Occam's razor says- homicide

[sarapuk]

https://www.hunker.com/12318038/the-flammability-of-pine-trees

So there you have it.  Its highly unlikely that any of the Dyatlov Group climbed the said tree to use branches as fire wood.

[Star man]

I think it is difficult to apply the principles Occam's Razor when there are so many variables involved and not enough information about the starting conditions.  Its like trying to use Occam's Razor to determine which butterfly was responsible for Hurricane Irma.  Well maybe not quite that difficult, but still very difficult.

Jumping to the conclusion of homicide is to not really look at the subtle details of the case.

My understanding is that cedar Wood was the best available for making a fire.  But, why Yuri D would climb the tree with severe frost bite to get fire wood does raise an eyebrow.  Wny would he do this? 

The rav 4 injuries are strange too.  Chest injuries inflicted by a very large force,   either a very powerful blow, or a fall.  A fall that results in two very similar flail chest injuries, but with no extremity injuries is very strange.  A powerful blow from  a Yeti?  Actually, it would work, but there is another possibility. 

Is it possible that the chest injuries and Thibo's head injury were an act of mercy?  If they knew they were going to die a slow painful death, they may have decided to accelerate their own deaths.  The chest injuries could have been inflicted by two people, lifting a very large round boulder, of say 150kg and dropping it onto the chests.  Kolevatov and Thibo help Lyuda and Semyon, then Kolevatov uses a smaller rock to help Thibo?  Unfortunately there is nobody to help Kolevatov.  In some respects, he may have drawn the short straw. 

Regards

Star man

[Manti]

Well, interesting. Since they had a knife, there are perhaps easier ways, although both knife and stone cause a lot of pain..... I have obviously no experience but maybe the cold is the most comfortable way to go.


I think there are other explanations for (some) of the injuries, I don't know if there has been analysis on whose skin was found on the tree, but what if many of them climbed, and then fell down? Certainly falling on a branch from a few meters up could break ribs and break the branch too. Not that sure about skull fracture though.

Although that doesn't explain why apparently those with the most serious injuries lived longest...

[Nigel Evans]

Nothing grows very quickly in Siberia, green saplings = young trees i think. The cedar could (must?) be of the fir/pine family which always burn well in my experience. Ever set light to a Xmas tree in January?

Well I havnt noticed the Pine tree to be a quick burner just after its been cut down.

The base of the "cedar" would have old fallen branches likely to be drier.

[Star man]

Well, interesting. Since they had a knife, there are perhaps easier ways, although both knife and stone cause a lot of pain..... I have obviously no experience but maybe the cold is the most comfortable way to go.


I think there are other explanations for (some) of the injuries, I don't know if there has been analysis on whose skin was found on the tree, but what if many of them climbed, and then fell down? Certainly falling on a branch from a few meters up could break ribs and break the branch too. Not that sure about skull fracture though.

Although that doesn't explain why apparently those with the most serious injuries lived longest...

I think falling is a reasonable explanation.   Possibly from the cedar.   I dont think freezing to death is very quick though.  Its also possible that they weren't just dying because of the cold.  If there was a military test of some kind and they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, then they may have been exposed to something that would be even worse than freezing to death., such as massive radiation exposure.  This can affect cognitive ability due to damage of neuro vascular system., their bodies would start to shut down and they would become ill quite quickly from what I understand.  I cant imagine that this would be a pleasant way to die.  Also Krivo was suppose to be an engineer involved in nuclear work, so its possible he and some of the others understood what was happening to them.  Faced with that, maybe its possible they tried to quicken their deaths.  But you're right that they had a knife so its probably unlikely they would have chosen to use a large boulder. 

One thing that I would suggest you consider are the strange actions of the group at the tent.  The way the tent was cut from inside.  The way they left the tent and camp site.  Rustem still had alot of body heat where he fell in the snow and left an ice bed.  Their behaviour is strange.  Yuri D climbing the cedar with frost bite on his hands and toes.

Regards

Star man

[sarapuk]

Nothing grows very quickly in Siberia, green saplings = young trees i think. The cedar could (must?) be of the fir/pine family which always burn well in my experience. Ever set light to a Xmas tree in January?

