Botched Investigation?

[SimplyMadness]

I was skimming through Dead Mountain by Donnie Eichar and I saw some things that struck me as baffling. First, upon finding the tent, the rescuers apparently hacked at it with ice picks to get inside.. talk about damaging evidence. I was left to wonder if the so called cuts from the inside that the hikers made, were really just damage the initial rescue party had made. They even drank the medical alcohol found in the flask in the tent... Now, I'm not sure if any of that is true, in fact, from the shoddy translations, conspiracy theories and flat out disinformation revolving around this incident, I'm not sure what to believe. But, if things like that are true and did happen, it's a glimpse into just how shoddy the quality of this investigation might have been. Then we have the lead investigator going off talking about glowing orbs and potential moon men being behind it all, no wonder Moscow had to reign him in.. the whole thing seems less and less like a conspiracy to cover up a dark secret and more like an attempt by the Soviet government to save face from an embarrassingly incompetent and fouled up investigation.. 

[Armide]

I'm a bit late to this discussion but you're right, the investigation was done extremely sloppily, but we need to keep in mind that the initial party that went out looking for them didn't expect to find a crime scene; it was a search and rescue operation, not a crime scene investigation. Most of the members of the search and rescue teams were very hopeful they would find their friends alive in an ice cave or a remote shelter somewhere perhaps. Also, the members of search and rescue team were fellow students, friends, family, and locals, not police officers or detectives. I think (and this is just my opinion) that any covering-up that the government might have done was totally independent from the initial botched crime scene. What I mean is that the initial crime scene was botched, yes, but that was because the rescue team was simply unaware of its nature and was simply incompetant for the job. Any covering up that may happened was probably done after, but I'm not sure.

[Loose}{Cannon]

I was skimming through Dead Mountain by Donnie Eichar and I saw some things that struck me as baffling. First, upon finding the tent, the rescuers apparently hacked at it with ice picks to get inside.. talk about damaging evidence. I was left to wonder if the so called cuts from the inside that the hikers made, were really just damage the initial rescue party had made. They even drank the medical alcohol found in the flask in the tent... Now, I'm not sure if any of that is true, in fact, from the shoddy translations, conspiracy theories and flat out disinformation revolving around this incident, I'm not sure what to believe. But, if things like that are true and did happen, it's a glimpse into just how shoddy the quality of this investigation might have been. Then we have the lead investigator going off talking about glowing orbs and potential moon men being behind it all, no wonder Moscow had to reign him in.. the whole thing seems less and less like a conspiracy to cover up a dark secret and more like an attempt by the Soviet government to save face from an embarrassingly incompetent and fouled up investigation..

Yup....  and the 'flap' was peeled back and covered with hard icy snow. So....  they chopped at the INSIDE because it was pealed back exposing the inside-out.

I particularly like the ones that are curved shape... like the shape of a shovel head.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Here they are after digging it out....  right before they put the contents on it, balled it up like santa, and drug it a few hundred yards to the helo-pad. 

[Armide]

Here's my question: how reliable is it to assume that it was cut from the inside? I can't seem to figure out how a cut from the inside would be different to a cut from the outside. Especially considering that the tent was frozen when it was hacked at by the rescue team's ice picks, which would've made the fabric more fragile and prone to ripping. Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that it was cut from the inside, but I can't seem to find any substantial evidence proving it- and the fact that the investigation was done so sloppily doesn't help. Did investigators look at the cuts under a microscope and write their findings somewhere?

[Loose}{Cannon]

A local seamstress determined the cuts were made from the inside.... You see my post on the case file documentation I posted? 

[Armide]

Hmm, I probably haven't seen it, no. That being said, a seamstress may know lots about the material, yes, but she isn't a forensic investigator. I just wish I knew a bit more about the way that the inspection of certain things (such as the tent) was carried out.

[Loose}{Cannon]

See my first reply in this thread

[xian06]

These caused a breaking apart rocket parts only 50 meters away from tent. This things shown in photos.

http://kepkezelo.com/images/e5p412q3djq3xuo75py0.jpg

[Loose}{Cannon]

I cant read any of that, but from what I see.....  A member of the team would have had a modern digital SLR camera in order to take rapid fire pics like that.  It also suggests the creator of this theory somehow knows the angle, location, and direction said photos were taken. 

