Mountain of the Dead by Keith McCloskey Read Free Book Online Page A

cause for the large and unusual skull fracture was dismissed at the autopsy, which leaves the question: what else could have caused the damage to his skull? Some of the theories about what caused the deaths may account for what caused the skull fracture (avalanche/fight/attacks by criminals or special forces, etc), but whatever caused the damage must have happened fairly close to where he died, as he probably would have been unable to make his way from the tent without being carried or dragged. None of the evidence points to any member of the group being carried or dragged by the others.
Note
    The bulk of this chapter consists of information provided by the courtesy of the Dyatlov Memorial Foundation.
       1.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/meninges .

What happened – official findings
     
    This chapter looks at possible explanations using the official investigation as a guideline (particularly the only footprints present being from the group themselves) and also looks at all the possibilities arising from the deaths occurring in the vicinity of the tent and the lower slope of Kholat Syakhl by the tree line. The official investigation was concluded on 28 May 1959.
    Fifty-one years after the tragedy, the Dyatlov Memorial Foundation organised a conference on 2 February 2010 at Ural State Technical University to bring a number of experts and interested parties together in order to try and answer some of the many questions surrounding this mystery. In the process, they examined a number of the main theories that have been put forward.
    The following presents a list of possible scenarios that may have either directly caused the deaths of the group or been a significant contributory factor. All the possibilities suggested have been put forward at different times by different sources, ranging from the highly probable to the fantastic. There is also a line of thought supported by some that there is a simple and mundane explanation for the deaths. This line of thought is that they all left the tent and six of them froze to death; the other three (all three of them at the same time) fell into a ravine, seriously injuring themselves as they did so, and then were overcome by the elements. On the face of it, this is certainly plausible, but the following questions have to be asked: why did they slash the tent with knives to get out so quickly? What is mundane about nine experienced hikers/skiers leaving the confines of safety to walk or run to their certain deaths? Who in their right minds would commit virtual suicide as a group, unless someone or something had forced them to do so? Why did the group split into two and end up apart from each other? If they fell to their deaths in a ravine why did they all do so – did they follow each other over the edge and fall down one after another or did they all fall into a ravine at the same time? They cannot have been looking for help as they knew very well that they were many miles away from any help or civilisation. That is what takes this tragedy beyond the mundane.
Hypothermia and ‘paradoxical undressing’
    The fact that a number of the members of the group died from hypothermia cannot be disputed, assuming that one takes the autopsy results as correct (i.e. not falsified by pressure from outside influences). The first autopsies were held in Vizhay, which had the most basic of facilities, and it was the first five bodies – two of which were found near the cedar tree and the other three almost in a line possibly trying to get back to the tent – who were all found basically to have died from being exposed to the elements (i.e. died from the cold) and being inadequately clothed. The other four members of the group were not found until early May; three of this second group – Luda Dubinina, Semyon Zolotarev and Nicolai Thibeaux-Brignolle – had received serious internal injuries, the causes of which are unexplained. The hypothermia theory, which could also be called the mundane