wild idea about why the tent situated on the slope

[marieuk]

Completely agree re the musical instrument.  They become very precious to you.

[ilahiyol]

So you think the coercive force "arrived" before they set up the tent, not while they were in it? Hmm... maybe. But what kind of force can make you set up a tent in an unfavourable place if not a storm?

After the group made their stock tent, they headed to the forest. And they were very tired and it was late. They planned to camp in the forest. But they began to hear some terrible noises in the forest. And some lights...So they found it safer to get out of the woods and camp on the mountainside. But the unknown force pursued them and smuggled them back into the forest.

[Почемучка]

Completely agree re the musical instrument.  They become very precious to you.

Дело в том, что в поход не берут вещи большой ценности. Мандолина - и была такой небольшой ценностью. Она до этого похода где только не потеряла своей красоты и звучания в других походах. Так что если она некоторое время поспала в лабазе - ей хуже не стало. Главное что струны тренькали как на балалайке и ладно.

The fact is that they don’t take things of great value on a hike. Mandolin - and was such a small value. Before this trip, it has not lost its beauty and sound in other trips. So if she slept for some time in the storage shed, she did not get worse. The main thing is that the strings strummed like on a balalaika and okay.

[marieuk]

Thank you for explaining.  I guess it depends how it was stored then?  I wasn't talking about cost, just how attached you become to them.   I'm so glad you're here to explan all the details, that sofa people like me don't know!

[GlennM]

We know the hikers lost a day by backtracking. Also, their overall progress was slow because of the thick snow. Once they created the labaz, they took the high pass, not the Dyatlov pass. This was done to allow them to make a more direct dash to the lake and then around Otorten. The trade off was that their camp on 1079 was going to be a quick set up and take down. Therefore, no stove was set up. They would have wood and fire by the lake. It was only one night on 1079.

That night, Feb 1, conditions worsened on the hill and crushing snow fell on the tent, requiring them to " bug out" to the woods below for shelter and a fire. They achieved both things, but they could not defeat the Russian winter. It is one thing to go and shelter from a storm for a couple of hours,  but if it doesn't let up, hypothermia, hunger and dehydration all occur. The group split up with three trying to get back to the tent, but Nature prevailed. In fact, there was no place to hide.

The DP9 were not reckless, nor stupid in their actions. Nature was the compelling force, but it was Nature in several forms. There was cold, crushing snow, sludgy snow, wet wood, rocky terrain, water and rocks. All these things came into play. It is unknown how each force acted on them, but the force was compelling and deadly.

[tenne]

"That night, Feb 1, conditions worsened on the hill and crushing snow fell on the tent, requiring them to " bug out" to the woods below for shelter and a fire."

okay now I am really confused, I thought an avalanche was ruled out, so where did the crushing snow come from?

[RMK]

okay now I am really confused, I thought an avalanche was ruled out, so where did the crushing snow come from?

Quite the contrary--an avalanche is the official explanation for the Incident.  However, needless to say, many people are dissatisfied with that conclusion.  I used to think avalanche theories were obviously nonsense, but I no longer do; see here for my current thoughts on "avalanche" theories.

I will remark here that the word "avalanche" connotes movement of a lot more snow than would be necessary to trigger the Incident.

Совсем наоборот - лавина является официальным объяснением инцидента. Однако, излишне говорить, что многие люди недовольны таким выводом. Раньше я думал, что лавинные теории были очевидной бессмыслицей, но я больше так не считаю; смотрите здесь мои текущие мысли о "лавинных" теориях.

Здесь я замечу, что слово "лавина" означает перемещение гораздо большего количества снега, чем было бы необходимо для того, чтобы спровоцировать инцидент.

[GlennM]

Slab slip, not a full on avalanche. Slip precipitated by cutting a leveling platform in a snow block at elevation 880 on hill,1079. This was my meaning. Sorry for the confusion.

[Почемучка]

Slab slip, not a full on avalanche. Slip precipitated by cutting a leveling platform in a snow block at elevation 880 on hill,1079. This was my meaning. Sorry for the confusion.

