Why did the Dyatlov group leave their tent?

[Star man]

What about a Siberian Tiger stumbling in or near the camp site?  I know there were no animal tracks found anywhere but maybe it didn’t follow them down the slope and the investigation missed them or they were covered in snow? It would explain why they left the site and did not want to collect their clothes  would also explain choosing a tall cedar tree to make a camp at

[Nigel Evans]

I struggle to see how a psychotic drug or even a gas could have affected them all the same way and caused them all to leave at the same time without adequate clothing.

If it was an acrid gas (O3, NO2) you have a plausible reason for leaving the tent urgently. A dose of NO2 at 200ppm is eventually fatal if untreated. Shavarin stated that there was evidence that they stood in a line some distance away. The NO2 narrative would be that this was outside of the denser (acrid) section of the plume looking at the tent wondering what to do. If nitrous oxide (slightly sweet) was still present then it would have affected them equally (except possibly for Nicolai and Semyon who are presumed to be elsewhere. The condition of the snow is used by the NO2 narrative to suggest that they were warm and continued to be as they walked down (persistent footsteps) (these gases are heavier than air and would tend to flow downhill into the forest). At the forest the temp has cooled. NO2 has gone. (bp 21C) but N2O (bp -89C) is still present and continuing to come down the hill possibly intermittently. Hence evidence of silly behaviour, people highly experienced in fieldcraft waste lots of matches lighting a fire. Climbing a tree, falling out of a tree. The narcotic effect would be intermittent. Sometimes they would behave sensibly, sometimes foolishly.

[Star man]

How long do the effects of N2O last?  My experience knowledge indicates that it doesn’t last that long. So if they were exposed to such a gas in the tent I can’t see the effects lasting long after they left?  Also the concentration outside the tent couldn’t be that high given dilution factors in open air.

[Nigel Evans]

How long do the effects of N2O last?  My experience knowledge indicates that it doesn’t last that long. So if they were exposed to such a gas in the tent I can’t see the effects lasting long after they left?  Also the concentration outside the tent couldn’t be that high given dilution factors in open air.

I think the narrative would have to be that the nitrogen oxides were being continually produced for a considerable period - 1 or 2 hours. The gases we're interested in are heavier than air and so would tend to follow the slope down to the forest (the narrative requires the local wind direction to be from the west). So they're getting occasional or regular balloon fulls over that period. It could be intermittent. It only has to be sufficient to create "combat injuries", match waste, poor tree climbing and perhaps biting off the skin from the back of your hand. Granted he would have been in strong pain but completely biting off the skin from the back of your hand hints at a lack of rationality imo. Then he died with the skin in his mouth. Nitrous oxide can kill you in seconds if sufficiently concentrated. I like the idea that he got enough exposure to it to decide to climb the tree but several metres up got a much stronger dose that caused him to lose control and he fell.

[sarapuk]

How long do the effects of N2O last?  My experience knowledge indicates that it doesn’t last that long. So if they were exposed to such a gas in the tent I can’t see the effects lasting long after they left?  Also the concentration outside the tent couldn’t be that high given dilution factors in open air.

I think the narrative would have to be that the nitrogen oxides were being continually produced for a considerable period - 1 or 2 hours. The gases we're interested in are heavier than air and so would tend to follow the slope down to the forest (the narrative requires the local wind direction to be from the west). So they're getting occasional or regular balloon fulls over that period. It could be intermittent. It only has to be sufficient to create "combat injuries", match waste, poor tree climbing and perhaps biting off the skin from the back of your hand. Granted he would have been in strong pain but completely biting off the skin from the back of your hand hints at a lack of rationality imo. Then he died with the skin in his mouth. Nitrous oxide can kill you in seconds if sufficiently concentrated. I like the idea that he got enough exposure to it to decide to climb the tree but several metres up got a much stronger dose that caused him to lose control and he fell.

But you seem to have conjured up this gas and then developed your speculation  !  ?  There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this up, and I still believe it to be erroneous.  It just doesnt seem to make sense.  The GAS cannot have caused all the EVENTS. Even if it caused the EVENT of leaving the TENT then it still seems completely IMPLAUSIBLE that all the group would completely abandon their safe refuge and go downhill a mile without their personal belongings and clothing for SURVIVAL.

[Nigel Evans]

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this up,

Yes there is, the dark orange skin has few explanations. One of them is NO2 converting to nitric acid and interacting with the keratin on the skin.

The GAS cannot have caused all the EVENTS.

