What If The Tent Was Really Cut From Outside?

[OLD JEDI 72]

There has always been a focus on the idea that the Dyatlov tent was cut from the inside, but after reviewing all the evidence, I no longer think this can be called indisputable. I think it’s just as likely the cuts were made from the outside, and the tent may have been inside out at some point, either before or after the incident. Here’s the reasoning:

1. Seamstress Observation

A local seamstress was brought in during the investigation and gave her opinion that the cuts were made from the inside based on how the threads curled. She was experienced, but she was not a forensic expert. This single assessment got repeated so many times it became dogma.

2. Tent Orientation Unclear

When the tent was found, it was collapsed and partially buried. Later, during transport and reconstruction in Ivdel and Sverdlovsk, it was manipulated several times. It’s possible it was inside out when examined. No one can say for sure the cuts observed were on the tent in its original configuration. That makes inside vs outside cut origin questionable.

3. Anecdotal vs Formal Analysis

Her comment was made as an informal opinion. There was no lab test or controlled examination that settled this question definitively. Investigators folded that opinion into the official version without solid forensic backing.

4. Rescue and Recovery Damage

The rescuers made multiple cuts to locate and recover items in the tent. Some of the cuts and rips may have been made after the incident. These cuts could’ve confused the situation or made it look like inside cutting when that wasn’t the case.

5. Knife Handling Patterns

Hunters and outdoorsmen know that you can get similar curling of material cutting from the outside depending on how the knife is held and drawn. For example, an outward edge pull or "skinning style" cut from someone standing over the tent could look like an inside slash. If you don’t account for how the tent fabric behaves under tension, it’s hard to make a call from appearance alone.

So who could have cut the tent from the outside?

A. Locals or unknown outsiders

There was some tension around the last camp before the mountain. Could have been a confrontation or resentment from someone upset about where they camped, maybe near sacred land. If the tent was in a vulnerable spot on the slope, someone could sneak up and slash it while shouting or demanding they leave.

B. Igor Dyatlov himself

He may have gone out to urinate and overheard mocking or complaining. Maybe someone said the camp spot was dangerous or mocked his leadership. He could’ve snapped and slashed the tent, yelling at everyone to get out and follow him to the woods where others had suggested camping. He owned the tent and had the authority to act on impulse.

C. Zolotaryov or Thibeaux-Brignolle

They were found more clothed than the others. It’s possible one or both had a confrontation with the group or were staging some kind of takeover. They could have cut the tent to cause panic or take control of the situation. Zolo had military training and might’ve acted decisively.

The idea that they "fled in a panic" has never sat well with me. Look at the footprints for one. If the tent was cut from the outside, it changes the tone of the whole event. It shifts the incident from fear of natural danger to confrontation, either from within the group or from outside.

The tent condition is one of the biggest keys to the entire mystery. The evidence does not justify locking in one answer yet. Anyone else see signs in the photos that the tent could’ve been inside out? I’m especially curious about seam lines, flap positions, and how the cuts line up with the known layout.

Plenty of speculation, yes, but that’s all we’ve got with this case.

Thoughts?

[Ziljoe]

There has always been a focus on the idea that the Dyatlov tent was cut from the inside, but after reviewing all the evidence, I no longer think this can be called indisputable. I think it’s just as likely the cuts were made from the outside, and the tent may have been inside out at some point, either before or after the incident. Here’s the reasoning:

1. Seamstress Observation

A local seamstress was brought in during the investigation and gave her opinion that the cuts were made from the inside based on how the threads curled. She was experienced, but she was not a forensic expert. This single assessment got repeated so many times it became dogma.

2. Tent Orientation Unclear

When the tent was found, it was collapsed and partially buried. Later, during transport and reconstruction in Ivdel and Sverdlovsk, it was manipulated several times. It’s possible it was inside out when examined. No one can say for sure the cuts observed were on the tent in its original configuration. That makes inside vs outside cut origin questionable.

