My theory

[tenne]

...if anyone comes up with something that can't be proved, i.e. they used that exact tent and stove in those exact conditions, then i have zero interest in listening until you can prove it...

There are pictures of the tent and stove being used above the treeline on previous hikes. But I have no doubts about the stove being tested in blizzard conditions on a mountain top; I read somewhere Igor was keen to test it, which does not equate with "proven". It's an interesting question whether the canvas would freeze, I don't know is all I can say... it would be interesting to test.

I will take your word it is the same tent, how did it get there? do you have any proof it was carried by back pack? was the route through deep snow and trees?
They were planning to be above the treeline for several days, returning along the ridge, so anyone questioning the logic of camping there has to also explain why they were returning that way. Also they would need enough wood for several nights. Their original planned route would have given them an opportunity to gather more wood before the ascent, which makes the apparent diversion to 1079 questionable.

[Nigel Evans]

I'm not aware of any proof of "They were planning to be above the treeline for several days,"?
I can see a good case for a one night "hop" back down to the forest next to the foot of Ortorten and maybe the same on the return. They couldn't drink water without a campfire, plus no one would sleep well in those winds, so potentially dangerous to go for longer.

Yes that's possible, but it seems unlikely to me they'd want to concede altitude every night, and there's no way they'd put storage on the ridge if they were planning to camp in the trees.

Unfortunately the route plans don't have campsites on them. Maybe we could find out by looking at previous hikes to see what they did on other mountain routes.

Storage on the ridge is just a nuts idea. The diary dismisses the case for storage at the treeline (due to high winds), never mind the ridge.

[KFinn]

I am more than happy for anyone to do anything, that isn't insulting the intelligence of people who lived their lives doing this.

Then should we *not* discount all of the other sportsmen and family who *knew* the Dyatlov group and attested to the fact that they had, could and did do this?  By tossing this off as though the group would just simply fake a hike, we are insulting the integrity of a group who highly valued honor.  The reason this one specific aspect of your theory isn't widely accepted is because it is not plausible; for them to not attempt Mt. Otorten would be theft.  They'd gave stolen money from the university sports club, Krivo, Slobodan and Thibo would be stealing from their employers by being absent without excuse.  It just simply wasn't done.  This group in particular would need to all be complicit and with how carefully Dubinina counted and budgeted money, there is no way anyone would have made the proposition palatable for her.  On a previous hike when a member stole a can of condensed milk from the group, Dyatlov told him he had to pay back the sports club when they returned.  But in this scenario he's now okay with stealing 1100 rubles from the sports club? 

Many theories think outside the box.  But even looking beyond that box, one cannot change the very nature of the people involved.  That would be changing the evidence to fit a scenario. 

[ash73]

I'm not aware of any proof of "They were planning to be above the treeline for several days,"?
I can see a good case for a one night "hop" back down to the forest next to the foot of Ortorten and maybe the same on the return. They couldn't drink water without a campfire, plus no one would sleep well in those winds, so potentially dangerous to go for longer.

Yes that's possible, but it seems unlikely to me they'd want to concede altitude every night, and there's no way they'd put storage on the ridge if they were planning to camp in the trees.

Unfortunately the route plans don't have campsites on them. Maybe we could find out by looking at previous hikes to see what they did on other mountain routes.

Storage on the ridge is just a nuts idea. The diary dismisses the case for storage at the treeline (due to high winds), never mind the ridge.

Well they were digging something on the ridge... so either they were putting storage there, in which case they wouldn't be camping in the trees (on the way back), or they were putting the tent there, in which case they might be camping there in both directions.

If they wanted to dip down as you say, a more sensible route would be to ascend AND descend Otorten on the shortest path possible, and stay below the treeline as much as possible, but the route plan is to head South along the ridge all the way to Oyko-Chakur.

[Tony]

This is on thing that could be easily solved
buy a 1959 canvas tent, that big and use it in -20, then try to fold it and carry it. add the weight of the stove pipe and stove and let me know. The people I talked to, did things like that fur trapping back in the 1960's, in the winter. That's why I trust their real life experience more than calculation about modern materials on a website.

