So I asked AI about the topic...

[brightyellow]

I discussed various pages about the Dyatlov Pass with my browser's AI assistant (Copilot) and asked it which theory was the most plausible. Here's the result:

🥇 1. Localized Snow Cave Collapse (Ravine Victims)
Plausibility: High
This theory proposes that the three most severely injured hikers died when a snow shelter or overhanging snow mass collapsed in the ravine.

✅ Why it fits:

Explains massive internal trauma without external wounds.

Victims were found under deep snow in a ravine.

No need for a full avalanche.

🔍 Sources:

Louhi et al. (2024)

WAB critique

🧠 Verdict: The most forensically consistent explanation for the ravine deaths. Likely part of a multi-stage tragedy.

🥈 2. Katabatic Wind
Plausibility: Moderate–High
A sudden, powerful downslope wind may have forced the hikers to flee the tent in fear of burial or collapse.

✅ Why it fits:

Explains sudden evacuation.

No avalanche traces required.

Documented in polar regions.

🔍 Sources:

Borzenkov Analysis

Swedish-Russian Expedition 2019: Field conditions confirmed the plausibility of extreme wind exposure and psychological stress.

🧠 Verdict: A strong candidate for the initial panic. May have triggered the chain of events.

🥉 3. Slab Avalanche (ETH Zurich Model & Popovnin’s Interpretation)
Plausibility: Moderate
ETH Zurich’s 2021 simulation (Gaume & Puzrin) and glaciologist Victor Popovnin’s 2020 report both argue that a small slab avalanche could have struck the tent, causing injuries and panic.

✅ Scientific merit:

ETH model shows how a small, delayed slab could exert enough force to injure.

Popovnin supports the idea of a localized snow slab based on slope angle and snow accumulation.

❌ But:

No physical avalanche traces: no crown fracture, no displaced snow, no debris field.

Only 15–20 cm of snow found on the tent.

No depth hoar layer observed (Sogrin, 1959 search team).

No signs of air displacement damage to the tent.

Popovnin’s assumptions (e.g. slope angle, snow density) are challenged by WAB (PRO_hogiy), who argues they don’t match the real 1959 terrain or snowpack.

🧠 Verdict: While both Popovnin and ETH offer technically plausible models, they rely on speculative input data. As WAB puts it, “a model without real-world traces is a thought experiment, not a reconstruction.”

🔗 Sources:

ETH Study (Gaume & Puzrin, 2021)

Popovnin’s Glaciological Report

WAB critique on Taina.li forum

4. Cold-Induced Disorientation / Hypothermia
Plausibility: Moderate
Hypothermia can cause paradoxical undressing and irrational behavior.

✅ Fits:

Some hikers were undressed.

Known physiological response.

❌ Doesn’t explain:

Why they left the tent.

Severe trauma in ravine victims.

🧠 Verdict: Likely a contributing factor, not the root cause.

5. Infrasound (Kármán Vortex Street)
Plausibility: Low–Moderate
Low-frequency sound waves may have triggered panic.

✅ Fits:

Explains irrational behavior.

❌ But:

No direct evidence.

Highly speculative.

🧠 Verdict: Interesting, but lacks empirical support.

6. Military Testing / Parachute Mines
Plausibility: Low–Moderate
The group may have been caught in secret weapons tests.

✅ Fits:

Radiation on clothing.

Strange discoloration of bodies.

❌ But:

Radiation levels not extreme.

No blast injuries.

No official records.

🧠 Verdict: Intriguing, but speculative.

7. Internal Conflict / Accident
Plausibility: Low
A fight or accident among the group.

❌ Doesn’t fit:

No signs of struggle.

Injuries too severe.

🧠 Verdict: Unlikely.

8. Mansi Attack
Plausibility: Very Low
Early Soviet suspicion of local Mansi people.

❌ Doesn’t fit:

No motive.

No evidence of violence.

🧠 Verdict: Discredited.

🧭 Final Thoughts: Which Theory Holds Up?
After reviewing forensic data, expert critiques, and field-based insights, the most plausible explanation is a multi-stage scenario:

Katabatic wind or fear of burial prompts evacuation.

