Decision to leave the tent

[eurocentric]

Odd that if Dyatlov had the knowledge that in a crisis you build a den yet he never packed any digging tools. If he needed a den above the tree line what would he have done ?

And they built the labaz which was I think partly dug into snow. But also they had to dig a lot to get a level platform for the tent on the slope... and the photos purportedly showing them doing that don't show any tools... were they digging with ski poles?

They did have ice axes which are certainly more practical than digging with ski poles or bare hands.
But there is one thing which might or might not have occurred at the ravine, called depth hoar. This is a form of snowpack that forms when the lower part of the snow is warmer, and (therefore) wetter, than the top. I think this was the case because the air temperature was consistently below freezing but there was a flowing stream below the snow, so above freezing temperatures there.
What this results in is weakened lower layers, that I would say can be like sand. This layer might not be thick, usually only 10 cm, but considering how much snow was found there, might have been thicker, and it's easy to dig.

By the time they were found this would have disappeared as it was spring and the snow started thawing from the top too... turning the entire snowpack into wet slush snow.

A collapsing den can cause injuries, but can it cause injuries like Semyon's or Tibo's? If you look at their photos from the morgue, it is somewhat doubtful because the snow just wouldn't gain enough velocity as the den probably wasn't high inside.

The labaz was up off the ground.



They didn't have any shovels so used skis and ski poles to dig trenches. In the 2 trench digging photo's on the mountain Yuri K is shown holding a ski, as is another hiker in the background. The rest will be using their bamboo ski poles. Perhaps the technique was for him to mark out the edges of the plot and then pull away layers of snow from the sides with the ski, and then others used the poles as shovels. If the wooden ski hit rock that may explain one breaking.



I think they only had one ice axe, and depending on what you read 3 or 4 wood axes.

The morgue photo's will mislead. Semyon's photo was taken after autopsy, there's a sealed incision running down his chest, which follows the rib cage being cut open at the sternum and the chest then prized open to allow access to the internal organs for dissection and inspection. He'd be sewn back up to present him for funeral/relative appearing to provide positive ID, giving him that crushed/run over appearance. Lyuda's corresponding photo also seems to be taken after autopsy, but her chest will look fuller, less crushed, due to breast tissue.

That labaz is just a photo he took there own store was a hole in the ground with a ski marking it.

https://dyatlovpass.com/labaz

You're correct. Thery must've been really desperate to lose weight - what a way to store a mandolin.

The photo of the trench digging shows a full hiker compliment of 18 skis, and although I've read suggestion a spare pair (or two) were found at the tent, I think we'd see in the photo if any had been broken on the journey up the mountain, which was certainly rocky enough, with numerous ridges, to do such damage.

[DAXXY]

Gotcha, I always thought the Russians built caches like they do in Alaska, up on stilts/poles to keep moose, caribou, bears and critters out of them. Little houses with doors on top. I always thought the photo the rescue crew built was what the Dyatlov hikers had built. In Alaska you NEVER go near anyone's cache or the owners can shoot you. Not even in a joking manor. There is no joke about even approaching another persons cache. Lots of cabins burn down so your cache will keep you alive. I am surprised, even on the go, that they just built a platform because even in winter there are critters running around below the snow looking for anything to eat.

It should be a little raised house.

[jhou]

I still think descending from the tent without proper footwear was a desperate decision. Kind of like taking a walk in the Death Valley floor in hot season, and not bringing any water. If your clothes were in fire then sure, you would be too busy getting out of the tent and rolling in snow to even think about your shoes. But you'd return after dealing with the immediate emergency. They were expecting, or hoping, to come back to the tent shortly.

You'd need several layers of wool socks in your feet to realistically expect to be able to get to the cedar or ravine, and still be able to do something useful down there. I'm thinking 3 layers at least, 4 would be better. And it takes less time to slip your feet into felt boots than start dragging multiple pairs of wool socks on top of each other.

[marieuk]

Posted by: eurocentric
« on: Today at 12:06:49 PM »
You're correct. Thery must've been really desperate to lose weight - what a way to store a mandolin.


I agree.  It's hard to believe a musician would agree to their instrument being buried like this and possibly damaged by the snow.  Your instrument can become very precious to you.

