• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
from http://web.archive.org/web/201312032337 ... topsy.html


Semen Zolotarev was found with two hats, scarf, short, long sleeve shirt, black sweater and a coat with two upper buttons unbuttoned. It was fairly clear that the guy didn't die from the coldness. On the contrary the den was pretty warm place for him. His lower part of the body was protected by underwear, two pairs of pants and a pair of skiing pants. He had a copy of newspapers, several coins, compass, and other few items. His legs were protected by a pair of socks and a pair of warm leather hand made shoes known as "burka". They probably couldn't keep him warm for a long time, but in the den it was sufficient in keeping the man alive. Additionally the body of Zolotarev had a camera around his neck as it it clearly seen on the pictures. We should add that this camera became a complete surprise to Yury Yudin. He assumed the group had only four cameras that were found in the tent. And all of the sudden a fifth camera turned out on the body. Unfortunately melting water damaged the film. But the question still lingers. Why did Zolotarev left the tent with the camera and why did he take two cameras to the trip? One was used on daily basis and everyone saw it. It was left in the tent and discovered there by the search party, but another was hidden throughout a journey and was found only after Semen Zolotarev have died.

By far the most prepared for the night stroll down to the valley....pretty well dressed...newspaper not used to light a fire...money for a beer in the pub, and a mysterious new camera ready at hand around the neck!!?
 
All very strange indeed! EnolaGaia? It just gets odder and odder.
 
feinman said:
Great research! So, what do YOU think happened to these folks? Yes you can say "I don't know", or "Maybe they were attacked by the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (but please don't) :D

The only thing I'm reasonably confident in believing is that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was the result of a combination of events and poor decisions (quite possibly under duress) that doomed the party without any external influence. The real mystery is what scenario unfolded ...

Over the years I've played around with this puzzle I keep coming back to a small set of apparent facts:

- On 1 February the party set out from their last campsite (in the valley to the southeast) to cross the pass and camp in the valley beyond (the same valley into which they fled and died).

- They got a late start and made less progress than expected (this much is evident from the last diary entries). They were quite likely more exhausted than they'd been to that point, and I wouldn't be surprised if nerves were frayed.

*NOTE: As I'd previously commented in this thread, I'm still mystified as to why they didn't simply ski down-slope to the tree cover in the valley once they'd attained the pass. It was only about a kilometer, all downhill, and they were already on skis. It shouldn't have taken long to go the extra distance ...

- They found themselves on the exposed flank of the mountain in snowstorm conditions (as the last photos demonstrate) as daylight was failing. Visibility wasn't all that good. They picked a site directly down-slope from the primary peak - an odd choice I suspect was motivated by a combination of frustration and nominal protection from the west winds.

- They never assembled the little stove that was their only heat source. Indeed, some accounts claim they weren't carrying any fuel for it because they'd planned to be camping that night in the valley. (Some searchers claimed no firewood was present; one or more others claimed to have found a single log.)

*NOTE: Other accounts claim Dyatlov's last-minute replanning (back at the village from which they'd set out) would have had them stay above the treeline and proceed toward Mount Ortoten on a 'high road' path.

- All interpretations seem to agree they were not prepared to make the rest of the trip without obtaining additional fuel, even if they had to make side trips off the ridge line to get it.

Beyond this, we cross into the realm of pure speculation. The scenario I currently favor goes like this ...

I tend to think the conditions were bad enough that getting fuel and starting a fire became a priority. This crisis point may not have happened until the following day (we know they all died circa 6-8 hours after the final meal, but it's merely assumed the last meal was the one noted in the last journal entry).

Two of the party (Zolotarev and Thibeaux-Brignolle) set out to the valley below to get fuel. They were fully clothed and had boots.

They hadn't returned by the time either (a) a snow-slip collapsed the tent; (b) something other than an actual snow-impact (e.g., noise) convinced everyone else an avalanche was occurring or imminent; or (c) everyone at the tent was already in the throes of early hypothermia.

Either out of panic or hypothermic delusion, the rest of the party descended to the valley (to the cedar tree site) and tried to start a fire. They succeeded, but couldn't keep the fire going.

I believe Zolotarev and Thibeaux-Brignolle built the den down in the valley (70 -75 meters from the cedar tree). Its construction seemed too 'rational' to have been done by the under-clothed others. I have no opinion on whether they built it before the others descended off the mountain or afterward. It might have been that either (a) they concluded they weren't going to make it back to the tent soon or (b) one or both of them suffered some of their (impact / compression) injuries and took emergency action to survive in place.

