Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Marchesk on May 05, 2018, 05:25:50 AM
-
I've only seen mention that the one flashlight was found — the Chinese flashlight near the flap of the tent (or perhaps on top) was found turned off, but was still working when turned on.
Clark Wilkins has one of the hikers discard another flashlight on the way down to the trees when it stopped working. Was this flashlight or any other flashlights found?
Why would they not take the one left at or on the tent? Was this because something at the entrance was blocking their way, forcing them to cut out and flee without taking anything?
And was a compass or anything else that would help them navigate found amongst the bodies, or did they just leave all tools behind?
At any rate, the Chinese flashlight at the tent was not covered in any snow, which is one more reason to think there was no avalanche.
-
Another flashlight was indeed found a few hundred meters down the slope. It was not in working condition, and it is assumed they disposed of it when it ran out of energy.
I think the question why they did not take the Chinese one belongs into the same category as the question why the left their jackets, boots, and so on in the camp. Nobody knows so far.
I believe that it was Clark Wilkins who suggested that a helicopter may have blown off the snow from the flashlight at the tent during reconnaissance. But well, it remains a mystery of unknown significance.
I do not know whether they had a compass. The night was moonless and it must have been pitch black. Not sure whether there were stars or cloud cover. How they made their way is also a question, which keeps crossing my mind. Sometimes when it gets really dark I ask myself whether this was how it was on the mountain that night...
-
Im sure they had at least one compass for the trip, however there wasn't one found on any of them. It may be listed in the items that came out of the tent?
In any case, I'm sure they knew exactly where they were and where the closest tree coverage was just by observing the map in the days prior.... especially when before cresting over that ridge. Oddly enough, the cedar2 and ravine4 were found exactly on track with their original route if they had not deviated from that originally planned route.
-
Yep. No compass on their bodies but several mentioned in the inventory as one would expect on such a trip.
In any case, I'm sure they knew exactly where they were and where the closest tree coverage was just by observing the map in the days prior.... especially when before cresting over that ridge. Oddly enough, the cedar2 and ravine4 were found exactly on track with their original route if they had not deviated from that originally planned route.
I have no doubt that they knew all this. However, I know many places very well and nonetheless I have trouble finding my way when it is absolutely dark. The flashlight might have helped them a little depending on weather. Likewise, the night sky has a certain brightness even without the moon primarily with no clouds. At any rate, the slope would have indicated the "way down".
It is a remarkable incident that the were found lying on their initial route...
-
I've only seen mention that the one flashlight was found — the Chinese flashlight near the flap of the tent (or perhaps on top) was found turned off, but was still working when turned on.
Clark Wilkins has one of the hikers discard another flashlight on the way down to the trees when it stopped working. Was this flashlight or any other flashlights found?
Why would they not take the one left at or on the tent? Was this because something at the entrance was blocking their way, forcing them to cut out and flee without taking anything?
And was a compass or anything else that would help them navigate found amongst the bodies, or did they just leave all tools behind?
At any rate, the Chinese flashlight at the tent was not covered in any snow, which is one more reason to think there was no avalanche.
Another flashlight was indeed found a few hundred meters down the slope. It was not in working condition, and it is assumed they disposed of it when it ran out of energy.
I think the question why they did not take the Chinese one belongs into the same category as the question why the left their jackets, boots, and so on in the camp. Nobody knows so far.
I believe that it was Clark Wilkins who suggested that a helicopter may have blown off the snow from the flashlight at the tent during reconnaissance. But well, it remains a mystery of unknown significance.
I do not know whether they had a compass. The night was moonless and it must have been pitch black. Not sure whether there were stars or cloud cover. How they made their way is also a question, which keeps crossing my mind. Sometimes when it gets really dark I ask myself whether this was how it was on the mountain that night...
The flashlights were also discussed in a german forum. I developed my own theory out of this: A flashlight was found on the tent. The other flashlight was found on the way between tent and cedar. I don`t think the flashlights were forgotten or lost. I think it was intended by the Dyatlov group to lie them down there. The group has made it conscious to have the option to return to the tent again. The flashlights should mark the way back.
About compass: I also believe that the group always knew exactly where they were.
Look here (from the autopsy report Zolotarev):
"There is a compass in the left hand of the body." (Sheet 349, last sentence of the penultimate paragraph, https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-349-351?rbid=17743 )
According to the autopsy report they found a compass at Zolotarev
-
Could be....
