Solved yet again - tent cut from inside.

[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.

And they left the safety of their tent not properly dressed and walked a mile in extreme weather conditions. That doesnt make sense. Unless they were scared for their lives. And what could scare them that much.

[Hunter]

The reason is unknown, but since the retreat was in one direction as a group, and not in different directions, there was no particular panic.

[Ziljoe]

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.

And they left the safety of their tent not properly dressed and walked a mile in extreme weather conditions. That doesnt make sense. Unless they were scared for their lives. And what could scare them that much.

I am going to be a bit pedantic here, the weather conditions weren't exactly extreme. Extreme weather conditions means outside the normal expectations of the time of year and location. The weather conditions were most likely within what would be expected.

If on the slope of 1079 , they , the hikers experienced something or were in a situation that they could not stay at the tent or gather resources, it would leave them little choice but to take the route down the slope to the treeline . This suggests that the pathway down the slope was free of the threat of whatever may have caused them to leave the tent .

There would be no reason to go up hill for survival, little reason to go back along the path they took as this was further to the shelter of a treeline.

Looking at it from basic logic , if something happened at the tent that prevented any gathering of resources from within, then the only alternative is to descend to the closest area of resource to get the best survival options given the circumstances. Down the slope is the only viable option .

Many things don't make sense, but to make sense of it , we must ask as many questions as we can . So what can make sense of them walking 1mile in the cold and stop them from taking other equipment?.

The very basic simple observation would be that they couldn't, could not , would not or they choose to leave . It does not mean they left the tent because they were scared for their lives at the tent location,because to stay on the slope exposed to the environment might have been more scary?. In their clothing and on the slope , that would be certain death and this they would know.

Everything suggests that whatever happened at the tent , clothing, axes , boots, etc were not going to be retrievable.

We can argue outsiders, wolverine, elk, avalanche, gas etc,until we are blue in the face but they chose , as a group ,to descend in the same general direction either all at the same time or slightly apart.

This for me narrows down the variables.

[sarapuk]

The reason is unknown, but since the retreat was in one direction as a group, and not in different directions, there was no particular panic.

[ No panic. I think that there was panic. They were scared for their lives, and they abandoned the safety of their tent, not properly dressed for the conditions at the time. ]

[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.

And they left the safety of their tent not properly dressed and walked a mile in extreme weather conditions. That doesnt make sense. Unless they were scared for their lives. And what could scare them that much.

I am going to be a bit pedantic here, the weather conditions weren't exactly extreme. Extreme weather conditions means outside the normal expectations of the time of year and location. The weather conditions were most likely within what would be expected.

If on the slope of 1079 , they , the hikers experienced something or were in a situation that they could not stay at the tent or gather resources, it would leave them little choice but to take the route down the slope to the treeline . This suggests that the pathway down the slope was free of the threat of whatever may have caused them to leave the tent .

There would be no reason to go up hill for survival, little reason to go back along the path they took as this was further to the shelter of a treeline.

Looking at it from basic logic , if something happened at the tent that prevented any gathering of resources from within, then the only alternative is to descend to the closest area of resource to get the best survival options given the circumstances. Down the slope is the only viable option .

Many things don't make sense, but to make sense of it , we must ask as many questions as we can . So what can make sense of them walking 1mile in the cold and stop them from taking other equipment?.

The very basic simple observation would be that they couldn't, could not , would not or they choose to leave . It does not mean they left the tent because they were scared for their lives at the tent location,because to stay on the slope exposed to the environment might have been more scary?. In their clothing and on the slope , that would be certain death and this they would know.

Everything suggests that whatever happened at the tent , clothing, axes , boots, etc were not going to be retrievable.

We can argue outsiders, wolverine, elk, avalanche, gas etc,until we are blue in the face but they chose , as a group ,to descend in the same general direction either all at the same time or slightly apart.

This for me narrows down the variables.

