October 16, 2021, 11:00:24 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Split group and rescue mission  (Read 1348 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 17, 2021, 01:51:28 PM
Read 1348 times

trekker

Guest
My first explain to this tragic incident was slab avalanche and escape down to woods to make fire and snow den. I have started to consider one of many possible explanations. One worth considering is splitted group (7 persons at the tent, Yuri Doroshenko and Yuri Krivonischenko go down to collect firewood), emergency in firewood collecting group, signaling emergency to tent and rescue mission from tent. That would explain:


1. Yuri Doroshenko's burned hair, gray foam on cheek, right armpit bruise, bite in the back of right palm, blood on ear, nose and lips
2. Cedar branches cut from the general direction of the tent
3. Zolotaryov's camera and pictures
4. Reason to leave tent

Possible reconstruction:
1. Dyatlov group encamp and two Yuris descent to collect firewood.
2. Yuris encounter emergency situation. Simplest possible emergency would be lost contact and exact direction to tent due to darkness and snowstorm, which cover their tracks back to tent.
3. They try to go back to tent, but without exact direction, lost track in deep snow.They became desperate and make fire. They try to contact tent group. Without flashlight only possible means is by fire.
4. There is no direct line of sight from fireplace to tent. They have to get higher ground either by going some 500 m towards tent or climbing to cedar.
5. They make preparations for signalling by torch. They cut off branches of the cedar so that climbing with torch is easier and they can be seen from the tent.
6. Yuri Doroshenko climb to cedar with torch. He needs both legs and hands to climb. How he carry burning stick of wood? By his mouth. Yuri get his hair burned from the torch. Yuri's saliva get dyed to gray from charred torch and his gray saliva drip to his cheek from open mouth (because the torch is between his teeth, so that he have both hands free to climb).
7. Yuri manage to climb cedar and torch is still burning. In the climbing he get bruises to his face, ears, nose and lips. Yuri waves torch to general direction of the tent and graps to cedar with only one hand. His grip starts to weaken due to cold. He wrap his right arm over to branch and got injuries to his right armpit. His grip is still weakening, so he decide to lock his right arm to branch by biting his numb right palm.
8. At last Yuri got answer from darkness by flashing light from the tent. Yuri's heroic task is done. He climb down to tree and they wait to regroup with their comrades.
9. Group from the tent decide to make quick rescue mission. Semyon Zolotaryov see the lights, take his camera and take pictures. Those tiny light dots in the pictures are actually torchlight from the cedar 1500 m away.
10. Tragic events unfold and the entire group perish.
11. 25 days between perish of the group and founding of the tent. Wild animals smell the food left on the tent and rip their way in and out (cuts from inside) of the tent. Dyatlov group did not cut the tent.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2021, 03:00:22 PM by trekker »
 

February 17, 2021, 02:01:16 PM
Reply #1

trekker

Guest
« Last Edit: February 17, 2021, 02:07:28 PM by trekker »
 

February 17, 2021, 07:00:03 PM
Reply #2
Offline

ash73


Hi, welcome to the forum.

The problem with all "the Yuris went to collect firewood" theories is they walked a mile without shoes, warm clothes and wood cutting tools, which makes no sense.

The signalling idea is interesting, given the lantern was switched off, but it could equally have been their attackers.
 

February 18, 2021, 10:03:22 AM
Reply #3
Offline

Missi


Hi trekker, welcome. :)

As ash said, the missing clothes and tools contradict the theory of just collecting wood.

Some other problems I find in your theory:
  • You mention the wood seekers losing their tracks. Then again you say they got lost in deep snow. Tracks in deep snow aren't that fast to cover up, even by snow and wind, I daresay.
  • The gray foam on the cheek of Doroschenko is probably the result of an edema (the reason is probably hypothermia, some other theories suggest other reasons)
  • The one with the bitten hand was not Doroschenko but Krivonischenko (the other Juri).
  • Why would you go on a rescue mission without shoes and proper clothing?
  • The cuts in the tent (as I recollect) are confirmed as being cuts and rips, the cuts being attributed to knives. Animals usually don't bring knives. Plus the mountain is called dead mountain by the locals because it lacks game to hunt, which decreases the possibility of animals finding the tent.

