Dyatlov Pass Forum

Theories Discussion => Murdered => Topic started by: Loose}{Cannon on January 23, 2019, 06:00:03 PM

Title: My short take on murder.
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on January 23, 2019, 06:00:03 PM
I believe the main issue with any of the murder theories I have seen to date is the lack of motive.  Most of you may know I have issues with all theories, but I also see the possibilities in each as well.  I am most definitely not married to any one theory. That being said, I believe the most compelling aspects of any murder theory at its foundation are the injuries.  I wont go through them all but lets take three individuals that were NOT subject to months of rotting in a creek......  Igor, Rustem, and Zina.  These three individuals were literally frozen in place and intact. 


Igor

1. minor abrasions on the forehead
2. minor abrasions on the upper eyelids
3. brown-red abrasions above the left eyebrow
4. minor abrasions on the left cheek
5. brown-red abrasions on both cheeks
6. dried blood on lips

12. purple-gray discoloration on back side of the right hand
13. metacarpophalangeal joints on the right hand had brown red bruises. This is common injury in hand to hand fights. To get a better idea of the injuries just make a fist. This is the part of the hand which you use to hit someone.
14. left hand is brown-purple color with brownish-red bruises
15. superficial wounds on the 2nd and 5th finger on the left hand
16. skin wound in the palmar surface of the 2nd 5th finger of left hand


(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Igor-Dyatlov-autopsy-report.png)


Now, when I look at all this its only logical to assume Igor was fighting someone or 'something'.  Even if you were to explain some of them away as injuries having acquired somehow other then fighting, Im not convinced you can eliminate all of them i.e if even ONE of them was caused by foul play......  you have a problem. 

Please take note of this injury in particular.
13. metacarpophalangeal joints on the right hand had brown red bruises. This is common injury in hand to hand fights. To get a better idea of the injuries just make a fist. This is the part of the hand which you use to hit someone.

Being a former Marine and a little rambunctious in a past life I can attest many of the above injuries are consistent with...... fighting. 



Rustem

1. hemorrhages in the temporalis muscles
2. minor brownish red abrasions on the forehead
3. two scratches are 1.5 cm long at the distance of 0.3 cm between them
4. brownish red bruise on the upper eyelid of the right eye with hemorrhage into the underlying tissues
5. traces of blood discharge from the nose
6. swelling and a lot of small abrasions on both sides of the face
7. bruises in the metacarpophalangeal joints on both hands (bruised knuckles). Similar bruises are common in hand to hand fight
8.brown cherry bruises on the medial aspect of the left arm and left palm
9. swollen lips
10. bruises on the left tibia in dimensions at 2.5x1.5 cm (not shown on diagram)
11. epidermis is torn from the right forearm (not shown on diagram)
12. fracture of the frontal bone 6x0.1 cm located 1.5 cm from the sagittal suture (showing on separate skull trauma diagram without numbers)

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Rustem-Slobodin-autopsy-report.png)


Literally the entire list of injuries of Rustem 'could' be attributed to..... fighting.

Please take note of this injury in particular.
7. bruises in the metacarpophalangeal joints on both hands (bruised knuckles). Similar bruises are common in hand to hand fighting

(https://sks-files.com/Smileys/solosmileys/39.gif)




Zina

1. dark red abrasion on the right frontal eminence
2. pale gray area 3x2 cm above the right eyebrow
3. dark red abrasion on the upper eyelids
4. brown red graze on the bridge and tip of the nose
5. numerous abrasions on the left cheekbone
6. bruised skin on the right side of the face
7. brown-red abrasion on the back of both hands in the area of metacarpal phalangeal and inter-phalangeal joints
8. wound with jagged edges and missing skin on the back of the right hand at the base of the third finger
10. a long bright red bruise 29x6 cm in the lumbar region on the right side of the torso. The bruise looks like left from a baton


(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Zinaida-Kolmogorova-autopsy-report.png)


Again, the entire list other then #9 (frostbite) 'could' be attributed to... hand/hand combat.     bat1

Note #10 in the image is misleading. The waist injury is isolated to the right side and can not be a result of "pulling a roped sled" around the waist which would be evenly distributed to both sides and the front.
10. a long bright red bruise 29x6 cm in the lumbar region on the right side of the torso. The bruise looks like left from a baton

Also note the severity of this injury in particular and the descriptions accuracy which 'should' be an indication of the rest of the injuries description accuracy. 
8. wound with jagged edges and missing skin on the back of the right hand at the base of the third finger

(https://i.ibb.co/BTcgZkS/Dyatlov-group-colorized-by-Mikko-Kolkkanen-061.jpg)


Conclusion.

I dont know about you guys, but thats a whole lot of busted up heads, and knuckles with side order of blood to go around.  Again, can some of thes injuris have been caused by climbing trees, falling on rocks etc... sure, but 'what if' even ONE of them wasn't?   The who, what, when, where, and why I leave to you.

Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Marchesk on January 24, 2019, 12:23:23 AM
I believe the main issue with any of the murder theories I have seen to date is the lack of motive.

Lack of motive AND lack of evidence for anyone else on the mountain that night. Also, the fact that money, food, alcohol, skis and clothing were left behind in the tent. Those would be valuable to a lot of would-be attackers out there in the middle of the winter.

But yes, why bother in the middle of nowhere during those winter conditions when the hikers won't be sticking around? Did they insult some locals in route and and not write about in their diaries? Wouldn't 9 healthy people be a rather big group to go after?

All that being said, those injuries and some other things does make one wonder if someone else could have been involved.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Marchesk on January 24, 2019, 02:59:22 AM
Or, those injuries are from a fight within in the group as things got desperate around the fire and some disagreement broke out. Or relating back to the decision to abandon the tent. It is interesting that Igor, Rustem and Zina were found more than 150 meters apart from each if they were going back to the tent. It's as if they went separately. 
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Star man on January 24, 2019, 04:53:23 AM
I agree that the injuries to hands and face do look like they could have been sustained from a fight.  If they were then the question is who was involved?  External people or was it in fighting.

When you consider however that there were 7 young physically fit men and 2 physically fit women they should have been able between them to take on a fair number of external foes.  Given the lack of evidence of the presence of anyone else it would seem to me that they probably fought amongst themselves driven the desperate situation and life or death decisions they were having to make.

They may have also targeted Dyatlov who was their leader for leading them into this situation by deviating from the planned route.

It kind of reminds me of the movie Appollo 13, where they start blaming and arguing over who’s fault it was and then realised it wasn’t helping the situation, only in the Dyatlov case there may have been a few more fists thrown.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Monika on January 24, 2019, 06:02:26 AM
Or, those injuries are from a fight within in the group as things got desperate around the fire and some disagreement broke out. Or relating back to the decision to abandon the tent. It is interesting that Igor, Rustem and Zina were found more than 150 meters apart from each if they were going back to the tent. It's as if they went separately.

All three of them go along side by side and gradually dying, Igor first and the other two let him lying down and went further, then Rustin, and Zina went farthest.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on January 24, 2019, 07:15:20 AM
Maybe, but if in-fighting is a possibility then you seemingly have to be open to the idea someone was struck inside the tent. One has to wonder why only 8 sets of tracks were found, but they assumed 9 were there?   Perhaps someone was carried away from the tent/situation.  One thing about the tracks nobody seems acknowledge is that there are no time stamps on these tracks.  Did 2 individuals carry someone away and the rest followed later?  Who knows!
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on January 24, 2019, 07:44:35 AM
In addition,  I think there is entirely too much faith put into the idea that Igor, Zina, and Rustem died while attempting to return to the tent. The only reason why people assume this to be the case is because their orientations having their heads all facing the general direction of the tent?  Welp, common sense tells me that I have never seen anyone lay down on an incline/slope with their heads facing downward.  Its completely unnatural.   Think about it, if I told you to walk downhill, stop, and lay down...... would you instinctively go down with your head lower then your feet?  I would assume not.

I mean....  who ordered all these people to sit on this park hill like this?

(https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DNRTWE/blue-sky-white-clouds-view-people-sitting-relaxing-grassy-slope-below-DNRTWE.jpg)
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Star man on January 24, 2019, 08:47:16 AM
It’s possible it all started in the tent yes and you are right that there is no time stamp so they may have left in smaller groups.  But why would they do that?  Also if someone had forced the others to leave it’s unlikely that they themselves would leave the tent poorly dressed and without their boots. I don’t think anyone of them had all of their outdoor gear on?

The bodies on the slope could have been going either up or down. But one thing that is unlikely to be coincidental is that they were all in a straight line. This indicates that they were likely to all have started from the same place and were heading in the same direction. So they were probably travelling together. 

It seems that almost any theory can only be based on the most probable events.  Unless it’s possible to piece together more solid clues and evidence .
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on January 24, 2019, 09:24:27 AM
Well....  they were not actually in a straight line. They were staggered or offset.  This is expected in either scenario though as they had to follow the terrain.  This isnt a perfectly smooth slope, especially closer to the valley bottom.
 

Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Marchesk on January 24, 2019, 03:33:39 PM
In addition,  I think there is entirely too much faith put into the idea that Igor, Zina, and Rustem died while attempting to return to the tent.

Well, the reasoning would be it would make more sense for them to have died trying to return to the tent than coming down, since hypothermia wouldn't have set in yet, with Igor and Zina only having minor injuries. Unless one thinks they made it back to the tent and were on their way down, but then there is no evidence they successfully retrieved anything from the tent.

Or they were chased away from the cedar tree. I guess we don't have any tracks to go off of regarding how they ended up in those positions.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on January 24, 2019, 04:37:31 PM
Rustems body had a layer of ice under suggesting he was quite warm when he died.   
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Vietnamka on January 24, 2019, 05:53:18 PM
Very interesting!
But, please, add
-the link for the KP who ordered this expertises to Professor of Forensic department of Russian state Uni Eduard Tumanov and published result on Nov 2014
https://m.kp.ru/daily/26311.5/3189866/

- Logo KP + name of creator of pictures you have used. All pictures were marked
Thanks a lot for cooperation.

(https://i.ibb.co/p4t2P98/IMG-2509.png) (https://ibb.co/ygw0Rb1)
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on January 24, 2019, 06:33:04 PM
No thank you, Ill leave it just the way it is.   Im not worried about it.    wink1

Members please note the site linked above is VERY heavy in spam adds. 
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on February 05, 2019, 02:34:28 PM
I believe the main issue with any of the murder theories I have seen to date is the lack of motive.  Most of you may know I have issues with all theories, but I also see the possibilities in each as well.  I am most definitely not married to any one theory. That being said, I believe the most compelling aspects of any murder theory at its foundation are the injuries.  I wont go through them all but lets take three individuals that were NOT subject to months of rotting in a creek......  Igor, Rustem, and Zina.  These three individuals were literally frozen in place and intact. 


Igor

1. minor abrasions on the forehead
2. minor abrasions on the upper eyelids
3. brown-red abrasions above the left eyebrow
4. minor abrasions on the left cheek
5. brown-red abrasions on both cheeks
6. dried blood on lips

12. purple-gray discoloration on back side of the right hand
13. metacarpophalangeal joints on the right hand had brown red bruises. This is common injury in hand to hand fights. To get a better idea of the injuries just make a fist. This is the part of the hand which you use to hit someone.
14. left hand is brown-purple color with brownish-red bruises
15. superficial wounds on the 2nd and 5th finger on the left hand
16. skin wound in the palmar surface of the 2nd 5th finger of left hand


(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Igor-Dyatlov-autopsy-report.png)


Now, when I look at all this its only logical to assume Igor was fighting someone or 'something'.  Even if you were to explain some of them away as injuries having acquired somehow other then fighting, Im not convinced you can eliminate all of them i.e if even ONE of them was caused by foul play......  you have a problem. 

Please take note of this injury in particular.
13. metacarpophalangeal joints on the right hand had brown red bruises. This is common injury in hand to hand fights. To get a better idea of the injuries just make a fist. This is the part of the hand which you use to hit someone.

Being a former Marine and a little rambunctious in a past life I can attest many of the above injuries are consistent with...... fighting. 



Rustem

1. hemorrhages in the temporalis muscles
2. minor brownish red abrasions on the forehead
3. two scratches are 1.5 cm long at the distance of 0.3 cm between them
4. brownish red bruise on the upper eyelid of the right eye with hemorrhage into the underlying tissues
5. traces of blood discharge from the nose
6. swelling and a lot of small abrasions on both sides of the face
7. bruises in the metacarpophalangeal joints on both hands (bruised knuckles). Similar bruises are common in hand to hand fight
8.brown cherry bruises on the medial aspect of the left arm and left palm
9. swollen lips
10. bruises on the left tibia in dimensions at 2.5x1.5 cm (not shown on diagram)
11. epidermis is torn from the right forearm (not shown on diagram)
12. fracture of the frontal bone 6x0.1 cm located 1.5 cm from the sagittal suture (showing on separate skull trauma diagram without numbers)

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Rustem-Slobodin-autopsy-report.png)


Literally the entire list of injuries of Rustem 'could' be attributed to..... fighting.

