Interview with Nurse Pelageya Ivanovna

[SimplyMadness]

''You know, she can be mistaken, her memory is not the same'.

To me that single quote from her husband tells me everything I need to know. He knows her better than anybody ever and even he is admitting her memory isn't to be fully trusted.

I am currently reading a memoir of a German soldier during the Second World War and in his recollections he recalls Soviet soldiers charging his position with "Kalashnikovs". The problem is of course that the Avtomat Kalashnikova Model 1947 was not even invented and put into production until at least two years after the war and he was describing an event in 1942 which is 5 years before he could have ever possibly come into contact with the weapon. EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS A TON OF BULLSHIT. Eyewitness testimony about specific details a half century after an event can in my opinion, be almost entirely dismissed out of hand especially when it conflicts with everything else we know about an event.

I can barely recall the specific details of any given interaction last week and I'm 24 years old, I cant imagine trying to recall even a particularly memorable event that happened to me 60 years from now.

[mk]

''You know, she can be mistaken, her memory is not the same'.

To me that single quote from her husband tells me everything I need to know. He knows her better than anybody ever and even he is admitting her memory isn't to be fully trusted.

I am currently reading a memoir of a German soldier during the Second World War and in his recollections he recalls Soviet soldiers charging his position with "Kalashnikovs". The problem is of course that the Avtomat Kalashnikova Model 1947 was not even invented and put into production until at least two years after the war and he was describing an event in 1942 which is 5 ye
ars before he could have ever possibly come into contact with the weapon. EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS A TON OF BULLSHIT. Eyewitness testimony about specific details a half century after an event can in my opinion, be almost entirely dismissed out of hand especially when it conflicts with everything else we know about an event.

I can barely recall the specific details of any given interaction last week and I'm 24 years old, I cant imagine trying to recall even a particularly memorable event that happened to me 60 years from now.

It seems clear from the interview that Nurse Pelegeya has some kind of memory loss related to aging.  Her husband is very eager to protect her as well as to enter into the investigation himself.

Nurse Pelegeya's account of the bodies is at odds with other stories and accounts we have; the natural response is to dismiss what seems impossible to reconcile.  It is advisable, however, to hold all ideas loosely.  Both the account by Nurse Pelegeya as well the accounts from others. 

The details and effects of dementia and age-related memory loss are not cut-and-dried.  At 24, it is especially difficult to imagine the twists and turns of memory that embraces a lifetime. 

https://www.silverado.com/dementia-alzheimers/why-do-people-with-alzheimers-remember-old-memories/ Alzheimer’s affects recent memories first, debilitating retention of new information. Memories of childhood or from long ago are well encoded since the person has had longer to process and remember specific events. In contrast, when Alzheimer’s symptoms start to show, think of “Last in, first out.” It can be difficult for a person with dementia to remember something from 20 minutes ago.

More technically speaking, new experiences or memories register in the part of the brain called the hippocampus, which sends the memory to the brain’s “storage bank.” When Alzheimer’s develops, the hippocampus is one of the first areas to be affected. Because that area of the brain can’t remember a new memory or person, the hippocampus can’t assist in “retrieving” the memory from the storage bank. These new memories also don’t have as much emotional attachment to them, as other memories stored in a different area of the brain, which suggests why it’s so difficult to retain a new memory.

If you search, you will find hundreds of sites and pages indicating that it is common for a person with dementia to recall accurately events from long ago.  This is not to say, of course, that it's impossible that Nurse Pelegeya is mistaken--only that it's possible she isn't.

As far as the anachronistic Kalashnikov from the memoirs you're reading--  It may have been that "Soviet soldiers charged our position with Kalashnikovs" sounds so much cooler than "Soviet soldiers charged our position with bolt-action rifles," or even "Soviet soldiers charged our position with submachine guns."  Embellishment; poetic license; exaggeration for effect; etc., etc.  Even if the author wrote it correctly, the editor of the book may have substituted the word because s/he thought it sounded more authentic, not realizing that it was inaccurate.  Of course, it may have been that the author only remembered his impression of the weapons the Soviets carried, and he associates Kalashnikovs with that impression; in which case it was the duty of the editor/s to identify the mistake and question it.

From the interview, it does seem to me that Nurse Pelegeya is remembering something true.  Because of the discrepancies, I would be inclined to believe that she is remembering some other young hikers who died of hypothermia under similar circumstances and is getting the two events confused--except that I know of no other record of that kind of thing happening in that location within 5 or 10 years of DPI.

[sarapuk]

But you are turning an Autopsy Report into a potential Conspiracy Theory  !  ?  A theory with absolutely no Evidence.

