Murder would explain leaving the tent, an orderly march to the tree line, and remaining there instead of returning earlier. It could also explain the injuries.
However, murder theories suffer from four problems.
1. There is no evidence that anyone else was on that mountain that fateful night. It's speculation that there could have been others.
2. They were off course in the middle of nowhere. How would someone else know where they were?
3. It was a long way from anyone else. The closest Mansi village was 60 miles. The closest hiking group was 30 or more miles, and so on.
4. Their supplies were left alone. Mansi, hikers, escaped prisoners and the like would most likely take their money, alcohol, skis and anything else valuable or useful. It is the middle of winter in Siberia, not a Walmart parking lot. As for special forces, why not just disappear all the evidence instead of risking an investigation?
That the tent contents were undisturbed is evidence against outside human involvement.
Opinions are great and I would encourage any and all to have them. However, alot of what I just read above is pure conjecture presented as if it were fact. Im not seeing key words such as 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'could have', 'possibly' etc which leads me to believe you are 'married' to the theory.
Lets not make this a place of 'your wrongs' and 'Im rights'. I would suggest you create a detailed analysis thread that lays out your entire theory in a slightly less authoritative fashion to be considered by the community. thumb1
Remember, one investigator says murder while the lead investigator says ball lightening. Neither hold more weight then the other as far as I can see.
.There is no evidence that anyone else was on that mountain that fateful night. It's speculation that there could have been others.Even Maslennikov (who leaded the search in the beginning) supposed "somebody could come from the top. Hands up. Go out one by one". He noticed in his diary (part 2).
Hi!Quote.There is no evidence that anyone else was on that mountain that fateful night. It's speculation that there could have been others.Even Maslennikov (who leaded the search in the beginning) supposed "somebody could come from the top. Hands up. Go out one by one". He noticed in his diary (part 2).
Absence of footprints is not confirmation of absence of anyone else. No footprints around the tent even we know Dyatlov's group were there.
I just talking about that Maslinnikov wrote in his diary, didn't he?
I just talking about that Maslinnikov wrote in his diary, didn't he?
I think we should not be engaged in interpretations of another's texts (and, especially, thoughts), and available possibilities and knowledge to come nearer to true. It means to confirm that that truth and to specify that does not concern it.
Maslennikov could write any reasons and doubts in this diary, but it does not mean that all of them represent the facts.
"somebody could come from the top. Hands up. Go out one by one".
He did not present his observation as a fact, he simply indicated that it was fully possible given the terrain and the environment.
I see no problems with his sensible statement about a possibility.
But.... how they cut their way out of the tent with their hands up? Or was coming out of the tent like a bunch of jack-the-rippers at gun point what did them in?
Near the bodies , Krivonischenko's knife was found
It's a interesting question about knifes.
Ivanov wrote: RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE CASEQuoteNear the bodies , Krivonischenko's knife was found
Not only tent has been cut. The decking consisted of 15 cut treetops. But Tempalov didn't mention about this knife in the Protocol inspection bodies detection space neither students aware of it.
In the area of the palm surface of the second and fifth fingers there is a skin wound of irregular linear shape with regular edges located transverse to the length of the fingersIt looks as a sharp-force wound. Did he grabb a knife in self-defense?
Yuri had a knife and Igor has a knife wound to the hand?
It's a interesting question about knifes.
Ivanov wrote: RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE CASEQuoteNear the bodies , Krivonischenko's knife was found
Not only tent has been cut. The decking consisted of 15 cut treetops. But Tempalov didn't mention about this knife in the Protocol inspection bodies detection space neither students aware of it.
But.... how they cut their way out of the tent with their hands up? Or was coming out of the tent like a bunch of jack-the-rippers at gun point what did them in?
It's a interesting question about knifes.
Ivanov wrote: RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE CASEQuoteNear the bodies , Krivonischenko's knife was found
Not only tent has been cut. The decking consisted of 15 cut treetops. But Tempalov didn't mention about this knife in the Protocol inspection bodies detection space neither students aware of it.
The knives are very interesting.
At this stage, Lev Ivanov had received orders from his superiors to close the case with the conclusion that it had all been an accident. In the final statement when Ivanov declared the case closed, he mentioned Krivonischenko's knife and stated that it had been found in the ravine together with the four last victims.
But that was not the case.
No knives were ever found outside of the tent. It is certain that if any knife had been found, Tempalov would have mentioned it.
Moreover: Krivonischenko's knife was found in the pocket of his windbreaker, which never left the tent.
So everything indicates that Lev Ivanov was under severe pressure to close the case at all cost, and that he had to falsely state that a knife had been found with the bodies even if he knew it was untrue. That was necessary, in order to construct the erroneous conclusion that no other people had been in the area and that the tragic deaths had all been accidents.
Loose}{Cannon hits the nail on the head on this one. Definitely a case of over speculation on this murder subject.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I personally do not believe they were murdered.
I think that it is absolutely correct belief as there are no signs of such event.
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.
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
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".
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.
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? whacky1
So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?
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 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?
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.
no bullet wounds or knife cutsTo be honest, we have some evidence of knife cuts.
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shotthe victims were injured with one blow. Simply and effectively.
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shotthe simplest answer is - attacers didnt have weapons.
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.agree.
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?
Per Inge OestmoenQuoteno bullet wounds or knife cutsTo be honest, we have some evidence of knife cuts.
