Back to the Rav4

[sparrow]

I was just reading the autopsy reports again.  For Lyuda,  Simon and Alexander, their histological analysis' state that there is present hemorrhages with the presence of brown pigment.  That sounds like there was bleeding at these sites. 
 
Also, if we were to assume that they received their injuries while walking toward the cedar, then why so many small injuries on some of the hikers (apparently from falling down and running into trees and bushes) with none on the rav4 and the rav4 with major injuries.  Most sources (listed in the books) state that Nicholas would have been unconsious and Lyuda would not have been able to walk.  So, their injuries had to have been sustained while in the area where they were found. Therefore, none of the rav4 tripped and fell  on the way to the cedar and did not participate in the building of the den (provided it was built by the hikers). 

[Teddy]

Yea, that's right. Sorry, one bang relays the message, I got mesmerized....

[sparrow]

Ahhh Teddy, I really like those little guys.

[Teddy]

Ahhh Teddy, I really like those little guys.

You get two, no more.

[Tony]

I thought it strange too that none of the 4 in the ravine had injuries to the hands like the others. I also find it strange that, like the missing boots, none of the group were wearing gloves. I think that Thibeux-Brignolle had gloves found in his pockets and not on his hands (which is even more strange).

I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory, I think this makes the most sense for the injuries. In the US, falling is the third most leading cause of accidental deaths. Even falls from a very short height can result in severe injuries. In the autopsy reports the medical examiner even states that a fall is a possible explanation for the injuries. Still, there are a lot of unknowns and reasons why this doesn't make a lot of sense. But, I think it's the most logical of all the theories.

[Marchesk]

I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory,

One question would be, why was the ravine exposed such that they could fall into it onto the rocks in early February but not three months later when the bodies had to be dug out from meters of snow? Could be wrong, but my assumption would be the ravine should already have a fair amount of snow in it by February.

[Tony]

I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory,

One question would be, why was the ravine exposed such that they could fall into it onto the rocks in early February but not three months later when the bodies had to be dug out from meters of snow? Could be wrong, but my assumption would be the ravine should already have a fair amount of snow in it by February.

Yes, this could be the case and this is one of the problems with the theory. Since we don't know the state of the ravine on that night, it is possible that rocks could have still been exposed.

Here is a video of the area of the ravine.



It is entirely possible that one of these ravines is the ravine were they were found.

There are areas where the snow builds around the outer edges of the ravine, but the ravine itself does not fill with snow or, only partially fills with snow. In the video it shows, what looks like, exposed rock in some of these ravines. It is possible that the edges of the ravine accumulated snow and they simply fell into the ravine onto the rocks.

Just outside my work there is a ravine with a river. In the early parts of the winter, when it is still filled with a small amount of water, the rocks will remain exposed even though the banks accumulate snow. As winter continues and the water freezes, eventually, the bed will fill with snow.

I think it's possible that this is what happened. They fell in and died. As winter progressed, the water froze and the bed eventually filled with snow. In one part of the video, if you listen, you can hear running water.

Another problem is why they sustained injuries on their chest but not arms and hands as they tried to block the fall. Several years ago I was snowboarding and accidentally entered an area with extremely large jumps. It was very foggy so I decided to just continue through. As I came around the side a fairly large jump I fell into the area between the jump and the landing area. The drop off was about 10 feet and I didn't see it. It happened so fast that I had no way of reacting. One moment I was snowboarding and the next I was crumpled on the ground. I could feel myself falling but it was very quick. Luckily, I fell onto snow and not hard rocks and, other than a sore back, didn't receive any injuries.

But, you're right, it has problems. How did so much snow accumulate - enough that it took several months to find them? I think the one hiker who didn't fall, Kolevatov, built the den further up and into the side of the ravine. He intended to move them but finally succumbed and gave up next to his friends. Another problem - is it possible that Kolevatov made several trips back and forth from the cedar to gather clothing and branches to build the den, climbing in and out of the ravine each time? I don't know. One last problem is that, from the video, the snow in that area is very soft and they would have likely been up to their knees or waist in snow. Is it possible to fall into a ravine in deep snow. It seems more likely that they would have slid down in rather than an abrupt, vertical fall. An even bigger question is, why did they leave the fire to begin with?


There are a lot of questions and the ravine is only a small part of the mystery.

[Georgi]

I thought it strange too that none of the 4 in the ravine had injuries to the hands like the others. I also find it strange that, like the missing boots, none of the group were wearing gloves. I think that Thibeux-Brignolle had gloves found in his pockets and not on his hands (which is even more strange).

I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory, I think this makes the most sense for the injuries. In the US, falling is the third most leading cause of accidental deaths. Even falls from a very short height can result in severe injuries. In the autopsy reports the medical examiner even states that a fall is a possible explanation for the injuries. Still, there are a lot of unknowns and reasons why this doesn't make a lot of sense. But, I think it's the most logical of all the theories.

Problem with that theory is that none of their injuries are consistent with a fall, the serious injuries could be from a fall, but what are the chances that all 4 of them fell from high enough to cause those injuries without breaking their arms or legs or creating more significant injuries consistent with a fall? Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov seem to have similar head injuries that could have come from a fall or being hit(butt of a rifle, baton, rock). Thibeaux-Brignolle and Dubinina have identical head injuries on opposite sides of their head, Zolotaryov and Kolevatov also have similar injuries on opposite sides of their heads. Those injuries could have been from a rifle or a baton as a means to get them on the ground, Thibeaux-Brignolle received the hardest hit and was likely out of it if not unconscious, Kolevatov might have struggled and received a broken neck for his troubles but the remaining two received severe injuries that wouldn't necessarily kill them immediately which might have been because they pissed off whoever eventually killed them bad enough that they were made to suffer a little extra.

