Why did they leave

[hanno]

Hello. A stove accident as introduced by C. Williams is my favorite. Why? Because it explains a lot that other theories can not explain. I think we all agree that the most mystery starts at the tent. A stove accident explains why they cut the tent from inside and left. It further explains why they left the area orderly and not in such a hurry as it is proved by the footsteps. And of course it explains why there are no other traces, because smoke does not make any. Beyond this the stove theory is plain and simple. Most of the other theories are (my opinion) a little bit too constructed.

OK, there are two thinks that do not fit. First: The report says the stove was not assembled. This could be explained by assuming the stove was disassembled and then the accident happened. I think this makes sense, because when the stove is assembled, the smoke leaves the tent through its designed exit. A stove that is disassembled too early could lead to an accident when the fire ignites again because somebody opens the entrance of the tent.

But what is hard to believe is that they left the tent and stand around the tent and are not able to reach inside to get the clothes and shoes. They could have cut the rest of the tent, pull snow on the stove to dissolve it and so on. Or using the skis around the tent to reach into it. The only thing I can imagine is that they overestimated their strength. That they thought it is more safe to go to the near wood, make a fire and wait till the stove runs out. Would be a great mistake indeed. But not impossible. Also people that are experienced make mistakes.

What is your opinion? Could a stove accident be the impulse that has led to the tragedy?

[SteveCalley]

Wondering if they burned mostly wood.

[hanno]

Some facts regarding stove accidents in general:

Using a stove inside a tent is always a risk. Alone in the UK there are some hundred accidents with a stove in a tent each year. Round about 50 accidents lead to serious injuries or even dead. One of the risk factors is using damp wood.

The stove was self constructed and surely not on the security level that modern stoves for tents have. This increases the risk for an accident. Further I guess they collected wood for the stove that was not 100% dry. Even if they carried wood (or some other material) to burn in the stove, there is a risk that it gets wet during the journey.

So I think there was a real risk for a stove accident. But the most accidents with a stove inside a tent happen within the tent, and the hikers were able to escape. This means in a normal situation they have escaped the danger. But not in this special case, they all died (one of the few facts that is definitely true). They main problem that I have is why they left the area. Hard to imagine they left in underwear because of a little smoke.

But... there is no explanation for all facts in the whole time since the accident happened that is logical. For me this means either foul play (e.g. somebody has changed the facts) or the hikers did something illogical. I tend to say they did something illogical, and in this special case they left the tent area to look for shelter in the near wood.

I think a stove accident is the theory with the fewest weaknesses.

[WAB]

.......................
What is your opinion? Could a stove accident be the impulse that has led to the tragedy?

No, it is absolutely excluded.
1.   There is a fact that the iron stove was not used - it has been packed with untouched fire wood. It is possible to read in criminal case.
2.   Even if the iron stove used, pieces of coal and ashes traces from which well remain long time would be found in it (or about tent). They should be found on snow (or on an ice crust- old snow).
3.   Even if the iron stove used, in tent it is impossible to create conditions for a poisoning therefore that it is well aired as the canvas with holes from the got smallest pieces of coal very much promotes it. The Dyatlov team would not began to sit in such atmosphere, and simply would air tent, or has got out of tent, but anywhere is not has left, because in the street there would be good air and a wind.
4.   Even if the iron stove has given a lot of carbonic oxide and they have choked, people would find in tent, instead of is so far from it.
I think, what it is already enough these arguments?

[WAB]

...........................
I think a stove accident is the theory with the fewest weaknesses.

No. It is impossible. Because I have written in the previous message

[hanno]

Where is it written that the stove was packed with untouched fire wood? I can only find that the stove is not assembled and lies in the center of the tent. Can you please tell me case file and page where I can find it?

[Loose}{Cannon]

I cannot remember where it is stated, but I believe there to be ONE unburnt log stored within the heater itself for travel.

[WAB]

Where is it written that the stove was packed with untouched fire wood? I can only find that the stove is not assembled and lies in the center of the tent. Can you please tell me case file and page where I can find it?