3. Anecdotal vs Formal Analysis

Her comment was made as an informal opinion. There was no lab test or controlled examination that settled this question definitively. Investigators folded that opinion into the official version without solid forensic backing.

4. Rescue and Recovery Damage

The rescuers made multiple cuts to locate and recover items in the tent. Some of the cuts and rips may have been made after the incident. These cuts could’ve confused the situation or made it look like inside cutting when that wasn’t the case.

5. Knife Handling Patterns

Hunters and outdoorsmen know that you can get similar curling of material cutting from the outside depending on how the knife is held and drawn. For example, an outward edge pull or "skinning style" cut from someone standing over the tent could look like an inside slash. If you don’t account for how the tent fabric behaves under tension, it’s hard to make a call from appearance alone.

So who could have cut the tent from the outside?

A. Locals or unknown outsiders

There was some tension around the last camp before the mountain. Could have been a confrontation or resentment from someone upset about where they camped, maybe near sacred land. If the tent was in a vulnerable spot on the slope, someone could sneak up and slash it while shouting or demanding they leave.

B. Igor Dyatlov himself

He may have gone out to urinate and overheard mocking or complaining. Maybe someone said the camp spot was dangerous or mocked his leadership. He could’ve snapped and slashed the tent, yelling at everyone to get out and follow him to the woods where others had suggested camping. He owned the tent and had the authority to act on impulse.

C. Zolotaryov or Thibeaux-Brignolle

They were found more clothed than the others. It’s possible one or both had a confrontation with the group or were staging some kind of takeover. They could have cut the tent to cause panic or take control of the situation. Zolo had military training and might’ve acted decisively.

The idea that they "fled in a panic" has never sat well with me. Look at the footprints for one. If the tent was cut from the outside, it changes the tone of the whole event. It shifts the incident from fear of natural danger to confrontation, either from within the group or from outside.

The tent condition is one of the biggest keys to the entire mystery. The evidence does not justify locking in one answer yet. Anyone else see signs in the photos that the tent could’ve been inside out? I’m especially curious about seam lines, flap positions, and how the cuts line up with the known layout.

Plenty of speculation, yes, but that’s all we’ve got with this case.

Thoughts?

Lots of good questions OJ..

Here's my take on things..

As I understand, there were many cuts to the tent. This is not contested by the investigation, however, the investigation concentrates on the cuts from the inside , not the cuts from the outside, which to me means there were cuts from both sides.

Regarding the concept that the tent was pitched inside out, I don't think so, reason being, the loops and attachments for guy lines etc are on the outside of tents, especially older canvas tents , also the stitching of various parts of the tent at the apex etc are stitched to stop ingress of water, it would be obvious.

Regarding the seamstress, I think she was the first to propose that it was cut from the inside, it was from that they had a closer look at the cuts.

The complications of these cuts lie in the fact that there are scratches in the canvas before it penetrated the cut line .. I assume this must be the same for the outer cuts.

As I understand, these cuts were forensically looked at after the seemstres  highlighted her observation.  It was not all the cuts to the tent.

For me , looking at all the data , it looks like they had to cut their way out, couldn't take any other equipment and made their way to the treeline.

?

[amashilu]

Looking at this image, it strikes me that these cuts do not indicate a "fast" way to get out of the tent. It might be faster to just unbutton the entrance. It actually looks like the tent was deliberately and methodically cut up.

[OLD JEDI 72]

There has always been a focus on the idea that the Dyatlov tent was cut from the inside, but after reviewing all the evidence, I no longer think this can be called indisputable. I think it’s just as likely the cuts were made from the outside, and the tent may have been inside out at some point, either before or after the incident. Here’s the reasoning:

1. Seamstress Observation

A local seamstress was brought in during the investigation and gave her opinion that the cuts were made from the inside based on how the threads curled. She was experienced, but she was not a forensic expert. This single assessment got repeated so many times it became dogma.

2. Tent Orientation Unclear

When the tent was found, it was collapsed and partially buried. Later, during transport and reconstruction in Ivdel and Sverdlovsk, it was manipulated several times. It’s possible it was inside out when examined. No one can say for sure the cuts observed were on the tent in its original configuration. That makes inside vs outside cut origin questionable.