One person falling and dying because of weird injuries would be acceptable/understandable since they were likely scared, exhausted, cold, hungry and also it was dark, but all of them getting serious head injuries followed by one person with a broken neck and two people with severe chest injuries and possibly facial injuries. What are the chances that all of them suffered very similar head injuries in the same way only for 3 of them to get up and suffer further injuries all without once instinctively trying to break their fall in some way. I mean Dubinina and Thibeaux-Brignolle hit the sides of their head, an impact of that sort should also cause serious shoulder injuries, neck injuries, broken fingers, broken arm etc...

[Nigel Evans]

The fall theory doesn't work. It's either crushed or murdered and buried. The ravine would have been full of snow by say october and they were 3.5m underneath in a tight grouping consistent with occupying the den or burial.

[MDGross]

I think the critical injuries to the Rav4 are an even greater mystery than the flight from the tent. I know WAB has done calculations and theorizes a fall onto rocks was sufficient to cause the injuries. I heard Teddy say on her radio interview that it would haven taken a fall from the sixth story of a building to result in such injuries. Of course, the key question is this: are the injuries related to exiting the tent (a terrible fight with assailants, beating and torture from the KGB/CiA) or are the tent and the injuries two separate events.

[Marchesk]

I think the critical injuries to the Rav4 are an even greater mystery than the flight from the tent. I know WAB has done calculations and theorizes a fall onto rocks was sufficient to cause the injuries. I heard Teddy say on her radio interview that it would haven taken a fall from the sixth story of a building to result in such injuries. Of course, the key question is this: are the injuries related to exiting the tent (a terrible fight with assailants, beating and torture from the KGB/CiA) or are the tent and the injuries two separate events.

Another key question is why did the group split up? It seems only the two Yuri's were left to attend the fire, which they failed to do. I've never understood the three "going back to the tent". It just doesn't make sense.

[WAB]

The fall theory doesn't work. It's either crushed or murdered and buried. The ravine would have been full of snow by say october and they were 3.5m underneath in a tight grouping consistent with occupying the den or burial.

You're talking complete nonsense.
1. In order to say that a fall is not the cause of injuries, you need to know the biomechanics of impact injuries. You don't know her at all if you say those words.
2. There was no murder there at least because other people couldn't get there for the usual reasons: strong remoteness of the terrain and lack of possible routes. So, you don't know the terrain and the logistics of communication routes for a given place either.
3. Neither by October, nor until mid-March, there is not much snow in the ravines, even now that the climate has become warmer, and therefore there is much more rainfall. Here is a photo - as a place in a small ravine (there is a depth of about 1.5 m (5 ft) looks like in November:
 

The snow depth there is about 20 cm (8 in). In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in). I would like to remind you that the winter of 1959 was abnormally low in snow.
4.   In May 1959, there was about 2.5 metres of snow above the bodies and about 30 cm underneath. That is, after the events in February, March and April, it fell out and was moved from above, this amount of snow.
It turns out so that you not only use unreliable information, but also compose it on purpose.

[Nigel Evans]

You're talking complete nonsense.
1. In order to say that a fall is not the cause of injuries, you need to know the biomechanics of impact injuries. You don't know her at all if you say those words.
2. There was no murder there at least because other people couldn't get there for the usual reasons: strong remoteness of the terrain and lack of possible routes. So, you don't know the terrain and the logistics of communication routes for a given place either.
3. Neither by October, nor until mid-March, there is not much snow in the ravines, even now that the climate has become warmer, and therefore there is much more rainfall. Here is a photo - as a place in a small ravine (there is a depth of about 1.5 m (5 ft) looks like in November:
 

The snow depth there is about 20 cm (8 in). In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in). I would like to remind you that the winter of 1959 was abnormally low in snow.
4.   In May 1959, there was about 2.5 metres of snow above the bodies and about 30 cm underneath. That is, after the events in February, March and April, it fell out and was moved from above, this amount of snow.
It turns out so that you not only use unreliable information, but also compose it on purpose.

As usual you push your nonsense hard.

1. First Okishev is dismissed, then Ivanov, now Vozrozhdenny? (rolls eyes).2. So the Soviet military couldn't have killed them because it's too remote for them? (rolls eyes again).3. Tempalov made his formal statement wrt his visit on 28.02.59 - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312?rbid=17743"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."4. In February the ravine snow was too deep to probe. Eventually they built a dam to catch any bodies traveling downstream in the spring thaw and following advice from the Mansi removed 1 meter of snow to probe the 2.5 metres below with extra long probes. The search photos show that they were not lying on 30cm of snow.

[Marchesk]

In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in)

Wouldn't that be enough to cushion the bodies from severe injury? They're wading through the snow in the dark and slide into a ravine with a layer of snow over the rocks and that's enough to cause high impact injuries? Did this happen somewhere deeper and the bodies were moved?

BTW, your English is much improved.

[Monty]

One foot of snow would mean it was impossible to dig out a den. So the den was simply an arrangement of cut branches on a flat spot. And then between 2m to 6m of snow fell in three weeks, or perhaps drifted?

[Tony]

I thought it strange too that none of the 4 in the ravine had injuries to the hands like the others. I also find it strange that, like the missing boots, none of the group were wearing gloves. I think that Thibeux-Brignolle had gloves found in his pockets and not on his hands (which is even more strange).

I really think that they fell into the ravine. Even though there are still a lot of questions with the fall theory, I think this makes the most sense for the injuries. In the US, falling is the third most leading cause of accidental deaths. Even falls from a very short height can result in severe injuries. In the autopsy reports the medical examiner even states that a fall is a possible explanation for the injuries. Still, there are a lot of unknowns and reasons why this doesn't make a lot of sense. But, I think it's the most logical of all the theories.

