Traces on the Dyatlov pass and a few words about the bigfoot version

[Loose}{Cannon]

And something else, maybe you didn’t see it, I want to show you another picture of Menk, that the Dyatlov group photographed a few days before the death. This is a female.  https://sun9-30.userapi.com/c851020/v851020572/196b56/6bC7bHfMiK8.jpg, https://sun9-5.userapi.com/c851020/v851020572/196b5d/qJkTA97J3Ew.jpg, https://sun9-35.userapi.com/c851020/v851020572/196b64/S6YrduxW6HA.jpg

This is one of the DP group.   

Maybe you missed the ski tracks leading all the way up to the figure wearing a hood?

Interesting though. The Tracks go to the right in the photo and maybe they then go to the left as they get towards the far Treeline. But why is the person [ if it is a person ] on Skies going into the Trees    ?  The Trees look a bit dense there. Could it be a Dyatlov Member on Skies coming away from the Trees and then taking a photo ?

The figure is in the same creek clearing as the person taking the picture.... they are further ahead and slightly around the bend which curves to the left.   The figure is NOT in the trees

[Loose}{Cannon]

Very difficult to say what the figure is  ! ? And how you can tell the Brand of the Rucksac that you reckon the figure is carrying.

Satire.... its celled comic relief.   

Clearly can see the break of the Hood Visor ! ?  Blowed if I can. If I was in a Court of Law with that Photo and Me and 11 Jurors had to make sense of it, we would all say its IMPOSSIBLE to say what the figure is. Its any ones guess.

Good thing we are not in a court of law?   However, you proved my point.   

[sarapuk]

To do this, you will need to learn Russian and review many interviews with search participants. In addition, I personally talked with a search engine. I have a trained eye and I know how hikers behave according to the instructions. No examination of the traces was carried out to draw conclusions that they were left by a person. I am a hunter and know the tracks very well. You can deny as much as you like, but this is my final opinion. Why these are not traces of man I have already described above. And believe it or not is your business

Yes sir, there are two sides to every coin and our members deserve to see both so that they can determine for themselves what to believe.   

Deny and disagree are two entirely different things.  To deny something, that 'something' has to be rooted in fact. 

I also hunt...  I own well over 50 firearms and Im a US Marine that was trained specifically to track humans.....  so what?

I think Tracking Creatures like the YETI, if they exist, would require a different skill set. Also we know from our time on this great Forum that its highly likely that much Evidence went MISSING for one reason or another.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Thats simply your opinion... its a maybe, maybe not.  How can you sate something is missing while at the same time not being able to state what that something is!?  Its assumptions created to fit a narrative that otherwise has no supporting evidence.   

The assumption is that only a boogieman could have done this and since there is no evidence, another assumption is made that the evidence was withheld from the case files. Its literally a theory that relies on a double assumption as its foundation.   

[sarapuk]

One of my issues is that folks that subscribe to the Yeti theory tend to rely on assumptions overlapping other assumptions as the basis of "facts" in an attempt to prove cryptozoology. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and subculture that aims to prove the existence of entities from the folklore record, such as Bigfoot, the chupacabra, or Mokele-mbembe. Cryptozoologists refer to these entities as cryptids, a term coined by the subculture. Because it does not follow the scientific method, cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world: it is neither a branch of zoology nor folkloristics. It was originally founded in the 1950s by zoologists Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson.

Scholars have noted that the pseudoscience rejected mainstream approaches from an early date, and that adherents often express hostility to mainstream science. Scholars have studied cryptozoologists and their influence (including the pseudoscience's association with young Earth creationism), and have noted parallels in cryptozoology and other pseudosciences such as ghost hunting and ufology.

I dont subscribe to any particular Theory. All I can say regarding the YETI Theory is that many people have experiences of such Creatures. And its known that the Mansi Tribe also have such experiences. Therefore its worth looking into.

[Loose}{Cannon]

One of my issues is that folks that subscribe to the Yeti theory tend to rely on assumptions overlapping other assumptions as the basis of "facts" in an attempt to prove cryptozoology. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and subculture that aims to prove the existence of entities from the folklore record, such as Bigfoot, the chupacabra, or Mokele-mbembe. Cryptozoologists refer to these entities as cryptids, a term coined by the subculture. Because it does not follow the scientific method, cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world: it is neither a branch of zoology nor folkloristics. It was originally founded in the 1950s by zoologists Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson.

