Lev was correct, The tent is the answer.

[Tim]

For 40,000 years man has used animal skins to canvas and modern light weight materials to shelter under. In all the world Wars combined there has never been a tent found where it has been cut from the inside. It is a mechanism built into the human DNA not to do what The Dyatlov group had to do unless an of emergency. So what was so urgent? They cannot see through the canvas, they cannot see more than 10 feet in this snow blizzard when looking out the entrance, besides it is critical they keep that entrance buttoned up in this swirling wind to prevent a gust from blowing the tent apart. All other theories slowly fade away when logic over an emotional attachment to a theory are released.  The report from the scene was "A light dusting of snow on the tent". The photo shows chunks of  measurable snow on the tent not a LIGHT dusting.  In all fairness, the group has not even been found yet and everybody's  the adrenaline is pumping.  Lev was looking for more concrete evidence within the tent not the simplest of logic. So when do use ever use a knife inside of a tent? When something is on top of you, such as the barrier wall that  they had to build or suffer a tent malfunction in the raging winds. A honest misinterpretation of the evidence at the tent was made. The snow piled against the front entrance was part of that barrier wall because this was the most vunerable of spots on any tent. The evidence of that barrier was ice blasted off the tent from those gale force  swirling winds but there are some chunks that did survive.

[sarapuk]

For 40,000 years man has used animal skins to canvas and modern light weight materials to shelter under. In all the world Wars combined there has never been a tent found where it has been cut from the inside. It is a mechanism built into the human DNA not to do what The Dyatlov group had to do unless an of emergency. So what was so urgent? They cannot see through the canvas, they cannot see more than 10 feet in this snow blizzard when looking out the entrance, besides it is critical they keep that entrance buttoned up in this swirling wind to prevent a gust from blowing the tent apart. All other theories slowly fade away when logic over an emotional attachment to a theory are released.  The report from the scene was "A light dusting of snow on the tent". The photo shows chunks of  measurable snow on the tent not a LIGHT dusting.  In all fairness, the group has not even been found yet and everybody's  the adrenaline is pumping.  Lev was looking for more concrete evidence within the tent not the simplest of logic. So when do use ever use a knife inside of a tent? When something is on top of you, such as the barrier wall that  they had to build or suffer a tent malfunction in the raging winds. A honest misinterpretation of the evidence at the tent was made. The snow piled against the front entrance was part of that barrier wall because this was the most vunerable of spots on any tent. The evidence of that barrier was ice blasted off the tent from those gale force  swirling winds but there are some chunks that did survive.

So do you really believe that all of the Dyatlov Group decided that it was best to cut their way out of their Tent in order to leave it and depart for a mile or so totally ill - equipped to survive in those weather conditions  !  ?

[Tim]

Hi, yes I do and I lay it out in the section above How Zina may have received her injury. I'll add to it by saying not a soul in the world knew where they were and they were not sure either. I lived in the snow for 17 years and we even as kids knew the difference between wet snow for snowballs and dry snow for no snowballs. The wet snow is sticking to their faces. The chunks of snow on the tent are measurable.  Thanks for reading.

[sarapuk]

Hi, yes I do and I lay it out in the section above How Zina may have received her injury. I'll add to it by saying not a soul in the world knew where they were and they were not sure either. I lived in the snow for 17 years and we even as kids knew the difference between wet snow for snowballs and dry snow for no snowballs. The wet snow is sticking to their faces. The chunks of snow on the tent are measurable.  Thanks for reading.

Well thats very bold statements you make. Do you have any evidence to back them up  !  ?

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

For 40,000 years man has used animal skins to canvas and modern light weight materials to shelter under. In all the world Wars combined there has never been a tent found where it has been cut from the inside. It is a mechanism built into the human DNA not to do what The Dyatlov group had to do unless an of emergency. So what was so urgent? .

It is not proven that the tent was cut from the inside. No proper scientific examination of the tent was ever made.

[Nigel Evans]

For 40,000 years man has used animal skins to canvas and modern light weight materials to shelter under. In all the world Wars combined there has never been a tent found where it has been cut from the inside. It is a mechanism built into the human DNA not to do what The Dyatlov group had to do unless an of emergency. So what was so urgent? .

It is not proven that the tent was cut from the inside. No proper scientific examination of the tent was ever made.

