The Dyatlov pass accident and the fatal “unknown compelling force”

The weapons testing idea seems contrived and needlessly complicated. I don’t claim to have an answer as to why they all left the tent but consdier this:

They didn’t write in their diaries that day. They camped in the middle of an open slope when a more sheltered area (in the trees) was only 1.5 km away. I have also read that they stopped early (but can’t figure out how this was determined). This is all consistent with bad weather. It is likely they were in a white-out and decided to just camp where they were.

After the “compelling force” sent them away, they couldn’t find their way back. They had to use “wet wood” because they were poorly dressed and freezing to death. A white-out means wind, and wind means wind-chill (exposed skin has heat drawn from it faster in wind than in still air).

The group started to freeze. The survivors took the clothing from the dead. The group broke up and some left the fire and tried to find their way back, they die. The remaining tried to find shelter 75 m away in a gully. They fell into the gully and sustained injries. They eventually died as well.

What scared them away I don’t know. I have camped like this on winter ski trips and I assure you that it is NOT normal to run away into the night without your winter gear. The only way you do this is if staying in the tent is percieved to be a more likely death than the certain death in the cold. It hurts to get out into the cold without clothing.

The thing that bothers me about the whole “radioactive contamination” issue isn’t so much the question of “what could have made them radioactive?”, as “Why on earth did the forensic investigators think it would be useful to check for radiation in the first place?” That is not something that I would expect to ever even come up in an investigation of this type. It would be like going over the scene of an auto accident with a Geiger counter - what on earth would be the point? This leads me to think either (a) there’s something that isn’t included in the account that made the investigators think that there *would* be radioactivity; or (b) the “data point” about radioactive contamination is just some spurious thing that crept into the account, and isn’t actually true.

The whole story is more than a little reminiscent of the book by Charles Berlitz about the Bermuda Triangle: a fairly detailed account with a lot of inexplicable things, but what is inexplicable about many of them is the question of “why on earth would people in that situation do *that*”? In the Bermuda Triangle case, it turned out that most of the “inexplicable” things were due to small distortions of the circumstances, things left out of descriptions, and in some cases bits of “data” that turned out to be the result of misunderstandings or outright falsehoods. I strongly suspect that this story is suffering from a lot of that sort of thing, too, especially since it is being translated into English, leaving lots of room for one piece of information to become another.

It’s very funny how people with zero knowledge about the living conditions in USSR at that time (almost 50 years ago) and the weather and terrain specifics of the northern Urals can make some assumptions and prove or disprove theories. I was born in Sverdlovsk and graduated from the same Urals Polytechnic College as all the nine from the Dyatlov’s group so IMHO can shed some light on the questionable facts.
The temperature on February 1, 1959 was minus 21 -25 C (about minus 10-12 F) with winds on the top of the mountain up to 15 m/s (45 ft/s). Nobody in the sound mind would venture to go outside undressed in this kind of weather expecting “to survive for a time outside the tent” … “if it was bearable”. They just acted in panic with no logical reasoning and no expectations, like people jumping down from the WTC didn’t really expect to stay alive.
There were no bruises and breaks in the skin of the injured except unremarkable cuts and scratches, but the injuries were massive: one girl had 12 (!!!) ribs broken on left and right sides. These injuries can’t be explained by a mere fall on the snow or even a force of explosion as there were no broken limbs and signs of hematomas. The girl with the missing tongue could not have “bitten it off due to the panic” since not only the tongue but the entire oral cavity lining was missing as it was torn off.
Even more hilarious for me was reading the comments. Darling Sarah H, they didn’t have Coleman-type gas lanterns with thorium mantles in Russia in 1959. They didn’t have any camping gas lanterns, period. They didn’t have sleeping bags, camping pads as well as other essential camping gear. The tent was self-made sewn from 2 old smaller tents. The Dyatlov’s slept on the empty rucksacks wrapped themselves in the wool blankets. They only had one flashlight and used it sparingly to save the battery. It was later found on the tent’s roof left in the switched-on position as if somebody tried to mark the tent’s location.
As for answering the question why the investigators even checked the radioactive contamination of the bodies in the first place one has to be in the state of mind of policemen in the midst of the cold war hysteria in Urals, where every city had secret weaponry manufactures.

Hi Andy,

It’s all open to public. I got it by reading the first link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyatlov_pass_accident, but it’s in russian.

Regards

>The tent being torn or even cut from the inside is unremarkable given the situation.

It is difficult to judge by the photos. But these photos are taken from the results of an official forensic performed by an expert who concluded that the tent had been cut from the inside by a keen knife. Evidences include direction of the cut fibers and scratches from few unsuccessful attempts on the inner side of the tent.

>Due to the age of the accident and the lack of information, this probably can’t be answered conclusively

No, there are detailed descriptions of all damages in the results of medical forensics (the searchers never attempted to do any diagnosis). Bruises are noted but wounds are not.

>The removed tongue is not surprising

You’re right. This detail is overhyped by the journalists.

>The “strange orange tan” is explainable. The grey hair is most likely a misinterpretation of the mortician’s work or a gradual exaggeration of the facts.

The first who noted the strange “orange” or “dark red” tan were the searchers. They all were experienced mountain skiers too, so it is unlikely if they were surprised by simple sunburn. It is also very difficult to get a tan of Ural’s winter sun. “Grey hairs” - yes, it’s questionable as it seems to come completely from the family legends.

>Summary: The high radiation, blinded victims and orange spheres in the sky can be explained by military-grade weapons testing. The secretive nature of a 1950s USSR makes this impossible to confirm.

1) Strangely, we have not been learned of it during 1990’s “openness” era when very dark soviet secrets and crimes were disclosed. We know about horrific “manoeuvres” at Totzk ground, where the army regiments were ordered to march across nuclear-contaminated territory. We know about kamikaze pilots forced to fly through air-blast epicenter at Novaya Zemlya. We know about victims of antrax, leaked from a secret laboratory in the center of Sverdlovsk city. We know about hundreds of victims of Mayak, Chernobyl, etc. We DON’T know why those 9 hikers have died.

2) You underestimate the “secretive nature of the USSR”. As the competent people said, if it was a weapon testing or so, the level of secrecy would be much higher and NO civilians were allowed - no volunteer searchers, no civil police, no legal investigation. Most likely, the hikers were simply disappeared.

3) The place was obviously bad for the weapon experiments, when there were special safe and well-prepared grounds in totally uninhabited deserts with all infrastructure (e.g. Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan).

Thank you.

But how did the girl lost her tongue, and if it was some kind of nuclear weapons test why werent there any radiation exept on some of there cloths.
i do not mean to critise any one i´m just courius my big intrest in life is catastrofs made in the USSR

sorry for the bad spelling

Several observations in regards both to the article and other comments.
1. I doubt it was a white-out if their footprints were visible much later.
2. They may not have been blind, if they were in pajamas it was probably night and in the dark its hard to spot dry brush from wet brush.
3. With weapons testing. It sounds almost like a thermobaric bomb. They didn’t enter service for a few more years but this could be an early test. Thermobaric bombs use a cloud of burning fuel to create a pressure wave that results in internal hemorraging and damages to the rib area. Differing injuries could be accounted for by varying distances from the blast. There wouldn’t be a crater, and while some snow would probably melt, that could be covered by drifting snow. The orange lights people saw in the area could be missile engines or the engines of jet fighters delivering the ordnance.
If people had time to carry away wounded, as is evident, and to stop and cut away the clothes of the dead, whatever drove them from the tent area was clearly not chasing them. But the tent area remained so frightening that they’d rather freeze in the woods than go back. Seems to me they were avoiding an area where they felt they were a target.

I really do think that an avalanche is the best possible explanation. Perhaps there was a minor avalanche and these folks hurriedly cut the tent and got into the forest to wait out a possibly larger avalanche. The use of the fire seems to indicate this. There’s also been speculation that the first to perish had their clothes taken by the last to perish. The only thing is the traumatic injuries(except for the tongue, your explanation-death throes-is probably the best I’ve heard). I don’t know whether it’s possible for four feet of snow for a couple of months to collapse bones that maybe have been weakened by the cold and the fact that the people are dead, but until I find that out, it seems more likely than something supernatural.

I have a theory that can’t be proved or disproved due to lack of vital information. I think cold war hysteria plus post WWII trauma caused this tragedy. Most of the victims died of exposure to extreme cold due to panic, most likely caused by some natural phenomenon. Maybe they thought they were at place of some conflict.

sdtalker:
You are probably right. But my speculations, which I admit are based on ignorance are not more ridiculous than UFOs or supernatural force.

The difference between my speculations and those of UFO‘s are that cold war hysteria, post WWII trauma and panic exposure to cold are all very much real while existence of intelligent aliens have yet to be proven. If it happened during middle ages the „orange spheres“ would be a proof of witchcraft. Why not that?

Paradoxical undressing occurs with hyPOthermia (overheating), NOT hyPERthermia (freezing) which the victims suffered from. Lack of basic fact checking and shoddy research makes the rest of your investigation suspect.

Right, paradoxical undressing is a rare symptom of hyPOthermia (freezing), but again, no facts to say about it in the case of Dyatlov’s group.

kklement:

1. Exactly, 4+2+1+1+1 - a group of four, of two, and three separate bodies
2. Two were undressed after their deaths to help damaged fellows with clothes
3. Yes, it’s an important point - as it follows from (2), the two were died before the four (of which three had fatal damages). But they were near the fire (the four were not), so their quick death of hypothermia looks strange. As for what they were doing at the edge of the wood - it looks like they maintained the fire as a mark to help others getting together.

>Did all of the victims die in the same time ?
Obviously, not (see 2)

>Did they all leave the tent in the same time ?
By the traces near the tent, yes. Probably something was happened on their way to the wood that led to dispersion of the group (and, probably, damages of some people)

There are a few things that still confuse me, though I have to say, of all of the articles I have read on the subject, I have learned the most about the tragedy here.

