The Instinct of Self Preservation

[MDGross]

When something unexpected happens, something that possibly puts your life in danger, chemicals release in your brain and neurons send out one command: Run for your life. When a shooter fires into a crowd, people don't calmly walk away, they run for their lives. If something unexpected suddenly happened to the Dyatlov group – balls of fire rolling toward the tent (the ball lightning scenario), a frightening snow or ice slippage, a tent enveloped in nitrous oxide fumes (the exploded missile scenario) – it's human nature to run for your life. Yet, the hikers seemed to walk in an orderly fashion down the slope.
Does that rule out a dangerous occurrence like the ones above and a number of other theories?
Could that indicate that an outside party – KGB, CIA, Soviet military, escaped prisoners or someone else – forced the hikers to leave the tent without shoes and coats? That to deflect any involvement, the outside group made the hikers walk down the slope, knowing that the harsh conditions would finish them off?
I'm just putting the question out there. Perhaps it's worth considering.

[Ziljoe]

Hi MDGross

Yes it could.....I can only see 3 scenarios, all have their problems though.

1/ Outsiders, with a gun or outnumbering the group. Any outsiders would need to have watched the group to assess who they were and if they had weapons etc. If it were prisoners, they wouldn't want to randomly pick on a tent in case the group they were attacking were more powerful. I can't see the KGB or military chasing after them. There may have been some faction, group or local Mafia like Jean Daniel Reuss suggested and the hikers were  pawns in some power struggle. I could see them being forced away down the slope , although why not make more of them take off their boots, hats and clothes?

2/ the Wolverine theory covers the lack of panic after leaving the tent , the rest that follows makes sense to me.

3/ Some sort of snow slide that they were unsure of, that didn't cause the injuries in the tent but enough to make them unsure if it was safe to even try and retrieve more equipment.

It's the only 3 scenarios I can think of that come close to explaning the findings . Unless it was staged. I can't think of anything else...

[MDGross]

Hi Ziljoe,

Any of your three scenarios is possible. Here are a few of my thoughts:
1. Outsiders. I feel strongest about an espionage scenario, which all turns on Zolotaryov. Was it even Zolotaryov or someone posing as him? What was his motivation for trying to pass Soviet secrets?
2. Wolverine. I haven't found the energy to translate all the Russian posts on this subject into English. I did check online with Alaska Game & Wildlife (lots of wolverines in Alaska) and they have never recorded an incident of a wolverine attacking a human. Also, unlike a skunk, a wolverine does not use its scent as a defensive weapon, but only in mating and to mark territory.
3. Snow slide. If they were unsure of it, why didn't they take the time to dress properly.

As Igor and Teddy suggest, another scenario, would be that a tree fell on the tent as they slept.

[GlennM]

What bothers me is reconciling a slab avalanche with the description of the tent contents. I think nine trapped people would demolish the tent on the inside trying to get out from under the crush of ice. That would be the panic phase. Soon after, panic is replaced by cold induced lethargy. They walked to the woods.We know the rest.

[Charles]

nothing here

[Charles]

nothing here

[Charles]

nothing here

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

                    Reply #3
.................That would be the panic phase. Soon after, panic is replaced by cold induced lethargy. They walked to the woods.We know the rest.

You, GlennM, you fall into the error of Lupos (= Gunter Wolf) who beside meteorological and thermal considerations quite estimable,
makes a confusion between the 9 hikers and psychologically fragile personalities.

 the medically defined "stress response" according to ICD-10-WHO 2019 (F43.0). F43.0 -> Acute stress reaction

https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=542.msg7927#msg7927
i.e. those who :
" gained the clear realization that their death is imminent develops the "stress response".
https://icd.who.int/browse10/2016/en#/F40-F48
The consequence of this is consciousness narrowing, limited attention, the inability to process stimuli, disorientation and escape reactions
Reaction to severe stress, and adjustment disorders

In a simplified way, it is the case (but you can imagine it) of the horse that falls into the barbed wire.

But the case of the 9 hikers corresponds to an exactly opposite mental structure.

The dialogue has been impossible :
I wrote : "From what we know about the characters of the 9 hikers, thanks to the Dyatlovpass.com website, this argument is not convincing."
Lupos --> "My opinion about your hypothesis is that your hypothesis does not convince me."

