[Merged] Dyatlov Pass incident

[psyche101]

nope. wrong marten. that's an AMERICAN marten. you are thinking of a pine marten, which in any case wouldn't just eat a tongue, besides the op states that the area around the dead people wasn't disturbed by scavengers.

yeah, tongue is ONE of the first bits wildlife usually goes for, not the ONLY bit. just trying to show how you people are grasping to explain this occurrance.

Because of worsening weather conditions, snowstorms and decreasing visibility, they lost their direction and deviated west. As such, what evidence of scavengers other than partially eaten bodies would you expect to find?

[Ell]

i don't buy into just from the fact that although they were too frozen to simply unzip a tent

Did their tent have a zipper? Another fastening method was more likely, I suspect.

I quote from wikipedia: "By World War II, the zipper had become widely used in Europe and North America, and after the war quickly spread through the rest of the world".

I suspect that their, presumably old, tent had no zipper. It may have had buttons, or rope ties.

[Drago]

For that matter, it's actually a lot harder than you'd think to open a stubborn, half-frozen zipper with fingers you can barely control and can't feel anything with.

Just sayin'. >_>

[bigdaddyinge]

Because of worsening weather conditions, snowstorms and decreasing visibility, they lost their direction and deviated west. As such, what evidence of scavengers other than partially eaten bodies would you expect to find?

i've already agreed with the scavenger explanation because of the searchers link. read up.

Did their tent have a zipper? Another fastening method was more likely, I suspect.

I quote from wikipedia: "By World War II, the zipper had become widely used in Europe and North America, and after the war quickly spread through the rest of the world".

I suspect that their, presumably old, tent had no zipper. It may have had buttons, or rope ties.

um... ok. other than the fact that wikipedia isn't a reliable source in my opinion... who said the tent was old? would a research expedition take along old, outdated tents? why not cut the buttons or ties instead of the tent itself?

For that matter, it's actually a lot harder than you'd think to open a stubborn, half-frozen zipper with fingers you can barely control and can't feel anything with.

Just sayin'. >_>

um... yeah.. i know all about stubborn, half-frozen zippers and fingers you can't feel with. i live about an hour and a half from yellowstone, and was a roughneck for about five years, working in -30 degree weather quite a few times. i still don't buy they could start a fire if they couldn't get out a tent. not saying there's not a reasonable explanation, just that i don't agree with that specific comment.

[Drago]

um... ok. other than the fact that wikipedia isn't a reliable source in my opinion... who said the tent was old? would a research expedition take along old, outdated tents? why not cut the buttons or ties instead of the tent itself?

They could very well have had to make due with older equipment. It is the Soviet Union after all. Whether you got new equipment for your trip or not depended entirely on how excessively you could brown-nose and whether you were in the good graces of the locals in the power structure or not.

um... yeah.. i know all about stubborn, half-frozen zippers and fingers you can't feel with. i live about an hour and a half from yellowstone, and was a roughneck for about five years, working in -30 degree weather quite a few times. i still don't buy they could start a fire if they couldn't get out a tent. not saying there's not a reasonable explanation, just that i don't agree with that specific comment.

I'm just saying, there are occasions and reasons why opening a tent is nearly impossible. There are common sense reasons that don't involve panic and avalanches why having to cut a tent open is the better option.

[bigdaddyinge]

They could very well have had to make due with older equipment. It is the Soviet Union after all. Whether you got new equipment for your trip or not depended entirely on how excessively you could brown-nose and whether you were in the good graces of the locals in the power structure or not.

I'm just saying, there are occasions and reasons why opening a tent is nearly impossible. There are common sense reasons that don't involve panic and avalanches why having to cut a tent open is the better option.

this is true, though not likely in my opinion. having good shelter in a known dangerous location is all that will keep you from certain death. this was a bad part of the ural mountains, so the researchers probably knew that taking old equipment would more than likely be suicide.

same response here... ruining your tent unnecessarily by cutting the tent instead of the fasteners is a ludicris notion, and almost certainly guarantees a slow painful death. in that sort of harsh environment and weather, shelter is everything. even if those people were complete idiots (and i gather that they were definately not) they would be able to figure that simple fact out soon after arriving there ("bbbrrrrrrrrrrrr!!! i'm gettin in the friggin tent-novich!").

Edited March 17, 2010 by bigdaddyinge

[psyche101]

i've already agreed with the scavenger explanation because of the searchers link. read up.

I had read that, but you came to that conclusion because there was evidence of damage inside the mouth. Before that you said scavengers were ruled out.

besides the op states that the area around the dead people wasn't disturbed by scavengers.

