Dyatlov Pass Forum

Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: lucid-nonsense on August 16, 2019, 12:31:51 PM

Title: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: lucid-nonsense on August 16, 2019, 12:31:51 PM
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.

(https://i.ibb.co/7GsPZpR/Dyatlov-pass-tent-02.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jLnmQwW)

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

(https://i.ibb.co/YdjXyqK/Dyatlov-pass-tent-cuts-05.png) (https://imgbb.com/)

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).

(https://i.ibb.co/3c0pJc8/tent-5.png) (https://imgbb.com/)

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.

(https://i.ibb.co/hFWC0Pf/Unknown-origin-Dyatlov-photos-12.jpg) (https://ibb.co/s9wt70H)

Now see the hole is already filling back up.

(https://i.ibb.co/2P0dwpN/Unknown-origin-Dyatlov-photos-12.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)

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.

(https://i.ibb.co/CmZs5RS/csm-teaser-Lawinenschutz-Omega-Netz-edc30daa75.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QpRjFyx)

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.

(https://i.ibb.co/3c0pJc8/tent-5.png) (https://imgbb.com/)

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!
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Marchesk on August 16, 2019, 03:31:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: cennetkusu on August 17, 2019, 08:43:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on August 17, 2019, 11:03:15 AM
There is little to zero evidence the "cut their way out of the tent".   
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: lucid-nonsense on August 17, 2019, 01:03:21 PM
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.

(https://i.ibb.co/dcWYtYB/Google-earth.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VNj4x4V)

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?
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on August 17, 2019, 06:28:36 PM
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.

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-005.jpg)

#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.

(https://image.ibb.co/jyvsdJ/0_a5932_37268c21_XL3.jpg)


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. 
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: lucid-nonsense on August 17, 2019, 07:26:01 PM
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.

(https://image.ibb.co/jyvsdJ/0_a5932_37268c21_XL3.jpg)


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?


Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on August 17, 2019, 07:28:56 PM
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.   
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: cennetkusu on August 18, 2019, 01:54:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Marchesk on August 18, 2019, 03:01:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Marchesk on August 18, 2019, 03:21:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: cennetkusu on August 18, 2019, 06:46:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: cennetkusu on August 18, 2019, 06:51:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on August 18, 2019, 06:54:49 AM
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
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on August 18, 2019, 06:59:13 AM
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?
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: WAB on August 18, 2019, 08:28:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: WAB on August 18, 2019, 08:33:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: WAB on August 18, 2019, 08:40:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on August 18, 2019, 08:56:13 AM
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?
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: WAB on August 18, 2019, 12:16:46 PM
Are saying the entrance was HALF open at the bottom and entry/exit was possible in this configuration?

Yes it is.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on August 18, 2019, 01:14:07 PM
There we have it then.  The "cut their way out of the tent" narrative takes another nosedive. 
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: lucid-nonsense on August 18, 2019, 02:27:52 PM
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.



Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Marchesk on August 18, 2019, 09:06:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: lucid-nonsense on August 18, 2019, 11:35:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Star man on August 18, 2019, 11:41:53 PM
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
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: lucid-nonsense on August 21, 2019, 12:51:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Star man on August 21, 2019, 10:58:11 PM
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
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: garybonds on October 14, 2019, 01:44:58 AM
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.

(https://i.ibb.co/PYJtVmy/Dyatlov-pass-case-files-Churkina-photo-01-en.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dcX7HWv)

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.

Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: jarrfan on October 14, 2019, 05:10:35 PM
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

Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: garybonds on October 14, 2019, 08:17:10 PM
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:

(https://i.ibb.co/X8vGDHk/google-10-miles-from-dyatlov-pass.png) (https://ibb.co/Sr9ZcS7)

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).
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: jarrfan on October 14, 2019, 11:02:58 PM
The tent fail makes no sense. Even if there were holes in it, no human in their right mind would wander into a snowstorm without the proper gear on. If they had a tent fail, they would have stayed there and put their clothes on, even if the wind was whipping through the tent, which it was not because their gear and clothes, blankets were neatly folded. Sorry, but  I just don't buy tent fail as a reason to leave the tent completely unprepared. Not even taking a knife or ax that was near the tent. Doesn't add up to me....
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: garybonds on October 15, 2019, 12:12:04 AM
In a sudden tent fail scenario, one minute they were inside a tent somewhat protected from the elements and the next minute  they were in the middle of a 20-40 m/s snowstorm, at night, with very limited visibility (even with working lanterns or flashlighs). Remember that inside the tent there were nine people in a very small and cramped area with all nine trying to move in various levels of panic all at once. Once they were outside the tent it might have already partially collapsed with pieces of tent fabric flapping violently in very strong snow filled wind rapidly numbing exposed hands.

Even so, there's no proof that they all left without having retrieved something from the tent. The degree to which the dead were dressed varied a lot. Some of it maybe due to how they were already dressed when they for one reason or another left the tent, but it could also be that some successfully recovered pieces of clothing which they brought along.

The ski boots inside the tent were observed in a state of chaos. It might be that someone or some of the group tried to retrieve and wear ski boots but failed, due to cold and wind induced numbness, inability to find the ones that fit in the chaos, and/or the boots having frozen from perspiration and cold.

The opening which allowed access to the contents of the tent is unlikely to have accomodated more than one or two persons searching at a time, without causing further damage to the tent. Again reminding that this is taking place on the open mountain, in the dark, in a full snowstorm. If the group was in a state of chaos and "every man for himself" mindset it's not very hard to see a scenario where a couple of members try to provision a few things with more or less success for a while and then at some point a decision is made that they have to move - or freeze to death. A decision by consensus, or a decision by some members just starting to walk or run and others faced with the decision to follow or be left behind.

That's one scenario that is plausible after proper consideration of the level of strain & chaos of the situation they found themselves in, and the level to which they were already worn down by the preceding days. And factoring in what all of that does to the ability to apply proper judgement when faced with very hard life-or death choices that had to be made quickly.

Did anyone even realize then and there that wind cold and terrain would make it impossible to get back to the tent once they left? Apparently not, since three members tried and died at a later point.

So that's one plausible scenario that could have happened.

Another one is a minor variation of the following, which was suggested by Alexei Cheglakov in testimony:

Quote
The group of hikers could have frozen because of a hurricane that tore the tent and broke loose and they try to fix it, or even managed to do that before being blown by the wind and dragged in the ravine, where they lost orientation and couldn't get back to the tent and died from the cold.
 

Instead of the tent breaking lose from the ground, as Cheglakov suggested, the fabric of the tent failed and they came outside. Once they were outside one or more of them were forced down the slope by the wind and the others had to take a quick decision to go after, or not.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: jarrfan on October 15, 2019, 11:10:55 AM
Something to research, for sure. I read over the Otzi man study and found no evidence that his brain and fluid expanded and cracked his skull. So I would have to rule out the theory that any skull injuries or any bone injuries could be attributed to fluid expansion. I also reviewed the study of a Mayan girl sacrificed and her body other than her head showed no signs of fractures by expansion.

The Dyatlov mission by Josh Gates and Teddy near the same conditions as the hikers showed abundant snow covering the rocks and a smooth top layer. Even though there are big rocks underneath, it does not appear they were pronounced enough during the winter to cause such injuries.

If the hikers were so disoriented and frostbitten as to stumble around and fall numerous times onto the snow, how could they have made it to the area of the den, built the den? The group by the cedar tree made a fire that apparently burned for at least 2 hours before going out. This does not speak to a blizzard wind so fierce as to disorient the group.