The flashlights IMHO are yet another enigma of the case in which can have several explanations. The one found down-slope was in the on position and had ran out of battery power, but the one found on the tent was in the off position and still had power. If they were both left on, I would say its more likely they were used as a visual aid in returning to the tent, but the one on the tent that was turned off raises doubt in that scenario.
-
Look here (from the autopsy report Zolotarev):
"There is a compass in the left hand of the body." (Sheet 349, last sentence of the penultimate paragraph, https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-349-351?rbid=17743 )
According to the autopsy report they found a compass at Zolotarev
Oh yes. You are right. I obviously missed that one. So maybe Zolotarev was using it the moment he died...
Your lighthouse scenario is interesting. What I think is that the tent itself may have been illuminated by some other lamp.
-
The flashlights IMHO are yet another enigma of the case in which can have several explanations. The one found down-slope was in the on position and had ran out of battery power, but the one found on the tent was in the off position and still had power. If they were both left on, I would say its more likely they were used as a visual aid in returning to the tent, but the one on the tent that was turned off raises doubt in that scenario.
The (Chinese) flashlight on the tent is mentioned by many witnesses (for example: Chernyshov, Slobtsov, Tempalov, Maslennikov). Take a look at the recorded testimonies.
Slobtsov said, "Near the tent to the snow on ice is stuck, on the canvas of the tent, in the snow lay a pocket of flashlight, a Chinese make, which, as it was established, belonged to Dyatlov. It was strange that there was a layer of snow let it say 5 to 10 inches thick under the flashlight, there was snow on top of it, and it snowed slightly on either side turned on. When I turned on, the snow came on." https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743
At first appearance you`re right LC. I`ve a little "question mark" over my head too, because Slobtsov says the flashlight was off.
Maslennikov says: "На палатке лежал фонарик китайский в зажженном состоянии (но не горел)."
"On kitasky tent lantern lit lying (but not burnt)" / "On the tent was a Chinese lantern in the lighted state (but did not burn)." https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-062-075?rbid=17743
At Maslennikov the flashlight was on but it was not burning!
These are my thoughts: There are many testimonies (but still not enough... unfortunately) about the whole scenario. In the base all statements are the same, in the details there are (small) differences. I think you noticed it yourself when you looked exactly at the statements about the tent.
I think it would be unnatural when all the witnesses say exactly the same thing down to the smallest detail. Why have witnesses (small) deviations in the details (that happens very often and generelly)? This has something to do with perception and memory. Different people have different perception and different memories.
In the case of the flashlight and Slobtsov I think so: he has checked whether the flashlight works. He may have turned it on and off... perhaps several times (I would probably do that if I check something).
A flashlight that works and then doesn`t work ...could also be a technical defect related to storage and the wet condition after 25 days.
For me personally, it makes sense to set up two burning flashlights that mark the way back to the tent.
-
Could be....
The flashlights IMHO are yet another enigma of the case in which can have several explanations.
By the way grin1 ... what means "IMHO"? Sorry, it`s an off-topic but I want to improve my english language excuseme
-
Could be....
The flashlights IMHO are yet another enigma of the case in which can have several explanations.
By the way grin1 ... what means "IMHO"? Sorry, it`s an off-topic but I want to improve my english language excuseme
In My Honest Opinion
-
Could be....
The flashlights IMHO are yet another enigma of the case in which can have several explanations.
By the way grin1 ... what means "IMHO"? Sorry, it`s an off-topic but I want to improve my english language excuseme
In My Honest Opinion
In My Humble Opinion.
-
Look here (from the autopsy report Zolotarev):
"There is a compass in the left hand of the body." (Sheet 349, last sentence of the penultimate paragraph, https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-349-351?rbid=17743 )
According to the autopsy report they found a compass at Zolotarev
Oh yes. You are right. I obviously missed that one. So maybe Zolotarev was using it the moment he died...
Your lighthouse scenario is interesting. What I think is that the tent itself may have been illuminated by some other lamp.
Is there any reason to suppose that Zolotarev used the compass the moment he died?
-
Could be....
The flashlights IMHO are yet another enigma of the case in which can have several explanations. The one found down-slope was in the on position and had ran out of battery power, but the one found on the tent was in the off position and still had power. If they were both left on, I would say its more likely they were used as a visual aid in returning to the tent, but the one on the tent that was turned off raises doubt in that scenario.
