• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Dyatlov Pass Incident (1959)

Rushfan62 said:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...eled-mystery-dyatlov-pass-incident-180976886/

Another theory
Click to expand...
Hmm seems like a lot of the old theories to me, plus with the injuries sustained by some of the party, and the fact that there is no evidence of anyone being carried/aided down the slope, there is no way they could have made it down to the valley, so to say the injuries were inflicted at the tent site is a bit of a stretch, also to base a hypothesis in Disney's 'Frozen' really!! Come on Smithsonian you can do better than that.
 
Aurora Newman said:
I looked at that very interesting. It was strange what happened to the bodies.
Click to expand...
I highly recommed reviewing SamRuger's posts in this thread, he, in my opinion, has some good insight/points about the psycology of a group of communist party youths, and how that may gave affected their decisions and thought processes, which ultimately lead to their demise.
 
There's a bit about the pass on 26 world war weird now 10:15 am
 
SamRuger said:
Some Observations

I'm very impressed with some of the deductions made here but I thought I should point out some mistakes or common belief errors as well as omissions that, quite frankly, are throwing you all off the track. The most frequent ad serious mistake made is the belief that the stove had not been used in the last two days. Dyatlov's own diary records it was used January 31 and, on the morning of February 1, they photographed one team member's coat that caught fire from the stove.

Another often quoted mistake is that that Dyatlov strayed too far west on Hill 1079. Actually he steered too far northwest. While this may seem a subtle difference it's important to understand how they got there. From the cache in the Auspii Valley to where the tent was found, if one draws a straight light on an elevation map, they passed EXACTLY between the two hills that marked the west and east entrance of the pass and at the lowest elevation. It shows it was done by compass. And the reason can be seen in the last four photos on the way up. They're headed into overcast. They can't see. So they navigated the first leg of the pass by compass, steering northwest from the cache having taken the course reading earlier that morning. However, one cannot just stay on this NW heading because the pass then turns east northeast to go down the other side. So, at some point, they had to turn right. The party calculated they would know when to turn right when they reached Hill 1079. According to Dyalov's map, they would know when they reached Hill 1079 because there would be a sharp increase in the 19 degree angle of the slope. This never happened. As they continued up the side of Hill 1079 in the low visibility, it makes it appear that they're too far west. In fact, they're too far northwest. Again, it's important to know this to know how they arrived at the cedar tree. The cedar tree was their destination on the day of February 1 - Not the top of Hill 1079. Indeed! They were only 16 meters from the top of the Pass and didn't know it. They only stopped going up the side when the sun set. They were then only about a mile from their destination, which they could have skied downhill to, and did not know it. And, if they were to turn east-northeast they'd not only be steering blind but they'd arrive at the trees in the dark (and, as we shall see, two brooks) and have to find and pitch camp by flashlight.

So they stopped. And they stopped on just about the highest point of an open slope - The worst possible thing they could do. And they knew it. It's why you see them digging in the snow in the last two photos. They're not just leveling the base of the tent. The're lowering the tent to where all the vertical sides of it are even with the surrounding snow. That's to act as insulation and a wind break (You can think of it as a canvass topped igloo.). The temperature inside the tent will now be the same as the snow outside (32 degrees F or 0 degrees C). Only the canvass roof of the tent is in content with the wind and outside temperature (and the exposed part of the front and rear of the tent.). To further raise and insulate the inside temperature of the tent they put their skis down to act like tree boughs beneath the tent floor and then laid their packs on the bottom of the floor. They would then sit and sleep on top of their packs. To insulate the sides of the tent against the outside snow walls, they lined the walls with their boots. This is how you keep from freezing to death even if it gets down to -50 degrees C outside.

But they still had three problems. First, the top of the tent is still exposed to the cold and has zero insulating properties. It's cold! Second, for whatever reason, they had set the tent up backwards. The front entrance to a tent should always face away from the wind and they had set it up facing into the west wind. The result was a draft and we see where they tried to plug it with Dorschenko's jacket. This draft was severe enough for them to track it down and move heavy gear to the front of the tent to help block it even though this interfered with them using the entrance to go outside and urinate. The autopsies show everybody (especially Diatlov) is holding their bladders in (except maybe Slobodin). Keep in mind this draft of air would have been -22 degrees below Zero. This is not supposed to be happening and it's almost certainly the first step to what got them killed.

