That pesky footwear

[GlennM]

Does anyone have an idea of what footwear was used by each hiker prior to their ascent up the Auspiya? I assume that once they were on skis. They wore ski boots.

So what? Well. For me at least, it means that valenki were not carried by everyone. Instead, they necessarily brought their boots and socks. A pair of felt boots for anyone was a nice to have, not a need to have item.

So what? Well. When they left the tent, those having socks wore them, those with valenki wore them. Nobody took ski boots because nobody took skis.

So what? Well, skis were not used because they could not be gotten to. There was a tent over them. The rescue photo shows snow over a collapsed tent. That's more overburden. If you are going to scrape off snow from your tent, you are either going to re-erect the tent and carry on, or you are going to pack it all up and find better ground.

So what would prevent these options from happening? I think they couldn't get ahead of the wind and snow at the time, so no reconstruction and no packing up. I do think that if the tent was completely flattened, they could have propped up the ends of the tent on the ski poles in order to be able to find it again after they got warm and rested. Those who believe the Yuri's climbed the cedar to confirm the tent's location might like this idea.

They walked to the forest, dressed as they were, some better, some worse. These youth were toughies; sturdy Russian stock. They could wait out the conditions for a reasonable amount of time. However, the distance to the woods and the overall weather were two variables which changed the dynamic for survival.

So what? No conspirators or their traces were ever located and certainly not needed..  There is no demonstrable evidence the group was involuntarily routed from their shelter by malefactors. Therefore, the idea the hikers were deliberately force marched, dressed how they were dressed is a fantasy. They left with what they had because at the time the conditions did not permit fixing the tent. If you have ever been in such conditions and tried to fight against it, you would appreciate my thought..

Each person used what they had, or borrowed, to make the initial hike. When the situation got desperate, there was additional sharing and salvaging to insure survival against the cold.  It is reasonable to believe they initially packed conservatively and never planned to do anything other than carry what clothing they needed to hike and ski to Ortoten and home. There was never a plan for a group side hike a mile and back on a slope to the woods. They were not dressed for it. No crampons. They died because the weather conditions lasted longer than they could hold out against it. But did they make for the ravine first or the cedar? Its the difference between prioritizing shelter or warmth.

[TobiasLorenz]

I agree with the general line here: the footwear situation looks much more like improvisation under pressure than anything staged or controlled by outsiders. People tend to picture “leaving the tent” as a clean decision point, but in wind, darkness, spindrift, and a collapsed or half-collapsed tent, even finding and freeing the right boots could become unrealistic very fast.

On cedar vs ravine, I lean toward the cedar first, at least for part of the group. Fire and visibility make sense as immediate priorities: get below the wind, make heat, keep some reference to the tent if possible. The ravine feels more like the later, more organized attempt at shelter once it became clear the fire wasn’t enough. But I don’t think it had to be one single group decision; they may have split tasks quite early.