U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-12-2017, 12:32 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
72,638 posts, read 64,111,757 times
Reputation: 68376

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile View Post
Why do you believe that photos on this subject you see on google are legit? You accept them as true but deny BF evidence.
Not attacking but just trying to get an understanding of how you think.
Well, for one thing, the photos on the Dyatlov incident are of humans, not of a creature that hasn't been definitively proven to exist. They're crystal clear, having been taken from close up, vs. all BF photos/videos but the Patterson film, which are taken from so far away and/or with such poor resolution that they're difficult to make out at all.

But sure, the photos could have been faked; they could be of some other frozen humans in the snow , or they could be elaborate Hollywood-like fakes someone decided to make, and post online for whatever reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2017, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Falls Church, Fairfax County
4,768 posts, read 2,592,442 times
Reputation: 5832
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Err... I am sorry.. How old are you?
Old enough to know that making things up and stating them as fact does not make something true. Also old enough to have served in the US Army when the Soviet Union was the main enemy, before we defeated them in the cold war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Do you even know what "Soviet Union" was and how different that society was from the American society?
This is a red herring. If it were national security secrets there is really no difference at the human level on how they are treated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
So let me explain to you something - officially atheist country, guided by "Marxism-Leninism" theories, so what UFOs, what "extra-terrestrials" are you even talking about?
So you are saying because the Soviet Union was Marxist and Athiest that they did not see things in the sky? Then what was reported in the sky in relation to the Dyatlov pass incedent and what does it even matter? Please...you are all over the place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Even the definition itself "UFO" ("НЛО" in Russian) didn't appear there until the seventies as I've already said. I don't believe that the sightings were spotted there at the same time as in the US as well - look here, they start talking about it only in 1977. ( The Tunguska event was always regarded as the comet explosion or it was somehow related to Tesla experiments, so no UFOs here.)
So then there is no UFO connection with Dyatlov pass. Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
That's why mentioning of these things back in 1959 was a big discovery for me.



Again- I left links to my older posts. It's pretty self-explanatory.
There is NOTHING that relates this to the hikers, and you even state there were no UFO sightings in the USSR this early so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post


Number one - it was very much "talk of the town," plus initially the investigators were concentrated on local Mansi people, thinking that THEY might be killers of students, because it was their "sacred mountain" and what's not.
Then it has been established that local Mansi had friendly relations with Russians in the area, it was not their "sacred mountain," that the death of students didn't come as a result of any assault ( at least the one that could have been explained,) so few of the Mansi became part of a search team from what I remember, and served as witnesses for investigation.
There is no evidence of an assault, it seems that they fell down a bank and were injured. In the dark, in snow, that is possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post

You obviously didn't read the links I've left. It was the chief investigator that came to the UFO conclusion on the basis of all materials he had. Here it is one more time;
So they had UFO's in the USSR when this happened. Interesting.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
"...Back then I could only guess, but now I am positive about it. I am not going to assert what those spheres were exactly;whether it was some kind of a weapon, the aliens or what's not, but I am confident that they were directly related to the death of the group.
I am glad that you think that. I see no connection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
The pilots, the geologists who have traveled and flew all over those places, unanimously assure: there were no traces of explosion at Otorten and its surroundings. And there was no explosion for sure in conventional understanding of it, as an explosion of a shell or a bomb - the way we know it. It was a different kind of explosion, something like the burst of a balloon. Here is the thing, that on the fringe of the forest where hikers so hastily escaped from tent, the branches of trees looked as though they were scorched."
Source? Direct source?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
You can read the rest here

I do not read Russian but this seems to be made up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Yes, the first conclusion was made ( probably later in time) based on the fact that she had blood in her stomach. So yes, it's a speculation of course,
Of course. End discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
but very probable, because her other injuries that caused her death happened while she was still alive ( according to the doctors.)
Well yes, but does that mean a scavenger could not have eaten the tongue, as they have for millions of years? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
The second statement was made by the first investigator, who was one of the first people that arrived on a scene. It's still in the files as far as I can see.



No it was a mystery back then and it's still a mystery now. Those that see "nothing strange" about their wounds are simply not familiar with the case.
What of their wounds is inconnsistent with the fall down a ravine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
In fact recently I came across some ( relatively) new articles in one of the Russian newspapers ( from 2014) - the whole series of them, where they are looking into this case again. Not only they bring the subject of the injuries that caused deaths of those students that were found later, but now they question even the injuries that were found on students that supposedly died of hypothermia.
There are quite a few people that die of hypothermia that have trauma to their bodies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
It's all based on autopsy reports of course, and they do not understand the origin of these wounds, because they'd almost indicate that some of them were struck with the blunt object, while other ( Dyatlov in this case) was repeatedly hitting something with his fist. Not to mention that quite a few of them ( girl including) had nose bleed.
Her corpse had a nose bleed? Amazing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
https://www.kp.ru/daily/26311.5/3189866/




No, none of them could give any logical explanation to what happened, as much as they've tried.
Since they were found in the bottom of a ravine, or gully, a fall makes sense....
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post


Who told you so?
No, their clothes were submitted for radiation test by the second investigator, precisely for a reason that the "sightings" reports were so persistent.
Why would investigators inspect for radiation? Was this normal? No.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 07:29 PM
 
13,817 posts, read 12,600,955 times
Reputation: 6460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Guard View Post
Old enough to know that making things up and stating them as fact does not make something true. Also old enough to have served in the US Army when the Soviet Union was the main enemy, before we defeated them in the cold war.
I see. With other words you have very vague idea of a subject, if at all.

Quote:
This is a red herring. If it were national security secrets there is really no difference at the human level on how they are treated.
It's not about "human level," it's about the fact that the subject of UFOs was taboo for public discussions in the USSR, in media first of all. It started being discussed out in the open not earlier than by the end of the seventies - beginning of the eighties as I've already said.

