April 23, 2025, 02:14:54 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by Ziljoe on Today at 01:43:00 PM »
Seems a fun project. It might be worth a shot of inputting the data without opinions of others. Start with the facts of what we think we know.

9 hikers on a hike with cross country skis

Canvas tent , pitched on low gradient slope 15-30 degrees. Temp range -10 to -35. C. Wind speed potential up to x

Bodies found ( mention raised foot prints) , frostbite burns etc

Injuries found with locations of bodies. Etc. See what happens with a neutral input but stay away from Dyatlov pass data?

I don't know if what I'm asking can be done but if we can start from neutral, then add or take away additional info like rockets, lights in the sky , outsiders 1 by 1 and see what the AI comes up with. ?

2
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on Today at 01:16:59 PM »
I didn't plug in any additionals like I did for the fight argument. But this one is different in that it actually staged a mock debate for both pro and con.
3
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by Ziljoe on Today at 01:06:06 PM »
Interesting but it seems to be missing some arguments. The search dogs reaction when coming out of the helicopter, written statements of wolverines in tents, the 3 weeks before the searchers got there etc.

Also the input of the ravine 4 at the time of discovery. That is being found under 3meters of snow at ground level and other researchers suggesting the fractured ribs were similar to crush injuries from an avalanche or snow hole collapse and not forgetting the tree dated by teddy that fell in 1959 which could also be an explanation for many of the injuries.

Interesting concept though and maybe we can refine ?
4
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on Today at 11:33:37 AM »
Here's an argument for the wolverine theory in less than seven minutes, and at the end it makes a negative statement advocating for the snow slab or a fight lmao.

Introduction

A formal collegiate-style debate will examine whether the Dyatlov Pass hikers were driven from their tent by wildlife—specifically mustelids like wolverines or skunks, or large ungulates such as elk—rather than by more commonly proposed forces.

Affirmative Constructive (Pro–Animal Theory)
Opening Statement
The sudden, inexplicable flight of nine experienced hikers from the relative safety of their tent at night can be plausibly attributed to an acute animal‐induced panic. Defensive sprays from skunks, stealthy scent‐marking by wolverines, or a startling interaction with elk could each produce the sensory shock necessary to force rapid evacuation into subzero conditions—explaining the tent being cut from the inside and footprints in varied directions.

Citations: Skunks can spray sulfurous thiols up to 3 m with such potency they induce temporary blindness and severe irritation¹²; wolverines possess anal scent glands with complex volatiles comparable to skunk secretions³; elk roam the Urals’ forested zones and their shallow, two‐toed tracks have been noted near the campsite⁴⁵.

Argument 1: Skunk Spray as Trigger for Panic
Potent Chemical Defense. Striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) eject a thiol‐rich spray detectable at 5.6 km and capable of causing eye irritation and temporary blindness¹.

Behavioral Response. Human encounters prompt immediate, panicked flight from enclosed spaces to avoid repeated sprays².

Tent Cut From Inside. Cutting the tent would be the quickest means of escape if spray infiltrated seams more rapidly than unzipping could permit.

Citations: Skunk spray is flammable, accurate, and can incapacitate vision¹; survivors of skunk encounters report disorientation that compels flight².

Argument 2: Wolverine Scent and Stealth Provocation
Anal Gland Secretion. Wolverines (Gulo gulo) have potent anal glands producing a pungent odor nicknamed “skunk bear,” chemically similar to other mustelids³.

Nocturnal Stealth. Their low, broad bodies and plantigrade posture allow them to climb over obstacles and investigate dens undetected³.

Persistent Odor. Unlike a single skunk spray, wolverine scent‐marks can linger, creating prolonged discomfort that would drive occupants outdoors.

Citations: Wolverines’ glandular secretions contain dozens of volatile compounds³; mustelid stealth behavior allows approach to human shelters without leaving conspicuous tracks³.

Argument 3: Elk Collision or Disturbance
Regional Presence. Elk (Alces alces) inhabit the Urals’ forested zones along with other large fauna⁴.

Tent Interaction. A curious or startled elk could brush or trip tent lines, tearing fabric and unbalancing occupants.

