The clues in the snow

[bongyi]

There are several aspects:

One is that when hikers come up from Auspiya to the pass and then to the mountainside, do they come all the way on skis?
When they talk about clues, it's almost always just the clues between the tent and the forest strip! What about the clues they had to leave when the hikers came up? Hm? Why are these never discussed? Why don't anyone miss them?
So it is questionable whether they could come all the way on skis? If there are stone roller lanes there, as they are towards the forest, then it is not certain that they could cross them with the skis. Maybe they had to take off their skis there and walk! If they came all the way on the skis, who can say that 9 or, say, 15 people were walking in the ski trail? Why isn't this ski trail preserved? Why doesn't it stand out like the footprints between the forest and the tent? What rules out that from that direction, following the hikers, strangers could come up to the tent on skis on these tracks? Or from any direction? Because if these traces of hikers had disappeared, then the traces of possible strangers would have disappeared too!

The other may be better explained, but it's also strange! Why don't the snow blocks of the slab-avalanche, which, due to their mass and kinetic energy, break ribs according to some assumptions, leave prominent traces like the footprints of hikers? If they can break ribs, then maybe they can compress the snow enough to leave a prominent trace of it!

[GlennM]

It is one thing to find some small portion of the case files and play what if games. This can be done with everything. John Wilkes Booth killed President Lincoln, Well what if he was not the only one and what if the gun he used was borrowed at the last minute etc.etc. At some point you have to accept things as they are, else you are going to burn out.

[amashilu]

There are several aspects:

One is that when hikers come up from Auspiya to the pass and then to the mountainside, do they come all the way on skis?
When they talk about clues, it's almost always just the clues between the tent and the forest strip! What about the clues they had to leave when the hikers came up? Hm? Why are these never discussed? Why don't anyone miss them?
So it is questionable whether they could come all the way on skis? If there are stone roller lanes there, as they are towards the forest, then it is not certain that they could cross them with the skis. Maybe they had to take off their skis there and walk! If they came all the way on the skis, who can say that 9 or, say, 15 people were walking in the ski trail? Why isn't this ski trail preserved? Why doesn't it stand out like the footprints between the forest and the tent? What rules out that from that direction, following the hikers, strangers could come up to the tent on skis on these tracks? Or from any direction? Because if these traces of hikers had disappeared, then the traces of possible strangers would have disappeared too!

The other may be better explained, but it's also strange! Why don't the snow blocks of the slab-avalanche, which, due to their mass and kinetic energy, break ribs according to some assumptions, leave prominent traces like the footprints of hikers? If they can break ribs, then maybe they can compress the snow enough to leave a prominent trace of it!

I think these are good questions, bongyi

[GlennM]

Hikers did not leave clues. A clue implies it is meant to be followed. The hikers were not followed. Your example points this out. Assasin tracks within the DP9 tracks are non existant tracks. It is all smoke and mirrors. Assasins do not work for free. Follow the money. If there is no money,  there are no assasins.

[bongyi]

Hikers did not leave clues.

I think they should have left clues:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/1_32.jpg

And they were supposed to survive in such a way:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Ski-tracks-02.jpg

As are the footprints!

[Osi]

Comparing all the photographs from the expedition, the last 4 or 5 images exhibit a 50–60% reduction in clarity and resolution—resembling a documentary-style record. No one is posing with their trekking poles raised, and no one is looking at the camera to smile. This suggests to me that the weather had deteriorated, leading to a disheartening debate within the group about whether or not to continue. Someone—perhaps Zina—observed these discussions and the unfolding events from an objective, detached perspective, capturing the group’s various movements after they left the supply cache (*labaz*). This was no casual evening stroll; the poor image quality is due to heavy snowfall and a thick veil of fog. Consequently, whether they were traveling on foot or on skis after leaving the cache, any tracks they made would have vanished completely within 10 minutes—nearly 40 centimeters of fresh snow fell before they reached their intended campsite. The snow erased every trace of human presence in the area; there was no sign of the trails left by the Mansi people and their reindeer in the Auspiya Valley, nor any trace of the Dyatlov group’s own path.

[GlennM]

Osi, I've been thinking about the first and second attempt to cross the ridge. I think that the decision to turn around rather than pitch a tent on the 31st must have been made early enough in the day for them to get back to their previous camp,site and get ready for dinner and the night. For me, an early decision speaks to themsevere conditions on the ridge.

I am factoring in the injuries found on Igor's ankle and him caching his boots to conclude that on Feb 1, the group started late  and moved as fast as the slowest person. If Igor was the slowest person, then I can understand why the team only got as far as they did on the 1st. Even so, I expect that the poor conditions induced them to find a spot they could level and erect their last tent. Too, I understand that the excavated snow would be used to make an upwind wall, perhaps up to three sides. I findmthis significant for two reasons. First, any wall is going to steepen the slide angle windward of the tent. Secondly, the discovery photo of the tent does not show a wall, but instead a lot of bulk snow on and near the tent.From this, I suppose that the same bad conditions that drove them back on the 31st, persisted on the 1st. It was those conditions of wiindblown snow piling up windward of the tent which precipitated the slide which in turn trighered everything else.

