Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: tenne on December 23, 2022, 09:47:31 AM
-
this is a really wild out there theory and I totally acknowledge that but I was thinking why in the world would 9 experienced campers camp in a dangerously exposed place without lighting a fire?
the tent there would be very obvious to anyone, so hiding isn't the reason in my opinion
just doing some reading about possible defection etc and I can't help but wonder if the group was planning to meet up with a helicopter for some reason and that is why they were camped there.
someone else either found them first or tricked them, i.e. a set up
there are many more knowledgeable people on here about the facts of the case so what do they think?
-
this is a really wild out there theory and I totally acknowledge that but I was thinking why in the world would 9 experienced campers camp in a dangerously exposed place without lighting a fire?
the tent there would be very obvious to anyone, so hiding isn't the reason in my opinion
just doing some reading about possible defection etc and I can't help but wonder if the group was planning to meet up with a helicopter for some reason and that is why they were camped there.
someone else either found them first or tricked them, i.e. a set up
there are many more knowledgeable people on here about the facts of the case so what do they think?
The place is not dangerous. The place is ordinary. They set up a tent and went downstairs to get rock samples. They brought similar samples from each trip. Yudin took one of the samples to Sverdlovsk. They were looking for uranium deposits for the country. They lit a fire downstairs and had lunch. They planted an explosive charge, received from geologists in the 41st block, to expose the rock. But, the charge worked prematurely. Some died, the rest received severe concussion. The geologists who were involved learned about the tragedy and quit, fled in all directions. Sulman hid the tragedy so as not to suffer himself. For this, sappers were asked in radiograms. For this reason, Kikoin also came.
Вот русский перевод. А то фигня какая то на английском языке получилась.
Место не опасное. Место обычное. Они поставили палатку и отправились вниз для получения образцов горной породы. Подобные образцы они приносили с каждого похода. Юдин один из образцов повёз в Свердловск. Искали для страны залежи урана. Внизу развели костёр и пообедали. Заложили заряд взрывчатки, полученный от геологов на 41 квартале, для обнажения скальника. Но, заряд сработал преждевременно. Некоторые погибли, остальные получили сильнейшую контузию. Геологи, которые причастны, узнали о трагедии и уволились, разбежались кто куда. Сульман скрыл трагедию, что бы самому не пострадать. Для этого и сапёров просили в радиограммах. По этой причине и Кикоин приезжал.
-
Setting up a tent on an exposed slope with no camp stove is not what experienced people do. In fact, when skiing, a slope that could potentially have an avalanche is crossed one skier at a time in case they knock something down when they cross
The rest of your statement is quite intriguing to me, I haven't seen anything about collecting samples other than Yudin who took them home with him but that does make sense
-
Setting up a tent on an exposed slope with no camp stove is not what experienced people do. In fact, when skiing, a slope that could potentially have an avalanche is crossed one skier at a time in case they knock something down when they cross
The rest of your statement is quite intriguing to me, I haven't seen anything about collecting samples other than Yudin who took them home with him but that does make sense
This is exactly what experienced travelers do. Watch the video in the next thread: https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1190.msg19805#msg19805
-
Setting up a tent on an exposed slope with no camp stove is not what experienced people do. In fact, when skiing, a slope that could potentially have an avalanche is crossed one skier at a time in case they knock something down when they cross
The rest of your statement is quite intriguing to me, I haven't seen anything about collecting samples other than Yudin who took them home with him but that does make sense
Geological samples were brought from a hike in Altai and handed over to Professor Arkhangelsky from the Geological Faculty of the UPI. This was told by Arkhangelsky himself.
In 1958, they also started a trip along the Subpolar Urals with a visit to the mine. They looked at geological samples. There are photos.
-
this is a really wild out there theory and I totally acknowledge that but I was thinking why in the world would 9 experienced campers camp in a dangerously exposed place without lighting a fire?
the tent there would be very obvious to anyone, so hiding isn't the reason in my opinion
just doing some reading about possible defection etc and I can't help but wonder if the group was planning to meet up with a helicopter for some reason and that is why they were camped there.
someone else either found them first or tricked them, i.e. a set up
there are many more knowledgeable people on here about the facts of the case so what do they think?
The place is not dangerous. The place is ordinary. They set up a tent and went downstairs to get rock samples. They brought similar samples from each trip. Yudin took one of the samples to Sverdlovsk. They were looking for uranium deposits for the country. They lit a fire downstairs and had lunch. They planted an explosive charge, received from geologists in the 41st block, to expose the rock. But, the charge worked prematurely. Some died, the rest received severe concussion. The geologists who were involved learned about the tragedy and quit, fled in all directions. Sulman hid the tragedy so as not to suffer himself. For this, sappers were asked in radiograms. For this reason, Kikoin also came.
Вот русский перевод. А то фигня какая то на английском языке получилась.
Место не опасное. Место обычное. Они поставили палатку и отправились вниз для получения образцов горной породы. Подобные образцы они приносили с каждого похода. Юдин один из образцов повёз в Свердловск. Искали для страны залежи урана. Внизу развели костёр и пообедали. Заложили заряд взрывчатки, полученный от геологов на 41 квартале, для обнажения скальника. Но, заряд сработал преждевременно. Некоторые погибли, остальные получили сильнейшую контузию. Геологи, которые причастны, узнали о трагедии и уволились, разбежались кто куда. Сульман скрыл трагедию, что бы самому не пострадать. Для этого и сапёров просили в радиограммах. По этой причине и Кикоин приезжал.
Вот интересно, как в 1959 году производилась сейсморазведка полезных ископаемых, нефти, газа и т.д.? Какие действия предпринимали геологи ? Вы это изучали ?
-
I am intrigued by the idea that they set up the tent as a very visible flag for where they were and then went down to the bottom of the hill to light the fire to wait for whoever.
while I can't comment on safety measures there, as according to a lot of people what is common sense here isn't considered common sense there but common sense isn't common. Common sense is very much what is the norm in a given place, I have never ridden in a subway so I have zero common sense about riding them.
Here, we have unstable snow so any slope is a danger and is treated as such. Very likely not the same there and I respect that
however, I can't think of a single northern country where establishing a heat source is not the #1 priority when winter camping. Heat is necessary to survival, to keep warm, to get melted water to drink and to dry out clothing.
-
Если бы я правильно перевела ваш вопрос, то мне тоже был бы очень интересен ответ
Если бы я правильно перевела ваш вопрос, то мне тоже был бы очень интересен ответ
-
Вот интересно, как в 1959 году производилась сейсморазведка полезных ископаемых, нефти, газа и т.д.? Какие действия предпринимали геологи ? Вы это изучали ?
Г.К. Григорьев - изучал
https://i.ibb.co/0Y7g7D0/DSCN1015.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/1bW5rfG/DSCN0121.jpg
-
this is a really wild out there theory and I totally acknowledge that but I was thinking why in the world would 9 experienced campers camp in a dangerously exposed place without lighting a fire?
(https://cs7.pikabu.ru/post_img/2019/01/16/8/og_og_1547640909232217357.jpg)
-
Вот интересно, как в 1959 году производилась сейсморазведка полезных ископаемых, нефти, газа и т.д.? Какие действия предпринимали геологи ? Вы это изучали ?
Г.К. Григорьев - изучал
https://i.ibb.co/0Y7g7D0/DSCN1015.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/1bW5rfG/DSCN0121.jpg
Какое оборудование было нужно для сейсморазведки и сколько оно весило ?
-
this is a really wild out there theory and I totally acknowledge that but I was thinking why in the world would 9 experienced campers camp in a dangerously exposed place without lighting a fire?
the tent there would be very obvious to anyone, so hiding isn't the reason in my opinion
just doing some reading about possible defection etc and I can't help but wonder if the group was planning to meet up with a helicopter for some reason and that is why they were camped there.
someone else either found them first or tricked them, i.e. a set up
there are many more knowledgeable people on here about the facts of the case so what do they think?
The place is not dangerous. The place is ordinary. They set up a tent and went downstairs to get rock samples. They brought similar samples from each trip. Yudin took one of the samples to Sverdlovsk. They were looking for uranium deposits for the country. They lit a fire downstairs and had lunch. They planted an explosive charge, received from geologists in the 41st block, to expose the rock. But, the charge worked prematurely. Some died, the rest received severe concussion. The geologists who were involved learned about the tragedy and quit, fled in all directions. Sulman hid the tragedy so as not to suffer himself. For this, sappers were asked in radiograms. For this reason, Kikoin also came.
Вот русский перевод. А то фигня какая то на английском языке получилась.
Место не опасное. Место обычное. Они поставили палатку и отправились вниз для получения образцов горной породы. Подобные образцы они приносили с каждого похода. Юдин один из образцов повёз в Свердловск. Искали для страны залежи урана. Внизу развели костёр и пообедали. Заложили заряд взрывчатки, полученный от геологов на 41 квартале, для обнажения скальника. Но, заряд сработал преждевременно. Некоторые погибли, остальные получили сильнейшую контузию. Геологи, которые причастны, узнали о трагедии и уволились, разбежались кто куда. Сульман скрыл трагедию, что бы самому не пострадать. Для этого и сапёров просили в радиограммах. По этой причине и Кикоин приезжал.
