Tent Cutting new information

[UCFseeker]

Very strange to me.

Agreed. But then, this whole incident is the Gold Standard for strange.

[Star man]

The details around the cuts, how they were made, why they were made and the action taken to make them could provide insight to the events at the tent.  Jarran has provided some good insight into this.

From what I have read on this thread it seems that there were three cuts made deliberately on the down side of the slope.  These cuts may have been smaller than when they were examined by forensics as Jarrfan suggest.

If the cuts were smaller and more deliberate then there are some things that we can surmise from this.

1. The cuts were unlikely to have been done as a means of escape from the tent - not big enough.  Later they may have become elongated by the wind, and from the poor handling during the recovery.

2.  Unlikely to have been made by anyone from outside the group.  There is no evidence that anyone else was there.  Also, the cuts are too small to suggest that outsiders were trying to make the tent unusable.

So why make the cuts?  The cuts were delibarate and would have taken careful cutting to cut through the seams in the tent.  Were they made to look outside?  If they were not for escape or an attempt to damage the tent, then is it more likely they were made to look outside?  If so, why would you cut holes to look outside?  You wouldn't damage the tent unless you were scared and thought your life was in danger?

The hole with the jacket in could have been made before the deliberate cuts were made as has been hypothesised by Jarrfan.

Is the above a more credible option? 

Good discussion.

Regards

Star man

[UCFseeker]

The details around the cuts, how they were made, why they were made and the action taken to make them could provide insight to the events at the tent.

Indeed. What I wouldn’t give to have high quality photos of those cuts, closeups from both inside the tent and out.

What you surmise, Star, feels solid to me. My other takeaway from this information and discussion is that if the cuts were “peep holes” (and its hard to imagine what else they might be if they were made by members of the expedition) then whatever the “unknown compelling force” was it didn’t start out as a ten on the threat meter. It ramped up. If you think a freight train is about to slam into you, you don’t take time to clean your glasses and get a better look at it.

[Star man]

The details around the cuts, how they were made, why they were made and the action taken to make them could provide insight to the events at the tent.

Indeed. What I wouldn’t give to have high quality photos of those cuts, closeups from both inside the tent and out.

What you surmise, Star, feels solid to me. My other takeaway from this information and discussion is that if the cuts were “peep holes” (and its hard to imagine what else they might be if they were made by members of the expedition) then whatever the “unknown compelling force” was it didn’t start out as a ten on the threat meter. It ramped up. If you think a freight train is about to slam into you, you don’t take time to clean your glasses and get a better look at it.

Yeah - I agree.  If they were peep holes then It’s possible that whatever the threat was the hikers may have thought that staying in the tent was the best strategy at first.  Maybe they were hoping the threat would leave.  The strategy would be to keep watch rather than expose themselves and confront the threat.  It’s the sort of strategy you might employ if there was a wild animal outside - like a bear or a Yeti.

Makes me wonder though.  If they had time to cut the holes and there was a real threat there why did they not prepare to leave the tent in case they needed to?  They could have put on their shoes and had clothing ready.

Regards

Star man

[UCFseeker]

Makes me wonder though.  If they had time to cut the holes and there was a real threat there why did they not prepare to leave the tent in case they needed to?  They could have put on their shoes and had clothing ready.

I may be pretty far out on the limb now, but your question has me wondering if all this perhaps tells us something about the way the threat escalated.

It was unsettling enough when it began that at some point they decided that it was better to damage the tent by cutting the holes than to go outside. Weather may also have been a big factor in that choice. But it wasn't extreme enough that they felt justified to go to the trouble of suiting up. When their perception of the threat began to grow, it did so with such speed that they didn't have time to suit up.

I don't know how many theories (or combination of theories) would fit with these interpretations of the details. And there is a good bit of ambiguity in the holes themselves. Who made them, when and with what? But at least this line of inquiry is based on something tangible, and not a desire to see the extraordinary in what could well have been just a tragic example of how quickly things can spiral out of control in such an extreme environment.

[Star man]

Makes me wonder though.  If they had time to cut the holes and there was a real threat there why did they not prepare to leave the tent in case they needed to?  They could have put on their shoes and had clothing ready.

I may be pretty far out on the limb now, but your question has me wondering if all this perhaps tells us something about the way the threat escalated.

It was unsettling enough when it began that at some point they decided that it was better to damage the tent by cutting the holes than to go outside. Weather may also have been a big factor in that choice. But it wasn't extreme enough that they felt justified to go to the trouble of suiting up. When their perception of the threat began to grow, it did so with such speed that they didn't have time to suit up.

I don't know how many theories (or combination of theories) would fit with these interpretations of the details. And there is a good bit of ambiguity in the holes themselves. Who made them, when and with what? But at least this line of inquiry is based on something tangible, and not a desire to see the extraordinary in what could well have been just a tragic example of how quickly things can spiral out of control in such an extreme environment.