3. Anecdotal vs Formal Analysis

Her comment was made as an informal opinion. There was no lab test or controlled examination that settled this question definitively. Investigators folded that opinion into the official version without solid forensic backing.

4. Rescue and Recovery Damage

The rescuers made multiple cuts to locate and recover items in the tent. Some of the cuts and rips may have been made after the incident. These cuts could’ve confused the situation or made it look like inside cutting when that wasn’t the case.

5. Knife Handling Patterns

Hunters and outdoorsmen know that you can get similar curling of material cutting from the outside depending on how the knife is held and drawn. For example, an outward edge pull or "skinning style" cut from someone standing over the tent could look like an inside slash. If you don’t account for how the tent fabric behaves under tension, it’s hard to make a call from appearance alone.

So who could have cut the tent from the outside?

A. Locals or unknown outsiders

There was some tension around the last camp before the mountain. Could have been a confrontation or resentment from someone upset about where they camped, maybe near sacred land. If the tent was in a vulnerable spot on the slope, someone could sneak up and slash it while shouting or demanding they leave.

B. Igor Dyatlov himself

He may have gone out to urinate and overheard mocking or complaining. Maybe someone said the camp spot was dangerous or mocked his leadership. He could’ve snapped and slashed the tent, yelling at everyone to get out and follow him to the woods where others had suggested camping. He owned the tent and had the authority to act on impulse.

C. Zolotaryov or Thibeaux-Brignolle

They were found more clothed than the others. It’s possible one or both had a confrontation with the group or were staging some kind of takeover. They could have cut the tent to cause panic or take control of the situation. Zolo had military training and might’ve acted decisively.

The idea that they "fled in a panic" has never sat well with me. Look at the footprints for one. If the tent was cut from the outside, it changes the tone of the whole event. It shifts the incident from fear of natural danger to confrontation, either from within the group or from outside.

The tent condition is one of the biggest keys to the entire mystery. The evidence does not justify locking in one answer yet. Anyone else see signs in the photos that the tent could’ve been inside out? I’m especially curious about seam lines, flap positions, and how the cuts line up with the known layout.

Plenty of speculation, yes, but that’s all we’ve got with this case.

Thoughts?

Lots of good questions OJ..

Here's my take on things..

As I understand, there were many cuts to the tent. This is not contested by the investigation, however, the investigation concentrates on the cuts from the inside , not the cuts from the outside, which to me means there were cuts from both sides.

Regarding the concept that the tent was pitched inside out, I don't think so, reason being, the loops and attachments for guy lines etc are on the outside of tents, especially older canvas tents , also the stitching of various parts of the tent at the apex etc are stitched to stop ingress of water, it would be obvious.

Regarding the seamstress, I think she was the first to propose that it was cut from the inside, it was from that they had a closer look at the cuts.

The complications of these cuts lie in the fact that there are scratches in the canvas before it penetrated the cut line .. I assume this must be the same for the outer cuts.

As I understand, these cuts were forensically looked at after the seemstres  highlighted her observation.  It was not all the cuts to the tent.

For me , looking at all the data , it looks like they had to cut their way out, couldn't take any other equipment and made their way to the treeline.

?

Good points Ziljoe, especially about the guy lines and loop placement.

However, a couple of things might complicate that assumption.

First, the Dyatlov tent was made by stitching together two separate tents. This is confirmed in witness interviews and the case files. Igor was known for modifying gear to fit large groups, and combining tents was common in student expeditions. With something that custom, normal conventions for loop and seam placement might not apply. There’s a chance loops were repositioned or that some loops appeared on both sides depending on how the canvas was joined.

Second, even with a more traditional tent, flipping it inside out isn’t entirely impossible. It wouldn’t be ideal or comfortable, but with canvas you can still feed a ridge rope through a center sleeve even if it’s reversed. Eyelets, loops, and seams might require some extra padding or reinforcement, but a resourceful group like this could’ve made it work, especially if it was temporary or done accidentally during a late setup in worsening conditions with ski poles.

