Dyatlov group's footprints on the slope, why icy?

[Senior Maldonado]

Many participants of the Search team remember that Dyatlov group's footprints had been remaining intact for a long time. Also, the footprints were visible within certain area only, e.g. there were no footprints close to the tent. There were no ski prints either, which could be expected to mark group's arrival to the spot.

Vladislav Karelin, who was a head of one of the first search groups, has written an article nowdays, which is called "Ice and Stones". In the article he also comes to the phenomenon of the footprints:

"Not far from the tent, we found... human footprints. There were about 8-9 pairs of them. The footprints led down the slope. As we descended, the nature of the footprints changed. At first, they were more like indentations in the snowy surface. However, as we continued down, they took on the appearance of small "pillars" that protruded a few centimeters above the snowy surface. We walked carefully around the footprints, trying not to disturb them. However, my curiosity got the better of me. One day, I kicked a footprint with the toe of my boot. It turned out to be made of ice. I kept kicking the footprint with my boot, but it didn't budge. In those distant days of February and March, I didn't pay much attention to the ice structure of the footprints. However, later on, the nature of the footprints became crucial in my reasoning. Why were the footprints made of ice? I had left my own footprints on the snowy slopes. But after a day or two, there was no trace of my footprints: the wind consistently destroyed them. However, the Dyatlov group's icy footprints remained for over a month."

It is clear that when temperatures are below Zero, ice keeps its firmness and shape. But the question is how those footprints turned from snowy objects to icy objects? And why that happened not everywhere on the slope but only within limited area. Karelin himself estimates size of that 'icy area' as 500x500 meters. In the article he says that all 3 stone ridges on the slope looked like icy surfaces with stones protruding from the surfaces.

One can think that getting icy in winter is typical for the slope in that place. However, Karelin rejects that possibility. From the same article:

"In the following years, I repeatedly visited this place in summer -- the slope of Mount Holat-Syakhl. As for winter conditions, I have not seen this place again. Has anyone seen the area of the stone ridges in winter conditions in the years following the tragedy? I asked this question to many who examined the winter slope of Mount Holat-Syakhl. And I always got the same answer: the winter slope of the mountain was monotonously snowy. And there were no stone ridges visible. At my request, this question was posted on the Dyatlov Foundation's website. It's been over a year. So far, no one has told me that he saw stone ridges in this place in winter."

Any ideas how Dyatlov group's footprints managed to convert from snowy to icy objects?

[Ziljoe]

Many participants of the Search team remember that Dyatlov group's footprints had been remaining intact for a long time. Also, the footprints were visible within certain area only, e.g. there were no footprints close to the tent. There were no ski prints either, which could be expected to mark group's arrival to the spot.

Vladislav Karelin, who was a head of one of the first search groups, has written an article nowdays, which is called "Ice and Stones". In the article he also comes to the phenomenon of the footprints:

"Not far from the tent, we found... human footprints. There were about 8-9 pairs of them. The footprints led down the slope. As we descended, the nature of the footprints changed. At first, they were more like indentations in the snowy surface. However, as we continued down, they took on the appearance of small "pillars" that protruded a few centimeters above the snowy surface. We walked carefully around the footprints, trying not to disturb them. However, my curiosity got the better of me. One day, I kicked a footprint with the toe of my boot. It turned out to be made of ice. I kept kicking the footprint with my boot, but it didn't budge. In those distant days of February and March, I didn't pay much attention to the ice structure of the footprints. However, later on, the nature of the footprints became crucial in my reasoning. Why were the footprints made of ice? I had left my own footprints on the snowy slopes. But after a day or two, there was no trace of my footprints: the wind consistently destroyed them. However, the Dyatlov group's icy footprints remained for over a month."

It is clear that when temperatures are below Zero, ice keeps its firmness and shape. But the question is how those footprints turned from snowy objects to icy objects? And why that happened not everywhere on the slope but only within limited area. Karelin himself estimates size of that 'icy area' as 500x500 meters. In the article he says that all 3 stone ridges on the slope looked like icy surfaces with stones protruding from the surfaces.

One can think that getting icy in winter is typical for the slope in that place. However, Karelin rejects that possibility. From the same article:

"In the following years, I repeatedly visited this place in summer -- the slope of Mount Holat-Syakhl. As for winter conditions, I have not seen this place again. Has anyone seen the area of the stone ridges in winter conditions in the years following the tragedy? I asked this question to many who examined the winter slope of Mount Holat-Syakhl. And I always got the same answer: the winter slope of the mountain was monotonously snowy. And there were no stone ridges visible. At my request, this question was posted on the Dyatlov Foundation's website. It's been over a year. So far, no one has told me that he saw stone ridges in this place in winter."

Any ideas how Dyatlov group's footprints managed to convert from snowy to icy objects?

A strange article and there seems to be context missing.

The raised foot prints are a fact of nature. They occur in many places and last for months. They have been recorded by film and photographs over many years on dyatlov pass by past visitors to the area. Snow is frozen water with air , when snow is compressed, like walking on snow , the air is gone , leaving it hard.

There is hoar frost and rime ice that form on the rocks and trees and these can be seen at dyatlov pass in many photos. My guess would be that these ice crystals melt during the day with the sun and turn to liquid taking away air from the snow surrounding the stones thus changing the property of the snow. It is recorded that some of the footprints were indentations that broken through a thin layer of ice , these were observed in and around the stone ridges .

I can't see how fuel from a rocket melts snow to form water then instantly turn into ice for the hikers to conveniently walk on ?



