Slabalanche: Dyatlov Pass Incident Part 3

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Oh, hey there, oh hey there.
How are you?

Speaker 2 (00:20):
I am good.
How are you?
I am good, we are the HistoryBuffo.
Yes, we are, I am Bradley.

Speaker 1 (00:23):
I am Kate.
Why are we talking like?

Speaker 2 (00:24):
robots.
Good, we are the HistoryBuffoons.
Yes, we are.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
I am Bradley.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
I am Kate.
Why are we talking like robotsall of a sudden?

Speaker 1 (00:28):
Because you started it.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
Maybe because AI has taken over.

Speaker 1 (00:32):
Are you AI now?

Speaker 2 (00:34):
I'd be a lot smarter if I was yeah, you would.

Speaker 3 (00:36):
That's what AI would say.

Speaker 1 (00:39):
Oh hey, this is Audra , oh, Audra.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
That Audra, audra, that's what I would say.
That's so true, but alas, I amstill a buffoon.
So welcome to History, buffoons.
This is our part.

Speaker 3 (00:56):
Three Plus Maybe.

Speaker 1 (00:59):
Question mark we don't know, we'll see how far
this goes.

Speaker 2 (01:01):
So we are doing now.
Our last two episodes were theDyatlov Dyatlov, however you
want to say it, Past incident.

Speaker 1 (01:11):
The story and the facts.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
The facts and whatnot , and now we're going to get
into the weird wild theoriesthat people have come up with as
to why they all died.
Yes, right, yes, got that right.

Speaker 1 (01:23):
Mm-hmm, they all died .
Yes, right, yes, got that right.
So if you have not listened tothe first two episodes, what
were they called textbook?

Speaker 2 (01:33):
wow, we almost said that all in unison.
That was pretty good and taleof the nine year ease yes, that,
and thank you for that titlethat was from you.
You're so welcome.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
Yes, uh so if you have not um listened to the
first two episodes, go back andlisten, because there's a lot of
information.

Speaker 2 (01:50):
I know, being a person who didn't know much
about this story, I certainlylearned a lot.

Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:55):
And have a lot of questions as to what the fuck
happened, of course.
But yeah, a lot of information,a lot of shit, a lot of
speculation, but we'll get intothat now More in deep with that
now and our friend Audra is backagain.
We don't need to sing Shadyagain.
We did that on the last episode.

(02:15):
We did.

Speaker 1 (02:16):
Well, now I'm going to.
Oops, I just touched the camerawith my foot.

Speaker 2 (02:20):
Could you not do that ?
I'd appreciate that.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
Okay, so quick recap.
Yeah, we're in 1959.

Speaker 2 (02:28):
Sure are.

Speaker 1 (02:29):
Nine experienced hikers from the Ural Polytechnic
Institute went through the UralMountains, yep, and they did
not turn up where they weresupposed to.
And it turns out they werefound all dead, some by
hyperthermia, some by unknowncircumstances.
Yes and uh, we're gonna kind ofget into the theories of what

(02:52):
the heck happened so I know youknow a lot of the theories.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
Um, obviously you've researched a lot of the theories
.
I don't know pretty much any ofthe theories except for one,
which is every theory foreverything.
But, um, is there like morepopular theories that you have
that you're going to go through,or are you just going to kind
of because you said there's like72 of them?
Yeah, we're going to go throughlike eight of them.
Yes, right so are these likethe eight most popular theories

(03:20):
so so at least four of them arepopular.

Speaker 1 (03:24):
Two of them are super out there, but we're going to
talk about all of them becausethey're all interesting.

Speaker 2 (03:32):
Well, they better be.
Why would we talk about?

Speaker 1 (03:35):
them.
I do have a question for youboth first, okay, and I also
have an answer, if you want toknow my opinion.

Speaker 2 (03:41):
She does have an answer, I do.

Speaker 1 (03:43):
But so's yeah, because you are fairly new to
this case, what facts about thecase kind of have stood out for
you as like being interesting toyou?
Well, I mean, same question foryou, so you think about it.

Speaker 2 (04:00):
I'm on the spot, you get time.

Speaker 3 (04:02):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (04:03):
You're welcome.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
Guys are just so polite to me.
I don't the spot you get time.
Thank you, you're welcome.
You guys are just so polite tome.

Speaker 1 (04:08):
I don't know why.

Speaker 2 (04:10):
I don't know why.
I think one of the biggestthings is the tent being
supposedly cut from the inside,obviously because they were in a
hurry to get out.
Avalanches will do that to you,I don't know.
Inches will do that to you, butum, uh, I don't know.
It's just the fact that theywere so often where they were
supposed to be as well is kindof interesting because of that

(04:31):
like they weren't near theirtent they weren't near their
tent.
They weren't even their tentwasn't where it was really
supposed to be yeah and in thebeginning they uh altered their
shit quite a bit.
I guess is what I'm saying yeahum, so those kind of stand out
to me just because, like, ifthey're so experienced, why was
that such a I don't know a thingfor them?

(04:52):
Yeah, but then, of course, whywere they so far and so on?
And why did some people havesocks on and some people didn't?
I mean because you're curious,because like, obviously they had
to leave in a hurry, and justthe why.

(05:12):
Why, I guess.
So?

Speaker 1 (05:12):
yeah, I don't know the inside, the cutting from
inside the tent is the big one,yeah, so what about you?

Speaker 3 (05:17):
thank you so much for this question without going
into theories, yeah, so not togo into theories, but I I think
what really grabbed my attentionabout this when I first heard
about it was one theastronomical number of fucking
theories.

Speaker 2 (05:35):
Yeah, that's insane.

Speaker 1 (05:36):
72 is a lot.

Speaker 3 (05:38):
Yeah.
Two, the background thateveryone brought to the table I
find super interesting because,as I said earlier, I nerd out on
these fucking theories like all72 of them, so I'll spare you
guys, but um you did mention youpossibly might bring up four

(05:58):
other ones.

Speaker 2 (05:58):
I might.
So yeah, and that's fine, weencourage it.

Speaker 1 (06:02):
I just for a disclosure.
I showed Audra all the theoriesthat I had because she knows
the story really well, butBradley doesn't know what the
theories are.

Speaker 2 (06:12):
I know the one because it's everyone's theory.
It's the same as the pyramid,Anyway.
So let's continue.
Sorry to interrupt.

Speaker 3 (06:21):
I think the background of all nine of them
is important all 10 of them,really but, um, the other part
that like really grabs myattention, like keeps me coming
back to learn more and moreabout it and consume more
information, is really just theinjuries to the bodies.

(06:45):
Yeah, um, it's so like variableum between them, like what the
injuries were, that it's almostlike they all could have lived a
different fucking theory.
Yeah yeah, like all of themcould have died a different,
different way, just based onsuch variation in the injuries.

Speaker 1 (07:05):
Right, that's what draws me back is the injuries to
the bodies.

Speaker 2 (07:10):
Yeah, yeah, oh sure.

Speaker 1 (07:12):
And their clothing.
Some of them were burnt.

Speaker 3 (07:16):
Some of them were not .

Speaker 1 (07:17):
Some of them were just randomly ripped with little
cuffs here and there.
It's just kind of odd.

Speaker 2 (07:22):
Well, that one that had the whole left or right
sleeve or side or whateverripped off that was the one that
accidentally became a vest.

Speaker 3 (07:29):
Yes, that's right.

Speaker 2 (07:30):
Yes, correct yeah, all of a sudden it's a little
little uh too warm here.
I need a vest.

Speaker 1 (07:35):
All of a sudden not so much so okay, so let's go
ahead and get into the theoriestheory one so I'm gonna first
talk about frame number 34 okayis this the sasquatch one?

Speaker 2 (07:50):
no, or the yeti?

Speaker 1 (07:54):
okay, so this is um so frame number 34 has like a
bunch of bunch of like lightblurbs.
Yeah in it, blurbs, blurs,blurbs, blurb is on the back of
a book sure, yep, yes so umframe, number 34, comes from

(08:15):
krivonishenko's camera, and thisone was left inside the tent
right um, but it was left withthe shutter cocked as in it was
ready to take a photo.
So this is 1959.
Right?
So when a camera shutter iscocked, it means that the camera
is primed and ready to go.
Yeah, older films need you tomanually wind the film after

(08:38):
every shot.
Yep, and the winding did twothings.
It advanced the film to thenext frame.
Right, the winding did twothings it advanced the film to
the next frame Right and itcocked the shutter, basically
spring-loading the mechanism soit could open and close, aka
taking the picture.
Yeah, okay, it's unusualbecause experienced
photographers did not do thisbecause it could waste film.

(08:59):
Okay, so it was suggested thathe might have been wanting to
capture something quickly.

Speaker 2 (09:07):
Right.

Speaker 1 (09:08):
So his was the only camera in the tent found, like
this Surprised he didn't findIgor's camera with a bunch of
feet pictures.

Speaker 2 (09:16):
No.

Speaker 3 (09:18):
Can you imagine that dark room?
Just like feet?
Jesus.

Speaker 2 (09:24):
Igor was ahead of his time.
People sell pictures of theirfeet these days millions in
there.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
It's weird so one theory is that kravana shenko
was acting as like a lookout ora decoy, ready to snap a photo
of whatever might be happeningor anticipating something.
Um, so it suggests that some ofthe members of the group were
expecting to see somethinghappen on that slope.
So Krivonishenko's frame,number 34, it's a blurred,

(09:51):
grainy image, mostly dark.
A vague, bright, streakingshape or blurry light is kind of
in the center-right portion,center-right portion,
center-right.
It was possibly taken at nightor in low light.
Um, there is no clear subject.

(10:11):
It's pretty abstract, ambiguouskind of creepy.

Speaker 2 (10:16):
A van gogh painting a little bit or something weird
like that only black and white.

Speaker 1 (10:20):
Yeah, exactly so um, the numbers on film rolls aren't
exactly linear or like oneafter the other, so sometimes
when you wind the film or reloadimproperly, the numbering can
skip, repeat or have doubleexposure sure um multiple

(10:42):
cameras that were found at leastfour of them and their roles
weren't always clearlycategorized um during the
investigation.
So frame number 34 might be kindof the grand finale, or it
might have been the camera'sversion of like a butt dial,
yeah, and it could have happenedin the middle of the the frames

(11:02):
or it could have been the veryfirst one yeah, exactly right so
what's weird?
I did not go into additionalresearch on this, but um, the
dietlovepasscom calls it thelast frame and they talk about
it um being part of a theorywhich I'll get to.
But also they label thispicture as quote this is a

(11:25):
technological shot made in thephoto lab before the film was
taken out of the camera endquote.

Speaker 2 (11:30):
What does that mean?

Speaker 1 (11:32):
it means, while the shutter was cocked, someone in
the photo lab that was that wasgoing through all the um
accidentally took the pictureaccidentally took the picture,
gotcha.
So on the website, I think Imentioned it to you last time
that the website kind of hassome opposing yeah theories on
the same topic, conflictingstuff.

(11:53):
Yeah, right, so this photo isone of them.
Yeah, so on one page it'll saythis is from kravana shanko.
He took it on the slope, andthen when you pull the picture
up, the title of the photo saysit was taken by a lab technician
.
Yeah, oh, yeah.

Speaker 2 (12:09):
So okay, weird.
So it might not be literallyanything.
It could be the inside of a labyes like with weird lighting,
could be interesting okay,theory number one oh, okay, yeah
, aliens see you knew it wascoming that's why I brought up

(12:31):
frame number 34 because, is it?

Speaker 3 (12:34):
aliens, or is it a lab technician?

Speaker 2 (12:37):
or is the lab technician an alien?
I mean, oh siri 1.5 or theorynumber 74 73 so I find the whole
alien theory just fuckingstupid for everything, because
it's just such an easy cop outlike where did the people from

(12:58):
Roanoke go, aliens?

Speaker 3 (12:59):
no, they fucking didn't that's a theory, though
which is so dumb that's notwhere they went no, not at all.

Speaker 2 (13:08):
It's not like hey man , we need some people to butt
probe, I know that hurts.

Speaker 3 (13:13):
That hurts me leave roanoke alone.

Speaker 2 (13:15):
But that's that's my point.
It's so stupid.
Yeah, it's like no, let's justall jump to fucking aliens.
Like man, I lost my phone.
Aliens took it.
Yeah, hands down, it had to be.
Yeah.
There's no other explanation,absolutely other than I just
forgot where I put it.

Speaker 1 (13:30):
Yeah, because that can't happen.
So the reason why this has alittle bit of clout to some
people it has no clout at all tosome people well, they're
idiots oh, there were reportedsightings of balls of light in
the northern urals they'recalled stars throughout february
1959.

(13:51):
Okay, okay, hold on.
Multiple witnesses, includingmembers of the official search
team, later described seeing abright fireball moving in the
night sky around the time thatthe hikers died.
One searcher recalled a spheresimilar to a moon, but much
larger, floating and then movingaway.
It's called the sun the ideathat the hiker saw something

(14:16):
like a glowing orb descendingupon them, perhaps even hovering
near them, could have let madethem flee the in terror.

Speaker 2 (14:24):
How would they have seen it if they're in the tent
and didn't have windows?

Speaker 3 (14:27):
You know, it was so bright, so bright.

Speaker 1 (14:31):
Somebody's got a spotlight on us.

Speaker 3 (14:33):
I can argue anything so.

Speaker 1 (14:36):
Okay, so here are some of the witnesses we have.
Lev Ivanov he is the leadinvestigator.
Yeah, in 1990 he publiclyclaimed that sightings of bright
flying spheres were reported inthe region at the time.

Speaker 2 (14:50):
Why did it take him 31 years to say that?

Speaker 1 (14:53):
I don't know if it was 31 years or if we just
documented it 31 years later.

Speaker 2 (14:57):
Seems like.

