July 05, 2022, 08:48:00 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Tent damage - Was it fatal?  (Read 1350 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 13, 2022, 05:20:34 AM
Read 1350 times
Offline

neni_cesty_zpet


I am questioning myself if them tent damage of such scale was fatal, what do you think?  dunno1

Can you imagine some improvised ways of repairing it during the trek and continuing?

What would you do if such tent damage happened during your hike exactly on same spot, supposing all groups members were healthy and in good shape, having
same sort of tools that Dyatlov's group had ?

Is it possible to survive ?

Best regards, neni_cesty_zpet
 

February 13, 2022, 07:38:58 AM
Reply #1
Offline

GlennM


Who owned this tent? Was it Igor or was it the hiking club? Igor could cut up his own property with impunity, but to destroy club property, he would surely incur a fine. The tent was ruined.  No sane person will cut up their shelter to win an arguement. Further, a stitched up tent is an unreliable tent.  The expedition was over at that point. They should have cut it up for cloaks and returned to their valley cache and gone home. Instead, it seems they were driven from it, or attracted away from it with deadly results. It is said to be cut from the inside and I know of no reports of blood smear nor tree sap on the fabric. Therefore, the hikers set the tent where the rescuers found it.
 

February 13, 2022, 02:02:08 PM
Reply #2
Offline

Manti


First of all most of the tent damage might be from the searchers who found the tent and dug it out with ice axes... tearing the tent into pieces in the process. And then dragged it over the rocks and ice to the helicopter.

But let's assume the wind tears the tent on the slope with the group inside. They had repaired the tent just the previous night, so assume they have all the necessary tools (needles, strings). The best course of action is for some of them to hold the canvas still and others to sew it. Was this survivable? I don't know... was camping in that location, even with a non-damaged tent survivable, given they couldn't use the stove as the tent profile is too low so there's no safe space to hang it, and it may get to -30C during the night? And that they had no sleeping bags, their coats that they used as mats were wet because of exertion and snow melting on them?


Who owned this tent? Was it Igor or was it the hiking club?
The University sports club owned the tent.
 

February 13, 2022, 04:34:32 PM
Reply #3
Offline

GlennM


Was there not a suggestion that Igor's jacket was stuffed in a tent hole? Was that jacket found in the snow by the rescuers?  If the hikers could repair the tent once, then why not again? Very mysterious. If the tent was torn as we are told, and if the hikers departed through these tears in the canvas why would rescuers need to cut yet other holes. Makes no sense . It seems a civilized rescuer would try to enter the tent through the front flap and not be so dramatic. Therefore, there is a suspicion that the tent was never so badly damaged, but again we must reason from what was found. What was found was a badly damaged tent. Since the club owned the tent, only the most extreme situation would warrant its destruction. That, for me would be the prospect of immediate death from a snow slip.
 

February 13, 2022, 04:49:48 PM
Reply #4
Offline

Ziljoe


Was there not a suggestion that Igor's jacket was stuffed in a tent hole? Was that jacket found in the snow by the rescuers?  If the hikers could repair the tent once, then why not again? Very mysterious. If the tent was torn as we are told, and if the hikers departed through these tears in the canvas why would rescuers need to cut yet other holes. Makes no sense . It seems a civilized rescuer would try to enter the tent through the front flap and not be so dramatic. Therefore, there is a suspicion that the tent was never so badly damaged, but again we must reason from what was found. What was found was a badly damaged tent. Since the club owned the tent, only the most extreme situation would warrant its destruction. That, for me would be the prospect of immediate death from a snow slip.
[/quote

I believe there's a couple of suggestions of Igor's coat or other coats were found around the tent. The jacket stuffed in the hole could have been the hole for the stove flue.

They may have cut new holes because it was 3/4 collapsed. How do you enter a stiff collapsed tent? Some of the cuts may have been done by the searchers. They were looking for students/ friends. Who cares about preserving the condition of a tent when people are missing?

I don't think the Dyatlov group would care about the condition of the tent if they were forced out by what ever reason, nor would I think the searchers cared. It's an old canvas tent. The least of anyone's worries. No one cut the tent up for fun.
 

