New theory: tent failure!

[jarrfan]

The tent fail makes no sense. Even if there were holes in it, no human in their right mind would wander into a snowstorm without the proper gear on. If they had a tent fail, they would have stayed there and put their clothes on, even if the wind was whipping through the tent, which it was not because their gear and clothes, blankets were neatly folded. Sorry, but  I just don't buy tent fail as a reason to leave the tent completely unprepared. Not even taking a knife or ax that was near the tent. Doesn't add up to me....

[garybonds]

In a sudden tent fail scenario, one minute they were inside a tent somewhat protected from the elements and the next minute  they were in the middle of a 20-40 m/s snowstorm, at night, with very limited visibility (even with working lanterns or flashlighs). Remember that inside the tent there were nine people in a very small and cramped area with all nine trying to move in various levels of panic all at once. Once they were outside the tent it might have already partially collapsed with pieces of tent fabric flapping violently in very strong snow filled wind rapidly numbing exposed hands.

Even so, there's no proof that they all left without having retrieved something from the tent. The degree to which the dead were dressed varied a lot. Some of it maybe due to how they were already dressed when they for one reason or another left the tent, but it could also be that some successfully recovered pieces of clothing which they brought along.

The ski boots inside the tent were observed in a state of chaos. It might be that someone or some of the group tried to retrieve and wear ski boots but failed, due to cold and wind induced numbness, inability to find the ones that fit in the chaos, and/or the boots having frozen from perspiration and cold.

The opening which allowed access to the contents of the tent is unlikely to have accomodated more than one or two persons searching at a time, without causing further damage to the tent. Again reminding that this is taking place on the open mountain, in the dark, in a full snowstorm. If the group was in a state of chaos and "every man for himself" mindset it's not very hard to see a scenario where a couple of members try to provision a few things with more or less success for a while and then at some point a decision is made that they have to move - or freeze to death. A decision by consensus, or a decision by some members just starting to walk or run and others faced with the decision to follow or be left behind.

That's one scenario that is plausible after proper consideration of the level of strain & chaos of the situation they found themselves in, and the level to which they were already worn down by the preceding days. And factoring in what all of that does to the ability to apply proper judgement when faced with very hard life-or death choices that had to be made quickly.

Did anyone even realize then and there that wind cold and terrain would make it impossible to get back to the tent once they left? Apparently not, since three members tried and died at a later point.

So that's one plausible scenario that could have happened.

Another one is a minor variation of the following, which was suggested by Alexei Cheglakov in testimony:

The group of hikers could have frozen because of a hurricane that tore the tent and broke loose and they try to fix it, or even managed to do that before being blown by the wind and dragged in the ravine, where they lost orientation and couldn't get back to the tent and died from the cold.

 

Instead of the tent breaking lose from the ground, as Cheglakov suggested, the fabric of the tent failed and they came outside. Once they were outside one or more of them were forced down the slope by the wind and the others had to take a quick decision to go after, or not.

[jarrfan]

Something to research, for sure. I read over the Otzi man study and found no evidence that his brain and fluid expanded and cracked his skull. So I would have to rule out the theory that any skull injuries or any bone injuries could be attributed to fluid expansion. I also reviewed the study of a Mayan girl sacrificed and her body other than her head showed no signs of fractures by expansion.

The Dyatlov mission by Josh Gates and Teddy near the same conditions as the hikers showed abundant snow covering the rocks and a smooth top layer. Even though there are big rocks underneath, it does not appear they were pronounced enough during the winter to cause such injuries.

If the hikers were so disoriented and frostbitten as to stumble around and fall numerous times onto the snow, how could they have made it to the area of the den, built the den? The group by the cedar tree made a fire that apparently burned for at least 2 hours before going out. This does not speak to a blizzard wind so fierce as to disorient the group.


If the tent fail occurred, the hikers had to have left the tent from the tent entrance because the 3 small cuts they made were not torn by the wind. Only the 2 large cuts made in the  side of the tent, which were said to be done by Shavarin as he documented he cut through the tent to see what was inside? So the tent was intact upon his cutting it to see if anyone was in it. Are you saying Shavarin is not to be believed and we should dismiss anything he has said?

[garybonds]

I'm just about to hit the bed where I am so I'll just respond quickly on the last point, and make a longer post when I have time.

