Murder Indead

[Martin Glaubitz]

Hello there. Thank you for this great site and forum to discuss.

I have an idea about "murder by accident" - if it fits into this thread:

Coming back to the Mansi. Going through the photos and diaries they become more and more present as the hikers proceed. Definitely they were in their "hunting grounds". How do they hunt? Do they make noise, light, etc. to push the game forward? Were the campers then just scared, jumped out of the tent and ran into a big trap that the Mansi made for big animals? Finally, after all were dead, the Mansi realized, it was not game for what they were after this day. They did not touch their belongings to suggest no evidence somebody else was there, disassembled the trap, cleaned the scene and left. There was no intention to murder, but **** happened.

The authorities later came behind it, but decided to keep quiet to avoid uproar against the Mansi as they were convinced they were not guilty?

[sarapuk]

Same as with 'The Whodunnit'.

A criminal investigation begins by establishing if a crime has actually been committed.

[[ The decision that a crime
has occurred, and the determination of what information will be collected
in order to make that decision, are normally police functions:
The police must make important judgments about what conduct
is in fact criminal ]]

In other words its extremely difficult for us modern day investigators of the 'Dyatlov Mystery' to try and establish if a crime has actually been committed, with no hard evidence [ except what has been reported already ] and events that happened about 60 years ago.

[sarapuk]

And I would like to add that we can form our own judgements as to whether or not a crime as been committed but we do not have the luxury of having been at the site of the events of nearly 60 years ago and seeing any evidence at first hand, so that makes it even harder for us. I have done Jury Service in an English Criminal Court and can say that I found it an extraordinary experience. We had all the evidence there before us, although we didnt have to visit the alleged scenes of crime. So imagine now that we are a sort of jury trying to decide if a crime as been committed or not and the extreme difficulty we are bound to face, not least the time gap of 60 years.

[Monika]

I personally do not believe they were murdered.

There were no traces of strangers in the snow
2. No external injuries on the four from ravines
3. The idea that someone would drive them out of the tent and then wait for hours when they freeze is a complete nonsense!
4. The  Army would dispose of them quickly and efficiently
5. The Army would simply let them disappear
6. the expedition was organized by the tourist club at the university and the expedition was supposed to be as the celebration of some Communist convention, and everyone knew they were going to this area. And during 50-80-ties it was necessary to have permission to move within Russia. Therefore, no one would ever have tried any weapons at that time and near that place where student were trekking.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

I personally do not believe they were murdered.

1. There were no traces of strangers in the snow
2. No external injuries on the four from ravines
3. The idea that someone would drive them out of the tent and then wait for hours when they freeze is a complete nonsense!
4. The  Army would dispose of them quickly and efficiently
5. The Army would simply let them disappear
6. the expedition was organized by the tourist club at the university and the expedition was supposed to be as the celebration of some Communist convention, and everyone knew they were going to this area. And during 50-80-ties it was necessary to have permission to move within Russia. Therefore, no one would ever have tried any weapons at that time and near that place where student were trekking.

1. The long period between the fateful night and the discovery of the tent ensured that the traces of the killers were gone. In particular as they must have used mountain skis. There is practically no chance that their tracks would remain after a month.

2. If you take a close look at the injuries of the four in the ravine, it will be apparent that these injuries are consistent with murder by brutal force. Being a jiu jitsu practitioner myself, I have learned how easy it is to crush the rib cages of people with elbow strikes. I immediately thought about this when seeing the injuries of Dubinina.

3. To drive their victims out of the tent and let the cold do the grisly work, is an extremely intelligent method. The students did not freeze to death as planned, because the temperature was a bit higher, so the attackers had to chase down their victims - and even so they made sure that there were no bullet wounds or knife cuts. But injuries there were, and it must be emphasized that these injuries are without exception consistent only with human attack. It bespeaks the resourcefulness of the killers that they accomplished their mission in such a way that the tragedy could be interpreted as an accident. There is no escaping the fact that the injuries of all the victims are consistent with murder - and only with murder. It is impossible that these injuries could be caused by a series of accidents - and only one of the dead (Dyatlov) seems to have frozen to death. The intelligence of the killers is evidenced today - a lot of people are led to believe that the Dyatlov group succumbed to a combination of bad decisions and accidents. Just as those orchestrating the killling of the nine had planned.

However, the answer lies in the bodies - and the injuries leave no doubt.

