Rational or Irrational...What do you think?

[MDGross]

Did the hikers act in a rational manner? If they thought an avalanche was happening, for example, or saw balls of fire rolling down the slope (ball lightening scenario), or smelled toxic fumes from a missile explosion, then exiting the tent so suddenly seems a rational decision. But scenarios like infrasound, or tainted rye bread, or hypothermia inside the tent, suggest that their ability to think clearly was affected. So they could have acted irrationally.
I suppose it depends on which scenario or scenarios you feel strongly about. Perhaps a mental health expert could help out. The tent cut from the inside, the hikers fleeing without shoes or coats, walking but not running toward the shelter of the woods...rational or irrational? Perhaps once they reached the woods, they began thinking clearly again. Building a camp fire and digging out a snow den are rational acts.
If this question could be answered with some certainty, it would strengthen some theories and weaken others.

[Manti]

I would like to extend this question even to their behavior before the incident.

Reaching the end of the forest line at the pass, as evidenced by photos, and knowing from their maps that they are very close to the forest in the Lozva valley on the other side, yet turning back south into the Auspiya valley and camping there, essentially losing a day. Rational or irrational?

Camping on the slope of Kholat Syakhl on their last day, and either not planning to use the stove or planning to have it supported on a rope held only by a few skis. Rational or irrational?

Lyuda discontinuing her diary mid-sentence 4 days before the incident, and later not participating in celebrating Kolevatov's birthday and apparently skipping dinner. Rational?

[MDGross]

Good point, Manti. If some of the decision in the days prior to Feb. 1 seem irrational, then what was causing them to not think clearly?

[Investigator]

Acting rationally according to a bad plan is clearly the most likely scenario.  Here we are, all these years later, used to our smart phones, etc., second-guessing them.  The major mistake, IMO, was pitching that tent (which was ripping apart under better conditions the previous days) in that location, without heat.  If they went to the wooded area (where they started the fire) to pitch the tent, I think there would have been no "incident."

[EBE]

Reaching the end of the forest line at the pass, as evidenced by photos, and knowing from their maps that they are very close to the forest in the Lozva valley on the other side, yet turning back south into the Auspiya valley and camping there, essentially losing a day. Rational or irrational?

Camping on the slope of Kholat Syakhl on their last day, and either not planning to use the stove or planning to have it supported on a rope held only by a few skis. Rational or irrational?

What might have happened: They planned to stay at the Cedar location, as there was a camping place that Dyatlov knew of before. The Cedar location was on their route, according to the route map.
However, they met other people there, and there was a quarrel, maybe a fight (as per pathologist Tumanov's notes that some of the injuries were 1-2 days old at the time of their death). The group had to return to Auspiya valley to camp, but next day they decided to continue their trek and bypass the cedar location, camping on the slope. That's where the attackers discovered them, made them abandon the tent and descend to the Cedar camp to meet their fate there.

[Manti]

Yes. It does look like they were trying to bypass the cedar area. Maybe they didn't plan to camp on the slope, and were trying to reach the next valley: if the cedar is in the valley of the 4th tributary of Lozva, then the valley of the 3rd. But something forced them to set up camp on the slope after only walking 2.5 miles.

This is the main reason why I don't think they planned to camp there, because they couldn't have planned to only cover such a short distance that day. But they did. Most likely what made  them to is the low visibility due to a blizzard.

Regarding the 1-2 day old injuries, there is mention in the diary that several people hurt their hands on old nails in the darkness at the Second Northern settlement.

But still, no explanation why they turned back at the pass and deviated from their planned route via the cedar area. If they met someone there, why is there no mention in the diaries?

[EBE]

But something forced them to set up camp on the slope after only walking 2.5 miles.

This is the main reason why I don't think they planned to camp there, because they couldn't have planned to only cover such a short distance that day. But they did. Most likely what made  them to is the low visibility due to a blizzard.

They started very late that day, probably preparing the storage. That may be the reason why they covered such a short distance. But the weather could have also played some role - they found a relatively good camping spot, protected from the wind, so they decided to pitch the tent there.

