The "storm" Photo

[MsBurb]

Hi All, great to be aboard this forum!

How does one match this photo with the possibility that the tent was NOT pitched in the open but in the tree line?

FYI: I want to believe Igor would have not opted to pitch on that wind storm tundra but lower into the tree line, but I then can't compute this photo.

Is there a chance this photo was taken earlier than Feb 1? At one of the other camp sites before they reached the pass?

Thanks for your thoughts on this!

[KFinn]

From my understanding, we don't actually know the exact dates or moments that most of the pictures were taken.  There has been much debate about a lot of the photos, including this one.  Some believe that it is the group digging the storage, even.  Without the benefit of the person who took the photos saying when and where it was taken, we can assume but not 100%. 

[MsBurb]

Yes, that makes sense.
I just cannot believe that an experienced hiker would choose to attempt to pitch a tent in that wind tunnel on 1079 when a tree line below is within view.
What's your thoughts on this, KFinn?

[KFinn]

Yes, that makes sense.
I just cannot believe that an experienced hiker would choose to attempt to pitch a tent in that wind tunnel on 1079 when a tree line below is within view.
What's your thoughts on this, KFinn?

I personally go back and forth with this.  The other student hikers who were part of the search testified or later gave interviews suggesting that they didn't see anything wrong with where the tent was found.  However, it is not somewhere I would personally camp and few other expeditions have ever camped there in winter (I think the total is 3, including the Dyatlov group.)  Now, we can compare other winter sports that involve camping in non-ideal places; the higher camps on various 8k meter peaks like Everest are in severe wind, cold and below our normal oxygen saturation.  Yet people still camp there to summit, knowing that if they get into trouble, they will most likely due because no one can help you that high up. 

On the one hand, I would think that no one in their right mind would camp there but on the other hand, the tent was found there.  It is one of those pieces of the puzzle that I am just having a difficult time orienting, lol!!! 

[Nigel Evans]

Ivanov was satisfied that the 2 photos were taken around 5pm, 01/02/59. He would have seen the original rolls and frame order.
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-384-387?rbid=17743
In one of the cameras the last frame shows the moment of excavation of snow for the installation of the tent. Considering that this frame was shot with an exposure of I/25 seconds, with a diaphragm of 5.6 at a film sensitivity of 65 Un. GOST, and taking into account the density of the frame, we can assume that the hikers started the installation of the tent around 5 pm 1.II.59. A similar picture was taken with another camera.

[Ziljoe]

Hi MsBurb

As you may have read or will read, there's lots of confusion . Enjoy.

[sarapuk]

Hi All, great to be aboard this forum!

How does one match this photo with the possibility that the tent was NOT pitched in the open but in the tree line?

FYI: I want to believe Igor would have not opted to pitch on that wind storm tundra but lower into the tree line, but I then can't compute this photo.

Is there a chance this photo was taken earlier than Feb 1? At one of the other camp sites before they reached the pass?

Thanks for your thoughts on this!

Welcome aboard. Nigel has answered this one. All the indications are that the photo is genuine. There does appear to be missing Photos and even missing Cameras. Welcome to the Dyatlov Mystery.

[Игорь Б.]

This photo was not taken at the site of the tent. There is simply no place for the photographer to stand up to be higher than the diggers:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=75302

And they saw no forest below. Judging by the latest photos, visibility at that time was 20-30 meters.

[Nigel Evans]

This photo was not taken at the site of the tent. There is simply no place for the photographer to stand up to be higher than the diggers:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=75302

And they saw no forest below. Judging by the latest photos, visibility at that time was 20-30 meters.

The diggers are in a hole, the photographer isn't?

[Teddy]

He would have seen the original rolls and frame order.

He didn't. He flew off the rolls with the helicopters coming and going from the pass to students to develop in their bathrooms. To make it faster hence destroying all chain of evidence.
Ivanov's archives are released. This photo doesn't have a negative and it is only presumed to be from this trek.
The affiliation of photos with negatives from the trek is shown here https://dyatlovpass.com/trek-photos
And from the search https://dyatlovpass.com/search-photos

[Nigel Evans]

He would have seen the original rolls and frame order.

He didn't. He flew off the rolls to students to develop in their bathrooms. To make it faster hence destroying all chain of evidence.
Ivanov's archives are released. This photo doesn't have a negative anf it is presumed to be from this trek.
You can see all known films and photos from the trek here https://dyatlovpass.com/trek-photos
And from the search https://dyatlovpass.com/search-photos

I struggle with the view that he never looked at the original rolls once developed. It's very believable imo that these frames were separated from the others for further analysis (estimate time of day?) and subsequently lost (confiscated?). We have his statement that he believed the frames to be from 01/02. There the facts end and the conjecture starts....