Problem with that theory is that none of their injuries are consistent with a fall, the serious injuries could be from a fall, but what are the chances that all 4 of them fell from high enough to cause those injuries without breaking their arms or legs or creating more significant injuries consistent with a fall? Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov seem to have similar head injuries that could have come from a fall or being hit(butt of a rifle, baton, rock). Thibeaux-Brignolle and Dubinina have identical head injuries on opposite sides of their head, Zolotaryov and Kolevatov also have similar injuries on opposite sides of their heads. Those injuries could have been from a rifle or a baton as a means to get them on the ground, Thibeaux-Brignolle received the hardest hit and was likely out of it if not unconscious, Kolevatov might have struggled and received a broken neck for his troubles but the remaining two received severe injuries that wouldn't necessarily kill them immediately which might have been because they pissed off whoever eventually killed them bad enough that they were made to suffer a little extra.

One person falling and dying because of weird injuries would be acceptable/understandable since they were likely scared, exhausted, cold, hungry and also it was dark, but all of them getting serious head injuries followed by one person with a broken neck and two people with severe chest injuries and possibly facial injuries. What are the chances that all of them suffered very similar head injuries in the same way only for 3 of them to get up and suffer further injuries all without once instinctively trying to break their fall in some way. I mean Dubinina and Thibeaux-Brignolle hit the sides of their head, an impact of that sort should also cause serious shoulder injuries, neck injuries, broken fingers, broken arm etc...

The autopsy reports actually states a fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. At the end of Sasha's it states:

"The above mentioned multiple fractures of Zolotaryov’s ribs with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity were caused in vivo as an effect of a high-power impact to the chest of Zolotaryov at the moment of his fall, squeezing or throwing."

But, you're right, as other posters have pointed out, there are problems with the fall theory. I don't think that Kolevatov fell but, it would be strange that the other 3 would all fall and sustain such traumatic injuries. It also seems unreasonable that they would fall in a manner that would cause injuries to their chest and head and not to arms or legs. However, if they were unable to see because of the lack of moon (which I think was the case) a sudden and abrupt fall from a short height could happen so quickly that they would not be able to react. A fall from under 6 feet would probably happen in less than a second. Couple that with the fact that all of them were probably in the beginning (or even final) stages of hypothermia and it easy to see them not reacting quickly.

The fact that all four were found in water and on top of rocks is significant. From watching the videos below, I think it is possible that there were either exposed or partially exposed rocks in some of the ravines. Sometimes you'll get a bridge of snow that forms over a stream where it appears that the ground is stable but underneath is running water with rocks. Even a fall from a very short height of 5 feet on to rocks would cause significant injuries. Or, if they slid down a hill and into the ravine. There are so many scenarios because no one knows the exact location of the ravine. I think if someone were able to locate the ravine and where they were found, it would be much easier to prove or disprove this theory.

The problems I have with the foul play theory is there is always some little action by the group that causes reasonable doubt. In the case of the ravine - who built the den? Why, if they were under some watchful eye bent on their demise, would they be allowed to build a den? If they built the den after the guilty party had caused their injuries and left how, if they had sustained those types of injuries, would they be able to built the den? The den is significant as it probably took a lot of effort to build.

[Georgi]

I think the critical injuries to the Rav4 are an even greater mystery than the flight from the tent. I know WAB has done calculations and theorizes a fall onto rocks was sufficient to cause the injuries. I heard Teddy say on her radio interview that it would haven taken a fall from the sixth story of a building to result in such injuries. Of course, the key question is this: are the injuries related to exiting the tent (a terrible fight with assailants, beating and torture from the KGB/CiA) or are the tent and the injuries two separate events.

They couldn't have received the injuries at the tent, if they had they would have died at the site of the tent or shortly after on the way down, they wouldn't have been able to make it down to the ravine and survive hours with such injuries.

[Georgi]

Another key question is why did the group split up? It seems only the two Yuri's were left to attend the fire, which they failed to do. I've never understood the three "going back to the tent". It just doesn't make sense.

Slobodin and the two men under the tree died, at this point Dyatlov decides to go back to the tent seeing as their chances of survival are slim, Zinaida goes with him, the other three go with Zolotaryov seeing as he has experience with winter survival since he made it through the entire war. Dyatlov could have gone back out of guilt or sense of responsibility, he could have felt guilty for them being in that predicament because he was the leader and he might have felt responsible to keep the few surviving members alive and the only way he saw that happening was to go back to the tent and hope for the best.

[Georgi]

The autopsy reports actually states a fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. At the end of Sasha's it states:

"The above mentioned multiple fractures of Zolotaryov’s ribs with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity were caused in vivo as an effect of a high-power impact to the chest of Zolotaryov at the moment of his fall, squeezing or throwing."

I agree, the autopsy might have merit for one person, because the doctor would do the autopsy and focus on the injuries of the person in front of him, what the investigators should have done and what we should be looking at is all the injuries combined. One person falling backwards, hitting his/her head getting up in confusion and then falling into a whole and suffering horrific injuries is a distinct possibility, having 4 people fall and hit their heads in very similar fashion, get up only for 3 of them to fall and suffer even more horrific injuries upon a second fall while the third dies from his initial injuries seems less likely.

A fall from under 6 feet would probably happen in less than a second. Couple that with the fact that all of them were probably in the beginning (or even final) stages of hypothermia and it easy to see them not reacting quickly.

Is six feet high enough to cause those injuries though?

