• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Sorry, I don't want to go over old coals but I thought Igor Alekseyevich Dyatlov was experienced and respected? I'm just wondering where this anti-Dyatlov is coming from and where did it arise?

Enola looking at you - help, please.
Yeah he was the leader because he was a skilled outdoorsman and hiker. Is it possible he made a mistake? sure. What sort of "mistake" would cause everyone to freeze to death in the snow with no avalanche?
 
I thought he was the leader because he organized the trip?

Sorry it's probably all here.
 
Sorry, I don't want to go over old coals but I thought Igor Alekseyevich Dyatlov was experienced and respected? I'm just wondering where this anti-Dyatlov is coming from and where did it arise?

Enola looking at you - help, please.
I’m not sure where you’re getting that from? Dyatlov was an experienced and respected hiker / leader. He was the leader as he organised it and made the decisions whilst they were out there.
 
I meant found dead in different groups.

So, no new data? But a reevaluuation? Why now?
 
Sorry, I don't want to go over old coals but I thought Igor Alekseyevich Dyatlov was experienced and respected? I'm just wondering where this anti-Dyatlov is coming from and where did it arise?
Enola looking at you - help, please.

I'm not sure what "anti-Dyatlov" stuff it is you're referring to ... ???? ...

Dyatlov was experienced both as a trekker and as a trek organizer / group leader. Some accounts mention tidbits indicating Dyatlov was something of an authoritarian, but that's part and parcel of being the organizer and / or group leader. He was also the expedition's supplier to some extent, insofar as they were using his tent.

I don't recall ever reading anything about Dyatlov's comparative merits as either a trekker or group leader. The consistent impression I've always gotten was that he was friendly and convivial and his fellow trekkers liked him. Multiple members of the fatal party had been with him on previous trips (including ones where he was group leader / organizer), so I don't get the impression anyone avoided him after taking a trip with him.

The fatal trip involved some uncertainties and changes of plan along the way. One trekker fell ill and turned back early on (Yudin). Dyatlov was known to have consulted locals at one of their early stops and discussed the two general strategies for approaching Ortoten ("high road" versus "low road"). This means the details of the routing, etc., were still fluid during the course of the trip.

The evidence seems to indicate they were going for the "low road" option at first, but somehow shifted to the "high road" option in response to issues encountered in the last 24 - 48 hours. Their activities on the last known day of travel didn't match the plans their diaries suggested they'd made, even after having had to turn back on their first attempt to surmount the pass.

My point is this ... Dyatlov was by all accounts competent and a good group leader, but IMHO there was something about the decision(s) made during the last known 24 hours (his; others'; the group's) that wasn't quite right. They were adapting to unforeseen circumstances, and they evidently didn't end up following plans they'd recorded as done deals. I think something fell apart or spun out of control with respect to decision making, but I don't automatically assign Dyatlov the sole blame for whatever went wrong.

By the same token, as group leader (and architect / owner of the tent) Dyatlov would have been the default target for any criticisms that surfaced.
 
I'm not sure what "anti-Dyatlov" stuff it is you're referring to ... ???? ...

Dyatlov was experienced both as a trekker and as a trek organizer / group leader. Some accounts mention tidbits indicating Dyatlov was something of an authoritarian, but that's part and parcel of being the organizer and / or group leader. He was also the expedition's supplier to some extent, insofar as they were using his tent.

I don't recall ever reading anything about Dyatlov's comparative merits as either a trekker or group leader. The consistent impression I've always gotten was that he was friendly and convivial and his fellow trekkers liked him. Multiple members of the fatal party had been with him on previous trips (including ones where he was group leader / organizer), so I don't get the impression anyone avoided him after taking a trip with him.

The fatal trip involved some uncertainties and changes of plan along the way. One trekker fell ill and turned back early on (Yudin). Dyatlov was known to have consulted locals at one of their early stops and discussed the two general strategies for approaching Otorten ("high road" versus "low road"). This means the details of the routing, etc., were still fluid during the course of the trip.

