2 Chinese lanterns

[Ramsay]

Good observation, Osi. I actually agree with GlennM about the lanterns; they were with Zolotarev and Thibo, who I believe were outside the tent. They took it with them when the evacuation was ordered. I believe the characteristic footprints in the snow (which some even argue are "boot prints" or "running footprints") can be explained by a kind of orderly and cohesive march during the evacuation of the ravine, which, in my opinion, was led by Zolotarev.

[Osi]

Wearing multiple pairs of socks layered over one another was not a preferred practice while on the move, due to the risk of them getting wet and the discomfort of constriction.


Generally, this method was used only while sleeping at night. The ambient light reflected off the snow provided sufficient visibility, so I do not believe flashlights were used for navigation.

 While flashlights are certainly useful for bathroom trips during summer forest camps, they had to be used for a short while that night to arrange sleeping positions and put on socks and *valenki* (felt boots). To create raised footprints or leave sock-patterned impressions in the snow, one must tread upon fresh, moist snow. We know these raised tracks stood 15 to 20 centimeters high. What amount of snow needs to be trampled to produce such high tracks? I estimate a ratio of 1 to 5—meaning a depth of 50 or 60 centimeters of fresh snow in the area where the tracks were found. That snow was completely blown away by the wind later that night and the following day.

[bongyi]

In connection with the re-examination of the case in 2019, official scientific expert opinions were prepared, which try to describe the climatic conditions of the period February 1-2, 1959 for the snow slope of the tent and the surroundings of the cedar; also the estimation of visibility; and the probability of a possible avalanche.

In addition, in 2021, Swiss scientists who had never been to the site, for some reason also developed a theory about slab-avalanche with the help of snow simulation software made for a Disney cartoon (which they downloaded illegally from the Internet).

Based on these, only 10 millimeters of snow fell on the spot during the indicated period, and not 30 centimeters, which you consider necessary for the avalanche. However, unlike you, these expert opinions consider it possible to develop an avalanche even in such conditions. And the visibility was only 16 meters. (which means that by moving 30-50 meters away from the tent, they would have found their way back to it only by following their footprints)

It is important to take into account that there are no meteorological data from the area determined by measurement from the time of the incident, only from distances of 50-100 km. Although experts can draw nice graphs in the documentation, but the data that the graphs show are based on speculation and have a lot of uncertainty.

Regarding the avalanche, other, unofficial, but serious expert opinion are also submitted, from someone who has visited the site several times and examined the structure of the snow on the given slope. He rules out any kind of avalanche in this area!

I have not seen any data showing that documented avalanche cases have occurred on this slope in the last 60 years! What are we talking about?

Your comment about the difference in snow conditions shown by the pictures digging up the tent site and the picture of the found tent is very good! The origin of the pictures digging up the tent site (there are two such pictures) is completely uncertain. They do not appear on any inventoried film negatives! In these pictures, one of the hikers can be recognized by his clothing. But what proves that these pictures were taken on this tour? It is also possible that the pictures were really taken on this tour, and we can really see them digging up the last tent site, but this site is different from the site that shows the tent found - because the tent was moved by someone.

[Ramsay]

Bongyi, a conventional avalanche was impossible to occur that night, And a plate avalanche, although rare, is something that could have happened. Although I don't believe it's plausible that a plate avalanche occurred in the tent, it's impossible that Zolotarev and Dubinina were injured there.

[GlennM]

There has been a debate about where the tent actually was. This is important of course because the slope changes accordingly. Many of us contend that the location of the tent coincides with a depression in the earth which, in winter would fill with snow. This snow could be leveled for the floor is the tent it also changes the angles for snow pile up and a small scale slide outside the tent.

The reality is the tent was cut from inside. There is no satisfactory explanation for such an action unless it involves respiratory distress.  There was nothing in the case files mentioning residue nor odor. The rescue photo makes it clear the tent was under snow.

I am certain an act of Nature forced them out. We need no plots, scandals, nor killers to explain a natural occurrence. Of course those other things sell books.

[bongyi]

Why have these compelling forces of nature not been reproduced in the last 60 years? Or if they do, where is the documentation about them? E.g, avalanches are not like they happen once and then never again! They happen regularly, often according to a schedule!
Belief in a very special natural conjunction, which is only it happened on 1959 February 1-2 and since then it has never happened again, no better than the wildest conspiracy theory!

The phenomenon causing the abandonment of the tent is either unspecified; or the assumed cannot be reproduced; and there is no data on repeated occurrences from the last 60 years.
So this is a completely unlikely thing! But it in no way explains the injuries, because then the bodies could not have been in 1.5 km distance.
It follows from this that the previous extremely improbable event that caused the abandonment of the tent was not the only thing that hikers had to suffer that night, but that at least one more other tragic event had to happen, which caused their very different and difficult-to-explain injuries!