In other words, the loops and guide ropes being on one side doesn’t absolutely rule out the tent being inside out, especially if that tent was customized and possibly misassembled during recovery.

Note in this photo the empty eyelet that goes through to both sides and the guide rope appears to be in a sleeve.

Appreciate your input as always.

[Ziljoe]

Good points Ziljoe, especially about the guy lines and loop placement.

However, a couple of things might complicate that assumption.

First, the Dyatlov tent was made by stitching together two separate tents. This is confirmed in witness interviews and the case files. Igor was known for modifying gear to fit large groups, and combining tents was common in student expeditions. With something that custom, normal conventions for loop and seam placement might not apply. There’s a chance loops were repositioned or that some loops appeared on both sides depending on how the canvas was joined.

Second, even with a more traditional tent, flipping it inside out isn’t entirely impossible. It wouldn’t be ideal or comfortable, but with canvas you can still feed a ridge rope through a center sleeve even if it’s reversed. Eyelets, loops, and seams might require some extra padding or reinforcement, but a resourceful group like this could’ve made it work, especially if it was temporary or done accidentally during a late setup in worsening conditions with ski poles.

In other words, the loops and guide ropes being on one side doesn’t absolutely rule out the tent being inside out, especially if that tent was customized and possibly misassembled during recovery.

Note in this photo the empty eyelet that goes through to both sides and the guide rope appears to be in a sleeve.

Appreciate your input as always.

I am not sure if a rope was passed through from front to back. It is quite a standard build . The tents are stitched and folded in certain ways for strength, to get it inside out would take a bit of effort . My understanding of the tent is that it has an over hang from the sloped sides like an eve on house . You can't set it up without it being  in this rotation, it would be obvious, especially to the experienced hikers. You can see one of these loops and the over hang at ground level in the photo you supplied .

The tent has cuts from both sides , inside and outside. I think it was only three cuts from the inside and one of them may have been the same cut . That's one small cut and then a second long cut. Enough for people to exit perhaps.

[OLD JEDI 72]

I used my favorite research assistant to properly word my thoughts and use my preferred outline style (8th grade lol) on why a tent would be inside out in the first place. Remember they wore their clothes that way a lot due to dampness. And it was warm up until it wasn't.

Possible Reasons Why a Soviet Hiking Tent Might Be Inside Out

A. Mold and Mildew Concerns

1. Canvas tents could easily trap moisture

2. If stored damp after a hike, mildew might grow on the inner surface

3. To air it out or avoid direct contact with mildew during setup, they might flip it inside out
a. This would let sun and wind hit the mildewed side
b. Less smell or allergic reaction inside

B. Water Resistance Worn Out

1. Soviet canvas tents often had basic waterproofing

2. After use, the treated side may lose repellency

3. Flipping the tent might keep the drier surface facing rain or snow
a. Less about ideal structure, more about short-term benefit

C. Damage or Repairs on One Side

1. If one side of the fabric had tears or patches

2. Flipping could protect damaged side from wind or contact

3. Avoids putting stress on old seams

D. Misassembly in Harsh Weather

1. Pitching a custom tent in wind or snow may lead to mistakes

2. In low light, tired hikers might rig it quickly and incorrectly
a. Especially with a double-length tent like Dyatlov's

3. More focus on speed and shelter than orientation

E. Intentional Setup for Experiment or Training

1. Group was trying to qualify for highest hiking rank

2. Might have been testing alternate shelter strategies
a. Could include emergency drills or survival scenarios

3. May have chosen to rough it or simulate worst-case conditions

F. Accident During Transport or Recovery

1. Tent was removed from snow, examined, and carried

2. Could have been turned inside out in the process
a. No photos from discovery clearly confirm original orientation

3. Soviet investigators and helpers were not tent experts

G. Improvised Shelter Usage

1. Tent may have been used as a blanket, wrap, or wall

2. Inside out might have suited a specific use
a. Shielding light
b. Reflecting warmth inward if material behaved differently

[OLD JEDI 72]

I'm not sure how to quote one statement instead of everything yet.

