Dyatlov Pass incident

[Joshua Rogan]

Apparently there is a supposedly authentic government document that shows that a search party was dispatched before the party was reported missing which if true is very strange and very suspicious.

c.d.

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

agree. its no great mystery to me. they fled the tent in a panic, cutting there way out (perhaps the opening was blocked/zipper frozen by snow)when there tent was being crushed by snow buildup, either by blizzard and or slab avalanche. once they left the tent they were essentially done for and most froze to death. the ones with traumatic injuries fell into a rocky ravine. the other injuries, eyes tongue etc, was from animal predation.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure I understand your thinking here, Herlock.

You say that the cuts were confirmed to have been made from the inside, and that one of the party had a sharp knife. Yet then conclude that the cuts were not made by any of the group, despite the complete absence of any ski or foot trails in the area, other than those presumed to be made by the hikers themselves. What makes you think that?

In the statement of Vadim Brusnitsyn, the chap in charge of the search party which found the tent, he even says the cuts were made by Georgiy's Finnish knife, along with the branches cut for the fire at the treeline. Though quite how he determined this isn't stated (presumably an assumption as this was the only knife found).

He also says that the tent wasn't excavated very carefully and it was hard to determine what state the contents were in;

"Snow was cleared with the help of skis and ski poles. Ten people worked without any system. In most cases things everything was pulled out directly from under the snow, so it's very difficult to determine where and how each thing was.

First they took out several blankets, frozen in a ball, then buckets, a stove, 2-3 sacks of rusks, boots, etc. The things in the tent were arranged in the following order. At the bottom were laid rucksacks. Then 2-3 blankets. Next were the quilted jackets and personal belongings of the participants. Buckets, stove, ax, saw were lying at the entrance to the right. Here was part of the products: rusks, sugar, condensed milk, open bag with a loin. The rest of the products were in the far right corner. Most of the shoes lying were placed on the left side of the tent. Two pairs - right in the middle. [B)The rest of the things were in disarray in the tent.[/B]"

In case you haven't seen it, this also comes from the dyatlovpass.com website, which seems to have all the documentary evidence scanned, and translated into English. Which is helpful. It even has a diagram of the tent cuts, and close-up photos of them.

Basically I was wondering why the need for more than one cut? With a knife like that, one vertical cut - instant exit Id have thought.

Im basically just asking questions here Joshua. My knowledge of the case is next to zero apart from the basics.

[c.d.]

As experienced outdoors people, I would expect every member of the party to be carrying a knife. If it was an avalanche, I would expect the the natural reaction would be to grab your knife and cut the tent as opposed to waiting to see who is going to do it.

c.d.

[Joshua Rogan]

Basically I was wondering why the need for more than one cut? With a knife like that, one vertical cut - instant exit Id have thought.

Im basically just asking questions here Joshua. My knowledge of the case is next to zero apart from the basics.

Fair enough.

From the diagram, it looks to me like a square u-shaped panel was cut in the tent to facilitate exit. Although this has ragged edges, as if it had been flapping loose in high winds for several weeks. And there are some other, more random looking cuts and tears.

Interestingly, one of the diaries mentions having to repair the tent a day or two before the end. Might the tent have been already somewhat damaged?

[Ms Diddles]

#68 sounds very plausible to me, Ms D.
Except perhaps the initial avalanche theory, which seems to have it's detractors. Notably this chap;

https://dyatlovpass.com/borzenkov

Interesting Joshua!

Many thanks for posting that.

I was unaware of this study and had thought that the Puzrin-Gaume theory (as outlined below) was pretty much the final word;

Has science solved one of history’s greatest adventure mysteries? (nationalgeographic.com)

The article which you posted is crammed with scientific data, so it will take me a while to read and digest it all properly.

Amongst other things, it seems to be saying that the P-G findings pertained to a different site some distance away from where the tent was actually pitched, so the topography was completely different and the findings of limited relevance.

I'd be really interested to know if that claim is accurate.

Purely out of curiosity, what do you think caused the hikers to damage their tent in an attempt to flee, if not an avalanche?

[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.......!!!!

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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!

[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.

[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.]

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.