Theories Discussion > General Discussion
10 reasons for a natural phenomenon
Osi:
1- Two photographs showing attempts to pitch a tent on a slope.
2- A collapsed tent that had not been exposed to an explosion, burning, or external pressure wave, and was not chemically contaminated.
3- The hillside of the tent (to the north) was found buried in snow. However, the southern entrance was found relatively standing.
4- The ski pole supporting the hillside of the tent, which appeared intact in the photo of the tent site being dug, was found broken.
5- A rapid and collective retreat into the forest due to an unavoidable danger. You can extinguish a fire, ventilate a poisoned tent, or remove an animal from the tent, but you cannot prevent a natural phenomenon.
6- Although simple footprints were preserved for 26 days, if you look at the photographs from when the tent was found, you will see that there was no need to dig that deep to prepare the tent site. The ground is quite flat. Digging 20 cm towards the hill would provide a level surface. However, the 1-meter-deep snow pit in the photos of the tent site preparation has disappeared.
7- The ongoing claims that if there had been an avalanche, there would have been no footprints are burning my mind. How can you leave tracks before an avalanche or slab slide? The avalanche ends, and you leave tracks later.
8- I cannot reconcile the discovery of Zina, Dyatlov, and Rustem on the tent path with the aftermath of a massacre. It's clear they were trying to recover a tent lost in a natural disaster.
9- Generally, those devoted to this case and those investigating it have prioritized human-induced causes (murder, negligence, cover-up), etc., behind the tragedy. I believe they have ruled out the possibility of natural causes causing this accident.
10- They are so certain about what kind of snow phenomena can occur on a ridge far from civilization.
ahabmyth:
--- Quote from: Osi on September 05, 2025, 02:53:35 AM ---1- Two photographs showing attempts to pitch a tent on a slope.
2- A collapsed tent that had not been exposed to an explosion, burning, or external pressure wave, and was not chemically contaminated.
3- The hillside of the tent (to the north) was found buried in snow. However, the southern entrance was found relatively standing.
4- The ski pole supporting the hillside of the tent, which appeared intact in the photo of the tent site being dug, was found broken.
5- A rapid and collective retreat into the forest due to an unavoidable danger. You can extinguish a fire, ventilate a poisoned tent, or remove an animal from the tent, but you cannot prevent a natural phenomenon.
6- Although simple footprints were preserved for 26 days, if you look at the photographs from when the tent was found, you will see that there was no need to dig that deep to prepare the tent site. The ground is quite flat. Digging 20 cm towards the hill would provide a level surface. However, the 1-meter-deep snow pit in the photos of the tent site preparation has disappeared.
7- The ongoing claims that if there had been an avalanche, there would have been no footprints are burning my mind. How can you leave tracks before an avalanche or slab slide? The avalanche ends, and you leave tracks later.
8- I cannot reconcile the discovery of Zina, Dyatlov, and Rustem on the tent path with the aftermath of a massacre. It's clear they were trying to recover a tent lost in a natural disaster.
9- Generally, those devoted to this case and those investigating it have prioritized human-induced causes (murder, negligence, cover-up), etc., behind the tragedy. I believe they have ruled out the possibility of natural causes causing this accident.
10- They are so certain about what kind of snow phenomena can occur on a ridge far from civilization.
--- End quote ---
Well said Osi I can agree with you on virtually every point apart from the following to a minor degree. 4. Nothing wrong with a pole being broken if enough pressure is applied. 6. I agree the ground looks flat but looks can be deceiving. It appears to me that there are different types of snow some that sticks and some that blows away. it would be a hard call as to what conditions appear to be and we are also guessing from 1st Feb to 26th Feb, a lot can change in 3 weeks. 9. Is not correct, many members subscribe to the theory that it was a natural phenomenon or just a bad decision or simply bad luck. Just the tiniest action out of all the mistakes could have saved at least half of the group eg I advocated that the crosscut saw that they had could have changed the whole outcome. Instead they had to use knives, pen-knives or try snapping branches off. Dont forget they all made it down to the Cedar and had a big fire going for a while (why it wasnt made in the den I dont know). 10. They were seasoned hikers, strong, fit.
Common sense isnt all that common.
Osi:
When Sharavin looked toward Otorten with binoculars, he saw the faint outline of a buried tent. He wasn't sure what he saw. There were tent poles, supposedly still standing. If an expert mountaineer had seen the tent tarpaulin, they could easily see the poles as well. They were dark in color, easily distinguishable against the whiteness. They could be certain that what they saw was a tent.
Upon reaching the tent, the most compassionate action to take with a collapsed tent was to lift the fallen pole and raise it up. Not to immediately cut the tarpaulin with a knife. The excitement of the tent's initial discovery had forgotten the memories, and the hope that their comrades were still alive somewhere prevented the young men who had found the tent from examining the surrounding area with an expert eye. Their first priority was to report the situation to their superiors. They took a few items with them to convince their superiors that they had found the tent. Even if they had left the tent as is, there was a possibility that it might have been lost during the night's snowfall. Pole poles may have been erected to make the tent's location easier to locate.
Questions about the tent's initial discovery began after the case became legal. If you took a few items from the tent back to camp, you'd be forced to explain how you retrieved them. Because you tampered with the tent before the expert arrived. You're clearly at fault. But if you lifted a ski pole, you don't need to confess. That would complicate the investigation.
Hunter:
Osi
Regarding Slobtsov and Sharavin taking things. There are contradictory testimonies on this matter. But even if they took things, their actions do not constitute a criminal offense. Especially if they were not told that they were not allowed to touch anything in the tent.
Osi:
I certainly wouldn't call it a crime. No one at the time would have anticipated that the incident would escalate into a legal process. I would describe their conducting research without notifying an expert as an act of unjust, humane, and well-intentioned negligence.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version