Weather analysis from the night of the Dyatlov Pass incident

[Beluga1303]

I still think one is more likely candidate.

Military test (most likely a neutron bomb)
Infrasound
Yeti attack

The last two are still difficult to explain.  They can't be ruled out.  My top candidate is still the neutron bomb test.

And why was radioactivity found on only 3 items of clothing?

[Star man]

I still think one is more likely candidate.

Military test (most likely a neutron bomb)
Infrasound
Yeti attack

The last two are still difficult to explain.  They can't be ruled out.  My top candidate is still the neutron bomb test.

And why was radioactivity found on only 3 items of clothing?

I dont think we know the full extent of any tests.  Its possible there was more widespread radiation, but it didn't stick around for too long.   The key here is explaining the strangeness if the behaviour of the group.  Neurovascular damage from massive radiation?  Infrasound?  Toxic gas?

Regards

Star man

[Investigator]

I agree, Star Man.  If at least one of them cut where the seams were, that would be consistent with my explanation (though remember, even experts, as opposed to a local seamstress, can be wrong!).  The way it likely "went down" is that the tent started coming apart again (as we read in the diaries, that was a major complaint: the group didn't want to do the sewing and Igor thought it was their responsibility and demanded they do it; Zina in particular was apparently very upset with Igor, and that would dovetail with the possibility that she was fleeing back to the tent after seeing one or both Yuris die; she had had enough of it and blamed Igor).  Then, they realized the cold would likely be fatal (and much of their heavy clothing/footwear had gotten frozen by then, or Igor had a "brave" plan that turned out to be a bad idea), so one or more decided to open it up there and get down to the trees to start a fire or build a "den" ASAP, but they also realized they had to secure the tent so that they would have their equipment, clothing, etc. to come back to in the morning.  Nigel raised the question of why most weren't wearing the light shoes, designed to be worn in the tent.  As he said, one was wearing one of these shoes, which likely means that whatever they were doing led to the shoes coming off.  Seven of the blankets appeared to have been used that night, so they would have put those shoes on before getting the blankets out (the other two blankets may have belonged to the two who were better dressed and doing guard duty).  Another possibility is that, assuming the heavy footwear was frozen, they thought they might need the lighter footwear in the morning and so did not want to wear them that night because they thought starting a fire and sittitng on a bed of cedar branches would be fine and taking a chance getting those wet might be a huge problem the next day (there were burn marks on some socks, which suggests and attempt to try them off), but with this scenario, there's the one person who was wearing one of these light shoes, which is quite odd, but could be explained easily if the matching one was found outside the tent (anyone know for sure about where it was found?).  Of course, it makes little sense to get distracted by such a little detail if the "big picture" is obvious.  If this occurred during criminal trials, there would hardly ever be a conviction!  Still, as I said before, a recreation would likely be very revealing!

The tent wasn't the best.  This is true.  But the cuts are definitely cuts made from inside, the question is made by whom, and why.  I could understand that the tent if damaged may need to be repaired, but cutting it the way it was cut would certainly make it significantly worse.   I have considered the high wind theory in the katabatic wind section and there is very little chance that the wind speeds experienced were enough to significantly damage the tent.  But there is one important clue that is possibly being over looked here.  I dont know how closely you have studied the damaged tent and the cuts?  From my own analysis it is clear, or at least highly likely that following the cutting of the tent, a person has used their hands to grab the edges of the cuts and pulled at it to make the hole bigger.  This is evident from the intersection of the cuts and the torn sections that intersect the cuts at a 90 degree angle.  This imo was not an attempt to repair the tent.

Another thing to consider is the context of the situation.  Yes I agree that there were some grumbles in the group about repairing the tent and Lyuda not doing her bit, but leaving the tent the way they did, with no shoes and clothing would be the equivalent of jumping out of a life raft, in a hurricane swollen sea to test if the groups swimming skills.  Igor would have known this and so would Semyon (being older and probably more level headed) .  I suspect they all knew the danger.  So its is  very unlikely to have been an exercise to achieve the level 3 cert.  Also, it seems they were in very good spirits.  They ate their evening meal, and wrote the satirical note. 

Rustems other boot was found in the tent.

Welcome to the rabbit hole.

