Dyatlov Pass Forum

Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: RMK on April 06, 2021, 03:56:34 PM

Title: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: RMK on April 06, 2021, 03:56:34 PM
This post by Manti in another thread inspired me to start this thread:
I suspect much of the oft-repeated facts of the case aren't, in fact, facts..

As I've remarked before, a lot of commonly known "facts" about the DPI are not actually factual.  To be clear: you rarely encounter credulously asserted, blatantly inaccurate falsehoods about the DPI.  Instead, most of these so-called "facts" are inferences from the bare facts of the case.  As such, they have some basis in fact, but they are not necessarily true.  What follows are a few examples of what I mean.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape.
Actually:  According to the forensic examination documented in the case file, there were cuts on the inner surface of the tent fabric.  But, we do not know for certain how or why those cuts came to be.  Loose}{Cannon takes a good, skeptical look at the commonly accepted origin of those cuts here (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0).

"Fact":  Some of the Dyatlov hikers dug a den in the snow near the ravine, and furnished it with a flooring of tree branches, and with spare pieces of clothing on which to sit.
Actually:  While that is a possible scenario, there are legitimate reasons to question (1) the evidential value of the "den" as found by searchers, (2) its origins, and even (3) its existence at the material time of the DPI--see here (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=17).

"Fact":  Lyudmila Dubinina's tongue was cut out / ripped out / etc.
Actually:  The autopsy report notes only that her tongue was "missing".  We do not know for certain why it was missing.  Also, we cannot be certain that she lost her tongue via some perimortem act of violence, since there are credible natural explanations for its absence.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and ran down Kholat Syakhl in a panic.
Actually:  Perhaps, but that is inconsistent with the footprint evidence still apparent when the official search party found their tent.  For that matter, we cannot be certain they ever camped where their tent was found in the first place.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and descended Kholat Syakhl in a calm and orderly manner.  Therefore, they were not scared or panicked.
Actually:  Not necessarily.  Their footprints show that they moved at a normal walk.  But, footprints preserve pace and direction, not mental/emotional state.  And again, we cannot be certain that those footprints were theirs.

"Fact":  "Igor Dyatlov and Zinaida Kolmogorova were (possibly secretly) in a romantic relationship when they began their last trek"; or, the weaker assertion, "Igor Dyatlov was in love with Zinaida Kolmogorova".
Actually:  Dyatlov had a photo of Kolmogorova in his notebook.  It is certainly possible that he wanted to be "more than just comrades" with her.  However, it is clear from a letter she sent a friend near the beginning of their fatal trek that she was still in love with Yuri Doroshenko.

In my experience, the vast majority of YouTube videos about the DPI report at least one of the above "facts" as being uncontroversially true!

What are some other commonly known "facts" that are not, in fact, facts?
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: KFinn on April 06, 2021, 04:17:27 PM
I came here to say the exact same thing about Dyatlov and Kolmogorova! 
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Investigator on April 06, 2021, 06:45:26 PM
In a sense, I agree, in that any one detail (or even a few) could be wrong or misconceived, so the best you are going to get here is a "big picture" tentative explanation.  Since there is only one such explanation that makes sense, this is not that much of a mystery (and in fact, it's more interesting to me in the context of how people conceptualize "mysteries").  The "den" seems straightforward.  Igor likely believed the fire would keep them alive, but the World War II vet thought that what soldiers did to survive the harsh Russian winters was a better idea (and if he decided to do this after one or both Yuris perished, that doesn't change the "big picture").  The next step is to try and do a precise reconstruction, then assess that data to see if any other explanation emerges.  Otherwise, the tent was damaged, then decided to secure it to prevent further damage (or have their gear blown all over the mountainside), and try to survive the night as best they could (fire and "den").  My hypothesis is that (at least among the 7 who had the lightest clothing) they did a lot of physical work (huge number of broken brances, the rescuers noted) and then when they sat around the fire, they got really sweated up, so that once the fire was clearly not going to save them under those circumstances, the "den" was dug (or one or more wanted to dig the "den" as a backup plan, or the idea was to sleep in the "den" after they warme up).  After the two Yuris perish, Zina gets angry/upset, and decided to go back to the tent.  Slobodin tries to get her to come back, slips, hits his head, and is rendered unconscious.  Igor then goes after her, but they are too sweated up and freeze to death.  The "ravine 4" fall through the snow and onto a rock creek, with those who fall first getting nasty injuries from the others falling on top (Luda likely fell first).  It was a series of bad decisions, but pitching the tent where they did with no heat was the major mistake.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: KFinn on April 06, 2021, 07:46:46 PM
In a sense, I agree, in that any one detail (or even a few) could be wrong or misconceived, so the best you are going to get here is a "big picture" tentative explanation.  Since there is only one such explanation that makes sense, this is not that much of a mystery (and in fact, it's more interesting to me in the context of how people conceptualize "mysteries").  The "den" seems straightforward.  Igor likely believed the fire would keep them alive, but the World War II vet thought that what soldiers did to survive the harsh Russian winters was a better idea (and if he decided to do this after one or both Yuris perished, that doesn't change the "big picture").  The next step is to try and do a precise reconstruction, then assess that data to see if any other explanation emerges.  Otherwise, the tent was damaged, then decided to secure it to prevent further damage (or have their gear blown all over the mountainside), and try to survive the night as best they could (fire and "den").  My hypothesis is that (at least among the 7 who had the lightest clothing) they did a lot of physical work (huge number of broken brances, the rescuers noted) and then when they sat around the fire, they got really sweated up, so that once the fire was clearly not going to save them under those circumstances, the "den" was dug (or one or more wanted to dig the "den" as a backup plan, or the idea was to sleep in the "den" after they warme up).  After the two Yuris perish, Zina gets angry/upset, and decided to go back to the tent.  Slobodin tries to get her to come back, slips, hits his head, and is rendered unconscious.  Igor then goes after her, but they are too sweated up and freeze to death.  The "ravine 4" fall through the snow and onto a rock creek, with those who fall first getting nasty injuries from the others falling on top (Luda likely fell first).  It was a series of bad decisions, but pitching the tent where they did with no heat was the major mistake.

