Theories Discussion > Altercation on the pass

Altercation on the pass

<< < (12/13) > >>

Jean Daniel Reuss:

--- Quote from: RidgeWatcher on July 26, 2020, 05:34:30 PM ---   Reply #45
 My one question would be the KSD group, weren't there some clothing exchanged on them? Which means they possibly did make it to the Cedar tree with the entire group in general.

--- End quote ---

I have studied the question of clothing exchanges (or gifts) very poorly, mainly because it seems to me that agreements to give or lend clothing may have occurred on different occasions and at different times that we are unaware of. See :

 Teddy : General Discussion / Injuries, clothing and belongings to Dyatlov group ->  April 29, 2020, 10:27:35 AM

 Teddy :  Materials Modern / Publications / Media / Yudin's conclusions on clothing  -> September 03, 2020, 04:09:03 AM                        Reply #1

 Vietnamka : General Discussion / Clothes  -> « on: March 26, 2019, 09:35:48 AM »

For example for this unbuttoned fur sleeveless vest there could have been 3 successive gifts:

                   Yuri Yudin --> Kolevatov --> Doroshenko --> Dyatlov

  • Kolevatov gave the unbuttoned fur sleeveless vest to Doroshenko, who was less warmly dressed than him (because Doroshenko was younger and poorer than Kolevatov).
 According to my hypothesis N°3, Kolmogorova and Slobodin never reached the cedar because they were knocked out on the slope of the Kholat Syakhl a few minutes after leaving the tent.
 Remark: contrary to WAB I think that it took only 15 minutes for the 7 surviving (young, sporty and trained) hikers to reach the cedar: speed on the snowy and slippery slope = 6 kilometers per hour.

  • Then when, close to the fire and the cedar, Dyatlov, Doroshenko and Krivonischenko were attacked, Dyatlov was able to escape and he wanted to go back up to the tent to bring back the 3 axes (and the ice axe, if there is one). But Dyatlov was caught by the attackers and knocked out after 300 meters of ascent.

--- Quote from: sparrow on August 23, 2020, 02:00:46 AM ---    Reply #54
Yes, I do believe that Zina burned the jacket and gloves deliberately. If we want to solve this mystery, then we must look at everything we have available including the diaries and (in this case) Zina's letters.
I am trying to look at the hikers as normal young adults.  They were not perfect.  There were some problems.

--- End quote ---

1) Even if Kolmogorova "burned the jacket and gloves deliberately" this does not explain all the facts recorded.

2) What do you think of the 3 arguments presented by Aspen ?

  Aspen :General Discussion / Re: Simplest Possible Credible Explanation -> « on: April 19, 2019, 04:08:27 AM » ; Reply #61
   a/ The photos with the burned jacket are obviously posed with a humoristic intent.  There are so many photos of them laughing and smiling…  If any serious friction arose, I think these educated young people would have the social skills to turn it into something funny and to keep the peace in a situation where they utterly depended on each other.
   b/ Those of you who have done this kind of winter camping would know that you don’t have the energy to pick up fights in such situation.  Most importantly, you are intensely aware at all times that your survival depends on group cooperation and cohesion.  So you let frictions slide.  Nobody would run out of the tent without shoes or gloves and blindly walk for a mile in the cold dark storm because of some bickering.
   c/ Besides all that, they had a common goal: to get their class 3 certification.  That was important to them, and they wouldn’t blow that away with fighting that would put everybody’s life at risk.  If a major disappointment arose for someone during that excursion, they would certainly think it better to deal with their opponent or lost love after the excursion ended.  After all they were in this for only 2 or 3 weeks.  That is not enough time for developing uncontrollably strong hatred against anyone.

3) Within the framework of  my hypothesis N°3, it is possible that the four of the Den decided not to come to the defense of Dyatlov, Doroshenko and Krivonischenko when they were attacked close to the fire and the cedar.

