Krivonischenko and Kolevatov Cut The Tent

[Hunter]

Axelrod, given how they packed their things, it's not surprising that so many things were lost. The mess tin was only found in the 21st century.

And the spoons could simply have had no identifying marks. Unlike the spoons of Thibault and Kolevatov.

[Axelrod]

Five spoons are later missing from the list of unidentified items. They disappeared in the most incomprehensible way!

[Hunter]

Where did Thibo's Finnish knife go?

And why wasn't Kolevatov's knife presented to his relatives for identification in the protocol?

[Missi]

Hunter, unfortunately I don't read Russian. I know most of the letters, but that's it. Yet, what you say is in essence what I learned about the time and the knifes back then as well, so I'll just take it like that.
About the taking stuff as souvenir... It'd be very macabre to take a souvenir from a place, where your fellow students dies. I can imagine something like that with a knife or other rather rare, important and good tools, small enough to just place in ones pocket.
When it comes to other things like the missing spoons and mugs and so on, I'd resort to other causes.

It's a huge chaos, that was found or left by the searchers. There are knifes that should be there, but aren't. The same with ordinary cutlery and dishes and personal items.

The number of the spoons is strange, I give you that. And their disappearance is also not quite ordinary.
*** A story from my experience, going camping with a rather big number of people and everyone bringing their own stuff:
I go camping every summer for more than 10 years now. We usually bring one or two items per person plus some if we get guests. The items for guests only rarely get stocked, because at the end of one week, we end up with more stuff than we brought. Sometimes it's even hard to get everything back to the people that still are with us on the place (meaning not those who came by for a dinner, but who had their tent their with ours). And this is only with people who know what they took, not some friends or family members having to identify what's there.
We also loose things that never show up again.

Having told that: I don't think it strange, that things are missing. Even if we assume nothing was staged (which I'm not sure about), there's a lot of snow, a lot of wind, weeks go by, a group of (sorry) amateurs find the tent and look through what's inside, maybe some of the hikers had some of their stuff in hand and took it down or lost it somewhere on the way. There are so many reasons, why items could have genuinely been lost.
If you take a staging into account, people might still have not looked at the right place...

[Hunter]

Regarding the creepy thing about taking things. Slobtsov and Sharavin took some of the items from the tent. And according to some reports, they even consumed the contents of a flask of alcohol at the camp with other searchers. And according to the criminal investigation file, Dyatlov's flashlight was found in the tent. Look for it in the list of items identified by Yudin and the relatives of the victims. You won't find it. Where did it go?

Regarding the absence of knives from some of the group. I spoke with Askinadzi. He said the girls usually didn't take knives. Plus, judging by the expedition reports, knives were sometimes taken at a ratio of one knife per two or three participants, or they could simply forget. There were precedents. But the investigation didn't bother with it. It's a shame none of the current searchers have used a metal detector from the supposed location of the tent to the helipad and the outliers.

[Marc]

Well here is why I wanted to make this post.. It has to do with my thoughts on the Dyatlov Pass article originally titled: "A forensic expert on the Dyatlov Pass mystery: "If they weren't Phystech students, they'd still be alive." Source: https://dyatlovpass.com/elena-koskina-2?rbid=18461

"Lev Ivanov believed the fireball theory until the end of his days. This was passed on to Vozrozhdenniy. The actual atomic bomb explosions and their consequences were hammered into the minds of the Phystech students in their curricula. The explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were the most common examples. According to Ivanov, the Dyatlov group (the two who were outside the tent) mistook the fireballs for an atomic explosion and caused a panic. The Phystech students knew the consequences of these explosions better than anyone else, and by the time they emerged from the tent, the fireballs had already flown over the horizon. But the aftereffects of the panicked screams continued to trigger panic, and the group rushed down the slope, away from what they thought was the radiation."

