March 04, 2021, 08:26:24 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Thoughts on the book  (Read 1277 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 22, 2021, 11:12:57 AM
Reply #30
Online

Nigel Evans


Call me old fashioned but I would never forgive myself if the mandolin was buried and lost under the snow...
Not convinced the labaz would even be considered to be dumped on the ridge. It makes little sense.

True.  But its also not a good place for a tent and all of your belongings, either...  The tent does not make sense, either.


It makes more sense if you maintain a watch through the night.

February 22, 2021, 01:12:32 PM
Reply #31
Online

KFinn


Interestingly - suppose everything was found as it was, but no tent was ever located. I know i would assume they camped at the cedar, and something or some event happened there, by the cedar. The absent tent would become part of the enigma.

I absolutely agree, my friend!
-Ren

February 22, 2021, 01:39:02 PM
Reply #32
Online

Nigel Evans


Interestingly - suppose everything was found as it was, but no tent was ever located. I know i would assume they camped at the cedar, and something or some event happened there, by the cedar. The absent tent would become part of the enigma.


I'm not getting it? Why would only the tent be absent?

February 22, 2021, 03:40:07 PM
Reply #33
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
i think the suggestion in the book, is that the tent was pitched in the woods and the labaz was dug out on the slope as per Igor's original plan.  When they re-staged the scene, they used the dug out labaz on the slope, to pitch the tent there.  So the labaz was not where we thought it was.  hope I've got that right.

That's right, the labaz was on the route of the return journey more or less. 

Regards

Star man

February 22, 2021, 04:03:32 PM
Reply #34
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Nigel, what do you believe caused the wounds to Zina's face? I am only curious.I guess I don't understand what sets off the alarm bells. They are rather jagged but I have seen worse. I'm not being flippant merely, like I said, curious.   dunno1


She was found "face in blood" and the pathologist described them as abrasions. So this seems to (strongly?) suggest that she was still alive when she fell. People don't bleed like that when they're dead? She's been cleaned up for the morgue photo. Given that the abrasions include her eye lid it would seem that the agent was wind born. N.B. the young trees at the treeline had their uphill sides stripped of bark. Like sand blasted but with ice? High speed winds? Aggressive chemicals?

Couldn't tree branches cause those facial injuries though?   Could the facial abrasions and injuries give the appearance of the face being covered in blood?  I didn't think that you can see her face in the photo where her body is uncovered on the mountain.  Am not saying it is not an interesting point though.  There is a lot to discuss and pick through.

February 22, 2021, 04:17:34 PM
Reply #35
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I agree with you you Star man. You just provided an excellent response to Nigel's misgivings. The idea that the photos are of the hikers building the labaz seems, in my opinion, the only credible explanation for those photos and for them being on the ridge. Well done.  bow7

Thanks.  Another reason for not making the bodies disappear is the timeline and the concern that the death of the hikers could be linked to the geophysics surveys.  If the hikers disappeared while hiking in the same area as the geophysics operation, then that would point a finger at them anyway, and if the discovered bodies and their deaths  were not attributed to some natural event then that also points the finger. More importantly, if they had not recovered all of the bodies there is not much benefit in making 6 or even 8 of them disappear as the remaining bodies would be found later and that is even more suspicious The only way out and to divert suspicion is to recreate the event of a natural tragedy. 

Regards

Star man
« Last Edit: February 22, 2021, 04:26:45 PM by Star man »

February 22, 2021, 05:01:08 PM
Reply #36
Offline

GKM


No one answered my question. Would anyone on this forum camp on that exposed ridge? It is a simple yes or no question. I wouldn't camp there. I would have more common sense then to camp there. Are members of the forum saying that the DG was so lacking in experience and common sense that they camped on the ridge? What an insult to the dead hikers. I ask each of you to answer the question. Would any of you camp there? bang1

February 22, 2021, 05:30:54 PM
Reply #37
Online

KFinn


No one answered my question. Would anyone on this forum camp on that exposed ridge? It is a simple yes or no question. I wouldn't camp there. I would have more common sense then to camp there. Are members of the forum saying that the DG was so lacking in experience and common sense that they camped on the ridge? What an insult to the dead hikers. I ask each of you to answer the question. Would any of you camp there? bang1

I would not.  I am not as young as I once was and I used to be much more athletic however, I don't think I'd have camped there in my prime, either.  It would have to be an emergency situation where there was no other choice and we needed to set camp right then due to someone needing medical care or something else extenuating. 
-Ren

February 22, 2021, 06:03:11 PM
Reply #38
Online

ash73


No one answered my question. Would anyone on this forum camp on that exposed ridge?

