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?

[Ziljoe]

The logic would be to exit the tent in an emergency by cutting the side . It implies getting out of the tent was urgent. The cuts seem to come from the tent slope extending from the standing ski pole . Igor's jacket was stuck in some way into a hole on the opposite side and compacted into the snow. This hole might be the one seen in the photo of the damaged tent re erected.

I don't think they walk slowly, the conclusion was that they didn't run . The footprints were in a line I think in some bits and then eventually met up .

Walking side by side would have it's advantages for keeping each other balanced and perhaps sight warmth . I've even considered they were searching for something or one of the group that had ran walked off.

[GlennM]

Those who advocate for conspiracy simply do not have all the facts, so they invent them.

There was enough urgency for all to leave the tent by other than the front entrance. This is clear. I surmise the tent collapsed upon them with a weight of snow adding pressure. The threat of suffocation made those lying on their backs at the time  cut up and out.  Once out, there were few choices, the forest, Boot Rock, the labaz, or stay at the tent. The tent itself was ruined.  The forest was chosen simply because it had firewood and a windbreak. Running to the forest is risking a fall. Running separates the group. Running in the dark favors the one holding the flashlight. All must walk instead. I think the decision to do so was quickly made. Any delay just makes them that much colder. Their problem is that the supposed quick there and back plan fell apart when the weather did not improve. People made decisions that their bodies could not carry through.

[amashilu]

No new ideas so far ......

[Ziljoe]

I'm not sure what new idea you are looking for.

The photos of the hikers going up the slope towards the pass and the erecting of the tent show weather conditions that show poor visibility.

The snow on the slope goes through cycles of being blown away from where it lands, freezing and thawing and getting eroded by the blowing wind and ice crystals.

We only have a clue from the photo of the erecting the tent on the slope that shows the snow was hard and mostly firm. The rucksack and the hand that is visible show no signs of sinking into soft snow, however, snow is gathering on the clothes and rucksack.

So it seems there's little chance of foot prints being made during the erecting of the tent. The snow being dug out to level a platform would be most likely be used as a wind block.

The raised foot prints suggest a change in temperature or fresh snow that night. I don't know the science exactly but the snow was possibly 6 inches deep above a hard firm snow layer. This suggests there was new snow on the slope on that night, blown in , falling or drifting .

[GlennM]

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?

No new theory is a good observation
The hybrid theory of a man with a gun, an accomplice with a knife is convenient, but is not supported by factual evidence of a pair of intruders with a gun and a knife. Further, the accomplice with the knife would have to cut the tent from within, yes?

I appreciate the frustration. Like the Ripper and Voynich Manuscript, some mysteries are hard to solve.

The tent was flattened, not blown away. What would hold it down in wind that would result in raised footprints on the slope? Obviously a mass of snow which the rescuers had to clear in order to look into the tent. The snow was moved by the group when they made the foundation for their last camp. Perhaps that snow and more moved over the tent when the slide happened. The slide took the support skis and lines that held up the middle of the tent. There was no possibility of re-rigging the tent with a slashed side and lost support rigging at that time of day, in those conditions.

The footprints do not support a toe to toe confrontation, nor dragging, not carrying excessive weight. It indicates an orderly retreat to the only location which can provide heat and shelter.

[Hunter]

Amashilu, the problem is that Tempalov isn't a forensic expert who can identify the traces. Moreover, if the criminal case went to court, how would he prove that the traces were identified and belonged to eight people?

[SURI]

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?

When you combine the flashlight, the order, and the camera, you can get a plausible scenario of the incident.

● Flashlight/s (on the last photograph and in Yudin's interview)
● Command (in the unknown diary and in Yudin's interview)
● The camera around Zolotaryov's neck used during the incident. (Key evidence)

[amashilu]

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?

No new theory is a good observation
The hybrid theory of a man with a gun, an accomplice with a knife is convenient, but is not supported by factual evidence of a pair of intruders with a gun and a knife. Further, the accomplice with the knife would have to cut the tent from within, yes?

GlennM, I am not proposing this as a theory. I made that clear.

[amashilu]

When you combine the flashlight, the order, and the camera, you can get a plausible scenario of the incident.

