Evidence

[GKM]

After reading many of the topics on this forum I have decided, my opinion only, that we, myself included, are way off base. In her post about the book Teddy implied that much of the evidence is known but is not being looked at in the correct order. Perhaps we should all start over from scratch. Teddy knows more about this case than anyone and I would consider her the closest one to being an expert. Let's take her advice and look at the entire case step by step, from beginning to end. If Teddy asserts that she has solved the case, well...I believe her.

[Teddy]

I don't want to throw you off, but I didn't do it alone. By the end of the month I will give you what was given to me, in English and illustrated with maps and diagrams.
The more you try the greater your appreciation will be at the end of the month.

I only pity the readers that will learn about the case together with the resolution. Where is the fun in that?

[Teddy]

I wasn't given anything that is secret. 50% of the facts are in the case files, the rest are out there, some even in the context of the case, but the wrong context. Here is a classic example - if some of the hikers were trying to go up the ridge it wasn't to go back to the tent. They were trying to go in this direction but for a different reason. Or Slobodin's icy bed, there is another way to get ice under a body. What I am driving at is that the facts should be looked from a different angle. Otherwise - there is no secret piece of information or a confession. All is old. New is only the interpretation.

[MDGross]

Yes, seeing facts from a new perspective is always welcome. It's wonderful being able to say, "Why didn't I see that before?". I sometimes think the hikers left clues as best they could that something was terribly wrong. For example, the way the tent was pitched in such a strange way might have been Dyatlov's way of saying "I know how to set up a tent, but I'm being forced to do it this way."

[Teddy]

It all revolves around the tent and where it was found. Even more importantly - where it was not found.

[GKM]

I simply cannot wait for this book. I can't wait to FINALLY understand how all of this happened. Anxiously awaiting February 1st.

[NkZ]

Teddy's teaser is bringing new waves of thought!
For instance:
+I'm surprised that photos 11 & 12 of the loose film are the tent site: they are making a hole with at least 80 cm deep and 1 month later the tent is less than 20 cm deep in snow. But there are still foot traces down the slope.
+ Why did they mostly die so close to what would have been their normal route. there is no sense in making a shortcut through on the ridges if you are facing the wind.
+ and still this "Mansi, Mansi, Mansi" in my head. from the signs, the raised tomb/sanctuary, the antler on poles found by the search mission, the sudden finding of broken branches leading to the discovery of the den on the second investigation...
+ and thousands of unfitting puzzle pieces! So yes it's possibly there in plain foggy sight
So thank you by anticipation for this start of the year !

[eurocentric]

Musical tents?

[sarapuk]

After reading many of the topics on this forum I have decided, my opinion only, that we, myself included, are way off base. In her post about the book Teddy implied that much of the evidence is known but is not being looked at in the correct order. Perhaps we should all start over from scratch. Teddy knows more about this case than anyone and I would consider her the closest one to being an expert. Let's take her advice and look at the entire case step by step, from beginning to end. If Teddy asserts that she has solved the case, well...I believe her.

Well actually much of the Evidence is missing. The Tent for instance. Cameras and Film are also missing. Very important Evidence is missing.

[Star man]

Ok.  Let's approach this in a different way -  the tent is possessed?   

Regards

Star man

[marieuk]

Well now I'm really intrigued and still have absolutely no idea - can't wait for your book to come out. 

[Star man]

Being serious this time.  I am toying with the idea, that the tent was found, but not on Kholat Syakhl, and not with the dead hikers.  Maybe it turned up somewhere where it should not have been, before the hikers were reported missing.  And possibly with someone who should not have had it?  Possibly, the tent was taken/stolen, leaving the hikers in a desperate situation?  That's alot of possibles.

Regards

Star man

[eurocentric]

Being serious this time.  I am toying with the idea, that the tent was found, but not on Kholat Syakhl, and not with the dead hikers.  Maybe it turned up somewhere where it should not have been, before the hikers were reported missing.  And possibly with someone who should not have had it?  Possibly, the tent was taken/stolen, leaving the hikers in a desperate situation?  That's alot of possibles.

