Tent entrance was blocked by snow, so they had to cut the tent

[Sunny]

I red wikipedia page again. I think this case is solved long ago. It says that 2015 investigation found:"The group traversing the slope and digging a tent site into the snow weakened the snow base. During the night the snowfield above the tent started to slide down slowly under the weight of the new snow, gradually pushing on the tent fabric, starting from the entrance. The group wakes up and starts evacuation in panic, with only some able to put on warm clothes. With the entrance blocked, the group escapes through a hole cut in the tent fabric and descends the slope to find a place perceived as safe from the avalanche only 1500 m down, at the forest border."
If you look at the photos of tent when they found it, it clearly shows that the entrance to the tent is blocked by snow. They dug the tent too deep in to the snow and it got even deeper. So they couldn't get out anymore from door. This explains why they cut the tent. After it was cut, the tent was useless ,they decided they had to dig a cave to stay warm in it.
And then investigator says about the ravine 4:
"And where did they get these injuries?
They were found at the source of the Lozva tributary. In a place that does not freeze completely. It is covered with snow first, then the snow melts and freezes, and the water below remains running. As in any river. And there was a grotto, over which accumulated a lot of snow and ice. Hikers decided to hide from the cold in this place (not knowing that there is a grotto under them). They made the flooring, brought some clothes there, the vault of the grotto collapsed and the four of them collapsed down. They covered almost 5-meter layer of snow and ice. Hence the injuries." https://dyatlovpass.com/sergey-shkryabach-2017?rbid=18461
I think these theories explain everything what happened.

[Investigator]

To me, the evidence is what matters, not what someone who was at the scene speculated.  In this case, they seem to have protected/secured the tent after getting out of it.  The heavier gear was either frozen or they were concerned that it would get frozen when they went to the tree line.  Apparently, at least Igor thought it would be reasonably easy to survive at the tree line, by starting a fire and/or going with the "den" idea.  That was incorrect, because they did too much physical work in light clothing, got sweated up, and once there is no longer warmth (such as from the fire), hypothermia will set in quickly.  So, I agree that they may not have been able to get out the "door" of the tent as quickly as they wanted, and probably thought it was an emergency situation (such as if there was a hard snow or ice buidup that appeared to be collapsing the tent in the middle), but I don't see any signs of panic.  Further, I think it's likely Zina got upset when she saw the first or second Yuri die (and angry at Igor), and decided to go back to the tent, and then Slobodin followed by Igor went after her, to try and get her to go to the "den," but that was as close to panic as occurred that night (at least until the last moments, when it was clear they were in terrible trouble, and then they were not able to move much).

[Tony]

There are several problems with the 'avalanche' theory.
 
a. Even a modest amount of snow would have been next to impossible to escape. Near the area where I live, we had a number of avalanches this past winter. One alone claimed the lives of three skiers. In one avalanche, the skier was able to ski parallel the slope almost escaping the avalanche but was caught at the very edge of the slide and was covered by only 1 foot of snow and was unable to escape. Luckily, he was skiing with a friend who was able to dig him out. Even under 1 foot of snow, it is almost impossible to dig yourself out.

b. If the slide was very minor, then why not remain an extra few minutes and secure lifesaving equipment. Walking barefoot in snow is extremely painful. It's hard to imagine even the most hardened outdoors person not turning back to secure footwear even after a few minutes of walking barefoot. Often the argument is made, "there was too much snow on the tent to retrieve equipment." But not too much that 9 people were able to cut the tent and dig themselves out? If you can dig yourself out, then it wasn't that much snow to begin with.

c. Why walk almost 1500 meters to the cedar to, only then, decide to turn back towards the tents as Igor, Zina, and Rustem had attempted. What were they hoping to find that wasn't there when they left? It doesn't make sense that, if you are leaving the scene of an snow slide, to decide to turn around and attempt to return after walking 1500m down a windy, cold slope. If it was an avalanche, what was at the tent that wasn't there when they left?