Incorrect, the tent was examined by the Ministry of Justice's Scientific-Research Forensic Laboratory at Sverdlovsk.

[sarapuk]

It is not proven that the tent was cut from the inside. No proper scientific examination of the tent was ever made.
[/quote]
Incorrect, the tent was examined by the Ministry of Justice's Scientific-Research Forensic Laboratory at Sverdlovsk.
[/quote]


We are told that it was cut from the inside.  We are told a lot of things and somethings we are not told. Which suggests to me that the Authorities had plenty to tell us that is very  CRUCIAL to this Dyatlov Case, but which they havnt.

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

Yes ! Leaving the tent without any evidence of firearms, stakes, daggers or swords being used is an important aspect that needs to be explained.
There was also no evidence of violent hand-to-hand combat around the tent, not a drop of blood was visible.

I am working on another hypothesis: the tent was cut off from the interior because the atmosphere inside the tent had suddenly become unbreathable and even toxic. There was an urgent need to be able to suck some fresh (albeit terribly cold) air outdoors. And then there was no other possibility than to get out completely and very quickly outside the tent...and then suffer badly dressed in the icy wind and then die.....
 
I apologize for not explaining myself more now but I am completely ignorant of the English language and therefore very slow to write understandable sentences (and fortunately there are still automatic translators).

I promise you that I will soon (hopefully within 3 weeks) send you a complete reconstruction in  "Theories Discussion > Murdered".
It is a hypothesis that was developed under the influence of Eduard Tumanov, Per Inge Oestmoen, Noelle, Nordlander, Vietnamka...and others that are too numerous to name them all, and which has the merit of being able to answer the three guiding questions :  Who ? - Why ? - How ?

 

Here are 3 statements of general interest

A) Case-Files Achievement Recipient sarapuk often finishes his many and very judicious interventions with an expression that mean :
 There is no PROOF....Perhaps but no proof............. Or do you have any evidence to back them up....

But there are not enough indisputable documents and unless some new information or statement comes to light there will be no absolute proof.

We are therefore all forced to be content with assumptions that are questionable but more or less probable.

But this is the case in almost every cold case when there are no or no more direct witnesses who can contribute to the investigation.

       

We are consequently obliged to imagine the missing parts in order to arrive at a coherent and plausible reconstruction.

This is also what makes the difficulty of Ancient History that leads to reconstructions that can be revised, as we rarely find enough documents and historical sources to cross-check the information.
See :
Historical method is the collection of techniques and guidelines that historians use to research and write histories of the past. Primary sources and other evidence including ancilllary considerations and reasoning are used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

B) In a way our Global Moderator Loose}{Cannon is right when he writes
"All theories are flawed..."
 

But some theories or reconstructions are better than others.

 

Here better means more coherent, more likely, in good agreement with the psychological, historical background...

C)

Better means also more complete

February 28, 2020, at  Theories Discussion > General Discussion > Is this a record of Yuri K limping?
 DPI Guru  Nigel Evans (Reply #37) and DPI Expert WAB (Reply #40) had a conversational exchange on the subject :
   For me the key thing is finding THE narrative, the one that explains ALL the evidence. Not just some of it.

It is imperative to take into account the totality of the strange aspects of the dpi which are many and different.

For me, the most important thing is to find scenarios or reconstructions that can explain ALL the available data.
 Of course, in reality, it is a little more complicated because many documents are uncertain and also interpretable in different ways.

Note : I provided already a first complete and easily debatable example with my X-drug theory in 4 chapters and 24 (§).
    https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=411.0
Altercation on the pass      Reply #15

[MDGross]

Hi Mr. Reuss, I've read the fascinating chapters of your book. Your research on psychostimulants is extraordinary. And aren't we all searching for one coherent scenario that explains what happened the night of Feb. 1 and afterwards. Your theory explains much, but raises many questions.
• Psychostimulants were widely used in WWII. Drugs like Pervitin (a form of crystal meth) and Benzedrine are as effective today as they were then. Why waste precious resources in 1959 on drugs that already work so well?
• By 1959, large-scale wars would be fought with nuclear bombs. Tens of thousands of soldiers on psychostimulants would not be necessary.
• The autopsy reports stated that the Dyatlov group ate 6 to 8 hours before their deaths. No evidence was found in the tent that dinner had been prepared and eaten.
• Questions naturally arise about Zolotaryov since none of the hikers knew him before the expedition. Maybe he joined the group so that he could receive the highest certification as a hiker/skier. And how could he have taken photos of the drug's effect? Almost all the action took place outside the tent at night. How could he photograph that with cameras available in the Soviet Union in 1959?
• What about his last photo that seemed to show a bright flash of light (an explosion perhaps?) that also caught the attention of the three other hikers whose heads seem to be shown at the bottom of the photo?