[ Well, you say to stay on the exposed slope might be more scary. In which case, they would have had time to gather all of their clothing and other items together and maybe even the tent itself! ]

[Ziljoe]

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.

And they left the safety of their tent not properly dressed and walked a mile in extreme weather conditions. That doesnt make sense. Unless they were scared for their lives. And what could scare them that much.

I am going to be a bit pedantic here, the weather conditions weren't exactly extreme. Extreme weather conditions means outside the normal expectations of the time of year and location. The weather conditions were most likely within what would be expected.

If on the slope of 1079 , they , the hikers experienced something or were in a situation that they could not stay at the tent or gather resources, it would leave them little choice but to take the route down the slope to the treeline . This suggests that the pathway down the slope was free of the threat of whatever may have caused them to leave the tent .

There would be no reason to go up hill for survival, little reason to go back along the path they took as this was further to the shelter of a treeline.

Looking at it from basic logic , if something happened at the tent that prevented any gathering of resources from within, then the only alternative is to descend to the closest area of resource to get the best survival options given the circumstances. Down the slope is the only viable option .

Many things don't make sense, but to make sense of it , we must ask as many questions as we can . So what can make sense of them walking 1mile in the cold and stop them from taking other equipment?.

The very basic simple observation would be that they couldn't, could not , would not or they choose to leave . It does not mean they left the tent because they were scared for their lives at the tent location,because to stay on the slope exposed to the environment might have been more scary?. In their clothing and on the slope , that would be certain death and this they would know.

Everything suggests that whatever happened at the tent , clothing, axes , boots, etc were not going to be retrievable.

We can argue outsiders, wolverine, elk, avalanche, gas etc,until we are blue in the face but they chose , as a group ,to descend in the same general direction either all at the same time or slightly apart.

This for me narrows down the variables.

[ Well, you say to stay on the exposed slope might be more scary. In which case, they would have had time to gather all of their clothing and other items together and maybe even the tent itself! ]

It would seem they did not have time and a decision had to be made. It does not mean panic but we can try to look at it from different angles to make sense of what we might think.

For ease of argument and this argument is in the realms of, as small avalanche, something toxic in their tent , wolverine, wind etc. 

6 of the group may have been even worse dressed than when they were discovered , all 9 could have been less well dressed at the time of the incident.

6 may have descended first whilst 3 stayed behind to try and salvage what they could , hence some of the clothing choices . The three that to get more clothes just grabbed what they could and then distributed what they could at the ceder. It doesn't need to be sensational as it may have been a series's of decisions if that makes sense but they did not seem to panic but I'm sure we all have different interpretations of panic.

[ilahiyol]

The reason is unknown, but since the retreat was in one direction as a group, and not in different directions, there was no particular panic.

No, they fled in different directions first. Then, when the initial fear passed, they reunited. So, whatever frightened them, they weren't terrified. But it also caused them to tear the tent apart and flee!!! I think when the compelling force disappeared, their fear partially subsided, and they reunited. There could only be two options for what frightened them: 1. Jinns 2. Humans. No other option seems possible besides these two.

[ilahiyol]

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.

And they left the safety of their tent not properly dressed and walked a mile in extreme weather conditions. That doesnt make sense. Unless they were scared for their lives. And what could scare them that much.

I am going to be a bit pedantic here, the weather conditions weren't exactly extreme. Extreme weather conditions means outside the normal expectations of the time of year and location. The weather conditions were most likely within what would be expected.

If on the slope of 1079 , they , the hikers experienced something or were in a situation that they could not stay at the tent or gather resources, it would leave them little choice but to take the route down the slope to the treeline . This suggests that the pathway down the slope was free of the threat of whatever may have caused them to leave the tent .

There would be no reason to go up hill for survival, little reason to go back along the path they took as this was further to the shelter of a treeline.

Looking at it from basic logic , if something happened at the tent that prevented any gathering of resources from within, then the only alternative is to descend to the closest area of resource to get the best survival options given the circumstances. Down the slope is the only viable option .