Please take note of this injury in particular.
7. bruises in the metacarpophalangeal joints on both hands (bruised knuckles). Similar bruises are common in hand to hand fighting

(https://sks-files.com/Smileys/solosmileys/39.gif)




Zina

1. dark red abrasion on the right frontal eminence
2. pale gray area 3x2 cm above the right eyebrow
3. dark red abrasion on the upper eyelids
4. brown red graze on the bridge and tip of the nose
5. numerous abrasions on the left cheekbone
6. bruised skin on the right side of the face
7. brown-red abrasion on the back of both hands in the area of metacarpal phalangeal and inter-phalangeal joints
8. wound with jagged edges and missing skin on the back of the right hand at the base of the third finger
10. a long bright red bruise 29x6 cm in the lumbar region on the right side of the torso. The bruise looks like left from a baton


(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Zinaida-Kolmogorova-autopsy-report.png)


Again, the entire list other then #9 (frostbite) 'could' be attributed to... hand/hand combat.     bat1

Note #10 in the image is misleading. The waist injury is isolated to the right side and can not be a result of "pulling a roped sled" around the waist which would be evenly distributed to both sides and the front.
10. a long bright red bruise 29x6 cm in the lumbar region on the right side of the torso. The bruise looks like left from a baton

Also note the severity of this injury in particular and the descriptions accuracy which 'should' be an indication of the rest of the injuries description accuracy. 
8. wound with jagged edges and missing skin on the back of the right hand at the base of the third finger

(https://i.ibb.co/BTcgZkS/Dyatlov-group-colorized-by-Mikko-Kolkkanen-061.jpg)


Conclusion.

I dont know about you guys, but thats a whole lot of busted up heads, and knuckles with side order of blood to go around.  Again, can some of thes injuris have been caused by climbing trees, falling on rocks etc... sure, but 'what if' even ONE of them wasn't?   The who, what, when, where, and why I leave to you.

Yes I have thought along those lines as well. A lot of the injuries do look as if they could have been caused by physical contact with someone or something ie some kind of fight or defence maybe. And yet this is apparently being ruled out by the Authorities re the re opening of the Dyatlov Case.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Star man on February 05, 2019, 03:10:11 PM
I think its quite possible that a scuffle or two broke out amongst the group given the separate situation and the life or death decisions they knew they were making.  It would be very stressful and stress leads to short tempers.

Something else about the above photo of Dyatlov's hands.  They are filthy with dirt and grime.  Now, there was snow and the ground was frozen so how come his hands are so dirty?  Were they already that dirty after they pitched the tent and he made no attempt to wash/clean them ( seems unlikely ).  Did he get them dirty trying to set up the stove in the tent?  Did he get them dirty climbing the cedar tree, or cutting the branches to make the fire, or building a den?  It's interesting as it might provide some insight as to wether Dyatlov, Rustem and Zina actually made it to the cedar or not.

To be it seems likely that they did make it to the cedar, and therefore died on the slope trying to return to tent.  The extent of grime on his hands indicates that those hands had done a lot of work before he died.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on February 06, 2019, 11:39:54 AM
I think its quite possible that a scuffle or two broke out amongst the group given the separate situation and the life or death decisions they knew they were making.  It would be very stressful and stress leads to short tempers.

Something else about the above photo of Dyatlov's hands.  They are filthy with dirt and grime.  Now, there was snow and the ground was frozen so how come his hands are so dirty?  Were they already that dirty after they pitched the tent and he made no attempt to wash/clean them ( seems unlikely ).  Did he get them dirty trying to set up the stove in the tent?  Did he get them dirty climbing the cedar tree, or cutting the branches to make the fire, or building a den?  It's interesting as it might provide some insight as to wether Dyatlov, Rustem and Zina actually made it to the cedar or not.

To be it seems likely that they did make it to the cedar, and therefore died on the slope trying to return to tent.  The extent of grime on his hands indicates that those hands had done a lot of work before he died.

I think you will find that those dirty looking hands are due to FROSTBITE.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Star man on February 06, 2019, 03:20:26 PM
I think its quite possible that a scuffle or two broke out amongst the group given the separate situation and the life or death decisions they knew they were making.  It would be very stressful and stress leads to short tempers.

Something else about the above photo of Dyatlov's hands.  They are filthy with dirt and grime.  Now, there was snow and the ground was frozen so how come his hands are so dirty?  Were they already that dirty after they pitched the tent and he made no attempt to wash/clean them ( seems unlikely ).  Did he get them dirty trying to set up the stove in the tent?  Did he get them dirty climbing the cedar tree, or cutting the branches to make the fire, or building a den?  It's interesting as it might provide some insight as to wether Dyatlov, Rustem and Zina actually made it to the cedar or not.

To be it seems likely that they did make it to the cedar, and therefore died on the slope trying to return to tent.  The extent of grime on his hands indicates that those hands had done a lot of work before he died.

I think you will find that those dirty looking hands are due to FROSTBITE.

That's an interesting point.  Don't look like frost bite to me and the autopsy report doesn't say anything about frost bite on his hands, whereas Doreshenko autopsy report makes it clear his fingers and toes are severely frost bitten.  I'm not an expert on Thai though. 
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Vietnamka on February 06, 2019, 04:41:17 PM


I think you will find that those dirty looking hands are due to FROSTBITE.
1) all the symptoms of frostbite appear after After rewarming only. Did they have have time for rewarm ? How did they rewarm?
2) frostbites clinical presentation include  different phases depending of stage.
"The terminal phalanx of fingers 1-5 on the left hand are solid when palpated" is a 4th phase of necrosis, occures  on  7-10 days after onset.
This changes are more typical for postmortem drying.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on February 06, 2019, 07:19:12 PM
I think its quite possible that a scuffle or two broke out amongst the group given the separate situation and the life or death decisions they knew they were making.  It would be very stressful and stress leads to short tempers.

Something else about the above photo of Dyatlov's hands.  They are filthy with dirt and grime.  Now, there was snow and the ground was frozen so how come his hands are so dirty?  Were they already that dirty after they pitched the tent and he made no attempt to wash/clean them ( seems unlikely ).  Did he get them dirty trying to set up the stove in the tent?  Did he get them dirty climbing the cedar tree, or cutting the branches to make the fire, or building a den?  It's interesting as it might provide some insight as to wether Dyatlov, Rustem and Zina actually made it to the cedar or not.

To be it seems likely that they did make it to the cedar, and therefore died on the slope trying to return to tent.  The extent of grime on his hands indicates that those hands had done a lot of work before he died.

I think you will find that those dirty looking hands are due to FROSTBITE.

That's an interesting point.  Don't look like frost bite to me and the autopsy report doesn't say anything about frost bite on his hands, whereas Doreshenko autopsy report makes it clear his fingers and toes are severely frost bitten.  I'm not an expert on Thai though.

Blackening of the skin is a classic sign of severe frostbite. As we all know the Autopsy reports left a lot to be desired.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on February 06, 2019, 07:20:28 PM


I think you will find that those dirty looking hands are due to FROSTBITE.
1) all the symptoms of frostbite appear after After rewarming only. Did they have have time for rewarm ? How did they rewarm?
2) frostbites clinical presentation include  different phases depending of stage.
"The terminal phalanx of fingers 1-5 on the left hand are solid when palpated" is a 4th phase of necrosis, occures  on  7-10 days after onset.
This changes are more typical for postmortem drying.

I think you will find that the blackening of the skin due to severe frostbite doesnt require any warming period.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Star man on February 06, 2019, 11:33:06 PM
So is there anyone who clear this up on Dyatlov’s hands?

Frost bite or dirt/grime?
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on February 07, 2019, 06:02:27 AM
No frostbite between the fingers?     Interesting
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Star man on February 07, 2019, 08:47:32 AM
There are also clear lines that look like wrist covered by cuff or a watch?
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on February 07, 2019, 09:23:32 AM
No watch.


(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Krivonischenko-camera-film6-34.jpg)
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on February 07, 2019, 12:18:05 PM
So is there anyone who clear this up on Dyatlov’s hands?

Frost bite or dirt/grime?

Frostbite affects people differently. And there are variations in the extent of frostbite on the various parts of the body, including hands. The affects can last weeks depending on the circumstances. So its more likely to be frostbite that we see on those hands. It looks more like frostbite to me and not dirt or bruising.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: knocker on February 09, 2019, 02:51:07 AM
I think when you group the bodies up according to injuries, you find three types.  and you find the three types all generally in the same three places.  A group that mostly just died of exposure, a group that looked like they were in a fist fight, and another group that was savagely beaten and tortured and then dumped into the river.   It seems that there was some favoritism shown here.  Some were let off easy or maybe got away before it all started.  Some appeared to have escaped, the rest had the ever loving **** kicked out of them.

If I had to guess this was the work of just one or two men who couldn't keep track of everybody in the dark.  Doroshenko and Krivonischenko probably slipped away and hid in the cedar until they felt it was safe after the commotion died down.   Then they lit a fire.  They obviously had no fear of being spotted by that time.  They felt they were safe but knew they were dying.   The rest were frog marched down to the river.  Rustem Slobodin was the first to get it.  Maybe he got mouthy, maybe he tried to fight.  He got his skull cracked and was left to die.    Down at the river the beatings began, and probably got more savage over time.  At first it was just kicks to the ribs or rifle butts to the heads.  But then it degraded into eyes being gouged out and tongues being cut off.  It was already too late for most of them by that time but Dyatlov and Kolmogorova at some point fought their way out and slipped into the night.  The killer continued to work over the rest of the group while Dyatlov and Kolmogorova hid.  The killer finally finishes and leaves but seems to have no interest in finding the others which should be as easy as following the footprints in the snow.  Maybe he decided to just wait at the tent an hour or two knowing they'll all die of exposure.   All he has to do is just wait them out.   Dyatlov and Kolmogorova return to the river to find their friends dead.    By then, who knows how long they'd been out with next to no clothes on.  They try to make a shelter and stay in it for a period of time, then notice the fire Doroshenko and Krivonischenko made.   They make their way over to them and find them dead probably some number of hours after it all began.   They take some of their clothes and try to make it back to the tent.  They never make it.   

The motive never was robbery.  It was very personal.  Personal enough to want to make somebody gouge somebody's eyes out and break every bone in their body.  The natives maybe.   My money is on Yuri Yuden.           
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on February 09, 2019, 04:21:34 PM
I think when you group the bodies up according to injuries, you find three types.  and you find the three types all generally in the same three places.  A group that mostly just died of exposure, a group that looked like they were in a fist fight, and another group that was savagely beaten and tortured and then dumped into the river.   It seems that there was some favoritism shown here.  Some were let off easy or maybe got away before it all started.  Some appeared to have escaped, the rest had the ever loving **** kicked out of them.

If I had to guess this was the work of just one or two men who couldn't keep track of everybody in the dark.  Doroshenko and Krivonischenko probably slipped away and hid in the cedar until they felt it was safe after the commotion died down.   Then they lit a fire.  They obviously had no fear of being spotted by that time.  They felt they were safe but knew they were dying.   The rest were frog marched down to the river.  Rustem Slobodin was the first to get it.  Maybe he got mouthy, maybe he tried to fight.  He got his skull cracked and was left to die.    Down at the river the beatings began, and probably got more savage over time.  At first it was just kicks to the ribs or rifle butts to the heads.  But then it degraded into eyes being gouged out and tongues being cut off.  It was already too late for most of them by that time but Dyatlov and Kolmogorova at some point fought their way out and slipped into the night.  The killer continued to work over the rest of the group while Dyatlov and Kolmogorova hid.  The killer finally finishes and leaves but seems to have no interest in finding the others which should be as easy as following the footprints in the snow.  Maybe he decided to just wait at the tent an hour or two knowing they'll all die of exposure.   All he has to do is just wait them out.   Dyatlov and Kolmogorova return to the river to find their friends dead.    By then, who knows how long they'd been out with next to no clothes on.  They try to make a shelter and stay in it for a period of time, then notice the fire Doroshenko and Krivonischenko made.   They make their way over to them and find them dead probably some number of hours after it all began.   They take some of their clothes and try to make it back to the tent.  They never make it.   

The motive never was robbery.  It was very personal.  Personal enough to want to make somebody gouge somebody's eyes out and break every bone in their body.  The natives maybe.   My money is on Yuri Yuden.           

Doesnt it seem strange though that some of the Dyatlov Group climbed a Tree  !  ?  And one of them had a camera and flashlight on their person  !  ?  And cameras were found with film intact  !  ? 
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: knocker on February 13, 2019, 03:44:26 AM
You climb trees generally for one of two reasons.  An elevated perch to see a longer distance, or to hide from something, somebody.   You could make a case for both.  Both are suspicious and tend to indicate danger was about, and the climbers were either hiding from it, or trying to determine where it was.    Being afraid enough of that danger that you'd chose to freeze to death instead of facing it tells me the story played out over a fairly long period of time.  Probably an hour at least.  It wasn't a quick event that ended quickly and then all was back to normal again.   

Even if it did happen in just a couple of minutes, the initial survivors didn't seem to think it was over for quite some time.  Long enough to freeze to death.  Being from a cold country myself, I can attest to the fact that on a calm night around 10 below, with low humidity, you could survive all night dressed the way they were, if you were uninjured.  I remember standing outside for an hour one evening at -10 talking with a neighbor with just a sweater on.  We had just come through 2 weeks of -35 to -40.  I thought it was warm out.  I wasn't even the least bit cold.    Right about that time I remember reading a story of a guy being lost in the bush for three weeks wearing running shoes and a fairly light jacket.  He was hunting just for a couple of hours and got lost.  He did it.  It wouldn't be pleasant to spend all night in that, but you could do it.  But that's in good weather.  On a very windy night with high wind chill, and high humidity, you have maybe two or three hours maximum.   Only the first hour or so would you still be active and useful for any physical purpose.   And if you were badly injured it wouldn't half be that long. 