I think you could be right about the way events escalated.  In particular, when faced with an immediate and significant threat humans can suffer an Amygdala hijack (panic).  I specifically refer to it as an Amygdala hijack rather than panic because the human brain is overwhelmed by the Amygdala and higher brain functions and logical thinking are paralysed leaving only poor decision making, irrational behaviour and an overwhelming desire to fight/flight.  This hijack can make the difference between life and death in dangerous situations, especially if survival chance is enhanced by logical decision making rather than just running away.  This is why rehearing emergency arrangements and planning ahead is important in survival for example plane crash, hotel fires or boats sinking.  Quite often the survivors are the ones who have planned their response to an emergency in advance.  Thus when the emergency happens they do not need to use higher brain functions to determine what action to take because they have already decided and rehearsed it in their minds or physically.

For the hikers I doubt that whatever happened they had planned for it.  Therefore, when faced with a significant life threatening situation their actions cannot be expected to have been logical.  That would include preparing to leave the tent, cutting the tent etc.  the events may happened quite fast, and while one or more were cutting the tent the rest may have been in a total state of panic and not preparing to survive the events that were on their way.

Regards

Star man

[UCFseeker]

For the hikers I doubt that whatever happened they had planned for it.  Therefore, when faced with a significant life threatening situation their actions cannot be expected to have been logical.

Good point. Having had my own brain hijacked by the Amygdala on a couple of occasions (at least one of which I only survived thanks to pure, dumb luck) I can confirm that what you’re saying is true.

You know, it can be a comfort to lose oneself in an examination of details, to intellectualize what happened that night as no more than a sequence of events that led to a tragedy made inevitable by their actions and reactions. Cuts in the tent, footprints in the snow, broken branches, abandoned gear, hopelessly blurred photos and contradictory reports - adopt a theory and cherry pick the details that fit it best.

Then I come back as always to the one thing I know for certain about that night. You said it right, Star. Something happened that they were not prepared for. And I always have to remind myself that these were not novices in the wilderness. Still, all their expertise and preparations failed them catastrophically. They were terrified. Terror was the compelling force. The only “unknown” is what set it loose.

Beyond my admittedly morbid curiosity about what happened, I have always felt a profound sadness when I try to understand that night. Maybe part of it is the photos of their young, determined and amiable faces. From the translation of their clever, satirical newsletter I have always thought of them as people I would have genuinely liked. They were smart and funny, adventurous and thoughtful. They knew what they were doing was dangerous but they didn’t rush into it unmindful of the dangers.

“Men plan and the gods laugh,” goes the old saying. I hope the gods have more restraint and class than that, personally. These brave young people deserve better.

[Star man]

For the hikers I doubt that whatever happened they had planned for it.  Therefore, when faced with a significant life threatening situation their actions cannot be expected to have been logical.

Good point. Having had my own brain hijacked by the Amygdala on a couple of occasions (at least one of which I only survived thanks to pure, dumb luck) I can confirm that what you’re saying is true.

You know, it can be a comfort to lose oneself in an examination of details, to intellectualize what happened that night as no more than a sequence of events that led to a tragedy made inevitable by their actions and reactions. Cuts in the tent, footprints in the snow, broken branches, abandoned gear, hopelessly blurred photos and contradictory reports - adopt a theory and cherry pick the details that fit it best.

Then I come back as always to the one thing I know for certain about that night. You said it right, Star. Something happened that they were not prepared for. And I always have to remind myself that these were not novices in the wilderness. Still, all their expertise and preparations failed them catastrophically. They were terrified. Terror was the compelling force. The only “unknown” is what set it loose.

Beyond my admittedly morbid curiosity about what happened, I have always felt a profound sadness when I try to understand that night. Maybe part of it is the photos of their young, determined and amiable faces. From the translation of their clever, satirical newsletter I have always thought of them as people I would have genuinely liked. They were smart and funny, adventurous and thoughtful. They knew what they were doing was dangerous but they didn’t rush into it unmindful of the dangers.

“Men plan and the gods laugh,” goes the old saying. I hope the gods have more restraint and class than that, personally. These brave young people deserve better.

Well said.  The first thing that attracted me to the dpi was the intrigue and mystery, but after reading the case files and diaries you quickly get the sense that these are smart, young ambitious kids who could well have been your own friends.  Also the families of the hikers who never really knew what happened to them is quite sad.  But it’s not unique for people to die in mysterious circumstances without proper explanation even these days.

Also you are right I think something most likely terrified them.  Something they were not prepared for.

Regards
Star man

[cennetkusu]

The details around the cuts, how they were made, why they were made and the action taken to make them could provide insight to the events at the tent.

Indeed. What I wouldn’t give to have high quality photos of those cuts, closeups from both inside the tent and out.

What you surmise, Star, feels solid to me. My other takeaway from this information and discussion is that if the cuts were “peep holes” (and its hard to imagine what else they might be if they were made by members of the expedition) then whatever the “unknown compelling force” was it didn’t start out as a ten on the threat meter. It ramped up. If you think a freight train is about to slam into you, you don’t take time to clean your glasses and get a better look at it.

