Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: GlennM on April 18, 2026, 09:07:09 PM
-
January 31, group diary
Started relatively early (around 10 am). Got back on the Mansi trail. (Up to now we are following a Mansi trail on which not so long passed a hunter with deer.)
Yesterday it seems we stumbled upon his resting stop. Deer didn't go any further. The hunter took the beaten trail by himself, we are following in his steps.
Had a surprisingly good overnight, the air is warm and dry, though it’s -18°C to -24°C. Walking is especially hard today. We can't see the trail, have to grope our way through at times. Can’t do more than 1.5-2 km (1 mile) per hour.
Trying out new ways to clear the path. The first in line drops his backpack, skis forward for five minutes, comes back for a 10-15 minute break, then catches up with the group. That’s one way to keep laying ski tracks non-stop. Hard on the second hiker though, who has to follow the new trail with full gear on his back. We gradually leave the Auspiya valley, it’s upwards all the way but goes rather smoothly. Thin birch grove replaces firs. The end of the forest is getting closer. Wind is western, warm, piercing, with speed like the jet from airplanes at takeoff. Firn, open spaces. I can't even think of setting up a labaz here. It's nearly 4. Have to start looking for a place to pitch the tent. We go south in the Auspiya valley. Seems this place has the deepest snow. Wind not strong, snow 1.2-2 m (3-4 ft) deep. We’re exhausted, but start setting up for the night. Firewood is scarce, mostly damp firs. We build the campfire on the logs, too tired to dig a fire pit. Dinner’s in the tent. Nice and warm. Can’t imagine such comfort on the ridge, with howling wind outside, hundreds of kilometers away from human settlements.
Dyatlov (last record in the diary)
The fact of the matter is that they did dig in a labaz at their Jan 31 camp. So what does this comment, " I can't imagine..." really mean? Was Igor really saying " I CAN imagine setting up a labaz, but I don't like it" By the same token was the entry "Can’t imagine such comfort on the ridge, " saying I CAN imagine the Discomfort on the ridge? So what?
What I am thinking is that these " can't imagine" expressions have led some to believe that the tent was not compromised on Feb 1 by the weather. They instead choose to believe nearly anything else caused them to leave the tent except a weather imduced disaster. The diary makes it clear that they were experiencing high winds and blowing snow. It stands to reason that if those conditions did not abate on Feb 1, not too much progress to Ortoten would be made. That is true. Consequently, when a suitable spot was found which afforded a place to level the tent and had a bit of a ridge to make a rudimentary snow wall. They did so.
In that situation, imagine a katabatic wind coming off of 1079. Driving snow swirls and piles up uphill of the tent. This could create the conditions for a localized snow slide which loosened lines, broke a pole and crushed the tent and those within.
Confusion for me at least, is when an entry in the diary actually means the opposite of what is written. This is where translation and cultural differences foul things up,
-
I asked Askinadzi to explain in other words what Dyatlov meant.
Yesterday he accepted to participate in a TV show that shoots in 3 days in Moscow so he might be in route. Not sure when he will answer.
I asked two other Russian members of the forum to pitch in as well.
-
Glenn, I agree with you about the translation issue — the “can’t imagine” phrasing is one of those cultural things that reads backwards in English.
And the weather context you’re describing fits the group’s behaviour on the 31st and the 1st.
What I keep thinking about is how these diary entries, and even simple administrative notes, were interpreted later by different people in different roles.
In the Soviet system, the same protocol format was used for everything from routine oversight checks to full investigations, so the meaning often depended on context rather than the form itself.
It would actually be useful to hear from Russian speakers on this — especially those familiar with how regional duty officers handled movement‑checks and paperwork.
They would know whether Popov’s Feb 6 note fits the pattern of a normal oversight interview rather than anything investigative.
That kind of cultural insight would help clear up a lot of the confusion around how these documents ended up in the case file in the first place.
-
It would actually be useful to hear from Russian speakers on this — especially those familiar with how regional duty officers handled movement‑checks and paperwork.
They would know whether Popov’s Feb 6 note fits the pattern of a normal oversight interview rather than anything investigative.
This was already answered by Russian authorities, exactly "those familiar with how regional duty officers handled movement‑checks and paperwork".
It is stated at the end of the response to the inquiry (https://dyatlovpass.com/conspiracy-or-negligence#4) - the only answer is that this document belonged to a different case file that was merged with the Dyatlov case.
"the Prosecutor of Sverdlovsk Andrey Kuryakov in a press conference on 4 Feb 2019 in Yekaterinburg suggested that it could have come from another unrelated case, because there is no reference to Dyatlov case in the testimony."
