December 03, 2020, 02:10:18 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Testimonies Regarding the Tent  (Read 11512 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

June 05, 2018, 04:04:35 AM
Reply #30
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


It is of my opinion that there can be NO declaration based on any substantive evidence the 9 victims ever sliced their way out of the tent to begin with. And along with that, any theory solely based on them having done so is HEAVILY flawed. 

Do you have a theory as to what happened? So they probably didn't cut their way out. That means they were neither buried, smoked out, or freaked out to the point of destroying their tent (or at least exposing the inside to the cold). Nor did some other group cut it open to force them out.

So now what? They exited the tent the old fashioned way and proceeded to hike down to the tree line without proper clothing? Because ...?


There is nothing to indicate that they cut their way out. There never was anything to indicate that. It has been a very unfortunate misleading assumption.

The mistaken assumption that they cut their own tent made it it seem probable that the students left the tent voluntarily from their own free will, and thus the attention was diverted away from the really relevant question of what could have made them leave when there was no avalanches, no physical problems with the tent, no fire and no indications of mental confusion. Remember, the very last thing the students did was to make a humorous internal "newspaper" called the "Otorten evening news." This fact shows us the good atmosphere and the absence of any kind of problems until something terrible suddenly happened.

A realistic judgment of the whole sequence of events should tell us that there is nothing that could make the nine hikers leave their tent without proper clothing and expose themselves to the Siberian winter in that condition, unless they were forced at gunpoint to leave. This only sensible conclusion also follows from the bodily damage they sustained, and from the evident attempts at concealment by governmental agencies. We need to bear in mind that the local investigators were instructed to close the investigation with the desired conclusion of an accident and "mistakes by Igor Dyatlov." Which of course is a rather strong indication in itself.

However, what we are now doing is to proceed in the correct way. We are not jumping to conclusions. Even if everything points to a terrible crime, such a conclusion should never come as a simple statement without being backed up.

Instead we go through the possibilities one by one. That way, a picture of what probably happened will emerge little by little. Now it becomes increasingly clear that there never was any ground for supposing that the nine students cut their tent, and that there is absolutely nothing to indicate that they left the tent through these cuts.

That is an important step along the way.

June 05, 2018, 06:46:17 AM
Reply #31
Offline

Mash


If you look at both pictures I've posted, you'll get an explanation for themselves. But well, I'll explain it:

Introducion/prolog:

These are 3 pictures from the original expertise (tent): https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-303-304?rbid=17743




This photo needs to be opened to see it completely



We also have an original photo from 1959. The tent is set up after the rescue. Probably everyone has seen it before: https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search#the-tent



To be continued ...
Wer schweigt stimmt nicht immer zu. Er hat nur manchmal keine Lust mit Idioten zu diskutieren (Albert Einstein)

June 05, 2018, 08:51:18 AM
Reply #32
Offline

Mash



Number 1 (drawing, excerpt from the original report):



This sketch is not detailed and it is very faulty. On the first view.., okay, let`s say at the second view that`s obvious. Something is wrong here. Here was drawn too inaccurate:

1. Do you agree with me if I say cut 2 looks twice as long as cut 1? But then the measurements do not agree 89 cm and 31 cm! (which are correct, I'll come to that later). The proportions of the lengths are therefore not drawn correctly.



2. The tent has a total length of 433 cm. In addition, the tent in reality is much flatter and longer than on the sketch (Also look at the original picture from 1959)

3. The sections 1 and 2 which are drawn are too close to the entrance (I'll come to that later). Compare it with the photo from 1959.

4. It has already been pointed out that this drawing is very flawed: "g. Churkina's drawing is not only overly schematic but also the positioning, sizes and number of cuts are not accurate" https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search#the-tent



Number 2 (original picture from 1959 and additional measures): http://taina.li/forum/index.php?topic=5623.0



We have the following facts: "The total length of the tent /by the top seam/ is 4m.33 cm" and "Damage # 1 is shaped in the form of a broken straight line, its total length is 32 cm. Above it there is a small puncture of the tissue in 2 cm. The corners of the hole are torn. /see photo №4 /. Damage # 2 and 3 have a non-uniform arcuate shape. The approximate length of these lesions is 89 cm and 42 cm. from the right edge of damage # 2 and from both edges of damage # 3 there are no cloth flaps and it is possible that they had their continuation further." (act of Criminalistic expertise/tent) https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-303-304?rbid=17743

The producer of this photo was oriented at the center of the tent. You can see the middle very well. It's the metal ring on the roof. A pole was inserted vertically in the tent for stability. He indicates the length to the middle with about 200 cm (ca. 200 cm). He has even more clues for the dimensions of the tent, but listing all is really too much now! The producer added the other measurements and also inserted the photos from sections 1 and 3 correctly.


