• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Saw that a while back... not sure if it's right.. but would I ever be sure?

Short version: the hikers accidentally caused an avalanche in a location that would normally not have an avalanche. Or so the computer simulations claim.
 
I'm just amazed at the level of detail we're able to collectively round up and discuss. This thread alone, if printed, would be a really decent book.

On another note, something I like to keep in mind when delving into mysteries is that any collective set of facts/evidence surrounding an event will contain mysterious circumstances and unintentional red herrings. EG: If you entered a time machine and travelled back to the February 1959 Ural Mountains to watch events play out, my money says it wouldn't be that intriguing; save to explain the mysteries that we ourselves created.
 
... EG: If you entered a time machine and travelled back to the February 1959 Ural Mountains to watch events play out, my money says it wouldn't be that intriguing; save to explain the mysteries that we ourselves created.

An excellent and eloquent summary, in my opinion!

Humans screw up, and screw-ups executed in risky / dangerous circumstances can get you killed. This potential is compounded when the situation involves a group of people, owing to the influence of interpersonal and social dynamics.

As I've noted elsewhere the cases I find most fascinating are the ones in which some chain of events and / or inexplicable decisions led to outcomes that no one can explain without invoking some paranormal / supernatural influence.

This is not to say I dismiss paranormal / supernatural effects out of hand. I've seen or experienced enough situations where I (sometimes with others) could have ended up dead in inexplicable circumstances to understand that self-made catastrophe can be even more mysterious than catastrophe forced upon one by external agencies.

The deeper I dug into the Dyatlov case the more it became apparent the trekkers attempted to save themselves (building a fire; digging a snow den). At least some of them were acting rationally after leaving the group's tent. The primary problem is figuring out why they abandoned the tent in the first place. Most folks have concentrated on this problem to the exclusion of other issues, and I think that's a mistake.

There are many secondary problems that complicate the scenario - many of which are caused by assuming the canonical storyline* must be the way events played out.

* By 'canonical storyline' I mean the plot reflecting certain assumptions such as:

- the group always acted together as a group during the final / fatal course of events;
- the group remained "one big happy family" after pitching the tent on the mountainside;
- they all abandoned the tent at the same time;
- the tent had partially or wholly collapsed prior to their abandoning it;
- they all arrived in the valley below together;
- the three sets of bodies represented three sub-groups that emerged only after the whole group arrived in the valley; and
- all this happened in a short burst of activity on the first night after pitching the tent.

IMHO none of these presumptions represent clear-cut and definite facts.
 
I have watched the first part of the documentary and have some confusion that, I think, arrives from the Russian to English sub-title translations. The first thing that throws me off is the use of the word "criminal" when referring to the case. Is this a general translation that could also possibly mean "investigation"? I don't understand what the Dyatlov Foundation curator(?) is saying when he points out that a "criminal case was opened 4 days after the deaths". That is, if I am not missing something that was maybe not translated in the sub-titles. What is the "criminal" part of the case?

Beautiful scenery and amazing that the 9 hikers did the trek by foot when you see the problems that the people with all of the big equipment transport have, also taking into consideration that the documentary was not attempted in the middle of winter.
 
I have watched the first part of the documentary and have some confusion that, I think, arrives from the Russian to English sub-title translations. The first thing that throws me off is the use of the word "criminal" when referring to the case. Is this a general translation that could also possibly mean "investigation"? I don't understand what the Dyatlov Foundation curator(?) is saying when he points out that a "criminal case was opened 4 days after the deaths". That is, if I am not missing something that was maybe not translated in the sub-titles. What is the "criminal" part of the case? ...

As far as I know the allusion to "criminal" simply means a legal / inquest case was opened. A formal inquest was held after the investigation was completed.
 
There are many secondary problems that complicate the scenario - many of which are caused by assuming the canonical storyline* must be the way events played out.

