Dyatlov Pass Forum

Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Tim on February 10, 2020, 04:16:55 AM

Title: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Tim on February 10, 2020, 04:16:55 AM
For 40,000 years man has used animal skins to canvas and modern light weight materials to shelter under. In all the world Wars combined there has never been a tent found where it has been cut from the inside. It is a mechanism built into the human DNA not to do what The Dyatlov group had to do unless an of emergency. So what was so urgent? They cannot see through the canvas, they cannot see more than 10 feet in this snow blizzard when looking out the entrance, besides it is critical they keep that entrance buttoned up in this swirling wind to prevent a gust from blowing the tent apart. All other theories slowly fade away when logic over an emotional attachment to a theory are released.  The report from the scene was "A light dusting of snow on the tent". The photo shows chunks of  measurable snow on the tent not a LIGHT dusting.  In all fairness, the group has not even been found yet and everybody's  the adrenaline is pumping.  Lev was looking for more concrete evidence within the tent not the simplest of logic. So when do use ever use a knife inside of a tent? When something is on top of you, such as the barrier wall that  they had to build or suffer a tent malfunction in the raging winds. A honest misinterpretation of the evidence at the tent was made. The snow piled against the front entrance was part of that barrier wall because this was the most vunerable of spots on any tent. The evidence of that barrier was ice blasted off the tent from those gale force  swirling winds but there are some chunks that did survive.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: sarapuk on February 10, 2020, 01:36:57 PM
For 40,000 years man has used animal skins to canvas and modern light weight materials to shelter under. In all the world Wars combined there has never been a tent found where it has been cut from the inside. It is a mechanism built into the human DNA not to do what The Dyatlov group had to do unless an of emergency. So what was so urgent? They cannot see through the canvas, they cannot see more than 10 feet in this snow blizzard when looking out the entrance, besides it is critical they keep that entrance buttoned up in this swirling wind to prevent a gust from blowing the tent apart. All other theories slowly fade away when logic over an emotional attachment to a theory are released.  The report from the scene was "A light dusting of snow on the tent". The photo shows chunks of  measurable snow on the tent not a LIGHT dusting.  In all fairness, the group has not even been found yet and everybody's  the adrenaline is pumping.  Lev was looking for more concrete evidence within the tent not the simplest of logic. So when do use ever use a knife inside of a tent? When something is on top of you, such as the barrier wall that  they had to build or suffer a tent malfunction in the raging winds. A honest misinterpretation of the evidence at the tent was made. The snow piled against the front entrance was part of that barrier wall because this was the most vunerable of spots on any tent. The evidence of that barrier was ice blasted off the tent from those gale force  swirling winds but there are some chunks that did survive.

So do you really believe that all of the Dyatlov Group decided that it was best to cut their way out of their Tent in order to leave it and depart for a mile or so totally ill - equipped to survive in those weather conditions  !  ?
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Tim on February 10, 2020, 08:22:57 PM
Hi, yes I do and I lay it out in the section above How Zina may have received her injury. I'll add to it by saying not a soul in the world knew where they were and they were not sure either. I lived in the snow for 17 years and we even as kids knew the difference between wet snow for snowballs and dry snow for no snowballs. The wet snow is sticking to their faces. The chunks of snow on the tent are measurable.  Thanks for reading.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: sarapuk on February 13, 2020, 11:39:29 AM
Hi, yes I do and I lay it out in the section above How Zina may have received her injury. I'll add to it by saying not a soul in the world knew where they were and they were not sure either. I lived in the snow for 17 years and we even as kids knew the difference between wet snow for snowballs and dry snow for no snowballs. The wet snow is sticking to their faces. The chunks of snow on the tent are measurable.  Thanks for reading.

Well thats very bold statements you make. Do you have any evidence to back them up  !  ?
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on March 07, 2020, 03:04:35 AM
For 40,000 years man has used animal skins to canvas and modern light weight materials to shelter under. In all the world Wars combined there has never been a tent found where it has been cut from the inside. It is a mechanism built into the human DNA not to do what The Dyatlov group had to do unless an of emergency. So what was so urgent? .


It is not proven that the tent was cut from the inside. No proper scientific examination of the tent was ever made.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 07, 2020, 05:49:10 AM
For 40,000 years man has used animal skins to canvas and modern light weight materials to shelter under. In all the world Wars combined there has never been a tent found where it has been cut from the inside. It is a mechanism built into the human DNA not to do what The Dyatlov group had to do unless an of emergency. So what was so urgent? .


It is not proven that the tent was cut from the inside. No proper scientific examination of the tent was ever made.
Incorrect, the tent was examined by the Ministry of Justice's Scientific-Research Forensic Laboratory at Sverdlovsk.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: sarapuk on March 09, 2020, 04:11:34 PM

It is not proven that the tent was cut from the inside. No proper scientific examination of the tent was ever made.
[/quote]
Incorrect, the tent was examined by the Ministry of Justice's Scientific-Research Forensic Laboratory at Sverdlovsk.
[/quote]


We are told that it was cut from the inside.  We are told a lot of things and somethings we are not told. Which suggests to me that the Authorities had plenty to tell us that is very  CRUCIAL to this Dyatlov Case, but which they havnt.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Jean Daniel Reuss on March 10, 2020, 04:45:13 PM
Yes ! Leaving the tent without any evidence of firearms, stakes, daggers or swords being used is an important aspect that needs to be explained.
There was also no evidence of violent hand-to-hand combat around the tent, not a drop of blood was visible.

I am working on another hypothesis: the tent was cut off from the interior because the atmosphere inside the tent had suddenly become unbreathable and even toxic. There was an urgent need to be able to suck some fresh (albeit terribly cold) air outdoors. And then there was no other possibility than to get out completely and very quickly outside the tent...and then suffer badly dressed in the icy wind and then die.....
 
I apologize for not explaining myself more now but I am completely ignorant of the English language and therefore very slow to write understandable sentences (and fortunately there are still automatic translators).

I promise you that I will soon (hopefully within 3 weeks) send you a complete reconstruction in  "Theories Discussion > Murdered".
It is a hypothesis that was developed under the influence of Eduard Tumanov, Per Inge Oestmoen, Noelle, Nordlander, Vietnamka...and others that are too numerous to name them all, and which has the merit of being able to answer the three guiding questions :  Who ? - Why ? - How ?

 
Here are 3 statements of general interest

A) Case-Files Achievement Recipient sarapuk often finishes his many and very judicious interventions with an expression that mean :
 There is no PROOF....Perhaps but no proof............. Or do you have any evidence to back them up....

But there are not enough indisputable documents and unless some new information or statement comes to light there will be no absolute proof.

We are therefore all forced to be content with assumptions that are questionable but more or less probable.

But this is the case in almost every cold case when there are no or no more direct witnesses who can contribute to the investigation.

       
We are consequently obliged to imagine the missing parts in order to arrive at a coherent and plausible reconstruction.

This is also what makes the difficulty of Ancient History that leads to reconstructions that can be revised, as we rarely find enough documents and historical sources to cross-check the information.
See :
Historical method is the collection of techniques and guidelines that historians use to research and write histories of the past. Primary sources and other evidence including ancilllary considerations and reasoning are used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

B) In a way our Global Moderator Loose}{Cannon is right when he writes
"All theories are flawed..."
 
But some theories or reconstructions are better than others.

 
Here better means more coherent, more likely, in good agreement with the psychological, historical background...

C)
Better means also more complete
February 28, 2020, at  Theories Discussion > General Discussion > Is this a record of Yuri K limping?
 DPI Guru  Nigel Evans (Reply #37) and DPI Expert WAB (Reply #40) had a conversational exchange on the subject :
   For me the key thing is finding THE narrative, the one that explains ALL the evidence. Not just some of it.

