New topic split from Medical Question

[Ziljoe]

He could have been crouched at the fire , resting on one knee whilst the other is resting on the foot. This would expose the shin to the heat from the fire through the clothing and perhaps the hand dangling over the thigh. If you can't feel the pain then you don't know . That's part of the problem. It is perhaps then in an altered state that he realises or others do and tear his clothing to see the damage? .

There is perhaps little sensation in the mouth also , and maybe it was the last actions .

I don't think they would have burnt their clothes for lack of wood as they could have found more if they could I guess. There's seems to be quite a few cedars and teddy's fallen tree can't have been far away.

I would think there would have been evidence of them camping there , sawdust, cut trees stumps , a lot of cut spruce for the flooring of the tent but none was reported?.

[Missi]

I believe, people would rather cut clothes than tear it. But all in all it seems possible.
Also, although I it's surprising to me, it seems possible, that on the way to freezing sometime you may loose feeling in your mouth. But that indeed seems to be only shortly before dying.
Yes, I also find it improbable that they burned their clothes, I just wanted to keep that way of thought from being overlooked and inquire what others think.

About the residue of a camp:
Sawdust could be covered by snow or blown away by the wind until the search teams came there. Cut trees were found, I believe? And assuming the tent was put somewhere close but not directly at the cedar and later moved as Teddy suggests, there might as well be flooring for the tent, that was covered with snow, not found as long as they searched for the bodies and composted until people went back to look upon the place with what we theorize now...

[Ziljoe]

The tearing might be done when people have lost the dexterity of the fingers? It was a limited amount of tearing or cutting and seems to be only to the Yuri's clothes I think? And the makeshift leg/foot cover for lyunda.

About a potential camp at the cedar:
This is where I get stuck about any staging . The Yuri's were the first to be found as they are partially covered by snow , I believe this was coincidental as the searchers who found them were actually looking for a campsite for the search tent . When they examined the area around the Cedar they found various things and some cut young trees. These trees were assumed to have been used by the missing hikers , the actually speculated that the missing 4 hikers would be found in a snow drift lying on these cut trees. Also later during the thawing , this is where the clothes and twigs were found basically giving a trail to the den. More was also revealed around the Cedar but and no point was any debris recorded or reported in that layer of snow.

There would need to be a lot more spruce for flooring , this would leave the cut trees and evidence in the snow as would the sawing of branches , there would be trees that show this. A fallen tree on a tent with bodies would mean considerable work by a team of people and planning. To leave no evidence but only a trail to the den is a lot of work. Likewise , what stager would know about foot prints being left behind in the snow? How would they know this happens in nature?  They would have to know this and hide all there own footprints somehow and why lead any investigation back to where the tent might have been pinched?.

The very fact that we have the 8-9 raised footprints is strong evidence that that's exactly what happened, they walked down the slope.

That's my thinking anyway.

[Missi]

Personally I rather rely on tools if my fingers are numb, then try to grip something hard enough to tear it. But this is just a discussion about "I feel more like..." there's no actual proof I know of, yet.

Just for a moment, let's assume, the place, the tent was found, was actually the place, the hikers put their labaz. There are people who argue like that, so it's not complete nonsense, there are reasons to believe so. If you're not familiar with them, we could look them up, most of my information is saved somewhere on this site. This would explain footprints. Furthermore, only evidence of them are memories and photographs. I for one can't say I see that those prints are left without shoes. Neither can I make head or toe of where is up and where's down the hill. So it might be they left the prints when coming down the slope to the place where they actually placed their tent for the night. Or maybe those prints were left when going up in order to signal for help the next morning, as Teddy suggests? I really don't know. But those could be reasons.
Another possibility could be, stagers left them, without knowing they would form, believing they would be blown away or snow would cover them, until someone actually stumbled across the tent.
Again, I'm not trying to convince you this is what happened, just playing around trying to make it not a definite that the tent was where it was found and they walked downhill as most believe.

