Specific details

[Morski]

Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?

Yeah.  I think rational and irrational behaviour and decisions has to be considered.  But why would there be sudden step change in behaviour?  For example the scene inside the tent appears to be reasonably orderly (apart from the shoes).  Also it seems that the pamphlet (if it existed) was clearly written and logical and wouldn’t indicate anything abnormal.  Also they seemed to be in the process of eating or just finished eating which is quite a rational and orderly process.  Then suddenly they start behaving irrationally?  Just seems odd.

Regards
Star man

Good points.

As for the inside of the tent, I agree it is somehow ok; even the pile of shoes does not seem that much out of order.

The pamphlet is interesting. We don`t know for sure, whether it even existed, but on the other hand, why would someone fabricate it? The content sounds plausible for a company of young adventurers – jokes, love theme and so. Apart from the content, the other point is when (if, of course) it was written? Since we don`t have info on that, we can speculate: it could be in the trek breaks during the day time, or it could be after they set up the tent (for their last night?). But if we assume, that they were having troubles during the last day, and they put more effort to set up the tent in the late afternoon, and were probably trying to get in as fast as possible because of the weather, I think they wouldn`t have been in the mood to write satirical jokes. Probably they wanted to get inside, change some clothes, get rid of the wet/frozen shoes, and eat something. At least, with my experience, I would do that. Just an opinion.
 
The process of eating, or shortly after they finished eating. As you say, whatever happened, it must have happened during or shortly after. I see (at least) two options:

1. It was pure coincidence – someone/something disturbed their dinner (or briefly after the dinner), and they had to flee away;
 
2. They fled the tent because of the dinner (here I imply the poisoning/contamination, which led them to irrational behavior – leaving the shelter), or some sort of natural phenomenon forced them, creating real, or not real (imaginary?) threat;
I understand, that a sudden strike of not rational decision making sounds far stretched, but could it have been a process of overlaying? I mean, the grounds for the irrational actions were set some time before the actual event, and during the night of the first of February it just kicked in. Because of that, they might have had a hassle or something between them, or who knows what else.

I agree, though, it is odd indeed.

[Morski]

WAB said it in another comment, but Confucious words fit perfectly in the Yeti theme  - "It is difficult to find a black cat in a dark room. Especially when there is no cat in the room."   

Well I dont think this Confucious saying helps us much. More like Confucious CONFUSION.

More like sense of humor, but you know, whatever makes you happy.

[Morski]

Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?

Irrational behaviour  !  ?  HIGHLY UNLIKELY.  Behaviour of people who are scared stiff more like. Injuries of a MUTILATION TYPE not by any other Human Being.  Radiation unexplained ETC ETC.

They were by no doubt scared. But I am focusing on the reason for that fear - real, or not. And because of the nature of that threat/fear, they did both some irrational actions, and such decisions, and some relevant acts. I am questioning their abilities to behave reasonable in the beginning of the event, which later become the reason for their struggle to survive.
 
As for the mutilations, I am absolutely not convinced, that there were any injuries, which we cannot try to explain scientifically, without the need of Chupacabra or siblings.

Yes, the point I raise now is probably highly unlikely. But I see it a few hundred times more likely than a flying saucer sending a Yeti-like-alien (or a real Yeti?!) down to Earth, to kill 9 hikers. That must have been way more bad luck, compared to even the most ridiculous natural explanation.
 

[Star man]

Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?

Yeah.  I think rational and irrational behaviour and decisions has to be considered.  But why would there be sudden step change in behaviour?  For example the scene inside the tent appears to be reasonably orderly (apart from the shoes).  Also it seems that the pamphlet (if it existed) was clearly written and logical and wouldn’t indicate anything abnormal.  Also they seemed to be in the process of eating or just finished eating which is quite a rational and orderly process.  Then suddenly they start behaving irrationally?  Just seems odd.

Regards
Star man

Good points.

As for the inside of the tent, I agree it is somehow ok; even the pile of shoes does not seem that much out of order.

The pamphlet is interesting. We don`t know for sure, whether it even existed, but on the other hand, why would someone fabricate it? The content sounds plausible for a company of young adventurers – jokes, love theme and so. Apart from the content, the other point is when (if, of course) it was written? Since we don`t have info on that, we can speculate: it could be in the trek breaks during the day time, or it could be after they set up the tent (for their last night?). But if we assume, that they were having troubles during the last day, and they put more effort to set up the tent in the late afternoon, and were probably trying to get in as fast as possible because of the weather, I think they wouldn`t have been in the mood to write satirical jokes. Probably they wanted to get inside, change some clothes, get rid of the wet/frozen shoes, and eat something. At least, with my experience, I would do that. Just an opinion.
 
The process of eating, or shortly after they finished eating. As you say, whatever happened, it must have happened during or shortly after. I see (at least) two options:

1. It was pure coincidence – someone/something disturbed their dinner (or briefly after the dinner), and they had to flee away;
 
2. They fled the tent because of the dinner (here I imply the poisoning/contamination, which led them to irrational behavior – leaving the shelter), or some sort of natural phenomenon forced them, creating real, or not real (imaginary?) threat;
I understand, that a sudden strike of not rational decision making sounds far stretched, but could it have been a process of overlaying? I mean, the grounds for the irrational actions were set some time before the actual event, and during the night of the first of February it just kicked in. Because of that, they might have had a hassle or something between them, or who knows what else.

I agree, though, it is odd indeed.

A good point about the pamphlet.  It could have been written in installments and not all on the 1st Feb.

Of course it is possible that there was some kind of poisoning  of the food that led to confused behaviour.  However, they were already several days into the trip and had not been affected by their food supplies on previous days?  Why on this night would they all or at least even some of them find a batchnofmpoisoned food?  It's unlikely.

They may have consumed some mind altering drugs deliberately as some kind of experiment as in the shrooms theory.  But these guys were experienced hikers who new the risks of the environment they were in.  They wanted to gain their certificates so I doubt that they would do this.

So to me although possible, the poisoning scenario leading to changed behaviour seems very unlikely.

I am skeptical about the yeti theory.  I don't believe in yetis.  But I can't completely rule them out.  I have been doing some research into the cryptozoology and although there are some very obvious hoaxes, there are some stories and even videos that are incredibly convincing.  Also, I refer back to some of the more experienced DPI expert comments such as WAB who is convinced that there could not have been any other people there that night, or large predatory animals.  I am sure he would say the same thing about yetis too but there something nigling me about it. 

If you look at the pattern of clothing and compare this to the different groups (I.e.rav 4, the two Yuris, zina, Rustem and Dyatlov). 