Кстати, случайно уткнулась в эту статью. Про лавиноопасность и следы-столбики
By the way, I stumbled upon this article by accident. About avalanche danger and traces-columns
https://lifeglobe.net/entry/5004

Поскольку требует настоящая буря, чтобы сдуть снег, поднятые следы часто используются в качестве индикатора ветра в горных областях, где существует потенциальная лавинная опасность.

Because it takes a real storm to blow snow off, raised tracks are often used as a wind indicator in mountainous areas where there is a potential avalanche hazard.

[GlennM]

https://lifeglobe.net/entry/5004

Did it happen this way? 1. Hikers make a snow ledge on 1079 elevation 880 and pitch a double tent. The ledge has a weak layer which can shear off. 3. Katabatic wind mounds snow on the ledge by the tent. 4. Combined wind and weak layer induce a slab slip 5. Hikers cut selves out of tent to avoid suffocation 6. Too cold and windy to try to clear overburden of snow to retrieve personal items. 7. Visibility poor and katabatic wind persists 8. Hikers retreat to forest for fire and wind break until dawn. 9. Downhill trek produces footprints by compression. Wind eventally,scours,snow and raises prints. 10. In the forest poor conditions persist. 11. The weather is watched but hypothermia sets in. Two succumb at the tree 12. The party splits up. Most go,for a snow cave. Three choose to,return. All are partially successful. Nature is indifferent. 13. All die. 14. There were no,witnesses to the event.

[tenne]

https://lifeglobe.net/entry/5004

Did it happen this way? 1. Hikers make a snow ledge on 1079 elevation 880 and pitch a double tent. The ledge has a weak layer which can shear off. 3. Katabatic wind mounds snow on the ledge by the tent. 4. Combined wind and weak layer induce a slab slip 5. Hikers cut selves out of tent to avoid suffocation 6. Too cold and windy to try to clear overburden of snow to retrieve personal items. 7. Visibility poor and katabatic wind persists 8. Hikers retreat to forest for fire and wind break until dawn. 9. Downhill trek produces footprints by compression. Wind eventally,scours,snow and raises prints. 10. In the forest poor conditions persist. 11. The weather is watched but hypothermia sets in. Two succumb at the tree 12. The party splits up. Most go,for a snow cave. Three choose to,return. All are partially successful. Nature is indifferent. 13. All die. 14. There were no,witnesses to the event.

just need to work in the injuries and it is as good as anything I've seen

[Manti]

I would agree... but... there's always a "but" with the Dyatlov case, isn't there?

There was a flashlight found on top of the tent. Was this snow slip so weak as to not carry it away? Or was it placed there after the slip, as they exited the tent? In which case, was the tent not completely covered and still partially standing? If so, there couldn't have been a risk of suffocation inside it, rope was still partially holding up at least one end of the tent.

[ilahiyol]

I would agree... but... there's always a "but" with the Dyatlov case, isn't there?

There was a flashlight found on top of the tent. Was this snow slip so weak as to not carry it away? Or was it placed there after the slip, as they exited the tent? In which case, was the tent not completely covered and still partially standing? If so, there couldn't have been a risk of suffocation inside it, rope was still partially holding up at least one end of the tent.

Did the snowslide scare away a group of 9 brave professionals??? You are talking nonsense and illogical. Even a cowardly and amateurish person does not run away to the forest and die of cold, afraid of a snowslide. Please let's talk a little more sensibly and coherently. This is the most extraordinary event that has ever happened. I don't know of anything like this. Yes, there have been very interesting disappearances and deaths in human history. But this case is different.... Because the bodies and things remained as they were. They did not disappear, and some were openly violent. Very very interesting and terrifying...

[Ziljoe]

I would agree... but... there's always a "but" with the Dyatlov case, isn't there?

There was a flashlight found on top of the tent. Was this snow slip so weak as to not carry it away? Or was it placed there after the slip, as they exited the tent? In which case, was the tent not completely covered and still partially standing? If so, there couldn't have been a risk of suffocation inside it, rope was still partially holding up at least one end of the tent.