As for this quote:

"? I asked this question to many who examined the winter slope of Mount Holat-Syakhl. And I always got the same answer: the winter slope of the mountain was monotonously snowy. And there were no stone ridges visible. At my request, this question was posted on the Dyatlov Foundation's website. It's been over a year. So far, no one has told me that he saw stone ridges in this place in winter."

What does this even mean? Which slope is he talking about ? What is the winter slope ?

You can watch a modern video and see the stone ridges !!!

[Senior Maldonado]

I can't see how fuel from a rocket melts snow to form water then instantly turn into ice for the hikers to conveniently walk on ?

Please do not jump to rockets and fuels! Those are not in focus of this topic. Here I suggest to talk about Dyatlov group's footprints left on the slope in 1959 and discovered by the Search party. There are two questions to be answered:
1) How were the footprints formed?
2) How had the footprints been remaining intact for about two months?

Answer for the 2nd question seems to be suggested by Karelin's observation -- the footprints became icy at certain time, and ice cannot be damaged by winds like snow can. If icy footprints had been covered by fresh show after new snowfalls, on windy slope fresh show would have been blown away, thus uncovering the footprints again.

Trying to answer the 1st question, I can suggest the following theory--

On the slope, snow crust is formed over time due to permanenty blowing wind polishing the slope. The crust is actually old, very dense snow. If a person walks on the crust, he does not leave footprints, as if he is walking on asphalt. But if fresh, powdery snow has fallen on top of the crust, a person's foot compacts it down, pressing it between his sole and the crust. When a person has passed, a chain of indented footprints remains behind him. As we assume that wind constantly blows, the wind begins to blow the freshly fallen snow downhill. Sooner or later, the overall snow level will level out with the upper edge of the footprints, and footprints will cease to be indentations at that moment. Now the wind will continue to blow away both powdery snow outside the footprints and pressed snow inside them, but the speed of blowing will be different. Pressed snow takes much longer to be blown away. If powdery snow outside the footprints can be blown away in minutes, pressed snow in the footprints will be blown away in a few hours. For these hours we will observe raised footprints, then they will disappear -- will be leveled out with the crust.  In other words, pyramids of pressed snow will exist for the allotted hours and then they will be blown away. But in our case, something happened that prevented the pyramids from being blown away. According to Karelin, the footprints became icy, which he proved trying to destroy a footprint by kicking it with his boot.

For me ice means frozen water. If we accept the above theory, then Dyatlov group's snowy footprints had to be soaked by water at certain time. Then the water froze preserving the footprints' shapes. Or do we have other options?

[Senior Maldonado]

As for this quote:

"? I asked this question to many who examined the winter slope of Mount Holat-Syakhl. And I always got the same answer: the winter slope of the mountain was monotonously snowy. And there were no stone ridges visible. At my request, this question was posted on the Dyatlov Foundation's website. It's been over a year. So far, no one has told me that he saw stone ridges in this place in winter."

What does this even mean? Which slope is he talking about ? What is the winter slope ?

Sure, Karelin talks about the slope, which Dyatlov's group used for descent. The point is that when Karelin was on the slope in February-March 1959, he found the slope to be extremely icy in certain parts. And he somehow correlates  the icy slope with the icy footprints. He was trying to understand if it is typical for that exact slope to be icy the way he found it in 1959. And according to the article, nobody has managed to show him the slope looking the same way or similar to its appearance in 1959. Karelin himself has never visited the slope again in winter, that's why he tries to coollect info from other hikers, who have been there in winter.

Here is what another participant of the Search party, Sergey Sogrin, recalls about icy spots:

"At the end of the inspection of the site near the tent, Karelin informed me that he had noticed an "ice patch" on the slope below, near the stone ridges (kumurniks). This is the direction in which the Dyatlovites' footprints lead. Maslennikov suggested that we should examine their entire route to the cedar tree in the valley. ... According to Karelin's explanation, the "spot" he saw was an ice crust on the snow with protruding rocks. There were footprints in some places, and the ice was broken. Interestingly, as soon as Karelin stepped on the ice, he slipped and fell, almost hitting his head on a sharp rock. We, on the other hand, came across what we believed to be a slope glacier formed by groundwater. It was quite long and steeply descended into the valley. There were also rocks on the surface of the ice."

[Ziljoe]

I can't see how fuel from a rocket melts snow to form water then instantly turn into ice for the hikers to conveniently walk on ?

Please do not jump to rockets and fuels! Those are not in focus of this topic. Here I suggest to talk about Dyatlov group's footprints left on the slope in 1959 and discovered by the Search party. There are two questions to be answered:
1) How were the footprints formed?
2) How had the footprints been remaining intact for about two months?

Answer for the 2nd question seems to be suggested by Karelin's observation -- the footprints became icy at certain time, and ice cannot be damaged by winds like snow can. If icy footprints had been covered by fresh show after new snowfalls, on windy slope fresh show would have been blown away, thus uncovering the footprints again.