Their third problem was how to get off the hill. They had no guarantee the overcast would lift in the morning. It could be even worse. And they had to get off (There was no firewood.).

You get off the hill the same way you got on - With a compass. You watch for a break in the weather and, if you get it, even in the dark, you immediately go out with a flashlight and a map and take a compass bearing east northeast to reach the tree line. Although any east northeast heading would have taken them to the trees, they actually steered yet another perfect course on the night of February 1, 1959. According to Dyatlov's map, there were two brooks to the ENE, one running south and one running north (Although these two brooks were likely one and connected, the map does not show this.). They did not know if these brooks would be frozen over (The south brook passed through the "den", BTW.) and so aimed between them. They successfully steered a course right between both brooks, in the dark to end up at the cedar. And, except for an initial jog to the left on leaving the tent, the rest of the way shows their path moving in a straight line.

We know they were taking a compass heading that night three different ways. First, by exactly navigating the brooks in a straight line in the dark. Second, after 300-400 meters the flashlight failed that they were using to read the compass and they had to spread out in the dark to the left and right to look for the brooks in order to stay between them and then rejoined. Third, they were using the flashlight until they threw it away at 400 meters. The only use for the flashlight over open snow covered ground was to read the compass.

In order to take a compass reading, two people had to stay dressed inside the tent for cold in order to go outside and do it. We know who one of them was. Zolotarev had the compass and the flashlight and - Yes - he was warmly dressed. But it takes two people on a windy night to set a compass course. Somebody has to hold the map. This is almost certainly Nick. He's the only other person dressed for it (Slobodin is dressed as if he had just come back in from urinating.).

If we wanted, we could even determine when they took the heading, even why they turned ENE instead of SW to return to their cache. It's all pretty obvious. But I don't mean to bore.

At any rate, a simple little thing like incorrectly assuming Dylatov "wandered too far west" can cause you to make a ton of other wrong assumptions based on a previous wrong assumption. The stove is also important. People have some serious errors regarding it even though they have it 90% right the other 10% is leading you in the wrong direction.

Once you remove the wrong assumptions, the only one's left are the right one's.
Click to expand...
That's interesting
 
uair01 said:
Avalanche again proven possible:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1354835324376133638
Click to expand...
Both the national geographic and smithsonian (posted earlier today) articles seem to be either co-written or sourced from the same place as they both are full of incorrect information, and poorly researched, im very disappionted in these 2 institutions for their shoddy work, as i said earlier, if you havent read this entire thread i highly recommend you do :D
 
EnolaGaia said:
Only two of the nine trekkers (who were also two of the four found at the den / ravine scene) were fully clothed with coats, hats and a pair of boots - Zolo and T-B.

Kolevatov and (especially) Dubinina were wearing clothing items apparently stripped from the two who died at the cedar / fire site. Neither of them had any footwear. Dubinina had a "small hat" (as contrasted with the 2 hats apiece found on T-B, Zolo and Kolmogorova). If you subtract the clothing they'd taken from their deceased friends they were no better clothed than any of the other five who died at the cedar or attempting to climb back to the tent site.

The fact that Zolo and T-B were the only ones clothed fully enough to reasonably be outside the tent is something I take as a clue that they were operating separately from the other seven in some way or at some time. Some accounts suggest they were simply the only two standing outside the tent when it collapsed - perhaps having stepped outside to pee. I suspect their different state of dress insinuates some activity or agenda more extensive than a simple pee break.
Click to expand...

Thanks for correction. It's been a couple of months since the last time I looked into it, and you're obviously right regarding the state of Kolevatov's and Dubinina's clothing. If I remember correctly, one of the crew trying to climb back had one shoe.