It's only useful to ask that question of experienced hikers, who know the area. I gather some said yes, some no.

I certainly wouldn't bury supplies there, the marker would get blown away and you'd never find them again.

The more puzzling question for me is why did they walk such a short distance that day.

February 22, 2021, 06:36:21 PM
Reply #39
Offline

Monty


Nigel, reply 32. Was just a hypothetical statement. Clearly the tent was located in it's final position, as evidenced by photos. But how would the theory change if no tent was ever located? All the other evidence may point to a camp site under the cedar.

February 22, 2021, 07:28:49 PM
Reply #40
Offline

Investigator


No one answered my question. Would anyone on this forum camp on that exposed ridge? It is a simple yes or no question. I wouldn't camp there. I would have more common sense then to camp there. Are members of the forum saying that the DG was so lacking in experience and common sense that they camped on the ridge? What an insult to the dead hikers. I ask each of you to answer the question. Would any of you camp there? bang1

Professional investigators examine the evidence that exists.  If you say to yourself, "I can't imagine myself doing this or that," you would solve many fewer cases!  And in similar situations, the Chivruay and Korovina groups made mistakes that are beyond "head scratching," considerably worse than the DG made, IMO.  You can also read about an expedition that also made huge mistakes in a similar situation in the book, "Denali's Howl," which led to several deaths. but we know about the disagreements and huge mistakes made, and have some sense about why those mistakes were made, due to there being survivors (or in the case of Chivruay, the evidence was never seriously questioned and apparently most people don't' think there's anything strange, other than a really bad decision).
« Last Edit: February 23, 2021, 09:37:01 AM by Investigator »

February 23, 2021, 02:26:02 AM
Reply #41
Online

Nigel Evans


Nigel, what do you believe caused the wounds to Zina's face? I am only curious.I guess I don't understand what sets off the alarm bells. They are rather jagged but I have seen worse. I'm not being flippant merely, like I said, curious.   dunno1


She was found "face in blood" and the pathologist described them as abrasions. So this seems to (strongly?) suggest that she was still alive when she fell. People don't bleed like that when they're dead? She's been cleaned up for the morgue photo. Given that the abrasions include her eye lid it would seem that the agent was wind born. N.B. the young trees at the treeline had their uphill sides stripped of bark. Like sand blasted but with ice? High speed winds? Aggressive chemicals?

Couldn't tree branches cause those facial injuries though?   Could the facial abrasions and injuries give the appearance of the face being covered in blood?  I didn't think that you can see her face in the photo where her body is uncovered on the mountain.  Am not saying it is not an interesting point though.  There is a lot to discuss and pick through.


I'd say not possible, the abrasions are too even.

February 23, 2021, 02:27:46 AM
Reply #42
Online

Nigel Evans


I agree with you you Star man. You just provided an excellent response to Nigel's misgivings. The idea that the photos are of the hikers building the labaz seems, in my opinion, the only credible explanation for those photos and for them being on the ridge. Well done.  bow7

Thanks.  Another reason for not making the bodies disappear is the timeline and the concern that the death of the hikers could be linked to the geophysics surveys.  If the hikers disappeared while hiking in the same area as the geophysics operation, then that would point a finger at them anyway, and if the discovered bodies and their deaths  were not attributed to some natural event then that also points the finger. More importantly, if they had not recovered all of the bodies there is not much benefit in making 6 or even 8 of them disappear as the remaining bodies would be found later and that is even more suspicious The only way out and to divert suspicion is to recreate the event of a natural tragedy. 

