October 19, 2019, 12:47:37 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: New theory: tent failure!  (Read 673 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

August 16, 2019, 12:31:51 PM
Read 673 times
Offline

lucid-nonsense


Most theories take it for granted that they fled from the tent in fear from some real or imagined danger.

But why is it assumed that they panicked? Does the evidence really support that notion?

I think you would never leave your tent in the middle of the night in a snowstorm without proper clothes on because you heard something scary outside (remember, they only could’ve heard it from inside the tent). Why would you go outside where the scary thing is? In fact, if you heard something scary outside and you panicked, you would refuse to leave the tent. I mean, I’ve been backcountry camping. I can’t think of any noise outside that would make me slash out of the tent. To go do what? Fight? In the dark?

Put yourself in their shoes, if you heard something scary outside, you would curl in a ball, try to breathe quietly and pray it doesn’t find you. Plus, we know they didn’t flee in wild panic all the way down, because they walked single file most of the way. They were so scared that they tore through their tent instead of using the exit, then 30 meters further they were sufficiently recovered to calmly walk down? Why not go back to the tent then?

So if they were fleeing from anything, it had to be inside the tent. But if something inside the tent scared them that badly, why would they cut the tent up in that way? One wall of the tent had several long widely spaced vertical slashes that were all joined by a tear, plus several shorter horizontal cuts near the top rope, probably by two different blades. Plus several slashes that didn’t go through. That doesn’t sound like what you would do to escape a tent. One or two big slashes and everyone leaves through that.



You don’t need to mangle a tent like that to go out!



Why would you take the time to really slash up the tent like that if you are that terrified? That’s 13 cuts, not counting the ones that didn’t go through (and possibly not all of them are there).



Why would they take the time to also cut the upslope side? Are they scared or not?

So if they weren’t trying to leave, why might they cut up the tent like that? What if they were trying to let something else out?

What if someone had really bad gas?

I’m just messing. I think their tent was filling up with snow, so they cut it to let the snow out.

But let me start from the beginning.

They set their tent on the slope by digging a hole.



Now see the hole is already filling back up.



The hole plus the upslope side of the tent would stick out, which would make snow pile above and around it, like an avalanche barrier. It was snowing and there was lots of windblown snow. So loads of snow piled up against the side of the tent.



Kinda like this

So they set their tent, got ready for bed, heated up their meal -- meanwhile, the snow was piling up in the hole and on the tent, and the small part of their tent that stuck out was getting hammered extra hard by the blizzard. Dyatlov wrote in his diary the previous day “The speed of the wind is similar to the air draft created by a taking off airplane”.

Under the weight of the snow and the strength of the wind, the upslope side of their tent tore where it would’ve been weakest because of the constant friction from the rope being whipped by the wind and the sandblast effect of the snow.

Snow started pouring in through this hole and their tent started filling up with snow like sand from a trap from The Mummy.

They tried to plug it by stuffing a jacket and a flashlight in. But another hole appeared, then another.



At least three holes in the upslope side of the tent.

Snow probably also poured in from the entrance, since they stuffed the stove and a jacket in there as well.

Under the extra of the snow both inside and outside, one of the ropes snapped and the tent partially collapsed and started leaning dangerously downslope. They knew they were in trouble, but were unable to leave through the entrance, as it was both buried and blocked.

They thought that a few cuts would let snow out of the tent, before the extra weight pulled the entire tent downslope or they became buried inside the tent. However, when they had slashed the tent a few times, the entire panel suddenly tore and all the occupants were swept out along with the snow.

They slid around downhill, along with a few items -- remember they were on a 30 degree slope. This would have been really disorientating, especially in the dark. They realized they wouldn’t find the tent again in the blizzard. In his diary, the day before Dyatlov wrote: “Walking is especially hard today. Visibility is very low.” And that was in the daytime.

Possibly it was so windy that they were unable to walk upslope -- they would’ve had to crawl, and if they had tried crawling about in the snow in those conditions, they 100% certainly would’ve died (thanks Nigel!).

They might also have assumed that the tent was completely destroyed/buried/swept away. I think the tent was more buried than the pictures show

Possibly they did look for it but were unable to find it. So they went downslope, thinking to shelter there until morning. They fell several times in the dark, acquiring the light fall injuries (scratches and bruises).

At moonrise, some went back to look for the tent but died before they could get there. The guys tending to fire sat down to warm up and rest a bit, thought “lemme just close my eyes for a sec” and never woke up.

We know the ravine four died after that, because they are wearing some clothes cut off people dead at the fire. However, they almost certainly died from the fall. I mean, they’re in remote Siberia, at the bottom of a cliff with injuries consistent with a fall? No need to make it more mysterious than it is.

Other things my theory explains:
The Items scattered near the tear in the tent.
The missing boots and torn socks: most of their indoor boots are unaccounted for. There are nine pairs of outdoor boots in the tent, but only a few indoor boots. One guy has only one boot?
The absence of footprints immediately around the tent.
The footprints nearby sometimes leave and rejoin the main set of footprints: it's because they were looking for the tent, other people or the scattered items from the tent.
The mess inside the tent.
The cut branches up high on the tree: someone climbed the tree to look for the tent, but the branches were blocking the view.

Second best part of this theory? We know something like this already happened.

Here is an extract from the book On the Road of Trail describing a similar scenario (tent tearing and letting in snow), except there was another camp nearby, so the hikers left and walked to that, and survived (thanks Teddy!).

Quote
... A muddy curtain of bad weather appears on the horizon ... We corral into the tent, huddled around the stove, where a faint light flickers a little, casting a pale glow on the gloomy, alert faces of people... from the north a snowstorm approached. And soon everything was whistling around, spinning in a mad whirlwind. Streaks of snowy dust flowed through the frozen slant; snow drifting ominously.

The tent is arched from the pressure of the wind. The stove has gone out. Firewood is over, the cold finds a gap, seeps inside. We are wrapped in warm clothes. It is impossible to fall asleep, but the conversation is not getting better... what will happen if the wind breaks our tent and we find ourselves face to face with a snowstorm on bare rocks, far from the forest?...

A snowdrift piled up heavily on the tent on the windward side, the wall bent dangerously, and soon the rope it the middle broke, unable to withstand the weight... The hanging snowdrift had already taken a third of the site away from us and continued to press from above, bending the crossbar. It was at that moment that a new ferocious squall hit, and the canvas wall broke in half. A mountain of snow fell on us.

