August 19, 2022, 04:52:24 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Wolverine  (Read 10864 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

June 28, 2022, 07:11:12 PM
Reply #60


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.

July 20, 2022, 03:53:47 PM
Reply #61

Jean Daniel Reuss

              Reply #60
 I do believe many of the theories, hypothesis have valid points.
Some of the theories may overlap or support ideas that others have.

Igor B.'s theory explains very well the exit of the tent by the visit of a wolverine because he specifies several details.

1) ••• A temperature just below 0° C. For the hikers, this temperature seemed mild,
which explains why the hikers went out underdressed, as they might have thought to return quickly to the tent and stay out only a few minutes.

2) •••  In a small volume the effects of the spray were magnified.
See :
Catabatic Wind-Acute Stress Reaction-Cold Air Drops ---> Acute Stress Reaction
                            Lupos = Günter Wolf had evaluated:
                       Air volume tent = 3,5 m³

(I do not think it is enough to fire a shotgun in the air for the hikers to come out immediately without holding the axes in their hands).

3) •••  The stench dissuades them from returning immediately to the tent and encourages them to resort to another solution: lighting a fire near the cedar tree.


4) Together with Per Inge Oestmoen Oestmoen, I believe that the injuries found at the autopsy can only be explained by a hostile human attack.

  Theories Discussion  --->  General Discussion  --->    Refutation of the conclusions of expert Tumanov

( Reply# =  Coob# )

1/ Radio "Komsomolskaya Pravda": 
pp=14-Coob#280    (261-280)

2/ Radio "Komsomolskaya Pravda": 
pp=15-Coob#291    (281-300)   

3/ Forensic expert Tumanov contradicts himself in his article: 
pp=79-Coob#1577  (1561-1580)

4/ Miscellaneous:
pp=87-Coob#1727  (1721-1740)
5/ On self-harm of hands of the frozen
pp=99-Coob#1972  (1961-1980)

6/ When the abrasions happened can not be accurately determined:
pp=100-Coob#1982  (1981-2000)

7/ When the abrasions happened can not be accurately determined:
pp=100-Coob#1985  (1981-2000)

8/ On the preservation of Vishnevsky (aka death) spots:
pp=101-Coob#2004     (2001-2020)

9/ About dark blood in the heart:
pp=101-Coob#2005    (2001-2020)

10/ Again radio "Komsomolskaya Pravda":
pp=106-Coob#2113    (2101-2120)

I am not competent in Vishnevsky stains and other difficult to interpret forensic clues.
For the moment I have more confidence in the conclusions of Eduard Tumanov, professor and expert in the Russian National University and Pirogov Institute (They were attacked) than in the conclusions of Igor B., who is an anonymous resident of Ekateringburg, (they fell and got injured or crushed).


5) Ziljoe, you seem to me to underestimate the possibilities of memory and intelligence of the wolverine, which have much in common with the boreal lynx, certain dogs or even the great apes.

If the (supposed wolverine) did not show up on the bodies of the hikers a few hours or days after its visit to the tent, I can only see 2 possible explanations:

 1) Either the wolverine was killed by a pack of wolves, a large bear that got angry and counter-attacked, a man with a gun... or others.

2) Or it joined the cozy basket of its master trainer who cuddled it and rewarded it for its efficiency.

Jean Daniel Reuss

Rational guidance =

• There is nothing supernatural and mysterious about the injuries suffered by the Dyatlov group. They are all consistent with an attack by a group of professional killers who wanted to take the lives of the nine  [Per Inge Oestmoen].

• Now let us search for answers to: WHO ? WHY ? HOW ?

• The scenario must be consistent with the historical, political and psychological  contexts.

• The solution takes in consideration all known findings.

July 20, 2022, 08:32:23 PM
Reply #62


Hi Jean Daniel Reuss

There is little information on the Wolverine habits to this day but as I understand it....the Wolverine travel around 15 miles a day, a solitary animal out of mating season and has a large hunting habitat. It will hunt various beasts if it sees an opportunity or compete with wolves or bears over kills  but tries to avoid direct confrontation. It will fight a bear ,or wolves  and by what I've seen , seems to do great damage on the physical side of things.

It also has this spray like a skunk,  if I understand correctly, it has two separate types of spray, 1) where it marks it's food and territory 2) a different mixture in its defence spray. It is this 2nd spray that links the event's.

The Wolverine was not necessarily looking to attack the hickers, this must be understood., Rather the smell of food intrigued the Wolverine to the tent. They are reported to have a keen sense of smell and can detect food or small animals below several feet of snow.

The Wolverine would have no interest in the biscuits or pork lion that were in the tent after the spraying of its defence glan.

The hikers are now sprayed with the toxin and the tent with left over food. All the beasts in the area would be put off eating anything left over.

 Hence the search dogs not wanting to get off the helicopter 3 weeks later, they could detect the defence spray.  This is an important  incident when we take in the fact that it was so unusual that it was documented .  Hunting dogs may have been trained or familiar with the smell but these search dogs weren't.

I understand that you believe the injuries were caused by the human hand and I do read what you put forward Jean.