Quote:
So you are saying because the Soviet Union was Marxist and Athiest that they did not see things in the sky? Then what was reported in the sky in relation to the Dyatlov pass incedent and what does it even matter? Please...you are all over the place.
It's not that they "didn't see things in the sky," it's just when they saw it, they were not allowed to talk/write about it. Logically speaking, there were two reasons for that; number one - what some could identify as UFO, were really sightings of Soviet weaponry tests, and another reason - even if it were UFOs, how could Soviet government possibly explain to is population what that was all about? Who needs panic, when Communist Party was "firmly leading Soviet people towards their bright Communist future?" There was no place for some "UFO's" under their guise.

Quote:
So then there is no UFO connection with Dyatlov pass. Agreed.
There is NOTHING that relates this to the hikers, and you even state there were no UFO sightings in the USSR this early so...
There was a direct connection - that was the only conclusion the chief investigator came to. But the editor of the newspaper that published short article with the witnessing of the UFO sightings in the area ( described as the "red orbs") was reprimanded by the Soviet authorities shortly after.

Quote:
There is no evidence of an assault, it seems that they fell down a bank and were injured. In the dark, in snow, that is possible.
They had NOWHERE to "fall from."

Quote:
So they had UFO's in the USSR when this happened. Interesting.....
As this case clearly shows - yes they did. But as I've said, no one was allowed to talk about it publicly, until the late seventies.

Quote:
I am glad that you think that. I see no connection.
That's not what I think, I was quoting the investigator of this case))))

Quote:
Source? Direct source?
The INVESTIGATION FILES - that's the "direct source"))))

Quote:
I do not read Russian but this seems to be made up.
But if you don't read Russian, what do YOU take for the source of information? Hear-say English sites?

Quote:
Of course. End discussion.
For you - may be.

Quote:
Well yes, but does that mean a scavenger could not have eaten the tongue, as they have for millions of years? No.
In this case the autopsy most likely would have stated that PART of her tongue was missing, because scavengers usually don't eat the whole thing. Instead, the autopsy stated that her "tongue diaphragm" was missing. As in the whole thing was missing. ( And two of them were missing eyes as well.)

Quote:
What of their wounds is inconnsistent with the fall down a ravine?
As I've said - there was no "fall down a ravine" to begin with. When you read "ravine," you most likely picture this
In the reality, the place where they found the last four of them, looked more like this

And yes, their wounds were inconsistent with ANYTHING and everything the doctors/pathologists could imagine.

Quote:
There are quite a few people that die of hypothermia that have trauma to their bodies.
As I've said - the kind of traumas these people have received, couldn't be explained by any specialist.

Quote:
Her corpse had a nose bleed? Amazing.
When they found the first corpses, they were still in very good condition, and yes, two or three of them had signs of the nose bleed. ( That's the witnessing of people that found them + same indication/description found in autopsy.)

Quote:
Since they were found in the bottom of a ravine, or gully, a fall makes sense....
The "bottom" was very shallow, so there was nowhere to fall from for them. Remember, they didn't end up at the bottom of some "ravine" straight after they've left the tent. After they've left the tent, they've made it to the edge of the forest in good condition, camped again, started the fire, ( had plenty of wood for it,) and then started mysteriously dying, with part of them ending up in a different location.

Quote:
Why would investigators inspect for radiation? Was this normal? No.
No it was not "normal," but the reason the investigator ordered it, was precisely the consistent witnessing of the "red orbs" in the area.
By the way after the investigator started leaning in this direction ( Unknowing Flying Objects) he was dismissed from investigation, and the files have been closed. As I've said, it was Soviet Union back in 1959, and this subject was a taboo.

Last edited by erasure; 09-19-2017 at 07:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Falls Church, Fairfax County
4,768 posts, read 2,592,442 times
Reputation: 5832
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
I see. With other words you have very vague idea of a subject, if at all.<br />
<br />
<br />
I am fairly familiar with the actual subject but am not up to date on made up "facts" about the subject such as medical experts concluding that the girls tongue had been removed while she was alive or that part of the team was outside peeing when the incident started.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
<br />
<br />
It's not about &quot;human level,&quot; it's about the fact that the subject of UFOs was taboo for public discussions in the USSR, in media first of all. It started being discussed out in the open not earlier than by the end of the seventies - beginning of the eighties as I've already said.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Soviet state run media may have had a vested interest not to speak about Soviet weapons testing. That does not mean that there were extraterrastrial sitings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
<br />
<br />
It's not that they &quot;didn't see things in the sky,&quot; it's just when they saw it, they were not allowed to talk/write about it.
<br />
<br />
But in this case they actually did,
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Logically speaking, there were two reasons for that; number one - what some could identify as UFO, were really sightings of Soviet weaponry tests, and another reason - even if it were UFOs, how could Soviet government possibly explain to is population what that was all about? Who needs panic, when Communist Party was &quot;firmly leading Soviet people towards their bright Communist future?&quot; There was no place for some &quot;UFO's&quot; under their guise.<br />
<br />
<br />
Are you sure there was a specific ban on speaking about possible extra terrestrial UFO's or that the State run media just did not like to talk about their weapons tests? Clearly the documentation in this incident contradicts your "facts".
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
<br />
<br />
There was a direct connection - that was the only conclusion the chief investigator came to. But the editor of the newspaper that published short article with the witnessing of the UFO sightings in the area ( described as the &quot;red orbs&quot was reprimanded by the Soviet authorities shortly after. <br />
<br />
<br />
Wait, they reported UFO's in a country that did not report UFO's? When you change the facts anything is possible....

