Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Investigator on February 02, 2021, 12:55:35 PM
-
I have said in other posts I am rather disappointed that no investigation that has been reasonably well funded has tried to simply recreate the conditions that night to see what would happen. That means perhaps getting some healthy college student volunteers and putting them up there under similar weather conditions, in two old army tents sewn together that begin to rip apart under much better conditions, with no sleeping bags, just a wool blanket each, etc. That will cost a bit, though one could try to do this in an area anywhere in the world that gets that kind of cold weather/heavy winds.
However, even easier and cheaper would be to wait for it to snow at least a few inches, wearing the least amount of clothing worn by any Dyatlov group member, then go outside and do a lot of physical work, as they did (securing the tent, ripping a bunch of branches off trees, digging out the "den," and starting a robust fire), then sit in front of that kind of camp fire and see what happens. I think hypothermia will set in quickly so if you do this, have a couple of people dressed well who can get you into a warm house quickly if necessary.
I'll also mention that some have pointed out that the bodies were quite dirty when found. This does not surprise me, because they ripped all those branches off the trees. When there was no snow cover, the wind coming off that mountain likely embedded tiny bits of earth into the crevices of the tree bark, something you might be able to determine if you go to an area with similar trees and winds. I wish I could do some recreations of my own, but my health would not allow it.
-
It would leave the organisers open to all manner of financial liability should anyone get frostbite, or fall from a tree when affected by the cold, and if intending to see if they can make it 1 mile down to the forest unscathed, crossing 5 rocky ridges jutting though the snow, risk them gashing themselves in falls and being permanently scarred.
A man in his 50s was found dead in a tent on the pass a few years ago, ironically found by a party of 9 hikers, although there's no explanation online for how he died.
The new book claims the weather records for that night showed a wind speed of up to 35 metres-per second and -35C, which equates to -63C wind chill.
https://www.calculator.net/wind-chill-calculator.html
The static temperature in the unheated canvas tent would therefore be -25C, and far lower still for any draughts.
It's why some wonder if the tent was ever placed on the ridge by the hikers and was instead in their normal place, a forest, but if it was on the ridge there's more than enough cold to introduce hypothermia, especially if not being able to secure what would in those wind speeds (up to 78mph!) be the buckling and twisting long ridge of the tent in order to suspend a stove.
Also ascending the pass late in the day, and then digging a 12x6 trench in a snow cap as night descends at 4:29pm risks a dangerous sweat in those conditions.
-
It would leave the organisers open to all manner of financial liability should anyone get frostbite, or fall from a tree when affected by the cold, and if intending to see if they can make it 1 mile down to the forest unscathed, crossing 5 rocky ridges jutting though the snow, risk them gashing themselves in falls and being permanently scarred.
A man in his 50s was found dead in a tent on the pass a few years ago, ironically found by a party of 9 hikers, although there's no explanation online for how he died.
The new book claims the weather records for that night showed a wind speed of up to 35-metres-per second and -35C, which equates to -63 wind chill.
https://www.calculator.net/wind-chill-calculator.html
The static temperature in an unheated canvas tent would therefore be -25C, lower still for any draughts.
It's why some wonder if the tent was ever placed on the ridge by the hikers and was instead in their normal place, a forest, but if it was on the ridge there's more than enough cold to introduce hypothermia, especially if not being able to secure what would in those wind speeds (up to 78mph!) be the buckling and twisting long ridge of the tent in order to suspend a stove.
Also ascending the pass late in the day, and then digging a 12x6 trench in a snow cap as night descends at 4:29pm risks a dangerous sweat in those conditions.
It would have to be a group of willing volunteers all taking responsibility for themselves with a safety escape method there also. It would be interesting. They would need to be the same sort of ages and physical ability. It might explain the fact that the tent became too cold to be safe without the stove working and a realistic reason to leave but I would think they would have put their coats and boots on with an orderly evacuation. So I would agree with the tent collapsing and becoming impossible to stay in, and that is why they cut themselves out. But they had flashlights why not just reach in under the canvas and grab the coats and felt boots ? It seems they left the tent in their sleeping clothes with the intention to return later. So did wind collapse the tent and it was so bad outside they just decided to put snow on the tent to keep it flat and go for shelter in the forest ? The urgency was the cold and wind they were in once outside and they knew how near the trees were. Maybe one of them was already suffering from hypothermia. Their primary thought was for the nearest shelter and warmth. Then (I think) came the snow dens which collapsed injuring some of them.
-
eurocentric, I don't think the weather is a major factor in terms of the explanation, because we know it must have been quite cold and windy. If it was outrageously cold and windy, they would not have been able to secure the tent, get down to the treeline without apparent problem, rip off a whole lot of branches, start a robust campfire, dig out the "den," and then one of them got about halfway back up to the tent after all that (Zina), not wearing proper clothing (at least 7 of them).
DAXXY, I think the coats and boots were either frozen or they didn't want to risk those items getting frozen, which is why they secured the tent the way they did. Rather, it was just a "bad call," thinking it would be highly likely they'd survive if they could just get to the treeline and start a robust fire. I'd be curious to know if the "den" was started right away or only after the fire seemed to be a bad idea. It's certainly possible the idea was for the two guys who were better dressed to dig out the "den" while the others started, then huddled round the fire to warm up. Then they would all go to the "den," lie on a bed of branches, and huddle together until sunrise. Zina saw at least one Yuri die, then was angry or upset, and decided to go back to the tent, thinking Igor didn't know what he was doing. Then Slobodin went after her, hit his head, and lie unconsious. Then Igor goes after her, but hypothermia sets in (and I think they must have been too tired and sweated up for them to be able to get back to the tent, walking directly into the strong winds). I do think that not taking the blankets with them was clearly strange, but if a reconstruction was done, perhaps we would see that it was too windy, and also they couldn't do all that work with blankets wrapped around them. Or they didn't want the blankets to get frozen. There is no way to know what the thought process was, but plenty of people have had the wrong idea about how to survive in the wild, especially in an area they've never visited before under harsh weather conditions, so I don't think it makes sense to say thinks like, "they would have never done" this or that. For example, it's possible that the tent is about to collapse and Igor says, "wake up, we must secure the tent immediately, leave everything where it is and grab hold of the canvas where you can." They then position the canvas as he requests and puts some snow on top, then one flashlight goes on top of that, and then he tells them they will go to the treeline and start a campfire, returning at sunrise.
