The common prevailing theme for the group initially leaving the tent appears to be based on imminent danger or fear forcing them.
However, I would like to propose an alternative – the group left the tent based not on imminent fear or danger, but rather a sudden interest, whereby they did not expect to be outside for too long, hence why they were not adequately prepared, but the situation changed due to arising factors.
I’m basing this on the following details:
- Rejecting the tent was cut and they escaped out the side, the tent appeared to only be reported as torn, which would not be significant to allow 9 to escape through (according to the following thread http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205.0)
- The tent entrance was closed
LEBEDEV reported that “Near the entrance to the tent, which seems to have been opened”.
However, if the tent entrance was left open in between the Dyatlov group and the searchers, I would think snow would have entered inside the tent in such weather conditions?
While SLOBTSOV “When they approached the tent, they found out: the entrance of the tent came from under the snow, and the rest of the tent was under snow”.
Thus is would indicate someone entered in the tent, for they would have had to remove the snow….
Important to note, is if they had time to close and button the tent entrance – I would think this would be done to keep the warm air inside expecting to return back. If you were in imminent danger where you couldn’t even grab clothing and supplies, why bother to take time to close the tent door?
- Trail marks around the tent were reportedly isolated to the group exclusively and the trails indicated no rushing as group.
- A flashlight was found in between the tent area and the forest cedar area and didn’t work. What if someone in the group had deliberately left the flashlight there on, so they would have an indicator of returning to the tent? This would explain why after the duration of time until the search the flashlight no longer worked. Why would you leave a flashlight in between in the face of imminent danger? A counter theory could be that the flashlight was thrown away due to not working, but then so close to the tent wouldn’t they have taken the Chinese flashlight that was found to be ‘off’ and functioning?
This could also reason to why some members put on a few extra layers, but not completely prepared to be out long.
What do you think? What evidence counters this to suggest they exited in fear or imminent danger?
Sudden interest ! ? It would have had to have been something extraordinarily interesting for them to leave the safety of the Tent even for a short time. In fact that interesting that it would have had to have been something that potentially could have scared them to death.
There is the possibility they weren't concerned about safety/security as a priority at that moment. They appeared to be thinking rationally.
Looking at The Swedish-Russian Dyatlov Expedition 2019 theory by Richard Holmgren:
I would argue that the group likely acted in the best possible way under the prevailing circumstances - nothing irrational at all and totally in line with their experience and professionality. Running out in their socks or in their valenki, was obviously insufficient in the long run, but a wise decision considering the explosive event. With the extremely low temperatures at hand, their socks wouldn’t immediately turn wet as long as they moved quickly down to the forest to seek a temporary shelter. The persons wearing valenki (felt boots), like the ones found on Zolotaryov, would have last much longer.
The Dyatlov crew being experienced hikers would have been aware they could temporarily move without their socks and valenki becoming wet and may not have been concerned in a short amount of time.
Then the question arises - what would grab their sudden interest?
I think whatever it was, came from the sky:
If we literally interpret Zolotaryov's camera image of a supposed light and 3 heads - the 3 members in front of him would have to be either crouched or laying down to get the angle, while he stood behind them, and one would expect tree formations in between if it was taken in the forest. However, what if this image was taken on the descent towards the forest, direct at what the object was? This could explain the angle and how he was situated higher then the 3 in front of him. It would also explain his intention to take his camera with him.
From Ivanov's evidence, puts unidentified lights in the sky in this area of the hikers.
Also, burn marks were found on trees at the edge of the forest: “When E. P. Maslennikov and I examined the scene in May, we found that some young pine trees at the edge of the forest had burn marks, but those marks did not have a concentric form or some other pattern. There was no epicenter. This once again confirmed that heated beams of a strong, but completely unknown, at least to us, energy, were directing their firepower toward specific objects (in this case, people), acting selectively.”
Radiation was found on some of the clothing
Josh Gates Expedition Unknown team also identified radiation on one of the trees, but coring samples rejected the theory of a massive blast.
For me, this suggests something along the lines of the following possibilities:
- Classified aircraft testing - preferably nuclear-powered. Could one have crashed in the area or hovered, for example as a V/STOL test?
- A failed nuclear missile test lands in the forest
- A mobile SCUD launcher at the edge of the forest launches a missile test - but lack of tracks may reject such an idea
IMO, these would take immediate interest to one in the middle of Siberian nowhere. One would go out to see what it was.
Based on the autopsy injuries, personally I think whatever followed the initial 'event' was followed by a violent episode between the hikers and another group connected with the event, which resulted in their deaths. For example, if the incident was reported back to a classified military establishment, this would theoretically provide explanation as to the allegations why the authorities already had knowledge of the incident (referring to the letter date).