December 12, 2019, 02:26:27 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Inspection Of The Tent  (Read 4112 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

March 23, 2018, 06:36:23 PM
Read 4112 times
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

March 24, 2018, 11:41:37 PM
Reply #1

SteveCalley

Guest
The largest areas of damage to the tent by far are two similar rectangular voids separated by a strip of material perhaps 40-50 cm. wide which itself seems to be sliced at the bottom, making a hanging flap. The whole opening if the material in the center is free on the sides and bottom, seems to be perhaps 150 cm.
The voids are very rough at the top, but quite neat along the vertical edges. At the base, the voids do not appear to remain connected to some flap of material. They show the same shredded appearance as at the top.
Where is the corresponding tent material to these voids? Inside, or outside?
How were these made?  This looks strike to me.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2018, 09:48:50 PM by SteveCalley »

April 10, 2018, 12:49:55 PM
Reply #2
Offline

cz


Hi,

Thanks for making all this available!

There is something which puzzles me about the case file drawing of the tent and the (English version) of the caption (photo no. 1).
It says that the shaded areas indicate sections where the cloth was "missing". Does this mean that the canvas was completely removed (blown
away by the wind or so) or was it still attached to the tent canvas at the lower or upper side? The drawing itself seems to indicate a complete
removal, which I find strange.

Does somebody know?

Cheers,
cz

April 11, 2018, 01:20:53 PM
Reply #3
Offline

WAB


Thanks for making all this available!

There is something which puzzles me about the case file drawing of the tent and the (English version) of the caption (photo no. 1).
It says that the shaded areas indicate sections where the cloth was "missing". Does this mean that the canvas was completely removed (blown
away by the wind or so) or was it still attached to the tent canvas at the lower or upper side? The drawing itself seems to indicate a complete
removal, which I find strange.

Does somebody know?

Answer in this question give Michael Sharavin who has found tent the first. In conversations at time 2009 … 2015 hi has explained that when they together with Boris Slobtsov have found tent. When they have started to dig out tent by ice axe. Ice axe has been in front and driven to forward rope of tent. As they did not know that is inside under snow, they intensively raked snow a beak of ice axe. There they have touched cloth of tent and have torn it. After that, when reconnaissance group assorted equipment about tent, cloth `s pieces were lost. He could not remember when it has occurred and as where them could carry away by wind or who that another took for other purposes.

Cheers,

April 11, 2018, 05:53:40 PM
Reply #4
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Thank you WAB...   We value the input!
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

April 12, 2018, 04:43:01 PM
Reply #5
Offline

cz


Thank you very much for these information, WAB!

Looking at the tent photo from Ivdel, I realized that the lower
2/3 of the canvas, which initially covered the "right whole" (right side on the photo),
appear to be folded toward the right. Actually, the folded section of the canvas covers
some other damage on the photo. This is also consistent with the cuts
indicated by Alexey Rakitin. The case file drawing may be a little misleading here.
On the left, the situation is hard to assess on the photo.

I found it unusual that someone doing a real quick escape would bother
to cut all four sides of a whole. Once three cuts are made, the canvas hangs loosely, and it is
completely unnecessary to remove it; I guess it is not even easy because there is no tension.

Best

April 12, 2018, 07:15:09 PM
Reply #6

SteveCalley

Guest
Yes. It looks like clawed by a hand rake.

May 24, 2018, 04:43:08 PM
Reply #7
Offline

cz


In her report, Churkina explicitly writes that she studied all damages and only three could be attributed to cuts (p. 304 and following). These are those indicated by 1,2, and 3. The remaining damage is due to rupture (or post-incident damage as stated above). Honesty, I so far believed that Churkina somehow selected these cuts for some reason, but this is not what is written. According to the report, it is all cuts made from within. There is the ominous absence of p 303 in the report of course...

Unfortunately, only cut 1 is complete in the sense that all affected canvas was available. This one is too small for an escape. No. 2 appears awkwardly placed for escape because it is so high up. No. 3 on the contrary is pretty low (potentially once connected to no. 2). All of them are primarily in horizontal direction. I have not myself tried a tent escape but this pattern appears puzzling to me. For no. 1 in particular, I wonder what its actual (maybe initial) purpose was.