#1: If paradoxical undressing was indeed a factor, why then did they (some) still somehow have the presence of mind to start a fire? If they were suffering from that level of dementia, it isn’t likely that they would pick and choose what to do/not do…

#2: Also related to lighting a fire, I read that the branches of the tree were stripped up to five meters above the ground. How the heck was this accomplished? If they were desperate to warm themselves, wouldn’t they have stripped branches from the lowest point first? If so, they wouldn’t have had anything to climb up to get to the higher branches. And conversely, why start stripping branches five meters up? It doesn’t make sense.

#3: If they did climb and strip branches, then they were defiantly not blinded. And if they weren’t blinded, they would have seen the dry (or at least dead) kindling and branches all around them, and used those to start the fire instead of live branches that won’t light very well.

#4: Some people have said that stories have changed over the years being passed down. But this happened a little under 50 years ago, not 500 years ago! I’m sure it is documented first hand somewhere, and some family members who saw first hand are probably still around to confirm what they saw. I don’t see why we shouldn’t believe the families and rescue crew when they said the skin was orange, and the hair gray.

I am not sure why I am so fascinated to know the facts with this story. Is anyone interested in translating the page to which Igor referred above??? I’d love to read more of the facts, because I am about to give up on speculating, and I am going to live forever curious…

What is this? They don’t explain anything rationally with this article. The tent being torn and them being almost naked is “unremarkable”. Then the shaky theory of that poor girl losing her tongue to a scavenging animal… If that was the case, then how come that animal only ate her tongue, and not her whole face? Not to mention it being bitten off in terror — regardless of how horrified you are, you can’t bite your tongue off *entirely*.
Another thing: the authors of this article would rather believe the victims were genuienly tanned/sun burned, although a) it’s official they were exposed to radiation, and b) I’m pretty sure their relatives saw their torsos and legs as well before the funeral, and not only in their funeral suits, so they couldn’t have naturally gained a tan all over their bodies, like on a beach. I really don’t know what to say about the grey hair, it’s obvious it didn’t turn grey because of whatever fright they went through, but fake hair or powder is just as lousy of an explanation.
And how could the 4 badly injured ones sustain such injuries (compared to the impact in a car crash) with no external bruising, or any other signs, weapons involved or not?
I generally encourage skepticism, because a lot of people come up with a lot of things and theories, and we should really stick to the facts in the end, but being skeptic doesn’t always mean dismissing any other possibility from the beginning, or far-fetching the weird facts to make them look rational. Something scared the hell out of those people that night, and don’t you think there would be some stop signs, some high fences, anything to let people know they’re not allowed there, had that been a weapon testing (and therefore restricted) area? I’m not saying it was something paranormal, but with the given situation, we can’t be sure what explanation is the best.

Jenn:

>I just found this article, and it seems to have more info than anywhere else

Nah, it’s just a compilation of the Wikipedia article plus excerpts of an interview with Yudin. IMHO, Wikipedia was a most full and accurate source on this question in English (however, the article is greatly shortened now)

My two cents: (feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken on any of the facts)

In reply to Jenn: paradoxical undressing is not caused by some sort of hysteria. It’s caused by blood vessels in the body’s extremities expanding and allowing warm blood to flow back into them. This causes the very real sensation of the body heating up significantly. The undressing is caused not by a temporary hysteria, but by a real increase in temperature coupled with, perhaps, a lack of clear judgement.

The fact that some of the people were dressed, while other weren’t would seem to suggest that those who were dressed were not in such a hurry to leave the tent. Perhaps some left (after getting dressed) while others stayed in the tent. Those in the tent later fled for some unknown reason, without dressing.

However, it seems odd to me that the group would sleep in just their underwear. If temperatures were so low, would one be able to sleep comfortably in just one’s underwear? I don’t know enough about sleeping in cold climates to give any definitive answer, and would welcome input from those with more knowledge.

The orange skin and gray hair seems quite unremarkable to me. I think the explainations proposed in the article are quite credible.

The missing tongue cannot be attributed to scavenging animals. The tongue is hardly the most accessible of body parts, and why would an animal choose to eat the tongue, eat only the tongue and only the tongue of one person? The tongue being bitten off by the woman herself seems the only plausible explaination. Perhaps she had some sort of convulsions? Or perhaps the force that broke her ribs also pushed her jaw down on her tongue?

Ignoring the dry brushwood could perhaps be because of a lack of light. Presuming they left the tent at night, leaving their torch at the tent (as igor said), they may not have seen the dryer wood.

The broken ribs and damaged skulls, without any outside wounds, would suggest a very strong, blunt force. I think this is compatible with the idea of an explosion nearby or overhead.

At the end of the day, the people’s actions once the left the tent can be explained fairly well with a few small, but not crucial, holes in the story, caused by a lack of information or alteration of the facts over the 50 or so years since it happened.
To me the big question is why they left the tent. Weapons tests? But what kind of weapons tests would make them decide they’d be safer outside the tent than inside it?
They were experienced skiers who knew the dangers of hypothermia, and the decision to leave the tent could not have been taken lightly.

Mike: Contrary to what many people belive, avalanches don’t need steep slopes. In fact, if the slopes are too steep, snow won’t gather there to make an avalanche. Of course once an avalanche gets started, a steep slope will speed it up, but for triggering an avalanche just above a 15 degree slope is enough.

The evidence is scanty so the best we can try to do is come up with scenario(s) that do not require anything highly implausible, and are therefore the most probable.

1. It is probably safe to assume the Dyatlov was a pretty sound leader; at only age 23 there were 10 people in his party and he was sensible enough to leave one behind when she got ill.

2. If we accept that the tent was slit open from the inside, then there must have been a compelling reason for not using the entrance. Given Dyatlov’s experience, it is probable that one hazard he was very aware of was avalanche, and if, say, one side of the tent including the entrance suddenly collapsed under a weight of snow, it is very likely he wouldn’t just sit up and say ‘huh?’; he would instead tell everyone to get the hell out straight away. There’s only one torch, half the tent is buried so not everyone can find their shoes, the side of the tent is slit and everyone tumbles out in confusion before they are completely buried.

3. What caused the snowfall? From Google earth it appears the camp was in a gully of snow, and that the slope is compatible with 15 degrees, although the quality of coverage in this area is poor. For all we know a freak chunk of snow broke off from an edge higher up the valley and rolled down the slope and hit the tent with sufficient weight to fool Dyatlov into thinking there might be an avalanche taking place.

4. After everyone was out of the tent, all is quiet; but Dyatlov decides they had better get away as quickly as possible in case there is another slide. On Feb 2 1959 the moon is only 4 days from new moon and only rises at about 23h30, and it may have been overcast; so it is probably pitch black. Dyatlov realizes that if they leave the tent they might never find it again, so he marks it with the torch. Then he tells the party to head for the trees, which he believes is just a few hundred meters down the slope; if they run, they can cover this in just 2 minutes. Yes it’s cold, and some of the party may only be wearing socks, but perhaps the snow is dry powder and everyone is full of adrenalin, so they think they can do it with no problem.

5. They reach a tree and stop, waiting for further action from the avalanche. Now everyone starts to cool down, and those who haven’t got shoes are feeling the pain of cold feet. Dyatlov’s first priority is to get some heat; fortunately someone has matches and because it’s pitch black and the shoeless don’t want to walk any further, they get the nearest wood from up the tree and try to make a fire. However, it doesn’t burn well because the wood is wet, and 5 of the party are seriously under-dressed.

6. In the meantime, Dyatlov is waiting for further avalanche noises, but nothing happens; he waits for as long as they can bear the cold, and then decides two things: someone needs to go find good wood for the ones who can’t move because their feet are frozen, and he needs to risk going back to the tent to dig out some clothes and shoes. Two of the party decide to accompany Dyatlov, perhaps because he needs them to help dig, perhaps because they want to get to some warm clothes as soon as possible, perhaps because they would rather exercise to keep warm than try to keep warm by a smoldering fire. Four of the better dressed members of the party agree to head off to find dry wood; they rely on whatever light the existing fire provides to find it again, and perhaps they take a burning stick to provide light; it is still pitch black.

7. Dyatlov’s party run into trouble. They are already hypothermic, they are now walking uphill so the going is much harder, perhaps they loose sight of the torch or get stuck in a drift. Perhaps Dyatlov’s respect for avalanches has caused him to loose too much time and heat waiting, perhaps the wind has picked up or is now in their face, perhaps one of the party falters and Dyatlov stops to help. There are many possible reasons why his party is overcome by cold.

8. Those who elected to be part of the wood party distribute clothing to best effect. Then then set out, intending to go just 20 meters or so. But perhaps they were unlucky and the big tree is isolated, or they miss the nearest trees; for whatever reason they ill-advisedly stray 100 meters from the tree and then run into trouble. It is pitch black and the only light they have is from burning brands and matches. Perhaps one of their party falls into a ravine - they are found under 4 meters of snow, so we can guess there must have been near an edge or a gully. The others try to help and suffer similar fates. Remember, it is pitch black, and nobody can see what’s going on, and once they have lost their light, which perhaps happens when the leader falls, then they are lost. Perhaps more than one falls in the first incident, perhaps the accident is more drawn out. A fall of 4-10 meters onto rock or branches is more than enough to break ribs, or strike a jaw with sufficient force to remove half a cheek and sever a tongue.

This is all speculation, and unfortunately we don’t have enough information to confirm it; like exactly who was wearing shoes, whether the ‘underwear’ was really something quite substantial like long-johns (which is what I would expect); to what degree the tent was buried when it was found, and exactly what was buried (the photo indicates snow on the tent, but could this have been wind-blown over a few days?); whether the 4 bodies were found at the bottom of a ravine or on flat ground, and so on. But like most tragic accidents it was probably an accumulation of little incidents and risks that each in themselves were not fatal, but were collectively lethal. It doesn’t take bad leadership, or panic, or stupidity; just bad luck.

