One event or three separate events

[KFinn]

https://dyatlovpass.com/death?flp=1#Krivonischenko

click on the post mortem photos and check it out. I was looking at them and comparing them to the autopsy reports when I noticed. As to why it was a problem? Pathetic people enjoy being pathetic

I definitely see bulk but I'm not certain that I see erection.  Now, I also don't see petechiae in either his open eye or the skin around his eyes.  It is not mentioned in the autopsy report.  There are no abrasions on his neck and the autopsy states that, "The bones of the base of the skull are intact."  So, how else could we support this theory?  It doesn't look like a rope hanging, but that not does rule out asphyxiation necessarily, although you would most likely see petechiae.  The autopsy report doesn't find broken bones in the neck, so I'd think it would have to involve asphyxiation if we follow this route. 

How do you see his death?  Smothering, hanging, etc?  Smothering could be possible.  It leaves less traces than a broken neck.  More covert and if the killers wanted to make it look less suspicious, that would be less obvious.  (I'm typing as I think through the possibilities so if it seems to be a weird jump from one sentence to another its me, lol!)

I think he was in a fight and his necked was broken. Other than that, no idea

Other than erection, do you see anything in the post mortem photos that could indicate a broken neck (an area that looks swollen, bruised, or out of place?)  I know the photos are not the easiest for distinguishing details, unfortunately.  Same question for Doroshenko; you mentioned previously that the injuries were in groups.  Do you see anything on his photos suspicious? 

I know the ethics and red tape for exhumations are deep but this would be a time where an exhumation could very much help rule in/out.  If the skeleton showed broken bones in the neck or hyoid bone, that would help add plausibility.  There is SO much we could learn from exhumations! 

[RMK]

I definitely see bulk but I'm not certain that I see erection.  Now, I also don't see petechiae in either his open eye or the skin around his eyes.  It is not mentioned in the autopsy report.  There are no abrasions on his neck and the autopsy states that, "The bones of the base of the skull are intact."  So, how else could we support this theory?  It doesn't look like a rope hanging, but that not does rule out asphyxiation necessarily, although you would most likely see petechiae.

I think I'm with Ren on this one.  I do not think Krivonischenko died via anything having to do with his neck.  Likewise, while I can see the presence beneath clothes of an adult male's penis and testicles, I do not see that his penis is erect.

At any rate, per Wikipedia as I posted upthread, postmortem priapism is not exclusive to death by hanging, although it is particularly associated with that cause of death.  Also, let's not forget that Krivonischenko is presumed to have died under hypothermic conditions.  When the human body is cold, it constricts blood flow to its extremities to keep its core warm.  For males, it likewise also retracts the penis and testicles.  I can only guess at how the forces causing postmortem priapism and the biological response to hypothermia might interact ...

No there isn't anything in the reports about it. But that leaves the question how accurate anything is. I haven't read anything that indicates to me that the autopsy wasn't covered up like the rest of it

I've posted my take on potential fabrication of the case files before.  My position is that we need to accept the case files as valid until we have sufficient evidence to the contrary.  If we can just dismiss any available evidence as "covered up" out of hand, we'd have no ground truth from which to start making sense of the Incident.

[tenne]

https://dyatlovpass.com/death?flp=1#Krivonischenko

click on the post mortem photos and check it out. I was looking at them and comparing them to the autopsy reports when I noticed. As to why it was a problem? Pathetic people enjoy being pathetic

I definitely see bulk but I'm not certain that I see erection.  Now, I also don't see petechiae in either his open eye or the skin around his eyes.  It is not mentioned in the autopsy report.  There are no abrasions on his neck and the autopsy states that, "The bones of the base of the skull are intact."  So, how else could we support this theory?  It doesn't look like a rope hanging, but that not does rule out asphyxiation necessarily, although you would most likely see petechiae.  The autopsy report doesn't find broken bones in the neck, so I'd think it would have to involve asphyxiation if we follow this route. 

How do you see his death?  Smothering, hanging, etc?  Smothering could be possible.  It leaves less traces than a broken neck.  More covert and if the killers wanted to make it look less suspicious, that would be less obvious.  (I'm typing as I think through the possibilities so if it seems to be a weird jump from one sentence to another its me, lol!)

I think he was in a fight and his necked was broken. Other than that, no idea

Other than erection, do you see anything in the post mortem photos that could indicate a broken neck (an area that looks swollen, bruised, or out of place?)  I know the photos are not the easiest for distinguishing details, unfortunately.  Same question for Doroshenko; you mentioned previously that the injuries were in groups.  Do you see anything on his photos suspicious? 