Trying to answer the 1st question, I can suggest the following theory--

On the slope, snow crust is formed over time due to permanenty blowing wind polishing the slope. The crust is actually old, very dense snow. If a person walks on the crust, he does not leave footprints, as if he is walking on asphalt. But if fresh, powdery snow has fallen on top of the crust, a person's foot compacts it down, pressing it between his sole and the crust. When a person has passed, a chain of indented footprints remains behind him. As we assume that wind constantly blows, the wind begins to blow the freshly fallen snow downhill. Sooner or later, the overall snow level will level out with the upper edge of the footprints, and footprints will cease to be indentations at that moment. Now the wind will continue to blow away both powdery snow outside the footprints and pressed snow inside them, but the speed of blowing will be different. Pressed snow takes much longer to be blown away. If powdery snow outside the footprints can be blown away in minutes, pressed snow in the footprints will be blown away in a few hours. For these hours we will observe raised footprints, then they will disappear -- will be leveled out with the crust.  In other words, pyramids of pressed snow will exist for the allotted hours and then they will be blown away. But in our case, something happened that prevented the pyramids from being blown away. According to Karelin, the footprints became icy, which he proved trying to destroy a footprint by kicking it with his boot.

For me ice means frozen water. If we accept the above theory, then Dyatlov group's snowy footprints had to be soaked by water at certain time. Then the water froze preserving the footprints' shapes. Or do we have other options?

Sorry, your link goes to rockets and thermal discussion by Karelin. Karelin in the article leads the narrative to this. Depending on the translation, it says his foot brushed the raised foot print.

"At first, they looked more like indentations in the snow surface. But then they took on the appearance of peculiar "pillars," protruding a few centimeters above the snow surface. We walked carefully around the footprints, trying not to disturb them. But curiosity got the better of me. And one day, I brushed against one of the tracks with the toe of my boot. It turned out to be icy. I kicked the track with my boot, but it remained untouched—perfectly intact. In those distant February-March days, I hadn't paid much attention to the icy structure of the tracks. But later, the nature of the tracks became quite significant in my reasoning. Why were the tracks icy? I left my own footprints on the snowy slopes. But within a day or two, not a trace of my tracks remained: the wind steadily erased them. The Dyatlov group's ice footprints, however, remained for over a month. I left the search on March 8th or 9th. And the footprints were definitely still there. Unfortunately, no one recorded the spring date when these footprints melted. What could have caused the ice footprints to form?"

Does he mean that the footprint came lose and was intact as a foot print , or does he mean it stayed stuck in place.?  I doubt karelin would not be aware of raised foot prints and how they occur , the article reads with the usual artistic merit to drag the reader in.



In the link below there lots of photos of raised footprints. Nature at work.

"Raised Footprints in Snow
Kaushik Patowary  Apr 15, 2013 
In extremely cold places, such as in Antarctica or in high altitudes, sometimes you get to see a peculiar phenomenon – footprints that are raised rather than depressed in the snow. What actually happens is when you step in the snow, the snow gets compressed and hardens, and then the wind blows the loose snow away leaving the once sunken footprints standing hard and proud on the surface. Eventually, the hardened snow gets eroded as well, but it takes weeks or even months. Raised snow footprints can last quite a while before all traces of the footprints are eroded away.

Because it requires more than a gale to blow away snow, raised footprints are often taken as an indicator of windslab and in mountain slopes, as potential avalanche danger. This is why you won’t see raised footprints in your backyard, unless you live in McMurdo."

https://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/04/raised-footprints-in-snow.html

I don't think karelin tried to destroy the footprint, he doesn't say that. Raised footprints are known in science , ice is known in science. We can see the photos of the raised footprints if 1959 and we can see them again from other hikes to 1079.

[Senior Maldonado]

Does he mean that the footprint came lose and was intact as a foot print , or does he mean it stayed stuck in place.?  I doubt karelin would not be aware of raised foot prints and how they occur , the article reads with the usual artistic merit to drag the reader in.

Besides this article, Karelin has spoken about Dyatlov group's footprints in numerous interviews. He says that he and his friends were advised to avoid touching the footprints, as they were important evidence for investigators. But once curiousity made him to touch one of the footprints gently by his boot. Despite his expectation, the footprint was not distorted at all by his touch. He touched again, that time with more force, but result was the same -- the footprint kept its shape, no distortion. Then Karelin started to kick the footprint with his boot, and again the footprint stood solid. At this point Karelin realized that the footprint was icy.

Another important thing is that Karelin started to watch his own footprints. No surprise, they transformed from indentations to raised footprints, but then they started to erode and were destroyed by strong wind within hours. I guess, when people say that raised footprints can stay for months, they talk about areas, which are not so windy as the 1079's spur. The major footprints destroyer is wind, and if it blows just occasionally, footprints might be safe for a long time. But it's not the case for the windy DP slope. Anyway, if I know correctly, nobody has managed to leave his footprints on the same slope in winter that would stay longer than few days. For example, KP reporter Natalia, who participated in eхpedition to DP in 2013, writes:

"This photo shows the tracks we left when we arrived at the pass. We walked across the snow cover in snowshoes. Two days later, we found the familiar columns in the same place. They had been blown away by the wind. The temperature during those days ranged from -28 C to -12 C. Now we know for sure that such tracks can form at low temperatures, and it doesn't matter what kind of prints they are — shoes or bare feet. But after a day, the tracks disappeared under the influence of the blizzard. How could the tracks left by the Dyatlov group's feet remain on the mountainside for almost a month, where there was constant snowstorms and wind?"

[Ziljoe]

You are taking an awful long time to get to the point of your own post.

You ask why icy.