As for all the business about classifying the investigation etc, I can easily imagine the following scenario: “Comrade! There is radiation in their clothes!” (maybe it is only 4 x background, we don’t know). In 1959 _anything_ to do with radiation is a state secret, so everything gets classified Just In Case. The army are sufficiently irritated by the whole search & rescue flap that they persuade someone to declare the area out of bounds. Documents filed away are lost or eaten by rats or get moldy and are tossed away. So much for the grand conspiracy.

The orange orbs? Well yes, there’s always a UFO hovering about whenever anything strange happens, and always some codger who will tell you all about it 30 years after the event. Maybe Dyatlov lit off a distress flare, although I don’t think that likely.

I’ve solved it:

The 4 bodies that were “crushed” were found buried under 4 meters of snow. The weight of all that snow crushed their bodies slowly over time.

Bingo.

Dave,

The tent entrance had been opened.

The torch had NOT been lighted up.

They picked probably the worst direction to escape avalanche - down its potential bed, along a large hollow - this looks strange for experienced mountain hikers (an avalanche flows like a river and fills all lows). To be safe of avalanche they could move back to just 100m from the tent - up to the ridge they had crossed before camping (between Kholatsyakhil and mountain 880).

>exactly who was wearing shoes
Only one shoe is mentioned - wearing by Slobodin (a felt boot, another from the pair was in the tent). Some others mentioned wearing socks (wool and cotton), shoes of few people are unknown (not mentioned).

>whether the ‘underwear’ was really something quite substantial like long-johns
Yes, shirts and long-johns

>to what degree the tent was buried when it was found, and exactly what was buried
10-15cm, buried more in the middle (this part of the tent had been fallen)

>whether the 4 bodies were found at the bottom of a ravine or on flat ground
in the stream of water filled the ravine under the snow

I read this over at Metafilter (http://www.metafilter.com/69297/The-Dyatlov-Pass-Mystery). I have no idea if it’s true, or even likely, but it is interesting:

“One of the clues I picked up over the years from studying the USA cattle mutilation mystery is that tongues and rectums are removed from the animals. This is possibly to study the tissues, as the soft tissues of those organs absorb radioisotopes & are easier to study for traces of biological contaminants, IIRC. The inference being that the mutilations are done by earthly organisations studying radiation damage or other biological traces.

If there were some military test gone awry, say an explosion of a flying device whose aerial blast injured some of the skiers and frightened the rest, and that device was in some way reliant upon nuclear power, then the hasty cleanup operation by the military might include the removal of a tongue in order to study the radiation levels absorbed by the victim.”

Just read Dave’s theory. Excellent stuff and sounds highly plausible.

On missing tongue:

Sorry me for naturalistic details, but the corpses found in May were in very bad condition - semi-decomposed, in fact. They had been frozen, then unfrozen and were in water under the snow for a long time.

It’s unsurprising that some tissues were missing.

What strikes me the most is this:

fact 1. I don’t have any experience in winter mountaineering but I’ve been through a few ‘crisis situation’ in my life - situation when you think you are in potentially fatal danger. Regardless of that threat being real or only perceived, my experience is that a person with right ’survival instincts’ - by this I mean a psychological profile that enables one to think clearly in such a situation - immediately starts to focus on the tasks of surviving the most immediate danger at hand, period.

fact 2. We don’t know what age the rest of the group was, only that of Dyatlov (23), but I think that it’s fair to assume that they were probably all in their 20s. This means that IF they were all experienced ski hikers - which they had to be, considering that this trip was a cat. III hike in January - they must have started practicing wilderness skills at a juvenile age. This means that they had tremendous experince. They were also in their physical prime. To sum it: young, experienced, well-prepared, both mentally and physically. As for their equipment, IMO it didn’t play any significant role in their demise.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that the 3 deaths of physical injuries were caused by falling into the ravine they were found in. What they were doing isolated from the group is a good question, but we leave that there now. Still, 5 of them were presumabley in good condition, a mere kilometre or so from the tent. Of course, surviving in -20 centigrade without clothes is questionable, to say the least; still, we have no reason to think that they were in bad shape right after arriving at the pine tree where they stayed. The most, no, the only logic action after this is to get back to tent, period. Few of them had no adeqate clothes at all, and even those with warm clothes were in risk of dying of exposure before daylight sets in, especially if conditions were windy, which obviously speeds up the loss of body temperature. I myself have been in the mountains at winter only a few times and have never been in such a situation, but I would know it. That’s just simply how it works! The sole thought in Dyatlov’s and the other’s mind must have been: ‘Get shelter. Now.’ And still, they waited untill they froze to death; with all their experince and skills.

Avalanche? Let’s suppose they were running from the avalanche when they left the tent (although according to dstalker they chose the worst possible direction to run from it, it might have been caused by disorientation, spur of panic etc.) I don’t no nothing of avalanches, but I am dead sure that I would try to get back to my tent before I dye of hypothermia, even if it is 99 pert cent that I die from the next avalanche! Also, it is hard for me to concieve that avalanches come like this, continously, wave after wave, for hours on.

What I try to point out is the chilling fact that for all their youth, their strength, they simply didn’t dare to go back to the tent. They were so terrified of something that they chose certain death instead of trying to get back - or, it took them so long to gather courage to try and return that by the time they did it was too late. And it must have taken hours. They tried to make a fire instead walking 1000 metres! And they should have simply follow their footprints in the snow. As for visibility. Anyone who has been outside at winter when everything is covered with snow knows that very, very little light from the moon and stars is enough to see quite well, that is, visibility even with a new moon should have been at least 5 meters, more than enough to see their footprints and find their way back. On the other hand, if it was overcast, than it took way more time to die for hypothermia, because with overcast temperatures are generally higher and obviously there’s no strong winds. Also, the rescue party which arrived weeks later had no difficulties following their footprints which to my thinking nullifies the possibility of both avalanches and a blizzard.

We might never know what did they encounter that night, but it must have been profoundly shocking. Nothing is further from me that it was paranormal, UFO, yeti or whatever; but that they DID perceive it as the most dreadful thing conceivable seems quite certain to me. Just imagine Dyatlov there, staring into the dark, with all his sane mind urging him to go back to the tent and save himself - and even more his comerades in underwear - and still being unable to do so. Those people, out there that night, were frightened to death - quite literally.

Very interesting comments here. I appreciate the skeptical view of the events presented in the article, but like others here I’ve found some of these explanations don’t add up completely. A few things stick out in my mind, after reading all of this.

First of all, I doubt the weight of snow piled onto a corpse would selectively break certain bones and not flatten the entire body. After all, we’ve found corpses frozen in snow from thousands of years ago with no major skeletal damage. This makes me think though, you wouldn’t have any hemorrhaging or bruising if the soft tissues were frozen at the time of the breaks, would you? A scenario in which somehow the bones were crushed after death and freezing might explain that unusual circumstance, however I think this is something they might have been able to determine in autopsy.

Secondly, the scavenging animal or tissue degradation theories might explain the tongue loss, but these seem inconsistent being that only one of the party suffered from this type of trauma. As others have mentioned also, the eyes seem likely target for a scavenger, and nothing was noted about that that I have read. It seems to me that, again, a thorough autopsy should have revealed whether it was even possible for the girl herself to bite off her own tongue. Since this was not mentioned in the information I’ve read, I can only assume it was ruled out by the extent of the damage. As Igor mentioned above, apparently the entire oral cavity had been removed. If the tip of the tongue, or even half of it was cleanly sheared with teeth marks, that would answer the question, but I have not read anything to indicate that.

Next, it’s important to establish a timeline of events, and all possibilities of a timeline. Perhaps the group at the tree did indeed go deeper into the forest, but came back to that point later? If we had some maps of where the bodies were found we might be able to establish a clearer route of escape. At this point we don’t even know if they all left the tent at the same time or not.

I like the reasoning that Dan presents, that these were definitely experienced hikers who were more aware of the dangers present in that environment than probably any of us are. This alone lends a lot of weight to the argument that it was not simply an avalanche that moved them from the tent. However I would argue that when faced with a wave of snow, the natural instinct (whether logical or not) would probably be to run as fast as possible, and that would lead you down the slope. Any life-threatening situation would probably lead you in the same direction with the same intent, though, so an avalanche again seems less likely. Also I would imagine an avalanche would have been detectable by the search party, and would absolutely have covered tracks around the tent that they found.

The lack of facts and evidence here is painful. I wish I could read Russian and could dig deeper into the information, or contact those who might have first-hand accounts of the rescue effort. I think it’s important this information be gathered as quickly as possible, as no doubt these surviving witnesses are getting on in age and we may not have that option in a decade or so.

Final thoughts.. it strikes me that perhaps some of these people may have been awake a moment or two prior to escaping from the tent. I doubt my first reaction upon being awoken by an atmospheric nuclear blast or a UFO or a yeti or anything would be to immediately flick open my knife and cut the tent apart. Most theories I’ve seen seem to conclude that it was some kind of mad dash immediately upon waking up. I think if I were woken up in a tent by noises outside, or perhaps even a plane overhead, I might rouse enough reasoning to grab my knife or some matches, and I think that’s something to consider. Perhaps they had some time to quickly collect themselves prior to the urgent need of escape. Also I really can’t help but feel that our information on the state of the bodies is just too shoddy to make any real conclusions. I wonder if it’s possible to track down some kind of coroner report, or as others have mentioned, military testing records from the time. There’s just too much of the picture missing, even parts of it that the investigation at the time should have filled in.

The girl with the missing tongue was assaulted by another member of the team.