- - -

IMHO none of these presumptions represent clear-cut and definite facts.
I forget where I heard it but some time ago I heard a line that went something like: The big picture is really just a whole bunch of little pictures. You can't get the big picture unless you look at ALL of the little ones.

I guess the sentiment is that the whole story is like a massive mosaic or one of those 3-dimensional puzzles. If you don't know what the peices of the "puzzle" look like... the big picture is just a blurry shadow.
 
As far as I know the allusion to "criminal" simply means a legal / inquest case was opened. A formal inquest was held after the investigation was completed.
Oh also, one of the many questions that has been asked about the case: Were they murdered?

It's a very important question to see answered. It's a question that... (un-officially) is undetermined to this day.
 
Oh also, one of the many questions that has been asked about the case: Were they murdered?

It's a very important question to see answered. It's a question that... (un-officially) is undetermined to this day.
The cause of death for each of the victims is listed in the pathology reports somewhere in this thread, it would be impossible to determine whether those that were found with blunt force injuries in the creek were caused by being pushed or by falling, my guess would be falling as there is no evidence of a motive for any of the victims to have commited murder.
 
For me, this tragic and sad incident is all explained in here -

1619690702906.png


I'm convinced he's got to the answer.

It is also a brilliant piece of investigative journalism which digs deep, speaks to the right people and never forgets that there is a very human tragedy at the heart of it.
 
Last edited:
The cause of death for each of the victims is listed in the pathology reports somewhere in this thread, it would be impossible to determine whether those that were found with blunt force injuries in the creek were caused by being pushed or by falling, my guess would be falling as there is no evidence of a motive for any of the victims to have commited murder.
Sure... no motive for them to have killed each other. But that's only one of several possibilities. The reason to investigate was to ascertain if there were signs of other parties being involved... and there are.

Several are actually aspects of the case that are quite famous, such as Lyudmila's diary. There's 3 reasons to suspect it may have been tampered with by someone else. Wrong handwriting in the final entry(Lyudmila may have been tasked with maintaining the trip log because she has very good handwriting, the final entry is TERRIBLE handwriting), pages torn out, but most important is the fact that most of the diary is a log book and not personal thoughts. The final entry is semi-nonsensical rambling about being scared of.... something, but it doesn't really even say what. Who wrote that and why?
For me, this tragic and sad incident is all explained in here -

I'm convinced he's got to the answer.

It is also a brilliant piece of investigative journalism which digs deep, speaks to the right people and never forgets that there is a very human tragedy at the heart of it.
Heard of it, but all the summaries of that work that I've seen make me question why people like it. So... what aspects of it are there that you like?
 
... Several are actually aspects of the case that are quite famous, such as Lyudmila's diary. ... The final entry is semi-nonsensical rambling about being scared of.... something, but it doesn't really even say what. Who wrote that and why? ...

Did some quick searching around and found this English translation but the final entry is Jan 28th and nothing mentioned along the lines of being scared. Perhaps my search was too brief? Could you post the entry that you're referencing?

"28th of January. This morning at eight o'clock, we were woken by voices. It was Yura Kri and Sashka Kole that were mumbling. It isn't colder than yesterday (minus five).
After breakfast, one part of the group, Yura Yudin, Kolya, and Yura Doroschenko went to the core sample storage to pick up some rocks for their collection. They didn't find anything in the rocks save for some pyrite and a few veins of quartz.
They prepared for a long time, adjusting the binds of their skis and waxing them."​
 
Did some quick searching around and found this English translation but the final entry is Jan 28th and nothing mentioned along the lines of being scared. Perhaps my search was too brief? Could you post the entry that you're referencing?

"28th of January. This morning at eight o'clock, we were woken by voices. It was Yura Kri and Sashka Kole that were mumbling. It isn't colder than yesterday (minus five).
After breakfast, one part of the group, Yura Yudin, Kolya, and Yura Doroschenko went to the core sample storage to pick up some rocks for their collection. They didn't find anything in the rocks save for some pyrite and a few veins of quartz.
They prepared for a long time, adjusting the binds of their skis and waxing them."​
hunh, I just tried looking it up and failed... weird.. :/
 
hunh, I just tried looking it up and failed... weird.. :/

I'm not sure which diary and / or diary keeper you're referring to ...