Scholars have noted that the pseudoscience rejected mainstream approaches from an early date, and that adherents often express hostility to mainstream science. Scholars have studied cryptozoologists and their influence (including the pseudoscience's association with young Earth creationism), and have noted parallels in cryptozoology and other pseudosciences such as ghost hunting and ufology.

I dont subscribe to any particular Theory. All I can say regarding the YETI Theory is that many people have experiences of such Creatures. And its known that the Mansi Tribe also have such experiences. Therefore its worth looking into.

Of course....  Thats why we have an entire section dedicated to it.   

I would however suggest you do subscribe to a theory.  You have always been pro-yeti/pro-alien/pro-crypto in your postings and have always outright dismissed anything founded on natural or otherwise unfortunate circumstances or events by stating/posting "it is very unlikely that (insert scenario here)" without giving any explanation as to how/why you have come to that conclusion. 

[Star man]

The creature.....

This is more clear then the other famous yeti photo.  Clearly can see the break of the hood visor, lighter top vs the darker trousers, and the ruffles in the baggy trousers.











The PERSON seems to not have a 'large pack" on his back but possibly a smaller satchel which is exactly how they were traveling at the time the photo was taken. Their larger gear was on the sled.....   

Ok I can see that this image could be a member of the hikers, leaning forward and looking at the ground.  Even so it is still ambiguous and the legs in particular look disproportionate to the upper body for a hiker.  Still I doubt that this could be used as definitive evidence given the possible resemblance to a hiker.

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

It is interesting.  Do you have any additional information?

Regards

Star man

Of course, indirect evidence is sufficient. There is a lot of evidence of the Mansi people that a bigfoot lived in the upper reaches of the Lozva River. They found his skull, which is about 3 times larger than a human. In the 80s, Mansi left one of the villages because they were disturbed by a bigfoot. In addition to the death of the Dyatlov group, in the same 1959, near the Dyatlov Pass, the bodies of two Mansi hunters with numerous fractures and injuries were discovered. So who can make fractures to people in the forest? The answer is obvious. Recently there was an expedition on the pass. Found traces longer than 30 cm wide 20 cm.
http://inductor.su/dt/_IGP0848.jpg , http://inductor.su/dt/_IGP0844.jpg

Everyone in the group had a personal diary. According to the information that said Bienko, yes, Kolevatov had his own diary. Most likely the one that Askinadzi saw when Kolevatov’s body was taken out of the stream.

The figure in the picture is really identical to the figure of the Patterson-Gimlin movie. I think this figure was the reason for taking picture. When they passed this section, the last one in the group noticed that they were being watched. While setting up the camera, the figure turned around and was walking into the forest. This photo was taken when they already left village-north 2 . January 28-29 Let me remind you that ice can fall on rivers, skiers on rivers do not deviate from the track and strictly follow together each other.  This figure is a female snowman because she is wider. At frame 17, this is a male, he is slimmer. What conclusion can be made? a few days before the tragedy, Dyatlov’s group aroused interest from a bigfoot.

The skull if it could be produced would of course be significant evidence.  What happened to it?

The pictures of the traces of big foot, the footprints are interesting.  There seems to be a lot of prints put forward as evidence.  Now obviously prints can be faked, but there are many of them in different parts of the world and I doubt that they are all faked.

Having looked closely at the photo of the figure in the tree, I have to say that I am unsure as to what or who it is.  It is certainly and interesting photo but the more you look at it the more it likes both a hiker and a big foot.  The image is ambiguous and probably not usable as direct evidence.  Maybe if there were a way of identifying a scale for the image it would help differentiate between human and non human?

For me frame 17 looks more like a human.

Don't get me wrong I am not trying to dismiss the big foot argument.  From my own research of the injuries I find they are consistent with a large ape like creature.  But, what is needed is solid unambiguous proof that it was responsible for dpi.

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

To do this, you will need to learn Russian and review many interviews with search participants. In addition, I personally talked with a search engine. I have a trained eye and I know how hikers behave according to the instructions. No examination of the traces was carried out to draw conclusions that they were left by a person. I am a hunter and know the tracks very well. You can deny as much as you like, but this is my final opinion. Why these are not traces of man I have already described above. And believe it or not is your business

The fact that the investigation did not measure the prints, take numerous photographs of them, measured the stride length and try to match them 1:1 with each hiker is suspicious in itself.  Maybe they did but those files are not available?

