The Dyatlov Pass Incident: More Theories and Conjecture - Part 5
And theories multiply as to what happened to the 9 hikers on that day in 1959.
6 ) Avalanche
The avalanche theory is one of the more popular ones. It is less conspiracy induced and allows Mother Nature to play a key role. But, in fact, Kholat Syakhl is not a very tall mountain and is not very steep. And the diaries of the hikers talk of a fairly thin snow cover.
Those facts cannot dismiss all of the danger that could occur, of course. It is possible for a part of the upper layer of snow to shift, rolling over the landscape. Such an event could have happened and the snow could have rolled over the campsite in the form of a huge slab of snow. This would have damaged the tent and could cause panic among people trapped under several feet of snow. This type of event would explain why the tent was cut from the inside. And it would explain a retreat down the hill without stopping to gather everything up.
It is further supposed that in this type of event and it being in the night, that Dyatlov and the others became confused. And instead of heading to the Auspiya River, they wound up in the Lozva River Valley. The [alleged] climbing of the tree may have been two-fold then. To observe the slope where the camp was to watch for more snow shift and to try to determine their location and which way to travel.
It is further theorized that during the 4 weeks from when the avalanche hit and the campsite was discovered, the snow from the event would have been blown away by the strong winds. This would have left no sign of the disastrous natural occurrence.
 |
| Colorized by TCC |
A few problems with this does occur. The theory includes that the injuries incurred by the hikers were due to this avalanche. Firstly, the footprints show that each member walked individually down the slope. Walked, not ran. Not scurried. And if the hikers had been that severely injured inside the tent, it is highly improbable that they walked that distance without support of some type.
These were also experienced hikers/skiers having taken this type of expedition before. They would have known that freezing to death was a more likely outcome than a second avalanche coming down the mountain. Even if they were unable to reset the tent, they would have stopped to get dressed in at least their warmest coats, footwear and clothing. It would have taken very little extra time to snatch up some food and blankets.
There is also no evidence of an avalanche strike at the entrance of the tent. That part of the tent was still upright. Only the middle was collapsed. That most likely was due to the later weight of the snow. There would have been no reason for them to have cut their way out of the side of the tent.
7 ) UFOs
A UFO frightened the hikers away from their camp.
Russia is known for its tales of UFOs and odd lights and aircraft in the sky. However, the "famous" [alleged] UFO photo, Frame 34 [some label it Frame 33], is used to support this theory. We'll take a further look at that later.
Now, it is on record that around the same time as the Dyatlov expedition, the Soviet Armed Forces did launch several rockets from the Bay Kamur Base. Military personnel stated the rockets landed in the North Ural Mountains.
Several geologists claimed to have seen glowing and pulsating orbs flying in the direction of Kholat Syakhl on the evening of February 1st.
Lev Ivanov, in charge of the Dyatlov Pass investigation, gave an interview in the 1990s where he stated that he and E.P. Maslennikov noticed that the pine trees in the forest were burned at the top. He claimed that he was forced to remove any mention of unknown flying objects and other strange phenomena from the official reports. This allegedly includes some pictures that Mansi hunters drew when they gave their testimony.
Skeptics of this theory say that Ivanov gave the interview to make money. Support for his delay in talking of this "evidence" is bolstered by the Atheist Soviet Union government prohibiting interest in the subject as they considered it a pseudo-religious phenomena.
This is interesting as it has been shown that the government and science community there has long held an interest in all kinds of phenomena, including UFOs, ghosts, and psychic abilities.
Lev Ivanov published an article in 1990 called "The Enigma of the Fireballs". In this article he stated that the cause of the Dyatlov incident was "fireballs" or a "UFO".
"When E.P. Maslennikov and I examined the scene in May, we found that some young pine trees at the edge of the forest had burn marks, but those marks did not have a concentric form or some other pattern. There was no epicenter. This once again confirmed that heated beams of a strong, but completely unknown, at least to us, energy were directing their firepower toward specific objects (in this case, people), acting selectively."
If being aimed at the people, why did the trees exhibit the burning? Why were the bodies of the hikers not as damaged by burns?
I expect this theory of "heated beams of energy" to gain more support. At least from the conspiracy theorists who have been blaming the forest fires of the western portion of the U.S. on "rays" setting certain trees or buildings on fire, selectively taking out arranged targets.
