December 08, 2019, 02:14:05 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
UFO / Re: Newspaper article of Ivanov on Fireball phenomena from 1990
« Last post by Star man on November 26, 2019, 08:37:03 AM »
Given your experience of explosion traumas similar to the those in the ravine would you not expect to see burns on clothing and skin and skin wounds from shrapnel or debris from the surroundings?

Also Thibo’s head injury is not accompanied by similar chest trauma.  How would this be explained?

Regards
Star man
22
General Discussion / Re: Malcolm Gladwell and the possibility of a fight
« Last post by Nigel Evans on November 26, 2019, 03:03:41 AM »
Not a credible explanation imo. E.g. Rustem  (probably the strongest)  was only wearing  one valenki (felt boot) leaving the other in the tent.

From memory they cut 10 slits all at head height.

And it leaves the core question unanswered - why leave so much warm clothing in the tent? Only two people were sensibly dressed for the conditions.
23
Murdered / Re: Bound at one stage?
« Last post by Star man on November 25, 2019, 11:50:24 PM »
Hello

From observing the death diagrams, it appears to me to suggest that Doroshenko, Krivonischenko and Dyatlov may have been bound at one stage:

Yuri Doroshenko – Wound #15, looks as if his legs were bound, accurately positioned on parallel legs
Yuri Krivonischenko – Wound 18 & 20 appear parallel aligned again, suggesting bound legs?
Igor Dyatlov – Wounds #9 – appear to be parallel aligned on ankles with abrasions, bound at ankle area?

(Referring to diagrams at https://dyatlovpass.com/death)

How else would parallel abrasions on these leg areas be explained?

Personally I don’t think the injuries you point out are reflective of being bound.  Some of them are burns. 

On the traumas - would you expect to see burns and skin damage consistent with blast debris and shrapnel?

Also Thibo’s head injury is not accompanied by similar chest trauma - how would be explained?

Regards
Star man
24
General Discussion / Re: Malcolm Gladwell and the possibility of a fight
« Last post by Star man on November 25, 2019, 11:44:56 PM »
The users outside the United States might not be familiar with the writer Malcolm Gladwell. He writes and speaks about economics in a practical way. One of his videos relevant to DPI explains how a Columbian airliner ran out of gas while circling JFK Airport in New York. Basically, the Colombian co-pilot never got around to telling the air-traffic controllers "We're running out of gas and we need a runway now!" He just kept hinting at it and saying "please." The JFK ATCs are notoriously pushy and overbearing and take charge. The Colombian airline is very top-down, with the pilot being autocratic. So the co-pilot was used to being deferential. Which led to him not being insistent enough, even in a life or death situation. 

When people look at the DPI, they put a rational framework over the events. It seems like an irrational but explainable approach might be better. In particular, considering group dynamics and leader/follower dynamics seems like it warrants consideration.

I was reading one of the scenarios in the Simplest Credible Scenarios thread, that of a fight breaking out among the hikers.  First, these things seem relevant to me:

1) Reading around, there seem to be three possible alphas in the group: Dyatlov, the leader; Doroshenko, the guy who chased off a bear; Semyon, by virtue of age and experience. Each one ends up in a different place.

2) There's obviously a potential romantic rivalry over Zina between Dyatlov and Doroshenko. Judging from diary entries, Zina and Doroshenko seem like they might be a classic "They're a couple even when they're not a couple."

3) Tensions in the tent may have been bubbling. Dyatlov has led them off course. They're cold, tired, irritable. Finally, something set it off.

Dyatlov and Doroshenko get into a fight, inside or outside the tent. Doroshenko decides to leave the camp in the heat of the moment and persuades the other Yuri to join him, convincing themselves they can build a fire beyond the treeline. They leave.

At this point, Zina would be in shock. Her ex-boyfriend and best friend/admirer/whatever just had a fight over her. Her ex-boyfriend is walking out into severe danger. She goes to try to find them and bring them back. Maybe Dyatlov storms out after her. OR maybe she screams at Dyatlov and forces him to go with her. Rustem tags along or soon leaves thereafter. That would leave the Ravine 4 still at the tent.

Eventually, those five end up at the tree. Either 1) the tensions are still there and the Yuris refuse to return; or Zina and Dyatlov start arguing again. She storms off, back up to the tent. Dyotlov and Rustem follow. They die at different points and never make it back.