I'm not saying your scenario couldn't have happened. Probably a dozen other theories that reconstruct the events of that tragic night are well thought out and possible. Alas, without believable, documented evidence we can only speculate. Best of luck with your book.

You may be interested to know that I contacted the CIA for information about Zolotaryov. I was told the CIA may or may not have such information, and whether it does or doesn't is classified.
 
 

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

Hi Mr. Reuss, I've read .............. And aren't we all searching for one coherent scenario that explains what happened the night of Feb. 1 and afterwards............ raises many questions.

 Alas, without believable, documented evidence we can only speculate...............

You may be interested to know that I contacted the CIA for information about Zolotaryov. I was told the CIA may or may not have such information, and whether it does or doesn't is classified.

 • Your theory explains much, but raises many questions..

The X-drug theory that I have imagined to explain the most imcompressible episode of DPI, i.e.  the suicidal exit from the tent, is certainly false.

Indeed for testing and experimentation, those in charge of military psychostimulants obviously were using (and are using) the very powerful organization that was the Soviet Army (now that is the Russian Army).

They did not lack a hierarchy of officers specialized and competent in various technical fields and also many patrols of soldiers on surveillance hikes in the Arctic regions which are politically and symbolically highly important.

Thus, in 1959, it is very improbable that Soviet army laboratories improvised a test incorporating civilians (non-military Soviet citizens) through an unspecialized KGB indicator, as Zolotaryov was perhaps.

On all the other hand, I can easily answer the questions that you raise...

1) • ....Why waste precious resources in 1959 on drugs that already work so well?

 ...work so well? not exactly !

As soon as 1942, the dreadful and long-lasting conditions on the Eastern Front had highlighted the damaging effects of pervitin on many Wehrmacht soldiers.Vertigo, dizziness, perspiration, depression and hallucinations. Vertigo, dizziness, perspiration, depression and hallucinations. Some soldiers died of heart failure, others killed themselves during psychotic episodes.
Due to increased Allied pressure on the German war effort, Nazi Germany had grown desperate for new soldiers to continue the war effort, and one way to mitigate the massive losses was to increase the combative power of the remaining soldiers in the Wehrmacht
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-IX
 Vice Admiral Hellmuth Heye in March 1944 requested a drug that could also provide the users with superhuman strength and a boosted sense of self-esteem.

Since 1945, specialised pharmacochemists in all countries have gradually resigned themselves to abandoning their hopes of finding a magic drug that would have no drawbacks.

Nowadays, in 2020, it is mainly modafinil

C₁₅H₁₅N O₂S

that is used in the armed forces to increase concentration and resistance to sleep deprivation because it presents very little risk of transient craziness


2) • By 1959, large-scale wars would be fought with nuclear bombs. Tens of thousands of soldiers on psychostimulants would not be necessary..

 The multiple roles of nuclear bombs are very extensive subjects which are still studied at considerable length by the military strategists of all the great powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare

I am not competent in these matters but it seems to me that, on the contrary, nuclear bombs are militarily useless and that the determination and competence of a few elite warriors is essential.

In fact, there is the risk of mutually assured destruction and nuclear weapons have (fortunately!) proved to be unusable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_terror

Deterrence is the concept of preventing an act by persuading the person contemplating it that the costs that would inevitably result from it would exceed the expected benefits.
Some political scientists even say that the USSR spent so much money on strengthening its nuclear power that the USSR collapsed in 1990.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race

This is the contradiction of nuclear armament, which is extremely expensive but has not been used in a theatre of operations since 9 August 1945.

In addition, H-bombs that are too powerful to be of military interest require considerable maintenance costs because tritium must be renewed regularly, the radioactive half-life of tritium being 12 years.
 As a result, a large part of the Soviet H-bombs has been dismantled and the lithium 6 deuteride that constituted them is now stored in a special building in Novossibirsk.