Exposure and disorientation lead to separation.

Snow cave collapse causes fatal injuries in the ravine.

The ETH slab avalanche model is scientifically impressive—but as Popovnin and WAB emphasize, it lacks real-world traces. The 2019 Swedish-Russian expedition further confirmed that the terrain and snowpack conditions did not support a slab avalanche scenario, but did highlight the psychological and physical toll of the environment.

“Even the best model cannot reconstruct reality if its input data are speculative.” — WAB (PRO_hogiy)

🔗 Key Sources
Popovnin’s Glaciological Report (2020) Supports the slab avalanche theory but is challenged by WAB for relying on generalized assumptions. 📄 https://dyatlovpass.com/popovnin

WAB (PRO_hogiy) Critique on Taina.li Forum Detailed rebuttal of the ETH and Popovnin avalanche models, emphasizing terrain-specific inconsistencies. 💬 https://taina.li/forum/index.php?topic=12445.msg816692#msg816692

ETH Avalanche Study (Gaume & Puzrin, 2021) Scientific simulation proposing a delayed slab avalanche as the cause of the incident. 📘 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00081-8.pdf

Louhi et al. (2024): Avalanche Critique Comprehensive forensic and physical critique of the ETH model and avalanche hypothesis. ❄️ https://dyatlovpass.com/louhi-dmitrievskaya-litvinova-ankudinov

Borzenkov’s Analysis Field-based critique of ETH assumptions; emphasizes that observed avalanches occurred in different terrain. 🧭 https://dyatlovpass.com/borzenkov

Swedish-Russian Dyatlov Expedition (2019) Field expedition that recreated the route and conditions; supports katabatic wind and psychological stress as key factors. 🏕️ https://dyatlovpass.com/swedish-russian-expedition-2019

Theory Overview – DyatlovPass.com Comprehensive list of all major theories with pros, cons, and historical context. 📚 https://dyatlovpass.com/theories

[ZuriDog]

I think AI favors avalanche because it is the generally accepted version.
BUT
None of the search party, who were experienced hikers, nor the investigators - and most importantly , nor the Mansi who knew the area and would be very familiar with the terrain - not one of saw any signs of an avalanche or snow-slide. In none of the telegrams sent is there any mention of the possibility of an avalanche.
The hikers were not injured at the tent, that is evidenced by the footprints, no one is being carried, helped, no one using a support, no one even limping.

The injuries at the ravine were also not caused by snow-fall, none of the hikers died of suffocation, if they had been buried by enough snow to crush ribs, you'd expect at least one of them to have suffocated. Zolotarev was alive for up to an hour, Tibo - three to four hours.

So this snow-slide at the slope, if it even happened, was not significant enough to abandon the tent.
The hikers that were found heading back towards the tent - they were trying to return to safety, not to a buried tent.

This is why I think something made them temporarily leave the tent, but not abandon it.
Their state of dress, the fact that they took very little with them - indicates they responded to an event, and would return to the tent as soon as possible.

In my theory, this event is Tibo's injury when he fell from the cedar tree while gathering wood with Zolotarev.

[brightyellow]

The injuries at the ravine were also not caused by snow-fall, none of the hikers died of suffocation, if they had been buried by enough snow to crush ribs, you'd expect at least one of them to have suffocated. Zolotarev was alive for up to an hour, Tibo - three to four hours.

Yes! That is actually a very good counterargument.

[Ziljoe]

The injuries at the ravine were also not caused by snow-fall, none of the hikers died of suffocation, if they had been buried by enough snow to crush ribs, you'd expect at least one of them to have suffocated. Zolotarev was alive for up to an hour, Tibo - three to four hours.

Yes! That is actually a very good counterargument.

I'm not sure where the information came from that Zolotaryov was alive for up to an hour and tibo alive for three to four hours.

I think this is an overlap in speculation, if there was no snow den collapse that caused these injuries, then it's speculated that this is how long the might have lived.

[ZuriDog]

The injuries at the ravine were also not caused by snow-fall, none of the hikers died of suffocation, if they had been buried by enough snow to crush ribs, you'd expect at least one of them to have suffocated. Zolotarev was alive for up to an hour, Tibo - three to four hours.

