Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: ahabmyth on June 20, 2025, 05:53:51 AM
-
Ok so I have come up with a new theory which I hope may solve this mystery.
The group whilst going up the mountain suffers an injury whilst navigating the rocky substrate of the mountain ( muscular maybe ). This forces 1 or 2 of the group to help them (maybe more than one ). Two or three of the group go on ahead and erect the tent. The injured formation arrives but no way can the injured person struggle through the tiny opening of the tent. One of the hikers goes inside to get his knife (dont forget its pitch black and the other members want in ) so the hiker inside has no other choice than to cut the tent. They all go inside, unfortunately the wind helps later by adding to the force and rips the tent wide open and all of a sudden tiny rips become much longer. In the tent for a breather they then decide staying in the tent is untenable and decide to go down make a den. And the rest is history. The pic shows this rock strewn area that the group may have crossed to get to the campsite. I can imagine them having lots of slips with the upwards of 40kg on their backs heading into a 60-70klm/hr wind, the rocks they would have had to traverse maybe only covered in a few inches of wet snow.Of course this theory would only stand up if we can find injuries of the group through the post mortem (which I dont think would take into account of muscular type injuries I dont know). https://ibb.co/4ZgZHB1q
-
This hypothesis would be confirmed by autopsy findings. Are you going to explore this further? For me, unless there was a hiker with a splint or crutch in evidence, I exclude this as likely.
-
As I pointed out the injury could have been muscular. The case for a crutch being found dosnt really stand up as it could have been discarded or broken up for firewood. I will be looking for injuries that could have been sustained by the hikers from the post mortem to try and find anything that could sustain this hypothesis.
-
I support the idea that a sudden snow slide,was motivation for the leaving of the tent. I account for the different levels of undress as signifying that the group did not expect to be away from the tent for long. This means they would return when it was reasonable that there would be no further calamity.. i can support the arguement that in the dark there was slip fall injuries over icy rocks. If that was the case, then it would be logical and practical to move the injured downhill and to the shelter of a tree or ravine. It would be much harder to go back uphill if carrying injured and facing a headnwind. I would opt for the ravine first because the windbreak would be more immediate. Then, foraging for wood could commence. It would not be particularly disloyal to have a fire at the cedar while those in the ravine had none. If warming up helped dry wet clothes and warmed numbed hands, why not?
I think that Igor's attempt to regain the tent for supplies was logical and heroic, but they all died miserably in the cold, as their coprses attest.
-
That's right, they didn't expect to be away from the tent for long. They found this out only on the slope.
And if I go even further, Zolotaryov could not have been among the first to be injured if he was taking photos in the forest and actually the whole way. He knew exactly what he needed the camera for. And the argument that he didn't have a camera, but only a case, is nonsense. Even the partially damaged negatives suggest something else, that the camera was in the water with the bodies and did not make it to the morgue just because they were eager to know what it contained.
-
That's right, they didn't expect to be away from the tent for long. They found this out only on the slope.
And if I go even further, Zolotaryov could not have been among the first to be injured if he was taking photos in the forest and actually the whole way. He knew exactly what he needed the camera for. And the argument that he didn't have a camera, but only a case, is nonsense. Even the partially damaged negatives suggest something else, that the camera was in the water with the bodies and did not make it to the morgue just because they were eager to know what it contained.
Thank Suri, could you post the link to where zolotaryov had a camera around his neck in the case files?
-
https://dyatlovpass.com/camera-zolotaryov
-
https://dyatlovpass.com/camera-zolotaryov
Thank Suri.
I have read this article but it's just speculation as far as I understand, from a lone author . I don't think there any statements about zolotaryov being found with a camera . ( Obviously this doesn't mean he wasn't) .
I only ask because I know of the rumour that he had a camera, but I think it's just speculation because of the photo which looks like a camera case.
The figure has evidently been removed from the ravine and there were many people who witnessed the bodies being taken out of the ravine but I don't think anyone reported this , not so insignificant evidence. ?
-
Some believe it's a camera, others think it's just a case. For example, Valentin Yakimenko has no doubts that Zolotaryov had a camera and was taking pictures with it on that fateful night. I agree with his opinion about the camera.
If Zolotaryov had only a case without a camera, it would have been mentioned even during the autopsy, because it would have remained on his body like a compass or like two watches at Tibo's.
But since the case was not recorded at all during the autopsy, even though it is visible in the photo, it is more than likely that the case also contained a camera, which of course was immediately confiscated and thus did not make it to the morgue, because they were eager to know what it contained.
Also, partially damaged negatives indicate that the camera was in the water with the bodies.
-
I believe Zolotaryov's camera during the incident, but I also believe Krivonischenko's last photo. And if I put all these things together, a picture emerges of the whole event that is completely different from just an avalanche.
-
Hi all,
Interesting idea, ahabmyth. A fresh angle is always welcome, but it may be worth stepping back and asking whether we are adding extra layers that the evidence does not really demand.
What the record already tells us:
Tent damage – multiple investigators, including Lev Ivanov, agreed the cuts originated from inside. That squares neatly with a rapid-exit scenario, whether triggered by snow loading, wind pressure, or a shallow slab letting go above the tent.
Documented injuries – the autopsies note bruises and abrasions consistent with slips on hard snow and ice; they do not flag deep muscle tears or major sprains. Absent radiology, a minor strain is possible, but we would expect at least one of nine diaries to mention a hobbling teammate. None do.
Sequence of events – the mixture of undress and the orderly footprints down-slope already imply the group thought they would be right back, so a single urgent trigger (slab, sudden sagging roof, booming wind) is enough to explain the knife, the cuts, and the fast evacuation.
Why more moving parts can muddy the water
Every extra “must-have-happened” step—someone badly injured on approach, knife search in total darkness, widening of cuts by wind, collective decision to shelter downhill—adds uncertainty without solving any clear contradiction in the evidence. Occam’s razor is our friend here; the slab-plus-panic model handles the same facts with fewer assumptions.
A quick word on red herrings
We have all seen the yeti, UFO, and secret-weapon narratives. They draw clicks, but each one shifts focus away from the small, mundane details that actually are in the case files. If the goal is clarity, trimming away the sensational helps the core puzzle stand out.
Friendly suggestion
Maybe keep digging into the autopsy tables first; if you can tie a specific soft-tissue injury to one hiker and show how it cascades into the tent cuts, you will have something solid. Until then, the simpler slab-and-panic route still explains the evidence with fewer leaps.
Cheers, and thanks for keeping the discussion civil.
-
Hi all,
Interesting idea, ahabmyth. A fresh angle is always welcome, but it may be worth stepping back and asking whether we are adding extra layers that the evidence does not really demand.
What the record already tells us:
Tent damage – multiple investigators, including Lev Ivanov, agreed the cuts originated from inside. That squares neatly with a rapid-exit scenario, whether triggered by snow loading, wind pressure, or a shallow slab letting go above the tent.
Documented injuries – the autopsies note bruises and abrasions consistent with slips on hard snow and ice; they do not flag deep muscle tears or major sprains. Absent radiology, a minor strain is possible, but we would expect at least one of nine diaries to mention a hobbling teammate. None do.
Sequence of events – the mixture of undress and the orderly footprints down-slope already imply the group thought they would be right back, so a single urgent trigger (slab, sudden sagging roof, booming wind) is enough to explain the knife, the cuts, and the fast evacuation.
Why more moving parts can muddy the water
Every extra “must-have-happened” step—someone badly injured on approach, knife search in total darkness, widening of cuts by wind, collective decision to shelter downhill—adds uncertainty without solving any clear contradiction in the evidence. Occam’s razor is our friend here; the slab-plus-panic model handles the same facts with fewer assumptions.
A quick word on red herrings
We have all seen the yeti, UFO, and secret-weapon narratives. They draw clicks, but each one shifts focus away from the small, mundane details that actually are in the case files. If the goal is clarity, trimming away the sensational helps the core puzzle stand out.
Friendly suggestion
Maybe keep digging into the autopsy tables first; if you can tie a specific soft-tissue injury to one hiker and show how it cascades into the tent cuts, you will have something solid. Until then, the simpler slab-and-panic route still explains the evidence with fewer leaps.
Cheers, and thanks for keeping the discussion civil.
Interestingly
-
Yes can admit the theory of adding extra layers to the obvious explanations to what actually happened is dangerous, but until we find eye-witnesses to the event we are left with assumptions which is what this page /group is all about. I will endevour to research any injuries that may have happened to the group that could explain a crutch or stretcher being used.
People are still of the opinion that a slab slide or avalanche could have occurred when it has been proven to be highly illogical, less than 30deg slope, tent not inundated with snow, no flattened bushes, no buildup of snow anywhere. This I think is layer number one.
I see no-one has commented of another post of mine "The Cedars " which also could be a reason for "fleeing" the tent.
Yep go on have a laugh, but you or your great or great great grandchildren will know of this and will be frightened of sleep for years.
The thing about a slab that tends to get overlooked is that drifting snow could make the slab itself over 30 degrees. And they cut into the side of it, essentially weakening everything behind the tent to piling snow. I find it difficult to believe people with crush injuries could walk a mile even with help.
-
Here's a visual I did.
(https://i.ibb.co/ymMfJ5Pd/slab-vs-ground-slope-forum.png) (https://ibb.co/CpX1Fv8m)
-
That's definitely not 33 degrees but you get the point lol.
-
The tent wasnt cut from any side, it "ripped" because it was ROTTEN. I will post pics in a second to show the tension lines and the flaps of the tent "cut" lines to show how they match up. I think in particular that Igors oven had something to do with it as the heat on the fabric must have been horrific and with hot and cold weather taking its toll practically unseen until it tears. Nothing will stop a tree that size from flattening a tent. (https://i.ibb.co/276sZ3LS/Strech.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8DBdYgRb) As you can see tensioners can be used and I dont know if Dyatlov had or used them. Dyatlov had complained many times about the tent being old but it was repaired and still used. This trek could have been the straw that broke the camels back. So there we have it no knife wielding maniac or compulsive overbearing force just a rotten tent. This is why there was a decision to abandoning it in the atrocious weather and hoping when the storm has past to go back and salvage what they can.The tent was still where Teddy said it was under the Cyprus .
There is another explanation that is gathering substance , and that it was Zolo and Rustem the only ones with knives that were outside relieving themselves and hearing all the commotion rushed back inside and slashed the tent so everyone could get out before the tree came crashing down.
Thought all tent hikers. If tensioners are used on tents ,if they are over tightened would you consider it likely that the material could rip in that direction of most tightness.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The tent wasnt cut from any side, it "ripped" because it was ROTTEN. I will post pics in a second to show the tension lines and the flaps of the tent "cut" lines to show how they match up. I think in particular that Igors oven had something to do with it as the heat on the fabric must have been horrific and with hot and cold weather taking its toll practically unseen until it tears. (https://i.ibb.co/HfYc8xZN/Image2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VcDF4Q6H) (https://i.ibb.co/276sZ3LS/Strech.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8DBdYgRb) (https://i.ibb.co/Cs1bbdjm/Stretch-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4gm88ybK)As you can see tensioners can be used and I dont know if Dyatlov had or used them. Dyatlov had complained many times about the tent being old but it was repaired and still used. This trek could have been the straw that broke the camels back. So there we have it no knife wielding maniac or compulsive overbearing force just a rotten tent. This is why there was a decision to abandoning it in the atrocious weather and hoping when the storm has past to go back and salvage what they can.--------------------------------Host Error-----------Time out on saving. (https://i.ibb.co/99bCFVvC/Stretch-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6RHf31Zf)
Interesting proposal and certainly has some merit , a couple of observations though. The forensic investigation concluded that three of the tears, rips or cuts were done from the inside . They concluded this because the cuts had scrapes on the tent dye on the fabric before the penatration of the cut . This was found on the inner surface of the canvas and some had several attempts before the alleged tool penatrated the material . We also have the problem that the were definitely cuts and not rips or tears because the cut went diagonally through the weave.
Through some of the arguments about wind damage and the reason to leave the tent it still leaves the question of not taking more equipment.
However , I wouldn't disagree that some damage could have been done over three weeks as the tent was left on a wind blown slope for three weeks.
-
Ok so the overwhelming force is inside the tent, and just where. Is it floating back and forth near the apex, or on the floor wafting back and forth or right in the middle. Did it hurt them or were the injuries of their own making by running around ripping open the tent and jumping out in shock not thinking to wait and see if it went or just outright saying they are not going back in the tent in case it comes back.
Now in our case it appeared, I think just before dawn, it just hung there until I had checked it out rubbed my eyes another checkout and I am out of it. Obviously it did me no harm, and (maybe a few days later) with my wife, on more than one occasion just frightened hell out of her. But didnt do any physical harm.
Maybe just maybe if the group had been able to wait and check through a rip they made ,they could have got back inside, repair the tent and try to get back to sleep.If only. Blue pajamas seem very popular at the time.[/b]
(https://i.ibb.co/SwFDCtm2/Tree-1.png) (https://ibb.co/CKRpGb9q) free picture upload website (https://imgbb.com/)
-
Interesting proposal and certainly has some merit , a couple of observations though. The forensic investigation concluded that three of the tears, rips or cuts were done from the inside . They concluded this because the cuts had scrapes on the tent dye on the fabric before the penatration of the cut . This was found on the inner surface of the canvas and some had several attempts before the alleged tool penatrated the material . We also have the problem that the were definitely cuts and not rips or tears because the cut went diagonally through the weave.
Through some of the arguments about wind damage and the reason to leave the tent it still leaves the question of not taking more equipment.
However , I wouldn't disagree that some damage could have been done over three weeks as the tent was left on a wind blown slope for three weeks.
Yes I read all of this cutting through the weave and diagonally . I don't know how they would have had an electron microscope to look at dye on each weave thread in 1959 though. The stove would have taken all the dye out long ago, this was a very old weather beaten tent that Igor wanted replacing years before. Either way cutting from inside or outside with this group don't sound plausible to me we all know you can have a bad day but this was ridiculous.
It's what the report says.
"In order to determine from which side the indicated cuts were made (from the inner one - from the tent or from the outside), a thorough microscopic examination of the edges of the cuts of the adjacent tissue sections was made / zoom level from 0.6 to 56X / ."
It goes on about the scratches and dye.
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-303-304
"As a result of the conducted studies it was found that from the inside of the tent in the areas of the cuts close to the edges there are surface damages of the fabric in the form of minor punctures, incisions of the fabric threads and very thin scratches. /see photo № 5-13 /.
- 4 -
All scratches and punctures are rectilinear. Scratches are observed in the surface damage of the filaments: the filaments are either cut in half / see photo № 10 /, or with them the dye is simply scratched off and not the colored parts are visible / see photo № 5, 6, 11 /.
At the corners of the punctures, on the inside of the tent / unlike the outer tent, there are, as it were, continuations of damage, which are expressed in the form of thin scratches. /see photo № 8, 9 /.
The nature and shape of all these injuries indicate that they were formed from the contact of the fabric of the inner side of the tent with the blade of some weapon /knife/.
All of the above indicates that the existing incisions are made from the inside, from the tent.
