I agree with much of what you say.
However, the same scandalous behavior of 1959 is alive and well today. I am afraid you may have already drank the Koolaid though.
"broken" scapula...... We are talking about three tiny hairline cracks at locations in which are paper thin and extremely fragile. The Humerus bone of the arm literally pivots within the socket of the scapula. Any and all force applied to the shoulder/chest region will be transferred into the scapula. This isn't rocket science. If you jump out of a truck and mess up your knee or hip, you wouldn't declare a conspiracy or foul play because your foot is ok..... would you?
1. We need to see the damaged area, in other words the results must be published. Results that are not published or results that are only partially published only lead to unfounded speculations. The foundation which we all need, requires the findings to be public.
2. The scapula is not a fragile structure. It is very solid. It is the clavicle - the collarbone - which is a comparatively fragile structure. Scapular fractures are relatively rare, and they account for around 1% of all fractures seen in humans. If Zolotaryev's scapula was indeed broken it will be an extremely significant find. Scapular fractures are not at all likely to occur as a result of pressure from snow, and it is not probable that the same impact or impacts that broke the ribs would also broke the scapula. To conclude that Zolotaryev's rib fractures are caused by snow, is a rather rash conclusion which needs to be questioned. Scapular fractures are typically caused either by unusual forces like high falls or very powerful blows. Therefore, if Zolotaryev's scapula was broken it is a strong evidence of something different from a natural accident. An analysis of such a fracture can give valuable information of the direction from which the blow - or blows - came.
3. Even without the scapular fracture, the rib fractures of Zolotaryev indicate that they were caused by blunt trauma.
4. It is very unfortunate that this discussion has developed into a debate around who is to be believed and who has their own agenda. It has even become a theme which expert is to be believed, and that means the whole debate degenerates into the classic fallacy known as "argumentum ad verecundiam." This is what happens when results from an investigation are not published as soon as possible. To stop this unproductive debate, there is only one thing to to: Publish the results, and publish them now.
5. We need to remember that ever since 1959, the government's agenda has been to give the public the message that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was caused by possible errors by Igor Dyatlov and that nothing criminal happened. This is the original official agenda, which needs to be questioned. Instead of a thorough investigation, we got a partial investigation and a gross concealment. Only many decades after the Dyatlov pass tragedy did the severe and lethal injuries of many of the victims become known, because the information was hidden from the public since it would cast serious doubt over the official version. It is only to be expected that people even today are prone to interpreting the available evidence in the light of the original official conclusion. That is why we have seen the emergence of many fantastic theories and even books devoted to scarcely believable scenarios, instead of the criminal investigation that should have taken place in 1959.
6. All this only serves to emphasize the urgent need for all results and forensic evidence (old and new) to become public.