The rag 4 had Zolatriov and Thibo both of which had they shoes on and some outer clothing.  Solmwith his camera around his neck.  They were most likely already outside when they fled.  Lyuda and Kolevatov had quite warm clothing on and hats,mfur coats but no shoes.  I think they were outside too when they fled.  I Thibo and Xol could have seen something and alerted the others.  Lyuda and akolevatov clambered out of the tent without their shoes to see what was going on and joined Thibo and Zol.  This group makes up the rav 4.  Then suddenly this group realised the danger they were in and fled first down the slope, while the others were still in the tent.  Let's assume now that this threat is approaching the tent.  The rav 4 would have been panicked and those in the tent would clearly realise at this point there was significant danger.  Rustem scrambles for his boots, disturbing the pile of shoes in the process.  He manages to get one boot on before the threat is at the front of tent near the entrance, possibly even peering inside.  There exit is blocked.  There is only one option to get out of the tent and that is through the side by cutting some slices in the fabric.  The axes and ice pick are at the front near the entrance so it is too risky to try and get them.  In a panic those left in the tent cut their way out and begin to defend the slope, but the threat is soon following them so they split up to evade this threat.  The two Yuris stick together while Rustem, zina and Dyatlov split off.  They quickly lose each other in the dark.  The rest is history.  At the moment the evasion of some kind of threat on the ground is the only explanation for the two Yuris to have climbed the cedar in the poor state they would have been given their lack of clothing.  Was the fire just to keep warm or was it to ward away some kind of wild creature?

The chest injuries of Zol Lyuda and head injury of Thibo could be explained by a fall at some point.  But it could also be explained by them being picked and thrown. Or beaten with super human force.

These are just ideas of course.  Wild speculations?  But they pull at something in the back of mind.

One other thing That has been on my mind.  If there was a yeti where are the foot prints?  The hikers left traces.  Raised foot prints sculpted from the compressed snow by the wind.  So where are the yeti foot prints.  Maybe they never existed.  But what exactly is the physics for the formation of the sculpted foot prints?  I am not an expert, but my understanding  is that the foot print is caused by the foot compressing the snow underneath.  The depth of the print being proportional to the weight of the person and foot surface area in contact with snow ( that is foot pressure).  The wind then blows away the surface layer of snow around the compressed part of the print, leaving raised prints above the new snow level.  But what if something much heavier than a human made deeper foot prints.  Deep enough that the wind could not scour away enough snow to leave elevated prints.  In fact if the foot prints were deep enough, the as the wind scours away the surface snow wouldn't it fill in the remaining depression covering up the print, instead of leaving a raised print? Must a thought.

Regards

Star man

[lucid-nonsense]

Yes I remember reading that his jacket was stuffed in a hole.

So according to various accounts it was:

Stuffed in a hole
Hanging just at the entrance to the tent
10 metres from the entrance to the tent

So I think it safe to conclude that nothing can be concluded from the evidence on Dyatlov's jacket.

Maybe he had more than one jacket. They seemed to have spares of most things.

[Star man]

Yes I remember reading that his jacket was stuffed in a hole.

So according to various accounts it was:

Stuffed in a hole
Hanging just at the entrance to the tent
10 metres from the entrance to the tent

So I think it safe to conclude that nothing can be concluded from the evidence on Dyatlov's jacket.

Maybe he had more than one jacket. They seemed to have spares of most things.

It's possible, but only one leather jacket with fur is listed in the protocol of items in the case files.  However, there is a fair bit of subjectivity in the identification of things.

Regards

Star man

[sarapuk]

Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?

Irrational behaviour  !  ?  HIGHLY UNLIKELY.  Behaviour of people who are scared stiff more like. Injuries of a MUTILATION TYPE not by any other Human Being.  Radiation unexplained ETC ETC.

They were by no doubt scared. But I am focusing on the reason for that fear - real, or not. And because of the nature of that threat/fear, they did both some irrational actions, and such decisions, and some relevant acts. I am questioning their abilities to behave reasonable in the beginning of the event, which later become the reason for their struggle to survive.
 
As for the mutilations, I am absolutely not convinced, that there were any injuries, which we cannot try to explain scientifically, without the need of Chupacabra or siblings.

Yes, the point I raise now is probably highly unlikely. But I see it a few hundred times more likely than a flying saucer sending a Yeti-like-alien (or a real Yeti?!) down to Earth, to kill 9 hikers. That must have been way more bad luck, compared to even the most ridiculous natural explanation.

If you are scared of something you are not being irrational you are being normal. Because normal people do get scared of things. And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour. I have mentioned the word MUTILATIONS but not the reason or reasons for those MUTILATIONS. UFO sightings are a fact and so are sightings of strange creatures. These type of sightings have a long history.

[lucid-nonsense]

And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?

[lucid-nonsense]

We dont know all the details on footprints because the search parties would have trampled over the Dyatlov Footprints near the Tent. We dont know the exact weather conditions at the time, so how can we know the strengh of any winds that were blowing. or any snow falling.

I'm pretty sure there was just no footprints left around the tent -- there aren't any in the pictures. Most of the footprints would've been erased by the snow and wind. The preserved footprints are the exception and not the rule. Otherwise they would've found easily found all the bodies the first day.

And about the weather, we don't know for sure, but we do know that it was bad! The entry for the day before describes the wind as like the wash of an airplane. The visibility was terrible in the pictures they took while they were setting up the tent, in the afternoon.

[Star man]

And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?

If the scary thing was moving around the tent and examining it then it could quite easily have peered in through the entrance sparking a panic and the remaining group to make a new exit?

Regards

Star man

[Morski]

Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?

Irrational behaviour  !  ?  HIGHLY UNLIKELY.  Behaviour of people who are scared stiff more like. Injuries of a MUTILATION TYPE not by any other Human Being.  Radiation unexplained ETC ETC.

They were by no doubt scared. But I am focusing on the reason for that fear - real, or not. And because of the nature of that threat/fear, they did both some irrational actions, and such decisions, and some relevant acts. I am questioning their abilities to behave reasonable in the beginning of the event, which later become the reason for their struggle to survive.
 
As for the mutilations, I am absolutely not convinced, that there were any injuries, which we cannot try to explain scientifically, without the need of Chupacabra or siblings.

Yes, the point I raise now is probably highly unlikely. But I see it a few hundred times more likely than a flying saucer sending a Yeti-like-alien (or a real Yeti?!) down to Earth, to kill 9 hikers. That must have been way more bad luck, compared to even the most ridiculous natural explanation.

If you are scared of something you are not being irrational you are being normal. Because normal people do get scared of things. And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour. I have mentioned the word MUTILATIONS but not the reason or reasons for those MUTILATIONS. UFO sightings are a fact and so are sightings of strange creatures. These type of sightings have a long history.

It is normal to be scared, of course, and fear is a natural sense.
 
