Scan barcode
liralen's review
2.0
Strange though it is to say, I sort of appreciate that just about every book I've read about the Dyatlov Pass incident has a different theory: government-led murder, human error, infrasound. Obviously I'd prefer—for the hikers' families and for history—that a definitive answer be found, but if I'm going to read a mishmash of books on the subject...it might as well be a mishmash of theories too.
Unfortunately this is another one where I can't trust the research, which in turn calls the conclusions into question. Often it's little things, but sometimes it's bigger ones.
Mentioned in the context of incorrect theories, for example: Lyuda was strangled to death: Her hyoid bone was intact. One or both hyoid bones break when a person is strangled.
Sasha was strangled to death: Hyoid bone intact. (loc. 2334)
All it takes is a quick Google to find that the hyoid bone can but does not always break during strangulation. It's not that I personally think that either Lyuda or Sasha was strangled (for various unimportant reasons, I find other theories more compelling)—it's that that kind of unresearched dismissal of a theory makes it harder to trust any of the conclusions the book comes to.
Because some information is missing, many people add their own information to fit theories; this is breaking the rules of evidence gathering. Personal details must not be added, nor any findings dismissed but must follow the autopsy findings to the proper theories. (loc. 2381)
I agree with this, sure (though I'd qualify this by noting that the autopsies do not and cannot tell the full story—if they could, there might be a definitive answer by now—and it's not just the autopsies that must be considered but also all evidence and context of time and place). But I'm not convinced that the book follows its own injunction. It's full of made-up scenes and dialogue, authorial renderings of what could have gone down. Now, this is not the first or the only book I've read that's done this (not even the only book in the context of Dyatlov Pass), and I'm sure many (most) people don't mind it the way I do. But when books with theories about what happened toss in fully fledged scenes with dialogue and relationships that there's no evidence for...it's the sort of thing that I can only stand if it's clearly delineated as 'here's how I envision it' and the known facts are separated from the supposition.
(I know the review is marked for spoilers, but the real spoilers are below)
But the most damning thing is this: Hypoxia: At 10K, Hypoxia isn't expected, but it is more than possible. It could explain why so many hikers make unexpected, strange choices that make no sense at all. (loc. 2589)
This is one of the main points of Dahman's theory: that hypoxia (inadequate oxygen at the tissue level, in this case caused by high altitude) significantly contributed to the hikers' deaths. My theory adds this [hypoxia] without me explicitly saying that was part of what happened to cause the tourists to rush from the tent. It is very possible at 10K (loc. 2129) And sure! That's citationably true.
Apathy ruled at 10,000 feet (loc. 1092)
They were at 10,00 [sic] feet and felt the beginnings of slight hypoxia (loc. 1142)
At 10K, there is a 30 percent loss of oxygen (loc. 2596) (I'm finding mixed reviews of the accuracy of this online, but for the sake of the argument let's go with it.)
So why is this a problem? The problem is that a very quick Google search will tell you that at its highest point (which is not where the hikers were), Kholat Syakhl, the mountain their were on, is roughly 3,600 feet (~1,000 meters) in elevation. That's a pretty far cry from 10,000 feet, no? I'm not sure where the 10,000 number comes from, but it undermines any good points the book might have to make.
Unfortunately this is another one where I can't trust the research, which in turn calls the conclusions into question. Often it's little things, but sometimes it's bigger ones.
Mentioned in the context of incorrect theories, for example: Lyuda was strangled to death: Her hyoid bone was intact. One or both hyoid bones break when a person is strangled.
Sasha was strangled to death: Hyoid bone intact. (loc. 2334)
All it takes is a quick Google to find that the hyoid bone can but does not always break during strangulation. It's not that I personally think that either Lyuda or Sasha was strangled (for various unimportant reasons, I find other theories more compelling)—it's that that kind of unresearched dismissal of a theory makes it harder to trust any of the conclusions the book comes to.
