The ravine deaths - a theory

[WAB]

@WAB - more from the case files - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312
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.

I have not understood, whence there was this phrase? There can not be depth of snow as 6 metres ( 20 ft) anywhere. There is the highest coast of valley as height from 6 to 8 metres (20…27  ft)  , but the opposite coast has height only 3 metres ( 10 ft). Therefore such depth of snow is nonsense on this place. Snow depth in 2 metres ( 6,5 ft) there can be met in several places. For example, as I show in picture which I resulted.

[Nigel Evans]

@WAB - more from the case files - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312
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.

I have not understood, whence there was this phrase? There can not be depth of snow as 6 metres ( 20 ft) anywhere. There is the highest coast of valley as height from 6 to 8 metres (20…27  ft)  , but the opposite coast has height only 3 metres ( 10 ft). Therefore such depth of snow is nonsense on this place. Snow depth in 2 metres ( 6,5 ft) there can be met in several places. For example, as I show in picture which I resulted.

Read the pages in Russian at the bottom of these links.

Tempalov's testimony - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312
Atmanaki's testimony -https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-209-220

[Nigel Evans]

@WAB - more from the case files - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312
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.

I have not understood, whence there was this phrase? There can not be depth of snow as 6 metres ( 20 ft) anywhere. There is the highest coast of valley as height from 6 to 8 metres (20…27  ft)  , but the opposite coast has height only 3 metres ( 10 ft). Therefore such depth of snow is nonsense on this place. Snow depth in 2 metres ( 6,5 ft) there can be met in several places. For example, as I show in picture which I resulted.

This photo taken in May shows a depth of 4-4.5 metres?
So Tempalov and Atmanaki's testimony is just stating is that this level of snow was also there in March?

[WAB]

@WAB - more from the case files - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312
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.

I have not understood, whence there was this phrase? There can not be depth of snow as 6 metres ( 20 ft) anywhere. There is the highest coast of valley as height from 6 to 8 metres (20…27  ft)  , but the opposite coast has height only 3 metres ( 10 ft). Therefore such depth of snow is nonsense on this place. Snow depth in 2 metres ( 6,5 ft) there can be met in several places. For example, as I show in picture which I resulted.

Read the pages in Russian at the bottom of these links.

Tempalov's testimony - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312
Atmanaki's testimony -https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-209-220

I can`t find that, on what you refer. Please result concrete phrases from these files. It is possible write in English.

[WAB]

@WAB - more from the case files - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312
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.

I have not understood, whence there was this phrase? There can not be depth of snow as 6 metres ( 20 ft) anywhere. There is the highest coast of valley as height from 6 to 8 metres (20…27  ft)  , but the opposite coast has height only 3 metres ( 10 ft). Therefore such depth of snow is nonsense on this place. Snow depth in 2 metres ( 6,5 ft) there can be met in several places. For example, as I show in picture which I resulted.

This photo taken in May shows a depth of 4-4.5 metres?

It photo is take pictures on May, 04th 1959, but the snow height does not correspond 4 … 4,5 metrs.
The top edge of snow is there where I have shown red line. All that is behind over it, it is grows out of perspective projection which is characteristic for photo take pictures from below.
 


Above there is one more edge of snow (blue line). It is that "well" which have dug out above on slope. On it was possible judge how much abrupt stream valley in this place.

So Tempalov and Atmanaki's testimony is just stating is that this level of snow was also there in March?

No. Anywhere in these texts there are no authentic assertions that the snow height was 4 … 4,5 metrs. There that snow was deep is written only. But anybody from them did not measure this depth. Their is this opinion about snow which proves be true nothing.

[WAB]

WAB has added some interesting information.  Particularly on the ability of the group to build a snow den, which seems much more unlikely.  Also, the accelerated decay and the lack of rodent teeth marks is a good point.

So it is unlikely that they built a snow den, and the missing tissue is more likely to be as a result of the thaw and accelerted decay.  I tend to agree with this.

Yes. Thanks that divide my point of view into this section of the theme.

[WAB]

Many thanks for the replies. I'm very busy today so will have to defer proper replies until tomorrow.

You don't need deep snow to build a snow cave -
But a shovel does seem important! 
One of the few facts wrt the DPI is the existence of the den floor. So unless it is a fabrication to fool everyone, there really was a den and they really were found dead nearby, near enough to support a theory that they died in it.

The main thing in that I wrote is not absence of shovel, and quantity and condition snow which do not allow dig out cave which can be used for rescue.
But even if it could be dug out, it would not rescue them, because even in it there was deficiency of heat which would not allow them survive. They had very weak clothes, and in any (even and even with sources of additional heat) the clothes warmer are necessary very good cave.
They understood it, therefore aspired reach to fire and hoped that it will be big and powerful.

[WAB]

The bed made of branches may have simply been that.  A bed to keep the injured off the cold ground.  Not necessarily a bed inside a den.

That then leads to the question why make a bed in the ravine when there is a fire only 75m away?

Kolevatov hoped that to he those who was at fire will help transport wounded men. When it has come to fire, he has found out that those two are already dead. Then it has taken off from them clothes and has brought it to den. On the way he has dropped parts of those clothes (casually) what that. He has put the brought parts of clothes on den and has started transport wounded men to den as one body in once. But he has not had time finished it because it did not have not enough forces and it has fallen. When he has tried rise, his muscles could not work any more well because of cold. It has occurred when he transported Simeon Zolotaryov.
It gathered gradually (small sites of way) all transported to fire, but could not finish it. For he did have not enough forces into such conditions. He and so has made very big work.

Maybe,  those injured were simply looking for fire wood and fell injuring themselves.  After that it was not possible to move them out of the ravine and back to the fire, so they made a bed in the ravine.  They did not have time to make another fire there because within 30 mins those injured were dead or close to death.  So they didn't have time to make a fire.  When I say they, it may have just been Kolevatov.

1.Wounded men (3 persons) were in such condition that they could not move independently. Therefore they could not “search for fire wood”.
2.Searches of fire wood with this place are unreal, because except very small and died off branches there find anything it is impossible. Other vegetation in this place – it is the wet and frozen birches and firs. They burn very badly even in good fire. The nearest fire wood for fire is on the cedar. Other fire wood is not present within way without skis.

[WAB]

Hi WAB,
Thank you very much for your explanation. This is something that adds a lot to what I was thinking - the den has never been there. So I have a few questions for you if you have the time?

I will try find this time and answer for you. Only I think, it can be not so quickly.

1. Why the searchers found "a den", or being exact - branches and clothes? Does that proves stage up? Or those branches and clothes were simply there for other purpose different than den?

I have written above as it is possible present logically all sequence of these actions of four. There it has been written for what it is intended den. Look the Answer # 73 for the Star man. Have found them because at first Mansi Kurikov has shown branches which left in depth of snow. And then they have started (use snow probes) have found out pieces of rags on drills of these probes. Then they have dug out this part of the area snow and have found den.

2. If we can see in your photo that the biggest snow is 1,5m , how come that in May 1959 the bodies were found under 4m of snow??? Does that mean that someone deriberately put more snow over these bodies to hide them from the searchers?

In my message the Answer № 92 for Nigel Evans I have written that the height of snow as 4 metrs, is emotional error. Besides, we dug out snow in other place from where these have been found four. It is nearby, but not there. If consider that for whom that is necessary that can be hidden only when it is precisely known to whom and what for it is necessary, and as it has such possibility, and as physical, and on duration of time of this action.
I so consider that it simply fantasy because no possibility and motivation for this purpose is not present. The nature is more powerful, than any man, therefore she can easily make all is much easier and faster, than any man or people group.
To fill snow there is no sense, it all the same sometime will thaw completely. By June in these parts all snow already thaws.

[WAB]

So the general consensus is that they made the floor to keep off the wet snow, in the ravine - which is not super deep, but a depressed bit of land through which water flows.
This was maybe to protect them from the wind and to be close to a water source?? Would the water have been frozen at that time?

I think that very thin streamlet (in the thickness there is less one half inch) there always flows, but it was under snow and it was not visible. We too had such streamlet, but we have seen it only when have dug out all to the ground and the deepest part of its channel. Above it covered snow with ice crust on water surface. But den has been found not on channel of stream and on flat part of dry ground. Certainly under it there were 30 cm (1 ft) of snow, but I speak about its arrangement concerning the channel of stream.
Water happens frozen, only when it does not flow. However at that time the winter was colder, therefore the small stream could be chilled completely. At considerable quantity of water the stream will not be chilled in this area. For example, in photos in March 1959 it is visible water in stream in a small amount of places.

They died and the wind drifted snow up against the elevated edge of land and buried them that deep.

Or like Star Man said - they became incapacitated there and made the floor, somewhat sheltered from the wind.

1.There where they have been found bodies 4, the wind any more did not represent the big threat because it was very weak, or it was not in general. But they got to zone more colds, than it was above. The difference of temperatures could be to 10 degrees of Celsius. Below it were threatened most of all not with wind, and it is cold.
2.The Wind of other direction could transfer lot of snow. It is additional height of snow concerning usual snowfalls and condensation of snow from warmer air which came from the West. This is typical phenomenon near to the Ural ridge. These are meteorological features of the given region.

I really don't think the "Den" was a set up....why even bother? It makes no sense, it offers no more of an explanation as to death by "natural causes" if you really think about it. What would this red herring be covering up? I mean, the condition of the bodies is the perplexing bit, not the Den....if it really was a coverup there would have been no bodies. "Oh they fell off a mountain or were buried by an avalanche....we couldn't find the remaining 4 bodies...." is easier than constructing a den, right?

Yes. You are completely right. If that was necessary that hide them would move to the nearest bog and them never would find. For this purpose it is not necessary organised art picture with apportion almost all bodies on good visibility.

[WAB]

So the general consensus is that they made the floor to keep off the wet snow, in the ravine - which is not super deep, but a depressed bit of land through which water flows.
This was maybe to protect them from the wind and to be close to a water source?? Would the water have been frozen at that time?
They died and the wind drifted snow up against the elevated edge of land and buried them that deep.

Or like Star Man said - they became incapacitated there and made the floor, somewhat sheltered from the wind.

I really don't think the "Den" was a set up....why even bother? It makes no sense, it offers no more of an explanation as to death by "natural causes" if you really think about it. What would this red herring be covering up? I mean, the condition of the bodies is the perplexing bit, not the Den....if it really was a coverup there would have been no bodies. "Oh they fell off a mountain or were buried by an avalanche....we couldn't find the remaining 4 bodies...." is easier than constructing a den, right?

Well Iam not sure if all what you state is the consensus of the Forum  !  ?

The true is never defined by voting. If as result of voting it will be recognised that water in the river should flow upstream it all the same will not be.

[WAB]

So if Dubinina, Zolotaryov and Thibo were injured and Kolevatov dig the den as said by WAB, why the den was built so that four seats were made from clothes on the bottom of the den? After all, it had to be clear for Kovaletov  that three injured would not be able to sit there only to be in a lying position. Therefore, this theory (Kovaletov dig the den for injured trio) does not seem to me to be right.

Why they there should be simultaneously?
Why they there should be all at once?
This den has been intended only for time storage of wounded bodies while the others will be transferred to fire. If Kolevatov transfers whom that another there are only 2 persons who there can be located lying for small time. For other purposes this den simply is not necessary. It cannot long be used for it qualities.
He there no dug nothing. He has put branches on snow, and on them has put clothes removed from people at fire. It is all that became with den. Other it only different reasonings of people which badly know both conditions on this place, and features of such actions in extreme conditions.

[WAB]

@WAB - hi there thanks for your detailed reply, much appreciated.
Lets begin with the big issue in your reply the depth of the snow in the ravine.
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-209-220 (Atmanaki) states :-An area of 50 m behind the cedar was probed, the ravine leading there was not examined due to the fact that the probes that were available did not allow us to check the entire depth of the snow, reaching 4-5 m in places.
This of course during the first weekof March 1959.
So your assertion regarding snow depth is contradicting the case files?

Athmanaky itself did not measure depth of snow. It did not have for this purpose any tools. Therefore he could name any figure, for example, 10 metres. But it does not mean that it is the right figure. Athmanaky there was in this place only 1 time as current 8 … 10 days. We were there 5 times in the winter + I was as 2 times in the summer, Shura + 4 times in the summer. And we specially were engaged in researches of this case, in difference from Athmanaky which overall objective was searches of the gone travellers. Special researches and such searches are very badly combined. Often happens that they are simply impossible simultaneously.

Regarding vehicles. - the fact that the investigation from March to May was only supplied by helicopter reinforces your point. However it is my guess that then as now the Russian Army had the capability to deploy tracked vehicles in remote areas if it desired to do so (transported by helicopter?) so whilst it is conjecture that vehicles were there, it is possible.

Let's understand at first with transport technics?
At first I want to ask you a question: who and what for (a question on what it to move while we will leave on the future) wanted to move there such technics? For example, for this purpose, what “ move Dyatlov group only”?    Whether you find, what it is question on which there is no answer?
About helicopters too question is interesting. What helicopters could transport heavy cargoes in 1959? Or, how much heavy cargoes could transport helicopters on height to 1000 m over the sea at that time?
It is separately possible ask question: what weight the transport technics which “could run over Dyatlov group” could have? + As it could move there on snow of such depth and on a relief of such character?
Please result concrete types and marks of such technics.

Other possibilities include Ivanov's fire orbs of course.

How what they saw in the sky could affect actions of Djatlova group? It has gone down on the earth, has then made a bad act, and has then evaporated? It is all concerns a picture which they saw?
The request from UFO to me not address. It will be possible make it only after "neolearnt" will be identified and its physical properties will be known.

In fact imo the two best theories for the DPI are military or fire orbs or a combination - they both solve a lot of the evidence :-

• condition of snow at tent indicates warming.
• orange skin indicates nitric acid.
• ravine group injuries consistent with crushing, no limb injuries make falling low probability.

If it possible I am will answer with just the same theses?
1.On what that military specifies nothing. Though set of false "facts" have already thought up. Therefore it is all cannot be "proof" in any way.
2.Warming (local and for local time) is fake which too by whom that is thought up, but does not prove to be true any data from all surrounding meteorological stations in radius 100 … 300 km. I did not look further.
3.   About “ orange skin” I was already tired many times write refutation. Here the picture too “specifies this in nitric acid” (c)?



It absolutely in other place, but too result of freezing. It is called “as Erythema of cold” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythema ) or “spot of  Kifershtein” that is one of signs of death from overcooling.
4.The Constant mention on “absence of traumas extremities” (c) is result very much superficial knowledge of kinematics and statistics of traumas from falling.
a)At all participants of Dyatlov group is small signs of traumas (insignificant) extremities. It is necessary read medical papers attentively only.
b)In the sports biomechanics (section “the kinematics of movements”) is resulted set of examples when it does not represent the facts.
c)For this purpose what be protected from falling by extremities over have time for reaction and for fulfilment of this action. In the dark and at stressful condition (especially on cold when movements in general are slowed down) for the period of falling, or conditions of already begun movement, do not allow make it. In addition the clothes both disturb movement, and protect from small traumas.
d)At one of the Russian forum Vietnamka has given example video of falling people in city street on slippery road. There practically there was no case when who that would be in time will be protected from falling or be traumatised in extremities thus. There was more than three tens examples.

[WAB]

Unfortunately it is everything that I can write today. I could not answer messages in other sections. I will make it later.

[Nigel Evans]

@WAB - more from the case files - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312
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.

I have not understood, whence there was this phrase? There can not be depth of snow as 6 metres ( 20 ft) anywhere. There is the highest coast of valley as height from 6 to 8 metres (20…27  ft)  , but the opposite coast has height only 3 metres ( 10 ft). Therefore such depth of snow is nonsense on this place. Snow depth in 2 metres ( 6,5 ft) there can be met in several places. For example, as I show in picture which I resulted.

This photo taken in May shows a depth of 4-4.5 metres?

It photo is take pictures on May, 04th 1959, but the snow height does not correspond 4 … 4,5 metrs.
The top edge of snow is there where I have shown red line. All that is behind over it, it is grows out of perspective projection which is characteristic for photo take pictures from below.
 


Above there is one more edge of snow (blue line). It is that "well" which have dug out above on slope. On it was possible judge how much abrupt stream valley in this place.

So Tempalov and Atmanaki's testimony is just stating is that this level of snow was also there in March?

No. Anywhere in these texts there are no authentic assertions that the snow height was 4 … 4,5 metrs. There that snow was deep is written only. But anybody from them did not measure this depth. Their is this opinion about snow which proves be true nothing.

Hi, thanks for your answers, i'm busy tonight so will answer more fully later.
But this one is easy :-"May 4, 1959, 75 meters from the campfire, in the direction of the valley of the fourth tributary of Lozva, i.e. perpendicular to the way of the hikers from the tent, under a layer of snow 4-4.5 meters, the bodies of Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov were found"https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-384-387?rbid=17743
In Russian (i can read the numbers!    ) https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-case-files-386.jpg

[Nigel Evans]

@WAB - more from the case files - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312
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.

I have not understood, whence there was this phrase? There can not be depth of snow as 6 metres ( 20 ft) anywhere. There is the highest coast of valley as height from 6 to 8 metres (20…27  ft)  , but the opposite coast has height only 3 metres ( 10 ft). Therefore such depth of snow is nonsense on this place. Snow depth in 2 metres ( 6,5 ft) there can be met in several places. For example, as I show in picture which I resulted.

Read the pages in Russian at the bottom of these links.

Tempalov's testimony - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312At 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.
Atmanaki's testimony -https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-209-220 An area of 50 m behind the cedar was probed, the ravine leading there was not examined due to the fact that the probes that were available did not allow us to check the entire depth of the snow, reaching 4-5 m in places.

I can`t find that, on what you refer. Please result concrete phrases from these files. It is possible write in English.

[Nigel Evans]

Many thanks for the replies. I'm very busy today so will have to defer proper replies until tomorrow.

You don't need deep snow to build a snow cave -
But a shovel does seem important! 
One of the few facts wrt the DPI is the existence of the den floor. So unless it is a fabrication to fool everyone, there really was a den and they really were found dead nearby, near enough to support a theory that they died in it.

The main thing in that I wrote is not absence of shovel, and quantity and condition snow which do not allow dig out cave which can be used for rescue.
But even if it could be dug out, it would not rescue them, because even in it there was deficiency of heat which would not allow them survive. They had very weak clothes, and in any (even and even with sources of additional heat) the clothes warmer are necessary very good cave.
They understood it, therefore aspired reach to fire and hoped that it will be big and powerful.

You are assuming that they were in the den to escape the cold, perhaps they felt safer there than at the fire. The 2 Yuris were probably already dead. But the den must offer some thermal benefit, retaining body heat.
Also there is the puzzle of how much clothing was available but not worn :-

Later that day, they hit upon a cache of clothing. What is odd about the articles is that they are abandoned in the snow, not attached to a person. Stranger still, some of the clothing looks to have been cut or shredded. There is a crumpled gray Chinese woolen vest turned inside out, knitted trousers, a brown woolen sweater with lilac thread, a right trouser leg and a bandage one yard long. The more Ortyukov and his men dig, the closer they come to the creek bed, which means, by the second day, that the men are digging through a combination of snow and slush. The second day of excavation reveals yet more clothing: black cotton sports trousers with the right leg missing—presumably the other half from the previous day’s trousers—and half of a woman’s sweater, belonging to Dubinina.

Eichar, Donnie. Dead Mountain (p. 207). Chronicle Books LLC. Kindle Edition.

That's a lot of clothing that they're not utilising. It could because it was wet and useless or it could be that they placed this clothing between themselves and the den walls as a thermal barrier.

[Nigel Evans]

@WAB - hi there thanks for your detailed reply, much appreciated.
Lets begin with the big issue in your reply the depth of the snow in the ravine.
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-209-220 (Atmanaki) states :-An area of 50 m behind the cedar was probed, the ravine leading there was not examined due to the fact that the probes that were available did not allow us to check the entire depth of the snow, reaching 4-5 m in places.
This of course during the first weekof March 1959.
So your assertion regarding snow depth is contradicting the case files?

Athmanaky itself did not measure depth of snow. It did not have for this purpose any tools. Therefore he could name any figure, for example, 10 metres. But it does not mean that it is the right figure. Athmanaky there was in this place only 1 time as current 8 … 10 days. We were there 5 times in the winter + I was as 2 times in the summer, Shura + 4 times in the summer. And we specially were engaged in researches of this case, in difference from Athmanaky which overall objective was searches of the gone travellers. Special researches and such searches are very badly combined. Often happens that they are simply impossible simultaneously.Athmanaky states 4m 
Tempalov states 2m to 6m, average = 4m 
Ivanov = 4 to 4.5m after digging.
We don't know if they used a pole to measure the depth? There are a lot of young trees. They built a camp and could have poles, bamboo etc or tied shorter lengths into a longer one. Your argument that Tempalov just had a guess cannot be correct. They left the ravine until May because their 2.5m probes weren't longer enough? So 3m plus at least?

Regarding vehicles. - the fact that the investigation from March to May was only supplied by helicopter reinforces your point. However it is my guess that then as now the Russian Army had the capability to deploy tracked vehicles in remote areas if it desired to do so (transported by helicopter?) so whilst it is conjecture that vehicles were there, it is possible.

Let's understand at first with transport technics?
At first I want to ask you a question: who and what for (a question on what it to move while we will leave on the future) wanted to move there such technics? For example, for this purpose, what “ move Dyatlov group only”?    Whether you find, what it is question on which there is no answer?The translation is proving difficult here, but i think you're asking me "what would be the purpose" of having tracked vehicles on the mountain? Maybe to monitor the fire orbs...
About helicopters too question is interesting. What helicopters could transport heavy cargoes in 1959? Or, how much heavy cargoes could transport helicopters on height to 1000 m over the sea at that time?

The Mil Mi-6 could lift 12 tonnes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-6
"The Mi-6 was by far the world's largest helicopter when it was designed in 1954–56; with a maximum load capacity of 12,000 kg.^[1] It was also the world's fastest helicopter; with a top speed of 300 km/h (190 mph). In its early days, the Mi-6 set many world records, including one for sheer circuit speed at 340 km/h (211 mph). As of 2013, the Mi-6 still holds the FAI record of fastest 5-tonne lift over 1,000 km, in which it flew 284 km/h in 1962.^[3]"It is separately possible ask question: what weight the transport technics which “could run over Dyatlov group” could have? + As it could move there on snow of such depth and on a relief of such character?
Please result concrete types and marks of such technics.It's an interesting question. The snow between the victims and the vehicles has to be deep enough so that there is no bruising or asymmetric forces on the limbs to prevent fractures but allow for the compressive force to break the rib cages and a skull. This requires highly specialised knowledge of say a forensic pathologist which i don't have. But i would guess at a 1m depth of snow with a vehicle of several tonnes moving at reasonable speed. The calculation would have to include the den collapsing and creating a crater that the track would drop into both front and rear so there would be impulse forces as well as simpler compressive force. I have read that at least one pathologist considers Lyudmila's injuries to have been the result of two events. This fits well with the front of a tracked vehicle dropping into the crater and then the rear. Also the narrow width of the injuries is very clear. Two chests crushed but not the head or the pelvis. A tracked vehicle or multiple all wheel drive (6x6?) fits very very well.

Other possibilities include Ivanov's fire orbs of course.

How what they saw in the sky could affect actions of Djatlova group? It has gone down on the earth, has then made a bad act, and has then evaporated? It is all concerns a picture which they saw?
The request from UFO to me not address. It will be possible make it only after "neolearnt" will be identified and its physical properties will be known.The Fitzgerald event in Ireland in 1868 is one of the most powerful events recorded by a credible witness. He states that he watched a fire orb plough a 1m deep trench in peat for 100m. - http://www.kc4cop.bizland.com/first_installment_extreme_ball_lightning.htmThis analysis estimates an object of at least 20 tonnes - https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1107768This link describes similar objects - http://www.ball-lightning.info/Ball-lightning/Roller.htmlI appreciate that some of these links might not translate easily as the last one is an image but i assure you they are interesting and credible accounts.If the DPI fire orbs exhibited similar behaviour then they easily explain the ravine deaths.

In fact imo the two best theories for the DPI are military or fire orbs or a combination - they both solve a lot of the evidence :-

• condition of snow at tent indicates warming.
• orange skin indicates nitric acid.
• ravine group injuries consistent with crushing, no limb injuries make falling low probability.

If it possible I am will answer with just the same theses?
1.On what that military specifies nothing. Though set of false "facts" have already thought up. Therefore it is all cannot be "proof" in any way.Only the confiscated evidence (as stated by Ivanov and Okishev) can prove anything anything else is conjecture and always will be.
2.Warming (local and for local time) is fake which too by whom that is thought up, but does not prove to be true any data from all surrounding meteorological stations in radius 100 … 300 km. I did not look further.In his interview Koptelov states that the rescuers considered warming as an explanation for the condition of the snow and footprints. The "atmospheric electricity" theory for this is entirely local to that area and does not extend to meteorology.

3.   About “ orange skin” I was already tired many times write refutation. Here the picture too “specifies this in nitric acid” (c)?



It absolutely in other place, but too result of freezing. It is called “as Erythema of cold” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythema ) or “spot of  Kifershtein” that is one of signs of death from overcooling.
When i google image  "Erythema of cold” i get pictures of red spots etc. "Erythema" is derived from the Greek for red.....
When i google image "nitric acid burn" i get things like this :-
But without autopsy reports on Chivruay there is little more to be said.

4.The Constant mention on “absence of traumas extremities” (c) is result very much superficial knowledge of kinematics and statistics of traumas from falling.
a)At all participants of Dyatlov group is small signs of traumas (insignificant) extremities. It is necessary read medical papers attentively only.The "crushed in the den theory" is that Igor, Rustem and Zinaida received hand injuries digging down to the four victims before they suffocated.
b)In the sports biomechanics (section “the kinematics of movements”) is resulted set of examples when it does not represent the facts.I don't understand? - section “the kinematics of movements”c)For this purpose what be protected from falling by extremities over have time for reaction and for fulfilment of this action. In the dark and at stressful condition (especially on cold when movements in general are slowed down) for the period of falling, or conditions of already begun movement, do not allow make it. In addition the clothes both disturb movement, and protect from small traumas.
d)At one of the Russian forum Vietnamka has given example video of falling people in city street on slippery road. There practically there was no case when who that would be in time will be protected from falling or be traumatised in extremities thus. There was more than three tens examples.In WW2 the western powers air forces (USAF and RAF) ground down Germany's industry with mass bombing raids with huge losses of planes and crew. Men on burning planes were forced to choose between burning to death or a much quicker death by jumping without a parachute which they could not reach due to the fire. Some of these men would survive a fall of 20,000 feet. They formed a club. It wasn't a very big club.  So yes, falling has curious results.

[Nigel Evans]

More on the Mil Mi-6 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-6

Normally flown by a crew of five or more, the Mi-6 seats 65 armed troops and can alternatively carry 41 stretcher (litter) patients and two attendants, or a wide range of bulky loads, including vehicles, loaded through rear clamshell doors. In exercises, fleets of these aircraft have airlifted many kinds of weapons, including FROG-7 rockets on their PT-76 tracked chassis, as well as large radars and heavy artillery. All Soviet armoured personnel carriers, armoured cars and light mechanised infantry combat vehicles can be carried.^[1]

[Ehtnisba]

Hi WAB,
Thank you very much for your explanation. This is something that adds a lot to what I was thinking - the den has never been there. So I have a few questions for you if you have the time?

I will try find this time and answer for you. Only I think, it can be not so quickly.

1. Why the searchers found "a den", or being exact - branches and clothes? Does that proves stage up? Or those branches and clothes were simply there for other purpose different than den?

I have written above as it is possible present logically all sequence of these actions of four. There it has been written for what it is intended den. Look the Answer # 73 for the Star man. Have found them because at first Mansi Kurikov has shown branches which left in depth of snow. And then they have started (use snow probes) have found out pieces of rags on drills of these probes. Then they have dug out this part of the area snow and have found den.

2. If we can see in your photo that the biggest snow is 1,5m , how come that in May 1959 the bodies were found under 4m of snow??? Does that mean that someone deriberately put more snow over these bodies to hide them from the searchers?

In my message the Answer № 92 for Nigel Evans I have written that the height of snow as 4 metrs, is emotional error. Besides, we dug out snow in other place from where these have been found four. It is nearby, but not there. If consider that for whom that is necessary that can be hidden only when it is precisely known to whom and what for it is necessary, and as it has such possibility, and as physical, and on duration of time of this action.
I so consider that it simply fantasy because no possibility and motivation for this purpose is not present. The nature is more powerful, than any man, therefore she can easily make all is much easier and faster, than any man or people group.
To fill snow there is no sense, it all the same sometime will thaw completely. By June in these parts all snow already thaws.

Thank you for your answers, they really help me to understand a lot of new things. So the "den" is actually just branches and clothes on the ground ,and they were covered by the snowfall later. This is a lot more logical than digging a den with bare hands .
I saw again the photo of snow level in the ravine with your red and blue lines. And now as I see it, you are absolutely right - snow level is a bit over the heads of the people,so yes it can't be more than 2,5m.
So why their snow probes in February didn't find the 4 bodies? I suppose the snow probes were only 2 meters long?
And your theory is about completely natural causes as I can assume?
Honestly I find the autopsy reports quite inconsistent compared to nowadays reports, but maybe this was the way they did it in the time with the knowledge available back then. Also when I see Zina,Dyatlov, Rustem and 2 Yurus in the morgue the look like people who were badly beaten. And their poses are not typical for hypothermia. Only Zina is close to fetal position. It is just my humble opinion of a young person without special knowledge in forensic medicine, only reading books and articles about this topic.

[Clacon]

I agree - it would explain the hand injuries, but what about their faces?? You wouldn't be digging with those?


I think the burn marks on the 2 Yuris' flesh is incredibly significant. No one else had burns. This has to mean something.

[Nigel Evans]

I agree - it would explain the hand injuries, but what about their faces?? You wouldn't be digging with those?If they have to tunnel in to reach them then faces could get scratched, get abrasions.


I think the burn marks on the 2 Yuris' flesh is incredibly significant. No one else had burns. This has to mean something.Yes i'd agree that i'm 50/50 with it being a mundane accident with the fire or something more exotic.

[Marchesk]

So is the rav4 being found under 4-4.5 meters of snow correct, or this yet one more piece of evidence that's questionable?

I agree with WAB on the photo of the alleged Den find in that it was only about 2.5 meters of snow there.  There rest of the snow behind it is on top of the bank.

[Nigel Evans]

So is the rav4 being found under 4-4.5 meters of snow correct, or this yet one more piece of evidence that's questionable?

I agree with WAB on the photo of the alleged Den find in that it was only about 2.5 meters of snow there.  There rest of the snow behind it is on top of the bank.

They removed the top metre in order to probe the remaining 2.5m so the den was under 3.5m. Probing found clothing which made them dig down and find the den. Exploring the area with 2.5m probes they found Lyudmila.

[Nigel Evans]

For Zorah.

[PJ]

Hi

As I write in my Intro, before I came here, I had two big questions: first - why they leave the tent(still not have answer for it, just some ideas) and second big question was how the group of 4 in ravine die, how they got the injuries - and now, after reading, analyzing photos and using own experience I got some idea what happen there..,

Nigel, first I will write something about your theory, read it and I agree only with one thing - THE RAVINE WAS FULL OF SNOW and my theory is mostly based on this fact. I do not agree with you the the bodies were moved in some natural way from the Den, if there will be any snow movement, the Den will be moved too, or at last some parts of it together with the bodies but it looks like intact so they not die in the Den. So no need of any extremely heavy object to passes over the top of the den, and it is very unlikely or even not possible that such a object will show up in this place.

WAB, the fact that few years ago, during winter with lots of snow the ravine wasn't completely covered in snow not mean that in 1959 was the same. Few facts:
- Snow in mountains never have the same deep everywhere, wind move a lot of snow from place to place creating huge snowdrifts/cornices. From photos in 1959 you could clearly see that the mountain slopes are with little snow but there is a lot in the forest close to the slopes. (do we have weather reports from that region from January 1959 to see how much snow fallen and what was the wind direction?)
-This days the forest around ravine is much more dense than in 1959. So it stops much more snow drift from the slopes, the snow is not blown down that far as back in 1959.
-Witness statements say about snow up to 6m deep in ravine, the photos show very deep snow as well.
 I think there is no doubts that the ravine, in 1959, was full of very deep snow

So what happened there:
They spend the night under the Cedar tree at the fire, two Yuris not survive the night(I have at last 3 options why they die, all 3 options could be combined together but will write about it somewhere else). At the morning they known that:
-they have retrieve some gear(shoes etc) from tent to be able to go down to civilization;
-they have to spend another night somewhere around and not in the tent as it is damaged;
So I am sure that they found naturally formed snow cave, created by cornice/snowdrift in the raving, something like on this photo:


Why do I think like that:
- they build only floor for the den, so it have to be surrounded by natural walls, building floor on the snow in open space is a nonsense, it will not give any protection (much better will be stay under the Cedar)
-the Den floor was found under 4-5m of snow so there have to be lots of snow over it
-there was enough snow (I explained that earlier) for snow cave to be created in natural way
-they didn't have anything to dig in the snow, it is not possible to dig by bare hands in snow like that (generally you could dig by hands only in powder)

Now we have the Den under cornice/snowdrift, with floor that give isolation from the snow - good place to stay overnight. At some stage during the day Igor, Zinaida, Rustem departed to the tent with plans to bring necessary equipment, they never got there..
For sure the naturally formed cave where they made the Den wasn't the only snowdrift feature in the ravine, it was all full of snow, so I could imagine that just beloved the Den, towards the exit of the ravine (where the bodies were found) the snowdrift already created a snow-bridge over the ravine. When the snow is moved by wind it sometimes build-up creating empty space under it(snow cave) so it is possible that in this place was already snow-brige as this place was more exposed to wind. They could walk over it before many times but at some stage they could walk over all together, not aware that it is empty inside, and the bridge collapsed.
They fall down from 3m to the stream, they was tired, the fall happened suddenly so very easy of them could hit some stones below, hit each other, fall on each other(breaking ribs). Additionally after breaking the bridges some parts of it could fall on them - piece of wind-compressed snow 50cmX50cmx50cm could weight 50kg, if something of this size fall on someone that already lie down below could easily break ribs and create other injuries.
Facts supporting idea of creating snow-bridge:
-there was lots of snow- photos, witness statements etc
-wind moved big amounts of snow from mountain slopes down to the edge of forest
-they build the Den under the snow, so it have to be done in snow cave created in natural way, they were not able to dig in the snow. If the snow cave was created, the bride over ravine as well.
-personally, I have seen few times huge snow caves and snow bridges over ravines in forests, close to mountains slopes, I have seen something like that as well in early May in Ural during my hike. It is possible that something like that was created there as well.
Facts supporting idea of breaking down snow-bridge:
-they lie down in organized, natural way, after the fall they was in empty space but without possible exit so they just lie down and die there.
-they have injuries that could happens to people when they fall on each other, hit some rocks in the stream, and when big pieces of snow fall on them. I am sure that this four hikers and the rest members of the group got some injuries during the night walk down as well. It is not possible to hike 1.5km just in socks and not fall, making some injuries to face/hands is very possible, as well in the path of the hike down is few 5m high steps so it is possible that they fall/roll down from it and got some, not life threatening injuries.
Two edited pics of the 3D model how I see it:





Option 2: They were in the den when the roof collapse on them due to natural, own weight(what is possible), the amount of snow make all the fatal injuries. They manages to crawl out from it and just find shelter in some other place of ravine where they die. The fact is that Lyudmila was badly injured and she die almost immediately so is very unlikely that they will move her of from the Den.

Missing tongue, eyes and other soft tissues are not suspicious at all, it was eaten by small animals that are active all winter under the snow.

Ok, so this is my point of view on the ravine deaths. Questions or point out some facts that I am missing and that they discredit my idea, please...

[Nigel Evans]

Hi PJ.
The point of a snow cave is to raise the air temperature within it in order to survive the extreme cold. For this to work it has to have a specific construction = relatively small volume and an entrance at the base that can be blocked with snow except for a small gap to allow CO2 to escape with a small hole above to allow fresh air in. I'm sure Semyon was an expert and knew what to do.

They had knives to cut the poles for the den floor. These knives and poles, together with some fabric to drag snow away and make makeshift gloves would enable the dens construction. So i don't embrace the natural cave/ bridge theory. Also the extent of the injuries and the required force does not fit imo.

The bodies were found under 3.5m of snow?
Askenadzi states that the bodies were only an arms length from the den disagreeing with the case files that say 6m. Either way i think it is plausible that the snow and later water pushed them along away from the den's floor.

[PJ]

Hi PJ.
They had knives to cut the poles for the den floor. These knives and poles, together with some fabric to drag snow away and make makeshift gloves would enable the dens construction. So i don't embrace the natural cave/ bridge theory. Also the extent of the injuries and the required force does not fit imo.

The bodies were found under 3.5m of snow?
Askenadzi states that the bodies were only an arms length from the den disagreeing with the case files that say 6m. Either way i think it is plausible that the snow and later water pushed them along away from the den's floor.

How deep was the bodies? Different sources say different things:
"May 4, 1959, 75 meters from the campfire, in the direction of the valley of the fourth tributary of Lozva, i.e. perpendicular to the way of the hikers from the tent, under a layer of snow 4-4.5 meters, the bodies of Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov were found."
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-384-387?lid=1

"All bodies are in the water. They were excavated from the snow from 2.5 meters to 2 meters deep"
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-341-343?rbid=17743

It is big difference, it could come from the fact that first they removed about 1m of snow to be able to use probes as they was too short for 4-4.5 meters. As well, the snow in May was already melting and settled so how deep it was in February nobody knows for sure.

I slept many times in snowcaves that I dig out in snowdrifts... Great place for spending night: warm and quiet. But to dig out cave for 2 people it takes easily 1h of very hard work for two people equipped in steel avalanche shovel. Even if I planned to sleep in snowcave I always carry lightweight tent just in case that I will not find proper snowdrift or I will be too tired to dig out the cave. And few times happens that I give out the comfort of sleeping in snowcave to sleeping in tent because I was tired to dig.
From my own experience, it is not possible to dig out snowcave with knives and sticks, specially for people that spend freezing night without proper clothes. It will be much easier for them just to put few long poles over the ravine and cover it with cedar green branches and some snow, not bad protection too with much less efforts.

[Lanciere84]

interesting theory, so the bodies of the ravine were found further downstream than the water flow? I thought they had been found further upstream

[Nigel Evans]

How deep was the bodies? Different sources say different things:
"May 4, 1959, 75 meters from the campfire, in the direction of the valley of the fourth tributary of Lozva, i.e. perpendicular to the way of the hikers from the tent, under a layer of snow 4-4.5 meters, the bodies of Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov were found."
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-384-387?lid=1


"All bodies are in the water. They were excavated from the snow from 2.5 meters to 2 meters deep"
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-341-343?rbid=17743

It is big difference, it could come from the fact that first they removed about 1m of snow to be able to use probes as they was too short for 4-4.5 meters. As well, the snow in May was already melting and settled so how deep it was in February nobody knows for sure.
There are differing depths quoted but it's my understanding that in May they ordered extra long probes of 2.5m and then cleared the top layer of snow until these hit the bottom. This cleared snow being 1m deep. The photos show the work to clear the top layer.

I slept many times in snowcaves that I dig out in snowdrifts... Great place for spending night: warm and quiet. But to dig out cave for 2 people it takes easily 1h of very hard work for two people equipped in steel avalanche shovel. Even if I planned to sleep in snowcave I always carry lightweight tent just in case that I will not find proper snowdrift or I will be too tired to dig out the cave. And few times happens that I give out the comfort of sleeping in snowcave to sleeping in tent because I was tired to dig.
From my own experience, it is not possible to dig out snowcave with knives and sticks, specially for people that spend freezing night without proper clothes. It will be much easier for them just to put few long poles over the ravine and cover it with cedar green branches and some snow, not bad protection too with much less efforts.
You have more experience than me! But i think you're describing a grander type of cave where you can lie down? I'm thinking a small cube of say 1.5m for 4 people to huddle together. Perhaps they found a natural feature and exploited it. We'll never know. But the den floor exists and the bodies were close by. So unless it is a fabrication they built it. The rescue team stated that the fire should have continued to burn for considerably longer so it is assumed it was extinguished when they moved to the den.