Actually any stagers would want the bodies to be found, but in a state everyone would assume they died of freezing. Else search would go on and who knows what could be found then? The actual camping grounds? Evidence left by the stagers? If they assumed, that putting the bodies in the den and putting some means to accelerate decay on top would lead to only bones being left when they were found, that might be how to get the investigation stopped without being incriminated.

My thoughts get lost in my brain. I have to think that through some more.

[GlennM]

Long, long ago, I observed the dead body of a man who was crushed face up  by a car when the jacks and blocks slipped. His body turned purple/ blue owing to the compression. Nothing I've read about Lyuda and Zolo are consistent with this.

[Ziljoe]

Missi, I love and welcome your approach. It is how I think or try to think about the case.

My thinking is if your hands are numb you can't use tools , it becomes more like clenched fist , using arm and side of body or teeth. They may have been aware of this and that would be scary.

I've thought about the tent location being the labaz site but it fails for me in logic for a couple of reasons. The photo of them digging the trench is far too big for a labaz .The extra work needed to do this , pack the back pack when you get up, you then have to get the food up the slope , once up on the ridges you have to find a suitable place that has deep enough snow and is in a safe zone. Then you need to unpack everything you packed in the morning out of all the backpacks , bury it and cover it , repack your back packs , find a place to pitch the tent unpack your back packs again and mack camp. Then there's the return journey to get your food from the labaz , you might have to find it in a white out or the strong winds , it could take a while and you would be left digging for your food which could be under more snow , opening up the backpacks again with blowing snow getting everywhere to again repack the back packs to move to a campsite in the forest to unpack everything again. It's a faff for little advantage I think.

The foot prints are of great importance because the testimonies speak of what was seen before what was found to be true. In these statements they talk of both extremes , feet in valkine and bare foot or one sock. They were detailed enough to show toes in the prints plus they existed for a long stretches. They were also found not just as raised foot prints but had broke through layers of ice around the stone ridges and further down the slope.

If stagers left those prints by accident, I wouldn't think they would be wearing socks plus they should be evidence of them somewhere in the area I would think.

I too play around and try every angle I can think of , I was toying  with the last entry in the group diary , trying to see how well it fitted with the last pitching of the tent , that is  , did they climb the pass and head to the spur thinking the spur was the pass ?. They then move south ( back the way they came) find the snow at 1.5 meters deep and pitch the tent where it was found , they have dinner in the tent ( which was found in the tent) and write it's hard to think of such comfort some where on the ridge( they camped below the spur). It makes a little bit of sense but depends on different translation of the diary. But it's a thought experiment.

The thing about stagers is they have to destroy the camera film in the cameras at least because they wouldn't know what was on the film right up to the deaths of the hikers. I think....

[Missi]

First of all, thanks for the compliment. :)

About the freezing hands, I'm not sure, I have no proof either way. And I've never been in that cold an environment that I could dare to judge.

I've thought about the tent location being the labaz site but it fails for me in logic for a couple of reasons. The photo of them digging the trench is far too big for a labaz .The extra work needed to do this , pack the back pack when you get up, you then have to get the food up the slope , once up on the ridges you have to find a suitable place that has deep enough snow and is in a safe zone. Then you need to unpack everything you packed in the morning out of all the backpacks , bury it and cover it , repack your back packs , find a place to pitch the tent unpack your back packs again and mack camp. Then there's the return journey to get your food from the labaz , you might have to find it in a white out or the strong winds , it could take a while and you would be left digging for your food which could be under more snow , opening up the backpacks again with blowing snow getting everywhere to again repack the back packs to move to a campsite in the forest to unpack everything again. It's a faff for little advantage I think.

I see. I've never been on a hike like that. In fact, the constant packing and unpacking of stuff puts me off. But as I understand it, labaz' are put at strategical spots. If you have decided on one, you walk there and it is a matter of unpacking enough to put your stuff away and then repacking and go on. Same when you come to retrieve the gear. You could minimize by camping where you put the labaz, but then it might be less of a strategically wise place.
Some experienced hiker mentioned, that it would have been a good idea to put the labaz where the tent was found, in order to shorten the way on their way back from Otorten, I believe I read. Don't know where, right now, I could look.

