November 30, 2020, 12:29:49 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Weather analysis from the night of the Dyatlov Pass incident  (Read 1171 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

September 07, 2020, 03:57:47 AM
Read 1171 times
Online

Teddy

Administrator
I am publishing the results from the new investigation in Materials Modern → Publications / Media
You may consider subscribing for that board too.
The latest is the weather analysis from the night of the Dyatlov Pass incident.

The first question that comes to mind when you look at the photos and read the diaries is if it was the weather that killed the Dyatlov group. After all, this is the most common reason for incidents in the mountain, especially multiple deaths with no survivors. In this part of the Urals there are no direct weather measurements, the nearest meteorological station Burmantovo being 47 miles away. What can modern methods do about the precise temperature, wind speed, wind chill index and snow cover present on that dreadful night 61 years ago? The Prosecutor's office investigation in 2019 made it its goal to find out as much as possible. Independent experts and participants in the search operation in 1959 disagree with their conclusions. Read the weather analysis →

September 12, 2020, 10:52:09 PM
Reply #1
Offline

Marchesk


The first question that comes to mind when you look at the photos and read the diaries is if it was the weather that killed the Dyatlov group. After all, this is the most common reason for incidents in the mountain, especially multiple deaths with no survivors.

Only if the weather motivated them to leave the tent. And from the weather analysis, it does not look like the estimated wind speed would have been enough for a Karmen vortex or Katabatic wind. Therefore, the hikers probably were not spooked out of the tent by a low frequency sound, nor did they abandon it in fear of it blowing away.

One doesn't abandon the only good shelter they have with winter clothing and warm bodies for an exposed hike down unfamiliar terrain in the dark to try and shelter in the trees and build a half-assed fire just because the wind picked up and the temperature dropped outside the tent.

We can't know for sure how accurate the analysis is, just like we can't be sure a snow slab didn't form above the tent. But it doesn't seem very likely. I don't know whether anyone's tried to rank all the theories by probability. I pulled a 5% out of the air for snow slab, and the wind-related theories sound about as (un)likely.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 11:06:43 PM by Marchesk »

September 13, 2020, 12:49:31 PM
Reply #2
Offline

Investigator


A couple days ago I posted my complete conclusion in the "why the group split" thread.  As I said there, it's not one incident, but rather a sequence of decisions/incidents/possible accidents, etc.  Each one has more than one reasonable explanation and of course unlikely possibilities can't be entirely dismissed.  However, what I would like to see is a detailed recreation, meaning a bunch of fit college students hike up that mountain during the winter, wearing the same clothing, doing the same things, and pitching the same kind of tent (two WW II tents sewn together and coming apart at those seams during the night, as we read about in the diaries), with no heat and no sleeping bags.  I think the tent would rip apart from the wind, then someone would try to fix it and perhaps accidentally make it worse.  Or they might have felt trapped so they had to cut their way out or else freeze to death during the night (if ice sheets formed on the outsides).  Or Igor thought it would get ripped open by the strong wind and wanted to teach the group a lesson, and also earn the Level 3 certification.  The boots and heavy coats may have frozen but then why not take the blankets?  Probably because he told them that the blankets would be a hindrance and possible blow away, and that a robust fire (which they did create) would keep them alive during the night.

September 14, 2020, 03:38:20 AM
Reply #3
Online

Nigel Evans


A couple days ago I posted my complete conclusion in the "why the group split" thread.  As I said there, it's not one incident, but rather a sequence of decisions/incidents/possible accidents, etc.  Each one has more than one reasonable explanation and of course unlikely possibilities can't be entirely dismissed.  However, what I would like to see is a detailed recreation, meaning a bunch of fit college students hike up that mountain during the winter, wearing the same clothing, doing the same things, and pitching the same kind of tent (two WW II tents sewn together and coming apart at those seams during the night, as we read about in the diaries), with no heat and no sleeping bags.  I think the tent would rip apart from the wind, then someone would try to fix it and perhaps accidentally make it worse.  Or they might have felt trapped so they had to cut their way out or else freeze to death during the night (if ice sheets formed on the outsides).  Or Igor thought it would get ripped open by the strong wind and wanted to teach the group a lesson, and also earn the Level 3 certification.  The boots and heavy coats may have frozen but then why not take the blankets?  Probably because he told them that the blankets would be a hindrance and possible blow away, and that a robust fire (which they did create) would keep them alive during the night.
They left behind lots of clothing and footwear that wasn't frozen.

September 14, 2020, 02:32:25 PM
Reply #4
Offline

Investigator


They left behind lots of clothing and footwear that wasn't frozen.

I don't think they had more than one pair of heavy boots each nor more than one heavy coat each, except perhaps for the fur jacket that I think they were using to put in the hole in the tent when the stove wasn't in use, as was the case that night.  This seems to be what puzzles most people, but I think those were frozen, and apparently they kept clothing against the walls to use as a kind of insulation.  We won't know if most of the items froze up until a good recreation is done, but they were wearing multiple pants, shirts/sweaters, and socks.  You can only put on so many of those before it becomes difficult to move, and they probably realized those would get sweated up/wet and they'd have to change into other clothes before packing the tent up and getting to a better location the next day.  Outside the tent, I believe a shirt was wrapped around one or two pair of socks, apparently beloging to Igor.  That might have gotten blown out of the tent or he may have been trying to carry it down and dropped it and then it blew off (we'd need to get somebody up there same time of year and same weather conditions to see if you had something like that under your arm and started walking, if it would like fall out and blow away).  Apparently Russian soldiers could survive by digging out a "den," lining it with branches, and huddling together, but the Dyatlov group split and those who went back to the den did not get the chance to put that plan into effect (though perhaps they waited too long hoping the fire would save them before recognizing that it would not).

