February 24, 2024, 07:02:44 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Where were the wolves immediately after the DPI?  (Read 4924 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

July 03, 2023, 05:46:14 PM
Read 4924 times
Offline

eurocentric


Across 3 weeks a tent was left unoccupied, cut open, flapping about, with meat on the floor which remained untouched, and further down the mountain slope, and in the forest, and in a watercourse animals would use to drink, was a trail of 9 bodies, and yet neither food nor bodies were consumed by predators, with the possible exception of the eyes of 2 bodies being pecked out inside the ravine.

This against a backdrop of it being said that wolves had been eating the carcasses of the Mansi deer. Did the wolves go on holiday for 3 weeks after the DPI? Were they too full up on venison to bother hunting for anything else? Or had they died too, or been driven from the area?

Nine people died, laid out in the open, and their tent an unsecured feasting place with bread rusks and meat scattered or laid out on the floor, and across 3 weeks none of this was consumed by wildlife in the dead of winter, when all are desperate to survive, looking for any available fat, the land frozen over, and with nothing else to observe or scent.
My DPI approach - logic, probability and reason.
 

July 04, 2023, 03:18:10 AM
Reply #1
Offline

Axelrod


Idea of wolves is presented in Russian video of user Oleg Taymen

I gathered material for my book with different versions, but this material seemed me excessive

I may prepare transcript with autotranslation to English, if you ask permission from Oleg.

 

July 28, 2023, 06:05:06 PM
Reply #2
Offline

Manti


Do wolves eat frozen meat?

Conversely, does temperature rise close to melting point on sunny days (if there were any) around noon?




 

August 06, 2023, 04:07:21 PM
Reply #3
Offline

eurocentric


Do wolves eat frozen meat?

Conversely, does temperature rise close to melting point on sunny days (if there were any) around noon?

Unless I am about to be told that it was also a myth, a fantasy, or the result of a translation error, which has the collective effect of making me feel like I'm being 'gaslighted' by Russians at this site, the wolves were said to have eaten the carcasses of Mansi deer, which were said to have died of bacteriosis. So they had no problem chomping down on frozen meat.

* wonders what will come up for the term gaslighted in their translated searches. :)
My DPI approach - logic, probability and reason.
 

August 09, 2023, 04:14:04 AM
Reply #4
Offline

Axelrod


You may experiment with your dog...
I suppose wolf is biologically nearly the same as dog.

I have never seen seen wolves in forests in my life, only in zoo.
I have seen female only female deers in foresrs, e.g. last summer.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2023, 12:37:21 PM by Axelrod »
 

August 14, 2023, 12:40:26 AM
Reply #5
Offline

KathleenDSmith1


Everyone:

I found it....and one particular animal can survive the harsh cold blizzard... it's called the Pika...

https://www.pbs.org/video/nature-pika-builds-nest-survive-long-harsh-winter/





Thanks
Kathleen Dee Smith


« Last Edit: September 11, 2023, 04:54:22 PM by KathleenDSmith1 »
 

August 14, 2023, 11:42:16 PM
Reply #6
Offline

Axelrod


Non only this exotic beastie (unknown for me), but each animal living in that region can survive the harsh cold blizzard - because cold blizzard is typical for that region.
 

August 15, 2023, 10:32:44 PM
Reply #7
Offline

KathleenDSmith1


Everyone;

list of names of animals in Russia's Ural Mountains (area)...


Thanks
Kathleen Dee Smith





« Last Edit: August 15, 2023, 10:42:54 PM by KathleenDSmith1 »
 

September 01, 2023, 07:59:39 PM
Reply #8
Offline

Manti


So for some time I didn't read this forum. Now I am reading this topic, and it summarizes really well how I feel about the DPI. Where did the wolves go? I don't know. But this can't be a mystery. The wolves didn't touch the bodies . This is a fact we know. Or am I wrong?

Even if a hydrogen bomb is detonated, the wolves that survive will be hungry the next day. There is no way there were no wolves.

