Solved yet again - tent cut from inside.

[sarapuk]

GlennM, палатка, вероятно, была разрезана ножом Кривонищенко, клинок которого имел острие, напоминающее "Боуи" или острие копья.

sarapuk, они не были сильно опытными туристами. И в туристической практике были случаи разрезания палатки. Или готовности ее разрезать.

But they would have the good sense not to destroy their protection from the elements.

[Hunter]

Sorry for the Google translation.
sarapuk, there is a site tlib.ru, where reports on hikes in the USSR are posted. I studied them. So, there were cases when tourists cut a tent - they got into an avalanche or the tent was covered with fallen snow. There are also cases described when they were ready to cut it. In one case, because of smoke in the tent (but it worked out), in the second, because of a possible snow blockage.

ahabmyth, this can be read in the protocols of the autopsy, inspection of the tent and sorting out of things by Yudin in Ivdel.

[Partorg]

But they would have the good sense not to destroy their protection from the elements.

When the roof of a tent with two or three cubic meters of snow on it presses you to the floor, and there is no more air to breathe than can fit between closely located bodies and in your bosom, this is exactly the case when common sense consists in cutting the tent

[Partorg]

The girls had a privacy curtain so they must have been together and more than likely at the entrance

Girls always settle down in tents together, that's true. But not at the entrance. And the sheet didn't separate them from the rest of the tent, but covered the entrance, preventing wind and snow from blowing through the cracks between the toggle-bolts.

[ahabmyth]

If the exit of the tent was due to something not natural do you think at least some of the hikers would attempt to negotiate with it or not negotiate with it or attack it or leave a message for us poor souls left behind.

[SURI]

I think we already have the message, but many do not want to accept it. It is the last picture from Krivonischenko's camera. But it's not something unnatural. Let's say the photographed object took the same position as the photographer.

[ahabmyth]

I think we already have the message, but many do not want to accept it. It is the last picture from Krivonischenko's camera. But it's not something unnatural. Let's say the photographed object took the same position as the photographer.

Please explain.
If it is anything like what I saw I would like to know as I have been searching for years for someone else who has also seen it.

[SURI]

I think we already have the message, but many do not want to accept it. It is the last picture from Krivonischenko's camera. But it's not something unnatural. Let's say the photographed object took the same position as the photographer.

Please explain.
If it is anything like what I saw I would like to know as I have been searching for years for someone else who has also seen it.

No, it's nothing like that. Don't look in that direction at all. It requires a different perspective.

[ahabmyth]

I think we already have the message, but many do not want to accept it. It is the last picture from Krivonischenko's camera. But it's not something unnatural. Let's say the photographed object took the same position as the photographer.

Please explain.
If it is anything like what I saw I would like to know as I have been searching for years for someone else who has also seen it.

No, it's nothing like that. Don't look in that direction at all. It requires a different perspective.

Are we talking about spiritualism we need hints and its Saturday night.

[SURI]

I think we already have the message, but many do not want to accept it. It is the last picture from Krivonischenko's camera. But it's not something unnatural. Let's say the photographed object took the same position as the photographer.

Please explain.
If it is anything like what I saw I would like to know as I have been searching for years for someone else who has also seen it.

No, it's nothing like that. Don't look in that direction at all. It requires a different perspective.

Are we talking about spiritualism we need hints and its Saturday night.

Somewhere it's Saturday night, somewhere it's Saturday afternoon, somewhere it's Saturday morning.
It's an ordinary light, a flashlight.

[ahabmyth]

I think we already have the message, but many do not want to accept it. It is the last picture from Krivonischenko's camera. But it's not something unnatural. Let's say the photographed object took the same position as the photographer.

Please explain.
If it is anything like what I saw I would like to know as I have been searching for years for someone else who has also seen it.

No, it's nothing like that. Don't look in that direction at all. It requires a different perspective.

Are we talking about spiritualism we need hints and its Saturday night.

Somewhere it's Saturday night, somewhere it's Saturday afternoon, somewhere it's Saturday morning.
It's an ordinary light, a flashlight.

Suppose you're right it could be just a flashlight.

