UCF

[GlennM]

The UCF  had certain characteristics. The remains of the three hikers who perished between the tent and the woods, allow us to safely deduce the tent was always on 1979, just where it was found. The force did not consciously conceal the tent, nor the corpses so as to obfuscate search efforts. The force did not eat the provisions in the tent. The force did not rummage the interior of the tent. The force did not leave with clothing or tools like a pickaxe nor flashlght and footwear. It left no prints in the snow, unlike those of the hikers. The UCF was such that the hikers preferred a side exit from the tent. It did not allow for the dismantling of the tent so as to make skis available.The force did no lasting damage to the foliage below the tent. The force had no interest, nor effect on the labaz. The UCF, had no discernable negative impact on the search parties in either health or safety.

 No political or terrorist organization took credit for being the UCF. No prison escape was linked in time to the event. There was no exchange of funds, nor prestige associated with the event. Follow the money! It leads nowhere. Neither was there a discernable trail of homicides and thefts reported leading to or away from 1079.

 The UCF was sufficiently  potent and/ or mysterious to have 1079 and vicinity off limits for two hiking seasons. The Manti did not have a name for the UCF to share with investigators, like Menk.  Because the search teams covered an area from Otorten to Auspiya, the geographical area was sufficiently great to permanently hide bodies but did not. The UCF was not concerned that two people were placed exactly where a local land mark ( the cedar) was. The force pinned no message, nor anything of symbolic meaning to the dead. The force took no trophy.
 

There is a plausible culprit for the UCF. It is the Russian Winter. The reason it was fatal is because the nine people who chose to face the elements were not physically prepared in terms of group solidarity. They had inferior and improvised equipment, and they were trying to make do on shoestring budget. Nature is indifferent to all of it.  Nature would not care if any or all had the flu or  twisted a leg. The UCF was the result of snow piling up on the ledge above the tent causing it to collapse in the tent. The actual name for the UCF is gravity.

[MDGross]

Yes, GlennM, I have thought the same thing and made a similar post a while ago that brought little response. But this is a clear, simple scenario. The ledge or snow wall that was created when they dug the trench for the tent collapsed on one side of the tent during the night. The hikers were buried by canvas and snow. So they struggled out after cutting a large slit in the side of the tent that was standing. There was no chance to repair the tent in the dark. Their only choice was to walk to the woods below as underdressed as they were. They made an effort to survive but in the end the brutal weather conditions made it impossible. This is the scenario that I favor.

[tenne]

To working flashlights were found so they could have seen the fact that there was an ice pic and a jacket in the front of the tent that didn’t get collapsed. So why couldn’t they dig out anything they needed to survive when half the tent was still standing? And they had like to do it with and they could’ve very easily found the Isaacks that was there to clean the snow off

[Manti]

For whatever reason they decided to set up the tent there on the slope of Kholat. It is a really bad decision but it has been made.
They unpack the tent and set it up, only to find out that again, similar to previous nights, there are holes and tears in the tent. The coat found stuffed into one of the holes is telling. They tried to keep the wind out but couldn't. They haven't camped in such conditions before, not on this trip. They were in the forest on previous nights where the wind is weak. On the slope they compared it to a plane taking off. With a torn tent in such conditions, even if they can set up the stove, they wouldn't be able to make the morning. The temperature is around -20C (-4F)

There is no need for an avalanche or snow slab. Their clothing is wet from melted snow and/or perspiration, this can be seen on the photos of them digging the trench in the snow. They are starting to get symptoms of frostbite. Some of them start losing the ability to move their fingers. The coats and boots are left behind for this reason. There is no other option at this point than creating a source of heat. A campfire. They must descend to the forest.
This is a fight for survival and perhaps some don't even make it to the forest. It is not just a question of leaving a comrade or friend behind, but of risking your own life. Maybe Zina fell and Igor and Rustem tried to help, but didn't have enough strength to help her get up.

I think a scenario like this can explain the tent scene and even the cedar scene. Not the ravine scene, though...

[GlennM]

Manti, I do like your assessment of the incident. Wet clothes would certainly be a game changer and a prime reason to seek relief. It makes very good sense.

[Ziljoe]

They could have been trying to dry their clothes at the ceder fire? Given the clothes and items lying around,Whether they were wet or damp from the tent or the ravine/den?

I wonder if they were digging a snow hole or cave and they dug too close to a stream and water came through at the den /ravine location.