 – Get dressed and go out! - Lebedev orders. A scuffle begins in the twilight, no one can find their belongings, you hear curses. The wind flaps the torn sides of the tent, throwing fistfuls of snow in our faces.
 – I say, get out! - Lebedev's voice is heard through the howl of the storm.
 – Presnikov, you are holding back everybody detain all.
 – I lost my hat, – he screams back.
 – Cover your head with a bag and get out! - orders Lebedev, wrapping a rope around himself and passing the end to his comrades.

The snowstorm brings down on us all its might. The chill is blinding the eyes, burns the nostrils. Lebedev is ahead, behind him, holding the rope, the others are walking. Moving almost blindly, it is difficult to get to the slope. It becomes easier to walk, because under your feet the descent and snowstorm are somewhat quieter here. We go at random among the small rocks, along hollows with steep slopes. Obviously, we descend down to the ravine, where there must be a forest, which means there will be a fire. We don’t dream about anything else... Only an hour later, the steepness of the descent broke, the placers and the rocks were left behind. Smooth drifted snow under our feet, slippery as ice ... We go down the ravine even lower and notice freshly cut stumps, and then tents are shown. Well done Kirill Rodionovich - how confidently he led us to the camp! And now we are at a great fun bonfire that has given us strength and good spirits. The ropes are untied, there is laughter...

... On the pass we saw snow mounds, like dunes of oblong shape, located in the direction of the wind. And where our tent stood, a frozen mound with an overhanging snow cornice towered ... We did not excavate the mound, it was late, and the snow hardened so much that it could only be cut with axes. We will do it tomorrow …

That sounds pretty similar to what happened in Dyatlov Pass! Except there was no camp for them to go to, so they tried to save their tent, then went down to the forest for shelter.

Best part about this theory? This is something we can actually test! I’m going to make a small scale model of the tent and try it out with a leaf blower!

I think WAB made a model already? If you could give me more details about it?

Few more things:

Why they did they pitch their tent in that spot? They probably got caught by the dark. They moved more slowly than planned and they couldn’t make their planned destination for the night, and figured it was safer to camp than to keep going in the dark. Remember Dyatlov wrote that walking was difficult that day.

We know that much of the footprints were erased (there should at least be footprints from them setting up the tent) so there might be actually a lot more footprints. There might have been footprints all around, looking for the tent. Why do we assume that it’s tracks leading directly from the tent to the forest?
The burned hands and feet is an easy one. The guy was trying to warm by the fire and lost consciousness. Or he didn’t feel the burn because of frostbite.

The torn clothes the woman was wearing: when she found her friend’s body, he was already frozen, so she couldn’t remove his clothes the normal way.

The two coats have to have been irradiated before the trip, otherwise all their clothes would be irradiated. And the two men who had the radioactive clothes both worked in a radiation facility. And I mean, sloppy radiation safety in the Soviet Union in the 1950s? You don't say.

The cut trees at the bottom that weren’t burnt: these were used for the shelter (when they first found the cut trees, they didn’t know about the shelter yet).

The missing lips, nose and tongue: a small animal would struggle to eat a frozen body, especially through clothes, so it would just nip away at the softest tissues (this is why if you die with a pet inside the house, it will eat your face after a few days.)

Oh, and also, when they say they were in their underwear, they mean stuff like long johns, not like boxers shorts only. They weren’t that “undressed”.

I also feel that people overestimate how experienced these people were. They hadn't even gotten their full qualifications yet. To me, an expert is somebody who has gotten all his qualifications at least 10 years ago.

There is also information that seems to have been simply made up decades after the incident, adding to the “mystery”.

Also, some people insist that anything unexplained must be evidence of a murder or a conspiracy of some sort. But not really. Something unexplained is just that, unexplained. It could just be a mysterious accident. Just because the case is really mysterious doesn’t mean there must be some bizarre explanation as well.

Let me know what you think!

Thanks for reading!

August 16, 2019, 03:31:50 PM
Reply #1
Offline

Marchesk


It's as good a theory as any, and makes sense of some details around that tent that most of the other theories tend to ignore. But as is the case with all theories, it has a few potential flaws.

The most obvious one is if the tent filled with snow and pushed them 30 meters downhill:

1. What happened to the snow in the tent when the search party got to it?
2. How come most of the stuff remained in the tent?

The next thing is whether 30 meters would really be enough distance for nine hikers to fail to find the tent. Keep in mind they did have another flashlight on them. The one that was found a on farther down slope along the footsteps.

The third is that it doesn't explain Zolotaryov's camera found around his neck. Why would he have a camera in this scenario? Did he happend to be outside the tent taking pictures of something coincidental to the incident?

And finally, it doesn't explain all of the injuries found on the five hikers not in the ravine. Particularly Slobodem's fractured skull.

One other thing is that the slope incline around the tent of 30 degrees is contentious. More modern measurements put it somewhere between 12 and 20.

August 17, 2019, 08:43:34 AM
Reply #2
Online

cennetkusu


The most sensible reason for having many cuts in the tent was the knife in more than one person. So a team of 9 people is likely to have at least 5 knives. The most plausible explanation was that they spied on the outside first. For this, they have already passed through the peepholes. 4 or 5 pieces. His fears increased for a moment while spying outside. And they wanted to get out of the tent. The reason for this was probably the danger of TENT ATTACK. Young people fled out to protect them from the attack. When they ran away, they panicked the tent all over. Because someone did not wait and say, '' YOU CUT we're waiting ''. Everyone with a knife in his hand tried to cut the tent as soon as possible. Nobody could have expected anyone. But the unknown coercive force caught and killed them where they escaped.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 05:01:14 AM by Teddy »
You're alone and desperate. Connect with God, you won't be alone and you're a saint.

August 17, 2019, 11:03:15 AM
Reply #3
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
There is little to zero evidence the "cut their way out of the tent".   
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

August 17, 2019, 01:03:21 PM
Reply #4
Offline

lucid-nonsense


Quote
It's as good a theory as any, and makes sense of some details around that tent that most of the other theories tend to ignore.

Thank you!

Quote
But as is the case with all theories, it has a few potential flaws.

I think we'll never know for sure and the best we can do is the best theory!

Quote
The most obvious one is if the tent filled with snow and pushed them 30 meters downhill:

1. What happened to the snow in the tent when the search party got to it?

Well, did they say there was no snow in the tent? Whether or not there was snow in the tent that night, there would be some amount of snow that got in before the searchers got there. They probably wouldn't have commented on it.

