Why did the Dyatlov group leave their tent?

[cennetkusu]

And why didn't the young people fear this danger and run away? I was flying because this wasn't a danger walking at the place .... I could fly. That's why they knew it wouldn't help to get away. But they still didn't know if this being would harm them. So they tried their last chance too .... And they decided to go back to the tent for two Yuri ... But on the way back to the tent they were attacked within 5 minutes.

[Kopyrda]

Experts agree that Rustems skull was cracked due to expansion of the brain when freezing.  We all know the body/brain consists of mostly water and how water expands when freezing. 

That's interesting, but I wonder why other victims didn't have such skull damage?

[sarapuk]

Experts agree that Rustems skull was cracked due to expansion of the brain when freezing.  We all know the body/brain consists of mostly water and how water expands when freezing. 

That's interesting, but I wonder why other victims didn't have such skull damage?

Yes thats just one of the many interesting factors regarding injuries. And the answer could be that Rustem's Skull was cracked by something, and that something wasnt because the Brain expanded due to freezing.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Put a soda in the freezer....  tell me what happens. 

[sarapuk]

Put a soda in the freezer....  tell me what happens.

But we are talking about Brains. And Brains are enclosed within strong Skulls.  And they all had to deal with the same severe freezing weather conditions.

[Nigel Evans]

Put a soda in the freezer....  tell me what happens.

But we are talking about Brains. And Brains are enclosed within strong Skulls.  And they all had to deal with the same severe freezing weather conditions.

When we've discussed this issue in the past it's been shown that the brain expands through the sinuses literally coming out of the nostrils... Also Rustem had bruising on both sides of his head?

[Loose}{Cannon]

I guess freeze cracking and bruises obviously cannot be two separate injuries/events.       

[Nigel Evans]

I guess freeze cracking and bruises obviously cannot be two separate injuries/events.     

They can but the Laws of Probability are against you. 

[Loose}{Cannon]

Seems like a 50/50 deal to me.  There isn't any proof either way.  If you believe in one over the other, the burden of proof is on you. 

[Nigel Evans]

Seems like a 50/50 deal to me.  There isn't any proof either way.  If you believe in one over the other, the burden of proof is on you.

Probability isn't a proof, it's just probable.

[sarapuk]

Seems like a 50/50 deal to me.  There isn't any proof either way.  If you believe in one over the other, the burden of proof is on you.

Sounds reasonable. I wonder if this new investigation will include re examining the bodies / bones.

[Tanatos]

This is above all the $9,000 question....  I agree

I do however believe there is a very real possiblity of the 9 becoming unfortunate victims of several events or (chain of events) in which lead to their deaths. 

#1.  Most of the intrigue of this mystery is due to the lack of evidence for all theories which leads one to rely on circumstantial evidence as the basis for the theory they subscribe to the most. 

#2.  Its a 50/50 chance said 'compelling' force came from outside of the tent, or within. I would lean more towards the latter given that the easiest explanation is usually correct.  People tend to focus on more on what compelling force would make them go down the slope rather then what made them leave the tent when approaching this.  For me, its a matter of what inside the tent would they want to flee from, not what is outside they would want to flee towards and subsequently be unprepared as described.    What may have been the reason within the tent for said departure I dont know...  But it shouldn't be overlooked yet alone ruled out.

#3.  The injuries.   I also believe most people tend to see the injuries as 'having' to be caused by someone from outside if the group.  In reality, most victims know their attacker in one way shape or form.  I do believe either case can be made, but I do not like to discount one over the other due to lack of evidence.    We know most sustained injuries consistent with hand/hand combat, but honestly we have no idea who inflicted said injuries..... Could have well been amongst themselves.   Another scenario that shouldn't be overlooked.

One of my favorite. Theory as you said the could be a fight among them.,, maybe they divided in two groups a Zolotaryev and Dyatlov. Zolotaryev didn't like the idea of camp on a slope

[Wyndford]

That is the big question. Why did they leave the tent?
Why did they slit the tent canvas rather than going out the door?
Why would they leave the tent inadequately dressed?
Why did they move so far from the tent?
Why did they seem afraid to return to the tent even when the alternative was death by hypothermia?

In such a remote location and in such extremes of weather and at such a time of night I think the chances of anyone else being in the vicinity are vanishingly small. Perhaps they were discussing the choice of campsite, which was on a bare hillside and was not ideal and perhaps the thought of avalanches came into their minds. In the still of the night they might have heard the sound of an avalanche somewhere and panicked.

[alecsandros]

Maybe a rocket got accidentally off-course (such as a R-12 Dvina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-12_Dvina). Maybe that rocket carried a chemical weapon, in the form of a gas... Maybe the gas was carried by the wind in the direction of the tent... The tent had to be evacuated immediately... It is possible that Zolotaryov managed to take a picture of the rocket explosion (or part of this explosion), after being warned by Thibeaux-Brignolles about the incoming rocket, and he rushed out of the tent holding his camera. It is also possible that Krivonishenko, alterted by the same Thibeaux-Brignolles, managed to take a snapshot of the falling rocket , before it exploded (frame no34 from Krivonishenko's film) [although both frames are difficult to be done , because the R12 rocket had a high speed, and the time between first sighting and explosion (if there was an explosion) would be of the matter of seconds, therefore not enough time to alert the others inside the tent. The rocket pictures can be done though if both Zolotaryov and Krivonishenko were already outside the tent when the rocket was sighted.]