If we look at the locations of where the bodies were found,

The 2 at the ceder, there was a fire, broken branches, burns and fir branches collected, most likely for insulation from the ground. Perhaps removing of the clothes temporarily , by the two Yuri's to try and dry themselves is a possibility. Trousers and inner thigh damage from climbing the tree also seem reasonable although it is reported that there were cuts made to the clothing.

If we were to report the ravine four without any of the back story, that four people were found under 3 meters of snow , in a stream after 3 months , would we ask so many questions about the fractures and missing eyes?. To me it seems self evident that there is no mystery to the injuries.

The 3 three found on the slope look as if they were returning to the tent and succumbed to the elements.

The frustration comes with why they didn't take more equipment, axe, blankets, footwear.

Whatever the UCF was , it stopped them from taking more gear. ( I know that's an obvious statement) . It's why I support the avalanche/snow/wind or Wolverine  theory because they are the only ones that stop them from taking any more equipment.

The third option , is outsiders but going back to how and where the bodies were found , it looks like survival where more things went wrong.

We have the  staging and moving of the bodies which I personally struggle with the logistics and how it could of been done. However the video is worth a wee look.

(Here's a video link to how 1940-50 Russian ski troops retrieve injured soldiers from the front line, it uses a sledge and man, sleigh with dogs and then a heated ambulance pulled by horse's.)

[tenne]

Why didn’t they change into dry clothes in the tent? They had them with them.

[Ziljoe]

I would be lying if I said know. I believe Manti is suggesting as an idea that they started to get cold whilst their gear was wet from skiing up the slope and digging the trench for the tent. Perhaps loss of use of their hands from the cold?

I don't think they had an abundance of clothes, I think it was mostly underwear and socks that were in any quantity.

Depending on the weather and exertion , they may have been wet on the outer clothing but also wet from the inside. I believe this is why they reverse some of the clothing and put it on inside out. If it's wet next to the skin, it's quicker to put the outer, dry side next to skin and the damper inside to the out side. The body heat is the only way to evaporate the damp from the clothing, at least that's what I think. 

[GlennM]

Cold goes to the bone. Wet cold goes that much faster. Both exertion and a slab slide have water in common. I prefer to think the slab slip precipitated their departure. They could have remained in the tent, but if their clothes were wet from the hike uphill and the tent pitching, it would just quickly get worse. they had no indoor heat source within the damaged tent and no outdoor fire near the tent to dry clothes or themselves. In adverse conditions, they were not going to be able to attempt a fire near the tent for any number of reasons. They had to leave right away.

Igor was known as a very structured team leader. One thing he was insistent on was the daily foot washing for any and all team members. He knew that just like the army,  tourists have to take care of their feet. I speculate that when the tent failed, several people were caught in between, so to speak. They were compelled to leave without complete,footwear, underestimating the distance to the forest for protection.

Finally, going back to Igor's reputation as an effective team leader, the push to get over the pass in the adverse conditions may well have been a calculated low risk decision. During the day, the slog uphill might just be a sweaty business,,but once they were over the pass and set up for the night, they could attend to their needs. The Russian winter dealt them a relentless surprise. A higher risk than any anticipated.

[tenne]

I would be lying if I said know. I believe Manti is suggesting as an idea that they started to get cold whilst their gear was wet from skiing up the slope and digging the trench for the tent. Perhaps loss of use of their hands from the cold?

I don't think they had an abundance of clothes, I think it was mostly underwear and socks that were in any quantity.

Depending on the weather and exertion , they may have been wet on the outer clothing but also wet from the inside. I believe this is why they reverse some of the clothing and put it on inside out. If it's wet next to the skin, it's quicker to put the outer, dry side next to skin and the damper inside to the out side. The body heat is the only way to evaporate the damp from the clothing, at least that's what I think.

okay, so why then would there be 9 blankets left behind? Even if all the outerwear and inner wear, including all the stuff found in the tent was wet, why didn't they wear the blankets for protection?

 given that quite a lot of their equipment was made of wool, which anyone who is out of doors in inclement weather knows, keeps the wearer warm even when wet they would have taken it with them.

That's why it was and is still in use, it has insulating qualities that work when wet. the skiers would have known that so leaving wool items behind wouldn't happen with experienced people

[tenne]

a slab slide have water in common.

could you elaborate on this please? a slab slide and a wet slab slide are very different and only the later has a water component and it usually occurs in late spring.

