The Mystery of Dyatlov Pass

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: t001001001
DM had a article about this a couple days ago claiming the mystery is now solved: They died of hypothermia. Any more questions? [8D]

The initial investigation in 1959 determined that seven of them died of Hypothermia and two died from crushing injuries suffered when a ton of snow fell on them. Cause of death has never been a mystery.

[wodin]

Crazy corpses. All very strange.

Seen a docu on it aswell as a rather poor film.

[RangerJoe]

I just saw this article:

9 Russian Adventurers Mysteriously Froze to Death. A New Theory Explains Why
More than 60 years after the incident, scientists say they have new evidence pointing to a peculiar kind of avalanche as the culprit.

.
.
.
Now, more than 60 years later, scientists say they’ve got new evidence to back up that claim, but with a twist: The killer was probably a peculiar kind of avalanche. Inspired by previous work that modeled realistic snow for the Disney film Frozen, the researchers simulated how a relatively tiny avalanche could have struck the camp, forcing the adventurers to flee, and severely injuring some of them.
.
.
.

https://www.wired.com/story/dyatlov-pas ... popular4-1

[sPzAbt653]

I'm sure that Avalanche Theory has been around since day 1. I don't know why anyone would say that there is new evidence for it 60 years later. I've read the Avalanche Theory's and while certainly anything is possible, they really don't make much sense. But I'll go read this one and see what it's about ...

[TulliusDetritus]

If I am not mistaken the Russian local authorities reopened (2019) then *definitely* closed the case some months ago (august iirc). Avalanche it was. The conclusions (in Russian, which I don't understand):

https://www.kp.ru/daily/27154.5/4251446/

[sPzAbt653]

... Ok, back from reading. Thanks for posting it by the way, everything about this case is interesting to me. But I'm not impressed by the thin reasoning and mocked up animations in the article. There is much more that makes no sense. Two main points that jump out right away - they ran down the wrong side of the hill, actually away from their backup supplies, so the article is wrong about that. And the crushing injuries were already explained in the initial investigation years ago because those injured had taken shelter under a huge snow overhang next to a creek, and it had collapsed on them.

[RangerJoe]

You are welcome.

But this articles does explain how a small avalanche could occur on a slope that was not normally steep enough. It is also interesting that they used Hollywood animators to help model it.

In a panic, they ran the wrong way which is not unusual. They probably could have dug out an opening for air and have been fine until the next morning. At least as fine as they could be, then send up smoke signals . . .

[TulliusDetritus]

Already posted by Ranger Joe, apologies.

[sPzAbt653]

they ran the wrong way which is not unusual.

Yeah but these weren't rookies, some of them were even going for the highest level of experience possible for guides, so they not only were used to the Urals, they had been in the same area before. So it's another point that is plausible, but kinda not really strongly believable.

Another example: Why camp in the open in those weather conditions? Some say they wanted to experience camping on an incline in the open and in poor weather. Others conclude that they didn't want to camp in the woods because there was something there. [This is supported by other evidence, too]. So again, two very different but reasonable excuses.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Already posted by Ranger Joe, apologies.

Thank you. A lot more detailed and technical.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Already posted by Ranger Joe, apologies.

Your link was much moe detailed and technical, no apologies. Here is your link again for those who missed it:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00081-8

[Zorch]

Another article is https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01 ... lains-why/

I'm also skeptical of the new explanation; but it seems less implausible than other theories. We'll never know...

[Zorch]

A Baffling 60-Year Old Mystery Propels the Documentary An Unknown Compelling Force

Director Liam Le Guillou discusses his investigation into the Dyatlov Pass incident, one of Russia's most famous unsolved mysteries.

https://gizmodo.com/a-baffling-60-year- ... 1847067035

An interview with the film maker. Includes trailer for the documentary.

[Rosseau]

What impresses me most is the intelligence level of the posters here. Definitely a chilling story, no pun intended.

There is definitely a "logical" explanation out there - certainly not the Yeti or aliens. And the victim's families deserve some kind of closure. I hope they will get it, in this life at least.

Thanks for posting!