At some point during the night, there is a heated argument between this girl and some other particular member of the team - the dispute turns violent inside the cramped tent; which is cramped enough that she cannot quickly exit by conventional means, so being cornered and out of options she frantically slices her way out and runs outside, followed immediately by her attacker, and not far behind the entire rest of the team, doing their best to calm/resolve the situation.

Dyatlov quickly places the flashlight atop the tent thinking that the chase won’t take more than a hundred yards or so and then everyone will promptly return to the tent. This point is crucial - had some large event taken place that caused the entire team to flee as in an emergency, the team leader would have without question taken the flashlight with him. He instead left it as a short-distance beacon.

The chase drags out for over a mile until the girl can run no farther, and the attacker finally is upon her with a knife (perhaps her own) and proceeds to remove her tongue. The team then wrestles with the attacker in complete darkness, which results in four of the group falling into a ravine and dying instantly.

The remaining five now have no idea where they are, and immediately plan for survival; They quickly build a fire and set up an impromptu camp. There are a few different ways the story can progress from here (the least experienced stayed behind and the most experienced tried to trek back, some died quickly so the remainder then left for the tent, etc), but in the end, they simply didn’t know how far they were from the tent, or even what direction they were in relation to it, aside from “downhill”. This would indicate that it was dark enough that they couldn’t see their own footprints in the snow.

I’d attribute the snow on the one side of the tent to be a simple snow drift on an unmaintained tent. It’s clearly not enough to be a small avalanche, and even if it were, the team wouldn’t have run that far.

The radioactivity that was found wasn’t enough to cause burns or even create a symptom of its being present, which would indicate that it was very low-level, which could be attributed to anything; In an era where pottery and watch-faces were highly radioactive, having an article of clothing that registers modestly on a Geiger counter would probably not be so unusual.

The orange skin and white hair would most likely have something to do with the mortician - even if their hair were white when they arrived, the mortician would have the option to dye it. That he didn’t would indicate some error or aesthetic taste on his part.

I believe Dave and StarHalo both present reasonable explanations. However Dave’s explanation lacks detail in some key areas, like why would you run downhill from an avalanche and why wouldnt you grab atleast one pack or some warm clothes/blankets? And it strikes me as odd that 4 people would fall into a ravine when looking for firewood also Dave’s theory doesnt explain the missing toung. StarHalo’s explanation on the otherhand does give an eligible reason for the crew to leave their tent in a rush and gives a theory on how the toung went missing. However i think i read on wikipedia that all of them were from the same club, which leads me to believe that they all knew each other and were probably good friends. So for an argument to go so far that somebody cuts off their companions toung is a bit extreme and unlikely if they had been friends and knew each other well. Other than that StarHalo’s theory makes sense. One thing i did notice however is that if falling into this ravine caused the broken ribs wouldnt it also cause bruising?

I had a thought, maybe only some of them were undressed because it is normal at small group gatherings for only some people to not want to undress while they sleep. Maybe some were outgoing enough to sleep in their underwear and some slept fully clothed.

I have a simple theory – what if the tent fell in and they panicked?

In the middle of the night, due to the snowstorm, the tent falls in on the sleeping people. Somebody screams as they wake, others wake, disorientated, panicked, restricted by the fabric, and start screaming too. The people, unable to find the entrance of the collapsed tent start tearing their way through with whatever comes to hand. Hysteria takes over. They assume that something has attacked the tent. They run the kilometer and a half to the tree line, and then begin to gather their wits.

They are still afraid; some think the tent was under attack, some don’t, and some are unsure. To calm the hysteria, a couple builds a fire. They say, ‘Hey yesterday we built a storage area and left supplies there, and it’s just a little further down in the valley. You people who are least clothed stay here by the fire and keep warm, and four of us with the most clothing will hike a little further down the valley, get some warm material for you, and maybe even some supplies to fix up the tent we destroyed.’

The four go off, but in the darkness, they fall into a ravine. One is knocked unconscious, three sustain fractures or broken bones. They all can’t climb out and die. A wolverine comes along and eats a tongue. Eventually four meters of snow builds up on top of them; the pressure further damaging the bones, making it look like an extremely high force injury death.

Back at the tree line, the five freaked-out fire people begin to realise that the storage supply group is not going to return. Two of the fire group have now died from hypothermia whilst waiting. The remaining three take their clothes and start heading back towards to tent , but they have waited too long and they’re too cold and exhausted and they’re lost and they drop as they make their way back up hill.

Granted, this theory doesn’t explain orange tan, grey hair, orange spheres, and radiation. So let’s maybe say that the mortician messed up the skin and hair, the area had previously been used for atomic testing well before they arrived maybe, and the other campers were lying about the orange balls.

I’m not sure anyone here talked about the “scraps of metal” found by the camp site, which could have been radioactive.

This leads me to believe it was some type of military testing.

Another thing, which could explain why the military didn’t react until at a late time: They lost some military hardware - maybe a jet fighter carrying a small nuclear device got lost, low on fuel, and decided to let go of the missile, in order for it to be retrieved later (as long as it was not armed, it would not have detonated on impact). The missile passed over the camp, the sound of it awaking the students and setting off a small avalanche. The missile itself landed far enough away from the camp site that it could be retrieved without the military entering the area of the students’ camp, so they never knew about them. Not until the rescue operation, someone in the military put two and two together, and realised “oh heck, that must’ve been caused by the missile we lost.” That explains why it took some time for the coverup to be staged.

Angus S’s theory seems very plausible - except for the missing tongue. A wolverine comes by and completely eats one tongue, then goes on it’s merry way, then the bodies get covered with snow and no other scavengers get a crack at them?

Maybe, but that all seems less probable than a UFO coming down, aliens attacking the tent, shooting 3 of the group with some kind of force beam that sends them flying into a ravine, then heading over and taking a nice self-contained tissue sample (or trophy?) then taking off again, the thrusters of their ship giving the horrified onlookers bright orange skin and gray hair.

Hmmm…
In the link posted by Ryan, there are three pictures of a guy holding up some sort of metallic ring - that looks a lot like something from a missile, or possibly part of the exhaust nozzle of a jet fighter to me…

seems like aliens to me, or military using alien technology. ripping the tent open means something was outside the tent prodding and they were swiping at it with a knife. getting out a knife takes longer than unzipping tent, this is panic swipes at danger. also not one person unzipped the tent is that correct can’t remember? a bear growling, an avalanche sound, a crazy mountain man are all out of the question. you would not swipe at your tent unless something pressing on it and you think you could hit it. no bear or mountain man tracks, and no signs of avalanche.
there was no avalanche or the tent would be buried. there were no tracks from aliens or military. the peoples tracks ended 500 ft from tent but bodies were found way further away, so the alien could hover and also the alien picked them up and carried them or something. also the people buried in the ravine were under 4 feet of snow. it’s possible a ravine would have heavy snow so this could happen but problem… why weren’t they found until two weeks later than the others. this was a small contained area and no tracks out to the ravine and no fresh overturned snow from the person falling in. omg. therefore the aliens placed the bodies under the snow using higher technology, keep in mind there wasn’t enough snowfall after death till bodies recovered to cover the other bodies which were found right away.
this is not unprecedented. an alien cow mutilation has been found underneath a mobile home in such a way that it’s impossible to get it there unless lifting up the whole house. i.e. this is the aliens showing off or sending a signal to not fuck with them. (i’m too lazy to verify my “bodies found far away from any tracks” idea, could be wrong maybe there were tracks)
you can’t get around the internal body damage with no bruises scratches etc. this is humanly impossible to do. do you understand that a car crash type wound would leave a bruise? this is higher technology irrefutably. taking out the girls tongue could not be done by force of a hand, also her inside mouth was taken out? this was a weapon placed in her mouth, its interesting that she’s sticking out her tongue in the picture, maybe this is chronic for her and so thats a connection to why they did this to her.
also the aliens or human and alien group could have intentionally made this evidence misleading and for whatever reason it was an intentional show of force to all humans or some human insiders who know somethings etc. and they could read between lines.
it seems obvious that stripping off of clothes is because the first to die gets stripped etc etc., imagine the mindgame of this strung out murder scene, why did they take so long.
the most compelling thing by far is if animals ate her tongue or any of these other things mentioned in other comments, why couldnt forensic experts piece this together? why the big coverup? because the tongue was ripped out with laser precision maybe or some other such thing and there’s things of that nature that make it obviously aliens or military with aliens.
scrap metal all around the scene found much later on? sounds like the soviets trying to misdirect investigators.
also, the branches five meters up tree was the hovering ufo directly over them knocking some branches, or this theory of the watchtower observing the tent.

it’s scarier thinking of them being blinded and walking from the tent, were they walking or running from the tent?
i know it’s scary thinking of aliens but remember one thing. if they are here they are hiding and they have a good reason to, whatever that is, so don’t worry they aren’t coming out of hiding to take over. there’s some reason they don’t, so we should be safe. don’t camp in the urals or in nevada desert or other places that feel strange like nasca, peru or have wierd vibes. more info on aliens can be found by googling the following terms. denver airport. deep underground bases. dogon tribe.

i believe some of this stuff is disinfo meant to scare people into thinking that they shouldn’t fight against government oppression because there’s a larger bigger threat out there which is the aliens so just become apathetic about standing up for whats right and having fun in life, the aliens are going to get us either way. but i don’t think that’s true that we’re going to be overrun by an overwhelming force anytime soon, i just feel that in my gut. i mean, what have they been waiting for?

@ty
Who told you they took their clothes off? Please read the discussion above: they were in normal clothes for sleeping in the tent. They DID NOT take it off. Two men had been undressed AFTER their deaths - the clothes were cut off, not taken off by usual way.

@The Viking

The “metallic ring” has been identified as modern.