Regards

Star man

The thing is there are countless such "rabbit holes," just for cases of deaths out in cold weather!  In this case, though, I think a reconstruction would surprise a lot of people, because I think they put themselves in a terrible position by pitching the tent where they did without heat, and that is assuming they thought they were in a dire situation when the began to walk down to the trees.  There's no evidence of this, but there were survival stories, at least in English, which may have led at least Igor to think that surviving would be easier than it was.  And it does seem like the fire idea was a bad one (deaths of the "two Yuris"), whereas in my research it seems that the wind is the threat, not the snow in general, and the videos I've seen of the wind whipping down that mountainside lead me to think it was not easy to find a place to shelter from it, but they may have thought there would be such a place by the tree line.  Eventually if not initially they decided to dig out the "den," which might have worked for some of them if that crevasse type feature over the creek wasn't there.

[lucid-nonsense]

@Investigator - if you really believe that they calmly elected to descend in their socks in those conditions then i think it is fair to say you hold a unique perspective not previously expressed on this forum or in the several books i've read on this subject.

All of the evidence points to this being the case? How else would there be footprints of people walking in each other's footsteps starting 30-50 meters from the tent?

I mean, they probably weren't calm. But it does seem like they deliberately walked down?

[Investigator]

@Investigator - if you really believe that they calmly elected to descend in their socks in those conditions then i think it is fair to say you hold a unique perspective not previously expressed on this forum or in the several books i've read on this subject.

All of the evidence points to this being the case? How else would there be footprints of people walking in each other's footsteps starting 30-50 meters from the tent?

I mean, they probably weren't calm. But it does seem like they deliberately walked down?

Just to be clear, that isn't my statement but the way it is quoted it appears to be.  I certainly do think the most reasonable assessment of the evidence is that at least some of them secured the tent (while some may have gone ahead to try and start a fire or dig the "den"), and then they walked down to the tree line without being rushed in any significant way.  They simply overvalued the fire's ability to prevent hypothermia under the conditions they faced (including doing a lot of physical work in the kind of clothing 7 of the 9 were wearing).  Also, there are a lot of situations like this, where the people do things that don't seem to make any sense.  Some survive and some don't (I've cited a few of these in other postings).

[Bannef]

And why was radioactivity found on only 3 items of clothing?

I don't think it was - my understanding of the case file is that radioactivity was present in unusually high levels on all of the clothing tested, but that the maximum amount of contamination was found on three specific pieces of clothing. Here's the file I'm referring to: https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-371-377?lid=1

They only measured radioactivity of the clothes and tissue of the four bodies found in the ravine. I'm not a scientist, so I have to trust the radiologist's judgment: That the radioactivity level detected on the clothing is unusually high, but that the radioactivity level tested in the tissue samples of the bodies was within normal parameters. Comments on this forum from people who seem to know much more about radioactivity than I do support those judgments, based on the data that document provided.

[Nigel Evans]

@Investigator - if you really believe that they calmly elected to descend in their socks in those conditions then i think it is fair to say you hold a unique perspective not previously expressed on this forum or in the several books i've read on this subject.

All of the evidence points to this being the case? How else would there be footprints of people walking in each other's footsteps starting 30-50 meters from the tent?

I mean, they probably weren't calm. But it does seem like they deliberately walked down?

From memory Investigator's point was that they elected to leave the tent as some sort of test of discipline. Rolls eyes.

[KFinn]