You can not trump that. This is the answer from the Russian authorities.
-
If Popov’s note follows the standard oversight template, then its presence in the case file may have a straightforward administrative explanation.
This doesn't make any sense.
And since it has nothing to do with what Dyatlov wrote in his diary your post is moved here (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=2019.msg29430#msg29430).
-
Glennm, sorry for going off topic .I think you’re right ,the whole diary entry is basically a description of worsening weather and exhaustion.
Deep snow, strong wind, exposed terrain, poor visibility… everything points to conditions that would still be dangerous on Feb 1.
People sometimes over‑analyse the phrasing, but the overall picture is clear: the weather was rough, and if it stayed that way, it’s entirely consistent with the tent being damaged by wind and snow loading. It almost sounds like Igor was planning a camp on the ridge and it was inevitable.
-
To me it means one of the two things considering the context of the whole entry:
1. I am so tired I don't want to think about it, or
2. The place is not suitable, either because it is hard to dig (the could have hung on trees), or hard to find on their way back.
-
To me it means one of the two things considering the context of the whole entry:
1. I am so tired I don't want to think about it, or
2. The place is not suitable, either because it is hard to dig (the could have hung on trees), or hard to find on their way back.
'The place is not suitable' is the right answer. At the Pass the hikers faced snow crust, strong wind and no trees. The sentence "We go south in the Auspiya valley" is not a correct translation from russian. The right translations is "We descend south direction, to Auspiya valley". And in Auspiya valley they found deep and soft snow, some trees, some wind protection.
-
The diary entry confuses me all the more. I am reading it as if the entry was written the following morning and not the same day . Then,we have an indication that on the night of the 30th, the group had a good rest. The rest of it is a prediction and anticipation of how things will go on the 31st.
Now, knowing that the forest thins out, they still do not cache their overburden. They take it all. They go uphill in the Auspya and cross over, but retreat in face of the weather and the lack of an adequate marker for their cache ( above the tree line) so they backtrack and spend time burying their excess in the tree line.
I want to think they somehow intended to cache their supplies where the tent was actually found on 1079, but they did not because the conditions were so bad that they couldnt depend on finding it after they rounded Otorten. Therefore, they backtracked all the way back to their Jan 31 camp and stashed their goods. Then the headed out to the final camp. So in that context whatever was to be written on the morning if Feb 1 would chronicle the events of Jan 31.
It is the language in the diary that bothers me. Although there is no requirement that the group diary have military nor legal precision, it appears conversational, terse and colloquial. The result for me is that Igor's leadership and decision making ability is clouded by the entries. The high regard he was held in seems diluted by the ambivalent language and actual movements of the group. It also implies that the weather was harsh. How harsh? Russian meteorological reporr should provide evidence.
-
Dyatlov means that in the forest, with a stove in the tent, it is warm and cozy, and it is difficult to imagine the same comfort on the pass without a stove.
------------------
Дятлов имеет ввиду, что в лесу, с печкой в палатке тепло и уютно, и трудно представить себе такой же комфорт на перевале без печки.
-
Dyatlov means that in the forest, with a stove in the tent, it is warm and cozy, and it is difficult to imagine the same comfort on the pass without a stove.
------------------
Дятлов имеет ввиду, что в лесу, с печкой в палатке тепло и уютно, и трудно представить себе такой же комфорт на перевале без печки.
This is not what we are talking about. What does Dyatlov say about the labaz?
This sentence: "Об устройстве лабаза даже думать не приходиться."
What does he mean with "не приходиться"?
-
looks to me like Igor simply went as far as he reasonably could on the 31st. Once the forest thinned out and he found himself on windswept, crusted ground with no trees, the area was obviously unsuitable for a labaz. By that point it was around 4 p.m., they still had to make camp, and they still needed daylight to build the labaz. In those conditions, retreating to a more sheltered spot in the forest was the sensible choice.
Anyone who’s done winter hillwalking or canoe‑camping will recognise this pattern: you have a few potential spots in mind, but as daylight and energy run out you sometimes have to backtrack to the last workable location. Terrain and weather don’t always match your expectations on the map. The diary line reads exactly like that kind of practical decision.
-
Teddy
This is not what we are talking about. What does Dyatlov say about the labaz?
This sentence: "Об устройстве лабаза даже думать не приходиться."
What does he mean with "не приходиться"?
Может, что нет пока подходящего места для лабаза. Устраивать чисто в снегу лабаз это риск. Обычно их делают либо висящими (например, в мешке), либо на помосте.