[SURI]

The flashlight certainly didn't float above the ground on its own. For some reason, this "flashlight" started pointing at the photographer, and for some reason, it was necessary to take a picture of this "flashlight".

[Ziljoe]

The flashlight certainly didn't float above the ground on its own. For some reason, this "flashlight" started pointing at the photographer, and for some reason, it was necessary to take a picture of this "flashlight".

The photo you refer to, is not known to be a flashlight. As the sequence of photos go , it is the last shot taken on the film . I don't know if it's speculation, but it is argued that the last shot was already wound but the photo had not been taken , IE , ready for the next shot to be taken , if the camera was found in this state , then the photo is post incident. The photo is taken after the camera is found.

Whether this is true or not I am not sure.

However, it adds a question to why take a photo of some emergency and then store the camera.

It would be useful to elaborate.

[ahabmyth]

The flashlight certainly didn't float above the ground on its own. For some reason, this "flashlight" started pointing at the photographer, and for some reason, it was necessary to take a picture of this "flashlight".

Yeah cant see someone behind a flashlight and I dont blame someone for doing the same to someone holding the flashlight I would do the same. LOL

[SURI]

The flashlight certainly didn't float above the ground on its own. For some reason, this "flashlight" started pointing at the photographer, and for some reason, it was necessary to take a picture of this "flashlight".

The photo you refer to, is not known to be a flashlight. As the sequence of photos go , it is the last shot taken on the film . I don't know if it's speculation, but it is argued that the last shot was already wound but the photo had not been taken , IE , ready for the next shot to be taken , if the camera was found in this state , then the photo is post incident. The photo is taken after the camera is found.

Whether this is true or not I am not sure.

However, it adds a question to why take a photo of some emergency and then store the camera.

It would be useful to elaborate.

I understand your annoyance with this photo, because if it turns out that it was taken in an emergency, it would shake your theory about the avalanche, because the photographer had the time and space to take the photo, the tent was standing. The flashlight was about 2 meters away from him and half a meter above the ground. The photographer was in the same position as the object being photographed. And why would anyone need to take pictures in this situation? Because it was an exceptional state of emergency, very surprising for the photographer, and he wanted to record all of this. But he was not allowed to do more...

[Ziljoe]

The flashlight certainly didn't float above the ground on its own. For some reason, this "flashlight" started pointing at the photographer, and for some reason, it was necessary to take a picture of this "flashlight".

The photo you refer to, is not known to be a flashlight. As the sequence of photos go , it is the last shot taken on the film . I don't know if it's speculation, but it is argued that the last shot was already wound but the photo had not been taken , IE , ready for the next shot to be taken , if the camera was found in this state , then the photo is post incident. The photo is taken after the camera is found.

Whether this is true or not I am not sure.

However, it adds a question to why take a photo of some emergency and then store the camera.

It would be useful to elaborate.

I understand your annoyance with this photo, because if it turns out that it was taken in an emergency, it would shake your theory about the avalanche, because the photographer had the time and space to take the photo, the tent was standing. The flashlight was about 2 meters away from him and half a meter above the ground. The photographer was in the same position as the object being photographed. And why would anyone need to take pictures in this situation? Because it was an exceptional state of emergency, very surprising for the photographer, and he wanted to record all of this. But he was not allowed to do more...

It is true that I am annoyed but it is not with the photo. I do not have a theory about the incident, rather , there are a number of theories. An avalanche or collapsing of the tent by snow is the theory that makes most sense to me at the moment with other theories trailing behind, some closer than others.

I am not keen on leaps of faith to formulate theory but sometimes it has to be done to try and exercise a model of events .

I ask about your interpretation about the last photo on this camera because it raises a number of questions which will be relative to your theory.

My annoyance is with regard to you giving no explanation, I would love the photo to mean something, so please continue as no one is adding anything new.

[SURI]

I like it when others gradually figure it out on their own. If you suddenly throw it out at others, it may seem unacceptable to many. I was even deleted once. That's why I only hint at things a little sometimes.

