Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: GKM on January 23, 2021, 08:07:41 AM
-
How many people on this forum, or in the world, would set up camp at 3000 feet, in minus 20 degrees, only an estimate, with high winds, only probable, and then leave their only shelter to walk, lightly dressed and without proper footwear, a mile down the slope to a forest? A place where they could have originally set up the tent and been much more comfortable. Nine intelligent, experienced, hikers did the exact opposite of what would have been expected, even for a group of novice hikers, which they certainly were not.
-
Let's continue. They were afraid of something in the forest? No Evidence of that, none whatsoever. Igor did not want to lose the height they had gained so he camped on the ridge? It was only a mile, easily made up for with an earlier start the next morning. It was planned that way? I simply do not believe that. Not a single one of them could have wanted to camp on that exposed ridge. They needed it for a Category 3 rating? No, they did not. It was already a Category 3 even without a cold overnight stay on the ridge. Absolutely nothing about camping on that ridge makes sense. There was no way these experienced hikers and reasonably intelligent people camped there.
-
It was normal practice to camp above the treeline if the expedition required it. They were going to Mt. Ottorten 10km away the next day along the ridge. They made their store before climbing. The previous years winter expedition was also high.
January 1958 six students from Sverdlovsk went to ascend winter Manaraga. They went to the eastern slope of the Urals, to the Severnaya Naroda base, in extreme conditions, without sleeping bags and a stove.
https://dyatlovpass.com/gallery-1958-Subpolar-Ural?lid=1
-
GKM, I am with you. What is your assessment of what happened to the hikers? Explosion?
Regards
Star man
-
How many people on this forum, or in the world, would set up camp at 3000 feet, in minus 20 degrees, only an estimate, with high winds, only probable, and then leave their only shelter to walk, lightly dressed and without proper footwear, a mile down the slope to a forest? A place where they could have originally set up the tent and been much more comfortable. Nine intelligent, experienced, hikers did the exact opposite of what would have been expected, even for a group of novice hikers, which they certainly were not.
One of my first posts on this website was regarding where they camped on Kholat Syakhl that fateful night. None of the Dyatlov hikers had been to that mountain prior to this trip. I will never believe they camped, if they even did, where the tent was found by their own free will. Regardless of the elevation the tent was found at, they supposedly climbed up there with limited daylight and were not going to take the hour to set up the stove? In that same amount of time they could have camped in the Cedar treeline. You see Dyatlov didn't know if there was a cliff or an ice ridge that they would have to go around in the morning to get to the Lovza river and Otorten. Dyatlov wouldn't have taken the hikers up there on the premise of some unknown morning advantage without knowing what Kholat Syakhl's north side difficulties entailed. By the time they reached the Dyatlov Pass/Mountain area it was already snowing too heavily, at least according to the photos (if real), to determine their trek in the morning. I am convinced Dyatlov would have never gambled on that unknown strategy.
GKM, I am with you. What is your assessment of what happened to the hikers? Explosion?
Regards
Star man
I went to prove the explosion theory wrong but I learned something that was surprising. Semyon and Lyuda's Flail Chest kept me away from determining the explosion scenario but I read that when Flail Chest is seen in explosion events it is not a primary injury but a secondary injury. That means when one body flies into another body, or a piece of debris is flies at a body. This is one way Flail Chest could have happened with limited external damage to the skin. An explosion event like Zina's could have wrapped her ski pole around her right torso to cause that deep tissue injury around her waist.
I keep asking myself this question: Disappearing act versus Re-staging act, why?
What, where, why, how and when caused it to be restaged? Was this ineptitude on a local level or initial decision making on a much higher level?
-
I've never believed they pitched where they did out of choice, the only logic I could work from stated evidence was someone, or simply the fear of them, drove them up there late in the day, unprepared, to be up high and out-of-reach overnight. Bar Semyon they were a vulnerable young group of city wussies, none of them would even square up to a drunk who accused them of stealing vodka on the train, and they were unarmed. For example, an altercation with the solitary deer hunter whose tracks they'd followed and whose recently abandoned camp they'd found, or to avoid the escapees they would hear about while at Vizhay, becoming more anxious the deeper they got into the wilderness.
The 1959 case resolution makes only short-term logic. It suggested they wished to attain and then retain altitude en route to Mount Otorten and would link this to the earlier difficulties they'd had wading through deep snow lower down, which had seen them decide to jettison the equivalent of a man's weight in provisions at the labaz, and in the last diary entry had become so tired they didn't bother having a fire pit outside.
However, they did something else at the labaz, they prepared firewood and left it there for their return loop back to Vizhay. They were thinking ahead, about staying warm in a forest. If they were to pitch on 1079 overnight, and then again on Otorten (Igor told Vizhayans he might pitch there) that would either mean 2 nights without adequate firewood up on 'the ridge', or descending the very next day to a forest to find more wood and then back up to Otorten.
Here, in a previous hike of Igor's, with the same tent and stove, and in better weather, with clear skies in most of the photo's, and low winds, was how well prepared they were then on the fuel front:
(https://i.ibb.co/PT7HktG/Igor-Dyatlov-57.jpg) (https://ibb.co/n3HJpRM)
The man in charge of orchestrating the rescue initially thought, to work the logic, that they had planned to cross over the ridge at 1079 and drop down the other side, but were beaten back by high winds so fell back and pitched where they did, this mirroring the way they'd previously dropped back 1000m down a pass when it proved too difficult.
That at least made fuller logical sense than the purposefully attaining altitude theory, and having started their ascent, it was claimed, around 3pm, darkness would soon fall, and then this would leave them without adequate firewood for an all-night burn in a very exposed position - some wood was found in the corner of the tent, but it wasn't referred to as substantial, enough to support the retaining altitude theory.
The only suggestion there is of pitching on 1079, the ascent of which wasn't part of the hiking plan submitted to the university, comes from Igor's last diary entry, but the ambiguity needs to be read in the full context of what prefaced it. Note also, how with darkness falling at 4:29pm, they start looking to pitch the tent around 4pm, and yet set off up 1079 at 3?
31st January 1959
It's nearly 4. Have to start looking for a place to pitch the tent. We go south in the Auspiya valley. Seems this place has the deepest snow. Wind not strong, snow 1.22 m deep. We’re exhausted, but start setting up for the night. Firewood is scarce, mostly damp firs. We build the campfire on the logs, too tired to dig a fire pit. Dinner’s in the tent. Nice and warm. Can’t imagine such comfort on the ridge, with howling wind outside, hundreds of kilometers away from human settlements.
-
Star man, I find myself following your line of thinking. Some sort of explosive event. I do not believe what happened to the hikers was murder. I believe it was an accident. A man made accident but still an accident. I don't believe there was any intent to murder any of them
-
Those words written by Igor are taken literally by ALMOST everyone who reads them and I can't understand why. There is simply NO WAY Igor or anyone else wanted to camp on that exposed ridge. I category refuse to believe that 3000 foot ridge was there destination. I believe, and it is merely my opinion, please do not scream about no evidence. I admit it is my opinion only, the tent was never on that ridge with the hikers inside it.I do not believe they walked down that mile to the forest, nor do I believe the 3 dead on the slope were attempting to return to a non existent slashed tent.
-
Why the "retaining altitude" explanation further makes no sense is that according to their route plan, but correct me if it's not from a credible source, so their route plan has them continuing in the Lozva valley after crossing the pass, i.e. they didn't plan to go to Otorten on the ridge.
And if they were afraid of something or someone in the forest, how would camping on the ridge offer any protection at all?
31st January 1959
It's nearly 4. Have to start looking for a place to pitch the tent. We go south in the Auspiya valley. Seems this place has the deepest snow. Wind not strong, snow 1.22 m deep. We’re exhausted, but start setting up for the night. Firewood is scarce, mostly damp firs. We build the campfire on the logs, too tired to dig a fire pit. Dinner’s in the tent. Nice and warm. Can’t imagine such comfort on the ridge, with howling wind outside, hundreds of kilometers away from human settlements.
Perhaps Russian speakers can categorically rule this our for us, but isn't it possible that this originally said "Couldn't have imagined such comfort", referring the nice and warm tent that night?
-
Anyone wishing to bother them later that night would have to brave an ascent in plummeting temperatures, with wind chill estimated to be at least -31C around 9pm, static temperature then -22C, and unless they commandeered the tent and flushed out the hikers when they arrived (another possible theory) they'd have to then descend, spending at least 3 hours all told in those conditions before being back at their own camp on lower ground.
An earlier set of hikers returned to Vizhay shortly after the Dyatlov group set out, and they had frostbite - that and death is the risk, so by placing yourself up high, you with your heated fort, a tent, you would seek to put off any conflicts until daylight, allowing your group to sleep.
