Occam's razor says- homicide

[bongyi]

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".

The truthfulness of the facts has become doubtful for the reason that in the last more than 60 years no one has been able to put forward a single possible theory for the Dyatlov incident, which could tell the events without contradiction and logically within the framework defined by the current facts.
We have to assume that the reason for this is that the facts contradict each other internally and in hidden way and thus exclude the possibility of a theory that fits them. This can only happen if the facts are at least partially false
We must uncover the hidden contradictions of the facts! We must reject the documented facts because of their falsity, even if this ultimately leaves nothing on the basis of which the events of the Gyatlov incident can be told! The consequence of this is that we will be forced to establish the intractability of the case and refer it back to the Russian authorities, with the request that they present the real facts they have hidden!

If the facts in the Gyatlov-incident were real, then in the past 60 years it would have been possible to establish several possible theories! (Then our problem would be that we cannot choose which of them corresponds to the truth)

[Ramsay]

Bongyi, claiming that "the facts must be false because no theory fits" is a logical fallacy. This presupposes that a lack of consensus in online forums over the course of 60 years equates to a physically impossible event.
The problem is not that the primary physical facts are false; it is that theories like Rakitin’s "Controlled Delivery" rely on adding complex, unproven narratives (CIA agents, secret meetings, staged executions) while actively ignoring basic physical records:
A total absence of third-party footprints around the tent or along the descent route.
 A total absence of defensive wounds on hands or knuckles.
Severe, localized crush trauma consistent with static snow compression rather than a physical assault.

As RMK pointed out, we must work with a presumption of accuracy (subject to challenge) regarding the documented physical evidence. When we set aside complex espionage plots and stick to the physical dynamics of the slope and the ravine, a logical and self-consistent chronology emerges, without the need to dismiss the entire investigation as a fabrication.

[Ramsay]

This is due to the fact that topics inviting a more sober, skeptical discussion garner fewer views and less engagement than sensationalist ones.
It is not about investigating what actually happened, but rather about what people *want* to believe. When people approach a case with a preconceived conclusion, it is easy to fit the facts into what they hold to be the absolute truth. The brain abhors a vacuum, yet it loves stories that keep it entertained and confirm its expectations; a rigorous study of the Dyatlov case is a pursuit for the few, whereas for the many, it serves as a way to indulge their own internal fantasies.When someone comes forward with a sound theory and sets out rules requiring serious study and research, many do not even dare to engage, knowing it might jeopardize something they consider part of their identity. Unfortunately, the tragedy of the Dyatlov group plays this role in some people's lives.Some of the reasons why the group was not murdered:

Examination of the bodies ruled out this possibility
(absence of blows from gun butts, edged weapons, batons, or even stones and improvised weapons)

Criminals and Mansi people:
Absence of signs of robbery (alcohol, money, or cameras; no violence against the women)

Members of the group:
This makes no sense; the aforementioned reasons apply here as well

Soviet authorities:
There was no plausible motive; this was not part of these authorities' methods, and the motive, *modus operandi*, and alleged cover-up are inexplicable. However, people simply *WANT* to believe it (due to hatred of the USSR and its ideology, a distorted view of armed institutions and power structures, and a desire to maintain the narrative at all costs)

Foreigners: Perhaps the only ones who would make sense in this context would be ethnic groups harboring deep hatred toward Soviet Russian citizens (Estonians, Lithuanians, or Chechens), but this does not apply for the reasons previously mentioned

[bongyi]

Bongyi, claiming that "the facts must be false because no theory fits" is a logical fallacy. This presupposes that a lack of consensus in online forums over the course of 60 years equates to a physically impossible event..

It happens several times  that you criticize something that you did not understand! This is not right! Please, neither by simplification nor in any other way, pretend that I wrote what and as you claim!

[Ramsay]

Bongyi, returning to his method, it doesn't work here because the "true" theory is entirely possible to formulate with what we have.
My intention is not to misrepresent your words, but to examine the logical consequence of your premise.

If your premise is that the documented facts are inherently contradictory to the point of invalidating the investigation
my response remains the same: we do not need to discard primary physical evidence to construct a realistic chronology. The contradiction disappears when we separate physical mechanics from the tendency toward post-hoc speculation.