Quote
2. How come most of the stuff remained in the tent?

Well, why would ALL the stuff need to spill out? When I say the tent was filling up with snow, I don't mean it was completely full. Otherwise they wouldn't have even been able to cut it.

Quote
The next thing is whether 30 meters would really be enough distance for nine hikers to fail to find the tent. Keep in mind they did have another flashlight on them. The one that was found a on farther down slope along the footsteps.

As far as I understand it, they had one flashlight total.

Plus losing things in the snow in the dark is much easier than you think. People lose their skis when they fall sometimes -- in the daytime.

Taking a tumble like that would be really disorientating. Imagine the situation. You unexpectedly slide and tumble in the dark. You come to a stop and need to go straight back. Where do you go exactly? You won't be able to tell exactly where you slid from or what distance you slid. You can try to walk straight back to it but if you get the direction even slightly wrong, you're gonna miss it. If you miss it once, it's really easy to just get lost after that because if you make the wrong adjustment, you're actually getting further away from it, and you have no way to tell exactly where you started searching.

Quote
The third is that it doesn't explain Zolotaryov's camera found around his neck. Why would he have a camera in this scenario? Did he happend to be outside the tent taking pictures of something coincidental to the incident?

He probably had it under his clothes when it happened and didn't toss it? At any rate, my theory doesn't explain it, but this also doesn't refute my theory, and none of the other theories explain it as far as I know.

Quote
And finally, it doesn't explain all of the injuries found on the five hikers not in the ravine. Particularly Slobodem's fractured skull.

It does? They fell while walking down in the dark. They at least did the last 400 or so meters without a flashlight -- and I'm guessing the flashlight would've been dying for some time before.

Quote
One other thing is that the slope incline around the tent of 30 degrees is contentious. More modern measurements put it somewhere between 12 and 20.

Are we talking about the entire slope top to bottom? The entire slope overall from top to forest is pretty mellow, but the specific spot they were is steeper -- the top of the slope is closer to 30 percent, but the bottom is closer to 15-10, so the average is less steep.



BTW, you should totally go check out the location on Google Earth!

There is little to zero evidence the "cut their way out of the tent".

What makes you say that? I thought that was pretty solid?

August 17, 2019, 06:28:36 PM
Reply #5
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Quote
What makes you say that? I thought that was pretty solid?

Welp

One of the main parts to this incident that captivated me and made me curious to learn more, was the whole idea of them slashing their way out of the tent to get away from "something".   What I found is as follows....

#1. The tent was flapping in extreme winds for a month.  I think we all know what happens under these circumstances.

#2. Boris Efimovich Slobtsov, the leader of the group (students) that found the tent said... 
Quote
When I looked under the tent on 26.2.59 I saw the tent itself was torn
"torn".....   no mention as to multiple tears, rips, chunks missing....... nada. That's it, not much to go on and certainly not enough evidence to support the narrative in question. The others in his team say nothing about torn, ripped etc. 

#3. Another search party member also under the 'commamd' of Slobtsov named V. L. LEBEDEV  was establishing a basecamp near the cedar that day while they were inspecting the tent.  When Slobtsov returned to the camp being established after finding nobody at the tent, he specifically told Lebedev...
Quote
Near the tent was lying (or rather stood) an ice ax, with which they tried to dig up the piled up part of the tent in the hope of finding someone there. They also found a cut of one slope of the tent.
THEY HACKED INTO THE TENT WITH AN ICE AXE!!!!!  An axe head would go in, then be pulled back causing TEARS FROM THE INSIDE.  Also states they found 'a' cut.... Singular.

#4. The next day Lebedev was at the tent site and states this...
Quote
The middle of the tent failed, the tent itself was torn, maybe our guys (Sharavin and Slobtsov) broke it, but on the slope that was turned down, there was a clear even cut, made in my knife.
Whoa whoa whoa....  you say the middle of the tent failed.... is there perhaps a support pole in the middle of this tent that could have damaged the canvas upon its collapse?     There is that word again.... 'torn'.  This isn't a plural usage of the term being used by all these guys, and he blatantly admits that "maybe our guys (Sharavin and Slobtsov) broke it"     bat1 bat1

He also states....
 
Quote
In one place of the tent she was torn and then fastened with a pin.

 "In one place of the tent"  shock1    Sooooo,  "torn' and fastened with 'a' pin.....    shock1

#5. After the tents contents were extracted and catalogued by the investigator, Lebedev was part of the team that Dug/chopped the tent out of an ice crusted hardened pack snow to be flown out by helicopter. Below is an image of said men with their shovels and ice picks.



#6. Another search party member TMANAKI was also present at the tent on day 2 stated...
Quote
the entrance was unbuttoned
the north side of the tent was torn

So... Even though the guys that were there the day before state that they did not go inside the tent other then hacking int the side with an ice axe. He saw that the tent flap door was OPEN.  This does not fit the narrative that they slashed out through the sides.  One has to become very skeptical about the entire tent situation at this point.   bat1

#7.  The contents of the tent were then loaded into the tent like a Santa Claus sack, and drug over sharp ice and rocks some half mile away to the helicopter.   whist1

#8. After all that, the tent ends up in the office of the investigator a shredded mess.  His seamstress comes to his office for some tailoring and armed with her super forensic abilities makes a determination on the spot that out of all that's now wrong with said tent, THREE cuts were 'made from the inside'.  Never mind that fact that flaps of the tent during the mangling process likely folded over making the inside now the outside when steel tools dug it out of the icy snow.   nose1

#9. The cuts "made from the inside" in question are detailed on this diagram.   Note, I excluded all other cuts etc from this diagram to show the "cuts from the inside' by themselves.




So the cuts shown above are the ONLY ones of the ENTIRE tent that are reported to be cut from the inside. 

Now.......   Does anyone here believe NINE full size adult bodies jumped out of those holes? 

#10.  We know that Igor's jacket was stuffed into a hole in the tent, and one of the girls diary entries indicate that sewing holes in the tent is a constant ordeal.  In high winds, small tears turn into giant holes.... see #1 on this list.



