August 06, 2020, 02:41:05 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: All the theories require a speculative leap  (Read 1375 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

May 14, 2018, 11:26:56 PM
Read 1375 times
Offline

Marchesk


    Given what evidence we do have, every single theory requires imagining a scenario and fitting the evidence to it.

    • Avalanche: no actual evidence there was one of any kind other than some snow on the tent, or that the hikers thought there was one. The most convincing avalanche theory I've heard requires imagining that the wind blew the evidence away.
    • Paradoxical Undressing: no evidence this happened inside the tent.
    • Infrasound: no evidence this has ever caused that sort of panic or occurred on that mountain.
    • Ball Lightning, Meteor: no evidence other than possibly burned top of trees, which isn't documented, and the camera negatives.
    • Stove: no evidence it was used that night, except conflicting reports of what was inside the stove.
    • Ergot, Mushrooms, Methanol: no evidence from toxicology report and food not tested (?)
    • Mansi, Special Forces, Other Humans: no evidence anyone else was there that night.
    • Military Testing: no debris of any kind, radiation source, etc. other than possibly camera negatives.
    • Illness: no evidence from autopsy reports.

    I've seen quite a few people say online this isn't really a mystery, and that there is a simple explanation (usually the first or second one above). But that's not really true at all. We have a bunch of theories without enough evidence to confirm any one theory. And depending on who you ask, a given theory is more or less plausible.

    It's also really hard to tell whether some of the evidence is actually relevant, or even real, given conflicting accounts and lack of photos or documentation for some of the scene before disturbing it.
     
    Edit: fix list formatting

« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 11:26:14 PM by Marchesk »

May 15, 2018, 03:37:38 AM
Reply #1
Offline

CalzagheChick


Yes this pretty much sums it up. This is why I refuse to marry a theory but remain open in the even new scientific evidence should come to light although HIGHLY improbable. I have a major issue with the fact that we can't even tell what, based upon what was left to be found on that slope, is evidence of what happened to these kids and what is just their luggage. I find is disheartening that Teddy's site is the only real attempt to put all of the documentation from the case in 60 years time in one place and in some kind of order rather than spread out over the interwebz abyss in several languages so that nobody knows what's what, the source of the information, or context of the original documents.

Something is always lost in translation unfortunately, so even I know that off the top I'm in a massive imposition in regards to the original case files. I'm also bothered that I can't look up and read the massive amounts of Russian-written articles on it. I'm stuck with English versions that may or may not be completely accurate.

One thing that I feel is absolutely necessary before examining all of the theories is having a solid background on Western Civilization, particularly Soviet Russian history. There's no better way to approach this from the beginning of events than with an understanding of the times these people were living in and what they'd suffered through within living memory beforehand.

May 16, 2018, 07:29:23 AM
Reply #2
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


The fundamental problem with the Dyatlov pass deaths, is that no proper investigation was ever made. When the Dyatlov group's camp was found, nobody thought about securing evidence. In addition, it is certain that during the long period from the fateful night of February 1-2 and February 26 important evidence must have disappeared. Ski trails, and in particular ski trails left by mountain skis, would almost certainly have completely disappeared.

On top of the already serious difficulties mentioned above, there came orders from governmental authorities which dictated that the case be closed with the conclusion that the nine died as a result of a combination of accident by "a compelling natural force" and hypothermia. Then we need to try to find out whether accidents, natural forces and hypothermia provide an explanation for the death of nine people during one single night. Evidently, the investigators in 1959 refrained from doing that - and they were pressurized to do so. For this reason, the official documents fail to delve sufficiently deep into the forensic evidence that was and to some degree still is available to us.

After the tragedy, the government decreed that common people were forbidden to enter the area for a period for three years. There is no rational reason why such a ban should be enforced if the official conclusions were correct. The natural terrain in that area is not particularly dangerous in any way either, so there could be no need to prevent people from entering for reasons of safety. 

Today, in my opinion the best we can do is to focus on the starting point: Nine people died. Their bodies were found. Dead people tell their own tale. We must simply re-analyze the available evidence as best we can, and start with the bodies. That is the best we can do.

August 01, 2018, 03:57:11 PM
Reply #3
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
We may not have all the evidence. We could think of it as a jigsaw puzzle, but some parts are missing. Where are those parts.
DB

May 21, 2020, 02:16:52 PM
Reply #4
Offline

Jean Daniel Reuss



.......................................
One thing that I feel is absolutely necessary before examining all of the theories is having a solid background on Western Civilization, particularly Soviet Russian history. There's no better way to approach this from the beginning of events than with an understanding of the times these people were living in and what they'd suffered through within living memory beforehand.

The event of the DPI is naturally explained by the disorders caused in the USSR by the liberations of the Gulag camps which took place from 1953 on the decisions of Beria and then Khrushchev.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Stalinization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1953%E2%80%931964)
https://erenow.net/modern/gulagahistoryanneapplebaum/ (see in particular :Chapter 25: THAW-AND RELEASE)

In 1959 there remained in the vicinity of Ivdel and Vizhay a small proportion of ex-zeks or former political prisoners who had many good reasons to hate the Soviet regime and who were ready to continue their patriotic struggle.

