Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Lyndasez on October 04, 2017, 02:22:03 PM
-
The dens whole existence is a mystery to me. No shovels were recovered. You wouldn’t exhaustively dig a den an not build a fire where everyone could warm themselves and swap clothes off to those who ventured back to the tent for investigation and supplies.
The searchers dug down a dozen feet to uncover an immaculate seat with torn clothes at the corner, no, doesn’t make any sense.
At this point I have to consider the possible reason it exists is to cover up something that had occurred there.
-
I have a HUGE issue with the den!
#1. its reported that the clothing supposedly used for butt protection were actually found in the melting snow somewhere between tue cedar and ravine and were placed on top of the reconstructed twig floor of the den.
#2. I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe the search team just happened to not only know to dig, but to know exactly where to dig, AND hit an exact bull's-eye perfect location. I mean... They didn't find the corner and then shift the trench in that direction. No.... I have several major issues with the 'den' in general. bat1
-
LC,
I’ve been wondering, did the searchers, police or military take a photo of the view from the tent position down towards the ravine, well any we can view now? Also, I don’t mean to cause extra work but if you do know of any could you label it, I have trouble identifying what I am looking at exactly in some photos.
Like the den. I have a photo where someone drew in the den position, and it seemed like it was a the end of the ravine, or rather came after it, where all along I had thought it was alongside an a path came between...them?!
-
At the bottom of the ridge from the tent site, in the valley, there is a seasonal drainage area for melting run-off. In the valley floor area and mainly on the treeline side there are small random and sparse bush/saplings (where igor was found) that eventually turn into a full blown large tree line. Set back into the treeline a little ways and 300m from Igor is the cedar. If you go 75 yards farther past the cedar and slightly to the left, you drop down into the ravine that also carries melting run-off from melting snow.
Basically if you walk down the slope away from the tent, you hit the valley floor which is a washout area, then small saplings start, then they turn into a real forest at the cedar. If you continue in the same straight line past the cedar in 50m you come to a ravine that runs from your right to left and at an angle... Like your 4 o'clock position to your 10 o'clock position. If you follow the ravine downstream (10 o'clock direction) another 25m.... Your at the den.
(http://image.ibb.co/h02TD6/dyatlov_pass_the_flight.jpg)
-
I'm not following the objections y'all have.
Digging a snow den without shovels? I just figured they used their hands and sticks and stuff. And likely that's some of the reason for the scratches and cuts on their knuckles. If the snow hadn't melted and refrozen, then it wouldn't be too solid to dig through. In my experience, snow that falls in far northern climates is generally lighter and fluffier than snow that falls here in the south. And, out in the wilderness like that, it wouldn't have been packed down by feet.
A huge coincidence to place it in the ravine in the middle of the night? I didn't assume they were necessarily aiming for the ravine--though, if one is looking for protection, it makes sense to go downhill. As it turned out, the ravine didn't offer them the protection they needed, so it wasn't exactly a brilliant move on their part. Also, of course, a lot of the snow that the rescuers dug through fell after the fatal night, obscuring it even further than it would been have for the Dyatlov group.
I'm confused about the idea that the rescuers found them quickly and easily in the ravine, or that they seemed to know where to dig. The ones in the ravine were so well hidden that the rescuers didn't find them until three months later, after the snow began to melt. Of course they began by digging: the search crew knew that the bodies would be under at least a couple months' snowfall by that time.
"Immaculate seats"??? What do you mean?
And what sort of cover-up? By the government? By the search crews? I'm confused.
At this point, I'm convinced there was no organized governmental cover-up. First, my understanding is that the Soviet Government of the time generally only tried to cover up things that would make them look incompetent; not things that would make them look cruel or threatening. Second, that's a pretty shabby attempt at a cover-up; I'm absolutely certain the Soviet Government could have done better.
There's a distinct feel of uncertainty about the whole thing, though. Authorities seemed confused and edgy, unclear which information to suppress and which to allow. If they were determined to cover it up completely, they would have. They would have gotten in there before the amateur rescue crews arrived, wiped it clean, and invented a plausible story for the whole thing. At the very least, they would have prepared a reasonable explanation for the deaths and then stuck to it. But I can definitely see middle management getting scared that they might accidentally leak something that was supposed to be secret, and so just calling off the investigation or hushing things up in order to protect themselves.