When discussing fact from possibly scenarios, the hard part is not ascribing intent, as that is the unknown element in behavior.  I'd even go so far as to say it isn't a definitive fact that Zina was attempting to go back to the tent; she, Dyatlov and Rustem might very well have fallen on the way down from the tent.  I think that is less likely but because it is a possibility, we can't necessarily rule that as fact, either way. 
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: KFinn on April 06, 2021, 07:49:55 PM
This post by Manti in another thread inspired me to start this thread:
I suspect much of the oft-repeated facts of the case aren't, in fact, facts..

As I've remarked before, a lot of commonly known "facts" about the DPI are not actually factual.  To be clear: you rarely encounter credulously asserted, blatantly inaccurate falsehoods about the DPI.  Instead, most of these so-called "facts" are inferences from the bare facts of the case.  As such, they have some basis in fact, but they are not necessarily true.  What follows are a few examples of what I mean.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape.
Actually:  According to the forensic examination documented in the case file, there were cuts on the inner surface of the tent fabric.  But, we do not know for certain how or why those cuts came to be.  Loose}{Cannon takes a good, skeptical look at the commonly accepted origin of those cuts here (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0).

"Fact":  Some of the Dyatlov hikers dug a den in the snow near the ravine, and furnished it with a flooring of tree branches, and with spare pieces of clothing on which to sit.
Actually:  While that is a possible scenario, there are legitimate reasons to question (1) the evidential value of the "den" as found by searchers, (2) its origins, and even (3) its existence at the material time of the DPI--see here (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=17).

"Fact":  Lyudmila Dubinina's tongue was cut out / ripped out / etc.
Actually:  The autopsy report notes only that her tongue was "missing".  We do not know for certain why it was missing.  Also, we cannot be certain that she lost her tongue via some perimortem act of violence, since there are credible natural explanations for its absence.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and ran down Kholat Syakhl in a panic.
Actually:  Perhaps, but that is inconsistent with the footprint evidence still apparent when the official search party found their tent.  For that matter, we cannot be certain they ever camped where their tent was found in the first place.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and descended Kholat Syakhl in a calm and orderly manner.  Therefore, they were not scared or panicked.
Actually:  Not necessarily.  Their footprints show that they moved at a normal walk.  But, footprints preserve pace and direction, not mental/emotional state.  And again, we cannot be certain that those footprints were theirs.

"Fact":  "Igor Dyatlov and Zinaida Kolmogorova were (possibly secretly) in a romantic relationship when they began their last trek"; or, the weaker assertion, "Igor Dyatlov was in love with Zinaida Kolmogorova".
Actually:  Dyatlov had a photo of Kolmogorova in his notebook.  It is certainly possible that he wanted to be "more than just comrades" with her.  However, it is clear from a letter she sent a friend near the beginning of their fatal trek that she was still in love with Yuri Doroshenko.

In my experience, the vast majority of YouTube videos about the DPI report at least one of the above "facts" as being uncontroversially true!

What are some other commonly known "facts" that are not, in fact, facts?

How about that it is commonly said the group left the tent undressed or in their underwear, when in fact no one was naked or only in their under clothes.  They were *under* dressed as far as no shoes, no coats, few head coverings.  But Doroshenko and Krivonischenko had clothing with them; it was cut from them as evidenced by their cut clothing about the site and on the four in the ravine.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Investigator on April 07, 2021, 10:39:19 AM
When discussing fact from possibly scenarios, the hard part is not ascribing intent, as that is the unknown element in behavior.  I'd even go so far as to say it isn't a definitive fact that Zina was attempting to go back to the tent; she, Dyatlov and Rustem might very well have fallen on the way down from the tent.  I think that is less likely but because it is a possibility, we can't necessarily rule that as fact, either way.

It's a matter of wanting certainty in every detail versus wanting a "big picture" that makes sense (or in some cases there's more than one), and if you think you are going to get the former in any investigation you likely won't be able to get beyond your first investigation!  In the DPI, because we know at least 6 of the 9 got down to the tree line, it would not make sense, nor would it be consistent with anything else known about them or about hikers in general, that they would leave 3 to die on the way down, so this possibility should be discarded for the time being, until evidence came to light that was consistent with it.  But if you are going to bring up these kinds of highly unlikely possibilities, then again we are in that place where you wouldn't get beyond your first investigation.  The best approach, in my experience, is to figure out at least one "big picture" if you can, then move on to something else, and let the ideas "kick around" in the "back of your mind" until you come up with a new idea.  In the meantime, as I did, you can research similar incidents, such as other hiking/climbing tragedies, in order to try and come up with some new ideas.  That led to me thinking that there's no way that tent (two World War II canvas tents sewn together) could stay intact the entire night in that location under those weather condtions, and with no heat.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: KFinn on April 07, 2021, 11:42:19 AM
When discussing fact from possibly scenarios, the hard part is not ascribing intent, as that is the unknown element in behavior.  I'd even go so far as to say it isn't a definitive fact that Zina was attempting to go back to the tent; she, Dyatlov and Rustem might very well have fallen on the way down from the tent.  I think that is less likely but because it is a possibility, we can't necessarily rule that as fact, either way.

It's a matter of wanting certainty in every detail versus wanting a "big picture" that makes sense (or in some cases there's more than one), and if you think you are going to get the former in any investigation you likely won't be able to get beyond your first investigation!  In the DPI, because we know at least 6 of the 9 got down to the tree line, it would not make sense, nor would it be consistent with anything else known about them or about hikers in general, that they would leave 3 to die on the way down, so this possibility should be discarded for the time being, until evidence came to light that was consistent with it.  But if you are going to bring up these kinds of highly unlikely possibilities, then again we are in that place where you wouldn't get beyond your first investigation.  The best approach, in my experience, is to figure out at least one "big picture" if you can, then move on to something else, and let the ideas "kick around" in the "back of your mind" until you come up with a new idea.  In the meantime, as I did, you can research similar incidents, such as other hiking/climbing tragedies, in order to try and come up with some new ideas.  That led to me thinking that there's no way that tent (two World War II canvas tents sewn together) could stay intact the entire night in that location under those weather condtions, and with no heat.

