The Anatomy of a Collapse: Resolving the Dyatlov Pass Ravine injuries

[Ziljoe]

### Title: The Anatomy of a Collapse: Resolving the Dyatlov Pass Ravine Autopsies Through Fluid Dynamics

I’ve been meaning to write this post for a while. I am no expert in medical forensics or translation, but I’ve tried to work directly from the raw data and autopsy transcripts provided in the case files. I didn't use AI to write this theory for me; instead, I used it as a processing tool to cross-reference the data, map the biological findings, and see if the micro-details actually align with physics.

What I found points to an absolute structural divide in how these hikers died, completely ruling out explosions or simple falls, and landing squarely on a tragic, localized event in the ravine.

Everything in this case revolves around a single forensic marker: **the foamy blood and fluid in the lungs.**

---

### Part 1: The Two Types of "Foam"

During the 1959 autopsies, Dr. Boris Vozrozhdenny noted foaming, frothy mucus in the airways of multiple hikers. This includes those who died purely of the cold on the slope (like Yuri Doroshenko) and those who suffered catastrophic chest injuries in the ravine (like Lyudmila Dubinina).

However, looking at the exact mechanics, the forensic reality splits these into two completely different biological processes:

#### The Hypothermia Foam (The Slope / Cedar Tree Group)

* **The Mechanism:** When a human freezes to death, the body undergoes progressive cardiovascular failure. In the final stages, extreme fluid retention and a dramatic slowing of the heart rate cause a condition called pulmonary congestion.
* **The Result:** Fluid gently leaks into the airways. As the dying person takes desperate, shallow final gasps, this fluid mixes with air, creating a light, frothy, pale mucus. Crucially, in pure hypothermia cases, this fluid is confined mostly to the upper respiratory tracts (the trachea and bronchial tubes) because it accumulates right at the very end of life as the lungs shut down.

#### The Compression Foam (The Ravine Group)

* **The Mechanism:** This is where a snow cave or cornice collapse comes into play. For the victims in the ravine, the foam was heavily blood-stained and forced deep throughout the lung tissue itself.
* **The Result:** When a massive weight (like packed snow) crushes the chest wall while the heart is still forcefully pumping, it causes immense hydrostatic pressure. This literally ruptures the microscopic capillaries inside the lungs. Blood pours into the air sacs (alveoli) and mixes violently with air while the victim is still actively struggling to breathe under the load.

Finding light foam in the upper airways is a textbook indicator of terminal respiratory failure from freezing. However, finding widespread, blood-engorged froth forced deep within the respiratory tissue—combined with fractured bones—is the definitive signature of a living body suffocating under a massive, crushing external weight.

---

### Part 2: The "Plumbing Blowout" of Lyudmila Dubinina

Thinking of the heart and blood vessels as a plumbing network makes the trauma fully logical. In Dr. Vozrozhdenny's autopsy report for Lyudmila Dubinina, he explicitly noted a massive hemorrhage in the heart’s right atrium.

Using a mechanical plumbing framework, we can map exactly how that injury connects to a heavy snow mass:

1. **The Right Atrium as the "Weakest Pipe":** In the human body, the right atrium is the intake chamber that receives low-pressure, oxygen-depleted blood returning from the body before pushing it to the lungs. Because it only handles low-pressure flow, its muscular wall is thin and fragile compared to the high-pressure left side of the heart. It is the absolute weakest point in the cardiac pipeline.
2. **The Back-Pressure Effect (Hydraulic Ram):** When a massive, heavy weight slammed down onto Dubinina's chest, it caused severe, instantaneous compression. This sudden squeeze acted like a massive piston, instantly forcing all the blood in her lower body backwards up through the main veins (the vena cava) and slamming it directly into the heart. Because the thin right atrium couldn't vent that massive, sudden spike in fluid volume fast enough, the extreme back-pressure caused the tissue to tear and hemorrhage internally. In medicine, this is a known consequence of severe blunt force chest trauma.
3. **Connecting the Pipes to the Foam:** This exact plumbing blowout explains why her lungs were full of foaming blood. The same crushing force that burst her right atrium also ruptured the delicate capillaries inside her lungs. As she lay pinned under the snow, her heart was still beating (proven by the extensive internal bleeding), trying to pump blood through shattered pipes. With every desperate breath she took against the crushing weight of the snow, air mixed violently with the pooling blood in her lungs, creating that thick, frothy foam.