It is imperative to take into account the totality of the strange aspects of the dpi which are many and different.

For me, the most important thing is to find scenarios or reconstructions that can explain ALL the available data.
 Of course, in reality, it is a little more complicated because many documents are uncertain and also interpretable in different ways.

Note : I provided already a first complete and easily debatable example with my X-drug theory in 4 chapters and 24 (§).
    https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=411.0
Altercation on the pass      Reply #15
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: MDGross on March 11, 2020, 11:10:06 AM
Hi Mr. Reuss, I've read the fascinating chapters of your book. Your research on psychostimulants is extraordinary. And aren't we all searching for one coherent scenario that explains what happened the night of Feb. 1 and afterwards. Your theory explains much, but raises many questions.
• Psychostimulants were widely used in WWII. Drugs like Pervitin (a form of crystal meth) and Benzedrine are as effective today as they were then. Why waste precious resources in 1959 on drugs that already work so well?
• By 1959, large-scale wars would be fought with nuclear bombs. Tens of thousands of soldiers on psychostimulants would not be necessary.
• The autopsy reports stated that the Dyatlov group ate 6 to 8 hours before their deaths. No evidence was found in the tent that dinner had been prepared and eaten.
• Questions naturally arise about Zolotaryov since none of the hikers knew him before the expedition. Maybe he joined the group so that he could receive the highest certification as a hiker/skier. And how could he have taken photos of the drug's effect? Almost all the action took place outside the tent at night. How could he photograph that with cameras available in the Soviet Union in 1959?
• What about his last photo that seemed to show a bright flash of light (an explosion perhaps?) that also caught the attention of the three other hikers whose heads seem to be shown at the bottom of the photo?

I'm not saying your scenario couldn't have happened. Probably a dozen other theories that reconstruct the events of that tragic night are well thought out and possible. Alas, without believable, documented evidence we can only speculate. Best of luck with your book.

You may be interested to know that I contacted the CIA for information about Zolotaryov. I was told the CIA may or may not have such information, and whether it does or doesn't is classified.
 
 
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Jean Daniel Reuss on March 19, 2020, 02:43:07 PM

Hi Mr. Reuss, I've read .............. And aren't we all searching for one coherent scenario that explains what happened the night of Feb. 1 and afterwards............ raises many questions.

 Alas, without believable, documented evidence we can only speculate...............

You may be interested to know that I contacted the CIA for information about Zolotaryov. I was told the CIA may or may not have such information, and whether it does or doesn't is classified.

 • Your theory explains much, but raises many questions..

The X-drug theory that I have imagined to explain the most imcompressible episode of DPI, i.e.  the suicidal exit from the tent, is certainly false.

Indeed for testing and experimentation, those in charge of military psychostimulants obviously were using (and are using) the very powerful organization that was the Soviet Army (now that is the Russian Army).

They did not lack a hierarchy of officers specialized and competent in various technical fields and also many patrols of soldiers on surveillance hikes in the Arctic regions which are politically and symbolically highly important.

Thus, in 1959, it is very improbable that Soviet army laboratories improvised a test incorporating civilians (non-military Soviet citizens) through an unspecialized KGB indicator, as Zolotaryov was perhaps.

On all the other hand, I can easily answer the questions that you raise...

1) • ....Why waste precious resources in 1959 on drugs that already work so well?

 ...work so well? not exactly !

As soon as 1942, the dreadful and long-lasting conditions on the Eastern Front had highlighted the damaging effects of pervitin on many Wehrmacht soldiers.Vertigo, dizziness, perspiration, depression and hallucinations. Vertigo, dizziness, perspiration, depression and hallucinations. Some soldiers died of heart failure, others killed themselves during psychotic episodes.
Due to increased Allied pressure on the German war effort, Nazi Germany had grown desperate for new soldiers to continue the war effort, and one way to mitigate the massive losses was to increase the combative power of the remaining soldiers in the Wehrmacht
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-IX
 Vice Admiral Hellmuth Heye in March 1944 requested a drug that could also provide the users with superhuman strength and a boosted sense of self-esteem.

Since 1945, specialised pharmacochemists in all countries have gradually resigned themselves to abandoning their hopes of finding a magic drug that would have no drawbacks.

Nowadays, in 2020, it is mainly modafinil
C15H15N O2S
that is used in the armed forces to increase concentration and resistance to sleep deprivation because it presents very little risk of transient craziness


2) • By 1959, large-scale wars would be fought with nuclear bombs. Tens of thousands of soldiers on psychostimulants would not be necessary..

 The multiple roles of nuclear bombs are very extensive subjects which are still studied at considerable length by the military strategists of all the great powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare

I am not competent in these matters but it seems to me that, on the contrary, nuclear bombs are militarily useless and that the determination and competence of a few elite warriors is essential.

In fact, there is the risk of mutually assured destruction and nuclear weapons have (fortunately!) proved to be unusable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_terror

Deterrence is the concept of preventing an act by persuading the person contemplating it that the costs that would inevitably result from it would exceed the expected benefits.
Some political scientists even say that the USSR spent so much money on strengthening its nuclear power that the USSR collapsed in 1990.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race

This is the contradiction of nuclear armament, which is extremely expensive but has not been used in a theatre of operations since 9 August 1945.

In addition, H-bombs that are too powerful to be of military interest require considerable maintenance costs because tritium must be renewed regularly, the radioactive half-life of tritium being 12 years.
 As a result, a large part of the Soviet H-bombs has been dismantled and the lithium 6 deuteride that constituted them is now stored in a special building in Novossibirsk.

On the contrary, most strategists believe that the nature of warfare has changed since 1945 and the emphasis is more on the determination of infantrymen and psychological warfare. They realized that nuclear weapons were never going to be used.

http://armedforcesjournal.com/the-indirect-approach/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

At the end of 1944, instead of blowing German cities with thousands of bombers vulnerable to anti-aircraft defence, the British had already come up with the idea of sending a single sniper who could assassinate Adolf Hitler as he walked alone around the berhof (but it was too late, Hitler was then leaving for his bunker in Berlin).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley

Notice also the failures of the powerful armies (USSR and USA) in Afghanistan against Taliban warriors who could be said symbolically that they " did not even have good shoes".
A main point in asymmetric warfare is the nature of paramilitary organizations such as Al-Qaeda which are involved in guerrilla military actions but which are not traditional organizations with a central authority defining their military and political strategies. Organizations such as Al-Qaeda may exist as a sparse network of groups lacking central coordination, making them more difficult to confront following standard strategic approaches. This new field of strategic thinking is tackled by what is now defined as netwar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan.

In spite of all the changes in strategic ideas in History we can retain a principle that has endured since Sun Tzu: The destruction of the enemy's armies is not the essence of war; the essence of war is to convince the enemy to accept your position. Therefore, fighting its military forces is at best a means to an end, at worst a total waste of time and energy. »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden%27s_Five_Rings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Warden_III
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/anthropology/wardens-five-rings-theory.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_laboratory_of_the_Soviet_secret_services?oldid=770454105
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intelligence

I suggest that you privately question American officers about these ideas and trends, which are not secret, and which could play a role in efforts to clarify the DPI mystery.


3) • The autopsy reports stated that the Dyatlov group ate 6 to 8 hours before their deaths. No evidence was found in the tent that dinner had been prepared and eaten.

Why would they not have eaten before the tragic and mysterious events that caused their deaths ?

Whatever the DPI's real explanation is, I think that
(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Unknown-origin-Dyatlov-photos-11.jpg)
Photo No. 11 suggests that everything went normally until February 1, 1959 at 5:00 p.m. (=at 17 h)
(except for the slight delay caused by the slower than expected ascent in soft snow).