It amuses me to imagine a conversation, much later, among officials:
"Why did you go to so much trouble to cover it up?"
"Well, if you'd done it, wouldn't you want it covered up?"
"But no one did it--it was just some kids on drugs [or lightning, or scary noises, etc.]"
"How was I to know that? I was just doing my job!"
Anyhow, I'm not trying to present and defend a position, here. I'm just inviting you to explore your thoughts on the den and help me understand them.
-
You think they dug a 9ft den with their hands then constructed a seat and did not attempt a fire, after fleeing in mortal fear?! twitch7
This was a government cover-up for sure...they bungled up anything they could, they didn’t preserve the scene, took minimal pictures and measurements..then hid the rest in secret files, and there’s the 3yr ban on travel to the area....
For instance: “a film of a nuclear test conducted by the Soviet military on Sept. 14, 1954, in which an atomic bomb was exploded in the air near 45,000 Soviet Army troops and thousands of civilians in the Ural Mountains. In the film, which was shown in Paris as a part of a documentary, Soviet veterans said that soldiers had never received adequate medical treatment for the radiation exposure. "Many died not knowing the reason why," said Mikhail Sokolov, left, a veteran. (Photographs from "Human Nuclear Guinea Pigs") “
This info wasn’t known till the ‘90s.
-
MK.. I think there may be a misunderstanding here, so I will attempt to clarify.
Digging a snow den without shovels? I just figured they used their hands and sticks and stuff. And likely that's some of the reason for the scratches and cuts on their knuckles. If the snow hadn't melted and refrozen, then it wouldn't be too solid to dig through. In my experience, snow that falls in far northern climates is generally lighter and fluffier than snow that falls here in the south. And, out in the wilderness like that, it wouldn't have been packed down by feet.
I would normally agree. Accept the very facts of how you describe the characteristics of snow in these circumstances as easy to dig, light and fluffy etc would also make it nearly impossible to dig out a mini cave without the opening sliding/falling in on itself to begin with. For the den to even have existed means the snow would have to have a certain level of 'pack-ability'. Make sense? So in my mind, either the snow was not soft, fluffy, and powder like, or it wasn't dug in the first place. I would tend to think you are correct in the characteristics of the snow, which would indicate..... there was no den.
I'm confused about the idea that the rescuers found them quickly and easily in the ravine, or that they seemed to know where to dig. The ones in the ravine were so well hidden that the rescuers didn't find them until three months later, after the snow began to melt. Of course they began by digging: the search crew knew that the bodies would be under at least a couple months' snowfall by that time.
I wasn't implying the bodies were found quickly or that they seemed to know where to dig for the bodies. I was talking specifically in reference to the den.
The body of LYUDMILA DUBININA was found using an avalanche probe fixed with a meat hook on the end to pull up flesh as they know the victims at this point would not be alive...... thats how they found the rav4.
The 'den' on the other hand had no bodies within it and was meters away from the rav4 bodies.
My quote
#2. I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe the search team just happened to not only know to dig, but to know exactly where to dig, AND hit an exact bull's-eye perfect location. I mean... They didn't find the corner and then shift the trench in that direction.
Point being... how are you to know a den floor exists under meters of snow when a probe does not bring up flesh or anything else for that matter.... how would you know its there to begin with? You wouldn't. On top of that... I am expected to believe the crew dug down on the EXACT location on the first attempt to locate said den they didnt know was there without shifting the hole in any direction after finding part of it? No, apparently they dug the exact size square hole corresponding to the size of the 'den' floor and precisely hit all 4 corners. I call major BS.
"Immaculate seats"??? What do you mean?
What I think Lyndasez was saying, is that we know they staged the pictures with the den floor and the clothing located at all 4 corners... why should we believe it existed in the first place? The clothing was found in melting snow some distance from the 'den' and they staged the 'seats' with the clothing. They also "reconstructed" the branches that made up the 'den floor' itself.
Why would the search crew apparently dig a hole, put branches in it, put clothing in the corners, and say see... lookie, we found a den, we dug one hole in all of the urual mountains and hit paydirt. The entire 'den' IMHO was staged, and you only stage something to create a false narrative.
-
Thanks for clarifying, LC. I see what you mean about the snow. I wish I had more first-hand experience with cold climates in order to understand those kinds of details better.