But still - their behavior on 31. January/1. February (before pitching the tent) is strange, going up the slope, then turning back and losing a day, when (as you have correctly assumed) they could have gone to the forest on the other side of the pass (cedar area). Maybe they spotted something/someone in the area of the pass, and decided to bypass that place.

Regarding their injuries - based on pathologist Tumanov's conclusions, Slobodin's face and hand abrasions were already covered with a crust when he died, also Tibo's arm injury was of blue-green color - this indicates that they were already at least one day old when they died. I have checked the photos again - the pictures from 31. January/1. February morning (after they came back from their attempt to cross the pass) don't show any abrasions, any injuries. Mood was good. So I think I was wrong and they did not come into any fight before that time. So all happened from 1. February afternoon, and maybe they died on 2. Feb in the evening.

Anyway, as they had such a large variety of injuries, and vast majority of them had a head injury (from one side or even both sides of the skull - Slobodin), my personal opinion is that they were killed.

[Manti]

We don't know when they started that day. That they started very late, is just someone's guess that has unfortunately been copied all over the web as fact.

Igor B.'s analysis on a Russian forum seems to suggest they didn't start late, and the second and third last photos showing them skiing on the slope were taken before noon, and for the characteristic "raised" footprints to form, their feet had to melt the snow they stepped on, so it couldn't have been very cold when they left the tent, also suggesting it was around noon.



As for my personal opinion, for someone to kill them and just leave 5 bodies out like that, is very "irresponsible". If it was someone familiar with the area (the natives, the army, geologists, camp guards etc.), they would know of good places to hide the bodies. If it was someone who has never been there before, why kill them there? Why not near the town either when they set out, or just before they would return?

[Ziljoe]

We don't know when they started that day. That they started very late, is just someone's guess that has unfortunately been copied all over the web as fact.

Igor B.'s analysis on a Russian forum seems to suggest they didn't start late, and the second and third last photos showing them skiing on the slope were taken before noon, and for the characteristic "raised" footprints to form, their feet had to melt the snow they stepped on, so it couldn't have been very cold when they left the tent, also suggesting it was around noon.



As for my personal opinion, for someone to kill them and just leave 5 bodies out like that, is very "irresponsible". If it was someone familiar with the area (the natives, the army, geologists, camp guards etc.), they would know of good places to hide the bodies. If it was someone who has never been there before, why kill them there? Why not near the town either when they set out, or just before they would return?

I agree with this. There is no evidence of the time of day and I do struggle to find a motive for murder , especially in the middle of nowhere . I also struggle with geologists finding bodies and flying to and fro, from a morgue. It's a lot of work in a very small window of time.lots if witnesses. The risk of being found out to have staged a scene would be worse than the natural event of a tree falling on them?

[marieuk]

Well something weird went on.  Teddy said in her youtube interview that Yuri K (I think it was) had indentations frozen into his shirt from the belt on his trousers, which she said meant he must have been wearing trousers for quite a while after he died.  Not sure the trousers would have been of any use to anyone else in that frozen condition, so why or who would have removed them?  Hopefully I've understood this correctly. 

[Ziljoe]

Unfortunately, I am not sure how to put up the photos.

But if you look at Yuri K's autopsy photo , the shirt looks like it is frozen in place and had something tied round the shirt. Possibly the cord from trousers. So they may have been removed when frozen at some point. However, if you look at the photos from when Yuri k was found under the tree , his shirt is half way up his torso . An Interesting observation. I think that with Teddy's version they had the bodies at the morgue. Had maybe started to remove the trousers. Then decided to place the bodies back at the scene and this might be why his shirt is in a different position.

Or it's the other way round. They found Yuri k under the tree first and the shirt was pulled down his torso after it had thawed a bit in the morgue

[marieuk]

Thank you for explaining it in more detail.  To be honest I'm too squeamish to look at the autopsy photos, but that must be what Teddy was referring to. 