[DAXXY]

yes.  So the wind drove them out of the tent.  There may have been a local phenomenon there of sudden bad winds that die down after a short time. Is there a Russian word for this ? There is also the Katabatic wind process.   The locals did warn them of the winds on the pass that time of year.  Maybe they thought of just getting out of the tent fast and down to the cover of the nearest trees expecting the winds to drop in an hour or two.  But they were experienced, Dyatlov would have said to take what they can, like weatherproof clothing and boots, even carry it but bring it and go.  In this scenario it is similar to leaving a small sinking boat and getting in to a life raft.  You would have a grab bag ready with useful things inside in case you needed it.  They wouldn't know if the tent would even be there when they returned and all their stuff would be thrown around the area and clothes blown away.  (Dyatlov's jacket remained outside the tent on the ground).  So if not wind possibly severe hailstorm.

[sarapuk]

Why 2 dens if they were all there at the same time ? Why didn't the 2 yuris get help from the others ? Why didn't the 2 yuris try and get in to the others den ? too small maybe so they lit the fire ? Interesting..Why didn't the 2 yuris try and get to the tent earlier while they still had their clothes on ?

Were there 2 dens? One construction made from branches and clothes was found under snow, it can be assumed it was inside a den, but might have just been on the surface and got buried later.

Answers to the other questions depend on the order of events which in unclear, and the biggest mystery of course is why didn't everyone try to return to the tent, or on the contrary why did some of them try to return after all of them apparently abandoned it...

We have information on one Den, not 2 Dens. No Evidence that there were 2 Dens.

[sarapuk]

I think 2 dens because the bodies were in 2 places and the yuris den was so small with only their clothes inside.  The ravine or gully 4 had crush injuries and I think one person going up the slope had a skull/crush injury. These internal injuries didn't have outer wounds. So given the injuries I'd say a den collapsed on some of them. It still doesn't explain why the 2 yuris didn't try and get to the tent before they succumbed to the cold.  They had no crush injuries so were they exposed to the cold longer ?  which goes back to my search party theory ? Were the 2 yuris out in the cold longer than the others ? The others find them, they don't know about their den or it's collapsed.  So they set about building a den which collapses on them. The last 3 try and get to the tent.

A thorough search took place and no other Den was found. Even if there was another Den the snow wouldnt have caused such injuries that we see on some of the bodies.

[sarapuk]

The snow bank wouldn't have been that high when the den was dug though, and there'd have been no benefit to digging that deep if it was. All they needed to do was to get out of the cold air, the wind chill, to sit on insulated pads of fir foliage and the pieces of clothing found there. The den would be dug by hand, or with a branch, the recovery team are using long-handled shovels, and that man would need a ladder or assistance to climb out of there. The original height was probably to his neck level.

It took 3 months to locate the ravine bodies and during that time snowfall, plus the way the wind scour at higher elevation would funnel snow down there, would double the height. Had there been glacier-style movement towards the ravine it would have dragged the den/seats with it, not just bodies.

If the bodies had been found crushed in the den it would work, but even then it would be extremely unlikely to generate the same pattern injuries of flail chests to the right side, 4+4 fractures to the same ribs, on two people (Lyuda also having a single set of bilateral side fractures on her left side). The most likely explanation for that uniformity and focus is resus fractures.

Well put. I was going to comment on the fact that a lot of snow fell over the course of several months. And even that amount of snow would not have caused some of those very unusual injuries.

[DAXXY]

I think 2 dens because the bodies were in 2 places and the yuris den was so small with only their clothes inside.  The ravine or gully 4 had crush injuries and I think one person going up the slope had a skull/crush injury. These internal injuries didn't have outer wounds. So given the injuries I'd say a den collapsed on some of them. It still doesn't explain why the 2 yuris didn't try and get to the tent before they succumbed to the cold.  They had no crush injuries so were they exposed to the cold longer ?  which goes back to my search party theory ? Were the 2 yuris out in the cold longer than the others ? The others find them, they don't know about their den or it's collapsed.  So they set about building a den which collapses on them. The last 3 try and get to the tent.

A thorough search took place and no other Den was found. Even if there was another Den the snow wouldnt have caused such injuries that we see on some of the bodies.

compact snow 500kg per cubic metre

[sarapuk]

You know, that's an interesting interpretation I had not considered.  I will point out that the autopsies report that the rectums of 6 of the 9 hikers are "clear"/"clean".  Vorozhdenny does not remark about that part of the body for Kolmogorova and Dubinina, and observes the presence of fecal matter only for Zolotaryov.