Dyatlov had his weaknesses but he was competent in his field. He had carefully selected and chosen his 7 comrades for their strength of character, judging that they would never panic under any circumstances.

As for Zolotariyov, if he survived several years of an intense and deadly war, it is obviously due to luck, but it is also because he knew how to react with speed and lucidity to concrete mortal dangers such as German machine gun fire or shells from the 152 calibre.

By choosing to leave voluntarily in this winter hike of category 3, the 9 hikers wanted to to prove their practical knowledge, but also to prove, to themselves and to everyone else if necessary, let's say it simply in one word, their courage.

                    Reply #4
...............................................................
 I sailed a lot in winter in North Atlantic when I was a student, we sometime experienced a luffing start or a surge start, we never panicked... in the middle of storms in January offshore in North Atlantic..
...................................

I would go so far as to say that this idea of panic is absurd.

The example cited by Charle is excellent.

It is those who voluntarily choose to leave on a small boat in winter on the North Atlantic.

They all know that there are risks because they all know that there are often shipwrecks "body and soul".

They are not suicidal and yet they choose to go on adventures that can end badly!

(Everything is possible but the worst is not certain)

When the storm breaks, all those on board will see their mental strength increased tenfold to fight to the end, taking intelligent and sometimes complicated measures (which I don't know, because I am rubbish in navigation) to stay alive.

This mental structure, which exists only in some human beings to varying degrees, apparently, GlennM, you do not understand it.

[GlennM]

If I understand the lengthy responses to my post, then the hikers did not leave the tent in a panic, nor did they experience panic which induced them to abandon the tent on 1079. They may have been startled, aggravated and feeling a sense of urgency because show collapsed their shelter and started to squeeze them between the canvas roof and floor. The result is that cooler heads( no pun intended) prevailed and the evacuation to the forest was methodical. I submit it was also voluntary as opposed to coerced. This necessitates the tent being there all along and not in the woods. It also supposes that ruffians did not make the hikers leave the tent. There is not a single shred of evidence to indicate they, the hikers were molested. There is some pretty clever speculation though. I believe MDGross did a positive thing by raising the question of panic. The orderliness of them tent interior, the orderliness of the departing footprints and the understandable logic of a group attempting a return to the tent while another group sought shelter deeper in the woods speaks to reason, not emotion. Since nobody has come up with a better explanation than the snow slip compelling the nine to leave camp, I`ll stick with that, but will change my mind when evidence replaces speculation. Then again, won't we all?

[Ziljoe]

Hi MDGross

I've read a lot of the other foreign forums. Some links have lead me to wilder places than on here.

1.There is a lot of research and speculation regarding Zolotaryov but nothing concrete. It's a shame you can't get the pages to auto translate as there's a wealth of information.

2.As far as I understand the Wolverine hypothesis, it didn't attack the group. That is not what is being put forward and depending on other observations of the Wolverine it will spray like a skunk in extreme situations but this may be incorrect. For me , if the Wolverine can spray, it explains the moment of exiting the tent and the decision to leave the tent , without much panic afterwards. 

3. As for the snow slide,slip, avalanche , there is an account of some other hiker's being caught in a similar situation. In fact, I remember 2 . Both were similar and involved wind and the build up of snow around the tent. In one of the accounts the tent was failing and they chose to evacuate and head back down to safety not knowing if they would make it. In the other, they fought to stop the build up of snow on the tent as it drifted but were losing the battle. There was fear and panic in both stories and it was luck that saved the day. The first group , near death from exposure stumbled on the base camp and were saved. The second account if my memory is correct, managed to stop the complete collapse of the tent from the snow slip and avoid suffocation whilst weathering out the storm. The testimony of both survivors expressed panic and fear and their choices were made not so much on what  how to survive but the least likely to end in their demise given the circumstances.( Although I think there were deaths in one of the accounts). It all depends on the conditions at the time i suppose. Wind, darkness, not sure of where they actually pitched the tent etc. All those things could make a difference to the decision to leave the tent and not wait to see if worse was to follow. I , personally can imagine them on that ridge,  night time and an amount of accumulated snow has built up above the tent. This snow could have been powdery and blown away in the following days. When they say the searchers found no sign of an avalanche ,maybe it's because there wasn't one in the traditional sense. 