-
I don't know, but it seems to me people usually don't think for tomorrow if their life is in danger today. Meaning: When they were feeling cold as hell and knew they were at least in danger of freezing to death, why didn't they take at least some of the blankets? Take 3, leave the rest. I'd do that!
And although they were young, they already had several trips in the winterly wild of sibiria. They were living in an area where cold winters are expected. I'd expect them to know that wind and cold are dangerous. And that knowing these things wouldn't make one go out in the cold to secure a tent without shoes and at least a jacket of some kind. Of course it's dangerous in the wild without a proper tent. Having some of the group being incapable to walk or ski because of frostbitten feet is another danger. It is possible to build a shelter in the woods especially with snow around, to keep you warm throughout the night and of course the day. So in my opinion it's much more likely to survive without a tent than with damaged health due to cold...
Then again I never tried camping in the winter and only watched videos about shelter building.
-
For me I see urgency at the tent. Which could simply be that one or two of them have succumbed to the cold and the others need quick shelter and warmth. One of them falling to hypothermia would be the reason for all the rest to decide that the tent is the wrong place to be. They must have realized that if it's cold enough for one of them to get hypothermia then it would only be a matter of time before the others got it. They could have been thinking just about the casualties. Get them OK and safe and return to sort stuff out at the tent after. Did they cut the tent to get an unconscious person out ? Then carry or assist that person down to the shelter of the forest ? We'll never really know what caused the urgency. But in the forest their actions are based on warmth and shelter 'dens'. I think all the major injuries were crush injuries and decay from being in water so logically I think a den collapsed injuring the ones with serious injuries. It's interesting that the stove was never involved, never used but still carried up to the pass after they lightened their load at the store, this could also point to cold being an issue.
-
For me I see urgency at the tent. Which could simply be that one or two of them have succumbed to the cold and the others need quick shelter and warmth. One of them falling to hypothermia would be the reason for all the rest to decide that the tent is the wrong place to be. They must have realized that if it's cold enough for one of them to get hypothermia then it would only be a matter of time before the others got it. They could have been thinking just about the casualties. Get them OK and safe and return to sort stuff out at the tent after. Did they cut the tent to get an unconscious person out ? Then carry or assist that person down to the shelter of the forest ? We'll never really know what caused the urgency. But in the forest their actions are based on warmth and shelter 'dens'. I think all the major injuries were crush injuries and decay from being in water so logically I think a den collapsed injuring the ones with serious injuries. It's interesting that the stove was never involved, never used but still carried up to the pass after they lightened their load at the store, this could also point to cold being an issue.
I very much agree. There were other hiking groups in the region who also experienced weather related issues. One group returned with "frostbite to their arms and legs," Atamanaki's group had several cases of illness and they got lost in the snow a few times. I think I remember another group had their tent burn down, though that is not necessarily weather related.
-
I don't own a tent similar to their tent. I do own a tent though and enjoy using it. A lot. During summer, that is...
As I understand it, hypothermia causes slowness of movement and being stiff altogether. Some years ago one of my friends happened to get a really bad back. Later we learned she had a slipped disc. Yes, she did take her time to get out of the tent but we never ever thought about cutting it for her to get out faster to get her to the medics. And this was in summer and we did have more than that one single tent.
It is possible to get someone out of a tent without cutting it. Especially without cutting it that badly. And you don't need more than two persons to care for one injured at that level of injury. So I'd say if they didn't wait until they had three cases of hypothermia, there'd be still people left to get clothes, blankets and tools.
Someone being already unconscious might be a different thing. I never tried to get an unconscious person out of a tent. On the other hand: IF someone was unconscious, he or she must have come by directly after being taken from the tent. I couldn't see the kind of foot prints in the snow being left while carrying an unconscious person down a slope.
I do wonder though: Did that tent have a floor?
-
I think it had a ground sheet and they laid their rucksacks on it too. I think once the hypothermia process starts it's a race against time to get someone warm again or they will keep cooling down until they die. If the tent has collapsed in the wind and someone is far too cold, then if they stay there the only hope is to put the tent back up, light the stove, or all huddle together under blankets for body heat. This may all have seemed like a more difficult option than getting out and all going to the forest where there is firewood and deep snow for a shelter. They could get warm and rest and recheck the tent later. I think their choice to leave the flashlights indicates that they thought the tent had temporarily failed them, and urgency meant they didn't have time to mess with it and try and set up the stove in the dark. The easiest and quickest solution would be to go to the shelter of the trees.
-
I think it had a ground sheet and they laid their rucksacks on it too. I think once the hypothermia process starts it's a race against time to get someone warm again or they will keep cooling down until they die. If the tent has collapsed in the wind and someone is far too cold, then if they stay there the only hope is to put the tent back up, light the stove, or all huddle together under blankets for body heat. This may all have seemed like a more difficult option than getting out and all going to the forest where there is firewood and deep snow for a shelter. They could get warm and rest and recheck the tent later. I think their choice to leave the flashlights indicates that they thought the tent had temporarily failed them, and urgency meant they didn't have time to mess with it and try and set up the stove in the dark. The easiest and quickest solution would be to go to the shelter of the trees.
