September 25, 2022, 04:20:24 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: The "Window" in the cedar tree  (Read 2526 times)

1 Member and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

October 17, 2019, 05:53:31 AM
Read 2526 times
Offline

garybonds


One thing the searchers noted about the cedar tree and which has led to a fair amount of speculation is the "window" in the branches at 4-5 meters height. Below is a photograph showing the "window".



I suddenly had an idea, let's see what you think.

I imagine they started out breaking the branches close to the ground for their fire. But soon it must have dawned on them that if they kept doing it that way, from the bottom up, then sooner or later the next branch would be out of reach and it would be impossible to get more firewood from the cedar!

But if they climbed up a bit and got branches from there and then worked downwards, then they could get more from the tree.

That's my explanation, basically.

Then at some point they must have gotten too weak, or someone had a fall from the tree or something, and they reverted back to just breaking them off from the bottom again.

(Caveat: since there's very little physical evidence about who climbed there and why, this is of course speculation. We cant even know for sure that the Dyatlovs created the "window")
« Last Edit: October 17, 2019, 06:29:15 AM by garybonds »
 

October 17, 2019, 10:40:56 AM
Reply #1
Offline

jarrfan


It was definitely the two Yuri's that climbed, they found their skin on the bark of the tree. Speculation was they climbed the tree to see the area of the tent and see if it was "clear." The fire burned for approximately 2 hours so they must have used more brush or dead wood from the area. There was a remark that there was suitable firewood around the area and the searchers wondered why it was not used instead of the cedar tree branches.

As I said, the tent only had the 3 cuts made in it horizontal and semi circular. The big cuts came from the  ice ax as the searchers hacked into it. So the hikers had to have left through the door. If they left through the door, what was the rush that they could not have put on proper clothing? This is the part that is unanswered for me.

As far as the ravine 4, it is possible they fell onto rocks at the ravine, but why were they all separated in the first place? The ravine 4 had such serious injuries they could not have navigated the way to the tree and den in the condition they were in, so they either fell or were pushed into the ravine.

The 3, Dyatalov, Rina and the other guy, must have been at the cedar tree because the den was only made for 4 persons, not 9.

I  believe they were separated or forced to be separated and interrogated which is standard procedure in most police investigations to separate and question, and get to the truth. This is speculation on my part.

So the ravine 4 were left alone at the area where they made the den.

If there were lots of rocks visible, this would speak to the reason why there were no snow footprints of any other persons or animals.

I also mentioned in another section the "false" crown Semyon had when his body was exhumed. That is a very strange thing to have a vacant crown. In the 50's and 60's spies were usually given a breakable capsule of cyanide or strictnine in case they were in a situation where they needed to kill themselves. It is possible that vacant crown was there for that reason. There is historical evidence that several Nazi officials used a cyanide capsule after being arrested for war crimes and used them after they were captured. It was a way to hide the capsule. Just another unanswered question.
 

October 17, 2019, 11:09:14 AM
Reply #2

tekumze

Guest

Dear garybonds,
Can you mark "window" in the picture? I don't  dunno1 see anything that looks like a window. Thanks in advance.
 

October 17, 2019, 02:25:07 PM
Reply #3
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The witness testimonies of some of the search and rescue team speculate that the branches were cleared so that they could look back towards the tent.  They say that many of the small branches that were cut were not used for firewood and many were hanging on the lower branches of the cedar.

There is clear evidence that Yuri D climbed the cedar.  But one of the things that puzzles me is that the autopsy reports states that Yuris D had severe frost bite on fingers and toes that was so severe that he would have had to have them amputated.  So at what point did he get the severe frost bite?  You would not think that he would have got this after the fire had been lit?  If he had got the frost bite before he got to the cedar then would he have been in a fit state to climb the tree?  Probably not.  So did he get the fost bite after climbing the tree to collect fire wood and before the fire was lit?  If this were the case how much time did it take to collect the wood and start the fire?  Is it possible that Yuris D and the others climbed the tree to evade something and they clung onto the tree for some time before they decided it was safe enough to climb down and start a fire?  This would explain why Yuris D had such severe frost bite.  Maybe it just took a very long time to get the fire going?  There were many matches lying around the fire.  About 27ish comes to mind, but I'm not sure now.