There are different weights of canvas, like cotton comes in different weights.

The only wood stoves for tents that I can find, and its hard not knowing exactly what theirs was made of etc, say at least 50-60lbs is the most common weight. I can't find any weight for the stove pipe.

"The next day on February 26th they discovered the tent on the slope of Kholat Syakhl in the Dyatlov Pass. Ironically Slobtsov was among those who actually helped to construct the tent three years earlier from two tents, making it longer and larger. He recognized it immediately"

so no, they didn't build it for the trip, they didn't have any experience with it. it was made for another trip that I know nothing about. whether it was for a summer trip or a sled was going to be on the trip it was built for.

A photo previously posted is one of the hikers carrying the tent. Here is another:



The hiker furthest to the front is carrying the tent. Notice how much larger compared to the other hikers' backpacks. This was after storing supplies at the labaz so they were probably carrying light. This is the tent.

I have a large thick canvas Springbar tent that is about 10 ft. in length and 6 ft. tall. When rolled up with all the poles (the Dyatlov groups tent had 3 poles I believe) the thing weights about 15 or 20 lbs. I would imagine the Dyatlov groups' tent probably weighed around 25 - 30 lbs and they could have taken turns carrying it. 30 lbs. for a fit adult with hiking experience is nothing too out of the ordinary.

Here's a picture the morning of the ascent up the pass:



I'm sure they knocked off any ice buildup. Not sure there are any photos of the stove but it probably packs up pretty small and light. The pipes fit inside the stove which fit in a case. They probably just packed it with the tent. My brother made something similar out of an old ammo can for a hunting trip a few years back. When I saw it I thought "hmm, that's probably similar to what the Dyatlov group packed." I would say the thing weighed about 20 lbs. Theirs was probably half that size.

All in all, there is nothing to suggest they didn't pack their own tent or that packing such a tent would entail superhuman feats of strength. Dyatlov had used the tent in previous winter expeditions.

[ash73]

I will take your word it is the same tent, how did it get there? do you have any proof it was carried by back pack? was the route through deep snow and trees?

Nope, can't prove anything, but it looks the same.

https://dyatlovpass.com/gallery-1958-Subpolar-Ural

I can't see any sign of a sledge. I doubt they could use one ascending the slope in photo #11, I thought initially photo #36 might show something being towed on a downslope but they are just dropped backpacks, you can see the ski tracks leading to where the photo is being taken.

[Nigel Evans]

I'm not aware of any proof of "They were planning to be above the treeline for several days,"?
I can see a good case for a one night "hop" back down to the forest next to the foot of Ortorten and maybe the same on the return. They couldn't drink water without a campfire, plus no one would sleep well in those winds, so potentially dangerous to go for longer.

Yes that's possible, but it seems unlikely to me they'd want to concede altitude every night, and there's no way they'd put storage on the ridge if they were planning to camp in the trees.

Unfortunately the route plans don't have campsites on them. Maybe we could find out by looking at previous hikes to see what they did on other mountain routes.

Storage on the ridge is just a nuts idea. The diary dismisses the case for storage at the treeline (due to high winds), never mind the ridge.

Well they were digging something on the ridge... so either they were putting storage there, in which case they wouldn't be camping in the trees (on the way back), or they were putting the tent there, in which case they might be camping there in both directions.

If they wanted to dip down as you say, a more sensible route would be to ascend AND descend Otorten on the shortest path possible, and stay below the treeline as much as possible, but the route plan is to head South along the ridge all the way to Oyko-Chakur.

Igor stated in the diary they were camping on the ridge, if people want to reinvent that entry as an "invention by the bad guys" that's their prerogative, but reassigning the location of the labaz to the ridge is just nuts imo.

[ash73]

I'm not aware of any proof of "They were planning to be above the treeline for several days,"?
I can see a good case for a one night "hop" back down to the forest next to the foot of Ortorten and maybe the same on the return. They couldn't drink water without a campfire, plus no one would sleep well in those winds, so potentially dangerous to go for longer.

