September 25, 2022, 04:33:16 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Discussion / Re: The "Window" in the cedar tree
« Last post by Charles on Today at 03:26:01 PM »
The coroner described trauma on the deceased. If this was inflicted  by humans, I would expect the report to say something like blunt force trauma consistent with bludgeoning with a club, rifle butt etc. There was no such description.

I made a "best of" specially for you, all the best quotes of Dr Vozrozhdenny:

wounds caused by a blunt object, and other objects, death is violent, etc., death was violent, wounds were caused by a blunt object, etc., cause of death is by violence, wounds were caused by a blunt instrument, cause of death was violent, the impact of the head on a hard object, etc., blunt object caused the above-mentioned trauma, wounds were caused by a blunt object, etc., death was violent,  impact of great force causing severe closed lethal trauma, result of high force impact, death is through violence, high-power impact to the chest, died as a result of violence, the cause of death was through violence, result of a great force, death was a result of violence

blunt object 4
blunt instrument 1
hard object 1
other objects 1
etc. 4
impact 4
great force 3
death was violent 9

A quite amazing list... And maybe the 9 is the most amazing... A kind of legacy left by Dr Vozrozhdenny.


2
General Discussion / Re: The "Window" in the cedar tree
« Last post by Charles on Today at 03:13:25 PM »
Dear GlennM,

The coroner described trauma on the deceased. If this was inflicted  by humans, I would expect the report to say something like blunt force trauma consistent with bludgeoning with a club, rifle butt etc. There was no such description.

"External examination showed damage, such as multiple abrasions and skin wounds caused by a blunt object  that could occur as the result of falling or bruising against stones, ice, and other objects.(...) The death is violent and accidental."

The lesions, grazes and skin wounds found during the external examination could have been the result of a fall or injury on rocks, ice, etc.  The death was violent and accidental.

The damage discovered during the external examination in the form of graze wounds, scratches and skin wounds were caused by a blunt object and may have happened as the result of a fall and bruising by stone, ice, etc. (...) The cause of death is by violence/accident

the injuries found on Kolmogorova’s body in the form of abrasions and skin wounds were caused by a blunt instrument and the result of a fall and injuries on rocks, ice and snow.(...) The cause of death was violent and accidental.

The fracture of the left frontal lobe bone could have occurred during a fall by Slobodin or the impact of the head on a hard object such as rocks, ice, etc. A blunt object caused the above-mentioned trauma.(...)The injuries found on Slobodin’s body in the form of abrasions, scrapes and graze wounds were caused by a blunt object as the result of a fall or injury on rocks, ice, etc. (...) Slobodin’s death was violent and accidental.

The said damage was probably caused by an impact of great force causing severe closed lethal trauma to the chest of Dubinina. The trauma was caused during life and is the result of high force impact (...) The death of Dubinina is through violence.

The above mentioned multiple fractures of Zolotaryov’s ribs with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity were caused in vivo as an effect of a high-power impact to the chest of Zolotaryov (...) Zolotaryov died as a result of violence.

The cause of death of Kolevatov was through violence.

fracture of the base and the vault of the cranium are of in vivo origin and are the result of a great force (...) The death of Thibeaux-Brignolle was a result of violence.

(forensic medical experts V.A. Vozrozhdenny and Y. I. Laptev)

The experts made the description of a butchery.

Further, unless the assailants brought brooms, where are their prints?

Chernyshev Aleksey Alekseevich testimony :

Question: In this specific conditions could someone have come to the tent without leaving traces, in particular, do Mansi leave traces ?

Answer: If Mansi came there on their skis, there wouldn't be any traces left. Their skis do not leave traces.


Atmanaki Georgiy Vladimirovich testimony:

We continued on our way and unexpectedly came across a freshly trampled hunting track going north. We went along it, then the track parted and began to disappear.

On Churola, the tracks parted, part went down Vyols, part went along Churola (two ski tracks), then one good track came to the right and they merged into one ski track, though almost completely covered with snow.

And around the the tent there was a 1 meter deep accumulation of snow. It is only the top of the tent that we can see emerging  from the snow on the famous photo.

True too, that just like me, everyone on this forum sees things through their own personal filter. Trying to make your filter superior by denigration another's is a sure fire recipe for ostracism. You do not get two to make a first impression.

I don't care about impression. But it's true that you exclude a priori the possibility of attack, you say it yourself : anything but attack, and it is a prejudice. What can I say... words have a definition, that's all.

I think the Russian authorities recent conclusion about the incident is the correct one.

If you like it, enjoy it. popcorn1
3
General Discussion / Re: The "Window" in the cedar tree
« Last post by GlennM on Today at 01:36:41 PM »
The coroner described trauma on the deceased. If this was inflicted  by humans, I would expect the report to say something like blunt force trauma consistent with bludgeoning with a club, rifle butt etc. There was no such description. There was identification of wounds and a general analysis of their cause. Nothing directly points to homicide. If we want to take a deep dive into those who were peripheral to this tragedy, I say, follow the money.