I suppose you could put it that way if you want to. Except that I feel like some of the things you dismiss offhand might actually be considered Evidence.

Do you never engage in “what if” in order to sort through ideas? It’s like trying on clothes to see whether they fit and go together into a good outfit. Just because you put it on in your bedroom doesn’t mean you think it looks great and will wear it to work tomorrow.

Star Man proposed an idea and acknowledged that it might be wrong. I basically said, “ok, pretend for a minute that that’s right. What would that mean for other information we have?” And then I made speculative comments based on other things I’d read.

Does this bother you?

I agree with your analogy mk.  Sorting through ideas and presenting them to a group is one way of testing them.  A person could speculate different ideas and never present them, until they believe they have the solution.  But, that is not the quickest way to solving any problem.  Progress is often made through trial and error, and bouncing ideas between people.  But any idea has to be backed up by evidence in the end, or otherwise it is just an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

Also, if nobody presented their ideas and thoughts (right or wrong) there would not be much of a forum here to discuss the dpi.

 On conspiracies- Conspiracy theories can be very damaging imo.  I don't like them, or the term.  Most of them are just misinformation and fake news.

Regards

Star man

Thats correct. The Forum is for discussing things. And if someone makes claims regarding a solution to this Dyatlov Mystery then they need to back up those claims with Evidence. Otherwise its just speculation, as we have seen so often.

[sarapuk]

''You know, she can be mistaken, her memory is not the same'.

To me that single quote from her husband tells me everything I need to know. He knows her better than anybody ever and even he is admitting her memory isn't to be fully trusted.

I am currently reading a memoir of a German soldier during the Second World War and in his recollections he recalls Soviet soldiers charging his position with "Kalashnikovs". The problem is of course that the Avtomat Kalashnikova Model 1947 was not even invented and put into production until at least two years after the war and he was describing an event in 1942 which is 5 years before he could have ever possibly come into contact with the weapon. EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS A TON OF BULLSHIT. Eyewitness testimony about specific details a half century after an event can in my opinion, be almost entirely dismissed out of hand especially when it conflicts with everything else we know about an event.

I can barely recall the specific details of any given interaction last week and I'm 24 years old, I cant imagine trying to recall even a particularly memorable event that happened to me 60 years from now.

Well put, sort of.  In a Court of Law whilst eyewitness statements are important its only a part of the process. A case cannot be Judged properly on the basis of an eyewitness alone. Otherwise just think of the number of false claims people would be making. And eyewitness statements half a Century after the Event have to be taken very carefully and maybe with a good pinch of salt.

[mk]

Well put, sort of.

  Actually, it wasn't well put at all.  But we'll let that pass.

In a Court of Law whilst eyewitness statements are important its only a part of the process. A case cannot be Judged properly on the basis of an eyewitness alone. Otherwise just think of the number of false claims people would be making. And eyewitness statements half a Century after the Event have to be taken very carefully and maybe with a good pinch of salt.

I don't think anyone is trying to build a new case--or judge an old one--solely on the basis of one old lady's testimony.  We are trying to fit one old lady's testimony into its proper place as a piece of the puzzle.  Some of us believe it should be carefully considered in its entirety before flinging it aside, and this is a thread for that purpose.

Others seem to think that her age and the fact that her husband brushes aside her words are indication enough that she is misremembering. 

That doesn't happen to be enough for me, but I don't mind that others think it is. I can certainly see their point.

[Star man]

Well put, sort of.

  Actually, it wasn't well put at all.  But we'll let that pass.

In a Court of Law whilst eyewitness statements are important its only a part of the process. A case cannot be Judged properly on the basis of an eyewitness alone. Otherwise just think of the number of false claims people would be making. And eyewitness statements half a Century after the Event have to be taken very carefully and maybe with a good pinch of salt.

I don't think anyone is trying to build a new case--or judge an old one--solely on the basis of one old lady's testimony.  We are trying to fit one old lady's testimony into its proper place as a piece of the puzzle.  Some of us believe it should be carefully considered in its entirety before flinging it aside, and this is a thread for that purpose.

Others seem to think that her age and the fact that her husband brushes aside her words are indication enough that she is misremembering. 

That doesn't happen to be enough for me, but I don't mind that others think it is. I can certainly see their point.

I think you are correct to consider her statement carefully.  For much of what she says there doesn't seem to be any confusion, and where she is not sure she says so.  Also, if her recollection is wrong then there should not be so much that contradicts the case files, in a consistent way.

Regards

Star man

[mk]

I think you are correct to consider her statement carefully.  For much of what she says there doesn't seem to be any confusion, and where she is not sure she says so.  Also, if her recollection is wrong then there should not be so much that contradicts the case files, in a consistent way.

