Dyatlov Pass Forum

Theories Discussion => Murdered => Topic started by: SteveCalley on February 26, 2018, 03:24:11 PM

Title: Murder Indead
Post by: SteveCalley on February 26, 2018, 03:24:11 PM
 excuseme
Title: Re: Murder Indeed
Post by: Armide on March 07, 2018, 12:35:17 PM
I think I can answer part of this! I know for a fact that the authorities were not looking for survivors at this point, but for bodies. The initial search was meant to be a search and rescue operation (hence the contaminating of the crime scene), whilst the search for the 'Last Four' was a matter of locating the corpses (and any evidence they were thought to bear). I remember reading that as a method of corpse detection (is that what it's called?) they had resorted to attaching meat hooks to wooden poles so as to stab into the snow and see what came up. I don't remember how successful this was. I read in Matveyeva's book though that the unfortunate parents of the 'Last Four' still kept a glimmer of hope that they had escape and were alive in a settlement somewhere in the Urals, although still unaccounted for. Honestly though, I think they knew they were long gone, but that they still had some hope that their child was alive somewhere :(

As for the police who had no real connection to the students, I think they thought that there was some kind of foul play at hand after they found the first bodies. I believe they were much more careful in dealing with the crime scene the second time around, and that in it itself seems to show that the authorities knew that they were dealing with some external influence on the case rather than deaths caused purely by weather conditions alone. As for whether they were suspects of murder, I can't help but think that the thought of the 'Last Four' being involved with the deaths of their comrades must've crossed their minds. As far as I know though, not many (official) police reports or documents have been released to date– or at least have been translated to English. EDIT: Let's not forget that the 'Last Four' had been missing for not days, but months at this point. Considering that missing persons cases are statistically less likely to be resolved after the 48h window in an urban setting, imagine what that would have been like for the Dyatlov group. I highly doubt that whatever police forces involved thought that they had managed to escape at all, perhaps the fact that they were aware that they had all died lowered the morale of the search group? I don't know. I can't speak on behalf of foul play coming from within the government, though.

It is still perfectly possible that someone in the police force was aware of what had happened. That being said, if we're going full Soviet-spy novel theory and we assume it was the work of any type of secret service, I don't know how much simple investigators would have known about the case. High-ranking officials– maybe, but not the men sent out for corpse detection.
Title: Re: Murder Indeed
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on March 12, 2018, 09:18:27 AM
I read in one of the russian articles where the reporter was interviewing one of the search teams leaders, and he stated how he found Dubinina with an avalanche probe/pole fitted with a specific attachment for bringing up flesh on the end.  Subsequently thats how they located the Rav4. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Marchesk on May 04, 2018, 01:09:07 AM
Murder would explain leaving the tent, an orderly march to the tree line, and remaining there instead of returning earlier. It could also explain the injuries.

However, murder theories suffer from four problems.

1. There is no evidence that anyone else was on that mountain that fateful night. It's speculation that there could have been others.

2. They were off course in the middle of nowhere. How would someone else know where they were?

3. It was a long way from anyone else. The closest Mansi village was 60 miles. The closest hiking group was 30 or more miles, and so on.

4. Their supplies were left alone. Mansi, hikers, escaped prisoners and the like would most likely take their money, alcohol, skis and anything else valuable or useful. It is the middle of winter in Siberia, not a Walmart parking lot. As for special forces, why not just disappear all the evidence instead of risking an investigation?

That the tent contents were undisturbed is evidence against outside human involvement.

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on May 04, 2018, 05:23:45 AM
Murder would explain leaving the tent, an orderly march to the tree line, and remaining there instead of returning earlier. It could also explain the injuries.

However, murder theories suffer from four problems.

1. There is no evidence that anyone else was on that mountain that fateful night. It's speculation that there could have been others.

2. They were off course in the middle of nowhere. How would someone else know where they were?

3. It was a long way from anyone else. The closest Mansi village was 60 miles. The closest hiking group was 30 or more miles, and so on.

4. Their supplies were left alone. Mansi, hikers, escaped prisoners and the like would most likely take their money, alcohol, skis and anything else valuable or useful. It is the middle of winter in Siberia, not a Walmart parking lot. As for special forces, why not just disappear all the evidence instead of risking an investigation?

That the tent contents were undisturbed is evidence against outside human involvement.


These are all important questions and it is good that we address them one by one.

1. Here we have several factors. It is a sad fact that the first people who came to the site, first assumed that the nine students were still alive and only had problems. Therefore the tent and the immediate area around the tent was not thought of as a crime scene. For this reason, evidence has likely been destroyed. The important factor here is that the Dyatlov group evidently died on the evening of February 1, but several weeks passed before a search was made. The tent was only found on February 26, that is almost a month after. Thus tracks made by the attackers would have disappeared in that time, especially since the attackers would likely have used skis. Most ski tracks made by the narrow sports skies used by the trekkers were erased, and tracks from wider mountain skies used by both local people and trained special forces would most likely be completely erased because wide mountain skies does not sink so deeply into the snow.

An absence of tracks from the attacking group is therefore not evidence that there was not an attack.

The conclusion that the Dyatlov pass incident was a crime can nevertheless be drawn with reason. The fact that they had gone far away from the tent in the cold and without proper clothing or gloves, is proof that some mortal danger forced them out of the tent. Careful consideration of the forensic evidence from the bodies and their injuries shows that their injuries can only have been caused by an attack by other humans.

2. When the Dyatlov group set out, they had made no secret of the fact that they planned to go to the Otorten peak. Thus their intent was known. There are two possibilities if they were indeed murdered - which every piece of evidence indicates they were.

- Possibility A: The Dyatlov group was killed as a result of a decision which was made already when they declared that they wanted to go to an area where they would observe something they were not supposed to see or know about.

- Possibility B: The decision to kill the Dyatlov group was made when they had entered an area where someone did not want them to be.

Until someone speaks out, or some irrefutable evidence is found, it cannot be determined whether possibility A) or B) corresponds to the fact. But the Dyatlov group had announced where they wanted to go. This means that if there was some activity or some places in the area at or around Kholat Syakhl which the nine hikers were not allowed to witness or visit the arrival of the Dyatlov group was known by those who might have wanted to prevent the presence of other people at all cost.

3. It is seriously mistaken that the camp was 60 kilometers from everyone else. It has been proven that the Mansi were in the area. In addition, they were active very close to the camp:

http://dyatlovpass.com/controversy

Mansi chum

"A Mansi chum (definition) was observed North-East from where Dyatlov group pitched their tent on the night of January 30. A trail leading to the chum was passing 200 feet from where they camped."

So it is misinformation to say that there were no other people in the area. The Mansi were present in the very area where the nine trekkers chose to camp.

Svetlana Oss in her book "Don't go there" also refers to this chom or choom. A member of the first rescue team testifies to the Mansi presence in the immediate area. On page 169 Svetlana Oss refers the testimony:

"One of the rescue team, then a cadet Khamsa Sinyukaev, recalls about tribal people coming out of the woods into the open near the slope as helicopters flew by. These were not those to take part in the rescue operation but others, who Khamsa called "the Khanty" or "the Mansi." According to Sinyukaev, they would quickly come on their reindeer to trade golden sand and valuable furs for food, vodka and bullets from the pilots. Therefore, the tribal people were in the area and it didn't take them long to show up at any moment."

Does this prove that the Mansi were responsible? No, by no means. It only proves that the Mansi were in the area.

It is very important that to remember that we must never accuse anyone of having committed murder without incontrovertible proof. It is a good principle that one must be considered innocent until proven guilty, and it has not been proven who were responsible for the death of the nine hikers at Kholat Syakhl. The Russian forensic expert Natalia Sakharova, who has worked for 25 years with crime investigation, is convinced that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was murder and that the murderers were professionals.

- To state who the killers were, is speculative until backed up with very precise evidence of the identity of the attackers.

- To state that the nine students were indeed murdered, is completely reasonable given the evidence we have.

4. The supplies of the Dyatlov group were left alone. This is fully understandable, and it shows that the attackers were not interested in robbery. The fact that nothing was taken from the tent, means that the reason for the attack had to to with the Dyatlov group's presence in the area and nothing else: The nine young and innocent students were killed because they had entered an area where they were not supposed to be, either because someone were afraid that they might observe something which they were not allowed to know about or because they had entered an area where outsiders were forbidden to go. Both are possible, but we cannot know the motive behind the decision to kill the Dyatlov group. However, we can still judge the evidence - which strongly suggests that this was not an accident.

Lastly, it is reasonable to ask why the nine were not simply shot or just "disappeared." It is tempting to conclude that a cold decision to kill them would mean a quick, efficient kill. But forensic history tells us that things are not so simple. Criminal history, both the history of ordinary crime and state killings, tells us that "accidents," "suicides," "heart attacks" and other seemingly normal or accidental deaths are regularly used by determined killers who want to conceal the fact of murder and make a homicide appear to be a perfectly normal death. The Dyatlov pass incident may more than likely have been such a case. To steal the belongings of the nine hikers would reveal that it was murder, as would wounds from knives or bullets.

It is reasonable to assume that those who attacked the nine hikers forced them out of the tent because they judged that their victims would soon perish in the cold winter night.

Then there are the cuts in their tent. Much has been made of the cuts in the tent, but it is not documented who made the cuts. Moreover, all the knives belonging to the nine students were found in the tents - and these knives were all in their sheaths. The first investigators concluded that the students cut their way out from the tent, but there is absolutely nothing that proves that it happened that way.

When the young and durable students did not die quickly from the cold, the attackers decided that more forceful action was needed to accomplish their mission. Thus they went to physical attack, while they were careful not to leave knife or bullet wounds. The last four who were found had the most severe injuries: Kolevatov, Zolotaryov, Dubinina and Thibeaux-Brignolle were much better dressed than the others. For this reason, they might have survived for days and the attackers could not risk that - they wanted to ensure that all were dead and that they could not leave any messages about what happened. So these last four were killed with greater force, and the autopsy reports also confirm that these suffered the worst injuries. The first five who were found were much less well dressed, and so less force was necessary to dispatch them since the cold completed the mission. Igor Dyatlov had marks on both ankles, with visible abrasions, with hemorrhage into the underlying tissue. This suggests that the leader of the group had been tied, and these marks are one of many injuries that strengthen the conclusion of murder.

What we do not know, is who were responsible for the deaths of nine young people at Kholat Syakhl or what their precise motive was. But we do the relatives and friends of the deceased a major disservice if we deny the obvious reality that it was a cold-blooded murder resulting from a resourceful and determined attack.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 04, 2018, 01:09:43 PM
Opinions are great and I would encourage any and all to have them.  However, alot of what I just read above is pure conjecture presented as if it were fact.  Im not seeing key words such as 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'could have', 'possibly' etc which leads me to believe you are 'married' to the theory.

Lets not make this a place of 'your wrongs' and 'Im rights'.    I would suggest you create a detailed analysis thread that lays out your entire theory in a slightly less authoritative fashion to be considered by the community.   thumb1

Remember, one investigator says murder while the lead investigator says ball lightening.  Neither hold more weight then the other as far as I can see. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on May 04, 2018, 03:57:59 PM
Opinions are great and I would encourage any and all to have them.  However, alot of what I just read above is pure conjecture presented as if it were fact.  Im not seeing key words such as 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'could have', 'possibly' etc which leads me to believe you are 'married' to the theory.

Lets not make this a place of 'your wrongs' and 'Im rights'.    I would suggest you create a detailed analysis thread that lays out your entire theory in a slightly less authoritative fashion to be considered by the community.   thumb1

Remember, one investigator says murder while the lead investigator says ball lightening.  Neither hold more weight then the other as far as I can see.


Nothing can be considered a fact until incontrovertibly proven, so it must necessarily remain conjecture until then. So it is.

Still, it may be salutary to bear in mind that we do have evidence. The difficulty is that every piece of evidence is open to interpretation - that is why we have all the often conflicting theories in the absence of definite proof or a confession from someone who knows and is willing to finally talk. Even if the theories are largely conflicting, they all have their proponents.

