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).