I know the ethics and red tape for exhumations are deep but this would be a time where an exhumation could very much help rule in/out.  If the skeleton showed broken bones in the neck or hyoid bone, that would help add plausibility.  There is SO much we could learn from exhumations!

The four in the ravine had very violent injuries, the two under the cedar had defensive wounds and other things not indicative of freezing but that the official cause of death and the 3 on the way to the tent had the most indications of exposure

[tenne]

I definitely see bulk but I'm not certain that I see erection.  Now, I also don't see petechiae in either his open eye or the skin around his eyes.  It is not mentioned in the autopsy report.  There are no abrasions on his neck and the autopsy states that, "The bones of the base of the skull are intact."  So, how else could we support this theory?  It doesn't look like a rope hanging, but that not does rule out asphyxiation necessarily, although you would most likely see petechiae.

I think I'm with Ren on this one.  I do not think Krivonischenko died via anything having to do with his neck.  Likewise, while I can see the presence beneath clothes of an adult male's penis and testicles, I do not see that his penis is erect.

At any rate, per Wikipedia as I posted upthread, postmortem priapism is not exclusive to death by hanging, although it is particularly associated with that cause of death.  Also, let's not forget that Krivonischenko is presumed to have died under hypothermic conditions.  When the human body is cold, it constricts blood flow to its extremities to keep its core warm.  For males, it likewise also retracts the penis and testicles.  I can only guess at how the forces causing postmortem priapism and the biological response to hypothermia might interact ...

No there isn't anything in the reports about it. But that leaves the question how accurate anything is. I haven't read anything that indicates to me that the autopsy wasn't covered up like the rest of it

I've posted my take on potential fabrication of the case files before.  My position is that we need to accept the case files as valid until we have sufficient evidence to the contrary.  If we can just dismiss any available evidence as "covered up" out of hand, we'd have no ground truth from which to start making sense of the Incident.

The evidence to the contrary is the facts and the scene do not add up. It isn't hard to put evidence to a scene when all is on the same page. Like I posted, a scene that is a murder tried to be covered up as a botched robbery doesn't add up. the evidence doesn't fit the scene.
When nothing adds up, then either the evidence is faked, the scene is staged or both.

We can't even come up with how they could start a fire under the cedars. That isn't a  hard thing to put evidence and scene together. As it stands, there was a fire, there seems to be no way they started it. therefore, if we can't prove how they did it, to assume that they did simply because there was one, is to ignore common sense

[KFinn]

I definitely see bulk but I'm not certain that I see erection.  Now, I also don't see petechiae in either his open eye or the skin around his eyes.  It is not mentioned in the autopsy report.  There are no abrasions on his neck and the autopsy states that, "The bones of the base of the skull are intact."  So, how else could we support this theory?  It doesn't look like a rope hanging, but that not does rule out asphyxiation necessarily, although you would most likely see petechiae.

I think I'm with Ren on this one.  I do not think Krivonischenko died via anything having to do with his neck.  Likewise, while I can see the presence beneath clothes of an adult male's penis and testicles, I do not see that his penis is erect.

At any rate, per Wikipedia as I posted upthread, postmortem priapism is not exclusive to death by hanging, although it is particularly associated with that cause of death.  Also, let's not forget that Krivonischenko is presumed to have died under hypothermic conditions.  When the human body is cold, it constricts blood flow to its extremities to keep its core warm.  For males, it likewise also retracts the penis and testicles.  I can only guess at how the forces causing postmortem priapism and the biological response to hypothermia might interact ...

No there isn't anything in the reports about it. But that leaves the question how accurate anything is. I haven't read anything that indicates to me that the autopsy wasn't covered up like the rest of it

I've posted my take on potential fabrication of the case files before.  My position is that we need to accept the case files as valid until we have sufficient evidence to the contrary.  If we can just dismiss any available evidence as "covered up" out of hand, we'd have no ground truth from which to start making sense of the Incident.

The evidence to the contrary is the facts and the scene do not add up. It isn't hard to put evidence to a scene when all is on the same page. Like I posted, a scene that is a murder tried to be covered up as a botched robbery doesn't add up. the evidence doesn't fit the scene.
When nothing adds up, then either the evidence is faked, the scene is staged or both.

