As you may guess this incident is a popular topic of discussion in Russia since the mid-1990's. Prior to that time the story was little known outside the area where it happened because Soviet-era media was not keen on "negative" news. That same Soviet-era was very fond of UFO stories though, go figure.
Anyway I'm from Maine and don't speak or read Russian but this case was compelling enough for me to read many Google-translated Russian forums about it some years ago (talk about surreal language sometimes lol). Also one of the hikers was sort of French so people in France took an interest and I was able to find some interesting discussions in French (which I sort of understand) as well.
Theories invoked ranged from Yeti attack (the Yeti is Eurasia's Bigfoot) to UFO intervention but the most popular theories were much more down-to-earth scenarios. Direct military involvement has been ruled out from the start because if such had been the case civilian authorities including police would never have been allowed to get near the site, let alone perform autopsies. If the criminal investigation was allowed to proceed it's because the military and Party authorities, after running their cursory inquest, decided it was none of their concern. Had the opposite been the case all evidence would have been confiscated including perhaps a few witnesses.
It was much easier in the USSR for the military to barge in and take over the handling of such incidents than it is in the US: all they had to do was take over and act as if nothing ever happened. No cover-up required, no one was suicidal enough to dare question their actions. This did not happen in this case therefore we can assume it was considered either a crime or accident and lowly local cops were allowed to run their investigation. The fact that reports were filed away after the investigation is apparently simply because that's the way it was done in those days after any investigation: public access to police reports was severely controlled and usually restricted to "concerned parties". But that said those reports were nonetheless produced, and usually following very thorough investigations, and they were very detailed. Unfortunately most of the details never made it to the media.
So even though there are missing pieces in the archives and the available material is incomplete, what we do know is still useful in trying to figure out what happened that night. I noticed there are details that apparently got left out of the story as it is known in here in the US.
Cause of death appears pretty clear: hypothermia for some of them. The compression injuries found on other bodies are consistent with an avalanche event, either sustained as a result of being hit by the massive shock wave (ultra-high velocity displacement of an air mass), or the result of having been buried under tons of compacted snow for months. Shock waves can topple trains and destroy large buildings so imagine what it can do to a human body... this would be similar to injuries sustained in a vehicular collision. Missing tongue may simply have broken off once frozen stiff especially if it was hanging out the mouth as it often would if its owner died of suffocation. Bodies recovered in May were probably not in good enough condition to tell if death was anterior or posterior to the injuries.
What happened inside the tent, or maybe even the tent itself, constitutes the core of the mystery. What do you bring inside a tent? Your clothes, your sleeping bag, your food and a means to cook that food or produce heat for other purposes. Here are some theories I've read:
1) Massive food poisoning
The older among you or those who, like myself, like to read old National Geographics will recall that back in the 1950's the food industry was running extensive tests about subjecting food items to intense radiation as a means to preserve just about anything forever (fruit, meat, dairy products, bread, etc) without refrigeration or even without any sort of packaging. Believe it or not this actually works (I have always wondered if Twinkies had anything to do with this), but unfortunately it also makes food highly toxic and of low nutritional value. As usual in the US this was tested on "volunteers", read the military and guests of correctional and mental institutions. People got sick, idea was abandoned. But in the USSR the usual method of testing such experiments was to give it to the military without telling them and see what would happen. Since quality control was not a priority some items apparently carried radiation levels thousands of times above the safety level. Also in the USSR the selling of military surplus to civilians was extremely common: the stuff was cheap and useful. Among the military surplus "stuff" that was popular with hikers were tents, sleeping bags, boots, skis, etc. And rations. If those hikers ate "strong" radio-active rations the effects could be quick and sudden. The theory is not without merit but does not explain why they tore out of the tent in their underwear all at once.