CONCLUSION
In the camping tent of Dyatlov group on the right slant of the canopy forming the roof, three damages of approximately 32, 89, and 42 cm in length /conditionally numbered 1, 2, 3 / are made with some sharp weapon /knife/ i.e. are cuts.
All these cuts are done on the inside of the tent.
Seal
Expert
SR. RESEARCH ASSOCIATE Churkina - signature /CHURKINA"
-
Although the photographic evidence does not exist, the official report indicates that three substantial cuts were made on the right hand wall of the tent from the inside. Since the tent was said to have a modesty partition, i can believe either side was knifed so the people on either side could get out quickly. I do not recall any mention of the interior partition when the tent was found though. The fact that it was cut on one side only suggests that cutting it on the left side would make things worse. For me, that suggests the left side was under snow as opposed to the right side.
If the tent was actually hit by a tree in the forest, I would expect punctures, rips, wood debris and blood on tent surfaces.
-
Highly unlikely. They were experienced campers. They would not have cut the tent unless they were forced to do so and maybe feared that their lives depended on escaping from the tent.
-
Therefore, no attack force is going to do the hikers a favor by going inside the tent and cutting exits for the occupants in advance of the murder and mayhem that followed.
That said, a Flemish ( pointed tip) knife must surely have been necessary to make the inside cuts. They, the hikers, had one or more.
Breathing, bleeding, broken bones, burns are the 4 B's of medical emergency. Breathing is why the tent was cut. A wind driven slab slip on the tent seems sufficient reason.
-
Apart from my own theory which does venture into the paranormal and no one is game to believe (to your detriment ). The only other theory I can say as predominant is Suris idea of suffocation. I put it forward that although dismissed by officials (as part of the coverup) that the group did in fact light a fire in the stove.People have mentioned and I can agree to a certain extent never the less, that it can get quite warm through just body heat, was this enough to sustain them, I surmise not. We know (think) they had a log with them (maybe more) and maybe this could have been enough. A simple idea gone wrong that a bolt securing the pipe would be enough when a nut was lost and the shaking of the tent was enough to push the bolt out, the pipes deadly presence seeped gently over the sleeping hikers.
As has been postulated the group or maybe just one of them, waking up coughing and spluttering alerts the rest who scrambled screaming for the exit ,unable to get out (although the exit was probably left open-was it ) resorted to slashing the tent, two people having access to knives. After probably vomiting and waning headaches they composed themselves and weighed up the consequences and their choices. Slowly walking 1.5klm in the dark and biting cold the hikers and sustaining some agonising injuries show their athletic prowess by all of them making it to the treeline.
Realising their mistake in not remembering supplies the heroic three volunteer for a probable suicide 4hr trek to bring some back.
The two Yuris climbing the tree hacking and cutting (with a pen-knife) as much wood as possible and after what seems a lifetime eventually straining their eyes waiting for the sight of the three on their return. The other four seem to be taking a long time.
Dont need to write anymore suffice to say none of the above would make any sense with out remembering the stove still swinging in the breeze. Not wanting the humiliation of such a tragedy happening on their watch officials hatched a simple explanation and the stove is taken down cleaned and put back in its box.
NB I acknowledge that a log brought with the group was supposedly found "outside" the tent, but just maybe there was more, as in kindling as well. I think it is standard practice that some firewood is brought along with any hike.
-
GlennM, палатка, вероятно, была разрезана ножом Кривонищенко, клинок которого имел острие, напоминающее "Боуи" или острие копья.
sarapuk, они не были сильно опытными туристами. И в туристической практике были случаи разрезания палатки. Или готовности ее разрезать.
-
Hunter,
The language for this forum is English. Please post in English.
Meanwhile, here is a rough translation of your remarks:
GlennM, the tent was probably cut by Krivonishchenko's knife, whose blade had a tip resembling "Bowie" or the tip of a spear.
Sarapuk, they were not very experienced tourists. And in tourist practice there were cases of cutting a tent. Or ready to cut it.
-
amashilu, then I can only communicate through Google Translate.
In short, the tent was cut with Krivonischenko's knife, not Kolevatov's. The probability of such an event is higher. The tip of Krivonischenko's knife was lowered to the middle line of the blade and resembled either the tip of a "bowie" or a spear (like on Ray Mears' Bushcraft knife, for example).
-
amashilu, then I can only communicate through Google Translate.
Thank you.
-
Have you thought how they were positioned when all this happened at the tent? They could be sitting up. They could have all. except anyone outside been lying down, heads toward the peak of 1079, or perhaps resting the other direction with heads toward the forest and Cedar. The base was levelled and skis below them. Because of the food remnants, I am not so sure they went to bed, but they were likely in the process given their states of undress. They are not going to take much off in an unheated tent in the dead of winter. If we are to believe they cut their way out, then it may matter.
I can not imagine people being crushed by snow, or a tree for that matter, laying on their backs and trying to pass a knife down the line to cut the tent. I would think one person would rip the canvas and the others wiggle out through the single cut.
-
Have you thought how they were positioned when all this happened at the tent? They could be sitting up. They could have all. except anyone outside been lying down, heads toward the peak of 1079, or perhaps resting the other direction with heads toward the forest and Cedar. The base was levelled and skis below them. Because of the food remnants, I am not so sure they went to bed, but they were likely in the process given their states of undress. They are not going to take much off in an unheated tent in the dead of winter. If we are to believe they cut their way out, then it may matter.
I can not imagine people being crushed by snow, or a tree for that matter, laying on their backs and trying to pass a knife down the line to cut the tent. I would think one person would rip the canvas and the others wiggle out through the single cut.
The girls had a privacy curtain so they must have been together and more than likely at the entrance . You cant stand up in the tent so laying down on their clothes or rucksacks was the order of the night. And am fairly sure there was an orientation for heads and feet I think. There is a diagram somewhere I'm sure ,and why, just something to do with boots no no no no they left their shoes/boots outside didnt they. If in fear of their lives they probably wouldnt bother with footwear. Just in case of a landslip they face with their feet to the highest spot and adding to this I think the tents are usually placed at a narrow angle for some reason. (https://ibb.co/35kdhDd6)
(https://i.ibb.co/VcWZbfYr/Sleeping-Orientation.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xtS0wxqP)
-
Judging by the clothes that were left in the tent, what the tourists were wearing, and also what was found in the tent - lard that had not been removed, a flask of cocoa, the guys were changing clothes and getting ready for dinner.
-
GlennM, палатка, вероятно, была разрезана ножом Кривонищенко, клинок которого имел острие, напоминающее "Боуи" или острие копья.
sarapuk, они не были сильно опытными туристами. И в туристической практике были случаи разрезания палатки. Или готовности ее разрезать.
But they would have the good sense not to destroy their protection from the elements.
-
Sorry for the Google translation.
sarapuk, there is a site tlib.ru, where reports on hikes in the USSR are posted. I studied them. So, there were cases when tourists cut a tent - they got into an avalanche or the tent was covered with fallen snow. There are also cases described when they were ready to cut it. In one case, because of smoke in the tent (but it worked out), in the second, because of a possible snow blockage.
ahabmyth, this can be read in the protocols of the autopsy, inspection of the tent and sorting out of things by Yudin in Ivdel.
-
But they would have the good sense not to destroy their protection from the elements.
When the roof of a tent with two or three cubic meters of snow on it presses you to the floor, and there is no more air to breathe than can fit between closely located bodies and in your bosom, this is exactly the case when common sense consists in cutting the tent
-
The girls had a privacy curtain so they must have been together and more than likely at the entrance
Girls always settle down in tents together, that's true. But not at the entrance. And the sheet didn't separate them from the rest of the tent, but covered the entrance, preventing wind and snow from blowing through the cracks between the toggle-bolts.
-
If the exit of the tent was due to something not natural do you think at least some of the hikers would attempt to negotiate with it or not negotiate with it or attack it or leave a message for us poor souls left behind.
-
I think we already have the message, but many do not want to accept it. It is the last picture from Krivonischenko's camera. But it's not something unnatural. Let's say the photographed object took the same position as the photographer.
-
I think we already have the message, but many do not want to accept it. It is the last picture from Krivonischenko's camera. But it's not something unnatural. Let's say the photographed object took the same position as the photographer.
Please explain.
If it is anything like what I saw I would like to know as I have been searching for years for someone else who has also seen it.
-
I think we already have the message, but many do not want to accept it. It is the last picture from Krivonischenko's camera. But it's not something unnatural. Let's say the photographed object took the same position as the photographer.
Please explain.
If it is anything like what I saw I would like to know as I have been searching for years for someone else who has also seen it.
No, it's nothing like that. Don't look in that direction at all. It requires a different perspective.
-
I think we already have the message, but many do not want to accept it. It is the last picture from Krivonischenko's camera. But it's not something unnatural. Let's say the photographed object took the same position as the photographer.
Please explain.
If it is anything like what I saw I would like to know as I have been searching for years for someone else who has also seen it.
No, it's nothing like that. Don't look in that direction at all. It requires a different perspective.
Are we talking about spiritualism we need hints and its Saturday night.
-
I think we already have the message, but many do not want to accept it. It is the last picture from Krivonischenko's camera. But it's not something unnatural. Let's say the photographed object took the same position as the photographer.
Please explain.
If it is anything like what I saw I would like to know as I have been searching for years for someone else who has also seen it.
No, it's nothing like that. Don't look in that direction at all. It requires a different perspective.
Are we talking about spiritualism we need hints and its Saturday night.
Somewhere it's Saturday night, somewhere it's Saturday afternoon, somewhere it's Saturday morning.wink1
It's an ordinary light, a flashlight.
-
I think we already have the message, but many do not want to accept it. It is the last picture from Krivonischenko's camera. But it's not something unnatural. Let's say the photographed object took the same position as the photographer.
Please explain.
If it is anything like what I saw I would like to know as I have been searching for years for someone else who has also seen it.
No, it's nothing like that. Don't look in that direction at all. It requires a different perspective.
Are we talking about spiritualism we need hints and its Saturday night.
Somewhere it's Saturday night, somewhere it's Saturday afternoon, somewhere it's Saturday morning.wink1
It's an ordinary light, a flashlight.
Suppose you're right it could be just a flashlight.
-
The flashlight certainly didn't float above the ground on its own. For some reason, this "flashlight" started pointing at the photographer, and for some reason, it was necessary to take a picture of this "flashlight".
-
The flashlight certainly didn't float above the ground on its own. For some reason, this "flashlight" started pointing at the photographer, and for some reason, it was necessary to take a picture of this "flashlight".
The photo you refer to, is not known to be a flashlight. As the sequence of photos go , it is the last shot taken on the film . I don't know if it's speculation, but it is argued that the last shot was already wound but the photo had not been taken , IE , ready for the next shot to be taken , if the camera was found in this state , then the photo is post incident. The photo is taken after the camera is found.
Whether this is true or not I am not sure.
However, it adds a question to why take a photo of some emergency and then store the camera.
It would be useful to elaborate.
-
The flashlight certainly didn't float above the ground on its own. For some reason, this "flashlight" started pointing at the photographer, and for some reason, it was necessary to take a picture of this "flashlight".
Yeah cant see someone behind a flashlight and I dont blame someone for doing the same to someone holding the flashlight I would do the same. LOL
-
The flashlight certainly didn't float above the ground on its own. For some reason, this "flashlight" started pointing at the photographer, and for some reason, it was necessary to take a picture of this "flashlight".
The photo you refer to, is not known to be a flashlight. As the sequence of photos go , it is the last shot taken on the film . I don't know if it's speculation, but it is argued that the last shot was already wound but the photo had not been taken , IE , ready for the next shot to be taken , if the camera was found in this state , then the photo is post incident. The photo is taken after the camera is found.
Whether this is true or not I am not sure.
However, it adds a question to why take a photo of some emergency and then store the camera.
It would be useful to elaborate.
I understand your annoyance with this photo, because if it turns out that it was taken in an emergency, it would shake your theory about the avalanche, because the photographer had the time and space to take the photo, the tent was standing. The flashlight was about 2 meters away from him and half a meter above the ground. The photographer was in the same position as the object being photographed. And why would anyone need to take pictures in this situation? Because it was an exceptional state of emergency, very surprising for the photographer, and he wanted to record all of this. But he was not allowed to do more...
-
The flashlight certainly didn't float above the ground on its own. For some reason, this "flashlight" started pointing at the photographer, and for some reason, it was necessary to take a picture of this "flashlight".
The photo you refer to, is not known to be a flashlight. As the sequence of photos go , it is the last shot taken on the film . I don't know if it's speculation, but it is argued that the last shot was already wound but the photo had not been taken , IE , ready for the next shot to be taken , if the camera was found in this state , then the photo is post incident. The photo is taken after the camera is found.
Whether this is true or not I am not sure.
However, it adds a question to why take a photo of some emergency and then store the camera.
It would be useful to elaborate.
I understand your annoyance with this photo, because if it turns out that it was taken in an emergency, it would shake your theory about the avalanche, because the photographer had the time and space to take the photo, the tent was standing. The flashlight was about 2 meters away from him and half a meter above the ground. The photographer was in the same position as the object being photographed. And why would anyone need to take pictures in this situation? Because it was an exceptional state of emergency, very surprising for the photographer, and he wanted to record all of this. But he was not allowed to do more...
It is true that I am annoyed but it is not with the photo. I do not have a theory about the incident, rather , there are a number of theories. An avalanche or collapsing of the tent by snow is the theory that makes most sense to me at the moment with other theories trailing behind, some closer than others.
I am not keen on leaps of faith to formulate theory but sometimes it has to be done to try and exercise a model of events .
I ask about your interpretation about the last photo on this camera because it raises a number of questions which will be relative to your theory.
My annoyance is with regard to you giving no explanation, I would love the photo to mean something, so please continue as no one is adding anything new.
-
I like it when others gradually figure it out on their own. If you suddenly throw it out at others, it may seem unacceptable to many. I was even deleted once. That's why I only hint at things a little sometimes.
-
Sorry for the Google translation.
sarapuk, there is a site tlib.ru, where reports on hikes in the USSR are posted. I studied them. So, there were cases when tourists cut a tent - they got into an avalanche or the tent was covered with fallen snow. There are also cases described when they were ready to cut it. In one case, because of smoke in the tent (but it worked out), in the second, because of a possible snow blockage.
ahabmyth, this can be read in the protocols of the autopsy, inspection of the tent and sorting out of things by Yudin in Ivdel.
Of course they may not be worried about destroying their tent if they had to escape from something that threatened their existence.
-
But they would have the good sense not to destroy their protection from the elements.
When the roof of a tent with two or three cubic meters of snow on it presses you to the floor, and there is no more air to breathe than can fit between closely located bodies and in your bosom, this is exactly the case when common sense consists in cutting the tent
The slope of the hill was not capable of an avalanche of such nature.
-
Yes can admit the theory of adding extra layers to the obvious explanations to what actually happened is dangerous, but until we find eye-witnesses to the event we are left with assumptions which is what this page /group is all about. I will endevour to research any injuries that may have happened to the group that could explain a crutch or stretcher being used.
People are still of the opinion that a slab slide or avalanche could have occurred when it has been proven to be highly illogical, less than 30deg slope, tent not inundated with snow, no flattened bushes, no buildup of snow anywhere. This I think is layer number one.