Her body experienced a classic, catastrophic hydraulic failure caused by an immense, uniform weight crushing her chest while she was still alive.

---

### Part 3: The Uniform Burial of Nikolai Thibeaux-Brignolle

Looking at Nikolai Thibeaux-Brignolle’s autopsy report through this same engineering framework answers why his ribs didn't snap, yet his lungs suffered the exact same fate:

1. **The Piston Effect on the Lungs:** For his lungs to release an "abundance of foamy liquid" upon being squeezed (palpated) by the pathologist, they had to be completely engorged with fluid and blood. Even without cracking his ribs, the sheer weight of the snow mass acted like a heavy clamp on his chest wall, completely immobilizing his ability to inhale.
2. **Why He Struggled to Breathe:** Because his heart kept beating (proven by the extensive bleeding into his temple muscle), it kept pumping blood into his lungs. But because his chest was physically locked down by the snow, the blood had nowhere to go. The intense back-pressure forced fluid out of the vessels and straight into the air sacs, filling his lungs up like a sponge.
3. **The Living Constraint:** The fact that this foam was trapped deep inside the lung tissue—while his "larynx and bronchus clearance is free"—is the exact signature of sustained, traumatic chest compression. If he had died instantly from the head injury, his lungs wouldn't have had the time or active blood circulation to fill with fluid. Instead, he survived the initial blow to the head. He lay there pinned under the snow, unconscious but still alive, with his respiratory system desperately trying to expand his chest against a weight it couldn't lift.

Nikolai wasn't a separate casualty who died a different way; he was under the exact same crushing load as the other ravine victims. The snow compressed his chest just as brutally as it did theirs, trapping the fluid in his lungs and causing the exact same internal asphyxiation.

---

### Part 4: Eliminating the Alternatives (Blasts & Falls)

Everything revolves around this foamy blood and the surrounding landscape architecture. We can confidently eliminate the popular alternative theories using simple physics:

* **Why it wasn't a Blast Wave:** While a blast wave can cause "blast lung" (ruptured alveoli and lung foam), a shockwave powerful enough to snap multiple ribs inside a human torso is a force of catastrophic energy. The ravine is a mile from the tent, so we can rule out the tent being damaged, but there are trees all around the creek. If a blast had occurred here, the frozen forest would have borne the scars. High-velocity blast waves shatter branches, strip needles, and rain twigs down into the snowpack. **Not a single search log, photograph, or diary mentions a debris layer of blasted forest or scorched bark embedded in the snow around the ravine.** The environment was completely structurally intact.
* **Why it wasn't a simple Fall:** The ravine featured a 2 to 3-metre drop onto a rocky creek bed. A fall head-first perfectly explains Nikolai's skull fracture, and slamming into a boulder explains the broken ribs. However, a fall is a single, instantaneous impact. Kinetic energy concentrated on a rock leaves massive external skin bruising, cuts, or lacerations—yet the autopsies explicitly state that Dubinina and Zolotaryov had *no external bruising* over their broken ribs. Furthermore, an impact happens in a fraction of a second. It does not provide the continuous, sustained compression required to keep the lungs locked down while the heart pumps, which is required to churn up that dense, suffocating foam.

---

### Conclusion: Traumatic Asphyxia via Static Loading

When you systematically eliminate the alternatives, you are left with a single, highly plausible mechanical process: **Sustained Mechanical Constraint.**

A heavy, dense mass of wind-packed snow (whether a collapsed snow-cave ceiling or a shearing cornice) settled over the torsos of the ravine victims. Because snow is heavy but soft, it conformed perfectly to the shape of their bodies. It applied a uniform, crushing pressure that didn't break or scrape the skin, but it physically locked the chest wall.

