BUT, if you think that maybe they left the camp running away, then you can think at many other theories, for example they heard some loud noises and they were afraid there was an avalanche.
This was obviously an experienced and tough group of winter hikers. Their background and history as well as the details of this trip tell that. They had already spent many cold nights in a <2x4m sized tent, apparently in relative comfort, all 9 of them. It's a stampede by today's standards. It helps keeping everyone warm, but still. Tough group. And the original plan was even more ambitious, with 10 people in that tent.
I don't know why they went up the mountain, but once they were there, setting up the tent the way they did was a good job too. i don't think the snow walls and banks were intended as disguise. It's normal procedure in winter camping to use snow to improve shelter, insulation and also to keep the tent sleeves firmly in place. They didn't set up the stove, but apparently it was warm enough inside, judging by the fact that many were sleeping in relatively light clothing.
And then they left the tent, with woefully inadequate clothing, in the middle of the night, in snow, in lethally cold temperatures and with no spare shelter available. They knew better. So, if that was considered the best course of action, how bad were the alternatives? This is the one part of the mystery I struggle to explain with anything else than a sustained threat of imminent and severe physical damage, by an outside human force.
Sustained, because they couldn't just hang around nearby and see if the situation would improve. They were forced to keep on moving downhill. Imminent, because they didn't have time to put on proper clothing. Severe, because going downhill practically naked was still better than staying put. And human, because despite of everything they descended peacefully and orderly, if we are to believe investigator's conclusions. You don't do that if you're chased by a Yeti, or there's a natural (or unnatural) disaster unwinding right next to you.
The problem is, the theory of outside attackers runs into all kinds of conflicts with several known facts as soon as the group starts descending. As described in earlier posts by other members already.
This is undoubtedly the biggest puzzle of this whole case.
In my opinion, the only way we can come up with some reasonable theory is by thinking that maybe the rescuers were wrong when the said that they "they descended peacefully and orderly". Panickly cutting the tent from the inside, but walking out from the tent peacefully and orderly while half naked with freezing temperature in the middle of the night just doesn't make sense. Even if they were so afraid to cut the tent, why leaving the camp if they realized there was nothing to be afraid of?
BUT, if you think that maybe they left the camp running away, then you can think at many other theories, for example they heard some loud noises and they were afraid there was an avalanche.
This was obviously an experienced and tough group of winter hikers. Their background and history as well as the details of this trip tell that. .....................
I don't know why they went up the mountain, but once they were there, setting up the tent the way they did was a good job too..........
....... but apparently it was warm enough inside, judging by the fact that many were sleeping in relatively light clothing.........
..............................
I struggle to explain with anything else than a sustained threat of imminent and severe physical damage, by an outside human force.
...............................
The problem is, the theory of outside attackers runs into all kinds of conflicts with several known facts as soon as the group starts descending. As described in earlier posts by other members already.
They probably were never at the tent.
They wanted the highest rating for their trip, so that seems to be why they went without heat that night and pitched the tent where they did.
They were young, except for the WW II vet, who tried to use the techniques used when he was a soldier to survive in an area that was less exposed to wind. They wanted the highest rating for their trip, so that seems to be why they went without heat that night and pitched the tent where they did...A lot of good points in your post, thank you for that. I'm not going to quote it in its entirety.
They probably were never at the tent.
Regards
Star man
They wanted the highest rating for their trip, so that seems to be why they went without heat that night and pitched the tent where they did.
I thought their hike as planned was difficult enough to suffice for level 3? I know some going back to the original investigation made the assumption that Igor wanted to test the group on the exposed mountain side, or that being behind schedule, he didn't want to have to redo the kilometer of elevation they gained on the 1st.
But those are assumptions.
I have to agree with Star man. I do not believe they were ever in the tent, at least not on that ridge. I also put very little stock in the footprints.
What do you make of the famous photo of them digging the trench that is the last recognisable one?
They were young, except for the WW II vet, who tried to use the techniques used when he was a soldier to survive in an area that was less exposed to wind. They wanted the highest rating for their trip, so that seems to be why they went without heat that night and pitched the tent where they did...A lot of good points in your post, thank you for that. I'm not going to quote it in its entirety.
There's one detail though where I must disagree: the survival skills part. They were from Russia. They had enough experience in winter (let alone winter camping) to understand that taking a hike barefoot is not going to end well in those conditions. They were either forced to do that, or if it was a joint decision on their part, then those not wearing proper footwear must have expected to be able to return very soon to retrieve it.
They probably were never at the tent.
Regards
Star man
What makes you think that ! ?
They probably were never at the tent.
Whoa! I've never seen or heard anyone suggest that before. All the theories seem to take for granted that they were settled in at the tent before things went down. Now it seems the tent being staged has gained popularity. But that would just mean it was pitched elsewhere, likely near the cedar tree. What leads you to think the hikers never got as far as pitching the tent that day/night?
What do you make of the famous photo of them digging the trench that is the last recognisable one?
The entrance of the tent was facing south. The prevalent wind is from NW. Indeed this is supported by the fact they failed to cross the pass, coming from the south, due to head-on wind. So the entrance wasn't facing the wind.
Its all wrong. Everything. The entrance facing the wind, the cuts near the entrance. To cut through the seams where they did, would have been more akin to needlepoint than a panicked escape. The orderly scene in the tent, given either a panicked escape, or even outsiders cutting it? I can't believe outsiders would not at least rifle through all of their belongings and pack packs? No forensic analysis of the foot prints. No toxicology report. Shutting down the case. Ivanov's disinterest when the rav 4 were found. The flashlight with 10 cm of snow underneath it. The missing cameras and film. The missing knife at the cedar. The strange reason for deviating off route and camping in an unsuitable exposed place, only to meet their fates the same night. The strange way that those the with most significant injuries are conveniently found all together at the ravine. How did they get to the ravine when they were all already dead? The two Yuri's probably lived the longest. Kolevatov probably died first. The rest of the rav 4 were next, so how could they take tge clothes from tge Yuris?
Regards
Star man
Everything at the tent is wrong. We have a fairly orderly scene inside the tent, and then the whole side cut up and ripped open. Whoever cut up and ripped through the side of the tent must have tidied up afterwards?This has bothered me for a long time, since I first read the interview with Sharavin. He is very clear about how the skis, backpacks, then quilted jackets were laid down, with the blankets over top. He is asked specifically whether the blankets were crumpled up or smooth, and he replies that they were smooth. I cannot imagine any emergency in which it is necessary to cut one's way out of a tent that would leave the blankets smooth and flat while 7-9 people scramble over them and through the exit hole in a panic.
The entrance of the tent was facing south. The prevalent wind is from NW. Indeed this is supported by the fact they failed to cross the path, coming from the south, due to head-on wind. So the entrance wasn't facing the wind.
Its all wrong. Everything. The entrance facing the wind, the cuts near the entrance. To cut through the seams where they did, would have been more akin to needlepoint than a panicked escape. The orderly scene in the tent, given either a panicked escape, or even outsiders cutting it? I can't believe outsiders would not at least rifle through all of their belongings and pack packs? No forensic analysis of the foot prints. No toxicology report. Shutting down the case. Ivanov's disinterest when the rav 4 were found. The flashlight with 10 cm of snow underneath it. The missing cameras and film. The missing knife at the cedar. The strange reason for deviating off route and camping in an unsuitable exposed place, only to meet their fates the same night. The strange way that those the with most significant injuries are conveniently found all together at the ravine. How did they get to the ravine when they were all already dead? The two Yuri's probably lived the longest. Kolevatov probably died first. The rest of the rav 4 were next, so how could they take tge clothes from tge Yuris?
Regards
Star man
No toxicology report is indeed strange, but what are you implying? That the investigator knew they were poisoned and so omitted the toxicology report? And they did a radiology report which came back all negative..
"The strange reason for deviating off route and camping in an unsuitable exposed place, only to meet their fates the same night."Ok so I have my own views about this, but what can be said from their route map is that they planned to camp on the exposed ridge anyway, on the way back from Otorten. And the planned route towards Otorten was strange to begin with.. gaining altitude at the pass only to descend to the Lozva valley and lose it again, plus the snow is deep in the forest so progress is slower, although it might be too little snow (exposed rocks) on the ridge... But deviating from the route might not have been that unreasonable.
"How did they get to the ravine when they were all already dead?"
What points to them being already dead?
And what are you basing the order of their deaths on? And if it wasn't the Rav4 who took their clothes then who did?
Starman, (reply 24)
Not who but what. The last photo in the sequence appears to show the broken ski pole used to secure the tent. The first photo of the rescue party locating the tent appears to show the same, albeit from a reversed angle.
Everything at the tent is wrong. We have a fairly orderly scene inside the tent, and then the whole side cut up and ripped open. Whoever cut up and ripped through the side of the tent must have tidied up afterwards?This has bothered me for a long time, since I first read the interview with Sharavin. He is very clear about how the skis, backpacks, then quilted jackets were laid down, with the blankets over top. He is asked specifically whether the blankets were crumpled up or smooth, and he replies that they were smooth. I cannot imagine any emergency in which it is necessary to cut one's way out of a tent that would leave the blankets smooth and flat while 7-9 people scramble over them and through the exit hole in a panic.
I had often wondered why they didn't grab a blanket to take with them, if they had to exit the tent in a hurry without time for coat or shoes. I could only surmise that the blankets were packed away and not easily available. Again, not so.
To me, this greatly reduces the possible explanations for the scenario as it is found.
If they were never at the tent, and died earlier, who would have the resources to transport them there, set up the tent, and stage everything? Surely there was plenty of time but those doing the staging wouldn't necessarily know that. Transporting them by hand through the forest is a multi-day task.. will leave traces, etc. Unnecessarily onerous and slow. Much more likely one would need to use a vehicle, and the only option is a helicopter, that can both take off from where they died and land where the tent was staged because it's a lot of manual labour to set it up the way it was found.. you need men on the ground not just simply drop the bodies. And then they had to fake the diary entries...
It seems like a lot of effort and resources for no gain. Because of the necessity of a helicopter, it can only be the military. But why?There are much easier ways to cover up the deaths, if that's what they wanted to do. Just make the bodies disappear. If one had means to stage an accident they also had the means to make them disappear and it's less effort and also less suspicious, everyone would just assume they are under the snow somewhere. If there's no tent to function as a waypoint, finding them would have been close to impossible anyway, even with the tent nearby it took many months to find the last four... Plus if they just disappear, there is no risk in leaving inconsistent and therefore suspicious details. Like getting someone's birthday wrong in a diary, why risk that?
Therefore it seems irrational to stage the accident.
And if it wasn't staged, it must have been the Dyatlov group who set up their tent.
They probably were never at the tent.
Regards
Star man
What makes you think that ! ?
Everything at the tent is wrong. We have a fairly orderly scene inside the tent, and then the whole side cut up and ripped open. Whoever cut up and ripped through the side of the tent must have tidied up afterwards?
Regards
Star man
They probably were never at the tent.
Whoa! I've never seen or heard anyone suggest that before. All the theories seem to take for granted that they were settled in at the tent before things went down. Now it seems the tent being staged has gained popularity. But that would just mean it was pitched elsewhere, likely near the cedar tree. What leads you to think the hikers never got as far as pitching the tent that day/night?