You mention the last diary entry. Let me quote it:

31 January 1959
Weather today is a bit worse – wind (west), snowing (probably from the pines), since the sky is perfectly clear.
Started relatively early (around 10 am). Got back on the Mansi trail. (Up to now we are following a Mansi trail on which not so long passed a hunter with deer.)
Yesterday it seems we stumbled upon his resting stop. Deer didn't go any further. The hunter took the beaten trail by himself, we are following in his steps.
Had a surprisingly good overnight, the air is warm and dry, though it’s -18°C to -24°C. Walking is especially hard today. We can't see the trail, have to grope our way through at times. Can’t do more than 1.5-2 km (1 mile) per hour.
Trying out new ways to clear the path. The first in line drops his backpack, skis forward for five minutes, comes back for a 10-15 minute break, then catches up with the group. That’s one way to keep laying ski tracks non-stop. Hard on the second hiker though, who has to follow the new trail with full gear on his back. We gradually leave the Auspiya valley, it’s upwards all the way but goes rather smoothly. Thin birch grove replaces firs. The end of the forest is getting closer. Wind is western, warm, piercing, with speed like the jet from airplanes at takeoff. Firn, open spaces. I can't even think of setting up a labaz here. It's nearly 4. Have to start looking for a place to pitch the tent. We go south in the Auspiya valley. Seems this place has the deepest snow. Wind not strong, snow 1.2-2 m (3-4 ft) deep. We’re exhausted, but start setting up for the night. Firewood is scarce, mostly damp firs. We build the campfire on the logs, too tired to dig a fire pit. Dinner’s in the tent. Nice and warm. Can’t imagine such comfort on the ridge, with howling wind outside, hundreds of kilometers away from human settlements.
Dyatlov

Keep in mind, this is written Jan 31st, meaning the part about the labaz is not what happened but was is suspected to happen. Dyatlov talks about the wind, the trees getting sparse and that he can't imagine setting up a labaz there. This could mean he wants to stress that fact, that it's unsuitable environment to put one there. But maybe it was rather "man, that's unpleasant up there, how will we manage to build that storage where we planed to?" And in fact, when looking at the map, it makes more sense to me, to set the storage where the tent was found. On the way back from Otorten, one wouldn't lose height and one doesn't have to stray to far from the actual direction. But then again, I don't know how to ski, I don't hike, I don't camp in winter. It's just my mathematical thinking, that says, it's more convenient there than where the labaz was found.

You're right about the testimony, I remember those vaguely. Those unshod prints are hard to explain by anything other than leaving in panic. Other than fun walking barefoot in snow, which I do enjoy sometimes, but wouldn't recommend on a hike in northern Ural.

I'd love to go on about the camera, but I fear, we're straying completely from the topic of the thread. :(

[Ziljoe]

Yes, off topic. My apologies.

[Missi]

Maybe a mod could cut it where we started to stray (which was several posts before) and give us a chance to go on? Prettyplease?

[Hunter]

The felled trees were found in a ravine. Setting up a camp for nine people in winter leaves traces that can't be removed. For example, just for the tent groundsheet, you'll need a layer of spruce branches at least 40-50 cm thick, the size of the tent floor. Plus, you'll need to set up a fire pit...

[Missi]

The felled trees were found in a ravine. Setting up a camp for nine people in winter leaves traces that can't be removed. For example, just for the tent groundsheet, you'll need a layer of spruce branches at least 40-50 cm thick, the size of the tent floor. Plus, you'll need to set up a fire pit...

I tend to agree with you. But: There were no branches found under the tent, as far as I can remember. I actually just looked it up on the site about the finding of the tent. So either the tent doesn't need branches underneath it and you can work around that or whoever put the tent up where it was found, didn't know or didn't care. Both leaves a possibility of the tent having been put up by the hikers at another location.
That the branches were found in the den doesn't mean they were put there by the hikers themselves. They could have been transferred by whoever staged the scene (if one believes this is what happened).
And yes, the fire pit is an important point. It doesn't have to be a pit (as they already had one evening when they placed the fire on logs), there's the location of the fire at the cedar, and then there's the possibility they had their camp further in the forest where indeed nobody looked, because not every inch was searched, they stopped after finding the last of them. I believe I read, that during an expedition in recent times, they found things that could have belonged to the hikers down in the woods, but of course, you wouldn't find things that have rotten and overgrown since then...