They could exhale, but they could not inhale. Their hearts continued to beat forcefully against this restriction, driving blood into the locked lungs. As they made final, desperate muscular attempts to draw breath against the crushing weight, air was whipped directly into the pooling blood inside the lung tissue—creating the exact "abundance of foamy bloody liquid" detailed in the autopsies.

The physical evidence inside the medical reports points not to military conspiracies or weapons tests, but to a tragic, claustrophobic battle against the weight of the snow itself.

[TobiasLorenz]

I think the “two foams” distinction is a useful way to look at it, but I’d be a little cautious about making it too absolute. The autopsy wording isn’t always precise enough to cleanly separate upper-airway froth from true alveolar flooding with modern forensic confidence, especially after months of snow and water exposure in the ravine. Tropical Casino https://tropical-casino.com/ makes me think of the same problem with game history or session data: a label can look definitive until you realize the underlying record is incomplete or ambiguous. I’d treat the foam distinction as one clue among several, not something that settles the question by itself.

That said, the combination in the ravine group is the key point: severe chest trauma, internal hemorrhage, and signs consistent with breathing/circulation continuing for at least some period after injury. That fits a compression scenario much better than a clean fall or explosion. For me the main unresolved question is still the mechanics: what exact snow/den/cornice configuration could produce that level of localized crushing without leaving more obvious skeletal trauma in all four?

[GlennM]

To validate the thoracic damage , it stands to reason that a collapse would have pinned the R4 victims exactly as they were found. Can an argument be made that any of them were dug out and turned to ease suffering? Additionally, since the branch mat was not scattered from having a body pulled off, any collapse victims were not at, nor pulled from the mat itself. This points to them being crushed where they were found. Lyuda's posture suggests that she may have been moved and propped up to help her breathe. I would think that if she was tended to, she would not be soaked.

I like the idea that the ravine was located by surface water flowing from the creek. The hikers tunnelled along and to the side of the creek. Once it was sufficiently wide, then branches were brought in and the mat constructed. This also implies the Yuris were deceased and their outerwear taken for use. Again, I like the idea they , the R4 made their snow cave tunnelling not from the top down, but from the side following the stream into the ravine.

If the R4 were cought in a collapse and  rescued,  perhaps work in the cave was initially done in teams with the R4 either coming or going under the snow, while IRZ were getting more wood, working the fire or attending the dead. When the cave collapsed, IRZ may have excavated the injured and seen to their immediate comfort before making a last ditch bid for the tent and rescue.

For me, the trouble has always been that the story or any version of it is told as a linear sequence of events. This is of course a necessary artifact of language. Too, the cause and effect structure of the organization of events tends to create a mindset which is hard to break. The forum is full of different timelines and sequence all with their supporters and detractors.

Ziljoe again shows exemplary leadership by exploring the factual matter.

[Ziljoe]

Thank you Glenn m.

It's a look at the patterns and a cross reference to collated evidence that of 60 years of research of other death's that wouldn't be available in 1959.

Quite how the ravine filled in 1959 with snow is anyone's guess but we have later trips to the ravine that gives us an indication that it fills and snow banks and cornices occur. As a cornice migrates across the ravine it definitely leaves hollow areas or voids.

The Yruis do look if they were unsupervised at some point and perhaps left to try and warm up as other activities took place. This could be the making of a number of snow holes , the den being the first and perhaps a second snow hole being fashioned by the ravine four. Perhaps it collapsed and the two yuris are the only ones that managed to get dug out by Zina , Igor and Rustem .

Given the argument that a snow collapse happened on the ravine four , it might have been too difficult to dig them out but perhaps they tried.

I would suspect two to three snow holes would have been dug as one would just be too big  for 9 hikers.

As you suggest , there are many possible variations of the sequence of events at the ravine that are plausible.