Apparently they took one flashlight, which stopped working, and was found on the side of the mountain (as if the person holding it got disgusted when it went out and threw it away), and the other was on top of the tent but underneath a layer of snow, which suggests that was part of some plan. They did a whole lot of work once they left the tent (securing it, walking down the mountain, ripping branches off the trees, digging the "den," and starting the fire; and some tried to go back up to the tent). There was a somewhat similar case, I think in the book, "Off the Wall: Death in Yosemite," in which a female skier got lost and decided to wait for help, which didn't arrive until the next morning. She found a log to sit on, so she would walk around the log for a while to keep warm, then sit on it a little while when fatigue set in, all night long. When found she was upset and very cold, but I don't think she suffered any major issues, like frostbite. She was dressed better but I think that was still during the pre-modern age, in terms of cold weather attire for doing things like hiking and skiing. I doubt if she was in an area that was windy, and in the DPI case, I think the combination of minimal clothing, too much physical activity, and not enough shelter from the wind was the super dangerous combination (other than for the "ravine 4," who may have survived if not for the apparent fall onto the rocky creek).
-
I defenitely agree that hypothermia started inside the tent, or even killed at least 2 of them in tent. If you look at the bodies, two of them (those who were laid dead under the cedar tree) look like they died while they were sleeping. Look at their arms. They are positioned exactly as one puts their arms when they are relaxed and sleeping. The hands are one over his head, and other up near head also. The other has both of his arms above his head. Also their bodies are rather straight. Why would someone fighting against cold outside, go laying like that on snow? It's the opposite, hypothermic persons are found usually in fetal position I have heard. Maybe these two died inside tent, and were laid next to eachother near the fire. They are the ones least dressed also. Dead people don't need shoes. besides, if one has frozen their feet, doesn't they swell? That makes it impossible to put shoes on, therefore socks are better.
Dyatlovs hands positions look also odd to me. His hands look like someone were carrying him from under his arms. Or as if he has put his arms over the blanket, like in sleeping. But it could be just how his body fell down in snow too...
But I agree they needed fire and fire needed wood which they didn't have. It was way too cold to sleep without stove that night. They left to get wood.
-
The positioning might be an issue. I gotta think about that. Hypothermia setting in in the tent. But why on earth would you bring someone already dead? And why are there no traces left in the snow? That would mean the dead where carried. Why would you carry someone already dead down a slope in the darkness?
Putting the flashlight on the tent seemed to me as well as an indication of a plan to come back later and finding the tent in the dark. Until I read that when finding the tent someone switched on the flashlight (so it was left put out) and it did work (so it couldn't have run out of battery before). Why would one leave a flashlight on the tent that could give light but didn't?
As for the ravine 4: What I have read until now, I find it highly improbable that they have fallen to their death in that ravine. When they were there, there should have been no hole underneath the snow (it hasn't been reported to form by anyone inspecting the area). There is no natural creek there, the water flowing down the hill was reported as thawed snow finding its way down.
And I've nowhere read about a ravine forming in the snow. Overall the term ravine seems to be somehow exaggerated. dunno1
-
well who would want to sleep next to two dead bodies? Nobody. So they decided to carry the bodies outside, to the forest, bury them there in snow. But they couldn't get back anymore.
-
The positioning might be an issue. I gotta think about that. Hypothermia setting in in the tent. But why on earth would you bring someone already dead? And why are there no traces left in the snow? That would mean the dead where carried. Why would you carry someone already dead down a slope in the darkness?
Putting the flashlight on the tent seemed to me as well as an indication of a plan to come back later and finding the tent in the dark. Until I read that when finding the tent someone switched on the flashlight (so it was left put out) and it did work (so it couldn't have run out of battery before). Why would one leave a flashlight on the tent that could give light but didn't?
As for the ravine 4: What I have read until now, I find it highly improbable that they have fallen to their death in that ravine. When they were there, there should have been no hole underneath the snow (it hasn't been reported to form by anyone inspecting the area). There is no natural creek there, the water flowing down the hill was reported as thawed snow finding its way down.
And I've nowhere read about a ravine forming in the snow. Overall the term ravine seems to be somehow exaggerated. dunno1
Not necessarily dead but unconscious and needing help, still breathing and weak pulse maybe, but very cold so they decide to move them to the forest to make a fire and shelter quickly. They leave a torch switched on some distance out from the tent to guide someone back when the shelter is finished to collect blankets and they leave a torch ready to use on some snow at the tent switched off.
The ravine I think is bad translation. It could just mean a gully or ditch.
So in their heads is the urgency to get a person or 2 out of the tent as fast as possible and down to the shelter of the trees to make a fire and warm them up and make a shelter because they are literally dying of cold and they know it is a race against time.
-
Not so much of a race they wouldn't put coats and boots on first to walk 1km.
And how many footprints in the snow? The dead walk themselves?
-
Not so much of a race they wouldn't put coats and boots on first to walk 1km.
And how many footprints in the snow? The dead walk themselves?
They cut the tent to get somebody suffering hypothermia out. They helped them recover a little but they were still cold so they decided to help them get to the forest to warm them up with a fire and make a den. They left flashlights to come back in a little while for blankets coats etc as soon as the casualty was OK in the forest. Their actions in the forest describe their intentions for going there. Fire and shelter. Why ? to protect them from cold. Because the tent wasn't good enough.
They don't know how many people walked or were carried or were helped by others. They just saw footprints all going in the same direction, to the nearest forest.