One thing that doesn't seem to fit is the bitten knuckle with skin found in the mouth.  If she had cleaned & the doctor had "described" the corpses before hand, surely the skin wouldn't have remained in the mouth?

[sarapuk]

I think you are correct to consider her statement carefully.  For much of what she says there doesn't seem to be any confusion, and where she is not sure she says so.  Also, if her recollection is wrong then there should not be so much that contradicts the case files, in a consistent way.

One thing that doesn't seem to fit is the bitten knuckle with skin found in the mouth.  If she had cleaned & the doctor had "described" the corpses before hand, surely the skin wouldn't have remained in the mouth?

Well bodies are usualy cleaned to a certain degree before the actual Autopsy, and presumably it was so in 1959. I would have thought that even after a bit of a clean up skin tissue could be found in the mouth.

[Star man]

I think you are correct to consider her statement carefully.  For much of what she says there doesn't seem to be any confusion, and where she is not sure she says so.  Also, if her recollection is wrong then there should not be so much that contradicts the case files, in a consistent way.

One thing that doesn't seem to fit is the bitten knuckle with skin found in the mouth.  If she had cleaned & the doctor had "described" the corpses before hand, surely the skin wouldn't have remained in the mouth?

I think it would depend on the level of detail that they went into during the cleaning.  Would they have looked inside Krivo's mouth?  They would have had to resolve any rigor mortis?  Another thing to think about is -  what we can and cannot trust about the autopsy reports.  Clearly, they would have known more than what they said, and some facts are easy to manipulate while others would not be.  Lyuda and possibly Semyon' appearance may have been adjusted after they were cleaned.  Solter did not say anything about missing eyes and tongues.  But she does recall there being two girls brought in within a day or two of each other and 11 bodies in total.

I think you raise a valid question at the right level of detail, but I dont think it undermines Solter's statement.  What do you think?

Star man

[mk]

I think it would depend on the level of detail that they went into during the cleaning.  Would they have looked inside Krivo's mouth?  They would have had to resolve any rigor mortis?  Another thing to think about is -  what we can and cannot trust about the autopsy reports.  Clearly, they would have known more than what they said, and some facts are easy to manipulate while others would not be.  Lyuda and possibly Semyon' appearance may have been adjusted after they were cleaned.  Solter did not say anything about missing eyes and tongues.  But she does recall there being two girls brought in within a day or two of each other and 11 bodies in total.

I think you raise a valid question at the right level of detail, but I dont think it undermines Solter's statement.  What do you think?

I wasn't really thinking as far as undermining either Solter's statement or the autopsy.  I was just trying to figure out whether the two statements (1) were actually in conflict with each other, or whether it's just my lack of understanding about the procedures, and (2) if they are in conflict, can they be reconciled by changing my perspective or adding information... or does it mean that one or the other is false.

It dawns on me that perhaps I should explain my own "procedure".  Many people here seem to work on a shortened version of the scientific method: Make up a hypothesis, see if anything contradicts it; change the hypothesis, see if anything contradicts it; on and on.  Either that, or the survival-of-the-fittest: two people with opposing views argue it out and the winner gets his view validated.  Somehow I don't find it very useful to approach things those ways .  (NOT making a point about the usefulness of the scientific method, deductive vs. inductive thinking, or suggesting that my concept of my own innerworkings is inherently better, etc, etc.)

When it comes to situations when there may be a strong incentive to deceive, and my own immediate well-being doesn't depend upon the answers--I tend neither to believe nor disbelieve a person.  I don't need to know whether it is True; I just need to recognize that the person has decided to tell me this.  Of all the possible things they could have mentioned right now, *this* is what they chose.  Think of that!  It is so incredibly informative!  No matter what the person says, he is making a choice from all the possible things he might say (including staying silent or changing the subject), and that choice reveals something about himself.  About his needs, his goals, his values, his desires, his self-image, his perceived public image... Given enough opportunity, all these choices add up and begin to present a clear picture of the person.

When statements seem to contradict each other, even better.  It provides a great opportunity to evaluate my own assumptions or the assumptions of the other person.  This is where I am with Nurse Pelegeya.  I'm looking for contradictions in order to hone or refine my own understanding.

After a while, it becomes fairly clear whether the words & stories are truths, lies, mistakes, or some combination.

Now, with DPI, it is a bit different.  There is no further opportunity; we must rely on what has already been said. But quite a lot has been said.  Of all the things Maslennikov could have communicated on his radiograms, he spent a surprising amount of time detailing his ideas of how things went down; why was this important to him?  The autopsies are so cursory; why? Sharavin has mentioned in two different interviews that the two Yuris by the cedar tree were covered with a brown blanket when he and his buddy found them; why is this important to him?  Usually when I open threads, this is what I'm trying to explore--not to race to the final question, "Is this person's idea/report true or false?"