I think it's easy to see that the probability of two such unlikely natural events combining is very close to zero!

[GlennM]

You can use the exact argument and substitute the assassin of your choice for avalanche. The result is identical. For what it's worth, I do not advocate for an avalanche. There are different degrees of mass snow movement, a avlanche being the largest,slab slip the smallest.

No need to import or invent spooks to disturb the DP9. Weather will suffice.

[Ziljoe]

Why have these compelling forces of nature not been reproduced in the last 60 years? Or if they do, where is the documentation about them? E.g, avalanches are not like they happen once and then never again! They happen regularly, often according to a schedule!
Belief in a very special natural conjunction, which is only it happened on 1959 February 1-2 and since then it has never happened again, no better than the wildest conspiracy theory!

The phenomenon causing the abandonment of the tent is either unspecified; or the assumed cannot be reproduced; and there is no data on repeated occurrences from the last 60 years.
So this is a completely unlikely thing! But it in no way explains the injuries, because then the bodies could not have been in 1.5 km distance.
It follows from this that the previous extremely improbable event that caused the abandonment of the tent was not the only thing that hikers had to suffer that night, but that at least one more other tragic event had to happen, which caused their very different and difficult-to-explain injuries!

I think it's easy to see that the probability of two such unlikely natural events combining is very close to zero!

It's not as clear as that. Unlikely is a key word but how likely is it that it was a conspiracy given all the variables that have to come in to play?

Most years , no one is there and not every year can guarantee the same weather pattern. The main difference is that the hikers manipulated the snow layers to dig their tent foundation. That cut is also on a slope leaving a ledge where it might be possible to weaken the snow layer or build up of snow above . There's wind to factor in also.

Things can happen once , a small avalanche can occur and not be seen again. You would probably need to be there all winter , every winter for a hundred years to get a baseline of how the snowlayers build up and freeze, cutting a new trench every night with the hope that the snow and wind are the same as the night of the incident.

It's a plausible theory and not impossible that there was a collapse of snow but not in the size or imagination of what you see on TV. Enough to fill the trench . Igors jacket was stuck in a hole towards the slope , or so it is reported, close to the entrance where the other jacket was found hanging. This alone suggest some sort of breaking of the tent canvas and an attempt to block something, wind or snow?.

Some of us think the injuries are done at the tent and others don't, those of us in favour of some sort of snow slide disagree on this and the type avalanche.

A collapse of snow at the snow den is probably the cause of the major injuries and I think that can overlap and work with a number of other theories.

[bongyi]

For what it's worth, I do not advocate for an avalanche. There are different degrees of mass snow movement, a avlanche being the largest,slab slip the smallest.

Are there documented slab-slip cases from the last 60 years on that slope?  Could anyone reproduce a slab-slip at the supposed location of the tent? If so, which place was considered the location of the tent? Where is the documentation on this?
If not, how does this slab-slip differ from an avalanche for that slope?
There are no documented slab-slip cases and no documented avalanche cases.
No one could reproduce slab-slip in the supposed location of the tent, and no avalanche was reproduced.  Everything is the same, whichever one we are talking about.

[bongyi]

@Ziljoe

There are several tours there every year. No avalanche v. slab-slip has ever happened to anyone. It is disputed on scientific grounds that any kind of snow movement could develop there at all!

Puzrin and Gaume say that slab-avalance should occur 7.5 - 13 hours after digging the tent site. If the Gyatlovs dug the tent between 5 and 6 p.m. Then the avalanche must occur after 1 o'clock at night, when they are already asleep. 
My question: Why is there no entry in the common diary on February 1?  Because they every day wrote in the diary. Were they going to bed without a diary entry on the very day the tragedy happened?  This is another factor that brings the probability of the avalanche theory even closer to zero!

But that's still only one of the main parts of it. As I explained, in order for the injuries to occur, at least another natural disaster must happen to them! 

The probability of natural disasters forcing you to leave the tent and causing injuries occurring in one night is so small that this narrative cannot be taken seriously.

In addition, hikers suffer different injuries. And their corpses are far from each other. Based on which we have to assume that injuries are not suffered jointly due to another natural disaster, but that new accidents happen to everyone in separate groups. Collapse of snow, anything that causes serious injuries (everything from burns to multiple rib fractures) and then freezes. 
The combination of the occurrence of so many tragic misfortunes cannot be imagined! That doesn't happen. Totally unlikely!

You are trying to fit childish theories on mutually exclusive and contradictory facts!  Oh man, for 60 years, everyone has failed!

[Ziljoe]

@bongyi

I don't agree with Purzin and Gaum , at least not on everything. They are applying a model and giving you the science , within the scientific community and others , it is an accepted plausibility. Allegedly the slope above the tent is over 30 degrees in areas.

I think it can be taken seriously, academics and avalanche experts take it seriously and they are far more educated than I about such matters.