Admittedly, the very act of analyzing a situation is likely to create opposition from other viewpoints. And then the stalemate continues. We have to admit that the question of what happened on February 1, 1959 has not yet been completely answered even if many books have been written by authors wherein each author claims to have found the answer.

Perhaps we can agree that there is a major watershed:

Between the theories that start from the premise that there was no attack and that the Dyatlov group died as a result of non-criminal but unfortunate circumstances, and on the other hand the theories that start from the premise that the death of the nine students was not an accident but caused by other humans.

It may be proposed that since dead persons do not lie and cannot lie, it is wise to start with the bodies. We might take a cold and detached look at the autopsy reports and ask ourselves:

"If we try our best to analyze all the available forensic evidence and above all the injuries, individually and in the highly significant context of virtually all the members of the Dyatlov group having received various kinds of bodily damage, what do we interpret as more likely - a series of unfortunate coincidences and tragic accidents or that we are dealing with a well-planned murder by unknown but resourceful perpetrators who must have calculated that it served their interests to make the killing look like an accident in the snow?"

Still, any attempt at answering will still be - yes, conjecture - until there is definite proof. There is no way around that. The best we can do is to analyze the evidence and hope that proof will eventually be produced.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Vietnamka on May 05, 2018, 10:33:38 AM
Hi!
Quote
.There is no evidence that anyone else was on that mountain that fateful night. It's speculation that there could have been others.
Even Maslennikov (who leaded the search in the beginning) supposed "somebody could come from the top. Hands up. Go out one by one". He noticed in his diary (part 2).
 Absence of footprints is not confirmation of absence of anyone else. No footprints around the tent even we know Dyatlov's group were there.

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: WAB on May 06, 2018, 12:36:27 PM
Hi!
Quote
.There is no evidence that anyone else was on that mountain that fateful night. It's speculation that there could have been others.
Even Maslennikov (who leaded the search in the beginning) supposed "somebody could come from the top. Hands up. Go out one by one". He noticed in his diary (part 2).
 Absence of footprints is not confirmation of absence of anyone else. No footprints around the tent even we know Dyatlov's group were there.

Hi, Galina, what for tiresomely to think out it? Maslennikov is better than others knew about inaccessibility of this place. How villains and murderers there could come? You can try to reach there. I offered it to you already. In the winter it is especially difficult. It is necessary to be able live some days without calling in the warm house. Very few people is capable of it. Especially it was at that time so.

Absence of traces in general can confirm or deny nothing. However they have found Dyatlov team`s traces, and extraneous traces have not found.
It does not speak about that that there was who that still. More likely all back.
It is impossible to prove absence. It is possible to prove presence only. Whether there is what that the facts confirming presence of extraneous (villains)? If they are not present, means it is not necessary to think out them.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Vietnamka on May 06, 2018, 08:48:58 PM
Hi, Vladimir Alekseevich! grin1
I just talking about that Maslinnikov wrote in his diary, didn't he?  wink1
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: WAB on May 07, 2018, 04:16:33 AM
I just talking about that Maslinnikov wrote in his diary, didn't he? 

I think we should not be engaged in interpretations of another's texts (and, especially, thoughts), and available possibilities and knowledge to come nearer to true. It means to confirm that that truth and to specify that does not concern it.
Maslennikov could write any reasons and doubts in this diary, but it does not mean that all of them represent the facts.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on May 09, 2018, 01:50:15 PM
I just talking about that Maslinnikov wrote in his diary, didn't he? 

I think we should not be engaged in interpretations of another's texts (and, especially, thoughts), and available possibilities and knowledge to come nearer to true. It means to confirm that that truth and to specify that does not concern it.
Maslennikov could write any reasons and doubts in this diary, but it does not mean that all of them represent the facts.


Masiennikov wrote this in his diary:

"somebody could come from the top. Hands up. Go out one by one".

He did not present his observation as a fact, he simply indicated that it was fully possible given the terrain and the environment.

I see no problems with his sensible statement about a possibility.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 09, 2018, 03:11:04 PM
Quote
"somebody could come from the top. Hands up. Go out one by one".

He did not present his observation as a fact, he simply indicated that it was fully possible given the terrain and the environment.

I see no problems with his sensible statement about a possibility.

But....  how they cut their way out of the tent with their hands up?    Or was coming out of the tent like a bunch of jack-the-rippers at gun point what did them in? 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on May 09, 2018, 03:43:55 PM
But....  how they cut their way out of the tent with their hands up?    Or was coming out of the tent like a bunch of jack-the-rippers at gun point what did them in?


The thing is that we do not know that they cut their way out of the tent. That was an old assumption: If the tent was cut from the inside, the people who died must have done it. But how can we take that for granted? We do not know whether if the hikers were those who cut the tent, and finally we do not know whether or not the nine left the tent through the cuts.

If anything, the more reasonable assumption is that the students did actually not cut the tent. In fact, no knives were found except for the knives which were found in the tent - and those knives were all still in their sheaths. None of the nine who died, were found with knives.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 09, 2018, 06:45:12 PM
I knew there was 'something' we can agree on.    grin1
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Vietnamka on May 10, 2018, 01:25:27 AM
It's a interesting question about knifes.
Ivanov wrote: RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE CASE
Quote
Near the bodies , Krivonischenko's knife was found

Not only tent has been cut. The decking consisted of 15 cut treetops. But Tempalov didn't mention about this knife in the Protocol inspection bodies detection space neither students  aware of it.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on May 10, 2018, 04:02:14 AM
It's a interesting question about knifes.
Ivanov wrote: RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE CASE
Quote
Near the bodies , Krivonischenko's knife was found

Not only tent has been cut. The decking consisted of 15 cut treetops. But Tempalov didn't mention about this knife in the Protocol inspection bodies detection space neither students  aware of it.


The knives are very interesting.

At this stage, Lev Ivanov had received orders from his superiors to close the case with the conclusion that it had all been an accident. In the final statement when Ivanov declared the case closed, he mentioned Krivonischenko's knife and stated that it had been found in the ravine together with the four last victims.

But that was not the case.

No knives were ever found outside of the tent. It is certain that if any knife had been found, Tempalov would have mentioned it.

Moreover: Krivonischenko's knife was found in the pocket of his windbreaker, which never left the tent.

So everything indicates that Lev Ivanov was under severe pressure to close the case at all cost, and that he had to falsely state that a knife had been found with the bodies even if he knew it was untrue. That was necessary, in order to construct the erroneous conclusion that no other people had been in the area and that the tragic deaths had all been accidents.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Vietnamka on May 10, 2018, 04:20:04 AM
Igor Dyatlov had the
Quote
In the area of the palm surface of the second and fifth fingers there is a skin wound of irregular linear shape with regular edges located transverse to the length of the fingers
It looks as a sharp-force wound. Did he grabb a knife in self-defense?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 10, 2018, 05:45:05 AM
Yuri had a knife and Igor has a knife wound to the hand?

Interesting.   I remember the knife part, but never associated Igors hand wound to possibly being cut by a knife. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on May 10, 2018, 06:56:58 AM
Yuri had a knife and Igor has a knife wound to the hand?


Yuri Krivonischenko's knife was in the tent, and it was in its sheath.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 10, 2018, 07:10:04 AM
must...  have.... more.... coffee!

Ok, who had a knife outside of the tent?     
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 10, 2018, 07:11:35 AM
It's a interesting question about knifes.
Ivanov wrote: RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE CASE
Quote
Near the bodies , Krivonischenko's knife was found

Not only tent has been cut. The decking consisted of 15 cut treetops. But Tempalov didn't mention about this knife in the Protocol inspection bodies detection space neither students  aware of it.


See where the confusion is?

Is it possible Yuri had more then one knife?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Vietnamka on May 10, 2018, 11:52:30 AM
I'm pretty sure zolotarev had his own knife as a person passed through the 11 WW and tourist instructor. He must.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: CalzagheChick on May 11, 2018, 01:54:18 PM

But....  how they cut their way out of the tent with their hands up?    Or was coming out of the tent like a bunch of jack-the-rippers at gun point what did them in?

 lol1 lol1 lol1 lol1 lol1 lol2 lol2 lol2 lol2 lol2 clap1 clap1 clap1 clap1 clap1 Dude, you crack me up with some of the things you come up with in response...

I now have the clear picture in my head of a bunch of kids bursting through a tent like a bunch of Jack-the-Rippers
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 11, 2018, 05:45:32 PM
Bwahahahahahahahahaha.........

you love it.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Blkdahlia on August 14, 2018, 01:52:45 PM
It's a interesting question about knifes.
Ivanov wrote: RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE CASE
Quote
Near the bodies , Krivonischenko's knife was found

Not only tent has been cut. The decking consisted of 15 cut treetops. But Tempalov didn't mention about this knife in the Protocol inspection bodies detection space neither students  aware of it.


The knives are very interesting.

At this stage, Lev Ivanov had received orders from his superiors to close the case with the conclusion that it had all been an accident. In the final statement when Ivanov declared the case closed, he mentioned Krivonischenko's knife and stated that it had been found in the ravine together with the four last victims.

But that was not the case.

No knives were ever found outside of the tent. It is certain that if any knife had been found, Tempalov would have mentioned it.

Moreover: Krivonischenko's knife was found in the pocket of his windbreaker, which never left the tent.

So everything indicates that Lev Ivanov was under severe pressure to close the case at all cost, and that he had to falsely state that a knife had been found with the bodies even if he knew it was untrue. That was necessary, in order to construct the erroneous conclusion that no other people had been in the area and that the tragic deaths had all been accidents.

Autopsy of Slobodin noted he had a knife FYI
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Morski on August 16, 2018, 02:24:13 PM
If we go for the "must be a murder" theory, few of the main questions I see reasonable are:
1. Who is responsible for that brutal act?
2. What was the motive?
3. Where was/were the murderer/s?
4. What happened to their own traces?
5. Who is pulling the strings of the investigation and why the participants of the search/investigation had to sign a 25 year prohibition to disclose information.

1. If other human beings are responsible for the Dyatlov Pass incident, which is not easy to prove, and not easy to reject, they should have been aware of the plan. Since Dyatlov didn`t leave any exact coordinates (except that they are heading towards Otorten), and since he changed the route/plan (and arguably had some sort of confrontation? with Zolotoryov, who could have been the second in command), it is highly unlikely to me, that there was someone waiting for them just there. No way for anyone outside the group itself after their departure, to know where they were going. But it all resulted in 9 fatalities, so whoever took care of them, must have been determined to do it. At all costs.
 
2. For what reason... We can only speculate. Just think about it - what can be the motivation to kill nine people, most of them so young (even Zolotoryov was in a great age - 37), healthy, educated people? Robbery is ruled out. Vendetta is a classic, but in those circumstances… I would say probably not. I find it hardly possible that they all did something terrible during their lifetime to deserve it. Or may be only some of them did. I imply the speculation, that one or some of them were actually agent/s or at least were involved in something regarding that speculation. Of course, you cannot waste only one or just few of them, therefore – all of them. Basically the same goes for the idea, that they entered an area, where they were not wanted, so the crime was not based on previous actions of a group member/s, but just because they were at the wrong place, in the wrong time. Both ways, that brings us to the question:

3.   Where was/were the murderers? Since it sounds irrelevant that someone was already waiting for them near Kholat Syakhl, the only reasonable possibility I see, is that someone (or a group of people more likely) was stalking and following them since the beginning of their trip. But we are talking about days of walking/skiing, sharing the same weather condition, physical and mental effort, difficulties etc. With the extra load of trying to be invisible as well as being close to the group so you can chose the right time to do the job. Sounds like too much effort to me. Unless you have some sort of a serious mental issue or a very damn good reason to do it.

4.   And what is more interesting, another group of people (even one person) still leaves traces. Yes, an experienced person could hide his traces and could stage the whole crime scene. But since we are talking about a large group of 9 people, well trained to endure and some of them physically well shaped, one of them with a whole World War in his CV, I would go for more than one assassins. Which means a lot more traces to delete on one hand, but less time to stage the scene on the other. If someone murdered the Dyatlov group, we are talking about a specially trained, well equipped assassins, who, with no regret and for a good reason committed a scandalous crime. And how about the Mansi? If they were not involved in the whole happening, is there a chance that they were able to notice the two groups of people? I mean, they live in the area, so it is a good chance that some of them (hunters or no) did. I am not sure whether the investigation was focused on any possible testimony or whether the Mansi were even asked for cooperation, or if they were – to what extent.