Exactly. There is nothing that gives us any reason to infer that the flashlights were used that way.
-
For me personally, it makes sense to set up two burning flashlights that mark the way back to the tent.
It makes sense, but if the flashlight at the tent had been left on, it would have burnt out. But testimony is that it still worked. So it couldn't have been left on.
-
For me personally, it makes sense to set up two burning flashlights that mark the way back to the tent.
It makes sense, but if the flashlight at the tent had been left on, it would have burnt out. But eyewitnesses agreed that it still worked. So it couldn't have been left on. Just another weird detail, since leaving it on as a beacon would be the obvious thing to do.
Edit for stupidity: no need to quote myself making a post nea1
-
For me personally, it makes sense to set up two burning flashlights that mark the way back to the tent.
It makes sense, but if the flashlight at the tent had been left on, it would have burnt out. But testimony is that it still worked. So it couldn't have been left on.
Bingo!
The flashlight at the tent had power.... it worked!
The only way for it to maintain power for three in a half weeks is if it were...... turned off.
-
About the flashlight this is very interesting.
"WladimirP" is a member of a german forum. He explained the function of the flashlight:
Es gibt Zeugenvernehmungsprotokoll von Maslennikow - der war Suchmanschaftsführer. Der Protokol vom 10.08.59 (nich mal zwei Wochen nach dem das Zelt gefunden wurde). Maslennikow sagt: "На палатке лежал фонарик китайский в зажженном состоянии (но не горел)." - "Auf dem Zelt lag eine chinesische Taschenlampe im "Ein" Zustand (leuchtete aber nicht)."
Der jenige, der die Taschenlampe gefunden hat - Boris Slobzow, sagt im Zeugenvernehmungsprotokoll vom 15.04.59 :
"Фонарик взял я первым и обнаружил, что он не был включен. Когда включил я, то зажегся свет." "Ich nahm zuerst die Taschenlampe und stellte fest, dass sie nicht angeschaltet war. Als ich sie anschaltete, ging das Licht an".
In meiner Version http://taina.li/forum/index.php?topic=5623.0 erkläre ich, warum das passieren konte.
Der Mechanismus zum Ein- / Ausschalten der chinesischen Taschenlampe befindet sich in einem separaten Gehäuse. Dieser Gehäuse hat Schlitze zum Verschieben der Ein / Aus-Taste.
(https://preview.ibb.co/gSFtay/Taschenlampe1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bvST8J)
http://f6.s.qip.ru/ETcrHyss.jpg
Durch diese Schlitze dringt Feuchtigkeit ein. Das sind auch die Schneepartikel, die dann in der Schale schmelzen. Entsteht feuchte Luft, was auf kalten Metalloberflächen im Inneren des Schaltergehäuses kondensiert. Da die Temperaturen im Winter selbst im Zelt nicht viel höher als Null sind, bleibt die Feuchtigkeit nach dem Auftreffen auf den Schalterkörper lange dort.
Die Touristen schalteten die Taschenlampe an und lassen sie auf der Oberfläche des Schnees über der Zeltplane liegen. Nach einiger Zeit (fünf bis zehn Minuten) gefror Feuchtigkeitstropfen auf den Metallkontakten des Schalters. Bekanntlich findet mit dem Gefrieren von Wasser seine Ausdehnung statt. Das Wasser zwischen den Kontakten verwandelte sich in Eis, das Eis expandierte, die Kontaktplatten öffneten sich. Taschenlampe "ausgeschaltet", obwohl der Schalter auf "Ein" stand. So sind die Baterien bis zum entdekung der Taschenlampe ausgehalten.
Slobzow, der die Taschenlampe gefunden hatte, bewegte den Schalter, ein dünner Eisfilm zwischen den Kontakten wurde entfernt, und die Taschenlampe leuchtete erneut.
(https://preview.ibb.co/eguKFy/Taschenlampe2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/m1iDay)
http://f6.s.qip.ru/8eyNvaif.jpg
This is the link to the german forum: https://www.allmystery.de/themen/mt49817-310
Think about it ... we have two testimonies: Slobtsov + Maslennikow, which are contradictory!