-
Star man, I find myself following your line of thinking. Some sort of explosive event. I do not believe what happened to the hikers was murder. I believe it was an accident. A man made accident but still an accident. I don't believe there was any intent to murder any of them
Yeah, that is what I think. For those who don't believe the tent was pitched on Kholat, ( and as Eurocentric points out was probably in the forest), do you think the pattern of injuries reflects (and again I will quote Eurocentric - some burning calamity) an explosion of some kind!
We have the rav 4 with significant traumas, all found together under several metres of snow. Solter's statement suggest they were very dirty. How could they be dirty in those conditions? Smoke, dust, debris from an explosion? When considering if the three on the slope were ever at the cedar, some time ago, I noticed how dirty Zina's hands were in the autopsy photos and I immediately thought, she had been lighting a fire. The grime looks like oily smoke from a fire. I can't think of any other really good reason why they would all be so dirty looking. If there was an explosion, what sort of explosion and why? They were in the middle of nowhere. So what could have been going on there? Possible options I have thought of:
1. Military test or exercise - its not a test area but can't rule it out.
2. Prospectors looking for mineral wealth - i dont think so.
3. Mistaken to be different people and attacked by military? Possible? Not sure
4. Crashed rocket/missile- possible but unlikely as not a test area and not on the missile lanes
5. Crashed plane/jet, some kind of new secret plane - possible but unlikely.
6. Some kind of land mine? I think there would be missing limbs and more devastating injuries due to the proximity
7.attacked by another group of hikers? Why and how would they create an explosion? Unlikely.
8. The Snowmanc could be behind the hikers demise? How do you go about catching a Yeti?
I am not an expert on weapons and have no fascination with them other than the dpi case, but I have read about thermobaric weapons which range in their size and devastation and are unique in that they create a pressure wave that kills and a vacuum, causing lungs to burst. They use ethylene oxide or propylene oxide which if unburned is as toxic as a chemical weapon. It looks like the hikers sustained some burns. If you disregard the fire at the cedar, - burning ethylene oxide could cause the burns. It is difficult to say though. There would be alot of choking smoke and dust, a toxic oxygen depleted aftermath. It would fit Eurocentric's choking, burning calamity? It is clear that even the hikers that did not appear to suffer severe traumas did not die of hypothermia. In fact the two Yuris probably lived the longest. Their struggle for survival is written into all the superficial injuries and frost bite. Zina was probably hit by debris and survived long enough to get some frost bite.
I think the Dyatlov group were good kids and good citizens of their country. I think that the authorities wanted the proper respect paid to these kids. I also think it was some kind of tragic accident and the real fault lies with a chain of human errors and not any single person(s). I can only imagine the pain of having to live with these mistakes. That is why I think it was covered up. The damage was already done and there was great sadness. Why make it any worse than it already was?
Regards
Star man
-
It is clear that even the hikers that did not appear to suffer severe traumas did not die of hypothermia.
What is the reason you say that?
I am not sure myself just curious if there is some additional information i didn't read.
-
How many people on this forum, or in the world, would set up camp at 3000 feet, in minus 20 degrees, only an estimate, with high winds, only probable, and then leave their only shelter to walk, lightly dressed and without proper footwear, a mile down the slope to a forest? A place where they could have originally set up the tent and been much more comfortable. Nine intelligent, experienced, hikers did the exact opposite of what would have been expected, even for a group of novice hikers, which they certainly were not.
Good Post. Straight to the point. The only way that they or any other sensible people would have done that is if they had have been forced to do it. By force I mean something caused them to have to do that.
-
Let's continue. They were afraid of something in the forest? No Evidence of that, none whatsoever. Igor did not want to lose the height they had gained so he camped on the ridge? It was only a mile, easily made up for with an earlier start the next morning. It was planned that way? I simply do not believe that. Not a single one of them could have wanted to camp on that exposed ridge. They needed it for a Category 3 rating? No, they did not. It was already a Category 3 even without a cold overnight stay on the ridge. Absolutely nothing about camping on that ridge makes sense. There was no way these experienced hikers and reasonably intelligent people camped there.
it gets tricky when you bring up the question of Evidence. We know that there is a serious lack of Evidence in this Dyatlov Case. The only Evidence we have to suggest that they were scared of something in the Forest is that Photograph that no one can positively identify. It fits the description of many Big Foot type creatures, but it could also be another Human ! ?
-
It was normal practice to camp above the treeline if the expedition required it. They were going to Mt. Ottorten 10km away the next day along the ridge. They made their store before climbing. The previous years winter expedition was also high.
January 1958 six students from Sverdlovsk went to ascend winter Manaraga. They went to the eastern slope of the Urals, to the Severnaya Naroda base, in extreme conditions, without sleeping bags and a stove.
https://dyatlovpass.com/gallery-1958-Subpolar-Ural?lid=1
Normal practice ! ? Normal practice becomes irrelevant if weather conditions change to such an extent that its safer to camp somewhere less exposed if possible. And it was possible for the Dyatlov Group, because they would have had the shelter of the Valley and Forest.
-
How many people on this forum, or in the world, would set up camp at 3000 feet, in minus 20 degrees, only an estimate, with high winds, only probable, and then leave their only shelter to walk, lightly dressed and without proper footwear, a mile down the slope to a forest? A place where they could have originally set up the tent and been much more comfortable. Nine intelligent, experienced, hikers did the exact opposite of what would have been expected, even for a group of novice hikers, which they certainly were not.
One of my first posts on this website was regarding where they camped on Kholat Syakhl that fateful night. None of the Dyatlov hikers had been to that mountain prior to this trip. I will never believe they camped, if they even did, where the tent was found by their own free will. Regardless of the elevation the tent was found at, they supposedly climbed up there with limited daylight and were not going to take the hour to set up the stove? In that same amount of time they could have camped in the Cedar treeline. You see Dyatlov didn't know if there was a cliff or an ice ridge that they would have to go around in the morning to get to the Lovza river and Otorten. Dyatlov wouldn't have taken the hikers up there on the premise of some unknown morning advantage without knowing what Kholat Syakhl's north side difficulties entailed. By the time they reached the Dyatlov Pass/Mountain area it was already snowing too heavily, at least according to the photos (if real), to determine their trek in the morning. I am convinced Dyatlov would have never gambled on that unknown strategy.
GKM, I am with you. What is your assessment of what happened to the hikers? Explosion?
Regards
Star man
I went to prove the explosion theory wrong but I learned something that was surprising. Semyon and Lyuda's Flail Chest kept me away from determining the explosion scenario but I read that when Flail Chest is seen in explosion events it is not a primary injury but a secondary injury. That means when one body flies into another body, or a piece of debris is flies at a body. This is one way Flail Chest could have happened with limited external damage to the skin. An explosion event like Zina's could have wrapped her ski pole around her right torso to cause that deep tissue injury around her waist.
I keep asking myself this question: Disappearing act versus Re-staging act, why?
What, where, why, how and when caused it to be restaged? Was this ineptitude on a local level or initial decision making on a much higher level?
I find it hard to believe that the Dyatlov Group didnt do any homework before they went on the expedition. So I find it difficult to agree with what you say here and I quote ; ''You see Dyatlov didn't know if there was a cliff or an ice ridge''. And I dont believe any of the Staging stuff.
-
I've never believed they pitched where they did out of choice, the only logic I could work from stated evidence was someone, or simply the fear of them, drove them up there late in the day, unprepared, to be up high and out-of-reach overnight. Bar Semyon they were a vulnerable young group of city wussies, none of them would even square up to a drunk who accused them of stealing vodka on the train, and they were unarmed. For example, an altercation with the solitary deer hunter whose tracks they'd followed and whose recently abandoned camp they'd found, or to avoid the escapees they would hear about while at Vizhay, becoming more anxious the deeper they got into the wilderness.
The 1959 case resolution makes only short-term logic. It suggested they wished to attain and then retain altitude en route to Mount Otorten and would link this to the earlier difficulties they'd had wading through deep snow lower down, which had seen them decide to jettison the equivalent of a man's weight in provisions at the labaz, and in the last diary entry had become so tired they didn't bother having a fire pit outside.
However, they did something else at the labaz, they prepared firewood and left it there for their return loop back to Vizhay. They were thinking ahead, about staying warm in a forest. If they were to pitch on 1079 overnight, and then again on Otorten (Igor told Vizhayans he might pitch there) that would either mean 2 nights without adequate firewood up on 'the ridge', or descending the very next day to a forest to find more wood and then back up to Otorten.