That word would be “evisceration” and there wasn't any visual signs of this physically on the frozen corpses, that I read from the autopsies. I believe Nurse Solter would specify between evisceration, open abdomen or just filthy.

The sawn or sharpened cut wood in the den has always reminded more of a funeral pyre than the floor of a den. From the photos it looks as if there were plenty of cedar and spruce soft branches to top those sharply cut wood branches but there wasn’t. We’re the attackers trying to burn the evidence (bodies) but somehow decided against that plan? Was this why two Yuri’s had burns? Did a group of attackers find out it fairly difficult to burn bodies in the ice and snow, quickly?

What are the chances that whatever cut the den hard branches caused those head “defects” in Rustem and Tibo?

A funeral pyre ! ? Well thats one I havnt heard before. But why choose that location, wouldnt it have been better to build a fire nearer the firewood of the Forest ! ?  And they couldnt have been very clever attackers.

[sarapuk]

Gotcha, I always thought the Russians built caches like they do in Alaska, up on stilts/poles to keep moose, caribou, bears and critters out of them. Little houses with doors on top. I always thought the photo the rescue crew built was what the Dyatlov hikers had built. In Alaska you NEVER go near anyone's cache or the owners can shoot you. Not even in a joking manor. There is no joke about even approaching another persons cache. Lots of cabins burn down so your cache will keep you alive. I am surprised, even on the go, that they just built a platform because even in winter there are critters running around below the snow looking for anything to eat.

It should be a little raised house.

Well I hardly think that the Dyatlov Group had time to build a house.

[DAXXY]

Gotcha, I always thought the Russians built caches like they do in Alaska, up on stilts/poles to keep moose, caribou, bears and critters out of them. Little houses with doors on top. I always thought the photo the rescue crew built was what the Dyatlov hikers had built. In Alaska you NEVER go near anyone's cache or the owners can shoot you. Not even in a joking manor. There is no joke about even approaching another persons cache. Lots of cabins burn down so your cache will keep you alive. I am surprised, even on the go, that they just built a platform because even in winter there are critters running around below the snow looking for anything to eat.

It should be a little raised house.

Well I hardly think that the Dyatlov Group had time to build a house.

The group put their stores in the ground.  A typical Siberian labaz looks like a little raised house. Basically a box on legs . Like the one they photographed.

[mk]

«...Solter kept repeating how filthy they were....»
 
Perhaps this is a decent way to make readers understand that the contents of the intestines have been transferred to the inside of the panties.
Was this a common way of politely speaking from Russian health professionals ? I do not know, but it is not unlikely.

This is exactly what it sounds like to me when I read [the English translation of] her letter to Yudin:
"... I think I wrote you that one of the girls had her hair burned on one side, on one arm, one arm had the sleeve slightly burned and the fire slightly caught on one foot, but on these two the clothes were normal, only dirty, they all crawled, but of course they were also soiled !!"

In common use, in English, "soiled" in this context would mean to "poop your pants".  "Soiled" is more proper and polite without using technical medical jargon.  But I don't know whether it works this way in Russian.

Also, she seems to make a distinction between being normal, only dirty (apparently from crawling?) and being "soiled."  And the soiled part is "of course", which makes it sound like a natural, expected situation under the circumstances.

[Nicknonora]

Ok if two members of the group failed to return from wherever, collecting firewood, the loo, etc., going out to search for them makes sense. But for the whole group to do this. Two or three people would be enough, don't you think? Perhaps two groups of two each?

That still leaves 3 people in the tent who could continue preparing food, or assembling the stove, de-icing boots and so on.So I don't think this satisfactorily explains the whole group leaving the tent. Unless of course they didn't, and in fact there were 2 or 3 "waves".

My best answer is that there was a dispute that might even have turned into a fight. The most likely source of the tension is male-female between Dyatlov and the one Yuri over Zina. Although the spark might not have been directly over Zina. Saying that, I think it's probably less of a fight along the lines of "Keep your hands off of her!" and more along the lines of "Why did you lead us up here. It's freezing!" The other possibility is that some members were fed up with Dyatlov's leadership, and the cold night on the slope brought it to a head.

