August 09, 2020, 09:26:55 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Exploring The Yeti Theory  (Read 24262 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

July 01, 2020, 06:15:19 AM
Reply #480
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
When I first started out on this adventure if thats the right word to use, my first thought was that it may have been a Bear or Bears that caused the demise of the Dyatlov Group. But I spoke to a Russian friend and he was completely dismissive of the Bear Theory. I also had doubts because of the lack of Damage to the Tent, and no signs of a big altercation at the Tent. Having said that, Bears can be unpredictable. And an 8 foot Bear towering over you would make you flee. The nearest thing to a Bear would be the so called YETI CREATURES, that seem to appear to some people in various parts of the World. The problem then is that we have no specimens to even prove their existence. So we could end up making all sorts of claims for an unknown quantity to fit our various Events at the Mountainside and Forest where the Dyatlov Group ended up. The Tent. The Cedar Tree. The Fire. The Den. The Ravine.
DB

July 01, 2020, 11:11:35 PM
Reply #481
Online

Georgi


 
It's way to complicated to stage the scene like that. For starters, the 2 men would require fire arms. From where ? How would they get into possession of firearms ?
They were spies and their handlers gave them the pistols.

Quote
Then what would be the motive ? Everyone knew that the group was well welded together and they were good friends. This entire scenario would require a completely different group to work.
There are marriages that last decades where someone hides their true self from their partner, there are people who work with someone for decades and call them a friend only to have that person turn out to be fake, there are people who kill themselves and no one could believe it because it was the guy who was always cracking jokes and smiling or it was the bubbly girl who seemed to be always happy.

Quote
I was saying about looking for documents hidden in the fabric of the tent...
Why would they hide anything in the fabric of the tent?

Quote
- why did Zolotaryov say "we will be famous around the world" before leaving on the hike ? What did he expect to encounter/do on Mount Otorten or nearby that would be so important ?
Maybe it was misunderstanding and he was saying he will be famous when he gets back because he will be a very successful guide?
Quote
- why did the skiers pitch their tent on the slope, in an exposed position to wind ? It was a realy bad place to camp. And it was completely different from what they've been doing the previous days (pitching tent in the forest).
It could have been exhaustion, they were too tired to  make it to the treeline. It could have been a sudden snow storm that threatened their visibility or it could have been something as simple as they were losing daylight and decided the risks were worth it when compared to moving 1.6km to the tree line and pitching a tent in the dark.

Quote
- where is Zolotaryov's notebook (containing presumably his journal) ? How did it disappeared ?
Suposedly someone from the search party found it in his hand and picked it up, it could have been too damaged for any recovery and was thrown out or it could have held a clue the investigation didn’t want to release or it could have been simply misplaced/forgotten about in someone’s bag and they didn’t want to come forward later and be accused of stealing it.

Quote
- what are the mystery fireballs reported by eye-witnesses in the night of Fev 1st ?
Could have been a natural phenomenon, jet’s flying. In 1960 the flight plan of the American U2 that was shot down over the USSR took it within a few hundred km of the pass, could have been an American spy plane being shot at by air defence.

Quote
- what caused Zolotaryov, Lyubidina's and Thibeaux-Brignolles's fractures ?
Butt of a rifle, baton, rock, for Zolotaryov and Dubinina it could have been hit repeatedly by the butt of a rifle, a baton, they could have been stomped, hit by a rock or it could have been some form of fighting technique or torture technique applying pressure to certain areas of the body to inflict injuries or pain.

Quote
- what is the cause of the Mansi legend of the nine dead hunters on Kholat Syakl ?
Unless we have proof that they actually disappeared, it could have been a legend born after the death of the hikers or it could have been 9 hunters dying over 5 years and with every retelling it gets changed until its 9 hunters dying at once.

Quote
- what is the cause of the Mansi legend about the people-abducting Menk ?
Just a legend, or it could be a story used to scare the children only to be believed by those so inclined after the death of the hikers.