In the writeup on dyatlovpass.com in the drawing and observations attributed to a "Aleksey Rakitin" it says that Slobtzov (Slobtsov Boris Efimovich) made the damage with the ice pick. It is marked in that image 16.5 cm long. If that is true, then that damage is not consistent with the major damage in the middle of the tent on the picture i posted (the latter is from the forensic investigation).

However, the image attributed to "Aleksey Rakitin" is in my opinion not consistent with the established facts from the forensic investigation of the tent anyway. It refers to a multitude of large cuts, but the forensic investigation found only three cuts (cuts = caused by cutting the fabric with a sharp object). Everything else was tears, caused by ripping the fabric apart.

Slobtsovs testimony on finding the tent:

On February 26, 1959, we removed the snow from over the tent and made sure that there were no people inside, and we didn't touch the items that were in the tent. I was with student Sharavin. ... When on 26.2.59 I looked in the tent I saw the following: the tent itself was torn

This I interpret as Slobtsov is stating, in his official testimony, that they found the tent in a "torn" state (implying major damage, since he does not qualify it). I have not yet been able to pinpoint the origin for the suggestion that Sharavin caused substantial damage to the tent.

[jarrfan]

Okay, I found it on page 11 of Mikhail Sharavin's notes the condition of the tent and how much  damage was done. Whether it was with the ice ax and by the other member, it may very well have been, but see Sharavin's testimony.

[garybonds]

Jarrfan, could you link me to the notes? I looked for an official witness statement from Sharavin under "Case Files", but couldnt find anything from Sharavin there.

ETA: Is it this interview with Sharavin, that was made in 2007? https://dyatlovpass.com/sharavin-1?rbid=18461

[jarrfan]

Okay, it is on DyatlovPass.com the first interview on the main page, Mihail Sharavin, 2007-2008 on page 11 is where you will find the info I was speaking of.

[garybonds]

Ok thanks for the help, Jarrfan!

I will adress your thoughts from before about injuries in this post and then get back to the question of the damage to the tent in the next post.

The Dyatlov mission by Josh Gates and Teddy near the same conditions as the hikers showed abundant snow covering the rocks and a smooth top layer. Even though there are big rocks underneath, it does not appear they were pronounced enough during the winter to cause such injuries.

Let's start with Slobodin who was found between the tent and the cedar (on the mountain slope). His body was positioned in the direction of the tent, like the other two found in the slope. This has been interpreted as all three could have been trying to get back up to the tent from the cedar. There is no way of knowing for sure.

Establishing that each and every rock or stone between the tent and the cedar at the time of the incident were beneath a thick layer of snow is a tall order. One single rock (or one lose stone of sufficient size set in motion by a strong wind down a slope) is enough to crack one head. 

I don't know if you're interested in mountaineering, but if you are and have read a bit about it you'll know that cracking your head on rocks or getting your head cracked by loose stones arent exactly uncommon ways to die in the mountains. I'd say under Occams Razor if you come across a body with a cracked cranium in the mountains those are your usual suspects.

What I mean to say is that it really takes quite persuasive evidence to rule it out.

But that aside, as to the conditions in the slope at the time, here is a picture of the tent in the direction of the tree line which appears to show exposed ground with limited snow cover, and what does look a lot like rocks (although it is hard to know for sure just from the photo):



As to the injuries of the ravine four, they likely died by falling through a hole in the snow cover caused by a stream of water 4-5 meters below. This is a danger which any beginners guidebook about trekking in the wintertime will warn about. They were found face down in a stream, on rock, with fall injuries. When they fell, they dragged a bunch of snow along with them and on top of them, and then heavy snowfall buried them in more snow the following months, and that's how they were found.

If the hikers were so disoriented and frostbitten as to stumble around and fall numerous times onto the snow, how could they have made it to the area of the den, built the den? The group by the cedar tree made a fire that apparently burned for at least 2 hours before going out. This does not speak to a blizzard wind so fierce as to disorient the group.

The first thing to recall here is that the wind in the slope on the open mountain and the wind inside the forest below the tree-line are two completely different things. True in any mountain terrain, but also attested by a number of witnesses for this specific location. (By the Dyatlov group themselves in the diaries; by several of the rescuers at the time, and in later interviews; etc.)

So to say that the wind could not have been absolutely violent and punishing on the slope at the same time as it was possible to make a fire by the cedar tree does not make sense to me at all. They came below the tree line to the cedar tree to escape the wind. They built the fire on the side of the cedar tree that was further protected from the wind by the tree trunk.