[Ziljoe]

Let's look at the various claims for a cover up and give them their boundaries.

Any random people like escaped prisoners or guards after prisoners have the same logistical problems, that's the cold, skis,food and remoteness. The search area was large over the 4 days before finding the tent and no trails, fires or human disturbance were found other than from the hikers and the mansi.

The window for any staging remains inside the time line of 19 days.

No long range missiles can crash there, the medium range can't get there , the cruise missiles can't get there, artillery fire is out of range.

There is no known motive for murder by KGB type people.

The area is extremely remote and no secret bases were reported in the area by the search planes or helicopters with students and locals .

Untrained locals helpers were free to roam so no restrictions or fear of discovering some big secret.

No radiation can have been found as even the investigators camped and stayed there showing no fear of their own contamination .

There's no sign of any physical impacts .

The soviet union has a host of archived accidents, including domestic incidents, missile explosions and deaths , aircraft crashes, U2 spy plane, shooting their own planes down, train crashes , armed robbers( it's in the case files), their radiation leaks , secret bases and cities , US spy balloons , USSR radio controlled balloons,murder cases, fights and deaths between tourists , deaths from drinking , deaths from bad engineering , numerous drownings by tourists as well as deaths in the mountains, etc etc.

Here's my problem looking at the Dyatliov incident, the Soviet Union didn't coverup any of these incidents, the were documented, placed under their secret stamp , eventually brought to the public attention , where many times the word unknown was used .When they didn't know what started a fire for example , the just said unknown and moved on.

Given the small amount of examples above , I can't imagine what the "state" would be hiding anything today ? They are probably sick to death for being asked , I suspect they would say if it was a plane, rocket or murder today, I can't imagine anything more secret happing at the pass than what they have already released historically . 

[Ramsay]

Very good, Ziljoe. This is the ultimate reality check the discussion needed.

The historical record of the Soviet bureaucratic and investigative apparatus is clear: when the State did not fully understand a triggering event, it classified it as an "unknown elemental force" and moved on. They did not stage elaborate, 19-day productions in inhospitable mountainous regions—in temperatures of -30°C—to hide non-existent secrets.
It also states that the state built to carry out "mass murder" was not executed (there were no "KGB secret agents" who only exist in Hollywood).

Once the cover-up myth is dismantled using the logic of historical archives, we are left with the physical reality of Mount 1079: extreme weather conditions, a compromised shelter, an orderly descent, survival efforts split between the cedar tree and the ravine, and a tragic sequence of events driven entirely by severe environmental pressure and hypothermia.

Case closed on the conspiracy theories.

[Ziljoe]

Thinking about it further, the alleged official start date to open a criminal case on the 6th of February becomes almost impossible. If it was some sort of cover up , why start a case file on the 6th and why get the local police man to ask the forester a random question about hikers and the weather. Any would be , guards or men in fur hats would have enough brain cells to read the documents to know who they just killed and they would know the sport of tourism as it seems to be as popular as football.

You wouldn't assassinate people and open a case and you wouldn't open a case if you thought you killed the wrong people and then tried to cover it up.

It all starts to get a bit stupid when looked at from the other angle .

[bongyi]

@Ziljoe

We can only guess about that!

e.g. It may be a violation of an international treaty that still has a valid relevance - e.g. in the field of weapons tests.

But I don't know, I just made this up.

But I ask back, if there were cases in which the Russian authorities admitted their culpable responsibility, does it follow that they did this in all such cases and there are no more secret files?

It is also conceivable that the culpable responsibility did not arise at a high level, but at an intermediate level. Thus, the cover-up took place not only in the direction of public opinion, but also in the direction of higher levels! Ivanov covered it in all directions.  This is also an opportunity!

[bongyi]

Thinking about it further, the alleged official start date to open a criminal case on the 6th of February becomes almost impossible. If it was some sort of cover up , why start a case file on the 6th and why get the local police man to ask the forester a random question about hikers and the weather. Any would be , guards or men in fur hats would have enough brain cells to read the documents to know who they just killed and they would know the sport of tourism as it seems to be as popular as football.

