Recent Posts

21

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by GlennM on April 20, 2024, 12:52:15 PM »

Those who believe a slab/ slump theory moves the needle do,so because real world testing support the hypothesis. Currently there is at least one other open thread where advocates of murder and mayhem can post their supporting arguements and evidence. I would suspect that like minded forum investigators will populate that thread for mutual reinforcement. I trust the forum contributers are not going to war over this difference of opinion.

22

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by Ziljoe on April 20, 2024, 12:50:51 PM »

It's all semantics, a snow collapse/ avalanche/ slab slide were all put forward long before G&P entered the debate. I don't even think they said they were right but only put forward a model of what might have happened from their perspective. It was claimed that a Avalanche did not happen in that area, we now know that an avalanche can happen on 1079 by its own. That's only 600 meters away from the tent location.

The problem of evidence or lack of it, is there's no evidence of anything else .

It was the media that grabbed the story, probably not because of its accuracy or scientific mumbojumbo but because media / news papers / video bloggers etc do not care on details, only what sells or gets clicks.

I know how the media work, i have seen it first hand , i also know manipulation in medical research. Unfortunately people fudge stuff all the time, usually for two reasons, 1) to make money or gain reputation, 2) to not loose money or reputation.

I suppose it's here that we have to decide if the reports and statements by the investigation were "fudged". Were people just trying to avoid blame ...?

23

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by WinterLeia on April 20, 2024, 11:31:55 AM »

There only thing Occam’s Razorish about the avalanche theory, or slab slip theory, if you prefer, is that weather and nature-related theories don’t require as many assumptions as, say, murder or military testing. Regardless of how experienced or prepared they were, considering the extreme cold temperatures and isolation, it was still a hostile environment for them and death could be only one bad decision away. Nature is also a lot better at hiding evidence of its crime than humans are. But as I said in another post, it doesn’t matter why there’s no evidence. All that matters is that the evidence is not there. So you shouldn’t base your theory on the non-existent evidence.

Furthermore, as I have reiterated countless times, nothing about the G & P study changes the fact that avalanches below 30 degrees are uncommon and below 25 are even more uncommon. You cannot prove that the conditions that night were conducive to trigger a slab slip or avalanche. You are making assumptions that it was, which violates Occam’s Razor. There is no way to prove the existence of a weak layer above the tent, which you absolutely need for a slab slip to occur on a 20 degree slope. Indeed, at the end of the follow up report, it seems even G & P are having doubts about their theory, probably because their first paper launched a bunch of criticism at the it that they had not thought of.

Of course, we also have them fudging the data, which as far as I’m concerned makes the whole theory suspect. They either don’t know what they’re doing or are deliberately lying, neither of which recommends the theory all that much. As an aside, Dyatlov had no reason to be embarrassed based on slope angle alone. A 20 degree slope is relatively safe, even by today’s standards, and the person who advised him not to do what he did was not worried about the group triggering an avalanche, which probably was because no one had.

Verdict on what caused the hikers to flee the tent: An unknown compelling force

That is the only theory that fits all evidence and requires the least amount of assumptions. If you want to believe in the avalanche theory and explain why you believe it, I have no objection to that. Obviously, one of the theories has to be true. But to deceive the public by giving the impression that it is the solution to the mystery and not acknowledging the problems with it, which G & P didn’t do until the follow up report, in one sentence at the end of the article, is where I draw the line. The evidence left behind and the fact that there were no eyewitnesses who survived, makes that impossible.

24

General Discussion / Re: Is there evidence for outsiders?

« Last post by Arjan on April 20, 2024, 07:56:38 AM »

A quick provisional answer:

Film no 3 as available on the website Dyatlov Pass. com

3_01: District 41. Jan 27. Preparing to take off. Dyatlov, Slobodin, and Yudin. Photo possibly taken by Kolmogorova. It is possible that Krivonischenko got into the frame: in the lower left corner against the background of backpacks, a left hand with a mitten and a knife are visible.



The skis near Yuri Yudin - very probably his skis - are quite longer than Yuri himself.

I remember having read that Yuri Yudin had very long skis: I will try to find the source.

25

General Discussion / Re: Is there evidence for outsiders?