I'm sorry, I don`t have much time to translate the text above in english language. I ask everyone to translate the text themselves with a translator.
Please also use the link in the text. He leads you to a page. There is a lot of interesting stuff from WladimirP (also to the tent and the cuts). (Thank you WladimirP clap1)
-
I'm starting to see something here... something major.
What if Mash is right and both lights were left on, to be used as a beacon.
Except the flashlight at the tent that was in the on position and clearly not burning? The rescuers switched to it to off then on again only to find it in complete working order, burning with light?
How could that possibly happen? It's simple if you think about it!
A simple, and tragic, malfunction. At the worst time nonetheless.
I don't know about any of you, but I've had flashlights get screwy on me for no reason. They're cheap pieces of junk sometimes. Hit or miss. You've never seen a flashlight flicker for no dang reason? It seems to happen when you least expect it too.
This flashlight at the tent... exposed to wind, snow, ice, water damage? It makes absolutely PERFECT sense for either flashlight to malfunction in these conditions. I can totally see the flashlight just flickering off from the wet and cold, thereby preserving the battery for it to work 3 weeks later when it's found in the on position.
This theory isn't even a stretch. Not far fetched by any means. And finally I'm seeing something that we can work with here. To move this forward.
-
nea1
You guys are going off the deep end, apparently for no reason. shock1 lol1
SLOBTSOV was THE ACTUAL PERSON TO HAVE FIRST PICKED UP THE TORCH
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743
I took the flashlight first and found that it was not turned on. When I turned on, the snow came on.
Your boy MASLENNIKOV arrived TWO DAYS LATER ON FEB 28th and the torch in question HAD ALREAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TENT AND TAKEN TO THE SEARCH GROUPS CAMPSITE.
and he says this.
On kitasky tent lantern lit lying (but not burnt).
There is only one way a torch can still have power..... do NOT let the bad translation of the word (light) to 'lit' confuse you. No reason for conspiracy. thumb1
-
However.... Thanks for reminding me about the compass. thumb1
-
nea1
You guys are going off the deep end, apparently for no reason. shock1 lol1
SLOBTSOV was THE ACTUAL PERSON TO HAVE FIRST PICKED UP THE TORCH
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300?rbid=17743
I took the flashlight first and found that it was not turned on. When I turned on, the snow came on.
Your boy MASLENNIKOV arrived TWO DAYS LATER ON FEB 28th and the torch in question HAD ALREAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TENT AND TAKEN TO THE SEARCH GROUPS CAMPSITE.
and he says this.
On kitasky tent lantern lit lying (but not burnt).
There is only one way a torch can still have power..... do NOT let the bad translation of the word (light) to 'lit' confuse you. No reason for conspiracy. thumb1
I'm not going to get into a huge debate about this here because it just isn't something I'm interested in pushing, BUT
what Slob=whatever said about it not being on and what not? It can easily be argued either way. That's all I'm saying. The language isn't as specific as you'd like to think it is.
In any case, I think it's a cool idea to play with so don't worry about control of the argument, bro. Calm down. Just let us play with it (no "that's what she said" jokes)
-
I took the flashlight first and found that it was not turned on.
My favorite part. lol2
-
Funny stuff fo sho
-
Is there any reason to suppose that Zolotarev used the compass the moment he died?
Well, this is what I thought, realizing it was in the left hand of the body. Why else would he hold it in his hand? Perhaps he did not look at it just then but I would assume otherwise it would have been found in a pocket.
-
I think the compass in the hand is a sure sign they were not injured and crawling around in agony etc. This guy was buried in a den collapse.
-
nea1
SLOBTSOV was THE ACTUAL PERSON TO HAVE FIRST PICKED UP THE TORCH
Your boy MASLENNIKOV arrived TWO DAYS LATER ON FEB 28th and the torch in question HAD ALREAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TENT AND TAKEN TO THE SEARCH GROUPS CAMPSITE.
Screaming is not a good basis for having a conversation or discuss. We are adults and we can talk in a respectful, polite tone, allow other opinions and, above all, read the views accurately. As the moderator of this forum, you should control your temperament, otherwise some will not want to write here anymore. That`s my opinion!
Slobtsov was the first on the tent (26.02.), Maslennikov reached the place 2 days later. You're right!