[sarapuk]

Sorry for the Google translation.
sarapuk, there is a site tlib.ru, where reports on hikes in the USSR are posted. I studied them. So, there were cases when tourists cut a tent - they got into an avalanche or the tent was covered with fallen snow. There are also cases described when they were ready to cut it. In one case, because of smoke in the tent (but it worked out), in the second, because of a possible snow blockage.

ahabmyth, this can be read in the protocols of the autopsy, inspection of the tent and sorting out of things by Yudin in Ivdel.

Of course they may not be worried about destroying their tent if they had to escape from something that threatened their existence.

[sarapuk]

But they would have the good sense not to destroy their protection from the elements.

When the roof of a tent with two or three cubic meters of snow on it presses you to the floor, and there is no more air to breathe than can fit between closely located bodies and in your bosom, this is exactly the case when common sense consists in cutting the tent

The slope of the hill was not capable of an avalanche of such nature.

[sarapuk]

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.

Everything points to some event other than an avalanche.

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.

[sarapuk]

The tent wasnt cut from any side, it "ripped" because it was ROTTEN. I will post pics in a second to show the tension lines and the flaps of the tent "cut" lines to show how they match up. I think in particular that Igors oven had something to do with it as the heat on the fabric must have been horrific and with hot and cold weather taking its toll practically unseen until it tears. Nothing will stop a tree that size from flattening a tent.    As you can see tensioners can be used and I dont know if Dyatlov had or used them. Dyatlov had complained many times about the tent being old but it was repaired and still used. This trek could have been the straw that broke the camels back. So there we have it no knife wielding maniac or compulsive overbearing force just a rotten tent. This is why there was a decision to abandoning it in the atrocious weather and hoping when the storm has past to go back and salvage what they can.The tent was still where Teddy said it was under the Cyprus .
There is another explanation that is gathering substance , and that it was Zolo and Rustem the only ones with knives that were outside relieving themselves and hearing all the commotion rushed back inside and slashed the tent so everyone could get out before the tree came crashing down.

Thought all tent hikers. If tensioners are used on tents ,if they are over tightened would you consider it likely that the material could rip in that direction of most tightness.



There was no suggestion by the investigators that the tent was rotten.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ahabmyth]

But they would have the good sense not to destroy their protection from the elements.

When the roof of a tent with two or three cubic meters of snow on it presses you to the floor, and there is no more air to breathe than can fit between closely located bodies and in your bosom, this is exactly the case when common sense consists in cutting the tent

In this case then there could have been huge bouncing blocks of snow coming down from the mountain and one just happened to land on the tent, surmising a tent was there.

[Partorg]

In this case then there could have been huge bouncing blocks of snow coming down from the mountain and one just happened to land on the tent

If by falling snow blocks you mean snow cornices, then we have to disappoint you - cornices cannot form on this slope. There are no conditions for this. Just as there are none for the formation of a full-fledged snow avalanche. We can only talk about the sliding of a small area and volume of snow directly adjacent to the tent.
Look at that picture where dyatlovites are digging a pocket in the snow slope to set up a tent. The slope of the hill is ≈ 30° where they have their backpacks and skis, see? That's where the first 2-3m³ slid down in one go. They knocked the tent over to the right, flattened it and sent everyone into a panic, since no one could know how much snow had fallen on them.

When they got outside, there was no more than 10 inches of snow above the tent and they apparently hoped to restore the tent, for which they pulled the southern end out from under the snow using a guy rope and, having stuck a pole under the ridge, fixed it in the position in which it was later found.
Then they started clearing the entire tent. If a snow slab came off, its fragments could be scattered in about 5 minutes, but along with the slabs, the so-called "weak layer" underneath always comes off. This is fine ice chips similar in mechanical properties to sugar.  In English alpine terminology it is called sugar snow. It does not cake at sub-zero temperatures, easily blows up by the wind, but it is loose  and digging it with empty hands is like eating yogurt with a fork.  So next much of this crumb could have flowed onto the tent in the next 5-10 minutes that they decided to wait with the excavations until the wind died down on the slope.

