• It's not a message when someone removes the eye or tongue from a body,
• then leaves it out in a secluded place in the middle of nowhere. It may never be found or be found as a skeleton. When the message is lost.
• Instead, it is only an act to relieve one's anger.
• If it happened at all.
• But there is of course no proof that it happened. These may be natural posthumous changes.
• Also, in the cold, when under the influence of hypothermia, there are stages of uncontrollable shivering when it might be possible to accidentally bite one's own tongue in half...
Eventual general objectionIt's not a message when someone removes the eye or tongue from a body,
Answer from Sabine Lechtenfeld
, forensic psychologist from Hannover, Germany :...the deliberate removal of the tongue and eyes are a very typical and widely reckognized message that the victim may have seen too much and was suspected to have talked about it. It also could be a symbol that the victim will never again be able to talk.
Objection raised from Manti :It's not a message when someone removes the eye or tongue from a body,
then leaves it out in a secluded place in the middle of nowhere. It may never be found or be found as a skeleton. When the message is lost.
My answer :
In 1959, Krushchev's government could not logically remain inactive in the face of such a clear and obvious provocation from its opposition movements
The slopes of Kholat Syakhl and the surrounding taiga were, of course, an uninhabited area, but it was not the South Pole....
On the contrary, we learn here that this whole area could often be traversed by a crowd of people practicing various professional or leisure activities.
(Mansi hunters, loggers, foresters, geologists, mineral prospectors regularly blowing up 5 kg mines, gold miners perhaps engaging in illegal trafficking, Russian hunters on holiday....etc.)
In addition, the Soviet authorities had secured the collaboration of some Mansi who were able (through training started in childhood) to interpret tiny clues detected in the wilderness: even old tracks in the snow, broken twigs, animal behaviour, bark...etc.
In fact, the Soviet authorities, with the KGB in the lead (which intervened effectively from 6 February), did not remain idle.
Two heavy (16-passenger) Mil Mi-4 helicopters and several observation and transport planes were deployed from Ivdel airfieldHow many people participated in the search for the Dyatlov group?
Till the end of Feb were involved 46 men, mostly students.
After that were sent 5 more groups of students, each 5 to 10 ~ 45
Military railroad workers including the sappers (8+5) = 13
Ivdellag guards (military unit 6602) min of two interchanging groups = 20
All in total about 120 men.
What happened was that the first 5 corpses were discovered quickly after the discovery of the tent (and autopsied a few days later).
27 February: Doroshenko, Krivonischenko, Dyatlov and Kolmogorova.
5 March: Slobodin.
For the last four (in the ravine) it was necessary to wait until 5 May, when the snow had not yet completely melted.
In any case, the last 4 corpses would certainly have been found as soon as the snow had melted completely (the end of June, I believe, but I could be wrong).
The bodies could not be washed away by the streams, as dams had been built in good time. (i.e. before the 5th of May).
The message could hardly be lost.
But as well as to the Krushchev government the message was a warning to all the population of Ivdel and of the ivdellag area :
" See what could happen to those who do not respect our laws (which are not those of the Kremlin)."The message could hardly be lost and it was not lost.
Objection raised from Manti :Instead, it is only an act to relieve one's anger.
My answer :
Specifically, the massacre lasted for several hours and was spread over more than a kilometre. Anger was the cause of the stabbings in the canvas of the tent and of the trampoline exercises on the rib cages of Dubinina and Zolotaryov.
But the removal of the eyes and tongue is evidence of premeditation and the willingness to impress.
Indeed, it was necessary to plan in advance an attacker with a minimum of training to carry out these mutilations properly.
It was also necessary to provide light instruments such as a small spoon with edges previously sharpened with a grinding wheel.
Another clue to the TOK theory (which is to understand the subtle nuance between the two English adjectives: "intelligent" and "wise") was mentioned by : RidgeWatcher :
Altercation..> Altercation.. on July 07, 2020, 02:02:20 PM ---> Reply #37 « I do believe that Dubinina said to much and her diary entries revealed this knowledge, unconsciously, with her uncustomary angst and anxiety. She was young, strong and brave but opinionated at age 21.»
The intelligent man knows what to say or what should be said.
The wise person knows whether he or she should say it or not.
Dubinina was an intelligent (and brave) girl but clearly not a wise person. I generally like to add fuel to the fire,
Zolotaryov being the most experienced and the oldest of the Ten was probably the wisest.
Thus Zolotaryov could intuitively sense the pycholgic stress in Vizhay on 25 and 26 January.
While the other 8 hickers (there was still Yuri Yudin) felt and understood absolutely nothing.
So the only two hikers (Dubinina and Zolotaryov) who could have spoken unconsciously recklesssly in Vizhay,, on 25 and 26 January, were the very ones whose bodies were found mutilated on 5 May. This is a disturbing coincidence....
Another remark that goes in the same direction of premeditated mutilations Kolgomorova
----> dark red abrasion on the upper eyelids
The attacker specialised (or in charge) of mutilations had at first confused Dubinina with Kolgomorova.
When he realised that Kolmogorova (who fell first ten minutes after leaving the tent according to TOK) was not Dubinina, he stopped treating Kolgomorova and only had the opportunity to mutilate Dubinina several hours later.
Objection raised from Manti :If it happened at all. But there is of course no proof that it happened.
My answer :
Aleks Kandr has devoted a whole page in Russian to this subject http://mystery12home.ru/t-ub-gr-dyatlova-3
DU did not record any traces of vital activity of "small wild animals" either near the bodies or on the bodies of the tourists, including the soft tissue of the face,
The first 5 bodies were left under a shallow layer of snow for about a month and were left untouched by the small wild animals. (As well as by the wolverine, but that's another subject).
4 ••••It is worth paying attention to another, no less "mysterious" circumstance, which inexplicably influenced the choice of these "small wild animals": concentrating his gastronomic preferences only on the bodies of L. Dubinina and A(C). Zolotareva, in terms of eating not so much their soft facial tissues, but on the food of the tongue and eyeballs. The fact is that it was these two tourists who recorded in the EMS acts the most serious fractures of their ribs, probably the cause of their immediate death.
Agreed, there is something strange about the behavioural characteristics of "small wild animals", deliberately eating clean organs (tongue and eyeballs) in only two of the nine tourists who had multiple rib fractures.
Objection raised from Manti :Also, in the cold, when under the influence of hypothermia, there are stages of uncontrollable shivering when it might be possible to accidentally bite one's own tongue in half...
My answer :
Generally speaking, injuries and bitings of the tongue for various causes are not very rare, but it is exceptional that they result in a complete section in 2 parts.
Moreover, contractions of the jaw could only split a human tongue in two in front of the incisors.
All the important part behind the incisors would have remained very visible.
The autopsy report states that the tongue is missing and not simply cut off in two parts.