Do we have a list of unanswered questions anywhere?
I find myself getting sidetracked on a handful of questions and forgetting about the others. It helps me to see it all laid out, so I made a list of the questions I could think of off-hand. Please feel free to add to the list--I'm sure there are plenty I've overlooked.
Do we have a list of unanswered questions anywhere?
Obvious Questions (in no particular order)
1. Why did they leave the tent?
2. Did they cut the tent themselves?
A. If so, why?
B. If not, who cut it?
3. If it was an emergency, what sort of emergency would cause them to leave the tent and then walk more or less calmly for quite some distance to the forest?
4. Who took the last pictures on the film?
A. If the hikers, what were they photographing?
5. Why were they incompletely dressed when they left the tent?
6. Why didn’t they stay together?
7. Why didn’t Zolotaryov write a final message with the notebook and pencil he had?
A. Or, if he did write a message, what happened to it?
8. Why did they climb the cedar?
9. Why didn’t they keep the fire going?
10. Did the Ravine Four really build a shelter in the snow?
11. What accounts for the variety of injuries of all the hikers?
12. How many actually died of hypothermia?
13. What did the others die from?
14. Is the amount of radiation found on the clothing significant?
A. If so, where did it come from?
B. Why did the officials feel it necessary to test the clothing for radiation?
15. Why are the case files so unorthodox and missing key components?
16. Why, in the middle of their investigations, were Ivanov and Okishev suddenly and inexplicably ordered to close the file and tell the families of the hikers that it was all an accident?
17. Was Bienko intentionally removed from the group in order to make space for Zolotaryov?
18. Why was the area closed off for 3 years following the incident?
Rumors – true, false, or irrelevant? (in no particular order)
* Fire orbs in the sky (reported by people in the area)
* Burned marks on trees (reported by Ivanov)
* Unusual number of dead fowl/birds in the area (reported by rescue workers)
* Escaped captives from the Ivdel gulag
* Faces and skin of hikers discolored orange
* Tent found two days earlier than reported
* Criminal investigation opened on the death of the hikers before they were reported missing.
* DNA from Zolotaryov’s grave doesn’t match that of his family.
I'd add:
19. Why were Zina, Rustem and Igor found on the exposed slope between the cedar and tent?
a. If they were headed back, why would they attempt to do this?
b. Did Rustem collapse on the way down because of a head injury?
20. Why do some of the hikers have injuries on their hands and heads consistent with a fight?
21. Why did Zolotaryov have a camera around his neck?
a. Was he photographing something outside the tent?
b. Were he or Tibo better dressed because they were using the bathroom?
22. Why were two flashlights left behind?
a. Why was the flashlight at the tent still in working condition?
b. Why was the other one with a drained battery dropped several hundred meters down the slope?
Very well grounded and impossible to dispute. But it leaves us uncultured participants with the only explanation of the hikers leaving the tent confused about something that only occurred in their minds. It is difficult to contest your thorough and detailed explanation.
I think you are nearest the mark. But we still have to ponder why death became them, when sitting next to the tent for a few hours might have seen just one survive.
Beginner, some of your questions can't be answered or are outside the scope of the evidence on the ground and in the diaries, which is what I feel comfortable addressing.
....................................................
18. This is not unusual, apparently. After the 1973 Chivruay incident, that area was closed for a while too, from what I understand. How many people is a government going to allow to risk their lives under such dangerous conditions?
Hi WAB, reply #6.
My point was that all it would have required for one person to survive the ordeal was to sit it out at the tent. The photos on discovery show it survived, and it had everything needed for survival. Perhaps if only one of the hikers had refused to abandon the tent, the events could have been so different. But it's pure speculation on my part.
I think your pragmatic timeline is the most fluid.
I still have my own version but not without many leaps of faith.
Best wishes from Edinburgh.
Marchesk, as i pointed out to Beginner. there are always aspects of an incident/crime/decision/accident that will appear strange or even absurd. And in this case we have hypothermia among all the people! if you don't know, being close to death by hypothermia can cause hallucinations, and if you overlook an obvious overall explanation due to what might be an insignificant detail you are only going to waste a lot of time and never come to any kind of resolution.
19. More than one good explanation, so A., since the original survival by campfire idea didn't work, a few were going to go back and huddle in the corner while the other 4 went with the "den"' idea.
However, being an investigator, I was surprised at how much evidence there was and how obvious what one might call the general expanation likely is.
I'd add:
19. Why were Zina, Rustem and Igor found on the exposed slope between the cedar and tent?
a. If they were headed back, why would they attempt to do this?
b. Did Rustem collapse on the way down because of a head injury?