September 14, 2020, 03:47:08 PM
Reply #5
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The first question that comes to mind when you look at the photos and read the diaries is if it was the weather that killed the Dyatlov group. After all, this is the most common reason for incidents in the mountain, especially multiple deaths with no survivors.

Only if the weather motivated them to leave the tent. And from the weather analysis, it does not look like the estimated wind speed would have been enough for a Karmen vortex or Katabatic wind. Therefore, the hikers probably were not spooked out of the tent by a low frequency sound, nor did they abandon it in fear of it blowing away.

One doesn't abandon the only good shelter they have with winter clothing and warm bodies for an exposed hike down unfamiliar terrain in the dark to try and shelter in the trees and build a half-assed fire just because the wind picked up and the temperature dropped outside the tent.

We can't know for sure how accurate the analysis is, just like we can't be sure a snow slab didn't form above the tent. But it doesn't seem very likely. I don't know whether anyone's tried to rank all the theories by probability. I pulled a 5% out of the air for snow slab, and the wind-related theories sound about as (un)likely.

After studying the different theories I think that whatever happened was very unusual.  I dont think it was the result of a snow storm, wind, avalanche or snow slide.  I dont think they were attacked by other people.  I have settled on three possible theories, but after much research I still think one is more likely candidate.

Military test (most likely a neutron bomb)
Infrasound
Yeti attack

The last two are still difficult to explain.  They can't be ruled out.  My top candidate is still the neutron bomb test.

I still think their behaviour at the tent is very unusual, and in particular the way the tent was cut from the inside.  There were three cuts with clear indication that they had been made from inside.  Some of these cuts were through the seams which would take some effort and sawing.  Then there is evidence of fighting amongst the group.  The radiation found on the clothing.  Anecdotal descriptions of fire balls and burned tree tops.  Semyon wearing his camera around his neck as if he had recently been taking photographs.  The discoloured skin.  I think there is a good chance they were exposed to significant neutron radiation after witnessing a test.  If they were between 600-1200 metres away they would have recieved massive radiation dose.  This would have affected them within an hour due to neuro-vascular damage which can affect the level of consciousness with potential seizures.  This would explain all of the strange behaviours of the group, including how and why they left the tent tge way they did.  Have a look at this description of the affects of acute radiation sickness on Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome

Note a neutron bomb could have exposed them to 80 grays of radiation.  Also note the description of how such exposure can affect the pigmentation of the skin.

Regards

Star man

September 14, 2020, 06:46:15 PM
Reply #6
Offline

Investigator


Star Man, I have the feeling that this will be debated as long as humanity exists and it is listed as one of the great mysteries.  What I can tell you as someone who has done a lot of investigations is that the evidence here is very strong, but that never or hardly ever means that every last loose string is tied up.  It's not uncommon in criminal cases, for example, that there is either no clear motive or there's more than one good possibility as a motive.  And here it would likely be very revealing if a recreation was done.  It wouldn't cost much and it's really unfortunate that with all the money spent by different people, agencies, governments, etc., nobody has done this!  It's also true that experts can be wrong.  In Pat Brown's book about profiling, for instance, she mentions a case that required her consulting three gun shot blood spatter experts before the last one figured out it must have been a suicide.  If you decide that something had to happen a certain way, that is what can lead to what's called an anchor point error, and the DPI has several of those, especially two (that they must have cut the tent open from the inside due to a great fear but not a fear of freezing to death along with their lack of heavier clothing meaning they must have left in either an irrational panic or because they were forced to do so).  I find it interesting that the two major possibilties (in my opinion) are that positioning the tent where they did was an incredibly bad mistake or that Igor did it to teach the others a lesson or to practice survival under those kinds of circumstances (and would get them the Level 3 certification), mainly because these are so different.  But I've encountered this type of thing before and one just has to live with the ambivalence.  You look at the evidence and if you think you've got it around a 90 to 95% probability, you are quite content (or else you can drive yourself crazy!).

September 15, 2020, 03:13:32 AM
Reply #7
Online

Nigel Evans


They left behind lots of clothing and footwear that wasn't frozen.

I don't think they had more than one pair of heavy boots each nor more than one heavy coat each, except perhaps for the fur jacket that I think they were using to put in the hole in the tent when the stove wasn't in use, as was the case that night.  This seems to be what puzzles most people, but I think those were frozen, and apparently they kept clothing against the walls to use as a kind of insulation.  We won't know if most of the items froze up until a good recreation is done, but they were wearing multiple pants, shirts/sweaters, and socks.  You can only put on so many of those before it becomes difficult to move, and they probably realized those would get sweated up/wet and they'd have to change into other clothes before packing the tent up and getting to a better location the next day.  Outside the tent, I believe a shirt was wrapped around one or two pair of socks, apparently beloging to Igor.  That might have gotten blown out of the tent or he may have been trying to carry it down and dropped it and then it blew off (we'd need to get somebody up there same time of year and same weather conditions to see if you had something like that under your arm and started walking, if it would like fall out and blow away).  Apparently Russian soldiers could survive by digging out a "den," lining it with branches, and huddling together, but the Dyatlov group split and those who went back to the den did not get the chance to put that plan into effect (though perhaps they waited too long hoping the fire would save them before recognizing that it would not).
No offence but i think you need to spend more time reading about this mystery and less time creating theories about it. They all had outer footwear for skiing AND valenki which are boots made of felt which they wore around the campsite. These are what Semyon and Nicolai were wearing. The other seven left their's behind in the tent all except Rustem who was wearing one and left the other. Plus they left a lot of clothing. All this is evidence of how little time they had to decide before fleeing the tent (by cutting it from the inside). So central to this mystery is what was the cause of this decision and my favourite theory is noxious gases.