Each of the trekkers was encouraged to keep a personal journal or notebook. Some made the effort (at least for a while) and some didn't.

Of the personal ones recovered, only some of them contained daily summaries and / or contained entries for the last two days (31 January / 1 February). Dubinina's personal journal ends with the entry for 28 January (as noted above).

They also kept a group diary, which was compiled and entered at the end of the day. A different person made these group diary entries each day. It seems they progressively relied on compiling the group diary at the expense of keeping their individual personal diaries.
 
Heard of it, but all the summaries of that work that I've seen make me question why people like it. So... what aspects of it are there that you like?

It's a great piece of investigative journalism. The author digs deep. It is sympathetic and respectful to the poor kids involved. And the "explanation" he concludes seems very sensible and believable to me.
 
hunh, I just tried looking it up and failed... weird.. :/
I heard the reference to the comment of her being scared in part one of the link that you gave us in post #1023. The reference was supposedly part of the diary that the Foundation curator read out. It seemed that he was using it to indicate that there are questions as to if murder was involved.
 
I heard the reference to the comment of her being scared in part one of the link that you gave us in post #1023. The reference was supposedly part of the diary that the Foundation curator read out. It seemed that he was using it to indicate that there are questions as to if murder was involved.
Hmm yeah, it's something I've heard multiple times. It's a bit odd to try looking at it and not finding a proper source though.
 
Hmm that's a more interesting telling of the political side of it than I can recall seeing before. But the Kuryakov solution... while possible, seems unlikely to be correct. One of the things mentioned most often is that the footprints leading away from the tent were not people running. Wouldn't you do that if you're trying to escape an avalanche?
 
Occam's Razor.

Sure...it could be aliens, or yetis, or secret Russian experimental death rays.

Alternatively that these kids were caught in some really horrid, unusual weather conditions in a very dangerous location. They got confused, terrified, injured. Couldn't pull things together again and died.


A fascinating story I think and, as is nearly always the case, with a mundane (if unusual) explanation.
 
Last edited:
There are elements of Kuryakov's solution that might be valid, but there are even more elements and assumptions in his version of events that make no sense. Above and beyond this, there are certain aspects of his description of what was eventually discovered that are clearly wrong (e.g., that the 4 bodies at the "ravine" died in the snow den that had been dug).

The idea that the trekkers rushed down-slope to take shelter at one of the bands / ridges of rocks below presumes (among other things) they were too stupid to seek shelter outside the likely path of any imminent avalanche, and I don't believe that for an instant.

To complicate matters even more, the entire Kuryakov investigation turned into its own soap opera / circus that resulted in Kuryakov (and others) being censured or removed from their posts and fostering a lot of claims this investigation (and alleged case closure) was merely an administrative exercise "for show" without any real investigation / review ever having been done. For more on this check the articles available at:

https://dyatlovpass.com
 
An update of sorts ... Two Swiss researchers - specialists in alpine weather, snow conditions and avalanches - were invited to investigate the Dyatlov Pass incident. They did so, and published their findings in 2021. Long story short - they found evidence that gave them confidence an avalanche event of some sort was entirely possible and probably served as the initial crisis in the party's disastrous chain of events.

Here is the article summarizing the Swiss researchers' first investigation and their 2021 findings.

Using science to explore a 60-year-old Russian mystery

Researchers from EPFL and ETH Zurich have conducted an original scientific study that puts forth a plausible explanation for the mysterious 1959 death of nine hikers in the Ural Mountains in the former Soviet Union. The tragic Dyatlov Pass Incident, as it came to be called, has spawned a number of theories, from murderous Yeti to secret military experiments. ...
SOURCE / FULL ARTICLE: https://actu.epfl.ch/news/using-science-to-explore-a-60-year-old-russian-mys/


Here are the bibliographic details and abstract from the published report on the 2021 findings. The full report is accessible at the link below.


