Occam's razor says- homicide

[RMK]

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

Interesting line of thought.  If there were details of the Dyatlov case that central authorities wanted to keep secret, they could have been omitted from the publicly available case files, or worse, parts of the case files could contain fabricated falsehoods.  A possible combination of "missing information plus misinformation", one might say.

However, I think the withholding of sensitive details, plus deliberate vagueness on the part of the investigators (I have Ivanov and Vorozhdenny in mind), is a lot more believable than outright fabrication of documents or physical evidence.  Besides, we would never get anywhere trying to make sense of this case if we could arbitrarily dismiss documented facts as fabrications--we would have no "ground truth" from which to start.  We'll have to give documented facts a rebuttable presumption of veracity, that is, "true until proven dubious".

Having said all that, I find it interesting that you didn't say "something we know to be true", but rather, "something we believe to be true".  The distinction is really important, because much of what many of us believe about the Dyatlov Pass Incident (DPI) is not a matter of "known" fact, but instead, inference from the bare facts.

For example, many DPI aficionados believe "the hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape", and still more would believe the less-specific "the hikers cut their tent from the inside".  But, based on the case files alone, Loose}{Cannon has done an excellent job convincing me that the state of the tent has near-zero evidential value ( see https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0 ).

Further, many DPI aficionados believe that some of the Dyatlov company dug a "den", with a flooring of tree branches and "seats" made from spare clothing, in or near the ravine.  I have some serious misgivings about that ( having read https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=17.0 ).  All we know is that the searchers found a flooring of branches, laid down by someone, beneath at least two meters of snow in the ravine...and "hit the bullseye" on their first their only photographed attempt to dig it out.

Of course, there are other widely accepted DPI "facts" that are not actually facts, but merely inferences from facts.  For instance, "the Dyatlov hikers descended Kholat Syakhl in a calm and orderly manner".  Footprints preserve trajectory and pace; they do not preserve mental or emotional state.

Another would be that Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolles were better dressed than the others because they were outside the tent when the triggering event occurred.  I actually agree that is the most plausible scenario by far, but again, it's an inference from facts.  Instead, perhaps they were better dressed than the others because they lingered in/near the tent longer than the others?  Seven of the nine blankets were found crumpled up, but two were found spread out (if I recall correctly).  I think it's more likely that the two spread-out blankets belonged to Krivonischenko and Doroshenko, who would have been the first to undress for bed and turn in for the night.  But, what if those two blankets belonged to Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolles, who took the time to "make their beds" and put on their boots while their comrades exited the tent in more of a hurry?

Still another would be that the Dyatlov hikers descended the slope and abandoned their campsite due to fear of a lethal threat in or around the tent.  I honestly have major difficulty imagining any other reason why they would leave their campsite.  But, again, "fear of lethal threat" is also an inference from facts.

My point is that maybe we DPI sleuths have put on "cognitive blinders" concerning some aspect of this case, and maybe we need to re-examine what we know believe.

[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?

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, I don’t have a coeherent theory, it’s more like I try to put things in their place, one after another, and sort out the mess that’s the DPI.
Also, let me specify that I don’t subscribe literally to the murder theory, but more to a confrontation theory (my bad, because I used the wrong term in my previous posts).

That being said, here’s what I think about your points:

- The lack of any obvious outsider foot prints?

This prevented me to subscribe to the theory for some time. Then, I realized that it’s possible that they would not be preserved. We have a set of prints starting several meters from the tent. We can assume that nobody followed the group on the slope, but maybe that wind conditions on the other sides of the hill didn’t blow away the fresh snow (because of different angles, force, etc). If so, the outsider foot prints remained buried. I’d like to know if this can be technically possible in that specific conditions. As a general occurrence, I think it’s possible given that not all the prints of the group were preserved.

- The fact that nothing was taken, including money, food and equipment?
The orderly state within the tent?

This has to do with motive. Honestly I can’t think of a valid motive to force them out, but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. As of now, it’s just as mysterious as the motive that would lead 9 guys to walk a mile without shoes by their own will.

- Why the hikers were allowed to take a flashlight, matches, knives?