The signaling is a nice idea, the circumstances can't be right, though.
 

February 18, 2021, 12:08:35 PM
Reply #4
Offline

Tony


There's no doubt that Yuri K. and Yuri D. were at the camp fire but they were probably there with, at least, Sasha Z. Kolevatov, Lyuda, and Thibeaux-Brignolle. Footprints show that all 9 descended in a group together and it is highly probable that Yuri Doroshenko was at the rear and the last person to descend the slope. The climbing of the tree is very bizarre. I do think that they climbed the tree to look back at the tent. Why is anyone's guess. The only thing that would contradict this is the moon did not rise that night until ~2:30 making it almost impossible to see anything (if you ever been in the woods on a night without a moon).

As others already pointed out, it doesn't make any sense to walk 1500 meters in socks to collect firewood. The cedar is also some distance from the tree line where they could have also found firewood. This doesn't even take into account that searchers found firewood to the rear of the tent and that, it seems, the group never planned on setting up the stove that evening.

It's possible that the grey foam on cheek is the result from a fall (possibly from the tree). It's also probable that the burns are the result of being being moved by the others near the campfire after death.

It seems that something is always trying to be made of Semyon's photos but there is absolutely nothing distinguishable in any of the frames. The first photo from his roll could have very well been light leaks while loading the film. In any case, it is impossible to conclude anything from his photos. Also, taking a photo of a tiny torch fire from 1500 meters away would result in zero exposure of anything. He would have to let the shutter remain open for several minutes to get any type of exposure on something so small so far away. Even then, it would be nothing more than a small dot the size of a pinhead. Small dots on a print from film could be anything from scratches to dust.

It also seems odd that the rest of the group would stage a rescue mission without shoes or heavy coats.
"If there exists a fact which can only be thought of as sinister. A fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning, you will never be able to think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact."
- Josiah Thomson
 

February 19, 2021, 05:20:18 AM
Reply #5
Offline

Missi


This doesn't even take into account that searchers found firewood to the rear of the tent and that, it seems, the group never planned on setting up the stove that evening.

It could be they left the tent before being completely finished with it. I've read that the tent lacked its rope support in the middle. If this is indeed the case, maybe they did intent to light the stove, but only later that evening.
 

February 19, 2021, 06:06:00 AM
Reply #6

trekker

Guest
Hi trekker, welcome. :)

As ash said, the missing clothes and tools contradict the theory of just collecting wood.

Agreed, axe would have been useful and they had axes.

Some other problems I find in your theory:
  • You mention the wood seekers losing their tracks. Then again you say they got lost in deep snow. Tracks in deep snow aren't that fast to cover up, even by snow and wind, I daresay.

Yes, not a matter of minutes, but I have practical experieces of myself. Tracks and roads would cover rather quickly in the open by snowing and windblown snow. At the night of the incident there was not deep snow above treeline but was deep below treeline. Indication for that was raised footprints which disappeared below treeline. Those kind of raised tracks require pressure and hard surface. You cannot leave such tracks in deep soft snow.

My general point is simple explanation by natural environment. It is easy to go downhill, wind in your back, shallow snow and maybe last daylight in the evening. Going back uphill, in deep snow below treeline, against the wind and darkness is difficult.

  • The gray foam on the cheek of Doroschenko is probably the result of an edema (the reason is probably hypothermia, some other theories suggest other reasons)

I was thinking that keyword is grey. Saliva is usually clear, foamy white, pink or red (from bleeding). Sputum from lungs is usually foamy white, yellow, green or red. It can be also whitish gray and this may be indication of dehydration. If the color of the fluid is excessively gray the color may originate from what you have chew e.g. ink from octopus, bilberries, charcoal or dirt.