May 24, 2018, 06:47:40 PM
Reply #8
Online

Per Inge Oestmoen


In her report, Churkina explicitly writes that she studied all damages and only three could be attributed to cuts (p. 304 and following). These are those indicated by 1,2, and 3. The remaining damage is due to rupture (or post-incident damage as stated above). Honesty, I so far believed that Churkina somehow selected these cuts for some reason, but this is not what is written. According to the report, it is all cuts made from within. There is the ominous absence of p 303 in the report of course...

Unfortunately, only cut 1 is complete in the sense that all affected canvas was available. This one is too small for an escape. No. 2 appears awkwardly placed for escape because it is so high up. No. 3 on the contrary is pretty low (potentially once connected to no. 2). All of them are primarily in horizontal direction. I have not myself tried a tent escape but this pattern appears puzzling to me. For no. 1 in particular, I wonder what its actual (maybe initial) purpose was.


Some questions have to be asked.

Question 1: How do we know who made the cuts in the tent? This question is relevant independent of whether the cuts were made from the inside or from the outside.

Question 2: Why was it assumed that the nine hikers left their tent through these cuts in the tent? Have any tracks or any indications been found that could support such an assumption? If not, what grounds do we have to take it for granted that these cuts were made in order to escape through them?

Question 3: If the cuts were made from the inside, how does this tell us anything about who made the cuts?

Question 4: Why must we assume that if the cuts were made from the inside, the Dyatlov group must have done it?

Question 5: Are there any grounds at all to believe that the Dyatlov group would even think of destroying their own tent?

As a matter of fact, there has never been found any evidence that the nine students did the cutting, there has never been found anything that could tell us that the students left the tent through the cuts, and there has never been demonstrated that the nine had any reason to perform such actions. Also, it is documented that the students had a happy time and did not have any trouble before disaster struck suddenly as a bolt from the blue: They made a humorous "newspaper" in the tent, which they called "The Otorten Evening News."

May 25, 2018, 05:28:17 AM
Reply #9
Offline

Vietnamka


Let my tell u a funny story about this inspection   kewl1

Of course this expertise  looks strange. Why did Ivanov ask only 2 qustions
Quote
    Is Dyatlov group tent cut?
    If yes, are the cuts made from inside or outside?
What about traces of blood, traces of explosive residue, fingerprints on the knife? Methods of research improved a lot for last 50 years. Could they  proceed some tipes of expertise???
  I started lookig for some information about  capacity of criminal laboratories in 1959 in Sverdlovsk and found some article about the oldest expert in  the  Federal Center of Forensic Science in Yekaterinburg. I decided to ask him some quostions.
Can you imaging how shoked I was getting answer:
  "Yes, I know this story. I was one of the experts who examined THIS tent in 1959 together with Churkina"
I transfered this information to Natalya and you can read his interviw here https://www.pskov.kp.ru/daily/26603.4/3618460/

Nothing new. But he explained situation about the forensic cenetrs in Yekaterinburg in 1959. I was surprised to know that it was 3 labs running by different Ministries
1) By Ministry of Internal Affairs. The oldest and very well equipped for forensic analysis during investigations
2) by Ministry of Justice. Established in 1951 for additional forensic expertise by court order.
3)  military lab
  Criminalistic expertise of the tent has been done in the Labratory  of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice http://ural-sud-expert.ru/istoriya-uralskogo-rczse
Why? More suitable was the laboratory of Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Ok, let's  step back a little bit.
 26th of March the tent was found, 27 th - 4 bodies, criminal case  on the death of tourists was opened. Determination the cause of death is the most important step, does not it? But the bodies were lying on the pass for 5 days (from 27th to 3d) without any examination.
 The second very important qustion was " what happend? Why did they leave the tent and the tent  is so badly damaged?"

Again, 27 th - tent found, 3d of March - delivered to Ivdel. Only 16 of March Ivanov odered the forensic examintaion of tent
Quote
Act of Criminalistic expertise (tent)
Dyatlov Pass: Document in RussianRussian

Sheet 303

ACT № 199
forensic expertise

Written on April 16, 1959.
The case of the death of student tourists
from Dyatlov group.

April 3, 1959 from the Prosecutor's Office of Sverdlovsk region under the order of 16 / III-59. criminal prosecutor Jr. Justice Adviser Ivanova L.N. for the production of forensic examination entered the tourist tent of the Dyatlov group, found at the scene.