Its all wrong. Everything. The entrance facing the wind, the cuts near the entrance. To cut through the seams where they did, would have been more akin to needlepoint than a panicked escape. The orderly scene in the tent, given either a panicked escape, or even outsiders cutting it? I can't believe outsiders would not at least rifle through all of their belongings and pack packs? No forensic analysis of the foot prints. No toxicology report. Shutting down the case. Ivanov's disinterest when the rav 4 were found. The flashlight with 10 cm of snow underneath it. The missing cameras and film. The missing knife at the cedar. The strange reason for deviating off route and camping in an unsuitable exposed place, only to meet their fates the same night. The strange way that those the with most significant injuries are conveniently found all together at the ravine. How did they get to the ravine when they were all already dead? The two Yuri's probably lived the longest. Kolevatov probably died first. The rest of the rav 4 were next, so how could they take tge clothes from tge Yuris?
Regards
Star man
Considering all the time, effort/research, money, etc. spent on this case (and not other, similar ones), I find it amusing that nobody has simply stitched together two old canvas army tents of the same type and pitched it in the same spot with similar weather conditions! Remember that the two tents were ripping apart under much better weather conditions and with the stove working. Imagine that ripping happening, or worse, and all you've got is a blanket and the clothing we know they could put on. You can't survive the night, they know they will freeze to death if they don't get out of there, but they also can't allow all their gear to blow all over the mountainside and the tent might get shredded to the point where it can't be repaired. This seems like a fairly obvious "mystery," though due to evidence issues, we will never know all the details. Lots of other outdoor disappearances and deaths that are more puzzling, as well as airplane crashes, etc.
Everything at the tent is wrong. We have a fairly orderly scene inside the tent, and then the whole side cut up and ripped open. Whoever cut up and ripped through the side of the tent must have tidied up afterwards?This has bothered me for a long time, since I first read the interview with Sharavin. He is very clear about how the skis, backpacks, then quilted jackets were laid down, with the blankets over top. He is asked specifically whether the blankets were crumpled up or smooth, and he replies that they were smooth. I cannot imagine any emergency in which it is necessary to cut one's way out of a tent that would leave the blankets smooth and flat while 7-9 people scramble over them and through the exit hole in a panic.
I had often wondered why they didn't grab a blanket to take with them, if they had to exit the tent in a hurry without time for coat or shoes. I could only surmise that the blankets were packed away and not easily available. Again, not so.
To me, this greatly reduces the possible explanations for the scenario as it is found.
Reply #19Jean Daniel Reuss. You state the following ; (Reply #13)
''The leaflet "Evening Otorten №1", is a typed fake (with mention of Yeti to deceive the rescuers and investigators).
The hikers would have been killed before 1 February 1959 and their bodies would have been transported on the slope of the Kholat Syakhl or near the cedar tree for staging in order to mislead the investigators.''
Can you provide proof to back up your statement. If not, then its pure speculation, and wild speculation at that.
See Reply #21If they were never at the tent, and died earlier, who would have the resources to transport them there, set up the tent, and stage everything ? .........
...............................
only option is a helicopter............. it's a lot of manual labour ......... you need men on the ground not just simply drop the bodies............
............
It seems like a lot of effort and resources for no gain...........There are much easier ways to cover up the deaths,..............
....................................................
Therefore it seems irrational to stage the accident.
And if it wasn't staged, it must have been the Dyatlov group who set up their tent.
Starman (reply 30)
So you would propose that at some point after YY leaves them with a gammy leg, they are kidnapped and an alternative group take their possessions and continue the route until the final staging point on 1079 and then they (the stagers) vanish. And they take photos to muddy the water. At which point, the now dead or dying Dyatlov group are "parachuted" in. No pun intended. Whilst it sounds exciting, what was there to gain other than nine dead hikers?
They probably were never at the tent.
Whoa! I've never seen or heard anyone suggest that before. All the theories seem to take for granted that they were settled in at the tent before things went down. Now it seems the tent being staged has gained popularity. But that would just mean it was pitched elsewhere, likely near the cedar tree. What leads you to think the hikers never got as far as pitching the tent that day/night?
Its all wrong. Everything. The entrance facing the wind, the cuts near the entrance. To cut through the seams where they did, would have been more akin to needlepoint than a panicked escape. The orderly scene in the tent, given either a panicked escape, or even outsiders cutting it? I can't believe outsiders would not at least rifle through all of their belongings and pack packs? No forensic analysis of the foot prints. No toxicology report. Shutting down the case. Ivanov's disinterest when the rav 4 were found. The flashlight with 10 cm of snow underneath it. The missing cameras and film. The missing knife at the cedar. The strange reason for deviating off route and camping in an unsuitable exposed place, only to meet their fates the same night. The strange way that those the with most significant injuries are conveniently found all together at the ravine. How did they get to the ravine when they were all already dead? The two Yuri's probably lived the longest. Kolevatov probably died first. The rest of the rav 4 were next, so how could they take tge clothes from tge Yuris?
Regards
Star man
Wind changes direction. Well it doesnt look like there was any other people at the Tent site at the time of the Event. Its true that the footprints could have been given more consideration at the time of them being found. But you are moving to the Cedar Tree and Ravine and we are still at the Tent discussing their decision to leave the Tent. Something appears to have scared them to death, metaphoricaly speaking.
The way their boots were laid out was described as disorderly. Not to mention there being pieces of food (rusks, loin) over the blankets. So I don't think it can be called tidy. And I've also read a description saying it looked like they might have tried to barricade the entrance because there were a multitude of buckets piled up there.
In his testimony, Brusnitsyn (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-362-369) describes the tent as being in "disarray". And then there was a ski pole in the tent cut into several pieces.
The way their boots were laid out was described as disorderly. Not to mention there being pieces of food (rusks, loin) over the blankets. So I don't think it can be called tidy. And I've also read a description saying it looked like they might have tried to barricade the entrance because there were a multitude of buckets piled up there.
In his testimony, Brusnitsyn (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-362-369) describes the tent as being in "disarray". And then there was a ski pole in the tent cut into several pieces.
Now that I've read some testimonies again, I see that also remains of porridge were found in a cup. While I myself enjoy eating porridge any time, it perhaps hints at them being in the tent in the morning. And also a pin was described holding a hole in the tent together.
I don't even know if we can definitively conclude the tent was cut from the "inside". While the forensic expert notes there are scratches visible next to the ends of the cuts on one side, which was the inside in their setup of the tent, is it possible that they set up the tent inside out? Is the fabric's inner and outer surface different? For example was there water-proof layer on the outside?
Is there any evidence that they were at the tent? I mean solid evidence? Is there any fact that could never have been staged?
Regards
Star man
They probably were never at the tent.
Whoa! I've never seen or heard anyone suggest that before. All the theories seem to take for granted that they were settled in at the tent before things went down. Now it seems the tent being staged has gained popularity. But that would just mean it was pitched elsewhere, likely near the cedar tree. What leads you to think the hikers never got as far as pitching the tent that day/night?
Its all wrong. Everything. The entrance facing the wind, the cuts near the entrance. To cut through the seams where they did, would have been more akin to needlepoint than a panicked escape. The orderly scene in the tent, given either a panicked escape, or even outsiders cutting it? I can't believe outsiders would not at least rifle through all of their belongings and pack packs? No forensic analysis of the foot prints. No toxicology report. Shutting down the case. Ivanov's disinterest when the rav 4 were found. The flashlight with 10 cm of snow underneath it. The missing cameras and film. The missing knife at the cedar. The strange reason for deviating off route and camping in an unsuitable exposed place, only to meet their fates the same night. The strange way that those the with most significant injuries are conveniently found all together at the ravine. How did they get to the ravine when they were all already dead? The two Yuri's probably lived the longest. Kolevatov probably died first. The rest of the rav 4 were next, so how could they take tge clothes from tge Yuris?
Regards
Star man
Wind changes direction. Well it doesnt look like there was any other people at the Tent site at the time of the Event. Its true that the footprints could have been given more consideration at the time of them being found. But you are moving to the Cedar Tree and Ravine and we are still at the Tent discussing their decision to leave the Tent. Something appears to have scared them to death, metaphoricaly speaking.
I have been down this road myself. What could have scared them so much as to cut/rip trough the side of the tent and go to the forest? Something outside the tent? Something inside the tent? If they panicked why are all the cuts and tears on the same side of the tent?
Regards
Star man
The young people set up the tent. And the unknown force soon attacked. They were getting ready for dinner. Because 8 hours had passed since the last meal. And climbing the mountain and setting up a tent in the cold also made them hungry, so some of them sit down and start eating oats etc. And the others, except Alexander and Tibo, had taken off their clothes. Even 2 Yuri was getting ready for bed. At that moment, the unknown coercive force began to show itself and move towards them. Inside the tent, they saw a glowing creature in the dark about 800 meters from the tent. Unknown force had disturbed them before, but did not attack. They also fled from the forest and took shelter in the mountain. And they made cuts in the tent to better see the glowing presence. The glowing entity was moving towards them at a certain speed !!! They were watching the terrible presence from the tent in terror !!! And the being pulled up to the tent and started to attack !!! And I think the young people struggled a lot… They didn't want to get out of the tent. But the unknown coercive force was determined to drive them out. The cuts in the tent must have happened both from the outside and inside ... Eventually they had to get out of the tent. Because if they continued to stay, they were more likely to die in the tent, and they moved towards the forest hoping that the coercive force would free them. And the rest is already known ..... ((This is just my most probable guess. This is the most logical scenario to me. It is obvious that there are intelligent beings on earth that we cannot see. And the likelihood of this happening also seems very high.))
Starman (reply 40)
My only immediate thought would be they started the hike with something that they no longer had when they were found. Their loss, in this scenario is anothers gain.
Is there any evidence that they were at the tent? I mean solid evidence? Is there any fact that could never have been staged?
Regards
Star man
Well we have the journey documented to within a short distance of the Mountainside. All their belongings including any food in the Tent constitutes Evidence. Just because the bodies were not in the Tent doesnt mean that they may not have been. All indications point to the Dyatlov Group as having been in the Tent.
I think an even more crucial question than their decision to leave the tent to ask is: "Why did they decide to cut the tent?"
Regardless of which side it was cut from, this is very hard to explain. And it is clear these are cuts and not only tears (see forensic expert's opinion on the tent).
Here is what doesn't explain the cuts:Here is what might explain the cuts, but these of course these explanations have other issues:
- peeking out – It's much more practical to peek out the tent's entrance. Even if it was buttoned, unbuttoning it takes about the same time as taking your knife out of its sheath and cutting the fabric including cutting through seams. Not to mention it was probably dark outside and there might have been a blizzard with low visibility.
- to exit the tent – Again it's faster to exit via the entrance, even if you have to unbutton it, because the cuts weren't large enough to fit a person and someone would have had to grab the fabric and tear it more to make a large-enough hole. (Indeed perplexingly some cuts continue into tears)
- to harm someone/something – These are cuts not stabs, and anyway the victim would need to be pressed up against the canvas. Maybe if someone/something was laying on top of the tent, and was perhaps too heavy to push off?
