March 17, 2018, 07:03:17 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Why did the Dyatlov group leave their tent?  (Read 64 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

March 12, 2018, 08:15:00 PM
Read 64 times

Per Inge Oestmoen

Why did they leave their tent?

That is a crucial question.

The tragedy started with their leaving their camp.

Everything that subsequently happened is connected to their fleeing their tent, and it is probable to the point of certainty that the unusual force that made them leave their shelter was also responsible for their deaths.

Leaving a safe shelter and fleeing out in the arctic winter in the middle of the night without proper clothing and moreover without proper protection of their feet and hands leads to certain death within a short time, and they must all have known that.

Being aware that staying outside half-dressed and with little or no protection for the most vulnerable parts of the body means death, the only possibility is that they found themselves faced with a situation that was so extraordinarily dangerous that staying where they were would result in immediate and violent inescapable death since the danger must have been so great and forceful that nine healthy people could not hope to fight it even if they had axes and knives. They somehow managed to grab with them some few items like matches, but they evidently did not have the time to put on their warm garments.

The immediacy and gravity of the threat they faced on that fateful night is the only possible reason why they left without taking the three to four minutes it would require to put on their winter clothes, boots and mittens/gloves.

What could it be? Let us consider some possibilities.

- An avalanche. That can be ruled out. The terrain was simply not typical of an area where avalanches occur. No avalanches were reported, and no traces of avalanches were found in the area.

- Atmospheric phenomena in the sky. We can also safely rule them out. These nine trekkers were gifted and knowledgeable people who must have been acquainted with both northern lights and other phenomena, and moreover they would not let themselves be scared out from the tent in a deadly vulnerable condition unless an immensely dangerous physical presence forced them to leave.

- Infrasound with subconscious psychological effects that led to their fleeing their tent. It is likely that we can become nervous and even scared by sound frequencies that are capable of subconsciously influencing us. But it is unrealistic to assume that nine intelligent, experienced and evidently mentally as well as physically strong people would let panic overtake them to such a degree that they would all flee. They all knew very well that to leave their shelter in -25 C in the middle of the dark night improperly dressed and without winter mittens, gloves and winter boots is a suicidal action which will invariably lead to death.

- Yetis do not exist, and even if they did they would most likely not be harmful to humans.

- UFOs do exist, but they are natural phenomena, not extraterrestrials that harm and kill people.

- Known animals can also be excluded. Predatory animals would have left characteristic damage on the bodies, and nothing points to an animal attack on any of the nine trekkers while they were alive.

Realistically, judging from the evidence which is known - including the fact that much of the bodily damage found on nearly all of the unfortunate victims was fully compatible with and even characteristic of forceful physical attack - there is only one natural phenomenon that can have caused the trekkers to leave the tent and thereafter caused their deaths. That phenomenon is an assault by human attackers, a powerful, compelling and relentless assault that were intended to kill all the nine members of the Dyatlov group and also achieved that violent and terrible goal.

That is, the tent and its nine occupants must have been attacked by human assailants during the fateful night of February 02, 1959.

March 12, 2018, 08:54:06 PM
Reply #1


Global Moderator
This is above all the $9,000 question....  I agree

I do however believe there is a very real possiblity of the 9 becoming unfortunate victims of several events or (chain of events) in which lead to their deaths. 

#1.  Most of the intrigue of this mystery is due to the lack of evidence for all theories which leads one to rely on circumstantial evidence as the basis for the theory they subscribe to the most. 

#2.  Its a 50/50 chance said 'compelling' force came from outside of the tent, or within. I would lean more towards the latter given that the easiest explanation is usually correct.  People tend to focus on more on what compelling force would make them go down the slope rather then what made them leave the tent when approaching this.  For me, its a matter of what inside the tent would they want to flee from, not what is outside they would want to flee towards and subsequently be unprepared as described.    What may have been the reason within the tent for said departure I dont know...  But it shouldn't be overlooked yet alone ruled out.

#3.  The injuries.   I also believe most people tend to see the injuries as 'having' to be caused by someone from outside if the group.  In reality, most victims know their attacker in one way shape or form.  I do believe either case can be made, but I do not like to discount one over the other due to lack of evidence.    We know most sustained injuries consistent with hand/hand combat, but honestly we have no idea who inflicted said injuries..... Could have well been amongst themselves.   Another scenario that shouldn't be overlooked. 

March 14, 2018, 11:25:08 AM
Reply #2


Adding onto Per's point: I'm also willing to believe that they were attacked, and I've found a tiny piece of potential evidence that may support it. We all know that the autopsies were done sloppily and that the descriptions are totally vague, but I noticed how on Igor's body– more specifically his ankles- he had brownish scratches and haemorrhaging to the underlying tissue of both his ankles:

"There are scratches of brown-red color in the area of the left ankle joint on the anterior lateral and on the posterior surfaces of both ankles hollowed over the surface of the skin and also on the (illegible) skin, sized 1 х 0.5 cm and up to 3 х 2.5 cm with hemorrhaging into the underlying soft tissues."

The coroner makes no comment on what may have caused this, but I really think that such symmetrical bruises, especially to the extremities seems to show that he may have been bound at the ankles at one point.

Now I'm no doctor, hell, I haven't even looked at anything biology-related in years, but I'm not the only who believes this might be the case. There's an article in Russian [that Google Translate add-on may come in handy here] in which journalists asked a modern forensic expert his opinion on the odd injuries. He clearly say that "he could not have gotten these bruises falling around in the snow, but rather from circular compression around the ankle, for example as a result of binding from a rope."

I think it's a sign that they may have very well been attacked and bound at one point. By whom? No clue, but it is all quite suspicious.

A bit of a tangent on my part but I think it does reinforce Per's point on the group being attacked; their injuries are just too odd to be natural.

LC, I am willing to believe it is possible that they may have fought between themselves, but as with every other murder theory, my question is simply: Why?

Even if there was some head-butting going on between the leader figures, even if there was some weird romantic-triangle situation, why would they risk their lives to beat the daylights out of each other in such a dangerous area? They were educated young people, even if their disdain for each other grew stronger than their maturity to just let it slide, why would they not wait one more week before beating each other up? It's just odd to me.

Going back to the original point, I don't think that the danger came from inside the tent. Unless one of them in the group was some sort of a psychopathic murder  with suicidal intentions, I can't see why the danger would come from inside the tent...

March 14, 2018, 03:50:09 PM
Reply #3


One metric to determine the presence of outside combatants is the difference between punches thrown, and blows received. The hikers seemed to have much more fist and knuckle injury than facial strike marks.   They fought well, but lost. There must have been outside persons, or they thrashed the cedar tree!
« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 04:00:15 PM by SteveCalley »