If the tent fail occurred, the hikers had to have left the tent from the tent entrance because the 3 small cuts they made were not torn by the wind. Only the 2 large cuts made in the  side of the tent, which were said to be done by Shavarin as he documented he cut through the tent to see what was inside? So the tent was intact upon his cutting it to see if anyone was in it. Are you saying Shavarin is not to be believed and we should dismiss anything he has said?
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: garybonds on October 15, 2019, 12:02:13 PM
I'm just about to hit the bed where I am so I'll just respond quickly on the last point, and make a longer post when I have time.

In the writeup on dyatlovpass.com in the drawing and observations attributed to a "Aleksey Rakitin" it says that Slobtzov (Slobtsov Boris Efimovich) made the damage with the ice pick. It is marked in that image 16.5 cm long. If that is true, then that damage is not consistent with the major damage in the middle of the tent on the picture i posted (the latter is from the forensic investigation).

However, the image attributed to "Aleksey Rakitin" is in my opinion not consistent with the established facts from the forensic investigation of the tent anyway. It refers to a multitude of large cuts, but the forensic investigation found only three cuts (cuts = caused by cutting the fabric with a sharp object). Everything else was tears, caused by ripping the fabric apart.

Slobtsovs testimony on finding the tent:

Quote
On February 26, 1959, we removed the snow from over the tent and made sure that there were no people inside, and we didn't touch the items that were in the tent. I was with student Sharavin. ... When on 26.2.59 I looked in the tent I saw the following: the tent itself was torn

This I interpret as Slobtsov is stating, in his official testimony, that they found the tent in a "torn" state (implying major damage, since he does not qualify it). I have not yet been able to pinpoint the origin for the suggestion that Sharavin caused substantial damage to the tent.



Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: jarrfan on October 15, 2019, 05:46:13 PM
Okay, I found it on page 11 of Mikhail Sharavin's notes the condition of the tent and how much  damage was done. Whether it was with the ice ax and by the other member, it may very well have been, but see Sharavin's testimony.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: garybonds on October 15, 2019, 08:59:16 PM
Jarrfan, could you link me to the notes? I looked for an official witness statement from Sharavin under "Case Files", but couldnt find anything from Sharavin there.

ETA: Is it this interview with Sharavin, that was made in 2007? https://dyatlovpass.com/sharavin-1?rbid=18461
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: jarrfan on October 15, 2019, 09:20:02 PM
Okay, it is on DyatlovPass.com the first interview on the main page, Mihail Sharavin, 2007-2008 on page 11 is where you will find the info I was speaking of.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: garybonds on October 15, 2019, 11:01:02 PM
Ok thanks for the help, Jarrfan!

I will adress your thoughts from before about injuries in this post and then get back to the question of the damage to the tent in the next post.

The Dyatlov mission by Josh Gates and Teddy near the same conditions as the hikers showed abundant snow covering the rocks and a smooth top layer. Even though there are big rocks underneath, it does not appear they were pronounced enough during the winter to cause such injuries.

Let's start with Slobodin who was found between the tent and the cedar (on the mountain slope). His body was positioned in the direction of the tent, like the other two found in the slope. This has been interpreted as all three could have been trying to get back up to the tent from the cedar. There is no way of knowing for sure.

Establishing that each and every rock or stone between the tent and the cedar at the time of the incident were beneath a thick layer of snow is a tall order. One single rock (or one lose stone of sufficient size set in motion by a strong wind down a slope) is enough to crack one head. 

I don't know if you're interested in mountaineering, but if you are and have read a bit about it you'll know that cracking your head on rocks or getting your head cracked by loose stones arent exactly uncommon ways to die in the mountains. I'd say under Occams Razor if you come across a body with a cracked cranium in the mountains those are your usual suspects.

What I mean to say is that it really takes quite persuasive evidence to rule it out.

