81
General Discussion / Re: The clues in the snow
« Last post by GlennM on October 28, 2026, 05:04:08 PM »And try as they might, there is not a single compelling explanation of the hiker's demise that necessitates a conspiracy.
|
|
Recent Posts
82
General Discussion / Re: Was it a macabre game?
« Last post by GlennM on October 28, 2026, 05:00:47 PM »There is no law that says Zolo could not wear a camera. It was his business. There is no particularly good reason to use his camera in the woods other than to use the film to start a fire. He could carry the camera for practical or sentimental reasons. It neither helped, nor hurt his chances for survival. It is a non issue, except for conspiracy theorists.
83
General Discussion / Re: Was it a macabre game?
« Last post by bongyi on October 28, 2026, 04:30:10 PM »From my point of view, I can't get the hypothesis of a murder with cruelty out of my head. I've been trying for a few years to understand things that are too absurd and make no sense. Why did Semyon Zolotaryov carry a camera around his neck if he couldn't take photos at night? And why didn't he choose to grab warm clothes so his companions wouldn't die of cold? Could it be that Semyon Zolotaryov was already in the forest while his companions were dying and then they ran into him there?
This camera contradiction is very good! I didn't even think about it until now! Thx!
84
General Discussion / Clothes in the snow
« Last post by bongyi on October 28, 2026, 04:25:08 PM »Tragic events reveal immeasurable suffering. One very shocking sign of this is cutting off the clothes of the dead in order to warm the living!
The clothes of those who died at the cedar are found on the 4s. However, it is a surprising circumstance that half of a woman's beige sweater is found in the snow 50 meters from the cedar towards the den.
"50 m from the cedar the searchers found black cotton sweat pants, the right leg cut off with a knife. Cedar branches, a young fir tree was missing its top, another piece of clothing was found - the left half of the women's light-brown wool sweater, right half and sleeves cut off. Sweater was presumed to belong to Lyudmila Dubinina."
from: https://dyatlovpass.com/the-den
The transport of the clothes determines the order of death. Apparently, they take the clothes off the dead. So whoever is missing the clothes died before the person who is found wearing them.
But half a sweater cut off from Lyuda was found between the den and the cedar - if I understand correctly! How did he get there? While Lyuda has Krivonischenko's trousers on his feet. It is also important to take into account that you need a knife to cut clothes! We assume that it belonged to Krivonischenko!
We have to realize that the fact that Lyuda's injuries at the tent would have occurred is not only ruled out by the fact that he could not have reached the den with them, but also by the fact that Krivonischenko at the cedar, who has no life-threatening injuries, dies before him! Presumably, at the time of Krivonischenko's death, Lyuda had no injuries. She might be the one cutting off Krivonischenko's clothes. The question is, what state is Doroshenko in at this time?
Later, Lyuda's injury happend and she died a short time later. Then someone cuts off her sweater. And maybe he wants to take it to Doroshenko? Or does the wind just blow the half pullover 15 meters away?
The clothes of those who died at the cedar are found on the 4s. However, it is a surprising circumstance that half of a woman's beige sweater is found in the snow 50 meters from the cedar towards the den.
"50 m from the cedar the searchers found black cotton sweat pants, the right leg cut off with a knife. Cedar branches, a young fir tree was missing its top, another piece of clothing was found - the left half of the women's light-brown wool sweater, right half and sleeves cut off. Sweater was presumed to belong to Lyudmila Dubinina."
from: https://dyatlovpass.com/the-den
The transport of the clothes determines the order of death. Apparently, they take the clothes off the dead. So whoever is missing the clothes died before the person who is found wearing them.
But half a sweater cut off from Lyuda was found between the den and the cedar - if I understand correctly! How did he get there? While Lyuda has Krivonischenko's trousers on his feet. It is also important to take into account that you need a knife to cut clothes! We assume that it belonged to Krivonischenko!
We have to realize that the fact that Lyuda's injuries at the tent would have occurred is not only ruled out by the fact that he could not have reached the den with them, but also by the fact that Krivonischenko at the cedar, who has no life-threatening injuries, dies before him! Presumably, at the time of Krivonischenko's death, Lyuda had no injuries. She might be the one cutting off Krivonischenko's clothes. The question is, what state is Doroshenko in at this time?
Later, Lyuda's injury happend and she died a short time later. Then someone cuts off her sweater. And maybe he wants to take it to Doroshenko? Or does the wind just blow the half pullover 15 meters away?
85
General Discussion / Re: Was it a macabre game?
« Last post by Javier on October 28, 2026, 03:31:00 PM »From my point of view, I can't get the hypothesis of a murder with cruelty out of my head. I've been trying for a few years to understand things that are too absurd and make no sense. Why did Semyon Zolotaryov carry a camera around his neck if he couldn't take photos at night? And why didn't he choose to grab warm clothes so his companions wouldn't die of cold? Could it be that Semyon Zolotaryov was already in the forest while his companions were dying and then they ran into him there?