There's no clear evidence that Zolotarev and Thibeaux-Brignolle were ever at the cedar tree with the others. They were so well-clothed (with their own clothing) that one has to wonder why none of their clothing was given to anyone else if they'd been with the ill-clothed others. The bodies of these two were not noted as showing any burns (to either flesh or clothing), as were noted for all the other 7 bodies (except Slobodin).

Two died and were left at the cedar tree. The three who died climbing back toward the tent and Dubinina had articles of clothing from the two left there.

Dubinina and Kolevatov were found with Zolotarev and Thibeaux-Brignolle, but not inside the den. Both had substantial injuries. Both were under-clothed and / or wearing articles of clothing from the two already dead.

I tend to think the later ill-clothed party gave up and split up at the cedar tree. Three of them (including Dyatlov) set out to get back to the tent, but never made it.

Dubinina and Kolevatov were too badly injured to go with them. These two were either left in the care of Zolotarev and Thibeaux-Brignolle (if the later party had even found them ...), or subsequently found (or were found by ...) the two well-clothed guys.

Some clothing from the cedar tree dead was found in the den (not on any body). This doesn't prove that Zolotarev and Thibeaux-Brignolle were at the cedar tree; it only proves that Dubinina and Kolevatov weren't wearing all the available clothes at the time they died.

At this point, I need to introduce a disturbing possibility ... If Zolotarev and Thibeaux-Brignolle had taken up shelter (possibly already injured) at the den some 70 - 75 m from the cedar tree, the two sub-groups might never have interacted until after the events at the cedar tree (2 dead; 3 departed for the tent).

One reason for entertaining this notion is that the two best-clothed persons were not the ones who attempted to climb back to the tent site. Another is the odd way the cedar tree scene indicated chaotic behavior and panic, whereas the den scene didn't show any such signs.

One possibility is that Zolotarev and Thibeaux-Brignolle discovered Dubinina and Kolevatov and tried to get them to shelter in the den. At some point one or more (maybe all) those four left the den and fell into the 'ravine' where they were all found. Any remaining ones died trying to help the one(s) who'd fallen into the 'ravine'.

As I indicated above, this is simply the nth scenario I've considered, and the one with which I'm most comfortable.
 
An additional point ...

I've recently brought up the notion that maybe they didn't leave the tent until the following day. Here's why ...

The cedar tree was not just any old tree among all the others in the forest. It was a venerable cedar that stood prominently among the others. It was noted as a landmark by the searchers who were looking for a campsite the day after locating the tent. The searchers approached the tree owing to its prominence, and only then discovered the scene / bodies beneath it.

This cedar tree was also prominently visible from the tent site (as noted in the reports).

Isn't it a bit too coincidental that the Dyatlov group tried to set up an emergency site under this same prominent tree?

What if the Dyatlov group agreed on the prominent cedar as their rendezvous / objective when leaving the tent? In other words - what if the cedar had been as obvious a landmark to them as it would prove to be for the searchers?

If so - how had they ever seen it? Visibility was low when they first arrived. As noted earlier, there was only a waxing new moon, and it didn't rise until close to morning. Unless the weather cleared to afford incredibly good visibility by starlight alone, I don't see how they could have seen it.

This point (admittedly all too speculative ...) has always bugged me ...

The ill-clothed group could have seen and oriented toward the cedar if they didn't leave the tent until at least dawn, by which time they could have eaten again.
 
Thanks EnolaGaia. The more I think about that incident, the sadder it makes me, because of all of the suffering and panic, regardless of what happened. You have obviously thought about it for a long time. Do you think the burns were sustained while trying to warm themselves by the fire?
 
feinman said:
... Do you think the burns were sustained while trying to warm themselves by the fire?

My _guess_ is 'Yes', with one exception ...

The group's journal noted that one member fell on or into a fire earlier in the expedition (maybe back at the village they started from; I don't remember). So there's at least one member who probably had skin or clothing burns from an earlier day.

I know from personal experience that when you think you're freezing to death you'll readily stay so close to a fire you'll burn yourself. On one occasion I melted the soles of my shoes. On another occasion in the Boy Scouts (caught overnight in an unexpected cold snap we weren't prepared for ...) I ended up with second degree burns on my nose and face that had to be treated for months thereafter.
 
