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

An interesting point…Thorium was, and still is, used in making the mantles for camp lanterns. Thorium is a radioactive element (one down from uranium on the periodic table). If they were using this type of lamp (which is almost certain since it was in universal use as a camp lantern), and if it got knocked about in the confusion of getting out of the tent, it could have very easily contaminated nearby material. The mantles disintegrate easily, turning to dust, especially if they have been in use (repeatedly heated) for some time. This could easily account for the radiation readings that were made (remember, thorium is radioactive enough to have been considered for bomb material) and the fact that only some of the clothing was radioactive.

Also, weapons testing leaves damage. Where is the evidence for this? How is “weapons testing” (a blanket term that is poorly defined) a skeptical explanation if there is no evidence for it?

Good point Tim Eisele. Sounds like weapons testing is a possibility. The victims attempted to escape the danger but succumbed to the elements. The government covered up the cause of the tragedy for national security reasons.

Hi Igor,

Excellent, excellent information – thanks for taking the time to post. What are your thoughts on the cause of the accident itself? As you say, the majority of us were born at the wrong time and place to know much about life or events in 1959 USSR. Do you have any theories or ideas as to what happened here? You seem to have information beyond what’s easily available (the tent being self-sewn, and the tongue and oral cavity missing, for example). I’m also wondering where you got your information, and if it’s publicly available.

Thanks,

Andy

Interesting story Andy. Good observation and analysis given as well. Everything must have a rational and scientific explanation to it. A lot of people quickly come to a supernatural conclusion when they can’t find an answer for something. I just wonder when are people going to give their magical thinking ways and accept reality as it is…

People being outside without cloths on when it is -20 C, that suggests one thing to me; they were suffering from hypothermia before they took their clothes off. When someone suffers from hypothermia they become confused and then begin to think they are actually over heating. Because of this many people begin to take their clothes off. Now of course this doesn’t really explain much of the rest of the situation.

It is possible the tent became ripped, and this is where the problems began. However, any experienced outdoors man would have a repair kit with them for just this sort of thing, even in Soviet Russia. In fact, I would go so far as to say that someone in Soviet Russia would be even more prepared to fix their own gear. Like Igor state they made their own tent, which suggests they should have been able to fix it. I am unsure why they wouldn’t have been able to. However, maybe night time conditions were so bad they were unable to fix the tent before any onset of hypothermia.

Of course, none of that explains the injuries without external evidence of them occurring. And it certainly doesn’t explain the missing tongue.

The radiation is a curious piece of evidence, that could have been caused by some sort of Soviet Aircraft Test. However, it also doesn’t explain much of anything. Radiation in any large quantity will cause physical symptoms such as loss of hair, blisters, nausea, and other various ailments, many of which would have been noted by the investigating team. So I don’t think the radiation had much to do with the cause of death. But it is still none the less a curious side.

I think the absence of clothing says nothing. There are many instances in mountain climbing of people running out when very cold thinking that they are burning up, and desperate to shed clothing.
It comments on one site that the broken bodies were found in a ravine. Snow blindness could have led them to the cliff above the ravine, falls doing the rest.
The skin? Condition of weather, and possibly weapons testing site.
With no bodies really to examine at this point, all guessing is just guessing.

In this discussion, we treat “weapons testing” as if it was some naturally occuring, unpredictable phenomenon. Now obviously, in the 1950s the Soviet army wouldn’t be very open about their activities. But very surely they followed the investigation, and they must have known whether they were behind it or not. That also means that there must be some record of it, as bureaucracies always keep one.
To my mind, the key to a solution lies in the archieves of the Soviet military. Any idea about the accessability of such archieves today or in the future?

Looking at maps, topography, the photos including a very clear panorama from Google Earth doesn’t lie. Avalanche is all but impossible. There are no steep mountains and the one thing an avalanche needs is a serious pitch to even get started. There are none. What they call mountains, are really nothing more than hills to people from Switzerland and Colorado or Canada where avalanches occur. And I agree with a comment above, if it was a military test, why let the police come in at all, why notjust have them disappear? Disappearing 9 people in the mountains in the winter fouldn’t be that hard for the KGB back then. So I think the government weapons test seems to convenient. More importantly, why, why would they go for a ski trip in January? Was this some sort of prove your strength like a modern iron man competition?

Haflidi:
My parents are of the same generation that Dyatlov groups members. I should say your speculations on their hysterias and traumas are ridiculous. Be sure, psychologically that generation is much stronger than all following ones.

NO evidence of panic except for hasty abandoning the camp. They got a fire, they took care of damaged fellows, they tried to survive as far as it was possible.

Yes, but at least, there are evidences that allow to say about UFO whatever it was (observing of “orange spheres” etc). Dying of panic exposure to cold (aka “paradoxical undressing”) which seems to be popular is absolutely unfounded. Yes, they were dressed inadequately to the conditions, but it means only that they were forced to leave the tent during night sleep. They did not undress after abandoning the camp. All clothes of two men who were found almost naked were on damaged persons – someone ripped it from dead bodies to wrap those who was not died yet.

For me, UFO is only “unidentified flying object”, not intelligent aliens or anything else.

Adits,

I’m not sure where you’re doing your own fact checking, but I think you’re incorrect: hyPOthermia is freezing and hyPERthermia is overheating. The above reference to paradoxical undressing is correct, though please correct me if I’m missed something so I can improve the article.

Thanks,

Andy

Three facts seem very strange for me:

1. There were 2 groups of bodies.

2. One group was half naked, the second
not.

3. First group spent some time at the edge of the wood – long enough to try set a fire.

Did all of the victims die in the same time ? Did they all leave the tent in the same time ?

Publication of entire files of investigation would be very helpfull for reconstruction of this accident. But it could be so:
1. Something ( let’s call it factor 1 ) causes panic and leaving the tent.
2. All 9 persons run to the wood.
3. Four of them is still in panic, they run deeper in the wood.
4. Something ( factor 2 ) causes their massive injuries and death.
5. Five stay on the edge of the wood, they aren’t in panic, but still affraid to come back to tent.
6. Attempts to set fire and warm themselves with it failed. They start to die of hypothermia.
7. Faced with death 3 survivors begin their walk back to tent. But it is to late for them. They die, one by one …

And somethin about radiation. As we today know, in ’50ies SU authorities paid no attention for safe handling with nuclear materials ( for example detonations in atmosphere near of the cities in Kazakhstan or even over an army of 40 000 soldiers – just for curiosity, how it affects living humans ). Sverdolvsk was of the centers for nuclear reserch, wasn’t it ? And Sverdlovsk was the point, where the group members met and started their voyage ? So is it possible, that some of the victims had contact with radioactive contamination before ? As I read in materials, not all of the victims clothes were radioactive contaminated ?

I just found this article, and it seems to have more info than anywhere else, it’s also recent, from February, 2008:

http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=25093

Pronouncing as if one were an expert based on 50 year old photographs and reports

A futile waste of time really. Aditionally, no good reason to doubt the findings of the inquest have been given. Granted the funeral reports sound a little overblown, but the real evidence is there.

Summary

In general, you have not the expertise or cogent evidence to claim such as you are, and as a skeptic (defined for convenience: “one who does not accept judgements without sufficient evidence in favour of it”) myself I’m going to consider this still a mystery.

Jenn:

#1: Exactly, there is evidence of rational behavior aimed to collective survival.

#2: It’s unsurprising. Some pines simply have no branches below 5 meters or so up.

An interesting fact noticed by a searcher: the branches were stripped from the side directed to the camp and it looked like a “window” has been cleared in the branches. Maybe, the pine was used as a watch tower to observe what is happening on the place they escaped.

#3: “Blindness” has been supposed only because of the fact they strangely ignored the brushwood around (weak evidence, IMHO)

To quote Igor:

“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.”

That makes me cringe… Because of this, however, it baffles me more than any other detail about this tragedy. It would take a great force to pull out a tongue like that. And if it WAS a scavenger, which I doubt, why then was her face not damaged on the outside?

All of this is fascinating.
The part that bothers me the most is how the girls entire tongue was missing. If its true that the entire muscle was missing, then it must have been ripped out. And I don’t imagine it being very easy to do that. But who or what would be strong enough to do it? And why?
Everything else and all the other theories and explanations make some sense to me, but this missing tongue is indeed mysterious.

Great thread, love all the effort being put in here to try and resolve a mysterious mountain accident in the Urals from half a century ago.

I sympathise, there is a real darkness to this tale; the stench of the bogey man. What horror could have driven those people out into subzero cold?

But an event we know so little about, where our grasp of what happened is so tenuous, what can we hope to learn by attempted resolution?

I was struck by the statement (earlier in the thread): “A lot of people quickly come to a supernatural conclusion when they can’t find an answer for something. I just wonder when are people going to give their magical thinking ways and accept reality as it is…”

But those people are doing exactly what all you guys are, trying to fit the darkness of the unknown into a system they can understand; be it, UFOs, mountain madness, nuclear testing, the evil pixie folk; or whatever. That ‘magical thinking’; ‘fraid its here to stay, and we’re all guilty of it.

Sometimes the unknown is aptly named. As for “accepting reality as it is” (a lovely tautology faking profundity), THAT would be quite a trick…

To abuse a quote of Wittgenstein:

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”

many great points – I believe dave’s to be the most believable – reading the thread and comments u play everything over and end up with ur most realistic conclusion.
pretty much the only two things we took so long to decide(or not) on were the initial “panic” or exit from the tent and the tongue – both i believe to be solved (or not) lol – by dave. often the simplest explanation is correct but ofcourse being humans we think of everthing and often will believe anything. the avalanche i rekon is a good solutiong to the first one – and clearly the lost tongue (perhaps the only remaining “wierd/freaky” factor from this incident) could be a result of the rib braking/skull fracturing force or a fall –
normally a fall would create alot of exterior damage but if the (we’ll call them rocks) were covered in a foot or so of snow then a high fall onto it would cause great trauma but small exterior damage? (ofcourse i have no medical expertise so dismiss me if i’m wrong).

the sad fact is we are a band of very determined and interested people that will sadly never get to the bottom of this. ideally we could all go back to the following day and conduct the investigation ourselves. but it aint gonna happen.
I say a relatively standard mystery with a few very odd variables thrown in that keep us guessing no matter how logical the explanations are.

a final note. personally i believe an avalanche to be a good a reason as any to suddenly flee the tent. keep in mind these people wldnt have collectively thought, as we have, of crazy indian warriors or horrific weapons that night so an avalanche would be as scary as anything.

im rambling obviously but as i said before as soon as you reach a conclusion on this u instantly forget about the radiation, etc, etc. very odd one indeed.

hopefully we find out one day. sorry for talking c**p for so long.

by the way some of you guys are quite good thinkers.

