We have been asking the wrong questions.

[GlennM]

I have a solution but you won’t like it. For most if not all of our lifetimes, people, smarter and more interested than us have been asking a question...but it was the wrong question. They asked WHY.

Children ask “why” and make it a game. Child,”Why?” Adult:,”Because.” Child,”Why?” ad infinitum. It is a loop.

When we in the forum ask WHY, we are seeking unknowable answers. The internal processes of the DP9, beyond what their diaries tell, and their speech were not recorded, thus unknowable, now or ever. We will never know the “why” of their motivations.

The better question to ask is HOW. Asking this questions leads to definitive answers. I will not bore you with the “how” of the DP Incident as we understand it. It is simply the chronicle of what transpired.  Example How did Igor die? He froze while walking in deep snow and succumbed to hypothermia. How do you know? It was observed and reported that way. (Conspiracy buffs just hate this because they argue we must trust the sources. They patently do not!)

I will go to conspiracy theories. Instead of asking “Why” try:

How were conspirators involved?
How were they hired?
How were they equipped?
How were they transported?
How were they paid?
How can you prove the truth of each of your assertions (hint, follow the money)

Asking and answering “HOW” produces factual answers. Asking WHY leads to supposition and an endless loop of WHY-BECAUSE chatter. As we have seen on this forum, there are no definitive answers when asking ourselves or each other WHY.

When people like Teddy go to the woods, she is seeking HOW things happened, not WHY they happened. We can not know the minds of the deceased, only to superimpose our own identities on their bodies and play forensic mind games. But, that's what it is.

If we want to know about the flashlight on the tent, fire at the tree etc., ask HOW and then HOW DO I KNOW. It is far better than asking WHY.

In closing, I expect push back. It changes nothing. Asking better questions will.

[tenne]

Nothing is ever going to change anything until we get official proof that everyone agrees on. However, I personally love the feedback I get on my posts, from the sane people that is, because one person can never think of everything. That is why a democracy will always defeat a dictatorship in the long run because in a group, there are balances to weaknesses, in a dictatorship one person controls everything and no one can think of everything.

I am always learning and spelling out my theory really helps me cement it in my mind

I have zero issues with anyone not thinking it happened in a certain way because no one knows for sure

[tenne]

How were conspirators involved?
They were already hired by the government to do these things. End (ending of) cold war and all the spy games, deep fakes etc were the norm

How were they hired?

I would assume that the chain of command would say we need X and X was provided by the higher ups. they were already hired to do this, this was just a job to them

How were they equipped?

basic military and spy things, helicopters, skis, back packs, the normal things used to fake papers.
 These sort of cover ups happen all the time in all countries, but this time it didn't work out as well because they used honest local people who didn't want the parents to think their children died from bad choices

How were they transported?

helicopter, the lights that were seen and reported, then skied out to lay a trail

How were they paid?

I have zero idea's how the spy network and cleaners/stagers were paid in any country, forget in 1959 soviet union. I know we have our own spy network in canada and I couldn't tell you how they are paid

How can you prove the truth of each of your assertions (hint, follow the money)

I can't prove the truth anymore than anyone can PROVE, like in a court of law proof, that it didn't happen. If anyone could prove anything, this would be solved along time ago

[GlennM]

Tenne,  do you appreciate how structured your answers are? Great! Do you also appreciate that your follow up challenge is clear. This is the advantage of asking how instead of why. Unless you or someone else can answer the follow up questions you can not address, then your line of inquiry is effectively finished. I recommend you continue to ask how your conspiracy can be demonstrated to be true. Asking why gets you nowhere.Good hunting.

[tenne]

Tenne,  do you appreciate how structured your answers are? Great! Do you also appreciate that your follow up challenge is clear. This is the advantage of asking how instead of why. Unless you or someone else can answer the follow up questions you can not address, then your line of inquiry is effectively finished. I recommend you continue to ask how your conspiracy can be demonstrated to be true. Asking why gets you nowhere.Good hunting.

There is absolutely no way I can or you can prove the truth. If we could, this forum wouldn't exist. I have absolutely no way to prove it was a cover up. You  have no way to prove it wasn't.

To even think that an ordinary person could get access to either very well hidden or destroyed 1959 soviet era documents is ludicrous to even ask for.

Just for one small example. One official interview of a person who saw the group leave the settlement with grandfather slava says there were 2 horses. the diary says 1 and the very often argued photo of that shows one horse.

