Igor Dyatlov's ankle wounds

[Ziljoe]

The quote "Considering the absence of external injuries" may relate to it's context. There are marks on the body. There are internal injuries.

The way "external injuries" become "marks on the body" in your writing is disgraceful. These actual injuries:

 "abrasion", "scratch", "flesh wound", "bruise", "swelling", "defect of the epidermis", "abrasion with hemorrhaging into the adjacent tissue", "diffuse bleeding into the underlying tissue", "graze wound", "skin wound", "hemorrhage", "ecchymoma", "burn", "contusion", "laceration", "deformation"

they are not simply "marks on the body". There are more than 80 of these injuries in the autopsy reports: you deny the sufferings of the victims... And you need to deny the sufferings of the victims... So there is here a tie of interest that you didn't declare.

-

I'm sharing what I know Charles. There is a high probability that these marks are consistent with hypothermia and survival in the cold. They walked a mile and did various activities in the woods, building stuff, then they crawled on the ground, they would lose dexterity of limbs. They would crawl on Knuckles, freeze slowly , tunnel into the snow.  There's a lot going on to make external injuries that could occur by their own actions.

[GlennM]

Also, when numb, injuries can be sustained without serious notice.

[amashilu]

Ziljoe,

I promised to get you the names of the doctors who studied the bodies and the autopsy materials and said these deaths could not be accidental. Here they are:

Dr. Natalia Sakharova, prison physician and expert police criminalist. Says it is clear that several of the hikers were tied at the ankles and wrists, that their deaths cannot be accidental and were murder.

Dr. Ken Holmes, Marin County coroner and death investigator for 30 years. These deaths cannot be accidental, too much trauma; all evidence points to murder.

Mick Fennerty, FBI evidence investigator of crime scenes. Hikers were forced out of tent (believes they would never have left without their boots or coats) and their wounds were not caused by accidents. Murder.

There were at least 2 others; one is on this site (dyatlovpass.com) that I remember and I am trying to locate it.

[Ziljoe]

Thanks amashilu

I'll need to see what they are saying. They are all from the documentary that gets mixed reviews. I can't find any official studies or evidence.

[Игорь Б.]

В 1959 году глава государства Хрущев был одним из массовых убийц 1937-1938 годов: он предоставил поименные списки расстрелянных в Бутово (21 000 убитых) и Коммунарке (10 000 убитых). , самой молодой жертве было 13 лет, Миша Шамонин.

Ленин был еврей, Сталин - грузин, Хрущёв - украинец. Продолжим дискуссию?

[amashilu]

Ziljoe, the video itself may have gotten, as you say, mixed reviews, for the videographer's dramatic style and insertion of self too often, but I hope you watch it and realize that this in no way compromises the opinions of the experts and professionals. Their integrity is solid and their conclusions reasonable.

[Ziljoe]

Ziljoe, the video itself may have gotten, as you say, mixed reviews, for the videographer's dramatic style and insertion of self too often, but I hope you watch it and realize that this in no way compromises the opinions of the experts and professionals. Their integrity is solid and their conclusions reasonable.

Thanks amashilu,

I will try and get a look at it, the comments are mostly negative about the film producer and going over old ground and says it comes to nothing new. I will watch it with an open mind. I do question TV programmes, the news programs also. Much of it is is loosely based on facts.

[amashilu]

Ziljoe, I am the first to reject sensationalism or poorly researched consumer junk. This video does not fall into that category. Certainly the professionals who are consulted did their homework and explain their reasoning. It does sound as if you have already closed your mind against it, but I hope that is not the case.

[Ziljoe]

The quote "Considering the absence of external injuries" may relate to it's context. There are marks on the body. There are internal injuries.

