December 10, 2019, 02:38:15 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: The Swedish-Russian Dyatlov Expedition 2019 - theory of Richard Holmgren  (Read 1555 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

February 21, 2019, 12:26:16 AM
Read 1555 times
Offline

Monika


This article is very interesting to me. The facts are written in a clear and logical manner. I have to say that his explanation of the sequence of events is convincing. Yes, I can imagine this cause of the whole event. There are several inconsistencies, but they are not so serious and can be explained.
For me there are new findings and some doubtful points:

“With the extremely low temperatures at hand, their socks would not immediately turn wet as long as they moved quickly to the forest to seek a temporary shelter”.
“Many would argue that fleeing from the tent and warm equipment in such conditions would mean certain death. In line with their outdoor experiences I'm sure they knew that such winds were unfortunate and rare but hopefully they would not last all night. Their tent, if still in place, would be within grasp as long as they stayed alive elsewhere”.

- yes, it might eventually explain why they went to the forest without shoes and warm clothes.
It has never occurred to me to take into consideration that in a strong wind it is difficult to get dressed and take shoes when wind knocks you to the ground.
What, however, does not quite fit with this theory is that the tent eventually resisted the wind, and the escape from it into the forest was eventually unnecessary. But probably they did not know it, and they feared the tent would collapse. And at the same time, they could plan to return from the forest in a short time when wind will calm down. This theory explains well the flashlight left on the roof of the tent.

“While Doroshenko and Krivonischenko took responsibility for making a fire, the others started to dig out two bivouacs”
-  I do not understand why two bivouacs have to be built and not only big one. More people next to each other would be better warmed up.

“The rest of the team, Slobodin, Dytlov and Kolmogorova never settled in the nearby bivouac for long – that is, in the bivouac that was retrieved empty in May and still prepared with branches of fir. Perhaps the chocking experience of this potential death trap, collapsing over their friends and with insufficient strength to help out, gave them only one last option - that of trying to get back to the tent”.
 - I can imagine such a culmination of the whole sequence of the event.

Since I was convinced all the time that the whole event had caused some physical phenomenon, I really enjoy this latest theory by Richard Holmgren. For us, who we have never spent time in the tent in such drastic conditions, it is difficult to imagine and draw some conclusions.

February 21, 2019, 12:04:43 PM
Reply #1
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I have read the article and found it very interesting. But once again a well constructed story fails to provide a convincing argument.  I have spent a night in a Tent in Wales when ferocious winds have blown trees down and blocked roads. At one point I considered leaving the Tent but decided to weather the storm till the morning. It wasnt particularly cold and I wasnt far from civilisation there being a Farm a few hundred metres away. Nevertheless, I didnt see the need to abandon my SHELTER. The Tent nearly took off at one point during the severe storm. If I was on an exposed Mountain side in the URALS I would definitely not abandon my SHELTER, and certainly not abandon my clothing or equipment and walk a mile away. So on that basis alone, I do not think Richard Holmgren's theory is correct.
DB

February 21, 2019, 11:07:05 PM
Reply #2
Offline

Monika


I have read the article and found it very interesting. But once again a well constructed story fails to provide a convincing argument.  I have spent a night in a Tent in Wales when ferocious winds have blown trees down and blocked roads. At one point I considered leaving the Tent but decided to weather the storm till the morning. It wasnt particularly cold and I wasnt far from civilisation there being a Farm a few hundred metres away. Nevertheless, I didnt see the need to abandon my SHELTER. The Tent nearly took off at one point during the severe storm. If I was on an exposed Mountain side in the URALS I would definitely not abandon my SHELTER, and certainly not abandon my clothing or equipment and walk a mile away. So on that basis alone, I do not think Richard Holmgren's theory is correct.

Hello,

I imagine the situation as follows: A huge wind swooped into the tent, and the Dyatlovs were afraid that the tent would overflow. So they fled out in an effort to stabilize it with snow. But the wind was so strong that they could not stand on their feet properly and did not even be able to get dressed and put on shoes. I know how difficult is to keep on my feet on ground during stronger wind. And they have a huge-wind probably with swirling. So they decided to go to the forest with the wind behind them, thinking that the wind would soften for a short time (maybe their previous experiences). And walk a mile away takes does not take much time for trained peoples (up to 25 min).
I do not believe this theory completely at 100%, but it sounds quite trustworthy and logical.