That's my 1 through 10 as to why the "slashed their way out of the tent" narrative is weak at best. There simply is no tangible evidence to support it, and unfortunately a legend spawned.  There is no way to put that toothpaste back into the tube. 
« Last Edit: August 17, 2019, 06:34:43 PM by Loose}{Cannon »
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

August 17, 2019, 07:26:01 PM
Reply #6
Offline

lucid-nonsense


Quote
#1. The tent was flapping in extreme winds for a month.  I think we all know what happens under these circumstances.

Since it was buried, it wouldn't have been flapping. To be fair, it might've been buried after the night in question.
Quote

Quote
#8. After all that, the tent ends up in the office of the investigator a shredded mess.  His seamstress comes to his office for some tailoring and armed with her super forensic abilities makes a determination on the spot that out of all that's now wrong with said tent, THREE cuts were 'made from the inside'.  Never mind that fact that flaps of the tent during the mangling process likely folded over making the inside now the outside when steel tools dug it out of the icy snow.   nose1


Dunno why you would dismiss a seamstress's expertise in cutting fabric, but anyway, she just spotted it. They confirmed it by forensic analysis. Basically, from the inside, each cut gets deeper until it goes through (each cut begins and ends with a partial cut, if that makes sense), which means they were made by slashing a blade from the inside. Sounds like pretty solid logic to me.

Quote
#9. The cuts "made from the inside" in question are detailed on this diagram.   Note, I excluded all other cuts etc from this diagram to show the "cuts from the inside' by themselves.




So the cuts shown above are the ONLY ones of the ENTIRE tent that are reported to be cut from the inside. 

Really? Where does this info come from?



August 17, 2019, 07:28:56 PM
Reply #7
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
That's only if you believe the tent was buried.... Which is a fine theory, however it's just that. 

We know for a fact the tent was exposed when found.   
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

August 18, 2019, 01:54:55 AM
Reply #8
Online

cennetkusu


If the tent was cut off from only three places, how did the youngsters get out of the tent? Because the door was closed when the tent was found (?) If the door of the tent is open, the accuracy of all the information given to us is doubtful !!! Because what can the purpose of saying open door be closed ??? Then it suggests that the state has a finger in this business. But that wouldn't be true. Because there is a lot of data evidence that the government has no finger in this business.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 04:41:37 AM by Teddy »
You're alone and desperate. Connect with God, you won't be alone and you're a saint.

August 18, 2019, 03:01:01 AM
Reply #9
Offline

Marchesk


Well, did they say there was no snow in the tent? Whether or not there was snow in the tent that night, there would be some amount of snow that got in before the searchers got there. They probably wouldn't have commented on it.

That's odd because it sounds like the search party was able to see exactly what was in the tent and removed some items to take back with them to the camp site. The only time I heard about snow inside the tent was from the helicopter pilot, who saw the tent later and wasn't sure whether there was snow or not inside.


Quote from: lucid-nonsense
Well, why would ALL the stuff need to spill out? When I say the tent was filling up with snow, I don't mean it was completely full. Otherwise they wouldn't have even been able to cut it.

Becuase if the snow can push nine people out, then surely it can push everything else downslope?

Quote from: lucid-nonsense
As far as I understand it, they had one flashlight total.

At least three were found. One in someone's pack inside the tent. One on or around the tent, and one found several hundred meters downslope by the foot steps.

Quote from: lucid-nonsense
Plus losing things in the snow in the dark is much easier than you think. People lose their skis when they fall sometimes -- in the daytime. Taking a tumble like that would be really disorientating. Imagine the situation. You unexpectedly slide and tumble in the dark. You come to a stop and need to go straight back. Where do you go exactly? You won't be able to tell exactly where you slid from or what distance you slid. You can try to walk straight back to it but if you get the direction even slightly wrong, you're gonna miss it. If you miss it once, it's really easy to just get lost after that because if you make the wrong adjustment, you're actually getting further away from it, and you have no way to tell exactly where you started searching.

But nine people with a flashlight, camera and matches on them couldn't find a tent uphill 30 meters away when their survival was on the line?


Quote from: lucid-nonsense
He probably had it under his clothes when it happened and didn't toss it? At any rate, my theory doesn't explain it, but this also doesn't refute my theory, and none of the other theories explain it as far as I know.

Any theory involving lights in the sky explain it, which would include ball lightning and military accidents. The lead investigator thought that was the case. I'm not saying it was, but it is an interesting fact.

Quote from: lucid-nonsense
It does? They fell while walking down in the dark. They at least did the last 400 or so meters without a flashlight -- and I'm guessing the flashlight would've been dying for some time before.

I doubt you get a skull fracture from falling down. Maybe if it's out of a tree. There were several other injuries that are hard to account for outside of fighting and torture. Again, not saying it's the case. But that's the problem with this incident.

Quote from: lucid-nonsense
Are we talking about the entire slope top to bottom? The entire slope overall from top to forest is pretty mellow, but the specific spot they were is steeper -- the top of the slope is closer to 30 percent, but the bottom is closer to 15-10, so the average is less steep.

I can only go by what people who have gone there in the last decade or so have said about the slope near the tent, and it isn't 30 degrees.


Quote from: lucid-nonsense
There is little to zero evidence the "cut their way out of the tent".

What makes you say that? I thought that was pretty solid?

The tent was cut open with a pick axe by one of the fist two searchers to find it. Then it was dug up and dragged across several hundred meters to the helicopter. It was only when it was reassembled back in town that determination was made that the hikers cut their way out. I'm not saying they didn't, but the one picture we have of the reassembled tent is in bad shape. So I'm not sure how they made that determination.

All theories are flawed because the evidence is flawed, and we can't determine exactly which evidence is missing or contaminated to what extent. The proliferation of theories trying to explain the incident shows just how much that is the case here. But your theory is plausible. Problem is (at least for me), I don't find any theory convincing.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2019, 03:09:54 AM by Marchesk »

August 18, 2019, 03:21:57 AM
Reply #10
Offline

Marchesk


If the door of the tent is open, the accuracy of all the information given to us is doubtful !!! Because what can the purpose of saying open door be closed ???

It's frustrating that we don't know whether the tent opening was fastened or not. There's several possibilities here. One or more of them could have been outside relieving themselves or taking pictures of the sky when the incident took place. Only some of them could have cut their way out. Someone else could have cut the tent for whatever reason.

August 18, 2019, 06:46:47 AM
Reply #11
Online

cennetkusu


If the door of the tent is open, the accuracy of all the information given to us is doubtful !!! Because what can the purpose of saying open door be closed ???

