The Frightening, Unsolved and Disturbing Incident of Nine Dead Skiers

page: 2
156
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by raptor28
 


how would a wild animal be able to take out the tongue if the mouth was closed and the person dead?

wouldnt the face have been damaged trying to get to the toungue?




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman


Two Months Later

This is where the story becomes extremely bizzare. Two months after the discovery of the first five bodies, the remaining four were found. Under four metres of snow, in a ravine, and 75 metres away from the pine tree mentioned earlier.

Nicolas Thibeaux-Brignollel, , Alexander Zolotaryov, and Alexander Kolevatov, had all suffered serious injuries, and traumatic deaths. Thibeaux-Brignollel's skull had been crushed, and Dubinina and Zolatarev had numerous broken ribs. All four of the skiers had died from massive internal injuries, doctors compared to those found if someone had been hit car. However, unlike a car accident, the bodies showed no signs of external injury, including bruises or soft tissue damage. The most disturbing thing of all was that Ludmila Dubinina's tongue had been removed!!!

These four were a lot better dressed than the other five. It had appeared they had made it back to camp, or taken clothes from those that were deceased. Another point to be made, was that there were high levels of radiation found within the clothes when they were tested.

A few months later, the case was closed, and the files were allegedly sent to a secret military archive. The investigators found no evidence of wrong doing against one another. Also soon after area was closed off for three years to skiers and other adventurers.



I highlighted what I found bizzare and should be analyzed (if the evidence is still available.)

for the internal injuries with no signs of external injuries? missing tongue? this makes it weird.

i dont think they were chased by a wild animal, or someone had gone insane in the group since they all seemed to have RUN away from the camp in a scatter formation... its fully obvious that they were all (scared) and ran from camp, and all died trying to get back, or run away and get help. i dont think someone went insane, i dont think all of them would have run like that, and it would of been 8V1 Overkill.

A.) Animal, BIG animal, but footprints, were not found, but the peoples footprints were still there. any evidence of an animal being there would of been along with the human footprints. so this one seems possible, but the evidence is not there... so it now seems as likely as unlikely...

Radiation being left behind. were any of them a nuclear engineer, or worked in a power plant? i want to know what type of radiation was left behind, and sample it with the radiation left behind by crop circles. see if there are similarities. this would tie the spheres being seen in the area. if the radiation is similar were have a good idea on what happened... i could go on and on, but i don't think i need to.

anyone else have an idea of what could of happened?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I'm sorry but I couldn't get past the first line



Ten skiers, three men and two women

Huh? And the article title says 9.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by jjkenobi]


It actually says 8 men..

Unless it was changed.


And one was alive because he was too ill to make the final part of the trip, hence only 9 of the 10 died.

It is very simple math from numbers 1-10. Spend a little more time going over what you read before you post.

I have made similar mistakes before but c'mon man.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by LucidDreamer85]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by raptor28
 


Thats the explination I read. Could have sworn read it on ATS too a while back.

On the subject of the tongue being gone, I can see that easily having been bitten off by the person during the apparent avalanche...



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
My first instinct is that one of the following scenarios happened...

1. They were attacked by a wild animal, left the camp through fear. The deceased between the camp and the woods had tried to make their way back and failed, or had fallen on the journey. The ones found in the ravine had gone for help, being the ones more suitably dressed.

2. One of the group lost their sanity. Possibly due to altitude sickness? They attacked the others and chased them (only their footprints found right?). One climbed the tree (possibly the one who faced the brunt of the attack) to escape harm. The others ran back to camp to retrieve clothing or for safety but a couple fell. The ones who made it to camp gathered clothes and returned to help their friend, found him dead and the attacker gone. The attacker then followed them and they all fell into the ravine.

There are many scenarios around option 2. But I am almost certain that this involved one of the team losing their sanity and being responsible for the deaths of the others. It is clear that they feared the camp for one reason or another, and the most likely reason is that one had lost control.