Did the snowslide scare away a group of 9 brave professionals??? You are talking nonsense and illogical. Even a cowardly and amateurish person does not run away to the forest and die of cold, afraid of a snowslide. Please let's talk a little more sensibly and coherently. This is the most extraordinary event that has ever happened. I don't know of anything like this. Yes, there have been very interesting disappearances and deaths in human history. But this case is different.... Because the bodies and things remained as they were. They did not disappear, and some were openly violent. Very very interesting and terrifying...

I think it's plausible. If they weren't 100% sure where they were camped on the slope , if it was dark and windy they wouldn't be able to see far. The decision to move away from that location "in case" a full snow slide or worse came would be logical. It is the group's perception that is important, not if there was an avalanche or not. All they needed was to think there was going to be one. A small slip of snow could have been enough to make them think so. To put in another way, if you were camped on a mountain side, snow collapsed on your tent, would you stay there, in the dark and wind?I believe Manti is only asking a question . GlennM is putting forward a reasonable sequence of events.

The injuries could have happened at the ravine and fighting the elements.   

[RMK]

https://lifeglobe.net/entry/5004

Did it happen this way? 1. Hikers make a snow ledge on 1079 elevation 880 and pitch a double tent. The ledge has a weak layer which can shear off. 3. Katabatic wind mounds snow on the ledge by the tent. 4. Combined wind and weak layer induce a slab slip 5. Hikers cut selves out of tent to avoid suffocation 6. Too cold and windy to try to clear overburden of snow to retrieve personal items. 7. Visibility poor and katabatic wind persists 8. Hikers retreat to forest for fire and wind break until dawn. 9. Downhill trek produces footprints by compression. Wind eventally,scours,snow and raises prints. 10. In the forest poor conditions persist. 11. The weather is watched but hypothermia sets in. Two succumb at the tree 12. The party splits up. Most go,for a snow cave. Three choose to,return. All are partially successful. Nature is indifferent. 13. All die. 14. There were no,witnesses to the event.

That's pretty close to the simplest explanation that is both plausible, and lacking major shortcomings.  I don't think you need to invoke the katabatic wind, though.  There was a Mansi chum about a kilometer away from the Dyatlovites' tent; a katabatic wind would have knocked the chum over.  A katabatic wind could probably blow away their tent, too.

[tenne]

I would agree... but... there's always a "but" with the Dyatlov case, isn't there?

There was a flashlight found on top of the tent. Was this snow slip so weak as to not carry it away? Or was it placed there after the slip, as they exited the tent? In which case, was the tent not completely covered and still partially standing? If so, there couldn't have been a risk of suffocation inside it, rope was still partially holding up at least one end of the tent.

Did the snowslide scare away a group of 9 brave professionals??? You are talking nonsense and illogical. Even a cowardly and amateurish person does not run away to the forest and die of cold, afraid of a snowslide. Please let's talk a little more sensibly and coherently. This is the most extraordinary event that has ever happened. I don't know of anything like this. Yes, there have been very interesting disappearances and deaths in human history. But this case is different.... Because the bodies and things remained as they were. They did not disappear, and some were openly violent. Very very interesting and terrifying...

The question wasn't answered and I am very curious as well about why would a flash light be found on top of a tent?

[RMK]

I would agree... but... there's always a "but" with the Dyatlov case, isn't there?

There was a flashlight found on top of the tent. Was this snow slip so weak as to not carry it away? Or was it placed there after the slip, as they exited the tent? In which case, was the tent not completely covered and still partially standing? If so, there couldn't have been a risk of suffocation inside it, rope was still partially holding up at least one end of the tent.

Did the snowslide scare away a group of 9 brave professionals??? You are talking nonsense and illogical. Even a cowardly and amateurish person does not run away to the forest and die of cold, afraid of a snowslide. Please let's talk a little more sensibly and coherently. This is the most extraordinary event that has ever happened. I don't know of anything like this. Yes, there have been very interesting disappearances and deaths in human history. But this case is different.... Because the bodies and things remained as they were. They did not disappear, and some were openly violent. Very very interesting and terrifying...