September 15, 2020, 11:31:23 AM
Reply #8
Offline

Investigator


Nigel Evans, is what I'm saying so different than what the Russian government recently concluded?  Are they spewing "noxious gases" too? Remember, this is a public forum that is for the purpose of people expressing opinions, and if you want to believe in Yeti/Bigfoot or whatever, that's fine with me.  I'm just providing the opinion of someone who has done a whole lot of investigating over the course of decades.  As I have said over and over again, a recreation (with no details changed) would be best.  As to your specific point, there is simply no good evidence that they left the tent and went down the mountain in a crazed panic.  They didn't rush down the hill, the placed snow on top of the tent and then one of the flashlights on top of that, etc.  When they got to the tree line they engaged in logical behavior, and some were trying to get back to the tent an hour or two later!  Whether they did try to get out of the tent quickly because they thought it was going to collapse is something a recreation might demonstrate, however.  Once the tent was secured from more damage or blowing away (or the contents blowing all over the mountainside), they could then go about putting their plan or plans into effect.  The fact that the plan or plans failed and they succumbed to hypothermia (or blunt force trauma from falling from a tree or into a crevace type structure in the case of Luda in particular) is consistent with many, many such outdoor, cold weather incidents ("death by misadventure" is often how these are described, or have been in the past).  It is an interesting incident (or really a series of incidents, decisions, etc.), but the evidence is very strong in the direction of this type of explanation.  I think where people like yourself go wrong is that you create "anchor points" and say to yourself, "nobody of sound mind would do that in such a situation."  However, until a recreation is done, you can't say you know what the tent (interior or exterior) was like a few hours after they pitched it there, nor can you say what they had decided, in terms of plans.  Much worse decisions have been made in similar situations (such as what happened on Denali in 1967), and they didn't have any idea what that mountain was like, nor did they have any way to communicate with the "outside world," which could have contributed to bad decision-making, though pitching the tent in that location with no heat may not  have been survivable after a few hours no matter what decisions they made.

September 15, 2020, 12:07:24 PM
Reply #9
Online

Nigel Evans


@Investigator - if you really believe that they calmly elected to descend in their socks in those conditions then i think it is fair to say you hold a unique perspective not previously expressed on this forum or in the several books i've read on this subject.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2020, 12:25:21 PM by Nigel Evans »

September 15, 2020, 03:18:23 PM
Reply #10
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Star Man, I have the feeling that this will be debated as long as humanity exists and it is listed as one of the great mysteries.  What I can tell you as someone who has done a lot of investigations is that the evidence here is very strong, but that never or hardly ever means that every last loose string is tied up.  It's not uncommon in criminal cases, for example, that there is either no clear motive or there's more than one good possibility as a motive.  And here it would likely be very revealing if a recreation was done.  It wouldn't cost much and it's really unfortunate that with all the money spent by different people, agencies, governments, etc., nobody has done this!  It's also true that experts can be wrong.  In Pat Brown's book about profiling, for instance, she mentions a case that required her consulting three gun shot blood spatter experts before the last one figured out it must have been a suicide.  If you decide that something had to happen a certain way, that is what can lead to what's called an anchor point error, and the DPI has several of those, especially two (that they must have cut the tent open from the inside due to a great fear but not a fear of freezing to death along with their lack of heavier clothing meaning they must have left in either an irrational panic or because they were forced to do so).  I find it interesting that the two major possibilties (in my opinion) are that positioning the tent where they did was an incredibly bad mistake or that Igor did it to teach the others a lesson or to practice survival under those kinds of circumstances (and would get them the Level 3 certification), mainly because these are so different.  But I've encountered this type of thing before and one just has to live with the ambivalence.  You look at the evidence and if you think you've got it around a 90 to 95% probability, you are quite content (or else you can drive yourself crazy!).

Hello investigator,

Not sure how long you have been studying the dpi?  It is true that the dpi will not be solved with total certainty, unless the authorities (if they do actually know the truth) come forward and reveal it.   I have been interested in this mystery for about 19 months, and have studies the case files in depth.  Not as in depth as some other esteemed members like Nigel Evans, WAB, and of course Teddy.   What I do know is that the more you study, consider, postulate, investigate, ponder, the more the subtle details of the case become prominent.  The dpi is kind of like a journey into a great mystery.  At first you see the obvious as you explore the different theories.  Then you start to notice more and more detail that changes your original perception and gets you thinking   but you have to be careful not to read too much purpose into every detail as there may be no purpose to them all.  This leaves you with many permutations on each theory.  The trick is then to string all the facts, including the details and events together with not much in the way of a time line to help.  I think all you can do from there is consider the probability of each theory and pick your top theory.  Will be interested to see what you uncover?

Regards

Star man

September 15, 2020, 03:40:31 PM
Reply #11
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
They left behind lots of clothing and footwear that wasn't frozen.

I don't think they had more than one pair of heavy boots each nor more than one heavy coat each, except perhaps for the fur jacket that I think they were using to put in the hole in the tent when the stove wasn't in use, as was the case that night.  This seems to be what puzzles most people, but I think those were frozen, and apparently they kept clothing against the walls to use as a kind of insulation.  We won't know if most of the items froze up until a good recreation is done, but they were wearing multiple pants, shirts/sweaters, and socks.  You can only put on so many of those before it becomes difficult to move, and they probably realized those would get sweated up/wet and they'd have to change into other clothes before packing the tent up and getting to a better location the next day.  Outside the tent, I believe a shirt was wrapped around one or two pair of socks, apparently beloging to Igor.  That might have gotten blown out of the tent or he may have been trying to carry it down and dropped it and then it blew off (we'd need to get somebody up there same time of year and same weather conditions to see if you had something like that under your arm and started walking, if it would like fall out and blow away).  Apparently Russian soldiers could survive by digging out a "den," lining it with branches, and huddling together, but the Dyatlov group split and those who went back to the den did not get the chance to put that plan into effect (though perhaps they waited too long hoping the fire would save them before recognizing that it would not).
No offence but i think you need to spend more time reading about this mystery and less time creating theories about it. They all had outer footwear for skiing AND valenki which are boots made of felt which they wore around the campsite. These are what Semyon and Nicolai were wearing. The other seven left their's behind in the tent all except Rustem who was wearing one and left the other. Plus they left a lot of clothing. All this is evidence of how little time they had to decide before fleeing the tent (by cutting it from the inside). So central to this mystery is what was the cause of this decision and my favourite theory is noxious gases.