- snow slab - Even if there was a very sharp piece of ice, it wouldn't move in the manner the tent was cut. And multiple sharp pieces of ice? No
- rocket or meteorite fragments – These wouldn't leave a scratch before/after the successful cut. Also in both cases a fire would likely start and the tent would have been burnt
- to ventilate the tent – With the likely wind conditions it was probably already too well ventilated due to the previous repairs, the imperfect closing mechanism etc.
- because you need a piece of fabric - They had sheets used as curtains hung in the tent, tarpaulin ski trousers, jackets etc.
- blindness – If you are blinded, you probably wouldn't want to exit the tent because then there is a real possibility you won't find your way back. But in case you want to exit anyway, feeling your way to the exit/entrance is easy enough
- snowmobile - Instead of cuts this would tear the fabric all the way
- infrasound
- tornado
- ball lightning
- nuclear explosion
- angels/spirits
And one other strange thing, was a piece of the tent found in Lyuda's pockets? In fact did they carry spare fabric to repair the tent? Perhaps she was on repair duty that night?
- avalanche – Apart from no signs of an avalanche... if buried by snow, it is likely to be too heavy so avalanche victims often can't move. What they are told these days is to try to bore a hole to the surface with one of their hands first, so there is fresh air. If there is a tent inbetween, this might explain cutting the tent from the inside.
- animal attack – This doesn't seem to be a popular theory in general. But might there be a possibility these are not cuts made by a knife but by the teeth of an animal? Or potentially, if a heavy animal like an elk for some reason laid on the entrance side of the tent (where most food was), you might want to cut yourself out. But these are unlikely
- instead of a quick peek, to keep an eye on someone approaching - Although if someone wanted to approach stealthily, they could go around and approach from the mountaintop's direction.
- maybe they didn't make the cuts - It could be that the tent was cut by something sharp while they ascended, or while setting it up. Did their skis have sharpened edges, for example? Alternatively it could have been damaged by the search team, but presumably that would be from the outside.
- irrational behaviour within the tent – Hallucinations due to hypothermia after resting in the cold tent. But they would have first packed the food away etc. before resting. Alternatively, some form of poisoning. It doesn't have to affect everyone, it's enough for one or two people to go on a "rampage".
- it was cut after they left the tent – Can strong wind pushing the fabric against sharp objects like the stove's edges inside make cuts?
- bad coordination - Shivering due to the cold while preparing food with a knife?
I don't think the bigfoot can attack people. Because in my opinion they have no reason to attack people. And the last thing they want is to show themselves. And ufo may be jinn who came to observe the Dytlov event. Jinn are curious creatures. They realized that the horrible event was occurring and they may have come to observe. Science can only provide us with evidence of tangible beings visible to the eye. It offers us nothing about the others. If you believe in God, you believe there are beings that we cannot see except what we see in the world. But it is certain that an entity that can attack and kill a group of people is a very special and powerful entity. Jinn remain ordinary with him.The young people set up the tent. And the unknown force soon attacked. They were getting ready for dinner. Because 8 hours had passed since the last meal. And climbing the mountain and setting up a tent in the cold also made them hungry, so some of them sit down and start eating oats etc. And the others, except Alexander and Tibo, had taken off their clothes. Even 2 Yuri was getting ready for bed. At that moment, the unknown coercive force began to show itself and move towards them. Inside the tent, they saw a glowing creature in the dark about 800 meters from the tent. Unknown force had disturbed them before, but did not attack. They also fled from the forest and took shelter in the mountain. And they made cuts in the tent to better see the glowing presence. The glowing entity was moving towards them at a certain speed !!! They were watching the terrible presence from the tent in terror !!! And the being pulled up to the tent and started to attack !!! And I think the young people struggled a lot… They didn't want to get out of the tent. But the unknown coercive force was determined to drive them out. The cuts in the tent must have happened both from the outside and inside ... Eventually they had to get out of the tent. Because if they continued to stay, they were more likely to die in the tent, and they moved towards the forest hoping that the coercive force would free them. And the rest is already known ..... ((This is just my most probable guess. This is the most logical scenario to me. It is obvious that there are intelligent beings on earth that we cannot see. And the likelihood of this happening also seems very high.))
Interesting. Unknown Force. Unknown to science. I suppose this sits well with the UFO and Bigfoot theories.
Is there any evidence that they were at the tent? I mean solid evidence? Is there any fact that could never have been staged?
Regards
Star man
Well we have the journey documented to within a short distance of the Mountainside. All their belongings including any food in the Tent constitutes Evidence. Just because the bodies were not in the Tent doesnt mean that they may not have been. All indications point to the Dyatlov Group as having been in the Tent.
When considering whether the tent was staged, it is difficult to use anything that belonged to the hikers as evidence, because it could have been put there by others. Diaries altered. Fake photographs added, where nobody is recognisable.
We have a journey that deviated from the planned route.
We have a tent that was cut in a very strange way that makes no sense.
We have a flashlight, sitting on 10 cm of snow on top of tent?
Regards
Star man
Is there any evidence that they were at the tent? I mean solid evidence? Is there any fact that could never have been staged?
Regards
Star man
Well we have the journey documented to within a short distance of the Mountainside. All their belongings including any food in the Tent constitutes Evidence. Just because the bodies were not in the Tent doesnt mean that they may not have been. All indications point to the Dyatlov Group as having been in the Tent.
When considering whether the tent was staged, it is difficult to use anything that belonged to the hikers as evidence, because it could have been put there by others. Diaries altered. Fake photographs added, where nobody is recognisable.
We have a journey that deviated from the planned route.
We have a tent that was cut in a very strange way that makes no sense.
We have a flashlight, sitting on 10 cm of snow on top of tent?
Regards
Star man
There is absolutely no Evidence that the Tent was staged.
I don't think this can be explained in any way. Finding something with no snow on top in an area where significant snowfall has occurred and covers other things (except ones that protrude), has no explanation. Except being put there after the snowfall. Or perhaps falling there, but from where? Was the flashlight hung on a ski pole but fell down weeks later due to wind? I don't think there's another explanation apart from someone from the search party picking it up then placing it on top of the tent and the next person to arrive at the tent finding this strange.
What about the flashlight with 10cm ofsnow underneath and none on top. This was sitting on the side of tent? How would you explain cutting the tent in a terrified panic and dropping the flashlight onto 10cm of snow? How did the snow get underneath the flashlight?
Regards
Star man
I think an even more crucial question than their decision to leave the tent to ask is: "Why did they decide to cut the tent?"
Regardless of which side it was cut from, this is very hard to explain. And it is clear these are cuts and not only tears (see forensic expert's opinion on the tent).
Here is what doesn't explain the cuts:Here is what might explain the cuts, but these of course these explanations have other issues:
- peeking out – It's much more practical to peek out the tent's entrance. Even if it was buttoned, unbuttoning it takes about the same time as taking your knife out of its sheath and cutting the fabric including cutting through seams. Not to mention it was probably dark outside and there might have been a blizzard with low visibility.
- to exit the tent – Again it's faster to exit via the entrance, even if you have to unbutton it, because the cuts weren't large enough to fit a person and someone would have had to grab the fabric and tear it more to make a large-enough hole. (Indeed perplexingly some cuts continue into tears)
- to harm someone/something – These are cuts not stabs, and anyway the victim would need to be pressed up against the canvas. Maybe if someone/something was laying on top of the tent, and was perhaps too heavy to push off?
- snow slab - Even if there was a very sharp piece of ice, it wouldn't move in the manner the tent was cut. And multiple sharp pieces of ice? No
- rocket or meteorite fragments – These wouldn't leave a scratch before/after the successful cut. Also in both cases a fire would likely start and the tent would have been burnt
- to ventilate the tent – With the likely wind conditions it was probably already too well ventilated due to the previous repairs, the imperfect closing mechanism etc.
- because you need a piece of fabric - They had sheets used as curtains hung in the tent, tarpaulin ski trousers, jackets etc.
- blindness – If you are blinded, you probably wouldn't want to exit the tent because then there is a real possibility you won't find your way back. But in case you want to exit anyway, feeling your way to the exit/entrance is easy enough
- snowmobile - Instead of cuts this would tear the fabric all the way
- infrasound
- tornado
- ball lightning
- nuclear explosion
- angels/spirits
And one other strange thing, was a piece of the tent found in Lyuda's pockets? In fact did they carry spare fabric to repair the tent? Perhaps she was on repair duty that night?
- avalanche – Apart from no signs of an avalanche... if buried by snow, it is likely to be too heavy so avalanche victims often can't move. What they are told these days is to try to bore a hole to the surface with one of their hands first, so there is fresh air. If there is a tent inbetween, this might explain cutting the tent from the inside.
- animal attack – This doesn't seem to be a popular theory in general. But might there be a possibility these are not cuts made by a knife but by the teeth of an animal? Or potentially, if a heavy animal like an elk for some reason laid on the entrance side of the tent (where most food was), you might want to cut yourself out. But these are unlikely
- instead of a quick peek, to keep an eye on someone approaching - Although if someone wanted to approach stealthily, they could go around and approach from the mountaintop's direction.
- maybe they didn't make the cuts - It could be that the tent was cut by something sharp while they ascended, or while setting it up. Did their skis have sharpened edges, for example? Alternatively it could have been damaged by the search team, but presumably that would be from the outside.
- irrational behaviour within the tent – Hallucinations due to hypothermia after resting in the cold tent. But they would have first packed the food away etc. before resting. Alternatively, some form of poisoning. It doesn't have to affect everyone, it's enough for one or two people to go on a "rampage".
- it was cut after they left the tent – Can strong wind pushing the fabric against sharp objects like the stove's edges inside make cuts?
- bad coordination - Shivering due to the cold while preparing food with a knife?
Ok if two members of the group failed to return from wherever, collecting firewood, the loo, etc., going out to search for them makes sense. But for the whole group to do this. Two or three people would be enough, don't you think? Perhaps two groups of two each?
That still leaves 3 people in the tent who could continue preparing food, or assembling the stove, de-icing boots and so on.So I don't think this satisfactorily explains the whole group leaving the tent. Unless of course they didn't, and in fact there were 2 or 3 "waves".I don't think this can be explained in any way. Finding something with no snow on top in an area where significant snowfall has occurred and covers other things (except ones that protrude), has no explanation. Except being put there after the snowfall. Or perhaps falling there, but from where? Was the flashlight hung on a ski pole but fell down weeks later due to wind? I don't think there's another explanation apart from someone from the search party picking it up then placing it on top of the tent and the next person to arrive at the tent finding this strange.
What about the flashlight with 10cm ofsnow underneath and none on top. This was sitting on the side of tent? How would you explain cutting the tent in a terrified panic and dropping the flashlight onto 10cm of snow? How did the snow get underneath the flashlight?
Regards
Star man
The way their boots were laid out was described as disorderly. Not to mention there being pieces of food (rusks, loin) over the blankets. So I don't think it can be called tidy. And I've also read a description saying it looked like they might have tried to barricade the entrance because there were a multitude of buckets piled up there.
In his testimony, Brusnitsyn (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-362-369) describes the tent as being in "disarray". And then there was a ski pole in the tent cut into several pieces.