The question wasn't answered and I am very curious as well about why would a flash light be found on top of a tent?

Maybe one of the searchers left it there by mistake, but never admitted to doing so?

[Ziljoe]

I would agree... but... there's always a "but" with the Dyatlov case, isn't there?

There was a flashlight found on top of the tent. Was this snow slip so weak as to not carry it away? Or was it placed there after the slip, as they exited the tent? In which case, was the tent not completely covered and still partially standing? If so, there couldn't have been a risk of suffocation inside it, rope was still partially holding up at least one end of the tent.

Did the snowslide scare away a group of 9 brave professionals??? You are talking nonsense and illogical. Even a cowardly and amateurish person does not run away to the forest and die of cold, afraid of a snowslide. Please let's talk a little more sensibly and coherently. This is the most extraordinary event that has ever happened. I don't know of anything like this. Yes, there have been very interesting disappearances and deaths in human history. But this case is different.... Because the bodies and things remained as they were. They did not disappear, and some were openly violent. Very very interesting and terrifying...

The question wasn't answered and I am very curious as well about why would a flash light be found on top of a tent?

Maybe one of the searchers left it there by mistake, but never admitted to doing so?

I believe the torch is allocated to one of the group . The testimonies say various things , contradictions as always.

Looking at it from the perspective of wind slab , might give context. Wind slab is hard snow / ice , topped by lose snow drift ( loose Powder snow). If , and it is only an if, there was a snow slide/ slip on the tent and this must be understood , when I say small. Enough to to collapse the tent without injury but enough that that it comprises exit from the tent door and bring down the structure of the tent. You don't hang about saying it was nothing waiting for more potential "snow" to entomb you.

It is mentioned that there was wood for the stove, the stove may have not been set up as they undress themselves and have food due to the lack of space in the tent. You can't be having food , heat stove , dressing down, brushing teeth and hot wood stove hanging from the ridge at the same time. In one of the diary entries it talks about it being to hot for one of the group.

This ,to me suggests a sequence of protocol within the tent.

The torch could have been left on top of snow that fell on top of the tent at the time of any snow slab, the first snow layer may have been ice hard snow. With the Powder snow on top. The lose snow could have been blown off , there was three weeks for this to happen. The same as the raised foot prints. The hard stuff stays, the light snow gets blown away? 

[GlennM]

Ilahyol, you can disagree, but you must do a better job expressing yourself. The verbal abuse will result in you being ignored by the forum.

For other members, I too am vexed by anomalies like the flashlight, but it is an artifact, not central to their abandonment of the tent. I am aware of the appearance of the tent as shown in the discovery photos. I would think that a slab slide could very well pull the stakes holding the rope without breaking the rope. With regard to the Mansi chum not being blown over in a strong wind, I think they would be poor woodsmen if generations of them had not perfected something resistant to the elements. I understand that we are discussing the degree of wind speed and I don't know if it is a fair comparison to the tent. Then again, there is a whole lot I wonder about in this case.

For me, it still gets down to this. If the hikers did not camp on 1079 that night and instead were in the trees, then the appearance of the tent on 1079 without the evidence of prints and tracks going both ways is,a,clear sign that it did not happen that way. They were on 1079...alone.

Originally, I posited a seismic disturbance forcing them out, later it was seismic owing to an aerial munitions burst. Currently, I am inclined to support the slab slide explanation. It requires fewer assumptions.

[tenne]

For other members, I too am vexed by anomalies like the flashlight, but it is an artifact, not central to their abandonment of the tent.

I feel very differently, any theory of what happened has to explain EVERYTHING that happened. Nothing is going to be unexplained when, if, we find out what happened. A theory that doesn't explain everything simply is an incomplete theory

[ilahiyol]

Ilahyol, you can disagree, but you must do a better job expressing yourself. The verbal abuse will result in you being ignored by the forum.