-
Not so much of a race they wouldn't put coats and boots on first to walk 1km.
And how many footprints in the snow? The dead walk themselves?
They cut the tent to get somebody suffering hypothermia out. They helped them recover a little but they were still cold so they decided to help them get to the forest to warm them up with a fire and make a den. They left flashlights to come back in a little while for blankets coats etc as soon as the casualty was OK in the forest. Their actions in the forest describe their intentions for going there. Fire and shelter. Why ? to protect them from cold. Because the tent wasn't good enough.
They don't know how many people walked or were carried or were helped by others. They just saw footprints all going in the same direction, to the nearest forest.
They may have already been suffering the effects of hypothermia when they pitched the tent on an exposed hillside, and therefore subsequent actions would also be illogical, but I don't think you can argue trekking ~1km in socks, knowing the return journey is uphill, without taking any blankets, boots, coats or wood cutting tools actually makes logical sense.
Something forced them to abandon the tent without any equipment, assuming they still had their wits about them.
-
They had knives. Pocket knives and one knife on a lanyard and a 'Finnish knife' not sure what that is. They also didn't go to their store which was also down hill which would have been their normal escape route and where their supplies and fire wood was waiting. They went to the nearest forest out of urgency because of cold I think. It was the fastest way to get warmth and shelter.
-
I'm currently reading this book: https://smile.amazon.de/gp/product/B06ZZKXKDC/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
It was only yesterday that I came across a part that clearly stated that they found 8 or 9 pairs of traces and none of someone (or something) being dragged.
If this is true (which I do assume) they could only have carried one or maybe two people. This could be a reason for moving slowly and organized. I'm not quite sure whether you'd carry someone in that manner down a slope...
Yes, they had knifes. Did you ever try to cut a tree with a pocket knife? A Finnish knife is not much else than a pocket knife. It usually comes with a sheath and can't be folded. Sometimes it has a fancy handle. But the size of the blade is about the same, as far as I can tell.
In lack of something better we did try to cut wood with a pocket knife. It's bad. I'd never do it, if I had any other option!
According to the mainly established facts, the group made it at most 2km up the hill while it was still kinda day. I can't see them go down 1km to the treeline only to come back later (moving up the hill in the darkness) to grab more stuff. According there was anyone left with a hand free to carry something, they would have taken at least some tools! The time needed to cut wood with a pocket knife in an amount to start a fire or build a shelter is just too much.
Another thing: Some people were about to die of hypothermia inside the tent. Let's assume, this is how it went. So they cut the tent or maybe managed to get them out through the door, doesn't matter so far. Outside those affected recover a little. Wait. How are they supposed to recover, still not wearing more clothes than inside the tent but now outside in the piercing wind? I can't see anyone recover just a little standing outside the tent. Plus while those recovered, the others would have had time to get some clothes, blankets and tools.
So this part of the theory sound's highly improbable!
-
I'm currently reading this book: https://smile.amazon.de/gp/product/B06ZZKXKDC/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
It was only yesterday that I came across a part that clearly stated that they found 8 or 9 pairs of traces and none of someone (or something) being dragged.
If this is true (which I do assume) they could only have carried one or maybe two people. This could be a reason for moving slowly and organized. I'm not quite sure whether you'd carry someone in that manner down a slope...
Yes, they had knifes. Did you ever try to cut a tree with a pocket knife? A Finnish knife is not much else than a pocket knife. It usually comes with a sheath and can't be folded. Sometimes it has a fancy handle. But the size of the blade is about the same, as far as I can tell.
In lack of something better we did try to cut wood with a pocket knife. It's bad. I'd never do it, if I had any other option!
According to the mainly established facts, the group made it at most 2km up the hill while it was still kinda day. I can't see them go down 1km to the treeline only to come back later (moving up the hill in the darkness) to grab more stuff. According there was anyone left with a hand free to carry something, they would have taken at least some tools! The time needed to cut wood with a pocket knife in an amount to start a fire or build a shelter is just too much.
Another thing: Some people were about to die of hypothermia inside the tent. Let's assume, this is how it went. So they cut the tent or maybe managed to get them out through the door, doesn't matter so far. Outside those affected recover a little. Wait. How are they supposed to recover, still not wearing more clothes than inside the tent but now outside in the piercing wind? I can't see anyone recover just a little standing outside the tent. Plus while those recovered, the others would have had time to get some clothes, blankets and tools.
So this part of the theory sound's highly improbable!
Not fully recover maybe the casualties still needed to be carried so they (the group) couldn't carry other things like tools. They would come back for tools blankets etc. Which is why the flashlights were set up where they were. Also in forests there is fallen wood for fuel. They would break any branches they wanted off trees but this would have tree sap in and not be the best for burning. But useful for insulating a den. The forest had birch trees which would be good fuel for a fire. Maybe say two casualties remain in the tent with four people helping them with body heat and one person on lookout, while the others go to the forest to make a fire which the 2 yuris did. That's 9 people. Was the tree climbing to signal the tent to bring the casualties down to the forest. ? It would make sense to not leave the tent until a fire was already made.
-
It just doesn't add up.
If there were casualties to hypothermia, they wouldn't recover at all once outside the tent without further action, because outside it was colder than inside.
There are no signs that people were carried, because there are 8-9 trails of foot prints. Either there were more than our group walking in socks through the snow, then some people could have carried others. Or they were walking by themselves.
It's possible they wanted to come back for tools, but then again: Why didn't they take them in the first place, when going down, for there is nothing hinting they had no hands free to carry them.
Of course, there's fallen wood in the forest. In winter it tends to be covered by snow though. I'm not that used to hiking in the snow, but I'd imagine much of the wood being covered by snow to be wet and therefor not burning well. Birch is a good thing to kindle a fire, especially its bark. Whereas fresh wood as in just broken from the tree tends to be too wet to burn (usually as in "at all").