NO2 isn't an explanation for the ravine injuries, but it can explain everything else.

Even if it caused the EVENT of leaving the TENT then it still seems completely IMPLAUSIBLE that all the group would completely abandon their safe refuge and go downhill a mile without their personal belongings and clothing for SURVIVAL.

Not if the tent is surrounded by acrid gas which is affecting their breathing. Enlarged aortas suggests cardio vascular distress. Yuri D's foam suggests pulmonary edema.

[sarapuk]

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this up,

Yes there is, the dark orange skin has few explanations. One of them is NO2 converting to nitric acid and interacting with the keratin on the skin.

The GAS cannot have caused all the EVENTS.

NO2 isn't an explanation for the ravine injuries, but it can explain everything else.

Even if it caused the EVENT of leaving the TENT then it still seems completely IMPLAUSIBLE that all the group would completely abandon their safe refuge and go downhill a mile without their personal belongings and clothing for SURVIVAL.

Not if the tent is surrounded by acrid gas which is affecting their breathing. Enlarged aortas suggests cardio vascular distress. Yuri D's foam suggests pulmonary edema.

What about DECOMPOSTION conditions, surely that could cause such skin discolouration  !  ? 
I dont subscribe to the idea that the GAS theory caused all the EVENTS except the Ravine Event.
Well that is an interesting theory regarding the TENT being surrounded by GAS but I dont subscribe to that theory. In the First World War there are many harrowing stories of GAS ATTACKS but its interesting that the victims still managed to stay fully clothed etc etc etc etc.

[Nigel Evans]

What about DECOMPOSTION conditions, surely that could cause such skin discolouration  !  ? 
Possibly with Lyudmila, but with Yuri D and Zina it can be discounted. The skin changed colour after the morgue photos but only on the hands and face. So decomposition doesn't fit. Some idiot mortician painting their hands and faces with iodine perhaps. I can't think of anything else. Feel free to give it a try.

I dont subscribe to the idea that the GAS theory caused all the EVENTS except the Ravine Event.It's not for everyone...

Well that is an interesting theory regarding the TENT being surrounded by GAS but I dont subscribe to that theory. In the First World War there are many harrowing stories of GAS ATTACKS but its interesting that the victims still managed to stay fully clothed etc etc etc etc.WW1 gas attacks didn't intoxicate?

[Star man]

I still think a high scoring candidate for why they left their tent is the military test of a low yield tactical nuclear device.  These weapons were designed to minimise physical damage ( albeit it is still a very big explosion) equivalent of several kilotons.  An air burst of such a device at even a couple of km from their camp site should have the desired effect.  They would be hit with a heat flash that would not have burned them but could possibly cause blindness if stared at directly.  The blast would knock them around in the tent  like someone shaking a bag of wall nuts but would not been sufficient to kill them.  The wind blast would buffet the tent and be enough to throw anyone standing up outside.  The shock wave would likely be sufficient to cause permanent damage to ear drums and hearing.  And they may have been exposed to a significant if not lethal dose of neutron radiation.  At extreme high levels the radiation could have an immediate effect on them, including their nervous systems, causing confusion, disorientation etc.

If after the heat, flash, blast and wind blast they emerged from their tent, they would have seen a huge fireball in the sky.  This may have been enough to cause them to panick and flee from the camp site. 

It is at this time in history that the west were developing these weapons.  Between 1958 and 1961.  It is likely that the russians were also experimenting with these weapons.

Evidence to look for would include a large area of melted ice directly below the detonation point.  The ice may have melted and then froze again forming an icy crust underneath any snow that fallen after the event.

Fallout from the device would remain highly radioactive for about 2 weeks after which it would be safer to reoccupy the area.  Even so depending on fallout plume dispersion, there would still be evidence today if the right core samples were taken and analysed.

There is is circumstantial evidence that different groups of people, some 70km away witnessed orange orbs in  the sky in the direction of the pass that night.  Also Ivanovo later said that he noticed that some of the trees had scorch marks on the tops. 

In terms of the victims if they had been exposed to high levels of radiation, the symptoms would include the rapid deterioration of the stomach lining, intestines as well as the immune system leading to rapid and serious infections of the blood.  This could have killed within 2 days to a few weeks.  The cold was even a bigger threat that night so this would have killed them before any radiation sickness.

The government would certainly not want any probing investigation that may lead to the development of their new technology, or that any tests caused the deaths of these kids.  It would be a good reason to cover it up and shut it down, and ban access to the area to stop people being exposed to any radioactive fallout.