Well I havnt noticed the Pine tree to be a quick burner just after its been cut down.

The base of the "cedar" would have old fallen branches likely to be drier.

So maybe we are nearer to eliminating them climbing the tree for firewood. Which would mean they climbed it for some other reason. Bearing in mind the extreme weather conditions and the fact that most of them were very poorly dressed. They are going to climb that tree for a very good reason.

[sarapuk]

I think it is difficult to apply the principles Occam's Razor when there are so many variables involved and not enough information about the starting conditions.  Its like trying to use Occam's Razor to determine which butterfly was responsible for Hurricane Irma.  Well maybe not quite that difficult, but still very difficult.

Jumping to the conclusion of homicide is to not really look at the subtle details of the case.

My understanding is that cedar Wood was the best available for making a fire.  But, why Yuri D would climb the tree with severe frost bite to get fire wood does raise an eyebrow.  Wny would he do this? 

The rav 4 injuries are strange too.  Chest injuries inflicted by a very large force,   either a very powerful blow, or a fall.  A fall that results in two very similar flail chest injuries, but with no extremity injuries is very strange.  A powerful blow from  a Yeti?  Actually, it would work, but there is another possibility. 

Is it possible that the chest injuries and Thibo's head injury were an act of mercy?  If they knew they were going to die a slow painful death, they may have decided to accelerate their own deaths.  The chest injuries could have been inflicted by two people, lifting a very large round boulder, of say 150kg and dropping it onto the chests.  Kolevatov and Thibo help Lyuda and Semyon, then Kolevatov uses a smaller rock to help Thibo?  Unfortunately there is nobody to help Kolevatov.  In some respects, he may have drawn the short straw. 

Regards

Star man

Any Detective worth his salt would not use Occams Razor in trying to solve a case , no matter what that case was.

[mk]

I have always thought it very strange for them to climb a tree to break off green branches for a fire.  As many of you have pointed out, it simply doesn't make sense: they don't burn.  Also, breaking green limbs is kind of hard--have any of you tried it?  They generally have to be pretty darn small--like a couple inches in diameter--to break just using your hands and weight.  Green branches tend to bend and string and require a good deal of twisting to get them off with just your hands.

(Or did they have knives with them to cut the pieces?)

So is it possible they were breaking dead branches on purpose?  For a fire?

But if they were breaking dead branches, how was it known that the branches in the tree were broken?  I mean, if you look up into a healthy pine and see several places where the white inner wood is showing on the ends of broken branches, you might conclude that those branches were recently broken.  But if you see pieces of dead branches in the tree, there would be nothing to call your attention to the fact that the branches had been broken by human hands.  Dead branches break--it's what they do, no big deal and no way to tell which ones were broken recently.

Weren't there branches from the cedar/pine in the bottom of the snow den?  (Is that a real thing, or just a myth?)  If so, perhaps that is why the green branches were broken?  Green fir/cedar/pine branches would offer more insulation and they wouldn't have to be very big.

I'm trying to exhaust all the reasons they may have climbed the cedar to break branches before moving to a conclusion that they climbed for another reason.  (Although, of course, they may have climbed for more than one reason.)

[sarapuk]

I have always thought it very strange for them to climb a tree to break off green branches for a fire.  As many of you have pointed out, it simply doesn't make sense: they don't burn.  Also, breaking green limbs is kind of hard--have any of you tried it?  They generally have to be pretty darn small--like a couple inches in diameter--to break just using your hands and weight.  Green branches tend to bend and string and require a good deal of twisting to get them off with just your hands.

(Or did they have knives with them to cut the pieces?)

So is it possible they were breaking dead branches on purpose?  For a fire?

But if they were breaking dead branches, how was it known that the branches in the tree were broken?  I mean, if you look up into a healthy pine and see several places where the white inner wood is showing on the ends of broken branches, you might conclude that those branches were recently broken.  But if you see pieces of dead branches in the tree, there would be nothing to call your attention to the fact that the branches had been broken by human hands.  Dead branches break--it's what they do, no big deal and no way to tell which ones were broken recently.