Quote
Those questions, and others like them, paint a complicated picture. It is possible that the group encountered something truly extraordinary on Fev 1st/2nd.
Is it really that likely though? The 4 hikers that were engaged in the fight wouldn’t have survived without significant and very obvious injuries of a fight with something that outclassed them, if a yeti did the damage to the 4 in the ravine, why didn’t the Yeti do such damage to the faces of Dyatlov and Zinaida? I mean if the Yeti could crush all those ribs in one punch and fracture a skull, why didn’t it simply smash their faces with one punch?



July 02, 2020, 01:19:12 AM
Reply #482
Offline

alecsandros


They were spies and their handlers gave them the pistols.
It is conceivable, but it still is a huge complication from the "natural phenomenons" that are officialy blamed (avalanche, snow slab, hurricane, etc). Gun circulation was strictly controlled in the USSR and satellite countries, therefore producing two pistols would require a lot of measures to be taken.

Quote
There are marriages that last decades where someone hides their true self from their partner, there are people who work with someone for decades and call them a friend only to have that person turn out to be fake, there are people who kill themselves and no one could believe it because it was the guy who was always cracking jokes and smiling or it was the bubbly girl who seemed to be always happy.
Agreed but still it is a complication that they wouldn't want...

Quote
Why would they hide anything in the fabric of the tent?
To be difficult to find by the others.

Quote
Maybe it was misunderstanding and he was saying he will be famous when he gets back because he will be a very successful guide?
Perhaps...
Quote
It could have been exhaustion, they were too tired to  make it to the treeline. It could have been a sudden snow storm that threatened their visibility or it could have been something as simple as they were losing daylight and decided the risks were worth it when compared to moving 1.6km to the tree line and pitching a tent in the dark.
The day of Fev 1st is interesting: the group travelled just one kilometre before setting camp. That's very little. The labaz was erected on Jan 31st, thus they had the entire day of Fev 1st for hiking. Yet they pitched their tent on a barren slope. And, after hiking 1 kilometre, they couldn't be exhausted or even tired...

Quote
Suposedly someone from the search party found it in his hand and picked it up, it could have been too damaged for any recovery and was thrown out or it could have held a clue the investigation didn’t want to release or it could have been simply misplaced/forgotten about in someone’s bag and they didn’t want to come forward later and be accused of stealing it.
Agreed. But , as anything that goes missing, this piece of evidence may hold important clues...

Quote
Could have been a natural phenomenon, jet’s flying. In 1960 the flight plan of the American U2 that was shot down over the USSR took it within a few hundred km of the pass, could have been an American spy plane being shot at by air defence.
What Lev Ivanov is describing are not fighter jets. He is describing, after putting together the memories of dozens of individuals, apparently sentient fireorbs, that descended and caused the Dyatlov Pass Incident...


Quote
Is it really that likely though? The 4 hikers that were engaged in the fight wouldn’t have survived without significant and very obvious injuries of a fight with something that outclassed them, if a yeti did the damage to the 4 in the ravine, why didn’t the Yeti do such damage to the faces of Dyatlov and Zinaida? I mean if the Yeti could crush all those ribs in one punch and fracture a skull, why didn’t it simply smash their faces with one punch?
Well, certainly not likely.
However, stranger things have happened... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_of_G%C3%A9vaudan)

Regarding the damage done to the hikers - it would depend on the fight, where and when did the Yeti strike, etc. Even if outclassed, the skiers could put up a good fight, even armed with pocket knives. They were possibly more nimble then the Yeti, and thus could dodge it's attacks more then once.