And for the wolves eating the deer, I frankly don't understand. On the one hand, if these deer died of a disease and the wolves are eating the carcasses, why does this bother the hunters? On the other hand, if the wolves are eating the deer left in the "labaz" sites after being hunted, it must be before they freeze. In any case what kind of hunting practice is this? Nobody leaves their hunt in the forest expecting to return and find it intact. I suspect there is a "lost in translation" scenario, maybe these are offers to the forest spirits?


 

September 01, 2023, 08:36:01 PM
Reply #9
Online

Ziljoe


I believe there are wolves. It was reported by one of the other hikes by tourists at the same time in the area as with the Dyatlov group. The findings by the UPI or tourist govering body was to take a gun. There were a number of recommendations.

However, wolves are not always in the same place at the same time and there's a possibility that they were not there at that moment in time.

But it it seems that wolves eat frozen meat.

 https://youtube.com/shorts/BYe-3fm36Xk?si=zxnTbTwLM_cuq4Qq
 

September 01, 2023, 09:03:12 PM
Reply #10
Offline

Олег Таймень


The search engines initially considered the version of the attack of the wolves and looked for their traces near the tent. In my opinion, this is written in Grigoriev's diary ..
Now, in our time, there are wolves in the Northern Urals. In our summer trips, we met many traces of wolves and their droppings between Halatchakhl and Otorten.
The wolf version does not need to be discarded. Although, in this version, as in any other, there are many inconsistencies.
 

September 03, 2023, 01:34:06 AM
Reply #11
Offline

eurocentric


In the movie The Grey, starring Liam Neeson, a bunch of oil workers suffer an air crash and have to survive in the frozen wilderness, led by survivalist and site dog handler Neeson. They are pursued by a pack of wolves after a scout wolf finds them, and head into a forest to light a fire and make flame torches to protect themselves. Eventually the alpha male takes last man standing Neeson. Yes, it's a movie, but some degree of research must have gone into the plausibility or vague precedence.

Potentially, had a scout wolf been seen at the Dyatlov tent the hikers may have chosen to do the same, worried the pack will return and they are then 9 unarmed people packed into a canvas tent, vulnerable in a hole in the ground. They end up climbing trees until the wolves give up, and suffer hypothermia as a result. However what doesn't make sense in this theory is why they would leave without clothing, blankets, anything useful as weaponry with their axes also for fire making. So many theories fall at this same hurdle.
My DPI approach - logic, probability and reason.
 
The following users thanked this post: Manti

September 03, 2023, 08:27:45 AM
Reply #12
Online

Ziljoe


A possible reason for fleeing without weapons or extra equipment could be that one of the group was relieving themselves and took fright , yelled and started to move down hill. The others followed in a group to protect the first person. The grouping together is the protection to display size from a number of wolves .

Perhaps the wolves are now between the tent and the hikers, some hikers throw their footwear at the wolves( objects found lying on the slope?)  but the wolves stand their ground, slowly walking towards the hikers . A slow decent is made towards the forest by the hikers.

The rest unfolds at the ceder and ravine through exposure to the cold and the eventual collapse of a snow cave. However , I thought they may have at least used some branches as make shift sticks/spears.

Some of the searcher's do note that the snow was hard and ice like on the slope around the tent when they were there . So much so they found it difficult to stand without falling. The point being, the snow changes considerably,  relevant to the weather conditions. There may have been tracks that were there but got hidden.

 

September 04, 2023, 11:38:41 AM
Reply #13
Offline

Manti


Wolves are the least likely to have attacked the hikers. They are afraid of humans and especially as this area was a hunting area - they would associate humans with shotguns. Bears are more likely but it was hibernation season. The next most likely large wild animal to attack people there is the moose.

Maybe the wolves didn't attack, but just scared them out of the tent. In this case the half-eaten bacon found in the tent presents a problem. At that point it must have even been defrosted as the hikers were eating it. Would a wolf leave that there in an empty tent?