Now that I've read some testimonies again, I see that also remains of porridge were found in a cup. While I myself enjoy eating porridge any time, it perhaps hints at them being in the tent in the morning. And also a pin was described holding a hole in the tent together.
I don't even know if we can definitively conclude the tent was cut from the "inside". While the forensic expert notes there are scratches visible next to the ends of the cuts on one side, which was the inside in their setup of the tent, is it possible that they set up the tent inside out? Is the fabric's inner and outer surface different? For example was there water-proof layer on the outside?
Boots piled on top of each other. Certainly disorderly. Without the Tent we cannot get it re-examined. We are told that the Tent was got rid of because it was damaged whilst in storage ! ?
The way their boots were laid out was described as disorderly. Not to mention there being pieces of food (rusks, loin) over the blankets. So I don't think it can be called tidy. And I've also read a description saying it looked like they might have tried to barricade the entrance because there were a multitude of buckets piled up there.
In his testimony, Brusnitsyn (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-362-369) describes the tent as being in "disarray". And then there was a ski pole in the tent cut into several pieces.
I think that you will find that the Footwear was not left in an orderly fashion.
Now that I've read some testimonies again, I see that also remains of porridge were found in a cup. While I myself enjoy eating porridge any time, it perhaps hints at them being in the tent in the morning. And also a pin was described holding a hole in the tent together.
I don't even know if we can definitively conclude the tent was cut from the "inside". While the forensic expert notes there are scratches visible next to the ends of the cuts on one side, which was the inside in their setup of the tent, is it possible that they set up the tent inside out? Is the fabric's inner and outer surface different? For example was there water-proof layer on the outside?
Boots piled on top of each other. Certainly disorderly. Without the Tent we cannot get it re-examined. We are told that the Tent was got rid of because it was damaged whilst in storage ! ?
Other witness statements suggested the boots were all down one side, and two pairs found in the middle. Seems quite orderly to me.
Chernyshev's statement included "On examination, the impression was that the hikers left the tent orderly."
Ok if two members of the group failed to return from wherever, collecting firewood, the loo, etc., going out to search for them makes sense. But for the whole group to do this. Two or three people would be enough, don't you think? Perhaps two groups of two each?
That still leaves 3 people in the tent who could continue preparing food, or assembling the stove, de-icing boots and so on.So I don't think this satisfactorily explains the whole group leaving the tent. Unless of course they didn't, and in fact there were 2 or 3 "waves".
They couldn't settle and light the stove without the fire wood the 2 Yuris went to collect they had to be all in the tent to light the stove. They wouldn't do chores when the leader calls a search. They would all take part probably in a line search first, all spread out at intervals in the direction the 2 Yuris went. They knew they went to the trees, they could see their tracks, They put the furthest torch switched on to show the route back. the search eventually led them to the 2 Yuris at the cedar tree.
Yes of course, many things seem suspicious.Ok if two members of the group failed to return from wherever, collecting firewood, the loo, etc., going out to search for them makes sense. But for the whole group to do this. Two or three people would be enough, don't you think? Perhaps two groups of two each?
That still leaves 3 people in the tent who could continue preparing food, or assembling the stove, de-icing boots and so on.So I don't think this satisfactorily explains the whole group leaving the tent. Unless of course they didn't, and in fact there were 2 or 3 "waves".I don't think this can be explained in any way. Finding something with no snow on top in an area where significant snowfall has occurred and covers other things (except ones that protrude), has no explanation. Except being put there after the snowfall. Or perhaps falling there, but from where? Was the flashlight hung on a ski pole but fell down weeks later due to wind? I don't think there's another explanation apart from someone from the search party picking it up then placing it on top of the tent and the next person to arrive at the tent finding this strange.
What about the flashlight with 10cm ofsnow underneath and none on top. This was sitting on the side of tent? How would you explain cutting the tent in a terrified panic and dropping the flashlight onto 10cm of snow? How did the snow get underneath the flashlight?
Regards
Star man
Sounds like you are suspicious about a number of things around the tent too? Its not just the odd thing out of place. There are many things out of place, that require a level of complexity to explain, when the simpler explanation is the scene has been fabricated, somewhere away from where the actual dpi took place. Also, the lack of detailed analysis of things like the foot prints. I dont know if you are a forensic expert but your thoughts on the age of the prints sounds reasonable and yet there is no such discussion in the case files?
At the cedar, how did Yuri K die from hypothermia, while the fire was still hot enough to burn his leg and charr his toe? Or did he burn his leg to a crisp while still conscious?
Regards
Star man
Yes of course, many things seem suspicious.Ok if two members of the group failed to return from wherever, collecting firewood, the loo, etc., going out to search for them makes sense. But for the whole group to do this. Two or three people would be enough, don't you think? Perhaps two groups of two each?
That still leaves 3 people in the tent who could continue preparing food, or assembling the stove, de-icing boots and so on.So I don't think this satisfactorily explains the whole group leaving the tent. Unless of course they didn't, and in fact there were 2 or 3 "waves".I don't think this can be explained in any way. Finding something with no snow on top in an area where significant snowfall has occurred and covers other things (except ones that protrude), has no explanation. Except being put there after the snowfall. Or perhaps falling there, but from where? Was the flashlight hung on a ski pole but fell down weeks later due to wind? I don't think there's another explanation apart from someone from the search party picking it up then placing it on top of the tent and the next person to arrive at the tent finding this strange.
What about the flashlight with 10cm ofsnow underneath and none on top. This was sitting on the side of tent? How would you explain cutting the tent in a terrified panic and dropping the flashlight onto 10cm of snow? How did the snow get underneath the flashlight?
Regards
Star man
Sounds like you are suspicious about a number of things around the tent too? Its not just the odd thing out of place. There are many things out of place, that require a level of complexity to explain, when the simpler explanation is the scene has been fabricated, somewhere away from where the actual dpi took place. Also, the lack of detailed analysis of things like the foot prints. I dont know if you are a forensic expert but your thoughts on the age of the prints sounds reasonable and yet there is no such discussion in the case files?
At the cedar, how did Yuri K die from hypothermia, while the fire was still hot enough to burn his leg and charr his toe? Or did he burn his leg to a crisp while still conscious?
Regards
Star man
But the problem with the fabricated scene is that it takes a lot of effort, and if someone put in that effort, they could have fabricated it much better. So nothing looks suspicious. For example set up the tent on a steeper slope, put them in there and trigger an avalanche above.Or bury them all in very deep snow so they aren't found until the summer. If I want to be really creative, trigger that avalanche above the lake near Otorten so they end up underwater. Then all injuries could be easily attributed to avalanche, and even other damage like a broken ski pole.
The fire is problematic for the same reason. If it's a fabricated scene, why make a fire, and a den? This indicates the group were alive for a while and makes everything look a lot more suspicious i.e. there is a need to explain why they left the tent. So it looks like less of a natural disaster's aftermath.
But regarding Yuri K, unfortunately it's possible to freeze to death next to even a large fire, and this one didn't seem very large, because if there is wind then on the windward side there isn't much of a warming effect, and on the other side the wind blows the flames in your face, or on your leg I guess in case of a small fire. And also I think it's somewhat possible he burned himself while still alive because he had no sensation in his extremities due to the cold... although there is the problem that in that case, he also wouldn't be able to walk. But maybe that checks out.. during the last stages of hypothermia he crawled close to the fire in a last ditch effort to warm himself
Question ..from Star ManThe clothes were removed by their friends. If you believe the scene. But I do they think they died of hypothermia. How would you explain Yuri D burned hair?
At the cedar, how did Yuri K die from hypothermia, while the fire was still hot enough to burn his leg and charr his toe? Or did he burn his leg to a crisp while still conscious ?
Answer.........There are classic signs of late stage hypothermia affecting the 2 Yuri's at the cedar tree. One is the cutting off and discarding of their own clothing (Paradoxical Undressing) Another is the evidence of Pulmonary Edema (Grey Foam) on the face and mouth of Yuri Doroshenko, another sign is the burns and the bitten right hand on Yuri Krivonischenko's body due to him experiencing greatly reduced sensation.
It's also a bad thing to expose a hypothermia victim to direct heat. It draws the blood from the inner vital organs that need it back out to the skin. They can die quicker like that. They have to be warmed slowly away from direct heat.
Question ..from Star ManThe clothes were removed by their friends. If you believe the scene. But I do they think they died of hypothermia. How would you explain Yuri D burned hair?
At the cedar, how did Yuri K die from hypothermia, while the fire was still hot enough to burn his leg and charr his toe? Or did he burn his leg to a crisp while still conscious ?
Answer.........There are classic signs of late stage hypothermia affecting the 2 Yuri's at the cedar tree. One is the cutting off and discarding of their own clothing (Paradoxical Undressing) Another is the evidence of Pulmonary Edema (Grey Foam) on the face and mouth of Yuri Doroshenko, another sign is the burns and the bitten right hand on Yuri Krivonischenko's body due to him experiencing greatly reduced sensation.
It's also a bad thing to expose a hypothermia victim to direct heat. It draws the blood from the inner vital organs that need it back out to the skin. They can die quicker like that. They have to be warmed slowly away from direct heat.
Regards
Star man
How to account for the light covering of snow on the flashlight while the tent was all but snowed under? Even if they collapsed the tent themselves would there not be more snow on the flashlight after 3 weeks? I have yet to hear one satisfying explanation for the flashlight or an explanation that doesn't fall apart under a barrage of questions.
Daxxy (rep72)
Your basis for a theory would be fine but why do it barefoot? No, not bigfoot.
They never abandoned the tent. The two flashlights with one switched on tie them to the tent. They intended to return to the tent. The flashlights were to help show the route back to the tent.
Question ..from Star Man
At the cedar, how did Yuri K die from hypothermia, while the fire was still hot enough to burn his leg and charr his toe? Or did he burn his leg to a crisp while still conscious ?
Answer.........There are classic signs of late stage hypothermia affecting the 2 Yuri's at the cedar tree. One is the cutting off and discarding of their own clothing (Paradoxical Undressing) Another is the evidence of Pulmonary Edema (Grey Foam) on the face and mouth of Yuri Doroshenko, another sign is the burns and the bitten right hand on Yuri Krivonischenko's body due to him experiencing greatly reduced sensation.
It's also a bad thing to expose a hypothermia victim to direct heat. It draws the blood from the inner vital organs that need it back out to the skin. They can die quicker like that. They have to be warmed slowly away from direct heat.
It could be a simple as the 2 yuris go off for firewood while the others put the tent up and get ready for the night. Then a blizzard hits. A white out. The two yuris are separated from the group. Nobody can do anything until the blizzard passes. Once it passes the group go to search for the two Yuris and find them at the Cedar but it's too late.
Daxxy (rep72)
Your basis for a theory would be fine but why do it barefoot? No, not bigfoot.
They were called out of the tent by the leader who was concerned at the 2 missing yuris. They gather and Dyatlov gives his coat to one to stand on while he instructs them in what search method to use. While he is doing this Semyon Zolotaryov is collapsing the tent and putting snow on it and the flashlight. They are in layers of wool socks which keep them warm even if they are wet. they can't get back in to the collapsed tent to get the other boots. It would mean delay. They don't intend to be long. The blizzard has passed or eased off so they set off to find the 2 Yuris as they are. They wouldn't wear ski boots they are stiff and slippery. The only issue was if they stood still too long the cold would get in to their feet. If they kept moving they were fine.