It's frustrating that we don't know whether the tent opening was fastened or not. There's several possibilities here. One or more of them could have been outside relieving themselves or taking pictures of the sky when the incident took place. Only some of them could have cut their way out. Someone else could have cut the tent for whatever reason.
I read that it was closed. Only one or two buttons were open from below. If the tent door is closed, young people have a way out of the tent. So they cut the tent out. There's no other option. If the tent's door is open, it doesn't look like the cuts in the tent can only be caused by dragging.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 04:40:38 AM by Teddy »
You're alone and desperate. Connect with God, you won't be alone and you're a saint.

August 18, 2019, 06:51:37 AM
Reply #12
Online

cennetkusu


The cuts are more like knife cuts than drifts. Details such as the length and fineness of the cuts are not the result of drifts or axes. On the contrary, it looks like it was cut with a knife.[/u][/color] Of course I'm not an expert in this matter. An in-depth research can be done on this subject.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 04:40:08 AM by Teddy »
You're alone and desperate. Connect with God, you won't be alone and you're a saint.

August 18, 2019, 06:54:49 AM
Reply #13
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
When you leave your house in a blizzard, do you close the door behind you?

I hate to be captain obvious here, but you guys seem think if the door was closed that 'had'  to slash their way out through the wall.    whacky1
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

August 18, 2019, 06:59:13 AM
Reply #14
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
The cuts are more like knife cuts than drifts. Details such as the length and fineness of the cuts are not the result of drifts or axes. On the contrary, it looks like it was cut with a knife. Of course I'm not an expert in this matter. An in-depth research can be done on this subject.

That's a pretty definitive claim.  You know ice axes and steel shovels have sharp blades also....  Right?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 04:41:06 AM by Teddy »
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

August 18, 2019, 08:28:46 AM
Reply #15
Offline

WAB


Welp

Dear signors!
So it is impossible to discuss and, especially it analyze …
You have deformed almost all picture of detection and progress of research of tent.


I well know it, because except reading criminal case (by the way without the distortions connected with transfer!) still many times talked to those who did it. Particularly it were Boris Slobtsov, Michael Sharavin, Vadim Brusnitsin, Yury Koptelov. For the clear reasons I could not speak with George Atmanaki and Vladimir Lebedev. But it was under command Vadim Brusnitsin when investigated tent before it investigated officially on February, 28th 1959, but after its detection on February, 26th.
I will disassemble consistently all those discrepancies which you have resulted.

One of the main parts to this incident that captivated me and made me curious to learn more, was the whole idea of them slashing their way out of the tent to get away from "something".   What I found is as follows....

…………………………………….
#1. The tent was flapping in extreme winds for a month.  I think we all know what happens under these circumstances.

What occurs? Tell me, pleas, particularly …
From myself I can tell that we in 2014 have made experiment with similar tent and we have not found out any especial changes.
Therefore it is possible consider that from its moment escape, till to moment detection anything did not occur to it., For example, untied ropes wind (in 1959, at us and it was not revealed because Shura (Alexander Alekseenkov) has very well fastened knots) it is not meaningful to take small changes into consideration.

#2. Boris Efimovich Slobtsov, the leader of the group (students) that found the tent said... 
Quote
When I looked under the tent on 26.2.59 I saw the tent itself was torn
============================
"torn".....   no mention as to multiple tears, rips, chunks missing....... nada. 

What could he tell another? It could not investigate each molecule at that time. That there are cuts was revealed already after and is revealed cryminanalystic`s laboratory examination. You want tell, what you in absentia know, what there was, and is better it know, than the expert who had fabric before eyes?

That's it, not much to go on and certainly not enough evidence to support the narrative in question. The others in his team say nothing about torn, ripped etc.   

If nobody no speaks about it does not mean that it was not.

#3. Another search party member also under the 'commamd' of Slobtsov named V. L. LEBEDEV  was establishing a basecamp near the cedar that day while they were inspecting the tent

Lebedev established basecamp not at cedar, and it was in other place. It was nearby the Auspia river.

.  When Slobtsov returned to the camp being established after finding nobody at the tent, he specifically told Lebedev...
Quote
Near the tent was lying (or rather stood) an ice ax, with which they tried to dig up the piled up part of the tent in the hope of finding someone there. They also found a cut of one slope of the tent.
==================================
THEY HACKED INTO THE TENT WITH AN ICE AXE!!!!!  An axe head would go in, then be pulled back causing TEARS FROM THE INSIDE.  Also states they found 'a' cut.... Singular.
 

Michael Sharavin told to me the same it. They used ice axe for shovel snow (not for this purpose what cut!) because at them anything else was not. I do not see in it anything especial if only not complicate it specially.

#4. The next day Lebedev was at the tent site and states this...
Quote
The middle of the tent failed, the tent itself was torn, maybe our guys (Sharavin and Slobtsov) broke it, but on the slope that was turned down, there was a clear even cut, made in my knife.
============================
Whoa whoa whoa....  you say the middle of the tent failed.... is there perhaps a support pole in the middle of this tent that could have damaged the canvas upon its collapse?



You can distinguish difference of that the prop has pierced fabric of tent and what this fabric has been torn linearly?
I think that Lebedev was able do it easier because he saw it directly.

There is that word again.... 'torn'.  This isn't a plural usage of the term being used by all these guys, and he blatantly admits that "maybe our guys (Sharavin and Slobtsov) broke it"       
 

Well it is also what? On place operation nobody reflected on, whether there was it cut, or there was rupture. As it was under snow and it was badly visible. That is available especial what all thin details have been found out after that?

He also states....
 
Quote
In one place of the tent she was torn and then fastened with a pin.
==========================

 "In one place of the tent"       Sooooo,  "torn' and fastened with 'a' pin.....     
 

Why you think about that it is result of what occurred at night on February, 01st, instead of has been made earlier? They could attach pin any subjects to tent fabric, for example, for drying. And rupture could be formed and after that. There are no details of picture on which it is possible judge the reasons of it. Here there is full open space of imagination (including diligent). Therefore it is not necessary replace ambiguities with conjectures. It is necessary operate only with the clear facts. If all time add conjectures, it will be absolutely impossible understand.

#5. After the tents contents were extracted and catalogued by the investigator, Lebedev was part of the team that Dug/chopped the tent out of an ice crusted hardened pack snow to be flown out by helicopter. Below is an image of said men with their shovels and ice picks. 