[Osi]

Unlike the others, the autopsy reports for Rüstem, Igor, and Zinaida noted small abrasions on their left foreheads, eyelids, and the backs of their hands. This suggests they were moving against a storm that was driving sharp shards of ice downward; they were likely shielding their faces with the backs of their hands while keeping their eyes closed. Considering the orientation of the tent and the nature of the injuries on their left foreheads, it is reasonable to infer that the storm followed a path descending into the valley from the area between the rocky outcrop and the summit of Peak 1079.
As for Igor—assuming he wasn't the first to fall 600 meters below the tent after leaving it (a point no one accepts)—he, along with Zinaida, covered the greatest distance, including the descent toward the forest, the subsequent rescue efforts, and the attempt to return to the tent. There could not have been any physical impairment to his feet that would have hindered his walking. It is possible that, after a long trek, he chose to leave his worn-out boots at the cache in exchange for a drier, more functional pair—perhaps his original boots were causing painful chafing.

[Ziljoe]

The searchers started at several points along the known route . That's from the last known starting point of the hike , Ortoten and further south. They did a huge sweep of the area with Mansi and students . Trails were found in the forest as the forest protects the trails slightly more and camps and other trails can be followed, like the hiker's following the Mansi trail.

All trails that could be seen were reported. Those are forest trails and others are fresher trails.

As you go beyond the forest and on the slopes , the dynamics of the snow change and it's consistency if you like. It will be wind driven, Icey , deep in hollow's, shallow on the wind exposed areas. On occasion their will be fresh falls and then snow blown away then frozen hard.

We can see the searchers standing on snow and it won't even collapse when a trench is dug , no imprints are made . The area over the pass is exposed to high winds and depending on the snow type on the day of the 1st , the snow could have been hard, soft or anything. Trails are unlikely to last on a exposed area, walking or skiing , not impossible but unlikely.

 However the preserved footprints going down the slope tell us something different about the snow consistency as compared to the alleged last two photos of the hikers build the tent in the slope.

[bongyi]

@Osi

I partially agree with your the photographic conclusion. I also have the impression that the problems will begin to unfold on the 31st. The relevant section from the log:

"We gradually leave the Auspiya valley, it’s upwards all the way but goes rather smoothly. Thin birch grove replaces firs. The end of the forest is getting closer. Wind is western, warm, piercing, with speed like the jet from airplanes at takeoff. Firn, open spaces. I can't even think of setting up a labaz. It's nearly 4. Have to start looking for a place to pitch the tent. We go south in the Auspiya valley. Seems this place has the deepest snow. Wind not strong, snow 1.2-2 m (3-4 ft) deep. We’re exhausted, but start setting up for the night."

from: https://dyatlovpass.com/dyatlov-group-diary

First they leave the Auspiya valley and then return there to set up a tent. Presumably this happens because of the strong wind. That passes the time. And everything falls apart. Labaz should be postponed until the next day and they are exhausted (this is the most important information). I don't think it would have occurred to the group to turn back! It's the border of two worlds. One world is the route of the stream, the other world is the barren mountainside. Between the two is a wooded area with deep snow in which they can _not_ move. Presumably that's why Gyatlov will want to continue on the ridge. He wants to avoid the forest and deep snow because it really slows them down and exhausts them. While already on the 31st they realize that they cannot camp in the open field because of the wind - that is why they return to the valley of the stream. This is the conflict, and it was already shown on the 31st. In this regard, there must have been a debate on the 31st about where to camp! And then they went back to the valley.

The pictures show blowing snow, which does not necessarily mean snowfall. The wind blows snow from the trees in the forested areas, hikers write about this phenomenon earlier in the diary, and the wind picks up snow from the ground in the open part. In 2019 weather reconstruction writes remarkably succinctly about “(more than 10 mm of precipitation fell in the mountains in two days)”.

from: https://dyatlovpass.com/pigoltsina

That is, there was only 1 centimeter of precipitation in total! Where do you get this 40 centimeter value of fresh snow? Please link to the source proving this!

But anyway, what you claim is illogical! After all, there are the footprints between the tent and the forest strip! Why didn't they disappear in the alleged blizzard? Why do only ski tracks disappear? No matter how much fresh snow falls, if the wind blows it off the slope, the tracks must be there because of the compressed snow! That's why the tracks rise from the surface of the snow! Because the wind cannot blow the compacted snow, but it can blow the snow around them. That's why the previously sunken mark finally emerges from the surface!