It could be a simple as the 2 yuris go off for firewood while the others put the tent up and get ready for the night. Then a blizzard hits. A white out. The two yuris are separated from the group. Nobody can do anything until the blizzard passes. Once it passes the group go to search for the two Yuris and find them at the Cedar but it's too late.
So if that was the case then the Group that went down to the Forest a mile away would have dressed properly ! ?
They never abandoned the tent. The two flashlights with one switched on tie them to the tent. They intended to return to the tent. The flashlights were to help show the route back to the tent.
The distance from the Tent to the Forest was about a mile. It may have been snowing. So you really think that they left the Tent without proper clothing and intended to travel a mile and back and hope to be able to see the Flashlights. Does that make sense. I dont think it does.
I admire how you're trying to make sense of it all, but I don't think they would have left without footwear and coats etc. if they had a choice. Why would they leave a turned off flashlight on top of the tent - why not just leave it in the tent? I'm more inclined to agree with Starman that the tent was never pitched on the slope.
It could be a simple as the 2 yuris go off for firewood while the others put the tent up and get ready for the night. Then a blizzard hits. A white out. The two yuris are separated from the group. Nobody can do anything until the blizzard passes. Once it passes the group go to search for the two Yuris and find them at the Cedar but it's too late.
So if that was the case then the Group that went down to the Forest a mile away would have dressed properly ! ?
They would have dressed for the conditions as they left the tent to get the firewood.
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=620.msg8896#msg8896
plus the clothing in their den
black ski trousers;
A thick brown woolen sweater;
A white woolen jumper,
and A pair of brown trousers
They never abandoned the tent. The two flashlights with one switched on tie them to the tent. They intended to return to the tent. The flashlights were to help show the route back to the tent.
The distance from the Tent to the Forest was about a mile. It may have been snowing. So you really think that they left the Tent without proper clothing and intended to travel a mile and back and hope to be able to see the Flashlights. Does that make sense. I dont think it does.
Yes..say a blizzard passed. two of their close friends have not returned. They can't light the stove until everyone is in the tent and settled and they are worried about their missing friends. They are compelled to do something. So a quick search is organised. They don't intend being long. Probably expect to meet the 2 Yuris coming back up the slope. They leave one flashlight off at the tent and go out and leave another some distance away switched on either for the 2 Yuris to use as a homing beacon or for themselves. and eventually they found them at the Cedar.
I admire how you're trying to make sense of it all, but I don't think they would have left without footwear and coats etc. if they had a choice. Why would they leave a turned off flashlight on top of the tent - why not just leave it in the tent? I'm more inclined to agree with Starman that the tent was never pitched on the slope.
They were dressed adequately for a search down to the trees. Their main danger was getting wet from sweat or rain. Dry cold was their normal environment. They new the difference and the danger. They all had layers of clothing both cotton and wool. The flashlight was off to save it's battery. The furthest one from the tent was on. The first person back would then put the tent light on. The flashlights were placed to show a route back up to the tent. It was on top of the tent because they had to put snow on the tent to weigh it down in case the wind got under it and it acted like a boat sail. I suspect that Dyatlov as leader was following a set plan that existed in their training for a missing hiker. If it was possible to find their training manual it might be in that and explain a lot.
I admire how you're trying to make sense of it all, but I don't think they would have left without footwear and coats etc. if they had a choice. Why would they leave a turned off flashlight on top of the tent - why not just leave it in the tent? I'm more inclined to agree with Starman that the tent was never pitched on the slope.
They were dressed adequately for a search down to the trees. Their main danger was getting wet from sweat or rain. Dry cold was their normal environment. They new the difference and the danger. They all had layers of clothing both cotton and wool. The flashlight was off to save it's battery. The furthest one from the tent was on. The first person back would then put the tent light on. The flashlights were placed to show a route back up to the tent. It was on top of the tent because they had to put snow on the tent to weigh it down in case the wind got under it and it acted like a boat sail. I suspect that Dyatlov as leader was following a set plan that existed in their training for a missing hiker. If it was possible to find their training manual it might be in that and explain a lot.
I admire how you're trying to make sense of it all, but I don't think they would have left without footwear and coats etc. if they had a choice. Why would they leave a turned off flashlight on top of the tent - why not just leave it in the tent? I'm more inclined to agree with Starman that the tent was never pitched on the slope.
They were dressed adequately for a search down to the trees. Their main danger was getting wet from sweat or rain. Dry cold was their normal environment. They new the difference and the danger. They all had layers of clothing both cotton and wool. The flashlight was off to save it's battery. The furthest one from the tent was on. The first person back would then put the tent light on. The flashlights were placed to show a route back up to the tent. It was on top of the tent because they had to put snow on the tent to weigh it down in case the wind got under it and it acted like a boat sail. I suspect that Dyatlov as leader was following a set plan that existed in their training for a missing hiker. If it was possible to find their training manual it might be in that and explain a lot.
They were not adequately dressed for a walk of about a mile with temperature around minus 20 degrees centigrade.
I admire how you're trying to make sense of it all, but I don't think they would have left without footwear and coats etc. if they had a choice. Why would they leave a turned off flashlight on top of the tent - why not just leave it in the tent? I'm more inclined to agree with Starman that the tent was never pitched on the slope.
They were dressed adequately for a search down to the trees. Their main danger was getting wet from sweat or rain. Dry cold was their normal environment. They new the difference and the danger. They all had layers of clothing both cotton and wool. The flashlight was off to save it's battery. The furthest one from the tent was on. The first person back would then put the tent light on. The flashlights were placed to show a route back up to the tent. It was on top of the tent because they had to put snow on the tent to weigh it down in case the wind got under it and it acted like a boat sail. I suspect that Dyatlov as leader was following a set plan that existed in their training for a missing hiker. If it was possible to find their training manual it might be in that and explain a lot.
While I agree with some of this, I find it odd that you think the better explanation is that there was some sort of search party, perhaps for the two Yuris, which would mean that they would certainly keep at least two (probably more) people in the tent at all times to make sure there were no issues with it, as had in fact occurred the previous night or two under much better weather conditions and with the use of the stove to heat it. To me, the obviously best explanation is that the tent was no longer viable structurally and was about to collapse, be torn apart by winds, or whatever (a simple, inexpensive recreation would likely provide this information). And if they had wanted fire wood they would have done that during daylight, and could have simply set up the tent by the trees in the first place. The plan supposedly was not to use the stove that night due to the work required, and if they had sent out two or three to get fire wood and bring it back, there should be evidence of that, such as the stove being fully or partially assembled. Instead, there is a robust fire started in the tree area, and nowhere else.
I admire how you're trying to make sense of it all, but I don't think they would have left without footwear and coats etc. if they had a choice. Why would they leave a turned off flashlight on top of the tent - why not just leave it in the tent? I'm more inclined to agree with Starman that the tent was never pitched on the slope.
My big problem with the Dyatlov Hikers ever reaching Dyatlov Pass is that Nurse Solter kept repeating how filthy they were, how filthy and so on. I lived in Alaska for a long time and you don't really get dirty in the snow. You do, however, get very dirty in the mud, closer to the rivers and the water that is flowing even in the winter. Something happened to them closer to where they could get dirty. I agree with Gorojan most possibly Settlement 41, where they still went into falling down log houses where there would be mud when they were looking for wood to burn, or somewhere nearby. Once they would be in the Auspiya Valley along the river skiing just to the south of Dyatlov Pass there was too much fresh snow with hard packed snow underneath to get very filthy. There aremsome events in your life you just don't ever forget and I believe Nurse Solter on those issues she won't budge on and she is very firm in remembering.
I admire how you're trying to make sense of it all, but I don't think they would have left without footwear and coats etc. if they had a choice. Why would they leave a turned off flashlight on top of the tent - why not just leave it in the tent? I'm more inclined to agree with Starman that the tent was never pitched on the slope.
They were dressed adequately for a search down to the trees. Their main danger was getting wet from sweat or rain. Dry cold was their normal environment. They new the difference and the danger. They all had layers of clothing both cotton and wool. The flashlight was off to save it's battery. The furthest one from the tent was on. The first person back would then put the tent light on. The flashlights were placed to show a route back up to the tent. It was on top of the tent because they had to put snow on the tent to weigh it down in case the wind got under it and it acted like a boat sail. I suspect that Dyatlov as leader was following a set plan that existed in their training for a missing hiker. If it was possible to find their training manual it might be in that and explain a lot.
They were not adequately dressed for a walk of about a mile with temperature around minus 20 degrees centigrade.
This guy did it in socks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qpJi6iNWF0&feature=emb_title
I admire how you're trying to make sense of it all, but I don't think they would have left without footwear and coats etc. if they had a choice. Why would they leave a turned off flashlight on top of the tent - why not just leave it in the tent? I'm more inclined to agree with Starman that the tent was never pitched on the slope.
They were dressed adequately for a search down to the trees. Their main danger was getting wet from sweat or rain. Dry cold was their normal environment. They new the difference and the danger. They all had layers of clothing both cotton and wool. The flashlight was off to save it's battery. The furthest one from the tent was on. The first person back would then put the tent light on. The flashlights were placed to show a route back up to the tent. It was on top of the tent because they had to put snow on the tent to weigh it down in case the wind got under it and it acted like a boat sail. I suspect that Dyatlov as leader was following a set plan that existed in their training for a missing hiker. If it was possible to find their training manual it might be in that and explain a lot.
While I agree with some of this, I find it odd that you think the better explanation is that there was some sort of search party, perhaps for the two Yuris, which would mean that they would certainly keep at least two (probably more) people in the tent at all times to make sure there were no issues with it, as had in fact occurred the previous night or two under much better weather conditions and with the use of the stove to heat it. To me, the obviously best explanation is that the tent was no longer viable structurally and was about to collapse, be torn apart by winds, or whatever (a simple, inexpensive recreation would likely provide this information). And if they had wanted fire wood they would have done that during daylight, and could have simply set up the tent by the trees in the first place. The plan supposedly was not to use the stove that night due to the work required, and if they had sent out two or three to get fire wood and bring it back, there should be evidence of that, such as the stove being fully or partially assembled. Instead, there is a robust fire started in the tree area, and nowhere else.
They couldn't assemble and light the stove until everyone was in the tent and settled because of space and risk.
It's a good theory. So they all go to the forest for shelter and make dens which collapse killing and injuring some of them and 3 try to make it back up to the tent. Yes. Plausible. and no Yeti's...anywhere grin1
But why leave the furthest flashlight on if they weren't thinking of returning. ?
“Never at the tent” and staging is the most illogical thing I have heard about DPI. Staging means somebody devised an elaborate plan to cover up, planting a tent in plain sight that really doesn’t make sense. The worst attempt at staging in history.