4 and 5. Many people seem to believe that military and government killers prefer to dispose of their targets quickly and effectively, as in most films. Apart from in direct combat situations in military interventions, in the real world this is very far from the case. More often than not, death by government is characterized by "accidents" and "death by natural causes" like "heart attacks," and "suicides" are also common. This is a normal pattern when the killers do not want the public to know what happened. Very resourceful and intelligent, determined attackers on a killing mission will generally endeavor to make murder seem like an accident. If the killers had just made the Dyatlov group disappear, "everyone" would have smelt foul and understood that they had been disposed of. The same if the killers had just shot them and buried them in locked coffins. As a matter of fact, the method chosen was the smartest way to accomplish the mission. Lastly, there is nothing to tell us that the army was responsible. We do not know the precise identity of the killers.

6. In the Soviet union, the secrecy surrounding everything ensured that one branch of government did not necessarily know what the others did. It is perfectly possible that someone on high determined that the nine students were a security risk if they witnessed something they were not supposed to see. I say it is perfectly possible, It is so far impossible to know the precise identity of the killers or the exact reason why the Dyatlov group was killed, but the bodies tell their tale.

Dead bodies do not lie, and their injuries very unmistakably tell us that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was the result of human involvement with murderous intent. Moreover, it is clear that the attack was carefully planned and carried out by people who knew what to do.

[sarapuk]

Re  PER INGE OESTMOEN.  QUOTES BELOW.

[[ 2. If you take a close look at the injuries of the four in the ravine, it will be apparent that these injuries are consistent with murder by brutal force. Being a jiu jitsu practitioner myself, I have learned how easy it is to crush the rib cages of people with elbow strikes. I immediately thought about this when seeing the injuries of Dubinina. ]]

 It is highly unlikely that any person could have inflicted the very severe injuries to DUBININA. It has already been decided that some of the injuries were of such force that no human could have caused them.

[[ 3. To drive their victims out of the tent and let the cold do the grisly work, is an extremely intelligent method. The students did not freeze to death as planned, because the temperature was a bit higher, so the attackers had to chase down their victims - and even so they made sure that there were no bullet wounds or knife cuts. But injuries there were, and it must be emphasized that these injuries are without exception consistent only with human attack. ]] 

This sequence of events is highly unlikely. It has already been decided that some of the injuries could not have been caused by humans.


[[  4 and 5. Many people seem to believe that military and government killers prefer to dispose of their targets quickly and effectively, as in most films. Apart from in direct combat situations in military interventions, in the real world this is very far from the case. More often than not, death by government is characterized by "accidents" and "death by natural causes" like "heart attacks," and "suicides" are also common. This is a normal pattern when the killers do not want the public to know what happened
Dead bodies do not lie, and their injuries very unmistakably tell us that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was the result of human involvement with murderous intent. Moreover, it is clear that the attack was carefully planned and carried out by people who knew what to do.  ]]

 We have seen in recent times that certain Governments have hardly been shy about the way they have dealt with certain people. It is highly unlikely that the Dyatlov Group were killed by other humans.

[Monika]

I personally do not believe they were murdered.

1. There were no traces of strangers in the snow
2. No external injuries on the four from ravines
3. The idea that someone would drive them out of the tent and then wait for hours when they freeze is a complete nonsense!
4. The  Army would dispose of them quickly and efficiently
5. The Army would simply let them disappear
6. the expedition was organized by the tourist club at the university and the expedition was supposed to be as the celebration of some Communist convention, and everyone knew they were going to this area. And during 50-80-ties it was necessary to have permission to move within Russia. Therefore, no one would ever have tried any weapons at that time and near that place where student were trekking.

1. The long period between the fateful night and the discovery of the tent ensured that the traces of the killers were gone. In particular as they must have used mountain skis. There is practically no chance that their tracks would remain after a month.

2. If you take a close look at the injuries of the four in the ravine, it will be apparent that these injuries are consistent with murder by brutal force. Being a jiu jitsu practitioner myself, I have learned how easy it is to crush the rib cages of people with elbow strikes. I immediately thought about this when seeing the injuries of Dubinina.

3. To drive their victims out of the tent and let the cold do the grisly work, is an extremely intelligent method. The students did not freeze to death as planned, because the temperature was a bit higher, so the attackers had to chase down their victims - and even so they made sure that there were no bullet wounds or knife cuts. But injuries there were, and it must be emphasized that these injuries are without exception consistent only with human attack. It bespeaks the resourcefulness of the killers that they accomplished their mission in such a way that the tragedy could be interpreted as an accident. There is no escaping the fact that the injuries of all the victims are consistent with murder - and only with murder. It is impossible that these injuries could be caused by a series of accidents - and only one of the dead (Dyatlov) seems to have frozen to death. The intelligence of the killers is evidenced today - a lot of people are led to believe that the Dyatlov group succumbed to a combination of bad decisions and accidents. Just as those orchestrating the killling of the nine had planned.