I sometimes wonder if it wasn't a completely random series of events, and nothing we'd ever guess like a snowstorm or avalanche. Something we'll never be able to understand because it's just too random.

As an example, it could have been poor communication which led to an argument, fight, or death. Perhaps a dare gone wrong and someone getting lost in the snowstorm, or maybe someone not gathering firewood because they thought someone else already had or was supposed to be doing it instead. Maybe pride or ignorance took over when they were designating tasks and magnified an existing problem. Perhaps there was a hidden jealousy plotline, unknown to the 8 other members. Maybe someone was trying to be a hero, or maybe someone had gotten seriously ill, or any combination of the things listed above (or not listed).

My point is that it doesn't have to be just 1 or 2 events, but maybe 10 or 20 smaller events. There's not enough evidence in all the world to tell us what conversations took place that night.



Evidence may stack up one way and lead to Conclusion A, but their grand plan (which never came about) could have been completely different. Example: If we assume the makeshift shelter was created by members of the team, when it could have come from passing hikers days before the tent was pitched, throwing a wrench in our whole hypothesis. Etc, etc. The Dyatlov pass incident is so mysterious that it's time to start wondering if there is at least 1 red heron.
 
EnolaGaia said:
As noted earlier, there was only a waxing new moon, and it didn't rise until close to morning.
A moon that doesn't rise till close to morning would be a waning old moon. (A new moon is by defintion waxing, and is already visible in the sky at sunset. A new moon would set sometime after the sun.)

But provided the date is known, this can be easily checked with an astronomical computer program, or something like Heavens Above. By the sound of the debate about everything else, this could be the one hard fact available about this case!
 
I've read a flashlight was found on the tent and another one down in the valley - whereabout in the valley? do we know?
 
rynner2 said:
EnolaGaia said:
As noted earlier, there was only a waxing new moon, and it didn't rise until close to morning.
A moon that doesn't rise till close to morning would be a waning old moon. (A new moon is by defintion waxing, and is already visible in the sky at sunset. A new moon would set sometime after the sun.)

But provided the date is known, this can be easily checked with an astronomical computer program, or something like Heavens Above. By the sound of the debate about everything else, this could be the one hard fact available about this case!

from earlier upthread

philomath said:
In Moscow (could not find a nearer place)

on Feb 1st 1959
moon rise was @ 01:59
moonset @ 11:23
last quarter - 42% visible

on Feb 2nd 1959
moon rise was @ 03:15
moonset @ 12:02
waning crescent - 31% visible
 
I just found it interesting that the cattle mutilations investigator also noted a correlation with that phenomenon and the moon, and also noted the odd tissue damage to those attacked beasts that were in remote areas. Of course it would be harder to be discovered and hunted down by farmers when there is less light at night --early in that phase. <edit> Okay, so it was waning? I'll have to look again.

Okay, from the researcher interviewed at Inexplicata:

"But the most important thing is the day and the phase of the moon. The phase of the moon. The moon has a major influence here. I established a moon-based period of mutilations that goes from the end of the new moon to the start of the full moon. This is to say, going throughout the waxing moon phase. We are currently in a waxing phase and I paid no attention, as I was on vacation and I took off. I came here because there had been mutilation incidents and I believed the focus was here.

Interviewer: In other words, mutilations aren’t always occurring. In ten years of research you’ve determined this to be the case.

DUP: No, there is a period of mutilations.

Interviewer: The moon must be taken into account..."
 
Human_84 said:
I sometimes wonder if it wasn't a completely random series of events, and nothing we'd ever guess like a snowstorm or avalanche. Something we'll never be able to understand because it's just too random.

As an example, it could have been poor communication which led to an argument, fight, or death. Perhaps a dare gone wrong and someone getting lost in the snowstorm, or maybe someone not gathering firewood because they thought someone else already had or was supposed to be doing it instead. Maybe pride or ignorance took over when they were designating tasks and magnified an existing problem. Perhaps there was a hidden jealousy plotline, unknown to the 8 other members. Maybe someone was trying to be a hero, or maybe someone had gotten seriously ill, or any combination of the things listed above (or not listed). ...

Agreed ... The factors that probably led to the anomalous final scene(s) were situational, and quite possibly determined by interpersonal dynamics within the group rather that some single outside influence or phenomenon.