I’m sure these were the things they already had on their clothes at the very moment they left. Otherwise it’s unclear why they did not take shoes and axes with them.

- Why the murderers didn't just kill them at the tent?

Unclear motive

- How the murderers inflicted the flail chest injuries? Or alternative explanation?

They didn’t. Rib injuries like that, by all account, would be extremely painful, to the point that they couldn’t walk, let alone for a mile in the snow. Those injuries happened at the ravine. The most likely explanation is snow collapsing upon them (injuries consistent with avalanches, by some accounts).

- The radiation found on the clothing?

This is the easiest question to answer, IMO. Most of the clothes (by far) had no radiation, so it must have occurred before the trip in an unrelated event.

In my opinion the only puzzling things in this theory are motive-related. For all the rest of factual evidence there are reasonable explanations.

[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, I don’t have a coeherent theory, it’s more like I try to put things in their place, one after another, and sort out the mess that’s the DPI.
Also, let me specify that I don’t subscribe literally to the murder theory, but more to a confrontation theory (my bad, because I used the wrong term in my previous posts).

That being said, here’s what I think about your points:

- The lack of any obvious outsider foot prints?

This prevented me to subscribe to the theory for some time. Then, I realized that it’s possible that they would not be preserved. We have a set of prints starting several meters from the tent. We can assume that nobody followed the group on the slope, but maybe that wind conditions on the other sides of the hill didn’t blow away the fresh snow (because of different angles, force, etc). If so, the outsider foot prints remained buried. I’d like to know if this can be technically possible in that specific conditions. As a general occurrence, I think it’s possible given that not all the prints of the group were preserved.

- The fact that nothing was taken, including money, food and equipment?
The orderly state within the tent?

This has to do with motive. Honestly I can’t think of a valid motive to force them out, but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. As of now, it’s just as mysterious as the motive that would lead 9 guys to walk a mile without shoes by their own will.

- Why the hikers were allowed to take a flashlight, matches, knives?

I’m sure these were the things they already had on their clothes at the very moment they left. Otherwise it’s unclear why they did not take shoes and axes with them.

- Why the murderers didn't just kill them at the tent?

Unclear motive

- How the murderers inflicted the flail chest injuries? Or alternative explanation?

They didn’t. Rib injuries like that, by all account, would be extremely painful, to the point that they couldn’t walk, let alone for a mile in the snow. Those injuries happened at the ravine. The most likely explanation is snow collapsing upon them (injuries consistent with avalanches, by some accounts).

- The radiation found on the clothing?

This is the easiest question to answer, IMO. Most of the clothes (by far) had no radiation, so it must have occurred before the trip in an unrelated event.

In my opinion the only puzzling things in this theory are motive-related. For all the rest of factual evidence there are reasonable explanations.

I think its unlikely that nature will selectively remove all evidence of outsiders and leave evidence of the hikers. 
I can relate to them taking matches and knives in pockets, but Semyon was wearing a camera around his neck, that could have had incriminating evidence of the attackers.  Why let him take it?  Its possible he had already fled before the attackers got to the tent though.
The chest injuries could have been achieved through a fall, but we know have to stack tragedy on top of tragedy.

The attacker theory is weak IMO.

regards

Star man

[Mark II]

I think its unlikely that nature will selectively remove all evidence of outsiders and leave evidence of the hikers. 
I can relate to them taking matches and knives in pockets, but Semyon was wearing a camera around his neck, that could have had incriminating evidence of the attackers.  Why let him take it?  Its possible he had already fled before the attackers got to the tent though.
The chest injuries could have been achieved through a fall, but we know have to stack tragedy on top of tragedy.

The attacker theory is weak IMO.

regards

Star man

Tragedy on top of tragedy is unlikely, I agree, but still possible.

Fair point about the Semyon camera.

About the footprints, as I explained better in another thread, the only realistic occurrence in this theory is that the attackers came and left from another direction where the the footprints were erased/buried by natural agents or overlooked.

[sarapuk]

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?

Well Iam sure we all know what is meant by Occams Razor. But that doesnt mean its useful for solving Crime cases or indeed any type of cases. And with the Dyatlov Case with new Information coming to light since 1959 makes it necessary to stick with the known facts.