But that aside, as to the conditions in the slope at the time, here is a picture of the tent in the direction of the tree line which appears to show exposed ground with limited snow cover, and what does look a lot like rocks (although it is hard to know for sure just from the photo):

(https://i.ibb.co/F7fTxRM/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-008.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ggXKjkp)

As to the injuries of the ravine four, they likely died by falling through a hole in the snow cover caused by a stream of water 4-5 meters below. This is a danger which any beginners guidebook about trekking in the wintertime will warn about. They were found face down in a stream, on rock, with fall injuries. When they fell, they dragged a bunch of snow along with them and on top of them, and then heavy snowfall buried them in more snow the following months, and that's how they were found.

If the hikers were so disoriented and frostbitten as to stumble around and fall numerous times onto the snow, how could they have made it to the area of the den, built the den? The group by the cedar tree made a fire that apparently burned for at least 2 hours before going out. This does not speak to a blizzard wind so fierce as to disorient the group.

The first thing to recall here is that the wind in the slope on the open mountain and the wind inside the forest below the tree-line are two completely different things. True in any mountain terrain, but also attested by a number of witnesses for this specific location. (By the Dyatlov group themselves in the diaries; by several of the rescuers at the time, and in later interviews; etc.)

So to say that the wind could not have been absolutely violent and punishing on the slope at the same time as it was possible to make a fire by the cedar tree does not make sense to me at all. They came below the tree line to the cedar tree to escape the wind. They built the fire on the side of the cedar tree that was further protected from the wind by the tree trunk.

As to what state of hypothermia and frostbite each person was in and when we have to look at each case individually and keep the timeline straight. The conventional understanding (although it's not clear to me if this is proven, or informed guesswork) is that all the members of the group exited the tent and came to the cedar at first.

The yuris seems to have succumbed to hypothermia there and it is often conjectured that they succumbed first, so presumably they were in worse shape earlier. Maybe they were the least well equipped; or maybe they exhausted themselves and got frostbitten working to build the fire and break off branches from the cedar. I believe their autopsies showed a lot of injuries that were consistent with being caused by trying to perform those activities with frostbitten hands. (I've also somewhere read some witness report that they found the trunk of the cedar smeared with the skin, flesh and blood of the deceased that they left there when they were working desperately to start the fire. I'm not sure how reliable that claim is though, I think it was made in an interview much later. But it wouldnt surprise me if it was true)

For the three found in the slope, if we accept the conjecture that they expired while trying to get back up to the tent, then they might have been in fair shape while at the cedar (all three were fairly well dressed). In fact, they may have been chosen or volonteered to attempt the tent exactly because they were in relatively better shape and better equipped.

But as soon as they started trying to travel back up to the tent they found themselves walking in rising terrain and face-first into the wind direction, instead of having it in the back. Needless to say if the condition is 30-40 degrees below zero celsius and wind speed 20-40 m/s with wind gusts above that, it was suicide. They could have started out fine and been severely frost bitten and afflicted with hypothermia after a couple of hundred meters. And even if they were not it's perfectly possible to slip on ice and hit your head on rock by accident just from the wind darkness and bad luck. This, the above, pertains to Slobodin and his cracked skull.

The ravine four: since they succumbed to an accidental fall through a hidden hole in the snow cover in a ravine, it is immaterial how worn down they were at that point or what the windspeed was at that location. But it's likely that the wind situation was much much better. After all, that's why they were further down the trees towards the river - to escape the wind. One possibility is that the ravine 4 successfully survived the night, maybe in a dug bivouac ("the den") and then in the morning they got up to venture either to the tent or to the labaz, but immediately slipped and fell through the hole. Then died from their fall injuries and hypothermia induced by the water of the stream they ended up in.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: garybonds on October 16, 2019, 12:02:21 AM
As to the tent:

I read the Sharavin interview, and true enough, he states in no uncertain terms that the rescuers caused that big hole in the middle of the tent in order to peek inside the tent and see if there were any survivors.

My thoughts on this is the following. There's nothing obviously off or inconsistent about Sharavins narration about this in 2007; that is to say no obvious reason to believe he is lying, doesnt have the ring of untruth.