English translation: Maybe there's no suitable place for the labaz yet. It's a risk to make a job clean in the snow. Usually they are made either hanging (for example, in a bag) or on a pole.
-
....
It is the language in the diary that bothers me. Although there is no requirement that the group diary have military nor legal precision, it appears conversational, terse and colloquial. The result for me is that Igor's leadership and decision making ability is clouded by the entries. The high regard he was held in seems diluted by the ambivalent language and actual movements of the group. It also implies that the weather was harsh. How harsh? Russian meteorological reporr should provide evidence.
When I was transcribing Dyatlov's younger sister's broadcast, I had trouble translating her words into a normal text.
The problem was that she used unnecessary words that could be interpreted in different ways.
Kolmogrova's sister had the same problem.
If they lived in a village, then it's clear that the text doesn't correlate well with the book text.
And there was a similar problem with Theodora's texts – the meaning is clear, but how should these phrases be pronounced?
Oleg Arkhipov sometimes uses incomprehensible words with the wrong meaning.
I cancelled the recording of Theodora's interview with Arkhipov because it requires clarification of both authors, and that's difficult.
They don't say anything valuable or unknown there.
I don't have that many texts for Igor Dyatlov, but it seems like he's not the ideal I'm trying to portray him as.
-
What bothers me is the diary tells us that they got above the tree line. There was really was nothing that they could lift their bundle up that would make it secure.. I think they would have taken it all to Ortoten if the weather was milder, but it wasn't. They were getting beaten up by the conditions Now, since the bears were hibernating, it was the diggers like wolves and wolverines that could destroy their goods. Igor took a calculated risk in thinking they could fast track it to Ortoten and back before their stash was scavenged. Since the weather beat them back to the Auspya on the 31st, they used the setback to bury their excess baggage and make a hard push for Ortoten against the weather. If this is true,then the way the last entry in the group diary hides it well because of the "I can't believe" worded entries. Their choices may have been direct, but the interpreting of the diary is not direct for me.
-
Glenn, I’m with you on the logic of not carrying anything unnecessary toward Otorten — the cache makes complete sense for the return leg. The only part I see slightly differently is the Jan 31 turnaround point. The diary doesn’t read as if they reached the saddle itself; it sounds more like they pushed just beyond the last trees, found the ground too wind‑scoured for a labaz, and, facing the ascent ahead, decided that was the point to turn back. The phrasing about not being able to build a labaz or campsite fits that interpretation.
At that time of day they still needed to get a camp set up and prepare the cache, so turning back seems to have been a practical call rather than a full weather retreat. The first suitable forested area is exactly where they camped and where the labaz was built the next morning. After that, climbing back up lighter for a proper push toward Otorten fits the overall pattern you’re describing.
And yes — the diary comments on the weather, along with Popov’s statement, give us a good sense of the conditions they were dealing with.
-
The group members managed to travel comfortably until the final campsite on January 31st, despite their heavy backpacks, using the gentle slopes of Auspiya and Mansi trails. However, once they left Auspiya and began climbing towards the pass, things became clear that things weren't so easy. I estimate the distance from Auspiya to the rock face on the pass's ridge to be 1200 meters. Considering the 15-20 degree incline, the heavy backpacks, and the weather and snow conditions, how feasible would it be to climb that distance in a single day? I think they started climbing much further back from Auspiya, parallel to the pass, and lengthened the route. The increasing incline, the weight of the loads, the girls' struggles, and their frequent requests for breaks made it necessary to prepare a storage pit. It made no sense to use a sled on this bare slope climbing towards the pass. Upon reaching the summit of the pass, they had no idea how much further they were to go before reaching the tree line in the Lozva valley. If we consider Auspiya as one side, they had to chart a triangular route. Igor implies in his diary that setting up camp here would be foolish, that even thinking about it would be a waste of time.
-
Upon reaching the summit of the pass, they had no idea how much further they were to go before reaching the tree line in the Lozva valley.
I doubt very much that Igor Dyatlov had ever had a plan to descend to the Lozva valley. He wanted to reach the peak of Otorten, and sooner or later the group had to leave valleys and forests and climb to the mountains. It looks that the climb was attempted on Jan 31st already, and the group planned to make a labaz on the Pass or even beyond it, on the 1079 slope. But bad weather conditions, snow crust, and lack of trees prevented them to set up the labaz there. Next day they repeated attempt to climb, and that time it was successful, they managed to go beyond the Pass and to advance towards Otorten a little.
