I am in favour of the exit from the tent through the atmosphere inside which was made unbreathable, either by the spray of a wolverine or by "they launched some kind of dope inside" according to the pleasant expression of Anatoliy Stepochkin (In Let Them Talk, Dmitriy Borisov 02/12/2019).
This seems much more likely
to me than "at gun point"
or "by a shot in the air".
I agree: ===> A wolverine by means of its mercaptan-rich spray drives the hikers out of the tent, prevents them from returning, forces them to get rid of some equipment or clothes.
Moreover, Igor B. specifies that there was a warming up when leaving the tent, followed by a cooling down. This misled the hikers into underestimating the dangers of the cold.
.................what about the dilated pupils ?............
About the dilated pupils there are dozens, rather hundreds of chemical compounds, that could explain them and the question is off topic. There is still no doubt about freezing as the cause of death.
The "first" 5 hikers (3 on the slope, 2 under the cedar) received violent blows (from blunt objects) which made them lose consciousness and left them inanimate in the snow, thus unable to move and get up.
• Did they die from the cold or from the trauma they received?
The wolverine spray causes lung irritation, nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, and even disturbances of consciousness and breathing for the most serious, but apparently no lasting hallucinations like the BZ.
It would be more interesting to know if the wolverine spray can cause suicidal or self-destructive thoughts. DPI may then be a case of mass suicide.
The statistical reference to 90% this or that is absolute nonsense and has no relavence or evidence to murder from the 178 m researched data on broken bones.Total misuse of data.
Charles did not invoke a "statistical reference to 90% this or that"
but instead sent a nuanced text:
Charles : "I have no expertise in statistics but somebody should seriously analyze the Dyatlov's Pass event in terms of statistics.
••• The distribution of bones fractures is not at random and even it defies the general statistics of bone fractures based on a 178 million cases study.
••• Working on the broken bones has serious advantages as bone fracture is a precise fact and not an interpretation, as any bone fracture is always related to an accidental or catastrophic event of whatever type, as it is related to the hikers' death and to a force having caused death and as there is a number of 29 fractured bones for 9 individuals."
Considering everything that we know about hiker injuries:https://dyatlovpass.com/deathhttps://dyatlovpass.com/injuries?filter_page=2&rbid=18461
(nothing else ?)
This is the heart and soul of the problem :
Can this succession of misfortunes be explained by the mere chance of involuntary falls or crashes or, on the contrary, does it necessarily imply human intervention?
In Kolgomorova's case, we must imagine a fall or something that injures the side. 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.
......It is this uneducatef use of statistics that totally makes a mockery of any rational argument..............
..... Even it was murder, those stats have nothing to do with providing evidence....................
I take a different approach, as you probably already know.
The internet did not allow me to read the Lancet statisticians' article: "Global, regional, and national burden of bone fractures in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019." based on the recording of 178 million bone fractures in 2019.
However, Charles' idea of introducing a statistical argument seems valid to me.
Of course, statistics do not provide any certainty.
But in this case, considering the succession of events or movements that could have randomly caused the injuries seen in the 9 hikers it is rational to compare them
with natural accidents averaged over 178 million = 178000000 cases which is a large enough number to be taken statistically seriously.
The strangeness of the clustering of hiker injuries can thus be better appreciated and suggests that the impacts are not the result of chance alone
but were guided by an intelligence, which in my opinion can only be human.