Anyway--not implying that you, Star Man, need a lecture on my thoughts and practices; just thought this might be a good opportunity to explain why I may seem to ignore some things that are very important to others.

[Star man]

I think it would depend on the level of detail that they went into during the cleaning.  Would they have looked inside Krivo's mouth?  They would have had to resolve any rigor mortis?  Another thing to think about is -  what we can and cannot trust about the autopsy reports.  Clearly, they would have known more than what they said, and some facts are easy to manipulate while others would not be.  Lyuda and possibly Semyon' appearance may have been adjusted after they were cleaned.  Solter did not say anything about missing eyes and tongues.  But she does recall there being two girls brought in within a day or two of each other and 11 bodies in total.

I think you raise a valid question at the right level of detail, but I dont think it undermines Solter's statement.  What do you think?

I wasn't really thinking as far as undermining either Solter's statement or the autopsy.  I was just trying to figure out whether the two statements (1) were actually in conflict with each other, or whether it's just my lack of understanding about the procedures, and (2) if they are in conflict, can they be reconciled by changing my perspective or adding information... or does it mean that one or the other is false.

It dawns on me that perhaps I should explain my own "procedure".  Many people here seem to work on a shortened version of the scientific method: Make up a hypothesis, see if anything contradicts it; change the hypothesis, see if anything contradicts it; on and on.  Either that, or the survival-of-the-fittest: two people with opposing views argue it out and the winner gets his view validated.  Somehow I don't find it very useful to approach things those ways .  (NOT making a point about the usefulness of the scientific method, deductive vs. inductive thinking, or suggesting that my concept of my own innerworkings is inherently better, etc, etc.)

When it comes to situations when there may be a strong incentive to deceive, and my own immediate well-being doesn't depend upon the answers--I tend neither to believe nor disbelieve a person.  I don't need to know whether it is True; I just need to recognize that the person has decided to tell me this.  Of all the possible things they could have mentioned right now, *this* is what they chose.  Think of that!  It is so incredibly informative!  No matter what the person says, he is making a choice from all the possible things he might say (including staying silent or changing the subject), and that choice reveals something about himself.  About his needs, his goals, his values, his desires, his self-image, his perceived public image... Given enough opportunity, all these choices add up and begin to present a clear picture of the person.

When statements seem to contradict each other, even better.  It provides a great opportunity to evaluate my own assumptions or the assumptions of the other person.  This is where I am with Nurse Pelegeya.  I'm looking for contradictions in order to hone or refine my own understanding.

After a while, it becomes fairly clear whether the words & stories are truths, lies, mistakes, or some combination.

Now, with DPI, it is a bit different.  There is no further opportunity; we must rely on what has already been said. But quite a lot has been said.  Of all the things Maslennikov could have communicated on his radiograms, he spent a surprising amount of time detailing his ideas of how things went down; why was this important to him?  The autopsies are so cursory; why? Sharavin has mentioned in two different interviews that the two Yuris by the cedar tree were covered with a brown blanket when he and his buddy found them; why is this important to him?  Usually when I open threads, this is what I'm trying to explore--not to race to the final question, "Is this person's idea/report true or false?"

Anyway--not implying that you, Star Man, need a lecture on my thoughts and practices; just thought this might be a good opportunity to explain why I may seem to ignore some things that are very important to others.

Seems like a reasonable approach.  I agree that there may be issues with some of things that Solter says, and many of the reports available.  What I tend to do, is to look at all the available information including any inconsistencies at both a detailed level and within the overall context of the scenario.  People mention Occam's razor quite alot, but use it incorrectly.  For example, there are multiple discrepancies and actions around the dpi within the detail that suggest that there is something suspicious going on.  Then when you take a step back and look at the bigger picture you can also apply  a basic Occam's razor style sanity check, to see if those suspicions are well founded.  An example is the ravine.  What makes the most sense -  all of the significant traumas being the result of a single unusual, but devastating  event, or multiple unfortunate devastating events all happening to the same group on the same night.  The only way that the rav 4 could have sustained those injuries is via a significant fall, but there is nowhere at the ravine near to the bodies where it  could happen.  So the only other explanation is that they were carried there by someone.  By whom?  If it was Kolevatov, how did he do it and then sustain a "deformed neck"?  This is just a simple example I could go on for hours.  When you evaluate Solters statement in this context what she says makes sense.

Regards

Star man