Number 3 (it's a sketch of number 2 to show it better!  I`ve "pulled" this original sketch so it`s even more clearer):



It shows the most important measures of length and the cuts 1, 2 and 3 in the approximate correct position. It`s probably the cut 2 and 3 have met and there is a total large cut with the length of about 165 cm (89 cm + ca. 35 cm (destroyed) + 42 cm = 166 cm).

@CalzagheChick
The figure on drawing number 3 is less important. It has also become much wider because of the "pulling" of the picture. The figure is just an example how the person lies in the tent and made the cuts lying on his back.

Most important is photo number 2, the collage!

Sketch number 3 is a summary of number 1 and number 2!


 
Wer schweigt stimmt nicht immer zu. Er hat nur manchmal keine Lust mit Idioten zu diskutieren (Albert Einstein)

June 05, 2018, 11:00:18 AM
Reply #33
Offline

CalzagheChick


Love your work Mash. Hope to see so much more from you in other threads!!!

June 05, 2018, 02:34:57 PM
Reply #34
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen



Most important is photo number 2, the collage!

Sketch number 3 is a summary of number 1 and number 2!


Yes, that is all very interesting, Mash.

What conclusions, if any, do you feel able to draw from the material presented?

June 05, 2018, 06:37:44 PM
Reply #35
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
My only issue is that the curvature of #3 has been completely flipped the opposite direction.  Regardless as to how you feel about its accuracy,  you cannot simply manipulatee the original case files to fit your theory. 
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

June 06, 2018, 12:02:41 AM
Reply #36
Offline

CalzagheChick


I'm not so sure that #3 was flipped... there are 2 edges from the slash, top flap then bottom flap. The top edge is curved one way, verifiable by collage photo #2 and the bottom edge is a little more subtle but it's curved according to the collage photo #2 as well. Of course it took a few minutes to verify that, but it's there. Or I'm just an idiot and see something that's not there. It can go either way on the conclusion.

June 06, 2018, 01:36:02 AM
Reply #37
Offline

Marchesk


A realistic judgment of the whole sequence of events should tell us that there is nothing that could make the nine hikers leave their tent without proper clothing and expose themselves to the Siberian winter in that condition, unless they were forced at gunpoint to leave.

It would seem that way, but I hate going the conspiracy route.

Quote from: Per Inge Oestmoen
The mistaken assumption that they cut their own tent made it it seem probable that the students left the tent voluntarily from their own free will, and thus the attention was diverted away from the really relevant question of what could have made them leave when there was no avalanches, no physical problems with the tent, no fire and no indications of mental confusion.

Right, if those other things can be reasonably ruled out then, the human element becomes more plausible. I just don't know why it would be important enough to kill 9 hikers out in the wilderness in the middle of the winter.

Quote from: Per Inge Oestmoen
This only sensible conclusion also follows from the bodily damage they sustained, and from the evident attempts at concealment by governmental agencies.

I'm not sure about the bodily damage, but the authorities did act as if they had something to conceal. What that means, I don't know. Could be they just didn't like leaving an unsolved mystery hanging, and 1959 Soviet Russia was supposed to be some sort of ideal state.


June 06, 2018, 03:50:29 AM
Reply #38
Offline

CalzagheChick


I'd like to see the recent picture #3 superimposed onto #2 The Collage so that we may possibly verify that these photos are giving us the full picture or a better picture per se everthing is Kosher and at least somewhat paints a correct picture!  okey1

June 06, 2018, 06:28:59 AM
Reply #39
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


A realistic judgment of the whole sequence of events should tell us that there is nothing that could make the nine hikers leave their tent without proper clothing and expose themselves to the Siberian winter in that condition, unless they were forced at gunpoint to leave.

It would seem that way, but I hate going the conspiracy route.

Quote from: Per Inge Oestmoen
The mistaken assumption that they cut their own tent made it it seem probable that the students left the tent voluntarily from their own free will, and thus the attention was diverted away from the really relevant question of what could have made them leave when there was no avalanches, no physical problems with the tent, no fire and no indications of mental confusion.