As to what state of hypothermia and frostbite each person was in and when we have to look at each case individually and keep the timeline straight. The conventional understanding (although it's not clear to me if this is proven, or informed guesswork) is that all the members of the group exited the tent and came to the cedar at first.

The yuris seems to have succumbed to hypothermia there and it is often conjectured that they succumbed first, so presumably they were in worse shape earlier. Maybe they were the least well equipped; or maybe they exhausted themselves and got frostbitten working to build the fire and break off branches from the cedar. I believe their autopsies showed a lot of injuries that were consistent with being caused by trying to perform those activities with frostbitten hands. (I've also somewhere read some witness report that they found the trunk of the cedar smeared with the skin, flesh and blood of the deceased that they left there when they were working desperately to start the fire. I'm not sure how reliable that claim is though, I think it was made in an interview much later. But it wouldnt surprise me if it was true)

For the three found in the slope, if we accept the conjecture that they expired while trying to get back up to the tent, then they might have been in fair shape while at the cedar (all three were fairly well dressed). In fact, they may have been chosen or volonteered to attempt the tent exactly because they were in relatively better shape and better equipped.

But as soon as they started trying to travel back up to the tent they found themselves walking in rising terrain and face-first into the wind direction, instead of having it in the back. Needless to say if the condition is 30-40 degrees below zero celsius and wind speed 20-40 m/s with wind gusts above that, it was suicide. They could have started out fine and been severely frost bitten and afflicted with hypothermia after a couple of hundred meters. And even if they were not it's perfectly possible to slip on ice and hit your head on rock by accident just from the wind darkness and bad luck. This, the above, pertains to Slobodin and his cracked skull.

The ravine four: since they succumbed to an accidental fall through a hidden hole in the snow cover in a ravine, it is immaterial how worn down they were at that point or what the windspeed was at that location. But it's likely that the wind situation was much much better. After all, that's why they were further down the trees towards the river - to escape the wind. One possibility is that the ravine 4 successfully survived the night, maybe in a dug bivouac ("the den") and then in the morning they got up to venture either to the tent or to the labaz, but immediately slipped and fell through the hole. Then died from their fall injuries and hypothermia induced by the water of the stream they ended up in.

[garybonds]

As to the tent:

I read the Sharavin interview, and true enough, he states in no uncertain terms that the rescuers caused that big hole in the middle of the tent in order to peek inside the tent and see if there were any survivors.

My thoughts on this is the following. There's nothing obviously off or inconsistent about Sharavins narration about this in 2007; that is to say no obvious reason to believe he is lying, doesnt have the ring of untruth.

On the other hand Slobtsovs testimony under oath that "When on 26.2.59 I looked in the tent I saw the following: the tent itself was torn" implies a completely different scenario: that the tent was already badly damaged. But one could easily see how someone who had caused damage to objects of investigation might omit that fact, especially if they suspected that what they had done could render a punishment. This was the USSR after all.

The one thing that is a bit odd is that Sharavin also claims that they immediately saw that the tent was cut from the inside. What doesnt completely make sense to me is this: if we are to assume that nine people escaped the tent through those three confirmed knife cuts in the fabric, meaning that they were sufficiently big to enter and exit the tent through, and they were immediately observed by Slobtsov and Sharavin - why was there a need for more holes to look inside the tent? Couldnt Sharavin or whomever just have looked inside those holes that were already there and apparently big enough for people to climb in and out through?

There's also the factor that Sharavin is speaking on the subject in 2007, 50 years after it happened. Witness testimony is inherently unreliable, and moreso with time. In terms of incentives, in 2007 when Sharavin is speaking there is an established Dyatlov Pass Mystery economy (meaning that there is money and attention in it). I dont really wish to give the impression of accusing Sharavin of lying in pursuit of money or attention any more than I wish to accuse Slobstov of lying by omission in 1957 to cover his own and Sharavins ass.

I think that the big picture is that these things should have been conclusively and firmly established by the original investigation. The scene of the tent should have been kept uncontaminated and documented in a way that left no room for ambiguities. But I conclude that it didnt happen that way.

The directives to the forensic examination of the tent were also written in a way where the objective was narrowly to identify the "cuts" and then try to establish from where the cuts were made (from inside the tent or from the outside). At that point they were entertaining an attack or sabotage scenario, maybe by Mansi, so that was their only focus apparently. Investigating the "tears" and establishing causes for the tears doesnt seem to have been done. As soon as something was confirmed as a tear and not a cut it seems to have thereafter been ignored. Then the tent itself was lost so further examination is not possible.