Detailed explanation
Initial compression: When you step on snow, your foot compresses the snow, making it denser and harder than the surrounding snow. This compression can also cause a small amount of melting due to the pressure, and that tiny amount of water then refreezes, further solidifying the imprint.
Wind erosion: Over time, wind blows across the area. It carries away the loose, powdery snow on the surface, but the compressed, harder snow of the footprint is much more resistant to erosion.
Resulting raised relief: As the wind continues to blow, the surrounding snow gets lower and lower, leaving the original footprint as a raised track that can be several inches high.
Alternative: Meltwater and refreezing: Another scenario is when snow is wet or slushy, and stepping in it creates a print that is saturated with water. If this water then freezes, it can create a hard, icy print that will stand out when the rest of the snow melts away.

There is nothing mysterious about the raised footprints . Depending on conditions, they can last from a day to months . I have even seen this myself and so should any of these people that have enjoyed the outdoors . Either these people don't have outdoor experience or the articles are being written to make it sound unusual which is purely for sales.

However , if you think there is some other reason ,then please say so because no one can argue that raised footprints don't exist . They turn it ice by their own nature. There are ridges of stones sticking out of the snow every year as there was in 1959 and the ice field seems to be a natural occurrence as teddy mentions it and the searchers found got slippy after a few days being there. Which would mean the weather changed even post incident.

[Senior Maldonado]

You are taking an awful long time to get to the point of your own post.

Good point, I'll try to be short.

There is nothing mysterious about the raised footprints . Depending on conditions, they can last from a day to months . ... They turn it ice by their own nature. There are ridges of stones sticking out of the snow every year as there was in 1959 and the ice field seems to be a natural occurrence as teddy mentions it and the searchers found got slippy after a few days being there. Which would mean the weather changed even post incident.

Your stand is clear -- it is natural for footprints left on the slope of NE spur of 1079 in winter to get icy and to last for months. I presume that natural things cannot happen only once, they are repeatable. Could you please point me to at least one refference that somebody left footprints at THE SAME PLACE in Febraury, and the footprints were visible after 2 months?  Having such a refference I'll be more confident that it is a natural phenomenon, nothing else.

You suggest two options: footprints left in dry, powdery snow and footprints left in wet, slushy snow. Could you be more precise please? Do you think that all snow on the slope that day in 1959 was dry? Or wet? Or combination of dry and wet? Can you name weather conditions when the Dyatlov group desended the slope?

 

[Ziljoe]

Raised foot prints are a part of nature as shown in the link I supplied. Raised footprints are reported to be able to last for months in the right conditions.
We have raised footprints of the hikers found after 3 weeks in 1959. We have raised footprints from later hikers . ( How long those lasted I do not know).

I can not give you evidence of footprints on 1079 in later years because I don't think anyone stayed for two months on the slope plus the weather conditions would need to be correct as of 1959.

Raised foot prints are a natural phenomenon whether we like it or not. It's not even a debate or a contest . However , something else may have influenced the process and gave a similar result as I suspect you are trying to get at.

I feel your build up to some theory you are about to give relies on the raised footprints NOT being able to happen in nature, for a month anyway.

I can not answer any of your questions as to what the weather conditions were on that night . I would only work a model by what we see and what we think we know.  The raised footprints suggest a warm front and/or a fresh snow fall. The state of dress of the hikers also suggest that it wasn't on the colder side of expected temperatures . ( Sorry the options were given from Google) . I would guess it was dry at the time of tent erection but I am no authority on the matter.

[Axelrod]

The Komsomolskaya Pravda expedition left similar footprints, which they photographed the next day or the day after.

[WAB]

The Komsomolskaya Pravda expedition left similar footprints, which they photographed the next day or the day after.

This message reflects "all of Axelrod." He knows nothing, but he wants to show off his importance.
I wonder if this is a family trait or just a coincidence of behavior. Boris Slobtsov told me that Moisei Axelrod liked to fantasize more than was necessary...
Shura (Alexander Alekseenkov) and I photographed these tracks before the correspondents arrived at the pass by helicopter. Here's a link to our photos:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bIRv5vlR05yDzWk40trAZZ0TyNdo9ofn?usp=sharing
We were at the pass four days before their arrival, and arrived there on skis, like ordinary travelers. I showed them the location of these tracks when the correspondents disembarked from the helicopter.
I'm very curious: will this case ever be studied with primary sources, rather than by those who write about it much more than they know about the subject?

[Senior Maldonado]

@WAB,

It is great to see you in this thread! Your expert knowledge is required badly to understand if it is natural for footprints on the 'Tent - Cedar tree' slope to keep their shape for 1.5-2 months. Have you ever witnessed footprints on the slope that lasted that long? Everybody says "yes, raised footprints are formed, but they are destroyed by harsh wind withing few days". Is that true?

[Senior Maldonado]

Raised foot prints are a natural phenomenon whether we like it or not. It's not even a debate or a contest . However , something else may have influenced the process and gave a similar result as I suspect you are trying to get at.

I feel your build up to some theory you are about to give relies on the raised footprints NOT being able to happen in nature, for a month anyway.

I can not answer any of your questions as to what the weather conditions were on that night . I would only work a model by what we see and what we think we know.  The raised footprints suggest a warm front and/or a fresh snow fall. The state of dress of the hikers also suggest that it wasn't on the colder side of expected temperatures . ( Sorry the options were given from Google) . I would guess it was dry at the time of tent erection but I am no authority on the matter.

Not only raised footprints, but also indented footprints are a natural phenomenon. No doubt that Nature started its work to form raised footprints as soon as the Dyatlov group has passed the slope. The question is whether Nature was reluctant to perform the last step of its work -- destroy the footprints quite quickly. Or maybe it tried to do that, but something prevented it from finishing the work. If we believe Karelin (i know, you don't), the Dyatlov group's footprints became icy, and that kept them safe. At the same time, Karelin's own footprints on the same slope during the same month of February did not get icy, and they were destroyed by Nature within days. I wonder, why the hiker's footprints became icy while Karelin's (and his friends') did not.