[OLD JEDI 72]

"Blocks bouncing down the mountain" does not have to mean cornices, but your blanket "cornices cannot form" and "there are no conditions for a full avalanche" is too confident. Post-2021 terrain work and field checks show locally steeper steps above the tent area and confirmed slab activity nearby. That means a small wind-loaded slab over a weak layer is possible even if the average slope looks gentle. Saying "cannot" ignores what has been modeled and then ground-checked. Puzrin & Gaume summary.

Your numbers read like facts, but they are guesses. "2–3 m³ slid" and "no more than 10 inches above the tent" are not in the case file. The search material describes a tent that was down but not buried meters deep, with a flashlight lying on snow on the tent when found weeks later. That points to modest burial and wind transport shaping the surface. It does not prove your inch count or rule out a small slab earlier in the night. See the search narrative and witness notes: 1959 search overview and Slobtsov testimony.

About the sequence you present like it happened: "they pulled the southern end out with a guy rope," "stuck a pole under the ridge," then "scattered the slab in five minutes." None of that is documented as an observed timeline. If the hikers really re-erected the south end, you would expect telltales in the primary record: repositioned knots, new stake placements, a straight rope trench pulled out of the drift, or a ridge held at a new angle with tracks around it. The record shows a collapsed tent with cuts from the inside and footprints leading away, not a half-restored setup by the hikers. See: cuts from inside and footprints account. For context photos and location work: tent location dossier.

On "only a small area slid, the rest was sugar snow": that does not support your certainty. Faceted "sugar" is the weak layer that fails under a cohesive slab. It does not require melt and it does not require cornices. A wind slab that builds after they cut the ledge can release later on modest local angles. That is exactly the small, delayed slab mechanism avalanche researchers have laid out for this site. Model + field confirmations. The prosecutors’ office also named avalanche as the likeliest cause after its 2019–2020 re-examination. You can disagree, but you cannot pretend that competent people have not worked this through. prosecutors’ conclusion.

So do not swap one speculation for another and present it like a transcript of what happened. If you want to say "no avalanche" and "no stones will roll," bring slope profiles, wind loading history, and a physical rule that actually forbids a small delayed slab over that ledge. The ice-block idea is weak, I agree, but I don't think ahabmyth was being too serious about it. Replacing it with confident speeches about guy ropes, poles, and five-minute cleanups that nobody recorded is not an upgrade.

[Partorg]

"Blocks bouncing down the mountain" does not have to mean cornices, but your blanket "cornices cannot form" and "there are no conditions for a full avalanche" is too confident. Post-2021 terrain work and field checks show locally steeper steps above the tent area and confirmed slab activity nearby. That means a small wind-loaded slab over a weak layer is possible even if the average slope looks gentle

1.  A snow cornice and a wind slab are completely different snow formations that require different conditions for their formation. A wind slab covers two-thirds of this slope without fail, but there are no surface bends necessary for the formation of cornices.
2.  The relief of the slope above the tent with a step of 2.5 meters was filmed by Alekseenkov back in 2013, if I'm not mistaken. The profile was posted on the Dyatlovpass forum, in the topic: https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1477.msg23839#msg23839
 It is unlikely that there have been any major changes in the geomorphology of Kholat Syakhl since then.

Your numbers read like facts, but they are guesses. "2–3 m³ slid" and "no more than 10 inches above the tent" are not in the case file

1.  If all the facts were known and reflected in the case materials, the question: “What happened to the Dyatlov group?” simply would not exist.

2. The assumption of “2-3 m³ at one time” and “no more than 10 inches” is based on empirically established facts and those found in specialized literature: victims usually do not escape from under snow drifts ≥ 0.5 m thick on their own.

3.  How can you understand the unknown without resorting to guesswork and assumptions

About the sequence you present like it happened: "they pulled the southern end out with a guy rope," "stuck a pole under the ridge,"

Look closely at the photo of the tent that was discovered and not yet dismantled. There is everything there to make the assumptions I made.
You also need to read carefully. I have never denied the possibility of the so-called osov, that is, the movement of a wind board from the territory adjacent to the tent. But the avalanche described by prosecutor Kuryakov cannot exist there in principle.
This requires a slope of at least 30°, several tens of meters long, with an avalanche catchment area at the top. As for competence, the competence of people who ignored the facts confirming the location of the tent and established their place using a method that ensures an accuracy of ±100 m, raises at least some doubts.