The snow erased every trace of human presence in the area; there was no sign of the trails left by the Mansi people and their reindeer in the Auspiya Valley, nor any trace of the Dyatlov group’s own path.

Wrong!

"On February 25 Boris Slobtsov and his group finally discovered the trail of skis that he assumed to be that of Dyatlov. The next day on February 26th they discovered the tent on the slope of Kholat Syakhl in the Dyatlov Pass."

from: https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search?flp=1#the-tent

[bongyi]

@GlennM

They did not return to any previous camp! You may have misunderstood something!
It's totally comical for you to pretend you have to deduce that the group left late on February 1st.  This is a common knowledge thing and not your conclusion.
What is your conclusion is that Gyatlov would have an injury that would make him the slowest member of the group. It's a fiction on your part that nothing justifies, quite the opposite:

Gyatlov takes the tent, which we don't even fold properly, so it sticks out of the backpack and the wind can hold on to it. Obviously, it's not an injured person who has to move with such difficulty, right?
The hikers go in a line of geese, Gyatlov is in the middle. so he can't fall behind and can't slow down the group.  Keeps the pace of the group moving in the middle.

[Osi]

@Bongyi
Where did you get the idea that there was 40 cm of snowfall?
We are dealing with a case that has remained unsolved for 67 years, despite the evidence, reports, and testimonies at our disposal. I have spent many years living in a region characterized by both open terrain and forests—an area prone to heavy snowfall and avalanches. I can say that I am well-versed in geography, cartography, climate, landforms, and vegetation. Furthermore, I have personal experience with winter tent camping, typically in groups of one or two people. I am very familiar with cedar, pine, fir, and birch trees, and I know exactly what kind of tracks are left when walking through snow. I value the fact that people on this forum share their ideas and theories based on their own areas of expertise; a formal source is not always required for such contributions. I know that Ziljoe is a skilled researcher; he is able to draw connections between events by citing examples of various tragedies from around the world. Similarly, Gleen has put forward ideas that had never been discussed or examined before. Both have applied the principles of logic and philosophy in great detail to the questions and issues at hand. While the information gathered from existing sources provides a roadmap, it ultimately leads one into a labyrinth.
There was at least a meter of snow on the slopes of Kholat. Considering that it did not snow every single day, we can estimate how much snow fell on Kholat during a single snowfall event. Seeing snow of this depth on the slopes should provide an idea of ​​how much snow was deposited by the few significant snowfall events that occurred throughout the winter—amounting to roughly 30–40 cm.
I believe that the sequence of events leading to this tragedy—the factors that made pitching a tent necessary, the subsequent destruction of that tent, and the eventual displacement of the children into the forest—all stemmed from a major snowfall. Had they pitched their tent under the conditions that existed at the time, they would have simply lit their stove the following morning to warm up after a cold night before setting off. Under those conditions, you would not see "raised" footprints; to create a footprint that stands 15 cm above the surrounding surface, one would have to compress 50 cm of fresh, wet snow. Given the actual snowfall, any step taken on the slope would have simply crushed and crumbled the snow, leaving behind depressed, hollowed-out footprints.

[bongyi]

@Osi

Everything must be questioned! Any reference to authority is fundamentally doubtful.
I think you have good insights! I don't usually fail to praise them!
Use your head!

There are several contradictions:
How much snow fell during February 1-2? 1cm or 40cm (only you invented the latter)?
Why are there no clues of up coming if there are down  walk footprints?
Fresh snow or firn? Dyatlov writes about firn on the 31st, even though snowfall is reported in the diary on the 30th (little snow fell on the 30th as well; the sky is clear on the 31st)! Is it possible to go up  the firn with skis?
If the skis leave no trace, then why should we accept the argument that they could not have been strangers at the tent because they have no trace?

Where can you access the logs of other tour groups? In principle, there were 6 groups on the road in the area at the same time, if I remember correctly! It would be very important to read these travel diaries in order to clarify the weather conditions!

[bongyi]

Had they pitched their tent under the conditions that existed at the time, they would have simply lit their stove the following morning to warm up after a cold night before setting off.

Fixing the tent on the mountainside does not allow the stove to be installed. Tent's side braces were missing. The tent can safety only be set up among the trees, where stable fixing can be solved. But apart from that, the issue of firewood is also problematic. Although they talk about the firewood found in the tent, it can be assumed that it actually had a different role (insulation between the pipe of the stove and the canvas of the tent)
So they couldn't have lit the stove in the morning and warmed up.

[Ziljoe]

Every time something is stated as a fact but is not true, it then undermines anything that person says.

[bongyi]

Every time something is stated as a fact but is not true, it then undermines anything that person says.