I agree, Star Man.  If at least one of them cut where the seams were, that would be consistent with my explanation (though remember, even experts, as opposed to a local seamstress, can be wrong!).  The way it likely "went down" is that the tent started coming apart again (as we read in the diaries, that was a major complaint: the group didn't want to do the sewing and Igor thought it was their responsibility and demanded they do it; Zina in particular was apparently very upset with Igor, and that would dovetail with the possibility that she was fleeing back to the tent after seeing one or both Yuris die; she had had enough of it and blamed Igor).  Then, they realized the cold would likely be fatal (and much of their heavy clothing/footwear had gotten frozen by then, or Igor had a "brave" plan that turned out to be a bad idea), so one or more decided to open it up there and get down to the trees to start a fire or build a "den" ASAP, but they also realized they had to secure the tent so that they would have their equipment, clothing, etc. to come back to in the morning.  Nigel raised the question of why most weren't wearing the light shoes, designed to be worn in the tent.  As he said, one was wearing one of these shoes, which likely means that whatever they were doing led to the shoes coming off.  Seven of the blankets appeared to have been used that night, so they would have put those shoes on before getting the blankets out (the other two blankets may have belonged to the two who were better dressed and doing guard duty).  Another possibility is that, assuming the heavy footwear was frozen, they thought they might need the lighter footwear in the morning and so did not want to wear them that night because they thought starting a fire and sittitng on a bed of cedar branches would be fine and taking a chance getting those wet might be a huge problem the next day (there were burn marks on some socks, which suggests and attempt to try them off), but with this scenario, there's the one person who was wearing one of these light shoes, which is quite odd, but could be explained easily if the matching one was found outside the tent (anyone know for sure about where it was found?).  Of course, it makes little sense to get distracted by such a little detail if the "big picture" is obvious.  If this occurred during criminal trials, there would hardly ever be a conviction!  Still, as I said before, a recreation would likely be very revealing!

Please forgive me, long time lurker, but new to actually engaging and posting.  I know this thread is some months old.  The cuts on the tents often bother me.  If they were made for a quick escape, it makes more sense that they'd be vertical slits, top to bottom.  Efficient arm movement, based on tent set up, the tension on the canvas would support it.  Shallow arc type cuts, horizontally, to me mean something different.  I fully admit I could be way off base here.  See, I camp in canvas tents all year round; I have for twenty years now.  Viking age living history stuff.  But one of the larger groups I am involved in with has a large, medieval "war," every year with an attendance of 10,000 people.  The grounds are all separated into blocks with varying numbers of camps on each block.  Many camps use sheet walls to delineate the camp borders.  Sheet walls that are higher than waist height all have one thing in common; we slit them with small horizontal slits so that they last longer in wind and inclement weather.  This way, wind goes through the slits and the sheet walls don't become sails that then tear in our more extreme storms.  I wondered recently, the way the tent was situated with wind, etc, could the slits have been an attempt to help keep the tent from blowing away or being damaged by extreme winds?  I don't think that I actually believe that is where they came from but I also haven't bought into the "cutting themselves out of the tent" theory, either.  I don't feel we can reliably gather much information from tent damage because their were so many confounding variables that most fit have damaged or cut the canvas.  But yet, it always seems to go back to the tent...

Thank you for listening to my rambling!!  If there are major spelling errors or wrong words, I will gladly correct them.  I am typing on a tablet with severely arthritic hands so sometimes, my sentences become very...interesting, if I don't catch it in time, lol!!

-Ren

[sarapuk]

I agree, Star Man.  If at least one of them cut where the seams were, that would be consistent with my explanation (though remember, even experts, as opposed to a local seamstress, can be wrong!).  The way it likely "went down" is that the tent started coming apart again (as we read in the diaries, that was a major complaint: the group didn't want to do the sewing and Igor thought it was their responsibility and demanded they do it; Zina in particular was apparently very upset with Igor, and that would dovetail with the possibility that she was fleeing back to the tent after seeing one or both Yuris die; she had had enough of it and blamed Igor).  Then, they realized the cold would likely be fatal (and much of their heavy clothing/footwear had gotten frozen by then, or Igor had a "brave" plan that turned out to be a bad idea), so one or more decided to open it up there and get down to the trees to start a fire or build a "den" ASAP, but they also realized they had to secure the tent so that they would have their equipment, clothing, etc. to come back to in the morning.  Nigel raised the question of why most weren't wearing the light shoes, designed to be worn in the tent.  As he said, one was wearing one of these shoes, which likely means that whatever they were doing led to the shoes coming off.  Seven of the blankets appeared to have been used that night, so they would have put those shoes on before getting the blankets out (the other two blankets may have belonged to the two who were better dressed and doing guard duty).  Another possibility is that, assuming the heavy footwear was frozen, they thought they might need the lighter footwear in the morning and so did not want to wear them that night because they thought starting a fire and sittitng on a bed of cedar branches would be fine and taking a chance getting those wet might be a huge problem the next day (there were burn marks on some socks, which suggests and attempt to try them off), but with this scenario, there's the one person who was wearing one of these light shoes, which is quite odd, but could be explained easily if the matching one was found outside the tent (anyone know for sure about where it was found?).  Of course, it makes little sense to get distracted by such a little detail if the "big picture" is obvious.  If this occurred during criminal trials, there would hardly ever be a conviction!  Still, as I said before, a recreation would likely be very revealing!