The evidence seems to indicate they were going for the "low road" option at first, but somehow shifted to the "high road" option in response to issues encountered in the last 24 - 48 hours. Their activities on the last known day of travel didn't match the plans their diaries suggested they'd made, even after having had to turn back on their first attempt to surmount the pass.

My point is this ... Dyatlov was by all accounts competent and a good group leader, but IMHO there was something about the decision(s) made during the last known 24 hours (his; others'; the group's) that wasn't quite right. They were adapting to unforeseen circumstances, and they evidently didn't end up following plans they'd recorded as done deals. I think something fell apart or spun out of control with respect to decision making, but I don't automatically assign Dyatlov the sole blame for whatever went wrong.

By the same token, as group leader (and architect / owner of the tent) Dyatlov would have been the default target for any criticisms that surfaced.
Reading the diaries suggests that their plans for a route had a great deal of uncertainty. It talks about how their last day forced them to hike through deep snow and slowed them down greatly. The "Evening Otorten" mock newspaper talks about how the sledge they were pulling gear on didn't work well on snow.

Also: looking in the experience log: https://dyatlovpass.com/dyatlov-group-members-treks
None of them had hiked this area before. Other locations in the Ural mountains? yes, not this one.
 
Last edited:
Thats an interesting point.

You may be experienced in your area but that doesnt mean you will be safe in a different environment
 
Thats an interesting point.

You may be experienced in your area but that doesnt mean you will be safe in a different environment
I was talking about why Dyatlov changed plans. He'd never been to this location before and was partially making things up as he went along. It looks like most of their trips were to new locations.
 
I was talking about why Dyatlov changed plans. He'd never been to this location before and was partially making things up as he went along. It looks like most of their trips were to new locations.
Isn't that in the very nature of exploration? Making it up as you go along.
 
There was a 2 hour Dyatlov programme on the other night - 'Russian Yeti - The Killer Lives'.

On one hand they went to the Dyatlov Institute, got all the available photos including the state of the bodies as found, spoke to some of the men who discovered the remains, went to the mountain in the Urals & camped out in the same spot, spoke to Mansi re their beliefs/theories. They have a belief in a creature they call Menk.

On the other hand as per the title they put many of their eggs in the Yeti attack basket. It was a cross between a fairly serious documentary of the incident & a 'discovering Bigfoot' show with "did you hear that?" in the dark, with pointless reconstructions of various speculative scenes with shaky camera, screams, panic etc. They recorded an animal scream/howl & supposedly found hair in a remote cave which 'couldn't be identified' as any known animal.

Also included reports of lights seen in the sky at the time, speculation of possible Soviet weapons testing & so on.

Didn't really add anything of substance.
 
Josh Gates Expedition Unknown did two hours on the Dyatlov Pass incident, it’s defintiley one of the better shows about it.

The show Russian Yeti The Killer Lives is described on IMDB as “Fictional documentary on the deaths of students in the Russian mountains, attributed to the yeti.” When originally broadcast it was shown as if it were factual like the earlier mermaid “documentary” from the same broadcasters.
 
I agree Gordon. When I saw it many years ago there were no disclaimers saying it was a hoax. I knew enough about the case to realise that something was amiss. The photo of the mysterious figure trailing the group which was brand new was a red flag, for one.
 
D'oh. I should've looked it up on imdb first. Some of it - the photos of the bodies as found for example, were presumably real or were these mock-ups as well? Convincingly done if so..
 
What is a `Fictional documentary, pray?
Generally speaking a pile of shit not worth watching as it totally muddies the waters for anyone interested in the true story. And for those not overly interested but who happened to watch it they will always think it was explained away as shown in the TV show they saw.
 