February 21, 2019, 11:31:21 PM
Reply #3
Offline

gypsy


I have read the article and found it very interesting. But once again a well constructed story fails to provide a convincing argument.  I have spent a night in a Tent in Wales when ferocious winds have blown trees down and blocked roads. At one point I considered leaving the Tent but decided to weather the storm till the morning. It wasnt particularly cold and I wasnt far from civilisation there being a Farm a few hundred metres away. Nevertheless, I didnt see the need to abandon my SHELTER. The Tent nearly took off at one point during the severe storm. If I was on an exposed Mountain side in the URALS I would definitely not abandon my SHELTER, and certainly not abandon my clothing or equipment and walk a mile away. So on that basis alone, I do not think Richard Holmgren's theory is correct.

Hello,

I imagine the situation as follows: A huge wind swooped into the tent, and the Dyatlovs were afraid that the tent would overflow. So they fled out in an effort to stabilize it with snow. But the wind was so strong that they could not stand on their feet properly and did not even be able to get dressed and put on shoes. I know how difficult is to keep on my feet on ground during stronger wind. And they have a huge-wind probably with swirling. So they decided to go to the forest with the wind behind them, thinking that the wind would soften for a short time (maybe their previous experiences). And walk a mile away takes does not take much time for trained peoples (up to 25 min).
I do not believe this theory completely at 100%, but it sounds quite trustworthy and logical.

I am afraid this theory does not add up in many aspects. If there was indeed a strong wind, it sounds more like a reason not the leave the tent that the opposite. Also, I cannot see how even a hurricane is a reason why anybody could not put their clothes and shoes on...if two of the group were able to dress properly, so were the others. Unless something happened suddenly that prevented them from doing so or forced them to do the opposite. Igor's jacket was even unzipped when he was found. It suggests that the wind was not a big issue there.

February 22, 2019, 02:06:26 AM
Reply #4
Offline

hanno


I also think that this theory is very interesting because of four aspects:

1) Richard Holmgren is surely an expert in camping outside in cold temperatures and he did spend a night at Kholat Syakhl.
2) He can present a case that has some similarities with the Dyatlov case. In the presented case, the reason is well-known because there is one survivor.
3) His theory comes along without major assumptions. All the reports and pictures that are available tell us (at least this is my opinion) that on the night the accident happened there was nobody on the mountain except nine people, snow and wind. There is no hint that other people were there and there is no hint that some military activities were going on there. Of course you can always argue that somebody/something was there and all the traces did vanish (by accident or on purpose). But the theory of Richard Holmgren causes a strong wind as the reason and it is obvious that strong winds can happen on such a mountain in winter.
4) Also the current Russia investigation has this theory in focus. They name it a hurricane but I think in the end they mean the same as a katabatic wind. I think the investigators today ruled out 72 of 75 possible theories not to cover up something, but because they know that these theories are very improbable.

What I can't imagine (and the previous posts show that I am not the only one) is, why did they leave the tent. I mean I am not an expert, but I can understand that the tent with all my belongings inside in such a cold night is my most valuable good and my shelter. If I lose it, I am in a big trouble. So when I imagine myself sitting in a tent and it becomes colder and colder, what would I do? Definitely not cut/destroy the tent and run a mile away. I would stay in the tent and try to put on more and more clothes, maybe try to make fire and so on.

But as I said, I am not an expert. Maybe some of the experts in this forum can tell us whether the scenario to leave the tent because of a strong wind is possible.

February 22, 2019, 12:53:34 PM
Reply #5
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I have read the article and found it very interesting. But once again a well constructed story fails to provide a convincing argument.  I have spent a night in a Tent in Wales when ferocious winds have blown trees down and blocked roads. At one point I considered leaving the Tent but decided to weather the storm till the morning. It wasnt particularly cold and I wasnt far from civilisation there being a Farm a few hundred metres away. Nevertheless, I didnt see the need to abandon my SHELTER. The Tent nearly took off at one point during the severe storm. If I was on an exposed Mountain side in the URALS I would definitely not abandon my SHELTER, and certainly not abandon my clothing or equipment and walk a mile away. So on that basis alone, I do not think Richard Holmgren's theory is correct.

