Which commonly known "facts" are not factual?

[RMK]

This post by Manti in another thread inspired me to start this thread:

I suspect much of the oft-repeated facts of the case aren't, in fact, facts..

As I've remarked before, a lot of commonly known "facts" about the DPI are not actually factual.  To be clear: you rarely encounter credulously asserted, blatantly inaccurate falsehoods about the DPI.  Instead, most of these so-called "facts" are inferences from the bare facts of the case.  As such, they have some basis in fact, but they are not necessarily true.  What follows are a few examples of what I mean.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape.
Actually:  According to the forensic examination documented in the case file, there were cuts on the inner surface of the tent fabric.  But, we do not know for certain how or why those cuts came to be.  Loose}{Cannon takes a good, skeptical look at the commonly accepted origin of those cuts here.

"Fact":  Some of the Dyatlov hikers dug a den in the snow near the ravine, and furnished it with a flooring of tree branches, and with spare pieces of clothing on which to sit.
Actually:  While that is a possible scenario, there are legitimate reasons to question (1) the evidential value of the "den" as found by searchers, (2) its origins, and even (3) its existence at the material time of the DPI--see here.

"Fact":  Lyudmila Dubinina's tongue was cut out / ripped out / etc.
Actually:  The autopsy report notes only that her tongue was "missing".  We do not know for certain why it was missing.  Also, we cannot be certain that she lost her tongue via some perimortem act of violence, since there are credible natural explanations for its absence.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and ran down Kholat Syakhl in a panic.
Actually:  Perhaps, but that is inconsistent with the footprint evidence still apparent when the official search party found their tent.  For that matter, we cannot be certain they ever camped where their tent was found in the first place.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and descended Kholat Syakhl in a calm and orderly manner.  Therefore, they were not scared or panicked.
Actually:  Not necessarily.  Their footprints show that they moved at a normal walk.  But, footprints preserve pace and direction, not mental/emotional state.  And again, we cannot be certain that those footprints were theirs.

"Fact":  "Igor Dyatlov and Zinaida Kolmogorova were (possibly secretly) in a romantic relationship when they began their last trek"; or, the weaker assertion, "Igor Dyatlov was in love with Zinaida Kolmogorova".
Actually:  Dyatlov had a photo of Kolmogorova in his notebook.  It is certainly possible that he wanted to be "more than just comrades" with her.  However, it is clear from a letter she sent a friend near the beginning of their fatal trek that she was still in love with Yuri Doroshenko.

In my experience, the vast majority of YouTube videos about the DPI report at least one of the above "facts" as being uncontroversially true!

What are some other commonly known "facts" that are not, in fact, facts?

[KFinn]

I came here to say the exact same thing about Dyatlov and Kolmogorova! 

[Investigator]

In a sense, I agree, in that any one detail (or even a few) could be wrong or misconceived, so the best you are going to get here is a "big picture" tentative explanation.  Since there is only one such explanation that makes sense, this is not that much of a mystery (and in fact, it's more interesting to me in the context of how people conceptualize "mysteries").  The "den" seems straightforward.  Igor likely believed the fire would keep them alive, but the World War II vet thought that what soldiers did to survive the harsh Russian winters was a better idea (and if he decided to do this after one or both Yuris perished, that doesn't change the "big picture").  The next step is to try and do a precise reconstruction, then assess that data to see if any other explanation emerges.  Otherwise, the tent was damaged, then decided to secure it to prevent further damage (or have their gear blown all over the mountainside), and try to survive the night as best they could (fire and "den").  My hypothesis is that (at least among the 7 who had the lightest clothing) they did a lot of physical work (huge number of broken brances, the rescuers noted) and then when they sat around the fire, they got really sweated up, so that once the fire was clearly not going to save them under those circumstances, the "den" was dug (or one or more wanted to dig the "den" as a backup plan, or the idea was to sleep in the "den" after they warme up).  After the two Yuris perish, Zina gets angry/upset, and decided to go back to the tent.  Slobodin tries to get her to come back, slips, hits his head, and is rendered unconscious.  Igor then goes after her, but they are too sweated up and freeze to death.  The "ravine 4" fall through the snow and onto a rock creek, with those who fall first getting nasty injuries from the others falling on top (Luda likely fell first).  It was a series of bad decisions, but pitching the tent where they did with no heat was the major mistake.