The problems I have with the foul play theory is there is always some little action by the group that causes reasonable doubt. In the case of the ravine - who built the den? Why, if they were under some watchful eye bent on their demise, would they be allowed to build a den? If they built the den after the guilty party had caused their injuries and left how, if they had sustained those types of injuries, would they be able to built the den? The den is significant as it probably took a lot of effort to build.

My personal theory is that whoever the attackers were, they wanted this to look as close to natural death as possible, they send them out to the treeline with enough clothes and equipment to let the hikers think they have a chance and thus go willingly but not enough equipment to actually give them a chance. Turned out the hikers were highly motivated and skilled which allowed them to survive much longer than anticipated, they had no choice but to build shelter, so by the time the attackers came down and found them the four in the ravine were the only once still alive. The worked on the den because they knew they were going to die of the elements or by the attackers, but the attackers might leave, they might have a change in heart or someone could come and interrupt them but without shelter all 4 would eventually have succumbed to the elements. As long as there was a chance of survival you deal with the problem at hand which was shelter, hell even without a hope of survival many people will still work on solving the most immediate problem, once that was solved they would have dealt with the next problem and the problem after than, unfortunately they didn’t get that far as they were attacked again in the morning and killed.

[WAB]

You're talking complete nonsense.
1. In order to say that a fall is not the cause of injuries, you need to know the biomechanics of impact injuries. You don't know her at all if you say those words.
2. There was no murder there at least because other people couldn't get there for the usual reasons: strong remoteness of the terrain and lack of possible routes. So, you don't know the terrain and the logistics of communication routes for a given place either.
3. Neither by October, nor until mid-March, there is not much snow in the ravines, even now that the climate has become warmer, and therefore there is much more rainfall. Here is a photo - as a place in a small ravine (there is a depth of about 1.5 m (5 ft) looks like in November:
 

The snow depth there is about 20 cm (8 in). In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in). I would like to remind you that the winter of 1959 was abnormally low in snow.
4.   In May 1959, there was about 2.5 metres of snow above the bodies and about 30 cm underneath. That is, after the events in February, March and April, it fell out and was moved from above, this amount of snow.
It turns out so that you not only use unreliable information, but also compose it on purpose.

As usual you push your nonsense hard.

You even don't have other words not to repeat what you were just told? It's called pinched self-love without intellectual support.

1. First Okishev is dismissed, then Ivanov, now Vozrozhdenny? (rolls eyes).

Don't make up fiction. Where did you find Renaissance here?
Rolling your eyes and telling you trivial things with pathos judging by what you're writing is professional.
You, however, constantly twist other people's words to suit your own opinion. I specifically said that they both have words that are not true. You obviously ignore that. In other words, you're trying to misrepresent the distorted information as absolute truth. That's where it all comes from.
I have much more knowledge now (at the moment of analysis) than Okishin has with Ivanovo in 1959, with the addition of the fact that the age of both of them at the moment of their interview and the period after the events were significant. This is not conducive to the objectivity of information, if only because the more time has passed, the more noisy information appears .Do you even know what it is? Or should you tell us about it? This "noise information" outweighs what is factual after it is checked.

2. So the Soviet military couldn't have killed them because it's too remote for them? (rolls eyes again).

Your eyes will roll up all the time because you don't know what you're talking about. Or rather, you've made up your own situation, but it turns out to be false. Neither the military nor anybody else showed up at that place in winter. And now they have nothing to do there, because they are not interested in this area. Military operations are for infrastructure, not empty taiga.
Even Mansi hunters used walk their permanent trails (once in 3 weeks or one month) no closer than 12...15 km (~ 9 mi) from the pass. They would check the traps for sable beasts. Otherwise, to the nearest place, where at least sometimes people lived permanently, there was at least 60 ... 80 km (35 ... 50 mi). In order get to the place where Dyatlov's group died it was necessary to walk on snow with depth from 1 to 2 meters (3 ... 7 ft) in frost which in Western Europe is met once in 50 ... 100 years... And here it holds almost half of the winter.
If you have no idea what it is, then our conversation on this topic makes no sense until you (without any help!) go through it all, at least in less severe frost than it was in 1959.
Besides, the military needs to have at least some goal for its actions. It is completely absent here. A reasonable target, anyway. If you consider others stupider than yourself, it will have a big impact on your own reputation and not only on it. For example, you can't even come up with such a goal, but you operate with abstractions.

3. Tempalov made his formal statement wrt his visit on 28.02.59 - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312?rbid=17743"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."

Yes! Tempalov 28.02.59 made a statement about the depth of snow that was in May? Or did you decide to play demagoguery again, with the expectation that no one would notice it?
Then you obviously do not perceive adequately what you are writing: 6 meters of snow at a depth of 0.7 meters is nonsense.
Besides, you are deceiving the readers, neither in the protocol of 28.02 nor in the description of the camp site of the group from 27.02 there are no such words. You can not deceive me, I know it well and from the first source. I read the documents in photocopies of the original text in my native language and I understand perfectly well, even where I could have made a mistake automatically when reprinting them on a typewriter.
And we can do the rest, especially those who just showed up. For a while. Then everyone will understand who they're dealing with and stop reacting to you. Apparently, that's what you're trying to do.
Who do you believe more:
- You are the same fictitious words of Tempalov, who was there for 3 days, and who has absolutely no knowledge about the peculiarities of this place (because he has never been there before and said it from the words of less literate people);
- or Vladislav Karelin, who was a professional in such travels, had been in the area many times before, and spent almost 3 weeks in search of the total time?
Their readings are too different.
By the way, the protocol, the date of which is 28.02, Tempalov wrote much later, already in Ivdel. You have absolutely no idea how such documents are prepared, where and when they are written.
However, you are constantly playing the connoisseur with reference to words whose meaning you do not understand in principle.