Here is another:"Looking through the documents for 1956-58, I accidentally discovered the order of the executive committee to dismiss Semyon Alekseevich," Anastasia said. - The document proposes to release Comrade Zolotarev from the post of teacher of physical education at school from April 14, 1958.

Читайте на WWW.KP.RU: https://www.kp.ru/daily/28310/4451043/

this is from this website. so was he working as a teacher of physical education and needed level 3 or was he fired. which do we believe?

[Ziljoe]

Tenne,  do you appreciate how structured your answers are? Great! Do you also appreciate that your follow up challenge is clear. This is the advantage of asking how instead of why. Unless you or someone else can answer the follow up questions you can not address, then your line of inquiry is effectively finished. I recommend you continue to ask how your conspiracy can be demonstrated to be true. Asking why gets you nowhere.Good hunting.

There is absolutely no way I can or you can prove the truth. If we could, this forum wouldn't exist. I have absolutely no way to prove it was a cover up. You  have no way to prove it wasn't.

To even think that an ordinary person could get access to either very well hidden or destroyed 1959 soviet era documents is ludicrous to even ask for.

Just for one small example. One official interview of a person who saw the group leave the settlement with grandfather slava says there were 2 horses. the diary says 1 and the very often argued photo of that shows one horse.

Here is another:"Looking through the documents for 1956-58, I accidentally discovered the order of the executive committee to dismiss Semyon Alekseevich," Anastasia said. - The document proposes to release Comrade Zolotarev from the post of teacher of physical education at school from April 14, 1958.

Читайте на WWW.KP.RU: https://www.kp.ru/daily/28310/4451043/

this is from this website. so was he working as a teacher of physical education and needed level 3 or was he fired. which do we believe?

Dear tenne ,

I notice you added these paragraphs to the above post when edited .

Here is another:"Looking through the documents for 1956-58, I accidentally discovered the order of the executive committee to dismiss Semyon Alekseevich," Anastasia said. - The document proposes to release Comrade Zolotarev from the post of teacher of physical education at school from April 14, 1958.

Читайте на WWW.KP.RU: https://www.kp.ru/daily/28310/4451043/

this is from this website. so was he working as a teacher of physical education and needed level 3 or was he fired. which do we believe?

I would advise that when wanting to share new information or a significant edit that you write a new post. The information can get missed and that would be a shame.


There was a previous member on here that did many things prematurely . He would re-edit many times and became incoherent. He was obsessed with murder.

[GlennM]

Tenne,  as I see it, the difference is the volume of what can be explained. Asking how leads to definitive demonstrable answers supported by direct observation, experimentation and the record. Asking why is seek an answer to unrecorded thought processes. The reason the forum exists is a testament to understanding how events transpired.There is still no general agreement on numerous points. Asking why things did or did not happen leads nowhere as you adroitly pointed out.Yet knowing the why of the tragedy is the reason  the forum persists. It keeps me here.

To explain the DPI, we first look at clues, then draw conclusions, not the other way around, which would be having a presupposed answer to why, and force fitting facts to make the how fit.

I appreciate that you understand that asking the follow up question , which is " how do you know" is difficult, hopefully not impossible.  I am certainly not getting an " I solved the Dyatlov Pass Mystery" t-shirt any time soon. But I do appreciate those who do footprints in the snow, cut canvas with a knife, light fire with matches etc. These efforts give us an idea of how events might be explained.

[Почемучка]

There was a previous member on here that did many things prematurely . He would re-edit many times and became incoherent. He was obsessed with murder.

Сэр Ziljoe, попросите эту подозрительную особу  -  свои тезисы строить на более точном понимании русского языка. У нас есть разница между планируемым и реально произошедшим. Был план - дать две лошади. Смогли дать и дали - одну. Она уже не знает к чему привязаться.
Для неё работа в школе учителем (государственная служба) равна временной работе инструктором по туризму. Она не представляет что эти функции можно при разрешение начальников - совмещать. Если такого нет - остается выбирать одно из двух.

И выбирать то что по душе. Так и сделал Семен Золотарев. Планируя в будущем стать руководителем какой-нибудь туристической база. Именно для этого важны разряды. Это как медали, фиксирующие опытность и квалификацию.
У меня такое впечатление - что в Канаде вообще нет образования. Или она представляет школу даунов.