However, the answer lies in the bodies - and the injuries leave no doubt.

4 and 5. Many people seem to believe that military and government killers prefer to dispose of their targets quickly and effectively, as in most films. Apart from in direct combat situations in military interventions, in the real world this is very far from the case. More often than not, death by government is characterized by "accidents" and "death by natural causes" like "heart attacks," and "suicides" are also common. This is a normal pattern when the killers do not want the public to know what happened. Very resourceful and intelligent, determined attackers on a killing mission will generally endeavor to make murder seem like an accident. If the killers had just made the Dyatlov group disappear, "everyone" would have smelt foul and understood that they had been disposed of. The same if the killers had just shot them and buried them in locked coffins. As a matter of fact, the method chosen was the smartest way to accomplish the mission. Lastly, there is nothing to tell us that the army was responsible. We do not know the precise identity of the killers.

6. In the Soviet union, the secrecy surrounding everything ensured that one branch of government did not necessarily know what the others did. It is perfectly possible that someone on high determined that the nine students were a security risk if they witnessed something they were not supposed to see. I say it is perfectly possible, It is so far impossible to know the precise identity of the killers or the exact reason why the Dyatlov group was killed, but the bodies tell their tale.

Dead bodies do not lie, and their injuries very unmistakably tell us that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was the result of human involvement with murderous intent. Moreover, it is clear that the attack was carefully planned and carried out by people who knew what to do.

I still do not believe anyone waited a couple of hours for the tourists to freeze and then “finished” them. And where 'were those people yet? Somewhere hidden? Because tourists spent some time around the fire and in the wood, and those murderers were where?
And as I said, once citizens of SSSR needed permission from the authorities to move in their own country. And the expedition was far ahead approved and claimed. The KGB had own agents everywhere, even at schools also among students and teachers and the military had to know that there will be tourists in the area. Dyatlov group got off the original route, but only a little. If anyone wanted to test their weapons, they will be sure that no one will be in a wide area (even hundreds of kilometers).
And with regard to the murdering the four at the ravine, why was not the last of them killed in the same way as the trio, but he froze?
And I still insist that the army would get rid of unwanted witnesses quickly and they would disappear without a trace. In nature, someone will often disappear. No one would set up a plan to liquidate people such amateurish.

[WAB]

I personally do not believe they were murdered.

I think that it is absolutely correct belief as there are no signs of such event.

There were no traces of strangers in the snow
2. No external injuries on the four from ravines
3. The idea that someone would drive them out of the tent and then wait for hours when they freeze is a complete nonsense!
4. The  Army would dispose of them quickly and efficiently
5. The Army would simply let them disappear

In this part of reasonings I cannot add anything, here all is told correctly.

6. the expedition was organized by the tourist club at the university and the expedition was supposed to be as the celebration of some Communist convention, and everyone knew they were going to this area. 

Conversation on that that they wanted to devote travel to party congress is very strongly exaggerated. They wrote about it only in 2 places: in a note for this purpose that Rustem Slobodin would grant leave in due time and in the leaflet “Evening Otorten” (in the playful form). It was time when for officials that was necessary that to mention such event, and among themselves on this theme they did not conduct any conversations. They had other interests and themes for conversations. As they were at all normal people in all countries. Participation in this sports and difficult travel and that defines interest in any sports was the main thing for a bottom: to test itself and aspiration to self-improvement. Therefore to do a strong emphasis on a political component in this group will be an error.

And during 50-80-ties it was necessary to have permission to move within Russia.

Since this place in a reasoning, I cannot will agree with this thought partially.
The Dyatlov group received all permissions only for this purpose that it would include sports result of travel. For example: so arrive at world record registration in airsport. The forward ordering moves, the initial documentation is checked by commissioners FAI, they are present on a place where flight is spent, and then make reports with results. It has similarly been made and in this case: they have made an application in the commission on routes, there have checked up, what requirements to the declared degree of complexity/difficulty corresponded to the standard, and group possibilities were sufficient for this travel and have given out them documents for offset on a route. After that travel they should issue the report and receive corresponding sports degree. The difference with FAI will be only that commissioners are not present at route points because it technically and is physically impossible. Especially considering that group the route part took place Dyatlov group of very first of winter groups. To them there anybody from travellers was not in the winter.
If they have not decided to make out sports degree, the permission was not required to them. It was practically on all country, except the military facilities, the closed territories and border zones. But on their route was not of such objects.
Certainly, it did not concern citizens of other states, but at them such too was not.

Therefore, no one would ever have tried any weapons at that time and near that place where student were trekking.