"I am not sure if a rope was passed through from front to back. It is quite a standard build."

Not at all, it was two tents stitched together, hardly S.O.P. And here is the rope zoomed in. If you look closely, there is a sheath or channel which could easily work either way. Funny thing is, what if it was something as boring as a snow slab, but Zolo and Tibo were the ones that cut people out? From the outside. So many scenarios.

[Ziljoe]

I'm not sure how to quote one statement instead of everything yet.

"I am not sure if a rope was passed through from front to back. It is quite a standard build."

Not at all, it was two tents stitched together, hardly S.O.P. And here is the rope zoomed in. If you look closely, there is a sheath or channel which could easily work either way. Funny thing is, what if it was something as boring as a snow slab, but Zolo and Tibo were the ones that cut people out? From the outside. So many scenarios.

Sorry, when I say standard build , mean standard to erect. It is an A shape tent , one , two or ten tents stitched together it's basically all the same and the chance to get it inside are low. It's the same basic tent design the world over is what mean.

I don't think it's threaded through the ridge of the tent ,although it could be done that way . I have some pictures that show what I mean by the flaps on the sloping side with the guy lines. It's these lower guy lines that would ultimately stop it from being erected inside out and I think the tent had a floor. 

This below is from an earlier hike by some of the Dyatlovs .

 


These colour photos are from this year's winter trip. The are on the main Dyatlov website . There is lots of links to other websites where they discuss and argue as we do ! ( Honest)

Sometimes pictures can give us a better feeling or might get an idea going.

[OLD JEDI 72]

The older tent picture of the group is pretty good, however I don't see anything that would prevent an "ambidextrous" set up. Inside out and rightside in. I had to think about it because you mentioned the floor. Some part of the tent would have to be open or slit in order to accomedate the flip and being that tent was modified it's entirely possible a section of it was "let out" in order to achieve the flip. I'm not saying this happened, but just what if? That simple detail would change everything if the cuts came from the outside.

[Ziljoe]

The older tent picture of the group is pretty good, however I don't see anything that would prevent an "ambidextrous" set up. Inside out and rightside in. I had to think about it because you mentioned the floor. Some part of the tent would have to be open or slit in order to accomedate the flip and being that tent was modified it's entirely possible a section of it was "let out" in order to achieve the flip. I'm not saying this happened, but just what if? That simple detail would change everything if the cuts came from the outside.

Please excuse my poor drawing but the top picture shows the over hang that is needed to secure the tent in its correct inside / outside position. The bottom picture shows that the over hang would be on the inside. To me, this fact shows that they wouldn't erect the tent inside out , purely on the fact it couldn't be done.



I have a polish military canvas tent. It is made from two jackets so to speak , they were used by the Soviet Union from Ww2 , it can be erected inside out but it's a very different thing. Interestingly I used it in winter with no floor , it was warm , Warner than modern tents, it has one pole and six eyelets . I survived a winter's night quite well.




If the tent was inside out , we would still have the cuts from the outside that we know of . Either way cuts were made from the inside. ?

[GlennM]

This tent has been shown to be slashed several times from the inside. Each cut appears deliberate and extensive. The reasoning is that the gashes allowed for an unimpeded exit from the tent due to extreme emergency. If this is true, then why, in the name of all that is sensible does Slobtzov have to use an ice pick and rip a new hole in order to peek inside. It makes absolutely no sense! Further, the area where he cut the tent appears in the collapsed, snow covered center of the tent! The front flap was available. Why not call out Igor's name and open the front flap? Why not lift one of the several ripped panels and look inside? Some things simply defy reason. I suppose one would have to be there to understand. Could it be that the tent actually suffered damage when it was readied for removal from 1079?