Gas is a possibility Nigel.   I have been considering the cuts in the tent again.  Look at where they are and the track of the cuts.  Why cut the tent like that?  Why cut through the seams.  It would have taken time to do this.  It would be easier to cut vertical slots or just leave by the door?  It doesn't make sense to cut the tent like this.  It does make me wonder if their behaviours were rational.  Did they have control of their cognitive ability?  It makes me think of infrasound, but more of a certainty would be acute radiation exposure and neuro vascular damage.  It would explain the irrational way they left the tent.  It would explain, why the split up.  It would explain why some of them fell and sustained major traumas.  It would explain the skin pigmentation,, the hemorrhaging and internal bleeding, the foam from Yuris D lungs.  They would have been in alot of pain, severe headaches, seizures and reduced consciousness.  It would explain why the cause of death for some is difficult to explain from hypothermia on its own.  It would explain  Rustems head injuries- imagine the damage a severe seizure could to someone when depending the slope.  Why wasn't the fire enough to keep them alive?  What if they were already dying when they left the tent?

Sorry -  just to keep on topic, given the weather extrapolation its unlikely they left the tent because of tge weather.

Regards

Star man
« Last Edit: September 15, 2020, 04:00:34 PM by Star man »

September 15, 2020, 07:13:36 PM
Reply #12
Offline

Investigator


!
I agree, Star Man.  If at least one of them cut where the seams were, that would be consistent with my explanation (though remember, even experts, as opposed to a local seamstress, can be wrong!).  The way it likely "went down" is that the tent started coming apart again (as we read in the diaries, that was a major complaint: the group didn't want to do the sewing and Igor thought it was their responsibility and demanded they do it; Zina in particular was apparently very upset with Igor, and that would dovetail with the possibility that she was fleeing back to the tent after seeing one or both Yuris die; she had had enough of it and blamed Igor).  Then, they realized the cold would likely be fatal (and much of their heavy clothing/footwear had gotten frozen by then, or Igor had a "brave" plan that turned out to be a bad idea), so one or more decided to open it up there and get down to the trees to start a fire or build a "den" ASAP, but they also realized they had to secure the tent so that they would have their equipment, clothing, etc. to come back to in the morning.  Nigel raised the question of why most weren't wearing the light shoes, designed to be worn in the tent.  As he said, one was wearing one of these shoes, which likely means that whatever they were doing led to the shoes coming off.  Seven of the blankets appeared to have been used that night, so they would have put those shoes on before getting the blankets out (the other two blankets may have belonged to the two who were better dressed and doing guard duty).  Another possibility is that, assuming the heavy footwear was frozen, they thought they might need the lighter footwear in the morning and so did not want to wear them that night because they thought starting a fire and sittitng on a bed of cedar branches would be fine and taking a chance getting those wet might be a huge problem the next day (there were burn marks on some socks, which suggests and attempt to try them off), but with this scenario, there's the one person who was wearing one of these light shoes, which is quite odd, but could be explained easily if the matching one was found outside the tent (anyone know for sure about where it was found?).  Of course, it makes little sense to get distracted by such a little detail if the "big picture" is obvious.  If this occurred during criminal trials, there would hardly ever be a conviction!  Still, as I said before, a recreation would likely be very revealing!
« Last Edit: September 15, 2020, 09:01:35 PM by Investigator »

September 16, 2020, 03:09:31 AM
Reply #13
Online

Nigel Evans


@Starman - i like your "journey into a great mystery"  kewl1 . Imo it's because Ivanov did a good job of removing all the obvious clues when he was ordered to shutdown the case and create a casefile with no number. I think that's the big picture. I would also agree with you that some form of top secret military ordnance is central to the mystery which explains why the Soviet hierarchy shut the case down. But the fascinating twist on this very plausible narrative is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov goes public with a chilling apology to the relatives "Beria was gone but his methods remained" and is adamant that it was "fireorbs firing heat rays". This from the man who sanitised the evidence for public consumption before confiscation and kept a curious set of negatives with Semyon's name on them. Any attempt to explain this as perhaps questioning Ivanov's mental faculties is somewhat thwarted by Okishev who went public several years later and made no challenge to Ivanov's story.
Wrt to the cuts, i have no problem with a razor sharp knife making short work across a canvas seam. It depends on the edge. Apparently after battles the japanese samurai would rank their swords by piling dead bodies up and seeing how many a single blow could cut through. There's sharp and there's sharp. The tent was found partially collapsed, if they were sleeping and "the event" brought it down  then it all fits imo.
Regards.

September 16, 2020, 11:39:10 AM
Reply #14
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
@Investigator - if you really believe that they calmly elected to descend in their socks in those conditions then i think it is fair to say you hold a unique perspective not previously expressed on this forum or in the several books i've read on this subject.

