Victims and Case Files > Case Files

Inspection Of The Tent

<< < (8/9) > >>


--- Quote from: CalzagheChick on September 29, 2018, 11:35:41 AM ---
--- Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on May 30, 2018, 07:02:34 PM ---The big post I had here was moved....    wink1

--- End quote ---

Thank goodness I was not looking forward to finding your entire post to link a bunch of interested people on FB that want to read your work. You made easy work of this for me. Thanks LC.  clap1

--- End quote ---

You say ask why would anyone cut holes in the side of the tent to exit when there is a doorway. Do we know if the doorway was still fastened shut or open when the tent was found. If fastened shut this could explain why the holes were cut in the side. Meaning they could not unfasten the doorway quick enough for some unknown reason one of which may be that the ties where frozen or knotted so that it made it impossible. (Presuming ties were used to secure the door and not a more modern zip)

To me the tent is crucial, that is, the condition it was in, what was inside it, what was within several meters of it, etc.  So let's try to articulate some possibilities, and then if anyone would like to add to anything, or to point out contrary evidence, we can take it from there.

Igor's fur coat, if it ususally used to plug up a hole in the tent, could have been found several meters away because the wind blew it there, perhaps days after the incident.

The tent seems to have been well-secured against the wind, with one of two flashlights placed on top of a layer of snow, which could mean they thought they might return before dawn, and apparently between 1 and 3 of them were trying to do this (it's possible only Zina wanted to go back and the other two guys were trying to convince her to go to the "den" instead).

Even if we could demonstrate/prove that the tent was cut from the inside, we don't know why.  For example, there could have been ice buildup that threatened to collapse the tent, and their initial attempts to knock it off failed, or resulted in at least some of the damage to it.  Or one or two standing outside (suggested by the urine puddles) could have fallen onto one side, collapsing that side of the tent, and then someone inside might have become angered or fearful and cut a hole in it to get out.  At that point they decided it couldn't be repaired that night and so needed to secure it.  This scenario would include a naive view of the threat of hypothermia on at least on the part of Igor, the leader, thus there was a lot more concern about the tent being blown apart or the contents of the tent being blown all over the mountainside than with hypothermia.

The drawing of the two major cuts connected by a much smaller cut could represent the tent being folded over, perhaps after partial collapse (for whatever reason).  If you fold a piece of paper and try to do this sort of shaped cut, it's easy, though they could have done it by mistake.

It has always been my thought, here, and on other older sites that the initial small horizontal cuts made on the downhill side were cut by the Dyatlov group as  "look-out" holes. These cuts were different than the other and without  slashes, rips and tears. The three small horizontal cuts were more controlled, advantageous for visualization and spread out to accommodate most of the hikers in the tent. The Dyatlov group was trying to get visuals on something prior to leaving their tent. On this I am convinced.

RidgeWatcher, so you are talking about small cuts on the other long side of the tent (s)?  If so, I have not read anything about that so far.  If we can demonstrate definitively that these cuts were not made after the night of the incident, then we can't discount the possibility that one or more made the cuts due to anger, psychosis, accident, or attempt to break ice off the sides of the tent (s).  Moreover, after securing the tent, they then went in that general direction, didn't they?

We may never know what happened at the tent because the photos and the illustrations contradict each other. Even the investigation notes contradict each other. I lived in the sub-arctic and if I was terrified about something outside my tent, something more terrifying than a bear or moose because they wouldn't compel me to leave my tent, I would cut a view hole in the tent to assess my danger before I started slashing my tent. Of course a new theory is that the tent was never cut by the Dyatlov hikers, but that doesn't explain why the tent was empty with the south facing door opening still tied shut as I read somewhere here. If a hiker was outside the tent or even two were outside the tent urinating, then that doesn't explain why the door was fastened shut unless this was to keep blowing wind and snow from entering the tent.

If I was among two other people knowing we were going to attack an athletic group of 9-10 people, did they know Yuri Yudin had gone home?, honestly I would start attacking the group while they were still in the tent for a much better advantage in carrying out the intended goal. Whoever attacked the group wanted them to see what was happening to themselves and the others.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Go to full version