To break a branch off of a tree you need some strength. I'd not try that with bare hands if I could take an ax with me. It is just so much more energy and time consuming. There a guy on Youtube (I'd post a link, but his videos are in German) who often goes out in the wilderness and tries out aspects of survival. He sometimes experiments with stuff like "Surviving with only a pocket knife" or "Surviving with nothing but a lighter". He is a strong man, used to hiking and survival settings and he is exhausted after building a shelter for one person without an ax. And he's not at the verge of freezing to death when doing so. I just can't see anyone who's a little experienced in being outdoors leaving tools behind if there hands are free. This leaving the only two options either panic (which contradicts the traces left) or carrying others (which also contradicts the traces left).
Let's say there were two casualties left in the tent and four people taking care of them. Why on earth wouldn't they try to put clothes on them? As for me, I'd try to have two people heat up clothes with their bodies, two others hugging the casualties underneath some blankets. Them put the warm clothes on the freezing people and getting all dressed, wrapping the kinda warm blankets around the casualties as well. Anyway, I don't see why they should have stayed half naked and then also left that way.
I'm with you as in not leaving the tent before a fire is burning. But as stated before, there are many aspects that don't fit to the theory of staying there.
I don't think you could see someone climbing the cedar when standing near the tent. So there must have been another kind of signal, like a flashlight (which neither of the Yuris seem to have had) or a torch. I'm not sure how to climb with a blazing torch... Anyway: Why not throw it in the air? Wouldn't that be enough? (Not sure about that part, but it just seems strange to climb a tree to signal with a torch...)
-
I'm with Missi on this one. The scenario doesn't add up. No more than one of the hikers could have been killed or incapacitated by hypothermia or anything else at the tent. The tracks of "8 or 9" individuals were preserved, with no signs of anyone/anything being dragged, or of anyone falling over.
I will concede that some of them could have been hypothermic enough to be impaired in their judgment, and to need help walking without stumbling. But there's no way all of them would have been impaired enough to walk down the hill to make a fire and/or shelter but forget the tools they would need. And believe me, if they thought it was a good idea to exit the tent without outerwear or even a blanket, the bite of the cold wind would give them second thoughts about that.
-
That's the point of doing a reconstruction, RMK! I'd be curious to know if they could have slept, or if it was too cold. They did a lot of work that day and for the last few days leading up to it, so that would have to be part of the reconstruction too. Too many people say, "well I can't imagine making the decision they made" when referring to several aspects of the incident, but I can't imagine taking the risk they did, going out "in the middle of nowhere," especially under those weather conditions and with no way to contact "the outside world." The Soviet government had to prohibit such hikes at various times due to all the fatalities, from what I understand, so again, if we just look at the evidence and stop saying to ourselves, "well I can't believe they would have done [this or that], and therefore I'm going to conjure up some possibilities that there is no evidence for, in order to create an explanation that makes me feel more satisfied," the evidence we have makes perfect sense. Yes, they made some bad decisions, but if they had not, we would not be talking about this incident and perhaps this would be a forum about the Chivrauy incident instead.
-
You can't completely reconstruct the circumstances at the ridge in that night, because we simply don't know them completely. From a certain point it will always be guessing.
I can tell you this, though:
I might be no Russian, but I like the cold and I'm pretty resistant to it. My husband likes to joke I'd been born in an igloo because I'm so unimpressed by it.
Currently our weather is influenced by cold Siberian air. We also have a little snow, yay! My point is: I just came back from a walk (about 1h) and I was outside yesterday as well. Being me, I didn't take gloves or a scarf or a hat, I didn't wear winter boots. That's just me, I usually don't feel cold. And boy, did I regret not having taken gloves and a hat and a scarf!
Sure you can manage a while without frostbite (I didn't get any and didn't expect to). But then again I'm in Germany with an influence of Siberian cold air and not in Siberia. I was for a walk and not camping. And even for that walk I wouldn't have left my coat or shoes for anything in the world. Except being threatened at gunpoint or something similar.
And then we're talking about people that knew where they were and what the cold was like there. People living there usually know some things about cold and frostbite and hypothermia. And the group was not stupid.
-
Missi, I think wind chill factor is often a huge factor, but overall I agree that if one is active (even as in the case of the lost skier who waited for help all night, walking around a log and then sitting on it when she was too tired to walk, then getting up again as soon as she could and walking again), one certainly might survive. Then again, if there was an unusual weather event, as some have claimed, the group would not have been able to do as much as they did. And that brings us back to seasonally cold weather, but with wind coming off the mountain (as usual, but they didn't know about it) that was likely the biggest problem (hence the decision to dig the "den"). In that situation, the decision to build a fire was likely wrong (along with not taking their blankets with them); otherwise they put themselves in a position that was not survivable by where they decided to camp for the night (without any heat).