February 13, 2022, 04:52:50 PM
Reply #5
Offline

Ziljoe



Sorry GlennM

I missed the quote bit.


I believe there's a couple of suggestions of Igor's coat or other coats were found around the tent. The jacket stuffed in the hole could have been the hole for the stove flue.

They may have cut new holes because it was 3/4 collapsed. How do you enter a stiff collapsed tent? Some of the cuts may have been done by the searchers. They were looking for students/ friends. Who cares about preserving the condition of a tent when people are missing?

I don't think the Dyatlov group would care about the condition of the tent if they were forced out by what ever reason, nor would I think the searchers cared. It's an old canvas tent. The least of anyone's worries. No one cut the tent up for fun.
 

February 13, 2022, 08:40:45 PM
Reply #6
Offline

GlennM


Collapsed by a snow slip? What do your think? I like the other reasoning. If the rescuers found a collapsed tent then cutting into it would be acceptable. However, if the tent was cut to let people out beforehand, then additional cutting may not have been needed, but it was done. To damage Soviet state property, one would need a very good reason. I think they were all there and were scared by eath movement and snow slab.
 

February 14, 2022, 03:40:54 AM
Reply #7
Offline

Ziljoe


GlennM

I had I initially gone with snow slip/slide or a ground tremor, something natural..

There is mention of one of the searchers making a hole in the tent . There may have been 1 slit cut by the escaping group, the other cuts done by the searchers on digging the tent out The tent had hard snow on top of when found plus we believe it was dragged to the helicopter.

I don't think it matters if it was rockets , falling tree , knife or beast that cut the tent. The authorities would not care but I agree with you that if they cut it , they had to get out in a hurry.
 

February 14, 2022, 05:29:26 PM
Reply #8
Offline

Manti


There are several failed cuts, then the ones that were successful end and continue as tears... It couldn't have been very quick. Yet another thing about this mystery that is hard to make sense of. But at the same time, the tent's entrance was supposedly found buttoned up with only one button left open. Wouldn't it have been faster to just unbutton it and exit that way? Also the entrance side was not under snow when found.

As for an avalanche (snow slab or otherwise).. these don't tend to make much sound, this is why avalanches catch skiers by surprise.

About the earthquake (tremor), I used to be skeptical because the investigators didn't even consider this. Locals weren't questioned about whether they felt a tremor. Seismic records weren't checked, as far as I can tell. But apparently a Spanish forum user  found contemporary seismic records that could be a record of a tremor near Kholat.. at least the distance and times match, although it could really have been anywhere on a circle with that radius.

For sure an earthquake would startle them.. but is abandoning the tent and walking to the forest a reasonable reaction to it? Is being in the forest even safer than being on the slope? I think it's not, as there, trees can fall if there's another tremor. Of course on the slope there can be a rock slide... Hmm maybe there was a rock slide? Isn't a rock rolling over Lyuda, Semyon, and Thibo a possible explanation for their injuries? Still doesn't explain how they then end up in the stream.

 
The following users thanked this post: GlennM

February 15, 2022, 04:50:22 PM
Reply #9
Offline

GlennM


I do not understand this. Help if you can. I was led to believe that the hikers brought two tents and joined them as one. All the images and texts refer to the tent, as a single tent. I find it hard to believe 9 or 10 hikers, a stove, packs and supplies fit into a single tent. I do not understand how a chimney can be cut into a tent the hikers did not own. Some people believe the hikers did not camp at 880, but went to the valley. Did they go with a tent, or half of one?
 

February 16, 2022, 06:13:08 PM
Reply #10
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The tent damage wasnt exactly conducive to long term survival thats for sure, but it may have been possible to survive a night and then in the daytime make for some where safer than that exposed hillside. The Dyatlov Group fled the safety of the tent not properly dressed or equipped for those weather conditions.
DB
 
The following users thanked this post: GlennM

March 02, 2022, 12:18:41 PM
Reply #11
Offline

GlennM


Sarapuk, following your  line of thoight, the only thing to make them leave the damaged tent is the real prospect of something even worse happening if they stay.I think that apart from the likelihood of imminent danger, the choice would be governed by knowing that a warming fire could not be made at the fallen tent. Secondly, a ruined tent does not shelter well from windy conditions. We know that much, much later, as evidenced by the three hikers trying to return to the tent, the thing they feared did not happen and so there was salvage for them to try to get.