In my estimation, a likely approximate chronology is as follows:
 5:00 p.m. = End of work to establish a platform on the snow-covered slope.
 6:00 p.m. = The tent is set up and the hikers go inside for shelter.
Then at least two hours of preparation are needed to unpack, tidy up, sort, and melt the snow with an alcohol burner. (Alcohol can also be used to tie foods. They have melted the snow using an alcohol burner since they were unable to bring firewood with them).
 8:00 p.m. = Dinner is ready
 9:00 p.m. = Dinner is eaten.
 3:00 a.m  = Death 6 hours after dinner.
 5:00 a.m  = Death 8 hours after dinner.
Notice that the temperature inside the tent was low, only a few degrees warmer than outside.
I reasoned with: interior volume = 5 m³, total thermal power released during the night by the 9 immobile people = 1000 watts (which corresponds to a night food ration having the power of 2562 kcal/day).
I want to point out that normally in the absence of fire they would all have been 3/4 dressed.


4) • And how could he have taken photos of the drug's effect? Almost all the action took place outside the tent at night.

Assuming the previous chronology is valid, when he left the tent around 9:00 p.m. Zolotaryov did not know that he would die a few hours later. Zolotaryov hoped to live well for a very long time to come.
Zolotaryov had planned to illustrate his report with photos taken on February 2. It was not a question of taking precise measurements.

 I think it is likely that Zolotaryov or his  impersonator had contacts with the KGB. He may even have been a full-time agent employed by the KGB.
But it is also likely that the others 8 hikers knew perfectly well that Zolotaryov had been sent by the KGB and that he was in charge of writing a report on them. But this was of no importance and it did not prevent them from getting along and having fun with each other.
  It was a very usual and normal situation and there was nothing shocking about it.
 

5) • What about his last photo that seemed to show a bright flash of light (an explosion perhaps?) that also caught the attention of the three other hikers whose heads seem to be shown at the bottom of the photo?

The camera worn by Zolotariov was light-tight but not waterproof. The shapes obtained by developing the silver film are not images of real objects but only traces of meaningless features.


6) • I contacted the CIA for information about Z..

I had noticed your request to the CIA. This is a good idea, which can be used for others unresolved obscure points, because even a small clue of little importance  could be very useful.

However, it is clear that the official services of the USSR (like those of any other country) will not easily, or not at all, divulge additional information on a case that remains a state secret.

On the other hand, the intelligence or espionage services of the United States will be happy if they can show that they have done a good job and that they know certain things that the camp opposite would like to hide.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: MDGross on March 20, 2020, 10:34:11 AM
Bonjour Jean Daniel, At the start of your post you seem to say that your X-drug theory did not cause the group to exit the tent and "is certainly false." Maybe what you're trying to say got lost in your English translation. Doesn't your entire scenario start with the existence of the X-drug and that it was secretly administered by Zolotaryov to several members of the group? If your basic premise is false, then everything that follows must be false. Or are you saying that your X-drug theory explains much of what happened and that you believe it, but without hard evidence it will remain speculative just like every other theory?
Certainly, the urban warfare today is often carried out by quick strikes of highly trained special forces. But in 1959, US military personnel number about 2.5 million. That compares to over 12 million in WWII. The focus in 1959 was on nuclear deterrence and not large, standing armies.
It has always seemed to me that the hikers were simply relaxing before preparing their evening meal and that their last meal was earlier in the day.
I have no idea if KGB operatives were often part of hiking groups or any other small group of folks. But it seems Zolotaryov would want to keep his connection with the KGB secret since he was going to administer this experimental drug.
I agree that any scrap of information from the CIA about the Dyatlov Pass Incident could prove valuable. But any information about KGB involvement will remain classified. That's how the espionage business works and the US/Russian relationship is already on shaky ground.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Jean Daniel Reuss on March 20, 2020, 04:48:38 PM
............ you seem to say that your X-drug theory ...."is certainly false." ........
Yes, you have well understood, I am discarding my hypothesis N° 1 = test of some X-drug with the participation of the 9 hikers of Dyatlov's group.

I have read, re-read and now I think that :

In 1959, it is very improbable that Soviet army laboratories improvised a test incorporating civilians (non-military Soviet citizens).

The specialist pharmaco-chemists in charge of military psychostimulants obviously made their tests using the hierarchy of Soviet officers with some of the numerous patrols of soldiers on surveillance hikes.

I am still being inflenced by "the well known pathologist,... Eduard Tumanov,.... who is  pushing a theory that hikers took part in a fight,
                       either "between them or with outsiders."

            "between them" = my hypothesis N° 1, now abandoned.
       "with (against) outsiders" = my hypothesis N° 2,  which is therefore rather close to the ideas of Per Inge Oestmoen...and of many others.


I found discrepancies with the writings of Per Inge Oestmoen and most importantly :

I can answer (i.e. I have valid arguments to be able to answer) the 3 useful questions:
   WHO?
   WHY ?
   HOW ?
(The answers to these 3 questions are not indisputable evidence because they are debatable. But the fact that I can answer these 3 questions shows the coherence of the scenario).

Like Star man  April 16, 2019, 03:48:43 PM
   it is a    : Simplest Possible Credible Explanation
There were no aliens
There were no monsters
There were no animals
There was no military or military weapons or cover up
There were no KGB's agents
There were no Mansi
and obviously there were no CIA's agents

I will try to complete a supplementary part of my documentation which is and will remain insufficient.
I plan to send the scenario of my hypothesis N°2 in one week.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: MDGross on March 21, 2020, 06:59:58 AM
Je suis impatient de le lire.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 21, 2020, 08:49:56 AM
"There was no military or military weapons or cover up".
So why did Okishev and Ivanov assert that there was a coverup? That they were ordered to answer that the cause was hypothermia until May when it was changed to "unknown compelling force"? Okishev stated that dealing with distraught relatives gave him sleepless nights. Ivanov was summoned to Moscow and returned "a changed man". Thirty years later during glasnost he apologises to the relatives for the subterfuge but he had no choice.

That there was a coverup is beyond reasonable argument. The question is, of what?
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: sarapuk on March 21, 2020, 12:19:25 PM
You state the following ; 

There were no aliens
There were no monsters
There were no animals
There was no military or military weapons or cover up
There were no KGB's agents
There were no Mansi
and obviously there were no CIA's agents

But there is no proof of these things, so how can you make such a bold statement  !  ? 
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: MDGross on March 22, 2020, 10:24:21 AM
I believe the hikers' deaths can be attributed to hypothermia or severe injuries. But what caused them to flee into the night is the great unknown? As Nigel writes, later statements from Okishev and Ivanov point to a coverup. If an "unknown compelling force" is not the cause, then that eliminates any naturally occurring phenomenon such as an avalanche, snow slab, etc. I think the exploded missile scenario that Nigel and others put forth answers many questions: odd injuries, distress in making it down the slope, burned tree tops and so forth. Obviously, that would be kept from the public by the government. So a coverup would be in order. Of course, every scenario remains speculation or an educated guess.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Jean Daniel Reuss on March 22, 2020, 04:01:44 PM
                      I beg your pardon, I did not understand the meaning of "coverup".

  What I meant to say was : "There was no military or military weapons but the Soviet government leaders: Nikita Khrushchev, Andrei Gromyko... wanted to hide what they had learned or understood, perhaps from the KGB."
So the order to stop the investigation came from the Kremlin.

So I agree with Nigel Evans : « There was a coverup.»