Per Inge Oestmoen:

--- Quote from: Georgi on July 02, 2020, 10:52:39 PM ---

--- Quote ---- Further on the approach and withdrawal: I understand that the Dyatlov Group was following a mansi hunter trail. They actually encountered a hunter at one point.
Could the attackers escape unobserved by the Mansi people ? After all, they required several days of pursuit, and several days to come back to North2... Some multiple days onto which they could have been spotted.
--- End quote ---
It’s a big place, by the time they ran into a hunter they could have been 10-20km away from the dead hikers, harder to connect someone to a murder when you don’t know it has happened yet and they are many km away from the crime scene and at least 3-4 weeks before anyone interviews the hunters. There is also another option, either the attackers were that good or they were scary enough to keep the Mansi hunters from talking even if they spotted them especially when the hunters in question figure out that they might have killed 9 people in cold blood.

--- End quote ---

The attackers could hardly escape the attention of the Mansi hunters. The Mansi more than likely knew the identity of the killers. It is precisely here we see how thoroughly, professionally and brilliantly the whole mission was accomplished.

Let us recall: At the first stages of the investigation, the Mansi came under suspicion (or it was stated that they were). Some members of the Mansi people were being interrogated, and informed that they were under suspicion.

Then, suddenly, there came a message that a seamstress had declared that the destroyed tent had been cut from the inside. Significantly, there was no scientific report and no proof was presented to support that conclusion. The Mansi were immediately freed, and told that they were no longer suspected of being the perpetrators.

What happened?

It would seem that the Mansi were let off the hook, after an unspoken message: "We are capable of inventing evidence as needed, and if you ever tell anyone what you have observed we will reverse the conclusion and come up with the necessary proof against you." Such a message is far more effective than if the Mansi had simply been threatened with an open statement like "if you do not keep quiet you must suffer the consequences."

By ostensibly preparing for a criminal persecution of the local Mansi and then suddenly letting them off the hook, the unspoken threat was purposefully used to make sure that the Mansi would remain silent. And they did.

Per Inge Oestmoen:

--- Quote from: Ehtnisba on April 15, 2019, 04:42:42 PM ---I managed to read Rakitins book with google translate and ir was almost fine. First part of the book where he describes the autopsies and families and background of the hikers is really good and points out at interesting facts.
Second part in opinion is more like a fiction novel about spies. There are too many speculations and details that are impossible to be assumed. He could have written only that he thinks it was a controled delivery gone wrong . But maybe he wanted to make the book longer and included that long story of action battle and helicopters and all.
Anyway his way of thinking and making observations was very logical so I liked his theory and the way he cobcludes it.
Other author I liked is Svetlana Oss, again murder theory but supposibg that Khanty did it. Again strogest arguments are the autopsies.

--- End quote ---

I also like, and recommend, the first part of the book by Svetlana Oss. That first part of her book is solid, and she presents solid evidence that the nine students were indeed murdered.

However, I believe that she is wrong about her claim about who performed the killings. That part of the book is speculative and sensational, and she only has hearsay "evidence" to back up her theory - which is in addition made unlikely by the obviously professional and intelligent execution of the killing mission.

Per Inge Oestmoen:

--- Quote from: Jean Daniel Reuss on July 06, 2020, 10:48:15 AM --- the simplest answer is  - attackers didnt have fire weapons
Gun circulation was strictly controlled in the USSR and satellite countries,
...........  we can exclude some categories of people attacker did not belong to :
1) solders (army, KGB).
2) hunters  ( hunters)  -  and each hunting weapon is listed and its owner is registered.
3) organized criminal groups or bandits   - because nothing important was stolen from the hikers who moreover were not rich.

--- End quote ---

It is misleading to assume that the attackers did not have firearms.

There is one extremely strong reason why the attackers did not use firearms: Their use would result in unmistakable bullet wounds, and everyone would then know that the hikers were killed by humans.

It has been suggested that if the KGB did the killing they would have used firearms and simply shot the students and put them in closed coffins - or just made them disappear.

Such reasoning is flawed.

If the students had simply disappeared or put in closed coffins and their relatives had been prevented from seeing them, everyone would have understood what had happened. By chasing the students out from their tent and letting the cold to the rest, the perfect murder was orchestrated since there would be no bullet wounds or other telltale signs of violent action from others. This is by far the most probable explanation of the events.

However, the temperature during the night between the first and second day of February 1959 was evidently relatively mild. Therefore, the students did not die after a short time when being driven out from the tent. For that reason, they had to be hunted down and brutally killed. Hence the injuries, which were all consistent with the kind damages to be expected from a murderous human attack. It is said that some of the injuries could not be caused by other humans, but in actual fact these injuries can only be explained by their being attacked and successfully murdered.