Yes that's possible, but it seems unlikely to me they'd want to concede altitude every night, and there's no way they'd put storage on the ridge if they were planning to camp in the trees.

Unfortunately the route plans don't have campsites on them. Maybe we could find out by looking at previous hikes to see what they did on other mountain routes.

Storage on the ridge is just a nuts idea. The diary dismisses the case for storage at the treeline (due to high winds), never mind the ridge.

Well they were digging something on the ridge... so either they were putting storage there, in which case they wouldn't be camping in the trees (on the way back), or they were putting the tent there, in which case they might be camping there in both directions.

If they wanted to dip down as you say, a more sensible route would be to ascend AND descend Otorten on the shortest path possible, and stay below the treeline as much as possible, but the route plan is to head South along the ridge all the way to Oyko-Chakur.

Igor stated in the diary they were camping on the ridge, if people want to reinvent that entry as an "invention by the bad guys" that's their prerogative, but reassigning the location of the labaz to the ridge is just nuts imo.

I made a couple of comments about this on my intro thread but nobody picked up on it.

https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=803.msg13842#msg13842

[Tony]

Here is a guy backpacking with a very large canvas tent and metal stove.



The Dyatlov groups' tent was, most likely, a heavier canvas. When I first joined the Army 20+ years ago we used shelter halves which was heavy canvas with wooded poles and almost surely the same type of canvas the dyalov group used. The two shelter halves together probably weighed 5 lbs. and would fit two. While the Dyatlov group tent might have been heavier it probably added only 5-10 lbs. of weight to what you're seeing in the video.





This should clear up any doubt as to whether or not they packed their tent up the pass.

[sarapuk]

...if anyone comes up with something that can't be proved, i.e. they used that exact tent and stove in those exact conditions, then i have zero interest in listening until you can prove it...

There are pictures of the tent and stove being used above the treeline on previous hikes. But I have my doubts about the stove being tested in blizzard conditions on a mountain top; I read somewhere Igor was keen to test it, which does not equate with "proven". It's an interesting question whether the canvas would freeze, I don't know is all I can say... it would be interesting to test.

They were planning to be above the treeline for several days, returning along the ridge, so anyone questioning the logic of camping there has to also explain why they were returning that way. Also they would need enough wood for several nights. Their original planned route would have given them an opportunity to gather more wood before the ascent, which makes the apparent diversion to 1079 questionable.

This photo shows a Tent pitched near to a rising rockface. Presumably there was no Avalanche risk. In which case this would have been a good sheltered location to pitch a Tent rather than an exposed Mountainside.

[ash73]

...Presumably there was no Avalanche risk...

I have my doubts about that too, it looks like a prime spot!

[tenne]

I'm not aware of any proof of "They were planning to be above the treeline for several days,"?
I can see a good case for a one night "hop" back down to the forest next to the foot of Ortorten and maybe the same on the return. They couldn't drink water without a campfire, plus no one would sleep well in those winds, so potentially dangerous to go for longer.

Yes that's possible, but it seems unlikely to me they'd want to concede altitude every night, and there's no way they'd put storage on the ridge if they were planning to camp in the trees.

Unfortunately the route plans don't have campsites on them. Maybe we could find out by looking at previous hikes to see what they did on other mountain routes.

Storage on the ridge is just a nuts idea. The diary dismisses the case for storage at the treeline (due to high winds), never mind the ridge.

Well they were digging something on the ridge... so either they were putting storage there, in which case they wouldn't be camping in the trees (on the way back), or they were putting the tent there, in which case they might be camping there in both directions.

If they wanted to dip down as you say, a more sensible route would be to ascend AND descend Otorten on the shortest path possible, and stay below the treeline as much as possible, but the route plan is to head South along the ridge all the way to Oyko-Chakur.

Igor stated in the diary they were camping on the ridge, if people want to reinvent that entry as an "invention by the bad guys" that's their prerogative, but reassigning the location of the labaz to the ridge is just nuts imo.