[KFinn]

In a sense, I agree, in that any one detail (or even a few) could be wrong or misconceived, so the best you are going to get here is a "big picture" tentative explanation.  Since there is only one such explanation that makes sense, this is not that much of a mystery (and in fact, it's more interesting to me in the context of how people conceptualize "mysteries").  The "den" seems straightforward.  Igor likely believed the fire would keep them alive, but the World War II vet thought that what soldiers did to survive the harsh Russian winters was a better idea (and if he decided to do this after one or both Yuris perished, that doesn't change the "big picture").  The next step is to try and do a precise reconstruction, then assess that data to see if any other explanation emerges.  Otherwise, the tent was damaged, then decided to secure it to prevent further damage (or have their gear blown all over the mountainside), and try to survive the night as best they could (fire and "den").  My hypothesis is that (at least among the 7 who had the lightest clothing) they did a lot of physical work (huge number of broken brances, the rescuers noted) and then when they sat around the fire, they got really sweated up, so that once the fire was clearly not going to save them under those circumstances, the "den" was dug (or one or more wanted to dig the "den" as a backup plan, or the idea was to sleep in the "den" after they warme up).  After the two Yuris perish, Zina gets angry/upset, and decided to go back to the tent.  Slobodin tries to get her to come back, slips, hits his head, and is rendered unconscious.  Igor then goes after her, but they are too sweated up and freeze to death.  The "ravine 4" fall through the snow and onto a rock creek, with those who fall first getting nasty injuries from the others falling on top (Luda likely fell first).  It was a series of bad decisions, but pitching the tent where they did with no heat was the major mistake.

When discussing fact from possibly scenarios, the hard part is not ascribing intent, as that is the unknown element in behavior.  I'd even go so far as to say it isn't a definitive fact that Zina was attempting to go back to the tent; she, Dyatlov and Rustem might very well have fallen on the way down from the tent.  I think that is less likely but because it is a possibility, we can't necessarily rule that as fact, either way. 

[KFinn]

This post by Manti in another thread inspired me to start this thread:

I suspect much of the oft-repeated facts of the case aren't, in fact, facts..

As I've remarked before, a lot of commonly known "facts" about the DPI are not actually factual.  To be clear: you rarely encounter credulously asserted, blatantly inaccurate falsehoods about the DPI.  Instead, most of these so-called "facts" are inferences from the bare facts of the case.  As such, they have some basis in fact, but they are not necessarily true.  What follows are a few examples of what I mean.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape.
Actually:  According to the forensic examination documented in the case file, there were cuts on the inner surface of the tent fabric.  But, we do not know for certain how or why those cuts came to be.  Loose}{Cannon takes a good, skeptical look at the commonly accepted origin of those cuts here.

"Fact":  Some of the Dyatlov hikers dug a den in the snow near the ravine, and furnished it with a flooring of tree branches, and with spare pieces of clothing on which to sit.
Actually:  While that is a possible scenario, there are legitimate reasons to question (1) the evidential value of the "den" as found by searchers, (2) its origins, and even (3) its existence at the material time of the DPI--see here.