[sarapuk]

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

Interesting line of thought.  If there were details of the Dyatlov case that central authorities wanted to keep secret, they could have been omitted from the publicly available case files, or worse, parts of the case files could contain fabricated falsehoods.  A possible combination of "missing information plus misinformation", one might say.

However, I think the withholding of sensitive details, plus deliberate vagueness on the part of the investigators (I have Ivanov and Vorozhdenny in mind), is a lot more believable than outright fabrication of documents or physical evidence.  Besides, we would never get anywhere trying to make sense of this case if we could arbitrarily dismiss documented facts as fabrications--we would have no "ground truth" from which to start.  We'll have to give documented facts a rebuttable presumption of veracity, that is, "true until proven dubious".

Having said all that, I find it interesting that you didn't say "something we know to be true", but rather, "something we believe to be true".  The distinction is really important, because much of what many of us believe about the Dyatlov Pass Incident (DPI) is not a matter of "known" fact, but instead, inference from the bare facts.

For example, many DPI aficionados believe "the hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape", and still more would believe the less-specific "the hikers cut their tent from the inside".  But, based on the case files alone, Loose}{Cannon has done an excellent job convincing me that the state of the tent has near-zero evidential value ( see https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0 ).

Further, many DPI aficionados believe that some of the Dyatlov company dug a "den", with a flooring of tree branches and "seats" made from spare clothing, in or near the ravine.  I have some serious misgivings about that ( having read https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=17.0 ).  All we know is that the searchers found a flooring of branches, laid down by someone, beneath at least two meters of snow in the ravine...and "hit the bullseye" on their first their only photographed attempt to dig it out.

Of course, there are other widely accepted DPI "facts" that are not actually facts, but merely inferences from facts.  For instance, "the Dyatlov hikers descended Kholat Syakhl in a calm and orderly manner".  Footprints preserve trajectory and pace; they do not preserve mental or emotional state.

Another would be that Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolles were better dressed than the others because they were outside the tent when the triggering event occurred.  I actually agree that is the most plausible scenario by far, but again, it's an inference from facts.  Instead, perhaps they were better dressed than the others because they lingered in/near the tent longer than the others?  Seven of the nine blankets were found crumpled up, but two were found spread out (if I recall correctly).  I think it's more likely that the two spread-out blankets belonged to Krivonischenko and Doroshenko, who would have been the first to undress for bed and turn in for the night.  But, what if those two blankets belonged to Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolles, who took the time to "make their beds" and put on their boots while their comrades exited the tent in more of a hurry?

Still another would be that the Dyatlov hikers descended the slope and abandoned their campsite due to fear of a lethal threat in or around the tent.  I honestly have major difficulty imagining any other reason why they would leave their campsite.  But, again, "fear of lethal threat" is also an inference from facts.

My point is that maybe we DPI sleuths have put on "cognitive blinders" concerning some aspect of this case, and maybe we need to re-examine what we know believe.

Well you state the following ;  ''For example, many DPI aficionados believe "the hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape", and still more would believe the less-specific "the hikers cut their tent from the inside".  But, based on the case files alone, Loose}{Cannon has done an excellent job convincing me that the state of the tent has near-zero evidential value ( see https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0 ).

Well its because the original Investigation states that the cuts were made from the inside. So what are we to do ! ? Disregard the original Investigation ! ? It would help if we still had the Tent as Evidence.
 

[sarapuk]

I think its unlikely that nature will selectively remove all evidence of outsiders and leave evidence of the hikers. 
I can relate to them taking matches and knives in pockets, but Semyon was wearing a camera around his neck, that could have had incriminating evidence of the attackers.  Why let him take it?  Its possible he had already fled before the attackers got to the tent though.
The chest injuries could have been achieved through a fall, but we know have to stack tragedy on top of tragedy.

The attacker theory is weak IMO.

regards

Star man

Tragedy on top of tragedy is unlikely, I agree, but still possible.

Fair point about the Semyon camera.

About the footprints, as I explained better in another thread, the only realistic occurrence in this theory is that the attackers came and left from another direction where the the footprints were erased/buried by natural agents or overlooked.