For other members, I too am vexed by anomalies like the flashlight, but it is an artifact, not central to their abandonment of the tent. I am aware of the appearance of the tent as shown in the discovery photos. I would think that a slab slide could very well pull the stakes holding the rope without breaking the rope. With regard to the Mansi chum not being blown over in a strong wind, I think they would be poor woodsmen if generations of them had not perfected something resistant to the elements. I understand that we are discussing the degree of wind speed and I don't know if it is a fair comparison to the tent. Then again, there is a whole lot I wonder about in this case.

For me, it still gets down to this. If the hikers did not camp on 1079 that night and instead were in the trees, then the appearance of the tent on 1079 without the evidence of prints and tracks going both ways is,a,clear sign that it did not happen that way. They were on 1079...alone.

Originally, I posited a seismic disturbance forcing them out, later it was seismic owing to an aerial munitions burst. Currently, I am inclined to support the slab slide explanation. It requires fewer assumptions.

The group escaped from the tent without even taking their shoes! In this case, it is normal that they do not receive the lanterns. Because shoes are much more important to them than lanterns. And there was a blanket of snow everywhere, and the snow illuminates the surroundings.

[GlennM]

Never ending circles of reason. Who among us would prepare the checklist of thisns that must be proven in the affirmative to resolve this mystery. We could not get past even one item because the first item depends on the second being true etc. So, as was mentioned above when the truth is known, all the questions will be answered. The truth may come from undiscovered findings external to the forum. Yuri Yuden waited his life for that knowledge. What chance do we have? For me, the slab slip makes most sense. Other explanations demand the insertion of elements not in the canon of this event.

[tenne]

I am curious what events are not in the canon of this event.

[Manti]

I think the slab slip is a distraction. If, if, the scene is not staged and they did camp on the slope, then for some reason they abandoned the tent. While it is a of course a pivotal event, it's not what killed them and in this sense not the "key" to solving the case.

It would have been possible for them to go to the forest and survive, or at least for some of them to survive.


It might be the case that it was just simply too cold and they succumbed to the elements, I would say that's the "null theory" of Dyatlov Pass. No event is even required at the tent, maybe they were just too cold there and decided to go to the forest to warm up around a campfire.

However, the injuries especially of the Ravine 4 seem to suggest there's more here. As well as other things for example what Tenne highlighted, that they went unnecessarily deep into the forest. The scene as found doesn't really fit the "too cold" scenario. In most such cases, someone survives or at least survives long enough to have made it tens of miles away, because they simply had more body fat, better clothing, have a smaller body surface area etc etc.

Regardless, my list would look something like this:

• Did Zina, Rustem and Igor really try to return to the tent, or did they in fact fall on their way down, and succumb to the cold?
• Were Lyuda's, Tibo's, Semyon's serious injuries in fact post-mortem, a result of the 4 metres of snow on top of them?
• Are their last photos, setting up the tent, even from this trip? Which camera/film are they from? They are usually listed as "loose photos not from any of the films of the group"
• What was the weather like? Some seem to believe it was "unusually warm" whereas usual January/February temperatures there are in the -20-30C range quite consistently.
• Was a night in their unheated tent on the slope, with the equipment they had i.e. no sleeping bags, no modern "thermal" fabrics, even survivable?

If the answer to 5. is "no", then I think there's no mystery at all and this is something testable today. In fact one day when it becomes easier to get a visa to Russia, I am planning to try.

[tenne]

I envy your ability to go there and do it on the actual site. Please please please let us know what happens if and when it does.

[RMK]

I think the slab slip is a distraction. If, if, the scene is not staged and they did camp on the slope, then for some reason they abandoned the tent. While it is a of course a pivotal event, it's not what killed them and in this sense not the "key" to solving the case.