My best guess is that the threat was present in the area for at least an hour.   Or the survivors were still afraid of the threat an hour later.
It seems to me that eventually the guys up the tree were confident enough to come down and start a fire, but by then they were already so cold it was too late.    Probably about an hour to an hour and a half after it all began. 

Coincidentally that night there was a half moon and the diaries say the sky was clear.  With all the snow on the ground it probably would have been fairly bright.  I don't doubt they would have been able to see the tent from that tree.  I wonder sometimes if the perpetrator went back to the tent and searched it.  It's possible the tent was slashed up later on to render it useless to anybody who might have survived.  We assume they cut the holes to get out of it.   Maybe that's not the case at all.                     
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: knocker on February 13, 2019, 04:57:31 AM
About the camera Kolevatov had.  I remember the days of old mechanical film cameras.  They were worse than cell phones, very delicate.  If you dropped it from waist height, it was junk.  I'd be interested to see how badly damaged it was.  That's why you generally wore the camera on a strap around your neck or with a wrist lanyard, so you couldn't drop it.   And in the winter you typically wore it under your jacket to keep it a little bit warmer.  The mechanism could freeze up solid, you could get condensation on the film.   Advancing the film when very cold and dry caused static discharges that would ruin the film.  If the camera was warm the view finder tended not to fog up so easy if you made the mistake of breathing on it.  You generally tried to keep it as warm as possible. 

Kolevatov was one of the better dressed of the party.  He had a jacket on and that camera likely would have been under it.  Nobody would have seen it.  You only see it in the photo from after his body was pulled out of the river and it kind of falls to the side out of his jacket.    Interesting that it's said that when he was told of the camera found on Kolevatov, that Yuri Yuden expressed surprise that it was there.   Why would that surprise him?  He wasn't there.   He didn't know what anybody had on them.    Or maybe he was there and never saw it.  That's why it came as a surprise to him.       
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on February 13, 2019, 12:01:38 PM
You climb trees generally for one of two reasons.  An elevated perch to see a longer distance, or to hide from something, somebody.   You could make a case for both.  Both are suspicious and tend to indicate danger was about, and the climbers were either hiding from it, or trying to determine where it was.    Being afraid enough of that danger that you'd chose to freeze to death instead of facing it tells me the story played out over a fairly long period of time.  Probably an hour at least.  It wasn't a quick event that ended quickly and then all was back to normal again.   

Even if it did happen in just a couple of minutes, the initial survivors didn't seem to think it was over for quite some time.  Long enough to freeze to death.  Being from a cold country myself, I can attest to the fact that on a calm night around 10 below, with low humidity, you could survive all night dressed the way they were, if you were uninjured.  I remember standing outside for an hour one evening at -10 talking with a neighbor with just a sweater on.  We had just come through 2 weeks of -35 to -40.  I thought it was warm out.  I wasn't even the least bit cold.    Right about that time I remember reading a story of a guy being lost in the bush for three weeks wearing running shoes and a fairly light jacket.  He was hunting just for a couple of hours and got lost.  He did it.  It wouldn't be pleasant to spend all night in that, but you could do it.  But that's in good weather.  On a very windy night with high wind chill, and high humidity, you have maybe two or three hours maximum.   Only the first hour or so would you still be active and useful for any physical purpose.   And if you were badly injured it wouldn't half be that long. 

My best guess is that the threat was present in the area for at least an hour.   Or the survivors were still afraid of the threat an hour later.
It seems to me that eventually the guys up the tree were confident enough to come down and start a fire, but by then they were already so cold it was too late.    Probably about an hour to an hour and a half after it all began. 

Coincidentally that night there was a half moon and the diaries say the sky was clear.  With all the snow on the ground it probably would have been fairly bright.  I don't doubt they would have been able to see the tent from that tree.  I wonder sometimes if the perpetrator went back to the tent and searched it.  It's possible the tent was slashed up later on to render it useless to anybody who might have survived.  We assume they cut the holes to get out of it.   Maybe that's not the case at all.                     


It wasnt much of a tree though.  Hardly the sort of tree you could stay up for long and also not of such an height that any one climbing a few metres up it could see that far.  They   couldnt hide up that tree and they wouldnt have had a good view from that tree.   
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on February 13, 2019, 12:04:50 PM
About the camera Kolevatov had.  I remember the days of old mechanical film cameras.  They were worse than cell phones, very delicate.  If you dropped it from waist height, it was junk.  I'd be interested to see how badly damaged it was.  That's why you generally wore the camera on a strap around your neck or with a wrist lanyard, so you couldn't drop it.   And in the winter you typically wore it under your jacket to keep it a little bit warmer.  The mechanism could freeze up solid, you could get condensation on the film.   Advancing the film when very cold and dry caused static discharges that would ruin the film.  If the camera was warm the view finder tended not to fog up so easy if you made the mistake of breathing on it.  You generally tried to keep it as warm as possible. 

Kolevatov was one of the better dressed of the party.  He had a jacket on and that camera likely would have been under it.  Nobody would have seen it.  You only see it in the photo from after his body was pulled out of the river and it kind of falls to the side out of his jacket.    Interesting that it's said that when he was told of the camera found on Kolevatov, that Yuri Yuden expressed surprise that it was there.   Why would that surprise him?  He wasn't there.   He didn't know what anybody had on them.    Or maybe he was there and never saw it.  That's why it came as a surprise to him.       


But surely any one attacking with a murderous intent wouldnt leave any evidence like a camera  !  ? 
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: knocker on February 13, 2019, 08:03:22 PM
Remember what I said... people do crazy things when they're scared.  And even if the tree was no good for hiding or as a lookout, they wouldn't have known that until the got up there, and it was probably still better than running around on the ground with the, "Yeti."

I remember a few years ago reading a story in the paper about a woman high on drugs getting beat up by some random man on the Belle Isle bridge over the Detroit river going to Belle Isle.  To get away from him, she jumped off the bridge, and drowned in the Detroit river.   She couldn't swim, and about the last place you want to try to learn is the Detroit river.   See what I mean?   
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: knocker on February 13, 2019, 08:05:52 PM
About the camera Kolevatov had.  I remember the days of old mechanical film cameras.  They were worse than cell phones, very delicate.  If you dropped it from waist height, it was junk.  I'd be interested to see how badly damaged it was.  That's why you generally wore the camera on a strap around your neck or with a wrist lanyard, so you couldn't drop it.   And in the winter you typically wore it under your jacket to keep it a little bit warmer.  The mechanism could freeze up solid, you could get condensation on the film.   Advancing the film when very cold and dry caused static discharges that would ruin the film.  If the camera was warm the view finder tended not to fog up so easy if you made the mistake of breathing on it.  You generally tried to keep it as warm as possible. 

Kolevatov was one of the better dressed of the party.  He had a jacket on and that camera likely would have been under it.  Nobody would have seen it.  You only see it in the photo from after his body was pulled out of the river and it kind of falls to the side out of his jacket.    Interesting that it's said that when he was told of the camera found on Kolevatov, that Yuri Yuden expressed surprise that it was there.   Why would that surprise him?  He wasn't there.   He didn't know what anybody had on them.    Or maybe he was there and never saw it.  That's why it came as a surprise to him.       


But surely any one attacking with a murderous intent wouldnt leave any evidence like a camera  !  ?


He didn't know Kolevatov had it.  Can't take it if you don't know it exists.   
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Star man on February 13, 2019, 11:42:57 PM
It was Semyon who was found with the camera. Just a point of detail.

Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on February 14, 2019, 12:19:58 PM
Remember what I said... people do crazy things when they're scared.  And even if the tree was no good for hiding or as a lookout, they wouldn't have known that until the got up there, and it was probably still better than running around on the ground with the, "Yeti."

I remember a few years ago reading a story in the paper about a woman high on drugs getting beat up by some random man on the Belle Isle bridge over the Detroit river going to Belle Isle.  To get away from him, she jumped off the bridge, and drowned in the Detroit river.   She couldn't swim, and about the last place you want to try to learn is the Detroit river.   See what I mean?   

Not all people do crazy things when they are scared.  And that was just one woman who apparently did a crazy thing, although we dont know for certain. And apparently she was high on drugs. This proves absolutely nothing as far as the Dyatlov Case is concerned.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on February 14, 2019, 12:21:21 PM
About the camera Kolevatov had.  I remember the days of old mechanical film cameras.  They were worse than cell phones, very delicate.  If you dropped it from waist height, it was junk.  I'd be interested to see how badly damaged it was.  That's why you generally wore the camera on a strap around your neck or with a wrist lanyard, so you couldn't drop it.   And in the winter you typically wore it under your jacket to keep it a little bit warmer.  The mechanism could freeze up solid, you could get condensation on the film.   Advancing the film when very cold and dry caused static discharges that would ruin the film.  If the camera was warm the view finder tended not to fog up so easy if you made the mistake of breathing on it.  You generally tried to keep it as warm as possible. 

Kolevatov was one of the better dressed of the party.  He had a jacket on and that camera likely would have been under it.  Nobody would have seen it.  You only see it in the photo from after his body was pulled out of the river and it kind of falls to the side out of his jacket.    Interesting that it's said that when he was told of the camera found on Kolevatov, that Yuri Yuden expressed surprise that it was there.   Why would that surprise him?  He wasn't there.   He didn't know what anybody had on them.    Or maybe he was there and never saw it.  That's why it came as a surprise to him.       


But surely any one attacking with a murderous intent wouldnt leave any evidence like a camera  !  ?


He didn't know Kolevatov had it.  Can't take it if you don't know it exists.

What about the other cameras and film  !  ?  And what about the Diaries  !  ? 
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: knocker on February 14, 2019, 03:35:05 PM
It was Semyon who was found with the camera. Just a point of detail.

Either way, they way you carry an old film camera in winter time is under your jacket.   At night time, nobody would know it was there unless they searched you.  Might not even notice the lump under the jacket in the day time. 
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: knocker on February 14, 2019, 03:56:19 PM
About the camera Kolevatov had.  I remember the days of old mechanical film cameras.  They were worse than cell phones, very delicate.  If you dropped it from waist height, it was junk.  I'd be interested to see how badly damaged it was.  That's why you generally wore the camera on a strap around your neck or with a wrist lanyard, so you couldn't drop it.   And in the winter you typically wore it under your jacket to keep it a little bit warmer.  The mechanism could freeze up solid, you could get condensation on the film.   Advancing the film when very cold and dry caused static discharges that would ruin the film.  If the camera was warm the view finder tended not to fog up so easy if you made the mistake of breathing on it.  You generally tried to keep it as warm as possible. 

Kolevatov was one of the better dressed of the party.  He had a jacket on and that camera likely would have been under it.  Nobody would have seen it.  You only see it in the photo from after his body was pulled out of the river and it kind of falls to the side out of his jacket.    Interesting that it's said that when he was told of the camera found on Kolevatov, that Yuri Yuden expressed surprise that it was there.   Why would that surprise him?  He wasn't there.   He didn't know what anybody had on them.    Or maybe he was there and never saw it.  That's why it came as a surprise to him.       


But surely any one attacking with a murderous intent wouldnt leave any evidence like a camera  !  ?


He didn't know Kolevatov had it.  Can't take it if you don't know it exists.

What about the other cameras and film  !  ?  And what about the Diaries  !  ?

Why did O.J. Simpson leave the bloody gloves behind his own house?    People do stupid things.  And things that are stupid that they think are smart.   If I take the cameras and the diaries they'll know somebody scooped up evidence and be suspicious, probably of me....   I'll just leave it all here.   I could burn the tent, but that's the same thing....   Murders often out think themselves, sometimes they don't think at all, like OJ.  They're just as panicked as the victims.   Imagine you just killed somebody, you feel sick, remorse, fear, fear of getting caught, there's blood everywhere, blood all over you, panic, adrenaline...  Think you could make a good decision at a time like that?  Nobody else can either.   Except maybe a serial killer who doesn't let any of that bother him.     

If it was Yuden or somebody else,  whether by accident or design, he was right to leave it all there.  All it did was confuse us all to this day.   
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on February 15, 2019, 11:41:25 AM
It was Semyon who was found with the camera. Just a point of detail.

Either way, they way you carry an old film camera in winter time is under your jacket.   At night time, nobody would know it was there unless they searched you.  Might not even notice the lump under the jacket in the day time.

Well Iam sure many people would have carried and used a camera whilst slung around their necks outside of any winter clothing.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on February 15, 2019, 11:58:28 AM
About the camera Kolevatov had.  I remember the days of old mechanical film cameras.  They were worse than cell phones, very delicate.  If you dropped it from waist height, it was junk.  I'd be interested to see how badly damaged it was.  That's why you generally wore the camera on a strap around your neck or with a wrist lanyard, so you couldn't drop it.   And in the winter you typically wore it under your jacket to keep it a little bit warmer.  The mechanism could freeze up solid, you could get condensation on the film.   Advancing the film when very cold and dry caused static discharges that would ruin the film.  If the camera was warm the view finder tended not to fog up so easy if you made the mistake of breathing on it.  You generally tried to keep it as warm as possible. 

