August 20, 2019, 07:40:05 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: New (sorta) theory: deadly slide!  (Read 996 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

May 09, 2019, 07:38:52 AM
Read 996 times
Offline

lucid-nonsense


I have a (sorta) new theory.

I think it’s pretty good, because I think it explains the biggest mystery: why would they leave all their gear behind and calmly walk to almost certain death? Leaving your tent half-dressed, without boots, in the cold, at night, in a snowstorm wouldn’t have been just terrifying. It would’ve excruciatingly painful. Even if they did leave, no way they would’ve walked a mile down before realizing this was a terrible idea.

Leaving your tent in the middle of the night in a snowstorm without proper clothes on because you think there might be an avalanche would be like jumping out of a plane without a parachute because the engines stopped... when there is a parachute right there in the plane. When people panic, they sometimes make poor decisions, but it's always because they prioritize avoiding the most immediate, obvious or scary threat over the actually most dangerous threat. If something had scared them, they would probably have huddled in fear inside the tent, not calmly walked away to die.

So I think they didn't leave the tent willingly. And they didn't leave walking. But no one forced them out of it.

I think they were swept out of it. Then they slid down the slope and were unable to make their way back to the tent.

.


A large slab avalanche. The Big Man in the White Suit.

But an avalanche can be any size. Like this.



Now a small slide, say 15 cm thick, is unlikely to bury you. But, if it makes you fall in the wrong spot, or sweeps you off a cliff or into some trees or rocks, it can still kill you.

Look at this video of a pro snowboarder being swept down a chute by sluff.

https://youtu.be/hxdZMD011JI?t=33

If it can happen to him, it can happen to some students learning backcountry camping.

And snow slides can run any distance. Look at this one going a mile.

So this is what I think happened. When they dug the hole for their tent, it weakened the snow pack and, with the heavy snowfall and strong winds that night, a snow slide started above their tent. It hit their tent, and the entrance to their homemade tent let in the snow. They shored up the entrance with the stove and stuffed a jacket in there to stop more snow from coming in. But then the upslope side of their tent tore and let more snow in. Their tent was filling up with snow, and they were unable to leave through the entrance, as it was both buried and blocked. So they decided to cut their way out of the tent before they were completely buried and unable to move. Or they thought that a few cuts would let snow out of the tent, before the extra weight either pulled out the skis they were using as stakes or snapped the cables. However, when they had slashed the tent a few times, the entire panel suddenly tore and all the occupants were swept out along with the snow. Then they slid out of control down the hard steep slope, possibly helped along by strong winds. They were then unable to find the tent again. In his diary, the day before Dyatlov wrote: “Walking is especially hard today. Visibility is very low.  All we can do is 1.52 km (1 mile) per hour.” And that was in the daytime. At night, they wouldn’t have been able to find the tent unless they basically stumbled over it.



Like this, essentially. Except it was a loose snow avalanche and not a slab avalanche*. Once both panels were torn, the tent would only have a small surface area and would not “catch” the snow sliding down, and would therefore not be swept away. Small, light items would only be carried a short distance.



However, people would’ve started sliding down the slope, and once you’ve started sliding and picked up some speed, it’s essentially impossible to stop your slide without gear.

According to the investigators, the camp site was located 300 meters from the top of the mountain 1079 on a slope of 30°.

https://dyatlovpass.com/redirect.php?lid=1&pid=12881#dyatlovtentslope

30° is certainly steep enough for an loose snow avalanche to occur.





See the loose snow covering the tent?



The tent is covered in chunks of snow, consistent with a snow slide.



There are tears on both sides of the tent.



See the area without trees, highlighted in red? That is a slide path, i.e., the path something sliding downhill would take. That is why there are no trees there. Notice how the bodies are scattered along this path. Not a coincidence to me.



Concave terrain also makes slides more likely and worse if they do occur.



Down the slope and over the rocks.

Dyatlov also wrote in his diary the previous day “The speed of the wind is similar to the air draft created by a taking off airplane”. This also makes slides more likely.

Now from that point, a few things might have happened.

They all slid different distances, as some were able to stop their slide. Some slid all the way to the bottom, crashing into the trees there, or they were dragged over rocks. This explains the “car crash” injuries and the other fall injuries (scratches and bruises). Some did not slide very far; they looked for the tent for a little while, but realizing that they would not be able to find the tent again in the dark in a snowstorm, followed the others to the bottom, hoping to shelter there until morning.

2. None of them slid very far, but they were unable to find the tent in the dark, so they went down to shelter there. While making their way down in the dark, some of them fell, were hit by another snow slide, or were swept off their feet by the wind, slid down and slammed into the trees. In the morning, some tried to make their way back to the tent, but froze to death before they could.

3. They all slid to the bottom. Then they split up: some stayed at the bottom to dig a shelter, start a fire and care for the wounded, and some went back up to look for the tent. They were unable to find it and died.

4. During the initial slide or a subsequent one, they were all scattered and were unable to find each other until morning came. This explains why they seemed to have different techniques and spots for their survival attempts (some made a fire, some made a shelter, some tried to go back to the tent).

I think I like number 2 best, because it explains why the footprints start away from the tent and then stop again. It could be a combination of some or all, though.

Other things my theory explains:
The Items scattered near the tear in the tent.
They're all covered in fall injuries. They all had tears in their clothes, bruises and scratches with dirt in them, consistent with being dragged over rocks. No but seriously. They are all covered in scratches and bruises. https://dyatlovpass.com/death
One of the girls had an injury described as consistent with being hit with a baton. Crashing into a small tree would essentially do the same.
They're straight down the fall line.
They're at the bottom of a slide path.
The tent is covered in chunks of snow.
The missing boots and torn socks: most of their indoor boots are unaccounted for. There are nine pairs of outdoor boots in the tent, but only a few indoor boots. One guy has only one boot? Either he was wearing boots or he wasn’t. He must’ve lost one somehow. They lost their boots trying to stop their slide (they had no laces, so they would come off pretty easily).
Their hands are also all scratched up, with skin missing, both on the inside and the outside. The scratches on the inside on the inside of the hands is from trying to stop their slide, the ones on the outside is from protecting their heads from impacts.
There are no footprints immediately around the tent.
The footprints nearby sometimes leave and rejoin the main set of footprints: it's because they were looking for the tent, other people or the boots they lost.
The investigators said that there are no signs of an avalanche nearby, but that there are no footprints around the tent because they were erased by a slide. If we take that as true, then we know there was at least a snow slide around the tent.
The mess inside the tent.
The cut branches up high on the tree: someone climbed the tree to look for the tent, but the branches were blocking the view.
The people trying to make their way back to the tent were the best dressed: they got better clothes because they would need them, as they would be out of the shelter and away from the fire. Also several people were already dead by that point.