If it was Krivonischenko and Kolevatov, the Phystech students, who cut the tent.. then I think it could explain why its these two specifically causing the panic to leave the tent immediately. The fireballs could have triggered an immediate panic for them if they believed this to be atomic testing. This is why I am trying to show the importance of why Krivonischenko and Kolevatov specifically are the only hikers who show a seperation of their knife and the sheath, because it validates this version. I personally believe the fireballs, whatever they may be, plays a critical role of why the group left their tent that night.

Ok, there was an explosion - ball lightning or some military device! Without a doubt, it will cause panic even in the most experienced person. So, it seems logical that they left the vicinity of the tent in a panic.
But - I remind you - that they left there in such a way that some of the hikers were completely unprotected from the cold without boots and some only in socks. It is absolutely crazy to think that they did not try the elementary things after an hour or in extreme cases two, to get back to the tent. The explosion may have been scary, but it is relatively short-lived. They were experienced hikers and knew what horror awaits them in such clothing on a cold February night!

They probably lived outside for hours and finally made a desperate attempt to return to the tent - but it was already hopelessly late. This tells me that there was something long-lasting in time near the tent that did not allow them to return. How can it be an explosion?

[Senior Maldonado]

This tells me that there was something long-lasting in time near the tent that did not allow them to return. How can it be an explosion?

To run from an explosion, which has already happened, might be not necessary. It's more natural to run from an explosion that is going to happen. One needs a safe place to observe the spot, where his things were left and where explosion is expected, and when it's over - return back. The hard part is to estimate correctly for how long to wait.

[Marc]

The first thing you do after leaving the tent in such a condition is to turn back to get your boots and other necessities. That would be the only thought of anyone in a similar situation, I think.
Something must have prevented them from returning to the tent quite soon! It must have been much worse than the horror of slowly freezing to death.
One of those who tried to get back to the tent, judging by the position of the body, was Dyatlov himself! Why couldn't he do it earlier? It seems to me like a completely desperate last minute attempt!

[Marc]

This tells me that there was something long-lasting in time near the tent that did not allow them to return. How can it be an explosion?

To run from an explosion, which has already happened, might be not necessary. It's more natural to run from an explosion that is going to happen. One needs a safe place to observe the spot, where his things were left and where explosion is expected, and when it's over - return back. The hard part is to estimate correctly for how long to wait.

I don't think they were running away from the explosion that was just starting to happen. That's too unlikely for me.
I think I have a hard time believing any version of the explosion. I think it was the human factor they were running away from. Or they were forced to leave.

[Senior Maldonado]

I don't think they were running away from the explosion that was just starting to happen. That's too unlikely for me.

I support this statement. In my view, the following happened:

When all hikers were inside the tent and were getting ready for supper, a flying object bumped to the slope nearby. Impact to the slope was huge, it could be felt like a sudden earthquake. This impact collapsed the tent and covered most part of it by snow 30-40 cm high. As the tent lost its shape, leaving it through the standard exit was very hard. The hikers had to cut the tent and use the cuts as emergency exit. On seeing the object, they sent Krivonischenko and Doroshenko to investigate the "unwanted guest". On approaching it, the object produced outburst of flame, which burnt Doroshenko's hair and Krivonischenko's left side of the body. That sent clear signal to the hikers that explosion would follow soon. They had no time to collect their things from the collapsed tent covered by snow. And they started immediate retreat to the forest.

[sarapuk]

You're wrong. Kolevatov's knife and sheath were in the tent. Krivonischenko's knife was apparently found in a ravine. The sheath found in May belongs to an unknown person.

The fact that the May scabbard belongs to Krivonischenko is only an assumption based on an analysis of photographs and the text of the criminal case and radiogram.

Also we don't know if it was any of the Dyatlov groups knives that made cuts to the tent. These days an examination of a knife can reveal minute details, including telling what the knife was last used for.

[sarapuk]

You're wrong. Kolevatov's knife and sheath were in the tent. Krivonischenko's knife was apparently found in a ravine. The sheath found in May belongs to an unknown person.

The fact that the May scabbard belongs to Krivonischenko is only an assumption based on an analysis of photographs and the text of the criminal case and radiogram.