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

And something else, maybe you didn’t see it, I want to show you another picture of Menk, that the Dyatlov group photographed a few days before the death. This is a female.  https://sun9-30.userapi.com/c851020/v851020572/196b56/6bC7bHfMiK8.jpg, https://sun9-5.userapi.com/c851020/v851020572/196b5d/qJkTA97J3Ew.jpg, https://sun9-35.userapi.com/c851020/v851020572/196b64/S6YrduxW6HA.jpg

This is one of the DP group.   

Maybe you missed the ski tracks leading all the way up to the figure wearing a hood?

Interesting though. The Tracks go to the right in the photo and maybe they then go to the left as they get towards the far Treeline. But why is the person [ if it is a person ] on Skies going into the Trees    ?  The Trees look a bit dense there. Could it be a Dyatlov Member on Skies coming away from the Trees and then taking a photo ?

It's an interesting photo.  A bit ambiguous.  But you may be right that it someone taking a photo.  What we need on this picture is scale?  Difficult though.

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

And when did Bigfoot get a hoodie and start wearing baggy pants with folds over leggings?    At least he has a Yeti brand packpack?

Very difficult to say what the figure is  ! ? And how you can tell the Brand of the Rucksac that you reckon the figure is carrying.

Have a look at the bottom half of the figure and compare with the top, and then look at the similar proportions of the human group members.  I agree that it is still ambiguous but the bottom half seems very wide and disporportionate to the top half.  Could it just be blurred smudged sort of image or could it be lots of fur over the legs and bottom half?

Regards

Star man

[Loose}{Cannon]

Its a person seen through brush some distance away with an old cheep black/white camera.   Its blurred and subsequently looks fat and fluffy just like the other "yeti" photo.

[sarapuk]

One of my issues is that folks that subscribe to the Yeti theory tend to rely on assumptions overlapping other assumptions as the basis of "facts" in an attempt to prove cryptozoology. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and subculture that aims to prove the existence of entities from the folklore record, such as Bigfoot, the chupacabra, or Mokele-mbembe. Cryptozoologists refer to these entities as cryptids, a term coined by the subculture. Because it does not follow the scientific method, cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world: it is neither a branch of zoology nor folkloristics. It was originally founded in the 1950s by zoologists Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson.

Scholars have noted that the pseudoscience rejected mainstream approaches from an early date, and that adherents often express hostility to mainstream science. Scholars have studied cryptozoologists and their influence (including the pseudoscience's association with young Earth creationism), and have noted parallels in cryptozoology and other pseudosciences such as ghost hunting and ufology.

I dont subscribe to any particular Theory. All I can say regarding the YETI Theory is that many people have experiences of such Creatures. And its known that the Mansi Tribe also have such experiences. Therefore its worth looking into.

Of course....  Thats why we have an entire section dedicated to it.   

I would however suggest you do subscribe to a theory.  You have always been pro-yeti/pro-alien/pro-crypto in your postings and have always outright dismissed anything founded on natural or otherwise unfortunate circumstances or events by stating/posting "it is very unlikely that (insert scenario here)" without giving any explanation as to how/why you have come to that conclusion.

Yes I know I appear to have been pro this that or the other and I know I could have put more detail into some of My Postings but its early days in this Investigation. To say that it is in early days may get some reaction, because The Incident happened 60 years ago. But the fact is that its only in more recent times that any proper Investigations have begun. 

[track hunter]

And when did Bigfoot get a hoodie and start wearing baggy pants with folds over leggings?    At least he has a Yeti brand packpack?

Very difficult to say what the figure is  ! ? And how you can tell the Brand of the Rucksac that you reckon the figure is carrying.

Have a look at the bottom half of the figure and compare with the top, and then look at the similar proportions of the human group members.  I agree that it is still ambiguous but the bottom half seems very wide and disporportionate to the top half.  Could it just be blurred smudged sort of image or could it be lots of fur over the legs and bottom half?

Regards

Star man

This is Menk. This is precisely the reason for the tragedy at the Dyatlov Pass. I myself live not far from that place. Every local knows about it, but never speaks to the camera. Only among their own. And the tracks at the tent I showed you. Everything is in front of the nose. Good luck

[Star man]

And when did Bigfoot get a hoodie and start wearing baggy pants with folds over leggings?    At least he has a Yeti brand packpack?

Very difficult to say what the figure is  ! ? And how you can tell the Brand of the Rucksac that you reckon the figure is carrying.