Here, in a previous hike of Igor's, with the same tent and stove, and in better weather, with clear skies in most of the photo's, and low winds, was how well prepared they were then on the fuel front:
(https://i.ibb.co/PT7HktG/Igor-Dyatlov-57.jpg) (https://ibb.co/n3HJpRM)
The man in charge of orchestrating the rescue initially thought, to work the logic, that they had planned to cross over the ridge at 1079 and drop down the other side, but were beaten back by high winds so fell back and pitched where they did, this mirroring the way they'd previously dropped back 1000m down a pass when it proved too difficult.
That at least made fuller logical sense than the purposefully attaining altitude theory, and having started their ascent, it was claimed, around 3pm, darkness would soon fall, and then this would leave them without adequate firewood for an all-night burn in a very exposed position - some wood was found in the corner of the tent, but it wasn't referred to as substantial, enough to support the retaining altitude theory.
The only suggestion there is of pitching on 1079, the ascent of which wasn't part of the hiking plan submitted to the university, comes from Igor's last diary entry, but the ambiguity needs to be read in the full context of what prefaced it. Note also, how with darkness falling at 4:29pm, they start looking to pitch the tent around 4pm, and yet set off up 1079 at 3?
31st January 1959
It's nearly 4. Have to start looking for a place to pitch the tent. We go south in the Auspiya valley. Seems this place has the deepest snow. Wind not strong, snow 1.22 m deep. We’re exhausted, but start setting up for the night. Firewood is scarce, mostly damp firs. We build the campfire on the logs, too tired to dig a fire pit. Dinner’s in the tent. Nice and warm. Can’t imagine such comfort on the ridge, with howling wind outside, hundreds of kilometers away from human settlements.
You say and I quote ; ''Bar Semyon they were a vulnerable young group of city wussies, none of them would even square up to a drunk who accused them of stealing vodka on the train, and they were unarmed''. Well by all accounts they were all experienced outdoors people. And outdoors in Siberia is serious stuff. They knew the situation as they moved up the Valley and Forest. Something impelled them.
-
Those words written by Igor are taken literally by ALMOST everyone who reads them and I can't understand why. There is simply NO WAY Igor or anyone else wanted to camp on that exposed ridge. I category refuse to believe that 3000 foot ridge was there destination. I believe, and it is merely my opinion, please do not scream about no evidence. I admit it is my opinion only, the tent was never on that ridge with the hikers inside it.I do not believe they walked down that mile to the forest, nor do I believe the 3 dead on the slope were attempting to return to a non existent slashed tent.
No one is screaming about Evidence. Its just that in order to eventually prove what actually happened Evidence would be needed. Speculation has its place but at the end of the day we know what is needed. Evidence.
-
Why the "retaining altitude" explanation further makes no sense is that according to their route plan, but correct me if it's not from a credible source, so their route plan has them continuing in the Lozva valley after crossing the pass, i.e. they didn't plan to go to Otorten on the ridge.
And if they were afraid of something or someone in the forest, how would camping on the ridge offer any protection at all?
31st January 1959
It's nearly 4. Have to start looking for a place to pitch the tent. We go south in the Auspiya valley. Seems this place has the deepest snow. Wind not strong, snow 1.22 m deep. We’re exhausted, but start setting up for the night. Firewood is scarce, mostly damp firs. We build the campfire on the logs, too tired to dig a fire pit. Dinner’s in the tent. Nice and warm. Can’t imagine such comfort on the ridge, with howling wind outside, hundreds of kilometers away from human settlements.
Perhaps Russian speakers can categorically rule this our for us, but isn't it possible that this originally said "Couldn't have imagined such comfort", referring the nice and warm tent that night?
Good question and I quote ; ''And if they were afraid of something or someone in the forest, how would camping on the ridge offer any protection at all?''. Maybe this is where a bit of good old fashioned Human scaredness comes in. They could have had a terrifying experience and that impelled them to the Mountainside.
-
It is clear that even the hikers that did not appear to suffer severe traumas did not die of hypothermia.
What is the reason you say that?
I am not sure myself just curious if there is some additional information i didn't read.
It isnt clear at all how any of the Dyatlov Group met their demise, apart from the obvious injuries. There are plenty of injuries and some of them wouldnt have been significant enough to cause death under normal circumstances. But some injuries clearly would have caused death ie those to Dubinina.
-
One reason the tent is set up on the ridge may be something they saw or heard in the forest. In other words, they were afraid of the forest and camped on the mountain ridge without ever descending into the forest. Or, as it was said in an article I read before, the young people had set up a camp in the forest. But before they could stay there, they hastily left. They took refuge in the mountain, which was the safest for them. Because when man feels danger in nature, he runs towards the highest place !!! And if you're in a tent and it's freezing outside, and there's an entity outside that you fear a lot, you'll never go out. So there must be something to force them out of the tent. These can be examined under 3 main headings. 1. Natural events 2. Other people 3. Unknown entity (s) There is no other option than these 3 options. From here, at first glance, the least likely natural phenomena ..... Because there is no avalanche, no animal attack and it is obvious that they do not die from the cold ... . So the chance of this possibility is very low .... So we need to look at the other 2 options. It is possible that young people are brought to this state by humans ... But there is no evidence for this, and why? how? Who? There are no answers to many questions etc. However, the injuries that occur in the abdominal den are less likely to be caused by human hand. And the last option remains. Unknown coercive force. Events like this have happened from time to time on various dates and places around the world. In other words, panoramic events that cannot be explained scientifically… like the Bermuda triangle… It is certain that Rav 4 and the three young people on the slope were killed. Everyone can see this easily. It seems that the whole incident took place within 3-4 hours. In this horrible incident, the young people seem to be faced with a force they cannot resist. this force attacked them !!! And he tore the tent !!! Young people have used whatever they have against the unknown force. They defended themselves bravely. They resisted for a while .... But when they saw that it was not beneficial (the stick in their hands could not damage the unknown force, ax, knife, etc.) and the unknown force forced them out of the tent, they had to leave ....
-
It is clear that even the hikers that did not appear to suffer severe traumas did not die of hypothermia.
What is the reason you say that?
I am not sure myself just curious if there is some additional information i didn't read.
Maybe should have said it is clear that some of them did not die of hypothermia. Its based on urine content of bladder, and frost bite. If there was a choking firery calamity then those who survive the initial explosion would have been faced with two hazards; the cold and toxicity. Would explain the lack of a toxicology report even though tissue samples were taken for analysis.
Regards
Star man
-
I often think of the DPI as a chess game. Just when the evidence seems to have the King cornered, he finds a way to escape. Every time the King escapes. On the last night, did the group pitch the tent somewhere other than the mountain slope? Perhaps, but "loose photos" 11 and 12 show them preparing to pitch the tent in what looks like a wide-open space such as on a mountain slope. Are men standing just out of the photos holding guns on them? Perhaps, but then how to explain the whimsical "Daily Otorten," which, according to the date on the masthead, was written that night. How could the hikers be under severe duress, yet have such fun?
-
Those words written by Igor are taken literally by ALMOST everyone who reads them and I can't understand why. There is simply NO WAY Igor or anyone else wanted to camp on that exposed ridge. I category refuse to believe that 3000 foot ridge was there destination. I believe, and it is merely my opinion, please do not scream about no evidence. I admit it is my opinion only, the tent was never on that ridge with the hikers inside it.I do not believe they walked down that mile to the forest, nor do I believe the 3 dead on the slope were attempting to return to a non existent slashed tent.
One thing which made me wonder if Igor actually wrote that, in the context of any cover-up and forgery, was the way it ends, where he suggests that being on the ridge would place them "hundreds of kilometers away from human settlements", when certainly that ridge, the peak known as 1079, would be around 80kms from Vizhay, and Otorten 90, so it's a bit of an exaggeration, but perhaps it's a mistranslation and it should read a hundred singular.
"The ridge", when it's referenced in some of the case files, actually refers to the series of interconnecting high points along the Ural ridge, of which 1079 was just one peak, and I read mention of how it was considered Igor might not have realised he was actually climbing 'the ridge', where it was known the weather could suddenly turn and winds become so bad one man related how he'd been trapped there, in a hollow, for 6 days.
There is also a contradiction in the notion they did this to overcome the previous exhaustion of travelling through deep snow on the passes, to gain altitude, when they would have crucified themselves if setting off at 3pm to ascend, dig a 3ft deep 12 x 4ft trench, set up a tent with extra complexity due to a 30 degree slope and exposed position, and then put all their gear inside.
It would have been a lot less tiring to simply head to the forest, and perhaps tackle a climb the next morning, they might even have made it to Otorten that same day, avoiding two nights on 'the ridge', and wouldn't have had to race the early sundown, something which risked hypothermia from being sweated out.