Please forgive me, long time lurker, but new to actually engaging and posting.  I know this thread is some months old.  The cuts on the tents often bother me.  If they were made for a quick escape, it makes more sense that they'd be vertical slits, top to bottom.  Efficient arm movement, based on tent set up, the tension on the canvas would support it.  Shallow arc type cuts, horizontally, to me mean something different.  I fully admit I could be way off base here.  See, I camp in canvas tents all year round; I have for twenty years now.  Viking age living history stuff.  But one of the larger groups I am involved in with has a large, medieval "war," every year with an attendance of 10,000 people.  The grounds are all separated into blocks with varying numbers of camps on each block.  Many camps use sheet walls to delineate the camp borders.  Sheet walls that are higher than waist height all have one thing in common; we slit them with small horizontal slits so that they last longer in wind and inclement weather.  This way, wind goes through the slits and the sheet walls don't become sails that then tear in our more extreme storms.  I wondered recently, the way the tent was situated with wind, etc, could the slits have been an attempt to help keep the tent from blowing away or being damaged by extreme winds?  I don't think that I actually believe that is where they came from but I also haven't bought into the "cutting themselves out of the tent" theory, either.  I don't feel we can reliably gather much information from tent damage because their were so many confounding variables that most fit have damaged or cut the canvas.  But yet, it always seems to go back to the tent...

Thank you for listening to my rambling!!  If there are major spelling errors or wrong words, I will gladly correct them.  I am typing on a tablet with severely arthritic hands so sometimes, my sentences become very...interesting, if I don't catch it in time, lol!!

-Ren

Well thats an interesting point about cutting the Tent to allow wind to blow through. But I would have thought that move would have been very dangerous anyway because a very  strong wind and very low temperatures can lead to a freezing to death situation.

[KFinn]

Please forgive me, long time lurker, but new to actually engaging and posting.  I know this thread is some months old.  The cuts on the tents often bother me.  If they were made for a quick escape, it makes more sense that they'd be vertical slits, top to bottom.  Efficient arm movement, based on tent set up, the tension on the canvas would support it.  Shallow arc type cuts, horizontally, to me mean something different.  I fully admit I could be way off base here.  See, I camp in canvas tents all year round; I have for twenty years now.  Viking age living history stuff.  But one of the larger groups I am involved in with has a large, medieval "war," every year with an attendance of 10,000 people.  The grounds are all separated into blocks with varying numbers of camps on each block.  Many camps use sheet walls to delineate the camp borders.  Sheet walls that are higher than waist height all have one thing in common; we slit them with small horizontal slits so that they last longer in wind and inclement weather.  This way, wind goes through the slits and the sheet walls don't become sails that then tear in our more extreme storms.  I wondered recently, the way the tent was situated with wind, etc, could the slits have been an attempt to help keep the tent from blowing away or being damaged by extreme winds?  I don't think that I actually believe that is where they came from but I also haven't bought into the "cutting themselves out of the tent" theory, either.  I don't feel we can reliably gather much information from tent damage because their were so many confounding variables that most fit have damaged or cut the canvas.  But yet, it always seems to go back to the tent...

Thank you for listening to my rambling!!  If there are major spelling errors or wrong words, I will gladly correct them.  I am typing on a tablet with severely arthritic hands so sometimes, my sentences become very...interesting, if I don't catch it in time, lol!!

-Ren
[/quote]

Well thats an interesting point about cutting the Tent to allow wind to blow through. But I would have thought that move would have been very dangerous anyway because a very  strong wind and very low temperatures can lead to a freezing to death situation.
[/quote]

I agree, it would drop the already low temperature in the tent.  However, if it was a last ditch effort to try and save your only shelter....I don't know.  I just have such a hard time imagining why else the hikers would cut shallow, horizontal cuts in their tent.  But, without the benefit of an interview with one of the Dyatlov group and without the tent... 

