Slash, then walk?

[amashilu]

One question I have had for quite some time is this:

Assuming the cuts in the tent wall were made by the hikers and were done from the inside, this is pretty dramatic evidence that the need to escape the tent was absolutely over-the-top urgent and critical, with not one split second to grab your second boot. And then -- then -- they line up and walk. They don't run. They form a line (probably hold onto each other if it was dark outside) and calmly walk.

How can these two actions be reconciled?

If, as Glennm suggests, a slab of hard-packed snow had suddenly slipped onto the tent, flattening it right on top of the hikers and rendering the tent opening no longer a viable exit, I could see them cutting the wall and getting out that way. So now, they are all out, looking at the tent and figuring out what to do next --- what decision would you make if you were there? Let's all -- 18 hands, 9 strong people (that's 8 more than Peter Freuchen ever had) -- pull the snow off the tent and at least get our boots and jackets -- or let's just walk without our jackets or boots a mile down to the tree line?

[Senior Maldonado]

It is questionable that the hikers walked downhill. Helicopter's pilot Potyazhenko was sure that the hikers ran -- he had seen the footprints and noted that the gaps between neighboring footprints were huge. But this is not the main point.

The main point is that snow slab was not enough for the hikers to leave the tent and move down one mile to do exactly the same job they could have done at the tent's site - to dig snow. Being at the open air in those conditions meant losing warmth quickly, the guys and girls knew that very well. 40 minutes of descent immediatly decreased their chances to almost zero. Only ongoing vital threat at the tent's site would have made them to choose immediate retreat. Snow slab, which was over, does not qualify for such a threat.

[amashilu]

The main point is that snow slab was not enough for the hikers to leave the tent and move down one mile to do exactly the same job they could have done at the tent's site - to dig snow. Being at the open air in those conditions meant losing warmth quickly, the guys and girls knew that very well. 40 minutes of descent immediatly decreased their chances to almost zero. Only ongoing vital threat at the tent's site would have made them to choose immediate retreat. Snow slab, which was over, does not qualify for such a threat.

I completely agree. The snow slab theory is one of many that requires us to minimize the hikers' experience, intelligence, and skill if we are to believe it.

[GlennM]

My conjecture is that when the hikers levelled the base for their tent,they cut through a layer dividing two snow densities.. When the overburden became too great, the upper slab slipped, covering the tent. The hikers cut their way out. Next came a decision. Perhaps they reasoned that clearing the tent might release even more slab on the 30 degree slope. Perhaps gale force wind was not going to permit any pitching of the broken poles and cut canvas.Additionally, out of the tent, did they actually have a choice to return to it? A cut tent is not a warm tent, and again, the slide that caught them the first time could certainly continue to cascade down on them.

 Arguably, even if they did clear away snow to retrieve supplies, perhaps the idea  developed that another slide obliterating the tent completely might mean they would never find it. If buried and marked by a ski or two, it would be a very small target, especially if their foorprints got blown away.

Certainly, they are not going to have an easy time of getting to Vizhay on cached supplies only. Additionally, while digging, they are not making fire nor sheltering from any winds, up to hurricane force. The flashlight on the trail to the forest suggests they moved in darkness. This reinforces the uncertainty of their circumstance. Their strength lay in their free will to choose what they will do next. The choices were few. They could stay put, retreat to Boot Rock, make for their cache or descend to the woods. Of these options, the woods was chosen.

Once they agree to leave the slope, there is no turning back. Why? Turning back does not change the circumstance of their departure. No, it is all about getting to the woods, making fire, getting out of the wind and attempting to mark the trail back to the tent and home. If indeed there was a regularly passing aircraft, they could lay out three lines of cuttings in the snow.

As Sr. Maldonado points out, time is of the essence. Stalling at the tent is just running the clock down. My guess is that there was no real discussion about leaving because their survival did not depend on remaining at the tent, but instead it depended in leaving it. Even at that, we know that each one of them started to shut down. My suspicion is that the weather did not abate. It was savage when they left for the woods, and savage in the woods. I think it reasonable to assume that some of the injuries happened on the way down to the cedar.

In other discussions, there has been the hint that geologists had some indirect involvement with the disaster. Is it not curious that any testimony by geologists is wholly absent from the case? Also, if the weather was as bad as I suppose it was, who is going to be flying a light fixed wing airplane in that?

[amashilu]

It is questionable that the hikers walked downhill. Helicopter's pilot Potyazhenko was sure that the hikers ran -- he had seen the footprints and noted that the gaps between neighboring footprints were huge.

On the other hand, Tempalov records that there were only 8 tracks and they were walking-pace (not running). He insists that he studied them carefully and put this into his official, signed interview.