On the contrary, most strategists believe that the nature of warfare has changed since 1945 and the emphasis is more on the determination of infantrymen and psychological warfare. They realized that nuclear weapons were never going to be used.

http://armedforcesjournal.com/the-indirect-approach/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

At the end of 1944, instead of blowing German cities with thousands of bombers vulnerable to anti-aircraft defence, the British had already come up with the idea of sending a single sniper who could assassinate Adolf Hitler as he walked alone around the berhof (but it was too late, Hitler was then leaving for his bunker in Berlin).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley

Notice also the failures of the powerful armies (USSR and USA) in Afghanistan against Taliban warriors who could be said symbolically that they " did not even have good shoes".
A main point in asymmetric warfare is the nature of paramilitary organizations such as Al-Qaeda which are involved in guerrilla military actions but which are not traditional organizations with a central authority defining their military and political strategies. Organizations such as Al-Qaeda may exist as a sparse network of groups lacking central coordination, making them more difficult to confront following standard strategic approaches. This new field of strategic thinking is tackled by what is now defined as netwar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan.

In spite of all the changes in strategic ideas in History we can retain a principle that has endured since Sun Tzu: The destruction of the enemy's armies is not the essence of war; the essence of war is to convince the enemy to accept your position. Therefore, fighting its military forces is at best a means to an end, at worst a total waste of time and energy. »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden%27s_Five_Rings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Warden_III
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/anthropology/wardens-five-rings-theory.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_laboratory_of_the_Soviet_secret_services?oldid=770454105
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intelligence

I suggest that you privately question American officers about these ideas and trends, which are not secret, and which could play a role in efforts to clarify the DPI mystery.


3) • The autopsy reports stated that the Dyatlov group ate 6 to 8 hours before their deaths. No evidence was found in the tent that dinner had been prepared and eaten.

Why would they not have eaten before the tragic and mysterious events that caused their deaths ?

Whatever the DPI's real explanation is, I think that

Photo No. 11 suggests that everything went normally until February 1, 1959 at 5:00 p.m. (=at 17 h)
(except for the slight delay caused by the slower than expected ascent in soft snow).

In my estimation, a likely approximate chronology is as follows:
 5:00 p.m. = End of work to establish a platform on the snow-covered slope.
 6:00 p.m. = The tent is set up and the hikers go inside for shelter.
Then at least two hours of preparation are needed to unpack, tidy up, sort, and melt the snow with an alcohol burner. (Alcohol can also be used to tie foods. They have melted the snow using an alcohol burner since they were unable to bring firewood with them).
 8:00 p.m. = Dinner is ready
 9:00 p.m. = Dinner is eaten.
 3:00 a.m  = Death 6 hours after dinner.
 5:00 a.m  = Death 8 hours after dinner.
Notice that the temperature inside the tent was low, only a few degrees warmer than outside.
I reasoned with: interior volume = 5 m³, total thermal power released during the night by the 9 immobile people = 1000 watts (which corresponds to a night food ration having the power of 2562 kcal/day).
I want to point out that normally in the absence of fire they would all have been 3/4 dressed.


4) • And how could he have taken photos of the drug's effect? Almost all the action took place outside the tent at night.

Assuming the previous chronology is valid, when he left the tent around 9:00 p.m. Zolotaryov did not know that he would die a few hours later. Zolotaryov hoped to live well for a very long time to come.
Zolotaryov had planned to illustrate his report with photos taken on February 2. It was not a question of taking precise measurements.

 I think it is likely that Zolotaryov or his  impersonator had contacts with the KGB. He may even have been a full-time agent employed by the KGB.
But it is also likely that the others 8 hikers knew perfectly well that Zolotaryov had been sent by the KGB and that he was in charge of writing a report on them. But this was of no importance and it did not prevent them from getting along and having fun with each other.
  It was a very usual and normal situation and there was nothing shocking about it.
 

5) • What about his last photo that seemed to show a bright flash of light (an explosion perhaps?) that also caught the attention of the three other hikers whose heads seem to be shown at the bottom of the photo?

The camera worn by Zolotariov was light-tight but not waterproof. The shapes obtained by developing the silver film are not images of real objects but only traces of meaningless features.


6) • I contacted the CIA for information about Z..

I had noticed your request to the CIA. This is a good idea, which can be used for others unresolved obscure points, because even a small clue of little importance  could be very useful.

However, it is clear that the official services of the USSR (like those of any other country) will not easily, or not at all, divulge additional information on a case that remains a state secret.