If then sat in an unheated tent there is the danger people trying to air themselves off may remain paradoxically undressed, because after taking off clothing when warmer (to air themselves off) their body temperature then falls due to the unheated environment, and they continue to feel warm enough due to hypothermia's gradual encroachment, so do not recover the situation by redressing themselves.
-
From here, at first glance, the least likely natural phenomena ..... Because there is no avalanche, no animal attack and it is obvious that they do not die from the cold
I don't think a small avalanche can be completely ruled out, either at the ravine or at the ridge but not reaching the forest, perhaps stopped by the stony ridges.
Same for an animal attack, in fact I encourage everyone to look at some elk attack videos on Youtube. I am not saying it would explain everything but elk apparently charge people and jump and kick at their head/upper torso. You might ask why elk would attack people but in this forest, the people they mostly meet are hunters with guns going after them or their little ones.
And no it's not obvious that they did not die from the cold. They might have been used to the cold, Sverdlovsk where they lived also experiences temperatures of -15C in the winter or less, but just think of the difference between +20C and 0C. The difference between comfort and freezing. That is the same difference as between -15C and -35C, for example. In fact leaving the tent in the clothes they did, or even staying inside the tent without heating, what can be said is that it would have been inevitable they would die of the cold sooner or later. But yes it's possible some of them died of other injuries before the cold got them.
Maybe should have said it is clear that some of them did not die of hypothermia. Its based on urine content of bladder, and frost bite. If there was a choking firery calamity then those who survive the initial explosion would have been faced with two hazards; the cold and toxicity. Would explain the lack of a toxicology report even though tissue samples were taken for analysis.
I think generally the usual hypothermia symptoms are in well nourished people who for some reason get stuck in a somewhat cold environment, for example their car breaks down in the winter, and slowly succumb to the cold. Being out in -35C windchill or less, heat loss is a very fast process and for example the body might not have time to fill up the bladder. Or they might have been dehydrated to begin with, due to no means of melting snow or carrying liquids because these would freeze in their flasks. And they did have frostbite.
Looking at the case files, it does appear that for example mentions of radiation were removed (crossed out sections, and entire pages removed), then later in modern times added back to the archive. The toxicology report never seems to have arrived. But indeed it is strange there is no mention of even that fact.
But is it even meaningful to do a toxicology test 4 weeks+ after death? And in case of the Rav4 much later and after they have been in a stream for a week or so? Depends on the substance but most would either be metabolized by cells before that, or if it's bacterial for example, it would be impossible to tell if the bacteria were present during life or only started growing after death, at least in the Rav4 who presumably thawed before they were found.
-
What about the grey foam from Yuri D's mouth? Is that a symptom of hypothermia? This is not something I am familiar with. But I do know that flail chests, and burnt hair, and legs, massive skull fractures and deformed necks are not symptoms of hypothermia.
Regards
Star man
-
What about the grey foam from Yuri D's mouth? Is that a symptom of hypothermia? This is not something I am familiar with. But I do know that flail chests, and burnt hair, and legs, massive skull fractures and deformed necks are not symptoms of hypothermia.
Regards
Star man
Yes pulmonary edema. also the cutting off of clothes is paradoxical undressing, the burning and bite mark could be due to loss of their sensations due to hypothermia. It's also a bad thing to expose a hypothermia victim to direct heat. It draws the blood from the inner vital organs that need it back out to the skin. They can die quicker like that. They have to be warmed slowly away from direct heat.
-
I often think of the DPI as a chess game. Just when the evidence seems to have the King cornered, he finds a way to escape. Every time the King escapes. On the last night, did the group pitch the tent somewhere other than the mountain slope? Perhaps, but "loose photos" 11 and 12 show them preparing to pitch the tent in what looks like a wide-open space such as on a mountain slope. Are men standing just out of the photos holding guns on them? Perhaps, but then how to explain the whimsical "Daily Otorten," which, according to the date on the masthead, was written that night. How could the hikers be under severe duress, yet have such fun?
What if the hikers were already dead when those photographs were taken?
Regards
Star man
-
What about the grey foam from Yuri D's mouth? Is that a symptom of hypothermia? This is not something I am familiar with. But I do know that flail chests, and burnt hair, and legs, massive skull fractures and deformed necks are not symptoms of hypothermia.
Regards
Star man
Yes pulmonary edema. also the cutting off of clothes is paradoxical undressing, the burning and bite mark could be due to loss of their sensations due to hypothermia.
But only Yuri D had grey foam.. why cut clothes off. We are led to believe that their friends cut them off to use? The flail chests, and skull fractures and deformed neck aren't symptoms of hypothermia. They are symptoms of an explosion.
Regards
Star man
-
pulmonary edema. also the cutting off of clothes is paradoxical undressing, the burning and bite mark could be due to loss of their sensations due to hypothermia. It's also a bad thing to expose a hypothermia victim to direct heat. It draws the blood from the inner vital organs that need it back out to the skin. They can die quicker like that. They have to be warmed slowly away from direct heat.
and crush injuries from collapsed snow den
-
pulmonary edema. also the cutting off of clothes is paradoxical undressing, the burning and bite mark could be due to loss of their sensations due to hypothermia. It's also a bad thing to expose a hypothermia victim to direct heat. It draws the blood from the inner vital organs that need it back out to the skin. They can die quicker like that. They have to be warmed slowly away from direct heat.
and crush injuries from collapsed snow den
The bodies were found several metres from the hypothetical snow den? Also, three of them were lying together and Lyuda wzs several metres away lying against a ledge. WAB has confirmed that they could never have dug a snow den with their hands.
It is far more likely they were caught in an explosion and the bodies placed there.
Regards
Star man
-
What type of explosion? A booby trap? What about dropping a string of ordinance across the top of the Valley they were in?
Regards
Star man
-
One reason the tent is set up on the ridge may be something they saw or heard in the forest. In other words, they were afraid of the forest and camped on the mountain ridge without ever descending into the forest. Or, as it was said in an article I read before, the young people had set up a camp in the forest. But before they could stay there, they hastily left. They took refuge in the mountain, which was the safest for them. Because when man feels danger in nature, he runs towards the highest place !!! And if you're in a tent and it's freezing outside, and there's an entity outside that you fear a lot, you'll never go out. So there must be something to force them out of the tent. These can be examined under 3 main headings. 1. Natural events 2. Other people 3. Unknown entity (s) There is no other option than these 3 options. From here, at first glance, the least likely natural phenomena ..... Because there is no avalanche, no animal attack and it is obvious that they do not die from the cold ... . So the chance of this possibility is very low .... So we need to look at the other 2 options. It is possible that young people are brought to this state by humans ... But there is no evidence for this, and why? how? Who? There are no answers to many questions etc. However, the injuries that occur in the abdominal den are less likely to be caused by human hand. And the last option remains. Unknown coercive force. Events like this have happened from time to time on various dates and places around the world. In other words, panoramic events that cannot be explained scientifically… like the Bermuda triangle… It is certain that Rav 4 and the three young people on the slope were killed. Everyone can see this easily. It seems that the whole incident took place within 3-4 hours. In this horrible incident, the young people seem to be faced with a force they cannot resist. this force attacked them !!! And he tore the tent !!! Young people have used whatever they have against the unknown force. They defended themselves bravely. They resisted for a while .... But when they saw that it was not beneficial (the stick in their hands could not damage the unknown force, ax, knife, etc.) and the unknown force forced them out of the tent, they had to leave ....
I see that many of us are now looking at the possibility that they headed for the Mountainside because they were scared of something down in the Forest. Yes its a natural thing to do if you are scared. Get out of the Forest. I have had many a spooky walk in Forests and when ever I have felt uneasy I have made for the open areas as quickly as possible. And of course in the Dyatlov Case the main Event is yet to come. It looks like something then scares them out of the Tent.
-
I often think of the DPI as a chess game. Just when the evidence seems to have the King cornered, he finds a way to escape. Every time the King escapes. On the last night, did the group pitch the tent somewhere other than the mountain slope? Perhaps, but "loose photos" 11 and 12 show them preparing to pitch the tent in what looks like a wide-open space such as on a mountain slope. Are men standing just out of the photos holding guns on them? Perhaps, but then how to explain the whimsical "Daily Otorten," which, according to the date on the masthead, was written that night. How could the hikers be under severe duress, yet have such fun?
Well they had fun on the way towards the Mountain range. Not sure if they had much fun when they had to pitch their Tent in that exposed location.
-
pulmonary edema. also the cutting off of clothes is paradoxical undressing, the burning and bite mark could be due to loss of their sensations due to hypothermia. It's also a bad thing to expose a hypothermia victim to direct heat. It draws the blood from the inner vital organs that need it back out to the skin. They can die quicker like that. They have to be warmed slowly away from direct heat.
and crush injuries from collapsed snow den
There wouldnt have been enough snow to cause those injuries to Ribs and then there is the other extraordinary injuries.