Few more things:

Why they did they pitch their tent in that spot? They probably got caught by the dark. They moved more slowly than planned and they couldn’t make their planned destination for the night, and figured it was safer to camp than to keep going in the dark. Remember Dyatlov wrote that walking was difficult that day.

We really don’t know what’s up with the footprints. I really don’t think we should be taking that guy’s word that those are the tracks of 8 or 9 people going downhill. I mean, this guy cannot even tell fresh footprints from footprints that are obviously from several weeks ago.



And the nine outdoor boots were in the tent. So it’s very unlikely this track is from one of the members of the party.

Why should we believe that he can tell the difference between the footprints of a person barefoot and a person wearing socks? Even if we accept that there are eight or nine sets of footprints, it could just as easily be four people walking up and then walking back down using the same footprints. Even if you accept that their footprints are pointing downhill, they could have been walking backwards to shield themselves from the wind. We really just don’t know.



Seriously, from this, he call tell how many people walked, how tall they were, what kind of shoes they were wearing? To be fair, though, it does look like we can see toes in the prints, so maybe I’m just slandering him. Also maybe by barefoot, he means no boots, not necessarily barefoot barefoot.

Also, we know that some footprints were erased (there should at least be footprints from them setting up the tent) so there might be actually a lot more footprints. There might have been footprints all around, looking for the tent. Why do we assume that it’s tracks leading directly from the tent to the forest?

However, the guy who said the snow on the tent was blown there by wind has no idea what he’s talking about, for 100% certain definitive fact. Windblown snow looks like this:



Basically, it piles up in the wind shadow. You can see the direction of the wind in it, in a regular pattern. On the tent, you see randomly piled chunks. Maybe he meant there was some windblown snow on top of the snow chunks.

The burned hands and feet is an easy one. The guy was trying to warm by the fire and lost consciousness. Or he didn’t feel the burn because of frostbite.

The torn clothes the woman was wearing: when she found her friend’s body, he was already frozen, so she couldn’t remove his clothes the normal way.

The two coats have to have been irradiated before the trip, otherwise all their clothes would be irradiated. And the two men who had the radioactive clothes both worked in a radiation facility. And I mean, sloppy radiation safety in the Soviet Union in the 1950s? You don't say.

The cut trees at the bottom that weren’t burnt: these were used for the shelter (when they first found the cut trees, they didn’t know about the shelter yet).

The shelter and the buried bodies weren’t necessarily in that spot originally. Snow slowly moves downslope as more snow piles up top, like a slow moving river.
The missing lips, nose and tongue: a small animal would struggle to eat a frozen body, especially through clothes, so it would just nip away at the softest tissues (this is why if you die with a pet inside the house, it will eat your face after a few days.)

Oh, and also, when they say they were in their underwear, they mean stuff like long johns, not like boxers shorts only. They weren’t that “undressed”.

I also feel that people overestimate how experienced these people were. They hadn't even gotten their full qualifications yet. To me, an expert is somebody who has gotten all his qualifications at least 10 years ago.

There is also information that seems to have been simply made up decades after the incident, adding to the “mystery”.

Other theories:

It makes no sense that they would have left because of an avalanche danger. Because how would they have realized that it was dangerous avalanche conditions during in the dark in a snowstorm? If they ran away because they thought an avalanche might happen, it means that they put up their tent in that spot, started cooking dinner, then realized that it was a dangerous spot, and then just dropped everything and left. They would at least have grabbed their coats and boots and carried them even if they weren't going to put them on right then. And where are the missing boots? Why are they covered in scratches and bruises?

Same for the idea that one of them went nuts and cut up out of the tent. Even if one of them had lost his marbles, he would have been overpowered by the others. Even if he hadn’t, the others wouldn’t have left the tent without their gear. Once again, where are the missing boots? Why are they covered in scratches and bruises?

It also makes no sense that the locals forced them out of the tent. First of all, how would they have found the tent in the dark in a snowstorm? Why would they even have been out and about at that time? Even if there had been locals in the area, at night, during a snowstorm, they would have been in their own shelter. And they forced the occupants of the tent to cut out of their tent instead of just ordering them out? You wouldn’t let someone grab a knife in this situation.

And nobody had injuries consistent with a fight or violence. Two people had shattered rib cages, but their skin was unbroken. This means that they were hit with a great force spread over a fairly large area. (Low pressure, but high total force. A gunshot or stab wound is high pressure, low total force.) Unless the natives are stronger than the yeti and they’re swinging entire tree trunks, there's no way they could inflict that sort of injuries. This is, however, consistent with crashing into rocks or trees at high speed.

Think about it. For some reason, the local natives are dicking about at night in the middle of a snowstorm. They somehow find the tent, order the occupants to cut their way out of the tent and scatter some items about, do not steal anything, force march them to the bottom, kill three of them (by somehow inflicting injuries consistent with a high speed collision) and then leave the rest to freeze to death? If they had really killed three, they would’ve killed them all. And why march them to the bottom instead of killing them on the spot? And then why the scratches, bruises and tears in their clothes? Where are the six missing pairs of boots? Halfway to the bottom, they made them take off their boots? And besides, the victims would’ve probably left some kind of note accusing them. Most bizarre murder ever, especially since the locals had never done anything of the sort. They had never assaulted anyone before this, they went straight to murder, then became peaceful again?

Still unexplained thing:

The flashlight on top of the tent. Possibly someone shoved it through the tear in the tent to take a look outside, then dropped it. But then why was it turned off? Maybe they took a look, turned it off and left it there. It’s also possible the rescuers are just wrong about that one, they were kinda sloppy.

Let me know what you think!

*Quick note on the difference between a slab and a loose snow avalanche. A slab avalanche works roughly like this: imagine you pour sand on a slope until it’s on the verge of sliding off. Then you put a glass slab on top of that, then more sand on top of that. Then you smash the glass plate. The cracks spread through the entire plate, there is no more support and the entire thing comes sliding down. These can get HUGE because the cracks can spread any distance, and, if the slab is buried deep enough, a LOT of snow can come sliding down.

A loose snow avalanche works roughly like this: keep pouring sand on a slope until there is too much of it and it starts sliding down. The moving sand makes more sand move, propagating in a “snowball effect”. These are usually smaller, but can still be really dangerous in the wrong spot.

« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 08:56:16 AM by lucid-nonsense »

May 09, 2019, 12:16:21 PM
Reply #1
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Well the Post adds some interesting detail to the Avalanche Theory. Its a Theory that I dont subscribe to. But interesting non the less. My main concern to begin with is the angle of the slope where the Dyatlov Group pitched their Tent. Some of the video posted clearly shows much greater mountain regions than where the Dyatlov Group Tent was situated.
DB

May 09, 2019, 12:37:09 PM
Reply #2
Offline

tekumze


Very well done. This theory is a practical approach based on the evidence available. It takes all the key and provides a cause-and-effect chain where the components do fit together in a plausible way. My only problem with this theory is that the probabilistic is not on our side.
When I talked to a Slovenian avalanche expert, he told me that anyone who was really on this slope knows that there is a possibility of a snow slide on that terrain in winter conditions really more theoretical. Roughly said: there even if you let ball down the slope, the ball will not roll down the slope. So, I let myself be persuaded that there was actually a very small chance for an avalanche or snow slide. But yes, actually, I'd like to believe that your natural theory is the correct  answer to the question of what happened that fateful evening... good-posting

May 09, 2019, 04:05:33 PM
Reply #3
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Very well constructed and informative theory.  It's definitely interesting.  It is still on the wrong side of the probably curve in terms of the slope angle but it is on the curve, so is plausible.  Should be given further consideration IMO.

