Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Has the mystery of nine skiers who died half naked in the Siberian wilderness in 1959 been SOLVED? A

page: 14
53
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   

JiggyPotamus
This mystery has always been in my top five as far as unsolved events go. It is simply intriguing. Having given this case more than just a passing glance, I can confidently say that I do not believe this explanation accounts for what was found in those mountains by the search party. I mean obviously the fact that one or two of them climbed a tree has always suggested that they were attempting to get a better vantage point of their camp. And considering they cut their way out of their tent, and scrambled in various directions, obviously something was at their tent that caused them to flee.

I have always agreed with the conclusion the investigative team came up with, which is that this involved the Soviet military. The explanation this article puts forth also does not account for the signs of high doses of radiation inflicted upon the skiers. And also there were strange lights observed around the same time that the event was concluded to have occurred. Lights need not mean aliens, but rather could mean government intervention. Perhaps the skiers saw something they were not supposed to see, although nobody seemed to have written about it or recorded it. But if the military were the first on the scene, which I believe they were, obviously they would have recovered such information.

There are other things that happened that do not fit with this new idea. I mean infrasound, really? They were obviously fleeing from something, and they needed only to go a short distance to get away. Had it been what is proposed, they could have easily returned to their tent after it had stopped. And it does not seem likely that it would have been so localized as to have driven them this distance and then left them alone. Surely they would have had to go much further to escape it.

I don't know why, but I have always had this nagging feeling that the military/government of the Soviet Union actually descended over the tent with a helicopter, scaring them out. Maybe not a helicopter, but they wouldn't have wanted to just fire a bunch of bullets into the tent, which may leave evidence behind. It also depends upon whether these skiers were part of some sort of experiment. That also makes some sense. But I feel that they saw something they shouldn' have, and thus were eliminated. All the military would have to do is drive them away from the tent, without their supplies, and prevent them from returning. Nature would do the rest. But the injuries to some of the skiers also suggests they could have been attacked.

This is why it is a mystery. There are so many unanswered questions, and so many possibilities. Some of the possibilities are more likely than others, as we know, but even something like aliens cannot thoroughly be discounted. It may not be plausible, but it is definitely not impossible. Impossible is a word that should rarely be used in my opinion. Usually it is used by skeptics who have no clue that they truly are biased and not objective, as they claim. Anyway, I don't buy this new hypothesis.


If it was this extensive military operation, why would they do it in the way you explained? I mean, you say they wouldn't just open fire on the tent because it would leave bullet hole evidence. Ummm.. this is the Soviet army, I'm sure they would have had the brains to pick up the bullet ridden tent when they did their cleanup? Why would they cause the skiers to scatter, and then just sit their waiting for them to all freeze to death, and then just leave the frozen bodies where they are? A military operation seeking to silence a group of people would rid the area of any evidence whatsoever. They would make it quick, clean, and evidence free. I'm sorry, but this could not have been a military operation.




posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
" I mean obviously the fact that one or two of them climbed a tree has always suggested that they were attempting to get a better vantage point of their camp. "

This statement could not be true!

The time in question that the students would have climbed the tree was after dark, in winter, in Russia.
I googled this night to verify if a "Full Moon" was up and found that there was no moon that night.
Living in the north of Canada equal to the Ural mountains, I can state that at night in winter without a moon you would be lucky to find the tree and climb it, little chance to try and see the distance back to where their tent was.

The only reason anyone would climb a tree at night, in winter, in Russia, would be to escape a predator!

Not the Russian Army, not a Mansi hunter, not an Alien, not an Avalanche, not Infrasound, "Only a Predator"



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Assuming they took their clothes off due to Hypothermia, that would make it Moderate Hypothermia, rather than Mild, or Severe...
But moderate also brings Drowsiness and dificulty moving around... so how did they travel half a mile from base with this alleged Hypothermia???

Why did the animals that fed on a few of them eat so little of each member??? Savouring each body? A flock/pack with seperate meals?
Surely one vessel would have been food enough for a single predator rather than trying them all out like a wild Goldilocks?
And a pack would surely have feasted on just one as is customary, even then how did a pack consume so little?

