I ask myself what was so bad, so dangerous, that I would venture out into an artic night barely dressed and without shoes. Was snow, ice, and subzero temps safer then the tent? It would appear so. Again, what was more dangerous than what they ventured into? I don't believe the answers are in any files or in the testimony of any searcher. Do not believe everything you read.
Nobody would voluntarily leave their tent in the arctic winter, improperly dressed and with no real chance of survival, unless forced to. What could force them out from the tent, in the demonstrable absence of any mishaps or avalanches?
- Realistically, only other humans could. This is also confirmed by the injuries of the victims, all compatible with and only possible to explain by human attack. There have been some statements to the effect that the damages found on the bodies could not be caused by humans, but it is not so. Every injury is indicative of lethal attacks by humans, and a lot of the injuries also bear the stamp of being caused by professional, combat-trained people while at least two of the victims had crushed skulls with injuries that strongly suggest being hit by rifle butts.
Significantly, one report stated that the head of Nikolay Thibeaux-Brignolle could not be caused by a blow from a hard object since there was no damage to the skin. That statement was very clearly designed to conceal the truth, since the head of Nikolay Thibeaux-Brignolle was protected by headgear which prevented damage to the skin whereas the force of the probable blow with a rifle butt was absorbed by his skull. The damage to the side of the skull is also typial of what could be expected when a victim is overpowered and thrown to the ground, and then a deadly blow is dealt to his head.
They were all murdered. We should stop speculating wildly about UFOs, Yetis, infrasound, nonexistent avalanches and wolverines, and realize what the available evidence tells us. Corpses do not lie.