Мог Огнев дать им взрывчатку, а потом скрыться от дачи показаний ? Или умышленно его скрыли ?
-
The place is not dangerous. The place is ordinary. They set up a tent and went downstairs to get rock samples. They brought similar samples from each trip. Yudin took one of the samples to Sverdlovsk. They were looking for uranium deposits for the country. They lit a fire downstairs and had lunch. They planted an explosive charge, received from geologists in the 41st block, to expose the rock. But, the charge worked prematurely. Some died, the rest received severe concussion. The geologists who were involved learned about the tragedy and quit, fled in all directions. Sulman hid the tragedy so as not to suffer himself. For this, sappers were asked in radiograms. For this reason, Kikoin also came.
But, you don't go using explosives to go prospecting with out your shoes, yes?
-
Multiple of them were apparently bleeding from the ear. This is not common unless they suffered "blast injuries". One would think, surely, that's impossible. They were in a pristine forest.
But if they had a charge that set off prematurely, that would explain it. Also the burn marks. Otherwise, is it also possible that this area contained mines (I mean anti-personnel / anti-tank mines. Not geological mines) from world war I times?
-
Какое оборудование было нужно для сейсморазведки и сколько оно весило ?
https://neftegaz.ru/tech-library/geologiya-poleznykh-iskopaemykh/142500-seysmorazvedochnye-raboty/
http://m.energyland.info/index.php?action=analiticview&id=99293&offset=450&limit=10
-
Multiple of them were apparently bleeding from the ear.
Где Вы это узнали? Ни один из актов вскрытия не дает такого описания. Если Вы поняли именно так - то это ошибка перевода.
Where did you find out? None of the autopsy reports gives such a description. If you understand it this way, then it is a translation error.
But if they had a charge that set off prematurely, that would explain it. Also the burn marks. Otherwise, is it also possible that this area contained mines (I mean anti-personnel / anti-tank mines. Not geological mines) from world war I times?
Абсолютно исключено. Военных действий на склоне 1079 не проводилось никогда. Геологи там ходили. Но это при этом самым ужасным орудием у них был - геологический молоток. Взрывные работы они вели, когда уже с помощью этого геологического молотка были получены нужные образцы полезных ископаемых или породы, являющейся спутником искомых полезных ископаемых.
https://www.alv.me/pro-geologicheskie-molotki/
(https://www.alv.me/wp-content/img/2014/04/traditional-sediimental2.jpg)
Если Вы предполагаете какой-нибудь схрон (тайник) вооружений оставленный во время гражданской войны или схрон заброшенных фашистских диверсантов во время второй мировой войны - то это тоже исключено. С тем же успехом можно было делать такой схрон на побережье Северного ледовитого океана.
Absolutely out of the question. Military operations on slope 1079 have never been carried out. Geologists have been there. But at the same time, this was the most terrible tool they had - a geological hammer. He carried out explosive work when, with the help of this geological hammer, the necessary samples of minerals or rock, which is a companion of the desired minerals, were obtained.
If you assume any cache (cache) of weapons left during the civil war or caches of abandoned fascist saboteurs during the Second World War, then this is also excluded. With the same success it was possible to make such caches on the coast of the Arctic Ocean.
-
Multiple of them were apparently bleeding from the ear. This is not common unless they suffered "blast injuries". One would think, surely, that's impossible. They were in a pristine forest.
But if they had a charge that set off prematurely, that would explain it. Also the burn marks. Otherwise, is it also possible that this area contained mines (I mean anti-personnel / anti-tank mines. Not geological mines) from world war I times?
Помню, в телеграм-чате с Тайменем спорила Евгения, геолог с Якутска. Так вот она доказывала, что группа Дятлова подорвалась на старой геологической закладке, которая когда-то не сработала. Т.е. в этом районе ранее работали геологи и одна взрывчатка не взорвалась. Такое случалось часто в те времена.
-
I think the tent could have been pitched on the slope to give them the advantage of being able to see anyone coming. People have speculated they used cuts in the tent to observe what was happening outside. Not entirely sure, who they thought might be coming their way, but it is another option. How easy would it be to find the tent on the slope in the dark? The explosive idea makes a lot of sense, but as GlennM stated, why were they not wearing shoes and what happened to their clothes? What injuries would you expect from an explosion? Would there be shrapnel type injuries, different fractures, missing body parts etc? Also, they died approximately 6-8 hours after their last meal. I'm guessing they would have been looking for rock samples during daylight, which doesn't appear to fit in with the timeframe, or does it?
-
I don't know if hypothermia would affect the timing of their last meal, one expert said it would according to this site but that was a lone voice as far as I can tell so far.
Cutting slits into the tent to see seems very extreme but nothing adds up so it could be
-
I think the tent could have been pitched on the slope to give them the advantage of being able to see anyone coming. People have speculated they used cuts in the tent to observe what was happening outside. Not entirely sure, who they thought might be coming their way, but it is another option. How easy would it be to find the tent on the slope in the dark? The explosive idea makes a lot of sense, but as GlennM stated, why were they not wearing shoes and what happened to their clothes? What injuries would you expect from an explosion? Would there be shrapnel type injuries, different fractures, missing body parts etc? Also, they died approximately 6-8 hours after their last meal. I'm guessing they would have been looking for rock samples during daylight, which doesn't appear to fit in with the timeframe, or does it?
After the group made the stock tent, they had their breakfast. It may be around 11:00-12:00. Then they must have made their way into the forest. But for some reason they must have headed back to the mountain. They should be pitching the tent and preparing for dinner before evening. But they were attacked before they could have dinner! And according to this calculation, between 11:00 and 18:00 in the evening makes 7 hours.
-
After the group made the stock tent, they had their breakfast. It may be around 11:00-12:00. Then they must have made their way into the forest. But for some reason they must have headed back to the mountain. They should be pitching the tent and preparing for dinner before evening. But they were attacked before they could have dinner! And according to this calculation, between 11:00 and 18:00 in the evening makes 7 hours.
Кто напал? Куда делись следы напавших? Зачем нападали эти Ваши гипотетические нападавшие?
Who attacked? Where did the traces of the attackers go? Why did these hypothetical attackers of yours attack?
-
I think the tent could have been pitched on the slope to give them the advantage of being able to see anyone coming. People have speculated they used cuts in the tent to observe what was happening outside. Not entirely sure, who they thought might be coming their way, but it is another option. How easy would it be to find the tent on the slope in the dark? The explosive idea makes a lot of sense, but as GlennM stated, why were they not wearing shoes and what happened to their clothes? What injuries would you expect from an explosion? Would there be shrapnel type injuries, different fractures, missing body parts etc? Also, they died approximately 6-8 hours after their last meal. I'm guessing they would have been looking for rock samples during daylight, which doesn't appear to fit in with the timeframe, or does it?
After the group made the stock tent, they had their breakfast. It may be around 11:00-12:00. Then they must have made their way into the forest. But for some reason they must have headed back to the mountain. They should be pitching the tent and preparing for dinner before evening. But they were attacked before they could have dinner! And according to this calculation, between 11:00 and 18:00 in the evening makes 7 hours.
That could be, the investigation was incredibly botched, whether by design or incompetence we will never know. Had it been done properly, I doubt any of these questions would still need to be answered but all we can do is speculate and try to match the theory to the evidence but I do not know if we can trust the evidence
-
That could be, the investigation was incredibly botched, whether by design or incompetence we will never know. Had it been done properly, I doubt any of these questions would still need to be answered but all we can do is speculate and try to match the theory to the evidence but I do not know if we can trust the evidence
А на чем тогда Вы будете строить свои убеждения, если доказательства сложите в мусор? Складывать надо все доказательства. Выборочно - это сразу тема ангажированности.
Если Вы не изобретатель машины времени - у Вас нет альтернативы. Доказательства надо принимать. Потому что они делались именно тогда по горячим следам.
And then on what will you build your beliefs if you put the evidence in the trash? All evidence must be added. Selectively - this is immediately the theme of engagement.
If you are not the inventor of the time machine, you have no alternative. Evidence must be accepted. Because they were made then in hot pursuit.
-
I agree with Почемучка. If we just discard the available evidence, we'll never get anywhere, because we'll have no "ground truth" to begin with.
Я согласен с Почемучка. Если мы просто отбросим имеющиеся доказательства, мы никогда ничего не добьемся, потому что у нас не будет "основной истины" с самого начала.
-
I am not saying disregard the evidence, it is all we have, I am just saying that it is incomplete with things being stated that aren't stated again i.e. the knife was found or the holder for the knife was found at the den? which one?
the samples that could prove (more or less sometimes) hypothermia were taken and then vanished along with the report or did they?
So to say it didn't happen because it wasn't mentioned is not, in my opinion a fair thing, because things were not done as well as they could have been that would leave a proper evidence trail
-
I think the tent could have been pitched on the slope to give them the advantage of being able to see anyone coming. People have speculated they used cuts in the tent to observe what was happening outside. Not entirely sure, who they thought might be coming their way, but it is another option. How easy would it be to find the tent on the slope in the dark? The explosive idea makes a lot of sense, but as GlennM stated, why were they not wearing shoes and what happened to their clothes? What injuries would you expect from an explosion? Would there be shrapnel type injuries, different fractures, missing body parts etc? Also, they died approximately 6-8 hours after their last meal. I'm guessing they would have been looking for rock samples during daylight, which doesn't appear to fit in with the timeframe, or does it?