[RoryAndersonCDT]

Dyatlov Pass is one of my favorite mysteries, as nothing adds up when we factor in all the evidence.
We then must discard evidence, based on likelihood.
Given it occurred in 1950s USSR, I am inclined to disregard much that was reported by the search teams. But, I think the medical state of the bodies wouldn't have been misreported, and perhaps the state (but, crucially, not location) of the tent.

Without considering anything other than the severe injuries of 3 of the members of the expedition, and the damage to the tent, the most likely conclusion is a tree fell on their tent while they were sleeping. The members would then have to cut their way out of a crushed tent, at night, which explains the damage to the tent.

I think a tree fell on their tent during a windy night, they then passed away due to injuries/exposure. Then their bodies and tent were later moved by someone, perhaps part of the search team, to the location they were found.

I found the book, 1079: The overwhelming force of Dyatlov Pass, by Igor Pavlov (which was published this year!), this was one of the theories the book put forward. And I found to be quite convincing and satisfying.

[sPzAbt653]

I also love a good mystery and this is certainly one of those. Not to disagree with you, but I am wondering if there is more evidence for the tent being relocated? When I consider that scenario [a tree falling on it during the storm] it certainly makes sense because many have theorized that they would have camped in the woods rather than on the exposed hill during a storm. However, others have suggested that camping in the woods during a storm is dangerous just for that reason [trees or branches falling]. Also, these hiker/campers were qualifying for the highest level of Guide Status, therefore they were doing difficult things, so the idea of camping on an exposed hill at night during a storm is something they actually wanted to do.

So anyway, I am assuming that it is possible that they camped in the woods and were hit by a tree, but why would somebody then remove the tree, re-raise the tent enough to pack up all their equipment, pack the damaged tent, move it at least 1.5 miles [the distance from the woods to where the tent was found, if I remember correctly], dig the snow out for the position for the tent, re-raise the tent again, then load all the equipment inside, then knock it down again. ? Like I said, not disagreeing, just trying to get some more perspective/ideas/theories. Thanks!

[RoryAndersonCDT]

I'd recommend the book 1079: The overwhelming force of Dyatlov Pass, by Igor Pavlov. Quite gripping reading, the book is mostly about the facts and events leading up to the loss of the party.

The book has an online component, with additional information: https://dyatlovpass.com/1079-new-book but I'd recommend reading the book first. Well written, and no crazy theories about UFOs or yetis.

[Zorch]

All the explanations I've seen are somewhat unlikely; it's a matter of choosing the one you find least unlikely. [8|]

Suppose the Titanic had happened 10 years earlier before ships had wireless; how would people have explained its disappearance?

[sPzAbt653]

All the explanations I've seen are somewhat unlikely

But I am still allowed to ask you what is your opinion based on what we do know. Even if you believe that every possible bit of data is flawed, you could still make an intelligent argument in some direction, right ?

I'm saying if it is a mystery that we are all mulling over, why not throw in? No need to bring up Titanic. We can dod at in another thread, eh?

For example, why did these hikers have no weapons on them other than hunting knives? Didn't anyone get charged with bringing a gun of some sort? Into the wilderness? Hmmm ...

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

All the explanations I've seen are somewhat unlikely

But I am still allowed to ask you what is your opinion based on what we do know. Even if you believe that every possible bit of data is flawed, you could still make an intelligent argument in some direction, right ?

I'm saying if it is a mystery that we are all mulling over, why not throw in? No need to bring up Titanic. We can dod at in another thread, eh?

For example, why did these hikers have no weapons on them other than hunting knives? Didn't anyone get charged with bringing a gun of some sort? Into the wilderness? Hmmm ...

Why would those hikers be allowed weapons in the Soviet Union? Were the average people allowed to have firearms? Also, at that time of year?

I think that the best explanation that I have read is a mini avalanche that hit their tent. They were in a bad place and may not have realized the dangers. Camp upwind of the slope, not downwind. That is the same idea with a sandstorm in the desert, be upwind of any shelter like a wall so you don't get covered in snow nor have a drift collapse on you.