All this (including about radar station etc) was in the Wikipedia article - if interested, take a look at the history of revisions.

after reading the facts and the theories i can come to only one conclusion: As the investigation was anyway “half-secret”, we are missing A LOT of facts to make clear picture.
1. we don’t know if the tongue was “ripped” or whatever,before or after death.
2. we don’t know the exact time line of happenings (etc i will not enumerate tons of facts that are missing)
3. the whole official story if very superficial to make a complete story that we all would agree.
I will read more on this subject, as it interested me quite a lot.

I remember one time sleeping in a tent (which I hadn’t done in over a decade) within one hundred yards of train tracks. That night in the middle of the night, the train went by and terrified me. I didn’t consciously know what the sound was for a few seconds, but I didn’t bolt out of the tent at what sounded like a car coming straight at my tent. I think dstalker, Dave, and StarHalo put forth good theories. I think that in many situations like this that are unexplained people favor the craziest ideas because it makes a good story. I think this situation was not caused by weapons testing and I don’t think the government was hiding anything to protect itself. I don’t think the government would have used that area for testing. There was a possible strange glow, but was there any noise?? If this area had been used for testing, I think there would have been a lot of noise from planes, helicopters, vehicles and possibly bombs and missiles. I think they would have had people on the ground to monitor the testing and I don’t think a bomb blast would have been the first sign of testing, thus if there were testing, I think they’d have had more time to at least dress and move to the woods. Under the scenario proposed for weapons testing by most people, a pilot would have dropped a bomb and flown back to his base. Why? That isn’t testing. Testing would involve a group of people evaluating the effectiveness of the ordinance. I also believe that if the government had wanted to hide this story it would have and nobody would have ever seen the people again. So, I don’t believe the gov’t and military were involved. I think the government just thought this case was a nuisance and the soviets were never open about things. There are just more angles to write about than I have time to, but I’ll say that I think possible causes are avalanche/weather; sickness, delusion, or confusion in one or two members that caused chaos fighting, or murder and eventually the deaths of them all; or intentional fighting that caused chaos, injury, or murder and eventually the deaths of them all. I think a lot of the side facts don’t really add anything and I doubt all of the facts are facts in this case. I’m also guessing a lot of evidence was missed by those at the scene.

Okay, another thought on this. As I’ve said, I think it’s weather or something amongst the hikers that caused this. One thing about this that I thought was ironic is that the groups’ footprints were still visible in the snow for one to two weeks afterwards. This was stated by the military and investigating team. I believe the group was possibly fleeing the tent because of fear of avalanche or snow drifting against the tent. The fact that their footprints were still visible in the snow showed that no serious avalanche developed after they left. If the avalanche scenario is true, the groups’ big mistake was panicking, which is what I lean towards. Another thought is that they did have alcohol with them. Could they have become drunk and careless? I doubt it, but it’s scenarios like that that are more likely to have happened. For those who favor the ideas of military involvement, you have to provide hard evidence on what happened. Too many of you are presenting theories as facts that have no basis in reality. Many of the weapons people are saying were used weren’t invented yet. When you propose ideas you have to have proof and there is none in this case that points to the military. The mysterious metal and other nonsense just wasn’t there. It’s odd that people will overlook 99.9% of the facts and fixate on the one rumor or supposed piece of evidence without knowing if it’s valid or not. The investigating team found no evidence of military involvement and because of a few oddities and rumors, people will believe aliens or the government were involved, thus undercutting how important it is to be safe in the outdoors and instilling yet more conspiracy theories to confuse the public.

Radix - it is colloidal silver that turns you blue. http://boingboing.net/2007/12/20/another-person-turns.html

Me and my friends have been looking at the dyatlov pass incident. We have recived a book from on line all about it. I just find it discusting that someone or something could take out a tongue, if it even was taken out. I think though, that there was a murderer. It might have been the only survivour that was with them because he said he was going home because he felt ill, but he might have come back to murder them.

my friends and me have a theory that the people in the tent could have been scared by a wild animal that could have then caught them and draged then away, but that still dont say how the foot prints disapiered after 5oo meters. enless there were trees around and they some how got around through them.

hi sarahrees, i do agree with you on the weapon theory, for sort of the same reason. also the thing thart scared the skiers (that was said to be a ball of fire)must have been something that is unusual, because there has been only one sighting of something like it, and that was in the middle of a meteor shower

Sarah -

1. FFS!

2. They were wearing *thermal* underwear

3. This comment box actually checks your spelling for you if you bother to to let it.

no who = no one who

I’m an English teacher and it annoys me too. But I do appreciate that we have a community here with a common goal. I’m beginning to think we’ve gone as far as we can without better research and fact checking. Can anyone make us aware of any more resources? Or do I have to become a Russian-speaking investigative journalist and go over there and write the book myself?

To preference what I can offer: I have experience doing this type of backcountry winter travel in northern Alberta, North West Teritories, Manitoba, and Ontario (in Canada) in both mountains and the boreal forest. I have not traveled in the Urals, but the taiga/boreal forest is similar in Siberia and mid-northern Canada.

To answer some questions:

A: There is nothing abnormal about sleeping in long underwear. During the day your outerwear gets very wet from sweat and melted snow (even in -25 deg C).

B: You do not run away from your tent and gear in -25 deg C unless you expect to die.

C: Avalanche theory: I have a topo map of the area and agree there is enough of a slope for an avalanche. This would have been a concern for them as well.

D: Paradoxical undressing is not quite what some of you are making it out to be. I have suffered from mild hypothermia and have had companions exhibit mid “paradoxical undressing”. You do not strip down to your underwear and throw away you boots. It is simply a numbness to warm feeling in which you might take off your hat and gloves or maybe your jacket. When you get to this point you usually are cold enough that you have very poor motor control and you can’t think very clearly. It would be difficult to undress simply because your fingers do not work very well. The investigators do not report any gear being “strewn behind them as they ran”. They simply did not bring it with them from the tent. I have no doubt they suffered the full gambit of hypothermia after that point, but it really doesn’t explain why they ran from their tent without proper clothing in the first place.

Here are the anomalies as I see them:
1) It is abnormal to make camp in the middle of an open slope away from the trees because of the avalanche risk and the exposure to the wind. This is an important point that you must realize. They must have had a reason for this. Either bad weather or something else was wrong at that point. Being lost is not a reason. A white-out could be. It also makes it difficult to scavenge wood unless you are willing to walk a long ways with it.
3) Compounding the above is lack of ANY journal entries that evening. Touring is all about routines, something would have to be very wrong for everyone to be too preoccupied to carry out this calming ritual.
2) The only way you leave your tent in -25 deg C in a light wind without your gear (basic outdoor clothing) is if you feel you are faced with certain and immediate death. They felt a very strong reason to evacuate.
4) The investigators report that the footprints indicate a mass evacuation with four wearing full outdoor gear and most wearing just their sleeping clothes. This suggests that four were up and possibly outside around the time prior to the evacuation. It is a stretch to suggest that some had the time to fully dress while others didn’t. It seems likely that the four who were dressed fully were up and about prior to the evacuation.

My first question: if they were up, what were they doing? Could it be that the four fully dressed individuals left before everyone else and the investigators just assumed they all left at once? What makes it so clear they all left at once?

3) They didn’t run down towards their food cash (southeast) they ran northeast. Both directions were about equal distance to trees, the latter being a little more direct.

My second question: Was there evidence of a fire pit at their camp?

If they had a fire they would have had to bring in the wood from a ways down slope. If there was no immediate supply of wood then the four who were dressed and possibly up were probably not sitting around the fire. What were they doing up?
The reasons that jump to my mind all involve a “watch”. They may have posted watch diving the group into three on a rotation. This ties back to the notion of a problem developing back in the afternoon and carrying forward into the night. If this is true, what were they so scared of?

My point being that the strange behavior started earlier that day and carried forward into the night, it did not start with the evacuation. An avalanche is a very real threat and I admit it COULD be the trigger but their behavior does not suggest this as a concern (by the location of their camp and from lack of evidence by the investigators).

My speculation is as follows: something was threatening them that afternoon and they felt safer camping away from the trees in the open so they could have a clear view of their surroundings; this benefit outweighing the avalanche risk, lack of wind break, and distance from wood. This could also explain why they stopped so early. Set up camp, eat, set a watch and try to get some sleep. Everyone is nervous and doesn’t write in their diaries. At some point all hell breaks loose and they run away from it. Cutting a hole in a tent makes sense if either the tent collapsed (even then why damage an important piece of gear?) or if they strategically wanted to avoid something on the south side of their tent (their tent entrance was oriented south-ish).

My best guess is animal/people. Something terrifying that stuck around most of the day and finally attacked at night. I don’t know what animal could cause this much fear.

avarlanch

I have studied the photos and read the relivent info given and find that this authors explaination of this being a “natural occourance” or reaction to radiation completley absurd.

Look at the facts….These people were in a complete stage/10 insane panic to get away from camp Period!.I live in a climate of below -30 to -40 degress cl (winter) and can tell you that what ever made them leave the safety and life giving area of camp,warmth,and food had to be beyond a fight argument or any conflict short of something they had never expierineced before.These were young robust males and females and any conflict with natives or others would have shown up as defensive wounds on hands and bodies.

The fact that the two who were found by the tree had obviously made an atempt or several to climb the tree leaving branches scattered about and up to 5 meters high,are signs of people beyond the natural fear response….these people were MAD with fright!.

Cattle that have been found mutilated all over the world have shown the exact types of injurys as described in this article.The tounge being removed is one that has been mentioned many times as well as the internal injurys from being dropped from above.Many farmers have found cattle in this very condition.
Its too bad that more solid evidence was not collected at the time but re examining the bodies would be a logical first step, then we could use modern tech to figure out what happened at the very end.

Park

You can’t use the impossible to explain the unusual. Most likely fear of an avalanche drove them out. Their poor decision to go out in the cold is what led to their deaths.