On the other hand, the intelligence or espionage services of the United States will be happy if they can show that they have done a good job and that they know certain things that the camp opposite would like to hide.

[MDGross]

Bonjour Jean Daniel, At the start of your post you seem to say that your X-drug theory did not cause the group to exit the tent and "is certainly false." Maybe what you're trying to say got lost in your English translation. Doesn't your entire scenario start with the existence of the X-drug and that it was secretly administered by Zolotaryov to several members of the group? If your basic premise is false, then everything that follows must be false. Or are you saying that your X-drug theory explains much of what happened and that you believe it, but without hard evidence it will remain speculative just like every other theory?
Certainly, the urban warfare today is often carried out by quick strikes of highly trained special forces. But in 1959, US military personnel number about 2.5 million. That compares to over 12 million in WWII. The focus in 1959 was on nuclear deterrence and not large, standing armies.
It has always seemed to me that the hikers were simply relaxing before preparing their evening meal and that their last meal was earlier in the day.
I have no idea if KGB operatives were often part of hiking groups or any other small group of folks. But it seems Zolotaryov would want to keep his connection with the KGB secret since he was going to administer this experimental drug.
I agree that any scrap of information from the CIA about the Dyatlov Pass Incident could prove valuable. But any information about KGB involvement will remain classified. That's how the espionage business works and the US/Russian relationship is already on shaky ground.

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

............ you seem to say that your X-drug theory ...."is certainly false." ........

Yes, you have well understood, I am discarding my hypothesis N° 1 = test of some X-drug with the participation of the 9 hikers of Dyatlov's group.

I have read, re-read and now I think that :

In 1959, it is very improbable that Soviet army laboratories improvised a test incorporating civilians (non-military Soviet citizens).

The specialist pharmaco-chemists in charge of military psychostimulants obviously made their tests using the hierarchy of Soviet officers with some of the numerous patrols of soldiers on surveillance hikes.

I am still being inflenced by "the well known pathologist,... Eduard Tumanov,.... who is  pushing a theory that hikers took part in a fight,
                       either "between them or with outsiders."

            "between them" = my hypothesis N° 1, now abandoned.
       "with (against) outsiders" = my hypothesis N° 2,  which is therefore rather close to the ideas of Per Inge Oestmoen...and of many others.

I found discrepancies with the writings of Per Inge Oestmoen and most importantly :

I can answer (i.e. I have valid arguments to be able to answer) the 3 useful questions:
   WHO?
   WHY ?
   HOW ?
(The answers to these 3 questions are not indisputable evidence because they are debatable. But the fact that I can answer these 3 questions shows the coherence of the scenario).

Like Star man  April 16, 2019, 03:48:43 PM
   it is a    : Simplest Possible Credible Explanation
There were no aliens
There were no monsters
There were no animals
There was no military or military weapons or cover up
There were no KGB's agents
There were no Mansi
and obviously there were no CIA's agents

I will try to complete a supplementary part of my documentation which is and will remain insufficient.
I plan to send the scenario of my hypothesis N°2 in one week.

[MDGross]

Je suis impatient de le lire.

[Nigel Evans]

"There was no military or military weapons or cover up".
So why did Okishev and Ivanov assert that there was a coverup? That they were ordered to answer that the cause was hypothermia until May when it was changed to "unknown compelling force"? Okishev stated that dealing with distraught relatives gave him sleepless nights. Ivanov was summoned to Moscow and returned "a changed man". Thirty years later during glasnost he apologises to the relatives for the subterfuge but he had no choice.

That there was a coverup is beyond reasonable argument. The question is, of what?

[sarapuk]

You state the following ; 

There were no aliens
There were no monsters
There were no animals
There was no military or military weapons or cover up
There were no KGB's agents
There were no Mansi
and obviously there were no CIA's agents

But there is no proof of these things, so how can you make such a bold statement  !  ? 

[MDGross]

I believe the hikers' deaths can be attributed to hypothermia or severe injuries. But what caused them to flee into the night is the great unknown? As Nigel writes, later statements from Okishev and Ivanov point to a coverup. If an "unknown compelling force" is not the cause, then that eliminates any naturally occurring phenomenon such as an avalanche, snow slab, etc. I think the exploded missile scenario that Nigel and others put forth answers many questions: odd injuries, distress in making it down the slope, burned tree tops and so forth. Obviously, that would be kept from the public by the government. So a coverup would be in order. Of course, every scenario remains speculation or an educated guess.

