October 19, 2019, 02:00:44 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Murder Indead  (Read 8571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

September 05, 2019, 04:28:48 AM
Reply #120
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Quote from Per Inge Oestmoen

[[  It is however a safe assumption that the Dyatlov group was murdered in an intelligently orchestrated attack carefully designed to make the whole thing look like an accident, and that the attack was executed because the orchestrators had determined that the nine had entered an area where they were not supposed to be - and that the nine students must therefore be eliminated without fail. ]]

Safe assumption  !  ?  Nothing appears to be safe about The Dyatlov Mystery. Plenty of ASSUMPTIONS though.
DB

September 05, 2019, 04:39:37 AM
Reply #121
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Quote from Per Inge Oestmoen.

[[ 1. It is a matter of course that the victims must have been searched by their assailants before they were sent out in the cold. ]]

So are you saying that The Dyatlov Group were searched in  the Tent ! ?
DB

September 05, 2019, 05:00:13 AM
Reply #122
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


Quote from Per Inge Oestmoen.

[[ 1. It is a matter of course that the victims must have been searched by their assailants before they were sent out in the cold. ]]

So are you saying that The Dyatlov Group were searched in  the Tent ! ?


Not necessarily inside the tent, but before they were sent away in the cold they were most probably searched.

By the way, their clothes and boots were found in heaps inside the tent, which is just another indication of something sinister having occurred. If the students has left the tent voluntarily, they would have tried to put on them winter clothing and boots.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 05:24:18 AM by Per Inge Oestmoen »

September 05, 2019, 05:17:46 AM
Reply #123
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen



[1] When armed men attack in adverse weather conditions who can say what order the situation would take.  And we can not say for certain in what state of mind the Dyatlov Group were when they left the Tent. And how can you state that they were certainly forced out of the Tent at Gunpoint.  Was the Tent RANSACKED.

You seem to make an awful lot of ASSUMPTIONS given that there is not much Evidence available to us Investigators.


1. We are not "Investigators." Unfortunately no one has access to the remaining skeletons, and they should of course have been exhumed.

2. The original ASSUMPTIONS were made by the investigators back in 1959, and not only that, these assumptions were made as a result of the investigators having been forced by the authorities to close the case with the conclusion that the deaths of the nine were the result of bad decisions by Igor Dyatlov and a series of unfortunate accidents.

3. The abovementioned conclusion of the investigation in 1959 is contradicted by literally all available evidence. The physical terrain in the area is not steep enough to allow an avalanche to form, and neither the tent nor the area around nor the surrounding area showed any trace of an avalanche. The slope wherein the four last victims were found was far from steep enough to kill people by the energy created in a fall. The injuries of all of the nine cannot be explained by accidents or natural causes, but are all consistent with what is typically seen as damage caused by a human attack with lethal intent.

- When nine human beings are found dead, and there are no natural physical circumstances or possible accidents that fit the nature of the injuries, it is a safe assumption that the injuries and deaths are caused by something else than natural forces and accidents.

- When nine human beings are found dead, and it is beyond reasonable doubt that the deaths are caused by something else than natural forces and accidents, one must look at all the available evidence and adopt an analytical approach. If that is done in the Dyatlov Pass case, it emerges that the only conclusion that harmonizes with all the evidence is the conclusion of a well-planned, intelligently executed mission to kill these students in a way designed to make the whole operation look like an accident.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 05:22:04 AM by Per Inge Oestmoen »

September 05, 2019, 06:20:17 AM
Reply #124
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
If they were ordered out of the tent at gun point would you not think it would be sensible to search them to ensure none of them had a gun or other weapon?  During such a search do you think they would have allowed the group to keep their knife/knives, their matches, their camera, and  their flashlight? 

You say there is no evidence that they left in a panic.  The state of dress of each of them is different, Slobodin had one boot on.  Were their assailants not bothered about each persons ability to survive the cold?   

Equally there is nothing that could be held up as evidence to conclude they left in an orderly way. 

The tent may not have been damaged by the hikers but it equally could have been. 

The injuries are the main difficulty.  There are multiple forensic reports on this site that conclude that the chest injuries were likely made by single massive blows like a car crash or major fall.  Elbow stiles are very unlikely. 

When you put it all together it doesn’t rack up as likely.

Regards
Star man


1. It is a matter of course that the victims must have been searched by their assailants before they were sent out in the cold. As could be expected, no one of the dead students had a knife with them. All the large knives of the expedition members were in the tent, and no one of the killed had a sheath knife. The attackers may have not bothered with a camera and a flashlight, these items would not be of much help to the victims. The valenki on Rustem Slobodin is fully explicable if he was outside of the tent at the moment of attack and the attackers did not care much about his footwear as he was otherwise improperly dressed.

2. As a matter of fact there is still no evidence that they left in a state of panic. On the contrary, eyewitnesses from the first search testified that the tracks they saw indicated an orderly retreat, and that it looked like that the nine hikers were standing still in a row before their walking away. There is no similar testimony that indicates panic or disorder.

3. The tent: There is no reason why the hikers would destroy their own tent. Why assume that such was the case? It is evident that the authorities wanted the conclusion that the tent was cut from the inside, but the point here is that the cuts in the tent was never scientifically examined. So, when and how these cuts were made cannot be said with certainty - but there is no indication and no reason why the students would destroy their own tent and even less reason why they would exit their tent through these cuts. It has been suggested by investigators who, at the time, were heavily pressurized by the authorities to build up to a conclusion that the whole Dyatlov Pass tragedy was due to unfortunate circumstances and a series of accidents and to close the investigation rapidly with that conclusion. This whole sequence of events is as close as one can come to a confirmation that this was something very different from the officially dictated conclusion.

4. The injuries. After the bodies were found, the first leader of the investigation was fired because he did not believe in the conclusion that the authorities wanted. The statements that the massive chest injuries looked like having been caused by a car crash or a major fall are of course worthless: There were no signs of avalanches having occurred, moreover the terrain was hardly steep enough to allow avalanches, and above all there were no precipices deep enough to have caused the injuries by falling. Nor are the injuries typical of what happens when people fall. The crushed skull of Tibo does fit the shape of a rifle butt. The injuries of Kolevatov could not be caused by a fall, and are very typical of what happens when someone is attacked by a skilled close combat practitioner.

None of the injuries - none - fit any natural causes.

Realistically, we can rule out all the avalanche and fall theories.

The patterns of the damage found on the bodies is not what is seen when people stumble around in the dark.

That means, the deaths were demonstrably not natural deaths or accidents. 

The long period between the attack on February 1 and the day where the dead were found on February 26 was almost a month, and together with the first rescuers' being unaware of the fact that they had entered a crime scene it fully explains why no traces of the attackers were found.
If they were ordered out of the tent at gun point would you not think it would be sensible to search them to ensure none of them had a gun or other weapon?  During such a search do you think they would have allowed the group to keep their knife/knives, their matches, their camera, and  their flashlight? 