  • The one with the bitten hand was not Doroschenko but Krivonischenko (the other Juri).
Thanks for correction. I was trying to have reasonable explanation for biting. They were mentally strong and determined persons so they probably didn’t need to control fear, stop crying or keep oneself awake by biting fingers. More reasonable explanation would be controlling arm in hypothermia coditions. 
  • Why would you go on a rescue mission without shoes and proper clothing?
That doesn’t sound reasonable. Only possible explanation that comes to my mind is soaking wet and freezed valenkis. How rigid they become if they are soked and freezed? I have experience same kind of boots but I use them as a inner boots. They are quite slippery in ice or hard snow. That may be also reason to left them but I wouldn’t do that.

  • The cuts in the tent (as I recollect) are confirmed as being cuts and rips, the cuts being attributed to knives. Animals usually don't bring knives. Plus the mountain is called dead mountain by the locals because it lacks game to hunt, which decreases the possibility of animals finding the tent.
Right, to me more reasonable explanation is small slab avalanche and after that they had to quickly cut out from the tent. But still there is 25 days between leaving from the tent and its founding
The signaling is a nice idea, the circumstances can't be right, though.
 

February 19, 2021, 06:36:30 AM
Reply #7
Offline

Missi


Quote
I was thinking that keyword is grey. Saliva is usually clear, foamy white, pink or red (from bleeding). Sputum from lungs is usually foamy white, yellow, green or red. It can be also whitish gray and this may be indication of dehydration. If the color of the fluid is excessively gray the color may originate from what you have chew e.g. ink from octopus, bilberries, charcoal or dirt.

Please also consider, that some things change color over time, as for example blood. Rakitin suggests, that initially the foam coming from Doroschenkos lungs was red and only turned grey over the time the body lay in the open / snow before being found.

Quote
Thanks for correction. I was trying to have reasonable explanation for biting. They were mentally strong and determined persons so they probably didn’t need to control fear, stop crying or keep oneself awake by biting fingers. More reasonable explanation would be controlling arm in hypothermia coditions.

I agree with you on this one.

Quote
That doesn’t sound reasonable. Only possible explanation that comes to my mind is soaking wet and freezed valenkis. How rigid they become if they are soked and freezed? I have experience same kind of boots but I use them as a inner boots. They are quite slippery in ice or hard snow. That may be also reason to left them but I wouldn’t do that.

I still can't imagine how anyone in their right mind knowing about the temperatures in Siberia would go out in socks.

 

February 19, 2021, 06:57:40 AM
Reply #8

trekker

Guest
Footprints show that all 9 descended in a group together and it is highly probable that Yuri Doroshenko was at the rear and the last person to descend the slope.


So there was 8 tracks in line and one behind the line or front of the line. If I remember correct the spacing 120 m is quite wide especially for darkness. That seems to me search formation. Column is almost always more economical and faster formation. Were they searching for one person or something other important?


Quote from Dyatlovpass.com Search -article: ”Members of the group walked in a single file with a tall men walking in the back. His footprints partially covered the footprints of his friends who walked in front of him. Overall the path gave an impression of organized and uneventful descent down the slope of the mountain. Several trails would deviate from the general direction, but then rejoin the group.”

You cannot definitely claim that tracks were from one single group.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 07:09:17 AM by trekker »
 

February 19, 2021, 08:57:42 AM
Reply #9
Offline

Tony


Footprints show that all 9 descended in a group together and it is highly probable that Yuri Doroshenko was at the rear and the last person to descend the slope.


So there was 8 tracks in line and one behind the line or front of the line. If I remember correct the spacing 120 m is quite wide especially for darkness. That seems to me search formation. Column is almost always more economical and faster formation. Were they searching for one person or something other important?


Quote from Dyatlovpass.com Search -article: ”Members of the group walked in a single file with a tall men walking in the back. His footprints partially covered the footprints of his friends who walked in front of him. Overall the path gave an impression of organized and uneventful descent down the slope of the mountain. Several trails would deviate from the general direction, but then rejoin the group.”

You cannot definitely claim that tracks were from one single group.

Maybe, but Yuri Doroshenko (who was the largest of the group) was the last to descend the slope. His footprints are the "tall man walking in the back. His footprints partially covered the footprints of his friends who walked in front of him." It's difficult to place Yuri D. at the cedar before the others descended the slope. How would he walk on top of his friends' footprints if he is already at the cedar?