-
Missi, I think wind chill factor is often a huge factor, but overall I agree that if one is active (even as in the case of the lost skier who waited for help all night, walking around a log and then sitting on it when she was too tired to walk, then getting up again as soon as she could and walking again), one certainly might survive. Then again, if there was an unusual weather event, as some have claimed, the group would not have been able to do as much as they did. And that brings us back to seasonally cold weather, but with wind coming off the mountain (as usual, but they didn't know about it) that was likely the biggest problem (hence the decision to dig the "den"). In that situation, the decision to build a fire was likely wrong (along with not taking their blankets with them); otherwise they put themselves in a position that was not survivable by where the decided to camp for the night (without anBahta
If we look at witness testimonies from around Ivdel, several of them talked about a major weather event over the course of 1/31 through 2/2 or 3. Higher winds than they'd had in decades, huge snow falls, temperatures that dropped exceedingly below average. (Dryahlyh, Vasiliy Popov, Chagin, Pashin testimonies.) We also have other hiking groups who experienced very rough hikes in that same time frame; the hiking group from the pedagogical institute that came back with frostbite to their arms and legs, Atamanaki's group that got lost and had to turn back then had illnesses and such exhaustion that people remained at the base camp to recuperate, etc. One of the Bahtiyarov's I believe testified that he couldn't go out to hunt because if the storm, but that may have been a later storm. We also know the search groups had to take some days off due to blizzard conditions at the pass. I really think the weather that February was uniquely bad.
-
It's interesting that the stove was never involved, never used but still carried up to the pass after they lightened their load at the store, this could also point to cold being an issue.
In "Evening Otorten" there is joke about a record for stove assembly. Although this could have happened on a previous night too..
-
I do wonder though: Did that tent have a floor?
I wondered the same thing, and while there is no definitive yes anywhere, if you read the various descriptions from searchers of how they found the tent, some describe "tent" between skis and backpacks. So based on that I assume it had a floor.
-
They had knives. Pocket knives and one knife on a lanyard and a 'Finnish knife' not sure what that is.
If you search for puukko, you will see.
-
Investigator, I think, you got me wrong. Of course the wind chill is a huge factor. And they would have known that for sure. They were outdoor-people. Yes, you might be able to keep yourself warm for some time by being active. But everything combined I still think it highly improbable they left the tent without sufficient clothes.
And yes, KFinn, the weather is reported to be special around the time. But then again, this is rather a reason to take more than less clothes when leaving the tent.
Manti, we know they used the stove at least once before on this trip. I'm pretty sure there's reference to them having used the stove on earlier hikes before. This is enough that there might be a new high score. Or maybe it was even meant in a sarcastic way and it was the longest time they ever took so far...
As for the tent: Meanwhile I found those pictures (https://dyatlovpass.com/tent-1957-1958). Especially the first and last (see the branches in the doorway) make me suspect, it was a tent without a floor sewn to it but instead there was a floorpiece that had to be put on the ground and the tent erected above it. No prove, just a suspicion, though.
It's described though, that the put the skis underneath the tent for a stable ground and cleared the backpacks to put them flat on the floor for another layer of insulation.
-
Yes, I just find it quite odd they write about the speed of stove assembly on a night when they didn't assemble the stove. But there are other odd things in Evening Otorten... Increased birthrate among hikers? And both the women were virgins. Maybe just another rude joke from one of the guys..
-
I never found a report about Zina being virgin. Where did you get that?
On the other hand: It might just be they had the time and wanted to do the paper that evening, so they recollected things. The hint on the increasing birth rate might just be related to the lacking space in the tent and the fact they "cuddled" a lot...
There's also the mention of "love lessons" or something. Which I don't exactly thing that did, either. ;)
-
I never found a report about Zina being virgin. Where did you get that?
Kolmogorova's autopsy report notes that the victim's hymen is intact. For that matter, Dubinina's autopsy report does likewise.
-
I've found mentioning of that in Ljubas autopsy report. I didn't come around to reading the one of Zina though and it wasn't mentioned in anything I've come across so far. Thanks for pointing it out.
-
Investigator, I think, you got me wrong. Of course the wind chill is a huge factor. And they would have known that for sure. They were outdoor-people. Yes, you might be able to keep yourself warm for some time by being active. But everything combined I still think it highly improbable they left the tent without sufficient clothes.
And yes, KFinn, the weather is reported to be special around the time. But then again, this is rather a reason to take more than less clothes when leaving the tent.
Manti, we know they used the stove at least once before on this trip. I'm pretty sure there's reference to them having used the stove on earlier hikes before. This is enough that there might be a new high score. Or maybe it was even meant in a sarcastic way and it was the longest time they ever took so far...
As for the tent: Meanwhile I found those pictures (https://dyatlovpass.com/tent-1957-1958). Especially the first and last (see the branches in the doorway) make me suspect, it was a tent without a floor sewn to it but instead there was a floorpiece that had to be put on the ground and the tent erected above it. No prove, just a suspicion, though.
It's described though, that the put the skis underneath the tent for a stable ground and cleared the backpacks to put them flat on the floor for another layer of insulation.
Isn't that "assuming facts not in evidence?" Now that's fine to do for fun, but if you do that when you do a pro investigation you'll just have a bunch of ideas and nothing to do with them, or you will fixate on something inconsistent with the actual evidence, which is worse most of the time. The best you can do most of the time is figure out what likely happened, which is what matches the evidence you have best. It's often the case that the motivations or rationale for some of the decisions don't make sense, but this is not uncommon. It's known that in situations like fires, around 15% of people, even when they are told what to do in case of fire, just do nothing or do something that is really dumb, for example. And there are many crimes where nobody can figure out why the perpetrator committed the crime. But questioning that they camped there and did leave the tent without heavy winter clothing (except for two of them, who were likely the "sentries" for the night) is really arguing for a different "Dyatlov Pass Incident," and one only has so much time; therefore, until new evidence becomes available to support some other DPI, it is not worthwhile for investigators to spend time on such notions.
As to the flooring of the tent, from what I understand, they put the skiis down, then there was a canvas tarp that went over it, and then they put their backpacks on the tarp and lied own on or againsts the backpacks.
-
I think, we're misunderstanding each other, Investigator.
My case is:
They put the tent on the mountain. They left the tent, some barely (at least badly) dressed. They knew about the wind chill factor. They would have taken clothes with them. That's the logical thing to do, if there was nothing special happening at the time. More wind being only a reason more to take clothes. Whereas people with guns, hallucinations, meteors, whatnot could be a reason to NOT take them.