Regards

Star man

May 09, 2019, 06:30:29 PM
Reply #4
Offline

cennetkusu


The slope of the slope is not 30 degrees ... 15-20 degrees. And there is never an avalanche there ... It has already confirmed that there is not an avalanche in the team found the tent.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2019, 09:02:04 PM by cennetkusu »
You're alone and desperate. Connect with God, you won't be alone and you're a saint.

May 10, 2019, 07:37:05 AM
Reply #5
Offline

Marchesk


That was a detailed and intersting version of the avalanche theory that attempts to take everything into account.

My three main objections would be:

1. What happened to the snow inside the tent? The search party and investigation never found any snow in the tent.

2. How could all nine of them have been swept out of the tent downhill without the tent and contents of tent also ending up downhill? Note that this was the reason why the high wind theory was abandoned by the initial investigation.

3. The terrain and lack of any recorded snow slides or avalanches on that slope.

May 10, 2019, 07:52:26 AM
Reply #6

Clacon

Guest
Well done lucid-nonsense!

I would also just add onto what Marchesk said by saying that we can't be 100 percent sure they did cut themselves out of the tent either and that leaves us with a bit of a conundrum.

I've always felt though that its the best explanation for them not just going back to the tent (as it was pretty much buried) and I think it collapsing on them is the best explanation for them leaving the tent so quickly and in the clothes they were sleeping in.

Its also a good explanation for the Ravine 4's injuries, that they were taken over a ledge and crushed by the snow. However, would the small trees not have been bent or damaged by its wake? Unless we take the evidence of the "cut saplings" to be that they snapped off because of the slide?

May 10, 2019, 08:29:52 AM
Reply #7
Offline

Nigel Evans


Hi there, good effort if somewhat off target, see comments  in red.





.One of the skis placed vertically in the snow in the last photos was still in place when the tent was discovered.

A large slab avalanche. The Big Man in the White Suit.

But an avalanche can be any size. Like this.

Now a small slide, say 15 cm thick, is unlikely to bury you. But, if it makes you fall in the wrong spot, or sweeps you off a cliff or into some trees or rocks, it can still kill you.

Look at this video of a pro snowboarder being swept down a chute by sluff. https://youtu.be/hxdZMD011JI?t=33

If it can happen to him, it can happen to some students learning backcountry camping.

And snow slides can run any distance. Look at this one going a mile.

So this is what I think happened. When they dug the hole for their tent, it weakened the snow pack and, with the heavy snowfall and strong winds that night, a snow slide started above their tent. It hit their tent, and the entrance to their homemade tent let in the snow. They shored up the entrance with the stove and stuffed a jacket in there to stop more snow from coming in. But then the upslope side of their tent tore and let more snow in. Their tent was filling up with snow, and they were unable to leave through the entrance, as it was both buried and blocked. So they decided to cut their way out of the tent before they were completely buried and unable to move. Or they thought that a few cuts would let snow out of the tent, before the extra weight either pulled out the skis they were using as stakes or snapped the cables. However, when they had slashed the tent a few times, the entire panel suddenly tore and all the occupants were swept out along with the snow. Then they slid out of control down the hard steep slope, possibly helped along by strong winds. They were then unable to find the tent again. In his diary, the day before Dyatlov wrote: “Walking is especially hard today. Visibility is very low.  All we can do is 1.52 km (1 mile) per hour.” And that was in the daytime. At night, they wouldn’t have been able to find the tent unless they basically stumbled over it.



Like this, essentially. Except it was a loose snow avalanche and not a slab avalanche*. Once both panels were torn, the tent would only have a small surface area and would not “catch” the snow sliding down, and would therefore not be swept away. Small, light items would only be carried a short distance.



However, people would’ve started sliding down the slope, and once you’ve started sliding and picked up some speed, it’s essentially impossible to stop your slide without gear.

According to the investigators, the camp site was located 300 meters from the top of the mountain 1079 on a slope of 30°.

https://dyatlovpass.com/redirect.php?lid=1&pid=12881#dyatlovtentslope

30° is certainly steep enough for an loose snow avalanche to occur.





See the loose snow covering the tent?



The tent is covered in chunks of snow, consistent with a snow slide.



There are tears on both sides of the tent.



See the area without trees, highlighted in red? That is a slide path, i.e., the path something sliding downhill would take. That is why there are no trees there. Notice how the bodies are scattered along this path. Not a coincidence to me.



Concave terrain also makes slides more likely and worse if they do occur.



Down the slope and over the rocks.

Dyatlov also wrote in his diary the previous day “The speed of the wind is similar to the air draft created by a taking off airplane”. This also makes slides more likely.

Now from that point, a few things might have happened.

They all slid different distances, as some were able to stop their slide. Some slid all the way to the bottom, crashing into the trees there, or they were dragged over rocks. This explains the “car crash” injuries and the other fall injuries (scratches and bruises). Some did not slide very far; they looked for the tent for a little while, but realizing that they would not be able to find the tent again in the dark in a snowstorm, followed the others to the bottom, hoping to shelter there until morning.

2. None of them slid very far, but they were unable to find the tent in the dark, so they went down to shelter there. While making their way down in the dark, some of them fell, were hit by another snow slide, or were swept off their feet by the wind, slid down and slammed into the trees. In the morning, some tried to make their way back to the tent, but froze to death before they could.

3. They all slid to the bottom. Then they split up: some stayed at the bottom to dig a shelter, start a fire and care for the wounded, and some went back up to look for the tent. They were unable to find it and died.

4. During the initial slide or a subsequent one, they were all scattered and were unable to find each other until morning came. This explains why they seemed to have different techniques and spots for their survival attempts (some made a fire, some made a shelter, some tried to go back to the tent).

I think I like number 2 best, because it explains why the footprints start away from the tent and then stop again. It could be a combination of some or all, though.