Speaker 1 (15:01):
He did originally omit this from his 1959 report,
see.
He later believed that thiscould be linked to the hikers'
deaths.

Speaker 2 (15:14):
Okay, let me ask the question then how did he think
that would be linked to theirdeath then?
Or is he just saying that toseem cool?
Because there has to be areason why he thinks that, then
right.

Speaker 1 (15:26):
Well, we don't know what aliens are capable of.

Speaker 2 (15:28):
That's not what I asked.
What does he think that was apart of it for?

Speaker 1 (15:31):
I don't know, that wasn't part of my research.
I'm just saying he was a.

Speaker 2 (15:37):
Do you understand what I'm asking?
Yeah, because I feel, like man,the sun was at this certain
degree today.
It must, like man, the sun wasat this certain degree today,
must be a part of something.
I mean just we could sayanything like that, so like what
was his rationale?
That it could have been part oftheir death.

Speaker 1 (15:50):
He thought that um the oars might have been
military weapons, but he alsothought maybe it could be
something more paranormal okayare aliens paranormal I mean,
look at how long it took the USgovernment to be like, hey,
aliens.

Speaker 2 (16:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (16:12):
They're out there.

Speaker 2 (16:15):
Well, so here's the thing with me and aliens.
I believe there's somethingelse out there.
I don't know if it's littlegreen men, like we always
portray them as God.
I hope so.

Speaker 4 (16:26):
That would be kind of cool with the big fucking like
almond eyes and shit.

Speaker 2 (16:30):
Um, the my point is this the, the galaxies, and
there's so many galaxies andit's the universe is vast, so
vast that we can't comprehend it.
There's no way that we're theonly people in this existence,
in my opinion, but just to belike blame everything on aliens.
Stupid.

Speaker 1 (16:51):
When you're saying stuff like that, it makes me
think that, yes, there could beother people out there, but
they're still alien to us.

Speaker 2 (17:02):
I'm not okay.
You're looking into the termway too specific.

Speaker 1 (17:04):
I'm just saying something out there.
Could have done this, but it'salien in nature.

Speaker 2 (17:08):
I understand what alien means.
I'm not saying like littlegreen men specifically, and
they're all aliens.
If another human came fromanother planet that looked
exactly like us, they would bean alien.
I understand that.
That's not what I'm saying.

Speaker 3 (17:22):
I just really hope they're little green men.

Speaker 2 (17:26):
Honestly, I kind of like gray, like Paul.
Okay let me move on to otherwitnesses.

Speaker 3 (17:31):
Like a long time ago.
It's good you should re-watchit.

Speaker 2 (17:34):
I love Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, though they're
pretty great Seth Rogen.

Speaker 1 (17:39):
It's a great movie.

Speaker 2 (17:40):
It is, I enjoy it.

Speaker 1 (17:43):
Jason Bateman.
Okay movie it is.

Speaker 3 (17:44):
I enjoy it, jason bateman okay so sigourney weaver
, okay, not mike myersadditional witnesses.

Speaker 1 (17:50):
So let's get through this alien bullshit so we can
move on to something else thatbradley might think what is
happening yeah, because this isstudents and teachers in ivedell
, a group of school children andteachers from a nearby village
reportedly seen glowing lightsin the sky on the night of
February 1st and 2nd in 1959.
Same night as when the hikersdied yeah, and described them as

(18:11):
orange spheres or fireballsflying across the sky Could
there have been meteors.
They were slow moving andeerily quiet.
Oh then, probably not.

Speaker 2 (18:20):
You wouldn't hear meteors on Earth if they're in
space.

Speaker 3 (18:23):
Well, you do have a point there, but it's not going
to be slow moving.
No, that's true.

Speaker 1 (18:31):
We also have the Manse tribespeople.
Those indigenous to the areareported seeing strange lights
in the sky around that time,though specifics are fairly
vague from them.
They have described them asglowing orbs or bright streaks.
Um, and they were often.
The mansi.
Stories were often dismissed atthe time due to, like soviet

(18:51):
prejudice against the indigenouspeoples next we have allegedly
soviet military pilots.
Yeah, immediately sketchy, therewere unconfirmed reports that
Soviet pilots flying over theirurals during late January early

(19:12):
February spotted aerial lightsor flares.
These reports were neverofficially acknowledged, but
some researchers claim to haveseen declassified or secondhand
testimony about it.
Okay.
Next we have um gregory atmaniky.
He is a search party memberokay he recalled that rumors of

(19:34):
light sightings were circulatingeven amongst the searchers
early on.
Some investigators andvolunteers throughout the case
might have involved more thanjust a hiking incident, based on
these local accounts Gotcha.
So some who favor this theoryspeculate that a UFO might have

(19:59):
emitted a burst of energy orlight that injured the hikers
Because there were internalinjuries.
Maybe the aliens' propulsionsystems messed them up.

Speaker 2 (20:08):
Maybe, they.

Speaker 3 (20:08):
I can feel heat coming from over here.
The seething.

Speaker 2 (20:13):
Maybe their anal probes went a little too deep.

Speaker 3 (20:15):
It could be like right up into their heart and
broke their ribs on just oneside.

Speaker 2 (20:20):
Exactly Like it got off track and broke all rib 2, 3
, 4, 5, and 6.
Okay, so one detail and 6.

Speaker 1 (20:25):
Yeah, Okay, so one detail.

Speaker 2 (20:28):
Jesus Christ.

Speaker 1 (20:28):
One detail is cited Some of the treetops Were burnt,
including the cedar tree, thenot any.
Were charred at the very top.

Speaker 2 (20:40):
Fire will do that.

Speaker 1 (20:43):
But from the ground?
How could it not go all the wayup?

Speaker 2 (20:47):
it was just the top what if an ember like floated
off and landed on the tree?

Speaker 1 (20:51):
maybe so I mean I'm just giving theories here.

Speaker 3 (21:04):
This isn't my theory.
I didn susceptible to moreparanormal.
I'm gonna say paranormalbecause it's not normal, so it's
paranormal activity than others, right, yeah, so I mean, if
there's all these sightings,maybe the urals in this area are
like fucking area 51 for all weknow.

Speaker 2 (21:26):
Yeah, it could, could be or I mean, you know, the
soviets did a lot of shadyfucking shit and it could have
been just like militaryexperiments and or anything like
that.

Speaker 3 (21:37):
That's part of the rebuttal I would also say, of
the people that are reportingthis right that have no
plausible explanation.
If you're one that favors adifferent theory, yeah, that's
that I'm sure is coming up.
Um, you know what's?

Speaker 2 (21:54):
what's the classic house fucking aliens yeah then
you're off the hook like noone's really like see, and
that's why I have a problem withalien theories.
Yeah, because it's just, it'sjust like a cop-out, absolutely
for like well, we don't have toexplain it, we'll just call it
aliens, and people will be likeexactly, and whatever.

Speaker 3 (22:14):
And that's why I just I get a little, I guess,
annoyed I mean, and in this case, right like soviets have this
terrible situation.
That's unexplainable, they'regonna try whatever, yeah to not
take ownership of that so it'slike you know, blame it on the

(22:35):
fucking aliens?

Speaker 2 (22:36):
yeah, because as far as we know they they did this on
purpose to these people couldbe.

Speaker 1 (22:40):
I mean, that could be a theory so between jan,
january and February of 1959,there were multiple test
launches and engine firingsoccurring at Baikonur Cosmodrome
.

Speaker 2 (22:52):
Cosmodrome.

Speaker 1 (22:53):
Baikonur is a place, so Baikonur to Dyatlov Pass, or
the current Dyatlov Pass, isover 1,000 miles away.

Speaker 2 (23:02):
That's quite a distance.

Speaker 1 (23:04):
But rocket stages can travel that far during
separation or failure.
Okay, so several unannouncedlaunches happened in late
january and early february,including stage tests of r7s and
nuclear capable variants it's alot of big scientific words um,

(23:24):
and they suspected suborbitalflights or failed missile drops.
Okay.

Speaker 2 (23:31):
And that's like the rebuttal of no, it's not aliens,
it's this Well, very well, itcould have been, and they're not
really going to report thatshit.

Speaker 1 (23:39):
Also in 1959, there was no UFO alien fever.
There was nothing like thatback then.

Speaker 3 (23:46):
So like when did when did aliens become the scapegoat
?
Though?

Speaker 2 (23:52):
like when ever historically roswell or like
what year was that?
Well, wasn't, didn't, wasn'tthat in the 40s?

Speaker 3 (24:01):
I don't know, I don't know, I don't know when they
were doing all the testing.

Speaker 2 (24:04):
Sam will look it up.
Yeah, I mean, I thought it waslike 50s, maybe 60s at the very
latest, but I guess I thought itwas in the 40s, but I'm not, I
don't know, I'm not sure ifthat's even right.

Speaker 3 (24:16):
Yeah, now I'm questioning everything, yeah.

Speaker 2 (24:18):
Well, how can you not ?

Speaker 3 (24:26):
Okay, okay, maybe aliens are making you question
it.

Speaker 1 (24:27):
It could be they're having a outside should I could
have been probed.
And I don't even know should webe wearing tinfoil hats right
now.

Speaker 3 (24:30):
I mean it's not a bad idea.

Speaker 2 (24:31):
I usually like to wear an armadillo shell, but
it's from a movie anyways youcan get leprosy from that, can
you really?

Speaker 3 (24:41):
I think, yeah, I'm pretty, I'm pretty confident,
armadillo shell from armadillosin general.

Speaker 2 (24:46):
I guess when I get home I'm throwing out my shell.

Speaker 1 (24:50):
Good idea, just saying All right, sam.

Speaker 2 (24:54):
Do you have something for us, so according to Google.

Speaker 3 (25:01):
People first thought the concept of extraterrestrial
life actually began in ancientGreece.
Well, yeah, because I meanthat's the theory, with the
fucking pyramids too.

Speaker 2 (25:15):
And that's why I mentioned that earlier.

Speaker 1 (25:16):
When did.
Roswell happen yeah.

Speaker 3 (25:19):
And then I need you to look up if armadillos give
you leprosy, Because it came outreally fast and I'm confident
with that, but now I'mquestioning it.
Well, that's second guess Idon't want to have you throw it
at your shelf or nothing.
Modern theory of aliens,particularly involving UFOs and

(25:40):
potential extraterrestrialvisitors gained significant
traction in the United States,starting in the summer of 1947.

Speaker 2 (25:46):
Okay, that's the year I was thinking of.
Actually it was 47.

Speaker 1 (25:49):
Okay, roswell is in 1947.

Speaker 2 (25:52):
Okay, look at me go.

Speaker 1 (25:54):
She's going to look up armadillos and we're going to
move on to Yeti attacks.
Yeti.

Speaker 3 (25:58):
Mm-hmm.
Do armadillos do what?
Give you leprosy?
Can you get leprosy from anarmadillo?
They can carry and transmitleprosy.

Speaker 2 (26:09):
Fuck yeah, look at you go, I'm not such random shit
Throwing Michelle out.

Speaker 3 (26:13):
Because I think these random thoughts and I'm like I
gotta fucking Google that thisis how ADHD works, guys.

Speaker 2 (26:19):
Oh, trust me.
And autism, just for the record.
I'm aware.

Speaker 1 (26:27):
Okay, autism, just for the record, I'm I'm aware.
Okay, I'm gonna push this along.
Thank you, yes, yeti, okay, so,um, there's a yeti theory, for
multiple reasons.
One they had they created theirown evening newsletter the
yetis did the hikers oh yeahextra, extra read all about it,
yetis they had a satiricalnewsletter.

Speaker 2 (26:49):
Yeah, I remember that was brought up you have to
admit that was confusing how shesaid that a little bit one of
the lines in the newsletter said, quote from now on, we know
that snowmen exist.

Speaker 1 (27:01):
End quote.
Abominable well, I mean, Iwould say some shit like that if
I was stuck in negative 5 000degree weather too, so so some
have said that some of thefootprints that were seen around
the area were too large to behuman were they aliens, yeti,

(27:24):
sorry, we've moved on.

Speaker 3 (27:25):
Stay on that oh yeah stay on, stay on track okay,
wait, so I have a.
I have a question related tothis about aliens so I have
their newsletters.
Like are those documentedsomewhere?

Speaker 1 (27:38):
yes, okay, so those are like evidence.
Yes, you can see them ondietlovepasscom so these
footprints that are really large.

Speaker 3 (27:46):
Yeah, if I'm an indigenous person living out
there, I've probably acclimatedto traveling in this weather,
and I'm thinking snowshoes withbare feet below it, that's if
the fancy people were around thecampsite.

Speaker 1 (28:02):
True, didn't.

Speaker 2 (28:03):
I don't remember, was it in a war or something?
People actually, I think it wasmaybe even World War II or
World War I, I don't recall butthey would actually wear shoes
that had hoof prints underneath.
Oh wow, Smart so it would coverup their foot tracks, but it
looked like just cows wereroaming about and shit Smart.
I think, it was in.

(28:26):
I want to say two, but I guessI don't recall.

Speaker 3 (28:26):
I feel like I've heard something like that before
there's an I Love Lucy and nowis it an I Love Lucy, or maybe
like one of those other blackand white Black and white shows.
I don't remember exactly whatshow, but they do it on a sitcom
, a really old one, oh really.
Or they wear those shoes, yeah.

Speaker 1 (28:46):
Maybe it's andy griffith.
That's what it does.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
That sounds more legit, yeah yeah, well, and it's
still black and white, so thattracks, so that works okay, now
let's talk about thephotographic evidence this is
the yeti picture yes I keepasking that, so now I can
actually frame number 17.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
It's a picture of a dark humanoid figure lurking
behind some trees at dusk I dohave it's very grainy um, and of
course yeti enthusiasts arelike proof that is sasquatch
right there see people need tolike pump the fucking brakes
because it's probably just thehikers in extra winter gear also

(29:27):
like if I'm out there witheight close friends, right,
we're gonna be joking aboutrandom shit.