Kolevatovs knife was presumed to be the big knife found in the tent.

[sarapuk]

No.. I will site my sources. Like I said, Krivo's knife was found inside the ravine separated from his sheath. Kolevatov's knife was also separated from the sheath.

In terms of where Krivonischenko's knife was found: "Stansislav Bogomolov (Discussing the ravine) Near the bodies, Krivonischenko's knife was found." He was working with Lev Ivanov to get this information. https://dyatlovpass.com/stanislav-bogomolov-1. In the resolution of the case, Ivanov states it was Krivonischenko's knife that was used to cut branches at the cedar tree and found at the bodies.

Kolevatov's knife and sheath, when inventoried at the Ivdel Airport on March 3 was found together. But when found at the actual scene, they were seperated because he said when he tried putting them together, they did not fit. So when he offered Kolevatov's sister the knife in return, he made her decide between the knife and the sheath. Also, the sheath was found outside the tent: "Ebonite sheath and a tablespoon of white metal were found under the snow at the location where the Dyatlov group tent was found." https://dyatlovpass.com/knives?lid=1

Its good that this subject has been brought up again because although it has been brought up many times over the years there is always the possibility that a new angle may prove useful.

This is from the files on the Dyatlov Case ; There is a misconception that is cited over and over, that Krivonischneko's knife was found at the tent on May 6, 1959. A sheath was found and not even that of the Kolevatov's knife because Kolevatov's was leather and the one discovered at the place where the tent was found more than 2 months prior to finding the sheath (tent was found on February 28) was ebonite.
There are misconceptions throughout this Dyatlov Case.

[sarapuk]

My apologies for the Google translation.
Teodora posted an article about the knives in the Dyatlov group on the website. I wrote it back then; you can read it.
The original, in Russian, is here:
http://svotrog1079.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=79

In short, Krivonischenko's knife wasn't included in the four men's discovery report; there's no information about its discovery in a separate document—a report, memo, or protocol. Some researchers believe that the investigator created Krivonischenko's knife in the ravine to avoid any questions about who made the flooring and what it was made of.

Regarding the inventory of items in Ivdel, you're mistaken. The list of items in the storage locker simply includes a "Finnish knife." And Yudin identified the Finnish knife as belonging to Thibault, not Kolevatov. Among Kolevatov's belongings, only a sharpening whetstone was found.

The fact that Kolevatov's knife was in its sheath is mentioned on page 50 of the observation proceedings.

And the reason for the choice of "knife or sheath" may not have been because the knife and sheath were separate, but because at that time, a Finnish knife was a weapon requiring a permit. Therefore, the actual conversation might not have been, "I can return either the knife or the sheath," but rather, "I can return the sheath now, and the knife if you get a permit."

It just goes to prove how tricky this Dyatlov Case is. So many possible twists and turns. I don't recall any mention of any of the knives being examined forensically ! I'm not sure what the state of forensic examination was like in the USSR in those times but these days its possible to tell if a knife has been used for a particular purpose and in some cases even its last cutting action.

[sarapuk]

You say "At that time, a Finnish knife was a weapon requiring a permit. Therefore, the actual conversation might not have been, "I can return either the knife or the sheath," but rather, "I can return the sheath now, and the knife if you get a permit." I know... Sasha Kolevatov was the only hiker who did have a permit... So this shouldn't be an issue.

You keep referring to Teddy's posts but I am referencing Ivanov's claim that Krivonischenko's knife was found in the ravine, Teddy is stating general information that she had at the time but it doesn't include Ivanov's clarification. Basically, the second source is right about one thing but wrong about another. Since the sheath found outside the tent did not fit Kolevatov's knife then maybe this sheath was actually Krivonischenko's. Im not sure why you are trying to discredit me when you are the one who is incorrect here? The point was, these two men who shows activity with their knives. So if the tent was truly cut open by the hikers, it would make sense for it to be these two men. Or maybe only Krivonischenko.