This statement too the correct. For weapon tests give special territories with the developed infrastructure. Which are protected also the admission on them is supervised.
Tests in absolutely deaf places (for example such where Dyatlov group went) are not spent, because as a result of tests it is required to receive the fixed result, many different measurements and filming and taking pictures.
For this purpose many people are required, it is a lot of structures, maintenance of this place with the electric power, premises and more many all another. Such is not present (and never not was) in area where Dyatlov group went.
To consider that test it is «to take the biggest stone and to throw in a deep pool» and more it is necessary than nothing - so children of very small age can argue only.

On the set questions and analysis points, it is told all. Other questions can be disassembled in detail another time and in a corresponding theme of a forum.

[WAB]

I personally do not believe they were murdered.

1. There were no traces of strangers in the snow
2. No external injuries on the four from ravines
3. The idea that someone would drive them out of the tent and then wait for hours when they freeze is a complete nonsense!
4. The  Army would dispose of them quickly and efficiently
5. The Army would simply let them disappear
6. the expedition was organized by the tourist club at the university and the expedition was supposed to be as the celebration of some Communist convention, and everyone knew they were going to this area. And during 50-80-ties it was necessary to have permission to move within Russia. Therefore, no one would ever have tried any weapons at that time and near that place where student were trekking.

1. The long period between the fateful night and the discovery of the tent ensured that the traces of the killers were gone. In particular as they must have used mountain skis. There is practically no chance that their tracks would remain after a month.

Traces remain always in the winter. If you do not know it, it does not mean that it should be denied.
Traces happen not only prints on snow. But these prints too do not happen selective: traces of Djatlova of group remained, and traces of murderers have disappeared all. So does not happen.
I had to see traces from skis (!) in 2 months after them have left. It was in Polar Ural Mountains in 1982. Traces from skis remain than traces from feet pressure less. Safety of traces depends on external conditions, instead of from the one who has left them.
 

2. If you take a close look at the injuries of the four in the ravine, it will be apparent that these injuries are consistent with murder by brutal force.

These are your errors based only on fictions. If to analyze traumas from the point of view of biomechanics that do not grow out "by means of cruel force". They are not to any signs.

Being a jiu jitsu practitioner myself, I have learned how easy it is to crush the rib cages of people with elbow strikes. I immediately thought about this when seeing the injuries of Dubinina.

It is either error or notorious misinformation. In the previous letter I asked you to result signs of those actions and their consequences. While we will not receive a definite answer on these questions, I will consider that you are mistaken. I am ready to lead counterobjections to your arguments on the basis of such science, as biomechanics

3. To drive their victims out of the tent and let the cold do the grisly work, is an extremely intelligent method. The students did not freeze to death as planned, because the temperature was a bit higher,

Whence you take the information on temperature and in general about weather during events. There it was not warm. The person could live in those conditions and those clothes only no more than 5 … 8 hours. It is if a difference in productivity of heat and heat losses was 150 … 200 J. And by available calculations there was much more severe.

so the attackers had to chase down their victims - and even so they made sure that there were no bullet wounds or knife cuts.

They are very "intellectual" murderers. They to themselves think out many difficulties, what them specially them to overcome with the greatest expenses of forces and possibilities.
You or scoff at common sense at readers of your texts, or try to inspire obviously false thoughts.

But injuries there were, and it must be emphasized that these injuries are without exception consistent only with human attack.

It either error or notorious misinformation. The head injury of Thibeaux-Brignolles has a site of through penetration 2 х 3,5 х 3 … 4 sm (0,78 х 1.3 х 1.57 in). For this purpose that it would be possible to punch a bone, the subject for defeat should have hardness at least 10 times more than a bone. Show please on elbow parts where there are such conditions (the sizes and hardness)? I do not say about that on an elbow there should be clothes and there was a possibility to receive the necessary pose.
However this trauma could be easily received on a place of a stone ridge № 3 as a result of falling from height of growth or even more low. That I have in detail described in article https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ey2F7ROB6ZXNJkp49tKPJE24iPP0nKRG/view?usp=sharing .
I already some times gave this reference.
In the same place there is a full set of cases of reception of traumas with instructions of places and conditions of their reception.

It bespeaks the resourcefulness of the killers that they accomplished their mission in such a way that the tragedy could be interpreted as an accident. There is no escaping the fact that the injuries of all the victims are consistent with murder - and only with murder.

It not the fact, is your conjectures as which you want to consider as the fact a method of constant repetition.