A quick google of building snow caves with hands indicates that, of course, it is very difficult and not generally recommended. However, most sources note that, with sufficient motivation and several people working, a small emergency snow cave is certainly possible. Also, it seems that powdery snow hardens once it's been disturbed; it doesn't exactly have to melt and refreeze in order to harden. http://www.survivopedia.com/how-to-build-a-snow-shelter/ (http://www.survivopedia.com/how-to-build-a-snow-shelter/)
Obviously there's more to it than what I've read, but I would expect Russians who frequently go on winter hiking & camping treks to be pretty familiar with building a snow cave in less-than-ideal circumstances. In other words, if it could be done, I'd expect these guys to be able to do it.
And, of course, if you're going to do some kind of difficult and nearly-impossible feat, it would only be in a situation similar to fleeing in mortal terror. You don't go digging snow dens with your bare hands for fun.
Lyndasez, I'm not sure I understood point about the fire. You mean, as you see it, they ought to have built another fire rather than a snow cave? Fair enough. Except that they already had a fire, right? Under the cedar. So, presumably, they thought another one was unnecessary or ill-advised. Or, is that your point: that they wouldn't have needed a snow cave since they already had the fire and/or could build another one?
BTW, I googled "snow den" first, and got all kinds of stuff on the military and Snowden! waaaaaaaaay off track, lol!
-
Thanks for clarifying, LC. I see what you mean about the snow. I wish I had more first-hand experience with cold climates in order to understand those kinds of details better.
A quick google of building snow caves with hands indicates that, of course, it is very difficult and not generally recommended. However, most sources note that, with sufficient motivation and several people working, a small emergency snow cave is certainly possible. Also, it seems that powdery snow hardens once it's been disturbed; it doesn't exactly have to melt and refreeze in order to harden. http://www.survivopedia.com/how-to-build-a-snow-shelter/ (http://www.survivopedia.com/how-to-build-a-snow-shelter/)
Obviously there's more to it than what I've read, but I would expect Russians who frequently go on winter hiking & camping treks to be pretty familiar with building a snow cave in less-than-ideal circumstances. In other words, if it could be done, I'd expect these guys to be able to do it.
And, of course, if you're going to do some kind of difficult and nearly-impossible feat, it would only be in a situation similar to fleeing in mortal terror. You don't go digging snow dens with your bare hands for fun.
Lyndasez, I'm not sure I understood point about the fire. You mean, as you see it, they ought to have built another fire rather than a snow cave? Fair enough. Except that they already had a fire, right? Under the cedar. So, presumably, they thought another one was unnecessary or ill-advised. Or, is that your point: that they wouldn't have needed a snow cave since they already had the fire and/or could build another one?
BTW, I googled "snow den" first, and got all kinds of stuff on the military and Snowden! waaaaaaaaay off track, lol!
IIRC there is no evidence of a den being dug, just speculation. A fire in the ravine would of been out of the wind and much better for warming if they would have started one there. but In guess they did not start one.
-
How do we know how deep the den was dug? Reading a few comments here, people seem to be certain about the deepness the den was dug by hand or at most by knife. However, how do we know how much snow was laying around a few weeks before? Since the hikers did not die in the den, I initially thought the vertical distance between the hikers bodies and the flooring on the den would give us the depth they had to overcome. But bodies had enough time to shift vertically, so this logic is flawed. I'm curious anyway:
- How far above solid ground has the den flooring been found?
- How far above solid ground have the 4 bodies been found? Were they vertically all in the same height?
-
I don't think anyone knows these answers because the investigation was a sham.
Also, the den digging is supposedly sideways and not straight down..... Not a hole. Basically into the side of a snow drift, I'm guessing a big one. I'm not really the person to explain it in detail, because I don't believe it existed.
-
I typed out a response to this, but it did not post. This is a test
-
Hollowing out a place to get out of the blistering winds and huddle together to preserve body heat isn't an illogical action to take in my opinion nor do I think they would need shovels to dig out a small area in the snow. Getting a fire to start is not guaranteed and it's possible they tried but just couldn't. I'm not sure if the "seat" is immaculate either considering it is just a piece of clothing set atop some sticks. Unless I'm missing something..