Gaume, J., Puzrin, A.M.
Mechanisms of slab avalanche release and impact in the Dyatlov Pass incident in 1959.
Commun Earth Environ 2, 10 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00081-8

Abstract
The Dyatlov Pass incident is an intriguing unsolved mystery from the last century. In February 1959, a group of nine experienced Russian mountaineers perished during a difficult expedition in the northern Urals. A snow avalanche hypothesis was proposed, among other theories, but was found to be inconsistent with the evidence of a lower-than-usual slope angle, scarcity of avalanche signs, uncertainties about the trigger mechanism, and abnormal injuries of the victims. The challenge of explaining these observations has led us to a physical mechanism for a slab avalanche caused by progressive wind-blown snow accumulation on the slope above the hikers’ tent. Here we show how a combination of irregular topography, a cut made in the slope to install the tent and the subsequent deposition of snow induced by strong katabatic winds contributed after a suitable time to the slab release, which caused severe non-fatal injuries, in agreement with the autopsy results.

SOURCE / FULL REPORT: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00081-8
 
The 2021 article and report stirred up considerable controversy - especially among researchers personally committed to one or another theory of what happened in 1959. The Swiss researchers then undertook a second round of investigatory visits to Dyatlov Pass. The results of this follow-on effort left them convinced their claims that avalanches were entirely possible at the scene in 1959 were viable.

Here's the article describing the follow-on work and their conclusions in light of this second round.

Intense press coverage prompts new expeditions to Dyatlov Pass

In 2021, professors Johan Gaume from EPFL and Alexander Puzrin from ETH Zurich conducted a study that attempted to explain the gruesome fate which befell a group of hikers in the Ural Mountains. The press coverage of their findings was so intense that it had significant impact on their lives and prompted further expeditions to Dyatlov Pass, which confirmed the occurrence of avalanches. ...
FULL STORY: https://actu.epfl.ch/news/intense-press-coverage-prompts-new-expeditions-to-/

Here are the bibliographic details and introduction / abstract paragraphs from the newly published (2022) report. The full report is accessible at the link below.


Puzrin, A.M., Gaume, J.
Post-publication careers: follow-up expeditions reveal avalanches at Dyatlov Pass.
Commun Earth Environ 3, 63 (2022).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00393-x

Our 2021 study in Communications Earth & Environment1 shows that a snow slab avalanche is a plausible explanation of the 1959 Dyatlov Pass incident. It was published on 28 January 2021—exactly 62 years after a party of Russian mountaineers led by Igor Dyatlov set out on their skiing expedition from the abandoned North-2 mining settlement in Ural mountains, never to be seen again. The mystery had drawn much attention over the years; several investigations in Russia, stretching from 1959 to 2020, were not entirely conclusive.

The media echo to our article motivated us to continue investigating, and brought us in contact with some incredible people: a brilliant Swiss documentary director, a leading snow scientist from the Moscow State University and two heroic mountain guides from the Urals. In the year since publication of our article, we helped them to organize three successful expeditions to the Dyatlov Pass. The direct evidence from the Dyatlov Pass area obtained in those expeditions confirms that the region is avalanche prone and that slopes above the location where Igor Dyatlov and his group pitched their tent are steep enough for avalanches to release. Independent research by Russian snow and climate scientists supported assumptions and the main results of our slab avalanche modeling. ...

SOURCE / FULL REPORT: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00393-x
 
EnolaGaia, in years past you dug quite deeply into the remnants of the tent, the stitching, tearing, etc. Could any type of avalanche be congruent with your findings? Does it explain the exodus and wounds (save for animal predation)?
 