Hello,

I imagine the situation as follows: A huge wind swooped into the tent, and the Dyatlovs were afraid that the tent would overflow. So they fled out in an effort to stabilize it with snow. But the wind was so strong that they could not stand on their feet properly and did not even be able to get dressed and put on shoes. I know how difficult is to keep on my feet on ground during stronger wind. And they have a huge-wind probably with swirling. So they decided to go to the forest with the wind behind them, thinking that the wind would soften for a short time (maybe their previous experiences). And walk a mile away takes does not take much time for trained peoples (up to 25 min).
I do not believe this theory completely at 100%, but it sounds quite trustworthy and logical.


So if the WIND was that strong that they could not stand on their feet properly how come they all managed to WALK a mile  !  ?
DB

February 22, 2019, 01:00:27 PM
Reply #6
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I also think that this theory is very interesting because of four aspects:

1) Richard Holmgren is surely an expert in camping outside in cold temperatures and he did spend a night at Kholat Syakhl.
2) He can present a case that has some similarities with the Dyatlov case. In the presented case, the reason is well-known because there is one survivor.
3) His theory comes along without major assumptions. All the reports and pictures that are available tell us (at least this is my opinion) that on the night the accident happened there was nobody on the mountain except nine people, snow and wind. There is no hint that other people were there and there is no hint that some military activities were going on there. Of course you can always argue that somebody/something was there and all the traces did vanish (by accident or on purpose). But the theory of Richard Holmgren causes a strong wind as the reason and it is obvious that strong winds can happen on such a mountain in winter.
4) Also the current Russia investigation has this theory in focus. They name it a hurricane but I think in the end they mean the same as a katabatic wind. I think the investigators today ruled out 72 of 75 possible theories not to cover up something, but because they know that these theories are very improbable.

What I can't imagine (and the previous posts show that I am not the only one) is, why did they leave the tent. I mean I am not an expert, but I can understand that the tent with all my belongings inside in such a cold night is my most valuable good and my shelter. If I lose it, I am in a big trouble. So when I imagine myself sitting in a tent and it becomes colder and colder, what would I do? Definitely not cut/destroy the tent and run a mile away. I would stay in the tent and try to put on more and more clothes, maybe try to make fire and so on.

But as I said, I am not an expert. Maybe some of the experts in this forum can tell us whether the scenario to leave the tent because of a strong wind is possible.

Well I think I have just given a GOOD and SENSIBLE reason for not leaving the Tent because of a strong wind.  For one thing you do not put yourself in greater danger than already exists. With a violent wind blowing you do not want to be out in the open, let alone WALK a mile.
DB

February 22, 2019, 03:22:14 PM
Reply #7
Online

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
It is possible that very strongnwind could damage the tent.  The tent had many repairs made by sewing it so I  suppose it might be possible for the stitching to unravel and the tent to become unsuitable to stay in.  But even if the wind was strong enough to cause significant damage to the tent, they would have still taken their shoes and out door clothing with them.

It appears that they either left the tent and th camp site is a big hurry, or they were somehow forced to leave without their gear, the latter option still being more unlikely.

February 23, 2019, 03:46:43 AM
Reply #8
Offline

Aspen


Interesting article by Richard Holmgren, and remarkable feat camping out at minus 50 C.  First time I heard of that 1978 incident in Sweden, another sad tragedy.  However, Holmgren’s theory that the Dyatlov group fled the tent because of a hurricane wind does not make sense at all.  First, there is no evidence of hurricane winds.  Photos of the tent when it was found show it was still attached to 2 skis, and the skis were still standing straight.
   
A hurricane wind would have torn that tent off the ski and/or snapped the ski, or pushed down the skis.  Also, there was a flashlight found on the tent.  A hurricane wind would have blown that away. 

Holmgren points at 1959 photos showing wind-sculpted snow on the mountain slope near the tent.  But that’s how alpine areas look like most of the time after an ordinary wind.  In fact, I’ve seen slopes that were blown completely dry of snow after really severe winds .  Doesn’t seem to have been the case at the Dyatlov Pass in February 1959, judging from the photos.

I’ve once been in a tent on a mountain slope that had been collapsed by severe wind.  Even thought it was summer, the last thing to do would have been to flee from the tent.  Much better to stay IN the collapsed tent, which is still a shelter of some kind, and stay warm under the blankets, and hold it down by one’s own body weight.  It is only a matter of grabbing the loose ends of the tent from inside, and tucks them under one’s body as much as possible.

That would be even more the case for the Dyatlov group.  If a hurricane wind suddenly came up, perhaps they would have purposedly collapsed the tent to remove as much grip from the wind as possible, but they certainly would have crawled back into the collapsed tent and stayed warm under blankets until the storm abated.  The weight of nine people would be enough to hold the tent down.

