December 05, 2021, 11:20:03 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: what mysteries are made of  (Read 1752 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

August 04, 2021, 09:03:01 AM
Read 1752 times
Offline

thealexhiggins


First, who am I to present my ideas? Nobody, for sure. I have used a few dozens of hours to get familiar with this issue, but I'm certainly no expert. However, as a lawyer I'm interested in analyzing data, so I will entertain myself with this rather wordy look at the mystery. Don't expect any commenting, but also won't get offended by any criticism - I promise.

The recent book "1079" is what brought me here, so I will start with a brief comment. In a word the book is excellent and the theory it offers is excellent too. I think it is spot on as for for the mechanics of the hikers' injuries. It also suggests beautifully that for 60 odd years there have not been a succesfull attempt to draw a logical line connecting all the factual dots of the mystery - simply because some of the major dots were actually all the time in wrong places.

To me it is very strange that the stove was not been used in the last camp. It was very VERY cold that evening, so one would think making a fire should be the very first thing to do in those conditions - at least in Finland it would be like that in any army tent. Their tent was obviously also in a rather poor shape, so how on earth did they reside in the tent without fire in the stove? To me this is a big red flag in the official account - even though I have read about several opposite opinions.

So, I for one certainly can't rule out the theory given in the book. However, there is one big question that is not really covered by the authors: why was the cover-up performed? Why was the chain of events presented in the book deemed to be so damaging (and for whom) that it was replaced - with considerable difficulty - by in many ways similar but far more "exotic" scenario? This issue would, IMHO, deserve quite a bit of attention. At least for me the motivation behind the cover-up is anything but obvious. So, with all its good qualities, 1079 doesn't empty the mystery.


The new avalanche theory:

Some new theoretical data has come up about the possibility of an avalanche or some sort of snow slide towards the tent. There is a valid point to this thinking: the group seem to have indeed created close to ideal conditions for an avalanche. They did dig an empty space for the snow and ice to take a move, and there was both a lot of snow and a lot of wind at that time.

So, yes, it is plausible to me that even if the slope was only just steep enough, technically it might have been in the margins of possibility. But as we all know, this is just the opening step - as such this information is of a limited use. Even with some level of panic, why did they leave the gear? Why didn't they even try to come back after the first shock? Not even one or two of them? I just can't see that kind of decision making by this relatively experienced and capable team. So, if this theory can't take us more than a few metres from the tent, it is certainly not very all-inclusive. It gives us one possible trigger option, but not a lot of more.

My thoughts:

As with any decent mystery, the main problem is establishing the facts. If we can't do that, we can't solve the problem. Thus, even being far from an expert on the subject, I will first make an attempt towards that target.

1. nine hikers killed: checked - I suppose there is no real disagreement on the individuals involved; won't waste anybody's time to repeat this data.

2. time and place of the tragedy:
- near place called Dyatlov Pass - checked
- some time between 1.2. and 3.2.? Perhaps not a full proof fact,  but surely it is a matter of only a few days, and the level of uncertainty won't change the solution in any major ways?

3. causes of deaths: Should we first establish that:

3 A) all of the victims had insufficient clothing (some more, some less) on when their bodies were found by the search team? I for one feel obliged to accept that. Then, can we further confirm that:

3 B) At least most of the victims were badly clothed also in the moment of their demise? I am aware that there is no unanimity on most of them being barefoot or wearing only socks as a result of the (first) unknown event that triggered their untimely deaths. However, judging by some of the skin injuries, it can be reasonably argued that there had been quite a lot of skin exposure during their last moments.

On the other hand, the amount of confirmed frostbites is oddly low. Can this have something do with them dying of hypothermia before major frostbites had time to develop? And, in case we decide to trust the offcial data, most of the winter gear of the hikers was left in their tent, especially their warm boots. So, all in all: checked with a little pinch of salt.

3 C) I think this is as far as I can go as for the facts. Ok, we can safely assume that it was both quite a remote place - few if any people around, and it was freezing cold weather with a killer wind to add to the agony of it.

But the actual chain of events that resulted in the tragedy, has more to do with the solving of the puzzle.