Autopsy report of Igor Dyatlov:
In the area of the palm surface of the second and fifth fingers there is a skin wound of irregular linear shape with regular edges located transverse to the length of the fingers; the surface wounds are up to 0.1 (or 0.2 – note) cm deep.
(https://enigma-project.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ladonj-2.jpg)QuoteBut the main question of why the victims were not simply shotthe victims were injured with one blow. Simply and effectively.QuoteBut the main question of why the victims were not simply shotthe simplest answer is - attacers didnt have weapons.
Weapons were strictly prohibited in USSR except for hunting weapons. If it is correct assumption, we can exclude some categories of people attacker did not belong
1) sololders (army, KGB)
2) hunters
3) organized criminal groups
But the blows were very effective. This tells us that attackers were very well trained to kill. Special Forces? Without weapons? nea1
What about the people who had have this training and took part in еspecial forces operations during the WWII? They were 30+ in 1959.QuoteTo 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.agree.
What we know exactly:
- group left the tent
- group left the tent poorly dressed
- nobody died in the tent
- they had enough power to go 1.5 km even poorly dressed
- they still had enough power ( and clear mind) to do some work next to the cedar.
- they didn't die at the same time.
- at least 30% of them died from the single death blows
- at least 1 of them had injuries wich could be interpritated as traces of tortures (Krivo)
- at least 2 bodies had damages wich could be interpritated as traces of abuses (Luda, Zolotarev)
Do you have idea what does it look likes? It seems to me that this is very similar to the hostage -taking
I'm attacker
1) I show you that im absolutly serious. Group can die
2) I keep one of them and group will follow my instuctions to take clothes off and leave the tent. It's still a chance for them to survive and safe the life of hostage.
3) it is absolutely predictable that they are going to do during the night poorly dressed, they can not go faraway, I will find them easy.
You are not reacting? Ok, get the first victims. Do you you hear him screaming? I give you 30 min more. No reaction - more victims.
If I decide to kill I do it effectively and fast.
Per Inge OestmoenQuoteno bullet wounds or knife cutsTo be honest, we have some evidence of knife cuts.
Autopsy report of Igor Dyatlov:
In the area of the palm surface of the second and fifth fingers there is a skin wound of irregular linear shape with regular edges located transverse to the length of the fingers; the surface wounds are up to 0.1 (or 0.2 – note) cm deep.
(https://enigma-project.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ladonj-2.jpg)QuoteBut the main question of why the victims were not simply shotthe victims were injured with one blow. Simply and effectively.QuoteBut the main question of why the victims were not simply shotthe simplest answer is - attacers didnt have weapons.
Weapons were strictly prohibited in USSR except for hunting weapons. If it is correct assumption, we can exclude some categories of people attacker did not belong
1) sololders (army, KGB)
2) hunters
3) organized criminal groups
But the blows were very effective. This tells us that attackers were very well trained to kill. Special Forces? Without weapons? nea1
What about the people who had have this training and took part in еspecial forces operations during the WWII? They were 30+ in 1959.QuoteTo 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.agree.
What we know exactly:
- group left the tent
- group left the tent poorly dressed
- nobody died in the tent
- they had enough power to go 1.5 km even poorly dressed
- they still had enough power ( and clear mind) to do some work next to the cedar.
- they didn't die at the same time.
- at least 30% of them died from the single death blows
- at least 1 of them had injuries wich could be interpritated as traces of tortures (Krivo)
- at least 2 bodies had damages wich could be interpritated as traces of abuses (Luda, Zolotarev)
Do you have idea what does it look likes? It seems to me that this is very similar to the hostage -taking
I'm attacker
1) I show you that im absolutly serious. Group can die
2) I keep one of them and group will follow my instuctions to take clothes off and leave the tent. It's still a chance for them to survive and safe the life of hostage.
3) it is absolutely predictable that they are going to do during the night poorly dressed, they can not go faraway, I will find them easy.
You are not reacting? Ok, get the first victims. Do you you hear him screaming? I give you 30 min more. No reaction - more victims.
If I decide to kill I do it effectively and fast.
Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion. Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't. I think you have to conclude it was torture. Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time. Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.
Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion. Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't. I think you have to conclude it was torture. Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time. Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.
Killers do not generally beat 4 people to death unless there was a whole bunch of them. And I don't think that was the case. It would have been 1 or 2, 3 at most. 3 people armed with any kind of weapons, even just sharp sticks, would have been able to control that crowd. Which they obviously didn't do.
The only hope we have of solving this is if the investigators knew the answer to the riddle and covered it up, for whatever reason. But wrote about it in some secret report, sent it to Moscow, and it's still in the KGB records archive in the basement of FSB headquarters.
If they didn't figure it out 60 years ago, we won't now either.
Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion. Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't. I think you have to conclude it was torture. Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time. Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.
Eyes are the first go for decaying corpses: birds and other small scavanger animals love them. There definitely are birds and other scavengers in the Ural mountains. I mean, if you have the stomach to look at post-mortem pics of Lyuda and Seymon you'll see that they were basically skeletons as they were found in May, three months after the incident. The bodies found in February looked far better.
Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion. Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't. I think you have to conclude it was torture. Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time. Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.
Eyes are the first go for decaying corpses: birds and other small scavanger animals love them. There definitely are birds and other scavengers in the Ural mountains. I mean, if you have the stomach to look at post-mortem pics of Lyuda and Seymon you'll see that they were basically skeletons as they were found in May, three months after the incident. The bodies found in February looked far better.