I've always kept myself tethered to the amount of snow in the ravine as the potential energy for the fractured ribs. That is just a common sense approach although I venture into other theories.

I have managed to find two incidents of snow collapses of snow holes in training days that ended up with chest injury, I believe from a small mass of snow. One was fractured ribs and damage to the sternum. That for me at least gives evidence to keep the link of the injuries to a snow collapse.

[SURI]

The 4 seats on the floor were prepared specifically for the final 4, the others were already dead. They had their clothes, their watches, and the photographs from the scene.

[GlennM]

According to DyatlovPass.com there are no less than four potential locations for the ravine. I believe that what would be uppermost in the hiker's minds is an effective windbreak. That could be achieved by baffling the wind by trees.. I think the contour of the land for digging would be the next consideration. So,  a location with trees blocking the wind and an elevated embankment with the high side sheltered from wind would be my preference. This orientation would allow for the group singly or enmasse to tunnel through snow into the embankment, or cornice while facing into but sheltered under the flow of the wind.

The standard canon in this regard is that what came first was the den, or cavity in the snow bank. Followed by the making of the mat. Arguably the third step would be trips to the cedar for padding the mat with salvaged clothing from the Yuris. So, just how dead does someone have to be before you dig a snow cave for yourself?

I get conflicted by considering how much energy is expended in finding a location, excavating overburden, constructing a seating location weighed against what in energy it is going to take to get back to the tent and home. Surely, if a single person was tasked with this, they would fail. Several people could make the work more efficient, but all pay an energy tax. Who is to say that they hikers all agreed to making a den at all? It seems more sensible than making a dssh a mile uphill to a flattened snow covered tent!

Nobody in their right mind, speaking of construction.  is going to do anything on or near running water. The heat from water is negated by cold if one becomes wet. That would be practically unavoidable.

A lateral view of a proposed ravine shows the R4 lying where the snow bank is tapered, rather than being found under the deepest snow cover. The mat is actually under much more overburden than they were.

I am of the opinion the R4 were moving in or out of a tunnel to the mat, exhausted from exertion and exposure. Their construction collapsed on them and they could not move against it. It is unsatisfactory though because if IRZ abandoned them in their time of need, how onerous would that be?  Could I even make weak argument that there was no foot trail from cedar to ravine? No.

All this thinking, such as it is is founded on the assumption that any reasonable person(s) would do things the same way. If, however, the eventual truth leads me to think, "Why in the world would they do that?" , then who can figure out insanity?

[Senior Maldonado]

I would suspect two to three snow holes would have been dug as one would just be too big  for 9 hikers.

If we have a broader look at the Snow theory, we can note the following.

DPI started on the slope, when a snow slab covered the tent unexpectedly. The hikers were inside, and they had to cut the canvas to get outside. That gave them very good lesson how dangerous deep snow could be. The lesson should have warned them - never again! But just in an hour or so they started to dig even deeper snow in the ravine and build tunnels (or holes) in the depths of snow mass. No surprise, sooner or later their construction collapsed, and they found themselves pressed by heavy snow for the 2nd time, but now the consequences were fatal. Could the experienced hikers be so stupid to repeat their mistake? I do not think so.

But OK, let's assume that the hikers that evening were in a digging mood, and instead of making a bonfire they decided to dig a few snow holes to protect themselves from awful weather conditions. The question is: why did not they start digging much earlier, on the slope? Digging out their tent looks to be easier than digging a few tunnels (or holes) in the ravine. In the ravine they had exactly the same digging tools as on the slope -- their hands. On the slope, they even had better tools - a pair of skis. Also, their march downhill did not add to their strength and ability to dig. If digging out the whole tent was a challenge, they could have attempted to dig out some ammunition and be in much stronger position downhill, with axes, warm clothes, medical pack.

To summarize, the Snow theory sounds weak for me. I cannot imagine natural weather impact that could make the hikers to leave the tent and go away in a dark wilderness.