But the very reason for it is a different thing. There seem to be a difference, let`s say, if you are scared because of a real (physical or other natural phenomenon) threat, and if you see a purple half-werewolf/half-dragon creature. If you can`t make a difference between the real and not real, that means your actions are triggered by something irrational – could be hallucinations or panic attack or who knows.

Have you ever seen a delusional person? One can be so stressed and scared of something he things he sees or feel, and that is an authentic fear to him, even though it is irrational. But the fact he feels “real” threat, does not imply his following actions are necessarily rational.
 
And whatever made them flee the refuge brings mixed emotions. They seem to left the tent in a hurry, some half-dressed, some without shoes, valuable and potentially live saving items left behind, and still – calmly going down the slope. Also other things – the happening under and onto the Cedar, the scattered clothes on the slope, some of them had gloves in pockets and etc., a strange combination and distribution of clothes in general. They probably split sometime before the forest, which is also odd (could be hassle between them, could be a fist fight as well; decision to split in order to gather wood, to build a fire, to find a place for shelter – like allocating responsibilities; or they were acting not rational, for an unknown reason).
 
It is indeed very difficult for me to see only a bunch of scared young men, who were all about rational conduct. That is why I argue, that the whole ordeal looks like a creepy mixture of both irrational and rational actions, and maybe it is not so pointless to speculate, that whatever made them leave the tent, wasn’t really there, or was only in their heads, or was actually there, but was not material - the result of geographical and landscape shapes, strong winds and winter night, which caused fear and/or delusions. Or some sort of food/water contamination, which affected them in different ways and to a different extent.
 
As for the “mutilations”, and you probably describe Lyuda, since you mention this every once in a while, I still struggle to see it so strange. Rotting for months in snow, thaw and later running water in a creek, plus probably rodents and small predators, seems like a good natural explanation, compared to any kind of deliberately caused injuries and/or torture, done by someone or something not from the known world. People leave traces, so do the bigger animals, and I believe, so would Yeti or any other legendary humanoid. And as far as we know – there were none.
 
UFO`s and strange creatures are millennia old sightings, you are right. But most of them still remain unexplained. UFO`s are unidentified by definition, and out of the hundreds strange creatures people claim to see from time to time – we have nothing. Not one such creature caught, not one body found, nothing. Only people`s claims, which does not irrefutably prove that they do not exist, but even hardly proves the opposite as well.

[cennetkusu]

And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?

There are two choices. 1. First
 They heard horrible sounds and saw possible images. Superman entered the tent. And the youth was very scared in the dark, and they ripped the tent apart and ran away. 2. Superman didn't go into the tent, but the sounds and images came very close to the tent. And the young people couldn't stand in the tent anymore and ran away. The first option comes to mind and logic. But the second option is a possible scenario. Or maybe both. First they heard terrible sounds from outside and they saw terrible images. They were terrified. And this creature suddenly felt inside the tent. At that moment, the young people couldn't find a way out. Semyon and his friend thought about the possibility of going out. And they put on their shoes and Semyon took the camera. The fact that others did not wear shoes is a sign that the incident was short. Because if it had been long, the others would have had time to consider wearing their shoes. I guess the whole event in the tent lasted between 2-4 minutes.

[cennetkusu]

And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?

One possible scenario is that young people have contacted the superman directly. Superman ordered them out of the tent. But this was not likely Russian. He ordered them to go out in his own language, but in a way that young people would understand. Young people listened to the order in fear and horror. It also explains why these young people did not run after leaving the tent.

[cennetkusu]

And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?

If you pay attention to the knife cuts in the tent, it is understood that young people do not want to leave the tent. Because there are many tears. So there is coercion directly or indirectly. If the teens were willing, they would make a single or double big cut with a knife and they would all get out of there. But there are many large and small oblique trapezoid cutouts in the tent !!! However, the other side of the tent was cut off (?) So young people unwillingly and hurried out of the tent. Only fear can be caused by young people tearing up the tent. Other than that, nothing comes to mind.

[cennetkusu]

And burn marks are evidence that they were on fire when Superman attacked. It is also a question of who took them by the fire (?) 1. Superman 2. The local hunter may have found and moved their places. If the hunters found it, why didn't they report it to the authorities (?) If the superman did it, why did it? There may be a possibility that the two Yuri will freeze to death separately from the others. But I don't think that's unlikely .... Because if there was a danger of dying from the cold, they'd dig a cave in the snow. They wouldn't wait to freeze there.

[Star man]

Could the whole starting of the event that night - from leaving the tent, (eventually) splitting in groups on the slope, and the Cedar happening, be triggered simply by irrational behavior?

It is, of course, more logical to assume, that there was an immanent (physical) threat - someone/something, but what if this someone or something wasn`t really there? Irrational actions caused by some sort of poisoning or by natural phenomenon. I kind of think, that what happened that night is a complex mix of irrational and rational decisions and actions.
 
The Big question with this hypothesis, is why and how all of them were affected. Or not all of them?

Irrational behaviour  !  ?  HIGHLY UNLIKELY.  Behaviour of people who are scared stiff more like. Injuries of a MUTILATION TYPE not by any other Human Being.  Radiation unexplained ETC ETC.

They were by no doubt scared. But I am focusing on the reason for that fear - real, or not. And because of the nature of that threat/fear, they did both some irrational actions, and such decisions, and some relevant acts. I am questioning their abilities to behave reasonable in the beginning of the event, which later become the reason for their struggle to survive.
 
As for the mutilations, I am absolutely not convinced, that there were any injuries, which we cannot try to explain scientifically, without the need of Chupacabra or siblings.

Yes, the point I raise now is probably highly unlikely. But I see it a few hundred times more likely than a flying saucer sending a Yeti-like-alien (or a real Yeti?!) down to Earth, to kill 9 hikers. That must have been way more bad luck, compared to even the most ridiculous natural explanation.

If you are scared of something you are not being irrational you are being normal. Because normal people do get scared of things. And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour. I have mentioned the word MUTILATIONS but not the reason or reasons for those MUTILATIONS. UFO sightings are a fact and so are sightings of strange creatures. These type of sightings have a long history.

It is normal to be scared, of course, and fear is a natural sense.
 
But the very reason for it is a different thing. There seem to be a difference, let`s say, if you are scared because of a real (physical or other natural phenomenon) threat, and if you see a purple half-werewolf/half-dragon creature. If you can`t make a difference between the real and not real, that means your actions are triggered by something irrational – could be hallucinations or panic attack or who knows.

Have you ever seen a delusional person? One can be so stressed and scared of something he things he sees or feel, and that is an authentic fear to him, even though it is irrational. But the fact he feels “real” threat, does not imply his following actions are necessarily rational.
 
