Theories Discussion > Murdered

Murder Indead

<< < (2/30) > >>

Loose}{Cannon:
Opinions are great and I would encourage any and all to have them.  However, alot of what I just read above is pure conjecture presented as if it were fact.  Im not seeing key words such as 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'could have', 'possibly' etc which leads me to believe you are 'married' to the theory.

Lets not make this a place of 'your wrongs' and 'Im rights'.    I would suggest you create a detailed analysis thread that lays out your entire theory in a slightly less authoritative fashion to be considered by the community.   thumb1

Remember, one investigator says murder while the lead investigator says ball lightening.  Neither hold more weight then the other as far as I can see. 

Per Inge Oestmoen:

--- Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on May 04, 2018, 01:09:43 PM ---Opinions are great and I would encourage any and all to have them.  However, alot of what I just read above is pure conjecture presented as if it were fact.  Im not seeing key words such as 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'could have', 'possibly' etc which leads me to believe you are 'married' to the theory.

Lets not make this a place of 'your wrongs' and 'Im rights'.    I would suggest you create a detailed analysis thread that lays out your entire theory in a slightly less authoritative fashion to be considered by the community.   thumb1

Remember, one investigator says murder while the lead investigator says ball lightening.  Neither hold more weight then the other as far as I can see.

--- End quote ---


Nothing can be considered a fact until incontrovertibly proven, so it must necessarily remain conjecture until then. So it is.

Still, it may be salutary to bear in mind that we do have evidence. The difficulty is that every piece of evidence is open to interpretation - that is why we have all the often conflicting theories in the absence of definite proof or a confession from someone who knows and is willing to finally talk. Even if the theories are largely conflicting, they all have their proponents.

Admittedly, the very act of analyzing a situation is likely to create opposition from other viewpoints. And then the stalemate continues. We have to admit that the question of what happened on February 1, 1959 has not yet been completely answered even if many books have been written by authors wherein each author claims to have found the answer.

Perhaps we can agree that there is a major watershed:

Between the theories that start from the premise that there was no attack and that the Dyatlov group died as a result of non-criminal but unfortunate circumstances, and on the other hand the theories that start from the premise that the death of the nine students was not an accident but caused by other humans.

It may be proposed that since dead persons do not lie and cannot lie, it is wise to start with the bodies. We might take a cold and detached look at the autopsy reports and ask ourselves:

"If we try our best to analyze all the available forensic evidence and above all the injuries, individually and in the highly significant context of virtually all the members of the Dyatlov group having received various kinds of bodily damage, what do we interpret as more likely - a series of unfortunate coincidences and tragic accidents or that we are dealing with a well-planned murder by unknown but resourceful perpetrators who must have calculated that it served their interests to make the killing look like an accident in the snow?"

Still, any attempt at answering will still be - yes, conjecture - until there is definite proof. There is no way around that. The best we can do is to analyze the evidence and hope that proof will eventually be produced.

Vietnamka:
Hi!

--- Quote ---.There is no evidence that anyone else was on that mountain that fateful night. It's speculation that there could have been others.
--- End quote ---
Even Maslennikov (who leaded the search in the beginning) supposed "somebody could come from the top. Hands up. Go out one by one". He noticed in his diary (part 2).
 Absence of footprints is not confirmation of absence of anyone else. No footprints around the tent even we know Dyatlov's group were there.

WAB:

--- Quote from: Vietnamka on May 05, 2018, 10:33:38 AM ---Hi!

--- Quote ---.There is no evidence that anyone else was on that mountain that fateful night. It's speculation that there could have been others.
--- End quote ---
Even Maslennikov (who leaded the search in the beginning) supposed "somebody could come from the top. Hands up. Go out one by one". He noticed in his diary (part 2).
 Absence of footprints is not confirmation of absence of anyone else. No footprints around the tent even we know Dyatlov's group were there.

--- End quote ---

Hi, Galina, what for tiresomely to think out it? Maslennikov is better than others knew about inaccessibility of this place. How villains and murderers there could come? You can try to reach there. I offered it to you already. In the winter it is especially difficult. It is necessary to be able live some days without calling in the warm house. Very few people is capable of it. Especially it was at that time so.

Absence of traces in general can confirm or deny nothing. However they have found Dyatlov team`s traces, and extraneous traces have not found.
It does not speak about that that there was who that still. More likely all back.
It is impossible to prove absence. It is possible to prove presence only. Whether there is what that the facts confirming presence of extraneous (villains)? If they are not present, means it is not necessary to think out them.

Vietnamka:
Hi, Vladimir Alekseevich! grin1
I just talking about that Maslinnikov wrote in his diary, didn't he?  wink1

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version