Speaker 3 (29:35):
Like was that a fucking yeti?
Oh, I saw it I swear you knowlike, go stand behind that tree
and let me make you look like ayeti because I mean that totally
looks like a person, yeah,wearing a fucking hat and like a
coat and shit and plus, if it'slike snowing and blowing, right

(29:55):
right, you could be covered insnow and look like a snowman or
a yeti in two minutes flat and Imean he doesn't look like he's
covered much in snow.

Speaker 1 (30:05):
But that's also probably because it's a shitty
picture that as well, and thefocus is clearly on the front of
the picture, not the, thehumanoid figure so many think
that it might be yeti because ofthe potential like well, the,
the missing parts, essentiallythe missing tongue, the eyes on

(30:27):
of some of the victims, um, andthen the strength required to
crush ribs and skulls withoutany external cuts I feel like I
could crush a rib without beinga yeti.

Speaker 2 (30:40):
Yeah, I think so I think you could too I'm a big
guy, yeah, and I'm not a fuckingyeti I'm not a big guy, but I
feel like I could break a rib ifI really had to too you know,
yeah, so I feel like that's aweak argument.
Are yetis the like?
Uh, is that the same thing as asasquatch?
Basically yeti, bigfootsasquatch a bumable version.

(31:03):
Yeah, yeah, okay, I thought so,I thought that's what that was.

Speaker 1 (31:07):
I think it's like different terms for different
regions of the world, um, but Imean if you're in your tent at
dark and all of a sudden youhear like yeti groans can you
tell me what that sounds like?

Speaker 3 (31:24):
That sounds like a bear.

Speaker 2 (31:26):
It does.

Speaker 1 (31:28):
Maybe it was a bear.

Speaker 3 (31:29):
Wait, the bear fighter dropped out.

Speaker 2 (31:31):
Yeah, that was the Yuri number three, or is?

Speaker 3 (31:35):
there a Yuri there that fought the bear.
Yeah, he's still there.
That Yuri's still there.

Speaker 2 (31:40):
If it was a bear, they're fine, you can just fight
him.

Speaker 3 (31:44):
If I can fight a bear , I can fight a fucking Yeti.

Speaker 1 (31:48):
They rip open the tent.
Some of the hikers had boxingwounds on their hands, so maybe
they were doing somehand-on-hand combat.

Speaker 2 (32:00):
I'd appreciate it if you stopped doing that, so they
also could have been punching atree for sport, I mean.

Speaker 1 (32:07):
They could have.

Speaker 3 (32:08):
Yeah, we don't know they could have been punching it
like give me some fucking wood.

Speaker 1 (32:11):
I'm freezing.
Maybe some of them climbed atree to get out of the way of
the Yeti.

Speaker 2 (32:16):
Maybe that's how the tops of them burned.

Speaker 3 (32:18):
Maybe they climbed the tree to get away from each
other because someone's losingtheir shit.

Speaker 1 (32:22):
Maybe away from each other because someone's losing
their shit.

Speaker 2 (32:26):
Maybe, maybe somebody went on a rampage, we don't
know, never know, yeah, someonewent psychotic.

Speaker 1 (32:29):
Yes, okay, there's no other tangible evidence, no
sightings by search teams, nogigantic footprints that
wouldn't have been human.
No fur, no like teeth marks,biting marks, nothing like that.
Right, could it possibly be ayeti?

Speaker 2 (32:49):
no, it's a pretty weak fucking theory but which
one has more clout to you aliensor yeti?

Speaker 3 (32:58):
I feel like probably the yeti.
Yeti, because people just wantto believe it so much I know
they do.
I feel like aliens.
Yeah, people want to.
People just want to believe itso much I know they do.
I feel like aliens, yeah peoplewant to believe.

Speaker 2 (33:07):
People want to believe in aliens so much too.
That's why it's always broughtup, though now we know aliens
are real.

Speaker 3 (33:14):
Humans have accepted that, yetis we're still having a
hard time with I don't know.

Speaker 2 (33:20):
I don't know because there's.
There's people out there likeagain, sasquatch, bigfoot, yeti,
whatever you want to, whateverit's because there's people out
there like again, sasquatch,bigfoot, yeti, whatever it's
called.
There are people thatabsolutely believe they're real,
oh yeah, and everything hasproven them wrong, but yet they
still believe.
It's good to believe insomething, I guess.
It's like flat Earth.
Oh my God, Don't get me startedon fucking flat Earthers.

Speaker 1 (33:42):
We're going to move on, because he's getting heated.
Okay, the next theory is a KGBambush.
Uh-oh, an espionage theory.

Speaker 2 (33:57):
What was that?

Speaker 3 (33:59):
It sounded like someone's Siri.

Speaker 2 (34:03):
Can you pause for a second?
Okay, and we're back.

Speaker 1 (34:13):
Okay, kgb ambush, which is the espionage theory.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
KGB ambush.

Speaker 1 (34:18):
Yes, it was an inside job.

Speaker 2 (34:22):
So wait, one of the nine worked for the KGB.
Mm-hmm, yeah, which one Did youmention that?

Speaker 3 (34:28):
One is a communist.

Speaker 2 (34:30):
Yeah, she was like came out of the womb, yeah that
was as a communist she was likecame out of the womb.
Yeah, that was as a communistyou said right ludmina ludmina,
ludmia dubinina.

Speaker 1 (34:41):
So there's an author alexi rack rackettin rackettin
and he proposed that two or moremembers of the group were
actually kgb agents working on atop secret mission so where did
he get that thought from?
Let me continue to read allright, I will stop talking shut
the fuck up my bad so themission was to infiltrate a

(35:05):
supposed cia operation in thearea and, of course, according
to Rakitin, igor Dyatlov's teamincluded moles, and he points
specifically at SemyonZolotaryov, the 37-year-old.

Speaker 2 (35:21):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (35:22):
Because he joined.
One of the reasons was becausehe joined last minute and it was
just kind of weird andAlexander Kolevatov or Yuri
Krivonischenko, he's like, couldbe that one could be that one.

Speaker 3 (35:33):
Those were the two that went outside, correct?

Speaker 2 (35:38):
Oh yeah, which were the two that?

Speaker 3 (35:40):
went outside.
I don't remember which one theywere.

Speaker 1 (35:44):
I think Krivonishenko was one that went outside
supposedly to pee.

Speaker 2 (35:48):
Maybe they went out to do some other shenanigans
that they didn't want to know,back in the 59, which was nuts
highly.

Speaker 1 (35:55):
Don't ask, don't tell so he thinks that these
undercover agents were test wasdelivering fake radioactive
samples and that's why a part ofthem were radioactive or their
clothes were or whatever, butdidn't.

Speaker 2 (36:08):
That wasn't it because they worked at the
fucking nuclear plant.

Speaker 3 (36:11):
Mm-hmm, they were all fucking nuclear engineers yeah.

Speaker 1 (36:18):
So in this scenario something went very wrong.
Obviously, you don't say,perhaps the CIA operatives
discovered the ruse or anargument ensued, and then it
turned violent.
And then it turned violent.
The theory claims that Americanspies murdered the entire group
, eliminating the KGB agents andbystanders.

Speaker 2 (36:39):
Way to blame the fucking Americans, ruskies,
jesus Christ.

Speaker 1 (36:42):
To cover their tracks .
The assailants forced thehikers at gunpoint to stage the
bizarre scene.
Okay sorry, I was told to stoptalking, so go on um yuri yudin,
the, the surviving diet lovemember, later said he believed
his friends quote saw somethingthey shouldn't have seen.

(37:05):
End quote like aliens and wereforced at gunpoint to fake a
confusing scenario what if yetisare aliens?

Speaker 3 (37:13):
fuck never seen them both in the same place, have you
?

Speaker 2 (37:16):
exactly 100.

Speaker 1 (37:19):
That'd be a big spaceship yeah, okay, supporting
evidence radioactive clothing.
Yes, you know, if some of thehikers carried radioactive
samples, it could have explainedwhy their garments were
contaminated.
So, uh, ludmilla dubonina, hersweater and her pants were

(37:39):
radioactive.
And alexander kalevatov, hissweater fragments um were
radioactive.
And remember dubonina waswearing I think it was
Krivonishenko's clothes.

Speaker 3 (37:51):
Yeah.
So I'm just curious here.
Those three that we're talkingabout was their background not
in nuclear shit to begin with.
Could they not have had theradiation on the clothing
already?

Speaker 1 (38:09):
Yes, so I will get to that here.
Yes, on the clothing yes,already, so I will get to that
here.
Yes, so, um, the radioactivematerials were described as
exceeding normal backgroundradiation levels.
Okay, so, uh, measurementsaround 9,900 disintegrations per
minute, or dpms, were higherthan typical clothing, but not
dangerously radioactive.

(38:31):
Okay, okay.
So both dubonina andalevatovworked or studied in
environments connected toradioactive materials.
So Kalevatov was a former labworker at Moscow's Nuclear
Institute and Duboninaparticipated in UPI's projects
involving industrial materials.

(38:53):
So their clothing may have beenpreviously exposed to trace
radioactive elements, so therest of the group wouldn't have
been in on it and thereforewouldn't have had the traces.
And additionally, the camerabelonging to Kalevatov was
allegedly missing from recovereditems in this particular theory

(39:16):
.

Speaker 2 (39:16):
So they're thinking that there was something on the
camera that.

Speaker 1 (39:20):
And it was seized by the KGB.

Speaker 3 (39:26):
Well, the KGB is just a little sketchy and all of it
right.

Speaker 1 (39:32):
Which is why they're a good scapegoat, yeah of course
so are aliens.

Speaker 2 (39:36):
Yeah, maybe the KGB are aliens.
Maybe we're fucking uncoveringsome shit here, good lord.

Speaker 3 (39:43):
Okay, right, so these aren't with the exception of
one.
They all know each other'sbackground.
They all know each other well.
They've hiked together beforethey've done this climb, you
know for however many days toget to this point.
Right, yeah, it's not like theywere just carrying something
radioactive that became tooradioactive that it finally got

(40:07):
them.
You know, right.
Um, so that's a weird like notgonna happen.
No, not so much.
I don't think that's reality,not reality at all.
You know, it's just interestingthat they all have backgrounds
in this.
I feel like the only plausibleargument I could make in this

(40:30):
theory is that someone wentoutside to pee, someone else
went outside maybe not togethercaught him doing something weird
.
If he did have plants, you knowradioactive things yeah and
then a fight ensued.

(40:50):
Sure, okay, but like just todevil's advocate, like yeah,
could see that maybe happening,right, right, but that's the
only thing I really see here sozolotaryov?

Speaker 1 (41:02):
um, he was much older , a war veteran, he had military
connections and he he was theone that basically raised the
question of could this possiblybe a kgb thing?
Because he was such one thatbasically raised the question of
could this possibly be a KGBthing?
Because he was such a lastminute addition.
There was also the overallsecrecy of the investigation,
the hurried closing of the case,inconsistencies in the

(41:26):
documents, the diaries and thephotos, and people all thought
that this was like a big coverup.
So even Dyatlov's own sistersaid her family was sure the
military was somehow involved.
Some investigators andjournalists in Russia have
floated some similar ideas.

(41:47):
Some shadowy authority was theone that covered this all up.
Even one theory was aboutdrunken prison escapees.
Oh, jesus Christ, yeah.

Speaker 3 (42:00):
Excuse me what.

Speaker 2 (42:02):
Yeah, was there a prison nearby?

Speaker 3 (42:04):
There was.
First of all, if I get out offucking KGB ass, fucking prison
in 1959, I am not going up themountain, Fuck no.

Speaker 2 (42:19):
Fuck, no, no, there's no fucking way.
No, no, no, you're, you're.
You're going complete oppositeway, correct?
You're getting the hell, thefuck, out of there.

Speaker 1 (42:28):
So there's no footprints?
No, evidence that other peoplewere around the site um just
yetis no bullet wounds, no stabwounds, no traditional
hand-to-hand combat wounds yeah,and if it was prison people
it'd be shanks yeah, yeah, yeahgot my toothbrush in.

Speaker 3 (42:50):
Filed down this plastic spork.

Speaker 1 (42:52):
There is a simple explanation for the
radioactivity.
So Kalevatov previously workedat a nuclear facility.
Yes.
And Krivonishenko, who hadDubomir's clothes.
She was wearing his clothes.
He had been employed at aplutonium production plant.

Speaker 2 (43:14):
Plutonium.
We need that to get up to 88miles per hour the aliens need
that honestly oh yeah that, that.
That helps with butt probing um, so they don't resource.

Speaker 1 (43:27):
So um, krivonishenko actually worked at Chelyabinsk
40.
That's not true.
It is a top secret Sovietnuclear facility in the southern
Urals, okay, and it was a siteof plutonium production for

(43:47):
nuclear weapons.

Speaker 2 (43:48):
Right.

Speaker 1 (43:49):
And it was the site for one of the worst nuclear
disasters in history beforechernobyl I think it was after.

Speaker 3 (43:57):
Was it before or after?
When was chernobyl like?

Speaker 2 (43:59):
87 yeah, this is, yeah, this is so the um, so it's
called the um.
Kishtim disaster of 1957 so youhad mentioned there was a
nuclear something or other.

Speaker 1 (44:13):
Yes, so this was covered up until the 1980s.
This disaster, it happenedSeptember 29th 1957.
So only like a year and threemonths before the Dyatlov
incident.
It was at a nuclear fuelreprocessing plant near a secret
town.

Speaker 2 (44:33):
Secret town wow.

