Dyatlov Pass incident

[Ms Diddles]

I was wondering about the shape and type of tent seeing as it slept 9 people (and could have accommodated 10 of course) The diagram shows a tent with 2 sloping sides rather than one of those larger family type tents so the torch couldn’t have sat on top of it. I’d been trying to picture the torch actually sitting on top of the tent but perhaps it was just lying on top of a collapsed part?

I'm sure I remember reading a pretty comprehensive description of the layout of the tent and the position of it's contents.

I just can't for the life of me exactly where that account was!!

I think you are correct in that the torch was on top of the collapsed tent.

I also definitely remember reading that urine was found just outside the tent.

I seem to think that one theory was that two of the hikers were outside of the tent peeing when they alerted those in the tent to impending danger (avalanche?).

I think perhaps two of the guys were better dressed than the others (and maybe had boots on) which would lend itself to that idea, although I may have misremembered the last bit?!

[c.d.]

That makes perfect sense.

Personally in that cold and dark I'd be inclined to pee right up next to the tent.

It's probably advisable that I never go camping in company!

People do take pee bottles into the tent with them in really cold conditions. Hopefully they marked the bottle in such a way to distinguish it from their water bottle.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I have to imagine the flashlight was secured with chord or something to a tent pole.

c.d.

[Ms Diddles]

Apparently people leaving the tent at night to go out and pee and then getting disoriented direction wise and not being able to find it resulting in death from hypothermia in not uncommon.

c.d.

That makes perfect sense.

Personally in that cold and dark I'd be inclined to pee right up next to the tent.

It's probably advisable that I never go camping in company!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was wondering about the shape and type of tent seeing as it slept 9 people (and could have accommodated 10 of course) The diagram shows a tent with 2 sloping sides rather than one of those larger family type tents so the torch couldn’t have sat on top of it. I’d been trying to picture the torch actually sitting on top of the tent but perhaps it was just lying on top of a collapsed part?

[Herlock Sholmes]

With regard to the missing tent pieces, it is possible that they were cut significantly and blew away over time because of high winds and ended up buried in the snow somewhere.

With regard to the flashlight/torch my first thought was similar to Ms. Diddles that it was there to help locate the tent if someone went outside to pee. But on further reflection, cold weather weakens batteries so it is more likely they would have kept any flashlights inside the tent and taken it out and left it on the tent when exiting.

c.d.

It’s a possible c.d. They weren’t exactly short on wind out there and once they’d found the bodies they were hardly going to waste time freezing their a#*^s off looking for a piece of tarpaulin that could have been buried in snow a mile away.

On your second point c.d. I read somewhere that there were signs of urine outside the tent. Surely an avalanche would have knocked the lamp off the tent. I wonder if there’s a better description of how the lamp was located?

[c.d.]

Apparently people leaving the tent at night to go out and pee and then getting disoriented direction wise and not being able to find it resulting in death from hypothermia in not uncommon.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think I need to have a proper look at the diagrams of the tent cuts to be able to picture this..!

Re the torch. It could have been left on top of the tent switched on, to enable the hikers to see where the tent was in the dark and make their way back to it??

Pure speculation of course!

Why didn’t I think of that.

[c.d.]

With regard to the missing tent pieces, it is possible that they were cut significantly and blew away over time because of high winds and ended up buried in the snow somewhere.

With regard to the flashlight/torch my first thought was similar to Ms. Diddles that it was there to help locate the tent if someone went outside to pee. But on further reflection, cold weather weakens batteries so it is more likely they would have kept any flashlights inside the tent and taken it out and left it on the tent when exiting.

c.d.

[Ms Diddles]

I’m sure they did all have knives of some kind Ms D. It was just the Finnish Knife that a licence was required for and only one hiker had such a knife (and licence)

A criminal expert called G. Churkina saw the cuts under a microscope and confirmed the seamstresses opinion that the cuts had come from inside so I agree with you that this seems like a fact.

Two strange ‘facts’ though (which may be properly explained away elsewhere though of course) are that on the diagram of the cuts to the tent there are sections where there were 2 sizeable areas which were connected where material was actually missing? I can’t think how that could have happened just by someone cutting their way out? Where was the missing material? Next, I find it strange that there was a Chinese torch on the roof of the tent? Difficult to picture considering the partially collapsed state of the tent but surely they wouldn’t have left a torch outside? And if they cut their way out ,taking a torch with them, why leave it on the roof of the tent? It was in the ‘on’ position with the battery dead so could one of the hikers have exited the tent, switched on the torch, found that it was dead and put it on the tent? Doesn’t seem very likely to me. They were experienced hikers so would they have really had a torch with a dead battery? Maybe there’s a reasonable explanation further along in the Eichar book?

I think I need to have a proper look at the diagrams of the tent cuts to be able to picture this..!

Re the torch. It could have been left on top of the tent switched on, to enable the hikers to see where the tent was in the dark and make their way back to it??

Pure speculation of course!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

One theory which I have heard is that the smaller cuts in the tent may have been made as a spy holes. The thinking being that the hikers were watching something down the hill on the tree line which posed a threat, before making the big cut and fleeing the tent.

Take that for what it's worth though.

I do recall when reading about the determination that the cuts originated from the inside of the tent, that the evidence for that sounded pretty solid, so I would incline towards accepting that as one of the few "facts" of this case.

I'm prepared to be proved wrong on this though!

I agree with c.d. that all of the hikers would likely possess a knife on such an expedition, so I imagine any of them could have made the cuts.