Why was the tent torn open from the inside??? A struggle in the tent between the occupants? Or defense against an intruder?
Anything else is pretty much unexplainable. Lack of resources may have caused an in-war explaining some of the violent deaths.

An avalanche? That didn't bury the bodies but was powerful enough to break bones and kill them via blunt force trauma?
I've personally never heard of such an avalanche to be honest, maybe some of our fellow members have heard such cases. Let us know please!

I've heard the radiation was untrue so I'll be hesitant to comment on that.

Doesn't sound like this has been solved at all.
To be honest it sounds more mysterious now.

Peace.
edit on 13-2-2014 by CharlieSpeirs because: Auto-Correct!



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by 4ajodster
 


Those people were attacked and murdered by something or someone,that was no accident.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   
A fascinating discussion. My compliments to all. I thought I would offer some corrections to the posted information in order to assist you in your speculations. Although several random mistakes were made a few were often repeated. There is frequent reference to the party undressing in what is often referred to as "paradoxical undressing". This never happened. Not a single person took their clothing off. Some clothing was interchanged between members however. But it is all accounted for. No one found any cast off clothing near any of the bodies. They all wore standard layered clothing designed to deal with temperatures down to -50 degrees C. Their clothing was inspected and approved before they left. They wore three clothing schemes in layers. There was the basic tent clothing (In which Yuri Kri and Yuri Doroschenko were found wearing) good to about 0 degrees C, outdoor ski wear (hooded belted jackets, wool skull caps, mittens, and valenki boots) good to -20 degrees C and then "severe cold" fur coats and fur hats supposedly good to -50 C. All were wearing the approved clothing except Zolotarev who had an unapproved hat (Nick had one too but wasn't wearing it the night he died.). However, they were all wearing the approved tent clothing outside the tent that night as their standard wear. This made sense to those who found them and is why they died and died quickly. Exiting the cut out section of the tent was conducted in a very hurried and unorganized manner (contrary to the unhurried and organized manner in which they then walked away afterwards.). As insulation against the snow under the tent, the campers slept on their gear (And contrary to frequent mention, they had no sleeping bags only a community blanket). If you got cold at night, you reached under yourself for your furs because that was laid down last as a "mattress". It was the thickest and softest and, if you put it on, the warmest. You could put on your fur coat or hat if needed. On their way out of the tent, two people grabbed their fur coats and two grabbed their fur hats and walked down the hill with these on over their tent wear. Again, it was incorrect "layering" and another surprise to those who found them. However, it was the closest clothing at hand. Only Nick's clothing follows established practice.

The second misconception is the assumption of an avalanche. The slope was 19 degrees which is not a condition for avalanches and the tent was pitched near the very top of Hill 1097 (not 300 meters below it as one poster noted.). This reduces the chance of avalanche by an even greater amount (to almost nothing). Searchers no sign of disturbance to the site, the standing skis not even slightly moved and all tent stakes were in place. There was however, almost a foot of snow that had been added to site in the approximate 4 hours between when they set up the tent and when they left it. This is, indeed, a lot of snow to fall (although they were camped in a snow storm) but it would have caused no injuries even if it did originate from a minor slide. Curiously, the storm ended almost to the minute they left the tent, suggesting a connection.

I'm glad to see no one fell for the "sound" theory as there is no documented case of any such thing/effect either before or after 1959.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Toadmund
Anyway, just pondered this pic for a bit, may be stretching the pareidolia aspect a touch, but I will put it out there so you can see what I think it could possibly be.


But of course it could be anything else, but what?
Was it an unintended pic, or a deliberate pic that did not turn out?


My congratulations on a very astute observation. The picture was indeed taken inside the tent as can be seen by the tent stitching and metal hook running along the top upper right of the photo (Those are not film/camera scratches.). You can also see his left shoulder and in his left hand, a flashlight in the "on" position. He's squatting, knees apart (You couldn't stand in the tent.). We even know who he is by his flashlight and beret. He's Alexander Zolotarev, the only member to both wear a beret or carry a flashlight (The flashlight is a 1959 Chinese "made in Hong Kong" flashlight, identifiable by its "twist grip" front lens seen in the photo. Zolotarev carried a Chinese flashlight attached to his coat.).