[GlennM]

SM, your assessments are good food for thought. Why not fortify thrmselves at the tent as opposed to doing the same with less supp,ies a mile away? The only arguement I can offer is that they actually couldn't dig a cave on the slope. I understand there must have been enough snow to necessitate moving some to level the tent foundation. But, what they had on the slope, even with additional shifted snow may not have been deep enough. My guess is that digging shelter on 1079 is an easy possibility for me, an armchair investigator, but for them? In that situation, other than an immediate retreat, I imagine they would consider patching and re-pitching the tent before digging a cave. I think they couldn't  get ahead of the weather. They could have cut up the tent for shawls and sat in a citcle, or  made tracks for Boot Rock. If they cut up the tent, then they are done, hike is over.They were warned against the attempt on Ortoten. It was a combination of wanting to be first in winter, not wanting to waste their investments, get their certification and arguably, youthful immortality which spurred them on. Hubris was their undoing. If they succeeded, it would be called bravery instead.

Of all the ideas proposed about them leaving 1079 for the woods, bad weather needs the fewest additional assumptions, I can appreciate the arguement that there could be other causes which do not leave permanent evidence. After all, weather may have blown away the very evidence that the tent blocked and collapsed under.

For me, all I can be certain of is that the Yuris died before anyone else did. I also note that IRZ headed back to the tent by a different trail than their descent.

[Ziljoe]

Thank you Senior Maldonado.

I shall try to explain my context to your line of inquiry.

Firstly I am trying to ring fence the injuries and what the scene at the ravine and cedar might indicate. It's mostly based on the reasonable assumption that the hikers were driven out of the tent by something that made the situation at the tent unsafe . This could be some sort of a snow collapse, a wolverine, wind, object in, or from the sky , or a number of other theories.

For the exploration of what may have happened at the ravine , we do not need to overly concern ourselves for the reason for leaving the tent, although it is reasonable to give some thought to the connection.

For me , hypothetically going with some weather reason like a snow collapse , seems the most likely. Although this snow collapse may have been far from deadly it would depend entirely on the perspective of the hikers . If they felt it was dangerous, or more was to come down upon them , then the decision to leave until better conditions came available, then , for me it's in the realms of possibility. Like wise, an object from the sky hissing gas or the foul toxic smell of a wolverine spray and a few other ideas all give the same situation where the hikers can't stay at the tent.

It is now a survival situation against the elements , it is a clock ticking against heat loss , temperature, wind fluctuations  and how the group can prevent this heat loss. They are experienced in cold hiking, they will know the challenges , dangers and best procedures and practices.

To dig snow holes , retain heat and get out of poor weather conditions is the standard and basically the only way to survive . There is no lesson as to not digging snow holes, humans build on dangerous land over and over again at tornados still destroy homes , people have car crashes but still go in cars.

It is not a mistake to dig a snow hole , whether the snow was the reason for leaving the tent or a yeti kicking them out, or a stage of an R7 rocket releasing fuel. You are not going to survive a night in light clothing with no blankets and no  resources to build a substantial fire. The rule is, dig or make a snow hole.

Your point about them not digging for more resources at the tent is the point , for reasons unknown to us , they couldn't get more equipment to do anything at the tent . They are obviously somewhere in-between a rock and a hard place. The forest offers some potential salvation, that is , lower elevation, natural shelter as opposed to a bare slope ,and options for retaining heat. I am putting forth the argument, as simple as it sounds , they couldn't get or take anything more from the tent. They couldn't dig anything from it. Why do I come to this conclusion? Because it's what the whole picture seems to be telling us .

So back to the ravine and cedar and what that might be telling us. We have flooring made from young branches , this is exactly what you would do and what could be processed with the tools they had . A fire is made from the cedar branches , again , the only dry branches that can be processed with out serious tools .

So, the hypothetical snow hole or holes , or cave/s. To scrape into a snow bank or snowdrift is a lot less work than digging into snow , or mostly. We have the den flooring that is just off to the side of the stream bed , in a convenient flat area .it's exactly where a den flooring would be placed , it can't be anywhere else as the lay of the land dictates it. From the side of that ravine above that den flooring , this is where the snow would build and gather , perhaps by a cornice build up.

