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

Dyatlov Pass Incident (1959)

Waymarker said:
On a spooky note, I wouldn't like to meet that (circled) on a dark night, inside or outside a tent, whoever or whatever it is.
The pic is from a website (link below) and includes some of the Dyatlovs, date and location unknown-

Dyatlovs_zpsj1qxjacs.jpg~original

http://therealevidenceoftheparanormal.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-dyatlov-pass-accident-attack.html
Click to expand...

What's spooky about it? Its a guys face and he's sat down behind a table.
 
Waymarker said:
... The pic is from a website (link below) and includes some of the Dyatlovs, date and location unknown-
Click to expand...

I've seen that photo before, but I'm not certain about its date and location. It definitely predates their beginning their trek (afoot; on skis), and it doesn't appear on any of the film rolls recovered from the pass.

I recall seeing photos of Dyatlov and friends planning and preparing for one or another of their expeditions back at their university. This might be one of those pre-expedition photos.

On the other hand, it could be a photo of the 1959 party in the waiting area at Serov or the hotel in Ivdel.

The one problem I have with this latter interpretation is I can't fathom why they would seem to have unpacked their equipment and been working as if making an inventory or assessing things once they were 'on the road'.

My admittedly vague recollection is that when I saw this photo years ago it was in the context of pre-expedition planning, preparation, and / or packing.
 
EnolaGaia said:
I've seen that photo before, but I'm not certain about its date and location..
Click to expand...

I just came across this interesting website which includes the spooky photo in a bunch of other photos taken by the group-
https://dyatlovpass.com/camera-krivonischenko.

The caption to the spooky pic is-
Frame №12 is a very interesting "Old Flemish masters" style photo with Igor Dyatlov and Nicolai Thibeaux-Brignolle recognizable by his hat. Above Dyatlov's head hangs a mandolin.

And elsewhere is the sentence-
Dyatlov's Pass pictures start with frame №10

which would therefore indicate spooky frame No12 was taken sometime early in their fatal trip.
(Incidentally the mandolin belongs to Dyatlov group member Rustem Slobodin)
 
EnolaGaia said:
... This interpretation requires relaxing or changing a couple of elements in the 'standard interpretation' of events ...
Click to expand...

I've long been intending to outline what I see as the 'standard interpretation' projected onto the facts and clues of this case. By 'standard interpretation' I mean to denote those themes or presumptions which are evident in most all accounts of the incident, yet aren't necessarily certain given any of the myriad ambiguities or loose ends.

I do not include within this category any of the theories offered to explain what happened. I'm only focusing on the seemingly canonical points comprising the scenario to which those offering / promoting such theories are responding.

To my mind, the 10 items listed below represent the uniformly encountered features that many play upon but few, if any, have seriously questioned. With each item I include at least one cursory factoid that calls its certainty into question.

For starters:


Standard Interpretation #1: The Nine were All Happy Campers

The group photos from the early going seem to depict a lot of good-natured pleasantness, but at least some of the trekkers don't look quite so buoyant in the later photos.

Their progress wasn't as expeditious or as easy as they'd expected.

The compiled group diary seems to reflect jollity, but some individual diary entries mention fatigue, issues with others' behavior, and issues with maintaining routine team discipline. (See other items below)
 
Standard Interpretation #2: A Stable Plan

Dyatlov consulted with an experienced guy early on, who advised him of 2 options for approaching Ortoten once they'd gained the pass.

These options differed in terms of routing, amount of trekking exposed above the tree line, and locations for a cache.

A diary entry as late as 31 January indicated the original plan was in effect. Their actions on 1 February indicate this was no longer the case.
 
Standard Interpretation #3: The Trek Proceeded as Expected / Planned

Their progress was consistently delayed owing to conditions that forced them to travel through the woods rather than up the frozen river as expected.

They had increasing issues with carrying their loads, and they tried a couple of alternative tactics to try and improve their daily progress.

They had to turn back on their first attempt to ascend and cross the pass.

On 1 February they established their cache in a different location than originally planned before undertaking their second attempt at the pass.