Kolevatov was one of the better dressed of the party.  He had a jacket on and that camera likely would have been under it.  Nobody would have seen it.  You only see it in the photo from after his body was pulled out of the river and it kind of falls to the side out of his jacket.    Interesting that it's said that when he was told of the camera found on Kolevatov, that Yuri Yuden expressed surprise that it was there.   Why would that surprise him?  He wasn't there.   He didn't know what anybody had on them.    Or maybe he was there and never saw it.  That's why it came as a surprise to him.       


But surely any one attacking with a murderous intent wouldnt leave any evidence like a camera  !  ?


He didn't know Kolevatov had it.  Can't take it if you don't know it exists.

What about the other cameras and film  !  ?  And what about the Diaries  !  ?

Why did O.J. Simpson leave the bloody gloves behind his own house?    People do stupid things.  And things that are stupid that they think are smart.   If I take the cameras and the diaries they'll know somebody scooped up evidence and be suspicious, probably of me....   I'll just leave it all here.   I could burn the tent, but that's the same thing....   Murders often out think themselves, sometimes they don't think at all, like OJ.  They're just as panicked as the victims.   Imagine you just killed somebody, you feel sick, remorse, fear, fear of getting caught, there's blood everywhere, blood all over you, panic, adrenaline...  Think you could make a good decision at a time like that?  Nobody else can either.   Except maybe a serial killer who doesn't let any of that bother him.     

If it was Yuden or somebody else,  whether by accident or design, he was right to leave it all there.  All it did was confuse us all to this day.   

Well first of all it was never proved that OJ left the bloody gloves behind  !  ?  We know people do stupid things. And we know that some murderers make mistakes etc.  But knowing the obvious doesnt help our cause does it  !  ?  The way a Court Of Law would see it is as follows ; LOCATION [ REMOTE ] WEATHER [ VERY SEVERE ] VICTIMS [ 9 YOUNG AND FIT HUMANS ]  DEAD BODIES [ SCATTERED AND SOME HALF NAKED AND SOME WELL DRESSED ] INJURIES [ SOME VERY SERIOUS INJURIES HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY ANOTHER HUMAN OR HUMANS ] EVIDENCE [ CAMERAS AND FILM AND MONEY AND EQUIPMENT FOUND BY SEARCH PARTIES ] FIRE [ STARTED BY SOME OF THE 9 ] CONCLUSION = PROBABLY NOT MURDER BY OTHER HUMANS.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Vietnamka on February 18, 2019, 06:52:07 PM


I think you will find that the blackening of the skin due to severe frostbite doesnt require any warming period.
If you can find this information - you can provide the link for conformation))
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on February 19, 2019, 12:40:58 PM


I think you will find that the blackening of the skin due to severe frostbite doesnt require any warming period.
If you can find this information - you can provide the link for conformation))

I have come across references to frostbiten skin not always needing warming to turn black. So there may be certain circumstances where that applies. It needs the medical experts on this one. Different people also react differently to severe cold.  Some people get frostbite and others dont despite being in the same place at the same time, refer to all the high altitude mountaineers who can bear witness to this fact. Also it depends on what parts of the body are exposed. The photos we see of the blackened hands on the Dyatlov body may be due to frostbite or something else  !  ?
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 05, 2019, 11:38:52 AM

 (https://i.ibb.co/nBvDMy2/Dyatlov-group-colorized-by-Mikko-Kolkkanen-061.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)

Her hands look like she had been working on a car...
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on July 06, 2019, 09:22:45 PM
Well...   It's a colorized version of the black/white original.   It does a good job of illustrating the injury however.  Comparing to the original, it's spot on.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Nigel Evans on July 07, 2019, 05:06:57 AM
I'm not sure about the colour version showing the skin removed. In the black & white original it's not clear to me whether the skin is still there or not. Going to the autopsy report for clarification is ambiguous -

"There is an irregularly shaped 3 x 2.2-cm wound on the base of the third finger on the right hand with an angle facing the terminal phalanx with uneven borders and a scalped skin graft."

What's a scalped skin graft? Does it mean that the skin is still there as a flap? If so then it's from a cut from metal but it's irregular unlike a cut from a knife? More like from a jagged, irregular piece of sharp metal traveling at speed?

And she has what appears to be "soot" deposits on her hands.
And she has marks on her face that (to me) fit well with being spattered by something that burns the skin, something like acid perhaps.
And now you have a fit for being in the proximity of a missile explosion....


 (https://i.ibb.co/KWjcNzk/zina-hands-face-closeup.png) (https://ibb.co/x6SKm80)
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on July 08, 2019, 03:37:48 PM
The signs on the hands could also be due to some kind of ELECTRICAL EVENT.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: BottledBrunette on August 22, 2019, 09:43:52 PM
About the camera Kolevatov had.  I remember the days of old mechanical film cameras.  They were worse than cell phones, very delicate.  If you dropped it from waist height, it was junk.  I'd be interested to see how badly damaged it was.  That's why you generally wore the camera on a strap around your neck or with a wrist lanyard, so you couldn't drop it.   And in the winter you typically wore it under your jacket to keep it a little bit warmer.  The mechanism could freeze up solid, you could get condensation on the film.   Advancing the film when very cold and dry caused static discharges that would ruin the film.  If the camera was warm the view finder tended not to fog up so easy if you made the mistake of breathing on it.  You generally tried to keep it as warm as possible. 

Kolevatov was one of the better dressed of the party.  He had a jacket on and that camera likely would have been under it.  Nobody would have seen it.  You only see it in the photo from after his body was pulled out of the river and it kind of falls to the side out of his jacket.    Interesting that it's said that when he was told of the camera found on Kolevatov, that Yuri Yuden expressed surprise that it was there.   Why would that surprise him?  He wasn't there.   He didn't know what anybody had on them.    Or maybe he was there and never saw it.  That's why it came as a surprise to him.       
Why do you think Yuri Yudin came back and killed them and why do you think he was surprised that Kolevatov had a camera?  I mean, maybe Kolevatov didn't have a camera, because he refused to write in the diary and supposedly, didn't like getting his picture taken and was an extremely private guy.  My theory was, maybe, he took the camera off of Krivonoschenko when they found him dead at the same time they took his pants or whatever it was that was taken off his and Doroschenko's bodies, and perhaps, that's why Yuri Yudin was surprised that a camera was found on him.  I guess I forgot a camera was found on him.  All I remember was a camera being found on Zolataryov.  But, I think it was you, I read a comment that thought Yuri Yuden came back and killed him, and I got a laugh about the picture of Yuri Y saying he looked like a complete psycho.  LOL.  But, I'm curious and want to know why you bet money on Yuri Y being the killer and other than for purely psychopathic reasons, what would be the reasons for going back and killing them?  Such an interesting idea, and I'm curious.  Thank you.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on August 23, 2019, 03:34:29 AM
I believe the main issue with any of the murder theories I have seen to date is the lack of motive. 


Dear Loose Cannon,

First of all I have to thank you for still holding out on this forum and contributing to its activity. I very much appreciate that, and your impressive willingness to discuss.

However, I must comment on your statement above.

When dead bodies are found, what is the correct approach?

Is it to ask: "Is there a possible motive for killing these people?"

No.

When one or more corpses are found, the only sensible and scientifically acceptable approach is to examine the bodies as thorough as possible in order to ascertain the cause of death. This is the first crucial step. When and if the exact cause of death is found, a conclusion can be drawn.

In this case, an unbiased forensic examination with published results was not made back in 1959. It is fairly well established that the first investigators and forensic experts were prevented from stating the cause of death. This is demonstrated by later confirmation that the nine cannot have perished as a cause of freezing, with the possible exception of Igor Dyatlov.

The fact that the first investigators were compelled to withhold the true cause of death and instead attributed the deaths to unfortunate circumstances that could not possibly be the cause, indicates that the authorities knew very well what had happened.

The lack of a known motive should not prevent us from unprejudicedly asking what the injuries point to as cause(s) of death.

If we do so, we see that everything we know points to homicide and absolutely nothing contradicts human attack as the true cause of the Dyatlov pass tragedy.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on August 23, 2019, 04:14:19 AM
It wasnt much of a tree though.  Hardly the sort of tree you could stay up for long and also not of such an height that any one climbing a few metres up it could see that far.  They couldnt hide up that tree and they wouldnt have had a good view from that tree.   


True. But in a desperate attempt to escape their attackers, it makes perfect sense that they tried to climb the tree. That also explains the injuries to their hands, which must have been sustained as a result of using their bare hands to try to get hold of the trunk. It is also likely that the injuries were made worse by the attackers' dragging their victims down.

The question of course arises why the attackers did not simply shoot them and all of the others.

The answer is that our picture of murder is largely derived from Western films where killers mostly use firearms. In the real world, very resourceful killers try to camouflage the act so as to make it look like an accident or a natural death.

If, as likely, armed attackers entered the tent and forced the nine victims out in the cold they did so because they wanted to give the impression that the Dyatlov group died as a result of freezing after a voluntary exit from their tent. The fact that many people still believe in the official version, is testimony to the intelligence of the attackers. The killers - and those who orchestrated the murder of the nine - had however misjudged the weather. The victims did not perish as soon as planned, so the attacking squad had to hunt them down and ensure that they died. That also explains why Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Kolevatov and Thibeaux-Brignolle had the most severe injuries. They were better dressed than the others, and might have survived and even escaped. The attackers therefore had to expedite their mission by using force, and all their injuries are consistent with physical force by human attackers.

The question still remains who these unknown killers were. There are only two possibilities, the way I see it.

One is local people (Mansi) who were evidently present in the area. Svetlana Oss believes in this theory, and in her book "Don't Go There" she does a very admirable job in dispelling the theories of natural causes - she demonstrates well how the nine were likely murdered. However, she fails to substantiate the claim that the Mansi were responsible. She only has hearsay evidence to offer and the book does not prove that the locals were responsible - it is a possibility but no more.

The other possibility is a more sinister one.

Personally I feel that the most important thing is to establish the fact that the nine were murdered. Those who were responsible are no longer among us, and whatever the motive - superstitions, offended feelings or perceived security reasons if the students witnessed something they were not supposed to know - the murders were the unfortunate result of suspicions and a profound lack of human understanding. The decision to kill the nine was a terrible mistake, since these young people were unlikely to harm anyone or to divulge any state secrets, but in a world where people are sometimes killed as a preventive measure such things happen - and these acts are often camouflaged as "accidents" or "natural deaths." To force the victims out from the tent after having ensured that they are improperly dressed, and then let the cold weather do the "job," makes perfect sense when the intent is to make the whole thing seem like an unfortunate accident.

An analytic approach to the Dyatlov pass tragedy will strongly suggest that this is precisely what happened on February 2, 1959.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Star man on August 23, 2019, 08:33:30 AM
One thing about the murder theory that I think needs to be explained is this:

Why did the attackers leave Kolevatov alive?  His injuries don’t seem to be any where near as significant as the other rav 4.

Also, why use such primitive methods to take them out?  I don’t think anyone could say that they used primitive methods to remove suspicion of murder.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: jarrfan on August 23, 2019, 11:31:11 AM
If the attackers/government were suspicious of Semyon making a break over the border and planned to use the group as a decoy, perhaps they left him to die because they knew he had sorrow and was trying to find his son, Sasha? They knew he was going to die, and were exhausted interrogating all of the other members. The attackers may have personally known Semyon and that is why he was not beaten as severely but nevertheless left to die. If Semyon worked as a tour guide he knew much more about trails to the border than any other citizen.

Are we certain that these hikers tried to climb the tree? Or is it possible some were strung up on the tree breaking the branches, not as a noose, but perhaps their hands tied around pulled up to branches so the attackers could question them? Is it possible the fire was made by the attackers and the burning of the hands and feet occurred during interrogation? That might account for the one person who bit his finger joint cartilage off and it was found in his mouth. The groups were separated by ravine and cedar trees to see if any of the hikers would fess up to planning to leave the country? that is usually the tactic most police use is to split the group up to see if someone would cave that normally would not with much support, but alone or less hikers, they might talk. Splitting the group up also is used to get the whole story straight, if they are all telling the same story as the other group.

There was no knife found by the cedar tree, so maybe the attackers used the knife and kept it, making the one mistake of covering up the murder? Trying to gather the cedar branches for fire wood does not make sense as high as they were 5 m high or 15 feet? As the search party said, there were other branches around dry that would be better for fire. Also, the bodies were found like 9 feet from the fire? Why so far away? It makes no sense if they had the fire for over an hour that they were not able to keep it going?

Is it also possible the big cedar branch was cut off to use as a weapon on the hikers?

Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on August 24, 2019, 11:40:31 AM
It wasnt much of a tree though.  Hardly the sort of tree you could stay up for long and also not of such an height that any one climbing a few metres up it could see that far.  They couldnt hide up that tree and they wouldnt have had a good view from that tree.   


True. But in a desperate attempt to escape their attackers, it makes perfect sense that they tried to climb the tree. That also explains the injuries to their hands, which must have been sustained as a result of using their bare hands to try to get hold of the trunk. It is also likely that the injuries were made worse by the attackers' dragging their victims down.