Due to this I think there were no wolves on Kholat during, or after the incident. There is no explanation why but also, none is needed. There are car thieves in my area. But my car hasn't been stolen. It's just statistics


 

September 04, 2023, 02:28:32 PM
Reply #14
Offline

eurocentric


The olfactory nerves of the wolf, and any member of the canine family, is so sensitive that it can scent prey or the smell of death from 1 mile away downwind, so with wolves known to be in the area it seems to me pretty remarkable they never found this 3-week banquet laid out for them.

The potential conclusion I reach is that something may have happened in the area, something which drove the wolves away, something they could smell. Or, if the deer died of a poison and the wolves consumed their bodies then the wolves may have died of the poison too, in much the same way that cats can die of eating a rat killed with warfarin.

Hikers dead...deer dying supposedly of bacteriosis...the Mansi all ill at home bar one...the apparent complete absence of predators...
My DPI approach - logic, probability and reason.
 

September 04, 2023, 03:27:12 PM
Reply #15
Online

Ziljoe


The absence of animals is why I liked the wolverine version.

I'm not a 100% sure about the claims of deer or sick Mansi. I'll need to look that up for facts at the time or if that's something that was added later by various authors.

There is a statistical chance that wolves just were not there, even over the three weeks.
 

September 04, 2023, 10:59:25 PM
Reply #16
Offline

eurocentric


A possible reason for fleeing without weapons or extra equipment could be that one of the group was relieving themselves and took fright , yelled and started to move down hill. The others followed in a group to protect the first person. The grouping together is the protection to display size from a number of wolves .

Perhaps the wolves are now between the tent and the hikers, some hikers throw their footwear at the wolves( objects found lying on the slope?)  but the wolves stand their ground, slowly walking towards the hikers . A slow decent is made towards the forest by the hikers.

The rest unfolds at the ceder and ravine through exposure to the cold and the eventual collapse of a snow cave. However , I thought they may have at least used some branches as make shift sticks/spears.

Some of the searcher's do note that the snow was hard and ice like on the slope around the tent when they were there . So much so they found it difficult to stand without falling. The point being, the snow changes considerably,  relevant to the weather conditions. There may have been tracks that were there but got hidden.

Reference a snow den's collapse - after reviewing some of the video footage of the ravine shot recently, and noticing how steep the banks of the ravine is only metres away from where the bodies were found, and this without snow cover, I would favour a straightforward fall rather than a den collapsing.

Rolling and banging heads on rocks, and before that person can get up or is unconscious another person falls on them, their fall broken but the impact transmitted through the body below and flailing ribs on rocks. The rolling or tumbling prevents injury to clavicles by dissipating the impact forces. Later on the bodies are washed slightly further downstream.

Anyway everyone's been admiring the cute lemming in the video and going all David Attenborough without observing the treacherous terrain. It's only relevant if the hikers tripped over one of the little critters, which if anyone wishes to partake may be developed into Theory #92. Have at it.  wink1
My DPI approach - logic, probability and reason.
 

September 04, 2023, 11:01:32 PM
Reply #17
Offline

eurocentric


The absence of animals is why I liked the wolverine version.

I'm not a 100% sure about the claims of deer or sick Mansi. I'll need to look that up for facts at the time or if that's something that was added later by various authors.

There is a statistical chance that wolves just were not there, even over the three weeks.

There's a pretty good statistical chance that the wolverine wasn't there either. But in terms of probability a pack of animals working the land have a greater chance of finding a free lunch than does a lone animal.
My DPI approach - logic, probability and reason.
 

September 04, 2023, 11:37:18 PM
Reply #18
Online

Ziljoe


The absence of animals is why I liked the wolverine version.

I'm not a 100% sure about the claims of deer or sick Mansi. I'll need to look that up for facts at the time or if that's something that was added later by various authors.

There is a statistical chance that wolves just were not there, even over the three weeks.

There's a pretty good statistical chance that the wolverine wasn't there either. But in terms of probability a pack of animals working the land have a greater chance of finding a free lunch than does a lone animal.


I'm a mixed bag over a fall verses lying in the ravine. As you stated before , we would expect broken wrists or limb etc. Putting one's arms out so to catch ones fall so to speak. Also the fact that they were under the snow at ground level . I still swing towards the ravine 4 having snow collapsed on them . It's what makes the most sense to me given the evidence that we have.
 