The final placement of the tent is also consistent with a modified plan being in effect.
 
Standard Interpretation #4: The Tent was Fine Prior to the Pass

The tent - a Dyatlov innovation - had been constructed by combining two smaller tents in 1956 (3 years earlier).

The tent had been used on Dyatlov's previous winter expeditions, and I recall one mention that it had been borrowed and used by at least one other party based out of their university's ski / trekking club..

Diary entires specifically refer to sewing repairs being made to the tent on at least two different days after Yudin departed and prior to arriving at the pass.

The inquest documentation refers to numerous abrasions, scrapes, and minor cuts on the interior surfaces of the tent. Some have taken these to suggest 'hesitation marks' prior to cutting one's way out of an otherwise undamaged tent. No one seems to consider these damages could simply represent 3 years' wear and tear.
 
Standard Interpretation #5: The Trekkers were Each Fine Prior to the Pass

When Yudin left the party, his share of the group's 'cargo' was distributed among the remaining nine, increasing the weight each of them had to bear.

The diaries suggest they were working harder than expected just to make daily progress, and the entries increasingly mention they were exhausted at day's end.

They didn't build a fire pit or use the stove the last two nights (31 January / 1 February).

One of the Yuri's (I believe it was Doroshenko) fell into or across one of the campfires and badly burned his ski jacket prior to the 31st.
 
Standard Interpretation #6: The Group was Fine Prior to the Pass

The majority of these trekkers were young university students who knew each other pretty well. The oldest and most experienced person (Zolotaryev) was a late addition who joined to finalize his qualifying for the highest certification level, even though he was already rated as an instructor.

Zolotaryev was the single person who most obviously seemed to increasingly appear in the photos as if he were not having a good time.

There were two complaints in the individual diaries concerning Dyatlov individually and the males collectively acting 'rude' in a manner that displeased the two females.

One of the diaries mentions an argument on January 30, once they'd made camp. Some folks were apparently taking their rest before all group chores were accomplished (a breach of group rules). There was a dispute / argument about who should be mending the tent. Dubinina apparently didn't help with the chores, and sequestered herself in the tent until after dinner.

On January 30 a birthday celebration was staged for Kolevatov, even though it wasn't his birthday. This may have been a ploy to instill or regain good cheer and good will.

There's no record of when and why they pretty obviously changed their route plan and cache placement. Similarly, there's no evidence how unilaterally versus unanimously these decisions were made.
 
Standard Interpretation #7: Whatever Happened Happened the First Night on the Pass

It's pretty clear when they established their campsite atop the pass on February 1, and this would have been followed by a shared dinner. The times of death ascribed were all estimated based on elapsed time since last food ingestion. If they'd survived at the tent site long enough to have at least one subsequent meal, the consensus timeline falls apart.

This all-within-one-period presumption applies to the aftermath as well. There's no direct proof of the tent's state at the time any or all the trekkers left it for the last time.
 
Standard Interpretation #8: There was a Single Point Event or Stressor

There have been many theories about what happened - all of which tend to presume there was a single motive or motivating stressor that compelled them to evacuate. The confusing situation(s) suggested by the eventually discovered evidence is left as a matter for further conjecture.

I have substantial experience investigating accidents, errors, and other breakdowns. My experience has been that if the outcomes make no sense based on a single point cause you should consider multi-point causes or sequences of separate influential events. Almost no one commenting on this case has escaped the simplistic single-point-cause-and-fini approach.
 
Standard Interpretation #9: Campers Cut Their Way Out of the Tent

The fabric evidence and its analysis were equivocal at best. The damages visible in the photos don't clearly match the diagrams illustrating cuts (as opposed to tears).

The lead investigator (Ivanov) even questioned the competence and opinions of the 'expert' brought in to look at the tent.

The whole bit about the fabric being cut from the inside started with a comment from a seamstress who happened to see the tent's remains displayed in the city hall at Ivdel (scene of the tent damage photos).

The only evidence indicative of cuts versus tears would be the state of the thread ends around the various holes. These features weren't recorded at the scene; they were examined after the tent had been moved, disassembled, transported / thawed, and erected (hung) as illustrated in the damage photos.