On the other hand Slobtsovs testimony under oath that "When on 26.2.59 I looked in the tent I saw the following: the tent itself was torn" implies a completely different scenario: that the tent was already badly damaged. But one could easily see how someone who had caused damage to objects of investigation might omit that fact, especially if they suspected that what they had done could render a punishment. This was the USSR after all.

The one thing that is a bit odd is that Sharavin also claims that they immediately saw that the tent was cut from the inside. What doesnt completely make sense to me is this: if we are to assume that nine people escaped the tent through those three confirmed knife cuts in the fabric, meaning that they were sufficiently big to enter and exit the tent through, and they were immediately observed by Slobtsov and Sharavin - why was there a need for more holes to look inside the tent? Couldnt Sharavin or whomever just have looked inside those holes that were already there and apparently big enough for people to climb in and out through?

There's also the factor that Sharavin is speaking on the subject in 2007, 50 years after it happened. Witness testimony is inherently unreliable, and moreso with time. In terms of incentives, in 2007 when Sharavin is speaking there is an established Dyatlov Pass Mystery economy (meaning that there is money and attention in it). I dont really wish to give the impression of accusing Sharavin of lying in pursuit of money or attention any more than I wish to accuse Slobstov of lying by omission in 1957 to cover his own and Sharavins ass.

I think that the big picture is that these things should have been conclusively and firmly established by the original investigation. The scene of the tent should have been kept uncontaminated and documented in a way that left no room for ambiguities. But I conclude that it didnt happen that way.

The directives to the forensic examination of the tent were also written in a way where the objective was narrowly to identify the "cuts" and then try to establish from where the cuts were made (from inside the tent or from the outside). At that point they were entertaining an attack or sabotage scenario, maybe by Mansi, so that was their only focus apparently. Investigating the "tears" and establishing causes for the tears doesnt seem to have been done. As soon as something was confirmed as a tear and not a cut it seems to have thereafter been ignored. Then the tent itself was lost so further examination is not possible.

So it is in summary, in my view, not possible in 2019 to either support or reject the tent-failure scenario as a whole from what is known about the tent. Sharavins recollections if accepted do speak against the specific scenario that I proposed in my first post (with the caveat that they are the statements of one person, 50 years later, and not established by the investigation at the time).
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on October 16, 2019, 07:45:46 AM

As to the injuries of the ravine four, they likely died by falling through a hole in the snow cover caused by a stream of water 4-5 meters below. This is a danger which any beginners guidebook about trekking in the wintertime will warn about. They were found face down in a stream, on rock, with fall injuries. When they fell, they dragged a bunch of snow along with them and on top of them, and then heavy snowfall buried them in more snow the following months, and that's how they were found.


The trouble with that assumption is, their injuries are not consistent with what can be expected from a fall. The chest injuries of Zolotaryov and Dubinina were caused by something very different. In addition, there was no such high precipice in the area that could likely cause the death of four people.

We need to look at the injuries and ask ourselves whether these were likely caused by the series of accidents that the local investigators were evidently instructed by Moscow to conclude with. We need to take a long and hard look at all the injuries, and ask ourselves whether this tragedy was due to a series of accidents. For example, what could have caused Doroshenko and Krivonischenko to desperately try to climb a tree and destroy their frostbitten hands? It could not have been an attempt of collecting firewood, because firewood was available  in the area. Something scared them so extremely that they disregarded pain and injury, and used their last strength to try to enter the tree. This was no accident. Nor was any of the other deaths due to accidents.

The fact that this happened in a wilderness area should not prevent us from analyzing the injuries with an open mind. It is a shame that only Zolotaryov's skeleton has been exhumed. The Russian authorities will not permit a reopening of the case, and they forced the conclusion that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was due to a series of accidents and alleged mistakes made by Igor Dyatlov. One investigator, Ivanov, many years later used Aesopian language to convey the message of what he knew had happened: He used the expression "overwhelming force." Then we ask: What force may be alluded to, when some in the Soviet Union used the expression "overwhelming force"? It is not the forces of the elements.

