October 18, 2021, 12:27:35 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: DPI: Result of the political climate or not  (Read 590 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

May 12, 2021, 07:51:10 AM
Read 590 times
Offline

MDGross


Tragic accidents, of course, happen every day. Political climate has no bearing on them. In the case of the DPI, that in all likelihood includes an avalanche, hurricane, ball lightning, infrasound, a falling tree and so forth. Theories that stem from the Cold War, political climate of the day include an exploded missile, bomb tests, the hikers seeing a military installation they were not supposed to see, involvement by the KGB or CIA, etc.
Maybe what seemed like an accident was not. An example would be a snow slab that was caused by the geological team dropping dynamite that night by spotlight. An explosion farther up the slope could have caused a slab of snow to slide toward the tent. Or a slab loosened by the shock waves from a military bomb test. Both of these are unlikely, but my point is what seems like a clear cut natural disaster may not be.
"1079" posits that the tragedy had a natural cause (a falling tree), and then a politically motivated coverup in fear of retribution by the authorities.
Opinions or thoughts?
 

May 12, 2021, 08:03:20 AM
Reply #1
Offline

Dona


I dont think you understand how Communism works.. You dont have to be guilty of anything.

Threatening the wrong people that you are going to report them to the Commie government, might just get you killed.. Better you than them..

Especially  when you are alone on a mountain top at 2 in the morning
« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 12:33:45 PM by Dona »
 

May 12, 2021, 08:11:00 AM
Reply #2
Offline

KFinn


Tragic accidents, of course, happen every day. Political climate has no bearing on them. In the case of the DPI, that in all likelihood includes an avalanche, hurricane, ball lightning, infrasound, a falling tree and so forth. Theories that stem from the Cold War, political climate of the day include an exploded missile, bomb tests, the hikers seeing a military installation they were not supposed to see, involvement by the KGB or CIA, etc.
Maybe what seemed like an accident was not. An example would be a snow slab that was caused by the geological team dropping dynamite that night by spotlight. An explosion farther up the slope could have caused a slab of snow to slide toward the tent. Or a slab loosened by the shock waves from a military bomb test. Both of these are unlikely, but my point is what seems like a clear cut natural disaster may not be.
"1079" posits that the tragedy had a natural cause (a falling tree), and then a politically motivated coverup in fear of retribution by the authorities.
Opinions or thoughts?

I think it is safe to assume there was a cover up of some variety.  Reading the case files, it reads as though there were instances of deception on the part of more than one party.  The more I read about the cultural climate of the Soviet Union around 1959, the more I am lead to believe that there was a pervasive sense of fear that created an environment where deception seemed necessary.  When you think that Beria had been gone less than three years, and that the Great Patriotic War wasn't but fourteen years before, that is a lot of trauma still forefront in the minds of the people, on all levels.  Throughout Stalin and Beria's scourge, the people were subjected to heightened fear and I think we still see holdover of that even now. 

At the same time, Khruschev was in the process of decentralization, sort of.  This created a chaos between local, regional and higher level echelons of government.  And, as they say, feces rolls downhill...  Those on the local levels would lose the most when the incident came out.  A cover-up, even for natural causes, would absolutely seem plausible.  Cover your own butt as best you can because if someone has to pay for this, you don't want the fingers pointed at you...

This is an excellent topic with so much complexity (which can be difficult for us modern folk or western folk to put into perspective.) 
-Ren
 

May 12, 2021, 08:44:12 AM
Reply #3
Offline

MDGross


Good thoughts, Ren. Even after the tragedy, the hikers' families were quiet to avoid the anger of the authorities.
 

May 12, 2021, 01:54:56 PM
Reply #4

eurocentric

Guest
Tragic accidents, of course, happen every day. Political climate has no bearing on them. In the case of the DPI, that in all likelihood includes an avalanche, hurricane, ball lightning, infrasound, a falling tree and so forth. Theories that stem from the Cold War, political climate of the day include an exploded missile, bomb tests, the hikers seeing a military installation they were not supposed to see, involvement by the KGB or CIA, etc.
Maybe what seemed like an accident was not. An example would be a snow slab that was caused by the geological team dropping dynamite that night by spotlight. An explosion farther up the slope could have caused a slab of snow to slide toward the tent. Or a slab loosened by the shock waves from a military bomb test. Both of these are unlikely, but my point is what seems like a clear cut natural disaster may not be.
"1079" posits that the tragedy had a natural cause (a falling tree), and then a politically motivated coverup in fear of retribution by the authorities.
Opinions or thoughts?


Any cover-up needs to involve culpability. This is the weakest part of the book. If it was widely known across the Soviet Union back then that the rouble stopped with the local authorities, who would be blamed for anything accidentally happening on their patch, then we'd have DPI's across that entire country, deaths being restaged, bodies with horrific injuries passed off as hypothermia, and a remarkable statistical absence of Acts Of God.

In the context of a tree accident, and with foresters known to be busy clearing areas of interest determined by geologists for later core drilling operations, I think an aerial accident involving a log falling from one of the many overhead transits made by helicopters, or being jettisoned above the cedar (potentially explaining the broken branches) fits a lot better. The pilot might not see the tent beneath the evergreen canopy, which unlike deciduous trees (obviously absent their leaves then) is wider lower down.

I have had my doubts the hikers would be able to sleep in a forest during a hurricane due to the noise. We know from the diaries that they were sleeping in late, and due to the 8 hours of available daylight any tree clearance operation would I'm sure have to begin long before they got up, providing in probability terms many more opportunities for an accident. And clearly, with a sawn off tree trunk/broken tree branches on or rolled against the tent, those responsible are forced to either admit their negligence or remove the tree (with a helicopter) and restage the scene.

What the book provides is the first major new evidence in the case for 62 years, that there was a third party up there other than a lone Mansi, potentially proximal to the hikers, and they were conducting potentially dangerous operations, regular overhead flights, and using explosives, and it is entirely correct that people should use this new information and tailor it into new theories.

I too have wondered if it's possible explosives might be dropped from helicopters after dark, at least as a quick way of X marking the spot and splintering smaller trees, the hikers of course completely unaware their tent is pitched in or near one of those areas of interest. The scale of the work, the inaccessibility, the brutal cold affecting activity on the ground, could all lead to a tragic accident.

Something has to explain Semyon's night photographs, the clearest of which shows a bright light, which appears in one image to be of a directional beam shining down, the camera receiving a snowflake to the lens from looking up. Was he trying to document what was happening, as imperfectly as he could? The very fact his film was kept from public view for 50 years, dismissed as all the result of water damage, communicates to me that a cover-up was involved. But unless I missed it (?) I don't recall the book even mentioning Semyon being found with a camera around his neck.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 02:42:36 PM by eurocentric »
 

May 12, 2021, 02:18:40 PM
Reply #5
Offline

KFinn


"In the context of a tree accident, and with foresters known to be busy clearing areas of interest determined by geologists for later core drilling operations, I think an aerial accident involving a log falling from one of the many overhead transits made by helicopters, or being jettisoned above the cedar (potentially explaining the broken branches) fits a lot better. The pilot might not see the tent beneath the evergreen canopy, which unlike deciduous trees (obviously absent their leaves then) is wider lower down."

Now that is quite an interesting idea, an accidental aerial drop.  I need to ponder that; that's a consideration I had not made!
-Ren
 

May 13, 2021, 05:21:08 AM
Reply #6
Offline

Jacques-Emile


I commend this clever idea!  Remember, we need not guess the exact answer, like a blind man in a forest.  All we need is to be wily hunters, drawing closer and closer...