The first searchers on the scene admittedly chopped their way into the half-buried tent, but no detailed inventory of their holes (versus pre-existing ones) was ever documented.
 
Standard Interpretation #10: The Nine Acted as a Single Unit / Group

This is perhaps the single weakest presumption made under the standard interpretation.

The nine ended up dead at three separate locations / areas in the valley.

The evidence at these 3 scenes indicates 3 distinct courses of action being executed: huddle exposed around a hoped-for fire at The Cedar; hunker down in a dug-out den to survive; and hike back up-slope to the tent.

The path of footprints readily trace-able at the pass indicates they followed the same path and often made a point to step into / onto prior footprints. This merely indicates they followed a common route down-slope. It does not prove they descended together all at one time.

Two flashlights were found outside the tent - one (still working) sitting on the tent itself, the other (switch 'on'; batteries drained) flung off to the side of the descent path above the tree line. This is consistent with an emergency plan for some to descend as an advance scout party and permit signaling between those in the valley and someone still at the tent.
 
EnolaGaia said:
..if the outcomes make no sense based on a single point cause you should consider multi-point causes or sequences of separate influential events. Almost no one commenting on this case has escaped the simplistic single-point-cause-and-fini approach.
Click to expand...

If you're saying a series of separate events combined to make them abandon the tent, can you paint a possible scenario for us?
 
I think it may have been weather related. One sweeping pile of snow rammed into the side of the tent. Another possibly hit the ones in the ravine. I'm also envisioning some kind of wind force, with almost tornadic type strength, that may have batted them around - though there's nothing to back that up; it's just my imagination.
 
Waymarker said:
If you're saying a series of separate events combined to make them abandon the tent, can you paint a possible scenario for us?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I need to clarify something ... I didn't necessarily mean multiple events causing an all-at-one-time abandonment of the tent. If one thinks of the multiple events as successive 'strikes' by Murphy's Law, these strikes could have happened at any time, not just at the beginning.

The permutations are endless. For example, make a list of hypothesized factors for 'column A', and duplicate it or make another list for 'column B'. Pick something from column A, then pick something from column B. Etc., etc.

Having said that ... There's one readily available illustrative example under the simplistic motif of 'whole group at once' - an example that was suggested at least a decade or more ago. This would have Zolotaryev and Thibeaux-Brignolle (the two reasonably-dressed guys) exiting the tent, perhaps to check out something that had already occurred or started (e.g., a light in the sky; a rumble suggestive of an avalanche on the nearby peak*), followed by a collapse of the tent that resulted in the other 7 being outside, exposed, and ill-attired.

*NOTE: Notice this version involves reaction to a first 'Murphy strike' before the second 'strike' occurs. The sequencing and possible interleaving of events and responses adds to the combinatorial complexity.

This only addresses a possible starting point for the standard interpretation motif of everyone descending as a group. There could have been any number of 'Murphy strikes', in various sequences, afterward.

To my mind, the mystery of why the tent was left behind (one or more times during the night) pales beside the mysteries of what happened down in the valley. The conceivable permutations for the valley events are even more numerous than for the tent site events.
 
Misfitdoll said:
I think it may have been weather related. One sweeping pile of snow rammed into the side of the tent. Another possibly hit the ones in the ravine. I'm also envisioning some kind of wind force, with almost tornadic type strength, that may have batted them around - though there's nothing to back that up; it's just my imagination.
Click to expand...

The one thing I'm most certain about is that weather played a major role in both (a) motivating them to pitch the tent in a ridiculously vulnerable location and (b) motivating them to abandon the tent site and retreat into the valley below.

Weather had already affected them by forcing them to withdraw on their first attempt at the pass, camp in a location back the way they'd come, fall a full day behind anticipated schedule, and obviously change their original plan.

If you dig back through this thread you'll see I demonstrated a major incursion of Arctic air hit the region at just that time. The effects of that change in the relatively warm weather the party had encountered up until then were dire enough to drive a similar party off Chistop in fear of their lives.