In any case, my opinion is that some evidence was extracted from the scene and put away in some secret archive. Such as 9 (or 10?) negatives from Zolotaryov's camera, Zolotaryov's notebook, etc. This suggests to me that some state secret was compromised , and that the extraction of evidence was needed to conceal the secret. This further invites thought on the chemical rocket theory.

[alecsandros]

About the actions after leaving the tent: does anyone know how they managed to start a fire in -18...-25degC temperatures, with wind, and using only matches ? (as I understand, the bottle of alcohol was found intact by the search teams at the tent, therefore they didn't use it). If I try to start a fire at +18degC and with wind, using only matches, I have little to no chances of succeeding. At -18degC it would be impossible for me to do it. How did they do it ?

[WAB]

About the actions after leaving the tent: does anyone know how they managed to start a fire in -18...-25degC temperatures, with wind, and using only matches ?

Below a place where Zina has been found, the wind below practically is absent. At a cedar the wind exists only at northern direction. In during events wind was western.

(as I understand, the bottle of alcohol was found intact by the search teams at the tent, therefore they didn't use it).

This flask has been found in tent. At its cedar was not.

If I try to start a fire at +18degC and with wind, using only matches, I have little to no chances of succeeding. At -18degC it would be impossible for me to do it. How did they do it ?

They have made it are exists as the fact. We too have easily made it (as experiment) at a cedar in March 2019. It is in addition possible to add that at us snow was much more, therefore there was it was to make more difficultly. And we did not take a branch from a cedar, therefore works on search of fire wood was more.

[alecsandros]

Thanks for the answer !
In your reconstitution of the facts, how long do you think it took the group to descend from the tent to the cedar tree ? 30min ? 40 min ?

[syneoa]

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

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

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.

[Nigel Evans]

All we know is that some of the ravine four died wearing clothes belonging to the two yuris.

[alecsandros]

Another problem: why did Zolotaryov take his photo camera at night ? Surely he must have known that any picture taken at night would result in not much, as there was no setup existing that would prepare the night photo shoot. Therefore, either he had it with him all the time, or it was something extraordinarily luminous in the night , that would have a chance in being caught on film.

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?

Best,

[syneoa]

This is for me the most intriguing part. Those missing frames hold the truth of what happened there.

[alecsandros]

This is for me the most intriguing part. Those missing frames hold the truth of what happened there.

It is possible, however given that it was night , it would be difficult for good photos to be done...

[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.
Wrt to it's veracity, i think the two smudges are very significant. Just as if two pieces of snow/sleet/graupel have hit a lens kept warm by body heat and starting to melt. I struggle with the idea that this photo is a result of say water damage.


 

[alecsandros]

Question: how do night photos look like , made with the same camera and in the same conditions ? (half moon, no clouds, some stars visible, medium humidity, some snow).
More to the point - how does the following look under those conditions, when photographed with Zolytariov's camera:
a) globular lightining
b) jet fighter (particularly the exhaust stack(s) )
c) ground-to-ground / ground-to-air rocket or stage of a rocket

[brad112]

So just to clarify, all the "images" found on the "3 heads", "plane 1", "plane 2" and the rest of the psychic photography were all found supposedly on the 10 frames of Zolotarev strip of film found in Zolotarev's camera?

And the previous 17 frames were cut and removed and found where? At his home?
Thanks,
Brad

[Nigel Evans]

So just to clarify, all the "images" found on the "3 heads", "plane 1", "plane 2" and the rest of the psychic photography were all found supposedly on the 10 frames of Zolotarev strip of film found in Zolotarev's camera?

And the previous 17 frames were cut and removed and found where? At his home?

Thanks,
Brad

My understanding is that the photos were found by Ivanov's daughter when he died and handed over to the DP foundation.

It would be really good to see the negatives of these photos (in full) rather than partial images of developed film.

[WAB]

Thanks for the answer !
In your reconstitution of the facts, how long do you think it took the group to descend from the tent to the cedar tree ? 30min ? 40 min ?

It very much complicated question which depends on set of assumptions. For example, from  psychological condition of group, character of interaction participant`s command, trajectory of movement, exact parametres of weather and another.
The disorder of indications can be very big, from 40 … 50 minutes till 2 o'clock.
For example, Shura Alekseenkov in February 2014 has reached from place of tent to cedar for 40 with small minutes. But it went in the afternoon, he knew, where and as it is necessary go, we with it know this place better than own ranch, therefore it is not basic time. It is possible consider it as the most minimum time of movement from tent to cedar. Any deviation of parametres will increase it very strongly.

[WAB]

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.

[WAB]

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.

Wrt to it's veracity, i think the two smudges are very significant. Just as if two pieces of snow/sleet/graupel have hit a lens kept warm by body heat and starting to melt. I struggle with the idea that this photo is a result of say water damage.

 

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.

[WAB]

Another problem: why did Zolotaryov take his photo camera at night ?

It it did not take specially. It did not remove it from itself(himself) after they have come on this place from the previous camp.

Surely he must have known that any picture taken at night would result in not much, as there was no setup existing that would prepare the night photo shoot. Therefore, either he had it with him all the time, or it was something extraordinarily luminous in the night , that would have a chance in being caught on film.

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?

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?