And whatever made them flee the refuge brings mixed emotions. They seem to left the tent in a hurry, some half-dressed, some without shoes, valuable and potentially live saving items left behind, and still – calmly going down the slope. Also other things – the happening under and onto the Cedar, the scattered clothes on the slope, some of them had gloves in pockets and etc., a strange combination and distribution of clothes in general. They probably split sometime before the forest, which is also odd (could be hassle between them, could be a fist fight as well; decision to split in order to gather wood, to build a fire, to find a place for shelter – like allocating responsibilities; or they were acting not rational, for an unknown reason).
 
It is indeed very difficult for me to see only a bunch of scared young men, who were all about rational conduct. That is why I argue, that the whole ordeal looks like a creepy mixture of both irrational and rational actions, and maybe it is not so pointless to speculate, that whatever made them leave the tent, wasn’t really there, or was only in their heads, or was actually there, but was not material - the result of geographical and landscape shapes, strong winds and winter night, which caused fear and/or delusions. Or some sort of food/water contamination, which affected them in different ways and to a different extent.
 
As for the “mutilations”, and you probably describe Lyuda, since you mention this every once in a while, I still struggle to see it so strange. Rotting for months in snow, thaw and later running water in a creek, plus probably rodents and small predators, seems like a good natural explanation, compared to any kind of deliberately caused injuries and/or torture, done by someone or something not from the known world. People leave traces, so do the bigger animals, and I believe, so would Yeti or any other legendary humanoid. And as far as we know – there were none.
 
UFO`s and strange creatures are millennia old sightings, you are right. But most of them still remain unexplained. UFO`s are unidentified by definition, and out of the hundreds strange creatures people claim to see from time to time – we have nothing. Not one such creature caught, not one body found, nothing. Only people`s claims, which does not irrefutably prove that they do not exist, but even hardly proves the opposite as well.

Hi Mop,

Induced psychosis triggered by infra sound or food contamination - seems to me that these are worthy candidates for further investigation.  There is something that I struggle with though.  There seems to be a contradiction of behaviour.  On the one hand they are spurred into irrational behaviour -fear induced by infrasound or food contaminants forcing them to leave the tent and the camp.  Whilst on the other hand, they decent the slope in an orderly manner and take what appears to be sensible action to try to survive.  Collecting fire wood, build a fire, retrieve clothes from dead friends and use those clothes to survive.  Something doesn't add up.

If the food was contaminated - why hadn't it affected them on previous days of the trip?  Even if it was methanol is it likely that they all would have drank some of it, then acted irrationally, followed by rationally?

Then there's the major injuries - the two flail chests and thibos skull fracture - each could have been caused by a fall.  But three falls on the same night?  Two very similar chest injuries?  How could that happen? 

If there was a Yeti, then you would expect there to be traces.  The tourists left some foot prints.  These were raised footprints preserved for several weeks after they were made.  So where are the Yeti foot prints.  I have been thinking about this.  If you think about how the raised footprints are made.  A person of a given weight and foot size compresses the snow under their feet creating an indentation in the snow.  Let's say the depth of the deepest footprint is X cm.  the wind then blows the surface snow picking up the less compressed snow and blowing it around and eventually away.  After a while the original human footprint depression is filled with less compressed snow again covering it up.  As the wind continues to blow away the snow the overall level of snow falls until x cm of the snow surface is removed by the wind.  The wind continues to blow and remove the less dense snow, but the compressed snow at the base of the footprint is not removed so quickly.  After another y cm of snow is removed, we are left with a raised footprint of about y cm.  now consider the same process for a much heavier deeper foot print.  Let's say that the yeti footprints are Z cm deep.  Where Z is greater than x+y cm.  the yeti footprints now remain covered by the snow.  Filled in as the snow is blown around.  If insufficient snow is removed to get to the more compressed snow underneath.  The overall result is that we can see the raised human foot prints but the deeper yeti footprints remain covered.

Regards

Star man

[sarapuk]

And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?

We do not know in what shape or form the alleged scary thing took or its movements. I try to avoid assumptions but this Dyatlov Case can test anyone. Therefore I do not assume that they left their Tent in a scared mode, but all indications point to that.

[sarapuk]

And if something is that scary that it makes you flee your refuge then that is not irrational behaviour. If you then head towards what you perceive as a safer place then that is also not irrational behaviour.

Yeah, but, unless the scary thing was inside the tent, you'd huddle up inside the tent. That would be your safer place. Think about it, put yourself in their shoes: you're in a tent with your friends on a mountain side. Outside there is a blizzard and it's pitch black. You hear something scary outside. Do you go out? Do you go out half undressed? Hell no! You curl in a ball and try to breathe quietly!

The tent would be their shelter, where they would've felt the safest. Why would they tear out of their tent to go outside, where the scary thing is?

If the scary thing was moving around the tent and examining it then it could quite easily have peered in through the entrance sparking a panic and the remaining group to make a new exit?

Regards

Star man

Absolutely. All indications suggest that they were scared stiff of something.

[sarapuk]

 QUOTED from Морски


It is normal to be scared, of course, and fear is a natural sense.  [[ CORRECT ]]
 
But the very reason for it is a different thing. There seem to be a difference, let`s say, if you are scared because of a real (physical or other natural phenomenon) threat, and if you see a purple half-werewolf/half-dragon creature. If you can`t make a difference between the real and not real, that means your actions are triggered by something irrational – could be hallucinations or panic attack or who knows.  [[ WE DONT KNOW THE REASON SO ITS PURE SPECULATION ]]


 
And whatever made them flee the refuge brings mixed emotions. They seem to left the tent in a hurry, [[ THEY CERTAINLY LEFT IN A HURRY BY ALL INDICATIONS ]]
 
It is indeed very difficult for me to see only a bunch of scared young men, who were all about rational conduct. That is why I argue, that the whole ordeal looks like a creepy mixture of both irrational and rational actions, [[ IT CAN BE ARGUED, BUT THE ESSENCE IS THE SAME, THEY WERE SCARED OF SOMETHING AND BEHAVED ACCORDINGLY ]]
 
As for the “mutilations”, and you probably describe Lyuda, since you mention this every once in a while, I still struggle to see it so strange. Rotting for months in snow, thaw and later running water in a creek, plus probably rodents and small predators, seems like a good natural explanation, [[ SO YOU SEE NOTHING STRANGE IN THE FACT THAT ONLY A CERTAIN PART OF THE BODY WAS AFFECTED. AND WHAT ABOUT THE MENTION OF THE HYOID BONE IN THE AUTOPSY, ONE OF THE STRONGEST BONES IN THE HUMAN BODY. AND WHERE ARE THE REPORTS OF ANY ANIMALS OR BACTERIA  ]]
 
UFO`s and strange creatures are millennia old sightings, you are right. But most of them still remain unexplained. [[ CORRECT  ]]

[Morski]

Hi Star man, sorry for the late reply.

I find the infra sound and the contamination somehow relevant theories, at least, good points to speculate, since we can`t do much more anyway. 
 