Regards

Star man

 
The following users thanked this post: Manti

October 17, 2019, 09:39:54 PM
Reply #4
Offline

jarrfan


The search team found plenty of other brush, dry limbs in the immediate area. The search team questioned why the hikers would have cut branches  from a green cedar tree,  which apparently would be a terrible way to start a fire, and did not use more of the brush/dry limbs in the area. So the theme that they were climbing the tree to get more tree limbs for the fire doesn't really fit into their situation. The Dyatlov Pass hikers mystery may never be determined, much like the Oak Island mystery, although personally I hope they both have answers.
 

October 18, 2019, 04:21:36 AM
Reply #5
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
They may have used some of the branches for fire wood, but overall the evidence seems to point to them climbing the tree to find safety IMO.

So if this is the case then what would climbing a tree provide safety from?  Humans or animals , possibly fear of avalanche?

Regards
Star man

 

November 02, 2019, 09:07:53 AM
Reply #6
Offline

Marchesk


So if this is the case then what would climbing a tree provide safety from?  Humans or animals , possibly fear of avalanche?

There's no avalanche to be afraid of on that slope. At most a snow slab or slide could have hit the tent, but not anything that would worry them in the woods. Keep in mind that they also proceeded downhill in and orderly fashion, which would have taken some time under those conditions, so they couldn't have been all that concerned about an avalanche after leaving the tent. And I'm pretty sure Igor knew well enough what kind of slope they were on and that they weren't in any danger of an avalanche.

But it's possible he/they might not have considered a smaller slide event, although I doubt that's what happened.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2019, 09:11:57 AM by Marchesk »
 
The following users thanked this post: Manti

November 02, 2019, 04:46:36 PM
Reply #7
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Yeah - an avalanche or snow slide is far from the top of my list of possible explanations.  But there is a chance that they may have feared a potential avalanche  - again though I agree that this is unlikely.

Regards

Star man
 

November 06, 2019, 12:15:00 PM
Reply #8
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The search team found plenty of other brush, dry limbs in the immediate area. The search team questioned why the hikers would have cut branches  from a green cedar tree,  which apparently would be a terrible way to start a fire, and did not use more of the brush/dry limbs in the area. So the theme that they were climbing the tree to get more tree limbs for the fire doesn't really fit into their situation. The Dyatlov Pass hikers mystery may never be determined, much like the Oak Island mystery, although personally I hope they both have answers.

Yes there were plenty of other Trees that could have provided fire wood and easier to get at so why choose that particular tree  !  ?  I havnt changed My stance on this one and I believe they choose the tree to escape from something that was scaring them to death. The same thing that made them all leave the safety of their Tent. The same thing that drove the remainder to the so called Den in the Ravine, and where MUTILATIONS may have taken place.
DB
 

September 22, 2022, 07:35:21 AM
Reply #9
Offline

neni_cesty_zpet


My theory explaining worst wounds - happened under cedar

It's possible that they left the tent in bad weather with poor visibility...

Climbing takes a lot of energy. I think the reason why they were scavenging woods from this tree is because they did not want to walk in deep snow there, they were not
properly booted after all.
They decided to cut branches on this tree. Empty "window" on cedar was result of cut branches, not intended  to see in ten's direction.

The group was cooperating on this place around cedar to build fire. Two members were climbing the tree and cutting branches and two members were down,
picking up cut branches on ground below. I believe that it's possible that there was a spot without snow(or very little snow) under the cedar's treetop, that's
what I see sometimes in winter countryside.

But the heat of fire was not enough and they started developing hypothermia. The climbers vere surely standing on branches and it's possible that the branch under
their feet or bottoms suddenly cracked.
Their limbs were already slighly numb at that moment. One or both fell down onto comrades who were picking up cut branches.
Zolotarev and Lyudmila were worst wounded...

They were holding the trunk for stability in treetop, but it caused them moderate scratches (and skin left on trunk) after branch under their feet(or bottoms in case
of sitting on tree) cracked.