It seems highly unlikely that two members of the group would wander off looking for firewood over a half mile away without coats or shoes and after they had already gotten settled in the tent. Even inexperienced hikers wouldn't have done this. As earlier stated, firewood was found at the rear of the tent. If they thought they needed more, they would have collected it along the way or, they would have collected it while the others were setting up the tent. It just doesn't make sense that they would set up the tent, get inside and get ready for the night, sit in the tent for an hour or two and then decided to go wander off and look for firewood 1500 meters away in socks. And, it seems, the stove was never meant to be used that night as it was found still stored in it's case lying on the floor of the tent.

They left the tent because they either had to or thought they had to because of some perceived threat. Once they left, their only chance of survival was to descend to the forest area and seek shelter. The only other scenario is that they were forced by a second party to leave the tent.
"If there exists a fact which can only be thought of as sinister. A fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning, you will never be able to think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact."
- Josiah Thomson
 

February 19, 2021, 10:07:22 AM
Reply #10
Offline

Missi


I'm not quite sure why you identify Doroschenko as the one walking in the rear. The files state it was a tall man. It is possible that this tall man was Doroschenko. Yet one of the other guys was 1,75m in height, two were 1,74m in height. That's not a huge difference to the 1,80cm of Doroschenko. It might also have been one of the other three. Of yet another one of the guys I couldn't find the height when looking for it just now, so he might have had a similar height as well.
Zolotaryov was 1,72m high. That's not such a huge difference either, although it's quite small for a guy, I guess. Then again: What's 8cm? I'd say not much when comparing the height on the base of footprints!

The women were smaller and don't classify as man, so they can be ruled out. But as for the guys, I'm not sure we can deduce it was Doroschenko who had the back.

I'm with you on the part that there's just two possibilities, being fleeing from a threat or from a perceived threat. To me, this includes the possibility of there being another party at the scene.
 

February 19, 2021, 10:12:28 AM
Reply #11

trekker

Guest
Maybe, but Yuri Doroshenko (who was the largest of the group) was the last to descend the slope.

How can we be sure of that if larger male footprint #4 doesn't even overlap to anybody elses footprint? In this picture there is overlapping footprints at #3 and from that we can only say 100% sure that person at #3 with upper print was not first person to go in this exact location.



It puzzles me that if they went as a single group why large male dies for hypothermia in front of fire so much earlier than last member(s) of the group? Yuri Doroshenko was found prone position, but he had livor mortis on his back. Livor mortis take 8-12 hours to fix in normal temperature (of course that time is much shorter in cold). So large male dies hypothermia in front of fire, lay considerable time supine so that livor mortis fix and then his able comrade undress him, takes his clothes and turn him prone position. Why Yuri got hypothermia, but the other member survived so much longer? I think one possible answer is longer exposure for cold and that might be indication of separate groups.


« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 10:17:32 AM by trekker »
 

February 19, 2021, 10:42:27 AM
Reply #12
Offline

KFinn


The footprints always bothered me.  I go back and forth on whether I think they belong to the Dyatlov group, another group or an amalgamation of both.

The overall picture I get from the investigation and testimonies is that Ortyukov or someone seemingly "in charge" just said, "these are from the hikers!" And everyone thereafter didn't really think to question it.  A long while ago, back in my undergrad college days, my friend was in a sociology class.  They had to do a group project where they were told "you are all in a boat that is sinking.  The lifeboat will only hold four of you.  Decide who is being saved."  My friend automatically starts figuring out who in the group has skills that would be useful and who doesn't.  He took over leadership of the group and by the end of the project, no one had questioned why HE should be in the boat; they just assumed he should be because he never gave them the chance to debate his skills, he kept them focused on debating everyone else.  It was funny, to be honest.  But, it also shows that sometimes we don't think to question a perceived authority figure.  So to me, there are a lot of instances in the DPI where there would be more in depth analysis and answers if there had been more questioning at the time.

Now, I know Churkina the forensic expert, had apparently done an analysis of the footprints, according to her son.  I don't know any of the results of that analysis but it does give us lots of room to test out different ideas. 