It is impossible that these injuries could be caused by a series of accidents - and only one of the dead (Dyatlov) seems to have frozen to death. The intelligence of the killers is evidenced today - a lot of people are led to believe that the Dyatlov group succumbed to a combination of bad decisions and accidents. Just as those orchestrating the killling of the nine had planned.

They have not given in it to thoughts, it is the validity. You try repetitions and arrangements to convince it that it was the murder which signs are not available in general. If to use only the facts, instead of your conjectures and mantras. Read attentively papers of the expert and do correct conclusions leaning not against conjectures and on scientifically well-founded calculations, the theory and practice of such cases.

However, the answer lies in the bodies - and the injuries leave no doubt.

Traumas do not leave doubts that they are received by a natural way.

4 and 5. Many people seem to believe that military and government killers prefer to dispose of their targets quickly and effectively, as in most films. Apart from in direct combat situations in military interventions, in the real world this is very far from the case. More often than not, death by government is characterized by "accidents" and "death by natural causes" like "heart attacks," and "suicides" are also common. This is a normal pattern when the killers do not want the public to know what happened. Very resourceful and intelligent, determined attackers on a killing mission will generally endeavor to make murder seem like an accident. If the killers had just made the Dyatlov group disappear, "everyone" would have smelt foul and understood that they had been disposed of. The same if the killers had just shot them and buried them in locked coffins. As a matter of fact, the method chosen was the smartest way to accomplish the mission. Lastly, there is nothing to tell us that the army was responsible. We do not know the precise identity of the killers.

These are words all only, which:
A - are no supported by nothing, except yours of texts
B - have not reason for the basis of such actions.

6. In the Soviet union, the secrecy surrounding everything ensured that one branch of government did not necessarily know what the others did.

You know all - as how it became in the USSR, especially considering that time? Whence? From films of Hollywood?

It is perfectly possible that someone on high determined that the nine students were a security risk if they witnessed something they were not supposed to see.

What should not they see?
It very much reminds a method of suggestion which in psychology "nested doll" is called. It consists that there is one reference to another continuously be. And so becomes indefinitely.
The answer should be accurate, real and what can be checked up. While it is not present, all your words, no more than simply words which mean nothing.

I say it is perfectly possible, It is so far impossible to know the precise identity of the killers or the exact reason why the Dyatlov group was killed, but the bodies tell their tale.

Here it is a sign of this method which "nested doll" is called. It already was is used many times in this case in a current of many years. Answer it has not been given.

Dead bodies do not lie, and their injuries very unmistakably tell us that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was the result of human involvement with murderous intent.

And it is a following sign of that behind your words it costs nothing. You have many times repeated same, but not too well have not resulted any real fact. At you even substantiations of actions are not present. That which are not invented, and were actually.

Moreover, it is clear that the attack was carefully planned and carried out by people who knew what to do.

The word "obviously" constantly is applied more often by people who have nothing to show as the fact or reality. And you use it constantly and continuously. Read all your texts - everywhere same, but anywhere there are no facts (real, instead of invented) and the reasons for such actions. You have only arrangements and excuses.

[WAB]

I still do not believe anyone waited a couple of hours for the tourists to freeze and then “finished” them. And where 'were those people yet? Somewhere hidden? Because tourists spent some time around the fire and in the wood, and those murderers were where?

If you can read in Russian, even if it is machine translation, please look at the test under the reference which I have resulted above. If there will be that that not clearly, I am ready to explain you details.

And as I said, once citizens of SSSR needed permission from the authorities to move in their own country. And the expedition was far ahead approved and claimed. The KGB had own agents everywhere, even at schools also among students and teachers and the military had to know that there will be tourists in the area.

You misunderstand moving possibility on territory of the USSR a little, but it while is unimportant

Dyatlov group got off the original route, but only a little.

The group did not descend at all from the route. It went precisely on the declared trajectory.

If anyone wanted to test their weapons, they will be sure that no one will be in a wide area (even hundreds of kilometers).

And it will not do so where it is necessary, in uncertainty. For this purpose there are specially equipped places. For such checks it is necessary to have the fixed result, and it is simple that that to take and where that to throw in uncertainty.

And with regard to the murdering the four at the ravine, why was not the last of them killed in the same way as the trio, but he froze?

It has been made exclusively because anybody killed nobody, but there are restrictions of possibility of the person to survive in such conditions. The one who did not test it does not understand a constant cold only.

And I still insist that the army would get rid of unwanted witnesses quickly and they would disappear without a trace. In nature, someone will often disappear. No one would set up a plan to liquidate people such amateurish.

