Why did the Dyatlov group leave their tent?

[alecsandros]

Do we know who was the last man/woman standing? Or is this hard to investigate due to a short time frame between deaths.

1. The Short interval between death is very improbable. It is necessary to analyze in details logic of events and logistics of actions of group. Then it turns out that this disorder of time can make the big size.
2. If judging by that that is described in criminal case and considering that I have told in point 1, the last Alexander Kolevatov should be lost.

By reading about this incredible mystery it seems obvious that someone hid something and that crucial part of evidence could solve this forever.

Why you so think? I think that not clear events occur only in heads of researchers because they do not know many details of district and events. Is no point here that that hide. Though imaginations on a theme of spies and other imaginary essence it is possible to think up infinite set.

For me, this looks like a major cover-up and a some kind of mess made by Soviet authorities at a time and thus would really like to see a proper closure of this case.

You sometime saw as there are such searches in real time and own eyes? I think that it was not. Then it is clear, why you consider that who that confused it specially. In life all submits to laws of information entropy. The nature disseminates the information in the same way as well as warmly. What to collect and order the information it would be necessary to put a lot of time, it is a lot of forces and it is necessary to have many special knowledge that there would be a possibility it to make well.

Thank you for the answer !
So between 40min and 2 hours...

Is it correct to think that during the descent from the tent to the cedar, the wind was blowing from their back ? i.e. from West to East ?

[alecsandros]

Why all of you so complicate? What to consider that «there was something unusually bright at night which could get to cinema.» (c), it is necessary to have though what that basis for this purpose. It is possible to think up it is artificial anything you like, but the real bases are necessary. What facts result in it?

I'm thinking about the luminous spheres that were reported by another group, situated 30km East of the Dyatlov group and about the newspaper article signed by Lev Ivanov, published in Nov 1990, concerning the "Mystery of the fireballs". Both accounts suggest that luminous spheres were in the air during the fatal night. Therefore, Zolotaryov (and not only him) could have been attempting to photograph them. However, I am intrigued about what exact capabilities there were for making night pictures. It would be great to see night photos made in 1959 with the existent cameras...

About that , does anyone know from where did the 9 (or 10) negatives missing? Were they from the same film as the one known (the damaged one), or was it another film altogether?

Why you considers, what that that was gone and even know quantity of these gone "negatives"? You knows precisely, how many they were in a reality, or it is the next idea?
[/quote]

I am following the lines here: https://dyatlovpass.com/controversy?flp=1#zolotaryovcamera "The most glaring item to begin with, in the examination of Zolotarev’s film, was that nine frames were missing. There should have been a total of 36 frames but the two strips only had a total of 27 frames. So where were the missing nine frames?"

[Nigel Evans]

Hi WAB thanks for your post i'll reply later.

[Marley]

Imo it all boils down to the Plane2 photo. If it is genuine then it points to Semyon's mystery photos being either military involvement, atmospheric electrical phenomenon or both.

Nigel, you the serious person why at you imaginations gush forth without any measure?
Already many times said that it is:
1. Too small size on a negative (a little thousand or ten-thousand - 10 in a minus of 4 or 5 degrees - an inch share).
2. It not in Simeon's films, and scraps of films of other operators.
3. Scraps not in the end, and in the middle of different films Are located it.
4. It precisely corresponds (both under the form and on the size) to loss of crystals of sulphite of sodium (Na2SO3) of that the film has been washed badly out at development.
It is necessary to know well features and to have good practice of a chemical photo (on a photosensitive film and with chemical processing in a consequence) what not to do such hasty conclusions
It I cannot already explain it to Valentine Jakimenko a lot of time in any way. He agrees with all arguments, but continues to dream on this theme. From it also there is this conversation «about planes», that «removed the falling rocket» and etc.
Could not remove it because the rocket in the end of flight flies with a speed more from 1 to 5 km a second (are some miles a second) and it does not have appreciable luminescence, even at night.
And to remove the plane at night, it in general behind an imagination side. Especially if it high-speed.

WAB,
The plane "photos" don't look like prints to me but (scans of) negatives. Is this true? Do you know? Because if these are negatives they're obviously not nighttime photographs. (On a negative the night sky looks white and a bright object dark.)

[Nigel Evans]

Imo it all boils down to the Plane2 photo. If it is genuine then it points to Semyon's mystery photos being either military involvement, atmospheric electrical phenomenon or both.

Nigel, you the serious person why at you imaginations gush forth without any measure? It's good you think i'm a serious person! 
Already many times said that it is:
1. Too small size on a negative (a little thousand or ten-thousand - 10 in a minus of 4 or 5 degrees - an inch share).
2. It not in Simeon's films, and scraps of films of other operators. How do you know this? Such certainty from a "serious person" like you?.... 
3. Scraps not in the end, and in the middle of different films Are located it.
4. It precisely corresponds (both under the form and on the size) to loss of crystals of sulphite of sodium (Na2SO3) of that the film has been washed badly out at development. I would need to see the Plane2 negative to form such an opinion. Have you seen it?
It is necessary to know well features and to have good practice of a chemical photo (on a photosensitive film and with chemical processing in a consequence) what not to do such hasty conclusions
It I cannot already explain it to Valentine Jakimenko a lot of time in any way. He agrees with all arguments, but continues to dream on this theme. From it also there is this conversation «about planes», that «removed the falling rocket» and etc.
Could not remove it because the rocket in the end of flight flies with a speed more from 1 to 5 km a second (are some miles a second) not if it malfunctions and it does not have appreciable luminescence, even at night. If the Plane2 photo is genuine then there is some other light source illuminating everything.
And to remove the plane at night, it in general behind an imagination side. Especially if it high-speed.