[Ziljoe]

Hunter is saying what I think, I think. Teddy's fallen tree is a few meters from the cedar , it is this tree that fell and caused the crush injuries and the burns from the stove. Everything is in the location of the cedar.

When erecting the tent in the woods / forest , fir branches are used for insulation under the tent , not skis and back packs as was found on the slope. The reason for using skis , back packs , clothing on the slope is that there are no trees to use as insulation.

If the cedar and the fallen tree was used as the campsite and the tree fell on them when they were in the tent , there would be more evidence of setting up a camp. That involves the processing of wood , getting the flooring , getting wood to burn and using the axes and saws . All this would leave a layer of evidence that suggests a camping spot.

It could be argued that the fire was only small as that what they used that night to cook and melt water and the tree fell but the den flooring doesn't seem to be enough to what would be needed to create the insulation for a 4.5 meter by 2 meter tent. Plus where is the evidence of cut wood for the stove?.

If the geologists came and lifted the tree off the tent and had ropes and pullies , everything they do makes a mark or evidence in that layer of snow. It's a huge task in my opinion. They have to pack up everything and transport it up the slope to where the tent was found and erect the tent as to how tourist would do it.

Coming back to the cameras , any stagers wouldn't know if there were photos of them camping at this spot. They wouldn't know if a helicopter was photographed, they wouldn't know if a photo of the crushed tent had been taken by those that survived the fallen tree .

If , as I understand it , this is what happened, then a decision was made to plant the tent on 1079 and then make footprints in socks down the slope back to where they pitched their tent  . It gets complicated and to control evidence to create a narrative in snow and all it's variables suggests that the geologist's were incredibly cleaver or got extremely lucky.

For example , why not stage a single file set of foot prints? It's less work surely.

[Axelrod]

See the opinions here, in last message (part 3)
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1964.0

[Missi]

You're right, Ziljoe, there are some aspects, that don't really fit. The cameras could maybe be explained. Talking them altogether or taking out the film would be suspicious. So I would try to put them somewhere so the pictures taken should be destroyed, like the camera around Zolotaryovs neck, that surely came in contact with water.

It just won't fit together...

[Hunter]

We pitched the tent "on skis" only when it was impossible to get spruce branches. And there were plenty of spruce branches in that forest. So, if the camp was in the forest or at its edge, we used spruce branches. If you speak Russian, I can give you a link to a website where they post hiking reports. You can find a lot of interesting information there about hiking practices in the 1950s.

[Ziljoe]

I'm not sure if Zolotaryov had a camera around his neck or hand as the only claim to that is from the one photo of him after he was pulled from the ravine. It looks like a camera case but I don't think anyone reported that he did. There is only the claim of the note book , surely everyone would have mentioned the camera?. This is where facts get blurred.

[Ziljoe]

We pitched the tent "on skis" only when it was impossible to get spruce branches. And there were plenty of spruce branches in that forest. So, if the camp was in the forest or at its edge, we used spruce branches. If you speak Russian, I can give you a link to a website where they post hiking reports. You can find a lot of interesting information there about hiking practices in the 1950s.

I have read a couple of those reports and mentioned them , I can't remember where or when. I found them really interesting. One of the other groups that were hiking at the same time and then joined the search , wrote about the mansi signs and troubles they had which were very similar.

