2 Chinese lanterns

[GlennM]

Thank you for your interest in my post. When I say, " follow the money", it comes from my observing patterns of people who advance themselves by using money as a tool.  All behavior is motivated. Money is a powerful motivator. Those motivated by money gain wealth, fame, or anonymity. Beneath that, it makes them feel good.

In the DPI, money buys assasins. Money buys coverups. Money pays for revenge killings. Additionally, money comes from commercial re tellings of an old hiking disaster where the mundane is replaced by the sensational. Emotional currency is a thing too. Defending a point of view which is paid in friendship with someone who is in a stronger position of influence. Think of Huxley as Darwin's bulldog analogy.

When we look back to the historical events, the causes and results of the incident can be understood as the result of decisions made in unforgiving weather.  Only later do we find people unsatisfied with that. This, of course leads to the classic. Who,what,when, why set of questions.

Every single conspiracy theory is founded on somebody being rewarded for their successful efforts to remove a source of irritation. If it is paid assasins, who pays them? If military, who gets to keep their rank or get promoted? If it is a grudge, then there is a paper trail. Etc.etc.

Imagining a conspiracy is easy. It is the invisible glue that connects factual links in the chain of events. Proving the conspiracy devolves into knowing who benefits from it. The beneficiary is also the banker. Follow the money to the banker and the reason becomes clear. All the rest is mundane detail. The longest journey begins with a single step.

[Senior Maldonado]

Quite unusual approach. As snow slab and cornice collapse are indifferent to money, it were them who caused DPI.

[bongyi]

In that sense, there is no difference between a conspiracy or anything else! In general, we must assume some kind of advantage as a motive for any action. This advantage is conceivable in many ways and it does not make sense to refer to it as money. And it's not a conspiracy-specific thing at all

When we look back to the historical events, the causes and results of the incident can be understood as the result of decisions made in unforgiving weather.  Only later do we find people unsatisfied with that. This, of course leads to the classic. Who,what,when, why set of questions.

E.g, the relatives soon talked about a missile accident. Obviously, chronologically, ideas appear earlier that are easier to imagine : an avalanche or murder. But from the fact that Lyuda's father talks about the missile accident in the police report, when the 5s are found, but his daughter is not yet there, it is clear that they were forced to assume something else from the beginning, and they did not find what happened to be explained at all by the harsh weather - unlike you.

[Hunter]

Ziljoe

That is part is what is written in  case file 385. I'm sure you can see what is in the case file.

The criminal case file doesn't contain the photograph Ivanov cites. Moreover, it doesn't contain a single photograph taken according to the regulations of the time. The exception is Churkina's forensic analysis. Therefore, the photograph in question is a big question; we can only assume, with a very high degree of certainty, that it's the one where certain figures appear to be digging a hole for a tent.

[GlennM]

Maldanado makes my point and Bongi thinks of currency only as money.

To put it is another light think altruism. That is doing a deed without the prospect of reward or recognition after doing somebody a favor. The DP9 were not candidates for a mercy killing.

If you insist on a point of view which covers up the deaths, I advise you to follow the  money. In conspiracies there is always a beneficiary. No exceptions.

[Hunter]

In our case, we must also consider the peculiarities of the Soviet political system, where every negative development was swept under the rug, meaning it couldn't be used in political and ideological confrontation. Therefore, some emergency situations could be kept under wraps, just in case. The same thing happened here: the Dyatlov affair could have negatively impacted the ruling party's image, and if necessary, it could have been spinned as a political affair.

[GlennM]

Hunter, thanks for reinforcing my point. By suppressing the hiking incident and lopping off a few administrative heads, so to speak, a price was paid for the deadly incident.This happened irrespective of the cause, which I contend was stormy weather. This face saving move served to deflect responsibility from the Soviet administration and protect the security, prestige and power of  those who could be removed for political reasons. In short, they still get paid.

[amashilu]

If you haven't seen the movie about the Chernobyl disaster, it's enlightening in its depiction of the Russian govt's need to present itself as perfect at all times and never admit a mistake .....  allowing radiation to leak into Europe without telling or warning anyone just so their perfect facade was not tarnished. What radiation? Nothing to see here, everything is perfect. I believe it was Sweden who first noticed high radiation rates and started an investigation. It would not be out of character at all for the Russian govt. to have treated the troubling DPI incident in the same way. But I don't think "follow the money" is relevant here because there is no reward, only anxiety and hush-up.