The question of course arises why the attackers did not simply shoot them and all of the others.

The answer is that our picture of murder is largely derived from Western films where killers mostly use firearms. In the real world, very resourceful killers try to camouflage the act so as to make it look like an accident or a natural death.

If, as likely, armed attackers entered the tent and forced the nine victims out in the cold they did so because they wanted to give the impression that the Dyatlov group died as a result of freezing after a voluntary exit from their tent. The fact that many people still believe in the official version, is testimony to the intelligence of the attackers. The killers - and those who orchestrated the murder of the nine - had however misjudged the weather. The victims did not perish as soon as planned, so the attacking squad had to hunt them down and ensure that they died. That also explains why Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Kolevatov and Thibeaux-Brignolle had the most severe injuries. They were better dressed than the others, and might have survived and even escaped. The attackers therefore had to expedite their mission by using force, and all their injuries are consistent with physical force by human attackers.

The question still remains who these unknown killers were. There are only two possibilities, the way I see it.

One is local people (Mansi) who were evidently present in the area. Svetlana Oss believes in this theory, and in her book "Don't Go There" she does a very admirable job in dispelling the theories of natural causes - she demonstrates well how the nine were likely murdered. However, she fails to substantiate the claim that the Mansi were responsible. She only has hearsay evidence to offer and the book does not prove that the locals were responsible - it is a possibility but no more.

The other possibility is a more sinister one.

Personally I feel that the most important thing is to establish the fact that the nine were murdered. Those who were responsible are no longer among us, and whatever the motive - superstitions, offended feelings or perceived security reasons if the students witnessed something they were not supposed to know - the murders were the unfortunate result of suspicions and a profound lack of human understanding. The decision to kill the nine was a terrible mistake, since these young people were unlikely to harm anyone or to divulge any state secrets, but in a world where people are sometimes killed as a preventive measure such things happen - and these acts are often camouflaged as "accidents" or "natural deaths." To force the victims out from the tent after having ensured that they are improperly dressed, and then let the cold weather do the "job," makes perfect sense when the intent is to make the whole thing seem like an unfortunate accident.

An analytic approach to the Dyatlov pass tragedy will strongly suggest that this is precisely what happened on February 2, 1959.

Yes they may well have climbed the Tree to escape from something. Something that was scaring the living daylights out of them. Not a group of murderers or murderer.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on August 24, 2019, 11:44:31 AM
One thing about the murder theory that I think needs to be explained is this:

Why did the attackers leave Kolevatov alive?  His injuries don’t seem to be any where near as significant as the other rav 4.

Also, why use such primitive methods to take them out?  I don’t think anyone could say that they used primitive methods to remove suspicion of murder.

Regards

Star man

The answer to those questions could be simple.  They were not attacked by other Humans.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: NkZ on August 24, 2019, 12:06:55 PM
... or that kolevatov was the murderer. He managed to split the group to make it easier. Only his rescue party (cia, kgb, yeti, alien or whatever) missed the spot and didn’t find him (low confidence)
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Star man on August 24, 2019, 05:10:58 PM
If the attackers/government were suspicious of Semyon making a break over the border and planned to use the group as a decoy, perhaps they left him to die because they knew he had sorrow and was trying to find his son, Sasha? They knew he was going to die, and were exhausted interrogating all of the other members. The attackers may have personally known Semyon and that is why he was not beaten as severely but nevertheless left to die. If Semyon worked as a tour guide he knew much more about trails to the border than any other citizen.

Are we certain that these hikers tried to climb the tree? Or is it possible some were strung up on the tree breaking the branches, not as a noose, but perhaps their hands tied around pulled up to branches so the attackers could question them? Is it possible the fire was made by the attackers and the burning of the hands and feet occurred during interrogation? That might account for the one person who bit his finger joint cartilage off and it was found in his mouth. The groups were separated by ravine and cedar trees to see if any of the hikers would fess up to planning to leave the country? that is usually the tactic most police use is to split the group up to see if someone would cave that normally would not with much support, but alone or less hikers, they might talk. Splitting the group up also is used to get the whole story straight, if they are all telling the same story as the other group.

There was no knife found by the cedar tree, so maybe the attackers used the knife and kept it, making the one mistake of covering up the murder? Trying to gather the cedar branches for fire wood does not make sense as high as they were 5 m high or 15 feet? As the search party said, there were other branches around dry that would be better for fire. Also, the bodies were found like 9 feet from the fire? Why so far away? It makes no sense if they had the fire for over an hour that they were not able to keep it going?

Is it also possible the big cedar branch was cut off to use as a weapon on the hikers?

Some good logical thinking in there.  I don't personally buy that they were murdered though.  Why would the murdered lay the bodies out on branches.  And why would they allow the rav 4 to cut off and use Yuris D  Yuris K clothing?

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Star man on August 24, 2019, 05:13:48 PM
... or that kolevatov was the murderer. He managed to split the group to make it easier. Only his rescue party (cia, kgb, yeti, alien or whatever) missed the spot and didn’t find him (low confidence)

The same thought crossed my mind.  But do you think Kolevatov could take out the other 8 hikers by himself?  Why was he found embarrassing Semyon? Also, why would he kill the others knowing that he was also sentencing himself to a cold demise?

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Star man on August 24, 2019, 05:15:56 PM
One thing about the murder theory that I think needs to be explained is this:

Why did the attackers leave Kolevatov alive?  His injuries don’t seem to be any where near as significant as the other rav 4.

Also, why use such primitive methods to take them out?  I don’t think anyone could say that they used primitive methods to remove

The answer to those questions could be simple.  They were not attacked by other Humans.

What is that saying again about the simplest answer?  No need to respond.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: jarrfan on August 24, 2019, 10:37:03 PM
Dear Starman: My take is that Semyon joined the group with a plan in place to cross the border into Finland from Ortolem. He would have to have had assistance from people who would help him go the 1,772 miles to the Finnish border. It is possible some of the other male hikers knew or were told of his plan and were mulling around whether they should go too. I don't think either of the girls knew. This may have been what the guys were quarreling about.
 
Regardless, someone in the government found out and they are the ones who attacked. Perhaps split the group up with some at the cedar and the others at the ravine. As far as the ravine goes and the hikers found there, after reviewing their fatal blows, I do not believe they could have walked to the ravine in the condition they were in, the final beating had to take place there for these 4.

They may have been told by the guards to go and dig a den because you may have to stay in it until we can figure out who is helping the escape. Then when they finished with the others, they saw they had built the den and decided to make it their grave.

All of this is based on the fact that Semyon wanted to be called Sasha and disguise his birthday, plus him being a tour guide, he would have known the easiest route to Finland border.
 
The ravine 4 I think had to be killed in that den, they could not have done that work in the condition they were in.


Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on August 25, 2019, 04:35:36 AM
Probably should start a new topic thread for your theory. 
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Star man on August 25, 2019, 04:48:43 PM
Dear Starman: My take is that Semyon joined the group with a plan in place to cross the border into Finland from Ortolem. He would have to have had assistance from people who would help him go the 1,772 miles to the Finnish border. It is possible some of the other male hikers knew or were told of his plan and were mulling around whether they should go too. I don't think either of the girls knew. This may have been what the guys were quarreling about.
 
Regardless, someone in the government found out and they are the ones who attacked. Perhaps split the group up with some at the cedar and the others at the ravine. As far as the ravine goes and the hikers found there, after reviewing their fatal blows, I do not believe they could have walked to the ravine in the condition they were in, the final beating had to take place there for these 4.

They may have been told by the guards to go and dig a den because you may have to stay in it until we can figure out who is helping the escape. Then when they finished with the others, they saw they had built the den and decided to make it their grave.

All of this is based on the fact that Semyon wanted to be called Sasha and disguise his birthday, plus him being a tour guide, he would have known the easiest route to Finland border.
 
The ravine 4 I think had to be killed in that den, they could not have done that work in the condition they were in.

Agree that rav 4 were killed very close to the den area.  The question is can you write a logical narrative that fits the evidence presented in the case files.  Would be interesting if you could do this.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on August 26, 2019, 04:02:44 AM
One thing about the murder theory that I think needs to be explained is this:

Why did the attackers leave Kolevatov alive?  His injuries don’t seem to be any where near as significant as the other rav 4.

Also, why use such primitive methods to take them out?  I don’t think anyone could say that they used primitive methods to remove suspicion of murder.

Regards
Star man


I see no primitivity here.

To force the victims out of the tent in the expectation that the cold would do the job would be a very sensible thing to do for attackers who wanted to make it look like an accident. The killers knew that the nine students could not escape.

However, the temperature on this particular night was insufficient to kill the victims even after the assailants had made sure that their victims were not properly dressed, the victims had to be hunted down to accomplish the mission. This explains the injuries, and it explains why the last four had more severe injuries: They were somewhat better dressed, and had to be subjected to greater force in order to make sure that they died.

It was said that Kolevatov did not have injuries severe enough to cause death. On the contrary, his injuries are very probably lethal and strongly suggestive of him being attacked by trained killers:

"- lack of soft tissues around eyes, eyebrows are missing, skull bones are exposed
- the bridge of the nose is straight; the nose cartilage is soft when palpated and has unusual mobility; the base of the nose is flattened with the nostrils compressed (this doesn't necessarily mean broken nose)
- open wound behind ear, size 3x1.5 cm
- deformed neck
- diffuse bleeding in the underlying tissues of the left knee (not shown on diagram)
- softened and whitened skin (maceration) of the fingers and feet, sign consisted with putrefaction in a wet environment
- overall skin had a gray green color with a tinge of purple

This autopsy had similar strange silence about the injuries of the victim. Broken nose, open wound behind the ear and deformed neck might be the result of a fight and be cause of death. On the other hand it could have been caused by natural elements since the body was exposed to nature for three whole months. Yet the doctor ignores this matter and doesn't try to explain the reason for these strange injuries. We should probably add that snapped neck and blow behind the ear is a common sign of killing performed by special forces. However we can't be sure about this since the autopsy report didn't specify any more details about the body. We are left guessing on the nature and origin of these injuries."

(https://dyatlovpass.com/death#Kolevatov)

Like the others, Kolevatov suffered injuries consistent with a human attack. The close combat techniques used to create such injuries are by no means "primitive." They are brutally effective.

There are numerous testimonies from people involved in the first response and search back in 1959 that all say that they were told to say that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was an accident. Which would be another strong suggestion that it was something very different.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on August 26, 2019, 04:10:15 AM
Yes they may well have climbed the Tree to escape from something. Something that was scaring the living daylights out of them. Not a group of murderers or murderer.


When people are so scared that they desperately try to climb a tree with their bare hands, destroying their hands in the attempt to escape, the probability is high that what scared them were other human beings who pursued them.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Star man on August 26, 2019, 10:44:48 PM
Yes they may well have climbed the Tree to escape from something. Something that was scaring the living daylights out of them. Not a group of murderers or murderer.


When people are so scared that they desperately try to climb a tree with their bare hands, destroying their hands in the attempt to escape, the probability is high that what scared them were other human beings who pursued them.

So is truer here agreement here that they climbed the tree to escape?  If that is the case then the next question would've from what or whom.  Is climbing a tree a successful escape strategy to evade humans.  Unlikely humans are intelligent and resourceful.  Would they climb the tree to escape a yeti or some other animal.  Probably not a good strategy either as most animals are better climbers than humans.  It would give them the high ground though.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on August 27, 2019, 11:37:04 AM
Yes they may well have climbed the Tree to escape from something. Something that was scaring the living daylights out of them. Not a group of murderers or murderer.


When people are so scared that they desperately try to climb a tree with their bare hands, destroying their hands in the attempt to escape, the probability is high that what scared them were other human beings who pursued them.

Highly Debatable. More likely to be a wild animal that would scare people to such an extent or some other Being or unknown force.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on August 27, 2019, 12:18:26 PM
I hear unicorn farts are so rancid, you will do anything to get above the lingering cloud. 
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on October 10, 2019, 07:02:42 PM
Yes they may well have climbed the Tree to escape from something. Something that was scaring the living daylights out of them. Not a group of murderers or murderer.


When people are so scared that they desperately try to climb a tree with their bare hands, destroying their hands in the attempt to escape, the probability is high that what scared them were other human beings who pursued them.

Highly Debatable. More likely to be a wild animal that would scare people to such an extent or some other Being or unknown force.


There is no signs that any of the victims were attacked by animals. There were no bite marks and no scratches from claws on any of them.

Their injuries and deaths strongly point to deliberate, violent and merciless human action.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on November 06, 2019, 11:35:44 AM
Yes they may well have climbed the Tree to escape from something. Something that was scaring the living daylights out of them. Not a group of murderers or murderer.


When people are so scared that they desperately try to climb a tree with their bare hands, destroying their hands in the attempt to escape, the probability is high that what scared them were other human beings who pursued them.

Well there were scratch marks of sorts on some of the bodies  !  ?  And the crush injuries.