Regards

Star man


As shown below the labaz was built in the forest?????

February 23, 2021, 02:31:03 AM
Reply #43
Online

Nigel Evans


No one answered my question. Would anyone on this forum camp on that exposed ridge? It is a simple yes or no question. I wouldn't camp there. I would have more common sense then to camp there. Are members of the forum saying that the DG was so lacking in experience and common sense that they camped on the ridge? What an insult to the dead hikers. I ask each of you to answer the question. Would any of you camp there? bang1


The question is answered by the fact that a camera was on a tripod? In a crowded tent with nine berths?

February 23, 2021, 02:33:02 AM
Reply #44
Online

Nigel Evans


Nigel, reply 32. Was just a hypothetical statement. Clearly the tent was located in it's final position, as evidenced by photos. But how would the theory change if no tent was ever located? All the other evidence may point to a camp site under the cedar.


Why would you build a den if you had a tent?

February 23, 2021, 04:43:48 AM
Reply #45
Offline

Monty


If the tent became spent then you may need temp shelter. I still think den is over describing what was made.

February 23, 2021, 05:34:37 AM
Reply #46
Online

Nigel Evans


If the tent became spent then you may need temp shelter. I still think den is over describing what was made.
If the tent became spent, you'd get dressed? I can't see a case for the tent being at the cedar and most of the group half dressed and in their socks (even if a tree fell on the tent, it wouldn't kill everyone, someone cut their way out so why not reach in and grab some boots? Once a tree has fallen it's no longer a threat?

February 23, 2021, 01:15:26 PM
Reply #47
Offline

Manti


I think "would you camp on the ridge yes/no" is not so useful a question because many many such questions can be asked. Would you walk/ski on the snow-covered ice of a river where you can't even see the ice, so you don't know how strong or weak it might be? Nobody would. They did. Would you take stuffed animals and a mandolin on a hiking trip in subzero temperatures but no sleeping bag? Nobody would...

I agree that camping on the ridge makes no sense and camping at the cedar would, it's on their planned route, protected from wind, there's firewood nearby etc. But they also didn't camp at the cedar if we assume the book's scenario, because then there would be signs of the incident near the cedar. So that fallen tree and consequently the original campsite must have been somewhere else a considerable distance away, as it would not make sense to stage the tent in a place where the original site is visible from.


So where was the original campsite? And what happened at the cedar then? Is the den staged? And the campfire?




February 23, 2021, 02:03:21 PM
Reply #48
Online

Nigel Evans


Thinking on it, i think the state of undress is the killer for this theory. If you've just cut your way out of the tent because a tree has fallen on it and you're now standing in the cold snow in your socks, what's the first thing you would do?




Get dressed!!!

February 23, 2021, 02:04:56 PM
Reply #49
Online

KFinn


Thinking on it, i think the state of undress is the killer for this theory. If you've just cut your way out of the tent because a tree has fallen on it and you're now standing in the cold snow in your socks, what's the first thing you would do?




Get dressed!!!

I think the first thing I would do is change my pants, lol! 
-Ren

February 23, 2021, 04:29:08 PM
Reply #50
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Thinking on it, i think the state of undress is the killer for this theory. If you've just cut your way out of the tent because a tree has fallen on it and you're now standing in the cold snow in your socks, what's the first thing you would do?




Get dressed!!!

Probably try to save your friends.  The thing is we don't know if those who got out of the tent did get dressed, if the scene staged.  They may have managed to get some clothes.  A tree landing on the tent in the dark while you are sleeping is a pretty shocking thing though.  You wake up in the dark hear your colleagues screams, you may be concussed or disorientated.  Those under the tree are likely trapped. Krivo may have been trapped with the stove on his leg.  The pain so bad he bit the skin off his finger?  The first thing you would do if you had your faculties in tact is try to save your friends.  Dorishenko's injuries may be a result of a desperate attempt to move the tree?  I think Zina was badly injured by a tree branch too.  I suppose there is always tge question - why did a tree fall?  High winds?  Or something else?