Further, unless the assailants brought brooms, where are their prints? True too, that just like me, everyone on this forum sees things through their own personal filter. Trying to make your filter superior by denigration another's is a sure fire recipe for ostracism. You do not get two to make a first impression.

I believe the comment made about getting oriented in the new surroundings as a function of time is a very good one. The conclusion must then be that the hikers decided to not retreat to the cache as a clear choice. This might even have additional support by the,evidence of the three who returned to the tent were not redirecting themselves to the cache. It is indicative of choice. It's also commonsense if the tent was physically closer to the cedar than the cache was.

Sixty years makes for a very cold case. Unless there are deathbed confessions or those missing tissue samples turn up with incriminating evidence, I think the Russian authorities recent conclusion about the incident is the correct one. Good people got caught out in an  situation that proved fatal. They fled the immediate danger, they prepared fire, they may have had canned milk, they took clothes from deceased comrades, they tried a snow cave. They got cold, hurt and separated. It did not turn out well.
4
General Discussion / Re: The "Window" in the cedar tree
« Last post by Charles on Today at 10:16:41 AM »
They didn't understand that they had crossed the pass and were already on its North side...

But these photos seem to have been taken at the occasion of passing the ridge, changing from South side to North side of the pass...

Reaching the ridge, ascending with uphill at left hand:



Then :



still with uphill at left hand, following the contour line or slightly descending (maybe I'm wrong but I have the impression that the angle of ascent changed between the two photos).

These serie of photos seems to show that the hikers knew they passed the ridge and were on the North side of the Pass.

And the magnetic compass was giving them the information of on which side of the mountain they were, they knew if they had passed the ridge and were on the Lozva valley side...



Compass could give the position of the tent to the hikers: if contour line made a 40° angle from North, their tent was on the South side of the Pass, on the blue line, and if the angle was 350°, they were on the yellow line. There was a 50° difference, widely enough to make a correct assessment of position.

And it was easy to determine the precise moment when then passed in the Lozva valley : when the view to the North was not blocked by the mountain, when the view to the North was opening, then, they were on the other side.

They could not ignore that they were on the yellow contour line and that coming back to the labaz was meaning to walk to the right side of the slope . And it was easy for them, as easy as to align the tent with the contour line as they did (the tent was set up perfectly parallel to the contour line)...

So explaining how the hikers could have miss the labaz becomes a kind of impossible mission.






5
General Discussion / Re: The "Window" in the cedar tree
« Last post by Charles on Today at 07:39:46 AM »
I made a better sketch to explain how could the hikers have miss the labaz:



The blue dots figure the climbing itinerary from the labaz. They first climbed to the South-West, then to the North. With reasonable angle of ascent. When they stopped, they thought they covered less distance than they did in reality: they thought they were at the blue star but actually they were at the red star. It was a mistake of about 400-500 meters. Such a mistake would be understandable for a day with a 10 km hike, but given the short distances, the limited scale of the Pass and surroundings, 500 m becomes something. 500m is just 1/3 of the direct path to the labaz, 1/5 of the actual linear itinerary, and the difference between South and North side of the pass... it is a big issue.

They didn't understand that they had crossed the pass and were already on its North side...

6
General Discussion / Re: The "Window" in the cedar tree
« Last post by Charles on Today at 06:55:49 AM »
All these point to the rational decision being a return to the cache. But they didn't do that. I think we only differ in our opinion on why...

So the only way to miss the labaz was to make a mistake about the position of departure :



Following the slope as a compass to reach the labaz after a straight downslope walk means that the hikers thought they still were on the right side of the Pass.

I figured the position of departure with a blue star. Ok ,so, there was a natural event that forced them to evacuate their tent in the night and they tried to reach the labaz, walking straight downslope but from the wrong point of departure, and they ended at the cedar.

It means also that they spent two days and one night on the south side of the pass and still were not able to assess that they already crossed on the north side... it is another serious downgrading and downrating of the hikers. In whatever conditions, given the time spent on the south slope of the pass... the campsite, the labaz, the Jan. 31 hike, the Feb. 01 hike... skiing, camping, building labaz, skiing again... on that slope.

And it means also that they thought that they covered less distance than they did in reality. Wrong position, wrong distance, wrong representation of their own itinerary of the day, wrong side of the pass....

So I can imagine a mistake of point of departure, the hikers wrongly believing that the position of their tent was at the blue star, but it does not clarify anything about what happened before and after the walk.
7
General Discussion / Re: The "Window" in the cedar tree
« Last post by Charles on Today at 05:50:08 AM »
There are several other factors too. For example, they had compasses. And the wind blows from the NW, so going to the cache would have meant tailwind, whereas going to the cedar meant wind from the left which is worse in my opinion. Considering it's cold wind in -20C conditions.