I was wondering how that initial conclusion was reached considering the conditions. As you were agreeing with the OP, I was wondering why you wold see this as plausible.

Are you always this pleasant?

Edited March 17, 2010 by psyche101

[bigdaddyinge]

I had read that, but you came to that conclusion because there was evidence of damage inside the mouth. Before that you said scavengers were ruled out.

I was wondering how that initial conclusion was reached considering the conditions. As you were agreeing with the OP, I was wondering why you wold see this as plausible.

Are you always this pleasant?

i was saying, and still believe, that a scavenger WILL NOT only take a tongue. there is gonna be damage to other parts of the corpse, it's not a scavenger's nature to be that neat and tidy as to only remove a tongue of a carcass. searcher's article stated that part of the mouth cavity was missing as well as the tongue, and the evidence was from fauna and flora (bite marks of scavengers and decomposition). this conclusion that i reached had very little to do with evidence on the ground around the corpse; i was just reiterating what the op had stated. considering that the rescue team found the people's tracks, i concluded they would also have found fauna tracks as well.

why yes! who's says i'm not pleasent?

[psyche101]

Current Observation and Summation

From the answers that we have now received to our initial questions we have discovered that much of the apparent “bizarreness” surrounding this mystery is actually misinformation or exaggeration.

• Dubanina’s tongue was not ripped out it was degraded through natural processes
  
• The radiation found was inconsequential
  
• The area was not sealed off to everyone – only amateur sports groups
  
• The case was never classified
  
• There are currently no records of any experimental aircraft being tested in the area in 1959
  
• There is no evidence (now or then) that the area was used to test weapons. However, this doesn’t rule out secret testing
  
• Photographs thought to be missile parts have turned out to be old radar units
  
• The mysterious envelope contained only general correspondence
  
• Photographs show that any discolouration of the bodies was wholly normal
  
• The woman on the train who claimed there were eleven people has turned out to be a very unreliable witness (and a different person altogether).
  
• The injuries discovered are explainable and consistent with those that might be expected to occur in a group of desperate and clearly frightened people that had been stumbling around in dangerous conditions in the dark.
  
• There is absolutely no substantiated evidence for crashed UFO’s, Concussion Weapons, Mad Mansi or Russian Death Squads.
  
• All the physical evidence found at the time and subsequent analysis and testing indicates that there was no avalanche. However, at least one person involved with this case still believes that an avalanche was the cause.
  

This site seems to have a reasonably in depth view of the incident.

LINK

There was a thread in the ET section on this.

[bigdaddyinge]

Current Observation and Summation

From the answers that we have now received to our initial questions we have discovered that much of the apparent “bizarreness” surrounding this mystery is actually misinformation or exaggeration.

• Dubanina’s tongue was not ripped out it was degraded through natural processes
  
• The radiation found was inconsequential
  
• The area was not sealed off to everyone – only amateur sports groups
  
• The case was never classified
  
• There are currently no records of any experimental aircraft being tested in the area in 1959
  
• There is no evidence (now or then) that the area was used to test weapons. However, this doesn’t rule out secret testing
  
• Photographs thought to be missile parts have turned out to be old radar units
  
• The mysterious envelope contained only general correspondence
  
• Photographs show that any discolouration of the bodies was wholly normal
  
• The woman on the train who claimed there were eleven people has turned out to be a very unreliable witness (and a different person altogether).
  
• The injuries discovered are explainable and consistent with those that might be expected to occur in a group of desperate and clearly frightened people that had been stumbling around in dangerous conditions in the dark.
  
• There is absolutely no substantiated evidence for crashed UFO’s, Concussion Weapons, Mad Mansi or Russian Death Squads.
  
• All the physical evidence found at the time and subsequent analysis and testing indicates that there was no avalanche. However, at least one person involved with this case still believes that an avalanche was the cause.
  

This site seems to have a reasonably in depth view of the incident.

LINK

There was a thread in the ET section on this.

um... that's the same link the searcher posted on the previous page of this thread.... but don't get me wrong, i agree that there probably wasn't anything supernatural to this whole ordeal.

[psyche101]

i was saying, and still believe, that a scavenger WILL NOT only take a tongue. there is gonna be damage to other parts of the corpse, it's not a scavenger's nature to be that neat and tidy as to only remove a tongue of a carcass. searcher's article stated that part of the mouth cavity was missing as well as the tongue, and the evidence was from fauna and flora (bite marks of scavengers and decomposition). this conclusion that i reached had very little to do with evidence on the ground around the corpse; i was just reiterating what the op had stated. considering that the rescue team found the people's tracks, i concluded they would also have found fauna tracks as well.