I see no-one has commented of another post of mine "The Cedars " which also could be a reason for "fleeing" the tent.
Yep go on have a laugh, but you or your great or great great grandchildren will know of this and will be frightened of sleep for years.
Everything points to some event other than an avalanche.
The thing about a slab that tends to get overlooked is that drifting snow could make the slab itself over 30 degrees. And they cut into the side of it, essentially weakening everything behind the tent to piling snow. I find it difficult to believe people with crush injuries could walk a mile even with help.
-
The tent wasnt cut from any side, it "ripped" because it was ROTTEN. I will post pics in a second to show the tension lines and the flaps of the tent "cut" lines to show how they match up. I think in particular that Igors oven had something to do with it as the heat on the fabric must have been horrific and with hot and cold weather taking its toll practically unseen until it tears. Nothing will stop a tree that size from flattening a tent. (https://i.ibb.co/276sZ3LS/Strech.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8DBdYgRb) As you can see tensioners can be used and I dont know if Dyatlov had or used them. Dyatlov had complained many times about the tent being old but it was repaired and still used. This trek could have been the straw that broke the camels back. So there we have it no knife wielding maniac or compulsive overbearing force just a rotten tent. This is why there was a decision to abandoning it in the atrocious weather and hoping when the storm has past to go back and salvage what they can.The tent was still where Teddy said it was under the Cyprus .
There is another explanation that is gathering substance , and that it was Zolo and Rustem the only ones with knives that were outside relieving themselves and hearing all the commotion rushed back inside and slashed the tent so everyone could get out before the tree came crashing down.
Thought all tent hikers. If tensioners are used on tents ,if they are over tightened would you consider it likely that the material could rip in that direction of most tightness.
There was no suggestion by the investigators that the tent was rotten.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
But they would have the good sense not to destroy their protection from the elements.
When the roof of a tent with two or three cubic meters of snow on it presses you to the floor, and there is no more air to breathe than can fit between closely located bodies and in your bosom, this is exactly the case when common sense consists in cutting the tent
In this case then there could have been huge bouncing blocks of snow coming down from the mountain and one just happened to land on the tent, surmising a tent was there.
(https://i.ibb.co/sdLrZD60/OHNO-Bouncing-blocks-of-snow.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JwXP9byf)
-
In this case then there could have been huge bouncing blocks of snow coming down from the mountain and one just happened to land on the tent
If by falling snow blocks you mean snow cornices, then we have to disappoint you - cornices cannot form on this slope. There are no conditions for this. Just as there are none for the formation of a full-fledged snow avalanche. We can only talk about the sliding of a small area and volume of snow directly adjacent to the tent.
Look at that picture where dyatlovites are digging a pocket in the snow slope to set up a tent. The slope of the hill is ≈ 30° where they have their backpacks and skis, see? That's where the first 2-3m³ slid down in one go. They knocked the tent over to the right, flattened it and sent everyone into a panic, since no one could know how much snow had fallen on them.
When they got outside, there was no more than 10 inches of snow above the tent and they apparently hoped to restore the tent, for which they pulled the southern end out from under the snow using a guy rope and, having stuck a pole under the ridge, fixed it in the position in which it was later found.
Then they started clearing the entire tent. If a snow slab came off, its fragments could be scattered in about 5 minutes, but along with the slabs, the so-called "weak layer" underneath always comes off. This is fine ice chips similar in mechanical properties to sugar. In English alpine terminology it is called sugar snow. It does not cake at sub-zero temperatures, easily blows up by the wind, but it is loose and digging it with empty hands is like eating yogurt with a fork. So next much of this crumb could have flowed onto the tent in the next 5-10 minutes that they decided to wait with the excavations until the wind died down on the slope.
-
"Blocks bouncing down the mountain" does not have to mean cornices, but your blanket "cornices cannot form" and "there are no conditions for a full avalanche" is too confident. Post-2021 terrain work and field checks show locally steeper steps above the tent area and confirmed slab activity nearby. That means a small wind-loaded slab over a weak layer is possible even if the average slope looks gentle. Saying "cannot" ignores what has been modeled and then ground-checked. Puzrin & Gaume summary (https://dyatlovpass.com/puzrin-gaume).
Your numbers read like facts, but they are guesses. "2–3 m³ slid" and "no more than 10 inches above the tent" are not in the case file. The search material describes a tent that was down but not buried meters deep, with a flashlight lying on snow on the tent when found weeks later. That points to modest burial and wind transport shaping the surface. It does not prove your inch count or rule out a small slab earlier in the night. See the search narrative and witness notes: 1959 search overview (https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search) and Slobtsov testimony (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300).
About the sequence you present like it happened: "they pulled the southern end out with a guy rope," "stuck a pole under the ridge," then "scattered the slab in five minutes." None of that is documented as an observed timeline. If the hikers really re-erected the south end, you would expect telltales in the primary record: repositioned knots, new stake placements, a straight rope trench pulled out of the drift, or a ridge held at a new angle with tracks around it. The record shows a collapsed tent with cuts from the inside and footprints leading away, not a half-restored setup by the hikers. See: cuts from inside (https://dyatlovpass.com/sergey-shkryabach-conclusion) and footprints account (https://dyatlovpass.com/slobtsov-2015). For context photos and location work: tent location dossier (https://dyatlovpass.com/tent-location).
On "only a small area slid, the rest was sugar snow": that does not support your certainty. Faceted "sugar" is the weak layer that fails under a cohesive slab. It does not require melt and it does not require cornices. A wind slab that builds after they cut the ledge can release later on modest local angles. That is exactly the small, delayed slab mechanism avalanche researchers have laid out for this site. Model + field confirmations (https://dyatlovpass.com/puzrin-gaume). The prosecutors’ office also named avalanche as the likeliest cause after its 2019–2020 re-examination. You can disagree, but you cannot pretend that competent people have not worked this through. prosecutors’ conclusion (https://dyatlovpass.com/prosecutors-investigation).
So do not swap one speculation for another and present it like a transcript of what happened. If you want to say "no avalanche" and "no stones will roll," bring slope profiles, wind loading history, and a physical rule that actually forbids a small delayed slab over that ledge. The ice-block idea is weak, I agree, but I don't think ahabmyth was being too serious about it. Replacing it with confident speeches about guy ropes, poles, and five-minute cleanups that nobody recorded is not an upgrade.
-
"Blocks bouncing down the mountain" does not have to mean cornices, but your blanket "cornices cannot form" and "there are no conditions for a full avalanche" is too confident. Post-2021 terrain work and field checks show locally steeper steps above the tent area and confirmed slab activity nearby. That means a small wind-loaded slab over a weak layer is possible even if the average slope looks gentle
1. A snow cornice and a wind slab are completely different snow formations that require different conditions for their formation. A wind slab covers two-thirds of this slope without fail, but there are no surface bends necessary for the formation of cornices.
2. The relief of the slope above the tent with a step of 2.5 meters was filmed by Alekseenkov back in 2013, if I'm not mistaken. The profile was posted on the Dyatlovpass forum, in the topic: https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1477.msg23839#msg23839 (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1477.msg23839#msg23839)
It is unlikely that there have been any major changes in the geomorphology of Kholat Syakhl since then.
Your numbers read like facts, but they are guesses. "2–3 m³ slid" and "no more than 10 inches above the tent" are not in the case file
1. If all the facts were known and reflected in the case materials, the question: “What happened to the Dyatlov group?” simply would not exist.
2. The assumption of “2-3 m³ at one time” and “no more than 10 inches” is based on empirically established facts and those found in specialized literature: victims usually do not escape from under snow drifts ≥ 0.5 m thick on their own.
3. How can you understand the unknown without resorting to guesswork and assumptions
About the sequence you present like it happened: "they pulled the southern end out with a guy rope," "stuck a pole under the ridge,"
Look closely at the photo of the tent that was discovered and not yet dismantled. There is everything there to make the assumptions I made.
You also need to read carefully. I have never denied the possibility of the so-called osov, that is, the movement of a wind board from the territory adjacent to the tent. But the avalanche described by prosecutor Kuryakov cannot exist there in principle.
This requires a slope of at least 30°, several tens of meters long, with an avalanche catchment area at the top. As for competence, the competence of people who ignored the facts confirming the location of the tent and established their place using a method that ensures an accuracy of ±100 m, raises at least some doubts.
-
Thanks for the civil reply. A few checks on the claims:
Cornices vs wind slabs: agreed, they are different. I was not relying on cornices. The point was that a small wind-loaded slab over a weak layer is viable above the tent site. The Swiss work did field checks and a drone model, and they state plainly that slopes above potential tent locations are steep enough for slabs to form, with very short runout. Puzrin
& Gaume summary (https://dyatlovpass.com/puzrin-gaume).
On the terrain profile: you cite Alekseenkov’s 2013 work. The newer model identified continuous steps above 28–30 degrees over the ridge line near the tent locations, which is exactly the sort of local steepening a small slab needs. It does not claim a big valley-scale avalanche. It claims a short slab impact above the cut ledge. Drone
model note (https://dyatlovpass.com/puzrin-gaume).
On the “2–3 m³ slid” and “no more than 10 inches” figures: you present them like facts, but they are not in the case file. What we do have is Slobtsov’s statement about the tent as found weeks later: roughly 15–20 cm of wind-deposited snow on top, crusted, with the flashlight lying on the snow surface over the tent. That supports modest burial by discovery time and shows wind transport, but it does not fix the exact depth at the moment of the event. Your inch figure remains an assumption. Slobtsov
testimony (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300) and 1959
search overview (https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search).
On the sequence “they pulled the south end out with a guy rope, propped the ridge pole, then cleared everything in five minutes”: the primary record shows a collapsed tent with cuts from inside and tracks leading downslope. It does not document a re-erected half-tent by the hikers themselves. If a pull-out and re-prop happened, please point to the specific markers in the discovery photos or protocols. Otherwise that timeline is an interpretation, not an established fact. Cuts
from inside (https://dyatlovpass.com/sergey-shkryabach-conclusion) and tent
location dossier (https://dyatlovpass.com/tent-location).
On “no conditions for a full-fledged avalanche” and the prosecutor’s version “cannot exist there in principle”: you are arguing against a large classic avalanche with long runout and a big catchment. The small delayed slab model does not require that. It requires a locally steeper step above the cut, a cohesive wind slab, and a weak layer. The Swiss team’s own runout estimate is on the order of a meter or two below the tent, which fits a tent-crushing slab and the later footprint line. You may disagree, but “cannot” is too strong given the post-2021 modeling and field observations. Model
and field notes (https://dyatlovpass.com/puzrin-gaume).
And to your broader point about unknowns and assumptions: of course we all use inferences. The difference is whether they are tied to measurable terrain, snow mechanics, and the documentary record. A short, delayed wind slab over a weak layer is testable against those. Fixed volumes, inch counts, and confident rebuild timelines need the same standard of proof.
If you have a photo call-out that shows the south guy line being hauled and the ridge freshly propped by the hikers, post it and we can look together. Until then, I am sticking with what is actually in the file and what has been modeled and checked in the field.
(https://i.ibb.co/R4p7JxVK/43247-2022-393-Fig3-HTML.webp) (https://ibb.co/x8S3rpRb)
-
You may disagree, but “cannot” is too strong given the post-2021 modeling and field observations
Once again: I used the word “cannot” in relation to a full-fledged avalanche with a transit section (run) of many tens or hundreds of meters. If you and Puzrin think that this is possible on the slope discussed here, then that is your right. I have no intention of trying to convince you otherwise. If you agree only to local snow movement within one and a half to two dozen meters, then I don’t argue with that.
If you have a photo call-out that shows the south guy line being hauled and the ridge freshly propped by the hikers, post it and we can look together
I don't have a photo of the ridge just fortified by tourists. I wrote about a well-known photo taken 26 days after the ridge was fortified, in which Koptelov is squatting in front of a tent found the day before.
Our Internet has been slowing down lately almost like it did at the dawn of its existence, and perhaps that is why the picture is not loading. Try to find it yourself.
Look at the ski pole sticking out of the snow that served as a side peg.
It is tilted towards the tent and hangs above the corner that it was supposed to pull to the left. What do you think this could mean? Doesn't this mean that at first some force pulled the corner of the tent (and then the peg tied to it) to the right (which broke or tilted the peg), but then another force restored the position of the tent's front to its original position, as a result of which its left corner ended up directly under the tilted (broken) peg?
the primary record shows a collapsed tent with cuts from inside and tracks leading downslope. It does not document a re-erected half-tent by the hikers themselves. If a pull-out and re-prop happened, please point to the specific markers in the discovery photos or protocols. Otherwise that timeline is an interpretation, not an established fact
That is, if someone's assumption about an attempt to restore the tent was recorded in the interrogation protocol, then it would no longer be an assumption, but a fact? Have I correctly understood your approach to the question of what should be considered a fact?
we all use inferences. The difference is whether they are tied to measurable terrain, snow mechanics, and the documentary record. A short, delayed wind slab over a weak layer is testable against those
If you point out to me my assumption that is not tied to the actual terrain and my modest knowledge in the field of snow mechanics, I will be infinitely grateful to you and will immediately tie up.
Wind slab sliding is not documentary data. It is not data at all. It is just one of the assumptions. It has more logical and physical justification than other assumptions, but this does not make it a fact.
Slaf on the eastern slope of the Kholatsakhl summit hill is not direct evidence. The conditions there are completely different - slope of about 45° and almost classic avalanche collection. Such landslides probably occur there more than once per winter.
Its only use to avalanche theorists is the speed with which the wind removed all traces of the landslide.
Fixed volumes, inch counts, and confident rebuild timelines need the same standard of proof
Ok, but there can be no proof here. Everything has been blown away by the wind. We can only talk about arguments. Based on the same logic, knowledge and experience accumulated by humanity.
And common sense, which, in principle, everyone, starting with guinea pigs, should have.
1. If they had been crushed by a layer of snow about 0.5 meters thick, they would not have been able to get out from under it, but if at least that much snow had not been added to the 20-25 centimeters from which they could have gotten out, they would most likely have dug out the tent and stayed in it until the morning, using it as a multi-person sleeping bag.
2. How long do you think it would take at least 6 twenty year old guys to clear a 2x4 meter area of several chunks of compacted snow?
-
sarapuk
The only problem is that Rustem had a penknife, and Zolotarev could have had a small folding knife as well. And it is inconvenient to cut the tent from the inside with them.
They would rather have given the command - everyone out immediately.
But there is a question here - there was no tent under the cedar. If there was, then after the tree fell, it would be easy to get the gear out of it.
-
sarapuk
The only problem is that Rustem had a penknife, and Zolotarev could have had a small folding knife as well. And it is inconvenient to cut the tent from the inside with them.
They would rather have given the command - everyone out immediately.
But there is a question here - there was no tent under the cedar. If there was, then after the tree fell, it would be easy to get the gear out of it.
Yes am fairly sure these guys had pen-knifes ( just enough to do your nails ). Have you ever seen a sharp pen-knife :- I havnt, and even if you did they would not be the best for cutting a tent made from canvas. Imagine 3' in height (material on an angle) so you would need to be on your knees, preferably using two hands to cut from the bottom to the top and with the tent canvas flapping in the wind you would be tempted to hold a cut part with one hand and cut with the other. But with the overwhelming force being there and the tent entrance being blocked what do you do. Yes very inconvenient.