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

                      I beg your pardon, I did not understand the meaning of "coverup".

  What I meant to say was : "There was no military or military weapons but the Soviet government leaders: Nikita Khrushchev, Andrei Gromyko... wanted to hide what they had learned or understood, perhaps from the KGB."
So the order to stop the investigation came from the Kremlin.

So I agree with Nigel Evans : « There was a coverup.»

Today we are unlikely to learn any new information from declassified official archives.
With the sources we know, which for the most part have been gathered on this website Dyatlovpass.com thanks to Teddy, it seems impossible to come up with any irrefutable proof.

Like Star man : we can only discuss the Simplest Possible Credible Explanation.
As stated by MDGross : « Of course, every scenario remains speculation or an educated guess.»

I started to write a scenario that can answer the 3 questions: Who ? Why ? How ? and I hope that those who know the Russian language can help to confirm or demolish it because I lack a lot of knowledge about what was in the USSR in 1959.

I answer to sarapuk : « But there is no proof of these things, so how can you make such a bold statement ! ? »

This is my method of thinking, I start by eliminating the explanations that seem improbable to me.

For instance : I think we can eliminate the causes from radioactive material because you read, 11 days ago, 
the dramatic radiological accident in Lia, Georgia.

https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=375.0
Theories Discussion > KGB / Radiation / Military involvement > Kolevatov's device
GeneralFailure    March 11, 2020, 02:45:05 PM    Reply #18   Re: Kolevatov's device
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1660web-81061875.pdf

"Patient 1-DN was reported as having been exposed during the night of 2 December 2001 for approximately 3 h in total...."
.......................
"... The death of Patient 1-DN was due to fibrillation of the ventricles in a cardiac arrest, and it occurred at 22:55, 13 May 2004 (day 893 after exposure)".

( What makes radioactivity so dangerous is the fact that it is painless (you do not feel anything at first)

[Nigel Evans]

@Jean Daniel Reuss - Good that we agree 

I would also agree that the politics of the Soviet Union at that time could be significant in understanding the coverup. The Russian economy was heavily biased towards the arms race (and still is?). Khrushchev was attempting reform and threatening to downsize the military and obviously meeting resistance from the generals.


But i think this lends weight to a "military accident" theory rather than other theories, the news of which had to be suppressed as it would fuel the other sides argument. In that narrative a secretive cleanup operation is quite credible.

[David Harper]

Seems that maybe the reason they pitched a tent in such an undesirable location was because there was something in the forest they were afraid of. No one in their right mind would have pitched a tent on the mountainside. The forest would have been a much better place. It would have provided shelter from the elements.  Also, maybe the men were fighting over the girls?  7 men and 2 girls may have created a potentially intolerable dynamic.
 I'm new here so forgive me if my idea's have already been covered here.
 And this is probably a stupid question but was anyone in the group armed? I would have been armed.

[Nigel Evans]

Seems that maybe the reason they pitched a tent in such an undesirable location was because there was something in the forest they were afraid of. No one in their right mind would have pitched a tent on the mountainside. It was definitely a deliberate and considered action. Igor stated his concern for camping on the ridge the evening before in the group diary. Sadly without an explanation. The labaz also demonstrates the intention, they shed unnecessary weight before ascending onto the higher ground. The forest would have been a much better place. A safe place but a slow one. A theory is that they were making up time having lost a day attempting the pass and failed. They were poorly equipped for ascending ice (no crampons, only one ice axe). They took their stove with them (instead of leaving it behind) so this demonstrates an intention to return to the forest before the labaz. It would have provided shelter from the elements.  Also, maybe the men were fighting over the girls?  7 men and 2 girls may have created a potentially intolerable dynamic. It doesn't fit with the facts or the injuries imo.
 I'm new here so forgive me if my idea's have already been covered here.
 And this is probably a stupid question but was anyone in the group armed? I would have been armed. Just knives/axes.