Lastly, it merits mention that the nine were gifted individuals who certainly could understand what they saw if they observed some secred weapons testing in the area. There was a risk, however small, that some among them would at some point in time might tell close friends, relatives, spouses or children what they had seen in the Urals. If the nine indeed became witnesses to some secrets, they would be considered a threat to state security and a risk. Such a risk is not what a dictatorial superpower is willing to take.

That is where the "irresistible force" came into play, and every Soviet citizen knew one all-powerful and ubiquitous force in their land: The KGB, which is probably the most competent intelligence and murder agency throughout all of human history. The KGB was experts in orchestrating countless "accidents," "natural deaths" and "suicides," and their hands never trembled when their mission was to eliminate threats to the security of the Soviet state.

This is the most likely possibility, the way I see it. The only other possibility, which is in my opinion very unlikely, is that the Mansi hunters considered the nine students violators of their land and did the killings out of anger.

Jean Daniel Reuss:

--- Quote from: Per Inge Oestmoen on October 28, 2020, 11:50:43 AM --- Reply #58................................
There is one extremely strong reason why the attackers did not use firearms: Their use would result in unmistakable bullet wounds, and everyone would then know that the hikers were killed by humans.

--- End quote ---
 •  Like Per Inge Oestmoen I believe there was an "Altercation on the pass" against human attackers.
 •  But we differ on several points of detail.
 •  The Russians provide us with useful and interesting research leads (I use:, but it is time consuming...)
 •  I suspect that the attackers are to be found among the opponents of Khrushchev's Thaw (1953-1964).

    Below are some remarks and comments :

1 -  It is misleading to assume that the attackers did not have firearms...
The question of whether or not the attackers had firearms is not very important because the fact is that the attackers suceeded to defeat the hikers and then to kill them.
 1)  ••• According to the "Autopsy report" it is certain that Kolmogorova, Slobodin and Dyatlov were able to strike with all their strength with their fists for a few seconds before being knocked out. It is less certain that Dorochenko and Krivonischenko were able to hit hard with their fists. See :

Now it is psychologically almost impossible for a human being holding a firearm and taking a big punch in the face not to defend himself by shooting.

 2)  ••• The attackers were a trinome whose assets were surprise, determination and good fighting tactics. In pursuing the hikers from North-2, the speed was useful and the lightness of the equipment was appreciable. So, for example, the attackers probably planned to eat the mouth provisions that the hikers would leave in the tent.

On the other hand, given the conditions: complete darkness, wind, snow, 9 hikers fighting against 3 attackers, some handguns might have seemed insufficient because of their short range.

So why carry a PPSSh-41 machine pistol  (+ 35-round magazine) weighing 4.3 kilograms with the firm intention of not using it?
              It is absurd to carry a completely useless dead weight.

 3)  ••• In spite of the enormous obvious advantages of firearms, it should not be forgotten that the tactics of the attackers were essentially based on surprise.

In the case of a surprise attack at night followed by confused hand-to-hand combat, a silent weapon  (blunt object) had the advantage of being able to put an enemy out of action without his friendly neighbour being able to see through it.

 4)  ••• Given that it was foreseeable that there could be long-lasting harassment fights, in complete darkness, with perhaps dispersion of the 12 (=3+9) participants in all directions, the risk of fratricidal fire with firearms was not negligible.

Indeed, at certain stages of the action, each participant risked seeing only unidentifiable black  silhouettes moving rapidly over the slightly less dark background of the snow.

It was wise to avoid any with these aggressive but perhaps poorly trained attackers with strict shooting discipline.
The use of (vigorous) blunt object strikes, which involves close combat, avoids the risk of fratricidal shooting.

 5)  ••• And then how to get the hikers out of the tent in the dark and with the sound of the wind blowing the canvas by firing shots into the air (or into the top of the tent, which did not happen). This is impossible because then the hikers would have been worried and would have come out with the short axes in their hands that were inside.

 6)  ••• The attackers were probably somewhat brutal characters and as such they were slightly watched by the KGB or by the police who were suspicious of them.
     a) -  Having legal authorisation to carry a firearm would have made them suspicious at the first incident.
     b) -  Possession of a firearm without authorisation was a source of concern for concealment and serious trouble in the event of discovery.