I have a theory for the 5m branches, the window in the tree and the fractured skull.

Maybe they climbed the tree (if it was an avalanche they were avoiding) to escape it and one of the branches was cracked off at 5m, maybe that caused the skull crack as well???
just a thought.

Great theory. Except for the impossibly vague ‘weapons testing.’ What weapon would have caused these injuries without also causing burns, or a crater or some other physical evidence?

I’m not fully buying your thing about the missing tongue. If an animal had been scavenging the corpse, there would be other signs of that. Eyes missing, for example. Most small scavengers go straight for the eyes. Scratches to the lips that did not bleed.

I guess it’s *possible* that she bit her own tongue off. Such things have happened. If there was some sudden and horribly concussive blast right while she was talking or had her tongue out then it could happen. Biting one’s tongue completely off rather than just badly hurting it is extremely unusual but possible.

You’re right on about the cutting of the tent and the missing clothes. But I don’t think that any of this actually gets us any closer to understanding what caused the injuries that both directly and indirectly caused these people’s deaths. Just saying ‘a weapon’ is so vague as to be useless.

I keep seeing messages that repeatedly say the woman bit off her own tongue. I think we all find this the most perplexing event, since it comes up the most. But it seems people keep missing the fact that her entire oral cavity was missing, not just the tongue. That probably includes some or all of the soft tissue lining on the roof of the mouth, as well as from under the tongue, and down the throat. There is no way she bit it off, it had to have been ripped out with tremendous force. Does anyone have a theory that includes the oral cavity? I know I already typed a similar message, but I keep seeing new messages about the tongue, and it’s obvious that people don’t know this, so I thought I’d post again! Sorry for the redundancy!

On the gruesome topic of mouths and anuses being ripped apart: Scavengers are mostly unable to pick through hide and so always begin picking apart carrion at natural orifices. I’ve seen this many times with roadkill animals.

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.

After reading Dave’s explanation, I’ve lost most of my interest in this story. With the radiation as a red herring, everything else seems to fall into place. Are there any large animals that inhabit that area, like bears? That could be an alternative to the avalanche explanation that could inspire a similar pattern of behavior.

After a google search, it looks like the area is inhabited by brown bears, wolverines and lynx. Any of these three would be more than enough to scare the crap out of a bunch of sleeping campers IMO. Bear prints would have been noticed at the campsite, so that can be ruled out, but wolverine prints would probably have been expected in the woods where there was a bunch of fresh meat – therefore ignored.

“Wolverines, as other mustelids, possess a special upper molar in the back of the mouth that is rotated 90 degrees, or sideways, towards the inside of the mouth. This special characteristic allows wolverines to tear off meat from prey or carrion that has been frozen solid and also to crush bones, which enables the wolverine to extract marrow.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverine

I might have some random good ideas here:

>It was noted that the skin tone of the hikers had turned orange.
I think this might have been caused by some kind of shockwave that caused small bloodveins under their skin to ripture. It might also have been post mortem. I do not know if this is at all plausible, I am not a forensic specialist, but it seems reasonable to me.

If there was a blast that caused the trauma and it was nuclear in nature it would account for:

- The seemingly blindness of the victims (being unable to tell directions etc)
- The radiation levels.
–> The fact that their clothes were now a radioactive source -it suggest they received fallout (which again can be postmortem). Logically: they’re dead, so it probaly was before they died.

The fact that the bodies remained intact points to a high altitude detonation, such tests release less fallout the higher the explosion takes place. That other people 50 KM south of it also noticed orange spheres in the sky would also be easy to explain. A high atmospheric test would be visible from afar.

Radiation poisoning can have a wide range effects on a human depending on the dose. But it can sap people of their energy and in a hostile enviroment like that, with really low tempratures, i have no problem seeing how it would kill you.

If we assume they fled their tent at first and ended up at the edge of the forest, where the first people died, and assume it was night when they arrived there, they would have been able to survive into the morning if they all got together, cuddled up and shared their clothes, maybe even with some protection from the wind.

If they were already a few hours into the night, they would have made it, found a way out. Instead they all died in the same area. Which is why I think they were already sick from radiation poisoning.

In that time, there were a lot of tests going on. People knew little about all the dangers and goverments would throw a nuke for as little as wondering wheter it would show up on radar. in 1959 there was a global spike in fallout levels- more tests, so the likelyness of this catastrophe being a weapon test are, IMO, very high.

After reading this I felt I’d post my thoughts on the subject…

why did they evacuate so quickly they did not dress for the cold? they needed to be out so fast that they cut the tent open destroying their only shelter? What would make someone evacuate so quickly? Besides environmental reasons(earthquake, tornado, etc), wikipedia lists other reasons to evacuate as “Other reasons include: * military attacks, * industrial accidents, * nuclear accident * traffic accidents, including train or aviation accidents, * fire, * bombings, * terrorist attacks * military battles * viral outbreak”.

Did anyone exit out of the regular exit in the front? Anymore photographs of the crime scene?

I have some thoughts on why the group was separated. People naturally look to the leader for direction and understanding during a disaster, and the leader must meet these needs or the group will form their own thoughts. If Igor Dyatlov was also in shock or without any understanding of what was happening that could explain why the group was so split up.

Also, people cluster in areas of perceived value. What was valuable about the wet pine tree? Only a view of the tent they fled? Maybe there wasn’t a view, but they were scouting for the tent? Maybe the proximity of the wet pine tree to the tent has no meaning at all. Perhaps the wet pine tree was simply taken advantage of by chance, after all they were 2 kilometers away from the tent and freezing. How close by was the dry kindling?

–Is it a reasonable assumption that they probably ran the majority of the 2 kilometers before wandering to the tree as a landmark?? That is an awful long run. That would use up a lot of their energy needed to stay warm.

Maybe the leader suggested “We should just stay together by the only visible landmark for now, the forest.”. Following that suggestion, someone tried to start a fire and keep warm with the closest tree nearby where he was informed he must stay during the evacuation?
Maybe that was the easiest thing for a group sent out to scout for their tent to find when they return with clothing etc?

–Would the small tent 2 kilometers away even be visible (even if it wasn’t snowing)?? I don’t think being 5 meters up in a tree would make a bit of difference at that distance

Looks as though they were making an attempt to return. Which brings me back to wondering just what the hell caused them to evacuate their tent in such a hurry they would leave behind the appropriate clothing and even ignore the directions back??

In order for someone to be content evacuating an area they must be constantly reminded of why they left. Especially if the area they evacuated to(outside of the tent in the cold without clothing) is very unfavorable. They must have had a continuous reminder, especially with the constant nagging of their freezing bodies.

Where was the ravine in relation to the forest, the 2 frozen on their way back to the tent, and the tent? The last 4 survivors found in the ravine were wearing clothing from the other 5 deceased. This means that the forest almost 2 kilometers away could have been their first resting point after evacuating the tent?

Another question I must ask, the article states “It seems that those who died last removed clothes from those who died first. The clothes all contained high levels of radiation.” Is this implying that The only clothes with high levels of radiation on them were the clothes taken from the first 5 deceased?
Also regarding the two who were found frozen to death as they returned to the tent: Their clothes were taken by others after they deceased? Maybe they were the first search party sent out to find the way back to the tent and return with their goods?

—What other reasons are offered that the victims behaviors indicate blindness? The article gives using the wet wood for fire as an “example”, This suggests there is other examples?

If you have any responses or anything you’d like to add PLEASE do!

Just a comment on Starhalo’s theory, the report said there were no outward signs of struggle. Also, it seems unlikely that one would be able to cut out the flesh of entire oral orifice of another without causing any other noticeable harm to the victim.
Perhaps weapons testing was the cause of the incident, but Dyatlov’s party did not realize whatever they were witnessing was weapons testing. The confusion and fear could explain some of the seemingly paradoxical behavior (e.g. why would they be safer fleeing the tent, they would have no idea where the weapons would detonate…) The explanation of the military removing the woman’s tongue for testing makes some sense too. What other possible explanation for the missing tongue is there? Removal by a scavenger or through a struggle both seem unlikely given the other evidence.

This hinges on a couple of things I don’t know:

- Was the direction of the supplies though the trees?

- What was in the supplies?

Can anyone clarify?

Also, does one, even in total hysteria, and even moving downhill, run 1.5ks before regaining one’s wits?

How would the injuries of the four that were found in the riverbed, fit in with them being taken by an avalanche after they froze to death?
 
Also – would anyone with access to the Russian description of the place the skiers were found, and knowledge of the Russian language, be able to put together a map, showing the locations of the tent, bonfire and bodies? That would make it easier to try to piece things together, IMO.

After reading through the article and the responses, Angus S seems to have the most feasible explanation. It accounts for most of the unanswered questions through a reasonable and believable set of events. Many years ago at a party I was at, a woman screamed “he’s got a gun!” when she mistakenly misidentified, of all things, an intoxicated man waving around a black hair dryer. However, in the ensuing panicked hysteria that followed, people trampled over each other, abandoned girlfriends/boyfriends, scaled walls, knocked over chidren, every sort of ugliness you can imagine to try and flee as quickly as possible. I personally ran until I physically couldn’t run any more, hysterically thinking that the man with a “gun” was personally chasing me and was just a step behind. When I finally regained my wits, I don’t know if I was 1.5km away, but I certainly as a very long way from the party. The tent collapsing in the middle of the night creating confused panic, (supported by the mound of snow on top of the tent in the photo) is a very realistic scenario as to the catalyst that started a very tragic sequence of events. Up until they all passed away, each probably still might have thought that something had “attacked” the tent causing it to collapse.

By the way, those looking for a map:

http://www.e1.ru/fun/photo/view_album.php?id=32891&pic=0be80dc044fde21be34d49bedcd2e333&page=4#top

lots of good pictures there.

In the foreground of the first photo at the top of this page: is that Lyudmila Dublinina (the girl whose tongue was ripped out) sticking out her tongue? Her story seems mixed up. She took clothing from apparently one of the first to die (Georgy Krivonischenko, found beneath the pine), then someone took her clothing (Alexander Zolotaryov, found in the ravine), yet she ending up in the ravine under four meters of snow, minus her tongue. They didn’t eat her tongue, because the autopsies revealed that they hadn’t eaten in a while before they died. The information is too jumbled to derive anything meaningful from it. Did someone, such as the military, intervene? They certainly had a presence there.

First, the events leading up to the crisis. The night before, they stayed in the woods (where they fled to). Now, their tent is up near the top of the hill. Maybe the crisis actually happened the night before, and the tearing out of the tent actually happened near the end.