I made a couple of comments about this on my intro thread but nobody picked up on it.

https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=803.msg13842#msg13842

I did notice your thread, the part that makes no sense to me, besides sitting around a cold tent in a dangerous place in less than optimal clothing for the conditions and the leaving the tent like that, is why leave the cedar trees to go where there is no wood to keep warm. According to the searchers, the fire burnt out for lack of tending, not lack of fuel. it would be very easy to build a wind screen around the cedar or in the tree well of a tree close and stay where there is fuel.

There is no logical reason to leave a fire under those conditions

[ash73]

The cedar was on a small hill, probably quite exposed. Maybe the heat was escaping and not warming them up sufficiently. Not sure why they didn't light it in a more sheltered spot, e. g. the ravine. Could be they couldn't see well enough with no lantern (and no Moon).

[sarapuk]

...Presumably there was no Avalanche risk...

I have my doubts about that too, it looks like a prime spot!

Prime spot to pitch a Tent  ?  Rock faces but no where for Snow to accumulate to such an extent that Avalanche would result.

[tenne]

It would have been more practical to move to the tree well to the right or behind the cedar for less work or to take the snow and pile it up around the cedar with branches like they cut to make walls and a seat to keep up from the cold. Leaving a fire in those temps is suicide

[sarapuk]

The cedar was on a small hill, probably quite exposed. Maybe the heat was escaping and not warming them up sufficiently. Not sure why they didn't light it in a more sheltered spot, e. g. the ravine. Could be they couldn't see well enough with no lantern (and no Moon).

The Cedar Tree in question was just one of many at the edge of the Forest. The Dyatlov Group must have been desperate having abandoned their Tent.

[tenne]

Yes so leaving a fire makes even less sense

[ash73]

... Leaving a fire in those temps is suicide

Two people had already died so they probably thought they must try something else, things were getting desperate.

They did everything they could to stay alive, but it was probably a no win scenario from the moment they cut the tent.

I think I would have set fire to the whole tree!

[tenne]

I am reading the book, 1079 the overwhelming force of Dyatlov pass and on page 12 there is an english translation of the groups combat pamphlet

TECHNOLOGICAL NEWS
Hiking drag sled
good while riding train, car or horseback.
Not recommended for freight transport on snow
For further information contact chief constructor com. Kolevatov

I just saw this so didn't include it with my first post. I think it shows that they were planning on carrying the tent or something heavy by sled and found out it didn't work. fits my theory so of course I like it :)

[sarapuk]

Yes so leaving a fire makes even less sense

Looks like some of the Group looked for somewhere to build a snow den.

[sarapuk]

I am reading the book, 1079 the overwhelming force of Dyatlov pass and on page 12 there is an english translation of the groups combat pamphlet

TECHNOLOGICAL NEWS
Hiking drag sled
good while riding train, car or horseback.
Not recommended for freight transport on snow
For further information contact chief constructor com. Kolevatov

I just saw this so didn't include it with my first post. I think it shows that they were planning on carrying the tent or something heavy by sled and found out it didn't work. fits my theory so of course I like it :)

Not necessarily. They were used to travelling in the outdoors, so they would be used to carrying loads by backpack. They may have talked about some kind of sled but it doesnt mean that they intended to make or use one.

[MDGross]

tenne, I respect your attempt to think outside of the box. A person can think outside of the box with sound, thoughtful reasoning, or a person can present haphazard and strange ideas that are outside of the box, but make little sense. Excluding your opinion of the tent, the remainder of your theory is strange to say the least. Why was this area restricted by the military? What was the military hiding there? Why were the nine hikers killed and how? Was it a bomb dropped on top of them from a plane? Who were the two KGB agents? The point is you present no details about any of this. What proof do you have?

Your expertise as someone who makes his living in the Canadian wilderness is a valuable contribution to this forum. Others bring medical expertise or scientific knowledge and so forth. I find many of your posts interesting and from a unique perspective. But such broad and unsubstantiated statements in the theory you offer do not further anyone's understanding of this unfathomable mystery.