Other things my theory explains:
The Items scattered near the tear in the tent.
They're all covered in fall injuries. They all had tears in their clothes, bruises and scratches with dirt in them, consistent with being dragged over rocks. No but seriously. They are all covered in scratches and bruises. https://dyatlovpass.com/death
One of the girls had an injury described as consistent with being hit with a baton. Crashing into a small tree would essentially do the same.Or dragging the sled.
They're straight down the fall line.
They're at the bottom of a slide path.
The tent is covered in chunks of snow.
The missing boots and torn socks: most of their indoor boots are unaccounted for.
Are they, were does it say that?There are nine pairs of outdoor boots in the tent, but only a few indoor boots. One guy has only one boot? Either he was wearing boots or he wasn’t. He must’ve lost one somehow. They lost their boots trying to stop their slide (they had no laces, so they would come off pretty easily). Their hands are also all scratched up, with skin missing, both on the inside and the outside. The scratches on the inside on the inside of the hands is from trying to stop their slide, the ones on the outside is from protecting their heads from impacts.
There are no footprints immediately around the tent.Because they trampled the area when setting up camp.
The footprints nearby sometimes leave and rejoin the main set of footprints: it's because they were looking for the tent, other people or the boots they lost.
The investigators said that there are no signs of an avalanche nearby, but that there are no footprints around the tent because they were erased by a slide. If we take that as true, then we know there was at least a snow slide around the tent.
The mess inside the tent.Three weeks up there in those winds with tears would mess up most tents.
The cut branches up high on the tree: someone climbed the tree to look for the tent, but the branches were blocking the view.The cedar branches provided the best firewood. Most of the smaller birch would be very green and burn poorly.
The people trying to make their way back to the tent were the best dressed: they got better clothes because they would need them, as they would be out of the shelter and away from the fire. Also several people were already dead by that point.

Few more things:

Why they did they pitch their tent in that spot? They probably got caught by the dark.
They were 800m from the nearest edge of the treeline and 1.5km from the cedar on a gentle downhill run with the wind and with daylight as proven by the photos. They chose that spot in daylight. Probably to keep the height and bypass the forest to gain time having lost a day failing to get through the pass and building the labaz.

They moved more slowly than planned and they couldn’t make their planned destination for the night, and figured it was safer to camp than to keep going in the dark. Remember Dyatlov wrote that walking was difficult that day.
We really don’t know what’s up with the footprints. I really don’t think we should be taking that guy’s word that those are the tracks of 8 or 9 people going downhill.
"That guy" is expressing the view of the rescue team most of them highly experienced ski tourists.


I mean, this guy cannot even tell fresh footprints from footprints that are obviously from several weeks ago.





And the nine outdoor boots were in the tent. So it’s very unlikely this track is from one of the members of the party.It's understood that it's from a valenki unless you have special knowledge to overturn this which has been the accepted view for over 60 years?

Why should we believe that he can tell the difference between the footprints of a person barefoot and a person wearing socks? Even if we accept that there are eight or nine sets of footprints, it could just as easily be four people walking up and then walking back down using the same footprints. Even if you accept that their footprints are pointing downhill, they could have been walking backwards to shield themselves from the wind. We really just don’t know.If they were struggling against the wind they would have crawled? Like maybe how Zinaida was found?



Seriously, from this, he call tell how many people walked, how tall they were, what kind of shoes they were wearing? To be fair, though, it does look like we can see toes in the prints, so maybe I’m just slandering him. Also maybe by barefoot, he means no boots, not necessarily barefoot barefoot.

Also, we know that some footprints were erased (there should at least be footprints from them setting up the tent) so there might be actually a lot more footprints. There might have been footprints all around, looking for the tent. Why do we assume that it’s tracks leading directly from the tent to the forest?

However, the guy who said the snow on the tent was blown there by wind has no idea what he’s talking about, for 100% certain definitive fact. Windblown snow looks like this:



Basically, it piles up in the wind shadow. You can see the direction of the wind in it, in a regular pattern. On the tent, you see randomly piled chunks. Maybe he meant there was some windblown snow on top of the snow chunks.The first rescue group dug through the very hard snow on the tent to gain access. They also dug a trench along the base's edge presumably to examine the skis etc underneath. The photos came later after chunks of snow had been thrown around.

The burned hands and feet is an easy one. The guy was trying to warm by the fire and lost consciousness. Or he didn’t feel the burn because of frostbite.Or lots of other things, falling out of the tree, electrical discharge, flash burns from explosives.

The torn clothes the woman was wearing: when she found her friend’s body, he was already frozen, so she couldn’t remove his clothes the normal way.

The two coats have to have been irradiated before the trip, otherwise all their clothes would be irradiated. And the two men who had the radioactive clothes both worked in a radiation facility. And I mean, sloppy radiation safety in the Soviet Union in the 1950s? You don't say.

The cut trees at the bottom that weren’t burnt: these were used for the shelter (when they first found the cut trees, they didn’t know about the shelter yet).

The shelter and the buried bodies weren’t necessarily in that spot originally. Snow slowly moves downslope as more snow piles up top, like a slow moving river.
The missing lips, nose and tongue: a small animal would struggle to eat a frozen body, especially through clothes, so it would just nip away at the softest tissues (this is why if you die with a pet inside the house, it will eat your face after a few days.)

Oh, and also, when they say they were in their underwear, they mean stuff like long johns, not like boxers shorts only. They weren’t that “undressed”.

I also feel that people overestimate how experienced these people were. They hadn't even gotten their full qualifications yet. To me, an expert is somebody who has gotten all his qualifications at least 10 years ago.

There is also information that seems to have been simply made up decades after the incident, adding to the “mystery”.

Other theories:

It makes no sense that they would have left because of an avalanche danger. Because how would they have realized that it was dangerous avalanche conditions during in the dark in a snowstorm? If they ran away because they thought an avalanche might happen, it means that they put up their tent in that spot, started cooking dinner, then realized that it was a dangerous spot, and then just dropped everything and left. They would at least have grabbed their coats and boots and carried them even if they weren't going to put them on right then. And where are the missing boots? Why are they covered in scratches and bruises?

Same for the idea that one of them went nuts and cut up out of the tent. Even if one of them had lost his marbles, he would have been overpowered by the others. Even if he hadn’t, the others wouldn’t have left the tent without their gear. Once again, where are the missing boots? Why are they covered in scratches and bruises?

It also makes no sense that the locals forced them out of the tent. First of all, how would they have found the tent in the dark in a snowstorm? Why would they even have been out and about at that time? Even if there had been locals in the area, at night, during a snowstorm, they would have been in their own shelter. And they forced the occupants of the tent to cut out of their tent instead of just ordering them out? You wouldn’t let someone grab a knife in this situation.

And nobody had injuries consistent with a fight or violence. Two people had shattered rib cages, but their skin was unbroken. This means that they were hit with a great force spread over a fairly large area. (Low pressure, but high total force. A gunshot or stab wound is high pressure, low total force.) Unless the natives are stronger than the yeti and they’re swinging entire tree trunks, there's no way they could inflict that sort of injuries. This is, however, consistent with crashing into rocks or trees at high speed.