You sort of hit the nail on the head again. Just what I was thinking. If we are supposed to believe that they left the Tent in no hurry then why didnt they dress properly.
DB

September 16, 2020, 01:10:25 PM
Reply #15
Offline

Investigator


Sarapuk, anything they were wearing on the outside of the body (boots, coat in particular) during the day would get sweated up from the inside and coated with snow/ice on the outside.  If you then put them against the sides of the tent for insulation (as I read that the rescuers claimed they did), then without heat those will freeze up and become unwearable (they may not have realized that because they had used heat in the tent previously).  If you then wear the lighter boots, those can become too wet to wear the next day, so if they thought surviving the night wouldn't be too difficult, their actions make perfect sense.  Now there is a good possibility that they wanted to get out of the tent quicky, and that may be because the tent was about to (or appeared about to) collapse or get blown down the mountainside.  And that explains haste to leave and secure the tent, but then a slow walk down to the trees (so as not to fall and get injured).  It also explains why they didn't take the blankets, because they needed to work on securing the tent and thought the plan was fine (if you are wrapped up in a blanket and want to flee into the cold night because of some irrational fear, at least one would likely cling to their blanket, as is common in such situations).  They were not wearing one pair of socks, one pair of pants, and one shirt, which clearly would have been a terrible idea, but again, what someone believes about hypothermia in these kinds of situations is always hard to tell.  There are so many similar incidents where one asks, "why in the world did they do that, it was so dangerous?"  In this case, I think an alternate explanation is that Igor was angry with the group (as we read in the diaries) and so wanted to "teach them a lesson" by allowing the tent the get ripped open by the strong wind and then he would show them how to survive under those circumstances.  He just happened to be wrong about that point, and the four others deciding to go with a different method (immediately or after a short while) is evidence to that notion.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2020, 01:15:26 PM by Investigator »

September 16, 2020, 04:15:48 PM
Reply #16
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I agree, Star Man.  If at least one of them cut where the seams were, that would be consistent with my explanation (though remember, even experts, as opposed to a local seamstress, can be wrong!).  The way it likely "went down" is that the tent started coming apart again (as we read in the diaries, that was a major complaint: the group didn't want to do the sewing and Igor thought it was their responsibility and demanded they do it; Zina in particular was apparently very upset with Igor, and that would dovetail with the possibility that she was fleeing back to the tent after seeing one or both Yuris die; she had had enough of it and blamed Igor).  Then, they realized the cold would likely be fatal (and much of their heavy clothing/footwear had gotten frozen by then, or Igor had a "brave" plan that turned out to be a bad idea), so one or more decided to open it up there and get down to the trees to start a fire or build a "den" ASAP, but they also realized they had to secure the tent so that they would have their equipment, clothing, etc. to come back to in the morning.  Nigel raised the question of why most weren't wearing the light shoes, designed to be worn in the tent.  As he said, one was wearing one of these shoes, which likely means that whatever they were doing led to the shoes coming off.  Seven of the blankets appeared to have been used that night, so they would have put those shoes on before getting the blankets out (the other two blankets may have belonged to the two who were better dressed and doing guard duty).  Another possibility is that, assuming the heavy footwear was frozen, they thought they might need the lighter footwear in the morning and so did not want to wear them that night because they thought starting a fire and sittitng on a bed of cedar branches would be fine and taking a chance getting those wet might be a huge problem the next day (there were burn marks on some socks, which suggests and attempt to try them off), but with this scenario, there's the one person who was wearing one of these light shoes, which is quite odd, but could be explained easily if the matching one was found outside the tent (anyone know for sure about where it was found?).  Of course, it makes little sense to get distracted by such a little detail if the "big picture" is obvious.  If this occurred during criminal trials, there would hardly ever be a conviction!  Still, as I said before, a recreation would likely be very revealing!

The tent wasn't the best.  This is true.  But the cuts are definitely cuts made from inside, the question is made by whom, and why.  I could understand that the tent if damaged may need to be repaired, but cutting it the way it was cut would certainly make it significantly worse.   I have considered the high wind theory in the katabatic wind section and there is very little chance that the wind speeds experienced were enough to significantly damage the tent.  But there is one important clue that is possibly being over looked here.  I dont know how closely you have studied the damaged tent and the cuts?  From my own analysis it is clear, or at least highly likely that following the cutting of the tent, a person has used their hands to grab the edges of the cuts and pulled at it to make the hole bigger.  This is evident from the intersection of the cuts and the torn sections that intersect the cuts at a 90 degree angle.  This imo was not an attempt to repair the tent.

Another thing to consider is the context of the situation.  Yes I agree that there were some grumbles in the group about repairing the tent and Lyuda not doing her bit, but leaving the tent the way they did, with no shoes and clothing would be the equivalent of jumping out of a life raft, in a hurricane swollen sea to test if the groups swimming skills.  Igor would have known this and so would Semyon (being older and probably more level headed) .  I suspect they all knew the danger.  So its is  very unlikely to have been an exercise to achieve the level 3 cert.  Also, it seems they were in very good spirits.  They ate their evening meal, and wrote the satirical note. 

Rustems other boot was found in the tent.

Welcome to the rabbit hole.

Regards

Star man

September 16, 2020, 04:24:36 PM
Reply #17
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
@Starman - i like your "journey into a great mystery"  kewl1 . Imo it's because Ivanov did a good job of removing all the obvious clues when he was ordered to shutdown the case and create a casefile with no number. I think that's the big picture. I would also agree with you that some form of top secret military ordnance is central to the mystery which explains why the Soviet hierarchy shut the case down. But the fascinating twist on this very plausible narrative is that 30 years later during glasnost Ivanov goes public with a chilling apology to the relatives "Beria was gone but his methods remained" and is adamant that it was "fireorbs firing heat rays". This from the man who sanitised the evidence for public consumption before confiscation and kept a curious set of negatives with Semyon's name on them. Any attempt to explain this as perhaps questioning Ivanov's mental faculties is somewhat thwarted by Okishev who went public several years later and made no challenge to Ivanov's story.
Wrt to the cuts, i have no problem with a razor sharp knife making short work across a canvas seam. It depends on the edge. Apparently after battles the japanese samurai would rank their swords by piling dead bodies up and seeing how many a single blow could cut through. There's sharp and there's sharp. The tent was found partially collapsed, if they were sleeping and "the event" brought it down  then it all fits imo.
Regards.