And you're also correct that what's in front of him is "floating in the air". It's the wood stove which was suspended from the roof of the tent. The flames are brighter than his flashlight and illuminating his face so brightly you can only just barely make him out.

Excellent deduction! Very well done! I'm impressed!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: 4ajodster

Nice post! I just seen the documentary last night on Animal Planet (I think it was)
I had never heard of this (Menk) before last night. Pretty intriguing stuff!
S& F



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: IMAnonymous
They wore three clothing schemes in layers. There was the basic tent clothing (In which Yuri Kri and Yuri Doroschenko were found wearing) good to about 0 degrees C, outdoor ski wear (hooded belted jackets, wool skull caps, mittens, and valenki boots) good to -20 degrees C and then "severe cold" fur coats and fur hats supposedly good to -50 C. All were wearing the approved clothing except Zolotarev who had an unapproved hat (Nick had one too but wasn't wearing it the night he died.). However, they were all wearing the approved tent clothing outside the tent that night as their standard wear. This made sense to those who found them and is why they died and died quickly.


Correction: This should read "This made NO sense"...








The second misconception is the assumption of an avalanche. The slope was 19 degrees which is not a condition for avalanches and the tent was pitched near the very top of Hill 1097 (not 300 meters below it as one poster noted.). This reduces the chance of avalanche by an even greater amount (to almost nothing). Searchers no sign of disturbance to the site,


Correction: "Searchers FOUND no sign of disturbance to the site..."



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: IMAnonymous

An interesting collection of facts that haven't been made very clear before. But I have to disagree about what you say aren't film/camera scratches.As they are the only part of the image that's in perfect focus (marks on the film will always be in focus even if there's no lens on the camera) and are in front of the subject,they can't have been actual physical objects present when the photo was taken.I've owned canvas tents a long time ago,and there was never any visible texture like that would show up on any photos.Also the slightly dimmer light just off centre looks more like lens flare to me,caused by the brighter light to the left.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Why did the animals that fed on a few of them eat so little of each member??? Savouring each body? A flock/pack with seperate meals?
You're asking a lot of questions which I think already have proposed answers in the hypothesis posted earlier in this thread. Of course nobody is 100% sure but it sounds plausible to me. About eating frozen bodies, try eating a frozen chicken drumstick from the freezer and you'll have your answer, though don't blame me if you break off your teeth trying to eat it. The body freezes from the outside in so extremities can be frozen (aka "frostbite") while a person is still breathing and alive, so warm air on the tongue would mean the tongue would still be soft enough to eat, in fact it's possible if the person was unconscious that the creature could have started eating the tongue while he was still alive, or else shortly after death before it froze.

a reply to: Imagewerx
Confirmed, guy who grew up camping in lots of tents before, and also experienced photographer; that picture doesn't show tent stitching.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Neysa
A delightfully awful film.
I'd heard of this from the 'Sideways Thinking" podcast. I'm in the camp that believes the mystery is still unsolved, though I believe it was a natural phenomena, or a series of natural phenomenas, i.e., avalanche, then noshing birds, that caused it.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Imagewerx
a reply to: IMAnonymous

An interesting collection of facts that haven't been made very clear before. But I have to disagree about what you say aren't film/camera scratches.As they are the only part of the image that's in perfect focus (marks on the film will always be in focus even if there's no lens on the camera) and are in front of the subject,they can't have been actual physical objects present when the photo was taken.



There are definitely film/camera scratches in the film. This occurs in more than just one photo, often from water crystallization on the lens itself. However, we may not be referring to the same thing. I'm referring to the two horizontal linings at the very top right hand side of the photo. Each of these horizontal linings are connected by a series of vertical linings that do not extend above or below the two horizontal linings. And every other vertical "stitch" line are exactly the same distance apart.