4. In February the ravine snow was too deep to probe.

Where'd you get that from? The source, please, make it public?

Eventually they built a dam to catch any bodies traveling downstream in the spring thaw

It's a good illustration of what I'm talking about all the time: you jump from one to the other every time, and it confuses other readers. And yourself, too.
It was in May, so it had nothing to do with what we just talked about.
What were we talking about? About the amount of snow in February?  Then what does May's condition have to do with it?
The amount of snow in February 01 and May was very different. And you all fall into one pile and try to assert something on it. Sort out your thoughts before you assert something.

and following advice from the Mansi removed 1 meter of snow to probe the 2.5 metres below with extra long probes.

Don't make up fiction. The Mansi know even less about the use of avalanche probes than African tribes know about building igloo huts. You've misrepresented it again.
Mansi (Stepan Kurikov - that's specific) pointed out that pieces of herringbone (fir - to be more precise), which like a path went down - under the snow, can mean that something is below. And that's it. The decision about the rest and the search technology was made by Vladimir Askinazi together Colonel Ortjukov. Nobody "removed 1 meter of snow" (c) did anything - this is your fiction. It does not make the slightest sense. They first conducted probing, and when they found the artifacts of Lyudmila's body, they started digging in this place, and then near it.
2.5 meters of snow you put in the wrong place. That's the amount of protocol snow that was over the bodies. If you analyze the depth of snow from photographs where there is an avalanche (snow probe) of maximum length, it turns out that the snow is slightly more than 2 meters. Therefore, there was no "1 meter of snow removed"(s) from above. You constantly compose some fairy tales, and then confuse the readers in them. And you get confused in them yourself. Almost nobody can object to your luck, because almost nobody here has such information as I do. And I have my knowledge practical and obtained directly on the spot, and in the same exact conditions.
So you show your stupidity here yourself and very clearly.

The search photos show that they were not lying on 30cm of snow.

You can't show it in photos, don't make up nonsense. It is written in the protocol: "den is 30 cm above ground level." Read carefully and do not distort the real picture.
If you talk about how they were lying, they were directly in the water, that is, directly on the ground. The snow under them thawed. It should be noted that this is only a part of their bodies, which can be seen in the photo. The participants of the search describe that the other part - which was closer to their feet, was embedded in snow of different thickness, but not more than 30 ... 40 cm above the ground. There was no melt water from the stream flowing in that place. It was slightly elevated in height.
By the way, Vladislav Karelin also said that the snow in February was about 30 cm or slightly more. I don't think you know the amount of snow better than the person who was there then and saw everything. His skill level leaves no doubt about his objectivity.

[WAB]

In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in)

Wouldn't that be enough to cushion the bodies from severe injury?
They're wading through the snow in the dark and slide into a ravine with a layer of snow over the rocks and that's enough to cause high impact injuries?

Yes. Snow doesn't have good kresher (shock absorbing) properties. Especially since there wasn't much snow in February (or, to be more precise, for the whole January - all events were on February 01!). Karelin estimates its quantity in the place where I assume their fall, about 30 cm (12 in).

Did this happen somewhere deeper and the bodies were moved?

Yes. Only the distance they were able to move was small - about 50 meters (~ 150 ft). The height of the slope that I assume for this event was between 6.5 and 8 meters (~ 20...27 ft). The angle of slope there is about 40 degrees. Rolling down it and stopping there, it can not protect a layer of snow 30 cm thick (12 in). The ground was very freeze, which means it is very hard.

BTW, your English is much improved.

Thank you, but it does not matter for those who want understand what is being said, but not looking for reason not to do so.

[PJ]

In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in)

Wouldn't that be enough to cushion the bodies from severe injury?
They're wading through the snow in the dark and slide into a ravine with a layer of snow over the rocks and that's enough to cause high impact injuries?

Yes. Snow doesn't have good kresher (shock absorbing) properties. Especially since there wasn't much snow in February (or, to be more precise, for the whole January - all events were on February 01!). Karelin estimates its quantity in the place where I assume their fall, about 30 cm (12 in).

How do they find out that there was just 30cm of snow? The group members wrote in the diaries that the snow cover was about 120cm, as well from the photos(taken by the group members) you could see that there was lots of snow.

In my opinion, the fact that they found the den floor just 30cm above the ground and under 3.5m of snow mean that it was build in cave created by a snow drift.

[WAB]

In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in)

Wouldn't that be enough to cushion the bodies from severe injury?
They're wading through the snow in the dark and slide into a ravine with a layer of snow over the rocks and that's enough to cause high impact injuries?

Yes. Snow doesn't have good kresher (shock absorbing) properties. Especially since there wasn't much snow in February (or, to be more precise, for the whole January - all events were on February 01!). Karelin estimates its quantity in the place where I assume their fall, about 30 cm (12 in).

How do they find out that there was just 30cm of snow? The group members wrote in the diaries that the snow cover was about 120cm, as well from the photos(taken by the group members) you could see that there was lots of snow.

Dyatlov wrote in his diary about 120 cm in another valley. It also says that "this is the most accumulating place for snow". There are different level amounts of snow in different valleys.
They found out very simply: they spread snow with their feet to the ground in a certain small place. We estimated it the same way, but when there was a lot of snow (in the middle of March, for example), we had to use skis for it. It should be noted that in January, relative to March, there was much less snow even visually. And second note: there is more snow now than in 1959, because the climate has become warmer and therefore more snowy.  Additional information: 1959 was one of the snowiest years. Look at the photo when you took a tent - https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-002.jpg  and compare it with any photo taken now. Even in November 2016 there is much more snow than at the very end of February (28 - the last day of February) - the beginning of March 1959.