In other words, the group never had intention to descend to the Lozva valley. They wanted to gain height at 1079 and proceed to Otorten without wasting time on descents.
-
Assuming the Auspiya Canyon is 1000/1200 meters from its closest point to the pass, if they had set up their camp there on January 30th, it would have taken them half a day to cross the pass with all their supplies. If they needed to set up a depot, they would have done so in the Lozva Valley. The January 30th camp was set up much further down the Auspiya. Therefore, instead of following the Auspiya and reaching the pass at its narrowest point, they left the river early and began to ascend. They started climbing parallel to the Auspiya valley, but at a 15-degree angle. This means the distance to the pass is 3 or 4 km. Apparently, they had walked to a point where they gave up. Dyatlov stopped there and wrote these lines. Assuming the pass is at 12 o'clock, instead of descending 600 meters at 6 o'clock to set up camp and a depot, they preferred to go to the southern end of the Auspiya, at 9 o'clock. It was the foothills of Mount Kholat. Perhaps there was a denser forest there. It had the characteristic of being a marker to avoid losing the depot. This decision led to two inevitable consequences.
There was no longer a need to cross the pass and camp in Lozva. The route would be from the foothills of Kholat to Otorten.
-
Ziljoe, Senior and Osi. Every one of you are clear and understandable. If you wrote the diary, I would have a clear picture of the " big picture" of the hike. The actual diary seems more focused on the small picture of personal experience, technique and weather. If Igor had a map in hand, he would have the " big picture" that we do not get from the diary.
The standard telling of this story is that the team actually missed their turn in the forest and instead went straight up and to the high ground, crossed over to the Lozva and elected to follow the ridge route to Ortoten. There they got scoured by the conditions.
.
This telling of the story makes me think Igor had no " big picture" map. Instead, he was leading by intuition. Was the Mansi trail supposed to lead them all the way? The group may not technically have gotten lost, but they were certainly making it up as they went along. Could this be an explanation for the jolly tone of the diary?
-
I think the diary wording helps narrow down the Jan 31 location quite a bit. The entry doesn’t read as if they reached the saddle or the pass itself. It sounds more like they climbed just beyond the last trees, found the ground too wind‑scoured and uneven for a labaz, and decided that was the point to turn back. The phrasing about not being able to build a labaz or campsite fits that kind of exposed shoulder rather than the pass proper.
At that time of day they still needed to get a camp set up and prepare the cache, so returning to the first suitable forested area makes sense. That’s exactly where the labaz was built the next morning. After that, climbing back up lighter for a proper push toward Otorten fits the overall pattern in the diaries and the terrain.
Ironically, the tops of the the slopes would have been where the sled could have been used , hard snow and icy rocks . One was used to drag the bodies back to boot rock.
To build the labaz they need a deep snow pit which Igor references at 1.2 meters deep ,or tree's if going to be a longer time away, skis are recommended as markers . This is all in hiking manuals, so i suppose they are also considering the return route , what would be the most convenient place for the labaz.
So we have three nominations where to make the labaz,
1)where it was found ,
2)somewhere at or around the tent on the slope
3) in the cedar area
For me , 1 is the most logical for the return leg. I can't see the advantage for the other 2 locations . Igor went as far forward as he could to build a campsite and labaz on the 31st . He had no tree's or deep snow for a labaz , there was no point in carrying the products further, it was just to return a few hundred meters to find an area for a labaz.
Sorry Glenn, your last message came in as i was typing. I think the Mansi trail is just tracks through the woods , they were not direct paths to the hikers goal so they were used when they helped and might not have always been in the corect direction . I would assume that with all of their experience, they would know they are in the correct valleys , the only confusion would be the maze of forest paths. Everything reads like every other hiking diary?
-
Ziljoe, I am in total agreement with your rationale for the labaz. It certainly gives meaning to the " I can't imagine" entries in the group,diary. If the weather were kinder, I believe they would still not cache materials on the ridge, if for no other reason than uncertain depths of snow.
Those who advocate for the cache or tent being spoofed should reconsider in light of this clarification along with a host of other developments in the forum. Very much like peeling an onion isn't it?
-
To say you can't imagine something is not really a big deal. The weather was bad. How bad we don't know because we weren't there. But they would know that the weather can be bad at that time of year in that area.
-
I can't imagine your saying I can't imagine isn't a big deal. Can you imagine if the diary was written in a direct way? Imagine that! The result would be that those who imagine the cache actually being located where the tent was found and subsequently removed to a hole in the woods would have to reimagine their their defense of conspiratorial activity to obfuscate the deaths of nine Soviets.
