When the tent was found, how was the side with the cuts facing?

[Tony]

In relation to side without the cuts, where were the cuts found when searchers arrived?

For example: the cuts were found on the leeward side of the tent. When searchers arrived, was this side of the tent (leeward) found underneath the windward side as if the windward side of the tent had collapsed on top of the leeward side? Or, was the leeward side with the cuts found facing up with the windward side underneath the side with the cuts and the cuts exposed? Basically, how was the tent folded when it was discovered?

The only quote I can find on how the leeward and windward sides were found (in relation to each other) is from the interview with M. Sharavin in which he stated: "The cut was on the leeward side, and so it fell, as it were, on the holes..."

I understand this as the cuts were to the leeward side of the tent with the windward side found collapsed on top of the side with the cuts (leeward). Whether the cuts were facing up or down is not clear - only that the windward side was covering the side with the cuts. Is this right?

Are there any other quotes on how, exactly, the tent was found?

I ask this because, if the windward side of the tent was found collapsed on top of the leeward side with the cuts, it would point more towards the cuts being made while the tent was taut and not after it had already collapsed.

[Nigel Evans]

the famous photo of the tent shows the entrance end roughly symmetrical?

[Tony]

the famous photo of the tent shows the entrance end roughly symmetrical?

It does seem that the entrance is symmetrical but I'm wondering about the side with the cuts and whether the side without the cuts (side facing the slope) was folded over on top of the cuts. In the photo it also looks like the tent extends down the slope somewhat.

Also, it seems that the tent photo was taken on the 27th or 28th and not when they found it on the 26th (not completely sure about this). If so, this would mean that they would have already looked inside the tent. I went through all the witness reports but it doesn't seem like anyone described exactly how the tent was found.

Surprised that there is so little on this as, it would seem, this would be important for determining whether or not the tent was upright and standing when it was cut or, if the hikers cut their way out of a collapsed tent.

[Nigel Evans]

the famous photo of the tent shows the entrance end roughly symmetrical?

It does seem that the entrance is symmetrical but I'm wondering about the side with the cuts and whether the side without the cuts (side facing the slope) was folded over on top of the cuts. In the photo it also looks like the tent extends down the slope somewhat.

Also, it seems that the tent photo was taken on the 27th or 28th and not when they found it on the 26th (not completely sure about this). If so, this would mean that they would have already looked inside the tent. I went through all the witness reports but it doesn't seem like anyone described exactly how the tent was found.

Surprised that there is so little on this as, it would seem, this would be important for determining whether or not the tent was upright and standing when it was cut or, if the hikers cut their way out of a collapsed tent.

I can't see it mattering? Assuming there were lying down they would have cut their way out of the side next to their heads whatever? This was the leeward side of the tent as found. The first rescuers cut into the leeward apex with an ice axe if that helps.

[Tony]

I can't see it mattering? Assuming there were lying down they would have cut their way out of the side next to their heads whatever? This was the leeward side of the tent as found. The first rescuers cut into the leeward apex with an ice axe if that helps.

Yes, it was the leeward side of the tent that the cuts were found. But if the cuts were made while the tent was collapsed and they climbed out of the tent, the cuts would be facing up and the windward side of the tent would not be covering the cuts. When searchers arrived and cleared the snow, if the tent was cut after it had collapsed, they would have immediately seen these cuts.

If the cuts were made while the tent was taut and high winds blew the tent over on top of itself, the windward side of the tent (possibly) would have collapsed on top of the cuts. This would indicate that the hikers did not exit the tent while it was collapsed. This is the way, it seems, that Sharavin described the tent when found.

The windward side covering the side with the cuts rule out something like avalanche since it doesn't make sense that hikers would cut the tent, climb out, and then turn the windward side of the tent over on top of cuts they had just climbed out of.

[Nigel Evans]

The tent suffered damage (ripping) when being dragged to the helicopter so we don't know the extent of the tears?

[KFinn]

the famous photo of the tent shows the entrance end roughly symmetrical?

It does seem that the entrance is symmetrical but I'm wondering about the side with the cuts and whether the side without the cuts (side facing the slope) was folded over on top of the cuts. In the photo it also looks like the tent extends down the slope somewhat.

Also, it seems that the tent photo was taken on the 27th or 28th and not when they found it on the 26th (not completely sure about this). If so, this would mean that they would have already looked inside the tent. I went through all the witness reports but it doesn't seem like anyone described exactly how the tent was found.

Surprised that there is so little on this as, it would seem, this would be important for determining whether or not the tent was upright and standing when it was cut or, if the hikers cut their way out of a collapsed tent.

Sharavin, who was one of the guys that found the tent, was for some reason never interviewed by the investigation.  There are later interviews done with him that are posted here on the main website where he describes things but we do have to take into account that those interviews were decades after the incident.  I don't know why they never asked for him to give a witness statement and it didn't really seem like he knew why either.  He was injured and in the hospital later in April but Ivanov had plenty of time before that.  Another oddity in the long list...