I think that between the two ideas of snow slab seriously hurting people in the tent, or hikers sustaining those injuries in a snow cave after leaving the tent, the former explanation makes more sense. Therefore, it appears that shifting snow with the prospect of more shifting snow produced serious injury and a resolve to leave the tent. Everything else follows as the record shows.I do appreciate Manti's support for the seismic scare hypothesis. If seismic activity precipitated the slab slip then it makes sense to me. If the slip happened without warning, the results would be the same.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2022, 09:48:42 PM by GlennM »
 

March 03, 2022, 02:29:42 AM
Reply #12
Offline

Charles


Hello GlennM

the only thing to make them leave the damaged tent is the real prospect of something even worse happening if they stay.

Yes !!!

Secondly, a ruined tent does not shelter well from windy conditions.

The tent was not completely ruined, they had their shoes in the tent, they had their blankets, and food. Staying at the tent was the best and only option to survive... if they had the possibility to make a choice.

We know that much, much later, as evidenced by the three hikers trying to return to the tent, the thing they feared did not happen and so there was salvage for them to try to get.

Or the thing happened and ended.

I think that between the two ideas of snow slab seriously hurting people in the tent, or hikers sustaining those injuries in a snow cave after leaving the tent, the former explanation makes more sense.

The energy needed to break ribs and skulls does not match a limited slide of cloudy snow... And the tent pole at the entrance was still in place. Slobodin was at the entrance, just having pulled his left valenka out when "it" happened : his skull was broken by the slab slide but the pole remained at its place and his jacket hung at the pole ?

Slobodin was pulling his shoes out when it happened, he had the right valenka still on his foot and the left valenka just close to him, just centimeters. Whatever the natural event which happened, we can imagine that the hikers in the tent did not have time to put their shoes on, but why didn't Slobodin exit the tent with the left valenka in his hand ? They understood there was an imminent natural and lethal threat forcing them to leave the tent, right ? Then, why didn't Slobodin just grab his left valenka with the idea to put in on once in a safe place ? He didn't have to carry anything else, did he ? Both his hands were available to carry the left valenka ? So what ?

Slobodin's case tells us they were forced to leave the tent but also they had to drop whatever they were handling and even Slobodin's left valenka... Do natural events say : "Get out and drop whatever you're handling ! Leave the left valenka behind, you won't have the occasion to put it on." ?


« Last Edit: March 03, 2022, 04:18:24 PM by Charles »
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
 

March 03, 2022, 03:23:51 PM
Reply #13
Offline

GlennM


We are told that the tent was actually two tents,supported in the middle by a taut rope  The rope would be tied to a tree at either end  No trees were at elevation 880. The tent was poorly supported on poles and collapsed.. This is a suffocation hazard. Multiply that by 7 to 9 people and the situation becomes urgent. Snow covered the unsupported middle and one end of the tent. If the rescue photos are to be believed, then yes, a ski or pole could remain upright in a slab slip.

The hikers obviously did not make any repairs. They left in an orderly way as shown by prints in the snow. If they waited to clear the overburden of snow from the collapsed tent, the conditions could worsen. It evidently was better for the hikers to go to the woods for shelter and return later.

Prints in the snow indicate after the hikers dispersed,  they reunite and walk, not run to the trees. No trace of injured foot dragging is noted. This is a deliberate walk to the woods, not panic. The decision to leave the tent and return the next day was logical and prudent. They may have escaped the tent in a hurry, but they left the camp in an orderly way. A second threat forced their retreat down the slope. That threat was exposure to snow,  cold and wind in some combination.

