Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: GlennM on September 08, 2024, 08:12:54 PM
-
"an interview from Boris Gudkov, including the diary of their hike, which included Otorten, but it was not their main goal. Otorten is not interesting in the summer, the Dyatlov group wanted to be the first to climb it in winter when the weather is brutal".
This passage taken from DyatlovPass.com makes it clear that the selection of Ortoten in winter as a destination was not because of distance, but rather diffuculty. The hikers could have gotten their certification going elsewhere, but the conquest of Ortoten in winter was too tempting to ignore. Is it likely that in order to achieve the conquest of Ortoten in winter, certain risks were taken which ended in disaster? Igor was warned to avoid 1079 by the forester, but went there anyway. Onve there, the group was beaten back by the weather. This meant lost time. To make up for the lost time, the group kept to the high ground and deliberately travelled light. Nature was unkind. Could it be that a desire for glory became their undoing?
-
Everyone and Teddy:
I believe that upon arriving to the site of MT Otorten, and this is what is bothering "ME" the most of this bad incident, woodstove, was not setup???? Either someone forgotten the wood at "Dyatlov’s labaz" or didn't realize how cold/freezing cold it would be if traveled to find wood?????
Yes, I do believe all were Murdered...but 'HOW" or "WHO" did it??????
Thank You
Kathleen Dee Smith
-
When you talk about heroism, you have to consider mountains with some serious obstacles.
In Dyatlov's case, it's called "hanging around doing nothing."
Maybe some palcrs are problematic in the winter, but they underestimated them, because they were used to routine.
But there were 40 rescuers after then, and not a single person died.
Only Sharavin had a concussion.
Usually such places are interesting in summer, because you can pick some berries there.
That's why I go up to the mountains in summer. I can't imagine what you can do in winter. You can probably break the ice on the river and fish, but you don't have to go up to the mountains for that.
My house is 360 meters above sea level, and my apartment is 370 meters above sea level.
This summer I only went out for a walk TO MOUNTAINS on May 4 and September 4, but in general the summer was hot, and I only walked in the park.
Recently I went out only to check the dependence of radiation on altitude, to check Shamil's theory. I measured radiation at three places where people died.
First, on the ring road, I measured radiation near a rock where a person was hit by a car.
The average radiation value at the site of the accident and death was 7 microroentgen.
Then I measured the radiation when I crossed the stream at the beginning of the climb (40 minutes from the city).
The measurements showed 12 and 16. I was sitting on a reinforced concrete slab across the stream. The readings were the same at home, perhaps this is due to the delezobeton.
I sat and rested for 5 minutes (I left the house at 10:40 and crossed the stream at 12 noon), and the climb took 55 minutes. The descent took 54 minutes (the difference in altitude is 300 meters, like between the Dyatlov tent and the cedar). I went down at 14:00. In my case, the cedar is on top. In the middle of the climb, I stopped at a cross where someone once died. The cross is overgrown with grass and trees, and you can't see it.
At the top of the climb there is a tree, similar to a cedar with broken branches. Next to it (3-5 meters) there is a cross, installed before 2003.
When I was going down, I met an old woman from the neighboring house (70 years old), who climbed up without much difficulty.
What I want to say. When I climbed up for raspberries (and for berries in general) at 30-35 degrees, it is more difficult than a walk in spring or autumn. Raspberries grow when it is rare, so I stopped several times on the way up (300 meters of altitude, from 470 at the stream and 770 meters on the ridge), I stopped every 50 meters of altitude. It was not difficult to climb up at a temperature of 25, I stopped only once, in the middle of the climb, to measure the radiation at the cross of the deceased.
I asked why there are grave crosses. I was told that one person died because it was a pity in the summer and the atmosphere was such that his heart could not stand the stuffiness, and he died. I was also told that one person froze to death in the winter. Which cross refers to which deceased, I do not know. Probably the person in the middle of the road froze to death, and died from overheating at the top.
Theodora writes that visiting Otorten this summer was prevented by cold and rain.
We had a different situation, in the summer it was so hot that when I went to the store, I immediately returned tired from the heat. The most tiring day was August 21, when I had to go out 2 times, and I spent 10 minutes on it 2 times.