Think about it. For some reason, the local natives are dicking about at night in the middle of a snowstorm. They somehow find the tent, order the occupants to cut their way out of the tent and scatter some items about, do not steal anything, force march them to the bottom, kill three of them (by somehow inflicting injuries consistent with a high speed collision) and then leave the rest to freeze to death? If they had really killed three, they would’ve killed them all. And why march them to the bottom instead of killing them on the spot? And then why the scratches, bruises and tears in their clothes? Where are the six missing pairs of boots? Halfway to the bottom, they made them take off their boots? And besides, the victims would’ve probably left some kind of note accusing them. Most bizarre murder ever, especially since the locals had never done anything of the sort. They had never assaulted anyone before this, they went straight to murder, then became peaceful again?

Still unexplained thing:

The flashlight on top of the tent.
Maybe that's proof there wasn't a snow slide?

Possibly someone shoved it through the tear in the tent to take a look outside, then dropped it. But then why was it turned off? Maybe they took a look, turned it off and left it there. It’s also possible the rescuers are just wrong about that one, they were kinda sloppy.
Let me know what you think!You haven't answered the biggest question of all - "Why a high level coverup over the death of nine civilians?"

*Quick note on the difference between a slab and a loose snow avalanche. A slab avalanche works roughly like this: imagine you pour sand on a slope until it’s on the verge of sliding off. Then you put a glass slab on top of that, then more sand on top of that. Then you smash the glass plate. The cracks spread through the entire plate, there is no more support and the entire thing comes sliding down. These can get HUGE because the cracks can spread any distance, and, if the slab is buried deep enough, a LOT of snow can come sliding down.

A loose snow avalanche works roughly like this: keep pouring sand on a slope until there is too much of it and it starts sliding down. The moving sand makes more sand move, propagating in a “snowball effect”. These are usually smaller, but can still be really dangerous in the wrong spot.

May 10, 2019, 10:34:17 PM
Reply #8
Offline

lucid-nonsense


Argh! I had made a long post replying to each of you, but when I went to post it, I had been disconnected and my post is gone  bang1

I'll write it again when I have time. In the meantime, thank you for your replies and your kind words.

May 11, 2019, 02:37:58 AM
Reply #9
Offline

Aspen


Quoting portions of Slobtsov’s testimony:
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743

“I flew by helicopter on the scene on February 23, 1959. I led the search team. The tent of Dyatlov group was discovered by our group on the afternoon of February 26, 1959.
When we approached the tent, they found out: the entrance of the tent came from under the snow, and the rest of the tent was under snow. Around the tent in the snow stood ski poles and spare skis - 1 pair. The snow on the tent was 15-20 cm thick, it was clear that the snow was fluffy on top of the tent, it was hard. ( the snow was accumulated by the wind on top of the tent, and then hardened by the cold into a crust - ed. note).

In the immediate vicinity of the tent there were no footprints. Approximately 15-20 m from the tent in the direction where the bodies were subsequently discovered, footprints of the people's feet coming from the tent were visible on the snow, and it was evident that the tracks were left by the feet of a person without shoes in felt boots (valenki). The tracks protruded above the surrounding surface of the snow, for near the tracks the snow was blown out by the wind.

On February 26, 1959, we removed the snow from over the tent and made sure that there were no people inside, and we didn't touch the items that were in the tent. I was with student Sharavin. The items were taken out of the tent on February 27 and 28, 1959, when student Brusnitsyn and other searchers were present.”


A pair of skis standing in the snow by the tent is proof that no avalanche took place. 

As mentioned above, when the searchers first discovered the tent they removed the snow to look inside.  My understanding is that they did not have cameras with them, so no photo was taken of the tent when first discovered.  The photograph of the tent with chunks of disturbed snow on it was only taken when the searchers came back the next day.  Is this correct?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2019, 03:04:29 AM by Aspen »

May 11, 2019, 03:46:47 AM
Reply #10
Offline

Nigel Evans


Argh! I had made a long post replying to each of you, but when I went to post it, I had been disconnected and my post is gone  bang1

I'll write it again when I have time. In the meantime, thank you for your replies and your kind words.
Ah bad luck, you can login with a session that never times out.

May 11, 2019, 03:57:21 AM
Reply #11
Offline

Nigel Evans


Quoting portions of Slobtsov’s testimony:
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743

“I flew by helicopter on the scene on February 23, 1959. I led the search team. The tent of Dyatlov group was discovered by our group on the afternoon of February 26, 1959.
When we approached the tent, they found out: the entrance of the tent came from under the snow, and the rest of the tent was under snow. Around the tent in the snow stood ski poles and spare skis - 1 pair. The snow on the tent was 15-20 cm thick, it was clear that the snow was fluffy on top of the tent, it was hard. ( the snow was accumulated by the wind on top of the tent, and then hardened by the cold into a crust - ed. note).

In the immediate vicinity of the tent there were no footprints. Approximately 15-20 m from the tent in the direction where the bodies were subsequently discovered, footprints of the people's feet coming from the tent were visible on the snow, and it was evident that the tracks were left by the feet of a person without shoes in felt boots (valenki). The tracks protruded above the surrounding surface of the snow, for near the tracks the snow was blown out by the wind.

On February 26, 1959, we removed the snow from over the tent and made sure that there were no people inside, and we didn't touch the items that were in the tent. I was with student Sharavin. The items were taken out of the tent on February 27 and 28, 1959, when student Brusnitsyn and other searchers were present.”


A pair of skis standing in the snow by the tent is proof that no avalanche took place. 
Yes it has to completely refute it, which creates an interesting question, "why is the avalanche theory being seriously considered by the new investigation?"

As mentioned above, when the searchers first discovered the tent they removed the snow to look inside.  My understanding is that they did not have cameras with them, so no photo was taken of the tent when first discovered.  The photograph of the tent with chunks of disturbed snow on it was only taken when the searchers came back the next day.  Is this correct?A criticism of the rescue is that the tent area was not properly photographed when discovered. The instruction from Tempalov not to disturb the tent site reached the team too late. Don't know about photos next day.


May 11, 2019, 12:33:31 PM
Reply #12
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Quoting portions of Slobtsov’s testimony:
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743

“I flew by helicopter on the scene on February 23, 1959. I led the search team. The tent of Dyatlov group was discovered by our group on the afternoon of February 26, 1959.
When we approached the tent, they found out: the entrance of the tent came from under the snow, and the rest of the tent was under snow. Around the tent in the snow stood ski poles and spare skis - 1 pair. The snow on the tent was 15-20 cm thick, it was clear that the snow was fluffy on top of the tent, it was hard. ( the snow was accumulated by the wind on top of the tent, and then hardened by the cold into a crust - ed. note).

In the immediate vicinity of the tent there were no footprints. Approximately 15-20 m from the tent in the direction where the bodies were subsequently discovered, footprints of the people's feet coming from the tent were visible on the snow, and it was evident that the tracks were left by the feet of a person without shoes in felt boots (valenki). The tracks protruded above the surrounding surface of the snow, for near the tracks the snow was blown out by the wind.

