Tent Cutting new information

[jarrfan]

I was able to view the close up pictures of the tent cuts made from the inside of the tent. These pictures were available on a FB page of Dyatlov Pass discussing the Mansi. On close examination, the cuts included a seam. So the cut is from a middle one-fabric thick area through a seamed area, 2-3 fabric thick area and onto the other side.

This info is puzzing because as a seamstress for many years I am confused as to why someone would cut through the seam to make a hole to peek through to see what is outside? But for some reason that is how they did it. 1) it would be harder cutting through the seam and weaken the fabric around it so it might tear easier. 2) The cuts verify for me personally that there was no "huge wind" that scared the hikers. Because if there were a big storm, after they made those cuts, the tent would have ripped to pieces in a storm. And we know that the big cuts were made by Sharavin and his partner when the tent was discovered.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Search team ice axe and shovel.   

[jarrfan]

Sorry, Loose Canon, I don't follow what you are trying to tell me?

Regards, Jarrfan

[Marchesk]

Sorry, Loose Canon, I don't follow what you are trying to tell me?

He's suggesting that because the search and investigative teams hacked the tent up and drug it across the ground to the chopper, we have no reason to have confidence in the determination that they cut their way out of the tent. The tent was in pretty bad shape by the time they reassembled it back in town. Do the photos you've seen make it obvious those were cuts with a knife from the inside?

[Star man]

I was able to view the close up pictures of the tent cuts made from the inside of the tent. These pictures were available on a FB page of Dyatlov Pass discussing the Mansi. On close examination, the cuts included a seam. So the cut is from a middle one-fabric thick area through a seamed area, 2-3 fabric thick area and onto the other side.

This info is puzzing because as a seamstress for many years I am confused as to why someone would cut through the seam to make a hole to peek through to see what is outside? But for some reason that is how they did it. 1) it would be harder cutting through the seam and weaken the fabric around it so it might tear easier. 2) The cuts verify for me personally that there was no "huge wind" that scared the hikers. Because if there were a big storm, after they made those cuts, the tent would have ripped to pieces in a storm. And we know that the big cuts were made by Sharavin and his partner when the tent was discovered.

Interesting observation.  Cutting through the seam would take a bit more effort and time probably - as you say.  If they made the effort to cut through the seam and didn’t make the cut big enough to escape through then I think it is a fair assumption that the cut was not intended as a means of escape.  If it was then they would have extended the cut to finish it.  So what was the cut made for?

Regards

Star man

[jarrfan]

Dear Starman: That is the question... To cut through a seam, which it shows close up on the info sheet ACT 199, Forensic expertise on the tent, it is clear a seam was cut through with a knife. The cuts 1, 2 and 3 are through seams and the ones that were made by the Dyatlov hikers from inside the tent. There is tearing from the cuts, but the 2 big cuts were done with the ax by the search team. It is very peculiar that anyone inside a tent  would  choose to cut through a seam like that in order to make a slit to peek through, because it would weaken the tent (as it did by the tearing near it). It is almost as if there was a fight inside the tent and the slashes were made by someone slashing a knife at another person and missing. Even then, the knife would probably catch when it came to the seam and not go through without more force, unless it was of surgical sharpness. Also shown are knife brushes or scrapes that did not go through the fabric but show up on examination. Just another aspect to the peculiarity of the Dyatlov mystery.

[Star man]

Just wondering then what sort of an action would be required to cut the fabric of the tent with a knife?  Would it be:

a swift swipe and continuous slice?
Would it require a sawing motion back and forth?
Would you need to push the point of the knife into the fabric until it becomes taught and then continue to push to penetrate the fabric?  Then cut along?

How would you cut through a seam?

How long would it take to cut through the standard tent fabric?
How long would it take to cut through a seam?

I would imagine the sharpness of the blade is important but there will probably be a range from very sharp to average (note that I doubt that their blades would not be at least reasonably sharp).  Temperature of the fabric may be relevant too.

Could the fabric of the tent be replicated and tested in terms of the type of material, thickness and weave?

Thoughts on this are welcome.  Expert knowledge would be even better.

Regards

Star man

[jarrfan]

Starman: As far as slashing through a seam, I cannot believe it could be sliced without catching on the seam and having to more rigorously saw to get through the seam. Only an extremely sharp surgical knife/blade could cut through a seam of 2-3 stitched together cloth on top of each other with stitching on both sides as in the picture. This is why I am questioning it, as even in a hurry to cut to see what is out there, the area that was cut would have made it cumbersome and weakened the strength of the remaining tent. When you add in the knife marks shown on the tent that did not penetrate, it appears as if someone was striking out at someone in the tent or at something in the tent. But then, they all left by the door? Very strange finding.