[eurocentric]

The 9pm calculations create a -28C wind chill. I've read there's only a 10 degree insulation difference with a canvas tent, as measured indoor and out by campers, so it would have been pretty cold inside that draughty tent with hikers half-dressed and without heating.

https://www.calculator.net/wind-chill-calculator.html?windspeed=9&windspeedunit=mph&airtemperature=-19.1&airtemperatureunit=celsius&x=100&y=19

& -30C wind chill at 11pm down at the cedar:

https://www.calculator.net/wind-chill-calculator.html?windspeed=7.6&windspeedunit=mph&airtemperature=-21.3&airtemperatureunit=celsius&x=67&y=20

[KFinn]

Looking through the case files and witness testimonies, hiking in the northern Urals in Jan/Feb of 1959:
Dyatlov group perished. 
The Rostov group (as reported by Atamanaki), returned from hiking with several hikers who had frostbite to their arms and legs.
Atamanaki's own group got lost a couple of times, turned back at one point, had members too tired or sick to continue at some points and they found evidence in the Vyols of other hiking groups which appeared to be in disarray and "heavily exhausted."
Sogrin testified that the hikers from the UPI club had "disgusting" equipment.  He particularly pointed out that the tents were old, skis did not meet sports requirements, and "there are no decent clothes that protect them from wind and cold."

Maybe the hiking groups, although very experienced, were not as well prepared as we tend to think they were, especially considering the weather?  Complacency is one of the most common culprits in accidents. 

[sarapuk]

Looking through the case files and witness testimonies, hiking in the northern Urals in Jan/Feb of 1959:
Dyatlov group perished. 
The Rostov group (as reported by Atamanaki), returned from hiking with several hikers who had frostbite to their arms and legs.
Atamanaki's own group got lost a couple of times, turned back at one point, had members too tired or sick to continue at some points and they found evidence in the Vyols of other hiking groups which appeared to be in disarray and "heavily exhausted."
Sogrin testified that the hikers from the UPI club had "disgusting" equipment.  He particularly pointed out that the tents were old, skis did not meet sports requirements, and "there are no decent clothes that protect them from wind and cold."

Maybe the hiking groups, although very experienced, were not as well prepared as we tend to think they were, especially considering the weather?  Complacency is one of the most common culprits in accidents.

Well when you look at the equipment these days there is a massive difference in materials for a start. The old explorers who went to the coldest parts of the World with temperatures of between  minus 20 and minus 80 degree celsius only had natural fibres like cotton and wool type garments and leather boots. Fur was also used. So the Dyatlov Group seemed reasonably well equipped. It depends on various factors, such as experience of outdoors, length of time on the expedition, clothing, etc.

[Manti]

In my opinion the photos from the hike are quite strange in the sense that they are dressed the way I would dress in +10C, but the temperatures must have been at most -5C even at noon during their warmest days, and probably much lower.


We can see them happily posing with no scarf, open jackets, and shirts unbuttoned at the neck. Perhaps being from Siberia they were just very well acclimatised but Semyon for example was from a relatively warm region of the Caucasus.

I don't know what if anything can be concluded of course. I find it hard to put myself into their minds and imagine why they would set off at all without sleeping bags, for instance. Or why set off in January? Perhaps this is simply because it was winter break at the University. But it's also the most challenging weather for hiking.

[sarapuk]

In my opinion the photos from the hike are quite strange in the sense that they are dressed the way I would dress in +10C, but the temperatures must have been at most -5C even at noon during their warmest days, and probably much lower.


We can see them happily posing with no scarf, open jackets, and shirts unbuttoned at the neck. Perhaps being from Siberia they were just very well acclimatised but Semyon for example was from a relatively warm region of the Caucasus.

I don't know what if anything can be concluded of course. I find it hard to put myself into their minds and imagine why they would set off at all without sleeping bags, for instance. Or why set off in January? Perhaps this is simply because it was winter break at the University. But it's also the most challenging weather for hiking.

Yes you raise good points there. There clothing doesnt look that great for such cold climes. And no sleeping bags. But I would have thought that they must have known what they were letting themselves in for.