The tent collapsed; they got injured, and cut their way out of the tent. Looking at the map, it looks like they all fled in the same direction, and did not split up, except when someone died. They fled and carried the injured all the way to the ravine (~2km?). Three of them attempted to go back, died (Wait, the ones not injured died first? Hm.), and were relieved of their clothes. The injured then died and were relieved of their clothes and buried in the ravine. No one fell into the ravine. It would have been in the report. Question: why were there 4 meters of snow on them? Why didn’t the crew find them for 2 months? Were they removed and then dropped off by someone such as the military? No other tracks were found.

Then, those still alive backtracked to the pine tree to investigate by climbing up 5 meters, breaking off some branches, and spying on the camp. They made a fire. Wait, is this where the fire was, by the tree? The map shows the fire next to the tent. This story doesn’t make sense. It would seem a lot of covering up was done. And, I have a feeling some of it is folk tale or myth in an attempt to bring meaning to seemingly meaningless deaths.

Here’s an old diagram:
http://pereval1959.narod.ru/foto/chern.jpg

“This picture states that 9 Mansi (Ural natives) died near the site of a glowing ball, which is captioned “something appearing in the sky frightening the tourists (1.02.59).” The caption on the tent reads: “the tourists in a panic cut their way out of the tent, and… they run down the slope. Their footprints disappear (500 meters from the tent).” The five lines point to the locations of the bodies of the 9 dead tourists/skiers, and the three lines to the right point to sites of plane crashes with 9 fatalities… The case has a minor cult following in Russia, and there’s a work of fiction based on what might have happened.”

also it wasn’t hypothermia that made them take their clothes off. why would several of them have done this? there can’t be a statistic saying it’s been found that half of people take their clothes off in cold conditions. anyways, does anyone have more stories like this? involving freaky things like this? please post a link of you know more, could be on any subject. and again, the best thing to do is to realize life is an amazing unknown entity, and just be balls out irrationally brave in your mindset and be willing to face anything and you can achieve some happiness.

@TK

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

It’s former air-defence radar in 50km from the Pass, built in 60′s (after Gary Powers flight) and existed until the end of the Cold War. It’s not radioactive.

Photos:
http://chupikin.narod.ru/pereval/RLS1.jpg (RLS2.jpg,RLS3.jpg,RLS4.jpg)

dstalker I agree the clothes were ripped off. I don’t want to read all the messages again but maybe i got this from another sites comments section on this subject. also maybe from another board is the fact that metal scraps were found much later on, if you read all the sites at the top of a google search you will have read what i have. i haven’t heard about the radar station but haven’t read the wiki revisions yet.

otherwise i’ve been thinking about this more and it seems possible that no aliens were involved. tesla, einstein and others were far in advance of the the laughable and dogmatic (scientific community ‘consensus’) that always stalls real science and the result is only mavericks make real strides in knowledge. If tesla was messing with free energy in the 20′s or whatever then maybe the military devised equipment that could leave no bruise marks that hovered so no tracks. could be a remote controlled hovering weapon so i’m neutral on that. either way i believe there is an alien presence on earth but it’s only my belief.

more evidence that they weren’t blinded. they left the flashlight in the on position on top of their tent, forgot it in haste. also they had that lookout tower 15 feet up the tree.

the green wood used to build the fire was a diversion set up by perpetrators after, or meant for investiigators to come to see through the lines and decide this, so i don’t think they were blinded. also there must be some forensics which could have been tested to see if their eyes were all blinded and that would have been reported. why not when they reported the tongue thing too? but then forensics also said there was other evidence like the way they travelled as seen by the footprints or something like that which would make it seem like they are blind. but maybe i didn’t read that and it was the impression i got.

also re: wood, my belief is actually that the campers made this fire using green wood to send a smoke distress signal because green wood smokes better.

this murder was meant to be seen and the paradoxes were meant to be seen, including the bodies buried 4 feet in the snow with apparently no tracks leading over there (original investigators who didn’t find all the bodies would have seen ruffled snow or followed the tracks to the ravine so that means no tracks). the technology to do this also implies that they had enough technology to eliminate any trace of these people if they wanted. also whoever is that advanced are treating this like a chess game and want people to see through their game for some reason, or they were irresponsible and pranksters and in trouble with their seniors later for this. or they are really stupid when it comes to crime scene coverup.

i don’t know if the later found scraps of metal were radioactive but investigators stated only the clothes were radioactive i think. why not the tent or ski poles or bodies themselves.

also josh says the ones not injured died first, can’t make sense of that. why was this strung out over hours or days. seems like aliens then because they were disinterested in the humans for a time or long enough to let them walk a kilometer away first, so the first ones froze to death and the aliens came over and killed the rest later without ceremony. seems like an alien type mindset.

i like to stay away from the psychological mindset theories beyond the fact that i’ve noticed when i’m in full on red alert or panic mode i act rationally and my perceptions and probably iq are raised through the roof for that time, unless it all happens too fast.

i see no reason to doubt the grey hair and orange skin seen by the families and also by the surviving member of the party who left early because he was sick. what happened was not normal so why not.

I’ve read all the comments and other sources about the information to this story.
And you cannot deny it’s creepiness.

One of the comments above made a very good point: something scared this group of experienced mountaineers enough to abandon the safety of their tent and to stay away from it knowing the dangers. Which means that whatever scared them away from their tent esentially was more frightening than below freezing temperatures.

That’s creepy.

I also want to add that in wikipedia’s entry on this it mentions Soviet journalist Yuri Yarovoi, who was one of the first people at the scene and involved in the investigation into this incident. He didn’t talk publicly about the investigation because, I’m guessing, that it couldn’t explain what happened. He wrote two fiction books about the incident that weren’t published due to censors. When he died, his materials about the incident weren’t found, and I believe it’s just because he was sloppy. I think that if there had been weapons testing or whatever, this author would have made sure that people knew the truth about the incident earlier on or upon his death (thus he wouldn’t have been so sloppy). I think Yuri’s one of the key pieces to the puzzle, actually. I don’t think people like him would have kept those peoples’ deaths under wraps if it were more than an accident caused by the weather or hikers. The theory that nothing involving the government or military is also verified by Lev Ivanov, one of the investigators, who later on admitted that his team couldn’t come up with an explanation for the incident. Think about how many times police officers and law enforcement officials can’t explain scenes they come across. This investigating team didn’t have the technology or insight to explain why this incident happened. It might have required modern day medical equipment to figure out what really happened to the hikers. Also, I don’t know if I believe the stories about the orange glow, but if you believe it, you have to wonder why the military itself would report it. If it was involved, it wouldn’t have reported orange glowing, yet the stories discussing the glow attribute it to other hikers, meteorologists, and the military. I don’t think the government or military would say there was an orange glow if it suspected itself to be involved. Again, I think it’s weather or something amongst the hikers, but not the government or military.

if it was a bomb test of some sort something like a thermobaric bomb could create a very strong shockwave that can cause internal injury, as stated earlier.

the orange skin could perhaps be caused by the type of fuel used for these bombs: “fuel is normally finely powdered aluminium, but boron, silicon, titanium, magnesium, zirconium, carbon and hydrocarbons can also be used”

can any of these cause changes in skin color and hair color? isn’t there a guy who ate aluminum and turned blue? maybe the powered fuel came down onto them during or after detonation or even maybe all the snow/water in the area was already contaminated previously and they unknowingly ingested (it like the guy who turned blue)?

remember there was already metal parts in the area. the entire area might be contaminated and that could also be why the place was closed off after this incident. also explains why the military is purposely not releasing all the evidence and hiding stuff (the envelope).

radiation could be from previous tests or maybe this bomb also included radioactive elements… like a dirty bomb + thermobaric hybrid?

The weapon theory is a nonsense.

Tell me,how can one senior officer in charge of this matter would pinpoint a traveller’s tent as target when he has Navada’s whole desert at his option?

Even if he does,how in heaven’s name did skiers(they don’t even have a radio )found it out?

By far,the nature of this thing driving them out is a mystery-out-of-mystery,without any further ,decisive evidence.

hi sarah, is there additional evidence in the book that points to one theory being correct?

hi ty, no there is no evidence in the book, they have sort of limited the facts so there isnt much information. i dont know why but it seems like they don’t want to give too much away

i was just looking at other things on the dyatlov pass, and on another program someone says that the skiers ran out in there undies and died from the cold but i wouldn’t think they would even sleep in there underpants because not even a complete idiot would sleep in underpants in that weather. So why would they be in there undies, i think that was a stupis theory, and it dosent explain how the tracks disapiered after 500 meters, because they were found a fare way away frome where the tracks disapiedred. and there is also a theory that the man that had his skull cracked and the women with her tongue off could have been killed in an averlaunch, becauase the weight would kill you alone which would also explain the mans cracked skull annd fractured ribs, but, the women with her tongue out was a bit harder to explain, so i dont know. i find how nine people were killed from the skiing team nne people were killed in a plalin crash and nine people were killed from a report team. and i found out the name of the mounmtain in english, mountain of death, so that makes it even more freaky

sarahreese: nothing you say makes sense because you seem to be under some delusion that people here are claiming that the people in the tent were targeted with a weapon.

no who thinks it’s a weapon thinks they were targeted.

there is an english major let loose on this website, everyone stay calm and await instructions

if you type in ,*dyatlov pass who knows*, there is some good information
but most of it we know

hey ryan, there could have been an avarlaunch because if the tent was on a slope an avarlaunch would hit you straight away. it is a bit strange though, why would you put youir tent up on a slope, normaly they go up under a tree or on straight ground.

ryan, the animal could have been a siberian bear unless you belive in the abominable snowman or a yetti it could have been one of them. lol.
not that i belive in them cause i dont

Here is a link to another posible explaination that i found to be very close to truth ….but i also like my UFO theory as well.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4108

Happy 50th year anniversary dyatlov accident, i hope this case will be solved!

Dear all,

Before adopting a particular “theory”, I’m strongly recommend everyone to check out early revisions of the Wikipedia article contained a detailed critical analysis of pros and cons facts for the most popular explanations.

For, example, that section can be found in this revision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyatlov_Pass_incident&oldid=194437137:

Explanations
—————-

It is needless to say that there is no consensus on explanations of this accident. Different researchers, including historians, journalists, former members of the search campaign and others, advocate different versions and points of view. All suggested variants of explanation have their own flaws and thus, debatable.

The Paranormal

Reported UFO activity in the region along with radioactivity and strange tan on skin of the victims has led some people to think that contact with a UFO caused their deaths. This version is advocated and has been popularized, particularly, by Vadim Chernobrov (known UFO investigation enthusiast) and his Kosmopoisk organization. Lev Ivanov, former police officer and official investigator in 1959 is also a supporter of this version. As all paranormal phenomena kept in silence in USSR (official ideology ignored them as being incompatible with the materialistic science), the advocates of UFO-version consider official secrecy of “the Dyatlov’s case” as another proof for their beliefs.

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.