Nope pen-knifes were not used. There were two knives that would have been used.
And as I have said before even this would have been hard to do, the canvas material is extremely tough (unless it had been mishandled). You should try it yourself. The best way is to cut ,when it is in tension.
Regarding the tree falling on the tent. I am not really sure. the tent wouldn't have fallen exactly parallel with the tent so at least some of them could have got out but then again some of them couldn't and there is no evidence for this happening. It would have been like a car hitting them. Lots of bruising thats for sure but there should have been other evidence . But I can agree with you if it was the tree then it would have been easier to get things out and pop over to the den and just imagine using a cross-cut saw for making firewood. The worm hole widens.
-
Sarapuk
There may not have been any suggestion from the investigators to say the tent was rotten but Igor had said it many times, there are references to someone saying inside was like a planetarium with all the tiny holes looking like stars. Lyuda talked about it saying there were enough for all except two to keep them busy.(mending the holes).
-
Sorry for the Google translation.
sarapuk, there is a site tlib.ru, where reports on hikes in the USSR are posted. I studied them. So, there were cases when tourists cut a tent - they got into an avalanche or the tent was covered with fallen snow. There are also cases described when they were ready to cut it. In one case, because of smoke in the tent (but it worked out), in the second, because of a possible snow blockage.
ahabmyth, this can be read in the protocols of the autopsy, inspection of the tent and sorting out of things by Yudin in Ivdel.
And they left the safety of their tent not properly dressed and walked a mile in extreme weather conditions. That doesnt make sense. Unless they were scared for their lives. And what could scare them that much.
-
The reason is unknown, but since the retreat was in one direction as a group, and not in different directions, there was no particular panic.
-
Sorry for the Google translation.
sarapuk, there is a site tlib.ru, where reports on hikes in the USSR are posted. I studied them. So, there were cases when tourists cut a tent - they got into an avalanche or the tent was covered with fallen snow. There are also cases described when they were ready to cut it. In one case, because of smoke in the tent (but it worked out), in the second, because of a possible snow blockage.
ahabmyth, this can be read in the protocols of the autopsy, inspection of the tent and sorting out of things by Yudin in Ivdel.
And they left the safety of their tent not properly dressed and walked a mile in extreme weather conditions. That doesnt make sense. Unless they were scared for their lives. And what could scare them that much.
I am going to be a bit pedantic here, the weather conditions weren't exactly extreme. Extreme weather conditions means outside the normal expectations of the time of year and location. The weather conditions were most likely within what would be expected.
If on the slope of 1079 , they , the hikers experienced something or were in a situation that they could not stay at the tent or gather resources, it would leave them little choice but to take the route down the slope to the treeline . This suggests that the pathway down the slope was free of the threat of whatever may have caused them to leave the tent .
There would be no reason to go up hill for survival, little reason to go back along the path they took as this was further to the shelter of a treeline.
Looking at it from basic logic , if something happened at the tent that prevented any gathering of resources from within, then the only alternative is to descend to the closest area of resource to get the best survival options given the circumstances. Down the slope is the only viable option .
Many things don't make sense, but to make sense of it , we must ask as many questions as we can . So what can make sense of them walking 1mile in the cold and stop them from taking other equipment?.
The very basic simple observation would be that they couldn't, could not , would not or they choose to leave . It does not mean they left the tent because they were scared for their lives at the tent location,because to stay on the slope exposed to the environment might have been more scary?. In their clothing and on the slope , that would be certain death and this they would know.
Everything suggests that whatever happened at the tent , clothing, axes , boots, etc were not going to be retrievable.
We can argue outsiders, wolverine, elk, avalanche, gas etc,until we are blue in the face but they chose , as a group ,to descend in the same general direction either all at the same time or slightly apart.
This for me narrows down the variables.
-
The reason is unknown, but since the retreat was in one direction as a group, and not in different directions, there was no particular panic.
[ No panic. I think that there was panic. They were scared for their lives, and they abandoned the safety of their tent, not properly dressed for the conditions at the time. ]
-
Sorry for the Google translation.
sarapuk, there is a site tlib.ru, where reports on hikes in the USSR are posted. I studied them. So, there were cases when tourists cut a tent - they got into an avalanche or the tent was covered with fallen snow. There are also cases described when they were ready to cut it. In one case, because of smoke in the tent (but it worked out), in the second, because of a possible snow blockage.
ahabmyth, this can be read in the protocols of the autopsy, inspection of the tent and sorting out of things by Yudin in Ivdel.
And they left the safety of their tent not properly dressed and walked a mile in extreme weather conditions. That doesnt make sense. Unless they were scared for their lives. And what could scare them that much.
I am going to be a bit pedantic here, the weather conditions weren't exactly extreme. Extreme weather conditions means outside the normal expectations of the time of year and location. The weather conditions were most likely within what would be expected.
If on the slope of 1079 , they , the hikers experienced something or were in a situation that they could not stay at the tent or gather resources, it would leave them little choice but to take the route down the slope to the treeline . This suggests that the pathway down the slope was free of the threat of whatever may have caused them to leave the tent .
There would be no reason to go up hill for survival, little reason to go back along the path they took as this was further to the shelter of a treeline.
Looking at it from basic logic , if something happened at the tent that prevented any gathering of resources from within, then the only alternative is to descend to the closest area of resource to get the best survival options given the circumstances. Down the slope is the only viable option .
Many things don't make sense, but to make sense of it , we must ask as many questions as we can . So what can make sense of them walking 1mile in the cold and stop them from taking other equipment?.
The very basic simple observation would be that they couldn't, could not , would not or they choose to leave . It does not mean they left the tent because they were scared for their lives at the tent location,because to stay on the slope exposed to the environment might have been more scary?. In their clothing and on the slope , that would be certain death and this they would know.
Everything suggests that whatever happened at the tent , clothing, axes , boots, etc were not going to be retrievable.
We can argue outsiders, wolverine, elk, avalanche, gas etc,until we are blue in the face but they chose , as a group ,to descend in the same general direction either all at the same time or slightly apart.
This for me narrows down the variables.
[ Well, you say to stay on the exposed slope might be more scary. In which case, they would have had time to gather all of their clothing and other items together and maybe even the tent itself! ]
-
Sorry for the Google translation.
sarapuk, there is a site tlib.ru, where reports on hikes in the USSR are posted. I studied them. So, there were cases when tourists cut a tent - they got into an avalanche or the tent was covered with fallen snow. There are also cases described when they were ready to cut it. In one case, because of smoke in the tent (but it worked out), in the second, because of a possible snow blockage.
ahabmyth, this can be read in the protocols of the autopsy, inspection of the tent and sorting out of things by Yudin in Ivdel.
And they left the safety of their tent not properly dressed and walked a mile in extreme weather conditions. That doesnt make sense. Unless they were scared for their lives. And what could scare them that much.
I am going to be a bit pedantic here, the weather conditions weren't exactly extreme. Extreme weather conditions means outside the normal expectations of the time of year and location. The weather conditions were most likely within what would be expected.
If on the slope of 1079 , they , the hikers experienced something or were in a situation that they could not stay at the tent or gather resources, it would leave them little choice but to take the route down the slope to the treeline . This suggests that the pathway down the slope was free of the threat of whatever may have caused them to leave the tent .
There would be no reason to go up hill for survival, little reason to go back along the path they took as this was further to the shelter of a treeline.
Looking at it from basic logic , if something happened at the tent that prevented any gathering of resources from within, then the only alternative is to descend to the closest area of resource to get the best survival options given the circumstances. Down the slope is the only viable option .
Many things don't make sense, but to make sense of it , we must ask as many questions as we can . So what can make sense of them walking 1mile in the cold and stop them from taking other equipment?.
The very basic simple observation would be that they couldn't, could not , would not or they choose to leave . It does not mean they left the tent because they were scared for their lives at the tent location,because to stay on the slope exposed to the environment might have been more scary?. In their clothing and on the slope , that would be certain death and this they would know.
Everything suggests that whatever happened at the tent , clothing, axes , boots, etc were not going to be retrievable.
We can argue outsiders, wolverine, elk, avalanche, gas etc,until we are blue in the face but they chose , as a group ,to descend in the same general direction either all at the same time or slightly apart.
This for me narrows down the variables.
[ Well, you say to stay on the exposed slope might be more scary. In which case, they would have had time to gather all of their clothing and other items together and maybe even the tent itself! ]
It would seem they did not have time and a decision had to be made. It does not mean panic but we can try to look at it from different angles to make sense of what we might think.
For ease of argument and this argument is in the realms of, as small avalanche, something toxic in their tent , wolverine, wind etc.
6 of the group may have been even worse dressed than when they were discovered , all 9 could have been less well dressed at the time of the incident.
6 may have descended first whilst 3 stayed behind to try and salvage what they could , hence some of the clothing choices . The three that to get more clothes just grabbed what they could and then distributed what they could at the ceder. It doesn't need to be sensational as it may have been a series's of decisions if that makes sense but they did not seem to panic but I'm sure we all have different interpretations of panic.
-
The reason is unknown, but since the retreat was in one direction as a group, and not in different directions, there was no particular panic.
No, they fled in different directions first. Then, when the initial fear passed, they reunited. So, whatever frightened them, they weren't terrified. But it also caused them to tear the tent apart and flee!!! I think when the compelling force disappeared, their fear partially subsided, and they reunited. There could only be two options for what frightened them: 1. Jinns 2. Humans. No other option seems possible besides these two.
-
Sorry for the Google translation.
sarapuk, there is a site tlib.ru, where reports on hikes in the USSR are posted. I studied them. So, there were cases when tourists cut a tent - they got into an avalanche or the tent was covered with fallen snow. There are also cases described when they were ready to cut it. In one case, because of smoke in the tent (but it worked out), in the second, because of a possible snow blockage.
ahabmyth, this can be read in the protocols of the autopsy, inspection of the tent and sorting out of things by Yudin in Ivdel.
And they left the safety of their tent not properly dressed and walked a mile in extreme weather conditions. That doesnt make sense. Unless they were scared for their lives. And what could scare them that much.
I am going to be a bit pedantic here, the weather conditions weren't exactly extreme. Extreme weather conditions means outside the normal expectations of the time of year and location. The weather conditions were most likely within what would be expected.
If on the slope of 1079 , they , the hikers experienced something or were in a situation that they could not stay at the tent or gather resources, it would leave them little choice but to take the route down the slope to the treeline . This suggests that the pathway down the slope was free of the threat of whatever may have caused them to leave the tent .
There would be no reason to go up hill for survival, little reason to go back along the path they took as this was further to the shelter of a treeline.
Looking at it from basic logic , if something happened at the tent that prevented any gathering of resources from within, then the only alternative is to descend to the closest area of resource to get the best survival options given the circumstances. Down the slope is the only viable option .
Many things don't make sense, but to make sense of it , we must ask as many questions as we can . So what can make sense of them walking 1mile in the cold and stop them from taking other equipment?.
The very basic simple observation would be that they couldn't, could not , would not or they choose to leave . It does not mean they left the tent because they were scared for their lives at the tent location,because to stay on the slope exposed to the environment might have been more scary?. In their clothing and on the slope , that would be certain death and this they would know.
Everything suggests that whatever happened at the tent , clothing, axes , boots, etc were not going to be retrievable.
We can argue outsiders, wolverine, elk, avalanche, gas etc,until we are blue in the face but they chose , as a group ,to descend in the same general direction either all at the same time or slightly apart.
This for me narrows down the variables.
[ Well, you say to stay on the exposed slope might be more scary. In which case, they would have had time to gather all of their clothing and other items together and maybe even the tent itself! ]
It would seem they did not have time and a decision had to be made. It does not mean panic but we can try to look at it from different angles to make sense of what we might think.
For ease of argument and this argument is in the realms of, as small avalanche, something toxic in their tent , wolverine, wind etc.
6 of the group may have been even worse dressed than when they were discovered , all 9 could have been less well dressed at the time of the incident.
6 may have descended first whilst 3 stayed behind to try and salvage what they could , hence some of the clothing choices . The three that to get more clothes just grabbed what they could and then distributed what they could at the ceder. It doesn't need to be sensational as it may have been a series's of decisions if that makes sense but they did not seem to panic but I'm sure we all have different interpretations of panic.
These climbers were no ordinary novices. And it's impossible for them to leave their tents with their clothes, shoes, and food inside without mortal fear. So, mortal fear is absolutely necessary. And a small avalanche or wind wouldn't have frightened them. That's simply not possible.
-
The reason is unknown, but since the retreat was in one direction as a group, and not in different directions, there was no particular panic.
No, they fled in different directions first. Then, when the initial fear passed, they reunited. So, whatever frightened them, they weren't terrified. But it also caused them to tear the tent apart and flee!!! I think when the compelling force disappeared, their fear partially subsided, and they reunited. There could only be two options for what frightened them: 1. Jinns 2. Humans. No other option seems possible besides these two.
Where does it say they fled in different directions?
-
Sorry for the Google translation.
sarapuk, there is a site tlib.ru, where reports on hikes in the USSR are posted. I studied them. So, there were cases when tourists cut a tent - they got into an avalanche or the tent was covered with fallen snow. There are also cases described when they were ready to cut it. In one case, because of smoke in the tent (but it worked out), in the second, because of a possible snow blockage.
ahabmyth, this can be read in the protocols of the autopsy, inspection of the tent and sorting out of things by Yudin in Ivdel.
And they left the safety of their tent not properly dressed and walked a mile in extreme weather conditions. That doesnt make sense. Unless they were scared for their lives. And what could scare them that much.
I am going to be a bit pedantic here, the weather conditions weren't exactly extreme. Extreme weather conditions means outside the normal expectations of the time of year and location. The weather conditions were most likely within what would be expected.
If on the slope of 1079 , they , the hikers experienced something or were in a situation that they could not stay at the tent or gather resources, it would leave them little choice but to take the route down the slope to the treeline . This suggests that the pathway down the slope was free of the threat of whatever may have caused them to leave the tent .
There would be no reason to go up hill for survival, little reason to go back along the path they took as this was further to the shelter of a treeline.
Looking at it from basic logic , if something happened at the tent that prevented any gathering of resources from within, then the only alternative is to descend to the closest area of resource to get the best survival options given the circumstances. Down the slope is the only viable option .
Many things don't make sense, but to make sense of it , we must ask as many questions as we can . So what can make sense of them walking 1mile in the cold and stop them from taking other equipment?.
The very basic simple observation would be that they couldn't, could not , would not or they choose to leave . It does not mean they left the tent because they were scared for their lives at the tent location,because to stay on the slope exposed to the environment might have been more scary?. In their clothing and on the slope , that would be certain death and this they would know.
Everything suggests that whatever happened at the tent , clothing, axes , boots, etc were not going to be retrievable.
We can argue outsiders, wolverine, elk, avalanche, gas etc,until we are blue in the face but they chose , as a group ,to descend in the same general direction either all at the same time or slightly apart.
This for me narrows down the variables.