The last thing to do would be to leave the tent and flee half-dressed in minus 30 C, into hurricane winds, which would be physically impossible.  So, the evidence is that there was no hurricane wind.  There had to have been something else, something completely unbearable that happened AT the tent that forced them to flee.   

Holmgren’s thought about the snow den collapsing reminds me of another incident that happened to me at a small alpine creek in very deep snow high in the mountains.  With such a creek sometimes there are sections that don’t freeze until late, which creates some cavities under the snow not visible from above.  I once got stuck down such a spot, i.e. down this 2 metres chimney of snow and into the shallow water, and had great difficulties extricating myself.  Perhaps the 4 people found in the creek in May 1959 had been looking for more branches for bedding and fell down into this kind of hidden ‘cave’ at the creek, and were too exhausted and cold by then to get themselves out, or were smothered by the snow collapsing on them from above.

February 23, 2019, 08:32:01 AM
Reply #9
Offline

Monika


The wind could drive them from behind when they went into the woods.
And yes, it is true that the tent has not finally fallen. But in that whirlwind, the darkness and the hum, they could get panic and be afraid that the tent would collapse. That's why they made a tragic evil decision and went to the forest. They would have to be clairvoyants to know that the tent would finally be OK. For me, this has played a role inexperience and revaluation of own strength and determination due to their young age excuseme.

I like the fact that, unlike us, Richard Holmgren has an experience of camping in a hostile environment. Therefore, I do not completely reject his theory. Certainly his theory is more convincing for me than theory of rocket testing / killer army / aliens .

February 23, 2019, 08:49:23 AM
Reply #10
Offline

Kopyrda


Anybody knows, how strong had been the wind when the guys from recent expedition pitched their tent on the slope of Kholat Syakhl?
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-Swedish-Russian-expedition-2019-34.jpg
It would also refer not only to the katabatic wind theory, but also to the infrasounds one.

February 23, 2019, 11:37:52 AM
Reply #11
Offline

ARCDOC



February 23, 2019, 01:38:26 PM
Reply #12
Offline

Kopyrda


Thanks for the answer. So, it was slower than that night in 1959. Meteorologists assumed, that it was at least 10-15 m/s.

February 23, 2019, 05:08:22 PM
Reply #13
Online

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I have just read the whole theory.  It's very interesting.  I like that it provides an explanation for the flashlight being found on 10cm of snow on top of the tent.  This has been a detail I have been thinking about.  There are other possible explanations for this, but I think Richard's is a good one.

The theory kind of reminds me of the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", where cold air is drawn down from the upper Troposphere and freezes everything instantly.  Obviously the movie is just fiction, but I suppose a significant downdraft of cold wind is credible on Kholat Syakhl.

Let's consider the tent.  It was two tents sewn together and had many makeshift repairs, which means it probably wasn't fit for high winds.  Also, if the temperature suddenly dropped to below -50C could this affect the material of the tent?  I am not an expert of fabrics but most materials become embrittled at very low temperatures.  I would not be surprised if the fabric became stiff and therefore the repairs more likely to fail.

If the tent suddently failed due to high winds and low temperatures it would have put the team in a very dangerous position.  I think what Richard is saying is that they didn't leave the safety of they tent.  Instead, the tent was nor longer a safe place so they had to leave to find somewhere safer.  It's a credible scenario.

However, there are things that need to be considered in detail:

If the group had time to walk a mile down the slope, they should have had time to retrieve their footwear from the tent and some better outdoor gear?  Slobodin at least had time to put one of his boots on, so why not the other.  If the events happened suddenly, then their hands would not have been too frozen to put on their boots and collect essential equipment.

Why did Semyon have his camera around his neck?  Was it just a coincidence or was he taking photos just before the events began.  Semyon and Thibo were probably on duty being betters dressed, or maybe they had gone outside to relieve themselves.

The autopsy reports are odd.  There are peculiarities around the cause of death of the group.  Dorishenko's Edema, urine levels inconsistent with freezing to death.  Coats unzipped, gloves in pockets.  The two Yuris had a fire going that burned for an estimated 1.5 hours.  Why did they die?  No toxicology report in case files? Why?  Has just got lost over time?