Weren't there branches from the cedar/pine in the bottom of the snow den?  (Is that a real thing, or just a myth?)  If so, perhaps that is why the green branches were broken?  Green fir/cedar/pine branches would offer more insulation and they wouldn't have to be very big.

I'm trying to exhaust all the reasons they may have climbed the cedar to break branches before moving to a conclusion that they climbed for another reason.  (Although, of course, they may have climbed for more than one reason.)

If they needed branches for any reason then they didnt need to climb up that particular tree. Plenty of smaller trees around and bushes.

[mk]

If they needed branches for any reason then they didnt need to climb up that particular tree. Plenty of smaller trees around and bushes.

Fair enough. 

According to some folks, fatwood (lighter pine or pitchwood) can sometimes be found inside dead branches where they meet the tree trunk:
"Find a dead branch on a living tree: This is usually the easiest place to find pitchwood. Saw the branch off even with the trunk, then saw off a three-inch chunk. That will probably be pitchwood, and you can split it into tiny pieces to help get the fire lit."
(from https://survivalcommonsense.com/find-natural-firestarter/)

From what I read, it seems like the Siberian Cedar Pine is a candidate for finding pitchwood.  And older trees are more likely to contain it than young.

I'm just what-iffing.  I really have a hard time thinking of reasons to break limbs off of a tree when you're trying to survive in a Siberian forest. 

[jhou]

Cheers, new here so my apologies if the cedar branch issue has been discussed to death already.

i agree that still growing pine tree is pretty useless as firewood (good for a makeshift shelter, though). Given the hikers' experience and background they would have known that. But low(ish) hanging dead pine branches may well have been the best firewood available to them. Collecting them makes a lot of sense, in my opinion.

Dead branches still attached to the tree have been drying there for years and will catch fire as long as they're truly dead. They are fairly easy to reach and gather, and if the tree is old, you can find quite thick branches too. The small branches and twigs found on smaller trees and bushes near the ground are good starters, but if you're building an open fire for keeping warm in winter conditions (instead of, say, boiling water for a cup of tea), you'll need something more substantial. Branches already fallen to the ground will not be as good as they start to decay at some point, and they would have been hidden beneath the snow anyway.

If you can reach the branches and pull them down with your weight, you'll get more and better fuel than by foraging around in the snowy ground. You'll likely get a few cuts and bruises in the process as well, because dead and dried pine wood is hard, it doesn't bend much and when it brakes, it'll do so suddenly.

[mk]

Cheers, new here so my apologies if the cedar branch issue has been discussed to death already.

i agree that still growing pine tree is pretty useless as firewood (good for a makeshift shelter, though). Given the hikers' experience and background they would have known that. But low(ish) hanging dead pine branches may well have been the best firewood available to them. Collecting them makes a lot of sense, in my opinion.

Dead branches still attached to the tree have been drying there for years and will catch fire as long as they're truly dead. They are fairly easy to reach and gather, and if the tree is old, you can find quite thick branches too. The small branches and twigs found on smaller trees and bushes near the ground are good starters, but if you're building an open fire for keeping warm in winter conditions (instead of, say, boiling water for a cup of tea), you'll need something more substantial. Branches already fallen to the ground will not be as good as they start to decay at some point, and they would have been hidden beneath the snow anyway.

If you can reach the branches and pull them down with your weight, you'll get more and better fuel than by foraging around in the snowy ground. You'll likely get a few cuts and bruises in the process as well, because dead and dried pine wood is hard, it doesn't bend much and when it brakes, it'll do so suddenly.

  Good point. I can imagine that happening.  Hadn't thought about it being brittle, but of course it would be.  Even if the dead ones still decay a bit while clinging to the trunk, they don't sit in the wet earth and absorb water like the ones on the ground do.  Does this fit all the other information we have about the broken branches in the tree?

[GKM]

I found quite a few mentions of the cedar tree in this thread. I don't know about pine and cedar trees in Siberia but in the American South, where I have spent my entire life, pine and cedar trees are considered "soft" wood. They break and die easily, and I absolutely know this from experience, very easily broken. Bouncing up and down on a limb will break it. They also snap like toothpicks when ice is on them. I do not believe the group would have had any trouble breaking the limbs of the cedar tree. Of course maybe it is different in Siberia, but it is easy enough to test it. Just climb a cedar or pine in the woods. If a person tries hard enough to break the limbs they usually succeed.