-
pulmonary edema. also the cutting off of clothes is paradoxical undressing, the burning and bite mark could be due to loss of their sensations due to hypothermia. It's also a bad thing to expose a hypothermia victim to direct heat. It draws the blood from the inner vital organs that need it back out to the skin. They can die quicker like that. They have to be warmed slowly away from direct heat.
and crush injuries from collapsed snow den
The bodies were found several metres from the hypothetical snow den? Also, three of them were lying together and Lyuda wzs several metres away lying against a ledge. WAB has confirmed that they could never have dug a snow den with their hands.
It is far more likely they were caught in an explosion and the bodies placed there.
Regards
Star man
The position of the bodies at the Ravine is unusual. Not just unusual injuries. Dubinina couldnt have walked or crawled to the Ravine from the Den.
-
What type of explosion? A booby trap? What about dropping a string of ordinance across the top of the Valley they were in?
Regards
Star man
Highly unlikely. How do you explain the missing Tongue and Eyes ! ?
-
Skull fractures can actually be caused by freezing, ice has a larger volume than the same amount of liquid water, so if the brain freezes, the skull can crack. But not in the way Tibo's did. However Rustem's skull fracture could be due to this, and perhaps also can be sustained in transport.. ice is brittle and a frozen body is basically ice.
-
What type of explosion? A booby trap? What about dropping a string of ordinance across the top of the Valley they were in?
Regards
Star man
Highly unlikely. How do you explain the missing Tongue and Eyes ! ?
If Solter wzs right then it is possible that her face was surgically altered to remove obvious signs of an explosion. A thermobaric bomb can cause organs to rupture, so if the eyes and tongue had been damaged they have removed them before placing them back in the ravine. Is it normal for eye brows to be ansent on a 3 month old frozen corpse?
It would have been a well funded operation with access to military support, I would think.
Regards
Star
-
Skull fractures can actually be caused by freezing, ice has a larger volume than the same amount of liquid water, so if the brain freezes, the skull can crack. But not in the way Tibo's did. However Rustem's skull fracture could be due to this, and perhaps also can be sustained in transport.. ice is brittle and a frozen body is basically ice.
Yes, I am aware of that, but as you say not Thibo's depressed fracture. Do eye brows freeze off in frozen bodies?
Regards
Star man
-
I started this thread with the hope that common sense would take over, for everyone, alas not so. What does common sense tell us? Camp in the forest not on 3000 foot ridge. The forest is warmer and safer therefore that is where they most likely were, after all they were no one's fool. Alright let's put them on the ridge. Cut the tent, walk calmly to the forest with few dressed as the weather dictates, in socks, for the most part, wool or not, no one does that. What made them leave that tent,that for the sake of argument we will temporarily put on the ridge? Well? Evidence again. There is zero evidence that anything went wrong at that tent Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not even a hint of anything or anyone forcing those hikers from the tent on the ridge. So why did they leave it, assuming they were ever there. Two got lost gathering firewood? I thought they had wood. And why would all 7 go after 2? Send the two that are dressed for the cold or allow everyone to dress for the cold and walk down to find them. Leave a flashlight on the tent but turn it off, much more helpful that way. Does any of that make sense? No, it does not. 3 events. Tent, cedar, ravine? Really? All in one night, within possibly a couple of hours? What would Murphy's law have to say about that? The tent was in the forest and something, an accident, man made, but still an accident,occurred. There was no intent to kill those hikers. It is incredibly sad but it was all a tragic accident. Yes, it was covered up for reasons we do not know, but it was not murder. The DG were in the wrong place at the wrong time. That SHOULD be what common sense is telling us. After they died I will admit, without reversation, I have no ideal what happened. Perhaps the placement of the bodies is the clue that will explain so very much about the DPI.
-
I started this thread with the hope that common sense would take over, for everyone, alas not so. What does common sense tell us? Camp in the forest not on 3000 foot ridge. The forest is warmer and safer therefore that is where they most likely were, after all they were no one's fool. Alright let's put them on the ridge. Cut the tent, walk calmly to the forest with few dressed as the weather dictates, in socks, for the most part, wool or not, no one does that. What made them leave that tent,that for the sake of argument we will temporarily put on the ridge? Well? Evidence again. There is zero evidence that anything went wrong at that tent Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not even a hint of anything or anyone forcing those hikers from the tent on the ridge. So why did they leave it, assuming they were ever there. Two got lost gathering firewood? I thought they had wood. And why would all 7 go after 2? Send the two that are dressed for the cold or allow everyone to dress for the cold and walk down to find them. Leave a flashlight on the tent but turn it off, much more helpful that way. Does any of that make sense? No, it does not. 3 events. Tent, cedar, ravine? Really? All in one night, within possibly a couple of hours? What would Murphy's law have to say about that? The tent was in the forest and something, an accident, man made, but still an accident,occurred. There was no intent to kill those hikers. It is incredibly sad but it was all a tragic accident. Yes, it was covered up for reasons we do not know, but it was not murder. The DG were in the wrong place at the wrong time. That SHOULD be what common sense is telling us. After they died I will admit, without reversation, I have no ideal what happened. Perhaps the placement of the bodies is the clue that will explain so very much about the DPI.
Also their escape route to safety would have been the same way they came up from their store not to where they were found. The forest where they were found seems to be the nearest shelter from weather. Did wind destroy the tent so they decided to get out and go for cover in the forest until the wind dropped ? The flashlights on the slope and tent tell me they were intending to return in a short time not necessarily waiting until daybreak. So we don't know if they went all together to the forest or if the 2 yuris had gone for firewood. Which is just a plausible scenario (guesswork) because of lack of real evidence. But lets say that because the forest is the nearest shelter that is why they all go there. Shelter from weather on the very exposed pass. The weather on the pass is so bad they don't wait to put on boots and coats they get out, collapse the tent and put snow on top, and all head down to the forest as they are, but they have an idea that whatever is happening will not last long because they put the flashlights out, to guide them back. Then things go bad.
Also I think I read that locals did warn them about the winds on the pass and local knowledge is too valuable to be ignored.
-
My guess is that either, they didn't want to climb back up the next day (which could have added several more hours to the hike and, potentially, extended the expedition by a day) or they didn't want to set up the tent in the dark, or both.
Another possibility is that, for the sake of adding difficulty, Igor directed it. I've read 'Dead Mountain' by Donnie Eichar a few times and (from interviews conducted with friends and family) it seems that Igor was a type of person that would be very willing to take on any type of challenge just for the sake of taking it on. There is no doubt that the group was looking at a very windy, cold night with little to no sleep. It was just one more challenge in a list of many challenges that he had faced and conquered before.
It could have been any one of these reasons or all three combined that convinced the group to set up on the slope. I don't think there is anything that strange about it. since then, several groups have done the same.
-
If they or Igor wanted a tough night, they could have done it the day before: they were almost at the ridge, there was wind, they could make a cache near the rock pillars . Why waste such an opportunity and loose one day of hike turning back ?
-
My guess is that either, they didn't want to climb back up the next day (which could have added several more hours to the hike and, potentially, extended the expedition by a day) or they didn't want to set up the tent in the dark, or both.
Another possibility is that, for the sake of adding difficulty, Igor directed it. I've read 'Dead Mountain' by Donnie Eichar a few times and (from interviews conducted with friends and family) it seems that Igor was a type of person that would be very willing to take on any type of challenge just for the sake of taking it on. There is no doubt that the group was looking at a very windy, cold night with little to no sleep. It was just one more challenge in a list of many challenges that he had faced and conquered before.
It could have been any one of these reasons or all three combined that convinced the group to set up on the slope. I don't think there is anything that strange about it. since then, several groups have done the same.
The rest of the group were nowhere near as experienced as him at level 3, so he may have wanted at some stage to push them.
(https://i.ibb.co/ftLDF7n/Capture.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
But the logic breaks down at this particular juncture on the hike, given they'd already been struggling at lower elevations and this seeking higher ground was taken to be a way of avoiding further hardship. They do something to avoid exhaustion - but the act is more exhausting than the alternative?
Igor's last diary entry related how they were all so tired the night before they didn't bother with a fire pit, and winds had been so strong it was like a jet engine.
If they set off around 3pm, as the investigation suggested, they would need at least 2 hours to climb 1079 with all their gear, then another hour to dig a 12x4 trench 3ft deep and levelled (not in soft snow and done with skis and ski poles), then time to set up the tent and make sure it was secure from the wind exposure up there, and then pile all their gear and themselves inside, lining the floor with skis, blankets and empty rucksacks.
I doubt they were finished by 6:30pm at the earliest, two hours after sundown, and then they have to make their dinner inside the tent.