And I think we can rule out wet snow, when the hikers left their tent. Wet snow means temperatures not lower than -1C, and it impossible to receive frost bites of stages III and IV at such temperatures. Especially when people move actively and don't stay still.

[Ziljoe]

Raised foot prints are a natural phenomenon whether we like it or not. It's not even a debate or a contest . However , something else may have influenced the process and gave a similar result as I suspect you are trying to get at.

I feel your build up to some theory you are about to give relies on the raised footprints NOT being able to happen in nature, for a month anyway.

I can not answer any of your questions as to what the weather conditions were on that night . I would only work a model by what we see and what we think we know.  The raised footprints suggest a warm front and/or a fresh snow fall. The state of dress of the hikers also suggest that it wasn't on the colder side of expected temperatures . ( Sorry the options were given from Google) . I would guess it was dry at the time of tent erection but I am no authority on the matter.

Not only raised footprints, but also indented footprints are a natural phenomenon. No doubt that Nature started its work to form raised footprints as soon as the Dyatlov group has passed the slope. The question is whether Nature was reluctant to perform the last step of its work -- destroy the footprints quite quickly. Or maybe it tried to do that, but something prevented it from finishing the work. If we believe Karelin (i know, you don't), the Dyatlov group's footprints became icy, and that kept them safe. At the same time, Karelin's own footprints on the same slope during the same month of February did not get icy, and they were destroyed by Nature within days. I wonder, why the hiker's footprints became icy while Karelin's (and his friends') did not.

And I think we can rule out wet snow, when the hikers left their tent. Wet snow means temperatures not lower than -1C, and it impossible to receive frost bites of stages III and IV at such temperatures. Especially when people move actively and don't stay still.

It is not that I don't believe Karelin, it's more that I'm cautious of the article. I know that media sensational stories and cherry pick quotes. Karelin is one of the more detailed witnesses at the time. His mention of the ice field leads him to speculate that they may have slid on the ice and impacted on some of the exposed rocks. There is nothing wrong with that.

The article says 2018 but many researchers have been to the pass and it shows exposed rocks and their own raised footprints and depressions, the same as the hikers.  In fact , I'm more surprised that there were depression footprints but again there is no detailed footprints to those.

There will be many factors as to why these footprints remain for longer periods of time . The time of day and the temperature will be one , then if the sun came out and added to the hardening followed by a drop in temperature. My experience with dry snow is that it doesn't stick together but there will be many different varieties. I know how the footprints are formed in every case. It may be that the loose snow is blown away quickly or at at a later date when hard dry snow is sand blasted against the hardened snow by the wind , so it is not just the wind that blows away snow but small ice crystals that eat away at the non compacted snow.

The footprints could have been covered with snow drifts several times like the bodies of Zena , Rusttem and Igor and then blown clear again.

The snow over them seemed to have gone hard and compacted as the searches feet in the photos are seen and they don't sink into the snow even when they dig a trench. Basically, there are many factors affecting the snow. Again , the Mansi don't seem to mention this as unusual and they would be the first to speak about any strange nature I would have thought.

When snow moves or is compressed , there is a slight heat exchange that melts the water crystals. As I understand it , this what articles say about how they are made. Sometimes the conditions allow this to happen for longer periods.

I'm still not sure what you are trying to communicate, if you have some other reason that the footprints lasted longer just say it. ?

[Senior Maldonado]

I'm still not sure what you are trying to communicate, if you have some other reason that the footprints lasted longer just say it. ?

If you prefer to come directly to the point, here you are.

It is nothing special that raised footprints can emerge on mountains' slopes in the Urals. Over time, they erode and finally disappear. Nevermind what force drives the erosion, footprints become more and more distorted. According to all available sources, erosion forces at Kholat Syakhl are very strong. Nobody has managed to leave footprints there, which would have lasted longer than a few days. This makes to believe that to ensure prolonged life of footprints some counter force is needed.

If we take Karelin's article and his numerous interviews as a basis, the couter force made the Dyatlov group's footprints icy. And not only raised footprints, but also depressed footprints. Area, where it happened, was vast -- about 500 meters long. Additionally, according to Karelin, Sorgin, and some other rescue team memebers, that area included 'icy anomalies'. Karelin talks about stone ridges chained in ice. Sogrin talks about a long slope glacier. For me it sounds reasonable that all those 'ice anomalies' + icy footprints  emerged AFTER the hikers had descended the slope. They walked on snow, ice came later.

What does that mean? It means that when the hikers were in the forest/ravine already, alive or dead, a lot of water came to the area on the slope, where the group's footprints had been left. I can see 3 sources of water:
1) Snow itself is frozen water. Probably, it melted thus providing water. But a few witnesses pointed out that quite a few Dyatlov group's footprints were very sharp, they could easily see prints of toes. If snow melts, I doubt very much that such sharpness is possible.
2) Underground waters. As the footprints were discovered about 20-30 meters below the tent, a spring should be located very high on the slope and close to the tent. Has anybody ever seen a spring operational in winter over there?
3) Short rain above the slope. Though it was winter, this water source looks most likely to me.

In no way I support Karelin's idea that the hikers found themselves on ice stone ridges, where they received their injuries. The injuries were recieved in the ravine.

