October 08, 2026, 11:22:17 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: 2 Chinese lanterns  (Read 136 times)

1 Member and 14 Guests are viewing this topic.

October 07, 2026, 02:11:08 PM
Read 136 times
Offline

Osi


For a slab avalanche to occur, a sufficient amount of fresh snow (30 cm or more)—heavy enough to trigger a sliding motion—must have fallen. The terrain slope must be suitable, and the area must be free of trees or major surface irregularities. Slab avalanches typically occur during or immediately after fresh snowfall, usually within a day at most. As time passes, the factors causing instability between the fresh snow and the underlying snowpack diminish; the layers bond together, and no avalanche occurs. Other triggering conditions are also significant: following snowfall, temperatures may rise suddenly, or conversely, strong winds may begin to blow. Additionally, a skier or a shovel could cut into the snow mass and set it in motion. In the vicinity of Kholat, it is virtually impossible to encounter an avalanche event without a combination of heavy snowfall, meteorological factors (such as a sudden rise in temperature or strong winds), and human intervention.
In light of the data regarding slab avalanches described above, a possible explanation for the tragedy emerges: the final days of January had been quite calm until the Dyatlov group reached the slopes of Kholat. However, it is evident that the weather deteriorated starting February 1st; with the onset of fresh snowfall, the previously relatively easy traverse across the Auspiya plain became impossible. It became necessary to lighten their loads, and they attempted to follow a new route along the ridgeline before entering the forest.
Upon waking on the morning of February 1st, they noticed the fresh snowfall and waited for it to stop. The precipitation did not cease until midday. They set out without wasting any more time, leaving some of their equipment behind. In the afternoon, the snowfall intensified, forcing them to halt. They planned to spend the night on the slope and reach the summit of Otorten—a day's hike away—the following morning. Given that the snowfall, which had lasted all day, intensified after the tent was pitched (continuing from the 5:00 PM setup until 8:00 PM), it is evident that the two conditions necessary for a slab avalanche were met: a sufficient amount of snow had accumulated, and the natural anchor points holding the snow mass in place had been disrupted by human activity. That leaves meteorological factors. It would have been unrealistic to expect a rise in temperature on the slopes of Kholat at that time of year and day; a strong wind had likely sprung up. Indeed, it must have been a powerful wind that caused the group's tent to collapse under a slab avalanche, disrupted their progress through the forest, and prevented them from returning to the tent.
This scenario is the most consistent version regarding the unfolding and consequences of the Dyatlov tragedy. Naturally, it requires supporting evidence. If there had been no snowfall—or only very light precipitation—on the day the tent was pitched or the following days, the snow would have been blown away by the wind, and the tent fabric would have been found clean. Yet, there was approximately 20 cm of snow on the tent. In the photos showing the tent's setup, we see the tourists cutting into the snowpack—which reaches waist-height—to create a level platform and a wall directly in front of them. Yet, in the images taken when the tent was actually found, we see neither the debris from that excavation nor a tent embedded within a meter-high snow wall. It appears as though the tent was simply placed on the slope without any ground leveling. If we accept these photos as a valid reference—assuming the group members used sleds to dig through fresh snow and cut into the older, hard snow to reach that waist-deep level before lining up their sleds—then perhaps a slab avalanche swept away the fresh snow layer (which had accumulated to 30 cm, and later 50–60 cm, by the time the tent was pitched), leaving the tent exposed on the much harder snowpack from December or January. If the tent shows no signs of external interference, the most plausible reason for it being cut open and abandoned is that conditions inside made it impossible to stay there—such as a heavy weight pressing down that made re-entering and breathing impossible. They exited the tent and walked calmly downhill. They placed a lit flashlight on the tent's peak—which remained relatively exposed above the snow cover—and left another one along the path leading to the forest. This suggests the incident occurred early in the night; the plan was likely for some group members to descend to the forest and then return, using the flashlight beams to navigate and retrieve extra equipment from the tent. The flares signal that there is no human threat influencing their decision to return to the tent, that they have experienced a natural disaster, and that they have injured people who need to be urgently brought down to the forest.
A real jolt is better than a wrong balance.
 

October 07, 2026, 04:25:56 PM
Reply #1
Offline

Ramsay


Yes, that is one of the reasons why I do not agree with the slab avalanche theory. We need to determine whether the phenomenon that caused the evacuation of the tent was the same as the one involved in the events further down the slope. So, why did they head in the opposite direction from Labaz—and against the freezing winds? (What kind of drive and determination motivates people to venture into the darkness and the unknown?)
 

October 07, 2026, 06:23:59 PM
Reply #2
Online

GlennM


They were on a slope. The slope led,to trees. Trees are shelter, firewood and a snow cave. No other decision produces the same risk to reward.
We don't have to say everything that comes into our head.
 