If you now bring a picture of a tent set up in a snow field with heating, what I wrote is still true.
Not safe.  Especially if we assume hurricane-force winds!  You wouldn't think of setting up the hot stove swinging above your head!

Ad absurdum, there may be conditions where the tent can be safely set up in the snow field by installing a stove. For example, because the skis are not under the tent, but can be used as stakes in deep and hard snow. And there is no 150 km/h wind at the moment.

[Ziljoe]

Camping on a mountain is not safe but we do it.

Fixing a tent on a mountainside still allows a stove to be used.

[bongyi]

Camping on a mountain is not safe but we do it.

Fixing a tent on a mountainside still allows a stove to be used.

"But problems were arising. In the absence of any lateral ridgepoles, it was impossible to anchor the stove,"

from: https://dyatlovpass.com/firewood-in-the-tent?rbid=18461

Missing side bracing marked in red on pictures. The Gyatlovs' tent in the mountain side was not suitable for installing the stove.

Under the assumed weather conditions, even if the tent had been set up in the forest, the fall of the hot stove on the hikers and the ignition of the tent would still pose an extreme danger.  And the tent stability available on the snow field is not enough, as it is strong wind; a large amount of snow; God forbid an avalanche can cover the tent and the hot stove will fall on people.

I think this is a very dangerous construction! In stormy winds, it is forbidden to set it up or install it at all!

[GlennM]

Just what is supposed to be the point here? Is this an argument just for the sake of it.

[bongyi]

Just what is supposed to be the point here? Is this an argument just for the sake of it.

There was a suggestion that the hikers would have lit the stove in the morning after the frosty night and warmed up and dried the wet things before leaving.
It was explained that this idea was not possible for several reasons: the stove could not be put into operation; and there was no firewood.

[Ziljoe]

Camping on a mountain is not safe but we do it.

Fixing a tent on a mountainside still allows a stove to be used.

"But problems were arising. In the absence of any lateral ridgepoles, it was impossible to anchor the stove,"

from: https://dyatlovpass.com/firewood-in-the-tent?rbid=18461

Missing side bracing marked in red on pictures. The Gyatlovs' tent in the mountain side was not suitable for installing the stove.

Under the assumed weather conditions, even if the tent had been set up in the forest, the fall of the hot stove on the hikers and the ignition of the tent would still pose an extreme danger.  And the tent stability available on the snow field is not enough, as it is strong wind; a large amount of snow; God forbid an avalanche can cover the tent and the hot stove will fall on people.

I think this is a very dangerous construction! In stormy winds, it is forbidden to set it up or install it at all!

Bongyi.

The quote is from the book 1079. I have a copy right here in front of me. You keep changing your posts and now you miss the full quote.


Book 1079 , chapter 22 " outsiders in the area of height 1079"

"But problems were arising. In the absence of any lateral ridgepoles, it was impossible to anchor the stove, which broke away during the fall and had remained in the tent since the time of the accident. The piping had suffered as well. So it was decided to set up the tent without the stove, which was slip-covered together with the pipes."

It is not forbidden.

It is refering to the problem of removing the damaged tent and stove from the fallen tree to staging it's erection on the slope of 1079. The stagers can't erect the stove, because the tent and stove are damaged, not because hikers don't install stoves in a tent.

In the book , this is the reason given , it is a good book and a different view and theory .

[GlennM]

On the one hand the stove is part of a conspiracy theory centered around the tent being somewhat other than where it actually was found.

The other suggestion seems to be that while on 1079, a morning fire was made in the stove to dry garments among other things. This is of course a supposition and not fact supported by the stove itself, ash, nor clothes set to dry.

There is nothing to gain by arguing that a stowed away stove couldn't be used because it could not be supported. It is a spurious argument which does not produce any findings significant to the advancement of the case .

[Ziljoe]

On the one hand the stove is part of a conspiracy theory centered around the tent being somewhat other than where it actually was found.

The other suggestion seems to be that while on 1079, a morning fire was made in the stove to dry garments among other things. This is of course a supposition and not fact supported by the stove itself, ash, nor clothes set to dry.

There is nothing to gain by arguing that a stowed away stove couldn't be used because it could not be supported. It is a spurious argument which does not produce any findings significant to the advancement of the case .

I think bongyi has miss understood the quote. The stove can be erected if wanted,  snow prints stay in some places and not in others , 21 days had passed before anyone arrived. We don't know the temperature, wind or snow fall.

All we can conclude from the data assuming the photos of digging the snow out are genuine is at the time of digging the tent platform, the new surface snow was minimal, at about 30mm approx looking at the back packs and hand on the snow bank. Then we have the raised foot prints . I would argue that this is a new snow fall or arrival of snow after the erected the tent.

Interestingly we can note , that not only did the dig a trench in that photo, they also stuck many skis in the snow above that tench that would also cut through the snow layers. Just another little interference with a snow bank.