I just thought that the tongue may have taken longer to freeze than more exposed bits.

With the scavengers, the weather sounded pretty harsh, I would be surprised if tracks were found, although I guess the bodies were in the elements for quite some time.

why yes! who's says i'm not pleasent?

I heard that is what the other people are saying, I don't take any stock in it of course, I believe in almost nothing it seems .

I was presented this by Nibs, and bandy it with pride, I love it LOL

We will probably get along quite well I imagine

[psyche101]

um... that's the same link the searcher posted on the previous page of this thread.... but don't get me wrong, i agree that there probably wasn't anything supernatural to this whole ordeal.

My apologies, I must have missed that one, had this still in the favorites from the ET conversation. It's a good read isn't it.

Edited March 17, 2010 by psyche101

[bigdaddyinge]

I just thought that the tongue may have taken longer to freeze than more exposed bits.

With the scavengers, the weather sounded pretty harsh, I would be surprised if tracks were found, although I guess the bodies were in the elements for quite some time.

I heard that is what the other people are saying, I don't take any stock in it of course, I believe in almost nothing it seems .

I was presented this by Nibs, and bandy it with pride, I love it LOL

We will probably get along quite well I imagine

i was just suggesting, before the searcher enlightened me with that link, that the woman died with her mouth open, which would've exposed the tongue a little. kinda a reach, i admit, but just a suggestion.

hehe... others are saying i'm not pleasent? well, i'm opinionated, but then again there is quite a few people on this forum who are every bit as opinionated as me. difference is that i have an open mind towards things and don't automatically dismiss people's claims as to whatever i deem them to be. people believe different things, and i feel that i'm more sensitive towards those beliefs than alot of the skeptics on this forum. myself, i believe in certain things that others don't, simply because of the things i have seen. but i'm very much a skeptic of CLAIMS, because most can be explained with normal explanations; i don't just simply come out with an answer that best fits my view and try to shove it down the person's throat like alot of other members. being a skeptic is something to be proud of, it's the best way to be. this is provided that in the process of being skeptical one tries to help the person to understand exactly what is happening with them, and not just to force feed them what you believe to be happening. i don't understand how people who don't even know a person can come to the conclusion that they're unpleasent, but everyone has a right to their opinion.

yeah, i think we'll do ok.

My apologies, I must have missed that one, had this still in the favorites from the ET conversation. It's a good read isn't it.

no problem, just lettin ya know. yeah, pretty level-headed and fact-based if you ask me.

[TheSearcher]

You're both quite alike in that regard, in need of proof and evidence, or something that actually makes sense. Nothing wrong with that, I'm the same, like many others here. Pass that cap around psyche101, we should all wear it in turns

[bigdaddyinge]

You're both quite alike in that regard, in need of proof and evidence, or something that actually makes sense. Nothing wrong with that, I'm the same, like many others here. Pass that cap around psyche101, we should all wear it in turns

haha.... thanks searcher. see? the searcher doesn't think i'm unpleasent. lol

although i imagine smugfish doesn't quite care for me.....

Edited March 17, 2010 by bigdaddyinge

[psyche101]

i was just suggesting, before the searcher enlightened me with that link, that the woman died with her mouth open, which would've exposed the tongue a little. kinda a reach, i admit, but just a suggestion.

hehe... others are saying i'm not pleasent? well, i'm opinionated, but then again there is quite a few people on this forum who are every bit as opinionated as me. difference is that i have an open mind towards things and don't automatically dismiss people's claims as to whatever i deem them to be. people believe different things, and i feel that i'm more sensitive towards those beliefs than alot of the skeptics on this forum. myself, i believe in certain things that others don't, simply because of the things i have seen. but i'm very much a skeptic of CLAIMS, because most can be explained with normal explanations; i don't just simply come out with an answer that best fits my view and try to shove it down the person's throat like alot of other members. being a skeptic is something to be proud of, it's the best way to be. this is provided that in the process of being skeptical one tries to help the person to understand exactly what is happening with them, and not just to force feed them what you believe to be happening. i don't understand how people who don't even know a person can come to the conclusion that they're unpleasent, but everyone has a right to their opinion.

yeah, i think we'll do ok.

no problem, just lettin ya know. yeah, pretty level-headed and fact-based if you ask me.

Opinionated?