The way "external injuries" become "marks on the body" in your writing is disgraceful. These actual injuries:

 "abrasion", "scratch", "flesh wound", "bruise", "swelling", "defect of the epidermis", "abrasion with hemorrhaging into the adjacent tissue", "diffuse bleeding into the underlying tissue", "graze wound", "skin wound", "hemorrhage", "ecchymoma", "burn", "contusion", "laceration", "deformation"

they are not simply "marks on the body". There are more than 80 of these injuries in the autopsy reports: you deny the sufferings of the victims... And you need to deny the sufferings of the victims... So there is here a tie of interest that you didn't declare.

-

I'm sharing what I know Charles. There is a high probability that these marks are consistent with hypothermia and survival in the cold.

So you refuse to call injuries "external injuries" and downgrade them to "marks". What is your tie of interest with the case?

You are not sharing what you know, you don't know anything about snow cave but you spent hours writing about that imaginary snow cave. Now, anybody can read the 9 autopsy reports and read about these more than 80 external injuries that I quoted, and you prefer to deny the reality of these injuries and suffering rather than questioning the integrity of Ivanov and of the regime. Your choice goes to the regime and the lies.

Here, there are two possibilities: either you have a non declared tie of interest with this regime and type of regime, or you belong to the category of people described by the Greeks in their great political tragedies: the more conformists of the crowd, the ones who are so deep in the crowd they can't face any reality by themselves. You can see them in Aeschylus' Agamemnon: they are so submissive, so afraid not to be on the side of power, that they are in constant denial of any threat or opposition to the power. So when there is regime change in the City, they are the last to understand that a coup is in progress and also the first to submit to the new regime (the first ones to understand are also the last to submit and they submit only under the threat of torture and prison)... Here, it is not a particular tie of interest but a more general predisposition to submission and totalitarianism.

And I was wrong when I called you a relativist, because your indifference to any fancy theories is only a consequence of the taboo you put on political involvement. Relativism is only secondary, first come politics, and politics is so important, it is actually sacred, that your language obeys the taboo, avoiding "injuries" and using "marks"... There is no relativism here, but the highest devotion and obedience to power.

As usual Charles , you edit to your convenience. I also said external injuries. But let's call them what you like . These marks or external injuries , as I understand it , would not be able to cause the deaths from a autopsy standpoint. However he does not say there were no internal injuries. They do say that these were the cause of death in the others. I've seen worse  external injuries from a fight in a street than the dp9 if they were subject to violence by other humans.

I am getting fed up of your paranoid behaviour . I'm trying to be balanced in my approach. There many others including the searchers at the time that came to the conclusion that they were sheltering in some sort of snow cornice, snow cave. If you read the other post about the exhuming of Zolotaryov, it is mentioned and the context of the broken ribs across the axis.

You would be very surprised as to who and what I stand up for.  But one must always have a foot on the ground and understand how things come to be. Especially in psychology. People are scared easily and say nothing. Much like the ash test.

[Ziljoe]

I'm only going by the reviews amashilu. They said there was nothing new. How ever, there's always a bit of something that sheds new light.

 Out of interest , until I get access to it. What were Dr. Natalia Sakharova, prison physician and expert police criminalist. Says it is clear that several of the hikers were tied at the ankles and wrists, that their deaths cannot be accidental and were murder.

Why did she think several of the hikers were tied at the ankles and wrists. Since we are on the correct thread.

[amashilu]

You can find this video at tubitv.com.

Dr. Sakharova calls into question the supposition that the tent was cut from the inside. She actually takes a piece of tent canvas and a knife and demonstrates.

She rules out that Slobodin died from falling on rocks in the darkness by stating that when a person falls on rocks, their first injury is to their palms, as they reach out to catch themselves, and then to their face, not to the side of their head or their temple. (Another professional notes that Slobodin's death was due to a different event than the other eight; he appeared to have been basically knocked unconscious; I thought that was interesting.)

Reading Igor Dyatlov's autopsy report, it is noted that he had bruising and abrasions to both his wrists and his ankles. Dr. Sakharova says, "My guess is that they were tied. They were tied over their clothes. That's why these strong young people weakened so quickly in the cold. They were tied." 