My big problem with the Dyatlov Hikers ever reaching Dyatlov Pass is that Nurse Solter kept repeating how filthy they were, how filthy and so on. I lived in Alaska for a long time and you don't really get dirty in the snow. You do, however, get very dirty in the mud, closer to the rivers and the water that is flowing even in the winter. Something happened to them closer to where they could get dirty. I agree with Gorojan most possibly Settlement 41, where they still went into falling down log houses where there would be mud when they were looking for wood to burn, or somewhere nearby. Once they would be in the Auspiya Valley along the river skiing just to the south of Dyatlov Pass there was too much fresh snow with hard packed snow underneath to get very filthy. There aremsome events in your life you just don't ever forget and I believe Nurse Solter on those issues she won't budge on and she is very firm in remembering.
Reply #92My big problem with the Dyatlov Hikers ever reaching Dyatlov Pass is that Nurse Solter kept repeating how filthy they were, how filthy and so on...
..................
There aremsome events in your life you just don't ever forget and I believe Nurse Solter on those issues she won't budge on and she is very firm in remembering.
My big problem with the Dyatlov Hikers ever reaching Dyatlov Pass is that Nurse Solter kept repeating how filthy they were, how filthy and so on. I lived in Alaska for a long time and you don't really get dirty in the snow. You do, however, get very dirty in the mud, closer to the rivers and the water that is flowing even in the winter. Something happened to them closer to where they could get dirty. I agree with Gorojan most possibly Settlement 41, where they still went into falling down log houses where there would be mud when they were looking for wood to burn, or somewhere nearby. Once they would be in the Auspiya Valley along the river skiing just to the south of Dyatlov Pass there was too much fresh snow with hard packed snow underneath to get very filthy. There aremsome events in your life you just don't ever forget and I believe Nurse Solter on those issues she won't budge on and she is very firm in remembering.
They are in layers of wool socks which keep them warm even if they are wet.I would encourage anyone who thinks even 5 or 6 layers of wool socks keep them warm in snow in negative 15C or less to try it out. I have just checked the weather in Vizhay, it's -37C right now, and that's at the foot of the mountain range.
I like this theory. It explains the radioactive contamination.
One theory I considered, given the old mining settlement had been abandoned in 1952, and not knowing why, or what had been mined there, was had they come into contact with radioactive mud/tailings along the river, or otherwise become contaminated while staying at the only habitable hut with intact windows. The other hiking group setting off before them went a different route and romped ahead to Mount Otorten.
This was where Yuri Yudin, who collected mineral samples and declared the area full of lime rocks, limestones, found an old core sample and took it back with him to the university. He, a young and fit hiker, suddenly developed an inflammatory problem with his knee, like an old man, after staying there overnight, this following an easy trek there, their backpacks carried by the horse and cart.
Lyuda's diary mentions how they were woken by two early lark's conversation, Yuri K and Aleksander. These were the two whose clothing was found to be radioactive, and it's assumed this happened through their previous employment at nuclear sites, but equally they may have been out to explore, with different hikers receiving different exposure levels.
There's no signs of deep mining there from photographs, no colliery, although the settlement may have been some distance from the mine itself. It may have been the much more common open cast (surface) mining, or solution mining, with tailings and contaminated water, often discharged then into rivers, and in 1959 nobody would be bothered about the environment or adequately cordon off the area.
Today there's contaminated mud around nuclear sites the world over, and old mines which present similar problems. Example: https://www.fse.org.za/index.php/mining/item/215-residents-use-radioactive-mud-as-an-acne-cure (https://www.fse.org.za/index.php/mining/item/215-residents-use-radioactive-mud-as-an-acne-cure)
Had this particular mine been for uranium ore, perhaps as part of the Cold War effort, or exposed some, it may have led to lung cancers and other health issues with workers and was eventually abandoned. Radon gas, in the long-term, can cause similar issues. The hikers would then become contaminated by staying there and travelling through, and several days later display signs of radiation sickness - exhaustion, confusion, and ultimately, where there'd been direct contact, burns. This would then have explained the rescue team arriving with geiger counters and mine sweeping, if say a message about 'checking for radiation as they may have travelled through that mining area' was misconstrued.
However, I went through the photo's and could see no signs of river mud on their clothing during the entire hike. But it's easy to imagine Yuri Yudin kneeling down when hunting for samples, affecting his knee, or Yuri K getting his trouser leg dirty, which days later turns into an itch, redness, and then continuing tissue decay even after death. His burns radiated from his knee down, getting progressively worse towards his toe.
In this theory, and linking to pathology nurse Solter's interview, their shoes would be the most contaminated items, remaining that way through skiing, so would be decontaminated as part of a cover-up, potentially explaining why so many were without footwear, and then depending on what witness statement you read, their shoes being found lined up down one side of the tent, and two pairs left in the middle - if they couldn't fully determine which removed shoes belonged to which dead hiker they wouldn't risk putting them back on the corpses.
I admire how you're trying to make sense of it all, but I don't think they would have left without footwear and coats etc. if they had a choice. Why would they leave a turned off flashlight on top of the tent - why not just leave it in the tent? I'm more inclined to agree with Starman that the tent was never pitched on the slope.
They were dressed adequately for a search down to the trees. Their main danger was getting wet from sweat or rain. Dry cold was their normal environment. They new the difference and the danger. They all had layers of clothing both cotton and wool. The flashlight was off to save it's battery. The furthest one from the tent was on. The first person back would then put the tent light on. The flashlights were placed to show a route back up to the tent. It was on top of the tent because they had to put snow on the tent to weigh it down in case the wind got under it and it acted like a boat sail. I suspect that Dyatlov as leader was following a set plan that existed in their training for a missing hiker. If it was possible to find their training manual it might be in that and explain a lot.
While I agree with some of this, I find it odd that you think the better explanation is that there was some sort of search party, perhaps for the two Yuris, which would mean that they would certainly keep at least two (probably more) people in the tent at all times to make sure there were no issues with it, as had in fact occurred the previous night or two under much better weather conditions and with the use of the stove to heat it. To me, the obviously best explanation is that the tent was no longer viable structurally and was about to collapse, be torn apart by winds, or whatever (a simple, inexpensive recreation would likely provide this information). And if they had wanted fire wood they would have done that during daylight, and could have simply set up the tent by the trees in the first place. The plan supposedly was not to use the stove that night due to the work required, and if they had sent out two or three to get fire wood and bring it back, there should be evidence of that, such as the stove being fully or partially assembled. Instead, there is a robust fire started in the tree area, and nowhere else.
They couldn't assemble and light the stove until everyone was in the tent and settled because of space and risk.
It's a good theory. So they all go to the forest for shelter and make dens which collapse killing and injuring some of them and 3 try to make it back up to the tent. Yes. Plausible. and no Yeti's...anywhere grin1
But why leave the furthest flashlight on if they weren't thinking of returning. ?
I admire how you're trying to make sense of it all, but I don't think they would have left without footwear and coats etc. if they had a choice. Why would they leave a turned off flashlight on top of the tent - why not just leave it in the tent? I'm more inclined to agree with Starman that the tent was never pitched on the slope.
They were dressed adequately for a search down to the trees. Their main danger was getting wet from sweat or rain. Dry cold was their normal environment. They new the difference and the danger. They all had layers of clothing both cotton and wool. The flashlight was off to save it's battery. The furthest one from the tent was on. The first person back would then put the tent light on. The flashlights were placed to show a route back up to the tent. It was on top of the tent because they had to put snow on the tent to weigh it down in case the wind got under it and it acted like a boat sail. I suspect that Dyatlov as leader was following a set plan that existed in their training for a missing hiker. If it was possible to find their training manual it might be in that and explain a lot.
While I agree with some of this, I find it odd that you think the better explanation is that there was some sort of search party, perhaps for the two Yuris, which would mean that they would certainly keep at least two (probably more) people in the tent at all times to make sure there were no issues with it, as had in fact occurred the previous night or two under much better weather conditions and with the use of the stove to heat it. To me, the obviously best explanation is that the tent was no longer viable structurally and was about to collapse, be torn apart by winds, or whatever (a simple, inexpensive recreation would likely provide this information). And if they had wanted fire wood they would have done that during daylight, and could have simply set up the tent by the trees in the first place. The plan supposedly was not to use the stove that night due to the work required, and if they had sent out two or three to get fire wood and bring it back, there should be evidence of that, such as the stove being fully or partially assembled. Instead, there is a robust fire started in the tree area, and nowhere else.
They couldn't assemble and light the stove until everyone was in the tent and settled because of space and risk.
It's a good theory. So they all go to the forest for shelter and make dens which collapse killing and injuring some of them and 3 try to make it back up to the tent. Yes. Plausible. and no Yeti's...anywhere grin1
But why leave the furthest flashlight on if they weren't thinking of returning. ?
One flashlight that still worked when the rescuers arrived was found on top of some snow that apparently was placed on the tent to keep it from blowing apart (it was in the off position). The other one was found on the side of the mountain, and no longer worked (I think it was in the on position), and it has been conjectured that one of them flung it as far as he/she could out of disgust because it stopped working. I'm not sure if anyone has gone up there at the same time of year and with snow cover to see what it's like (and what position was the moon in?), but that is one thing a good investigation would want to determine (that is, the lighting conditions). So let's assume they didn't think the second flashlight was necessary, and it turned out it was not, other than possibly the "ravine 4" losing their way back to the "den" and falling through the snow and onto a rocky creek. They probably thought they could survive the night with the fire and/or den ideas, but they might want to return right before dawn or put it on the tent in case they thought they might need to return if the plan (s) did not work out. At least Zina apparently wanted to get back to the tent, so that is certainly in the realm of possibility. Remember that they had no experience with that area and may have underestimated how difficult things would be, particularly how the winds relentlessly come off the top of the mountain (so the fire idea wasn't going to work) and there may not have been a good place to shelter within reasonable walking distance (and of course we know it was rather dangerous to just go walking around looking for a good place to create a "den," in terms of the possibility of falling onto the rocky creek).
I guess you have not read my previous posts with a full explanation, which is that the tent becomes structurally unsound (due to icy buildup and/or the winds ripping it apart, or even just an accident or attempt to repair it gone terribly wrong), and they think they have to secure it quickly or else they will not likely survive (there's nobody around to help and they can't commuicate with the outside world). The fact that they did not take the blankets they were wrapped up in is a huge clue to me, because not taking them meant that they likely were concerned with the winds blowing the blankets away and/or they thought they would be hindered by the blankets and realized they all would have to do a lot of work to survive. Also, taking the blankets might then mean more items that would get wet/frozen and cause more problems. They wore clothing they could take off in the morning and then put on clothing that would be wearable. Remember they don't have modern cold wealther hiking/climbing equipment. Typical leather boots of that time would just freeze up if you took them off in a cold tent, so it was common to take them off and sleep with them in the sleeping bag, but this group didn't even have sleeping bags! I think Zina, who expressed anger/disappointment in Igor as a leader went back to the tent after one or both Yuris died, and then Slobodin went after her, but struck his head and was rendered unconscious. Igor then went after her but succumbed to hypothermia. There is no indication the three were working together or tried to help each other, which supports this notion. I've studied a lot of these kinds of incidents, and I don't consider this one to be especially mysterious, weird, incredible, etc.