2)Exposure to lethal chemicals
God knows what nasty chemicals a tent or sleeping bag bought from Soviet military surplus may have been exposed to. Some warfare chemicals tested at the time included delayed-release synthesized scorpionfish venom, one of the most potent pain-producing substances known. Individuals exposed to this brew, which can be absorbed by skin contact, experience pain so excruciating that they often beg for death and lose all reason, fortunately the effects only last a few minutes but they probably seem like hours to the victims. The primal reflex in such a situation is to run from the perceived source of pain regardless of environmental factors such as extreme cold, anything is better than the pain. If they though the source of that pain was the tent or something inside the tent they would never have returned there regardless of the cold. Remnants of a fire were found so someone was trying to keep warm but at -30C loss of consciousness and death occur fairly quickly when one has no clothes.
3) Equipment malfunction
If one's tent suddenly fills up with noxious fumes or smoke and they can't find the zipper in the dark they will likely bust out and quick without taking time to put on clothes. But in such an event one would likely not stray far away once they can breathe, unless they fear the situation may degrade, as would be the case if there had been the perceived risk of an explosion. I don't know if that's what they feared but I find it hard to believe one would run 1km almost naked at 30C below regardless of what heating/cooking device one uses. Even the Soviets didn't have nuclear Colemans.
4) Fear of imminent avalanche
These people were described as seasoned mountaineers and if there is one thing a seasoned mountaineer is terrified of is to find him/herself in the path of an avalanche. Those of you who have read Survive! will recall the description of the avalanche that struck the wreck of the plane shortly after the crash and as the result the constant overwhelming dread that it would happen again the survivors had to live with for weeks afterwards, some so terrified they never ventured out of the wreck? If one of those hikers became convinced an avalanche was about to hit and ripped the tent open to escape because he or she couldn't manage to find the entrance in total darkness it is guaranteed instant panic and the others would have followed within seconds. And they would have run as fast and as far as they could towards trees or anything they thought would have offered some protection. And then while waiting for the avalanche to occur they would have tried to get warm with a fire but at -30C hypothermia occurs fast and impairs judgment, then makes one feel like he's warm while his body temperature is dropping, warm enough that he or she may think they can walk back to the tent because, after all, there was no avalanche, and then lose consciousness on their way, and die.
Of these four theories my favorite is #4, it is the one most consistent with the evidence at hand and with human nature. Panic is very contagious and certainly qualifies as a "compelling force". Soviet investigators did not elaborate about theories because the media was not allowed to press them. Even here investigators don't like to theorize but will offer scenarios because of media pressure.
Anyway I'm from Maine and don't speak or read Russian but this case was compelling enough for me to read many Google-translated Russian forums about it some years ago (talk about surreal language sometimes lol). Also one of the hikers was sort of French so people in France took an interest and I was able to find some interesting discussions in French (which I sort of understand) as well.
Theories invoked ranged from Yeti attack (the Yeti is Eurasia's Bigfoot) to UFO intervention but the most popular theories were much more down-to-earth scenarios. Direct military involvement has been ruled out from the start because if such had been the case civilian authorities including police would never have been allowed to get near the site, let alone perform autopsies. If the criminal investigation was allowed to proceed it's because the military and Party authorities, after running their cursory inquest, decided it was none of their concern. Had the opposite been the case all evidence would have been confiscated including perhaps a few witnesses.
It was much easier in the USSR for the military to barge in and take over the handling of such incidents than it is in the US: all they had to do was take over and act as if nothing ever happened. No cover-up required, no one was suicidal enough to dare question their actions. This did not happen in this case therefore we can assume it was considered either a crime or accident and lowly local cops were allowed to run their investigation. The fact that reports were filed away after the investigation is apparently simply because that's the way it was done in those days after any investigation: public access to police reports was severely controlled and usually restricted to "concerned parties". But that said those reports were nonetheless produced, and usually following very thorough investigations, and they were very detailed. Unfortunately most of the details never made it to the media.
So even though there are missing pieces in the archives and the available material is incomplete, what we do know is still useful in trying to figure out what happened that night. I noticed there are details that apparently got left out of the story as it is known in here in the US.
Cause of death appears pretty clear: hypothermia for some of them. The compression injuries found on other bodies are consistent with an avalanche event, either sustained as a result of being hit by the massive shock wave (ultra-high velocity displacement of an air mass), or the result of having been buried under tons of compacted snow for months. Shock waves can topple trains and destroy large buildings so imagine what it can do to a human body... this would be similar to injuries sustained in a vehicular collision. Missing tongue may simply have broken off once frozen stiff especially if it was hanging out the mouth as it often would if its owner died of suffocation. Bodies recovered in May were probably not in good enough condition to tell if death was anterior or posterior to the injuries.