Also what exactly did the chief investigator say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
<br />
<br />
They had NOWHERE to &quot;fall from.&quot;<br />
<br />
<br />
They were found in the bottom of a ravine. From Wikipedia:

They were finally found on May 4 under four metres of snow in a ravine 75 metres farther into the woods from the cedar tree.

4 meters is quite a fall in and of itself and a fall that can cause death.



To add to that there were trees on the site which it is believed that at least one party member climbed.


Also you have stated earlier that this was considered a Category III climb/route. Your quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
This particular trip was considered as "Category III" which was the most difficult one by the standards of "Sport tourism" in the USSR at the end of the 50ies. So these people wouldn't be approved for it, unless their sport club/overseers wouldn't deem them qualified for the task.
So was it dangerous or not dangerous? You want it both ways but you cannot have it both ways.

Clearly it would be a fabrication of "facts" to state that there was nothing to fall from in this area at this time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
<br />
<br />
As this case clearly shows - yes they did. But as I've said, no one was allowed to talk about it publicly, until the late seventies. <br />
<br />
<br />
Again you wish to have it both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
<br />
<br />
That's not what <b>I</b> think, I was quoting the investigator of this case)))) <img src="images/smilies/smack.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smack" smilieid="186" class="inlineimg" /><br />
<br />
<br />
What exactly did the investigator say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
<br />
<br />
The INVESTIGATION FILES - that's the &quot;direct source&quot))) <img src="http://pics3.city-data.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)" smilieid="7" class="inlineimg" /><br />
<br />
<br />
They did not state this. This has either been added later or you are adding it now.

Yes there was some scorching on the clothes and the tent and where they tried to build a fire, but no evidence of a balloon or wide area scorching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
<br />
<br />
But if you don't read Russian, what do YOU take for the source of information? Hear-say English sites? <img src="http://pics3.city-data.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" smilieid="3" class="inlineimg" /><br />
<br />
<br />
There are honest, respectable, people that can read and write English and Russian. I use those sites. Also there have been shows on this. The biggest mystery is that if this is such a mystery why people have to lie.

Can you show my the part where the cheif investigator stated that Lyudmilla Dubinina's tongue was removed while she was alive? Also what about the eyes that are also missing. Most people realize that these are parts of the body that are among the first removed by scavengers so see nothing unusual about it. Others just add "facts" until it is unusual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
<br />
<br />
For you - may be.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In this case the autopsy most likely would have stated that PART of her tongue was missing, because scavengers usually don't eat the whole thing.
<br />
<br />
LOL? What? Where did you get that?

Also not only was her tongue missing, part of the roof of her mouth and eyes....you know...soft tissue.

Please, let's deal with FACTS. Did the files state that there was anything unusual about this? No. They just stated this. You are adding things later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Instead, the autopsy stated that her &quot;tongue diaphragm&quot; was missing. As in the whole thing was missing. ( And two of them were missing eyes as well.)<br />
<br />
<br />
You do not even know that Lyudmilla Dubinina's eyes were missing as well as her tongue? OMG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post

<br />
<br />
<br />
As I've said - there was no &quot;fall down a ravine&quot; to begin with. When you read &quot;ravine,&quot; you most likely picture<a href="http://miriadna.com/desctopwalls/images/max/River-ravine.jpg" target="_blank"> this </a><br />
In the reality, the place where they found the last four of them, looked more like <a href="https://thumbs.****/z/mill-creek-ravine-edmonton-alberta-canada-winter-open-water-due-to-winter-thaw-88166261.jpg" target="_blank">this</a><br />
<br />
No, I am picturing this, which is the actual site:

I deal in truth.
<br />
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
And yes, their wounds were inconsistent with ANYTHING and everything the doctors/pathologists could imagine.<br />
<br />
It does not say this in the files in any way. The files are quite boring in fact and do not make it sound unusual at all.
<br />
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
<br />
<br />
As I've said - the kind of traumas these people have received, couldn't be explained by any specialist.<br />
<br />

Yes, you have said that, but the files do not say that and I have seen actual doctors stating that the injuries are not inconsistant with a fall.
<br />
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
<br />
<br />
When they found the first corpses, they were still in very good condition,
<br />
The investigation does not state this because the investigation could not know this.
<br />
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
and yes, two or three of them had signs of the nose bleed.
<br />

Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
( That's the witnessing of people that found them + same indication/description found in autopsy.)<br />
<br />
Lyudmilla Dubinina was not among the first found. This is clear bait and switch.

This is how Lyudmilla Dubinina's body was found:http://dyatlov-pass.com/resources/34...t-mortem-1.jpg

Nothing to fall from at all....

And here is another picture of the site:



When people ignore facts and add facts anything is possible.

<br />
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
<br />
<br />
The &quot;bottom&quot; was very shallow, so there was nowhere to fall from for them. Remember, they didn't end up at the bottom of some &quot;ravine&quot; straight after they've left the tent. After they've left the tent, they've made it to the edge of the forest in good condition, camped again, started the fire, ( had plenty of wood for it,) and then started mysteriously dying, with part of them ending up in a different location. <br />
Again, partial truths.

From the Wikipedia:

Journalists reporting on the available parts of the inquest files claim that it states:<br />

Six of the group members died of hypothermia and three of fatal injuries.<br />
There were no indications of other people nearby on Kholat Syakhl apart from the nine travelers.<br />
The tent had been ripped open from within.<br />
The victims had died 6 to 8 hours after their last meal.<br />
Traces from the camp showed that all group members left the campsite of their own accord, on foot.<br />
To dispel the theory of an attack by the indigenous Mansi people, Dr. Boris Vozrozhdenny stated that the fatal injuries of the three bodies could not have been caused by another human being, "because the force of the blows had been too strong and no soft tissue had been damaged".[2]<br />
Released documents contained no information about the condition of the skiers' internal organs.<br />
There were no survivors of the incident.<br />

At the time the verdict was that the group members all died because of a compelling natural force.[4] The inquest officially ceased in May 1959 as a result of the absence of a guilty party. The files were sent to a secret archive, and the photocopies of the case became available only in the 1990s, although some parts were missing.[2]
<br />
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
<br />
<br />
<br />
No it was not &quot;normal,&quot; but the reason the investigator ordered it, was precisely the consistent witnessing of the &quot;red orbs&quot; in the area.<br />
By the way after the investigator started leaning in this direction ( Unknowing Flying Objects) he was dismissed from investigation, and the files have been closed. As I've said, it was Soviet Union back in 1959, and this subject was a taboo.
<br />
Is this in the investigators files or from another source or are you assuming?