My theory why Zolotarev and T-B were fully shod at the moment of what I see as a collapse of the tent is that they were actually outside to check it out and possibly try to fix the state of it.

Since they had no source of heat beside their own bodies, I suspect, given the snowstorm condition and the cold, that snow laid rather thick on top of the tent, which, combined with rips and holes in the canvas, may have caused more tears and maybe even troubles with stability.

It's quite possible that in case they were trying to readjust a loose part of the tent, a sudden wind blow just finished it off. The semi-clothed state of some of the others hints at them hastily dressing up to get outside and maybe help stop the tent from collapsing. Meanwhile Doroshenko and Krivonishenko hint at "ah, you worry too much, let us get some rest!"

What I still don't get is why it wasn't either T-B or Zolotarev trying to get back to pick up more equipment for the others, but it's possible they were needed to take care of the rest of the group, as, given their clothing, they were probably last to lose the sensation in their feet and hands, thus at some point, they were the only ones left capable of collecting firewood/maintaining the fire/working on the den.

I still wonder if a better decision after the tent collapse could have led to at least some of them surviving. The most frustrating part is that maybe they were doomed either way, for the conditions up on the slope may have been so harsh that trying to retrieve their equipment from the collapsed tent under a possible snowdrift would have killed them even sooner.

From this perspective, the reason behind their fate seems to be staying on the slope.

I also wonder what difference an assembled stove and enough firewood would have made. Maybe it could have prevented the snow from amassing on top of the tent, maybe if the tent had collapsed anyway, feeling warmer up till then would have provided them with extra minutes to do what was crucial to get done, and maybe it would have led to a better judgement of the situation.
 
Denion said:
Thanks for correction. It's been a couple of months since the last time I looked into it, and you're obviously right regarding the state of Kolevatov's and Dubinina's clothing. If I remember correctly, one of the crew trying to climb back had one shoe.

My theory why Zolotarev and T-B were fully shod at the moment of what I see as a collapse of the tent is that they were actually outside to check it out and possibly try to fix the state of it.

Since they had no source of heat beside their own bodies, I suspect, given the snowstorm condition and the cold, that snow laid rather thick on top of the tent, which, combined with rips and holes in the canvas, may have caused more tears and maybe even troubles with stability.

It's quite possible that in case they were trying to readjust a loose part of the tent, a sudden wind blow just finished it off. The semi-clothed state of some of the others hints at them hastily dressing up to get outside and maybe help stop the tent from collapsing. Meanwhile Doroshenko and Krivonishenko hint at "ah, you worry too much, let us get some rest!"

What I still don't get is why it wasn't either T-B or Zolotarev trying to get back to pick up more equipment for the others, but it's possible they were needed to take care of the rest of the group, as, given their clothing, they were probably last to lose the sensation in their feet and hands, thus at some point, they were the only ones left capable of collecting firewood/maintaining the fire/working on the den.

I still wonder if a better decision after the tent collapse could have led to at least some of them surviving. The most frustrating part is that maybe they were doomed either way, for the conditions up on the slope may have been so harsh that trying to retrieve their equipment from the collapsed tent under a possible snowdrift would have killed them even sooner.

From this perspective, the reason behind their fate seems to be staying on the slope.

I also wonder what difference an assembled stove and enough firewood would have made. Maybe it could have prevented the snow from amassing on top of the tent, maybe if the tent had collapsed anyway, feeling warmer up till then would have provided them with extra minutes to do what was crucial to get done, and maybe it would have led to a better judgement of the situation.
Click to expand...
The reports of the group being in underclothes need to be taken with a pinch of salt SamRuger explains
SamRuger said:
We can get an idea of what was killing them by looking a their standard dress. The typical party member wore one pair of cotton socks with one pair wool over them. Then one pair of pants with another pair of ski pants over them. They also wore a short sleeve shirt, long sleeve shirt, and a wool sweater. They could be wearing more than this but this was their basic tent wear and they added to it as needed. It appears that Yuri Dorschenko and Yuri Kri are missing their sweaters while Zina and Luda are each wearing two sweaters, a sign they stripped the two Yuri's of theirs (with Zina possibly cutting Doroschenka's off him as her second sweater had cut marks on it.). Zina did not take his vest or his wool socks (the left was burned). Doroschenko was found with only one pair of pants but Zina with three, evidence she took a pair off him. Luda also took one sock off Yuri Kri (the other was torn from climbing the tree) and his ski pants for herself.
Click to expand...
So when it is said they were in bed clothes dont think pjs and slippers, there is a post on this board listing what each victim was wearing when found but i can find it atm but i certainly remember seeing it, maybe @EnolaGaia can help, they are the expert on this particular subject
 