[Mark II]

Any Detective worth his salt would not use Occams Razor in trying to solve a case , no matter what that case was.

The opposite. Occam is the basis of the principle of deduction. Without it, every theory is induction - which never works. Occam is like the lowest common denominator: once it fits, you stay put.

[Nigel Evans]

Any Detective worth his salt would not use Occams Razor in trying to solve a case , no matter what that case was.

The opposite. Occam is the basis of the principle of deduction. Without it, every theory is induction - which never works. Occam is like the lowest common denominator: once it fits, you stay put.

So can someone explain to me how Occam's razor explains the facts as homicide? The facts seem to be that 9 people died on the side or bottom of a hill with strange injuries, signs of chemical poisoning, third degree burns difficult to explain as caused from a modest campfire, heavily crushed bodies with no bruising consistent with the necessary point loads for blows from humans. A professional investigator (Ivanov) described by his superior (Okishev) as "thorough and meticulous" who had no interest in a homicide theory, simply a non starter.

[mk]

So can someone explain to me how Occam's razor explains the facts as homicide? The facts seem to be that 9 people died on the side or bottom of a hill with strange injuries, signs of chemical poisoning, third degree burns difficult to explain as caused from a modest campfire, heavily crushed bodies with no bruising consistent with the necessary point loads for blows from humans. A professional investigator (Ivanov) described by his superior (Okishev) as "thorough and meticulous" who had no interest in a homicide theory, simply a non starter.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about Occam's Razor, especially when it involves solving mysteries.  It is often presented "the simplest explanation is the best" and then people define "simple" and "best" however they like in order to give credence to their preferences.  It is sometimes misinterpreted to mean, "We should not assume the presence of things we cannot see/hear/verify/etc."  With a little imagination it is easy to see how this could be taken to absurdity. 

A better way to conceptualize it, particularly as it relates to DPI and solving mysteries, is to say, "The tightest explanation is the best."  In other words, the explanation that leaves the least room for variation is the most preferable.  In a good high school algebra equation, you can find the variable because all parts of the equation are related and changing the variable will necessarily change other parts of the equation. The most satisfying murder mystery story is one where, once all the facts are known, the murderer could only be one person and all the clues are explained.  The pieces (clues) fit tightly; if there were any variation (some important part of the story changed), it would mess up everything.  The butler did it because only the butler could have done it given the story as it is; not because the author flipped a coin when he started writing the last chapter.   

Most of us would agree that it is not a very good explanation to say that the nine died at Dyatlov Pass because of fate.  There is too much room for variation there--it doesn't actually explain anything--even though, in many ways, it is one of the simplest explanations possible.  Likewise, attributing the tragedy to magic, or even to God's will, is not really a good explanation.  It may be true that it was God's will that they were fated to die that night and the KGB used magic to make it happen, but that is not a good explanation because the relationships between the elements/facts are not made clear.  A good explanation would show how the KGB was forced to use a particular magical spell which caused the specific injuries and why fate could have it no other way.  Most of us are searching for an explanation that is tight, that explains all relevant facts and identifies which facts are irrelevant. 

From reading the initial post, I can't see that Occam's Razor has anything to do with homicide in particular.  I believe hoosiergose was simply trying to approach the problem without preconceptions and seeing where that got him.  Saying something to himself like, "When people die with injuries, and there is nothing obvious around to explain those injuries, the most common explanation is that other humans attacked & killed them."  As you point out, this seems to be gaining "simplicity" at the cost of omitting important facts, rather than presenting a tight explanation with little room for variation.

[Mark II]

Any Detective worth his salt would not use Occams Razor in trying to solve a case , no matter what that case was.

The opposite. Occam is the basis of the principle of deduction. Without it, every theory is induction - which never works. Occam is like the lowest common denominator: once it fits, you stay put.