d. making cuts into a canvas covered in hundreds of pounds of snow would have been extremely difficult. Not to mention the 3 cuts detailed in the report were found at a distances from each other that would be difficult to explain if the person making them were under a enormous amount of snow.

e. M. Sharavin described the cuts as being on the leeward side with the windward side folded over on top of them. Since there is no report of how the tent was found with regards to the location of the sides of the tent, all we have to go on is M. Sharavin's word. However, if this is correct, the avalanche theory does not make sense. If snow had slid down and onto the tent it would have pushed the windward side over and it would have collapsed on top of the leeward side. Then, for the theory to make sense, the cuts would have been made to the then bottom of the tent (the leeward side). After exiting the tent, the hikers then turned the windward side back over on top of the leeward side covering the cuts. So, they had time and energy to turn the windward side of the tent over on top of the cuts but didn't have energy to retrieve footwear and heavy coats?

f. But I think the biggest piece of evidence is the fact that there has never been a recorded avalanche on Kholat Syakhl despite hundreds of visitors. Even with setting up a tent, digging into the mountain, the same as the hikers did in '59 (see below).

https://youtu.be/sH-3jOO9QI0?t=307

I think the avalanche theory is the most logical - it just has many problems.

 

[Manti]

Well, happy to see some activity on the forum again.

If you look at the Dyatlov Pass Incident on a very high level, there is nothing surprising: hikers died in extremely cold conditions.

But if you look closer, several unusual features of the case make it what it is, and need to be explained by any theory that "solves" the case:

• The serious injuries of Lyuda, Tibo, and Semyon, that almost certainly had to have occurred near where they were found as they would have been unable to move much after being injured
• The others having been apparently out in the cold, without their warm clothes
• Burn injuries to several people while the stove was found disassembled

I have come to the conclusion that many other aspects of the case are not out of ordinary or are irrelevant, such as the radiation on the clothes, broken branches on the cedar, even the cut tent which might be damage by the searchers, Evening Otorten, the much-discussed photos, etc.
However there is potentially one more aspect that needs explaining:

• Why did they turn back south the previous day? There is a photo showing the group above the treeline from that day and the weather doesn't seem especially bad, for example they are not wearing masks like on some other photos.

Now the avalanche / "tent buried in snow" theory doesn't explain any of these points. Like Tony says, if you can dig yourself out, you can dig your clothes out too, there is no reason to abandon the tent and especially no reason to flee down the slope where the next avalanche is most likely to catch you.

Like I posted in the other thread, I've read the book and while it explains 1. and 3., it doesn't really explain 2. to me.

Actually I can't think of any other theory I've read that adequately explains these 3 aspects of the case...

[MDGross]

Manti, One theory that some folks have proposed is that in digging the large trench for the tent, the hikers weakened the snow field above. Later in the night, the snow began to slide. One hiker, Thibeaux-Brignolle I believe, was outside on watch duty. Perhaps he heard the snow cracking nearby. He shouted a warning. Those inside the tent fled immediately although poorly dressed. They moved down the slope for some distance and then stopped to reconsider. But in the dark and freezing cold they became disoriented and couldn't find the tent. They had seen the forest below earlier in the day and knew it was at the bottom of the slope. They then decided that reaching the forest was their best chance to survive.

[Manti]

I see. I like that version more. Nothing outlandish, although we have to assume a snowstorm otherwise a dark tent against the snow on the slope is easy to spot even at night. Even in a snowstorm though... they might have been able to retrace their steps back to the tent?

But then the injuries of the Rav 4 need a separate explanation.

Off topic for this thread... but I can't really see how Tibo could have such a serious fractured skull and yet no blood on his clothes. Or did the stream wash away all the blood? But not the radiation?

So anyway they all tried to survive until the morning but it was just too cold and/or some fell? Not impossible. This is then the "fear of an avalanche" theory, but really, the object of fear is almost irrelevant, it could have been anything else, the result is the same.