You wouldn't assassinate people and open a case and you wouldn't open a case if you thought you killed the wrong people and then tried to cover it up.

It all starts to get a bit stupid when looked at from the other angle .

e.g. On the 6th, they don't know that they will have to cover it up!

But this is a field of speculation and not of assertions!

[Ramsay]

Bongyi, your admission — "I don't know, I just made that up" — perfectly illustrates the central problem we have been discussing.

When we replace documented evidence with ad hoc inventions (unverified treaty violations, hypothetical cover-ups at intermediate levels, dishonest prosecutors deceiving Moscow), we leave the field of forensic analysis and enter pure fiction.

I could argue that the USSR tested its weapons in specific and remote locations like Karaganda (Kazakhstan), restricted and secure locations hundreds of kilometers away from civilians, but... To suggest that a regional prosecutor like Ivanov could orchestrate a huge reconstruction of... 19 days! and in a wilderness area, deceiving the military, local Mansi hunters, and the Soviet High Command, without leaving a single trace of third-party evidence in the mountains, is simply untenable.

As Ziljoe demonstrated, physical and archival records do not oblige us to "make things up". When we stick to the facts, the environmental chronology explains the tragedy completely.
As I said, these are things that people WANT to believe, even if it means reconstructing the entire case to the point of deceiving the entire high command of the country. Therefore, I suggest not thinking in terms of preconceived conclusions - forget about that! The conclusions we can draw are only based on the material we have; we just need to reorganize it and think from there.

[GlennM]

The correlary to Occams Razor is the Grand Fallacy., homicide. Conspiracy believers do not know all the facts.

[Ziljoe]

@bongyi

I cant even remember how I came across this mystery, I think it was a TV documentary. I was caught , hook line and sinker. I bought a book, I loved it, I found the dyatlov pass website and read what I could and read the forum and watch the ideas swirl around. My ignorance of the case was huge.

I've had pleasant interaction with forum members, had some interesting documents supplied to me and insights to the soviet way of life. I've researched all these other accidents, read quite a bit of the other hikes that are documented, learnt about the Arminian Quiz. I've got the hand books and editions of the actual books that the hikers would have read regarding every nuance of what they had to contend with.

The stoves, different stoves, shelters, boots, pros and cons of a sledge, tents, flooring, bindings, stretchers and how to carry an injured comrade over the shoulder or on a improvised ski sleigh.

I'm actually fascinated by the joy and pleasure of the soviet people at that time. The art , the music, their own contempt for their own red tape. It would seem they lived life , ticking the boxes of what was needed.

The fun thing is , reading their newspapers, even the locals were poaching fish and getting into trouble.

Anyway, I approached the mystery from a basic open mind , other than UFOs and Bigfoot. From my own process of elimination I can only conclude that the incident was caused by something in the environment, wind, snow , wolverine are among the most plausible, it doesn't mean I'm right , neither does it mean it's my final conclusion but everything leans towards a survival effort .

I'm all for rockets , fighting within the group , Mansi , toxic gas , poison as well but they come lower down the list.

Coverups become lower down the scale further ,simply by the logistics of movement the location , motives, practically etc. then there's witnesses, number of people involved , cameras, etc.

My base line approach is that it's, cold , snow, wind plus dead hikers. I remove the noise , the noise being the sensationalist media stories and the exaggerations and try to ground myself by learning what can't of happened as much of what might have happened.

It's probably more like a mental construction of probability rather than facts . The den and ravine are pretty much resolved for me , a slight issue with IRZ on the slope and if course the reason to leave the tent.

I think it's healthy to look at potential ideas or even coverups but I don't think it's logical to assume cover up and try to bash the evidence to fit the assumption because the assumption is the assumed truth.

It's like court and every procedure of natural justice , you have to weigh the evidence, your innocent until proven guilty. Which is quite ironic as your accusing the soviet state of a cover up because you can't apply a narrative that gives a reasonable reason for the tragedy... or you haven't yet looked at other possible reasons and evidence.

Basically what I'm saying is , I wouldn't want you on my jury if I was in court for an allegation.