[Teddy]

You can believe all you want.

[Jay]

Yes, that makes sense.
I just cannot believe that an experienced hiker would choose to attempt to pitch a tent in that wind tunnel on 1079 when a tree line below is within view.
What's your thoughts on this, KFinn?

Hi MsBurb

So I have read two theories for the tent being pitched out in the open instead of down at the trees. One is that they were losing daylight, so "better do it here since we're here already", so to speak. Another is that Igor wanted to choose a challenging place which would have been a good test to the rest of the group.

Now I cannot remember exactly where I read the second theory but I will hopefully find it and share it here.

[Jay]

Yes, that makes sense.
I just cannot believe that an experienced hiker would choose to attempt to pitch a tent in that wind tunnel on 1079 when a tree line below is within view.
What's your thoughts on this, KFinn?

Sorry there is a third theory somewhere online. This one says that they did pitch it at the treeline / in the forest area but it was moved by the military out into the open after the military killed them.

Sorry I am bad at quoting the sources of these theories - I do remember reading them but I will have to look for them.

[Nigel Evans]

Yes, that makes sense.
I just cannot believe that an experienced hiker would choose to attempt to pitch a tent in that wind tunnel on 1079 when a tree line below is within view.
What's your thoughts on this, KFinn?

Now I cannot remember exactly where I read the second theory but I will hopefully find it and share it here.

It's an interpretation of his entry in the group diary, stating the intention to camp on the ridge. Other groups had previously ascended Ortorten, so the theory is that he wanted to do something new.

[Jay]

Yes, that makes sense.
I just cannot believe that an experienced hiker would choose to attempt to pitch a tent in that wind tunnel on 1079 when a tree line below is within view.
What's your thoughts on this, KFinn?

Hi MsBurb

So I have read two theories for the tent being pitched out in the open instead of down at the trees. One is that they were losing daylight, so "better do it here since we're here already", so to speak. Another is that Igor wanted to choose a challenging place which would have been a good test to the rest of the group.

Now I cannot remember exactly where I read the second theory but I will hopefully find it and share it here.

These two theories are here: https://dyatlovpass.com/controversy#zolotaryovcamera in the section "Why the group pitched their tent at this spot on the night of the incident".

[MDGross]

I've always believed that Dyatlov took pride in staying as close as possible to schedule. It seems the schedule called for them to get through the pass on Feb. 1 and camp on the other side. But because they started out late that day and bad weather slowed their progress, they didn't make it to the pass. And because he didn't want to lose even more time, Dyatlov decided to camp where the tent was later found. The tent was pitched securely as it was found standing nearly a month later.
As with almost every aspect of this mystery, there's no conclusive way to prove that the photo under discussion was taken in the late afternoon of Feb. 1. But it seems likely to me, since it appears to follow the chain of events of that day. Although the negative is missing, it simply could have been lost. Once again, no way to know with certainty.

[KFinn]

I've always believed that Dyatlov took pride in staying as close as possible to schedule. It seems the schedule called for them to get through the pass on Feb. 1 and camp on the other side. But because they started out late that day and bad weather slowed their progress, they didn't make it to the pass. And because he didn't want to lose even more time, Dyatlov decided to camp where the tent was later found. The tent was pitched securely as it was found standing nearly a month later.
As with almost every aspect of this mystery, there's no conclusive way to prove that the photo under discussion was taken in the late afternoon of Feb. 1. But it seems likely to me, since it appears to follow the chain of events of that day. Although the negative is missing, it simply could have been lost. Once again, no way to know with certainty.

So much would be different if they had followed a rigid chain of custody for evidence!  Although even so, if specific pieces were put into a classified file that was never meant for public eyes...  Ah, to have a Tardis and go to the Urals of 1959...!

[Nigel Evans]

I've always believed that Dyatlov took pride in staying as close as possible to schedule. It seems the schedule called for them to get through the pass on Feb. 1 and camp on the other side. But because they started out late that day and bad weather slowed their progress, they didn't make it to the pass. And because he didn't want to lose even more time, Dyatlov decided to camp where the tent was later found. The tent was pitched securely as it was found standing nearly a month later.
As with almost every aspect of this mystery, there's no conclusive way to prove that the photo under discussion was taken in the late afternoon of Feb. 1. But it seems likely to me, since it appears to follow the chain of events of that day. Although the negative is missing, it simply could have been lost. Once again, no way to know with certainty.