Doing all that risks exhaustion, the trench diggers being dangerously sweated out, and if the stove wasn't useable, too much wind buckling the long tent ridge, not enough wood carried up the mountain etc, they faced a very uncomfortable night, not fighting fit for the next day, and unlikely their clothing would be fully dried overnight.
-
What type of explosion? A booby trap? What about dropping a string of ordinance across the top of the Valley they were in?
Regards
Star man
Highly unlikely. How do you explain the missing Tongue and Eyes ! ?
If Solter wzs right then it is possible that her face was surgically altered to remove obvious signs of an explosion. A thermobaric bomb can cause organs to rupture, so if the eyes and tongue had been damaged they have removed them before placing them back in the ravine. Is it normal for eye brows to be ansent on a 3 month old frozen corpse?
It would have been a well funded operation with access to military support, I would think.
Regards
Star
Well you would need a lot of Evidence to support your theory. Those injuries look more like Mutilations, but not ones caused by other people.
-
I started this thread with the hope that common sense would take over, for everyone, alas not so. What does common sense tell us? Camp in the forest not on 3000 foot ridge. The forest is warmer and safer therefore that is where they most likely were, after all they were no one's fool. Alright let's put them on the ridge. Cut the tent, walk calmly to the forest with few dressed as the weather dictates, in socks, for the most part, wool or not, no one does that. What made them leave that tent,that for the sake of argument we will temporarily put on the ridge? Well? Evidence again. There is zero evidence that anything went wrong at that tent Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not even a hint of anything or anyone forcing those hikers from the tent on the ridge. So why did they leave it, assuming they were ever there. Two got lost gathering firewood? I thought they had wood. And why would all 7 go after 2? Send the two that are dressed for the cold or allow everyone to dress for the cold and walk down to find them. Leave a flashlight on the tent but turn it off, much more helpful that way. Does any of that make sense? No, it does not. 3 events. Tent, cedar, ravine? Really? All in one night, within possibly a couple of hours? What would Murphy's law have to say about that? The tent was in the forest and something, an accident, man made, but still an accident,occurred. There was no intent to kill those hikers. It is incredibly sad but it was all a tragic accident. Yes, it was covered up for reasons we do not know, but it was not murder. The DG were in the wrong place at the wrong time. That SHOULD be what common sense is telling us. After they died I will admit, without reversation, I have no ideal what happened. Perhaps the placement of the bodies is the clue that will explain so very much about the DPI.
Well you talk about common sense but we also need Evidence. And the Evidence that we have is ; a Tent and its contents ; a Campfire ; a Den ; Bodies in various places. And of course a few things thrown in like Flashlights and branches from Tree and clothing scattered around, etc. All that is Evidence. All that is Realistic.
-
I started this thread with the hope that common sense would take over, for everyone, alas not so. What does common sense tell us? Camp in the forest not on 3000 foot ridge. The forest is warmer and safer therefore that is where they most likely were, after all they were no one's fool. Alright let's put them on the ridge. Cut the tent, walk calmly to the forest with few dressed as the weather dictates, in socks, for the most part, wool or not, no one does that. What made them leave that tent,that for the sake of argument we will temporarily put on the ridge? Well? Evidence again. There is zero evidence that anything went wrong at that tent Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not even a hint of anything or anyone forcing those hikers from the tent on the ridge. So why did they leave it, assuming they were ever there. Two got lost gathering firewood? I thought they had wood. And why would all 7 go after 2? Send the two that are dressed for the cold or allow everyone to dress for the cold and walk down to find them. Leave a flashlight on the tent but turn it off, much more helpful that way. Does any of that make sense? No, it does not. 3 events. Tent, cedar, ravine? Really? All in one night, within possibly a couple of hours? What would Murphy's law have to say about that? The tent was in the forest and something, an accident, man made, but still an accident,occurred. There was no intent to kill those hikers. It is incredibly sad but it was all a tragic accident. Yes, it was covered up for reasons we do not know, but it was not murder. The DG were in the wrong place at the wrong time. That SHOULD be what common sense is telling us. After they died I will admit, without reversation, I have no ideal what happened. Perhaps the placement of the bodies is the clue that will explain so very much about the DPI.
Agree with you.
Regards
Star man
-
What type of explosion? A booby trap? What about dropping a string of ordinance across the top of the Valley they were in?
Regards
Star man
Highly unlikely. How do you explain the missing Tongue and Eyes ! ?
If Solter wzs right then it is possible that her face was surgically altered to remove obvious signs of an explosion. A thermobaric bomb can cause organs to rupture, so if the eyes and tongue had been damaged they have removed them before placing them back in the ravine. Is it normal for eye brows to be ansent on a 3 month old frozen corpse?
It would have been a well funded operation with access to military support, I would think.
Regards
Star
Well you would need a lot of Evidence to support your theory. Those injuries look more like Mutilations, but not ones caused by other people.
I don't have evidence, other than that which everyone here has access to. The case files, the witness statements etc. Nothing else really.
I have explored the Yeti theory, which I think you may be referring to in great detail, and agree that there are similarities in the types of injuries to those you would expect from a large ape mutilation. The tent kind of resembles a panicked stricken escape, by people trying to get away from a Yeti, and "The Evening Otorten" found in the tent also makes reference to the Yeti. I have also researched the evidence for the existence of such creatures, and considering I am an objective person was surprised by the amount of evidence there is. I did not expect to find anything convincing. But there is evidence there. A bit like the dpi though nothing conclusive. Now you may think that this is moving a bit off topic- "being realistic", so let's keep it real. On the Yeti, the Russians "really" thought that there might be such things as Yetis. They thought it convincing enough for the government to set up an organisation the purpose of which was to capture a Yeti. I have no idea whether they were successful or not. How would you go about capturing a Yeti? I mean where would you even start?
Regards
Star man
-
...How would you go about capturing a Yeti? I mean where would you even start?
I dunno. With copper wire and a silk ribbon?
-
...How would you go about capturing a Yeti? I mean where would you even start?
I dunno. With copper wire and a silk ribbon?
Well, if they were government funded, maybe they could have e stretched a bit further?
Regards
Star man
-
Well, if they were government funded, maybe they could have e stretched a bit further?
No need. In Soviet Russia, yeti catch you!
-
...How would you go about capturing a Yeti? I mean where would you even start?
I dunno. With copper wire and a silk ribbon?
lol1
(https://i.ibb.co/3vsBVcr/giphy.webp) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/RpzXJwc/giphy.gif) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
What type of explosion? A booby trap? What about dropping a string of ordinance across the top of the Valley they were in?
Regards
Star man
Highly unlikely. How do you explain the missing Tongue and Eyes ! ?
If Solter wzs right then it is possible that her face was surgically altered to remove obvious signs of an explosion. A thermobaric bomb can cause organs to rupture, so if the eyes and tongue had been damaged they have removed them before placing them back in the ravine. Is it normal for eye brows to be ansent on a 3 month old frozen corpse?
It would have been a well funded operation with access to military support, I would think.
Regards
Star
Well you would need a lot of Evidence to support your theory. Those injuries look more like Mutilations, but not ones caused by other people.
I don't have evidence, other than that which everyone here has access to. The case files, the witness statements etc. Nothing else really.
I have explored the Yeti theory, which I think you may be referring to in great detail, and agree that there are similarities in the types of injuries to those you would expect from a large ape mutilation. The tent kind of resembles a panicked stricken escape, by people trying to get away from a Yeti, and "The Evening Otorten" found in the tent also makes reference to the Yeti. I have also researched the evidence for the existence of such creatures, and considering I am an objective person was surprised by the amount of evidence there is. I did not expect to find anything convincing. But there is evidence there. A bit like the dpi though nothing conclusive. Now you may think that this is moving a bit off topic- "being realistic", so let's keep it real. On the Yeti, the Russians "really" thought that there might be such things as Yetis. They thought it convincing enough for the government to set up an organisation the purpose of which was to capture a Yeti. I have no idea whether they were successful or not. How would you go about capturing a Yeti? I mean where would you even start?
Regards
Star man
Well is the Yeti a creature like an Ape or is it something else. And the Mutilations Iam thinking of are those related to the infamous Cattle Mutilations that occur regularly around the World.
-
...How would you go about capturing a Yeti? I mean where would you even start?
I dunno. With copper wire and a silk ribbon?
lol1
Is that what you call being realistic ! ?
(https://i.ibb.co/3vsBVcr/giphy.webp) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/RpzXJwc/giphy.gif) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
What type of explosion? A booby trap? What about dropping a string of ordinance across the top of the Valley they were in?
Regards
Star man
Highly unlikely. How do you explain the missing Tongue and Eyes ! ?
