Dyatlov Pass incident

[barnflatwyngarde]

Sorry! I made an a@!e of quoting in the post above.

My phone is acting up.

Diddy!

[Ms Diddles]

Sorry! I made an a@!e of quoting in the post above.

My phone is acting up.

[Ms Diddles]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n787502]

It’s just a pity that they didn’t take advice before publishing on the books readability. The biog’s that you mentioned within the text would have been better as footnotes for a start and it’s difficult to see how a lot of the information that’s being presented (I’m at page 150 so far) will be relevant in the end so you get the impression of overkill which swamps the reader in an information overload. I’m not for a minute saying that it’s not a worthwhile book (whatever it’s conclusion) because the research appears really detailed. Not enough attention paid to readability though.

My number one btw still gives me nightmares I was having a period of interest in the JFK assassination and I read a book called Best Evidence by David Lifton. 6 or 700 pages I think, of small text all on the premise that Kennedy’s body was operated upon on Airforce One to alter the bullet wounds so as give a false trajectory and so disguise the fact that there were more than one gunman. It was like reading a medical textbook! I stubbornly battled though it; hating every minute of it To de-toxify my brain a had to read PG Wodehouse for a fortnight to bring me back from the brink.[/QUOT

On reflection, I like the idea of Wodehouse as a kind of decontamination therapy.

Kind of like a nice champagne sorbet palate cleanser between rich courses at dinner!!!

[Ms Diddles]

Wait for me guys!

I've got 98 pages to go, and yes it's a bloody slog. I'll save my comments re the case and the book itself till I've finished the damn thing.

No rush, Barn.

I'm going to check out that website to make sure I've understood everything correctly.

I may even re-read certain bits to check my logic.

I'll be honest, I'm not delighted by that prospect, but needs must as I think there were elements of the theory that passed me by.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Wait for me guys!

I've got 98 pages to go, and yes it's a bloody slog. I'll save my comments re the case and the book itself till I've finished the damn thing.

[Ms Diddles]

Thanks Ms D. I suspected that might be the case just from what I’ve read so far (172 pages) It’s not a book that you could recommend as ‘an enjoyable read.) A real case of ‘too much information,’ most of which could have been kept as footnotes or endnotes.

I suppose it does lend credibility to the theory in that we can see how thorough the research is, but yeah it could definitely have been formatted differently and presented in a much clearer fashion.

I feel like it makes a bit of a leap in the final pages with the actual theory, but I will be interested to see what you guys make of it.

I can think of a couple of arguments against this hypothesis, but I will wait patiently to discuss once you, Barn and Filby have finished.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I finished the book last night!

It was indeed a test of endurance by the end.

I think the issue is that it's just a literal translation of a Russian book, written by a Russian author for a Russian audience.

It could have done with being reformatted and edited for non Russian audiences, with (as you point out) more attention paid to readability and better translation.

I won't say too much until you guys have finished it too, but whilst I get the main thrust of the theory, I fear I have lost many of the relevant details amid the swathes of superfluous stuff.

I should probably go back and re-read certain bits to clarify, but I'll need to psyche myself up for that......

Thanks Ms D. I suspected that might be the case just from what I’ve read so far (172 pages) It’s not a book that you could recommend as ‘an enjoyable read.) A real case of ‘too much information,’ most of which could have been kept as footnotes or endnotes.

[Ms Diddles]

It’s just a pity that they didn’t take advice before publishing on the books readability. The biog’s that you mentioned within the text would have been better as footnotes for a start and it’s difficult to see how a lot of the information that’s being presented (I’m at page 150 so far) will be relevant in the end so you get the impression of overkill which swamps the reader in an information overload. I’m not for a minute saying that it’s not a worthwhile book (whatever it’s conclusion) because the research appears really detailed. Not enough attention paid to readability though.

My number one btw still gives me nightmares I was having a period of interest in the JFK assassination and I read a book called Best Evidence by David Lifton. 6 or 700 pages I think, of small text all on the premise that Kennedy’s body was operated upon on Airforce One to alter the bullet wounds so as give a false trajectory and so disguise the fact that there were more than one gunman. It was like reading a medical textbook! I stubbornly battled though it; hating every minute of it To de-toxify my brain a had to read PG Wodehouse for a fortnight to bring me back from the brink.

I finished the book last night!

It was indeed a test of endurance by the end.