Sir Ziljoe, ask this suspicious person to build your theses on a more accurate understanding of the Russian language. We have a difference between planned and actually happened. There was a plan - to give two horses. They were able to give and gave - one. She no longer knows what to get attached to.
For her, working at a school as a teacher (public service) is equal to a temporary job as a tourism instructor. She does not imagine that these functions can be combined with the permission of the superiors. If this is not the case, it remains to choose one of the two.

And choose what you like. So did Semyon Zolotarev. Planning to become the head of some tourist base in the future. That's what ranks are for. It's like a medal, fixing the experience and qualifications.
I have the impression that there is no education at all in Canada. Or she represents the school of downs.

[tenne]

Tenne,  do you appreciate how structured your answers are? Great! Do you also appreciate that your follow up challenge is clear. This is the advantage of asking how instead of why. Unless you or someone else can answer the follow up questions you can not address, then your line of inquiry is effectively finished. I recommend you continue to ask how your conspiracy can be demonstrated to be true. Asking why gets you nowhere.Good hunting.

There is absolutely no way I can or you can prove the truth. If we could, this forum wouldn't exist. I have absolutely no way to prove it was a cover up. You  have no way to prove it wasn't.

To even think that an ordinary person could get access to either very well hidden or destroyed 1959 soviet era documents is ludicrous to even ask for.

Just for one small example. One official interview of a person who saw the group leave the settlement with grandfather slava says there were 2 horses. the diary says 1 and the very often argued photo of that shows one horse.

Here is another:"Looking through the documents for 1956-58, I accidentally discovered the order of the executive committee to dismiss Semyon Alekseevich," Anastasia said. - The document proposes to release Comrade Zolotarev from the post of teacher of physical education at school from April 14, 1958.

Читайте на WWW.KP.RU: https://www.kp.ru/daily/28310/4451043/

this is from this website. so was he working as a teacher of physical education and needed level 3 or was he fired. which do we believe?

Dear tenne ,

I notice you added these paragraphs to the above post when edited .

Here is another:"Looking through the documents for 1956-58, I accidentally discovered the order of the executive committee to dismiss Semyon Alekseevich," Anastasia said. - The document proposes to release Comrade Zolotarev from the post of teacher of physical education at school from April 14, 1958.

Читайте на WWW.KP.RU: https://www.kp.ru/daily/28310/4451043/

this is from this website. so was he working as a teacher of physical education and needed level 3 or was he fired. which do we believe?

I would advise that when wanting to share new information or a significant edit that you write a new post. The information can get missed and that would be a shame.


There was a previous member on here that did many things prematurely . He would re-edit many times and became incoherent. He was obsessed with murder.

I didn't realize it was new information. I do normally start a new thread when asking a new question so it doesn't get lost but I thought this was known. I will start a new one

[Ziljoe]

Tenne

You can do as you like . I am just highlighting when you add new context to a post that has already been posted retrospectively . Then others may not read or see your post. I suggest a continuing  post on the topic you were talking about , not a new thread.

Maybe the KTB were looking into it.

[tenne]

Not a problem and thank you. so..... comment on it 

[Ziljoe]

Not a problem and thank you. so..... comment on it 

What would you like to comment on? .

[tenne]

Not a problem and thank you. so..... comment on it 

What would you like to comment on? .

I misunderstood your comment to begin with. I thought you wanted that pulled out so you could comment on it. my bad

[Ziljoe]

Not a problem and thank you. so..... comment on it 

What would you like to comment on? .

I misunderstood your comment to begin with. I thought you wanted that pulled out so you could comment on it. my bad

No problem. When you re-edit your post , readers won't know ,so it will get missed.

You wanted a comment on your post

[GlennM]

In this forum we have a mix of posts, many are "how" and "how do you know" posts, others are "why" and "why not" posts. Between the two major types, asking how leads to an intelligent and informed dialogue,  frequently with examples taken from life, literature and social media. The upshot of these contributions is they can satisfy both the how and why of an issue. For example, asking how the tourists made their way in deep snow also addresses the why. The typical why answer is just Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is the best. In the preceding example. Why? It more efficient. I believe that when we understand the how of each questionable issue of the DPI, the why of it will become self evident,,again owing to Occam's Razor.

To be certain, this approach is very mechanistic. It actually eliminates free will. As an example, when you leave a room, you may turn right or left. You think you have a choice. You do not. All behavior is motivated perhaps even predetermined. Everything that happened in the DPI occurred without option. Understanding how things happened will reveal why they happened. (1) they had no choice in the  matter and (2) what transpired was the simplest behavior to achieve the desired result. They died because Nature is indifferent to both how and why. Nature calls the tune, we must do the dance. Your turn!