Have a look at the bottom half of the figure and compare with the top, and then look at the similar proportions of the human group members.  I agree that it is still ambiguous but the bottom half seems very wide and disporportionate to the top half.  Could it just be blurred smudged sort of image or could it be lots of fur over the legs and bottom half?

Regards

Star man

This is Menk. This is precisely the reason for the tragedy at the Dyatlov Pass. I myself live not far from that place. Every local knows about it, but never speaks to the camera. Only among their own. And the tracks at the tent I showed you. Everything is in front of the nose. Good luck

If it was a Menk and the evidence is there why do you think that the investigation did not put forward this and the evidence?

Putting photos aside, from my perspective there is enough in the way of evidence to make this mystery point towards a large ape like creature as a credible possibility.  In particular the pattern of events and the injuries.

Regards

Star man

[Morski]

And when did Bigfoot get a hoodie and start wearing baggy pants with folds over leggings?    At least he has a Yeti brand packpack?

Very difficult to say what the figure is  ! ? And how you can tell the Brand of the Rucksac that you reckon the figure is carrying.

Have a look at the bottom half of the figure and compare with the top, and then look at the similar proportions of the human group members.  I agree that it is still ambiguous but the bottom half seems very wide and disporportionate to the top half.  Could it just be blurred smudged sort of image or could it be lots of fur over the legs and bottom half?

Regards

Star man

This is Menk. This is precisely the reason for the tragedy at the Dyatlov Pass. I myself live not far from that place. Every local knows about it, but never speaks to the camera. Only among their own. And the tracks at the tent I showed you. Everything is in front of the nose. Good luck

So, since you live nearby, you can probably tell why everyone, who lives in the area knows about "Menk", but no one talks about "it" ? Why is this big secret?

[Loose}{Cannon]

The Russian Gov had to hide the existence of Sasquatch because he is a KGB agent.

[Morski]

The Russian Gov had to hide the existence of Sasquatch because he is a KGB agent.

Or, he could be a double agent. Who knows...

[sarapuk]

The Russian Gov had to hide the existence of Sasquatch because he is a KGB agent.

Or like most Governments they would want to hide such revelations for obvious reasons. I mean we cant just have YETI and UFO and ALIENS popping into and out of existence can we  !  ?  It would be a serious development if the TRUTH was allowed out wouldnt it  !  ? 

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

There is one important thing about Yetis and Bigfoots.

They do not exist, but that is not the important thing.

What is important, is that these (nonexistent) creatures never, ever kill humans.

[sarapuk]

There is one important thing about Yetis and Bigfoots.

They do not exist, but that is not the important thing.

What is important, is that these (nonexistent) creatures never, ever kill humans.

Do you have proof that they do not exist  !  ?

[gypsy]

There is one important thing about Yetis and Bigfoots.

They do not exist, but that is not the important thing.

What is important, is that these (nonexistent) creatures never, ever kill humans.

Do you have proof that they do not exist  !  ?

For whatever reason you keep posting this logical fallacy all over again. Burden of proof is in on your side if you claim it exists. That's it.

Using your logic I could say whatever bullshit and present it as the truth until somebody proves me wrong. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Star man]

For proof or at least a proposal of truth read my post in the exploring yeti theory.

The Sasquatch genome project has presented a report on genome sequencing of many samples that is an interesting read.  I can’t comment on its validity but if it isn’t taken seriously I think it would be a mistake.  They sound like credible people and the evidence they present sounds credible.  Independent peer checking by a credible source may provide exactly the evidence required.

Regards
Star man

[Spygirl 1]

There is one important thing about Yetis and Bigfoots.

They do not exist, but that is not the important thing.

What is important, is that these (nonexistent) creatures never, ever kill humans.

Do you have proof that they do not exist  !  ?

I can most definitely swear on my life Sasquatch exists!

[Spygirl 1]

There is one important thing about Yetis and Bigfoots.

They do not exist, but that is not the important thing.

What is important, is that these (nonexistent) creatures never, ever kill humans.

Do you have proof that they do not exist  !  ?

For whatever reason you keep posting this logical fallacy all over again. Burden of proof is in on your side if you claim it exists. That's it.

Using your logic I could say whatever bullshit and present it as the truth until somebody proves me wrong. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I have definitive proof Sasquatch exists at least in the southwest US.

Roughly 95% of any claimed human encounters the Sasquatch quickly flee vs. being a monstrous killer.