While it is simpler and ultimately just as effective to use a blunt object that costs nothing.

 7)  ••• By taking the example of the attack on the Thalys train on 21 August 2015, we can think that faced with the threat of a firearm the hikers would have had the same attitude as Chris Norman who said :

"I am not going to be the guy who dies sitting down." "If you're going to die, try to do something about it."

 • There was only one attacker, named El Khazzani, armed with a Kalashnikov type AKM with nine full magazines, a Luger 9mm automatic pistol and a cutter.

Spencer Stone rushed toward the attacker, hit him from the front with his head and El Khazzani then released the kalashikov. Then Stone managed to immobilise El Khazzani by a back catch not without being wounded by blows from a short the attack failed but it was an extraordinary chance because El Khazzani was too slow to shoot.

 • The film maker Clint Eatwood has produced a film but that is not very informative about the attack itself:

      2 -  However, the temperature during the night between the first and second day of February 1959 was evidently relatively mild....
      No matter how unpredictable the exact temperature was.
The method of killing the attackers could work regardless of the temperature.
     a) - High temperature (-5°C): heavy hits, skull fractures, trampoline on the chest = fatal injuries.
     b) - Low temperature (-30°C ): weak strikes, simple knockout, the victim is simply unconscious and left without being rescued = It is enough to wait a short or long time and death by cold inevitably occurs.

    3 -   if they observed some secred weapons testing in the area....

  1)  ••• Even if the hikers had observed [/i] "some secred weapons testing in the area" [/i] there would have been no problem. Because there are at least 3 possibilities:
      a) - An official like, Colonel Ortyukov, the director of the UPI...etc., would have simply told them [/i] "Don't talk about it". [/i]
      b) - Or : "Now you should write a nice newspaper article as witnesses, in a lively and spontaneous way, of the tremendous progress of Soviet military research .
      c) - Now that you have seen in reality the interest of this achievement we are going to hire you to work on the subject with a normal salary.

  2)  ••• Often the vision of the latest models of weapons is not particularly secret, since on the contrary this vision is the subject of official public demonstrations and can be considered as part of propaganda.

The parade of 9 May, on Red Square, was thus an opportunity to affirm the rise in power of the Soviet army ( which later became the Russian army), by revealing its latest military innovations.

  3)  ••• It is difficult for me to imagine what this "mysterious thing" could be that could have appeared in the Auspiya valley or on the slope of the Kholat Shyakhl.
     a) - Strange appearances of lights in the sky are of little importance and little interest since it is known that there are planes and balloons which can perform various exercises or tests.

     b) - There were certainly professors and researchers working on sensitive subjects who also taught at the UPI which was (and still is) a state-of-the-art institution.   So UPI officials as well as the Route Commission were in contact with the KGB. 

 If there had been a risk to the security of the USSR, the Route Commission would have indicated and ordered another route to the Dyatlov group, which [/b]with its voucher[/b] had a semi-official position.

  (4)  ••• With the exception of a few lights which were impossible to interpret, no one had ever reported any abnormal findings in the vicinity of the Kholat Syakhl before 1960.
      a) - there would have been a more or less fixed and more or less automatic installation, of the radar or missile base type.
    Then there would have been guards to turn away unwanted visitors.
    Or even a simple placard such as: "Military zone - Access forbidden".

      b) - In 2020 we know that the USSR did not invent antigravity and we also know that the sight of a new model of helicopter or of some lights in the sky, would not be considered as an important state secret.

4 -  If the nine indeed became witnesses to some secrets, they would be considered a threat to state security...

  1)  ••• In short, I do not think there was anything really important to observe during this hike.

  2)  ••• In any case, even if Zolotaryov may not have had an excellent reputation with the PCSU anymore, the nine hikers were good and disciplined citizens. There was no reason to kill them or even to arrest them for what they might have hypothetically seen.

 In 1959 no one disputed the official motto: " to achieve communism, the nation needed the assistance of scientists, engineers, and other experts to bring about a technological revolution in the economy."
In 1959 Khushchev had replaced Stalin and the KGB had supplanted the NKVD and was also in the process of purging former NKVD officials.

