[j4pe]

Sixty years on, the most interesting thing about the case is enthusiasts' refusal to consider the most plausible explanation because it doesn't deliver the same satisfaction as less likely theories like government conspiracy. Granted, the incident took place in a society where the government frequently covered up fatal accidents, but that environment doesn't make the wind slab explanation any less likely.

There was a discussion a while back on "trapped priors" in Bayesian reasoning, where you might "correctly" update your beliefs in the wrong direction based on your subjective experience of evidence that should contradict your prior beliefs (1). It seems like you see this behavior everywhere, these days, especially when it comes to conspiracy thinking: any data can be taken as evidence to support the conspiracy theory, whether it's "Q" or a sixty-year-old backcountry disaster.

--

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26447924

[lend000]

> Sixty years on, the most interesting thing about the case is enthusiasts' refusal to consider the most plausible explanation because it doesn't deliver the same satisfaction as less likely theories like government conspiracy.

One could make a similar statement about many folks' refusal to entertain ideas outside of the mundane for fear of looking stupid. Interestingly, this behavior seems more common amongst intelligent people (who perhaps are compromised by their pride of their intelligence, but not so confident in their intelligence as to lack that insecurity).

[8bitsrule]

Really. Horror only happens in the movies? What if one of the Dyatlov party went bananas? There were some terrible injuries. And the radiation? (Two years after Mayak.)

We live in a world where six people were just killed by someone who didn't get invited to their party. This clean, sanitized theory wants to pin Dyatlov on physics.

[goatlover]

But there isn't a single most plausible explanation. There are at least several, and they're not all conspiratorial. The infrasound and katabatic wind are two of those. From debating with people who have espoused different theories, I don't think it's because they don't like the mundane explanation. It's because they don't think the snow slab or whatever other mundane theory explains all the evidence as well as the one they espouse. I don't think any theory stands out as the one true account, because the evidence is too spotty.

The evidence suggestive of a conspiracy includes injuries to hands and faces of the five hikers not found in the ravine, which is consistent with fighting. There are some other injuries which could be consistent with being bound and being hit with a hard object like a rifle butt or baton. The newest book presents evidence for mining explosives in the area, and people knowing about the accident prior to the search party finding the tent. I'm not saying any of that is true, only that it's somewhat plausible.

[adventured]

I think it's fascinating that modern theories seem to mostly or entirely disregard the possibility that they were murdered by a small group of locals that attacked their camp in the middle of the night. That would have to be included on the obviously plausible list given the unusual and intense blunt force injuries that so many of them suffered. The article of course rather comically dismisses the premise as though it warrants no attention.

Maybe some people didn't like them traversing their land, didn't appreciate the spectacle of it, or wanted to keep outsiders out. All very common themes historically. They tracked them, chose an opportune time and attacked them to make a point to outsiders. It's not even necessary that the primary objective was to intentionally murder them, merely to beat them severely and prompt the group to leave, which in those conditions could easily result in everyone dying regardless.

Infrasound as a premise is absurd and can be safely dismissed, they wouldn't have all neglected to properly cover themselves, and they wouldn't have all reacted similarly as in such intense group fear. No group collectively simultaneously panics in such a stupid manner and somehow magically mass brute-force injures themselves all at different locations; as they were not fools and did have an understanding of the elements. They very rapidly fled in terror for their lives, as if attacked suddenly / caught off guard - whether by other people, by a falling tree (and fear of more), or slab of ice. You probably don't flee a mile to a streambed out of fear of a falling tree however, and you don't entirely abandon your group for dead back there (a falling tree/s scenario presents plausible time to regroup and seek clothing). The group of three in the streambed was killed / murdered later, as the article notes they could have never likely made it there if their injuries had existed prior (they were not killed by magic falling trees); they were probably tracked to the streambed area and attacked, after initially successfully fleeing the original attack on the camp. Those in the streambed fled over a mile, which is a very intense thing to do in such conditions; you only do that if you believe you can't safely go back to the camp for some very good reason (where going back means very plausible death; they abandoned their comrades in fleeing so far, keep that in mind). So who/what murdered the people in the streambed? The reasonable explanations drop to only a few very quickly. The girl in the streambed was found in a very unusual backward facing position [1], she looks like she was turning away, trying to escape when she died. The attack group found them and finished the job.

You slash one side of the tent to go the other direction away from the attack party, and possibly to avoid being spotted fleeing if at all possible.

[1] https://i.imgur.com/SugfSgt.jpg