But the Post Mortem examination did not reveal any kinds of predation ! ?
And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. Although the criteria differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, finding the bodies of nine healthy students without an obvious explanation will always trigger a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation gives the police procedural instruments to establish whether a crime was committed. You do not need strong evidence to open a criminal investigation, because the investigation is the only way to get that evidence in the first place. Only a small percentage of opened criminal investigations go to trial, as you need a strong case that a specific human suspect committed a crime for that to happen.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?
We dont know. Like I said as far as I know there is no specific reasons why the investigation was opened as a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
Hi
Maybe some of the bunch managed to escape, il the attackers lost their control or were not enough, or the bincj decided to fight back, even with no shoes in the snow ( in this case bow7) .
So some were beated up the other not and try to get back but too late ?
In a case of wrong-action-going-to-**** it is possible .
And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. Although the criteria differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, finding the bodies of nine healthy students without an obvious explanation will always trigger a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation gives the police procedural instruments to establish whether a crime was committed. You do not need strong evidence to open a criminal investigation, because the investigation is the only way to get that evidence in the first place. Only a small percentage of opened criminal investigations go to trial, as you need a strong case that a specific human suspect committed a crime for that to happen.
Most suicides, for instance, trigger a criminal investigation; because that's the only way you can determine that it was a suicide and rule out foul play.
Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion. Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't. I think you have to conclude it was torture. Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time. Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.
Eyes are the first go for decaying corpses: birds and other small scavanger animals love them. There definitely are birds and other scavengers in the Ural mountains. I mean, if you have the stomach to look at post-mortem pics of Lyuda and Seymon you'll see that they were basically skeletons as they were found in May, three months after the incident. The bodies found in February looked far better.
But the Post Mortem examination did not reveal any kinds of predation ! ?
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what autopsy reports are like. Autopsy reports describe the state of the body - eg. "eyeballs missing" or "tongue missing". They generally don't say "a small rodent ate the eyeballs" or "a KGB agent gouged the eyeballs out with a fork", because the doctor performing the autopsy has no way of knowing that.
And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. Although the criteria differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, finding the bodies of nine healthy students without an obvious explanation will always trigger a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation gives the police procedural instruments to establish whether a crime was committed. You do not need strong evidence to open a criminal investigation, because the investigation is the only way to get that evidence in the first place. Only a small percentage of opened criminal investigations go to trial, as you need a strong case that a specific human suspect committed a crime for that to happen.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?
We dont know. Like I said as far as I know there is no specific reasons why the investigation was opened as a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
Most suicides, for instance, trigger a criminal investigation; because that's the only way you can determine that it was a suicide and rule out foul play.
And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. Although the criteria differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, finding the bodies of nine healthy students without an obvious explanation will always trigger a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation gives the police procedural instruments to establish whether a crime was committed. You do not need strong evidence to open a criminal investigation, because the investigation is the only way to get that evidence in the first place. Only a small percentage of opened criminal investigations go to trial, as you need a strong case that a specific human suspect committed a crime for that to happen.
Most suicides, for instance, trigger a criminal investigation; because that's the only way you can determine that it was a suicide and rule out foul play.
You are right, even a traffic accident or any damage that would be punishable by the criminal code if conducted deliberately, could trigger criminal investigation. Actually, the Soviet criminal justice would go ever further, SUSPICION of such acts was a basis for opening a criminal investigation. It was up to the police or the prosecutor to do so.
What makes you think that the Legal System of the USSR would go to ever further steps such as mere suspician. The Authorities made the final decision on whether or not to open a Criminal Investigation.
What makes you think that the Legal System of the USSR would go to ever further steps such as mere suspician. The Authorities made the final decision on whether or not to open a Criminal Investigation.
Studying the Criminal code of The Russian SFR makes me think that. It is their job to conduct investigation and it is absolutely standard. It is the same procedure as if you reported a crime to the police or prosecutor. They are legally required to act upon that, whether the crime has been committed is irrelevant at that stage. It's for them to find out.
If you are a student of LAW then you will know of the DISCRETIONARY actions of Police and Prosecutors and others charged with any kind of investigation. Just because something as happened that may be suspicious doesnt meant that the Authorities are going to pursue a Criminal Investigation.
If you are a student of LAW then you will know of the DISCRETIONARY actions of Police and Prosecutors and others charged with any kind of investigation. Just because something as happened that may be suspicious doesnt meant that the Authorities are going to pursue a Criminal Investigation.
I have not claimed to be a law student, my education or employment is irrelevant to this case. I am open to discuss it via PM, but it is not a topic here. I only claim to have read the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure code of the Russian SFR along with some analyses of them. "Acting upon suspicion" was a completly standard practise and is the very reason why there were so many political pisoners in the USSR without proper conviction. The "suspicion" in Soviet sense was a stronger basis for investigation than in most western countries. And yes, there is always a human factor involved and different investigators may have different opinions about what happened, the investigation needs to be open formally in orther to narrow down the possibilities and collect the evidence.
In the case of DPI, the investigation was open, no suspect was found so there was nobody to bring before the court (also standard procedure unfortunately for us), but the context is far from standard, as is the whole case.
Why do you think that the suspicion in the Soviet sense was a stronger basis for investigation than in most Western Countries ! ? Plenty of Western Countries had and still have very suspicious attitudes.