After the group made the stock tent, they had their breakfast. It may be around 11:00-12:00. Then they must have made their way into the forest. But for some reason they must have headed back to the mountain. They should be pitching the tent and preparing for dinner before evening. But they were attacked before they could have dinner! And according to this calculation, between 11:00 and 18:00 in the evening makes 7 hours.
That could be, the investigation was incredibly botched, whether by design or incompetence we will never know. Had it been done properly, I doubt any of these questions would still need to be answered but all we can do is speculate and try to match the theory to the evidence but I do not know if we can trust the evidence
It was seen as a simple disappearance into the tragic event of the century. And for this reason, due care and diligence was avoided. It was amateurish. When the first 5 bodies were found, the seriousness and importance of the incident was understood. But it was still seen as a simple freezing event. Then, when the last 4 bodies were found, it was understood that the incident was not an ordinary event. But the political conditions and atmosphere at that time resulted in the closure of the event. If the tragic event of the century had been approached professionally from the very beginning, we could have obtained much different evidence and conclusions. And yet it is clear that many diaries and cameras were hidden in the investigation. A puzzle why they were kept hidden and not made public(?) What was written in these diaries??? And what photos were on the other cameras??? Why are they hidden??? Have these materials been destroyed or are they still hiding somewhere??? These must be found. Otherwise, we argue here hypothetically without reaching a conclusion.
-
Why was the tent on the slope?
Sadly, I think it might be because they got slightly disoriented, due to whiteout conditions (blizzard), missed the valley with the cedar where their planned route would have led them, and decided that it's not safe to continue in low visibility because there might be cliffs or unstable snow. So their only option was to pitch the tent there, and try to wait out the storm.
-
Why was the tent on the slope?
Sadly, I think it might be because they got slightly disoriented, due to whiteout conditions (blizzard), missed the valley with the cedar where their planned route would have led them, and decided that it's not safe to continue in low visibility because there might be cliffs or unstable snow. So their only option was to pitch the tent there, and try to wait out the storm.
You are thinking wrong. The forest border was very close. Even if there was a storm, the forest could be reached in half an hour. It takes 1-2 hours to set up a tent in a storm. The forest was very close and below. So it is impossible for them not to find the forest. Even the most ignorant amateur would walk into the forest instead of pitching a tent there. It is not possible for a 9 professional and sane group to set up a tent there. Unknown coercive force must have forced them to pitch a tent there.
-
So you think the coercive force "arrived" before they set up the tent, not while they were in it? Hmm... maybe. But what kind of force can make you set up a tent in an unfavourable place if not a storm?
-
So you think the coercive force "arrived" before they set up the tent, not while they were in it? Hmm... maybe. But what kind of force can make you set up a tent in an unfavourable place if not a storm?
No, I think the tent was set up there by someone but not the group. I believe they were already dead and the tent was put there as a good way to signal the helicopter where to bring? drop? the bodies?
I think they were accidently killed somehow, they were found and the disaster was covered up by moving the tent there and putting the bodies there. I do not believe that they skied there and they built the Labaz because I can't imagine anyone putting their valuable musical instrument in a 'poorly constructed' Labaz
-
Completely agree re the musical instrument. They become very precious to you.
-
So you think the coercive force "arrived" before they set up the tent, not while they were in it? Hmm... maybe. But what kind of force can make you set up a tent in an unfavourable place if not a storm?
After the group made their stock tent, they headed to the forest. And they were very tired and it was late. They planned to camp in the forest. But they began to hear some terrible noises in the forest. And some lights...So they found it safer to get out of the woods and camp on the mountainside. But the unknown force pursued them and smuggled them back into the forest.
-
Completely agree re the musical instrument. They become very precious to you.
Дело в том, что в поход не берут вещи большой ценности. Мандолина - и была такой небольшой ценностью. Она до этого похода где только не потеряла своей красоты и звучания в других походах. Так что если она некоторое время поспала в лабазе - ей хуже не стало. Главное что струны тренькали как на балалайке и ладно.
The fact is that they don’t take things of great value on a hike. Mandolin - and was such a small value. Before this trip, it has not lost its beauty and sound in other trips. So if she slept for some time in the storage shed, she did not get worse. The main thing is that the strings strummed like on a balalaika and okay.
-
Thank you for explaining. I guess it depends how it was stored then? I wasn't talking about cost, just how attached you become to them. I'm so glad you're here to explan all the details, that sofa people like me don't know!
-
We know the hikers lost a day by backtracking. Also, their overall progress was slow because of the thick snow. Once they created the labaz, they took the high pass, not the Dyatlov pass. This was done to allow them to make a more direct dash to the lake and then around Otorten. The trade off was that their camp on 1079 was going to be a quick set up and take down. Therefore, no stove was set up. They would have wood and fire by the lake. It was only one night on 1079.
That night, Feb 1, conditions worsened on the hill and crushing snow fell on the tent, requiring them to " bug out" to the woods below for shelter and a fire. They achieved both things, but they could not defeat the Russian winter. It is one thing to go and shelter from a storm for a couple of hours, but if it doesn't let up, hypothermia, hunger and dehydration all occur. The group split up with three trying to get back to the tent, but Nature prevailed. In fact, there was no place to hide.
The DP9 were not reckless, nor stupid in their actions. Nature was the compelling force, but it was Nature in several forms. There was cold, crushing snow, sludgy snow, wet wood, rocky terrain, water and rocks. All these things came into play. It is unknown how each force acted on them, but the force was compelling and deadly.
-
"That night, Feb 1, conditions worsened on the hill and crushing snow fell on the tent, requiring them to " bug out" to the woods below for shelter and a fire."
okay now I am really confused, I thought an avalanche was ruled out, so where did the crushing snow come from?
-
okay now I am really confused, I thought an avalanche was ruled out, so where did the crushing snow come from?
Quite the contrary--an avalanche is the official (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-accident-idUSKCN24C0IE) explanation (https://dyatlovpass.com/prosecutors-investigation?rbid=18461) for the Incident. However, needless to say, many people are dissatisfied with that conclusion. I used to think avalanche theories were obviously nonsense, but I no longer do; see here (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1183.msg18978#msg18978) for my current thoughts on "avalanche" theories.
I will remark here that the word "avalanche" connotes movement of a lot more snow than would be necessary to trigger the Incident.
Совсем наоборот - лавина является официальным (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-accident-idUSKCN24C0IE) объяснением (https://dyatlovpass.com/prosecutors-investigation?rbid=18461) инцидента. Однако, излишне говорить, что многие люди недовольны таким выводом. Раньше я думал, что лавинные теории были очевидной бессмыслицей, но я больше так не считаю; смотрите здесь (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1183.msg18978#msg18978) мои текущие мысли о "лавинных" теориях.
Здесь я замечу, что слово "лавина" означает перемещение гораздо большего количества снега, чем было бы необходимо для того, чтобы спровоцировать инцидент.
-
Slab slip, not a full on avalanche. Slip precipitated by cutting a leveling platform in a snow block at elevation 880 on hill,1079. This was my meaning. Sorry for the confusion.
-
Slab slip, not a full on avalanche. Slip precipitated by cutting a leveling platform in a snow block at elevation 880 on hill,1079. This was my meaning. Sorry for the confusion.
Кстати, случайно уткнулась в эту статью. Про лавиноопасность и следы-столбики
By the way, I stumbled upon this article by accident. About avalanche danger and traces-columns
https://lifeglobe.net/entry/5004
Поскольку требует настоящая буря, чтобы сдуть снег, поднятые следы часто используются в качестве индикатора ветра в горных областях, где существует потенциальная лавинная опасность.
Because it takes a real storm to blow snow off, raised tracks are often used as a wind indicator in mountainous areas where there is a potential avalanche hazard.
-
https://lifeglobe.net/entry/5004
Did it happen this way? 1. Hikers make a snow ledge on 1079 elevation 880 and pitch a double tent. The ledge has a weak layer which can shear off. 3. Katabatic wind mounds snow on the ledge by the tent. 4. Combined wind and weak layer induce a slab slip 5. Hikers cut selves out of tent to avoid suffocation 6. Too cold and windy to try to clear overburden of snow to retrieve personal items. 7. Visibility poor and katabatic wind persists 8. Hikers retreat to forest for fire and wind break until dawn. 9. Downhill trek produces footprints by compression. Wind eventally,scours,snow and raises prints. 10. In the forest poor conditions persist. 11. The weather is watched but hypothermia sets in. Two succumb at the tree 12. The party splits up. Most go,for a snow cave. Three choose to,return. All are partially successful. Nature is indifferent. 13. All die. 14. There were no,witnesses to the event.