The Ravine 4 stay put for a while, but eventually leave the tent to try to find the others. They follow the fire to the cedar tree where the Yuris are freezing to death. When they get there, they decide it's too cold and/or too dark to turn back. Based on military experience, Semyon instructs the group to start digging a den. They decide that's a better option than trying to make it back in the dark. They raid the bodies of the Yuris for clothes. They have some kind of fall that causes the major injuries.

Obviously, this doesn't account for a few points. Most importantly, who cut the big hole in the tent, and when and why. But it gives an explanation that relies more on emotional dynamics, leadership dynamics, and the realization that the decisions don't need to be made in a perfectly rational way by the entire group, only a few need to make the choices, and the other follow.

That is not a bad explanation.  I’m not sure that any of those who went looking for ones that stormed off would do so without proper cold weather clothing though.  Also there are other things that don’t seem to make sense.  But it is certainly a credible explanation.

Regards
Star man
25
General Discussion / Re: Exited tent in sudden interest and not fear or imminent danger
« Last post by Abzu on November 25, 2019, 06:21:10 PM »
Hello

The common prevailing theme for the group initially leaving the tent appears to be based on imminent danger or fear forcing them.

However, I would like to propose an alternative – the group left the tent based not on imminent fear or danger, but rather a sudden interest, whereby they did not expect to be outside for too long, hence why they were not adequately prepared, but the situation changed due to arising factors.

I’m basing this on the following details:
  • Rejecting the tent was cut and they escaped out the side, the tent appeared to only be reported as torn, which would not be significant to allow 9 to escape through (according to the following thread http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0)
  • The tent entrance was closed
    LEBEDEV reported that “Near the entrance to the tent, which seems to have been opened”.
    However, if the tent entrance was left open in between the Dyatlov group and the searchers, I would think snow would have entered inside the tent in such weather conditions?
    While SLOBTSOV “When they approached the tent, they found out: the entrance of the tent came from under the snow, and the rest of the tent was under snow”.
    Thus is would indicate someone entered in the tent, for they would have had to remove the snow….
    Important to note, is if they had time to close and button the tent entrance – I would think this would be done to keep the warm air inside expecting to return back. If you were in imminent danger where you couldn’t even grab clothing and supplies, why bother to take time to close the tent door?
  • Trail marks around the tent were reportedly isolated to the group exclusively and the trails indicated no rushing as group.
  • A flashlight was found in between the tent area and the forest cedar area and didn’t work. What if someone in the group had deliberately left the flashlight there on, so they would have an indicator of returning to the tent? This would explain why after the duration of time until the search the flashlight no longer worked. Why would you leave a flashlight in between in the face of imminent danger? A counter theory could be that the flashlight was thrown away due to not working, but then so close to the tent wouldn’t they have taken the Chinese flashlight that was found to be ‘off’ and functioning?

This could also reason to why some members put on a few extra layers, but not completely prepared to be out long.

What do you think? What evidence counters this to suggest they exited in fear or imminent danger?

Sudden interest  !  ?  It would have had to have been something extraordinarily interesting for them to leave the safety of the Tent even for a short time.  In fact that interesting that it would have had to have been something that potentially could have scared them to death.

There is the possibility they weren't concerned about safety/security as a priority at that moment. They appeared to be thinking rationally.

Looking at The Swedish-Russian Dyatlov Expedition 2019 theory by Richard Holmgren:

I would argue that the group likely acted in the best possible way under the prevailing circumstances - nothing irrational at all and totally in line with their experience and professionality. Running out in their socks or in their valenki, was obviously insufficient in the long run, but a wise decision considering the explosive event. With the extremely low temperatures at hand, their socks wouldn’t immediately turn wet as long as they moved quickly down to the forest to seek a temporary shelter. The persons wearing valenki (felt boots), like the ones found on Zolotaryov, would have last much longer.


The Dyatlov crew being experienced hikers would have been aware they could temporarily move without their socks and valenki becoming wet and may not have been concerned in a short amount of time.

Then the question arises - what would grab their sudden interest?

I think whatever it was, came from the sky:

If we literally interpret Zolotaryov's camera image of a supposed light and 3 heads - the 3 members in front of him would have to be either crouched or laying down to get the angle, while he stood behind them, and one would expect tree formations in between if it was taken in the forest. However, what if this image was taken on the descent towards the forest, direct at what the object was? This could explain the angle and how he was situated higher then the 3 in front of him. It would also explain his intention to take his camera with him.

