clarify what photos of Feb. 1959 tent area show

[kylecorbin]

dyatlovpass.com/search-photos
Photos 3-018 thru 3-020 show searchers digging piles of snow below the excavated tent. What are they digging for, and what are they digging in? Is there an official government description from 1959 of all these photos?

[KathleenDSmith1]

Everyone:

I don't see the photos that Corbin is viewing but I do know when I open up the Dyatlov Pass.com website click on search photos...All are looking/searching for the bodies of the Dyatlov Pass Hikers....Can Corbin snip the photos, for everyone to view?


Thanks
Kathleen Dee Smith

[kylecorbin]

For the hundreds of official government photos from 1959 on this website, there seem to be no government captions or write-ups about what the photos are. All we have are informal captions, and sometimes no caption at all for a photo. Surely there's something formal?

[Ziljoe]

kylecorbin

I think the reason of lack of formal descriptions and write ups is because it was never viewed as a crime scene in the sense we suspect it might be.

If we the look at the incident from the point of view that it was initially a search and rescue, then it makes more sense. There were many tourist campaigns that ended with accidents and deaths. Even in the UK and the west such things happened.

There is the incident in the UK where several students died (1971). Although remote in UK terms, it was no where near as remote as the urals. The woman who was found crawling had her legs stuck bent and her hands frozen solid. Poor decisions were made and the weather dealt it's hand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairngorm_Plateau_disaster#:~:text=When%20they%20failed%20to%20reach,as%20Britain%27s%20worst%20mountaineering%20accident.

Obviously question were asked but everyone was less safety conscious in the past. I don't think they documented every photo of every moment.

Likewise, with the Dyatlov pass incident, it was probably formal in a search and rescue , at least in the first instance. They had students and various locals involved with the search from the start. They found the intended route of Dyatlov and placed searches at the start , middle and end of the known objectives.

The tent was found quite quickly following logical search procedure . Although there's some speculation of who found what, when, I am still working out the possible errors of my own interpretations .

Much of the information we have was written long after the event , faded memories, authors that have embellished facts and somewhat confused the details, even used quotes that have no substance.

An example for me is about the date of the finding the tent. I was rereading an interview which teddy put the link for ,with Sharavin just the other day ( I was looking for information about the ice axe) .  There is confusion about the fireman / forester ( Pashin Ivan )finding the tent two days before Sharavin reported finding it on the 26th of February. The case file statements on this are confusing, they seem to contradict and then , that one contradiction alone makes us all suspicious . It's always been a niggle and a question mark. However, I think the interview with Sharavin clears this up. He says that they sent the fireman / forester(Pashin Ivan) to follow 'a' ski trail and Sharavin and his companion were to go in a loop around or along 1079. As I now understand it ,the confusion comes from the fact that they did not know if it was the hikers ski trail or not, they were not certain, they ( forester/ fireman) followed the ski trail down to the woods , not up . Sharavin went up the slope. From there, Sharavin reports seeing the peak of the tent sticking out from the snow , he saw the tent from above and not below as I originally thought. ( I could be wrong)

When in the statement, they report they found the hikers ski trail and then the tent . They are saying the truth, but this truth is ,after they themselves worked out and the piece's have been put together. At the moment of finding the ski trail they don't know who it belongs to. It's only "after" that they conclude that it belonged to the group. So ,in their statements they say we found the hikers trail on the 24th , they did not know that for sure until the tent was found.

Sharavin  looks in the tent and goes and reports this.  He is not interviewed for a statement at the same time as the others as he was in hospital. At the time of these interviews, the ravine 4 have not been found. There is only the knowledge by the investigators that they left the tent and froze.

So , for the above photos, I think they're looking for the bodies on the slope. It seems it's after the 28th of February . 4 of the bodies have been found,  two are found on the slope below the tent. It's firn snow they are digging up.