I'm not going to get into a huge debate about this here because it just isn't something I'm interested in pushing, BUT
what Slob=whatever said about it not being on and what not? It can easily be argued either way. That's all I'm saying. The language isn't as specific as you'd like to think it is.
In any case, I think it's a cool idea to play with so don't worry about control of the argument, bro. Calm down. Just let us play with it (no "that's what she said" jokes)
I agree! The flashlights are only a small part in a big puzzle (the one on the tent is very important to me for another reason). Play with it ... take your imagination and think about why 2 flashlights are in 2 places: a) lost b) forgotten c) randomly filed d) no explanation e) other
-
Screaming is not a good basis for having a conversation or discuss. We are adults and we can talk in a respectful, polite tone, allow other opinions and, above all, read the views accurately. As the moderator of this forum, you should control your temperament, otherwise some will not want to write here anymore. That`s my opinion!
Its bold, capitalized, and resized for emphasis........ If I was 'screaming' I would have used exclamation points. wink1
Relax
Dont shoot the messenger. neg1
-
Mash,
LC isn't singling you out. He is very passionate about this forum and he loves to argue against others for the sake of moving the conversations forward. He means very well, and without a lot of his input, this forum would be pretty defunct. Not because the members are dull! But because the evidence we have is what we have. It hasn't changed in 60 years so what can we possibly come up with that's new that hasn't been suggested already and dissected until it's a bloody mess.
Don't take his passion for confrontation. It's easy to misunderstand his intentions, but he's just a professional debate instigator. I mean that in the most compassionate of terms.
Our question is more "Why?" than it is "How?" if you think about it. At this point, we want to really know what could cause the Dyatlov party to abandon their shelter and supplies to chase a most certain death in the--although stated otherwise that it wasn't blistering cold because the temperature rose that evening, it was beyond minus zero degrees and it was blistering cold!!!!--winter cold not properly suited up for the exposure. We know HOW they died or really by what injuries. It's that first detail that gets the best of all of us. Why?
-
Our question is more "Why?" than it is "How?" if you think about it. At this point, we want to really know what could cause the Dyatlov party to abandon their shelter and supplies to chase a most certain death in the--although stated otherwise that it wasn't blistering cold because the temperature rose that evening, it was beyond minus zero degrees and it was blistering cold!!!!--winter cold not properly suited up for the exposure. We know HOW they died or really by what injuries. It's that first detail that gets the best of all of us. Why?
Even if the temperature had been rising and it was not excruciatingly cold it was still something in the region between -13 to -18C according to weather reports. Any human being who is improperly dressed in such temperatures will soon be in very serious trouble, to put it mildly. It is therefore inconceivable that the Dyatlov group would voluntarily leave their tent and move a mile away.
So, they must have been forced to do so.
There is nothing to indicate that there were any problems in or with the tent, and if there had been a problem there they would not have moved far away from the tent. An avalanche is excluded, there were no avalanches in the camp area. Fire is excluded, there were no signs of a fire or smoke in the tent. Also, a fire or smoke would not have forced the nine to move a mile away. The atmosphere in the tent was evidently excellent and relaxed right up to the moment when the terrible thing happened. This we know because the students entertained themselves by composing their own "newspaper" in the tent during the early evening of February 1. Since they had not yet written anything in their diaries that evening, it indicates that the making of that humorous newspaper was the very last thing they did in their lives.
All this must lead to the conclusion that the Dyatlov group did not leave their tent as a result of any form of accident, and that they did not leave their tent voluntarily.
-
Even if the temperature had been rising and it was not excruciatingly cold it was still something in the region between -13 to -18C according to weather reports. Any human being who is improperly dressed in such temperatures will soon be in very serious trouble, to put it mildly. It is therefore inconceivable that the Dyatlov group would voluntarily leave their tent and move a mile away.
So, they must have been forced to do so.
There is nothing to indicate that there were any problems in or with the tent, and if there had been a problem there they would not have moved far away from the tent. An avalanche is excluded, there were no avalanches in the camp area. Fire is excluded, there were no signs of a fire or smoke in the tent. Also, a fire or smoke would not have forced the nine to move a mile away. The atmosphere in the tent was evidently excellent and relaxed right up to the moment when the terrible thing happened. This we know because the students entertained themselves by composing their own "newspaper" in the tent during the early evening of February 1. Since they had not yet written anything in their diaries that evening, it indicates that the making of that humorous newspaper was the very last thing they did in their lives.
