November 12, 2019, 03:56:42 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Discussion / Re: Tent Cutting new information
« Last post by Star man on November 11, 2019, 11:42:07 PM »
The details around the cuts, how they were made, why they were made and the action taken to make them could provide insight to the events at the tent.

Indeed. What I wouldn’t give to have high quality photos of those cuts, closeups from both inside the tent and out.

What you surmise, Star, feels solid to me. My other takeaway from this information and discussion is that if the cuts were “peep holes” (and its hard to imagine what else they might be if they were made by members of the expedition) then whatever the “unknown compelling force” was it didn’t start out as a ten on the threat meter. It ramped up. If you think a freight train is about to slam into you, you don’t take time to clean your glasses and get a better look at it.

Yeah - I agree.  If they were peep holes then It’s possible that whatever the threat was the hikers may have thought that staying in the tent was the best strategy at first.  Maybe they were hoping the threat would leave.  The strategy would be to keep watch rather than expose themselves and confront the threat.  It’s the sort of strategy you might employ if there was a wild animal outside - like a bear or a Yeti.

Makes me wonder though.  If they had time to cut the holes and there was a real threat there why did they not prepare to leave the tent in case they needed to?  They could have put on their shoes and had clothing ready.

Regards

Star man
2
General Discussion / Re: Tent Cutting new information
« Last post by UCFseeker on November 11, 2019, 08:01:26 PM »
The details around the cuts, how they were made, why they were made and the action taken to make them could provide insight to the events at the tent.

Indeed. What I wouldn’t give to have high quality photos of those cuts, closeups from both inside the tent and out.

What you surmise, Star, feels solid to me. My other takeaway from this information and discussion is that if the cuts were “peep holes” (and its hard to imagine what else they might be if they were made by members of the expedition) then whatever the “unknown compelling force” was it didn’t start out as a ten on the threat meter. It ramped up. If you think a freight train is about to slam into you, you don’t take time to clean your glasses and get a better look at it.
3
Yeti / Snowman / Re: Exploring The Yeti Theory
« Last post by jarrfan on November 11, 2019, 03:37:12 PM »
SaraPuk: The cuts were identified by searchers when they reassembled the tent at the facility where they kept it. There are pictures on the document "autopsy of the tent," that clearly show the cuts through the seams. A woman who was in the building and was a seamstress determined the cuts were made from the inside of the tent. Her theory was examined with a microscopic look at the cut patterns and they determined the seamstress was correct. If you look at the pictures you can see the 3 cuts, one bigger than the other two. The slashes on the tent wall, yes they are there but they may have been there before the incident just accidentally.

It is very odd that any hiker would cut through the seam to make a hole to peek through. As stated before, it would have taken more effort such as a sawing motion to cut through a seam with 2-3 layers thick of canvas. If you started to slash, when you hit the seam, the slashing would stop and you would have to take time to saw through the  seam.

It is also visible on the pictures that the initial cuts were further ripped by the wind.

All of this is a puzzle, even as to why they had to make 3 cuts to see something unless there were 3 of them looking. It is almost as if the hikers were not thinking properly when they did this or in such frame of mind that they did not care if they made the tent unsalvageable.

I have been sewing all of my life, all kinds of fabrics even some canvas and to cut through the seam would make the tent easily rip from the winds, as is witnessed by the cuts being torn.

as far as if they were making the cuts to air out some horrible fume or smoke, that doesn't make any sense either since they had a tent hole that held the stove pipe. It is all a mystery.
4
Yeti / Snowman / Re: Exploring The Yeti Theory
« Last post by Star man on November 11, 2019, 01:33:34 PM »
The cuts made in the tent.  Currently there is an interesting discussion going on another thread that suggests that the three cuts were leaders through the seams of the tent and that such action would have taken a slow deliberate sawing motion.  The cuts may have been smaller when made and later elongated by the wind and or recovery of the tent.  If they were smaller then it is unlikely that they were made as a means of escape.  Also, it would be unlikely that they were made to make the tent unusable.  So what were they made for?  The hikers would not have made cuts in the tent lightly as it was their life boat. 

So could the cuts have been made to look outside to check on some kind of threat that they knew was there? 

Regards

Star man

Well I have never been that convinced about the so called Cuts   !  ?  What if they were made by something slashing at the Tent from the outside  !  ?  After all there are so many ponderables in this Dyatlov Mystery.  Who is to say that the person who examined the Tent wasnt told to say that the cuts came from the inside or perhaps they made a mistake in their examination.

Where the cuts are made from the inside there was suppose to be scratch marks made before the sharp implement (presumably a knife) penetrated the fabric.  That's why they attributed three of the holes in the tent to cuts from the inside.  Also it's unlikely that a slashing action could have cut through the seams - based on Jarrfan's posts, and when you think about it it kind of makes sense.  You would need a sawing cutting motion to cut the thicker tougher seams

Regards

Star man
5
Yeti / Snowman / Re: Exploring The Yeti Theory
« Last post by sarapuk on November 11, 2019, 12:47:30 PM »
The cuts made in the tent.  Currently there is an interesting discussion going on another thread that suggests that the three cuts were leaders through the seams of the tent and that such action would have taken a slow deliberate sawing motion.  The cuts may have been smaller when made and later elongated by the wind and or recovery of the tent.  If they were smaller then it is unlikely that they were made as a means of escape.  Also, it would be unlikely that they were made to make the tent unusable.  So what were they made for?  The hikers would not have made cuts in the tent lightly as it was their life boat. 