Best Regards,
« Last Edit: July 02, 2020, 01:37:42 AM by alecsandros »

July 02, 2020, 09:57:52 PM
Reply #483
Online

Georgi


It is conceivable, but it still is a huge complication from the "natural phenomenons" that are officialy blamed (avalanche, snow slab, hurricane, etc). Gun circulation was strictly controlled in the USSR and satellite countries, therefore producing two pistols would require a lot of measures to be taken.
Problem with the natural explanation is that it very obviously wasn’t one natural event, if it was natural it would have had to be a series of events and the hikers had to basically make the worst decision at each fork in the road for them to arrive to their deaths with such injuries. Plus if it was natural incident the soviet authorities would have been more serious with the investigation to prevent such incidents in the future because if nothing else you don’t want to be back there in a few months to a few years with more dead hikers, instead they tried to bury the investigation and end it with some half-assed assessment that it was an avalanche when it clearly wasn’t since we have pictures of the tent which was not completely covered in snow and we have footprints of the hikers which were also not covered in snow. What are the chances that 9 experienced hikers would panic in the dark, cut their own tent and then slowly walk down the hill to the treeline with most of them being poorly dressed to a degree where they guarantee serious bodily harm or death?

Quote

Agreed but still it is a complication that they wouldn't want...
Yet here we are 61 years later still throwing around theories. The complication is that they very obviously tried to cover the incident up with a quick and predetermined investigation and left much more suspicions in their wake, so if they knew 1-2 weeks before the search got there, they sure screwed that up.

Quote
To be difficult to find by the others.
 
If they are spy’s yeah they would have creative ways to hide information, if they are hikers they would keep their papers or diaries with them. You have to have something worth hiding to hide it in such a manner, so for someone to go and search the tent in such a manner would mean that there is more to one or more of the hikers than we know about.

 
Quote

The day of Fev 1st is interesting: the group travelled just one kilometre before setting camp. That's very little. The labaz was erected on Jan 31st, thus they had the entire day of Fev 1st for hiking. Yet they pitched their tent on a barren slope. And, after hiking 1 kilometre, they couldn't be exhausted or even tired...

If I remember correctly, somewhere it said they traveled further and had to double back, so while they made 1km advance they likely traveled further. Another option is an injury to one of the hikers forced them to set up camp on the slope rather than try to make it to the treeline, that person doesn’t have to be incapacitated, they just have to be in significant enough pain to warrant them camping on the slope.

Quote
Agreed. But , as anything that goes missing, this piece of evidence may hold important clues...
This leads us further into the argument that there was human involvement, but it could also be something as simple as someone walking away with a souvenir or it was damaged in the water and whoever found it tossed it away at a later time because it had no value to anyone.



Quote
Well, certainly not likely.
However, stranger things have happened... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_of_G%C3%A9vaudan)
What does that have to do with anything?


Quote
Regarding the damage done to the hikers - it would depend on the fight, where and when did the Yeti strike, etc. Even if outclassed, the skiers could put up a good fight, even armed with pocket knives. They were possibly more nimble then the Yeti, and thus could dodge it's attacks more then once.
Krivochenko, Dyatlov, Slobodin and Zinaida all had serious injuries to their faces from an obvious fight, if the same being that caused the massive injuries to Zolotaryov and Lyudmila caused the injuries to the faces of the first four hikers then it makes no sense. The first four obviously took hits, taking a hit from something that strong should have left devastating injuries on their faces and left them to die where they stood rather than give them injuries from a fight but at the same time be very gentle.

July 08, 2020, 04:14:52 PM
Reply #484
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
It is conceivable, but it still is a huge complication from the "natural phenomenons" that are officialy blamed (avalanche, snow slab, hurricane, etc). Gun circulation was strictly controlled in the USSR and satellite countries, therefore producing two pistols would require a lot of measures to be taken.
Problem with the natural explanation is that it very obviously wasn’t one natural event, if it was natural it would have had to be a series of events and the hikers had to basically make the worst decision at each fork in the road for them to arrive to their deaths with such injuries. Plus if it was natural incident the soviet authorities would have been more serious with the investigation to prevent such incidents in the future because if nothing else you don’t want to be back there in a few months to a few years with more dead hikers, instead they tried to bury the investigation and end it with some half-assed assessment that it was an avalanche when it clearly wasn’t since we have pictures of the tent which was not completely covered in snow and we have footprints of the hikers which were also not covered in snow. What are the chances that 9 experienced hikers would panic in the dark, cut their own tent and then slowly walk down the hill to the treeline with most of them being poorly dressed to a degree where they guarantee serious bodily harm or death?

