Theories Discussion > General Discussion

Tent entrance was blocked by snow, so they had to cut the tent

(1/3) > >>

Sunny:
I red wikipedia page again. I think this case is solved long ago. It says that 2015 investigation found:"The group traversing the slope and digging a tent site into the snow weakened the snow base. During the night the snowfield above the tent started to slide down slowly under the weight of the new snow, gradually pushing on the tent fabric, starting from the entrance. The group wakes up and starts evacuation in panic, with only some able to put on warm clothes. With the entrance blocked, the group escapes through a hole cut in the tent fabric and descends the slope to find a place perceived as safe from the avalanche only 1500 m down, at the forest border."
If you look at the photos of tent when they found it, it clearly shows that the entrance to the tent is blocked by snow. They dug the tent too deep in to the snow and it got even deeper. So they couldn't get out anymore from door. This explains why they cut the tent. After it was cut, the tent was useless ,they decided they had to dig a cave to stay warm in it.
And then investigator says about the ravine 4:
"And where did they get these injuries?
They were found at the source of the Lozva tributary. In a place that does not freeze completely. It is covered with snow first, then the snow melts and freezes, and the water below remains running. As in any river. And there was a grotto, over which accumulated a lot of snow and ice. Hikers decided to hide from the cold in this place (not knowing that there is a grotto under them). They made the flooring, brought some clothes there, the vault of the grotto collapsed and the four of them collapsed down. They covered almost 5-meter layer of snow and ice. Hence the injuries." https://dyatlovpass.com/sergey-shkryabach-2017?rbid=18461
I think these theories explain everything what happened.

Investigator:
To me, the evidence is what matters, not what someone who was at the scene speculated.  In this case, they seem to have protected/secured the tent after getting out of it.  The heavier gear was either frozen or they were concerned that it would get frozen when they went to the tree line.  Apparently, at least Igor thought it would be reasonably easy to survive at the tree line, by starting a fire and/or going with the "den" idea.  That was incorrect, because they did too much physical work in light clothing, got sweated up, and once there is no longer warmth (such as from the fire), hypothermia will set in quickly.  So, I agree that they may not have been able to get out the "door" of the tent as quickly as they wanted, and probably thought it was an emergency situation (such as if there was a hard snow or ice buidup that appeared to be collapsing the tent in the middle), but I don't see any signs of panic.  Further, I think it's likely Zina got upset when she saw the first or second Yuri die (and angry at Igor), and decided to go back to the tent, and then Slobodin followed by Igor went after her, to try and get her to go to the "den," but that was as close to panic as occurred that night (at least until the last moments, when it was clear they were in terrible trouble, and then they were not able to move much).

Tony:
There are several problems with the 'avalanche' theory.
 
a. Even a modest amount of snow would have been next to impossible to escape. Near the area where I live, we had a number of avalanches this past winter. One alone claimed the lives of three skiers. In one avalanche, the skier was able to ski parallel the slope almost escaping the avalanche but was caught at the very edge of the slide and was covered by only 1 foot of snow and was unable to escape. Luckily, he was skiing with a friend who was able to dig him out. Even under 1 foot of snow, it is almost impossible to dig yourself out.

b. If the slide was very minor, then why not remain an extra few minutes and secure lifesaving equipment. Walking barefoot in snow is extremely painful. It's hard to imagine even the most hardened outdoors person not turning back to secure footwear even after a few minutes of walking barefoot. Often the argument is made, "there was too much snow on the tent to retrieve equipment." But not too much that 9 people were able to cut the tent and dig themselves out? If you can dig yourself out, then it wasn't that much snow to begin with.

c. Why walk almost 1500 meters to the cedar to, only then, decide to turn back towards the tents as Igor, Zina, and Rustem had attempted. What were they hoping to find that wasn't there when they left? It doesn't make sense that, if you are leaving the scene of an snow slide, to decide to turn around and attempt to return after walking 1500m down a windy, cold slope. If it was an avalanche, what was at the tent that wasn't there when they left?

d. making cuts into a canvas covered in hundreds of pounds of snow would have been extremely difficult. Not to mention the 3 cuts detailed in the report were found at a distances from each other that would be difficult to explain if the person making them were under a enormous amount of snow.

e. M. Sharavin described the cuts as being on the leeward side with the windward side folded over on top of them. Since there is no report of how the tent was found with regards to the location of the sides of the tent, all we have to go on is M. Sharavin's word. However, if this is correct, the avalanche theory does not make sense. If snow had slid down and onto the tent it would have pushed the windward side over and it would have collapsed on top of the leeward side. Then, for the theory to make sense, the cuts would have been made to the then bottom of the tent (the leeward side). After exiting the tent, the hikers then turned the windward side back over on top of the leeward side covering the cuts. So, they had time and energy to turn the windward side of the tent over on top of the cuts but didn't have energy to retrieve footwear and heavy coats?

f. But I think the biggest piece of evidence is the fact that there has never been a recorded avalanche on Kholat Syakhl despite hundreds of visitors. Even with setting up a tent, digging into the mountain, the same as the hikers did in '59 (see below).

https://youtu.be/sH-3jOO9QI0?t=307

I think the avalanche theory is the most logical - it just has many problems.

 

Manti:
Well, happy to see some activity on the forum again.

If you look at the Dyatlov Pass Incident on a very high level, there is nothing surprising: hikers died in extremely cold conditions.

But if you look closer, several unusual features of the case make it what it is, and need to be explained by any theory that "solves" the case:
* The serious injuries of Lyuda, Tibo, and Semyon, that almost certainly had to have occurred near where they were found as they would have been unable to move much after being injured
* The others having been apparently out in the cold, without their warm clothes
* Burn injuries to several people while the stove was found disassembledI have come to the conclusion that many other aspects of the case are not out of ordinary or are irrelevant, such as the radiation on the clothes, broken branches on the cedar, even the cut tent which might be damage by the searchers, Evening Otorten, the much-discussed photos, etc.
However there is potentially one more aspect that needs explaining:

* Why did they turn back south the previous day? There is a photo showing the group above the treeline from that day and the weather doesn't seem especially bad, for example they are not wearing masks like on some other photos.


Now the avalanche / "tent buried in snow" theory doesn't explain any of these points. Like Tony says, if you can dig yourself out, you can dig your clothes out too, there is no reason to abandon the tent and especially no reason to flee down the slope where the next avalanche is most likely to catch you.

Like I posted in the other thread, I've read the book and while it explains 1. and 3., it doesn't really explain 2. to me.

Actually I can't think of any other theory I've read that adequately explains these 3 aspects of the case...

MDGross:
Manti, One theory that some folks have proposed is that in digging the large trench for the tent, the hikers weakened the snow field above. Later in the night, the snow began to slide. One hiker, Thibeaux-Brignolle I believe, was outside on watch duty. Perhaps he heard the snow cracking nearby. He shouted a warning. Those inside the tent fled immediately although poorly dressed. They moved down the slope for some distance and then stopped to reconsider. But in the dark and freezing cold they became disoriented and couldn't find the tent. They had seen the forest below earlier in the day and knew it was at the bottom of the slope. They then decided that reaching the forest was their best chance to survive.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page