 The ravine is a natural shelter area , snow drifts there , flooring was there at ground level, as we're the ravine 4 . The autopsy suggests a continued force acted upon their chests and they struggled to breathe against this compressing force .

This is the reason for the thread, to dissect the autopsy and see if modern research and evidence can support a model or at least lay reasonable grounds to find that the ravine four died as a result of a snow collapse at the ravine and not at the tent .

Given the fact they lie under 3-4 meters of snow , are located next to flooring that implies that this den flooring was intended to be used for insulation or a roof , it would seem reasonable to allow ourselves to toy with the idea of a crush. I argue that this is what happened, and I give a reasonable interpretation from the autopsy report that supports this notion.

Please counter argue and find my errors in my poor medical understanding of the autopsy.

[Senior Maldonado]

Please counter argue and find my errors in my poor medical understanding of the autopsy.

Frankly, I see no point in driving any significant conclusions from the autopsy reports that we can see in the case files.

The only forensic medical document that is presented in the case files in its original form and which can be unconditionally referenced is the medical expert’s interrogation on sheets 381–383. All 9 autopsy reports in the case files are not originals, they are re-prints of questionable content. The original reports were required to be printed in Sverdlovsk, at the medical lab, and to be certified with the "round" seal of the lab (a seal of an organization). In other words, issuing authority of autopsy reports should be Sverdlovsk medical lab.

However, as you can see, the first four documents have the seal of Laptev, a part‑time freelance expert from Severouralsk. The 5th document has the N‑240 prison hospital's seal. This is completely unacceptable! Neither Laptev nor N-240 could be issuing authorities for the autopsies. And it happened  because the prosecutor’s office would never have been able to get "round" seals from Mr.Ustinov (head of the medical lab) for the re-prints. Ustinov was known to be a very stubborn man; he couldn’t stand being pressed and could press anyone else himself. It was useless for the prosecutor’s office to go to Ustinov for official seals. And for the last four autopsy reports Ivanov didn’t even bother with seals. There was no time for him to go to Ivdel and get the seal of the prison hospital N‑240 for these last re-prints. So the last four reports have no issuing authority at all.

In a nutshell, what is true and what is not in these reports, we can only guess.

[Osi]

An incident caused by snow in the valley, or a fall by tourists, doesn't seem sufficient to explain the trauma they suffered. I'm leaning more towards the idea that they were injured in the tent and then moved. A few photos of footprints taken the day the tent was first found, and witness statements, suggest the prints belong to 8 or 9 people. Could someone please explain the motivation behind this? Couldn't it belong to 6 people, for example?

I think a detailed study of the number of prints would shed a lot of light. Regarding Glenn M.'s question, I think the group, after descending the slope, first looked for a natural snow cave to protect the injured from the cold. So, before the fire pit and cedar tree, the hole in the valley was discovered, and the injured were moved there. Because this area was quite low-lying and treeless, a lot of snow accumulated. Due to various snow movements, trees didn't grow properly there. As for the distance between the fire pit and the valley; the cedar tree was higher up. There were probably mature trees nearby as well. Almost no snow accumulated. It provided both firewood and the ideal ground for lighting a fire. After placing 3 or 4 wounded people in the valley, the remaining 5 or 6 would gather wood, light a fire, dig a windbreak pit near the valley, and prepare a mat from branches.

[SURI]

Please counter argue and find my errors in my poor medical understanding of the autopsy.

Frankly, I see no point in driving any significant conclusions from the autopsy reports that we can see in the case files.

Absolutely brilliant analysis. You hit the nail on the head. While everyone else is arguing about wind speeds and snow depths, they completely miss an obvious and massive fact that cannot be ignored – this unnumbered criminal case file itself is essentially a crime scene.