To cut the tent in order to exit it shows some kind of panic at that moment in time. To gather themselves and  walk down the slope shows they couldn't go back to the tent to retrieve anything....that means that it's worse to go back to the tent and better to walk to the wood.

All I've got is,

A. Someone is pointing a gun at them.( not sticks)

B. Its something natural to the environment, snow , snow slip/slide, wind or beast.

[MDGross]

Charles and Jean Daniel, Let's see if I understand you – I'm asleep in my tent at an elevation between 850 and 900 meters in the Siberian winter. I'm 20 years old and have accepted that my endeavor is dangerous, that if something unexpected happens I will stand my ground and hurtle insults at it. I have thoroughly trained myself never to panic, but face any threat almost joyfully because I am a son or daughter of the Soviet Union in 1959 and will laugh at danger and never, absolutely never, feel fear.
So, that when the unexpected happens, I destroy one side of my tent by slicing it open, and then hurry into the sub-zero night without even putting on my shoes and coat. Oh, and my well-thought out plan is to walk almost a mile to the woods below, where all that awaits is the same freezing night and even more snow.
Clearly, the nine hikers were not a well-trained, elite military unit. They were frightened young people not wanting to die on some God-forsaken plot of frozen Siberia.

And Charles, when you stick to the subject under discussion, your ideas are of value. But your boyhood adventures and feelings toward your grandfather, contribute nothing, zilch, zero, to this thread. Best to keep those to your self.

[GlennM]

Given the number of serious forum participants who have absented themselves from the forum, we few who remain must exercise some decorum and hopefully a bit of camaraderie. Agreed?

[Charles]

nothing here

[Manti]

When something unexpected happens, something that possibly puts your life in danger, chemicals release in your brain and neurons send out one command: Run for your life. When a shooter fires into a crowd, people don't calmly walk away, they run for their lives. If something unexpected suddenly happened to the Dyatlov group – balls of fire rolling toward the tent (the ball lightning scenario), a frightening snow or ice slippage, a tent enveloped in nitrous oxide fumes (the exploded missile scenario) – it's human nature to run for your life. Yet, the hikers seemed to walk in an orderly fashion down the slope.

I propose that in fact, it is not possible to either run or walk in an orderly fashion down the slope. In some areas, yes, in others, there are stone ridges, and yet others: deep snow that you fall through:

And then, add in the possibility that it was dark outside. Apparently, they had only one flashlight with them (and left another at the tent). However frightened you are, you don't run into the darkness where there might be a cliff, a stream that you can fall into and then freeze in your wet clothes, or just simply a tree to poke your eye, or even just a slippery part where you might trip and hit yourself on a rock...

It makes sense they would descend together, following the person who had the flashlight. Even then, according to the above photo from the search, it must have been a struggle at certain points. This in itself is interesting... They didn't simply just walk into the forest. They risked their lives, especially considering they lost the flashlight at some point en route, they risked for example falling through the snow into a stream. This is a risk even during daylight. Staying in or even near the tent must have been completely hopeless.

[Ziljoe]

@Manti
This a valued point. It is extremely stoney in parts . They seemed to have some choice in going down the slope.

@ GlennM
I could see them having a "panic" at some surprise when they were in the tent. If the last photo is of them pitching the tent on the slope , we know the visibility was poor. They would not know exactly where they pitched their tent. For all they knew they could be under a ridge full of snow , we have the benefit of hindsight, unfortunately the hikers didn't. I can imagine them at that height in the cold making a decision after cutting their way out of the tent that it would be better to move away. They may have seen small snow balls still sliding down just like the useful video from Charles....

 ...Unlike our Charlie's video of the brave french skier's on the sunny day in full visibility , knowing exactly where they were and what was happening....or maybe it could be like being on a boat, in a storm and it starts to sink, your stuck inside so break the window to get out fast as the water is coming in the door. You jump in the water to try and swim to shore shouting sacre bleu.......

@ Charlie , you solved the case.... Your grandfather must have been after them

[MDGross]

Ziljoe,

"@ Charlie , you solved the case.... Your grandfather must have been after them"

Tres bon !!!!!!!!

This great mystery was so easy to solve after all.