Do you think Ivanov was literally talking about fire balls or speaking in riddles?.  a neutron bomb makes a pretty good fire ball.  Possibly about 500m in diameter, visible at 70km away as an orange orb about the size of the moon?  Generates alot of NOx too, plus lethal acute neutron radiation, and beams of thermal energy.  Was Ivanov still holding back on what he really knew?

Regards

Star man


September 17, 2020, 02:42:18 AM
Reply #18
Online

Nigel Evans



Do you think Ivanov was literally talking about fire balls or speaking in riddles?.  a neutron bomb makes a pretty good fire ball.  Possibly about 500m in diameter, visible at 70km away as an orange orb about the size of the moon?  Generates alot of NOx too, plus lethal acute neutron radiation, and beams of thermal energy.  Was Ivanov still holding back on what he really knew?

Regards

Star man

From the man himself : https://dyatlovpass.com/lev-ivanov?lid=1
"As a prosecutor who at that time had to deal with some secret defense issues, I rejected the version of the atomic weapon test in this zone. It was then that I began to closely engage in "fireballs."I interrogated many eyewitnesses of overflight, hovering and, quite simply, visits of unidentified flying objects in the Subpolar Urals. Incidentally, UFO's i.e. unidentified flying objects are often associated with aliens. I do not agree with this. UFOs need to be understood as unidentified flying objects, and only so. Many data suggest that these can be clots of energy that are not understood by modern people and unexplained by modern data of science and technology, affecting animate and inanimate nature encountered in their path. Apparently, we met with one of them.Next I will quote from my interrogations and documents. I said above that they are stored in the archive. Technician meteorologist Tokareva - told me:
"On February 17 at 6 h. 50 m. local time in the sky appeared not unnatural phenomenon. Moving star with a tail. The tail looked like dense cirrus clouds. Then the star was freed from the tail, became brighter than the stars and flew away. It gradually began to swell, forming a large ball, enveloped in a haze. Then inside this ball the star caught fire, from which first a crescent was formed, then a small ball formed, not so bright. The big ball gradually began to fade, became like a blurry spot. At 7 h. 05 m. it disappeared altogether. A star moved from the south to the northeast."Is it necessary to add to this that Tokareva’s observation of the sky was part of her professional duties. And that at this time the comet region did not visit the comet. This ball of fire was observed in the Ivdel region by serviceman A. Savkin, who was also questioned:"On February 17, 1959, at 6:40 in the morning, while on duty on the south side, a ball of bright white light appeared that periodically enveloped in cloud white dense fog inside this cloud was a bright-luminous point the size of a star . Moving towards the north direction the ball was visible for 8-10 minutes."It was already a matter of technology - to find other people who, at night in the evenings in January-February 1959, were not sleeping, but were on duty out in the open. Now it’s not a secret for anyone that Ivdel at that time it was a solid "archipelago" of camp sites forming Ivdellag, which was guarded around the clock.The testimonies of Novikov, Avenburg, Malik were exactly the same. The same ball was seen on March 31. We saw a similar ball on the night of the death of the hikers, that is, from the first to the second of February, students-hikers of the Geological Faculty of the Pedagogical Institute. Witness G. Atamanaki - saw this ball over Otorten on the night of the 1st of February. The study of the case now fully convinces, and even then I stuck to the version of the death of student hikers from exposure to an unknown flying object. Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious.".
.
.
.According to WAB the sightings of Feb 17 and Mar 31 are well documented rocket launches. Ivanov states that G. Atamanaki saw the same on Feb 1, but there is no Atamanaki in the case files. There is however a G. Atmanaki testimony who witnessed the Feb 17 event. So there's a case for saying Ivanov is misunderstanding rocket launches and getting muddled up wrt witness statements. But there is a witness statement from a prison guard who walking home from the cinema saw a flash in the sky from the direction of Kholat that night. Whatever it is clear that Ivanov dismissed the atomic test version.
 .     
Regards.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2020, 06:39:30 AM by Nigel Evans »

September 17, 2020, 04:05:13 PM
Reply #19
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient

Do you think Ivanov was literally talking about fire balls or speaking in riddles?.  a neutron bomb makes a pretty good fire ball.  Possibly about 500m in diameter, visible at 70km away as an orange orb about the size of the moon?  Generates alot of NOx too, plus lethal acute neutron radiation, and beams of thermal energy.  Was Ivanov still holding back on what he really knew?