"Fact":  Lyudmila Dubinina's tongue was cut out / ripped out / etc.
Actually:  The autopsy report notes only that her tongue was "missing".  We do not know for certain why it was missing.  Also, we cannot be certain that she lost her tongue via some perimortem act of violence, since there are credible natural explanations for its absence.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and ran down Kholat Syakhl in a panic.
Actually:  Perhaps, but that is inconsistent with the footprint evidence still apparent when the official search party found their tent.  For that matter, we cannot be certain they ever camped where their tent was found in the first place.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and descended Kholat Syakhl in a calm and orderly manner.  Therefore, they were not scared or panicked.
Actually:  Not necessarily.  Their footprints show that they moved at a normal walk.  But, footprints preserve pace and direction, not mental/emotional state.  And again, we cannot be certain that those footprints were theirs.

"Fact":  "Igor Dyatlov and Zinaida Kolmogorova were (possibly secretly) in a romantic relationship when they began their last trek"; or, the weaker assertion, "Igor Dyatlov was in love with Zinaida Kolmogorova".
Actually:  Dyatlov had a photo of Kolmogorova in his notebook.  It is certainly possible that he wanted to be "more than just comrades" with her.  However, it is clear from a letter she sent a friend near the beginning of their fatal trek that she was still in love with Yuri Doroshenko.

In my experience, the vast majority of YouTube videos about the DPI report at least one of the above "facts" as being uncontroversially true!

What are some other commonly known "facts" that are not, in fact, facts?

How about that it is commonly said the group left the tent undressed or in their underwear, when in fact no one was naked or only in their under clothes.  They were *under* dressed as far as no shoes, no coats, few head coverings.  But Doroshenko and Krivonischenko had clothing with them; it was cut from them as evidenced by their cut clothing about the site and on the four in the ravine.

[Investigator]

When discussing fact from possibly scenarios, the hard part is not ascribing intent, as that is the unknown element in behavior.  I'd even go so far as to say it isn't a definitive fact that Zina was attempting to go back to the tent; she, Dyatlov and Rustem might very well have fallen on the way down from the tent.  I think that is less likely but because it is a possibility, we can't necessarily rule that as fact, either way.

It's a matter of wanting certainty in every detail versus wanting a "big picture" that makes sense (or in some cases there's more than one), and if you think you are going to get the former in any investigation you likely won't be able to get beyond your first investigation!  In the DPI, because we know at least 6 of the 9 got down to the tree line, it would not make sense, nor would it be consistent with anything else known about them or about hikers in general, that they would leave 3 to die on the way down, so this possibility should be discarded for the time being, until evidence came to light that was consistent with it.  But if you are going to bring up these kinds of highly unlikely possibilities, then again we are in that place where you wouldn't get beyond your first investigation.  The best approach, in my experience, is to figure out at least one "big picture" if you can, then move on to something else, and let the ideas "kick around" in the "back of your mind" until you come up with a new idea.  In the meantime, as I did, you can research similar incidents, such as other hiking/climbing tragedies, in order to try and come up with some new ideas.  That led to me thinking that there's no way that tent (two World War II canvas tents sewn together) could stay intact the entire night in that location under those weather condtions, and with no heat.

[KFinn]

When discussing fact from possibly scenarios, the hard part is not ascribing intent, as that is the unknown element in behavior.  I'd even go so far as to say it isn't a definitive fact that Zina was attempting to go back to the tent; she, Dyatlov and Rustem might very well have fallen on the way down from the tent.  I think that is less likely but because it is a possibility, we can't necessarily rule that as fact, either way.

It's a matter of wanting certainty in every detail versus wanting a "big picture" that makes sense (or in some cases there's more than one), and if you think you are going to get the former in any investigation you likely won't be able to get beyond your first investigation!  In the DPI, because we know at least 6 of the 9 got down to the tree line, it would not make sense, nor would it be consistent with anything else known about them or about hikers in general, that they would leave 3 to die on the way down, so this possibility should be discarded for the time being, until evidence came to light that was consistent with it.  But if you are going to bring up these kinds of highly unlikely possibilities, then again we are in that place where you wouldn't get beyond your first investigation.  The best approach, in my experience, is to figure out at least one "big picture" if you can, then move on to something else, and let the ideas "kick around" in the "back of your mind" until you come up with a new idea.  In the meantime, as I did, you can research similar incidents, such as other hiking/climbing tragedies, in order to try and come up with some new ideas.  That led to me thinking that there's no way that tent (two World War II canvas tents sewn together) could stay intact the entire night in that location under those weather condtions, and with no heat.