September 04, 2023, 11:44:57 PM
Reply #19
Online

Ziljoe


The absence of animals is why I liked the wolverine version.

I'm not a 100% sure about the claims of deer or sick Mansi. I'll need to look that up for facts at the time or if that's something that was added later by various authors.

There is a statistical chance that wolves just were not there, even over the three weeks.

There's a pretty good statistical chance that the wolverine wasn't there either. But in terms of probability a pack of animals working the land have a greater chance of finding a free lunch than does a lone animal.

Agree, to a point...the theory behind the wolverine being involved was the point of no other animals approaching the dead. Wolverine's and wolves exist in that location and I appreciate your observation as to why none of the beasts had a free lunch.

I wouldn't say a lone animal or pack of animals would sway mutch in detecting the dead. Probability? There's a lot of that....
 

September 04, 2023, 11:57:31 PM
Reply #20
Online

Ziljoe


Oops, I messed up my replies to Eurocentric..

I'm sure it can be worked out. The lemming, to me, is an interesting observation, I appreciate the work by Teddy and Олег Таймень. I also appreciate how their work  it's being presented . Without their efforts we would be in a less informed place.

I don't know who's admiring the cute lemming and I think most people have observed the terrain .
 

September 05, 2023, 12:12:32 AM
Reply #21
Offline

eurocentric


The absence of animals is why I liked the wolverine version.

I'm not a 100% sure about the claims of deer or sick Mansi. I'll need to look that up for facts at the time or if that's something that was added later by various authors.

There is a statistical chance that wolves just were not there, even over the three weeks.

There's a pretty good statistical chance that the wolverine wasn't there either. But in terms of probability a pack of animals working the land have a greater chance of finding a free lunch than does a lone animal.


I'm a mixed bag over a fall verses lying in the ravine. As you stated before , we would expect broken wrists or limb etc. Putting one's arms out so to catch ones fall so to speak. Also the fact that they were under the snow at ground level . I still swing towards the ravine 4 having snow collapsed on them . It's what makes the most sense to me given the evidence that we have.


A snow den collapse does not even begin to explain head injuries, only crush injuries to some ribs. And why would 2 chests be spared under the same weight of snow.

I wrote how a tumble or roll down the steep snow-covered bank would dissipate the impact to the hands so that an abrupt force was not transmitted to the collar bones.
My DPI approach - logic, probability and reason.
 

September 05, 2023, 12:14:23 AM
Reply #22
Offline

eurocentric


The absence of animals is why I liked the wolverine version.

I'm not a 100% sure about the claims of deer or sick Mansi. I'll need to look that up for facts at the time or if that's something that was added later by various authors.

There is a statistical chance that wolves just were not there, even over the three weeks.

There's a pretty good statistical chance that the wolverine wasn't there either. But in terms of probability a pack of animals working the land have a greater chance of finding a free lunch than does a lone animal.

Agree, to a point...the theory behind the wolverine being involved was the point of no other animals approaching the dead. Wolverine's and wolves exist in that location and I appreciate your observation as to why none of the beasts had a free lunch.

I wouldn't say a lone animal or pack of animals would sway mutch in detecting the dead. Probability? There's a lot of that....

A pack of animals who separate and go off to scout for food in different directions and then alert the pack to food by howling will surely be more successful than a solitary animal.
My DPI approach - logic, probability and reason.
 

September 05, 2023, 12:15:49 AM
Reply #23
Offline

eurocentric


Oops, I messed up my replies to Eurocentric..

I'm sure it can be worked out. The lemming, to me, is an interesting observation, I appreciate the work by Teddy and Олег Таймень. I also appreciate how their work  it's being presented . Without their efforts we would be in a less informed place.

I don't know who's admiring the cute lemming and I think most people have observed the terrain .

The video's were shot by someone else on the expedition.
My DPI approach - logic, probability and reason.
 

September 05, 2023, 12:45:02 AM
Reply #24
Online

Ziljoe


The absence of animals is why I liked the wolverine version.