In my opinion, the fact that they found the den floor just 30cm above the ground and under 3.5m of snow mean that it was build in cave created by a snow drift.

No, it's not possible at all. I wanted to say - it is impossible to dig a cave there in any snow level, even in mid-March now. We tried to do it in that very place in 2019. That's what happened when you have the right tool, good visibility and good snow condition (it is already a little compacted). There is no need to repeat other people's mistakes - nowhere is the snow thicker than 2.5 meters. But it's somewhere else. At the place where they found 4, there is a little less than 2.5 meters in the photo, where the search participant Boris Suvorov stands and there is a probe, it is clearly visible https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-01.jpg . There you can see 3 sections of the standard avalanche probe 60 cm each, that is, its total length is ~ 190 cm. The height of the snow edge above the probe is not much higher than the length of the probe itself. It is necessary to take into account that there is a slope of the terrain towards the photographer. Therefore, on the place where the probe and Boris Suvorov are standing, the snow height is not more than 60 cm.

[PJ]

WAB, the Den was found under about 3m of snow it is a fact confirmed by written statements and as well by photographs. The photo with Boris Suvorov https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-01.jpg that you linked is made at the front of the Den, not in the place where bodies were found.
Yes, Dyatlov wrote in his diary about 120 cm in another valley, but we could expect same conditions in all valleys around, there was little snow on the slopes because all of it was blown down and drifted to the valleys, this always happens during high winds and as you know in Ural the wind is always very strong. This is why I believe that the ravine was filled with snow before end of the January.
You are right that it is not possible to dig a snow cave without tools, it is very hard job but they could find naturally created cave/snow roof:

and make the Den floor under something like this.
It was no sense to make just a floor on a open space, there have to be some cover from elements and because only floor was found there was some kind of snow protection over it. Nothing else was found.

And we can't compare conditions in 1959 to what you found there in 2016 or now, not because of the difference in snow fall. The biggest difference is that the forest around ravine is much more dense than in 1959 (you could clearly see it on the photos) so it is not possible for the snow to be drifted from slopes by wind that deep into the forest and be deposited in the ravin because it is stopped by vegetation much earlier.
Just a random fact: Two years ago, in March, in Ireland was a snow fall about 30cm during 24h, because of high wind during the snow fall there was snow drifts as deep as 4m in some places, so you don't need much snow to create big snowdrifts if there is strong wind.


So I believe that they made the Den in a snow drift/cave that was created in a natural process, and there is a lot of facts supporting this possibility.

[Nigel Evans]

This photo shows the one metre of snow that was removed to probe the remaining 2-2.5m?
 

[WAB]

WAB, the Den was found under about 3m of snow it is a fact confirmed by written statements and as well by photographs. The photo with Boris Suvorov https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-the-den-01.jpg that you linked is made at the front of the Den, not in the place where bodies were found.

No. Boris Suvorov stands exactly where the den is. This is the first one.
The second one. There's never been 3 meters of snow anywhere. What's near Boris is about 2.5 meters, and that's the absolute maximum.
A lot of places have been written, however, if you start checking all this directly with those who were there then, you get a less optimistic scenario. I constantly consult with Vladimir Askinazi on what happened in May 1959, and I talked a lot with Anatoly Mokhov while he was alive. My information follows from there. I compare it with what is "written" and what these witnesses analyze at my request. In addition, we (Shura Alekseyenkov and I) made many observations on the spot at different times of the year in conditions when there was much more snow. All of this adds up to the estimates that I bring in. I think we should not be dogmatic about what someone said under unknown circumstances. You have to compare it to what exists in that particular area.

Yes, Dyatlov wrote in his diary about 120 cm in another valley, but we could expect same conditions in all valleys around, there was little snow on the slopes because all of it was blown down and drifted to the valleys, this always happens during high winds and as you know in Ural the wind is always very strong. This is why I believe that the ravine was filled with snow before end of the January.

You have the right count anything you want. However, without knowing the specific conditions, we may be very much mistaken. As it is happens in this case. The conditions in these two valleys (at least at distance of 2...3 km) are very different. The dynamics of winds and snow are different there in autumn. Therefore, one cannot draw conclusions only from their general considerations. Most of the precipitation is carried away by the winds directly to the Auspia and Lozva river valleys. Therefore, there is much more snow there than in the sources of the Lozva River tributaries, near Mount 1079 (Holatchahl). This is a direct consequence of the landscape conditions.

You are right that it is not possible to dig a snow cave without tools, it is very hard job but they could find naturally created cave/snow roof:

and make the Den floor under something like this.

I must upset you. The snow conditions there are much poorer than in the photos you brought.

It was no sense to make just a floor on a open space, there have to be some cover from elements and because only floor was found there was some kind of snow protection over it.

No. You're the one who's wrong.
The idea of making a temporary den (of the type described) was straightforward - temporary stacking of the wounded while the others are carried to the fire. The point is that you consider the course of events in statics, but there the whole process was dynamic. Nobody but two came to the fire from the very beginning. There's no sign of that. When four wounded men appeared (they came much later), then Kolevatov started to carry them to the fire from the place where Zolotaryov and Lyudmila had been injured. Tibo got the injury even earlier and in another place - on the 3 stone ridge, where the second lantern was found later. The three of them carried it downwards. As such carrying for one takes a lot of time, Kolevatov (after he went to the fire!) temporarily (!) built this den and wanted to put everyone (that is, two) there, except for the one he wanted to drag first. But he didn't have time to do that. His strength dried up and he started to overcool. So this den is located exactly on the snow surface and he does not need any protection. It's a temporary structure for its intended purpose.
This is in addition to the fact that there were no conditions for digging up some cave.
And there's another addition. This "protection" didn't make any sense. The wind was going down (or weakening very much) already on the place that is a little higher than where Zina was found. In any case, at the cedar and near it is not felt at all, even if the wind above is about 20 ... 25 m/s. We tested this in practice in January 2015.