-
The tent floor is a question I've also tried to find a definitive answer for. In Sharavin's interview in 2007-2008, he said the bottom was skis, backpacks, quilted jackets then blankets. He does later describe them moving the contents of the tent to "a flooring," on the ridge when they were disassembling it all. Whether that meant a snow cleared area, a tarp brought up to the ridge or the tent floor, it does not say. There were mentions of a tarp or tarps in the various inventories, which could have been used as a flooring; I have separate canvas floors for most of my canvas tents to limit the weight of the tent, itself. If you look at the pictures of the tent set up for the forensic analysis, it almost looks like there is a floor attached, but its a black and white photo and hard to determine conclusively.
If there was a floor, the backpacks would be on top of it, though, else you would have a hard time getting to your gear, as needed.
-
The backpacks were empty at night. They took everything out and used the flat backpacks for another insulating layer. I was a little awed when reading this, for I'm a very lazy person and can't imagine the quarrel of packing the backpack daily and unpacking it in the evening...
The picture I linked, the one showing the buildup of the tent, indicated that the canvas was on the branches (if available) and only on top of the canvas somewhere were the packpacks.
A separate floor would also be useful for weight distribution amongst the hikers. So I'd say it's probably a separate one, all things considered...
-
The backpacks were empty at night. They took everything out and used the flat backpacks for another insulating layer. I was a little awed when reading this, for I'm a very lazy person and can't imagine the quarrel of packing the backpack daily and unpacking it in the evening...
The picture I linked, the one showing the buildup of the tent, indicated that the canvas was on the branches (if available) and only on top of the canvas somewhere were the packpacks.
A separate floor would also be useful for weight distribution amongst the hikers. So I'd say it's probably a separate one, all things considered...
That changes some things, then. The backpacks found in the tent had all sorts of gear in them.
-
That changes some things, then. The backpacks found in the tent had all sorts of gear in them.
I was surprised all the personal diaries were found in a single bag, if I kept a personal diary I wouldn't want others reading it and I'd keep it on my person. Maybe their attitudes were different, but then why not just have one diary?
-
That changes some things, then. The backpacks found in the tent had all sorts of gear in them.
I was surprised all the personal diaries were found in a single bag, if I kept a personal diary I wouldn't want others reading it and I'd keep it on my person. Maybe their attitudes were different, but then why not just have one diary?
I have to go back and look, but I believe all of the diaries and documents/papers were put into one backpack by the searchers, for the investigator.
-
It's reported that the search team put the small things lying around in one backpack to transport them. Plus, as far as I know, the first batch of diaries (which I prefer to think of as mere journals that were intended to document the hike for references which were required to earn the badge they were after) was stored in the storage they build before going up the mountain. It wouldn't make much sense to take them when they were already full.
I'm still not sure if there were diaries inside the tent, though, but I haven't looked into the files listing the found objects, so this is only one part I have to find out, nothing to build a mystery upon just yet. ;)
-
That changes some things, then. The backpacks found in the tent had all sorts of gear in them.
I was surprised all the personal diaries were found in a single bag, if I kept a personal diary I wouldn't want others reading it and I'd keep it on my person. Maybe their attitudes were different, but then why not just have one diary?
Thats what I thought initially. But it could also be for practical reasons, keeping all the paperwork together.
-
It's reported that the search team put the small things lying around in one backpack to transport them. Plus, as far as I know, the first batch of diaries (which I prefer to think of as mere journals that were intended to document the hike for references which were required to earn the badge they were after) was stored in the storage they build before going up the mountain. It wouldn't make much sense to take them when they were already full.
I'm still not sure if there were diaries inside the tent, though, but I haven't looked into the files listing the found objects, so this is only one part I have to find out, nothing to build a mystery upon just yet. ;)
There were Diaries inside the Tent and they were found in one bag apparently. But one Diary was taken down to the Search Parties Base camp.
-
Can you point me to the source, sarapuk? That's be highly appreciated!
-
Can you point me to the source, sarapuk? That's be highly appreciated!
Try below.
DYATLOV PASS CASE FILES. Volume 1.
ATMANAKI WITNESS TESTIMONY
Sheet 215
- 7 -
the entrance by stacking the corner of the tent with a load so that it will not be torn by the wind. The tent was laid on skis, straps were tied to ski poles, and most of them were not damaged. On the slope of the tent we found a flashlight, an ice ax not far away down, there was a pair of skis stuck in the snow, the windy (north) side of the tent was torn and some blankets and a quilted jacket were protruding out. The other side of the tent was heaped with bulging snow and lay on the bottom of the tent, overlaying all the contents in it. Before we started the search we decided to check if there was anyone left in the tent. Snow was removed, the fallen side of the tent was raised, and we carefully removed the blankets and quilted jackets. There were no people in the tent. Inspected the contents. The bottom of the tent lay on skis, then quilted jackets, backpacks, gaiters and other small equipment. Towards the heads on the south side were felt boots and boots, in the far right corner we found a field bag with the documents of the group, a box of films and money, a camera and a few small objects, everything was packed in a backpack, except for the diary and documents sent to the base camp. There was no point to continue the further dismantling of the things, and so they left everything into place before the investigator arrived, after raising the tent and pulling out three pairs of
Sheet 315
There were many items in the tent. Near the entrance of the tent, which seems to have been opened, lay the stove inside its case. The pipes of the latter were inside the stove, which indicates that the stove was not attempted to be taken out , lit although outside the tent on the rear end end in the snow I found a log, undoubtedly intended for the stove.