And like you say they also didn't know the Lozva valley so they were going to the unknown.

All these point to the rational decision being a return to the cache. But they didn't do that. I think we only differ in our opinion on why...

Yes, you are very right about the wind.

About the compasses, I think they were not of great use given the area. In an area where they can't find any landmarks for orientation, like desert, pack ice, forest, flat ground without visibility, yes, the compasses are of great use. Because the labaz was at a distance of less than 2 km, with no obstacle, they could make it easily, on a slope they knew well (they spent two days and one night on that small slope - Jan. 31 and Feb. 01). Walking back on their tracks was immediate memory, the memory of the body. Because there is another important fact to take into account: it was not the first day of the hike, it was the 6th day. That is very important because body and mind become accustomed to the surroundings, making more and more precise assessments of everything: distance, direction, difficulty, visibility, snow depth and quality... After a few days, you loose your marks from the city with traffic lights, bus schedule and so on, and you adapt to the knew conditions. I have experienced these adaptations during military service and when sailing in the Atlantic. The first day was a bit uncomfortable, but after a week you switched marks and habits to adapt to the new conditions. So the best guide was the slope, the slope was a compass and better than a compass. Downslope was indicating a North, they just had to walk at its right, in its East direction. After about a week of adaptation to the wild, and two days and a night on the slope of the labaz, they couldn't miss the Auspiya.

8
General Discussion / Re: The "Window" in the cedar tree
« Last post by Charles on Today at 04:58:38 AM »
Since there is no clear proof the hikers were assaulted by man nor beast, andcsince neither their tent, nor cache were raided for supplies, I conclude they acted without external threat from marauders. What is left is a natural occurrence. The tent was found collapsed and partially buried. It could have been ancearthquake, katabatic wind or lights in the sky,

So it is just prejudice of yours, you say it yourself, you don't care about evidences as long as there was no assault: It could have been an earthquake, katabatic wind or lights in the sky... You don't have proof of earthquake or catabatic wind but "it could have been".

The bodies of the hikers suffered 29 fractures, all deadly, they had open wounds, blood on the face, bruises, burns... but you assess that you can exclude a priori the possibility of assault and confidently rely on winds to cause such damages...

You talk more about yourself than about the case, giving us an example of "anathemization of violence", the process by which a society or an individual denies the reality of violence in his account of history and events. It is an a priori for you: you can accept earthquake, katabatic wind or lights in the sky, whatever, even if there is no evidence, but not violence.

And once you have declared your prejudice, you have to deny so many things: Prosecutor Tempalov, Justice Adviser L.N. Ivanov, Expert-Criminalist Churkina H. E., all the investigators, and all police, what were they doing in the mountains? They had a prejudice that assault and crime were impossible? The many questions asked about the Mansi attacking the hikers, it was a dream, it never happened? And Forensic Medical Examiner Dr Vozrozhdenny's conclusion: "The cause of death of Kolevatov was through violence." was a fake? And the impossibility to draw a conclusion, for the people who went at the scene, in the mountain, how they were forced to concede: "unknown compelling force"... unknown... was another myth?

People at the time who climbed in the mountain to investigate couldn't exclude the assault by outsiders and couldn't conclude to natural cause (although it was the easy and comfortable way for everybody, but they couldn't), they were forced to remain in the "unknown". And it was not the hesitation of a single man, the investigation and its unsatisfying conclusion were the work of many people.

So you write : "since neither their tent, nor cache were raided for supplies, I conclude..." But their tent was raided for Kolevatov's diary... No supplies were missing, indeed, but his diary was missing. And then, since their tent was raided for Kolevatov's diary, what would you conclude?








9
General Discussion / Re: The "Window" in the cedar tree
« Last post by GlennM on September 24, 2022, 09:36:11 PM »
Perhaps if the hikers chose the cache over the woods, that would have ended the expedition right then and there. Instead, hoping to salvage the expedition, they chose not to raid their reserves, but instead to make for the forest temporarily to regroup and return to their tent a few hours later. I believe they lost a day previously on their schedule. That was a day's worth of resources.

Since there is no clear proof the hikers were assaulted by man nor beast, and since neither their tent, nor cache were raided for supplies, I conclude they acted without external threat from marauders. What is left is a natural occurrence. The tent was found collapsed and partially buried. It could have been an earthquake, katabatic wind or lights in the sky, but what was left was a snow covered canvas tent with a collapsed middle, broken ski poles and three corpses on the way back to it.
10
Avalanche / Re: Alleged slab slide that left no trace
« Last post by Manti on September 24, 2022, 06:53:49 PM »
That's true, but there are also no signs of others having been on the pass, no footprints leading to the tent, no deadly injury sustained by 6 hikers. The experienced investigator concluded that no-one else was there, just the Dyatlov Group.

They did suspect the Mansi for a while and it would also have been more convenient to scapegoat them than leave the case unsolved, but they ended up not doing that.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10