From Ivanov's evidence, puts unidentified lights in the sky in this area of the hikers.

Also, burn marks were found on trees at the edge of the forest:

“When E. P. Maslennikov and I examined the scene in May, we found that some young pine trees at the edge of the forest had burn marks, but those marks did not have a concentric form or some other pattern. There was no epicenter. This once again confirmed that heated beams of a strong, but completely unknown, at least to us, energy, were directing their firepower toward specific objects (in this case, people), acting selectively.”

Radiation was found on some of the clothing
Josh Gates Expedition Unknown team also identified radiation on one of the trees, but coring samples rejected the theory of a massive blast.

For me, this suggests something along the lines of the following possibilities:
  • Classified aircraft testing - preferably nuclear-powered. Could one have crashed in the area or hovered, for example as a V/STOL test?
  • A failed nuclear missile test lands in the forest
  • A mobile SCUD launcher at the edge of the forest launches a missile test - but lack of tracks may reject such an idea

IMO, these would take immediate interest to one in the middle of Siberian nowhere. One would go out to see what it was.

Based on the autopsy injuries, personally I think whatever followed the initial 'event' was followed by a violent episode between the hikers and another group connected with the event, which resulted in their deaths. For example, if the incident was reported back to a classified military establishment, this would theoretically provide explanation as to the allegations why the authorities already had knowledge of the incident (referring to the letter date).

26
General Discussion / Re: Malcolm Gladwell and the possibility of a fight
« Last post by jarrfan on November 25, 2019, 04:05:16 PM »
There definitely was some arguing going on by the males that the two females did not state or did not know about and wrote about it in their diaries.

If one or two stormed out without appropriate attire, whoever went after them had time to get their gear on before going after them and anyone in the tent would have insisted they did that, I would assume.

As far as the tent, there were 3 small horizontal cuts made from inside the tent, that has been professionally stated. The big hole in the tent in the front was made by the searchers as they came upon the tent, used the ax to cut the tent open to see if there was anyone in the tent.

The cuts in the tent had what may have been knife strikes close to the cuts, but they may have been there before. The cuts are through the seam in the fabric which is very confusing in many ways but would assuredly make one swipe with a knife hard to effectively cut and they would have had to pause to cut through the seam even with a sharp knife. If it did slice through the seam, it would have had to have been razor surgical sharp.

If they left the tent by command from someone, I could see them sealing the tent, thinking they may be able to go back in. If it was a severe threat, I can't see why they would stop and tie the tent closed. Just my opinions.
 

27
Publications / Media / Re: Interview with the son of Churkina
« Last post by sarapuk on November 25, 2019, 01:14:15 PM »
Most importantly we dont have EVIDENCE that the Dyatlov Group were killed by other people.


We need to realize that the evidence available, albeit insufficient to hold up in a court of law with its necessary rigorous criteria to produce a verdict of guilt, all point to the Dyatlov group having been killed by other humans - in a well planned and brilliantly performed mission.

There is no other way the nine victims could have suffered these injuries.

But there are other ways that the Dyatlov Group could have been killed. We have been looking at many of those ways for ages now.
28
Hello

The common prevailing theme for the group initially leaving the tent appears to be based on imminent danger or fear forcing them.

However, I would like to propose an alternative – the group left the tent based not on imminent fear or danger, but rather a sudden interest, whereby they did not expect to be outside for too long, hence why they were not adequately prepared, but the situation changed due to arising factors.

I’m basing this on the following details:
  • Rejecting the tent was cut and they escaped out the side, the tent appeared to only be reported as torn, which would not be significant to allow 9 to escape through (according to the following thread http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0)
  • The tent entrance was closed
    LEBEDEV reported that “Near the entrance to the tent, which seems to have been opened”.
    However, if the tent entrance was left open in between the Dyatlov group and the searchers, I would think snow would have entered inside the tent in such weather conditions?
    While SLOBTSOV “When they approached the tent, they found out: the entrance of the tent came from under the snow, and the rest of the tent was under snow”.
    Thus is would indicate someone entered in the tent, for they would have had to remove the snow….
    Important to note, is if they had time to close and button the tent entrance – I would think this would be done to keep the warm air inside expecting to return back. If you were in imminent danger where you couldn’t even grab clothing and supplies, why bother to take time to close the tent door?
  • Trail marks around the tent were reportedly isolated to the group exclusively and the trails indicated no rushing as group.
  • A flashlight was found in between the tent area and the forest cedar area and didn’t work. What if someone in the group had deliberately left the flashlight there on, so they would have an indicator of returning to the tent? This would explain why after the duration of time until the search the flashlight no longer worked. Why would you leave a flashlight in between in the face of imminent danger? A counter theory could be that the flashlight was thrown away due to not working, but then so close to the tent wouldn’t they have taken the Chinese flashlight that was found to be ‘off’ and functioning?