Nothing else was found.
And we can't compare conditions in 1959 to what you found there in 2016 or now, not because of the difference in snow fall.
The biggest difference is that the forest around ravine is much more dense than in 1959 (you could clearly see it on the photos) so it is not possible for the snow to be drifted from slopes by wind that deep into the forest and be deposited in the ravin because it is stopped by vegetation much earlier.

No. It's not right. The forest has become thicker - it's the fact. But it's not dense enough change the snow pattern much. Especially since the specific amount of snow has increased due to climate warming. By the way, the vegetation near the ravine hasn't changed much either. Separate birches with a height of about 2 ... 3 meters and a diameter of no more than 10 cm appeared, but they stand so rarely (not less than 3 ... 4 m from each other) that it has practically no impact on snow transport. In addition, I remind you that the wind there is horseback (if it is near mountain very strong) and it has no effect on its transport near the ravine. If you look at the picture along the channel 4 of the tributary from Zina to the first stream (which is near the cedar), then the picture of snow transport has not changed much since 1959. There is not much new vegetation there. These are features of the ecology of this place.
As for the main snow deposit, I can say that most of the snow is transported from the upper parts of the mountain to the field of the third stone ridge and for the bend of the slope slightly above the place where Zina was found. Therefore, she (and Slobodin !) was found under snow layer, and Dyatlov, who was slightly lower, was not completely snow covered.

Just a random fact: Two years ago, in March, in Ireland was a snow fall about 30cm during 24h, because of high wind during the snow fall there was snow drifts as deep as 4m in some places, so you don't need much snow to create big snowdrifts if there is strong wind.

There is no need transfer conditions from other places to this place mechanically. Especially if these conditions are well known and practically known. If in the Caucasus up to 5 ... 6 m of snow can be spread overnight, it does not mean that in Moscow (or in Turin - if you like it better  ) will be the same. It's all about the small details, which are the most important. For reference: in 2013, when there was no wind and it was constantly snowing on the mountain, 30 cm of snow fell in three days, which was not moved down. This is the average statistical intensity of snowfall in this place. The North Urals climate is sharply continental. Ireland – it has maritime climate. Make your conclusions.

So I believe that they made the Den in a snow drift/cave that was created in a natural process, and there is a lot of facts supporting this possibility.

Please set out these facts point by point and we will deal with them together. I do not yet see such obvious facts.

*****************************************
PS. Unfortunately, I won't be able answer you for while. So you'll accumulate questions for now, and I'll try answer them all at once.

[Tony]

The autopsy reports actually states a fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. At the end of Sasha's it states:

"The above mentioned multiple fractures of Zolotaryov’s ribs with hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity were caused in vivo as an effect of a high-power impact to the chest of Zolotaryov at the moment of his fall, squeezing or throwing."

I agree, the autopsy might have merit for one person, because the doctor would do the autopsy and focus on the injuries of the person in front of him, what the investigators should have done and what we should be looking at is all the injuries combined. One person falling backwards, hitting his/her head getting up in confusion and then falling into a whole and suffering horrific injuries is a distinct possibility, having 4 people fall and hit their heads in very similar fashion, get up only for 3 of them to fall and suffer even more horrific injuries upon a second fall while the third dies from his initial injuries seems less likely.

Autopsies for Sasha, Dubinina, and Thibeaux-Brignolle all list fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. Kolevatov's does not. I don't think the medical examiner would have listed fall as a possible cause of injury if it wasn't a possibility. The injuries would have happened during a single fall. For example, it's possible that Dubinina's fractured ribs, bruise to the quadricep, and nose and throat damage happened due to a fall. The only exception would be in the case of Sasha when, after

A fall from under 6 feet would probably happen in less than a second. Couple that with the fact that all of them were probably in the beginning (or even final) stages of hypothermia and it easy to see them not reacting quickly.

Is six feet high enough to cause those injuries though?

The problems I have with the foul play theory is there is always some little action by the group that causes reasonable doubt. In the case of the ravine - who built the den? Why, if they were under some watchful eye bent on their demise, would they be allowed to build a den? If they built the den after the guilty party had caused their injuries and left how, if they had sustained those types of injuries, would they be able to built the den? The den is significant as it probably took a lot of effort to build.

My personal theory is that whoever the attackers were, they wanted this to look as close to natural death as possible, they send them out to the treeline with enough clothes and equipment to let the hikers think they have a chance and thus go willingly but not enough equipment to actually give them a chance. Turned out the hikers were highly motivated and skilled which allowed them to survive much longer than anticipated, they had no choice but to build shelter, so by the time the attackers came down and found them the four in the ravine were the only once still alive. The worked on the den because they knew they were going to die of the elements or by the attackers, but the attackers might leave, they might have a change in heart or someone could come and interrupt them but without shelter all 4 would eventually have succumbed to the elements. As long as there was a chance of survival you deal with the problem at hand which was shelter, hell even without a hope of survival many people will still work on solving the most immediate problem, once that was solved they would have dealt with the next problem and the problem after than, unfortunately they didn’t get that far as they were attacked again in the morning and killed.