5.   Why was the signing of 25 years non-disclosure required and why was the access to the region prohibited for several years after the incident? That is a relevant question, if we go for the murderer theory. Of course, it always provokes speculations, that Dyatlov group was indeed assassinated and whatever the reason was, it implied certain time to pass, without anyone being able to go back there. I would say that is possible in favor of a total cleanup of any possible clues or evidence. Who has the capacity to secure that? Inside job? It is like common sense to ask. Meanwhile, we can argue if someone was really interested in doing what is possible to end the case as fast as possible, causing as less as possible transparency and publicity (failed, as far as I see), bury the bodies as well as getting rid of substantial evidence. I would be extremely surprised, if the tent for example, or all personal belongings, clothes and other stuff were given to the families, or if they are still present to this day at all.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on August 22, 2018, 05:45:26 PM
 Loose}{Cannon hits the nail on the head on this one. Definitely a case of over speculation on this murder subject.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: CalzagheChick on August 28, 2018, 03:29:45 PM
Loose}{Cannon hits the nail on the head on this one. Definitely a case of over speculation on this murder subject.

Again, a matter of opinion. Per and all others have held their ground in this discussion quite remarkably and although not everybody agrees with marriage to the murder theory as strongly as Per, his thoughts are highly respected and carry a ton of weight for Camp Murder. His points are concise, supported by existing evidence, and have the added luxury of being possible or probable.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on August 28, 2018, 04:43:39 PM
Hey,  could still be murder in my opinion.  I just HIGHLY doubt they came outta that tent slashing and dicing if there were assailants awaiting or giving the orders.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Martin Glaubitz on September 21, 2018, 02:44:39 PM
Hello there. Thank you for this great site and forum to discuss.

I have an idea about "murder by accident" - if it fits into this thread:

Coming back to the Mansi. Going through the photos and diaries they become more and more present as the hikers proceed. Definitely they were in their "hunting grounds". How do they hunt? Do they make noise, light, etc. to push the game forward? Were the campers then just scared, jumped out of the tent and ran into a big trap that the Mansi made for big animals? Finally, after all were dead, the Mansi realized, it was not game for what they were after this day. They did not touch their belongings to suggest no evidence somebody else was there, disassembled the trap, cleaned the scene and left. There was no intention to murder, but **** happened.

The authorities later came behind it, but decided to keep quiet to avoid uproar against the Mansi as they were convinced they were not guilty?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on September 26, 2018, 11:50:42 AM
Same as with 'The Whodunnit'.

A criminal investigation begins by establishing if a crime has actually been committed.

[[ The decision that a crime
has occurred, and the determination of what information will be collected
in order to make that decision, are normally police functions:
The police must make important judgments about what conduct
is in fact criminal ]]

In other words its extremely difficult for us modern day investigators of the 'Dyatlov Mystery' to try and establish if a crime has actually been committed, with no hard evidence [ except what has been reported already ] and events that happened about 60 years ago.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on October 14, 2018, 04:02:08 PM
And I would like to add that we can form our own judgements as to whether or not a crime as been committed but we do not have the luxury of having been at the site of the events of nearly 60 years ago and seeing any evidence at first hand, so that makes it even harder for us. I have done Jury Service in an English Criminal Court and can say that I found it an extraordinary experience. We had all the evidence there before us, although we didnt have to visit the alleged scenes of crime. So imagine now that we are a sort of jury trying to decide if a crime as been committed or not and the extreme difficulty we are bound to face, not least the time gap of 60 years.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Monika on December 03, 2018, 06:07:01 AM
I personally do not believe they were murdered.

There were no traces of strangers in the snow
2. No external injuries on the four from ravines
3. The idea that someone would drive them out of the tent and then wait for hours when they freeze is a complete nonsense!
4. The  Army would dispose of them quickly and efficiently
5. The Army would simply let them disappear
6. the expedition was organized by the tourist club at the university and the expedition was supposed to be as the celebration of some Communist convention, and everyone knew they were going to this area. And during 50-80-ties it was necessary to have permission to move within Russia. Therefore, no one would ever have tried any weapons at that time and near that place where student were trekking.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on December 04, 2018, 06:26:50 AM
I personally do not believe they were murdered.

1. There were no traces of strangers in the snow
2. No external injuries on the four from ravines
3. The idea that someone would drive them out of the tent and then wait for hours when they freeze is a complete nonsense!
4. The  Army would dispose of them quickly and efficiently
5. The Army would simply let them disappear
6. the expedition was organized by the tourist club at the university and the expedition was supposed to be as the celebration of some Communist convention, and everyone knew they were going to this area. And during 50-80-ties it was necessary to have permission to move within Russia. Therefore, no one would ever have tried any weapons at that time and near that place where student were trekking.


1. The long period between the fateful night and the discovery of the tent ensured that the traces of the killers were gone. In particular as they must have used mountain skis. There is practically no chance that their tracks would remain after a month.

2. If you take a close look at the injuries of the four in the ravine, it will be apparent that these injuries are consistent with murder by brutal force. Being a jiu jitsu practitioner myself, I have learned how easy it is to crush the rib cages of people with elbow strikes. I immediately thought about this when seeing the injuries of Dubinina.

3. To drive their victims out of the tent and let the cold do the grisly work, is an extremely intelligent method. The students did not freeze to death as planned, because the temperature was a bit higher, so the attackers had to chase down their victims - and even so they made sure that there were no bullet wounds or knife cuts. But injuries there were, and it must be emphasized that these injuries are without exception consistent only with human attack. It bespeaks the resourcefulness of the killers that they accomplished their mission in such a way that the tragedy could be interpreted as an accident. There is no escaping the fact that the injuries of all the victims are consistent with murder - and only with murder. It is impossible that these injuries could be caused by a series of accidents - and only one of the dead (Dyatlov) seems to have frozen to death. The intelligence of the killers is evidenced today - a lot of people are led to believe that the Dyatlov group succumbed to a combination of bad decisions and accidents. Just as those orchestrating the killling of the nine had planned.

However, the answer lies in the bodies - and the injuries leave no doubt.

4 and 5. Many people seem to believe that military and government killers prefer to dispose of their targets quickly and effectively, as in most films. Apart from in direct combat situations in military interventions, in the real world this is very far from the case. More often than not, death by government is characterized by "accidents" and "death by natural causes" like "heart attacks," and "suicides" are also common. This is a normal pattern when the killers do not want the public to know what happened. Very resourceful and intelligent, determined attackers on a killing mission will generally endeavor to make murder seem like an accident. If the killers had just made the Dyatlov group disappear, "everyone" would have smelt foul and understood that they had been disposed of. The same if the killers had just shot them and buried them in locked coffins. As a matter of fact, the method chosen was the smartest way to accomplish the mission. Lastly, there is nothing to tell us that the army was responsible. We do not know the precise identity of the killers.

6. In the Soviet union, the secrecy surrounding everything ensured that one branch of government did not necessarily know what the others did. It is perfectly possible that someone on high determined that the nine students were a security risk if they witnessed something they were not supposed to see. I say it is perfectly possible, It is so far impossible to know the precise identity of the killers or the exact reason why the Dyatlov group was killed, but the bodies tell their tale.

Dead bodies do not lie, and their injuries very unmistakably tell us that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was the result of human involvement with murderous intent. Moreover, it is clear that the attack was carefully planned and carried out by people who knew what to do.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on December 04, 2018, 05:47:12 PM
Re  PER INGE OESTMOEN.  QUOTES BELOW.

[[ 2. If you take a close look at the injuries of the four in the ravine, it will be apparent that these injuries are consistent with murder by brutal force. Being a jiu jitsu practitioner myself, I have learned how easy it is to crush the rib cages of people with elbow strikes. I immediately thought about this when seeing the injuries of Dubinina. ]]

 It is highly unlikely that any person could have inflicted the very severe injuries to DUBININA. It has already been decided that some of the injuries were of such force that no human could have caused them.

[[ 3. To drive their victims out of the tent and let the cold do the grisly work, is an extremely intelligent method. The students did not freeze to death as planned, because the temperature was a bit higher, so the attackers had to chase down their victims - and even so they made sure that there were no bullet wounds or knife cuts. But injuries there were, and it must be emphasized that these injuries are without exception consistent only with human attack. ]] 

This sequence of events is highly unlikely. It has already been decided that some of the injuries could not have been caused by humans.


[[  4 and 5. Many people seem to believe that military and government killers prefer to dispose of their targets quickly and effectively, as in most films. Apart from in direct combat situations in military interventions, in the real world this is very far from the case. More often than not, death by government is characterized by "accidents" and "death by natural causes" like "heart attacks," and "suicides" are also common. This is a normal pattern when the killers do not want the public to know what happened
Dead bodies do not lie, and their injuries very unmistakably tell us that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was the result of human involvement with murderous intent. Moreover, it is clear that the attack was carefully planned and carried out by people who knew what to do.  ]]

 We have seen in recent times that certain Governments have hardly been shy about the way they have dealt with certain people. It is highly unlikely that the Dyatlov Group were killed by other humans.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Monika on December 05, 2018, 04:29:44 AM
I personally do not believe they were murdered.

1. There were no traces of strangers in the snow
2. No external injuries on the four from ravines
3. The idea that someone would drive them out of the tent and then wait for hours when they freeze is a complete nonsense!
4. The  Army would dispose of them quickly and efficiently
5. The Army would simply let them disappear
6. the expedition was organized by the tourist club at the university and the expedition was supposed to be as the celebration of some Communist convention, and everyone knew they were going to this area. And during 50-80-ties it was necessary to have permission to move within Russia. Therefore, no one would ever have tried any weapons at that time and near that place where student were trekking.


1. The long period between the fateful night and the discovery of the tent ensured that the traces of the killers were gone. In particular as they must have used mountain skis. There is practically no chance that their tracks would remain after a month.

2. If you take a close look at the injuries of the four in the ravine, it will be apparent that these injuries are consistent with murder by brutal force. Being a jiu jitsu practitioner myself, I have learned how easy it is to crush the rib cages of people with elbow strikes. I immediately thought about this when seeing the injuries of Dubinina.

3. To drive their victims out of the tent and let the cold do the grisly work, is an extremely intelligent method. The students did not freeze to death as planned, because the temperature was a bit higher, so the attackers had to chase down their victims - and even so they made sure that there were no bullet wounds or knife cuts. But injuries there were, and it must be emphasized that these injuries are without exception consistent only with human attack. It bespeaks the resourcefulness of the killers that they accomplished their mission in such a way that the tragedy could be interpreted as an accident. There is no escaping the fact that the injuries of all the victims are consistent with murder - and only with murder. It is impossible that these injuries could be caused by a series of accidents - and only one of the dead (Dyatlov) seems to have frozen to death. The intelligence of the killers is evidenced today - a lot of people are led to believe that the Dyatlov group succumbed to a combination of bad decisions and accidents. Just as those orchestrating the killling of the nine had planned.

However, the answer lies in the bodies - and the injuries leave no doubt.

4 and 5. Many people seem to believe that military and government killers prefer to dispose of their targets quickly and effectively, as in most films. Apart from in direct combat situations in military interventions, in the real world this is very far from the case. More often than not, death by government is characterized by "accidents" and "death by natural causes" like "heart attacks," and "suicides" are also common. This is a normal pattern when the killers do not want the public to know what happened. Very resourceful and intelligent, determined attackers on a killing mission will generally endeavor to make murder seem like an accident. If the killers had just made the Dyatlov group disappear, "everyone" would have smelt foul and understood that they had been disposed of. The same if the killers had just shot them and buried them in locked coffins. As a matter of fact, the method chosen was the smartest way to accomplish the mission. Lastly, there is nothing to tell us that the army was responsible. We do not know the precise identity of the killers.

6. In the Soviet union, the secrecy surrounding everything ensured that one branch of government did not necessarily know what the others did. It is perfectly possible that someone on high determined that the nine students were a security risk if they witnessed something they were not supposed to see. I say it is perfectly possible, It is so far impossible to know the precise identity of the killers or the exact reason why the Dyatlov group was killed, but the bodies tell their tale.