If I remember correctly, they wrote about finding a new way to ski, the same as dyatlov . This refers to the lead skier leaving his backpack making a trail and returning to get the back pack. It was the same explanation, also the Mansi sign that is in Zinas diary is almost the exact one that is in their diary. It is the sign that some argued was a picture of a rocket or axe. I also recall their own report of the light in the sky that they also mention in the statement for the case files in the DPI. Again they wrote about climbing trees to find out where they were , how their stove worked and it's problems , along with blankets or sleeping bags . I'm sure in one of the reports it goes into details about how a tent with a wood stove could  save weight in not needed keeping bags and that it was so hot a blanket was not needed and no one could sleep close to the stove.

It would be good to post the link again Hunter so others can try to read if interested .Although I can't read Russian I would open the page in Google search and that gives the option to translate at a press of a button, even from a picture.

[Hunter]

Theories involving outsiders changing the events are unlikely.

Regarding the skiing method—alas, Dyatlov was, as they say, "one of many, among the first." This method is common in many expeditions, so he won't be credited as a pioneer.

If you're interested, check out the website tlib.ru. There are many reports on expeditions, including various types—skiing, hiking, and watercraft. There's a filter for selecting the desired type of expedition and time period. It even includes the terrain.

[Ziljoe]

Thank you. I was going to try and translate them but it's a bit of a task.

It does seem that the reports are like a tick box exercise, much the same as in any education system. No one was a pioneer in skiing, building wood stoves , devices , dealing with the cold or the strange ( to them) carvings on tree's.

All the hikes met the same problems and basically the same solutions . I think there's even a page that reports on the groups individual strength ,weaknesses and character. Without looking and checking , I think it's kramlins hike.( Spelling).

[Hunter]

Formalized – yes. Any report will always be formalized, but there aren't strict requirements for reports written by tourists, like, say, those for diplomas and term papers at universities.
Regarding pioneers, someone will always be first, somewhere; it's just not always possible to identify that "patient zero."

[Falcon73]

If a tree fell on them it would have damaged the stove which I do not recall any reporting of.   Also I think there would be some char skin residue still on it

[Hunter]

Here's another question: if it was a normal accident, why move the tent with things, stage an escape from it, and perform other actions?

[sarapuk]

Missi, I love and welcome your approach. It is how I think or try to think about the case.

My thinking is if your hands are numb you can't use tools , it becomes more like clenched fist , using arm and side of body or teeth. They may have been aware of this and that would be scary.

I've thought about the tent location being the labaz site but it fails for me in logic for a couple of reasons. The photo of them digging the trench is far too big for a labaz .The extra work needed to do this , pack the back pack when you get up, you then have to get the food up the slope , once up on the ridges you have to find a suitable place that has deep enough snow and is in a safe zone. Then you need to unpack everything you packed in the morning out of all the backpacks , bury it and cover it , repack your back packs , find a place to pitch the tent unpack your back packs again and mack camp. Then there's the return journey to get your food from the labaz , you might have to find it in a white out or the strong winds , it could take a while and you would be left digging for your food which could be under more snow , opening up the backpacks again with blowing snow getting everywhere to again repack the back packs to move to a campsite in the forest to unpack everything again. It's a faff for little advantage I think.

The foot prints are of great importance because the testimonies speak of what was seen before what was found to be true. In these statements they talk of both extremes , feet in valkine and bare foot or one sock. They were detailed enough to show toes in the prints plus they existed for a long stretches. They were also found not just as raised foot prints but had broke through layers of ice around the stone ridges and further down the slope.

If stagers left those prints by accident, I wouldn't think they would be wearing socks plus they should be evidence of them somewhere in the area I would think.

I too play around and try every angle I can think of , I was toying  with the last entry in the group diary , trying to see how well it fitted with the last pitching of the tent , that is  , did they climb the pass and head to the spur thinking the spur was the pass ?. They then move south ( back the way they came) find the snow at 1.5 meters deep and pitch the tent where it was found , they have dinner in the tent ( which was found in the tent) and write it's hard to think of such comfort some where on the ridge( they camped below the spur). It makes a little bit of sense but depends on different translation of the diary. But it's a thought experiment.

The thing about stagers is they have to destroy the camera film in the cameras at least because they wouldn't know what was on the film right up to the deaths of the hikers. I think....