The very manner of going down the slope – seemingly in order, while just a few moments ago they`ve left the tent seemingly in a hurry (by the way, the “cutting from the inside” is something very mythological to me, especially considering the way the tent was treated by the searching parties. I still don’t believe, they`ve cut their way out of the tent that night), makes me think there is something wrong. You flee in panic, barely taking any vital stuff with you, but then you go down just like ok? Or, if we take for granted, that they did cut their own tent to escape, then again – why just calmly going down after such efforts to get out or their shelter? Maybe that was an act of irrational behavior? 

To me, it would make more sense if there were all kinds of mixed footsteps outside - you would expect that from people, who feel mortal threat and it is corresponding to the panic state in which they seem to have left the tent.

Absolutely, the decision to head for the forest is sane. But when you think about it – where else? Up the slope would be strange, so it is quite natural to head down. But why walking in order, if they were so scared? If we consider, that they were so terrified, to the point where they leave their refuge in the middle of the night, then even the terrain difficulties wouldn`t have stopped them to run an Usain Bolt style to save their skins. Or maybe they did just that – hence some of the fractures and various injuries? No signs of struggle or rolling/fighting in the snow (could be, that those traces were covered because of the winds and snowfall, of course). But why their visible traces suggest order?

I agree that a lot of the things they did after the tent happening are actually sound. Fire, clothes changing/stripping (even though they kinda didn`t seem to have used everything they could – not all clothes, since there were some scattered on the slope, and I still find some things strange – like the gloves in pockets, two wrist watches on one hand and so.

As for the food/water contamination, and why it didn`t struck them the previous days, I really can`t say why. The way I try to speculate about it, is that it was a process of overlying. They were eating/drinking for days, and maybe during their last night the contamination effect kicked in with full power. Or, they ate/drunk something the very same day of the disaster, something they didn`t touch before that. As for the effect – first irrational (leaving the tent not quite prepared to face the night with what they took with them) and after that – rational (fire, clothes), it could be that the contamination effect was slowly fading away, or, which sounds more likely, not all of them were affected to the same extent. Some of them were able to think and act relevantly according to the situation, but was already too late, or they didn`t have the strength to cope with it because of the exposure and the elements.

The injuries – chest and skull – it is hard to imagine how some of them suffered so bad, that is true. To be honest, after all the descriptions, the photos, all the maps and stuff, I still can`t get a clear picture in my mind about the terrain. I tend to stick to the idea, that there were enough natural obstacles – rocks, falls, to cause them. (I am in the process of planning to do a trip there, by the way. May be I will get a real impression.)

I get your idea about the footsteps. But honestly, I can`t see how a heavy, raged animal/humanoid will not leave any other trace, but only the injuries on some of the hikers. If a creature eliminated them, there must have been at least some evidence of struggle, other than the suffered injuries. Deliberately hiding the footprints/traces, is out of the question to me. That, along with the lack of any other signs, that would suggest that other people or whatever entities were there, except for the Dyatlov`s group, makes me exclude the murder/KGB/CIA theories. Especially the Yeti one.

But that just my two cents, of course. 

[Morski]

Hello, Sarapuk.

It is normal to be scared, of course, and fear is a natural sense.  [[ CORRECT ]]
 
But the very reason for it is a different thing. There seem to be a difference, let`s say, if you are scared because of a real (physical or other natural phenomenon) threat, and if you see a purple half-werewolf/half-dragon creature. If you can`t make a difference between the real and not real, that means your actions are triggered by something irrational – could be hallucinations or panic attack or who knows.  [[ WE DONT KNOW THE REASON SO ITS PURE SPECULATION ]]

Of course we don`t know the true reason, that is why we are here. To speculate.

 
And whatever made them flee the refuge brings mixed emotions. They seem to left the tent in a hurry, [[ THEY CERTAINLY LEFT IN A HURRY BY ALL INDICATIONS ]]

All indications, except the footprints.

 
It is indeed very difficult for me to see only a bunch of scared young men, who were all about rational conduct. That is why I argue, that the whole ordeal looks like a creepy mixture of both irrational and rational actions, [[ IT CAN BE ARGUED, BUT THE ESSENCE IS THE SAME, THEY WERE SCARED OF SOMETHING AND BEHAVED ACCORDINGLY ]]

They were scared, and behaved strange. They got out of the tent, suspiciously dressed and organized. Or you suggest, that it is alright to get out in panic from a tent in the middle of the winter night, in a remote area, and then calmly go down a slope for a 1,5km? 

 
As for the “mutilations”, and you probably describe Lyuda, since you mention this every once in a while, I still struggle to see it so strange. Rotting for months in snow, thaw and later running water in a creek, plus probably rodents and small predators, seems like a good natural explanation, [[ SO YOU SEE NOTHING STRANGE IN THE FACT THAT ONLY A CERTAIN PART OF THE BODY WAS AFFECTED. AND WHAT ABOUT THE MENTION OF THE HYOID BONE IN THE AUTOPSY, ONE OF THE STRONGEST BONES IN THE HUMAN BODY. AND WHERE ARE THE REPORTS OF ANY ANIMALS OR BACTERIA  ]]

Of course I don`t see it that strange. It is not necessarily the whole body, that is exposed to the elements or predators to the same extent. Lyuda wasn`t lying on her back in a plain and simple pose in an open field. None of the rav4 was. Her specific body positon might explain what you call a “mutilation”. The thyroid bone provides attachment to the muscles of the floor of the mouth and the tongue above, the larynx below, and the epiglottis and pharynx behind. When the muscles are gone, like it is mentioned by the coroner,  you are likely to observe “extraordinary mobility”, as it is stated in the autopsy report. The coroner never mentioned, that the bone was broken or twisted, ot something.

We don’t know if there are any reports about animals or bacteria, but we can use some common sense, can`t we? You can find bacteria everywhere, especially where a body is rotting. Also, I think it is safe to blame small predators and rodents, which we all know that exist.

 
UFO`s and strange creatures are millennia old sightings, you are right. But most of them still remain unexplained. [[ CORRECT  ]]

“Unexplained” is not equal to “they exist”. Until we have actual empirical experience, not just claims, they will remain simply unexplained.

[Star man]

Hi Mop,

No worries about slow responses on here.  It is usual for these discussions to take some time.  I have written some comments to you post below:

The infrasound theory is interesting.  WAB has presented some interesting posts on how the effect could have been created.  Some complicated fluid dynamics. Think had something to do with rotating air mass impinging on a separate flow creating Eddie currents similar to Kharmen Vortex.

In experiments it has had a significant effect on some individuals.  Inducing a sense of fear or dread.  But from what I understand it only affects about 30 to 40% of people.  It is definitely worth further investigation.