We can't even come up with how they could start a fire under the cedars. That isn't a  hard thing to put evidence and scene together. As it stands, there was a fire, there seems to be no way they started it. therefore, if we can't prove how they did it, to assume that they did simply because there was one, is to ignore common sense

As to the fire, there is precedent for starting fires in winter/wet conditions without accelerant.  I mean, the Neanderthal didn't conquer advanced chemistry in order to invent fire.  And people have survived winters in Siberia and other similarly cold areas for thousands of years....

[tenne]

Absolutely they did! BUT, they were prepared to start a fire and evidence has been found that they carried burning embers with them in hollowed out horns to restart the fire. They also carried specially prepared tinder (moss and mushrooms and litchen) that had been 1/2 charred. They also carried, it is believed, accelerant in the form of grease etc.

We are talking about totally unprepared (if they ran from the tent in the dark) to do what Neanderthals made sure they were prepared for. I have been very interested in life in the stone age for many years and read and tried as much as I could.

[sarapuk]

I definitely see bulk but I'm not certain that I see erection.  Now, I also don't see petechiae in either his open eye or the skin around his eyes.  It is not mentioned in the autopsy report.  There are no abrasions on his neck and the autopsy states that, "The bones of the base of the skull are intact."  So, how else could we support this theory?  It doesn't look like a rope hanging, but that not does rule out asphyxiation necessarily, although you would most likely see petechiae.

I think I'm with Ren on this one.  I do not think Krivonischenko died via anything having to do with his neck.  Likewise, while I can see the presence beneath clothes of an adult male's penis and testicles, I do not see that his penis is erect.

At any rate, per Wikipedia as I posted upthread, postmortem priapism is not exclusive to death by hanging, although it is particularly associated with that cause of death.  Also, let's not forget that Krivonischenko is presumed to have died under hypothermic conditions.  When the human body is cold, it constricts blood flow to its extremities to keep its core warm.  For males, it likewise also retracts the penis and testicles.  I can only guess at how the forces causing postmortem priapism and the biological response to hypothermia might interact ...

No there isn't anything in the reports about it. But that leaves the question how accurate anything is. I haven't read anything that indicates to me that the autopsy wasn't covered up like the rest of it

I've posted my take on potential fabrication of the case files before.  My position is that we need to accept the case files as valid until we have sufficient evidence to the contrary.  If we can just dismiss any available evidence as "covered up" out of hand, we'd have no ground truth from which to start making sense of the Incident.

The evidence to the contrary is the facts and the scene do not add up. It isn't hard to put evidence to a scene when all is on the same page. Like I posted, a scene that is a murder tried to be covered up as a botched robbery doesn't add up. the evidence doesn't fit the scene.
When nothing adds up, then either the evidence is faked, the scene is staged or both.

We can't even come up with how they could start a fire under the cedars. That isn't a  hard thing to put evidence and scene together. As it stands, there was a fire, there seems to be no way they started it. therefore, if we can't prove how they did it, to assume that they did simply because there was one, is to ignore common sense

Like RMK said we can not just dismiss Evidence. We would be in danger of regarding everything as a potential cover up, which would be nonsense.

[RMK]

The evidence to the contrary is the facts and the scene do not add up. It isn't hard to put evidence to a scene when all is on the same page. Like I posted, a scene that is a murder tried to be covered up as a botched robbery doesn't add up. the evidence doesn't fit the scene.
When nothing adds up, then either the evidence is faked, the scene is staged or both.

It sounds like you might be receptive to the new book by this forum's Admin, Teddy Hadjiyska, and her co-author, Igor Pavlov (if you haven't read it already, that is).  Teddy has said that, after she visited Dyatlov Pass in person, she could no longer accept that the Dyatlovites had really pitched their tent where the search party found it.  I'm not completely sold on the book's theory, but it's my "current favorite theory".

We can't even come up with how they could start a fire under the cedars. That isn't a  hard thing to put evidence and scene together. As it stands, there was a fire, there seems to be no way they started it. therefore, if we can't prove how they did it, to assume that they did simply because there was one, is to ignore common sense

Well, Teddy's book is neutral with regard to whether anyone from the Dyatlov company built the fire beneath the tree, or whether someone outside the group built it.  I'll point out, though, that the searchers found a lot of spent matches under the tree, so it's possible that if Dyatlovites started the fire, it took them quite a few attempts to succeed at doing so.