Each cross had 7 microroentgen. All 3 unfortunate places showed an average value of 7 microroentgen (between 6 and 9), this reminded me of Igor Pavlov's nickname (s777).
Yes, of course we were told that someone killed or robbed someone in the forest, but these are all fairy tales for children, so that they are afraid to go.
(https://i.ibb.co/fdWDXcm/kedr.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zVg6mkK)
-
"an interview from Boris Gudkov, including the diary of their hike, which included Otorten, but it was not their main goal. Otorten is not interesting in the summer, the Dyatlov group wanted to be the first to climb it in winter when the weather is brutal".
This passage taken from DyatlovPass.com makes it clear that the selection of Ortoten in winter as a destination was not because of distance, but rather diffuculty. The hikers could have gotten their certification going elsewhere, but the conquest of Ortoten in winter was too tempting to ignore. Is it likely that in order to achieve the conquest of Ortoten in winter, certain risks were taken which ended in disaster? Igor was warned to avoid 1079 by the forester, but went there anyway. Onve there, the group was beaten back by the weather. This meant lost time. To make up for the lost time, the group kept to the high ground and deliberately travelled light. Nature was unkind. Could it be that a desire for glory became their undoing?
I don't think they were overly confident or taking risks any more than any other hiking group. One of the other groups ran into trouble with their tent catching fire and another group had someone with frostbite. Then there's the rafting expedition where people drowned.
If they had stuck to the shelter of the treeline and did a quick approach to Mt Otorten then they wouldn't have been exposed. It's still difficult to understand the reason for pitching the tent on 1079 , although we have the possible explanation of the weather or that they decided on short hike up the slope to prepare for an early start the next morning .
If it was the weather , then they would know the shelter of the treeline was only a mile away, so that would be the best option.
So it seems that they choose to camp on the slope and that was the tipping point.
-
If it was the weather , then they would know the shelter of the treeline was only a mile away, so that would be the best option.
Russians don't think/talk in miles or Fahrenheits.
Fahrenheit is always a book, a movie, or an incomprehensible temperature. Miles are bonuses for air travel.
-
If it was the weather , then they would know the shelter of the treeline was only a mile away, so that would be the best option.
Russians don't think/talk in miles or Fahrenheits.
Fahrenheit is always a book, a movie, or an incomprehensible temperature. Miles are bonuses for air travel.
Sorry axelrod. The tree line was approximately 1 mile or 1.6 Km away from the tent. ( That would be approximately 3,520 cubits to you , if that helps axelrod ).
-
Based on personal histories of the DP9 we find an outspoken assertive woman very politically inclined. We find a young man bold enough to turn into a stampede and face the rush. We have capricious behavior on the train to dodge the ticket taker. We have enough " personality" to involve the police. I have the idea that the feeling of youthful invincibility was very present.
Gètting to Ortoten in winter and thereby being the first to do so was compelling. The decision to take the ridge route and travel light is all well and good provided every essential piece of equipment works. The stress on the tent was a calculated risk, but the strength of wind and coldness were two variables that could not be compensated for.
Too, I have trouble with the suggestion of murder, always have. For me, it requires many additiinal additional assumptions.
-
A fair summary. For me the biggest risk was having no contingency plan if someone broke a leg for example . Due to the distance it would be difficult for the hikers to split and raise an alarm.
I guess back in 1959 perspectives were different and people took risks that we don't today . I don't see the route or terrain as technically difficult or dangerous but the winter and weather conditions are the biggest threat and everything points to nature and ultimately the cold taking their lives.
-
I suppose that if the tent were damaged on 1079, there would be little use in trying to remain in it. Further, it strikes me as very strange to think the hikers cut their way out of the tent with large gashes. Why? Well, assuming they survived whatever drove them to butcher their shelter in the first place, then(1) what were they going to use to sleep in while getting off 1079 and back to Vizhay? (2) How are they going to explain away and pay for ruining their tent, once they return home?
If the tent was cut by the rescuers when they discovered it and also torn later when dragged overland to be helicoptered out, could it be that we may be wrong in our assumptions about the tent?