Going down the slope is a very logical action - I agree.  But obviously leaving the tent without shoes and clothing and essential equipment is not logical without a very real reason.  So is it possible that they were acting lofically and illogically at the same time?  Maybe if they had induced fear then it is still logical to run down the hill even though the sense of fear is unreal?

Did they cut their way out of the tent?  A difficult question.  I agree that much of the damage to the tent was caused by the sloppy recovery digging it out of the snow and dragging it across the slope.  But I would like to draw your attention to page 304 (I think). Of the case file.  Notingnthatnpage 303 is missing.  Have read of page 303 of the criminalistics forensics of the tent in the case files and let me know what you think.

I don't recall anything in the case files about the food and if it was tested.  Given the fridges conditions I think it would have been well preserved in the tent, even after several weeks?

Here's an interesting question:  if the infrasound only affected a fraction of the group or if it was food then is it likely that all except Thibo and Semyon would be found without footwear?  Also the scene inside the tent is depicted as quite orderly.  Seven crumpled blankets, 2 layer out?  Which two were layed out?  Thibo and Semyon?  Because they were on duty and the others had settled into theirs?  Why is the scene in the tent orderly, apart from the shoes?  Very strange.

I understand your skepticism about the Yeti theory.  It is difficult to understand how such a creature could exist undiscovered with no scientific evidence.  I am skeptical too.  I have explored some of the other theories and even presented the Low Yield Nuke Theory, but given the vast number of eye witness accounts and stories I still think its worth looking at it objectively.  At the end of the day none of the other theories have produced conclusive arguments or evidence yet.

When Charles Darwin first presented his theory on the origin of species at the Royal Socienty can imagine the reception he received?  If there is one thing that I know it is that we don't know everything.

Regards

Star man

[Morski]

Hi Mop,

No worries about slow responses on here.  It is usual for these discussions to take some time.  I have written some comments to you post below:

The infrasound theory is interesting.  WAB has presented some interesting posts on how the effect could have been created.  Some complicated fluid dynamics. Think had something to do with rotating air mass impinging on a separate flow creating Eddie currents similar to Kharmen Vortex.

In experiments it has had a significant effect on some individuals.  Inducing a sense of fear or dread.  But from what I understand it only affects about 30 to 40% of people.  It is definitely worth further investigation.

Going down the slope is a very logical action - I agree.  But obviously leaving the tent without shoes and clothing and essential equipment is not logical without a very real reason.  So is it possible that they were acting lofically and illogically at the same time?  Maybe if they had induced fear then it is still logical to run down the hill even though the sense of fear is unreal?

Did they cut their way out of the tent?  A difficult question.  I agree that much of the damage to the tent was caused by the sloppy recovery digging it out of the snow and dragging it across the slope.  But I would like to draw your attention to page 304 (I think). Of the case file.  Notingnthatnpage 303 is missing.  Have read of page 303 of the criminalistics forensics of the tent in the case files and let me know what you think.

I don't recall anything in the case files about the food and if it was tested.  Given the fridges conditions I think it would have been well preserved in the tent, even after several weeks?

Here's an interesting question:  if the infrasound only affected a fraction of the group or if it was food then is it likely that all except Thibo and Semyon would be found without footwear?  Also the scene inside the tent is depicted as quite orderly.  Seven crumpled blankets, 2 layer out?  Which two were layed out?  Thibo and Semyon?  Because they were on duty and the others had settled into theirs?  Why is the scene in the tent orderly, apart from the shoes?  Very strange.

I understand your skepticism about the Yeti theory.  It is difficult to understand how such a creature could exist undiscovered with no scientific evidence.  I am skeptical too.  I have explored some of the other theories and even presented the Low Yield Nuke Theory, but given the vast number of eye witness accounts and stories I still think its worth looking at it objectively.  At the end of the day none of the other theories have produced conclusive arguments or evidence yet.

When Charles Darwin first presented his theory on the origin of species at the Royal Socienty can imagine the reception he received?  If there is one thing that I know it is that we don't know everything.

Regards

Star man

Yeah,I`ve read WAB`s posts about the Infrasound theory back in the day. My field of competence is different, but I really think infra sound is a good natural explanation, at least for the beginning of the events. I`ve watched WAB`s videos during his trips to the Pass, and hell yeah, wind is blowing there. Karman Vortex is a rare case phenomenon outside laboratories, but it gives food for thought.

I agree that it is natural to run for your life when you are scared, no matter the reason – real, or imaginary. But I don`t get why they left in a hurry, and then just walked away. It is irrational to me.

Thank you for the remark on the tent.

According to the report (sheet 303), “With a careful examination of these damages, it is established that some of them /and in particular conditionally marked damages №1,2,3/ have a completely different nature compared to all the other damages that are on the tent. The edges of these three lesions have even, not elongated ends of the threads, are damaged at different angles, breaking both the weft threads and the warp threads.”
To me, the different angles suggest, that it might be due to the work of the searching parties – shovels, or other tools.

Also (sheet 304): “In the camping tent of Dyatlov group on the right slant of the canopy forming the roof, three damages of approximately 32, 89, and 42 cm in length /conditionally numbered 1, 2, 3 / are made with some sharp weapon /knife/ i.e. are cuts.”

The size of the cuts is very important: the biggest cut is only 89cm. I think, that if they cut the tent in order to escape a lethal threat, the cut would have been much larger, probably not in a straight line, or at least, there would have been traces of both the initial cut, and then tearing apart of the fabric. We should consider, that 9 or 7 people had to get out through these holes. Those “cuts” were clear cuts, and as far as I see it, they were relatively small to serve the purpose of emergency exit for 9/7 people. And that brings yet another question: If it is a fact, that the tent was cut from the inside, why the cuts are so small? Observation? Illogical actions? Damage? So confusing 

As far as I know, there were no tests on the food/water. If I am not mistaken, the report says that there were no traces of alcohol in the bodies. I really can`t recall now, but I think that it is the report for the first bodies (Dyatlov, Zina, Rustem, the Yuri`s) found on the spot.

The scene at the tent is very confusing, and as we all agree I think, whatever happened, started near/inside the tent. I do think, that Thibo and Semyon were outside during the start of the whole ordeal. Or at least they were preparing themselves to go out.

About the Yeti, I am really skeptical. I know, like you mentioned in previous posts, that a huge number of things were “doomed” to be non-existent or myths, but I just can`t help myself feeling, that the Yeti is a pure hoax. The only, objectively speaking, way to reflect on Yetis, is why and how different people, from different parts of the world claim that they`ve seen one? And it dates back to who knows how far ago. If it was a recent claim, we can blame the informational environment, since barely everyone has access to internet and is able to read and share. Apart from that, I struggle to find reasons to even speculate about the Yeti involvement in the whole event. We barely “know” something about those creatures, let alone blaming them for the Pass tragedy.