It's also interesting that although the radiation found on the cloths of some of the victims was only minor, that the helicopter pilots refused to take some of the bodies onto the helicopters and said that they wouldn't unless they were in zinc coffins.  Is it possible they knew something the investigators didn't?

[Nigel Evans]

I still think a high scoring candidate for why they left their tent is the military test of a low yield tactical nuclear device.  These weapons were designed to minimise physical damage ( albeit it is still a very big explosion) equivalent of several kilotons.  An air burst of such a device at even a couple of km from their camp site should have the desired effect.  They would be hit with a heat flash that would not have burned them but could possibly cause blindness if stared at directly.  The blast would knock them around in the tent  like someone shaking a bag of wall nuts but would not been sufficient to kill them.  The wind blast would buffet the tent and be enough to throw anyone standing up outside.  The shock wave would likely be sufficient to cause permanent damage to ear drums and hearing.  And they may have been exposed to a significant if not lethal dose of neutron radiation.  At extreme high levels the radiation could have an immediate effect on them, including their nervous systems, causing confusion, disorientation etc.

If after the heat, flash, blast and wind blast they emerged from their tent, they would have seen a huge fireball in the sky.  This may have been enough to cause them to panick and flee from the camp site. 

It is at this time in history that the west were developing these weapons.  Between 1958 and 1961.  It is likely that the russians were also experimenting with these weapons.

Evidence to look for would include a large area of melted ice directly below the detonation point.  The ice may have melted and then froze again forming an icy crust underneath any snow that fallen after the event.

Fallout from the device would remain highly radioactive for about 2 weeks after which it would be safer to reoccupy the area.  Even so depending on fallout plume dispersion, there would still be evidence today if the right core samples were taken and analysed.

There is is circumstantial evidence that different groups of people, some 70km away witnessed orange orbs in  the sky in the direction of the pass that night.  Also Ivanovo later said that he noticed that some of the trees had scorch marks on the tops. 

In terms of the victims if they had been exposed to high levels of radiation, the symptoms would include the rapid deterioration of the stomach lining, intestines as well as the immune system leading to rapid and serious infections of the blood.  This could have killed within 2 days to a few weeks.  The cold was even a bigger threat that night so this would have killed them before any radiation sickness.

The government would certainly not want any probing investigation that may lead to the development of their new technology, or that any tests caused the deaths of these kids.  It would be a good reason to cover it up and shut it down, and ban access to the area to stop people being exposed to any radioactive fallout.

It's also interesting that although the radiation found on the cloths of some of the victims was only minor, that the helicopter pilots refused to take some of the bodies onto the helicopters and said that they wouldn't unless they were in zinc coffins.  Is it possible they knew something the investigators didn't?

So what's the explanation for the ravine deaths?Why were some of the group apparently attempting to return to the tent?

[Star man]

I still think a high scoring candidate for why they left their tent is the military test of a low yield tactical nuclear device.  These weapons were designed to minimise physical damage ( albeit it is still a very big explosion) equivalent of several kilotons.  An air burst of such a device at even a couple of km from their camp site should have the desired effect.  They would be hit with a heat flash that would not have burned them but could possibly cause blindness if stared at directly.  The blast would knock them around in the tent  like someone shaking a bag of wall nuts but would not been sufficient to kill them.  The wind blast would buffet the tent and be enough to throw anyone standing up outside.  The shock wave would likely be sufficient to cause permanent damage to ear drums and hearing.  And they may have been exposed to a significant if not lethal dose of neutron radiation.  At extreme high levels the radiation could have an immediate effect on them, including their nervous systems, causing confusion, disorientation etc.

If after the heat, flash, blast and wind blast they emerged from their tent, they would have seen a huge fireball in the sky.  This may have been enough to cause them to panick and flee from the camp site. 

It is at this time in history that the west were developing these weapons.  Between 1958 and 1961.  It is likely that the russians were also experimenting with these weapons.

Evidence to look for would include a large area of melted ice directly below the detonation point.  The ice may have melted and then froze again forming an icy crust underneath any snow that fallen after the event.

Fallout from the device would remain highly radioactive for about 2 weeks after which it would be safer to reoccupy the area.  Even so depending on fallout plume dispersion, there would still be evidence today if the right core samples were taken and analysed.

There is is circumstantial evidence that different groups of people, some 70km away witnessed orange orbs in  the sky in the direction of the pass that night.  Also Ivanovo later said that he noticed that some of the trees had scorch marks on the tops. 