Regards

Star man

February 23, 2021, 04:41:07 PM
Reply #51
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The thing about camping on the ridge is that it's not just the location that is wrong.  Its the scene at the tent.  It's  mental.  I have considered it many times and tried to find an explanation and the only answers that seem to make sense are weird ones:

Infrasound
Radiation
Yeti

And even then there are problems.

In the end you have to accept that either something exceptionally strange happened, or you conclude that the only thing that makes sense at the tent is that it is nonsense.

Regards

Star man

February 23, 2021, 05:00:59 PM
Reply #52
Online

KFinn


The thing about camping on the ridge is that it's not just the location that is wrong.  Its the scene at the tent.  It's  mental.  I have considered it many times and tried to find an explanation and the only answers that seem to make sense are weird ones:

Infrasound
Radiation
Yeti

And even then there are problems.

In the end you have to accept that either something exceptionally strange happened, or you conclude that the only thing that makes sense at the tent is that it is nonsense.

Regards

Star man

It would be so much easier if 1079 were high altitude and we could blame hypoxia for everything.  Burned hands and feet make sense in the context of frostbite.  Strange behavior happens.  Even some of the rib fractures could be explained by severe coughing from high altitude pulmonary edema (not all of the rib fractures but still.)  High altitude sickness is like being drunk and having the flu at the same time.  To me, that would make sense for almost everything.  But the Urals are not Eight-Thousanders and not anywhere near enough of an altitude that would have these results.  There are just no easy answers, anywhere :(
-Ren

February 23, 2021, 06:07:47 PM
Reply #53
Online

ash73


I'm struggling with this theory. How does it explain:

- Rustem, Igor and Zina's injuries, they'd been in a fight
- The hikers leaving shoes, coats, hats and wood cutting tools in the tent
- Dyatlov's jacket and a knife sheath found outside the tent
- 30cm horizontal cuts on the downslope side of the tent
- Ski pole being cut
- Footprints down the slope
- Spent lantern found at the bottom of the slope
- Photos of the hikers digging out the tent base
- Lighting a fire by the cedar, exposed to the wind, rather than in the ravine
- All their clothes being unbuttoned
- The rav4 not being on the platform
- Missing cameras
- Radiation on clothes

Most can only be explained by the hikers being forced out of the tent (on the ridge) by persons unknown, imo.

I doubt the rav4's injuries are compatible with being hit by a falling tree. In that scenario other bones would be broken, e.g. Zolotarev's ribs were injured on one side, if he was lying on one side his arm would also be injured, no objects in the tent were crushed, and the survivors had time to record what happened (avalanche theory has the same problems).

February 23, 2021, 06:46:25 PM
Reply #54
Online

KFinn


I'm struggling with this theory. How does it explain:

- Rustem, Igor and Zina's injuries, they'd been in a fight
- The hikers leaving shoes, coats, hats and wood cutting tools in the tent
- Dyatlov's jacket and a knife sheath found outside the tent
- 30cm horizontal cuts on the downslope side of the tent
- Ski pole being cut
- Footprints down the slope
- Spent lantern found at the bottom of the slope
- Photos of the hikers digging out the tent base
- Lighting a fire by the cedar, exposed to the wind, rather than in the ravine
- All their clothes being unbuttoned
- The rav4 not being on the platform
- Missing cameras
- Radiation on clothes

Most can only be explained by the hikers being forced out of the tent (on the ridge) by persons unknown, imo.

I doubt the rav4's injuries are compatible with being hit by a falling tree. In that scenario other bones would be broken, e.g. Zolotarev's ribs were injured on one side, if he was lying on one side his arm would also be injured, no objects in the tent were crushed, and the survivors had time to record what happened (avalanche theory has the same problems).

The book does answer some of your questions within the parameters of the theory presented.  If you haven't had the chance to read it, there is some really excellent information in there, whether we come to the same conclusions as the authors or not.