86
General Discussion / Re: The clues in the snow
« Last post by sarapuk on October 28, 2026, 03:18:53 PM »It is one thing to find some small portion of the case files and play what if games. This can be done with everything. John Wilkes Booth killed President Lincoln, Well what if he was not the only one and what if the gun he used was borrowed at the last minute etc.etc. At some point you have to accept things as they are, else you are going to burn out.
Well, it seems like the Forum these days has descended into investigators grabbing bits of this and that and the other. In other words, going over and over the same old ground as we've been for many years.
87
General Discussion / Re: Bartolomey
« Last post by sarapuk on October 28, 2026, 03:15:39 PM »I trust we are not playjng playing semantics. It is clear that the tent is collapsed and there is a sheet of snow on it and beyond. An avalanche would obliterate everything. Nobody is seriously talking avalanche.
Well said to say that an avalanche would obliterate everything. So anything less would be a minor matter and not enough to scare the Dyatlov Group to flee their tent, etc.
88
General Discussion / Re: Metatheory
« Last post by bongyi on October 28, 2026, 03:14:40 PM »So now we have metatheory. As if things weren't becoming complicated enough. Why stop there? Why not have other metas to make it even more complicated and less likely to find the answer from the point of view of the Dyatlov Mystery?
This is not something of nuclear reactor complexity, it is easy to understand and see. For those who don't want to understand, anything is complicated! The Gyatlov incident is not complicated at all. It has no solution not because it is complicated, but because the facts are false.
89
Publications / Media / Re: Malakhov 2026/10/27 (part 1)
« Last post by Axelrod on October 28, 2026, 03:07:30 PM »Next part of promised Malakhov show 2026/10/28 was now shown.
Instead of this, Tarkhov case was shown today.
I suppose that new recording about Dyatlov as not complete because Teddy din't arrive in October to Malakhov studio in Moscow.
Maybe it will be later.
Instead of this, Tarkhov case was shown today.
I suppose that new recording about Dyatlov as not complete because Teddy din't arrive in October to Malakhov studio in Moscow.
Maybe it will be later.
90
General Discussion / Re: A look at DP through different tragedies
« Last post by sarapuk on October 28, 2026, 03:07:26 PM »Reflecting on the Titanic disaster—a pivotal moment in history—I have occasionally asked myself: What if no one had survived? What if, for some reason, the lifeboats could not be launched? Imagine that no SOS signal was sent and, by dawn, the Titanic had vanished without a trace. What if the first rescue ship to reach the estimated coordinates encountered nothing but dozens of lifeless bodies in life jackets floating on the water? Given the technical limitations of the era, would we have ever known about that iceberg drifting southward? Or would the event have remained one of history’s greatest unsolved mysteries? If the Titanic had never been found and I had to formulate a theory about what happened, I would have suggested that the ship succumbed to the waves during a storm. I would have disputed the claim of an iceberg collision, arguing that even if the bow sustained a heavy blow, the engines would have stopped, and the ship would have continued to drift on the surface rather than sinking. What would your honest opinion be in such a scenario? If we were to compare this situation to the Dyatlov Pass incident—in terms of the effort to investigate, understand, and unravel the mystery—what would have happened had the Titanic become the subject of countless conspiracy theories, leaving us forever unaware that it sank after striking an iceberg? In all likelihood, a vast portion of the world's population would never have believed—or would have simply ignored—that truth. Ships or official delegations rushing to assist would not set out to track down an iceberg that had drifted five or six hours to the south merely to verify its existence.
To understand what might have transpired, people today would rely on eyewitness accounts or scientific data. Although the phenomenon of drifting icebergs is well known, their presence still required visual confirmation by lookouts on duty. Even if an authority reported clear skies or severe localized storms over the ocean, how truly convincing could such data be?
Is this not the case with many catastrophic events? The response focuses on immediate outcomes and saving lives. Because of this natural approach, the underlying truth of the event somehow slips from view. By the time it is noticed, too much time has passed, or the evidence no longer carries weight. As for the Malaysian plane heading toward the Indian Ocean...
Decent analogical post. Obviously, it's very rare that such events of whatever type are completely without clues as to what may have happened.
There is no analogy between the sinking of the Titanic as outlined by @Osi and the Gyatlov incident. They are actually in opposite positions.
The consequence of sinking the Titanics in this way would be a lack of information! Lack of information means fewer facts. In such a case, it is easier to set up subsequent explanations to describe what happened, because they only have to fit a few facts. In practice, this would mean that there would be many possible narratives that would explain the sinking of the Titanic. They would probably include the collision narrative with the iceberg. However, our problem then would be that we would not be able to decide which of the many possible narratives is correct and which corresponds to reality.
The Gyatlov incident is completely different from this situation. Our problem is that we cannot establish a single possible theory, because any theory can only fit a part of the many facts, but it will contradict the others. The explanation for this is that the facts contradict each other in a hidden way. This contradiction can only occur in such a way that some or all of the facts must be false. This is the logical basis of Metatheory.
Correction. There are plenty of what-ifs in both cases. Hence the use of the term analogies.