I'm still open to the snow slip (as contrasted with a full-blown avalanche) hypothesis for how the tent got buried. Whether that's what started the fatal sequence of events is another matter. There was no evidence of any similar snow slide down in the valley.

Your mention of an incredibly powerful wind is reflected in certain early (mis-)interpretations of what might have happened. Early on in the investigation Ivanov (the lead investigator) mentioned having toyed with, or heard from others, the idea that the Dyatlov party had somehow been literally blown off the mountain. Once the evidence of the footprints, etc., was in hand he seemed to rule out such a catastrophic single-point explanation for how they got down into the valley.
 
EnolaGaia said:
..To my mind, the mystery of why the tent was left behind (one or more times during the night) pales beside the mysteries of what happened down in the valley. The conceivable permutations for the valley events are even more numerous than for the tent site events.
Click to expand...

Apart from my 'Murder' theory, I still don't discount the 'avalanche' theory, or to be more accurate a 'snowslide' or 'snow slip'.
"The slope directly above the Dyatlov group's tent was 18 to 20 degrees" (p 84 MOTD)
I've googled around and learnt that even such a slight slope can produce a slide under certain conditions, so it can't be ruled out.
The only slide I've been able to find on youtube is this one, the slope is shallowish and the speed is only about jogging speed, but there are some fearsome heavy chunks in it, so if a slide hit the Dyatlovs it must have churned them up as they were trapped in the tent like in a cement mixer, causing broken bones etc, forcing them to slash out in a hurry.
When the slide stopped, they might have tried to find the buried tent for a while, but gave up and decide to go down to the trees to start a fire.

dyatlov-snowslide_zpsh6fe7aey.jpg~original

https://youtu.be/UY4Vbd05EUg
 
I haven't trawled through the whole thread so apologies if this is now redundant but the ideas relating to some sort of hallucinogenic poisoning don't appear to mention Ergot, which I believe was still finding its way into the odd batch of Rye bread with fatal consequences right up until the mid 1950s in some parts of Europe. There are some interesting historical stories relating to Ergot poisoning, symptoms can include mania/psychosis/convulsions, not least of which was a link to the Salem Witch Trials (theory of it being responsible for the hysteria was not 100% proven). I would have thought it more likely than Fly Agaric/Psylocibin type mushrooms, not sure if its obvious at a post mortem though.
 
Ergot poisoning was occasionally mentioned as a possible factor in the Dyatlov case years ago. It seemed to have been supplanted over time by mushrooms as the most commonly nominated cause underlying a 'hallucinogenic episode' theory.

To the test of my knowledge, little or no toxicology analysis was done on the bodies. No toxicology results covering all the victims were documented as being presented during the inquest proceedings. I don't know whether it would have been feasible in the first place, given the state of the bodies when recovered.

One factor which may have contributed to subsequent suggestions of ergot poisoning was the contorted / twisted nature of some of the recovered bodies - most apparent with, and essentially limited to, the 3 who expired heading back up-slope toward the tent site. However, such contortions (clenched fists, etc.) are a common result of hypothermic death throes, physical effects of a static body freezing, and the random nature of where / how the body had last come to rest.

Ergot poisoning can be relatively slow and cumulative or rapid and sudden, depending on dosage and pattern of ingestion. There's nothing noted in the journals to suggest anyone was falling victim to low dosage cumulative toxicity, and it's anybody's guess what might have caused a sudden onset in any or all the trekkers.
 
Listening to the Unexplained podcast take on this event, I wanted to look up a book mentioned written by local author Olga Koshmanova about the Mansi belief in local Bigfoot-type creatures in relation to a possible explanation of this event. I didn't realize it was actually downloadable!
http://alamas.ru/eng/news/Vzglad_e.htm
Olga Koshmanova

A Look from Behind

Tyumen obl., Rezh publ., 2008, 160 p.

Koshmanova_cover.jpg

The hominoid researcher Olga Koshmanova lives in Western Siberia in a small town with thick taiga all around. Now she published the book "A Look from Behind". She tells us about "humpolene-kompolene" that on Mansi language means "The Owner of Nature". The same as Bigfoot or "Snow man".