 But the tent was delivered to Lab on April 3d, expertise has been done on April, 16.
  1,5 months passed from the  tent was found to expertise. Not fast for criminal case controlled by Khrushchev

But its not end of the story.
You can read one document https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-032-035?rbid=17743
It was created by 'MEMBERS route-QUALIFICATION COMMISSION VseSOYUZny SECTION OF TOURISM"  K.BARDIN / /E.SHULESHKO /"
and contains information:
Quote
"According to experts tent was ripped open from the inside with a knife a few strokes
But no date.  KP found the second copy of this document which has been sent to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union





Do you see the date ?
What 'According to experts' these people are talking about if the tent  has not delivered to the lab yet??  shock1



May 25, 2018, 02:25:13 PM
Reply #10
Offline

CalzagheChick


Mind. Blown.  twitch7

Galina, what other MAJOR discrepancies have you found in the case files like this?

May 25, 2018, 07:24:03 PM
Reply #11
Offline

Vietnamka


Mind. Blown.  twitch7

Galina, what other MAJOR discrepancies have you found in the case files like this?
A lot. But for me much more important to find explanation.  dr Schultz can just notice the discrepancies, pediatrician must know how to treat it  tongue2
Why I m here? Because your brain is not full of some crazy  theories and myths like story about a golden tooth. Not yet)) you can see some situation better and I would like to discuss  with you.

Per Inge Oestmoen let me answer for one question here. It's about a "myph".
This area was never closed! I know at least two groups visited the Pass the same year, 1959. One report is published in the on-line laibrory of touristic reports.  I can provid it to Teddy if you are interesting.

May 25, 2018, 08:29:23 PM
Reply #12
Offline

Vietnamka


How it was possible to report about expertise before it was done?
I can see two possibilities.
1) expertise has not done yet, this "masters" provided not confirmed information to the top. I'm not sure the real expertise could show  "different" result. This expertise can be fake.
2) they are talking about another expertise which could be done in lab of Ministry of Internal Affairs or Miletarry lab. Ivanov had enough time  to do it (from 3d to 16 of March) . May be this is a reasone for  absence of piece of tent's fabric.
 The next my question was - who are this guys? Could they lie?

May 27, 2018, 04:17:54 PM
Reply #13
Offline

cz


How it was possible to report about expertise before it was done?
I can see two possibilities.
1) expertise has not done yet, this "masters" provided not confirmed information to the top. I'm not sure the real expertise could show  "different" result. This expertise can be fake.
2) they are talking about another expertise which could be done in lab of Ministry of Internal Affairs or Miletarry lab. Ivanov had enough time  to do it (from 3d to 16 of March) . May be this is a reasone for  absence of piece of tent's fabric.
 The next my question was - who are this guys? Could they lie?

The tent was brought to Ivdel on March 3rd. As far as I know, Ivanov first believed that the damage was due to an attack from the outside. It was only when a woman, who was a taylor coming to fix his uniform, stepped into his office that he learned that the cuts were made from within. I do not know when exactly this happened. Possibly, this opinion, which is an expert's opinion in a way, is being referred to here. In the document you pointed out, it sounds as if the opinion of a forensic expert is meant, which may not be the case. So, this is just an idea...

May 27, 2018, 07:11:57 PM
Reply #14
Online

Per Inge Oestmoen


The tent was brought to Ivdel on March 3rd. As far as I know, Ivanov first believed that the damage was due to an attack from the outside. It was only when a woman, who was a taylor coming to fix his uniform, stepped into his office that he learned that the cuts were made from within. I do not know when exactly this happened. Possibly, this opinion, which is an expert's opinion in a way, is being referred to here. In the document you pointed out, it sounds as if the opinion of a forensic expert is meant, which may not be the case. So, this is just an idea...


That is the story, yes.

But in addition to that rather unscientific judgment in itself, there is another problem: If the tent was cut from the inside, it does not mean that the students did the cutting. And nothing tells us that they left the tent through these cuts.

May 27, 2018, 10:17:53 PM
Reply #15
Offline

Vietnamka



The tent was brought to Ivdel on March 3rd. As far as I know, Ivanov first believed that the damage was due to an attack from the outside. It was only when a woman, who was a taylor coming to fix his uniform, stepped into his office that he learned that the cuts were made from within. I do not know when exactly this happened. Possibly, this opinion, which is an expert's opinion in a way, is being referred to here. In the document you pointed out, it sounds as if the opinion of a forensic expert is meant, which may not be the case. So, this is just an idea...