As for the tent, there is a general agreement that the cuts in the tent are inconclusive. The theory that the nine hikers cut their own tent and for some reason fled through these cuts is entirely unfounded. The Mansi people ostensibly came under suspicion, but it is very probable that the initial suspicion and the following conclusion that the Dyatlov group had cut their own tent was a subtle warning to the Mansi. The Mansi were present in the area, and little that happened there would escape their attention. Even if they in all probability were not responsible for the death of the nine students, The Mansi would would know what had happened and be acutely aware of who were responsible for the Dyatlov Pass tragedy. By letting the Mansi off the hook, the Mansi seem to have been given the message that "we let you off the hook now, but be warned that if you ever tell anyone what you have observed you will not be so lucky next time."
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: garybonds on October 16, 2019, 09:21:19 AM
Hi / Hej Per Inge,

Vozrozhdenny specifically mentions "fall" as one possible cause for their injuries in the autopsies of both Zolotaryov and Dubinina (read the conclusions at the bottom). So you're wrong about that, at least if we're basing our conclusions on the autopsy reports...

Maybe the local investigators were indeed feeding us some faerytale dictated from moscow but everything we know about the injuries derive from the written material of those same local investigators. So if they cannot be trusted on anything then we cannot know anything at all, nor speculate about anything. Not me and not you.

It's not really established if Doroshenko or Krivonischenko climbed the tree as far as I know. It is suggested by some witnesses and observers, but it is conjecture and guesses from what is an actual fact: that there were broken branches high up above the ground (4-5 meters?).

No one can know for sure if the Yuris were the ones who broke them. Or if it was another member of the Dyatlov group. Or if it was someone completely different, like the Mansi, years earlier.

What is pretty well established is that the Dyatlov group used branches from the cedar for their fire and that they likely broke them off the cedar tree because all the branches close to the ground were broken off.

That they were aware of more suitable (for their purpose in the predicament they were in) & more readily available firewood in the immediate vicinity is as far as I know not in evidence. Maybe you know more than me in this area and if so I'd be glad to hear more about it.

Quote
The Russian authorities will not permit a reopening of the case, and they forced the conclusion that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was due to a series of accidents and alleged mistakes made by Igor Dyatlov.

The Russian authorities notwithstanding, Igor Dyatlov (or the group; or however they took decisions in the last few days) made a number of very unfortunate and dangerous mistakes. This is self-evident if one looks at the known facts:


But they didnt. Instead they made camp up on the mountain, to not lose the ground they made, or any more time. Maybe Dyatlov or the group was concerned about keeping their approved time plan. Maybe they were concerned about failing.

Either way, this, the decision they clearly made to press on and put themselves in an a position where they were exposed to the elements when they were already worn down is a very common and commonly lethal mistake in the wilderness. It's nothing "alledged" about it because it is obvious to anyone who knows a little bit about staying alive in such an environment.

I agree 100% that few clear conclusions can be drawn from the what is known about the tent. But reading the forensics analysis of it, I thought the investigation and its conclusions seemed solid: there were three cuts and those cuts were made from the inside. This was based on the kind of damage to the threads (lesions through orthogonal threads were identified as cuts; there were scratches and punctures on the inside in the close vicinity of those cuts that suggested that they were failed attempts to make the cuts). No, the problem with the investigation was that it was way to narrow in scope and therefore important questions went unanswered.

Any theory that is based on an attack by outsiders has to explain the fact that there were no traces of any attackers. Not leaving traces behind in snow is very very hard. This can of course be solved by claiming that there were traces but that "someone" surpressed and got rid of them. But if that is true - that we're dealing with a conspiracy so powerful that it can erase footsteps from snow and completely clean up a 2 sq kilometer crime scene of every trace of a 10 man hit squad - then we cannot trust anything at all that is claimed about the incident, and it is pointless to discuss anything or subscribe to any theory. Any and every nominal fact would be suspect.


Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: garybonds on October 16, 2019, 10:52:40 AM
Returning to the question of whether there were rocks. I found these pictures that confirms that there was very rocky terrain in places. Exactly how these areas are situated related to the tent and the cedar I cant speak to..

(https://i.ibb.co/D5JZSKX/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-438.jpg) (https://ibb.co/m6j3Mzs)

(https://i.ibb.co/SftGXCX/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-251.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8YrtDZD)

(https://i.ibb.co/MnL8b4g/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-252.jpg) (https://ibb.co/31HfwqT)

(https://i.ibb.co/QNS8M14/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-253.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vPyskKS)

(https://i.ibb.co/wwCgqD9/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-254.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mXtTKQL)
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: jarrfan on October 16, 2019, 08:52:39 PM
I agree, it looks very rocky. I refer to the tape of Josh Gates and Teddy at the scene and there appears to be more snow...
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: jarrfan on October 16, 2019, 09:04:58 PM
The two Yuri's pieces of skin were found on the cedar tree. The pattern of injury on their hands matched the tree bark where the pieces of skin were found. I can offer that as proof they climbed the tree. Other than that, it is speculation as are all of the theories.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: jarrfan on October 16, 2019, 09:16:36 PM
Regarding the big rocks shown on the pictures, I have to question how the hikers even got there skiing if the entire area were covered in big rocks poking through the snow? Just wondering...
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: garybonds on October 16, 2019, 09:42:38 PM
Maybe they took off their skis and walked over the rocky sections? Maybe they could find a snow covered path through the rocks?

In the daytime when they first made the traverse the conditions were quite different, for one thing there was light. Travelling in mountainous terrain in the wilderness I'm sure they had to navigate various types of obstacles in the wilderness frequently. It's another thing to have to do it in desperation in a snowstorm in pitch black darkness at night with hypothermia and frostbite.

Or maybe the most rocky sections in the photos were not along the path between the tent and the cedar at all. We havent really established that. But what has been established in my opinion is that there were plenty of uncovered rocks around in the area, so there is no reason to assume without proof that Slobodin could not have cracked his skull by hitting a rock. And in fact the conclusion of his autopsy is that his head crack is likely to have been caused by falling and hitting a rock (or ice):

Quote
The fracture of the left frontal lobe bone could have occurred during a fall by Slobodin or the impact of the head on a hard object such as rocks, ice, etc. A blunt object caused the above-mentioned trauma. When this happened it would have caused Slobodin to become stunned and allowed for his rapid freezing. The absence of explicit bleeding under the meninges allows for the assumption that Slobodin’s death came as a result of his freezing.

ETA: I watched Expedition Unknown S08E04 and towards the end as they are making the trekk up the slope to the tent location, while there is plenty of thick snow cover, you can clearly see many spots of exposed terrain in the background, as they are walking. Interesting show, I'll make sure to watch E05 too when I have time. I think the real story so far is how incredibly respectful they are of the environment and the cold and how aware they are that any small mistake could be lethal in that kind of an environment. As I've tried to argue, it's pretty well documented that the Dyatlov group made all the mistakes that gets a person killed in the wilderness.
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: lucid-nonsense on November 14, 2019, 03:58:04 AM
The tent fail makes no sense. Even if there were holes in it, no human in their right mind would wander into a snowstorm without the proper gear on. If they had a tent fail, they would have stayed there and put their clothes on, even if the wind was whipping through the tent, which it was not because their gear and clothes, blankets were neatly folded. Sorry, but  I just don't buy tent fail as a reason to leave the tent completely unprepared. Not even taking a knife or ax that was near the tent. Doesn't add up to me....