Many things don't make sense, but to make sense of it , we must ask as many questions as we can . So what can make sense of them walking 1mile in the cold and stop them from taking other equipment?.

The very basic simple observation would be that they couldn't, could not , would not or they choose to leave . It does not mean they left the tent because they were scared for their lives at the tent location,because to stay on the slope exposed to the environment might have been more scary?. In their clothing and on the slope , that would be certain death and this they would know.

Everything suggests that whatever happened at the tent , clothing, axes , boots, etc were not going to be retrievable.

We can argue outsiders, wolverine, elk, avalanche, gas etc,until we are blue in the face but they chose , as a group ,to descend in the same general direction either all at the same time or slightly apart.

This for me narrows down the variables.

[ Well, you say to stay on the exposed slope might be more scary. In which case, they would have had time to gather all of their clothing and other items together and maybe even the tent itself! ]

It would seem they did not have time and a decision had to be made. It does not mean panic but we can try to look at it from different angles to make sense of what we might think.

For ease of argument and this argument is in the realms of, as small avalanche, something toxic in their tent , wolverine, wind etc. 

6 of the group may have been even worse dressed than when they were discovered , all 9 could have been less well dressed at the time of the incident.

6 may have descended first whilst 3 stayed behind to try and salvage what they could , hence some of the clothing choices . The three that to get more clothes just grabbed what they could and then distributed what they could at the ceder. It doesn't need to be sensational as it may have been a series's of decisions if that makes sense but they did not seem to panic but I'm sure we all have different interpretations of panic.

These climbers were no ordinary novices. And it's impossible for them to leave their tents with their clothes, shoes, and food inside without mortal fear. So, mortal fear is absolutely necessary. And a small avalanche or wind wouldn't have frightened them. That's simply not possible.

[Ziljoe]

The reason is unknown, but since the retreat was in one direction as a group, and not in different directions, there was no particular panic.

No, they fled in different directions first. Then, when the initial fear passed, they reunited. So, whatever frightened them, they weren't terrified. But it also caused them to tear the tent apart and flee!!! I think when the compelling force disappeared, their fear partially subsided, and they reunited. There could only be two options for what frightened them: 1. Jinns 2. Humans. No other option seems possible besides these two.

Where does it say they fled in different directions?

[Ziljoe]

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.

And they left the safety of their tent not properly dressed and walked a mile in extreme weather conditions. That doesnt make sense. Unless they were scared for their lives. And what could scare them that much.

I am going to be a bit pedantic here, the weather conditions weren't exactly extreme. Extreme weather conditions means outside the normal expectations of the time of year and location. The weather conditions were most likely within what would be expected.

If on the slope of 1079 , they , the hikers experienced something or were in a situation that they could not stay at the tent or gather resources, it would leave them little choice but to take the route down the slope to the treeline . This suggests that the pathway down the slope was free of the threat of whatever may have caused them to leave the tent .

There would be no reason to go up hill for survival, little reason to go back along the path they took as this was further to the shelter of a treeline.

Looking at it from basic logic , if something happened at the tent that prevented any gathering of resources from within, then the only alternative is to descend to the closest area of resource to get the best survival options given the circumstances. Down the slope is the only viable option .

Many things don't make sense, but to make sense of it , we must ask as many questions as we can . So what can make sense of them walking 1mile in the cold and stop them from taking other equipment?.

The very basic simple observation would be that they couldn't, could not , would not or they choose to leave . It does not mean they left the tent because they were scared for their lives at the tent location,because to stay on the slope exposed to the environment might have been more scary?. In their clothing and on the slope , that would be certain death and this they would know.

Everything suggests that whatever happened at the tent , clothing, axes , boots, etc were not going to be retrievable.

We can argue outsiders, wolverine, elk, avalanche, gas etc,until we are blue in the face but they chose , as a group ,to descend in the same general direction either all at the same time or slightly apart.

This for me narrows down the variables.