 3)  ••• The KGB being exonerated, in my opinion, for the massacre of the hikers (but not for its incompetence to protect the hikers), it would be necessary to consider other lines of research (others than those already extensively commented on in this

       a) - Meeting of spies - meet in scenarios like Alexey Rakitin that I have not studied in details.
Personally, I find the streets or houses of Sverdlovsk more suitable and safer than the less frequented slopes of the Kholat Syakhl for organising secret meetings.

      b) - Arrivals (parachuting) or departures (sky hook) of foreign spies at night on the Kholat Syakhl. As the region is far from the borders it seems technically impossible to do this at low altitude. Otherwise the story of the Loocked U2 aircraft which flew at 21000 m altitude and was shot down on May 1st 1960 is well known.

      c) - Discovery by chance by the hikers of an illegal gold mining activity north of Vizhay (This is a suggestion from Vietnamka).
      d) -   .......??

5 -  The KGB was experts in orchestrating countless "accidents," "natural deaths" and "suicides...
 • But on the contrary, the death of hikers does not seem natural or even simply explainable.

             The KGB would never have done such a pitiful job.

This draws worldwide attention to the worst and most ridiculous aspects of the USSR 60 years later.

6 -  their hands never trembled when their mission was to eliminate threats to the security of the Soviet state...
   1) •••  Yes ! The KGB had no scruples about killing people when they thought that these people were harming the interests of the USSR.
But the KGB was not a gang of dumb gangsters, it was a large, highly hierarchical administration with a system of precise rulings.

The reign of Stalin (1929-1953), who was a typical psychopath, should not be confused with the Khrushchev Thaw period (1953-1964). It is also important not to confuse the NKVD with the KGB either, because precisely during the Thaw the KGB was responsible for eliminating the deviant elements of the NKVD.

   Examples of some NKVD officers tried and sentenced to death during the Thaw.
    Bogdan Koboulov (1904-1953) 
    Lavrenti Beria(1899-1953)
    Mikhaïl Ryoumine(1913-1954)
    Viktor Abakoumov(1908-1954)
    Vsevolod Merkoulov(1895-1954)
    Amaïak Koboulov (1906-1955)
    Boris Rodos(1905-1956)

 2) •••  Khrushchev himself, in spite of other qualities and talents, had great gaps in his scientific and technical knowledge because he had only benefited from a very basic education.

" Nikita Khrushchev worked as a herdsboy from an early age. He was schooled for a total of four years, part in the village parochial school and part under Shevchenko's tutelage in Kalinovka's state school".

Therefore Khrushchev generally had great respect and even some admiration for all the Soviet technicians and engineers, competent and patriotic, who had been able to maintain and raise his beloved motherland to the best technical level in the world.

Khrushchev would never have wanted the immediate death of part of the elite of Soviet youth before he had tried everything to put it back on the right path of his good anti-Stalinist communism.
 3) ••• sarapuk :" There is no evidence to suggest that the Dyatlov Group were killed by the KGB or similar organisation or military.  All accounts show a Group of young Students enjoying life in the USSR and destined for good careers. "

7 -   by the obviously professional and intelligent execution of the killing mission...
 1) •••  Yes ! The attackers were certainly trained for surprise attacks and night fighting in the snow.

So, while the hikers were getting cold and weakening in the cold outside, the attackers probably went back up several times to rest and eat in the shelter of the then undamaged tent.

 2) •••  My suspicions are therefore directed at former Gulag camp guards in the Vizhay region who were specialized in the pursuit and destruction of camp escapees.

 3) •••  However, these attackers were not particularly intelligent or competent.
The attackers did not do much and did very little work to disguise the scene of the action.

 Corpses or the dying were left close to where they fell forever.

The attackers only searched the pockets of the dying on the slope of the Kholat Syakhl.
 and makes the four of the Den slide a few metres in the sloping snow.

 4) •••  On the contrary, in a completely idiotic way, the attackers needlessly cut the tent canvas, (before leaving again on February 2nd), which directed the suspicions towards the reality of a murderous human intervention.

Under no circumstances would the hikers have cut their own tent, as the tent was really their only means of survival.

The result is pitiful : instead of being quickly forgotten in a few years, DPI is still making headlines around the world 60 years after its occurrence.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Go to full version