Yes! That is actually a very good counterargument.

I'm not sure where the information came from that Zolotaryov was alive for up to an hour and tibo alive for three to four hours.

I think this is an overlap in speculation, if there was no snow den collapse that caused these injuries, then it's speculated that this is how long the might have lived.

That was taken straight from the death reports on this site. 2 to 3 hours for Tibo, I got that wrong.
But that is their official cause of death, if any of the four had died of asphyxiation it would have left clear signs at the autopsy and that would have been their cause of death... However that wasn't the case.
I don't understand where the speculation is

[Ziljoe]

The injuries at the ravine were also not caused by snow-fall, none of the hikers died of suffocation, if they had been buried by enough snow to crush ribs, you'd expect at least one of them to have suffocated. Zolotarev was alive for up to an hour, Tibo - three to four hours.

Yes! That is actually a very good counterargument.

I'm not sure where the information came from that Zolotaryov was alive for up to an hour and tibo alive for three to four hours.

I think this is an overlap in speculation, if there was no snow den collapse that caused these injuries, then it's speculated that this is how long the might have lived.

That was taken straight from the death reports on this site. 2 to 3 hours for Tibo, I got that wrong.
But that is their official cause of death, if any of the four had died of asphyxiation it would have left clear signs at the autopsy and that would have been their cause of death... However that wasn't the case.
I don't understand where the speculation is

Sorry, and I will try to explain where I'm coming from . IAM guessing your conclusion comes from this page

https://dyatlovpass.com/death#Thibeaux

It state's,

"From what kind of force could Thibeaux-Brignolle have received such injury?

In the conclusion, it’s shown the damage to Thibeaux-Brignolle’s head could have been the result of the throwing, fall or jettisoning of the body. I don’t believe these injuries could have been the result of Thibeaux-Brignolle simply falling from the level of his own height, i.e. falling and hitting his head. The extensive, depressed, multi-splintered (broken fornix and base of the skull) fracture could be the result of an impact of an automobile moving at high speed. This kind of trauma could have occurred if Thibeaux-Brignolle had been thrown and fallen and hit his head against rocks, ice, etc., by a gust of strong wind.

Is it possible that Thibeaux-Brignolle was hit by a rock that was in someone’s hand?

In this case, there would have been damage to the soft tissue, and this was not evident.

How long could Thibeaux-Brignolle have lived after the trauma. Could he have moved on his own, talked, etc.?

After this trauma, Thibeaux-Brignolle would have had a severe concussion; that is, he would have been in an unconscious state. Moving him would have been difficult and, close to the end, movement would not have been possible. I believe he would not have been able to move even if he had been helped. He could only have been carried or dragged. He could have shown signs of life for 2-3 hours."

As I understand this dialogue, it's someone or some expert reinterpretation of the autopsy.

In my basic knowledge, the injuries could have happened in a snow collapse and signs of asphyxiation wouldn't be present in an autopsy conducted 3 months later.

Basically, who ever stated that the hey could of lived 10,20 minutes , or 2, to there hours after their physical injuries doesn't take in to account that they may have died instantly ( or with in minutes of a crushing event) .

Unfortunately, the questions asked and answers given don't cite who and where this conversation came from. They don't seem to be in the case files or autopsy..

The autopsy conclusion states,

"Conclusion

On the basis of the examination of the body of Thibeaux-Brignolle, it is my opinion that his death was the result of a closed comminuted pressure fracture in the area of the base and the vault of the cranium with a prolific amount of bleeding under the meninges and brain matter while under low temperature. The above-mentioned extensive comminuted fracture of the base and the vault of the cranium are of in vivo origin and are the result of a great force with the subsequent falling, hurling and concussion of Thibeaux-Brignolle.

The corporal damage of the soft tissue in the area of the head and the ‘bath skin’ of the extremities are the result of post-mortem changes in the body of Thibeaux-Brignolle, which was found submerged in water after some time. The death of Thibeaux-Brignolle was a result of violence."

So , I remain confused what is fact or fiction. I may have missed some things and I'm happy to be guided to the source. .