Was the knife used for cutting branches found? Was it the same knife someone used for slashing the tent?  dunno1

 
The following users thanked this post: Manti

September 22, 2022, 09:26:23 AM
Reply #10
Offline

Manti



As I said, the tent only had the 3 cuts made in it horizontal and semi circular. The big cuts came from the  ice ax as the searchers hacked into it. So the hikers had to have left through the door. If they left through the door, what was the rush that they could not have put on proper clothing? This is the part that is unanswered for me.

The tent was found mostly buttoned up (only one button was undone).

If they left via the door they couldn't have been in a rush because they had time to button it back up.
 

September 22, 2022, 09:34:34 AM
Reply #11
Offline

Manti


My theory explaining worst wounds - happened under cedar

It's possible that they left the tent in bad weather with poor visibility...

Climbing takes a lot of energy. I think the reason why they were scavenging woods from this tree is because they did not want to walk in deep snow there, they were not
properly booted after all.
They decided to cut branches on this tree. Empty "window" on cedar was result of cut branches, not intended  to see in ten's direction.

The group was cooperating on this place around cedar to build fire. Two members were climbing the tree and cutting branches and two members were down,
picking up cut branches on ground below. I believe that it's possible that there was a spot without snow(or very little snow) under the cedar's treetop, that's
what I see sometimes in winter countryside.

But the heat of fire was not enough and they started developing hypothermia. The climbers vere surely standing on branches and it's possible that the branch under
their feet or bottoms suddenly cracked.
Their limbs were already slighly numb at that moment. One or both fell down onto comrades who were picking up cut branches.
Zolotarev and Lyudmila were worst wounded...

They were holding the trunk for stability in treetop, but it caused them moderate scratches (and skin left on trunk) after branch under their feet(or bottoms in case
of sitting on tree) cracked.

Was the knife used for cutting branches found? Was it the same knife someone used for slashing the tent?  dunno1

Excellent. We have a new theory!


Ravine 4 injuries not caused by a fallen tree but by falling comrades. Plausible and requires no conspiracy or supernatural events. Honestly it's the best explanation for the ravine 4 injuries I've read so far.
 

September 22, 2022, 06:09:52 PM
Reply #12
Online

GlennM


Can you reconcile having a "spy hole" in the tree while simultaneously having a fire on the ground? Should they not be mutually exclusive? If not, then I could accept looking back toward the tent for direction before accepting looking out for marauding people or critters.
 

September 23, 2022, 01:33:27 AM
Reply #13
Online

Charles


The group was cooperating on this place around cedar to build fire. Two members were climbing the tree and cutting branches and two members were down,
picking up cut branches on ground below.

If there was any coordinated activity, requiring will, consciousness, choices and rationality, then they would have been doing all that stuff at their nearby storage, at the same distance from the tent, down slope as well. Storage where they had plenty of food, and pairs of shoes, torches... and set up on known ground, on the south side of the pass, in direction of the way back home.

 
 

September 23, 2022, 02:49:58 AM
Reply #14
Online

Charles


The group was cooperating on this place around cedar to build fire. Two members were climbing the tree and cutting branches and two members were down, picking up cut branches on ground below.

You can't escape the fact that they had a storage as easily accessible as was the cedar. So you have to completely destroy the hikers, underrate and downgrade them when supposing their decision to avoid their storage and walk to the unknown side of the pass, choosing the unknown instead of walking back on their own tracks on the known side of the pass to their storage, and then you rebuild them as human beings once at the cedar where they find back their abilities to cooperate, to think, to assess situation, to make choices, etc.

The hikers become like wax figures, crushed and rebuilt at will.

Because walking to the cedar instead of walking to their storage means that they lost everything: memory, intelligence, will, choice, everything...

So, an unknown "natural" event forces them to evacuated the tent on bare feet, to abandon their slippers outside the tent, and forbid them to re-enter the tent... alright... but they have extra pairs of shoes at their storage... therefore... they walk in the opposite direction...

