185 replies to this topic

[shrewgoddess]

I chose "Other" because I think the incident was caused by natural, though unusual circumstances.  

As someone has said, soft tissue is usually the first to be scavanged which explains the tongue being missing.  

Regardless, something caused them to leave their tents.  It could have been a wild animal or even the sound of an avalanche that, perhaps, didn't reach them.  They only had to be afraid of getting trapped in the middle of the night, awakened by a rumble to make them rush out of the tent as quickly as possible.  I know that when I'm awakened suddenly by something scary, I am extremely confused for a long while after.  Hypothermia only exacerbates the confusion.

Also from the article posted.  " It happened on the east shoulder of the mountain Kholat Syakhl (Холат Сяхл) (a Mansi name, meaning Mountain of the Dead)."  Apparently, the mountain is dangerous.  People don't name things the Mountain of the Dead because the grass is sweet and daisies grow in the wake of pretty fairies.  

Or, yeah, it's a magical flying hyrax back from hibernation to avenge the death of his brothers at the hands of socialist Russia.  It's 50/50.

[Mattshark]

TopCatEric, on 15 March 2010 - 05:28 PM, said:

Why do people think the tougne was removed by an animal, where it clearly states thae only hikers footprints were found.  Avalanche is not the reason i think, but i do however one of them got crazy and attacked the fellow hikers.

Because such reports are notoriously inaccurate and scavenging is the most plausible explanaton.

[The New Richard Nixon]

So you havant heard about the plane crash were the pilot was being eaten by the survivers? Where the people turned to eat human meat?

In Russia this could be a simular incedent.

[bigdaddyinge]

TopCatEric, on 15 March 2010 - 06:13 PM, said:

So you havant heard about the plane crash were the pilot was being eaten by the survivers? Where the people turned to eat human meat?

In Russia this could be a simular incedent.

the andes plane crash in 1972?? why would a person's tongue be the only thing eaten?

[Drunkenparrot]

I remember hearing or reading somewhere that the proboble source of the radiation poisoning was a type of soviet era radio navigation beacon. They used the heat generated by radioactive decay of strontium 90 to produce electricity and have a known history radiological contamination incidence. They generate a lot of thermal heat and its is common for animals to get poisoned using them as a heat source in the winter.

http://en.wikipedia....ctric_generator

I'll look around and try to locate and post the source. I believe there was medical evidence to support the possibility some of the hiking party had been irradiated in a manner consistent with being poisoned by the type of radiation one of these thermal generators would emit. I also believe it is confirmed that one of these beacons was in the area at the time, however it has since been removed.

If the navigation beacon premise has been previously addressed in a different thread would somebody mind linking it as I couldn't find anything on a cursory inquiry?

Lastly, as has been pointed out by Mattshark, you have to be extremely suspect of this particular content. You have a Soviet investigation into an event in 1959 possibly involving nuclear technology which was labeled a state secret until 1990 when it was revived by somebody selling a book telling the "true story".

I see a lot of opportunity for embellishment and sensationalism, as we all know the dull and mundane make for poor book sales and network viewer shares.  

[DieChecker]

Kroe, on 14 March 2010 - 07:53 PM, said:

It was an unfortunate hiking accident which can easily be explained. They were the unfortunate victims of an avalanche and hypothermia. The reason they were partially dressed can be explained by paradoxical undressing.

The reason the bodies had a strange tint was due to the fact that they had lain dead in the sun for a number of days. The woman with the missing tongue could be attributed to scavengers, since that is one of the parts they will go for first. The three hikers with the crushed bodies and the torn tent all point to an avalanche as the cause.

Also, claims about radiation and orange spheres do not appear in the original inquest, which suggest they were add much later.

It was a sad, tragic accident, but nothing paranormal.

I voted Murder, because I think that several of the people were killed by the avalance initially, but latter there were some that were killed by the others, or at least allowed to die. The missing clothes I attribute to the other hikers taking more clothes to try to keep warm. The tongue goes to scavangers. The dead stacked up some distance away are because the others did not want to look at them.

There is nothing here that can not be explained.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Was there evidence of an avalanche? Crushed tents or damaged cabins or trees? The report made no mention of this. Also the fractured skulls doesnt quite match the injuries consistant with an avalanche.

[Mattshark]

Professor GlenBoy, on 15 March 2010 - 10:09 PM, said:

Was there evidence of an avalanche? Crushed tents or damaged cabins or trees? The report made no mention of this. Also the fractured skulls doesnt quite match the injuries consistant with an avalanche.