Dont forget there are 3 main Event areas. The Tent. The Cedar Tree. The Ravine. So do you really believe its possible for Human attackers to come and go without leaving any traces.

[DAXXY]

Green branches are for the den insulation.

[Star man]

I think its unlikely that nature will selectively remove all evidence of outsiders and leave evidence of the hikers. 
I can relate to them taking matches and knives in pockets, but Semyon was wearing a camera around his neck, that could have had incriminating evidence of the attackers.  Why let him take it?  Its possible he had already fled before the attackers got to the tent though.
The chest injuries could have been achieved through a fall, but we know have to stack tragedy on top of tragedy.

The attacker theory is weak IMO.

regards

Star man

Tragedy on top of tragedy is unlikely, I agree, but still possible.

Fair point about the Semyon camera.

About the footprints, as I explained better in another thread, the only realistic occurrence in this theory is that the attackers came and left from another direction where the the footprints were erased/buried by natural agents or overlooked.

I think the search and rescue party picked up and followed the Dyatlov group ski tracks to find the tent.  So if their tracks to the site were still visible I find it harder to think that any attackers could have covered their own tracks, or that nature would cover them.  Unless, the attackers came and left by helicopter.  And even then the facts don't add up to an attack.  I have looked into several of the theories in detail, and on occasion you think you might have the answer, but the devil is in the detail on this one.  Your view can change as you dig deeper into the subtleties.  The dpi is definitely an interesting mystery that gets the grey matter going.

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

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

Interesting line of thought.  If there were details of the Dyatlov case that central authorities wanted to keep secret, they could have been omitted from the publicly available case files, or worse, parts of the case files could contain fabricated falsehoods.  A possible combination of "missing information plus misinformation", one might say.

However, I think the withholding of sensitive details, plus deliberate vagueness on the part of the investigators (I have Ivanov and Vorozhdenny in mind), is a lot more believable than outright fabrication of documents or physical evidence.  Besides, we would never get anywhere trying to make sense of this case if we could arbitrarily dismiss documented facts as fabrications--we would have no "ground truth" from which to start.  We'll have to give documented facts a rebuttable presumption of veracity, that is, "true until proven dubious".

Having said all that, I find it interesting that you didn't say "something we know to be true", but rather, "something we believe to be true".  The distinction is really important, because much of what many of us believe about the Dyatlov Pass Incident (DPI) is not a matter of "known" fact, but instead, inference from the bare facts.

For example, many DPI aficionados believe "the hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape", and still more would believe the less-specific "the hikers cut their tent from the inside".  But, based on the case files alone, Loose}{Cannon has done an excellent job convincing me that the state of the tent has near-zero evidential value ( see https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0 ).

Further, many DPI aficionados believe that some of the Dyatlov company dug a "den", with a flooring of tree branches and "seats" made from spare clothing, in or near the ravine.  I have some serious misgivings about that ( having read https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=17.0 ).  All we know is that the searchers found a flooring of branches, laid down by someone, beneath at least two meters of snow in the ravine...and "hit the bullseye" on their first their only photographed attempt to dig it out.

Of course, there are other widely accepted DPI "facts" that are not actually facts, but merely inferences from facts.  For instance, "the Dyatlov hikers descended Kholat Syakhl in a calm and orderly manner".  Footprints preserve trajectory and pace; they do not preserve mental or emotional state.

Another would be that Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolles were better dressed than the others because they were outside the tent when the triggering event occurred.  I actually agree that is the most plausible scenario by far, but again, it's an inference from facts.  Instead, perhaps they were better dressed than the others because they lingered in/near the tent longer than the others?  Seven of the nine blankets were found crumpled up, but two were found spread out (if I recall correctly).  I think it's more likely that the two spread-out blankets belonged to Krivonischenko and Doroshenko, who would have been the first to undress for bed and turn in for the night.  But, what if those two blankets belonged to Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolles, who took the time to "make their beds" and put on their boots while their comrades exited the tent in more of a hurry?