Highly Debatable. More likely to be a wild animal that would scare people to such an extent or some other Being or unknown force.
Title: My short take on murder.
Post by: Monty on March 09, 2020, 01:34:11 PM
Having re-read this thread several times, but stopping when it starts to diverge it's actually not a bad one. Punch up in the tent perhaps someone made a mountain out of a molehill. Spills out with someone waving a knife around. Jacket tied round arm to use as shield and then dropped. Whomever was the aggressor gets a kicking. Tent is rendered useless so decent into trees. That would mean one of the three the OP examines as being in receipt of a kicking and this the aggressor.
Why, oh why, leave yer boots? That's where it peters out.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sparrow on June 12, 2020, 01:27:33 AM
Does anybody know if the Mansi, etc. served in the military?
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: RidgeWatcher on June 12, 2020, 02:34:35 PM
Moose Hunting Strategy:

One hunter, half circles around the back (Auspiya/Cache), while catching their prey while at their least protected and unguarded moment. Knives and ice shovel are no much for rifles or guns. The Hunter's other team members who have gone north then west along the Lovza river are waiting and have already dug a bough lined pit to bury their prey. Bough line because it will soak up the blood and body content, so when they return later to gather up their kill they can empty the mass grave easily clean/cover up by throwing the dirty boughs in the steam when it thaws. At the cedar tree when the Dyatlov group are all together and ready to fight as a unit, the "one hunter" knows he is outnumbered. He waits until his Hunter buddies move from the grave to the cedar tree. Now the group can exercise control over the Dyatlov group. Could a few of the Hunters have started small fire as a beacon to all the hunters on that cold snowy night?

I think the first to move to the tent was Zina, Rustem and Igor. This was personal. Igor and Rustem (most athletic) put up a fight, they had to use more force on the stronger Rustem. Notice how Zina's face was mostly spared, they had known/talked with her and liked her. They took her down by hitting her around the side torso. They couldn't hit her face. They had talked, sang and drank with her.

When everyone, Hunters and the Dyatlov group were back at the Cedar and grouped together the Dyatlov group exchanged clothing depending on need and time constraint but then the Dyatlov 4 ran towards the ravine but were eventually rounded up caught and beaten and tortured. Is there any proof that the bough den ws made by the Dyatlo group?

The Hunters returned to the Cedar to encounter the desperate and dying Yuri's. Either the Yuri's or the Hunters climbed the Cedar to survey if they needed to tie up any loose ends. Maybe a Mansi hunter came upon the scene the following morning/day and scared the Hunters off and back down towards 2nd North, Settlement 41 or even Ivdel.

The two women were the controls in the group. The fun and well liked Zina and the outspoken and staunch Lyudmilla. Is it a coincidence the Zina's face was spared and Lyudmilal's tongue was missing?
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sparrow on June 12, 2020, 05:38:33 PM
I read that a Mansi told someone that they used that area for camping when they went hunting in that area. Just a little second and third hand information.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: RidgeWatcher on June 12, 2020, 07:59:39 PM
You are probably saying something that is true. There were lots of signs of Mansi hunting that far into the forested canyons going up towards the Dyatlov Pass.

I have two questions about that, though:

1) The unknown stranger in the photo is not dressed in army way like a Mansi Hunter and definitely looks much more like one of the men back at Settlement 41. And remember that there were aa lot more buildings there than we saw men being photographed. The same for Ivdel.

2) The Mansi word meaning for Kholat Syakhl as The Mountain of the Dead, meaning that there isn't a lot of game to hunt in that area is suspicious to me because the Dyatlov ski tourists found a lot of hunting signs, track and some very recent.

Don't you think that is strange for a mountain area that is being actively hunted in the dead of winter?
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: alecsandros on June 13, 2020, 08:58:55 AM
1) The unknown stranger in the photo is not dressed in army way like a Mansi Hunter and definitely looks much more like one of the men back at Settlement 41. And remember that there were aa lot more buildings there than we saw men being photographed. The same for Ivdel.
Are you reffering to photo no17 of Thibeaux-Brignolle's camera ?
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Georgi on June 18, 2020, 01:08:35 PM
I believe the main issue with any of the murder theories I have seen to date is the lack of motive.

The motive is an unknown and likely can never be known, we can speculate till the end of time but unless someone comes up with a confession or somewhere in the Russian archives is evidence of what happened we probably will never know. Maybe one or more of them were targeted, maybe they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. This could have been a murder because the wrong group of people just happened to cross the Dyatlov group and they felt like there would be no repercussions so why not? This could be an attack by the Government of the USSR, the KGB, the CIA, Soviet or western special forces. The group might have seen something, or they may have gone by something they didn’t notice but someone couldn’t take the chance. It could also have happened because one or more of the party were on the hike for something other than love of the sport and were working for the Soviet Government and/or the American government. The reason could be something that seems logical to the person who orders the attack, and it might be something that was small but to the wrong person it becomes a valid reason for murder. This could have been a powerful person whose child was rejected from the hiking club or by one of the girls or guys and subsequently committed suicide and this was retaliation. This could also be something as stupid as one of the hikers telling somebody off at some point during the trip and that person could not take that insult. Maybe they met someone on the trail, a fight happened and they were killed because of that fight. Or it could be completely random with a group of soldiers or special forces on an exercise in the region, cross the group, it might have started as a fun game for the attackers to scare them and one of the hikers died so subsequently they decided to get rid of all the witnesses. It could have also been retaliation for something one of the parents had done years before and this seemed like the perfect revenge, kill their child and leave them without knowing what happened for the rest of their lives and make sure no one gets suspicious by covering it up with 8 other murders. Or this could have been a message for the soviet government from another government and the Dyatlov Group just happened to be the unlucky one that was chosen. There could be hundreds of reasons, many of which would be so incredibly stupid that would make your brain hurt, but if you have someone powerful with access to trained killers it wouldn’t matter if it was a valid reason or not because to them its worth it.

If it was revenge, 9 people died 8 of them died to cover the actual target and the team that killed them have every incentive to keep their mouths shut. I have met people that are so thin skinned or so full of themselves that if you embarrass them whether intentionally or not they will retaliate disproportionately. Hell you don't even have to embarrass them, a passing remark, an action that offends no one but they see as directed at them and its enough for the wrong person.

The list of potential motives is very long and worse, we might not consider a lot of things as motive for mass murder but someone who does not value human life much or at all might consider them valid reactions and if that person is in a position of power that gives them an outlet.

Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Georgi on June 18, 2020, 01:15:44 PM


Lack of motive AND lack of evidence for anyone else on the mountain that night. Also, the fact that money, food, alcohol, skis and clothing were left behind in the tent. Those would be valuable to a lot of would-be attackers out there in the middle of the winter.
For common criminals? Yes. For escaped convict? Definitely. For anyone who wants to do their best to confuse the investigation? Probably not.

If they were murdered and their camera's, money, alcohol, ski's, tent, watches and everything else valuable was taken this would not be all that much of a mystery, someone killed them and robbed them case closed. Yet here we are 60+ years later with no real answers as to what actually happened, so if they were murdered the killers confused the issue so much that no one can still come up with conclusive theory.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Georgi on June 18, 2020, 01:24:23 PM
Or, those injuries are from a fight within in the group as things got desperate around the fire and some disagreement broke out. Or relating back to the decision to abandon the tent. It is interesting that Igor, Rustem and Zina were found more than 150 meters apart from each if they were going back to the tent. It's as if they went separately.

I know this is not exactly scientific but based on the watches, we could use the time they stopped as time of death +/- 30 minutes. Which would lead us to believe that Igor died first before 5:30 AM while Slobodin left for the tent ~3 hours later at which point he was weakened by his injuries and the cold and died on the way there, maybe he left with Zina and he collapsed while she continued for some time but collapsed soon after and died.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Morski on June 18, 2020, 03:19:32 PM
What you don`t need for a natural theory, is what you utmost need for a murder one - motive. By saying "natural" I am not completely excluding even a quarrel among them, which went wrong. No matter how unlikely it sounds. Of course, it is impossible to say why it may have happened, but it seem like you need little less "motive" compared to a deliberate or - unplanned/taken out by mistake - homicide version of the events.

If it was a tragedy triggered by a natural event or phenomenon, you safely exclude tons of obstacles and complexities, which would require exceptional circumstances to occur. By saying exceptional circumstances, at least we know about the furies winds that shake down the slopes around Kholat Syakhl - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbZjcKl3Z6o . So the geography of the surroundings suggest interesting events. Potentially.
But murder - if it was at least closer to civilization... But in the middle of nowhere? You need a very strong motive, otherwise it is pure fantasy. Think about the resources, or the human effort to follow/stalk them, to endure basically the same struggles (and not taking anything from them afterwards), to be able to stay away/hide so you are not noticed, or, to perform a good cover up... Why?!
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Georgi on June 18, 2020, 03:56:01 PM
What you don`t need for a natural theory, is what you utmost need for a murder one - motive. By saying "natural" I am not completely excluding even a quarrel among them, which went wrong. No matter how unlikely it sounds. Of course, it is impossible to say why it may have happened, but it seem like you need little less "motive" compared to a deliberate or - unplanned/taken out by mistake - homicide version of the events.
We don't need to know the motive to determine if its murder or not. There are a lot of killings where the motive is not clear and the perpetrator is not known but it is clearly murder. There could have been a motive that none of the Dyatlov party understood because it could have been so insignificant that it never crossed their mind that the insignificant action would prompt someone to commit mass murder. All you need is someone with the means, and a fragile ego or on the other hand it could have been nothing but a case of a mistaken identity.


When looking at a natural theory you need to find a reason why they left the safety of the tent and why they believed that they were safer outside the tent and a few hundred meters from the tent rather than inside with their clothes, tools and weapons and then we need to have an explanation as to how they received the rest of the injuries.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: janeeyre2150 on June 19, 2020, 01:56:58 AM
It’s possible it all started in the tent yes and you are right that there is no time stamp so they may have left in smaller groups.  But why would they do that?  Also if someone had forced the others to leave it’s unlikely that they themselves would leave the tent poorly dressed and without their boots. I don’t think anyone of them had all of their outdoor gear on?

The bodies on the slope could have been going either up or down. But one thing that is unlikely to be coincidental is that they were all in a straight line. This indicates that they were likely to all have started from the same place and were heading in the same direction. So they were probably travelling together. 

It seems that almost any theory can only be based on the most probable events.  Unless it’s possible to piece together more solid clues and evidence .

There are theories that before the searchers could find their bodies, someone else had already found them and apparently there were signs that some of the bodies were moved, some theory even goes to say that the people who got there before the searchers are either the Mansi or the Military people/KGB and the way their bodies were found later on was not the exact position when they died because the bodies' positions were allegedly manipulated. I still strongly believe that whatever killed them that night was related to military/gvt shenanigans.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: janeeyre2150 on June 19, 2020, 02:04:46 AM
I believe the main issue with any of the murder theories I have seen to date is the lack of motive.  Most of you may know I have issues with all theories, but I also see the possibilities in each as well.  I am most definitely not married to any one theory. That being said, I believe the most compelling aspects of any murder theory at its foundation are the injuries.  I wont go through them all but lets take three individuals that were NOT subject to months of rotting in a creek......  Igor, Rustem, and Zina.  These three individuals were literally frozen in place and intact. 


Igor

1. minor abrasions on the forehead
2. minor abrasions on the upper eyelids
3. brown-red abrasions above the left eyebrow
4. minor abrasions on the left cheek
5. brown-red abrasions on both cheeks
6. dried blood on lips

12. purple-gray discoloration on back side of the right hand
13. metacarpophalangeal joints on the right hand had brown red bruises. This is common injury in hand to hand fights. To get a better idea of the injuries just make a fist. This is the part of the hand which you use to hit someone.
14. left hand is brown-purple color with brownish-red bruises
15. superficial wounds on the 2nd and 5th finger on the left hand
16. skin wound in the palmar surface of the 2nd 5th finger of left hand


(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Igor-Dyatlov-autopsy-report.png)


Now, when I look at all this its only logical to assume Igor was fighting someone or 'something'.  Even if you were to explain some of them away as injuries having acquired somehow other then fighting, Im not convinced you can eliminate all of them i.e if even ONE of them was caused by foul play......  you have a problem. 

Please take note of this injury in particular.
13. metacarpophalangeal joints on the right hand had brown red bruises. This is common injury in hand to hand fights. To get a better idea of the injuries just make a fist. This is the part of the hand which you use to hit someone.

Being a former Marine and a little rambunctious in a past life I can attest many of the above injuries are consistent with...... fighting. 



Rustem

1. hemorrhages in the temporalis muscles
2. minor brownish red abrasions on the forehead
3. two scratches are 1.5 cm long at the distance of 0.3 cm between them
4. brownish red bruise on the upper eyelid of the right eye with hemorrhage into the underlying tissues
5. traces of blood discharge from the nose
6. swelling and a lot of small abrasions on both sides of the face
7. bruises in the metacarpophalangeal joints on both hands (bruised knuckles). Similar bruises are common in hand to hand fight
8.brown cherry bruises on the medial aspect of the left arm and left palm
9. swollen lips
10. bruises on the left tibia in dimensions at 2.5x1.5 cm (not shown on diagram)
11. epidermis is torn from the right forearm (not shown on diagram)
12. fracture of the frontal bone 6x0.1 cm located 1.5 cm from the sagittal suture (showing on separate skull trauma diagram without numbers)

(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Rustem-Slobodin-autopsy-report.png)


Literally the entire list of injuries of Rustem 'could' be attributed to..... fighting.