This line of thought suggests they were determined to secure bragging rights on rounding Ororten in winter. They were pushed back a day by the weather. They then made forward progress only to be weighted down by a snow slide at night. They made for the shelter of the forest until the weather cleared. Three opted to return, the rest waited. It ended badly for all for the sake of rounding Ortoten in winter.
-
If you assume freezing, then the main problem is that the temperature on February 1 was not so cold at the nearest weather station.
Then the question arises, why did they freeze on that date.
Why didn't they freeze on the previous days of the hike, when the nights were colder.
It would be clear that they froze on the night of February 5-6, their bodies were found on the morning of February 6 and the prosecutor opened a criminal case.
That would be clear.
Of course, we don't have data on the temperature in that place, if there is a significant deviation,
then we can study the deviations in the coming winter and compare them with the data at a distance of 100 km.
The idea of the situation does not match the data and evidence. Almost everything does not match there.
(https://i.ibb.co/7yrFfhB/pogoda-1-7.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ThP5fyJ)
-
I would think that freezing is what happened after, it would most likely be hypothermia, there is evidence of frostbite on some of the hikers . If the temperature was in the negative and add some wind chill without adequate clothing , I think there is enough to suggest it's the cold. ??
-
Thank you for your thoughts. So, compromising the tent is obviously an ill considered course of action. It would certainly only be done in an avalanche, but we all tend to agree that a stereotypical avalanche is an impossibility. The slab slide is much more likely and in my opinion, a certainty. That said, I find it doubtful they knifed their tent, but they did leave it. Again, this goes to hubris, or pride. I do not think they comprehended their trouble until they were at the cedar. Then, they became divided as a group in terms of decision making. One faction wants to regain the tent no matter what. The other wishes to wait out the weather in a snow cave. Surely, all thoughts of Ortoten are gone, but instead, thoughts turn to who to blame for a botched expedition.
-
The above conclusions seem strange to me.... The parallel group of Rostov tourists led by Fomenko did not have a tent at all.
Karelin's group had a tent without a bottom. True, their trip was a few days later....
I want to give such a comparison. If you see the skeleton of a dog (or a dinosaur) in the form of scattered bones, it is difficult for you to imagine what a dog is.
You can build yourself a categorical picture that the animal looks like this or that.
But how do you determine how much the dog's ears stick out? You probably imagine them as human ears.
-
Axelrod, that is a worthy criticism. However, there is another saying that helps make my point. " You do not have to be a chicken to know how one lays an egg." I think that if the hikers deliberately tore up their tent, they would then discard it as unrepairable and have to pay for the loss. Since they were travelling economically as possible, I do not believe Igor would condone destruction of the tent. I do think that the ruined expedition had the potential to weaken the hikers chances for a grade 3 certification if they survived. So, to circle back to the thesis of the thread, could the desire to be first around Ortoten in winter have resulted in a decision to take a risk by travelling light on the high ground rather than the taking the forest route?
I think so. For me it is more plausible than faking the location of the tent.
-
It is a refreshing way to view the mystery Glennm . You made me think of the story of Icarus and this may be your very thoughts. Ultimately they flew too close to the sun and did not listen to others advice.
It gives a clearer narrative to the incident than many others.
Hubris can stem from narcissism , and ‘A hubristic leader can create a particular kind of ‘toxicity’ who, by virtue of their destructive behaviours and their dysfunctional personal qualities or characteristics, inflict serious and enduring harm on the individuals, groups, organisations, communities and even the nations that they lead’ (Jean Lipman-Burman)
As you noted, there are strong personalities . We have evidence that over confidence existed , axelrod made me think about the sewing of the inner sheets and then the sewing or repairs of the tent it's self . That implies that someone( Dyatlov?) never bothered to check the condition of the tent before embarking on their journey, it was assumed it would be ok.
If I remember correctly, it is the same with the planning of the route with the UPI, it's poorly communicated and possibly on purpose as someone may have not signed it off.
As you say Glenn m , the hikers were advised to stay away from 1079 yet they didn't.