Yes, you're right. We know the story from Korotaev.

Quote
"When the tent was brought to my office for investigation, a woman entered the room and, when she saw the tent, she said she had worked for 30 years as a seamstress in Ivdellag (prison); and she took one look at the fabric of the tent and told me the tent was cut from the inside, not the outside. For me, this was significant, and I ordered the tent to be sent for a forensic examination."
https://dyatlovpass.com/rescuers#korotaev

Following questions:
1) Can a seamstress recognise from wich side the tent has been cut, only "taking one look"?
 - expertise:
Quote
Scratches are observed in the surface damage of the filaments: the filaments are either cut in half / see photo № 10 /, or with them the dye is simply scratched off and not the colored parts are visible
Conclusions about the side of cuting  were made on the basis of scratches by
Quote
microscopic examination of the edges of the cuts of the adjacent tissue sections was made / zoom level from 0.6 to 56X / .
The seamstress had very good vision.

2) "I ordered the tent to be sent for a forensic examination" Korotaev said.
But we know only one ordering. From Ivanov, not from Korotaev.
Quote
...  criminal prosecutor Jr. Justice Adviser Ivanova L.N. for the production of forensic examination...
There are still the same qustions: did Korotaev lie or did he order ANOTHER expertise in another lab?

3) How the Masters from Moscow were stupid are transfering information from the seamstress to the СС СPSU? If even for Korotaev her words were just the reasone for ordering a forensic examination

Did Korotaev told a true in his interviw? Not exactly.
 Oleg Arhipov, Russian writer who has long been engaged in the theme of the Pass, found Korotaev's privet archive. One document from archive was published just 2 weeks ago by KP.  Graphological expertise confirmed that this document was written by Tempalov.


https://www.kp.ru/daily/26829/3869201/

Full text in Russian. I hope Teddy translate it more accurate then me.

Quote
«Владимир Иванович (подчеркнуто)

Для доклада зам.прокурору РСФСР по уголовному делу по факту смерти туристов я вызван и уезжаю в г.Свердловск на 2-3 дня, поэтому прошу тут смотреть и чтобы было все в порядке. Прошу тебя интересоваться за н/судами (народные суды. - Авт.), если пошлют дела на доследование или будут оправданы, опротестуй приговора также в 5-ти дневный срок. Все дела верные.
Кроме того, по заданию облпрокурора допроси нач-ка лаг отделения Хакимова на пос.Вижай по вопросу говорил ли начальник туристской группы Дятлов (который погиб) о том, что они вернутся в Вижай не 12/II 59 г., а 15/II 59 г.

Это нужно сделать быстрее. Я позвоню тебе из г.Свердловска.

15/II 59 г. (зачеркнуто)16/II 59 г. должен быть вынесен приговор по Реебу, поэтому если оправдан или дело послано на доследование, то нужно писать протест обязательно.

С приветом Прок. Темпалов. 15/II 59 г.».

 Summary: Tempalov asked Korotaev to follow up some ctriminal cases because he (Tempalov)  was summoned to Sverdlovsk. The reasone of  visit is death of tourist group, leaded by Dyatlov.
And date. 15 of February. BEFORE even relatives began to worry about the group.



 

May 28, 2018, 04:20:16 PM
Reply #16
Offline

cz


Quote
Summary: Tempalov asked Korotaev to follow up some ctriminal cases because he (Tempalov)  was summoned to Sverdlovsk. The reasone of  visit is death of tourist group, leaded by Dyatlov.
And date. 15 of February. BEFORE even relatives began to worry about the group.

Thanks for your efforts to translate some of this! The date is of course startling. It may be a stupid question, but is this possibly a Julian date? This would make it Feb. 28 Gregorian. I think I read that this calendar was still occasionally used in Russia at the time although it would certainly have fallen out of fashion in 1959.

May 28, 2018, 04:42:36 PM
Reply #17
Offline

cz



1) Can a seamstress recognise from wich side the tent has been cut, only "taking one look"?

Of course, I do not this with any certainty. I would put some trust, however, in the ability of a long-term seamstress to assess such damage. I believe "one look" should not be taken literally here (modulo potential subtleties of the Russian original). The forensic analysis may have uncovered detail, which may not have been part (and not necessary) for the judgement of the seamstress. At least it appears to be in accordance with the forensics.