Why do you think that the suspicion in the Soviet sense was a stronger basis for investigation than in most Western Countries ! ? Plenty of Western Countries had and still have very suspicious attitudes.
That is not my thought but a proven fact, Soviet regime was far more repressive that any other Western country in 20th century. The number of people arrested or even convicted for vaguely defined crimes was just enormous. The suspects of the crimes were far less protected by the law, the presumption of innocence was not applied up to the Western Standards. A person could be held in custody for up to 9 months without the court approval. Until 1958, there was not even a right to have a lawyer present until the trial before the court.
What is symptomatic about this case, the reports are so vague that they allow for too much speculation, some evidence was even confiscated as if it was never an intention to solve the case. The investigators and prosecutors had enough resources and competences to pursue the case much further. Unless someone of higher rank told them otherwise.
If I had to guess, Yuri Yuden did it. Take a look at the photos of his diary sometime. It was torn in half and all the pages from after he left the group are missing. Reading what he wrote, Yuri Yuden strikes me as a disillusioned communist. And don't forget another character in this story. Uncle Slava. He was a Lithuanian who was sentenced to 10 years in the gulag in 1949. Probably picked up in the Operation Priobi roundup of political troublemakers in Lithuania in 1949 and deported to Soviet gulags. In 1959, he would have just been released, probably not months before. He was the group's transport provider while in town.
As for the motive, who really knows, personal conflicts with the group, spurned romantic advances maybe on Yuden's part. With Uncle Slava, I'd imagine he'd have every reason to want the heads of a few communist Russians after 10 year in the mines. Put those two together and you have suspect numbers 1 and 2.
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile. He said something that took me by surprise at the time. He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases.
In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing. In criminal cases they didn't do that so much. If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort.
If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder. There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile. He said something that took me by surprise at the time. He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases.
In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing. In criminal cases they didn't do that so much. If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort.
If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder. There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.
Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder. And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned. Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile. He said something that took me by surprise at the time. He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases.
In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing. In criminal cases they didn't do that so much. If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort.
If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder. There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.
Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder. And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned. Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.
As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! ) bang1
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile. He said something that took me by surprise at the time. He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases.
In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing. In criminal cases they didn't do that so much. If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort.
If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder. There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.
Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder. And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned. Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.
As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! ) bang1
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .
If it was a Murder by other Humans then it was a botch up, whichever way you look at it. But the findings do not lead us to a Murder scenario. Not a Murder by other Humans at least.
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile. He said something that took me by surprise at the time. He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases.
In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing. In criminal cases they didn't do that so much. If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort.
If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder. There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.
Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder. And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned. Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.
As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! ) bang1
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .
If it was a Murder by other Humans then it was a botch up, whichever way you look at it. But the findings do not lead us to a Murder scenario. Not a Murder by other Humans at least.
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile. He said something that took me by surprise at the time. He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases.
In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing. In criminal cases they didn't do that so much. If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort.
If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder. There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.
Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder. And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned. Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.
As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! ) bang1
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .
If it was a Murder by other Humans then it was a botch up, whichever way you look at it. But the findings do not lead us to a Murder scenario. Not a Murder by other Humans at least.
This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile. He said something that took me by surprise at the time. He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases.
In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing. In criminal cases they didn't do that so much. If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort.
If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder. There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.
Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder. And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned. Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.
As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! ) bang1
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .
If it was a Murder by other Humans then it was a botch up, whichever way you look at it. But the findings do not lead us to a Murder scenario. Not a Murder by other Humans at least.This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile. He said something that took me by surprise at the time. He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases.
In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing. In criminal cases they didn't do that so much. If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort.
If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder. There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.
Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder. And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned. Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.
As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! ) bang1
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .
If it was a Murder by other Humans then it was a botch up, whichever way you look at it. But the findings do not lead us to a Murder scenario. Not a Murder by other Humans at least.
I am beginning to think that one of the group themselves may be responsible for the events that night. I have been firing ideas out on “simplest credible explanation” thread.
I think Dyatlov himself could have triggered the events.
The scenario goes like this in basic terms:
Dyatlov’s behaviour is unusual on this trip as reported in Zina’s diary. Maybe he had a thing for Zina and others are flirting with her.? He is jealou? He is also a bit of a control freak.
Dyatlov starts a fight at the tent that escalates into something more serious. The group rally on Dyatlov and he pulles a knife and charges at the group. The group flee running away from Dyatlov down the slope with Dyatlov in persuit. The group split up scattering in the darkness. Dyatlov follows the Yuris to the cedar. The Yuris climb the tree to escape Dyatlov. Dyatlov waits underneath. He maybe lights the fire and uses burning branches to try and reach the Yuris and force them down from the tree. He later gives up and heads back up the slope.
Travel 4 meet with a terrible accident on the dark slope falling off a ridge not far from the ravine.
Zina wanders on the slope in dark and eventually gives up and dies from the cold.
Rustem who has been injured in the fight at the tent wanders in the dark alone until he collapses and dies from the cold.
Why this scenario?
If Dyatlov had a thing for Zina then it is unlikely that he would leave her to die on the slope. Unless Zina was running from him?
There is no evidence of any other people there that night. And if there were other people lightning a fire under the cedar would give your position away - unless the person lightning the fire is the attacker?