On February 26, 1959, we removed the snow from over the tent and made sure that there were no people inside, and we didn't touch the items that were in the tent. I was with student Sharavin. The items were taken out of the tent on February 27 and 28, 1959, when student Brusnitsyn and other searchers were present.”


A pair of skis standing in the snow by the tent is proof that no avalanche took place. 
Yes it has to completely refute it, which creates an interesting question, "why is the avalanche theory being seriously considered by the new investigation?"

As mentioned above, when the searchers first discovered the tent they removed the snow to look inside.  My understanding is that they did not have cameras with them, so no photo was taken of the tent when first discovered.  The photograph of the tent with chunks of disturbed snow on it was only taken when the searchers came back the next day.  Is this correct?A criticism of the rescue is that the tent area was not properly photographed when discovered. The instruction from Tempalov not to disturb the tent site reached the team too late. Don't know about photos next day.

One possibility for the reason that the Avalanche theory is being touted by the Authorities is because the Authorities look at and monitor sites such as The Dyatlov Pass Forum and can see lots of people putting the theory forwards as a possible explanation for the initial and main event. If that were the case then it could imply that the Authorities are COVERING up the real reason, and looking for ways to placate the general public etc. That may also explain why there is no mention of the mysterious lights in the sky and the Radiation theories etc etc.  But I guess we will have to wait and see what if anything comes of these latest investigations.
DB

May 11, 2019, 04:49:29 PM
Reply #13
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Quoting portions of Slobtsov’s testimony:
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743

“I flew by helicopter on the scene on February 23, 1959. I led the search team. The tent of Dyatlov group was discovered by our group on the afternoon of February 26, 1959.
When we approached the tent, they found out: the entrance of the tent came from under the snow, and the rest of the tent was under snow. Around the tent in the snow stood ski poles and spare skis - 1 pair. The snow on the tent was 15-20 cm thick, it was clear that the snow was fluffy on top of the tent, it was hard. ( the snow was accumulated by the wind on top of the tent, and then hardened by the cold into a crust - ed. note).

In the immediate vicinity of the tent there were no footprints. Approximately 15-20 m from the tent in the direction where the bodies were subsequently discovered, footprints of the people's feet coming from the tent were visible on the snow, and it was evident that the tracks were left by the feet of a person without shoes in felt boots (valenki). The tracks protruded above the surrounding surface of the snow, for near the tracks the snow was blown out by the wind.

On February 26, 1959, we removed the snow from over the tent and made sure that there were no people inside, and we didn't touch the items that were in the tent. I was with student Sharavin. The items were taken out of the tent on February 27 and 28, 1959, when student Brusnitsyn and other searchers were present.”


A pair of skis standing in the snow by the tent is proof that no avalanche took place. 
Yes it has to completely refute it, which creates an interesting question, "why is the avalanche theory being seriously considered by the new investigation?"

As mentioned above, when the searchers first discovered the tent they removed the snow to look inside.  My understanding is that they did not have cameras with them, so no photo was taken of the tent when first discovered.  The photograph of the tent with chunks of disturbed snow on it was only taken when the searchers came back the next day.  Is this correct?A criticism of the rescue is that the tent area was not properly photographed when discovered. The instruction from Tempalov not to disturb the tent site reached the team too late. Don't know about photos next day.

I'm not so sure that some kind of event involving snow can be completely ruled out.  My understanding is that the slope angle was about 30 degrees towards the summit?  But about 19 degrees near the tent area. 30 degrees is on the probability curve albeit fairly unlikely.

The question is how much snow is required to cause the group to vacate the tent and the camp site?

I think there is confidence there was no major avalanche.  But what about a snow slide?  Not as a slab or a major shift of snow, but some kind smaller flow of snow?  Kind of like the snow becomes fluidized and begins to act as a fluid.  It could then flow down the slope almost like water?  Would probably require the right conditions, snow type, particle size and moisture content, but the question is could this happen?

A fluidized stream of snow would not necessarily knock over skis.  It would flow around them.  It would buffet the side of tent and potentially flow onto it causing it to collapse.  The storm may have dropped a lot of fresh dry snow that then started to flow.  A lightning strike or loud thunder clap could have been the initiator  It could have forced them the vacate the tent. 

If the foot prints appeared 30 to 40 metres away from the tent, then how did they travel that far without leaving footprints closer to the tent?  What happened to the rest of the foot prints. 

I thought that I had ruled snow slide in my mind but am not so sure now.

Thoughts?

Star man


May 12, 2019, 05:12:26 AM
Reply #14
Offline

Nigel Evans


Quoting portions of Slobtsov’s testimony:
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743

“I flew by helicopter on the scene on February 23, 1959. I led the search team. The tent of Dyatlov group was discovered by our group on the afternoon of February 26, 1959.
When we approached the tent, they found out: the entrance of the tent came from under the snow, and the rest of the tent was under snow. Around the tent in the snow stood ski poles and spare skis - 1 pair. The snow on the tent was 15-20 cm thick, it was clear that the snow was fluffy on top of the tent, it was hard. ( the snow was accumulated by the wind on top of the tent, and then hardened by the cold into a crust - ed. note).

In the immediate vicinity of the tent there were no footprints. Approximately 15-20 m from the tent in the direction where the bodies were subsequently discovered, footprints of the people's feet coming from the tent were visible on the snow, and it was evident that the tracks were left by the feet of a person without shoes in felt boots (valenki). The tracks protruded above the surrounding surface of the snow, for near the tracks the snow was blown out by the wind.

On February 26, 1959, we removed the snow from over the tent and made sure that there were no people inside, and we didn't touch the items that were in the tent. I was with student Sharavin. The items were taken out of the tent on February 27 and 28, 1959, when student Brusnitsyn and other searchers were present.”


A pair of skis standing in the snow by the tent is proof that no avalanche took place. 
Yes it has to completely refute it, which creates an interesting question, "why is the avalanche theory being seriously considered by the new investigation?"

As mentioned above, when the searchers first discovered the tent they removed the snow to look inside.  My understanding is that they did not have cameras with them, so no photo was taken of the tent when first discovered.  The photograph of the tent with chunks of disturbed snow on it was only taken when the searchers came back the next day.  Is this correct?A criticism of the rescue is that the tent area was not properly photographed when discovered. The instruction from Tempalov not to disturb the tent site reached the team too late. Don't know about photos next day.

I'm not so sure that some kind of event involving snow can be completely ruled out.  My understanding is that the slope angle was about 30 degrees towards the summit?  But about 19 degrees near the tent area. 30 degrees is on the probability curve albeit fairly unlikely.

The question is how much snow is required to cause the group to vacate the tent and the camp site?

I think there is confidence there was no major avalanche.  But what about a snow slide?  Not as a slab or a major shift of snow, but some kind smaller flow of snow?  Kind of like the snow becomes fluidized and begins to act as a fluid.  It could then flow down the slope almost like water?  Would probably require the right conditions, snow type, particle size and moisture content, but the question is could this happen?