Before to speak about the sizes «stains on  lens», count the sizes with what they should be on film, and then look at physics course in section "optics" where it is told about images which are in piece, between 2 points of focus of lens. That sentence doesn't translate so well, i'm saying the water drops on Plane2 are the same as in this image
 

[hoosiergose]

They left the tent due to the sound of an approaching tornado or perhaps a Willawa (kabatic wind) upon their flight to the safety of the ravine & descending the slope they inadvertently wandered out front of it and that is how several members sustained serious injuries. (Remember it was dark & they could not see it only hear it) a tornado could have easily caused these terrible devastating injuries. I believe that A Tornado - was the unknown compelling force that night - not Bigfoot aka  Menk or A UFO or the Loch Ness monster or Frankenstein ect ect

[sparrow]

Hello Nigel.  If they had to enlarge the photo 1000 times in order to see this shape, then how could they see it with the naked eye?

[Nigel Evans]

Hello Nigel.  If they had to enlarge the photo 1000 times in order to see this shape, then how could they see it with the naked eye?

Hi, we need an image of the entire frame of the Plane2 negative in order to answer these questions about scale. Without this it's all just conjecture.

[sparrow]

In a book I have (I'll have to check which one), it gives us the name of someone (a specialist in the area of photography) who examined the photos and the process that he went through to get the Plane 2 picture. He says something about the frames being blank, so he keeps blowing them up till he gets a shape and then he ( of course) names each photo.

[Nigel Evans]

In a book I have (I'll have to check which one), it gives us the name of someone (a specialist in the area of photography) who examined the photos and the process that he went through to get the Plane 2 picture. He says something about the frames being blank, so he keeps blowing them up till he gets a shape and then he ( of course) names each photo.

That's certainly the case for the "Eagle" photos and the ones showing the sprocket holes. But it's not clear to me what he's done with the Plane photos?
P.S. it's Valentin Gerasmovich Yakimenko who examined the photos.

[sparrow]

Thanks for the specialists name Nigel.

[sparrow]

Hi Nigel.  It would be nice to find out what kind of plane it could possibly be and check its shape and dimensions with the picture and see if they correspond.  To me, the tail of the plane looks like it is almost as high as the body of the plane is long.

[Nigel Evans]

Hi Nigel.  It would be nice to find out what kind of plane it could possibly be and check its shape and dimensions with the picture and see if they correspond.  To me, the tail of the plane looks like it is almost as high as the body of the plane is long.

Hi there. Assuming it is a man made craft.... Any identification of a craft in distress using hypergolic fuel pumped at pressure in a nighttime photo has to deal with the fact that fuel components could be leaking and hence reacting creating "false structure". Also objects travelling at mach speeds create air shear that results in "false structure", e.g. play this at 1.20 - Also it's possible that Plane 1 and 2 are shots of different bits of the same craft falling separately.

So not easy.

[Nigel Evans]

What's more interesting is (assuming it's an exposed frame taken at night) where is all that illumination coming from? Burning rocket fuel? A possible explanation for the hot spot?

[sparrow]

That was an interesting video.  But in the video the only thing lit up was the fuel burning at the tail and not the whole rocket (like plane 2 for example).

Also, if that plane was breaking up and going to crash, when it hit you would have heard it and felt it for many miles around.

[Nigel Evans]

That was an interesting video.  But in the video the only thing lit up was the fuel burning at the tail and not the whole rocket (like plane 2 for example).

Also, if that plane was breaking up and going to crash, when it hit you would have heard it and felt it for many miles around.

Witnesses saw the flash of an explosion in Ivdel.

[sparrow]

You are right; I forgot about that. 

I am not sure how far Ivdel is from the sight of their tent or the cedar, but even if they did see a flash what about the sound. We used to live about 20 to 30 plus miles from a naval bombing range and when (on the rare occasion) one of the jets/planes crashed, we knew (sounded and felt a lot like when they dropped a bomb).

[Nigel Evans]

You are right; I forgot about that. 

I am not sure how far Ivdel is from the sight of their tent or the cedar, but even if they did see a flash what about the sound. We used to live about 20 to 30 plus miles from a naval bombing range and when (on the rare occasion) one of the jets/planes crashed, we knew (sounded and felt a lot like when they dropped a bomb).

Don't forget the very high winds could mask any bang.

[Gorojanin]

[sparrow]

Are you suggesting that the tent was burned by the stove?   

[sarapuk]

Hi Nigel.  It would be nice to find out what kind of plane it could possibly be and check its shape and dimensions with the picture and see if they correspond.  To me, the tail of the plane looks like it is almost as high as the body of the plane is long.

Its not a Plane

[Gorojanin]

Are you suggesting that the tent was burned by the stove?

A tent with a cut-out piece is very similar to a tent burned by a stove.