Speaker 1 (44:35):
Of this city.
They called it Chelyabinsk 40.
Okay, in the southern Urals,yeah, it had a level six on the
international nuclear eventscale.
In comparison, chernobyl was anevent, excuse me, a level seven
so pretty fucking bad.

(44:55):
Yeah, yeah, wow, okay so acooling system failed on a tank
storing liquid radioactive waste.
Okay, the waste overheated andexploded with a force of 70 to
100 tons of tnt oh, that's a bigexplosion it blew off the 160
ton concrete lid off the storagetank, jesus christ, and really

(45:18):
released 20 million curies ofradioactivity more than a
hiroshima bomb.
Wow.
So the radioactive cloud spreadover 20 000 square square miles
.
It affected about 200,000 pluspeople.
Locals were not told what hadhappened, of course not

(45:40):
Thousands were quietly relocated.
Others were sick or they diedfrom exposure.
The area is now known as EastUral Radioactive Trace.
They even named it after that'sgreat.

Speaker 2 (45:57):
So is it still radioactive to this day, as far
as you know?

Speaker 1 (46:00):
I don't know, I didn't look that up.
I know like is it becausechernobyl, chernobyl.

Speaker 2 (46:04):
I think it's still closed yeah there's like
obviously new life there.

Speaker 3 (46:09):
There have been like non-radioactive animals that
have been found in that area.

Speaker 1 (46:14):
So and they do allow rating.
Yeah, they do allow people togo on this site, but there's
like checks and balances thatyou have to go through to get
there didn't they also like?

Speaker 2 (46:24):
I saw something once and I could be probably getting
a lot of this wrong, but theyalmost like enclosed it in yeah
whatever something like yeah,yeah I don't remember exact
details so fun fact aboutchernobyl kind of like don't
spiral on this, but I've alreadyspiraled on it.

Speaker 3 (46:39):
It was aliens, it could have been, it could be,
could be uh yeti but um, thereis someone with the same surname
Dyatlov.

Speaker 2 (46:52):
Really.

Speaker 3 (46:53):
That was directly responsible for Chernobyl.
Really, they are not related.
Sure, that's where I spiraledfrom and I'm like are these
fucking people related?
Because that's wild.

Speaker 2 (47:03):
There's something going on here, man.

Speaker 3 (47:04):
I guess Dyatlov in this area, that period of time
is just as common as the nameYuri.

Speaker 2 (47:11):
Yeah, well, there's so many fucking areas yeah um.

Speaker 1 (47:15):
Have you guys seen the show chernobyl?

Speaker 2 (47:17):
I did not watch.
It created like a miniseriesit's really, really good.
I remember when that came out.

Speaker 1 (47:21):
I did not watch it, though so okay, so um, the town
technically does not exist onmaps well, not if it's a secret
town exactly.
The ussr never publiclyacknowledged the disaster until
1976, because there was awhistleblower that exposed it

(47:41):
and gregory um kravonishenkoworked at this place, possibly
during or just after the cleanupokay okay, um, he and the
others of the diatlov group mayhave had residual radioactivity
from this particular disaster.

Speaker 2 (47:58):
Okay, fair enough.

Speaker 1 (48:02):
Yeah, okay, third theory.

Speaker 2 (48:06):
Oh geez, we're only on three, huh.

Speaker 3 (48:08):
Mm-hmm.

Speaker 2 (48:09):
Holy balls.

Speaker 3 (48:10):
Can you imagine doing 73?

Speaker 2 (48:12):
No, because we're not soviet weapons testing I mean
that, yeah, that kind of goesalong with the whole military
thing we were bringing up before, so so were they shooting yetis
out of their planes?

Speaker 3 (48:29):
dropping them randomly to see like their
movements?

Speaker 2 (48:32):
yeah, do their knees hold up from 5 000 feet, so when
do they go from a?
Yeti to a sasquatch like what'sthe degree variation let's
radiate these yetis and see whathappens okay, so radioactive
yetis, fuck, yeah, we need tomake a comic book or something
like that.

Speaker 1 (48:48):
I'm trying to move this along, okay, so it doesn't
get to be five hours long it'sall right that long.
We're already close to an hourI know okay, so there'll be some
cut out, but anyways the late1950s um there was a lot of
military experimentation in theussr um rockets and parachute
mines and, according to thistheory, the diet love groups

(49:10):
route happened to place them inthe wrong place at the wrong
time okay so there was perhaps aparachute mine exercise being
conducted by the soviet army.
Parachute mines are explosivedevice devices dropped from
aircraft which detonate aboveground, and they produce a shock
wave that can flattenstructures and humans.

Speaker 2 (49:32):
And break ribs.

Speaker 1 (49:33):
Without leaving obvious blast caters, because
it's happening in the air Right.

Speaker 3 (49:38):
Well, that could explain the burnt treetops Could
.

Speaker 2 (49:41):
It very well could.

Speaker 1 (49:42):
It could.

Speaker 2 (49:43):
A lot better than aliens.

Speaker 1 (49:44):
A lot better than that.
I'm just saying.

Speaker 3 (49:46):
Much more probable.

Speaker 2 (49:48):
Yes, well, because if they detonate above ground,
yeah.
Treetops, exactly, yes, well,because if they detonate above
ground, yeah treetops.

Speaker 1 (49:54):
Exactly weird, and this could also equate with the
glowing orange orbs yeah weird.
So these could have been sovietaircraft or descending
parachute flares or mines.
Um, being mistaken for apotential ufo, hikers asleep in
their tents are rocked awake byloud explosions.

(50:15):
Shockwaves hit the tent, maybepartially collapsing the tent,
scaring the hikers.
They have to cut their way out.
Um, and and then they find outokay, that wasn't that bad.
And then they I don't know whythey'd have to go down the
mountain.

Speaker 3 (50:30):
But and then they, I don't know why they'd have to go
down the mountain, but so Idon't really understand how
radioactive material works here.
Just to back this up, a skoachIf a shockwave is dropped and
there are radioactive remnantsabout, do they explode?
What happens with radioactiveelements?

Speaker 2 (50:54):
I don't think so, but I have no idea.
That's a great.

Speaker 1 (50:55):
A great was this part of the research I'm gonna go
with no, get the google machineout, yeah to the google machine
yeah, this was um.

Speaker 3 (51:00):
I forgot my scientific hat today, so it's
fair, yeah this is just where Ispiral so and I'm a sketchy
bitch like.

Speaker 2 (51:07):
I want an explanation no, I, I don't blame you,
because it's really quitesketchy.

Speaker 3 (51:12):
I mean because I could see right, like if
something is dropped, itexplodes.
Right, there's potential treefire, whatever.
Yeah.
Maybe that explains theconfusion, the hysteria, the
what the fuck?
We got to get out of here shit.

Speaker 2 (51:30):
The internal trauma without any external trauma yeah
right, no it, that's the mostbelievable one so far honestly,
because aliens?
Okay, yet he's.
That's ridiculous.
But yet the things that they'vereported, with the treetops and
the internal injuries.

(51:51):
That's so far.

Speaker 3 (51:52):
This is the most believable theory yeah honestly,
but anyways sam a shock wavealone cannot cause radioactive
material to explode, but a shockwave can damage and disperse
radioactive radioactivematerials okay, so I mean,
that's maybe why there's someabout.

(52:12):
But we don't even know, againtheorizing.

Speaker 2 (52:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (52:17):
We don't know that it was maybe even radioactive
material.
It could have been other shitthey were testing, right yeah,
cold War, mm-hmm Testing randomstuff Like are you talking,
cross-contamination Could be?
Yeah right.
It could be a new thing we'venever even heard of because it
didn't work, you know right?

Speaker 2 (52:36):
no, that's true um.

Speaker 1 (52:39):
So the subsequent soviet cover-up could also make
some sense, because the area,the mountain pass, was closed
for three years after, afterthis incident was it really.
No one was allowed up there howcome?
We don't know.
It's a cover-up.

(53:00):
Ask russia, I know was itcovered up with snow.
Sorry, anyways, that was poorokay, so apart from blowing,
apart from the radioactivity,there's fireballs in this,
potential fireballs in the skyum.
The lead soviet investigatorsaid that there were bright

(53:21):
burning spheres seen from um thelocals around february 1st yeah
um.
Additionally, there was anotherhiking group about 50 kilometers
away who also reported strangelights in the sky to the north.
Are they alive?
Yes, so they.
So the whole trek up to thepart where they started putting

(53:45):
on their skis.
So, like all the, the train andthe, the truck, yep, um, they
were actually with another group.
Okay, they went one way.
Diet love went the other oh,interesting, maybe it was the
other group they killed them

Speaker 2 (54:01):
they got radioactive yeah, and then they went just
crazy and killed the diet lovegroup did we talk about?

Speaker 3 (54:07):
zombies, like maybe the other group was just hungry,
right?

Speaker 2 (54:13):
none of them were eaten their tongue was tongue
eyes were they.

Speaker 3 (54:19):
They tasted and decided they didn't like it too
radioactive for me.

Speaker 1 (54:24):
Let's go no so weapons test theory also
explains why investigators mighthave been a little bit more
pressure to wrap up the casequickly.
Yeah, yeah, a little bit ofparanoia, perhaps, right, maybe
the rescue team knew more thanthey let on?
Of course they did.
Yeah, yes, exactly Of coursethey did so, unfortunately.

Speaker 2 (54:44):
Well, the one fucking guy didn't even like report,
like something.

Speaker 1 (54:47):
He didn't even document it.

Speaker 2 (54:48):
There was a couple of those situations, so it's like
well, I mean, I'm supposed tobelieve these fucking idiots no,
they would have a vestedinterest in covering any of this
shit up, like I said so sothere's no physical evidence of
such tests being seen.

Speaker 1 (55:03):
There's no fragments of bombs, shrapnel or impact uh
craters um.
An aerial burst would not haveleft a crater, but you could
also expect a little bit ofscattered debris or burns yes um
, none were noted in theautopsies or reports.
um, some of the hikers did havesome like orange tint to their

(55:25):
skin and some gray hair, butthat could be to natural
mummification in the cold gotcha, okay.
Um, the radioactivity on theclothes um was more localized as
opposed to like the entirety ofthe clothing, right.

(55:46):
Um, a nuclear blast or aradiological weapon would have
blanketed everyone in material.
Oh sure, yeah, so also therewere no other footprints, so we
kind of keep going back to that.

Speaker 2 (56:02):
Yeah, I mean it really is hard to say other
people were there when there'sno other footprints.
Yeah, that we know of.

Speaker 3 (56:10):
But it could be a combination of things right on
their footprints.
Yeah, that we know of, but itcould be a combination of things
right.
Because, again, how do you findfootprints if there's an
avalanche and blowing snow?

Speaker 2 (56:18):
drifting snow and all that.
Yeah, it's really quite hard todo that actually.

Speaker 1 (56:21):
Yeah so in april 1959 , experts forensics conducted
tests and detected theradioactivity contamination on
the clothing from LudmilaDubonina and Alexander Kolevatov
.
And it wasn't just the traceamounts, it was significantly

(56:41):
above normal background levels.
And then, just a few weekslater, the case was closed
abruptly.

Speaker 2 (56:50):
Weird.
And those are the two suspectedkgb people, or whatever you
which was which was the one thatwas birth a communist ludmila
ludmila dubinina okay, so kgbespionage or secret testing,
secret weapons testing?

Speaker 1 (57:10):
aliens not a part of this oh um kgb espionage see, I
think the weapons yeah I feellike weapons is probably more
probable between the two.

Speaker 3 (57:22):
Yes, just because of the factor that it's the cold
war, well, it's the cold war.

Speaker 2 (57:27):
Like I said, the space race is kind of heating up
here and everything.
Yeah, I would 100% go with theweapons testing.
Yeah, because it's Cold Waralone, yeah.

Speaker 1 (57:41):
Okay, so the Yeti, the aliens, those were the
supernatural theories.

Speaker 2 (57:47):
The stupid natural theories.

Speaker 1 (57:49):
The KGB espionage and the Soviet weapons testing were
more human nature theories.
Now we're going to get into thenatural theories, woohoo, and
at this point I think we shouldtake a little break.

Speaker 2 (58:03):
Okay, we can do that, because I got a pee.
I gots to pee.

Speaker 1 (58:10):
Welcome back.

Speaker 2 (58:12):
Guess who's.

Speaker 1 (58:12):
Oh sorry, my bladder has been emptied huzzah, yeah
I'm definitely leaving that inokay, so now I'm ready, we're
now into.
We're now into the naturaltheories yes, natural.

(58:33):
And one is the katabatic winds.

Speaker 2 (58:37):
What are katabatic winds?

Speaker 1 (58:39):
It is an unusual wind phenomenon, basically an air
avalanche.
Okay Okay, katabatic is a fancyterm for a gravity powered
downslope wind how do thoseoccur?
Cold, dense air can suddenlyroar down a mountain, a mountain

(59:02):
, a mountain, a mountain, likean invisible freight train
gaining high speed as it goesdown and that's just fueled by
cold.
You said yes, so it's it wouldbe like mother nature opening up
a giant freezer door and likeall that cold air just kind of
rushes out at you does mothernature have a freezer?

(59:24):
yes, I said it's like mothernature.
Yes, it's called siberia, yeahso such winds have been known to
reach near hurricane forcewinds.
Wow, Okay.
And for the Dyatlov group, theidea is that late February 1st
1959, a catabatic blast slammedinto their camp without warning.

Speaker 2 (59:49):
Would that be significant enough to internally
damage their bodies then?

Speaker 3 (59:55):
well, let's find out, because I don't remember we
looked at that I feel like rightand it was like a 70 ish, it
was close it wasn't like 67miles per hour.

Speaker 2 (01:00:07):
Yeah, I think we came up with was like we're like
fuck, that's highway speeds.

Speaker 3 (01:00:12):
When did we do?