One footprint really intrigues me...


-Ren
 

February 19, 2021, 11:52:12 AM
Reply #13
Offline

Missi


I don't see any footprints there, KFinn... It seems to rather be uneven distribution of snow due to wind and windshadow of trees and bushes...

What is usually conceived as livor mortis may (according to Rakitin, I'm not into human biology and pathology that much) indeed be a reaction of the skin to the long time it was exposed to the cold. Yet obviously that reaction was not known by then but only discovered some years after the incident, leading to the fact that the pathologist wrongly but consistently with his and common knowledge assumed those marks were livor mortis.
 

February 19, 2021, 12:37:36 PM
Reply #14

trekker

Guest
What is usually conceived as livor mortis may (according to Rakitin, I'm not into human biology and pathology that much) indeed be a reaction of the skin to the long time it was exposed to the cold.

What is the point in here? If Yuri Doroshenko's dorsal livor mortis signs were actually exposure to cold due to prone position, then Yuri Krivonischenko should have had same kind of ventral livor mortis like signs because Krivonischenko was lying supine position.
 

February 19, 2021, 01:12:20 PM
Reply #15
Offline

Tony


Maybe, but Yuri Doroshenko (who was the largest of the group) was the last to descend the slope.

How can we be sure of that if larger male footprint #4 doesn't even overlap to anybody elses footprint? In this picture there is overlapping footprints at #3 and from that we can only say 100% sure that person at #3 with upper print was not first person to go in this exact location.



It puzzles me that if they went as a single group why large male dies for hypothermia in front of fire so much earlier than last member(s) of the group? Yuri Doroshenko was found prone position, but he had livor mortis on his back. Livor mortis take 8-12 hours to fix in normal temperature (of course that time is much shorter in cold). So large male dies hypothermia in front of fire, lay considerable time supine so that livor mortis fix and then his able comrade undress him, takes his clothes and turn him prone position. Why Yuri got hypothermia, but the other member survived so much longer? I think one possible answer is longer exposure for cold and that might be indication of separate groups.

So, you've brought up one of the problems plaguing the case. Since it is almost impossible to make any type of scientific determination from that photo and the photo, as far as I know, is the only one showing the 'column' footprints as a group (it doesn't even showing all of the prints), we have to rely on eye-witness testimony. I don't remember who made the statement regarding the larger person at the back of the group but it was stated by, at least, one or two of the searchers. This is all that we have to go on. If there were better photos of the footprints then we might be able to make a better judgment based off the photos. but we don't - we have to rely on statements from those that were actually there.

It's hard to know why, exactly, Yuri D. and Yuri K. died first and so close to a fire. It could be that they were dressed more poorly than the others (something we don't know because their clothing was taken by the other group members). It's also possible that Yuri D. fell from the tree and this could have expedited the hypothermia. It's also strange that the group left the fire and split up. We don't know exactly what happened at the cedar. I recently read an article online (which I can't seem to locate) on lividity (livor mortis) and frostbite edema. What we know now regarding livor mortis is a lot more than what we knew in 1959. Even if Doroshenko had been lying there for 3 hours and someone turned him over, the livor mortis would begin to form on the other side. It's highly unlikely that someone turned him over 3 hours afterwards and, even if they did, the livor mortis would have formed on his front. Livor mortis can take up to 72 hours to completely set. In short, the medical examiner mistook frostbite for livor mortis and this is why 'livor mortis (frostbite)' was found on his back. The article also stated that livor mortis is in no way an accurate indicator of the position the person was in when they died.

It just doesn't seem logical that they would walk down to the cedar without shoes or adequate clothing just to get firewood. Especially considering the stove was still disassembled and in its case when the tent was found. You'd think the others would have attempted to set up the stove for when their friends got back. Going out for firewood, in those conditions, they were easily looking at an hour outside the tent - by the time they got to the cedar and then back up to the tent. It just doesn't seem like something experienced or, inexperienced, hikers would do.