4. Back to the very frames of the puzzle:

Should we believe the official search party data, that is:
- Did the team camp for the night, or at least try to camp on the slope of the hill as it was established by the search party?
- Did the hikers die in the given locations and with the given equipment and injuries? (Last point referring mainly to the possibility of some of the actual injuries being omitted from the medical reports)

Alas - the answer to these points is surely a definitive MAYBE..

The major problem with the mystery - almost like by the definition - is that you should expect at least something unexpected and rare rather than the most common chains of event. If the calamity had followed a more conventional route - say, the tent was set on fire in the night, and then people in it were killed by a combination of burn injuries and hypothermia - there would have been no mystery in the first place.

Yet again, looking for the strangest explanations and rarest phenomena would hardly be the most practical way to approach the problem.  Thus, in my opinion, it is after all more fertile to lean on the official data as the basis for our analysis, and only in case there is a logical dead end with the given data, we should take a whole new starting point. Say, the official account included a claim that somebody had committed suicide by shooting himself in the back and after that hiding the gun too.. - then that should be judged as being impossible. With the given information the official data can't be proved to be false?

The Big Picture:

I would say - as many have did before me - that in the big picture there are two main pieces:

- Why did the team leave the safety of the tent with inadequate equipment?

- While hypothermia can be regarded as an obvious cause of death in the given conditions, how did at least three of the hikers manage to receive very serious - easily fatal - injuries?

At this point it is already clear to me that no final truth can be achieved but rather some more or less probable alternatives.

1. Leaving the tent - the organized panic:

As said above, I just can't see the group making a reasoned decision to leave both the relative safety of the tent AND most of their winter gear behind and to prefer taking their chances, especially without proper footwear, in the woods. I can understand some of the counter-arguments hereto, but they just don't convince me, at all. So, unless we want to speculate on some mental issues - and of course they can be speculated! - there are two (or three) possibilities:

- the group was attacked by somebody or something - or rather a team of somebodies or some things.
- the group panicked over something that they THOUGHT would make staying in or even around the tent impossible. Here we come close to the supernatural issues.
- the group was physically removed from the tent or prevented from returning to it after a moment of hasty exit

Ok, I admit it is surely possible to guess which one of those is my favourite hypothesis.. Will go them all through, nevertheless.

Was there an attack by humans - Mansis, prison escapees or the military / secret service - it could be expected to have a logical motive. It could very easily be money and equipment (prisoners), and perhaps it could be some kind of ethnic / general hostility (Mansis), or securing secret military information.

The utilitarian motive (robbery) is hardly plausible, because at least most of the hikers' valuables were left behind. As for some kind of hate crime, I find it difficult to believe that the outcome of the attack would look like that. Some victims were "beaten" in a most brutal manner, while some were made to (more or less)freeze to death. Too complicated, too time consuming. Also, only the head injuries would easily fit the description.

And if those without major physical injuries managed to escape, surely the ones attacked physically would be found in the tent or very near of it - now they were the three bodies with the longest distance to the tent. Possible, yes, but only just.

The same goes mostly with the military intervention. But if it were the real pro killers - military or secret service - surely the bodies would have just disappeared or organized so that there was one simple, obvious cause of death. Scattering the bodies here and there and making even a bonfire for them sounds a bit off. If the hikers were either been chased by the gunmen or they were made to walk towards the forest by gunpoint, surely the result would have looked different.

Was there a bear or a pack of wolves - evidently not common in the area - or some other attacker from the animal kingdom, once again, the injuries are not only atypical but also it is difficult to explain why the worst injured were found with the longest distance to the spot of the original attack. The serious injuries of Lyuda, Tibo, and Semyon, really need to have occurred near where they were found as they would have been unable to move a lot after being injured.
 
As for the wolverine, it is certainly an interesting candidate. An unexpected visit by wolverine in the tent, would no doubt cause a full chaos in the tent and I can imagine it making the hikers exit the tent even through the canvas (which they, after all, probably never did). Yet, considering on the one hand the weather conditions and on the other the hiking knowhow of the team, I just can't see them leaving the tent without their boots - they had to be aware it is very near to a suicide to take a mile long walk or run like that. Surely, it would have taken even a more ferocious beast to make nine fit adults to give up most of their gear.

I haven't found any detailed data on the level of toxicity of the wolverine spray, but I doubt there are reports of any life threatening poisonings. So, with the 25 - 30 m/s wind, it is not easy to assess that even the boots were impossible to locate and / or be worn.