[GlennM]

Tenne, you are simply argumentative and tedious. It is boring. I recommend you choose a point of view and post thoughts and evidence to support it. When children are asked about their preferences, I is far more common and easier for them to say what they do not like. Taking the glass is half full approach rather than half empty is indicative of maturity. Give it a try,  please.

[Ziljoe]

I would be lying if I said know. I believe Manti is suggesting as an idea that they started to get cold whilst their gear was wet from skiing up the slope and digging the trench for the tent. Perhaps loss of use of their hands from the cold?

I don't think they had an abundance of clothes, I think it was mostly underwear and socks that were in any quantity.

Depending on the weather and exertion , they may have been wet on the outer clothing but also wet from the inside. I believe this is why they reverse some of the clothing and put it on inside out. If it's wet next to the skin, it's quicker to put the outer, dry side next to skin and the damper inside to the out side. The body heat is the only way to evaporate the damp from the clothing, at least that's what I think.

okay, so why then would there be 9 blankets left behind? Even if all the outerwear and inner wear, including all the stuff found in the tent was wet, why didn't they wear the blankets for protection?

 given that quite a lot of their equipment was made of wool, which anyone who is out of doors in inclement weather knows, keeps the wearer warm even when wet they would have taken it with them.

That's why it was and is still in use, it has insulating qualities that work when wet. the skiers would have known that so leaving wool items behind wouldn't happen with experienced people

A good question tenne....

It's a thought exercise, maybe you could come up with a answer? One of the searchers said the blankets were in a frozen ball.

The insulating properties of wool is well known  as you say and I'm sure the hikers would be aware of it, I'm  also theywould be aware of the importance of  axes, footwear, food, knifes too that they didn't manage to take with them. I don't think their experience is at question.

There might have been the rapid drop of cold air and they started to freeze, any moisture in the clothing would start to freeze.

There may have been some kind of shock resulting from a sudden drop of tempature. , I think this is discussed by forum member lupus .

As per the title , we are discussing the UCF. The condtions of the weather and I environment are a big factor .

[tenne]

I can’t come up with an answer because I can’t think of a single reason why they would leave warm blankets and equipment behind.

And yes the environment and temperature are Extremely important. Any theory about what happened has to take in and explain all factors and according to the temperature and the conditions I do not understand why they would have left warm blankets and clothing behind so I am hoping that those who is this who believe in this theory will come up with an explanation

[tenne]

Because I certainly cannot come up with a reason why based on the temperature and the environment, they would leave behind warm blankets and wool items that would keep them warm even if wet

[tenne]

Tenne, you are simply argumentative and tedious. It is boring. I recommend you choose a point of view and post thoughts and evidence to support it. When children are asked about their preferences, I is far more common and easier for them to say what they do not like. Taking the glass is half full approach rather than half empty is indicative of maturity. Give it a try,  please.

So in other words you do not understand the difference between a slab avalanche and a wet slab and you prefer to insult rather than admit that you do not know the difference.

Any valid theory can stand up to scrutiny and welcomes questions because it forces people to examine ideas they may not have thought of. Except of course when their minds closed and so they go to insults rather than answer the question because they really do not know and don’t want to admit it

[tenne]

for the information of the rest of the forum,
A slab avalanche occurs when the weak layer lies lower down in a snowpack. This layer is covered with other layers of compressed snow. When the avalanche is triggered, the weak layer breaks off, pulling all the layers on top of it down the slope. These layers tumble and fall in a giant block, or slab.

the snow layers are dry snow not water

Wet-Slab Avalanches ≡ Release of a cohesive layer of snow (a slab) that is generally moist or wet when the flow of liquid water weakens the bond between the slab and the surface below (snow or ground). They often occur during prolonged warming events and/or rain-on-snow events.

so a slab avalanche would be dry snow, a wet slab would have water. makes quite a difference in how wet a person gets when it hits

[tenne]

so given the posting that "Both exertion and a slab slide have water in common" either this happened in late spring or after a rain, neither of which i am aware happened

and Glenn, if you don't like what I post, don't read it. Its really that easy

[amashilu]

Tenne, you are simply argumentative and tedious. It is boring. I recommend you choose a point of view and post thoughts and evidence to support it. When children are asked about their preferences, I is far more common and easier for them to say what they do not like. Taking the glass is half full approach rather than half empty is indicative of maturity. Give it a try,  please.