So much would be different if they had followed a rigid chain of custody for evidence!  Although even so, if specific pieces were put into a classified file that was never meant for public eyes...  Ah, to have a Tardis and go to the Urals of 1959...!

As you say, if the autopsy reports are correct and Klinov did attend the first five autopsies then it's a reasonable assumption this was to ensure the finding = death from freezing. Given that this happened early it may have alerted Ivanov to go outside normal channels e.g. to ask the university to develop the photos and later use a friend to analyse the clothing for radioactivity. If photos were developed under the control of Klinov what frames would be missing? As soon as Ivanov told Klinov about his fireorb theory the case was classified and somewhere along this timeline Ivanov was read the riot act....

[sarapuk]

This photo was not taken at the site of the tent. There is simply no place for the photographer to stand up to be higher than the diggers:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=75302

And they saw no forest below. Judging by the latest photos, visibility at that time was 20-30 meters.

But the person taking the Photograph may have raised the Camera giving the impression of height.

[sarapuk]

I've always believed that Dyatlov took pride in staying as close as possible to schedule. It seems the schedule called for them to get through the pass on Feb. 1 and camp on the other side. But because they started out late that day and bad weather slowed their progress, they didn't make it to the pass. And because he didn't want to lose even more time, Dyatlov decided to camp where the tent was later found. The tent was pitched securely as it was found standing nearly a month later.
As with almost every aspect of this mystery, there's no conclusive way to prove that the photo under discussion was taken in the late afternoon of Feb. 1. But it seems likely to me, since it appears to follow the chain of events of that day. Although the negative is missing, it simply could have been lost. Once again, no way to know with certainty.

So much would be different if they had followed a rigid chain of custody for evidence!  Although even so, if specific pieces were put into a classified file that was never meant for public eyes...  Ah, to have a Tardis and go to the Urals of 1959...!

Youve hit the nail on the head there. So much would have been different and those parts missing wouldnt have been spirited off into the Archives of the Kremlin. And yes wouldnt a Tardis be good.

[Manti]

And they saw no forest below. Judging by the latest photos, visibility at that time was 20-30 meters.

I think they must have seen the mountain the day(s) before while approaching, and also they had maps. Therefore they would have a reasonable idea about how much barren, open area there is above the treeline. Not much.. so even if they didn't see the forest they could assume it's there, nearby.


Likewise, MsBurb, I have a hard time believing they would have chosen to camp there, and even if they did due to the sun setting and visibility being low, that the photo shows setting up the site for the tent. It wasn't a steep slope, couldn't have they found a naturally almost level area and just trample it to level it out? Instead, they decide to dig deep?

This photo was not taken at the site of the tent. There is simply no place for the photographer to stand up to be higher than the diggers:

I like this thinking. But if they aren't setting up the tent, what were they doing? This also doesn't seem to be the site of the labaz. They've already dug apparently at least a meter deep, would they dig that much only to abandon the idea?

[Игорь Б.]

They could refuse to set up a tent in this place for two reasons:
1. They found a large stone frozen to the ground under the snow
2. They realized that the tent would be covered with snow here

[Manti]

They find a large stone.. why didn't I think of that. Very good explanations.

[MsBurb]

I've always believed that Dyatlov took pride in staying as close as possible to schedule. It seems the schedule called for them to get through the pass on Feb. 1 and camp on the other side. But because they started out late that day and bad weather slowed their progress, they didn't make it to the pass. And because he didn't want to lose even more time, Dyatlov decided to camp where the tent was later found. The tent was pitched securely as it was found standing nearly a month later.
As with almost every aspect of this mystery, there's no conclusive way to prove that the photo under discussion was taken in the late afternoon of Feb. 1. But it seems likely to me, since it appears to follow the chain of events of that day. Although the negative is missing, it simply could have been lost. Once again, no way to know with certainty.

Nice to chat with you, MD Gross!

The point you made about Igor being a stickler for details... why then, with little winter daylight, does he always have such late start times?

I'm certainly no advanced trekker, but if I know the weather WILL get worse on Feb 1, and I'll lose daylight by late afternoon, why am I being so lazy about making good use of my daylight hours?

And why, if I'm not putting the stove together, do I bring it into the tent?

And if by chance they did camp on that exposed slope in 35 meter/second winds, why are the skis and poles still in a completely upright stance?

I realize I have zero right to Monday night quarterback this event, and I'm not one to jones for a sporting distinction at all earthly costs, but to set the tent there on that day makes no strategic sense. If you want to undertake edgier actions, would you not do so AFTER you reached the Otorten peak?

