The autopsy on Igor Dyatlov says "both ankles had brownish red abrasions, size 1x0.5 cm and 3x2.5 cm with hemorrhage into the underlying tissue."
Other abrasions on his body were defined as "minor," but these were not. They were deep and they bled.
I cannot think of anything that would cause deep ankle abrasions like this, except being tied with rope or hand-cuffs or some other strong material, and Igor struggling against the restraints. Can anyone? It would be beneficial if we could come up with any other cause and would help guide us to: human interference or not human interference.
You are 100% right.
The autopsy on Igor Dyatlov says "both ankles had brownish red abrasions, size 1x0.5 cm and 3x2.5 cm with hemorrhage into the underlying tissue."
Other abrasions on his body were defined as "minor," but these were not. They were deep and they bled.
I cannot think of anything that would cause deep ankle abrasions like this, except being tied with rope or hand-cuffs or some other strong material, and Igor struggling against the restraints. Can anyone? It would be beneficial if we could come up with any other cause and would help guide us to: human interference or not human interference.
The autopsy on Igor Dyatlov says "both ankles had brownish red abrasions, size 1x0.5 cm and 3x2.5 cm with hemorrhage into the underlying tissue."
Other abrasions on his body were defined as "minor," but these were not. They were deep and they bled.
I cannot think of anything that would cause deep ankle abrasions like this, except being tied with rope or hand-cuffs or some other strong material, and Igor struggling against the restraints. Can anyone? It would be beneficial if we could come up with any other cause and would help guide us to: human interference or not human interference.
Perhaps when someone reveals the exact nature of this State Secret, the theory will get more traction. The idea of " the enemy within" is interesting, but assumes much.
that any of them harbored evil intentions towards the others.
To be precise, some hikers could have motives to feel anger: Dubinina against the group who ostracized her, Kolevatov and Thibeaux-Brignolle against the leader who had punished them... everything was not peaceful between them.
But whatever the level of dissension within the group, it made no difference (or small) when brutally attacked by outsiders. They could both quarrel and be attacked by outsiders.
Yes, my thought may seem strange and unbelievable to most of you. But in this world we live in, it is a fact that there have been very strange and incredible events in history and now. Many of these events have no logical explanation. The Dytlov affair is one of them. I'm sure of that. I think the attacker of the Dytlov group is an advanced human like superman. Because the attacks seem to be made by a human, but it does not seem possible for a normal person to do it. In other words, there may be a person who uses 100% of his brain and is highly developed both physically and mentally. This is possible. Why not?a highly developed human being who can be invisible when necessary.
No, it was a skunk mermaid, they are very common in Russian forests.
Per Inge Oestmoen wrote: The killers attacked the unfortunate nine as a result of someone having made the decision that they must die. It was a planned action, carefully orchestrated to make it look like an accident to prevent political unrest from the public.
Evidently, the Soviet state knew all along what happened, and they have tried to deny it ever since. That in itself is telling.
I want to thank you for firmly and consistently sticking to the theory that these people were killed, and for your patience in explaining it over and over. To some of us, it is obvious from the deceased bodies that these skilled, experienced hikers, who would never leave their tent without their coats and boots, were forced out, engaged in hand-to-hand combat, lost the fight and were killed by being rifle-butted in the temple, or slammed and cracked in the chest; no arms or legs were broken, only the heads and the main body areas. It is difficult to understand how others cannot see this. Many pathologists studying the photos and autopsies over the last 50 years have also concluded that these were clearly cases of murder. The positions of many of the arms also indicates that the bodies were dragged after death and then positioned. Dubinina could never have gotten up onto her knees with flail chest and a pierced heart. How did she get in that position? Dyatlov had his ankles tied so he couldn't move and froze to death after a hand-to-hand combat.
There was a flat circle in the snow next to the tent, at the time it was found. More attention needs to be paid to that.
I would be surprised if a professional forensic pathologist would offer a conclusion of murder without having more data.
There is no need of more data, only the need not to neglect the available data as you do, as you do just like Ivanov did when writing "considering the absence of external injuries".
And are you not surprised that Criminal Prosecutor L.N. Ivanov, who was head the 1959 investigation, finally offered the conclusion of murder by alien spaceships? And are you not surprised that the same prosecutor lied in his 1959 Resolution to close the case, creating thereby a false legal document?
Ziljoe writes, "Which pathologists studying the photos and autopsies over the last 50 years have concluded that these were clearly cases of murder?"