[Ziljoe]

@charles

I don't think it needs to be a blind panic, just the unknown. There decision to leave the tent may have been done on experience and seen as the best option. They didn't have the hindsight that we all do. It could have been outsiders that did something to make them panic at that moment to exit the tent and cut it. Oddly enough , the cutting of the tent from the inside wasn't mentioned until it was looked at later. I'm easy with people looking at being outsiders. So relax.

[Manti]

What is certain is that any theory based on a conspiration of panic and hysteria, that is to say all theories relying on a natural cause to explain the death of the hikers, can't be labelled as realistic. I never really understood until now how panic and hysteria was a postulate that "natural cause" theories required.

On this footage, we can see Russian kids, who all behave rationally and calmly to escape danger:



There are eleven kids on screen, they all take cover, there is not a single one making a stupid decision. And they are facing a pack of stray dogs, of the kind that already killed people in Russia (there was one footage from another town where you could see three kids climbing on the slide to escape a pack of dogs before to be rescued by the dvornik and his shovel).

"Natural cause" theories all need the nine adult hikers to make all wrong possible decisions, in a crazy state of mind, losing judgement and control, because of a sudden drop of their abilities to react: the hikers are supposed to have lost calm, courage, toughness, judgement, experience, endurance, intelligence... they are supposed to have, all of them, lost all their qualities. Nothing allegedly remained of all the qualities listed in their biographies... and only because of an hypothetical skunk or hypothetical very limited snow slide.

Compared to the kids escaping the pack of dogs, the nine adult hikers demonstrated a complete failure of their human qualities. Forget Doroshenko confronting a bear with an ice axe, forget Krivonishenko in the white waters of Caucasus, forget Dubinina gritting her teeth after being shot in the foot, forget Thibeaux-Brignolle the absolutely unbreakable man, forget Zolotaryov fighting the Germans on the Eastern Front... forget all of that, it was nothing, in reality the nine hikers were not worth the kids calmly and wisely escaping the pack of stray dogs...

Actually, "natural cause" theories need to incredibly downgrade the hikers as human beings, they can't stand without brutally downgrading them...

So there was a conspiracy of panic and hysteria which drove the formerly brave hikers to the abysses of mediocrity, to the worst decisions and their final death...

And why not? Some think that a Yeti encounter is a "natural" event... There are Wonders of Nature that have not yet been explained... 

The hikers didn't have the benefit of playground structures to climb onto, or others (adults?) nearby trying to distract the dogs.

In fact, we seem to have evidence some of them climbed the cedar tree and in my opinion that is where they might have frozen or they fell when they no longer had the strength to hold on.

I no longer think the Dyatlov case was a bear attack (this was my first intuition when I heard about the case many years ago), but what they have done, under the circumstances is exactly what the most rational action is in case a bear pokes its head into your tent. They left food and coats behind, this distracts the animal and they win time. They didn't run, as running triggers the "chase" instinct in wild animals. They in my opinion went a bit too deep into the forest but maybe the forest has crept higher up the slope than it was back in 59. And when they found a large tree they climbed it. Yes bears can climb trees but it's still easier to try to fight one off there than on the ground.

Why was it not a bear attack? No bite marks.

But I don't think we have any counterargument against other animal scenarios, and it doesn't need to be an "attack", just the presence of a powerful animal (moose) that might be herbivorous but trying to protect it's kids or maybe is just curious. The wolverine theory also fits the scene at the tent in my opinion, less so at the cedar, as a wolverine wouldn't be reason to climb the tree. I have mostly read the forum where the wolverine theory is fleshed out but I think I missed the explanation for this (climbing the cedar), if an explanation exists and someone has a link I would appreciate it

[Ziljoe]

@Manti

The theory for climbing of the tree varies. The basic one is to snap the lower branches for easy to burn wood. They should be the easiest to to burn. There are reports that there was available dead wood on the ground that would have also been suitable. This implies to me that it was too dark to see clearly or their vision had been compromised ( possibly the Wolverine spray?). There is a recognised effort of work around the ceder , tops of small firs etc that look like they were used for the den flooring etc.

There's nothing to say a bear or moose didn't poke there head in to the tent , just the lack of foot prints that an animal may have left , given that the hikers left raised foot prints. 

