Theories Discussion > General Discussion
Yuri Yudin's observation
GlennM:
After Yuri Yidin died, a personal notebook was found. I became aware that unlike many of us, he spent every day of the remainder of his life trying to get to the bottom of the tragedy. If he could not, what can we expect from ourselves? I am puzzled by an entry he wrote with regard to the two Yuri's found at the cedar. His entry said he was puzzled by the lack of leg and foot damage to them, considering they trod 1.5 km over snow and rock in their socks.
How in the world would Mr. Yudin know that detail in the first place?
If it is true, what does that mean for our lines of inquiry?
He also claims that branches of an unexpected and different species of tree were found in the snow den. What does this say about the person who made the observation?
Mr. Yudin seems to imply that there was a connection between the Soviet rocketry program and the demise the hikers. If he was convinced of this, surely he would have steered people who approached him on the matter in that direction. I think that has gone nowhere.
Is what he is hinting at meaning that a concussion near the tent injured several hikers and forced all to go for cover in the woods? Is that what the out of focus spot of light photograph is about? It still does not explain the undamaged feet and legs of the two Yuri's. If they were injured at the tent and then made tracks for the forest, they walked. If they died at the tent and were carried to the woods, that does not equate to footsteps in the snow.
If Mr. Yudin spends his life contemplating what happened on that slope and dies none the wiser, what does this imply for us? If the cause of death was obvious, so too would the answer be obvious. If the cause of death was not obvious and one step removed from the precipitating event, then all that follows is and always will be speculative. Therefore, no matter how clever we are in our logic and intuition, we, like Mr. Yudin have been spinning our wheels for six decades. That produces a deep rut.
Teddy:
https://dyatlovpass.com/yudin-notes
--- Quote from: GlennM on October 31, 2022, 06:54:43 AM ---How in the world would Mr. Yudin know that detail in the first place?
--- End quote ---
He identified the bodies in the morgue.
--- Quote from: GlennM on October 31, 2022, 06:54:43 AM ---He also claims that branches of an unexpected and different species of tree were found in the snow den.
--- End quote ---
Yudin wrote: "it is said that the flooring was made with fir branches, but in fact there were only spruce trees around."
Could have fooled me.
GlennM:
--- Quote from: Teddy on October 31, 2022, 07:22:44 AM ---https://dyatlovpass.com/yudin-notes
--- Quote from: GlennM on October 31, 2022, 06:54:43 AM ---How in the world would Mr. Yudin know that detail in the first place?
--- End quote ---
He identified the bodies in the morgue.
--- Quote from: GlennM on October 31, 2022, 06:54:43 AM ---He also claims that branches of an unexpected and different species of tree were found in the snow den.
--- End quote ---
Yudin wrote: "it is said that the flooring was made with fir branches, but in fact there were only spruce trees around."
Could have fooled me.
--- End quote ---
Teddy, I think the condition of the two Yuris does support your fallen tree hypothesis. No damaged feet and legs because they did not hike from the tent at 880 to the cedar. That is significant. Do you feel the three who were found enroute for the tent at 880 were really trying for the labaz?
Surely, Mr. Yuden knew of your and Igor's broken branch theory. Did he ever give you encouragement?
Teddy:
My theory is that the tent was at the cedar where the bodies of Krivonischenko and Doroshenko were found. And they were staged after that. The fact that their feet were undamaged confirms twice my theory. First they never walked anywhere, and second, they were washed at the morgue, then returned back.
Yudin died in 2013. Our book came out in 2021. This is when the theory was published for the first time.
P.S. It's Yudin, not Yuden. I fixed it in you original post but don't want to keep doing it.
GlennM:
Teddy, thanks for your attention and patience with my spelling oversight. In your expeditions to the area, did you obtain photographic or physical evidence of the fallen branch?
You mention the bodies were washed. Surely there was external bleeding. Would you expect that the combined crush of the branch and the injuries of the sleepers would have left both blood and plant debris in the canvas tent? Was it there? I do not know.
Do you think staging a tent scene , a snow den scene , two corpses at the cedar and three headed back to the staged tent is particularly risky? If any one thing did not ring true, then suspicion arises. Someone would notice. Did anyone in the first or second official investigation point out a suspicious anomaly.?
I think it is claimed that the dead were brought in to the medical examiner cleaned, dressed and returned to the woods,,or,sent home for burial.Imdo not know. It seems to be reported both ways. If the former, do you think it is very odd that persons would stage all these scenes and yet would thaw and wash up dead bodies only to return them back into the woods? If the bodies were thawed a second time, would a pathologist know this? Would the cleanliness of the deceased not be suspect? I apologise if my understanding is at fault.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version