Still another would be that the Dyatlov hikers descended the slope and abandoned their campsite due to fear of a lethal threat in or around the tent.  I honestly have major difficulty imagining any other reason why they would leave their campsite.  But, again, "fear of lethal threat" is also an inference from facts.

My point is that maybe we DPI sleuths have put on "cognitive blinders" concerning some aspect of this case, and maybe we need to re-examine what we know believe.

I think you make a good point, about assumption/belief, based on high level superficial information.  I think it is necessary to look closer at the detail, as well as taking a step back and look at the information in broader terms.  For instance, there are cuts in the tent and from the case files these were made from the inside.  But some of those cuts are also through overlapping seams of the tent, which would require deliberate sawing motions, and some time to make.  There is nothing to say who actually made the cuts.  One of the cuts was subsequently pulled, tearing the surrounding material. This cut is right next to the (still standing) entrance of to the tent.  Why would anyone cut through a seam, and pull and tear the fabric, when they are next to the entrance?  I dont believe that this would have been the quickest way out, even in a panic.

Regards

Star man

[Mark II]

I think the search and rescue party picked up and followed the Dyatlov group ski tracks to find the tent.  So if their tracks to the site were still visible I find it harder to think that any attackers could have covered their own tracks, or that nature would cover them.  Unless, the attackers came and left by helicopter.  And even then the facts don't add up to an attack.  I have looked into several of the theories in detail, and on occasion you think you might have the answer, but the devil is in the detail on this one.  Your view can change as you dig deeper into the subtleties.  The dpi is definitely an interesting mystery that gets the grey matter going.

Regards

Star man

I agree, it’s extremely difficult to think of an all-encompassing theory in this case. It’s unbelievably hard to concile all the evidence.

[Nigel Evans]

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

A good answer is that Ivanov was at the centre of this question but 30 years later when he felt it was safe to speak he had nothing of importance to say on this, but lots to about fireorbs.

[Nigel Evans]

I think the search and rescue party picked up and followed the Dyatlov group ski tracks to find the tent.  So if their tracks to the site were still visible I find it harder to think that any attackers could have covered their own tracks, or that nature would cover them.  Unless, the attackers came and left by helicopter.  And even then the facts don't add up to an attack.  I have looked into several of the theories in detail, and on occasion you think you might have the answer, but the devil is in the detail on this one.  Your view can change as you dig deeper into the subtleties.  The dpi is definitely an interesting mystery that gets the grey matter going.

Regards

Star man

I agree, it’s extremely difficult to think of an all-encompassing theory in this case. It’s unbelievably hard to concile all the evidence.

I'd disagree, i think it's almost certainly a case of "ordnance". Possibly man made, probably natural, possibly both. The only other theory i'd consider is the Menk, particularly wrt the ravine 4. The legend of the nine mansi hunters is imo the key clue that is rarely discussed.


The dpi wasn't the first time that something like this happened in the Urals.

[sarapuk]

I think the search and rescue party picked up and followed the Dyatlov group ski tracks to find the tent.  So if their tracks to the site were still visible I find it harder to think that any attackers could have covered their own tracks, or that nature would cover them.  Unless, the attackers came and left by helicopter.  And even then the facts don't add up to an attack.  I have looked into several of the theories in detail, and on occasion you think you might have the answer, but the devil is in the detail on this one.  Your view can change as you dig deeper into the subtleties.  The dpi is definitely an interesting mystery that gets the grey matter going.

Regards

Star man

I agree, it’s extremely difficult to think of an all-encompassing theory in this case. It’s unbelievably hard to concile all the evidence.

I'd disagree, i think it's almost certainly a case of "ordnance". Possibly man made, probably natural, possibly both. The only other theory i'd consider is the Menk, particularly wrt the ravine 4. The legend of the nine mansi hunters is imo the key clue that is rarely discussed.


The dpi wasn't the first time that something like this happened in the Urals.

If the legend of the 9 Mansi Hunters is rarely discussed then perhaps we should start to discuss it in a separate Post.