And now Frame 34.
 |
| Frame 34 [or 33] |
This photo was taken by Krivonischenko's camera. It is said to have been left on a tripod with the shutter cocked. It appears to be some glowing or burning object.
The photo has been said to be indicative of any of the following : UFOs, a massive alien invasion, an alien sacrifice, a face peering into the tent; fireballs, or the engine of a falling missile. In other words, it is blurry and shows no great detail. It doesn't even indicate how far away the items being photographed are.
Something that does make some sense is that the camera with film inside was given to a technician in the crime lab to investigate. His role is to remove and develop the film inside and pass it on to the investigators. Old cameras had film inside a cartridge. You would press the shutter and take your photo. Then you would use a special lever on the camera to advance the film to the next blank frame inside the cartridge. If you don't, you will take a photo on top of a photo. Some people [like me] would advance the film right after taking a photo. Other would wait until they were ready to take the next photo. The technician would have had no way of knowing if the camera was set for the next shot, or if it had to be advanced.
The technician could only rewind the film if it was advanced. In order to minimize possible damage to the film, instead of pressing the rewind lever, it was more common to press the shutter first. If it didn't take a photo, the film was already advanced and could be rewound. If a photo was taken, the technician could then advance the film and rewind it into the cartridge.
If a photo is taken, it will capture whatever is in front of it, whether in focus or not. The objects most often, whether ashtrays, pencils, papers, furniture, etc. would be unidentifiable and out of focus. The shutter of Krivonischenko's camera was cocked, and so the last frame [34] came into being. Initially this photo was not presented to the investigators as evidence. It was introduced at a later date [without explanation to its origin, it seems] and has further muddied the waters of what was on the camera.
8 ) Secret Launches from a secret base
There are two versions of alleged rocket launches during this time period. I have already mentioned [above under UFOs] how the Soviet Armed Forces admitted they launched several rockets from a base that landed in the North Ural Mountains.
However, for the 'official' reports, the launch sites questioned stated that there were no rocket launches in the Soviet Union on either February 1st or 2nd.
There were rumors of a secret training ground that was located near the location of the incident. The Mansi told tales of meetings with military patrols; of holes in the hillside that were sealed with concrete; hearing sounds of an underground train out in the woods.
Kizilov Gennadiy Ivanovich, journalist, is an advocate of the 'staged crime scene' resulting from the hikers seeing this secret launch and perhaps discovering the base. He claims that there are major inconsistencies and conflicting testimony of witnesses and rescue team members. This makes him feel it's indicative of something more sinister than just a sloppy investigation. Ivanovich stands firm that the Dyatlov group had to have witnessed some sort of secret trial or experiment that no one was supposed to witness. Therefore, they were "liquidated" by military forces.
Ivanovich then concludes that the entire rescue operation was nothing more than a joke. He suggests that a few days before the arrival of the search parties, the entire campsite and the bodies were 'staged'. The scene was prepared to tell a story. They decided what items would be found and where they would be discovered. The bodies were retrieved from where the hikers had been killed and placed in their positions. Further deception was made by altering entries in the hikers diaries describing their route during the course of the investigation.
Among the discrepancies in the reports made include some of the rescuers saying the tent was properly pitched. Others stating that the location of the tent would not have been done by experienced climbers like the hikers. The tent would have been exposed to the strongest of gales in the area.
The theorists say that the tent was pitched elsewhere and was then moved to the mountain slope in order to create confusion.
In 2008, a conference held at Ural State Technical University, together with the Dyatlov Group Memorial Foundation, decided that the military testing was to blame for the events leading to the hikers deaths. The Federal Security Service's only response to the accusation was that all of those involved in the case had died.
First off, the expedition was not a last minute operation. These treks were planned in advance through the Sporting Clubs with the route being filed with the appropriate offices. Therefore, I believe that any self-respecting "secret launch site" would have been availing themselves of any and all information for any expeditions planned in their area. And they would have made certain that they suspended any tests or rocket launchings until the group was out of the area. I would also suspect that any military personnel would have kept out of sight also.
Another point that concerns me is just when these bodies were 'planted' -- set up for the discovery. I would think that recent digging might have been detected by the search and rescue teams, especially those bodies under over 10 feet of snow. And all the bodies were snow covered and needed to be dug out of the snow.