[GlennM]

This is a good example. My interpretation is that the discovery and remediation of the Chernobyl meltdown was very, very costly. The cover up was costly, the reveal was costly and the remediation is costly. Who paid for it and who suffered because of it? The incomplete answer is it was just the Soviet citizenry.

Back to the DPI. Everyone knows I advocate for this as a natural disaster, pure and simple. What most do not appreciate is I have given the necessary  tools to conspiracy buffs. The tools do not work themselves, but they work every time. They are 1. All behavior is motivated 2.Follow the money. 3. The "how" does not explain "why". 4. Truth and logic are not synomous. 5. Evidence must be valid and reliable.

Conspiracy buffs can use the tools I have provided. They will eventually come to the  singular conclusion they do not know all the facts. Then,they make them up. Some people honestly want to get at their version of the truth. They want to be paid for it in reputation, or publishing royalties. Neither is criminal, but as we well know that is not the whole story.

If it helps, think of money as,currency and think of currency as not just money.

[bongyi]

@GlennM
I lived under a Soviet-style administration and I assume @Hunter did too! I have direct experience of how this system works!

The Gyatlov incident cannot be interpreted separately from the Soviet administration.

We knew about Chernobyl right away. I live in a neighboring country.  My mother worked in an institute where the increased radiation was immediately registered. It wasn't dangerous for us, the wind wasn't blowing towards us. We were lucky. But we knew much earlier than it was announced on the news.

[GlennM]

What is the point you are trying to make? Is it that Soviet leaders want to keep their power and wealth? Follow the money .They wished to keep their moneg and power by blaming someone else. It was no conspiracy to destroy Chernobyl. It was hubris, or conceited pride that started the problem.

You claim the power plant failure was no secret and soon detected. When it was revealed, did any Soviet leader throw himself on his ceremonial sword as a sacrfice for his sin? No! Everyone scrambled to protect their self interest and blame someone else.

Did you note that in the DPI, did this behavior happen? Yes it did and the director of the Sports Club was removed. Was he blamed for a conspiracy? Assasins? Rocket crash? No. There was no conspiracy, only an accident of Nature and a scape goat at the UPI.

[SURI]

Did you note that in the DPI, did this behavior happen? Yes it did and the director of the Sports Club was removed. Was he blamed for a conspiracy? Assasins? Rocket crash? No. There was no conspiracy, only an accident of Nature and a scape goat at the UPI.

Yet, Ivanov chose him and one more person from the entire list—even after 30 years!—and named them as the ultimate culprits of the entire incident. They kept silent, they kept quiet, and they profited from it. Surely you understand what that implies. And if it were even remotely possible, they would have been arrested.


Here is the key source:

"But there were those for whom silence was beneficial. First of all, the director /or whatever his name was/ Gordo was silent. He was one of the culprits of the detachment making a lot of mistakes. The head of the city sports committee /I don't remember his last name/ was silent, because he was also guilty of the detachment being "semi-wild", moving into the stage of "wildness" at the final stage.

I was quite surprised that at the bureau these two absolutely guilty people in the death of the guys were slightly punished, I think they were given a reprimand. And this meant that it was impossible to bring them to criminal responsibility, because They were members of the CPSU, and until very recently, until 1986, the Instruction of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the instructional letter of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, signed by Stalin and Molotov in 1939 on the issue of eliminating serious distortions in the fight against enemies of the people, were in effect. This letter said that many cases of unjustified prosecution of people were allowed at the local level, abuses were allowed in the NKGB and NKVD bodies in this matter, and it was proposed that a member of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) could be brought to criminal responsibility only with the consent of the party committee, and he could be arrested only with the personal sanction of the first secretary. /only the first secretary wrote a resolution and the seal of the district or city committee was put on it/. So, the city and regional committees did not give such consent to bring these two people to justice. And that's it, the issue is resolved."

That is not how you talk about a scapegoat!

[bongyi]

Yet, Ivanov chose him and one more person from the entire list—even after 30 years!—and named them as the ultimate culprits of the entire incident. They kept silent, they kept quiet, and they profited from it. Surely you understand what that implies. And if it were even remotely possible, they would have been arrested.

No just Ivanov, but Lyuda's father also accused these people. I think Ivanov is trying to divert attention from his own responsibility.

[GlennM]

The elephant in the room is one of interpretation. The DP9 were not deliberately sent to their death any more than the Blinov group was. Finding a fall guy comes next.