You say there is no evidence that they left in a panic.  The state of dress of each of them is different, Slobodin had one boot on.  Were their assailants not bothered about each persons ability to survive the cold?   

Equally there is nothing that could be held up as evidence to conclude they left in an orderly way. 

The tent may not have been damaged by the hikers but it equally could have been. 

The injuries are the main difficulty.  There are multiple forensic reports on this site that conclude that the chest injuries were likely made by single massive blows like a car crash or major fall.  Elbow stiles are very unlikely. 

When you put it all together it doesn’t rack up as likely.

Regards
Star man


1. It is a matter of course that the victims must have been searched by their assailants before they were sent out in the cold. As could be expected, no one of the dead students had a knife with them. All the large knives of the expedition members were in the tent, and no one of the killed had a sheath knife. The attackers may have not bothered with a camera and a flashlight, these items would not be of much help to the victims. The valenki on Rustem Slobodin is fully explicable if he was outside of the tent at the moment of attack and the attackers did not care much about his footwear as he was otherwise improperly dressed.

2. As a matter of fact there is still no evidence that they left in a state of panic. On the contrary, eyewitnesses from the first search testified that the tracks they saw indicated an orderly retreat, and that it looked like that the nine hikers were standing still in a row before their walking away. There is no similar testimony that indicates panic or disorder.

3. The tent: There is no reason why the hikers would destroy their own tent. Why assume that such was the case? It is evident that the authorities wanted the conclusion that the tent was cut from the inside, but the point here is that the cuts in the tent was never scientifically examined. So, when and how these cuts were made cannot be said with certainty - but there is no indication and no reason why the students would destroy their own tent and even less reason why they would exit their tent through these cuts. It has been suggested by investigators who, at the time, were heavily pressurized by the authorities to build up to a conclusion that the whole Dyatlov Pass tragedy was due to unfortunate circumstances and a series of accidents and to close the investigation rapidly with that conclusion. This whole sequence of events is as close as one can come to a confirmation that this was something very different from the officially dictated conclusion.

4. The injuries. After the bodies were found, the first leader of the investigation was fired because he did not believe in the conclusion that the authorities wanted. The statements that the massive chest injuries looked like having been caused by a car crash or a major fall are of course worthless: There were no signs of avalanches having occurred, moreover the terrain was hardly steep enough to allow avalanches, and above all there were no precipices deep enough to have caused the injuries by falling. Nor are the injuries typical of what happens when people fall. The crushed skull of Tibo does fit the shape of a rifle butt. The injuries of Kolevatov could not be caused by a fall, and are very typical of what happens when someone is attacked by a skilled close combat practitioner.

None of the injuries - none - fit any natural causes.

Realistically, we can rule out all the avalanche and fall theories.

The patterns of the damage found on the bodies is not what is seen when people stumble around in the dark.

That means, the deaths were demonstrably not natural deaths or accidents. 

The long period between the attack on February 1 and the day where the dead were found on February 26 was almost a month, and together with the first rescuers' being unaware of the fact that they had entered a crime scene it fully explains why no traces of the attackers were found.

There is no time stamp on the foot prints so there is no way of knowing for certain that they moved in an orderly way.  Also, even if they did move orderly they still could have been scared.

If they had no knives what did they use to cut the clothes from their dead friends?  I doubt that the attackers would have done that for them. 

I don’t buy the camera and matches and pen knives being considered unimportant by attackers. 

Why would the attackers march them down the hill and then leave them to climb trees make a fire and a den.  Why did they allow Dyatlov Rustem and Zina to wander off.

I agree that the injuries are not an accident but how could they have been done by the attackers.  They were single massive blows?

Regards

Star man

September 05, 2019, 06:49:04 AM
Reply #125
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Quote
3. The abovementioned conclusion of the investigation in 1959 is contradicted by literally all available evidence. The physical terrain in the area is not steep enough to allow an avalanche to form, and neither the tent nor the area around nor the surrounding area showed any trace of an avalanche. The slope wherein the four last victims were found was far from steep enough to kill people by the energy created in a fall. The injuries of all of the nine cannot be explained by accidents or natural causes, but are all consistent with what is typically seen as damage caused by a human attack with lethal intent.

Avalanche
If it was a simple slide of snow on a smaller scale, would it be so obvious nearly a month later?  The Expedition Unknown show just proved the slope is 20-25° at the tent and gets steeper above where they were... possibly 30-35°.  A small scale slide could have happened above them and not necessarily reached the tent, but would create one hell of a motive to get out of the tent and not be so eager to go back in. 

Fall
WAB says not far away there is a very steep and deep area in which they very well could have fallen, and don't forget about falling from great height from a tree.

Crushed
People seem to forget that this is also a possibility.  If they did dig out a shelter cave and many tons of packed snow and ice collapsed onto them pinning/crushing/throwing them onto the ravine floor, this can be a cause for their injuries as well. 
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

September 05, 2019, 11:19:42 PM
Reply #126
Offline

Monika


We dont really have enough Evidence to say for certain that they were all walking down the slope side by side. Also I would have thought that if they were being escorted down the slope by other people then those people would prefer them more closely bunched together. And then it becomes even more of a Mystery!  What happens at the Cedar Tree? Where are the escorts? And then those Injuries on Bodies at the so called Ravine? Injuries highly unlikely to have been caused by another person or persons. And then how come 3 of the Dyatlov Group make it part way back up the slope or so it appears? Whats the escorts MODUS OPERANDI?


1. Remember that the first searchers also observed that the tracks closest to the tent strongly suggested that the nine victims were forced to stand in line. That is precisely what is to be expected, if attacked by armed men. What we can say with a high degree of certainty, is that there is no indication that the hikers left their tent in a disorderly or panicked state. There is no particular reason why the attackers, who must have initially relied on the cold to take care of the matter, would want their victims to be more closely bunched together. On the contrary, when they were forced out - almost certainly at gunpoint - it made the most sense to ensure that they were spread in a line. That way, it becomes easier for the attackers to control them. Later, they probably spread while the attacking squad ransacked their tent and waited for the cold to do the killing. This is a rather probable sketch of what happened.

2. We cannot possibly know the all the details of what violent actions took place at the cedar tree, but it would seem that the two first victims found there had tried to escape their assailants by climbing the tree, but were probably dragged down - and there is every indication that they had been subjected to violent action from other humans. Also, there is no other sensible explanation why they would try to climb that tree. The fact of their damaged hands showed the utter desperation of their failed attempt to escape.