The evidence for a staging of the scene has other points to make. There is the claim that there was no attempt to identify any tracks in the area as belonging to the Dyatlov group. I assume they are referring to tracks outside of the camping area and not including the ones leading down to the cedar tree.
 |
| footprints leading down the slope |
The prints going downhill to the cedar tree were analyzed as belonging to what appeared to be at least 9 people. It was established that the footprints leading down the hill were very distinct, allowing the searchers to see whether the person wore socks or was barefoot. One set of prints showed the heel of a boot.
As for any other prints, no one at the time suspected anything more than a rescue mission. They were directed to areas to search for the hikers. They were most likely thinking that they would be finding a campsite or the traces of one showing that the hikers had continued up the mountain.
It is difficult to determine exactly how or why there is a discrepancy in reporting the sighting of the tent. It could be an honest error in recording the event as it happened by any number of people. Or it could be an accurate account.
On February 24th, a search plane flying overhead saw a "standing tent". A witness in a plane claims to have seen the Dyatlov tent with the canopy slashed by an axe on February 25th. [seen from the air]. The witness also stated that they saw 2 bodies next to the tent; one male, one female. The searchers on the ground on the morning of the 26th, saw the same slashed canopy. But only after they had dug the tent out of the snow. [a hard layer of snow]. There were no bodies lying near the tent. By now all the bodies had been delivered to their staging area [allegedly].
A blanket is said to have used to haul the bodies to their new locations. The "tourniquets" found in the tent were not described in detail but are described in the theory as being made of twisted pieces of blankets. But they were used to pull the bodies.
Theorists claim the flashlight at the side of the tent was left there to throw off the searchers, to confuse them. They also say the rear pole in the tent was missing; there was traces of urine near the tent; and there was a ski pole inside the tent. [Other accounts and theories state the ski pole was being used as a makeshift tripod for the camera].
The theory insists that the entire scenario was planned at the Central Committee headquarters. The people there manipulated all the student and civilian search parties, moving them like puppets around the landscape, setting up how and when they would discover any of the evidence. The search parties were transferred to the tent area thus reducing the chance of discovering things wanted hidden. It was a grand game of "cat and mouse".
Maslennikov's original plan was to drop off search groups [by helicopter?] along the route that the hikers had taken and inspect the entire route. His plan was approved and it was being carried out. And allegedly used to create a mess of the search structure.
 |
| tent partially cleared 2/27/59 |
Another complaint was that the search parties were made up of incompetent students and such -- all untrained, unsupervised, without briefings. This chaos was planned by the search leaders.
Although students did make up much of the search parties, many of those students were hikers/skiers in their own right. Among them were those who had led their own expeditions into the mountains. There may not have been any 'briefings' as the civilians set out to search for the missing hikers before the officials could get themselves to accept that there may be something drastically wrong with the delay of their return. There were also soldiers and prison guards and members of the Mansi in the search parties. All of them with experience with the terrain and conditions of the area. Not as incompetent as the theory would like us to believe.
On the afternoon of February 23rd Slobtsov along with 8 students were divided into two groups, both being dropped off by helicopter in two different locations. The first group consisted of Slobtsov, 3 other students and 2 guides. Their area was the eastern part of the Otorten mountain range. The second unit was made up of 5 students who were set down on the slope of Hoy-Ekva. They saw a fire and advanced towards it and the people in the camp. It is conjectured that they spend the night there with the alleged KGB search group.[probably well trained??] The next morning they moved on and found "barely noticeable" traces of a ski trail.
On February 25th, the two units reunited into an 11 member search team. This group is said to have found a previous camp site of the Dyatlov group. The Mansi group discovered another one. However, the author of this theory feels the camp sites and the ski trail were staged by the "outsiders".
Their supply cache was reported as being found in early March [the 2nd] but the author claims it really took place on March 3rd, late in the evening, in the dark, in a blizzard.
Interesting, rather completed theory. A big problem with it is that most of the "players" are liars and misrepresented all the evidence and falsely reported the sequence of the discoveries. How did so many "players" in the "game" keep so silent for so long?
"Three can keep a secret if two are dead." -- Benjamin Franklin.
Next -- The rest of the theories (part 6)
Nancy
This Post By TCC Team Member Nancy Marietta. Nancy has had a lifelong interest in the paranormal and cryptids. Nancy is also a published author and her book, The Price of war, has been met with great reviews.
Posts
0 Comments:
Post a Comment