And there is more... the door of the tent was in direction of the south, when exiting the tent, they were facing the direction of their storage (labaz/cache) and their own tracks. The walk down to the storage was not a complex decision to make, it was the easiest:



If 8/9 hikers were barefoot on their own in these supposed "natural conditions", it would have been a rush to the storage... "struggle for life" time, every man for himself, survival instinct, natural selection, first arrived first served... or beautiful team spirit, mutual help, and all the beauty of elite youth, if you prefer... but anyway heading to the storage:

Labaz is located at a group's camp site well hidden packed with fire wood, covered with planks and spruce debris. At the storage one ski is propped in the snow and a torn gaiter is slipped onto it, upon excavation of the cache the following products were found:
Condensed milk 2.5 kg
Meat canned banks 4 kg
Sugar - 8 kg
Butter - 4 kg
Cooked sausage - 4 kg
Salt - 1.5 kg
Kissel-compote - 3 kg
Oatmeal and buckwheat 7.5 kg
Cocoa 200 g
Coffee - 200 g
Tea - 200 gr
Loin - 3 kg
Milk powder - 1 kg
Sugar - 3 kg
Crackers - 7 kg and Noodles - 5 kg
Also found:
mandolin, a pair of shoes 41 size, and worn socks inside, pair of insulated boots, mounting set, 2 batteries mounted with the bulb for lighting


I wrote in bold all that was of immediate use for people in emergency situation: they could easily make fire, cook meat or sausages and eat fat, they could shoe two hikers, and they had electric light if needed.

It is impossible to escape the reality of the nearby storage with its extra pairs of shoes packed with fire wood, covered with planks and spruce debris... before to imagine hikers climbing high in a cedar to gather wood for their fire. And impossible not to assess the meaning of the hikers avoiding their storage to walk barefoot in the opposite direction.



« Last Edit: September 23, 2022, 06:11:26 AM by Charles »
 

September 23, 2022, 01:16:04 PM
Reply #15
Offline

Игорь Б.


Полураздетым людям нужен костёр, а не продукты. До лабаза 2 км., а до кедра 1,5 км. Лабаз скрыт за продуваемым перевалом, а лес перед глазами.

Кедр - лучшее топливо для костра:
Quote
Кедр - это настоящий король для костра. Сухие сучья этого дерева настоящая находка для путника. костер с помощью кедровых дров можно развести даже в самую сырую погоду. Костер будет давать ровное, красивое пламя и отличный жар. Древесина кедра не дымит и не стреляет.

Идеальными дровами для костра будут кедровые. Если вы хоть раз проведете ночевку у костра на кедровых дровах, никогда не забудете этой превосходной ночевки. В дальнейшем больше никогда не захотите выбрать другие дрова для костра.

https://dzen.ru/media/id/604b1202fa7bf6638f2a9bdc/samye-luchshie-drova-dlia-kostra-moi-opyt-teper-jgu-koster-tolko-iz-etoi-drevesiny-605040476c861f01074efab0


У лабаза были "хилые сырые ели". Дятловцы это уже знали.
The answers to all the questions related to the death of Dyatlov group:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=110407
Evidence of the death of the Dyatlov group from the Wolverine chemical weapon:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=69286
 

September 23, 2022, 06:04:58 PM
Reply #16
Online

GlennM


What makes sense to me is that the hikers must have weighted their options of retreating to their cache, or proceeding to the woods.I think they went to the woods for these reasons (1) They believed the forest was closer that it was. (2) It was downhill from the tent,(3l abundant firewood (4) windbreak shelter (5) it would only be for a couple of hours till daybreak.

In the forest, perhaps they dug in the failed snow cave first, then came back to the cedar for fire and orientation toward the tent. Finally the last three hikers tried to make it back to the tent to help any of their distressed friends. It did not work out.
 

September 23, 2022, 07:41:24 PM
Reply #17
Offline

Manti


I think it's quite possible that they were "lost" for the last days.

They climbed up to the pass, then descended back down to Auspiya instead of continuing on to Lozva. This means losing a day.

They then set up the tent on the slope, in a snowstorm with apparently zero visibility. It could be that this is not where they intended to camp but had no other option, because of the storm. And they had no idea where they were.