Regards

Star man

From the man himself : https://dyatlovpass.com/lev-ivanov?lid=1
"As a prosecutor who at that time had to deal with some secret defense issues, I rejected the version of the atomic weapon test in this zone. It was then that I began to closely engage in "fireballs."I interrogated many eyewitnesses of overflight, hovering and, quite simply, visits of unidentified flying objects in the Subpolar Urals. Incidentally, UFO's i.e. unidentified flying objects are often associated with aliens. I do not agree with this. UFOs need to be understood as unidentified flying objects, and only so. Many data suggest that these can be clots of energy that are not understood by modern people and unexplained by modern data of science and technology, affecting animate and inanimate nature encountered in their path. Apparently, we met with one of them.Next I will quote from my interrogations and documents. I said above that they are stored in the archive. Technician meteorologist Tokareva - told me:
"On February 17 at 6 h. 50 m. local time in the sky appeared not unnatural phenomenon. Moving star with a tail. The tail looked like dense cirrus clouds. Then the star was freed from the tail, became brighter than the stars and flew away. It gradually began to swell, forming a large ball, enveloped in a haze. Then inside this ball the star caught fire, from which first a crescent was formed, then a small ball formed, not so bright. The big ball gradually began to fade, became like a blurry spot. At 7 h. 05 m. it disappeared altogether. A star moved from the south to the northeast."Is it necessary to add to this that Tokareva’s observation of the sky was part of her professional duties. And that at this time the comet region did not visit the comet. This ball of fire was observed in the Ivdel region by serviceman A. Savkin, who was also questioned:"On February 17, 1959, at 6:40 in the morning, while on duty on the south side, a ball of bright white light appeared that periodically enveloped in cloud white dense fog inside this cloud was a bright-luminous point the size of a star . Moving towards the north direction the ball was visible for 8-10 minutes."It was already a matter of technology - to find other people who, at night in the evenings in January-February 1959, were not sleeping, but were on duty out in the open. Now it’s not a secret for anyone that Ivdel at that time it was a solid "archipelago" of camp sites forming Ivdellag, which was guarded around the clock.The testimonies of Novikov, Avenburg, Malik were exactly the same. The same ball was seen on March 31. We saw a similar ball on the night of the death of the hikers, that is, from the first to the second of February, students-hikers of the Geological Faculty of the Pedagogical Institute. Witness G. Atamanaki - saw this ball over Otorten on the night of the 1st of February. The study of the case now fully convinces, and even then I stuck to the version of the death of student hikers from exposure to an unknown flying object. Based on the evidence gathered, the role of UFOs in this tragedy was quite obvious.".
.
.
.According to WAB the sightings of Feb 17 and Mar 31 are well documented rocket launches. Ivanov states that G. Atamanaki saw the same on Feb 1, but there is no Atamanaki in the case files. There is however a G. Atmanaki testimony who witnessed the Feb 17 event. So there's a case for saying Ivanov is misunderstanding rocket launches and getting muddled up wrt witness statements. But there is a witness statement from a prison guard who walking home from the cinema saw a flash in the sky from the direction of Kholat that night. Whatever it is clear that Ivanov dismissed the atomic test version.
 .     
Regards.

Nigel,  do you know why Ivanov dismissed atomic test as a possibility?  Would be interesting to understand if he did explain his reasoning.  Its also clear though that Ivanov was not specifically thinking about Aliens. 

As you know the West at the time were ahead in terms of development of tactical atomic weapons and there was great pressure globally to ban testing hence agreement to halt tests.  But this would also give USSR a chance to close the gap if they continued to develop and test secretly at alternative remote location.  Also a good motive to sweep incident under the carpet.  Its just a thought.  I'm not an expert on such things.  In terms of delivery mechanism, is it possible for something like this to be deployed from a plane?  A missile launched from a plane that is..  The descriptions of the objects in eye witness accounts, and in particular the diffuse clouds may be explained by atmospheric distortion of the light, kind of like the effect seen when moon light creates a halo on a cold night.  What do you think?

Regards

Star man


September 18, 2020, 04:10:17 AM
Reply #20
Online

Nigel Evans


@Starman - i'm not aware of Ivanov's reasoning wrt atomics but it's interesting that he privately pursued the radiation testing, sadly the lab not being able to identify the isotope which would narrowed things down.
The eye witness events fit a rocket launch? WAB states that they fit to the nearest minute.
looo.ch has other reports not mentioned by Ivanov.

September 18, 2020, 01:21:23 PM
Reply #21
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Sarapuk, anything they were wearing on the outside of the body (boots, coat in particular) during the day would get sweated up from the inside and coated with snow/ice on the outside.  If you then put them against the sides of the tent for insulation (as I read that the rescuers claimed they did), then without heat those will freeze up and become unwearable (they may not have realized that because they had used heat in the tent previously).  If you then wear the lighter boots, those can become too wet to wear the next day, so if they thought surviving the night wouldn't be too difficult, their actions make perfect sense.  Now there is a good possibility that they wanted to get out of the tent quicky, and that may be because the tent was about to (or appeared about to) collapse or get blown down the mountainside.  And that explains haste to leave and secure the tent, but then a slow walk down to the trees (so as not to fall and get injured).  It also explains why they didn't take the blankets, because they needed to work on securing the tent and thought the plan was fine (if you are wrapped up in a blanket and want to flee into the cold night because of some irrational fear, at least one would likely cling to their blanket, as is common in such situations).  They were not wearing one pair of socks, one pair of pants, and one shirt, which clearly would have been a terrible idea, but again, what someone believes about hypothermia in these kinds of situations is always hard to tell.  There are so many similar incidents where one asks, "why in the world did they do that, it was so dangerous?"  In this case, I think an alternate explanation is that Igor was angry with the group (as we read in the diaries) and so wanted to "teach them a lesson" by allowing the tent the get ripped open by the strong wind and then he would show them how to survive under those circumstances.  He just happened to be wrong about that point, and the four others deciding to go with a different method (immediately or after a short while) is evidence to that notion.

I have been an avid reader of real life adventures ever since I was a kid. Nothing that I have read so far about this Dyatlov mystery indicates that conditions were that bad that they were unable or unwilling to dress properly for a journey of 1 mile from the Tent.
And nothing I have read indicates that Dyatlov himself was that angry that he needed to teach the others a lesson, as you state. It would be a very incompetent person who allowed their only means of survival, apart from clothing, to be torn apart, as you state.
Igor Dyatlov was certainly not incompetent.
DB

September 18, 2020, 03:47:11 PM
Reply #22
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
@Starman - i'm not aware of Ivanov's reasoning wrt atomics but it's interesting that he privately pursued the radiation testing, sadly the lab not being able to identify the isotope which would narrowed things down.
The eye witness events fit a rocket launch? WAB states that they fit to the nearest minute.
looo.ch has other reports not mentioned by Ivanov.

