Exiting the tent

[Dona]

They had troubles finding the tent because Igor didnt file his 'flight plan'..

And the weight  of the snow on the tent was downward.. the skis/poles are still in place.. An avalanche or slab slide would have momentum forward, knocking them over..

[Manti]

It looks like most posters on the forum develop a "pattern" in the type of reply they leave..


I am afraid to realize that I am developing one too..

I agree... (avalanche would have moved everything sideways). But.... always but...We don't really know if Igor filed his route plans or not. After all the sports club approved the trek based on something. Maybe he filed everything diligently and they just had really bad record keeping and lost it, and then tried to blame him?

After all they lied to the parents that the group is ok and on the way home when in fact they didn't know anything about where the group was.... so I would take anything the sports club said with a grain.

[Dona]

Yeah, me too.. But you are the ever polite Manti 

Yes, I agree, there are probably many lies told about this by the officials.. for many reasons.. Lord knows, our government does the same..

[jsmith]

And the weight  of the snow on the tent was downward.. the skis/poles are still in place.. An avalanche or slab slide would have momentum forward, knocking them over..

Whether or not a slab hit their tent is not proven, but what is proven is that if it did, the maths works out. You can say you don't think it happened, but you can't say it isn't possible. There is a reason why every actual investigation that examines this comes to this conclusion as being most likely. You can't argue with science. What they did to that specific slope in that specific sight with that specific wind could have absolutely led to a snow event.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00081-8

I don't agree with every single thing said in this article, but you can't disagree with their mathematics.

Again, NO ONE, at the time.. standing at the scene, on Feb. 27 1959 saw evidence of a snow event..

You mean the people who slashed into the tent, ripped the tent, stole food and supplies from the tent, and dragged the tent 700metres to a helicopter before it was ever actually investigated with proper methodology made a mistake? That can't be true!

Most of the case files from this "investigation" wouldn't even be admissible in court. Almost every single one of the testimonies directly contradicts the next. It is evidently clear to me that most of the searchers were completely out of their depth and weren't even sure what they were dealing with. Whether it be people contaminating the site, omitting details, spreading rumours, forgetting they were present at giant events (like the discovery of the supply cache)... you can't take what they say as gospel. The reason "no theory fits" in this case is because the searchers made several giant mistakes and they artificially turned this event into a mystery.

I think the snow that hit the tent was a relatively small amount.  It was enough to do damage, but it wasn't enough to push the tent off its base and slide it dramatically and it didn't hit the poles. I think it landed slab bang on or around the exit, it terrified the group (who were already terrified due to extreme wind), they ripped and slashed their way out and by the time they did that it was all over. Those who didn't have their footwear within an arms reach didn't have time to get to it.

Moving down to the tree line was probably the correct call. The group were seriously chancing fate by camping on the slope. All that needed to occur was a violent wind change and they were toast.

By the time people discovered the tent almost a month later, it had either blown away into small debris or been covered with fresh snow. The people who found the tent didn't know what they were dealing with. When they discovered the money still inside the tent they all started celebrating because that must have been proof the group were still alright. In short, they were never even looking for the very subtle evidence this slab would have left behind. I can't blame them. It was the 1950s and they didn't know what they were in for.

Had this event been investigated by modern, well trained alpine police and rescuers the thing would have been solved in a few days.

[Dona]

What could have happened  isnt science, dear. What could have happened was  that a meteor fell from the sky and landed on them.... I mean, meteors strike the earth  100 times  day.. Far more likely that a meteor struck them than a slab slide.  There is no evidence of a snow event.

Also,  the Mansi have been living in the mountains for tens of thousands of years.. If there was any snow event, they would know.. Hardly bumbling researchers..

[Manti]

You can't argue with science.

...you can't disagree with their mathematics.

Well, you can, by its very nature science constantly evolves and you can and should argue it... otherwise we would still believe the earth is a flat disk with the Sun orbiting around it...

What that article does, is show that if a slab release did occur, it would have enough force to cause the observed injuries.