I am surely cut from that cloth also. It is rare someone wonders what I am thinking But I suspect you have picked up on that already.

I think it is great to have an open mind, that 1% is of great interest, it is hard sometimes to know what side of the fence a person can be sitting on. I have become somewhat deeply skeptical having spent quite some time here, but with some of the nutters you will get to know and love, I am sure that will be well understood.

Please don't dwell on the unpleasant crack, I am guilty of "opinionated" responses myself, good comeback, I respect it No offense meant, in fact, the cheeky banter made me instantly like your views. In all fairness, you started it LOL, with read up. But I am liking the blunt approach. Straight up and honest.

I look forward to more of your posting. It is nice to have Matt and Cetacea, Neo, Copasetic,in fact too many professionals to mention, to learn from as well, and more often than not these people do have the answers, but the mystery is always intriguing. Actually, quite often I find the answers to be so as well.

Keep it up, don't mind me

Cheers mate.

Edited March 17, 2010 by psyche101

[bigdaddyinge]

Opinionated?

I am surely cut from that cloth also. It is rare someone wonders what I am thinking But I suspect you have picked up on that already.

I think it is great to have an open mind, that 1% is of great interest, it is hard sometimes to know what side of the fence a person can be sitting on. I have become somewhat deeply skeptical having spent quite some time here, but with some of the nutters you will get to know and love, I am sure that will be well understood.

Please don't dwell on the unpleasant crack, I am guilty of "opinionated" responses myself, good comeback, I respect it No offense meant, in fact, the cheeky banter made me instantly like your views. In all fairness, you started it LOL, with read up. But I am liking the blunt approach. Straight up and honest.

I look forward to more of your posting. It is nice to have Matt and Cetacea, Neo, Copasetic,in fact too many professionals to mention, to learn from as well, and more often than not these people do have the answers, but the mystery is always intriguing. Actually, quite often I find the answers to be so as well.

Keep it up, don't mind me

Cheers mate.

nah, it's over and forgotten! never once took offense, believe me, i'm always up for a good verbal sparring myself. i've actually been a member of UM for a while now, though i've just started the majority of my posting (did lotsa reading in the forum, just not posting, so i kinda got a little feel for the longer-tenured members) as of late. it is good to have so many different views, keeps things from gettin stagnant! take care and no worries!

[TheSearcher]

haha.... thanks searcher. see? the searcher doesn't think i'm unpleasent. lol

although i imagine smugfish doesn't quite care for me.....

I doubt Smugfish likes anybody who might disagree with his giant Hyrax bollox, to be honest.

And no you're not unpleasant, neither is Psyche101, at least you guys read up and think. More than can be said about a many people here. And no worries Pshyche101, the blunt and to the point is needed sometimes, cause it's the only thing certain people will understand. We've all abused that one, once in a while.

[Cetacea]

I just thought that the tongue may have taken longer to freeze than more exposed bits.

With the scavengers, the weather sounded pretty harsh, I would be surprised if tracks were found, although I guess the bodies were in the elements for quite some time.

That's what I was thinking actually. a small scavenger might not have the strength to open the body cavity and even if the mouth was slightly open, it would have still been slightly more sheltered. But that's just a guess, my knowledge of decomposition processes aren't that great.

although i imagine smugfish doesn't quite care for me.....

I doubt Smugfish likes anybody who might disagree with his giant Hyrax bollox, to be honest.

Yes, but we must try not to sink beneath our anguish and battle on

[bigdaddyinge]

Yes, but we must try not to sink beneath our anguish and battle on

that we must. but...sniff...how..sniff...will we ever do it? lmao

[TheSearcher]

....

Yes, but we must try not to sink beneath our anguish and battle on

that we must. but...sniff...how..sniff...will we ever do it? lmao

Hell yeah!! Bring it on!!

I kinda see the "battling on" like this :

[bigdaddyinge]

Hell yeah!! Bring it on!!

I kinda see the "battling on" like this :

really? i kinda envisioned it like this...

[TheSearcher]

really? i kinda envisioned it like this...

Depending the case, both work

[Isensee]

I don't have anything substantial to add to the discussion besides to express my continuing amazement at the werewolf/vampire bit getting votes. I mean, come on...

*checks the image above* I think I see Eomer!

[TheSearcher]

I don't have anything substantial to add to the discussion besides to express my continuing amazement at the werewolf/vampire bit getting votes. I mean, come on...

*checks the image above* I think I see Eomer!

Yep I just realized somebody else voted for that. *facepalm* - even government conspiracy is more likely that that option.