Frankly all we need to look at is the claim that the tongue went missing while Lyudmilla Dubinina was alive. That is not in the actual files and we know that is a huge untruth so we can discredit the source of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 09:55 PM
 
13,817 posts, read 12,600,955 times
Reputation: 6460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Guard View Post
<br />

I am fairly familiar with the actual subject but am not up to date on made up "facts" about the subject such as medical experts concluding that the girls tongue had been removed while she was alive or that part of the team was outside peeing when the incident started.
The first part - no, the autopsy never said that directly, but this is the conclusion that many arrived to, while looking into the details of the case. The second part - it's in the investigation files that you obviously can't read.

Quote:
The Soviet state run media may have had a vested interest not to speak about Soviet weapons testing. That does not mean that there were extraterrastrial sitings.

But in this case they actually did,


Are you sure there was a specific ban on speaking about possible extra terrestrial UFO's or that the State run media just did not like to talk about their weapons tests? Clearly the documentation in this incident contradicts your "facts".

Wait, they reported UFO's in a country that did not report UFO's? When you change the facts anything is possible....
Do you have reading comprehension problems, or you are deliberately trying to twist everything I wrote on this subject I wonder? Yes, it was prohibited in the USSR to discuss this subject publicly, until the end of the seventies, yet the editor of the small local newspaper published the witnessing nevertheless ( that's why I was so surprised to discover it in the newspaper from 1959.) But the investigator of this case ( l.Ivanov,) giving interviews already in LATER years, explained that that particular editor was severely reprimanded for that ( whether he was fired or not - that I don't know.)

Quote:
Also what exactly did the chief investigator say?
I left two links to my previous posts, quoting him.


Quote:
They were found in the bottom of a ravine. From Wikipedia:

They were finally found on May 4 under four metres of snow in a ravine 75 metres farther into the woods from the cedar tree.

4 meters is quite a fall in and of itself and a fall that can cause death.
Look closer at the picture that you've posted. Do you see four pieces of clothing and tree branches under them? These four ( or whoever) made four "sitting places." They couldn't have made it with the kind of injuries from which they died. So there was no "fall in the ravine" you keep on talking about - none whatsoever.


Quote:
To add to that there were trees on the site which it is believed that at least one party member climbed.
You are finally starting getting onto something. This goes back to the cedar at the fringe of the forest, under which ALL of them initially camped after they've escaped from their tent. That's where they made a fire, and yes, among other things described at the scene, it has been said that the branches of the cedar were broken off at the height of 5 meters or so, allowing them to climb up and look in the direction of their abandoned tent. ( At least it was a guess of the search team.)
Now the question is - why did they get separated, and four of them ended up in a different location, with inexplicable deadly wounds, and why were they covered/dressed in the pieces of clothing of their dead comrades?


Quote:
Also you have stated earlier that this was considered a Category III climb/route. Your quote:
Yes it was, and the experts state quite a few mistakes that Igor Dyatlov made during this trip, starting with his reluctance to return to their base once the bad weather settled in, and deciding to set up a tent on the slope of the mountain instead.

Quote:
So was it dangerous or not dangerous? You want it both ways but you cannot have it both ways.
Yes it was dangerous, but all members of this trip were qualified for it... except for one. But that's a different story.

Quote:
Clearly it would be a fabrication of "facts" to state that there was nothing to fall from in this area at this time.
No fabrication. I already pointed you at their "sitting places."

Quote:
There are honest, respectable, people that can read and write English and Russian. I use those sites. Also there have been shows on this. The biggest mystery is that if this is such a mystery why people have to lie.
The only site that can be trusted is actually the investigation files themselves plus the articles written later by the investigator himself. Can you point me at their sites in English?


Quote:
Can you show my the part where the cheif investigator stated that Lyudmilla Dubinina's tongue was removed while she was alive?
No. This is the conclusion that has been made later, on a basis of the autopsy. What the autopsy here states literally is that her "oral diaphragm and tongue diaphragm are missing."
When you look at the extension and nature or her ( and of other two hikers') injuries, you will understand why a lot of people started guessing that her tongue ( or rather the whole oral diaphragm) was removed while she was still alive ( being put in the context of the whole ordeal.) One of the criminal medical experts participating in investigation wrote the following; "When we learned that Dubinina was missing tongue, we were surprised even more. I asked again - "Where could it go," but Boris ( Vozvyshensky, the pathologist) only shrugged his shoulders. It looked to me like he was depressed and even scared."
So things like that make people think that the tongue was most likely removed, not destroyed by some "scavengers." Obviously, if it were a case, the pathologist/other involved in investigation wouldn't think much of it.


Quote:
Also what about the eyes that are also missing. Most people realize that these are parts of the body that are among the first removed by scavengers so see nothing unusual about it. Others just add "facts" until it is unusual.
Again - that has been looked into as a possibility. The autopsy states that "both eyes are missing"
It doesn't state the reason for their disappearence, but you can get (out of the context) that they were not "crashed," because the scleral coat would have still remained there ( at least partially.) This would be stated by the pathologist. Therefore we are talking about the removal of both eyes ( judging by the context.)