Whence there could be layer « ice crusted hardened pack snow to be flown out by helicopter»(c)? The helicopter basically could not fly up to place where the tent is established. In addition: what (for it?) was necessary do it?
On tent there was no any snow (and furthermore ice!), except that snow which was drifted for three weeks while the tent has not been found out. It was told by all who took part in search, and especially those who had sufficient qualification.

#6. Another search party member TMANAKI was also present at the tent on day 2 stated...
Quote
the entrance was unbuttoned
the north side of the tent was torn
 


George Atmanaki was either has mixed, or meant not tent North side, and East. In descriptions of searchers often there is mess of the parties. On place it is very not clear, especially when the man there has got just.

So... Even though the guys that were there the day before state that they did not go inside the tent other then hacking int the side with an ice axe. He saw that the tent flap door was OPEN.  This does not fit the narrative that they slashed out through the sides.  One has to become very skeptical about the entire tent situation at this point.     

Here you think out difficulties, and then by all means can get confused easily, and confuse other readers. It is not necessary so dogmatically carp to words of people which were in extreme position. To me here be guided easier, because George Atmanaki and many other things were on this place at 1 times, and I be place at 5 times only in the winter and 2 times in the summer. And they did not set as the purpose situation and topology analysis, and I specially was engaged in it.
It is possible select specially only errors which they have admitted, and then on the basis of it do incorrect conclusions. Only answer me, please: what for it is necessary do it?

#7.  The contents of the tent were then loaded into the tent like a Santa Claus sack, and drug over sharp ice and rocks some half mile away to the helicopter.   
 

Well also what it is? Only answer me: where you there have found “sharp ice”? In this direction stones are, but they meet seldom and, it as rule, are covered by snow.
On another transfer tent with things it was impossible, because there came evening and waited that the helicopter can be arrive.

#8. After all that, the tent ends up in the office of the investigator a shredded mess.  His seamstress comes to his office for some tailoring and armed with her super forensic abilities makes a determination on the spot that out of all that's now wrong with said tent, THREE cuts were 'made from the inside'.  Never mind that fact that flaps of the tent during the mangling process likely folded over making the inside now the outside when steel tools dug it out of the icy snow.   

1.Vladimir Korotayev's Story (as well as it is lot of that he spoke) is legend.
2.Already indoors Office of Public Prosecutor of Ivdel city, it was revealed that it were cuts, and no ruptures which too were but they had other orientation.
3.After that professional examination which has established from what party has been appointed and spent these cuts have been made. If you want replace conclusions of the professional expert, the opinion, at all without observing that it was, it is counterproductive method of research.

#9. The cuts "made from the inside" in question are detailed on this diagram.   Note, I excluded all other cuts etc from this diagram to show the "cuts from the inside' by themselves

You demand impossible action. How any person can, what that show, if it does not have point of issue? You suggest it to make on a picture where it it is not visible so well as it is necessary.
I can show trajectory of cuts on other evident picture if it allows me the Internet traffic.

So the cuts shown above are the ONLY ones of the ENTIRE tent that are reported to be cut from the inside.   

Do not deceive readers, substituting conclusions of the expert, for you opinion.

Now.......   Does anyone here believe NINE full size adult bodies jumped out of those holes? 
 

They could make it easily if not take into consideration in what you try confuse readers.

That's my 1 through 10 as to why the "slashed their way out of the tent" 

It is not necessary so obviously give out private opinion of one story-tellers on these events as incontestable fact. Please, result literally and precisely the citation of the one who spoke it.

and one of the girls diary entries indicate that sewing holes in the tent is a constant ordeal

It is very strong exaggeration too. About it wrote only once in the diary and more than it has not been mentioned anywhere. Whence there was what did it as “constant ordeal” (c)? It is not necessary to think out the own facts. You itself protested against it.

In high winds, small tears turn into giant holes.... see #1 on this list.
 

Whence it follows in this concrete case? If as speak in general about everything it will be small talk essential.

That's my 1 through 10 as to why the "slashed their way out of the tent" narrative is weak at best. There simply is no tangible evidence to support it, and unfortunately a legend spawned.  There is no way to put that toothpaste back into the tube. 

Material proofs it is the result of professional examination.
And that you do, is spread that paste and the offer drive out it back. Though you must be understand that simple words, against legally established facts have more value. It is not dependent on what is court: American, Russian or Chinese ….
Therefore I can consider this your message no more than how it is possible turn fur coat inside out. And if without having what that the facts, and thinking out the.
I understand that you do it not deliberately, and because of weak possession of the facts. But from it not it is necessary readers, in analysis this information is no easier.

August 18, 2019, 08:33:42 AM
Reply #16
Offline

WAB


I doubt you get a skull fracture from falling down.

Such result (wounds) can be catch easily in those conditions which there exist. Here (at the forum) I already wrote about it. And I even specified in all places where it was possible to receive such wounds easily which were at all participants of Dyatlov group. Now it is very difficult to me to search for my records but if you want, you can find them under list WAB. If you do not find, bat I will try find it at following visiting to forum. But at me it is connected with the big complexities and uncertain time.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2019, 08:47:24 AM by WAB »

August 18, 2019, 08:40:21 AM
Reply #17
Offline

WAB


It's frustrating that we don't know whether the tent opening was fastened or not.

Why we do not know? I know it well. Directly from the first source.
The input to tent was not closed in general. The free curtain There be hung, having lifted which it was possible to enter into tent. The curtain was the big size. When the person entered, it lifted it and threw for the back. It easily fell and kept heat in tent. Small heat, if it was in tent the oven did not burn.

August 18, 2019, 08:56:13 AM
Reply #18
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
It's frustrating that we don't know whether the tent opening was fastened or not.

Why we do not know? I know it well. Directly from the first source.
The input to tent was not closed in general. The free curtain There be hung, having lifted which it was possible to enter into tent. The curtain was the big size. When the person entered, it lifted it and threw for the back. It easily fell and kept heat in tent. Small heat, if it was in tent the oven did not burn.

Are saying the entrance was HALF open at the bottom and entry/exit was possible in this configuration?
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

August 18, 2019, 12:16:46 PM
Reply #19
Offline

WAB


Are saying the entrance was HALF open at the bottom and entry/exit was possible in this configuration?

Yes it is.