Hello GlennM,

Your post breaks Rule #1 of this forum:

"1.  It's simple, first and foremost, respect each other. This includes name calling, belittling, or any other aggressive mocking.   Be civil!! "

Be careful.






"1.  It's simple, first and foremost, respect each other. This includes name calling, belittling, or any other aggressive mocking.   Be civil!!"

[Manti]

I can’t come up with an answer because I can’t think of a single reason why they would leave warm blankets and equipment behind.

They left a lot of things behind, not just in the tent. They left a flashlight on the rocky ridge. They left many pieces of clothing around the tent (these might have been blown out of the tent by wind...)They left clothes around the cedar.
Overall this indicates that they started to lose "fine motor control" due to the cold. The other options are that they were forced to leave these things behind, but they were allowed to carry matches, knives, a camera... so for this reason it looks like a bizarre scenario. Other than that, they could have been intoxicated or poisoned...

One example I'd like to point to is the Chivruay Pass incident where the hikers didn't even have enough energy to set up their tent.

[ilahiyol]

Because I certainly cannot come up with a reason why based on the temperature and the environment, they would leave behind warm blankets and wool items that would keep them warm even if wet

There is only one reason. Their sudden removal from the tent....There can be no other reason for this. Either the human element or the unknown coercive force....I see that the second option makes more sense. It is not possible that they were insane or poisoned. Because they go as far as the Cedar, they light a fire, they dig a snow cave and they return to the tent....These are not the work of the insane or the poisoned.....

[Ziljoe]

Because I certainly cannot come up with a reason why based on the temperature and the environment, they would leave behind warm blankets and wool items that would keep them warm even if wet

tenne ,

This is a thread on acute stress reaction. It gives a possible explanation for leaving things behind. I said forum member  lupus but it was lupos ( my memory fades) . A lot of work has gone into this although we await an update.

https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=542.msg11687#msg11687

[Ziljoe]

for the information of the rest of the forum,
A slab avalanche occurs when the weak layer lies lower down in a snowpack. This layer is covered with other layers of compressed snow. When the avalanche is triggered, the weak layer breaks off, pulling all the layers on top of it down the slope. These layers tumble and fall in a giant block, or slab.

the snow layers are dry snow not water

Wet-Slab Avalanches ≡ Release of a cohesive layer of snow (a slab) that is generally moist or wet when the flow of liquid water weakens the bond between the slab and the surface below (snow or ground). They often occur during prolonged warming events and/or rain-on-snow events.

so a slab avalanche would be dry snow, a wet slab would have water. makes quite a difference in how wet a person gets when it hits

There's a bit more information on the slab slide , it has been plagiarised several times on the internet.

Your quote is from here. It goes on to talk about other types of avalanche

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/avalanche/

https://www.iasgyan.in/blogs/avalanches

A slab avalanche occurs when the weak layer lies lower down in a snowpack. This layer is covered with other layers of compressed snow.
When the avalanche is triggered, the weak layer breaks off, pulling all the layers on top of it down the slope. These layers tumble and fall in a giant block, or slab.
Once a slab avalanche starts, the slab shatters into many separate blocks. These snow blocks break up into ever-smaller pieces. Some of the pieces rise into the air as a moving cloud of icy particles. The cloud races downhill at very high speeds.
The thickness and speed of slab avalanches make them a threat to skiers, snowboarders, mountaineers, and hikers.
Slab avalanches are, by far, the most dangerous types of avalanches for people.
A slab will move very quickly downhill, up to 130 km/h, starting off as a cohesive unit and shattering into smaller pieces as it descends.



Your second quote regarding wet-slab avalanches comes from here.

https://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org/avalanche-problems

Quite interesting the number and types of avalanche along with names on this site. The wind was blowing and there is information of a warm front being followed by a cold front at the pass. 

For the record, I don't think GlennM was saying it was a wet slab with water. I read it as a thought exercise not a factual statement. However tenne, the statements you copied and with Manti's and  GlennM's thought exercise it has lead us to the number of types of avalanche in the above link. Plus you reminded me of lupos's work. It has got me thinking!

[tenne]

I will look more into that idea. I am not wedded to any one idea or theory, I thought I had one but it didn't stand up to questions so obviously it wasn't what happened.