Maybe my views are coloured by the mature adult me forgetting the 20-something me who made dumb decisions because then I thought I was invincible.

[MsBurb]

Likewise, MsBurb, I have a hard time believing they would have chosen to camp there, and even if they did due to the sun setting and visibility being low, that the photo shows setting up the site for the tent. It wasn't a steep slope, couldn't have they found a naturally almost level area and just trample it to level it out? Instead, they decide to dig deep?

Right. The night previous, they were too tired to dig a fire pit, so tonight, in worse weather and probably more exhaustion, now they're digging a trench the size of the tent???

[trekker]

Not much.. so even if they didn't see the forest they could assume it's there, nearby.

I think they had rough directions, e.g. going back down is the storage, going up is ridge where on the left is top of Kholat Syakhl, in middle smaller top and on the right is pass, based on terrain. Going towards top of the Kholat Syakhl instead of Dyatlov pass seems whiteout situation. Both routes (towards top or pass) have roughly same ascend rate, uneventful terrain without trees, streams or small terrain contours but navigation error was almost 90 degrees.

If the treeline is between green and gray in this map, you had ended near Dyatlov pass just following the treeline. I would really like to see their maps, it propably didnt have treelines marked on it. So when they should only follow treeline to the pass in whiteout, they left treeline and went up near the top.

https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=40.0

[Manti]

Frame 27 from Krivo's camera:


Could be anywhere but it's at the edge of the treeline. I think maybe they tried there the previous day (there are photos in a forest area after this frame, so this must be from a previous attempt at crossing the ridge, not the night of the incident).

I agree with what you wrote.. but I wonder why did they turn back the previous day? And then attempt to cross further uphill when they failed closer to the treeline? How is it even possible to fail to cross there? The searchers camp was in the Auspiya valley and every day of the search they walked (skied?) up the ridge, and crossed to the tent / Lozva valley area. I haven't read about anyone failing to cross yet the Dyatlov group turned back to camp in the Auspiya valley (again).

The more I think about this it makes no sense. Was it to set up the labaz? They could have done that in the Lozva valley too...

[Saltyseadog]

I believe the 31/1 diary entry is a fake and subsequent photos related to and after this date.
If you check the diary entries for the 30/1 the group are already rising out of the treeline and about to build the storage. They also retreat 200m to find a camp site!
Pashin in his statement says they found the 30/1 camp site 20km from the cedar and its a further 20km to the Losva junction. Check google earth, this is impossible, it is only a maximum 25km from the Dyatlovs 29/1 camp 3 or 4 km up the Auspiya so the camp that Pashin is talking about is the 29/1 camp or he is lying.
The 30/1 camp and subsequent photos could be at the rise to the Pass area and this is then where the storage was built, maybe the group was attacked here and by adding the day (31/1) which only appears in one typed diary! it shifts the search area away from the actual murder site. Afterall the 31/1 entry is very similar to the 30/1 entry in both the Group diary and unknown diary. And if the 31/1 entry is so detailed and written by Igor, where is his personal diary which would have been even more detailed?
No the 31/1 entry is fake the group were at the Pass on 30/1 (afterall they travelled over 20km on 29/1! - ie 8km to Losva junction, 4-5km up Losva and return after passing the entry into the Auspiya then 3-4km up the Auspiya for the 9/1 camp = 22km! so 29/1 was not a short hike.) and therefore the hike from 30/1 was completely doable to get them at the Pass on the evening of 30/1.
Also by adding a day in the diary and interfering with the dates in Zinas hand written diary the 'lost day' is accounted for from the 3 witnesses at the 41st who stated the group spent 2 nights there.

[trekker]

I agree with what you wrote.. but I wonder why did they turn back the previous day? And then attempt to cross further uphill when they failed closer to the treeline? How is it even possible to fail to cross there? The searchers camp was in the Auspiya valley and every day of the search they walked (skied?) up the ridge, and crossed to the tent / Lozva valley area. I haven't read about anyone failing to cross yet the Dyatlov group turned back to camp in the Auspiya valley (again).

I didnt know before that they tried but turned back. To me reasons for turning back would be bad weather or was they hauling supplies above treeline and cannot ascend with all their supplies at one time?

The more I think about this it makes no sense. Was it to set up the labaz? They could have done that in the Lozva valley too...

Yes that puzzles me too. I am starting to think if Igor changed plans and decided to go to Otorten above treeline along the border of Sverdlovsk and Komi states. That was their plan to go back from Otorten. To my understanding they had difficulties with deep snow below treeline and along river Reka Lozva. So it makes sense to change plans and travel above treeline as long as weather is good.