3. The injuries - and in particular the injuries found on these in the not-so-steep slope - are precisely indicative of human evil involvement. There were evidently no avalanches, no snow slabs in the area, and the "ravine" was neither deep enough nor steep enough to crush human rib cages in a fall - in addition to the fact that these injuries were not at all typical of what is seen when people are falling from great heights which were also not present in the area. The injury of Nikolay Thibeaux-Brignolle is very telling - this is the result of a pointed impact to the head: https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Nikolay-Thibeaux-Brignolle-autopsy-report.png. The damage even has a shape similar to that of a rifle butt. Kolevatov was killed in a manner which strongly suggests that his laryngal area was crushed. I have learned about lethal striking against vital points in jiu jitsu training, and such an injury is suggestive of having been killed by someone trained in advanced close combat systems. The crushed rib cages, likewise. To me, it seems to be the result of repeated elbow strikes. It is surprisingly easy to crush a human rib cage with strikes, especially if you trained in close combat skills. The intercostals - the muscles that sit between the ribs and assist the diaphragm during breathing - are easily torn, and if the beating continues the ribs will break - and that is what happened to Dubinina and Zolotaryov. When the injuries are that serious, internal bleeding starts and death is likely. All of these injuries are consistent with human involvement, and human involvement only.

4. The three who apparently tried to go back to the tent probably did so because they froze, and there is every reason to infer that they were stopped. They were found with injuries consistent with being attacked by human assailants who wanted to hasten their deaths.

Hello,
 I have a few observations.

As you note:
„Remember that the first searchers also observed that the tracks closest to the tent strongly suggested that the nine victims were forced to stand in line.“

- This fact can be explained otherwise. Naturally, after escaping from the tent, at the beginning,  people would all try to go as close as possible to each other while moving down to the forest. From a psychological point of view, I can imagine this because they would be as close to each other as possible to mentally support each other and thus feel safer. During the walk, in later stage, each of them had a different pace (this is related to the height of the figure, taller people have longer legs and walk faster). Therefore, over time, they could have moved a little bit apart. The strong wind could also play a role here when they had something to do to keep themselves upright and make their walk even harder. At this stage, they could focus more on themselves and keep on their feet. Of course, this is only a theoretical consideration, but it is certainly more realistic than the possibility that someone with a gun forced them to go down the slope.
If they were threatened, what would keep them from running far and wide? 1.5 km from the tent is quite a long distance from the attackers to try to run and not like "sheep" to go side by side down the slope.

„We cannot possibly know the all the details of what violent actions took place at the cedar tree, but it would seem that the two first victims found there had tried to escape their assailants by climbing the tree, but were probably dragged down - and there is every indication that they had been subjected to violent action from other humans. Also, there is no other sensible explanation why they would try to climb that tree. The fact of their damaged hands showed the utter desperation of their failed attempt to escape“.

- Their climb to the tree can also be explained by the fact that they wanted to check the situation in the tent. The tent could be visible from a distance of 1.5 km. Something was happening in the immediate vicinity of the tent, which prevented them from taking their clothes and boots, so they could try to check the situation around the tent. Why would someone climb on a tree to hide? This is absurd, for they would know they had no chance. If they wanted to hide from someone, they would go deeper into the forest and would not climb the sparsely leafed tree right at the edge of the forest.

As for the injuries and scratches, they could have been caused as they descended into the forest. When I watched a video on YouTube (Josh Gates's Expedition Unknown on Discovery Channel) I was surprised at how rocky the slope was, and despite the heavy snow cover, rocks stuck everywhere under the snow. Imagine that you are walking on such terrain, in the dark and in the strong wind, and even weakly dressed and without shoes. It must have been a terrible journey. Certainly they have fallen more and more times which resulted in bruises and even harder injuries.

September 06, 2019, 01:55:27 AM
Reply #127
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen



There is no time stamp on the foot prints so there is no way of knowing for certain that they moved in an orderly way.  Also, even if they did move orderly they still could have been scared.

If they had no knives what did they use to cut the clothes from their dead friends?  I doubt that the attackers would have done that for them. 

I don’t buy the camera and matches and pen knives being considered unimportant by attackers. 

Why would the attackers march them down the hill and then leave them to climb trees make a fire and a den.  Why did they allow Dyatlov Rustem and Zina to wander off.

I agree that the injuries are not an accident but how could they have been done by the attackers.  They were single massive blows?

Regards
Star man


1. The point with the footprints is that the first people who arrived at the scene reported two things:

- Rather close to the tent, they saw footprints from a group of people standing in a row, before these tracks went down the hill.

- It was possible to follow the footprints for some distance from the tent, and they showed no sign of panic in any way.

- Of course they must have been scared. They understooe that they were in mortal danger, and we can only imagine what torments they went through, sensing clearly that they would probably not survive this. They were intelligent students, and certainly understood that these assailants attacked them for a reason and that they would not be allowed to escape with their life. But they seemed to have been forced out in an orderly way, judging after the tracks which were found by the first rescue team.

2. All sheathed knives remained in the tent. If they had left voluntarily, it is for certain that they would have taken with them one or more large knives. A pen knife is not of much help in a survival situation, neither for fighting nor for cutting firewood. It was also claimed, without any hard evidence, that the students had cut the tent themselves and exited the tent through these cuts. These claims have never been backed up in any way, and when the bodies were found they had no knives suitable for making large slashes into a heavy cotton fabric either.

3. In all probability, the attackers had planned the operation so as to look like an unfortunate accident in the cold. The proper way to do that in these circumstances was to force their nine victims out from the tent, ensure that they were improperly dressed, and then chase them away at gunpoint and let the winter do the job. That explains why not only Igor Dyatlov, Rustem Slobodin and Zinaida Kolmogorova but the whole group was allowed to walk away from the tent - that simply was part of the attacking squad's plan. The only obstacle was that at that night it was only moderately cold, hence the injuries which must have been caused by the attackers' need to expedite the desired outcome. Neither a camera, nor a small pen knife, nor some matches that could easily have been overlooked by the assailants primarily concerned with getting them out from the tent without proper winter clothing would be of great help in their situation.

4. The injuries of all the nine students are consistent with an attack scenario. There is not a single injury that is likely to have been caused by natural causes, accidents or stumbling around. In particular this is true for the massive damage on the last four, who are supposed to be the last to die. This is significant, because the last four were better dressed than the others and had gone furthest from the tent. The attacking squad therefore had to use the greatest force against them, hence the more severe injuries. The massive blows cannot have been caused by falls or avalanches, because there was no avalanches in the area and an avalanche would be very unlikely to crush rib cages and leave the arms and legs unharmed and there were no deadly precipices where these last four were found. There must have been repeated blows in the same direction and angle, perfectly consistent with hard blows dealt possibly by elbow strikes. It is also significant that the injuries of the last four were different, in addition to the fact that these injuries do not at all fit any accident theory. Kolevatov had a crushed laryngeal area and a wound behind the ear, which is highly unlikely to have been caused by anything "natural," Thibeaux-Brignolle had a crushed skull which evidently is caused by an impact by a hard blow which could not realistically be caused by a fall down a moderate slope or a non-existent avalanche. Dubinina and Zolotaryov had crushed rib cages. But there were no natural forces in the area that could possibly have caused such massive trauma to their chests.

All this leaves us with murder, a planned and intelligently orchestrated murder as the - by far - most likely explanation.