Good post in Reply #53, Manti, except I disagree with you here.  in my view, the primary element of the mystery is why the Dyatlov Nine apparently abandoned their tent (assuming they did pitch it there, and it wasn't staged).  Once they decided to leave their campsite for the forest, nothing extraordinary needs to happen for all of them to meet their demise.  Officially, six of the nine succumbed to hypothermia, which I consider the most likely explanation for all six.  The injuries that doomed Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle, and Zolotaryov are admittedly a bit harder to explain, but there are a number of possibilities.  Perhaps, in the dark, they walked up a snowbank on the side of the ravine and then fell in, onto some rocks at its bottom, with Kolevatov falling on top of the other three.  Perhaps something similar happened, except they fell out of a tree instead.  Perhaps they were crushed by shifting snow in the ravine, when their snow cave collapsed, or when the "snow bridge" over the stream gave way.  Perhaps they got crushed by a snow slab as they made their way down the slope of Kholat Syakhl (most discussion of a slab slide concerns it occurring at their campsite).  Perhaps they got kicked and trampled by a moose/elk.  The point is that none of those things could have happened to the badly injured trio if the group had not exited their tent and abandoned their campsite, and we don't know why they did that.

[ilahiyol]

I think the slab slip is a distraction. If, if, the scene is not staged and they did camp on the slope, then for some reason they abandoned the tent. While it is a of course a pivotal event, it's not what killed them and in this sense not the "key" to solving the case.

It would have been possible for them to go to the forest and survive, or at least for some of them to survive.


It might be the case that it was just simply too cold and they succumbed to the elements, I would say that's the "null theory" of Dyatlov Pass. No event is even required at the tent, maybe they were just too cold there and decided to go to the forest to warm up around a campfire.

However, the injuries especially of the Ravine 4 seem to suggest there's more here. As well as other things for example what Tenne highlighted, that they went unnecessarily deep into the forest. The scene as found doesn't really fit the "too cold" scenario. In most such cases, someone survives or at least survives long enough to have made it tens of miles away, because they simply had more body fat, better clothing, have a smaller body surface area etc etc.

Regardless, my list would look something like this:

• Did Zina, Rustem and Igor really try to return to the tent, or did they in fact fall on their way down, and succumb to the cold?
• Were Lyuda's, Tibo's, Semyon's serious injuries in fact post-mortem, a result of the 4 metres of snow on top of them?
• Are their last photos, setting up the tent, even from this trip? Which camera/film are they from? They are usually listed as "loose photos not from any of the films of the group"
• What was the weather like? Some seem to believe it was "unusually warm" whereas usual January/February temperatures there are in the -20-30C range quite consistently.
• Was a night in their unheated tent on the slope, with the equipment they had i.e. no sleeping bags, no modern "thermal" fabrics, even survivable?

If the answer to 5. is "no", then I think there's no mystery at all and this is something testable today. In fact one day when it becomes easier to get a visa to Russia, I am planning to try.

Many camps were held there under the same conditions. And it was proved that even in the storm, it was possible to stay comfortably in the tent at night on the mountain slope. There were stoves and some wood in the tent. The group doesn't just leave the tent out of nowhere and then die from the cold outside. Not even the dumbest ignorant amateur people do that.

[Manti]

Ok maybe I didn't explain my point of view well...

Many camps were held there under the same conditions. And it was proved that even in the storm, it was possible to stay comfortably in the tent at night on the mountain slope. There were stoves and some wood in the tent. The group doesn't just leave the tent out of nowhere and then die from the cold outside. Not even the dumbest ignorant amateur people do that.

Imagine you are in that tent. The stove is not assembled for whatever reason, maybe it broke, maybe the tent isn't strong enough to suspend it. And it's getting later and later and temperature is dropping. Your coats are sweaty because it was hard work digging in and setting up the tent. I say, in this scenario, the only choice is to leave the tent and make a campfire in the forest.

And I don't think people who camped there later, were in the same conditions. They had the benefit of tents that were in better condition than the Dyatlov group's, they had proper coats, and sleeping bags. A good sleeping bag is the difference between getting hypothermia in -5C and being comfortable without heating in -30.