It is all correctly. It is not necessary to consider other people as sillier, than the one who so considers. It have leads to occurrence conspirologing theories.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

It either error or notorious misinformation. The head injury of Thibeaux-Brignolles has a site of through penetration 2 х 3,5 х 3 … 4 sm (0,78 х 1.3 х 1.57 in). For this purpose that it would be possible to punch a bone, the subject for defeat should have hardness at least 10 times more than a bone. Show please on elbow parts where there are such conditions (the sizes and hardness)? I do not say about that on an elbow there should be clothes and there was a possibility to receive the necessary pose.
However this trauma could be easily received on a place of a stone ridge № 3 as a result of falling from height of growth or even more low. That I have in detail described in article https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ey2F7ROB6ZXNJkp49tKPJE24iPP0nKRG/view?usp=sharing .
I already some times gave this reference. In the same place there is a full set of cases of reception of traumas with instructions of places and conditions of their reception.

[...]

The word "obviously" constantly is applied more often by people who have nothing to show as the fact or reality. And you use it constantly and continuously. Read all your texts - everywhere same, but anywhere there are no facts (real, instead of invented) and the reasons for such actions. You have only arrangements and excuses.

- Where have I or anyone else stated that the head injury of Thibeaux-Brignolles was caused by elbow strikes? Please refrain from inventing statements that have never been made. I referred to the rib cage injuries suffered by Zolotaryov and Dubinina.

- Your aggressiveness and constant reference to the person whose statements you are attacking speaks for itself. It it remarkable how you attempt to paint everyone who happens to disagree with you as ignorant, misinformed, incompetent and unscientific. You are unwilling to discuss the topic, and for some reason you attack everyone who voices something that conflicts with your opinion. This is all the more remarkable since you have never presented any scientific evidence yourself. Instead, you downplay and neglect the overwhelming forensic evidence indicating that the Dyatlov group were murdered. As an example, the infrasound theory is manifestly not scientific - it is speculative with no evidence to back up the assumption that nine students were impelled by infrasound to leave their tent in a hurry in the same manner - leaving without the clothes that were necessary to survive in the cold. Nine students would not have had the exact same reaction, and moreover such an effect has never been demonstrated.

By the way, it is not correct that ski tracks generally last for long. They might do, but in many situations depending on the skis - mountain skies leave shallower tracks - the weather, and the structure of the snow they quickly disappear. Believe me, I come from a snowy country myself. Sometimes the tracks last for the whole winter, at other times they are erased in a couple of days. At the Dyatlov pass, the long period between the night of the tragedy and the arrival of the first search team makes it more likely that every trace had disappeared.

If you cannot relate to the evidence - the evidence found in the bodies of the nine victims of the Dyatlov Pass killings - a serious discussion is unfortunately not possible.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Re  PER INGE OESTMOEN.  QUOTES BELOW.

[[ 2. If you take a close look at the injuries of the four in the ravine, it will be apparent that these injuries are consistent with murder by brutal force. Being a jiu jitsu practitioner myself, I have learned how easy it is to crush the rib cages of people with elbow strikes. I immediately thought about this when seeing the injuries of Dubinina. ]]

 It is highly unlikely that any person could have inflicted the very severe injuries to DUBININA. It has already been decided that some of the injuries were of such force that no human could have caused them.

[[ 3. To drive their victims out of the tent and let the cold do the grisly work, is an extremely intelligent method. The students did not freeze to death as planned, because the temperature was a bit higher, so the attackers had to chase down their victims - and even so they made sure that there were no bullet wounds or knife cuts. But injuries there were, and it must be emphasized that these injuries are without exception consistent only with human attack. ]] 

This sequence of events is highly unlikely. It has already been decided that some of the injuries could not have been caused by humans.


[[  4 and 5. Many people seem to believe that military and government killers prefer to dispose of their targets quickly and effectively, as in most films. Apart from in direct combat situations in military interventions, in the real world this is very far from the case. More often than not, death by government is characterized by "accidents" and "death by natural causes" like "heart attacks," and "suicides" are also common. This is a normal pattern when the killers do not want the public to know what happened
Dead bodies do not lie, and their injuries very unmistakably tell us that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was the result of human involvement with murderous intent. Moreover, it is clear that the attack was carefully planned and carried out by people who knew what to do.  ]]

 We have seen in recent times that certain Governments have hardly been shy about the way they have dealt with certain people. It is highly unlikely that the Dyatlov Group were killed by other humans.

1. The injuries of Dubinina can very well be caused by humans. Apart from the fact that the injury pattern most likely is caused by a human attack, it is mistaken to believe that these injuries cannot be caused by another human being. Lastly, there were no traces of avalanches in the area, and the injuries are not consistent with a fall.