How about the irrational panic over something that wasn't in reality dangerous enough to force a hasty exit from the tent. That would leave the tent more or less intact and it could easily explain why the hikers didn't make a quick return to the safety.

Among the amateurs (in the best sense of the word) of the Dyatlov mystery it is almost unanimously considered that the hikers walked calmly or in any case in a normal pace towards the forest. I am fully aware that the detected footprints strongly suggest towards an organized retreat from the tent. Yet, I say it is completely crazy in the situation.

I admit that this scenario indicates a direct physical threat by someone or someones towards the group of hikers. The hikers being made to walk towards their horrible fate by gunpoint, will surely offer a fine explanation for their strange behavior - victims walking without boots as a group and the two gunmen a little bit apart, with a decent footwear..? It does, I can't deny it.

So, there is a serious controversy between leaving the tent in panic - perhaps up to the point that they destroy their only safe camping equipment by cutting it open - and then making a controlled decision to move to the not-that-nearby forest. If they were panicked enough to leave their winter gear in the tent, how come they didn't seem to run like headless chicken a minute or two later?

To start proceeding as a group must have required at least some elementary change of thoughts and words among the team members. And then the result of that dialogue is to not even try to go back and take the damn boots, but instead walk away empty-handed, and empty legged..? It takes quite a flexible logics to accept that scenario.

If it was a mistake to leave the tent, why it was not possible to correct that error? And if it was not an error, but there was a real concrete mortal threat by the tent, why, after all, nothing happened by the tent or to the tent? I can't find a viable explanation.

Whatever had taken place, the hikers were definitely not "walking calmly" towards the forest.  They may have proceeded at a pedestrian's speed, but there were certainly nothing calm about it. They must have been scared to death by something at or in the tent - there is no way around it. Or is there? How about the official theory of avalanche and heavy wind? How about any early disturbance and a heavy wind on a slippery surface?

Maybe there was a scary accident - such as a fair amount of hard snow or ice sliding on top of the tent, or maybe just one of the guys were blown away by a gust of wind? What would the other members of the team do? A calm and rational decision would surely be to send one or two people to check the situation. But it is asking a lot to require the most intelligent actions taken in a sudden emergency. People inside the tent couldn't possibly have any idea of the nature of the emergency when hearing the scream of agony by their team mate, could they..?

Maybe a bad timing - as there are a large number of testimonies about strange light phenomena in the sky - so that an individual accident was interpreted as a general threat? I for one CAN see a disorganized, chaotic exit of the tent, then more cries and screams, and in a moment everybody would face the full rage of the blizzard.. People were thrown off their feet, and it would have seemed quite impossible to climb back against the hurricane wind. Then somebody suggests (probably Igor) to withdraw to the forest, make a nice big fire and come back when there is light and most probably a lot better weather too..

How about that? Yes, it would have been a catastrophically bad decision, but it just MIGHT have felt the only chance in the heat of the moment (heat being admittedly an awkward term here).

And what if one of the hikers got injured either in the tent or when struck down by the wind? Then Igor might have ordered two of the best equipped boys to go ahead and prepare a fire in the woods, while the rest of the team followed carrying the unfortunate team member. Being a good team, they moved as a group even though all but three of them (one injured and two carriers) could have proceeded much faster. - There are reports of only eight foot steps. First the main group took a slightly different route towards the forest, then at one point they joined the exact line of the fore-runners.

Sure, it is a long shot - but with relatively few logical problems?

Physical injuries - the second calamity:

The structure of the mystery is such that if the first piece of the puzzle fits well, the second is clearly of a secondary relevance. Primarily we will just need to check if the first answer somehow rules out the second one. I think in this scenario, it won't.

It seems next to impossible to formulate even a rough chain of events covering all the serious injuries. I am painfully aware that this fact weakens the theory on the first event. But that's how it is.
 
It somehow feels like a very remote possibility that big chunks of ice would fall down and crush the unfortunate three hikers who had been seeking shelter in the deep snow by the ravine. But can I rule it out? Nope. Can I find something better? Yes - the falling tree theory is obviously a lot more plausible. Everybody seem to agree on the heavy wind, after all. Can both be true? Only just.