The very last entry in the diary on the 31st January is;
"We’re exhausted, but start setting up for the night. Firewood is scarce, mostly damp firs. We build the campfire on the logs, too tired to dig a fire pit. Dinner’s in the tent. Nice and warm. Can’t imagine such comfort on the ridge, with howling wind outside, hundreds of kilometers away from human settlements."
Dyatlov
These are a few examples of hubris that show Dyatlov may have thought he knew better and was willing to take unnecessary risks. ( I have been on trips with people like that. It can be dangerous)
Although none of this gives us the exact reason why they left the tent, it certainly gives us an indication that they were metaphorically speaking ,flying close to the sun and ultimately, maybe got too close ? .
-
Theodora writes that visiting Otorten this summer was prevented by cold and rain.
I said we didn't have enough time, even if the weather was perfect.
Ac cording to our timeline we had to carry backpacks (mine was 23 kg) 20 km in one direction, go down, pitch tent at the lake, spend the night, break camp, go up and return 20 km back.
What is the point of that?
-
"an interview from Boris Gudkov, including the diary of their hike, which included Otorten, but it was not their main goal. Otorten is not interesting in the summer, the Dyatlov group wanted to be the first to climb it in winter when the weather is brutal".
This passage taken from DyatlovPass.com makes it clear that the selection of Ortoten in winter as a destination was not because of distance, but rather diffuculty. The hikers could have gotten their certification going elsewhere, but the conquest of Ortoten in winter was too tempting to ignore. Is it likely that in order to achieve the conquest of Ortoten in winter, certain risks were taken which ended in disaster? Igor was warned to avoid 1079 by the forester, but went there anyway. Onve there, the group was beaten back by the weather. This meant lost time. To make up for the lost time, the group kept to the high ground and deliberately travelled light. Nature was unkind. Could it be that a desire for glory became their undoing?
Otorten is one of the key points of their difficult hike.
This is a difficult hike. To walk 300 km autonomously in the winter in the Northern Urals is very difficult.
These people deserve respect.
I do not know of any modern young (22-23 years old) group that would go on such difficult hikes in winter without a leader who is more experienced and older... Perhaps they exist. But there are very few of them.
-
"These people deserve respect"
The line between respect and sympathy may come down to simple success vs. failure. If the team rounded Ortoten in winter, they would have respect, glory and for Zolo, opportunity. It was a gamble and a risk they chose to take. Is it a decision a 22-23 year old should be making? No. Why? A 22 year old sees the final goal, but does not consider alternates if the plan fails. A 22 year old will say" we will figure this out if we need to, when we need to".
Igor chose Ortoten because he wanted the challenge and the prestige. Others followed because that is what friends do. We may respect the enthusiasm and the energy, but not the preparation, communication and execution of the plan. The simple truth is that when things went wrong, there was no agreed upon plan B. Pridefulness, not respect got them into trouble. Sympathy is what they earn for attempting and failing their quest. It was a trap. They can not become grade 3 in a guided tour, yet they lacked grade 3 experience and wisdom.
-
"These people deserve respect"
The line between respect and sympathy may come down to simple success vs. failure. If the team rounded Ortoten in winter, they would have respect, glory and for Zolo, opportunity. It was a gamble and a risk they chose to take. Is it a decision a 22-23 year old should be making? No. Why? A 22 year old sees the final goal, but does not consider alternates if the plan fails. A 22 year old will say" we will figure this out if we need to, when we need to".
Igor chose Ortoten because he wanted the challenge and the prestige. Others followed because that is what friends do. We may respect the enthusiasm and the energy, but not the preparation, communication and execution of the plan. The simple truth is that when things went wrong, there was no agreed upon plan B. Pridefulness, not respect got them into trouble. Sympathy is what they earn for attempting and failing their quest. It was a trap. They can not become grade 3 in a guided tour, yet they lacked grade 3 experience and wisdom.
You are not a tourist. This can be felt from your reasoning about tourism, about climbing peaks, etc. You are mistaken. The word pride is not acceptable here. This is not the word that should characterize the feelings from the route taken, from the task accomplished.