August 18, 2019, 01:14:07 PM
Reply #20
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
There we have it then.  The "cut their way out of the tent" narrative takes another nosedive. 
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

August 18, 2019, 02:27:52 PM
Reply #21
Offline

lucid-nonsense


I doubt you get a skull fracture from falling down.

Such result (wounds) can be catch easily in those conditions which there exist. Here (at the forum) I already wrote about it. And I even specified in all places where it was possible to receive such wounds easily which were at all participants of Dyatlov group. Now it is very difficult to me to search for my records but if you want, you can find them under list WAB. If you do not find, bat I will try find it at following visiting to forum. But at me it is connected with the big complexities and uncertain time.

I think I remember you posting a picture of the ravine somewhere? I did look for it but I couldn't find it again?

Some people seem to believe that the terrain is really easy and safe? Like it's one smooth gentle slope from the top to the bottom of the valley? I mean, it's not the Khumbu Icefall, but it's not a walk in the park either. It would be *extremely* dangerous to navigate at night.

Just because the slope is 20 degrees overall doesn't mean it's 20 degrees the whole way. There could be a cliff in a 5 degrees slope, and at that specific spot, the angle would 90 degrees.




August 18, 2019, 09:06:18 PM
Reply #22
Offline

Marchesk


There we have it then.  The "cut their way out of the tent" narrative takes another nosedive.

They crawled their way out of the tent just doesn't sound as good.

When you leave your house in a blizzard, do you close the door behind you?

Only when spending the night in the woods without proper attire.

August 18, 2019, 11:35:34 PM
Reply #23
Offline

lucid-nonsense


The cuts are more like knife cuts than drifts. Details such as the length and fineness of the cuts are not the result of drifts or axes. On the contrary, it looks like it was cut with a knife. Of course I'm not an expert in this matter. An in-depth research can be done on this subject.

That's a pretty definitive claim.  You know ice axes and steel shovels have sharp blades also....  Right?

Ice axes do not have blades.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 04:42:07 AM by Teddy »

August 18, 2019, 11:41:53 PM
Reply #24
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I definitely think you should build the model with the snow blower.  Would be great fun.

On serious note though I have camped in a tent in snow storm and the snow kept building up against the side.  All I did was knocked it off the side and every hour or so dig it away from the side of the tent and I am no way as experienced as Dyatlov group.

Regards
Star man

August 21, 2019, 12:51:09 PM
Reply #25
Offline

lucid-nonsense


Well, did they say there was no snow in the tent? Whether or not there was snow in the tent that night, there would be some amount of snow that got in before the searchers got there. They probably wouldn't have commented on it.

That's odd because it sounds like the search party was able to see exactly what was in the tent and removed some items to take back with them to the camp site. The only time I heard about snow inside the tent was from the helicopter pilot, who saw the tent later and wasn't sure whether there was snow or not inside.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Imagine finding a tent in this state that's been buried in snow for a month. If there was snow inside, you wouldn't necessarily comment on it. Because of course there is snow inside? You know what I mean? They just didn't mention any snow inside, right? Doesn't mean there wasn't any.

Quote from: lucid-nonsense
Well, why would ALL the stuff need to spill out? When I say the tent was filling up with snow, I don't mean it was completely full. Otherwise they wouldn't have even been able to cut it.

Becuase if the snow can push nine people out, then surely it can push everything else downslope?

Not necessarily, especially for the stuff in the corners? There might be items that just weren't picked up by the flow?

Plus my theory explains why there were scattered items downslope of the tent. Never heard another theory that might come close to explaining it.

Quote from: lucid-nonsense
As far as I understand it, they had one flashlight total.

At least three were found. One in someone's pack inside the tent. One on or around the tent, and one found several hundred meters downslope by the foot steps.

Sorry, I misspoke. I mean they had one flashlight with them after they left the tent.

Quote from: lucid-nonsense
Plus losing things in the snow in the dark is much easier than you think. People lose their skis when they fall sometimes -- in the daytime. Taking a tumble like that would be really disorientating. Imagine the situation. You unexpectedly slide and tumble in the dark. You come to a stop and need to go straight back. Where do you go exactly? You won't be able to tell exactly where you slid from or what distance you slid. You can try to walk straight back to it but if you get the direction even slightly wrong, you're gonna miss it. If you miss it once, it's really easy to just get lost after that because if you make the wrong adjustment, you're actually getting further away from it, and you have no way to tell exactly where you started searching.

But nine people with a flashlight, camera and matches on them couldn't find a tent uphill 30 meters away when their survival was on the line?

They wouldn't have been able to light a match and I don't think cameras back then had integrated flashes.

Quote from: lucid-nonsense
He probably had it under his clothes when it happened and didn't toss it? At any rate, my theory doesn't explain it, but this also doesn't refute my theory, and none of the other theories explain it as far as I know.

Any theory involving lights in the sky explain it, which would include ball lightning and military accidents. The lead investigator thought that was the case. I'm not saying it was, but it is an interesting fact.

The problem with the balls in the sky is that they occurred after the events at Dyatlov Pass.

Quote from: lucid-nonsense
It does? They fell while walking down in the dark. They at least did the last 400 or so meters without a flashlight -- and I'm guessing the flashlight would've been dying for some time before.

I doubt you get a skull fracture from falling down. Maybe if it's out of a tree. There were several other injuries that are hard to account for outside of fighting and torture. Again, not saying it's the case. But that's the problem with this incident.

You can certainly get a skull fracture from falling on a rock.

Quote from: lucid-nonsense
Are we talking about the entire slope top to bottom? The entire slope overall from top to forest is pretty mellow, but the specific spot they were is steeper -- the top of the slope is closer to 30 percent, but the bottom is closer to 15-10, so the average is less steep.

I can only go by what people who have gone there in the last decade or so have said about the slope near the tent, and it isn't 30 degrees.

They did? Where?

I definitely think you should build the model with the snow blower.  Would be great fun.

I know right? We'll at least know if it's a reasonable scenario or not! But I meant a leaf blower, to simulate the wind. A snowblower would instantly bury a model tent under heavy compacted snow, it wouldn't be a fair test.

On serious note though I have camped in a tent in snow storm and the snow kept building up against the side.  All I did was knocked it off the side and every hour or so dig it away from the side of the tent and I am no way as experienced as Dyatlov group.

Was your tent in a hole on the side of a slope in a blizzard with very strong winds tho?

Also, their tent was old and presumably worn.

Moreover, we know the tent wall collapsing thing has happened at least one other time -- the On the Road of Trail incident. So we know it's possible.