September 06, 2019, 03:24:13 AM
Reply #128
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen



Hello,
 I have a few observations.

As you note:
„Remember that the first searchers also observed that the tracks closest to the tent strongly suggested that the nine victims were forced to stand in line.“

- This fact can be explained otherwise. Naturally, after escaping from the tent, at the beginning,  people would all try to go as close as possible to each other while moving down to the forest. From a psychological point of view, I can imagine this because they would be as close to each other as possible to mentally support each other and thus feel safer. During the walk, in later stage, each of them had a different pace (this is related to the height of the figure, taller people have longer legs and walk faster). Therefore, over time, they could have moved a little bit apart. The strong wind could also play a role here when they had something to do to keep themselves upright and make their walk even harder. At this stage, they could focus more on themselves and keep on their feet. Of course, this is only a theoretical consideration, but it is certainly more realistic than the possibility that someone with a gun forced them to go down the slope.
If they were threatened, what would keep them from running far and wide? 1.5 km from the tent is quite a long distance from the attackers to try to run and not like "sheep" to go side by side down the slope.

„We cannot possibly know the all the details of what violent actions took place at the cedar tree, but it would seem that the two first victims found there had tried to escape their assailants by climbing the tree, but were probably dragged down - and there is every indication that they had been subjected to violent action from other humans. Also, there is no other sensible explanation why they would try to climb that tree. The fact of their damaged hands showed the utter desperation of their failed attempt to escape“.

- Their climb to the tree can also be explained by the fact that they wanted to check the situation in the tent. The tent could be visible from a distance of 1.5 km. Something was happening in the immediate vicinity of the tent, which prevented them from taking their clothes and boots, so they could try to check the situation around the tent. Why would someone climb on a tree to hide? This is absurd, for they would know they had no chance. If they wanted to hide from someone, they would go deeper into the forest and would not climb the sparsely leafed tree right at the edge of the forest.

As for the injuries and scratches, they could have been caused as they descended into the forest. When I watched a video on YouTube (Josh Gates's Expedition Unknown on Discovery Channel) I was surprised at how rocky the slope was, and despite the heavy snow cover, rocks stuck everywhere under the snow. Imagine that you are walking on such terrain, in the dark and in the strong wind, and even weakly dressed and without shoes. It must have been a terrible journey. Certainly they have fallen more and more times which resulted in bruises and even harder injuries.

Hello!

It is very welcome that you present your thoughts. It is important to go through all the possibilities so that we can have a clearer picture of what we need to look for, and it is not at all unlikely that all of us have overlooked some important details. So we go through the observations.

1. The exit from the tent and the walk down from the slope.

- Yes, it is not only possible but very probable that after having walked out from the tent the nine initially tried to keep close to each other to protect themselves and their fellows. That is the natural thing to do, when people walk out in a dark, cold environment. But that is equally true regardless of whether the people leave their tent voluntarily or not. Humans normally stick together for mutual comfort and protection when in a stressful situation. Over time, they drifted apart. That is also natural and also inevitable because in a group of humans improperly dressed in the winter night there will be different levels of physical capability, different psychological reactions and also different ideas about what to do. This is borne out by the fact that the students evidently drifted apart.

- Moreover, this very natural and highly likely scenario in no way contradicts the overwhelming indications that the reason they left the tent was a human attack by people who forced them out from their tent. The suggestion that the students were forced away from their camp at gunpoint is very reasonable since such an operation must have been carefully orchestrated and executed. An attacking squad on a mission to kill nine young and capable humans in their prime will rarely perform their mission unarmed.

- The point here is that since there were no avalanches or natural forces that destroyed the camp area, there is no realistic reason why the nine students would ever leave their tent without proper winter clothing and then walk far away from their camp unless they were forced to do so. There is still less reason to walk 1.5 kilometres - one mile - away if there is a disaster in the tent, which it was evidently not. The only damage to the tent were some cuts of unknown cause, and these cuts were never scientifically examined. Thus, we are left with what we know, which is that the nine victims left their tent without any objective reason why they would do so.

- The conclusion that they were forced out from the tent by other humans is the most sensible one, and in fact also the one probable explanation why they left their tent, their camp and went far away in the dark and left almost all their winter clothing in the tent. This makes perfect sense if the orchestrators of the deadly mission had determined that the best way to accomplish the operation was to kill the students in such a way as to make it look like an accident. As we see, if this is what actually happened those who decided the fate of the Dyatlov group were largely successful. Even sixty years after the tragedy many people still assume that the original conclusion - which was evidently forced on the local investigators from above - of an unfortunate accident is true, and many fantastically impossible theories ranging from one member of the group going mad to Yetis, infrasound and UFOs have been proposed. However, it is quite correctly said that dead bodies do not lie. The final answer could and should have been found in the bodies, but the local investigators in Sverdlovsk and Ivdel were prevented from stating openly what they found. The first leader of the investigation, Ivanov, was even fired because he refused to comply with the official explanation dictated to him - in all probability directly from Moscow.

2. The two of them - Doroshenko and Krivonischenko - climbing the tree:

- Why would someone climb a tree to hide? Well, first we have every indication that Doroshenko and Krivonischenko not only tried to climb the tree, but did so in a desperate situation. Their damaged hands indicated what happened. It is not likely that such desperation and obvious haste could be caused by the two wanting to just look towards the tent. Further, this scenario is extremely likely if the attackers went after them shortly after they forced the Dyatlov group out from their tent because the assailants understood that the temperature in the area was not sufficient to kill the victims rapidly as they had originally planned. When Doroshenko and Krivonischenko saw the attackers coming after them, the only thing they could possibly do was to make a last futile attempt to escape. To do this by climbing a tree is of course an act of utter desperation, but it is likely given the circumstances. They were improperly dressed, while their assailants had winter garments and in all probability skis and snowshoes - there was no way to escape for these tormented souls and they understood that to try to run from their attackers barefoot in the snow would just mean they were hunted down immediately. Yes, they know that they had no chance, but to climb the tree was their last effort in life - there was no other options available to them if this scenario is what in fact occurred. Chances are that it is, and it all fits in with an attack by a group of trained killers who were careful not to leave any bullet wounds or knife cuts on their victims.

- The above scenario is rather more likely than a theory that the two climbed the tree to observe the camp area. Also, during a winter night in February in this area, it would be a very dark night and therefore no possibility of observing anything that happened a mile away.

3. The injuries.

- We might go through all the injuries described on this site in the document https://dyatlovpass.com/death.

- But first, the very fact that they were out in the cold and the dark demonstrates that something terrible forced them not only out from their tent but away from the camp area. Nine intelligent students do not do that unless an overwhelming force compels them to do so. Since there were demonstrably no natural forces that could have caused them to leave the safety of their tent with insufficient protection against the winter, there is the possibility that they were forced out from the tent by other humans.