Quote:
LOL? What? Where did you get that?

Also not only was her tongue missing, part of the roof of her mouth and eyes....you know...soft tissue.
It's not like no one *realized* that the four bodies found later in May were in a much worse shape than the first ones, but I am explaining to you again that those missing organs didn't come across as some "natural occurrence" to those involved in the case.

Quote:
Please, let's deal with FACTS. Did the files state that there was anything unusual about this? No. They just stated this. You are adding things later.
Yes. It's THE FILES that couldn't give any satisfactory explanation to what happened to this group, neither the medical expertise could explain the nature of injuries to the last three hikers.
And that's why the case has been hastily closed, classified as "secret," and the area has been closed off for many years to come.

Quote:
You do not even know that Lyudmilla Dubinina's eyes were missing as well as her tongue? OMG.


Of course I knew that. What I didn't remember is that one more member of the group was missing the eyes in the same manner.

Quote:
No, I am picturing this, which is the actual site:

I deal in truth.

It does not say this in the files in any way. The files are quite boring in fact and do not make it sound unusual at all.
I ask you again - where is the site with the original files in English?


Quote:
Yes, you have said that, but the files do not say that and I have seen actual doctors stating that the injuries are not inconsistant with a fall.
What doctors and where do THEY find the original files?

Quote:
The investigation does not state this because the investigation could not know this.
You can clearly see it yourself in the autopsy pictures. ( Did you even see them?)

Quote:
Lyudmilla Dubinina was not among the first found. This is clear bait and switch.
No she was not, that's why her body was in worse shape than say of Igor Dyatlov who was found earlier.

Quote:
This is how Lyudmilla Dubinina's body was found:http://dyatlov-pass.com/resources/34...t-mortem-1.jpg

Nothing to fall from at all....

And here is another picture of the site:



When people ignore facts and add facts anything is possible.



Again, partial truths.

From the Wikipedia:

Journalists reporting on the available parts of the inquest files claim that it states:<br />

Six of the group members died of hypothermia and three of fatal injuries.<br />
There were no indications of other people nearby on Kholat Syakhl apart from the nine travelers.<br />
The tent had been ripped open from within.<br />
The victims had died 6 to 8 hours after their last meal.<br />
Traces from the camp showed that all group members left the campsite of their own accord, on foot.<br />
To dispel the theory of an attack by the indigenous Mansi people, Dr. Boris Vozrozhdenny stated that the fatal injuries of the three bodies could not have been caused by another human being, "because the force of the blows had been too strong and no soft tissue had been damaged".[2]<br />
Released documents contained no information about the condition of the skiers' internal organs.<br />
There were no survivors of the incident.<br />
Again you are referring to the ENGLISH sources, which are incomplete and inaccurate to say the least.
Look yourself what English WIKI says ( for example)

" It was claimed that Dubinina was found lying face down in a small stream that ran under the snow and that her external injuries were in line with putrefaction in a wet environment, and were unlikely to be related to her death."

And now look at the picture you've provided yourself - does it fit the description, the way she was found?




Quote:
Is this in the investigators files or from another source or are you assuming?
I didn't see it in the files, I saw it in his article that he ( the investigator) wrote later.

Quote:
Frankly all we need to look at is the claim that the tongue went missing while Lyudmilla Dubinina was alive.
That's what people understanding in medicine guess on the basis of autopsy ( presence of blood in her stomach including) and other indirect indications.


Quote:
That is not in the actual files and we know that is a huge untruth so we can discredit the source of that.
One more time; the autopsy states that she misses the "mouth diaphragm and tongue diaphragm."
Russian WIKI describes the whole case in depth, including the grid that describes in details the causes of death/the extent of injuries of each and every member, and the thoughts of chief pathologist of this case, who gives his feedback on the kind of injuries/(causes of them) that students received. ( With the references to original files of investigation of course.)
If you can read all this, you will understand why none of your statements make sense.

Last edited by erasure; 09-20-2017 at 10:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 11:03 PM
 