The chest injuries - consistent with a sudden and fast impact, such as falling 5m to 7m.  Equivalent to about 2 to 2.7 tonnes of force.  Could a collapsing snow den cause these injuries?  Luda had a smashed nose, and a large bruise on femur.  Semyon had a large cut on the right side of his head, exposing the skull, ( the same side as his crushed ribs).  Injuries still seem more likely to be from a fall than collapsed snow den to me.

Why set up two separate areas: 1. The cedar and fire. 2. The ravine and snow den.  Why not build a fire near the snow den?  In my mind one possible reason for doing this is that some of the team had already sustained significant injuries.  Maybe they fell from the tree or fell in the ravine and therefore a shelter had to be built for their survival.

I like the explanation for the injuries of Dorishenko.  The armpit scratches etc.  I too also think that the two Yuris got these either trying to climb up or down the cedar with frozen extremities.  It seems the most likely place to get the minor scratches and abrasions.

All in all I think it's an interesting theory, particularly as a reason for leaving the tent and the camp and it warrants further consideration.

I take my hat off to you for retracing their steps to gain a further insight into the incident.

Regards

Star man


February 24, 2019, 12:59:49 AM
Reply #14
Offline

Aspen


Hi, the author of the article, Richard Holmgren has just created a new thread named "Katabatic Wind", listed under Theories Discussion.
Here is the link to that new thread:  http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=368.0
Perhaps the discussion should be continued in the new thread, since the author is inviting comments and input about his theory.

February 25, 2019, 01:52:14 PM
Reply #15
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The wind could drive them from behind when they went into the woods.
And yes, it is true that the tent has not finally fallen. But in that whirlwind, the darkness and the hum, they could get panic and be afraid that the tent would collapse. That's why they made a tragic evil decision and went to the forest. They would have to be clairvoyants to know that the tent would finally be OK. For me, this has played a role inexperience and revaluation of own strength and determination due to their young age excuseme.

I like the fact that, unlike us, Richard Holmgren has an experience of camping in a hostile environment. Therefore, I do not completely reject his theory. Certainly his theory is more convincing for me than theory of rocket testing / killer army / aliens .

They walked a mile without adequate clothing and equipment to survive. They were experienced outdoors people why would they panic because of strong winds  !  ?  How do you know others in the Dyatlov Forum havnt had experience of hostile conditions  !  ?  I spent a night in a Tent with all hell breaking loose around me in Wales, roads blocked because of trees blown down etc. I thought the Tent was going to take off, but I decided it was safer in the Tent than out side trying to out run a very violent storm that made the news.
DB

February 25, 2019, 03:52:51 PM
Reply #16
Online

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The wind could drive them from behind when they went into the woods.
And yes, it is true that the tent has not finally fallen. But in that whirlwind, the darkness and the hum, they could get panic and be afraid that the tent would collapse. That's why they made a tragic evil decision and went to the forest. They would have to be clairvoyants to know that the tent would finally be OK. For me, this has played a role inexperience and revaluation of own strength and determination due to their young age excuseme.

I like the fact that, unlike us, Richard Holmgren has an experience of camping in a hostile environment. Therefore, I do not completely reject his theory. Certainly his theory is more convincing for me than theory of rocket testing / killer army / aliens .

They walked a mile without adequate clothing and equipment to survive. They were experienced outdoors people why would they panic because of strong winds  !  ?  How do you know others in the Dyatlov Forum havnt had experience of hostile conditions  !  ?  I spent a night in a Tent with all hell breaking loose around me in Wales, roads blocked because of trees blown down etc. I thought the Tent was going to take off, but I decided it was safer in the Tent than out side trying to out run a very violent storm that made the news.

You probably made the right decision to stay in the tent, unless you were camping in your own garden?

Regards

Star man

February 25, 2019, 05:32:09 PM
Reply #17
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The wind could drive them from behind when they went into the woods.
And yes, it is true that the tent has not finally fallen. But in that whirlwind, the darkness and the hum, they could get panic and be afraid that the tent would collapse. That's why they made a tragic evil decision and went to the forest. They would have to be clairvoyants to know that the tent would finally be OK. For me, this has played a role inexperience and revaluation of own strength and determination due to their young age excuseme.

I like the fact that, unlike us, Richard Holmgren has an experience of camping in a hostile environment. Therefore, I do not completely reject his theory. Certainly his theory is more convincing for me than theory of rocket testing / killer army / aliens .