I mean, I had a pretty decent track record for investigations in my career, but thank you for the advice ;)

The subject of this post is separating fact from fiction.  When you start assigning intent behind behavior, you have veered from factual and into supposition.  An integral part of a successful investigation is establishing the facts, first.  In this particular thread, we are discussing what is perceived to be fact vs. what is actually known.  Supposition is great but that is not what was asked for specifically in this thread.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Nigel Evans on April 07, 2021, 12:17:47 PM
When discussing fact from possibly scenarios, the hard part is not ascribing intent, as that is the unknown element in behavior.  I'd even go so far as to say it isn't a definitive fact that Zina was attempting to go back to the tent; she, Dyatlov and Rustem might very well have fallen on the way down from the tent.  I think that is less likely but because it is a possibility, we can't necessarily rule that as fact, either way.

It's a matter of wanting certainty in every detail versus wanting a "big picture" that makes sense (or in some cases there's more than one), and if you think you are going to get the former in any investigation you likely won't be able to get beyond your first investigation!  In the DPI, because we know at least 6 of the 9 got down to the tree line, it would not make sense, nor would it be consistent with anything else known about them or about hikers in general, that they would leave 3 to die on the way down, so this possibility should be discarded for the time being, until evidence came to light that was consistent with it. I would disagree, if the group split into two on the way down and then one group got struck by "it" then the surviving group would (a) not know the location of the now possibly scattered members and (b) might be fearful of risking the same fate if they searched for them. Maybe better to light a fire on an exposed knoll to act as a beacon for surviving stragglers (like the 2yuris). A WW2 vet might well argue it was every man for themselves as would be common in war. But if you are going to bring up these kinds of highly unlikely possibilities, then again we are in that place where you wouldn't get beyond your first investigation.  The best approach, in my experience, is to figure out at least one "big picture" if you can, then move on to something else, and let the ideas "kick around" in the "back of your mind" until you come up with a new idea.  In the meantime, as I did, you can research similar incidents, such as other hiking/climbing tragedies, in order to try and come up with some new ideas.  That led to me thinking that there's no way that tent (two World War II canvas tents sewn together) could stay intact the entire night in that location under those weather condtions, and with no heat.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: sarapuk on April 07, 2021, 04:59:04 PM
This post by Manti in another thread inspired me to start this thread:
I suspect much of the oft-repeated facts of the case aren't, in fact, facts..

As I've remarked before, a lot of commonly known "facts" about the DPI are not actually factual.  To be clear: you rarely encounter credulously asserted, blatantly inaccurate falsehoods about the DPI.  Instead, most of these so-called "facts" are inferences from the bare facts of the case.  As such, they have some basis in fact, but they are not necessarily true.  What follows are a few examples of what I mean.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape.
Actually:  According to the forensic examination documented in the case file, there were cuts on the inner surface of the tent fabric.  But, we do not know for certain how or why those cuts came to be.  Loose}{Cannon takes a good, skeptical look at the commonly accepted origin of those cuts here (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0).

"Fact":  Some of the Dyatlov hikers dug a den in the snow near the ravine, and furnished it with a flooring of tree branches, and with spare pieces of clothing on which to sit.
Actually:  While that is a possible scenario, there are legitimate reasons to question (1) the evidential value of the "den" as found by searchers, (2) its origins, and even (3) its existence at the material time of the DPI--see here (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=17).

"Fact":  Lyudmila Dubinina's tongue was cut out / ripped out / etc.
Actually:  The autopsy report notes only that her tongue was "missing".  We do not know for certain why it was missing.  Also, we cannot be certain that she lost her tongue via some perimortem act of violence, since there are credible natural explanations for its absence.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and ran down Kholat Syakhl in a panic.
Actually:  Perhaps, but that is inconsistent with the footprint evidence still apparent when the official search party found their tent.  For that matter, we cannot be certain they ever camped where their tent was found in the first place.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and descended Kholat Syakhl in a calm and orderly manner.  Therefore, they were not scared or panicked.
Actually:  Not necessarily.  Their footprints show that they moved at a normal walk.  But, footprints preserve pace and direction, not mental/emotional state.  And again, we cannot be certain that those footprints were theirs.

"Fact":  "Igor Dyatlov and Zinaida Kolmogorova were (possibly secretly) in a romantic relationship when they began their last trek"; or, the weaker assertion, "Igor Dyatlov was in love with Zinaida Kolmogorova".
Actually:  Dyatlov had a photo of Kolmogorova in his notebook.  It is certainly possible that he wanted to be "more than just comrades" with her.  However, it is clear from a letter she sent a friend near the beginning of their fatal trek that she was still in love with Yuri Doroshenko.

In my experience, the vast majority of YouTube videos about the DPI report at least one of the above "facts" as being uncontroversially true!

What are some other commonly known "facts" that are not, in fact, facts?

Who presented the so called Facts in the first place  !  ?  The Authorities  !  ?  For instance, the Authorities made public that the Tent was cut from the inside. Etc.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Manti on April 07, 2021, 06:38:52 PM
In a sense, I agree, in that any one detail (or even a few) could be wrong or misconceived, so the best you are going to get here is a "big picture" tentative explanation.  Since there is only one such explanation that makes sense, this is not that much of a mystery (and in fact, it's more interesting to me in the context of how people conceptualize "mysteries").  The "den" seems straightforward.  Igor likely believed the fire would keep them alive, but the World War II vet thought that what soldiers did to survive the harsh Russian winters was a better idea (and if he decided to do this after one or both Yuris perished, that doesn't change the "big picture").  The next step is to try and do a precise reconstruction, then assess that data to see if any other explanation emerges.  Otherwise, the tent was damaged, then decided to secure it to prevent further damage (or have their gear blown all over the mountainside), and try to survive the night as best they could (fire and "den").  My hypothesis is that (at least among the 7 who had the lightest clothing) they did a lot of physical work (huge number of broken brances, the rescuers noted) and then when they sat around the fire, they got really sweated up, so that once the fire was clearly not going to save them under those circumstances, the "den" was dug (or one or more wanted to dig the "den" as a backup plan, or the idea was to sleep in the "den" after they warme up).  After the two Yuris perish, Zina gets angry/upset, and decided to go back to the tent.  Slobodin tries to get her to come back, slips, hits his head, and is rendered unconscious.  Igor then goes after her, but they are too sweated up and freeze to death.  The "ravine 4" fall through the snow and onto a rock creek, with those who fall first getting nasty injuries from the others falling on top (Luda likely fell first).  It was a series of bad decisions, but pitching the tent where they did with no heat was the major mistake.
Well, I don't want to make this off-topic but...
In this big picture scenario, wouldn't have they put on their coats first?