Dead bodies do not lie, and their injuries very unmistakably tell us that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was the result of human involvement with murderous intent. Moreover, it is clear that the attack was carefully planned and carried out by people who knew what to do.

I still do not believe anyone waited a couple of hours for the tourists to freeze and then “finished” them. And where 'were those people yet? Somewhere hidden? Because tourists spent some time around the fire and in the wood, and those murderers were where?
And as I said, once citizens of SSSR needed permission from the authorities to move in their own country. And the expedition was far ahead approved and claimed. The KGB had own agents everywhere, even at schools also among students and teachers and the military had to know that there will be tourists in the area. Dyatlov group got off the original route, but only a little. If anyone wanted to test their weapons, they will be sure that no one will be in a wide area (even hundreds of kilometers).
And with regard to the murdering the four at the ravine, why was not the last of them killed in the same way as the trio, but he froze?
And I still insist that the army would get rid of unwanted witnesses quickly and they would disappear without a trace. In nature, someone will often disappear. No one would set up a plan to liquidate people such amateurish.

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: WAB on December 08, 2018, 02:26:55 PM
I personally do not believe they were murdered.

I think that it is absolutely correct belief as there are no signs of such event.

There were no traces of strangers in the snow
2. No external injuries on the four from ravines
3. The idea that someone would drive them out of the tent and then wait for hours when they freeze is a complete nonsense!
4. The  Army would dispose of them quickly and efficiently
5. The Army would simply let them disappear

In this part of reasonings I cannot add anything, here all is told correctly.

6. the expedition was organized by the tourist club at the university and the expedition was supposed to be as the celebration of some Communist convention, and everyone knew they were going to this area. 

Conversation on that that they wanted to devote travel to party congress is very strongly exaggerated. They wrote about it only in 2 places: in a note for this purpose that Rustem Slobodin would grant leave in due time and in the leaflet “Evening Otorten” (in the playful form). It was time when for officials that was necessary that to mention such event, and among themselves on this theme they did not conduct any conversations. They had other interests and themes for conversations. As they were at all normal people in all countries. Participation in this sports and difficult travel and that defines interest in any sports was the main thing for a bottom: to test itself and aspiration to self-improvement. Therefore to do a strong emphasis on a political component in this group will be an error.

And during 50-80-ties it was necessary to have permission to move within Russia.

Since this place in a reasoning, I cannot will agree with this thought partially.
The Dyatlov group received all permissions only for this purpose that it would include sports result of travel. For example: so arrive at world record registration in airsport. The forward ordering moves, the initial documentation is checked by commissioners FAI, they are present on a place where flight is spent, and then make reports with results. It has similarly been made and in this case: they have made an application in the commission on routes, there have checked up, what requirements to the declared degree of complexity/difficulty corresponded to the standard, and group possibilities were sufficient for this travel and have given out them documents for offset on a route. After that travel they should issue the report and receive corresponding sports degree. The difference with FAI will be only that commissioners are not present at route points because it technically and is physically impossible. Especially considering that group the route part took place Dyatlov group of very first of winter groups. To them there anybody from travellers was not in the winter.
If they have not decided to make out sports degree, the permission was not required to them. It was practically on all country, except the military facilities, the closed territories and border zones. But on their route was not of such objects.
Certainly, it did not concern citizens of other states, but at them such too was not.

Therefore, no one would ever have tried any weapons at that time and near that place where student were trekking.

This statement too the correct. For weapon tests give special territories with the developed infrastructure. Which are protected also the admission on them is supervised.
Tests in absolutely deaf places (for example such where Dyatlov group went) are not spent, because as a result of tests it is required to receive the fixed result, many different measurements and filming and taking pictures.
For this purpose many people are required, it is a lot of structures, maintenance of this place with the electric power, premises and more many all another. Such is not present (and never not was) in area where Dyatlov group went.
To consider that test it is «to take the biggest stone and to throw in a deep pool» and more it is necessary than nothing - so children of very small age can argue only.

On the set questions and analysis points, it is told all. Other questions can be disassembled in detail another time and in a corresponding theme of a forum.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: WAB on December 08, 2018, 03:03:40 PM
I personally do not believe they were murdered.

1. There were no traces of strangers in the snow
2. No external injuries on the four from ravines
3. The idea that someone would drive them out of the tent and then wait for hours when they freeze is a complete nonsense!
4. The  Army would dispose of them quickly and efficiently
5. The Army would simply let them disappear
6. the expedition was organized by the tourist club at the university and the expedition was supposed to be as the celebration of some Communist convention, and everyone knew they were going to this area. And during 50-80-ties it was necessary to have permission to move within Russia. Therefore, no one would ever have tried any weapons at that time and near that place where student were trekking.


1. The long period between the fateful night and the discovery of the tent ensured that the traces of the killers were gone. In particular as they must have used mountain skis. There is practically no chance that their tracks would remain after a month.

Traces remain always in the winter. If you do not know it, it does not mean that it should be denied.
Traces happen not only prints on snow. But these prints too do not happen selective: traces of Djatlova of group remained, and traces of murderers have disappeared all. So does not happen.
I had to see traces from skis (!) in 2 months after them have left. It was in Polar Ural Mountains in 1982. Traces from skis remain than traces from feet pressure less. Safety of traces depends on external conditions, instead of from the one who has left them.
 
2. If you take a close look at the injuries of the four in the ravine, it will be apparent that these injuries are consistent with murder by brutal force.

These are your errors based only on fictions. If to analyze traumas from the point of view of biomechanics that do not grow out "by means of cruel force". They are not to any signs.

Being a jiu jitsu practitioner myself, I have learned how easy it is to crush the rib cages of people with elbow strikes. I immediately thought about this when seeing the injuries of Dubinina.

It is either error or notorious misinformation. In the previous letter I asked you to result signs of those actions and their consequences. While we will not receive a definite answer on these questions, I will consider that you are mistaken. I am ready to lead counterobjections to your arguments on the basis of such science, as biomechanics

3. To drive their victims out of the tent and let the cold do the grisly work, is an extremely intelligent method. The students did not freeze to death as planned, because the temperature was a bit higher,

Whence you take the information on temperature and in general about weather during events. There it was not warm. The person could live in those conditions and those clothes only no more than 5 … 8 hours. It is if a difference in productivity of heat and heat losses was 150 … 200 J. And by available calculations there was much more severe.

so the attackers had to chase down their victims - and even so they made sure that there were no bullet wounds or knife cuts.

They are very "intellectual" murderers. They to themselves think out many difficulties, what them specially them to overcome with the greatest expenses of forces and possibilities.
You or scoff at common sense at readers of your texts, or try to inspire obviously false thoughts.

But injuries there were, and it must be emphasized that these injuries are without exception consistent only with human attack.

It either error or notorious misinformation. The head injury of Thibeaux-Brignolles has a site of through penetration 2 х 3,5 х 3 … 4 sm (0,78 х 1.3 х 1.57 in). For this purpose that it would be possible to punch a bone, the subject for defeat should have hardness at least 10 times more than a bone. Show please on elbow parts where there are such conditions (the sizes and hardness)? I do not say about that on an elbow there should be clothes and there was a possibility to receive the necessary pose.
However this trauma could be easily received on a place of a stone ridge № 3 as a result of falling from height of growth or even more low. That I have in detail described in article https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ey2F7ROB6ZXNJkp49tKPJE24iPP0nKRG/view?usp=sharing .
I already some times gave this reference.
In the same place there is a full set of cases of reception of traumas with instructions of places and conditions of their reception.


It bespeaks the resourcefulness of the killers that they accomplished their mission in such a way that the tragedy could be interpreted as an accident. There is no escaping the fact that the injuries of all the victims are consistent with murder - and only with murder.

It not the fact, is your conjectures as which you want to consider as the fact a method of constant repetition.

It is impossible that these injuries could be caused by a series of accidents - and only one of the dead (Dyatlov) seems to have frozen to death. The intelligence of the killers is evidenced today - a lot of people are led to believe that the Dyatlov group succumbed to a combination of bad decisions and accidents. Just as those orchestrating the killling of the nine had planned.

They have not given in it to thoughts, it is the validity. You try repetitions and arrangements to convince it that it was the murder which signs are not available in general. If to use only the facts, instead of your conjectures and mantras. Read attentively papers of the expert and do correct conclusions leaning not against conjectures and on scientifically well-founded calculations, the theory and practice of such cases.

However, the answer lies in the bodies - and the injuries leave no doubt.

Traumas do not leave doubts that they are received by a natural way.

4 and 5. Many people seem to believe that military and government killers prefer to dispose of their targets quickly and effectively, as in most films. Apart from in direct combat situations in military interventions, in the real world this is very far from the case. More often than not, death by government is characterized by "accidents" and "death by natural causes" like "heart attacks," and "suicides" are also common. This is a normal pattern when the killers do not want the public to know what happened. Very resourceful and intelligent, determined attackers on a killing mission will generally endeavor to make murder seem like an accident. If the killers had just made the Dyatlov group disappear, "everyone" would have smelt foul and understood that they had been disposed of. The same if the killers had just shot them and buried them in locked coffins. As a matter of fact, the method chosen was the smartest way to accomplish the mission. Lastly, there is nothing to tell us that the army was responsible. We do not know the precise identity of the killers.

These are words all only, which:
A - are no supported by nothing, except yours of texts
B - have not reason for the basis of such actions.

6. In the Soviet union, the secrecy surrounding everything ensured that one branch of government did not necessarily know what the others did.

You know all - as how it became in the USSR, especially considering that time? Whence? From films of Hollywood?

It is perfectly possible that someone on high determined that the nine students were a security risk if they witnessed something they were not supposed to see.

What should not they see?
It very much reminds a method of suggestion which in psychology "nested doll" is called. It consists that there is one reference to another continuously be. And so becomes indefinitely.
The answer should be accurate, real and what can be checked up. While it is not present, all your words, no more than simply words which mean nothing.

I say it is perfectly possible, It is so far impossible to know the precise identity of the killers or the exact reason why the Dyatlov group was killed, but the bodies tell their tale.

Here it is a sign of this method which "nested doll" is called. It already was is used many times in this case in a current of many years. Answer it has not been given.

Dead bodies do not lie, and their injuries very unmistakably tell us that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was the result of human involvement with murderous intent.


And it is a following sign of that behind your words it costs nothing. You have many times repeated same, but not too well have not resulted any real fact. At you even substantiations of actions are not present. That which are not invented, and were actually.

Moreover, it is clear that the attack was carefully planned and carried out by people who knew what to do.

The word "obviously" constantly is applied more often by people who have nothing to show as the fact or reality. And you use it constantly and continuously. Read all your texts - everywhere same, but anywhere there are no facts (real, instead of invented) and the reasons for such actions. You have only arrangements and excuses.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: WAB on December 08, 2018, 03:19:21 PM

I still do not believe anyone waited a couple of hours for the tourists to freeze and then “finished” them. And where 'were those people yet? Somewhere hidden? Because tourists spent some time around the fire and in the wood, and those murderers were where?

If you can read in Russian, even if it is machine translation, please look at the test under the reference which I have resulted above. If there will be that that not clearly, I am ready to explain you details.

And as I said, once citizens of SSSR needed permission from the authorities to move in their own country. And the expedition was far ahead approved and claimed. The KGB had own agents everywhere, even at schools also among students and teachers and the military had to know that there will be tourists in the area.

You misunderstand moving possibility on territory of the USSR a little, but it while is unimportant

Dyatlov group got off the original route, but only a little.

The group did not descend at all from the route. It went precisely on the declared trajectory.

If anyone wanted to test their weapons, they will be sure that no one will be in a wide area (even hundreds of kilometers).

And it will not do so where it is necessary, in uncertainty. For this purpose there are specially equipped places. For such checks it is necessary to have the fixed result, and it is simple that that to take and where that to throw in uncertainty.

And with regard to the murdering the four at the ravine, why was not the last of them killed in the same way as the trio, but he froze?

It has been made exclusively because anybody killed nobody, but there are restrictions of possibility of the person to survive in such conditions. The one who did not test it does not understand a constant cold only.

