Theories Discussion > General Discussion

The cuts on tent simply doesn't make any sense

<< < (5/5)

Tony:
Noted by the examiner during the original examination of the cuts to the tent, only 3 of the cuts were documented (not counting the cut made by Slobtzov). According to the examiner, not all of the damage was a cut made by a sharp object. Some of the damage was caused by tears. I agree that it would have been difficult to make such long cuts in a collapsed tent covered by snow. Since avalanche is the most popular of all the theories at the moment, it would seem that the biggest argument against avalanche is whether or not the cuts were made while the tent was still taut and not already collapsed.

In an interview by M. Sharavin, he briefly states that when the tent was found, it was found with the windward side collapsed on top of the leeward side *("The cut was on the leeward side, and so it fell, as it were, on the holes..."). There are no other remarks made by any of the other searchers or investigators with regard to how the tent was found or to which side was facing up. If the windward side was facing up (when found) and fell on top of and convered the cut (leeward) side of the tent, this completely rules out avalanche as it doesn't make sense that the hikers would cut into the side that is facing into the ground (an avalanche would have forced the leeward side into the ground), somehow climb out, and then turn the windward side back on top of the leeward side covering it. This would cause one to believe that the cuts to the tent were made while the tent was taut and then later the wind caused the collapse of the tent, blowing the windward side over and on top of the leeward side and thus ruling out the avalanche theory.

*Important to note that this comment was made many years later and is a bit ambiguous to say the least.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page