Now a "fact": a campfire was started under the cedar where the Yuris sustained their burn injuries. 
Actually: I don't know, do we have any photos of campfire remains?


"Fact" 1: there was order inside the tent except the shoes in the corner were not neatly arranged, vs "fact" 2: there were loins and rusks found on the blankets, and buckets, a saw, etc. inside, in front of the entrance.
Only one of these can be accurate.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: RMK on April 07, 2021, 07:05:39 PM
Who presented the so called Facts in the first place  !  ?  The Authorities  !  ?  For instance, the Authorities made public that the Tent was cut from the inside. Etc.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you here?  It is certainly true that the authorities in charge of the original 1959 investigation publicized some elementary facts, as well as some "so-called facts" representing their (primarily Ivanov's [to the extent he could opine freely]) inferences of what might be the most probable scenario.  My point is that we can legitimately question someone else's inferences from the bare facts (but we cannot just dismiss the bare facts themselves without a compelling reason).
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: KFinn on April 07, 2021, 08:11:04 PM
In a sense, I agree, in that any one detail (or even a few) could be wrong or misconceived, so the best you are going to get here is a "big picture" tentative explanation.  Since there is only one such explanation that makes sense, this is not that much of a mystery (and in fact, it's more interesting to me in the context of how people conceptualize "mysteries").  The "den" seems straightforward.  Igor likely believed the fire would keep them alive, but the World War II vet thought that what soldiers did to survive the harsh Russian winters was a better idea (and if he decided to do this after one or both Yuris perished, that doesn't change the "big picture").  The next step is to try and do a precise reconstruction, then assess that data to see if any other explanation emerges.  Otherwise, the tent was damaged, then decided to secure it to prevent further damage (or have their gear blown all over the mountainside), and try to survive the night as best they could (fire and "den").  My hypothesis is that (at least among the 7 who had the lightest clothing) they did a lot of physical work (huge number of broken brances, the rescuers noted) and then when they sat around the fire, they got really sweated up, so that once the fire was clearly not going to save them under those circumstances, the "den" was dug (or one or more wanted to dig the "den" as a backup plan, or the idea was to sleep in the "den" after they warme up).  After the two Yuris perish, Zina gets angry/upset, and decided to go back to the tent.  Slobodin tries to get her to come back, slips, hits his head, and is rendered unconscious.  Igor then goes after her, but they are too sweated up and freeze to death.  The "ravine 4" fall through the snow and onto a rock creek, with those who fall first getting nasty injuries from the others falling on top (Luda likely fell first).  It was a series of bad decisions, but pitching the tent where they did with no heat was the major mistake.
Well, I don't want to make this off-topic but...
In this big picture scenario, wouldn't have they put on their coats first?


Now a "fact": a campfire was started under the cedar where the Yuris sustained their burn injuries. 
Actually: I don't know, do we have any photos of campfire remains?


"Fact" 1: there was order inside the tent except the shoes in the corner were not neatly arranged, vs "fact" 2: there were loins and rusks found on the blankets, and buckets, a saw, etc. inside, in front of the entrance.
Only one of these can be accurate.

Unfortunately, we can not establish any fact regarding the state of the tent's contents.  All we have are eyewitness accounts, which are notoriously inaccurate and in the case of Dyatlov, they all seem to have differing accounts on the positions of things :(   Which is quite unhelpful since the tent was such a pivotal decision point.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: sarapuk on April 08, 2021, 10:57:29 AM
Who presented the so called Facts in the first place  !  ?  The Authorities  !  ?  For instance, the Authorities made public that the Tent was cut from the inside. Etc.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you here?  It is certainly true that the authorities in charge of the original 1959 investigation publicized some elementary facts, as well as some "so-called facts" representing their (primarily Ivanov's [to the extent he could opine freely]) inferences of what might be the most probable scenario.  My point is that we can legitimately question someone else's inferences from the bare facts (but we cannot just dismiss the bare facts themselves without a compelling reason).

Well a fact is a fact or its not a fact. Something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information. A thing that is known or proved to be true. Obviously the Tent is known to have had some kind of cuts to it. What we dont know is exactly how they came about. And so on.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on April 08, 2021, 08:27:58 PM
Excellent thread.   thumb1
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: NightLurker on April 09, 2021, 09:50:26 PM
We do know that Lyudmila was very vocal... and as such, she became "unvocal"
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Manti on April 18, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Fact: They died on the 1st or 2nd of February Actually: We know they died sometime before being found... it could even be a day or two before, they were under a thin layer of snow that could have fallen in a day. We also know they stopped writing diary entries on 31-Jan. But we know more... we have mentions in the "Unknown diary" of Tibo writing a diary, yet none were found. So we know diaries are missing (and could have contained entries after the 31st), we also know that some dates in the diaries are corrected, this hints at the possibility that other dates might be incorrect. We also have no original for the group diary, only a typed copy. So later entries might have been omitted, or conversely, some might be made up. Dyatlov mentions a "relatively early" start of 10am which seems strange to some. So in the other extreme, they might have died earlier and the last diary entries are faked. Their photos are not dated. Even excluding such outlandish scenarios as faked diaries, all we can confidently say is they died sometime between the 31st of January and 26th of February, we also do not know if everyone died on the same day or possibly weeks apart...
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: sarapuk on April 18, 2021, 02:22:19 PM
Fact: They died on the 1st or 2nd of February Actually: We know they died sometime before being found... it could even be a day or two before, they were under a thin layer of snow that could have fallen in a day. We also know they stopped writing diary entries on 31-Jan. But we know more... we have mentions in the "Unknown diary" of Tibo writing a diary, yet none were found. So we know diaries are missing (and could have contained entries after the 31st), we also know that some dates in the diaries are corrected, this hints at the possibility that other dates might be incorrect. We also have no original for the group diary, only a typed copy. So later entries might have been omitted, or conversely, some might be made up. Dyatlov mentions a "relatively early" start of 10am which seems strange to some. So in the other extreme, they might have died earlier and the last diary entries are faked. Their photos are not dated. Even excluding such outlandish scenarios as faked diaries, all we can confidently say is they died sometime between the 31st of January and 26th of February, we also do not know if everyone died on the same day or possibly weeks apart...

