99
« Last post by WinterLeia on April 04, 2024, 08:09:26 AM »
I do not believe they would have sat out there for that long, especially if they had injured companions or something else went catastrophically wrong, as must have happened if the injuries didn’t come from the avalanche that started it all. And as I stated previously, proving that an avalanche wouldn’t have left many traces three weeks after it happened still leaves you with little evidence that it happened. There are also weapons that could have been tested that leave no mark on the environment. The government could have killed everyone and staged the scene. You could say these are highly improbable events and there are elements that argue against them. And to that I would agree. But the same thing is true of an avalanche on that slope at that particular spot. The investigation was right in 1959 to leave it at an unknown compelling force, an unsatisfactory answer, I admit, but the only one that was possible due to the lack of evidence. To embrace a theory based on a computer model that showed something wasn’t impossible in certain areas where a slope was not as steep as 30 degrees, but not at that particular place, with little evidence to support it and having to tiptoe around the evidence that refuted it (like saying that the avalanche missed the entrance, with no evidence to support that, except that an avalanche would have flattened the entrance, which they know didn’t happen) is as bad as Ivanov stating that a fireball attacked Semyon, Luda, and Nicolai, because none of the burned trees were in a concentric circle and they were the only ones injured. That is not evidence of that happening. And it doesn’t matter how the evidence is lost; whether it’s covered up, trampled all over, or through natural processes. All that matters is the evidence is lost and you cannot base any theories on it, because you don’t have any evidence to indicate that such occurred.
Now,there is a phenomenon known as Occam’s Razor to use in such situations, which is largely the reason why the original investigation was comfortable in saying it was an unknown compelling force rather than murder or military testing, as those would be far less likely in such an environment and would require far more of an explanation regarding where the evidence went, motive, and all that. Nature isn’t really as complicated as human beings. But it is powerful and able to overcome even the strongest, most experienced, and most prepared humans. But when it comes to nature or weather related causes, an avalanche certainly does not follow Occam’s Razor when you need computer models, complicated formulas, and pictures to even suggest such a thing is possible, and with none of that applied to the case at hand. Nothing about that indicates that the newer investigation got any closer to solving the Dyatlov Pass mystery than an unknown compelling force. That was and should continue to be the official theory, and the fact that they were willing to compromise the fidelity of their investigation based on such evidence indicates an ulterior motive to me, which puts the theory they are backing into serious questions, as well as any other information they pass on.
Recent Posts