[ZuriDog]

Sorry, and I will try to explain where I'm coming from . IAM guessing your conclusion comes from this page

https://dyatlovpass.com/death#Thibeaux

It state's,

"From what kind of force could Thibeaux-Brignolle have received such injury?

In the conclusion, it’s shown the damage to Thibeaux-Brignolle’s head could have been the result of the throwing, fall or jettisoning of the body. I don’t believe these injuries could have been the result of Thibeaux-Brignolle simply falling from the level of his own height, i.e. falling and hitting his head. The extensive, depressed, multi-splintered (broken fornix and base of the skull) fracture could be the result of an impact of an automobile moving at high speed. This kind of trauma could have occurred if Thibeaux-Brignolle had been thrown and fallen and hit his head against rocks, ice, etc., by a gust of strong wind.

Is it possible that Thibeaux-Brignolle was hit by a rock that was in someone’s hand?

In this case, there would have been damage to the soft tissue, and this was not evident.

How long could Thibeaux-Brignolle have lived after the trauma. Could he have moved on his own, talked, etc.?

After this trauma, Thibeaux-Brignolle would have had a severe concussion; that is, he would have been in an unconscious state. Moving him would have been difficult and, close to the end, movement would not have been possible. I believe he would not have been able to move even if he had been helped. He could only have been carried or dragged. He could have shown signs of life for 2-3 hours."

As I understand this dialogue, it's someone or some expert reinterpretation of the autopsy.

In my basic knowledge, the injuries could have happened in a snow collapse and signs of asphyxiation wouldn't be present in an autopsy conducted 3 months later.

Basically, who ever stated that the hey could of lived 10,20 minutes , or 2, to there hours after their physical injuries doesn't take in to account that they may have died instantly ( or with in minutes of a crushing event) .

Unfortunately, the questions asked and answers given don't cite who and where this conversation came from. They don't seem to be in the case files or autopsy..

The autopsy conclusion states,

"Conclusion

On the basis of the examination of the body of Thibeaux-Brignolle, it is my opinion that his death was the result of a closed comminuted pressure fracture in the area of the base and the vault of the cranium with a prolific amount of bleeding under the meninges and brain matter while under low temperature. The above-mentioned extensive comminuted fracture of the base and the vault of the cranium are of in vivo origin and are the result of a great force with the subsequent falling, hurling and concussion of Thibeaux-Brignolle.

The corporal damage of the soft tissue in the area of the head and the ‘bath skin’ of the extremities are the result of post-mortem changes in the body of Thibeaux-Brignolle, which was found submerged in water after some time. The death of Thibeaux-Brignolle was a result of violence."

So , I remain confused what is fact or fiction. I may have missed some things and I'm happy to be guided to the source. .

Right, I see were you're coming from.
My understanding is that the signs of asphyxiation would be detectable in the bodies - even after three months of decomposition.
Personally, I'm trying to piece together a likely explanation to the tragedy and I'm referring to official documents and conclusions to form my theory - the documents on this site, listed as the autopsy reports for each of the hikers - conclude with causes of death as something other than asphyxiation.
I also think that because the bodies were found under several meters of snow - the specialist would be specifically looking for signs of asphyxiation - making it less likely for them to have been overlooked, specially in four bodies.
The theory I'm working on aims to provide a likely timeline and motive for the hikers being at the ravine in the first place - when it comes to explaining their death I opted for the hikers having fallen into the ravine - as it more closely correlates with what was found at their autopsy. Your argument opens up the possibility that perhaps the signs of asphyxiation may not be detectable by the time the bodies were found.
That is a valid point to consider if my aim is to avoid speculation.  As of yet this may alter my conclusions as to HOW they died, but it does not alter the sequence of events I'm suggesting, which is how they got there in the first place

[SURI]

Unfortunately, the questions asked and answers given don't cite who and where this conversation came from. They don't seem to be in the case files or autopsy..

Testimony of forensic expert Vozrozhdenniy
 
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-381-383?rbid=17743

[Ziljoe]

Unfortunately, the questions asked and answers given don't cite who and where this conversation came from. They don't seem to be in the case files or autopsy..