And I still insist that the army would get rid of unwanted witnesses quickly and they would disappear without a trace. In nature, someone will often disappear. No one would set up a plan to liquidate people such amateurish.

It is all correctly. It is not necessary to consider other people as sillier, than the one who so considers. It have leads to occurrence conspirologing theories.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on January 17, 2019, 03:10:58 AM

It either error or notorious misinformation. The head injury of Thibeaux-Brignolles has a site of through penetration 2 х 3,5 х 3 … 4 sm (0,78 х 1.3 х 1.57 in). For this purpose that it would be possible to punch a bone, the subject for defeat should have hardness at least 10 times more than a bone. Show please on elbow parts where there are such conditions (the sizes and hardness)? I do not say about that on an elbow there should be clothes and there was a possibility to receive the necessary pose.
However this trauma could be easily received on a place of a stone ridge № 3 as a result of falling from height of growth or even more low. That I have in detail described in article https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ey2F7ROB6ZXNJkp49tKPJE24iPP0nKRG/view?usp=sharing .
I already some times gave this reference. In the same place there is a full set of cases of reception of traumas with instructions of places and conditions of their reception.

[...]

The word "obviously" constantly is applied more often by people who have nothing to show as the fact or reality. And you use it constantly and continuously. Read all your texts - everywhere same, but anywhere there are no facts (real, instead of invented) and the reasons for such actions. You have only arrangements and excuses.


- Where have I or anyone else stated that the head injury of Thibeaux-Brignolles was caused by elbow strikes? Please refrain from inventing statements that have never been made. I referred to the rib cage injuries suffered by Zolotaryov and Dubinina.

- Your aggressiveness and constant reference to the person whose statements you are attacking speaks for itself. It it remarkable how you attempt to paint everyone who happens to disagree with you as ignorant, misinformed, incompetent and unscientific. You are unwilling to discuss the topic, and for some reason you attack everyone who voices something that conflicts with your opinion. This is all the more remarkable since you have never presented any scientific evidence yourself. Instead, you downplay and neglect the overwhelming forensic evidence indicating that the Dyatlov group were murdered. As an example, the infrasound theory is manifestly not scientific - it is speculative with no evidence to back up the assumption that nine students were impelled by infrasound to leave their tent in a hurry in the same manner - leaving without the clothes that were necessary to survive in the cold. Nine students would not have had the exact same reaction, and moreover such an effect has never been demonstrated.

By the way, it is not correct that ski tracks generally last for long. They might do, but in many situations depending on the skis - mountain skies leave shallower tracks - the weather, and the structure of the snow they quickly disappear. Believe me, I come from a snowy country myself. Sometimes the tracks last for the whole winter, at other times they are erased in a couple of days. At the Dyatlov pass, the long period between the night of the tragedy and the arrival of the first search team makes it more likely that every trace had disappeared.

If you cannot relate to the evidence - the evidence found in the bodies of the nine victims of the Dyatlov Pass killings - a serious discussion is unfortunately not possible.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on January 17, 2019, 03:21:09 AM
Re  PER INGE OESTMOEN.  QUOTES BELOW.

[[ 2. If you take a close look at the injuries of the four in the ravine, it will be apparent that these injuries are consistent with murder by brutal force. Being a jiu jitsu practitioner myself, I have learned how easy it is to crush the rib cages of people with elbow strikes. I immediately thought about this when seeing the injuries of Dubinina. ]]

 It is highly unlikely that any person could have inflicted the very severe injuries to DUBININA. It has already been decided that some of the injuries were of such force that no human could have caused them.

[[ 3. To drive their victims out of the tent and let the cold do the grisly work, is an extremely intelligent method. The students did not freeze to death as planned, because the temperature was a bit higher, so the attackers had to chase down their victims - and even so they made sure that there were no bullet wounds or knife cuts. But injuries there were, and it must be emphasized that these injuries are without exception consistent only with human attack. ]] 

This sequence of events is highly unlikely. It has already been decided that some of the injuries could not have been caused by humans.


[[  4 and 5. Many people seem to believe that military and government killers prefer to dispose of their targets quickly and effectively, as in most films. Apart from in direct combat situations in military interventions, in the real world this is very far from the case. More often than not, death by government is characterized by "accidents" and "death by natural causes" like "heart attacks," and "suicides" are also common. This is a normal pattern when the killers do not want the public to know what happened
Dead bodies do not lie, and their injuries very unmistakably tell us that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was the result of human involvement with murderous intent. Moreover, it is clear that the attack was carefully planned and carried out by people who knew what to do.  ]]

 We have seen in recent times that certain Governments have hardly been shy about the way they have dealt with certain people. It is highly unlikely that the Dyatlov Group were killed by other humans.


1. The injuries of Dubinina can very well be caused by humans. Apart from the fact that the injury pattern most likely is caused by a human attack, it is mistaken to believe that these injuries cannot be caused by another human being. Lastly, there were no traces of avalanches in the area, and the injuries are not consistent with a fall.

2. Why is the sequence of events where attackers force the nine students out from the tent, ensuring that their proper winter clothes are left behind, and then wait for the winter cold to do the work, unlikely? It has been described how the injuries could be fully explained by human attack.

3. Some governments want, in some situations, to kill people in a dramatic way so as to frighten others from opposing the authorities. At other times, operations are conducted in great secret, and the killing becomes an "accident," "heart attack" or "suicide." It is also necessary to point out that none of us can say precisely who killed the Dyatlov group. The traces of the killers have escaped us, but the bodies tell their tale.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on January 17, 2019, 03:23:50 AM
I personally do not believe they were murdered.

I think that it is absolutely correct belief as there are no signs of such event.


As a matter of fact, the signs of precisely such an event are plentiful.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on January 17, 2019, 04:09:16 AM
I still do not believe anyone waited a couple of hours for the tourists to freeze and then “finished” them. And where 'were those people yet? Somewhere hidden? Because tourists spent some time around the fire and in the wood, and those murderers were where?
And as I said, once citizens of SSSR needed permission from the authorities to move in their own country. And the expedition was far ahead approved and claimed. The KGB had own agents everywhere, even at schools also among students and teachers and the military had to know that there will be tourists in the area. Dyatlov group got off the original route, but only a little. If anyone wanted to test their weapons, they will be sure that no one will be in a wide area (even hundreds of kilometers).
And with regard to the murdering the four at the ravine, why was not the last of them killed in the same way as the trio, but he froze?
And I still insist that the army would get rid of unwanted witnesses quickly and they would disappear without a trace. In nature, someone will often disappear. No one would set up a plan to liquidate people such amateurish.


All the questions posed above are relevant and good, and they need to be asked.

We have no way of knowing who the attackers were, but that should not deter us from taking a serious look at the available evidence with an open mind. A mind is not open, if a possibility is ruled out and evidence is interpreted in light of preconceptions.

Without knowing the identity of the murderers, it is almost impossible to find out why the fateful decision was made. We should be aware that this does not contradict a conclusion of homicide. As for the injuries of the four in the ravine, the difference in injuries is a further indication of murder. A single natural event would likely have caused more uniform injuries. The four in the ravine were different in psychology, in physical strength and in their ability to resist. It is conceivable that they would have to be dealt with differently. The attackers would also be different - and it is to be expected that the lethal techniques and resulting injuries would also be different. 

But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot, is a most crucial one. It is understandable if some might think that to force the victims out in the winter to make it seem that they have frozen to death and that is that is a "primitive" and unsophisticated method. But is it really so?

To force people out in the cold at gunpoint or by overwhelming force, and then let the winter do the work is far from unsophisticated and primitive. It is a brilliant method, which leave the public much in doubt about what happened. Killers who absolutely wanted their victims to perish, but who also absolutely wanted to make it seem like an accident, can be expected to use this method in a cold climate. There is nothing primitive in that, it is extremely intelligently planned and executed. If these victims had disappeared without a trace, then most people would have understood that something dirty had been done.

It would seem that the many years that have passed since the night of tragedy back in 1959 have vindicated the judgment of the intelligent killers who quite correctly assumed that if the mission could be accomplished without unmistakable injuries as knife cuts or bullet wounds, a large part of the general public would readily accept the conclusion that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was caused by a series of accidents and mistakes by Dyatlov. It may be noted that the allusion to mistakes by Igor Dyatlov is a characteristic approach when someone is blamed in order to divert attention from what actually happened.

It may also be noted that contrary to what is sometimes said, none of the injuries to the victim's bodies were of such nature that they could not be caused by an attacking human. The reality is that all of them are consistent with human attack, and that they cannot be otherwise explained without resorting to fantastic theories like the impact from nonexistent avalanches, accidents with falls causing lethal injuries from a mere standing height, Yetis, infrasound, plant poisoning or even extraterrestrials.

The one realistic explanation of this tragedy is rather more mundane, but also terrible, heartbreaking and above all frightening. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 17, 2019, 03:07:42 PM
Well I have used the term HIGHLY UNLIKELY.  I do not say that it is impossible that they may have been murdered by other humans. Looking at all the recorded injuries and taking into account the circumstances of this whole case it appears that what happened was of an unusual nature. But the injuries to DUBININA are the most perplexing. And it is these injuries that Iam particulary interested in. I do not believe that decomposition was the cause of the missing eyes and tongue.  And I do not believe that the rib injuries were the result of force from another human.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: cennetkusu on January 17, 2019, 09:23:57 PM
Bu işi kesinlikle olağanüstü güce sahip bir adam yaptı...bunun başka açıklaması yok...Tabiki belki cinlerde olabilir.....Bu da mümkün.....Ben uzaylıya felan inanmam....Yani uzaylı olamaz kesinlikle......Eğer Yeti yaptıysada Yetinin de olağanüstü güce sahip olduğunu kabul etmemiz gerekir......Bu olayın nedeni de bu olağanüstü güçteki adamın Dubinina ya ilgi sevgi duyması ve onunla İgorun içine girip iletişime geçmesi....Fakat Dubinina ona ilgi göstermedi ve onu tersledi...Buna çok kızan olağanüstü güce sahip adam bu şekilde intikam aldı....Bu adam Zolotoryavyayla da dostluk kurmak istedi ve belki diğerleriyle de....ama o da bu adama karşılık vermedi ve tersledi...buna da çok kızan bu adam bunlardan bu şekilde intikamını aldı....Anlattığım durum size biraz gerçek dışı ve çok tuhaf gelebilir...ama bu olayın tek mantıklı açıklaması bu olabilir....Ve bu adam zaten en çok Dubinanaya ve zolotoryaya zarar verdi.....Ve bence Dubininanın dilini ve dudağını alıp sinirden kızgınlıktan çiğneye çiğneye yedi.....Şimdi soracaksınız..Bu olağanüstü adam kim??? bilmiyorum......
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on January 17, 2019, 11:48:34 PM
Just o thought on the making the murder look like an accident.

Making them leave the tent without their shoes can only make it look suspicious. So if they wanted to make it look like accident they were not too clever
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 18, 2019, 02:46:15 PM
Just o thought on the making the murder look like an accident.

Making them leave the tent without their shoes can only make it look suspicious. So if they wanted to make it look like accident they were not too clever

Who would want to go to such extremes to make it look like an accident  !  ? 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Angel1 on January 20, 2019, 04:18:03 PM
IMHO it was murder.  And whoever staged it was brilliant.

Just change one thing, that they we forced from the tent and you have a murder investigation from the get go.  Say it was cut from the inside and you have 60 years of speculation.

That one key statement was purportedly made by an unnamed seamstress.  Not a forensic investigator.  And the tent was dragged by the rescue folks.  No fault to them.  They were students and soldiers.

Folks have been trying for years to reconstruct what happened from a crime scene both intentionally and unintentionally tampered with.

You have autopsy reports which have no doubt been redacted.  The complete ones are in the FSB somewhere. 

Items which point to indisputable assault were left vague - deformed neck(?), tongue missing (and?).

I cannot find the article in which a retired Russian criminologist says murder and by professional killers.  I agree.   

Why not just shoot them, etc?  For the same reason Princess Diana was killed in a "car accident".

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 20, 2019, 04:34:25 PM
IMHO it was murder.  And whoever staged it was brilliant.