I'm not too certain of the radiation testing. What did they do for a living? this is in a region and at a time where radiation testing was rife. It was a relatively unknown and uncontrolled science.
Why did they test for radiation to being with? That alone suggests that at least one of them was involved in the science and that is was obviously a cause for concern to others in the field.

So, my guess is that one went mental, attacked the others and they died trying to escape them, or died due to the attack. The attacker was probably one of those who was found dead due to exposure. And probably the one who had the time to build a fire.


How do you explain them ALL dying then....

If he ( the killer in your scenario ) killed everyone else, then how did he die, as they all had injuries to them................

How do you explain the radiation ????



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
It actually says 8 men..

Unless it was changed.


Yes I changed it, like I said I would



And one was alive because he was too ill to make the final part of the trip, hence only 9 of the 10 died.

It is very simple math from numbers 1-10. Spend a little more time going over what you read before you post.


I think you are lost. When they started, there were 10 of them 8 men, and 2 women. One man was left behind becuase he was feeling ill, so the that leaves 9 people, 7 men and 2 women....those 9 people died.

Are you trying to challenge my credibility? I made a mistake, and changed it according to the original story....if you dont believe im telling the truth then check the sources i posted on page one



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I'm sorry but I couldn't get past the first line



Ten skiers, three men and two women

Huh? And the article title says 9.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by jjkenobi]


It actually says 8 men..

Unless it was changed.


And one was alive because he was too ill to make the final part of the trip, hence only 9 of the 10 died.

It is very simple math from numbers 1-10. Spend a little more time going over what you read before you post.

I have made similar mistakes before but c'mon man.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by LucidDreamer85]


focus on the topic, not the writers oop's. we all know what he/she meant. stop ripping his math skills and reply with what the thread topic is about. 9 dead skiers that died in mysterious ways. [b/]

Thanks OP for the interesting story. just fix it, so the people here can rest easy that 8+2 = 10

[edit on 4/9/2009 by ugie1028]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
[edit on 9-4-2009 by dkman222]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
My theory is that camp place was wrong: army cars roll over them. They (skiers) took each other clothes etc. (panic) and army let them die.

I made this video about this case some time ago:







[edit on 9-4-2009 by hande]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
It actually says 8 men..

Unless it was changed.


Yes I changed it, like I said I would



And one was alive because he was too ill to make the final part of the trip, hence only 9 of the 10 died.

It is very simple math from numbers 1-10. Spend a little more time going over what you read before you post.


I think you are lost. When they started, there were 10 of them 8 men, and 2 women. One man was left behind becuase he was feeling ill, so the that leaves 9 people, 7 men and 2 women....those 9 people died.

Are you trying to challenge my credibility? I made a mistake, and changed it according to the original story....if you dont believe im telling the truth then check the sources i posted on page one



Are you serious ?

If you re-read correctly I Quoted jjkenobi and was referring to what he said. I agree with what you are saying 100% so I'm not sure where you get off thinking I'm challenging you.

Please re-read my post



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


Ah ok

Sorry it was a bit unclear, but Ive got you now

My apologies for being so abrupt



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I'm sorry but I couldn't get past the first line



Ten skiers, three men and two women

Huh? And the article title says 9.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by jjkenobi]


It actually says 8 men..

Unless it was changed.


And one was alive because he was too ill to make the final part of the trip, hence only 9 of the 10 died.

It is very simple math from numbers 1-10. Spend a little more time going over what you read before you post.

I have made similar mistakes before but c'mon man.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by LucidDreamer85]


focus on the topic, not the writers oop's. we all know what he/she meant. stop ripping his math skills and reply with what the thread topic is about. 9 dead skiers that died in mysterious ways. [b/]

Thanks OP for the interesting story. just fix it, so the people here can rest easy that 8+2 = 10

[edit on 4/9/2009 by ugie1028]



Dammit this is the last time I will post this .....

Please read correctly before you guys go off on me !

I was posting in response to what jjkenobi said !!!!!

He said there was a mistake.

I was telling him how it works out because 1 guy was left behind meaning 9 died.


I agree with the OP 100%


What don't you guys understand about this ?????