Footprint Evidence. Forum records document shallow, split–hoof prints interpreted as elk near the camp⁵—consistent with lighter ungulate tracks in deep snow.

Citations: Britannica confirms elk among the Urals’ richest fauna⁴; Dyatlov‐Pass forum observers have identified two-toed, shallow impressions matching elk hooves⁵.

Negative Constructive (Con–Standard Theories)
Opening Statement
The official investigation found no evidence of animal involvement. Searchers reported no non-human tracks, and the hikers’ methodical footprint patterns undercut panic due to a wildlife threat. Moreover, the severity of injuries on some bodies (crushed ribs, skull fractures) cannot be explained by animal contact.

Citations: Investigators ruled out wildlife attacks due to absence of animal footprints and the deliberate nature of tracks⁶; autopsies revealed traumatic force exceeding any likely animal encounter⁶.

Affirmative Rebuttal
Tracks Covered by Snow. Footprints of the hikers themselves were noted to be quickly obscured within 500 m by fresh snow⁷—similarly, any light elk or mustelid prints close to camp could have been erased by drifting snow.

Selective Evidence Loss. Investigators focused on human prints and may have overlooked subtle animal sign; heavy wind could homogenize fresh snow, masking non‐human prints.

Injury Explanation. Panic‐induced falls onto concealed rocks or tree roots in the dark could account for rib and skull fractures without invoking improbable military or extradimensional forces.

Citations: Search records state footprints were rapidly covered by snow⁷; mistimed forensic emphasis can obscure light animal prints⁵.

Cross-Examination
Affirmative   Negative
Q: How could skunk spray penetrate a sealed tent?   A: Tents are typically wind-tight; spray particles may not infiltrate fully.
Q: Why no skunk odor noted in official diaries?   A: Weather conditions (strong wind) could dissipate smell immediately.
Q: Could an elk actually breach tent fabric?   A: Elk avoid humans and might skirt rather than collide with a shelter.
Q: Why no animal hair found on clothing?   A: Snow and wind could remove superficial hair deposits before discovery.
Closing Statements
Affirmative
Unexplained panic, the tent cut from the inside, and varied footprint directions are coherently explained by sudden, noxious or frightening wildlife encounters. Chemical defenses of skunks or wolverines and incidental contact with elk offer a unified, natural‐world explanation that aligns with known animal behaviors and regional fauna.

Negative
The absence of direct animal evidence—no tracks, no hair, no eyewitness odor reports—and the nature of the hikers’ injuries strongly favor explanations such as snow slab collapse or internal panic, rather than wildlife provocation.

References
Wikipedia contributors. “Skunk.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2025.

A-Z Animals. “Why Do Skunks Spray? 6 Animals That Use Smell as a Weapon.” 2023.

Wikipedia contributors. “Wolverine.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2025.

Britannica editors. “Ural Mountains.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2025.

Ehtnisba & Radim. “Elk(s) attack.” Dyatlov Pass Forum, April 10, 2019.

Wikipedia contributors. “Dyatlov Pass incident.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, last edited April 16, 2025.

Wikipedia contributors. “Dyatlov Pass incident – Search and discovery.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2025.










5
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on Today at 11:15:53 AM »
Of course, it follows the users instructions. I asked it to compile me an argument for a fight amongst the hikers. I can also take the con approach or the wolverine theory for that matter. The instructions for making those hyperlinks active was way too tedious yesterday as I was a bit on the lash lol. I'll look back into it tomorrow but an index is just as good, just not as convenient. You should have seen it working, it tracked down every citation and source and I could see it flashing up. It's called ChatGPT and they have a free version, I'm using the $20 month plus plan which has access to advanced reasoning and 10 deep researchs a month. I can't wait to try that out! You can ask it to do pretty much everything. It made me a profile picture for this site that would fit without using an actual editor. Took 20 seconds lol
6
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by Ziljoe on Today at 11:07:06 AM »
Ever heard of an index?  Been to a library? Dewey Decimal? I delivered an index with fully clickable links. Stop taking the piss.