[OLD JEDI 72]

Very good point, Glenn. It's almost like these guys slashed open the tent and then someone else prolly came up and was like "what the heck is wrong with you clowns?" His ice pick mark didn't have to stop there if the tent was folded over in that area. It could cause several holes. So rather than be shot by a crazy Colonel, they lied and said they found the tent that way.

[Ziljoe]

This tent has been shown to be slashed several times from the inside. Each cut appears deliberate and extensive. The reasoning is that the gashes allowed for an unimpeded exit from the tent due to extreme emergency. If this is true, then why, in the name of all that is sensible does Slobtzov have to use an ice pick and rip a new hole in order to peek inside. It makes absolutely no sense! Further, the area where he cut the tent appears in the collapsed, snow covered center of the tent! The front flap was available. Why not call out Igor's name and open the front flap? Why not lift one of the several ripped panels and look inside? Some things simply defy reason. I suppose one would have to be there to understand. Could it be that the tent actually suffered damage when it was readied for removal from 1079?

It is quite a bizarre explanation for trying to enter the tent. The fact that he managed to retrieve so many things on the first discovery of the tent suggests that he had a good go of opening and ripping the tent. I'm sure he states in a later interview that he hadn't been instructed as what to do if he found the tent which sounds like an after thought .

In the photos of the tent  in the lab for reconstruction, we can see the tent has a floor, also what I would guess to be white material that was used at the entrance and quite big holes on the other slope of the tent. ( We can see through to the rear wall of the lab).

I can only assume that the searcher's ripped the tent open like a cardboard box to look at the layout of the equipment inside. This might be in part due to the nature of the canvas being stuck and frozen for a month on the slope on 1079 , I don't know what would happen to canvas exposed like that but I could imagine it would be quite stiff. So rips and cuts might have been necessary to get inside and the main cut may have been missed on first inspection. It's about the only thing that makes sense for that amount of damage.

The simple narrative fits for , snow collapse on tent, cut tent to get out, tent is buried, move to treeline untill daylight , leave torch on slope to return, build den/fire /snow hole, major accident at ravine , exposure to environment kills. 

Take one bit of that model away and I'm stuck.

Each bit of this mystery has its own mystery.....sigh...

[GlennM]

If someone stands outside the the tent (think rescue party)and cuts into it, the cut will produce a pattern. Imagine someone facing the tent wall cutting away from themselves making a long slice down the side of the tent.

But, what if this same person uses a different method? Lets say they are outside the tent as described and they stab the knife blade into the tent and then pull the blade toward themselves while cutting down.  It is the difference between cutting by pushing or cutting by pulling. Each method will have a microscopically identifiable unique cut pattern. The point being that the tent could be cut from the inside by someone standing outside.

What  concerns me is that over time, wind will fray any loose cut material. That makes the direction of the original cut all but impossible to determine. So, either the tent was cut by the DP9,as we suppose and then quickly covered by a weight of snow, or the tent was actually cut up by the rescuers during their activities. We recall that Slobtzov cut into the tent with an ice pick rather than peeking in one of the several supposed gashes. Either way, the cutmarks will be preserved, but their importance is markedly different. I have no doubt the tent was roughly handled whereas the tent contents were treated with more deference.

[Ziljoe]

I'm having more problems than usual.

In this link we can see the photos of the tent investigation. Who the did the drawing of the tent and cuts ? Where was it sorced from , it doesn't look like the original document?

https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-388-392

[GlennM]

Ziljoe, thank you for your contribution. When I look at the drawing, I think to myself that the vertical cuts with a blade are something I would do to escape the tent. On the other hand, when I look at the ragged nature of the top and bottoms of the cut aways, I can not wrap my head around how those were made. Surely, they are not crosscut. For example, if I required a knife to slit the canvas vertically then it stands to reason I would knife again to finish cutting the material away. If there was no knife, or no time then could I rip the canvas by hand?  Hand ripped material is certainly not going to look like that drawing!

My impression is that if the vertical slices were done in order to exit the tent, then the exposed side of the tent had not collapsed. Instead, the empty tent was beating in the wind intil the canvas ripped away. Weakened by the loss of material, the center,section collapsed under snow and wind. Slobtzov should have easily seen this.