I mean, I had a pretty decent track record for investigations in my career, but thank you for the advice ;)

The subject of this post is separating fact from fiction.  When you start assigning intent behind behavior, you have veered from factual and into supposition.  An integral part of a successful investigation is establishing the facts, first.  In this particular thread, we are discussing what is perceived to be fact vs. what is actually known.  Supposition is great but that is not what was asked for specifically in this thread.

[Nigel Evans]

When discussing fact from possibly scenarios, the hard part is not ascribing intent, as that is the unknown element in behavior.  I'd even go so far as to say it isn't a definitive fact that Zina was attempting to go back to the tent; she, Dyatlov and Rustem might very well have fallen on the way down from the tent.  I think that is less likely but because it is a possibility, we can't necessarily rule that as fact, either way.

It's a matter of wanting certainty in every detail versus wanting a "big picture" that makes sense (or in some cases there's more than one), and if you think you are going to get the former in any investigation you likely won't be able to get beyond your first investigation!  In the DPI, because we know at least 6 of the 9 got down to the tree line, it would not make sense, nor would it be consistent with anything else known about them or about hikers in general, that they would leave 3 to die on the way down, so this possibility should be discarded for the time being, until evidence came to light that was consistent with it. I would disagree, if the group split into two on the way down and then one group got struck by "it" then the surviving group would (a) not know the location of the now possibly scattered members and (b) might be fearful of risking the same fate if they searched for them. Maybe better to light a fire on an exposed knoll to act as a beacon for surviving stragglers (like the 2yuris). A WW2 vet might well argue it was every man for themselves as would be common in war. But if you are going to bring up these kinds of highly unlikely possibilities, then again we are in that place where you wouldn't get beyond your first investigation.  The best approach, in my experience, is to figure out at least one "big picture" if you can, then move on to something else, and let the ideas "kick around" in the "back of your mind" until you come up with a new idea.  In the meantime, as I did, you can research similar incidents, such as other hiking/climbing tragedies, in order to try and come up with some new ideas.  That led to me thinking that there's no way that tent (two World War II canvas tents sewn together) could stay intact the entire night in that location under those weather condtions, and with no heat.

[sarapuk]

This post by Manti in another thread inspired me to start this thread:

I suspect much of the oft-repeated facts of the case aren't, in fact, facts..

As I've remarked before, a lot of commonly known "facts" about the DPI are not actually factual.  To be clear: you rarely encounter credulously asserted, blatantly inaccurate falsehoods about the DPI.  Instead, most of these so-called "facts" are inferences from the bare facts of the case.  As such, they have some basis in fact, but they are not necessarily true.  What follows are a few examples of what I mean.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers cut their tent from the inside to escape.
Actually:  According to the forensic examination documented in the case file, there were cuts on the inner surface of the tent fabric.  But, we do not know for certain how or why those cuts came to be.  Loose}{Cannon takes a good, skeptical look at the commonly accepted origin of those cuts here.

"Fact":  Some of the Dyatlov hikers dug a den in the snow near the ravine, and furnished it with a flooring of tree branches, and with spare pieces of clothing on which to sit.
Actually:  While that is a possible scenario, there are legitimate reasons to question (1) the evidential value of the "den" as found by searchers, (2) its origins, and even (3) its existence at the material time of the DPI--see here.

"Fact":  Lyudmila Dubinina's tongue was cut out / ripped out / etc.
Actually:  The autopsy report notes only that her tongue was "missing".  We do not know for certain why it was missing.  Also, we cannot be certain that she lost her tongue via some perimortem act of violence, since there are credible natural explanations for its absence.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and ran down Kholat Syakhl in a panic.
Actually:  Perhaps, but that is inconsistent with the footprint evidence still apparent when the official search party found their tent.  For that matter, we cannot be certain they ever camped where their tent was found in the first place.

