An experiment with psychostimulants that reportedly went very wrong

[Topaze]

Hi Ziljoe,

I've been thinking about it a bit, and I think that if it had been a romantic situation, they wouldn't have ALL fled the tent—only Yuri and maybe one other person would have run after her.
Oh, we can consider a whole bunch of psychological causes, such as: a power struggle between Dyatlov and Zolo that might have led to a fight in the tent, for example.

Hi GlennM

“I believe the thread is a red herring and an argument for the sake of arguing.”
Because your Wolverine theory is undoubtedly smarter, I suppose? A group of nine people scared of a 13-kilo creature—and a scavenger at that (it only eats carcasses)—come on, let’s be serious, LOL!

Hi Hunter

If we go with this theory, I, too, would tend to suspect Zolo the most, since he stands out from the other group members’ profiles, and as you’ve already pointed out, he may have been exposed to the Wehrmacht’s Pervitin and could therefore have picked up some bad habits. On the other hand, given his age, it’s plausible that he’s using it to boost his resistance to the cold and physical exertion.

[Ziljoe]

Hi topaze


It's me that mentioned the wolverine . The theory is more complicated than and quite elegant. Igor B puts a strong sequence of explanations that tie together reasonably well. It's more to with it spraying it's glands than physically fighting. It's a text book example of debate and logical sequence.

The suggestion of  Zina leaving the tent is a thought experiment. It is an example.

I lean towards weather conditions on the whole as that's where the evidence seems to point to.

Everything you suggest and I have suggested has been debated and there are good threads discussing it all.

Back to yours and the drugs. Is there any evidence.?

[Topaze]

@GlennM
Sorry, I made a mistake about the wolverine story—I wrongly attributed it to you! In any case, that doesn’t change the meaning of my comment. No one HERE has anything but theories about this case, so it’s a little too easy to criticize other people’s theories!

@Ziljoe
So when it comes to the wolverine, it’s even more ridiculous to put your life on the line over some smell! Fart and/or putrid smell drive to death LOL!
No, there’s no evidence for the stimulant theory—it’s just an hypothesis, and I added it with “testing” so it would fit with a cover-up. My goal was to come up with an hypothesis that could fit with as many details as possible in this case!

[GlennM]

Topaz, thank you for the correction. Like all theories, your's has merit. Also, like all theories it is selective in what evidence supports it and whad additional speculation is employed to defend it. Nothing new there either. Ziljoe is the most fair-minded and impartial in investigator on this forum. It would be unwise to cross swords with him. You can certainly tilt your lance at me though.

I do not have any evidence pointing to psychoactive drug abuse, though I toyed with ergot poisoning in their bread. I can allow for amphetamine use if they could source it. The 50s and 60s were rife with drug experimentation. As I mentioned before, the tissue samples did not yield reports in the case files. Therefore, though you can actually prove nothing but make a strong argument for plausibility, it puts your idea in the same box as every other one, mine included!

If in time a revelation proves you right, you get to say I told you so. Until then please suffer our critiques and posts, because if we stop, the forum will be the worse for it.

[Topaze]

Hi

I’m not looking for a confrontation at all, as I appreciate impartiality and logic too! My theory doesn’t explain the injuries—collapsed rib cages and skull fractures—but it could account for the irrational nature of the DP9’s behavior and the apparent cover-up of the investigation by the authorities.
😉

[Ziljoe]

@Topaze

I have a lot of respect for the work done by Igor B — he’s built a long, structured, and rational sequence of events, and whether anyone agrees with it or not, it’s a plausible model worth engaging with.

Wolverine defensive musk isn’t comparable to flatulence. Chemically, it contains volatile sulfur compounds — thiols and thioacetates — which activate the same sensory pathways triggered by military riot‑control agents such as CS and CR gas. These compounds cause acute ocular irritation, temporary visual impairment, coughing, airway irritation and disorientation. In a confined space like a tent, even a small discharge produces a high‑concentration aerosol that forces immediate evacuation — exactly the same behavioural response seen with engineered irritants.

It’s a theory, and it shouldn’t be sniffed at.

Regarding your hypothesis, please continue. However, it is going to be critiqued — that’s the nature of running a hypothesis, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want people agreeing with you for the sake of it.

For me, if medical clinical evidence and studies have found that hypothermia victims retain fluid in their bladder, I will mention that point — not to criticise your theory, but to debate the flaw in the reasoning. Your argument that a stimulant is the only reason for bladder retention can’t stand on its own when clinical evidence states otherwise.

[Ziljoe]

Hi

I’m not looking for a confrontation at all, as I appreciate impartiality and logic too! My theory doesn’t explain the injuries—collapsed rib cages and skull fractures—but it could account for the irrational nature of the DP9’s behavior and the apparent cover-up of the investigation by the authorities.
😉

No confrontation at all. Your theory doesn't actually have to explain the other stuff. For me the other injuries look like they happened by the environment.

If you can solve the reason for leaving the tent in the first place then that would be a mile stone and an anchor for everything else.

I'll sit on the fence about it being a cover-up.