[MDGross]

Welcome David Harper, Dyatlov had planned that the group would arrive back at the outpost from where they started by Feb. 12. By late afternoon of Feb. 1, they were already several hours behind schedule so camping on the mountain ridge made sense to them. They were experienced and skilled hikers/skiers who knew how to make their tent as safe as possible. I can't imagine anything in the woods beneath the slope that would cause them to be afraid.
Anything's possible, but there's no indication that sexual tension was in the air. They had become a tight-knit group and depended on one another to make the expedition a success.
They carried no rifles or handguns. They were hiking in a harsh environment in the middle of winter, so I don't think they were concerned with meeting someone who would want to do them harm.

[sarapuk]

Seems that maybe the reason they pitched a tent in such an undesirable location was because there was something in the forest they were afraid of. No one in their right mind would have pitched a tent on the mountainside. The forest would have been a much better place. It would have provided shelter from the elements.  Also, maybe the men were fighting over the girls?  7 men and 2 girls may have created a potentially intolerable dynamic.
 I'm new here so forgive me if my idea's have already been covered here.
 And this is probably a stupid question but was anyone in the group armed? I would have been armed.

Welcome and dont forget to introduce yourself in the appropriate section.  I would have thought that someone would carry a Firearm, of some type, just for protection from potentially dangerous animals  !  But as far as we know no one did carry a Firearm.

[David Harper]

Hello all.  I'm guessing everyone here already knows this but here's something interesting;

 "Mount Kholat Syakhl gets it's name from the local language of the Mansi tribe of Siberian natives. Literally it means "the mountain of the dead" so it gained negative notoriety long before the Dyatlov Pass incident. According to the legend nine Mansi hunters stayed there overnight during their hunting trip. The next morning all nine were found dead by their friends. None of them showed any signs of violent death. Hence, the mountain and nearby pass became regarded as haunted. Local Native tribes avoided the peak and never ventured there. In the native tongue of the Mansi the literal translation of the name of the pass is "don't go there".

[Nigel Evans]

Hello all.  I'm guessing everyone here already knows this but here's something interesting;

 "Mount Kholat Syakhl gets it's name from the local language of the Mansi tribe of Siberian natives. Literally it means "the mountain of the dead" so it gained negative notoriety long before the Dyatlov Pass incident. According to the legend nine Mansi hunters stayed there overnight during their hunting trip. The next morning all nine were found dead by their friends. None of them showed any signs of violent death. Hence, the mountain and nearby pass became regarded as haunted. Local Native tribes avoided the peak and never ventured there. In the native tongue of the Mansi the literal translation of the name of the pass is "don't go there".

My memory of this stuff (as read years ago) is that "Mountain of the Dead or Dead Mountain" is a Mansi label given to more than one hill in the region that is unproductive for the hunters.
My version of the "legend of nine" is that it wasn't on this mountain but at a pass between Kholat and Ortorten and the corpses were unusual, as if "boiled to death" which combined with the golden orbs gives you atmospheric electrical phenomena = lightning / ball lightning.

[David Harper]

I just watched a youtube video which offers a very plausible explanation. A photograph recovered from one of the groups cameras clearly shows an exhaust duct protruding from the back of the tent. It looks like the exhaust duct over the water heater in your basement. There was a small make-shift stove inside the tent presumably to provide heat. If, during the night, this wood-burning stove malfunctioned in some way it may have quickly filled the tent with smoke and fumes. The group woke in a panic and cut open the tent from the inside in order to ventilate the smoke out of it. This would explain the burns found on some of the groups hands as they would have attempted to remove the hot stove from the tent. The smoke, however, was so thick that they had to flee the tent. Then, in the dark, they became separated and lost and froze to death. The missing tongue and eyes was due either to animal predation or may have resulted from some form decomposition in the harsh cold snowy environment.
Also this would explain why they left the tent in such a hurry that they left their clothes and shoes behind. If the tent was filled with thick smoke, they would have been unable to breath and in a panic an immediate exit would have been necessary. Once outside the tent in the dead of night,lost,inadequately dressed, in blizzard conditions with temps of perhaps -20 deg. F. they would have quickly succumbed to the elements.
Also if I remember correctly I believe I read that autopsies performed on the bodies revealed that the insides of some of their throats showed indications of having been burned or damaged in some way.