[OLD JEDI 72]

Thanks for the civil reply. A few checks on the claims:

Cornices vs wind slabs: agreed, they are different. I was not relying on cornices. The point was that a small wind-loaded slab over a weak layer is viable above the tent site. The Swiss work did field checks and a drone model, and they state plainly that slopes above potential tent locations are steep enough for slabs to form, with very short runout. Puzrin
 & Gaume summary.

On the terrain profile: you cite Alekseenkov’s 2013 work. The newer model identified continuous steps above 28–30 degrees over the ridge line near the tent locations, which is exactly the sort of local steepening a small slab needs. It does not claim a big valley-scale avalanche. It claims a short slab impact above the cut ledge. Drone
 model note.

On the “2–3 m³ slid” and “no more than 10 inches” figures: you present them like facts, but they are not in the case file. What we do have is Slobtsov’s statement about the tent as found weeks later: roughly 15–20 cm of wind-deposited snow on top, crusted, with the flashlight lying on the snow surface over the tent. That supports modest burial by discovery time and shows wind transport, but it does not fix the exact depth at the moment of the event. Your inch figure remains an assumption. Slobtsov
 testimony and 1959
 search overview.

On the sequence “they pulled the south end out with a guy rope, propped the ridge pole, then cleared everything in five minutes”: the primary record shows a collapsed tent with cuts from inside and tracks leading downslope. It does not document a re-erected half-tent by the hikers themselves. If a pull-out and re-prop happened, please point to the specific markers in the discovery photos or protocols. Otherwise that timeline is an interpretation, not an established fact. Cuts
 from inside and tent
 location dossier.

On “no conditions for a full-fledged avalanche” and the prosecutor’s version “cannot exist there in principle”: you are arguing against a large classic avalanche with long runout and a big catchment. The small delayed slab model does not require that. It requires a locally steeper step above the cut, a cohesive wind slab, and a weak layer. The Swiss team’s own runout estimate is on the order of a meter or two below the tent, which fits a tent-crushing slab and the later footprint line. You may disagree, but “cannot” is too strong given the post-2021 modeling and field observations. Model
 and field notes.

And to your broader point about unknowns and assumptions: of course we all use inferences. The difference is whether they are tied to measurable terrain, snow mechanics, and the documentary record. A short, delayed wind slab over a weak layer is testable against those. Fixed volumes, inch counts, and confident rebuild timelines need the same standard of proof.

If you have a photo call-out that shows the south guy line being hauled and the ridge freshly propped by the hikers, post it and we can look together. Until then, I am sticking with what is actually in the file and what has been modeled and checked in the field.

[Partorg]

You may disagree, but “cannot” is too strong given the post-2021 modeling and field observations

Once again: I used the word “cannot” in relation to a full-fledged avalanche with a transit section (run) of many tens or hundreds of meters. If you and Puzrin think that this is possible on the slope discussed here, then that is your right. I have no intention of trying to convince you otherwise.  If you agree only to local snow movement within one and a half to two dozen meters, then I don’t argue with that.

If you have a photo call-out that shows the south guy line being hauled and the ridge freshly propped by the hikers, post it and we can look together

I don't have a photo of the ridge just fortified by tourists. I wrote about a well-known photo taken 26 days after the ridge was fortified, in which Koptelov is squatting in front of a tent found the day before.
Our Internet has been slowing down lately almost like it did at the dawn of its existence, and perhaps that is why the picture is not loading. Try to find it yourself.
Look at the ski pole sticking out of the snow that served as a side peg.
It is tilted towards the tent and hangs above the corner that it was supposed to pull to the left. What do you think this could mean?  Doesn't this mean that at first some force pulled the corner of the tent (and then the peg tied to it) to the right (which broke or tilted the peg), but then another force restored the position of the tent's front to its original position, as a result of which its left corner ended up directly under the tilted (broken) peg?