Today we are unlikely to learn any new information from declassified official archives.
With the sources we know, which for the most part have been gathered on this website Dyatlovpass.com thanks to Teddy, it seems impossible to come up with any irrefutable proof.

Like Star man : we can only discuss the Simplest Possible Credible Explanation.
As stated by MDGross : « Of course, every scenario remains speculation or an educated guess.»

I started to write a scenario that can answer the 3 questions: Who ? Why ? How ? and I hope that those who know the Russian language can help to confirm or demolish it because I lack a lot of knowledge about what was in the USSR in 1959.

I answer to sarapuk : « But there is no proof of these things, so how can you make such a bold statement ! ? »

This is my method of thinking, I start by eliminating the explanations that seem improbable to me.

For instance : I think we can eliminate the causes from radioactive material because you read, 11 days ago, 
the dramatic radiological accident in Lia, Georgia.

https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=375.0
Theories Discussion > KGB / Radiation / Military involvement > Kolevatov's device
GeneralFailure    March 11, 2020, 02:45:05 PM    Reply #18   Re: Kolevatov's device
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1660web-81061875.pdf

"Patient 1-DN was reported as having been exposed during the night of 2 December 2001 for approximately 3 h in total...."
.......................
"... The death of Patient 1-DN was due to fibrillation of the ventricles in a cardiac arrest, and it occurred at 22:55, 13 May 2004 (day 893 after exposure)".

( What makes radioactivity so dangerous is the fact that it is painless (you do not feel anything at first)
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 23, 2020, 03:07:42 AM
@Jean Daniel Reuss - Good that we agree  thumb1

I would also agree that the politics of the Soviet Union at that time could be significant in understanding the coverup. The Russian economy was heavily biased towards the arms race (and still is?). Khrushchev was attempting reform and threatening to downsize the military and obviously meeting resistance from the generals.


But i think this lends weight to a "military accident" theory rather than other theories, the news of which had to be suppressed as it would fuel the other sides argument. In that narrative a secretive cleanup operation is quite credible.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: David Harper on March 24, 2020, 06:27:19 AM
Seems that maybe the reason they pitched a tent in such an undesirable location was because there was something in the forest they were afraid of. No one in their right mind would have pitched a tent on the mountainside. The forest would have been a much better place. It would have provided shelter from the elements.  Also, maybe the men were fighting over the girls?  7 men and 2 girls may have created a potentially intolerable dynamic.
 I'm new here so forgive me if my idea's have already been covered here.
 And this is probably a stupid question but was anyone in the group armed? I would have been armed.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 24, 2020, 08:02:52 AM
Seems that maybe the reason they pitched a tent in such an undesirable location was because there was something in the forest they were afraid of. No one in their right mind would have pitched a tent on the mountainside. It was definitely a deliberate and considered action. Igor stated his concern for camping on the ridge the evening before in the group diary. Sadly without an explanation. The labaz also demonstrates the intention, they shed unnecessary weight before ascending onto the higher ground. The forest would have been a much better place. A safe place but a slow one. A theory is that they were making up time having lost a day attempting the pass and failed. They were poorly equipped for ascending ice (no crampons, only one ice axe). They took their stove with them (instead of leaving it behind) so this demonstrates an intention to return to the forest before the labaz. It would have provided shelter from the elements.  Also, maybe the men were fighting over the girls?  7 men and 2 girls may have created a potentially intolerable dynamic. It doesn't fit with the facts or the injuries imo.
 I'm new here so forgive me if my idea's have already been covered here.
 And this is probably a stupid question but was anyone in the group armed? I would have been armed. Just knives/axes.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: MDGross on March 24, 2020, 10:24:25 AM
Welcome David Harper, Dyatlov had planned that the group would arrive back at the outpost from where they started by Feb. 12. By late afternoon of Feb. 1, they were already several hours behind schedule so camping on the mountain ridge made sense to them. They were experienced and skilled hikers/skiers who knew how to make their tent as safe as possible. I can't imagine anything in the woods beneath the slope that would cause them to be afraid.
Anything's possible, but there's no indication that sexual tension was in the air. They had become a tight-knit group and depended on one another to make the expedition a success.
They carried no rifles or handguns. They were hiking in a harsh environment in the middle of winter, so I don't think they were concerned with meeting someone who would want to do them harm.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: sarapuk on March 24, 2020, 01:47:30 PM
Seems that maybe the reason they pitched a tent in such an undesirable location was because there was something in the forest they were afraid of. No one in their right mind would have pitched a tent on the mountainside. The forest would have been a much better place. It would have provided shelter from the elements.  Also, maybe the men were fighting over the girls?  7 men and 2 girls may have created a potentially intolerable dynamic.
 I'm new here so forgive me if my idea's have already been covered here.
 And this is probably a stupid question but was anyone in the group armed? I would have been armed.

Welcome and dont forget to introduce yourself in the appropriate section.  I would have thought that someone would carry a Firearm, of some type, just for protection from potentially dangerous animals  !  But as far as we know no one did carry a Firearm.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: David Harper on March 24, 2020, 10:00:21 PM
Hello all.  I'm guessing everyone here already knows this but here's something interesting;

 "Mount Kholat Syakhl gets it's name from the local language of the Mansi tribe of Siberian natives. Literally it means "the mountain of the dead" so it gained negative notoriety long before the Dyatlov Pass incident. According to the legend nine Mansi hunters stayed there overnight during their hunting trip. The next morning all nine were found dead by their friends. None of them showed any signs of violent death. Hence, the mountain and nearby pass became regarded as haunted. Local Native tribes avoided the peak and never ventured there. In the native tongue of the Mansi the literal translation of the name of the pass is "don't go there".
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 25, 2020, 04:11:16 AM
Hello all.  I'm guessing everyone here already knows this but here's something interesting;