● Flashlight/s (on the last photograph and in Yudin's interview)
● Command (in the unknown diary and in Yudin's interview)
● The camera around Zolotaryov's neck used during the incident. (Key evidence)

Suri, can you explain how these 3 points help us to understand the urgency to exit the tent and the calmness of the descent?

[SURI]

When you combine the flashlight, the order, and the camera, you can get a plausible scenario of the incident.

● Flashlight/s (on the last photograph and in Yudin's interview)
● Command (in the unknown diary and in Yudin's interview)
● The camera around Zolotaryov's neck used during the incident. (Key evidence)

Suri, can you explain how these 3 points help us to understand the urgency to exit the tent and the calmness of the descent?

I didn't expect that you wouldn't understand this from my clues.

Let's say the group left the tent on command under the light of flashlights. "Flashlights" dictated what would happen. Everything was supposed to be documented on a camera. And what followed was what you touched upon in your recent post. The group set off on a death march...

[amashilu]

When you combine the flashlight, the order, and the camera, you can get a plausible scenario of the incident.

● Flashlight/s (on the last photograph and in Yudin's interview)
● Command (in the unknown diary and in Yudin's interview)
● The camera around Zolotaryov's neck used during the incident. (Key evidence)

Let's say the group left the tent on command under the light of flashlights. "Flashlights" dictated what would happen. Everything was supposed to be documented on a camera. And what followed was what you touched upon in your recent post. The group set off on a death march...

Let's try to put this together. There was a plan. Zolotaryev was in on the plan. When the hikers were in the tent on the night of Feb. 1, getting ready to eat and sleep, the assassin approached the tent flashing a flashlight; Zolotaryev took pictures of this flashing, in order to record that events were proceeding as planned. The hikers came out of the tent (were they ordered to cut a slit and get out that way instead of using the entrance?), only to be lined up by said assassin and Zolotaryev, and marched down the slope to their death.

[GlennM]

Photographing self incriminating evidence? 

[SURI]

When you combine the flashlight, the order, and the camera, you can get a plausible scenario of the incident.

● Flashlight/s (on the last photograph and in Yudin's interview)
● Command (in the unknown diary and in Yudin's interview)
● The camera around Zolotaryov's neck used during the incident. (Key evidence)

Let's say the group left the tent on command under the light of flashlights. "Flashlights" dictated what would happen. Everything was supposed to be documented on a camera. And what followed was what you touched upon in your recent post. The group set off on a death march...

Let's try to put this together. There was a plan. Zolotaryev was in on the plan. When the hikers were in the tent on the night of Feb. 1, getting ready to eat and sleep, the assassin approached the tent flashing a flashlight; Zolotaryev took pictures of this flashing, in order to record that events were proceeding as planned. The hikers came out of the tent (were they ordered to cut a slit and get out that way instead of using the entrance?), only to be lined up by said assassin and Zolotaryev, and marched down the slope to their death.

Yes, this plan for February 1st involves Zolotaryov and his accomplices. I wouldn’t say everyone climbed out through the slit; apparently only the last ones did so under duress, and the tent might have collapsed as a result. Before that, they cut small holes for observation, so they stayed in the tent for some time. The threat at that moment was outside, "working" on its task.

[amashilu]

Yes, this plan for February 1st involves Zolotaryov and his accomplices. I wouldn’t say everyone climbed out through the slit; apparently only the last ones did so under duress, and the tent might have collapsed as a result. Before that, they cut small holes for observation, so they stayed in the tent for some time. The threat at that moment was outside, "working" on its task.

Okay, so the hikers inside the tent knew there were assassins outside. Possibly Zolotaryev told them and was holding them there by threat or force, while he took pictures of the flashing lights. The hikers cut slits in the tent to keep an eye on what was happening outside, where the assassins were setting up a scene. Then they began to panic and leave by the entrance and possibly by the slit they cut in the tent, but they did not put on their jackets or shoes before they left. Slobodin forgot to take his second boot. By this time, the assassins were finished setting up the scene. They lined up the hikers and marched them down the slope.

[GlennM]

Flesh it out and write the book, otherwise it is a thin podcast at best.

[Hunter]

There are two questions here:
1. Who is his accomplice?
2. The reason for these actions.