Yeah - I agree.  If they were peep holes then It’s possible that whatever the threat was the hikers may have thought that staying in the tent was the best strategy at first.  Maybe they were hoping the threat would leave.  The strategy would be to keep watch rather than expose themselves and confront the threat.  It’s the sort of strategy you might employ if there was a wild animal outside - like a bear or a Yeti.

Makes me wonder though.  If they had time to cut the holes and there was a real threat there why did they not prepare to leave the tent in case they needed to?  They could have put on their shoes and had clothing ready.

Regards

Star man

It may be the only answer. The danger from the outside was not an ordinary danger like bear or Yeti. If so, they'd have time to dress like you said. This was an extraordinary danger. In this case, they were horrified at first to focus on the outside sound or image. They did not think that this possible danger could be dangerous for them. But Semyon and Tibo and Rustem were able to put on their shoes. Because they were the most alert and intelligent. And there was a sudden attack on the tent. (Not to the youth !!!) And they suddenly left the tent. (This ultimately proves that the attack came not from land but from the air!)

[cennetkusu]

If there's an air strike, you're not in a hurry to escape. Because that would be a wasted fatigue. Especially if the weather is very cold and dark ... You walk normally. Because rushing in the dark and cold can make you sweat and fall. The young men marched into the woods for a lair and to set fire. And the possible danger had gone away. Danger young people playing cat and mouse game. And the young people wanted to light fire, and when they didn't succeed enough, they made an in. Then all three of them wanted to go back to the tent and get the necessary supplies. But in the meantime, the danger came again and killed them all. The danger could have killed them all in the tent. But he wanted them to die like this. But why?

[Ehtnisba]

If there's an air strike, you're not in a hurry to escape. Because that would be a wasted fatigue. Especially if the weather is very cold and dark ... You walk normally. Because rushing in the dark and cold can make you sweat and fall. The young men marched into the woods for a lair and to set fire. And the possible danger had gone away. Danger young people playing cat and mouse game. And the young people wanted to light fire, and when they didn't succeed enough, they made an in. Then all three of them wanted to go back to the tent and get the necessary supplies. But in the meantime, the danger came again and killed them all. The danger could have killed them all in the tent. But he wanted them to die like this. But why?

I have never stopped thinking only something that fly matches the most. But yes why??? I have read so many cases of missing 411, so many of the victims found without shoes
 Well, in leather shoes froze you need defrost them.in the morning so they soften and be able to be put on. Seen this in documentaries about Himalay mountaineers from older times . But... They had the valenki - woolen type of felt boots that are not hardened and easy to put on. Also in other cases it was summer and people were lacking modern day trainers. So if look only in DPI we may assume their leather shoes were hard frozen and impossible to put on...but why they didnt use the valenki...and if we look at all cases with dead people in mountain in summer missing shoes my biggest question is. What could make you prefer walk bare feet in mountain and make you feel having your shoes on is worst than walk on rocks and bushes with just socks
.....only thing i can think of is that something makes the rubber soles of shoes so hot to point it starts to melt and burn your feet. What could do this???? Beam pointed at feet...natural phenomenon that is vulcano like type of super heating the ground under you....but then socks will be worse....so pointed beam attack on rubber shoe soles or even leather shoe soles made with intent to make people their shoes and make it harder for them to run and hide. New secret weapon, outer space visitors.... I don't like the crazy theories,but in a vast universe is pure egocentrism to think Earth is the only habitable place. They already found earth like climate planet ....
 So yes why we should always assume we are the only ones in an endless universe???? Isn't it more logical in a such endless space to have many planets with humanoid intelligent beings
???
It is like if you live in a small village in desolate area and have never been educated and never seen other than your villagers to conclude We are the only ones living humans on earth it is impossible that 2 legged being I saw passing by yesterday to exists ,it was hallucination or some animal..
.so i logically think attack was sky ,slow approach hoovering round the tent ,hence peep holes. It was investigating or maybe in fear too. Than what we people did when we found new lands??? Did we act friendly or we saw strange new people and not knowing a thing abouthem we murdered and enslaved them fearing the unknown. Same with outer space visitors. They expect empty slope , detect humans , unknown to them are they hostile ,what weapons they have. Some of hikers may tried to scream at the hovering thing to make it go away or shown aggression
. How we earthers will react in unknown land meeting unknown creatures and see some of them showing aggression? We will strike.... So they did something heat related to the tent. And when hikers were out and away they flew towards their route. But few hours later they see fire humans still here and then they start aiming them considering they are threat. Last four resisted the longest hence on th em is used stronger force..... I can't find anything else that can match all evidences. I am not an investogator but even the person who was the investigator could match ALL the evidences only with sky object and controlled attack. Everything else always has an evidence from case files that doesn't match and leaves plot holes.... I don't know.... I always think logically,i am not ufo mystery,yeti,paranormal person..... Investigator Ivanov wasn't too.....