-
they lacked grade 3 experience and wisdom.
and you know this how?
-
With respect, they did not make the grade, they perished. Igor was warned by the forester and still proceeded.I believe there was also an undercurrent of affections in conflict. When they saw Symphony in Gold and have talks about the meaning of love, men and women react differently. Things are more immediate for men. There was pain from a broken romance.
In order to keep emotions in check and avoid friction in the group( and yes, there was friction), it must have been necessary to keep focused on a particularly hard tour. Remember too that the guys were supposed to give up tobacco for their tour. That alone affects attitude. Could it be that there was too much confidence in their abilities in spite of Nature? Could it be that the desire for a cigarette made someone short tempered enough to make a bold decision to continue when they should not?They thought they could win. think that if they succeeded, they would be have the respect, the bragging rights and the wisdom. Those who smoked would continue to do so and the romances would play out in some way.They did not succeed. Did they earn respect for their attempt? It,appears so. Did they earn sympathy for their defeat? Of course. Did many others suffer blame and punishment in the aftermath? Yes. At the root of it all, could it be hubris, or the feeling that no matter the challenge, they could always prevail? All behavior is motivated.
This thread must not diminish them as people, but they were people. People are not perfect. Questing is acceptable human behavior. Being confident has benefits...unless it doesn't. Nature is indifferent to it all.
-
Fair point.
-
The burden of leadership includes being methodical. They wanted a grade 3 certification. They didn't file a route plan. They didn't have train fare, they didn't have room accommodations. Money was tight. They ran afoul of the law twice. They did not heed heed the forester's warning. They had a team member who couldn't go the distance. They made plans to structure their day and failed to follow the plan. They argue over repairing the tent. There is attitude over a tangerine slice. They are beaten back a day by weather. They did go to movies and sing songs. They took candid photos. This loosely formed expedition of friends appears to be more about letting off steam and being in tune with unstructured and wild Nature rather than a focused campaign to achieve a specific goal. It is remarkable how soon things fell apart once they left civilization, Was it only two days?
At their ages, save Zolo, youthful invincibility seems to be their contingency plan. Admittedly, it is a lot to expect to have a backup plan for the gear, the route, the,weather and injury. Evidently, once they left the tent (either on 1079 or in the woods,,depending on your point of view),,they were improvising. Improvising translates into not having and immediately grabbing footwear and a "bugout bag" of essentials. It is not so much about running from a thing as it is running to something else. Once there will they be prepared?
-
There is no need to look for a black cat in a dark room, and in Malevich’s painting “Black Square” silhouettes of three blacks stealing coal on a November night...
Reaching the hill called Otorten, even in winter, is not a feat capable of raising self-esteem, let alone glorification. The difficulty of the hike lies in its length through unpopulated terrain. But there is nothing extraordinary about it either.
It is an ordinary sports trek of the 3rd category. Otorten was necessary for logistic beauty and completeness of the route - traverse of the «Belt Stone» Ridge from Otorten to Oiko-Chakur.
Their deaths had nothing to do with the route as such - if they had stopped 30-40 meters closer or farther from the place where they stopped and most likely would have stayed alive.
-
Partog, thanks for the clarification about the route. It would appear that getting there and back as inexpensively as practical would be desirable. The group certainly travelled as cheaply as they could as well as saving energy until they started their push on skis. I'd like to explore your claim that a 30 meter difference in camp site could have made the difference. Do you believe, as I do that they set their tent in a hollow which allowed snow to accumulate and then break free?
-
It would appear that getting there and back as inexpensively as practical would be desirable. The group certainly travelled as cheaply as they could as well as saving energy until they started their push on skis
Аgree.
I'd like to explore your claim that a 30 meter difference in camp site could have made the difference. Do you believe, as I do that they set their tent in a hollow which allowed snow to accumulate and then break free?