D'oh. I should've looked it up on imdb first. Some of it - the photos of the bodies as found for example, were presumably real or were these mock-ups as well? Convincingly done if so..
there are real photos available. Not sure if that used the real ones, but the Russian team examining the site photographed all the corpses before relocating them. And then there's coroner photos.

That scenario reminds me of the Mary Celeste. The original case was in 1872. But a lot of the information about the case that people repeat... isn't part of the actual original case and instead comes from a fictionalized retelling. The fictional version actually has a differently spelled name: Mary(original) vs Marie(fictional). there's several different fictionalized stories about it actually.
 
Last edited:
I just want to say WOW! Just spent 3 days reading this thread from start to finish and i'd like to thank all the contributers, one of the most interesting, compelling and mysterious stories and list of hypothasis i read in a long time, still hae no firm answer to what happened and i doubt anyone will ever know for sure, i certainly know a lot more about it than i did 2 days ago and a few posters have some good theories, especially SamRuger and EnolaGaia.
 
As I've mentioned before (check earlier posts in this thread) there are grounds for arguing group bonhomie might have been wearing thin.

The party's progress had slowed in the prior couple of days because warmer conditions generated slush on the frozen river's surface, they could no longer efficiently ski upstream, and they were forced to continue on foot using the snow-covered path alongside the riverbank in a much more laborious fashion.

The preceding day they'd arrived below the pass early enough to attempt to climb it, but had to turn back owing to strong "warm" winds. The following (last known) day they'd adjusted the trip plan and spent most of the day building a cache before ascending the pass. By the time they surmounted the pass the weather had deteriorated and they elected to not descend into the valley beyond as originally planned (according to one of Zina's journal entries*). Instead, they elected to pitch camp atop the pass.

*NOTE: When Zina wrote of the plan to cross the pass the intent was to establish their cache in the valley beyond. The fact they established the cache in the valley they were already in before ascending the pass suggests there'd been another change of plan sometime after Zina's written entry. This change of cache location means it remains unclear whether they'd also changed their plan to camping atop the pass versus continuing to the valley beyond.

There's a photo of their ascent to the pass showing them paused, with T-B and Dyatlov engaged in conversation. It looks like a serious conversation. I'm not sure whether this photo was taken the preceding day (when they turned back from the first pass attempt) or the final known day.

I suspect Zolo and T-B - the older and quite experienced "outsiders" relative to the others - were becoming concerned about the progress and prospects of the expedition. These two guys would end up as the best-clothed / shod corpses. I don't think that was a random coincidence.

Over the years I've mulled over this incident I've come to increasingly believe there was at least some measure of growing dissension in the group, and it didn't have anything to do with the mixed gender composition of the party. I think Zolo and T-B had reached an actionable level of concern by the time the party had hastily encamped atop the pass. Under this interpretation there was discord, and this discord influenced the course of events that resulted in all their deaths.

I have no firm opinion on whether the discord erupted into argument or even fighting within the tent. I do have a long-simmering suspicion that Zolo and T-B departed the tent separately from the others, and they did so earlier than their other / ill-clothed fellow trekkers.

Beyond these points it becomes impossible to clearly envision the course of events without generating a lot of possible storylines. The two questions I'd most like to have answered are:

- Did the party abandon the tent site all at once during that first night atop the pass (as has long been assumed), and if not - who left when?

... and given the answer to that ...

- Who discarded the flashlight several hundred meters downslope from the tent?
I would like to thank you for all of your hard work and research on this subject, i'm sorry about your fire in your apartment and the loss of your research early in this thread.
I would like to congratulate you on you patience when replying time and time again to the same questions from posters who havent (bothered to?) read the whole thread, im not sure i would have been so accommedating.
Thank you.
 