The common hypotheses all hinge on the whole group futilely grappling with a single external disturbance (noise, avalanche, UFO, intruder(s), etc.). IMHO this is too simplistic. The real complexity lies in the differences among the members' eventual states (locations, attire) and all the possible storylines that might lead to those states.

For example ...

There could have been a jealousy element in play. Dyatlov was clearly in love with Kolmogorova (whose photo he carried). She had previously been involved with Doroshenko.

More generally, the presence of 2 women among 7 men could have been a source of all sorts of tensions and issues.

The final day's disappointing rate of progress and outcome (camped without heat in an exposed position) could easily have irritated some in the party, and it would have been Dyatlov (and his planning) that got the blame.
 
HenryFort said:
rynner2 said:
EnolaGaia said:
As noted earlier, there was only a waxing new moon, and it didn't rise until close to morning.
A moon that doesn't rise till close to morning would be a waning old moon. (A new moon is by defintion waxing, and is already visible in the sky at sunset. A new moon would set sometime after the sun.)

But provided the date is known, this can be easily checked with an astronomical computer program, or something like Heavens Above. By the sound of the debate about everything else, this could be the one hard fact available about this case!

from earlier upthread

philomath said:
In Moscow (could not find a nearer place)

on Feb 1st 1959
moon rise was @ 01:59
moonset @ 11:23
last quarter - 42% visible

on Feb 2nd 1959
moon rise was @ 03:15
moonset @ 12:02
waning crescent - 31% visible
I'm not sure whether those times are UT (GMT), or Moscow local, or what, but since the Moon has approximately the same phase seen from all round the world, I've just used HeavensAbove, still set to my location in Cornwall, to see what the moon was doing on those dates.

The Moon was west of the sun, which implies it was waning, moving east, closer to the sun.

With the lat and long of the incident, we could go further and and find local moonrise and sunrise times, but those would not allow for the local horizons, and in winter both sun and moon would be low in the sky, so the actual times could vary from the calculated ones.

Anyhow, we can agree the moon was waning.
 
philomath said:
But whichever of teh versions is true, it seems that the torch was the only item the party took with them on the descent from the campsite - a part whatever they were wearing -

A single flashlight (batteries dead; switch in the 'on' position) is the only external (outside people's pockets) artifact mentioned as having been found elsewhere than the tent site.

It's never been clear to me exactly where it was found down in the valley. It was not immediately found at either the cedar tree or the den / ravine.

IMHO the key word here is 'found'.

Absent a detailed inventory of the group's effects (which never seems to have been known or recorded) we don't know if anything else may have been carried down-slope.

We don't even know how many flashlights the group was carrying.

Only one other flashlight is mentioned - the one found in working order _on_ the tent, and the only other artifact found outside the tent.

This second flashlight sitting outside has always intrigued me. I keep returning to the notion that it was intended to be used as a beacon or signal for someone who was away from the tent.
 
rynner2 said:
EnolaGaia said:
As noted earlier, there was only a waxing new moon, and it didn't rise until close to morning.
A moon that doesn't rise till close to morning would be a waning old moon. (A new moon is by defintion waxing, and is already visible in the sky at sunset. A new moon would set sometime after the sun.) ...

You're right; my bad ... I mis-remembered the phase philomath had cited when I was composing my posting. Sorry ...

:oops:
 
I don't know... With all of Rynner2's celestial knowledge I am beginning to suspect he is an ALIEN! The only way to know for sure is to submerge him and see if he survives... :)
 
philomath said:
... also I've read that Yuri Yudin could not recognise a piece of cloth that looked like it had come from a soldier’s coat, a pair of glasses, a 10th pair of extra skis ... anybody able to confirm validity of this?

You can add the camera around Zolotarev's neck to that list ...

Yes - various accounts mention Yudin not recognizing one or another item found at the scene.

On the other hand, one might wonder how detailed a memory Yudin could (or should ...) have had for all the items carried by 9 other people. It should also be borne in mind that he wasn't addressing such issues until about a month after he'd last seen them.

I've seen mention of an alleged tenth pair of skis, but I don't remember which account(s) cited them. I don't put much stock in the 10th Skis Issue. The final photos (of them digging a place for the tent) show 9 pairs of skis standing in the snow. None of the earlier photos showing the group on the move show anyone carrying an extra pair of skis.