A fluidized stream of snow would not necessarily knock over skis.  It would flow around them.  It would buffet the side of tent and potentially flow onto it causing it to collapse.  The storm may have dropped a lot of fresh dry snow that then started to flow.  A lightning strike or loud thunder clap could have been the initiator  It could have forced them the vacate the tent. 

If the foot prints appeared 30 to 40 metres away from the tent, then how did they travel that far without leaving footprints closer to the tent?  What happened to the rest of the foot prints. 

I thought that I had ruled snow slide in my mind but am not so sure now.

Thoughts?

Star man
The vertical skis/poles rule this out?
https://dyatlovpass.com/theories#avalanche
"And finally if you see on the pictures on February 1st on the left and February 26th (according to Vadim Brusnitsyn who is squatting on the slope with his back toward the camera) on the right you can see part of the hikers gear that kept its vertical position on the slope weeks after the tragedy. Furthermore the entrance of the tent is clearly elevated. Only the middle portion collapse probably due to hasty escape or weigh of snow simply accumulated there."

May 13, 2019, 09:44:14 AM
Reply #15
Offline

Mordecai


the best guess i have is they had a threat inside the tent. as a result, they either attempted to get it out with the knife and the tent but eventually escaped through those holes. as for why they left their stuff, it could be any number of things. the threat could have still been in or close to the tent. wither that be a fire or something super natural it had to be from the inside. it also could have escaped or thought to have been dangerous to go after.and once outside and more open space to run from a threat, they collected their thoughts and headed for the forest for shelter.

May 14, 2019, 03:19:28 PM
Reply #16
Offline

lucid-nonsense


My only problem with this theory is that the probabilistic is not on our side.

Agreed. But I think we can all agree that whatever happened that night, it was unlikely  shock1

When I talked to a Slovenian avalanche expert, he told me that anyone who was really on this slope knows that there is a possibility of a snow slide on that terrain in winter conditions really more theoretical. Roughly said: there even if you let ball down the slope, the ball will not roll down the slope.

Sure, but was he talking about a ****-off big avalanche or just a small slide?

The slope of the slope is not 30 degrees ... 15-20 degrees.

The entire top to bottom slope is about 20 degrees. But the specific spot they were in was about 30 degrees.

And there is never an avalanche there ... It has already confirmed that there is not an avalanche in the team found the tent.

The team got there three weeks later. There wouldn't necessarily be any obvious signs of a smaller slide. And it's not true that there are no signs at all. The chunks on and around the tent are one sign.

1. What happened to the snow inside the tent? The search party and investigation never found any snow in the tent.

Are we sure there was no snow at all inside the tent? That seems unlikely from the pictures... Where do the rescuers say so?

2. How could all nine of them have been swept out of the tent downhill without the tent and contents of tent also ending up downhill? Note that this was the reason why the high wind theory was abandoned by the initial investigation.

Some gear did end up downhill! Look at the drawing, some items were scattered downslope. But your very good questions got me to thinking, and I looked at the gear they found inside the tent, and I realized...

Lots of gear is unaccounted for.

As in, it wasn't in the tent and it wasn't on the bodies. This is the items they found in the tent: 9 parka, 8 quilted jackets (vatnik), 1 fur jacket, 2 fur sleeveless vests, 4 shell pants, 1 cotton pants, 4 Scarf, 13 pairs of gloves (fur, cloth and leather), 8 pairs of ski boots, 7 pcs boots (valenki), 2 pairs of slippers, 8 pairs of gaiters, 3 skating caps, 1 fur hat, 2 felt beret, 3 compass, 1 pocket watch, 2 Finnish knives (Tibo's and Krivo's) in their parkas, Kolevatov's Finnish knife in black leather sheath, 3 axes (2 large and 1 small in a leather case), 19 pcs overboots, 2 buckets, 2 pot, 2 flasks, 1 first aid kit.

Presumably, they each had 1 pair of shell pants. That makes 5 missing pairs. Only 4 scarves? They didn’t have one each? 13 pairs of gloves? Seems like they would’ve had at least 2 pairs each. (You usually wear one inner liner and one outer layer when it’s really cold). Only 6 hats total? 7 valenkis. Not seven pairs. Seven. If they each had a pair, and one of the guys was wearing only one, that’s 5 full pairs missing. 2 pairs of slippers? Did they each have one pair? 8 pairs of ski boots? Is one pair missing? They only had one blanket each? No plates, barely any cups…

Where is all that stuff? They certainly didn’t remove it on the way down.

3. The terrain and lack of any recorded snow slides or avalanches on that slope.

The terrain is not as mellow as some make it out to be. Pictures can be deceiving.



I would also just add onto what Marchesk said by saying that we can't be 100 percent sure they did cut themselves out of the tent either and that leaves us with a bit of a conundrum.

I read what led them to conclude that they had cut out of the tent, and it sounds pretty solid to me. It's kinda hard to explain in words, and I don't have the pictures on hand right now, so Ill try to dig them out again later.

However, would the small trees not have been bent or damaged by its wake? Unless we take the evidence of the "cut saplings" to be that they snapped off because of the slide?

Good point! That could be it. Also, I forgot to mention in my original post, I think some information has been lost (or created!) in translation. For example, the branches on the tree are sometimes referred to as "cut" when they were obviously broken.

One of the skis placed vertically in the snow in the last photos was still in place when the tent was discovered.

That ski was driven in like 75 centimeters. It would be really hard to dislodge. It would take a serious avalanche to knock them down, which is not what I am saying happened. Basically, in my theory, the snow slide was just enough to push them far enough downslope so that they couldn't find the tent again.
A pair of skis standing in the snow by the tent is proof that no avalanche took place. 
Yes it has to completely refute it, which creates an interesting question, "why is the avalanche theory being seriously considered by the new investigation?"

IMO it rules out a huge avalanche but not a small slide.

A fluidized stream of snow would not necessarily knock over skis.  It would flow around them.  It would buffet the side of tent and potentially flow onto it causing it to collapse.  The storm may have dropped a lot of fresh dry snow that then started to flow.  A lightning strike or loud thunder clap could have been the initiator  It could have forced them the vacate the tent. 

Yes, basically this. Think about it this way. Imagine you have a fence perpendicular to a slope. A lot of water gets released upslope, but not a huge amount. Think a swimming pool's worth of water, not a dam bursting. That would knock over a fence, yeah? Now imagine you only have fence posts with nothing linking them. Water would just flow around the posts if they were stuck in properly.

Seriously, not every slide is this unstoppable force of nature. A small one can fail to knock you off your feet.

 

Look here at the undamaged trees.

One more thing about the idea that something scared them so much they ran out of the tent without their gear: then why did they calmly walk down to the tree line?