20. Why do some of the hikers have injuries on their hands and heads consistent with a fight?
21. Why did Zolotaryov have a camera around his neck?
a. Was he photographing something outside the tent?
b. Were he or Tibo better dressed because they were using the bathroom?
22. Why were two flashlights left behind?
a. Why was the flashlight at the tent still in working condition?
b. Why was the other one with a drained battery dropped several hundred meters down the slope?
Brilliant! Very specific and helpful.
- Zinaida found with her "face in blood". What caused her abrasions? Ice particles in high winds? Or some corrosive agent? Or did she vomit blood?
- Igor's lips encrusted with blood presumably from vomiting.
- YuriK's weird burns - 30cm 3rd degree burn on his leg and fingertips and the top half of one toe described as charred! That's some burn profile from a modest campfire.
- Metal from the sky? - Igor's left cheek, YuriK's left thigh and YuriD's forearm all show strange marks/wounds as if metal fragments coated in a corrosive agent impacted them. Further YuriK has a "scalpel wound across the whole of the back of the hand" and Zinaida a bad gash on her hand plus a large bruise on the waist still oozing blood when found. Igor's and Yuri's marks/wounds include right angles which are unnatural, leading to a perspective that only man made objects could produce them.
- A significant number of discarded pieces of burnt clothing at the campfire. A curious fact when cold is the enemy and people don't have shoes or gloves. Nicolai is found with his gloves in his jacket pocket.
- A lot of spent matches used to light the campfire. These guys were experts at lighting campfires in the snow, vision problems?
- Semyon's moustache is described in the autopsy as "remnants of a light brown mustache". Look at his photographs and ask yourself a question :). Of course if you want to substitute a corpse and the eye colour doesn't match there's a simple if grim solution. Best do it to another body as well so as not to focus attention. A private lab found that his exhumed body's DNA didn't match whilst a second test at a state facility did find it matched. The shape of the skull is a match for Semyon though, indeed the morgue photos support that.
- The Plane 2 photo has two "blotches" that imo fit ice particles melting on the lens. If so then this strongly supports the view that the photos are genuine but as some of them are clearly magnifications then to support the above we'd need to see the Plane 2 negative. N.B. if genuine some of these frames are photos of a uniform intense light.
Beginner, some of your questions can't be answered or are outside the scope of the evidence on the ground and in the diaries, which is what I feel comfortable addressing.
1. Too cold to survive or the tent appeared to be in dire shape (about to be blown open or collapse; the winds coming off the top of that mountain are fierce).
2. Never assume such things, as even "experts" can be totally wrong. What usually resolves things in these cases is a reconstruction, which in this case would involve the same two types of tents (sewn together) that are ripping apart under much better weather conditions, as we read about in the diaries, the people wearing the same type of clothing, no sleeping bags, etc. However, if the tent had iced up it might be collapsing and they couldn't do anything else but to secure it as best they could. It's also possible Igor set up this scenario (considering the position of the tent) in order to sort of teach the others a lesson (both in surviving as well as complaining about having to sew the tent up each day, as we read about in the diaries).
3. They thought the tent would collapse or blow away, but once the tent was secured (part 1 of the plan), they could focus on part 2, which was to get down to the trees and start a fire, sitting on cedar branches, which they did. In fact, at least one secondary plan was implemented (the "den"), and 3 going back to the tent may have been part of the general plan or a new one.
5. They put their coats and heavy boots around the sides, after they had been sweated up from the inside and had a coating of snow/ice on the outside, so these froze and could not be used at that point.
6. The two Yuris die so the fire isn't going to work; another plan is required. I think Zina may have decided on her own to go back to the tent and the other two guys went after her, but it will never be known for sure what all the details of the plan were. As I often tell people, if you expect an incident to be explained down to the last detail, you'll have to let everyone out of prison because there are always unresolved issues. Moreover, other incidents like this are usually far murkier. Just read through the "Missing 411" books and you'll see what I mean.
7. He froze to death before he could, clearly. The hands can be hard to use when very cold. I have that problem personally, and I never had frostbite or even nearly had frostbite.
8. Branches are needed to sit on (that's why campers use a foam pad under their sleeping bags to this day) and to burn. Also, they may have wanted to try and see if the tent was blown open, all the contents strewn about the mountainside.