I accept that you believe that it wasn't an avalanche, please put your theory forward.

I think you should write a paper on your evidence and get it published then that would show the experts and scientific that it's impossible and childish .

[bongyi]

@Ziljoe

A question has been asked, hasn't it. And there was no answer from you.  It looks like you always do this!
I'll post it again, differently!
So, from the fact that there is no entry in the common diary on February 1st  [and neither do the individuals diaries], can we conclude that there is no entry because they have to leave their tent before they can start writing the diary?
And if that's the case, can Puzrin and Gaume's slab-avalanche, which supposedly arrives after one o'clock at night, hit no more than one empty tent?
You understand the chronological problem, right?

[Ziljoe]

@Ziljoe

A question has been asked, hasn't it. And there was no answer from you.  It looks like you always do this!
I'll post it again, differently!
So, from the fact that there is no entry in the common diary on February 1st  [and neither do the individuals diaries], can we conclude that there is no entry because they have to leave their tent before they can start writing the diary?
And if that's the case, can Puzrin and Gaume's slab-avalanche, which supposedly arrives after one o'clock at night, hit no more than one empty tent?
You understand the chronological problem, right?

@sherlock bongyi Holme's

You got me. Although you keep editing your post's to different arguments.

Unfortunately I don't think it tells anything. I would like to think that they would have updated their diary in the tent but they couldn't do it outside for obvious reasons. It might just have been too cold or they were waiting for later or warmth for the fingers. I'm a bit surprised that there's no comment for the morning as they built their labaz there may have been an opportunity by a morning campfire .

So , it is a possibility that they were driven out early evening, or they just didn't bother to write it in the confined tent, or ......the incident happened at any where from 5pm to 9am , even that's a guess.

You understand that we can't tell the chronology of a snow collapse or when they might write their dairy, right?

[bongyi]

I think if you had to forum in my native language, you would also edit your post!

The Gyatlovs were experienced hikers and strong. It is unlikely that a natural phenomenon killed them! They would have endured all natural phenomena, or they would have avoided the situation in the first place!

For the other tour group, the Blinov group, their tent caught fire and was destroyed on the second day, and they went through the tour without a tent and did not turn back!  You can imagine the fortitude required for such a decision and the knowledge that they will survive any natural phenomenon.  When they arrived in Ivdel at the end of the tour, they were presumably not in very good condition! There they learn of Gyatlov's group's disappearance and immediately report to the search team and head back into the cold! Please take this into account when evaluating the position of hikers against the forces of nature!

The Gyatlovs had the preparation to avoid natural dangers and the ability to survive those that occurred!

They didn't undress in the cold of their own free will!

# edit:
Sorry! I mixed it up! Blinov would not return as a seeker until April.  I mixed it with an Atmanaki group. They join the search engines from that group. The tour is only 9 people and a few days. But the search-rescue is a lot of people and two months! This is a much bigger dose!

[Ziljoe]

Your English is fine , please do not worry about it, original content is more useful than retrospective changing the script . Imagine if that had been done to the case files?

I now see a pattern in your thinking, a couple of points. They didn't lose the tent entirely and they dug snow holes as many of the other hikers did. Plus they had sleeping bags and fires. So I'm not sure how or why you have the comparison , no two groups are the same and many have perished in winters over the Aisa land mass , including Mansi , military and locals.

Hikers are not super heros against forces of nature , if you lose your tent, clothes and equipment, and no ability to build a fire , then the odds become heavily stacked .

You will need more than your comparison unfortunately.

[bongyi]

It is interesting to mention that the Hungarian language is part of the Finno-Ugric language family and thus Hungarian and Mansi are language relatives.
I studied the Mansi words written down in the hikers' diaries, but I didn't find them familiar. However, the word “Холат” from the name of the mountain is a Mansi word, very similar to the Hungarian version: “halott” - it means dead.

[Hunter]

Bongyi, on Russian-language forums, discussed the photo of the tent being pitched. Indirect evidence that the Dyatlov group was spotted there includes felt boots tucked under the flap of one of the backpacks, just like those worn by one of the hikers. Additionally, the man on the far left in the photo has a protrusion near his waist that resembles a knife in a sheath on a free sling, like Krivonischenko's.

[bongyi]

@Hunter

And can't you imagine that this picture is from a previous tour by Krivonischenko?
1955 winter; November 1956; 1957 winter - he has tours from before that can be considered! Also, there may be non-registered tours! Based on the number of backpacks and skis, the picture could have been taken on this tour!

[Hunter]

A couple more Dyatlov group members were identified there. And if we assume that this photo is from a different expedition, how did it end up in the search engine's archive?

[bongyi]

No more people can be validly identified from the pictures!
What is the exact path of these two images? Where do they appear first?  Why can't we know this?

[Ziljoe]

The two photos of them making the snow platform and trench are in the case files .