I'm not a 100% sure about the claims of deer or sick Mansi. I'll need to look that up for facts at the time or if that's something that was added later by various authors.

There is a statistical chance that wolves just were not there, even over the three weeks.

There's a pretty good statistical chance that the wolverine wasn't there either. But in terms of probability a pack of animals working the land have a greater chance of finding a free lunch than does a lone animal.


I'm a mixed bag over a fall verses lying in the ravine. As you stated before , we would expect broken wrists or limb etc. Putting one's arms out so to catch ones fall so to speak. Also the fact that they were under the snow at ground level . I still swing towards the ravine 4 having snow collapsed on them . It's what makes the most sense to me given the evidence that we have.


A snow den collapse does not even begin to explain head injuries, only crush injuries to some ribs. And why would 2 chests be spared under the same weight of snow.

I wrote how a tumble or roll down the steep snow-covered bank would dissipate the impact to the hands so that an abrupt force was not transmitted to the collar bones.


I'm not as knowledgeable as you unfortunately and I'm no expert

However, I'll plow on.

I'm lying on my bed right now. Head on pillow and I'm looking up towards my celling. I'm imagining a space above my head about 800 mm. The rest of the space above is less than 1500 mm/ 1.5 meters.

In my uneducated imagination, I can envisage a sudden collapse crushing my ribs quite easily. If my pillow is a rock I can also see the side of my head situated on the rock taking a hit and possible fracture.

Some of the ribs and head injuries may have been spared on the others because there was some give under thosee bodies.

I do not write off the concept of a fall either , it just seems less likely to me. This is to do with how the bodies were found mostly, the bodies suggest they were huddled.

Only my thinking so don't get too excited....
 

September 05, 2023, 12:46:21 AM
Reply #25
Online

Ziljoe


Oops, I messed up my replies to Eurocentric..

I'm sure it can be worked out. The lemming, to me, is an interesting observation, I appreciate the work by Teddy and Олег Таймень. I also appreciate how their work  it's being presented . Without their efforts we would be in a less informed place.

I don't know who's admiring the cute lemming and I think most people have observed the terrain .

The video's were shot by someone else on the expedition.

And your point is?
 

September 05, 2023, 12:58:55 AM
Reply #26
Online

Ziljoe


The absence of animals is why I liked the wolverine version.

I'm not a 100% sure about the claims of deer or sick Mansi. I'll need to look that up for facts at the time or if that's something that was added later by various authors.

There is a statistical chance that wolves just were not there, even over the three weeks.

There's a pretty good statistical chance that the wolverine wasn't there either. But in terms of probability a pack of animals working the land have a greater chance of finding a free lunch than does a lone animal.

Agree, to a point...the theory behind the wolverine being involved was the point of no other animals approaching the dead. Wolverine's and wolves exist in that location and I appreciate your observation as to why none of the beasts had a free lunch.

I wouldn't say a lone animal or pack of animals would sway mutch in detecting the dead. Probability? There's a lot of that....

A pack of animals who separate and go off to scout for food in different directions and then alert the pack to food by howling will surely be more successful than a solitary animal.

I don't know enough about how wolves or Wolverines hunt. Wolves hunt on their own sometimes as do wolverines and polar bears etc.

I think wolves hunt in packs to take down deer and moose etc other wise they hunt small game indavidually . If the wolves were hunting in packs , they would be stalking the deet I would guess. Following the heard so to speak. Perhaps they were following a group of deer or moose in better hunting grounds?

If I remember correctly, the Mansi name for 1079 was something to do with a poor hunting area.
 

September 05, 2023, 01:04:04 AM
Reply #27
Offline

eurocentric


The absence of animals is why I liked the wolverine version.

I'm not a 100% sure about the claims of deer or sick Mansi. I'll need to look that up for facts at the time or if that's something that was added later by various authors.

There is a statistical chance that wolves just were not there, even over the three weeks.

There's a pretty good statistical chance that the wolverine wasn't there either. But in terms of probability a pack of animals working the land have a greater chance of finding a free lunch than does a lone animal.