And then they went to the Lozva valley while their storage was in the Auspiya valley.

I think this was either a mistake, or they couldn't go to Auspiya for some reason. Charles, do you think this reason was because they were attacked and the attackers didn't let them?

For me, an ambush is very hard to consider, because their bodies were just left there. Who would do that and why?

No. Most likely they just went to the wrong valley, but it's also possible that the perceived danger that made them leave the tent was coming from the direction of the storage, so they avoided it. Or that it was just too cold and they thought it's further away than the cedar.
 

September 23, 2022, 09:11:32 PM
Reply #18
Online

GlennM


Under any circumstance, I still like the slab slip explanation over the others. Making cold camp in whiteout conditions, crazy cold and tired, yeah, it could have happened just that way. Sad business but deucedly interesting.
 

September 24, 2022, 02:25:38 AM
Reply #19
Online

Charles


What makes sense to me is that the hikers must have weighted their options of retreating to their cache, or proceeding to the woods.

(1) They believed the forest was closer that it was.

If they were able to weight options, there is no reason that they were not able to make a correct assessment of distances. They had seen the Lozva valley before to set camp, it was visible. And if they couldn't see the valley before, there was no reason whatsoever to walk to the unknown.

(2) It was downhill from the tent,

The storage was also downhill.

(3l abundant firewood

The firewood was more abundant at the storage and ready to be used: "with fire wood, covered with planks and spruce debris." And the storage was also in the forest.

(4) windbreak shelter

The Auspiya valley was deeper and a better windbreak shelter.

(5) it would only be for a couple of hours till daybreak.

The storage was at the same distance from the tent, as easily accessible, and there was the previous path of the nine skiers' tracks to use as a guideline. And for a few hours, yes but hours of survival. The hikers were barefoot in the cold: in the direction of their storage were extra pairs of shoes, fire wood and food... If they avoided the storage and walked to the unknown because "it would only be for a couple of hours till daybreak", then it means that they didn't understand that they were in survival situation. They weighted options, but they were not able to weight that their lives were at risk. Like: "Ok, we are not in such an emergency: windbreak shelter, known ground, fire wood, pairs of shoes, electric torches, food and fat... no thanks. We prefer to walk barefoot to the unknown, better option." And why wait a couple of hours till daybreak? They were supposed to retrieve their shoes and equipment at daybreak? By some decree of higher authority?

And if they could prefer to stay barefoot in the cold on an unknown ground, why just leave the tent? The tent was still standing when found by the rescuers, the equipment was there, in the tent, not dispersed, not lost. The hikers prefered to neglect the storage because situation was not so extreme, just waiting a couple of hours before to come back, but then if not so extreme, why were they barefoot in the deadly cold?

And if they could weight their options, they couldn't unanimously walk to the unknown and their death. At least there should have been a division, a split, some of the hikers choosing the storage. On the nine hikers, two or three should have been wiser... eating grilled sausages on a large bonfire and with shoes at their feet, at the storage, while the others were all dying of hypothermia on the other side of the pass.





« Last Edit: September 24, 2022, 05:36:21 AM by Charles »
 

September 24, 2022, 04:00:48 AM
Reply #20
Online

Charles


Hello Manti

I think it's quite possible that they were "lost" for the last days.

They climbed up to the pass, then descended back down to Auspiya instead of continuing on to Lozva. This means losing a day.

Yes but they descended back to leave a part of the charge at the storage. It was a rational decision. And progression was easier after loosing weight to carry. It was a very legit decision. It was not being lost in terms of geography.  Maybe lost in terms of strength and stamina, but not lost as they could no longer orient themselves.

And they had no idea where they were.

No, they knew their position. Perfectly. They set up the storage at the correct position to easily find it after the loop when walking back from Otorten.

And then they went to the Lozva valley while their storage was in the Auspiya valley.

Hard to believe it was by mistake. They were above the pass. When facing the slope, the storage was on their right, and they left tracks of a nine hikers group, fresh tracks from the previous day. And even if a storm erased the tracks, the direction was easy: to the right. Reaching the storage was not a complex maneuver, it was easy.