Their last photo shows that they are digging into a slope of ~ 30°. This is a local increase in steepness on the terrace ledge. It extends upward no more than 3 meters. It is also 15 - 20 meters wide. It is not detected in modern measurements made by Shura, but in the last photo of the Dyatlovites team it is clearly visible. Apparently this is explained by the fact that there was less snow on the slope in January 1959 than during the measurements Shura. The top layer of snow from this area could have slipped onto the tent, flattening it and forcing the Dyatlovites by cutting the roof and get out in the clothes they were wearing when the tent fell.
In any case, the slope of the ski pole to the left of the entrance supports this assumption
-
This information is consistent with my hypothesis regarding what drove them out. Thanks.
-
Dyatlov Pass: Document from Dyatlov Pass article on Sasha says
A member of our community "Pass named after the Igor Dyatlov group", Mihail Antonov, told an interesting story. It would seem completely by accident that it turned out that his wife’s grandmother knew Alexander Kolevatov during her studies at UPI.
Here's how he tells it:
There was a dialogue: "And today we were at the cinema, about the Dyatlov group, where the students died..."
She interrupts: "I never liked Igor, he was too self-confident
When zi read theis i say a person who is making leadership decisions can be dead right or dead wrong, or put another way, if you are calm when everyone else is in a panic, then you do not have all the facts.
-
Landscapes and elevations such as Dyatlov Pass are 10 miles from my home.
I have never climbed mountains in winter because there is no need, but I have often climbed in summer, usually for berries.
But 1079 is very far (and expensive) mountain for berries.
I can't understand what the danger is?
The main danger is snakes and heart problems for somebody.
Wolves and bears are not encountered, only wild boars and deer.
At a similar altitude as the place where the tent is set up. are the cities of Yerevan and Kislovodsk (if you know them).
It is funny to hear how my relative went crazy with this crazy idea of an avalanche in such a place, and I want to reassure other people.
That's why I am here on this forum.
-
Axelrod compares the slope on 1079 to the slope where he lives. He discounts an avalanche. Axelrod does not contemplate what effect having a ditch digger change the slope on the path home. A ditch digger can create a ledge which can be a trip and fall hazard. Similarly the DP9 digging into the snow to level tha base of their tent also generates a steep angle immediately next to the tent. I believe this levelling of the snow bank and the subsequent collapse of the adjascent ledge affacted the tent. I am encouraged in this assessment because no rescuer observed an avalanche debris at the tent, though farther downhill footprints were obscured by a snow drift.
In a comparison, if Axelrod's path to home were changed by a levelled trench and if the shoveled dirt was thrown on the uphill side, then a combination of wind and rain might cause a slump with the natural effect of filling in the dug out trench.
Since this thread is actually about bold decisions, the whole comment on avalanche is beside the point. For the record, I do not think the DP9's method of erecting shelter was done in conceit. There might be something about them having an imperfect understanding of layering of snow and ice to question their choice. However, in this thread, I submit that hubris in ignoring the Forrester's warning set a cascade of decisions which only affect people's behavior. Nature has no decision making ability and as such can neither be controlled nor reasoned with. It can only be predicted. If the persons doing the predicting do not have all the facts, then bad things happen to good people.
-
I will continue what I left unwritten this morning.
The initial assumption in the topic seems completely wrong to me.
As I heard from Askinadz's interview, the institute paid money only for difficult hikes.
Since Igor Dyatlov went on 9 hikes before his 5th year (each winter+summer) and did not receive a salary yet, there was a problem with the availability of money.
It seems to me that they just wanted to go on a hike, but the hike does not reach the level of difficulty.
From Korolev's interrogation, it is clear that a difficult hike is 350 kilometers,
but for Dyatlov's group, 300 km were allowed.
Further, of these 300 km, they traveled the first 30 km by truck, 20 km with horse = a total of 270 (250) km.
Delays on the way are also unacceptable, because this means additional food, additional money and cargo.
Dyatlov's route itself seems strange (artificial) to me.
For proof, there is an assumption that no one has ever gone this route either before or after.
The mystical expedition of 1999 (an expedition for TV reportage) only went halfway along the ridge 40 years later and they shortened the route to get to Vizhay on February 12. Thus, this route could not have been completed in a short time.
I think that Dyatlov could have gotten to Vizhay only on February 16, when he should be WANTED already.