What I don't quite understand is where the den is supposed to be. If it is truly in the ravine, does that mean it was built after the 4 hikers had stumbled into it and received their mortal injuries? 2 of them have cracked ribs, one a cracked skull and they're down there digging out a den? Makes no sense. The website does mention that the bodies were found a few feet away from the den, "in the deep part of the ravine". How deep is "deep"? Are we talking deep enough to fall onto rocks and cause serious injury? If that's the case, it makes a bit more sense. They had built the den, but perhaps decided that they weren't warming up fast enough so they decided to keep moving and then walked a few feet in the darkness and stumbled off into the deeper part of the ravine smashing into rocks at the bottom. This is bad luck on par with some kind of looney tunes sketch.. I'm surprised a cargo plane overhead didn't accidentally drop an anvil on one of their heads to top it all off... Of course, it's also possible that Kolevatov, luckily only sustaining a broken nose from the fall, dug out a place for his hurt comrades to take shelter in only for them to die off one by one from their injuries near/in the den but eventually all of their bodies washed down stream a bit by the thawing water.
I wish we had better maps, some parts of this tragedy are very hard for me to conceptualize without a proper sense of scale and depth.
Maybe I'm not thinking clearly and missing something very obvious..
-
After fleeing the tent:
The parties met up again.
Kolya, Lyuda, Sasha and Kolevatov head in the opposite direction, (perhaps they were searching for their storage shelter, but they were in the wrong valley, Lozrva, instead of Auspiya)
They were just north of Georgy and Doroshenko. Kolya injures himself at some point, probably on the rocks hiding just
inches beneath the snow, causing him to lose his ability to walk. He also loses his flashlight in the
process, and now the four must grope blindly through the darkness. Sasha and Kolevatov carry the
injured Kolya over the snow in the general direction of the trees, but without warning, they encounter
a 24-foot precipice and tumble into the rock-lined ravine below. Kolya, Lyuda and Sasha hit the
rocks with massive force—all three sustaining grave chest injuries while Kolya’s skull is dashed on
the rocks. Somehow, Kolevatov has managed to avoid seriously injuring himself in the impact—perhaps
because Kolya cushioned his fall—and his only concern now is to save the lives of his friends.
Perhaps he is able to communicate with them as they are losing consciousness, and in order to keep
them warm, he spreads out a bed of fir twigs for them to lie on. He doesn’t bother to build a fire, as
there is no fuel, and the wood of the surrounding birch and fir trees holds too much moisture to ignite.
-
The ravine
(http://image.ibb.co/jd5iNm/srgjdstryj.jpg) (http://imgbb.com/)
Closeup of the "den"
(http://petrotimes.vn/stores/news_dataimages/thuhoa/072015/13/15/24a701eaa8a18ffc9f7182e80f7c20e0_1thamhiem3.jpg)
This is the RECONSTRUCTED den floor
(https://rostov.press/uploads/posts/2017/10/03/32702.jpg)
The Rav4 bodies were found just right out in front of the so called den...... closer to the camera
(http://image.ibb.co/jZQpv6/2716627.jpg) (http://imgbb.com/)
(http://image.ibb.co/isZhF6/original.jpg) (http://imgbb.com/)
(http://image.ibb.co/gdKchm/Ravine10a.jpg) (http://imgbb.com/)
-
LC, where are the modern pictures from? Was there ever some kind of secondary-investigation or was it just taken by some Dyatlov Pass-enthusiats?
-
LC, where are the modern pictures from? Was there ever some kind of secondary-investigation or was it just taken by some Dyatlov Pass-enthusiats?
Ah... I found it some time ago on a russian forum etc. Its not from an investigation per-say, but like you said 'enthusiasts'. The DP from what I can tell has become quite the tourist attraction for all those interested. Many people seemingly go there and poke around etc.
I have some pics of the cedar in modern day aswell on my computer somewhere.
-
Has the cedar not been chopped down right after the case closed? I thought I remember reading somewhere that after the bodies had been found it had been cut down so as to avoid making it a morbid tourist attraction, but I really could be wrong. Anyways, modern photos could always be useful in pinning down and understanding what exactly happened. I feel like just reading descriptions of how the terrain is laid out remains pretty abstract and hard to imagine for most of us.
-
Those modern pictures with the old pictures overtop of them are perfect. I did not know the bodies were all together like that. The maps attempting to showcase where the bodies were found are way off.