Right, if those other things can be reasonably ruled out then, the human element becomes more plausible. I just don't know why it would be important enough to kill 9 hikers out in the wilderness in the middle of the winter.

Quote from: Per Inge Oestmoen
This only sensible conclusion also follows from the bodily damage they sustained, and from the evident attempts at concealment by governmental agencies.

I'm not sure about the bodily damage, but the authorities did act as if they had something to conceal. What that means, I don't know. Could be they just didn't like leaving an unsolved mystery hanging, and 1959 Soviet Russia was supposed to be some sort of ideal state.


1. I do not mean to be rude in any way, but what exactly do you mean by writing "It would seem that way, but I hate going the conspiracy route."?

Please explain precisely why you use that age-old manipulative technique.

I have every reason to believe that you did not have any evil or manipulative intention, but why think in terms of "conspiracy route" and the suggestion of conspiracy thinking? Should we just state that "Nine bodies were found, but we cannot understand why anyone would want to kill them, so therefore they were probably not murdered and every suggestion that they might have been murdered is conspiracy thinking"?

The world history is replete with homicides concealed as "suicides", "accidents" and "natural deaths."

The situation is that nine bodies were found, and it should be imperative to ask what was the cause of their death. When nine people are found dead, it seems strange to call it a "conspiracy route" when it is pointed out that many if not all the pieces of evidence we have would indicate that the nine hikers perished as a result of a criminal act. If we take a calm look at this, we should see that suggestions that "we are on a conspiracy route if we find it possible or probable that this was murder" just serve to put people in a bad light and stop discussion. It is salutary to bear in mind that this is a manipulative technique used by authoritarian and totalitarian governments all over the world in order to try to deprive critics of their credibility: "He/She is a conspirationist, don't listen to him/her." That is unworthy, it is improper behavior and prevents an open discussion.

2. "I just don't know why it would be important enough to kill 9 hikers out in the wilderness in the middle of the winter."

The truth is that we cannot know.

To know the motive behind a murder is often impossible to know, unless a murderer has been caught in the act. We can speculate, but in cases where no murderer is caught we have to first accept that we cannot know precisely why the murder took place. We can theorize, but any theorizing about motive must be speculative until we know with certainty. That does not imply it cannot be murder.

If we find a dead person, or several dead persons, what should we do then?

- If there is no obvious motive behind a murder, should we think that if there is no obvious motive it cannot be homicide?

- Or, should we rather try to find out what actually caused the death or deaths?

All the murderers and all the totalitarian and dictatorial governments in the world would certainly be happy if we were to chose the first mode of reasoning.

3. "I'm not sure about the bodily damage, but the authorities did act as if they had something to conceal. What that means, I don't know. Could be they just didn't like leaving an unsolved mystery hanging, and 1959 Soviet Russia was supposed to be some sort of ideal state."

I do not want to argue about the first point there, just encourage you to take a look at the individuals' injuries in isolation and then view all the injuries in the context. A good place to start is here: https://dyatlovpass.com/death

The second point is also interesting. Many things could be the case. The challenge and the question is to find out what is more likely.

When nine people die with the injuries described in the document above and no natural phenomena can obviously fit in as cause of the deaths, we must ask ourselves why we are prone to ruling out the possibility of murder - when that possibility can explain incomparably much more.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2018, 06:33:42 AM by Per Inge Oestmoen »

June 06, 2018, 07:18:46 AM
Reply #40
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


My only issue is that the curvature of #3 has been completely flipped the opposite direction.  Regardless as to how you feel about its accuracy,  you cannot simply manipulatee the original case files to fit your theory.

I see an even bigger problem here. A much bigger problem.

Look at the original picture from 1959. It shows a very damaged tent.

However, there is the problem.

I will quote from Svetlans Oss' "Don't go there":

"A more detailed account of the cuts and tears of the tent can be found in the chapter devoted to the criminal case file, but at this point it should be noted that Sharavin later said that he also made a hole on the ridge of the tent with an ice pick and then tore the tent horizontally. Because the rescue team was in shock and hadn't even considered that their fellow students were dead, they didn't treat the crime scene with proper care, nor did they preserve all the evidence for the investigation."