The two Yuris have severe frost bite are poorly dressed and yet their injuries indicate they climb the tree. If there were others there better dressed you would think that they would climb the cedar.? And if a fire was lit why did the Yuris have severe frost bite? It they had frost bite before they lit a fire then how would they be able to strike the matches? If they lit the fire before they got frost bite then they should not have got frost bite? Also if they were all working together as a team they should have been able to survive. Why not keep the fire going? Why build a separate den. It points towards a divided group. Dyatlov’s hands are grimy in the morgue. Some suggest frost bite but could be because he lit the fire under the cedar and was trying to get the Yuris.
Regards
Star man
But could one man really have be responsible for all that happened to that Group ! ? What about the Radioactivity question. And the very serious and unusual injuries at the so called Ravine ! ?
QuoteBut the main question of why the victims were not simply shotthe victims were injured with one blow. Simply and effectively.QuoteBut the main question of why the victims were not simply shot
The simplest answer is - attacers didnt have weapons.
Weapons were strictly prohibited in USSR except for hunting weapons. If it is correct assumption, we can exclude some categories of people attacker did not belong
1) soldiers (army, KGB)
2) hunters
3) organized criminal groups
But the blows were very effective. This tells us that attackers were very well trained to kill. Special Forces? Without weapons? nea1
What about the people who had have this training and took part in еspecial forces operations during the WWII? They were 30+ in 1959.QuoteTo 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.
agree.
I find it difficult to subscribe to the super intelligent murder theory, orchestrated to remove suspicion and make it look like an accident.
Why? Because if they had been super intelligent then in 1959 the investigators would have concluded that the deaths had been accidental and closed the case and we probably wouldn't be on this forum debating what happened.
Regards
Star man
But my point is that if the murderers were so smart then the investigators themselves would conclude that the whole thing was a dreadful accident. The authorities would not have needed to force the investigators into a conclusion?
Regards
Star man
But my point is that if the murderers were so smart then the investigators themselves would conclude that the whole thing was a dreadful accident. The authorities would not have needed to force the investigators into a conclusion?
Regards
Star man
1. If it had been an accident, it would be unnecessary to compel the local investigators into the desired conclusion. The fact that the local police was prevented from performing an unbiased forensic examination, is strong evidence that the central authorities knew what happened, and did everything they could to prevent the disclosure of the true cause of the tragedy.
2. A likely scenario is that the assailants forced the nine victims out from the tent at gunpoint after having ensured that they were improperly dressed for the winter, expecting their victims to perish soon in the cold. However, that part of the plan failed because the temperature was not sufficiently low. The attackers soon realized that the nine students did not die as they had planned, so they had to hunt them down and expedite their deaths. Every other documented detail including the injuries found on the bodies are consistent with this sequence of events, and realistically only consistent with a human attack with lethal intentions.
3. Even the most carefully planned operation cannot change the weather. The closest weather stations at Burmantovo and Nyaksimvol recorded temperatures no lower than -15C during the night of February 1-2, 1959. If the temperature had been lower, it is probable that all the victims would have died rather rapidly from freezing-induced hypothermia. Then there would have been no grave injuries to tell the tale of murder. So, it was only the changeable nature of the weather that prevented the mission to be executed fully as planned.
Well given what I have read so far I do not doubt that there seems to be a strong possibility of a cover up. the question is why?
I find the forced out of the tent argument difficult though because from what I can tell the way they left was chaotic, lacking in any kind of order. If they had been forced out then I would expect a clearer pattern in terms of the clothing they wore, the equipment they took with them etc. some were quite well dressed and had valenki others very poorly dressed. At least one had a knife, another a pen knife. Some had matches. They had a flashlight that was dropped during the decent. The three cuts in the tent. It seems very chaotic to me. And then there's the injuries. Flail chest equivalent of the force of a car crash. How could those injuries be produced by a human? Then there is Kolevatov who appears to have been the last of the rav 4 to die. He had no apparent life threatening injuries. Why was he spared the same fate as the others in terms of injuries?
I agree that the cold was not the greatest threat, particularly of the rav 4 who left clothes behind at the cedar.
It would be interesting to see how you would explain the flail chest injuries - a massive fracture across 7 ribs or more creating a straight fracture that lines up through all the broken ribs?
Regards
Star man
I think one man could be responsible. The radiation as discussed in other threads could be circumstantial. Contamination from some nuclear accident.
Regards
Star man
QuoteBut the main question of why the victims were not simply shotthe victims were injured with one blow. Simply and effectively.QuoteBut the main question of why the victims were not simply shot
The simplest answer is - attacers didnt have weapons.
Weapons were strictly prohibited in USSR except for hunting weapons. If it is correct assumption, we can exclude some categories of people attacker did not belong
1) soldiers (army, KGB)
2) hunters
3) organized criminal groups
But the blows were very effective. This tells us that attackers were very well trained to kill. Special Forces? Without weapons? nea1
What about the people who had have this training and took part in еspecial forces operations during the WWII? They were 30+ in 1959.QuoteTo 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.
agree.
What you bring up there in the above, is a good question. Why were the victims not simply shot?
There are only two realistic possibilities:
1. The attackers did not have firearms. This is a possibility to consider, it cannot be ruled out completely.
2. The attackers were professionals who did have firearms, but chose not to use them because bullet wounds would make it obvious that the deaths were caused by other humans. To remove the bodies and make them disappear, would also be understood by the public for what it was. The more I read about the Dyatlov pass incident, the more I understand the intelligent orchestration and execution of this terrible mission. These killers were no ordinary criminals. It is a serious mistake to think that professional killers always use firearms. Dramatic shootings is what we see in typical American films, because shooting and loud sounds looks and sounds "macho" on film. However, the reality is different. Very resourceful, intelligent killers more often than not make the killing look like an accident. This is particularly the case in killings performed by state agencies who want to avoid negative publicity.