All this must lead to the conclusion that the Dyatlov group did not leave their tent as a result of any form of accident, and that they did not leave their tent voluntarily.
I was unaware that the avalanche theory has been completely discredited. In fact it's my understanding that most people's idea of avalanche is inaccurate in this specific case because these students would have experienced some kind of drift or shift in the snowscape.
Honestly I'd be interested to know if any of the details amongst us are actually fabrications, alterations, or exaggerations by the original crew and officials. We know that these people lived in constant fear, suspicion, and anxiety! They most certainly did not want to get on the bad side of the government. Definitely something to consider in another thread I suppose.
In any case, I get that the tent poles were still upright with no sign of being disturbed. I undersand that much of what we would expect to see with an avalanche does not exist at the scene--at all! But I'm still not ready to throw it out without further research on my part.
-
There are two things to say about the avalanche or snow drift theories.
There is no indication that there were any violent movements in the snow at the camp site. Even if allow the possibility that the students may have wrongly assumed that something like that was approaching, then not only were there no signs that there had been anything like that, but these experienced hikers and mountaineers would very soon have understood that there was no danger. They would not have have gone a mile away from the tent.
-
I think the compass in the hand is a sure sign they were not injured and crawling around in agony etc. This guy was buried in a den collapse.
The injuries cannot be mistaken - they were very real and incapacitating.
If he held a compass in his hand, it is very possible that it was a dying man's last desperate action when he tried to hold on to something. But this is all speculative. We cannot know how a dying and tormented man thinks during his last minutes in life. It cannot be taken as evidence that he died alone or that nobody caused his death.
-
I agree! The flashlights are only a small part in a big puzzle (the one on the tent is very important to me for another reason). Play with it ... take your imagination and think about why 2 flashlights are in 2 places: a) lost b) forgotten c) randomly filed d) no explanation e) other
- One of the students held the flashlight, and seems to have put it down for an unknown reason. There is nothing to tell us whether the person did that by his or her own will or otherwise.
- If there was a forced exit from the tent, one of the students may have carried the second light but lost it. That is a reasonable assumption if the nine hikers were threatened by attackers and had other things to think about than a torch in the hand.
-
For CalzagheChick!
Of course you can not exclude a (small) avalanche, (small) slab, snow load.
I don`t have the time to explain and translate that. I can recommend two sides. Do the work and read it. It is very interesting and will probably take you further.
http://www.alpklubspb.ru/ass/dyatlov_12.htm
http://taina.li/forum/index.php?topic=5623.0
-
For CalzagheChick!
Of course you can not exclude a (small) avalanche, (small) slab, snow load.
I don`t have the time to explain and translate that. I can recommend two sides. Do the work and read it. It is very interesting and will probably take you further.
http://www.alpklubspb.ru/ass/dyatlov_12.htm
http://taina.li/forum/index.php?topic=5623.0
I'm slowly making my way through the articles using Google Translate which is TERRIBLE. I'm impressed with your level of knowledge on the case that you present to us being a new member. It would appear that the German forums that you frequented before this one has some pretty intelligent people in them. They should come here and spread their wealth of knowledge with us. I love the NEW thoughts.
-
I was unaware that the avalanche theory has been completely discredited. In fact it's my understanding that most people's idea of avalanche is inaccurate in this specific case because these students would have experienced some kind of drift or shift in the snowscape.
Right, but if it was some kind of drift/shift in the snow, would that be cause to abandon the tent site for the forest? Was the tent so buried that they couldn't dig out some shoes and warming clothing? My understanding is that the tent wasn't found in a condition of being buried. Some of the snow could have melted or been blown away, but you would think if the shift/drift was enough to force them to the woods badly clothed, there would have been indication of that.
Maybe some sort of avalanche can't be fully ruled out, but then neither can ball lightning, infrasound or stove malfunction.
-
You don't need an actual avalanche to take place in order to fear one. In the whiteout conditions in which they pitched their tent, followd but darkness in said conditions, I doubt the were certain about anything regarding a possible slide. Im also aware of the many sounds generated by high winds across, through, and around objects.
-
You don't need an actual avalanche to take place in order to fear one. In the whiteout conditions in which they pitched their tent, followd but darkness in said conditions, I doubt the were certain about anything regarding a possible slide. Im also aware of the many sounds generated by high winds across, through, and around objects.