I can only really add that Zolotaryev did have a broken shoulder on the same side as his ribs, which was found during the exhumation, in 2018 (I think it was that year.)  The fact that no items in the tent were damaged is very valid.  Plus, the tent itself did not show the same damage as it should had it been hit.  I've had many canvas tents over the years, even made a couple.  Although they are a different weight of canvas undoubtedly, they still take damage when they get hit with falling debris.  At the very least, I would expect tears at the stress points of the canvas from the strike, which I do not see in any of the pictures. 
-Ren

February 23, 2021, 07:11:44 PM
Reply #55
Online

ash73


...If you haven't had the chance to read it, there is some really excellent information in there, whether we come to the same conclusions as the authors or not.

Yep will do, I'm still reading Rakitin at the moment, Teddy's book is on my list.

February 23, 2021, 08:29:22 PM
Reply #56
Offline

ahohti


I bought the kindle version of book and read it very intensively. It was
a great & comprehensive historical account of the events in January-May 1959 in the
Dyatlov search and investigation operation.

As a mathematician myself, it was interesting to see that the book
introduced "overdetermined systems". In the section
"Dyatlov Pass for Dummies",  we have that an

"overdetermined system is almost always inconsistent, it has no solution."

After reading several books and articles about the incident, I had
come to my own belief that the evidence is inconsistent. In mathematical
logic, Gödel's completeness theorem says that any consistent list of
statements ("evidence") has a model, or a "solution".
After 60 years there are all these theories but they all seem to be only
partially convincing. Why is that? My guess is that the evidence is
inconsistent. It has no model.

One the authors suggests that by breaking up inappropriate
connections (assumptions) in the evidence, the system may become consistent and have a solution (or in
the logical setting, by removing inconsistencies from the list of evidence
it may have a model).

The authors present a model that explains the extensive injuries on three
of the Dyatlov group members in a new and most natural way (tree falling
on the tent). This model becomes possible when some of the evidence, for
example the footprints leading down the hill, is re-evaluated as belonging
to a staging, not to the event itself.

Of course, their solution is dependent on the assumption that the "last photo"
(loose photos # 12 on the site) - thought to show the location of the tent
being prepared on Feb 1st - is not authentic or last. However, in this case the
coverup has to be even deeper than described in the book: This photo
shares an important detail with the famous tent picture of the Slobtsov
group finding the tent on Feb 26th. There is a ski pole looking object at similar
position with respect to the tent (photo #12 and the Slobtsov photo being
taken from opposite sides wrt tent). A coverup would have to have 1) developed
the films before Feb 26th, 2) removed any photos after #12 3) staged the scene
carefully with respect to the detail in the photo OR they would have needed to
fabricate photo #12.

February 24, 2021, 01:40:30 AM
Reply #57
Online

Nigel Evans


I bought the kindle version of book and read it very intensively. It was
a great & comprehensive historical account of the events in January-May 1959 in the
Dyatlov search and investigation operation.

As a mathematician myself, it was interesting to see that the book
introduced "overdetermined systems". In the section
"Dyatlov Pass for Dummies",  we have that an

"overdetermined system is almost always inconsistent, it has no solution."

After reading several books and articles about the incident, I had
come to my own belief that the evidence is inconsistent. In mathematical
logic, Gödel's completeness theorem says that any consistent list of
statements ("evidence") has a model, or a "solution".
After 60 years there are all these theories but they all seem to be only
partially convincing. Why is that? My guess is that the evidence is
inconsistent. It has no model.

One the authors suggests that by breaking up inappropriate
connections (assumptions) in the evidence, the system may become consistent and have a solution (or in
the logical setting, by removing inconsistencies from the list of evidence
it may have a model).

The authors present a model that explains the extensive injuries on three
of the Dyatlov group members in a new and most natural way (tree falling
on the tent). This model becomes possible when some of the evidence, for
example the footprints leading down the hill, is re-evaluated as belonging
to a staging, not to the event itself.