So it is in summary, in my view, not possible in 2019 to either support or reject the tent-failure scenario as a whole from what is known about the tent. Sharavins recollections if accepted do speak against the specific scenario that I proposed in my first post (with the caveat that they are the statements of one person, 50 years later, and not established by the investigation at the time).

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

As to the injuries of the ravine four, they likely died by falling through a hole in the snow cover caused by a stream of water 4-5 meters below. This is a danger which any beginners guidebook about trekking in the wintertime will warn about. They were found face down in a stream, on rock, with fall injuries. When they fell, they dragged a bunch of snow along with them and on top of them, and then heavy snowfall buried them in more snow the following months, and that's how they were found.

The trouble with that assumption is, their injuries are not consistent with what can be expected from a fall. The chest injuries of Zolotaryov and Dubinina were caused by something very different. In addition, there was no such high precipice in the area that could likely cause the death of four people.

We need to look at the injuries and ask ourselves whether these were likely caused by the series of accidents that the local investigators were evidently instructed by Moscow to conclude with. We need to take a long and hard look at all the injuries, and ask ourselves whether this tragedy was due to a series of accidents. For example, what could have caused Doroshenko and Krivonischenko to desperately try to climb a tree and destroy their frostbitten hands? It could not have been an attempt of collecting firewood, because firewood was available  in the area. Something scared them so extremely that they disregarded pain and injury, and used their last strength to try to enter the tree. This was no accident. Nor was any of the other deaths due to accidents.

The fact that this happened in a wilderness area should not prevent us from analyzing the injuries with an open mind. It is a shame that only Zolotaryov's skeleton has been exhumed. The Russian authorities will not permit a reopening of the case, and they forced the conclusion that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was due to a series of accidents and alleged mistakes made by Igor Dyatlov. One investigator, Ivanov, many years later used Aesopian language to convey the message of what he knew had happened: He used the expression "overwhelming force." Then we ask: What force may be alluded to, when some in the Soviet Union used the expression "overwhelming force"? It is not the forces of the elements.

As for the tent, there is a general agreement that the cuts in the tent are inconclusive. The theory that the nine hikers cut their own tent and for some reason fled through these cuts is entirely unfounded. The Mansi people ostensibly came under suspicion, but it is very probable that the initial suspicion and the following conclusion that the Dyatlov group had cut their own tent was a subtle warning to the Mansi. The Mansi were present in the area, and little that happened there would escape their attention. Even if they in all probability were not responsible for the death of the nine students, The Mansi would would know what had happened and be acutely aware of who were responsible for the Dyatlov Pass tragedy. By letting the Mansi off the hook, the Mansi seem to have been given the message that "we let you off the hook now, but be warned that if you ever tell anyone what you have observed you will not be so lucky next time."

[garybonds]

Hi / Hej Per Inge,

Vozrozhdenny specifically mentions "fall" as one possible cause for their injuries in the autopsies of both Zolotaryov and Dubinina (read the conclusions at the bottom). So you're wrong about that, at least if we're basing our conclusions on the autopsy reports...

Maybe the local investigators were indeed feeding us some faerytale dictated from moscow but everything we know about the injuries derive from the written material of those same local investigators. So if they cannot be trusted on anything then we cannot know anything at all, nor speculate about anything. Not me and not you.

It's not really established if Doroshenko or Krivonischenko climbed the tree as far as I know. It is suggested by some witnesses and observers, but it is conjecture and guesses from what is an actual fact: that there were broken branches high up above the ground (4-5 meters?).

No one can know for sure if the Yuris were the ones who broke them. Or if it was another member of the Dyatlov group. Or if it was someone completely different, like the Mansi, years earlier.

What is pretty well established is that the Dyatlov group used branches from the cedar for their fire and that they likely broke them off the cedar tree because all the branches close to the ground were broken off.

That they were aware of more suitable (for their purpose in the predicament they were in) & more readily available firewood in the immediate vicinity is as far as I know not in evidence. Maybe you know more than me in this area and if so I'd be glad to hear more about it.

The Russian authorities will not permit a reopening of the case, and they forced the conclusion that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was due to a series of accidents and alleged mistakes made by Igor Dyatlov.