So can someone explain to me how Occam's razor explains the facts as homicide? The facts seem to be that 9 people died on the side or bottom of a hill with strange injuries, signs of chemical poisoning, third degree burns difficult to explain as caused from a modest campfire, heavily crushed bodies with no bruising consistent with the necessary point loads for blows from humans. A professional investigator (Ivanov) described by his superior (Okishev) as "thorough and meticulous" who had no interest in a homicide theory, simply a non starter.

The murder theory it’s the only one I heard of that explains why they left with no shoes. Either they were forced by someone to leave, or we must invent some supernatural occurrence, Yetis, UFOs and such. Ps: or we must assume that the people in the group were downright dumb, that’s not really an explanation.

(What do you mean by chemical poisoning? Radiations, or other?)

[Star man]

A few key questions to be answered are:

1.  Why did they deviate from the planned route and pitch the tent in an exposed area on the mountain?
2. Why did they leave the tent without adequate clothing and equipment and decend to the forest?
3.  Why was the tent cut and damaged the way it was?
4.  How did they receive the various injuries and in particular the flail chest, skins burns and skull fractures?
5.  Why was there so much fuss about radiation?


Is the answer to questions 1 and 2 a coincidence?

Regards

Star man

[Mark II]

MK, the Occam Razor in its original definition is:

«frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora»

Literally: “It’s useless (to make something) through multiple what can be done through a smaller number”

You explained it very well with the butler example. The Razor is not necessarily a simple explanation, rather it is an explanation that fits without increasing the system’s complexity for no reason. Every increase in the system’s complexity must be necessary.

So the butler could have done a number of complex actions (hence NOT a simple explanation), but if the theory about his actions fits the evidence and explains it all, without adding complex external elements (like Yetis), then the theory is correct.

There are a number of coincidences in the real world, so that two theories could fit precisely in the same way, but this is a quite rare exception.
From a phylosophical standpoint, the non-complex theory that fits is not only probable, it’s flat-out correct: because there can be only one non-complex explanation that fits (again, this is theoretically speaking).

I do find that the murder theory fits. Or, at least the presence of other people that forced the group to leave the tent. This would explain:
1) The most puzzling thing in this story, that is the group leaving without shoes. I personally have not heard another satisfactory explanation yet about this overlooked, huge piece of evidence.
2) The tent cut from the inside. It’s way more likely that a second party did cut it, than the Dyatlov group destroying their own mean of survival.
3) The injuries suffered by the Hill 3

These are three very important points. If we can’t explain those, we can’t explain anything.

As for the Ravine 4, I tend to believe that something snow-related happened. I read somewhere (I believe in this forum) an interesting theory about some meters of snow collapsing onto them. Yes, it’s not a very Occam-like explanation, but still they were in the wild and were found under meters of snow.
Surely, the injuries two of them suffered were of a different nature from the ones sustained by their comrades. Since there’s no agent that could have determined all the injuries by itself, I think it’s fair to assume that at least two agents were involved (i.e. hostile humans and snow). This remains consistent with the Razor, because the evidence calls for two different injury agents.

[Nigel Evans]

Lets look at the evolution of science's understanding of gravity.     
(1) Newtonian gravity - matter attracts matter and the strength of the attraction depends on the amount of matter and the distance between.
(2) Einsteinian gravity - matter bends 4 dimensional spacetime such that even light obeys the curvature., e.g. gravitational lensing.
.
Now i think that most people would agree that (1) was the simpler theory and that (2) was less simple.

Q. So why has science superseded (1) with (2)?       
A. Because although (1) was an excellent theory for it's time it started to be unable to explain later observations. That is, "facts" emerged that couldn't be explained by the simpler theory. As Einstein said "As simple as possible but no simpler".
So this is an example of where Occam's razor is irrelevant, the key takeaway is that "all of the credible theories have to explain the facts, occam's razor is only relevant afterwards".     


Now it seems to me that there are a number of facts about the DPI case that are impossible to explain as murder as i have listed before (probably not an exhaustive list) and further, other facts exist which support other theories.

[marieuk]

Could the simplest explanation of why no theory seems to cover everything, be that something we believe to be true actually isn't? 