At that point, things just got stupid. One Yuri storms off, with the other Yuri in tow or close behind. Or maybe only the first Yuri alone. Just a "I gotta get out of here" emotional reaction, probably thinking he could make it to the treeline, build a fire and survive. Then after a few minutes, Zina realized that her ex-boyfriend was in danger and decides to leave and find him. Dyatlov felt honor-bound and/or possibly responsible and went with her. Rustem and the other Yuri, if he was still there, joined. That would leave the Ravine 4 at the camp, who eventually would leave to search for the others, or perhaps they saw the fire and thought things would be better down there. And Semyon said if it wasn't, they could always build a snow den.

The weakness of that explanation is why they would cut their way out of the tent.

[eurocentric]

They would damage the tent if a fight included one hiker producing a knife. The forensic analysis of the tent damage suggested there were repeated score marks near some of the cuts made from the inside. There could be other reasons for that, such as the tent repeatedly rubbing against something in the wind which eventually penetrates the canvas, or, in the fight theory, one man's hand with a knife was pinned aloft in a struggle inside a low-roofed ridge tent.

There was certainly plenty of squabbles within the group, as detailed in the diaries, and the perfect storm moment for a flashpoint would be when on the ridge, an operational decision unlikely to have met with everyone's full agreement, or, as considered at the time of the investigation, the result of a failed attempt to crest the mountain.

[KFinn]

The way their boots were laid out was described as disorderly. Not to mention there being pieces of food (rusks, loin) over the blankets. So I don't think it can be called tidy. And I've also read a description saying it looked like they might have tried to barricade the entrance because there were a multitude of buckets piled up there.

In his testimony, Brusnitsyn describes the tent as being in "disarray". And then there was a ski pole in the tent cut into several pieces.



Now that I've read some testimonies again, I see that also remains of porridge were found in a cup. While I myself enjoy eating porridge any time, it perhaps hints at them being in the tent in the morning. And also a pin was described holding a hole in the tent together.

I don't even know if we can definitively conclude the tent was cut from the "inside". While the forensic expert notes there are scratches visible next to the ends of the cuts on one side, which was the inside in their setup of the tent, is it possible that they set up the tent inside out? Is the fabric's inner and outer surface different? For example was there water-proof layer on the outside?

Boots piled on top of each other. Certainly disorderly. Without the Tent we cannot get it re-examined. We are told that the Tent was got rid of because it was damaged whilst in storage  !  ?

The tent being disposed, while certainly unfortunate, is not that suspicious to me.  Having owned and cared for many canvas tents over the years, their lifespan (when used regularly in variable weather,) can be short.  If you store it with even the least little bit of moisture, it will start mildewing, and the fibers will degrade.  If it gets dirty and is not cleaned before storing, the dirt in between the fibers will start to degrade the canvas.  When we come home from camping in any of ours, we have to set it up in the yard to fully dry before we can fold it up.  We have to clean them (which admittedly, would be a lot easier for the Dyatlov tent than some  of the ones I have owned, which are much larger and more oddly shaped.) But, if the forensic lab did not take care of the tent, (or could not because washing evidence is genuinely frowned upon,) it would have degraded over time.  My understanding is that a water pipe break in the lab basement was the final nail in the tents coffin, but I would hazard a guess that the tent was already in a state that you could not glean anything useful about it by then, anyway.  It is a shame, because I completely disagree with Churkina's forensic analysis and I'd have loved to have been able to see it myself, like many I suppose :(

[sarapuk]

The way their boots were laid out was described as disorderly. Not to mention there being pieces of food (rusks, loin) over the blankets. So I don't think it can be called tidy. And I've also read a description saying it looked like they might have tried to barricade the entrance because there were a multitude of buckets piled up there.

In his testimony, Brusnitsyn describes the tent as being in "disarray". And then there was a ski pole in the tent cut into several pieces.



Now that I've read some testimonies again, I see that also remains of porridge were found in a cup. While I myself enjoy eating porridge any time, it perhaps hints at them being in the tent in the morning. And also a pin was described holding a hole in the tent together.

I don't even know if we can definitively conclude the tent was cut from the "inside". While the forensic expert notes there are scratches visible next to the ends of the cuts on one side, which was the inside in their setup of the tent, is it possible that they set up the tent inside out? Is the fabric's inner and outer surface different? For example was there water-proof layer on the outside?