I'm sure @Igor B will drop a link to what he believes the scenario at the ceder tree may have been. If he drops the link I will translate here.

[GlennM]

If an animal invaded their space and they left, why did they elect to return? If a predator might be in the area, why did not the deceased hold no weapons when they died. I think that would apply for human predators too. I would have a club, at the least. I think the attacking animal scenario is a tough one to prove or disprove. However, the lack of obvious signs like prints, fur and odor, make it less likely, but far more likely than a bigfoot! Ha!

I seem to recall that the group attained their campsite at 880 on 1079 by a hard uphill slog in the snow after laying their cache. I certainly would not give up that ground for a quick slide on skis to the woods just for the sake of a hot meal. Even moreso, if they made camp in blustery hazy conditions, why risk getting turned around and lose ground?

They made camp because it was the right thing to do. They did it the right way and they worked as a team. It was the right thing to do. They got hammered by a slab slip,,wind and crazy cold because Nature is indifferent to right or wrong. For that matter bears and wolverines are indifferent to it also.

We some productive ideas being generated. For conspiracy advocates,  I say ,"follow the money". For animal attack, I say, there surely must be something written by the investigators to corroberate this worthy hypothesis. For sceptics of a slab avalanche, I am eager to listen to your reservations.

[Игорь Б.]

Отсутствие какого-либо обрушения снега на палатку доказано раз и навсегда отсутствием обледеневшего лавинного снега, который невозможно было бы копать лыжами и лыжными палками, как говорил Брусницын. Лавинный снег - это почти лёд. Его не сможет раздуть никакой ветер, как не смог раздуть ветер обледеневшие следы-столбики.

[Manti]

The absence of any snow slip onto the tent is proved once and for all by the absence of icy avalanche snow, which would be impossible to dig with skis and ski poles, as Brusnitsyn said. Avalanche snow is almost ice. No wind will be able to blow it away, just as the wind could not inflate the icy footprint pillars.

^Skepticism of the slab avalanche.

@Manti

The theory for climbing of the tree varies. The basic one is to snap the lower branches for easy to burn wood.

Yes, however, they didn't burn but just one branch, and moreover no other broken branches were found under the cedar as far as I know.

There's nothing to say a bear or moose didn't poke there head in to the tent , just the lack of foot prints that an animal may have left , given that the hikers left raised foot prints. 

Even the hikers didn't leave footprints around the tent only further down. Maybe the snow there was too hard or shallow? Although an animal is heavier.... and also the snow couldn't have been too shallow as they dug the tent into snow.... Hmm.

Regardless, a wolverine should have also left footprints? Unless it came from the West over the ridge and returned that way. Which can also be the case for any other animal.

If an animal invaded their space and they left, why did they elect to return? If a predator might be in the area, why did not the deceased hold no weapons when they died. I think that would apply for human predators too. I would have a club, at the least.

I don't think it's proven that Zina, Rustem and Igor were trying to return. Sadly they might have fallen on the way down and been left behind (unkowingly) by the rest.

Very good point about the weapons. Bear or moose or anything similar, they should have at least been holding branches. I am reminded of the "cut" ski pole found in the tent. Maybe an attempt to improvise a weapon? But then they didn't take it with them in the hurry? Other than that, there's nothing on the slope they can grab until the forest, and maybe there, it became clear the animal isn't following them and their goal was now to start a fire to stay warm? Although this then again calls into question why they would climb the tree...

I seem to recall that the group attained their campsite at 880 on 1079 by a hard uphill slog in the snow after laying their cache. I certainly would not give up that ground for a quick slide on skis to the woods just for the sake of a hot meal. Even moreso, if they made camp in blustery hazy conditions, why risk getting turned around and lose ground?

They made camp because it was the right thing to do.

This is something we will never know. Why did they camp there? To me, it still makes no sense, unless it was because of the low visibility in the snowstorm.

Yes they gained altitude but their next destination was Otorten, and all the routes there involve a descent anyway. Plus they need to descend for drinking water I assume daily, at least to the little streams that tend to start in the upper forested areas of the valleys.

The more and more I think about it, they seemed to be disorientated not just the last day but also the day before. I made a thread about this some time ago but I think I didn't communicate my point well enough. I will try to make a map and create a new thread to explain.