Regards

Star man

I'll predict that the tent was originally said to have been set up in the forest, (the sensible place) and that was where some suffocating and burning military calamity occurs, which then requires a cover-up at state level. Bodies are positioned to make it appear they died after leaving their tent, two with burns placed near a fire to make that suggestion, others placed in a ravine in the hope decomposition will mask their suspicious injuries or the water will decontaminate them, and the tent itself was air-lifted up to the ridge, explaining the assembly point of footprints, with everything neatly laid out inside, to stage it as being abandoned, with the stagers footprints leading back down to the cedar.

[Teddy]

There is some truth in both Star man and eurocentric ideas about the tent.

[Nigel Evans]

Being serious this time.  I am toying with the idea, that the tent was found, but not on Kholat Syakhl, and not with the dead hikers.  Maybe it turned up somewhere where it should not have been, before the hikers were reported missing.  And possibly with someone who should not have had it?  Possibly, the tent was taken/stolen, leaving the hikers in a desperate situation?  That's alot of possibles.

Regards

Star man

I'll predict that the tent was originally said to have been set up in the forest, (the sensible place) and that was where some suffocating and burning military calamity occurs, which then requires a cover-up at state level. Bodies are positioned to make it appear they died after leaving their tent, two with burns placed near a fire to make that suggestion, others placed in a ravine in the hope decomposition will mask their suspicious injuries or the water will decontaminate them, and the tent itself was air-lifted up to the ridge, explaining the assembly point of footprints, with everything neatly laid out inside, to stage it as being abandoned, with the stagers footprints leading back down to the cedar.

and then they took fake photos of travelling past the tree line and the tent site being prepared in a treeless area with high winds wearing correct clothing.
and then one of them climbed a cedar to break branches and leave bits of clothing and blood and tissue on the broken branches to imitate someone falling.and then someone collected lots of firewood to make the fire look genuine.and then building a den
and then someone scattered lots of burnt clothing for reasons unknown.all of the above and the descent being performed without boots of course.then you have to fake the labaz which they wouldn't have built of course.

Or they could have instead simply made everything and everyone disappear.

[marieuk]

well they're interesting points.  If the tent was pitched somewhere near the Cedar tree, then all the confusing bits about how/why they left the tent, the slow walk down, being under-dressed etc are no longer valid, because they didn't walk a mile away from the tent.  The three discovered up the slope could have been trying to escape from whatever was happening, and the same for the person who climbed the tree.  I guess that would mean the footprints didn't belong to them either?  The fire simply being what they would normally do when setting up camp for the night.  Still leaves a lot of questions though as Nigel says and my head still hurts thinking about it. 

[Teddy]

Now you are talking. You have to question everything. Nothing is what it looks like.

[Star man]

Well, the lack of analysis of the foot prints, and the cuts in the tent near the entrance through the seams have been a problem for me for a while now.  This line of thinking makes it clear why. 

Also, why Yuri D would be climbing a tree with severe frost bite on hands and feet.  Why they were burnt - it doesn't make sense if they were either alive or dead.  If they were alive why would they allow their skin to burn like that, and if they died before the fire did, why did they die?  The flashlight on the 10cm of snow at the tent, the tidy nature of the tent - given the impression that they cut their way out in a panic.

Ok.  So if we cant rely on the evidence at the scene.  How do we figure out what really happened to them?  Solter's statement.  The bodies were very dirty, washed, prepared for burial ( with no relatives to formerly identify them and no autopsy) - odd.  11 bodies overall - odd.  Were the bodies, cleaned, possibly decontaminated, and then air lifted back to Kholat Syakhl for placement?  11 bodies?  Did Solter see two of the same bodies twice, at different times?  First in Feb, when they were prepped, and then in March when they were found again?  Lyuda - burned hair and face, Semyon?  Authorities need to make some changes to their appearance and then place them somewhere where they would decompose.  Missing eyes, tongue?  Chest injuries -  they were thrown by a wind blast, or accidentally dropped from a helicopter when being air lifted back? 