If I'm understanding things correctly, the "den" was an assumption made on the part of the investigators because they found a bundle of sticks with some pieces of clothing on top and assumed that it had been the floor of some kind of den. That seems like a gigantic stretch in my opinion.
-
The den is a self-contained puzzle. It does not speak of the fate of the Two or the Three, just the Four.
Who can make a snug, well-concealed den in the dark in great haste? Surely not someone who's imagining such a thing out of thin air! It was a master den-maker, at your service!
-
More hints to the riddle. Who might be a master den-maker? Well, any of these folks who have some experience in winter skiing. Of them, who might be a ski instructor? With a dozen years of experience, perhaps? There's something to this fellow Semyon Zolotaryov. We know that he's a tough customer, from his service in WWII (The Great Patriotic War.) , but his resume seems buried in some failure and shortcomings. Like Ashkenadze, he's got a trans-Caucasus heritage (shared by the evil brothers Stalin and Beria.) How'd he appear on the team? Why is he there? I propose he was placed there by other parties as a nanny for the children. He did admirably; he dug a clever snow cave that almost saved the lives of himself and a few fellow hikers. Almost. The secret of the den is Zolotaryov; and the secret of Zolotaryov is the path to the solution of at least part of the riddle.
(http://image.ibb.co/cRrhTH/Semyon_Zolotaryov_07.jpg) (http://imgbb.com/)
-
Sasha Zolotaryov had winning ways on the trip, that's a reasonable assertion. It was likely new for him to be so; as a cross-country ski instructor of his sort, such are not the kindly type. If you are injured on their trip, "blissful death" comes to you swiftly.
Read "Inside Spetznaz" by "Viktor Suvorov," a brilliant Russian patriot. He was in Spetznaz. So was Sasha K. His sad-sack resume belied his actual nature - a wolf of the taiga. Whoever put him in the trip gave them a fierce defender, an must have been fearful.
Read Suvorov, you will recognize Sasha as GRU.
Now, no local or town Party official could obtain a SPETZNAZ nanny for a trip. Approval would come from very high up. That means the "baby" was very valuable at a national level. Who?
-
As for what ended their lives in the den...
The term economy of cause gets used sometimes. It's like Occam's Razor in a sense. The simplest cause, especially in complex findings.
It was all over in an instant. One event caused it all. An explosion. Maybe a device like a tear gas grenade, to flush them out. Or a concussion grenade that kills. Explosions in a contained space can be surprisingly lethal. They can even blow bodies out of the space. That's what happened. And the last proof it was an explosion, I'll tell later.
Did the Internal Troops (MVD) the watchers of Ivdel Gulag, have tear gas grenades or flash-bang grenades to chase the quarry out of its den? Or did they deliberately use lethals? Whatever. It was not Yeti or aerosled crash. It was murder.
But wouldn't an honorable MVD or KGB officer be embarrassed, at least, by slaughtering one of 'the neighbors?' Hardly. Given the choice, they'd enjoy it a lot! There's no love lost - then or now - between Russian secret agencies.
An "OOPS! Wrong grenade!" would bring gales of laughter in any MVD barracks.
-
I understand it is a plausible theory, but why? I just can't seem to find a motive behind why someone would go out and murder 9 students without any reason. Granted, there were lots of sick people in power at the time, but even if they were truly just psychopaths looking for a thrill, why bother? Why do it at this time of year, when it's hardest to access the mountains? I thought that what you said about the MVD or KGB members being ashamed of their actions was quite interesting, so I'd like to add on to that. Is it possible that the investigation and the funeral of the Dyatlov group was so hush-hush because the USSR was ashamed of what had happened?
The fact that the funerals were so tightly restricted and that talk of the investigation was near nonexistent makes me think that the government had something to do with it. But, I think that it wasn't to cover up their crimes, since I think the USSR circa 1959 would've been much more efficient in making bodies disappear before anyone could find them. That's why I'm willing to believe that yes, some higher ranking-official(s) were involved, but not intentionally, and that this is the reason behind the USSR trying to hush the investigation. I loved your theory that what killed the students was an explosion, it was a very interesting read, so do you think it's possible that the explosion may have been targeting other individuals and hit the Dyatlov group instead on accident?
