August 24, 2019, 01:42:31 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Why not fire?  (Read 1002 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

November 04, 2018, 10:24:59 AM
Read 1002 times
Offline

PghRunner


Hello,

Just a quick question: many of the scenarios have everyone leaving the tent because of smoke.  However, there are a lot of notation in the autopsy reports of burns--especially on Krivonischenko.  Is it plausible that embers sparked a flame?  Not severe enough to catch the whole tent on fire, but, enough to injure Krivonishchenko.  They take him down the slope, build a fire to try and keep him comfortable; in pain he bites onto his own finger.  Injury and shock, though, quickly lead to death.  The other hikers understandably would be in a panic and in that state, cause a chain reaction of mistakes that ultimately led to their deaths.
We're all stories in the end....so make it a good one, eh?

November 04, 2018, 11:23:47 AM
Reply #1
Offline

Marchesk


Clark Wilkins' book puts forward the stove theory, where they got smoked out of the tent. A fire could be related to using the stove.

However, I don't think the investigation found evidence for the stove being used that night or there being a fire.

November 04, 2018, 05:09:50 PM
Reply #2
Offline

Jacques-Emile


In review of the post topic, I see that it has been asked many times before is nearly the same form, with no clear additional information added.  A post would be of substantive value if it clearly advances independent thought or new evidence about a certain topic.  Such a post requires a discerning and patient review of what has been said before.  Can we hear a novel idea in the matter of fire in the tent?

Contrarily, why would people flee so many hundreds of meters if there were a fire in the tent?

November 04, 2018, 06:49:32 PM
Reply #3
Offline

PghRunner


In review of the post topic, I see that it has been asked many times before is nearly the same form, with no clear additional information added.  A post would be of substantive value if it clearly advances independent thought or new evidence about a certain topic.  Such a post requires a discerning and patient review of what has been said before.  Can we hear a novel idea in the matter of fire in the tent?

Contrarily, why would people flee so many hundreds of meters if there were a fire in the tent?

Well, I can't give you new evidence, but I can give you independent thought.

I base my thought on the tragedies of the 1860s, that is, the fact that it could take only a spark from a fire to ignite the skirt of women in cage crinolines.  Because you can't just rip off a dress and a cage crinoline/hoop skirt, they were basically trapped in an inferno and died from injury.  Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's wife, Fanny, died in this manner.  To correlate it to the incident with Dyatlov Pass, the "cage crinoline" of sorts could be viewed as the tent itself.  It only takes a spark to ignite the masses of blankets, clothes, and people who are huddled in the tent.  From what I read in the autopsy reports, it wasn't just Krivonishenko who sustained burns.  His were the most severe. 

So, it's completely plausible that, now one member of the team is pretty severely injured and no doubt in shock, they need to get him away from the tent and try to keep him warm.  ANY TIME someone is in shock, you want to keep them warm.  It's a first aid basic.  Maybe Dyatlov stays behind to clean up the stove and try to pack it up.  Maybe the rest of the hikers take him down the slope and build a fire to keep him warm.  A lot of people on here seem to agree that the weather wasn't all that great and, with lowered visibility, it's possible to get lost.  It's no doubt probable, especially if they didn't have flashlights or some way to know the EXACT way to get back to the tent.  By now, the hikers--who are already exhausted--have worked up a sweat.  That's the last thing you want in sub-zero temperatures.  You're going to freeze.  Without in-depth/over analyzing the evidence and taking it at face value: if someone is injured and you want to build a fire, you need wood.  We know they climbed the tree because of how high the branches were cut.  I've read on here that skin was found embedded in the tree, but I don't know that that's documented or if it is rumor.  However, if you're in a panic and trying to get your injured friends warmed up in less than desirable cold/snowy conditions, there's the chance to slip and fall out of the tree.  Zina and Dyatlov try to make their way back up the slope to get blankets and supplies, but--already exhausted and sweaty from trying to help Yuri--they succumb to the cold.