I think the issue is that it's just a literal translation of a Russian book, written by a Russian author for a Russian audience.

It could have done with being reformatted and edited for non Russian audiences, with (as you point out) more attention paid to readability and better translation.

I won't say too much until you guys have finished it too, but whilst I get the main thrust of the theory, I fear I have lost many of the relevant details amid the swathes of superfluous stuff.

I should probably go back and re-read certain bits to clarify, but I'll need to psyche myself up for that......

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's a coincidence Herlock.

I read Lifton's book for the first time many years ago, and have re-read it several times since. I can still remember the names of the two FBI agents whose testimony forms the basis of the book, agents Sibbert and O'Neill.
Overall I thought that it was an interesting look at one particular aspect of the Kennedy assassination.

If my memory serves me correctly, the term of"best evidence" is an American legal term that refers to the evidence that comes from the state of the body.
If six people say they saw the victim shot from the front, but the wounds on the body say otherwise, then the body evidence trump's everything.

Oops, I'm displaying signs of Liftonesque pedantry.

You’ve read it several times?! Barn, there are people who’ve been awarded medals for less. I suppose that it didn’t help that I was reading this during a period of conspiracy-overload. I’d just read Bonar Menninger’s book on the ‘accidental’ fatal shot by a security agent (called Hickey if I remember correctly) so my tolerance levels were low (or lower than usually as some might say)

[barnflatwyngarde]

It’s just a pity that they didn’t take advice before publishing on the books readability. The biog’s that you mentioned within the text would have been better as footnotes for a start and it’s difficult to see how a lot of the information that’s being presented (I’m at page 150 so far) will be relevant in the end so you get the impression of overkill which swamps the reader in an information overload. I’m not for a minute saying that it’s not a worthwhile book (whatever it’s conclusion) because the research appears really detailed. Not enough attention paid to readability though.

My number one btw still gives me nightmares I was having a period of interest in the JFK assassination and I read a book called Best Evidence by David Lifton. 6 or 700 pages I think, of small text all on the premise that Kennedy’s body was operated upon on Airforce One to alter the bullet wounds so as give a false trajectory and so disguise the fact that there were more than one gunman. It was like reading a medical textbook! I stubbornly battled though it; hating every minute of it To de-toxify my brain a had to read PG Wodehouse for a fortnight to bring me back from the brink.

That's a coincidence Herlock.

I read Lifton's book for the first time many years ago, and have re-read it several times since. I can still remember the names of the two FBI agents whose testimony forms the basis of the book, agents Sibbert and O'Neill.
Overall I thought that it was an interesting look at one particular aspect of the Kennedy assassination.

If my memory serves me correctly, the term of"best evidence" is an American legal term that refers to the evidence that comes from the state of the body.
If six people say they saw the victim shot from the front, but the wounds on the body say otherwise, then the body evidence trump's everything.

Oops, I'm displaying signs of Liftonesque pedantry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know where you are coming from, and I think that I'm in your tent.

My other difficult book to get through is a Ripper book, but I don't want to upset anyone on these boards by identifying it.

It’s just a pity that they didn’t take advice before publishing on the books readability. The biog’s that you mentioned within the text would have been better as footnotes for a start and it’s difficult to see how a lot of the information that’s being presented (I’m at page 150 so far) will be relevant in the end so you get the impression of overkill which swamps the reader in an information overload. I’m not for a minute saying that it’s not a worthwhile book (whatever it’s conclusion) because the research appears really detailed. Not enough attention paid to readability though.

My number one btw still gives me nightmares I was having a period of interest in the JFK assassination and I read a book called Best Evidence by David Lifton. 6 or 700 pages I think, of small text all on the premise that Kennedy’s body was operated upon on Airforce One to alter the bullet wounds so as give a false trajectory and so disguise the fact that there were more than one gunman. It was like reading a medical textbook! I stubbornly battled though it; hating every minute of it To de-toxify my brain a had to read PG Wodehouse for a fortnight to bring me back from the brink.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I think this book might end up at the number two spot on my all time list of ‘hardest to get through books!’

I know where you are coming from, and I think that I'm in your tent.

My other difficult book to get through is a Ripper book, but I don't want to upset anyone on these boards by identifying it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think this book might end up at the number two spot on my all time list of ‘hardest to get through books!’

[Ms Diddles]

Another quibble is the lack of an index.

Agreed!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another quibble is the lack of an index.