I’m sure they did all have knives of some kind Ms D. It was just the Finnish Knife that a licence was required for and only one hiker had such a knife (and licence)

A criminal expert called G. Churkina saw the cuts under a microscope and confirmed the seamstresses opinion that the cuts had come from inside so I agree with you that this seems like a fact.

Two strange ‘facts’ though (which may be properly explained away elsewhere though of course) are that on the diagram of the cuts to the tent there are sections where there were 2 sizeable areas which were connected where material was actually missing? I can’t think how that could have happened just by someone cutting their way out? Where was the missing material? Next, I find it strange that there was a Chinese torch on the roof of the tent? Difficult to picture considering the partially collapsed state of the tent but surely they wouldn’t have left a torch outside? And if they cut their way out ,taking a torch with them, why leave it on the roof of the tent? It was in the ‘on’ position with the battery dead so could one of the hikers have exited the tent, switched on the torch, found that it was dead and put it on the tent? Doesn’t seem very likely to me. They were experienced hikers so would they have really had a torch with a dead battery? Maybe there’s a reasonable explanation further along in the Eichar book?

[Ms Diddles]

Great minds think alike. I was just about to kickstart this thread for the same reason Ms D.

……

I’d like to mention the cuts in the tent.

A Seamstress claimed that the cuts had been made from the inside and the Sverdlovsk Research Crime Lab confirmed her opinion. They don’t sound like cuts just to open (or tear open) the wall of the tent in an attempt to get out though. Also, there were to exits from the tent and neither of them were blocked with snow so why the need to cut their way out? The arrangement of the items within the tent also seems to point away from any kind of struggle or any frantic attempt at escape? There were just no signs of disturbance inside the tent. The explanation that Anderson comes up with (whilst not favouring her entire theory) seems quite plausible. That whoever did it did it to render the tent useless as protection against the elements. Obviously there will be other theories but it’s difficult (for me at least) to come up with another reasonable explanation. Additionally, one of the hikers, George, was in possession of a ‘Finnish knife’ which had a long, sharp blade. Regular citizens needed permission to carry one at the time. Wouldn’t this knife have been capable of cutting through the canvas of a tent to effect an escape?

Hi Herlock,

One theory which I have heard is that the smaller cuts in the tent may have been made as a spy holes. The thinking being that the hikers were watching something down the hill on the tree line which posed a threat, before making the big cut and fleeing the tent.

Take that for what it's worth though.

I do recall when reading about the determination that the cuts originated from the inside of the tent, that the evidence for that sounded pretty solid, so I would incline towards accepting that as one of the few "facts" of this case.

I'm prepared to be proved wrong on this though!

I agree with c.d. that all of the hikers would likely possess a knife on such an expedition, so I imagine any of them could have made the cuts.

[Ms Diddles]

Still surprised this is being discussed as a mystery, frankly.
Everything is consistent with hypothermia in extreme weather conditions, following a group panic or anxiety perhaps or probably caused by some sort of impending avalanche or fear thereof.
The various “inexplicable” “facts” turn out to be speculation by dubious witnesses years after the event or just unconfirmed rumours.

No offense! Just wondering how this tragic event got elevated to UFO/KGB/Area 51 status

Was the crew of the Mary Celeste killed by kgb double agents too? No, they just abandoned ship and perished after which weather conditions changed and the ship sailed on.

Hi Kattrup!

I completely agree that this case does seem to have been hijacked somewhat by the Area 51 / UFO / yeti crew.

Personally, I will always go after the simplest, most mundane solution, which is why in this case I lean towards avalanche / hypothermia / fall in the ravine / post mortem predation.

That said, from the existing evidence ( the creditability of which is admittedly hard to assess), it is hard to form a cohesive narrative of events on the mountain which does leave the door open to speculation.

There have been seemingly reputable studies which ruled out avalanche (one recent example of which was posted by Joshua above).

For me, I had initially bought into the notion that an avalanche was out of the question, then changed my mind following the Puzrin-Gaume study.

I now need to consider this new study to see which one wins out, so to speak!

As long as an avalanche is a physical possibility for me that has to be the most likely culprit..

Should that be taken off the table however, then we are into the realms of the more obscure theories (but I pull up well short of UFO's, aliens or yeti attack!!!!).

I think that as with the Whitechapel Murders, the place and time also add to the intrigue and compelling nature of the case.

[Ms Diddles]

Although there are mysterious elements to it, on the whole I have to agree.
All the bodies with missing soft facial tissues were found in the ravine, in water. The autopsies indicate these occurred post mortem, although by rot / decomposition rather than predation.

IIRC that's one of the main problems in this case.

The autopsy reports are woefully inadequate and (I think) don't provide any info regarding whether the injuries are pre or post mortem.

I'm working from memory here, but I'm sure I recall the report stating simply "tongue is missing" with no clarification as to whether this was pre mortem injury or post mortem predation.

I agree that the latter is the more likely, however as Herlock has recently discovered there is some evidence out there somewhere which suggests that the tongue and eye injuries were sustained during life, however I can't recall where this comes from.

I'm thinking I really need to do some re-reading on this before I start pontificating as it's a long time since I read this material and my memory is entirely fallible......!!!!

[Ms Diddles]

I've read that this could be a result of a hangover from the Russian use of the Julian calendar, which is 13 days behind. When adjusted to the Western European (Gregorian) calendar, the dates match up.

Although officially swapped after the revolution, in 1918, the two were apparently used interchangeably for some time.

Again, that's really interesting.

I've not heard that before, and it would make sense.

I'm due to meet up with some Russian friends the weekend after next, so they will likely receive a close interrogation about this.......!!!!