She collected records about many encounters and meetings with these creatures, mainly in taiga of Kondinsky region and other areas of Western Siberia, that is about 500 km to the North from Tyumen city. The name of the book "A Look from Behind" means that a traveler in taiga feels by its own spine an attention or presence of a hominoid lurking somewhere nearby.

Olga Koshmanova more than 30 years collected, at first as regional history amateur and then as naturalist, various data about unusual that occurs in the nature. Having by native origin access to ancient knowledge of Mansi people she saved many data that were rejected as fiction by common citizens. She represents in the book many records that show important features in behavior and appearance of the creatures which will be claimed by hominoid ethology researchers in due time. They are unknown to mainstream science, but familiar to many common people in the region. In spite of that one can't agree with some conclusions of the author, especially regarding the nature of these creatures, records about encounters with hominoids in Western Siberia will ever be the sound file of facts.

Many records of the author show that the behaviour of peoples whose lives dipply connected with forest is formed substantially as a result of contacts with hominoids living in these woods. These contacts form morals, behaviour rules in woods, namely
- it is forbidden to break without need silence in wood, to bawl drunk songs and similar;
- it is forbidden to spoil, destroy woods;
- a person ought not to take from wood more than it is necessary for life, and some others.
It not simply precepts of the good person: if I want - I follow them, if I do not want - it is my business. Those who do not follow them, the Kompolen will expel from woods, intimidate them so that they would loose desire to appear in the woods again. The morals of woods order to put in mind that somebody else lives besides. Some food as a present should be left for him, not try to kill or to expel him. And such common rule - at the night in woods the big fire should be supported all night long. But it is matter of safety.

By publishing the book Olga Koshmanova fulfilled her desire that the unique valuable data collected in her archives did not remain neglected. She issued it in a small regional printing house at own expense. It has not arrived in libraries and bookshops.

The one who wishes to receive this book, should address directly to the author at address:

Olga Aleksandrovna Koshmanova

Russia 628235, Polovinka town, Kondinsky region, Jugra, Tyumen obl.

A house number is not necessary, in small settlement the addressee will be found by name. Cost of the book ѕ 200 rubles, not including post transfers.


Those who are ready to read the book on line, can do it free of charge here on this site.
Click to expand...
 
Hi there,
Most theories we come across says after the cedar group (the 2 yuri's) died, the group of 4 (Dubinina, Kolevatov, Thibeaux, Zoloraryov) went deeper into the forest while the group of 3 (slobodin, Igor, Zina,) headed back to the tent.

Considering the similarities in injuries for the group of 3 (with possibility of fist fight, fractured skull etc), isn't it likely those were sustained in a same event together with the group of 4 ?
And thus, the group of 3 and 4 were either
1. fighting each other or
2. fighting something (or experiencing a fatal accident) together?
which leads us to the thought that the group of 3 and 4 were actually together (rather than separated when the dire event happened).

I have the following proposition regarding the sequence of events:

1. As Zolotaryov and Thibeaux were best dressed (the only 2 with boots), they were probably outside of the tent just before the fateful event occurred
2. "Something" (unknown) then compelled the entire group to exit the tent hastily
3. The group decided to head for the forest away from this "something"
4. At the forest, attempts to create fire was done and the climbing of tree was also done (perhaps to check on that "something's" location around the tent)
5. As both Yuri's were least equipped for the cold outside (they had frostbite while others didn't suffer much of it) , they succumbed to the cold and perished
6. The remaining group (all 7 of them) then took the clothing from both Yuri's and decided to move deeper into the forest and build a shelter (because their current location offered no protection from the cold) and it wasn't safe yet to return to the tent
7. After the den was built, it was also when a "2nd something" (also unknown) occurred.
8. This "2nd something" was responsible for all the injuries sustained by the 7 (fractured ribs, skulls, deformed neck etc and possibly even accounting for evidence of some fighting)
9. The group of 3 (Slobodin, Igor, Zina) managed to escape and they decided to head back to the tent (regardless of the initial dangers posed by the "1st something")
10. The group of 4 (Dubinina, Kolevatov, Thibeaux, Zoloraryov) didn't make it from their injuries, while the group of 3 succumbed to the cold on their way back to the tent.