[ Well, you say to stay on the exposed slope might be more scary. In which case, they would have had time to gather all of their clothing and other items together and maybe even the tent itself! ]
It would seem they did not have time and a decision had to be made. It does not mean panic but we can try to look at it from different angles to make sense of what we might think.
For ease of argument and this argument is in the realms of, as small avalanche, something toxic in their tent , wolverine, wind etc.
6 of the group may have been even worse dressed than when they were discovered , all 9 could have been less well dressed at the time of the incident.
6 may have descended first whilst 3 stayed behind to try and salvage what they could , hence some of the clothing choices . The three that to get more clothes just grabbed what they could and then distributed what they could at the ceder. It doesn't need to be sensational as it may have been a series's of decisions if that makes sense but they did not seem to panic but I'm sure we all have different interpretations of panic.
These climbers were no ordinary novices. And it's impossible for them to leave their tents with their clothes, shoes, and food inside without mortal fear. So, mortal fear is absolutely necessary. And a small avalanche or wind wouldn't have frightened them. That's simply not possible.
I've left my tent in pants and socks and they are not climbers , they are cross country skiers .
-
ilahiyol, read the criminal case carefully. There were two sets of footprints: one set consisted of 6-7 pairs of footprints, the other of two pairs, and then the two sets merged.
-
The reason is unknown, but since the retreat was in one direction as a group, and not in different directions, there was no particular panic.
No, they fled in different directions first. Then, when the initial fear passed, they reunited. So, whatever frightened them, they weren't terrified. But it also caused them to tear the tent apart and flee!!! I think when the compelling force disappeared, their fear partially subsided, and they reunited. There could only be two options for what frightened them: 1. Jinns 2. Humans. No other option seems possible besides these two.
Well, I suppose the word terrorised needs to be investigated then in relation to this Dyatlov mystery. It certainly looks like they were terrified of staying at the tent and fled in a hurry to escape the tent, not properly dressed for the given weather conditions.
-
ilahiyol, read the criminal case carefully. There were two sets of footprints: one set consisted of 6-7 pairs of footprints, the other of two pairs, and then the two sets merged.
I can assure you that many of us have read and re-read the case files years ago. And the footprints could have been anyone's. We don't know if they were the Dyatlov group's footprints.
-
I think the footprints are a red herring. I do not live on a mountain but in the winter tracks across my backyard can disappear in a day if it is windy enough. And there were several weeks before the tent was found.
-
ilahiyol, read the criminal case carefully. There were two sets of footprints: one set consisted of 6-7 pairs of footprints, the other of two pairs, and then the two sets merged.
I can assure you that many of us have read and re-read the case files years ago. And the footprints could have been anyone's. We don't know if they were the Dyatlov group's footprints.
We don't know lots of things but the footprints most likely belong to the hikers . This is especially true because of the nature of the footprints being in bare feet or socks, the number of footprints, along with the direction to the eventual location of all the hikers before anyone knew they weren't all wearing boots.
-
I think the footprints are a red herring. I do not live on a mountain but in the winter tracks across my backyard can disappear in a day if it is windy enough. And there were several weeks before the tent was found.
The raised footprints are a fact, they occur in many locations with snow . It is also noted that they can last for several weeks. It would be incredibly difficult to stage such footprints IMO.
-
The reason is unknown, but since the retreat was in one direction as a group, and not in different directions, there was no particular panic.
No, they fled in different directions first. Then, when the initial fear passed, they reunited. So, whatever frightened them, they weren't terrified. But it also caused them to tear the tent apart and flee!!! I think when the compelling force disappeared, their fear partially subsided, and they reunited. There could only be two options for what frightened them: 1. Jinns 2. Humans. No other option seems possible besides these two.
Well, I suppose the word terrorised needs to be investigated then in relation to this Dyatlov mystery. It certainly looks like they were terrified of staying at the tent and fled in a hurry to escape the tent, not properly dressed for the given weather conditions.
They probably resisted very hard to stay in the tent!!! But the compelling force must have tried very hard to get them out. Because the young people knew that leaving the tent meant death sooner or later. I think the young people must have resisted very hard, but the compelling force managed to get them out. If they had resisted, they would have all probably died for the tent.
-
ilahiyol, read the criminal case carefully. There were two sets of footprints: one set consisted of 6-7 pairs of footprints, the other of two pairs, and then the two sets merged.
I can assure you that many of us have read and re-read the case files years ago. And the footprints could have been anyone's. We don't know if they were the Dyatlov group's footprints.
At first they were two groups. But then they united again. I think the reason they were two groups was because they were afraid that the unknown force would kill them around the tent! But when the unknown force disappeared, their fear passed. And they started going down to the wooded area in hope of escape. The first place they came to must have been the cedar tree. There they discussed the situation. They lit a fire. And they climbed the tree and tried to observe the unknown force. This must have lasted for about an hour. Then they thought the unknown force was gone and they made a plan. Three of them would return to the tent. Four of them would dig a den and try to warm themselves there. And the other two Yuris, since they were naked, decided to stay by the fire. Because the fire gave them some warmth. Then the unknown force must have come and killed them all, one by one!!!!
-
ilahiyol, read the criminal case carefully. There were two sets of footprints: one set consisted of 6-7 pairs of footprints, the other of two pairs, and then the two sets merged.
There must be two sets of footprints right next to the tent, because they later merge. This means they fled in separate directions when they first left the tent, but then decided to come together when the unknown compelling force disappeared.
-
sarapuk, do you think anyone else would decide to run several hundred meters in socks to make "Dyatlov's footprints"?
ilahiyol, I read the criminal case in Russian, not in translation. It clearly states that the tracks ran parallel, i.e., not diverging.
-
sarapuk, do you think anyone else would decide to run several hundred meters in socks to make "Dyatlov's footprints"?
ilahiyol, I read the criminal case in Russian, not in translation. It clearly states that the tracks ran parallel, i.e., not diverging.
It's impossible for nine people to leave the tent in a single file. This is absolutely impossible, especially in a panic! They left the tent in at least two groups. And when the panic subsided, they regrouped. It's a mistake to look at everything as evidence. Many things can be resolved through logic. And when we don't see anything and there's no evidence, we reach conclusions through logic.
-
sarapuk, do you think anyone else would decide to run several hundred meters in socks to make "Dyatlov's footprints"?
ilahiyol, I read the criminal case in Russian, not in translation. It clearly states that the tracks ran parallel, i.e., not diverging.
It's impossible for nine people to leave the tent in a single file. This is absolutely impossible, especially in a panic! They left the tent in at least two groups. And when the panic subsided, they regrouped. It's a mistake to look at everything as evidence. Many things can be resolved through logic. And when we don't see anything and there's no evidence, we reach conclusions through logic.
There is no information about how they left the tent , single file or otherwise . The first foot print traces do not show for twenty meters by some reports.
The observation of these foot prints is that the group or two group's , walk side by side AND not one behind the other down the slope. The reasoning that the hikers were not running or panicking is that there was no sign of tumbling or over space strides in those prints that could be seen.
-
ilahiyol, they didn't walk in single file. Read the criminal case.
-
ilahiyol, they didn't walk in single file. Read the criminal case.
When they were escaping from the tent, they ran in two different directions. Then, when the danger was over, they reunited. I meant this because, if you look at the tent, there are cuts all over it. Right, left, front, back... So, when the force attacked them, a few people had knives. They all wanted to cut the tent, and they cut it from all sides!!! And they ran away from the places they cut. But then, when the danger was over, they felt the need to reunite. And they moved towards the warmer and more sheltered forest.
-
ilahiyol, they didn't walk in single file. Read the criminal case.
When they were escaping from the tent, they ran in two different directions. Then, when the danger was over, they reunited. I meant this because, if you look at the tent, there are cuts all over it. Right, left, front, back... So, when the force attacked them, a few people had knives. They all wanted to cut the tent, and they cut it from all sides!!! And they ran away from the places they cut. But then, when the danger was over, they felt the need to reunite. And they moved towards the warmer and more sheltered forest.
There is no evidence that they ran in two different directions, or 1 to 9 different directions for that matter. The only evidence we have is the trail of 8-9 sets of foot prints walking in parallel further down the slope from the tent . It is reported that two or three pairs of foot prints drift a little from the group and then all 8-9 footprints join as they walk in parallel.
We only have the report of three of the cuts being done tent from the inside . The forensic report does not address all the cuts and rips which is probably because it is accepted that the searchers cut and ripped the tent when it was first found.
This is addressed in some of the case files and later interviews. The searchers were not trained or advised on how to handle the belongings or the tent scene . This is understandable because they were searching for their friends with the hope of a rescue and not some murder mystery crime scene.
We must remember what was going on in the mind of the searchers at that moment in time and try to give context to what we see as chaos and unprofessional.
At the moment of finding the tent , no one knew where the hikers were , it was not known if they were dead or alive , there was no knowledge of broken bones and trauma that was to be found later. Some equipment was taken from the tent on the first night, so the that is the first contamination of the tent. The following day the tent was again tampered with and various people did various things including opening up the tent , most likely cutting and ripping it from above and it is known to have been dragged to the helicopter landing point. Within the case files it is hinted at ,that the hikers equipment was moved in or out of the tent and then put back in place before the official documentation of its contents. This may be why we have slightly different reports of how things were found in the tent. Everyone is telling the truth in their statements, it's just that people saw things at different times. As for the tent , it had zero importance to anyone at that time, it was a barrier to what lay beneath, the tent got abused as it had no value in the searchers minds.
As I understand it , there are several explanation s as to how/why the Yuri's were found , one is that the foot prints led the searchers directly to the cedar but I think this is a generalisation and the other was that they were looking for a location to put up the main searchers tent.
When we say we can observe that there is no sign of an avalanche we can also observe that snow has been removed from the slope , there was more snow on the slope on the night of the incident that is no longer there 3weeks later when the searchers arrive . We can also observer from the 2025 photos of the tent how snow builds up.
-
ilahiyol, they didn't walk in single file. Read the criminal case.
When they were escaping from the tent, they ran in two different directions. Then, when the danger was over, they reunited. I meant this because, if you look at the tent, there are cuts all over it. Right, left, front, back... So, when the force attacked them, a few people had knives. They all wanted to cut the tent, and they cut it from all sides!!! And they ran away from the places they cut. But then, when the danger was over, they felt the need to reunite. And they moved towards the warmer and more sheltered forest.
There is no evidence that they ran in two different directions, or 1 to 9 different directions for that matter. The only evidence we have is the trail of 8-9 sets of foot prints walking in parallel further down the slope from the tent . It is reported that two or three pairs of foot prints drift a little from the group and then all 8-9 footprints join as they walk in parallel.
We only have the report of three of the cuts being done tent from the inside . The forensic report does not address all the cuts and rips which is probably because it is accepted that the searchers cut and ripped the tent when it was first found.
This is addressed in some of the case files and later interviews. The searchers were not trained or advised on how to handle the belongings or the tent scene . This is understandable because they were searching for their friends with the hope of a rescue and not some murder mystery crime scene.
We must remember what was going on in the mind of the searchers at that moment in time and try to give context to what we see as chaos and unprofessional.
At the moment of finding the tent , no one knew where the hikers were , it was not known if they were dead or alive , there was no knowledge of broken bones and trauma that was to be found later. Some equipment was taken from the tent on the first night, so the that is the first contamination of the tent. The following day the tent was again tampered with and various people did various things including opening up the tent , most likely cutting and ripping it from above and it is known to have been dragged to the helicopter landing point. Within the case files it is hinted at ,that the hikers equipment was moved in or out of the tent and then put back in place before the official documentation of its contents. This may be why we have slightly different reports of how things were found in the tent. Everyone is telling the truth in their statements, it's just that people saw things at different times. As for the tent , it had zero importance to anyone at that time, it was a barrier to what lay beneath, the tent got abused as it had no value in the searchers minds.
As I understand it , there are several explanation s as to how/why the Yuri's were found , one is that the foot prints led the searchers directly to the cedar but I think this is a generalisation and the other was that they were looking for a location to put up the main searchers tent.
When we say we can observe that there is no sign of an avalanche we can also observe that snow has been removed from the slope , there was more snow on the slope on the night of the incident that is no longer there 3weeks later when the searchers arrive . We can also observer from the 2025 photos of the tent how snow builds up.
You wrote it very descriptively. Thank you. What I meant to say is that if the group left the tent in panic, it is not possible for them to exit in a single direction. In other words, they did not exit the tent in a single file. You say there were only 3 short cuts. It is not possible for them to exit through these 3 short cuts. So, there were more cuts. And there should have been longer cuts. Because 9 people got out through these cuts. So, the tent was not examined sufficiently. And one thing is certain, a force or forces attacked the tent. But they did not kill the young people in the tent. Why??? They asked them to go to the forest(?) Why??? Why are you killing them in the forest and not in the tent? I think they did it in a planned way!!! So, whatever attacked the young people must have been very smart and intelligent. It was not an ordinary bigfoot or anything.
-
ilahiyol
"And one thing is certain, a force or forces attacked the tent. But they did not kill the young people in the tent. Why???"
And you would like to sleep next to the dead bodies in a tent? They didn't even want to be with them by the fire.
-
ilahiyol, they didn't walk in single file. Read the criminal case.
When they were escaping from the tent, they ran in two different directions. Then, when the danger was over, they reunited. I meant this because, if you look at the tent, there are cuts all over it. Right, left, front, back... So, when the force attacked them, a few people had knives. They all wanted to cut the tent, and they cut it from all sides!!! And they ran away from the places they cut. But then, when the danger was over, they felt the need to reunite. And they moved towards the warmer and more sheltered forest.
There is no evidence that they ran in two different directions, or 1 to 9 different directions for that matter. The only evidence we have is the trail of 8-9 sets of foot prints walking in parallel further down the slope from the tent . It is reported that two or three pairs of foot prints drift a little from the group and then all 8-9 footprints join as they walk in parallel.
We only have the report of three of the cuts being done tent from the inside . The forensic report does not address all the cuts and rips which is probably because it is accepted that the searchers cut and ripped the tent when it was first found.
This is addressed in some of the case files and later interviews. The searchers were not trained or advised on how to handle the belongings or the tent scene . This is understandable because they were searching for their friends with the hope of a rescue and not some murder mystery crime scene.
We must remember what was going on in the mind of the searchers at that moment in time and try to give context to what we see as chaos and unprofessional.
At the moment of finding the tent , no one knew where the hikers were , it was not known if they were dead or alive , there was no knowledge of broken bones and trauma that was to be found later. Some equipment was taken from the tent on the first night, so the that is the first contamination of the tent. The following day the tent was again tampered with and various people did various things including opening up the tent , most likely cutting and ripping it from above and it is known to have been dragged to the helicopter landing point. Within the case files it is hinted at ,that the hikers equipment was moved in or out of the tent and then put back in place before the official documentation of its contents. This may be why we have slightly different reports of how things were found in the tent. Everyone is telling the truth in their statements, it's just that people saw things at different times. As for the tent , it had zero importance to anyone at that time, it was a barrier to what lay beneath, the tent got abused as it had no value in the searchers minds.
As I understand it , there are several explanation s as to how/why the Yuri's were found , one is that the foot prints led the searchers directly to the cedar but I think this is a generalisation and the other was that they were looking for a location to put up the main searchers tent.