May 28, 2018, 05:25:38 PM
Reply #18
Offline

CalzagheChick


Quote
Summary: Tempalov asked Korotaev to follow up some ctriminal cases because he (Tempalov)  was summoned to Sverdlovsk. The reasone of  visit is death of tourist group, leaded by Dyatlov.
And date. 15 of February. BEFORE even relatives began to worry about the group.

Thanks for your efforts to translate some of this! The date is of course startling. It may be a stupid question, but is this possibly a Julian date? This would make it Feb. 28 Gregorian. I think I read that this calendar was still occasionally used in Russia at the time although it would certainly have fallen out of fashion in 1959.

That's a moment of genius! I heard the same thing. At this time the calendars were being switched from Julian to Gregorian.

May 28, 2018, 06:50:15 PM
Reply #19
Online

Per Inge Oestmoen


That's a moment of genius! I heard the same thing. At this time the calendars were being switched from Julian to Gregorian.


The next question which should be asked now:

Is there any way to find out if Tempalov wrote a Julian date or a Gregorian date?

The KP journalists must be able to answer that question.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 07:01:27 PM by Per Inge Oestmoen »

May 28, 2018, 08:07:48 PM
Reply #20
Offline

Vietnamka


No, he didn't use Julian date. Since 1917 this calendar was demolished from our memories))
But you are right in general. It's very hot discussion about the date in Russian internet now. But not about the Julian or Gregorian date, about Roman Numerals.
 Can be II - IV?
Why IV? TEMPALOV WITNESS TESTIMONY - 18.04.1959. He was in Sverdlovsk 18 of April. Grafologist confermed that it's exactly II, but may be TEmpalov did mistake? 3 times?
Any way I'm out of  this discussion. Teddy has not translate yet full text. Tempalov talked about one case of REEB (family name) which should be transferred to the court on 15/II 16/II
Oleg Archipov together with KP trying to get information about REEB to know exactly when his case was trunsfered to the court. On February or not. It will confirm the date. Just wait.
But too much mistakes. Even the date of opening case is not correct. 26 of February the bodies not found yet.

« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 08:12:20 PM by Vietnamka »

May 29, 2018, 01:30:06 AM
Reply #21
Online

Per Inge Oestmoen


No, he didn't use Julian date. Since 1917 this calendar was demolished from our memories))
But you are right in general. It's very hot discussion about the date in Russian internet now. But not about the Julian or Gregorian date, about Roman Numerals. Can be II - IV? Why IV? TEMPALOV WITNESS TESTIMONY - 18.04.1959. He was in Sverdlovsk 18 of April. Grafologist confermed that it's exactly II, but may be TEmpalov did mistake? 3 times? Any way I'm out of  this discussion. Teddy has not translate yet full text. Tempalov talked about one case of REEB (family name) which should be transferred to the court on 15/II 16/II
Oleg Archipov together with KP trying to get information about REEB to know exactly when his case was trunsfered to the court. On February or not. It will confirm the date. Just wait. But too much mistakes. Even the date of opening case is not correct. 26 of February the bodies not found yet.


Thank you for clearing up the matter. Of course, this would have been no point unless it was a Gregorian date. But it needed to be confirmed.

Then we know that Tempalov was aware of the death of the students on February 15.

But Tempalov knew. This is clear from the Russian text:

"Для доклада зам. прокурору РСФСР по уголовному делу по факту смерти туристов я вызван и уезжаю в г.Свердловск на 2-3 дня, поэтому прошу тут смотреть и чтобы было все в порядке."

If I translate the above into English, it reads according to my reading of the Russian text: 

"For the report to the vice procurator of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) concerning the criminal case according to the fact of the death of the tourists I am called and will go to the town of Sverdlovsk in three days, because I (must) go there to examine and to (ensure that) everything is in order."

This is very important. Tempalov was given the task of reporting to no smaller authority than the vice procurator of Russia. That procuratorate would not be in Sverdlovsk or Ivdel, to put it that way. That indicated this was a case where the state's interests were involved. What happened to the Dyatlov group was therefore not merely a local "accident." 

Tempalov's letter is now confirmed to have been written on the 15th of February, Gregorian date.