In my opinion, Yuri D. and Yuri K. were the least dressed when they were forced to leave the tent and this is why they probably were the first to encounter hypothermia. The fall from the tree probably expedited Yuri D. hypothermia.
"If there exists a fact which can only be thought of as sinister. A fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning, you will never be able to think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact."
- Josiah Thomson
 

February 19, 2021, 02:58:37 PM
Reply #16
Offline

Tony


I'm not quite sure why you identify Doroschenko as the one walking in the rear. The files state it was a tall man. It is possible that this tall man was Doroschenko. Yet one of the other guys was 1,75m in height, two were 1,74m in height. That's not a huge difference to the 1,80cm of Doroschenko. It might also have been one of the other three. Of yet another one of the guys I couldn't find the height when looking for it just now, so he might have had a similar height as well.
Zolotaryov was 1,72m high. That's not such a huge difference either, although it's quite small for a guy, I guess. Then again: What's 8cm? I'd say not much when comparing the height on the base of footprints!

The women were smaller and don't classify as man, so they can be ruled out. But as for the guys, I'm not sure we can deduce it was Doroschenko who had the back.

I'm with you on the part that there's just two possibilities, being fleeing from a threat or from a perceived threat. To me, this includes the possibility of there being another party at the scene.

True. It's difficult to know definitively that it was Yuri D. All it states is that a taller man was at the back who, most likely, was Yuri D. But you're right, it could have been someone else close in height to Yuri.

It's understandable that, at the time, the footprints were only important in locating the hikers. Not much more thought was given to them other than pointing the searchers in the right direction.
"If there exists a fact which can only be thought of as sinister. A fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning, you will never be able to think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact."
- Josiah Thomson
 

February 19, 2021, 03:14:11 PM
Reply #17
Offline

Tony


The footprints always bothered me.  I go back and forth on whether I think they belong to the Dyatlov group, another group or an amalgamation of both.

The overall picture I get from the investigation and testimonies is that Ortyukov or someone seemingly "in charge" just said, "these are from the hikers!" And everyone thereafter didn't really think to question it.  A long while ago, back in my undergrad college days, my friend was in a sociology class.  They had to do a group project where they were told "you are all in a boat that is sinking.  The lifeboat will only hold four of you.  Decide who is being saved."  My friend automatically starts figuring out who in the group has skills that would be useful and who doesn't.  He took over leadership of the group and by the end of the project, no one had questioned why HE should be in the boat; they just assumed he should be because he never gave them the chance to debate his skills, he kept them focused on debating everyone else.  It was funny, to be honest.  But, it also shows that sometimes we don't think to question a perceived authority figure.  So to me, there are a lot of instances in the DPI where there would be more in depth analysis and answers if there had been more questioning at the time.

Now, I know Churkina the forensic expert, had apparently done an analysis of the footprints, according to her son.  I don't know any of the results of that analysis but it does give us lots of room to test out different ideas. 

One footprint really intrigues me...



There were a few of the searchers that specifically stated being able to see individual toe imprints in some of the footprints. For example, here is what Chernyshev stated:

"Traces disappeared on the stone ridges, and below the stones they appeared again, and then were lost. The tracks were very well distinguished. In some footprints could be seen that the person was walking barefoot or in cotton sock, because the toes were imprinted."

I think there are a couple other statements that say something similar.
"If there exists a fact which can only be thought of as sinister. A fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning, you will never be able to think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact."
- Josiah Thomson
 

February 19, 2021, 03:15:59 PM
Reply #18
Offline

Tony


What is usually conceived as livor mortis may (according to Rakitin, I'm not into human biology and pathology that much) indeed be a reaction of the skin to the long time it was exposed to the cold. Yet obviously that reaction was not known by then but only discovered some years after the incident, leading to the fact that the pathologist wrongly but consistently with his and common knowledge assumed those marks were livor mortis.

Yes! I think a lot is made of the livor mortis when it probably was a mistake by the medical examiner.
"If there exists a fact which can only be thought of as sinister. A fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning, you will never be able to think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact."
- Josiah Thomson
 

February 19, 2021, 03:35:22 PM
Reply #19
Offline

KFinn


The footprints always bothered me.  I go back and forth on whether I think they belong to the Dyatlov group, another group or an amalgamation of both.