[ Well, you say to stay on the exposed slope might be more scary. In which case, they would have had time to gather all of their clothing and other items together and maybe even the tent itself! ]

It would seem they did not have time and a decision had to be made. It does not mean panic but we can try to look at it from different angles to make sense of what we might think.

For ease of argument and this argument is in the realms of, as small avalanche, something toxic in their tent , wolverine, wind etc. 

6 of the group may have been even worse dressed than when they were discovered , all 9 could have been less well dressed at the time of the incident.

6 may have descended first whilst 3 stayed behind to try and salvage what they could , hence some of the clothing choices . The three that to get more clothes just grabbed what they could and then distributed what they could at the ceder. It doesn't need to be sensational as it may have been a series's of decisions if that makes sense but they did not seem to panic but I'm sure we all have different interpretations of panic.

These climbers were no ordinary novices. And it's impossible for them to leave their tents with their clothes, shoes, and food inside without mortal fear. So, mortal fear is absolutely necessary. And a small avalanche or wind wouldn't have frightened them. That's simply not possible.

I've left my tent in pants and socks and they are not climbers  , they are cross country skiers .

[Hunter]

ilahiyol, read the criminal case carefully. There were two sets of footprints: one set consisted of 6-7 pairs of footprints, the other of two pairs, and then the two sets merged.

[sarapuk]

The reason is unknown, but since the retreat was in one direction as a group, and not in different directions, there was no particular panic.

No, they fled in different directions first. Then, when the initial fear passed, they reunited. So, whatever frightened them, they weren't terrified. But it also caused them to tear the tent apart and flee!!! I think when the compelling force disappeared, their fear partially subsided, and they reunited. There could only be two options for what frightened them: 1. Jinns 2. Humans. No other option seems possible besides these two.

Well, I suppose the word terrorised needs to be investigated then in relation to this Dyatlov mystery. It certainly looks like they were terrified of staying at the tent and fled in a hurry to escape the tent, not properly dressed for the given weather conditions.

[sarapuk]

ilahiyol, read the criminal case carefully. There were two sets of footprints: one set consisted of 6-7 pairs of footprints, the other of two pairs, and then the two sets merged.

I can assure you that many of us have read and re-read the case files years ago. And the footprints could have been anyone's. We don't know if they were the Dyatlov group's footprints.

[Falcon73]

I think the footprints are a red herring.  I do not live on a mountain but in the winter tracks across my backyard can disappear in a day if it is windy enough.  And there were several weeks before the tent was found.

[Ziljoe]

ilahiyol, read the criminal case carefully. There were two sets of footprints: one set consisted of 6-7 pairs of footprints, the other of two pairs, and then the two sets merged.

I can assure you that many of us have read and re-read the case files years ago. And the footprints could have been anyone's. We don't know if they were the Dyatlov group's footprints.

We don't know lots of things but the footprints  most likely belong to the hikers . This is especially true because of the nature of the footprints being in bare feet or socks, the number of footprints, along with the direction to the eventual location of all the hikers before anyone knew they weren't all wearing boots.

[Ziljoe]

I think the footprints are a red herring.  I do not live on a mountain but in the winter tracks across my backyard can disappear in a day if it is windy enough.  And there were several weeks before the tent was found.

The raised footprints are a fact, they occur in many locations with snow . It is also noted that they can last for several weeks. It would be incredibly difficult to stage such footprints IMO.

[ilahiyol]

The reason is unknown, but since the retreat was in one direction as a group, and not in different directions, there was no particular panic.

No, they fled in different directions first. Then, when the initial fear passed, they reunited. So, whatever frightened them, they weren't terrified. But it also caused them to tear the tent apart and flee!!! I think when the compelling force disappeared, their fear partially subsided, and they reunited. There could only be two options for what frightened them: 1. Jinns 2. Humans. No other option seems possible besides these two.

Well, I suppose the word terrorised needs to be investigated then in relation to this Dyatlov mystery. It certainly looks like they were terrified of staying at the tent and fled in a hurry to escape the tent, not properly dressed for the given weather conditions.