But nothing of this explains why all the nine students left their tent and moved 1500 meters away. If they had been scared out of their tent they would soon have discovered that there was no danger - and they would have gone back before long instead of having remained outdoors in the Siberian winter night improperly dressed.
The theory that the students became so afraid that they left the tent has no basis in evidence. More importantly, that theory fails to explain the deaths and the injuries that caused death. Even if we theorize that some natural phenomena could have frightened the Dyatlov group, no natural phenomenon could have attacked, injured and killed the students the way it happened. There was no traces of an avalanche or violent drift of snow, the tent was upright, the damages done to the most severely injured could not be caused by falls or snow, and atmospheric phenomena of course cannot cause such bodily damage as was found and documented.
-
I was unaware that the avalanche theory has been completely discredited. In fact it's my understanding that most people's idea of avalanche is inaccurate in this specific case because these students would have experienced some kind of drift or shift in the snowscape.
Right, but if it was some kind of drift/shift in the snow, would that be cause to abandon the tent site for the forest? Was the tent so buried that they couldn't dig out some shoes and warming clothing? My understanding is that the tent wasn't found in a condition of being buried. Some of the snow could have melted or been blown away, but you would think if the shift/drift was enough to force them to the woods badly clothed, there would have been indication of that.
Maybe some sort of avalanche can't be fully ruled out, but then neither can ball lightning, infrasound or stove malfunction.
The difficulty is that there is no evidence that ball lighting or infrasound was the reason why they left the tent, there is no traces of an avalanche or drift in the snow that could realistically do any harm, and it has been proven that the stove was not used and therefore could not create any trouble.
No problems at the camp site could possibly first compel the students to flee without proper clothing and gloves, and then run for a mile and stay out there in the cold. And these problems would hardly be the cause of smashed skulls, crushed windpipes and lethally damaged breast cages.
Why rule out the very real possibility that the nine were murdered?
Why would we consider undocumented avalanches, undocumented infrasound, undocumented ball lighting and the disproven possibility of a stove accident as more probable than the possibility of homicide?
-
No flash lights were found with the group. My understanding is that there were 2 flashlights, one still working by the tent and another one found at random.
Is it possible that it was daytime when the incident occurred?
Zolotarev was found with pen and notebook in hand as well as compass. Who writes in the dark? What good is a compass in the dark? Zolotarev also had his camera with him which would not be unusual if it were the day time.
Zina, Dyatlov and I believe Slobodin were all three found face towards the tent. How could they find the tent in the dark? They would have to have light in order to know which direction to walk in. If the tent became so dangerous that they had to cut their way out fleeing without their shoes, don’t you think they would visually confirm it was safe to return before heading back. Why wouldn’t they just stay by the fire where Yuri and Kriv were found?
Is it possible that the flashlight was tossed because it wasn’t needed?
The investigation was poorly conducted and we can look at all possibilities.
-
You don't need an actual avalanche to take place in order to fear one. In the whiteout conditions in which they pitched their tent, followd but darkness in said conditions, I doubt the were certain about anything regarding a possible slide. Im also aware of the many sounds generated by high winds across, through, and around objects.
But nothing of this explains why all the nine students left their tent and moved 1500 meters away. If they had been scared out of their tent they would soon have discovered that there was no danger - and they would have gone back before long instead of having remained outdoors in the Siberian winter night improperly dressed.
The theory that the students became so afraid that they left the tent has no basis in evidence. More importantly, that theory fails to explain the deaths and the injuries that caused death. Even if we theorize that some natural phenomena could have frightened the Dyatlov group, no natural phenomenon could have attacked, injured and killed the students the way it happened. There was no traces of an avalanche or violent drift of snow, the tent was upright, the damages done to the most severely injured could not be caused by falls or snow, and atmospheric phenomena of course cannot cause such bodily damage as was found and documented.
Couldn’t agree more.
-
While in a lighted tent, your eyes adjust acordingly. When your come out of said tent, your eyes are not adjusted thus having a flashlight would be helpful. Hours later and possibly in less snow blown conditions, your eyes would be more adapted. The moon also lights up snow very well... if of course there is less blowing snow to shine through.
-
Well it looks like they were poorly equipped as far as FLASHLIGHTS go. How many were listed in the inventory ! ? I would have expected each member of the Dyatlov Group to carry a TORCH.