What happened inside the tent, or maybe even the tent itself, constitutes the core of the mystery. What do you bring inside a tent? Your clothes, your sleeping bag, your food and a means to cook that food or produce heat for other purposes. Here are some theories I've read:
1) Massive food poisoning
The older among you or those who, like myself, like to read old National Geographics will recall that back in the 1950's the food industry was running extensive tests about subjecting food items to intense radiation as a means to preserve just about anything forever (fruit, meat, dairy products, bread, etc) without refrigeration or even without any sort of packaging. Believe it or not this actually works (I have always wondered if Twinkies had anything to do with this), but unfortunately it also makes food highly toxic and of low nutritional value. As usual in the US this was tested on "volunteers", read the military and guests of correctional and mental institutions. People got sick, idea was abandoned. But in the USSR the usual method of testing such experiments was to give it to the military without telling them and see what would happen. Since quality control was not a priority some items apparently carried radiation levels thousands of times above the safety level. Also in the USSR the selling of military surplus to civilians was extremely common: the stuff was cheap and useful. Among the military surplus "stuff" that was popular with hikers were tents, sleeping bags, boots, skis, etc. And rations. If those hikers ate "strong" radio-active rations the effects could be quick and sudden. The theory is not without merit but does not explain why they tore out of the tent in their underwear all at once.
2)Exposure to lethal chemicals
God knows what nasty chemicals a tent or sleeping bag bought from Soviet military surplus may have been exposed to. Some warfare chemicals tested at the time included delayed-release synthesized scorpionfish venom, one of the most potent pain-producing substances known. Individuals exposed to this brew, which can be absorbed by skin contact, experience pain so excruciating that they often beg for death and lose all reason, fortunately the effects only last a few minutes but they probably seem like hours to the victims. The primal reflex in such a situation is to run from the perceived source of pain regardless of environmental factors such as extreme cold, anything is better than the pain. If they though the source of that pain was the tent or something inside the tent they would never have returned there regardless of the cold. Remnants of a fire were found so someone was trying to keep warm but at -30C loss of consciousness and death occur fairly quickly when one has no clothes.
3) Equipment malfunction
If one's tent suddenly fills up with noxious fumes or smoke and they can't find the zipper in the dark they will likely bust out and quick without taking time to put on clothes. But in such an event one would likely not stray far away once they can breathe, unless they fear the situation may degrade, as would be the case if there had been the perceived risk of an explosion. I don't know if that's what they feared but I find it hard to believe one would run 1km almost naked at 30C below regardless of what heating/cooking device one uses. Even the Soviets didn't have nuclear Colemans.
4) Fear of imminent avalanche
These people were described as seasoned mountaineers and if there is one thing a seasoned mountaineer is terrified of is to find him/herself in the path of an avalanche. Those of you who have read Survive! will recall the description of the avalanche that struck the wreck of the plane shortly after the crash and as the result the constant overwhelming dread that it would happen again the survivors had to live with for weeks afterwards, some so terrified they never ventured out of the wreck? If one of those hikers became convinced an avalanche was about to hit and ripped the tent open to escape because he or she couldn't manage to find the entrance in total darkness it is guaranteed instant panic and the others would have followed within seconds. And they would have run as fast and as far as they could towards trees or anything they thought would have offered some protection. And then while waiting for the avalanche to occur they would have tried to get warm with a fire but at -30C hypothermia occurs fast and impairs judgment, then makes one feel like he's warm while his body temperature is dropping, warm enough that he or she may think they can walk back to the tent because, after all, there was no avalanche, and then lose consciousness on their way, and die.
Of these four theories my favorite is #4, it is the one most consistent with the evidence at hand and with human nature. Panic is very contagious and certainly qualifies as a "compelling force". Soviet investigators did not elaborate about theories because the media was not allowed to press them. Even here investigators don't like to theorize but will offer scenarios because of media pressure.