[Partorg]

Everything is correct except for some little things: Slobtsov and Sharavin saw the tent from below from a distance of about 55 yards They traversed the slope from the erratic rock at the pass to the northeastern spur of height 1079 in order to see from it the circus (bowl) on the southeastern slope of Otorten, in which, according to Pashin, Dyatlovites could fall Pashin himself was too lazy to drag himself to the spur and, citing indisposition, stayed to wait for them at the Pass at the erratic rock The rumor that he was the first to discover the tent came from his stories to neighboring children, one of whom, in our time, shared these stories with dyatlovhistorians. Don’t know about you, but we have a lot of people who like to lie without any need or benefit, just “for the love of art”. Therefore, all the evidence in this story should be treated in much the same way as the stories of fishermen and hunters. Even if they come from the mouths of such persons as the former investigator for especially important cases Korotaev or such as the widow of a local forest guard pilot, Grandma Gamatina, who never held a gun or a fishing rod in her hands.

[Ziljoe]

Hi Partorg,

That makes more sense. Pashin is vague in his statement and may have liked the idea of being first to find the tent.

Are my photos correct. I've struggled also in the past to understand many of the photos . The yellow represents what I believe Pashin is referring to, or a possible danger area which from Google maps makes sense. If they suspected an accident, that would be a sensible place to look.

[Partorg]

Hi Ziljoe
Yes, this is the same one circus. The search location is reasonable, and Axelrod, who examined Otorten, mentions it in the interrogation report.  As for Pashin, his participation as a guide boiled down to the fact that at some point he began to instill in everyone the idea that the Dyatlovites had nowhere to Disappear except to fall into this hole. Then, already at home, he told the neighborhood kids how he found the tent by the flag that was flying above it, and going down to the forest he found two dead people - a guy and a girl, who were sitting under a cedar tree looking at each other. At the same time, "The guy had a box of matches in his hands, and the girl had twigs to make a fire"

[Ziljoe]

Hi Ziljoe
Yes, this is the same one circus. The search location is reasonable, and Axelrod, who examined Otorten, mentions it in the interrogation report.  As for Pashin, his participation as a guide boiled down to the fact that at some point he began to instill in everyone the idea that the Dyatlovites had nowhere to Disappear except to fall into this hole. Then, already at home, he told the neighborhood kids how he found the tent by the flag that was flying above it, and going down to the forest he found two dead people - a guy and a girl, who were sitting under a cedar tree looking at each other. At the same time, "The guy had a box of matches in his hands, and the girl had twigs to make a fire"

I had read about the two people found with matches at the ceder but I did not know where it started. We all know someone with artistic story telling.

I've readjusted my bearings on the map. Unfortunately I assumed the location of the tent from photos and maps that had been made earlier. So boot rock and the landing site are south of the tent. The distance being approximately 600m apart. Also there was an avalanche/ slide 700m away from the tent on 1079? . ( Recorded in 2021 or 22 I think) .

I can only seem to see two photos that look upwards towards the tent location. Boot rock seems to be represented as the tent location. On many illustrations.

[Ziljoe]

The only two photos that seem to look up towards the tent.




This one confuses me. At first I thought the grass was the top of a ridge and it was the sky behind. Looking closer it seems it's more snow. It does look steep and gives the opposite impression of what we see in the photos with the actual tent.




My understanding of, 1079, boot rock and the tent somewhere to the right in red, maybe even further. ?

[Partorg]

.

[Partorg]

.

[Partorg]

In the top photo, the ski stick stands in place of the tent. In the background on the left is the peak 1079.  Boot Rock and the descent to Auspiya - behind the left edge of the photograph. This photo is interesting because it captures the same section of the slope below the tent that we see in the three photos in answer #2, only from the opposite angle.  It is not known exactly when it was made. Probably no later than mid-April. But there is no longer the slightest trace of that “plowed field” that is visible in the photo at the end of February.
In the middle photo the slope is taken from the front. With frontal and close-to-front angles, it is impossible to correctly assess the steepness of the slopes even with high image quality - the slopes always seem steeper than in reality.
The section on the SW slope of summit 1079 along which the small avalanche 2022 descended is steeper and longer than the one above the Dyatlov group’s tent. There is almost a classic avalanche catchment there and it is possible that such snow slides happen there every year.
In order for a microavalanche with a volume of several tens of m³ to land on the Dyatlov group’s tent, a confluence of conditions was needed that happens perhaps less than once a century.
In the bottom photo, a little to the left and above your red zone you can see a long snowfield. The tent site is at the very bottom of the left end of this snowfield.
The 2022 year avalanche location is correctly marked.
Looks like my browser Chrome and the "engine" of your forum Ihas joined the anti-Putin sanctions - it either stubbornly translates and posts the text in Russian, or uses microfont for the text at all