Sharavin confirmed that he made a hole in the tent and then tore and destroyed it even more. That is fully consistent with the damage that can be seen in the picture from 1959. Thus, the information above suggests the very real possibility that the greatest damage to the tent might have been done by the rescue team. We must therefore conclude that it is not possible to use the cuts in the tent to prove any of the possible theories. This simply because the rescuers damaged the tent severely, and there is no way to tell what the tent looked like before that happened.

The precise extent of the damage done by the rescuers cannot be established, but it is quite probable that the rescuers did the greatest damage - and made the hole in the tent which has subsequently been used to argue that the nine students cut their way out of the tent.

We can safely conclude this:

- There is no evidence that the Dyatlov group cut their tent.

- There is no evidence that the Dyatlov group left the tent through the cuts.

So, why would we assume these things then?

« Last Edit: June 06, 2018, 07:45:21 AM by Per Inge Oestmoen »

June 06, 2018, 07:53:14 AM
Reply #41
Offline

Marchesk


Please explain precisely why you use that age-old manipulative technique.

I have every reason to believe that you did not have any evil or manipulative intention, but why think in terms of "conspiracy route" and the suggestion of conspiracy thinking? Should we just state that "Nine bodies were found, but we cannot understand why anyone would want to kill them, so therefore they were probably not murdered and every suggestion that they might have been murdered is conspiracy thinking"?

Because we don't have evidence of anyone else being on the mountain that night. It appears they died of the elements. As for their injuries, I'm not qualified to determine whether they could have happened from falling out of trees and collapsing snow dens, or from something else. Also, it was in the wilderness in the middle of winter involving a group of people whose goal was to achieve an advanced hiking rating. That's hardly a reason to go out of your way in those conditions to murder them.

Possibly the Mansi were incensed at having women camping on their mountain which they lied about not being sacred, or the loggers were insulted enough to go to such lengths, or the KGB thought some CIA meet up was happing. But I'm not aware of evidence for this. Same with the group stumbling across something they weren't supposed to see. So what was it that would have gotten them killed? They were by all accounts good soviets.

June 06, 2018, 09:58:26 AM
Reply #42
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


Please explain precisely why you use that age-old manipulative technique.

I have every reason to believe that you did not have any evil or manipulative intention, but why think in terms of "conspiracy route" and the suggestion of conspiracy thinking? Should we just state that "Nine bodies were found, but we cannot understand why anyone would want to kill them, so therefore they were probably not murdered and every suggestion that they might have been murdered is conspiracy thinking"?

Because we don't have evidence of anyone else being on the mountain that night. It appears they died of the elements. As for their injuries, I'm not qualified to determine whether they could have happened from falling out of trees and collapsing snow dens, or from something else. Also, it was in the wilderness in the middle of winter involving a group of people whose goal was to achieve an advanced hiking rating. That's hardly a reason to go out of your way in those conditions to murder them.

Possibly the Mansi were incensed at having women camping on their mountain which they lied about not being sacred, or the loggers were insulted enough to go to such lengths, or the KGB thought some CIA meet up was happing. But I'm not aware of evidence for this. Same with the group stumbling across something they weren't supposed to see. So what was it that would have gotten them killed? They were by all accounts good soviets.

Thank you for your answer. It is a basis for further reasoning for us all.

Also, everybody is encouraged to go through this page, read in analytically, and try to decide for yourself whether it is probable that the nine died of the works of the natural elements:

https://dyatlovpass.com/death

Then we go to the core of the matter here:

"Because we don't have evidence of anyone else being on the mountain that night."

We do not have evidence of anyone else being on the mountain that night. We can all agree about that.

- But does that imply that we should dismiss the possibility that the nine Dyatlov hikers became victims of murder?

- Realistically, given the circumstances we could hardly expect there to be any decisive evidence of anyone else having been there. From February 2 to February 26 when the tent was found, no less than 24 days passed. If there were other people there who killed the Dyatlov group, these people would either have been locals from the area or they were resourceful professionals who knew what to do. They would know how to camouflage their mission in such a way that it would appear that the nine who perished died as a result of exposure and some unfortunate accidents. Significantly, that was also the conclusion that the Soviet government wanted. Moscow dictated to the investigator Ivanov that the investigation be closed with the conclusion as mentioned above with the added suggestion that Igor Dyatlov made some "mistakes." 