[Star man]

Thanks for your views on this.  It is quite interesting.  Especially a combination of scratches that would imply a lashing out or swiping action combined with cuts that would take a determined sawing action.

Well if I were a professional investigator then I would certainly want more detailed analysis information on this.  Unfortunately I’m not and don’t have the resources at my disposal to do such an investigation.

I agree it is possible that there was some kind of confrontation in or around the tent.

Possible explanations?

1. There was something outside the tent and deliberate holes were cut to both look and to strike out through the tent with a knife?

2. There was some kind of fight in the tent between the hikers? (Unlikely IMO because it would not explain deliberately cutting through the seam.?

3. Their behaviour became irrational for some reason - drugs, poisoning, alcohol etc.

Obviously this is not an exhaustive list.

I would go with option 1 as my favourite because it would explain both the deliberate cuts, the scratches and the subsequent logical survival actions of the group suggests their behaviour was not irrational.

Regards

Star man

[Nigel Evans]

I think if you study this - https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search#the-tent
and note the length of the cuts which are commonly say 25 cm in length then it becomes clear that these holes are not punctures from fighting but peep holes and there are just over nine in number.... One for each member of the group.... Wild stabs from fighting would not result in holes of similar length in only one side of the tent all at head height.

They were looking at something.

[jarrfan]

Nigel Evans: I don't know what to make of the tent cuts. I don't believe slashing by anyone inside the tent would be successful especially through the thick seams. It is a puzzle as to why they chose to cut through the seams. They would have had to saw through the seam unless the knife was surgically sharp. Regardless, this is a very puzzling way to put a peek hole in a tent, especially if the hikers were expecting the tent to continue to house them for the remainder of their trip. The cuts are best seen in Act 199 forensic expert on the tent. However they were made, they were made by a person or persons who were not thinking properly...or could not see, either so dark or they were blinded....

[Marchesk]

However they were made, they were made by a person or persons who were not thinking properly...

Or someone wanting to destroy the tent as a viable shelter.

[Nigel Evans]

Nigel Evans: I don't know what to make of the tent cuts. I don't believe slashing by anyone inside the tent would be successful especially through the thick seams. It is a puzzle as to why they chose to cut through the seams. They would have had to saw through the seam unless the knife was surgically sharp. Regardless, this is a very puzzling way to put a peek hole in a tent, especially if the hikers were expecting the tent to continue to house them for the remainder of their trip. The cuts are best seen in Act 199 forensic expert on the tent. However they were made, they were made by a person or persons who were not thinking properly...or could not see, either so dark or they were blinded....

Hi there, I don't see a problem with sawing through seams, imo it's a small question. Why make the cuts at all is the big question. Also repairing the tent was a frequent task, from memory the diaries mention complaining about having to do it (again). So they were well equipped for repairs. I think they were thinking properly, but it's an interesting question why not share holes? Why one each? But the positioning of the holes strongly suggests that they were viewing something.

[Star man]

Just reading through the thread and comments it seems that there is more information that could be teased out from these cuts if the proper analysis is carried out.  It could be important to understanding why they left the tent.

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

I would like to throw something else into the mix:  dyatlov's jacket supposedly stuffed into a hole in the tent.

Why was it there?  Why would there be a need to cut holes and also to stuff a jacket into another?  I know that there is no time stamp on these events so that does need to be taken into account.

How and why the cuts were made could be considered in isolation. - but then the hole with the jacket needs to be understood also.  Together it might provide further insight.

Regards

Star man

[jarrfan]

Starman: I just read the section about Dyatlov's jacket stuffed in a hole. On search-tent, it indicates, "the side of the tent facing uphill is not photographed. We know there was at least one hole and we know Dyatlov's jacket was found tucked into it." The far right end of the tent is left out of the photos." So none of the holes discussed claim to be the one with the jacket stuffed in, so it may have been on the other side. The cuts that were made from the inside were all at the eye level. The diagram showed no inside cuts from lower areas in the tent.

Also, as far as the strikes on the fabric showing a clear swipe, there is no knowledge if that happened during the Dyatlov trip or before.

[Star man]

Starman: I just read the section about Dyatlov's jacket stuffed in a hole. On search-tent, it indicates, "the side of the tent facing uphill is not photographed. We know there was at least one hole and we know Dyatlov's jacket was found tucked into it." The far right end of the tent is left out of the photos." So none of the holes discussed claim to be the one with the jacket stuffed in, so it may have been on the other side. The cuts that were made from the inside were all at the eye level. The diagram showed no inside cuts from lower areas in the tent.