In terms of the victims if they had been exposed to high levels of radiation, the symptoms would include the rapid deterioration of the stomach lining, intestines as well as the immune system leading to rapid and serious infections of the blood.  This could have killed within 2 days to a few weeks.  The cold was even a bigger threat that night so this would have killed them before any radiation sickness.

The government would certainly not want any probing investigation that may lead to the development of their new technology, or that any tests caused the deaths of these kids.  It would be a good reason to cover it up and shut it down, and ban access to the area to stop people being exposed to any radioactive fallout.

It's also interesting that although the radiation found on the cloths of some of the victims was only minor, that the helicopter pilots refused to take some of the bodies onto the helicopters and said that they wouldn't unless they were in zinc coffins.  Is it possible they knew something the investigators didn't?

So what's the explanation for the ravine deaths?Why were some of the group apparently attempting to return to the tent?

There several possible explanations for the ravine traumas. 

1.  Semyon, lyuda and Thibo fell into the ravine.  There is a significant steep incline close to where they were found.  This could have been even higher if snow had drifted toward the top creating an overhang.  They may have walked onto the overhang and the snow gave way.  They would have been very cold, tired and suffering from possible frost bite.  It would have been very dark and difficult to see where they were walking.  They may not have been able to feel their feet or the ground they were walking on.  I suspect that two of them were helping to carry a third person who was finding it difficult to walk by themselves.  This is a credible scenario I think.

2.  There was more than one devise tested that night and one of these was closer such that they were hit by the wind blast.  This could have picked them up and thrown them hard at the ravine wall.

3.  They injuries were self induced.  Knowing that their deaths were almost certain, they tried to find a quicker less slow and painful way to end it.  They may have witnessed the deaths of their the two Yuris at the cedar tree and decided it was not how they wanted to go.

Of the above I think the first option is the more likely.

I don't really know if the three found on the slope were going back to the tent. Not sure how much light they had to see, but if they were going back to the tent then it was probably because they knew without their clothes they were gong to die.   If they were gong back to the tent why didn't they follow their own tracks they made on the way down the slope?  Might have been easier to find the tent that way given the lack of light?  Unless of course the moon was up or it was approaching dawn when they set off back to the tent.

[sarapuk]

What about DECOMPOSTION conditions, surely that could cause such skin discolouration  !  ? 
Possibly with Lyudmila, but with Yuri D and Zina it can be discounted. The skin changed colour after the morgue photos but only on the hands and face. So decomposition doesn't fit. Some idiot mortician painting their hands and faces with iodine perhaps. I can't think of anything else. Feel free to give it a try.

I dont subscribe to the idea that the GAS theory caused all the EVENTS except the Ravine Event.It's not for everyone...

Well that is an interesting theory regarding the TENT being surrounded by GAS but I dont subscribe to that theory. In the First World War there are many harrowing stories of GAS ATTACKS but its interesting that the victims still managed to stay fully clothed etc etc etc etc.WW1 gas attacks didn't intoxicate?

 

The WW1 GAS ATTACKS certainly affected the nervous systems of soldiers.

[sarapuk]

I still think a high scoring candidate for why they left their tent is the military test of a low yield tactical nuclear device.  These weapons were designed to minimise physical damage ( albeit it is still a very big explosion) equivalent of several kilotons.  An air burst of such a device at even a couple of km from their camp site should have the desired effect.  They would be hit with a heat flash that would not have burned them but could possibly cause blindness if stared at directly.  The blast would knock them around in the tent  like someone shaking a bag of wall nuts but would not been sufficient to kill them.  The wind blast would buffet the tent and be enough to throw anyone standing up outside.  The shock wave would likely be sufficient to cause permanent damage to ear drums and hearing.  And they may have been exposed to a significant if not lethal dose of neutron radiation.  At extreme high levels the radiation could have an immediate effect on them, including their nervous systems, causing confusion, disorientation etc.

If after the heat, flash, blast and wind blast they emerged from their tent, they would have seen a huge fireball in the sky.  This may have been enough to cause them to panick and flee from the camp site. 

It is at this time in history that the west were developing these weapons.  Between 1958 and 1961.  It is likely that the russians were also experimenting with these weapons.

Evidence to look for would include a large area of melted ice directly below the detonation point.  The ice may have melted and then froze again forming an icy crust underneath any snow that fallen after the event.

Fallout from the device would remain highly radioactive for about 2 weeks after which it would be safer to reoccupy the area.  Even so depending on fallout plume dispersion, there would still be evidence today if the right core samples were taken and analysed.