-
"Now, no local or town Party official could obtain a SPETZNAZ nanny for a trip. Approval would come from very high up. That means the "baby" was very valuable at a national level. Who?"
Do you think you could clarify this? I find this theory really interesting and I'd love to hear more but I don't really understand what you're trying to convey here.
-
Zolotaryov was rumoured to be on the tour by the suggestion of a Party official.
A ski instructor m in a "resort," I doubt that he wished to Ski Siberia!
-
To pass Professor Zolotaryov's Lethal Combat Class, in Special Forces training, you have to kill someone, or a few someones. Actually, a few nobodies, condemned prisoners of the Gulag. Robinsons. Bare hands! Don't worry, Professor Z will show you. He's done quite a few.
-
Targeting other individuals?No. These were tiny, barely-lethal explosives. Concussion grenades. Five meters away, a harmless BANG that might make your ears ring. Right out of the Special Forces toy box.
-
I doubt that it was due to his wish to Ski Siberia!
But I think it was.... Post military he became ski guide dude and he was without a level 3 certification.... Which you get from the state University. Christ, these kids were already a match in certification level. I would think it to be in his best interest to get his level 3 cert in his line of employment.
-
I suspect we don't know his real profession. You are right.
-
Those modern pictures with the old pictures overtop of them are perfect. I did not know the bodies were all together like that. The maps attempting to showcase where the bodies were found are way off.
If I'm understanding things correctly, the "den" was an assumption made on the part of the investigators because they found a bundle of sticks with some pieces of clothing on top and assumed that it had been the floor of some kind of den. That seems like a gigantic stretch in my opinion.
Enjoy.
(http://preview.ibb.co/n5wiEc/02comp.jpg) (http://ibb.co/f8GiEc)
(http://preview.ibb.co/iB3Knx/01comp.png) (http://ibb.co/g8buLH)
-
I don't know if I'm wrong here, but, it appears that several feet of snow had fallen since the hikers left their tent to their deaths. Wasn't it snowing that day they stopped and made the tent? Maybe I don't understand the significance of that man standing next to ten foot high wall, but, I assumed that a lot of snow had fallen and covered everything in the meantime, since weeks had passed, and that's why some of the bodies weren't found right away,especially, the last four. I could be wrong, but, that's what I was thinking when I saw that picture. The tent looked like it was almost buried, too, so, a lot of snow had fallen and maybe the hikers didn't have to dig that deep, if they did have to dig, because, if they did have to dig that deep, they would have all frozen before they even got halfway down. I hope I'm making sense.
-
The measure of credibility of the theories is the DEN; and that of the den is the TONGUE. Very few credible hypotheses issue. Therefore it is all incredibly weak.
-
Those modern pictures with the old pictures overtop of them are perfect. I did not know the bodies were all together like that. The maps attempting to showcase where the bodies were found are way off.
If I'm understanding things correctly, the "den" was an assumption made on the part of the investigators because they found a bundle of sticks with some pieces of clothing on top and assumed that it had been the floor of some kind of den. That seems like a gigantic stretch in my opinion.
Your reasoning is very sound. The existence of a "den" is highly improbable, to say the least.
-
Your reasoning is very sound. The existence of a "den" is highly improbable, to say the least.
I realize this depends on what theory one finds more convincing, but making a snow den makes as much sense as making a fire in their situation. Given that there's 9 of them to start with, it would make sense to seek shelter and warmth at the same time.
-
Iam having difficulty with the so called DEN. Firstly, was it actually a DEN !? Its interesting the more you look into the Dyatlov Case the more tricky it seems to be, not withstanding any missing evidence. THE TENT. THE FOOTPRINTS. THE TREE. THE FIRE. THE DEN ! ?
-
A logical explaination, but only good if the ravine is as I see it.
When they found the bodies in the ravine, they might have wondered why they were there.
If a skier is under bad weather without shelter, he will look for shelter. The ravine was offering a shelter against wind. But If they were in good enough shape when they got there, they would have need more of a shelter : a snowden. That was even more logical to have some kind of shelter since they brought branches from the cedar.
Just where they were found, there was a pretty evident spot for a snowden (the upper end of the ravine). They looked for it at the only logical spot around... that's why they dug "the perfect square" (what was a perfect square because they just followed the end of the ravine on 3 sides.