I'm a mixed bag over a fall verses lying in the ravine. As you stated before , we would expect broken wrists or limb etc. Putting one's arms out so to catch ones fall so to speak. Also the fact that they were under the snow at ground level . I still swing towards the ravine 4 having snow collapsed on them . It's what makes the most sense to me given the evidence that we have.


A snow den collapse does not even begin to explain head injuries, only crush injuries to some ribs. And why would 2 chests be spared under the same weight of snow.

I wrote how a tumble or roll down the steep snow-covered bank would dissipate the impact to the hands so that an abrupt force was not transmitted to the collar bones.


I'm not as knowledgeable as you unfortunately and I'm no expert

However, I'll plow on.

I'm lying on my bed right now. Head on pillow and I'm looking up towards my celling. I'm imagining a space above my head about 800 mm. The rest of the space above is less than 1500 mm/ 1.5 meters.

In my uneducated imagination, I can envisage a sudden collapse crushing my ribs quite easily. If my pillow is a rock I can also see the side of my head situated on the rock taking a hit and possible fracture.

Some of the ribs and head injuries may have been spared on the others because there was some give under thosee bodies.

I do not write off the concept of a fall either , it just seems less likely to me. This is to do with how the bodies were found mostly, the bodies suggest they were huddled.

Only my thinking so don't get too excited....


And if one of your girlfriends was next to you what of her ribs, why should she be spared any injury from this crushing weight, and why too should one side of your chest. Why didn't you die of suffocation? How did you manage to escape from this tomb with such injuries if you didn't in fact suffocate?

It's not about education, although I do have a part medical background, it's questioning the logical flaws in a theory.

It's not the only theory with amazingly versatile ribs. In the tree collapse theory, Lyuda is next to Semyon, an unlikely pairing in the first place I'm sure you agree, then again you may automatically disagree, but both have flailed right sides yet Semyon's left, betwixt the two, somehow remained intact. Was that "give" too?

My DPI approach - logic, probability and reason.
 

September 05, 2023, 01:05:09 AM
Reply #28
Offline

eurocentric


Oops, I messed up my replies to Eurocentric..

I'm sure it can be worked out. The lemming, to me, is an interesting observation, I appreciate the work by Teddy and Олег Таймень. I also appreciate how their work  it's being presented . Without their efforts we would be in a less informed place.

I don't know who's admiring the cute lemming and I think most people have observed the terrain .

The video's were shot by someone else on the expedition.

And your point is?

That you are fawning in your gratitude to the wrong people.
My DPI approach - logic, probability and reason.
 

September 05, 2023, 01:09:56 AM
Reply #29
Offline

eurocentric


The absence of animals is why I liked the wolverine version.

I'm not a 100% sure about the claims of deer or sick Mansi. I'll need to look that up for facts at the time or if that's something that was added later by various authors.

There is a statistical chance that wolves just were not there, even over the three weeks.

There's a pretty good statistical chance that the wolverine wasn't there either. But in terms of probability a pack of animals working the land have a greater chance of finding a free lunch than does a lone animal.

Agree, to a point...the theory behind the wolverine being involved was the point of no other animals approaching the dead. Wolverine's and wolves exist in that location and I appreciate your observation as to why none of the beasts had a free lunch.

I wouldn't say a lone animal or pack of animals would sway mutch in detecting the dead. Probability? There's a lot of that....

A pack of animals who separate and go off to scout for food in different directions and then alert the pack to food by howling will surely be more successful than a solitary animal.

I don't know enough about how wolves or Wolverines hunt. Wolves hunt on their own sometimes as do wolverines and polar bears etc.

I think wolves hunt in packs to take down deer and moose etc other wise they hunt small game indavidually . If the wolves were hunting in packs , they would be stalking the deet I would guess. Following the heard so to speak. Perhaps they were following a group of deer or moose in better hunting grounds?

If I remember correctly, the Mansi name for 1079 was something to do with a poor hunting area.


The point I was making was a pack of animals operating as a team can cover a lot more ground than a single alternative beastie.
My DPI approach - logic, probability and reason.