It is impossible to say with certainty which of the two possibilities is the correct one.
What is possible to say, is that the killers who murdered the Dyatlov group were likely highly skilled people who knew lethal close combat techniques. A close examination of the injuries gives a depiction of a carefully executed killing, indicative of professional work. Also, I see it as doubtful that non-professional people would have had the discipline and the cool head required to avoid leaving knife or bullet wounds. As for Igor Dyatlov, it is conceivable that he was injured when trying to grab a gun with a bayonet mounted on it. If that was what happened, it is all the more significant that his attacker did not follow up with stabbings.
If this line of reasoning is close to what happened, the assailants had carefully planned the operation, and they had decided that it must look like an accident.
So I incline to the second possibility, while leaving the first possibility open since it cannot be entirely excluded either.
I find it difficult to subscribe to the super intelligent murder theory, orchestrated to remove suspicion and make it look like an accident.
Why? Because if they had been super intelligent then in 1959 the investigators would have concluded that the deaths had been accidental and closed the case and we probably wouldn't be on this forum debating what happened.
Regards
Star man
Well given what I have read so far I do not doubt that there seems to be a strong possibility of a cover up. the question is why?
I find the forced out of the tent argument difficult though because from what I can tell the way they left was chaotic, lacking in any kind of order. If they had been forced out then I would expect a clearer pattern in terms of the clothing they wore, the equipment they took with them etc. some were quite well dressed and had valenki others very poorly dressed. At least one had a knife, another a pen knife. Some had matches. They had a flashlight that was dropped during the decent. The three cuts in the tent. It seems very chaotic to me. And then there's the injuries. Flail chest equivalent of the force of a car crash. How could those injuries be produced by a human? Then there is Kolevatov who appears to have been the last of the rav 4 to die. He had no apparent life threatening injuries. Why was he spared the same fate as the others in terms of injuries?
I agree that the cold was not the greatest threat, particularly of the rav 4 who left clothes behind at the cedar.
It would be interesting to see how you would explain the flail chest injuries - a massive fracture across 7 ribs or more creating a straight fracture that lines up through all the broken ribs?
Regards
Star man
We must consider the relevant points one by one.
-The exit from the tent. Was it chaotic? In fact, no.
A quotation from this site:
"Unfortunately no one expected to find the hikers dead so there was no attempt to preserve or record the footprints of people around the Dyatlov Pass. To this day there has been a discussion of exactly how many people were in this pass on that fateful day. However judging by words of the people involved in the search and who took the lower right picture there were definitely 8-9 tracks of footprints left by hikers who wore almost no footwear. Their feet pressed the snow and this left a characteristic "columns" of pressed snow with a footprint on top. Members of the group walked in a single file with a tall men walking in the back. His footprints partially covered the footprints of his friends who walked in front of him. Overall the path gave an impression of organized and uneventful descent down the slope of the mountain. Several trails would deviate from the general direction, but then rejoin the group. Other footprints were also discovered and photographed. It is hard to say if these were left by someone else or rescuers themselves."
(https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search)
Next, I will quote from Svetlana Oss' book "Don't go there." I recommend that book because Svetlana Oss is a Russian who has consulted the original material from the first investigations and translated them. She therefore has done an invaluable service in bringing forth much of the available evidence that the tragedy was indeed due to human attack, and the parts of the book where she demonstrates how the injuries would have been caused by a determined human attackers are very valuable together with much of the same material which is also available on this site. Let it be said that when Svetlana Oss concludes her book by forwarding her own theory about the identity of the attackers, I do not agree with her. In the first parts of the book, she presents the available material including documented witness testimonies in a factual way. However, when it comes to her theory of who were responsible she becomes sensational and has only hearsay evidence to offer, and that is a kind of evidence that could never be accepted in a court of law. This part of the book must be read with great care. Fortunately, it is the factual material and the testimonies that are the important parts - and they are very solid and documented.
On page 183, Svetlana Oss refers to a three members of the first searches, Yuri Koptelov, Boris Slobtsov, and Aleksey Chernyshov. All three are also listed here: https://dyatlovpass.com/rescuers. I will quote from the book:
"Yuri Koptelov, the rescue team member who found the first two bodies, recently made a drawing of the footprints nearest to the tent as they appeared to him and Sharavin. It seemed that the people were not walking but standing in one row, shoulder to shoulder."
"Slobtsov's statement, taken from the criminal case file, is as follows: 'The footprints were not proceeding in single file, but were abreast in a horizontal line, sometimes closer and converging, sometimes not. I had the feeling that the hikers had left the tent in an organized state. It also seems that they were scared, possibly even holding each other by hand in the darkness.'"
"Captain Chernyshov stated in his testimony for the criminal case: 'For about thirty to forty metres I saw very good human footprints walking abreast in parallel chains, as if they were holding each other.'"
This gives a picture of an exit from the tent that was in no way disorderly and chaotic. On the contrary, the pattern which was observed by the first rescue teams is consistent with a situation where the nine were forced out from the tent at gunpoint and out in the cold wintery night. Only that this particular night was not very cold.
