There is an even bigger problem with the snow mass theory: The results from the exhumation of Zolotaryov and the analysis of his injuries seem to indicate that snow cannot be responsible for the injuries.
In the same way it is also bordering on the impossible that snow could have caused the injuries of Kolevatov and the pointed injury to the skull of Thibeaux-Brignolle as we see here:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Nikolai-Thibeaux-Brignolle-autopsy-report.png
That kind of injury is hardly what we expect from snow or other "natural" causative factors.
Im guessing its because its not the snow that is believed to have directly impacted the injured areas. It was being thrust into a solid blunt object (in this theory rocks/boulders) that caused the damage. Whether it was a snow collapse of the embankment in which they dug the den that threw them onto said rocks/boulders, or if they fell from the top of the embankment/cliff of snow and onto the rocks/boulders that is the remaining question in that theory.
I understand you are a strong advocate for the murder hypothesis. However, please at least make an attempt to understand an apposing theory and refrain from blatantly misconstruing the core foundation of said theory when comparing to another.
I would also like to ask you please try to stay on topic. The OP clearly posted information regarding blood loss and what quantities look like in comparison in dif situations. Perhaps if the information posted here supports your subscribed theory, include it within threads having to do with that theory.
Hello, I saw this first today. It needs a follow up.
First; I agree that the discussion has strayed away from the blood loss topic, and I apologize for having been responsible for that.
However, I see a problem with the following statement:
"Im guessing its because its not the snow that is believed to have directly impacted the injured areas. It was being thrust into a solid blunt object (in this theory rocks/boulders) that caused the damage. Whether it was a snow collapse of the embankment in which they dug the den that threw them onto said rocks/boulders, or if they fell from the top of the embankment/cliff of snow and onto the rocks/boulders that is the remaining question in that theory. I understand you are a strong advocate for the murder hypothesis. However, please at least make an attempt to understand an apposing theory and refrain from blatantly misconstruing the core foundation of said theory when comparing to another. "
Answer:
- I am glad if we can agree that a direct impact from snow is unlikely to have caused the injuries of the victims mentioned above. How likely it is that the snow has creatively caused all these different injuries in an indirect way, is then off-topic here and another discussion.
- But please do not say that I have misconstrued the core foundation of the snow theory.
It was Sergey Nikitin who, possibly as a result of influence from the official premise that the nine who perished at the Dyatlov pass died as a result of accidents, interpreted and stated that the cause of Zolotaryev's injuries was "most likely snow." This is clear from the interview in the message linket to below and from where the relevant passages are quoted:
http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=156.msg580#msg580 "GS: In 1959, the forensic pathologist described that there were two fracture lines of Zolotaryov ribs. "After the extraction of the organs from the thoracic and abdominal cavities, fractures of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth ribs on the right along the parasternal line and midaxillary line are determined." How much did it coincide with what we saw?
SN: This coincided almost completely. Except for a small minor amendment. I would define the axillary line not as an average, but as a back axillary line. Some bones were not examined. We looked at the right shoulder blade, there were three fractures. The act of this was not noted. I assumed first that this is a posthumous injury. The whole grave was covered with pieces of granite, the pressure on the bones of the skeleton can't be ignored. But then I reassessed, because the left shoulder was intact. If there were posthumous damages, it is logical to assume that both the left shoulder blade would be broken and in general would be other multiple fractures on the bones of the skeleton.
GS: Yes, we did not see damages like that. We found much more fragile bones. Even thyroid cartilage. And the skull itself is not crushed. It turns out that this weight had no effect on the bones.
SN: During the burial after the funeral the stones were laid to form a vault. They didn't press down. The ribs were broken on the right, and the right shoulder blade. This fits into the mechanism of fracture of the ribs.
GS: Is it correct to say that the chest as a construction can have structural fractures? In other words, one blow could cause several fractures?
SN: This indicates that at the contact zone, the impact exceeded the sizes from the first to the sixth rib. It was a large heavy mass. Most likely, snow."
I referred to the injuries of Zolotaryev as well as Kolevatov and Thibeaux-Brignolle, and pointed out that it is unlikely that snow could have caused any of these injuries. Yet, Sergej Nikitin explicitly presents snow as the likely direct cause of Zolotaryev's injuries.
Therefore, it is no misrepresentation at all to refer to the snow theory which assumes snow as a direct impactor responsible for lethal injuries. That theory does exist, as we can see.
Topic: How Much is 100 mLs of blood? (WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES ATTACHED) (Read 22687 times)