They probably resisted very hard to stay in the tent!!! But the compelling force must have tried very hard to get them out. Because the young people knew that leaving the tent meant death sooner or later. I think the young people must have resisted very hard, but the compelling force managed to get them out. If they had resisted, they would have all probably died for the tent.

[ilahiyol]

ilahiyol, read the criminal case carefully. There were two sets of footprints: one set consisted of 6-7 pairs of footprints, the other of two pairs, and then the two sets merged.

I can assure you that many of us have read and re-read the case files years ago. And the footprints could have been anyone's. We don't know if they were the Dyatlov group's footprints.

At first they were two groups. But then they united again. I think the reason they were two groups was because they were afraid that the unknown force would kill them around the tent! But when the unknown force disappeared, their fear passed. And they started going down to the wooded area in hope of escape. The first place they came to must have been the cedar tree. There they discussed the situation. They lit a fire. And they climbed the tree and tried to observe the unknown force. This must have lasted for about an hour. Then they thought the unknown force was gone and they made a plan. Three of them would return to the tent. Four of them would dig a den and try to warm themselves there. And the other two Yuris, since they were naked, decided to stay by the fire. Because the fire gave them some warmth. Then the unknown force must have come and killed them all, one by one!!!!

[ilahiyol]

ilahiyol, read the criminal case carefully. There were two sets of footprints: one set consisted of 6-7 pairs of footprints, the other of two pairs, and then the two sets merged.

There must be two sets of footprints right next to the tent, because they later merge. This means they fled in separate directions when they first left the tent, but then decided to come together when the unknown compelling force disappeared.

[Hunter]

sarapuk, do you think anyone else would decide to run several hundred meters in socks to make "Dyatlov's footprints"?

ilahiyol, I read the criminal case in Russian, not in translation. It clearly states that the tracks ran parallel, i.e., not diverging.

[ilahiyol]

sarapuk, do you think anyone else would decide to run several hundred meters in socks to make "Dyatlov's footprints"?

ilahiyol, I read the criminal case in Russian, not in translation. It clearly states that the tracks ran parallel, i.e., not diverging.

It's impossible for nine people to leave the tent in a single file. This is absolutely impossible, especially in a panic! They left the tent in at least two groups. And when the panic subsided, they regrouped. It's a mistake to look at everything as evidence. Many things can be resolved through logic. And when we don't see anything and there's no evidence, we reach conclusions through logic.

[Ziljoe]

sarapuk, do you think anyone else would decide to run several hundred meters in socks to make "Dyatlov's footprints"?

ilahiyol, I read the criminal case in Russian, not in translation. It clearly states that the tracks ran parallel, i.e., not diverging.

It's impossible for nine people to leave the tent in a single file. This is absolutely impossible, especially in a panic! They left the tent in at least two groups. And when the panic subsided, they regrouped. It's a mistake to look at everything as evidence. Many things can be resolved through logic. And when we don't see anything and there's no evidence, we reach conclusions through logic.

There is no information about how they left the tent , single file or otherwise . The first foot print traces do not show for twenty meters by some reports.

The observation of these foot prints is that the group or two group's , walk side by side AND not one behind the other down the slope. The reasoning that the hikers were not running or panicking is that there was no sign of tumbling or over space strides in those prints that could be seen.

[Hunter]

ilahiyol, they didn't walk in single file. Read the criminal case.

[ilahiyol]

ilahiyol, they didn't walk in single file. Read the criminal case.

When they were escaping from the tent, they ran in two different directions. Then, when the danger was over, they reunited. I meant this because, if you look at the tent, there are cuts all over it. Right, left, front, back... So, when the force attacked them, a few people had knives. They all wanted to cut the tent, and they cut it from all sides!!! And they ran away from the places they cut. But then, when the danger was over, they felt the need to reunite. And they moved towards the warmer and more sheltered forest.