[WAB]

@WAB,

It is great to see you in this thread! Your expert knowledge is required badly to understand if it is natural for footprints on the 'Tent - Cedar tree' slope to keep their shape for 1.5-2 months.

Yes. It is quite natural. Under certain conditions. I wrote about these conditions in Russian 3 or 4 years ago. Unfortunately, the text is long, so I can’t easily repeat it here. The fact is that presenting it as a simple and straightforward process is a big mistake. No mysterious case in life can be explained simply and briefly without making a significant error. Life is much more complicated than it seems at first glance.

Have you ever witnessed footprints on the slope that lasted that long?

Yes. That’s why I started looking for explanations and investigating this on the Dyatlov. Pass For example, in the winter of 1989, during a trip to the Putorana Mountains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putorana_Plateau), after 32 days, we found our own tracks that we had left when we first started the route there. The conditions and reasons for these tracks to have been preserved were different from those at Dyatlov Pass, but the fact that it is not surprising remains a fact. At Dyatlov Pass, there are even more factors that could preserve tracks.
In any case, the preservation of tracks is always a matter of chance, but a quite real one.

Everybody says "yes, raised footprints are formed, but they are destroyed by harsh wind withing few days". Is that true?

Yes, of course. But this is a "too straightforward" view of how they might have been preserved or disappeared. However, there are always conditions that provide exceptions to this general rule
For example, if initially such tracks were covered with snow in depressions, and then the snow covering them was blown away by wind from another direction while at the same time a humid wind came, and then a severe frost set in, an icy crust forms on top, which can preserve the shape of the track for a very long time.
Snow absorbs moisture from warmer air very well, especially if the previous snow fell (or was compacted – which are those very tracks) at a lower temperature.
In February 2014, we observed such an effect, not for tracks, but for areas of snow. The difference can only be in the actual shape of the snow surface.

[Ziljoe]

I'm still not sure what you are trying to communicate, if you have some other reason that the footprints lasted longer just say it. ?

If you prefer to come directly to the point, here you are.

It is nothing special that raised footprints can emerge on mountains' slopes in the Urals. Over time, they erode and finally disappear. Nevermind what force drives the erosion, footprints become more and more distorted. According to all available sources, erosion forces at Kholat Syakhl are very strong. Nobody has managed to leave footprints there, which would have lasted longer than a few days. This makes to believe that to ensure prolonged life of footprints some counter force is needed.

If we take Karelin's article and his numerous interviews as a basis, the couter force made the Dyatlov group's footprints icy. And not only raised footprints, but also depressed footprints. Area, where it happened, was vast -- about 500 meters long. Additionally, according to Karelin, Sorgin, and some other rescue team memebers, that area included 'icy anomalies'. Karelin talks about stone ridges chained in ice. Sogrin talks about a long slope glacier. For me it sounds reasonable that all those 'ice anomalies' + icy footprints  emerged AFTER the hikers had descended the slope. They walked on snow, ice came later.

What does that mean? It means that when the hikers were in the forest/ravine already, alive or dead, a lot of water came to the area on the slope, where the group's footprints had been left. I can see 3 sources of water:
1) Snow itself is frozen water. Probably, it melted thus providing water. But a few witnesses pointed out that quite a few Dyatlov group's footprints were very sharp, they could easily see prints of toes. If snow melts, I doubt very much that such sharpness is possible.
2) Underground waters. As the footprints were discovered about 20-30 meters below the tent, a spring should be located very high on the slope and close to the tent. Has anybody ever seen a spring operational in winter over there?
3) Short rain above the slope. Though it was winter, this water source looks most likely to me.

In no way I support Karelin's idea that the hikers found themselves on ice stone ridges, where they received their injuries. The injuries were recieved in the ravine.

If you can't use a web search then perhaps you will take note of the above post.

I would be cautious of anything written or shown in the media . There are agendas to keep the DPI as a mystery and wild claims put forward as facts ,when displayed on a TV show or in book by alleged experts in their various fields it can give the illusion of knowledge and confidence. Things get twisted so people can put food on the table .

[sarapuk]

I have always had doubts about those photos of the footprints. Something just doesn't add up. [1] We assume that 9 people left the tent and made their way downhill. [2] We assume that those were the photos of the footprints of the nine. [3] We assume that the footprints survived for as long as they did. [1] But it doesn't look like the tracks of nine people! [2] And how do we know it was their tracks? [3] How can we be sure that the tracks were made when they were alleged to have been made and survived as long as they did?

[Partorg]

The duration of the existence of traces raised above the surface (column traces) depends entirely on the condition of the snow at the time of their formation.
When the snow temperature is from 0 to – 6°C, the snow moisture content (the ratio of the mass of the liquid phase (water) to the mass of dry crystals) is about 1–1.3%, and the mold pressed by the foot acquires a density and strength sufficient to resist wind erosion, and a subsequent decrease in temperature turns it into something like white “hockey” ice which can survive until spring and be the last snow that melts surrounded by the first grass.  Such durable traces most often form during a snowstorm under a bank of low cumulonimbus clouds, consisting of a mixture of atmospheric snow (falling directly from the cloud) and blowing snow (lifted from the surface by the wind). This is precisely what happened on the slope of Kholat Syakhl on February 1, 1959.
Tracks formed at lower temperatures from dry snow last no more than a few days.

[Partorg]

I'm sorry! In the sentence: “Such durable traces most often form during a snowstorm under a bank of low cumulonimbus clouds, consisting of a mixture of atmospheric snow (falling directly from the cloud) and blowing snow (lifted from the surface by the wind),” somehow, against the author’s will, there was an extra word “consisting,” which changes the content.  In fact, it is not the clouds that consist of a mixture of atmospheric snow and blowing snow, but  traces.