If there indeed was a group on a deadly mission there, that group of resourceful and trained people would be careful not to leave any obvious evidence. But it would be difficult to avoid leaving footprints around the tent. Alas, footprints around the tent were not analyzed because the first rescuers who came to the Dyatlov pass on February 26 did not think of the area as a crime scene. If we think rationally about this, we quickly realize that the chances of finding any intact footprints after 24 days would be slim. Most of the traces made by the Dyatlov group were evidently gone. Few if any other footprints than the relatively well protected ones they made when they left the tent on their very last night in life were clearly visible. We can reasonably assume that if the murder theory is correct, the group of murderers would only leave footprints at the camp site. And these footprints, if they were at all distinguishable from those of the Dyatlov group, must have been largely destroyed by the first rescue team members who did not expect anything criminal.

When the killer squad approached the tent and when they later hunted down the students to make sure that all were dead, they would in all probability have used mountain skies. The trails made by such broad mountain skies are erased much faster in the landscape than are footprints, and also faster than the common narrower skis used by most tourists. Even granted that there were such evidence of the presence of another group, it stands to reason that such evidence would almost certainly have disappeared by February 26. Based on these observations, I find it rash and unfounded - and above all irresponsible towards those who died and their families - if we conclude that no crime was committed because there is no evidence of the presence of killers. Given the situation and the area combined with the time passed, the most unmistakable evidence would be irretrievably gone. The significant evidence we still have are the bodies and the autopsy reports, and bodies do not lie. Therefore it seems wise to concentrate our attention upon the bodies and what we can find out from them.

Are we to interpret the many severe and lethal injuries, the objectively strong indications of having been attacked by other humans, and the nine deaths as a result of non-criminal series of accidents (as the Soviet government wanted and dictated) because we have not caught the murderers in the act or found definitive evidence of their having been there?

My answer is "no." Others are free to think otherwise. I cannot and do not want to dictate conclusions, but let us remember that there were those who did just that in 1959.

As for theorizing around the precise identity of the murderers: If we were to cast suspicion on specific ones, we run the risk of condemning innocent people. In the absence of proof of a precise identity of the murderers, I prefer to refrain from stating who I may think were responsible. But I think we can take for granted that they were not loggers.

And after all the identity of the killers may not be the most important thing here. Those who decided to take the nine lives and those who accomplished their mission would now likely be long gone. But personally I would like to see an end to the denial of murder, and a more realistic approach to all the unsubstantiated theories of highly unlikely series of accidents, unproven effects of natural forces, yetis, UFOs, infrasound, ball lighting and fighting among the students themselves.

The theory of murder can explain the injuries and the deaths. No other theory can do that with a high degree of probability.

We are obliged towards the deceased nine students, their families and their friends, to carefully consider the most likely but also worst and most unpleasant possibility.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 01:25:17 PM by Per Inge Oestmoen »

October 04, 2018, 02:36:18 PM
Reply #43
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
This Topic starts of well but then gradually drifts of course, ie, we move into other Topics territory unnecessarily. Obviously the Tent is very important to the Dyatlov Mystery. It was their base and by all accounts they all left their base totally unequipped for the conditions outside. Rips or cuts were found in the Tent by the searchers. Most of the Dyatlov equipment including clothing was found in the Tent. Thats it, other than that we have nothing, no clues as to why they left the Tent the way they did. We cant do forensics now because the Tent which is very important evidence is MISSING.
DB

December 12, 2018, 11:27:29 PM
Reply #44
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
LC you make a convincing argument about the amount of damage to the tent that could well have been caused during its recovery  thumb1.

It still seems to me though that the Dyatlov group either left the camp site in a hurry leaving their essential cold weather gear or they were forced.

What are your thoughts on this?

July 17, 2019, 12:50:52 PM
Reply #45
Offline

CalzagheChick


This is still by far my favorite thread in the forum because LC did such an amazing job of putting all evidence in one spot and supporting his ideas with the evidence.

I'm quite sure that his ultimate goal is to convince us that the tent is NOT admissible in the DPI mystery because of its sketchy collection and sketchy history thereafter. It's just not a reliable source of information when you're considering the possibility of capital murder. Would anybody in the forum put another human being's LIFE on the line based upon what we know about the tent as of today?

I will go ahead and be the first to say, I could not. I couldn't smear any good name or watch someone's life go on trial based upon the "evidence" presented by the remains of the tent.

July 22, 2019, 04:24:01 PM
Reply #46
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
This is still by far my favorite thread in the forum because LC did such an amazing job of putting all evidence in one spot and supporting his ideas with the evidence.