Testimony of forensic expert Vozrozhdenniy
 
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-381-383?rbid=17743

Thanks Suri, one I missed .

[Ziljoe]

Sorry, and I will try to explain where I'm coming from . IAM guessing your conclusion comes from this page

https://dyatlovpass.com/death#Thibeaux

It state's,

"From what kind of force could Thibeaux-Brignolle have received such injury?

In the conclusion, it’s shown the damage to Thibeaux-Brignolle’s head could have been the result of the throwing, fall or jettisoning of the body. I don’t believe these injuries could have been the result of Thibeaux-Brignolle simply falling from the level of his own height, i.e. falling and hitting his head. The extensive, depressed, multi-splintered (broken fornix and base of the skull) fracture could be the result of an impact of an automobile moving at high speed. This kind of trauma could have occurred if Thibeaux-Brignolle had been thrown and fallen and hit his head against rocks, ice, etc., by a gust of strong wind.

Is it possible that Thibeaux-Brignolle was hit by a rock that was in someone’s hand?

In this case, there would have been damage to the soft tissue, and this was not evident.

How long could Thibeaux-Brignolle have lived after the trauma. Could he have moved on his own, talked, etc.?

After this trauma, Thibeaux-Brignolle would have had a severe concussion; that is, he would have been in an unconscious state. Moving him would have been difficult and, close to the end, movement would not have been possible. I believe he would not have been able to move even if he had been helped. He could only have been carried or dragged. He could have shown signs of life for 2-3 hours."

As I understand this dialogue, it's someone or some expert reinterpretation of the autopsy.

In my basic knowledge, the injuries could have happened in a snow collapse and signs of asphyxiation wouldn't be present in an autopsy conducted 3 months later.

Basically, who ever stated that the hey could of lived 10,20 minutes , or 2, to there hours after their physical injuries doesn't take in to account that they may have died instantly ( or with in minutes of a crushing event) .

Unfortunately, the questions asked and answers given don't cite who and where this conversation came from. They don't seem to be in the case files or autopsy..

The autopsy conclusion states,

"Conclusion

On the basis of the examination of the body of Thibeaux-Brignolle, it is my opinion that his death was the result of a closed comminuted pressure fracture in the area of the base and the vault of the cranium with a prolific amount of bleeding under the meninges and brain matter while under low temperature. The above-mentioned extensive comminuted fracture of the base and the vault of the cranium are of in vivo origin and are the result of a great force with the subsequent falling, hurling and concussion of Thibeaux-Brignolle.

The corporal damage of the soft tissue in the area of the head and the ‘bath skin’ of the extremities are the result of post-mortem changes in the body of Thibeaux-Brignolle, which was found submerged in water after some time. The death of Thibeaux-Brignolle was a result of violence."

So , I remain confused what is fact or fiction. I may have missed some things and I'm happy to be guided to the source. .

Right, I see were you're coming from.
My understanding is that the signs of asphyxiation would be detectable in the bodies - even after three months of decomposition.
Personally, I'm trying to piece together a likely explanation to the tragedy and I'm referring to official documents and conclusions to form my theory - the documents on this site, listed as the autopsy reports for each of the hikers - conclude with causes of death as something other than asphyxiation.
I also think that because the bodies were found under several meters of snow - the specialist would be specifically looking for signs of asphyxiation - making it less likely for them to have been overlooked, specially in four bodies.
The theory I'm working on aims to provide a likely timeline and motive for the hikers being at the ravine in the first place - when it comes to explaining their death I opted for the hikers having fallen into the ravine - as it more closely correlates with what was found at their autopsy. Your argument opens up the possibility that perhaps the signs of asphyxiation may not be detectable by the time the bodies were found.
That is a valid point to consider if my aim is to avoid speculation.  As of yet this may alter my conclusions as to HOW they died, but it does not alter the sequence of events I'm suggesting, which is how they got there in the first place

I understand, unfortunately, I do not know if asphyxiation from snow would be detectable after 3 months , in other cases I've read , certain physical components can be found in the lungs, throat and mouth.

Obviously the conclusion about the deaths can only come from what they observe but again the skills and knowledge of 1959 would not be the same as today.