Just change one thing, that they we forced from the tent and you have a murder investigation from the get go.  Say it was cut from the inside and you have 60 years of speculation.

That one key statement was purportedly made by an unnamed seamstress.  Not a forensic investigator.  And the tent was dragged by the rescue folks.  No fault to them.  They were students and soldiers.

Folks have been trying for years to reconstruct what happened from a crime scene both intentionally and unintentionally tampered with.

You have autopsy reports which have no doubt been redacted.  The complete ones are in the FSB somewhere. 

Items which point to indisputable assault were left vague - deformed neck(?), tongue missing (and?).

I cannot find the article in which a retired Russian criminologist says murder and by professional killers.  I agree.   

Why not just shoot them, etc?  For the same reason Princess Diana was killed in a "car accident".


Well there is absolutely no proof that it was a MURDER EVENT or EVENTS.  And there is absolutely no proof that Princess Diana was MURDERED.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Angel1 on January 20, 2019, 04:46:01 PM
As I pointed out, the things that would point irrefutably to hand to hand assaults was not detailed in the autopsy.

The other injuries were attributed to "possible falls".

The whole premise of the "mystery" is based on why did they leave the tent.  Remove that and you have a murder investigation.

The whole "mystery" hinges on that one aspect.  And its' basis is easily disputed and possibly debunked.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on January 20, 2019, 08:53:10 PM
Good points all.... 

Welcome to the Pass Angel1.   thumb1
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 21, 2019, 02:22:00 PM
As I pointed out, the things that would point irrefutably to hand to hand assaults was not detailed in the autopsy.

The other injuries were attributed to "possible falls".

The whole premise of the "mystery" is based on why did they leave the tent.  Remove that and you have a murder investigation.

The whole "mystery" hinges on that one aspect.  And its' basis is easily disputed and possibly debunked.


Well if things were not detailed in the Autopsy then obviously we lack evidence. I still can not see how you can come to such an irrefutable belief that it was Murder.

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on January 21, 2019, 03:44:42 PM
Question about the murder theory:

If it was murder and the attackers decided to force the group into the frigid night so that they would freeze to death ----- why allow them to take their matches with them?  whacky1
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 21, 2019, 03:58:04 PM
Question about the murder theory:

If it was murder and the attackers decided to force the group into the frigid night so that they would freeze to death ----- why allow them to take their matches with them?  whacky1

And why leave behind CAMERAS and FILM and DIARIES ETC. Any so called Murderers could have took lots of things and no one would have been any the wiser.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Angel1 on January 22, 2019, 01:58:49 AM
The good points you raise support my point - this a a well staged crime scene.  Suppositions are made believing the "found" crime scene was as it  actually unfolded.  There are dozens of theories as to what happened based on what was found and the recollections of the first responders, who as I pointed out were students and soldiers, not crime scene investigators.  You have 60 years of speculation with no definitive conclusions.  They did a damn good job.

Remember the first lead investigator believed murder and he would not go along with the accident/hypothermia story.  He was put off the case.

Ivanov did go along with it.  In his later years, near the end of his life he wrote the letter (can be found on this board) apologizing to the families and indicating his belief in other-worldly elements being a key factor.  I don't disregard him as he has access to info we never will.  On this I can only say, I don't know.

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on January 22, 2019, 04:46:01 AM
So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 22, 2019, 11:08:09 AM
So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on January 22, 2019, 03:12:58 PM
So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.

So what indicators are there that this was a murder?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 23, 2019, 12:30:50 PM
So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.

So what indicators are there that this was a murder?


Well someone thought it was a criminal act in early 1959 which is why a criminal investigation was opened. As far as I know we do not have the specific reasons as to why such an investigation was opened. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on January 23, 2019, 02:29:10 PM
So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.

So what indicators are there that this was a murder?


Well someone thought it was a criminal act in early 1959 which is why a criminal investigation was opened. As far as I know we do not have the specific reasons as to why such an investigation was opened.

Is it because they thought it was the Mansi maybe?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on January 23, 2019, 06:02:54 PM
http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=333.new#new
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Vietnamka on January 23, 2019, 10:40:55 PM

Per Inge Oestmoen
Quote
no bullet wounds or knife cuts
To be honest, we have some evidence of knife cuts.
Autopsy report of Igor Dyatlov:
 In the area of the palm surface of the second and fifth fingers there is a skin wound of irregular linear shape with regular edges located transverse to the length of the fingers; the surface wounds are up to 0.1 (or 0.2 – note) cm deep.
(https://enigma-project.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ladonj-2.jpg)

Quote
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot
the victims were  injured with one blow. Simply  and effectively.
Quote
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot
the simplest answer is  - attacers didnt have weapons.
 Weapons were strictly prohibited in USSR except for hunting weapons. If it is correct assumption,  we can exclude some categories of people attacker did not belong
1) sololders (army, KGB)
2) hunters
3) organized criminal groups
 But the blows were very effective. This tells us that attackers were  very well trained to kill. Special Forces? Without weapons?  nea1
What about the people who had have this training and took part in еspecial forces operations  during the WWII? They were 30+ in 1959.

Quote
To force people out in the cold at gunpoint or by overwhelming force, and then let the winter do the work is far from unsophisticated and primitive. It is a brilliant method, which leave the public much in doubt about what happened.
agree.

What we know exactly:
- group left the tent
- group left the tent poorly dressed
- nobody died in the tent
- they had enough  power to go 1.5 km even poorly dressed
- they still had enough  power ( and clear mind) to do some work next to the cedar.
- they didn't die at the same time.
- at least 30% of them died  from the single death blows
- at least 1 of them had injuries wich could be interpritated as traces of tortures (Krivo)
- at least 2 bodies had damages wich could be interpritated as traces of abuses (Luda, Zolotarev)

Do you have idea what does it look likes? It seems to me that this is very similar to  the hostage -taking
I'm attacker
1) I show you that im absolutly serious. Group can die
2) I keep one of them and group will follow my instuctions to  take clothes off and leave the tent. It's still  a chance for them to survive and safe the life of hostage.
3) it is absolutely predictable that they are going to do during the night poorly dressed, they can not go faraway, I will find them easy.
You are not reacting? Ok, get the first victims. Do you you hear him screaming? I give you 30 min more. No reaction - more victims.
If I decide to kill I do it effectively and fast.




Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 24, 2019, 12:23:06 PM
So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.

So what indicators are there that this was a murder?


Well someone thought it was a criminal act in early 1959 which is why a criminal investigation was opened. As far as I know we do not have the specific reasons as to why such an investigation was opened.

Is it because they thought it was the Mansi maybe?


We dont know.  Like I said as far as I know there is no specific reasons why the investigation was opened as a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: varuna on February 14, 2019, 11:47:43 PM

Per Inge Oestmoen
Quote
no bullet wounds or knife cuts
To be honest, we have some evidence of knife cuts.
Autopsy report of Igor Dyatlov:
 In the area of the palm surface of the second and fifth fingers there is a skin wound of irregular linear shape with regular edges located transverse to the length of the fingers; the surface wounds are up to 0.1 (or 0.2 – note) cm deep.
(https://enigma-project.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ladonj-2.jpg)

Quote
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot
the victims were  injured with one blow. Simply  and effectively.
Quote
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot
the simplest answer is  - attacers didnt have weapons.
 Weapons were strictly prohibited in USSR except for hunting weapons. If it is correct assumption,  we can exclude some categories of people attacker did not belong
1) sololders (army, KGB)
2) hunters
3) organized criminal groups
 But the blows were very effective. This tells us that attackers were  very well trained to kill. Special Forces? Without weapons?  nea1
What about the people who had have this training and took part in еspecial forces operations  during the WWII? They were 30+ in 1959.

Quote
To force people out in the cold at gunpoint or by overwhelming force, and then let the winter do the work is far from unsophisticated and primitive. It is a brilliant method, which leave the public much in doubt about what happened.
agree.

What we know exactly:
- group left the tent
- group left the tent poorly dressed
- nobody died in the tent
- they had enough  power to go 1.5 km even poorly dressed
- they still had enough  power ( and clear mind) to do some work next to the cedar.
- they didn't die at the same time.
- at least 30% of them died  from the single death blows
- at least 1 of them had injuries wich could be interpritated as traces of tortures (Krivo)
- at least 2 bodies had damages wich could be interpritated as traces of abuses (Luda, Zolotarev)

Do you have idea what does it look likes? It seems to me that this is very similar to  the hostage -taking
I'm attacker
1) I show you that im absolutly serious. Group can die
2) I keep one of them and group will follow my instuctions to  take clothes off and leave the tent. It's still  a chance for them to survive and safe the life of hostage.
3) it is absolutely predictable that they are going to do during the night poorly dressed, they can not go faraway, I will find them easy.
You are not reacting? Ok, get the first victims. Do you you hear him screaming? I give you 30 min more. No reaction - more victims.
If I decide to kill I do it effectively and fast.

I do not believe in a hostage-taking situation, because it is an anachronic option for 59 in USSR : to get what ? It is not so easy to organize a thing like that in these conditions -plus some of them had foliowed  a basic military training-
knife wounds , all the evidence modified, all the stoy : tnet cut, the hove , the cave hiding make possible a cover for a military trained group action, wrong or not , by accident or not .
no shot : ordered so
no evidence of lethal agression ; the same

the goal : they are to die of exhaustion or cold
note
During the lLgerian war, around 58-62, some unofficial services made some killing actions in several places, against mostly OAS( secret organisation for keeping the ante situation ) ; they made a lot of mistakes , some are documented and a few had been in court  long after  .
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 15, 2019, 12:07:19 PM

Per Inge Oestmoen
Quote
no bullet wounds or knife cuts
To be honest, we have some evidence of knife cuts.
Autopsy report of Igor Dyatlov:
 In the area of the palm surface of the second and fifth fingers there is a skin wound of irregular linear shape with regular edges located transverse to the length of the fingers; the surface wounds are up to 0.1 (or 0.2 – note) cm deep.
(https://enigma-project.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ladonj-2.jpg)

Quote
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot
the victims were  injured with one blow. Simply  and effectively.
Quote
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot
the simplest answer is  - attacers didnt have weapons.
 Weapons were strictly prohibited in USSR except for hunting weapons. If it is correct assumption,  we can exclude some categories of people attacker did not belong
1) sololders (army, KGB)
2) hunters
3) organized criminal groups
 But the blows were very effective. This tells us that attackers were  very well trained to kill. Special Forces? Without weapons?  nea1
What about the people who had have this training and took part in еspecial forces operations  during the WWII? They were 30+ in 1959.

Quote
To force people out in the cold at gunpoint or by overwhelming force, and then let the winter do the work is far from unsophisticated and primitive. It is a brilliant method, which leave the public much in doubt about what happened.
agree.

What we know exactly:
- group left the tent
- group left the tent poorly dressed
- nobody died in the tent
- they had enough  power to go 1.5 km even poorly dressed
- they still had enough  power ( and clear mind) to do some work next to the cedar.
- they didn't die at the same time.
- at least 30% of them died  from the single death blows
- at least 1 of them had injuries wich could be interpritated as traces of tortures (Krivo)
- at least 2 bodies had damages wich could be interpritated as traces of abuses (Luda, Zolotarev)

Do you have idea what does it look likes? It seems to me that this is very similar to  the hostage -taking
I'm attacker
1) I show you that im absolutly serious. Group can die
2) I keep one of them and group will follow my instuctions to  take clothes off and leave the tent. It's still  a chance for them to survive and safe the life of hostage.
3) it is absolutely predictable that they are going to do during the night poorly dressed, they can not go faraway, I will find them easy.
You are not reacting? Ok, get the first victims. Do you you hear him screaming? I give you 30 min more. No reaction - more victims.
If I decide to kill I do it effectively and fast.

[1]  We dont know if any one died at the TENT   

[2] We dont know the exact causes of deaths i e if they died from single blows or multiple blows or whatever.

[3] We dont know if any one was tortured or abused.

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: knocker on February 18, 2019, 04:05:05 AM
Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion.  Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't.  I think you have to conclude it was torture.  Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time.  Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.