Please take note of this injury in particular.
7. bruises in the metacarpophalangeal joints on both hands (bruised knuckles). Similar bruises are common in hand to hand fighting

(https://sks-files.com/Smileys/solosmileys/39.gif)




Zina

1. dark red abrasion on the right frontal eminence
2. pale gray area 3x2 cm above the right eyebrow
3. dark red abrasion on the upper eyelids
4. brown red graze on the bridge and tip of the nose
5. numerous abrasions on the left cheekbone
6. bruised skin on the right side of the face
7. brown-red abrasion on the back of both hands in the area of metacarpal phalangeal and inter-phalangeal joints
8. wound with jagged edges and missing skin on the back of the right hand at the base of the third finger
10. a long bright red bruise 29x6 cm in the lumbar region on the right side of the torso. The bruise looks like left from a baton


(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Zinaida-Kolmogorova-autopsy-report.png)


Again, the entire list other then #9 (frostbite) 'could' be attributed to... hand/hand combat.     bat1

Note #10 in the image is misleading. The waist injury is isolated to the right side and can not be a result of "pulling a roped sled" around the waist which would be evenly distributed to both sides and the front.
10. a long bright red bruise 29x6 cm in the lumbar region on the right side of the torso. The bruise looks like left from a baton

Also note the severity of this injury in particular and the descriptions accuracy which 'should' be an indication of the rest of the injuries description accuracy. 
8. wound with jagged edges and missing skin on the back of the right hand at the base of the third finger

(https://i.ibb.co/BTcgZkS/Dyatlov-group-colorized-by-Mikko-Kolkkanen-061.jpg)


Conclusion.

I dont know about you guys, but thats a whole lot of busted up heads, and knuckles with side order of blood to go around.  Again, can some of thes injuris have been caused by climbing trees, falling on rocks etc... sure, but 'what if' even ONE of them wasn't?   The who, what, when, where, and why I leave to you.

Yes I have thought along those lines as well. A lot of the injuries do look as if they could have been caused by physical contact with someone or something ie some kind of fight or defence maybe. And yet this is apparently being ruled out by the Authorities re the re opening of the Dyatlov Case.

Of course they would, they wouldn't want to get in trouble with the still existing KGB police wouldnt they? If they put that in, pretty sure there would've been a trouble from the people up there
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: janeeyre2150 on June 19, 2020, 02:20:48 AM
I think when you group the bodies up according to injuries, you find three types.  and you find the three types all generally in the same three places.  A group that mostly just died of exposure, a group that looked like they were in a fist fight, and another group that was savagely beaten and tortured and then dumped into the river.   It seems that there was some favoritism shown here.  Some were let off easy or maybe got away before it all started.  Some appeared to have escaped, the rest had the ever loving **** kicked out of them.

If I had to guess this was the work of just one or two men who couldn't keep track of everybody in the dark.  Doroshenko and Krivonischenko probably slipped away and hid in the cedar until they felt it was safe after the commotion died down.   Then they lit a fire.  They obviously had no fear of being spotted by that time.  They felt they were safe but knew they were dying.   The rest were frog marched down to the river.  Rustem Slobodin was the first to get it.  Maybe he got mouthy, maybe he tried to fight.  He got his skull cracked and was left to die.    Down at the river the beatings began, and probably got more savage over time.  At first it was just kicks to the ribs or rifle butts to the heads.  But then it degraded into eyes being gouged out and tongues being cut off.  It was already too late for most of them by that time but Dyatlov and Kolmogorova at some point fought their way out and slipped into the night.  The killer continued to work over the rest of the group while Dyatlov and Kolmogorova hid.  The killer finally finishes and leaves but seems to have no interest in finding the others which should be as easy as following the footprints in the snow.  Maybe he decided to just wait at the tent an hour or two knowing they'll all die of exposure.   All he has to do is just wait them out.   Dyatlov and Kolmogorova return to the river to find their friends dead.    By then, who knows how long they'd been out with next to no clothes on.  They try to make a shelter and stay in it for a period of time, then notice the fire Doroshenko and Krivonischenko made.   They make their way over to them and find them dead probably some number of hours after it all began.   They take some of their clothes and try to make it back to the tent.  They never make it.   

The motive never was robbery.  It was very personal.  Personal enough to want to make somebody gouge somebody's eyes out and break every bone in their body.  The natives maybe.   My money is on Yuri Yuden.           

I was hooked until the last part, "My money is on Yuri Yuden", that part made me laughed out loud! Hahaha I mean tf, homeboi cant even walk properly by the time they were almost their destination and wasnt it insinuated that he had a crush on one of the girls ( was it Lyuda?) Personally, i think he was the weakling of the group (he had severe back,leg problems) that's why i find that last part ridiculous. And let's just say that he was the killer, why would he do that? Arent most of them close friends? ....







or maybe not
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: janeeyre2150 on June 19, 2020, 02:28:18 AM
About the camera Kolevatov had.  I remember the days of old mechanical film cameras.  They were worse than cell phones, very delicate.  If you dropped it from waist height, it was junk.  I'd be interested to see how badly damaged it was.  That's why you generally wore the camera on a strap around your neck or with a wrist lanyard, so you couldn't drop it.   And in the winter you typically wore it under your jacket to keep it a little bit warmer.  The mechanism could freeze up solid, you could get condensation on the film.   Advancing the film when very cold and dry caused static discharges that would ruin the film.  If the camera was warm the view finder tended not to fog up so easy if you made the mistake of breathing on it.  You generally tried to keep it as warm as possible. 

Kolevatov was one of the better dressed of the party.  He had a jacket on and that camera likely would have been under it.  Nobody would have seen it.  You only see it in the photo from after his body was pulled out of the river and it kind of falls to the side out of his jacket.    Interesting that it's said that when he was told of the camera found on Kolevatov, that Yuri Yuden expressed surprise that it was there.   Why would that surprise him?  He wasn't there.   He didn't know what anybody had on them.    Or maybe he was there and never saw it.  That's why it came as a surprise to him.       

I think he was surprised because the camera on Kolevatov was unidentified, he never saw the said camera when he was still with the group.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on June 22, 2020, 02:22:14 PM
Or, those injuries are from a fight within in the group as things got desperate around the fire and some disagreement broke out. Or relating back to the decision to abandon the tent. It is interesting that Igor, Rustem and Zina were found more than 150 meters apart from each if they were going back to the tent. It's as if they went separately.

I know this is not exactly scientific but based on the watches, we could use the time they stopped as time of death +/- 30 minutes. Which would lead us to believe that Igor died first before 5:30 AM while Slobodin left for the tent ~3 hours later at which point he was weakened by his injuries and the cold and died on the way there, maybe he left with Zina and he collapsed while she continued for some time but collapsed soon after and died.


There could be many reasons why the watches stopped when they did. But you raise a good point, and worth further Investigation.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on June 22, 2020, 02:26:25 PM
Does anybody know if the Mansi, etc. served in the military?

Well I think we can see what your getting at with that question. But I would have thought that the Mansi wouldnt have needed Military Training to survive the way that they have for generations in such an hostile environment.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Georgi on June 30, 2020, 11:57:42 PM


There could be many reasons why the watches stopped when they did. But you raise a good point, and worth further Investigation.

In the article about the Chivruay Pass incident they came to the conclusion that once the body freezes the watches most often stop working within 15-30 minutes. That being said they also had one watch which survived several months in the cold on one of the bodies and was still working when they found the person. If they were self winding watches it could also indicate TOD if we knew how long the battery reserve was, it could have been a few hours to a couple of days but since they mostly stopped within a couple of hours from each other I can say its more likely they ceased working once the bodies froze.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on July 01, 2020, 04:45:27 AM


There could be many reasons why the watches stopped when they did. But you raise a good point, and worth further Investigation.

In the article about the Chivruay Pass incident they came to the conclusion that once the body freezes the watches most often stop working within 15-30 minutes. That being said they also had one watch which survived several months in the cold on one of the bodies and was still working when they found the person. If they were self winding watches it could also indicate TOD if we knew how long the battery reserve was, it could have been a few hours to a couple of days but since they mostly stopped within a couple of hours from each other I can say its more likely they ceased working once the bodies froze.

Its a good one this. And this particular issue could do with further investigation. Any experts out there in watch manufacture ? ! etc.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sparrow on July 07, 2020, 11:09:35 PM
In my experience, wind up watches tend to run about 24 hours before they need to be rewound.  I also used to see people unconsciously wind their watches throughout the day.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sparrow on July 07, 2020, 11:29:53 PM
Hello Sarapuk.

I was curious about whether the Mansi served in the military.  If we were to assume that the hikers were killed by others, why not the Mansi?  I believe most people would not know instinctively how to kill and the military would be one way to learn.  I am just trying to glean as much information as I can from others, especially when I  don't know the answer.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on July 09, 2020, 01:18:48 PM
Hello Sarapuk.

I was curious about whether the Mansi served in the military.  If we were to assume that the hikers were killed by others, why not the Mansi?  I believe most people would not know instinctively how to kill and the military would be one way to learn.  I am just trying to glean as much information as I can from others, especially when I  don't know the answer.

Well none of us know the answer, YET.  I have been looking at the Case Files again and it does appear that the Mansi were thoroughly Investigated by the Authorities. You know what that means.  The KGB.  So I think that the Mansi were not responsible for the demise of the Dyatlov Group.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Jean Daniel Reuss on August 27, 2020, 10:29:09 AM

                                           Reply #76

a quarrel among them

A fight to the death between the 9 hikers would only be possible under the action of a (non-existent) very powerful psychotropic drug.
This is what I call my hypothesis N°1: See: "To complement Eduard Tumanov's ideas...
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=411.msg8382#msg8382
Altercation on the pass / Altercation on the pass    => February 03, 2020, 02:04:13 PM    ---> Reply #15
                                                                           I am now eliminating that hypothesis  ---> Reply #18


a tragedy triggered by a natural event or phenomenon

All that we can read about these 9 well-trained Siberian Russians who were found dead with various fractures shows that it is certain that these are not natural events.
This misleading propaganda about young athletes breaking their skulls by stumbling is ridiculous.
And on the Den, which on February 1 contained less snow than on May 4, it is impossible to get hurt sliding into it. Just have a look at the 3D model of the ravine by Vasilii Zyadik
https://dyatlovpass.com/vasilii-zyadik

I would rather think of a murderer who, after climbing a tree, had fun doing trampoline demonstrations by falling with his feet together on Dubinina and Zolotaryov lying on their back.
weight = 80 kg + freefall height = 3 meter ===> 2400 joules


But murder - if it was at least closer to civilization... But in the middle of nowhere?

On the contrary! It was an excellent place and time:
  At the same time very easy to access by following the track left by the 9 hikers;
  Absolute certainty to find the tent at the end of the track;
  Less than a day on skis to go from the North-2 departure base to the tent;
  But far enough away so that no hiker can escape and find help.
  No witnesses to the extermination of the 9 hikers.


You need a very strong motive

Aleks Kandr explains the motives on his website, unfortunately in Russian.

          http://mystery12home.ru/t-ub-gr-dyatlova

But to understand the motives it is necessary to have some historic notions about Khrushchev's Thaw, the destalinization, the (difficult) dismantling of the Gulag, the sometimes sadistic mentality of some camp guards, propaganda and psychological modern war...etc

The central theme of Aleks Kandr, which opens up promising avenues of research, is that the hikers were attacked.
  The attackers were not zeks escaped from one camp (Ivdellag).
  The attackers were not ex-zeks who had been released since 1953, (This was my hypothesis N°2).
  The attackers were camp guards who were still active or former camp guards who had been dismissed or were unemployed, and who with the Thaw were in the process of losing all their powers. This is now my hypothesis N°3 .

There are still many questions to be discussed and clarified :
Was there only one remaining commanditaire (commander, client ?)  in Ivdel and 3 mercenary murderers ? How was Dubinina compromised to have her tongue ripped out ? etc...
See also Sabine (Sabine Lechtenfeld): https://dyatlovpass.com/dubininas-premonition?lid=1&flp=1


Think about the resources, or the human effort to follow/stalk them

Yes ! Precisely I think and I think realistically :
8 hours of skiing to go from North-2, which was the departure base, to the tent.
                      And after successfully defeating the 9 hikers :
7 hours of skiing to come back from the tent to North-2, (so the 3 killers could be at home in the Ivdel area by February 3rd, 1959).


to endure basically the same struggles

  Some camp guards were trained to pursue (and exterminate) escapees in the snow.
mishka had the best idea for exiting the tent in a hurry without taking the 3 axes (an answer to alecsandros).
mishka :  Who cut open the tent?    August 10, 2020, 12:04:43 AM ---> Reply #16
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=690.msg10439#msg10439
                                                  August 11, 2020, 09:10:11 AM ---> Reply #18
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=690.msg10460#msg10460

When, on February 3, 1959, the 3 mercenary murderers came back to see the commander, they said in substance:

  1) We are proud to have succeeded in our ruse to quickly get the 9 hikers out of the tent without them taking the 3 axes that were inside.
"...We have lost control of an experimental missile... and the mad explosive projectile will fall exactly where your tent is ...."

  2) The extermination, without firearms, of the 9 hikers was a bit laborious because it took about 10 hours.