 "Mount Kholat Syakhl gets it's name from the local language of the Mansi tribe of Siberian natives. Literally it means "the mountain of the dead" so it gained negative notoriety long before the Dyatlov Pass incident. According to the legend nine Mansi hunters stayed there overnight during their hunting trip. The next morning all nine were found dead by their friends. None of them showed any signs of violent death. Hence, the mountain and nearby pass became regarded as haunted. Local Native tribes avoided the peak and never ventured there. In the native tongue of the Mansi the literal translation of the name of the pass is "don't go there".
My memory of this stuff (as read years ago) is that "Mountain of the Dead or Dead Mountain" is a Mansi label given to more than one hill in the region that is unproductive for the hunters.
My version of the "legend of nine" is that it wasn't on this mountain but at a pass between Kholat and Ortorten and the corpses were unusual, as if "boiled to death" which combined with the golden orbs gives you atmospheric electrical phenomena = lightning / ball lightning.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: David Harper on March 25, 2020, 05:41:37 AM
I just watched a youtube video which offers a very plausible explanation. A photograph recovered from one of the groups cameras clearly shows an exhaust duct protruding from the back of the tent. It looks like the exhaust duct over the water heater in your basement. There was a small make-shift stove inside the tent presumably to provide heat. If, during the night, this wood-burning stove malfunctioned in some way it may have quickly filled the tent with smoke and fumes. The group woke in a panic and cut open the tent from the inside in order to ventilate the smoke out of it. This would explain the burns found on some of the groups hands as they would have attempted to remove the hot stove from the tent. The smoke, however, was so thick that they had to flee the tent. Then, in the dark, they became separated and lost and froze to death. The missing tongue and eyes was due either to animal predation or may have resulted from some form decomposition in the harsh cold snowy environment.
Also this would explain why they left the tent in such a hurry that they left their clothes and shoes behind. If the tent was filled with thick smoke, they would have been unable to breath and in a panic an immediate exit would have been necessary. Once outside the tent in the dead of night,lost,inadequately dressed, in blizzard conditions with temps of perhaps -20 deg. F. they would have quickly succumbed to the elements.
Also if I remember correctly I believe I read that autopsies performed on the bodies revealed that the insides of some of their throats showed indications of having been burned or damaged in some way.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 25, 2020, 05:52:39 AM
I just watched a youtube video which offers a very plausible explanation. A photograph recovered from one of the groups cameras clearly shows an exhaust duct protruding from the back of the tent. It looks like the exhaust duct over the water heater in your basement. There was a small make-shift stove inside the tent presumably to provide heat. If, during the night, this wood-burning stove malfunctioned in some way it may have quickly filled the tent with smoke and fumes. The group woke in a panic and cut open the tent from the inside in order to ventilate the smoke out of it. This would explain the burns found on some of the groups hands as they would have attempted to remove the hot stove from the tent. The smoke, however, was so thick that they had to flee the tent. Then, in the dark, they became separated and lost and froze to death. The missing tongue and eyes was due either to animal predation or may have resulted from some form decomposition in the harsh cold snowy environment.
Also this would explain why they left the tent in such a hurry that they left their clothes and shoes behind. If the tent was filled with thick smoke, they would have been unable to breath and in a panic an immediate exit would have been necessary. Once outside the tent in the dead of night,lost,inadequately dressed, in blizzard conditions with temps of perhaps -20 deg. F. they would have quickly succumbed to the elements.
Hi there.
It wouldn't be a good theory if they had used the stove that night but they hadn't. The tent had two erection modes :-If they had to get out of the tent due to fumes they still wouldn't walk a mile in their socks? Just let the fumes clear and recover their boots/clothing?
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: David Harper on March 25, 2020, 06:19:16 AM
IMO they would have been lost and unable to locate the tent in the dark and maybe they started walking without having any idea where they were going. Inadequately dressed and with the weather conditions that existed they would quickly have become hypothermic which would have resulted in dis-orientation which would explain their seemingly irrational actions. Also the fact that they were in their underwear without shoes in the tent makes it virtually certain that there was a source of heat in the tent. I believe the most recent investigations provided meteorological data which showed there were blizzard conditions on the night in question. If I had been one of them I wouldn't have cared which erection mode the tent was in, I would have wanted heat in the tent. Also I'm pretty sure I read something about the insides of their lungs showing evidence of having been burned, but I'm not sure about this. In any case, they would not have been in their underwear and without shoes if there had been no heat in the tent.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 25, 2020, 07:06:20 AM
IMO they would have been lost and unable to locate the tent in the dark and maybe they started walking without having any idea where they were going. Inadequately dressed and with the weather conditions that existed they would quickly have become hypothermic which would have resulted in dis-orientation which would explain their seemingly irrational actions. Also the fact that they were in their underwear without shoes in the tent makes it virtually certain that there was a source of heat in the tent. I believe the most recent investigations provided meteorological data which showed there were blizzard conditions on the night in question. If I had been one of them I wouldn't have cared which erection mode the tent was in, I would have wanted heat in the tent. Also I'm pretty sure I read something about the insides of their lungs showing evidence of having been burned, but I'm not sure about this. In any case, they would not have been in their underwear and without shoes if there had been no heat in the tent.
They weren't "in their underwear", they slept in several layers of clothing. The stove was found stowed, full of of unburnt wood. It's in the case files which should be read by all new posters?
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: MDGross on March 25, 2020, 07:28:49 AM
When the first search party found the tent in late February, the stove was packed away. The tent filling with smoke could not have happened. And since the stove was not used on that last night, no one would strip down to their underwear and then bed down. The two bodies found beneath the cedar tree (Yuri Doroshenko and Yuri Krivonischenko) had clothing removed by the surviving hikers in an attempt to get more protection from the cold.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: David Harper on March 25, 2020, 11:08:00 AM
IMO they would have been lost and unable to locate the tent in the dark and maybe they started walking without having any idea where they were going. Inadequately dressed and with the weather conditions that existed they would quickly have become hypothermic which would have resulted in dis-orientation which would explain their seemingly irrational actions. Also the fact that they were in their underwear without shoes in the tent makes it virtually certain that there was a source of heat in the tent. I believe the most recent investigations provided meteorological data which showed there were blizzard conditions on the night in question. If I had been one of them I wouldn't have cared which erection mode the tent was in, I would have wanted heat in the tent. Also I'm pretty sure I read something about the insides of their lungs showing evidence of having been burned, but I'm not sure about this. In any case, they would not have been in their underwear and without shoes if there had been no heat in the tent.
They weren't "in their underwear", they slept in several layers of clothing. The stove was found stowed, full of of unburnt wood. It's in the case files which should be read by all new posters?
The dead bodies were found in their underwear and without shoes on. You don't know what you're talking about. The footprints leading away from the tent were barefoot or with socks or one shoe on. None of the group was adequately dressed for the environment.
The stove was not found stowed. The wood in it was burnt to ashes.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: David Harper on March 25, 2020, 11:20:07 AM
If the stove wasn't being used why was there an exhaust duct protruding from the tent? Did they install it out of habit? The footprints leading away from the tent were barefoot. Or in socks. Or with one shoe on.
I can see I'm wasting my time here. I guess Yeti or fireballs from space or some stupid conspiracy theory are a more plausible explanation than mine.
Good Bye.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Nigel Evans on March 25, 2020, 11:44:00 AM
If the stove wasn't being used why was there an exhaust duct protruding from the tent? Did they install it out of habit? The footprints leading away from the tent were barefoot. Or in socks. Or with one shoe on.
I can see I'm wasting my time here. I guess Yeti or fireballs from space or some stupid conspiracy theory are a more plausible explanation than mine.
Good Bye.
I've a soft spot for "Teleportation - it's all highly technical but possible"..
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: MDGross on March 25, 2020, 12:28:17 PM
David, The great thing about this forum is that it provides a platform for a lively exchange of ideas. There are many folks and many discussions here. But I don't believe anyone has said "my theory is correct; end of story." If you're interested in trying to unravel one of the mystifying events of the 20th century, I encourage you to hang around. Thanks to the tireless work of this web site's founder, Teddy, you can find more information about the Dyatlov Pass Incident than anywhere else. But even Teddy doesn't claim to have all the answers.
There are a number of scenarios that do an admirable job of answering what happened and why. But questions arise with every theory. Please don't take any comments personally. 
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: neni_cesty_zpet on March 25, 2020, 03:11:52 PM
I still believe that this case can be cracked if some new information is found, either on the site of accident or in some secret archive. Or by using time machine if mankind ever invent such thing.

Subject title states that Ten is the answer. I dont see any answer there. I dont see any reason why leave it in barefoot.  What came to my idea that they came out to immediately help to someone else
who was outside and facing danger, possibly screaming. But it doesnt really fit. According to footprints, it looks like they were wandering, like sleepwalkers, not running to save someone's life near
the treeline or elsewhere...

I'd say from footprints that descent was slow.  Two Youris sprinting, as some suggest? I dont see any footprints that support that.
I also noticed that some were wearing valenki. I read article on Wikipedia on valenkis and it seems adequate foot protection in near zero/under zero temperatures for moderate time,
even without galoshes protection.
It's also written there that: "or they are worn by one and all in a severe frost, when other shoes don’t protect from the cold."
I'd say that that that one can put on valenkis really quicky and they're quite warm in sub-zero temperatures. I'd like to read opinion on valenkis from someone who actually wears them -
any russians on this forum?

For me, they were in one of these three conditions when walking downhill:

1) Wound, unable to move fast.

2) Forced to go down without proper clothing, possibly with machineguns pointing to their back, but what human beast would give such order, why? Did they unfortunately discover western spies?
In such remote/hostile site?