The first search and rescue team also found that heavy winter clothes and boots were lying in heaps inside the tent. This is consistent with determined assailants who wanted to make sure that their victims were not able to survive outside. The fact that some members of the group were a little better dressed than the others does not necessarily contradict this - they might have been outside of the tent at the moment of attack and simply had more clothes on them which the attackers did not take the time to worry about. All the big knives were later found in the tent, even if there was a later rumor that some of the victims had sheath knives with them this is not correct. That detail is also described by Svetlana Oss.
- The cuts in the tent are inconclusive. We cannot be sure who made them or when. Most significantly, no proper scientific examination was ever made of the tent.
- Then there are the injuries. Did Kolevatov really have no apparent life threatening injuries? In fact, he had very suspicious injuries, indicative of being attacked by a skilled close combat practitioner - a professional killer.
From this site:
"- open wound behind ear, size 3x1.5 cm
- deformed neck
- diffuse bleeding in the underlying tissues of the left knee (not shown on diagram)
- softened and whitened skin (maceration) of the fingers and feet, sign consisted with putrefaction in a wet environment
- overall skin had a gray green color with a tinge of purple"
"This autopsy had similar strange silence about the injuries of the victim. Broken nose, open wound behind the ear and deformed neck might be the result of a fight and be cause of death. On the other hand it could have been caused by natural elements since the body was exposed to nature for three whole months. Yet the doctor ignores this matter and doesn't try to explain the reason for these strange injuries. We should probably add that snapped neck and blow behind the ear is a common sign of killing performed by special forces. However we can't be sure about this since the autopsy report didn't specify any more details about the body. We are left guessing on the nature and origin of these injuries."
(https://dyatlovpass.com/death#Kolevatov)
There is little chance that any accidents or non-human causes would create all these injuries simultaneously - and leave the limbs unscathed. Judging from the above, it seems much more likely that Kolevatov was dispatched by a skilled professional.
- Lastly, there are the injuries of Dubinina, Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolle. The first two had massive chest injuries. These injuries could not have been caused by a fall, because the slope where they were found did not have sufficient height to produce an energy that could break rib cages. An avalanche might do it, but there had demonstrably been no avalanches there and moreover falls and avalanches would typically also break or dislocate the limbs. The injury patterns are simply not consistent with natural causes. It has been said that the chest injuries of Dubinina and Zolotaryov must have been the result of a great force. True, it really takes great force to create such damage to human bones. There were however no avalanches in the area where the bodies were found, and the injuries cannot realistically have been caused by a fall. Now the interesting part comes. The injuries of Dubinina, Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolle had damaged the bone, but not the skin. This is precisely what is expected when a force such as strong blows hit a person with clothes on, and that is why Thibeaux-Brignolle had a crushing injury to his skull with no damage to his skin. His head was covered by headgear which protected the skin while the skull absorbed the impact strongly suggestive of being caused by a blunt object like a rifle butt:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Nikolay-Thibeaux-Brignolle-autopsy-report.png
That injury looks very unlike a result from any natural cause or accident. It is the distinctive mark of a hard, pointed blow, which is rather likely to have been made by the butt of a rifle.
As for the injuries of Dubinina and Zolotaryov, since there were no realistic natural forces in operation we have to look at what could cause such damage. It has not been established that these injuries were caused by one single impact. There is nothing that contradicts the more likely possibility: The damages to the rib cages were created not by one single blow, but by several repeated blows. It is conceivable that these two were hit by repeated elbow strikes by their killers, and if so a possible scenario is that one attacker holds the victim upright with his/her arms forced behind the back while another strikes the victim.
When dead bodies are found, the correct approach is to examine them to find the cause of death. The local investigators of 1959 was evidently prevented by orders from above from performing a full forensic investigation. To produce more evidence today, the skeletons of the victims should all be exhumed and examined with modern forensic methods.
Well given what I have read so far I do not doubt that there seems to be a strong possibility of a cover up. the question is why?
I find the forced out of the tent argument difficult though because from what I can tell the way they left was chaotic, lacking in any kind of order. If they had been forced out then I would expect a clearer pattern in terms of the clothing they wore, the equipment they took with them etc. some were quite well dressed and had valenki others very poorly dressed. At least one had a knife, another a pen knife. Some had matches. They had a flashlight that was dropped during the decent. The three cuts in the tent. It seems very chaotic to me. And then there's the injuries. Flail chest equivalent of the force of a car crash. How could those injuries be produced by a human? Then there is Kolevatov who appears to have been the last of the rav 4 to die. He had no apparent life threatening injuries. Why was he spared the same fate as the others in terms of injuries?
I agree that the cold was not the greatest threat, particularly of the rav 4 who left clothes behind at the cedar.
It would be interesting to see how you would explain the flail chest injuries - a massive fracture across 7 ribs or more creating a straight fracture that lines up through all the broken ribs?
Regards
Star man
We must consider the relevant points one by one.
-The exit from the tent. Was it chaotic? In fact, no.
A quotation from this site:
"Unfortunately no one expected to find the hikers dead so there was no attempt to preserve or record the footprints of people around the Dyatlov Pass. To this day there has been a discussion of exactly how many people were in this pass on that fateful day. However judging by words of the people involved in the search and who took the lower right picture there were definitely 8-9 tracks of footprints left by hikers who wore almost no footwear. Their feet pressed the snow and this left a characteristic "columns" of pressed snow with a footprint on top. Members of the group walked in a single file with a tall men walking in the back. His footprints partially covered the footprints of his friends who walked in front of him. Overall the path gave an impression of organized and uneventful descent down the slope of the mountain. Several trails would deviate from the general direction, but then rejoin the group. Other footprints were also discovered and photographed. It is hard to say if these were left by someone else or rescuers themselves."