And these forensic reports are just the tip of the iceberg. Take, for example, the protocol of inspection of the scene where the bodies were found, the witnesses' names are written with gross errors and distortions. Furthermore, Vladimir Askinadzi himself later directly declared that he never signed anything.

https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-341-343?rbid=17743

These legal anomalies and signs of document forgery serve as irrefutable proof of third-party intervention.

[GlennM]

And yet in spite of the befuddled paper trail, the findings still support the idea Ziljoe presents. None of the autopsy reports are covering anything up, like blood loss from gunshot wounds that were never reported. In my estimation, they are complete and even opinionated. I think what was done was pretty good for 1959 in a rural location populated by poor tribes and convict camps. Not exactly a garden spot. Then again there is that business of the tissue samples... I recall that once the direction of the tent cuts were figured out, the whole criminal case aspect was flipped. It was then a matter of a natural disaster and there were bodies to bury, others to find.

I have the feeling that the mood was to wind up the process. It had gone a long time. In the great scheme of things, the DPI was small potatoes compared to what was going on then.
 

[Ziljoe]

An incident caused by snow in the valley, or a fall by tourists, doesn't seem sufficient to explain the trauma they suffered. I'm leaning more towards the idea that they were injured in the tent and then moved. A few photos of footprints taken the day the tent was first found, and witness statements, suggest the prints belong to 8 or 9 people. Could someone please explain the motivation behind this? Couldn't it belong to 6 people, for example?

I think a detailed study of the number of prints would shed a lot of light. Regarding Glenn M.'s question, I think the group, after descending the slope, first looked for a natural snow cave to protect the injured from the cold. So, before the fire pit and cedar tree, the hole in the valley was discovered, and the injured were moved there. Because this area was quite low-lying and treeless, a lot of snow accumulated. Due to various snow movements, trees didn't grow properly there. As for the distance between the fire pit and the valley; the cedar tree was higher up. There were probably mature trees nearby as well. Almost no snow accumulated. It provided both firewood and the ideal ground for lighting a fire. After placing 3 or 4 wounded people in the valley, the remaining 5 or 6 would gather wood, light a fire, dig a windbreak pit near the valley, and prepare a mat from branches.

Thank you Osi.

For me , at this moment in time ,i think the injuries to the chest walls and skull are too severe to be able to move the potential injured. It raises another problem for me in consideration to how they removed or dug the injured out , if they were injured at the tent that is. It implies no urgent need to leave the tent and that gives them time to gather more clothing and tools?

There is no question to suspect that a collapse of snow cannot break the ribs and give the injuries that were found. It is a fact that it is a possibility, its just gravity and mass. I would attempt to build a snow shelter every time if I were in their situation. Without  tools or clothing , there's just no other option.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any more data available about the foot prints although I came across a good sight yesterday that concentrated on all the statements. I shall try to find it.

[Ziljoe]

Please counter argue and find my errors in my poor medical understanding of the autopsy.

Frankly, I see no point in driving any significant conclusions from the autopsy reports that we can see in the case files.

Absolutely brilliant analysis. You hit the nail on the head. While everyone else is arguing about wind speeds and snow depths, they completely miss an obvious and massive fact that cannot be ignored – this unnumbered criminal case file itself is essentially a crime scene.

And these forensic reports are just the tip of the iceberg. Take, for example, the protocol of inspection of the scene where the bodies were found, the witnesses' names are written with gross errors and distortions. Furthermore, Vladimir Askinadzi himself later directly declared that he never signed anything.

https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-341-343?rbid=17743

These legal anomalies and signs of document forgery serve as irrefutable proof of third-party intervention.

This isn't the point of my question unfortunately. If we are to review the case , we must approach it without bias. That's a difficult thing to do.


I think we’re using the word “analysis” differently. Senior’s post is an interpretation of the seal situation, but it isn’t analysis in the strict sense — it doesn’t break the documents down into their physical characteristics or consider alternative explanations. 

That’s fine, everyone approaches the case differently, but I’m focusing on the physical evidence itself rather than the administrative anomalies.