[Nigel Evans]

the famous photo of the tent shows the entrance end roughly symmetrical?

It does seem that the entrance is symmetrical but I'm wondering about the side with the cuts and whether the side without the cuts (side facing the slope) was folded over on top of the cuts. In the photo it also looks like the tent extends down the slope somewhat.

Also, it seems that the tent photo was taken on the 27th or 28th and not when they found it on the 26th (not completely sure about this). If so, this would mean that they would have already looked inside the tent. I went through all the witness reports but it doesn't seem like anyone described exactly how the tent was found.

Surprised that there is so little on this as, it would seem, this would be important for determining whether or not the tent was upright and standing when it was cut or, if the hikers cut their way out of a collapsed tent.

Sharavin, who was one of the guys that found the tent, was for some reason never interviewed by the investigation.  There are later interviews done with him that are posted here on the main website where he describes things but we do have to take into account that those interviews were decades after the incident.  I don't know why they never asked for him to give a witness statement and it didn't really seem like he knew why either.  He was injured and in the hospital later in April but Ivanov had plenty of time before that.  Another oddity in the long list...

Ivanov was read the riot act sometime in march? So his interest in the case probably stopped at the same time.

[Tony]

the famous photo of the tent shows the entrance end roughly symmetrical?

It does seem that the entrance is symmetrical but I'm wondering about the side with the cuts and whether the side without the cuts (side facing the slope) was folded over on top of the cuts. In the photo it also looks like the tent extends down the slope somewhat.

Also, it seems that the tent photo was taken on the 27th or 28th and not when they found it on the 26th (not completely sure about this). If so, this would mean that they would have already looked inside the tent. I went through all the witness reports but it doesn't seem like anyone described exactly how the tent was found.

Surprised that there is so little on this as, it would seem, this would be important for determining whether or not the tent was upright and standing when it was cut or, if the hikers cut their way out of a collapsed tent.

Sharavin, who was one of the guys that found the tent, was for some reason never interviewed by the investigation.  There are later interviews done with him that are posted here on the main website where he describes things but we do have to take into account that those interviews were decades after the incident.  I don't know why they never asked for him to give a witness statement and it didn't really seem like he knew why either.  He was injured and in the hospital later in April but Ivanov had plenty of time before that.  Another oddity in the long list...

Yeah, it seems there are some things in his interview that differ some from the original witness statements.

[Tony]

The tent suffered damage (ripping) when being dragged to the helicopter so we don't know the extent of the tears?

True, I figured some of the damaged happened afterwards. I was hoping that there would be something that would identify how the tent was found. Seems like it would clear up a lot of theories that have the hikers cutting their way out of an already collapsed tent.

[KFinn]

the famous photo of the tent shows the entrance end roughly symmetrical?

It does seem that the entrance is symmetrical but I'm wondering about the side with the cuts and whether the side without the cuts (side facing the slope) was folded over on top of the cuts. In the photo it also looks like the tent extends down the slope somewhat.

Also, it seems that the tent photo was taken on the 27th or 28th and not when they found it on the 26th (not completely sure about this). If so, this would mean that they would have already looked inside the tent. I went through all the witness reports but it doesn't seem like anyone described exactly how the tent was found.

Surprised that there is so little on this as, it would seem, this would be important for determining whether or not the tent was upright and standing when it was cut or, if the hikers cut their way out of a collapsed tent.

Sharavin, who was one of the guys that found the tent, was for some reason never interviewed by the investigation.  There are later interviews done with him that are posted here on the main website where he describes things but we do have to take into account that those interviews were decades after the incident.  I don't know why they never asked for him to give a witness statement and it didn't really seem like he knew why either.  He was injured and in the hospital later in April but Ivanov had plenty of time before that.  Another oddity in the long list...

Ivanov was read the riot act sometime in march? So his interest in the case probably stopped at the same time.

Excellent point. 

[Manti]

Isn't it the case that both sides of the tent had holes? The windward side with Dyatlov's jacket in the hole. Not sure if it was a cut or a tear.


In any case is it even possible to cut the fabric when it's not taut? This is subjective but to me the cuts that were analysed by the forensic expert seem like they could only be made when taut. At the same time, I am not convinced the tent set up in an open area would have been very taut to begin with.

[Tony]

Isn't it the case that both sides of the tent had holes? The windward side with Dyatlov's jacket in the hole. Not sure if it was a cut or a tear.

True, but I figured they would probably go through the side where they made the cuts. It's possible that the hole(s) on the side facing the slope were smaller and then gradually became larger from wind.

In any case is it even possible to cut the fabric when it's not taut? This is subjective but to me the cuts that were analysed by the forensic expert seem like they could only be made when taut. At the same time, I am not convinced the tent set up in an open area would have been very taut to begin with.

This is exactly what I thought. It seems that if the tent had collapsed that they would have made a puncture and then tore the tent rather than cut it. I know that the tent had several tears but, according to the examination, it also had three large cuts. It seems very difficult to make large cuts in a tent that had collapsed.

[Nigel Evans]