[tenne]

1. The two suspected KGB agents were Aleksander Koleatov and Semyon Zolotaryov. This has been speculated by more than me and where I got the idea from. I just assumed that people on the forum were up to date on this idea. my bad

2. The information that the area was restricted by the military, I also got from a lot of sources about this incident. Again I thought this was common knowledge

3.what were they hiding? your guess would be as good as mine but my suspicion is dumped nuclear waste that they didn't want to admit to. Again, I htought this is a common idea that the area was military sensitive area.

4. I think they stumbled across a boobie trap and the first to get the blast were the 4 found in the ravine, then the 2 placed under the cedar and then finally the last 3 were knocked unconscious by the blast and froze. They were not supposed to be in that area at that time and when their bodies were found the military had to disguise the fact that they had killed two KGB members.

5. Bodies, tent and equipment was taken by helicopter to the pass, the furthers known place they should be, it was all set up and then the military skied back so there was tracks to be found.

6. they set up the cache etc to make it look like the skiers had made it that far, rather than have anything think they died where they did

I hope this helps clear it up, again, I just assumed people knew and obviously I was wrong to think that and should have filled in more detail

The other thing I noticed about the tent is the canvas was obviously rotten, and by that I mean it had rotted and weakened, most likely from not being able to dry out completely before being stored. Its not normal to have to sew up a canvas tent every time you use it or have jackets plugging holes. Canvas is a very strong durable fabric but it is a natural one and rots. We have a tent trailer many years ago that had canvas bedrooms (not sure how to describe it if you don't know what a tent trailer is) and if we packed it up wet to go home, we had to open it up and let it totally dry out before re packing it or else it rotted and got mold in it. I can't imagine anyone camping on a slope with a rotten tent and no heat. the wind would go right through it. If they were there and didn't have a stove, they would have had to be very warmly dressed because the canvas itself wasn't stopping much of the cold.

[ash73]

...
Because it was a sensitive military area and there were worries about people escaping Russia over the borders I think there was an incident with the military attacking them with a explosive device, either thinking they were deserters or escapees or spies.

Then the military realized they had killed 9 students who had been given permission to go through the area (although they were not supposed to be there at that time) and killed two KGB agents.

The helicopter(s) carrying the bodies, tent and back packs dropped them and men off because it was an isolated, deserted place that would have few witnesses but on a possible route. Crime scene was faked and the military men skied back to civilization, those are the tracks they "followed"

So the military covered it up, to hide they had killed KGB agents.
...

I was interested in murder theories initially, but the first problem is the weather, look at the last couple of photos... it was a blizzard / whiteout; they'd never find them on the slope of 1079. The second problem is the lack of evidence anyone else was there, the few question marks - puttees, mansi belt, broken ski, cut ski pole, slits in the tent - can be explained in other ways. The third problem is motive, rogue Mansi/Khanty seem more likely to me than far-fetched spy games, but it's a bit flimsy.

Plus you don't need murder to explain what happened, all you need is a MacGuffin to make them leave the tent; the rest is natural consequences. The MacGuffin could be a military device exploding on the mountain, but it's likely to be an accident which was then covered up.

It's obvious Zolotaryov was a KGB agent, but I expect he was just there to observe them, which would be commonplace in those days. The thing is he didn't hide what he was, they all knew ("we can't refuse").

[tenne]

1. There is no way that anyone with 1/2 a brain would camp on a slope, in a tent that was rotten, with no heat, dressed like they were. No way that I can see they would walk away from the tent, and according to a map in the book 1079 if I'm looking at it right they not only walked down the slope but took a right and walked that way before turning left into where the cedar was, so they didn't even go to it in a straight line.

Then if they were there, there is no way they would leave a fire to go to a ravine that had no source of heat and no way to easily get heat. at the cedars they are least had fuel for the fire, could have built a shelter from the wind.

We have absolutely no idea when the blizzard was, where it was or anything. everything about the dates, other than where there were other people, is pure conjecture because there was no time, date or location stamp on the photos.