Also, as far as the strikes on the fabric showing a clear swipe, there is no knowledge if that happened during the Dyatlov trip or before.

Hi Jarrfan.  Yes the hole with the jacket in was not one of the holes were there is forensic evidence that suggests the holes were cut from inside  It was a different hole in the tent from what I understand? 

Agree that the knife scratches could have been made another time, but equally if not more likely could have been made at the same time.

I think the first thing to establish are what do we actually know?  What are the facts? 

As far as I know there were only three cuts reported as possibly being made from the inside.  They were all on the downside of the slope.  89cm curved cut 2/3 from the bottom, that was 45 degrees turning to near horizontal or vice versa.  31 cm cut about half way from the bottom that stars then changes angle by about 30 to 45 degrees.  42cm cut half way from bottom, mainly horizontal and is bordered by two large holes.  Then there is another hole with a jacket stuffed into it ( as far as the witness statement say). 

What else do we know:  the three cuts go through seams which would make them quite difficult cuts to make?

Can we confirm as fact the type of cutting action required to make each of the three cuts?  What about an estimate of the time each cut would take?

Regards

Star man

[jarrfan]

Dear Starman: The only thing I can confirm is that there was not snow at the level where these cuts were made so snowed in does not fit into the category. Whoever cut the 3 places was not a seamstress or cared whether the cut could be repaired easily. It would have taken a little more time to cut through the seam sawing as opposed to striking the tent wall and slashing. It may have been 3 individual people, not just one making the cuts. So I would say they were in extreme distress while in the tent and whatever was outside needed 3 sets of eyes to grasp what the danger was, or one person cut 3 places trying to get a better look at what was outside their tent. I will leave it at that....

[Star man]

Dear Starman: The only thing I can confirm is that there was not snow at the level where these cuts were made so snowed in does not fit into the category. Whoever cut the 3 places was not a seamstress or cared whether the cut could be repaired easily. It would have taken a little more time to cut through the seam sawing as opposed to striking the tent wall and slashing. It may have been 3 individual people, not just one making the cuts. So I would say they were in extreme distress while in the tent and whatever was outside needed 3 sets of eyes to grasp what the danger was, or one person cut 3 places trying to get a better look at what was outside their tent. I will leave it at that....

Why do you think there was no snow covering the tent where the cuts were made?  Is this because you think they cut the holes to peek outside?

Also, how can we be sure that the cuts were made to look outside the tent?

Cutting the tent would seem to indicate a desperate action yes irrespective of their purpose, (assuming the hikers were not drugged or poisoned with some kind of hallucinogenic substance).  But if they were made  to see outside then would there not be more cuts around the tent and on the other side? 

Regards

Star man

[jarrfan]

Dear Starman: If they made 1 cut at one spot and they hit snow, I don't know why they would  continue to make 2 more weakening the tent. If they were snowed in, trying to get out of the door opening would have been the easiest way to determine that rather than cutting the tent. if the tent were burdened with snow, it would be bulging on  top of the hikers. So that makes no sense.

I have to believe the cuts were made to look outside and see what or who they heard in the area. As far as cuts on the other side, if  they heard the noise on the one side, they would  cut there. The tent back was toward the dome of the mountain. Whoever or  whatever was out there came from the front area or tree area. Of course that is my opinion.

[Star man]

Dear Starman: If they made 1 cut at one spot and they hit snow, I don't know why they would  continue to make 2 more weakening the tent. If they were snowed in, trying to get out of the door opening would have been the easiest way to determine that rather than cutting the tent. if the tent were burdened with snow, it would be bulging on  top of the hikers. So that makes no sense.

I have to believe the cuts were made to look outside and see what or who they heard in the area. As far as cuts on the other side, if  they heard the noise on the one side, they would  cut there. The tent back was toward the dome of the mountain. Whoever or  whatever was out there came from the front area or tree area. Of course that is my opinion.

It does kind of make sense.  Most of the cuts were too small to escape through.  Only the 89cm hole was large enough to escape the tent.  So why else would they cut the other two smaller holes.  Cutting them to look out does make more sense.  Also cutting those holes would not be a decision that was taken lightly.  They would only do that if they were very scared and felt their lives were already at risk.  But what sort of risk/danger would you cut holes in your tent/life boat just so you could look to see outside ?  Animal or Human?

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

Just some further thoughts on the cuts and their purpose.  Why cut a hole 89cm long just to use as a viewing point?  Seems quite big if it was for that purpose.