Have you read the original 1959 report though?

[Clobhair-cean]

Drunkenparrot, on 15 March 2010 - 07:35 PM, said:

I remember hearing or reading somewhere that the proboble source of the radiation poisoning was a type of soviet era radio navigation beacon. They used the heat generated by radioactive decay of strontium 90 to produce electricity and have a known history radiological contamination incidence. They generate a lot of thermal heat and its is common for animals to get poisoned using them as a heat source in the winter.

http://en.wikipedia....ctric_generator

I'll look around and try to locate and post the source. I believe there was medical evidence to support the possibility some of the hiking party had been irradiated in a manner consistent with being poisoned by the type of radiation one of these thermal generators would emit. I also believe it is confirmed that one of these beacons was in the area at the time, however it has since been removed.

If the navigation beacon premise has been previously addressed in a different thread would somebody mind linking it as I couldn't find anything on a cursory inquiry?

Lastly, as has been pointed out by Mattshark, you have to be extremely suspect of this particular content. You have a Soviet investigation into an event in 1959 possibly involving nuclear technology which was labeled a state secret until 1990 when it was revived by somebody selling a book telling the "true story".

I see a lot of opportunity for embellishment and sensationalism, as we all know the dull and mundane make for poor book sales and network viewer shares.  

A better explanation for the radiation are their gas lanterns, which most probably used thorium gas mantles that emit alpha particle radiation. This material has been in widespread use in camping lanterns for a long while now.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Mattshark, on 15 March 2010 - 10:31 PM, said:

Have you read the original 1959 report though?

I have not, but im assuming you have?

It seems people on this site find a possible explaination and say "there we go, must have been X" no matter that they haven't done any real research which might disprove "X".

Im not suggesting that it wasn't hypothermia brought on by an avalanche, just that there was no mention of it on the OP.

[Drunkenparrot]

Clobhair-cean, on 15 March 2010 - 11:26 PM, said:

A better explanation for the radiation are their gas lanterns, which most probably used thorium gas mantles that emit alpha particle radiation. This material has been in widespread use in camping lanterns for a long while now.

I was unaware of the camping lanterns. I googled it and you are correct although if the information on the Wiki page is correct to get a good dose from the thorium mantle would require close exposure for an extended time.

Quote

Since thorium is radioactive and produces a radioactive gas, radon-220, as one of its decay products, there are concerns about the safety of thorium mantles. Some nuclear safety agencies make recommendations about their use [1]. A study in 1981 estimated that the dose from using a thorium mantle every weekend for a year would be 0.3-0.6 millirems, tiny in comparison to the normal annual dose of a few hundred millirems, although a person ingesting an entire mantle would receive a comparable dose of 200 mrem

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Gas_mantle

Regardless of the specifics, there are now at least two mundane explanations for what I regard as the most fantastical detail of the story.

Thanks again for bringing up the radioactive potential of the camp lantern mantle's , I had no idea.

[Samuronin]

Quote

Because such reports are notoriously inaccurate and scavenging is the most plausible explanaton.  

It is, but why only take the tongue? Scavengers (possibly wolves) are usually opportunistic, and will take anything they can, so it would probably ate the whole body or a large part of it at least.

[Drunkenparrot]

Samuronin, on 16 March 2010 - 02:22 AM, said:

It is, but why only take the tongue? Scavengers (possibly wolves) are usually opportunistic, and will take anything they can, so it would probably ate the whole body or a large part of it at least.

The tongue is easy and nutritious. Orca will kill young baleen whales by drowning and then take nothing but the tongue,  small scavengers take the easy way into the carcass hence the reports of cattle mutilations involving the removal tongue,lips and anus. Sorry to be gross but its the way of things.

[psyche101]

Samuronin, on 16 March 2010 - 02:22 AM, said:

It is, but why only take the tongue? Scavengers (possibly wolves) are usually opportunistic, and will take anything they can, so it would probably ate the whole body or a large part of it at least.

Bear Grylls will tell you why

[Samuronin]

Quote

The tongue is easy and nutritious. Orca will kill young baleen whales by drowning and then take nothing but the tongue, small scavengers take the easy way into the carcass hence the reports of cattle mutilations involving the removal tongue,lips and anus. Sorry to be gross but its the way of things.  

Okay, but does that still apply to this kind of environment, where decomposition is slower? But anyway, why was it that only one of them (interestingly a female) has its tongue missing?...I'm still baffled.