The link you supply shows two versions. A typed version, probably for clarity for the case file and what looks like , field notes . We can see the folds in the hand written notes , a slight water mark that bleeds through the two pages and affects the ink. The page with the signature's looks to be the outside of the folding when stored as has the most weathering. This would suggest that the document has travelled and that is most likely from the location at the pass , to the final draft by Ivanov or whoever typed the typed copy. There's nothing exciting in the actual document that even contradicts any of the retelling of how the ravine 4 were found.

Regarding the case files, the seals, signatures, and formatting differences — my understanding is that the case file isn’t a single authored document. It’s an umbrella that contains material from multiple institutions, created at different times, under different circumstances, with different procedures.

Some documents are carbon copies without stamps. Some stamped originals stayed with the issuing institution. Some field notes were written outdoors and later copied. Some statements were taken in Ivdel, others in Sverdlovsk, each using their own boilerplate forms. Autopsies came from different medical facilities with different certification practices. Search protocols were handwritten in the field and later typed up for clarity.

The case file is simply a collection of all these documents — field notes, interviews, autopsies, protocols, memos — gathered from different places, different people, and different workflows. They weren’t produced under a unified “criminal case” mindset, because at the time nobody knew what had happened or whether a crime had even occurred.

So the variation we see isn’t evidence of forgery; it’s just the normal patchwork of a multi‑source Soviet case file.When you look at the case file as a multi‑source archive rather than a single authored document, most of the anomalies make sense without needing to assume anything unusual.

I think we can safely believe the autopsy reports.
So Suri , do you think a snow collapse at the ravine might have caused the injuries we see and are reported?

[SURI]

...but I’m focusing on the physical evidence itself rather than the administrative anomalies.

You are focusing on the tail of the snake rather than its head. The "administrative anomalies" you are trying to dismiss are actually the legal framework that defines whether your physical evidence is even real or completely fabricated.

There's nothing exciting in the actual document that even contradicts any of the retelling of how the ravine 4 were found.

Are you seriously not bothered by the fact that Vladimir Askinadzi explicitly stated that he never signed anything? Rain or folding paper doesn't magically spawn a forged signature. But by now, I am quite used to you looking at things completely upside down—for you, black is probably white as well.

...at the time nobody knew what had happened or whether a crime had even occurred.

Those who created the document on February 6th already knew what had happened. And from that forged document, we suddenly have an entire case file that lacks an official registration number.

I think we can safely believe the autopsy reports.

I wouldn't even take the interrogation of the forensic expert Vozrozhdenny seriously. Again, it is riddled with errors. For instance, he was never warned of criminal liability for false testimony. I also seriously doubt that Jr. Counselor of Justice Ivanov wouldn't know the proper spelling of his own title and that he would forget the hyphen. I would even say that the entire document was written by a single hand.

прокурор–криминалист
прокурор криминалист

https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-381-383-ru?rbid=17747

So Suri , do you think a snow collapse at the ravine might have caused the injuries we see and are reported?

To answer your final question. No, a snow collapse cannot cause injuries that were documented in forged, legally invalid papers inside a fake case file.

[SURI]

I'm leaning more towards the idea that they were injured in the tent and then moved.

This option is out of the question because, as we know, Zolotaryov had a camera and was actively taking photos.

[Ziljoe]

@Suri


If your position is that the entire case file is fabricated, then none of the documents you’re citing — the camera, the tent, the dates, the autopsies, the expert interrogation — can be used to support any theory, including yours. 

That’s fine if that’s your view, but it means the discussion can’t move forward on evidence. I’m focusing on the physical findings described consistently across the search reports, photos, and witness accounts, because those remain the same regardless of administrative irregularities.

Since I was trying to find a possible pattern to the cause of the injuries with the data that I understand to be true. Would you now be so kind to present the actual injuries that occured so I could try to determine what might of occured, or perhaps your version of the injuries to the ravine 4 from whatever non-fake documents that you may have found?