The Russian authorities notwithstanding, Igor Dyatlov (or the group; or however they took decisions in the last few days) made a number of very unfortunate and dangerous mistakes. This is self-evident if one looks at the known facts:

• Already on the 30th they were tired and were making slow progress
• On the 31st they got started late and were turned back at the pass because they could not handle the low temperatures and bad weather. They were so exhausted that they neglected to build a proper cache as planned and instead dug a hole in the ground and dumped their backup supplies there. This testifies to what shape they were in: bad.
• On the 1st or 2nd (unclear what is the correct date of the incident) they made a new attempt at the pass. Their photographs suggests that the weather was very bad. The fact that they once again failed to traverse the pass further supports that the weather was very bad. Available metereological data from the area further supports it. This was the time to turn back, make camp below the treeline and wait out better weather, or give up and go home.

But they didnt. Instead they made camp up on the mountain, to not lose the ground they made, or any more time. Maybe Dyatlov or the group was concerned about keeping their approved time plan. Maybe they were concerned about failing.

Either way, this, the decision they clearly made to press on and put themselves in an a position where they were exposed to the elements when they were already worn down is a very common and commonly lethal mistake in the wilderness. It's nothing "alledged" about it because it is obvious to anyone who knows a little bit about staying alive in such an environment.

I agree 100% that few clear conclusions can be drawn from the what is known about the tent. But reading the forensics analysis of it, I thought the investigation and its conclusions seemed solid: there were three cuts and those cuts were made from the inside. This was based on the kind of damage to the threads (lesions through orthogonal threads were identified as cuts; there were scratches and punctures on the inside in the close vicinity of those cuts that suggested that they were failed attempts to make the cuts). No, the problem with the investigation was that it was way to narrow in scope and therefore important questions went unanswered.

Any theory that is based on an attack by outsiders has to explain the fact that there were no traces of any attackers. Not leaving traces behind in snow is very very hard. This can of course be solved by claiming that there were traces but that "someone" surpressed and got rid of them. But if that is true - that we're dealing with a conspiracy so powerful that it can erase footsteps from snow and completely clean up a 2 sq kilometer crime scene of every trace of a 10 man hit squad - then we cannot trust anything at all that is claimed about the incident, and it is pointless to discuss anything or subscribe to any theory. Any and every nominal fact would be suspect.

[garybonds]

Returning to the question of whether there were rocks. I found these pictures that confirms that there was very rocky terrain in places. Exactly how these areas are situated related to the tent and the cedar I cant speak to..

[jarrfan]

I agree, it looks very rocky. I refer to the tape of Josh Gates and Teddy at the scene and there appears to be more snow...

[jarrfan]

The two Yuri's pieces of skin were found on the cedar tree. The pattern of injury on their hands matched the tree bark where the pieces of skin were found. I can offer that as proof they climbed the tree. Other than that, it is speculation as are all of the theories.

[jarrfan]

Regarding the big rocks shown on the pictures, I have to question how the hikers even got there skiing if the entire area were covered in big rocks poking through the snow? Just wondering...

[garybonds]

Maybe they took off their skis and walked over the rocky sections? Maybe they could find a snow covered path through the rocks?

In the daytime when they first made the traverse the conditions were quite different, for one thing there was light. Travelling in mountainous terrain in the wilderness I'm sure they had to navigate various types of obstacles in the wilderness frequently. It's another thing to have to do it in desperation in a snowstorm in pitch black darkness at night with hypothermia and frostbite.

Or maybe the most rocky sections in the photos were not along the path between the tent and the cedar at all. We havent really established that. But what has been established in my opinion is that there were plenty of uncovered rocks around in the area, so there is no reason to assume without proof that Slobodin could not have cracked his skull by hitting a rock. And in fact the conclusion of his autopsy is that his head crack is likely to have been caused by falling and hitting a rock (or ice):

The fracture of the left frontal lobe bone could have occurred during a fall by Slobodin or the impact of the head on a hard object such as rocks, ice, etc. A blunt object caused the above-mentioned trauma. When this happened it would have caused Slobodin to become stunned and allowed for his rapid freezing. The absence of explicit bleeding under the meninges allows for the assumption that Slobodin’s death came as a result of his freezing.

ETA: I watched Expedition Unknown S08E04 and towards the end as they are making the trekk up the slope to the tent location, while there is plenty of thick snow cover, you can clearly see many spots of exposed terrain in the background, as they are walking. Interesting show, I'll make sure to watch E05 too when I have time. I think the real story so far is how incredibly respectful they are of the environment and the cold and how aware they are that any small mistake could be lethal in that kind of an environment. As I've tried to argue, it's pretty well documented that the Dyatlov group made all the mistakes that gets a person killed in the wilderness.