[Senior Maldonado]

When the snow temperature is from 0 to – 6°C, the snow moisture content (the ratio of the mass of the liquid phase (water) to the mass of dry crystals) is about 1–1.3%...

If we assume that the temperature was -6C, in my view that is more than enough to turn water to ice. How 1% of water can survive as a liquid stuff, when surrounding 99% snow mass is -6C, I do not know. Do we have any reliable source which confirms this statement? And even if temperature and moisture values were like that, is -6C so dramatic frost that two guys without heavy injuries die from hypothermia being warmed by a fire?

[SURI]

And even if temperature and moisture values were like that, is -6C so dramatic frost that two guys without heavy injuries die from hypothermia being warmed by a fire?

Due to an unknown compelling force, they were in a tree, so they couldn't warm up and froze to death. They were well aware of their hopeless situation; they could not leave the cedar or remain on it without dying. They resisted until their last breath. (Krivonischenko with skin in his mouth)

[Partorg]

If we assume that the temperature was -6C, in my view that is more than enough to turn water to ice. How 1% of water can survive as a liquid stuff, when surrounding 99% snow mass is -6C, I do not know. Do we have any reliable source which confirms this statement? And even if temperature and moisture values were like that, is -6C so dramatic frost that two guys without heavy injuries die from hypothermia being warmed by a fire?

Firstly, when an active section of a winter cold front of the second kind passes, the temperature in a snowstorm can be higher than –6°C, but after the storm ends, the sky clears and the air temperature begins to drop very quickly.  So, just half an hour after they stopped under the Cedar and made a fire, it could have been -15°C or even lower.
Secondly, according to Shura (A. Alekseenkov), who visits the Pass almost every winter, the area under Kedr is open to winds from the NW and N directions, and they sometimes reach up to 8 m/s or more.
With the clothes that Doroshenko and Krivonischenko were wearing (sweaters, shirts, T-shirts), any wind, even 2-4 m/s, made their fire completely useless in terms of heating, and there was not enough material, primarily snow, to build a windproof wall under Kedr. Snow was loose and shallow there. Apparently, that's why, leaving two men to tend the already-lit fire, they went looking for a place more sheltered from the wind and, stumbling upon a ravine, decided to make a shelter there.

As for the percentage of humidity, the figures vary in different sources, but the presence of a liquid phase at t° <0°C seems to be a fact.
In our case, it's enough to remember that snow retains its ability to easily form into a dense and durable lump at temperatures down to –5…–6°C. This ensures the strength of the trace compressed from it.  Although, I repeat: the temperature at the time of the snowstorm there could have been a little higher -6. The Burmantovo weather station, 73 km southeast.  of the Pass, recorded air temperatures on February 1 ranging from -5.4°C at 1:00 a.m. to -6.3°C at 1:00 p.m. The difference in altitude should not be a concern, as temperature inversions are often observed in mountainous areas when a winter cold front passes.

[ilahiyol]

When the snow temperature is from 0 to – 6°C, the snow moisture content (the ratio of the mass of the liquid phase (water) to the mass of dry crystals) is about 1–1.3%...

If we assume that the temperature was -6C, in my view that is more than enough to turn water to ice. How 1% of water can survive as a liquid stuff, when surrounding 99% snow mass is -6C, I do not know. Do we have any reliable source which confirms this statement? And even if temperature and moisture values were like that, is -6C so dramatic frost that two guys without heavy injuries die from hypothermia being warmed by a fire?

The young people gathered under the cedar tree. It must have taken them over 40 minutes to get there in the cold and snowy night. I think the young people were very scared in the tent!!! And they all sweated a little!!! So they weren't completely dry. This made them vulnerable to the cold!!! As I said before, the young people resisted a lot to stay in the tent. This struggle and fear must have made them sweat a little!!! That's why the footprints in the snow formed!!! Because their body heat melted the snow instantly, and the snow froze and stayed in place for a long time.

[ilahiyol]

CONTINUE: Then the young men came to the Cedar tree, shivering slightly. As I said, the journey must have taken over 40 minutes... Their goal was to light a fire there, warm themselves, and then climb the tree to watch the tent. Because they hoped the Unknown Power would be gone. That way, they could return to the tent and get their things!!! They lit a fire and warmed themselves a little, but it wasn't enough. When they couldn't see the Unknown Power, the three bravest decided to return to the tent. Two Yuris, being half naked, decided to stay by the fire and warm themselves. The other four dug a den in the snow and tried to shelter from the wind, because they had enough clothing. Only Two Yuris seem to have been unharmed. The others were attacked directly. Two Yuris may have been the last to die. Because there was no attack, they must have survived for a long time(?)...

[Senior Maldonado]

Their goal was to light a fire there, warm themselves, and then climb the tree to watch the tent. Because they hoped the Unknown Power would be gone. That way, they could return to the tent and get their things!!!

Exactly. The hikers were forced to leave the tent, which was their only home and shelter in that cold and windy area. Their goal was to return to the tent asap, and they tried to watch the top of the slope in order to see if the Threat had gone or not yet. Obviously, they were short of time, and Zinaida had to go back when it had been not clear yet whether the Threat still was there.