[Почемучка]

In this forum we have a mix of posts, many are "how" and "how do you know" posts, others are "why" and "why not" posts. Between the two major types, asking how leads to an intelligent and informed dialogue,  frequently with examples taken from life, literature and social media. The upshot of these contributions is they can satisfy both the how and why of an issue. For example, asking how the tourists made their way in deep snow also addresses the why. The typical why answer is just Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is the best. In the preceding example. Why? It more efficient. I believe that when we understand the how of each questionable issue of the DPI, the why of it will become self evident,,again owing to Occam's Razor.

To be certain, this approach is very mechanistic. It actually eliminates free will. As an example, when you leave a room, you may turn right or left. You think you have a choice. You do not. All behavior is motivated perhaps even predetermined. Everything that happened in the DPI occurred without option. Understanding how things happened will reveal why they happened. (1) they had no choice in the  matter and (2) what transpired was the simplest behavior to achieve the desired result. They died because Nature is indifferent to both how and why. Nature calls the tune, we must do the dance. Your turn!

А вот - хорошо сказано. Хотя человек - ведь тоже часть природы...
But - well said. Although man is also a part of nature ...

[Ziljoe]

In this forum we have a mix of posts, many are "how" and "how do you know" posts, others are "why" and "why not" posts. Between the two major types, asking how leads to an intelligent and informed dialogue,  frequently with examples taken from life, literature and social media. The upshot of these contributions is they can satisfy both the how and why of an issue. For example, asking how the tourists made their way in deep snow also addresses the why. The typical why answer is just Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is the best. In the preceding example. Why? It more efficient. I believe that when we understand the how of each questionable issue of the DPI, the why of it will become self evident,,again owing to Occam's Razor.

To be certain, this approach is very mechanistic. It actually eliminates free will. As an example, when you leave a room, you may turn right or left. You think you have a choice. You do not. All behavior is motivated perhaps even predetermined. Everything that happened in the DPI occurred without option. Understanding how things happened will reveal why they happened. (1) they had no choice in the  matter and (2) what transpired was the simplest behavior to achieve the desired result. They died because Nature is indifferent to both how and why. Nature calls the tune, we must do the dance. Your turn!

А вот - хорошо сказано. Хотя человек - ведь тоже часть природы...
But - well said. Although man is also a part of nature ...

For me ,why and how both have a part to play. I don't think you can have one without the other. In conspiracy theories I need a why.

With tenne's talk, that the tent and  bodies were moved to the slope to be found easily. The question for me is why, not how. We can make any number of reasons  for how, sledge , helicopter , pulled by deer. If it's a conspiracy then any how answer can be made to fit with leaps of faith but the why answer is more difficult. Why did the conspirators want the tent to be put on the slope is the correct question. There is no logic to how's .

[Почемучка]

For me ,why and how both have a part to play. I don't think you can have one without the other. In conspiracy theories I need a why.

With tenne's talk, that the tent and  bodies were moved to the slope to be found easily. The question for me is why, not how. We can make any number of reasons  for how, sledge , helicopter , pulled by deer. If it's a conspiracy then any how answer can be made to fit with leaps of faith but the why answer is more difficult. Why did the conspirators want the tent to be put on the slope is the correct question. There is no logic to how's .

Сэр Ziljoe, упоминая людей - я говорю о самих участниках группы Дятлова.  Нет в этой истории злодеев-посторонних. Это сумма характеров и душевного состояния всех участников группы Дятлова - представляет собою другое проявление Природы.
Sir Ziljoe, when I mention people - I'm talking about the members of the Dyatlov group themselves. There are no outsiders in this story. This is the sum of the characters and state of mind of all members of the Dyatlov group - it is another manifestation of Nature.

[GlennM]

I contend that addressing the how must precede why. In the matter of moving the tent upslope a military solution will surely be different than a Mansi solution which will differ from a geologist's solution. This is owing to the resources available, the leadership and time allowance. Further, if this was a criminal enterprise, you must understand that perpetrators bring something with them when they arrived, and left something upon departure. There is no perfect crime.

I believe when the how of the subtrefuge is fully explained, including the " how do you know" part, then asking why should follow. We keep following the money to determine who benefits. The money or positive reinforcement is the why of a conspiracy. People are not killed in order to make it worse. Occam's Razor.