If there were only 8, then where was the 9th person?

Also, awhile back, Teddy hired a professional "footprint investigator" person (forgot his title) at her own considerable personal expense, whose conclusion was that the tracks are of people who were not barefoot or in socks. As I recall, he said they were wearing shoes or boots. I've been trying to find this report, but failed so far.

[GlennM]

Zolo was found to wear a type of valenki with a leather sole and heel, hence the boot print. Too, we must allow that counting a collection of raised traces in the snow after so long a time, was neither the rescuer's first priority nor precise. If there is an argument for a missing hiker, then we understand where all nine were found. Nobody has ever claimed that any one set of prints was indicative of someone carrying the weight if another. No dragging, no three legged trails.

[Hunter]

Finally got online.
Judging by the criminal investigation file, there were 8-9 footprints. Some claimed there were 8, others 9. The claim that Tempalov examined the footprints is false. The criminal investigation file doesn't contain any relevant photo tables. Zolotarev's shoes—quilted felt boots—could have had soles, or they could have had no soles, so the heel mark could "presumably belong" to Zolotarev's felt boots.

[amashilu]

The claim that Tempalov examined the footprints is false.

Can you explain why you say that?

Case Files sheet 312. Tempalov Vasily Ivanovich:

"Below the tent 50-60 m from us on the slope, I found 8 sets of footprints of people that were carefully examined, but they were deformed due to winds and temperature fluctuations. I did not find a ninth track, it was simply not there. I photographed the tracks. They walked down from the tent. Tracks showed me that people were walking a normal step down the mountain. Traces were visible only on the 50 m section, there were not visible any further since going down the mountain the snow became deeper. At the bottom of the mountain flows a river up to 70 cm deep in a ravine where the depth of the snow in places reaches 2 to 6 m thick."

[Hunter]

Easy. The criminal case doesn't contain photo charts of the footprints, complete with measuring rulers and markings indicating that these footprints belong to person #1, these footprints belong to person #2, and so on. If you find the books "The Investigator's Handbook" from 1949 or "Initial Investigative Actions" from 1957, all of this is described there.

[GlennM]

Further, Templov may not have accurately described the trail. There is a claim that two people were separated from the other seven and joined the group perhaps 50 yards away, whereupon all moved at a walking pace to the forest where a windbreak and wood for a fire existed.

[amashilu]

Whether or not there were "accurate markings" or measurings, or whether or not he "accurately described the trail" have no relevance to the fact that he did in fact examine the footprints.

[GlennM]

Agreed that he examined and made note of the prints is is fact. That he also interpreted his observations is also a fact.  Rightly or wrongly, he advanced an opinion. That changes everything.

[Ziljoe]

I think we maybe need to look at this from a perspective of the search and rescue effort that leads to criminal case file.

Uncomfortable as this may seem , I do not think the people that were searching were as heavily or emotionally invested in the hikers. As many people in the search had no connection with them as those that did.

We must understand the context of a criminal case , and why it was used. Firstly there's the search and rescue , it is quickly realised that they are dead. About day 4 of the physical search. Through the automatic process , it goes to the next process , that is an investigation with the title of criminal case. That triggers a text book of does and don'ts, processes and procedures . It would seem they weren't done by book, corners were cut and we have sloppy paperwork.


The reason it was sloppy , I would guess, is because everyone just put it down to death from the cold. When the footprints were being examined, it can only be in the first two days . The weather is interrupting, it's an open wind swept site and much of the statements would be written from memory.

He's got to say , I examined because he couldn't say I had a quick look and I think there were 4,5,6,8, footprints. He's stuck in a formal procedure where he's got to look like he followed the book, but the truth is ,no one did. The tracks could be covered or walking on top of each other.

It still fits the overall picture, move from the tent , down the slope , build fire and den.

I have just recently read that volunteers consisted of people just wanting to look and be part of a search , some days away from their normal life and then not being able to cope with the conditions. The search wasn't flooded with KGB , soldiers or anybody trying to hide anything, just voluntary people. No one took much detail of anything.

[amashilu]

Getting back to the main thread.

Let's think about the hikers slashing the tent in some kind of rushed urgency, then appearing to line up and walk slowly down the slope. What sense does this make? (sketch from dyatlovpass.com added for visual of the situation)

The only scenario in which I could see this is a crazy fantasy, for example, if a man with a gun ordered them all out of the tent and wouldn't allow them to put their shoes or jackets on, then forced them to line up and march, then he or an accomplice slashed the tent so it would become useless as shelter going forward. I realize, of course, that this is not even a proposed theory, but what other scenario can fit together these two events?