Speaker 2 (01:00:13):
that in one of the last two episodes.

Speaker 1 (01:00:16):
About what?
What did we talk about?
We were talking about how windyit was internal injuries.

Speaker 3 (01:00:22):
I'm caught up wow, like she wasn't here for it okay
, it's fine physically, socatabatic winds.

Speaker 2 (01:00:31):
I'm just going to keep reading.

Speaker 1 (01:00:32):
I would appreciate that.

Speaker 2 (01:00:33):
Catabatic winds.
I'm just gonna keep reading.

Speaker 1 (01:00:33):
I would appreciate that katabatic winds are
infamous in polar regions andhigh mountains.
Okay, in 1978, a similar suddenwind in anaris, sweden, killed
eight hikers, which gives thistheory some clout.
I think Some plausibility.
For the Dyatlov crew.

(01:00:54):
A violent wind could haveterrified them into immediate
action, explaining why theywould have sliced their way out
of the tent.

Speaker 2 (01:01:01):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:01:02):
They would have run for cover from falling trees
that are not nearby.
See, they were on the BaldMountain part they were on the
Bald Mountain, sure were, surewere and mountain part they were
on the bald mountain but surewhere, sure where.

Speaker 3 (01:01:14):
And again, these aren't like inexperienced people
on their first hike like.

Speaker 2 (01:01:19):
I mean they're literally going for their
category three, not like,wouldn't you think, just stay in
the tent.

Speaker 3 (01:01:25):
It's some kind of cover, right.

Speaker 1 (01:01:27):
Well, at that point, yeah and some, some researchers
thought that maybe the hikersmight have anchored the tent
with snow because, remember,half of the tent was covered
with snow.
They had to dig in.
So you know, yeah, so, but doyou remember that there were the

(01:01:47):
skis that were holding up partof the tent or whatever?
Those were still completelyupright.
Yeah, that were holding up partof the tent or whatever.
Those were still completelyupright.
Yeah, so katabatic winds couldalso tie into the injuries and
kind of around about me.

Speaker 2 (01:01:59):
So that's what I was asking yeah, one, uh.

Speaker 1 (01:02:02):
One version is that, after evacuating the tent, the
group split up and attempted toregroup later.
Um, some huddled in the treeline lighting a fire, others dug
the the den a snow denessentially and if that snow
cave later collapsed, it couldproduce crushing injuries sure

(01:02:22):
so essentially the wind drovethem to shelter in riskier
places and indirectly caused thetrauma.

Speaker 2 (01:02:28):
But but they were not even found in the snow den,
they were found a little bitaway from it yeah, they were so
that kind of in my brain yeah,doesn't really go together well,
yeah, right, I mean, yeah, II'm sure.
No, it's fair, I'm sure there'sother things that could cause
the that particular outcome, butjust looking at it from my

(01:02:51):
perspective, it's just like well, if that happened, why weren't
they in it then?

Speaker 3 (01:02:55):
yeah so I mean, it could have been a worsening
situation right, it could havebeen like a strong wind, yeah,
and they're like shit.
We better move before it getsworse.
And then it got worse.
You know that's true, but itwould explain too right, like we
talked about the fact that downby the ravine, yeah, someone

(01:03:20):
appeared to have fallen from thetree into the fire right right
a strong wind would probablyexplain someone blowing out of a
tree yeah, and into a fire,yeah, yeah, no, that's true but
what it doesn't explain is howit ripped out a tongue or or
several or several eyes broke ahyoid

Speaker 1 (01:03:42):
or the radioactivity or, or that all wind has
radioactivity.
Geez, you can't believe, youdidn't know that in soviet
russia exactly catabetic windsare also fairly rare in the
urals.
They're more common in placeslike antarctica.

Speaker 2 (01:04:00):
All right, I'm gonna just credit this theory right
away.
I'm not not a fan of this one Ifeel like it.

Speaker 3 (01:04:10):
So, if you want to nerd out, there are some like
interesting photos of windpatterns that have developed in
the snow Sure.
So I feel like it's plausible,but only to an extent.
Yeah, not to give away mytheory, but I feel like it's a
combination of some of thesethings, right, like the wind

(01:04:34):
probably could be at play heresure it's snowing and blowing
very possible, um, but itdoesn't explain the injuries and
that's why I keep going back tothe injuries, right?
no for sure.
Like a strong wind, 70 mile anhour, hits you out of nowhere,
funneling down between mountains.

(01:04:55):
Maybe could break some ribs.
Maybe, Does not break a hyoid.
No, not at all Does not rip outeyes and tongues.

Speaker 2 (01:05:06):
But you know what does Yetis Aliens?

Speaker 3 (01:05:10):
Okay, alien, yetis, anyways.

Speaker 1 (01:05:12):
Next natural theory.

Speaker 3 (01:05:14):
So this is number six wait, can we elaborate on winds
?
Just a little bit yes so I'veread some interesting stuff that
the winds happened and thesound from the wind essentially
drove them mad so that'sactually part of my next theory

(01:05:34):
all right, oh all right, no,that's okay it's um, so it's
called infrasound induced panic.

Speaker 2 (01:05:38):
Yes, infrasound induced panic.
Yeah, so that was actuallythat's.

Speaker 1 (01:05:42):
That's a theory, um, so think of it like a sound
weapon.

Speaker 3 (01:05:48):
Yeah, um, it's not wielded by humans, but by the
topography of the mountain sureokay, but it could be wielded by
humans that are doing some kindof shady shit yes yeah, no,
you're not wrong

Speaker 1 (01:06:02):
and I I think I get to that actually, oh all right,
I actually didn't review thisbefore we sat down, so I'm like
I think I heard okay all rightso um infrasound refers to low
frequency sound waves below therange of human hearing, which is
below 20 hertz okay um, theother one would be um infrasound

(01:06:27):
and then ultrasound.
That's the other one makes senseall right okay so you can't
hear it, but you can feel it,you might feel it.
Yes, so research has shown thatcertain low frequency
vibrations can cause humans toexperience everything from
anxiety, nausea, dread andoutright panic.

Speaker 3 (01:06:50):
Sure, or if you, you know, are a fan of better help
and things like that differentgreen noise, brown noise,
whatever can just lull you to anice sleep.

Speaker 1 (01:07:02):
Yeah, my, my um sound machine has all those, yeah,
different options.
You have a sound machine, I doI like your alarm clock.
I like the um the thunderstorms, they're my favorite.
Rain with thunder.
What do you like?
Silence.

Speaker 3 (01:07:19):
I honestly fall asleep listening to the police
scanner.
The police scanner, yeah, Ineed that frequency because it
shuts my brain off.

Speaker 2 (01:07:34):
I have to watch a movie when I fall asleep, it's
her and I it's.
I feel bad because, like my kidkids, like my son's been like
wanting to sleep on the floor inour room lately and vesper is
still kind of, unfortunately,sleeping in our bed, which or
not sleeping either way.
Um, so I feel bad for thembecause I always have to pick
the movie because don't want towatch something like I can't
fall asleep to that you don'twant to watch like incanto for

(01:07:54):
the seventh millionth time I,luckily, I've never seen that,
oh okay so it's not bad I mean,I'm not saying anything bad
against it, but I just no, don'twant to watch like well,
fucking vesper is all aboutfancy nancy right now what is a
fancy nancy?

Speaker 3 (01:08:10):
don't ask.
We're veering, but I no, I knowit's.

Speaker 2 (01:08:13):
It's a show where everything's everything's fancy,
apparently, and vesper wants tothen play fancy nancy and it's
we don't have the money forfancy yeah, it's, it's literally
her just calling everythingfancy you're just nancy yeah
you're not fancy, not at all,I'm just nancy okay, anyway so I
have to pick a movie that I canfall asleep to, and it's

(01:08:34):
usually something I've seen alot because I can shut my brain
off per se.

Speaker 1 (01:08:39):
So anyways, redirect, redirect sorry okay, so this
popular theory came from theauthor donnie eichar and he his
book, the 2013 book deadmountain, and I actually got a
lot of my information from thatbook as well as the
dialofpasscom Right.
So it would be like a perfectstorm of wind conditions.

(01:09:01):
It produced a powerfulinfrasound that drove the hikers
into an irrational terror, sothe concept is called Carman
Vortex Street.

Speaker 2 (01:09:13):
Carman Vortex Street.
Carman Vortex Street.

Speaker 1 (01:09:15):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (01:09:16):
Sounds like a location.
It's not I know, or like a club.

Speaker 1 (01:09:19):
It's not.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's a pattern ofspinning air vortices that can
sometimes form when wind hits anobstacle.
Like a mountain peak, sure,okay.
Like a mountain peak, sure,okay.
So ikar suggests that, asstrong winds swept over the dome
of the mountain, they couldhave generated these vortices,
which in turn emanated a lowfrequency hum that is not

(01:09:41):
usually heard by humans correctit's too low below 20 hertz.
Yes, right so, uh, thissub-audible hum might have been
like the earth itself groaning.

Speaker 2 (01:09:55):
It's like I don't want to get up.

Speaker 1 (01:09:58):
Have you ever seen those videos of like a really
incredible powerful mic andthey'll put it on a tree and the
tree is literally groaning.

Speaker 2 (01:10:08):
Yeah, it would be like that.
I've never seen that in my life.
I have no idea what you'retalking about.

Speaker 3 (01:10:12):
It's a thing.
You can hear the soundmushrooms make and trees
communicate.
You can hear the sound of aplanet spinning if you really
want to.

Speaker 2 (01:10:22):
Well, the trees communicate because they're ants
that have been alive forthousands of years.
Thank you, lord of the Rings,they really deliver.

Speaker 3 (01:10:33):
Alright, right, fair enough, okay, so these hikers
wouldn't have heard anything,but their bodies might have
reacted, sure so just a questionyeah right, I don't know we're
we're gonna get there, but if itis like the ground groaning,

(01:10:54):
right, I feel like that could bea setup for oh fuck, we got to
move.
There's about to be anavalanche.
Yeah, right so againcombination of things.
For sure.
Yeah, I can argue anything.

Speaker 1 (01:11:11):
So infrasound at certain frequencies has been
documented to cause feelings ofunease and panic, and they
sometimes call it the fearfrequency.

Speaker 2 (01:11:21):
The fear frequency.

Speaker 1 (01:11:22):
It can vibrate the tiny ears.
Nope the tiny hairs in yourears.

Speaker 3 (01:11:27):
The tiny ears.

Speaker 2 (01:11:29):
My mind instantly went to cat ears.

Speaker 3 (01:11:33):
My mind went to the tiny hands.

Speaker 1 (01:11:35):
Oh, no, tiny ears, hi Donnie's.

Speaker 2 (01:11:39):
Okay, that's enough.

Speaker 1 (01:11:43):
It's Kristen Wiig on XML.

Speaker 2 (01:11:45):
I know, I know Donnie's Okay, anyways.

Speaker 1 (01:11:49):
So it can create vibrations on these tiny hairs
in the inner ear and it messeswith the vestibular system, then
creating orientation anddiscomfort, essentially.
So under this theory, late atnight the winds start like an
eerie Dead Mountain song.
The campers are suddenly hitwith a wave of dread coming out

(01:12:10):
of nowhere.
Perhaps they might have startedfeeling dizzy or nauseous and
in a collective panic they'relike we've got to get out of
this tent ASAP.
Right.
Yeah, so they might havebelieved an avalanche was coming
from the ground, which couldhave also explained their
confusion.

(01:12:30):
I'm petting my cat, penny.
Penny, if you weren't seeingthis on TV or on YouTube, sorry
On the television.
Yeah, she wants all the pets.

Speaker 2 (01:12:39):
She's like meh.

Speaker 1 (01:12:40):
She was just over here.

Speaker 2 (01:12:41):
I know.

Speaker 1 (01:12:42):
You can come back.
It's amazing how much she canwalk, Penny.
Come back, Penny, okay.
So this theory gained somerespectability because it
doesn't require conspiracies.
It doesn't require aliens oryetis?
Yes, exactly so.
Lab experiments have shownlow-frequency sound can induce

(01:13:03):
anxiety in humans.
The US military even researchedinfrasound as a non-lethal
weapon for crowd control.
Yep.

Speaker 2 (01:13:14):
Oh really.

Speaker 1 (01:13:14):
Interesting researched infrasound as a
non-lethal weapon for crowdcontrol.
Yep, oh, really interesting.
Have you heard like a reallyreally low um note on an organ,
like an organ, pipe, organ?

Speaker 3 (01:13:23):
yeah, it would be like that, only all over and
even that explains how I feelwhen I go in a church I feel,
dirty, just dread and panic.

Speaker 1 (01:13:38):
So just after dawn on February 15th 2013.

Speaker 2 (01:13:43):
So almost two weeks later.

Speaker 1 (01:13:45):
At 9.20 local time, a 12,000 ton meteor exploded in
the sky over the Ural Mountains.
It's approximately 120 milessouth of Yekaterinburg.

Speaker 2 (01:14:03):
Of where.

Speaker 1 (01:14:04):
Yekaterinburg.

Speaker 3 (01:14:06):
You know, oh, yekaterinburg.

Speaker 1 (01:14:09):
It's a big city.
If people in Russia arelistening, they know where it is
.
Nasa, scientists estimated itsdiameter to have been 55 feet.
Gesundheit.
Thank you 55 feet diameter Okay,making it the largest meteor to
hit Earth's atmosphere in overa century, and resulted in an

(01:14:29):
explosion that flattened 800square miles of forest in
central Siberia, with a blastseveral hundred times more
powerful than the atomic bombdropped on Hiroshima.
Hiroshima, I've heard both ways.
I know Tomato, tomato.
What followed next wasinfrasound waves.

(01:14:51):
What followed next wasinfrasound waves.
The explosion generated massiveinfrasound waves detected by
infrasound sensors all over theworld.