Murder

All explanations that the group had been attacked by other human beings face strong counter-evidence – there are no traces of any other people. There are only a couple of questionable things here; the empty sheath of a knife and a piece of cloth like that of a soldiers greatcoat, found near the tent and near the bodies in the stream valley. Yuri Yudin, who “survived” the accident (the one who had left the team at the start, out of bad health) had identified the owner of every other object and piece of clothing found around there, but not of those two.

There are several arguments about who the murderers may be:

* Mansi shamans, who killed the hikers because of taboo violation, or for another ritual purpose. It seems to be completely wrong though it initially was the first surmise tested by the official inquest. As it was already said, despite of the dark legends neither Otorten nor Kholat Syakhl were sacred or tabooed places. The peaceful Mansi people are very friendly towards Russians and many of them helped to find the group (they are excellent hunters and pathfinders). And their beliefs are not related with ritual murders by any means (though they preserve some traditional ceremonies and cults, they are Christians).

* Escaped prisoners. IvdelLag in the northern Urals, was a large part of the soviet Gulag-system. Although Gulag population had been reduced more than twice as a result of Khruschev’s political amnesty campaigns (“the Thaw”), the numerous labour camps still functioned in Ivdel region, mainly because of its vast forest resources. The nearest camp was in Vizhai, from where the group started its march. This version, however, seems to be quite wrong too – no one will run away from the prison towards uninhabited land in sub-polar winter and without the basic equipment (skis). The skis of victims were untouched, as well as their food, money and the bottle of alcohol.

* The security guard of a secret experiment. There is a version that the hikers accidentally entered a zone where testing of secret weapons was happening, when the security forces of that zone found and killed the hikers.

* Wild animals seems to be quite improbable. Not one of them would have run 1,5 kilometers, out in the middle of the night in their underwear, because of an animal. Dyatlov’s friends remembered that in another expedition he faced a bear, which they successfully chased away.

Soviet secret weapon

Another popular version is that the group had entered the range of experiments with a secret weapon or by chance got in an unscheduled accident with new weapon or spacecraft. Advocates of this version point to the known facts: strange light effects in the night sky, radioactive contamination, orange skin colour (which might come as a result of rocket fuel intoxication) and a level of secrecy around the accident. A few years ago, researchers found a ring of metal nearby. It looks like a rocket component, but some experts believe it does not date back to 1959.

Suspicion of military interests in that area has also been provoked by building a secret object nearby. It was, supposedly, a radar station, erected few years after the accident and in existence until the late 1980′s. It could be a part of regional anti-aircraft defense system, massively reinforced after Gary Powers flight in 1960.

It is also suspicious that the military searchers inexplicably and flatly refused to evacuate the dead bodies in their helicopters. This fact is known from radiograms sent by a head of the rescue operation with angry complaints about the behavior of the military. The bodies were finally evacuated by a civilian helicopter. The reasons why the army pilots refused to carry the corpses even packed into impermeable bags are unknown and look strange. The supporters of the weapon theory think the pilots knew, or at least suspected, the causes of the disaster and of radioactivity.

The opponents of this theory note that there were no traces of explosions or fire near Kholat Syakhl. There were also no records of Soviet rocket launchings at that time. Moreover, there were no launching sites from which a rocket could reach the northern Urals (Plesetsk spaceport was ready to launch the rockets only at the end of 1959). It is also doubtful that the weapon experiments had been planned in a public place, instead of a special safe ground (like Semipalatinsk) complete with all infrastructure necessary for observing and registering the effects of the weapon.

Natural disasters

The experienced climbers suggested an avalanche as an explanation of the accident with the Dyatlov’s group. They criticize Dyatlov for picking a dangerous place for the last camp. They say that the slope of the mountainside where the tent had been raised was steep enough to be in danger of an avalanche. By this version, snow on the slope above the camp was affected by the mounting of the camp. In a few hours it had slid down and closed the entrance to the tent. This explains why the people inside were forced to rip the tent to exit. The snow may have also had the power to cripple the bodies, but the rescuers mentioned nothing about traces of an avalanche near the camp. Moreover, it is unlikely that after the avalanche, three heavily crippled persons were able to travel 1,5 kilometers to their deaths.

It was suggested also that the relief configuration and the winds might cause an infrasound effect which led the people to panic. Running down the mountain slope, some of them fell over the rocks and got damaged.

Oh, I noticed I forgot the hypothesis of infrasound-induced fear. The experts in physics wanted again – what in nature may cause that and is it likely to happen at the time of the incident? Well, it doesn’t seem really probable to me (although I obviously rely on my imagination). The infrasound might have scared them, but in my view, it would rather have made them go out and check if there’s any danger, instead of dashing out of the tent (some of them in the underwear) and going 1,5 km down. The experienced hikers are unlikely to act so foolishly out of mere anxiety or fear. I realise it takes longer to calm a distressed group than an individual, but nine men are not a crowd and the Dyatlov’s guys were not accidental gathering of people, but well-organized team. Therefore, if they went such a distance, they were either escaping a real danger and acted in haste, but not in panic, or they were overwhelmed by terrifying by something unknown and disturbing.
I also forgot to mention the suggestion that they were blinded. As far as I know, it’s supported only by their taking wet woods instead of dry branches. Well, I guess it can be easily explained by the darkness. Lighing a fire, climbing a tree taking clothes from the died mates does require a vision, doesn’t it? In my view, it can be debunked.

Accepting that there are no non-party tracks in the snow, it was not other humans. Same for animals.

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)

From what I’ve just read of thermobaric bombs, there is no way that the skulls and ribs of people on the ground could have been crushed by such a weapon without trees in the vicinity having distinctly broken branches. The US military has in recent years been experimenting with sound wave-based weapons to be used for crowd control, but this was 50 years ago.

I have been scared witless inside a tent by an outside noise when on the edge of sleep… and I froze in fear, listening for a few seconds before realizing it was just some small animal sniffing around outside that ran away when I lightly thumped it through the tent. I think if something drove them all out of the tent at the same time it must have been extremely scary and it must have remained extremely scary even after they were fully awake, either something they absolutely did not understand (like a craft _totally_ unlike anything ever seen before), and/or something they clearly understood as a direct threat.

No evidence of avalanche does not mean they didn’t think they heard one. But in that kind of weather, wouldn’t the experienced person think, even in a flash, “An avalanche is coming, but if I go out there naked I am dead, so if I put on clothes and then run, I have at least some chance.” I confess ignorance of any protocol to follow in such a situation, in part because there’s no way I will ever do that kind of camping!

I am a pretty hardcore skeptic, and this story remains extremely interesting because I cannot dismiss its various mysteries. Thanks for a very interesting read to all the posters…

Well if the natives have called this death mountain for hundreds or thousands of years and wouldn’t go near it than it’s probably an alien base, I don’t think ghosts can kill people, or you can believe in demons. Someone start a crop circle post, THAT’S interesting.

Matt, but were any high altitude nuclear tests carried out at the time of the incident? Let me point out once again: such tests are usually conducted in the uninhabited, inaccessible military zones and involve some troops on the ground to command and watch the outcomes of the tests. Where was the closest zone like that. As regards the missing tongue (or actually oral cavity), I deliberately omitted that topic, because I doubt if it can really bring any new information to the issue. Well, we can wonder: had it been a scavenger like a wolverine, why did it left intact the easier accessible eyes? Had it been the aliens (like in the famous cases of cattle mutilation) or military who collected the probes of tissues (to check them for radioactivity or something), why did they left alone the three corpses lying nearby? This whole history with the tongue has been veiled with supposed mysteries, but I guess the account from original autopsy assessed what was the ‘tool’, by which cut was likely inflicted (teeth – if yes, by what animal or a knife). What leaked to all these discussions were the obscure remarks of a force comparable to car crush and so on.
As for the radioactivity, here’s the quotation from one of the previous posts (can anyone evaluate whether it makes sense?): kklement
And something about radiation. As we today know, in ‘50ies SU authorities paid no attention for safe handling with nuclear materials ( for example detonations in atmosphere near of the cities in Kazakhstan or even over an army of 40 000 soldiers – just for curiosity, how it affects living humans ). Sverdolvsk was of the centers for nuclear research, wasn’t it ? And Sverdlovsk was the point, where the group members met and started their voyage ? So is it possible, that some of the victims had contact with radioactive contamination before ? As I read in materials, not all of the victims clothes were radioactive contaminated ?

It’s reasonable to say something lke a low level earthquake started the panic, thinking an avalance is occurring, getting out of the tent in a panic, then getting as far away from the slope as possible.

This could be argued as to why they escaped with no regard to the temperature & then no signs of an avalance by the rescue party.

I can imagine, some folks running faster while others try to keep up or even some fruitlessly attempting to change the groups direction during this panic.

Assembling at a tree & quickly realizing what a dire state you are now in, -30F temperature, in the dark, ill prepared & not sure if anything really happened or is about to, perhaps the 4 better dressed keep going, where the rest couldn’t keep up, their fate being falling into a ravine. A little over a mile seems a bit much though, unless the group was under mob rules.

Climbing a tree in an attempt to see the tent & starting the useless fire all makes sense, by this point I imaging the 2 in their undeclothes are down for the count & the remaining 3 deciding heading back to the tent is the only viable option, question would be how long do you wait for the other 4 before leaving.

By this point, I’m guessing at least 20-25 minutes have passed, the 2 by the tree are dead or about to die, the 3 left maybe wait a few for the other 4 or leave immediately to which it looks as though the veered off course from the original path.

Guessing 35-40 minutes have passed since this all started & the 3 make it about 1/3 the distance back to the tent before they begin to slow down & succumb to the cold.

Hypothermia, I have experienced this & what i can say is it’s a a lot like being very drunk & quite a bit euphoric, reasoning goes out the window & everything seems OK, good or bad, (like a sleepy 6 year old), if left unchecked it is completely understandable that you may do something “like” remove clothes, since your body is making it’s final efforts to save itself with all of it’s energy in a flash of heat, laying down just to collect your thoughts makes sense, only in this case you never get up, add in your thoughts & movements slow down quite significantly.

I’ve been in this kind of condition & every degree beyond -10F feels like it’s twice as cold as the previous degree, add wind & it is exponentially worse, it downright hurts to breathe, 15 min in moderately heavy gear is enough torture for anyone, let alone -30F.

Given this is Russia, any unusual circumstance could call for radioactive testing, if the government gets involved I can see as the previous comment stated removing a tounge for testing, though there is simply not enough information here. Was there blood all around her neck? Was it hours, days later, could it have been an animal. To me this seems like very little forensic evidence was available to anyone & subjectively people come to their own conclusions, hence starting a mythcal spooky tale.

This all seems more like a bunch of random little events with a a larger tragic outcome, the initial stories seem to always pull you into the mythical sense, rather than stating the facts as they are, which appear to vary from article to article.