If Solter wzs right then it is possible that her face was surgically altered to remove obvious signs of an explosion. A thermobaric bomb can cause organs to rupture, so if the eyes and tongue had been damaged they have removed them before placing them back in the ravine. Is it normal for eye brows to be ansent on a 3 month old frozen corpse?
It would have been a well funded operation with access to military support, I would think.
Regards
Star
Well you would need a lot of Evidence to support your theory. Those injuries look more like Mutilations, but not ones caused by other people.
I don't have evidence, other than that which everyone here has access to. The case files, the witness statements etc. Nothing else really.
I have explored the Yeti theory, which I think you may be referring to in great detail, and agree that there are similarities in the types of injuries to those you would expect from a large ape mutilation. The tent kind of resembles a panicked stricken escape, by people trying to get away from a Yeti, and "The Evening Otorten" found in the tent also makes reference to the Yeti. I have also researched the evidence for the existence of such creatures, and considering I am an objective person was surprised by the amount of evidence there is. I did not expect to find anything convincing. But there is evidence there. A bit like the dpi though nothing conclusive. Now you may think that this is moving a bit off topic- "being realistic", so let's keep it real. On the Yeti, the Russians "really" thought that there might be such things as Yetis. They thought it convincing enough for the government to set up an organisation the purpose of which was to capture a Yeti. I have no idea whether they were successful or not. How would you go about capturing a Yeti? I mean where would you even start?
Regards
Star man
Okay, putting my Indiana Jones hat on, and placing my skepticism for these legends to one side while adopting an impassive zoological approach, it would be caught the same way as any other large and potentially dangerous animal, using a tranquiliser dart. Or a baited cage. A thousand TV documentaries show the way. Either hunt it from its tracks or lure it into a trap with irresistible food.
Long before that I'd determine where it lived, its range, and confirm sightings with motion-activated cameras. I'd deploy drones or helicopters with thermal image cameras. Or even utilise satellite technology. Granted these would not be optional extras in 1959.
And even before that I'd expect to find excrement and fur and have it confirmed as coming from a species of hominid unknown to science so that I'd reliably know I wasn't wasting time and resources.
But as strange as it seems none of this ever happens. Nobody will invest the time and money, they know it's cheaper and more fruitful to go on a wild goose chase.
-
What type of explosion? A booby trap? What about dropping a string of ordinance across the top of the Valley they were in?
Regards
Star man
Highly unlikely. How do you explain the missing Tongue and Eyes ! ?
If Solter wzs right then it is possible that her face was surgically altered to remove obvious signs of an explosion. A thermobaric bomb can cause organs to rupture, so if the eyes and tongue had been damaged they have removed them before placing them back in the ravine. Is it normal for eye brows to be ansent on a 3 month old frozen corpse?
It would have been a well funded operation with access to military support, I would think.
Regards
Star
Well you would need a lot of Evidence to support your theory. Those injuries look more like Mutilations, but not ones caused by other people.
I don't have evidence, other than that which everyone here has access to. The case files, the witness statements etc. Nothing else really.
I have explored the Yeti theory, which I think you may be referring to in great detail, and agree that there are similarities in the types of injuries to those you would expect from a large ape mutilation. The tent kind of resembles a panicked stricken escape, by people trying to get away from a Yeti, and "The Evening Otorten" found in the tent also makes reference to the Yeti. I have also researched the evidence for the existence of such creatures, and considering I am an objective person was surprised by the amount of evidence there is. I did not expect to find anything convincing. But there is evidence there. A bit like the dpi though nothing conclusive. Now you may think that this is moving a bit off topic- "being realistic", so let's keep it real. On the Yeti, the Russians "really" thought that there might be such things as Yetis. They thought it convincing enough for the government to set up an organisation the purpose of which was to capture a Yeti. I have no idea whether they were successful or not. How would you go about capturing a Yeti? I mean where would you even start?
Regards
Star man
Okay, putting my Indiana Jones hat on, and placing my skepticism for these legends to one side while adopting an impassive zoological approach, it would be caught the same way as any other large and potentially dangerous animal, using a tranquliser dart. Or a baited cage. A thousand TV documentaries show the way. Either hunt it from its tracks or lure it into a trap with irresistible food.
Long before that I'd determine where it lived, its range, and confirm sightings with motion-activated cameras. I'd deploy drones or helicopters with thermal image cameras. Or even utilise satellite technology.
And even before that I'd expect to find excrement and fur and have it confirmed as coming from a species of hominid unknown to science so that I'd reliably know I wasn't wasting time and resources.
But as strange as it seems none of this ever happens. Nobody will invest the time and money, they know it's cheaper and more fruitful to go on a wild goose chase.
Interesting. You would think it would be fairly easy to capture one if you knew where they were roughly and you used good hunting techniques. If they existed. Not that I would condone capturing one even if they did.
I wonder how the Russian expeditions went about trying to capture one between 1958 and 1959. Some kind of trap I suppose. I dont think there were any reports published of their findings. Maybe because they spent a load of money and never found anything.
Regards
Star man
-
Well, if they were government funded, maybe they could have e stretched a bit further?
No need. In Soviet Russia, yeti catch you!
That is interesting. What do you mean?
Regards
Star man
-
...How would you go about capturing a Yeti? I mean where would you even start?
I dunno. With copper wire and a silk ribbon?
lol1
(https://i.ibb.co/3vsBVcr/giphy.webp) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/RpzXJwc/giphy.gif) (https://imgbb.com/)
I'm not sure leaving a Sax or playing some good dance tunes would lure them in. Besides, it wasn't the Yeti, but it might have been the snowman.
Regards
Star man
-
What type of explosion? A booby trap? What about dropping a string of ordinance across the top of the Valley they were in?
Regards
Star man
Highly unlikely. How do you explain the missing Tongue and Eyes ! ?
If Solter wzs right then it is possible that her face was surgically altered to remove obvious signs of an explosion. A thermobaric bomb can cause organs to rupture, so if the eyes and tongue had been damaged they have removed them before placing them back in the ravine. Is it normal for eye brows to be ansent on a 3 month old frozen corpse?
It would have been a well funded operation with access to military support, I would think.
Regards
Star
Well you would need a lot of Evidence to support your theory. Those injuries look more like Mutilations, but not ones caused by other people.
I don't have evidence, other than that which everyone here has access to. The case files, the witness statements etc. Nothing else really.
I have explored the Yeti theory, which I think you may be referring to in great detail, and agree that there are similarities in the types of injuries to those you would expect from a large ape mutilation. The tent kind of resembles a panicked stricken escape, by people trying to get away from a Yeti, and "The Evening Otorten" found in the tent also makes reference to the Yeti. I have also researched the evidence for the existence of such creatures, and considering I am an objective person was surprised by the amount of evidence there is. I did not expect to find anything convincing. But there is evidence there. A bit like the dpi though nothing conclusive. Now you may think that this is moving a bit off topic- "being realistic", so let's keep it real. On the Yeti, the Russians "really" thought that there might be such things as Yetis. They thought it convincing enough for the government to set up an organisation the purpose of which was to capture a Yeti. I have no idea whether they were successful or not. How would you go about capturing a Yeti? I mean where would you even start?
Regards
Star man
Well is the Yeti a creature like an Ape or is it something else. And the Mutilations Iam thinking of are those related to the infamous Cattle Mutilations that occur regularly around the World.
I don't know what they are. It is a fascinating subject though. I dont think a Yeti a attacked the hikers. It's interesting how every topic decends into Yeti discussions though.
Regards
Star man
-
There could be some attention-seeking yetis posting here who manipulate topics into a discussion about them. I for one know it's not me, it's perfectly true I would benefit from a shave, but I'm a lifelong vegetarian so wouldn't mutilate the reindeer.
-
Well, if they were government funded, maybe they could have e stretched a bit further?
No need. In Soviet Russia, yeti catch you!
That is interesting. What do you mean?
Regards
Star man
Star Man (I might misunderstand your post), DAXXY simply seems to be referencing a style of joke popularized by Ukrainian-American comedian Yakov Smirnoff ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Smirnoff#Russian_reversal ).
-
Well, if they were government funded, maybe they could have e stretched a bit further?
No need. In Soviet Russia, yeti catch you!
That is interesting. What do you mean?
Regards
Star man
Yes, I was referring to the old "Russian-reversal" joke. It just seemed like the obvious response, given the circumstances and the topic of discussion.
I don't really think a yeti has anything to do with this tragedy. But if yetis were real, and if a group of young people were to try to capture one, I wouldn't be surprised if they all wound up dead in strange ways.
-
What type of explosion? A booby trap? What about dropping a string of ordinance across the top of the Valley they were in?