EnolaGaia said:
Exactly ... The firewood situation at the fatal site atop the pass is something I've long considered a key clue.

Early in the expedition Dyatlov had consulted with experienced folks at one or both the settlements where they'd stayed concerning the route(s) for their intended agenda (to Ortoten and back). There was basically one option for the first part of the trek - follow the Auspiy river valley. The second phase (ascending what's now named Dyatlov Pass) split the possibilities into two options - both of which were discussed in the early consultation(s).

The options were:

(1) to continue from the pass on the 'high road' (the usual summertime route, staying above the tree line from Kholat Syakhl to Ortoten), thus maintaining the altitude they'd gained from climbing to the pass and avoiding having to climb again at Mt. Ortoten.

(2) to cross the pass, descend into the Lozhva river valley, approach Ortoten via this 'low road' through the forests, and then climb to the top of Ortoten.

When they first approached the pass on the preceding day they had intended to scale the pass and descend into the Lozhva valley to establish their cache. This is mentioned in Kolmogorova's diary as her understanding of the plan. In other words, they were originally planning to follow the 'low road' routing. Because they were delayed in reaching the pass area and had more trouble ascending the slope than expected, they had to turn back and pitch camp in the Auspiy valley. They did not build a fire or use the stove that night. In addition, there's a mention in the diaries that firewood at the campsite was wet and unsuitable for readily building a fire. They were notably exhausted, and they ate a cold meal that night.

The only firewood they were carrying was a single substantial chunk / piece which was all they needed as a reserve if following the 'low road' plan and assuming they could easily collect firewood in the Lozhva valley beyond the pass. As such, I tend to think they were still committed to the 'low road' overall routing scheme when they set out late (after establishing their cache in the Auspiy valley) and set out to attempt the pass for a second time.

If they'd already decided to pursue the 'high road' scheme to make up for lost time they should have been carrying additional firewood (especially smaller pieces for kindling) in anticipation of remaining above the tree line. Instead, they weren't carrying any more firewood than they'd had the day before. I take this as a heavy clue that they were still intending to follow the 'low road' strategy when they set out on their last trekking day.

They found themselves atop the pass late in the afternoon with the light failing. Here's where and when things get fatally strange. The weather atop the pass was every bit as brutal as it had been the day before (and forced them to abort their first attempt). The straightforward solution was to stick to their apparent 'low road' strategy, stay on their skis, and simply ski downhill to the forest - the same forest where they'd end up dead. The forest was no more than 1.5 km downhill, and they should have been able to reach it in mere minutes. Navigation wasn't a big concern, because any / all paths downhill led to forest in the Lozhva valley, and they knew it.

Instead, they chose to stay at the higher elevation and pitched the tent in a snowstorm with only their skis and ski poles to use in anchoring and erecting the tent. The single chunk of firewood was put outside the tent, apparently to aid in anchoring or bracing one of the supports. The stove was not unpacked, much less hung inside the tent. They didn't even give themselves the possibility of heat.

I have no idea what they thought they were doing in pitching camp atop the pass rather than quickly skiing down to the forest and pitching camp in a much more protected setting. Whether they'd suddenly decided to switch to a 'high road' strategy or not they'd screwed up horribly by leaving themselves in that situation. They were left in an exposed position with no fire / heat and no hot food for the second night in a row. The arrival of a strong cold front, causing a dramatic drop in temperatures, was the coup de gras.
Click to expand...
If their safety and comfort would have been to ski a short distance then why didn't they? That would suggest one or more couldnt or wouldnt. Why would that be the case?
 