[Ziljoe]

ilahiyol, they didn't walk in single file. Read the criminal case.

When they were escaping from the tent, they ran in two different directions. Then, when the danger was over, they reunited. I meant this because, if you look at the tent, there are cuts all over it. Right, left, front, back... So, when the force attacked them, a few people had knives. They all wanted to cut the tent, and they cut it from all sides!!! And they ran away from the places they cut. But then, when the danger was over, they felt the need to reunite. And they moved towards the warmer and more sheltered forest.

There is no evidence that they ran in two different directions, or 1 to 9 different directions for that matter. The only evidence we have is the trail of 8-9 sets of foot prints walking in parallel further down the slope from the tent . It is reported that two or three pairs of foot prints drift a little from the group and then all 8-9 footprints join as they walk in parallel.

We only have the report of three of the cuts being done tent from the inside . The forensic report does not address all the cuts and rips which is probably because it is accepted that the searchers cut and ripped the tent  when it was first found.

This is addressed in some of the case files and later interviews. The searchers were not trained or advised on how to handle the belongings or the tent scene . This is understandable because they were searching for their friends with the hope of a rescue and not some murder mystery crime scene.

We must remember what was going on in the mind of the searchers at that moment in time and try to give context  to what we see as chaos and unprofessional.

At the moment of finding the tent , no one knew where the hikers were , it was not known if they were dead or alive , there was no knowledge of broken bones and trauma that was to be found later. Some equipment was taken from the tent on the first night, so the that is the first contamination of the tent. The following day the tent was again tampered with and various people did various things including opening up the tent , most likely cutting and ripping it from above and it is known to have been dragged to the helicopter landing point. Within the case files it is hinted at ,that the hikers equipment was moved in or out of the tent and then put back in place before the official documentation of its contents. This may be why we have slightly different reports of how things were found in the tent. Everyone is telling the truth in their statements, it's just that people saw things at different times. As for the tent , it had zero importance to anyone at that time, it was a barrier to what lay beneath, the tent got abused as it had no value in the searchers minds. 

As I understand it , there are several explanation s as to how/why the Yuri's were found , one is that the foot prints led the searchers directly to the cedar but I think this is a generalisation and the other was that they were looking for a location to put up the main searchers tent.

When we say we can observe that there is no sign of an avalanche we can also observe that snow has been removed from the slope , there was more snow on the slope on the night of the incident that is no longer there 3weeks later when the searchers arrive . We can also observer from the 2025 photos of the tent how snow builds up.

[ilahiyol]

ilahiyol, they didn't walk in single file. Read the criminal case.

When they were escaping from the tent, they ran in two different directions. Then, when the danger was over, they reunited. I meant this because, if you look at the tent, there are cuts all over it. Right, left, front, back... So, when the force attacked them, a few people had knives. They all wanted to cut the tent, and they cut it from all sides!!! And they ran away from the places they cut. But then, when the danger was over, they felt the need to reunite. And they moved towards the warmer and more sheltered forest.

There is no evidence that they ran in two different directions, or 1 to 9 different directions for that matter. The only evidence we have is the trail of 8-9 sets of foot prints walking in parallel further down the slope from the tent . It is reported that two or three pairs of foot prints drift a little from the group and then all 8-9 footprints join as they walk in parallel.

We only have the report of three of the cuts being done tent from the inside . The forensic report does not address all the cuts and rips which is probably because it is accepted that the searchers cut and ripped the tent  when it was first found.

This is addressed in some of the case files and later interviews. The searchers were not trained or advised on how to handle the belongings or the tent scene . This is understandable because they were searching for their friends with the hope of a rescue and not some murder mystery crime scene.

We must remember what was going on in the mind of the searchers at that moment in time and try to give context  to what we see as chaos and unprofessional.