Boots piled on top of each other. Certainly disorderly. Without the Tent we cannot get it re-examined. We are told that the Tent was got rid of because it was damaged whilst in storage  !  ?

The tent being disposed, while certainly unfortunate, is not that suspicious to me.  Having owned and cared for many canvas tents over the years, their lifespan (when used regularly in variable weather,) can be short.  If you store it with even the least little bit of moisture, it will start mildewing, and the fibers will degrade.  If it gets dirty and is not cleaned before storing, the dirt in between the fibers will start to degrade the canvas.  When we come home from camping in any of ours, we have to set it up in the yard to fully dry before we can fold it up.  We have to clean them (which admittedly, would be a lot easier for the Dyatlov tent than some  of the ones I have owned, which are much larger and more oddly shaped.) But, if the forensic lab did not take care of the tent, (or could not because washing evidence is genuinely frowned upon,) it would have degraded over time.  My understanding is that a water pipe break in the lab basement was the final nail in the tents coffin, but I would hazard a guess that the tent was already in a state that you could not glean anything useful about it by then, anyway.  It is a shame, because I completely disagree with Churkina's forensic analysis and I'd have loved to have been able to see it myself, like many I suppose :(

On its own may be the missing Tent is not suspicious. But taken with the other missing items then suspicions certainly arise. Also the Tent seems to have gone missing at a certain time ie the demise of the USSR  !  ?  And if stored properly Tents of that fabric can last an hundred years or so, evidence stuff from old Arctic type expeditions.

[Nicknonora]

Here is a possibility: maybe they thought they could use the canvas for something downhill, didn't realize it would be so tough to cut, and decided they were wasting time and energy. 

[Sunny]

I just red some of their diaries, and they wrote that they sew the tent with needle and thread. It had a hole and they repaired it. And there were other remarks about that there would be more sewing for all of them or something like that...So I started to think, maybe the ripping of the tent wasn't such a catastrophic for them after all, as we would like to think. They had sewing equippments with them to repair holes on it.And they had safety pins with them also. You can fix  the ripped tent  at least to some extent I suppose.
So if this was the case, they didn't leavee the tent necessarily because of the broken tent, but something else.

[Missi]

You're right Sunny, they have been sewing holes in the tent. And in one diary it's mentioned that there are enough holes for all of them. It's the entry stating that Lyuda was very tired and didn't want to tend to sewing the tent and everyone was mad at her because of it.
I don't think that a rip or hole was a catastrophe for them. I do have a tent made of canvas as well and we did mend it, so it is possible, I can confirm. It's nothing very funny to do, so you'd rather find other ways than to cut open your tent. Plus it's hard on the hands and fingers, so I'd say it's nothing you'd try to do in the middle of the night when it's dark and freezing. 
I don't think it's possible when wearing gloves warm enough, so I'd prefer to do it during the day and not far from a fire. Plus the amount of destruction on the tent is a lot to sew shut. That surely would take some time...

Another aspect: I am not sure if you can sew a tent while it's put up. We mend it when back at home...

[ash73]

That photo was taken in late spring, when the snow was melting.

Can someone explain to me how the hikers dug out that den with their bare hands?

A puttee was found there, did the hikers use those?

[ash73]

Also, those branches look 1-2 inches thick, I don't believe they were cut with pocket knives.

[KFinn]

Also, those branches look 1-2 inches thick, I don't believe they were cut with pocket knives.

Something to note, re the branches.  In extreme cold, branches break quite easily.  This is something noted by a few extreme hikers.  I think even one of the Swedish/Russian hikers that explored the pass talked about that.  The branches alone do not say much to me *but* paired with the snow den, which was supposedly dug by hand, that I find suspicious.  I think this is where Investigator's idea of a recreation would be really useful.  I don't believe that the Dyatlov group would have been able to dig that out while lacking tools and protective clothing.  That leaves a few options...
-it was already there, possibly a Mansi den for hunting
-the Dyatlov group dug it out at a different time (for example, if they didn't set up camp on the ridge but down in the trees)
-someone else dug it for reasons unknown

[Monty]

Ash73 - reply 140. I have always considered the den to be a flat sheltered spot, so when it was made no snow was above the wooden seating area.