2. Why is the sequence of events where attackers force the nine students out from the tent, ensuring that their proper winter clothes are left behind, and then wait for the winter cold to do the work, unlikely? It has been described how the injuries could be fully explained by human attack.

3. Some governments want, in some situations, to kill people in a dramatic way so as to frighten others from opposing the authorities. At other times, operations are conducted in great secret, and the killing becomes an "accident," "heart attack" or "suicide." It is also necessary to point out that none of us can say precisely who killed the Dyatlov group. The traces of the killers have escaped us, but the bodies tell their tale.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

I personally do not believe they were murdered.

I think that it is absolutely correct belief as there are no signs of such event.

As a matter of fact, the signs of precisely such an event are plentiful.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

I still do not believe anyone waited a couple of hours for the tourists to freeze and then “finished” them. And where 'were those people yet? Somewhere hidden? Because tourists spent some time around the fire and in the wood, and those murderers were where?
And as I said, once citizens of SSSR needed permission from the authorities to move in their own country. And the expedition was far ahead approved and claimed. The KGB had own agents everywhere, even at schools also among students and teachers and the military had to know that there will be tourists in the area. Dyatlov group got off the original route, but only a little. If anyone wanted to test their weapons, they will be sure that no one will be in a wide area (even hundreds of kilometers).
And with regard to the murdering the four at the ravine, why was not the last of them killed in the same way as the trio, but he froze?
And I still insist that the army would get rid of unwanted witnesses quickly and they would disappear without a trace. In nature, someone will often disappear. No one would set up a plan to liquidate people such amateurish.

All the questions posed above are relevant and good, and they need to be asked.

We have no way of knowing who the attackers were, but that should not deter us from taking a serious look at the available evidence with an open mind. A mind is not open, if a possibility is ruled out and evidence is interpreted in light of preconceptions.

Without knowing the identity of the murderers, it is almost impossible to find out why the fateful decision was made. We should be aware that this does not contradict a conclusion of homicide. As for the injuries of the four in the ravine, the difference in injuries is a further indication of murder. A single natural event would likely have caused more uniform injuries. The four in the ravine were different in psychology, in physical strength and in their ability to resist. It is conceivable that they would have to be dealt with differently. The attackers would also be different - and it is to be expected that the lethal techniques and resulting injuries would also be different. 

But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot, is a most crucial one. It is understandable if some might think that to force the victims out in the winter to make it seem that they have frozen to death and that is that is a "primitive" and unsophisticated method. But is it really so?

To force people out in the cold at gunpoint or by overwhelming force, and then let the winter do the work is far from unsophisticated and primitive. It is a brilliant method, which leave the public much in doubt about what happened. Killers who absolutely wanted their victims to perish, but who also absolutely wanted to make it seem like an accident, can be expected to use this method in a cold climate. There is nothing primitive in that, it is extremely intelligently planned and executed. If these victims had disappeared without a trace, then most people would have understood that something dirty had been done.

It would seem that the many years that have passed since the night of tragedy back in 1959 have vindicated the judgment of the intelligent killers who quite correctly assumed that if the mission could be accomplished without unmistakable injuries as knife cuts or bullet wounds, a large part of the general public would readily accept the conclusion that the Dyatlov Pass tragedy was caused by a series of accidents and mistakes by Dyatlov. It may be noted that the allusion to mistakes by Igor Dyatlov is a characteristic approach when someone is blamed in order to divert attention from what actually happened.

It may also be noted that contrary to what is sometimes said, none of the injuries to the victim's bodies were of such nature that they could not be caused by an attacking human. The reality is that all of them are consistent with human attack, and that they cannot be otherwise explained without resorting to fantastic theories like the impact from nonexistent avalanches, accidents with falls causing lethal injuries from a mere standing height, Yetis, infrasound, plant poisoning or even extraterrestrials.

The one realistic explanation of this tragedy is rather more mundane, but also terrible, heartbreaking and above all frightening. 

[sarapuk]

Well I have used the term HIGHLY UNLIKELY.  I do not say that it is impossible that they may have been murdered by other humans. Looking at all the recorded injuries and taking into account the circumstances of this whole case it appears that what happened was of an unusual nature. But the injuries to DUBININA are the most perplexing. And it is these injuries that Iam particulary interested in. I do not believe that decomposition was the cause of the missing eyes and tongue.  And I do not believe that the rib injuries were the result of force from another human.

[Star man]

Just o thought on the making the murder look like an accident.

Making them leave the tent without their shoes can only make it look suspicious. So if they wanted to make it look like accident they were not too clever

[sarapuk]

Just o thought on the making the murder look like an accident.