[Игорь Б.]

Положение рубашки в морге не имеет ничего общего с положением рубашки на месте происшествия.
Складки рубашки около пояса в морге могут означать, что кто-то брался за рубашку в этом месте при переноске тела.

[EBE]

We don't know when they started that day. That they started very late, is just someone's guess that has unfortunately been copied all over the web as fact.

That is true - we don't really know when they started. However, from their photos taken on 1. February morning it seems that there was a full daylight, but their tent was still standing, they were not yet packed and ready. They probably still had to do the "Labaz" that morning (if the "labaz" was really made by them). So I think it is quite possible that they started late. But what happened next - why did they pitch the tent on the slope in bad weather (assuming from the photos) is a mystery. They could have descended to the forest (cedar area, on their original route!) where there was wood, trees for pitching the tent, no strong wind.. but they decided to stay on the slope.

Regarding the "murder" theory - I think that instead of speculating about the motive, bodies disposal etc., we should stick to the facts and evidence available in the autopsy reports and post-mortem photos.
My assumption that they were murdered (or at least some of them) is based on these points:

- all of them except of Doroshenko and Dyatlov had injuries on the side of their head (open wounds, fractures, in case of Slobodin on both sides). Dyatlov is disputable - there is a head wound visible through his hair on one of the morgue photos.

- many of them had severe face damage - swollen and bleeding lips, bleeding nose, multiple bruises and abrasions on their cheeks etc. Dyatlov had identical bruises on both of his cheeks (morgue photo). It is difficult to believe that symmetrical head injuries of Dyatlov and especially Slobodin would happen by accident. In Slobodin's case, he would probably be unconscious even after the first head fracture. How did he get the second one (which would make him unconscious too)? There was nothing near the place where he was found to cause these fractures.

- Injuries omitted or not described properly in the autopsy reports: missing histology results, vague statements about deformed neck (Kolevatov..), Zolotaryov's shoulder bone fracture not described by the pathologist but found after he was exhumed..

- Many of them found in unnatural positions: Doroshenko, Krivonishenko, Dyatlov. They were moved after their death, and in case of Doroshenko it was some time after the death, as livor mortis has already formed on the other side of his body (suggests that he was turned). Krivo's trousers were probably arranged to cover his foot, which was severely burned from below. Traces of blood on his leg indicate that he was in vertical position when he got injuries in the area of his upper thigh (so the injuries were not caused by cutting his trousers after he was dead).

- Probable presence of other people in the cedar area and also in the tent: army putees, spoon. From the "den" photo it seems that the spruce/fir branches for the flooring were cut by one single blow (axe), not with a knife.

So to me, murder is the most probable cause of the death of most of the group. Also, from their behavior and various hints (clothing, gloves etc.) it seems that they did not act together but were divided into two or more groups - but this is for another discussion:).

[Игорь Б.]

we should stick to the facts and evidence

Откуда вы берёте все эти ложные сведения?

Я рекомендую вам прочитать "Ответы на все вопросы, связанные с гибелью группы Дятлова":
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=110407

Мифов и заблуждений станет гораздо меньше.

Например, почему трупные пятна не соответствуют положению тел:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=52262

[Paf]

I think they acted in a pretty rational way.

One girl seems to be confused, even before the deadly events. Does that make everybody confused?
They were experienced mountainers. Anybody going for a trek longer than 5 days has ideas about what could happen, and (partials) solutions. You've heard stories, made your own on "how you would react", found partial/inadequate/adequate/... solutions in advance. (obviously not the right one in DPI case, or maybe there was no good one.)

When alone, anyone can lose cold blood, I agree. But for everybody to panic at the same time , even just the majority of the group, it would take a lot.
One panic : another one calm him down, without even knowing what the panic is about. Then when he know and start to panic as well, the first one is back to cold blood and can handle him.
Maybe a few people really paniqued and were hard to handle for the others, what slow down the group efforts or even started the bad events. But I believe most of them acted (mostly) rationally.