Probably you can read only that that on this site is published in criminal case materials. However it not a unique source of the information on incident of Dyatlov in 1959. I have a possibility to receive the information directly from participants of search. Some times we talked to Michael Sharavin who has found tent on February, 26th 1959 on Mountain. Data on fire wood filled in the furnace are received directly from it. And some times at various times and in different places.
Probably it is in book Donnie Eichar ”Dead Mountain“ ( https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/24484434 ) “ When we together with Yury Yudin and Donnie make the information to his book, about it there was a conversation with Michael Sharavin. Whether there is this information in the book I can to tell, because now at me it is not present.
At several forums in Russian wrote about it much also.
Probably to give the reference to some video interview with Michael Sharavin it is not meaningful. They long, in Russian and there it is a lot of turns of speech which are difficult for understanding and transfer.

[CalzagheChick]

Consider this: The heavy canvas of the tent would absorb any smoke/fume/burning odors quite well. Even if the tent was out in the open air for a couple of weeks, I believe an odor would have been detectable to those examining the cloth forensically. Especially a seamstress? The diaries indicate that the boys all promised no cigarette smoking for the entire trip which makes this whole stove theory even more unlikely in my opinion.

If there was a malfunction with a smoking stove, the material of the tent would have SOME evidence of such, at least for SOMEONE to notice throughout the investigation.

[Marchesk]

I cannot remember where it is stated, but I believe there to be ONE unburnt log stored within the heater itself for travel.

Williams says it was left outside the tent after using the stove because Igor didn't want to carry any extra weight.

[Marchesk]

Hello. A stove accident as introduced by C. Williams is my favorite. Why? Because it explains a lot that other theories can not explain.

Agreed. His explanation explains events better than any other theory. And we know there was a stove, unlike the Mansi, KGB, explosion, avalanche, mushrooms, infrasound, etc. All those theories suffer from the one big problem that there is no direct evidence for their existence in this case.

It makes so much sense of why they would cut the tent the way they did, were individually dressed the way they were, and left the way they did. At least on his version of events. I like that he narrated both the discovery of the tent and the events that night, even though it's fictionalized. It nicely ties together what we do know.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

What is your opinion? Could a stove accident be the impulse that has led to the tragedy?

In short, no.

In this case, a stove accident could not lead to the tragedy.

1. The portable oven they had, was not used this fateful night. This means it is proven impossible that the stove could create an accident.

2. Even if the oven had been used, it would be highly unlikely because people who leave a tent because a stove accident do not flee long distances. The nine who would soon perish did moreover not flee the tent, there was nothing that indicated any panic or disorientation. The tracks indicate that they left in an orderly manner. This makes perfectly sense if they were forced at gunpoint to leave the tent in the cold with insufficient clothing and no gloves, by determined attackers who calculated that their victims would soon freeze to death so that there would be no direct evidence of homicide.

The modern-day forensic expert Natalia Sakharova has questioned whether it is sufficiently documented that the tent was cut from the inside. There is also a possibility that a knife was first driven into the tent and then cut from the inside. But that is speculation so far. Even if the tent was cut from the inside, that does not mean that the Dyatlov group members did the cutting. In fact, their knives were found in the tent - and all these knives were in their sheaths. Why is it taken for granted that if the tent was indeed cut from the inside, the Dyatlov group must have done it themselves?

[Marchesk]

1. The portable oven they had, was not used this fateful night. This means it is proven impossible that the stove could create an accident.

Is it possible for the stove to have been disassembled after use, and the wood to have been reduced to embers, with the exception of one piece they didn't use? The smoke would have been the result of a draft from opening the tent when one of them went out to take a leak and then returned, causing the embers to be fanned into smoking, and blowing out their candles. The darkened tent quickly fills with smoke. Zina and at least one other has a nosebleed as a result, leading them to cut the tent in an attempt to vent, and then exit when that fails.

2. Even if the oven had been used, it would be highly unlikely because people who leave a tent because a stove accident do not flee long distances.