the primary record shows a collapsed tent with cuts from inside and tracks leading downslope. It does not document a re-erected half-tent by the hikers themselves. If a pull-out and re-prop happened, please point to the specific markers in the discovery photos or protocols. Otherwise that timeline is an interpretation, not an established fact

That is, if someone's assumption about an attempt to restore the tent was recorded in the interrogation protocol, then it would no longer be an assumption, but a fact? Have I correctly understood your approach to the question of what should be considered a fact?

we all use inferences. The difference is whether they are tied to measurable terrain, snow mechanics, and the documentary record. A short, delayed wind slab over a weak layer is testable against those

If you point out to me my assumption that is not tied to the actual terrain and my modest knowledge in the field of snow mechanics, I will be infinitely grateful to you and will immediately tie up.
Wind slab sliding is not documentary data. It is not data at all. It is just one of the assumptions. It has more logical and physical justification than other assumptions, but this does not make it a fact.
Slaf on the eastern slope of the Kholatsakhl summit hill is not direct evidence. The conditions there are completely different - slope of about 45° and almost classic avalanche collection. Such landslides probably occur there more than once per winter.
Its only use to avalanche theorists is the speed with which the wind removed all traces of the landslide.

Fixed volumes, inch counts, and confident rebuild timelines need the same standard of proof

Ok, but there can be no proof here. Everything has been blown away by the wind. We can only talk about arguments. Based on the same logic, knowledge and experience accumulated by humanity.
And common sense, which, in principle, everyone, starting with guinea pigs, should have.

1. If they had been crushed by a layer of snow about 0.5 meters thick, they would not have been able to get out from under it, but if at least that much snow had not been added to the 20-25 centimeters from which they could have gotten out, they would most likely have dug out the tent and stayed in it until the morning, using it as a multi-person sleeping bag.

2. How long do you think it would take at least 6 twenty year old guys to clear a 2x4 meter area of ​​several chunks of compacted snow?

[Hunter]

sarapuk
The only problem is that Rustem had a penknife, and Zolotarev could have had a small folding knife as well. And it is inconvenient to cut the tent from the inside with them.

They would rather have given the command - everyone out immediately.
But there is a question here - there was no tent under the cedar. If there was, then after the tree fell, it would be easy to get the gear out of it.

[ahabmyth]

sarapuk
The only problem is that Rustem had a penknife, and Zolotarev could have had a small folding knife as well. And it is inconvenient to cut the tent from the inside with them.

They would rather have given the command - everyone out immediately.
But there is a question here - there was no tent under the cedar. If there was, then after the tree fell, it would be easy to get the gear out of it.

Yes am fairly sure these guys had pen-knifes ( just enough to do your nails ). Have you ever seen a sharp pen-knife :- I havnt, and even if you did they would not be the best for cutting a tent made from canvas. Imagine 3' in height (material on an angle) so you would need to be on your knees, preferably using two hands to cut from the bottom to the top and with the tent canvas flapping in the wind you would be tempted to hold a cut part with one hand and cut with the other. But with the overwhelming force being there and the tent entrance being blocked what do you do. Yes very inconvenient.
Nope pen-knifes were not used. There were two knives that would have been used.
And as I have said before even this would have been hard to do, the canvas material is extremely tough (unless it had been mishandled). You should try it yourself. The best way is to cut ,when it is in tension.

Regarding the tree falling on the tent. I am not really sure. the tent wouldn't have fallen exactly parallel with the tent so at least some of them could have got out but then again some of them couldn't and there is no evidence for this happening. It would have been like a car hitting them. Lots of bruising thats for sure but there should have been other evidence . But I can agree with you if it was the tree then it would have been easier to get things out and pop over to the den and just imagine using a cross-cut saw for making firewood. The worm hole widens.

[ahabmyth]

Sarapuk
There may not have been any suggestion from the investigators to say the tent was rotten but Igor had said it many times, there are references to someone saying inside was like a planetarium with all the tiny holes looking like stars. Lyuda talked about it saying there were enough for all except two to keep them busy.(mending the holes).