[Missi]

I think, the picture was taken from the flatter end of the den. It is customary to build those things by digging at an angle approx. 45°. As far as I came to know, that's because of statics and wind shelter. Also the opening should be the side opposite the wind.
Taking that into account, it was less snow than it seems they had to move.

As it happens: We do have snow at the moment, which seems to get a more and more rare occasion. Not as much as in Siberia, that is, but enough for my nephew to venture on an endeavor of his own. He build a hill from snow and dug a hole in it from left to right. Or front to back, or wherever you might be positioned. ;)
He took some days for it, but I doubt his parents let him work on it for more than an hour at a time. Then again he was pretty alone working on it and he's just 7 years old.

On the other hand it's known that soldiers build those kinds of shelters when in snowy areas without tents and such. But I daresay they'd have some kinds of tools with them.

I think, the probability of the hikers building the den by themselves depends highly on the timeline you base your theory on. If it's a matter of just one, maybe two hours (as Rakitin does) it's highly improbable. If they took more time, they might have done it. Also working on the den would have kept them warm and at least at later stages out of the wind.

I'm not sure, ash, how much a puttee would help you building a den. It might keep your hands a little warmer, but that's about all. Rakitin reported another puttee to have been found in or near the tent (can't remember), that was brought to Ivdel. But because Juri Judin couldn't say to whom it belonged, it somehow disappeared. Couldn't verify that as of now.
But I've been wondering, if these two belonged together and maybe did belong to Zolotaryov. He was ex-military and Juri didn't know his clothes as well, I'd say...

I'd agree with Monty on the part, that the shelter was surely much flatter when it was build and snow accumulated on it over time.

[tenne]

I really don't think that they were ever in the tent or that we have any proof that the tent was there. If the facts don't fit the scene, then the scene is staged, IMO. Its very much like a murder trying to be disguised as a robbery gone wrong. When the police look at the scene of a robbery gone wrong, the facts don't fit it (for example, nothing taken, drawers neatly kinda gone through) but when they shift their focus to a murder staged as a robbery, then the facts fit the scene

It is too hard to make the facts fit, IMO.
1. why do the searchers say they looked in the tent and found stuff when the tent is collapsed in the photo?
2. why is there snow on the bodies under the cedar but the footprints are visible going down the slope? they should be snowed under as well
3. why do they think that last frame is the tent being built on the slope? where is all the snow that they shoveled away? the tent should be under much more snow if it was in a hole like that.

[sarapuk]

I really don't think that they were ever in the tent or that we have any proof that the tent was there. If the facts don't fit the scene, then the scene is staged, IMO. Its very much like a murder trying to be disguised as a robbery gone wrong. When the police look at the scene of a robbery gone wrong, the facts don't fit it (for example, nothing taken, drawers neatly kinda gone through) but when they shift their focus to a murder staged as a robbery, then the facts fit the scene

It is too hard to make the facts fit, IMO.
1. why do the searchers say they looked in the tent and found stuff when the tent is collapsed in the photo?
2. why is there snow on the bodies under the cedar but the footprints are visible going down the slope? they should be snowed under as well
3. why do they think that last frame is the tent being built on the slope? where is all the snow that they shoveled away? the tent should be under much more snow if it was in a hole like that.

All the available Evidence points to the Tent being in the position that it was found. There is no Evidence that points to it being somewhere else.

[tenne]

what evidence points to it? I haven't seen any evidence that proves it was there. no photos showing it in a position that could be identified. in fact, the cedars and ravine could be anywhere. Other than the word of the Russian government that the tent was there, what proof do we have?

[ash73]

what evidence points to it?

Footprints leading down the slope from the tent
Matching ski pole in tent and platform photos
Items found nearby to the tent (clothes, knife sheath)
Ski trail from the Auspiya valley to the tent

...I have to say though, it doesn't look anything like the rigging in the '58 photo.

[tenne]

those photos could have been taken anywhere. is there any photo that shows the tent on the slope with an identifiable landmark to prove it? is there any photos of the cedar trees with any identifiable landmarks? the ravine? I haven't seen any but I doubt I've seen them all.

Normally, when you want to show where something is, you include a landmark that proves it. those photos could be anywhere as far as I can see