Denion said:
Thanks for correction. It's been a couple of months since the last time I looked into it, and you're obviously right regarding the state of Kolevatov's and Dubinina's clothing. If I remember correctly, one of the crew trying to climb back had one shoe.
Click to expand...

That was Slobodin, who was found wearing a single felt boot (valenki). The valenki were adequate footwear for wearing outdoors, so long as the conditions weren't wet. Some ski-trekkers preferred wearing valenki when skiing (as long as they didn't risk getting them soaked). T-B was wearing a pair of valenki, whereas Zolo was wearing a pair of burka (leather boots).

Seven valenki (3 pairs + 1) and eight pairs of boots were found at / in the tent.
 
Denion said:
... My theory why Zolotarev and T-B were fully shod at the moment of what I see as a collapse of the tent is that they were actually outside to check it out and possibly try to fix the state of it.
Since they had no source of heat beside their own bodies, I suspect, given the snowstorm condition and the cold, that snow laid rather thick on top of the tent, which, combined with rips and holes in the canvas, may have caused more tears and maybe even troubles with stability.
It's quite possible that in case they were trying to readjust a loose part of the tent, a sudden wind blow just finished it off. ...
Click to expand...

A cautionary note with connections to a recent and timely forum thread:

Factoids & False Assumptions (Discursive Article)
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/factoids-false-assumptions-discursive-article.68054/

In this new thread Mikefule alludes to 'factoids' - propositions or claims that are eventually taken to be hard facts, upon which commentators spin narratives and theories drifting ever-farther from what the basic or most defensible evidence supports.

The scenario you describe makes sense in and of itself, but it's entirely predicated on a number of such 'factoids' that have become canonical aspects of the Dyatlov Pass mystery. More specifically ...

IMHO one should be cautious in assuming the validity of many factoids commonly and casually cited for the tent and the tent site. One must bear in mind that:

- the tent was a homemade combination of two smaller tents sewn together to accommodate more people;
- the ages of the smaller tents from which this combined tent was made are anybody's guess;
- this remodeled version of the tent was already 3 years old, and it had been used on multiple earlier expeditions;
- the tent had suffered tears or holes that had to be repaired earlier in the fatal expedition;
- it was last erected on an exposed mountain slope in deep snow on 1 February;
- it was not discovered until 26 February (circa 3.5 weeks later);
- it had therefore remained exposed to the elements (on a mountain; in the winter) during the interim;
- the snow pack at the tent site and surrounding area on 26 February was less than it had been on 1 February;
- the searchers who first found it admittedly cut their way into the tent before anyone else examined it; and ...
- even when first discovered the tent was described as only partially collapsed.

My point is this ... The state of the tent 3.5 weeks after the apparent time of the mysterious deaths has long been taken to be an accurate time capsule of its state when it was abandoned. This has generated a host of 'factoids' that everyone cites as if it's safe to assume no changes whatsoever during the 3.5 weeks' lapse.

To confuse matters even further, there are the 'factoids' associated with later opinions about the damage to the tent. The most flagrant of these factoids is the presumption that certain large cuts were made from inside the tent. This started with a casual comment from a seamstress who'd seen the tent's remains displayed indoors at Ivdel(?) - after the tent had been disassembled, moved, and folded up (at the pass), transported who-knows-how-many times, thawed out, and hung up for examination in a heated environment. The seamstress's comment was based on the severed thread ends surrounding one or more of the holes seeming to be bent outward. The tenuous evidential validity of her well-meaning comment plus other factors (e.g., no discrimination between holes already in the fabric when discovered versus holes made by the search / rescue party) renders one of the most canonical 'facts' as no more than a 'factoid.'
 
EnolaGaia said:
A cautionary note with connections to a recent and timely forum thread:

Factoids & False Assumptions (Discursive Article)
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/factoids-false-assumptions-discursive-article.68054/

In this new thread Mikefule alludes to 'factoids' - propositions or claims that are eventually taken to be hard facts, upon which commentators spin narratives and theories drifting ever-farther from what the basic or most defensible evidence supports.