The alternate explanation for me is the horizontal tears are due to rough handling or, the illustration and case file photos do not match. The drawing was done from a,description, not observation.

[OLD JEDI 72]

It says that the two big holes were missing the material that went there. It simply wasn't just rips and tears, but gaping holes. So where did the fabric go? I hate to say it but this photo almost makes it look like it was gored by a moose or game animal with horns and the fabric was carried away on its horns. But seriously, all jokes aside, it also seems to be a perfect mirror image. Like when I was in kindergarten and we would fold paper then cut a pattern and the mirror would occur on the other side. Those chunks missing imo were only cut once and were folded onto themselves when cut.

[Ziljoe]

It says that the two big holes were missing the material that went there. It simply wasn't just rips and tears, but gaping holes. So where did the fabric go? I hate to say it but this photo almost makes it look like it was gored by a moose or game animal with horns and the fabric was carried away on its horns. But seriously, all jokes aside, it also seems to be a perfect mirror image. Like when I was in kindergarten and we would fold paper then cut a pattern and the mirror would occur on the other side. Those chunks missing imo were only cut once and were folded onto themselves when cut.

Sorry all, my problem is with the original source case files . I understand interpretations from Russian to English having mistakes and then being edited but I'm uncomfortable with original documents that seem to change.

This was a the  picture of the drawing of the tent from the case files put in this forum a few years ago , i wonder which is the original?.



It looks like someone modified it to look like two pictures of the tent stitched together when it was in the forensic laboratory. We can actually see through the tent to the back wall in the office with quite considerable holes in the other side of the tent also.

I can only assume that the three cuts are the only cuts with the indication of the marks being on the inside of the canvas, all other cuts, rips are post finding the tent. The searchers did allegedly drag the tent 700m to the helicopter but even then I doubt that amount of damage would occur in the way we see it in the picture.

I can only imagine that the searchers opened the tent in a crude fashion to see inside on the first or second day of discovery. If different searchers looked at the tent on the second day and the first witnesses weren't at the tent , I suppose the second searchers would suspect the first searchers had already made the cuts.

[GlennM]

Things get lost in translation. If you do not see it first hand and if you do not have the necessary skills to communicate your findings, then a cascade of wrong headed, but well intentioned mistakes will happen. As an example, consider the  images I offer. They both  are of the same thing, namely, a sundog. The wood cut was created sometime after the event happened and was made from a description, not observation. Small wonder conspiracy theorists use the most far fetched explanation for what the woodcut shows. If Ziljoe is correct, then DPI investigators have been led far astray by inaccurate data about the tent. If true, it calls the whole method of evacuation of the tent by the hikers as well as the responsible handling of the salvage into question.

[Ziljoe]

This is certainly a truth Glennm.We know information is missing regarding all aspects of the case . There is also the difference in knowledge from today's perspective in forensic and autopsy findings .

I just want to know the original source of why these pictures from the casefiles have English underneath them and why there's 2 versions of the same picture/drawing . I protest at not knowing who did this or why and there may be bigger clues to a number of aspects to this mystery .

The recent mention of the strange defect to the  P or Q type of the typewriter in the original case files as makes me wonder how much of the information is being manipulated. Having used Google lense to find differences from the pictures of the type written files , I found a number of USSR case files with the similar yellowing of the paper and same red , hand written sequential numbers in the top right of the document . They went back to WW2 and were about secret information,interestingly enough , these typewritten documents had the same defect in the typewriter. I can only conclude that many of these typewriters had this defect .

[Ziljoe]

In this picture of the tent we can see the back panel of the room through the tent. It's difficult to comprehend why the tent was shredded so much after it was found along with the missing panels. I can only speculate that perhaps some of the canvas was used to cover the bodies when found or used in some sort of capacity in the mounting of them to the ski sleigh to drag them to boot rock. ( Makeshift rope?)