This is a fair question. I have read so much and watched so many documentaries, I am sorry that I did not write down the names during the process. I will try to get the names for you.
"Considering the absence of external injuries" is probably a true statement in the world of forensics.
All nine autopsy reports were translated and are available. They all include a part "External examination" and Dr Vozrozhdenny listed more than 80 external injuries, all autopsies were performed "in the presence of the criminal prosecutor of regional prosecutor office junior Counselor in Justice L.N. Ivanov" who signed all the reports.
Ivanov lied when writing "Considering the absence of external injuries" and we know why: because he received an order from Urakov...
"Deputy Prosecutor General, comrade Urakov came to meet with us and gave orders that we were to all tell anyone who asked that the hikers’ death was an accident.", "It was, obviously, an order from the CPSU Central Committee.", "We told them it might be an earthquake, a storm or anything like that … But look, what else could we tell them?"
https://dyatlovpass.com/evgeniy-okishev-2013
"Deputy Federal Prosecutor for Investigations Urakov arrived and immediately asked us to bring him the case. He told us to write the closing statement. He went to the Oblast committee and took Klinov and Ivanov with him. When Ivanov came back he told me that an order was to close the case.", "A bit later I received an express order from Urakov to tell parents it was an accident.", "Anyway, the case was already taken away from us. No doubt, Urakov could have told us, but preferred not to. Because he himself must have received orders from the Procurator General who, in his turn, executed orders from his superiors. And it looks like so: all of a sudden, in the midst of investigation, there comes Urakov and closes down all work."
https://dyatlovpass.com/evgeniy-okishev-2014
Prosecutor Lev Ivanov lied because he received the order to lie. In 1946, Prosecutor Nicolay Zorya who refused to obey orders and to falsify the reports about Katyn massacre was found dead in his hotel bedroom in Nuremberg. Soviet Union was a totalitarian state, killing its own citizens, lying, falsifying. In 1959, the head of the state, Khrushchev, was one of the mass murderers of 1937-1938: he provided the lists of names of people to be shot in the head at Butovo (21,000 killed) and Kommunarka (10,000 killed)... the youngest victim was 13 years old, Misha Shamonin.(https://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-03-23-1458769846-7758834-but1sm-thumb.jpg)
The boy received a bullet in the head, thanks to Khrushchev's signature at the bottom of the list of names provided to Stalin.
These people were completely twisted, perverted and rotten to the core. Mass killing, falsifying, lying, making false accusations, sending millions of people to forced labor camps... it was not Switzerland, it was a totalitarian, pervert and bloody regime.
"Considering the absence of external injuries" was not "probably a true statement", it was a lie, and in obedience to an order from the regime. And your sentence ""Considering the absence of external injuries" is probably a true statement in the world of forensics." is an absolute disgrace.
-
The quote "Considering the absence of external injuries" may relate to it's context. There are marks on the body. There are internal injuries.
The way "external injuries" become "marks on the body" in your writing is disgraceful. These actual injuries:
"abrasion", "scratch", "flesh wound", "bruise", "swelling", "defect of the epidermis", "abrasion with hemorrhaging into the adjacent tissue", "diffuse bleeding into the underlying tissue", "graze wound", "skin wound", "hemorrhage", "ecchymoma", "burn", "contusion", "laceration", "deformation"
they are not simply "marks on the body". There are more than 80 of these injuries in the autopsy reports: you deny the sufferings of the victims... And you need to deny the sufferings of the victims... So there is here a tie of interest that you didn't declare.
-
В 1959 году глава государства Хрущев был одним из массовых убийц 1937-1938 годов: он предоставил поименные списки расстрелянных в Бутово (21 000 убитых) и Коммунарке (10 000 убитых). , самой молодой жертве было 13 лет, Миша Шамонин.Ленин был еврей, Сталин - грузин, Хрущёв - украинец. Продолжим дискуссию?
Ziljoe, the video itself may have gotten, as you say, mixed reviews, for the videographer's dramatic style and insertion of self too often, but I hope you watch it and realize that this in no way compromises the opinions of the experts and professionals. Their integrity is solid and their conclusions reasonable.
The quote "Considering the absence of external injuries" may relate to it's context. There are marks on the body. There are internal injuries.