I've never been able to identify as many as nine pairs of skis in the photos of the search party at the tent, much less a tenth pair.
 
Here's an odd possibility I don't think I've mentioned before - tetanus ...

Doroshenko made the group journal entry for 27 January, when the party camped in an abandoned village. He wrote:

Second Severniy (Northern) is an abandoned village of geologists with total of 2025 houses. Only one is suitable for living. In complete darkness we found a village and the house. We started a fire. Several people pierced their hands with old nails.

The minimum incubation period I've seen claimed for tetanus is 3 or 4 days. The party arrived on the pass on the fifth day following the hand-piercing Doroshenko mentioned, having been very physically active in the mean time.
 
EnolaGaia said:
feinman said:
... Do you think the burns were sustained while trying to warm themselves by the fire?

My _guess_ is 'Yes', with one exception ...

The group's journal noted that one member fell on or into a fire earlier in the expedition (maybe back at the village they started from; I don't remember). So there's at least one member who probably had skin or clothing burns from an earlier day.
Yes was Rustik 1 or 2 days earlier burning his jacket with stove....
 
EnolaGaia said:
Here's an odd possibility I don't think I've mentioned before - tetanus ...

Doroshenko made the group journal entry for 27 January, when the party camped in an abandoned village. He wrote:

Second Severniy (Northern) is an abandoned village of geologists with total of 2025 houses. Only one is suitable for living. In complete darkness we found a village and the house. We started a fire. Several people pierced their hands with old nails.

The minimum incubation period I've seen claimed for tetanus is 3 or 4 days. The party arrived on the pass on the fifth day following the hand-piercing Doroshenko mentioned, having been very physically active in the mean time.

Now that's a very interesting possibility indeed..
 
[quote="EnolaGaia
On p. 156 Eichar notes a tailor examined other cuts on the tent (supposedly not made by the searchers) and states his examination supported a conclusion the cutting had been done from outside the tent. This contradicts the original report's conclusion (supported by illustrative diagrams) that the incisions had been made from inside the tent.
quote]
True, this is the statement at the end of chapter 16 but at the beginning of chapter 19 Eichar goes back to the original conclusions of outside cuts...Just a literary trick to create suspense I think.....
 
I'm curious about this "ravine" that is supposed to be responsible for some of the nasty injuries, especially to Dubinina.. Has anyone ever seen a picture of it?
I'm also curious about the frantic scrambles up the tree. Were they trying to see what was going on over at the tent? Apologies if this was previously addressed. The forum search doesn't work for me, and I'm forced to do an advanced Google search when I want to search for things here.
 
again on Dyatlov

I like the 2 EnolaGaia's posts @ 10-02-2014 00:50 and 01:05....

Impossible to say what really happened but the EnolaGaia theory seems to make sense - much more than any other I've read - and explains most (not every but most) facts....

The problem with it is that does not 'stick', it does not make a good story because it does not offer the irresistable attraction of a single "compelling natural force": whether natural or supernatural - causing a chain of event...the story of the whole team fleeing out at once in the middle of the night - for whatever reason - let's confess it - it is far more 'attractive'...

I believe in teh Dyatlov story - as in many others - there is a 'compelling force' that attract us humans towards a set of common conclusions...
"...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong" as the freethinker H. L. Mencken said...

Also the 9 tourists - from heroic romantic fighters against far superior 'forces' turn out being victims of circumstances and events they themselves created...this - again does not appeal much to most of us...
 
feinman said:
I'm curious about this "ravine" that is supposed to be responsible for some of the nasty injuries, especially to Dubinina.. Has anyone ever seen a picture of it? ...

Most of the photos at the 'den' / 'ravine' scene are relative close-ups of the pit(s) excavated to recover the bodies.

I've seen only one photo giving a general overview of the scene. The largest available version can be accessed at:

http://i2.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pi ... 227616.jpg

According to another small annotated version of this photo (whose source I cannot retrieve) this photo shows the scene as seen from the north looking southward (more or less). This means the cedar tree site is off toward the right (west), and the tent site is even farther away off-screen to the right. In other words, the photo was supposedly taken from beyond the farthest stopping place away from the tent, looking back.

This photo would have been taken in May (3 months after the incident), so the snow pack is not indicative of the scene at the time of the incident.