At the moment of finding the tent , no one knew where the hikers were , it was not known if they were dead or alive , there was no knowledge of broken bones and trauma that was to be found later. Some equipment was taken from the tent on the first night, so the that is the first contamination of the tent. The following day the tent was again tampered with and various people did various things including opening up the tent , most likely cutting and ripping it from above and it is known to have been dragged to the helicopter landing point. Within the case files it is hinted at ,that the hikers equipment was moved in or out of the tent and then put back in place before the official documentation of its contents. This may be why we have slightly different reports of how things were found in the tent. Everyone is telling the truth in their statements, it's just that people saw things at different times. As for the tent , it had zero importance to anyone at that time, it was a barrier to what lay beneath, the tent got abused as it had no value in the searchers minds. 

As I understand it , there are several explanation s as to how/why the Yuri's were found , one is that the foot prints led the searchers directly to the cedar but I think this is a generalisation and the other was that they were looking for a location to put up the main searchers tent.

When we say we can observe that there is no sign of an avalanche we can also observe that snow has been removed from the slope , there was more snow on the slope on the night of the incident that is no longer there 3weeks later when the searchers arrive . We can also observer from the 2025 photos of the tent how snow builds up.

You wrote it very descriptively. Thank you. What I meant to say is that if the group left the tent in panic, it is not possible for them to exit in a single direction. In other words, they did not exit the tent in a single file. You say there were only 3 short cuts. It is not possible for them to exit through these 3 short cuts. So, there were more cuts. And there should have been longer cuts. Because 9 people got out through these cuts. So, the tent was not examined sufficiently. And one thing is certain, a force or forces attacked the tent. But they did not kill the young people in the tent. Why??? They asked them to go to the forest(?) Why??? Why are you killing them in the forest and not in the tent? I think they did it in a planned way!!! So, whatever attacked the young people must have been very smart and intelligent. It was not an ordinary bigfoot or anything.

[SURI]

ilahiyol
"And one thing is certain, a force or forces attacked the tent. But they did not kill the young people in the tent. Why???"

And you would like to sleep next to the dead bodies in a tent? They didn't even want to be with them by the fire.

[Ziljoe]

ilahiyol, they didn't walk in single file. Read the criminal case.

When they were escaping from the tent, they ran in two different directions. Then, when the danger was over, they reunited. I meant this because, if you look at the tent, there are cuts all over it. Right, left, front, back... So, when the force attacked them, a few people had knives. They all wanted to cut the tent, and they cut it from all sides!!! And they ran away from the places they cut. But then, when the danger was over, they felt the need to reunite. And they moved towards the warmer and more sheltered forest.

There is no evidence that they ran in two different directions, or 1 to 9 different directions for that matter. The only evidence we have is the trail of 8-9 sets of foot prints walking in parallel further down the slope from the tent . It is reported that two or three pairs of foot prints drift a little from the group and then all 8-9 footprints join as they walk in parallel.

We only have the report of three of the cuts being done tent from the inside . The forensic report does not address all the cuts and rips which is probably because it is accepted that the searchers cut and ripped the tent  when it was first found.

This is addressed in some of the case files and later interviews. The searchers were not trained or advised on how to handle the belongings or the tent scene . This is understandable because they were searching for their friends with the hope of a rescue and not some murder mystery crime scene.

We must remember what was going on in the mind of the searchers at that moment in time and try to give context  to what we see as chaos and unprofessional.

At the moment of finding the tent , no one knew where the hikers were , it was not known if they were dead or alive , there was no knowledge of broken bones and trauma that was to be found later. Some equipment was taken from the tent on the first night, so the that is the first contamination of the tent. The following day the tent was again tampered with and various people did various things including opening up the tent , most likely cutting and ripping it from above and it is known to have been dragged to the helicopter landing point. Within the case files it is hinted at ,that the hikers equipment was moved in or out of the tent and then put back in place before the official documentation of its contents. This may be why we have slightly different reports of how things were found in the tent. Everyone is telling the truth in their statements, it's just that people saw things at different times. As for the tent , it had zero importance to anyone at that time, it was a barrier to what lay beneath, the tent got abused as it had no value in the searchers minds. 