They walked a mile without adequate clothing and equipment to survive. They were experienced outdoors people why would they panic because of strong winds  !  ?  How do you know others in the Dyatlov Forum havnt had experience of hostile conditions  !  ?  I spent a night in a Tent with all hell breaking loose around me in Wales, roads blocked because of trees blown down etc. I thought the Tent was going to take off, but I decided it was safer in the Tent than out side trying to out run a very violent storm that made the news.

You probably made the right decision to stay in the tent, unless you were camping in your own garden?

Regards

Star man


I remember the event well. It was around about 1970. It was near Tintern Abbey in Wales. I was with 3 others and we pitched 2 Tents in a field that was on a gentle slope. The one Tent was a Mountain Tent similar to those being used on Mount Everest expeditions around about that time. So you could say it was over kill regarding the equipment. But the storm that hit us was no joke.
My 3 companions decided to leave in the car we had and drive where they thought they would be safe, while I stayed and literally held the Tent down. They were lucky on the country roads because trees had fell across roads blocking them.  The point Iam trying to make is that although it wasnt remote Russian wilderness, a WIND is a WIND, and I did make the right decision. Had that have been somewhere like where the Dyatlov Group pitched their Tent for the last time there is no way I would have abandoned the Tent just because of a dangerous wind.
DB

February 26, 2019, 08:43:26 AM
Reply #18
Online

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The wind could drive them from behind when they went into the woods.
And yes, it is true that the tent has not finally fallen. But in that whirlwind, the darkness and the hum, they could get panic and be afraid that the tent would collapse. That's why they made a tragic evil decision and went to the forest. They would have to be clairvoyants to know that the tent would finally be OK. For me, this has played a role inexperience and revaluation of own strength and determination due to their young age excuseme.

I like the fact that, unlike us, Richard Holmgren has an experience of camping in a hostile environment. Therefore, I do not completely reject his theory. Certainly his theory is more convincing for me than theory of rocket testing / killer army / aliens .

They walked a mile without adequate clothing and equipment to survive. They were experienced outdoors people why would they panic because of strong winds  !  ?  How do you know others in the Dyatlov Forum havnt had experience of hostile conditions  !  ?  I spent a night in a Tent with all hell breaking loose around me in Wales, roads blocked because of trees blown down etc. I thought the Tent was going to take off, but I decided it was safer in the Tent than out side trying to out run a very violent storm that made the news.

You probably made the right decision to stay in the tent, unless you were camping in your own garden?

Regards

Star man


I remember the event well. It was around about 1970. It was near Tintern Abbey in Wales. I was with 3 others and we pitched 2 Tents in a field that was on a gentle slope. The one Tent was a Mountain Tent similar to those being used on Mount Everest expeditions around about that time. So you could say it was over kill regarding the equipment. But the storm that hit us was no joke.
My 3 companions decided to leave in the car we had and drive where they thought they would be safe, while I stayed and literally held the Tent down. They were lucky on the country roads because trees had fell across roads blocking them.  The point Iam trying to make is that although it wasnt remote Russian wilderness, a WIND is a WIND, and I did make the right decision. Had that have been somewhere like where the Dyatlov Group pitched their Tent for the last time there is no way I would have abandoned the Tent just because of a dangerous wind.

Yeah it would not be wise to abandon the tent as long as it was still intact and providing shelter.

It is difficult to say how good a condition the Dyatlov tent was in though.  If the repairs were good then given the calculations I think it would have held together.  If the rope was still intact when the tent was found and the supports still upright then it is unlikely that the damage to the tent was caused by the wind.

There may be other ways that the tent could have been accidentally damaged though, with the same result of making it unsafe as a shelter.  It is something to think about

February 26, 2019, 11:44:57 AM
Reply #19
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The wind could drive them from behind when they went into the woods.
And yes, it is true that the tent has not finally fallen. But in that whirlwind, the darkness and the hum, they could get panic and be afraid that the tent would collapse. That's why they made a tragic evil decision and went to the forest. They would have to be clairvoyants to know that the tent would finally be OK. For me, this has played a role inexperience and revaluation of own strength and determination due to their young age excuseme.

I like the fact that, unlike us, Richard Holmgren has an experience of camping in a hostile environment. Therefore, I do not completely reject his theory. Certainly his theory is more convincing for me than theory of rocket testing / killer army / aliens .