Well, obviously I'm not EnolaGaia, but the main argument against... is that... those who first examined the site saw no sign of avalanche.

I checked out all the photos I could find and yeah.... doesn't look like a tent that got smushed by an avalanche. Seriously, some of the poles are still erect. It's not fully erect, but the group apparently exited the tent by cutting it open from the inside. That method of leaving the tent would partially collapse it.

Also, there must be the question asked: "Where did those who were injured get injured?" See, IF they left the tent due to the tent getting smooshed, then in that scenario the injuries would be part of the tent getting smushed. Does the line of footprints match injured people? I'd say no. Which then leads to a follow up question: how did they get injured AFTER leaving the tent?

One possibility is that they left because they heard what they thought was an avalanche, then were unable to return due to an actual avalanche? But... if so, why do it nearly naked? Yeah sure "didn't have time to get dressed" works, but doesn't explain not even picking up clothes to put on later. These were experienced hikers. They'd have known there was 0% chance of survival in that weather while undressed. No way they'd have gotten out of bed and left their clothes unless they thought they'd die if they didn't. Getting out of bed and out of the tent and not even grabbing your jacket on the way out?

I could be plausible if they all died of cold, but they didn't.
 
Well, obviously I'm not EnolaGaia, but the main argument against... is that... those who first examined the site saw no sign of avalanche.

I checked out all the photos I could find and yeah.... doesn't look like a tent that got smushed by an avalanche. Seriously, some of the poles are still erect. It's not fully erect, but the group apparently exited the tent by cutting it open from the inside. That method of leaving the tent would partially collapse it.

Also, there must be the question asked: "Where did those who were injured get injured?" See, IF they left the tent due to the tent getting smooshed, then in that scenario the injuries would be part of the tent getting smushed. Does the line of footprints match injured people? I'd say no. Which then leads to a follow up question: how did they get injured AFTER leaving the tent?

One possibility is that they left because they heard what they thought was an avalanche, then were unable to return due to an actual avalanche? But... if so, why do it nearly naked? Yeah sure "didn't have time to get dressed" works, but doesn't explain not even picking up clothes to put on later. These were experienced hikers. They'd have known there was 0% chance of survival in that weather while undressed. No way they'd have gotten out of bed and left their clothes unless they thought they'd die if they didn't. Getting out of bed and out of the tent and not even grabbing your jacket on the way out?

I could be plausible if they all died of cold, but they didn't.
Clothes and other belongings were absolutely buried, perhaps? The group barely makes it out of the tent alive, and howling winds soon overtook any and all efforts to dig out the tent with their bare hands? Exited into the valley looking for cover, only to realize the brutal truth that their only way out was to indeed form a small retrieval group to brave the winds and dig the tent. Re-approched the tent some hours later only to succumb to the elements on their way up. Plenty of guesses but very few fully account for the clues we have.
 
Clothes and other belongings were absolutely buried, perhaps? The group barely makes it out of the tent alive, and howling winds soon overtook any and all efforts to dig out the tent with their bare hands? Exited into the valley looking for cover, only to realize the brutal truth that their only way out was to indeed form a small retrieval group to brave the winds and dig the tent. Re-approched the tent some hours later only to succumb to the elements on their way up. Plenty of guesses but very few fully account for the clues we have.
This requires the tent to be buried in snow, but it apparently wasn't.

One thing we know is that they had a night watch. In fact, we know that the night watch was taking photos of the night sky shortly before... stuff happened.

This is seemingly why one member is clothed. It was the current watch who was dressed. Also, if there's enough snow covering the tent to prevent them from getting their clothes out of the tent.... how would they exit the tent themselves? the manner of cutting the tent is consistent with a tent that's still standing.
 
EnolaGaia, in years past you dug quite deeply into the remnants of the tent, the stitching, tearing, etc. Could any type of avalanche be congruent with your findings? Does it explain the exodus and wounds (save for animal predation)?