As I understand it , there are several explanation s as to how/why the Yuri's were found , one is that the foot prints led the searchers directly to the cedar but I think this is a generalisation and the other was that they were looking for a location to put up the main searchers tent.

When we say we can observe that there is no sign of an avalanche we can also observe that snow has been removed from the slope , there was more snow on the slope on the night of the incident that is no longer there 3weeks later when the searchers arrive . We can also observer from the 2025 photos of the tent how snow builds up.

You wrote it very descriptively. Thank you. What I meant to say is that if the group left the tent in panic, it is not possible for them to exit in a single direction. In other words, they did not exit the tent in a single file. You say there were only 3 short cuts. It is not possible for them to exit through these 3 short cuts. So, there were more cuts. And there should have been longer cuts. Because 9 people got out through these cuts. So, the tent was not examined sufficiently. And one thing is certain, a force or forces attacked the tent. But they did not kill the young people in the tent. Why??? They asked them to go to the forest(?) Why??? Why are you killing them in the forest and not in the tent? I think they did it in a planned way!!! So, whatever attacked the young people must have been very smart and intelligent. It was not an ordinary bigfoot or anything.

The problem we have is we don't know any details about the actual exiting of the tent. There are no reports of footprints around the tent , I think the first footprints are reported to start 20-30 meters below the tent . I did read recently, and I think it was a later interview from one of the searchers , that further down the slope at one of the small ridges , the foot prints seem to come to a stop and the hikers stood for a small time as if perhaps accessing the situation, the prints there seemed to be more defined. ( I could be wrong about this but I'm sure it's on the main site).

About the three cuts , they are short on the case file diagram but this is because the full length can't be measured as two parts of the tent are missing so these cuts from the inside could be much longer. We can only guess as to why they are missing but I would speculate that the tent material was used as a resource for other tasks by the searchers or helicopter pilots.

I can only reason that the hiker's left from their own choice , if the tent and equipment are not usable or accessible, then the only sensible choice is to move to the shelter of the trees, to go any other direction would only lessen the chance for survival and lengthen the time being exposed to the elements. 

So we have a tent that has cuts from the inside , we have footprints that go in the direction of where the bodies were found and also correspond with what the hikers were found wearing on their feet , we have evidence of activity for survival from the cold which includes a fire , fir branches laid around the fire , small young trees used for flooring for a den and clothing repurposed for footwear / seating.

My problem is I don't see outsiders or demons allowing much of the above actions to take place but I do see some logic in the choices made by the hikers which implies that they had some control over their decisions .

 

[amashilu]

Good post, Ziljoe. And I will reiterate that if they did stop near the rock to assess the situation, they chose to not return to the tent. This would have been a good time to say "I'm freezing, can we go back now?" But they didn't. The life-threatening situation at the tent was still extant.

[Senior Maldonado]

My problem is I don't see outsiders or demons allowing much of the above actions to take place but I do see some logic in the choices made by the hikers which implies that they had some control over their decisions .

It might be not a problem but rather looking at the right direction. In the investigation's closing statement Lev Ivanov clearly wrote that investigation had revealed nobody at the spot on February 1st and 2nd besides the hikers. Numerous members of the serach party confirm that they have not found traces of other humans or animals there.

So the model of DPI looks the following: something happened, which made the hikers to cut the tent (their only home there!) and leave in a hurry, as staying not only in the tent but also nearby might mean immediate death. They retreated 1.5km downhill and set temporary camp at the Cedar tree, at the distance they felt was safe. Their intention was to return back to the tent as soon as possible. However, time played not in their favor, so Zina made desperate attempt to reach the tent before the threat has gone. But she managed just half way up. Rustam and Igor, who attempted to rescue her, did not manage either. By the way, this means that the initial event was not an avalanche. If 9 hikers were not able to reach the tent buried in avalance and fetch necessary things, how could Zina alone do that?