Good post in Reply #53, Manti, except I disagree with you here.  in my view, the primary element of the mystery is why the Dyatlov Nine apparently abandoned their tent (assuming they did pitch it there, and it wasn't staged).  Once they decided to leave their campsite for the forest, nothing extraordinary needs to happen for all of them to meet their demise.  Officially, six of the nine succumbed to hypothermia, which I consider the most likely explanation for all six.  The injuries that doomed Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle, and Zolotaryov are admittedly a bit harder to explain, but there are a number of possibilities.  Perhaps, in the dark, they walked up a snowbank on the side of the ravine and then fell in, onto some rocks at its bottom, with Kolevatov falling on top of the other three.  Perhaps something similar happened, except they fell out of a tree instead.  Perhaps they were crushed by shifting snow in the ravine, when their snow cave collapsed, or when the "snow bridge" over the stream gave way.  Perhaps they got crushed by a snow slab as they made their way down the slope of Kholat Syakhl (most discussion of a slab slide concerns it occurring at their campsite).  Perhaps they got kicked and trampled by a moose/elk.  The point is that none of those things could have happened to the badly injured trio if the group had not exited their tent and abandoned their campsite, and we don't know why they did that.

Well, the way I think about it, what is needed for survival? Water, oxygen, warmth. Food too but not immediately... In a forest, theoretically all of this is possible to get. There was a stream to drink from. They may find berries to eat. And the wind is much weaker, and there might be more sheltered areas or even a cave to sleep. And wood for a fire. On the other hand, on the slope, there's food, but in every other respect it seems like a less suitable place to survive. The tent provides no warmth, it does hold the wind back a bit but a tent on the slope is no better against wind than no tent but being in a gully in the forest. There's a stove but not enough wood for it. There's nothing to drink! Sure if you make a fire, you can melt snow but again you need wood. And all the other risks, moose, snow slab, attackers, etc. most importantly, cold itself, I argue you are more exposed to on the slope than in the forest. They even saw a Mansi hut on the way along Auspiya. There wasn't one along Lozva (not that we know of), but there could have been. And then maybe this is a completely different story of returning 2 days late because they had to shelter out a blizzard in a hut or cave.

Of course all of this is based on the assumption that in fact they were already getting very cold in the tent.So in that sense, it's not abandoning the tent that sealed their fate, rather, it's the decision to set it up there.

[RMK]

Good post in Reply #53, Manti, except I disagree with you here.  in my view, the primary element of the mystery is why the Dyatlov Nine apparently abandoned their tent (assuming they did pitch it there, and it wasn't staged).  Once they decided to leave their campsite for the forest, nothing extraordinary needs to happen for all of them to meet their demise.  Officially, six of the nine succumbed to hypothermia, which I consider the most likely explanation for all six.  The injuries that doomed Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle, and Zolotaryov are admittedly a bit harder to explain, but there are a number of possibilities.  Perhaps, in the dark, they walked up a snowbank on the side of the ravine and then fell in, onto some rocks at its bottom, with Kolevatov falling on top of the other three.  Perhaps something similar happened, except they fell out of a tree instead.  Perhaps they were crushed by shifting snow in the ravine, when their snow cave collapsed, or when the "snow bridge" over the stream gave way.  Perhaps they got crushed by a snow slab as they made their way down the slope of Kholat Syakhl (most discussion of a slab slide concerns it occurring at their campsite).  Perhaps they got kicked and trampled by a moose/elk.  The point is that none of those things could have happened to the badly injured trio if the group had not exited their tent and abandoned their campsite, and we don't know why they did that.

Well, the way I think about it, what is needed for survival? Water, oxygen, warmth. Food too but not immediately... In a forest, theoretically all of this is possible to get. There was a stream to drink from. They may find berries to eat. And the wind is much weaker, and there might be more sheltered areas or even a cave to sleep. And wood for a fire. On the other hand, on the slope, there's food, but in every other respect it seems like a less suitable place to survive. The tent provides no warmth, it does hold the wind back a bit but a tent on the slope is no better against wind than no tent but being in a gully in the forest. There's a stove but not enough wood for it. There's nothing to drink! Sure if you make a fire, you can melt snow but again you need wood. And all the other risks, moose, snow slab, attackers, etc. most importantly, cold itself, I argue you are more exposed to on the slope than in the forest. They even saw a Mansi hut on the way along Auspiya. There wasn't one along Lozva (not that we know of), but there could have been. And then maybe this is a completely different story of returning 2 days late because they had to shelter out a blizzard in a hut or cave.

