Freddy, thanks for making the map – you’re right, it is interesting that no one we’ve found has described this experience visually, not until your effort!

Andy

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

/* 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.

While the terrain was steep enough for an avalanche, apparently they were very uncommon in the area.  Dyatlov and Zolotarev are very experienced ski-hikers, and wouldn’t have chosen to make camp anywhere they thought had a real avalanche risk.  
Maybe a freak avalanche did happen. Or maybe the military was in the area, and were testing conventional ordnance (not nuclear).  If it was a bomb dropped from a military aircraft, that might explain the sightings of orange lights or spheres in the sky.  Say there was a bombing run much higher up the mountain, triggering an avalanche that hits the tent.  The tent is pitched crosswise to the slope, so a heavy mass of snow hitting it would have collapsed the middle first; the poles were still upright but were pulled inward.  Dyatlov’s crew wakes up to the thunder of explosions and their tent collapsing in the middle under a minor avalanche; they panic.  Half the crew gets out the front entrance, half are trapped at the back and cut their way out. 

Dyatlov and Zolotarev are smart enough to know you don’t escape an avalanche by running downhill.  Maybe they see the explosions farther up the mountain and decide the first thing to do is get to the nearest cover, which happens to be the tree line downhill.  Dyatlov placing the flashlight on the tent seems to indicate he’s still thinking clearly, so it was a conscious decision to run for cover rather than head across to the ridge.  Or maybe the whole group just panics, and runs downhill because it’s the fastest way to get away, and Dyatlov has no choice but to follow and stay with them.

The rest happens pretty much as Dave’s much earlier post describes.  The radiation is a red herring; several possibilities have already been posted, and it likely had nothing to do with the incident itself.

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.

Bears sleep in winter.

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.

What would have made them leave the safety of their tent in such a manner that they would have to cut a hole on the opposite side of the door? (which was open) What was blocking the door entrance (obviously not snow I’ve seen the picture) that would have induced panic or frightened 9 athletic adults (if they were all in the tent at the time) enough to ignore the basic instinct to grab a blanket or jacket or two on the way out? I’ve spent years camping in prospector style tents and let’s face it, they are just tents, but they do offer some feeling of security and safety.

So what was blocking the entrance?

These people knew the land and the terrain they were in, and from the pictures, it seems the sparse wooded area below might not have offered much shelter from the wind. If you set a up a tent in the deep snow, it offers some protection and acts as a good insulator from the cold. In white out conditions, they could have been faced with blowing snow (not necessarily a blizzard). In blowing snow, it can conceal tracks or leave certain areas seem virtually untouched as it can drift over an area and go for a long time before settling. If that is the case then some tracks could have been covered over a short period, leaving other tracks exposed. This would explain the disappearance of tracks near the wooded area.

What other tracks could have been covered up by the blowing snow?

My thoughts go out to the families and friends of the Dyatlov party.

Christoph

Gunnar R- I realize it wasn’t an avalanche that killed them, I meant that I don’t think it was an avalanche that scared them. Surely Dyatlov & Co. had enough basic training to know that panicking is the worst thing you can do if you think an avalanche is possible.

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 strongly believe that everyone feel in the ravine and the ones with internal injuries receivet them because the pressure of other bodies falling over tham. That may explain the minor skull fracture in Rusten Slobodin and the fact that the three ppl that tried to return to the tent didn’t make it. They were feeling great aches because the fall and they had some difficulties to walk.

At first, I believe that not an avalanche, but a small snow sliding can have damaged the tent and scared the team to the point to cut the tent and adventure in the hostile night environment. Or at leats part of the group. The other part gone after them by the tent entrance, what could explain the initial spread group and then something about 300m the footprints gone together.

Then, they arrived at the pine tree, where they stayed together and tried to make sense with the situation. They tried to make a fire, but it was frustrated, or leasted for a few time. But it can say too much to us. If they lit a fire, then human porsecutors can be excluded. It was ridiculous to lit a fire that could denunciate their position if they are fleeing from humans. In the meantime, Georgyi Krivonischenko and Yuri Doroshenko died and the other survivirs ripped their clothes and decided another plan: continue the way to the forest.

On the way, the group fell in the ravine, due to unstable ground. That can explain the minor skull fracture of Rustem Slobodin and the other injuries suffered from Nicolas Thibeaux-Brignollel, Lyudmila Dubinina, Alexander Zolotarev and Alexander Kolevatov. Nicolas because the skull crash died almost instantly. Dubnina died some moments later ans Zolotarev, injured, but unable to walk, took her coat and hat and stayed wuth Kolevatov, also unable to walk due to the injuries. The othars suffered no injuries due to have fallen above the others (I assume the group fell almost at once).

With the friends dead or dying, Igor Dyatlov, Zinaida Kolmogorova and Rustem Slobodin (this last with the minor skull fracture) decided to try to return to the camp, in one last effort to try to save themselves and/or the surviving comrades that were still alive, but too injured to walk. Then, they tried the most logical thing: to follow the inverse way. They gone to the pine tree and then, starded the way upslope, but the results, we already know.

I’m not still sure about the start of the whole thing. The minor snow slide is only one thing that ocurred me, but I think it is the greatest mystery of this history.

What do you ppl think about my theory?

…… sorry lol

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

“Be sure, the students who had those habits were never allowed to join the team.”

I can’t be, any more than you can, But I can’t imagine 50’s student life in Russia being abstemious.

Yours Absurdly
Dave

It’s a complete absurd.

It was a serious, extremely hard sport venture in very severe conditions. It was not a recreational picnic by no way, as I already told above.

The resquers reported there was a flask of pure ethyl alcohol (not vodka or another beverage) which is a common item of the winter first-aid kit. It was full.

>Very few of my student years were spent sober.

Be sure, the students who had those habits were never allowed to join the team.

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

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).

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

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.

Dyatlov pass brainstorming now on facebook! Sorry for advertising.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

>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).

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

It makes an intresting read, check it out.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

@ty:
>devoted to a certain paradigm

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

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

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

Andy

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is absolutely incorrect.

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

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

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

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

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

It’s unknown.

Again and again.

They did NOT take their clothes away.

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

Please check the facts before making any speculation.

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

UFOs and Aliens wouldn´t do such a mess.

>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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What evidence is there for the missing papers?

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

Thanks