The overall picture I get from the investigation and testimonies is that Ortyukov or someone seemingly "in charge" just said, "these are from the hikers!" And everyone thereafter didn't really think to question it.  A long while ago, back in my undergrad college days, my friend was in a sociology class.  They had to do a group project where they were told "you are all in a boat that is sinking.  The lifeboat will only hold four of you.  Decide who is being saved."  My friend automatically starts figuring out who in the group has skills that would be useful and who doesn't.  He took over leadership of the group and by the end of the project, no one had questioned why HE should be in the boat; they just assumed he should be because he never gave them the chance to debate his skills, he kept them focused on debating everyone else.  It was funny, to be honest.  But, it also shows that sometimes we don't think to question a perceived authority figure.  So to me, there are a lot of instances in the DPI where there would be more in depth analysis and answers if there had been more questioning at the time.

Now, I know Churkina the forensic expert, had apparently done an analysis of the footprints, according to her son.  I don't know any of the results of that analysis but it does give us lots of room to test out different ideas. 

One footprint really intrigues me...



There were a few of the searchers that specifically stated being able to see individual toe imprints in some of the footprints. For example, here is what Chernyshev stated:

"Traces disappeared on the stone ridges, and below the stones they appeared again, and then were lost. The tracks were very well distinguished. In some footprints could be seen that the person was walking barefoot or in cotton sock, because the toes were imprinted."

I think there are a couple other statements that say something similar.

That is precisely why I waver back and forth.
-Ren
 

February 20, 2021, 11:36:19 AM
Reply #20

trekker

Guest
What is usually conceived as livor mortis may (according to Rakitin, I'm not into human biology and pathology that much) indeed be a reaction of the skin to the long time it was exposed to the cold. Yet obviously that reaction was not known by then but only discovered some years after the incident, leading to the fact that the pathologist wrongly but consistently with his and common knowledge assumed those marks were livor mortis.

Yes! I think a lot is made of the livor mortis when it probably was a mistake by the medical examiner.

Isn’t that argumentation error to propose systematic error but apply that error selectively to only one case? You propose that only Yuri Doroshenko’s livor mortis was misinterpreted. Indeed livor mortis in hypothermia cases seems like frost erythema, but being coherent one have to claim that all victims have turned after death, not only Yuri Doroshenko.
 

February 20, 2021, 11:51:28 AM
Reply #21
Offline

Missi


Well I am of the opinion, that this applies to all of the victims. There were more than just Doroschenko who were recorded to have livor mortis "on the wrong side of their bodies".
 

February 20, 2021, 11:55:13 AM
Reply #22

trekker

Guest
There were more than just Doroschenko who were recorded to have livor mortis "on the wrong side of their bodies".

Thank you, I didn’t know that. Could you please quote on autopsy record and scientific response for that report?

My whole point is to judge if livor mortis is applicable to this incident at all.
 

February 20, 2021, 02:19:18 PM
Reply #23
Offline

Missi


The autopsy reports "postmortem lividity" on the neck and principle backside of Zolotaryov, Slobodin, Dyatlov himself, Krivonischenko and Dubinina. And of course Doroschenko.
Dyatlov was found lying on his back, so this seems consistent. I don't know how Zoloratyov was found. Slobodin was lying on his face, when he was found, which is not consistent with livor mortis. Dubinina was found kinda erect. Assuming she was moved by water and was lying on her back, it would be consistent to have livor mortis on her neck and lower regions of her back. That we will probably never know. I wasn't able to verify how Krivonischenko was found right now and can't remember.

My source for the improved knowledge of livor mortis vs. frost erythema is Rakitin. I couldn't find anything with a fast internet search just now, confirming that.
 

February 20, 2021, 03:01:27 PM
Reply #24
Offline

RMK


Rakitin does indeed seem to be the progenitor of the frostbite erythema hypothesis.  See here.
 