You can even argue with that as it greatly depends on snow density, moisture content, etc. And of course it assumed ideal conditions for a slab to form in the first place (an even layer of hoar forming below a denser upper layer. Does this happen on Kholat Syakhl? These scientists didn't collect any data on this).

But this is almost irrelevant to the case. If the a slab has enough force to fracture ribcages and skulls, would it not be also strong enough to break skis under the tent, break ski poles, crush the stove, etc?

You mean the people who slashed into the tent, ripped the tent, stole food and supplies from the tent,

They stole food from the tent? What did they steal and how do you know this?

Most of the case files from this "investigation" wouldn't even be admissible in court.

Which court? The courts of a different country that uses a different legal system, not to mention  60 years later? Or course they wouldn't be admissible.

[marieuk]

Found this article interesting and there's a photo of the tent I've not seen before.  sorry, if you've already seen it, but thought I'd share it for anyone like me who hadn't.  The tent appears to have a lot of small holes. 

https://www.kp.ru/daily/26603.4/3618460/

[sarapuk]

Most likely outcome, in my mind, is a slab hitting the tent (in accordance with the science in the Nature article). The group cutting into the slope unfortunately aided this. The entrance and the boots (which were kept to the left of the entrance) were covered with snow.

They escape the tent. It's terrifying and uncomfoetable. Now they're exposed to extreme wind and cold on the slope. It's dark and loud, some people have minor injuries.

They can't readily access their boots due to the snow covering one side of the tent and they determine that it is safer to leave to the forest for fire and shelter as opposed to trying to salvage the tent or dig out their supplies.  For starters it's too cold and windy to stay up on the slope and secondly they are worried about another impact.

From there, they leave and the rest is history. Hypothermia and being in the woods in the middle of horrendous weather accounts for the rest.

I think the serious injuries seen in the Ravine 4 were either due to a fall or the Ravine collapsing on them. Either way, the Ravine was directly tied to the injuries.

By the time the tent was discovered the snow that hit the tent has mostly blown away, however clumps are still there and that side of the tent is still buckled.

To me this theory is the most likely.

Its one of the most unlikely Theories.

[Manti]

Found this article interesting and there's a photo of the tent I've not seen before.  sorry, if you've already seen it, but thought I'd share it for anyone like me who hadn't.  The tent appears to have a lot of small holes. 

https://www.kp.ru/daily/26603.4/3618460/

I have the feeling that photo is one of those that was also used in the montage to create the one that is on this site.

It seems to match the left part of this composite photo


I cannot tell if there are multiple small holes or it's just dirt or crinkles on the fabric. Although on the right side it's more clear that there are several small cuts.

[marieuk]

Yes looks  like it,  Well spotted.

[Dona]

So why did Rustem, Nick and  Alex all have socks/gloves in their pockets and not put them on..


Because they were ordered to keep their hands over their heads??

[Zyd]

Rustem had one sock in his pocket but 4 on his feet. Many explanations... He may have felt he did not need to wear it, didn't know he had it (was already in his jacket pocket before the incident and he didnt know.... or he grabbed it and forgot).. hypothermia makes you stupid I have had before. I think most likely is he did not feel he needed one extra sock and then forgot about it due to other concerns. One extra sock would not have save him...

Nikolay was well dressed and did not die of cold. His gloves maybe where in his pocket so he could perform a task using dexterity, or he didn't feel he needed to wear them.

Aleksandr I see no evidence he had extra clothing in his pockets. I am reading the original autopsy in Russian maybe I miss it but i see nothing? He did have a jacket unbuttoned, not unusual for hypothermia. He may have felt hot when he died. Many different variables.

[Paf]

About extra sockets, maybe the third pair didn't fit his feet once the first 2 were on ?  When you're cold you don't want to compress your feet, it's even worst than having nothing.

[Dona]

About extra sockets, maybe the third pair didn't fit his feet once the first 2 were on ?  When you're cold you don't want to compress your feet, it's even worst than having nothing.

Yes but they could have put them on their hands..