The scenario you describe makes sense in and of itself, but it's entirely predicated on a number of such 'factoids' that have become canonical aspects of the Dyatlov Pass mystery. More specifically ...

IMHO one should be cautious in assuming the validity of many factoids commonly and casually cited for the tent and the tent site. One must bear in mind that:

- the tent was a homemade combination of two smaller tents sewn together to accommodate more people;
- the ages of the smaller tents from which this combined tent was made are anybody's guess;
- this remodeled version of the tent was already 3 years old, and it had been used on multiple earlier expeditions;
- the tent had suffered tears or holes that had to be repaired earlier in the fatal expedition;
- it was last erected on an exposed mountain slope in deep snow on 1 February;
- it was not discovered until 26 February (circa 3.5 weeks later);
- it had therefore remained exposed to the elements (on a mountain; in the winter) during the interim;
- the snow pack at the tent site and surrounding area on 26 February was less than it had been on 1 February;
- the searchers who first found it admittedly cut their way into the tent before anyone else examined it; and ...
- even when first discovered the tent was described as only partially collapsed.

My point is this ... The state of the tent 3.5 weeks after the apparent time of the mysterious deaths has long been taken to be an accurate time capsule of its state when it was abandoned. This has generated a host of 'factoids' that everyone cites as if it's safe to assume no changes whatsoever during the 3.5 weeks' lapse.

To confuse matters even further, there are the 'factoids' associated with later opinions about the damage to the tent. The most flagrant of these factoids is the presumption that certain large cuts were made from inside the tent. This started with a casual comment from a seamstress who'd seen the tent's remains displayed indoors at Ivdel(?) - after the tent had been disassembled, moved, and folded up (at the pass), transported who-knows-how-many times, thawed out, and hung up for examination in a heated environment. The seamstress's comment was based on the severed thread ends surrounding one or more of the holes seeming to be bent outward. The tenuous evidential validity of her well-meaning comment plus other factors (e.g., no discrimination between holes already in the fabric when discovered versus holes made by the search / rescue party) renders one of the most canonical 'facts' as no more than a 'factoid.'
Click to expand...

Well, thank you for this, but I clearly outlined that it's a theory, my theory, and I didn't cite any of the evidence you list as a base for it.

The base for my theory is pretty simple (and it has nothing to do with the state of the tent as found by the end of February 1959):

There is no rational reason for the group not to grab their shoes at least when leaving the still-accessible tent for a -40 °C outside. So to my mind, the only reason imaginable (unless there was a third party involved) is the tent was not accessible anymore.

That's all.

Of course, we can question the validity of many of the hard facts that may or may not be as hard as they are presented, but I'm not sure how that takes us anywhere. Even if the forensic experts were not able to heed the time that elapsed between February 1st and the end of the month (which I doubt), even if the seamstress (who definitely knows more about fabric and its qualities than me) wasn't able to differentiate between cuts made by the research party and the ones she (and presumably the forensic experts as well) identified as the already present by the time the research party arrived, how does that change the fact that the tent no longer accessible is the most obvious explanation for why they left unshod?

I feel that spending time on questioning the only facts we have as factoids leads us to negative sub-factoids only.
 
Denion said:
Well, thank you for this, but I clearly outlined that it's a theory, my theory, and I didn't cite any of the evidence you list as a base for it. ...
Click to expand...

I apologize if I gave the impression I was criticizing your theory / interpretation specifically. That was not my intention.

I simply wanted to post a general reminder that all the speculations (my own included ... ) are to some extent an exercise in treading on thin ice. The set of available evidence and allegedly 'hard' facts is sparse, and the bits are not sufficiently inter-connected to support confidence about what could have happened, much less what actually did happen.
 
Naughty_Felid said:
So what are the theories?
Click to expand...
Oh wow that is such a big question taking so few words lol, as i have said before, if you havent already, and have a few days free i highly recommend reading this entire thread from the beginning (took me 3 days)
The theories range as widely as aliens, yeti attack, native peoples attack, weapons testing, cyclones, madness, stupidity and a host of others.
 