Am I'm I taking crazy pills ( Mugatu ) ?????????


Before you both come at me again please make sure you read my post and who I quoted properly before you try to start conflict with me.

If you read properly you would both understand that I agree with the OP and I was correcting somebody else who did not believe it , hence why I quoted them so you could see who I was referring to.

Isn't that the point of the quote so we can all we who we are taking about ????

[edit on 9-4-2009 by LucidDreamer85]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


Ah ok

Sorry it was a bit unclear, but Ive got you now

My apologies for being so abrupt


It's all good and all is forgiven but I was just unclear as to why you were coming at me like that when I was sticking up for you.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85


focus on the topic, not the writers oop's. we all know what he/she meant. stop ripping his math skills and reply with what the thread topic is about. 9 dead skiers that died in mysterious ways.

Thanks OP for the interesting story. just fix it, so the people here can rest easy that 8+2 = 10

[edit on 4/9/2009 by ugie1028]



Dammit this is the last time I will post this .....

Please read correctly before you guys go off on me !

I was posting in response to what jjkenobi said !!!!!

He said there was a mistake.

I was telling him how it works out because 1 guy was left behind meaning 9 died.


I agree with the OP 100%


What don't you guys understand about this ?????

Am I'm I taking crazy pills ( Mugatu ) ?????????


Before you both come at me again please make sure you read my post and who I quoted properly before you try to start conflict with me.

If you read properly you would both understand that I agree with the OP and I was correcting somebody else who did not believe it , hence why I quoted them so you could see who I was referring to.

Isn't that the point of the quote so we can all we who we are taking about ????

[edit on 9-4-2009 by LucidDreamer85]

As well with OZ, my fault. sory about that. i dont think you made it clear enough the first time, and i had replied before after you explained yourself. if you read mine again, i also agree... with the OP gettin the numbers right.



[edit on 4/9/2009 by ugie1028]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vector J
reply to post by raptor28
 


Thats the explination I read. Could have sworn read it on ATS too a while back.

On the subject of the tongue being gone, I can see that easily having been bitten off by the person during the apparent avalanche...


Avalanche? Does anyone have any source or evidence of this so called avalanche?

And again, how do you account for the lack of external wounds, yet horrific internal injuries?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Google 'Dyatlov Pass incident avalanche' and have a look at the results, heres one I just pulled up, has a somewhat plausable explination:

skeptoid.com...

...



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Time to write a movie script......

I would definately go to see it. I might start writing it, then try and sell it to hollywood.

-Kdial1



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Military "UFO" drills in remote area was seen by those who should not have been there.

Some secrets must be kept at all costs.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Parts of this story sound made up, such as:


Another point to be made, was that there were high levels of radiation found within the clothes when they were tested.


Say what?

Without any explanation, that side note lacks credibility on many levels.

First of all, it begs the question of why on earth would investigators be testing radiation levels of the victims' clothes? There is nothing about the circumstances that would lead investigators to be concerned about radiation levels.

Secondly, who tested them? What were those levels? How do they compare to the background radiation level of those surroundings? If it was higher, then how much higher? Did all clothing items measure the same for all victims, or did the "high levels" come from only one item/person's clothes? What simple explanations were ruled out (i.e. Were they using glow sticks with some form of radioactive material (this was 1959)?

Most importantly, the reporter/writer doesn't explain the significance of these radiation levels. Is the reader supposed to draw their own conclusions?

I don't know if you wrote this story, or if it was lifted from some other publication, but whom ever wrote it needs to take a writing class. When you tell a story, you have to not just report the "What", but you have to include the "Who, What, Where, When, Why, How".

Anything else is just bad writing, whether it be fact or fiction. When it's written poorly, the credibility is lost in a factual story, and suspension of disbelief is lost in a fictional story.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Hi, I'm new here at ATS - anyway it seems to me that if the report made by the Russians was kept in military secret files then it probably was not an avalanch or altitude sickness. My guess is that what ever did this was airborne and left no tracks or we can't trust the the Russian military.



top topics
 
156
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join