"Fact":  The Dyatlov hikers abandoned their tent and descended Kholat Syakhl in a calm and orderly manner.  Therefore, they were not scared or panicked.
Actually:  Not necessarily.  Their footprints show that they moved at a normal walk.  But, footprints preserve pace and direction, not mental/emotional state.  And again, we cannot be certain that those footprints were theirs.

"Fact":  "Igor Dyatlov and Zinaida Kolmogorova were (possibly secretly) in a romantic relationship when they began their last trek"; or, the weaker assertion, "Igor Dyatlov was in love with Zinaida Kolmogorova".
Actually:  Dyatlov had a photo of Kolmogorova in his notebook.  It is certainly possible that he wanted to be "more than just comrades" with her.  However, it is clear from a letter she sent a friend near the beginning of their fatal trek that she was still in love with Yuri Doroshenko.

In my experience, the vast majority of YouTube videos about the DPI report at least one of the above "facts" as being uncontroversially true!

What are some other commonly known "facts" that are not, in fact, facts?

Who presented the so called Facts in the first place  !  ?  The Authorities  !  ?  For instance, the Authorities made public that the Tent was cut from the inside. Etc.

[Manti]

In a sense, I agree, in that any one detail (or even a few) could be wrong or misconceived, so the best you are going to get here is a "big picture" tentative explanation.  Since there is only one such explanation that makes sense, this is not that much of a mystery (and in fact, it's more interesting to me in the context of how people conceptualize "mysteries").  The "den" seems straightforward.  Igor likely believed the fire would keep them alive, but the World War II vet thought that what soldiers did to survive the harsh Russian winters was a better idea (and if he decided to do this after one or both Yuris perished, that doesn't change the "big picture").  The next step is to try and do a precise reconstruction, then assess that data to see if any other explanation emerges.  Otherwise, the tent was damaged, then decided to secure it to prevent further damage (or have their gear blown all over the mountainside), and try to survive the night as best they could (fire and "den").  My hypothesis is that (at least among the 7 who had the lightest clothing) they did a lot of physical work (huge number of broken brances, the rescuers noted) and then when they sat around the fire, they got really sweated up, so that once the fire was clearly not going to save them under those circumstances, the "den" was dug (or one or more wanted to dig the "den" as a backup plan, or the idea was to sleep in the "den" after they warme up).  After the two Yuris perish, Zina gets angry/upset, and decided to go back to the tent.  Slobodin tries to get her to come back, slips, hits his head, and is rendered unconscious.  Igor then goes after her, but they are too sweated up and freeze to death.  The "ravine 4" fall through the snow and onto a rock creek, with those who fall first getting nasty injuries from the others falling on top (Luda likely fell first).  It was a series of bad decisions, but pitching the tent where they did with no heat was the major mistake.

Well, I don't want to make this off-topic but...
In this big picture scenario, wouldn't have they put on their coats first?

Now a "fact": a campfire was started under the cedar where the Yuris sustained their burn injuries. 
Actually: I don't know, do we have any photos of campfire remains?


"Fact" 1: there was order inside the tent except the shoes in the corner were not neatly arranged, vs "fact" 2: there were loins and rusks found on the blankets, and buckets, a saw, etc. inside, in front of the entrance.
Only one of these can be accurate.

[RMK]

Who presented the so called Facts in the first place  !  ?  The Authorities  !  ?  For instance, the Authorities made public that the Tent was cut from the inside. Etc.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you here?  It is certainly true that the authorities in charge of the original 1959 investigation publicized some elementary facts, as well as some "so-called facts" representing their (primarily Ivanov's [to the extent he could opine freely]) inferences of what might be the most probable scenario.  My point is that we can legitimately question someone else's inferences from the bare facts (but we cannot just dismiss the bare facts themselves without a compelling reason).