Here’s a good link with some Russian translation,

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=16385

Paradoxical undressing, though I believe there is much more to hypothermia than just the clothing aspect, I did personally experienced it, the core can only restrict for so long & at least this happened to me, I became very warm, sweating in fact, slow & without reasoning abilities, I did start taking off my overcoat, etc., I was with folks whom thought it was funny, though took it very seriously & took me somewhere to warm up. I’m not sure if undressing would occur everytime or if everyone is affted that way, I just remember feeling like I was in the desert & over dressed, the cold actually felt good, so take it for what it’s worth, no science involved, just ideas to stimulate thinking. Also, I tend to believe no one ditched clothes here, if anything others removed clothing from the dead or folks grabbed others clothes during the tent escape or swapped, it was just a reference in support of a previous post which I agree with.

I like the tounge theory, not that I “completely” agree, again sounds reasonable under the right circumstance & different articles state different things, so oral cavity may be true, maybe just the tounge who knows, I’d like to hear more ideas on this.

I agree there were quite a bit of strange events, except that they seem more like passing the story, it changes everytime you hear it. That said, this is most intriguing attempting to connect all these events logically, provided they are accurate, I believe this is what makes this occurrence so interesting, though I would always acertain for practical answers rather than the supernatural.

I did look into eathquakes in the region, though found nothing given the time I had to reseach.

The earthquake theory has more to do with the skiers believing it’s an avalanche not the earth moving or if it was a more intense quake, possibly it could cause the avalanche, I’ve never experienced an one, just seems they could be misinterpreted very easily by feel & sound, which if it were very low level gave them the feeling it’s coming or is just the beginning of a bigger avalanche on the way. I like this theory the best, it makes sense as to why folks placed their lives at risk & no evidence as to why, in other words, they ran from an avalanche that didn’t exist, confusing the investigation.

So yes it’s arbitrary as can only be the case based on what is known, though I believe in my words, just theories though..,if someones theory makes more sense I would most certainly change.

Regards,..

I almiost forgot:
Regards :)

Gumgee, why do you infer that the clothed ones died before the ones who wore only underwear? We’re unable to figure out the exact timeline of the incident. We don’t know when and how these found in the ravine got separated from the rest of the group. Has anybody found out at last, if the depth of the ravine were sufficient to kill them supposing they fell into it (or worse – inflict the injuries which made the incapable of getting out and die slowly from cold and hunger?)
I agree with you, Gumgee, that explaining missing tongue by scavenging animal is implausible indeed.
Ds talker, if you think “there was another fatal influence, apart from the cold” Please, take a risk of guessing what it might have been. Otherwise, you’re only obscuring the issue. As I said before, I see two major possibilities ahead us: either we give up, or we propose a coherent theory what inflicted their deaths, even if it had to be bad aliens or ghosts chasing them down the slope.

Taken separately, some of these events could be easily explained away (though there are certain details that are just illogical, such as the fact that one victim had so much damage to her ribs that it would have taken an impact equivalent to a car running into her yet she had no signs of external trauma). However, when you combine all of these things together, it becomes very unwieldy to try to blame everything on a series of bizarre coincidences. It is far more reasonable to assume that there is a single event that accounts for everything that happened in a parsimonious fashion, and we simply have no way to figure out what that event was.

It’s like diagnosing a disease. If ten patients present with different symptoms, we could assume that each person’s symptom was the result of a distinct cause. However, if one person presents with ten symptoms, it is more likely that that person is suffering from one disease that is the root of all of those symptoms as opposed to having multiple diseases comorbid with one another that are separately responsible for each symptom.

Sometimes things happen that we don’t understand, and while we have a compulsion to make those sorts of things fit into our view of the world, we cannot always manage to do so. Just imagine what a hard time someone living two thousand years ago would have explaining simple events that occur every day in the present time, such as the movement of a car or the appearance of moving images on a television. While we could provide a simple and parsimonious answer for how these things are able to take place, someone with absolutely no knowledge about modern technology could not do so.

You made an interesting attempt to fit something inexplicable into a neat, rational box, but while I can’t even begin explaining what happened,I will say that it there is probably a simple explanation (not a supernatural one, but one obedient to the laws of the natural universe) that we cannot possibly figure out because the circumstances that caused it to happen are so far out of the scope of what we are able to know and understand at this point.

@Joanna

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

Do not forget it was not a recreational trek but the official sports. Nobody would allowed to join it without a degree in sports and experience of similar expeditions. It’s not a secret that they went for higher degrees, especially Dyatlov who needed to conduct a trek as a leader just because it was a condition to earn his next degree. Zolotarev (the oldest of them) was a professional sportsman in a position of a coach at the training camp. All others participated in mountain ski marches (together or in other teams) on Urals, Caucasus and Altai before.

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

Reportedly, an attack of rheumatisms. In fact, any trivial indisposition would immediately cause expelling a member in the sport ventures of this kind.

>Why slash the tent to get out and not get out through the opening..

Why, indeed?

>What would the opening have been made of…

Yes, fabric ties. But it doesn’t matter, as the tent had been found *opened* (yes, they ripped it while there was the normal exit available).

>Do we know whether the footsteps created moving away from the tent were >walking or running

It’s very difficult to run in the snow up to the knees.

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

Just for the record – we cannot be fully confident that they had tried to go back or had lost on their way down. The three on the slope were found separated by the distance of 150 and 180 m.

>How long would it take a healthy twenty something to die from hypothermia in >these conditions in the clothing

I am not a medician but think it may vary greatly depending on many factors (eg. exposing to the wind or not, moving or immobility etc). I can only say that the result of forensics of dying in 6-8 hours was not conflicted with the final conclusion about the death of hypothermia made by the same expert.

>If there were no other suspecting footprints

No, as it was emphasized by investigators.

>Would the skiiers have had some form of self protection i.e. knives

Knives and axes, yes.

>What evidence is there for the missing papers?

Disparity between the TOC and actual content of the archived file, irregularities in page numeration. Some pages are excluded explicitly, with remarks like “deleted as irrelevant”. All that corresponds with Ivanov’s testimonies that he was compelled to dismiss and close the case in haste.

>I wonder if anyone knows of any noted expeditions to this area
Quite regularly (especially the last few years). Yes, there were lots of reconstructions of all kinds attempted.

Just a little information to the naked bodies.
To be killed by frost is not a quick thing. Before somebody dies, he will pass the
“Cooling idiocy”, that means, that somebody feels a growing heat, in place of cold, and often it ends by take away all the clothes due to the “heat” the victim “feels”.
This was explained by german Forensic Medicine Dr. Michael Tsokos.

The blindness could be caused by the missing eye-protectection in snow.

UFOs and Aliens wouldn´t do such a mess.

Please someone help with a little clarification. 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. So how do you explain the pictures of the tent half covered in snow and partially collapsed? Would this not indicate a small avalanche did occur to cause this? If so, would this not be a good reason for the party to flee in panic?
What is the normal protocol for experienced skiers/hikers in the event of a possible avalanche? Wouldn’t experienced skiers have planned ahead for this and devised an effective escape route and destination? Why would they all scatter in different directions (I believe I read they all ran in different directions. Someone correct me if this is incorrect), and meet down the hill at the pine? Obviously going down the hill to this area would still not protect them from a large avalanche, if this was the reason for the panic.
I still think the most likely event for the sudden panic and tent escape would be because they thought an avalanche was occurring. Still, why leave the flashlight in the ‘on position’ on top of the tent? Wouldn’t any possible avalanche completely cover the flashlight? So wouldn’t it have been smarter to take the flashlight with you? In the event the skiers discovered no avalanche had occurred they could have possibly followed their tracks in the snow back to the camp with the aid of the flashlight.
My question is could the flashlight have been dropped accidentally on top of the tent? How was the flashlight found? Would it seem to have been placed on the tent deliberately or dropped?
I’m still leaning toward the avalanche theory but I see a few holes here also.

Thanks dstalker. Still, the picture of the tent partially collapsed and half covered in snow, does it not indicate this is how the tent would have looked at the time of the evacuation? If so, in your opinion, would this have caused the ‘avalanche scare’ that would have triggered the panic? It hardly looks like enough snow to keep the skiers away from the tent for so long a period.
One more question, and I apologize if it has been discussed, but do we know the exact direction and order of the fleeing skiers? Did they all leave the tent in one line and follow each other all the way down to the pine? The footprints would answer this question but I can not remember. Thanks.

Thanks dstalker.
On your comment: ‘Stormy winds and snowfalls within a month might change the picture to a great extent.’ How then does a still bare footprint remain near the tent
if stormy winds and snowfalls within a month occurred. I still can not fathom how any bare footprints would have been found at all. I can see how their tracks would have remained to a certain extent but not ‘bare footprints’?? They should have been buried by the snow. Am I missing something?

The thermobaric bomb theory presented by Harlen in the summer of last year sounds like a compelling argument. Unless it has already been discredited, in which case I apologise. I tried to read every post, but skipped a few due to reiteration.

(Harlen’s post was June 25 2008 for ref.)

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

In that article, I can see an obvious influence of some parties in Russia who advocates their specific point of views to explain the accident. Specifically – of mentioned “Dr. Vladimir B.” who was NOT an “original rescue team member” as it is stated – he simply was too young in 1959.

I cannot say the article is completely untrue, but I am alerted by its bold tone and unconditional confidence in the things nobody can be sure of. It is full of someone’s private opinions and conclusions which are presented to the reader to be “facts”.

Though it’s interesting as a top of the iceberg of the flame wars in the russian research community.

>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.

The forensic report just record this fact but doesn’t explain why the tongue was missing. But taken in the context of records about other destructions the decayed corpse had, it looks unsurprising.

It is a small point but the photographs of the cut tents was taken after the tents had been recovered and set up inside a building…..note the cabinets behind the tent. The place they camped was aptly named as was the mountain that was their destination. They intruded into the land of the dead and the “dead” killed them. Seriously.

Unknown compelling force is a definition, “the dead” is an identifier. Most people believe the dead to be “spiritual beings”, invisible, powerful and to be respected. The Mansi people are shamanistic, they have leaders to deal with these “dead.” They have rights to the land but choose not to go there. The photographs you posted show the beings who participated in the killing of the skiers. adjust the gamma.

Could you point at the photo showing the ghosts among these enclosed? I haven’t researched the issue of the ‘ghost photos’ too deeply, but one thing about them seems absurd to me: ghost, spiritual (hence immaterial) beings should leave the traces on a film? Are you guys deliberately provocative by overtly adhering to the paranormal hypothesis on this website dominated by hardcore skeptics? Well, on the contrary to some of them I don’t assume something doesn’t exist because I can’t prove its existence, but what supports your opinions? Unluckily, I don’t have any better source on the issue than the article on Wikipedia – its author claims there was no explicit taboo which forbade trespassing this land (unless you could show a source which proves otherwise).