My theory isn't that they left on purpose. It's that they cut the tent to let snow out, but this weakened the tent and caused the fabric to tear (basically tears joining the cuts to make one big hole). The snow then all spilled through this big hole and swept the occupants along. So they didn't leave of their own accord. They were swept out of it.

Also the blankets weren’t neatly folded. They were in a frozen ball in a corner. And there were items strewn downhill of the tent.

As to the tent:

I read the Sharavin interview, and true enough, he states in no uncertain terms that the rescuers caused that big hole in the middle of the tent in order to peek inside the tent and see if there were any survivors.

The one thing that is a bit odd is that Sharavin also claims that they immediately saw that the tent was cut from the inside. What doesnt completely make sense to me is this: if we are to assume that nine people escaped the tent through those three confirmed knife cuts in the fabric, meaning that they were sufficiently big to enter and exit the tent through, and they were immediately observed by Slobtsov and Sharavin - why was there a need for more holes to look inside the tent? Couldnt Sharavin or whomever just have looked inside those holes that were already there and apparently big enough for people to climb in and out through?


Yeah, that makes no sense? Did the rescuers make the cuts, or were they made from the inside? Can't be both.

I’m with you in thinking that human memory is a notoriously faillible faculty, and it’s not very strange that he would get some details wrong 50 years later.


As to the injuries of the ravine four, they likely died by falling through a hole in the snow cover caused by a stream of water 4-5 meters below. This is a danger which any beginners guidebook about trekking in the wintertime will warn about. They were found face down in a stream, on rock, with fall injuries. When they fell, they dragged a bunch of snow along with them and on top of them, and then heavy snowfall buried them in more snow the following months, and that's how they were found.


The trouble with that assumption is, their injuries are not consistent with what can be expected from a fall. The chest injuries of Zolotaryov and Dubinina were caused by something very different.

What makes you say that? Their injuries are perfectly consistent with a high-speed collision (in this case, with the ground).

Quote
In addition, there was no such high precipice in the area that could likely cause the death of four people.

They're the Ravine Four. Because they were at the bottom of a ravine.

Quote
Any theory that is based on an attack by outsiders has to explain the fact that there were no traces of any attackers. Not leaving traces behind in snow is very very hard. This can of course be solved by claiming that there were traces but that "someone" surpressed and got rid of them. But if that is true - that we're dealing with a conspiracy so powerful that it can erase footsteps from snow and completely clean up a 2 sq kilometer crime scene of every trace of a 10 man hit squad - then we cannot trust anything at all that is claimed about the incident, and it is pointless to discuss anything or subscribe to any theory. Any and every nominal fact would be suspect.

Also why would the tent be in such a state? Why would there be tears joining all the cuts? Someone ordered them to cut the tent to exit, then made them tear up the fabric to join the tent? Why would there be tears on the upslope side?

Why would there be items strewn downhill of the tent?
Title: Re: New theory: tent failure!
Post by: jarrfan on November 14, 2019, 05:09:29 PM
Regarding the tent tears: If you look at Act 199 Forensic expect on the tent, you can see the 3 smaller tears in clear detail. No one could have gotten through these holes. The tears that were created from those original tears happened because the tent was left for weeks in the wind before it was found. Shavrin clearly says the items in the tent were "neat" folded blankets. The items strewn down the slope were between the cedar tree on the path to the ravine dropped by freezing hikers after they had gone to the cedar tree and found the 2 Yuri's dead, so they took their clothes and probably dropped something on the way because their hands and arms were freezing. It may have only been one person in an effort to bring more clothing for those planning to use the den.

The other fact is that they made this den for 4 persons but they were not found frozen there, but in the ravine. The den was already set up, so why did they venture toward the ravine, especially with the den set with wood already?

When the tent was found, there was not a hole big enough in it for someone to pass through. The big hole was made by the searchers to look into the tent. Shavrin also said he thought the tent door was tied shut. So if they left the tent by the door, that means they tied it shut after they all were out.

All is puzzling and there are no clear answers.