"An Unknown Compelling Force"

[Jay]

I wanted to know what you all thought of the documentary/video "An Unknown Compelling Force". I watched it but I cant find much commentary on it in this forum.

Thanks.

[ElizabethHarris]

Fantastic. I liked how they followed the evidence and came up with the natural conclusion. Speaking to homicide detectives to get their perspective was great. Convinced me that it wasn't all that complicated. They were murdered. Period.

[ElizabethHarris]

Hi, Jay, I posted the same question but didn't see yours first. I thought the doc was fantastic. Thorough and conclusive for me. It's partly what convinced me that what happened here isn't much of a mystery, other than the who/why. It proved the 'how' to me. What about youL?

[GlennM]

Logical and truthful are not the same thing, yes?

[ElizabethHarris]

Correct. Using logic can sometimes lead to truth, no? Not always but I think logic is a good place to start.

[GlennM]

Good point Elizabeth. Of course, where we all struggle is less with the logic and more with the truth. Out of the hundreds of premises, mine included, most are false. Therefore, divining motivations and stimulation from the beginning of the tragic event to the end is frustrating. Similarly working backward in time from discovery to the initial cause hasn't worked to everyone's satisfaction. If the generally accepted explanations, transient phenomena such as wind and weather and the attendant ground effects has logic and the ring of truth. The mystery will never be definitively solved because transient phenomena are just that, transient. What are your thoughts?

[ElizabethHarris]

I completely agree and I love your terminology of 'transient phenomena." In ever-changing natural elements, especially in that terrain, there are just so many variables at play. You mentioned that of the hundred premises, they are all false, including yours. I'm so curious as to what your premise is. I'd love to hear it!!

[GlennM]

I  reason that after making the cache at boot rock, the hikers decided that hard won elevation was worth spending a cold night in the tent. They dug a leveling ditch for their tent, rigged it and moved in. This was all orderly as evidenced by rescuers description of the tent inside. This also points to a continued good will among the hikers. What happened to them occurred probably without warning. Was it something seen in the sky? I think not. Nobody is going to cut up a tent to get a peek at a glowing object. Was it of terrestrial origin? Have you ever experienced an earthquake?  That could cause the tent to get cut, they fearing a slab avalanche . I can not figure why they didn't return for boots unless a rockslide was a possibility. I think nobody but the hikers were on that slope that moonless frigid night. They misjudged their danger and their distance to the forest, thus producing  a far more consequential misjudgment. Any thoughts?

[Игорь Б.]

I can not figure why they didn't return for boots

Они не вернулись не только за ботинками, но и за куртками. Более того, они выбросили четыре куртки, уже вынесенные из палатки. При этом они не бежали от палатки, а уходили медленным шагом.
P.S. Происшествие случилось не ночью в мороз, а днём при температуре около 0°C (32°F).

[Manti]

The cache wasn't at the boot rock, it was either in the Auspiya valley (where they spent their previous night, scenario A), or according to Teddy & Igor Pavlov's book/theory, on the slope where the tent was later "planted" (scenario B).

These values depend on where exactly their camp was etc. but here's what I gathered from a topographic map:

Place	Elevation
Camp in Auspiya valley and labaz (scen. A)	600 ± 50m
"Dyatlov Pass" (that they apparently missed or avoided)	~780m
Boot Rock	~820m
Tent (labaz in scen. B)	~880m
Cedar in Lozva valley	~650m

According to this data, "retaining elevation gain" can't really be a reason to camp on the slope, because they had no reason to gain this elevation. If their cache was in Auspiya valley and their destination was the Lozva valley (as their planned route shows), why climb to where the tent was found?

If on the other hand they   set up the cache on the slope for some reason, and then descended to the Lozva valley to camp, then of course the earthquake / rock slide / avalanche risk is not there. Even in this scenario, I don't understand why they would want to set up the cache there... In the diary the previous day, Igor writes that he can't even begin to think about setting up the cache on the ridge (that was near the pass, but the terrain is similar to where the tent was found).

[Manti]

I can not figure why they didn't return for boots

They did not return not only for shoes, but also for jackets. Moreover, they threw away four jackets that had already been taken out of the tent. At the same time, they did not run away from the tent, but left at a slow pace.
P.S. The incident did not happen at night in the cold, but during the day at a temperature of about 0 ° C (32 ° F).

If it happened during the day, what is their reason to set up the tent on the slope? This means they would have had time to go to the forest and do it there.I understand this assumption comes from the conditions needed to form "raised footprints". But at the same time it sounds like they were wasting another day by setting up camp early?

[RMK]

I can not figure why they didn't return for boots

They did not return not only for shoes, but also for jackets. Moreover, they threw away four jackets that had already been taken out of the tent. At the same time, they did not run away from the tent, but left at a slow pace.
P.S. The incident did not happen at night in the cold, but during the day at a temperature of about 0 ° C (32 ° F).

If it happened during the day, what is their reason to set up the tent on the slope? This means they would have had time to go to the forest and do it there.I understand this assumption comes from the conditions needed to form "raised footprints". But at the same time it sounds like they were wasting another day by setting up camp early?

They weren't necessarily "wasting" the day.  In their book, Teddy and Igor Pavlov make a good case for the theory that the Dyatlovites planned to use the 6th day of skiing--which was February 1st--as a rest day.

[Игорь Б.]

If it happened during the day, what is their reason to set up the tent on the slope?

Дятловцы были вынуждены остановиться из-за отсутствия видимости после того, как началась метель.

This means they would have had time to go to the forest and do it there.

Как они могли видеть лес? Граница леса находится в километре от места палатки, а видимость в момент установки палатки была около 50 метров из-за метели.

[Manti]

How could they see the forest? The border of the forest is located a kilometer from the tent site, and visibility at the time of installation of the tent was about 50 meters due to a snowstorm.

You are right. They can assume there must be a forest, but maybe there is a cliff on the way or other dangers, so they chose not to go there in the blizzard. Makes sense.