- Then, we have the documented injuries. No, it is impossible that all these injuries could have been caused by the students' stumbling around in the dark. They were not merely minor scratches, but serious bodily damage. Crushed larynx, smashed skulls, crushed rib cages, abrasions consistent with beatings, we could go on in detail. Every single injury is consistent with what can be expected in a lethal attack.

Objectively, no findings contradict the murder theory whereas everything fits it. So where does all this leave us?

It is difficult to avoid inclining towards the theory that nine members of the Dyatlov group were all killed, meticulously and in cold blood by people who were on a mission and knew what they were doing.

September 06, 2019, 04:00:56 AM
Reply #129
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


Quote
3. The abovementioned conclusion of the investigation in 1959 is contradicted by literally all available evidence. The physical terrain in the area is not steep enough to allow an avalanche to form, and neither the tent nor the area around nor the surrounding area showed any trace of an avalanche. The slope wherein the four last victims were found was far from steep enough to kill people by the energy created in a fall. The injuries of all of the nine cannot be explained by accidents or natural causes, but are all consistent with what is typically seen as damage caused by a human attack with lethal intent.

Avalanche
If it was a simple slide of snow on a smaller scale, would it be so obvious nearly a month later?  The Expedition Unknown show just proved the slope is 20-25° at the tent and gets steeper above where they were... possibly 30-35°.  A small scale slide could have happened above them and not necessarily reached the tent, but would create one hell of a motive to get out of the tent and not be so eager to go back in. 

Fall
WAB says not far away there is a very steep and deep area in which they very well could have fallen, and don't forget about falling from great height from a tree.

Crushed
People seem to forget that this is also a possibility.  If they did dig out a shelter cave and many tons of packed snow and ice collapsed onto them pinning/crushing/throwing them onto the ravine floor, this can be a cause for their injuries as well.


- There was no sign of an avalanche in the camp area, and the tent had no damage apart from the inconclusive cuts of unknown origin. Even if there theoretically might have been an avalanche in the near area, it is quite a stretch to believe that a group of nine students where most if not all were experienced mountaineers would flee their tent without proper clothing, boots and without winter mittens. Also, in the event of a small avalanche they would not be likely to go far away. They must have known the mechanism of avalanches, and would have had no reason to go far away from the tent.

- There were steep areas at some distance from the site, but there were no precipitous area where the four last died and were found.

- There is no reason to assume that they fell from a tree, when nothing would indicate that they climbed any tree. Moreover, the injuries they had are not consistent with a fall of any kind. If there is a fall from a height, which here can be dismissed with a high degree of probability, usually the limbs and face are most severely impacted. People who fall typically do not fall with their rib cages first, and it would be a most unusual occurrence if two persons fell in a way so that their rib cages were smashed while their limbs escaped serious damage. The various explanations of an accident simply do not fit, and this becomes more obvious the more one delves into the available evidence.

- Crushed by snow: If the four last to die had died from being crushed by snow, the chest injuries of Zolotaryev and Dubinina would almost certainly have been accompanied by other injuries consistent with a snow slab scenario - and it is very likely that we would have seen dislocated limbs. There were none. Since the chest injuries of these two must have been caused by pointed hard blows and the two did not have any other injuries that could have been caused by an impact from a slab of snow, we can exclude that possibility with a rather high degree of certainty.

Everything points to something very different from any kind of natural disaster.

September 06, 2019, 04:59:38 AM
Reply #130
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Quote
3. The abovementioned conclusion of the investigation in 1959 is contradicted by literally all available evidence. The physical terrain in the area is not steep enough to allow an avalanche to form, and neither the tent nor the area around nor the surrounding area showed any trace of an avalanche. The slope wherein the four last victims were found was far from steep enough to kill people by the energy created in a fall. The injuries of all of the nine cannot be explained by accidents or natural causes, but are all consistent with what is typically seen as damage caused by a human attack with lethal intent.

Avalanche
If it was a simple slide of snow on a smaller scale, would it be so obvious nearly a month later?  The Expedition Unknown show just proved the slope is 20-25° at the tent and gets steeper above where they were... possibly 30-35°.  A small scale slide could have happened above them and not necessarily reached the tent, but would create one hell of a motive to get out of the tent and not be so eager to go back in. 

Fall
WAB says not far away there is a very steep and deep area in which they very well could have fallen, and don't forget about falling from great height from a tree.

Crushed
People seem to forget that this is also a possibility.  If they did dig out a shelter cave and many tons of packed snow and ice collapsed onto them pinning/crushing/throwing them onto the ravine floor, this can be a cause for their injuries as well.


- There was no sign of an avalanche in the camp area, and the tent had no damage apart from the inconclusive cuts of unknown origin. Even if there theoretically might have been an avalanche in the near area, it is quite a stretch to believe that a group of nine students where most if not all were experienced mountaineers would flee their tent without proper clothing, boots and without winter mittens. Also, in the event of a small avalanche they would not be likely to go far away. They must have known the mechanism of avalanches, and would have had no reason to go far away from the tent.

- There were steep areas at some distance from the site, but there were no precipitous area where the four last died and were found.

- There is no reason to assume that they fell from a tree, when nothing would indicate that they climbed any tree. Moreover, the injuries they had are not consistent with a fall of any kind. If there is a fall from a height, which here can be dismissed with a high degree of probability, usually the limbs and face are most severely impacted. People who fall typically do not fall with their rib cages first, and it would be a most unusual occurrence if two persons fell in a way so that their rib cages were smashed while their limbs escaped serious damage. The various explanations of an accident simply do not fit, and this becomes more obvious the more one delves into the available evidence.

- Crushed by snow: If the four last to die had died from being crushed by snow, the chest injuries of Zolotaryev and Dubinina would almost certainly have been accompanied by other injuries consistent with a snow slab scenario - and it is very likely that we would have seen dislocated limbs. There were none. Since the chest injuries of these two must have been caused by pointed hard blows and the two did not have any other injuries that could have been caused by an impact from a slab of snow, we can exclude that possibility with a rather high degree of certainty.

Everything points to something very different from any kind of natural disaster.

Personally, I agree with everything you have said above.  Bravo.  The only thing I disagree with is who or more precisely what did it.

As very strange as it sounds if you replace the word “human “ with “large powerful ape like creature “. Then we would be in complete agreement.  Now, Before anyone starts with the Yeti ‘s don’t exist response - a large powerful Gorilla is capable of inflicting those injuries and it would not have been bothered about them taking knives, matches or a camera with them when they left the tent.

So where did this ape come from you may ask.  Well if a military test of some kind was being executed in the area then you would want to know the effects that such a test would have in biological creatures such as humans and I doubt there would be many willing volunteers.  Hence you fly in some test subjects and position them strategically in the test zone.  Now how would you ensure that the test subjects stay where they are supposed to be - maybe a cage or a tether of some kind?  But Gorillas are very strong and can bend iron bars and escape.  Also in cold temps steel can become brittle.  So if this creature (s) escaped and found the Dyatlov camp then the rest is self explanatory.  Note that such an ape is unlikely to have been well treated, may be injured and will certainly not be happy about humans.