Location: Falls Church, Fairfax County
4,768 posts, read 2,592,442 times
Reputation: 5832
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
The first part - no, the autopsy never said that directly, but this is the conclusion that many arrived to, while looking into the details of the case.
Thati s not what you said and what many conclude that were not there or that have no training or experience does not matter. It is not facts as you suggested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
The second part - it's in the investigation files that you obviously can't read.
I highly doubt it is in the original files as I have not seen it anywhere else. We already know that the tongue being removed while she was alive is a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Do you have reading comprehension problems, or you are deliberately trying to twist everything I wrote on this subject I wonder? Yes, it was prohibited in the USSR to discuss this subject publicly, until the end of the seventies, yet the editor of the small local newspaper published the witnessing nevertheless ( that's why I was so surprised to discover it in the newspaper from 1959.) But the investigator of this case ( l.Ivanov,) giving interviews already in LATER years, explained that that particular editor was severely reprimanded for that ( whether he was fired or not - that I don't know.)
So it was reported. There. Another mistruth down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
I left two links to my previous posts, quoting him.
Yet you cannot quote him? You can add things though like the tongue being removed while she was alive. Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Look closer at the picture that you've posted. You see four pieces of clothing and tree branches under them? These four ( or whoever) made four &quot;sitting places.&quot; They couldn't have made it with the kind of injuries from which they died.
Why not? This is what injured people do. It is all they could do. And they did do it. I would like to point out that no evidence that they were attacked and no evidence of anyone other than the party members on site. That is actually in the reports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
So there was no &quot;fall in the ravine&quot; you keep on talking about - none whatsoever.
They fell in a ravine. Injuries are consistant with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
You are finally starting getting onto something. This goes back to the cedar at the fringe of the forest, under which ALL of them initially camped after they've escaped from their tent. That's where they made fire, and yes, among other things described at the scene, it has been said that the branches of the cedar were broken at the height of 5 meters or so, allowing them to look in the direction of their abandoned tent. ( At least it was a guess of the search team.) Now the question is - why did they get separated, and four of them ended up in a different location, with inexplicable deadly wounds, with the pieces of clothing of their dead comrades?
This does not require a sinister or supernatural explanation. The others may have died and they scavenged the clothes off of the bodies AS PEOPLE HAVE DONE FOR CENTURIES or maybe they went to try to find a better place to camp and took the clothes to build and setup a camp when they fell in the ravine or were on top of the snow when it collopsed and they fell down getting injured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Yes it was, and the experts state quite a few mistakes that Igor Dyatlov made during this trip, starting with his reluctance to return to their base once the bad weather settled in, and deciding to set up a tent on the slope of the hill instead.
This has nothing to do with the point. If it were a Category III climb then it was dangerous. Your claims stating there was nothing to fall from contradict this simple fact that you grasp on to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Yes it was dangerous, but all members of this trip were qualified for it... except for one. But that's a different story.
OH, now it is one. Before it was all. So it was dangerous and they could have fallen as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
No fabrication. I already pointed you at their &quot;sitting places.&quot;
I posted actual pictures, instead of trying to distract with non-related pictures, pointed out that they could fall from trees which you admit at least one climbed and you still ignore this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
The only site that can be trusted is actually the investigation files themselves plus the articles wrote later by the investigator himself. Can you point me at their sites in English?
Can you point me to the where the investigator stated that Lyudmilla Dubinina's tongue was removed while she was alive or tell me why other sites are acceptable when they state what you wish to hear?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
No. This is the conclusion that has been made later, on a basis of the autopsy.
So it was not stated. It was added later by people on the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
What the autopsy here states literally is that her &quot;oral diaphragm and tongue diaphragm are missing.&quot; When you look at the extension and nature or hers ( and of other two hikers') injuries, you will understand why a lot of people started guessing that they were removed while she was still alive
OH, I totally understand while people would make up "facts". I just do not listen to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
( being put in the context of the whole ordeal.) One of the criminal medical experts participating in investigation wrote the following; &quot;When we learned that Dubinina was missing tongue, we were surprised even more. I asked again &quot;where could it go,&quot; but Boris ( Vozvyshensky, the pathologist) only shrugged his shoulders. It looked to me that he was depressed and even scared.&quot;
This seems very juvinile to me as I have seen actual medical doctors with work in forensics speak of this and they seem to see nothing unusual in this at all. That is how I know that scavengers actually eat the soft tissue of bodies first. Also you conviently omit the fact that Lyudmilla Dubinina's face was found face down in a creek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
So things like that make people think that the tongue was mostly likely removed, not destroyed by some &quot;scavengers.&quot; Obviously, if it were a case, the pathologist/other involved in investigation wouldn't think much of it.
OK, Scavengers just do not go around "destroying" soft tissue, they EAT IT. They are not in the business of defacing bodies, they are in the business of survival.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Again - that has been looked into as a possibility. The autopsy states that &quot;both eyes are missing&quot; It doesn't state the reason for their disappearence, but you can get (out of the context) that they were not &quot;crashed,&quot; because the scleral coat would have still remained there ( at least partially.) This would be stated by pathologist. Therefore we are talking about the removal of both eyes.
As a scavenger would do, not destroy them as you stated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
It's not like no one *realized* that the four bodies found later in May were in a much worse shape than the first ones, but I am explaining to you again that those missing organs didn't come across as some &quot;natural occurrence&quot; to those involved in the case.
Released documents contained no information about the condition of the skiers' internal organs. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyatlov_Pass_incident
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Yes. It's THE FILES that couldn't give any satisfactory explanation to what happened to this group, neither the medical expertise could explain the nature of injuries to the last three hikers.
They did not try. They gave their explanation of "unknown compelling force" which is vague. Really they have no idea why they left the tent but how could they? They know anything they write would be conjecture and that was clearly not their business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
And that's why the case has been hastily closed, classified as &quot;secret file,&quot; and the area has been closed off for many years to come.
There is no reason to believe the case was closed faster than any similar cases or that the area being closed off was for any reason other than the safety of other people. People died there so maybe they closed it off because they did not wish to look for more people or maybe the military was testing weapons and did not want people around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Of course I knew that. What I didn't remember is that one more member of the group was missing the eyes in the same manner.
So you were wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
I ask you again - where is the site with the original files in English?
I have read a lot of information from respectable journalists and watched several shows. I have already found inconsistancies in your story so I do actually trust them much more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
What doctors and where do THEY find the original files?
Here is one source that I recently watched: https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-sh...t-dyatlov-pass
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
You can clearly see it yourself in the autopsy pictures. ( Did you even see them?)
I am sorry, this is in response to the entirety of the statement: And yes, their wounds were inconsistent with ANYTHING and everything the doctors/pathologists could imagine.
As I've said - the kind of traumas these people have received, couldn't be explained by any specialist. and yes, two or three of them had signs of the nose bleed. This is the kind of thing people add after the fact to support their claims. It is not in the files.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
No she was not, that's why her body was in worse shape than say of Igor Dyatlov who was found earlier.
So another false fact. Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Again you are referring to the ENGLISH sources, which are incomplete and inaccurate to say the least. Look yourself what English WIKI says ( for example) &quot; It was claimed that Dubinina was found lying face down in a small stream that ran under the snow and that her external injuries were in line with putrefaction in a wet environment, and were unlikely to be related to her death.&quot; And now look at the picture you've provided yourself - does it fit the description, the way she was found?
Yes. It does. She is face down in a waterfall. Her legs are in a stream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
At the time the verdict was that the group members all died because of a compelling natural force.[4] The inquest officially ceased in May 1959 as a result of the absence of a guilty party. The files were sent to a secret archive, and the photocopies of the case became available only in the 1990s, although some parts were missing.[2] I didn't see it in the files, I saw it in his article that he ( the investigator) wrote later.
Hindsight is 20/20. People never lie or embellish the truth later. When did he write his article?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
No that's what people understanding in medicine guess on the basis of autopsy and other indirect indications.
No, that is what you stated. There is no way to know if her tongue was taken while she was alive or dead. Also real forensic experts state it is not unusual for the tongue and soft tissue to be eaten by scangers if the body is in the wild.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
One more time; the autopsy states that she misses the &quot;mouth diaphragm and tongue diaphragm.&quot; Russian WIKI describes the whole case in much bigger details, including the grid that describes in detail the causes of death/the extent of injuries of each and every member, and the thoughts of chief pathologist of this case, who gives his feedback on the kind of injuries/causes of them that students received. ( With the references to original files of investigation of course.) If you can read all this, you will understand why none of your statements make sense.
No. I am sorry, I do not agree with you. If you come up with some facts that support this being more than an unfortunate accident I am interested in them. Much of what is said in regard to this case is why I am a skeptic in general. If facts support something no lies need to be made.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 11:38 PM
 