This could also reason to why some members put on a few extra layers, but not completely prepared to be out long.

What do you think? What evidence counters this to suggest they exited in fear or imminent danger?

Sudden interest  !  ?  It would have had to have been something extraordinarily interesting for them to leave the safety of the Tent even for a short time.  In fact that interesting that it would have had to have been something that potentially could have scared them to death.
29
General Discussion / Malcolm Gladwell and the possibility of a fight
« Last post by Nicknonora on November 25, 2019, 09:16:55 AM »
The users outside the United States might not be familiar with the writer Malcolm Gladwell. He writes and speaks about economics in a practical way. One of his videos relevant to DPI explains how a Columbian airliner ran out of gas while circling JFK Airport in New York. Basically, the Colombian co-pilot never got around to telling the air-traffic controllers "We're running out of gas and we need a runway now!" He just kept hinting at it and saying "please." The JFK ATCs are notoriously pushy and overbearing and take charge. The Colombian airline is very top-down, with the pilot being autocratic. So the co-pilot was used to being deferential. Which led to him not being insistent enough, even in a life or death situation. 

When people look at the DPI, they put a rational framework over the events. It seems like an irrational but explainable approach might be better. In particular, considering group dynamics and leader/follower dynamics seems like it warrants consideration.

I was reading one of the scenarios in the Simplest Credible Scenarios thread, that of a fight breaking out among the hikers.  First, these things seem relevant to me:

1) Reading around, there seem to be three possible alphas in the group: Dyatlov, the leader; Doroshenko, the guy who chased off a bear; Semyon, by virtue of age and experience. Each one ends up in a different place.

2) There's obviously a potential romantic rivalry over Zina between Dyatlov and Doroshenko. Judging from diary entries, Zina and Doroshenko seem like they might be a classic "They're a couple even when they're not a couple."

3) Tensions in the tent may have been bubbling. Dyatlov has led them off course. They're cold, tired, irritable. Finally, something set it off.

Dyatlov and Doroshenko get into a fight, inside or outside the tent. Doroshenko decides to leave the camp in the heat of the moment and persuades the other Yuri to join him, convincing themselves they can build a fire beyond the treeline. They leave.

At this point, Zina would be in shock. Her ex-boyfriend and best friend/admirer/whatever just had a fight over her. Her ex-boyfriend is walking out into severe danger. She goes to try to find them and bring them back. Maybe Dyatlov storms out after her. OR maybe she screams at Dyatlov and forces him to go with her. Rustem tags along or soon leaves thereafter. That would leave the Ravine 4 still at the tent.

Eventually, those five end up at the tree. Either 1) the tensions are still there and the Yuris refuse to return; or Zina and Dyatlov start arguing again. She storms off, back up to the tent. Dyotlov and Rustem follow. They die at different points and never make it back.

The Ravine 4 stay put for a while, but eventually leave the tent to try to find the others. They follow the fire to the cedar tree where the Yuris are freezing to death. When they get there, they decide it's too cold and/or too dark to turn back. Based on military experience, Semyon instructs the group to start digging a den. They decide that's a better option than trying to make it back in the dark. They raid the bodies of the Yuris for clothes. They have some kind of fall that causes the major injuries.

Obviously, this doesn't account for a few points. Most importantly, who cut the big hole in the tent, and when and why. But it gives an explanation that relies more on emotional dynamics, leadership dynamics, and the realization that the decisions don't need to be made in a perfectly rational way by the entire group, only a few need to make the choices, and the other follow.
30
Seems like a worthwhile line of inquiry but my first assumption would be that the 'interesting' thing also set off of the chain of deadly events, so in the end it doesnt seem to make much difference whether the thing was at first interesting or alarming?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10