Ive never heard of a Dewey Decimal but have a rough idea of the concept of libraries.

The point I'm trying to get at , is if your using selected examples and quotes from injury caused by fist fighting and explosions, then that's the exact conclusion you will get from the AI.

Closed fists , damaged knuckles and body scratches , hemorrhages are all consistent with hypothermia cases . Add extreme cold conditions , climbing trees , breaking trees , starting fires , perhaps making or digging snow holes without protected hands in sub zero conditions then these injuries could have a number of causes. They were also chopping wood and making fires the days before and received small injuries at Nord 2.

I do not know how this AI thing works but it feels like it could be used to get any outcome desired .

Perhaps the AI could be used on the injuries alone from case studies of hypothermia. Then we could see if it would be impossible for the hikers to have all these body marks from anything in the local natural conditions they were subjected too?.
7
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on Today at 11:06:54 AM »
Wouldn't it be interesting if it's a little bit of everything? A slab was released because of an explosion from either a parachute mine, anti tank mine, or dynamite. Then there's a meltdown on Igor because he insisted on camping in such a dumb place and the proverbial caca hits the fan.
8
General Discussion / Re: What do the footsteps say?
« Last post by Ziljoe on Today at 10:46:29 AM »
A really good point amashilu

I came to similar conclusion about this too. I have also walked down a hill in the dark and did the exact same thing although it was only 3 of us . It was a gentle slope but we couldn't see , so supported each other by being at each others side walking slowly.

If I remember correctly, one of the statements said there were two sets of paths that diverged at some point , 3 and 6 people then came back together. If the event had been staged it would be easier to fake a single file path. No one would be able to tell how many people had walked the path if it were single file.

One other reason I can think as to why they walked abreast, is if someone was following from behind with perhaps a gun. It would be easier to control the group if any were to try and run down hill. If it were single file , the person at the front could get further away without leaving a clean shooting angle for example, after a 100meters in poor light and a single shot rifle it would perhaps not be easy to shoot.

Another reason could be they were searching for something but I can't think of anything that important that they would go further than a few meters , not even bank notes or paperwork. It can't of been someone blown down the slope as we have the walking footprints which means they were walking upright.

The footprints next to eachother suggests they were together as a unit and for whatever reason, walking abreast seemed to have some kind of advantage over single file or by pairs .
9
General Discussion / What do the footsteps say?
« Last post by amashilu on Today at 09:31:03 AM »


I have read many times about the footsteps being "side by side" or in a "single file" and many other ways of explaining how they were arranged. But does this mean that the hikers went down the slope in couples (side by side), 2 x 2,  one couple at a time, with couples following each other?  Or does it mean that they all stood in one long line, 9 people in one long line (single file)?

According to this image (https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search?flp=1#the-tent),  they actually stood in one long line, all nine of them, close to one another. This seems like the best arrangement to take care of people. If it is dark and you cannot see the rocky ledge or other dangers ahead, holding onto each other in one long line would be the smartest way to travel; if one person slipped or twisted their ankle, he or she would be held up by the two on either side of them.

To me, this arrangement quite definitively rules out infighting in the group. They were standing and walking together, holding onto one another, and proceeding slowly and cautiously.

Quote from Teddy, same page as referenced above:  "Overall the path gave an impression of organized and uneventful descent down the slope of the mountain."

10
General Discussion / Re: An Argument For (Pro) A Fight
« Last post by GlennM on Today at 07:12:29 AM »
No matter the analytical method, the general process is essentially the same. First, address the evidence concerning before leaving the tent is gathered and massaged. Next, the evidence after leaving the tent is gathered and massaged. Then, by extrapolating the distillations forward and backward, the investigator makes a reasonable conclusion inductively or deductively as to what happened at the tent and why.

The trouble always comes in the form of discarding data that doesn't fit the model and placing weighted emphasis on that which does. This is the long standing conundrum. Another slippery slope is the attempt to divine their thinking.

The ONLY first hand information are the diaries, and they are insufficient. All else is second hand information.

I advocate for a slab slide compelling the hikers to evacuate the tent.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10