[KFinn]

In a sense, I agree, in that any one detail (or even a few) could be wrong or misconceived, so the best you are going to get here is a "big picture" tentative explanation.  Since there is only one such explanation that makes sense, this is not that much of a mystery (and in fact, it's more interesting to me in the context of how people conceptualize "mysteries").  The "den" seems straightforward.  Igor likely believed the fire would keep them alive, but the World War II vet thought that what soldiers did to survive the harsh Russian winters was a better idea (and if he decided to do this after one or both Yuris perished, that doesn't change the "big picture").  The next step is to try and do a precise reconstruction, then assess that data to see if any other explanation emerges.  Otherwise, the tent was damaged, then decided to secure it to prevent further damage (or have their gear blown all over the mountainside), and try to survive the night as best they could (fire and "den").  My hypothesis is that (at least among the 7 who had the lightest clothing) they did a lot of physical work (huge number of broken brances, the rescuers noted) and then when they sat around the fire, they got really sweated up, so that once the fire was clearly not going to save them under those circumstances, the "den" was dug (or one or more wanted to dig the "den" as a backup plan, or the idea was to sleep in the "den" after they warme up).  After the two Yuris perish, Zina gets angry/upset, and decided to go back to the tent.  Slobodin tries to get her to come back, slips, hits his head, and is rendered unconscious.  Igor then goes after her, but they are too sweated up and freeze to death.  The "ravine 4" fall through the snow and onto a rock creek, with those who fall first getting nasty injuries from the others falling on top (Luda likely fell first).  It was a series of bad decisions, but pitching the tent where they did with no heat was the major mistake.

Well, I don't want to make this off-topic but...
In this big picture scenario, wouldn't have they put on their coats first?

Now a "fact": a campfire was started under the cedar where the Yuris sustained their burn injuries. 
Actually: I don't know, do we have any photos of campfire remains?


"Fact" 1: there was order inside the tent except the shoes in the corner were not neatly arranged, vs "fact" 2: there were loins and rusks found on the blankets, and buckets, a saw, etc. inside, in front of the entrance.
Only one of these can be accurate.

Unfortunately, we can not establish any fact regarding the state of the tent's contents.  All we have are eyewitness accounts, which are notoriously inaccurate and in the case of Dyatlov, they all seem to have differing accounts on the positions of things :(   Which is quite unhelpful since the tent was such a pivotal decision point.

[sarapuk]

Who presented the so called Facts in the first place  !  ?  The Authorities  !  ?  For instance, the Authorities made public that the Tent was cut from the inside. Etc.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you here?  It is certainly true that the authorities in charge of the original 1959 investigation publicized some elementary facts, as well as some "so-called facts" representing their (primarily Ivanov's [to the extent he could opine freely]) inferences of what might be the most probable scenario.  My point is that we can legitimately question someone else's inferences from the bare facts (but we cannot just dismiss the bare facts themselves without a compelling reason).

Well a fact is a fact or its not a fact. Something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information. A thing that is known or proved to be true. Obviously the Tent is known to have had some kind of cuts to it. What we dont know is exactly how they came about. And so on.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Excellent thread.   

[NightLurker]

We do know that Lyudmila was very vocal... and as such, she became "unvocal"

[Manti]

Fact: They died on the 1st or 2nd of February Actually: We know they died sometime before being found... it could even be a day or two before, they were under a thin layer of snow that could have fallen in a day. We also know they stopped writing diary entries on 31-Jan. But we know more... we have mentions in the "Unknown diary" of Tibo writing a diary, yet none were found. So we know diaries are missing (and could have contained entries after the 31st), we also know that some dates in the diaries are corrected, this hints at the possibility that other dates might be incorrect. We also have no original for the group diary, only a typed copy. So later entries might have been omitted, or conversely, some might be made up. Dyatlov mentions a "relatively early" start of 10am which seems strange to some. So in the other extreme, they might have died earlier and the last diary entries are faked. Their photos are not dated. Even excluding such outlandish scenarios as faked diaries, all we can confidently say is they died sometime between the 31st of January and 26th of February, we also do not know if everyone died on the same day or possibly weeks apart...