I'm quite sure that his ultimate goal is to convince us that the tent is NOT admissible in the DPI mystery because of its sketchy collection and sketchy history thereafter. It's just not a reliable source of information when you're considering the possibility of capital murder. Would anybody in the forum put another human being's LIFE on the line based upon what we know about the tent as of today?

I will go ahead and be the first to say, I could not. I couldn't smear any good name or watch someone's life go on trial based upon the "evidence" presented by the remains of the tent.

All evidence must be admissible if a proper investigation is under way. The TENT stands out as an important piece of evidence. Its disappearance allegedly down to some kind of damage caused to it while in storage. Sounds a bit iffy to Me.  !  ?
DB

July 22, 2019, 06:43:58 PM
Reply #47
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
I think there is a lot more then the tent that "disappeared".

Quote
The TENT stands out as an important piece of evidence

Perhaps re-read the original post?     dunno1
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

July 24, 2019, 02:25:24 PM
Reply #48
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I think there is a lot more then the tent that "disappeared".

Quote
The TENT stands out as an important piece of evidence

Perhaps re-read the original post?     dunno1

All the main Evidence disappeared. The Bodies were soon buried after an Autopsy that fell short of the standards one might expect from such an Investigation.
DB

October 03, 2019, 12:30:48 PM
Reply #49
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


All evidence must be admissible if a proper investigation is under way. The TENT stands out as an important piece of evidence. Its disappearance allegedly down to some kind of damage caused to it while in storage. Sounds a bit iffy to Me.  !  ?

Since the Dyatlov group's tent is no longer available, it is impossible to say whether it could yield any important evidence.

Still, there are some significant details about that tent.

It is not possible to find out who made the cuts in the tent, or whether it was simply destroyed during the search or transportation.

We know that a seamstress is said to have stated that the tent was cut from the inside. But, that statement was never substantiated or confirmed by any kind of scientific analysis. So, we really do not know.

What we know, is that at the first stages of the investigation the local Mansi people in the area were said to be suspected in the case. We also know that the statement that the tent was cut from the inside, immediately prompted the suspicion of the Mansi to be lifted. This is very interesting, because there is no scientifically acceptable evidence recorded to demonstrate that the tent was cut from the inside.

The Mansi were said to be suspected, but then a dubious conclusion from a single seamstress was used to lift the suspicion. What could that possibly mean?

It may be that the Mansi were given a powerful message, and then let off the hook. It is not certain that this is the case, but it is not unreasonable to be open to that possibility.

There is no evidence that the Mansi were the killers, although it is still remotely possible.

We do however know that the Mansi lived in the area. That means, even if the Mansi were not responsible for the death of the Dyatlov group, they likely were aware of what happened. For example, it would be difficult to land a helicopter in the area without some of the Mansi observing it. If the Mansi observed something and knew that the nine students had been killed, their lives would be cheap if they told anyone what they knew. They certainly understood that themselves. But in order to drive home the message, some of the Mansi were brought in to interrogation. After a short time, the statement about the tent was announced, and the Mansi were suddenly let free.

That may have been a stern message to the Mansi: "We let you off the hook now, but be aware if you ever tell anyone what you have seen we will quickly produce new conclusions."

I do not say this is what actually happened, it is a theory. It may well be that the tent and the statement about the cuts is all pure sloppiness.

However, it should be considered that the local Mansi people may have been told to keep quiet in a very effective way, and if this happened it would explain the curious lack of any scientific examination of the tent.

October 03, 2019, 05:43:28 PM
Reply #50
Offline

jarrfan


I read the Sharavin 2007-2008 report:

The representative indicates he believes the group were doused with rocket fuel and died from exposure to this toxic substance. The scene and bodies do not appear to have been nuked by rocket fuel.

First of all, rocket fuel is very flammable, if they had toxic fuel over their bodies, the last thing they would want to do is build a fire. The rocket fuel would have been on the tent and the smell and toxicity would have prevented the rescue team from handling it and not having a reaction. The fuel would have been all over the area, not just the tent. There might be dead birds, tree death, etc.

There was suggestion of an avalanche that the group tore out of their tent to escape from because of the birch tree bark sloughed off. Even if that happened, the group could have gone outside, surveyed the situation, and dug themselves out but still had the tent for safety. If there had been an avalanche, it could have been before the timing of their trip or after. Regardless, the tent was seen from the sky and on the ground the ice picket was stuck in the snow, so that tells me there was no avalanche.