Those who carried out the original Investigation and Autopsy seem to think that they died on or around 1st or 2nd February 1959.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Manti on April 18, 2021, 05:34:14 PM
Well, actually, the autopsies do not mention date of death. Which is good as it would be speculation on the coroner's part. Usually, a guess can be made about this based on the state of decomposition, taking into account local weather conditions etc. But freezing completely prevents that so in this case there is very little to go by. Sunlight will still have an effect but snow covered them an unknown time after death, so it's only possible to guess that timespan and not time since death. Plus there might have been cloudy days.


The investigator did think they died on the 2nd... But that doesn't make it a fact. It is just a guess based on the diaries and how far along they were on their route and how long it could have taken from their last campsite to get there.

There are many cases of missing persons being ultimately found close to where they were last seen, yet their time of death indicating that they were alive for days or even weeks. In some of those cases, they might have been lost and going in circles, gone somewhere and returned, been unable to move due to injury or captivity, stayed there due to the belief that is the location where they are most likely to be rescued, and other reasons. Some of these reasons might also apply to the Dyatlov group, we don't know. There is a range of possible dates and picking 2nd of February is rather arbitrary and is not the median of this range and let me say... it is actually quite unlikely that 9 people in differing clothing, different health etc. would die on the same day if the cause of death is the elements.

So unless the authorities have some additional information we don't, 1st or 2nd Feb is just a guess.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: sarapuk on April 19, 2021, 12:08:47 PM
Well, actually, the autopsies do not mention date of death. Which is good as it would be speculation on the coroner's part. Usually, a guess can be made about this based on the state of decomposition, taking into account local weather conditions etc. But freezing completely prevents that so in this case there is very little to go by. Sunlight will still have an effect but snow covered them an unknown time after death, so it's only possible to guess that timespan and not time since death. Plus there might have been cloudy days.


The investigator did think they died on the 2nd... But that doesn't make it a fact. It is just a guess based on the diaries and how far along they were on their route and how long it could have taken from their last campsite to get there.

There are many cases of missing persons being ultimately found close to where they were last seen, yet their time of death indicating that they were alive for days or even weeks. In some of those cases, they might have been lost and going in circles, gone somewhere and returned, been unable to move due to injury or captivity, stayed there due to the belief that is the location where they are most likely to be rescued, and other reasons. Some of these reasons might also apply to the Dyatlov group, we don't know. There is a range of possible dates and picking 2nd of February is rather arbitrary and is not the median of this range and let me say... it is actually quite unlikely that 9 people in differing clothing, different health etc. would die on the same day if the cause of death is the elements.

So unless the authorities have some additional information we don't, 1st or 2nd Feb is just a guess.

Well if its a guess then its a good one. And it ties in with their sequence of travel up to the Mountainside where they pitched their Tent for the last time.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: eurocentric on April 19, 2021, 12:23:42 PM
You can make a reasonable guess of when they died based on the remaining food supplies, and that, correlated to diary entries and meterology, in particular extreme weather events which might necessitate the building of a snow shelter, would all triangulate towards the most likely time of death.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Dona on April 19, 2021, 12:59:30 PM
You can make a reasonable guess of when they died based on the remaining food supplies, and that, correlated to diary entries and meterology, in particular extreme weather events which might necessitate the building of a snow shelter, would all triangulate towards the most likely time of death.

Isnt it odd that they  all died at about the same time..under very different circumstances. Its almost unbelievable..
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: sarapuk on May 19, 2021, 04:40:42 AM
Who presented the so called Facts in the first place  !  ?  The Authorities  !  ?  For instance, the Authorities made public that the Tent was cut from the inside. Etc.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you here?  It is certainly true that the authorities in charge of the original 1959 investigation publicized some elementary facts, as well as some "so-called facts" representing their (primarily Ivanov's [to the extent he could opine freely]) inferences of what might be the most probable scenario.  My point is that we can legitimately question someone else's inferences from the bare facts (but we cannot just dismiss the bare facts themselves without a compelling reason).

Well it was the Authoritites in charge of the search. So its obvious that the Authorities would be the ones who were required to record stuff. And obviously there were some searchers who also had their own record of what they found.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: zirconium on May 19, 2021, 10:22:20 PM
You can make a reasonable guess of when they died based on the remaining food supplies, and that, correlated to diary entries and meterology, in particular extreme weather events which might necessitate the building of a snow shelter, would all triangulate towards the most likely time of death.

Isnt it odd that they  all died at about the same time..under very different circumstances. Its almost unbelievable..
More likely they died within a span of several hours rather than nearly simultaneously. Even if they did not all suffer the same cause of death, everyone faced the circumstance that they were underdressed in below freezing conditions.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Manti on May 22, 2021, 02:22:37 PM
You can make a reasonable guess of when they died based on the remaining food supplies, and that, correlated to diary entries and meterology, in particular extreme weather events which might necessitate the building of a snow shelter, would all triangulate towards the most likely time of death.

Isnt it odd that they  all died at about the same time..under very different circumstances. Its almost unbelievable..
More likely they died within a span of several hours rather than nearly simultaneously. Even if they did not all suffer the same cause of death, everyone faced the circumstance that they were underdressed in below freezing conditions.
I haven't posted or thought much about the Dyatlov incident lately.
Now with sort of a "fresh look"... my thoughts are: They had food, in the tent and in the labaz. They had more clothes available, in the tent and also on their comrades who first succumbed. And some of them weren't even that underdressed, Tibo and Semyon. Given these conditions, out of 9 healthy, athletic people I would expect at least one to survive and make it back on skis to civilisation.

Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Manti on May 22, 2021, 02:31:14 PM
If there was no event that injured or incapacitated ALL of them, you would expect to at least find some of them miles and tens of miles away, or I would, and expect the skis to have been dug up from under the tent, a backpack packed with food and clothes on their back, on the way to Vizhay. It was cold and all but they made it to the pass with the same equipment, why couldn't they make it back, or even attempt to?
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: zirconium on June 02, 2021, 12:36:41 PM
I just assume in the middle of the night it was too cold, as a matter of degree (no pun intended). Three people tried to go back to the tent, but apparently froze, or otherwise didn't make it.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: GlennM on February 24, 2022, 04:56:26 PM
It was stated that ice formed under Rustem owing to heat dissipation.  It is a fact that he fell and died oriented to the tent located by the rescuers. It is a fact that all behavior is motivated. The conclusions to be drawn from the evidence are that the tent was on 1079 at the time of his death and secondly, there was something worth having at the tent.Rustem did not die elsewhere and his corpse was then relocated.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Manti on February 24, 2022, 05:41:02 PM
"Fact": Animals don't venture above the treeline on Kholat
Actually: In the videos posted in this thread (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1053.0;topicseen), a wolf print is found next to the Boot Rock and elk prints near the forest path
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Игорь Б. on February 25, 2022, 07:49:16 PM
В экспедициях установлено, что на склоне обитают лемминги и горностаи. Горностай даже был сфотографирован недалеко от места палатки:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=54045

Почему они не тронули продукты в палатке, в частности окорок?
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Charles on April 03, 2022, 11:56:13 AM
nothing here
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: marieuk on April 03, 2022, 06:36:07 PM
Fact: Igor Dyatlov was a good leader.

