Recent Posts

81

General Discussion / Re: An experiment with psychostimulants that reportedly went very wrong

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 04:27:00 PM »

@Ziljoe
Clearly, we’re not on the same page; you’re constantly playing with words and don’t understand my approach. Initially, yes, I thought it might be a test, but in any case, to me, this whole situation is so full of inconsistencies that I’m focusing on the psychological factor. So I’m feeling my way through this, just like you and everyone else! So I’m looking for substances that can alter consciousness. You’re playing with words because I NEVER said why the product was banned; I simply pointed out—to keep things simple—the side effects that might fall into the psychological realm! You’re too RIGID in your understanding; you should be more FLEXIBLE and try to understand my approach!

@Hunter
At first glance, yes, we do need doctors, but in some cases, we can do without them: all we need is an on-site representative (someone who administers the product and takes notes on any observed effects—or lack thereof). Note that this is HYPOTHETICAL—I’m not making any claims; I’m just exploring the idea! I’d rather make that clear given the nitpicking atmosphere that’s going on here, LOL!

To be honest, this post is a bit unhelpful as far as the Dyatlov Case is concerned. It's another example of pure speculation gone into wild territory.

82

General Discussion / Re: An experiment with psychostimulants that reportedly went very wrong

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 04:23:24 PM »

I’ll go into more detail step by step.



In the Dyatlov case, there is no doubt whatsoever that the authorities are covering something up. You don’t cover up a secret just because it involves an avalanche, a pseudo-yeti, or something similar. You cover up what calls into question the authorities’ responsibility (military programs, etc.), which, in my opinion, rules out all alleged natural causes.

On the contrary. The USSR authorities would have covered up something of an extraordinary nature, such as UFO involvement, etc. There is plenty of evidence in modern times, especially of governments covering up certain events such as UFO events, etc. 

83

General Discussion / Re: Regarding the photos from the camera found on Zolotaryov

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 04:08:34 PM »

I’m not sure that the photos presented by Yakimenko in 2015 as sky shots actually are.

Unfortunately there are a lot of blurry photos. Could it be because some photos were took in a hurry ! And why would they have been taken in a hurry !

84

General Discussion / Re: Boot rock as a choice

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 04:02:22 PM »

Take a look at this expedition photo.7 men, 2 women. If we assume the photographer is male, then we have our DP9. Imagine they had to abandon a nearby tent. They could make for here or make for the distant forest. Why not? Why do you think they did not camp here in the first place?

As I look at the photo, I think to myself, " Shouldn't the hikers have sent out a scout?" Given the time of day and the distance to Ortoten, does it make sense to have some one or two people 10 minutes ahead of everyone else to check the lay of the land? Instead, I get this idea that decisions were made by Igor and not subject to negotiation. Next, when I consider the fallen remains of the group, I can believe there was differences of opinion.

Can you imagine a situation where they all broke camp at the cache and two people set out ahead of the rest of the group.  The scouts note and pass Boot rock only to find a barren windswept ridge ahead. They come back and meet the seven hikers. " Let's camp right here for the night. We can tie off on the rock".

I know this didn't happen, but does it give insight into the group dynamic? Does it help us decode their actual choices?

This does nothing to help the case. It's pure speculation as usual. 

85

General Discussion / Re: New Suspect In Case

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 03:59:37 PM »

All behavior is motivated. In this scenario, the motivation is economic. If it could be demonstrated that governmental negligence produced the light in the sky ( read missile) then the victim's families would demand compensation. However, despite numerous fly overs by rescue and supply helicopters and the alleged light aircraft used by geologists, not a single bit of confirmation reached the case files. Add to this that Mansi and later tourists were not restricted by an exclusion zone and you simply have no case for human agency causing the disaster. Conspiracy advocates can not demonstrate that the families, the investigators or the Mansi benefited financially by a cover up. No need to read between the lines. The lines are clear enough.

Actually, there was an exclusion zone for some time after the events. I say events because this case suggests more than one event. It suggests an event that forced them to camp on the mountainside. An event that drove them from their tent. An event that had them fighting for survival at the forest. An event that killed some of them brutally.