9. They were dying anyway, so that plan didn't work, probably because the wind was too strong and the location was too open to the wind. I have read that a whole bunch of used matches were found near the site of the fire, so at some point they also may have thought that they had to stop or else they wouldn't have any matches to survive another day or two that would likely be needed to get help, and at some point there could have been a switch to the den plan. Or the plan may have been to get warmed up, dry out the clothes a bit near the fire (some were burned, being too near the fire, presumably), then spend the rest of the night in the den. Or perhaps three were supposed to go back to the tent, the idea being they could huddle in the corner of the tent that had not collapsed and at least survive a few hours before dawn. The problem with the DPI isn't that a good explanation doesn't exist, but that it's likely a series of incidents, decisions, probable accidents, etc., each having one or more reasonable explanations.
10. Seriously? You think the rescuers faked that? If so, no reason to talk any more because nothing will satisfy your inquiry.
11. The mountainside is studded with rocky protrusions and they were using one flashlight. Then they were ripping branches off the trees with their bare hands; they may have fought with each other, for all we know (the diaries suggest quite a bit of animosity). At least one of the two Yuris may have fallen from the cedar, perhaps on another member or two. The Ravine 4 fell into a depression above a creek (this is what one would expect, sort of a mini crevace), and Luda probably fell first, with the other three fallintg onto the rocks or each other.
12. That was the COD for all of them, from what I understand, but Luda would not have survived, apparently, regardless of the cold.
18. This is not unusual, apparently. After the 1973 Chivruay incident, that area was closed for a while too, from what I understand. How many people is a government going to allow to risk their lives under such dangerous conditions?
I've wondered about that description of Semyon's mustache, but thought perhaps I was being unnecessarily picky.I've considered that he might have dyed his hair (and moustache) out of vanity which would have course washed off under the snow but both Semyon and Nicolai are sporting some stubble in this picture and it doesn't look like light brown to me.
I've considered that he might have dyed his hair (and moustache) out of vanity which would have course washed off under the snow but both Semyon and Nicolai are sporting some stubble in this picture and it doesn't look like light brown to me.
And why "remnants"? Does that just indicate natural decomposition/deterioration?Think so - "The hair present slides from the scalp when touched.", is indicating the degree of decomposition.
I do find myself really wanting to believe WAB's theory. There is definitely a clear logic to it. I feel that the behaviour of the hikers at the tent isn't entirely consistent with rational behaviour. If that is true, the key question for me is why? Infrasound is one possible explanation, but as WAB states proving it would be difficult without the funding and the will to investigate it.
Reply #15
.......................
A simple list of questions can be a good way of identifying all the puzzle pieces and not losing a few under the table.
Many (most?) of the questions may have mundane answers. I expect that the truth, if it's ever known, will be less sensational than many imagine.
Reply #11
......................................
Even military or criminal coercion is illogical here. In those conditions, people would simply run away in the dark, and it would be very difficult find them if there were fewer attackers than army platoon (> 30 people). Then the pattern of detection would be very different.
................................................
Vietnamka : General Discussion / Clothes => « on: March 26, 2019, 09:35:48 AM »
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=396.msg4583#msg4583
"...Acute phase of stress.
At this moment, in the cerebral cortex is formed a center of dominant arousal, all human mental activity is directed towards one thing - to get out from under the influence, to weaken its effect, to cope.
If the house is on fire - people jump out in shorts and do not think that they will be cold. If there is a child in the house, the mother in the nightgown will run around the house and scream, not realizing how she looks and that she is cold.
This is always accompanied by changes in the endocrine function (adrenaline is released) and the autonomic nervous system (the pupils dilate or contract, the heart begins to beat, the pressure rises, etc.).
It is a fact that all these reactions are also protective against cold - heat production increases and a person not only may not feel cold, but may be feel hot.
............"
Do we have a list of unanswered questions anywhere?
I find myself getting sidetracked on a handful of questions and forgetting about the others. It helps me to see it all laid out, so I made a list of the questions I could think of off-hand. Please feel free to add to the list--I'm sure there are plenty I've overlooked.
Obvious Questions (in no particular order)
1. Why did they leave the tent? This is the mystery
2. Did they cut the tent themselves? I think a better question is: who cut it from the inside? Were the hikers the only ones who could have made cuts from the inside?
A. If so, why?
B. If not, who cut it?
3. If it was an emergency, what sort of emergency would cause them to leave the tent and then walk more or less calmly for quite some distance to the forest? Again, this is the mystery.
4. Who took the last pictures on the film? One of the hikers
A. If the hikers, what were they photographing? Probably just documenting the trip
5. Why were they incompletely dressed when they left the tent? Clothes were probably a little wet and they were getting ready for bed. It is not unusual, even in very cold weather, to not sleep in heavy coats - especially if they are wet.
6. Why didn’t they stay together? This is another mystery. Either A. there was a disagreement or B. unknown events caused the hikers to split. Although there is a lot of evidence, there is not enough to conclude which hikers were in which areas and for how long other than where they were found.