Of course, their solution is dependent on the assumption that the "last photo"
(loose photos # 12 on the site) - thought to show the location of the tent
being prepared on Feb 1st - is not authentic or last. However, in this case the
coverup has to be even deeper than described in the book: This photo
shares an important detail with the famous tent picture of the Slobtsov
group finding the tent on Feb 26th. There is a ski pole looking object at similar
position with respect to the tent (photo #12 and the Slobtsov photo being
taken from opposite sides wrt tent). A coverup would have to have 1) developed
the films before Feb 26th, 2) removed any photos after #12 3) staged the scene
carefully with respect to the detail in the photo OR they would have needed to
fabricate photo #12.
Ivanov would have liked the "inconsistent evidence theory" having joked that the only way to explain the incident was as the work of the devil.
But i think that Urakov's behaviour both in shutting Ivanov up in March (someone high in the hierarchy did it) and then shutting the case down in May is shouting too loudly that the Soviet hierarchy had much to gain from making the case go away. And there were excessive levels of radiation. As said before multiple times, Okishev has stated the central question - when the last four bodies were discovered why did Urakov the second most senior member of the Soviet legal system travel from Moscow to Sverdlovsk to ensure that the case was shutdown?

February 24, 2021, 01:42:39 AM
Reply #58
Online

Nigel Evans


I'm struggling with this theory. How does it explain:

- Rustem, Igor and Zina's injuries, they'd been in a fight
- The hikers leaving shoes, coats, hats and wood cutting tools in the tent
- Dyatlov's jacket and a knife sheath found outside the tent
- 30cm horizontal cuts on the downslope side of the tent
- Ski pole being cut
- Footprints down the slope
- Spent lantern found at the bottom of the slope
- Photos of the hikers digging out the tent base
- Lighting a fire by the cedar, exposed to the wind, rather than in the ravine
- All their clothes being unbuttoned
- The rav4 not being on the platform
- Missing cameras
- Radiation on clothes

Most can only be explained by the hikers being forced out of the tent (on the ridge) by persons unknown, imo.

I doubt the rav4's injuries are compatible with being hit by a falling tree. In that scenario other bones would be broken, e.g. Zolotarev's ribs were injured on one side, if he was lying on one side his arm would also be injured, no objects in the tent were crushed, and the survivors had time to record what happened (avalanche theory has the same problems).

The book does answer some of your questions within the parameters of the theory presented.  If you haven't had the chance to read it, there is some really excellent information in there, whether we come to the same conclusions as the authors or not.

I can only really add that Zolotaryev did have a broken shoulder on the same side as his ribs, which was found during the exhumation, in 2018 (I think it was that year.)  The fact that no items in the tent were damaged is very valid.  Plus, the tent itself did not show the same damage as it should had it been hit.  I've had many canvas tents over the years, even made a couple.  Although they are a different weight of canvas undoubtedly, they still take damage when they get hit with falling debris.  At the very least, I would expect tears at the stress points of the canvas from the strike, which I do not see in any of the pictures.
Plus no scorching on the tent from a red hot stove that gave YuriK a third degree burn.

February 24, 2021, 02:50:07 AM
Reply #59
Online

Nigel Evans


Thinking on it, i think the state of undress is the killer for this theory. If you've just cut your way out of the tent because a tree has fallen on it and you're now standing in the cold snow in your socks, what's the first thing you would do?




Get dressed!!!

Probably try to save your friends.  The thing is we don't know if those who got out of the tent did get dressed, if the scene staged.  They may have managed to get some clothes.  A tree landing on the tent in the dark while you are sleeping is a pretty shocking thing though.  You wake up in the dark hear your colleagues screams, you may be concussed or disorientated.  Those under the tree are likely trapped. Krivo may have been trapped with the stove on his leg.  The pain so bad he bit the skin off his finger?  The first thing you would do if you had your faculties in tact is try to save your friends.  Dorishenko's injuries may be a result of a desperate attempt to move the tree?  I think Zina was badly injured by a tree branch too.  I suppose there is always tge question - why did a tree fall?  High winds?  Or something else?

Regards

Star man
Igor had no obvious wounds and Zinaida's bruise would have hurt but not more serious than that. There's nothing in the injury profile that precludes a small group of survivors from a tree fall and they would know that to help others they must protect themselves from the cold.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2021, 04:06:31 AM by Nigel Evans »