The way "external injuries" become "marks on the body" in your writing is disgraceful. These actual injuries:
"abrasion", "scratch", "flesh wound", "bruise", "swelling", "defect of the epidermis", "abrasion with hemorrhaging into the adjacent tissue", "diffuse bleeding into the underlying tissue", "graze wound", "skin wound", "hemorrhage", "ecchymoma", "burn", "contusion", "laceration", "deformation"
they are not simply "marks on the body". There are more than 80 of these injuries in the autopsy reports: you deny the sufferings of the victims... And you need to deny the sufferings of the victims... So there is here a tie of interest that you didn't declare.
-
I'm sharing what I know Charles. There is a high probability that these marks are consistent with hypothermia and survival in the cold.
So you refuse to call injuries "external injuries" and downgrade them to "marks". What is your tie of interest with the case?
You are not sharing what you know, you don't know anything about snow cave but you spent hours writing about that imaginary snow cave. Now, anybody can read the 9 autopsy reports and read about these more than 80 external injuries that I quoted, and you prefer to deny the reality of these injuries and suffering rather than questioning the integrity of Ivanov and of the regime. Your choice goes to the regime and the lies.
Here, there are two possibilities: either you have a non declared tie of interest with this regime and type of regime, or you belong to the category of people described by the Greeks in their great political tragedies: the more conformists of the crowd, the ones who are so deep in the crowd they can't face any reality by themselves. You can see them in Aeschylus' Agamemnon: they are so submissive, so afraid not to be on the side of power, that they are in constant denial of any threat or opposition to the power. So when there is regime change in the City, they are the last to understand that a coup is in progress and also the first to submit to the new regime (the first ones to understand are also the last to submit and they submit only under the threat of torture and prison)... Here, it is not a particular tie of interest but a more general predisposition to submission and totalitarianism.
And I was wrong when I called you a relativist, because your indifference to any fancy theories is only a consequence of the taboo you put on political involvement. Relativism is only secondary, first come politics, and politics is so important, it is actually sacred, that your language obeys the taboo, avoiding "injuries" and using "marks"... There is no relativism here, but the highest devotion and obedience to power.
As usual Charles , you edit to your convenience. I also said external injuries. But let's call them what you like . These marks or external injuries , as I understand it , would not be able to cause the deaths from a autopsy standpoint.
You wrote:
"There are marks on the body. There are internal injuries. The problem was , or is , is that there's nothing like stab wounds , bullet wounds or anything that suggests foul play. Lack of external injuries that show foul play or wounds causing death is what in means."
You really used "marks on the body" as a defense of "lack of external injuries". The way you change words, it is a long tradition. They used to say: "mistakes were made" when they finally couldn't avoid to face their violence... and this language was spoken during decades, the language of minoring state violence and of exonerating those responsible.
Tan lines are "marks on the body", tattoos are "marks on the body"... But these are not tan lines and tattoos:
"abrasion", "scratch", "flesh wound", "bruise", "swelling", "defect of the epidermis", "abrasion with hemorrhaging into the adjacent tissue", "diffuse bleeding into the underlying tissue", "graze wound", "skin wound", "hemorrhage", "ecchymoma", "burn", "contusion", "laceration", "deformation"
and can't be equalized to tan lines and tattoos. It is not correct to write "marks or external injuries" as if they were synonyms, they are not synonyms: is it so hard to understand? You have to respect the sufferings of the victims. Personally, I really don't like the character of Doroshenko, but I would never try to spread the idea that he just had "marks on the body".I am getting fed up of your paranoid behaviour . I'm trying to be balanced in my approach. There many others including the searchers at the time that came to the conclusion that they were sheltering in some sort of snow cornice, snow cave.
It is not "balanced" at all: you have a sacred principle, a taboo, which is to deny anything that could relate the case to Soviet/Russian politics, and you just don't care about the rest, all other theories are fine as long as the taboo is not violated.
And the way you insisted on using "marks" instead of "external injuries"... it's like reading the statements of the communist politicians of the 1980s. This recipe is not new: the denial of the sufferings of the victims, the attempt to impose wooden language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooden_language) or controlled language, the die-hard defense of the regime, and we could even add the psychiatrization of the opponent... it is very surprising to find these ingredients reunited in 2022. Or maybe not, maybe it's in tune with the times.
Ziljoe, in my earlier message, I promised to get you the names of the forensic pathologists who believe the evidence shows that the DPI died at the hands of other people; above I provided 3 or 4, and the other one whose name I couldn't remember is Eduard Tumanov: https://dyatlovpass.com/theories?lid=1&flp=1#fight