[lucid-nonsense]

The tent fail makes no sense. Even if there were holes in it, no human in their right mind would wander into a snowstorm without the proper gear on. If they had a tent fail, they would have stayed there and put their clothes on, even if the wind was whipping through the tent, which it was not because their gear and clothes, blankets were neatly folded. Sorry, but  I just don't buy tent fail as a reason to leave the tent completely unprepared. Not even taking a knife or ax that was near the tent. Doesn't add up to me....

My theory isn't that they left on purpose. It's that they cut the tent to let snow out, but this weakened the tent and caused the fabric to tear (basically tears joining the cuts to make one big hole). The snow then all spilled through this big hole and swept the occupants along. So they didn't leave of their own accord. They were swept out of it.

Also the blankets weren’t neatly folded. They were in a frozen ball in a corner. And there were items strewn downhill of the tent.

As to the tent:

I read the Sharavin interview, and true enough, he states in no uncertain terms that the rescuers caused that big hole in the middle of the tent in order to peek inside the tent and see if there were any survivors.

The one thing that is a bit odd is that Sharavin also claims that they immediately saw that the tent was cut from the inside. What doesnt completely make sense to me is this: if we are to assume that nine people escaped the tent through those three confirmed knife cuts in the fabric, meaning that they were sufficiently big to enter and exit the tent through, and they were immediately observed by Slobtsov and Sharavin - why was there a need for more holes to look inside the tent? Couldnt Sharavin or whomever just have looked inside those holes that were already there and apparently big enough for people to climb in and out through?

Yeah, that makes no sense? Did the rescuers make the cuts, or were they made from the inside? Can't be both.

I’m with you in thinking that human memory is a notoriously faillible faculty, and it’s not very strange that he would get some details wrong 50 years later.

As to the injuries of the ravine four, they likely died by falling through a hole in the snow cover caused by a stream of water 4-5 meters below. This is a danger which any beginners guidebook about trekking in the wintertime will warn about. They were found face down in a stream, on rock, with fall injuries. When they fell, they dragged a bunch of snow along with them and on top of them, and then heavy snowfall buried them in more snow the following months, and that's how they were found.

The trouble with that assumption is, their injuries are not consistent with what can be expected from a fall. The chest injuries of Zolotaryov and Dubinina were caused by something very different.

What makes you say that? Their injuries are perfectly consistent with a high-speed collision (in this case, with the ground).

In addition, there was no such high precipice in the area that could likely cause the death of four people.

They're the Ravine Four. Because they were at the bottom of a ravine.

Any theory that is based on an attack by outsiders has to explain the fact that there were no traces of any attackers. Not leaving traces behind in snow is very very hard. This can of course be solved by claiming that there were traces but that "someone" surpressed and got rid of them. But if that is true - that we're dealing with a conspiracy so powerful that it can erase footsteps from snow and completely clean up a 2 sq kilometer crime scene of every trace of a 10 man hit squad - then we cannot trust anything at all that is claimed about the incident, and it is pointless to discuss anything or subscribe to any theory. Any and every nominal fact would be suspect.

Also why would the tent be in such a state? Why would there be tears joining all the cuts? Someone ordered them to cut the tent to exit, then made them tear up the fabric to join the tent? Why would there be tears on the upslope side?

Why would there be items strewn downhill of the tent?

[jarrfan]

Regarding the tent tears: If you look at Act 199 Forensic expect on the tent, you can see the 3 smaller tears in clear detail. No one could have gotten through these holes. The tears that were created from those original tears happened because the tent was left for weeks in the wind before it was found. Shavrin clearly says the items in the tent were "neat" folded blankets. The items strewn down the slope were between the cedar tree on the path to the ravine dropped by freezing hikers after they had gone to the cedar tree and found the 2 Yuri's dead, so they took their clothes and probably dropped something on the way because their hands and arms were freezing. It may have only been one person in an effort to bring more clothing for those planning to use the den.

The other fact is that they made this den for 4 persons but they were not found frozen there, but in the ravine. The den was already set up, so why did they venture toward the ravine, especially with the den set with wood already?

When the tent was found, there was not a hole big enough in it for someone to pass through. The big hole was made by the searchers to look into the tent. Shavrin also said he thought the tent door was tied shut. So if they left the tent by the door, that means they tied it shut after they all were out.

All is puzzling and there are no clear answers.