The footprints are a bit of a mystery. 9 people at the tent but it doesnt look like 9 sets of footprints. And they look rather large prints.

[sarapuk]

Maybe a mod could cut it where we started to stray (which was several posts before) and give us a chance to go on? Prettyplease?

It seems like a lot of straying these days 😊. A lot of going over old ground as well. Just how much old ground can be gone over. Its okay if it shines light on some new aspect that may prove useful.

[Ziljoe]

The footprints are a bit of a mystery. 9 people at the tent but it doesnt look like 9 sets of footprints. And they look rather large prints.

They are reported by numerous witnesses as existing as human footprints in the case files by those that were at the scene. They were described as being in socks and in some instances the toes could be observed. Like wise there are statements of some in footwear, 3 months before those in footwear were found. The footprints fit the scenario.

[sarapuk]

The footprints are a bit of a mystery. 9 people at the tent but it doesnt look like 9 sets of footprints. And they look rather large prints.

They are reported by numerous witnesses as existing as human footprints in the case files by those that were at the scene. They were described as being in socks and in some instances the toes could be observed. Like wise there are statements of some in footwear, 3 months before those in footwear were found. The footprints fit the scenario.

We must surely have to question the number of footprints though. The photos don't appear to show the prints of 9 people, well thats what it looks like to me unless you can shine some light on that one.

[Ziljoe]

The footprints are a bit of a mystery. 9 people at the tent but it doesnt look like 9 sets of footprints. And they look rather large prints.

They are reported by numerous witnesses as existing as human footprints in the case files by those that were at the scene. They were described as being in socks and in some instances the toes could be observed. Like wise there are statements of some in footwear, 3 months before those in footwear were found. The footprints fit the scenario.

We must surely have to question the number of footprints though. The photos don't appear to show the prints of 9 people, well thats what it looks like to me unless you can shine some light on that one.

Read the case files , as you once told me to.

[Missi]

If a tree fell on them it would have damaged the stove which I do not recall any reporting of.   Also I think there would be some char skin residue still on it

The stove was hanging, as far as I recall. So maybe it fell, but wasn't squeezed? Was it even investigated completely? If there was a staging, the stove might have been cleaned, before putting it, where it was found.
These are just quick thoughts. Especially with the residue, I pretty much think that is a fact we need to explain properly, if we want to follow Teddy's route of thinking.

Here's another question: if it was a normal accident, why move the tent with things, stage an escape from it, and perform other actions?

Teddy explains that with fear (in the context of what happened during the great terror in the USSR and experiences those involved had). And with all I know about the time back than, I find it plausibly. I don't think however, that a staging by the government is plausible, for they usually just stated how their narrative was and everyone who disagreed went on a long vacation...

Maybe a mod could cut it where we started to stray (which was several posts before) and give us a chance to go on? Prettyplease?

It seems like a lot of straying these days 😊. A lot of going over old ground as well. Just how much old ground can be gone over. Its okay if it shines light on some new aspect that may prove useful.

I believe you're right. And I do believe it's necessary as well as nice work for the brain. But it's hard to find later to reference, if the topic's name doesn't point to it. ;)

[Missi]

The footprints are a bit of a mystery. 9 people at the tent but it doesnt look like 9 sets of footprints. And they look rather large prints.

They are reported by numerous witnesses as existing as human footprints in the case files by those that were at the scene. They were described as being in socks and in some instances the toes could be observed. Like wise there are statements of some in footwear, 3 months before those in footwear were found. The footprints fit the scenario.

We must surely have to question the number of footprints though. The photos don't appear to show the prints of 9 people, well thats what it looks like to me unless you can shine some light on that one.

Well, I for one can't make out if there are 9 sets or less or more. I can't make out neither, if the feet were with shoes or without. At least not from the photos. I might be able to distinguish when seeing them in reality, which, alas, is not possible. So in this case, I'd say we should somewhat believe what the testimony states and only doubt it, when we really have reason to believe otherwise.

[GlennM]

The prints lead fom the tent, not to it. There the tent was abandoned, not relocated.