[sarapuk]

Yes, that is one of the reasons why I do not agree with the slab avalanche theory. We need to determine whether the phenomenon that caused the evacuation of the tent was the same as the one involved in the events further down the slope. So, why did they head in the opposite direction from Labaz—and against the freezing winds? (What kind of drive and determination motivates people to venture into the darkness and the unknown?)

Well, the answer is probably that they were scared of something. Even terrified. Phenomenon is a good word to use. Indications are that the event at the tent was linked to the event down the slope and in the forest and the ravine.

[sarapuk]

They were on a slope. The slope led,to trees. Trees are shelter, firewood and a snow cave. No other decision produces the same risk to reward.

Except that they fled their abode not properly dressed or equipped for those extreme weather conditions. They must have been scared or even terrified of something in order to do that.

[sarapuk]

Why have these compelling forces of nature not been reproduced in the last 60 years? Or if they do, where is the documentation about them? E.g, avalanches are not like they happen once and then never again! They happen regularly, often according to a schedule!
Belief in a very special natural conjunction, which is only it happened on 1959 February 1-2 and since then it has never happened again, no better than the wildest conspiracy theory!

The phenomenon causing the abandonment of the tent is either unspecified; or the assumed cannot be reproduced; and there is no data on repeated occurrences from the last 60 years.
So this is a completely unlikely thing! But it in no way explains the injuries, because then the bodies could not have been in 1.5 km distance.
It follows from this that the previous extremely improbable event that caused the abandonment of the tent was not the only thing that hikers had to suffer that night, but that at least one more other tragic event had to happen, which caused their very different and difficult-to-explain injuries!

I think it's easy to see that the probability of two such unlikely natural events combining is very close to zero!

Well put. Obviously, we have to take into account that most events of whatever nature are always going to be unique. No 2 events will be the same.

[sarapuk]

For what it's worth, I do not advocate for an avalanche. There are different degrees of mass snow movement, a avlanche being the largest,slab slip the smallest.

Are there documented slab-slip cases from the last 60 years on that slope?  Could anyone reproduce a slab-slip at the supposed location of the tent? If so, which place was considered the location of the tent? Where is the documentation on this?
If not, how does this slab-slip differ from an avalanche for that slope?
There are no documented slab-slip cases and no documented avalanche cases.
No one could reproduce slab-slip in the supposed location of the tent, and no avalanche was reproduced.  Everything is the same, whichever one we are talking about.

Also, as I mentioned recently, there have been plenty of expeditions to the Dyatlov Pass since the incident, and none of them has encountered snow conditions that could cause an avalanche. 

[sarapuk]

Follow the money. Who profits from such an elaborate fiction? Who would care anyway? The truth is that bad things happen to good people. Conspiracy buffs do not have all the facts and certainly not the connections. Between the two imagining connections is easier than ignoring or inventing facts.

Follow the money? I wonder how many investigators in this Forum are interested in making money out of it? Probably not many, if any. 

[sarapuk]

Thank you for your interest in my post. When I say, " follow the money", it comes from my observing patterns of people who advance themselves by using money as a tool.  All behavior is motivated. Money is a powerful motivator. Those motivated by money gain wealth, fame, or anonymity. Beneath that, it makes them feel good.

In the DPI, money buys assasins. Money buys coverups. Money pays for revenge killings. Additionally, money comes from commercial re tellings of an old hiking disaster where the mundane is replaced by the sensational. Emotional currency is a thing too. Defending a point of view which is paid in friendship with someone who is in a stronger position of influence. Think of Huxley as Darwin's bulldog analogy.

When we look back to the historical events, the causes and results of the incident can be understood as the result of decisions made in unforgiving weather.  Only later do we find people unsatisfied with that. This, of course leads to the classic. Who,what,when, why set of questions.

Every single conspiracy theory is founded on somebody being rewarded for their successful efforts to remove a source of irritation. If it is paid assasins, who pays them? If military, who gets to keep their rank or get promoted? If it is a grudge, then there is a paper trail. Etc.etc.

Imagining a conspiracy is easy. It is the invisible glue that connects factual links in the chain of events. Proving the conspiracy devolves into knowing who benefits from it. The beneficiary is also the banker. Follow the money to the banker and the reason becomes clear. All the rest is mundane detail. The longest journey begins with a single step.

It looks like you use the term follow the money for anyone who doesn't believe that bad weather caused the Dyatlov tragedy.