In another reproduction of this picture I thought a metal eye hook was clearly visible at one of the vertical seam lines. It did not occur to me to save that particular picture. Yet you can still "see" it in the photo posted here on this site but I admit this particular posting of that evidence is not as convincing as I would like.



I've owned canvas tents a long time ago,and there was never any visible texture like that would show up on any photos.


I've never seen it either. But have you seen the inside of Igor Dyatlov's tent to know? Or even seen the same two tents Igor sewed together anywhere or anytime?




Also the slightly dimmer light just off centre looks more like lens flare to me,caused by the brighter light to the left.


And you may be right. What I did though and which I suspect you didn't, was compare the dimmer light just off center to China's 1959 exported flashlight which were recovered at the Dyatlov expedition site. Anyone who wants can increase the magnification of this picture, adjust the lighting and see that it's really not a round light at all but an eight sided octagon. 1959 exported Chinese flashlights used an eight sided lens cap to aid screwing it on. Again, anyone here can see the top metal rim casing of the flashlight even in the posted photo as well as see the flashlight is pointed down because you can the inside bottom rim of the flashlight. When I compared the inside diameter of a 1959 exported Chinese flashlight and the exterior diameter to this photo I got an exact match.

And I agree the flashlight lens is dimmer, IMO, than the light to the left because the light to the left is produced by much hotter and brighter light (wood flames) from the stove which would appear to be "floating" as the stove was suspended from grommet lines from the tent roof (But I don't have to tell you that, do I?)

Am I 100% certain?

No.

But I thought the person who used their imagination to create a face and a fire deserved the congratulations of knowing there was actually supporting evidence and even a member of the party to match it.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: yarblis
reply to post by 4ajodster
 


Those people were attacked and murdered by something or someone,that was no accident.
Either way a tragic happening.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
It could also be simply explained by an avalanche, they are good for breaking bones.

Animals like to eat eyes and lips.

And people dying of hypothermia tend to experience a feeling of being warm, which could explain some of the naked people.

Just something to think about, the simplest explanations are usually the correct ones.


Really.. 16 stars for a post that tells me that not you or the people giving the stars have read the case.

There had been NO avalanche. The tracks were there, tent was still there partially set up. No sign of an avalanche hitting the camp.
There is also more to the broken bones as well. There was no marks on the body of an outer impact hitting the body. People left the tent without putting on their clothes.. Into the snow.
edit on 3-7-2014 by br0ker because: Filling



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: br0ker
If you're like me when you hear the word "Avalanche" you picture something so huge it would bury the tent completely. The tent wasn't completely buried in snow, but it was covered somewhat in snow so maybe a better term would be "mini-avalanche" or as some called it earlier in the thread, "snow slide". This picture does look like evidence of a snow slide with this amount of snow covering the tent in an irregular pattern consistent with a slide, as opposed to snowfall which would be more even:

en.wikipedia.org...


avalanche damage is considered one of the more plausible explanations for this incident....
Despite claims that the area is not prone to avalanches,[8] slab avalanches do typically occur in new snow and where people are disrupting the snowpack.[9] On the night of the incident, snow was falling, the campsite was situated on a slope, and the campers were disrupting the stability of the snowpack. The tent was also halfway torn down and partially covered with snow – all of which could support the theory of a small avalanche pushing snow into the tent.
A small avalanche does seem to be supported by the photographic evidence.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


en.wikipedia.org...


avalanche damage is considered one of the more plausible explanations for this incident....
Despite claims that the area is not prone to avalanches,[8] slab avalanches do typically occur in new snow and where people are disrupting the snowpack.[9] On the night of the incident, snow was falling, the campsite was situated on a slope, and the campers were disrupting the stability of the snowpack. The tent was also halfway torn down and partially covered with snow – all of which could support the theory of a small avalanche pushing snow into the tent.
A small avalanche does seem to be supported by the photographic evidence.


Actually - No. The photo doesn't support a snow slide at all. The Russians considered a mini-snow slide and rejected it. First, the slope is not conducive to avalanche and, second, the tent site is deliberately dug out such that the roof line of the tent is even with the top of the snow. This is not only to level the tent but to create an insulation barrier. So the snow you see in the picture is virtually exactly the height it should be at the time of the photo.