Quote

Agreed but still it is a complication that they wouldn't want...
Yet here we are 61 years later still throwing around theories. The complication is that they very obviously tried to cover the incident up with a quick and predetermined investigation and left much more suspicions in their wake, so if they knew 1-2 weeks before the search got there, they sure screwed that up.

Quote
To be difficult to find by the others.
 
If they are spy’s yeah they would have creative ways to hide information, if they are hikers they would keep their papers or diaries with them. You have to have something worth hiding to hide it in such a manner, so for someone to go and search the tent in such a manner would mean that there is more to one or more of the hikers than we know about.

 
Quote

The day of Fev 1st is interesting: the group travelled just one kilometre before setting camp. That's very little. The labaz was erected on Jan 31st, thus they had the entire day of Fev 1st for hiking. Yet they pitched their tent on a barren slope. And, after hiking 1 kilometre, they couldn't be exhausted or even tired...

If I remember correctly, somewhere it said they traveled further and had to double back, so while they made 1km advance they likely traveled further. Another option is an injury to one of the hikers forced them to set up camp on the slope rather than try to make it to the treeline, that person doesn’t have to be incapacitated, they just have to be in significant enough pain to warrant them camping on the slope.

Quote
Agreed. But , as anything that goes missing, this piece of evidence may hold important clues...
This leads us further into the argument that there was human involvement, but it could also be something as simple as someone walking away with a souvenir or it was damaged in the water and whoever found it tossed it away at a later time because it had no value to anyone.



Quote
Well, certainly not likely.
However, stranger things have happened... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_of_G%C3%A9vaudan)
What does that have to do with anything?


Quote
Regarding the damage done to the hikers - it would depend on the fight, where and when did the Yeti strike, etc. Even if outclassed, the skiers could put up a good fight, even armed with pocket knives. They were possibly more nimble then the Yeti, and thus could dodge it's attacks more then once.
Krivochenko, Dyatlov, Slobodin and Zinaida all had serious injuries to their faces from an obvious fight, if the same being that caused the massive injuries to Zolotaryov and Lyudmila caused the injuries to the faces of the first four hikers then it makes no sense. The first four obviously took hits, taking a hit from something that strong should have left devastating injuries on their faces and left them to die where they stood rather than give them injuries from a fight but at the same time be very gentle.

If you look at the attack pattern of primates, they tend to hit and run initially.  They also grab the legs and drag you along the ground.  This could explain some of the superficial injuries.  It would also explain why the flashlight was dropped but not recovered.   When you are isolated, on the ground and weak, that is when the severe beating happens with the ape standing over you  beating with its hands.  Apes also tend to maul the face, leaving severe injuries.  All of the injuries are consistent with this type of attack.  Chimps and Gorillas are also known to bite, but there are no bite Mark's on the bodies.  So maybe the attackers were not "normal" apes., but they could have been.

Regards

Star man

July 16, 2020, 09:29:24 PM
Reply #485
Online

Georgi




If you look at the attack pattern of primates, they tend to hit and run initially.  They also grab the legs and drag you along the ground.  This could explain some of the superficial injuries.  It would also explain why the flashlight was dropped but not recovered.   When you are isolated, on the ground and weak, that is when the severe beating happens with the ape standing over you  beating with its hands.  Apes also tend to maul the face, leaving severe injuries.  All of the injuries are consistent with this type of attack.  Chimps and Gorillas are also known to bite, but there are no bite Mark's on the bodies.  So maybe the attackers were not "normal" apes., but they could have been.

