I am wondering if it is possible that the hikers did not cut open the tent. It seems so crazy as it was their only protection. Is it possible that after they left the tent others entered it and cut it open so that the hikers could not use it as shelter?
I am wondering if it is possible that the hikers did not cut open the tent. It seems so crazy as it was their only protection. Is it possible that after they left the tent others entered it and cut it open so that the hikers could not use it as shelter?
the tent has never been cut from the inside but from the outside !!
the version saying that it was cut from the inside validates the avalanche or other theory ... nothing else
I'm fairly convinced Semyon's photo's image a helicopter and search light, and it is stated the military were in that area that night, that this is somehow connected to how the tent is as found.
If you were in a dark tent on a white mountain ridge in a communist country, and the military were suddenly all around you unexpectedly, you might feel a little too conspicuous, and if any of your number has reason to fear being asked to show ID and papers, or your permits are not 100%, you may elect to camouflage your presence as best you can and hide.
It's possible. It certainly looks like a vandalised tent when set up for examination. It made me wonder just how many escape holes and attempts at making them they really needed, and how all that must have slowed them down in any imagined emergency egress.
There are a number of horizontal slashings high up near the ridge, one of which was made by a rescuer's ice pick, when the most efficient means of rapid escape for those inside would surely be a vertical slice and then squeeze through, assuming the tent flap buttons were all done up, though reading at this site that doesn't seem to be confirmed.
If you wanted to make sure they couldn't return to use the tent you'd likely cut/tear horizontally near the ridge so the canvas flops down inside.
As to who this may implicate, I'd suggest the Mansi more than the military. The Mansi would presumably have no need for cameras, and possibly the money (?) left in the tent, and attempting to trade such things would arouse suspicion, they'd just want them off the land, whereas I feel the military would not be able to help themselves checking for valuables and taking cameras and money.
Covering their tracks, if they were careful and had the time cutting it from the inside makes sense. Cutting it from the outside might have left evidence and that could have made it obvious that someone else was doing the cutting.
Could be, but why from the inside? Why not cut it from the outside?
All options open after the latest so called Authority Investigation proved to be a big disappointment. But introducing this approach where you suggest others, who are the others that you are suggesting ! ? Or should I say, who do you think would want to do that. They have left their life line to walk a mile not properly dressed and they are highly unlikely to get back to the Tent, so why would anyone want to cut the Tent for the reason that you suggest ! ?
Because I'm new to this mystery, as in I only learned of it 4 weeks ago, my theories continue to evolve by the day, and I have started to wonder, since I'm fairly convinced Semyon's photo's image a helicopter and search light, and it is stated the military were in that area that night, that this is somehow connected to how the tent is as found.
If you were in a dark tent on a white mountain ridge in a communist country, and the military were suddenly all around you unexpectedly, you might feel a little too conspicuous, and if any of your number has reason to fear being asked to show ID and papers, or your permits are not 100%, you may elect to camouflage your presence as best you can and hide.
So, you might not set up the tent ridge support ropes, which don't appear to be there in the photo of the tent, you wouldn't set up your stove because the smoke would be a dead giveaway (and this then risks hypothermia), you might drop the tent down and cover it with snow, explaining how Dyatlov's torch is later found sat on top of 10cms of snow, and you may lay down inside, under the canvas, submerged in the trench you've dug, to disappear for as long as you can stand it until hypothermia flushes you out.
When you leave your tent you may have cut your way out, or wish to stage it further so it looks like an abandoned, wind-shredded tent, in the hope nobody comes looking for you, figuring you'll return when all the activity is over, and when it seems okay you walk off to go hide in the woods, dousing your fire there the moment you hear a helicopter rotor or any other sound indicating a military presence is nearby.
This doesn't fully explain why they set off unprepared, not just without coats and shoes, but without at least one of the axes they had, or their saw, but if the tent was already collapsed and covered in snow getting out of it might have been difficult enough, and they may have not been thinking straight due to the effects of hypothermia, and/or may have had to seize the moment the coast seemed clear.
Do you want a clue ....
guessed the tent was cut from the outside and some day after the hikers died
I'm fairly convinced Semyon's photo's image a helicopter and search light, and it is stated the military were in that area that night, that this is somehow connected to how the tent is as found.
If you were in a dark tent on a white mountain ridge in a communist country, and the military were suddenly all around you unexpectedly, you might feel a little too conspicuous, and if any of your number has reason to fear being asked to show ID and papers, or your permits are not 100%, you may elect to camouflage your presence as best you can and hide.
If Semyon's photo is a helicopter searchlight then the act of standing out in the open contradicts your idea of staying inconspicuous. (after all the photo is almost an entire orb of light not just a partial orb surreptitiously imaged through a tent flap). Their ID and paperwork managed to get them a long way so I'm struggling to see why it should be a liability if scrutinised by a patrol. There was also a directive at the time restricting the use of military transport. Some people have theorised the idea that exposing Senior military officer's wrongful use of helicopters formed a motive for eliminating the group. Also, I would think that if a helicopter is trying to locate the group it would be easier to try at sunrise - it's not like the tourists are going far.