There is is circumstantial evidence that different groups of people, some 70km away witnessed orange orbs in  the sky in the direction of the pass that night.  Also Ivanovo later said that he noticed that some of the trees had scorch marks on the tops. 

In terms of the victims if they had been exposed to high levels of radiation, the symptoms would include the rapid deterioration of the stomach lining, intestines as well as the immune system leading to rapid and serious infections of the blood.  This could have killed within 2 days to a few weeks.  The cold was even a bigger threat that night so this would have killed them before any radiation sickness.

The government would certainly not want any probing investigation that may lead to the development of their new technology, or that any tests caused the deaths of these kids.  It would be a good reason to cover it up and shut it down, and ban access to the area to stop people being exposed to any radioactive fallout.

It's also interesting that although the radiation found on the cloths of some of the victims was only minor, that the helicopter pilots refused to take some of the bodies onto the helicopters and said that they wouldn't unless they were in zinc coffins.  Is it possible they knew something the investigators didn't?

This theory has been tested in the FORUM by various members. Its an unlikely theory. It doesnt go any where near explaining many of the bodily injuries etc.

[Star man]

I still think a high scoring candidate for why they left their tent is the military test of a low yield tactical nuclear device.  These weapons were designed to minimise physical damage ( albeit it is still a very big explosion) equivalent of several kilotons.  An air burst of such a device at even a couple of km from their camp site should have the desired effect.  They would be hit with a heat flash that would not have burned them but could possibly cause blindness if stared at directly.  The blast would knock them around in the tent  like someone shaking a bag of wall nuts but would not been sufficient to kill them.  The wind blast would buffet the tent and be enough to throw anyone standing up outside.  The shock wave would likely be sufficient to cause permanent damage to ear drums and hearing.  And they may have been exposed to a significant if not lethal dose of neutron radiation.  At extreme high levels the radiation could have an immediate effect on them, including their nervous systems, causing confusion, disorientation etc.

If after the heat, flash, blast and wind blast they emerged from their tent, they would have seen a huge fireball in the sky.  This may have been enough to cause them to panick and flee from the camp site. 

It is at this time in history that the west were developing these weapons.  Between 1958 and 1961.  It is likely that the russians were also experimenting with these weapons.

Evidence to look for would include a large area of melted ice directly below the detonation point.  The ice may have melted and then froze again forming an icy crust underneath any snow that fallen after the event.

Fallout from the device would remain highly radioactive for about 2 weeks after which it would be safer to reoccupy the area.  Even so depending on fallout plume dispersion, there would still be evidence today if the right core samples were taken and analysed.

There is is circumstantial evidence that different groups of people, some 70km away witnessed orange orbs in  the sky in the direction of the pass that night.  Also Ivanovo later said that he noticed that some of the trees had scorch marks on the tops. 

In terms of the victims if they had been exposed to high levels of radiation, the symptoms would include the rapid deterioration of the stomach lining, intestines as well as the immune system leading to rapid and serious infections of the blood.  This could have killed within 2 days to a few weeks.  The cold was even a bigger threat that night so this would have killed them before any radiation sickness.

The government would certainly not want any probing investigation that may lead to the development of their new technology, or that any tests caused the deaths of these kids.  It would be a good reason to cover it up and shut it down, and ban access to the area to stop people being exposed to any radioactive fallout.

It's also interesting that although the radiation found on the cloths of some of the victims was only minor, that the helicopter pilots refused to take some of the bodies onto the helicopters and said that they wouldn't unless they were in zinc coffins.  Is it possible they knew something the investigators didn't?

This theory has been tested in the FORUM by various members. Its an unlikely theory. It doesnt go any where near explaining many of the bodily injuries etc.

What were the main problems with the falling into the ravine theory? 

[Nigel Evans]

The WW1 GAS ATTACKS certainly affected the nervous systems of soldiers.

Not by intoxication.

[sarapuk]

The WW1 GAS ATTACKS certainly affected the nervous systems of soldiers.

Not by intoxication.

Does it matter if it was by intoxication or not  !  ?

[sarapuk]

I still think a high scoring candidate for why they left their tent is the military test of a low yield tactical nuclear device.  These weapons were designed to minimise physical damage ( albeit it is still a very big explosion) equivalent of several kilotons.  An air burst of such a device at even a couple of km from their camp site should have the desired effect.  They would be hit with a heat flash that would not have burned them but could possibly cause blindness if stared at directly.  The blast would knock them around in the tent  like someone shaking a bag of wall nuts but would not been sufficient to kill them.  The wind blast would buffet the tent and be enough to throw anyone standing up outside.  The shock wave would likely be sufficient to cause permanent damage to ear drums and hearing.  And they may have been exposed to a significant if not lethal dose of neutron radiation.  At extreme high levels the radiation could have an immediate effect on them, including their nervous systems, causing confusion, disorientation etc.