Of course all of this is based on the assumption that in fact they were already getting very cold in the tent.So in that sense, it's not abandoning the tent that sealed their fate, rather, it's the decision to set it up there.

Hmm.  I must admit, you make some good points.

[ilahiyol]

Ok maybe I didn't explain my point of view well...

Many camps were held there under the same conditions. And it was proved that even in the storm, it was possible to stay comfortably in the tent at night on the mountain slope. There were stoves and some wood in the tent. The group doesn't just leave the tent out of nowhere and then die from the cold outside. Not even the dumbest ignorant amateur people do that.

Imagine you are in that tent. The stove is not assembled for whatever reason, maybe it broke, maybe the tent isn't strong enough to suspend it. And it's getting later and later and temperature is dropping. Your coats are sweaty because it was hard work digging in and setting up the tent. I say, in this scenario, the only choice is to leave the tent and make a campfire in the forest.

And I don't think people who camped there later, were in the same conditions. They had the benefit of tents that were in better condition than the Dyatlov group's, they had proper coats, and sleeping bags. A good sleeping bag is the difference between getting hypothermia in -5C and being comfortable without heating in -30.

Good post in Reply #53, Manti, except I disagree with you here.  in my view, the primary element of the mystery is why the Dyatlov Nine apparently abandoned their tent (assuming they did pitch it there, and it wasn't staged).  Once they decided to leave their campsite for the forest, nothing extraordinary needs to happen for all of them to meet their demise.  Officially, six of the nine succumbed to hypothermia, which I consider the most likely explanation for all six.  The injuries that doomed Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolle, and Zolotaryov are admittedly a bit harder to explain, but there are a number of possibilities.  Perhaps, in the dark, they walked up a snowbank on the side of the ravine and then fell in, onto some rocks at its bottom, with Kolevatov falling on top of the other three.  Perhaps something similar happened, except they fell out of a tree instead.  Perhaps they were crushed by shifting snow in the ravine, when their snow cave collapsed, or when the "snow bridge" over the stream gave way.  Perhaps they got crushed by a snow slab as they made their way down the slope of Kholat Syakhl (most discussion of a slab slide concerns it occurring at their campsite).  Perhaps they got kicked and trampled by a moose/elk.  The point is that none of those things could have happened to the badly injured trio if the group had not exited their tent and abandoned their campsite, and we don't know why they did that.

Well, the way I think about it, what is needed for survival? Water, oxygen, warmth. Food too but not immediately... In a forest, theoretically all of this is possible to get. There was a stream to drink from. They may find berries to eat. And the wind is much weaker, and there might be more sheltered areas or even a cave to sleep. And wood for a fire. On the other hand, on the slope, there's food, but in every other respect it seems like a less suitable place to survive. The tent provides no warmth, it does hold the wind back a bit but a tent on the slope is no better against wind than no tent but being in a gully in the forest. There's a stove but not enough wood for it. There's nothing to drink! Sure if you make a fire, you can melt snow but again you need wood. And all the other risks, moose, snow slab, attackers, etc. most importantly, cold itself, I argue you are more exposed to on the slope than in the forest. They even saw a Mansi hut on the way along Auspiya. There wasn't one along Lozva (not that we know of), but there could have been. And then maybe this is a completely different story of returning 2 days late because they had to shelter out a blizzard in a hut or cave.

Of course all of this is based on the assumption that in fact they were already getting very cold in the tent.So in that sense, it's not abandoning the tent that sealed their fate, rather, it's the decision to set it up there.

First of all, the coldness in the tent is almost the same as the coldness between the trees in the forest. But the tent is more advantageous than the forest as it protects from the wind. Let's say there's a storm and it's very cold. At that time, they wore all their clothes and also wore their shoes. And they would not cut the tent, and go out from its door. There was no storm with that because the tent stood as it was. And it wasn't too cold because you can't walk for about 1 hour in very cold weather with bare feet. There was something that made them run away from the tent. But what???