“You can’t use the impossible to explain the unusual.”

Well, by definition impossible or supernatural things can’t happen but that doesn’t prove that Science actually knows, or is even the only arbiter of, all of what is possible or natural. I certainly don’t remember agreeing to let Science and Skepticism define my universe. The history of science despite its pomposity of tone is that of one generation of scientists telling us that the last generation of scientists (who were equally as pompous) was wrong about everything that they told us had been scientifically proven. I realize the futility of arguing with “skeptics” because their point is basically “If it can’t be proven by our particular standards, it doesn’t exist. And if it doesn’t exist, there’s no reason to give any thought to the possibility it actually does.” It gets a little circular.

I always wonder how scientists deal with human emotion. Does it only exist if it causes some measurable action in the physical world? A rise in blood pressure, some sort of biochemical party that could be picked up by strategically placed electrodes when you think of a loved one?

And as to the article, Andy, I love the way you so briskly toss away inconvenient facts. Can’t explain the grey hair? It must not be true then. Can’t explain the lack of any external trauma to the bodies? Well, golly it’s too late to be determined because the incompetent, idiotic searchers were probably incapable of telling a smashed in skull from an intact one.

Hi there, a really interesting discussion.
I won’t probably come up with any new, revolutionary ideas – my post is merely an attempt to summarize the theories I’ve heard so far, assess their likelihood and give some guidelines for further reasearch. I’m not gonna pretend I’ve got an explanation for everything.
Unluckily, the Dyatlov Pass accident is one of these cases, when we have actually very few facts at our disposal, therefore we must rely on incomplete information and speculations. What are we missing? The most crucial perhaps - a single survivor or eyewitness. Secondly, at least rough timeline of the incident (did all of them dash out at once? How much time they spent outside the tent? Who died first – these, who froze to death or the ones presumably crushed?) We could name more things – the results of the original autopsy, the depiction of the exact appearance of the place upon the arrival of the rescue team, the soviet military data etc. Most of us can’t read Russian (I can a bit), depriving us of the quite valuable analysis on Russian websites (hello, any Russian speakers over there?)
Out of all hypothesis – let’s name them – weapon testing, UFO, avalanche, ghosts awaken by violating taboo, abominable snowman, animals, murder by angry locals/prisoners/secret service (anything else – any new theories may refresh our discussion) – we can exclude the latter two (there were no tracks of anyone expect of the Dyatlov group). Although it’s a sceptic site, let’s not mock immediately the ‘supernatural’ ones (although the one about the ghosts is the least falsifiable). Let’s now consider each of them.
What all our guesses share, is an assumption that they left the tent in haste or panic – because an unknown ‘something’ alerted/terrified them. It’s based upon the facts of ripping the tent and descending 1,5 km away from the camp. Is there anyone who questions that? Andy doubts that tears on the tent’s surface were inflicted by knife, however, his opinion is based solely on photos. What about the supposed panic? Could you point out at any signs of rational, deliberate behaviour? I admit that running/going 1,5 km at minus 30 Celsius in the underwear makes me most curious. These of us who apparently like creepy stories infer that this ‘something’ compelled them to dash out of the tent, frightened them to madness and –at least for some time – prevented them from going back. Let’s take a look at our ‘candidates’ – at this stage we can probably rule out the animals (the bears or wolves) – the skiers were experienced hikers and the predators, which they faced probably more than once, were unlikely (although not fully incapable of) to make them run away for nearly a mile. A group panic? Everyone yells, jumps out in frenzy out of the tent, increasing the fear and it takes the group several minutes to calm down and realize there’s no real danger ? I don’t know exactly how numerous the group must be for this phenomenon to occur, but 9 isn’t really a lot. Again, we would not expect the experienced hikers to act so, but that time their self-control could fail.
All right, they’re 1,5 km from the tent, they might have calmed down a little, but they’re freezing . Can any physician show up? How much approximately time does it take for a man dressed in underwear to die from hypothermia in the temperature -25 - -30 Celsius (considering the possible wind)? Is it possible, that the three of them attempted to return to the camp as soon as they lit fire and realized there hadn’t been any actual danger (someone suggested the climbed the tree to watch the camp), but simply did not mange to do so and froze on the way? Thus, the hypothesis that they were afraid of this terrifying ‘something’ and that’s why lingered to long before trying to reach the camp might prove simply unnecessary.
Nonetheless, the question returns – what drove them out of the safety of the camp? Let’s start with the most ‘ordinary’ explanation – avalanche. (The avalanche experts, any people who live in mountains – turn up now). There has been assessed that although the slope was not very steep, yet it was sufficient for an avalanche to fall. This hypothesis has one major problem… no traces of an avalanche. The tent the footprints and 5 out of 9 bodies were found uncovered by snow. Is it possible that an avalanche falls in waves? In such scenario the first, slight wave of an avalanche alerted the Dyatlov’s people who descended to wait over the next wave. The 5 died from cold, the remaining 4 were swept by a huger wave of avalanche, hence the massive internal injuries. Has anyone studied the terrain of Dyatlov Pass to evaluate whether it makes sense? What about the false alarm? Supposing there was an actual avalanche which by-passed the camp, however, it scared the group, drove them out of the tent to take shelter in the woods and so on. To me, it makes much more sense but to confirm it we would need the careful analysis of the terrain and location of the corpses. What refers the four buried under the snow… They don’t leave me alone, I admit. If it had been an avalanche, its force should be equal to the ‘car crash’ mentioned by the physician who carried out the autopsy (but we must remember it’s merely his rough evaluation which shouldn’t replace some more precise data). They have been found in ravine, haven’t they? Perhaps they were killed by the fall and the internal injuries were inflicted by the weight of the snow after they had been already dead? A question to an expert in physics – what’s the pressure of the 4-meter thick layer of snow on a human body?
All right, let’s analyse the UFO hypothesis. To me, it seems to be gaps-filling theory, the UFO acts like deus ex machina. It appeals to the imagination indeed: the Dyatlovs saw the lights and heard strange noises (or perhaps one of them who kept watch – I’ve heard of such hypothesis), they got out of the tent in panic and ran down the slope, yelling “What the f…. is this?!”. They didn’t dare to go back to tent because of UFO soaring above the camp, so 5 die from hypothermia, another 4 are chased by the bad aliens and killed by the Force emanating from their flying saucer, which inflicted this broken ribs etc. All right, enough mockery, let’s suppose it’s true. There has been said (in Wikipedia article) there had been many witnesses of the ‘orange spheres’. Can anyone find out how many of them were reported on the day of the accident (apart from these guys 50 km south)? We have to consider the law of gossip, the backward false memories of the people who heard of the accident (the number of UFO reports increases at the time of some tragical events) and lastly the fact UFO cases are reported daily so these and the Dyatlov Pass accident might have been just a coincidence. An author of the book on the accident, Anatoly Gushin, is an adherent of the UFO hypothesis. Has he interviewed some of these supposed witnesses? The aliens often come and go with no trace (excluding the circles in crops – but with no crops up there…). But have you heard of any broken trees or anything like that? Otherwise, we have nothing to support these theory but the accounts of the alleged witnesses who were miles away from the place of incident.
What about the weapon testing theory? At first, it sound likely, given the cold war, weapons race, the overall secrecy and stuff. But the military test are carried out in the enclosed areas inaccessible to civilians and much more sparsely populated than this region of Ural. If it had been missile, bomb or air explosion which scared the hikers, it must have been launched unintentionally. Well, but if military really wanted to cover up such an unfortunate launch, why did they allow the volunteer rescue at all (though, they closed after the corpses had been found) Now a question to the advocates of this hypothesis – could you find out what exact weapon it might have been and why there was no traces of explosion (like blown off trees). If we suppose this weapon testing had caused the radiation found in the clothes, what it had to be?
Oh… What a long post… I hope you guys managed to read to the end.

Muhammad, thank you for the insightful post. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to write such an in-depth comment back, but it is clear you spent a lot of time on your comment and I wanted to thank you for adding to the site!

I’ve looked through some of the posts and I noticed some points I didn’t pay sufficient attention to.
Ryan claims that “something was threatening them that afternoon and they felt safer camping away from the trees in the open so they could have a clear view of their surroundings; this benefit outweighing the avalanche risk, lack of wind break, and distance from wood. This could also explain why they stopped so early. Set up camp, eat, set a watch and try to get some sleep. Everyone is nervous and doesn’t write in their diaries. At some point all hell breaks loose and they run away from it. Cutting a hole in a tent makes sense if either the tent collapsed (even then why damage an important piece of gear?) or if they strategically wanted to avoid something on the south side of their tent (their tent entrance was oriented south-ish). My guess is animal/people”
Sounds interesting (and creepy either), but nonetheless I believe Mason’s notion is more plausible: “Any intra-group weirdness or some outside threat that caused the team to split into rotating “watch” groups would surely have been recorded in at least one diary. And surely any such threat would cause those afraid of it attacking in the night to sleep in full clothes. (I know I would)” As for the watch: can anyone get some accounts of the rescue group suggesting some of them were outside the tent at the time of the evacuation (judging by the footprints)? Perhaps my imagination is impacted to much by ‘Blair Witch Project’, where the hikers fearing death record their last testimonia, but it seems to me something disturbing and unusual would have resulted in notes in the diaries. As Mason points out, it would have made them sleep in full clothing to be ready for flight at any time. Thus, the reason for some of them being fully dressed may be much more banal: they felt cold.
I’d like to quote ds talker: “Ok, avalanche, falling into the ravine, other obvious explanations - all this look so simple, natural and convenient theories. But one question disturbs me - why on the Earth those obvious explanations were completely ignored by investigators? Why to set a radiologic testing, examine local people, etc. but not even asking a specialist if avalanches were possible on that slope? Why don’t ask a physician if falling from a given height might cause those damages I think the only answer is - there was some evidence that made those things absolutely impossible (doesn’t worth even a testing) for people who visited this place at this time.” “They picked probably the worst direction to escape avalanche - down its potential bed, along a large hollow - this looks strange for experienced mountain hikers (an avalanche flows like a river and fills all lows). To be safe of avalanche they could move back to just 100m from the tent - up to the ridge they had crossed before camping (between Kholatsyakhil and mountain 880).”
Good remark, maybe debunking all our clumsy attempts to reconstruct the incident’s scenario. To validate this claim, we’d have to find the original rescuers’ accounts and autopsy results. Perhaps I will get myself to check out the Russian websites (although my knowledge of Russian is far from perfection indeed). They might be of limited reliability, but unluckily none of us were there to carry out the investigation;)
The hypothesis, to whick I lean the most at the moment is ‘false alarm’ suggestion. However, it’s much more difficult to verify: instead of searching for the traces of real threat, we have to figure out what it might have been that they misinterpreted as a threat (given the darkness and a possible white-out, the range of these ‘somethings’ is really large). Shall we then give up our entire guessing effort and reconcile with the thought the incident will remain unsolved forever and ever? If it had been weapon testing or there had been a partial cover-up by the military, disclosure of Russian archives (does anybody have a Medvedev’s or Putin’s phone number?) could shed some light on the mistery, but the files about the matter might have never even existed.
I admit I’m becoming a bit weary of the whole issue. Does aybody have any ideas which haven’t occured to anyone of us so our disscussion can progress? Or could we at last decide what this “scary something’ was?