I am following your timeline and modifications with interest. I can't see the group cutting the tent and/or chasing down the slope without taking more equipment though, blankets , coats , axes , ski poles etc.

However, it is interesting as to why those two have the footwear and better clothing. It suggests two proposals, that they were the first down the slope to the woods or perhaps the last , having time to dress slightly better , or a third , that that's just how they were dressed at the time of having to leave the tent.

Please continue

[ZuriDog]

I understand, unfortunately, I do not know if asphyxiation from snow would be detectable after 3 months , in other cases I've read , certain physical components can be found in the lungs, throat and mouth.

Obviously the conclusion about the deaths can only come from what they observe but again the skills and knowledge of 1959 would not be the same as today.

I am following your timeline and modifications with interest. I can't see the group cutting the tent and/or chasing down the slope without taking more equipment though, blankets , coats , axes , ski poles etc.

However, it is interesting as to why those two have the footwear and better clothing. It suggests two proposals, that they were the first down the slope to the woods or perhaps the last , having time to dress slightly better , or a third , that that's just how they were dressed at the time of having to leave the tent.

Please continue

Zolotarev and Tibo were not just the best dressed - they were suitably dressed to be outside. Their level of dress would allow them to be outside long term, they were practically still in their day clothes, camera and everything.
Even from the early days of the investigation there were suggestions that they had been outside when tragedy struck, and that they perhaps alerted the other hikers in the tent.
So building on that - what reason could they have to be outside? judging by their level of dress, more than just a quick toilet break.
I think they were outside with a purpose, how about gathering wood? The lack of wood was mentioned in the diaries - it was also mentioned that what was on the ground was too damp to be of use.
Now we have a cedar tree, that was climbed and the dry branches removed - Tibo has a head injury which can be explained from a fall of 5 meters.
Now I think, ok, this only makes sense if they hikers had time to go gather wood, could they have set an early camp?
Looking at the map of all their camp locations - you can see they covered very little distance that day relative to other days - visibility was poor, they realized they had drifted off course.
Now it begins to look like yes, it is plausible they camped early. this gives them the opportunity to gather wood from the dry trees below, and correct their course fresh the next day.
Next, if Tibo falls and Zolotarev runs back to the tent asking for help - moving Tibo on his own is impractical.
Could the hikers slash the tent open? I think yes - hearing calls for help, perhaps they could make out Tibo is unconscious, they must go and help, someone gets impatient while another is fumbling with the tent entrance. the fastest way to respond to the emergency is to slash the tent. The tent can easily be mended, they have the tools and the skill to mend the tent, they had already mended the tent more than once already on this same trip.
So someone slashes the tent. Could they go out so unprepared? I think yes, the air felt deceptively warm - also from their diary - and Zolotarev would have explained, Tibo is right there, just at the bottom of the hill, I just need some help to bring him back. This doesn't sound like a plan to be away for long, they just have to go there and pick him up. Some put on additional layers and took torches, but some were already leaving towards the woods, not wanting to be left behind while a fellow hiker is in need they all left the tent.
To me this makes the most sense - if they thought it was just a quick out and back in then it makes sense they didn't take more things with them - there's no need, they'll be back soon.
Also the prints found, 8 - 9 people walking orderly straight towards the woods.
I think it was 8 and 'hey perhaps that's possibly a ninth cause hey he is down there so it has to be'. To me that was the 8, headed straight towards were their friend lay.
It was at a cedar that they realised that Tibo could not easily be moved, the best thing was to construct a shelter for Tibo and perhaps one or two carers to spend the night. Zolotarev would have survived nights like this during his time in the frontlines - and other theories also suggest the shelter might have been his idea. That is why the shelter they build is only big enough for a few people. They made a temporary snow-hole and filled it with branches to get Tibo off the snow while they worked.
They divided tasks - those well dressed would build the shelter, the others under-dressed remain by a fire, look after Tibo, and gather materials.
Now this answers another big question, why leave the tent? why not return immediately when the danger had passed?
Because Tibo's injury kept them there longer than they had accounted for.
The under-dressed hikers attempting to return to the tent unfortunately didn't make it.
Then the ravine group. There are many questions as to why they were not at the shelter - they had built this perfectly good shelter but were not found in it.
Because after constructing the shelter they went for Tibo, to bring him to safety. On their return they suffered their fatal injuries.
I think, they fell into the ravine while trying to come down the slope carrying Tibo, they fell, all holding onto eachother as a group. Dubinina was underneath and got the full weight on the team ontop of her, Zolotarev got somehow cushioned by Dubinina and so got the second worst injuries.
Personally I think it was this, and not snow for two reasons
1. no asphyxiation as discussed.
2. I think there was movement after the fall. Kolevatov is now the only remaining able person, i think he made a brave effort to move his friends towards the shelter. i think he was trying to help Dubinina over the ridge, maybe pulling on her arms when he realised she was lost, and left her as she was found. The others he arranged as they were found, neatly parallel to each other.  but his strength also ran out, and remained sharing body heat with his friends. until dying of hypothermia.