There are too many unknowns and too many variables to claim there's a single definitive answer. Having said that, here are some broad-strokes things I think I believe ...

As I've stated before, I'm not convinced there was a single catastrophic event that motivated everyone to abandon the tent all at once. All we know is that all of them apparently followed the same path (set of tracks) down into the valley below. Neither can we claim with any certainty that the party abandoned the tent during that first night at the site. Combining these two points, we can't even claim with certainty that the later / final trek(s) down into the valley occurred in the dark.

As to one of the points Marhawkman mentioned ... Take a look at the photo(s) of the party digging a place to erect the tent in white-out conditions. Then look at the photos of the tent site as it was found by the searchers 3.5 weeks later. One thing is quite apparent - there's less snow depth later than there was when the tent was erected. Also, the searchers had no trouble locating and following the trail of footprints down into the valley.

My point is that the fierce winter winds had plenty of time to scour the snowpack at the tent site and farther downslope. As such, I'm not sure how reliably one could claim there'd been no mass movement of snow down-slope - particularly if it had been anything short of an epic avalanche.

There are different levels / degrees of "avalanche" events. I tend to doubt there was a single massive avalanche (of the epic variety). For one thing, a major avalanche wouldn't have left the tent and its contents in as good a shape as they were when found. I doubt either end of the tent would have remained upright. Neither would it have afforded the trekkers the ability to escape if they'd been heavily buried.

On the other hand, I've never had any problem with the notion there'd been a smaller "snow slip" event in the area immediately around the tent.

Bear in mind that the major damage to the tent was concentrated on its down-slope side - i.e., the side *away from* any sliding / cascading snow movement.

Also bear in mind that the most "official" documentation that even mentions one of Dyatlov's jackets being stuffed into a hole in the tent fabric near the entrance states that the hole into which the jacket was stuffed was on the up-slope (relatively undamaged) side of the tent.

One of the biggest deficiencies in the evidentiary record is a total lack of descriptions or photos of the relatively less damaged up-slope side of the tent.

BOTTOM LINE: I don't rule out a modest snow slip or snow slide event occurring, but IMHO it clearly couldn't have been a single-point catastrophe.

More to come ...
 
Some more comments ...

A flashlight was found near the (upright) entrance end of the tent, sitting atop the sloping canvas. I don't believe it could have stayed in place atop the tent if the tent had been hit broadside by a huge amount of snow.

Dyatlov's jacket was stuffed into a hole in the upper tent (sloping roof part) on the up-slope side of the still-erect entrance end of the tent. How did the jacket get stuffed into / through the hole if there was a mass of snow butting up against the tent there? And what sense would it make to even consider stuffing a jacket into a relatively minor hole if the rest of the tent was collapsed and / or shredded?

The stuffed jacket strikes me as a clue that the tent was failing (e.g., ripping as a result of buffeting from the fierce winds that first night) prior to its collapsing. Which leads to ...

There's no solid reason to believe the tent collapsed (into the state it was in when discovered 3.5 weeks later) before either the first or last members of the party abandoned it for the valley below. It could have finally (or progressively) collapsed at any time(s) during that 3.5 week interval.

Edit to Add:

Just because the tent was found mostly snow-covered 3.5 weeks later doesn't necessarily mean the covering snow had slid or tumbled onto it 3.5 weeks earlier.
 
Last edited:
Now ... Regarding the injuries and their possible relationship with an avalanche scenario.

I don't believe the most significant injuries were the result of being hit or (at least partially) buried by a snow slip / snow slide event at the tent site. I think the major injuries all happened down in the valley, at either the cedar / campfire site or the den / ravine site.

For example, there's no way Dubinina could have made the 1.5 km trek downslope to the forest area with a lacerated heart. Her injuries are more than adequately explained by falling at least 6 to 9 feet onto rocks in the "ravine" and then having 3 adult males fall in on top of her - i.e., exactly the situation in which her body was found.
 
Back
Top