If after the heat, flash, blast and wind blast they emerged from their tent, they would have seen a huge fireball in the sky.  This may have been enough to cause them to panick and flee from the camp site. 

It is at this time in history that the west were developing these weapons.  Between 1958 and 1961.  It is likely that the russians were also experimenting with these weapons.

Evidence to look for would include a large area of melted ice directly below the detonation point.  The ice may have melted and then froze again forming an icy crust underneath any snow that fallen after the event.

Fallout from the device would remain highly radioactive for about 2 weeks after which it would be safer to reoccupy the area.  Even so depending on fallout plume dispersion, there would still be evidence today if the right core samples were taken and analysed.

There is is circumstantial evidence that different groups of people, some 70km away witnessed orange orbs in  the sky in the direction of the pass that night.  Also Ivanovo later said that he noticed that some of the trees had scorch marks on the tops. 

In terms of the victims if they had been exposed to high levels of radiation, the symptoms would include the rapid deterioration of the stomach lining, intestines as well as the immune system leading to rapid and serious infections of the blood.  This could have killed within 2 days to a few weeks.  The cold was even a bigger threat that night so this would have killed them before any radiation sickness.

The government would certainly not want any probing investigation that may lead to the development of their new technology, or that any tests caused the deaths of these kids.  It would be a good reason to cover it up and shut it down, and ban access to the area to stop people being exposed to any radioactive fallout.

It's also interesting that although the radiation found on the cloths of some of the victims was only minor, that the helicopter pilots refused to take some of the bodies onto the helicopters and said that they wouldn't unless they were in zinc coffins.  Is it possible they knew something the investigators didn't?

This theory has been tested in the FORUM by various members. Its an unlikely theory. It doesnt go any where near explaining many of the bodily injuries etc.

What were the main problems with the falling into the ravine theory?

The RAVINE was not that deep. There would have been plenty of snow to cushion any bodily impacts. The injuries to at least 2 of the Group are highly unlikely to have been caused by any fall at the RAVINE.

[Star man]

The RAVINE was not that deep. There would have been plenty of snow to cushion any bodily impacts. The injuries to at least 2 of the Group are highly unlikely to have been caused by any fall at the RAVINE.

I have discussed the likelihood of the injuries from a fall at the ravine with WAB on this forum  From what I can gather he has been to ravine.  He posted a photograph showing where the 4 were found.  There a steep slop directly above them with rounded large rocks in the stream below.  If they tumbled down this slope and hit the rocks I can imagine that it would inflict some nasty injuries. I would think the broken ribs is a possibility.  Also if snow had been drifting up the side of the ravine it could have formed quite a significant vertical drop.  It looks credible to me.  WAB seems to think the chest injuries could have been sustained this way.  Although would like to understand other view points.

[Nigel Evans]

The pathologist ruled out falling?

[sarapuk]

The RAVINE was not that deep. There would have been plenty of snow to cushion any bodily impacts. The injuries to at least 2 of the Group are highly unlikely to have been caused by any fall at the RAVINE.

I have discussed the likelihood of the injuries from a fall at the ravine with WAB on this forum  From what I can gather he has been to ravine.  He posted a photograph showing where the 4 were found.  There a steep slop directly above them with rounded large rocks in the stream below.  If they tumbled down this slope and hit the rocks I can imagine that it would inflict some nasty injuries. I would think the broken ribs is a possibility.  Also if snow had been drifting up the side of the ravine it could have formed quite a significant vertical drop.  It looks credible to me.  WAB seems to think the chest injuries could have been sustained this way.  Although would like to understand other view points.

It has already been made clear by others that the injuries to DUBININA were not caused by a fall at the RAVINE. There were no signs of damage that you would expect from such a fall onto rocks.

[sarapuk]

The pathologist ruled out falling?

 

And not just the pathologist. Others have ruled out a fall at the RAVINE because of the fact that no serious external injuries were found on DUBININA's chest, only the CRUSHED RIBS. A fall on rocks of such severity to crush ribs would also seriously damage the chest wall etc.

[Star man]

The pathologist ruled out falling?