Usually, If you have no tool, you dig with a good woodstick (a splitted -flat- branch is the best). Never with your hands : too cold.
-
Very cheeky to say they dug 10 feet down to make that den which means they need shovels... Very cheeky
The den exist beneath a natural bank. This bank gives false picture to make it look like they dug down for a long way....
Sight of the den is a natural low spot which the group stumble into using natural instinct to avoid bad wind and weather. They only maybe had to dig slightly and they use hands (tybo has gloves on his person), stick, whatever.
Fire can not help, they had already seen Yuris pass away at the fire and the wind made fire ineffective. This is why people burn trying to warm... they have to be almost ontop of the fire to get any effective...only option was to take Yuris clothes and go for shelter.
Semyon and tybo probably make the den consider Semyons experience in his past and the fact they had boots on so they were able to. Alek may have helped to...
After they make the den they go to get lyuda. She was trying to get to the den, she stepped on false snow ledge fell several feet and hurt herself badly. There is evidence she was heading for the den....she is kneeling against the rock face of the stream and she may have been trying to climb up it to head towards the den..
or to head towards the others...because the den was in that up stream direction...
The 3 men race toward her scream and they make the same mistake. Nikolay lands on his head and is almost dead. The others are injured... Aleksandr is least injured, he probably lands on top of the others... They are together to weak to move far and die and snow covers them...
Several month of snowfall later gives false picture of actual landsight...
The den is obvious not an evidence of a cover up considering U conspiracy theorists find it so strange... If investigators wanted to cover this up they would not bother adding these silly details...if they wanted to lie and cover up investigators gain nothing from making a den... They could much easier say "we found the bodies in ravine, they must have fell trying to avoid the wind or who knows..." And they have same result as they do with the den!! There is no point making a den for investigators!
It took them a long time to find this also so it is also cheeky to say they knew EXACTLY where to dig... Lies.... They saw evidence of people being in the low area of the ravine....they started poking through snow there and they eventually get something.
Very cheeky to say they knew they were dead so used a meat hook.... OF COURSE THEY KNEW THEY WERE DEAD! No one is alive after so many months under so much snow...
-
Early May one of the searchers finds a piece of clothing exposed by melting snow. They bring in avalanche probes and, after probing the area, they find something on the end of one of the probes and start digging. There was no den or "snow cave." 3 of the 4 were injured at the site of the ravine (how is anyone's guess). In an attempt to survive the night and save his friends, the uninjured (or less injured) member (probably Kolevatov) built the bed of clothing and fir branches on more stable ground. Kolevatov probably planned on dragging the group to the bed but, overcome with cold, he eventually succumbed and died of hypothermia. This is the most logical and simple explanation and explains why none of the members were found on the bed of clothing.
-
Who and for what reasons was the dug "den" brought up by rescuers/investigators? Most likely, when they found the clothing/branches arranged in an orderly way, covered by snow, they noticed that it was not an area that was in any kind of depression, and hence must have been dug out to some degree. Regardless, the only explanation that makes sense is that they created a "den" and thought they could survive the night by huddling together, but as they walked from the camp fire area (taking some of the clothing of the "two Yuris"), they were huddling together for warmth, and so when they fell down onto the rocky creek, the one or two in front sustained some nasty injuries (and it may even be that Luda or another member was being carried).
-
Good Zyd,
finally some common sense!!! thumb1
-
This is something that has always bothered me as well, and I never feel like I get a good answer about it. I’ve heard it was naturally occurring, that it was made earlier, that they made it quickly but no, I don’t get it either.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/QJLyRfb/den.png) (https://ibb.co/cy04H1g)
-
Is this right? It helps me to get a visual.
-
Or it just might be that the den, sticks and cloth were constructed by the rescuers as a cold storage and platform for the deceased until they could be taken out of the area.
-
I read on another site that there was a cold storage area because of the decaying bodies. . In the above picture , half way down from where it says, 1) walk from ceder.
You will see what looks like a square cut out in the snow. There is speculation that the ravine four were stored there for a short period of time out of the sun until they were transported to the helicopter up the slope.
-
It amazes me why they built the fire some 75m from the cedar. I'd expect them to start and mainstain fire near the den.
To use young firs and branches for sleepover shelter and maintain fire. Either in the area near cedar or in the ravine.
Staying is cold, dark den must have been really depressive at night... dunno1