  3) And here is in this small package what was asked namely: the four eyeballs and the tongue.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

 Of course this is a brief overview of my hypothesis N°3 which uses and mixes the ideas of Per Inge Oestmoen, Aleks Kandr, Sabine, Noelle, NightLurker, mishka, hoosiergose, Georgi, RidgeWatcher...and many others too numerous to name them. I now believe that I am finally on the right track able to explain the main lines of the DPI. I will continue on the topic:

                Altercation on the pass / Altercation on the pass
                https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=411.30


Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Saltyseadog on December 19, 2020, 12:06:17 PM
The group were never in the tent up on the mountain. Their captors and murderers removed it from the cedar area where we see the birch pad for the tent and set it up. This is why it is so neat inside and missing certain items. Maybe some of the group were still alive and able to watch from the cedar what was going on.
In the end there are 3 groups of bodies deliberately set up the way they are. This is a clue to when and why they were murdered.
Most were killed up on Hoi Eckwa - Lyuda, Zolotaryov, Tibo and Kolevatov. This was because they were caught red handed defying mansi custom about no women up on the mountain and maybe trying to rifle through ceremonial gifts to the supreme god. I believe the group knew about the golden idol and this explains their presence up on Hoi Eckwa.
Igor and Rustem were next to die probably returning to camp on 29/1 when they heard Zina screaming. Zina and the two Yuris had been left at camp on 29/1 (see her diary entry) while the others explored a track south of the Auspiya - we are waiting for the others to return.
These three were first attacked, maybe the Yuris captured, then killed in a fight with the natives, Zina captured alive. Igor and Rustem returning down the mountain.
Now the group is split and in 3 groups, easy to be taken care of by a small group of attackers and after the group on the Auspiya camp area they followed tracks came acoss Igor and Rustem, took care of them then went up Hoi Eckwa and came across the rest.
The question is had the group already found the golden idol and sent it back with Yudin. Did Yudin know of the groups quest but they had been warned at the Ushma settlement and he got cold feet and was worried about the consequences so left after the 2nd north or does the lostday account for the trip up Hoi Eckwa and the groups deaths not only for being on the mountain with a woman but for stealing the golden idol?
Hence the severity of injuries in members in the ravine, at the cedar and laid out supposedly returning to the tent.
The mansi transported the group there and set the scene. Authorities know the assailants, Kurikov blackmailed officials with info he had hence the sudden release of the Bahtiyarovs and subsequent coverup.
This is only a condensed version of what I think transpired.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Saltyseadog on December 19, 2020, 12:16:46 PM
Oh and I forgot to add that the needles and dirt on the bodies are from the area where the bodies were first stored, most likely in one of the huts around the base of Hoi Eckwa until a decision was made what to do with them and where to finally transport them to set up the scene. The footprints on he mountain cannot be from any of the Dyatlov group. I defy any one here to even try walking 1500m in bare feet or socks on frozen ground and see how far you get! Completely impossible.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on December 19, 2020, 03:00:52 PM
Oh and I forgot to add that the needles and dirt on the bodies are from the area where the bodies were first stored, most likely in one of the huts around the base of Hoi Eckwa until a decision was made what to do with them and where to finally transport them to set up the scene. The footprints on he mountain cannot be from any of the Dyatlov group. I defy any one here to even try walking 1500m in bare feet or socks on frozen ground and see how far you get! Completely impossible.

The Search Parties say otherwise. And there is still no motive for Murder by other Humans.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on December 20, 2020, 04:05:25 AM
Oh and I forgot to add that the needles and dirt on the bodies are from the area where the bodies were first stored, most likely in one of the huts around the base of Hoi Eckwa until a decision was made what to do with them and where to finally transport them to set up the scene. The footprints on he mountain cannot be from any of the Dyatlov group. I defy any one here to even try walking 1500m in bare feet or socks on frozen ground and see how far you get! Completely impossible.

The Search Parties say otherwise. And there is still no motive for Murder by other Humans.


1. When people are forced out in the cold at gunpoint, there is no choice. We have every reason to believe that this is what happened to the nine Dyatlov pass victims.

2. A proper criminal investigation does not start with the question "is there an obvious motive?" A proper criminal investigation starts with a thorough forensic analysis of the available evidence, in order to establish whether or not a criminal act has taken place.

3. In this case, all the available evidence confirms that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was an intelligently planned, brilliantly executed mission which was carefully orchestrated to make it look like an accident. The injuries found in the victims can all be explained by human attack, and moreover they can only be explained by human attack by skilled murderers who knew what they were doing. This fact is demonstrable, and the next question is who did it and why. It may be that we shall never know with certainty, and even if there is reason to believe that the Soviet state security organs were responsible it cannot be strictly proven until someone speaks. However, it is certain that the nine students were murdered, and it is certain that the killers had one objective: To make sure that the nine were eliminated.

4. Only the fact that there was an unexpected rise in temperature during the night of February 2, 1959, prevented this carefully planned assasination from being the perfect mission. If the temperature had been -30C instead of around -15C, the nine hikers would have expired fast as planned.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on December 21, 2020, 12:35:49 PM
Oh and I forgot to add that the needles and dirt on the bodies are from the area where the bodies were first stored, most likely in one of the huts around the base of Hoi Eckwa until a decision was made what to do with them and where to finally transport them to set up the scene. The footprints on he mountain cannot be from any of the Dyatlov group. I defy any one here to even try walking 1500m in bare feet or socks on frozen ground and see how far you get! Completely impossible.

The Search Parties say otherwise. And there is still no motive for Murder by other Humans.


1. When people are forced out in the cold at gunpoint, there is no choice. We have every reason to believe that this is what happened to the nine Dyatlov pass victims.

2. A proper criminal investigation does not start with the question "is there an obvious motive?" A proper criminal investigation starts with a thorough forensic analysis of the available evidence, in order to establish whether or not a criminal act has taken place.

3. In this case, all the available evidence confirms that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was an intelligently planned, brilliantly executed mission which was carefully orchestrated to make it look like an accident. The injuries found in the victims can all be explained by human attack, and moreover they can only be explained by human attack by skilled murderers who knew what they were doing. This fact is demonstrable, and the next question is who did it and why. It may be that we shall never know with certainty, and even if there is reason to believe that the Soviet state security organs were responsible it cannot be strictly proven until someone speaks. However, it is certain that the nine students were murdered, and it is certain that the killers had one objective: To make sure that the nine were eliminated.

4. Only the fact that there was an unexpected rise in temperature during the night of February 2, 1959, prevented this carefully planned assasination from being the perfect mission. If the temperature had been -30C instead of around -15C, the nine hikers would have expired fast as planned.

Well who is we  !  ?  Iam sure many Investigators dont believe that the Dyatlov Group were forced from their Tent by other people with guns.
The original Investigation left a lot to be desired.
You state that all the available Evidence confirms that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was an intelligently planned brilliantly executed mission. Can you show one piece of Evidence to back up that statement  !  ?
And can you show the Evidence of an unexpected rise of Temperature on the night of February 2 1959  ! ?
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Dona on April 18, 2021, 05:23:31 PM

QUOTE " Well who is we  !  ?  Iam sure many Investigators dont believe that the Dyatlov Group were forced from their Tent by other people with guns.
The original Investigation left a lot to be desired.
You state that all the available Evidence confirms that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was an intelligently planned brilliantly executed mission. Can you show one piece of Evidence to back up that statement  !  ?
And can you show the Evidence of an unexpected rise of Temperature on the night of February 2 1959  ! ?
[/quote]

I can. 6 temple wounds.. Not so brilliant tho.. They missed  Yuri up in the tree and Igor out collecting wood for the den.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: sarapuk on April 19, 2021, 11:58:09 AM

QUOTE " Well who is we  !  ?  Iam sure many Investigators dont believe that the Dyatlov Group were forced from their Tent by other people with guns.
The original Investigation left a lot to be desired.
You state that all the available Evidence confirms that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was an intelligently planned brilliantly executed mission. Can you show one piece of Evidence to back up that statement  !  ?
And can you show the Evidence of an unexpected rise of Temperature on the night of February 2 1959  ! ?

I can. 6 temple wounds.. Not so brilliant tho.. They missed  Yuri up in the tree and Igor out collecting wood for the den.
[/quote]

There are lots of Injuries and not one can be proved to have been caused by an attack by other people.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Dona on April 19, 2021, 12:20:33 PM
Yes, its proof..  You cant get around that..

Or something falling on them etc.. It is proof.. Its not a natural event.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Manti on April 19, 2021, 03:49:15 PM
The group were never in the tent up on the mountain. Their captors and murderers removed it from the cedar area where we see the birch pad for the tent and set it up. This is why it is so neat inside and missing certain items. Maybe some of the group were still alive and able to watch from the cedar what was going on.
In the end there are 3 groups of bodies deliberately set up the way they are. This is a clue to when and why they were murdered.
Most were killed up on Hoi Eckwa - Lyuda, Zolotaryov, Tibo and Kolevatov. This was because they were caught red handed defying mansi custom about no women up on the mountain and maybe trying to rifle through ceremonial gifts to the supreme god. I believe the group knew about the golden idol and this explains their presence up on Hoi Eckwa.
Igor and Rustem were next to die probably returning to camp on 29/1 when they heard Zina screaming. Zina and the two Yuris had been left at camp on 29/1 (see her diary entry) while the others explored a track south of the Auspiya - we are waiting for the others to return.
These three were first attacked, maybe the Yuris captured, then killed in a fight with the natives, Zina captured alive. Igor and Rustem returning down the mountain.
Now the group is split and in 3 groups, easy to be taken care of by a small group of attackers and after the group on the Auspiya camp area they followed tracks came acoss Igor and Rustem, took care of them then went up Hoi Eckwa and came across the rest.
The question is had the group already found the golden idol and sent it back with Yudin. Did Yudin know of the groups quest but they had been warned at the Ushma settlement and he got cold feet and was worried about the consequences so left after the 2nd north or does the lostday account for the trip up Hoi Eckwa and the groups deaths not only for being on the mountain with a woman but for stealing the golden idol?
Hence the severity of injuries in members in the ravine, at the cedar and laid out supposedly returning to the tent.
The mansi transported the group there and set the scene. Authorities know the assailants, Kurikov blackmailed officials with info he had hence the sudden release of the Bahtiyarovs and subsequent coverup.
This is only a condensed version of what I think transpired.

Wait... Because this is buried in this thread which gets tedious to read some pages back, I have only now read your post.
Saltyseadog, your theory deserves its own thread if not own board or book. Essentially the Mansi theory, but with a motive! And it would explain so much. For example recently in another thread  (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=890.0)I wondered why they apparently moved at a snail's pace. A side-quest to Hoy Ekva explains this, it's on the way, and I paid no attention to it when I read the diaries but yes it's right there in Zina's diary, the group split up.

I used to think a coverup involving moving the bodies necessitates a helicopter. But no, the Mansi had sleds.

This really needs its own thread, I have a few questions :)
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Saltyseadog on April 29, 2021, 07:58:32 AM
well you are welcome to start one. I have modified the theory a little after examining further evidence but essentially same. I think the group was tracked their whole path along the Auspiya.
In radiograms it points to Andrey Anyamov being the hunter, or mansi who made the fresh tracks and camp as mentioned in Upper reaches of the Auspiya and he says he came across the camp and fresh tracks in this area. So this is information relayed during the search and before he made his statement.
When he makes his statement he is on the Lower reaches just moving in from the Losva and found tracks but did not come across the hike group nor their camp.
Take in mind origially he states he was in the area the last week of January, First week of February hunting, yet the story changes after his co hunters are interrogated.
What it says though is that his statement is most likely the truthful one as it follows on from the search radiograms before statements were taken and most likely he and/or his party were with or followed the Dyatlovs along the Auspiya. This is outlined in diary entries of fresh tracks, camp sites, reindeer and of course the exclamation, "Yes, Mansi, Mansi, Mansi"
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Saltyseadog on April 30, 2021, 03:36:38 PM
I see that there are replies concerning no intervention by humans.
May I ask why the area around the tent was 'swept' clean as mentioned in searchers statements and footprints didnt start until 20m from the tent.
Also the injuries from the Autopsy reports definitively point to a fist fight involving the Dyatlovs.
Of course there was human intervention and to ignore these facts is ignoring the true essence of the case.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: Saltyseadog on April 30, 2021, 03:45:42 PM
I forgot motive.
Again only speculation, I will admit that, but lets take this quote from the interview of the hunter Stepochkin , "“But we don't need to hide anything. We are the masters here. And if someone takes something, we will still find it."
Not only does it suggest the Dyatlovs removed something belonging to the mansi but maybe they desecrated a mansi shrine etc.
It also goes a long way to answering why no money or other items were removed.
The mansi reovered what was theirs, exacted revenge and left.
Simple, end of story according to their ways.
Title: Re: My short take on murder.
Post by: RidgeWatcher on May 30, 2021, 05:26:52 PM
It was explained in the book by Teddy and Pavlov that these charges that were set preceded in a linear movement up a slop or along a line nd were these done in daylight or daylight and nighttime?

This means that the Dyatlov tourists would have to have heard this happening the blasting prior to a nearby tree falling on them. What are the chances that some of the group made it out of the tent and got to the open area where Zine, Rustem and Dyatlov were found. Could this explain Rustems icy shell? I still wonder if they were found alive, approached, battle ensues and then left for dead. Rustem was still warm when he his body went down in the snow in that clear area above the tree line.