Last edited:
Naughty_Felid said:
If their safety and comfort would have been to ski a short distance then why didn't they? That would suggest one or more couldnt or wouldnt. Why would that be the case?
Click to expand...

If there's an answer at all, I suspect it has more to do with the group's situational decision making and dynamics than with tactical responses to immediate environmental conditions.

For example ... Sam Ruger's detailed hypotheses involve the group's having relied on precise route planning and compass orientation while on the march, and he explains the fatal decision to pitch camp atop the pass in terms of being unable to continue with a rigid orienteering approach to steering the group. Secondarily, he alludes to a possible decision making adjustment for which general route (high versus low road) the group had elected to pursue.

I think this latter type of situational - and quite possibly social / interpersonal - factor had more to do with causing the tragedy than the former. It seems to me something about their planning changed between 30 January and 1 February, it may well have changed more than once, and it may not have changed for the last time until they were atop the pass on 1 February.
 
EnolaGaia said:
I apologize if I gave the impression I was criticizing your theory / interpretation specifically. That was not my intention.
Click to expand...

No need for apology. I didn't take it as a personal attack. I just thought it didn't apply to me. :)

EnolaGaia said:
I simply wanted to post a general reminder that all the speculations (my own included ... ) are to some extent an exercise in treading on thin ice. The set of available evidence and allegedly 'hard' facts is sparse, and the bits are not sufficiently inter-connected to support confidence about what could have happened, much less what actually did happen.
Click to expand...

I stand reminded!

Of course. Plus, we tend to imagine the scenario too non-fluent, linear, and way too hung up on the hard evidence as if everything that needed to take place rotated around the center of the universe we call the hard facts.

Even my theory has its caveats. One being Zolotarev's camera. If a collapsed tent made boots, sleeping bags, and, in some cases, jackets impossible to reach, how did Zolo retrieve his camera? If he took it before the tent collapsed, what did he take it for? To relieve himself, or to fix the tent? In a blizzard?

That, of course, makes this case so interesting. Every theory I have come across so far has a glaring weakness.
 
Souleater said:
Oh wow that is such a big question taking so few words lol, as i have said before, if you havent already, and have a few days free i highly recommend reading this entire thread from the beginning (took me 3 days)
The theories range as widely as aliens, yeti attack, native peoples attack, weapons testing, cyclones, madness, stupidity and a host of others.
Click to expand...

I've been here for years and then some as a lurker, former lost incarnation. I'm aware of most of the common theories but couldn't quite remember the exact reason they put themselves into danger.
 
Ok.

They had this tent which seems not to be in very good condition.

Which they were using for a trip in -40.

Does this mean?

They couldnt get a better tent?
They had sufficient outdoor skills to be confident they could survive if the tent failed them?
Even if say, in event of sudden tent failure at night in a blizzard (worse case scenario)?
 
Kondoru said:
Ok.

They had this tent which seems not to be in very good condition.

Which they were using for a trip in -40.

Does this mean?

They couldnt get a better tent?
They had sufficient outdoor skills to be confident they could survive if the tent failed them?
Even if say, in event of sudden tent failure at night in a blizzard (worse case scenario)?
Click to expand...
According the the accounts, they had used the tent on previous expeditions and the weather up to the day before they attemped their first ascent of (what is now known as) Dyatlov Pass, was not comparitively cold, there was a huge depression that unexpectedly decended on the pass taking them by suprise, according to the account of a nearby geological expedition.
 
Kondoru said:
They couldnt get a better tent?
Click to expand...
I reckon this was very probably the case - the Soviet economy was never really geared towards producing consumer goods. Even when some such goods emerged, the quality was often lacking, and service items were very often non-existent. There's a line from, I think, Sheila Fitzpatrick which goes something like "the number of Soviet citizens who could claim to have a piano or motorbike or record player far outweighed the number who could claim to have a working item." So the fact that the tent was far from new, and indeed converted to accommodate more people seems entirely unnoteworthy in this context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top