And why abandon the fire? Maybe it went out or was about to go out because of too much melting snow and ice? I don't have a clear picture on how it was supposed to work - it is surely hopeless to make a fire on snow, and if only a small space was freed from snow, it would have been very complicated to build a bigger fire if there was one metre plus snow all around it.

I will leave it here. Probably none of you managed to read through this stream-of-thought anyway. Let's just bear in mind the teachings of the great Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."  kewl1
 

August 04, 2021, 04:21:07 PM
Reply #1
Online

Ziljoe


A good post and a good summary thealexhiggins.

Igor B's did a lot to suggest a wolverine . Still the strongest theory for me.

I'm also have a consideration for outsiders with a gun. But it has its limits to who, why , what motive on the side of a mountain in the middle of winter, when they would be also subject to poor weather conditions , heat, shelter ,food etc. Not ideal if the dyatlov group were to attack back. Everyone is in the middle of nowhere.

Teddy's explanation for injuries are the strongest for me but although it's a desolate location, the Mansi live off the land there and were active.

The only thing I can conclude is the two Yuri's at the ceder were not the last to die, as their bodies had been manipulated .

Also, if the wind was so strong why were coats) jackets , sneakers etc found close to the tent, instead of Futher away?

It's just my thoughts but a great post. 
 

August 04, 2021, 07:44:35 PM
Reply #2
Offline

KFinn


Welcome to the Dyatlov Mystery!! 

You've written a very thorough and logical post with some insightful thoughts.  Thank you for sharing this!!

-Ren
 

August 05, 2021, 02:41:55 AM
Reply #3
Offline

thealexhiggins


Thanks a lot, Ziljoe. U are right, the hikers' gear should not have been found anywhere near the tent - in the tent, sure, but not adjacent to tent. That is indeed a problem.

There is still quite a pile of material I plan to read through, so I'm coming back for more - and probably notice how silly some of my ideas in the first post really were..  bang1 


A good post and a good summary thealexhiggins.

Igor B's did a lot to suggest a wolverine . Still the strongest theory for me.

I'm also have a consideration for outsiders with a gun. But it has its limits to who, why , what motive on the side of a mountain in the middle of winter, when they would be also subject to poor weather conditions , heat, shelter ,food etc. Not ideal if the dyatlov group were to attack back. Everyone is in the middle of nowhere.

Teddy's explanation for injuries are the strongest for me but although it's a desolate location, the Mansi live off the land there and were active.

The only thing I can conclude is the two Yuri's at the ceder were not the last to die, as their bodies had been manipulated .

Also, if the wind was so strong why were coats) jackets , sneakers etc found close to the tent, instead of Futher away?

It's just my thoughts but a great post.
 

August 05, 2021, 02:45:18 AM
Reply #4
Offline

thealexhiggins


Thanks KFinn for positive feedback.  dance1

Welcome to the Dyatlov Mystery!! 

You've written a very thorough and logical post with some insightful thoughts.  Thank you for sharing this!!
 

August 05, 2021, 02:09:43 PM
Reply #5
Online

Ziljoe


I don't think any of your ideas or observations are silly thealexhiggins.

A lot of the facts have been sensationalised through social media and press and it continues to be done to get likes or attention.

The eyes and tongue being ripped out is one that annoys me . I don't believe there's any evidence for that. They were found in a stream , decomposing. Seems logical to me. Although those with the missing eyes had suffered the severe chest impacts. It has been mentioned that this could cause the eyeballs to bulge , whether that is tree or snow cave impact.

If there had been escaped prisoners I would think they would have taken , money , cameras and especially food, skies and blankets. Possibly take ID and hid the crime scene so they could Futher their escape.

If it was an organised murder by KGB or whatever faction,it's certainly messy and I would have thought all the film in the cameras would have been destroyed. No one would have known what was on the film in the cameras , so to give the cameras to student friends to develope suggests a lack of a cover up.

If it was me I would have destroyed all the film ,whether that be an intentional attack or accidental . No outsiders would be aware of what we now believe to be the last photo of them digging the location for the tent , or the labaz.

I look forward to reading your future thoughts.
 