So could the cuts have been made to look outside to check on some kind of threat that they knew was there? 

Regards

Star man

Well I have never been that convinced about the so called Cuts   !  ?  What if they were made by something slashing at the Tent from the outside  !  ?  After all there are so many ponderables in this Dyatlov Mystery.  Who is to say that the person who examined the Tent wasnt told to say that the cuts came from the inside or perhaps they made a mistake in their examination.
6
Yeti / Snowman / Re: Exploring The Yeti Theory
« Last post by Star man on November 11, 2019, 08:47:50 AM »
The cuts made in the tent.  Currently there is an interesting discussion going on another thread that suggests that the three cuts were made through the seams of the tent and that such action would have taken a slow deliberate sawing motion.  The cuts may have been smaller when made and later elongated by the wind and or recovery of the tent.  If they were smaller then it is unlikely that they were made as a means of escape.  Also, it would be unlikely that they were made to make the tent unusable.  So what were they made for?  The hikers would not have made cuts in the tent lightly as it was their life boat. 

So could the cuts have been made to look outside to check on some kind of threat that they knew was there? 

Regards

Star man
7
It’s difficult to know whether the work done by the genome project has credibility at present.  But it would be interesting if a completely independent peer review was undertaken including the use of the samples for further analysis and confirmation.

At the end of the day if they are tying to present a false investigation and pass it off as genuine then they would be kidding themselves.

Regards
Star man
8
General Discussion / Strange slow progression after (labaz)
« Last post by Louisette on November 11, 2019, 05:53:22 AM »
Hello @all, first message,
 as all I have many questions, but one jumps in my eyes ... the departure of 31 Jan (labaz) at what time? 13 pm,? ... they stop the trip on the mount kholat syakhl at 3 pm? ONLY 4 KM!

Strange slow progression!
Problems start on this route WELL BEFORE THE TENT?

 ONLY 4 KM! With late check out 1 pm?

Strange slow progression, with a departure in bad weather, and lightening bags

Thank you

I post my first video, another more complete is underway



9
Yeti / Snowman / Re: Traces on the Dyatlov pass and a few words about the bigfoot version
« Last post by NkZ on November 11, 2019, 02:17:01 AM »
wikipedia on sasquatch:
"After what The Huffington Post described as "a five-year study of purported Bigfoot (also known as Sasquatch) DNA samples",[88] but prior to peer review of the work, DNA Diagnostics, a veterinary laboratory headed by veterinarian Melba Ketchum, issued a press release on November 24, 2012, claiming that they had found proof that the Sasquatch "is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species." Ketchum called for this to be recognized officially, saying that "Government at all levels must recognize them as an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights against those who would see in their physical and cultural differences a 'license' to hunt, trap, or kill them."[89]

Failing to find a scientific journal that would publish their results, Ketchum announced on February 13, 2013, that their research had been published in the DeNovo Journal of Science. The Huffington Post discovered that the journal's domain had been registered anonymously only nine days before the announcement. This was the only edition of DeNovo and was listed as Volume 1, Issue 1, with its only content being the Ketchum paper.[89][90][91]

Shortly after publication, the paper was analyzed and outlined by Sharon Hill of Doubtful News for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Hill reported on the questionable journal, mismanaged DNA testing and poor quality paper, stating that "The few experienced geneticists who viewed the paper reported a dismal opinion of it noting it made little sense."[92]

The Scientist magazine also analyzed the paper, reporting that:

Geneticists who have seen the paper are not impressed. "To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid," Leonid Kruglyak of Princeton University told the Houston Chronicle. "Instead, analyses either come back as 100 percent human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts." The website for the DeNovo Journal of Science was setup [sic] on February 4, and there is no indication that Ketchum's work, the only study it has published, was peer reviewed.[93] "
These guys are not helping our hairy friend's cause!
10
General Discussion / Re: Tent Cutting new information
« Last post by Star man on November 10, 2019, 02:52:37 PM »
The details around the cuts, how they were made, why they were made and the action taken to make them could provide insight to the events at the tent.  Jarran has provided some good insight into this.

From what I have read on this thread it seems that there were three cuts made deliberately on the down side of the slope.  These cuts may have been smaller than when they were examined by forensics as Jarrfan suggest.

If the cuts were smaller and more deliberate then there are some things that we can surmise from this.

1. The cuts were unlikely to have been done as a means of escape from the tent - not big enough.  Later they may have become elongated by the wind, and from the poor handling during the recovery.

2.  Unlikely to have been made by anyone from outside the group.  There is no evidence that anyone else was there.  Also, the cuts are too small to suggest that outsiders were trying to make the tent unusable.

So why make the cuts?  The cuts were delibarate and would have taken careful cutting to cut through the seams in the tent.  Were they made to look outside?  If they were not for escape or an attempt to damage the tent, then is it more likely they were made to look outside?  If so, why would you cut holes to look outside?  You wouldn't damage the tent unless you were scared and thought your life was in danger?

The hole with the jacket in could have been made before the deliberate cuts were made as has been hypothesised by Jarrfan.

Is the above a more credible option? 

Good discussion.

Regards

Star man
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10