10 reasons for a natural phenomenon

[Osi]

1- Two photographs showing attempts to pitch a tent on a slope.

2- A collapsed tent that had not been exposed to an explosion, burning, or external pressure wave, and was not chemically contaminated.

3- The hillside of the tent (to the north) was found buried in snow. However, the southern entrance was found relatively standing.

4- The ski pole supporting the hillside of the tent, which appeared intact in the photo of the tent site being dug, was found broken.

5- A rapid and collective retreat into the forest due to an unavoidable danger. You can extinguish a fire, ventilate a poisoned tent, or remove an animal from the tent, but you cannot prevent a natural phenomenon.

6- Although simple footprints were preserved for 26 days, if you look at the photographs from when the tent was found, you will see that there was no need to dig that deep to prepare the tent site. The ground is quite flat. Digging 20 cm towards the hill would provide a level surface. However, the 1-meter-deep snow pit in the photos of the tent site preparation has disappeared.

7- The ongoing claims that if there had been an avalanche, there would have been no footprints are burning my mind. How can you leave tracks before an avalanche or slab slide? The avalanche ends, and you leave tracks later.

8- I cannot reconcile the discovery of Zina, Dyatlov, and Rustem on the tent path with the aftermath of a massacre. It's clear they were trying to recover a tent lost in a natural disaster.

9- Generally, those devoted to this case and those investigating it have prioritized human-induced causes (murder, negligence, cover-up), etc., behind the tragedy. I believe they have ruled out the possibility of natural causes causing this accident.

10- They are so certain about what kind of snow phenomena can occur on a ridge far from civilization.

[ahabmyth]

1- Two photographs showing attempts to pitch a tent on a slope.

2- A collapsed tent that had not been exposed to an explosion, burning, or external pressure wave, and was not chemically contaminated.

3- The hillside of the tent (to the north) was found buried in snow. However, the southern entrance was found relatively standing.

4- The ski pole supporting the hillside of the tent, which appeared intact in the photo of the tent site being dug, was found broken.

5- A rapid and collective retreat into the forest due to an unavoidable danger. You can extinguish a fire, ventilate a poisoned tent, or remove an animal from the tent, but you cannot prevent a natural phenomenon.

6- Although simple footprints were preserved for 26 days, if you look at the photographs from when the tent was found, you will see that there was no need to dig that deep to prepare the tent site. The ground is quite flat. Digging 20 cm towards the hill would provide a level surface. However, the 1-meter-deep snow pit in the photos of the tent site preparation has disappeared.

7- The ongoing claims that if there had been an avalanche, there would have been no footprints are burning my mind. How can you leave tracks before an avalanche or slab slide? The avalanche ends, and you leave tracks later.

8- I cannot reconcile the discovery of Zina, Dyatlov, and Rustem on the tent path with the aftermath of a massacre. It's clear they were trying to recover a tent lost in a natural disaster.

9- Generally, those devoted to this case and those investigating it have prioritized human-induced causes (murder, negligence, cover-up), etc., behind the tragedy. I believe they have ruled out the possibility of natural causes causing this accident.

10- They are so certain about what kind of snow phenomena can occur on a ridge far from civilization.

Well said Osi I can agree with you on virtually every point apart from the following to a minor degree. 4. Nothing wrong with a pole being broken if enough pressure is applied. 6. I agree the ground looks flat but looks can be deceiving. It appears to me that there are different types of snow some that sticks and some that blows away. it would be a hard call as to what conditions appear to be and we are also guessing from 1st Feb to 26th Feb, a lot can change in 3 weeks. 9. Is not correct, many members subscribe to the theory that it was a natural phenomenon or just a bad decision or simply bad luck. Just the tiniest action out of all the mistakes could have saved at least half of the group eg I advocated that the crosscut saw that they had could have changed the whole outcome. Instead they had to use knives, pen-knives or try snapping branches off. Dont forget they all made it down to the Cedar and had a big fire going for a while (why it wasnt made in the den I dont know). 10. They were seasoned hikers, strong, fit.


                                                   Common sense isnt all that common.

[Osi]

When Sharavin looked toward Otorten with binoculars, he saw the faint outline of a buried tent. He wasn't sure what he saw. There were tent poles, supposedly still standing. If an expert mountaineer had seen the tent tarpaulin, they could easily see the poles as well. They were dark in color, easily distinguishable against the whiteness. They could be certain that what they saw was a tent.

Upon reaching the tent, the most compassionate action to take with a collapsed tent was to lift the fallen pole and raise it up. Not to immediately cut the tarpaulin with a knife. The excitement of the tent's initial discovery had forgotten the memories, and the hope that their comrades were still alive somewhere prevented the young men who had found the tent from examining the surrounding area with an expert eye. Their first priority was to report the situation to their superiors. They took a few items with them to convince their superiors that they had found the tent. Even if they had left the tent as is, there was a possibility that it might have been lost during the night's snowfall. Pole poles may have been erected to make the tent's location easier to locate.