[sarapuk]

Fact: They died on the 1st or 2nd of February Actually: We know they died sometime before being found... it could even be a day or two before, they were under a thin layer of snow that could have fallen in a day. We also know they stopped writing diary entries on 31-Jan. But we know more... we have mentions in the "Unknown diary" of Tibo writing a diary, yet none were found. So we know diaries are missing (and could have contained entries after the 31st), we also know that some dates in the diaries are corrected, this hints at the possibility that other dates might be incorrect. We also have no original for the group diary, only a typed copy. So later entries might have been omitted, or conversely, some might be made up. Dyatlov mentions a "relatively early" start of 10am which seems strange to some. So in the other extreme, they might have died earlier and the last diary entries are faked. Their photos are not dated. Even excluding such outlandish scenarios as faked diaries, all we can confidently say is they died sometime between the 31st of January and 26th of February, we also do not know if everyone died on the same day or possibly weeks apart...

Those who carried out the original Investigation and Autopsy seem to think that they died on or around 1st or 2nd February 1959.

[Manti]

Well, actually, the autopsies do not mention date of death. Which is good as it would be speculation on the coroner's part. Usually, a guess can be made about this based on the state of decomposition, taking into account local weather conditions etc. But freezing completely prevents that so in this case there is very little to go by. Sunlight will still have an effect but snow covered them an unknown time after death, so it's only possible to guess that timespan and not time since death. Plus there might have been cloudy days.


The investigator did think they died on the 2nd... But that doesn't make it a fact. It is just a guess based on the diaries and how far along they were on their route and how long it could have taken from their last campsite to get there.

There are many cases of missing persons being ultimately found close to where they were last seen, yet their time of death indicating that they were alive for days or even weeks. In some of those cases, they might have been lost and going in circles, gone somewhere and returned, been unable to move due to injury or captivity, stayed there due to the belief that is the location where they are most likely to be rescued, and other reasons. Some of these reasons might also apply to the Dyatlov group, we don't know. There is a range of possible dates and picking 2nd of February is rather arbitrary and is not the median of this range and let me say... it is actually quite unlikely that 9 people in differing clothing, different health etc. would die on the same day if the cause of death is the elements.

So unless the authorities have some additional information we don't, 1st or 2nd Feb is just a guess.

[sarapuk]

Well, actually, the autopsies do not mention date of death. Which is good as it would be speculation on the coroner's part. Usually, a guess can be made about this based on the state of decomposition, taking into account local weather conditions etc. But freezing completely prevents that so in this case there is very little to go by. Sunlight will still have an effect but snow covered them an unknown time after death, so it's only possible to guess that timespan and not time since death. Plus there might have been cloudy days.


The investigator did think they died on the 2nd... But that doesn't make it a fact. It is just a guess based on the diaries and how far along they were on their route and how long it could have taken from their last campsite to get there.

There are many cases of missing persons being ultimately found close to where they were last seen, yet their time of death indicating that they were alive for days or even weeks. In some of those cases, they might have been lost and going in circles, gone somewhere and returned, been unable to move due to injury or captivity, stayed there due to the belief that is the location where they are most likely to be rescued, and other reasons. Some of these reasons might also apply to the Dyatlov group, we don't know. There is a range of possible dates and picking 2nd of February is rather arbitrary and is not the median of this range and let me say... it is actually quite unlikely that 9 people in differing clothing, different health etc. would die on the same day if the cause of death is the elements.

So unless the authorities have some additional information we don't, 1st or 2nd Feb is just a guess.

Well if its a guess then its a good one. And it ties in with their sequence of travel up to the Mountainside where they pitched their Tent for the last time.