[Ziljoe]

Thanks , it won't let me access it here. I'll find a way to view it as it sound interesting and apparently it gives good filming of the actual location.

I wonder what the evidence is that she shows that it wasn't cut from the inside?

I don't think it was reported that Slobidin fell on the rocks , only speculated that it may have been a rock. Plus if they were freezing I'm not sure if the hands would be working in that way. Did she mention anything about hypothermia? Many deaths by the cold look like they have been knocked unconscious. I'm sure they present more detail in the documentary. I'm sure there's a post here that debate's these issues.

I'm surprised that she guesses. Did she say it was clear that several were tied?

I know that sounds like loaded questions  but they are not meant to be. I too , came up with the idea that it was murder but I had to take a few steps back after doing more research.

[Ziljoe]

As usual Charles , you edit to your convenience. I also said external injuries. But let's call them what you like . These marks or external injuries , as I understand it , would not be able to cause the deaths from a autopsy standpoint.

You wrote:

"There are marks on the body. There are internal injuries. The problem was , or is , is that there's nothing like stab wounds , bullet wounds or anything that suggests foul play. Lack of external injuries that show foul play or wounds causing death is what in means."

You really used "marks on the body" as a defense of "lack of external injuries". The way you change words, it is a long tradition. They used to say: "mistakes were made" when they finally couldn't avoid to face their violence... and this language was spoken during decades, the language of minoring state violence and of exonerating those responsible.

Tan lines are "marks on the body", tattoos are "marks on the body"...  But these are not tan lines and tattoos:

"abrasion", "scratch", "flesh wound", "bruise", "swelling", "defect of the epidermis", "abrasion with hemorrhaging into the adjacent tissue", "diffuse bleeding into the underlying tissue", "graze wound", "skin wound", "hemorrhage", "ecchymoma", "burn", "contusion", "laceration", "deformation"

and can't be equalized to tan lines and tattoos. It is not correct to write "marks or external injuries" as if they were synonyms, they are not synonyms: is it so hard to understand? You have to respect the sufferings of the victims. Personally, I really don't like the character of Doroshenko, but I would never try to spread the idea that he just had "marks on the body".

I am getting fed up of your paranoid behaviour . I'm trying to be balanced in my approach. There many others including the searchers at the time that came to the conclusion that they were sheltering in some sort of snow cornice, snow cave.

It is not "balanced" at all: you have a sacred principle, a taboo, which is to deny anything that could relate the case to Soviet/Russian politics, and you just don't care about the rest, all other theories are fine as long as the taboo is not violated.

And the way you insisted on using "marks" instead of "external injuries"... it's like reading the statements of the communist politicians of the 1980s. This recipe is not new: the denial of the sufferings of the victims, the attempt to impose wooden language or controlled language, the die-hard defense of the regime, and we could even add the psychiatrization of the opponent... it is very surprising to find these ingredients reunited in 2022. Or maybe not, maybe it's in tune with the times.

Ok Charles, which of these external injuries caused them to die.

Step by step analysis please.

[Ziljoe]

@ Charles.

The decomposition is obvious . , It is evident that they had been submerged in the water for sometime. The weak link( concrete)  is the area around the eyes. You are correct to suggest there may  have been other injuries or cuts for example but we don't have any evidence.

The decay was well established by the time the ravine 4 were found. As understand it, the flow of water was stronger than what is seen in the photos as they had dammed the stream before attempting to retrieve the bodies.

Whatever the reason, these postmortem injuries are the results of decay in the environment they were found. The fractures however remain open to debate.

At this moment I lean towards a snow collapse from either finding a snow cave or making one, and I am not going to appolgise for speculating that. With the information and data we have , it seems the "most" reasonable explanation. However , I respect that others think differently and I welcome any debate to say otherwise.

These injuries that you list from the autopsy have many possibilities.