[Star man]

I think the search and rescue party picked up and followed the Dyatlov group ski tracks to find the tent.  So if their tracks to the site were still visible I find it harder to think that any attackers could have covered their own tracks, or that nature would cover them.  Unless, the attackers came and left by helicopter.  And even then the facts don't add up to an attack.  I have looked into several of the theories in detail, and on occasion you think you might have the answer, but the devil is in the detail on this one.  Your view can change as you dig deeper into the subtleties.  The dpi is definitely an interesting mystery that gets the grey matter going.

Regards

Star man

I agree, it’s extremely difficult to think of an all-encompassing theory in this case. It’s unbelievably hard to concile all the evidence.

There will be one theory that is all encompassing.  That is the theory that accurately pieces all the information together in the right way and explains what actually happened?

Regards

Star man

[Mark II]

I'd disagree, i think it's almost certainly a case of "ordnance". Possibly man made, probably natural, possibly both. The only other theory i'd consider is the Menk, particularly wrt the ravine 4. The legend of the nine mansi hunters is imo the key clue that is rarely discussed.


The dpi wasn't the first time that something like this happened in the Urals.

How do you leave the tent with no shoes, and do not come back, walking for a mile, because of ordnance. It makes no sense. This is too often overlooked.

[Star man]

I think the search and rescue party picked up and followed the Dyatlov group ski tracks to find the tent.  So if their tracks to the site were still visible I find it harder to think that any attackers could have covered their own tracks, or that nature would cover them.  Unless, the attackers came and left by helicopter.  And even then the facts don't add up to an attack.  I have looked into several of the theories in detail, and on occasion you think you might have the answer, but the devil is in the detail on this one.  Your view can change as you dig deeper into the subtleties.  The dpi is definitely an interesting mystery that gets the grey matter going.

Regards

Star man

I agree, it’s extremely difficult to think of an all-encompassing theory in this case. It’s unbelievably hard to concile all the evidence.

I'd disagree, i think it's almost certainly a case of "ordnance". Possibly man made, probably natural, possibly both. The only other theory i'd consider is the Menk, particularly wrt the ravine 4. The legend of the nine mansi hunters is imo the key clue that is rarely discussed.


The dpi wasn't the first time that something like this happened in the Urals.

I would put military accident at the top of the list too, given my current understanding.  I have looked in much detail on the Menk as I am sure you know.  I did my best to look at it objectively, without preconception bias.  I have to admit it was an interesting and surprising investigation for me.  There are facts and evidence that make it credible.  The injuries in particular are consistent with an attack of a large ape.  I dont think it can be ruled out, but I think there is conflicting evidence too.  What other info do you have Nigel?  Can you post on the exoloring tge yeti theory thread?

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

I think the search and rescue party picked up and followed the Dyatlov group ski tracks to find the tent.  So if their tracks to the site were still visible I find it harder to think that any attackers could have covered their own tracks, or that nature would cover them.  Unless, the attackers came and left by helicopter.  And even then the facts don't add up to an attack.  I have looked into several of the theories in detail, and on occasion you think you might have the answer, but the devil is in the detail on this one.  Your view can change as you dig deeper into the subtleties.  The dpi is definitely an interesting mystery that gets the grey matter going.

Regards

Star man

I agree, it’s extremely difficult to think of an all-encompassing theory in this case. It’s unbelievably hard to concile all the evidence.

I'd disagree, i think it's almost certainly a case of "ordnance". Possibly man made, probably natural, possibly both. The only other theory i'd consider is the Menk, particularly wrt the ravine 4. The legend of the nine mansi hunters is imo the key clue that is rarely discussed.


The dpi wasn't the first time that something like this happened in the Urals.

If the legend of the 9 Mansi Hunters is rarely discussed then perhaps we should start to discuss it in a separate Post.

Yeah sound like something worth discussing. 

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

I'd disagree, i think it's almost certainly a case of "ordnance". Possibly man made, probably natural, possibly both. The only other theory i'd consider is the Menk, particularly wrt the ravine 4. The legend of the nine mansi hunters is imo the key clue that is rarely discussed.


The dpi wasn't the first time that something like this happened in the Urals.

How do you leave the tent with no shoes, and do not come back, walking for a mile, because of ordnance. It makes no sense. This is too often overlooked.