Location: Falls Church, Fairfax County
4,768 posts, read 2,592,442 times
Reputation: 5832
Default Dyatlov Pass - Official statement for closing the case

Quote:
Official statement for closing the case given by Junior Counselor of Justice and Criminal Prosecutor of Sverdlovsk region, Lev Ivanov:

The deaths of the expedition members were due to a series of mistakes by Dyatlov. On 1 February he began the ascent to the summit at 3 PM, even though he knew about the difficulty of the terrain. Furthermore – and this was Dyatlov’s next mistake – he chose a line 500 m to the left of the planned pass that lies between Peak 1079 and Peak 880. So the group found themselves on the eastern slope of Peak 1079. They used what was left of the daylight to ascend to the summit in strong winds (which are typical for this area) and low temperatures of minus 25 degrees centigrade. Dyatlov found himself in bad conditions for the night, so he decided to pitch his tent on the slope of 1079 so as to start in the morning without adding the distance from the forest (~1 km) to the remaining trek of about 10 km to the summit. Considering the absence of external injuries to the bodies or signs of a fight, as well as the abandonment of all the valuable resources, adding the conclusions of the medical examinations for the causes of the deaths, it has to be concluded that the cause of their deaths was calamity or overwhelming force.
Source: Dyatlov Pass

Last edited by Old Guard; 09-21-2017 at 12:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 01:38 AM
 
13,817 posts, read 12,600,955 times
Reputation: 6460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Guard View Post
Source: Dyatlov Pass

I already saw this site before and didn't take it seriously, because of the somewhat poor English translation, so...

Quote:
Official statement for closing the case given by Junior Counselor of Justice and Criminal Prosecutor of Sverdlovsk region, Lev Ivanov:

The deaths of the expedition members were due to a series of mistakes by Dyatlov. On 1 February he began the ascent to the summit at 3 PM, even though he knew about the difficulty of the terrain. Furthermore – and this was Dyatlov’s next mistake – he chose a line 500 m to the left of the planned pass that lies between Peak 1079 and Peak 880. So the group found themselves on the eastern slope of Peak 1079. They used what was left of the daylight to ascend to the summit in strong winds (which are typical for this area) and low temperatures of minus 25 degrees centigrade. Dyatlov found himself in bad conditions for the night, so he decided to pitch his tent on the slope of 1079 so as to start in the morning without adding the distance from the forest (~1 km) to the remaining trek of about 10 km to the summit. Considering the absence of external injuries to the bodies"
THIS was true ( partially,) and it was the essence of mystery for the pathologists, how such severe internal injuries ( multiple broken ribs,) didn't leave any EXTERNAL damages. What the pathologist (i.e. Vozrozhdenny) said when asked about the possible source of injuries, was that they could have been inflicted by a car slammed into the body with a huge speed. (Actually even the site you posted link to, states the same; "According to Dr. Boris Vozrozhdenny, the force required to cause such damage would have been extremely high. He compared it to the force of a car crash. Notably, the bodies had no external wounds as if they were crippled by a high level of pressure.")
When he talks about a possible "fall," Vozrozhdenny is talking exclusively about the possibility of a fall from one's own height ( i.e. if you slip somehow,) because it was obvious for investigation apparently that the place where students were found ( even under the four feet of snow) didn't include any fall from anywhere.


Quote:
or signs of a fight, as well as the abandonment of all the valuable resources, adding the conclusions of the medical examinations for the causes of the deaths, it has to be concluded that the cause of their deaths was calamity or overwhelming force.
That's not what the original statement says. There is no "calamity" there at all. "Overwhelming" or "disastrous" force - that's more like it. The investigator left it at that, because he was ordered by his superiors to close the case, to put a "secret" stamp on it, to turn it to "special" archive and to forget about it back in 1959, still at the height of Soviet ideological system.
However already later, in 1990, during "Perestroyka," and upcoming collapse of the Soviet system, L. Ivanov ( the investigator) was allowed to express his true opinion, which he did in his article "Mystery of the Red Orbs," that I quoted earlier;

http://www.city-data.com/forum/32954304-post35.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/32979699-post39.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Falls Church, Fairfax County
4,768 posts, read 2,592,442 times
Reputation: 5832
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
I already saw this site before and didn't take it seriously, because of the somewhat poor English translation, so...
Translations are often not perfect but that is a deflection. What about it is wrong? Did the original mention that the men were outside peeing when the incident occurred or that Lyudmilla Dubinina's tongue was removed while she was alive? Does it not mention the mistakes that Mr. Dyatlov made?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post