Inside the tent were found buckets, at the entrance lay an ax, maybe 2, and saw with a cover. On the head side (if you stand facing the entrance of the tent, then on the right side of it, which is lower on the slope) there were lay personal belongings of the deceased and food products taken from the backpacks. Dyatlov belongings were discovered at the very end of the tent (a field bag containing money, documents, diaries, a camera, etc. After that lay Slobodin and Kolevatov I think, because there were found their belongings. At the entrance to the tent lay either the hiker on duty or the supplies manager because cuts of ham were found here, and it seems that only one piece was eaten (the edge was found), in one of the mugs there were, in my opinion, the remains of oatmeal porridge, possibly the morning remains. We found scattered rusks (our guys could could have cut the bag from the rusks when they first cleared an entry into the tent). In general, there there were not that many products in the tent (for five days at most), which told us that Dyatlov group had made a storage, which we later learned from the diary, it seems, was Dyatlov's, and then found out by the maps they drew.
In the tent there were several pairs of felt boots,
-
Thank you. :)
-
I think, we're misunderstanding each other, Investigator.
My case is:
They put the tent on the mountain. They left the tent, some barely (at least badly) dressed. They knew about the wind chill factor. They would have taken clothes with them. That's the logical thing to do, if there was nothing special happening at the time. More wind being only a reason more to take clothes. Whereas people with guns, hallucinations, meteors, whatnot could be a reason to NOT take them.
If they had done that, there might not be any DPI and we'd be talking about some other odd incident. People sometimes make mistakes. Igor himself had a previous group stand still while wild horses charged them. He was right about that, but apparently very wrong about how to survive in that location wearing what they were wearing with the campfire idea. He was courageous and not averse to risks (otherwise, no reason to pitch the tent there or not use heat), and it seems they just misjudged how difficult survival would be (perhaps largely due being unfamiliar with the area), but they clearly had a plan and went at that plan with determination. But we are back at the importance of a reconstruction, which might show us that the tent appeared to be ready to be torn apart very quickly, and so the decision to secure the tent as the primary priority would make sense.
-
When the rescuer claimed that there was an apparent attempt to open the tent, does he mean that a couple of buttons were unbuttoned? That was my understanding from other sources, which may have gotten their information from this same source. Anyway, if so, it suggests there was an attempt to unbutton the tent, but it was iced up (and this could explain the bruises on the knuckles of Igor and Slobodin (any othersQ?). That is, they punched at the opening, trying to get out to secure a tent that appeared to be ready to collapse due to ice/snow buildup, but when that proved to be too slow or difficult, they cut the tent open (we know they had the equipment to sew tents).
-
When the rescuer claimed that there was an apparent attempt to open the tent, does he mean that a couple of buttons were unbuttoned? That was my understanding from other sources, which may have gotten their information from this same source. Anyway, if so, it suggests there was an attempt to unbutton the tent, but it was iced up (and this could explain the bruises on the knuckles of Igor and Slobodin (any othersQ?). That is, they punched at the opening, trying to get out to secure a tent that appeared to be ready to collapse due to ice/snow buildup, but when that proved to be too slow or difficult, they cut the tent open (we know they had the equipment to sew tents).
That's an interesting idea.
-
Investor, did you ever sew a canvas tent? It is possible. You can sew even larger rips, but it takes time and it is nothing I'd enjoy to do with a temperature below zero. You HAVE to take off your gloves to do so. They wouldn't have cut it if not absolutely necessary. And for me it's just unthinkable to cut open a tent in order to secure it. That's highly illogical.
I think, we're misunderstanding each other, Investigator.
My case is:
They put the tent on the mountain. They left the tent, some barely (at least badly) dressed. They knew about the wind chill factor. They would have taken clothes with them. That's the logical thing to do, if there was nothing special happening at the time. More wind being only a reason more to take clothes. Whereas people with guns, hallucinations, meteors, whatnot could be a reason to NOT take them.
If they had done that, there might not be any DPI and we'd be talking about some other odd incident. People sometimes make mistakes. Igor himself had a previous group stand still while wild horses charged them. He was right about that, but apparently very wrong about how to survive in that location wearing what they were wearing with the campfire idea. He was courageous and not averse to risks (otherwise, no reason to pitch the tent there or not use heat), and it seems they just misjudged how difficult survival would be (perhaps largely due being unfamiliar with the area), but they clearly had a plan and went at that plan with determination. But we are back at the importance of a reconstruction, which might show us that the tent appeared to be ready to be torn apart very quickly, and so the decision to secure the tent as the primary priority would make sense.
Your argument seems to be: They must have made a mistake, otherwise they would have survived.
You yourself mention Igor to have decided absolutely right in another event. But you are completely sure he must have messed up this time. What makes you so sure about that other than we talk about the incident until now? There might have been many other reasons. Sure, they did take some risks (as in traveling in the winter through the Siberian wilderness with only a tent as a shelter) but many people take some risks. Yet not everyone died. There are reasons you might take into account as to why they pitched up the tent on the ridge and why they didn't light the oven. Those reasons range from mistake to decision. You just assume without presenting anything close to a prove.
What makes you so sure the opening of the tent was iced up? Is there a source pointing that direction? Is there any hint that punching an iced canvas can produce similar wounds as those on the hands of the victims? As far as I know about wounds like these, they are typical for punching someone, in some cased with your hand held wrong.
-
...it suggests there was an attempt to unbutton the tent, but it was iced up (and this could explain the bruises on the knuckles of Igor and Slobodin (any othersQ?). That is, they punched at the opening, trying to get out to secure a tent that appeared to be ready to collapse due to ice/snow buildup...
Did the tent fight back and also cause the bruises on their faces?