[Dona]

Rustem had one sock in his pocket but 4 on his feet. Many explanations... He may have felt he did not need to wear it, didn't know he had it (was already in his jacket pocket before the incident and he didnt know.... or he grabbed it and forgot).. hypothermia makes you stupid I have had before. I think most likely is he did not feel he needed one extra sock and then forgot about it due to other concerns. One extra sock would not have save him...

Nikolay was well dressed and did not die of cold. His gloves maybe where in his pocket so he could perform a task using dexterity, or he didn't feel he needed to wear them.

Aleksandr I see no evidence he had extra clothing in his pockets. I am reading the original autopsy in Russian maybe I miss it but i see nothing? He did have a jacket unbuttoned, not unusual for hypothermia. He may have felt hot when he died. Many different variables.

But, at some point, Rustem would have  found it in his pocket..

Nick.. I dont think there could be any realistic explanation to not put his gloves on.. I think it means he died very early on..

Alex. You could be right.. I read off site and there is a lot of mis-info out there..

[KFinn]

Rustem had one sock in his pocket but 4 on his feet. Many explanations... He may have felt he did not need to wear it, didn't know he had it (was already in his jacket pocket before the incident and he didnt know.... or he grabbed it and forgot).. hypothermia makes you stupid I have had before. I think most likely is he did not feel he needed one extra sock and then forgot about it due to other concerns. One extra sock would not have save him...

Nikolay was well dressed and did not die of cold. His gloves maybe where in his pocket so he could perform a task using dexterity, or he didn't feel he needed to wear them.

Aleksandr I see no evidence he had extra clothing in his pockets. I am reading the original autopsy in Russian maybe I miss it but i see nothing? He did have a jacket unbuttoned, not unusual for hypothermia. He may have felt hot when he died. Many different variables.

When hiking in freezing conditions, it is common to put your wet gloves and socks and such inside the layers of your clothing to dry out without them freezing.  Then they are wearable again the next day.  They probably did not put them on that night because wet socks and gloves/mittens would have resulted in a quicker onset of frostbite.

[Zyd]

But, at some point, Rustem would have  found it in his pocket..

I have already explained that he may have not even needed the sock. He was already wear four. The extra may not fit or compress too much. It may have been wet. He may not know he had a sock.

This is pointless anyway because one extra wet sock would not have made a difference! Rustik was well dress.

Nick.. I dont think there could be any realistic explanation to not put his gloves on..

Them being wet due to building the den may be a reason. Soaked thru gloves are not helpful.

[Paf]

About the tent cut, we all assume they were made from inside.
I do believe ewpert when they say the knife was inside the tent.

But have you ever tried to cut a loose, thick fabrique ?  Especially if you don't want to touch something inside ? You wont just pock the knife through, it's too loose to work well and you risk to make damage on the other side.

They might have use their knife from outside, but cutting inside-out direction, handing the knife that way :

[Sunny]

About the tent cut, we all assume they were made from inside.
I do believe ewpert when they say the knife was inside the tent.

But have you ever tried to cut a loose, thick fabrique ?  Especially if you don't want to touch something inside ? You wont just pock the knife through, it's too loose to work well and you risk to make damage on the other side.

They might have use their knife from outside, but cutting inside-out direction, handing the knife that way :

this is exactly what I think. The rescue workers cut the tent open, what else could they have done, if they wanted to see inside, and were worried abaout their frineds? Of course one would take a knife or ice ax and cut it open to see what's inside, they said they did this. So the cuts they made LOOK a if they were made from inside because of the way they hold the knife. That's the only way to do it. You can't just cut a tent that is on the ground, but you have to put the knife first in and then lift the material up a bit so that the fabric comes off the ground , and then tear it pulling the knife toward yourself. Of course it looks like it was made inside.
So, what does this mean? Nothing much. But we can forget the theory of panic escape or smoke from stove. The tent probably was collapsed. But it still doesn't explain why they  left without warm clothes to sure death.One does that only if a gun is put against their head, or if you are out of your mind, intoxicated, in delirium, etc.