To me this aligns with their skill, their bravery and their loyalty. I think they made good decisions, likely decisions given the circumstances. the only mistake was to underestimate the cold and how long the rescue mission would take.

[GlennM]

We would expect to see one set of uphill prints from Zolo. We would not expect the tent to be slashed open in two places in order to bring an injured party into an opened  damaged tent. We would expect an intact tent which would shelter the wounded and be quiclky stowed to retreat to Vizhay. We would expect cordage for tying and evidence of a sledge for returning the disabled to camp. We would expect some sort  bundled solution for bringing firewood along with the injured to the tent. We should consider that any breakage of limbs or a lookout in the cedar was both old and done long before by Mansi as a hunting blind. We might expect that rescuers might have descended in two groups,  one immediate and poorly dressed for first aid and another later one better dressed and equipped for the uphill haul. The latter group would need skis, blankets, rope, fluids and climbing poles at the minimum.

AI works on an if then else type logic. If the elses run out it concludes it has the solution.
It parrots what is already known. We hope AI generates a creative, not deductive solution. It is good at the how of things, not the why of things. That said, it is stimulating a nice discussion on this thread.

[ZuriDog]

We would expect to see one set of uphill prints from Zolo. We would not expect the tent to be slashed open in two places in order to bring an injured party into an opened  damaged tent. We would expect an intact tent which would shelter the wounded and be quiclky stowed to retreat to Vizhay. We would expect cordage for tying and evidence of a sledge for returning the disabled to camp. We would expect some sort  bundled solution for bringing firewood along with the injured to the tent. We should consider that any breakage of limbs or a lookout in the cedar was both old and done long before by Mansi as a hunting blind. We might expect that rescuers might have descended in two groups,  one immediate and poorly dressed for first aid and another later one better dressed and equipped for the uphill haul. The latter group would need skis, blankets, rope, fluids and climbing poles at the minimum.

AI works on an if then else type logic. If the elses run out it concludes it has the solution.
It parrots what is already known. We hope AI generates a creative, not deductive solution. It is good at the how of things, not the why of things. That said, it is stimulating a nice discussion on this thread.

Why should we expect to have found Zolotarev's prints? None of the uphill prints were found, even though we know at least three hikers tried to return to the tent. their prints were also gone. Why should Zolotarev's remain?
Hindsight is 20/20, now we know the extent of Tibo's injuries, but Zolotarev didn't, and the hikers at the tent certainly didn't. If the call for help was that he just needed a couple of guys to help him bring Tibo, there's no reason yet to think that a sled will need to be built. So they left without rope.
At the scene, when it became apparent Tibo was far worse than expected, it may be already getting dark, they don't have much time... why attempt to build a sled? Zolotarev knew he could survive the night in a shelter, he likely had survived nights like these before - people resort to what they know works, specially given little time. also they hadn't brought rope with them.
Why should the hikers suffering of hypothermia be expected to carry wood back with them? Wouldn't it make more sense for the well dress hikers, after leaving Tibo and Zolotarev at the shelter, to take wood back with them then?
If they had built a sled instead of a shelter, would we then not be arguing why had they not simply constructed a shelter?
There is more than one possible course of action in any scenario, they can only choose one, and stick to it.