The Dyatlov group wasn't that experienced. If I remember correctly, someone got fired or disciplined for letting them go on an expedition they weren't ready for.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 01:04:28 PM by lucid-nonsense »

August 21, 2019, 10:58:11 PM
Reply #26
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Well I can't say the conditions were exactly the same tbh.  It certainly wasnt as cold as on the pass.  It was windy but maybe 40 mph rather than 60 - 70 mph.

Regards

Star man

October 14, 2019, 01:44:58 AM
Reply #27
Offline

garybonds


Hi Everyone, I'm new. I registered here after binge-reading about DPI for a few days. I ended up with the same idea as lucid-nonsense. Tent failure seems a plausible explanation of the known facts. I was about to post a thread about it, but then I found this one.

Looking at the big picture of DPI in my opinion there is only one big unresolved mystery to be explained: why did the group leave the tent?

(On one level I am not sure if we can ever establish this to a satisfactory degree as it comes down to the motivitation of people who are long dead and gone and who did not document their thought process. Leaving the tent was lethal and counter-intuitive. That's why we grasp for an explanation. But spending the night on the wind-exposed slope was similarly ill-advised, but has received less attention. I think it is not unreasonable to say that many things point to that the group and Dyatlov were in quite poor shape - cold and very tired - when these decisions were made and that that was a factor. In the end all we can do is to make more or less educated guesses.)

Here is the unedited drawing of the cuts to the tent that Loose }{ Cannon posted above, from the forensic investigation of the tent performed by Churkina.



As pointed out by Loose }{ Cannon, there were only three man-made cuts to the tent, and they were all made from the inside. All the other major damage was judged as tearing.

Those cuts are shown in the picture. They are marked 1, 2 and 3 and with their respective lengths in centimeters (31, 89, 42).

I wish to direct attention to some circumstances I find noteable. The three cuts are horizontal, not vertical. I offer the proposition that making vertical cuts, if feasible, would have been a more rational way to get out of the tent, causing less damage to the tent. Especially cut 2 makes very little sense if supposed to allow escaping tent. Not by itself at least, and if we assume the normal shape of the tent was intact (it had not collapsed).

This could be explained in various ways, such as that they were made in a state of panic, or that the wall of the tent was collapsed in such a way to cause problems in performing a vertical cut.

However, now I wish to direct attention to the two huge holes in the wall of the tent also shown in the picture, the ones edited out in LC's picture above. They are judged to be caused by tearing by Churkina. Note that cut 3 connects them. Cut 2, likewise, is connected to the big central tear.

I propose the following scenario:

Quote
The wall of the tent failed, by tearing, causing the big central areas of damage seen in the picture. The rationality of staying in the tent at-all-costs was only valid as long as the tent was intact and fulfilled its purpose of protecting against the elements. The moment the tent failed and strong ice-cold winds entered the inside of the tent, escaping the very poorly chosen and exposed location on the open mountain and fleeing for cover below the treeline was the rational thing to do.

I propose the cuts 1, 2 and 3 were made to widen an already existing hole to better allow escape through the side of the tent. The reason that they did not initially bring along more gear was that they fled in panic, in low visibility and strong very cold winds.

Nothing else about this very tragic accident seems all that strange or surprising to me.

At the time of their accident, the group was exhausted after travelling under hard circumstances. This is supported by Dyatlovs diary and the very slow progress they made the last few days. They exercised poor judgement, likely induced by exhaustion, in pressing on up the pass under dangerous conditions (cold temperatures; high winds) and then opting to camp for the night on the slope on the open mountain, exposed to strong winds.

Knowing those facts, and fully appreciating the very real dangers of their environment, it is to me not at all surprising that they ended up dead some time later. This I consider the big picture of the situation and why nothing really warrants a more fancy variety of explanation.

The four in the ravine next to the "den"/bivouac, too, arent really a mystery. They were found at the bottom of a ravine with injuries consistent with a fall. They fell down the ravine. But before they could be found the ravine had filled up with snow (as has been testified typical for the season and location). They died by slipping falling and freezing. The missing tongues, noses eyes and whatnot are accounted for in the original autopsies: they were eroded away from the bodies from lying in a moving stream of water for months.

« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 04:35:29 AM by garybonds »

October 14, 2019, 05:10:35 PM
Reply #28
Offline

jarrfan


Thank you for your theory. I would beg you take a further more intense look into the injuries sustained by these hikers. The two Yuri's at the tree did not fall into a ravine, but yet had extensive injuries. Slobodin was found with the first group and he had his head cracked from temple to mid cranium and the same injury on the other temple.

Even if the tent failed, for them to leave it was not reasonable, ever. The 3 small cuts were the ones they made. The bigger cuts were made by Sharavin as he said he cut into the tent to see what and if anyone were there. So, the tent fail theory does not hold up if there were just the 3 small cuts made from inside.

The cranium cracking because of the cold, I will have to do some investigating.

thanks. Jarrfan


October 14, 2019, 08:17:10 PM
Reply #29
Offline

garybonds


Hi Jarrfan!

Suffering from hypothermia and frostbite ability to move without falling down is severely impaired, even on normal ground.

On a slope of snow and ice covering rocky terrain like this:



also in a 20-40 m/s snowstorm, falling and getting all kinds of injuries, including cracked skull, isnt surprising.

The theory of injuries caused by attack from outsiders is impossible and refuted by evidence, since no tracks or leavings from outsiders were ever found, and removing all ones tracks in snowy terrain is impossible under controlled circumstances, and even moreso in a chaotic fight to the death in a lethal snowstorm.

Quote
Even if the tent failed, for them to leave it was not reasonable, ever. The 3 small cuts were the ones they made. The bigger cuts were made by Sharavin as he said he cut into the tent to see what and if anyone were there. So, the tent fail theory does not hold up if there were just the 3 small cuts made from inside.

The wind-exposed location on the open slope was very bad and lethal in snowstorm. Location below treeline with protection from wind was much preferable as soon as tent failed. Not that it saved them in the end.

There were only the three cuts that are shown in my picture, and they were all made from the inside. All other major damage to tent was caused by tearing. This was established by microscope inspection of thread lesions. https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-303-304?rbid=17743

Sharavin cut from the outside is not supported by findings of investigation. (Sharavin tear damage from outside cannot be ruled out).
« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 09:04:11 PM by garybonds »