-
https://lifeglobe.net/entry/5004
Did it happen this way? 1. Hikers make a snow ledge on 1079 elevation 880 and pitch a double tent. The ledge has a weak layer which can shear off. 3. Katabatic wind mounds snow on the ledge by the tent. 4. Combined wind and weak layer induce a slab slip 5. Hikers cut selves out of tent to avoid suffocation 6. Too cold and windy to try to clear overburden of snow to retrieve personal items. 7. Visibility poor and katabatic wind persists 8. Hikers retreat to forest for fire and wind break until dawn. 9. Downhill trek produces footprints by compression. Wind eventally,scours,snow and raises prints. 10. In the forest poor conditions persist. 11. The weather is watched but hypothermia sets in. Two succumb at the tree 12. The party splits up. Most go,for a snow cave. Three choose to,return. All are partially successful. Nature is indifferent. 13. All die. 14. There were no,witnesses to the event.
just need to work in the injuries and it is as good as anything I've seen
-
I would agree... but... there's always a "but" with the Dyatlov case, isn't there?
There was a flashlight found on top of the tent. Was this snow slip so weak as to not carry it away? Or was it placed there after the slip, as they exited the tent? In which case, was the tent not completely covered and still partially standing? If so, there couldn't have been a risk of suffocation inside it, rope was still partially holding up at least one end of the tent.
-
I would agree... but... there's always a "but" with the Dyatlov case, isn't there?
There was a flashlight found on top of the tent. Was this snow slip so weak as to not carry it away? Or was it placed there after the slip, as they exited the tent? In which case, was the tent not completely covered and still partially standing? If so, there couldn't have been a risk of suffocation inside it, rope was still partially holding up at least one end of the tent.
Did the snowslide scare away a group of 9 brave professionals??? You are talking nonsense and illogical. Even a cowardly and amateurish person does not run away to the forest and die of cold, afraid of a snowslide. Please let's talk a little more sensibly and coherently. This is the most extraordinary event that has ever happened. I don't know of anything like this. Yes, there have been very interesting disappearances and deaths in human history. But this case is different.... Because the bodies and things remained as they were. They did not disappear, and some were openly violent. Very very interesting and terrifying...
-
I would agree... but... there's always a "but" with the Dyatlov case, isn't there?
There was a flashlight found on top of the tent. Was this snow slip so weak as to not carry it away? Or was it placed there after the slip, as they exited the tent? In which case, was the tent not completely covered and still partially standing? If so, there couldn't have been a risk of suffocation inside it, rope was still partially holding up at least one end of the tent.
Did the snowslide scare away a group of 9 brave professionals??? You are talking nonsense and illogical. Even a cowardly and amateurish person does not run away to the forest and die of cold, afraid of a snowslide. Please let's talk a little more sensibly and coherently. This is the most extraordinary event that has ever happened. I don't know of anything like this. Yes, there have been very interesting disappearances and deaths in human history. But this case is different.... Because the bodies and things remained as they were. They did not disappear, and some were openly violent. Very very interesting and terrifying...
I think it's plausible. If they weren't 100% sure where they were camped on the slope , if it was dark and windy they wouldn't be able to see far. The decision to move away from that location "in case" a full snow slide or worse came would be logical. It is the group's perception that is important, not if there was an avalanche or not. All they needed was to think there was going to be one. A small slip of snow could have been enough to make them think so. To put in another way, if you were camped on a mountain side, snow collapsed on your tent, would you stay there, in the dark and wind?I believe Manti is only asking a question . GlennM is putting forward a reasonable sequence of events.
The injuries could have happened at the ravine and fighting the elements.
-
https://lifeglobe.net/entry/5004
Did it happen this way? 1. Hikers make a snow ledge on 1079 elevation 880 and pitch a double tent. The ledge has a weak layer which can shear off. 3. Katabatic wind mounds snow on the ledge by the tent. 4. Combined wind and weak layer induce a slab slip 5. Hikers cut selves out of tent to avoid suffocation 6. Too cold and windy to try to clear overburden of snow to retrieve personal items. 7. Visibility poor and katabatic wind persists 8. Hikers retreat to forest for fire and wind break until dawn. 9. Downhill trek produces footprints by compression. Wind eventally,scours,snow and raises prints. 10. In the forest poor conditions persist. 11. The weather is watched but hypothermia sets in. Two succumb at the tree 12. The party splits up. Most go,for a snow cave. Three choose to,return. All are partially successful. Nature is indifferent. 13. All die. 14. There were no,witnesses to the event.
That's pretty close to the simplest explanation that is both plausible, and lacking major shortcomings. I don't think you need to invoke the katabatic wind, though. There was a Mansi chum (https://dyatlovpass.com/controversy?flp=1#chum) about a kilometer away from the Dyatlovites' tent; a katabatic wind would have knocked the chum over. A katabatic wind could probably blow away their tent, too.
-
I would agree... but... there's always a "but" with the Dyatlov case, isn't there?
There was a flashlight found on top of the tent. Was this snow slip so weak as to not carry it away? Or was it placed there after the slip, as they exited the tent? In which case, was the tent not completely covered and still partially standing? If so, there couldn't have been a risk of suffocation inside it, rope was still partially holding up at least one end of the tent.
Did the snowslide scare away a group of 9 brave professionals??? You are talking nonsense and illogical. Even a cowardly and amateurish person does not run away to the forest and die of cold, afraid of a snowslide. Please let's talk a little more sensibly and coherently. This is the most extraordinary event that has ever happened. I don't know of anything like this. Yes, there have been very interesting disappearances and deaths in human history. But this case is different.... Because the bodies and things remained as they were. They did not disappear, and some were openly violent. Very very interesting and terrifying...
The question wasn't answered and I am very curious as well about why would a flash light be found on top of a tent?
-
I would agree... but... there's always a "but" with the Dyatlov case, isn't there?
There was a flashlight found on top of the tent. Was this snow slip so weak as to not carry it away? Or was it placed there after the slip, as they exited the tent? In which case, was the tent not completely covered and still partially standing? If so, there couldn't have been a risk of suffocation inside it, rope was still partially holding up at least one end of the tent.
Did the snowslide scare away a group of 9 brave professionals??? You are talking nonsense and illogical. Even a cowardly and amateurish person does not run away to the forest and die of cold, afraid of a snowslide. Please let's talk a little more sensibly and coherently. This is the most extraordinary event that has ever happened. I don't know of anything like this. Yes, there have been very interesting disappearances and deaths in human history. But this case is different.... Because the bodies and things remained as they were. They did not disappear, and some were openly violent. Very very interesting and terrifying...
The question wasn't answered and I am very curious as well about why would a flash light be found on top of a tent?
Maybe one of the searchers left it there by mistake, but never admitted to doing so?
-
I would agree... but... there's always a "but" with the Dyatlov case, isn't there?
There was a flashlight found on top of the tent. Was this snow slip so weak as to not carry it away? Or was it placed there after the slip, as they exited the tent? In which case, was the tent not completely covered and still partially standing? If so, there couldn't have been a risk of suffocation inside it, rope was still partially holding up at least one end of the tent.
Did the snowslide scare away a group of 9 brave professionals??? You are talking nonsense and illogical. Even a cowardly and amateurish person does not run away to the forest and die of cold, afraid of a snowslide. Please let's talk a little more sensibly and coherently. This is the most extraordinary event that has ever happened. I don't know of anything like this. Yes, there have been very interesting disappearances and deaths in human history. But this case is different.... Because the bodies and things remained as they were. They did not disappear, and some were openly violent. Very very interesting and terrifying...
The question wasn't answered and I am very curious as well about why would a flash light be found on top of a tent?
Maybe one of the searchers left it there by mistake, but never admitted to doing so?
I believe the torch is allocated to one of the group . The testimonies say various things , contradictions as always.
Looking at it from the perspective of wind slab , might give context. Wind slab is hard snow / ice , topped by lose snow drift ( loose Powder snow). If , and it is only an if, there was a snow slide/ slip on the tent and this must be understood , when I say small. Enough to to collapse the tent without injury but enough that that it comprises exit from the tent door and bring down the structure of the tent. You don't hang about saying it was nothing waiting for more potential "snow" to entomb you.
It is mentioned that there was wood for the stove, the stove may have not been set up as they undress themselves and have food due to the lack of space in the tent. You can't be having food , heat stove , dressing down, brushing teeth and hot wood stove hanging from the ridge at the same time. In one of the diary entries it talks about it being to hot for one of the group.
This ,to me suggests a sequence of protocol within the tent.
The torch could have been left on top of snow that fell on top of the tent at the time of any snow slab, the first snow layer may have been ice hard snow. With the Powder snow on top. The lose snow could have been blown off , there was three weeks for this to happen. The same as the raised foot prints. The hard stuff stays, the light snow gets blown away?
-
Ilahyol, you can disagree, but you must do a better job expressing yourself. The verbal abuse will result in you being ignored by the forum.
For other members, I too am vexed by anomalies like the flashlight, but it is an artifact, not central to their abandonment of the tent. I am aware of the appearance of the tent as shown in the discovery photos. I would think that a slab slide could very well pull the stakes holding the rope without breaking the rope. With regard to the Mansi chum not being blown over in a strong wind, I think they would be poor woodsmen if generations of them had not perfected something resistant to the elements. I understand that we are discussing the degree of wind speed and I don't know if it is a fair comparison to the tent. Then again, there is a whole lot I wonder about in this case.
For me, it still gets down to this. If the hikers did not camp on 1079 that night and instead were in the trees, then the appearance of the tent on 1079 without the evidence of prints and tracks going both ways is,a,clear sign that it did not happen that way. They were on 1079...alone.