Speaker 2 (01:15:01):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:15:01):
Including 47 global stations.
The waves circled the Earthmultiple times Some say three,
some say four full orbits.
Yeah, it was the most powerfulinfrasound ever recorded from a
known object but this happenedlike two weeks after they died
this happened in 2013 oh so okay, I did not hear the year.

(01:15:27):
Yes, that's okay, it happened inFebruary 2013.
There are YouTube videos on.
I'm going to link them in ourshow notes.
But you can actually see thismeteor.
You can't really tell thatthere's infrasound, but the
meteor.
It's really interesting to hearthis big boom.

Speaker 2 (01:15:42):
Yeah, don't hit that.

Speaker 3 (01:15:43):
Much like you know we were talking about earlier.
Right Like certain areas aremore susceptible to weird shit
happening than others.
Sorry, I put that in therebecause I was just like you guys
know what I'm talking about,right, I put that in there
because infrasound has beendetected and it has happened

(01:16:04):
before, so it's possible ithappened back in 1959.

Speaker 1 (01:16:08):
Oh, that's what you're saying, okay.

Speaker 2 (01:16:10):
Gotcha, because I'm like cool 2013.
Glad we know what happened.
I this Okay Cool 2013.
All right, glad we know whathappened.
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:16:19):
So the problem with this 54 years later?

Speaker 3 (01:16:21):
Back to the future Right.

Speaker 1 (01:16:23):
The problem with this theory is it can't be proved.
It happened way back then.
There weren't sensors for itback then, sure.

Speaker 2 (01:16:31):
That's really funny because yetis can't be proved
either.
Or aliens Just saying funnybecause yetis can't be proved
either.

Speaker 1 (01:16:37):
Or aliens just saying some physicists have questioned
um the uh type topography ofthe campsite and the mountain,
if that would, even ifinfrasound would even occur yeah
in that kind of situation.
Um, but people also point outthat not not all nine hikers
would probably react identicallythe same way to infrasound

(01:17:00):
Exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:17:02):
Maybe some would I mean a lot of averages.

Speaker 3 (01:17:05):
But and again, just to shit on this right away it
doesn't break ribs, it doesn't.

Speaker 2 (01:17:11):
No.

Speaker 3 (01:17:12):
Break a fucking hyoid Like it just doesn't.

Speaker 1 (01:17:21):
It could drive them mad.
Have you?
Have you seen those videos ofpeople reacting to something
that's not there in front oftheir partner or whatever?
They also react the same wayyeah so even if these people
aren't panicking the same waythey see one panicking, they're
all gonna panic, true?

Speaker 3 (01:17:35):
yeah, I guess I have not monkey see, monkey, do you
know like your partner wouldessentially like oh shit, you
know, and they're like wait,what fuck?

Speaker 1 (01:17:45):
yeah it's like that yeah or there's a bee and you'll
panic and yeah, we're like Idon't see the bee, but I'm gonna
.

Speaker 3 (01:17:51):
Usually one of them trips down the stairs or
something too Like.
It's great.
I highly recommend.

Speaker 2 (01:17:56):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:18:01):
Okay, so it does not explain internal injuries.
For that you would needsomething else, Something else.

Speaker 2 (01:18:08):
All I know is.
One thing I've learned over thecourse of these episodes is
that Audra really has a thingfor the hyoid.

Speaker 3 (01:18:15):
I do it's like the most interesting part to me no,
because it's a hard.
It's a hard thing to get tounless you are like strangled.

Speaker 1 (01:18:24):
Yeah, basically, yeah okay no, I get it katabatic
winds or infrasound panic.
I have to pick one.

Speaker 2 (01:18:32):
Yeah, you picked yeti and you picked secret weapons.

Speaker 1 (01:18:35):
So now you have to pick one.
Yeah, you picked Yeti and youpicked Secret Weapons.
So now you have to pickCatabatic Winds or Infrasound.
Which one do you think whichhas more clout?
Not which one do you think itis, which one has more of a
possibility?

Speaker 2 (01:18:48):
I guess the winds.

Speaker 1 (01:18:50):
You think the winds?

Speaker 2 (01:18:51):
If I had to pick one of those two, I don't mean I
honestly don't agree with either, but if I had to pick one of
those two, I don't mean I don't,I honestly don't agree with
either.

Speaker 1 (01:18:59):
But if I had to pick, one, I'd pick the winds audrey
I think the sound?

Speaker 3 (01:19:04):
yeah, I think, um, and I'm gonna pick the sound
because, for the reason theymight have, I could see it
lining up the events.
Right, sure, uh, they thinkit's an avalanche.
They cut out of the tent.
They're like fuck, we gottamove right um, that would
explain the various dress.

Speaker 1 (01:19:24):
Doesn't explain the radiation and all the other shit
but you know, but I feel likethe winds could also, because
you could hear the winds comingout over the mountain so so I
think I would choose the winds.
Yeah, because they would beable to hear that and they could
panic from that.

Speaker 2 (01:19:40):
Yeah, that's true too , Because I mean, depending on
the ultimate sound of thosewinds, it could also sound like
an avalanche.
Exactly.
And that's kind of where I wasgoing with picking the winds as
well.
Yeah, because I get what you'resaying 100%, but I don't know,
I just wind can play some funnytricks on your mind with what

(01:20:00):
you hear.

Speaker 3 (01:20:01):
Do we talk about the undressing?

Speaker 1 (01:20:06):
No, okay.
So there's something calledparadoxical undressing.
Yes, paradoxical undressing.
You and I covered that in ourchildren's blizzard of 1888.

Speaker 2 (01:20:17):
That's why I'm like I've heard that before.

Speaker 1 (01:20:20):
So you get so cold from hyperthermia your body
actually thinks it's warm andyou?
Start to undress.

Speaker 3 (01:20:26):
Right, and that was a theory.
I feel like winds or soundcould also start that.
Sure Okay, if everyone'sreacting to everything different
.
Sound wave-wise.

Speaker 2 (01:20:41):
Right, huh, okay.

Speaker 1 (01:20:44):
I still think that Igor was going to have them all
wash their feet, and so theystarted taking off their shoes,
and some of them their socks.
By the time something happenedand they all left.

Speaker 2 (01:20:56):
Do you think he was standing there like the guy in
Dodgeball?

Speaker 1 (01:21:00):
No, Stop it.

Speaker 2 (01:21:04):
Doing his stomach thing there.
Get in there nice and deep.

Speaker 1 (01:21:08):
We have two final theories that we're going to
talk about.

Speaker 2 (01:21:12):
Potentially more from Audra.

Speaker 3 (01:21:13):
Yes, Maybe we're going to talk about a slab
avalanra.

Speaker 1 (01:21:17):
Yes, yeah, maybe Maybe.

Speaker 2 (01:21:20):
So we're going to talk about a slab avalanche, is
it a?

Speaker 1 (01:21:23):
slab-a-lanche.
Yes, yeah, you turn somethingvery unsexy into something sexy.
Slab-a-lanche.

Speaker 3 (01:21:32):
So slab avalanche was really sexy.
No, it's unsexy.
Oh, okay, different, okay, it'slike wait, which one's the sexy
one?

Speaker 2 (01:21:48):
you know, neither of them are.
If you have to ask thatquestion, yeah, I guess.

Speaker 1 (01:21:52):
Okay, so the dyatlov hikers?
They carved out they carved outum a pad of snow to lay their
tent on yes, remember, this is aslope, correct?
That they're on a 22 to 30degree slope, depending on where
you read it.
30 yeah um.
So they had to carve out a flatslab of snow so their tent

(01:22:14):
wouldn't be on a fucking angle.
Yes, yeah okay, so it wassuggested that a slab avalanche
came from what was like on topof them.

Speaker 2 (01:22:22):
Essentially, I don't agree yeah I don't agree with
that.
So I know, okay, I I don't knowwhat your next one is, and
that's fine, but like Iunderstand that like a big thing
is, avalanches are a very bigtheory for these people, but
that just seems a little likenot exactly right.

Speaker 1 (01:22:45):
But again, I'll go into more detail, I guess and
we'll decide yeah, then I'llshit on it Go ahead let's say,
catabatic winds blew additionalsnow down the slope a slab of
compacted snow maybe the size oflike a small suv, like my car,
eileen.
Eileen has no giddy up and go,that's why we call her.

Speaker 3 (01:23:07):
Come on, eileen, the song okay I was thinking of no
arm, no leg jokes.
But it's just me small suv.

Speaker 1 (01:23:16):
Okay, this slab of compacted snow would break loose
and then slam into the tent.
It would not bury them onlypartially.
It wouldn't wipe them out, butit was enough to trigger a
panicked response, right?
Okay, here's where things get ainteresting.
I hope so in 2021 okay I'm justsaying like this is still like,

(01:23:40):
oh yeah broad spectrum, oh mygosh, it's.
It's going on for eons right or50 scientists from epfl.
Epfl, it's swiss, so here we godo it.

Speaker 2 (01:23:55):
Let's hear how she pictures this Ecole.

Speaker 1 (01:23:56):
Polytechnique Federale de Lusana, epfl, got it
.

Speaker 3 (01:24:04):
It is a.

Speaker 1 (01:24:04):
Swiss university known for top-tier engineering
and physics research, yep andthe ETH Zurich.

Speaker 2 (01:24:15):
What's ETH mean?

Speaker 1 (01:24:16):
Swiss Federal Institute of TechnologyTH Zurich
.
What's ETH mean?
Swiss Federal Institute ofTechnology in.

Speaker 2 (01:24:20):
Zurich, how do you get ETH out of that?
It's.

Speaker 1 (01:24:22):
Swiss.
I just translated it for you.
Anyway, einstein went there.
Enough apparently.

Speaker 3 (01:24:28):
So anyway.

Speaker 1 (01:24:29):
Interesting.
This guy named Johan Guam was asnow dynamics expert.
What was his name?
Johan?

Speaker 3 (01:24:43):
guam was a snow dynamics expert.
What was his name?

Speaker 1 (01:24:44):
johan guam, johan game, okay he was a snow
dynamics expert and he startedwith uh winter hazards he wanted
.

Speaker 2 (01:24:56):
Why would he start that?
That sounds terrible.
He studied it.

Speaker 1 (01:24:59):
God damn it okay he wanted to test whether a small
avalanche could explain thehiker's injuries.
So he was intrigued by thebroken ribs and skull, the
minimal soft tissue damage, noexternal bruising, really um
crushed without being bruised.
Essentially, very weird.
So turns out, disney animationteam built I heard that an

(01:25:22):
incredibly accurate snowsimulation software frozen for
frozen for the movie frozen yesand this johan guy collaborated
with the developers and borrowedtheir code I think that was.

Speaker 2 (01:25:36):
They talked about this in that one you sent me to
listen to I do believe that'swhy I know this, because why
else would I fucking know thisright?

Speaker 1 (01:25:43):
yeah.
So the frozen inspired physicsengine simulated the snowpack
pressure, slope angles and how ahard snow slab the size of
about a mattress would hit abody lying on skis.
So a compact snow slabtriggered hours after the hikers
cut into the slope could createthe same internal injuries as

(01:26:07):
seen on the diet love autopsieswhy I'm gonna call bullshit.

Speaker 2 (01:26:11):
okay, can I?
Can I ask a little questionbefore you call bullshit?
Yeah, why on skis?
They weren't on skis.

Speaker 3 (01:26:18):
They were laying on the ski poles, so they weren't
laying directly in the snow, ismy understanding?

Speaker 2 (01:26:25):
Wait who was laying on the ski poles?
All of them.
Why were they laying on skipoles?

Speaker 3 (01:26:30):
So they weren't laying in the snow.

Speaker 2 (01:26:33):
In their tent.

Speaker 3 (01:26:34):
Yeah, I'm so fucking confused right now it was
essentially to the is that atheory be up off the ground
instead of directly on it right,which I can understand, that I
never heard heard that theywould be on ski poles but sneak
holes sneak holes.

Speaker 2 (01:26:52):
Um, I guess okay, we're talking like the ski poles
yeah, how would you lay onthose?

Speaker 3 (01:27:00):
I don't think it's like a flat bed of ski poles I
think it's like spaced out kindof gives you your own lane to
sleep in so you don't get footto face exactly unless you're
eager, he's like, yeah, get inthere maybe you wind them up all
foot to foot, so he could justtickle them right down the line
or something.

Speaker 2 (01:27:21):
Line up.

Speaker 1 (01:27:21):
I got my feather ready, okay so a compact snow
slab triggered hours after thehikers cut into the slope could
create the same internalinjuries found on the bodies.
It didn't need to be a fullavalanche, just a delayed slab
collapse.
Sure, okay, it would be likehitting with like a, like an ice

(01:27:44):
prius or something, a slowmoving car as I say, an ice
prius is that like you wouldn'thear it coming if it's under 35
miles an hour.
This helps explain the officehe's driving up on right so this
helps explain why the tent wasslashed from the inside, why
they fled without properclothing, why some injuries

(01:28:05):
looked like more of a caraccident and why no large
avalanche debris was found.
So critics have said that thearea wasn't steep enough for an
avalanche.
Yeah, while the visible surfaceslope was only about 15 degrees
, the underlying terrain wascloser to 20 degrees, so that's

(01:28:26):
probably why there's a a weirdthing between the 22 degrees and
30 degrees, depending on whatyou're at, what you read.
Yeah, strong winds couldn'thave erased any debris, leaving
the tent half covered in snowbut still standing.
Okay, there's also the timingHikers set up camp in the

(01:28:46):
evening, but the incident didn'thappen until hours later.

Speaker 2 (01:28:49):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:28:53):
And they at this time they didn't have enough time to
like put on their shoes and orpartial socks.
They had time to put on some,but not all yeah, so skeptics
point to the lack of full tentburial right well, and that's
the other thing too is like theski poles that were standing
straight up yeah that's why Iwas also confused that they were

(01:29:14):
sleeping on their ski polesapparently.