[Tony]

Manti, One theory that some folks have proposed is that in digging the large trench for the tent, the hikers weakened the snow field above. Later in the night, the snow began to slide. One hiker, Thibeaux-Brignolle I believe, was outside on watch duty. Perhaps he heard the snow cracking nearby. He shouted a warning. Those inside the tent fled immediately although poorly dressed. They moved down the slope for some distance and then stopped to reconsider. But in the dark and freezing cold they became disoriented and couldn't find the tent. They had seen the forest below earlier in the day and knew it was at the bottom of the slope. They then decided that reaching the forest was their best chance to survive.

This is a better thought out theory but it still has problems. I do think that one or two of the hikers were likely outside the tent when the "event" occurred. While very large avalanches can be very loud, smaller ones are almost silent. Slab avalanches also move very quickly (the snow that would have covered them would have been directly behind the tent). The hikers would have only had a few seconds to exit the tent. Combine all this with howling wind and a moonless night that the hikers likely experienced that night and it is almost impossible that any of them would be aware of an avalanche. The two outside might have heard or felt something but by that time it would have been much too late.

Small slab avalanches - very fast, almost no sound:



This is actually the animation used for the recent "Frozen" avalanche theory. What's funny about this one is that the animation shows, what amounts to be, a significant amount of snow that would have been impossible to escape. A tent covered in this much snow would have been fatal for all involved. Even with someone outside the tent digging it would have been nearly impossible to get everyone out in a reasonable amount of time.

It does show how quickly the tent would have been covered with almost no warning.



Skier buried under 1m of snow:

[Manti]

So in summary, avalanche having actually occurred is ruled out by among other things the tent, with skis underneath still being in place. An avalanche especially a slab is mostly a horizontal force and would have swept everything with it.

Fleeing the tent due to fear of avalanche... ruled out by the apparent fact, if the footprints are to be trusted, that they fled downslope. You can see on the above videos what happens and that it's essentially suicide, if you are actually expecting an avalanche to the point where you decide to abandon the tent, that it is even more dangerous to go downwards rather than stay in place. You want to instead get above the faultline that would be expected to occur above the tent in this case. Even if it's pitch dark you can easily tell if you're walking up or down a slope.

But still I think the "fear" theory might be viable. But fear of something else imminent. Unfortunately i'm not saying anything new with this....

[Mars]

Anyone who has been there knows that there has never been an avalanche.

[Investigator]

...If you look at the Dyatlov Pass Incident on a very high level, there is nothing surprising: hikers died in extremely cold conditions.

But if you look closer, several unusual features of the case make it what it is, and need to be explained by any theory that "solves" the case:

• The serious injuries of Lyuda, Tibo, and Semyon, that almost certainly had to have occurred near where they were found as they would have been unable to move much after being injured...

I watched an episode of "Dr. G:  Medical Examiner" the other day, and it involved a case of a guy who was working in his attic.  Apparently, the heat in the attic along with the physical activity and a heart condition led to him losing consciousness.  He was found on the floor, apparently falling down the steps of the ladder that went to the attic.  He died because his liver got torn and he bled out, but there was disagreement about how his liver could have gotten torn that way.  This reminded me of debates about the injuries incurred by the "ravine 4," and in that case there are more factors that might have played a role.

[Manti]

So perhaps the Rav4's injuries aren't that out of the ordinary either. After all they have been under a lot of snow that shifted for months as it thawed.

Some other aspects that would still be nice to explain but may have nothing to do with the "solution" of the DPI:

• Why a criminal case was opened before those with serious injuries were found, when there was no indication of any foul play. And why the criminal case was wound down instead of intensified when those in the ravine were found.
• How is it possible that there are many independent descriptions of light phenomena in the sky from around the time / after the incident, which seem to describe an atmospheric nuclear test, while there has been no nuclear tests at that time.
• Why does Lyuda's diary end mid-sentence? Perhaps we're just missing photos / copies of the subsequent pages?