When we say we can observe that there is no sign of an avalanche we can also observe that snow has been removed from the slope , there was more snow on the slope on the night of the incident that is no longer there 3weeks later when the searchers arrive . We can also observer from the 2025 photos of the tent how snow builds up.
You wrote it very descriptively. Thank you. What I meant to say is that if the group left the tent in panic, it is not possible for them to exit in a single direction. In other words, they did not exit the tent in a single file. You say there were only 3 short cuts. It is not possible for them to exit through these 3 short cuts. So, there were more cuts. And there should have been longer cuts. Because 9 people got out through these cuts. So, the tent was not examined sufficiently. And one thing is certain, a force or forces attacked the tent. But they did not kill the young people in the tent. Why??? They asked them to go to the forest(?) Why??? Why are you killing them in the forest and not in the tent? I think they did it in a planned way!!! So, whatever attacked the young people must have been very smart and intelligent. It was not an ordinary bigfoot or anything.
The problem we have is we don't know any details about the actual exiting of the tent. There are no reports of footprints around the tent , I think the first footprints are reported to start 20-30 meters below the tent . I did read recently, and I think it was a later interview from one of the searchers , that further down the slope at one of the small ridges , the foot prints seem to come to a stop and the hikers stood for a small time as if perhaps accessing the situation, the prints there seemed to be more defined. ( I could be wrong about this but I'm sure it's on the main site).
About the three cuts , they are short on the case file diagram but this is because the full length can't be measured as two parts of the tent are missing so these cuts from the inside could be much longer. We can only guess as to why they are missing but I would speculate that the tent material was used as a resource for other tasks by the searchers or helicopter pilots.
I can only reason that the hiker's left from their own choice , if the tent and equipment are not usable or accessible, then the only sensible choice is to move to the shelter of the trees, to go any other direction would only lessen the chance for survival and lengthen the time being exposed to the elements.
So we have a tent that has cuts from the inside , we have footprints that go in the direction of where the bodies were found and also correspond with what the hikers were found wearing on their feet , we have evidence of activity for survival from the cold which includes a fire , fir branches laid around the fire , small young trees used for flooring for a den and clothing repurposed for footwear / seating.
My problem is I don't see outsiders or demons allowing much of the above actions to take place but I do see some logic in the choices made by the hikers which implies that they had some control over their decisions .
-
Good post, Ziljoe. And I will reiterate that if they did stop near the rock to assess the situation, they chose to not return to the tent. This would have been a good time to say "I'm freezing, can we go back now?" But they didn't. The life-threatening situation at the tent was still extant.
-
My problem is I don't see outsiders or demons allowing much of the above actions to take place but I do see some logic in the choices made by the hikers which implies that they had some control over their decisions .
It might be not a problem but rather looking at the right direction. In the investigation's closing statement Lev Ivanov clearly wrote that investigation had revealed nobody at the spot on February 1st and 2nd besides the hikers. Numerous members of the serach party confirm that they have not found traces of other humans or animals there.
So the model of DPI looks the following: something happened, which made the hikers to cut the tent (their only home there!) and leave in a hurry, as staying not only in the tent but also nearby might mean immediate death. They retreated 1.5km downhill and set temporary camp at the Cedar tree, at the distance they felt was safe. Their intention was to return back to the tent as soon as possible. However, time played not in their favor, so Zina made desperate attempt to reach the tent before the threat has gone. But she managed just half way up. Rustam and Igor, who attempted to rescue her, did not manage either. By the way, this means that the initial event was not an avalanche. If 9 hikers were not able to reach the tent buried in avalance and fetch necessary things, how could Zina alone do that?
-
Good post, Ziljoe. And I will reiterate that if they did stop near the rock to assess the situation, they chose to not return to the tent. This would have been a good time to say "I'm freezing, can we go back now?" But they didn't. The life-threatening situation at the tent was still extant.
The alleged pause at the ridge may be to assess where to approach the treeline or the best route down the slope or to decide to return . I'm sure this year's winter expedition said that visibility is quite good in the dark given the right conditions and it's actually easier to see without a flashlight.
We can only guess at what the weather conditions were but due to the raised footprints , it suggests that there was some fresh snow coming in from somewhere that hadn't turned to the hard snow that can be walked on without leaving foot prints. ...or... there was some sort of significant temperature change to the snow.
Although the raised prints are found below the tent , the fact that they are raised footprints means that the snow depth was deeper on the night of the incident and in the following days , that snow was blown or eroded away . This may also give us a reason as to why the torch was found on the tent without snow, it was just blown away.
I don't fully understand the conditions that are required for the raised footprints but it does give us some solid information amongst a lot of poor information.
-
Good post, Ziljoe. And I will reiterate that if they did stop near the rock to assess the situation, they chose to not return to the tent. This would have been a good time to say "I'm freezing, can we go back now?" But they didn't. The life-threatening situation at the tent was still extant.
The life-threatening situation now persisted on the slope, which is why 3 of them also remained dead there.
-
My problem is I don't see outsiders or demons allowing much of the above actions to take place but I do see some logic in the choices made by the hikers which implies that they had some control over their decisions .
If the Coercive Force had wanted, it could have killed them in the tent. Because this force isn't just any force. It's fast, powerful, intelligent, and capable of scheming! So, it could certainly have killed the young people in the tent. But it didn't want to. Why? And the young people were sane and had full willpower. But of course, they were also afraid and stressed. Because I think they all saw the Coercive Force. But how much did they see? Was it all of them, or just part of them? But they certainly saw something. That's why they were terrified and afraid. But their willpower and intelligence were intact. And they had hope for escape.
-
If the Coercive Force had wanted, it could have killed them in the tent.
Yes, that is true, but it would not be practical for these forces, as the dead bodies in the tent would get in their way and cause them extra work.
-
I think the footprints are a red herring. I do not live on a mountain but in the winter tracks across my backyard can disappear in a day if it is windy enough. And there were several weeks before the tent was found.
Well the snow on the slope certainly wasnt that deep. But it was extremely cold because of the exposed position of the tent site. So even a thin layer of snow could have footprints preserved for many weeks. or even months until a thaw.
-
The reason is unknown, but since the retreat was in one direction as a group, and not in different directions, there was no particular panic.
No, they fled in different directions first. Then, when the initial fear passed, they reunited. So, whatever frightened them, they weren't terrified. But it also caused them to tear the tent apart and flee!!! I think when the compelling force disappeared, their fear partially subsided, and they reunited. There could only be two options for what frightened them: 1. Jinns 2. Humans. No other option seems possible besides these two.
Well, I suppose the word terrorised needs to be investigated then in relation to this Dyatlov mystery. It certainly looks like they were terrified of staying at the tent and fled in a hurry to escape the tent, not properly dressed for the given weather conditions.
They probably resisted very hard to stay in the tent!!! But the compelling force must have tried very hard to get them out. Because the young people knew that leaving the tent meant death sooner or later. I think the young people must have resisted very hard, but the compelling force managed to get them out. If they had resisted, they would have all probably died for the tent.
Well the use of the word compelling sounds correct. And force was probably involved. So then we can introduce the word, unknown. Unknown compelling force.
-
ilahiyol, read the criminal case carefully. There were two sets of footprints: one set consisted of 6-7 pairs of footprints, the other of two pairs, and then the two sets merged.
I can assure you that many of us have read and re-read the case files years ago. And the footprints could have been anyone's. We don't know if they were the Dyatlov group's footprints.
At first they were two groups. But then they united again. I think the reason they were two groups was because they were afraid that the unknown force would kill them around the tent! But when the unknown force disappeared, their fear passed. And they started going down to the wooded area in hope of escape. The first place they came to must have been the cedar tree. There they discussed the situation. They lit a fire. And they climbed the tree and tried to observe the unknown force. This must have lasted for about an hour. Then they thought the unknown force was gone and they made a plan. Three of them would return to the tent. Four of them would dig a den and try to warm themselves there. And the other two Yuris, since they were naked, decided to stay by the fire. Because the fire gave them some warmth. Then the unknown force must have come and killed them all, one by one!!!!
Well it seems like you may be on the right track, so to speak. Whatever happened did not kill the group at the tent site.
-
ilahiyol, read the criminal case carefully. There were two sets of footprints: one set consisted of 6-7 pairs of footprints, the other of two pairs, and then the two sets merged.
There must be two sets of footprints right next to the tent, because they later merge. This means they fled in separate directions when they first left the tent, but then decided to come together when the unknown compelling force disappeared.
There is lack of photographic proof unfortunately. We dont have much in the way of photos of tracks.
-
sarapuk, do you think anyone else would decide to run several hundred meters in socks to make "Dyatlov's footprints"?
ilahiyol, I read the criminal case in Russian, not in translation. It clearly states that the tracks ran parallel, i.e., not diverging.
No I dont think any one else made those footprints other than members of the group. But there was never a proper investigation of footprints at the time of finding the tent site. And obviously there would be plenty of footprints in the weeks after the finding by searchers.
-
sarapuk, do you think anyone else would decide to run several hundred meters in socks to make "Dyatlov's footprints"?
ilahiyol, I read the criminal case in Russian, not in translation. It clearly states that the tracks ran parallel, i.e., not diverging.
It's impossible for nine people to leave the tent in a single file. This is absolutely impossible, especially in a panic! They left the tent in at least two groups. And when the panic subsided, they regrouped. It's a mistake to look at everything as evidence. Many things can be resolved through logic. And when we don't see anything and there's no evidence, we reach conclusions through logic.
A better word to use would be unlikely. Its unlikely that the group left the tent in a single file.
-
sarapuk, do you think anyone else would decide to run several hundred meters in socks to make "Dyatlov's footprints"?
ilahiyol, I read the criminal case in Russian, not in translation. It clearly states that the tracks ran parallel, i.e., not diverging.
It's impossible for nine people to leave the tent in a single file. This is absolutely impossible, especially in a panic! They left the tent in at least two groups. And when the panic subsided, they regrouped. It's a mistake to look at everything as evidence. Many things can be resolved through logic. And when we don't see anything and there's no evidence, we reach conclusions through logic.
There is no information about how they left the tent , single file or otherwise . The first foot print traces do not show for twenty meters by some reports.
The observation of these foot prints is that the group or two group's , walk side by side AND not one behind the other down the slope. The reasoning that the hikers were not running or panicking is that there was no sign of tumbling or over space strides in those prints that could be seen.
Well its true we have no information about how they left the tent. But footprints can be notoriously difficult to discern in snow. Especially at such a location in those extreme weather conditions and many weeks old.
-
Thank you. What I meant to say is that if the group left the tent in panic, it is not possible for them to exit in a single direction. In other words, they did not exit the tent in a single file. You say there were only 3 short cuts. It is not possible for them to exit through these 3 short cuts. So, there were more cuts. And there should have been longer cuts. Because 9 people got out through these cuts. So, the tent was not examined sufficiently. And one thing is certain, a force or forces attacked the tent. But they did not kill the young people in the tent. Why??? They asked them to go to the forest(?) Why??? Why are you killing them in the forest and not in the tent? I think they did it in a planned way!!! So, whatever attacked the young people must have been very smart and intelligent. It was not an ordinary bigfoot or anything.
An unknown compelling force. Therefore it could be of a nature that we are not able to comprehend. We are just left with very scanty evidence of an event that happened about 66 years ago.
-
My problem is I don't see outsiders or demons allowing much of the above actions to take place but I do see some logic in the choices made by the hikers which implies that they had some control over their decisions .
If the Coercive Force had wanted, it could have killed them in the tent. Because this force isn't just any force. It's fast, powerful, intelligent, and capable of scheming! So, it could certainly have killed the young people in the tent. But it didn't want to. Why? And the young people were sane and had full willpower. But of course, they were also afraid and stressed. Because I think they all saw the Coercive Force. But how much did they see? Was it all of them, or just part of them? But they certainly saw something. That's why they were terrified and afraid. But their willpower and intelligence were intact. And they had hope for escape.
Its a good point to make that whatever force was responsible for the group fleeing their tent did not kill them at the tent.
-
My problem is I don't see outsiders or demons allowing much of the above actions to take place but I do see some logic in the choices made by the hikers which implies that they had some control over their decisions .
It might be not a problem but rather looking at the right direction. In the investigation's closing statement Lev Ivanov clearly wrote that investigation had revealed nobody at the spot on February 1st and 2nd besides the hikers. Numerous members of the serach party confirm that they have not found traces of other humans or animals there.
So the model of DPI looks the following: something happened, which made the hikers to cut the tent (their only home there!) and leave in a hurry, as staying not only in the tent but also nearby might mean immediate death. They retreated 1.5km downhill and set temporary camp at the Cedar tree, at the distance they felt was safe. Their intention was to return back to the tent as soon as possible. However, time played not in their favor, so Zina made desperate attempt to reach the tent before the threat has gone. But she managed just half way up. Rustam and Igor, who attempted to rescue her, did not manage either. By the way, this means that the initial event was not an avalanche. If 9 hikers were not able to reach the tent buried in avalance and fetch necessary things, how could Zina alone do that?
I don't think they moved 1.5 km to where they felt safe or to be a certain distance away from the tent , I think it was the most suitable location that they chose due to the resources of the ravine , cedar and to be out of any wind . If the tent and equipment cannot be used then the only choice is to go to the treeline . There would be no advantage in going further into the forest and certainly not in the direction from the tent because the Mansi , labaz and civilization were in the other direction. It was highly unlikely that they could go further in the forest due to the drifted snow and this is also reported.
The location they chose was the most sheltered and closest to the tent .
If the three were returning to the tent , it is most likely that they died from the cold doing so. It is evident that things didn't go well at the ravine and trying to get resources from the tent would be the last chance and hope. To sit freezing is a one way ticket to death to move gives you some chance. Many people freezing and suffering from hypothermia crawl for help.
If it were an avalanche, it does not need to big , it just has to be a threat in the night. If it was a wolverine , elk or rocket the same applies . That is, try and stay warm , choose a location close to your main equipment and go back to the tent when the beast has gone or conditions improve .
-
Well the use of the word compelling sounds correct. And force was probably involved. So then we can introduce the word, unknown. Unknown compelling force.
A force unknown to many, but very well known to frozen tourists.
-
It is evident that things didn't go well at the ravine
Yes, and the question is 'why?'. The bonfire at the Cedar tree should provide warmth, but two Yuras managed to freeze to death near its flame. The ravine should provide safe shelter, however 4 hikers found their death there. Zina, when staring back to the tent, obviously expected to walk all way up and then return to the Cedar tree with so badly needed clothes and equipment, but she was able to cover just half way up. Rustem and Igor managed even shorter distance. Why did not experienced and strong hikers resist frost and wind much longer?
-
It is evident that things didn't go well at the ravine
Yes, and the question is 'why?'. The bonfire at the Cedar tree should provide warmth, but two Yuras managed to freeze to death near its flame. The ravine should provide safe shelter, however 4 hikers found their death there. Zina, when staring back to the tent, obviously expected to walk all way up and then return to the Cedar tree with so badly needed clothes and equipment, but she was able to cover just half way up. Rustem and Igor managed even shorter distance. Why did not experienced and strong hikers resist frost and wind much longer?
