Theories Discussion > General Discussion

"An Unknown Compelling Force"

<< < (2/3) > >>

GlennM:
Good point Elizabeth. Of course, where we all struggle is less with the logic and more with the truth. Out of the hundreds of premises, mine included, most are false. Therefore, divining motivations and stimulation from the beginning of the tragic event to the end is frustrating. Similarly working backward in time from discovery to the initial cause hasn't worked to everyone's satisfaction. If the generally accepted explanations, transient phenomena such as wind and weather and the attendant ground effects has logic and the ring of truth. The mystery will never be definitively solved because transient phenomena are just that, transient. What are your thoughts?

ElizabethHarris:
I completely agree and I love your terminology of 'transient phenomena." In ever-changing natural elements, especially in that terrain, there are just so many variables at play. You mentioned that of the hundred premises, they are all false, including yours. I'm so curious as to what your premise is. I'd love to hear it!!

GlennM:
I  reason that after making the cache at boot rock, the hikers decided that hard won elevation was worth spending a cold night in the tent. They dug a leveling ditch for their tent, rigged it and moved in. This was all orderly as evidenced by rescuers description of the tent inside. This also points to a continued good will among the hikers. What happened to them occurred probably without warning. Was it something seen in the sky? I think not. Nobody is going to cut up a tent to get a peek at a glowing object. Was it of terrestrial origin? Have you ever experienced an earthquake?  That could cause the tent to get cut, they fearing a slab avalanche . I can not figure why they didn't return for boots unless a rockslide was a possibility. I think nobody but the hikers were on that slope that moonless frigid night. They misjudged their danger and their distance to the forest, thus producing  a far more consequential misjudgment. Any thoughts?

Игорь Б.:

--- Quote from: GlennM on January 25, 2022, 06:15:36 PM ---I can not figure why they didn't return for boots
--- End quote ---
Они не вернулись не только за ботинками, но и за куртками. Более того, они выбросили четыре куртки, уже вынесенные из палатки. При этом они не бежали от палатки, а уходили медленным шагом.
P.S. Происшествие случилось не ночью в мороз, а днём при температуре около 0°C (32°F).

Manti:
The cache wasn't at the boot rock, it was either in the Auspiya valley (where they spent their previous night, scenario A), or according to Teddy & Igor Pavlov's book/theory, on the slope where the tent was later "planted" (scenario B).

These values depend on where exactly their camp was etc. but here's what I gathered from a topographic map:
PlaceElevationCamp in Auspiya valley and labaz (scen. A)600 ± 50m"Dyatlov Pass" (that they apparently missed or avoided)~780mBoot Rock~820mTent (labaz in scen. B)~880mCedar in Lozva valley~650m

According to this data, "retaining elevation gain" can't really be a reason to camp on the slope, because they had no reason to gain this elevation. If their cache was in Auspiya valley and their destination was the Lozva valley (as their planned route shows), why climb to where the tent was found?

If on the other hand they   set up the cache on the slope for some reason, and then descended to the Lozva valley to camp, then of course the earthquake / rock slide / avalanche risk is not there. Even in this scenario, I don't understand why they would want to set up the cache there... In the diary the previous day, Igor writes that he can't even begin to think about setting up the cache on the ridge (that was near the pass, but the terrain is similar to where the tent was found).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page