We know Slobodin was strong and athletic.  It's completely plausible that he could have fallen out of the tree.  The temporal sides of a person's skull are weaker than the frontal bone or the back of your skull.  If you just trip and fall on a rock, chances are you're going to pitch forward and hit the front of your head.  Same with falling backward; the point is, his injuries were on the side of his skull.  Therefore, he was in a situation where he could have fallen and wasn't able to control his fall.  There's a thread on here speculating that he would have to just keep falling and hitting his head repeatedly.  Case in point: in the past years here in Pennsylvania, there was a tragedy at Penn State University where a student was killed during pledge night at a fraternity.  He died from severe head trauma: drunk, he fell down the stairs and hit his head.  There is security camera footage of him REPEATEDLY going from the safety of the first floor and, for whatever reason, back tracking and falling down the stairs again.  And again.  Because the frat members didn't call paramedics until the next day, he died.

Your friend is hurt.  You are doing everything you can--desperately--to help him.  In November 2004, a 21 year old man in New York attacked his sleeping parents with an ax.  The father, Peter Porco, sustained 16 ax blows to his face.  It penetrated his skull.  It took off part of his jaw.   Yet, he didn't die.  In fact, crime scene investigators determined that he not only survived, but he got out of bed and started his daily routine.  They followed a blood trail to the bathroom, where he used the toilet and stood at the sink, looking in the mirror.  He walked into the kitchen, got dishes from the dishwasher---MADE HIS LUNCH---and then eventually died when he went to get the newspaper.

TL;DR:  The point is, adrenaline is a strange thing.  You can maintain composure, you can get hurt--heck, you can have your face bludgeoned to a pulp with an ax and still manage to make your lunch--and you can keep moving forward.  I don't think that a fire necessarily means a big fire; just enough of a spark to hurt someone and create the need to keep them warm.  Wood is at the tree-line.  I don't think that Krivonishenko's burns were post mortem, because if his body caught on fire after he died, I'd expect the fire to consume the entire body, possibly that of Doroshenko as well.

My husband was a combat engineer in the Army.  I gave him the fact of the case, the evidence as it was found.  His initial thoughts were that the issue stemmed from something in the tent they couldn't control--fire--and then basically snowballed from there.  People got sweaty.  Mistakes were made and things just kept getting worse while they fumbled in the snow.  As for the Rav4, his thought was that (as with the cases of hikers who are tied together and fall off a cliff together) it's just what it looks like: an accident.  They're lost in the snow and it gives way; they are pitched into rocks and severely injured.  Kolevotov is the last one alive and, exhausted, lays down to rest....and succumbs to the cold.

The more I read and study this case, the more that I feel like it was just one accident after another.  I just can't bring myself to believe that the USSR/military would have cared one way or another if these kids were out in the snow.  They had bigger fish to fry.  I think nine deaths were caused by an awful chain of events--but it's entirely possible that it started with just one spark.
We're all stories in the end....so make it a good one, eh?

November 04, 2018, 07:07:20 PM
Reply #4
Offline

Jacques-Emile


It only takes a spark to ignite the masses of blankets, clothes, and people who are huddled in the tent. 
please I mean no disrespect but I understood that the content of the tent was not incinerated.

November 04, 2018, 07:35:12 PM
Reply #5
Offline

PghRunner


It only takes a spark to ignite the masses of blankets, clothes, and people who are huddled in the tent. 
please I mean no disrespect but I understood that the content of the tent was not incinerated.

But Yuri's leg was burned, severe to the point the skin was peeling off his foot.  It's in the autopsy.
We're all stories in the end....so make it a good one, eh?

November 04, 2018, 07:52:18 PM
Reply #6
Online

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Could have been burned in the small fire at the cedar.
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

November 04, 2018, 08:26:15 PM
Reply #7
Offline

Jacques-Emile


Fire from the minometa of the Vaviar.

November 05, 2018, 02:33:29 PM
Reply #8
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
What FACTS we have all point to there being NO FIRE at the Tent that caused all the Group to abandon the Tent without taking those items needed for survival in those extreme weather conditions.
DB

November 05, 2018, 03:11:18 PM
Reply #9
Online

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
There was half eaten pork and rusks out in the open inside the tent..     how did they eat frozen meat?

Anyone here ever pull a T-bone straight out of the freezer and start knawing on it? 
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

November 06, 2018, 12:24:51 PM
Reply #10
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
No FIRE that caused the Group to abandon their Tent. Even if they did have a small controlled fire, it wouldnt have been responsible for what followed.
DB