[Partorg]

 I'm not sure if Dyatlov pass doesn't have this picture, but probably not everyone who accidentally looks at this page will have the time and patience to look for it. Maybe it will help some of them to understand the geography of the place

[Ziljoe]

Thank you Partorg. I appreciate your reply.
I know the exact location of the tent is a subject for debate to this day. It helps me understand the testimony of Sharavin, the sequence of events and the logic of the search pattern. If Sharavin was traveling from boot rock to the elevation of the spur to look at the Circus bowl area at Otorten, then it all makes sense.

From some angles it looks like there could have been the potential for a small snow slide, but other angles it looks relatively flat. I always wonder if they knew exactly where they were ,when they pitched the tent.  It seems sensible to not pitch under the main slope of 1079. I sometimes think , because of the camera on the tripod, that they intended to take some long exposure picture from that position, like fireworks or a joint photo. Although I can't remember if that was true about the camera being found attached to the tripod. 

[kylecorbin]

In order for a microavalanche with a volume of several tens of m³ to land on the Dyatlov group’s tent, a confluence of conditions was needed that happens perhaps less than once a century.

Remember that the once-per-century rarity you're hypothesizing is only if no humans are involved. If people cut out a lot of snow in the middle of a snowfield, then of course the odds rise greatly for the now-unsupported snow to slide down!

[Partorg]

I know the exact location of the tent is a subject for debate to this day.

The subject of debate about the location of the tent is the accuracy of ± 1 meter. А circle with a radius of 5 m is defined absolutely precisely. Not only by calculation, but also by the detection of some artifacts 1959 which could only be in close proximity (2 - 3 m) from the tent.

I always wonder if they knew exactly where they were ,when they pitched the tent

They did not have a map that allowed them to determine their exact location, but they must have realized that they were on the upper horizons of the Ridge, somewhere near its crest. I think that was the purpose of such a late departure.

I sometimes think , because of the camera on the tripod, that they intended to take some long exposure picture from that position, like fireworks or a joint photo

I think that Krivonischenko took his tripod for filming panoramas and auroras. The chosen route (traverse of the Poyasovoy Kamen ridge) predisposed to both.
It’s unlikely that anyone would want to carry a gadget with the volume of half a drawing tube (when folded) and weighing 3-4 pounds for the sake of filming ordinary everyday scenes.
On the night of February 2nd the camera was kept on a tripod in the hope that after the storm the sky would clear and the Aurora would not be long in coming.

[Partorg]

Remember that the once-per-century rarity you're hypothesizing is only if no humans are involved. If people cut out a lot of snow in the middle of a snowfield, then of course the odds rise greatly for the now-unsupported snow to slide down!

In principle, the trigger for the slab to come off is always not the undermining of its lower part, but the  whumpfing (under the weight of those walking on it) of the upper part.  In order to unload the slab at the bottom, the slope must be cut the full width of the slab. In "our" case, the hillside only needed to be cut 18 - 20 feet, which means the slab that came down must be the same width. But slab avalanche are not the only option.
 The main condition for a landslide to occur on a gentle slope is the presence of the so-called weak layer - depth hoar or surface hoar.  The first is formed inside the snow cover as a result of a sharp temperature difference between its lower and upper horizons (severe cooling after a relatively mild period)  The second occurs on the surface of the snow when a relatively warm and weak wind blows on it.  Deep frost is also called sugar snow in English terminology, as it resembles coarse sugar or salt in appearance and mechanical properties, and on it (and only on it) avalanche boards roll down . Surface hoar is similar to ice feathers or thick grass that can be destroyed under the influence of increased wind or under the weight of snow that has fallen from a cloud and turns into ice crumbs completely similar to sugar snow.  A small avalanche from a mixture of surface hoar and freshly fallen snow (with a predominance of surface hoar) could also have occurred in our case.  The consequences could be the same as those that exist in fact, with the exception of injuries (which, however, are unlikely even in case of a slab avalanche)
But this seems off-topic.