Originally, I posited a seismic disturbance forcing them out, later it was seismic owing to an aerial munitions burst. Currently, I am inclined to support the slab slide explanation. It requires fewer assumptions.
-
For other members, I too am vexed by anomalies like the flashlight, but it is an artifact, not central to their abandonment of the tent.
I feel very differently, any theory of what happened has to explain EVERYTHING that happened. Nothing is going to be unexplained when, if, we find out what happened. A theory that doesn't explain everything simply is an incomplete theory
-
Ilahyol, you can disagree, but you must do a better job expressing yourself. The verbal abuse will result in you being ignored by the forum.
For other members, I too am vexed by anomalies like the flashlight, but it is an artifact, not central to their abandonment of the tent. I am aware of the appearance of the tent as shown in the discovery photos. I would think that a slab slide could very well pull the stakes holding the rope without breaking the rope. With regard to the Mansi chum not being blown over in a strong wind, I think they would be poor woodsmen if generations of them had not perfected something resistant to the elements. I understand that we are discussing the degree of wind speed and I don't know if it is a fair comparison to the tent. Then again, there is a whole lot I wonder about in this case.
For me, it still gets down to this. If the hikers did not camp on 1079 that night and instead were in the trees, then the appearance of the tent on 1079 without the evidence of prints and tracks going both ways is,a,clear sign that it did not happen that way. They were on 1079...alone.
Originally, I posited a seismic disturbance forcing them out, later it was seismic owing to an aerial munitions burst. Currently, I am inclined to support the slab slide explanation. It requires fewer assumptions.
The group escaped from the tent without even taking their shoes! In this case, it is normal that they do not receive the lanterns. Because shoes are much more important to them than lanterns. And there was a blanket of snow everywhere, and the snow illuminates the surroundings.
-
Never ending circles of reason. Who among us would prepare the checklist of thisns that must be proven in the affirmative to resolve this mystery. We could not get past even one item because the first item depends on the second being true etc. So, as was mentioned above when the truth is known, all the questions will be answered. The truth may come from undiscovered findings external to the forum. Yuri Yuden waited his life for that knowledge. What chance do we have? For me, the slab slip makes most sense. Other explanations demand the insertion of elements not in the canon of this event.
-
I am curious what events are not in the canon of this event.
-
I think the slab slip is a distraction. If, if, the scene is not staged and they did camp on the slope, then for some reason they abandoned the tent. While it is a of course a pivotal event, it's not what killed them and in this sense not the "key" to solving the case.
It would have been possible for them to go to the forest and survive, or at least for some of them to survive.
It might be the case that it was just simply too cold and they succumbed to the elements, I would say that's the "null theory" of Dyatlov Pass. No event is even required at the tent, maybe they were just too cold there and decided to go to the forest to warm up around a campfire.
However, the injuries especially of the Ravine 4 seem to suggest there's more here. As well as other things for example what Tenne highlighted, that they went unnecessarily deep into the forest. The scene as found doesn't really fit the "too cold" scenario. In most such cases, someone survives or at least survives long enough to have made it tens of miles away, because they simply had more body fat, better clothing, have a smaller body surface area etc etc.
Regardless, my list would look something like this:- Did Zina, Rustem and Igor really try to return to the tent, or did they in fact fall on their way down, and succumb to the cold?
- Were Lyuda's, Tibo's, Semyon's serious injuries in fact post-mortem, a result of the 4 metres of snow on top of them?
- Are their last photos, setting up the tent, even from this trip? Which camera/film are they from? They are usually listed as "loose photos not from any of the films of the group"
- What was the weather like? Some seem to believe it was "unusually warm" whereas usual January/February temperatures there are in the -20-30C range quite consistently.
- Was a night in their unheated tent on the slope, with the equipment they had i.e. no sleeping bags, no modern "thermal" fabrics, even survivable?
If the answer to 5. is "no", then I think there's no mystery at all and this is something testable today. In fact one day when it becomes easier to get a visa to Russia, I am planning to try.
-
I envy your ability to go there and do it on the actual site. Please please please let us know what happens if and when it does.
-
I think the slab slip is a distraction. If, if, the scene is not staged and they did camp on the slope, then for some reason they abandoned the tent. While it is a of course a pivotal event, it's not what killed them and in this sense not the "key" to solving the case.
Good post in Reply #53, Manti, except I disagree with you here. in my view, the primary element of the mystery is why the Dyatlov Nine apparently abandoned their tent (assuming they did pitch it there, and it wasn't staged). Once they decided to leave their campsite for the forest, nothing extraordinary needs to happen for all of them to meet their demise. Officially, six of the nine succumbed to hypothermia, which I consider the most likely explanation for all six. The injuries that doomed Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle, and Zolotaryov are admittedly a bit harder to explain, but there are a number of possibilities. Perhaps, in the dark, they walked up a snowbank on the side of the ravine and then fell in, onto some rocks at its bottom, with Kolevatov falling on top of the other three. Perhaps something similar happened, except they fell out of a tree instead. Perhaps they were crushed by shifting snow in the ravine, when their snow cave collapsed, or when the "snow bridge" over the stream gave way. Perhaps they got crushed by a snow slab as they made their way down the slope of Kholat Syakhl (most discussion of a slab slide concerns it occurring at their campsite). Perhaps they got kicked and trampled by a moose/elk. The point is that none of those things could have happened to the badly injured trio if the group had not exited their tent and abandoned their campsite, and we don't know why they did that.
-
I think the slab slip is a distraction. If, if, the scene is not staged and they did camp on the slope, then for some reason they abandoned the tent. While it is a of course a pivotal event, it's not what killed them and in this sense not the "key" to solving the case.
It would have been possible for them to go to the forest and survive, or at least for some of them to survive.
It might be the case that it was just simply too cold and they succumbed to the elements, I would say that's the "null theory" of Dyatlov Pass. No event is even required at the tent, maybe they were just too cold there and decided to go to the forest to warm up around a campfire.
However, the injuries especially of the Ravine 4 seem to suggest there's more here. As well as other things for example what Tenne highlighted, that they went unnecessarily deep into the forest. The scene as found doesn't really fit the "too cold" scenario. In most such cases, someone survives or at least survives long enough to have made it tens of miles away, because they simply had more body fat, better clothing, have a smaller body surface area etc etc.
Regardless, my list would look something like this:- Did Zina, Rustem and Igor really try to return to the tent, or did they in fact fall on their way down, and succumb to the cold?
- Were Lyuda's, Tibo's, Semyon's serious injuries in fact post-mortem, a result of the 4 metres of snow on top of them?
- Are their last photos, setting up the tent, even from this trip? Which camera/film are they from? They are usually listed as "loose photos not from any of the films of the group"
- What was the weather like? Some seem to believe it was "unusually warm" whereas usual January/February temperatures there are in the -20-30C range quite consistently.
- Was a night in their unheated tent on the slope, with the equipment they had i.e. no sleeping bags, no modern "thermal" fabrics, even survivable?
If the answer to 5. is "no", then I think there's no mystery at all and this is something testable today. In fact one day when it becomes easier to get a visa to Russia, I am planning to try.
Many camps were held there under the same conditions. And it was proved that even in the storm, it was possible to stay comfortably in the tent at night on the mountain slope. There were stoves and some wood in the tent. The group doesn't just leave the tent out of nowhere and then die from the cold outside. Not even the dumbest ignorant amateur people do that.
-
Ok maybe I didn't explain my point of view well...
Many camps were held there under the same conditions. And it was proved that even in the storm, it was possible to stay comfortably in the tent at night on the mountain slope. There were stoves and some wood in the tent. The group doesn't just leave the tent out of nowhere and then die from the cold outside. Not even the dumbest ignorant amateur people do that.
Imagine you are in that tent. The stove is not assembled for whatever reason, maybe it broke, maybe the tent isn't strong enough to suspend it. And it's getting later and later and temperature is dropping. Your coats are sweaty because it was hard work digging in and setting up the tent. I say, in this scenario, the only choice is to leave the tent and make a campfire in the forest.
And I don't think people who camped there later, were in the same conditions. They had the benefit of tents that were in better condition than the Dyatlov group's, they had proper coats, and sleeping bags. A good sleeping bag is the difference between getting hypothermia in -5C and being comfortable without heating in -30.
Good post in Reply #53, Manti, except I disagree with you here. in my view, the primary element of the mystery is why the Dyatlov Nine apparently abandoned their tent (assuming they did pitch it there, and it wasn't staged). Once they decided to leave their campsite for the forest, nothing extraordinary needs to happen for all of them to meet their demise. Officially, six of the nine succumbed to hypothermia, which I consider the most likely explanation for all six. The injuries that doomed Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle, and Zolotaryov are admittedly a bit harder to explain, but there are a number of possibilities. Perhaps, in the dark, they walked up a snowbank on the side of the ravine and then fell in, onto some rocks at its bottom, with Kolevatov falling on top of the other three. Perhaps something similar happened, except they fell out of a tree instead. Perhaps they were crushed by shifting snow in the ravine, when their snow cave collapsed, or when the "snow bridge" over the stream gave way. Perhaps they got crushed by a snow slab as they made their way down the slope of Kholat Syakhl (most discussion of a slab slide concerns it occurring at their campsite). Perhaps they got kicked and trampled by a moose/elk. The point is that none of those things could have happened to the badly injured trio if the group had not exited their tent and abandoned their campsite, and we don't know why they did that.