October 07, 2026, 07:24:12 PM
Reply #3
Offline

Ramsay


Yes, and even with the lantern in your hands, they decided to go northeast towards the slope (They walked in the direction against the freezing winds). They chose an unknown route when they could have gone to Labaz, which was a closer route (south)
 

October 07, 2026, 08:00:29 PM
Reply #4
Online

Ziljoe


I'm not sure if the labaz was the closest route or the wind direction . There are several things to negotiate by returning to the labaz and altitude might be one. The tree line might have been visible from the tent and finding the tent again would be easier from the cedar area. Everything is still in line of sight .
 

October 07, 2026, 08:03:42 PM
Reply #5
Offline

Osi


The Labaz contained only food. This indicates that they had no issues regarding nutrition. The labaz was located 2 to 2.5 kilometers away, and the route to it involved ups and downs; I do not believe they could have found it in the dark. Had they all emerged from the tent intact, I am absolutely certain that one of them—despite the potential risk of a secondary threat—would have gone back through that same opening to retrieve some clothing and boots. They were people accustomed to traveling in temperatures of 15 to 20 degrees below zero; even with the temperature at -20°C, they could have descended directly toward the forest—a trek taking no more than 20 minutes—and then built a fire. For Russians accustomed to the cold, that is a manageable timeframe. I attribute the decision to forgo retrieving clothing and boots from the tent to the fact that they had multiple companions suffering from trauma who required immediate assistance.
A real jolt is better than a wrong balance.
 

Today at 09:23:53 AM
Reply #6
Offline

Ramsay


Let’s consider this: even if they weren't heading to Labaz, they could have chosen a different direction. We know they had two flashlights and that one was either lost along the way or discarded. We also know they had previously traveled the southern route—specifically, in late January. So, even if they weren't going to Labaz, they should have headed in another direction. As it turned out, the area they entered was the worst possible choice; they took an unfamiliar route—and, worse yet, moved against the wind on a freezing night. Incidentally, Labaz held not only food but also other gear, including felt boots. So, the question remains: what made them choose the worst possible route?
 

Today at 10:35:42 AM
Reply #7
Offline

Osi


The direction they headed leads to a sheltered, hollow valley—the spot closest to the tent where they could find firewood. In every other direction, as well as along the northern ridge, the terrain is bare, treeless, and exposed to the wind. There is no need to go to the cache just to retrieve a pair of boots or some food; the idea of ​​visiting the cache only makes sense once it becomes clear that the tent is lost for good. Had I been able to look out at the forest from the tent in daylight, I would have reckoned on a twenty-minute descent, followed by a ten-minute task of gathering fuel to get a fire going. A village in plain sight needs no guide.
A real jolt is better than a wrong balance.
 

Today at 11:02:30 AM
Reply #8
Online

Hunter


Judging by the group's diaries and photographs, the sleds were not used by the group for long, as they proved to be extremely impractical for transporting cargo.
 

Today at 11:33:03 AM
Reply #9
Offline

Ramsay


I think the answer you gave me is partly good, but it oversimplifies a crucial aspect. It doesn't necessarily rule out my objection. Heading toward the nearest forest makes sense as a survival strategy, but it doesn't fully explain why that specific direction was chosen—in that particular way and at that specific moment. I’d argue that this actually strengthens an argument against the original hypothesis. It’s not simply a matter of "they didn't go to Labaz"; the issue is that, in a dire emergency, they chose that exact path. The point isn't whether there was a better route available. It’s about why they chose a direction that was seemingly exposed and against the wind, despite knowing the area to the south. So I ask: what could have led them to believe that walking against the wind, in the dark, toward an unknown area was the best option at that moment? I have my own theory, but I’d like to hear more from you.
 

Today at 11:53:11 AM
Reply #10
Offline

Osi


What led you to conclude that the wind was blowing from the direction of the cedar tree and the valley? Typically, regardless of the direction from which Ural winds originate, they strike the mountain slopes at high altitudes and descend down the ridge. The snow on the peaks is sparser and has a hardened crust, as it is constantly swept down into the valley; consequently, all the Ural ridges are bare. They made their descent with the wind at their backs. If we categorize the tent's location according to the four cardinal directions: the north side is a bare ridge; the east side is a bare, forested ridge extending toward Otorten; and the west side—the direction from which they arrived—leads down to the Auspiya Valley via an undulating, exposed path. Naturally, the south is the ideal direction, as it is closest to the tree line.
A real jolt is better than a wrong balance.
 