Sharavin admits to making large cuts in the tent to look inside to see if someone were there. So how can he identify the cuts made by the group? So in realilty, we cannot confirm his cuts from that of the group?

Still nothing firm to consider the truth behind the mystery...

October 10, 2019, 07:09:17 PM
Reply #51
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


Sharavin admits to making large cuts in the tent to look inside to see if someone were there. So how can he identify the cuts made by the group? So in realilty, we cannot confirm his cuts from that of the group?


Exactly.

The cuts in themselves were invalid as evidence.

October 10, 2019, 10:27:30 PM
Reply #52
Offline

jarrfan


Not sure how they are invalid as evidence? The group had to exit the tent someway, if the cuts were made from the inside as has been attested to, they were in great fear for their life. If they walked out of the tent door, maybe not in such a rush....

October 12, 2019, 05:28:09 PM
Reply #53
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Quote
First of all, rocket fuel is very flammable, if they had toxic fuel over their bodies, the last thing they would want to do is build a fire

Or methanol....

If their clothing were saturated, it would make sense as to why Yuri had burned legs and the fire was a short lived idea.   
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

November 01, 2020, 09:01:23 AM
Reply #54
Offline

Bannef


I found this thread because of a comment CalzagheChick made elsewhere, and thank you for that - I agree with you, it's the favorite thread I've found so far, and made a sleepless night of digging through the forums (and jumping at shadows) all worth it. Thank you Loose Cannon for however many sleepless nights it took you to compile it.

I'm sure I'm asking for more work than I realize, but is there any way that "How ripped was the tent when first discovered by rescuers?" be added to the controversy list in the tent section of DyatlovPass.com? With maybe some of the more damning witness testimonies included? It seems like pivotal information. Of course it is the collection of all the quotes that is the most moving, but to be succinct, the following two quotes seem the most pertinent:

"When the inspection was over the tent, we dragged [the tent] to the helipad at a distance of 600-700 meters."

And:

I will quote from Svetlans Oss' "Don't go there":

"A more detailed account of the cuts and tears of the tent can be found in the chapter devoted to the criminal case file, but at this point it should be noted that Sharavin later said that he also made a hole on the ridge of the tent with an ice pick and then tore the tent horizontally. Because the rescue team was in shock and hadn't even considered that their fellow students were dead, they didn't treat the crime scene with proper care, nor did they preserve all the evidence for the investigation."

November 01, 2020, 09:07:50 AM
Reply #55
Offline

Bannef


Less importantly, even with only the rip they described in their logs... Darn. I can't imagine sleeping on the side of the mountain with wind whistling in. And I get huffy when my windows are drafty.

These kids were so, so much tougher than I can imagine being.

November 01, 2020, 03:25:54 PM
Reply #56
Online

marieuk


"The tent was in terrible condition, with multiple tears, and cuts and in some places there were punctured and burned holes, and 2 large pieces of canvas were cut / torn out of its lateral part. It is impossible to imagine how it was possible to conduct research on the tent, after it was ruined by search students".


Does anybody know how or why the tent would have punctured and burned holes?  I can understand the damage that was potentially caused by the search party, but curious how it got burnt?

November 02, 2020, 12:31:55 AM
Reply #57
Online

Teddy

Administrator
Can you point to me in whose testimony is mentioned that tent was burned?
There is nothing to it, the tent has been used in treks before
https://dyatlovpass.com/controversy#tentphotos

... and things have burned inside even on this trek...



... but I am always curious to witness a legend being born. Where in the testimonies or Churkina's test it says there are burn holes in the tent? And how big are these holes.
From Grigoriev's notebook 3:
"During the night, holes were added to the tent from the sparks. And in the sun they lit up like stars.
- We have become a whole planetarium, says Georgiy"


Keep in mind this is a very old tent carrying scars from many battles.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2020, 07:51:13 AM by Teddy »

November 02, 2020, 11:32:01 AM
Reply #58
Offline

WAB


"The tent was in terrible condition, with multiple tears, and cuts and in some places there were punctured and burned holes, and 2 large pieces of canvas were cut / torn out of its lateral part. It is impossible to imagine how it was possible to conduct research on the tent, after it was ruined by search students".