If something had scared them so much that they panicked and ran without so much as grabbing a blanket, they wouldn’t have calmly walked down the slope. They would be running!

I'll try to find out more when I have a bit more time!

In the meantime, thanks again!  grin1

May 14, 2019, 06:49:12 PM
Reply #17
Offline

cennetkusu


It is not possible for these professional and courageous young people to fear a snow drift and escape 1.5 km away. There's no way they can escape without their shoes and without their outerwear. Snow drifts do not explain the unusual injuries seen in most young people. There was no avalanche or snow slide. There may be only one reason. It's an extreme fear. The reason they don't run is because they know they can't escape from the force of superman. It would be a lot quicker for them to sweat, just to make them sweat and die from the cold. The youngsters proved to be proffessional by running there even though they were very frightened. Because young people had two enemies there. 1. Superman 2. Freezing cold Teenagers had run out of the supermen and ran away from the cold. Because maybe supermen wouldn't have killed them. And first they wanted to light a big fire and warm up. But they managed to do so. And in order not to die from the freezing cold, 7 youngsters made a cave in the snow and three teenagers tried to return to the tent. 2 They left the house in the cedar tree while still alive. Because the fire was still burning a little. And 2 Yuri were the least dressed. But the fire went out and they died in the cold hour. And 3 out of 7 people in the snow cave decided to go back to the tent in order not to die from the cold. His fears were diminished. But Supermen didn't let them go back to the tent. If they were to return to the tent, they would take over the shoes and clothes to be protected from the cold.
You're alone and desperate. Connect with God, you won't be alone and you're a saint.

May 14, 2019, 09:31:49 PM
Reply #18
Offline

lucid-nonsense


They were completely blind.

This is what they could see in the daytime.



You can barely see the backpacks 15 feet away.

The sun set at 3 PM that day.



The moon rose at 3 AM.



At 6 or 8 PM, you literally couldn't have seen your own hand if it punched you in the face. Literally. Literally no difference between having your eyes open or closed. We're talking absolute pitch black.





« Last Edit: May 14, 2019, 09:39:01 PM by lucid-nonsense »

May 17, 2019, 12:03:42 PM
Reply #19
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
What if the snow slide just collapsed the tent and they cut out or ran out and went down he slope in a panic.  Some were swept down in the snow.  Quickly they lost sight of the tent and they wre lost and separated on the slope?

Regards

Star man

May 19, 2019, 10:52:34 AM
Reply #20
Offline

Nigel Evans


They were completely blind.

This is what they could see in the daytime.



You can barely see the backpacks 15 feet away.

The sun set at 3 PM that day.



The moon rose at 3 AM.



At 6 or 8 PM, you literally couldn't have seen your own hand if it punched you in the face. Literally. Literally no difference between having your eyes open or closed. We're talking absolute pitch black.
They left a flashlight (switched on) approximately halfway down the hill at a location (on a ridge) that suggests it was a beacon for the return trip. So they had some illumination for the "first half" of the journey and possibly another flashlight that was lost or perhaps or they had enough light from the one they left to finish the journey. It wasn't absolutely pitch black.

May 20, 2019, 10:04:19 AM
Reply #21
Offline

cennetkusu


They can't be blind. And it is also unlikely that the angle of view is low. Because young people have chosen the shortest path from the tent to the forest. And they went 1500 meters and found a big tree. Then they dig a cave in a snow 80 meters away. This river bed was probably the closest point to the cedar tree. Shortly there was visibility. But what was nispette ??? The result was a light given by the snow. This light is enough to illuminate a distance of at least 400 meters.And there were possible sources of light.
You're alone and desperate. Connect with God, you won't be alone and you're a saint.

May 20, 2019, 04:06:06 PM
Reply #22
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Quote: They left a flashlight (switched on) approximately halfway down the hill at a location (on a ridge) that suggests it was a beacon for the return trip. So they had some illumination for the "first half" of the journey and possibly another flashlight that was lost or perhaps or they had enough light from the one they left to finish the journey. It wasn't absolutely pitch black


Maybe the flashlight was dropped as they were swept by the snow slide?

May 20, 2019, 08:38:07 PM
Reply #23
Offline

cennetkusu


Quote: They left a flashlight (switched on) approximately halfway down the hill at a location (on a ridge) that suggests it was a beacon for the return trip. So they had some illumination for the "first half" of the journey and possibly another flashlight that was lost or perhaps or they had enough light from the one they left to finish the journey. It wasn't absolutely pitch black


Maybe the flashlight was dropped as they were swept by the snow slide?
Bu mümkün değil....Eğer el fenerleri sadece iki taneyse bu mümkün değil. Çünkü el fenerlerden biri çadırdaydı. Geriye bir tane kalıyor. Bunu da gece olduğu için yanlarına almak zorundaydılar. (Eğer gece ise) Yani yarı yolda bırakmaları mümkün değil. Sanırım el feneri çadırın yanındaydı. Ve şiddetli rüzgarlarla (çadırın etrafındaki düz kar zemini şiddetli rüzgara kanıt) fener 400 metre uzağa yuvarlandı. Fener 400 metre uzağa yuvarlandı.25 gün içinde 400 metre uzağa yuvarlanmaları çok kolaydır. Hele eğimli bir yerde.
Diğer fener neden yuvarlanmadı? Ya bir yere takıldı ya da onu biri buldu ve çadırın yanına koydu. Ve çadırdaki fenerin kapalı olması da gençlerin fenerleri hiç kullanmadıkları anlamına gelir.(Ama pillerin şarj durumu neydi? Bu çok önemliydi).
You're alone and desperate. Connect with God, you won't be alone and you're a saint.

May 21, 2019, 04:25:33 AM
Reply #24
Offline

Nigel Evans



Maybe the flashlight was dropped as they were swept by the snow slide?
Either they elected to leave it or were compelled. You can't accidentally drop a flashlight in the dark!  kewl1
From memory one of the rescue team thought it was positioned.

May 23, 2019, 08:05:08 AM
Reply #25
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient

Maybe the flashlight was dropped as they were swept by the snow slide?
Either they elected to leave it or were compelled. You can't accidentally drop a flashlight in the dark!  kewl1
From memory one of the rescue team thought it was positioned.

You could maybe drop it if you were being swept down the slope by stream of flowing snow.

Regards
Star man

May 23, 2019, 08:30:54 AM
Reply #26
Online

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Note to self....    nobody has ever dropped a flashlight.

  lol1
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

May 23, 2019, 08:56:48 AM
Reply #27
Offline

Nigel Evans


Note to self....    nobody has ever dropped a flashlight.

  lol1
No one loses a switched on flashlight in the dark.

May 23, 2019, 10:10:25 AM
Reply #28
Online

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Who says they 'lost' it?
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

May 23, 2019, 10:41:42 AM
Reply #29
Offline

Nigel Evans


Who says they 'lost' it?
No one. That's the point, either they elected to leave it there or they were compelled.