-
You don't need an actual avalanche to take place in order to fear one. In the whiteout conditions in which they pitched their tent, followd but darkness in said conditions, I doubt the were certain about anything regarding a possible slide. Im also aware of the many sounds generated by high winds across, through, and around objects.
But nothing of this explains why all the nine students left their tent and moved 1500 meters away. If they had been scared out of their tent they would soon have discovered that there was no danger - and they would have gone back before long instead of having remained outdoors in the Siberian winter night improperly dressed.
The theory that the students became so afraid that they left the tent has no basis in evidence. More importantly, that theory fails to explain the deaths and the injuries that caused death. Even if we theorize that some natural phenomena could have frightened the Dyatlov group, no natural phenomenon could have attacked, injured and killed the students the way it happened. There was no traces of an avalanche or violent drift of snow, the tent was upright, the damages done to the most severely injured could not be caused by falls or snow, and atmospheric phenomena of course cannot cause such bodily damage as was found and documented.
I think the students moved away because fierce wind gusts blew snow across the top of Kholat Syakhl onto the tent area. In the extreme weather conditions, it would not be possible to know if wind was doing this or if it was the start of an avalanche. Who would wait around to find out it was not an avalanche? And if one person panics, the rest are likely to panic as well.
The dropped flashlight at the tent was probably dropped by accident in the ensuing panic. Dyatlov could have been using it through the eye-level tent slits to look outside at the two properly-dressed students who were working on securing the tent. There could have been tent trouble due to extreme winds and Dyatlov may have talked with them through the slits and kept the flashlight off most of the time.
-
As we know from Slobtsov report, the torch was found on 10 cm of snow, not under snow. If the group has put the torch there, it must not have snowed since leaving the tent. In any case, no more heavy snowfalls. Pashin and Cheglakov both claimed they weren't at the tent on February 24th. Perhaps they were there after all, and briefly searched the tent? They thought about stealing the flashlight from the tent. But then they decided to leave the flashlight there. I don't trust the statements made by Pashin and Cheglakov. Why didn't they report the discovery of the tent on February 24th?
And my next question: if the first bodies that were found were covered in snow, then why not the flashlight?
-
As we know from Slobtsov report, the torch was found on 10 cm of snow, not under snow. If the group has put the torch there, it must not have snowed since leaving the tent. In any case, no more heavy snowfalls. Pashin and Cheglakov both claimed they weren't at the tent on February 24th. Perhaps they were there after all, and briefly searched the tent? They thought about stealing the flashlight from the tent. But then they decided to leave the flashlight there. I don't trust the statements made by Pashin and Cheglakov. Why didn't they report the discovery of the tent on February 24th?
And my next question: if the first bodies that were found were covered in snow, then why not the flashlight?
Even if that flashlight/torch was found somewhere down the mountain and then placed on top by rescuers, I don't see that making a big difference in terms of the most likely possibilities. If the group placed it there, it could mean they weren't sure if they would return while it was still dark instead of waiting for morning. It also suggests it wasn't especially dark that night and that with all the snow the moonlight was enough (and that it wasn't super windy, which would hinder visibility). The bodies being covered by snow but not that flashlight/torch could simply be due to the how the wind blew across those areas.
-
As we know from Slobtsov report, the torch was found on 10 cm of snow, not under snow. If the group has put the torch there, it must not have snowed since leaving the tent. In any case, no more heavy snowfalls. Pashin and Cheglakov both claimed they weren't at the tent on February 24th. Perhaps they were there after all, and briefly searched the tent? They thought about stealing the flashlight from the tent. But then they decided to leave the flashlight there. I don't trust the statements made by Pashin and Cheglakov. Why didn't they report the discovery of the tent on February 24th?
And my next question: if the first bodies that were found were covered in snow, then why not the flashlight?
Wind drift exposes some areas and covers others. E.g. the footsteps.
-
Wind drift exposes some areas and covers others. E.g. the footsteps.
Yes, there is a possibility.
-
Wind drift exposes some areas and covers others. E.g. the footsteps.
Yes, there is a possibility.
A bit more than possible i think, that's what wind drift is? Snow gets blown off exposed areas and deposited in sheltered areas. You always know where you are with it, it's 100% dependable. thanky1