[Georgi]

Autopsies for Sasha, Dubinina, and Thibeaux-Brignolle all list fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. Kolevatov's does not. I don't think the medical examiner would have listed fall as a possible cause of injury if it wasn't a possibility. The injuries would have happened during a single fall. For example, it's possible that Dubinina's fractured ribs, bruise to the quadricep, and nose and throat damage happened due to a fall. The only exception would be in the case of Sasha when, after

Like I said, I am not discounting a fall as a cause of death but looking at all of them is it likely? Saying one person died because of a freak accident its a possibility, but that's looking at just one, now having 4 people die from 4 similar but independent freak accidents at the same time under the same circumstance seems a little more unlikely. Looking individually it very well could have been a fall that caused the injuries to the back/side of all 4 people's heads, a fall could have caused the injuries to Dubinina and Zolotaryov but when you step back and look at all the injuries and more importantly what is missing(arm injuries, shoulder injuries, leg injuries etc...). Plus what are the chances they all fell on the same rock or they all fell on 4 rocks that just happened to be at the right place to cause injuries to the back of the head of all the individuals rather than other parts of their bodies. All received the same type of head injuries, to me it indicates that 4 people who were trained in the same manner injured those people in the same way rather than all 4 happening to fall and receive those injuries.

[Tony]

Autopsies for Sasha, Dubinina, and Thibeaux-Brignolle all list fall as a possible explanation for the injuries. Kolevatov's does not. I don't think the medical examiner would have listed fall as a possible cause of injury if it wasn't a possibility. The injuries would have happened during a single fall. For example, it's possible that Dubinina's fractured ribs, bruise to the quadricep, and nose and throat damage happened due to a fall. The only exception would be in the case of Sasha when, after

Like I said, I am not discounting a fall as a cause of death but looking at all of them is it likely? Saying one person died because of a freak accident its a possibility, but that's looking at just one, now having 4 people die from 4 similar but independent freak accidents at the same time under the same circumstance seems a little more unlikely. Looking individually it very well could have been a fall that caused the injuries to the back/side of all 4 people's heads, a fall could have caused the injuries to Dubinina and Zolotaryov but when you step back and look at all the injuries and more importantly what is missing(arm injuries, shoulder injuries, leg injuries etc...). Plus what are the chances they all fell on the same rock or they all fell on 4 rocks that just happened to be at the right place to cause injuries to the back of the head of all the individuals rather than other parts of their bodies. All received the same type of head injuries, to me it indicates that 4 people who were trained in the same manner injured those people in the same way rather than all 4 happening to fall and receive those injuries.

Sorry about the previous fragmented response. Not sure what happened there.

I think there is some confusion as to the events with the fall - I'll try and clarify:

After Yuri D. and Yuri K. passed at the cedar, the remaining seven took clothing, left the fire and cedar, and traveled deeper into the forest. In complete dark, without the moon or flashlight, they were probably in two groups walking very close or holding on to each other. By this point they were all in the beginning or mid stages of hypothermia and reaction time would have been limited. Stumbling onto the ravine, it's possible that they heard water, but they would not have been able to see the ravine. There are a hundred different scenarios for how they could have fallen but I believe they stumbled in the deep snow or fell through snow (snow bridge) and, holding onto each other, 3 of them fell onto a number of large rocks (imaging falling down a flight of stairs on to rocks in the dark). They didn't fall onto a single rock and the rocks weren't in the "right place" - it was just a bunch of rocks that lined the entire bed of the ravine. It would have happened quickly and with hypothermia setting in, they probably didn't realize what had happened and were unable to block the fall or protect themselves. Sasha fell and landed on his chest breaking his ribs and cutting the top of his head. Thibeux-Brignolle landed on his head knocking him unconscious. Lyuda landed breaking her ribs and received bruising on her quadricep and damage to her face. All of these injuries could occur with an uninterrupted fall onto large rocks. A 170 lb person falling 6 feet would generate around 4,800 newtons of force which would be more than enough to break ribs. This is all arm-chair science but we've already concluded that the medical examiner stated a fall as a possibility.

After they fell, the remaining 3 (or four) made their way into the ravine and, hoping to save their friends and themselves, began to build the den into a snow drift on the banks of the ravine, returning to the cedar to retrieve more clothing and cut fir branches for the bed. The 3 that fell remained on the rocks where they were found months later. The building of the den would have been done in absolute darkness and it probably took a substantial amount of effort. Running out of options, the remaining three (Igor, Zina, and Rustem) abandoned the ravine and attempted a return to the tent. Over the next 3 weeks its possible that the water level in the ravine decreased and froze allowing snow to accumulate and cover the rocks and hikers. As far as I know there is no mention of a search in the area of the ravine during the initial stages of the investigation.

The outlier is Kolevatov. I don't know what his circumstances would have been. It's possible that after the fire the 3 attempted a return to the tent and the other four walked into the forest with all but Kolevatov falling into the ravine. Kolevatov alone constructed the den and the bed and then gave up. But I don't see him being able to construct the bed and den alone. It's also possible that he fell as well which would account for his neck injury.

There are also injuries to Sasha's scapula that were found later that are hard to account for.

Yes, it's unusual that 3 (or 4) people would all fall at the same time and incur such extreme injuries but it is the most likely scenario. Even if they were forced from the tent by a third party and left to fend for themselves I think it is still a more likely scenario for the injuries. Finding a small group of people in a ravine in complete darkness in a large, forested area with only a flashlight in -15 F weather and in snow a mile from the tent would have been near impossible at best.

If you happened upon someone lying on top of rocks at the bottom of a small ravine with injuries what would be the mostly likely cause of injury?

[Nigel Evans]

So Tony, if they broke their rib cages and skull on rocks why wasn't there any surface bruising? Their hearts continued to beat afterwards as evidenced by the internal bleeding. Then they were deep frozen until shortly before discovery. Look at the morgue photo of Lyudmila. The rhs of her chest (facing the camera)  has two longitudinal fractures but there's no bruising to be seen in explanation.Nicolai - extensive skull fracture with no surface bruising at all.