September 26, 2020, 01:28:04 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Tent - Cut From The Inside?  (Read 674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

April 20, 2020, 06:52:12 AM
Read 674 times

Ian Jones

Guest
The seamstress who said that the tent had been cut from the inside, may have had a knowledge of fabric, but maybe not hunting knives and how they are used.

The tent could have been cut from the outside. 

A hunter would not slash the tent, like he was wielding a machete, but would use a knife like he was skinning an animal, which involves inserting the point, then lifting up and away, with the edge upwards, which would give the impression that it was cut from the inside.

April 20, 2020, 08:42:42 AM
Reply #1
Online

Nigel Evans


The seamstress who said that the tent had been cut from the inside, may have had a knowledge of fabric, but maybe not hunting knives and how they are used.

The tent could have been cut from the outside. 

A hunter would not slash the tent, like he was wielding a machete, but would use a knife like he was skinning an animal, which involves inserting the point, then lifting up and away, with the edge upwards, which would give the impression that it was cut from the inside.
The analysis of the cuts was made by the government's scientific forensic laboratory in Sverdlovsk. So it's my assumption they knew how knives work.

April 20, 2020, 09:32:31 AM
Reply #2

Ian Jones

Guest
Don't make assumptions!


April 20, 2020, 09:51:19 AM
Reply #3
Offline

Tony


There is a report in the case files that, for the most part, details the cuts to the tent and why the investigator believed the cuts were made from the inside. basically, when the cuts were made a very small scrape was left just before the cut was made and just after the knife left the canvas. There were also marks found where the knife did not completely cut the canvas but, instead, left a scrape mark. However the cuts were made they left these marks and all of these marks were found on the inside of the tent.
"If there exists a fact which can only be thought of as sinister. A fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning, you will never be able to think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact."
- Josiah Thomson

April 20, 2020, 10:17:10 AM
Reply #4

Ian Jones

Guest

April 20, 2020, 11:11:40 AM
Reply #5
Online

Nigel Evans



April 20, 2020, 11:13:18 AM
Reply #6
Online

Nigel Evans


There is a report in the case files that, for the most part, details the cuts to the tent and why the investigator believed the cuts were made from the inside. basically, when the cuts were made a very small scrape was left just before the cut was made and just after the knife left the canvas. There were also marks found where the knife did not completely cut the canvas but, instead, left a scrape mark. However the cuts were made they left these marks and all of these marks were found on the inside of the tent.
@Ian - see like i said!  kewl1

April 20, 2020, 11:36:10 AM
Reply #7
Offline

Tony


Thank you Tony. 



No problem.

It is a little frustrating that the report done by Churkina seems incomplete as it doesn't account for all of the damage to the tent. It really only details 3 of the cuts (as well as damage done by a few additional tears). The drawing included also does a poor job of conveying the extent of the damage. It's hard to say why the report is so brief. Maybe, at the time the report was done, they really didn't suspect foul play or didn't suspect the tent played an important part in the events. Below is the official conclusion:

"In the camping tent of Dyatlov group on the right slant of the canopy forming the roof, three damages of approximately 32, 89, and 42 cm in length /conditionally numbered 1, 2, 3 / are made with some sharp weapon /knife/ i.e. are cuts.

All these cuts are done on the inside of the tent."
"If there exists a fact which can only be thought of as sinister. A fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning, you will never be able to think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact."
- Josiah Thomson

April 20, 2020, 02:30:05 PM
Reply #8
Offline

mishka


this is exactly what I mentioned in my explanation if you read or not, Topic: a personal version of the events of the year 1959 February,
if the tent was cut from the outside then all the theories are questioned , and if it is, then it is a staging, my question now, where is the tent for a new analysis
some told me the tent had been destroyed, true or false?

April 20, 2020, 04:18:59 PM
Reply #9
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The evidence in the case filed suggests the tent was cut in three places from inside.  The tent is also torn, and the tears intersect the cuts.  To me this indicates that it was cut first a d then the fabric was pulled to rear bigger holes.

Regards

Star mam

April 21, 2020, 03:33:08 AM
Reply #10
Online

Nigel Evans


I've never seen the issue of "cuts from inside or outside" as very important. We know two members were dressed for the conditions, so it's an easy step to assume they were outside. In the "noxious vapour theories" it's credible that the cuts were made as an attempt to ventilate the tent interior whilst seven sleepy (confused)  inmates got out. So it's a possibility that these cuts could have been made from the outside to assist, i.e. there were friendly. Inside or outside doesn't prove anything.

April 21, 2020, 06:00:04 AM
Reply #11

Ian Jones

Guest
I agree Nigel.  Inside, outside, it doesn't prove anything.

The cuts could have been made by assailants watching the departure of the Dyatlov group, whilst sheltering from the elements.  Especially if they intended staying a while, to ensure no one returned.






April 21, 2020, 07:24:39 AM
Reply #12
Offline

MDGross


Not only watching the hikers depart, but forcing them to do so. Then huddling in the tent waiting for the hikers to freeze to death.

April 21, 2020, 10:06:01 AM
Reply #13

Ian Jones

Guest
If this scenario is correct MD, it's probably why the hikers climbed the tree, looking to see if the coast was clear to return.
If this is correct, it's interesting to note that Zina got the furthest, proving that women are inherently more resilient than men, and it was possibly she, who turned over the body of Igor, hoping he was still alive?

April 21, 2020, 11:05:44 AM
Reply #14
Offline

Tony


this is exactly what I mentioned in my explanation if you read or not, Topic: a personal version of the events of the year 1959 February,
if the tent was cut from the outside then all the theories are questioned , and if it is, then it is a staging, my question now, where is the tent for a new analysis
some told me the tent had been destroyed, true or false?


Here is what the site says about the tent:

"Head of Sverdlovsk Forensic Science Laboratory K. P. Kretov kept the tent. After Kretov died in the 80s the tent was taken to the garbage container, apparently water pipe burst back in the late 70s and the tent collected mold. The storage policy for evidence as well as case files is that they can be destroyed 25 years after the case is closed. Thank god the prosecutor of the Sverdlovsk region Vladislav Ivanovich Tuykov decided the case files not to be destroyed as “socially significant”, but this did not apply to evidence. Some evidence were taken by relatives and later submitted to Dyatlov Foundation established in 1999, but not the tent. Tuykov is now passed away, lets hope the case files don't have same fate as the tent."

I don't think the tent was cut from the outside but, if it was, I think it is more the likely that foul play was involved.
"If there exists a fact which can only be thought of as sinister. A fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning, you will never be able to think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact."
- Josiah Thomson