[sarapuk]

Any Detective worth his salt would not use Occams Razor in trying to solve a case , no matter what that case was.

The opposite. Occam is the basis of the principle of deduction. Without it, every theory is induction - which never works. Occam is like the lowest common denominator: once it fits, you stay put.

Occams Razor, the theory that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. But not always. Therefore Detectives do not use this theory as the basis of investigation, unless they are not very good Detectives. Good Detectives will gather the facts etc.

[sarapuk]

Any Detective worth his salt would not use Occams Razor in trying to solve a case , no matter what that case was.

The opposite. Occam is the basis of the principle of deduction. Without it, every theory is induction - which never works. Occam is like the lowest common denominator: once it fits, you stay put.

So can someone explain to me how Occam's razor explains the facts as homicide? The facts seem to be that 9 people died on the side or bottom of a hill with strange injuries, signs of chemical poisoning, third degree burns difficult to explain as caused from a modest campfire, heavily crushed bodies with no bruising consistent with the necessary point loads for blows from humans. A professional investigator (Ivanov) described by his superior (Okishev) as "thorough and meticulous" who had no interest in a homicide theory, simply a non starter.

Precisely, they are too many twists and turns for a simple explanation. And there is nothing simple in trying to explain some very extraordinary injuries. Or why they pitched their Tent in an exposed position on the side of a Mountain in very bad weather conditions. And so on.

[sarapuk]

So can someone explain to me how Occam's razor explains the facts as homicide? The facts seem to be that 9 people died on the side or bottom of a hill with strange injuries, signs of chemical poisoning, third degree burns difficult to explain as caused from a modest campfire, heavily crushed bodies with no bruising consistent with the necessary point loads for blows from humans. A professional investigator (Ivanov) described by his superior (Okishev) as "thorough and meticulous" who had no interest in a homicide theory, simply a non starter.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about Occam's Razor, especially when it involves solving mysteries.  It is often presented "the simplest explanation is the best" and then people define "simple" and "best" however they like in order to give credence to their preferences.  It is sometimes misinterpreted to mean, "We should not assume the presence of things we cannot see/hear/verify/etc."  With a little imagination it is easy to see how this could be taken to absurdity. 

A better way to conceptualize it, particularly as it relates to DPI and solving mysteries, is to say, "The tightest explanation is the best."  In other words, the explanation that leaves the least room for variation is the most preferable.  In a good high school algebra equation, you can find the variable because all parts of the equation are related and changing the variable will necessarily change other parts of the equation. The most satisfying murder mystery story is one where, once all the facts are known, the murderer could only be one person and all the clues are explained.  The pieces (clues) fit tightly; if there were any variation (some important part of the story changed), it would mess up everything.  The butler did it because only the butler could have done it given the story as it is; not because the author flipped a coin when he started writing the last chapter.   

Most of us would agree that it is not a very good explanation to say that the nine died at Dyatlov Pass because of fate.  There is too much room for variation there--it doesn't actually explain anything--even though, in many ways, it is one of the simplest explanations possible.  Likewise, attributing the tragedy to magic, or even to God's will, is not really a good explanation.  It may be true that it was God's will that they were fated to die that night and the KGB used magic to make it happen, but that is not a good explanation because the relationships between the elements/facts are not made clear.  A good explanation would show how the KGB was forced to use a particular magical spell which caused the specific injuries and why fate could have it no other way.  Most of us are searching for an explanation that is tight, that explains all relevant facts and identifies which facts are irrelevant. 

From reading the initial post, I can't see that Occam's Razor has anything to do with homicide in particular.  I believe hoosiergose was simply trying to approach the problem without preconceptions and seeing where that got him.  Saying something to himself like, "When people die with injuries, and there is nothing obvious around to explain those injuries, the most common explanation is that other humans attacked & killed them."  As you point out, this seems to be gaining "simplicity" at the cost of omitting important facts, rather than presenting a tight explanation with little room for variation.

You say and I quote  ''A better way to conceptualize it, particularly as it relates to DPI and solving mysteries, is to say, "The tightest explanation is the best."  In other words, the explanation that leaves the least room for variation is the most preferable.'' Which is still going down the Occams razor road. How about, a Detective will gather all the Facts in order to make sense of the Crime Scene or in our Case alleged Crime.