Unless they couldn't vent the tent in a timely fashion, leading to concern about being exposed to the wind poorly dressed, and decided to build a fire and look for shelter elsewhere for the night.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

1. The portable oven they had, was not used this fateful night. This means it is proven impossible that the stove could create an accident.

Is it possible for the stove to have been disassembled after use, and the wood to have been reduced to embers, with the exception of one piece they didn't use? The smoke would have been the result of a draft from opening the tent when one of them went out to take a leak and then returned, causing the embers to be fanned into smoking, and blowing out their candles. The darkened tent quickly fills with smoke. Zina and at least one other has a nosebleed as a result, leading them to cut the tent in an attempt to vent, and then exit when that fails.

2. Even if the oven had been used, it would be highly unlikely because people who leave a tent because a stove accident do not flee long distances.

Unless they couldn't vent the tent in a timely fashion, leading to concern about being exposed to the wind poorly dressed, and decided to build a fire and look for shelter elsewhere for the night.

1. How likely is it that people who leave a tent because of smoke formation and ventilation difficulties decide to go far from the tent, and does it seem probable that any adult person could believe that such action would increase their chances of survival in winter conditions? There simply is no ground for assuming that there was any smoke in the tent that could force the nine to leave their tent. There is still less reason to believe that people who had smoke in their tent would choose to move more than a kilometer away in the cold, instead of working to remedy the situation in the tent. If there had been smoke, nothing would have prevented the trekkers from staying to solve the problem right there.

2. Zinaida bled from the nose during the last night of her life, she evidently had blood in her face when her body was found.

But Zina had much more serious trouble than just a nosebleed, as is clear from the autopsy report:

"dark red abrasion on the right frontal eminence"

"dark red abrasion on the upper eyelids"

"brown red graze on the bridge and tip of the nose"

"numerous abrasions on the left cheekbone"

"bruised skin on the right side of the face"

"brown-red abrasion on the back of both hands in the area of metacarpal phalangeal and inter-phalangeal joints"

"wound with jagged edges and missing skin on the back of the right hand at the base of the third finger"

"a long bright red bruise 29x6 cm in the lumbar region on the right side of the torso. The bruise looks like left from a baton"

These injuries were of course not caused by smoke, and frankly speaking it is extremely unlikely that they could have been the result of her stumbling around in the snow either.

[Marchesk]

If there had been smoke, nothing would have prevented the trekkers from staying to solve the problem right there.

The weather while standing outside the tent trying to deal with the smoke would be what prevented them from staying long enough. They had to decide whether the tent was usable before they started suffering hypothermia, or find shelter elsewhere. They weren't properly dressed, and they were exposed to the wind on the side of a mountain.

There is still less reason to believe that people who had smoke in their tent would choose to move more than a kilometer away in the cold,

The mile away is where the tree line was. There's no in between spot. You stay at the tent or go to the trees.

There simply is no ground for assuming that there was any smoke in the tent that could force the nine to leave their tent.

It all depends on whether the stove was used that night to heat up the tent and their food/drink, and then disassembled, possibly because of the wind on the slope. I've seen discrepancies in what condition the stove was found in. If it had unused wood, then it wasn't used. But if it had embers, then it most likely was. So which was it?

One problem we have to deal with in these sort of cases is that some of the evidence is ambigious or contradictory. Depends on who remembers seeing what. Unless the stove was photographed or it's condition was carefully documented, we're going off the search team's memory. Did the investigators bother to examine it? If so, did they report what was inside the stove?

The big advantage of the stove theory is that we know for a fact it was inside the tent, and that smoke is very hard on humans in a confined area.

But Zina had much more serious trouble than just a nosebleed

Right, but did she acquire the rest of those injuries gathering firewood, digging out the snow den, and trying to return to the tent?

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

If there had been smoke, nothing would have prevented the trekkers from staying to solve the problem right there.

The weather while standing outside the tent trying to deal with the smoke would be what prevented them from staying long enough. They had to decide whether the tent was usable before they started suffering hypothermia, or find shelter elsewhere. They weren't properly dressed, and they were exposed to the wind on the side of a mountain.

