Solved yet again - tent cut from inside.

[ahabmyth]

Ok so I have come up with a new theory which I hope may solve this mystery.

The group whilst going up the mountain suffers an injury whilst navigating the rocky substrate of the mountain (  muscular maybe ). This forces 1 or 2 of the group to help them (maybe more than one ). Two or three of the group go on ahead and erect the tent. The injured formation arrives but no way can the injured person struggle through the tiny opening of the tent. One of the hikers goes inside to get his knife (dont forget its pitch black and the other members want in ) so the hiker inside has no other choice than to cut the tent. They all go inside, unfortunately the wind helps later by adding to the force and rips the tent wide open and all of a sudden tiny rips become much longer. In the tent for a breather they then decide staying in the tent is untenable and decide to go down make a den. And the rest is history. The pic shows this rock strewn area that the group may have crossed to get to the campsite. I can imagine them having lots of slips with the upwards of 40kg on their backs heading into a 60-70klm/hr wind,  the rocks they would have had to traverse maybe only covered in a few inches of wet snow.Of course this theory would only stand up if we can find injuries of the group through the post mortem (which I dont think would take into account of muscular type injuries I dont know). https://ibb.co/4ZgZHB1q

[GlennM]

This hypothesis would be confirmed by autopsy findings. Are you going to explore this further? For me, unless there was a hiker with a splint or crutch in evidence, I exclude this as likely.

[ahabmyth]

As I pointed out the injury could have been muscular. The case for a crutch being found dosnt really stand up as it could have been discarded or broken up for firewood. I will be looking for injuries that could have been sustained by the hikers from the post mortem to try and find anything that could sustain this hypothesis.

[GlennM]

I support the idea that a sudden snow slide,was motivation for the leaving of the tent. I account for the different levels of undress as signifying that the group did not expect to be away from the tent for long. This means they would return when it was reasonable that there would be no further calamity.. i can support the arguement that in the dark there was slip fall injuries over icy rocks. If that was the case,  then it would be logical and practical to move the injured downhill and to the shelter of a tree or ravine. It would be much harder to go back uphill if carrying injured and facing a headnwind. I would opt for the ravine first because the windbreak would be more immediate. Then, foraging for wood could commence. It would not be particularly disloyal to have a fire at the cedar while those in the ravine had none. If warming up helped dry wet clothes and warmed numbed hands, why not?

I think that Igor's attempt to regain the tent for supplies was logical and heroic, but they all died miserably in the cold, as their coprses attest.

[SURI]

That's right, they didn't expect to be away from the tent for long. They found this out only on the slope.

And if I go even further, Zolotaryov could not have been among the first to be injured if he was taking photos in the forest and actually the whole way. He knew exactly what he needed the camera for. And the argument that he didn't have a camera, but only a case, is nonsense. Even the partially damaged negatives suggest something else, that the camera was in the water with the bodies and did not make it to the morgue just because they were eager to know what it contained.

[Ziljoe]

That's right, they didn't expect to be away from the tent for long. They found this out only on the slope.

And if I go even further, Zolotaryov could not have been among the first to be injured if he was taking photos in the forest and actually the whole way. He knew exactly what he needed the camera for. And the argument that he didn't have a camera, but only a case, is nonsense. Even the partially damaged negatives suggest something else, that the camera was in the water with the bodies and did not make it to the morgue just because they were eager to know what it contained.

Thank Suri, could you post the link to where zolotaryov had a camera around his neck in the case files?

[SURI]

https://dyatlovpass.com/camera-zolotaryov

[Ziljoe]

https://dyatlovpass.com/camera-zolotaryov

Thank Suri.

I have read this article but it's just speculation as far as I understand, from a lone author . I don't think there any statements about zolotaryov being found with a camera . ( Obviously this doesn't mean he wasn't) .

I only ask because I know of the rumour that he had a camera, but I think it's just speculation because of the photo which looks like a camera case.

The figure has evidently been removed from the ravine and there were many people who witnessed the bodies being taken out of the ravine but I don't think anyone reported this , not so insignificant evidence. ?

[SURI]

Some believe it's a camera, others think it's just a case. For example, Valentin Yakimenko has no doubts that Zolotaryov had a camera and was taking pictures with it on that fateful night. I agree with his opinion about the camera.

If Zolotaryov had only a case without a camera, it would have been mentioned even during the autopsy, because it would have remained on his body like a compass or like two watches at Tibo's.

But since the case was not recorded at all during the autopsy, even though it is visible in the photo, it is more than likely that the case also contained a camera, which of course was immediately confiscated and thus did not make it to the morgue, because they were eager to know what it contained.

Also, partially damaged negatives indicate that the camera was in the water with the bodies.

[SURI]

I believe Zolotaryov's camera during the incident, but I also believe Krivonischenko's last photo. And if I put all these things together, a picture emerges of the whole event that is completely different from just an avalanche.

[OLD JEDI 72]

Hi all,

Interesting idea, ahabmyth. A fresh angle is always welcome, but it may be worth stepping back and asking whether we are adding extra layers that the evidence does not really demand.