[KathleenDSmith1]

 Ziljoe and Everyone:


I found a bit of information and inquired, where could this area of the Protocol Inspection be found on Ziljoe Google map area/measurement....I'm sending the image.  copied and paste this section:, Kurikov Stepan Nikolaevich residing in Ivdel region, village Suevat Paul wrote this protocol upon finding the bodies discovered on the northeast slope of the mountain "1079". To the northeast of mountain "1079" and half kilometer in the origins of the right source of Lozva river beginning in the pass between the heights of "1079" and "880"

Thank You
Kathleen Dee Smith

[Ziljoe]

Ziljoe and Everyone:


I found a bit of information and inquired, where could this area of the Protocol Inspection be found on Ziljoe Google map area/measurement....I'm sending the image.  copied and paste this section:, Kurikov Stepan Nikolaevich residing in Ivdel region, village Suevat Paul wrote this protocol upon finding the bodies discovered on the northeast slope of the mountain "1079". To the northeast of mountain "1079" and half kilometer in the origins of the right source of Lozva river beginning in the pass between the heights of "1079" and "880"

Thank You
Kathleen Dee Smith

Hi KathleenDSmith1.

Could you expand on your question? It's probably me , but I'm not understanding what you are asking. Some of the other members might know..

[kylecorbin]

> In principle, the trigger for the slab to come off is always not the undermining of its lower part, but the whumpfing (under the weight of those walking on it) of the upper part.  In order to unload the slab at the bottom, the slope must be cut the full width of the slab. In "our" case, the hillside only needed to be cut 18 - 20 feet, which means the slab that came down must be the same width.

Partorg, have you found a scientific source disagreeing with Gaume/Puzrin's 2021 computer analysis of a snow-slab being able to slide down WITHOUT the upslope part being broken? I'm no fan of their enormous error in claiming it's likely that heavy snow broke many bones at the tent, but I know of no consensus disputing their other claim (that the slab could slide simply due to the forces of wind, snow, and gravity over many hours, if the snow layers that day happened to match the ones in their computer model).

What are you referring to below with the terms "avalanche board" and "relatively warm and weak wind", and are you saying you think a ton or more of NON-slab snow (the amount I calculated in my solution to the case) slid down from upslope and enveloped the tent?

> But slab avalanche are not the only option. The main condition for a landslide to occur on a gentle slope is the presence of the so-called weak layer - depth hoar or surface hoar.  The first is formed inside the snow cover as a result of a sharp temperature difference between its lower and upper horizons (severe cooling after a relatively mild period)  The second occurs on the surface of the snow when a relatively warm and weak wind blows on it.  Deep frost is also called sugar snow in English terminology, as it resembles coarse sugar or salt in appearance and mechanical properties, and on it (and only on it) avalanche boards roll down . Surface hoar is similar to ice feathers or thick grass that can be destroyed under the influence of increased wind or under the weight of snow that has fallen from a cloud and turns into ice crumbs completely similar to sugar snow.  A small avalanche from a mixture of surface hoar and freshly fallen snow (with a predominance of surface hoar) could also have occurred in our case.  The consequences could be the same as those that exist in fact, with the exception of injuries (which, however, are unlikely even in case of a slab avalanche)

[KathleenDSmith1]

 Everyone,

The location of the tent was a piece of information that, when investigators searched...honestly did not know where the bodies of the 9 hikers would be found....when the belongings of the 9 hikers were "Removed" from the tent, the tent was moved to another position...that is "WHY" ???
"Did the 9 Hikers leave the tent".... when viewing the photos, the tent was not in the correct position ...so I found a bit of information where the bodies were found.." protocol upon finding the bodies discovered on the northeast slope of the mountain "1079". To the northeast of mountain "1079" and half kilometer in the origins of the right source of Lozva river beginning in the pass between the heights of "1079" and "880" "

If we could view the "Original Tent location" when Pashin found it ?  ....


These photos were taken after ..all belonging of the 9 hikers was removed from tent and tent was moved too


Thanks
Kathleen Dee Smith

[Partorg]

.delete

[Partorg]

Partorg, have you found a scientific source disagreeing with Gaume/Puzrin's 2021 computer analysis of a snow-slab being able to slide down WITHOUT the upslope part being broken?