Before you dismiss the missing tongue, keep in mind the entire oral cavity was missing.
A nuclear blast that could have killed these individuals would have resulted in severe burns, loss of hair, blindness, and destruction of the nearby tree, tent, and nearby fauna. A high altitude blast would not have killed them. Significant residual radioactivity would have been present from any detonation that could have killed them. They were NOT killed by an avalanche.
You cannot outrun an avalanche.
You cannot dig yourself out and attempt to start a fire.
Their FOOTPRINTS WERE VISIBLE following the event.
They did not return to the campsite which was in sight of were they were found.
In the form that is commonly used industrially, Thorium is an alpha emitter which would not be detected on a geiger counter. A geiger counter cannot detect alphas, you need a detector like a scintillation detector. If you are looking for radioactivity from a nuclear weapon, you would use a geiger counter.
There was no white-out, the footprints were still there.
Read all the facts before dismissing this with a half-baked explanation.
The natural activity which causes background to fluctuate is short-lived and would not still be present on the clothing of these individuals.

Sorry to burst your bubble but here’s the number of soviet nuclear atmospheric tests carried out in 1959:
0

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/tests/USSR-ntests1.html
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovtestsum.html

If someone has evidence to the contrary, please share.

I think it is facile to assume that the authorities had no concern or understanding for the nature or magnitude of the effects of radioactive contamination, however I find it hard to believe. The devastating power of nuclear weapons was well understood.
The reason large number of soldiers were exposed to extremely dangerous levels of radiation was because they understood the danger, not the contrary.
The point of these studies was to gather valuable intelligence on the nature of the the effects of radiation sickness on combat effectiveness.
The primary effect of radiation on combat effectiveness is psychological/psychosomatic. Obviously a 4 gray exposure is going to have serious physiological effects, but the more important effect is that of the 0.5 gray exposure.
Once the queasiness begins the soldier loses hope, this is the true power of the weapon. Just being aware of the proximity of a blast can shatter the resolve of enemy troops.

I have extensive training from the military on radiation exposure control and contamination control, and I do not believe the evidence is consistent with a weapons test.

1) You are wrong about the mechanism which causes Paradoxical undressing
2) Again, the oral cavity was missing! It was not the tongue alone.
3) The oral cavity would not be removed for biopsy to determine contamination levels. GI material or lung material would be better for this, and is very simple to collect. Bone would be good too (for strontium).
4) Just because you posit an arbitrary theory based on what you think is expertise on hypothermia doesn’t dismiss the strange collection of events here.
5) Why don’t you actually research if an earthquake occurred in the area?
6) If experienced mountaineers felt the ground shaking, why would they run out of the tent without proper clothing? That would have meant certain death, while an earthquake most certainly does not.

Why tehere was no animal routes in this area? why animals didnt eat corpses ? is the missing tongue an only evidence of animal presence on this area? WHY?? Its a wild terrain FGS, there SHOULD be plenty of bite markks on bodies.

And one thing more: it is said, that those, who live longer took clothes of those who perish.
How it could be, that people in clothes frozen to death BEFORE those almost naked ones??

@Gungee:
>How it could be, that people in clothes frozen to death BEFORE those almost naked ones??

What is more, how it could be that those two were near the fire and not injured (so possible to move and warm themselves), while those who live longer ( found in their clothes) had no fire and were disabled to immobility?

I think there was another fatal influence, apart from the cold.

>Please, take a risk of guessing what it might have been.

I suppose it was the influence that resulted in tan on their bodies and radioactive contamination.

I suppose this was a direct cause of their deaths (intensified by hypothermia and traumas, of course).

>propose a coherent theory
The problem is that the information we have at our disposal is too insufficient. For instance, a cause of their deaths might be identified by results of hystological analysis but it’s unknown. It’s not me who have obscured the issue.

Hi all

Very interesting discussion and thoughts by Muhammad, Ryan and Viking.

Apologies if any of my questions/thoughts have been answered/discussed previously in this trail but:

How exeperienced were the skiiers i.e. what expeditions had they undertaken of this nature before?

Do we know what Yuri Yudin was ill with/that made him ill enough to turn back?

Why slash the tent to get out and not get out through the opening (which would have been very close by)?

What would the opening have been made of? How would the opening be closed normally? Would it have been fabric ties?

Do we know whether the footsteps created moving away from the tent were walking or running? I am guessing that the strides would have been greater and deeper if running? Can anyone add more info to this?

Do we know how close the bodies that were found that had begun making their way back up the hill were from each other?

How long would it take a healthy twenty something to die from hypothermia in these conditions in the clothing that they would have worn?

If there were no other suspecting footprints around the tent then you could assume that if it was a land creature that may have frightened them it was heard through the tent and may have been at a distance?

Would the skiiers have had some form of self protection i.e. knives etc (I’ve never camped but surely if you were going off into the wilderness you would have something that offered a kind of protection?)

What evidence is there for the missing papers?

I wonder if anyone knows of any noted expeditions to this area since the unexplained circumstances and also if anyone has ever acted out a reconstruction of the scene i.e. staying on the side of that hill during the same winter month in comparable clothes (but of course, with help nearby if something was to happen……)

Thanks

Thank you Dstalker, your info is appreciated. J

@palbo

Again and again.

They did NOT take their clothes away.

Blindness is only an assumption of few people comes from their attempts of behavioral reconstructions. It’s not an established fact.

Please check the facts before making any speculation.

@joeseph

>As I understand it, bare footprints were found by the search party around the >campsite. This would indicate no snowfall would have occurred since the night of the fatalities.

Footprints were found on open windy area down to ~500m from the tent, where the fresh snow had been blowing off.

>What is the normal protocol for experienced skiers/hikers in the event of a possible avalanche?

To move to a highest place at the direction, perpendicular to the path of the avalanche, avoiding any hollows as possible. From this point of view, the route of their flight was extremely unsafe - they fled right along the path of an avalanche, if it were there. I have already wrote it above (the comment #566)

>I believe I read they all ran in different directions. Someone correct me if this is incorrect

It is absolutely incorrect.

>why leave the flashlight in the ‘on position’ on top of the tent?

It was off (though, there is some controversy in this question)

>So wouldn’t it have been smarter to take the flashlight with you?

Another flashlight had been found on the slope (possibly lost along their way down).

>Would it seem to have been placed on the tent deliberately or dropped?

It’s unknown.

>does it not indicate this is how the tent would have looked at the time of the evacuation?

I don’t think so. Stormy winds and snowfalls within a month might change the picture to a great extent.

>If so, in your opinion, would this have caused the ‘avalanche scare’ that would have triggered the panic?

The group was experienced in traveling across the mountains where avalanches are a real danger (Caucasus), so they had to be learnt about indications of the danger, how to estimate and how to avoid it. Therefore, an attack of the uncontrollable ‘avalanche scare’ (along with defying the basic safety rules) looks strange.

Why not to move to the upper place, safe of any avalanche, just at ~100m back? The wood (as a shelter against the wind) is closer in that direction and they had a food storage in that wood, built at the morning.

From my POV, the avalanche theory has only one goodness - it might explain the traumas of three. But all other evidence is against it.

>do we know the exact direction and order of the fleeing skiers?

General direction - is down to the pine (not necessarily a straight line, of course but likely close to it). Order - no, I doubt if one would dare to reconstruct it.

>Did they all leave the tent in one line and follow each other all the way down to the pine?
No, there were few chains of footsteps, went in parallel and crossed sometimes. There were also footsteps of two persons went separately in ~20m and joined others in 30-40m down.

@joeseph

“Bare feet” is incorrect - there were no barefooted persons (with no socks on). Probably, “bare” should be read as “shoeless”.

This mystery has kept me awake since reading about it a few weeks ago for the first time. Has anyone seen this site, it has some interesting info that I had not seen posted anywhere else. It states that Dubinina’s tounge was not ripped out, but actually was “degraded through natural processes” or something along those lines. It says that fact was in the original report. That was one of the strangest things to explain, and if that is actually the case, this mystery does become a bit less mysterious. But still incredibly sad. Link to the site:

http://www.aquiziam.com/dyatlov_pass_answers.html

Diana

Great article, one of the best ones yet, thank you!

debris,

They intruded into the land of the dead and the “dead” killed them. Seriously.