"abrasion", "scratch", "flesh wound", "bruise", "swelling", "defect of the epidermis", "abrasion with hemorrhaging into the adjacent tissue", "diffuse bleeding into the underlying tissue", "graze wound", "skin wound", "hemorrhage", "ecchymoma", "burn", "contusion", "laceration", "deformation"


Are these injuries the result of the environment and hypothermia, in paraell with the fight for survival. For example , digging a snow cave, breaking branches, making fire, crawling , falling , assisting each other. I also think it is prudent to look at the injuries with modern research data on death from hypothermia, to look and see if some of the above reported injuries can occur from exposure to extreme cold and freezing. It just so happens that they do.

Although it can be argued that theses injuries could be the result of physical harm from other humans, it does not mean it is the case. I'm not sure what your argument is about it was ordered to be said it was accidental with no signs of a fight.

Many of the testimonies , even from the same people, over time have contradict themselves. If you can link me to the Ivanov and Urakov testimonies I would appreciate it.

If there no signs of a rifle , they can't say it was a rifle butt . Surely they would then have to justify that conclusion, only a blunt object as a possibility can be put forward.

A lot of this may down to translation and interpretation. I am taking the view point of , I do not know and by all accounts those investigating did not know.

I have hypothesized various ideas over outsiders. Due to the odd delay when they built the labaz ,I have wondered if it was there that outsiders became involved. The lack of other trails may be due to that none were made . The dp9 were followed, in their own ski trails. To me , that's the easiest way to cover your tracks and find the people that you might be after. From there , the dp9 may have been intimated and forced up the slope and ordered to pitch the tent in that location. The outsiders may have taken the last photos with the cameras , they then would have control of the narrative of what would be found in the last pictures setting the stage. From that point outsiders could just order them down the slope and let the environment and conditions do its thing. The outsiders stay in the tent, make small peep holes to not compromise the tent. Then go back the way they came. The injuries  still play out as proposed by those that favour a natural event . A snow cave collapsed, the Yuri's undressed themselves, the other 3 succumbed to the cold on the return to the tent. Job done. My point being , the injuries do not necessarily equal physical violence. It is a thought exercise and an example.

This is the same as your example of being pushed into the water.


It is not your proposal of murder that I have an issue with, rather your emotive narrative. To use the USSR and it's history of internal affairs and political conflict, gulags, examples of murder , evil, hell etc is not evidence of murder to the dp9. It is reasonable for others to put forward their observations , whether that be , Wolverine, snow slip, fallen tree, wind, sound , snow cave etc.

I want you to understand that I do not rule outsiders , it is just lower down on my list. I am not jumping to a conclusion because you have.

As you know better than the people that did the autopsy It would be good if you could give a step by step account of the injuries  and how they were the cause of death. How the bodies came to be in the positions they were found etc. TIA...

[amashilu]

Ziljoe, in my earlier message, I promised to get you the names of the forensic pathologists who believe the evidence shows that the DPI died at the hands of other people; above I provided 3 or 4, and the other one whose name I couldn't remember is Eduard Tumanov:   https://dyatlovpass.com/theories?lid=1&flp=1#fight

[Ziljoe]

Ziljoe, in my earlier message, I promised to get you the names of the forensic pathologists who believe the evidence shows that the DPI died at the hands of other people; above I provided 3 or 4, and the other one whose name I couldn't remember is Eduard Tumanov:   https://dyatlovpass.com/theories?lid=1&flp=1#fight

Thanks amashilu 👍

I note that he also says amongst themselves and that the injuries may have happened earlier. This adds new thinking. Perhaps they were forced to camp on the slope. To me, the injuries are  to mild for a physical fight against others for survival. However, if someone pulled a gun out , this may have put a stop to any hand to hand combat. It's got me thinking though...

[amashilu]

I think Tumalov says he does not try to distinguish whether they fought among themselves or against outsiders. He did not want to decide that. He was just sure that they were killed, rather than a natural accident such as an avalanche.

[Ziljoe]

Tumalov is speculating, the same as the rest of us . As a professional he gives a possibility. That's it. He doesn't comment on other possibilities.