I appreciate the forum working with me on the interpretation of colloquial expressions. I do not know it all, but value those who know more than I. I welcome,your thoughful insight.
-
To say you can't imagine something is not really a big deal. The weather was bad. How bad we don't know because we weren't there. But they would know that the weather can be bad at that time of year in that area.
Sarapuk,
Can you clarify what specific point you’re making in relation to the diary entry or the Feb 1 conditions?
We all know the weather can be bad — I’m just trying to see how your comment connects.
Unless you’re suggesting the aliens’ satnav hadn’t been updated.?
-
The diary leads me to speculate that the labaz was laid on Feb 1st. Now, if they also got up late too, and then battled windy weather, it explains why they did not get far. It is clear that they should have made more progress to Ortoten than they did.
The diary for Feb 1 would have made that clear.
-
Askinadzi is back from Moscow shooting TV episode. His answer:
In response to your question about Dyatlov's thoughts, I can only guess why he wrote that in his diary. I think he understood that if the current regime continued, where the group could just lie around in the tent until the watchmen shouted "rise", the question of return deadlines would become pressing.
Building a labaz would require a significant adjustment to the expedition plan in terms of timing. It wasn't on the expedition schedule. After all, they would have to return to the labaz after climbing Otorten, which would mean losing at least a couple of extra days. But the group insisted on ascending lightly. Zina wrote in her diary that Igor had finally agreed to build a labaz. The situation was almost conflictual. It was Igor's decision (apparently, not all was well with the "friendly" atmosphere in the group).
But this is my understanding of why Igor (before talking with the group) wrote his attitude toward the labaz in his diary.
--------------------------------------------------------------
На твой вопрос о думах Дятлова я могу только догадываться, почему он такое написал в дневнике. Думаю, он понимал, что, если сохранится прежний режим движения, когда группа может валяться в палатке пока дежурные не прокричат «подъём», то может остро встать вопрос о контрольных сроках возвращения.
Устройство лабаза требует серьёзной корректировки плана похода в части сроков. В графике похода его не было. Ведь к лабазу после восхождения на Отортен необходимо возвращаться, а это потеря, как минимум, дополнительных пару дней. Но группа настаивала на том, чтобы на восхождение пойти налегке. Зина писала в своём дневнике, что наконец-то Игорь согласился сделать лабаз. Ситуация почти конфликтная. Это вынужденное решение Игоря (видимо, в группе не всё было благополучно с «дружеской» атмосферой).
Но это моё понимание того, почему Игорь (до разговора с группой) написал в дневнике своё отношение к лабазу.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I do not think Igor's words are clear and unambiguous even in Russian. It is not a language thing. To me more strange is why did Dyatlov write something borderline emotional. Because his diary entries are usually considered useful as guideline for future treks. Askinadzi has told me that he doesn't even understand why is everybody writing in the group diary. This is supposed to be the leader only, writing down useful thing, even on behalf of other participants but not by their had. Obviously it is up to the group leader, but Askinadzi says this is not common practice, at least he has never considered it.
Because you end up with entries like:
1.26.59
I can't, although I tried.
Nick Thibeaux
Who needs that? It is almost like someone is forcing him to write. Why? They all have personal diaries if they want to scribble their thoughts. I personally find it absolutely necessary, I always have a notebook with me. And they all did too. But why did they had to write in the groups' diary things not pertinent to the trek is my question. If you don't feel like it or you don't have anything to say then don't.
Bottom line - it is not a language thing what Dyatlov wrote about the labaz. No one seems to be sure what he meant by that.
-
Ads a result of this discussion though I am removing the word "here" from my translation because it is misleading. There is no "here" in the Russian original.
It is the same to translate as: "I can't even think of setting up a labaz now."
There is neither "here" nor "now".
-
Maybe Dyatlov didn't even write it.
-
Teddy, thank you for your scholarship. I imagine this change has an impact on your theory too. There is much to consider. GlennM.
-
Teddy, thank you for your scholarship. I imagine this change has an impact on your theory too. There is much to consider. GlennM.
No, it is just too much focus on a sentence. It has nothing to do with anything.
-
Because you end up with entries like:
1.26.59
I can't, although I tried.
Nick Thibeaux
For a long time, I couldn't understand the meaning of this phrase. Until I read Krivonischenko's previous entry, where Rustik played the mandolin. Then I immediately realized that Thibeaux had tried and failed to play the mandolin! But why did he write only about that in the diary?