The group of Karelin and Blinov also had a circular route.
I do not know how popular circular routes are and it is difficult to imagine what caused this in 1959.
I myself have been on circular routes - only when the second half of this route is by transport.
Perhaps the requirement of the city route commission is not to go beyond the borders of the Sverdlovsk region.
But the route from Vizhay to the Dyatlov Pass, to Otorten and further beyond Otorten is popular.
-
Axelrod, enlighten me please. When you speak of a circular route, are you saying that the hikers do not retrace their footsteps? Would an example of this be hiking to Ortoten by the ridge route and returning by the valley route, or vis versa?
This then would be different than taking the same straight path to Ortoten and back again to the labaz and home, yes?
A circular route should be chosen if it has advantages. The Dyatlov group had a time restriction. What makes sense to you? Further, why would any outsider wish to bother with experienced and innocent hikers. That is just asking for trouble! I believe they had a naturally caused disaster, not some spy story conspiracy. There is no reason for it. But it does make me think that since they lost a day of progress, they may have taken a risk to get to Ortoten the fast way.
-
Let me explain my thoughts for those who do not have a map of the route.
They had a circular route (or a triangular route) Vizhay - Otorten - Oiko-Chakur - Vizhay.
(https://i.ibb.co/q5vJ53m/route-ivdel.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
The storage facility (labaz) was planned in 2 places (15 km from Otorten and 15 km from Oiko-Chakur).
By the way, Mount Oiko-Chakur is higher (like Chistop), and Mount Otorten is lower (even lower in old data).
But Dyatlov had already been to Chistop and Oiko-Chakur, he wanted to visit Otorten and for some unknown reason wanted to visit Oiko again.
Usually modern tourists make a radial route Vizhay - Otorten - Manpupuner - Otorten - Vizhay, i.e. there and back.
Dyatlov's failed route has not been repeated by anyone.
This movement along the ridge between Otorten and Oiko-Chakur is very strange. What didn't they see there?
Perhaps Dyatlov (or Dubinina) wanted to visit Otorten, but then the route would be 200 km.
To increase the route to 300 km, they made it so incomprehensible.
Many tourists had poor eyesight (Dyatlov, Dubinina, Thibault-Brignolle). Doroshenko had poor eyesight in general.
What could they see around them? But if the route was a sport one, then it becomes clear.
I think that the cause of death of all the tourists was an irresistible force, in several stages.
Investigator Ivanov wrote this in the newspaper in 1990:
This means that there was some terrible force that not only frightened them, but also forced them to leave the tent and seek shelter below, in the taiga. The task of the investigation was to find this force or at least get closer to it.
-
A few considerations on hubris and risk taking:
I remember having read that the group - with their clothing - had not been able to trek during daytime with temperatures below minus 16 degrees celsius. This fits my analysis on hypothermia: with temperatures below minus 16 the group had been able during trekking on skis to maintain their core temperature on 37 degrees celsius only during two or three hours: after two or three hours their core temperature had started to drop to mild hypothermia. It had taken a little less than two hours to set their campsite and they had entered the first state of hypothermia.
This analysis shows that the group had to stay well within one or two days from the 'civilised' world; otherwise they had been in severe trouble by a few days temparatures below minus 16 degrees celsius.
Looking at the map of the storage and tent area, the group had not had adequate equipment (every member an ice-axe (piolet) and crampons) for the ascend - 30 percent on average over around 1 kilometer - from the storage to the tent area. This climb had posed a serious risk for a dangerous slide. The group members had not been able to apply a self-arrest when they had started to slide with a heavy rugsack and skis and poles in their hands.
The diaries suggest that Lyudmila had not been top fit and that several male tourists had been moody by nicotine deficiency.
The photos and diaries suggest that there had been problems with planning and group leadership, e.g.
- Who on earth leaves Vishay on 16:00 pm - one hour before sunset!!! - for the track to second settlement over a not fully frozen river?
- How did the group pass Ushma (look at the long lists of Mansi words in three diaries?
- Igor looks worried - and wandering along - on most photos after the group had left Vishay. Zinaida makes a similar observation the diary that is described to her.