3) In state of some delirium cause by some atmospheric events. Then I'd rather expect scene similar to Korovina group - everyone behaved more or less randomly, but they all wandered down in this case,
quite uniform behaviour.

Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: MDGross on March 26, 2020, 07:51:01 AM
In regard to your second point ("machine-guns pointing to their backs") here's a possible scenario, though I emphasize that it is completely speculative: KGB agents and Soviet soldiers arrive on the evening of Feb. 1 by helicopter. One or more of the hikers is suspected of wanting to pass secrets to the CIA. Several hikers are outside the tent watching what's happening, and the KGB orders the hikers inside the tent to come out. They are poorly dressed, though Dyatlov has managed to grab his coat. Slobodin pulls his knife from its sheath and lunges at the soldiers. He's struck on each side of his head by rifle butts. Dyatlov also makes a move and is slammed in the abdomen causing an amount of blood to gather in his stomach. He is also ordered to drop his coat that was later found by searchers. Slobodin's knife sheath is later found, but not the knife. For whatever reason, the KGB is under orders to simply let the winter environment "execute" the hikers and orders them to march to the trees. Perhaps some in the government didn't want the KGB to implicated in the deaths. KBG and soldiers return to the protection of the helicopter while waiting for the hikers to freeze to death. Five of them die within an hour or so. Dyatlov vomits the blood in his stomach as he dies. Slobodin is later found with fractures to both sides of his skull. Soldiers are ordered to check on the hikers. Surprisingly, four are found alive in a snow den. They are ordered out and receive rifle butts to the head, ribs and neck. Then they are pushed down into the ravine that's a few feet away from the snow den. Once everyone is dead, the helicopter leaves.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: neni_cesty_zpet on March 26, 2020, 09:56:20 AM
Attack from "air" by using helicopter can explain lack of attacker's footsteps. But who would do such risky task, KGB? Why risk flying helicopter in remote area at night?
One would expected them to spend night under trees, invisible to helicopters...Doing helicopter search in the middle of night seems like searching needle in the thread.

If KBG suspected them of something then it would be much more convenient to "pick them up" in Ivdel and transfer them for interrogation in warm office.

I dont see any reason why would KGB do this. I cannot believe that.

Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: MDGross on March 26, 2020, 01:20:07 PM
I don't support the scenario myself. I just offered it as an example of how the KGB could have been responsible for the deaths and not be implicated. Did it happen? Probably not. KGB involvement depends on if one of the hikers wanted to pass secrets to Soviet agents of the CIA. There's no proof that any of the hikers was trying to do this. So it's most likely that nothing like this scenario happened. But when every theory is speculation, nothing can be ruled out. I don't believe in Yeti, but some people who live in northern Siberia claimed to have seen one. I don't believe in UFOs. But, again, people who lived there reported seeing bright lights in the sky more than once.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: RidgeWatcher on July 03, 2020, 01:01:53 PM
I have a few questions: I do believe the tent is the answer because that is where the mystery begins. I have yet to understand that logic of some members not believing that the tent is important.

"Local Native tribes avoided the peak and never ventured there. In the native tongue of the Mansi the literal translation of the name of the pass is "don't go there". David Harper March 23, 2020:

1) If the Mansi called the mountain Kholat Syaklul, because the game numbers and hunting were historically bad there then why did the Dyatlov hikers see and photograph message signs of the Mansi hunters?

2) I believe while building the cache and platform that it was business as usual. I do think that the photo of the man behind the tree must have been taken after the cache building but before the last climb up to the pass. I believe this is the most important reason why the group didn't follow an already skied trail black down to the cache where they knew there would be life sustaining supplies.

3) Most of the worlds fireworks were/are made in China, I was wondering if the Mansi or ex-Zeks could have used 1/3, 1/2 or even 1 stick of dynamite to herd the Dyatlov skiers down towards the north tree line. The group would know they weren't bombs or rifles so they may have walked down towards the cedar tree-line scared but not rushing in terror?

4) valenkas: are very similar to the linings inside Sorel boots, you could take them out and wear them but one wet and refrozen they would lose any insulating properties fast. They are very much like Mongolian yak socks (my favorite).
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Star man on July 08, 2020, 04:58:48 PM
The tent/camp site is important, but much of the evidence was spoiled.  The three theories I like in increasing order of weirdness are:

1, Natural events lead to their deaths
2. Nuclear or chemical test with the hikers in the wrong place at the wrong time
3.  Some kind of Yeti

These are not in any particular order of preference.

Note that if the hikers had been exposed to lethal levels of radiation, they would not have died immediately.  It could take hours, but during this time their bodies would start to shut down and this could have significant affect on their mental abilities, vision, pain levels, and immune systems.  They could have succumb to infection/sepsis within hours.  It could explain the strange behaviour of the hikers.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: NightLurker on July 12, 2020, 09:24:09 PM
Um... NOPE...

New here but I have to differ with you, in the highest regards...

I agree the TENT is where it all started, but it did not become the ending. If there were "high winds" then the tent would have been toppled and the guide posts would have as well. As the photos prove, both posts are STILL there and pointing straight to the sky. Sure, the middle was a bit caved in because of snow, but then again, this tent was actually TWO tents sewn together, and no center post to keep it up. As for the front of door of the tent, which there was only ONE door, (the other end closed off) Are you suggesting these EXPERIENCED hikers and skiers have no idea what they are doing?

I do think that sure, a back door is important, but that is not how it was designed (two tents sewn together).

Then again, maybe there was a back door, we have no idea.

What we do KNOW is that if the front door was indeed blocked by snow why were two people hanging out OUTSIDE of the tent apparently unable to get back in?

Don't you think they would have said something?

The only way out was through the sides if the door was blocked. Cut themselves out. Apparently it was an emergency situation and time is of the
essence. No two ways about that.

If it were an AVALANCHE as a theory proposes, they would have ran like crazy, but footprints tell a different story, even a month old. They WALKED down to the valley below... WALKED.

Had the tent been blown apart, as you suggest, why was the tent STILL intact except for the escape doors made by the occupants? You saw the pics, it was STILL there.

They HAD to leave. they were FORCED to leave for a reason. They would have stuck by the tent and saved it instead of walking a mile, IN THE SNOW in -20 degree weather, with hardly any clothes and start a fire under a cedar tree.

Now you may believe that they left the tent under those circumstances but it is very doubtful.

I appreciate your post and I am sorry if I may have offended you. Take gentle care my friend.

Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: sarapuk on July 13, 2020, 11:43:47 AM
Um... NOPE...

New here but I have to differ with you, in the highest regards...

I agree the TENT is where it all started, but it did not become the ending. If there were "high winds" then the tent would have been toppled and the guide posts would have as well. As the photos prove, both posts are STILL there and pointing straight to the sky. Sure, the middle was a bit caved in because of snow, but then again, this tent was actually TWO tents sewn together, and no center post to keep it up. As for the front of door of the tent, which there was only ONE door, (the other end closed off) Are you suggesting these EXPERIENCED hikers and skiers have no idea what they are doing?

I do think that sure, a back door is important, but that is not how it was designed (two tents sewn together).

Then again, maybe there was a back door, we have no idea.

What we do KNOW is that if the front door was indeed blocked by snow why were two people hanging out OUTSIDE of the tent apparently unable to get back in?

Don't you think they would have said something?

The only way out was through the sides if the door was blocked. Cut themselves out. Apparently it was an emergency situation and time is of the
essence. No two ways about that.

If it were an AVALANCHE as a theory proposes, they would have ran like crazy, but footprints tell a different story, even a month old. They WALKED down to the valley below... WALKED.