They walked a mile without adequate clothing and equipment to survive. They were experienced outdoors people why would they panic because of strong winds  !  ?  How do you know others in the Dyatlov Forum havnt had experience of hostile conditions  !  ?  I spent a night in a Tent with all hell breaking loose around me in Wales, roads blocked because of trees blown down etc. I thought the Tent was going to take off, but I decided it was safer in the Tent than out side trying to out run a very violent storm that made the news.

You probably made the right decision to stay in the tent, unless you were camping in your own garden?

Regards

Star man


I remember the event well. It was around about 1970. It was near Tintern Abbey in Wales. I was with 3 others and we pitched 2 Tents in a field that was on a gentle slope. The one Tent was a Mountain Tent similar to those being used on Mount Everest expeditions around about that time. So you could say it was over kill regarding the equipment. But the storm that hit us was no joke.
My 3 companions decided to leave in the car we had and drive where they thought they would be safe, while I stayed and literally held the Tent down. They were lucky on the country roads because trees had fell across roads blocking them.  The point Iam trying to make is that although it wasnt remote Russian wilderness, a WIND is a WIND, and I did make the right decision. Had that have been somewhere like where the Dyatlov Group pitched their Tent for the last time there is no way I would have abandoned the Tent just because of a dangerous wind.

Yeah it would not be wise to abandon the tent as long as it was still intact and providing shelter.

It is difficult to say how good a condition the Dyatlov tent was in though.  If the repairs were good then given the calculations I think it would have held together.  If the rope was still intact when the tent was found and the supports still upright then it is unlikely that the damage to the tent was caused by the wind.

There may be other ways that the tent could have been accidentally damaged though, with the same result of making it unsafe as a shelter.  It is something to think about


I suppose what becomes obvious to us all as we investigate this great mystery is how the different events are LINKED together to ultimately lead to the overall event of the demise of the entire Dyatlov group. For instance as we discuss the Tent event and try to eliminate the various possibilities we then have to LINK that event with the event of them leaving the Tent not properly protected and walking a mile or so in serious weather conditions. And so on through the various events. So yes it may well be that the Tent was unsafe, but are the cuts or rips in the Tent proof of damage by WIND  ! ? Or are they the result of someone or something else  !  ?
DB

February 26, 2019, 03:03:48 PM
Reply #20
Online

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The wind could drive them from behind when they went into the woods.
And yes, it is true that the tent has not finally fallen. But in that whirlwind, the darkness and the hum, they could get panic and be afraid that the tent would collapse. That's why they made a tragic evil decision and went to the forest. They would have to be clairvoyants to know that the tent would finally be OK. For me, this has played a role inexperience and revaluation of own strength and determination due to their young age excuseme.

I like the fact that, unlike us, Richard Holmgren has an experience of camping in a hostile environment. Therefore, I do not completely reject his theory. Certainly his theory is more convincing for me than theory of rocket testing / killer army / aliens .

They walked a mile without adequate clothing and equipment to survive. They were experienced outdoors people why would they panic because of strong winds  !  ?  How do you know others in the Dyatlov Forum havnt had experience of hostile conditions  !  ?  I spent a night in a Tent with all hell breaking loose around me in Wales, roads blocked because of trees blown down etc. I thought the Tent was going to take off, but I decided it was safer in the Tent than out side trying to out run a very violent storm that made the news.

You probably made the right decision to stay in the tent, unless you were camping in your own garden?

Regards

Star man


I remember the event well. It was around about 1970. It was near Tintern Abbey in Wales. I was with 3 others and we pitched 2 Tents in a field that was on a gentle slope. The one Tent was a Mountain Tent similar to those being used on Mount Everest expeditions around about that time. So you could say it was over kill regarding the equipment. But the storm that hit us was no joke.
My 3 companions decided to leave in the car we had and drive where they thought they would be safe, while I stayed and literally held the Tent down. They were lucky on the country roads because trees had fell across roads blocking them.  The point Iam trying to make is that although it wasnt remote Russian wilderness, a WIND is a WIND, and I did make the right decision. Had that have been somewhere like where the Dyatlov Group pitched their Tent for the last time there is no way I would have abandoned the Tent just because of a dangerous wind.

Yeah it would not be wise to abandon the tent as long as it was still intact and providing shelter.

It is difficult to say how good a condition the Dyatlov tent was in though.  If the repairs were good then given the calculations I think it would have held together.  If the rope was still intact when the tent was found and the supports still upright then it is unlikely that the damage to the tent was caused by the wind.