Please do not jump to conclusions about its real state, especially when the group was on its journey. This is somewhat exaggerated description after it was already found and further spoiled. It was not deliberately spoiled, but it happened to be so when you manipulated with it during its discovery and subsequent transportation.

Does anybody know how or why the tent would have punctured and burned holes?  I can understand the damage that was potentially caused by the search party, but curious how it got burnt?

About piercing holes.
1. This always happens when such tents are used with heating such stove. Many very small unburned coals always fly out of the pipe and some of them get on tent top. The result is lot of small (from 1 mm and less or ~ 0.04 in) holes in the area of the pipe and where the wind blows. With the design of the system "tent - stove", which was in the Dyatlov group it is not very large losses of heat and strength. Much more it suffers when lot of heat from the furnace constantly washes the top part. There, the fabric degrades. Such damages are not fatal in normal conditions. Usually such tents were used for 2 or 3 seasons (winter seasons), after which others were taken - new ones, for example, Dyatlov tent was used only 2 times (or 2 winter seasons in previous years) before. Its condition was reliable enough for this trip, but after it had to be changed, or used only in small travels not far from cities.
2. All information about large gaps is consistent with what was done with it at the time of detection and initial research. When Boris Slobtsov and Mikhail Sharavin found it, it was covered with small layer of snow, which was compacted. They did not have anything with them excavate her, so they took ice axe that was near the tent and started shovel the snow. The snow didn't have to be cut with great force, as some forum readers assume, but when shoveling the snow they hit the tent fabric with lot of snow on it, so they tore 2 large pieces, which then were lost during the transportation of the stick to the Ivdel city and beyond. The tent cuts were made by Dyatlov`s group members group and they are clearly visible in the picture https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-case-files-Churkina-photo-01-en.jpg  . It should be understood that the cuts marked with numbers “4” and “3” are the same cut, which went through the torn piece of fabric, which was lost. The rest of the cuts were small, and they were preliminary before they were made large. The other tent lacerations were the result of partially broken seams during transportation, with which this large tent was stitched their two smaller ones.
It would be big mistake think that Dyatlov's group went to trip with the kind of tent that they got after their deaths.

November 02, 2020, 11:35:25 AM
Reply #59
Offline

WAB


Can you point to me in whose testimony is mentioned that tent was burned?
There is nothing to it, the tent has been used in treks before
https://dyatlovpass.com/controversy#tentphotos

... and things have burned inside even on this trek...



... but I am always curious to witness a legend being born. Where in the testimonies or Churkina's test it says there are burn holes in the tent? And how big are these holes.
From Grigoriev's notebook 3:
"During the night, holes were added to the tent from the sparks. And in the sun they lit up like stars.
- We have become a whole planetarium, says Georgiy"


Keep in mind this is a very old tent carrying scars from many battles.

It is not quite so in the form fact. I wrote in the message above what they were like then on such journey. Although the fact that there were many old damages, it is true. It should only be noted that they were not critical from the beginning.
I will tell you about the way such cotton jackets are burned, that it would be clear why Rustem Slobodin is wearing such jacket.
Usually it happens this way: someone sits near a fire and a small corner flies away from it and gets on the fabric of the jacket. When he burns this fabric, the absorbent cotton that is inside starts to smolder. This process is completely invisible from the beginning, if someone did not accidentally see how the coal got. Gradually, the smell appears, but it is unclear where it comes from, because the initial hole from the coal is very small, and everything happens inside. Only the code will burn a lot (there are large external holes) people begin to understand what is happening, but the process of smouldering can not be stopped. You have pluck all the cotton that is smouldering. Usually this is impossible to do. There is a story, when the ships were carrying cotton and the bales of this cotton began smolden, the only way stop the process was throw overboard all the bales that were at least little smoldering. Otherwise, all the cotton that was on the ship will be burned.
I have a little example about my jacket:

 

I marked the place where the corner got and put white paper inside, so it would be clearly visible. When this corner got there, it was noticed very quickly, and we were able quickly pluck large piece of absorbent cotton until the decay spread over large area. That's why it was so good. This happened because the coal got on the front part, which is clearly visible.
If you noticed later, this jacket could look exactly like Slobodin. Probably, who was wearing that jacket that was worn on Slobodin was sitting back from the fire, so we could not understand for long time that the jacket was already smoldering. And if the burning area is large, it is already impossible to stop. That's why we get such big holes.