 

And not just the pathologist. Others have ruled out a fall at the RAVINE because of the fact that no serious external injuries were found on DUBININA's chest, only the CRUSHED RIBS. A fall on rocks of such severity to crush ribs would also seriously damage the chest wall etc.

Is the pathologist conclusion written in the autopsy report of Dubinina, or somewhere in the case file info?  I'll have to have another look.

[Nigel Evans]

The pathologist ruled out falling?

And not just the pathologist. Others have ruled out a fall at the RAVINE because of the fact that no serious external injuries were found on DUBININA's chest, only the CRUSHED RIBS. A fall on rocks of such severity to crush ribs would also seriously damage the chest wall etc.

Is the pathologist conclusion written in the autopsy report of Dubinina, or somewhere in the case file info?  I'll have to have another look.

The official record contains an interview between Ivanov  and the pathologist. He rules out falling and suggests like an automobile accident or the shockwave from a bomb.

[sarapuk]

Based on the forensic examination of the body of L. A. Dubinina I think that the death of Dubinina was caused by massive hemorrhage into the right ventricle, multiple bilateral rib fractures, and internal bleeding into the thoracic cavity.
The said damage was probably caused by an impact of great force causing severe closed lethal trauma to the chest of Dubinina. The trauma was caused during life and is the result of high force impact with subsequent fall, throw or bruise to the chest of Dubinina.
Damage to the soft tissue of the head and ‘bath skin’ wrinkling to the extremities are the post-mortem changes (rot and decay) of Dubinina’s body, which was underwater before it was found.
The death of Dubinina is through violence.
Medical examiner signature (Vozrozhdenny)
Dyatlov Pass: Document in Russian

[Star man]

According to the pathologist wrt interview with Ivanov, the injuries to Dubinina and Zoltorev, we're consistent with that of a blast wave from a bomb.  Others report injuries similar to that of a car crash.  Others suggest a high speed impact such as a fall.

So here are some questions I think are interesting given the suggested causes of the injuries:

1.  If it was an explosion how far away would it have been and why isn't there any scorch marks or evidence of shrapnel?

2. If they fell how come there are no broken limbs as well as the trauma to the chest.  Tibo had a crushed skull but again no broken limbs.  Surely if it was a fall then the impact force would also have broken some other bones?

3 if it was violence how come there is no damage to the outer tissues of the chest?  And why would the attackers leave Semyon with a camera ( potential incriminating evidence). And why did they leave kolevatov alive so that he could embrace his friend before he died?

[sarapuk]

According to the pathologist wrt interview with Ivanov, the injuries to Dubinina and Zoltorev, we're consistent with that of a blast wave from a bomb.  Others report injuries similar to that of a car crash.  Others suggest a high speed impact such as a fall.

So here are some questions I think are interesting given the suggested causes of the injuries:

1.  If it was an explosion how far away would it have been and why isn't there any scorch marks or evidence of shrapnel?

2. If they fell how come there are no broken limbs as well as the trauma to the chest.  Tibo had a crushed skull but again no broken limbs.  Surely if it was a fall then the impact force would also have broken some other bones?

3 if it was violence how come there is no damage to the outer tissues of the chest?  And why would the attackers leave Semyon with a camera ( potential incriminating evidence). And why did they leave kolevatov alive so that he could embrace his friend before he died?

I believe these questions have been addressed in the Dyatlov Pass Forum. Any way [1] No way of knowing how far away a blast could have been, and no metal fragments were ever found, etc. [2] Exactly, a fall that could have caused such injuries would also have broken through the thick skin wall. [3] Presumably you mean violence caused by other people, in which case, exactly, no breakage of the skin wall. And why indeed would attackers leave evidence behind.

[Star man]

According to the pathologist wrt interview with Ivanov, the injuries to Dubinina and Zoltorev, we're consistent with that of a blast wave from a bomb.  Others report injuries similar to that of a car crash.  Others suggest a high speed impact such as a fall.

So here are some questions I think are interesting given the suggested causes of the injuries:

1.  If it was an explosion how far away would it have been and why isn't there any scorch marks or evidence of shrapnel?

2. If they fell how come there are no broken limbs as well as the trauma to the chest.  Tibo had a crushed skull but again no broken limbs.  Surely if it was a fall then the impact force would also have broken some other bones?

3 if it was violence how come there is no damage to the outer tissues of the chest?  And why would the attackers leave Semyon with a camera ( potential incriminating evidence). And why did they leave kolevatov alive so that he could embrace his friend before he died?