That was long before the tent was found on February 26, and it was long before anyone else in the local area knew that the Dyatlov group was dead. Nobody in in Ivdel or Sverdlovsk knew that the students were no longer alive, including their relatives and the general population. Nobody in Ivdel or Sverdlovsk knew that the students were dead.

But someone else knew.

Those who gave Tempalov the task of reporting to the vice procurator, and who also told him to go to Sverdlovsk, knew that the students were dead.

May 29, 2018, 02:01:09 AM
Reply #22
Offline

Vietnamka


And when we are talking about possible mistake in date in this document, please remember about information on the cover of case -   "case opened on February 6" + we have one protocol dated 6 of February too.
Too much mistakes making by different people.

May 29, 2018, 02:20:47 AM
Reply #23
Online

Per Inge Oestmoen


And when we are talking about possible mistake in date in this document, please remember about information on the cover of case -   "case opened on February 6" + we have one protocol dated 6 of February too.
Too much mistakes making by different people.


Exactly, Vietnamka.

There are way too many "mistakes."

It has been written two times that the case was prepared on February 6. It is extremely unlikely that the same mistake was made twice.

Later, on February 15 Tempalov was told to go to make a report to the high office of Russia's vice procurator and to go to Sverdlovsk - still long before anyone in the local areas of Sverdlovsk or Ivdel knew about the deaths.

And finally, the case was carefully directed from the highest authorities so that it would give the desired conclusion.

It is very obvious that if there had been no case, people would have been suspicious and angered. If the students had just disappeared, the same. Everybody would have understood that something had happened. It could have led to problems and even social unrest.

A criminal case with the "correct" conclusion was the very best strategy to conceal what actually happened. That strategy has worked very well for almost sixty years.

May 29, 2018, 02:29:36 AM
Reply #24
Offline

Vietnamka



Too much mistakes making by different people.
Let me make a summery about the date of opening

 -this letter shows that  authority knew about the case before 15.02
 - cover - 6.02.1959
 - V. M. Popov witness testimony - 06.02
 - Decision to open a case "taking into account that at Peak 1079 the frozen bodies" - 26.02 before bodies were found
- Decision on the extension of the investigation period - 28.02
 - 2001. Igor Dyatlov brother asked the prosecutor's office to see the criminal case. Summery of answer - you can see the case which has been opened on 12.02
  bang1





May 29, 2018, 05:07:35 PM
Reply #25
Offline

cz


- 2001. Igor Dyatlov brother asked the prosecutor's office to see the criminal case. Summery of answer - you can see the case which has been opened on 12.02

Is this the same case file as for the entire incident, which was supposedly opened Feb. 6 but is now reported to have been opened 12.02.? Or is this another case file specifically opened for the case of Igor Dyatlov?

May 30, 2018, 07:02:34 PM
Reply #26
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

May 30, 2018, 07:02:52 PM
Reply #27
Offline

Vietnamka




Is this the same case file as for the entire incident, which was supposedly opened Feb. 6 but is now reported to have been opened 12.02.? Or is this another case file specifically opened for the case of Igor Dyatlov?
Let me check. I don't know did the relatives see the case finally or not. U can read in internet about Buyanov - the "first" person who saw the known case in 2009. This is not true too. Karelin saw the case in 80th and he is sure it was the same case.

September 28, 2018, 02:47:47 PM
Reply #28
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
So by all accounts the holes in THE TENT were made at two different times  !  ?  Some holes may have been made by the Dyatlov Group and some by the Searchers. Also that the holes allegedly made by the Dyatlov Group may not have been intended for a person to get through.  So this makes it look like the Dyatlov Group left The Tent by the usual way and not through any holes cut or ripped in The Tent.  I have camped in a Tent, similar size to the Dyatlov Tent, when I was in my twenties, on a hillside in Wales during severe storms that brought down trees and blocked roads etc.  The other 3 members of our group decided they didnt want to stay in a Tent at night with a storm raging around then, so they fled to the safety of a motor vehicle and drove for miles to relative safety.  I stayed all night in the Tent. There were times when I thought it might blow away. Next morning it was a scene of devastation outside The Tent, trees blown down etc. So powerful was the storm that it made news headlines. At no time did I think I needed to cut my way out of The Tent.  Why should I when The Tent has a proper entrance and exit.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 03:12:33 PM by sarapuk »
DB

September 29, 2018, 11:35:41 AM
Reply #29
Offline

CalzagheChick


The big post I had here was moved....    wink1

http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=205

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