Actually : his team was always behind schedule, he overestimated the ability of his team to complete the hike, he felt so entitled he allowed himself to punish adults during their vacation, he had such poor leadership skill he allowed himself and other boys to be arbitrarily and unfairly be rude and agressive with some members of the team, he had no sense of team building whatsoever, no ability to solve interpersonal issues and no ability to motivate individuals.

I'd  be interested to hear more about this.  sounds like you've given it a lot of thought. do you think he behaved differently on this trip to other ones?
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Ziljoe on April 04, 2022, 08:20:35 PM
Fact: Igor Dyatlov was a good leader.

Actually : his team was always behind schedule, he overestimated the ability of his team to complete the hike, he felt so entitled he allowed himself to punish adults during their vacation, he had such poor leadership skill he allowed himself and other boys to be arbitrarily and unfairly be rude and agressive with some members of the team, he had no sense of team building whatsoever, no ability to solve interpersonal issues and no ability to motivate individuals.

I'd  be interested to hear more about this.  sounds like you've given it a lot of thought. do you think he behaved differently on this trip to other ones?

I'm interested also. I would like to hear your evidence for conclusion to your statements.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Charles on May 06, 2022, 01:40:13 PM
nothing here
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Charles on May 09, 2022, 12:46:48 AM
nothing here
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Ziljoe on May 09, 2022, 03:20:33 PM
Hi Charles,

This is also interesting. I personally see some of it as speculation as we can't be clear as to the motives by others to what they write . However, again the lack of the diary entries do raise a question. Although the photos do show a lot of humour and joy within the group. 
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: sarapuk on May 29, 2022, 03:20:49 PM
Not enough evidence to say that Igor Dyatlov was a poor leader. Leadership can be challenging and that can also explain some moody moments.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Charles on May 31, 2022, 02:34:44 PM
nothing here
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Charles on May 31, 2022, 03:07:09 PM
nothing here
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Ziljoe on May 31, 2022, 03:54:43 PM
Dear Ziljoe,

Although the photos do show a lot of humour and joy within the group.

Yes, but most of the photos are "posed". They are posed in the same sense as

« As usual we quickly start a fire and pitch the tent on some fir branches. We are warmed by the fire and go to sleep. » and « Had a surprisingly good overnight »

is posed and diverges from

« Lyuda quickly got tired and sat down by the fire. (…) And so they had a long argument (…) Lyuda remained seated (…) except two attendants and Lyuda. (...) Guys are terribly outraged. (…) Lyuda went into the tent and did not come out until the end of the dinner. So another day of our trek went well. »

which is reality.

For example, this photo is posed (unknown camera, frame N°3) :

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-unknown-camera-film5-03.jpg)

And this one (unknown camera, frame N°4) is not :

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-unknown-camera-film5-04.jpg)

You can zoom in and compare Zina's face on both of the photos... and even her right arm if you are interested in body language.

So material from the diaries and cameras has to be classified according to its meaning status. Words which have been crossed out in a diary have a different status, they don't have the same kind of meaning, they don't carry the same burden of meaning... Material does not have always the same depth of meaning, everything is not univocal...

Greetings

Charles

Sorry Charles, I don't get your point from the photos.  A snap shot says nothing. What about the right arm?
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Ziljoe on May 31, 2022, 04:06:31 PM
Not enough evidence to say that Igor Dyatlov was a poor leader. Leadership can be challenging and that can also explain some moody moments.

Please, read the diaries.

I'm with sarapuk.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Charles on June 01, 2022, 05:53:26 AM
nothing here
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Ziljoe on June 01, 2022, 08:53:26 AM
A snap shot says nothing.
A snap shot says nothing but then a posed photo says less than nothing... and so we agree about the meaning of the smiles. wink1

I am asking about the right arm , what do think it means? It looks like she's reaching for her breast pocket.
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Charles on June 01, 2022, 09:20:22 AM
nothing here
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Ziljoe on June 01, 2022, 09:44:12 AM
It looks like she's reaching for her breast pocket.

Yes, she's not posing in the second photo. You have two photos taken between a few seconds, maybe two or three minutes. The first is posed and Zina is smiling, the second is not posed and she is not smiling. That's all: it is better not to rely on posed photos to assess the moral of the group.

But there were smiles that looked quite natural . Although they may assemble for an actual pose ,  I don't see anything to imply there was friction in the group. The diaries are written in a way that all will see. There would be little to write about , so any slight disagreement , the stove being too hot , or talk about love for example , would actually be note worthy to enter into the diary. There wouldn't be much to write about otherwise , let alone pass the time.

 
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Charles on June 03, 2022, 01:29:25 PM
nothing here
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Ziljoe on June 03, 2022, 04:14:26 PM
Dear Ziljoe,

But there were smiles that looked quite natural . Although they may assemble for an actual pose ,  I don't see anything to imply there was friction in the group.

Of course some are natural, but other are posed, and most of the photos are posed. My point is only to underline that it is not possible to rely on the photos to assess the moral of the group (at least we have to distinguish posed and not posed photos). But seemingly, you would like to do so... forgetting the absolute cruelty and brutality of the outcome. You don't deny this outcome, do you ? Because the end was a hell of fear, suffering, agony, despair and death... just to remind you.

The diaries are written in a way that all will see. There would be little to write about , so any slight disagreement , the stove being too hot , or talk about love for example , would actually be note worthy to enter into the diary. There wouldn't be much to write about otherwise , let alone pass the time.