I might have to elaborate a bit more in one of my other theories in the general discussion section

Regards

Star man

September 07, 2019, 05:42:30 PM
Reply #131
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Quote from Per Inge Oestmoen.

[[ 1. It is a matter of course that the victims must have been searched by their assailants before they were sent out in the cold. ]]

So are you saying that The Dyatlov Group were searched in  the Tent ! ?


Not necessarily inside the tent, but before they were sent away in the cold they were most probably searched.

By the way, their clothes and boots were found in heaps inside the tent, which is just another indication of something sinister having occurred. If the students has left the tent voluntarily, they would have tried to put on them winter clothing and boots.

Some were better dressed than others. Finding clothes and boots in heaps inside the tent along with other life support equipment may suggest something sinister.
DB

September 07, 2019, 05:51:14 PM
Reply #132
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient

[1] When armed men attack in adverse weather conditions who can say what order the situation would take.  And we can not say for certain in what state of mind the Dyatlov Group were when they left the Tent. And how can you state that they were certainly forced out of the Tent at Gunpoint.  Was the Tent RANSACKED.

You seem to make an awful lot of ASSUMPTIONS given that there is not much Evidence available to us Investigators.


1. We are not "Investigators." Unfortunately no one has access to the remaining skeletons, and they should of course have been exhumed.

2. The original ASSUMPTIONS were made by the investigators back in 1959, and not only that, these assumptions were made as a result of the investigators having been forced by the authorities to close the case with the conclusion that the deaths of the nine were the result of bad decisions by Igor Dyatlov and a series of unfortunate accidents.

3. The abovementioned conclusion of the investigation in 1959 is contradicted by literally all available evidence. The physical terrain in the area is not steep enough to allow an avalanche to form, and neither the tent nor the area around nor the surrounding area showed any trace of an avalanche. The slope wherein the four last victims were found was far from steep enough to kill people by the energy created in a fall. The injuries of all of the nine cannot be explained by accidents or natural causes, but are all consistent with what is typically seen as damage caused by a human attack with lethal intent.

- When nine human beings are found dead, and there are no natural physical circumstances or possible accidents that fit the nature of the injuries, it is a safe assumption that the injuries and deaths are caused by something else than natural forces and accidents.

- When nine human beings are found dead, and it is beyond reasonable doubt that the deaths are caused by something else than natural forces and accidents, one must look at all the available evidence and adopt an analytical approach. If that is done in the Dyatlov Pass case, it emerges that the only conclusion that harmonizes with all the evidence is the conclusion of a well-planned, intelligently executed mission to kill these students in a way designed to make the whole operation look like an accident.

[1] But we are investigators.

Nothing is beyond reasonable doubt in the Dyatlov Case. More like a Case of ALL OPTIONS ARE OPEN.
DB

September 07, 2019, 06:04:14 PM
Reply #133
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient

Hello,
 I have a few observations.

As you note:
„Remember that the first searchers also observed that the tracks closest to the tent strongly suggested that the nine victims were forced to stand in line.“

- This fact can be explained otherwise. Naturally, after escaping from the tent, at the beginning,  people would all try to go as close as possible to each other while moving down to the forest. From a psychological point of view, I can imagine this because they would be as close to each other as possible to mentally support each other and thus feel safer. During the walk, in later stage, each of them had a different pace (this is related to the height of the figure, taller people have longer legs and walk faster). Therefore, over time, they could have moved a little bit apart. The strong wind could also play a role here when they had something to do to keep themselves upright and make their walk even harder. At this stage, they could focus more on themselves and keep on their feet. Of course, this is only a theoretical consideration, but it is certainly more realistic than the possibility that someone with a gun forced them to go down the slope.
If they were threatened, what would keep them from running far and wide? 1.5 km from the tent is quite a long distance from the attackers to try to run and not like "sheep" to go side by side down the slope.

„We cannot possibly know the all the details of what violent actions took place at the cedar tree, but it would seem that the two first victims found there had tried to escape their assailants by climbing the tree, but were probably dragged down - and there is every indication that they had been subjected to violent action from other humans. Also, there is no other sensible explanation why they would try to climb that tree. The fact of their damaged hands showed the utter desperation of their failed attempt to escape“.

- Their climb to the tree can also be explained by the fact that they wanted to check the situation in the tent. The tent could be visible from a distance of 1.5 km. Something was happening in the immediate vicinity of the tent, which prevented them from taking their clothes and boots, so they could try to check the situation around the tent. Why would someone climb on a tree to hide? This is absurd, for they would know they had no chance. If they wanted to hide from someone, they would go deeper into the forest and would not climb the sparsely leafed tree right at the edge of the forest.

As for the injuries and scratches, they could have been caused as they descended into the forest. When I watched a video on YouTube (Josh Gates's Expedition Unknown on Discovery Channel) I was surprised at how rocky the slope was, and despite the heavy snow cover, rocks stuck everywhere under the snow. Imagine that you are walking on such terrain, in the dark and in the strong wind, and even weakly dressed and without shoes. It must have been a terrible journey. Certainly they have fallen more and more times which resulted in bruises and even harder injuries.

Hello!

It is very welcome that you present your thoughts. It is important to go through all the possibilities so that we can have a clearer picture of what we need to look for, and it is not at all unlikely that all of us have overlooked some important details. So we go through the observations.

1. The exit from the tent and the walk down from the slope.

- Yes, it is not only possible but very probable that after having walked out from the tent the nine initially tried to keep close to each other to protect themselves and their fellows. That is the natural thing to do, when people walk out in a dark, cold environment. But that is equally true regardless of whether the people leave their tent voluntarily or not. Humans normally stick together for mutual comfort and protection when in a stressful situation. Over time, they drifted apart. That is also natural and also inevitable because in a group of humans improperly dressed in the winter night there will be different levels of physical capability, different psychological reactions and also different ideas about what to do. This is borne out by the fact that the students evidently drifted apart.

- Moreover, this very natural and highly likely scenario in no way contradicts the overwhelming indications that the reason they left the tent was a human attack by people who forced them out from their tent. The suggestion that the students were forced away from their camp at gunpoint is very reasonable since such an operation must have been carefully orchestrated and executed. An attacking squad on a mission to kill nine young and capable humans in their prime will rarely perform their mission unarmed.

- The point here is that since there were no avalanches or natural forces that destroyed the camp area, there is no realistic reason why the nine students would ever leave their tent without proper winter clothing and then walk far away from their camp unless they were forced to do so. There is still less reason to walk 1.5 kilometres - one mile - away if there is a disaster in the tent, which it was evidently not. The only damage to the tent were some cuts of unknown cause, and these cuts were never scientifically examined. Thus, we are left with what we know, which is that the nine victims left their tent without any objective reason why they would do so.

