Factual Information > Publications / Media
Potyazhenko - interview done after the article in the local newspaper
KFinn:
--- Quote from: Paf on April 25, 2021, 07:04:59 PM ---In the article, he says :
--- Quote ---"When we had to carry it, I happen to grab the heel. And it broke off! I tried to put it back in place, but where there. So he left it there, because the body was inconvenient to carry."
--- End quote ---
No hikers had broken heel at the autopsy, and they were not naked. If I really wanted to believe him, i'd say there was one more corpse, but he himself says "I flew all bodies, all 9 of them". So... No.
In same interview the pilot both says :
--- Quote ---– What did you see in the tent?
– There was no order in the tent. They were changing their clothes in the corners. One could see things in groups, frozen pieces of bread lay around, it seems there was a can of meat. At the entrance I saw a piece of paper. Named Combat Leaflet. I was surprised, just like in the army - a combat sheet.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---– Were the items been crumpled? Covered with snow? Were there boots in the tent or at the tent? Did any belongings lay around the tent?
– There were no items in (translation approximation ? could be "around". Only way to make sens of the 2 next sentences) the tent. Everything in the tent was covered with snow. Now I wondered if there was snow in the tent... It must have been, but I did not see it... I don't remember. Ski poles protruded from the snow by about 8 cm. (note: here V.V. said something about the sun, and the wind, and the holes at the tent, but I didn't catch it, didn't understand and did not write it down specifically)
--- End quote ---
So he remembers things well enough to say what was on the floor, but can't say if there was snow ? He sees bread when others see rusks, pass. He sees can of meat when others see cured meat. pass. He's the only one to mention the leaflet. Pass. But with all that, he can't say if there was snow in the tent ? I should have been pretty important though. So, probably, there was none ; it makes him confused, because it's not logical with what he just said.
Plus, an helicopter is something pretty heavy, making lots of wind, and if they dropped so many people there would have been traces they could not hide, lasting for severals days -so it would mean lots of people involved into the secret. (not impossible in communisme : but still, hard). More, the first student found the tent 2 days after the pilot flew in Ivdel : he the pilot flew to the scene the next morning, it mean than within the next 24h, the army managed to take out all signs of previous activity, without involving that many helicopters that the search crews would wonder what's going on...
Or the student are lying : but why would they be lying if the case file was anyways keep secret until the 90's ? it would have been easier -and it would have raise less student questions- to collect real testimonies, and then "lose" the inconvenient ones... (Ho wait !... missing files, really ? )
The pilot does not say WHEN he saw inside the tent. Nor he says when they found the bodies, nor when he flew the bodies, as if it was all the same day. If it was a 1959 testimony, I would take it seriously. But so late ? This guy has been dreaming of Dyatlov's mystery his all life... He made up souvenirs, changed timeline, ect. I have no doubt he convinced to say the truth : but what he says is so confused...
I won't consider this testimony as reliable, for myself.
About "Evening Otorten"
I totally agree with Loose}{Cannon about the fact it was not written in hast : "Otorten" was written uncomfortably, maybe, but not in hast.
And the thing I believe the least in all the pilot testimony, is that he saw "Evening Otorten" in the tent.
He might have seen a "combat leaflet" with done/to-do list, but then there's no copy of it...
--- End quote ---
Just remember, we are reading a translated interview, with translated case files. Sometimes the words may seem to differ but are, in the initial language, actually referring to the same thing. For instance, the bread, risks, crumbs. The translations are similar enough that the root words might have been the same. This can cause a lot of confusion for those of us not reading the original Russian. There are often "wadded jackets" mentioned. This is a difference in translation. They are referring to "quilted" jackets (going back several centuries, the batting material in between the quilted seams was called wasting.) When I first read the case files, I thought they were talking about a bunch of jackets, crumbled up into a pile. It was the translation from quilted to wadded. So when we see some of the differing accounts, sometimes its just the translation choices used by whichever program translated the source material.
Paf:
You're right ! :)
I'm usually using google translate to check it. It's not 100%, but when I ask translations for rusk and for bread, it doesn't seems to have any overlap in meaning in russian... But if not for the bread, maybe for the meat ? I just check now on this one, and "preserved meat" is translated the same way as "canned meat".
RMK:
--- Quote from: Paf on April 25, 2021, 10:36:23 PM ---You're right ! :)
I'm usually using google translate to check it.
--- End quote ---
Just curious, are you machine-translating the Russian into English or into French to read it?
If I read a passage of text that I machine-translated from Russian to English with Google, and it doesn't "sound" right, I usually get a better result if I go back to the original Russian passage, and copy-paste it into https://translate.yandex.com/ .
Paf:
Either.
But I find very usefull to have both ; if there's something questioning in the English or French translation, my first move is to check if it makes more sens in the other language. (sometimes it works, not often, they're a bit to similar...). Then I'm looking word per word, the differents possible meaning of each word, ect.
Thanks for the link, i'll try it ! :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version