Did anyone read Clark Wilkins (aka SamRuger) 'a compelling unknown force' if not there is a free pdf download if you google it
 
I would like to thank you for all of your hard work and research on this subject, i'm sorry about your fire in your apartment and the loss of your research early in this thread.
I would like to congratulate you on you patience when replying time and time again to the same questions from posters who havent (bothered to?) read the whole thread, im not sure i would have been so accommedating.
Thank you.
I think that Enola's superpower is research! And it took you days to read the whole thread? It took me almost two months. It's what prompted me to join the forum.
 
Did anyone read Clark Wilkins (aka SamRuger) 'a compelling unknown force' if not there is a free pdf download if you google it

I'm interested! do you have a link?
 
what do you think of his theory?

His account of the sequence of events / activities is intermittently sound. However, the specifics of his theory are based on references to geographical / map features (especially 'hills') which don't exist and call into question his ability to understand a topographic map.

The naming of 'hills' is based on taking the elevation of a height's peak as the designator for the overall hill / mountain. Neither his 'Hill 805' nor his 'HIll 663' exist as peaks.

'Hill 805' may be a typo intended to be 'Peak 835' - the intermediate rise or hump between Kholat-Syakhylor and the flanking peak to the east. Alternatively and more probably it's an allusion to 'Peak 905' - the outlying peak to the east. Wilkins' murky explanation of a navigational error seems to suggest the 'Peak 805' Dyatlov erred about was in fact 'Peak 905'.

'Peak 835' is hardly 20 - 30 meters higher than the saddle (top elevation) of the pass itself, but it would have been a geodetic reference point on the topographic map available in 1959. It's certainly marked on the later topo maps.

There is no 'Hill 663'. There is a reference landmark on the slope leading up the south side of the ridge the party climbed marked at elevation 663 (m). This is not a peak at all - it's an arbitrarily designated spot on the side of a slope. I'm not sure about the map symbology for this spot, but I suspect it's a ruin or other landmark. I'm also uncertain whether this spot on the slope was marked on the map(s) available in 1959.

There is no 'Hill 611', either ... The '611' designation is a reference point for the *lowest* elevation in a vale / valley on the north side of the pass - the very vale into which the doomed party fled and died. In other words, it's the exact opposite of a 'hill'. According to diary entries the original plan was to cross the pass, set up camp and possibly their cache in the vale beyond (i.e., the '611' area), and approach Ortoten using the 'low road' strategy (i.e., staying in the watershed's forested valleys until a final climb up Ortoten).

Notice that Wilkins' theory is partially predicated on T-B and Zolo being prepared to get oriented to the location of Hill 611 if visibility ever improved overnight. There was no Hill 611 toward which they would seek to obtain such a bearing. Moreover, no such bearing was necessary in the first place. Map point '611' was the valley into which they'd flee and die, and all they had to do to find it was to follow the slope downward from their tent site - precisely what they did (presumably during the night, by standard interpretations). Dyatlov was carrying topo maps of the area, and he was experienced enough to read them.

Pitching camp high up on the flank of Kholat-Syakhylor suggests either (a) they had to abandon their original plan to continue downhill into the valley on the north side or (b) they'd decided to stay at the higher elevation and approach Ortoten using the 'high road' strategy typically employed in the summer months. Option (a) had still been in effect the preceding day, because they attempted to scale the pass before establishing their cache. The conditions and approaching sunset forced them to retreat back into the river valley from which they'd come.

Option (b) must have been decided that night or early the following morning, because they set up their cache before making their second attempt to climb the pass.

To the extent the high road strategy would minimize subsequent climbing I agree with Wilkins that economizing time and effort was or could well have been a factor in whatever their decision making process was.

Except for the geographic reference bungling and blaming everything on compass-based navigational issues most all the rest of Wilkins' exposition repeats stuff already known and mentioned here.

There are other errors in his exposition - most particularly mis-attributions of what some of the images represent and misstatements of facts in his dramatization of the search party's experiences.

Even ignoring these other miscellaneous errors I have to give Wilkins' analysis low marks for basing his theory on a clearly mistaken interpretation of the basic landscape.
 
Back
Top