Muhammad, no need for anyone to get faux objective here, unless someone has some absolutes up their sleeve.

dstalker, what about all the skeptic websites that argue the same points? I can’t take you seriously if you don’t already know what I’m talking about

“Otorten, the goal of expedition, translates from the Mansi language to “Do Not Go There”

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

“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.anslates 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.”

It’s likely true. There is a scientific article on Ural toponymics written by a professor of linguistics where this legend is known from. I read it too.

“This territory is acknowledged by local Mansi as “damned”. They avoid visiting it when they go hunting or when they follow their deer herds.”

I think, this opinion is based on a single line from the investigation case: “The area is acknowledged by the local people as inappropriate for hunting and deer-breeding.” I doubt if “inappropriate” is a synonym of “damned”.

“fantastic explanations”

That’s the point.

Where are you getting these definitions that trump other sources?

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

Is death mountain it’s partial name then? Where does death mountian come from?

“It’s likely true. There is a scientific article on Ural toponymics written by a professor of linguistics where this legend is known from. I read it too.”

Why likely true? Because he could tell the area was subject to flooding to a point where the mountain itself is an island? This flood is a new part, there’s other sources that say they just died up there.

“I think, this opinion is based on a single line from the investigation case: “The area is acknowledged by the local people as inappropriate for hunting and deer-breeding.” I doubt if “inappropriate” is a synonym of “damned”.

Why do you think that? You assume embellishment after but selectively? And also you’ve never seen embellishment or outright change on the part of a “skeptical” article to fit their ends? It doesn’t seem a stretch to me that inappropriate is along the lines of damned. Why would the researchers decide to include this in a report, they aren’t there to study culture to that extent. Hunting patterns and breeding patterns? Don’t you think they might have had in mind that it’s a huge mystery and so lets find and record the relevant parts in the report to see if it can connect to something in the future?

First of all, I agree that this was back when people didnt have much in the way of technology like we do now and I also agree that we cant really know what all happened because we were not present when this accident occured, but in the same manner, you cannot be sure that your facts are straight either. You mentioned that you were unable to find the temperature from when they were camping and I have read multiple articles and, in the very first article that I read, it stated that it was 30 degrees below zero, Celsius. In my opinion, that is absolutely not an acceptable temperature to be running around with hardly any clothes on with a really small fire. And about the tents, I disagree that you cannot see that it was torn from the inside out. How can you tell from pictures that it could have been torn from the outside? I agree, however, that it may have withstood physical abuse or stress, but it would take extreme winds to tear a tent with a canvas like that so intensely. As you can tell from the pictures, it was torn in many different places and angles. This can support both opinions.
In all articles that I have read on this, I have come across the same statement: All of the trekkers left the tent at seperate times going in seperate directions. This also supports the fact that it may not have been cut. No one can really know what happened unless you are one of the deceased.
The part about their hair being died gray and their skin being reported as orange could be caused by the extreme amounts of radiation found on their clothing. I think a mortician would know when to stop attempting to make the bodies look normal because he would be defacing the semtimenatlity of the open-coffin service. Who in the world would want their last sight of their recently killed family member as orange with gray hair… Im pretty sure the mortician would have known not to go that far with it. I think the extreme amounts of radiation would be a good enough explanation for the miscoloring.
It sounds like, to me, you are doing nothing but shouting down the idea that maybe there are things in this world that we just cant explain. Like maybe you dont want to believe that things dont always have a rhyme or reason to them. This IS a mystery and it is not just a group of travelers in the wrong place at the wrong time. Things happened on that day that no one will ever truly understand because no one survived it. I believe that this story gives people something to think about and make an effort to figure out. Its a very thought provoking accident that has kept me wondering for days.

Lacking true knowledge of the area, and a timeline of events (and everything else), I can only make assumptions.

Here are possible scenarios:
1) Assuming everyone actually left at approximately the same time:
I can only assume that some event caused them to flee the tent, quickly. They left as a complete group, some more well dressed than others (who knows why, but some possible reasons have been mentioned). They get to the area where it looked like someone had constructed a fire, and they realize that a fire is needed (as some in the party are already succumbing to the cold). They quickly find that the fire won’t be enough to save those who are not as well dressed (by this time, death may have come for one or two of the party).
Then, perhaps the more clothed group continues into the forest for whatever reason (search for help, more firewood, who knows). I can only assume that those who fell into the ravine were a group, and I’d imagine they likely stepped onto what they thought was ground, but turned out to be a false ledge, or something unstable, resulting in a fall. That, or something knocked them into the ravine as a group.
When that group fails to return, the rest try to get back to camp (very possibly, because they slowly succumb to hypothermia, and then get the delusional idea that camp is not far from them… this is not uncommon behavior when a person is near their end), and fail.

Or, perhaps, after the first two died near the fire, the rest tried to make it back to camp, where one by one the next three died. After this, perhaps the final four simply tried to get out, and found their end.
Or, perhaps, the two that died near the fire died waiting for everybody else.

As it is, I cannot honestly take some accounts as 100% accurate. We don’t know what the mouth of the tongue-less woman looked like… it could have been eaten by a small animal, perhaps because it was accessible, perhaps more damaged/bloody, or for who knows how many reasons… it could have been torn apart in an accident, perhaps catching on a tree limb or something.
Lights in the sky? Not trustworthy.
Orange color on the skin? Not necessarily trustworthy or noteworthy, considering these bodies were not discovered immediately after death.
Detected radiation? What DIDN’T test for radiation in some parts of the world back then?

To address a couple more issues…. they found footprints, so it couldn’t have been a whiteout? This was meter-deep snow. A white out does not necessarily mean there is a significant snowfall.

Hi, im new here I was wondering if I could help at all?

Do you know Sarah (who is quite a bit further above), she is my friends daughter who is only 10, so don’t blame her for her spelling.

If there was somekind of weapon usage(thermo etc.), the tent would be melt unable for it to stay like that.

Hello all!

A most intruiging mystery…
One thing however has been bugging me since I started reading of this.

I have read some where that the tent (singular) was stitched together from two tents. I cannot recall where I have read this as I have read everything I could find on this subject in a very short time – including every single post on this thread.
Why?
It annoys me because when I veiwed the pictures the tent did not appear big enough to fit ten people sleeping – yes I understand there were only nine people camping but one stayed behind (Yuri). Still the tent seemes a little small for ten people (having been camping many times over the last twenty years in various tents,with small groups and large, so I know how cramped it can get).
So when and why was the decision made to make one tent from two? before they started out or during the journey at some point?
Is it possible that the tent could only accomodate half of the team at one time and they had adopted a rota of some sleeping and some on watch?

I know that when camping with ten people you would at the very least have taken with you two five-man tents. However sticthing together two five-man tents does not necessesarily make one ten-man tent. I know I’ve tried it and it doesn’t really work.
Also canvas tents are very heavy – a lot heavier than modern material tents – and lugging around a ten-man canvas tent!? even broken down into constituent parts, thats still a big piece of canvas…
Also were the four in the ravine wearing the clothes of the five found frozen nearer the campsite?
This information I am unclear on – please respond, I know some one has the answer…

Weather they were or not may be irrelevant because if they were, it could have been because they were outside at night trying to while away the hours keeping warm (wearing all surplus or non-essential clotihing) whilst waiting for their turn in the tent.

Also the camp fire near the tree (or trees) – was it a proper camp fire (bonfire even) that would have provided light and heat as well as a focal point for some time and had been properly maintained, as I would like to believe, or was it a ‘failed’ fire that had not caught properly or had burned for a few minuites before going out?
If it was the latter, how had it been found at all? A few broken twigs and singed tinder? hmm… I wonder at this.

Also cutting one’s way out of a tent at times of danger is standard operating proceadure as far as I am aware. I base this on the first time I ever when camping. My father took myself and my brother camping for a couple of weeks when I was 8 years old and my brother was 9. The first night we pithced the tent, lit a camp fire and laid out our sleeping bags. My father crammed himself into the car to sleep because the tent not being big enouh for all of us.
Before he did however, he to gave to each of us boys a sharp pointy sheath knife. With the instruction that if the the enterance caught fire (being nearest the camp fire) we were to cut our way out of the back of the tent to safty. As a result I never camp nowadays without sleeping with a sharp pointy knife under my pillow. Also I must add that I have never had cause to a knife in this way. I have heard many ‘scary’ noises outside of tents when camping – especially when camping somewhere new, but have not the imagination or fear to go running away from the tent or chopping it up in a blind panic.
Also I like my sleep and I do find camping /trekking an exhausting past-time and would seriously consider being burnt alive or buried by snow rather than leave my bed… Lazy and sleep hungry? You bet!

@Vandal Savage

>So when and why was the decision made to make one tent from two?

The tent was made (yes, by stitching two tents of the same model) at home, before the march.

>Is it possible that the tent could only accomodate half of the team at one time and they had adopted a rota of some sleeping and some on watch?

No, according to diaries, they all slept in the tent at the same time (besides, they had a stove inside!), so it looks like the tent was large enough to accomodate 10 persons with no problem.

>lugging around a ten-man canvas tent!?

Yes, and add the metal stove, spare ski and a heap of wadded blankets (no sleeping bags!)

>Also were the four in the ravine wearing the clothes of the five found frozen nearer the campsite?

Only two men near the fire were found undressed and their clothes were found on some people in the ravine.

>Also the camp fire near the tree (or trees) – was it a proper camp fire (bonfire even) that would have provided light and heat as well as a focal point for some time and had been properly maintained

Yes, it apparently was a good bonfire, the brands of 8cm thick pine branches were reported (I think they might take hours to burn).

So much here to read. I’ve just came across this and it is so interesting. I don’t know if this has been linked before because so many post I haven’t read yet but I’ll link it.

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

As for some people saying it was an avalanche, why would there be footprints still?

As a member of a ski patrol unit in the Canadian rockies, I thought I would give a bit of my thoughts regarding this.

The theory of their deaths being caused by an avalanche is fairly ridiculous. One of the first things you learn about safety in situations such as this is that the last thing you want to do is leave your camp/tent. Leaving there in -20 degree weather for an extended period of time is suicide, espescially if you are not wearing the proper clothes.

This leads me to believe that something happened to scare them so much they would rather head into a near certain death situation than to stay and deal with whatever it was that scared them in the first place.

Experienced outdoorsmen learn to respect avalanches more than fear them. One of the keys to survival in an avalanche (or any other typical survival situation) is to remain calm and think rationally. Clearly Dyatlov & crew did not do this. Something had to have happened that they would have never trained for or thought of as a possibility. What this might have been I don’t know.