There is no evidence that anyone else was there because there is no evidence, it was either ignored or wiped out in the "search"

The tent and the bodies could have very easily been planted there. It would be easy for the military to cover it up by staging it.

I don't think they were ever at that location alive.

[ash73]

We have absolutely no idea when the blizzard was, where it was or anything. everything about the dates, other than where there were other people, is pure conjecture because there was no time, date or location stamp on the photos.

Nothing is certain... but we've got photos of a blizzard at the foot of the mountain and while setting camp, and snow build up at the entrance of the tent, testimony from locals saying the wind was higher than they can remember, local weather reports of cold temperatures and high winds, and the fact 3 of the hikers only made it 200-300m up the exposed slope before collapsing and dying of hypothermia, and 2 others died in close proximity of a fire.

I doubt helicopters were targetting them, or spies or gangs of locals were chasing around after them in that weather. Experienced Mansi maybe, but unlikely. Far more likely it was an accident combined with bad weather, bad decisions and bad luck, imo.

I think Moscow are actually telling us what happened, indirectly. It's the classic politican's partial truth. An avalanche in a place where there can't be an avalanche; something external caused it (the MacGuffin), and they don't want us to know what.

[tenne]

Where is any evidence of an avalanche? the snow on the tent looked shoveled on to me and an avalanche started by other means would still take out the ski poles etc and the tent would have been swept down the mountain with the snow.

How do you know where the photo of the blizzard was taken? it could have been anywhere. its only conjecture it was setting up the tent on the slope

[sarapuk]

1. The two suspected KGB agents were Aleksander Koleatov and Semyon Zolotaryov. This has been speculated by more than me and where I got the idea from. I just assumed that people on the forum were up to date on this idea. my bad

2. The information that the area was restricted by the military, I also got from a lot of sources about this incident. Again I thought this was common knowledge

3.what were they hiding? your guess would be as good as mine but my suspicion is dumped nuclear waste that they didn't want to admit to. Again, I htought this is a common idea that the area was military sensitive area.

4. I think they stumbled across a boobie trap and the first to get the blast were the 4 found in the ravine, then the 2 placed under the cedar and then finally the last 3 were knocked unconscious by the blast and froze. They were not supposed to be in that area at that time and when their bodies were found the military had to disguise the fact that they had killed two KGB members.

5. Bodies, tent and equipment was taken by helicopter to the pass, the furthers known place they should be, it was all set up and then the military skied back so there was tracks to be found.

6. they set up the cache etc to make it look like the skiers had made it that far, rather than have anything think they died where they did

I hope this helps clear it up, again, I just assumed people knew and obviously I was wrong to think that and should have filled in more detail

The other thing I noticed about the tent is the canvas was obviously rotten, and by that I mean it had rotted and weakened, most likely from not being able to dry out completely before being stored. Its not normal to have to sew up a canvas tent every time you use it or have jackets plugging holes. Canvas is a very strong durable fabric but it is a natural one and rots. We have a tent trailer many years ago that had canvas bedrooms (not sure how to describe it if you don't know what a tent trailer is) and if we packed it up wet to go home, we had to open it up and let it totally dry out before re packing it or else it rotted and got mold in it. I can't imagine anyone camping on a slope with a rotten tent and no heat. the wind would go right through it. If they were there and didn't have a stove, they would have had to be very warmly dressed because the canvas itself wasn't stopping much of the cold.

Yes its pure speculation that there where any KGB Agents in the Dyatlov Group.
Yes it seems to be a well known fact that the Military closed the area down for several years after the Incident.
There is nothing to suggest that the Military where hiding anything.
Non of the injuries to Dyatlov Group bodies suggest Blast of any kind.
There is absolutely no Evidence that suggests any kind of Military accident and cover up as a result of such an accident.
The Tent was not rotten.

[tenne]

yup, cause people have to sew their tent up every time they use it. why didn't I know that? I must have missed that in my camping time. opps

[ash73]

They didn't close the area down, they just banned official sports hikes for a period of 3 years.