What you guys think?
 
I doubt we can ever know what actually happened because insufficient 'crime scene' evidence was gathered. I'm not suggesting there was an actual crime.

However EnolaGaia's analysis goes with my own limited knowledge of accidents (railway accidents, mostly). In only about a quarter of accidents is the cause a single blatant mistake or event. More typically there is a chain of minor errors/events/bad luck , each one of which could have easily been dealt with if its significance had been realised, but in fact chance after chance to recover the situation is missed until the situation becomes unsalvageable.

If the party was already fatigued and perhaps stressed by dissension then the significance of minor mistakes may well have been missed - e.g. did a reluctant or upset member of the party fail to repair the tent properly so stitching gave way in the wind (pure speculation, just an example)
 
https://translate.google.com.sg/tra...www.alpklubspb.ru/ass/dyatlov.htm&prev=search
hey guys..
This russian website contains very good detailed research and analysis of alot of the theories.
The link above is the google translated version and can still be understood quite fairly well.

Their version sounds the most probable of all theories so far and is backed up by very detailed explanation, with little contradictions and fits satisfyingly many of the evidences found.
If you want to jump straight to "what possibly happened".. you can go to this link
https://translate.googleusercontent...700201&usg=ALkJrhh4j0LrZoMzwH3XdbefsWmSiZ7MBA

Like what Cochise said..the version suggested the accident resulted in a chain of minor errors to the level where it became unsalvageable
Cochise said:
I doubt we can ever know what actually happened because insufficient 'crime scene' evidence was gathered. I'm not suggesting there was an actual crime.

However EnolaGaia's analysis goes with my own limited knowledge of accidents (railway accidents, mostly). In only about a quarter of accidents is the cause a single blatant mistake or event. More typically there is a chain of minor errors/events/bad luck , each one of which could have easily been dealt with if its significance had been realised, but in fact chance after chance to recover the situation is missed until the situation becomes unsalvageable.

If the party was already fatigued and perhaps stressed by dissension then the significance of minor mistakes may well have been missed - e.g. did a reluctant or upset member of the party fail to repair the tent properly so stitching gave way in the wind (pure speculation, just an example)
Click to expand...
 
I'll be interested to see how this new investigation plays out. I would hope the investigators will approach the mysteries without the sort of assumptions evident in the news story's florid (and occasionally inaccurate) description of what's being investigated.
 
Hey guys, I just wanted to say that reading this thread up until June 2014 was a thrill! Quite comfortably the best thread on this topic, anywhere, with many, many good thinkers.

I have also come to the conclusion that extreme and overwhelming cold and consequently bad decisions were the main culprits of the tragedy.

At the same time, there still remains one question. Why did they leave for the valley instead of descending back to the cache where they knew for certain they had enough firewood to start and maintain a steady campfire?

I'm not that well-versed in map reading and distance judging. Was the cache point further away from the tent than the cedar tree area?

If not, does the fact they decided for the seemingly uncertain route down the slope to the alley hint at knowing that some of the group were already there because they had abandoned the tent earlier? (A natural guess would be the two shod men.)

Also, what are everyone's time estimates?

I believe that if the temperatures really did drop below -50 °C, without a heat source, already freezing, through the dark for the most part, the descent itself must have taken them at least 20 minutes. After my own experience with extremely hostile conditions and temperatures between -30 and -40 °C, I'm convinced they, the badly shod and insufficiently clothed bunch, had about an hour of life ahead of them. And probably not even that.

Which further reaffirms my guess that the two shod men had walked down the valley quite some time before the rest of the party followed, as digging the dent probably took much longer than assembling firewood for that desperate attempt at campfire under the cedar tree, yet all of the tourists besides the cedar tree duo appear to have died at approximately same time. (If we concede their last meal was the one they shared together up on the slope. And of course, the three on their way back to the tent still had their last attempt at a climb ahead of them, but I believe those were their last minutes.)

Anyway, that's my first post.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top