Regards
Star man
Highly unlikely. How do you explain the missing Tongue and Eyes ! ?
If Solter wzs right then it is possible that her face was surgically altered to remove obvious signs of an explosion. A thermobaric bomb can cause organs to rupture, so if the eyes and tongue had been damaged they have removed them before placing them back in the ravine. Is it normal for eye brows to be ansent on a 3 month old frozen corpse?
It would have been a well funded operation with access to military support, I would think.
Regards
Star
Well you would need a lot of Evidence to support your theory. Those injuries look more like Mutilations, but not ones caused by other people.
I don't have evidence, other than that which everyone here has access to. The case files, the witness statements etc. Nothing else really.
I have explored the Yeti theory, which I think you may be referring to in great detail, and agree that there are similarities in the types of injuries to those you would expect from a large ape mutilation. The tent kind of resembles a panicked stricken escape, by people trying to get away from a Yeti, and "The Evening Otorten" found in the tent also makes reference to the Yeti. I have also researched the evidence for the existence of such creatures, and considering I am an objective person was surprised by the amount of evidence there is. I did not expect to find anything convincing. But there is evidence there. A bit like the dpi though nothing conclusive. Now you may think that this is moving a bit off topic- "being realistic", so let's keep it real. On the Yeti, the Russians "really" thought that there might be such things as Yetis. They thought it convincing enough for the government to set up an organisation the purpose of which was to capture a Yeti. I have no idea whether they were successful or not. How would you go about capturing a Yeti? I mean where would you even start?
Regards
Star man
Well is the Yeti a creature like an Ape or is it something else. And the Mutilations Iam thinking of are those related to the infamous Cattle Mutilations that occur regularly around the World.
I don't know what they are. It is a fascinating subject though. I dont think a Yeti a attacked the hikers. It's interesting how every topic decends into Yeti discussions though.
Regards
Star man
Yes we are never far away fromYeti. Or UFO. The reason being is that there are many witnesses who have seen such things. And there is reference to such things in the Case Files etc.
-
Well, if they were government funded, maybe they could have e stretched a bit further?
No need. In Soviet Russia, yeti catch you!
That is interesting. What do you mean?
Regards
Star man
Yes, I was referring to the old "Russian-reversal" joke. It just seemed like the obvious response, given the circumstances and the topic of discussion.
I don't really think a yeti has anything to do with this tragedy. But if yetis were real, and if a group of young people were to try to capture one, I wouldn't be surprised if they all wound up dead in strange ways.
Thanks for the clarification. Am not familiar with it.
I dont actually think that a yeti attacked the group either, or that they were trying to catch one. But the Russian government did set up an organisation to do just that in 1958. It was suddenly shut down on 23rd Jan 1959, just over a week before the hikers died, and as far as I am aware all documentation classified. Coincidence? Might have been. Not sure if the documentation was really classified though. How would a well funded organisation with access to military support go about capturing a yeti? Traps? Try to flush them out? Could they have been working in the same area as the Dyatlov group? Accidently attacked them or dropped something? Would seem a bit like using a hammer to crack a nut but we are talking 1959.
There are other explanations, even simple ones such as the stove caused a fire in the tent, blocking the exit and they had to cut through the side. During tge escape they were exposed to the smoke and sustained some burns. Now with tent useless they could not survive. I dont know why there would be a need tovstage something that did not have some outside influence though. Also the cuts in the tent still don't make sense.
Regards
Star man
-
Yeti can be 'seen' almost everywhere.
Frame 5 Thibeaux-Brignolle's camera
(https://i.ibb.co/tsZCbJD/screenshot.jpg) (https://ibb.co/MV8NRC7)
(https://i.ibb.co/YZgqFqq/circle-cropped.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
The forest where they were found seems to be the nearest shelter from weather. Did wind destroy the tent so they decided to get out and go for cover in the forest until the wind dropped ?
If we assume the weather event was wind, is the forest really the nearest shelter? Wouldn't the leeward side of the "Boot Rock" be better? A forest is actually an extremely dangerous place in high wind because if trees are toppled, or even if it's just large branches breaking off, they can fall on you.
If the event was avalanche (or fear of one), again going downhill to the valley is exactly where the avalanche would also go so this also offers no explanation.
Hailstorm? They would have taken their coats or backpacks to hold above their head.
Blizzard? The tent offers the most protection so staying inside would have made most sense.All in all, I think the only natural factor that the forest offers protection from is cold, because you can start a fire there.
-
They had the stove in the tent so why cold ? they intended to use it because why carry it up to the pass ? Forests are known as shelter from weather especially wind. I understand your thinking about trees and branches but often trees fall and get stopped by other trees. Trees support each other but lone trees can be blown over, and those cedar and pine type trees are shallow rooting so there would be a risk but I don't think they would see it as a serious risk that would make them avoid the forest. Also the human factor These would be needing to think quickly to find a solution to their problem that was the most acceptable. They could have gone down to their store but that was further so distance mattered to them. Also the tent has to be a risky unreliable place to be. If it was just cold they had a stove and blankets and clothing. But wind starting to create tears in the tent maybe, it would stop them sleeping, raise all their anxiety, maybe wind collapsed the tent on them. Also the locals did warn them about the winds on the pass.
-
The forest provides shelter from the wind chill, which is the killer, via the windbreak effect of the tree trunks. The canopy of the evergreen trees shelter from the snow or rain. The fir branches something insulating to sit or lie down on - Yuri D was on some by the fire. And the plentiful supply of fuel for a fire. If under threat it's a retreat to hide in, whether being hunted on the ground or targeted from the air.
-
So windchill...wind causing cold..a compromise grin1
So the tent becomes unsafe, risky, or just collapses due to buffeting from strong wind so rather than stay and try and put it back up and risk it coming down again, they decide to put snow on it to keep it down out of the wind and all head to the nearest forest (not down to their store in the forest). For the shelter of the trees and fuel for a fire.
-
Simplistically yes, but that does not explain why they failed to take what they needed to survive in terms of adequate clothing and footwear, and why Semyon's #1 priority appeared to be to take a second camera he apparently had.
That's why, if the tent was on the ridge, the only logic which works is for there to be a delay between dropping the tent/covering it with snow and leaving, during which time they laid inside their trench, perhaps thinking a sudden powerful squall would pass, and in the interim hypothermia set in on the underdressed trench diggers.
Then when the group left, either as one or possibly in two groups, one better dressed going to build a den, the other an unsuccessful fire, the underdressed did not feel the cold and were already paradoxically undressed, as it were, suffering from a cognitive impairment due to the cold so that they forgot things, while better dressed Semyon, Lyuda, Aleksander and Tibo knew they had to get out of there, with Semyon capable of thinking he should take his camera, for whatever reason.
-
If we are thinking they are all in one group. I think a speedy evacuation from the tent due to fierce winds and they are already cold and needing to hurry to a safer place. I mean wind and windchill so bad that they thought the tent would be destroyed. The snow on top was a last quick effort to keep the tent down and their possessions in one place. To stay exposed on the pass is to die quickly. Leaving stuff indicates the urgency of heading to what they believe at that time is a better place.
Get away, get warm, get safe, then re-assess. That was their intention at that point.
Interesting idea from KFinn on the weather analysis thread.
'I fully admit I could be way off base here. See, I camp in canvas tents all year round; I have for twenty years now. Viking age living history stuff. But one of the larger groups I am involved in with has a large, medieval "war," every year with an attendance of 10,000 people. The grounds are all separated into blocks with varying numbers of camps on each block. Many camps use sheet walls to delineate the camp borders. Sheet walls that are higher than waist height all have one thing in common; we slit them with small horizontal slits so that they last longer in wind and inclement weather. This way, wind goes through the slits and the sheet walls don't become sails that then tear in our more extreme storms. I wondered recently, the way the tent was situated with wind, etc, could the slits have been an attempt to help keep the tent from blowing away or being damaged by extreme winds' ?
-
The forest where they were found seems to be the nearest shelter from weather. Did wind destroy the tent so they decided to get out and go for cover in the forest until the wind dropped ?
If we assume the weather event was wind, is the forest really the nearest shelter? Wouldn't the leeward side of the "Boot Rock" be better? A forest is actually an extremely dangerous place in high wind because if trees are toppled, or even if it's just large branches breaking off, they can fall on you.
If the event was avalanche (or fear of one), again going downhill to the valley is exactly where the avalanche would also go so this also offers no explanation.
Hailstorm? They would have taken their coats or backpacks to hold above their head.
Blizzard? The tent offers the most protection so staying inside would have made most sense.All in all, I think the only natural factor that the forest offers protection from is cold, because you can start a fire there.
It wasnt a Weather or Avalanche Event. In this Forum you will find many Posts relating to such ideas.