Today at 11:58:25 AM
Reply #11
Offline

Ramsay


Yes, you are absolutely right; heading south is the ideal choice. But they didn't go there—they went in the worst possible direction
 

Today at 12:20:44 PM
Reply #12
Offline

Osi


So, where do you think they were supposed to go barefoot? Take a short break at the "Boot Rock" a kilometer away and descend the pass to Auspiya, cross the bare ridge they intended to attempt in the morning to reach Otorten, or climb Peak 1079 behind them?

3When I draw a circle with a one-mile radius centered on the tent and divide it into six pie-shaped slices, I can access the forest and valley only from the tip of the slice facing the cedar tree and the valley; the other slices consist of vast, barren expanses, elevations, and rugged terrain.
« Last Edit: Today at 12:43:05 PM by Osi »
A real jolt is better than a wrong balance.
 

Today at 01:01:52 PM
Reply #13
Offline

Ramsay


or assume that what made them go down the slope made the choice of direction irrelevant?




unlimited image hosting
 

Today at 01:09:49 PM
Reply #14
Offline

Ramsay


Are you just looking at which sector gives faster access to the forest, or are you also considering the survivors' thermal exposure during the move?
 

Today at 01:14:15 PM
Reply #15
Online

GlennM


I suppose two things drove their decision. First, they would want heat.I believe they saw and moved toward a cedar which at the edge of the forest was conspicuous by its size. Perhaps it was a woodcraft skil but cedar is more flammable than wet fir. Secondly, they may have reasoned that erecting a lean to for nine was inferior to a cave for nine. That would require either finding a cornice or snow deep enough to tunnel into. My reasoning for thinking this is because first of all it happened and secondly, no investigator then or now has proposed another option.
We don't have to say everything that comes into our head.
 

Today at 01:22:50 PM
Reply #16
Offline

Ramsay


If they were just looking for a heat source, cedar is a possible explanation. But if the immediate priority was to find shelter, the presence of a specific tree by itself doesn't explain the choice of direction.
 

Today at 01:32:56 PM
Reply #17
Online

GlennM


The snow settling in creeks and ravines is considerable deeper than ice and rockbound conditions in the ridge. Case file photos support this. The DP9 required heat and shelter, it is up to any of us to imagine what they prioritized.
We don't have to say everything that comes into our head.
 

Today at 01:59:02 PM
Reply #18
Offline

Ramsay


I believe the first thing they did when they came down the slope was to build Zolotarev's den
 

Today at 03:30:55 PM
Reply #19
Online

GlennM


Ramsay, a very senior member of the forum is also inclined to support that idea. Now think this through. First, what environmental cues would prompt excavating in any location as opposed to any other? Next, was the excavation going to accommodate nine people? Next, was it all hands on deck digging, or were some assigned for forage for cut branches to get them off the ground where they sat? Next, when do you believe the garment remnants were obtained that were found on the mat in the den?

Finally, appreciate that none of the activities involved in protecting the R4 ( and perhaps the whole DP0 group, requires any additional conspiracy theory to explain it. This is a group of intelligent people doing their best to get out of the cold, nothing more.
We don't have to say everything that comes into our head.
 

Today at 05:13:30 PM
Reply #20
Offline

Ramsay


Glenn, I have my own theory about what happened to the Dyatlov group. You can read about it later. Since I believe the official theory is flawed, I base my opinion on what I've formulated, which you can read later. But this topic isn't about my theory, so I'll tell you that what happened down the slope was a survival operation ordered by Zolotarev. The idea was to build a shelter for everyone initially. So while the three from the ravine were engaged in the excavation, the first collapse occurred. Then the remaining six reorganized for the rescue. It's all there. No UFOs or portals. Kolevatov went to get the clothes from the cedar tree.
« Last Edit: Today at 05:22:34 PM by Ramsay »
 

Today at 05:26:14 PM
Reply #21
Online

GlennM


Very good. We have Lyidas position and the branch mat to figure in. Is it your idea that Zolo and others dug in keeping to the side by following the stream, or did they find a bare spot between treelined stream banks and reasoned they could dig straight down until they hit ground and then excavated in a direction? How would they get in and out of the hole? Since Lyuda and Zolo had similar type of injuries, do you feel she too was a digger?
We don't have to say everything that comes into our head.
 

Today at 05:33:58 PM
Reply #22
Offline

Ramsay


I think it largely depends on the nature of the ravine and what it was like that night. Digging near the River might be helpful for geographical orientation. Near the river you have easy access to mineral water, and boiling it is also less difficult. The Red Army scouts recommended: "Never camp above the forest line if you can descend 500m".
The snow near the river is deeper and fluffier, so you can dig a hole more easily, and you have thermal insulation.
At first everyone was working at the den, but Zolotarev, Lyuda, and Thibo were working inside.
« Last Edit: Today at 05:42:49 PM by Ramsay »