And what is the “dead”? They were killed by a name? Or are we back to the “unknown compelling force”?

Andy

that’s what I’m talking about. Do you have a photo with the change? shamans talk to spirits I’m pretty sure

Well hardcore skeptics is a misnomer. The current skeptical community is devoted to a certain paradigm.

@Muhammad:
>there was no explicit taboo which forbade trespassing this land

Yes, local Mansi participated in the search had no problems to enter this area and even to live there during the campaign - voluntarily.

As for the legends, the mythology is everywhere around there and nearly every mountain and river there has some legends related to them; and for sure, as in any folklore, not everything is for the night talks.

@ty:
>devoted to a certain paradigm

Just take the trouble to find something to support what you say, if you want your opinion to be taken seriously.

dstalker, you say every river etc has some legend around them, based on what? And do these legends cause the mansi to not follow herds through there etc. I mean, they call the place death mountain and damned.

Also, the point of the mansi’s helping them doesn’t mean they don’t have a strong belief in the legend. Isn’t it possible SOME of the mansis didn’t know or care about it or were just feeling adventurous, or decided it was safe because a whole party was going? Here’s what I read about it:

“Some try to explain the disaster via the local myths and legends of Mansi, the indigenous people of that area. Indeed, the surrounding is full of strange stories and even the local toponymics seems mystical. Otorten, the goal of expedition, translates from the Mansi language to “Do Not Go There”. Kholat Syakhl, the place of disaster, translates in the same language to “The Mountain of Dead”. There is an old Mansi-legend, that Kholat Syakhl had been named so after nine Mansi men died on top of the mountain seeking salvation from the Flood in ancient times. This territory is acknowledged by local Mansi as “damned”. They avoid visiting it when they go hunting or when they follow their deer herds. Though, it is known that there are not any explicit taboo visiting this place (against the version that the travelers were punished by local people for pervasion into a sacral zone).

The fantastic explanations inspired by Mansi legends tell about magical evil spirit which had been evoked by travelers. Another think that a Yeti caused the accident……..Wikipedia
http://www.e1.ru... This site has sixty pictures of the camp and surrounding area.
[edit on 033030p://am3029 by debris765nju] “

“It’s full Mansi name is “Wottartan-syakhl” translated as “the mountain of the goose nest”.

Sorry, I was wrong. I just recalled the full story that the question with the mountain name is more complex. Otorten has been named so by a mistake - actually, Mansi have another name for this mountain (Landhusep, “the goose nest”) and Wottartan is another mountain nearby and it’s name means “windy”. Unfortunately, this mistake has got onto the maps and into an official toponymics, so we know this mountain as Otorten, not by its local name.

Hi. I commented on the terrain for avalanches and said the slope had to be over 15 degrees for triggering an avalanche, but I think I should have said 25. The point remains that the terrain was steep enough for avalanches.

I liked the story from Dave, as it was pretty close to what I think may have happened.

I was going to say that the more I read about the missing tongue and oral cavity, the more I think it was a result of decomposition being different in each body based on the bacterial flora of each person, the place where they decomposed, and perhaps even the positioning of the body; it might be possible that the body of the female in question was positioned in a direction which caused her oral cavity to be polluted by seepage from the stomach and gut.

The really new thing I have to say is that footprints don’t necessarily snow over and then disappear forever. If the new snow blows away, the old footprints can become visible again. And even footprints from the early winter may re-appear in spring as hard areas of snow. Thus, the footprints they made could have lasted through even whiteout conditions, but it would depend on the consistency of the existing snow, and the weather.

Thru all i have read on the subject, Thermobaric weapon seam the most plausible cause. View it as a firework. It fires into the air (most probably dropped from an airplane in this case), then explode once spreading particles in the air, then explode again setting those particles on fire. Difference is, in 1 case we use metals and chemicals to produce cool colors and shapes while in the other we try to produce heat and shock waves.

These type of weapons started being used around the 60’s, but it was a known phenomena. Russia has always been a big user of such weapons and they certainly experimented alot with them in those years. As far as why there and not x or y place. Well these weapons rely alot the surrounding air for the explosion, i too would be very interested and blowing 1 in a desert type place and 1 in a cold environment to see the difference and if it works at all.

One possible explanation is that they heard a plane flying above, waking some up, maybe they even got out of the tent to check it out. Soon after a boom so loud that it would have the effect of a punch to the stomach and a huge ball of fire in the sky. Not the white blinding light of a nuke but a soft yellow/red ball of weird fire and then they got smashed by what must have felt like a truck, knocking the tent on who ever stayed in there. Trapped at the end the only option in such a state of panic would be to grab your knife and open up the tent. Getting out to a stunned and injured team with broken ribs and possibly damaged internal organs, only to find out, they cant breath. From there stumbling downhill seams pretty much the only solution. With some flat out dying and the rest risking death from cold, they did what they could to survive.

This could explain why the snow tracks remained even weeks after. Depending on what was used in those bombs, it could also explain the skin and hair coloration. Possibly it could have draw the oxygen out or leave a toxic cloud behind, preventing them from coming back to the tent for a few minutes. I don’t belive they could stay out in the cold half dressed anyways.

It doesnt explain the radioactive traces found, but back in these days (idk in russia specifically) it could come from various sources. It doesnt explain the missing tongue or the last group that was found 2 months later but that can be explained by something happening in the woods or them trying to get back to the cache.

http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/1562/the_dyatlov_pass_incident.html

This article written just a few months ago sheds a little more light on what could have happend. It goes into more detail about who died where and so on. More details about the injuries suffered and also info about government goings on in the area.

It makes an intresting read, check it out.

I dont know why i’ve become so intrested in this story, its just fascinated me. For some reason I realy want to know what happend that night!

Hi Ty, ignor me if this information is no use to you, but I know that the name “Death Mountain” comes from the Japanese name, “Desu-Maunten”

Hi Rose, thanks for the info, what do you think happened?

Sarah made good points in her posts, anyone who cares about internet spelling is too serious.

I’ve got it!

The snow covering the tent was thrown there by the 4 dressed hikers, as a practical joke. The 5 sleeping hikers chased them in fury, but collapsed one by one in the snow. The dressed hikers continued to flee, not knowing they’d left the others well behind.

If I may interject, there’s no possibility that it was either thermobaric weapons testing or nuclear weapons testing.

Thermobaric weapons, aside from their nonexistence during this time period, cause far more damage to the human body than noted in this incident.

“In the human body, the shock wave/blast
interacts with many types of tissues (eg, skin, fat, muscle and
bone) that differ in density, elasticity and strength. Each tissue
type, when interacting with a blast wave, is compressed,
stretched, sheared or disintegrated by overload according to its
material properties. Internal organs that contain air (sinuses, ears,
lungs and intestines) are particularly vulnerable to blast.”
http://www.defence.gov.au/health/infocentre/journals/ADFHJ_apr03/ADFHealth_4_1_03-06.pdf

Nuclear weapons testing, on the other hand, was heavily monitored by all parties involved via seismogram and fallout monitoring systems. No nuclear weapons detonations occurred in the Soviet Union during this time period.

Most of these responses try to over-rationalize what has happened and make just as absurd of claims as “UFOs” and “Ghosts” etc. Are you all such experts that you feel you know more about avalanche than an experienced search party team? or are you just afraid of things you don’t understand. I cannot make claims to understand what has happened here, I wasn’t there and I don’t have all the information. It isn’t difficult to assert that this is an unknown force. there should be no skepticism there, it isn’t known. No one is saying boogey man, windigo, alien. It is unknown.

on the cut open tent: if the door was not used (even though found open) then it can only be assumed that an unknown and frightening object was at the door and it was no longer usable. Why else would you cut open your tent if the door is open. In a fearful situation you take the easiest exit, that exit was blocked by SOMETHING and it wasn’t snow (the snow would have still been there piled very high, which judging by the pictures it was not)

on the tongue: obviously it was remarkable enough for forensics at the time to be confused about the missing tongue. an animal removing a tongue would remove much more easily accessible parts (eyes, face, fingers, toes) not pry into the mouth (presumably clamped shut after death) and take the tongue. this theory makes no sense.

nuclear/weapons testing: again nonsense and unverified. you guys call yourselves skeptics? seriously, why would the Russian military allow campers/skiers on a well known trip (family members, schools knew about their trip) to traipse through their testing site? this is top secret shit, especially during that time. it is laughable to think that this would happen.

taking off clothes: yes people take off their clothes when experiencing hypothermia. but evidence of clothing would have followed these people around. They wouldn’t be building a fire or ripping clothes off dead companions. The series of events doesn’t follow. So they have extreme hypothermia, remove their clothing in the tent, then leave and try to build a fire? no this doesn’t make a lick of sense i’m sorry.

if you can’t explain it don’t try to make up foolish theories and pass it off as a plausible explanation. this is just as bad as shouting “fairies! elves! aliens!” at everything that goes by. you can admit you don’t understand.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=52676602826&ref=ts

Dyatlov pass brainstorming now on facebook! Sorry for advertising.

To all of you.. go to the park and kick a ball around. One day, there will be a bunch of people discussing on the net what ever happened to those really nice bunch of DBSkeptic contributors? How did they all dissapear without trace whilst typing bollocks? No one will ever know I guess! Will they? Who knows? Think about it. Also, you should know my dad was a Yeti so I take offence Greg.

@Greg, @Muhammad

I think not just “horryfying” or “hellish” psychologically, but something that was undoubtlessly identified as an immediate danger. Possibly, it was accompanied with a unbearable physical influence.

Umm, I havent bothered to look through all the comments, but has anyone thought about a verry large bird the could have cased them so far and picked them up with its tallons, but the weight got to much for it so it had to drop them.
…..this is about the people that ran from the tent exc…