The fire at the cedar was not adequate to warm the hikers against the cold and we don't know if it was a last attempt for survival or to warm the two Yuri's alone or the whole group . To make a den flooring and a fire with flooring 70 meters apart suggests the two locations had different priorities or their initial plan changed . It would make more sense if the den flooring was found next to a fire.
My thoughts have changed endlessly about possible scenarios but I work a model from the basis of a wind slab, snow collapse , animal , wind or some other natural force of nature that made them leave the tent . So this has some connection to my thought process and is not meant to dismiss other people's ideas and I try to take baby steps where I can with as little leaps of faith as I can.
From the moment the hikers leave the tent , the clock of hypothermia starts ticking , this will have a host of variables, how warm they were initially in the tent , the energy they used to get over the pass ,erect the tent platform and if they were already damp from those activities for example . We don't know the wind chill, humidity, temperature, visibility or time of day but we know the biggest danger is the cold and it was cold .
Ultimately the hikers died of hypothermia which is when the body core temperature drops to a point where it can't heat itself. They also suffered varying levels of frostbite which is the start of freezing to the body but not the cause of death.
So as for the 'why ?' To your question , they were exposed to the elements, as time passes the body starts to shut down , including the brain , hands and joints start to stiffen up , feeling and touch are lost .
Some potential scenarios are that they fell in to the ravine and some hikers got partially wet , this would greatly amplify the seriousness of the situation and may explain an effort to try and dry some clothing that was found with burns in and around the fire and on the hikers. People with cold and frostbite will stick their limbs into a fire as there can be no feeling plus the potential of severe hypothermia affects the ability to think.
There may have been some collapse of snow on the ravine four and I have suggested a snow cave collapse given the amount of snow that was above them but I know it's not a perfect solution. The ravine 4 location , body positions and injuries are one of the most difficult things to explain with any of the theories although the autopsy reports seem to suggest crush injuries .
I would think Zina , Igor etc would be starting to fail and if they lasted the longest it may just be the luck of DNA or being female and carrying a bit more fat cells with strong will power to save the others . It was probably a crawl back up the slope if this is what they were doing , there would be no choice .
There are numerous examples of people and other Soviet hikers failing in similar conditions from hypothermia, some make it against the odds , others don't .
-
From the moment the hikers leave the tent , the clock of hypothermia starts ticking , this will have a host of variables, how warm they were initially in the tent , the energy they used to get over the pass ,erect the tent platform and if they were already damp from those activities for example . We don't know the wind chill, humidity, temperature, visibility or time of day but we know the biggest danger is the cold and it was cold .
Ultimately the hikers died of hypothermia which is when the body core temperature drops to a point where it can't heat itself. They also suffered varying levels of frostbite which is the start of freezing to the body but not the cause of death.
I would not be that certain that both Yuras died from hypothermia. When the hikers had to leave the tent, they found themselves in approximately same conditions -- outside tempratures, wind, etc. They had to walk the same distance and arrived together to the Cedar tree. How could it be that Yuras got frozen to death, while others continued to be more or less OK? Zina and two guys felt fit to go back to the tent, while Ravine 4 group had enough energy to remove clothes from Yuras, lay them in a row, and relocate to the ravine to make a den? Is it possihble that hypothermia dismisses two strong guys within 2,5 hrs? We can do rough estimation how long Yuras were alive. Moving from the tent to the Cedar tree takes no longer than 30 min (1,5 km downhill). Another 30 min is required to break Cedar's dry branches and to light bonfire. The bonfire lasted for about 1,5 hrs, which gives us in total 2,5 hrs since tent's departure. It is very unlikely that the bonfire would not be kept if Yuras were alive -- attempts to rescue them would have continued.
This all makes me think that Yuras had another problem besides hypothermia. And that problem started already on the slope, at the tent's site. On coming to the Cedar tree Dyatlov's group had to fight for Yuras lifes first of all. Keeping themselves warm was secondary task.
-
An interesting thought to keep the Yuri's alive and a priority . But it is a very small fire ?.
There would be a significant difference in the temperature inside the tent.
We don't know the order of deaths or movement of the hikers but I think we can assume that the Yuri's were not the last to die as they seem to have been moved . As I said before , perhaps the Yuri's fell in to water at the ravine , the ravine is before the cedar and if empty of snow on the day or night of the incident it would be a challenge to cross if anyone was poorly or injured. The cutting and removing of the clothes may be due to them getting wet but I'm still unsure of why cut parts of clothes off. The autopsy found nothing unusual with the two Yuri's.
If the fire had been started for the Yuri's, then why not keep it going instead of making a den?
I am interested.
-
The autopsy found nothing unusual with the two Yuri's.
Yes, but we should not forget that we are talking about visual inspection only. We know that Mr.Vozrozhdenny ordered to perform chemical and hystological analysis of the samples taken from first 5 hikers' bodies. And at that point strange things started to happen. The results have been never announced. Shortly after the results were to be ready, Mr.Kikoin came to the slope with very advanced device and measured radiation levels there. It had taken about a day, then he quickly left together with Lev Ivanov. They say, after being called back from the Dyatlov Pass on March 15th, Lev Ivanov stopped to discuss the incident with members of the search party, reporters, etc. We can suspect that analysis results and terrain measurements revealed something, which rank and file people better not to know.
If the fire had been started for the Yuri's, then why not keep it going instead of making a den?
Maybe low temperatures actually were not that low? And Ravine 4 team just preferred to protect themselves from the wind, not from the temperatures? The Cedar tree is located at quite open space, exposed to all winds...
-
This all makes me think that Yuras had another problem besides hypothermia. And that problem started already on the slope, at the tent's site. On coming to the Cedar tree Dyatlov's group had to fight for Yuras lifes first of all. Keeping themselves warm was secondary task.
Yes, exactly. I put forth the suggestion awhile back that Krivonischenko's leg had been injured at the tent, and asked if anyone thought he could walk through the snow to the cedar with that large burn ("with charred tissue and and bursting skin") on his leg? Ziljoe responded that this was probably possible. So we have this terribly injured person arriving at the cedar and lying down in so much pain, he bit off his finger. I would like to explore more the idea that he was injured at the tent by the same force that caused others to cut open the tent and get out.
-
I put forth the suggestion awhile back that Krivonischenko's leg had been injured at the tent, and asked if anyone thought he could walk through the snow to the cedar with that large burn ("with charred tissue and and bursting skin") on his leg? Ziljoe responded that this was probably possible. So we have this terribly injured person arriving at the cedar and lying down in so much pain, he bit off his finger. I would like to explore more the idea that he was injured at the tent by the same force that caused others to cut open the tent and get out.
My guess is that both Krivonischenko and Doroshenko were affected severely at the very beginning of the incident. But it was not inside the tent. Do you remember that two chains of footprints originated not from the tent but from another spot, which was 20-30 meters to the North? And we know that particularly the northern part of the tent collapsed. When your tent collapses, your 1st priority is to leave it asap. But you next priority is to understand what happened and estimate risks. My next guess is that the group sent two Yuras to check what happend -- what object had bumpped the slope and collapsed their 'house'. And two chains of footprints belong to Yuras, who approached the 'object', got severely affected, and signaled to the rest of the team to leave immediately. I do not believe that Krivonischenko burned his leg in the bonfire.
-
I do not believe that Krivonischenko burned his leg in the bonfire.
I agree with you. He did not burn his leg in the fire. (But I wouldn't call it a "bonfire." It was pretty small and weak.)
-
But I wouldn't call it a "bonfire." It was pretty small and weak.
I am not an englishman. Sorry for using incorrect words. :) I never wanted to say that the cedar's fire was big.
-
But I wouldn't call it a "bonfire." It was pretty small and weak.
I am not an englishman. Sorry for using incorrect words. :) I never wanted to say that the cedar's fire was big.
No problem! In English, bonfire means a big roaring fire.
Can you tell more about your theory that the Yuris were attacked on the slope outside the tent? Who or what attacked them?
-
Can you tell more about your theory that the Yuris were attacked on the slope outside the tent? Who or what attacked them?
Yes, of course. I have been trying to understand what happened there for a long time and I have come to a 'rocket' theory.
I build my theory on what Lev Ivanov reported in his famous article in newspaper in 1990. He says that the society was told that the hikers died because of hypothermia, but it was not true. The true cause was known to very few top ranking people in the Soviet Union. Due to his role in the investgation Ivanov himself bacame part of that very restricted group of people. However, in the article, which is called "Fireballs mystery", Ivanov does not explain the cause of the incident. This makes me think he had signed NDA documents and was not in a position to reveal the truth.
Nevermind, I do believe that the puzzle can be solved without Mr.Ivanov's assistance. And we should leverage on two undisputable facts:
1) Mr.Vozrozhdenny referred to explosive air wave, when he was interrogated by Ivanov about possible reasons for Ravine 4 death.
2) Ivanov initiated radiation test for body and clothes samples of the Ravine 4, and the test revealed beta contamination.
There is an excellent radiation source analysis done by Ryan in another thread. However, Ryan ends up with potash theory, which in my view is completely wrong. His another idea about military exploding 'dirty' bomb sounds more realistic. However, I do not think that something was intentionally exploded there. Nobody had intention to kill the hikers. By bad luck they found themselves in the wrong place in the wrong time. And sure, two Yuris were not attacked. They were sent as scouts to check nature of object, which unexpectedly bumpped into the slope very close to the tent's location. Approaching the 'object' they got exposed to both very low and very high temperatures, which started timer for the remaining hours of their lifes.
-
The autopsy found nothing unusual with the two Yuri's.
Yes, but we should not forget that we are talking about visual inspection only. We know that Mr.Vozrozhdenny ordered to perform chemical and hystological analysis of the samples taken from first 5 hikers' bodies. And at that point strange things started to happen. The results have been never announced. Shortly after the results were to be ready, Mr.Kikoin came to the slope with very advanced device and measured radiation levels there. It had taken about a day, then he quickly left together with Lev Ivanov. They say, after being called back from the Dyatlov Pass on March 15th, Lev Ivanov stopped to discuss the incident with members of the search party, reporters, etc. We can suspect that analysis results and terrain measurements revealed something, which rank and file people better not to know.
If the fire had been started for the Yuri's, then why not keep it going instead of making a den?
Maybe low temperatures actually were not that low? And Ravine 4 team just preferred to protect themselves from the wind, not from the temperatures? The Cedar tree is located at quite open space, exposed to all winds...
A couple of questions. What was the very advanced device ? And where does it say this?
-
A couple of questions. What was the very advanced device ? And where does it say this?
It was mentioned by Lev Ivanov in his interview to Mr.Bogomolov in 1990. Here is the link:
https://dyatlovpass.com/stanislav-bogomolov-2
From the interview:
"I only managed to conduct a radiation examination. Even had to carry on location a device in a large wooden box.
- Geiger counter?
- Yes, it looks like it. It was clicking a lot... I am sure there was radiation. But nobody told me how much, and I didn't found out."
Here Ivanov talks about his 2nd trip to Dyatlov Pass on March 14th-15th, 1959. He was there together with Mr.Kikion, who headed 2nd shift of searchers. But Mr.Kikoin flew back to Ivdel in two days, leaving his team without a leader. The only thing he managed to do on the slope were radiation level measurements. His son later remembered that his father used for those measurements special custom device, which was very sensitive. Probably that device was good for beta detection, while standard industrial devices are good for gamma detection.
If you are interested in this topic I can provide more detailed information.
-
A couple of questions. What was the very advanced device ? And where does it say this?
It was mentioned by Lev Ivanov in his interview to Mr.Bogomolov in 1990. Here is the link:
https://dyatlovpass.com/stanislav-bogomolov-2
From the interview:
"I only managed to conduct a radiation examination. Even had to carry on location a device in a large wooden box.
- Geiger counter?
- Yes, it looks like it. It was clicking a lot... I am sure there was radiation. But nobody told me how much, and I didn't found out."
Here Ivanov talks about his 2nd trip to Dyatlov Pass on March 14th-15th, 1959. He was there together with Mr.Kikion, who headed 2nd shift of searchers. But Mr.Kikoin flew back to Ivdel in two days, leaving his team without a leader. The only thing he managed to do on the slope were radiation level measurements. His son later remembered that his father used for those measurements special custom device, which was very sensitive. Probably that device was good for beta detection, while standard industrial devices are good for gamma detection.
If you are interested in this topic I can provide more detailed information.
We are all interested in the topic and probably a bit desperate for a new angle so please share.
You will probably get a few questions and pointers or you might point something out that's not been picked up before.
I've read the article before but I don't give Ivanovo much credit although this is to maybe more to do with others using him after the dyatlov pass mystery became more wide spread.
I'm cautious of paraphrasing and multiple interpretations by others over the years as it has led to some misunderstanding in my opinion. I don't mean you but I try to research the original source where I can find it.
The statement you quote is the interviewer quoting what Stanislav Evgenievich Bogomolov, author of the article "Mystery of the fireballs", said ivanov said ?.
(Interviewer. )Lev Ivanov in your article says that he brought Geiger counter to the pass. In personal communication with you, did Lev Ivanov tell you who told him, indicated or otherwise hinted to bring a Geiger counter to the pass and measure the level of radiation? Quote from your article:
"I did not work out the version about the light balls. I only managed to conduct a radiation examination. Even had to carry on location a device in a large wooden box.
- Geiger counter?( I assume this is Stanislav Evgenievich Bogomolov asking Ivanov )
- Yes, it looks like it. It was clicking a lot... I am sure there was radiation. But nobody told me how much, and I didn't found out."
Answer(Stanislav Evgenievich Bogomolov replies to the interviewer)
"No, he did not say anything about why he decided to check their clothes for radiation. He changed the topic. Much later, almost this year, I learned from a lawyer, that another lawyer told him that Ivanov ordered this examination because he noticed how the hikers' clothes which lay on his floor in his office were glowing."
(Interviewer )Did Ivanov say anything that you didn't included in your article?
Answer( Stanislav Evgenievich Bogomolov replies to interviewer )
"No, I included everything he told me."
As we read through the interview , Stanislav Evgenievich Bogomolov starts to change the questions and what seems to me, be gaslighting and changing the topic. My point is , it's someone saying someone else's said this and this is from someone who is writing an article titled "mystery of the fire balls" , hardly a respectable or academic paper and he can't seem to remember what would be important facts to the case.
I think there's only 2 mentions of a Geiger counter at 1079, one is the above which is hardly concrete and another for the life of me I can't remember but I think it was mentioned to be a dosimeter , this might be in the actual case files.
Please share what you have as I miss and forget .
-
Ziljoe:
„My point is , it's someone saying someone else's said this and this is from someone who is writing an article titled "mystery of the fire balls" , hardly a respectable or academic paper and he can't seem to remember what would be important facts to the case.“
When someone says that someone told someone something, it really doesn't sound credible.
-
The statement you quote is the interviewer quoting what Stanislav Evgenievich Bogomolov, author of the article "Mystery of the fireballs", said ivanov said ?