[ahabmyth]

Things get lost in translation. If you do not see it first hand and if you do not have the necessary skills to communicate your findings, then a cascade of wrong headed, but well intentioned mistakes will happen. As an example, consider the  images I offer. They both  are of the same thing, namely, a sundog. The wood cut was created sometime after the event happened and was made from a description, not observation. Small wonder conspiracy theorists use the most far fetched explanation for what the woodcut shows. If Ziljoe is correct, then DPI investigators have been led far astray by inaccurate data about the tent. If true, it calls the whole method of evacuation of the tent by the hikers as well as the responsible handling of the salvage into question.

This is your interpretation, my interpretation would be of a nice sunny day when all of a sudden these tubes appeared that spewed out spheres. Does it ring a bell a quite well known appearance of motherships dropping smaller saucers from them. This being so makes the wooden picture absolutely truthful as maybe in those days they may not have paid any attention to a nice "sundog". Also I was born and lived in the UK and afaik there was no word for them, maybe aura .???. Was the wood thingy from about 1650 in Nuremburg.

[ahabmyth]

.

[Ziljoe]

These pics more than likely were done by someone on this site years ago. And I have done this many times. I dont have time to finish a drawing so I may post a half of my pic or typing and finish it off later. Then poof its archived and I cant touch it.

Sorry , this is not what I mean. That photo is what is being presented from the case files. The case files from 1959 , the original documents, any altercation must be mentioned if presented as original otherwise the whole case could be made up or fake. 

[OLD JEDI 72]

I clicked your link and did understand you didn't care for them, Ziljoe, but whomever did this certain image said a mouthful. Because it would prove snow was on top of the tent or at least the tent folded over onto itself. The identical panels missing is a mirror image. That would only explain the first event. The second event narrows down to maleficence after that. IMHO. 

[Ziljoe]

I clicked your link and did understand you didn't care for them, Ziljoe, but whomever did this certain image said a mouthful. Because it would prove snow was on top of the tent or at least the tent folded over onto itself. The identical panels missing is a mirror image. That would only explain the first event. The second event narrows down to maleficence after that. IMHO. 

It may be only teddy that can answer. The photo above, of the drawing of the tent , is under the section of listed as the case files . These case files are supposed to be photos of the original case files. That is it, no changing or modifying. It is as it was in 1959.

1). The photo of the combat leaflet was made to look like it was written in English but also has an original copy that was typed up in 1959 and in Russian in the same link.

2) the documents about the tent that you have looked at , is also written in English. Where is the original document in Russian?

3) the drawing of the tent picture was modified at some point to show the big gaps and not just the 3 cuts as we see in one of the drawings. Why are both drawings not in the case files?

4) there has been speculation that the case files were tampered with because of the type face of the letter P or Q and few other things in zolo's files . This includes his name popping up out of alphabetical order , not fitting in the lines of the draft and a number of other documents


The point being , someone is definitely messing with the case files . The question is , when?...... 1959, 1960, 1990, 1999, and so on.

I don't know if what I'm reading is actually from the true statements written at the time . I would like to believe so but there has been manipulation of the documents , any changes to official documents should be stated , when , where and why.

[Ziljoe]

Ignore the above post. It would seem that someone erased the cutouts from the original photo drawing . It is the other way round. And the original photos of the tent have the Russian text written in the Russian selection button.

I'll get my coat..... Dyatov fever....

[sarapuk]

Without the actual tent to examine its a difficult one and therefore ripe for much speculation.

[Hunter]

If you have torrents allowed, I can send you a link to a scanned criminal case.

[GlennM]

I believe that someone stabbing the canvas from the outside and slicing toward themselves will produce a pattern showing a cut from the inside. I also believe that a cut edge will fray if beaten by the wind. So, if a cut can be analyzed at all, it indicates a rapid encapsulation of the cut, or a it means a recent cut. If the tent was cut from within by the hikers, which makes the most sense, snow quickly covered the damage when they departed. I also support the idea that rescuers may have knifed the tent for reasons that seemed good at the time.