Slobodin's diary is also very strange. Although, perhaps these strange entries about secluded objects reflect their strange place in life and the conditions of the expedition, and that's what ultimately happened.
-
For a long time, I couldn't understand the meaning of this phrase. Until I read Krivonischenko's previous entry, where Rustik played the mandolin. Then I immediately realized that Thibeaux had tried and failed to play the mandolin! But why did he write only about that in the diary?
I recall reading somewhere that Thibeaux found writing in the group diary to be uncomfortable and that he had claimed he couldn't do it. When it was his turn, he wrote "I can't, although I tried.-- Nick Thibeaux."
His second turn, 3 days later, gives us this:
"1.29.59
Second day of our hike. We made our way from the Lozva river to the Auspiya river. We walked along a Mansi trail. The weather is –13°C. The wind is weak. We often find ice on the Lozva river. That's all.
Nick Thibeaux
P.S. Witless writing in two days!"
I think that's all it means: Writing in the group diary makes him feel self-conscious.
-
I interpret the entry and Teddy's correction in one of these ways.
" I can't even think of setting up a labaz now" meaning:
1. I'll do it here, but later, before we move on.
2. I'll do it somewhere else (think of it being dug in on 1079 where the tent was found).
3. I'm not going to do it at all because it isn't worth the effort.We can just carry the stuff to Ortoten and back.
If 1. Then the time spent making the cache and breaking camp explains the short distance covered to the tent site on 1079. When the crisis forced them out into the cold, they could head back to the cache or they could move downhill to the woods. If the seeing was poor, following the contour of the land makes sense to me.
If 2. Then the cache was where the tent was found and the tent was in the forest in proximity of Teddy's fallen tree. The hikers took advantage of the forest for securing their tent and making an outdoor fire. A fallen tree resulted in unintended deaths and would arouse suspicion of irresponsible prospecting by geologists. In order to deflect attention from sensitive groundwork with the securing of military/industrial minerals and while protect their " innocence" both the tent and cache were relocated to where they were later discovered by these geologists.
If 3. Well, it was worth the effort and they did it. That point is moot.
I guess that Teddy is right, correcting the translation really does not move the needle toward the truth. I thought it might.For me, it does bring some aspects of their final day(s) into sharper relief.
-
Ads a result of this discussion though I am removing the word "here" from my translation because it is misleading. There is no "here" in the Russian original.
It is the same to translate as: "I can't even think of setting up a labaz now."
There is neither "here" nor "now".
I interpret the entry and Teddy's correction in one of these ways.
" I can't even think of setting up a labaz now" meaning:
I said there is neither "here" nor "now"
I am no longer following this tread.
-
Thank you for your worldwide leadership. Much hinges on what our most learned investigator thinks and says. Now, our guide finds it best to shine the light in another direction.
I started this thread to know whether the entry in the group diary and the physical location of the cache agree. I read ambiguity in the diary and invited clarification. That clarification could explain the team's progress to their last camp as,well as,its disputed location. Sub rosa, it speaks to motivation. Was the group's relaxed attitude frustrating Igor's attempt to get them all certified? Is that their downfall? The personal diaries even speak to punishments among members.it was literally an uphill battle, but was it a figurative one too? We can not ask the dead to explain themselves. It was clear that the author had reservations regarding the cache What is unclear is whether the remark implies putting it off till later at that place, or puttingnit off till later in another place.
-
I was asking various translations and I got thus.
The Russian phrase “не приходится” doesn’t mean “I can’t think of”; it means “there’s no point even thinking about it,” so the correct translation is “There is no point even thinking about building a labaz here.”
The diary line is “Об устройстве лабаза даже думать не приходится,” meaning “It’s out of the question to build a labaz here.” A labaz is a raised wooden platform built on trees. They were already above the treeline, so a proper labaz was impossible. The snow pit they dug later is a different structure entirely — a temporary ground‑level cache (снежная яма / тайник), which hikers sometimes loosely called a “labaz,” but i don't think that's what Dyatlov meant in the diary.
I would see it as him concluding that he can't camp here because he can't build a labaz or a storage pit . That seems to be his objective as that's exactly what he writes in the diary .
The weather or bad weather would be expected and part of the fun. From what I've read , they write critique about each other in other diaries too , that's other groups. All seems to fit.