However, when the tent was abandoned there was actually almost a foot more snow than shown here and it collected in about a 4 hour period. That's a lot of snow. Did it fall from the sky or slide down the hill? Three experts were asked about it. Two said the tent meant all requirements and there was nothing that happened around the tent, citing the tent stretching as evidence. And the photos of the campers setting up the tent show they are in a snow blizzard to account for the foot of snow.

The third expert disagreed with the other two. He argued there was a disturbance on the uphill side of the tent to it's stretching (tent stakes). Since the photo above shows no such disturbance he has to be referring to the uphill grommet supports which don't appear in the picture. On the uphill side, ski poles driven into the snow upside down would have performed as grommet poles (Skis would have had to be used on the downhill side in order to be tall enough.).

The third expert was actually Igor Dyatlov's personal adviser for planning the trip and the Communist Party was looking for someone to blame. He was one of four persons to be fired for having granted Igor permission for a "Level 3" hike when they were "Level 2" campers. So the third expert had good reason to try and shift the blame from himself.

But political influence goes both ways. The two experts who cleared Igor Dyatlov of any wrong doing in siting the tent were both personal friends of Igor Dyatlov. So when the Communist Party called in witnesses to the tent site, they never once called an impartial witness.

One of the three had to be wrong. Dyatlov's adviser was ruled wrong. And he was ruled wrong by his own evidence. He stated that it was the collapse of the uphill stretch (grommet) pole that allowed snow to enter the tent through the cuts, which is tantamount to saying the disturbance took place after the tent had already been cut and abandoned.

This was probably not the best argument to make. And he paid the price.

So the other two won and the "mini-avalanche" argument dismissed.

Was it correctly dismissed?

In regards to the third expert's opinion, he had to be absolutely wrong. There is no possibility of the uphill grommet support being disturbed without ALL OF THEM being disturbed. His argument was dismissed twice over.

So now we have the political side of the argument. Dyatlov's friends argued "no mistake" and the guy defending himself from getting fired argued nature overruled and presented a flimsy supporting argument. And so the argument of a mini snow slide was dismissed.

But there is still an extra foot of snow out there. It could have arrived over four hours (possible but not likely) or it arrived all at once (snow slide).

If it arrived all at once, the campers were still awake. They would have heard a "swoosh" and then seen the uphill side of the ten roof indent with snow to the height of nearly a foot.

And that would be it. That's it. The show would be over. Nothing would happen at all on the downhill side of the tent. And it would be just as obvious that nothing happened to the downhill side of the tent as it was obvious that something happened to the uphill side.

And, again, as soon as it happened, it was over.

So do nine people all start screaming inside the tent at this point and cut their way the downhill side of the tent and run off without their shoes or parkas, or do they open the front of the tent and say "Hey! Look! There's a foot of snow outside!"

And then just simply go out and brush it off because there's virtually zero chance of it repeating.

And, even if the third expert was right (unlikely though that is) and they had lost their uphill grommet pole, the only thing that would happen was the middle of the tent roof would sag down about 6 inches. Does that justify panic?

Raise your hand if you're cutting your way out if you were there.

But the investigation is ONE SIDED. It was looking to place BLAME. If these campers couldn't tie a knot and a foot of snow came down the hill and all their knots came undone with the weight of the snow, then the entire tent would collapse and look just like it does in the picture above except with a foot more snow.

Now you can have panic in the tent.

Nowhere in the above picture is there a tied, tight rope to be found. And NOBODY was going to point this out. If Dyatlov's party could not tie a proper knot then blame would go on Dyatlov and, by extension, those who improperly trained Dyatlov which was everyone.

So one tent expert could get fired or all three. Can you see the politics?

So which happened becomes a matter of personal preference. If you believe none of the the people who put that tent up knew how to tie a knot, you have your solution. And studies taken afterwards do show that "Level 2" campers were being incorrectly trained (But we don't know how they were being incorrectly trained.).

But, if you believe these campers could at least tie their own shoelaces without help, then you realize this is not a solution.