The difficulty is really about ascertaining if any of the Dyatlov groups knife's were used to cut the tent. Once again we can hark back to the original investigation and I can find no reference to any forensic examination of any of the knives.

[Ziljoe]

No.. I will site my sources. Like I said, Krivo's knife was found inside the ravine separated from his sheath. Kolevatov's knife was also separated from the sheath.

In terms of where Krivonischenko's knife was found: "Stansislav Bogomolov (Discussing the ravine) Near the bodies, Krivonischenko's knife was found." He was working with Lev Ivanov to get this information. https://dyatlovpass.com/stanislav-bogomolov-1. In the resolution of the case, Ivanov states it was Krivonischenko's knife that was used to cut branches at the cedar tree and found at the bodies.

Kolevatov's knife and sheath, when inventoried at the Ivdel Airport on March 3 was found together. But when found at the actual scene, they were seperated because he said when he tried putting them together, they did not fit. So when he offered Kolevatov's sister the knife in return, he made her decide between the knife and the sheath. Also, the sheath was found outside the tent: "Ebonite sheath and a tablespoon of white metal were found under the snow at the location where the Dyatlov group tent was found." https://dyatlovpass.com/knives?lid=1

Its good that this subject has been brought up again because although it has been brought up many times over the years there is always the possibility that a new angle may prove useful.

This is from the files on the Dyatlov Case ; There is a misconception that is cited over and over, that Krivonischneko's knife was found at the tent on May 6, 1959. A sheath was found and not even that of the Kolevatov's knife because Kolevatov's was leather and the one discovered at the place where the tent was found more than 2 months prior to finding the sheath (tent was found on February 28) was ebonite.
There are misconceptions throughout this Dyatlov Case.

It was not the 28th ....

On February 25 Boris Slobtsov and his group finally discovered the trail of skis that he assumed to be that of Dyatlov. The next day on February 26th they discovered the tent on the slope of Kholat Syakhl in the Dyatlov Pass.


Case files 298:


I" flew by helicopter on the scene on February 23, 1959. I led the search team. The tent of Dyatlov group was discovered by our group on the afternoon of February 26, 1959."

[Hunter]

sarapuk

Kolevatov's knife was presumed to be the big knife found in the tent.

Presumably, indeed. In one document, it is described as a "large knife," in another, as a Finnish knife. It's strange that Tempalov gave two diametrically opposed descriptions of the knife. And the knife, which is currently in the possession of Alexander's relative and is being marketed as that Finnish knife, doesn't look like a large knife. Its blade is 10-11 cm long.

I don't recall any mention of any of the knives being examined forensically!

At that time, there was no uniform approach to determining which knives were weapons and which weren't, and whether an expert opinion was required, or whether the investigator could declare a knife to be a weapon. Problems sometimes arose with mass-produced knives that were readily available in stores. If you're interested in this issue, I can provide a link to the article, but unfortunately, it's in Russian and in photographic form, not a PDF file with a text layer.

It would be better to open a separate thread about knives.

[sarapuk]

sarapuk

Kolevatov's knife was presumed to be the big knife found in the tent.

Presumably, indeed. In one document, it is described as a "large knife," in another, as a Finnish knife. It's strange that Tempalov gave two diametrically opposed descriptions of the knife. And the knife, which is currently in the possession of Alexander's relative and is being marketed as that Finnish knife, doesn't look like a large knife. Its blade is 10-11 cm long.

I don't recall any mention of any of the knives being examined forensically!

At that time, there was no uniform approach to determining which knives were weapons and which weren't, and whether an expert opinion was required, or whether the investigator could declare a knife to be a weapon. Problems sometimes arose with mass-produced knives that were readily available in stores. If you're interested in this issue, I can provide a link to the article, but unfortunately, it's in Russian and in photographic form, not a PDF file with a text layer.

It would be better to open a separate thread about knives.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this particular knife dilemma. One mans large is another mans medium , so to speak. It all adds to the difficulty we have with investigating  things.