Well, the way I think about it, what is needed for survival? Water, oxygen, warmth. Food too but not immediately... In a forest, theoretically all of this is possible to get. There was a stream to drink from. They may find berries to eat. And the wind is much weaker, and there might be more sheltered areas or even a cave to sleep. And wood for a fire. On the other hand, on the slope, there's food, but in every other respect it seems like a less suitable place to survive. The tent provides no warmth, it does hold the wind back a bit but a tent on the slope is no better against wind than no tent but being in a gully in the forest. There's a stove but not enough wood for it. There's nothing to drink! Sure if you make a fire, you can melt snow but again you need wood. And all the other risks, moose, snow slab, attackers, etc. most importantly, cold itself, I argue you are more exposed to on the slope than in the forest. They even saw a Mansi hut on the way along Auspiya. There wasn't one along Lozva (not that we know of), but there could have been. And then maybe this is a completely different story of returning 2 days late because they had to shelter out a blizzard in a hut or cave.
Of course all of this is based on the assumption that in fact they were already getting very cold in the tent.So in that sense, it's not abandoning the tent that sealed their fate, rather, it's the decision to set it up there.
-
Good post in Reply #53, Manti, except I disagree with you here. in my view, the primary element of the mystery is why the Dyatlov Nine apparently abandoned their tent (assuming they did pitch it there, and it wasn't staged). Once they decided to leave their campsite for the forest, nothing extraordinary needs to happen for all of them to meet their demise. Officially, six of the nine succumbed to hypothermia, which I consider the most likely explanation for all six. The injuries that doomed Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle, and Zolotaryov are admittedly a bit harder to explain, but there are a number of possibilities. Perhaps, in the dark, they walked up a snowbank on the side of the ravine and then fell in, onto some rocks at its bottom, with Kolevatov falling on top of the other three. Perhaps something similar happened, except they fell out of a tree instead. Perhaps they were crushed by shifting snow in the ravine, when their snow cave collapsed, or when the "snow bridge" over the stream gave way. Perhaps they got crushed by a snow slab as they made their way down the slope of Kholat Syakhl (most discussion of a slab slide concerns it occurring at their campsite). Perhaps they got kicked and trampled by a moose/elk. The point is that none of those things could have happened to the badly injured trio if the group had not exited their tent and abandoned their campsite, and we don't know why they did that.
Well, the way I think about it, what is needed for survival? Water, oxygen, warmth. Food too but not immediately... In a forest, theoretically all of this is possible to get. There was a stream to drink from. They may find berries to eat. And the wind is much weaker, and there might be more sheltered areas or even a cave to sleep. And wood for a fire. On the other hand, on the slope, there's food, but in every other respect it seems like a less suitable place to survive. The tent provides no warmth, it does hold the wind back a bit but a tent on the slope is no better against wind than no tent but being in a gully in the forest. There's a stove but not enough wood for it. There's nothing to drink! Sure if you make a fire, you can melt snow but again you need wood. And all the other risks, moose, snow slab, attackers, etc. most importantly, cold itself, I argue you are more exposed to on the slope than in the forest. They even saw a Mansi hut on the way along Auspiya. There wasn't one along Lozva (not that we know of), but there could have been. And then maybe this is a completely different story of returning 2 days late because they had to shelter out a blizzard in a hut or cave.
Of course all of this is based on the assumption that in fact they were already getting very cold in the tent.So in that sense, it's not abandoning the tent that sealed their fate, rather, it's the decision to set it up there.
Hmm. I must admit, you make some good points.
-
Ok maybe I didn't explain my point of view well...
Many camps were held there under the same conditions. And it was proved that even in the storm, it was possible to stay comfortably in the tent at night on the mountain slope. There were stoves and some wood in the tent. The group doesn't just leave the tent out of nowhere and then die from the cold outside. Not even the dumbest ignorant amateur people do that.
Imagine you are in that tent. The stove is not assembled for whatever reason, maybe it broke, maybe the tent isn't strong enough to suspend it. And it's getting later and later and temperature is dropping. Your coats are sweaty because it was hard work digging in and setting up the tent. I say, in this scenario, the only choice is to leave the tent and make a campfire in the forest.
And I don't think people who camped there later, were in the same conditions. They had the benefit of tents that were in better condition than the Dyatlov group's, they had proper coats, and sleeping bags. A good sleeping bag is the difference between getting hypothermia in -5C and being comfortable without heating in -30.
Good post in Reply #53, Manti, except I disagree with you here. in my view, the primary element of the mystery is why the Dyatlov Nine apparently abandoned their tent (assuming they did pitch it there, and it wasn't staged). Once they decided to leave their campsite for the forest, nothing extraordinary needs to happen for all of them to meet their demise. Officially, six of the nine succumbed to hypothermia, which I consider the most likely explanation for all six. The injuries that doomed Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle, and Zolotaryov are admittedly a bit harder to explain, but there are a number of possibilities. Perhaps, in the dark, they walked up a snowbank on the side of the ravine and then fell in, onto some rocks at its bottom, with Kolevatov falling on top of the other three. Perhaps something similar happened, except they fell out of a tree instead. Perhaps they were crushed by shifting snow in the ravine, when their snow cave collapsed, or when the "snow bridge" over the stream gave way. Perhaps they got crushed by a snow slab as they made their way down the slope of Kholat Syakhl (most discussion of a slab slide concerns it occurring at their campsite). Perhaps they got kicked and trampled by a moose/elk. The point is that none of those things could have happened to the badly injured trio if the group had not exited their tent and abandoned their campsite, and we don't know why they did that.
Well, the way I think about it, what is needed for survival? Water, oxygen, warmth. Food too but not immediately... In a forest, theoretically all of this is possible to get. There was a stream to drink from. They may find berries to eat. And the wind is much weaker, and there might be more sheltered areas or even a cave to sleep. And wood for a fire. On the other hand, on the slope, there's food, but in every other respect it seems like a less suitable place to survive. The tent provides no warmth, it does hold the wind back a bit but a tent on the slope is no better against wind than no tent but being in a gully in the forest. There's a stove but not enough wood for it. There's nothing to drink! Sure if you make a fire, you can melt snow but again you need wood. And all the other risks, moose, snow slab, attackers, etc. most importantly, cold itself, I argue you are more exposed to on the slope than in the forest. They even saw a Mansi hut on the way along Auspiya. There wasn't one along Lozva (not that we know of), but there could have been. And then maybe this is a completely different story of returning 2 days late because they had to shelter out a blizzard in a hut or cave.
Of course all of this is based on the assumption that in fact they were already getting very cold in the tent.So in that sense, it's not abandoning the tent that sealed their fate, rather, it's the decision to set it up there.
First of all, the coldness in the tent is almost the same as the coldness between the trees in the forest. But the tent is more advantageous than the forest as it protects from the wind. Let's say there's a storm and it's very cold. At that time, they wore all their clothes and also wore their shoes. And they would not cut the tent, and go out from its door. There was no storm with that because the tent stood as it was. And it wasn't too cold because you can't walk for about 1 hour in very cold weather with bare feet. There was something that made them run away from the tent. But what???
-
Tenne, the,suppositions regarding motive, the introduction of extraneous characters and illogical behaviors by bad actors are not canon. That is my meaning.
In canon, they camped the last night at 880 on 1079. They left traced of,descent. The traces are devoid of foot dragging, and parallel skiing. So, yes,,it gets back to why did they leave. Consider the 4 B's . Breathing, bleeding, broken bones and burns. Which if any are inducement to head for the woods. A conspiracy buff says attack, a naturalist says circumstance, Conspiracies are more fun.
-
Tenne, the,suppositions regarding motive, the introduction of extraneous characters and illogical behaviors by bad actors are not canon. That is my meaning.
In canon, they camped the last night at 880 on 1079. They left traced of,descent. The traces are devoid of foot dragging, and parallel skiing. So, yes,,it gets back to why did they leave. Consider the 4 B's . Breathing, bleeding, broken bones and burns. Which if any are inducement to head for the woods. A conspiracy buff says attack, a naturalist says circumstance, Conspiracies are more fun.
The Dytlov thing is no ordinary hypothermia. Many sane people know and approve of this. It is not in vain that so many theories have been written and tens of thousands of people have expressed their opinions for 60 years.
-
Tenne, the,suppositions regarding motive, the introduction of extraneous characters and illogical behaviors by bad actors are not canon. That is my meaning.
In canon, they camped the last night at 880 on 1079. They left traced of,descent. The traces are devoid of foot dragging, and parallel skiing. So, yes,,it gets back to why did they leave. Consider the 4 B's . Breathing, bleeding, broken bones and burns. Which if any are inducement to head for the woods. A conspiracy buff says attack, a naturalist says circumstance, Conspiracies are more fun.
What are you doing on this forum if the Dytlov thing isn't just an ordinary cold death? If it's such an ordinary hypothermia case, it's very interesting that you spend so much time on the forum? There are many interesting events in this world that we do not know about. The Dytlov incident is one of them. And it is at the top.
What are you doing here ilahiyol? On this forum?