Personally, I place more importance on the not taking of shoes, coats whilst moving away from the tent etc. than I do on the cuts in the tent whether from inside or out.
---> Reply #16
.................. [••]...they heard.. some people arrived military or other...
Zolotaryov...went out with Nikolay Thibeaux-Brignolle...and the surprise .... police or military or other you want...
they were asked to leave the tent immediately because the place was in danger and had to leave the tent immediately and without waiting without shoes without clothing we don't care OUT NOW !!!!
.................
I am wondering if it is possible that the hikers did not cut open the tent. It seems so crazy as it was their only protection. Is it possible that after they left the tent others entered it and cut it open so that the hikers could not use it as shelter?I believe some of the hikers cut the tent open from the inside, because all nine were convinced that an avalanche was starting.
All options open after the latest so called Authority Investigation proved to be a big disappointment. But introducing this approach where you suggest others, who are the others that you are suggesting ! ? Or should I say, who do you think would want to do that. They have left their life line to walk a mile not properly dressed and they are highly unlikely to get back to the Tent, so why would anyone want to cut the Tent for the reason that you suggest ! ?
To make it appear that the hikers left the tent in complete and utter panic due to a terrifying person or thing. We don't know who cut the tent and we don't know when the tent was cut, it could have been cut by the hikers to leave the tent in a hurry at the time of egress or it could have been cut by someone else at a later point in time to create confusion.
yes it changes everything if it was cut from the outside it means we want hidden events that actually took place and give a much more effective theory ..... if the famous document that was found saying that the discovery of the bodies had been found on February 6 and modified after February 22 is real it implies that some people want to hide a truth .... the tent has disappeared impossible to check now with a microscope the possible opening of the interior...... in my opinion we have to study now who cut the tent from the outside....
Let's focus on how they left the tent and especially the condition of the tent? First of all the tent is not in such bad shape. hence their interest in wanting to go back to the tent to sleep there. everything is in order inside the shoes and other supply..... no something wrong here ...leave the tent quietly Under minus 25 degrés? and without shoes what a game ....
the tent is in good condition for leaving without clothes... I strongly believe that they heard some people arrived military or other and armed .... Semyon Zolotaryov with his amazing camera around his neck? weird no ??? went out with Nikolay Thibeaux-Brignolle who I point out was perfectly dressed together , they went out to see what was going on. and the surprise .... police or military or other you want . they were asked to leave the tent immediately because the place was in danger and had to leave the tent immediately and without waiting without shoes without clothing we don't care OUT NOW !!!!
But going out all it was already doomed to death hikers have tried to ask them for get back their clothes and other ... unfortunately the military or police or someone else didn't want to... and so a fight began but with weapons the hikers could do nothing but leave their tent ..... some day after or the next day on February 3 or February 4 the military decided to pass this for a simple and stupid avalanche . and decided to cut the tent
in my opinion, where the reason of the document already established by the police report by claiming that February 6 had discovered the bodies .... luckily this document was not burned or torn but forgets in police administration and forgot to have modified it the time.....to be continue
I'm fairly convinced Semyon's photo's image a helicopter and search light, and it is stated the military were in that area that night, that this is somehow connected to how the tent is as found.
If you were in a dark tent on a white mountain ridge in a communist country, and the military were suddenly all around you unexpectedly, you might feel a little too conspicuous, and if any of your number has reason to fear being asked to show ID and papers, or your permits are not 100%, you may elect to camouflage your presence as best you can and hide.
If Semyon's photo is a helicopter searchlight then the act of standing out in the open contradicts your idea of staying inconspicuous. (after all the photo is almost an entire orb of light not just a partial orb surreptitiously imaged through a tent flap). Their ID and paperwork managed to get them a long way so I'm struggling to see why it should be a liability if scrutinised by a patrol. There was also a directive at the time restricting the use of military transport. Some people have theorised the idea that exposing Senior military officer's wrongful use of helicopters formed a motive for eliminating the group. Also, I would think that if a helicopter is trying to locate the group it would be easier to try at sunrise - it's not like the tourists are going far.
Personally, I place more importance on the not taking of shoes, coats whilst moving away from the tent etc. than I do on the cuts in the tent whether from inside or out.
Late reply as only just seen this.
The clearest photo of a lamp is not head on or it would flood out the exposure, and could have been taken through a viewing/breathing hole cut in the tent canvas.
The only photo which might suggest the hikers had been seen is the first frame, "3 heads", where a bright light floods out the exposure. But if that light was in the distance it may not be spotlighting them (the beam falls short, onto the snow in front). Or it may not be heads at all which are silhouetted. Or it's a flare.
I don't think the military would be looking for the hikers, they would be looking for something else, most probably escapees, and such a pressing need would override the national no fly orders during annual KGB celebrations. There may even have been some chinese whispers about 'a group of strangers' seen heading that way (the hikers) and this got back to the military.
The hikers likely heard about the escapees from the people at Vizhay and may have chosen to site their tent where they did to avoid them. If so they would deduce what this activity was all about, but still have their own reasons not to want to get caught up in it all and prefer to go to ground.
Their paperwork wasn't 100%. Tibo and Yuri K didn't have permits for their fischer knives. Only Aleksander Kolevatov did.