-
Ziljoe, that interpretation agrees with my perception of Igor's tone as leader.. The next hurdle is aligning the remark with their location on the route and the location of the in-ground cache. My opinion is that an in ground cache is a temptation for any active digging critters such as wolves or wolverines. Therefore, a lightened load facilitates a dash to Ortoten. I do believe the plan was to make quick work of achieving Otorten. Their camp on 1079 falls short of the mark by quite a bit. I am getting the sense that burying excess supplies was a spontaneous decision prompted by the diffuculties they experienced going up the Auspya.
-
Glenn, I agree with you on the logistics, but I don’t think the wildlife angle applies here.
They weren’t storing raw meat — just tins, salt, sugar, oats. Wolves don’t dig for that, and a wolverine can climb any raised labaz anyway. The Mansi used tree‑labazes for big lumps of meat, not for the kind of food the hikers were carrying.
So Igor’s diary line reads to me as purely practical: no trees, no structure, no point carrying extra weight.
A raised labaz wasn’t possible, and a ground cache wasn’t a predator concern.
His conclusion was simply: “We can’t build anything here, so we move.”
That fits the tone of the diary and the later snow‑pit cache.
It looks more like a weight‑management decision than an animal‑protection one — there was no point hauling supplies they weren’t going to use on the 1–3 days before returning along the same path.
-
Ziljoe, I can see the advantage in burying supplies to prevent wimdblown scattering,
-
Glenn, that would be a fair assessment , both are viable. If I remember correctly, I think Zina said the day before Igor mentioned it, in her diary that they would build a labaz.
-
Ziljoe, appreciated! People make choices, circumstances don't. If one takes that line of thougt to an extreme, it challenges us to ponder queations of destiny and freewill.
As you have suggested in another thread, the DPI is an opportunity to peer into the looking glass and know ourselves better.
-
To say you can't imagine something is not really a big deal. The weather was bad. How bad we don't know because we weren't there. But they would know that the weather can be bad at that time of year in that area.
Sarapuk,
Can you clarify what specific point you’re making in relation to the diary entry or the Feb 1 conditions?
We all know the weather can be bad — I’m just trying to see how your comment connects.
Unless you’re suggesting the aliens’ satnav hadn’t been updated.?
I would have thought that what I said was self-explanatory. The reference is obviously to weather conditions. And everyone knows that the weather can be very bad in that area at that time of year. The Dyatlov Group knew that.
-
I would have thought that what I said was self-explanatory. The reference is obviously to weather conditions. And everyone knows that the weather can be very bad in that area at that time of year. The Dyatlov Group knew that.
So you agree it was the weather that killed them? It's taken a while for to say it.
-
So you agree it was the weather that killed them? It's taken a while for to say it.
No. I'm not suggesting that. But it certainly proves that to leave the tent not properly dressed in those weather conditions was like a suicide mission. They must have been really scared of something to do that.
-
They made a logical decision against lifeless abiotic Nature. Nature is a name for number of imperfectly understood compelling forces. I believe there were no human malefactors.Why? The DP9 had too much time and personal freedom to attempt survival,solutions. I believe they all chose as individuals and as a group to take the risk to complete their trek for the reward of certification.. I believe they would not do it differently if they could do it over.. Call it fate, call it destiny. The reality is that the abiotic world (Natural forces) constantly changes. Living things or biotic organisms adapt or die. Often this is a long process, but it can also happen rapidly, as in this case. Bad things happen to good people. There are people who will never see it that way. It makes the world go around, so to speak.
I do think of just how demoralizing it must have felt when they each realized they were not going to get out of this conundrum. How would any of us react?
-
Sarapuk, when answering please do not include the whole conversation in the quote.
There is an "Reply" button underneath the post. That should do it in most cases.
-
I do think of just how demoralizing it must have felt when they each realized they were not going to get out of this conundrum. How would any of us react?
On a death march, you would probably try to run wherever you could. If Slobodin held back this force for a moment (he paid for it with a cracked skull), it was a chance for both Yuris to escape into the forest and Zina to the tent. But they were eventually caught up too.
-
No. I'm not suggesting that. But it certainly proves that to leave the tent not properly dressed in those weather conditions was like a suicide mission. They must have been really scared of something to do that.
Yes, so what can we conclude from your statement?
To leave the tent is definitely suicidal, or the equivalent of a potential death or potential survival?
Could we conclude that it was more suicidal, as you put it, to stay at the tent with all the equipment,than to leave and take a chance for survival in the forest.
You are swapping one fear for another so it could only be death to stay at the tent by your logic?
-
Suicidal implies intent. Their actions support survival.
Neither they, nor we knew all the facts, then and now.
They expired, we get mired.
They were civilized, as are we.
That's something in common.
