Hi Jean Daniel Reid's
Thank you. I do believe many of the theories, hypothesis have valid points.
Some of the theories may overlap or support ideas that others have. I do favour Igor b's wolverine because it is the most logical but I do not rule out Teddy's or the involvement of outsiders.
Igor b goes into detailed accounts of the physical injuries and position of the bodies , links the findings of the deaths with clinical research , testimonies from people that have encountered wolverines ( a Wolverine licking their face when they were asleep in a tent). He also supports this with the documents and statements , for example, markings on some of the clothes returned that would not wash off, the reaction of the search dogs at the pass from the helicopter.
Teddy's theory is also of interest but for a different reason. Teddy looks at it from the documents and written statements and links events with other activities at the time which can not be ruled out and gives a lot to ponder. It involves staging and a cover up and explains some of the inconsistency from written reports etc.
I also do not rule out , outsiders forcing them out of the tent. There are many versions of who , why and with what tools did they kill.. I often wonder about that lone Mansi hunter that was nearby the day before.
There's nothing to stop us from picking bits from different hypothesis and joining them together to come up with a satisfactory explanation of what happened to the hikers.
I now favour the Wolverine after dismissing the idea for several years . I found Igor's explanation annoyingly solid and complete.
However, I continue to read everyone's hypothesis as new evidence and observations come to light.
Igor's b theory would also work if you took away the Wolverine , changed it to someone throwing in some gas at the tent and then leaving and having no more input. It is that simple.