[sarapuk]

Any Detective worth his salt would not use Occams Razor in trying to solve a case , no matter what that case was.

The opposite. Occam is the basis of the principle of deduction. Without it, every theory is induction - which never works. Occam is like the lowest common denominator: once it fits, you stay put.

So can someone explain to me how Occam's razor explains the facts as homicide? The facts seem to be that 9 people died on the side or bottom of a hill with strange injuries, signs of chemical poisoning, third degree burns difficult to explain as caused from a modest campfire, heavily crushed bodies with no bruising consistent with the necessary point loads for blows from humans. A professional investigator (Ivanov) described by his superior (Okishev) as "thorough and meticulous" who had no interest in a homicide theory, simply a non starter.

The murder theory it’s the only one I heard of that explains why they left with no shoes. Either they were forced by someone to leave, or we must invent some supernatural occurrence, Yetis, UFOs and such. Ps: or we must assume that the people in the group were downright dumb, that’s not really an explanation.

(What do you mean by chemical poisoning? Radiations, or other?)

Have you read up on all of the information available in this Forum and The Dyatlov Pass.com website  !  ? 

[sarapuk]

A few key questions to be answered are:

1.  Why did they deviate from the planned route and pitch the tent in an exposed area on the mountain?
2. Why did they leave the tent without adequate clothing and equipment and decend to the forest?
3.  Why was the tent cut and damaged the way it was?
4.  How did they receive the various injuries and in particular the flail chest, skins burns and skull fractures?
5.  Why was there so much fuss about radiation?


Is the answer to questions 1 and 2 a coincidence?

Regards

Star man

So clearly not a simple matter is it. So why are we even bothering with this Occams Razor road  !  ? 

[sarapuk]

Could the simplest explanation of why no theory seems to cover everything, be that something we believe to be true actually isn't?

Well maybe the best answer is, why search for the most simple answer ! ? Why not just search for the Facts which is what most good Detectives do.

[Mark II]

Well the Occam Razor’s concept has been explained at least a couple of times in the previous posts but I see some don’t get it.

It’s not the “simplest” answer but the “tighest”.

It is: “It’s useless to explain something through many means, when you can explain it with less”.

About the proposed gravity example, both theories satisfy the Occam Razor. In fact, both are true.
The difference is, that at some point *new evidence* showed up that required a more complex theory.

Sticking to the facts, which evidence in the DPI cannot be explained through the murder theory?

[Star man]

Well the Occam Razor’s concept has been explained at least a couple of times in the previous posts but I see some don’t get it.

It’s not the “simplest” answer but the “tighest”.

It is: “It’s useless to explain something through many means, when you can explain it with less”.

About the proposed gravity example, both theories satisfy the Occam Razor. In fact, both are true.
The difference is, that at some point *new evidence* showed up that required a more complex theory.

Sticking to the facts, which evidence in the DPI cannot be explained through the murder theory?

Can you explain the following in a credible way:
The lack of any obvious outsider foot prints?
The fact that nothing was taken, including money, food and equipment?
The orderly state within the tent?
Why the hikers were allowed to take a flashlight, matches, knives?
Why the murderers didn't just kill them at the tent?
How the murderers inflicted the flail chest injuries? Or alternative explanation?
The radiation found on the clothing?

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

A few key questions to be answered are:

1.  Why did they deviate from the planned route and pitch the tent in an exposed area on the mountain?
2. Why did they leave the tent without adequate clothing and equipment and decend to the forest?
3.  Why was the tent cut and damaged the way it was?
4.  How did they receive the various injuries and in particular the flail chest, skins burns and skull fractures?
5.  Why was there so much fuss about radiation?


Is the answer to questions 1 and 2 a coincidence?

Regards

Star man

So clearly not a simple matter is it. So why are we even bothering with this Occams Razor road  !  ?

There are various problem solving tools and techniques and Occam' Razor is one of these, but its probably not the best tool for the dpi mystery.  A much better technique is to produce a timeline, backed up with relevant facts and evidence. 

Regards

Star man