My personal opinion (Which is worth nothing) is that Igor did have some improper training (As subsequent studies showed) but the possibility that everybody's knots came undone at the same time are far less than the odds that it snowed nearly a foot in four hours.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: IMAnonymous
Thanks for the informative post. You're referring to experts, politics and questioning their motivation, bias, accuracy, etc, all valid points.

I'm referring to the photographic evidence and my personal experience with snow. The snow was so deep in my front yard growing up I used to dig tunnels through it, so I have lots of experience with lots of snow, and that picture doesn't show any type of natural snowfall pattern I've ever seen. The snow appears to have been displaced. Of course I can't say for sure if there was an avalanche or snow slide but I can say in my experience the photo doesn't look consistent with snowfall and does look more consistent with a snow slide.

Nobody really knows for sure though.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: IMAnonymous

No,if it's in focus which the things you're seeing are,they are definitely film damage.The rest of the scene as you can see is as far out of focus as it's possible to be,and even with the lens wide open (they used to have decent maximum apertures in those days such as F1.4),you couldn't possibly account for the total lack of any depth of field.Only extreme close up macro lenses have a depth of field that is limited enough to produce this sort of effect,but this isn't the case here.
Just because you see a blob of light with eight sides doesn't mean that what ever produced it had eight sides.This can be accounted for by bokeh which varies from lens to lens. Bokeh is how we see out of focus points of light,some are round,some are square and some can be well........hexagonal (number of leaves on the iris or diaphragm?)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: IMAnonymous
"Actually - No. The photo doesn't support a snow slide at all. The Russians considered a mini-snow slide and rejected it."........


Actually yes!!


Actually , the ground does lend itself to avalanche, this was mentioned in the previous thread on this incident
www.abovetopsecret.com...

when you see the report it states the land imediately above the camps angle increased thru 25 , then 35 degrees , which IS a SIGNIFICANT avalanche risk....

""a Russian tourism brochure for the area that warns of avalanche danger on slopes steeper than 15°. According to the police reports, the slope immediately above the campsite was at 22-23°, and 50 to 100 meters above the campsite it increased to 25-30°. That's quite steep. There was a cornice, and the snow at the campsite was 2 meters deep."

RADIATION...
""A number of skeptics have addressed the question of radioactivity by pointing out that the mantles used in camping lanterns contain thorium, which emits alpha particle radiation, to the point that there is actually a radiation warning on the packaging. These mantles, if you're not familiar with them, are little fabric bags that serve as the wick in a burning lantern. They're quite fragile and easily turn to dust that gets everywhere, like onto the clothes of everyone in the tent,"

excellent source and photographs here... www.aquiziam.com...


also .... skeptoid.com...

colour of skin.... " At the open-casket funeral for the first five victims, relatives saw the combination of five days of winter sunburn in those days before sunscreen, and the mortician's effort to cover up frostbite and a full month of exposure to the elements, and described it as a strange orange color; though others described it simply as a deep tan, which is consistent with reasonable expectations. "

www.aquiziam.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
It could also be simply explained by an avalanche, they are good for breaking bones.

Animals like to eat eyes and lips.

And people dying of hypothermia tend to experience a feeling of being warm, which could explain some of the naked people.

Just something to think about, the simplest explanations are usually the correct ones.


I reached similar conclusions after first hearing about this a while ago. They camped halfway up a mountain and any experienced climber knows that's stupid, but they didn't feel like walking back down for whatever reason. Avalanche takes them by surprise and they scramble out of their tent to avoid being killed by it. They run in whatever direction they can to avoid the avalanche and end up in 2 groups. One group falls down a canyon of some sort because it's dark. The others are cold, half naked and confused but try to light a fire. Hypothermia soon kicks in and a common symptom of late stage hypothermia is that you feel warm, even though you're about to die from the cold, so they remvoed their clothes. There was perhaps a military experiement going on nearby and they were exposed to it at some point during their experience. That would explain their burns and the authority's reluctance to investigate it fully. Animals and birds like soft tissue so they probably ate tongues or whatever else wasn't frozen stiff. Case closed imho.





new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join