Killers do not generally beat 4 people to death unless there was a whole bunch of them.  And I don't think that was the case.  It would have been 1 or 2, 3 at most.  3 people armed with any kind of weapons, even just sharp sticks, would have been able to control that crowd.  Which they obviously didn't do.   
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: knocker on February 18, 2019, 04:10:13 AM
The only hope we have of solving this is if the investigators knew the answer to the riddle and covered it up, for whatever reason.  But wrote about it in some secret report, sent it to Moscow, and it's still in the KGB records archive in the basement of FSB headquarters. 

If they didn't figure it out 60 years ago, we won't now either. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: varuna on February 18, 2019, 04:38:57 AM
Hi
Maybe some of the bunch managed to escape, il the attackers lost their control or were not enough, or the bincj decided to fight back, even with no shoes in the snow ( in this case  bow7) .
So some were beated up the other not and try to get back but too late ?
In a case of wrong-action-going-to-**** it is possible .
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Puchiko on February 18, 2019, 09:59:35 AM
Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion.  Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't.  I think you have to conclude it was torture.  Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time.  Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.   

Eyes are the first go for decaying corpses: birds and other small scavanger animals love them. There definitely are birds and other scavengers in the Ural mountains.  I mean, if you have the stomach to look at post-mortem pics of Lyuda and Seymon you'll see that they were basically skeletons as they were found in May, three months after the incident. The bodies found in February looked far better.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 18, 2019, 11:54:25 AM
Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion.  Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't.  I think you have to conclude it was torture.  Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time.  Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.

Killers do not generally beat 4 people to death unless there was a whole bunch of them.  And I don't think that was the case.  It would have been 1 or 2, 3 at most.  3 people armed with any kind of weapons, even just sharp sticks, would have been able to control that crowd.  Which they obviously didn't do.   

All that can be deduced from what information we have is that the EYES WERE MISSING. Nothing to suggest gouging out etc.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 18, 2019, 11:58:03 AM
The only hope we have of solving this is if the investigators knew the answer to the riddle and covered it up, for whatever reason.  But wrote about it in some secret report, sent it to Moscow, and it's still in the KGB records archive in the basement of FSB headquarters. 

If they didn't figure it out 60 years ago, we won't now either.

Its an interesting point you raise.  But if it was something of such an enormity that it needed to be covered up , then it may be unlikely that we will ever know. Unless of course that were the case and eventually the Authorities opened up and let the facts be known to the whole World.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 18, 2019, 12:01:32 PM
Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion.  Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't.  I think you have to conclude it was torture.  Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time.  Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.   

Eyes are the first go for decaying corpses: birds and other small scavanger animals love them. There definitely are birds and other scavengers in the Ural mountains.  I mean, if you have the stomach to look at post-mortem pics of Lyuda and Seymon you'll see that they were basically skeletons as they were found in May, three months after the incident. The bodies found in February looked far better.

But the Post Mortem examination did not reveal any kinds of predation  !  ? 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Puchiko on February 18, 2019, 12:22:02 PM
Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion.  Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't.  I think you have to conclude it was torture.  Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time.  Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.   

Eyes are the first go for decaying corpses: birds and other small scavanger animals love them. There definitely are birds and other scavengers in the Ural mountains.  I mean, if you have the stomach to look at post-mortem pics of Lyuda and Seymon you'll see that they were basically skeletons as they were found in May, three months after the incident. The bodies found in February looked far better.

But the Post Mortem examination did not reveal any kinds of predation  !  ?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what autopsy reports are like. Autopsy reports describe the state of the body - eg. "eyeballs missing" or "tongue missing". They generally don't say "a small rodent ate the eyeballs" or "a KGB agent gouged the eyeballs out with a fork", because the doctor performing the autopsy has no way of knowing that.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Puchiko on February 18, 2019, 12:33:55 PM
So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.

So what indicators are there that this was a murder?


Well someone thought it was a criminal act in early 1959 which is why a criminal investigation was opened. As far as I know we do not have the specific reasons as to why such an investigation was opened.

Is it because they thought it was the Mansi maybe?


We dont know.  Like I said as far as I know there is no specific reasons why the investigation was opened as a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. Although the criteria differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, finding the bodies of nine healthy students without an obvious explanation will always trigger a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation gives the police procedural instruments to establish whether a crime was committed. You do not need strong evidence to open a criminal investigation, because the investigation is the only way to get that evidence in the first place. Only a small percentage of opened criminal investigations go to trial, as you need a strong case that a specific human suspect committed a crime for that to happen.

Most suicides, for instance, trigger a criminal investigation; because that's the only way you can determine that it was a suicide and rule out foul play.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: knocker on February 18, 2019, 12:42:50 PM
Hi
Maybe some of the bunch managed to escape, il the attackers lost their control or were not enough, or the bincj decided to fight back, even with no shoes in the snow ( in this case  bow7) .
So some were beated up the other not and try to get back but too late ?
In a case of wrong-action-going-to-**** it is possible .

I think you're probably right.  It seems Dyatlov and Kolmogorova who froze to death got away and escaped the initial, "unknown force," that killed the four with the worst wounds.  I don't doubt they escaped that and lived for a few hours after.   But in the end they wound up dead like the rest, so in a sense I guess they didn't escape anything.   
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: gypsy on February 18, 2019, 01:21:49 PM

And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. Although the criteria differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, finding the bodies of nine healthy students without an obvious explanation will always trigger a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation gives the police procedural instruments to establish whether a crime was committed. You do not need strong evidence to open a criminal investigation, because the investigation is the only way to get that evidence in the first place. Only a small percentage of opened criminal investigations go to trial, as you need a strong case that a specific human suspect committed a crime for that to happen.

Most suicides, for instance, trigger a criminal investigation; because that's the only way you can determine that it was a suicide and rule out foul play.

You are right, even a traffic accident or any damage that would be punishable by the criminal code if conducted deliberately, could trigger criminal investigation. Actually, the Soviet criminal justice would go ever further, SUSPICION of such acts was a basis for opening a criminal investigation. It was up to the police or the prosecutor to do so.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 18, 2019, 04:50:25 PM
Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion.  Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't.  I think you have to conclude it was torture.  Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time.  Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.   

Eyes are the first go for decaying corpses: birds and other small scavanger animals love them. There definitely are birds and other scavengers in the Ural mountains.  I mean, if you have the stomach to look at post-mortem pics of Lyuda and Seymon you'll see that they were basically skeletons as they were found in May, three months after the incident. The bodies found in February looked far better.

But the Post Mortem examination did not reveal any kinds of predation  !  ?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what autopsy reports are like. Autopsy reports describe the state of the body - eg. "eyeballs missing" or "tongue missing". They generally don't say "a small rodent ate the eyeballs" or "a KGB agent gouged the eyeballs out with a fork", because the doctor performing the autopsy has no way of knowing that.

Apologies.  I take it that Predation includes organisms that eat the flesh etc of bodies that have died. I didnt mean the predator that actually killed the body in question. There was no reports of such activity i e no organisms were found feeding on the dead bodies. And there were no signs of such organisms.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 18, 2019, 04:56:31 PM
So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.

So what indicators are there that this was a murder?


Well someone thought it was a criminal act in early 1959 which is why a criminal investigation was opened. As far as I know we do not have the specific reasons as to why such an investigation was opened.

Is it because they thought it was the Mansi maybe?


We dont know.  Like I said as far as I know there is no specific reasons why the investigation was opened as a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. Although the criteria differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, finding the bodies of nine healthy students without an obvious explanation will always trigger a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation gives the police procedural instruments to establish whether a crime was committed. You do not need strong evidence to open a criminal investigation, because the investigation is the only way to get that evidence in the first place. Only a small percentage of opened criminal investigations go to trial, as you need a strong case that a specific human suspect committed a crime for that to happen.

Most suicides, for instance, trigger a criminal investigation; because that's the only way you can determine that it was a suicide and rule out foul play.

What misunderstanding  ! ? It is always a decision left to the Authorities whether or not to open a Criminal Investigation. it is never a given. Who suggested that strong evidence was needed to open a Criminal investigation. And you are wrong when you say that most suicides trigger a Criminal Investigation. I know of many suicides that looked suspicious but no Criminal Investigation took place.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 18, 2019, 05:02:09 PM

And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. Although the criteria differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, finding the bodies of nine healthy students without an obvious explanation will always trigger a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation gives the police procedural instruments to establish whether a crime was committed. You do not need strong evidence to open a criminal investigation, because the investigation is the only way to get that evidence in the first place. Only a small percentage of opened criminal investigations go to trial, as you need a strong case that a specific human suspect committed a crime for that to happen.

Most suicides, for instance, trigger a criminal investigation; because that's the only way you can determine that it was a suicide and rule out foul play.

You are right, even a traffic accident or any damage that would be punishable by the criminal code if conducted deliberately, could trigger criminal investigation. Actually, the Soviet criminal justice would go ever further, SUSPICION of such acts was a basis for opening a criminal investigation. It was up to the police or the prosecutor to do so.

What makes you think that the Legal System of the USSR would go to ever further steps such as mere suspician. The Authorities made the final decision on whether or not to open a Criminal Investigation.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: gypsy on February 18, 2019, 10:33:29 PM

What makes you think that the Legal System of the USSR would go to ever further steps such as mere suspician. The Authorities made the final decision on whether or not to open a Criminal Investigation.

Studying the Criminal code of The Russian SFR makes me think that. It is their job to conduct investigation and it is absolutely standard. It is the same procedure as if you reported a crime to the police or prosecutor. They are legally required to act upon that, whether the crime has been committed is irrelevant at that stage. It's for them to find out.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 19, 2019, 12:49:47 PM

What makes you think that the Legal System of the USSR would go to ever further steps such as mere suspician. The Authorities made the final decision on whether or not to open a Criminal Investigation.

Studying the Criminal code of The Russian SFR makes me think that. It is their job to conduct investigation and it is absolutely standard. It is the same procedure as if you reported a crime to the police or prosecutor. They are legally required to act upon that, whether the crime has been committed is irrelevant at that stage. It's for them to find out.

If you are a student of LAW then you will know of the DISCRETIONARY actions of Police and Prosecutors and others charged with any kind of investigation. Just because something as happened that may be suspicious doesnt meant that the Authorities are going to pursue a Criminal Investigation.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: gypsy on February 19, 2019, 02:23:32 PM

If you are a student of LAW then you will know of the DISCRETIONARY actions of Police and Prosecutors and others charged with any kind of investigation. Just because something as happened that may be suspicious doesnt meant that the Authorities are going to pursue a Criminal Investigation.

I have not claimed to be a law student, my education or employment is irrelevant to this case. I am open to discuss it via PM, but it is not a topic here. I only claim to have read the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure code of the Russian SFR along with some analyses of them. "Acting upon suspicion" was a completly standard practise and is the very reason why there were so many political pisoners in the USSR without proper conviction. The "suspicion" in Soviet sense was a stronger basis for investigation than in most western countries. And yes, there is always a human factor involved and different investigators may have different opinions about what happened, the investigation needs to be open formally in orther to narrow down the possibilities and collect the evidence.

In the case of DPI, the investigation was open, no suspect was found so there was nobody to bring before the court (also standard procedure unfortunately for us), but the context is far from standard, as is the whole case.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 19, 2019, 06:19:28 PM

If you are a student of LAW then you will know of the DISCRETIONARY actions of Police and Prosecutors and others charged with any kind of investigation. Just because something as happened that may be suspicious doesnt meant that the Authorities are going to pursue a Criminal Investigation.

I have not claimed to be a law student, my education or employment is irrelevant to this case. I am open to discuss it via PM, but it is not a topic here. I only claim to have read the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure code of the Russian SFR along with some analyses of them. "Acting upon suspicion" was a completly standard practise and is the very reason why there were so many political pisoners in the USSR without proper conviction. The "suspicion" in Soviet sense was a stronger basis for investigation than in most western countries. And yes, there is always a human factor involved and different investigators may have different opinions about what happened, the investigation needs to be open formally in orther to narrow down the possibilities and collect the evidence.

In the case of DPI, the investigation was open, no suspect was found so there was nobody to bring before the court (also standard procedure unfortunately for us), but the context is far from standard, as is the whole case.