Regards

Star man
If there were 9 hikers, why did only 4 of them have injuries consistent with a fist fight? And more importantly why did they have injuries consistent with a fist fight? I mean some had facial injuries consistent with getting punched, if a bear hits you in the face, you are probably not getting up which means that some of the hikers should have died in the tent area rather than the treeline. More importantly, why run out of the tent and walk the rest of the way? Why run out of the tent in a panic without grabbing the very things that would help you fight off whatever is attacking you?

July 17, 2020, 04:10:16 PM
Reply #486
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient


If you look at the attack pattern of primates, they tend to hit and run initially.  They also grab the legs and drag you along the ground.  This could explain some of the superficial injuries.  It would also explain why the flashlight was dropped but not recovered.   When you are isolated, on the ground and weak, that is when the severe beating happens with the ape standing over you  beating with its hands.  Apes also tend to maul the face, leaving severe injuries.  All of the injuries are consistent with this type of attack.  Chimps and Gorillas are also known to bite, but there are no bite Mark's on the bodies.  So maybe the attackers were not "normal" apes., but they could have been.

Regards

Star man
If there were 9 hikers, why did only 4 of them have injuries consistent with a fist fight? And more importantly why did they have injuries consistent with a fist fight? I mean some had facial injuries consistent with getting punched, if a bear hits you in the face, you are probably not getting up which means that some of the hikers should have died in the tent area rather than the treeline. More importantly, why run out of the tent and walk the rest of the way? Why run out of the tent in a panic without grabbing the very things that would help you fight off whatever is attacking you?

These are reasonable questions.  I think a part of the problem for us who try to understand what happened is perspective.  It is difficult to understand completely the situation of the hikers from our armchairs.  I imagine even first hand knowledge of the location and weather conditions would not really help to understand their predicament completely.  Irrespective of what caused them to leave the tent, the hikers situation was one of extreme stress, where they had to make life or death decisions.  It is quite possible that they disagreed and fought with each other.  But evidence of a fist fight cannot lead to any particular conclusion on why they left the tent.

Why run from the tent and walk down the slope?  I think the answer is simple.  It was cold, dark, the terrain was dangerous and icy and most had no shoes.  Moving slowly, carefully and keeping together would make more sense.

Why not grab the axe or more knives.  I think whatever happened, it happened quickly and panic set in.  In a panicked state the higher brain functions are reduced and flight or fight kicks in.  Many people have lost their lives because they have been unable to think their way through a dangerous situation.

  The hikers cut the side of the tent, which makes me wonder why not use the door, where the axes and ice axe were.  Maybe because that is where the threat was too. They didn't stop to pick up shoes and clothes either.  Whatever happened they believed they needed to leave quickly without collecting anything.

Regards

Star man

July 17, 2020, 05:08:05 PM
Reply #487
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I notice the number of apparent SCRATCH MARKS on many of the bodies.  Scratch marks are not usually associated with a fist fight. An animal with CLAWS could take a swipe and cause such marks. In any kind of fist fight the face always seems to get plenty of attention. The hands also show clear signs of injury.  Swelling and bruising is usually prominent.
DB

July 28, 2020, 02:10:56 PM
Reply #488
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient

I found an interesting book today in a Charity Shop in Sussex. First Edition. 1955. A very good well written sensible and serious book. Its about an Expedition to find proof of the existence or not of the so called Yeti. Good references. The book also covers Sherpa Culture and geographical information. It would be good to have something like this on the Menk and the Mansi Culture.





