I for one don’t believe in aliens, ghosts, yeti or the boogeyman. I also don’t think the weapons testing theory is realistic. We will likely never know what exactly scared them so much but one thing I think we can all agree on is whatever it was had to have been horrifying and generally hellish in nature.

Greg: ‘Whatever it was had to have been horrifying and generally hellish in nature.’
Good point, but for example what? Perhaps my poor imagination is to blame, but I can’t think of anything hellish enough to frighten them except of the devil himself, demons and all this creepy creatures you don’t believe in. Do you mean then some kind of terrestrial, natural and yet unknown and unexplained phenomenon (we often classify the phenomena as ‘supernatural’ because they don’t fit in our present knowledge)? Could you at least suggest what you’re getting at?

Michelle: “All of the trekkers left the tent at seperate times going in seperate directions. ”
Are you sure? Where did you hear that?

It would be interesting if there was some kind of magical force behind this, but I think it’s simply a case of a series of unfortunate events and we lack enough information to know for sure.

JFH: “This could explain why the snow tracks remained even weeks after. ”
Uhm, wouldn’t termobaric weapons have melted the snow rather than preserved the tracks? Those of us who have experienced how snow behaves throughout the year are not all that surprised that tracks can last for a good while – compressed snow can be covered up and then reappear again as tracks later.

Rose: Desu Maunten is not Japanese, that’s just a Japanese spelling of English words, just like Death Note becomes Desu Noto.

Galadriel: Unlikely, but morbidly funny.

Vandal Savage: From the photo, the tent looks large enough. I’ve stayed in both spacious and less spacious tents, and that tent doesn’t look too bad, especially with a stove. The lack of proper sleeping bags is more of a problem. I’ve also seen tents after they caught fire – the people inside could have cut themselves out, but instead I think they rolled out of the tent by lifting up the side. Of course that only works with a tent without a floor.

tessa: “Most of these responses try to over-rationalize what has happened”: I seem to sense that you want this to remain unsolved. I don’t think this is over-rationalizing – everything has some kind of explanation – but what might be said is that we have too little data to come to a final conclusion.
“on the tongue”: Why do you presume that the mouth was closed? If the toungue was already bleeding and accessible, it is quite believeable that animals or bacteria could have caused the oral cavity to be destroyed before the fingers for example.
“nuclear/weapons testing”: I agree with you here. I am puzzled by that conference which concluded that this was some kind of weapons testing – that seems like a too hasty conclusion based on the premise that everthing covered up in the Soviet Union had to do with weapons testing. Maybe it was covered up because it simply was unknown, and they didn’t want to show weakness by admitting that? Or maybe the suspected that there were American soldiers in the area or something like that?
“So they have extreme hypothermia, remove their clothing in the tent, then leave and try to build a fire?”
Nobody claimed that. The theory is that some of them were sleeping with just their long underwear on, and that some of the others had time to put more clothes on. Nobody has claimed that they got hypothermia inside the tent.
“if you can’t explain it don’t try to make up foolish theories and pass it off as a plausible explanation.”
Several of these theories are indeed plausible explanations, and not foolish, but based on evidence and reason. Since we don’t have more data, you’re under no obligation to accept them as the final explanation, but they do show that this event can be explained without calling on the supernatural. And yes, that is why we call ourselves skeptics.

Greg: I think the avalanche theory is that they heard the snow shifting and feared an imminent avalanche, not that they actually were killed in an avalanche (well, maybe except for the people who went into the ravine).

OK. I think that the obvious has been missed.
Were any of you ever students?
Fit healthy 20 year olds?
Could it not have been that they were drunk?
Very few of my student years were spent sober.
(I was raised and live within a working class drinking culture)
Whilst claims were made that their alcohol supply was untouched, is it beyond belief that they might have smuggled in some illicit hooch?
What if the majority of the group had been passing round some V Strong vodka all afternoon, and decided, completely unsober, to make camp? hence the slope & unsheltered site.

The rest of the group, livid, but unable to talk sense to the (now very) drunk students, leave the group, for a recce, a sulk, a chance to let the others sober up/sleep it off.

The Vodka group meanwhile, continue drinking until the idea of a game appears what? I don’t know – First to bring a branch back to the tent is top man? Possibly. Starting from….NOW!

The people found on the edge of the forest perhaps haven’t drunk enough as the others, and recognizing the idiocy of their drunken challenge, belatedly try to light a fire. The man with the fracture maybe falling from the tree when trying to pick his branch.

The others, overcome with cold, succumb on the way back to the tent.

The sober people return, see what has happened and – in shock by what they have found – wrap up as warmly as possibly, and decide to return. (obviously the trip is now aborted) via the cache of supplies for the preplanned return journey, perhaps taking wristwatches to return to family members of the deceased.

Unfortunately they fall into a ravine, the fall causing injuries, the weight of snow responsible for the crushiness. And no external bruising and suchlike because they were dead then frozen solid very quickly. How much bruising happens in a dead frozen person?

Kindest Regards, Dave

Maybe somebody drove them to drink, Mr. personality “Type A”….. This entire event was unusual, I would classify this as a possibility, “dstalker”..

The hypotises of weapon testing does fit most of the events reported. However, there is something that i fail to understand. Some weapon, be that nuclear, termobarric or whatever that could cause that sort of damage to a human, cause bright flashes seem 50 km away, blind people, leave radiation traces and so on, would damage the surroundings. I am talking knocked and scorched trees, craters impacts or at the very least, damaged treetops. But it seems, only the hickers were damaged.
Of course, the fact that the area was sealed for a certain period of time could allow these traces to vanish, but someone would by now come out an reveal these facts.

Regardless, and lacking any other explanation, weapons testing seems to be the most logic explanation thus far.
The complety truth ….. we may never really know.

Best regards
Faceless

Has anyone seen event horizon. I know its out of the question, but the creepiness of this story reminds me of that movie.

Sorry, but can someone explained to me, if you have receive some dose of radiation, is there a possibility that it would make you blind? I know radiation theory is quite plausible, as it can kind of burn a human body from inside, maybe at that time Russians army may already undergoing some new and novel nuclear military weapons, and this place where those 9 students camped is actually the test site?
Though radiation do burn, they do not make internal injuries, like broken etc….. I was wondering where the internal injuries and broken ribs comes from .

I’ve read the article and most of the numerous comments here. Some very good points are made.

What I’d like to point out is that the documented results of the investigations into this incident were made secret in 1949, after they were concluded and no explanation was found. In 1990 these documents were declassified – the thing is that some parts of the documents were missing – i.e. not all the results of the investigation were made public in 1990.

If an avalanche was the explantion, why were some documents still kept secret?

I can’t be certain that an avalanche was the cause – however I think this is not likely. Had it been likely, it would have been declared to be the cause way back in 1949 when the investigation took place. Instead the cause was deemed an “unknown and compelling force”.

I’m inclined to believe it was some sort of military testing. I don’t know what weapons testing would cause this, and I know that weapons testing it a rather vague term. A therombaric bomb might be a cause which is worthy of further investigation – although I don’t know if this type of weapon could cause the injuries described, or if it was even being used in 1949 Russia.

I should add that in my opinion the most plausable scenario is that they were attacked by angry locals. Obviously this theory has some massive holes in it but it’s the best I can think of.

Cheers.
I would like to drop my 2 cents into this tragic but at the same time fascinating event.
My theory of what happened relies in not the ocurrance of a single event but actually a three of then.

The 1st question, i believe everone agrees on its why did they flee and further more why not by exiting normaly but cutting open and improvised exit.
I beleive they must have been surprised by a creature posing an obvious deadly threat, being the brown bear the most likely candidate. Not common on those regions, its not at all impossible one might have wandered by and settled in the region, having defined that area its hunting region. In that event, it would instictivly track and drive out any intruders. It in its attacked, it had engaged the camper in their tent blocking the entrance, cutting an alternative exit would be logical. That would explain not only that but the lack of clothing. You dont stop to put on your jacket with a 600 Kg bear on your heals.

But why didnt the bear persued, killed and eat at least one of then?
Well, if the bear was well feed and the issue was merely intrusion, once the intruders where driven away, they tend not to further persue unless provoked.

But why didnt they return?
It would be at all dificult for someone, even experienced camper and hickers to lose thenselves in a snow florest. They had no compasses, no maps, no equipment at all having flee in a hurry. Further more, i believe event 2 was or came into play. A snow storm. Lack of visibility, would make the task of returning to the camp even harder.

Why did the semi naked one died all together and the clothed one went all down the ravine?
Well, this would be a case of natural selection. The semi naked ones would die 1st due to hipotermia. Below zero conditions, with freezing winds, that would be extremely fast i supose. The survivors did what needed to be done to survive. They prolly took what little clothes they dead had and tried to reach the camp.
In low visibility conditions, you tend to walk very close to your partners, prolly even holding hands or grabbing the belt or coat of the front person. If the 1st one fell down a ravine he failed to notice, it could cause the all party to fall down.

What about the injuries? The non fatal head wound on one of the hipotermia victims?

Prolly mauled by the bear.

And the broken ribs and skull of the ravine casualities?

Most likely caused by the fall. Its higly unliky they would survive that sort of wounds if caused by the bear.

And the missing tongue?

It is intringing indeed. I supose it could also been severed during the tumble down the ravine and eventually carried away by some small scavanger creature.

Finaly, what about the “tan” and radioactive clothes?

Here, come that thirth factor. WW2 had ended a decade and half ago. But there were still new technologies to find out, especialy nuclear power. URSS was without a doubt developing new weapons. Could there have been an undeclared recent test in the vacinities. I am not talking a nuclear explosion. Prolly something else involving nuclear power, that leaked in the area.

Well… this is my theory. Prolly, it is totally wrong and something totaly different happened and we will never know. Meanwhile, i guess its fun to speculate. Pardon my English.

Something that should be ruled out completely is an animal or anything that would leave tracks, because there was only the campers tracks, so the threat was from the air or under the ground.

Also is there anything about if the tracks indicated they were walking or running from the tent? If they left without clothes even in a panic I’d think someone would hold onto their blanket or something, so maybe they were marched out.

The threat from the air was probably from those orbs. And those orbs were stationary from what I gather, and they didn’t explode and disappear like a bomb or the neighboring campers would have noted this.

It could also be some kind of gas or bio weapon in the air which makes you go crazy when you inhale.

The lights reported by the other campers must have had something to do with it. Maybe someone knows more about the light? Like did they vanish instantly indicating a bomb? Or stay there floating indicating aliens or military.