Why do you think that the suspicion in the Soviet sense was a stronger basis for investigation than in most Western Countries  !  ?  Plenty of Western Countries had and still have very suspicious attitudes.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: gypsy on February 20, 2019, 01:47:13 AM

Why do you think that the suspicion in the Soviet sense was a stronger basis for investigation than in most Western Countries  !  ?  Plenty of Western Countries had and still have very suspicious attitudes.

That is not my thought but a proven fact, Soviet regime was far more repressive that any other Western country in 20th century. The number of people arrested or even convicted for vaguely defined crimes was just enormous. The suspects of the crimes were far less protected by the law, the presumption of innocence was not applied up to the Western Standards. A person could be held in custody for up to 9 months without the court approval. Until 1958,  there was not even a right to have a lawyer present until the trial before the court.

What is symptomatic about this case, the reports are so vague that they allow for too much speculation, some evidence was even confiscated  as if it was never an intention to solve the case. The investigators and prosecutors had enough resources and competences to pursue the case much further. Unless someone of higher rank told them otherwise.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 20, 2019, 04:10:28 AM

Why do you think that the suspicion in the Soviet sense was a stronger basis for investigation than in most Western Countries  !  ?  Plenty of Western Countries had and still have very suspicious attitudes.

That is not my thought but a proven fact, Soviet regime was far more repressive that any other Western country in 20th century. The number of people arrested or even convicted for vaguely defined crimes was just enormous. The suspects of the crimes were far less protected by the law, the presumption of innocence was not applied up to the Western Standards. A person could be held in custody for up to 9 months without the court approval. Until 1958,  there was not even a right to have a lawyer present until the trial before the court.

What is symptomatic about this case, the reports are so vague that they allow for too much speculation, some evidence was even confiscated  as if it was never an intention to solve the case. The investigators and prosecutors had enough resources and competences to pursue the case much further. Unless someone of higher rank told them otherwise.

Good reply. I wont argue with that and I dont think it needs arguing with because there were clearly problems in the Soviet System, which also helped in its eventual downfall. The Soviet System was an experiment that didnt work out properly for whatever reason. And it has to be taken into account when looking at THE DYATLOV CASE. However we must remember that people are people no matter what the System, so we need to be careful with The Dyatlov Case, it may well be an event of such profoundness that would have taxed any System. Maybe any System would have needed to cover it up, we dont know because we are lacking all the evidence, etc. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: knocker on February 20, 2019, 11:32:56 PM
If I had to guess, Yuri Yuden did it.  Take a look at the photos of his diary sometime.  It was torn in half and all the pages from after he left the group are missing.  Reading what he wrote, Yuri Yuden strikes me as a disillusioned communist.  And don't forget another character in this story.  Uncle Slava.  He was a Lithuanian who was sentenced to 10 years in the gulag in 1949.  Probably picked up in the Operation Priobi roundup of political troublemakers in Lithuania in 1949 and deported to Soviet gulags.  In 1959, he would have just been released, probably not months before.   He was the group's transport provider while in town. 

As for the motive, who really knows, personal conflicts with the group, spurned romantic advances maybe on Yuden's part.  With Uncle Slava, I'd imagine he'd have every reason to want the heads of a few communist Russians after 10 year in the mines.  Put those two together and you have suspect numbers 1 and 2.     
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: knocker on February 20, 2019, 11:46:47 PM
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile.  He said something that took me by surprise at the time.  He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases. 

In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing.  In criminal cases they didn't do that so much.  If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort. 

If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder.  There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.   
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 21, 2019, 11:18:07 AM
If I had to guess, Yuri Yuden did it.  Take a look at the photos of his diary sometime.  It was torn in half and all the pages from after he left the group are missing.  Reading what he wrote, Yuri Yuden strikes me as a disillusioned communist.  And don't forget another character in this story.  Uncle Slava.  He was a Lithuanian who was sentenced to 10 years in the gulag in 1949.  Probably picked up in the Operation Priobi roundup of political troublemakers in Lithuania in 1949 and deported to Soviet gulags.  In 1959, he would have just been released, probably not months before.   He was the group's transport provider while in town. 

As for the motive, who really knows, personal conflicts with the group, spurned romantic advances maybe on Yuden's part.  With Uncle Slava, I'd imagine he'd have every reason to want the heads of a few communist Russians after 10 year in the mines.  Put those two together and you have suspect numbers 1 and 2.   

Do really think a person could inflict all those very serious injuries  !  ?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 21, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile.  He said something that took me by surprise at the time.  He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases. 

In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing.  In criminal cases they didn't do that so much.  If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort. 

If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder.  There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.   

Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder.  And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned.  Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: varuna on March 19, 2019, 03:00:31 AM
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile.  He said something that took me by surprise at the time.  He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases. 

In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing.  In criminal cases they didn't do that so much.  If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort. 

If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder.  There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.   

Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder.  And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned.  Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.

As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! )  bang1
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on April 24, 2019, 12:59:25 PM
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile.  He said something that took me by surprise at the time.  He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases. 

In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing.  In criminal cases they didn't do that so much.  If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort. 

If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder.  There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.   

Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder.  And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned.  Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.

As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! )  bang1
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .

If it was a Murder by other Humans then it was a botch up, whichever way you look at it.  But the findings do not lead us to a Murder scenario. Not a Murder by other Humans at least.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on April 25, 2019, 12:31:48 AM
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile.  He said something that took me by surprise at the time.  He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases. 

In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing.  In criminal cases they didn't do that so much.  If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort. 

If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder.  There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.   

Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder.  And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned.  Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.

As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! )  bang1
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .

If it was a Murder by other Humans then it was a botch up, whichever way you look at it.  But the findings do not lead us to a Murder scenario. Not a Murder by other Humans at least.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on April 25, 2019, 12:34:26 AM
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile.  He said something that took me by surprise at the time.  He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases. 

In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing.  In criminal cases they didn't do that so much.  If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort. 

If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder.  There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.   

Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder.  And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned.  Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.

As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! )  bang1
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .

If it was a Murder by other Humans then it was a botch up, whichever way you look at it.  But the findings do not lead us to a Murder scenario. Not a Murder by other Humans at least.

This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile.  He said something that took me by surprise at the time.  He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases. 

In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing.  In criminal cases they didn't do that so much.  If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort. 

If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder.  There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.   

Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder.  And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned.  Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.

As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! )  bang1
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .

If it was a Murder by other Humans then it was a botch up, whichever way you look at it.  But the findings do not lead us to a Murder scenario. Not a Murder by other Humans at least.

I am beginning to think that one of the group themselves may be responsible for the events that night.  I have been firing ideas out on “simplest credible explanation” thread.

I think Dyatlov himself could have triggered the events. 

The scenario goes like this in basic terms:

Dyatlov’s behaviour is unusual on this trip as reported in Zina’s diary.  Maybe he had a thing for Zina and others are flirting with her.?  He is jealou? He is also a bit of a control freak.

Dyatlov starts a fight at the tent that escalates into something more serious.  The group rally on Dyatlov and he pulles a knife and charges at the group.  The group flee running away from Dyatlov down the slope with Dyatlov in persuit.  The group split up scattering in the darkness.  Dyatlov follows the Yuris to the cedar.  The Yuris climb the tree to escape Dyatlov.  Dyatlov waits underneath. He maybe lights the fire and uses burning branches to try and reach the Yuris and force them down from the tree.  He later gives up and heads back up the slope.

Travel 4 meet with a terrible accident on the dark slope falling off a ridge not far from the ravine.

Zina wanders on the slope in dark and eventually gives up and dies from the cold.

Rustem who has been injured in the fight at the tent wanders in the dark alone until he collapses and dies from the cold.

Why this scenario?

If Dyatlov had a thing for Zina then it is unlikely that he would leave her to die on the slope.  Unless Zina was running from him?

There is no evidence of any other people there that night.  And if there were other people lightning a fire under the cedar would give your position away - unless the person lightning the fire is the attacker?

The two Yuris have severe frost bite are poorly dressed and yet their injuries indicate they climb the tree.  If there were others there better dressed you would think that they would climb the cedar.?  And if a fire was lit why did the Yuris have severe frost bite?  It they had frost bite before they lit a fire then how would they be able to strike the matches?  If they lit the fire before they got frost bite then they should not have got frost bite?  Also if they were all working together as a team they should have been able to survive.  Why not keep the fire going?  Why build a separate den.  It points towards a divided group.  Dyatlov’s hands are grimy in the morgue.  Some suggest frost bite but could be because he lit the fire under the cedar and was trying to get the Yuris. 

Regards
Star man





Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on April 25, 2019, 05:02:24 PM
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile.  He said something that took me by surprise at the time.  He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases. 

In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing.  In criminal cases they didn't do that so much.  If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort. 

If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder.  There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.   

Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder.  And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned.  Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.

As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! )  bang1
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .

If it was a Murder by other Humans then it was a botch up, whichever way you look at it.  But the findings do not lead us to a Murder scenario. Not a Murder by other Humans at least.

This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile.  He said something that took me by surprise at the time.  He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases. 

In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing.  In criminal cases they didn't do that so much.  If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort. 

If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder.  There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.   

Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder.  And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned.  Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.

As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! )  bang1
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .

If it was a Murder by other Humans then it was a botch up, whichever way you look at it.  But the findings do not lead us to a Murder scenario. Not a Murder by other Humans at least.

I am beginning to think that one of the group themselves may be responsible for the events that night.  I have been firing ideas out on “simplest credible explanation” thread.

I think Dyatlov himself could have triggered the events. 

The scenario goes like this in basic terms:

Dyatlov’s behaviour is unusual on this trip as reported in Zina’s diary.  Maybe he had a thing for Zina and others are flirting with her.?  He is jealou? He is also a bit of a control freak.

Dyatlov starts a fight at the tent that escalates into something more serious.  The group rally on Dyatlov and he pulles a knife and charges at the group.  The group flee running away from Dyatlov down the slope with Dyatlov in persuit.  The group split up scattering in the darkness.  Dyatlov follows the Yuris to the cedar.  The Yuris climb the tree to escape Dyatlov.  Dyatlov waits underneath. He maybe lights the fire and uses burning branches to try and reach the Yuris and force them down from the tree.  He later gives up and heads back up the slope.

Travel 4 meet with a terrible accident on the dark slope falling off a ridge not far from the ravine.

Zina wanders on the slope in dark and eventually gives up and dies from the cold.

Rustem who has been injured in the fight at the tent wanders in the dark alone until he collapses and dies from the cold.

Why this scenario?

If Dyatlov had a thing for Zina then it is unlikely that he would leave her to die on the slope.  Unless Zina was running from him?

There is no evidence of any other people there that night.  And if there were other people lightning a fire under the cedar would give your position away - unless the person lightning the fire is the attacker?

The two Yuris have severe frost bite are poorly dressed and yet their injuries indicate they climb the tree.  If there were others there better dressed you would think that they would climb the cedar.?  And if a fire was lit why did the Yuris have severe frost bite?  It they had frost bite before they lit a fire then how would they be able to strike the matches?  If they lit the fire before they got frost bite then they should not have got frost bite?  Also if they were all working together as a team they should have been able to survive.  Why not keep the fire going?  Why build a separate den.  It points towards a divided group.  Dyatlov’s hands are grimy in the morgue.  Some suggest frost bite but could be because he lit the fire under the cedar and was trying to get the Yuris. 

Regards
Star man

But could one man really have be responsible for all that happened to that Group  !  ?  What about the Radioactivity question. And the very serious and unusual injuries at the so called Ravine  !  ? 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on April 25, 2019, 11:37:41 PM
I think one man could be responsible.  The radiation as discussed in other threads could be circumstantial.  Contamination from some nuclear accident.

Regards
Star man
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: cennetkusu on May 09, 2019, 06:58:55 PM
A person with a knife can have no chance against 6 men and 2 women. Most of the other youngsters also had knives. None of the teenagers have a knife injury. It is not possible for these professional young people to find a tent in only 1.5 km. Whatever the weather conditions.Already there is an almost straight line from the tent to the cedar tree. I mean, even a normal person can find the tent at night. But it can be a little difficult. It is much simpler for these young people to be professional.