It is a good question.  One possibility is a toxic cloud of gas.  Another is acute radiation sickness and neurovascular damage that results in confusion and loss of consciousness.  There are others too, psychotropic drugs, nerve agents, biological agents etc.

Regards

Star man

[Nigel Evans]

I'd disagree, i think it's almost certainly a case of "ordnance". Possibly man made, probably natural, possibly both. The only other theory i'd consider is the Menk, particularly wrt the ravine 4. The legend of the nine mansi hunters is imo the key clue that is rarely discussed.


The dpi wasn't the first time that something like this happened in the Urals.

How do you leave the tent with no shoes, and do not come back, walking for a mile, because of ordnance. It makes no sense. This is too often overlooked.

Noxious vapour from rocket fuel or from electrical discharge could do it.

[eurocentric]

I like the Occam's Razor approach, but it wouldn't, on the most simplistic level, point to murder, but rather the direct results of the avoidance of any encounter with those who may be perceived to do the hikers' harm. And that, at higher altitude and in subzero conditions, produced fatal consequences. This dovetails several things together, and also explains the lack of third party physical evidence.

There was no operational reason or benefit to pitch their tent up on the ridge, an act which belies their experience and questions their judgement, and other than a misinterpreted diary mention of Igor's about vaguely being "somewhere up on the ridge", where the context of that was explained by him comparing the woes of his then situation, which got harder the higher they got, to how much worse it might otherwise be, there was no direct reference to this tent siting in anyone's diaries.

Their arrival was clearly unplanned, racing darkness falling at 4:29pm, to speed dig a trench, 3ft deep on one side, in a hardened snow cap when already exhausted from the ascent. Working up a sweat down their backs would then lead to the trench diggers stripping off inside an unheated, draughty tent wth -31C wind chill outside. It's almost inevitable what will begin to slowly unfold.

Had they gone there to photograph something in the distance; the only other logical reason for that tent siting, with the elevation providing maximum vantage, then they would have set out sooner and arrived better prepared. And they would have been photographing things fully-dressed.

So something happened that afternoon which led to a change of plan. Perhaps they saw someone/some people in the distance, couldn't immediately identify them, and undoubtedly aware of escapees from their time at Vizhay, and following in a deerhunter's tracks, they were spooked enough to choose to place themselves out-of-reach, in the manner of a vulnerable cat finding somewhere high to sleep, and this may even explain why they didn't risk smoke from their stove, that they wished to blend into the landscape and disappear. Additionally the tent appears to have been covered with snow spoil by the hikers, and a snow wall built, all of which can help disguise the tent in one big whiteout.

If you were in that same situation, miles from safety, without modern communications, unarmed and feeling threatened, especially with the vulnerability of needing sleep, you have two choices, either try to hide deep in the woods, the very same place your potential foes will be, or use your one advantage, your mobile shelter, to pitch somewhere they won't go in frostbiting temperatures overnight - as high up on the hill as you can get.

A psychologist would argue that the mock uni publication they made earlier in the evening, mentioning they know the yeti exists, was the transference of the threat of a bogeyman/men seen down below. They would be unlikely to write in diaries of their actual fears, diaries to be submitted to their uni for Level 3 endurance, since to record that would show weakness on a hike where they were to be rewarded for resilience and toughness, as well as the loss of pride that would be involved.

[sarapuk]

This Post is going off in all directions. Hardly Occams Razor stuff   !  ? 

[RMK]

Well you state the following ;  ''For example, many DPI aficionados believe "the hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape", and still more would believe the less-specific "the hikers cut their tent from the inside".  But, based on the case files alone, Loose}{Cannon has done an excellent job convincing me that the state of the tent has near-zero evidential value ( see https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0 ).

Well its because the original Investigation states that the cuts were made from the inside. So what are we to do ! ? Disregard the original Investigation ! ? It would help if we still had the Tent as Evidence.

No, I believe you misunderstand me.  I don't doubt that the tent was cut from the inside.  I have no reason to doubt the investigators that examined it.  Instead, my point is: (1) I don't believe that the Dyatlov Nine cut their tent from the inside, but rather, I think the searchers who found the tent did, while extracting it from the ice and dragging it to the helicopter; (2) irrespective of who cut the tent from the inside, the datum "the tent was cut from inside" has near-zero relevance to figuring out what happened to the Dyatlov company.