And if they were in a storm with low visibility why walk to the unknown? The partial footprints went straight to the cedar, no curve as if they deviated, straight path.

I think this was either a mistake, or they couldn't go to Auspiya for some reason.

But the storage was at the same distance and downslope as well. If they split, two groups would have arrived at the same time at the cedar and at the storage. The one at the storage finding fire wood, sausages, shoes, torches... The storage was not miles away, not on the other side of high mountains, not at walking days of distance, it was just nearby. And at the location of their previous camp.



The only "action" needed to reach the storage was walking down the slope "to the right". Because the tent was at an higher altitude than the pass, they couldn't miss the Auspiya valley and the storage, it was the easiest task to perform. They face down the slope, they walk to the right, they get to the storage in a few minutes. Because, actually, we talk about missing the Auspiya valley... indeed! They walked in the opposite direction... they missed a valley!

So we have again to destroy them as human beings... to deprive them of all qualities, to the level of forgetting the right and the left or even of loosing memory of their equipment left at the nearby storage. And suddenly giving these qualities back to light fire in a storm, to build a den, to cooperate, work, etc.

Because they were not on flat ground, they had the slope as a help to guide them: coming back on their steps was at right hand when facing down the slope. With the slope as a guide, they could make it by night, in a whiteout, even blindfolded...

We understand better if we rotate the maps:





And the question is why were the hikers allegedly climbing in the cedar to find fire wood and dying of hypothermia in the Lozva valley while their storage was waiting in the Auspiya valley ? Supposing that Nature didn't want them to stay or to come back at their tent: why choose left and not right ?


« Last Edit: September 24, 2022, 06:31:40 AM by Charles »
 

September 24, 2022, 01:35:04 PM
Reply #21
Offline

Manti


There are several other factors too. For example, they had compasses. And the wind blows from the NW, so going to the cache would have meant tailwind, whereas going to the cedar meant wind from the left which is worse in my opinion. Considering it's cold wind in -20C conditions.

And like you say they also didn't know the Lozva valley so they were going to the unknown.


All these point to the rational decision being a return to the cache. But they didn't do that. I think we only differ in our opinion on why...


 

September 24, 2022, 01:54:22 PM
Reply #22
Offline

Manti


Regarding a snow slip,


It doesn't look like there has been one... This is wind carved layered snow that thawed and refroze into layers. Maybe there was an entire other layer on top that got blown away since, but the fact is the search found the tent, almost buried in this. If there was another layer the tent was dug into that has since disappeared, the tent wouldn't have been buried.
 

September 24, 2022, 09:36:11 PM
Reply #23
Online

GlennM


Perhaps if the hikers chose the cache over the woods, that would have ended the expedition right then and there. Instead, hoping to salvage the expedition, they chose not to raid their reserves, but instead to make for the forest temporarily to regroup and return to their tent a few hours later. I believe they lost a day previously on their schedule. That was a day's worth of resources.

Since there is no clear proof the hikers were assaulted by man nor beast, and since neither their tent, nor cache were raided for supplies, I conclude they acted without external threat from marauders. What is left is a natural occurrence. The tent was found collapsed and partially buried. It could have been an earthquake, katabatic wind or lights in the sky, but what was left was a snow covered canvas tent with a collapsed middle, broken ski poles and three corpses on the way back to it.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2022, 09:41:40 PM by GlennM »
 

Today at 04:58:38 AM
Reply #24
Online

Charles


Since there is no clear proof the hikers were assaulted by man nor beast, andcsince neither their tent, nor cache were raided for supplies, I conclude they acted without external threat from marauders. What is left is a natural occurrence. The tent was found collapsed and partially buried. It could have been ancearthquake, katabatic wind or lights in the sky,

So it is just prejudice of yours, you say it yourself, you don't care about evidences as long as there was no assault: It could have been an earthquake, katabatic wind or lights in the sky... You don't have proof of earthquake or catabatic wind but "it could have been".

