Boot rock as a choice

[GlennM]

Take a look at this expedition photo.7 men, 2 women. If we assume the photographer is male, then we have our DP9. Imagine they had to abandon a nearby tent. They could make for here or make for the distant forest. Why not? Why do you think they did not camp here in the first place?

As I look at the photo, I think to myself, " Shouldn't the hikers have sent out a scout?" Given the time of day and the distance to Ortoten, does it make sense to have some one or two people 10 minutes ahead of everyone else to check the lay of the land? Instead, I get this idea that decisions were made by Igor and not subject to negotiation. Next, when I consider the fallen remains of the group, I can believe there was differences of opinion.

Can you imagine a situation where they all broke camp at the cache and two people set out ahead of the rest of the group.  The scouts note and pass Boot rock only to find a barren windswept ridge ahead. They come back and meet the seven hikers. " Let's camp right here for the night. We can tie off on the rock".

I know this didn't happen, but does it give insight into the group dynamic? Does it help us decode their actual choices?

[Ziljoe]

Interesting as always.

A couple of thoughts pop up and it's only my opinion.

Firstly, I agree that they probably did send Scouts, there's antidotal evidence for this from other hike reports. Especially from dropping back packs and one or two forging ahead to make a trail. Then the others following whilst the leaders return to pick up their back packs. There's also evidence for travelling to get wood for a camp on snow exposed slopes. I think Igor did this for a sick friend in a tent, if it wasn't him , someone did.

Boot rock isn't an ideal tent location in my opinion, it's exposed from all sides and it's basically a crest or hill top where the snow doesn't gather other than snow drifts around the rock. These change depending on the wind. The ground would mostly be exposed or not deep with snow making it difficult to erect a tent.

It's possible that they sent scouts and decided on that location with the thought, as you have previously suggested , to make a dash along the tops of the mountains. It's also possible that they did have intention to gather wood for the night in the slope. We just don't know as the tent  didn't seem to have the center ridge supported by the skis. This leads to two possibilities, one that they hadn't fully secured the tent yet for the night , or two, they had taken the supporting skis down in the morning before the incident.

There are 2-3 descriptions on how a pair of skis were found next to the tent. .this suggests that a pair was kept free to use as the support, or perhaps for someone to fetch wood or scout?

[GlennM]

I would like to believe they bypassed Boot Rock because the way forward was deemed safe. They needed to make up for lost time too. Assuming these things to be true, then the major impediments to forward progress would be high winds. They were even alluded to in Igor's diary. For example, if they camped at Boot Rock, there is still going to be at least one more night of exposure in the ridge before they could get back to their cache, so why not get as close to Ortoten as possible and then cold camp. I believe they were planning two nights on the ridge anyway.

I certainly hope that meteorological reports will become available.

[sarapuk]

Take a look at this expedition photo.7 men, 2 women. If we assume the photographer is male, then we have our DP9. Imagine they had to abandon a nearby tent. They could make for here or make for the distant forest. Why not? Why do you think they did not camp here in the first place?

As I look at the photo, I think to myself, " Shouldn't the hikers have sent out a scout?" Given the time of day and the distance to Ortoten, does it make sense to have some one or two people 10 minutes ahead of everyone else to check the lay of the land? Instead, I get this idea that decisions were made by Igor and not subject to negotiation. Next, when I consider the fallen remains of the group, I can believe there was differences of opinion.

Can you imagine a situation where they all broke camp at the cache and two people set out ahead of the rest of the group.  The scouts note and pass Boot rock only to find a barren windswept ridge ahead. They come back and meet the seven hikers. " Let's camp right here for the night. We can tie off on the rock".

I know this didn't happen, but does it give insight into the group dynamic? Does it help us decode their actual choices?

This does nothing to help the case. It's pure speculation as usual. 

[GlennM]

 What isn't? 

[sarapuk]

What isn't?

Some speculations are more useful than others.

[GlennM]

 

[GlennM]

The hikers passed boot rock in order to camp closer to Ortoten. I can understand how the day before they got a late start. If they had passed the night in the open on 1079, they could make an early start to Ortoten in order to achieve their goal at the cairn and make camp near both water and wood. Those things take time. So, their last camp site further from Boot Rock is understandable.

Now, considering they were out in the open on 1079, does it make sense to look for some low spot to pitch the tent? I believe so. Any low spot will have the effect of increasing the angle of the ground upslope from the tent. I am doubtful the slope could produce a large scale avalanche,  but a small scale slab slip could be just enough to smother them in a collapsed tent.

I am holding onto the idea of nine people caught under canvas and a pile of shifted snow as the reason why they left. All else is a consequence of that choice. They could have tied off on Boot Rock, but as Ziljoe comments, the rock affords little protection.

[sarapuk]

I am holding onto the idea of nine people caught under canvas and a pile of shifted snow as the reason why they left. All else is a consequence of that choice. They could have tied off on Boot Rock, but as Ziljoe comments, the rock affords little protection.

You are holding onto an idea that many people who have actually been to the site over the years say is unlikely to produce an avalanche of any kind that could have caused the event at that site. The way it looks to me is that there were several events, and the tent site was the scene of one of those events.

[GlennM]

Thank you for comment. I maintain that it was an external force and not an internal one precipitated the group decision the make for the forest. I think that in either case, the state of dress or undress of the hikers gives no additional clues. I do think that because weather was mentioned kn the diary, it was certainly a factor. I still think it curious that when given the chance to tie off their tent to Boot rock, or camp out in the open, they chose the latter. I do not see that this gives them any more credability points over camping at the rock. I can only reason that they found snow enough to be able to level a base for their skis and use the spoil to make a berm or low wall outside the tent. This too is a concern because were I doing the excavation, I would just throw the snow behind me, downwind and call it good.

I agree that there is strong evidence of multiple crises, but they are all secondary to the tent on 1079. There is no defendable evidence that the tent was planted there by conspirators. There was nothing reported ablut the interior of the tent suggesting animal nor chemical odor. There was no scorch marks. The outside of the tent did not have tree damage residue in the form of sap nor needles. On the other hand, when the tent was found in its collapsed state there were broken supports. I contend that an accumulation of wind driven snow built up outside the tent and when it necame became sufficiently heavy, i might have taken nothing more than an innocent foot kick from someone on their back taking aim at a sagging stretched canvas, to precipitate a loosening of enough snow to crush the tent and those within in a slab slip. With suffocation an immediate threat, out come the knives for escape to the woods.