What the record already tells us:
Tent damage – multiple investigators, including Lev Ivanov, agreed the cuts originated from inside. That squares neatly with a rapid-exit scenario, whether triggered by snow loading, wind pressure, or a shallow slab letting go above the tent.

Documented injuries – the autopsies note bruises and abrasions consistent with slips on hard snow and ice; they do not flag deep muscle tears or major sprains. Absent radiology, a minor strain is possible, but we would expect at least one of nine diaries to mention a hobbling teammate. None do.

Sequence of events – the mixture of undress and the orderly footprints down-slope already imply the group thought they would be right back, so a single urgent trigger (slab, sudden sagging roof, booming wind) is enough to explain the knife, the cuts, and the fast evacuation.

Why more moving parts can muddy the water
Every extra “must-have-happened” step—someone badly injured on approach, knife search in total darkness, widening of cuts by wind, collective decision to shelter downhill—adds uncertainty without solving any clear contradiction in the evidence. Occam’s razor is our friend here; the slab-plus-panic model handles the same facts with fewer assumptions.

A quick word on red herrings
We have all seen the yeti, UFO, and secret-weapon narratives. They draw clicks, but each one shifts focus away from the small, mundane details that actually are in the case files. If the goal is clarity, trimming away the sensational helps the core puzzle stand out.

Friendly suggestion
Maybe keep digging into the autopsy tables first; if you can tie a specific soft-tissue injury to one hiker and show how it cascades into the tent cuts, you will have something solid. Until then, the simpler slab-and-panic route still explains the evidence with fewer leaps.

Cheers, and thanks for keeping the discussion civil.

[Ziljoe]

Hi all,

Interesting idea, ahabmyth. A fresh angle is always welcome, but it may be worth stepping back and asking whether we are adding extra layers that the evidence does not really demand.

What the record already tells us:
Tent damage – multiple investigators, including Lev Ivanov, agreed the cuts originated from inside. That squares neatly with a rapid-exit scenario, whether triggered by snow loading, wind pressure, or a shallow slab letting go above the tent.

Documented injuries – the autopsies note bruises and abrasions consistent with slips on hard snow and ice; they do not flag deep muscle tears or major sprains. Absent radiology, a minor strain is possible, but we would expect at least one of nine diaries to mention a hobbling teammate. None do.

Sequence of events – the mixture of undress and the orderly footprints down-slope already imply the group thought they would be right back, so a single urgent trigger (slab, sudden sagging roof, booming wind) is enough to explain the knife, the cuts, and the fast evacuation.

Why more moving parts can muddy the water
Every extra “must-have-happened” step—someone badly injured on approach, knife search in total darkness, widening of cuts by wind, collective decision to shelter downhill—adds uncertainty without solving any clear contradiction in the evidence. Occam’s razor is our friend here; the slab-plus-panic model handles the same facts with fewer assumptions.

A quick word on red herrings
We have all seen the yeti, UFO, and secret-weapon narratives. They draw clicks, but each one shifts focus away from the small, mundane details that actually are in the case files. If the goal is clarity, trimming away the sensational helps the core puzzle stand out.

Friendly suggestion
Maybe keep digging into the autopsy tables first; if you can tie a specific soft-tissue injury to one hiker and show how it cascades into the tent cuts, you will have something solid. Until then, the simpler slab-and-panic route still explains the evidence with fewer leaps.

Cheers, and thanks for keeping the discussion civil.

Interestingly

[ahabmyth]

Yes can admit the theory of adding extra layers to the obvious explanations to what actually happened is dangerous, but until we find eye-witnesses to the event we are left with assumptions which is what this page /group is all about. I will endevour to research any injuries that may have happened to the group that could explain a crutch or stretcher being used.
People are still of the opinion that a slab slide or avalanche could have occurred when it has been proven to be highly illogical, less than 30deg slope, tent not inundated with snow, no flattened bushes, no buildup of snow anywhere. This I think is layer number one.

I see no-one has commented of another post of mine "The Cedars " which also could be a reason for "fleeing" the tent.
 Yep go on have a laugh, but you or your great or great great grandchildren will know of this and will be frightened of sleep for years.

[OLD JEDI 72]

Yes can admit the theory of adding extra layers to the obvious explanations to what actually happened is dangerous, but until we find eye-witnesses to the event we are left with assumptions which is what this page /group is all about. I will endevour to research any injuries that may have happened to the group that could explain a crutch or stretcher being used.
People are still of the opinion that a slab slide or avalanche could have occurred when it has been proven to be highly illogical, less than 30deg slope, tent not inundated with snow, no flattened bushes, no buildup of snow anywhere. This I think is layer number one.

I see no-one has commented of another post of mine "The Cedars " which also could be a reason for "fleeing" the tent.
 Yep go on have a laugh, but you or your great or great great grandchildren will know of this and will be frightened of sleep for years.

The thing about a slab that tends to get overlooked is that drifting snow could make the slab itself over 30 degrees. And they cut into the side of it, essentially weakening everything behind the tent to piling snow. I find it difficult to believe people with crush injuries could walk a mile even with help.

[OLD JEDI 72]

Here's a visual I did.

[OLD JEDI 72]

That's definitely not 33 degrees but you get the point lol.