[Manti]

Bear prints. I don't know but it can even be mistaken for barefoot human prints by amateurs like the students doing the searches?



Wolverine prints. More obviously an animal print, but I think this can also be mistaken by city folk.

Not suggesting anything other than the commonly drawn conclusions about the footprints seem a bit far fetched compared to the photographic evidence we have of them which could really be anything (as the forensic analyst for Teddy's book thinks they are boot prints for example)

[Ziljoe]

If an animal invaded their space and they left, why did they elect to return? If a predator might be in the area, why did not the deceased hold no weapons when they died. I think that would apply for human predators too. I would have a club, at the least. 

My thoughts are that the events at the ceder/ravine is where panic may have ensued . If it was a snow slip or beast , the intention would always be to return to the tent, the decision to move down slope was a temporary. Wait for favourable conditions , visibility , particularly if it was a snow slide. If it were an animal , wait for it to move on and then return.  Although , I think if it was a Wolverine that sprayed , they might have gone to look for water to try and clean the chemical/toxins out of their eyes etc, reassess the situation then return. This may have been in daylight hours and the torch was layed on the slope as an indicator to the general direction to the tent. (@Charles, don't get excited at what follows, these are just thoughts and ideas, not facts!).

As for weapons or clubs to fight an animal that might be in the area, the events at the ravine may have superseded any concerns of an animal. For example , if they had entered a snow cave first , at the ravine and then it collapsed on half the group , the emergency situation changes. (I also have problems with the different footwear on the hiker's, different numbers and types of socks. Zolotaryov for example, put on different types of socks on his right foot, then his felt boots? Doesn't make munch sense in any scenario) . There does seem to be some mixing of clothes at the ceder amoungst the group , which implies that if there were outsiders there , why would outsiders let them change clothes and footwear.

Burnt socks, handkerchief and a shirt were found at the ceder? The fight for survival seems to rotate between the ceder and ravine. It would seem the ravine 4 died first, maybe they found the snow cave and half were buried , there was a frantic effort to dig their buried friends out but the snow would be too deep and hard. The 2 Yuri's may have got wet , maybe just up to their thighs, tired and exhausted the remaining 5 return to the ceder and do what they can, build a den, next to their entombed friends? Maybe they find this is useless and as limbs get colder and the loss of dexterity takes over everything gets more desperate. Maybe the two Yuri's were the coldest and the the decision was made that 3 of them would need to return to the tent for whatever they could retrieve, clothes , axes , blankets and whatever the threat at the tent may have been ,was now less of a problem than what was happening at the ceder/ravine. The Yuri's can only try and break the branches and use their socks / handkerchief as tinder to start the fire, they are failing and can't feed the fire, the other 3 fade and sucomb to the elements on trying to return to the tent. This is all brave and shows no cowardly behaviour by the way....

( I believe Zolotaryov had paper or a magazine on him which would suggest the fire was started after his death, I would have thought this would have been used in any fire as tinder?)

Now, no one get mad....these are just thoughts and an attempt to get thoughts flowing. It is difficult to chronologically work out what happened at the ceder but Igor b highlights the lack of frostbite in some and postmortem findings that give an indication to who lived the longest. These are all important parts of the puzzle.

[Ziljoe]

@Manti

The theory for climbing of the tree varies. The basic one is to snap the lower branches for easy to burn wood.

Yes, however, they didn't burn but just one branch, and moreover no other broken branches were found under the cedar as far as I know.

Here's some of the statements of what was said about the branches and findings at the ceder.

A student in the search party, Vadim Brusnitsyn, made a statement for the criminal case:
”Next to the bodies was a fire. Nearby were more than ten small fir tree branches, cut with a Finnish knife. The lower dry branches, of about 5 cm diameter, had been cut from the cedar. Some of these were lying next to the fire. The snow around was trampled.”

From Captain Chernyshev’s official statement:
”It’s possible to conclude that other people had since been by the fire. We found various garments next to it rather than on the bodies, but we didn’t find any other bodies. The trees near the fire had been cut with knives, but we found no knives with the bodies.”

Maslennikov stated that Doroshenko and Krivonischenko, "maybe with the help of others, had made a pretty good fire with the branches of fir-trees. But that fire had been alight for maybe an hour and a half (8-cm branches of cedar had burned through)".