-
They made a logical decision against lifeless abiotic Nature.
How can we say if they made a logical decision?! We weren't there, and we have no evidence to point to it being logical or otherwise.
-
No. I'm not suggesting that. But it certainly proves that to leave the tent not properly dressed in those weather conditions was like a suicide mission. They must have been really scared of something to do that.
Yes, so what can we conclude from your statement?
We can conclude that leaving the tent in those conditions was like a suicide mission because something was so bad that they feared for their lives in the tent and just fled, not properly dressed to survive.
-
Suicidal implies intent. Their actions support survival.
I said like a suicide mission, not an actual suicide mission. Their actions may have supported survival at the tent site, but their actions certainly did not support survival by fleeing to the forest, not properly dressed or equipped.
-
No. I'm not suggesting that. But it certainly proves that to leave the tent not properly dressed in those weather conditions was like a suicide mission. They must have been really scared of something to do that.
Yes, so what can we conclude from your statement?
We can conclude that leaving the tent in those conditions was like a suicide mission because something was so bad that they feared for their lives in the tent and just fled, not properly dressed to survive.
It should read like below
No. I'm not suggesting that. But it certainly proves that to leave the tent not properly dressed in those weather conditions was like a suicide mission. They must have been really scared of something to do that.
Yes, so what can we conclude from your statement?
We can conclude that leaving the tent in those conditions was like a suicide mission because something was so bad that they feared for their lives in the tent and just fled, not properly dressed to survive.
-
This exchange serves to highlight my original post. It is about a translation and interpretation of a thought process. When the group diary puts, " I can't think of...", we have to infer the meaning. Is that meaning relevant to understanding subsequent actions? So, a comment that states leaving the tent was suicidal as opposed to " like being suicidal" points out the trouble with literal vs figurative language.
The hikers decision to leave the tent was neither suicidal, nor like suicidal. It was ultimagely fatal. We can argue if it was rational or impulsive. This, in turn involves twirling down to the free will vs fatalism dichotomy.
Getting back to the original post, was the diary entry an admission of poor planning? Was it a backwards way of saying," we can't suspend our supplies, but perhaps we can bury them?" Was it saying, " we could next choose to protect our supplies better at the expense of time, or instead, drat! We have no choice now, we will do what we must,"
The real world effect from the diary entry is that when they left the tent, the cache itself proved to be of no immediate help. By extension, the forest location of the cache was going to be of no immediate help. Passing Boot rock to get to the cache was going to be of no immediate help.
I speculate they went to the woods instead because it put the wind at their backs, gave them a gradient, and promised a higher degree of safety and comfort than what they were leaving behind.
-
This exchange serves to highlight my original post. It is about a translation and interpretation of a thought process. When the group diary puts, " I can't think of...", we have to infer the meaning. Is that meaning relevant to understanding subsequent actions? So, a comment that states leaving the tent was suicidal as opposed to " like being suicidal" points out the trouble with literal vs figurative language.
I speculate they went to the woods instead because it put the wind at their backs, gave them a gradient, and promised a higher degree of safety and comfort than what they were leaving behind.
And of course, some people are better at language than others. And going to the forest seems like the right thing to do when you are escaping from something terrible. You are unlikely to attempt to go up the slope.
-
...and I am not so sure it was terror-able! Terrible suggests running away in fear, but their descent seemed more deliberate. We would say it was terrible knowing what they didn't. Perhaps they saw it, a windblown crush of snow on an unprotected bare slope, as an annoyance, a delay, an inconvenience which would be overcome when the weather abated. Surely returning hungry and a mile trek uphill to dig out the tent was not a fun prospect. Then there was the question of mending the tent before moving on or afterward. I can hear it now, " You were pretty handy with the knife, let's see what you can do with a needle and thread!" If it worked out for them, it would be a story to share while toasting vodka in a warm room.
-
...and I am not so sure it was terror-able! Terrible suggests running away in fear, but their descent seemed more deliberate. We would say it was terrible knowing what they didn't. Perhaps they saw it, a windblown crush of snow on an unprotected bare slope, as an annoyance, a delay, an inconvenience which would be overcome when the weather abated. Surely returning hungry and a mile trek uphill to dig out the tent was not a fun prospect. Then there was the question of mending the tent before moving on or afterward. I can hear it now, " You were pretty handy with the knife, let's see what you can do with a needle and thread!" If it worked out for them, it would be a story to share while toasting vodka in a warm room.
Ahh ah. But I'm not suggesting it was terror-related. I'm just saying terrible.
-
Agreed.