There is still less reason to believe that people who had smoke in their tent would choose to move more than a kilometer away in the cold,

The mile away is where the tree line was. There's no in between spot. You stay at the tent or go to the trees.

There simply is no ground for assuming that there was any smoke in the tent that could force the nine to leave their tent.

It all depends on whether the stove was used that night to heat up the tent and their food/drink, and then disassembled, possibly because of the wind on the slope. I've seen discrepancies in what condition the stove was found in. If it had unused wood, then it wasn't used. But if it had embers, then it most likely was. So which was it?

One problem we have to deal with in these sort of cases is that some of the evidence is ambigious or contradictory. Depends on who remembers seeing what. Unless the stove was photographed or it's condition was carefully documented, we're going off the search team's memory. Did the investigators bother to examine it? If so, did they report what was inside the stove?

The big advantage of the stove theory is that we know for a fact it was inside the tent, and that smoke is very hard on humans in a confined area.

But Zina had much more serious trouble than just a nosebleed

Right, but did she acquire the rest of those injuries gathering firewood, digging out the snow den, and trying to return to the tent?

1. The temperature in the area at the night of February 1 was no more than -13 to -18, according to weather reports from the time. There also was moderate wind and thus little wind chill effect. For these reasons, hypothermia would not set in before many minutes. The students would have time to wait for the smoke to disappear while they were ventilating the tent. There is nothing that would have prevented them from doing that.

It seems very unlikely that smoke in the tent could force them to go a mile and seek shelter when they could just open the entrance and let the smoke out. A smoke scenario simply would hardly necessitate a long absence from the tent. Most importantly, the students were insufficiently dressed for a night in the winter and would not have left the tent without a very compelling reason. And it is quite a stretch to believe that smoke from the tent could be such a reason.

2. We have to consider the injuries. Are these injuries the kinds of injury one is likely to get by gathering wood and digging in the snow?

3. All the members of the Dyatlov group - every single one - had suffered various forms and degrees of injury consistent with a human attack with evil intent. It simply is not conceivable that the pattern of injuries found could have been caused by walking around and digging in the snow or collecting firewood.

[CalzagheChick]

It's pretty absurd to think that 9 people chose to chance it a mile off into the woods without shoes or proper clothing to certain death than to stay with their shelter. They had needles and thread with them as evidenced by the scuffle between Lyudmila and another member when Zina said, "Plenty of sewing for all of us." Had they damaged their tent (and I no longer believe they did), they'd more certainly have stayed with it and worked all night to mend the slits or holes with a needle and thread rather than chase after the Siberian winter and go at it one on one with mother nature.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

It's pretty absurd to think that 9 people chose to chance it a mile off into the woods without shoes or proper clothing to certain death than to stay with their shelter. They had needles and thread with them as evidenced by the scuffle between Lyudmila and another member when Zina said, "Plenty of sewing for all of us." Had they damaged their tent (and I no longer believe they did), they'd more certainly have stayed with it and worked all night to mend the slits or holes with a needle and thread rather than chase after the Siberian winter and go at it one on one with mother nature.

I fully agree with everything you said there.

There was no reason why they would damage their tent, and there is no proof that they did.

Also, there is no reason why they would voluntarily leave their tent improperly dressed and flee a mile away in the Siberian winter.

[Loose}{Cannon]

The stove was unpacked but in the 'stowed' position.  The log that was said to be transported with them was taken out of the stove and was found at the far back/right of the tent.  I believe they were going to make a fire.   Just add kindling. 

[Blkdahlia]

Is it possible the stove was not set up because the person who set up the tent scene did not know how to set it up?
And once again I ask the same question. Was the tent scene staged?

[sarapuk]

Again.  I wouldnt have thought a stove incident would have caused all the subsequent actions. And it must have been a very extraordinary event to cause the group to abandon their refuge.

[CalzagheChick]

Is it possible the stove was not set up because the person who set up the tent scene did not know how to set it up?
And once again I ask the same question. Was the tent scene staged?

You know I'm going to be honest here... I've never really thought of this possibility. It actually is a very valid point.

[sarapuk]

But who would want to set up the tent scene ? What would be their purpose ?