There may be other ways that the tent could have been accidentally damaged though, with the same result of making it unsafe as a shelter.  It is something to think about


I suppose what becomes obvious to us all as we investigate this great mystery is how the different events are LINKED together to ultimately lead to the overall event of the demise of the entire Dyatlov group. For instance as we discuss the Tent event and try to eliminate the various possibilities we then have to LINK that event with the event of them leaving the Tent not properly protected and walking a mile or so in serious weather conditions. And so on through the various events. So yes it may well be that the Tent was unsafe, but are the cuts or rips in the Tent proof of damage by WIND  ! ? Or are they the result of someone or something else  !  ?

After considering the forces on the tent and the location of the tent, it seems unlikely that the damage was caused by wind.  We would need to find some more substantial evidence of this I think.  It was a good theory and worth considering though.  Camps in Antarctica have been destroyed by katanatic winds.  But without more significant evidence I don't think we take it any further.

So maybe the tent was damaged some other way by someone or some thing.  I want to consider these in more detail too atoms point.

March 20, 2019, 12:49:06 PM
Reply #21

Clacon

Guest
"Holmgren’s thought about the snow den collapsing reminds me of another incident that happened to me at a small alpine creek in very deep snow high in the mountains.  With such a creek sometimes there are sections that don’t freeze until late, which creates some cavities under the snow not visible from above.  I once got stuck down such a spot, i.e. down this 2 metres chimney of snow and into the shallow water, and had great difficulties extricating myself.  Perhaps the 4 people found in the creek in May 1959 had been looking for more branches for bedding and fell down into this kind of hidden ‘cave’ at the creek, and were too exhausted and cold by then to get themselves out, or were smothered by the snow collapsing on them from above."

OMG, Aspen - this exactly answers my question.....I've always been perplexed as to why they were found IN the ravine....makes more sense than falling off a ledge or being blasted out of a den. This is pretty solid explanation of why they were in the creek and not around it. Mind blown.

Do you think snow would have fallen or been blown into the holes left by the falling bodies? Is that maybe why no holes were found by the searchers?

March 20, 2019, 04:32:23 PM
Reply #22
Online

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
"Holmgren’s thought about the snow den collapsing reminds me of another incident that happened to me at a small alpine creek in very deep snow high in the mountains.  With such a creek sometimes there are sections that don’t freeze until late, which creates some cavities under the snow not visible from above.  I once got stuck down such a spot, i.e. down this 2 metres chimney of snow and into the shallow water, and had great difficulties extricating myself.  Perhaps the 4 people found in the creek in May 1959 had been looking for more branches for bedding and fell down into this kind of hidden ‘cave’ at the creek, and were too exhausted and cold by then to get themselves out, or were smothered by the snow collapsing on them from above."

OMG, Aspen - this exactly answers my question.....I've always been perplexed as to why they were found IN the ravine....makes more sense than falling off a ledge or being blasted out of a den. This is pretty solid explanation of why they were in the creek and not around it. Mind blown.

Do you think snow would have fallen or been blown into the holes left by the falling bodies? Is that maybe why no holes were found by the searchers?

Falling into the ravine via some kind of snow overhang or cave could explain the injuries.  Would need to fall at least 4 to 5 metres I think.

Regards

Star man

March 22, 2019, 01:41:34 PM
Reply #23
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
"Holmgren’s thought about the snow den collapsing reminds me of another incident that happened to me at a small alpine creek in very deep snow high in the mountains.  With such a creek sometimes there are sections that don’t freeze until late, which creates some cavities under the snow not visible from above.  I once got stuck down such a spot, i.e. down this 2 metres chimney of snow and into the shallow water, and had great difficulties extricating myself.  Perhaps the 4 people found in the creek in May 1959 had been looking for more branches for bedding and fell down into this kind of hidden ‘cave’ at the creek, and were too exhausted and cold by then to get themselves out, or were smothered by the snow collapsing on them from above."

OMG, Aspen - this exactly answers my question.....I've always been perplexed as to why they were found IN the ravine....makes more sense than falling off a ledge or being blasted out of a den. This is pretty solid explanation of why they were in the creek and not around it. Mind blown.

Do you think snow would have fallen or been blown into the holes left by the falling bodies? Is that maybe why no holes were found by the searchers?

Maybe the term RAVINE gives the wrong impression. It wasnt much of a feature and any fall there or collapse of Snow there would not be likely to cause the serious injuries that were found on some of the bodies.
DB