[Nigel Evans]

I just watched a youtube video which offers a very plausible explanation. A photograph recovered from one of the groups cameras clearly shows an exhaust duct protruding from the back of the tent. It looks like the exhaust duct over the water heater in your basement. There was a small make-shift stove inside the tent presumably to provide heat. If, during the night, this wood-burning stove malfunctioned in some way it may have quickly filled the tent with smoke and fumes. The group woke in a panic and cut open the tent from the inside in order to ventilate the smoke out of it. This would explain the burns found on some of the groups hands as they would have attempted to remove the hot stove from the tent. The smoke, however, was so thick that they had to flee the tent. Then, in the dark, they became separated and lost and froze to death. The missing tongue and eyes was due either to animal predation or may have resulted from some form decomposition in the harsh cold snowy environment.
Also this would explain why they left the tent in such a hurry that they left their clothes and shoes behind. If the tent was filled with thick smoke, they would have been unable to breath and in a panic an immediate exit would have been necessary. Once outside the tent in the dead of night,lost,inadequately dressed, in blizzard conditions with temps of perhaps -20 deg. F. they would have quickly succumbed to the elements.

Hi there.
It wouldn't be a good theory if they had used the stove that night but they hadn't. The tent had two erection modes :-

• High in sheltered areas like the forest that permitted use of the stove and a camp fire outside.
• Low in exposed areas that precluded using the stove (it got hot and there was no room underneath).

If they had to get out of the tent due to fumes they still wouldn't walk a mile in their socks? Just let the fumes clear and recover their boots/clothing?

[David Harper]

IMO they would have been lost and unable to locate the tent in the dark and maybe they started walking without having any idea where they were going. Inadequately dressed and with the weather conditions that existed they would quickly have become hypothermic which would have resulted in dis-orientation which would explain their seemingly irrational actions. Also the fact that they were in their underwear without shoes in the tent makes it virtually certain that there was a source of heat in the tent. I believe the most recent investigations provided meteorological data which showed there were blizzard conditions on the night in question. If I had been one of them I wouldn't have cared which erection mode the tent was in, I would have wanted heat in the tent. Also I'm pretty sure I read something about the insides of their lungs showing evidence of having been burned, but I'm not sure about this. In any case, they would not have been in their underwear and without shoes if there had been no heat in the tent.

[Nigel Evans]

IMO they would have been lost and unable to locate the tent in the dark and maybe they started walking without having any idea where they were going. Inadequately dressed and with the weather conditions that existed they would quickly have become hypothermic which would have resulted in dis-orientation which would explain their seemingly irrational actions. Also the fact that they were in their underwear without shoes in the tent makes it virtually certain that there was a source of heat in the tent. I believe the most recent investigations provided meteorological data which showed there were blizzard conditions on the night in question. If I had been one of them I wouldn't have cared which erection mode the tent was in, I would have wanted heat in the tent. Also I'm pretty sure I read something about the insides of their lungs showing evidence of having been burned, but I'm not sure about this. In any case, they would not have been in their underwear and without shoes if there had been no heat in the tent.

They weren't "in their underwear", they slept in several layers of clothing. The stove was found stowed, full of of unburnt wood. It's in the case files which should be read by all new posters?

[MDGross]

When the first search party found the tent in late February, the stove was packed away. The tent filling with smoke could not have happened. And since the stove was not used on that last night, no one would strip down to their underwear and then bed down. The two bodies found beneath the cedar tree (Yuri Doroshenko and Yuri Krivonischenko) had clothing removed by the surviving hikers in an attempt to get more protection from the cold.

[David Harper]

IMO they would have been lost and unable to locate the tent in the dark and maybe they started walking without having any idea where they were going. Inadequately dressed and with the weather conditions that existed they would quickly have become hypothermic which would have resulted in dis-orientation which would explain their seemingly irrational actions. Also the fact that they were in their underwear without shoes in the tent makes it virtually certain that there was a source of heat in the tent. I believe the most recent investigations provided meteorological data which showed there were blizzard conditions on the night in question. If I had been one of them I wouldn't have cared which erection mode the tent was in, I would have wanted heat in the tent. Also I'm pretty sure I read something about the insides of their lungs showing evidence of having been burned, but I'm not sure about this. In any case, they would not have been in their underwear and without shoes if there had been no heat in the tent.

They weren't "in their underwear", they slept in several layers of clothing. The stove was found stowed, full of of unburnt wood. It's in the case files which should be read by all new posters?

The dead bodies were found in their underwear and without shoes on. You don't know what you're talking about. The footprints leading away from the tent were barefoot or with socks or one shoe on. None of the group was adequately dressed for the environment.
The stove was not found stowed. The wood in it was burnt to ashes.