You are right, no theory has ever provided clear evidence of what had happened on Kholat Syakhl. By the way, I am familiar with your Low yield nuclear theory. You do seem to back up and argument a lot the possible happenings. Personally, I think it is somehow too complicated. The other one that you suggested - the most simple reason for the whole event, is according to my view.

I agree, we can`t and we don`t know everything. I think most of the theories we have now, are worth debating, until proven irrelevant. I just feel, that some of the theories are just more “on the table”, compared to others. 

Regards,
Martin

[Star man]

Hi Mop,

On page 304 it also mentions that of the three cuts (I think) some of them have scratches on the inside of the fabric before whatever it was actually pierced the fabric.  There are also other scratches that did not pierce the fabric. This is fairly strong evidence that at lease those three cuts were made from the inside.  By who and for what is another question.   I agree that given the size of them it is unlikely they were for escape, although one is almost a metre so it would be possible to escape through it.  You are correct though that it's difficult to know if it was a result of rational or irrational behaviour.  I am not a psychologist but am familiar with some principles.  Have you ever heard of "group think"?  It's basically when someone within a group who has charisma or credentials makes an assumption and everyone else in the group then takes that as fact.  It can lead to all sorts of problems.  In the Dyatlov mystery it is assumed that they cut their way out of tent.  But what if they weren't trying to cut their way out.  What if - there was a threat outside the tent and they were frightened to go out an confront it and instead tried to slash at it through the tent?  Just another possibility.

I  Think being skeptical about the Yeti theory is perfectly normal and I doubt that it will be my final conclusion if I ever come to a conclusion.  But I will suspend my disbelief and apply some objectivity.  I think that given the Evenening Otorten entry (assuming they had written it) we might do the 9 tourists a disservice if we don't look at it objectively.

Yes - I am leaning towards the simple credible explanation.  The nuke theory I have to admit is unlikely.  But what I do like to do is tease out a way in which my theories can be proven or disproven.  For the nuke it's the tree rings.  For the simplest credible explanation I haven't got to a single most credible explanation yet so haven't been able to find a way to prove or disprove it.

For the Yeti theory I think I will be able to come up with something.  I am going make another post on the "exploring the Yeti theory" now that may be interesting to some.

Regards

Star man

[sarapuk]

Hello, Sarapuk.

It is normal to be scared, of course, and fear is a natural sense.  [[ CORRECT ]]
 
But the very reason for it is a different thing. There seem to be a difference, let`s say, if you are scared because of a real (physical or other natural phenomenon) threat, and if you see a purple half-werewolf/half-dragon creature. If you can`t make a difference between the real and not real, that means your actions are triggered by something irrational – could be hallucinations or panic attack or who knows.  [[ WE DONT KNOW THE REASON SO ITS PURE SPECULATION ]]

Of course we don`t know the true reason, that is why we are here. To speculate.
[[[[ Well some of us are here to try other things other than pure SPECULATION]]]]

 
And whatever made them flee the refuge brings mixed emotions. They seem to left the tent in a hurry, [[ THEY CERTAINLY LEFT IN A HURRY BY ALL INDICATIONS ]]

All indications, except the footprints.

 
It is indeed very difficult for me to see only a bunch of scared young men, who were all about rational conduct. That is why I argue, that the whole ordeal looks like a creepy mixture of both irrational and rational actions, [[ IT CAN BE ARGUED, BUT THE ESSENCE IS THE SAME, THEY WERE SCARED OF SOMETHING AND BEHAVED ACCORDINGLY ]]

They were scared, and behaved strange. They got out of the tent, suspiciously dressed and organized. Or you suggest, that it is alright to get out in panic from a tent in the middle of the winter night, in a remote area, and then calmly go down a slope for a 1,5km?    [[[[ I REPEAT, THEY WERE SCARED OF SOMETHING AND BEHAVED ACCORDINGLY ]]]][[[[  I have not suggested that they got out in a panic and calmly went down a slope for a 1.5 km.  ]]]]

 
As for the “mutilations”, and you probably describe Lyuda, since you mention this every once in a while, I still struggle to see it so strange. Rotting for months in snow, thaw and later running water in a creek, plus probably rodents and small predators, seems like a good natural explanation, [[ SO YOU SEE NOTHING STRANGE IN THE FACT THAT ONLY A CERTAIN PART OF THE BODY WAS AFFECTED. AND WHAT ABOUT THE MENTION OF THE HYOID BONE IN THE AUTOPSY, ONE OF THE STRONGEST BONES IN THE HUMAN BODY. AND WHERE ARE THE REPORTS OF ANY ANIMALS OR BACTERIA  ]]

Of course I don`t see it that strange. It is not necessarily the whole body, that is exposed to the elements or predators to the same extent. Lyuda wasn`t lying on her back in a plain and simple pose in an open field. None of the rav4 was. Her specific body positon might explain what you call a “mutilation”. The thyroid bone provides attachment to the muscles of the floor of the mouth and the tongue above, the larynx below, and the epiglottis and pharynx behind. When the muscles are gone, like it is mentioned by the coroner,  you are likely to observe “extraordinary mobility”, as it is stated in the autopsy report. The coroner never mentioned, that the bone was broken or twisted, ot something.
[[[[ I find it interesting that the AUTOPSY mentions the HYOID BONE, so I take it from that that there is some importance to this particular mention, of which there is, like so much else in the Dyatlov Case, very little detail. Or some times NO DETAIL AT ALL. ]]]]

We don’t know if there are any reports about animals or bacteria, but we can use some common sense, can`t we? You can find bacteria everywhere, especially where a body is rotting. Also, I think it is safe to blame small predators and rodents, which we all know that exist.
 [[[[ Common sense seems to be missing from much of the original investigation !  ?  NO SPECIFIC DETAILS OF PREDATORS OR BACTERIA. ]]]] NO SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE ROTTING OF BODIES. ]]]]

 
UFO`s and strange creatures are millennia old sightings, you are right. But most of them still remain unexplained. [[ CORRECT  ]]

“Unexplained” is not equal to “they exist”. [[[[ who said it was ]]]]Until we have actual empirical experience, not just claims, they will remain simply unexplained. [[[[ Sightings and such like can be considered as evidence. Evidence of something, whatever that something is.]]]]

[Morski]

Hello, Sarapuk.

It is normal to be scared, of course, and fear is a natural sense.  [[ CORRECT ]]
 
But the very reason for it is a different thing. There seem to be a difference, let`s say, if you are scared because of a real (physical or other natural phenomenon) threat, and if you see a purple half-werewolf/half-dragon creature. If you can`t make a difference between the real and not real, that means your actions are triggered by something irrational – could be hallucinations or panic attack or who knows.  [[ WE DONT KNOW THE REASON SO ITS PURE SPECULATION ]]

Of course we don`t know the true reason, that is why we are here. To speculate.
[[[[ Well some of us are here to try other things other than pure SPECULATION]]]]

Fair enough. Good luck with that. 