So, the diaries are to be sent to the trash bin ? All right... They were walking to a horrible death, writing about desire, sex, envy, revolt, sadness, punishment, treason, temptation, frustration, jealousy, quarrel, and so on, but all this material would be meaningless ? Why not ? Can we even say they died in the end or is it too much to state ?

Greetings

Charles



Hi Charles

Within the posed photos, there seems to be smiles that are not always easy to fake if someone is not happy. I don't see signs of fear or anxiety. I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to communicate
Cruelty and brutality is by the assumption that others caused the harm intentionally.
I am not in agreement  at the moment that this was the case.

As for the diaries , I haven't seen the word sex used? When they talk about love it may refer to marriage, dating, kissing and there hopes for the future happiness. I don't think this is an odd topic , having shared my life with groups of females and males, involving camping also ,amoungst other things, all simallar topics have come to discussion along with God , bigfoot , life and death for example , also people have fallouts, affection's for others and harbour a secret lust for others. Happens every day , we are human and their diary , to me , doesn't seem to imply anything too radical. I appreciate your in-depth look at the diaries though. I'm not sure of the emotive use of these words. (writing about desire, sex, envy, revolt, sadness, punishment, treason, temptation, frustration, jealousy, quarrel,). Because it misses out the positives. It's like lumping all the broken bones together across the 9.

It is difficult to be neutral if  you have a preconceived idea of  what occurred to the dyatlov group. It's like making an assumption and trying to make the evidence fit.( That's not directed at you Charles).

Im not sure if you are implying they fought each other or it was outsiders? What your links to the diaries and outsiders is.

Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Charles on June 12, 2022, 11:58:27 AM
nothing here
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Ziljoe on June 12, 2022, 02:38:44 PM
Hi Charles,

I look forward to you finishing your hypothesis.

If it were outsiders , I would expect they had a gun to control the group. One of my   problems with  outsiders is the camera films being left . No one would know what was on them , so I would have expected them to be destroyed.

As for the signs.I always thought this was referring to the Mansi signs on the trees?

"In a country of mysterious signs." If we knew these letters, it would be possible, without any doubt, to go down the path, confident that it would lead us to the right place.


Many thanks

Ziljoe
 
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Charles on June 12, 2022, 03:47:21 PM
nothing here
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Jean Daniel Reuss on June 13, 2022, 03:40:53 PM

              Reply #48
.....................................
              Reply #47
.....................................

I notice that Charles has now stopped supporting the unbelievable theory "that hikers took part in a fight between them".

So I will adopt Charles' idea - brilliant in its simplicity - that the fatal altercation took place not in the darkness, on February 1 from 8 PM, but in the daylight, on February 2 from 9 AM.

Thus, with a few modifications of moderate importance, my already obsolete TOKEB theory can be transformed into TOKEC (Tumanov - Oestmoen - Kandr - EBE - Charles).


°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Answer for Ziljoe :
The question of Zotaryov's camera is unimportant, because it can be easily explained in various ways. For instance

           1° This camera was always attached to the collar of Zolotaryov's jacket.
           2° In full daylight, the attackers clearly saw that Zolotaryov did not have the opportunity to take a single compromising photo,
or else it is also the attackers who have unleashed themselves the 11 snapshots through a cloth using a slightly dirty lens.

   Star man : The Cameras ; December 30, 2018, 02:17:31 AM --->   Reply #22
First of all why did he [Zolotaryov] have it around his neck when he was found?  The only reasonable explanation is that he was already wearing it around his neck when he left the camp site and before whatever events started.


°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Now I summarize here some ideas which could be used to develop TOKEC.

    ••• Soviet officials (UPI Sports Club, Route Commision, PCSU....) have underestimated the hostile anti-Russian ambience in this region of the Urals (Vizhay, Ivdellag....) and have sent or let go the hikers, exemplary citizens, into a viper's nest (wolf's mouth).

Normally the hikers should not have stopped at District 41.
[We had to go to 2nd North, but it was getting dark and we decided to stop at the 41st.
we had to go to 2nd North, but it was getting dark and we decided to stop at the 41st. (Dubinina)

Loose}{Cannon :
 These hikers are in the communist party.  All devotion and complete commitment to the party is required to be a "good", communist, especially when your a young lad attending the communist state technical school where they were likely hand picked for a promising future in a high-tech industry like enriching plutonium and long distance communications....

    ••• The persistent cover-up by successive governments is simply explained by the need to hide the shameful incompetency of the KGB and other police forces.


    ••• Three categories of men had valid reasons to feel a fierce hatred against the Khrushchev regime.

     1° The house arresters who constituted a small part of the District 41 personnel.  The ones we do not see because they refused to appear on any pictures.
In the kind of sons of Polish officers massacred in Katyn.......

     2°   Among the locals there were peaceful Mansi tribes (Kurikov, Bahtiyarov, Anyamov). But
 
  Grigoriy Nikolaevich Kurikov: said that "near [a moutain not located]..... there live ... Ostyaks. They are like savages, they are not friends with Mansi or with Russian people............And these Ostyaks could kill the hikers because they thought that hikers could kill their deer and moose, which they feed on".

There were those who "leads anti-Soviet agitation among Mansi against the unification of Mansi into collective farms, against sedentarism, incites hatred among Russians and the existing Soviet system, claiming that the Russians bring only death to Mansi".

It is the predictable and inevitable clash of 2 irreconcilable civilizations.

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

     3° Former Stalinist guards of the Ivdellag (specialized in the pursuit and the elimination of the rare escapees from the camps before being reduced to unemployment by the dismantling of the Gulag) who were opposed to the Krushchev's Thaw (1953 or 56 -1664), (it is the "K" of TOKEC).


    ••• These 3 categories of people :
••   found themselves, willingly or unwillingly, constrained to live in the same vast territory: in the vicinity of Vizhay and Ivdellag
••   for many years.
The same hatred of the USSR or of the Degel logically joined their competences and their murderous determination.


    ••• The hikers, who thought they were living in the Soviet paradise, were not very clever in their diplomacy.
In Vizhay and even more so in District 41, the hikers were felt by some people as a provocation.
 Dubinina by intuition and perhaps also Zolotariov by his long experience were affected by it causing a dull concern and a psychological uneasiness.
     