Because some information is missing, many people add their own information to fit theories; this is breaking the rules of evidence gathering. Personal details must not be added, nor any findings dismissed but must follow the autopsy findings to the proper theories. (loc. 2381)
I agree with this, sure (though I'd qualify this by noting that the autopsies do not and cannot tell the full story—if they could, there might be a definitive answer by now—and it's not just the autopsies that must be considered but also all evidence and context of time and place). But I'm not convinced that the book follows its own injunction. It's full of made-up scenes and dialogue, authorial renderings of what could have gone down. Now, this is not the first or the only book I've read that's done this (not even the only book in the context of Dyatlov Pass), and I'm sure many (most) people don't mind it the way I do. But when books with theories about what happened toss in fully fledged scenes with dialogue and relationships that there's no evidence for...it's the sort of thing that I can only stand if it's clearly delineated as 'here's how I envision it' and the known facts are separated from the supposition.
(I know the review is marked for spoilers, but the real spoilers are below)
But the most damning thing is this: Hypoxia: At 10K, Hypoxia isn't expected, but it is more than possible. It could explain why so many hikers make unexpected, strange choices that make no sense at all. (loc. 2589)
This is one of the main points of Dahman's theory: that hypoxia (inadequate oxygen at the tissue level, in this case caused by high altitude) significantly contributed to the hikers' deaths. My theory adds this [hypoxia] without me explicitly saying that was part of what happened to cause the tourists to rush from the tent. It is very possible at 10K (loc. 2129) And sure! That's citationably true.
Apathy ruled at 10,000 feet (loc. 1092)
They were at 10,00 [sic] feet and felt the beginnings of slight hypoxia (loc. 1142)
At 10K, there is a 30 percent loss of oxygen (loc. 2596) (I'm finding mixed reviews of the accuracy of this online, but for the sake of the argument let's go with it.)
So why is this a problem? The problem is that a very quick Google search will tell you that at its highest point (which is not where the hikers were), Kholat Syakhl, the mountain their were on, is roughly 3,600 feet (~1,000 meters) in elevation. That's a pretty far cry from 10,000 feet, no? I'm not sure where the 10,000 number comes from, but it undermines any good points the book might have to make.
evilevel's review against another edition
2.0
I think this is a 1.5 stars for me. I enjoyed the theory that has been provided in this book and think certain parts might have occured as has been written, however, the author did not speak to me, and I disliked the way she claimed to have the only true and correct theory and all the facts.
I have read basically every book ever written about the Dyatlov pass and there certainly are less plausible theories out there. But at the same time, there are more plausible theories aswell.
I also didn't like the editing. There were a lot of grammatical errors and sometimes it seemed as if I read a bad google-translate.
In brief, the story was good, I enjoyed the extra information given (the autopsy reports etc.), however, the writing style and the editing knocked off a few points as did the 'snooty-ness' of the author. I also thought a few of the extra 'drawings' were unnecessary, since they seemed to be more of a page filler than actual usefull information. I also believe not all 'facts' are true, the 10K for one stands out to me to be false.
In the end we will probably never know for sure what happend to the Dyatloc Nine. It is all more or less speculation. For now, however, I will keep reading about it and rereading about it because it fascinates me to no end.
I have read basically every book ever written about the Dyatlov pass and there certainly are less plausible theories out there. But at the same time, there are more plausible theories aswell.
I also didn't like the editing. There were a lot of grammatical errors and sometimes it seemed as if I read a bad google-translate.
In brief, the story was good, I enjoyed the extra information given (the autopsy reports etc.), however, the writing style and the editing knocked off a few points as did the 'snooty-ness' of the author. I also thought a few of the extra 'drawings' were unnecessary, since they seemed to be more of a page filler than actual usefull information. I also believe not all 'facts' are true, the 10K for one stands out to me to be false.
In the end we will probably never know for sure what happend to the Dyatloc Nine. It is all more or less speculation. For now, however, I will keep reading about it and rereading about it because it fascinates me to no end.
More...