Ok thanks.  Yeah why pursue the radiation?  Maybe its because for some strange reason, people seem to think Aliens/UFOs and radiation go together?   Part of Alien propulsion technology..  Didnt WAB say that the pass was out of range of any potential launch sites?  A weapon deployed from a plane would be less conspicuous, but you would want to ensure minimum safe distance so maybe deploy via a rocket.  Who knows

Regards

Star man

September 20, 2020, 05:17:07 AM
Reply #23
Online

Nigel Evans


@Starman - i'm not aware of Ivanov's reasoning wrt atomics but it's interesting that he privately pursued the radiation testing, sadly the lab not being able to identify the isotope which would narrowed things down.
The eye witness events fit a rocket launch? WAB states that they fit to the nearest minute.
looo.ch has other reports not mentioned by Ivanov.

Ok thanks.  Yeah why pursue the radiation?  Maybe its because for some strange reason, people seem to think Aliens/UFOs and radiation go together?   Part of Alien propulsion technology..  Didnt WAB say that the pass was out of range of any potential launch sites?  A weapon deployed from a plane would be less conspicuous, but you would want to ensure minimum safe distance so maybe deploy via a rocket.  Who knows

Regards

Star man
I think WAB is talking about the R7 launches from Baikonaur. Missiles like the Burya - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burya were trans continental cruise missiles and could presumably be programmed to go anywhere. The Burya's fuel components being excellent candidates for the DPI of course.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2020, 09:07:13 AM by Nigel Evans »

September 21, 2020, 04:14:11 PM
Reply #24
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
@Starman - i'm not aware of Ivanov's reasoning wrt atomics but it's interesting that he privately pursued the radiation testing, sadly the lab not being able to identify the isotope which would narrowed things down.
The eye witness events fit a rocket launch? WAB states that they fit to the nearest minute.
looo.ch has other reports not mentioned by Ivanov.

Ok thanks.  Yeah why pursue the radiation?  Maybe its because for some strange reason, people seem to think Aliens/UFOs and radiation go together?   Part of Alien propulsion technology..  Didnt WAB say that the pass was out of range of any potential launch sites?  A weapon deployed from a plane would be less conspicuous, but you would want to ensure minimum safe distance so maybe deploy via a rocket.  Who knows

Regards

Star man
I think WAB is talking about the R7 launches from Baikonaur. Missiles like the Burya - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burya were trans continental cruise missiles and could presumably be programmed to go anywhere. The Burya's fuel components being excellent candidates for the DPI of course.

Nigel,

You are more knowledgeable about these things than me.  Are you saying that there were missiles that had sufficient range?

Regards

Star man

September 22, 2020, 12:51:55 AM
Reply #25
Online

Nigel Evans


@Starman - i'm not aware of Ivanov's reasoning wrt atomics but it's interesting that he privately pursued the radiation testing, sadly the lab not being able to identify the isotope which would narrowed things down.
The eye witness events fit a rocket launch? WAB states that they fit to the nearest minute.
looo.ch has other reports not mentioned by Ivanov.

Ok thanks.  Yeah why pursue the radiation?  Maybe its because for some strange reason, people seem to think Aliens/UFOs and radiation go together?   Part of Alien propulsion technology..  Didnt WAB say that the pass was out of range of any potential launch sites?  A weapon deployed from a plane would be less conspicuous, but you would want to ensure minimum safe distance so maybe deploy via a rocket.  Who knows

Regards

Star man
I think WAB is talking about the R7 launches from Baikonaur. Missiles like the Burya - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burya were trans continental cruise missiles and could presumably be programmed to go anywhere. The Burya's fuel components being excellent candidates for the DPI of course.

Nigel,

You are more knowledgeable about these things than me.  Are you saying that there were missiles that had sufficient range?

Regards

Star man
The Burya had a specified range of 8500km and was successfully tested at 6500km.
It had astro and inertial navigation systems so presumably could be sent anywhere.

September 23, 2020, 02:37:23 PM
Reply #26
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
@Starman - i'm not aware of Ivanov's reasoning wrt atomics but it's interesting that he privately pursued the radiation testing, sadly the lab not being able to identify the isotope which would narrowed things down.
The eye witness events fit a rocket launch? WAB states that they fit to the nearest minute.
looo.ch has other reports not mentioned by Ivanov.

Ok thanks.  Yeah why pursue the radiation?  Maybe its because for some strange reason, people seem to think Aliens/UFOs and radiation go together?   Part of Alien propulsion technology..  Didnt WAB say that the pass was out of range of any potential launch sites?  A weapon deployed from a plane would be less conspicuous, but you would want to ensure minimum safe distance so maybe deploy via a rocket.  Who knows

Regards

Star man
I think WAB is talking about the R7 launches from Baikonaur. Missiles like the Burya - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burya were trans continental cruise missiles and could presumably be programmed to go anywhere. The Burya's fuel components being excellent candidates for the DPI of course.

Nigel,

You are more knowledgeable about these things than me.  Are you saying that there were missiles that had sufficient range?

Regards

Star man
The Burya had a specified range of 8500km and was successfully tested at 6500km.
It had astro and inertial navigation systems so presumably could be sent anywhere.

Ok.  Just for clarity then what you are saying is that there were missiles that had sufficient range to reach the mountain? 

Thanks

Star man

September 23, 2020, 03:12:22 PM
Reply #27
Online

Nigel Evans



September 24, 2020, 02:41:09 PM
Reply #28
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient

October 18, 2020, 04:13:59 AM
Reply #29
Offline

Beluga1303


Note the entry of Igors diary:
30. January 1959
The wind is strong, south-west, snow begins to fall, heavy clouds, drop in temperature....
31 January 1959
Today the weather is a bit worse wind (west), snow (probably from the pines) because the sky is perfectly clear.
Sorry, in this case I believe more in Igor's diary as in the prosecutor's investigation in 2019
Someone knows the answer. But will we ever find out?