Questions about the tent's initial discovery began after the case became legal. If you took a few items from the tent back to camp, you'd be forced to explain how you retrieved them. Because you tampered with the tent before the expert arrived. You're clearly at fault. But if you lifted a ski pole, you don't need to confess. That would complicate the investigation.

[Hunter]

Osi
Regarding Slobtsov and Sharavin taking things. There are contradictory testimonies on this matter. But even if they took things, their actions do not constitute a criminal offense. Especially if they were not told that they were not allowed to touch anything in the tent.

[Osi]

I certainly wouldn't call it a crime. No one at the time would have anticipated that the incident would escalate into a legal process. I would describe their conducting research without notifying an expert as an act of unjust, humane, and well-intentioned negligence.

[Hunter]

The legislation of many countries has clauses that exempt from liability due to certain circumstances. For example, murder in defense of one's life or violation of private property or traffic rules in order to save a life. So it is here. Another thing is that for some reason they might not have immediately told the investigator what influenced the initial conclusions, and, possibly, the direction of the investigation.

[Osi]

Hunter, I understand you and share your thoughts. I can't consider an innocent consequence like causing internal bleeding while trying to pull someone trapped in a traffic accident out of a burning vehicle a crime. I'm not accusing those who found the tent of deliberate negligence. My point is that they were so excited when they saw the tent that they couldn't clearly recall what they were doing in the tent area. How many people found the tent? Three or four? Where was the jacket in the tent? etc.

The important detail about the tent is the tent cuts. We know the young men cut the tent from the inside with a knife. But Shharavin says he cut the tent himself. If he cut by inserting the knife inside and stretching it outward, it would appear the tent was cut from the inside. Perhaps the tent occupants didn't use any knives at all. They simply tore it. Perhaps the skis supporting the tent were lying flat. Someone might have lifted it without realizing it, and he remembers the pole standing upright.

[Ziljoe]

Hunter

You are saying what everyone agrees . I am not sure what you are debating. No one is suggesting they were experts in an emergency. I think it was a natural emergency and they had to leave the tent. Further accidents happened on the slope down or at the ravine .

Survival efforts were made for fire and insulation.

I completely agree with Osi about various mistakes in the recorded case files and the fact that the skis seemed to be lying next to the tent and others may have cut the tent and moved the objects inside. Some people may have kept quiet and other searchers just assumed that no one had moved anything.

[ahabmyth]

When Sharavin looked toward Otorten with binoculars, he saw the faint outline of a buried tent. He wasn't sure what he saw. There were tent poles, supposedly still standing. If an expert mountaineer had seen the tent tarpaulin, they could easily see the poles as well. They were dark in color, easily distinguishable against the whiteness. They could be certain that what they saw was a tent.

Upon reaching the tent, the most compassionate action to take with a collapsed tent was to lift the fallen pole and raise it up. Not to immediately cut the tarpaulin with a knife. The excitement of the tent's initial discovery had forgotten the memories, and the hope that their comrades were still alive somewhere prevented the young men who had found the tent from examining the surrounding area with an expert eye. Their first priority was to report the situation to their superiors. They took a few items with them to convince their superiors that they had found the tent. Even if they had left the tent as is, there was a possibility that it might have been lost during the night's snowfall. Pole poles may have been erected to make the tent's location easier to locate.

Questions about the tent's initial discovery began after the case became legal. If you took a few items from the tent back to camp, you'd be forced to explain how you retrieved them. Because you tampered with the tent before the expert arrived. You're clearly at fault. But if you lifted a ski pole, you don't need to confess. That would complicate the investigation.

It would have been a hard call for Sharavin as the day was getting short. Taking some sort of item from the tent would have been a normal thing to do to prove it was this group of hikers, as from what I can remember there was another group of hikers that were heading for Otorten from a different angle and about 15-20Klm away. Yes it would have been possible for snow to have covered the tent, but then again it had been three weeks in this situ.
I dont think you could make out tent poles no matter the colour from a helicopter. The tent was spotted and this matter would relieve searchers from all over the area to narrow the search.

[ahabmyth]

Hunter, I understand you and share your thoughts. I can't consider an innocent consequence like causing internal bleeding while trying to pull someone trapped in a traffic accident out of a burning vehicle a crime. I'm not accusing those who found the tent of deliberate negligence. My point is that they were so excited when they saw the tent that they couldn't clearly recall what they were doing in the tent area. How many people found the tent? Three or four? Where was the jacket in the tent? etc.

The important detail about the tent is the tent cuts. We know the young men cut the tent from the inside with a knife. But Shharavin says he cut the tent himself. If he cut by inserting the knife inside and stretching it outward, it would appear the tent was cut from the inside. Perhaps the tent occupants didn't use any knives at all. They simply tore it. Perhaps the skis supporting the tent were lying flat. Someone might have lifted it without realizing it, and he remembers the pole standing upright.

There is a diagram showing exactly where Sharavan cut the tent in two places and the cuts wern't that big.
I would imagine after 3 weeks in those temperatures that the tent would be as stiff as a board so yes. Maybe he could have virtually lifted one side,maybe the sides were stuck together. Who knows, it wouldn't be right to condemn someone in hindsight.