IMO by whatever name you want to call a Yeti/Menk/ etc. I do think it may be possible presence but most likely because of curiosity vs. intended harm.

[gypsy]

There is one important thing about Yetis and Bigfoots.

They do not exist, but that is not the important thing.

What is important, is that these (nonexistent) creatures never, ever kill humans.

Do you have proof that they do not exist  !  ?

For whatever reason you keep posting this logical fallacy all over again. Burden of proof is in on your side if you claim it exists. That's it.

Using your logic I could say whatever bullshit and present it as the truth until somebody proves me wrong. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I have definitive proof Sasquatch exists at least in the southwest US.

Roughly 95% of any claimed human encounters the Sasquatch quickly flee vs. being a monstrous killer.

IMO by whatever name you want to call a Yeti/Menk/ etc. I do think it may be possible presence but most likely because of curiosity vs. intended harm.

I referred to the logical fallacy as such. One cannot just ask for a proof of non existence of an entity that is not even defined properly. Burden of proof is on the other side.

As for the yeti (or whatever name we use), I do not refute the statements of people who claim to have encountered an ape-like creature. But it still might be a weird looking ape or human, not necessarily another species. The humans vary a lot in terms of appearance, size, weight etc... we can expect the same among apes. Unless we define properly what yeti is and produce evidence of its existence, I prefer being sceptical.

The most common definition of that 'species' I came across says that yeti is a hybrid of human and an ape (don't know which particular species, never got a proper answer). It should be possible to test whether such 'combination' is even biologically possible.

I checked out this page recently, somebody posted it on this forum.

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/sasquatch_genome_project_007.htm

There are alleged eye witnesses of yeti including a guy who claims to be visiting them regularly. I just cannot get my head around the fact that he was not able to produce single picture or video of the yeti over all these years. I would understand that few years ago.. but come on, everybody has a camera phone today. If for nothing else, than for the sake of one's reputation those people better start to produce some evicence other than hair samples with questionable origin and blurry pictures in which everybody sees what they want to.

Anybody with proper evidence is very welcome to produce it.

[Star man]

Gypsy.  If you have read the report on the website of the Sasquatch genome project you will see that evidence is exactly what they have provided.  They have 3 terabytes of data and three complete genome sequenced.  They have the original samples and claim that some of the samples came from Sasquatch they have on video.  They are in the main professional people who have spent half a million dollars of their own money and 5 years of their lives to gather the evidence and do the research.  They have issued their work to independent peer review and attempted to publish in several journals.  Yet nobody will touch it.  I am sure they would be prepared to submit the work and maybe even the samples for further independent confirmation.  They are concerned that governments already know of their existence but don’t want it to become public knowledge because of the economic impact of having a near human endangered species widespread throughout many iareas.  I don’t know if that is true.  they have put the evidence forward for scrutiny.  I doubt it is a hoax.  It could be scientific history - so why won’t anyone even touch it?

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

Most eye witness accounts of the Sasquatch confirm that they avoid humans,  however there are accounts where humans have been followed by them at a distance.  I suspect that such action would be due to protective strategies ( i.e keeping an eye on a potential threat to their families). And or out of curiosity.  There are accounts of them becoming more aggressive if people don’t leave a particular area.

Regards

Star man

[sarapuk]

There is one important thing about Yetis and Bigfoots.

They do not exist, but that is not the important thing.

What is important, is that these (nonexistent) creatures never, ever kill humans.

Do you have proof that they do not exist  !  ?

For whatever reason you keep posting this logical fallacy all over again. Burden of proof is in on your side if you claim it exists. That's it.

Using your logic I could say whatever bullshit and present it as the truth until somebody proves me wrong. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Logical Fallacy  !  ?  Burdon Of Proof  !  ?  I dont actually claim that it exists. Iam looking at possibilities. And because a thing can not be seen doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. The Scientists at CERN will say that.  They are searching for things and so are we.

[sarapuk]

Most eye witness accounts of the Sasquatch confirm that they avoid humans,  however there are accounts where humans have been followed by them at a distance.  I suspect that such action would be due to protective strategies ( i.e keeping an eye on a potential threat to their families). And or out of curiosity.  There are accounts of them becoming more aggressive if people don’t leave a particular area.

Regards

Star man

It does seem as if this 'Mystery Creature' exhibits tendencies not unlike Humans or indeed many animals, ie, It can be peaceful or violent.