August 07, 2021, 08:51:35 AM
Reply #6
Offline

thealexhiggins


Thanks.
Yes, that is certainly a good point about destroying all the film evidence. One of the victims even had a camera with him, I remember, so even a common thief would probably have taken the cameras and at least the films and made extra certain no photo evidence would come up later.

The only "horror movie" thing that still bothers me is the data about one of the guys biting his fist.  shock1 Don't want to think about that when going to bed..


I don't think any of your ideas or observations are silly thealexhiggins.

A lot of the facts have been sensationalised through social media and press and it continues to be done to get likes or attention.

The eyes and tongue being ripped out is one that annoys me . I don't believe there's any evidence for that. They were found in a stream , decomposing. Seems logical to me. Although those with the missing eyes had suffered the severe chest impacts. It has been mentioned that this could cause the eyeballs to bulge , whether that is tree or snow cave impact.

If there had been escaped prisoners I would think they would have taken , money , cameras and especially food, skies and blankets. Possibly take ID and hid the crime scene so they could Futher their escape.

If it was an organised murder by KGB or whatever faction,it's certainly messy and I would have thought all the film in the cameras would have been destroyed. No one would have known what was on the film in the cameras , so to give the cameras to student friends to develope suggests a lack of a cover up.

If it was me I would have destroyed all the film ,whether that be an intentional attack or accidental . No outsiders would be aware of what we now believe to be the last photo of them digging the location for the tent , or the labaz.

I look forward to reading your future thoughts.
 

August 07, 2021, 02:07:27 PM
Reply #7
Online

Ziljoe


I do hot tent camping in winter with a Norwegian lavvu and stove. I sleep with a knife next to me , incase things go wrong. It's a gortex type of material and gets hot , depending on the wood , it's tee shirt clothing if I'm burning pine with resin at about -8. Have been in canvas tents too with stoves , they are even hotter.

I have used just a small amount of kindling to warm up in the morning and it is amazing the heat heat that one split log can add.

If the dyatlov group used their stove in the woods with a minimal amount of wood to burn and the size of the tent , I believe they would have been very warm. It's a relatively small space with the amount of people sharing it. If it was dry cold weather , I'm sure it would be reasonable comfortable.

I question why the the stove was not in use or looked like it hadn't been used. If it's true that they pitched their tent there, got settled in , an hour of warmth and burning a minimal amount of fuel would help them dry/thaw out. Get comfortable etc.

As for the skin in the mouth , yeah, I'm uncomfortable with that. So many odd bits and bobs to it all. 
 

August 08, 2021, 10:37:57 AM
Reply #8
Offline

thealexhiggins


I have experienced only a largish army tent with a stove, with minus 20 - 25 degrees and heavy wind from the sea - some guys had their hair and back of the coat frozen in the morning and their socks half burnt, so it was cold in one end and burning hot in the other.. But I think your experience is closer to theirs, and we all were real beginners. To me it felt impossible to survive any time without a fire, but no reason to disagree with your post.

I do hot tent camping in winter with a Norwegian lavvu and stove. I sleep with a knife next to me , incase things go wrong. It's a gortex type of material and gets hot , depending on the wood , it's tee shirt clothing if I'm burning pine with resin at about -8. Have been in canvas tents too with stoves , they are even hotter.

I have used just a small amount of kindling to warm up in the morning and it is amazing the heat heat that one split log can add.

If the dyatlov group used their stove in the woods with a minimal amount of wood to burn and the size of the tent , I believe they would have been very warm. It's a relatively small space with the amount of people sharing it. If it was dry cold weather , I'm sure it would be reasonable comfortable.

I question why the the stove was not in use or looked like it hadn't been used. If it's true that they pitched their tent there, got settled in , an hour of warmth and burning a minimal amount of fuel would help them dry/thaw out. Get comfortable etc.

As for the skin in the mouth , yeah, I'm uncomfortable with that. So many odd bits and bobs to it all.
 

August 08, 2021, 11:07:15 AM
Reply #9
Offline

Manti


This is a good and logical post. I just wanted to say that I don't think the location of the "ravine" is known for certain. We don't know if it was in fact farther from the tent than the cedar,  it could have been between the two instead.

And about the wind, I have posted this in another thread but the fact that a standing "chum" structure was found nearby indicates that there was no hurricane-force wind. Also, this: https://dyatlovpass.com/investigation-materials-2?rbid=18461 article claims that wind speed was 9-13m/s that night. Considerable wind, but not enough to knock someone over.