Speaker 4 (01:29:16):
Yeah, yet their ski poles are standing straight up,
so I'm really confused aspect ofit because they said they found
them fucking sticking in theground.

Speaker 2 (01:29:24):
Because if an avalanche came, I don't care how
fucking good you got that skipole in there, an avalanche is
going to push that fucking over,yeah there were other weird
things that completely shit onthe avalanche theory.

Speaker 3 (01:29:39):
So something I was listening to earlier to refresh
myself on the theories, kind ofsites that they found
essentially a frozen carafe, Ithink they call it, of cocoa.
So an avalanche comes right,right, oh shit, we got to get
out.
That's a pretty hurriedsituation if there's seven

(01:30:02):
people in the tent, because twohave gone out to pee, right.
So there's seven people in thetent, you're cutting your way
out, quickly, throwing onwhatever you can get your hands
on quick yeah but the avalanchenor people don't knock over a
carafe of cocoa and or

Speaker 2 (01:30:20):
wasn't it igor's?
Was it igor's camera orwhatever was like in a pocket
and stuff.
I was it igor's.
No, I might be mixing it up,doesn't matter there's so many
people it was a yuri, a lot of,a lot of yuris.
Um, one of.
I think it was igor's I couldbe wrong, but it was like
almosturi, a lot of a lot ofyuris.
Um, one of.
I think it was egors I could bewrong, but it was like almost
in a pocket thing, like a lot ofthings like because I just

(01:30:42):
heard something and it probablywas from that podcast.
You sent me that like just notthat long ago, within the last,
I don't know, five, ten years,whatever it was yeah they came
out with more definitive proofthat it probably was an
avalanche.
You know, but how?
How?
How is this shit standing upstraight?

(01:31:02):
How is the whole fucking tentnot covered?

Speaker 3 (01:31:05):
here's my other problem with the avalanche
theory.
Yeah, and this is just the slabavalanche because we're
actually going to get into aclassic avalanche all Correct.
Well, either fucking version ofthe avalanche, this girl had a
fucking rib through her heart.
You are not getting a ribthrough your heart and still

(01:31:26):
like trying to get away.
No.
Like that something happens,your time to death is pretty
quick.

Speaker 2 (01:31:35):
I would imagine Anything going through your
heart.
You're gonna die pretty fuckingfast yeah so.

Speaker 1 (01:31:40):
So let's think of it this way.
Okay, this theory, the slabavalanche, or the classic
avalanche which we'll get into,it's about why they lift their
tent so quickly.
Okay, their injuries could havebeen from climbing the trees.
It could have been falling intothe ravine.
This is just.

Speaker 2 (01:31:59):
These ones specifically are about why they
left the tent.
Honestly, an avalanche makesthe most fucking sense for why
they left so fucking fast, likein rational thinking.
Why the fuck would I be leavingthis tent so fast?
Because there's fucking snowcoming down the mountain on top

(01:32:20):
of us?
But why wasn't the tent fullycovered?

Speaker 3 (01:32:23):
yeah, avalanche or presumed avalanche, or a
slabalanche or a regularavalanche.

Speaker 2 (01:32:30):
Okay, one of them would have covered the fucking
tent fully, not just partiallyokay, so let's go on to the
classic avalanche theory.

Speaker 1 (01:32:38):
Okay, so snow roaring down the mountain.
Have you seen videos of actualavalanches?

Speaker 2 (01:32:45):
they are massive, they're fucking wild.
Massive, and that's my point islike I've seen videos of these
it's like a wrecking ball yeah,just basically it takes trees
down, and that's why I have areally hard fucking time
believing this.
That why was the tent only likepartially, partially covered,
or the carafe was still standingup frozen and we've established

(01:33:08):
.

Speaker 3 (01:33:08):
These mountains in perspective are not that steep,
that high.

Speaker 2 (01:33:13):
No Right, not that high and not that steep 30
degrees.
Don't get me wrong, it's prettyfucking steep, yeah, in the
normal fucking world of thinkingbut, on a mountain not as much,
whereas some are steeper.
Could that avalanche happen onthat?

Speaker 3 (01:33:28):
of course, obviously, but I don't know but they're
also in a bald spot right, sothat's even more speaking to and
there's no visible avalanchedebris?

Speaker 2 (01:33:37):
yeah, there's, there's nothing like that there
isn't like a tree through themiddle of it, and their ski
poles are still standing uprightand the tent's not fully
covered and the hot chocolate'sstill there.

Speaker 1 (01:33:46):
Yeah, carafe, the carafe textbook carafe so
textbook carafe if it was anavalanche.
They're thinking it was more ofa local collapse.
Um, not not essentially comingfrom the top of the mountain and
like snowballing forwardsnowballing.
I like, I like the word playbut the classical avalanche

(01:34:08):
doesn't fit all the facts thatwe know about this case.
So which one do you think hasmore clout slabalanche or
classic avalanche?

Speaker 2 (01:34:18):
I would go slabalanche reluctantly
slabalanche.
I would say slabalanche I justalso like the name, because I
came up with it yes, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:34:26):
Now there is a red herring that I did not mention
the guy named Remple.

Speaker 2 (01:34:35):
Like Remple Stillskin .

Speaker 1 (01:34:37):
Close.
So I'll have to go back andfind Didn't you mention Remple?
I did, yeah, I did.
Let me Can.

Speaker 3 (01:34:45):
I shit on avalanches just a little bit more.

Speaker 2 (01:34:48):
Take a giant deuce.

Speaker 3 (01:34:49):
I also don't like the .
I don't like the avalanchetheory.
It's probably the most probable, but I think that's why I
dislike it the most because it'sbecause again they're not.
Yeah, it is too probable.
No, it's like you don't surviveor get stirred from your tent

(01:35:12):
because you think there's anavalanche or there is an
avalanche, no you get coveredtake out your pad and paper,
like to communicate anythingright, take your camera with you
, yeah, or?

Speaker 2 (01:35:25):
or even start putting on socks yeah, only get halfway
there or one person's wearingone boot, or whatever the fuck
it was plus again, these are notinexperienced hikers.

Speaker 3 (01:35:37):
They know what to do if there's an avalanche.
Like they had to have, Ibelieve, some kind of emergency
plan should they run intosomething like this while
they're out there.
That was part of applying to dothis Category 3 shit Right

(01:35:57):
exactly, just even imagine on itmore.

Speaker 2 (01:35:59):
Well, no, and that's fine, because, like I can't even
imagine, like you know.
Oh, you got your category two.
Should I know something aboutavalanches?
Nah, that's a category.
Three thing don't worry aboutit.

Speaker 3 (01:36:08):
So it's not like they'll learn probably learn
about it prior to this, so rightlike again, I'm no fucking
expert at anything, but theyalso and right, because they've
researched this within the lastfive, seven years, maybe, yep,
and came out with you know, itwas definitely an avalanche and

(01:36:28):
that's what they were saying inthat one.
Yes, but that just doesn't no,don't jive with me.

Speaker 1 (01:36:36):
Okay.
So even if a slab, avalanche orclassic or inverse, no matter
how they got out of the tent orwhy they got out of the tent,
one of my biggest questions iswhy did they not stay in the
snowpack den that the fourcreated?
They were found in a ravine,yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:36:54):
Well, they did say that there was running water
underneath that could havecollapsed the base or whatever
that would have made them fallbut it didn't collapse the base
and run them downstream.

Speaker 1 (01:37:07):
So there is there is picture evidence of this, den
and the branches at the base arethere.

Speaker 2 (01:37:14):
They're intact, right ?

Speaker 1 (01:37:15):
no, I get that, so that's why it wouldn't have
bottomed out weird I I thinkit's aliens okay, rumple so once
when they were in the townvizay, ivan rumple, who was a
forester that's the one who toldhim not to go he warned the
hikers not to go.

Speaker 2 (01:37:35):
So what did he know?

Speaker 1 (01:37:36):
Exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:37:37):
Interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:37:39):
So I bring this up, because in Zina Kolmogorova's
diary the very last entry hadone word Remple, remple.

Speaker 2 (01:37:55):
Remple.
Why Could you imagine?

Speaker 3 (01:37:58):
if she said it three times, what would?

Speaker 1 (01:37:59):
have happened't, do it right now seriously why?

Speaker 3 (01:38:01):
but so right, it kind of again combines theories yes
if there is some kind ofmeddling, if they do feel like
they're being followed, why areyou just gonna reflect on
fucking rumple several dayslater?
And you know, and why would youonly write remple remple it

(01:38:23):
just doesn't make sense like ifyou're being followed, if you
feel that he's out there,something like that, or you're
gonna write remples fuckingfollowing us, or you could have
ran in with rempel again.

Speaker 2 (01:38:35):
Yeah, you know or she could have started to write.
Rempel warned us also.
Yeah, it could have beensomething as simple as that,
yeah honestly, just because,just because she wrote rempel
doesn't mean it was bad.

Speaker 1 (01:38:51):
It could have been well maybe it was so fucker was
right.
I write a lot of notes toremind myself of something later
, so maybe she wrote down Rempelto later tell him about what
they experienced on the mountain, about, yeah, this is a really
dangerous pass, or whatever.

Speaker 2 (01:39:05):
Because he said it was.
Now it's named after us.

Speaker 1 (01:39:08):
Yeah, okay.

Speaker 2 (01:39:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:39:09):
February 2019.

Speaker 2 (01:39:12):
60 years 60 years ago .

Speaker 1 (01:39:14):
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, the decision was made bythe Russia's Prosecutor
General's office to reopen theDyatlov incident case.

Speaker 2 (01:39:21):
So there was enough time passed where they got the
other shit out, because theyjust abruptly closed it, fuckers
.

Speaker 3 (01:39:27):
Enough time for it to not be radioactive anymore.

Speaker 1 (01:39:30):
So the Russian government wanted to put the
mystery to rest.
Boost public trust because justBecause they're, you know,
Russia.
They wanted to be transparent,finally, and they wanted to
reframe the tragedy as a naturalaccident and not a government
cover-up.

Speaker 2 (01:39:48):
Well, of course they're going to say that,
though Any government cover-upwould fucking say that.

Speaker 3 (01:39:54):
So out of all the theories, the new investigation
only reconsidered three of themwhich are avalanche, yeti and
avalanche avalanche, slabalanche, yes, and katabatic winds okay,
just to shit on avalanches alittle bit more, though I'm

(01:40:14):
sorry, I never get sick ofshitting on avalanches I have
never heard someone shit onavalanches as much as I have
today.

Speaker 2 (01:40:21):
You're welcome.

Speaker 3 (01:40:21):
Thank you for that this area from all the research,
everything I've ever read on it.
Even the mansi have said notprone to avalanches.
Yeah, it has.
Maybe it happened there, butit's never been documented right
?

Speaker 2 (01:40:39):
I mean, is it technically possible?

Speaker 3 (01:40:42):
everything's possible .

Speaker 2 (01:40:43):
Sure, I wasn't there, but I'm just saying I wasn't
there if no one's ever likeright.

Speaker 3 (01:40:49):
This was like a place that obviously other people
were hiking.
It's not like these are thefirst and only people to have
ever been in this area rightright someone probably would
have seen or heard of anavalanche right.
There's indigenous people outthere that were very like, from
my understanding, cooperativewith investigation they weren't

(01:41:11):
like a violent people or likestandoffish or anything.
Yeah, so they were veryforthcoming with everything they
knew.
They helped with the search,they did all the things like
they should, sure and I feellike they're living out there
they would know they would belike, fuck, it was probably an
avalanche.
It happens here all the time.
Right, didn't happen, didn't?

(01:41:32):
Okay, I'm done shitting on that, no worries.

Speaker 1 (01:41:36):
That's okay, they reanalyzed the terrain, weather
patterns and snow load stability.
They reexamined all theevidence.
They reinterviewed localofficials and those having
survived all this time.
They brought in avalanchespecialists and forensic experts

(01:41:58):
and they reanalyzed weatherconditions from February 1st to
2nd in 1959 by modern modelingtools.
Don't know what that means,however, the official conclusion
in July of 2019, it was aslabalanche.

Speaker 2 (01:42:20):
So any government that's trying to cover something
up is obviously going to saywhat you had said before, which
is, yeah, they're going to comeup with this and be like well,
clearly, that's what it is.
I'm not saying that governmentcovered it up, but a government
trying to cover something upwould fucking say that they're
gonna find something that isplausible plausible, something

(01:42:42):
that could happen, yes, andthey're gonna dig their heels in
.

Speaker 3 (01:42:47):
Right, they're never going to admit to a cover-up,
they're never going to admit afault or that they were doing
some kind of testing, somethinglike that.
Right, they're gonna be likebecause that fuck an avalanche
man Top secret shit.

Speaker 2 (01:42:59):
They're not going to give out that information.
Even 60 years fucking later,they're not going to give out
that information.
I mean, look at the.
Our government has shit that wedon't know about.
That's who knows how fuckingold and whatever.
So it's like you thinkussiansare going to give up fucking
information about what they weredoing.
Fuck, no.

(01:43:19):
So again, I'm not saying that'swhat it is, but also I'm not
saying that's not a possibilitythat they're just covering up
more shit to make them and theycame up with this like oh no,
we've definitively decided itwas a slabalanche, and I do
believe that's the title of thisepisode so if you had to decide
between the katabatic winds andthe slab of lanch?

(01:43:46):
to me.
I still have to probably pickslab of lanch because it is the
most like logical in my brain.
I'm not saying I am a hundredpercent on it and I mean I've
heard enough shitting onavalanches today to avalanche is
not my choice no, and what isyour choice?
I would have never guessed that, audra firmly not avalanches.