It is difficult to know if these were: Chechens, Ingush, Crimean Tatars, Poles, Czechoslovakians, Hungarians, Romanians, Moldovans, Ukrainians, Koreans, Germans, Bulgarians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians... or from other countries.

Free workers (some of them were ex-zeks) from Settlement 41 or Vizhay or even from the entire surrounding region can be considered as very suspect (much more so than the Mansi).

The presence (or passage) of these 9 easy-going communists, visibly more or less Stalinist, was felt (by these ex-zeks) as an infamous propaganda and as an unsustainable provocation.

  Loose}{Cannon»   November 27, 2017, 07:23:17 PM;   General Discussion > Unanswered Questions - Reply #16
« When it comes to foul play.....    I don't trust those loggers  they stayed with just days prior at the logging camp. »
 
.........................................
   In addition, it is certain that during the long period from the fateful night of February 1-2 and February 26 important evidence must have disappeared. Ski trails, and in particular ski trails left by mountain skis, would almost certainly have completely disappeared.

On top of the already serious difficulties mentioned above, there came orders from governmental authorities which dictated that the case be closed with the conclusion that the nine died as a result of a combination of accident by "a compelling natural force" and hypothermia.
............................................................
After the tragedy, the government decreed that common people were forbidden to enter the area for a period for three years. There is no rational reason why such a ban should be enforced if the official conclusions were correct. The natural terrain in that area is not particularly dangerous in any way either, so there could be no need to prevent people from entering for reasons of safety. 

...........Nine people died. Their bodies were found. Dead people tell their own tale. We must simply re-analyze the available evidence as best we can, and start with the bodies. That is the best we can do.

«Ski trails, and in particular ski trails left by mountain skis, would almost certainly have completely disappeared. »

Indeed the wind had indeed blown on the slope of Kholat Syakhl and on February 26, 1959 , with the exception of the famous footprints, which were photographed, there was not much left.

But the track in the forest near the Auspiya River which started from North 2 was certainly still visible on February 26th.

North 2 --> Track -->

An attacker who was chasing the hikers following this trail was even photographed on the evening of January 31 by Thibeaux-Brigolle, who did not have time to focus.

Here is the result which is often misinterpreted nowadays.


For an average-level skier following the tracks of the 9 hikers, a few hours were enough to go from North 2 to the tent.


«The natural terrain in that area is not particularly dangerous.»

Indeed the terrain is not dangerous for a team of 9 trained people, (apart from a few frostbite toes or ears......).
            But the KGB had failed in its mission by proving to be unable to protect the 9 hikers who were faultless Soviet citizens.

Thus, there could still be other die-hard enemies of the USSR (i.e. ex-zeks) in the region who had gone undetected (by the ineffective KGB) and who could have succeeded in another act of terrorism by killing additional Soviet hikers.

In other words, the region was not secured,  as we say now.

The risk of a second attack in the region could not be envisaged by the Soviet leadership,  especially considering that in 1959 Khrushchev feared being deposed by Brezhnev (which happened in 1964).

« Dead people tell their own tale. »

These 9 dead people tell us that blunt objects = clubs = bludgeons = pieces of birch branch (110 cm, 4 kg) are more effective than bare fists to defeat and kill. (I am obviously influenced and convinced first by Eduard Tumanov and then by Per Inge Oestmoen).

«That is the best we can do. »

         We can do more.
We can and must use reason to complete the missing parts. That is, imagine scenarios:

  1) - capable of explaining all the clues that are collected on Dyatlovpass.com
  2) - which take into account the history of the USSR, particularly the liberation of the camps during the destanilisation of the Khrushchev's thaw.

Without achieving absolute certitude, which is often the case in history as well as in judicial investigations, we will end in some probable reconstructions.

It is when we have drawn up complete descriptions, capable of explaining everything, that we will be able to search for and estimate the value of the available clues. Obviously the clues we know are debatable; they are not irrefutable evidence because, otherwise, there would be no problem, (and therefore the Dyatlovpass.com website would not exist !).


An example of a tenuous and debatable clue.
 See : «Lyudmila Dubinina's premonition of her tragic death» (Sabine Lechtenfeld)
                     https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=433.0

   Here no «premonition», but thanks to her enhanced feminine intuition, Dubinina had correctly guessed or perceived that, behind some polished or smiling faces, (at Vizhay or at settlement 41)  there was a deep-seated hostility.
January 24... Yes, and I generally like to add oil to the fire, damn me to hell.
January 25... The mood sank. In general, I am very, very sad.
January 26... Mood is bad and probably will be for two more days. Evil as hell.


Jean Daniel Reuss
Guidance for finding a rational scenario to explain a cold case
 • The solution takes in consideration all the physical clues.
 • Think about : Who ? Why ? How ?
 • The plausible explanations are consistent with the historical, military, political and psychological contexts.
 • The truth is often far from fantasy scenarios.