[tenne]

I am just trying to make the evidence match the scene. I have yet to see any proof that the tent was there, if someone could point me towards a photo showing the tent in the pass with the background to prove it I would love to see it. I don't really have a theory as to what happened, I am just struggling to get the evidence to fit the scene. It should add up if both are the same thing but its like trying to push a round peg into a square hole. it just isn't working with all the corners filled

[sarapuk]

I am just trying to make the evidence match the scene. I have yet to see any proof that the tent was there, if someone could point me towards a photo showing the tent in the pass with the background to prove it I would love to see it. I don't really have a theory as to what happened, I am just struggling to get the evidence to fit the scene. It should add up if both are the same thing but its like trying to push a round peg into a square hole. it just isn't working with all the corners filled

If you are trying to make the Evidence fit the scene maybe it would be better if you just take the Evidence and accept it as Evidence and work from there.

[tenne]

your right, there is no need for the evidence to fit the scene. everything is explainable by the facts.

[Nigel Evans]

I am just trying to make the evidence match the scene. I have yet to see any proof that the tent was there, if someone could point me towards a photo showing the tent in the pass with the background to prove it I would love to see it. I don't really have a theory as to what happened, I am just struggling to get the evidence to fit the scene. It should add up if both are the same thing but its like trying to push a round peg into a square hole. it just isn't working with all the corners filled

https://dyatlovpass.com/search-photos?lid=1


???

[tenne]

I have seen those photos and they seem pretty generic to me but thank you for posting the link.

[Nigel Evans]

I have seen those photos and they seem pretty generic to me but thank you for posting the link.

That's siberia i guess, very generic.

[tenne]

I didn't think of that! I am used to the BC rocky mountains. very distinct and easy to show where I took a photo

[Manti]

?

If anything we can see it was well above the treeline, also above the a stony ridge, there is some indication of the incline (the camera might not have been level but still)... It does seem to fit the witness testimonies and the general "wisdom" of the tent being somewhere halfway between the treeline and the "peak" on the eastern or northeastern slope (based on sunshine direction)

[Nigel Evans]

The contours of the land don't change, so recent expeditions are confident of the tent's location.

[sarapuk]

I have seen those photos and they seem pretty generic to me but thank you for posting the link.

So there is some Evidence. There is lots of Evidence. Its the Evidence that is missing that is the real concern.

[ElizabethHarris]

Bombs and explosions would leave evidence behind. As far as I know, there is no evidence of any fallout from any such event.

[GlennM]

Snow on tent does not look like drift. Tent half buried. Poles standing. Slab shift?

[Manti]

Slab shift that only hit the middle of the tent? And if so, is that a reason to abandon the tent?

I think the snow looks different because this photo was taken after they have already started to dig out the tent and removed part of the snow. 

[GlennM]

We should also be mindful that if the tent was originally in the forest, ala fallen branch, who removed it? Why not use the stove pre loaded with wood to start warming the hikers immediately? Then again, did the stove show crushing?  I think they camped at 880 because the trade off of cold for altitude was worth it...until the earth shook and snow slipped. After that it was falling dominoes.

[Manti]

Yeah even more importantly, who lifted the fallen tree? It's something that requires machinery or if you saw it into many pieces, sawdust will be everywhere and it's very noticeable even from the air.. it contrasts both with white snow and dark branches.

Honestly, both scenarios, that they camped on the slope, or that they did so in the forest and someone then staged the tent, require a leap of faith...

[GlennM]

Yes, as grist to the mill, Igor noted in his diary words to the effect that camping in the slope, compared to the forest would be rough. However, I believe he wrote it in anticipation of doing so and ironically saving the expedition because conditions were worse than they initially anticipated. I think they did just that, camped on the slope, but were driven off by circumstance. You can not reason with snow and ice. You can not reason with a pack of wolves. It wasn't wolves, it was the snow that surely sent them downhill.

[sarapuk]

Yes, as grist to the mill, Igor noted in his diary words to the effect that camping in the slope, compared to the forest would be rough. However, I believe he wrote it in anticipation of doing so and ironically saving the expedition because conditions were worse than they initially anticipated. I think they did just that, camped on the slope, but were driven off by circumstance. You can not reason with snow and ice. You can not reason with a pack of wolves. It wasn't wolves, it was the snow that surely sent them downhill.

There wasnt enough snow to cause the Dyatlov Group to abandon their tent. But it was an exposed position compared to being in or near the forest.

[GlennM]

Sarapuk, and yet they did leave the tent, if you believe the standard explanation.. We know how, because we have footprints. We can only guess why.  Did they get emotiinal?