I do not know scientific data on the effect of undercuts in the lower part of the slab on its separation and sliding. It is possible that no one has conducted such studies. But it is intuitively clear that undercutting a slope by 5 - 6 m cannot provoke a plate slide with a front of tens of meters. If the sliding of the slab was caused by an undercut, then the slab should have a width approximately equal to the undercut, i.e. the same 5 - 6, max - 7 m.
From practice it follows that separation usually occurs from the load of the upper part of the snow slab. The load can be both people (deer, bears, yetis, etc.) and freshly fallen snow. The wind on the slope, change in air temperature, a shot, and even a loud scream can serve as the last straw. This is common knowledge, it seems.

What are you referring to below with the terms "avalanche board" and "relatively warm and weak wind"

Avalanche board = slab avalanche. These are Google Translate jokes. He translated from Russian too literally. "Relatively warm and weak wind" - wind < 8 kt. when the air temperature is more than 10°C higher than the temperature of the snowpack blown by it

a ton or more of NON-slab snow (the amount I calculated in my solution to the case) slid down from upslope and enveloped the tent?

Yes. But this could not be ordinary newly-fallen snow - when the landslide stopped, it would have been compressed so that no wind would have blown it up, and 26.02. on the tent they would have found not 20 cm, but all those 70 - 80 cm, which alone could discourage dyatlovites  from digging out the tent and clothes before the wind on the slope died down.
Both in the case of a sliding slab, and in the case of “NON-slab snow”, the bulk of the blockage should be “sugar snow” - deep or surface hoar.
It does not  compression does not cake, and is easily blown by the wind, but digging it is like digging water.

[Ziljoe]

Everyone,

The location of the tent was a piece of information that, when investigators searched...honestly did not know where the bodies of the 9 hikers would be found....when the belongings of the 9 hikers were "Removed" from the tent, the tent was moved to another position...that is "WHY" ???
"Did the 9 Hikers leave the tent".... when viewing the photos, the tent was not in the correct position ...so I found a bit of information where the bodies were found.." protocol upon finding the bodies discovered on the northeast slope of the mountain "1079". To the northeast of mountain "1079" and half kilometer in the origins of the right source of Lozva river beginning in the pass between the heights of "1079" and "880" "

If we could view the "Original Tent location" when Pashin found it ?  ....


These photos were taken after ..all belonging of the 9 hikers was removed from tent and tent was moved too


Thanks
Kathleen Dee Smith

Hi Kathleen,

It was Sharavin that found the tent. As I understand the time events to be. Pashin stayed at the outliers ( boot rock)Sharavin and his other companion traveled approximately 500 meters north to the north east ridge where they came upon the tent poking out of the snow. The reason they moved north was that Pashin ( I assume he was the guide as he knew the area and landscape) had suggested the most likely place for the hikers to get into trouble was the circus bowl, next to the top  of Otorten.

 
(This is Otorten with the cornices)


https://dyatlovpass.com/borzenkov



( This is a wider angle view of  boot rock,1079 tent location across to Otorten)







We know roughly where the tent was located. At the time of the incident it was not important. It was just a campsite on a hill. My interest in its exact location is only with thought of the potential of some kind of snow slip or enough snow that could partially collapse the tent and make it next to impossible to retrieve their belongings.

[kylecorbin]

We know roughly where the tent was located. At the time of the incident it was not important. It was just a campsite on a hill. My interest in its exact location is only with thought of the potential of some kind of snow slip or enough snow that could partially collapse the tent and make it next to impossible to retrieve their belongings.

Agreed. And with this website and others making me believe that we'll never know exactly, and agreeing with a critic of Gaume that, even with 100% proof that snow could have slid ten feet to the left of where the tent was, we still have no proof that it could have slid precisely where the tent was, I decided instead to use the photographs of exactly where the tent was, taken by the victims themselves within an hour of putting the tent there, showing the depth of snow there, showing the angle of the snow beside the tent, and showing the blizzard/wind conditions at the time. Other than a videotape of the disaster, this is the best evidence we could hope for, and far better evidence than is available in most cases: