I have a (sorta) new theory.
I think it’s pretty good, because I think it explains the biggest mystery: why would they leave all their gear behind and calmly walk to almost certain death? Leaving your tent half-dressed, without boots, in the cold, at night, in a snowstorm wouldn’t have been just terrifying. It would’ve excruciatingly painful. Even if they did leave, no way they would’ve walked a mile down before realizing this was a terrible idea.
Leaving your tent in the middle of the night in a snowstorm without proper clothes on because you think there might be an avalanche would be like jumping out of a plane without a parachute because the engines stopped... when there is a parachute right there in the plane. When people panic, they sometimes make poor decisions, but it's always because they prioritize avoiding the most immediate, obvious or scary threat over the actually most dangerous threat. If something had scared them, they would probably have huddled in fear inside the tent, not calmly walked away to die.
So I think they didn't leave the tent willingly. And they didn't leave walking. But no one forced them out of it.
I think they were swept out of it. Then they slid down the slope and were unable to make their way back to the tent.
.
A large slab avalanche. The Big Man in the White Suit.
But an avalanche can be any size. Like this.
Now a small slide, say 15 cm thick, is unlikely to bury you. But, if it makes you fall in the wrong spot, or sweeps you off a cliff or into some trees or rocks, it can still kill you.
Look at this video of a pro snowboarder being swept down a chute by sluff.
https://youtu.be/hxdZMD011JI?t=33If it can happen to him, it can happen to some students learning backcountry camping.
And snow slides can run any distance. Look at this one going a mile.
So this is what I think happened. When they dug the hole for their tent, it weakened the snow pack and, with the heavy snowfall and strong winds that night, a snow slide started above their tent. It hit their tent, and the entrance to their homemade tent let in the snow. They shored up the entrance with the stove and stuffed a jacket in there to stop more snow from coming in. But then the upslope side of their tent tore and let more snow in. Their tent was filling up with snow, and they were unable to leave through the entrance, as it was both buried and blocked. So they decided to cut their way out of the tent before they were completely buried and unable to move. Or they thought that a few cuts would let snow out of the tent, before the extra weight either pulled out the skis they were using as stakes or snapped the cables. However, when they had slashed the tent a few times, the entire panel suddenly tore and all the occupants were swept out along with the snow. Then they slid out of control down the hard steep slope, possibly helped along by strong winds. They were then unable to find the tent again. In his diary, the day before Dyatlov wrote: “Walking is especially hard today. Visibility is very low. All we can do is 1.52 km (1 mile) per hour.” And that was in the daytime. At night, they wouldn’t have been able to find the tent unless they basically stumbled over it.
Like this, essentially. Except it was a loose snow avalanche and not a slab avalanche*. Once both panels were torn, the tent would only have a small surface area and would not “catch” the snow sliding down, and would therefore not be swept away. Small, light items would only be carried a short distance.
However, people would’ve started sliding down the slope, and once you’ve started sliding and picked up some speed, it’s essentially impossible to stop your slide without gear.
According to the investigators, the camp site was located 300 meters from the top of the mountain 1079 on a slope of 30°.
https://dyatlovpass.com/redirect.php?lid=1&pid=12881#dyatlovtentslope30° is certainly steep enough for an loose snow avalanche to occur.
See the loose snow covering the tent?
The tent is covered in chunks of snow, consistent with a snow slide.
There are tears on both sides of the tent.
See the area without trees, highlighted in red? That is a slide path, i.e., the path something sliding downhill would take. That is why there are no trees there. Notice how the bodies are scattered along this path. Not a coincidence to me.
Concave terrain also makes slides more likely and worse if they do occur.
Down the slope and over the rocks.
Dyatlov also wrote in his diary the previous day “The speed of the wind is similar to the air draft created by a taking off airplane”. This also makes slides more likely.
Now from that point, a few things might have happened.
They all slid different distances, as some were able to stop their slide. Some slid all the way to the bottom, crashing into the trees there, or they were dragged over rocks. This explains the “car crash” injuries and the other fall injuries (scratches and bruises). Some did not slide very far; they looked for the tent for a little while, but realizing that they would not be able to find the tent again in the dark in a snowstorm, followed the others to the bottom, hoping to shelter there until morning.
2. None of them slid very far, but they were unable to find the tent in the dark, so they went down to shelter there. While making their way down in the dark, some of them fell, were hit by another snow slide, or were swept off their feet by the wind, slid down and slammed into the trees. In the morning, some tried to make their way back to the tent, but froze to death before they could.
3. They all slid to the bottom. Then they split up: some stayed at the bottom to dig a shelter, start a fire and care for the wounded, and some went back up to look for the tent. They were unable to find it and died.
4. During the initial slide or a subsequent one, they were all scattered and were unable to find each other until morning came. This explains why they seemed to have different techniques and spots for their survival attempts (some made a fire, some made a shelter, some tried to go back to the tent).
I think I like number 2 best, because it explains why the footprints start away from the tent and then stop again. It could be a combination of some or all, though.
Other things my theory explains:
The Items scattered near the tear in the tent.
They're all covered in fall injuries. They all had tears in their clothes, bruises and scratches with dirt in them, consistent with being dragged over rocks. No but seriously. They are all covered in scratches and bruises.
https://dyatlovpass.com/deathOne of the girls had an injury described as consistent with being hit with a baton. Crashing into a small tree would essentially do the same.
They're straight down the fall line.
They're at the bottom of a slide path.
The tent is covered in chunks of snow.
The missing boots and torn socks: most of their indoor boots are unaccounted for. There are nine pairs of outdoor boots in the tent, but only a few indoor boots. One guy has only one boot? Either he was wearing boots or he wasn’t. He must’ve lost one somehow. They lost their boots trying to stop their slide (they had no laces, so they would come off pretty easily).
Their hands are also all scratched up, with skin missing, both on the inside and the outside. The scratches on the inside on the inside of the hands is from trying to stop their slide, the ones on the outside is from protecting their heads from impacts.
There are no footprints immediately around the tent.
The footprints nearby sometimes leave and rejoin the main set of footprints: it's because they were looking for the tent, other people or the boots they lost.
The investigators said that there are no signs of an avalanche nearby, but that there are no footprints around the tent because they were erased by a slide. If we take that as true, then we know there was at least a snow slide around the tent.
The mess inside the tent.
The cut branches up high on the tree: someone climbed the tree to look for the tent, but the branches were blocking the view.
The people trying to make their way back to the tent were the best dressed: they got better clothes because they would need them, as they would be out of the shelter and away from the fire. Also several people were already dead by that point.
Few more things:
Why they did they pitch their tent in that spot? They probably got caught by the dark. They moved more slowly than planned and they couldn’t make their planned destination for the night, and figured it was safer to camp than to keep going in the dark. Remember Dyatlov wrote that walking was difficult that day.
We really don’t know what’s up with the footprints. I really don’t think we should be taking that guy’s word that those are the tracks of 8 or 9 people going downhill. I mean, this guy cannot even tell fresh footprints from footprints that are obviously from several weeks ago.
And the nine outdoor boots were in the tent. So it’s very unlikely this track is from one of the members of the party.
Why should we believe that he can tell the difference between the footprints of a person barefoot and a person wearing socks? Even if we accept that there are eight or nine sets of footprints, it could just as easily be four people walking up and then walking back down using the same footprints. Even if you accept that their footprints are pointing downhill, they could have been walking backwards to shield themselves from the wind. We really just don’t know.
Seriously, from this, he call tell how many people walked, how tall they were, what kind of shoes they were wearing? To be fair, though, it does look like we can see toes in the prints, so maybe I’m just slandering him. Also maybe by barefoot, he means no boots, not necessarily barefoot barefoot.
Also, we know that some footprints were erased (there should at least be footprints from them setting up the tent) so there might be actually a lot more footprints. There might have been footprints all around, looking for the tent. Why do we assume that it’s tracks leading directly from the tent to the forest?
However, the guy who said the snow on the tent was blown there by wind has no idea what he’s talking about, for 100% certain definitive fact. Windblown snow looks like this:
Basically, it piles up in the wind shadow. You can see the direction of the wind in it, in a regular pattern. On the tent, you see randomly piled chunks. Maybe he meant there was some windblown snow on top of the snow chunks.
The burned hands and feet is an easy one. The guy was trying to warm by the fire and lost consciousness. Or he didn’t feel the burn because of frostbite.
The torn clothes the woman was wearing: when she found her friend’s body, he was already frozen, so she couldn’t remove his clothes the normal way.
The two coats have to have been irradiated before the trip, otherwise all their clothes would be irradiated. And the two men who had the radioactive clothes both worked in a radiation facility. And I mean, sloppy radiation safety in the Soviet Union in the 1950s? You don't say.
The cut trees at the bottom that weren’t burnt: these were used for the shelter (when they first found the cut trees, they didn’t know about the shelter yet).
The shelter and the buried bodies weren’t necessarily in that spot originally. Snow slowly moves downslope as more snow piles up top, like a slow moving river.
The missing lips, nose and tongue: a small animal would struggle to eat a frozen body, especially through clothes, so it would just nip away at the softest tissues (this is why if you die with a pet inside the house, it will eat your face after a few days.)
Oh, and also, when they say they were in their underwear, they mean stuff like long johns, not like boxers shorts only. They weren’t that “undressed”.
I also feel that people overestimate how experienced these people were. They hadn't even gotten their full qualifications yet. To me, an expert is somebody who has gotten all his qualifications at least 10 years ago.
There is also information that seems to have been simply made up decades after the incident, adding to the “mystery”.
Other theories:
It makes no sense that they would have left because of an avalanche danger. Because how would they have realized that it was dangerous avalanche conditions during in the dark in a snowstorm? If they ran away because they thought an avalanche might happen, it means that they put up their tent in that spot, started cooking dinner, then realized that it was a dangerous spot, and then just dropped everything and left. They would at least have grabbed their coats and boots and carried them even if they weren't going to put them on right then. And where are the missing boots? Why are they covered in scratches and bruises?
Same for the idea that one of them went nuts and cut up out of the tent. Even if one of them had lost his marbles, he would have been overpowered by the others. Even if he hadn’t, the others wouldn’t have left the tent without their gear. Once again, where are the missing boots? Why are they covered in scratches and bruises?
It also makes no sense that the locals forced them out of the tent. First of all, how would they have found the tent in the dark in a snowstorm? Why would they even have been out and about at that time? Even if there had been locals in the area, at night, during a snowstorm, they would have been in their own shelter. And they forced the occupants of the tent to cut out of their tent instead of just ordering them out? You wouldn’t let someone grab a knife in this situation.
And nobody had injuries consistent with a fight or violence. Two people had shattered rib cages, but their skin was unbroken. This means that they were hit with a great force spread over a fairly large area. (Low pressure, but high total force. A gunshot or stab wound is high pressure, low total force.) Unless the natives are stronger than the yeti and they’re swinging entire tree trunks, there's no way they could inflict that sort of injuries. This is, however, consistent with crashing into rocks or trees at high speed.
Think about it. For some reason, the local natives are dicking about at night in the middle of a snowstorm. They somehow find the tent, order the occupants to cut their way out of the tent and scatter some items about, do not steal anything, force march them to the bottom, kill three of them (by somehow inflicting injuries consistent with a high speed collision) and then leave the rest to freeze to death? If they had really killed three, they would’ve killed them all. And why march them to the bottom instead of killing them on the spot? And then why the scratches, bruises and tears in their clothes? Where are the six missing pairs of boots? Halfway to the bottom, they made them take off their boots? And besides, the victims would’ve probably left some kind of note accusing them. Most bizarre murder ever, especially since the locals had never done anything of the sort. They had never assaulted anyone before this, they went straight to murder, then became peaceful again?
Still unexplained thing:
The flashlight on top of the tent. Possibly someone shoved it through the tear in the tent to take a look outside, then dropped it. But then why was it turned off? Maybe they took a look, turned it off and left it there. It’s also possible the rescuers are just wrong about that one, they were kinda sloppy.
Let me know what you think!
*Quick note on the difference between a slab and a loose snow avalanche. A slab avalanche works roughly like this: imagine you pour sand on a slope until it’s on the verge of sliding off. Then you put a glass slab on top of that, then more sand on top of that. Then you smash the glass plate. The cracks spread through the entire plate, there is no more support and the entire thing comes sliding down. These can get HUGE because the cracks can spread any distance, and, if the slab is buried deep enough, a LOT of snow can come sliding down.
A loose snow avalanche works roughly like this: keep pouring sand on a slope until there is too much of it and it starts sliding down. The moving sand makes more sand move, propagating in a “snowball effect”. These are usually smaller, but can still be really dangerous in the wrong spot.
Topic: New (sorta) theory: deadly slide! (Read 27833 times)