[RMK]

I think you make a good point, about assumption/belief, based on high level superficial information.

Much appreciated, Star Man.

[Nigel Evans]

So in just one page i read (1) a refusal to connect Igor's last entry in the diary with the tent location (eurocentric) and (2) a refusal to connect the tent cuts with the group's action in exiting the tent (RMK).
Time for a sanity check guys?

[eurocentric]

So in just one page i read (1) a refusal to connect Igor's last entry in the diary with the tent location (eurocentric) and (2) a refusal to connect the tent cuts with the group's action in exiting the tent (RMK).
Time for a sanity check guys?

Asks the man who, across only the space of a few months, has posted theories ranging from the hikers being crushed in a den by a passing vehicle, (with bodies then mysteriously moving to a ravine 16m away), to downed missiles full of noxious fumes which somehow prevent hikers retrieving items from their tent on a windswept mountain but still assembling nearby, to men being electrocuted but their third-degree burns do not prevent them walking down a pass, possibly by way of a 3-legged race, to UFOs explaining some of Semyon's photo's, and whatever other entertaining nuggets I missed.

[Nigel Evans]

So in just one page i read (1) a refusal to connect Igor's last entry in the diary with the tent location (eurocentric) and (2) a refusal to connect the tent cuts with the group's action in exiting the tent (RMK).
Time for a sanity check guys?

Asks the man who, across only the space of a few months, has posted theories ranging from the hikers being crushed in a den by a passing vehicle, (with bodies then mysteriously moving to a ravine 16m away), to downed missiles full of noxious fumes which somehow prevent hikers retrieving items from their tent on a windswept mountain but still assembling nearby, to men being electrocuted but their third-degree burns do not prevent them walking down a pass, possibly by way of a 3-legged race, to UFOs explaining some of Semyon's photo's, and whatever other entertaining nuggets I missed.

Says the man who accepts the Eagle photo as genuine but needs invisible helicopters or non reflective snow to explain it.
I'm happy to consider many theories to explain the facts no matter how wild. However i'm not descending into la la land by reinventing them.
.And the facts are :-

• The autopsies state that the ravine four died of crushing without bruising which rules out point loads.
• Igor stated his concerns about camping on the ridge the evening before they camped on the ridge.
• The forensic analysis stated that the tent was cut from the inside.
• Noxious fumes can explain the need to vacate and gather nearby. As can atmospheric electrical phenomena. Both theories can explain the wind carved ice on and around the tent.
• It is difficult to explain third degree burns from a modest campfire and there is evidence of a man limping on the descent.
• The mansi talk of glowing orbs and there are photos of glowing orbs that even yourself accepts as genuine.
• There is a mansi legend of "death from heat" in the same location.
• The case files state that the ravine four were 6m from the den but Askenadzi (who found Lyudmila) states it was only an arms length.
• Thirty years later during glasnost, when he felt it was safe to do so, Ivanov stated his belief that it was the fireorbs - now that's a very big fact.

[sarapuk]

Well you state the following ;  ''For example, many DPI aficionados believe "the hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape", and still more would believe the less-specific "the hikers cut their tent from the inside".  But, based on the case files alone, Loose}{Cannon has done an excellent job convincing me that the state of the tent has near-zero evidential value ( see https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0 ).

Well its because the original Investigation states that the cuts were made from the inside. So what are we to do ! ? Disregard the original Investigation ! ? It would help if we still had the Tent as Evidence.

No, I believe you misunderstand me.  I don't doubt that the tent was cut from the inside.  I have no reason to doubt the investigators that examined it.  Instead, my point is: (1) I don't believe that the Dyatlov Nine cut their tent from the inside, but rather, I think the searchers who found the tent did, while extracting it from the ice and dragging it to the helicopter; (2) irrespective of who cut the tent from the inside, the datum "the tent was cut from inside" has near-zero relevance to figuring out what happened to the Dyatlov company.

Fair enougth but surely if the searchers had have cut the Tent that way then they would have said so. After all it was sent to Forensics for examination.