in the stream, she was exposed to running water pouring through her open mouth for who knows how long. Nothing so extraordinary about the tongue and eyes, unless you want it to be like that.
In the end, the only thing that I find odd, is that Lyuda was known for her harsh talking sometimes, her “edgy” tongue… In a twisted way, it is ironical, that she ends up without her tongue eventually.
Dear Morski !
One. I want congratulate you on your jubilee (100th) post on this forum! grin1
The second. You are absolutely right in all the details that are set out here, only I would like to clarify a bit. The rodents probably had nothing to do with this. They leave traces of teeth that are not marked in the protocol. It could also be the result of decomposition of biological tissue, so I can't insist on it. However, I have very bad idea of how they can live and eat in very narrow channels in the snow that the water has drilled. By the way, the water should have been running tightly through them when the snow melted heavily.
Third. I was talking about microfauna - very small (visible only through microscope) "animals". They are abundant in melting water because there is lot oxygen. Much more than in normal water. Oxygen is additional chemical factor that affects decomposition.
The fourth. Thank you very much for your message, it's (as usual) literate, balanced and concrete. Unfortunately, there are very few people here who can write like this.Interesting readings:
1. Byers, S. N. (2017). Introduction of forensic anthropology. New York: Taylor & Francis;
2. Dix, J., & Graham M. (2000). Time of death, decomposition, and identification: An atlas. New York: CRC Press;
3. Mann, R. W., Bass, W. M., & Meadows, L. (1990). Time since death and decomposition of the human body: variables and observations in case and experimental field studies. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 35, 103-111., 1990;
4. Vass, A. A. (2001). Beyond the grave-understanding human decomposition. Microbial Today, 28, 190-193.
That's interesting. We'll have look at it in more detail. Too bad I have very little time for the Dyatlov incident...
Well I am reading with interest the various possibilities. The Event at the Ravine is obviously critical to ever being able to solve the Dyatlov Mystery. However, just a reminder about the position of Dubinina. Her final resting place is in a stream. The Authorities, who we can not really trust to have given all of the information or evidence, push the DECOMPOSITION THEORY and PREDATOR THEORY to explain the missing Eyes and Tongue and Facial Tissue. Low temperature slows the rate of decomposition. Predators would eat away any body parts not just the parts that we see. Therefore the body of Dubinina should be very putrified and well eaten. But that is not what we see with the body of Dubinina. In fact we dont see it with any of the bodies of the Dyatlov Group. What we do see is very unusual injuries not caused by decomposition or putrefaction.
Well she was missing soft tissue above her eyes, revealing bone, and also around her lips. This is indicative of decomp.