THIS was true ( partially,) and it was the essence of mystery for the pathologists, how such severe internal injuries ( multiple broken ribs,) didn't leave any EXTERNAL damages. What the pathologist (i.e. Vozrozhdenny) said when asked about the possible source of injuries, was that they could have been inflicted by a car slammed into the body with a huge speed.
Does it say a car at huge speed or is the an embellishment added by you? And how would a fall be different than a car accident? Minus the possible dragging a car could do.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
.(Actually even the site you posted link to, states the same; &quot;According to Dr. Boris Vozrozhdenny, the force required to cause such damage would have been extremely high. He compared it to the force of a car crash. Notably, the bodies had no external wounds as if they were crippled by a high level of pressure.&quot
Like possibly a fall. And this seems to be a bigger deal to you almost 60 years later than it did to the investigators at the time....
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
When he talks about a possible &quot;fall,&quot; Vozrozhdenny is talking exclusively about the possibility of a fall from one's own height ( i.e. if you slip somehow,) because it was obvious for investigation apparently that the place where students were found ( even under the four feet of snow) didn't include any fall from anywhere.
Did the investigator state that they could not have fallen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post



That's not what the original statement says. There is no &quot;calamity&quot; there at all. &quot;Overwhelming&quot; or &quot;disastrous&quot; force - that's more like it.
This is important to you but to almost everyone does not change the point. Does the official statement not state that Dyatlov made mistakes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
The investigator left it at that, because he was ordered by his superiors to close the case,
What proof do you have of this? REALLY?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
to put a &quot;secret&quot; stamp on it, to turn it to &quot;special&quot; archive and to forget about it back in 1959, still at the height of Soviet ideological system.
Where is this documented?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
However already later, in 1990, during &quot;Perestroyka,&quot; and upcoming collapse of the Soviet system, L. Ivanov ( the investigator) was allowed to express his true opinion, which he did in his article &quot;Mystery of the Red Orbs,&quot; that I quoted earlier;

http://www.city-data.com/forum/32954304-post35.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/32979699-post39.html
Wait, you state he was allowed to. Is there any proof that he was not allowed to before or is that an embellishment? Did he make any money off of this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 10:35 AM
 
13,817 posts, read 12,600,955 times
Reputation: 6460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Guard View Post
Translations are often not perfect but that is a deflection. What about it is wrong? Did the original mention that the men were outside peeing when the incident occurred or that Lyudmilla Dubinina's tongue was removed while she was alive? Does it not mention the mistakes that Mr. Dyatlov made?
You know, I went through tonnes of pages talking about this case ( always keeping in mind what I saw in the original files, even though I didn't go through ALL of them, obviously.) So I already "screen" the quality of page, watching whether it's just "hear-say" thing, juicy gossip or it's the knowledgeable people/professionals that discuss the event. ( I came across such page yesterday for example, where the people familiar with the forensic science are looking into the case, in autopsy that is.) The problem is, their language gets very technical, while the kind of English I use here is more of "generic kind." And it's the same "generic kind" of English that I see on the site you are talking about ( heck, even the translation of the closing statement is not good enough as I've said.) And because of THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM the English speakers are loosing a lot of valuable information, comparably to what we see in Russian in description of this case. For example the extent of their injuries ( which was one of the mysteries of this case) needs to be translated into English to begin with, but I don't see it anywhere, including this mediocre site. That's just an example. Another example - when we go through pages of it, we KNOW ( out of the multiple witnessing) that the search team is aware that there are no "steep cliffs" from where these hikers could fall, since the kind of "creek ravine" where they found those student was going to the creek's bed gradually, except for few spots here and there, the one they made their "couch" including. But it looks like they've chosen that particular spot for their own protection as well, an the height of the wall is no taller than 2.5 meters ( even those THEY were not found at THAT spot, but a bit further, covered under the layers of snow. So this is not a place consistent with any kind of fall ( other than from their own height as the pathologist keeps on saying,) while English speakers keep on talking about the "ravine" and pictureing something totally different. And that's how it becomes a game of a "broken phone.'
So in the light of it, I'd like to ask you a question, can you point me at English site, that describes the extent of their injuries? If not, we should probably go from there.


Quote:
Does it say a car at huge speed or is the an embellishment added by you? And how would a fall be different than a car accident? Minus the possible dragging a car could do.....
No "huge speed" is embellished by me, because I am trying to convey the "image" the best I can, but the pathologist used rather "car crash."

Quote:
Like possibly a fall. And this seems to be a bigger deal to you almost 60 years later than it did to the investigators at the time....
No it's all in the context - they don't even discuss such possibility, based on what the search team described them/pictures from the place where they've been found. And that's why even 60 years later it's still a mystery what happened to them, why they left the tent, why they were found in different places and the nature of their injuries.



Quote:
This is important to you but to almost everyone does not change the point. Does the official statement not state that Dyatlov made mistakes?
Yes, but not the kind of "mistake" that made them left the tent ( which was the culprit of the later tragic events.) The best way to put it, if not for his original mistakes, they probably wouldn't have ended up in the "wrong place at the wrong time." But then, again, may be not, and they were in danger anywhere around that mountain.

Quote:
What proof do you have of this? REALLY?

Where is this documented?
It's all described in details in Russian WIKI, step by step, with names ( and even dates I believe.)

Quote:
Wait, you state he was allowed to. Is there any proof that he was not allowed to before or is that an embellishment? Did he make any money off of this?


That's why I asked how old were you, lol.
You obviously have no knowledge of the Soviet state, otherwise you'd never ask such question.
Even though I don't exactly like this analogy, think more in terms of Hitler's Germany ( particularly at the height of Stalin's times.) That's in term of state organization, but as far as "money making" - that's kinda funny being put in the context. .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top