7. Why didn’t Zolotaryov write a final message with the notebook and pencil he had? Only Sasha knows this
A. Or, if he did write a message, what happened to it? Only Colonel Ortyukov knows this
8. Why did they climb the cedar? This is a head scratcher. Although the new theory suggests that they climbed the tree because branches lower on the tree were wet, I find this hard to believe. For one, searchers testified that the larger branches broken further up the tree had not been used as firewood and were found where they fell. Personal opinion is that one of them climbed the tree to try and see something i.e. tent or other hikers? But this is also strange because it was a moonless night and they would not have been able to see even a few feet. We will probably never know.
9. Why didn’t they keep the fire going? Again, another mystery. It seems like the obvious answer would be to build the largest fire they could. The new theory has a good reason as to why they may have left the fire.
10. Did the Ravine Four really build a shelter in the snow? Well, many theories. Personal opinion is that they only built a bed of branches and clothes. They did not build a snow shelter. This was done by either A. Kolevatov or B. The three found returning to the tent. The other 3 found in the ravine were critically injured and did not build the bed.
11. What accounts for the variety of injuries of all the hikers? A majority were probably from falls.
12. How many actually died of hypothermia? 6
13. What did the others die from? Trauma
14. Is the amount of radiation found on the clothing significant? Yes, the amount was excessive. No, it had no bearing on the events.
A. If so, where did it come from? Previous employment of Kolevatov and Krivonischenko
B. Why did the officials feel it necessary to test the clothing for radiation? Not sure.
15. Why are the case files so unorthodox and missing key components? I didn't know that they were. What is missing?
16. Why, in the middle of their investigations, were Ivanov and Okishev suddenly and inexplicably ordered to close the file and tell the families of the hikers that it was all an accident? Not sure.
17. Was Bienko intentionally removed from the group in order to make space for Zolotaryov? ?
18. Why was the area closed off for 3 years following the incident? This is not unusual. This sometimes happens in the mountains around where I live. If there is an accident, authorities will often close off the area until it can be determine whether or not the area poses a risk. Also, I think this was a rumor and not something that actually happened.
Rumors – true, false, or irrelevant? (in no particular order)
* Fire orbs in the sky (reported by people in the area)I think Donnie Eichar debunks this in his book
* Burned marks on trees (reported by Ivanov) True, although it was discovered months later and Ivanov gets details wrong (as far as who was there).
* Unusual number of dead fowl/birds in the area (reported by rescue workers) Never heard this.
* Escaped captives from the Ivdel gulag ?
* Faces and skin of hikers discolored orange True, although I think it was later determined to be natural causes
* Tent found two days earlier than reported Yes, 3 hikers reported finding the tent two days earlier. You can read their (2 of the hikers) testimonies in the case files.
* Criminal investigation opened on the death of the hikers before they were reported missing. Possibly
* DNA from Zolotaryov’s grave doesn’t match that of his family. There are two articles on this site that clarifies this. Basically, it was determined that it was Sasha.
I do find myself really wanting to believe WAB's theory. There is definitely a clear logic to it. I feel that the behaviour of the hikers at the tent isn't entirely consistent with rational behaviour. If that is true, the key question for me is why? Infrasound is one possible explanation, but as WAB states proving it would be difficult without the funding and the will to investigate it.
Agreed, but poisoning, radiation and hypothermia could also account for confused behavior. That their behavior was confused is an inference in the absence of compelling evidence for something or someone else forcing them out of the tent. There was no recording equipment on the slope that night or surviving eyewitnesses, as far as we know, so how would one prove such a thing?
Star man, that is a good question. A lot of people have their own notion of "proof." In a criminal case, proof beyond a reasonable doubt can vary quite a bit. Then there is proof in logic and math. In science, something can be demonstrated, such as different states of matter, or one can put forth an hypothesis, which is supposed to be tested (as much as possible and by those without a conflict of interest); if it is ever fails, it's supposed to be discarded or reworked (not that this happens all the time). In a case such as the DPI, one can do a precise, complete reconstruction. I think if this was done, we would learn that the tent situation was not survivable for more than a short period of time, either due to it ripping apart (as it had under much better weather conditions), or ice forming on the outside (since they didn't use their stove for heat that night), or the strong winds, or some combination. However, it's also possible that something unusual occurred, such as if one of them "lost his mind" and cut the tent open, but the evidence is not consistent with this idea, and that brings us to another concept that is in the realm of "proof beyond reasonable doubt," and that is if the notion is consistent with the evidence that seems to be solid. You look at that evidence and you construct possible hypotheses, even if those are not appealing to you for one reason or another.