    ••• The hikers had described and (too) much talked about their route to reach Ortoten through the Auspya valley.
But this valley is a bad route because there is a lot of soft snow in the taiga, which slows down the progress.
There are at least two other faster routes from Vizhay or North-2 to the slope of the Kholat Syakhl.

So the attackers (murderers) did not follow the hikers' trail in the Auspya valley.

    ••• Planning of the ambush in an isolated place (slope of Kholat Syakhl)
 Not in the taiga where there are too many trees.
The fire, the observation post on top of the Cedar, the 4 beds of branches were made and used by the attackers.

Thus the attackers saw the hikers set up the tent on the evening of February 1 and ascended from the Cedar to the tent on the morning of February 2 when it was daylight.


    ••• On the morning of February 2,  in daylight, i.e. when the effectiveness of a verbal gun threat is likely, some of the attackers visibly and amicably approached the tent
  With a single shotgun with all the required legal permits and powerful ammunition for hunting bear or elk.

[Nikolay Pavlovich Anyamov
Mansi had to register their weapons in Ivdel. Any other weapons would have been illegal, and the punishment was severe.


    ••• A friendly conversation starts with a hiker, for example with Tibo, who is well dressed outside of the tent.
....... and suddenly a warning shot and an imperative order addressed to the 8 other hikers still inside the tent
"Obey our orders strictly or we will kill your comrade".

"Get out of your tent immediately and go down slowly in ranks towards our camp at the foot of the Cedar where there is fire. Otherwise we will kill your comrade."
  "Be reasonable and all will be well", (another treachery).


    ••• Among the attackers, the hunter had the legal authorization to carry a hunting weapon.
The loggers, who were trained in the felling of trees with long-handled axes, obviously knew how to use the birch wood blunt objects wrapped in rags, with vigour and precision.


    ••• The desecration of the corpses of defeated enemies was often constated in history (Dehumanization,brutalization, revenge, throphy taking...). An example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mutilation_of_Japanese_war_dead

The myth of small rodents choosing their dessert under the snow was invented not to scare children and sensitive souls......
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Ziljoe on June 13, 2022, 07:36:48 PM
To Jean Daniel Reuss

My argument about the camera films is.
If any professional group of murderers or hit men were involved ,, taking care  into account, premeditation of the task at hand. They would not know if they had been photographed at anytime or beforehand at any location along the route.

Obviously I'm not a professional killer and I have no intention to be so neither vam I a unprofessional killer. .... But on both accounts I would destroy the camera films.  If any of this was staged, ogovernment or loggers , the first thing I would do is destroy the film's. This even goes to teddy and the potential of her theory.  A snapshot could have been taken at any time that showed the reason of the deaths. Whether that be several days in advance or otherwise.?
Why take the chance, ? .
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Charles on June 14, 2022, 01:01:41 AM
nothing here
Title: Re: Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?
Post by: Jean Daniel Reuss on June 18, 2022, 01:36:21 PM

The DPI can be compared to a huge jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces are made up of the documents at our disposal.

Everything has to fit together to build the most plausible, most coherent and most complete theory possible.

Maya Piskareva   --->
«.....But, alas, we learn the truth either from the state, or when we find ourselves in another world, where there are no diseases, sorrows and sighing ... In the meantime, it remains to intellectually entertain ourselves with a game of investigation.....»

Taking advantage of Charles' new ideas, I am transforming my TOKEB theory into TOKEC (Tumanov - Oestmoen - Kandr - EBE - Charles).



°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Some brief insights into TOKEC

No staging and most of the materials are true.

Hostage taking, with death threats against one of the 9 hikers, in daylight, on the morning of 2 February, to explain the exit from the tent and the descent to the cedar.

Presence in the vicinity of the Ivdellag of a group of men animated by a hatred and a murderous rage, the reasons for which can be explained by the history of the dismantling of the Gulag during the Thaw.

(By convention of language I continue to call them "attackers" ).

For the attackers the 9 hikers appeared to be propagandists directed by the PCSU via the Sports Committee and the Road Commission and were therefore enemies.



              Reply #50
If .........murderers....... They would not know if they had been photographed at anytime or beforehand at any location along the route.....
... I would destroy the camera films..............................
... the first thing I would do is destroy the film's......................

         1°   
The case of the cameras that were left in the tent.

The attackers were pretty sure that there was nothing compromising in the cameras inside the tent.

Nobody wants to be seen next to their own enemies in a photograph !

The people in Vizhay (26 January) and the workers from District 41 (27 January) who appear in these photos have no hostile intentions towards the hikers

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Slobodin-camera-film4-20.jpg) (https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Krivonischenko-camera-film6-15.jpg) (https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Krivonischenko-camera-film6-21.jpg) (https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Krivonischenko-camera-film6-25.jpg)

At these events, the attackers did not want to be photographed and moved away.
 

         2°   
The decision for the massacre was taken after Yuri Yudin returned to District 41, i.e. on the evening of 28 January 1959.
Yuri confirmed the route of the (now 9) hikers (through the Auspiya valley) and the attackers departed on 29 January or perhaps only on 30 January.

The attackers did not follow the tracks of the hihers in the Auspiya valley because they knew the faster route which is the route of the Unknown expedition.

https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Dyatlov-pass-Auspiya-map-routes-cropped-thumb.jpg

The attackers set up camp at the foot of the cedar tree on 1 February. A little before the hikers set up their tent higher up the slope of Kholat Syakhl (the attackers' interception of the hikers could have failed).


°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

The case of the camera which is carried by Zoloraryov.

         1°   
You reason logically like a person who, at least I assume it, writes calmly on his computer keyboard.

But at the end of a risky, physically exhausting and extremely stressful operation, the attackers did not notice the unexpected presence of this camera.
(The psychological phenomenon that sometimes we only see what we are looking for).

         2°   
• While fighting on the Eastern Front, Zolotaryov had felt the advantage of having a weapon instantly available.
• Returning to a peaceful, touristy civilian life, Zolotaryov had developed the habit of attaching his camera to his jacket in an often inconspicuous way.
Often wild animals (elk, wolverine, bear) appear and then disappear quickly and it is useful to always be ready (to trigger the camera).
• Which is perhaps another reason why Zolotaryov's camera was simply not noticed by the attackers.

(cf. the close-ups of Gorojanin).
(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Unknown-origin-Dyatlov-photos-01.jpg) (https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Unknown-origin-Dyatlov-photos-02.jpg)