I believe these questions have been addressed in the Dyatlov Pass Forum. Any way [1] No way of knowing how far away a blast could have been, and no metal fragments were ever found, etc. [2] Exactly, a fall that could have caused such injuries would also have broken through the thick skin wall. [3] Presumably you mean violence caused by other people, in which case, exactly, no breakage of the skin wall. And why indeed would attackers leave evidence behind.

I have done some basic **** packet calculations on the amount of force a body would experience falling 4 to 5 metres onto a flat hard surface.  Assuming Lyuda for instance being a lady weighs approx 9 stone or roughly 60 Kg.  and conservatively assuming that the chest is compressed by up to 15cm on impact then the force experience over those 15 cm of crushing is about 2 tonnes.  That's a significant amount of force even for a 5 metre fall.  Semyon, being heavier would have experienced even greater force, but he would have landed on his side.  If Semyon had landed on his side would expect That his camera would have taken a significant impact too?  Possibly enough to break it?

[sarapuk]

According to the pathologist wrt interview with Ivanov, the injuries to Dubinina and Zoltorev, we're consistent with that of a blast wave from a bomb.  Others report injuries similar to that of a car crash.  Others suggest a high speed impact such as a fall.

So here are some questions I think are interesting given the suggested causes of the injuries:

1.  If it was an explosion how far away would it have been and why isn't there any scorch marks or evidence of shrapnel?

2. If they fell how come there are no broken limbs as well as the trauma to the chest.  Tibo had a crushed skull but again no broken limbs.  Surely if it was a fall then the impact force would also have broken some other bones?

3 if it was violence how come there is no damage to the outer tissues of the chest?  And why would the attackers leave Semyon with a camera ( potential incriminating evidence). And why did they leave kolevatov alive so that he could embrace his friend before he died?

I believe these questions have been addressed in the Dyatlov Pass Forum. Any way [1] No way of knowing how far away a blast could have been, and no metal fragments were ever found, etc. [2] Exactly, a fall that could have caused such injuries would also have broken through the thick skin wall. [3] Presumably you mean violence caused by other people, in which case, exactly, no breakage of the skin wall. And why indeed would attackers leave evidence behind.

I have done some basic **** packet calculations on the amount of force a body would experience falling 4 to 5 metres onto a flat hard surface.  Assuming Lyuda for instance being a lady weighs approx 9 stone or roughly 60 Kg.  and conservatively assuming that the chest is compressed by up to 15cm on impact then the force experience over those 15 cm of crushing is about 2 tonnes.  That's a significant amount of force even for a 5 metre fall.  Semyon, being heavier would have experienced even greater force, but he would have landed on his side.  If Semyon had landed on his side would expect That his camera would have taken a significant impact too?  Possibly enough to break it?

We would need more detail on DUBININA's injuries to be able to say with some certainty whether or not a fall at the ravine was the cause. Also we would really need to know where and how exactly at the ravine she would have been likely to have fell. An exhumation of the body may provide clues as to what may have happened.

[Nigel Evans]

1.  If it was an explosion how far away would it have been and why isn't there any scorch marks or evidence of shrapnel?

Any man made high explosive blast would produce a supersonic wave that would burst the lungs. If it was a blast it wasn't HE.



2. If they fell how come there are no broken limbs as well as the trauma to the chest.  Tibo had a crushed skull but again no broken limbs.  Surely if it was a fall then the impact force would also have broken some other bones?

As postulated on the NO2 thread, nitrous oxide could explain this.

[Star man]

1.  If it was an explosion how far away would it have been and why isn't there any scorch marks or evidence of shrapnel?

Any man made high explosive blast would produce a supersonic wave that would burst the lungs. If it was a blast it wasn't HE.



2. If they fell how come there are no broken limbs as well as the trauma to the chest.  Tibo had a crushed skull but again no broken limbs.  Surely if it was a fall then the impact force would also have broken some other bones?

As postulated on the NO2 thread, nitrous oxide could explain this.

Ok so maybe the injuries weren't caused by a shock wave from HE despite what the pathologist said?  It's unlikely they were caused by a car crash either.  So what other possibilities are there?

1.  Could they have fallen from the cedar tree?  There is evidence that they climbed up to 5 metres?  A fall even onto shallow snow would still produce significant forces to the chest in the range of about 2 tonnes.

2.  Could something else have hit fhem in the chest?  Large bolders that had been thrown by something?

3. Is there a type of explosion that could cause the chest injuries but not an explosion capable of bursting the lungs?