So someone injures themselves in the tent, and they decide to carry their comrade to the forest and start a campfire. This is possible, but surely in this scenario, at least one or two members of the group could spend a few minutes gathering everyone's boots and coats, and follow them to the forest shortly afterwards.
 

August 08, 2021, 01:04:30 PM
Reply #10
Online

Ziljoe


I have experienced only a largish army tent with a stove, with minus 20 - 25 degrees and heavy wind from the sea - some guys had their hair and back of the coat frozen in the morning and their socks half burnt, so it was cold in one end and burning hot in the other.. But I think your experience is closer to theirs, and we all were real beginners. To me it felt impossible to survive any time without a fire, but no reason to disagree with your post.

I do hot tent camping in winter with a Norwegian lavvu and stove. I sleep with a knife next to me , incase things go wrong. It's a gortex type of material and gets hot , depending on the wood , it's tee shirt clothing if I'm burning pine with resin at about -8. Have been in canvas tents too with stoves , they are even hotter.

I have used just a small amount of kindling to warm up in the morning and it is amazing the heat heat that one split log can add.

If the dyatlov group used their stove in the woods with a minimal amount of wood to burn and the size of the tent , I believe they would have been very warm. It's a relatively small space with the amount of people sharing it. If it was dry cold weather , I'm sure it would be reasonable comfortable.

I question why the the stove was not in use or looked like it hadn't been used. If it's true that they pitched their tent there, got settled in , an hour of warmth and burning a minimal amount of fuel would help them dry/thaw out. Get comfortable etc.

As for the skin in the mouth , yeah, I'm uncomfortable with that. So many odd bits and bobs to it all.

My experience is UK weather so not as extreme. It's much wetter and it can be zero degrees and very cold with the moisture, yet - 5, dry frost and it is more comfortable. Deaths in the UK are mostly by falling or exposure to the wet and rain without adequate clothing. Frostbite is uncommon in the UK.

 Very interesting that you could be frozen on one side and burnt on the other!
 

August 08, 2021, 05:06:25 PM
Reply #11
Offline

Investigator


This is a good and logical post. I just wanted to say that I don't think the location of the "ravine" is known for certain. We don't know if it was in fact farther from the tent than the cedar,  it could have been between the two instead.

And about the wind, I have posted this in another thread but the fact that a standing "chum" structure was found nearby indicates that there was no hurricane-force wind. Also, this: https://dyatlovpass.com/investigation-materials-2?rbid=18461 article claims that wind speed was 9-13m/s that night. Considerable wind, but not enough to knock someone over.

So someone injures themselves in the tent, and they decide to carry their comrade to the forest and start a campfire. This is possible, but surely in this scenario, at least one or two members of the group could spend a few minutes gathering everyone's boots and coats, and follow them to the forest shortly afterwards.

They wouldn't take frozen boots, for example, down to where they hope to start a fire, because then the ice will soak the boots and make things worse.  Only by doing a historically-accurate, detailed reconstruction of the incident would we be able to get a better sense of why they made some of the decisions they made during the crucial period of a couple hours or so.
 

August 09, 2021, 07:20:43 AM
Reply #12
Offline

Manti


No such thing as a frozen boot, but anyway, if you have a fire, you can melt the ice on the boot (but also you can just scrape it off anyway), and then dry the boot by the fire.


 

August 11, 2021, 10:54:18 AM
Reply #13
Offline

MDGross


Thank you for such a thoughtful post. Why did they exit the tent in such a state of undress? How did three of them get crushing type injuries? I'm often tempted to look for THE answer to question one and THE answer to question two. But wonder if each of these events involved a combination of unfortunate circumstances. For example, maybe they were convinced that a snow slide was happening. They flee the tent, walk 400 meters, stop and quickly discuss what to do next. But in utter darkness they can't be sure how far they've walked.Plus, it's brutally cold. So, spend precious time going back up the slope uncertain they can locate the tent, or continue down the slope to the woods and trust their survival skills will keep them alive until first light. A snow slide (whether real or only perceived to be real), disorientation in the darkness, freezing cold, a hasty decision all combine to create a tragic outcome.
Once in the woods, four of the hikers decide to dig out a snow den. But removing snow causes the snow nearby to slide toward them, knocking them into the ravine. Their injuries aren't fatal, but snow falling on them exacerbates the injuries. They die not from hypothermia, but suffocate from their own carbon dioxide. In this example a snow slide combined with a fall into the ravine results in the hikers' deaths.
I'm not suggesting that this is what happened; I'm only presenting an example of an outcome caused by multiple conditions.
 