Had the tent been blown apart, as you suggest, why was the tent STILL intact except for the escape doors made by the occupants? You saw the pics, it was STILL there.

They HAD to leave. they were FORCED to leave for a reason. They would have stuck by the tent and saved it instead of walking a mile, IN THE SNOW in -20 degree weather, with hardly any clothes and start a fire under a cedar tree.

Now you may believe that they left the tent under those circumstances but it is very doubtful.

I appreciate your post and I am sorry if I may have offended you. Take gentle care my friend.

Very well put. Good to see a lot of thought being put into a Topic.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Star man on July 15, 2020, 04:50:15 PM
assuming that there were no other people there, then the events at the tent can only be explained if the cognitive abilities of pretty much all of the hikers had been affected by something.  This could have been one of a variety of things including:

Panic due to some significant and immediate threat
Poisons/chemicals/radiation
Infrasound

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Ting on July 16, 2020, 09:23:35 AM
How many blankets reached the Cedar tree ?
How many dropped blankets were found outside the tent ?
I do not see evidence of any blankets outside the tent. Why not ?
Theory: "You didn't have time to get your blanket or you couldn't find it in the panic !"
Reality: "But I was IN my warm blanket, it wasn't hard to find or hold on to once I knew I was going outside without my shoes and coat !"
Theory: "There was at least 7 of us cutting the tent simultaneously, blankets just got in the way !"
Reality: "Oh I thought only one or two of you had knives that you escaped the tent with."
Theory: "You couldn't carry the blanket through the cuts in the tent because it was too awkward and cumbersome !"
Reality: "Yes you're right no one could have managed getting their warm blanket outside the tent - such a feat ! That would be a grade 4 level achievement and we were only progressing toward level 3."
So any ideas why no blankets made it outside ? 
Maybe it wasn't bedtime and the blankets were all stored by the wet shoes and coats ?
I think I would have my blanket by me 2 hours after tent set up.

Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: RidgeWatcher on July 16, 2020, 10:34:02 AM
Welcome Ting,

So are you suggesting that the Dyatlov group was:

1) Gassed out of their tent.
2) Ordered at gunpoint out.
3) Were somehow scared out of their tent
4) That they were attacked in the morning, possibly the attackers spent the night near the cache and then climbed up the pass, saw the tent and then attacked.

The food debris left in the tent and later the stomach content would indicate that the attack occurred in the evening.
But you have some very interesting questions regarding the blankets. What do you think happened?
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Ting on July 16, 2020, 02:18:32 PM
Thanks for the welcome RidgeWatcher.

I do not fully subscribe to a theory as yet.
Just trying to stimulate new kinds of questions.

In response to the 4 ideas.
1) Gassed
To flee the tent through large holes the gas would either need to cause some noxious effect or be noticeable and give the perception of being dangerous.
If I escaped a gas filled tent via large holes I would either be on my knees feet away trying to regain my breath or I would be wondering if it was a flammable gas and be standing 40 feet away waiting for it to ignite. I would expect strange looks if I suggested a 1,500 metre retreat.
After discussing with 8 others in no longer than 10 minutes or so I would surely come to the conclusion that either the gas would have dissipated through the substantial increase in ventilation or that I could take the ski sticking out of the ground and waft the flaps a little to help matters along. In either case I am returning to the tent to retrieve what I needed. 
So gassing seems unlikely.
2) Ordered out at gunpoint.
Outside attackers theory has many permutations. What kind of attack ?
Unintentional killing? Kill a particular target? Intent to kill all? Intent to find out information then kill all? To locate key items then kill? Theft ? Kill for sport ?
If your mission is just to kill the 9 tourists but make it look like an accident what options do you have ? I suggest you wait for the minimum number of people to be outside the tent then set fire to the tent in the location of the entrance. Warm yourself by the fire and make a few evidence tampering manoeuvres with the stove afterwards. If your mission is to retrieve some important piece of information or item then torture first and fire as described above second. Theft is unlikely unless the item taken is something we don't know about. If you needed to eliminate a particular target you would identify then isolate them - night time would not be ideal for this kind of mission. To kill for sport you might give the tourists a chance to escape but give them a disadvantage - if you are confident enough to allow the tourists to escape you are probably comfortable with the environment so it would be logical that you would be confident to cover your tracks providing you left any. 
3) Scared out of tent.
Seems likely. Being scared by avalanche or snowslab slip or snow wall collapse appears plausible except how long would it take to react/grab a knife/complete cutting of tent and everyone evacuate ? At minimum I would suggest 2-3 minutes. Well I wouldn't like to give any kind of avalanche a 2-3 minute headstart on me. Being scared by attackers - Ask yourself what would you do if you were an attacker and you wanted a group of people to get out of the tent before they could arm themselves ? 
4) Morning attack
As you suggested the food debris and stomach contents indicate evening.

Is there any consensus as to how long it would take to walk down to the Cedar tree from the tent taking into account the strong wind/poor visibility/gradient/rocky outcrops/lack of appropriate footwear/iciness of the snow and temperatures around -30 celsius (according to Russian findings)? My estimate would be 45-60 minutes. I am impressed how none of the 9 left any signs of falling in the snow for the first part of the downward journey. 
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Star man on July 16, 2020, 04:14:53 PM
How many blankets reached the Cedar tree ?
How many dropped blankets were found outside the tent ?
I do not see evidence of any blankets outside the tent. Why not ?
Theory: "You didn't have time to get your blanket or you couldn't find it in the panic !"
Reality: "But I was IN my warm blanket, it wasn't hard to find or hold on to once I knew I was going outside without my shoes and coat !"
Theory: "There was at least 7 of us cutting the tent simultaneously, blankets just got in the way !"
Reality: "Oh I thought only one or two of you had knives that you escaped the tent with."
Theory: "You couldn't carry the blanket through the cuts in the tent because it was too awkward and cumbersome !"
Reality: "Yes you're right no one could have managed getting their warm blanket outside the tent - such a feat ! That would be a grade 4 level achievement and we were only progressing toward level 3."
So any ideas why no blankets made it outside ? 
Maybe it wasn't bedtime and the blankets were all stored by the wet shoes and coats ?
I think I would have my blanket by me 2 hours after tent set up.

I think the answer to the blanket question could be that they were forced out of the tent and not allowed any clothing or equipment ( which I don't subscribe to), or they panicked and left without their clothing, equipment and blankets, or their cognitive function was affected by something and they were not thinking straight.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Georgi on July 16, 2020, 07:03:59 PM
assuming that there were no other people there, then the events at the tent can only be explained if the cognitive abilities of pretty much all of the hikers had been affected by something.  This could have been one of a variety of things including:

Panic due to some significant and immediate threat
Poisons/chemicals/radiation
Infrasound

Regards

Star man
Problem with that theory is that all 9 of the hikers would have to be affected in the exact same way at the exact same time and come up with the exact same solution. For example infrasound has multiple effects, what are the chances that all 9 hikers that ranged in age between 20 and 37 and had both sexes would react the exact same way?

Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Star man on July 17, 2020, 04:15:40 PM
assuming that there were no other people there, then the events at the tent can only be explained if the cognitive abilities of pretty much all of the hikers had been affected by something.  This could have been one of a variety of things including:

Panic due to some significant and immediate threat
Poisons/chemicals/radiation
Infrasound

Regards

Star man
Problem with that theory is that all 9 of the hikers would have to be affected in the exact same way at the exact same time and come up with the exact same solution. For example infrasound has multiple effects, what are the chances that all 9 hikers that ranged in age between 20 and 37 and had both sexes would react the exact same way?