The tent - did the hikers actually  cut it?  Was it shredded by debris from something and made to look like it was cut.  Could there have been an incident that threw up a major amount of dirt, mud, or caused a landslide onto the tent?   Possible chemical weapon - chlorine, heavier than air so hugs the ground, will burn eyes and mucous membranes, - no toxicology report.  Might induce them to cut and tear themselves out of the tent.  Chlorine -  oxidising agent, poison, skin colour?  Oxidised skin may make them look dirty.  Yuri D lungs, grey fluid.  Chlorine causes fluid in the lungs, so you kind of drown.  Nitrogen dioxide would fo the same.  The tent - is there a record somewhere about its recovery and cleaning, prepping it to set back up on Kholat?

If you can't make the hikers disappear, you can always make the scene dissappear instead

Lots and lots of questions.  Needs further thought to piecei t together. 

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

Just a further thought on the rib fractures.  I think Solter said that some had broken ribs.  Will have to have another look, but this would mean the ribs were broken either during the incident, or dropped when recovered by helicopter, but I suspect tge first option.

Regards

Star man

[Teddy]

Star man leads the way so far.

The legend about the hikers taking clothes from each other is not true. Take a look at the photos of Krivonischenko at the morgue for example.






He is brought like that, frozen. See the indentation of the shirt around his waste? A girdle mark is visible on the shirt at the waist level. It can be from the elastic of the inner pants or the tightened belt from the outer pants. This means that at the time his pants were cut off the clothes have already been frozen on his body.

[Ziljoe]

Teddy ,you are quenching my thirst .

Many thanks.

[Ziljoe]

Wow, just wow Teddy. I had to cross check . If I'm seeing what I think im seeing , it just doesn't to lie the same way.

I'll let others decide.

[GKM]

So perhaps the Yak pilot did actually see the staging of the tent on the 24th. The final set up before the "discovery " by searchers. And perhaps those searchers were deliberately led there by " guides " operating on orders from officials that NO ONE would dare refuse? Is it possible?

[Teddy]

All you say is possible, some if it is also highly probable.

[Ziljoe]

It might explain the change of dates of the first reports. Also lights being seen from a distance by other witnesses. Explains some of the confusion from the nurse and the chest injuries could have could have taken place else where.

It would be quite a large operation to get the bodies out , take photos and put them back in the forest though?

[Teddy]

It would be quite a large operation to get the bodies out, take photos and put them back in the forest though?

There are no known photos of the bodies taken "elsewhere".

[Nigel Evans]

It would be very easy to remove his trousers slowly (with respect?) and leave a "girdle mark". Particularly if the clothing was stiffening with cold. I hope you've got more than that.

[Teddy]

It would be very easy to remove his trousers slowly (with respect?) and leave a "girdle mark". Particularly if the clothing was stiffening with cold. I hope you've got more than that.

This is not in the book, just an observation that confirms my theory.
Why would one remove the pants slowly if taking them from a dead body to survive from a hypothermia which is what everyone believes at the moment.
I am giving you clues to the theory, but I don't have time to discuss them at this particular moment.

[Teddy]

I hope you've got more than that.

Nigel, really, is this what you think of me? I see a wrinkle I write a book?

[tekumze]

It would be very easy to remove his trousers slowly (with respect?) and leave a "girdle mark". Particularly if the clothing was stiffening with cold. I hope you've got more than that.

This is not in the book, just an observation that confirms my theory.
Why would one remove the pants slowly if taking them from a dead body to survive from a hypothermia which is what everyone believes at the moment.
I am giving you clues to the theory, but I don't have time to discuss them at this particular moment.

Dear Teddy, I'm just wondering if I can ask you what enlightened you so much that you suddenly have your own theory. Just a year ago, you claimed that you had no theory.