My understanding is that in July 1990 Lev Ivanov was interviewed by Stanislav Bogomolov, and that interview was published "as is". The quote, whiich I shared earlier, was from that interview. Then in November 1990 the article "Fireballs Mystery" was published, and it was already not in form of interview, but rather Mr.Ivanov's narrative. And further, in a few years, Stanislav Bogomolov was interviewed himself by another journalist. In that most recent interview the journalist returned to some aspects of the initial July 1990 interview, that's why Ivanov's remarks about the device are repeated there.
More information about Mr.Kikoin's activities on the slope was provided by Peter Bartolomey, participant of Mr.Kikoin's search team.
"Tests for radioctivity levels on the spot, where the hikers died, were performed by well-known physicist Abram Konstantinovich Kikoin, currently RIP. He also was a head of climbers' sport team at UPI, physics teacher, Ph.D. Mr.Kikoin arrived to the slope equipped with the most advanced radiometer, developed by Yuri Shtein, who also was former UPI student. In spite the radiometer was quite bulky, it was considered to be very efficient. It was used to measure radiation levels in the area affected by the Mayak accident near town of Chelyabinsk."
Sergei Sogrin, another participant of the rescue team, also talks about radiation investigation run by Mr.Kikoin. Mr.Sogrin even took liberty to ask Mr.Kikoin about outcome of the investigation. The answer was "nothing found". But I guess we should not believe that answer, as Mr.Kikoin definetely was under NDA.
-
Ziljoe:
„My point is , it's someone saying someone else's said this and this is from someone who is writing an article titled "mystery of the fire balls" , hardly a respectable or academic paper and he can't seem to remember what would be important facts to the case.“
When someone says that someone told someone something, it really doesn't sound credible.
Agree , it is a problem and it's not easy to follow all the material regarding the DPI.
-
My understanding is that in July 1990 Lev Ivanov was interviewed by Stanislav Bogomolov, and that interview was published "as is". The quote, whiich I shared earlier, was from that interview.
Yes, that is correct. For those, who is not against practicing reading in russian ). The exact quote is marked by rectangle.
(https://i.ibb.co/sJN3hGpG/Bogomolov.jpg) (https://ibb.co/prMXg868)
-
My problem is I don't see outsiders or demons allowing much of the above actions to take place but I do see some logic in the choices made by the hikers which implies that they had some control over their decisions .
It might be not a problem but rather looking at the right direction. In the investigation's closing statement Lev Ivanov clearly wrote that investigation had revealed nobody at the spot on February 1st and 2nd besides the hikers. Numerous members of the serach party confirm that they have not found traces of other humans or animals there.
So the model of DPI looks the following: something happened, which made the hikers to cut the tent (their only home there!) and leave in a hurry, as staying not only in the tent but also nearby might mean immediate death. They retreated 1.5km downhill and set temporary camp at the Cedar tree, at the distance they felt was safe. Their intention was to return back to the tent as soon as possible. However, time played not in their favor, so Zina made desperate attempt to reach the tent before the threat has gone. But she managed just half way up. Rustam and Igor, who attempted to rescue her, did not manage either. By the way, this means that the initial event was not an avalanche. If 9 hikers were not able to reach the tent buried in avalance and fetch necessary things, how could Zina alone do that?
I don't think they moved 1.5 km to where they felt safe or to be a certain distance away from the tent , I think it was the most suitable location that they chose due to the resources of the ravine , cedar and to be out of any wind . If the tent and equipment cannot be used then the only choice is to go to the treeline . There would be no advantage in going further into the forest and certainly not in the direction from the tent because the Mansi , labaz and civilization were in the other direction. It was highly unlikely that they could go further in the forest due to the drifted snow and this is also reported.
The location they chose was the most sheltered and closest to the tent .
If the three were returning to the tent , it is most likely that they died from the cold doing so. It is evident that things didn't go well at the ravine and trying to get resources from the tent would be the last chance and hope. To sit freezing is a one way ticket to death to move gives you some chance. Many people freezing and suffering from hypothermia crawl for help.
If it were an avalanche, it does not need to big , it just has to be a threat in the night. If it was a wolverine , elk or rocket the same applies . That is, try and stay warm , choose a location close to your main equipment and go back to the tent when the beast has gone or conditions improve .
But surely there would be less snow in the forest than outside of the forest. They avoided going into the forest for some reason. But they stayed near the tree line. They were really scared of something, even terrified, and it wasn't the weather.
-
It is evident that things didn't go well at the ravine
Yes, and the question is 'why?'. The bonfire at the Cedar tree should provide warmth, but two Yuras managed to freeze to death near its flame. The ravine should provide safe shelter, however 4 hikers found their death there. Zina, when staring back to the tent, obviously expected to walk all way up and then return to the Cedar tree with so badly needed clothes and equipment, but she was able to cover just half way up. Rustem and Igor managed even shorter distance. Why did not experienced and strong hikers resist frost and wind much longer?
Probably because of the unknown force. The weather was not helping them, but it wasn't the weather that caused the demise of the Dyatlov Group. It may have finished some of them off, but it didn't cause the event.
-
It is evident that things didn't go well at the ravine
Yes, and the question is 'why?'. The bonfire at the Cedar tree should provide warmth, but two Yuras managed to freeze to death near its flame. The ravine should provide safe shelter, however 4 hikers found their death there. Zina, when staring back to the tent, obviously expected to walk all way up and then return to the Cedar tree with so badly needed clothes and equipment, but she was able to cover just half way up. Rustem and Igor managed even shorter distance. Why did not experienced and strong hikers resist frost and wind much longer?
The fire at the cedar was not adequate to warm the hikers against the cold and we don't know if it was a last attempt for survival or to warm the two Yuri's alone or the whole group . To make a den flooring and a fire with flooring 70 meters apart suggests the two locations had different priorities or their initial plan changed . It would make more sense if the den flooring was found next to a fire.
My thoughts have changed endlessly about possible scenarios but I work a model from the basis of a wind slab, snow collapse , animal , wind or some other natural force of nature that made them leave the tent . So this has some connection to my thought process and is not meant to dismiss other people's ideas and I try to take baby steps where I can with as little leaps of faith as I can.
From the moment the hikers leave the tent , the clock of hypothermia starts ticking , this will have a host of variables, how warm they were initially in the tent , the energy they used to get over the pass ,erect the tent platform and if they were already damp from those activities for example . We don't know the wind chill, humidity, temperature, visibility or time of day but we know the biggest danger is the cold and it was cold .
Ultimately the hikers died of hypothermia which is when the body core temperature drops to a point where it can't heat itself. They also suffered varying levels of frostbite which is the start of freezing to the body but not the cause of death.
So as for the 'why ?' To your question , they were exposed to the elements, as time passes the body starts to shut down , including the brain , hands and joints start to stiffen up , feeling and touch are lost .
Some potential scenarios are that they fell in to the ravine and some hikers got partially wet , this would greatly amplify the seriousness of the situation and may explain an effort to try and dry some clothing that was found with burns in and around the fire and on the hikers. People with cold and frostbite will stick their limbs into a fire as there can be no feeling plus the potential of severe hypothermia affects the ability to think.
There may have been some collapse of snow on the ravine four and I have suggested a snow cave collapse given the amount of snow that was above them but I know it's not a perfect solution. The ravine 4 location , body positions and injuries are one of the most difficult things to explain with any of the theories although the autopsy reports seem to suggest crush injuries .
I would think Zina , Igor etc would be starting to fail and if they lasted the longest it may just be the luck of DNA or being female and carrying a bit more fat cells with strong will power to save the others . It was probably a crawl back up the slope if this is what they were doing , there would be no choice .
There are numerous examples of people and other Soviet hikers failing in similar conditions from hypothermia, some make it against the odds , others don't .
The weather conditions wouldn't help the Dyatlov Group. But it's highly unlikely to be the reason for the event. The event that caused the group to flee their tent, the way that they did. Leaving them at the mercy of not only the weather but whatever was responsible for driving them from their tent in the first place. Most of the injuries had nothing to do with weather conditions.
-
From the moment the hikers leave the tent , the clock of hypothermia starts ticking , this will have a host of variables, how warm they were initially in the tent , the energy they used to get over the pass ,erect the tent platform and if they were already damp from those activities for example . We don't know the wind chill, humidity, temperature, visibility or time of day but we know the biggest danger is the cold and it was cold .
Ultimately the hikers died of hypothermia which is when the body core temperature drops to a point where it can't heat itself. They also suffered varying levels of frostbite which is the start of freezing to the body but not the cause of death.
I would not be that certain that both Yuras died from hypothermia. When the hikers had to leave the tent, they found themselves in approximately same conditions -- outside tempratures, wind, etc. They had to walk the same distance and arrived together to the Cedar tree. How could it be that Yuras got frozen to death, while others continued to be more or less OK? Zina and two guys felt fit to go back to the tent, while Ravine 4 group had enough energy to remove clothes from Yuras, lay them in a row, and relocate to the ravine to make a den? Is it possihble that hypothermia dismisses two strong guys within 2,5 hrs? We can do rough estimation how long Yuras were alive. Moving from the tent to the Cedar tree takes no longer than 30 min (1,5 km downhill). Another 30 min is required to break Cedar's dry branches and to light bonfire. The bonfire lasted for about 1,5 hrs, which gives us in total 2,5 hrs since tent's departure. It is very unlikely that the bonfire would not be kept if Yuras were alive -- attempts to rescue them would have continued.
This all makes me think that Yuras had another problem besides hypothermia. And that problem started already on the slope, at the tent's site. On coming to the Cedar tree Dyatlov's group had to fight for Yuras lifes first of all. Keeping themselves warm was secondary task.
The weather conditions get lots of treatment in the Dyatlov Mystery. But it's most certain that the weather was not the reason for the event that brought about the situation that led to the group abandoning their tent, etc. The injuries should be a clue, but many researchers still hang on to the hypothermia theory.
-
The autopsy found nothing unusual with the two Yuri's.
Yes, but we should not forget that we are talking about visual inspection only. We know that Mr.Vozrozhdenny ordered to perform chemical and hystological analysis of the samples taken from first 5 hikers' bodies. And at that point strange things started to happen. The results have been never announced. Shortly after the results were to be ready, Mr.Kikoin came to the slope with very advanced device and measured radiation levels there. It had taken about a day, then he quickly left together with Lev Ivanov. They say, after being called back from the Dyatlov Pass on March 15th, Lev Ivanov stopped to discuss the incident with members of the search party, reporters, etc. We can suspect that analysis results and terrain measurements revealed something, which rank and file people better not to know.
If the fire had been started for the Yuri's, then why not keep it going instead of making a den?
Maybe low temperatures actually were not that low? And Ravine 4 team just preferred to protect themselves from the wind, not from the temperatures? The Cedar tree is located at quite open space, exposed to all winds...
Yes, the weather theory gets a bit overdone. Obviously, in an event such as this, the weather will play a part, but it doesn't mean that it was the weather that caused the event, and we only have to look at some of the injuries to realise that the weather didn't cause them.
-
... many researchers still hang on to the hypothermia theory.
Probably, these researchers are right. At least, if we look at 3 hikers' deaths, which occurred surprisingly quickly after they left temporary camp at the Cedat tree and attempted to return to the tent, they died from hypothermia. In my view, Zina was the only one, who intended to return to the tent. When she fell into snow and was not able to proceed, Rustem ran to rescue her. He also fell and was not able to proceed. Then Igor Dyatlov himself made an attempt to rescue Rustem and Zina, but the distance he managed to cover turned to be even shorter. All three died from hypothermia in few minutes, which makes to think that cold wind and low temperatures received some support to act as turbo-freezers.
The point is that Sergey Korolev's rockets flew on kerosin + liquid oxygen. There were other fuel+oxydizer pairs that included cryogenic component. Having cryogenic component on board, a rocket can eject it in case of an accident. And cryogenic component could add a good deal of cold to the air. If we consider the rocket theory and assume that the rocket leaked some cryogenic gas into air, the wind blowing downhill might have been really frosty.
-
... many researchers still hang on to the hypothermia theory.
Probably, these researchers are right. At least, if we look at 3 hikers' deaths, which occurred surprisingly quickly after they left temporary camp at the Cedat tree and attempted to return to the tent, they died from hypothermia. In my view, Zina was the only one, who intended to return to the tent. When she fell into snow and was not able to proceed, Rustem ran to rescue her. He also fell and was not able to proceed. Then Igor Dyatlov himself made an attempt to rescue Rustem and Zina, but the distance he managed to cover turned to be even shorter. All three died from hypothermia in few minutes, which makes to think that cold wind and low temperatures received some support to act as turbo-freezers.
The point is that Sergey Korolev's rockets flew on kerosin + liquid oxygen. There were other fuel+oxydizer pairs that included cryogenic component. Having cryogenic component on board, a rocket can eject it in case of an accident. And cryogenic component could add a good deal of cold to the air. If we consider the rocket theory and assume that the rocket leaked some cryogenic gas into air, the wind blowing downhill might have been really frosty.
The rocket theory keeps cropping up, as do so many other theories, but where is the evidence for a rocket event? Sure, the weather played its part. Imagine if this had happened in a warm climate. Would there have been a different outcome? Would some of the group have survived the event?
-
The rocket theory keeps cropping up, as do so many other theories, but where is the evidence for a rocket event? Sure, the weather played its part. Imagine if this had happened in a warm climate. Would there have been a different outcome? Would some of the group have survived the event?
If we had clear evidence of anything, we would not have discussed theories. I am afraid, with all the data we have there is no chance to prove that certain theory is correct. We need more data, and it will come, I hope.
The rocket theory, in my opinion, has a big chance to win. Ivanov ran investigation and came to understanding that "flying object" had been the cause of DPI. At the beginning, he thought that the object chased the hikers and exploded at the bottom of the slope. Later, he changed his mind and thought that the object had certain intellect (astronauts inside?). He could not undesrtand why three hikers were severely injured, while others were not. But both his theories are mistakes, imho. The last 4 hikers were dismissed by a blast, which was not selective at all. They were the last, who kept alive, that's why the blast affected them only.
How could they survive? First, one should not approach unknown "flying object". Second, one should not light a fire, when flamable substance is dispersed in the air.
-
The rocket theory keeps cropping up, as do so many other theories, but where is the evidence for a rocket event? Sure, the weather played its part. Imagine if this had happened in a warm climate. Would there have been a different outcome? Would some of the group have survived the event?
If we had clear evidence of anything, we would not have discussed theories. I am afraid, with all the data we have there is no chance to prove that certain theory is correct. We need more data, and it will come, I hope.
The rocket theory, in my opinion, has a big chance to win. Ivanov ran investigation and came to understanding that "flying object" had been the cause of DPI. At the beginning, he thought that the object chased the hikers and exploded at the bottom of the slope. Later, he changed his mind and thought that the object had certain intellect (astronauts inside?). He could not undesrtand why three hikers were severely injured, while others were not. But both his theories are mistakes, imho. The last 4 hikers were dismissed by a blast, which was not selective at all. They were the last, who kept alive, that's why the blast affected them only.
How could they survive? First, one should not approach unknown "flying object". Second, one should not light a fire, when flamable substance is dispersed in the air.
Well, theories should be discussed, obviously and dissected, etc. So, where is the evidence for blast injuries? No blast injuries were given as a reason for any of the Dyatlov Group's demise in the autopsy reports.