[eurocentric]

You can make a reasonable guess of when they died based on the remaining food supplies, and that, correlated to diary entries and meterology, in particular extreme weather events which might necessitate the building of a snow shelter, would all triangulate towards the most likely time of death.

[Dona]

You can make a reasonable guess of when they died based on the remaining food supplies, and that, correlated to diary entries and meterology, in particular extreme weather events which might necessitate the building of a snow shelter, would all triangulate towards the most likely time of death.

Isnt it odd that they  all died at about the same time..under very different circumstances. Its almost unbelievable..

[sarapuk]

Who presented the so called Facts in the first place  !  ?  The Authorities  !  ?  For instance, the Authorities made public that the Tent was cut from the inside. Etc.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you here?  It is certainly true that the authorities in charge of the original 1959 investigation publicized some elementary facts, as well as some "so-called facts" representing their (primarily Ivanov's [to the extent he could opine freely]) inferences of what might be the most probable scenario.  My point is that we can legitimately question someone else's inferences from the bare facts (but we cannot just dismiss the bare facts themselves without a compelling reason).

Well it was the Authoritites in charge of the search. So its obvious that the Authorities would be the ones who were required to record stuff. And obviously there were some searchers who also had their own record of what they found.

[zirconium]

You can make a reasonable guess of when they died based on the remaining food supplies, and that, correlated to diary entries and meterology, in particular extreme weather events which might necessitate the building of a snow shelter, would all triangulate towards the most likely time of death.

Isnt it odd that they  all died at about the same time..under very different circumstances. Its almost unbelievable..

More likely they died within a span of several hours rather than nearly simultaneously. Even if they did not all suffer the same cause of death, everyone faced the circumstance that they were underdressed in below freezing conditions.

[Manti]

You can make a reasonable guess of when they died based on the remaining food supplies, and that, correlated to diary entries and meterology, in particular extreme weather events which might necessitate the building of a snow shelter, would all triangulate towards the most likely time of death.

Isnt it odd that they  all died at about the same time..under very different circumstances. Its almost unbelievable..

More likely they died within a span of several hours rather than nearly simultaneously. Even if they did not all suffer the same cause of death, everyone faced the circumstance that they were underdressed in below freezing conditions.

I haven't posted or thought much about the Dyatlov incident lately.
Now with sort of a "fresh look"... my thoughts are: They had food, in the tent and in the labaz. They had more clothes available, in the tent and also on their comrades who first succumbed. And some of them weren't even that underdressed, Tibo and Semyon. Given these conditions, out of 9 healthy, athletic people I would expect at least one to survive and make it back on skis to civilisation.

[Manti]

If there was no event that injured or incapacitated ALL of them, you would expect to at least find some of them miles and tens of miles away, or I would, and expect the skis to have been dug up from under the tent, a backpack packed with food and clothes on their back, on the way to Vizhay. It was cold and all but they made it to the pass with the same equipment, why couldn't they make it back, or even attempt to?

[zirconium]

I just assume in the middle of the night it was too cold, as a matter of degree (no pun intended). Three people tried to go back to the tent, but apparently froze, or otherwise didn't make it.

[GlennM]

It was stated that ice formed under Rustem owing to heat dissipation.  It is a fact that he fell and died oriented to the tent located by the rescuers. It is a fact that all behavior is motivated. The conclusions to be drawn from the evidence are that the tent was on 1079 at the time of his death and secondly, there was something worth having at the tent.Rustem did not die elsewhere and his corpse was then relocated.

[Manti]

"Fact": Animals don't venture above the treeline on Kholat
Actually: In the videos posted in this thread, a wolf print is found next to the Boot Rock and elk prints near the forest path

[Игорь Б.]

В экспедициях установлено, что на склоне обитают лемминги и горностаи. Горностай даже был сфотографирован недалеко от места палатки:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=54045

Почему они не тронули продукты в палатке, в частности окорок?

[Charles]

nothing here