- The conclusion that they were forced out from the tent by other humans is the most sensible one, and in fact also the one probable explanation why they left their tent, their camp and went far away in the dark and left almost all their winter clothing in the tent. This makes perfect sense if the orchestrators of the deadly mission had determined that the best way to accomplish the operation was to kill the students in such a way as to make it look like an accident. As we see, if this is what actually happened those who decided the fate of the Dyatlov group were largely successful. Even sixty years after the tragedy many people still assume that the original conclusion - which was evidently forced on the local investigators from above - of an unfortunate accident is true, and many fantastically impossible theories ranging from one member of the group going mad to Yetis, infrasound and UFOs have been proposed. However, it is quite correctly said that dead bodies do not lie. The final answer could and should have been found in the bodies, but the local investigators in Sverdlovsk and Ivdel were prevented from stating openly what they found. The first leader of the investigation, Ivanov, was even fired because he refused to comply with the official explanation dictated to him - in all probability directly from Moscow.

2. The two of them - Doroshenko and Krivonischenko - climbing the tree:

- Why would someone climb a tree to hide? Well, first we have every indication that Doroshenko and Krivonischenko not only tried to climb the tree, but did so in a desperate situation. Their damaged hands indicated what happened. It is not likely that such desperation and obvious haste could be caused by the two wanting to just look towards the tent. Further, this scenario is extremely likely if the attackers went after them shortly after they forced the Dyatlov group out from their tent because the assailants understood that the temperature in the area was not sufficient to kill the victims rapidly as they had originally planned. When Doroshenko and Krivonischenko saw the attackers coming after them, the only thing they could possibly do was to make a last futile attempt to escape. To do this by climbing a tree is of course an act of utter desperation, but it is likely given the circumstances. They were improperly dressed, while their assailants had winter garments and in all probability skis and snowshoes - there was no way to escape for these tormented souls and they understood that to try to run from their attackers barefoot in the snow would just mean they were hunted down immediately. Yes, they know that they had no chance, but to climb the tree was their last effort in life - there was no other options available to them if this scenario is what in fact occurred. Chances are that it is, and it all fits in with an attack by a group of trained killers who were careful not to leave any bullet wounds or knife cuts on their victims.

- The above scenario is rather more likely than a theory that the two climbed the tree to observe the camp area. Also, during a winter night in February in this area, it would be a very dark night and therefore no possibility of observing anything that happened a mile away.

3. The injuries.

- We might go through all the injuries described on this site in the document https://dyatlovpass.com/death.

- But first, the very fact that they were out in the cold and the dark demonstrates that something terrible forced them not only out from their tent but away from the camp area. Nine intelligent students do not do that unless an overwhelming force compels them to do so. Since there were demonstrably no natural forces that could have caused them to leave the safety of their tent with insufficient protection against the winter, there is the possibility that they were forced out from the tent by other humans.

- Then, we have the documented injuries. No, it is impossible that all these injuries could have been caused by the students' stumbling around in the dark. They were not merely minor scratches, but serious bodily damage. Crushed larynx, smashed skulls, crushed rib cages, abrasions consistent with beatings, we could go on in detail. Every single injury is consistent with what can be expected in a lethal attack.

Objectively, no findings contradict the murder theory whereas everything fits it. So where does all this leave us?

It is difficult to avoid inclining towards the theory that nine members of the Dyatlov group were all killed, meticulously and in cold blood by people who were on a mission and knew what they were doing.

None of this proves anything. Why would anyone risk their own lives in such extreme weather conditions in a remote part of the Urals to murder the Dyatlov Group. And why would the so called murderers allow the Dyatlov Group to separate. And the injuries to Dubinina could not have been caused by another Human.
DB

September 09, 2019, 09:50:46 AM
Reply #134
Offline

gildar


The group spent the night at a cedar and there was killed. Someone came in the morning and attacked the tent. Wanted to intimidate and that the take from. Tourists fled. Krivonischenko climbed up a cedar. Doroshenko did not have time. He was accidentally killed. Leaned in and he couldn't breathe. Then fell with cedar Krivonischenko. Die too. That settled it. The rest were killed as witnesses.More details can be found on my video. It's subtitled.



 Also on the channel a lot of videos explaining my conclusions and answering many questions. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnbics7Bd6yjjt4jJ5DJioQ?view_as=subscriber

September 21, 2019, 12:03:16 PM
Reply #135
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The group spent the night at a cedar and there was killed. Someone came in the morning and attacked the tent. Wanted to intimidate and that the take from. Tourists fled. Krivonischenko climbed up a cedar. Doroshenko did not have time. He was accidentally killed. Leaned in and he couldn't breathe. Then fell with cedar Krivonischenko. Die too. That settled it. The rest were killed as witnesses.More details can be found on my video. It's subtitled.



 Also on the channel a lot of videos explaining my conclusions and answering many questions. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnbics7Bd6yjjt4jJ5DJioQ?view_as=subscriber

Its an interesting proposition re the potential Camp at the Cedar Tree. I have thought that that may be a possibility, ie, that the Dyatlov Group or some of them Camped at the Cedar Tree purposely. But I just can not bring Myself to believe that all of the Dyatlov Group were killed deliberately by other people.
DB

September 29, 2019, 04:08:04 AM
Reply #136
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen



It is difficult to avoid inclining towards the theory that nine members of the Dyatlov group were all killed, meticulously and in cold blood by people who were on a mission and knew what they were doing.

None of this proves anything. Why would anyone risk their own lives in such extreme weather conditions in a remote part of the Urals to murder the Dyatlov Group. And why would the so called murderers allow the Dyatlov Group to separate. And the injuries to Dubinina could not have been caused by another Human.


1. The evidence is to be found in the bodies. Dubinina is a clear example of that. Dubinina's injuries could not merely be caused by a human, her injuries could realistically only be caused by other humans. These injuries could not be caused by a fall, and they could not be caused by a non-existent avalanche. Moreover, the combined injuries of Dubinina and the other three who were the last to die do not show the pattern of injuries caused by any kind of natural disaster.

2. There is no reason to assume that the murderers put their own lives in any form of hazard. Throughout history, killing squads have been sent out to kill people on purpose, and such trained killers on a mission have both the physical ability and the resources to achieve their purpose. The only reason to kill the Dyatlov group was that someone had decided that the nine students were at the wrong place at the wrong time, and the decision to kill them may therefore have been a  preventive measure to ensure that no one of them could ever tell anyone what they had observed. There is also the possibility that local people committed the act because they were offended by the presence of these tourists - but it would seem far less probable albeit not entirely impossible. Further; there is evidence that the government authorities knew about the death of the Dyatlov group already in the first days of February, that is long before anyone in Sverdlovsk or Ivdel had any suspicion that the nine students were missing. The government also evidently wanted and forced the conclusion that the tragedy was caused by natural causes and the "mistakes of Igor Dyatlov," which is a conclusion that is contrary to available evidence. On top of all this, when the local police wanted to investigate more deeply, the investigation was stopped - by the central authorities in Moscow. That is very significant.