<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph {mso-style-priority:34; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:.5in; mso-add-space:auto; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst {mso-style-priority:34; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-type:export-only; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle {mso-style-priority:34; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-type:export-only; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast {mso-style-priority:34; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-type:export-only; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:.5in; mso-add-space:auto; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:548346148; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:1326639578 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l1 {mso-list-id:657416602; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:273698528 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;} @list l1:level1 {mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} –>

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

It’s an intriguing mystery. I’ve seen a bunch of explanations, but they all seem to ignore or can’t explain some small facet of the evidence. Let’s start with what didn’t happen:
1. No bears or other people frightened them away, since no tracks were found other than those of the original party.
2. It wasn’t thermobaric weapons. A blast powerful enough to break 12 ribs of a human four feet above the ground would leave signs on that ground. If even footsteps were preserved for the 2 weeks it took the rescue party to arrive, the bomb signs would also have been preserved. No such signs were found.
3. It wasn’t an avalanche. An avalanche that would crush skulls and 12 ribs would have to be pretty darn huge and would also leave signs. No such signs were found. In fact the snow was firmly packed when the search party arrived.
Whatever theory we build must take into account certain facts:
1. None of the 9 were fully dressed. Not one of them was wearing two boots. Some had 1 boot, some had none (only felt inner shoes or socks, some were barefoot). When the accounts say some were better dressed than others, that’s all they mean, a bit more clothing. No account says that anyone was fully dressed as they would have been normally during the day. This discounts any theories that perhaps some of them got dressed and left earlier. They all show signs of a hurried departure, because no one who wasn’t in a hurry would fail to put on both boots.
2. Their different clothes are explained by what they wore to bed. Some may have taken off outer clothes to let them dry out, others didn’t. Nothing in the account indicates that they weren’t wearing what they slept in. Of course they may have grabbed whatever was handy when they left (like 1 boot), but there was obviously not enough time for much more.
3. The accounts say they pitched their tents about 5 p.m. This seems natural (sunset on that day at their location was 4:03 p.m., it probably stayed a bit lighter for them because of altitude and the reflective snow). Without electricity, people don’t stay up long after dark. Hikers through rough terrain don’t carry tons of fuel oil either. So the chances are they pitched their tent, cooked and ate dinner, talked for a bit, then went to sleep by 8 – 9 p.m.
4. Autopsies showed they died 6 – 8 hours after ingesting their meals, so they died between about 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. The moon would have risen at 3:15 a.m. that night, but they may have died before that. Even if not, the moon was 4 days old and barely rose a few degrees above the horizon. Light must have been fairly poor.
5. Something happened to make them leave the tent in a hurry. Whatever it was, it was likely NOT the cause of the injuries on the 3 people. This is because the injuries were very severe and it’s unlikely that a party of 9 with 3 critically injured would plow through 1.5 km of knee deep snow. Also, the injured girl had a rib piercing her pericardium, so she couldn’t have lived more than 20 minutes after the injury. Also, she had a cloth wrapped around her leg which was actually the woolen pants removed from another guy in the party. Since it doesn’t make sense to wrap the leg of a dead girl, she must have been alive when it was wrapped. Since it also doesn’t make sense to remove the pants from a guy who’s already freezing, it seems likely that this guy died before the girl did. All of this makes it extremely unlikely that the girl was injured near the tent, her injuries happened later, after another guy in the group was already dead.
6. The group reached a pine tree at the forest edge, where they stopped to break branches and build a fire. This is where the first two bodies were found, clothed in underwear only. It seems likely that these were the first two to die, and that their clothes were then scavenged by others.
 
This leaves 3 main questions in my mind:
1. What made them all run away from the tent?
2. Why did they separate into groups?
3. What accident happened to one of the groups that resulted in those horrible injuries?
 
This is how I reconstruct it. Something scared them away from the tent. I don’t know what it was, but I’ve offered some evidence for what it wasn’t. Nobody was injured then, except maybe one guy who cracked his skull a bit when they were running away. All of them ran downslope for about 1.5 km through knee deep snow, and stopped when they reached the edge of the forest in the valley below. They ran northeast, that is, away from the direction in which they had come to the tent site (they had arrived from the southeast).
They built a fire under a pine tree, using its branches for fuel. Someone must have had matches. Not surprising, if some of them had been sleeping in their coats. Coats have pockets. The fire was apparently pretty good, made with thick pine branches, but it wasn’t enough to keep a bunch of half-clothed people alive without shelter in -25 weather. Soon after the fire was made, two of them died of hypothermia. These two were the ones who were wearing the least amount of clothes. I say they died after the fire was made because one of them had his hands charred by the fire. Nobody builds a fire on top of a dead man, but a man who’s still alive and leaning very close to the fire for warmth might fall into it when he or loses consciousness.
After they died, their clothes were scavenged by the others, leaving them just in their long johns. This is where it gets interesting. The remaining 7 people didn’t stay together, they split up into 2 groups. Three of them (the relatively less clothed ones) tried to head back to the tent. The other four (who had the most clothes out of all 9 people), went east along the ravine instead (as we can tell from where their bodies were found).
The question is, why did they split up? We know from the tracks leaving the tent that they were together for at least the first 500 meters of their run. It makes little sense to me that they would split up then. And as a matter of fact we know they didn’t split up then, because the girl in the second group had the trousers of the man under the pine tree wrapped around her leg. So they must have stuck together at least until they were under the pine tree.
It seems likely to me that they split up when the 2 guys in their group died. Perhaps they had a discussion on what to do next, and disagreed. Three of them decided to head back to the tent. Four went eastwards. Assuming these 4 weren’t just confused and lost, why would they go east? Well, east is how they would get back to their PREVIOUS camp, if they wanted to avoid the mountain they had just run away from. They could have followed the ravine east to avoid the mountain, then cut south. They probably knew this.
Why did they know this? Well, the accounts say they ended up on the mountain because they misjudged their direction, and swung too far west. That eastern route was their planned route to begin with. They had probably discussed this just the previous evening after they made camp.
So here’s the hypothesis. These guys really, really didn’t want to go back to their tents. Without the clothes in the tent, they couldn’t survive. So rather than go back to the tent, they decided to go back to their PREVIOUS camp, where they had also left supplies. This previous camp was quite a ways off, and hella risky to attempt, so they must really have hated the idea of going back to the tent. The best dressed 4 therefore decided to head back to the previous camp. The other 3 were wearing much fewer clothes, so for them it would have been suicide. They were therefore forced to stay. They may have decided to risk running to the tent to grab some more clothes and blankets, and then returning to their pine tree and the fire to wait for the other 4 to send help. But they never made it to the tent, they died on the way.
The other four didn’t make it far either. They went eastwards, but their bodies were found about 75 meters away. Three of them were massively injured. Obviously, some major accident happened. The likeliest answer is they fell down a cliff/slope. The fall could well have caused the injuries. But it doesn’t explain the 4th member, whose body was also found there but had no mortal injuries. At any rate, something bad happened to kill them all.
This theory doesn’t answer the questions, but at least it provides some constraints on the course of events. It’s possible that there was really no threat, something just happened to panic them all and they ran around lost until they died.
However, it’s not a comfortable explanation. These guys didn’t act like they were just running around like idiots. They built a fire. They exchanged clothes as appropriate. They split into two well defined groups, one heading back towards the tent (they must have known where it was, otherwise how could they head that way), the other all staying together and heading east. Further, the topology of the area doesn’t let people be confused for long. These were experienced people, remember. They knew they’d been camped on a mountain slope, they knew they ran downhill from the tent. It doesn’t make much sense to think that the 4 people heading east didn’t realize that if they wanted to get back to camp, they should head up slope, not along a ravine in the middle of a valley. Fact is, 3 of the 9 knew where the tent was and were heading for it. There is no reason to suppose the others didn’t. In all likelihood, they’d been together all that time.
So it seems to me like a deliberate decision to split up. I think they knew very well what they were doing. What I don’t know is WHY they were doing it. What was it about that mountain that made them want to avoid it so much.

Hey guys

How are you?

I would be very interested to see a topographical map of the position of the bodies found as well any original documents from the official investigators reports. I believe that, as has been suggested, the many years passed since the initial event would quite naturally allow for some speculation to work it’s way in amongst the facts and the only real killer here may have been an unusually cold snow storm.

The tent may have been ripped by animals scavenging for food and unless it was possible to tell whether or not it had been torn or ripped from the inside I feel that the facts and evidence are rather flimsy and misplaced.

As for the lack of bruising, I am in no way a doctor or anybody qualified such as a mortician would be to the make the assumption, however, if the body was unusually cold and a strong injury was sustained, I would chance to reason the slow moving nature of the blood would be enough to prevent substantial bruising.

If anybody has any more precise links to the original information I would be interested to know more of what, regardless of reasoning or links to the paranormal or supernatural, is still a very tragic event.

Here is the wikipedia account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyatlov_Pass_incident

Kind regards

Rob

hi everyone,
Let me start with how awesome and spooky this story is. Its partly documented, unexplainable and very creepy. I particularly love the fact that not one theory can stand the “well-at-least-its-plausible” test.
Avalanche
Sounds plausible at first. A truckload of snow was about to hit there tent and they escaped. But why would they run 2 kilometers away from there save and warm environment..  and kept away from it long enough to make a fire 2000 meters away? Besides that, the tent wasn’t covered by meters of snow and footsteps where visible even weeks after the tragedy. It doesn’t make sense.
Secret weapon testing
Secret weapons are tested on secret and guarded location with secret agencies watching the secret results on the ground. They are not tested on places where people hike and tribal communities sometimes wandering around.  Don’t forget, both the rescue action and the investigation after the accident where relatively open for USSR standards. It seems more that the people in power at that time wanted to know what the hell was going on them selfs, rather than to hide something.
Aggressive animal
If a dangerous creature is sniffing around your tent in the middle of the night do you cut yourself a way out of that tent to run away from that creature? NO! You wait in your tent hoping it goes away. Unless it comes into your tent.. So let say a sleepless bear did  put its  head trough the main entrance, is that a reason to run that far away (2km) from your only place to survive? I would say after running 200 meters in -30C  cold snow in your underwear 9 people would try to chase even a 4  meter long bear away with knives, fire and hell, maybe even the only shoe you wear. -30C is painfully cold.
UFO
UFO’s are unidentified and therefor unexplainable and not plausible. Maybe tomorrow some aliens land on earth saying: ” Dyatlov pass? Yeah that was us, sorry for that btw.” But i wouldn’t put my money on it.
So whats left? The only thing i can come up with is that these guys where out of there mind. Maybe it was drugs or mass hysteria but at one point they lost all there rationality and acted like a bunch of bad tripping  hippies on acid. I am guessing here, but they did had a stove in there tent. What if they suffered from carbon dioxide poisoning?. They got disorientated, started to hyperventilate, panicked and ran away. When they got sober again it was to late. Just another theory..
Because i couldn’t find a map with all the info i made one myself in paint. Its very simple but i think it contains all the facts everyone agrees on.
http://i37.tinypic.com/11h71bo.jpg
grtz Freddie