The bodies of the hikers suffered 29 fractures, all deadly, they had open wounds, blood on the face, bruises, burns... but you assess that you can exclude a priori the possibility of assault and confidently rely on winds to cause such damages...

You talk more about yourself than about the case, giving us an example of "anathemization of violence", the process by which a society or an individual denies the reality of violence in his account of history and events. It is an a priori for you: you can accept earthquake, katabatic wind or lights in the sky, whatever, even if there is no evidence, but not violence.

And once you have declared your prejudice, you have to deny so many things: Prosecutor Tempalov, Justice Adviser L.N. Ivanov, Expert-Criminalist Churkina H. E., all the investigators, and all police, what were they doing in the mountains? They had a prejudice that assault and crime were impossible? The many questions asked about the Mansi attacking the hikers, it was a dream, it never happened? And Forensic Medical Examiner Dr Vozrozhdenny's conclusion: "The cause of death of Kolevatov was through violence." was a fake? And the impossibility to draw a conclusion, for the people who went at the scene, in the mountain, how they were forced to concede: "unknown compelling force"... unknown... was another myth?

People at the time who climbed in the mountain to investigate couldn't exclude the assault by outsiders and couldn't conclude to natural cause (although it was the easy and comfortable way for everybody, but they couldn't), they were forced to remain in the "unknown". And it was not the hesitation of a single man, the investigation and its unsatisfying conclusion were the work of many people.

So you write : "since neither their tent, nor cache were raided for supplies, I conclude..." But their tent was raided for Kolevatov's diary... No supplies were missing, indeed, but his diary was missing. And then, since their tent was raided for Kolevatov's diary, what would you conclude?








« Last Edit: Today at 04:05:24 PM by Charles »
 

Today at 05:50:08 AM
Reply #25
Online

Charles


There are several other factors too. For example, they had compasses. And the wind blows from the NW, so going to the cache would have meant tailwind, whereas going to the cedar meant wind from the left which is worse in my opinion. Considering it's cold wind in -20C conditions.

And like you say they also didn't know the Lozva valley so they were going to the unknown.

All these point to the rational decision being a return to the cache. But they didn't do that. I think we only differ in our opinion on why...

Yes, you are very right about the wind.

About the compasses, I think they were not of great use given the area. In an area where they can't find any landmarks for orientation, like desert, pack ice, forest, flat ground without visibility, yes, the compasses are of great use. Because the labaz was at a distance of less than 2 km, with no obstacle, they could make it easily, on a slope they knew well (they spent two days and one night on that small slope - Jan. 31 and Feb. 01). Walking back on their tracks was immediate memory, the memory of the body. Because there is another important fact to take into account: it was not the first day of the hike, it was the 6th day. That is very important because body and mind become accustomed to the surroundings, making more and more precise assessments of everything: distance, direction, difficulty, visibility, snow depth and quality... After a few days, you loose your marks from the city with traffic lights, bus schedule and so on, and you adapt to the knew conditions. I have experienced these adaptations during military service and when sailing in the Atlantic. The first day was a bit uncomfortable, but after a week you switched marks and habits to adapt to the new conditions. So the best guide was the slope, the slope was a compass and better than a compass. Downslope was indicating a North, they just had to walk at its right, in its East direction. After about a week of adaptation to the wild, and two days and a night on the slope of the labaz, they couldn't miss the Auspiya.

« Last Edit: Today at 05:56:01 AM by Charles »
 

Today at 06:55:49 AM
Reply #26
Online

Charles


All these point to the rational decision being a return to the cache. But they didn't do that. I think we only differ in our opinion on why...

So the only way to miss the labaz was to make a mistake about the position of departure :



Following the slope as a compass to reach the labaz after a straight downslope walk means that the hikers thought they still were on the right side of the Pass.

I figured the position of departure with a blue star. Ok ,so, there was a natural event that forced them to evacuate their tent in the night and they tried to reach the labaz, walking straight downslope but from the wrong point of departure, and they ended at the cedar.

It means also that they spent two days and one night on the south side of the pass and still were not able to assess that they already crossed on the north side... it is another serious downgrading and downrating of the hikers. In whatever conditions, given the time spent on the south slope of the pass... the campsite, the labaz, the Jan. 31 hike, the Feb. 01 hike... skiing, camping, building labaz, skiing again... on that slope.