Why 2 dens if they were all there at the same time ? Why didn't the 2 yuris get help from the others ? Why didn't the 2 yuris try and get in to the others den ? too small maybe so they lit the fire ? Interesting..Why didn't the 2 yuris try and get to the tent earlier while they still had their clothes on ?Were there 2 dens? One construction made from branches and clothes was found under snow, it can be assumed it was inside a den, but might have just been on the surface and got buried later.
I like this theory. It explains the radioactive contamination.
One theory I considered, given the old mining settlement had been abandoned in 1952, and not knowing why, or what had been mined there, was had they come into contact with radioactive mud/tailings along the river, or otherwise become contaminated while staying at the only habitable hut with intact windows. The other hiking group setting off before them went a different route and romped ahead to Mount Otorten.
This was where Yuri Yudin, who collected mineral samples and declared the area full of lime rocks, limestones, found an old core sample and took it back with him to the university. He, a young and fit hiker, suddenly developed an inflammatory problem with his knee, like an old man, after staying there overnight, this following an easy trek there, their backpacks carried by the horse and cart.
Lyuda's diary mentions how they were woken by two early lark's conversation, Yuri K and Aleksander. These were the two whose clothing was found to be radioactive, and it's assumed this happened through their previous employment at nuclear sites, but equally they may have been out to explore, with different hikers receiving different exposure levels.
There's no signs of deep mining there from photographs, no colliery, although the settlement may have been some distance from the mine itself. It may have been the much more common open cast (surface) mining, or solution mining, with tailings and contaminated water, often discharged then into rivers, and in 1959 nobody would be bothered about the environment or adequately cordon off the area.
Today there's contaminated mud around nuclear sites the world over, and old mines which present similar problems. Example: https://www.fse.org.za/index.php/mining/item/215-residents-use-radioactive-mud-as-an-acne-cure (https://www.fse.org.za/index.php/mining/item/215-residents-use-radioactive-mud-as-an-acne-cure)
Had this particular mine been for uranium ore, perhaps as part of the Cold War effort, or exposed some, it may have led to lung cancers and other health issues with workers and was eventually abandoned. Radon gas, in the long-term, can cause similar issues. The hikers would then become contaminated by staying there and travelling through, and several days later display signs of radiation sickness - exhaustion, confusion, and ultimately, where there'd been direct contact, burns. This would then have explained the rescue team arriving with geiger counters and mine sweeping, if say a message about 'checking for radiation as they may have travelled through that mining area' was misconstrued.
However, I went through the photo's and could see no signs of river mud on their clothing during the entire hike. But it's easy to imagine Yuri Yudin kneeling down when hunting for samples, affecting his knee, or Yuri K getting his trouser leg dirty, which days later turns into an itch, redness, and then continuing tissue decay even after death. His burns radiated from his knee down, getting progressively worse towards his toe.
In this theory, and linking to pathology nurse Solter's interview, their shoes would be the most contaminated items, remaining that way through skiing, so would be decontaminated as part of a cover-up, potentially explaining why so many were without footwear, and then depending on what witness statement you read, their shoes being found lined up down one side of the tent, and two pairs left in the middle - if they couldn't fully determine which removed shoes belonged to which dead hiker they wouldn't risk putting them back on the corpses.
I think the soldiers with mine detectors might also be explained with believing they were wearing watches, carried knives and so on, so where metal was detected below the snow might indicate a body.
The words mine as in landmine and an ore extraction operation are only the same in English, not in Russian grin1 .
The Urals have uranium and many other ores like gold, too. That they found a pyrite core in my opinion indicates it might have been a coal or iron mine, pyrite is often found with coal.But it might have been for uranium or plutonium. However, if some members developed radiation sickness, is that a reason for the whole group to leave the tent? Also presumably there would have been traces of ... vomit either in or around the tent, though around it might have gotten snowed on and buried.
I was also considering something similar but instead of radiation sickness, I was thinking about poisoning from some canned food they ate. But equally that wouldn't explain abandoning the tent.
You know, that's an interesting interpretation I had not considered. I will point out that the autopsies report that the rectums of 6 of the 9 hikers are "clear"/"clean". Vorozhdenny does not remark about that part of the body for Kolmogorova and Dubinina, and observes the presence of fecal matter only for Zolotaryov.Reply #92My big problem with the Dyatlov Hikers ever reaching Dyatlov Pass is that Nurse Solter kept repeating how filthy they were, how filthy and so on...
..................
There aremsome events in your life you just don't ever forget and I believe Nurse Solter on those issues she won't budge on and she is very firm in remembering.
«...Solter kept repeating how filthy they were....»
Perhaps this is a decent way to make readers understand that the contents of the intestines have been transferred to the inside of the panties.
Was this a common way of politely speaking from Russian health professionals ? I do not know, but it is not unlikely.
The ravine or gully 4 had crush injuries and I think one person going up the slope had a skull/crush injury. These internal injuries didn't have outer wounds.
On the examination table is a male body clothed as follows: the head is covered by a tightly tied green woolen sports cap with three round holes sized 3 x 3 cm located in the front. ... A worn-out knitted blue shirt, which on the right and bottom has torn ovals in the fabric 2 x 3 cm in size.
...
On the upper left jaw there is a defectSheet 353- 2 -in the soft tissue, which has an irregular oval shape with a size of 3 x 4 cm with drawn out, convoluted borders exposing the alveolar edge of the upper jaw, The teeth are white and even. The mouth is open. The lips have a pale grey color. The tongue is in the mouth. The mucous membrane of the tongue and mouth are of a dirty green color. ...
Odd that if Dyatlov had the knowledge that in a crisis you build a den yet he never packed any digging tools. If he needed a den above the tree line what would he have done ?
You know, that's an interesting interpretation I had not considered. I will point out that the autopsies report that the rectums of 6 of the 9 hikers are "clear"/"clean". Vorozhdenny does not remark about that part of the body for Kolmogorova and Dubinina, and observes the presence of fecal matter only for Zolotaryov.
Odd that if Dyatlov had the knowledge that in a crisis you build a den yet he never packed any digging tools. If he needed a den above the tree line what would he have done ?
And they built the labaz which was I think partly dug into snow. But also they had to dig a lot to get a level platform for the tent on the slope... and the photos purportedly showing them doing that don't show any tools... were they digging with ski poles?
They did have ice axes which are certainly more practical than digging with ski poles or bare hands.
But there is one thing which might or might not have occurred at the ravine, called depth hoar. This is a form of snowpack that forms when the lower part of the snow is warmer, and (therefore) wetter, than the top. I think this was the case because the air temperature was consistently below freezing but there was a flowing stream below the snow, so above freezing temperatures there.
What this results in is weakened lower layers, that I would say can be like sand. This layer might not be thick, usually only 10 cm, but considering how much snow was found there, might have been thicker, and it's easy to dig.
By the time they were found this would have disappeared as it was spring and the snow started thawing from the top too... turning the entire snowpack into wet slush snow.
A collapsing den can cause injuries, but can it cause injuries like Semyon's or Tibo's? If you look at their photos from the morgue, it is somewhat doubtful because the snow just wouldn't gain enough velocity as the den probably wasn't high inside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekcAOOH_8-c
Odd that if Dyatlov had the knowledge that in a crisis you build a den yet he never packed any digging tools. If he needed a den above the tree line what would he have done ?
And they built the labaz which was I think partly dug into snow. But also they had to dig a lot to get a level platform for the tent on the slope... and the photos purportedly showing them doing that don't show any tools... were they digging with ski poles?
They did have ice axes which are certainly more practical than digging with ski poles or bare hands.
But there is one thing which might or might not have occurred at the ravine, called depth hoar. This is a form of snowpack that forms when the lower part of the snow is warmer, and (therefore) wetter, than the top. I think this was the case because the air temperature was consistently below freezing but there was a flowing stream below the snow, so above freezing temperatures there.
What this results in is weakened lower layers, that I would say can be like sand. This layer might not be thick, usually only 10 cm, but considering how much snow was found there, might have been thicker, and it's easy to dig.
By the time they were found this would have disappeared as it was spring and the snow started thawing from the top too... turning the entire snowpack into wet slush snow.
A collapsing den can cause injuries, but can it cause injuries like Semyon's or Tibo's? If you look at their photos from the morgue, it is somewhat doubtful because the snow just wouldn't gain enough velocity as the den probably wasn't high inside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekcAOOH_8-c
The labaz was up off the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/TvG9mDz/Frame-16.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kHTNQVY)
They didn't have any shovels so used skis and ski poles to dig trenches. In the 2 trench digging photo's on the mountain Yuri K is shown holding a ski, as is another hiker in the background. The rest will be using their bamboo ski poles. Perhaps the technique was for him to mark out the edges of the plot and then pull away layers of snow from the sides with the ski, and then others used the poles as shovels. If the wooden ski hit rock that may explain one breaking.
(https://i.ibb.co/XDkRLjH/Photo-11.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PMzHjFk)
I think they only had one ice axe, and depending on what you read 3 or 4 wood axes.
The morgue photo's will mislead. Semyon's photo was taken after autopsy, there's a sealed incision running down his chest, which follows the rib cage being cut open at the sternum and the chest then prized open to allow access to the internal organs for dissection and inspection. He'd be sewn back up to present him for funeral/relative appearing to provide positive ID, giving him that crushed/run over appearance. Lyuda's corresponding photo also seems to be taken after autopsy, but her chest will look fuller, less crushed, due to breast tissue.
Odd that if Dyatlov had the knowledge that in a crisis you build a den yet he never packed any digging tools. If he needed a den above the tree line what would he have done ?
And they built the labaz which was I think partly dug into snow. But also they had to dig a lot to get a level platform for the tent on the slope... and the photos purportedly showing them doing that don't show any tools... were they digging with ski poles?
They did have ice axes which are certainly more practical than digging with ski poles or bare hands.
But there is one thing which might or might not have occurred at the ravine, called depth hoar. This is a form of snowpack that forms when the lower part of the snow is warmer, and (therefore) wetter, than the top. I think this was the case because the air temperature was consistently below freezing but there was a flowing stream below the snow, so above freezing temperatures there.
What this results in is weakened lower layers, that I would say can be like sand. This layer might not be thick, usually only 10 cm, but considering how much snow was found there, might have been thicker, and it's easy to dig.
By the time they were found this would have disappeared as it was spring and the snow started thawing from the top too... turning the entire snowpack into wet slush snow.
A collapsing den can cause injuries, but can it cause injuries like Semyon's or Tibo's? If you look at their photos from the morgue, it is somewhat doubtful because the snow just wouldn't gain enough velocity as the den probably wasn't high inside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekcAOOH_8-c
The labaz was up off the ground.
(https://i.ibb.co/TvG9mDz/Frame-16.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kHTNQVY)
They didn't have any shovels so used skis and ski poles to dig trenches. In the 2 trench digging photo's on the mountain Yuri K is shown holding a ski, as is another hiker in the background. The rest will be using their bamboo ski poles. Perhaps the technique was for him to mark out the edges of the plot and then pull away layers of snow from the sides with the ski, and then others used the poles as shovels. If the wooden ski hit rock that may explain one breaking.
(https://i.ibb.co/XDkRLjH/Photo-11.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PMzHjFk)
I think they only had one ice axe, and depending on what you read 3 or 4 wood axes.