(01:44:08):
Um between the two, I'm gonnago wins sure, okay I think,
which I could, but I could alsosee that too.
I could see that as well.
Absolutely, I really could.

Speaker 3 (01:44:18):
Wind sound.
I'm kind of like a combinationwind sound, okay, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:44:23):
Yeah, sure, I get that.
My biggest problem with theslabalanche and or avalanche is
like the lack of covering up theentire tent.
Yeah, I mean, I know.

Speaker 1 (01:44:35):
And the cocoa still being upright and the poles
being upright.

Speaker 2 (01:44:39):
Exactly Cause like there's such force from
avalanches whether it's a slabof land or a fucking traditional
avalanche, I don't like.
I said I don't care.
You would have to have thatfucking pole in a hundred feet
to stand straight up still.
Yeah, that would have fuckingfallen over.

Speaker 1 (01:44:55):
You would think so.

Speaker 2 (01:44:56):
The tent would have been more covered, except for
the one fucking end of it, andso that to me just is like Also,
there was that flashlight ontop of the snow yes, that's
another thing too.

Speaker 1 (01:45:06):
That didn't have any snow on top of that which means
it was blown off.

Speaker 2 (01:45:10):
The snow could have been blown off, but the
avalanche would have coveredthat shit.
Not even covered.
It would have knocked it offpotentially.

Speaker 3 (01:45:22):
There's no way in my brain that that flashlight
wouldn't have fell off bygetting fucking hit by a bunch
of moving snow.
Yeah, it wouldn't have beenfound right in the area, it
would be way down or uh, igor'swas it camera, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:45:34):
It was like in that pocket thing.
I'm drawing a blank on what thefuck it was right now, but like
all that shit would have beenjust more disrupted to me if it
wasn't a slavalanche,traditional avalanche, whatever.
So I just it makes sense, butit also makes no fucking sense
to me.
Yeah, because I just feel likethere's too many inconsistencies
and again, I'm not any fuckingexpert by a stretch of the

(01:45:59):
imagination, but like I've seenenough movies, yeah, Avalanche
We've seen Frozen.
Yeah Well, and they use theirmodel.
Or like when you know JamesBond was in and he had that
fucking ball go around him, andthen he's like, hey, let's make
out, because we're going tofucking James.

Speaker 1 (01:46:11):
Bond, or which movie is that Was it.

Speaker 2 (01:46:14):
World is Not Enough.
I think, yeah, die Another DayWith Ali Berry.
Was it Die Another Day?
I always get those mixed up alittle bit.

Speaker 1 (01:46:25):
I don't know.
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:46:28):
No, I think it was World is Not Enough, because it
was the Ah fuck.
Now I'll have to figure thatout.
It's one of those two.

Speaker 3 (01:46:38):
It's a pierce broson one nonetheless.
Well, it might be regardless.
I don't know shit about 007.

Speaker 2 (01:46:41):
I fucking love james bond regardless, david green I
don't think we've solvedanything well you know, here's
the funny thing neither havethey they think they have you do
have a point.
They say they have yeah.
They say they have yeah.
They say they have yeah, whichmakes they want you to think
they have.
I don't agree that they'veactually uncovered what the fuck

(01:47:03):
happened.
Okay, nobody's going to everknow what happened to these nine
fucking people.

Speaker 3 (01:47:07):
So let's work this out.
There's an avalanche.
What happens from there?
Just spitballing Right.
What happens from there?
That leads to the injuries.

Speaker 2 (01:47:20):
Oh yeah, that too Right, Fucking hyoid man.
Avalanche is done.

Speaker 3 (01:47:26):
I wasn't even going to say the hyoid.
I was going to say like there'san avalanche.

Speaker 1 (01:47:30):
Who had the hyoid, because I didn't read that
anywhere.
Dubinia.

Speaker 3 (01:47:35):
Dubinia.
She was one of the four in theravine, that sounds right.
I can't remember.
Now I'm drawing a blank.
That's okay, but it doesn'texplain any type of combat
wounds, right?

Speaker 2 (01:47:47):
No, like the fist.

Speaker 3 (01:47:50):
Yeah, doesn't explain any of that.
Fighting a yeti would yeah,just saying.

Speaker 1 (01:47:56):
I'm going to look up.
Did someone break a hyoid?
Who has a?

Speaker 3 (01:48:01):
broken hyoid.
In the dialogue.

Speaker 1 (01:48:06):
Yeah.
Definitely specify that yeah,because, like I said, I've not
heard that.

Speaker 2 (01:48:12):
No.

Speaker 3 (01:48:13):
I feel like it's one of those things that you just
read conflicting information ontoo right?
No, for sure was she the onethat had the documentation of
the injuries?
Was shit, right oh 100 all themedical exams.

Speaker 2 (01:48:26):
It was so shit when you were found and all the stuff
that they fucking left out.
Yeah, it's just amazing.
It's like this is not an actualfucking investigation, because
you're leaving shit out.

Speaker 3 (01:48:36):
We don't even know if the things that are in there
are correct or not.

Speaker 2 (01:48:40):
Well, because they could have altered it just to
benefit whoever was coveringshit up, or whatever scenario
you want to come up with.
When was that one?
Was that one guy who, he like,found this but completely
omitted it Didn't?

Speaker 3 (01:48:55):
even put it in the lead investigator.

Speaker 2 (01:48:58):
It's like are you fucking kidding me?

Speaker 4 (01:49:00):
okay, so it was ludmilla ludmilla, and it wasn't
her hyoid bone like the wholething it was the little horns
that come off of it.

Speaker 2 (01:49:12):
Those were snapped so what does that mean?

Speaker 1 (01:49:17):
it could have been just regular trauma, not like
like, not strangulation oranything like that I feel like
I've always read this is wherethe conflicting information
comes in.

Speaker 3 (01:49:29):
I've always read it was a hyoid either way I don't
know.

Speaker 2 (01:49:35):
I just feel like we're never gonna fully know.
Uh, it's always gonna be?

Speaker 3 (01:49:38):
how close are the horns to the actual highway?
I'll show you a picture hereokay, okay, so still something
like it's questionable, it'squestionable all right, I think
it was aliens, yeah it was it's.

Speaker 1 (01:50:00):
it was in um the dietlovecom um website website
and I just hadn't read that part, so interesting well yeah thank
you for bringing that to ourattention holy smokes holy shit.

Speaker 2 (01:50:14):
Yeah, are we done?
Yeah, because I gotta pee nowthanks for one more.

Speaker 1 (01:50:19):
Oh, fuck yeah one more what do you?

Speaker 3 (01:50:22):
got okay, so this is the only thing that I've read
that I believe explains thecombat the handgun style
injuries.
Yeah, remember way back in thebeginning where we were talking
about everybody introducing themall.
They've all been friends,they're a respectable group of
people and we figure out thatzanata and diatlov are maybe in

(01:50:50):
a relationship yes, okay um andcorrect me if I'm wrong, but she
is the one that has hadmultiple relationships with
people generally liked her yeahshe's an attractive gal I think
she dated one other person inthe group okay, but they
remained friends yesso I think that's what it was

(01:51:11):
then there's this also cigarette, uh, you might acquit, but
someone smuggled some in becausethey just weren't as committed
kind of thing yeah um.
So some of the theories thatI've read have gone into
explaining the combat style.
Injuries might have been aresult of them fighting with

(01:51:33):
each other over zanata, overzanata, over someone not
following the rules, sure, um?

Speaker 1 (01:51:40):
you know something like that.

Speaker 3 (01:51:42):
I figured that as well yeah, something to deal
with zanata yeah but, and it'snot like a popular one, but like
how do you explain hand-to-handcombat?

Speaker 2 (01:51:53):
it's the only thing that kind of explains that.

Speaker 3 (01:51:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:51:59):
At least that we've gone over, of course, because
it's not like they went out andfought a fucking avalanche.

Speaker 3 (01:52:02):
Right, they weren't punching their way out of the
snow.
No, obviously.

Speaker 2 (01:52:07):
I mean if you hit ice , you can fuck up your hand, but
Absolutely Not just snow.

Speaker 1 (01:52:11):
That seems like a good theory.

Speaker 2 (01:52:18):
It seems.
Seems like a good theory, itseems more rationale?

Speaker 3 (01:52:20):
yeah, because it's.
It's also rooted in notridiculousness, like there are
broken ski poles that are foundto.

Speaker 2 (01:52:24):
Yes, I believe that's I thought I thought you
mentioned that I don't remember.

Speaker 3 (01:52:28):
So that could explain some of the internal ish
injuries.
Sure, um, the part that gets mewith the internal injuries
right.
This is a group of friends.
They're not like new to eachother with the exception of one
right um and correct me if I'mwrong again, but I don't believe
he had any internal injuries.
So in the sense of like a umbrawl situation.

(01:52:55):
Right, um, you know, maybe hewas the winner of the brawl I
mean, that's very was that yeah,that was a zolotary of um.

Speaker 1 (01:53:06):
Let me see what his injuries were right yeah I don't
know if we had his he had thecracked ribs on one side.
Okay.

Speaker 3 (01:53:15):
So well they could have worked together and fucked
him up.
I don't know.
I'm just saying a fight betweenthem is not.

Speaker 1 (01:53:23):
It's not out of the realm of possibility.

Speaker 3 (01:53:25):
Plus add in, you know tensions are probably running
high.
You're kind of losing your mindand thinking you're going to
die.
Yeah, you know, I can imaginegetting a little frustrated,
even with my friends, in thatsituation.

Speaker 2 (01:53:42):
So Zolotaryov also had missing eyebrows and missing
eyeballs, and he had also threefractures of the scapula.
So I mean he got a littlefucked up too.

Speaker 1 (01:53:54):
I think they fell into the ravine and that's how
they got those injuries.

Speaker 3 (01:53:58):
Like fell.
I think they fell into theravine and that's how they got
those injuries Like fell out ofa tree into the ravine.

Speaker 1 (01:54:01):
No, I think maybe they were thinking that they
were on solid ground and theyweren't.

Speaker 2 (01:54:07):
That's very possible.
Yeah, I could see that For sureAfter leaving the den.

Speaker 1 (01:54:14):
They thought they were.
I don't know why they wouldleave the den.

Speaker 2 (01:54:17):
Well, because maybe they thought it was safe at that
point.

Speaker 3 (01:54:20):
But it could have been at that point too, where we
don't know where theparadoxical undressing could
have started.

Speaker 2 (01:54:28):
That's also true At that point.

Speaker 3 (01:54:29):
they could have been so disoriented and just
desperate that they're like,fuck it, we're getting out of
here.

Speaker 1 (01:54:37):
But do you think that they would have known about
that phenomenon?

Speaker 2 (01:54:41):
They probably wouldn't have.
You don't think so, I don'tthink so.

Speaker 3 (01:54:44):
Well, maybe Because I mean it's not like it's
probably the the results ofhypothermia.

Speaker 1 (01:54:48):
This is what it does to you.

Speaker 3 (01:54:50):
It's probably not like the first documented case
of paradoxical undressing, youknow.
So yeah, I documented case ofparadoxical undressing, you know
.
So I would imagine you wouldthink seasoned professionals out
there.

Speaker 1 (01:55:01):
Yeah, well shit, we could honestly talk about this
for a fucking hours, absolutely,but I don't wanna that's fine,
but I don't wanna I've beenballs deep in this story for for
two solid months, yeah yeah, Imean it's been, it's been a
minute yeah, it's really easy torabbit hole it's so easy.

Speaker 2 (01:55:24):
What are you looking up?
I was trying to see if therewas a date for one paradoxical.
Paradoxical addressing was likekind of discovered, if you will
but um not finding anythinglike, the only thing that I see
is like some science thing in 79.
It doesn't say not somethingthat was discovered.
I'm like I get that, but onewas the first fucking documented

(01:55:45):
.
Is, I guess, what I meant.
But um, let's see if it'sbecause I'm kind of curious now,
because I don't, I feel likethey wouldn't.

Speaker 3 (01:55:55):
Um, they might not have had a name for it but I
would imagine they knew theeffects of hypothermia.
I would imagine uh paradoxical.

Speaker 2 (01:56:03):
Addressing the phenomenon where individuals
suffering from hypothermiaremove their clothes due to a
mistaken feeling of warmth wasfirst documented in the medical
literature between 1978 and 1994okay so whether that's right or
not, I don't know, but it'smore than likely that they did
not know about that phenomenonin 1959.

(01:56:24):
It's very possible.
So, anyways, that's all Iwanted to know.

Speaker 1 (01:56:28):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:56:28):
But anywho.

Speaker 1 (01:56:31):
Well, Audra, thank you for being with us.

Speaker 3 (01:56:33):
Thank you for having me.
You added a great element forus.

Speaker 2 (01:56:36):
This was fun.
Thanks for letting me shit onavalanches.
Hey, just like I like to shiton aliens.
We're there for you.
And that's not just becausethey anal probe me, but anyways,
welp, I suppose.
All right, buffoons, that's itfor today's episode.

Speaker 1 (01:56:57):
Buckle up, because we've got another historical
adventure waiting for you.
Next time feeling hungry formore buffoonery, or maybe you
have a burning question or awild historical theory for us to
explore.

Speaker 2 (01:57:02):
Hit us up on social media.
We're history buffoons podcaston youtube x, instagram and
facebook.
You can also email us athistory buffoons podcast at
gmailcom.
We are bradley and k Kate.
Music by Corey acres.

Speaker 1 (01:57:15):
Follow us wherever you get your podcasts and turn
those notifications on to stayin the loop until next time,
stay curious and don't forget torate and review us.
Remember, the buffoonery neverstops.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Slabalanche: Dyatlov Pass Incident Part 3

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

Slabalanche: Dyatlov Pass Incident Part 3

Crime Junkie