86

General Discussion / Re: New Suspect In Case

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 03:55:21 PM »

Lights in ths sky might be used to explain the evacuation of the tent or the demise of the R4, but not both, or neither. The condition of the forest fir trees did not make anyone think it was scorched other than Ivanov. The crush on Zolo and Lyuda was not seen on others, so one would have to argue they were exposed while others sheltered and were consequently blown back. Who is going to see the lights in the sky and stand to face it when everyone else has the sense to hide from it?

The lights in the sky must be man made or natural. Of course consliracy theorists like man made. There was no debris, nor burns. Radiation was inconsistent with a warhead. Was it consistent with a powered spy satellite?  I think the rocket was launched in the wrong direction.

If any conspiracy theorist wants this idea to stick then the answer will be found in printed records,  not on the slope. Show us something we have not seen and you get your courthouse park statue.

I thought you had already decided that it was all a weather event?

87

General Discussion / Re: New Suspect In Case

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 03:52:23 PM »

All behavior is motivated. All behavior is motivated. There is no actual motivation for killing eight productive educated and valuable Soviet youth and an honorable Soviet veteran. None. Instead, there is ample motivation for conspiracy theorists to invent what they can not prove to support a belief which they can only defend by the invented constructs. This circular type of reasoning does not move the needle toward truth. It is useful for the making of media.

In spite of all the expeditions to the Pass, and all the ceremony, and examinations, the reality is that there is nothing to find. Nothing will be found because Nature is not motivated. That is the difference. Conspiracy advocates anthropomorphize weather into something attributable to things with legs. The interesting thing is how tenacious the beliefs are.

So you are suggesting that all the research expeditions to the Dyatlov Pass are a waste of time. You have decided that it was a weather event that caused all those injuries in various locations, including the mutilations. 

88

General Discussion / Re: New Suspect In Case

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 03:49:34 PM »

When a motive and selective killing are present, what else would you call it? Ivanov knew perfectly well what he was investigating, don't you think? And if that doesn't align with your theory, then you probably have the wrong theory.
[/quote]

How do you know that Ivanov knew perfectly well what he was investigating?

89

General Discussion / Re: Route to Otorten

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 03:46:46 PM »

If we factor in that they were fatigued from their deep snow climb to the high pass and beaten back once by the weather, then we can understand them rising late in the morning around 11 o'clock. Then, add in the additional time spent in creating a cache site, deciding what to stow in it and securing it. More time is used up. Next consider that camp was broken after the cache was made. Now we have a late in the afternoon start. If they choose to break camp, they mean to make progress. They know they won't get that far, but it is OK. Supposedly the next day they would have gotten to Ortoten along the ridge route. Any progress is good progress.

It has been said their camping gear was servicable. One does not destroy servicable outdoor gear without reason.
Since there were no prints around the tent indicating two or four legged intruders,,this leaves weather as the likely cause for damaging the tent. That would be most necessary if the risk of suffocation under a snow packed canvas happened. Further, since knifing out of a tent is said to be basic avalanche training technique, some accumulation of snow on the tent would elicit that response. In short, the last camp was made late in the day. It was pushed down by a snow pile, probably wind driven. Everything else follows as an attempt to clear the area, get warm, survive the night and return. Easy to say, fatally hard to do.

It's been decided so many times that an avalanche was not possible on that slope, but you are still suggesting that! And if they were so tired, why would they want to slog up onto the mountainside and pitch camp in bad weather conditions? That doesn't make sense at all.

90

UFO / Re: picture yeti

« Last post by sarapuk on August 10, 2026, 03:38:40 PM »

Have you ever seen a “yeti” wearing a jacket of one color and pants of another?
We often tend to strike peculiar “poses”!
The cameras used aren’t “SLRs,” and the background comes out blurry when the settings are off!
In any case, it’s the same pose as in photo #7 from the unidentified camera, and the same build, same shoulders, same proportions, same hood on the head, and same “V” neckline—surely just a coincidence, right?
In one photo, the subject is shown in a three-quarter view; in the other, more in profile.

In the photo that is unidentifiable, the body, arms and legs appear to be longer. The arms are thinner, suggesting no outer covering like a jacket.