August 11, 2021, 02:19:13 PM
Reply #14
Offline

thealexhiggins


Good points. If wind was as moderate as that, I have to agree that it could not have been made it impossible to stay near the tent. Can't really comment, if this info is confirmed or not.

And, yes, the biiiig problem in almost any theory is leaving the winter gear behind. I can only accept that it is -- hmmm. -- strange.
 

This is a good and logical post. I just wanted to say that I don't think the location of the "ravine" is known for certain. We don't know if it was in fact farther from the tent than the cedar,  it could have been between the two instead.

And about the wind, I have posted this in another thread but the fact that a standing "chum" structure was found nearby indicates that there was no hurricane-force wind. Also, this: https://dyatlovpass.com/investigation-materials-2?rbid=18461 article claims that wind speed was 9-13m/s that night. Considerable wind, but not enough to knock someone over.

So someone injures themselves in the tent, and they decide to carry their comrade to the forest and start a campfire. This is possible, but surely in this scenario, at least one or two members of the group could spend a few minutes gathering everyone's boots and coats, and follow them to the forest shortly afterwards.
 

August 11, 2021, 02:31:38 PM
Reply #15
Offline

thealexhiggins


Thanks for the input.

It is perfectly plausible to me what U say about leaving the tent. However, they should have been able to follow their own foot prints back, shouldn't they? On the other hand, even so, they might very well have thought that the tent was already gone and buried in the snow and ice. So, why even try to go back? And in general, in darkness and extremely cold weather, all decisions are VERY difficult - so, we should not expect a very logical decisions at all. To me what U say is easily possible.

As for the death of the hikers with bad injuries, it is still too much of a mystery to me to even try creating any theory. Could suffocation or to be buried alive be noticed by the coroners?


Thank you for such a thoughtful post. Why did they exit the tent in such a state of undress? How did three of them get crushing type injuries? I'm often tempted to look for THE answer to question one and THE answer to question two. But wonder if each of these events involved a combination of unfortunate circumstances. For example, maybe they were convinced that a snow slide was happening. They flee the tent, walk 400 meters, stop and quickly discuss what to do next. But in utter darkness they can't be sure how far they've walked.Plus, it's brutally cold. So, spend precious time going back up the slope uncertain they can locate the tent, or continue down the slope to the woods and trust their survival skills will keep them alive until first light. A snow slide (whether real or only perceived to be real), disorientation in the darkness, freezing cold, a hasty decision all combine to create a tragic outcome.
Once in the woods, four of the hikers decide to dig out a snow den. But removing snow causes the snow nearby to slide toward them, knocking them into the ravine. Their injuries aren't fatal, but snow falling on them exacerbates the injuries. They die not from hypothermia, but suffocate from their own carbon dioxide. In this example a snow slide combined with a fall into the ravine results in the hikers' deaths.
I'm not suggesting that this is what happened; I'm only presenting an example of an outcome caused by multiple conditions.
 

August 12, 2021, 01:38:33 PM
Reply #16
Offline

Investigator


No such thing as a frozen boot, but anyway, if you have a fire, you can melt the ice on the boot (but also you can just scrape it off anyway), and then dry the boot by the fire.

From the book, "No Shortcuts to the Top:"

"The old leather boots that climbers favored for more than a century are vastly inferior to plastic, because leather absorbs moisture, which then freezes. It’s a natural recipe for frostbite.  Lachenal and Herzog lost their toes to frostbite on Annapurna in 1950 because they were wearing leather boots. (It’s not as though they had any choice, since plastic boots would not get invented for another thirty years)..."

From the book "Alive" (1973 Andes plane crash):

"The night was too cold and the ground too hard for the three to sleep well, and the first light of the morning found them all awake. It was still cold and they remained in the sleeping bag, waiting for the sun to appear over the mountains and thaw out their boots, which had frozen solid on the rock where they had left them."