The ice found below Rustem's body and his position indicate he and the other two hikers tried to return to the tent. Therefore, the tent was there at 880  and nowhere else. Conspirators, on the other hand,  staging a disaster would have an involved set of tasks to do. That defys common sense.Too, if the tent were in the woods, where is a tree that could crush all of the hikers at that altitude? Were they not in a scrubby alpine forest? Was not the biggest tree in the area the lone cedar? In all subsequent investigations, has anyone found a site that works for a fallen branch theory? Given Our Understanding, Kruschev Ran An Intense News Editing regime.

I think accumulated snow brought by wind and the instability of the snow pack were the cause.. There was no an avalanche, but a slab did move. The tent was weak in the middle and collapsed. They all left to get warm at the tree line and restore the tent the following day. Nobody had a saw, nor axe so they resorted to trying to break branches by pulling, stomping and hacking with a long bladed knife. It was not enough to sustain a proper fire. A series of misfortunes cascaded into perhaps hostilities, certainly fatalities.

The reason this explanation is unsatisfying to relatives and conspiracy buffs is because the hikers weakened the snow by digging a ledge into it. In short, they are partly to blame for their disaster.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2022, 06:16:57 PM by GlennM »
 

March 31, 2022, 05:02:04 AM
Reply #14
Offline

Sunny


I have some guestions: In the pictures of tent (taken by searchers after it was found) we see only 1-2 skis standing up around it. There are no ropes at all tied to them from the tent. On the other hand I red some testimonies from the searchers and they said there were skis up and ropes tied to them, like should have.
And then there is a picture where the Dyatlov group is digging place for the tent on that last day, and they have placed all their skies around it. Where did these skis disappear?
There seems to be some confusion were the ropes tied to the tent  or not. How can there be ropes if there are no skies?
 
The following users thanked this post: GlennM

April 01, 2022, 08:25:03 PM
Reply #15
Offline

GlennM


Well, it seems the experts have spoken and the conclusion is that a slab avalanche was the impetus for the hiker's demise. The short version is that by hikers cutting into the snowy slope and an ill wind producing a snow drift, a weak underlying layer of snow slipped and the overburden crushed the tent. The science is good. The huge downside, especially for relatives of the deceased is that human error, namely cutting a ledge in the snow made the disaster possible. The buildup of windblown snow overburden made it inevitable. It appears that the more exotic and sinister hypotheses can be discarded for a more mundane truth.
 

April 01, 2022, 09:35:22 PM
Reply #16
Offline

Игорь Б.


Разрезы палатки никак не могут быть связаны с лавиной:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=108064
(примечание: правильный перевод фразы "воздушный хлопок" - air clap).
The answers to all the questions related to the death of Dyatlov group:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=110407
Evidence of the death of the Dyatlov group from the Wolverine chemical weapon:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=69286
 
The following users thanked this post: marieuk

April 07, 2022, 06:19:00 PM
Reply #17
Offline

GlennM


 

April 09, 2022, 11:53:35 PM
Reply #18
Offline

Marchesk


Well, it seems the experts have spoken and the conclusion is that a slab avalanche was the impetus for the hiker's demise.

This isn't a new theory. It's been around since at least 2009.

It appears that the more exotic and sinister hypotheses can be discarded for a more mundane truth.

Only if you find the snow slab theory convincing. It is just another theory. There's no actual new evidence. A simulation isn't evidence. They didn't discover a picture of the snow buildup that night, or whatever. Several weeks later, the rescue team didn't see any such evidence. Maybe it blew away, but that's just a possibility.
 

April 12, 2022, 12:04:30 PM
Reply #19
Offline

GlennM


There is factual evidemce. There is plausible reasoning. In a court of law it may be the difference between eye witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. Both can produce a conviction if the jury finds it compelling. The slab slip theory checks all the right boxes without reaching for a conspiracy, a defection or an attack. Its Occam's razor. Its also a matter of money. As long as people think there is money to be made by spinning this tragedy, they will continue to do so. A slab of snow crushing a tent isn't particularly titillating,  but it is the most correct explanation. Put in other words, if it walks and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.