And whatever made them flee the refuge brings mixed emotions. They seem to left the tent in a hurry, [[ THEY CERTAINLY LEFT IN A HURRY BY ALL INDICATIONS ]]

All indications, except the footprints.

 
It is indeed very difficult for me to see only a bunch of scared young men, who were all about rational conduct. That is why I argue, that the whole ordeal looks like a creepy mixture of both irrational and rational actions, [[ IT CAN BE ARGUED, BUT THE ESSENCE IS THE SAME, THEY WERE SCARED OF SOMETHING AND BEHAVED ACCORDINGLY ]]

They were scared, and behaved strange. They got out of the tent, suspiciously dressed and organized. Or you suggest, that it is alright to get out in panic from a tent in the middle of the winter night, in a remote area, and then calmly go down a slope for a 1,5km?    [[[[ I REPEAT, THEY WERE SCARED OF SOMETHING AND BEHAVED ACCORDINGLY ]]]][[[[  I have not suggested that they got out in a panic and calmly went down a slope for a 1.5 km.  ]]]]

You did not explicitly, but it seem that those are the clues we have.

As for the “mutilations”, and you probably describe Lyuda, since you mention this every once in a while, I still struggle to see it so strange. Rotting for months in snow, thaw and later running water in a creek, plus probably rodents and small predators, seems like a good natural explanation, [[ SO YOU SEE NOTHING STRANGE IN THE FACT THAT ONLY A CERTAIN PART OF THE BODY WAS AFFECTED. AND WHAT ABOUT THE MENTION OF THE HYOID BONE IN THE AUTOPSY, ONE OF THE STRONGEST BONES IN THE HUMAN BODY. AND WHERE ARE THE REPORTS OF ANY ANIMALS OR BACTERIA  ]]

Of course I don`t see it that strange. It is not necessarily the whole body, that is exposed to the elements or predators to the same extent. Lyuda wasn`t lying on her back in a plain and simple pose in an open field. None of the rav4 was. Her specific body positon might explain what you call a “mutilation”. The thyroid bone provides attachment to the muscles of the floor of the mouth and the tongue above, the larynx below, and the epiglottis and pharynx behind. When the muscles are gone, like it is mentioned by the coroner,  you are likely to observe “extraordinary mobility”, as it is stated in the autopsy report. The coroner never mentioned, that the bone was broken or twisted, ot something.
[[[[ I find it interesting that the AUTOPSY mentions the HYOID BONE, so I take it from that that there is some importance to this particular mention, of which there is, like so much else in the Dyatlov Case, very little detail. Or some times NO DETAIL AT ALL. ]]]]

I have to say, I am not too aware of the procedure during autopsies back in the 1950s Soviet era, not to mention in a case like that, and specifically in the time period with regard to the whole atmosphere there, but to me it sounds like a routine check-up, which was just remarked as strange. You check the bone, it is out of ordinary mobile, so you mention it. But there is a good reason for that, obviously.

We don’t know if there are any reports about animals or bacteria, but we can use some common sense, can`t we? You can find bacteria everywhere, especially where a body is rotting. Also, I think it is safe to blame small predators and rodents, which we all know that exist.
 [[[[ Common sense seems to be missing from much of the original investigation !  ?  NO SPECIFIC DETAILS OF PREDATORS OR BACTERIA. ]]]] NO SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE ROTTING OF BODIES. ]]]]

Again, you would expect bacteria and predators/rodents in conditions like that. The fact that the coroner does not mention it, does not exclude it. That is a common sense. Apart from that, we can say that common sense is missing in a lot of points during the whole investigation, I agree.

 
UFO`s and strange creatures are millennia old sightings, you are right. But most of them still remain unexplained. [[ CORRECT  ]]

“Unexplained” is not equal to “they exist”. [[[[ who said it was ]]]]

Some people, actually, I wasn`t pointing at you, even though you tend to be a fan. Who can prove it? No one. Material evidence? Not even one.

Until we have actual empirical experience, not just claims, they will remain simply unexplained. [[[[ Sightings and such like can be considered as evidence. Evidence of something, whatever that something is.]]]]
I don`t see how this is to be taken for granted. People say a lot of things and lie or just make up too often for different reasons.  They can stage clips and photos, not to mention sightings. Could be everything. So, unless we have an actual evidence - not just claims and fishy photos/videos/words - why bother?

[Star man]

The flashlight 400 metres down from the tent.

 Why was it found there?

Why did they take it with them?

If they thought it was important to take with them why drop it, and why not stop to pick it back up?

How did they have time to collect a flashlight and not their clothing or shoes?  Who was carrying it?

Regards

Star man

[cennetkusu]

The flashlight 400 metres down from the tent.

 Why was it found there?

Why did they take it with them?

If they thought it was important to take with them why drop it, and why not stop to pick it back up?

How did they have time to collect a flashlight and not their clothing or shoes?  Who was carrying it?

Regards

Star man

The lantern probably fell near the tent. And with the help of the slope and the wind of the mountain rolled down. In 25 days the lantern can be rolled down 400 meters. This is possible. 400/25 = 16 meters ... It can only be rolled down an average of 16 meters per day. The lighthouse can only take Semyon and Tibo. If they left the lighthouse on purpose, it could only be because they did not disturb the unknown power due to the light. There's no other reason. It may be from horror, but it's rarely seen. Because the walks are calm and they are wearing Semyon and Tibo shoes.

[Star man]

The flashlight 400 metres down from the tent.

 Why was it found there?

Why did they take it with them?

If they thought it was important to take with them why drop it, and why not stop to pick it back up?

How did they have time to collect a flashlight and not their clothing or shoes?  Who was carrying it?

Regards

Star man

The lantern probably fell near the tent. And with the help of the slope and the wind of the mountain rolled down. In 25 days the lantern can be rolled down 400 meters. This is possible. 400/25 = 16 meters ... It can only be rolled down an average of 16 meters per day. The lighthouse can only take Semyon and Tibo. If they left the lighthouse on purpose, it could only be because they did not disturb the unknown power due to the light. There's no other reason. It may be from horror, but it's rarely seen. Because the walks are calm and they are wearing Semyon and Tibo shoes.

So you think it.rolled 400 metres down the slope.  Not the simplest explanation but ok.

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

Just a thought on the histological elimination of the rav 4 in the case files:

In all cases the report talks of the absence or complete absence of the epidermis.  This sounds odd to me.  The question is what does it mean?  Would the outer layer of skin be absent due to decomposition?  Doesn't sound like it should. 

Does it mean the bodies have been scrubbed to remove the outer skin layer and any radiation?

Regards

Star man