My understanding is that down in the forest the main problem for the hireks was low temperature, not wind. They preferred to stop at the Cedar tree, on an open and windy place, but which would allow them to light a fire. Low branches of the Cedar tree were dry (this is typical for cedars), the hikers could collect material for a fire very quickly. If they had gone to the ravine directly, they would have been protected from wind much better, but it would have been hard to collect dry wood over there.

Two Yuris, being half naked, decided to stay by the fire and warm themselves. The other four dug a den in the snow and tried to shelter from the wind, because they had enough clothing. Only Two Yuris seem to have been unharmed.

This scenario is questionable. More likely scenario is that the whole group tried to stay together. While at the Cedar tree, they lit a fire to address low temperature first of all, then started to cut young trees, probably, for a wind shield construction. But both Yuris died, and the remaining people decided that the fire was not so important for them any longer and relocated to the ravine. As the ravine itself protects against wind, the young trees were used there for a den's flooring -- to get protection from cold snow at the ground.

The point is that Yuris were 'attacked' at the tent's site. They got closer to the Threat than others. On 'attack', they started descent not from the tent, but from another spot (two separate chains of footprints). The fire at the Cedar tree was needed to fight for Yuris' lifes. So the group from the very beginning had higher priority than just resisting low temperature and wind.

[ilahiyol]

Yes, time was limited! Because they were all sweating more or less. And this could have killed them. And along with the sweating, they were all half naked! And they laid a fire, but as far as I understand, they couldn't make the fire bigger!!! And they couldn't keep the fire going!!! This could be definitive proof that the weather was windy. If the fire had been big enough and kept going, they could have stayed around it until the morning!!! Unfortunately, they couldn't do this!!! In this case, they had to go back to the tent and dig a den. But as far as I understand, it is very strange(?) that they went back to the tent even though they had seen the Unknown Power!!! So, the Unknown Power isn't that terrifying and scary!!! If they were, I don't think they would have come back in the dark... So, the Unknown Power wasn't a bigfoot or an alien.

[ilahiyol]

[/quote]

The point is that Yuris were 'attacked' at the tent's site. They got closer to the Threat than others. On 'attack', they started descent not from the tent, but from another spot (two separate chains of footprints). The fire at the Cedar tree was needed to fight for Yuris' lifes. So the group from the very beginning had higher priority than just resisting low temperature and wind.
[/quote]I don't think the two Yuris were attacked at all. The ones who were attacked were the three who went to the tent and the four who took shelter in the den. Because they had a chance to make it out in the morning!!! The three could have returned to the tent, gathered their supplies, and left in the morning. And since they were sheltered from the cold in the snow, they could have made it out in the morning. The Unknown Power didn't want anyone to leave in the morning!!! The poor two Yuris, already half-naked and sweating profusely, froze to death themselves. And the Mansi found them by the fire and put them in a neat and tidy position.

[Senior Maldonado]

So, the Unknown Power wasn't a bigfoot or an alien.

I don't think the two Yuris were attacked at all. The ones who were attacked were the three who went to the tent and the four who took shelter in the den. Because they had a chance to make it out in the morning!!! The three could have returned to the tent, gathered their supplies, and left in the morning. And since they were sheltered from the cold in the snow, they could have made it out in the morning. The Unknown Power didn't want anyone to leave in the morning!!! The poor two Yuris, already half-naked and sweating profusely, froze to death themselves. And the Mansi found them by the fire and put them in a neat and tidy position.

Yes, we can rule out a bigfoot and aliens. I would also add avalanche and hurricane to the exclusion list. But I dare to suggest a little different view on what happened.

All hikers were 'attacked' with no exception. They were 'attacked' from the same source but in different ways. And that source had no intelligence at all, all 'attacks' were passive, no offense. First, the source of the trouble collapsed part of the tent making the hikers to leave it. When Yuris tried to approach the source in order to clarify what had happened, they got too close and crossed 'red line'. Here Yuris received severe damage to their health. All hikers had to start emergeny descend to the forest. On arrival to the Cedar tree, Yuris' health status had been really bad already. The rest of the group started reanimation attempts. Very soon it became clear that without medicine, ethanol, warm clothes Yuris would die inevitably. Zina volunteered to return back to the tent to fetch all the needed, even knowing that the threat might remain.

Meanwhile, the threat had expanded its zone from the tent's site to the whole slope and kept expanding it in direction to the treeline. On entering the zone, Zina was 'attacked' and very quickly perished. Rustem made attempt to rescue Zina, but he was 'attacked' also at the front edge of the zone. The last rescue attempt was done by Igor, who was 'attacked' at even shorter distance from the treeline.

While Zina, Rustem, and Igor had been trying to advance towards the tent, both Yuris died. Their clothes were taken by the remaining 4 hikers, who decided to relocate to the ravine. As the ravine was at the edge of the forest, the dangerous zone, which kept expanding, came to it. The ravine-4 sensed the danger and started emergency retreat down the creek. But they managed to walk a few meters only. The core of the zone detonated, and as a result of explosion the ravine-4 were smashed against rocks in the creek.

Low temperature and strong wind were not key actors to kill the group. They provided a background that camouflaged the whole event to look natural.

[ilahiyol]

If the unknown force attacked the tent, it didn't harm anyone. The unknown force wasn't an ordinary force. It was very strong and fast. Otherwise, it wouldn't have stood a chance against seven men. And if it had attacked someone in the tent, that person would have certainly died. Yes, the unknown force attacked the tent, but it was only a threat. The young people probably resisted for a long time. But the last attack must have frightened them and they abandoned the tent! There was definitely no direct attack on the tent. It was simply an attack aimed at intimidation and threat.