February 22, 2021, 09:08:06 AM
Reply #25
Offline

Tony


What is usually conceived as livor mortis may (according to Rakitin, I'm not into human biology and pathology that much) indeed be a reaction of the skin to the long time it was exposed to the cold. Yet obviously that reaction was not known by then but only discovered some years after the incident, leading to the fact that the pathologist wrongly but consistently with his and common knowledge assumed those marks were livor mortis.

Yes! I think a lot is made of the livor mortis when it probably was a mistake by the medical examiner.

Isn’t that argumentation error to propose systematic error but apply that error selectively to only one case? You propose that only Yuri Doroshenko’s livor mortis was misinterpreted. Indeed livor mortis in hypothermia cases seems like frost erythema, but being coherent one have to claim that all victims have turned after death, not only Yuri Doroshenko.


Rustem was found to have livor mortis on his back and the back of his neck although he was found on his stomach. If you view his autopsy photo it's quite clear that he died face down. The snow beneath him was also found to have a thin layer of ice meaning that the warmth of his body melted snow and then it quickly froze.

To me, it's not believable that he died on his back with his arms up in the air, and stayed that way for over 24 hours, and then later someone moved him but before placing him in the area he was found, they melted the snow. This just doesn't seem reasonable. It's more believable that the medical examiner made a mistake.

However, livor mortis was found on Igor's back which is how he was found. So, I don't know. But it seems a lot is made of the livor mortis when it probably shouldn't.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2021, 01:52:21 PM by Tony »
"If there exists a fact which can only be thought of as sinister. A fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning, you will never be able to think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact."
- Josiah Thomson
 

February 23, 2021, 06:20:45 PM
Reply #26
Offline

Manti


3. They try to go back to tent, but without exact direction, lost track in deep snow.They became desperate and make fire. They try to contact tent group. Without flashlight only possible means is by fire.

Here is an experiment for you or anyone reading this and with access to a quiet, remote forested area.

Walk 1.5km there from your friend, this can be measured with GPS, then text them to shout and scream. I have a suspicion you will hear them, maybe not be able to understand whole sentences but "help" or a scream will be recognisable. This doesn't even depend on line of sight, sound will reflect off raised ground. It does depend on being in a quiet area so not a city.


Regarding the footprints, here is a modern analysis: https://dyatlovpass.com/1079?flp=1#chapter23 .


They are seemingly not from the Dyatlov group.....
 

February 23, 2021, 06:51:54 PM
Reply #27
Offline

ash73


Here is an experiment for you or anyone reading this and with access to a quiet, remote forested area.

Walk 1.5km there from your friend, this can be measured with GPS, then text them to shout and scream. I have a suspicion you will hear them, maybe not be able to understand whole sentences but "help" or a scream will be recognisable. This doesn't even depend on line of sight, sound will reflect off raised ground. It does depend on being in a quiet area so not a city.

It's also very dependent on wind speed and direction. The wind was blowing down the slope from the tent towards the cedar, so there was no way they could be heard at the tent.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/415409/how-far-can-a-shout-travel
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/341704/why-does-wind-direction-significantly-affect-sound-propagation

The fire was lit on the other side of the tree, probably to shield it from the wind... so it must have been reasonably strong even in the wooded area. I don't think they were thinking straight at that moment, if they had been they would light it in a hollow (e.g. the ravine).

The fire could probably be seen from the tent, but if you wanted to signal you've wave a lit branch. I think its more likely they did NOT want to be seen, which would explain why those hiding in the ravine did not light their own fire.
 

February 23, 2021, 06:52:07 PM
Reply #28
Offline

Manti


Apologies for the amateur job, but here are some of my observations about the "raised footprints photo":


Are these even footprints?

Here is the image inverted:


It doesn't quite look right inverted or not... but if you were presented with the inverted one, wouldn't you think it's just some rocks in snow?
 

February 23, 2021, 06:59:15 PM
Reply #29
Offline

ash73


Regarding the footprints, here is a modern analysis: https://dyatlovpass.com/1079?flp=1#chapter23 .

They are seemingly not from the Dyatlov group.....

The witnesses had 500m of prints to look at, rather than just a couple of grainy photos.

It looks like toeprints front and center in photo 3... but it's a bit of a jumbled mess.