And it means also that they thought that they covered less distance than they did in reality. Wrong position, wrong distance, wrong representation of their own itinerary of the day, wrong side of the pass....

So I can imagine a mistake of point of departure, the hikers wrongly believing that the position of their tent was at the blue star, but it does not clarify anything about what happened before and after the walk.
 

Today at 07:39:46 AM
Reply #27
Online

Charles


I made a better sketch to explain how could the hikers have miss the labaz:



The blue dots figure the climbing itinerary from the labaz. They first climbed to the South-West, then to the North. With reasonable angle of ascent. When they stopped, they thought they covered less distance than they did in reality: they thought they were at the blue star but actually they were at the red star. It was a mistake of about 400-500 meters. Such a mistake would be understandable for a day with a 10 km hike, but given the short distances, the limited scale of the Pass and surroundings, 500 m becomes something. 500m is just 1/3 of the direct path to the labaz, 1/5 of the actual linear itinerary, and the difference between South and North side of the pass... it is a big issue.

They didn't understand that they had crossed the pass and were already on its North side...

« Last Edit: Today at 10:17:34 AM by Charles »
 

Today at 10:16:41 AM
Reply #28
Online

Charles


They didn't understand that they had crossed the pass and were already on its North side...

But these photos seem to have been taken at the occasion of passing the ridge, changing from South side to North side of the pass...

Reaching the ridge, ascending with uphill at left hand:



Then :



still with uphill at left hand, following the contour line or slightly descending (maybe I'm wrong but I have the impression that the angle of ascent changed between the two photos).

These serie of photos seems to show that the hikers knew they passed the ridge and were on the North side of the Pass.

And the magnetic compass was giving them the information of on which side of the mountain they were, they knew if they had passed the ridge and were on the Lozva valley side...



Compass could give the position of the tent to the hikers: if contour line made a 40° angle from North, their tent was on the South side of the Pass, on the blue line, and if the angle was 350°, they were on the yellow line. There was a 50° difference, widely enough to make a correct assessment of position.

And it was easy to determine the precise moment when then passed in the Lozva valley : when the view to the North was not blocked by the mountain, when the view to the North was opening, then, they were on the other side.

They could not ignore that they were on the yellow contour line and that coming back to the labaz was meaning to walk to the right side of the slope . And it was easy for them, as easy as to align the tent with the contour line as they did (the tent was set up perfectly parallel to the contour line)...

So explaining how the hikers could have miss the labaz becomes a kind of impossible mission.






« Last Edit: Today at 02:18:53 PM by Charles »
 

Today at 01:36:41 PM
Reply #29
Online

GlennM


The coroner described trauma on the deceased. If this was inflicted  by humans, I would expect the report to say something like blunt force trauma consistent with bludgeoning with a club, rifle butt etc. There was no such description. There was identification of wounds and a general analysis of their cause. Nothing directly points to homicide. If we want to take a deep dive into those who were peripheral to this tragedy, I say, follow the money.

Further, unless the assailants brought brooms, where are their prints? True too, that just like me, everyone on this forum sees things through their own personal filter. Trying to make your filter superior by denigration another's is a sure fire recipe for ostracism. You do not get two to make a first impression.

I believe the comment made about getting oriented in the new surroundings as a function of time is a very good one. The conclusion must then be that the hikers decided to not retreat to the cache as a clear choice. This might even have additional support by the,evidence of the three who returned to the tent were not redirecting themselves to the cache. It is indicative of choice. It's also commonsense if the tent was physically closer to the cedar than the cache was.

Sixty years makes for a very cold case. Unless there are deathbed confessions or those missing tissue samples turn up with incriminating evidence, I think the Russian authorities recent conclusion about the incident is the correct one. Good people got caught out in an  situation that proved fatal. They fled the immediate danger, they prepared fire, they may have had canned milk, they took clothes from deceased comrades, they tried a snow cave. They got cold, hurt and separated. It did not turn out well.