Atmanaki
”For about 20 m around the cedar, there was evidence of young fir-trees being cut with a knife. We saw around 20 such cut stumps. But we didn’t see any of the cut branches left, except for one. It isn’t possible to imagine they were used to maintain the fire. First of all, they are not good for firewood. Second, around them were quite a lot of dry twigs and materials.”

The search team sent another radio message in which they stated that "the volume of work done here in making this number of cuts suggests there were more people here than only these two."

Maslennikov
”Several wool and cotton socks were scattered around the fire. There was a woman’s handkerchief burned through in several places and some fragments of woolen clothes. But we didn’t find the actual clothes themselves. In particular, we found the cuff of a dark sweater there, not on the bodies. Also, we found some money, eight rubles.”

The tall cedar tree, originally spotted by Yuri Koptelov and Michael Scharavin, held some clues to the events of that night. The following accounts from individuals present at the scene are similar and they bear each other out.

Captain Chernyshev
”All the low branches of the cedar within arm’s reach were broken completely. One was cut 4 or 5 m high. They were thick. These types of branches are extremely difficult to break, even if, for instance, you hang on them with the whole weight of your body.”

Maslennikov
”The lower dry branches of the cedar were broken up to 2 m high. Somebody climbed the tree, because the branches 4 or 5 m high were also broken.”

Atmanaki
”Most of the dry branches up to 5 m were broken. Beside this, the side of the tree facing the slope and the tent was completely cleared of branches. These were not dry; they were young and were not used. Some of them were just lying on the ground, and the others were hanging on the lower branches of the cedar. It looked as if someone had created a viewing hide facing the site from where they came.”

[Игорь Б.]

Самые лучшие дрова для костра:

Кедр - это настоящий король для костра. Сухие сучья этого дерева настоящая находка для путника. костер с помощью кедровых дров можно развести даже в самую сырую погоду. Костер будет давать ровное, красивое пламя и отличный жар. Древесина кедра не дымит и не стреляет.

Идеальными дровами для костра будут кедровые. Если вы хоть раз проведете ночевку у костра на кедровых дровах, никогда не забудете этой превосходной ночевки. В дальнейшем больше никогда не захотите выбрать другие дрова для костра.

https://dzen.ru/media/id/604b1202fa7bf6638f2a9bdc/samye-luchshie-drova-dlia-kostra-moi-opyt-teper-jgu-koster-tolko-iz-etoi-drevesiny-605040476c861f01074efab0

Почему на кедре были обломаны сучья на большой высоте?
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=77115

[Игорь Б.]

^Skepticism of the slab avalanche.

Всего лишь отвал от грейдера при -10°C:


(смотреть со звуком)

Всего лишь падение снега с крыши:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=107249

[Ziljoe]

Igor b writes:

The best firewood for a fire:

Quote
Cedar is the real king for a campfire. The dry branches of this tree are a real find for the traveler. a fire with the help of cedar firewood can be made even in the wettest weather. The fire will give an even, beautiful flame and excellent heat. Cedar wood does not smoke or shoot.

Ideal firewood for a fire would be cedar. If you ever spend the night by the fire on cedar wood, you will never forget this excellent overnight stay. In the future, you will never again want to choose other wood for a fire.

From Igor b's link , leads to this:

Igor b writes:


Why did the branches of the cedar be broken off at high altitude? Because the best fuel for a fire was dry cedar branches. From the site inspection report:

Image



Quote
near the cedar, dry branches are broken off in 2 - 2.5 meters. The branches are broken off on the cedar itself.

Igor b writes:

The Dyatlovites did not use living wood and deadwood in the fire for a well-known reason:

http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&sho...ost&p=76174

And dry branches on cedars can be not only below, but also above , at high altitude, where the cold wind in winter is especially strong. Branches and die from withering wind from the windward side.
At the Dyatlov cedar, the windward (western) side coincidentally faced the tent.

Igor b writes:

Why didn't the Dyatlovites use deadwood in the fire?