If you look just above the photo's center point you'll see an excavation hole or 'shelf'. To the right you'll see a rectangular pit. One of these is the 'den' (where cedar branches were laid down; where some clothing taken off the dead remained). The other is the location a few feet away where the bodies were actually found.

It's difficult to correlate this photo with the close-ups to ascertain which excavation is the den and which is the bodies' resting place. My interpretation is that the 'shelf' in the photo's center is the den, and the rectangular pit to its right is where the bodies were found.

The term 'ravine' is something of a misnomer (probably owing to translation). The 'ravine' is actually a hollow surrounding a rocky creek bed with elevated banks.

The topological maps don't agree on how many creek beds are in that immediate area. Topo maps annotated with (e.g.) the body recovery sites don't agree on the precise location of the den / 'ravine'. Taken together, these ambiguities make it difficult to correlate the den / 'ravine' site with other locations on a map.
 
feinman said:
... I'm also curious about the frantic scrambles up the tree. Were they trying to see what was going on over at the tent? ...

It's clear that at some point someone scrambled up the cedar tree. Most accounts assume this was to obtain fuel for the fire. Some branches were broken off.

This seems a little odd. There were other, smaller trees around. Why would they focus on climbing the big tree to get more wood?

Some accounts suggest it related to using the cedar tree as an observation point. This never made sense to me if one is adhering to the common hypotheses / presumptions. If they left the tent shortly after eating on the evening of 1 February, they died before dawn. There was no moonlight (if the skies were clear at all). I don't think there was anything to see from approximately a kilometer away in the dark.

On the other hand ... The notion of climbing the cedar tree to get a better vantage makes more sense if either (a) they were wanting to signal back toward (or check for a signal from ...) the tent (with a flashlight) or (b) it was daylight (e.g., the following morning).
 
"I believe Zolotarev and Thibeaux-Brignolle built the den down in the valley (70 -75 meters from the cedar tree). Its construction seemed too 'rational' to have been done by the under-clothed others. I have no opinion on whether they built it before the others descended off the mountain or afterward. It might have been that either (a) they concluded they weren't going to make it back to the tent soon or (b) one or both of them suffered some of their (impact / compression) injuries and took emergency action to survive in place."

I hadn't looked at those autopsy reports in quite a while.. The injuries are disturbing, and I see that Zolotarev's eyeballs were also missing.

What if Zolotarev and Thibeaux-Brignolle left the tent earlier to explore and photograph an unknown phenomenon, and then decided to build the den when the phenomenon became centered on the tent (those inside saw a glow and or heard a noise, and cut a slit to peer out at it). When they saw something very unusual, they decided to evacuate and take their chances in the cold night. Leaving in two groups from the tent (footprints) to maximize their safety, they regroup. Two decide to stay at the fire, and go up the tree periodically to see if the tent is safe yet. Their clothing is transfered to the others. Dubinina et al follow the path to the den, but are struck down by the phenomenon. The two who had built the den did so when they weren't in severe pain, but at the approach of Dubinina and company they go out to meet them and are injured by the phenomenon. They manage to get back inside the den where they die. The two that frantically go up the cedar tree might have been trying to escape from something near the ground (a bear would cause same response, but no bear!). The fire goes out while they seek safety in the tree, and they die. Holes in it?
 
EnolaGaia said:
feinman said:
... I'm also curious about the frantic scrambles up the tree. Were they trying to see what was going on over at the tent? ...

It's clear that at some point someone scrambled up the cedar tree. Most accounts assume this was to obtain fuel for the fire. Some branches were broken off.

This seems a little odd. There were other, smaller trees around. Why would they focus on climbing the big tree to get more wood?

Some accounts suggest it related to using the cedar tree as an observation point. This never made sense to me if one is adhering to the common hypotheses / presumptions. If they left the tent shortly after eating on the evening of 1 February, they died before dawn. There was no moonlight (if the skies were clear at all). I don't think there was anything to see from approximately a kilometer away in the dark.
On the other hand ... The notion of climbing the cedar tree to get a better vantage makes more sense if either (a) they were wanting to signal back toward (or check for a signal from ...) the tent (with a flashlight) or (b) it was daylight (e.g., the following morning).

Maybe something illuminated could indeed be seen. Just looking for a fortean explanation, but all of those weird injuries :shock:
 
Maybe they climbed the big tree to get away...from something?
 
Back
Top