I agree that at least most of them would need to have been affected in a similar way.  I think the infrasound version requires more evidence.  Sound recording equipment that gathers data during similar weatger conditions to that on the night of the incident.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Manti on November 27, 2020, 03:19:23 PM
"Mount Kholat Syakhl gets it's name from the local language of the Mansi tribe of Siberian natives. Literally it means "the mountain of the dead" so it gained negative notoriety long before the Dyatlov Pass incident

I do not speak Mansi, but it's a language related to Finnish, Estonian, etc.

I consider the "Mountain of the Dead" translation a bit sensationalistic... Kholat sounds like "kuollut" in Finnish, indeed it can mean dead, but also barren. And Syakhl might be "siirtolohkare", I am less certain about this. This means boulder, rock. In Hungarian which is also a related language, this is "szikla".

So I guess one could say the place is called "Barren Rock". Indeed there is a prominent rock formation nearby...

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-175.jpg)
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Nigel Evans on November 28, 2020, 05:36:58 AM
Dead mountain = "No game to hunt" is a common translation.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: eurocentric on November 28, 2020, 08:56:10 AM
For 40,000 years man has used animal skins to canvas and modern light weight materials to shelter under. In all the world Wars combined there has never been a tent found where it has been cut from the inside. It is a mechanism built into the human DNA not to do what The Dyatlov group had to do unless an of emergency. So what was so urgent? They cannot see through the canvas, they cannot see more than 10 feet in this snow blizzard when looking out the entrance, besides it is critical they keep that entrance buttoned up in this swirling wind to prevent a gust from blowing the tent apart. All other theories slowly fade away when logic over an emotional attachment to a theory are released.  The report from the scene was "A light dusting of snow on the tent". The photo shows chunks of  measurable snow on the tent not a LIGHT dusting.  In all fairness, the group has not even been found yet and everybody's  the adrenaline is pumping.  Lev was looking for more concrete evidence within the tent not the simplest of logic. So when do use ever use a knife inside of a tent? When something is on top of you, such as the barrier wall that  they had to build or suffer a tent malfunction in the raging winds. A honest misinterpretation of the evidence at the tent was made. The snow piled against the front entrance was part of that barrier wall because this was the most vunerable of spots on any tent. The evidence of that barrier was ice blasted off the tent from those gale force  swirling winds but there are some chunks that did survive.


I think it's a mistake to automatically assume they had to do this urgently, as in an emergency, when one cannot be evidenced at or near the tent, or to apply an experienced rationality to their behaviour which they would only have if their physiological selves were operating within optimum conditions.

Hypothermia affects brain function, and physical coordination. It generates confusion, depression, amnesia and can also cause hallucinations. It's perfectly possible that the tent slashing, with cuts in all directions, was due to confusion, either through not understanding how to leave or finding tent flap buttons too fiddly with fumbling fingers (the hypothermic 'umbles' of mumbles, grumbles, stumbles and fumbles), or because they had been hiding under a felled and snow-covered tent, cutting their way out from being laid horizontal in order to stand, unable to organise 9 people shuffling out sideways.

Hiding underneath canvas and snow would explain how Igor's torch was found on top of 4 inches of snow on the tent and yet they didn't take what they needed if simply pinning a tent down before they left when unaffected by the cold. The snow on the tent looked identical in clumpy form to the trench spoil around it, remaining in situ because it was trodden on and compacted, and could not possibly later fell a tent half cut open when most of it would otherwise fall inside. Their assembly 50 yards away does not chime with any emergency evacuation either.

Everything to me suggests a much slower departure, one slowed down by the effects of the environment and its temperatures while partly-dressed and without heating. They do a roll call, and then walk in single file, playing follow-my-leader, with one set of tracks, perhaps the most affected by the cold, meandering, and what is their objective - to seek warmth and shelter by lighting a fire in a forest.

Going back to the dawn of man, early man would not have been as reckless as to attempt to sleep near an exposed 3000ft mountaintop in -40C windchill. He has always sought better shelter, either in the lowlands, forests or caves. Our set of hikers were doing something, and compared to today with technologically primitive materials, which these days would earn them an ignominious 'Darwin Award', like someone falling off a high rise when trying to take a risky selfie.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: mk on November 28, 2020, 01:28:33 PM
How many blankets reached the Cedar tree ? ...

Interesting question.   Mihail Petrovich Sharavin, one of the rescuers who was early on the scene and there for the discovery of the Yuris under the cedar tree, insists that there was a blanket covering the two Yuris.

(Quotes below are from the interview on this site: "Transcript of the conversation with the representative of the "CENTER for Civil Investigation of the Dyatlov Tragedy" Elder (AK) and the representative of the "Dyatlov Foundation" Y. Kuntsevich (YK) with rescuer M. Sharavin (MSh)" 

"This is why Yuri had the idea that while we found the tent and the first bodies of the 27th, someone visited the site besides us. For example, the brown blanket that was covering the bodies was no longer there. We claim that they were covered with a brown blanket, and then it disappeared, it turned out to be in the tent. It was at cedar and then ended up in a tent. And when they began to sort things out in the tent and found it there. Who moved it there?"

"In one book it says that we didn’t find the cedar, but allegedly Brusnitsyn with someone, this can't be true, because it is not something that you forget, we were the first to go together, there was nobody else there, with Yuri Koptelov. We walked side by side, went down together and literally 10 meters, or 15, before reaching the cedar, we saw something black, because the blanket was on top, it was not covered, it stood out. We approach and immediately... then we began to observe. We see traces of the fire, and the fire was on the same side [of the cedar] from which the guys were lying, and some branches were broken, we could see this."

MSh: They were within 2.5 m from the cedar, on the same side where the fire was near the cedar. They lay.
Navig: From the side of the tent?
MSh: No, on the opposite side, in the direction of the place where they found the rest in the ravine. And the fire was behind the cedar if you look from the side of the tent. And this is due to the fact that the wind then blew from the side of the tent and cedar protected from wind.
Navig: And who could cover them with a blanket?
MSh: Now, if we stick to our version, then we believed that Kolevatov, who was still alive, covered them, but Yuri believes that there may be groups that worked there to clean up, if we concider this version and maybe they were covered after they died. Although there are many perplexing questions because there are injuries incompatible with life just for the guys below.
Navig: А вот про ледоруб, это все-таки был их ледоруб или нет?
MSh: The ice ax was definitely theirs.
Navig: In the tent, quilted jackets were under the blankets or on top?
MSh: The quilted jackets were under the covers, first the skis lay below, then the backpacks, then the quilted jackets, then the blankets.
Navig: Were the blankets spread out or crumpled?
MSh: No, they were spread out. When we initially made our way in, we removed the snow, of course we did not completely clear it."

"At the floor [of the tent] everything was laid so carefully, nothing was turned upside down, they were just preparing for an overnight stay, nothing was amiss. Skis, quilted jackets lay down there ... backpacks, then quilted jackets ... blankets were spread like this ... So, what did we find? We didn’t even make out this far corner, it was so caved in... we looked at this part. Flashlight? Well, Slobtsov says that we found a flashlight there on the top ... Most likely, this was the case, but somehow I did not remember this. ... All that I say is reliable."

Not sure what to make of all this, myself, but it seemed at least partially relevant to your thoughts.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: Nigel Evans on November 29, 2020, 04:34:43 AM
If the blanket stood out because it wasn't covered in snow then it had been very recently laid there (within 24hours?). So i'd opt for some sort of miscommunication within the rescue party.
Title: Re: Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.
Post by: soni123 on September 02, 2021, 10:58:43 PM
I have searched several time regarding the actual proof like, the monsters or the tent or any kind of circumstantial evidences. However except the tent environment there was no solid proof of stating such kind of bold statement.