-
First of all, the coldness in the tent is almost the same as the coldness between the trees in the forest. But the tent is more advantageous than the forest as it protects from the wind. Let's say there's a storm and it's very cold. At that time, they wore all their clothes and also wore their shoes. And they would not cut the tent, and go out from its door. There was no storm with that because the tent stood as it was. And it wasn't too cold because you can't walk for about 1 hour in very cold weather with bare feet.
The tent protects from the wind a bit but there's much stronger wind on the slope than in the forest. In fact if you go deep enough into the forest there will be no wind, at least not at ground level.
We don't know if they cut the tent or the searchers or someone else, or maybe the wind by flapping the tent fabric against for example the stove for a month...
And they were not barefeet. They were wearing multiple layers of socks, some were wearing felt boots etc. I agree you cannot walk too long like that... in fact Zina, Igor and Rustem might not have managed to get very far... and they might have crawled after a while.
There was something that made them run away from the tent. But what???
Well, maybe, all I'm saying is maybe there wasn't anything. When you start to get hypothermia, first you start to shiver and get this energetic almost primal urge to somehow fix your situation. I think, and it really depends on how cold it was on that evening, but I think if it's similar to the weather on the Dyatlov Pass now for example, if they try to spend a night in the tent without a stove heating it, at some point they will start to get hypothermia inside the tent.
-
First of all, the coldness in the tent is almost the same as the coldness between the trees in the forest. But the tent is more advantageous than the forest as it protects from the wind. Let's say there's a storm and it's very cold. At that time, they wore all their clothes and also wore their shoes. And they would not cut the tent, and go out from its door. There was no storm with that because the tent stood as it was. And it wasn't too cold because you can't walk for about 1 hour in very cold weather with bare feet.
The tent protects from the wind a bit but there's much stronger wind on the slope than in the forest. In fact if you go deep enough into the forest there will be no wind, at least not at ground level.
We don't know if they cut the tent or the searchers or someone else, or maybe the wind by flapping the tent fabric against for example the stove for a month...
And they were not barefeet. They were wearing multiple layers of socks, some were wearing felt boots etc. I agree you cannot walk too long like that... in fact Zina, Igor and Rustem might not have managed to get very far... and they might have crawled after a while.
There was something that made them run away from the tent. But what???
Well, maybe, all I'm saying is maybe there wasn't anything. When you start to get hypothermia, first you start to shiver and get this energetic almost primal urge to somehow fix your situation. I think, and it really depends on how cold it was on that evening, but I think if it's similar to the weather on the Dyatlov Pass now for example, if they try to spend a night in the tent without a stove heating it, at some point they will start to get hypothermia inside the tent.
There is no deep forest nearby. There is a forest on the opposite slope, but it is also sparsely wooded... So it's not better than a tent... And if I want to go to the forest, I definitely wear my shoes and boots. I don't walk in socks on snow. No smart person does this. And if I wanted to get out of the tent, I wouldn't bother cutting the thick tent. I open the door and get out easily. So that I do not damage the tent.And there was a lot of experimentation on the slope. 9 people can even heat a small tent with their breath....And they have never been in hypothermia inside the tent....Because the tent is 10 degrees hotter than outside. Even if the outdoor environment is -20 degrees, it will be -10 degrees for your tent. And the group was wearing 4-5 layers of clothes. This protects them for longer than -20 degrees Celsius. It's impossible to have hypothermia in a tent...
-
Tenne, the,suppositions regarding motive, the introduction of extraneous characters and illogical behaviors by bad actors are not canon. That is my meaning.
In canon, they camped the last night at 880 on 1079. They left traced of,descent. The traces are devoid of foot dragging, and parallel skiing. So, yes,,it gets back to why did they leave. Consider the 4 B's . Breathing, bleeding, broken bones and burns. Which if any are inducement to head for the woods. A conspiracy buff says attack, a naturalist says circumstance, Conspiracies are more fun.
This is where we totally disagree then, Canon to me equals what can be proven. so
the tent was found there
the bodies were found at cedar, slope, ravine
there is no way to prove they set up the tent
there is no way to link the prints to them camping. they could have been left by an earlier group and the wind uncovered them.
if this was a 100% natural event, then there would be no mysteries and this wouldn't forum wouldn't exist. way too many people perish in the winter and it's pretty easy to tell what happened
-
Tenne, the,suppositions regarding motive, the introduction of extraneous characters and illogical behaviors by bad actors are not canon. That is my meaning.
In canon, they camped the last night at 880 on 1079. They left traced of,descent. The traces are devoid of foot dragging, and parallel skiing. So, yes,,it gets back to why did they leave. Consider the 4 B's . Breathing, bleeding, broken bones and burns. Which if any are inducement to head for the woods. A conspiracy buff says attack, a naturalist says circumstance, Conspiracies are more fun.
This is where we totally disagree then, Canon to me equals what can be proven. so
the tent was found there
the bodies were found at cedar, slope, ravine
there is no way to prove they set up the tent
there is no way to link the prints to them camping. they could have been left by an earlier group and the wind uncovered them.
if this was a 100% natural event, then there would be no mysteries and this wouldn't forum wouldn't exist. way too many people perish in the winter and it's pretty easy to tell what happened
Tenne there is no way to prove otherwise. Your logic is biased , there is nothing to overrule natural events. Tent on slope , in the direction to the destination. Pre data that they organised the hike. Photos to support the journey, diary to support the journey.
Historical evidence of many tourists carrying their tent on the back pack. Photo of them carrying the tent on their back.
Avalanche exist, weather exists, snow slip , Wolverine exist, possible posining exists, the cold exists, snow cave/holes exist. There is a way to link the prints to them camping, they were there! It is on the whole , natural, death by hypothermia.
What do you think caused the deaths?
-
Tenne, for me it is the distinction between " what is" and " what if". I like the former, you the latter. It makes the wheel of discussion go round.
-
Tenne, for me it is the distinction between " what is" and " what if". I like the former, you the latter. It makes the wheel of discussion go round.
the distinction between "what is" and 'what if' is being able to prove it in my opinion. if a person can prove that the hikers set the tent up in that spot, whether willingly or not, if a person can prove that a foot made a print, then it is what is. other than that it is "what if."
-
"Tenne there is no way to prove otherwise. Your logic is biased , there is nothing to overrule natural events. Tent on slope , in the direction to the destination. Pre data that they organised the hike. Photos to support the journey, diary to support the journey.
I can't prove what happened and you can't either. the tent could have been put up there by people covering up the deaths. there is absolutly no way to prove who set that tent up. You choose to believe they did, I think it was set up to be "found" and put in a location that couldn't be missed
Historical evidence of many tourists carrying their tent on the back pack. Photo of them carrying the tent on their back.
I do not believe that photo shows the tent being carried on the back. I do believe it is designed to look like that, however, no one carries a large package horizontal across their shoulders when skiing through the forest and two, the tent was too heavy to be carried like that, at the angle the body is at, with the weight it would be even if it could be folded up that small every morning. I do not doubt that there is historical evidence of people carrying tents, prove they carried that tent in those conditions
Avalanche exist, weather exists, snow slip , Wolverine exist, possible posining exists, the cold exists, snow cave/holes exist. There is a way to link the prints to them camping, they were there! It is on the whole , natural, death by hypothermia.
There is a line of footprints that have never been conclusively proved to belong to anyone of the hikers. those could have been made at any time before and just exposed now or could be faked. there is zero evidence to prove the hikers made them and when hypothermia causes a flailed chest, I will accept that as a diagnosis
What do you think caused the deaths?"
I believe that they found their sled wasn't going to work to pull the tent and it wasn't going to work to carry it on their backs so they decided to just ski around for the time they had off and then go back and let everyone know they couldn't finish the trip. They ran into an explosive devise and were killed by it. the ones closest to the device were the ones with the most injuries, down to the end of the group that was just knocked out and did actually die of hypothermia. When the bodies were found in an area they were not supposed to be at a time they were not supposed to be there, someone panicked. The diaries were faked, some photos were taken and then the camera's planted. the tent and bodies were planted. That's why nothing adds up, it isn't natural
-
Tenne there is no way to prove otherwise. Your logic is biased , there is nothing to overrule natural events. Tent on slope , in the direction to the destination. Pre data that they organised the hike. Photos to support the journey, diary to support the journey.
Historical evidence of many tourists carrying their tent on the back pack. Photo of them carrying the tent on their back.
Avalanche exist, weather exists, snow slip , Wolverine exist, possible posining exists, the cold exists, snow cave/holes exist. There is a way to link the prints to them camping, they were there! It is on the whole , natural, death by hypothermia.
What do you think caused the deaths?
Я помогу Вам, сэр Ziljoe, с иллюстрациями. Только и это наверное будет не в коня - овес.
Это поход с этой же палаткой 1958 года. Поход под руководством М. Аксельрода на Приполярный Урал. В составе как раз был Игорь Дятлов.
Вот эта же вагон-палатка
(https://i.ibb.co/VDRQ6gS/Bart2-palatka58.jpg)
Вот её несут
(https://i.ibb.co/7vYcHd2/276.jpg)
I will help you Sir Ziljoe with illustrations. Only this will probably not be in the horse - oats.
This is a hike with the same tent from 1958. Campaign led by M. Axelrod to the Subpolar Urals. Igor Dyatlov was just in the lineup.