Making them leave the tent without their shoes can only make it look suspicious. So if they wanted to make it look like accident they were not too clever

Who would want to go to such extremes to make it look like an accident  !  ? 

[Angel1]

IMHO it was murder.  And whoever staged it was brilliant.

Just change one thing, that they we forced from the tent and you have a murder investigation from the get go.  Say it was cut from the inside and you have 60 years of speculation.

That one key statement was purportedly made by an unnamed seamstress.  Not a forensic investigator.  And the tent was dragged by the rescue folks.  No fault to them.  They were students and soldiers.

Folks have been trying for years to reconstruct what happened from a crime scene both intentionally and unintentionally tampered with.

You have autopsy reports which have no doubt been redacted.  The complete ones are in the FSB somewhere. 

Items which point to indisputable assault were left vague - deformed neck(?), tongue missing (and?).

I cannot find the article in which a retired Russian criminologist says murder and by professional killers.  I agree.   

Why not just shoot them, etc?  For the same reason Princess Diana was killed in a "car accident".

[sarapuk]

IMHO it was murder.  And whoever staged it was brilliant.

Just change one thing, that they we forced from the tent and you have a murder investigation from the get go.  Say it was cut from the inside and you have 60 years of speculation.

That one key statement was purportedly made by an unnamed seamstress.  Not a forensic investigator.  And the tent was dragged by the rescue folks.  No fault to them.  They were students and soldiers.

Folks have been trying for years to reconstruct what happened from a crime scene both intentionally and unintentionally tampered with.

You have autopsy reports which have no doubt been redacted.  The complete ones are in the FSB somewhere. 

Items which point to indisputable assault were left vague - deformed neck(?), tongue missing (and?).

I cannot find the article in which a retired Russian criminologist says murder and by professional killers.  I agree.   

Why not just shoot them, etc?  For the same reason Princess Diana was killed in a "car accident".

Well there is absolutely no proof that it was a MURDER EVENT or EVENTS.  And there is absolutely no proof that Princess Diana was MURDERED.

[Angel1]

As I pointed out, the things that would point irrefutably to hand to hand assaults was not detailed in the autopsy.

The other injuries were attributed to "possible falls".

The whole premise of the "mystery" is based on why did they leave the tent.  Remove that and you have a murder investigation.

The whole "mystery" hinges on that one aspect.  And its' basis is easily disputed and possibly debunked.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Good points all.... 

Welcome to the Pass Angel1.   

[sarapuk]

As I pointed out, the things that would point irrefutably to hand to hand assaults was not detailed in the autopsy.

The other injuries were attributed to "possible falls".

The whole premise of the "mystery" is based on why did they leave the tent.  Remove that and you have a murder investigation.

The whole "mystery" hinges on that one aspect.  And its' basis is easily disputed and possibly debunked.

Well if things were not detailed in the Autopsy then obviously we lack evidence. I still can not see how you can come to such an irrefutable belief that it was Murder.

[Star man]

Question about the murder theory:

If it was murder and the attackers decided to force the group into the frigid night so that they would freeze to death ----- why allow them to take their matches with them? 

[sarapuk]

Question about the murder theory:

If it was murder and the attackers decided to force the group into the frigid night so that they would freeze to death ----- why allow them to take their matches with them? 

And why leave behind CAMERAS and FILM and DIARIES ETC. Any so called Murderers could have took lots of things and no one would have been any the wiser.

[Angel1]

The good points you raise support my point - this a a well staged crime scene.  Suppositions are made believing the "found" crime scene was as it  actually unfolded.  There are dozens of theories as to what happened based on what was found and the recollections of the first responders, who as I pointed out were students and soldiers, not crime scene investigators.  You have 60 years of speculation with no definitive conclusions.  They did a damn good job.

Remember the first lead investigator believed murder and he would not go along with the accident/hypothermia story.  He was put off the case.

Ivanov did go along with it.  In his later years, near the end of his life he wrote the letter (can be found on this board) apologizing to the families and indicating his belief in other-worldly elements being a key factor.  I don't disregard him as he has access to info we never will.  On this I can only say, I don't know.

[Star man]

So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

[sarapuk]

So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.

[Star man]

So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.

So what indicators are there that this was a murder?

[sarapuk]

So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.

So what indicators are there that this was a murder?

Well someone thought it was a criminal act in early 1959 which is why a criminal investigation was opened. As far as I know we do not have the specific reasons as to why such an investigation was opened. 

[Star man]

So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.

So what indicators are there that this was a murder?

Well someone thought it was a criminal act in early 1959 which is why a criminal investigation was opened. As far as I know we do not have the specific reasons as to why such an investigation was opened.

Is it because they thought it was the Mansi maybe?