DB

Today at 09:15:07 PM
Reply #489
Online

Georgi



These are reasonable questions.  I think a part of the problem for us who try to understand what happened is perspective.  It is difficult to understand completely the situation of the hikers from our armchairs.  I imagine even first hand knowledge of the location and weather conditions would not really help to understand their predicament completely.  Irrespective of what caused them to leave the tent, the hikers situation was one of extreme stress, where they had to make life or death decisions.  It is quite possible that they disagreed and fought with each other.  But evidence of a fist fight cannot lead to any particular conclusion on why they left the tent.
The evidence of a fist fight is but one piece of the whole puzzle. The scene indicates a panicked retreat but the foot prints down the slope indicate a controlled descent, if big foot had attacked them at the tent why were they left alone to leisurely walk down the slope instead of continuing the pursuit? To me, what makes sense is that someone made them leave the tent and let them walk down the slope without harassing them and the hikers knew they could not turn back because whoever was at the tent had ranged weapons(pistols/rifles). Even if we ignore the cut in the tent, leaving the tent without sufficient clothes, without survival tools, in the middle of the night in sub zero temperatures would only happen under very extreme circumstances, so if something is enough of a threat to leave the tent poorly dressed, without tools, without proper footwear in the dark and travel 1.5km away from your tent, it would require you to do so at a run and a fast run at that. What would force you to abandon your clothes, shoes and tools for survival but wouldn’t threaten you on the way down? They had three options, certain death at the tent, certain death on the slope or almost certain death at the treeline since it offered them a slim chance of survival

Quote
Why run from the tent and walk down the slope?  I think the answer is simple.  It was cold, dark, the terrain was dangerous and icy and most had no shoes.  Moving slowly, carefully and keeping together would make more sense.
If something terrified me enough to leave my shelter, clothes, shoes and survival equipment it would terrify me the entire way down. What’s more, why would the yeti be satisfied to sit at the tent site and not follow them to continue the attack? At some point they would have realizes that they were not being followed by the yeti so they would have stopped, retraced their steps and waited it out because it apparently didn’t want to kill them. Besides 9 young, fit people would get over their panic and realize that their best chance of survival would be at the tent site and going back as a concentrated group would give them their best chance of survival.

Quote
Why not grab the axe or more knives.  I think whatever happened, it happened quickly and panic set in.  In a panicked state the higher brain functions are reduced and flight or fight kicks in.  Many people have lost their lives because they have been unable to think their way through a dangerous situation.
We are not talking about 1 or 2 people, we are talking about 9 individuals some of them have survived terrifying things in their lives so they wouldn’t have been easily scared, what’s more there is the contradiction again, they were in such a panicked state as to not take the blankets they were wrapped up in, or the knife they used to cut the tent with but they were in a calm enough state on their decent. They were either panicked or they were calm, being in such a complete state of panic to cut your only shelter for 60-70km, throw away the knife you used to cut the tent with, leave the tent after throwing down the blanket you were wrapped up in, some of them would have been right next to the jackets, boots and tools so they must have been in complete state of panic to destroy and subsequently abandon your tent without clothes, shoes, or tools yet they had the presence of mind not to run down the slope and whatever scared them at the tent was not bothering to follow them.

Quote
  The hikers cut the side of the tent, which makes me wonder why not use the door, where the axes and ice axe were.  Maybe because that is where the threat was too. They didn't stop to pick up shoes and clothes either.  Whatever happened they believed they needed to leave quickly without collecting anything.
That would make sense in a tent that is 30 or more feet, this was a small tent which was basically 2 4-man tents sown together and likely at the time of egress there were 7 people in the crowded tent, if big foot was standing at the door or even at any point around the tent it is likely it would have seen them leave and followed them, if it didn’t follow them why did they continue going down the slope?

Today at 09:18:24 PM
Reply #490
Online

Georgi


I notice the number of apparent SCRATCH MARKS on many of the bodies.  Scratch marks are not usually associated with a fist fight. An animal with CLAWS could take a swipe and cause such marks. In any kind of fist fight the face always seems to get plenty of attention. The hands also show clear signs of injury.  Swelling and bruising is usually prominent.

You would get scratch marks if you were subsequently restrained facedown on the ground. Scratch marks could also happen based on what the attackers were wearing, depending on the gloves they could have created the scratches. Something with claws would not leave scratch marks, it would leave gashes. If the yeti left scratches on the people I fought, it has to be the most considerate and restrained animal in the world.