Theories Discussion > General Discussion
The footprints, the footprints ...
GlennM:
If a conspiracy, where are the shod prints leading to, not from the tent? Secondly, you don't leave incriminating evidence. In this case, easily found corpses. Out in the middle of nowhere with no one around, who wouldn't hide the bodies? Admittedly, they need to be dead first. They were found in places that suggest their deaths were not planned, nor done methodically.
neni_cesty_zpet:
Is it possible that footprints were made by early rescue group (wearing boots)?
Deployed by helicopter and going dont to find the missing tourists?
Most of Dyatlov group members 'forgot' their boots in the tent....It's damn puzzle.....and critical evidence, THE TENT is lost forever and cannot be reexaminated anymore in more detail with modern methods bang1
Staging the tent on slope without taking the risk of being witnessed? Fastest way is to deploy by helicopter and leave the place - no footprints at all with some care.
Why going down on foot and leaving other traces?
One thing is probably sure, the footprints were not made by Dyatlov group or their were, but someone wearing boots were following them, stepping over them.
But where are footprints of any people going uphill ?? dunno1
GlennM:
To me what makes sense is the hikers skied to the tent site on 1079, set up camp and experienced a slab slip. They walked to the forest but underestimated both the distance and their personal stamina. When I think of footprints in snow, I remember how prints in the Himalayas were supposed to be Yeti but were not. Were boot prints found in the snow? Certainly, if that's what you want them to be. Indeed, if they are boot prints, should there not be a collection of similar prints all around the tent, not just materializing out of nowhere and heading down hill?
The rescuers followed no ski tracks to the tent on 1079, yet they later on follow prints said to first scatter from the tent, regroup and proceed in an orderly way downslope. That is until the prints were obscured by snowdrift. Tenuous evidence at best, I think.
Manti:
--- Quote from: GlennM on September 07, 2022, 11:22:10 PM ---To me what makes sense is the hikers skied to the tent site on 1079, set up camp and experienced a slab slip. They walked to the forest but underestimated both the distance and their personal stamina. When I think of footprints in snow, I remember how prints in the Himalayas were supposed to be Yeti but were not. Were boot prints found in the snow? Certainly, if that's what you want them to be. Indeed, if they are boot prints, should there not be a collection of similar prints all around the tent, not just materializing out of nowhere and heading down hill?
The rescuers followed no ski tracks to the tent on 1079, yet they later on follow prints said to first scatter from the tent, regroup and proceed in an orderly way downslope. That is until the prints were obscured by snowdrift. Tenuous evidence at best, I think.
--- End quote ---
I mostly agree with this but think that no slab slip is required. Instead, they left the tent for some other reason. Among the many other corcumstances that seem to rule it out, there's one less often mentioned: there is no slab or piece of snow missing from above the tent. In fact the snow cover seems intact and we do have the benefit of some high quality contemporary photographs showing it.
GlennM:
Manti, I thought the discovery of the tent photo showed the tent and immediate area covered in block ice. Does that not suggest a slab slide? If you have better imagery, please post that in your response. Appreciated.
I believe when the Soviet authorities reopened the investigation recently, they were under scrutiny internationally. I believe their conclusion of a slab slip had to be based on good evidence, else they would have been roundly condemned as poseurs.
If we look at the tragedy at face value, we see a team of hikers who took an arduous uphill ski hike in order to avoid weaving through trees in the woods because there was no trail to follow. Therefore, they used line of sight to Otorten. Keeping to the high ground makes tactical sense. They elected to do a cold camp for a night because carrying firewood was extra weight and wet. The best practice would be to level the tent and dig a ledge as a windbreak. This they did. Then at some point in time, the ledge collapsed. They could not remain there and fled to the forest overnight. We all know what followed. To me, it seems that big question is why they left the tent, It was crushed. Let's see those photos and chat about this a bit more.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version