Where are these photos?    Because if this is supposed to be in reference to the Sasha camera photos.....  They are negatives.  This means the white blotches are black when developed and the 'sky' would be white.   How does that happen in the middle of the night?   

[SimplyMadness]

I was skimming through Dead Mountain by Donnie Eichar and I saw some things that struck me as baffling. First, upon finding the tent, the rescuers apparently hacked at it with ice picks to get inside.. talk about damaging evidence. I was left to wonder if the so called cuts from the inside that the hikers made, were really just damage the initial rescue party had made. They even drank the medical alcohol found in the flask in the tent... Now, I'm not sure if any of that is true, in fact, from the shoddy translations, conspiracy theories and flat out disinformation revolving around this incident, I'm not sure what to believe. But, if things like that are true and did happen, it's a glimpse into just how shoddy the quality of this investigation might have been. Then we have the lead investigator going off talking about glowing orbs and potential moon men being behind it all, no wonder Moscow had to reign him in.. the whole thing seems less and less like a conspiracy to cover up a dark secret and more like an attempt by the Soviet government to save face from an embarrassingly incompetent and fouled up investigation..

Yup....  and the 'flap' was peeled back and covered with hard icy snow. So....  they chopped at the INSIDE because it was pealed back exposing the inside-out.

I particularly like the ones that are curved shape... like the shape of a shovel head.

Wow, so the portions of the tent that were supposedly "cut from the inside" were actually inside out when the rescuers cut into it? Why is that detail never mentioned by anybody? Literally everybody thinks that the entire crew basically cut out the sides of the tent and went strolling down the hill but that's obviously not the case. Seems like another red herring similar to Lyudmila's eyes being "missing".

[SimplyMadness]

Hmm, I probably haven't seen it, no. That being said, a seamstress may know lots about the material, yes, but she isn't a forensic investigator. I just wish I knew a bit more about the way that the inspection of certain things (such as the tent) was carried out.

According to Eicher's book, the seamstress was the first to point it out but it was also confirmed by an investigator as well.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Hmm, I probably haven't seen it, no. That being said, a seamstress may know lots about the material, yes, but she isn't a forensic investigator. I just wish I knew a bit more about the way that the inspection of certain things (such as the tent) was carried out.

According to Eicher's book, the seamstress was the first to point it out but it was also confirmed by an investigator as well.

According to Svetlana Oss' "Don't go there" the investigation of the tent was seriously flawed. Svetlana Oss quotes a modern forensic expert named Natalia Sakharova:

"In this particular case the examination was performed at a very low professional level. There is no general photo of the tent stretched out in the laboratory to be examined. The diagram of the damage does not fit the description of the inner and outer sides..." Further: "There is no description of general signs for the tears, the direction (or angle) of force applied (from inside or outside); no description of the initial point of impact (from which the cut or tearing started); no microscope photography to confirm the main point that the cuts were made from the inside."

- From Svetlana Oss: "Don't go there", page 157.

[sarapuk]

Hmm, I probably haven't seen it, no. That being said, a seamstress may know lots about the material, yes, but she isn't a forensic investigator. I just wish I knew a bit more about the way that the inspection of certain things (such as the tent) was carried out.

According to Eicher's book, the seamstress was the first to point it out but it was also confirmed by an investigator as well.

According to Svetlana Oss' "Don't go there" the investigation of the tent was seriously flawed. Svetlana Oss quotes a modern forensic expert named Natalia Sakharova:

"In this particular case the examination was performed at a very low professional level. There is no general photo of the tent stretched out in the laboratory to be examined. The diagram of the damage does not fit the description of the inner and outer sides..." Further: "There is no description of general signs for the tears, the direction (or angle) of force applied (from inside or outside); no description of the initial point of impact (from which the cut or tearing started); no microscope photography to confirm the main point that the cuts were made from the inside."

- From Svetlana Oss: "Don't go there", page 157.

Either BOTCHED or conveniently covered up. Also many modern day examples of Governments COVERING UP certain matters by making it looked like a BOTCHED investigation.