3. The killers would have made sure that the Dyatlov group were insufficiently dressed for the winter, and here we have rather compelling evidence: The nine left their tent without proper clothing and walked one mile away without winter mittens, and everyone who knows the principles of survival in the cold is aware that such an action in the cold means certain death. The only exception was one man who had valenki on his feet, which may be explained by his being outside of the tent at the moment of attack. These nine, intelligent students would never leave their tent without winter clothing and mittens unless they were forced to. Since there were evidently no avalanches or natural disasters that could have forced them out from the tent and made them flee far away, that leaves us with other humans as the force that attacked them. The men who attacked the Dyatlov group knew that the students had no chance of escaping without proper winter gear and on their feet in the cold. However, the weather was relatively mild that evening of February 1, 1959. That explains how their nine victims did not perish as the killers had expected, and every injury found on the nine is consistent with them being killed after having been hunted down by their murderers.

Yes, the nine students were all killed deliberately, and the perpetrators were and could only have been human attackers.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 04:19:27 AM by Per Inge Oestmoen »

September 29, 2019, 02:40:59 PM
Reply #137
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient

It is difficult to avoid inclining towards the theory that nine members of the Dyatlov group were all killed, meticulously and in cold blood by people who were on a mission and knew what they were doing.

None of this proves anything. Why would anyone risk their own lives in such extreme weather conditions in a remote part of the Urals to murder the Dyatlov Group. And why would the so called murderers allow the Dyatlov Group to separate. And the injuries to Dubinina could not have been caused by another Human.


1. The evidence is to be found in the bodies. Dubinina is a clear example of that. Dubinina's injuries could not merely be caused by a human, her injuries could realistically only be caused by other humans. These injuries could not be caused by a fall, and they could not be caused by a non-existent avalanche. Moreover, the combined injuries of Dubinina and the other three who were the last to die do not show the pattern of injuries caused by any kind of natural disaster.

2. There is no reason to assume that the murderers put their own lives in any form of hazard. Throughout history, killing squads have been sent out to kill people on purpose, and such trained killers on a mission have both the physical ability and the resources to achieve their purpose. The only reason to kill the Dyatlov group was that someone had decided that the nine students were at the wrong place at the wrong time, and the decision to kill them may therefore have been a  preventive measure to ensure that no one of them could ever tell anyone what they had observed. There is also the possibility that local people committed the act because they were offended by the presence of these tourists - but it would seem far less probable albeit not entirely impossible. Further; there is evidence that the government authorities knew about the death of the Dyatlov group already in the first days of February, that is long before anyone in Sverdlovsk or Ivdel had any suspicion that the nine students were missing. The government also evidently wanted and forced the conclusion that the tragedy was caused by natural causes and the "mistakes of Igor Dyatlov," which is a conclusion that is contrary to available evidence. On top of all this, when the local police wanted to investigate more deeply, the investigation was stopped - by the central authorities in Moscow. That is very significant.

3. The killers would have made sure that the Dyatlov group were insufficiently dressed for the winter, and here we have rather compelling evidence: The nine left their tent without proper clothing and walked one mile away without winter mittens, and everyone who knows the principles of survival in the cold is aware that such an action in the cold means certain death. The only exception was one man who had valenki on his feet, which may be explained by his being outside of the tent at the moment of attack. These nine, intelligent students would never leave their tent without winter clothing and mittens unless they were forced to. Since there were evidently no avalanches or natural disasters that could have forced them out from the tent and made them flee far away, that leaves us with other humans as the force that attacked them. The men who attacked the Dyatlov group knew that the students had no chance of escaping without proper winter gear and on their feet in the cold. However, the weather was relatively mild that evening of February 1, 1959. That explains how their nine victims did not perish as the killers had expected, and every injury found on the nine is consistent with them being killed after having been hunted down by their murderers.

Yes, the nine students were all killed deliberately, and the perpetrators were and could only have been human attackers.

You are right that it was no accident.  However, the injuries indicate that they were attacked by something With hands the size of an A4 piece of paper.  Thibo's depressed fracture is identical in proportions to the ball of the thumb of very large hand and the injury is indicative of that very large hand applying a force in excess of 450kg by either crushing his against the snow, or bringing the palm of its hand down onto his skull hard.  Then when you look at the forces required to cause the rib fractures something with a hand 30cm long and 16cm wide makes sense.  Question is what was it?  A Gorilla is only think that I know of that matches the description. 

Regards

Star man

October 08, 2019, 12:30:51 PM
Reply #138
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient

 The men who attacked the Dyatlov group knew that the students had no chance of escaping without proper winter gear and on their feet in the cold. However, the weather was relatively mild that evening of February 1, 1959. That explains how their nine victims did not perish as the killers had expected, and every injury found on the nine is consistent with them being killed after having been hunted down by their murderers.

Yes, the nine students were all killed deliberately, and the perpetrators were and could only have been human attackers.

Bold Statements with no supporting EVIDENCE.  And you State, Men when it could have included Women. You State that it was relatively mild that evening of February 1 1959, thats news to Me  !  ?  By all accounts the weather was awful and life threatening to any one not properly dressed. Etc.
DB

October 10, 2019, 06:50:41 PM
Reply #139
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


Bold Statements with no supporting EVIDENCE.  And you State, Men when it could have included Women. You State that it was relatively mild that evening of February 1 1959, thats news to Me ! ?  By all accounts the weather was awful and life threatening to any one not properly dressed. Etc.

One of the most recent books on the Dyatlov pass killing is written by Svetlana Oss, "Don't go there." Although I strongly disagree with her rather sensational and completely unsubstantiated theory of the identity of the killers, the book is extremely valuable because Svetlana Oss has brought forward new valuable information.

Part of that material is the reports from the nearest weather stations. The nearest weather stations are Nyaksimvol (59 miles north-east of Kholat Syakhl) and Burmantovo (41 miles north-east of Kholat Syakhl). On February 1, 1959, the temperatures were as follows:

Burmantovo

02:00-07:00: -5.9C
08:00-13:00: -6.3C
14:00-19:00: -10.2C
20:00-01:00: -18.1C

Nyaksimvol

02:00-07:00: -6.9C
08:00-13:00: -9.0C
14:00-19:00: -13.8C
20:00-01:00: -18.0C

On February 2, the temperature dropped to around -28C. But then, the attack had already taken place and the students were almost certainly already dead. How can we say that with certainty? We can know that the disaster must have struck on February 1 because the nine students infallibly wrote in their diaries, and the last diary was written on January 31. There was no diary entry from February 1, and this demonstrates that the disaster - that is the attack - must have taken place on February 1.

Thus, it is evident that when the students were forced to leave their tent the temperatures were relatively mild. So it makes perfect sense that the attacking group had to hunt down their victims in order to accomplish their mission.

As for the possibility that the group that murdered the nine students could also have included women, it is unlikely. Trained, professional killers are generally males.