And if their boots were waterlogged, as would seem much more likely than not, there would be a reason not to take them as you try to get down a moutainside you don't know anything about:

From the "K2" book by Curran.
"[Kurt owned] an ancient pair of leather doubles [boots].  They were completely waterlogged and weighed a ton."

I'll also mention that the two young guys discussed in "Alive," who climbed a mountain to get help for the rest, slept on a mountain with no tent or fire, and survived without proper clothing (actually three survived the night but one went back to the group).  This was more difficult than what the Dyatlov group decided to do the night of the incident, and in a place like Russia, there were likely similar stories of people surviving such difficult situations that at least one member of the group must have known.  The two guys in "Alive" created a windbreak with rocks, whereas the Dyatlov group thought a fire was a better idea, though still, if my notion is correct, they could have survived if Zina didn't get upset or angry and decide to go back to the tent, and of course if the "Ravine 4" didn't go off course while trying to return to the "den."

« Last Edit: August 13, 2021, 11:38:15 AM by Investigator »
 

August 12, 2021, 03:31:18 PM
Reply #17

CR3012

Guest
A good post and a good summary thealexhiggins.

Igor B's did a lot to suggest a wolverine . Still the strongest theory for me.



Yes a WWII decorated veteran whose only job was to kill day after day not so long ago will panic and follow the youth down the slope for 2 miles from wolverine.

Only a bear would've caused such a retreat (still super doubtful), but they were not killed by a bear on the way back to the tent.

Anyway, MoD has a supercomputer, if you feed it all the data you have, objectives, location, amount of snow, temperature, amount of people,  landscape, threats, settlements, distances, weapons they have, food availability, shoes, clothes, and the outcome it will give an answer, well it gave an answer that storming Mannerheim lines in Finland was impossible with the time of the year, weather and landscape conditions.


 

August 12, 2021, 07:59:49 PM
Reply #18
Online

Ziljoe


A good post and a good summary thealexhiggins.

Igor B's did a lot to suggest a wolverine . Still the strongest theory for me.



Yes a WWII decorated veteran whose only job was to kill day after day not so long ago will panic and follow the youth down the slope for 2 miles from wolverine.

Only a bear would've caused such a retreat (still super doubtful), but they were not killed by a bear on the way back to the tent.

Anyway, MoD has a supercomputer, if you feed it all the data you have, objectives, location, amount of snow, temperature, amount of people,  landscape, threats, settlements, distances, weapons they have, food availability, shoes, clothes, and the outcome it will give an answer, well it gave an answer that storming Mannerheim lines in Finland was impossible with the time of the year, weather and landscape conditions.





It's not the size or physical strength of the wolverine that is being debated, it's not the possible fight with the beast that drove them out or away from the tent. That is not the debate . It does not matter if it was as cuddly as a rabbit , kitten or big as a bear. It is the fact that the wolverine has a chemical spray like tear gas. Tear gas is worse than pepper spray.

The wolverine is known to follow prey or scavenge from other predators. It will approach wolves and steal their food . It is not particularly scared of humans .

The theory is that the wolverine entered the tent . Having  smelled the food and/or by following the trail of the hikers. The wolverine ,on entering the tent , means the hikers are stuck in the tent with only one exit. The wolverine is now blocking the exit. They also had sewn a sheet at the doorway, probably to stop wind and snow for insulation ,so not easy for the wolverine to run back out. It may have just wanted warmth and shelter, they may not have even been that afraid of the beast and tried feeding it some pork loin. They might have thought to try and kill it for fresh meat, Who knows? 

However, if the wolverine felt trapped, got scared , pots being thrown at it etc and it then sprayed its chemical weapons, (which are said to be worse than a skunk)
Then that's the moment , spark , ignition of the exit of the tent. There is only the urgency to get out. The toxic smell is known to cause temporary blindness, coughing , breathing difficulties,choking  and the smell is said to be unbearable. 

The urgency or instinct for the hikers is to get away from the toxic smell , fast. Not undo buttons on the tent door or worry about the tent it's self but cut it open and get out of the concentrated toxic air.


That's the rough idea to the wolverine theory and it is a very plausible explanation to the exit of the tent.

But I shall also recommend Teddy's book. Some new nuggets of gold in it.