Regards
Star man

[jarrfan]

I have sewn all of my life including professional costumes and heavy fabric. It would take more cutting/sawing time but depending on the sharpness of the knife, also if the tent was frozen, that may have a factor, but for me, the fact that they cut through the seams is a very odd way to cut an area for peeking. It tells me whoever made the cuts was not thinking about having to repair those spots or how much damage they would cause from the wind, which is witnessed by the tearing occurring after. The weight in the seam in the middle would make it flap with the weight bearing on the middle which would cause further tearing, which it did. Yes, I think an 89 cm hole  to view out of would be too big, unless they needed the hole bigger because they could not see what they needed to see from that position. That may be why 2 more holes were made in different areas, 3 different search holes until the last one told them what was going on outside the tent.

[Star man]

Jarrfan, I think it is useful to have someone with your knowledge about the fabrics and the cuts.  It's interesting that you imply that whatever the cuts were for, whoever made them was not thinking about the long term maintainance and repair of the tent.  It does sound like that they must have been in or thought they were in real danger.

Is there a possibility that the wind created some strange sounds outside the tent.  And that as well as these strange possibly scary sounds there was also infrasound which drove one or more of the hikers to near madness and they then started to cut the tent to look -  thinking there was something outside that was going to kill them?  By the time the others realised what was going on it was too late and the tent had been damaged and could not be repaired in time to make the tent survivable?  Personally I struggle with this because I think they would have at least recovered their boots and warmer clothing before setting off.  Thus makes me think that the threat was real rather than sound induced?

Regards

Star man

[jarrfan]

With Dyatlov, all is possible. They could have just looked out the right side of the tent where the door was, but whatever it was, they wanted to remain safely in the tent and assess the situation thru the slits. As far as a sound, there could have been, I am not sure about a infrared sound making them crazy. From what I have studied, they would not have left the tent unless they were in imminent danger or forced to leave. I think the tent could have been repaired well enough to continue to support their safety. The subsequent tears were from winds after they had left the tent. It appears three of the group tried to get back to the tent. If it was torn to shreds why would they? They left the tent because something or someone caused them to panic and leave the security and face possible death. That is the only thing I consider a definite in this case.

[Monika]

I would like to clarify this question:

In which hole was the Dyatlov's jacket? Was it hung at the entrance to the tent? Or tucked in a hole on the side of the tent?
I do not understand why the searchers did not photograph it ?

If it was hung above the entrance, it would be logical. The entrance to the tent was only buttoned (not zipped) and the jacket would prevent heat leakage.

[Star man]

With Dyatlov, all is possible. They could have just looked out the right side of the tent where the door was, but whatever it was, they wanted to remain safely in the tent and assess the situation thru the slits. As far as a sound, there could have been, I am not sure about a infrared sound making them crazy. From what I have studied, they would not have left the tent unless they were in imminent danger or forced to leave. I think the tent could have been repaired well enough to continue to support their safety. The subsequent tears were from winds after they had left the tent. It appears three of the group tried to get back to the tent. If it was torn to shreds why would they? They left the tent because something or someone caused them to panic and leave the security and face possible death. That is the only thing I consider a definite in this case.

Jarrfan, what you say makes sense.  It sounds like a more likely and logical explanation.

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

I would like to clarify this question:

In which hole was the Dyatlov's jacket? Was it hung at the entrance to the tent? Or tucked in a hole on the side of the tent?
I do not understand why the searchers did not photograph it ?

If it was hung above the entrance, it would be logical. The entrance to the tent was only buttoned (not zipped) and the jacket would prevent heat leakage.

Good question.  There does seem to be some contradiction on where the jacket was. 

Regards

Star man

[UCFseeker]

Jarrfan’s observations are very interesting, especially with regards to the cut through the seam. Even with an extremely sharp blade, and even if the canvas was stiffened due to freezing, it would still take more effort to cut through that seam than would be required to pull the entire tent in the direction of the cut. It had to have been done with care, not with haste. But if as someone else pointed out the tent was dragged along the ground by on site investigators, the already cut holes could have snagged on rocks, roots etc. and widened as a result. So, the measurements of any given hole might not reflect their original size. It’s all just another example of the bewildering details that makes this mystery so captivating and so frustrating. We know so much but in the end it confirms so little.

Is it clear from any of the photos or accounts which side of the tent the cuts were found on? The side facing up the slope? To one side?

[jarrfan]

From my reading the cuts in the tent could be determined and were extended by ripping in the wind. But a trained seamstress could tell where the cuts started and ended and that is how it was determined. Until I looked at autopsy of the tent, it really is strange.
.

As far as the tent being drug over rocks and etc. that is true but the 2 big cuts in the front with the hiker cuts were all on the front of the tent.. There was a hole waiting to be mended and that was the one stuffed with Dyatlov's jacket and we believe it was on the back side of the tent. Very strange to me.

Jarrfan