The morgue photo's will mislead. Semyon's photo was taken after autopsy, there's a sealed incision running down his chest, which follows the rib cage being cut open at the sternum and the chest then prized open to allow access to the internal organs for dissection and inspection. He'd be sewn back up to present him for funeral/relative appearing to provide positive ID, giving him that crushed/run over appearance. Lyuda's corresponding photo also seems to be taken after autopsy, but her chest will look fuller, less crushed, due to breast tissue.
That labaz is just a photo he took there own store was a hole in the ground with a ski marking it.
https://dyatlovpass.com/labaz
Gotcha, I always thought the Russians built caches like they do in Alaska, up on stilts/poles to keep moose, caribou, bears and critters out of them. Little houses with doors on top. I always thought the photo the rescue crew built was what the Dyatlov hikers had built. In Alaska you NEVER go near anyone's cache or the owners can shoot you. Not even in a joking manor. There is no joke about even approaching another persons cache. Lots of cabins burn down so your cache will keep you alive. I am surprised, even on the go, that they just built a platform because even in winter there are critters running around below the snow looking for anything to eat.
Why 2 dens if they were all there at the same time ? Why didn't the 2 yuris get help from the others ? Why didn't the 2 yuris try and get in to the others den ? too small maybe so they lit the fire ? Interesting..Why didn't the 2 yuris try and get to the tent earlier while they still had their clothes on ?Were there 2 dens? One construction made from branches and clothes was found under snow, it can be assumed it was inside a den, but might have just been on the surface and got buried later.
Answers to the other questions depend on the order of events which in unclear, and the biggest mystery of course is why didn't everyone try to return to the tent, or on the contrary why did some of them try to return after all of them apparently abandoned it...
I think 2 dens because the bodies were in 2 places and the yuris den was so small with only their clothes inside. The ravine or gully 4 had crush injuries and I think one person going up the slope had a skull/crush injury. These internal injuries didn't have outer wounds. So given the injuries I'd say a den collapsed on some of them. It still doesn't explain why the 2 yuris didn't try and get to the tent before they succumbed to the cold. They had no crush injuries so were they exposed to the cold longer ? which goes back to my search party theory ? Were the 2 yuris out in the cold longer than the others ? The others find them, they don't know about their den or it's collapsed. So they set about building a den which collapses on them. The last 3 try and get to the tent.
The snow bank wouldn't have been that high when the den was dug though, and there'd have been no benefit to digging that deep if it was. All they needed to do was to get out of the cold air, the wind chill, to sit on insulated pads of fir foliage and the pieces of clothing found there. The den would be dug by hand, or with a branch, the recovery team are using long-handled shovels, and that man would need a ladder or assistance to climb out of there. The original height was probably to his neck level.
It took 3 months to locate the ravine bodies and during that time snowfall, plus the way the wind scour at higher elevation would funnel snow down there, would double the height. Had there been glacier-style movement towards the ravine it would have dragged the den/seats with it, not just bodies.
If the bodies had been found crushed in the den it would work, but even then it would be extremely unlikely to generate the same pattern injuries of flail chests to the right side, 4+4 fractures to the same ribs, on two people (Lyuda also having a single set of bilateral side fractures on her left side). The most likely explanation for that uniformity and focus is resus fractures.
I think 2 dens because the bodies were in 2 places and the yuris den was so small with only their clothes inside. The ravine or gully 4 had crush injuries and I think one person going up the slope had a skull/crush injury. These internal injuries didn't have outer wounds. So given the injuries I'd say a den collapsed on some of them. It still doesn't explain why the 2 yuris didn't try and get to the tent before they succumbed to the cold. They had no crush injuries so were they exposed to the cold longer ? which goes back to my search party theory ? Were the 2 yuris out in the cold longer than the others ? The others find them, they don't know about their den or it's collapsed. So they set about building a den which collapses on them. The last 3 try and get to the tent.
A thorough search took place and no other Den was found. Even if there was another Den the snow wouldnt have caused such injuries that we see on some of the bodies.
QuoteYou know, that's an interesting interpretation I had not considered. I will point out that the autopsies report that the rectums of 6 of the 9 hikers are "clear"/"clean". Vorozhdenny does not remark about that part of the body for Kolmogorova and Dubinina, and observes the presence of fecal matter only for Zolotaryov.
That word would be “evisceration” and there wasn't any visual signs of this physically on the frozen corpses, that I read from the autopsies. I believe Nurse Solter would specify between evisceration, open abdomen or just filthy.
The sawn or sharpened cut wood in the den has always reminded more of a funeral pyre than the floor of a den. From the photos it looks as if there were plenty of cedar and spruce soft branches to top those sharply cut wood branches but there wasn’t. We’re the attackers trying to burn the evidence (bodies) but somehow decided against that plan? Was this why two Yuri’s had burns? Did a group of attackers find out it fairly difficult to burn bodies in the ice and snow, quickly?
What are the chances that whatever cut the den hard branches caused those head “defects” in Rustem and Tibo?
Gotcha, I always thought the Russians built caches like they do in Alaska, up on stilts/poles to keep moose, caribou, bears and critters out of them. Little houses with doors on top. I always thought the photo the rescue crew built was what the Dyatlov hikers had built. In Alaska you NEVER go near anyone's cache or the owners can shoot you. Not even in a joking manor. There is no joke about even approaching another persons cache. Lots of cabins burn down so your cache will keep you alive. I am surprised, even on the go, that they just built a platform because even in winter there are critters running around below the snow looking for anything to eat.
It should be a little raised house.
Well I hardly think that the Dyatlov Group had time to build a house.
(https://i.ibb.co/yfBy9pB/lab.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vwvPFhv)
Gotcha, I always thought the Russians built caches like they do in Alaska, up on stilts/poles to keep moose, caribou, bears and critters out of them. Little houses with doors on top. I always thought the photo the rescue crew built was what the Dyatlov hikers had built. In Alaska you NEVER go near anyone's cache or the owners can shoot you. Not even in a joking manor. There is no joke about even approaching another persons cache. Lots of cabins burn down so your cache will keep you alive. I am surprised, even on the go, that they just built a platform because even in winter there are critters running around below the snow looking for anything to eat.
It should be a little raised house.
Well I hardly think that the Dyatlov Group had time to build a house.
(https://i.ibb.co/yfBy9pB/lab.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vwvPFhv)
«...Solter kept repeating how filthy they were....»
Perhaps this is a decent way to make readers understand that the contents of the intestines have been transferred to the inside of the panties.
Was this a common way of politely speaking from Russian health professionals ? I do not know, but it is not unlikely.
Ok if two members of the group failed to return from wherever, collecting firewood, the loo, etc., going out to search for them makes sense. But for the whole group to do this. Two or three people would be enough, don't you think? Perhaps two groups of two each?
That still leaves 3 people in the tent who could continue preparing food, or assembling the stove, de-icing boots and so on.So I don't think this satisfactorily explains the whole group leaving the tent. Unless of course they didn't, and in fact there were 2 or 3 "waves".
The way their boots were laid out was described as disorderly. Not to mention there being pieces of food (rusks, loin) over the blankets. So I don't think it can be called tidy. And I've also read a description saying it looked like they might have tried to barricade the entrance because there were a multitude of buckets piled up there.
In his testimony, Brusnitsyn (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-362-369) describes the tent as being in "disarray". And then there was a ski pole in the tent cut into several pieces.
Now that I've read some testimonies again, I see that also remains of porridge were found in a cup. While I myself enjoy eating porridge any time, it perhaps hints at them being in the tent in the morning. And also a pin was described holding a hole in the tent together.
I don't even know if we can definitively conclude the tent was cut from the "inside". While the forensic expert notes there are scratches visible next to the ends of the cuts on one side, which was the inside in their setup of the tent, is it possible that they set up the tent inside out? Is the fabric's inner and outer surface different? For example was there water-proof layer on the outside?
Boots piled on top of each other. Certainly disorderly. Without the Tent we cannot get it re-examined. We are told that the Tent was got rid of because it was damaged whilst in storage ! ?
The way their boots were laid out was described as disorderly. Not to mention there being pieces of food (rusks, loin) over the blankets. So I don't think it can be called tidy. And I've also read a description saying it looked like they might have tried to barricade the entrance because there were a multitude of buckets piled up there.
In his testimony, Brusnitsyn (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-362-369) describes the tent as being in "disarray". And then there was a ski pole in the tent cut into several pieces.
Now that I've read some testimonies again, I see that also remains of porridge were found in a cup. While I myself enjoy eating porridge any time, it perhaps hints at them being in the tent in the morning. And also a pin was described holding a hole in the tent together.
I don't even know if we can definitively conclude the tent was cut from the "inside". While the forensic expert notes there are scratches visible next to the ends of the cuts on one side, which was the inside in their setup of the tent, is it possible that they set up the tent inside out? Is the fabric's inner and outer surface different? For example was there water-proof layer on the outside?
Boots piled on top of each other. Certainly disorderly. Without the Tent we cannot get it re-examined. We are told that the Tent was got rid of because it was damaged whilst in storage ! ?
The tent being disposed, while certainly unfortunate, is not that suspicious to me. Having owned and cared for many canvas tents over the years, their lifespan (when used regularly in variable weather,) can be short. If you store it with even the least little bit of moisture, it will start mildewing, and the fibers will degrade. If it gets dirty and is not cleaned before storing, the dirt in between the fibers will start to degrade the canvas. When we come home from camping in any of ours, we have to set it up in the yard to fully dry before we can fold it up. We have to clean them (which admittedly, would be a lot easier for the Dyatlov tent than some of the ones I have owned, which are much larger and more oddly shaped.) But, if the forensic lab did not take care of the tent, (or could not because washing evidence is genuinely frowned upon,) it would have degraded over time. My understanding is that a water pipe break in the lab basement was the final nail in the tents coffin, but I would hazard a guess that the tent was already in a state that you could not glean anything useful about it by then, anyway. It is a shame, because I completely disagree with Churkina's forensic analysis and I'd have loved to have been able to see it myself, like many I suppose :(
(https://i.ibb.co/PxYnVF7/Dyatlov-pass-map-landmarks-den.jpg) (https://ibb.co/BLPxYcX)
Also, those branches look 1-2 inches thick, I don't believe they were cut with pocket knives.
I really don't think that they were ever in the tent or that we have any proof that the tent was there. If the facts don't fit the scene, then the scene is staged, IMO. Its very much like a murder trying to be disguised as a robbery gone wrong. When the police look at the scene of a robbery gone wrong, the facts don't fit it (for example, nothing taken, drawers neatly kinda gone through) but when they shift their focus to a murder staged as a robbery, then the facts fit the scene
It is too hard to make the facts fit, IMO.
1. why do the searchers say they looked in the tent and found stuff when the tent is collapsed in the photo?
2. why is there snow on the bodies under the cedar but the footprints are visible going down the slope? they should be snowed under as well
3. why do they think that last frame is the tent being built on the slope? where is all the snow that they shoveled away? the tent should be under much more snow if it was in a hole like that.
what evidence points to it?
those photos could have been taken anywhere. is there any photo that shows the tent on the slope with an identifiable landmark to prove it?