Here is the same wagon
(https://i.ibb.co/VDRQ6gS/Bart2-palatka58.jpg)
Here they carry it
(https://i.ibb.co/7vYcHd2/276.jpg)
-
1. that looks nothing like the photo of the tent being carried in the back pack as the official photos show it and
2. notice that the person carrying the long items, 3rd from the front in the line of skiiers, is carrying the long stuff with the direction of travel and not horizontal to it? ie. not across the back sticking out further than the shoulders so it would catch on the trees?
This is supposed to be Dyatlov with tent on the 1079 trip
(https://i.ibb.co/bd8SK70/Krivonischenko-camera-film1-32-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kcWRSM7)
-
1. that looks nothing like the photo of the tent being carried in the back pack as the official photos show it and
2. notice that the person carrying the long items, 3rd from the front in the line of skiiers, is carrying the long stuff with the direction of travel and not horizontal to it? ie. not across the back sticking out further than the shoulders so it would catch on the trees?
Как свернули, как укрепили, как удобно - так и несут. Все зависит от роста туриста, от настроения, от спешки.
Когда Вы расчесываетесь - у Вас же волосинки не лежат всякий раз точь-в точь как было позавчера или месяц назад? Одинаково будет каждый раз если Вы - лысая.
Вы сомневались что палатку носят за плечами. Типа - тяжесть какая. А у нас русские мужики - богатыри через одного.
Конечно, с шотландскими генами - это не понять.
How they rolled it, how they strengthened it, how convenient it is - they carry it. It all depends on the growth of the tourist, on the mood, on the rush.
When you comb your hair, don't your hairs always lie exactly the same as it was the day before yesterday or a month ago? It will be the same every time if you are bald.
You doubted that the tent is worn over the shoulders. Like, what a heaviness. And we have Russian men - heroes through one.
Of course, with Scottish genes - this is not understandable.
(https://i.ibb.co/sKVz459/2018-03-29.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/crvmjBK/2018-03-28.png)
-
You almost had me fooled that you were back on your meds and able to post an intelligent thought. shame on me. LOL. won't happen again
-
You almost had me fooled that you were back on your meds and able to post an intelligent thought. shame on me. LOL. won't happen again
Шотландская национальная реакция? Вы готовы голову в унитаз засунуть - лишь бы не учиться уму разуму...
Я эти иллюстрации крепила для тех, у кого в мозгах извилин больше чем одна Ваша...
Scottish national reaction? Are you ready to stick your head in the toilet - just not to learn the mind of the mind ...
I attached these illustrations for those who have more convolutions in their brains than one of yours ...
-
"Tenne there is no way to prove otherwise. Your logic is biased , there is nothing to overrule natural events. Tent on slope , in the direction to the destination. Pre data that they organised the hike. Photos to support the journey, diary to support the journey.
I can't prove what happened and you can't either. the tent could have been put up there by people covering up the deaths. there is absolutly no way to prove who set that tent up. You choose to believe they did, I think it was set up to be "found" and put in a location that couldn't be missed
Historical evidence of many tourists carrying their tent on the back pack. Photo of them carrying the tent on their back.
I do not believe that photo shows the tent being carried on the back. I do believe it is designed to look like that, however, no one carries a large package horizontal across their shoulders when skiing through the forest and two, the tent was too heavy to be carried like that, at the angle the body is at, with the weight it would be even if it could be folded up that small every morning. I do not doubt that there is historical evidence of people carrying tents, prove they carried that tent in those conditions
Avalanche exist, weather exists, snow slip , Wolverine exist, possible posining exists, the cold exists, snow cave/holes exist. There is a way to link the prints to them camping, they were there! It is on the whole , natural, death by hypothermia.
There is a line of footprints that have never been conclusively proved to belong to anyone of the hikers. those could have been made at any time before and just exposed now or could be faked. there is zero evidence to prove the hikers made them and when hypothermia causes a flailed chest, I will accept that as a diagnosis
What do you think caused the deaths?"
I believe that they found their sled wasn't going to work to pull the tent and it wasn't going to work to carry it on their backs so they decided to just ski around for the time they had off and then go back and let everyone know they couldn't finish the trip. They ran into an explosive devise and were killed by it. the ones closest to the device were the ones with the most injuries, down to the end of the group that was just knocked out and did actually die of hypothermia. When the bodies were found in an area they were not supposed to be at a time they were not supposed to be there, someone panicked. The diaries were faked, some photos were taken and then the camera's planted. the tent and bodies were planted. That's why nothing adds up, it isn't natural
There's few things I don't understand and please share if that's ok ,
Question :Why was the tent pitched on the slope to be easily found?
I'm not sure how a bit of width on the shoulders is a problem . They followed the river and Mansi paths. They didn't go in a straight line through a forest. There are trail's as you can see in the photos. All their packs are wide and in the photo of the DP9 with the tent on top of the pack, there is no forest in the scene . It may have been packed a little loser on that day for a reason. That reason may have been that they had planned to camp on the slope and the tent is at hand.
Question : if it's not the tent in the photo, what is it?
Question : why was it designed to look like they were carrying the tent?
Question :Why are there no trees in the picture?
The fractures are possibly the result of being in a snow hole. That's the instant falling of snow from the ceiling of a man made or natural snow cave/hole.
If the sledge was needed to transport the tent , then they would have made it work, they would know it would work and it must work. You don't go on a hike with the possibility of you not being able to have the tent because something might or might not work. It's planned ahead.
Question : what did they fake in the diaries, what did they change and why?
Question : why didn't they plant the bodies next to the tent on the slope or all of the bodies at least.
-
1. that looks nothing like the photo of the tent being carried in the back pack as the official photos show it and
2. notice that the person carrying the long items, 3rd from the front in the line of skiiers, is carrying the long stuff with the direction of travel and not horizontal to it? ie. not across the back sticking out further than the shoulders so it would catch on the trees?
This is supposed to be Dyatlov with tent on the 1079 trip
The 3rd in line is carrying a wide load. The are all wide, some wider than others.
-
С неуложенной палаткой всё просто. Она обледенела, поэтому её трудно было уложить компактно. А так как предстоял переход по редколесью и открытому пространству палатке не за что было цепляться и с её с укладкой не стали утруждаться.
Почему палатка обледенела?
Потому что это была их первая и последняя ночёвка без печки. Печка была не нужна, так как было потепление перед приходом холодного атмосферного фронта:
Ветер западный, теплый пронзительный...
Дров мало. Хилые сырые ели. Костер разводили на бревнах, неохота рыть яму. Ужинаем прямо в палатке. Тепло.
Поэтому у них и одеяла были влажными (смёрзлись). Поэтому они сушили стельки и носки на груди (Слободин).
А палатку несёт Дятлов. Он опознан по пятнам на лыжных палках.
-
1. that looks nothing like the photo of the tent being carried in the back pack as the official photos show it and
2. notice that the person carrying the long items, 3rd from the front in the line of skiiers, is carrying the long stuff with the direction of travel and not horizontal to it? ie. not across the back sticking out further than the shoulders so it would catch on the trees?
Как свернули, как укрепили, как удобно - так и несут. Все зависит от роста туриста, от настроения, от спешки.
Когда Вы расчесываетесь - у Вас же волосинки не лежат всякий раз точь-в точь как было позавчера или месяц назад? Одинаково будет каждый раз если Вы - лысая.
Вы сомневались что палатку носят за плечами. Типа - тяжесть какая. А у нас русские мужики - богатыри через одного.
Конечно, с шотландскими генами - это не понять.
How they rolled it, how they strengthened it, how convenient it is - they carry it. It all depends on the growth of the tourist, on the mood, on the rush.
When you comb your hair, don't your hairs always lie exactly the same as it was the day before yesterday or a month ago? It will be the same every time if you are bald.
You doubted that the tent is worn over the shoulders. Like, what a heaviness. And we have Russian men - heroes through one.
Of course, with Scottish genes - this is not understandable.
(https://i.ibb.co/sKVz459/2018-03-29.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/crvmjBK/2018-03-28.png)
Палатку несёт тот, кто не несёт другое групповое снаряжение и продукты. Но, она большого объёма и из-за этого неудобна в транспортировке. Не влазит в рюкзак, где лежат личные вещи участника. Чем менее компактно свернут палатку, тем тяжелее она покажется в переноске. И это очень существенная разница. Уж поверьте. Поэтому, должна быть причина, что бы компактно не упаковать палатку. В районе лабаза печь топили, так как там было нормально с дровами. Когда есть под рукой дрова, нужно быть идиотом, что бы не топить печь в зимнем походе. Как бы не было тепло на улице, печь нужна для просушки вещей, которые намокли при передвижении предыдущим днём. Ещё есть вторая причина зачем топить печь, когда есть под рукой дрова. Есть такое понятие, как холодовая усталость. Это когда организм после длительного пребывания в условиях холода начинает плохо разгонять кровь и она плохо поступает к пальцам рук и ног. Внешнее тепло на организм отодвигает холодовую усталость на более поздние сроки.
-
С неуложенной палаткой всё просто.
Если вы не турист, то зачем делать какие-то выводы, в теме которой вы не разбираетесь ?
Я там у вас почитал, вы и в медицине так же профессионально разбираетесь, лучше любого профессора.
А зоолог вы вообще от бога