« Last post by Teddy on April 20, 2024, 04:03:41 AM »

As far as I am aware, only Yuri Yudin had used this long size of skis.

Can you point to the source of this knowledge, that Yuri Yudin's skis were any different from everybody's else's size wise?

Also they were bringing one spare pair that  belonged to the UPI, how do you know their size?

26

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by GlennM on April 19, 2024, 06:10:06 PM »

Yes, I once thought so too. Many people think so.  But T. Slinkina in her work “Mansi oronyms of the Urals” clearly defines oronym «Kholat Syakhl» not as Dead Mountain, but as Mountain of the Dead.  Slinkina is not only a candidate of philological sciences - she is also Mansi by nationality and Mansi is her native language. I think there is no reason not to trust her. In terms of language, at least.

Thanks Partog. In the big scheme, of course it is avery peripheral matter. My experience with native cultures is that there is a name and a back story.Put another way, to appreciate the name, one must appreciate what it means in the context of the cultural lore. Too, sometimes the name can be literal or figurative. As such, her explanation gives us the name, but not the significance of the name. I understand 1079 was not holy land. Again, I appreciate you addressing the comment, it is for me a small and peripheral distraction from our central concerns.

27

General Discussion / Re: Last two days of the Dyatlov group: 5. Fatal afternoon for Rustem and Zinaida

« Last post by Arjan on April 19, 2024, 11:44:35 AM »

Dear Kathleen,

Thank you for your view/reply on/to this post.

Several photos made from the films - found by both search parties - pose more questions than answers.

In my opinion, these last two photos from the group pose more questions than answers.

Several years ago, I have counted the number of skis and ski poles, but every time I had noted that a few too many skis are visible without bindings.
As far as I know, on all other photos, the skis are visible with bindings.

An example of two other photos that pose similar questions.

Photo from Thibo's camera:



Loose photo:



It looks like both photos had been taken within a few seconds.
The photo from Thibo's camera had very probably taken by Zinaida.

On the loose photo, Lyudmila is not visible.
If I remember well, I have read that Lyudmila had been a competent amateur photographer.
Personally I take into account that she may well had taken the photographer of this loose photo in question.

28

General Discussion / Re: Is there evidence for outsiders?

« Last post by Arjan on April 19, 2024, 11:20:16 AM »

Personally I don't rely on the photos (made from the films found by the two search parties) as sound evidence for events during the tour.
Several of these photos pose more questions than answers.

If I am not mistaken, on loose photo no 6. a long ski - around 2 meters long - is visible.



As far as I am aware, only Yuri Yudin had used this long size of skis.

I am aware that at least several documents state that Yuri Yudin had left the tour at 2nd settlement.

My point is:
- How is is possible that one long ski is visible on this photo, while Yuri Yudin had already left the tour?
- Had Yuri Yudin stayed the fatal night for 7 group members together with Zinaida and Rustem in the re-erected tent on one ski pole and left the next morning to alert the authorities? Three persons lying together under several blankets in the tent had easily survived that night, and Yuri Yudin had well been able to return to 2nd settlement the next morning.

This photo is of course no sound proof, that he - or another person - had stayed longer on the tour than several documents state.

29

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by Partorg on April 19, 2024, 07:01:04 AM »

There is no way that the objects found can provide evidence of the location of the tent

The artifacts were not found “anywhere,” but in the coordinates of the Tent’s location, obtained using the serif method. I have outlined the chain of reasoning and the grounds why they can be considered confirmation of the Place. But since you think that “there’s no way they can”, it means they definitely can’t and the question can be considered settled.
Увы мне, болезному. 

My understanding of 1079's native name is more along the lines of the barren slope where nothing goes or grows there

Yes, I once thought so too. Many people think so.  But T. Slinkina in her work “Mansi oronyms of the Urals” clearly defines oronym «Kholat Syakhl» not as Dead Mountain, but as Mountain of the Dead.  Slinkina is not only a candidate of philological sciences - she is also Mansi by nationality and Mansi is her native language. I think there is no reason not to trust her. In terms of language, at least.

30

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by Partorg on April 19, 2024, 06:48:08 AM »

delete.