Image

Image

Quote
Faced such a problem. Since the weather this winter jumped from plus to minus, with wet snow, all the firewood was completely saturated with ice. We had to cut down healthy trees, but having cut down we were very surprised that even their core was frosted through. As a result, we could not melt the stove in the tent, we drowned with small branches trying to dry the large ones (they did not catch fire).
Quote
My son and I were in a similar situation.
There was a cyclone, everything got wet, and then it froze. Firewood is raw.
They lit only logs of logs.
But the fire still burned terribly.
Firewood, warming up on a fire, began to fill it with a melted crust of ice.
Quote
I myself did not expect such a situation. A full forest of firewood, dry land - the sea, but he does not burn a dog.
Brushwood is generally a stupid thing. Ice stick.
And in this situation, the most difficult thing is not making a fire, but maintaining the flame and the necessary heat.http://nepropadu.ru/blog/guestroom/10714.html

At the Dyatlov Pass in December 2015:
Quote
With firewood, as they wrote in the reports, everything is bad (they do not burn).Reasonable efforts of the fire did not work, I had to cook on a burner.

At the very first night in a tent, I was convinced that firewood is often a problem. You find a dryer, saw / prick, burn chips, then put them in a larger one, then wave, even larger ... While you wave, it burns perfectly. Stopped waving - does not burn. Dry, coniferous species - and does not burn. Well, there are some places like that.

Bring firewood, chop it, dig at least some kind of fire pit, make sure that firewood is not firewood, look for alternative coniferous branches (which burn perfectly, but burn out very quickly), dance with a tambourine around the hearth - all this is very long.

Bonfires were not every day, because. they took a lot of time (pit + firewood + dances with a tambourine, so that non-burning firewood somehow burned). Once, during the late setting of the camp and long exercises with a fire, I fought back only at 05 in the morning.https://www.risk.ru/blog/207346?http://www.....ru/blog/207346

From the diary of the Dyatlov group dated January 31, 1959:
Quote
Firewood is scarce. Sickly raw spruce.

Igor b writes:

Even if the Christmas trees were damp, then what can we say about the deadwood birch. From the autumn rains, he absorbed water and, lying on the ground, did not dry out by winter. Warming on the eve of the incident before the arrival of the cold front only added to the dampness.

Thus, the Dyatlovites had no other fuel for the fire, except for dry, dead cedar branches, most of which were located on the windward western side, i.e. from the side coincidentally facing the tent.

It was impossible to warm up with nine half-dressed people around a fire made of branches, and even divorced for known reasons in a strong wind. Branches quickly burn out and people who are forced to constantly extract such fuel for a fire are supercooled more than they warm up.


Basically,Igor b is saying, that the dead wood on the ground would be damp and frozen , will not burn well and takes work to do so if at all. However the ceder tree would be a good source for dry wood as the wind will have help dry out the branches that faced the slope. Sounds logical to me.....

[GlennM]

I never considered the snow den as their first stop. Fascinating!  They dig in, there is a collapse, some retreat to the cedar, that doesn't really work, so the last 3 make for the tent. It turns out badly. What rotten luck!

Nothing in this scenario leads me to infer they were fleeing from human attackers. Too, if it was an animal, I would be making my way back to camp holding a flaming torch, wouldn`t you? 

I applaud the footprint photos. It shows how degraded these impressions in the snow can get. Pity that Mansi trackers did not offer an opinion of the prints from the tent. We know something made impressions in the snow. Just who in their right mind would do it in socks?

[Ziljoe]

I never considered the snow den as their first stop. Fascinating!  They dig in, there is a collapse, some retreat to the cedar, that doesn't really work, so the last 3 make for the tent. It turns out badly. What rotten luck!

Nothing in this scenario leads me to infer they were fleeing from human attackers. Too, if it was an animal, I would be making my way back to camp holding a flaming torch, wouldn`t you? 

I applaud the footprint photos. It shows how degraded these impressions in the snow can get. Pity that Mansi trackers did not offer an opinion of the prints from the tent. We know something made impressions in the snow. Just who in their right mind would do it in socks?

Many fatalities are a sequence of small errors . Chang one variable and the outcome would be different.

I don't know how they could make a flaming torch given the conditions and environment and the hey couldn't keep a fire going. Who knows...


As for the foot prints,  the Mansi were involved, at least at the ravine around the den. Many witnessed the foot prints of feet in socks , obviously difficult to say  from the photos?