(https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search)
Next, I will quote from Svetlana Oss' book "Don't go there." I recommend that book because Svetlana Oss is a Russian who has consulted the original material from the first investigations and translated them. She therefore has done an invaluable service in bringing forth much of the available evidence that the tragedy was indeed due to human attack, and the parts of the book where she demonstrates how the injuries would have been caused by a determined human attackers are very valuable together with much of the same material which is also available on this site. Let it be said that when Svetlana Oss concludes her book by forwarding her own theory about the identity of the attackers, I do not agree with her. In the first parts of the book, she presents the available material including documented witness testimonies in a factual way. However, when it comes to her theory of who were responsible she becomes sensational and has only hearsay evidence to offer, and that is a kind of evidence that could never be accepted in a court of law. This part of the book must be read with great care. Fortunately, it is the factual material and the testimonies that are the important parts - and they are very solid and documented.
On page 183, Svetlana Oss refers to a three members of the first searches, Yuri Koptelov, Boris Slobtsov, and Aleksey Chernyshov. All three are also listed here: https://dyatlovpass.com/rescuers. I will quote from the book:
"Yuri Koptelov, the rescue team member who found the first two bodies, recently made a drawing of the footprints nearest to the tent as they appeared to him and Sharavin. It seemed that the people were not walking but standing in one row, shoulder to shoulder."
"Slobtsov's statement, taken from the criminal case file, is as follows: 'The footprints were not proceeding in single file, but were abreast in a horizontal line, sometimes closer and converging, sometimes not. I had the feeling that the hikers had left the tent in an organized state. It also seems that they were scared, possibly even holding each other by hand in the darkness.'"
"Captain Chernyshov stated in his testimony for the criminal case: 'For about thirty to forty metres I saw very good human footprints walking abreast in parallel chains, as if they were holding each other.'"
This gives a picture of an exit from the tent that was in no way disorderly and chaotic. On the contrary, the pattern which was observed by the first rescue teams is consistent with a situation where the nine were forced out from the tent at gunpoint and out in the cold wintery night. Only that this particular night was not very cold.
The first search and rescue team also found that heavy winter clothes and boots were lying in heaps inside the tent. This is consistent with determined assailants who wanted to make sure that their victims were not able to survive outside. The fact that some members of the group were a little better dressed than the others does not necessarily contradict this - they might have been outside of the tent at the moment of attack and simply had more clothes on them which the attackers did not take the time to worry about. All the big knives were later found in the tent, even if there was a later rumor that some of the victims had sheath knives with them this is not correct. That detail is also described by Svetlana Oss.
- The cuts in the tent are inconclusive. We cannot be sure who made them or when. Most significantly, no proper scientific examination was ever made of the tent.
- Then there are the injuries. Did Kolevatov really have no apparent life threatening injuries? In fact, he had very suspicious injuries, indicative of being attacked by a skilled close combat practitioner - a professional killer.
From this site:
"- open wound behind ear, size 3x1.5 cm
- deformed neck
- diffuse bleeding in the underlying tissues of the left knee (not shown on diagram)
- softened and whitened skin (maceration) of the fingers and feet, sign consisted with putrefaction in a wet environment
- overall skin had a gray green color with a tinge of purple"
"This autopsy had similar strange silence about the injuries of the victim. Broken nose, open wound behind the ear and deformed neck might be the result of a fight and be cause of death. On the other hand it could have been caused by natural elements since the body was exposed to nature for three whole months. Yet the doctor ignores this matter and doesn't try to explain the reason for these strange injuries. We should probably add that snapped neck and blow behind the ear is a common sign of killing performed by special forces. However we can't be sure about this since the autopsy report didn't specify any more details about the body. We are left guessing on the nature and origin of these injuries."
(https://dyatlovpass.com/death#Kolevatov)
There is little chance that any accidents or non-human causes would create all these injuries simultaneously - and leave the limbs unscathed. Judging from the above, it seems much more likely that Kolevatov was dispatched by a skilled professional.
- Lastly, there are the injuries of Dubinina, Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolle. The first two had massive chest injuries. These injuries could not have been caused by a fall, because the slope where they were found did not have sufficient height to produce an energy that could break rib cages. An avalanche might do it, but there had demonstrably been no avalanches there and moreover falls and avalanches would typically also break or dislocate the limbs. The injury patterns are simply not consistent with natural causes. It has been said that the chest injuries of Dubinina and Zolotaryov must have been the result of a great force. True, it really takes great force to create such damage to human bones. There were however no avalanches in the area where the bodies were found, and the injuries cannot realistically have been caused by a fall. Now the interesting part comes. The injuries of Dubinina, Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolle had damaged the bone, but not the skin. This is precisely what is expected when a force such as strong blows hit a person with clothes on, and that is why Thibeaux-Brignolle had a crushing injury to his skull with no damage to his skin. His head was covered by headgear which protected the skin while the skull absorbed the impact strongly suggestive of being caused by a blunt object like a rifle butt:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Nikolay-Thibeaux-Brignolle-autopsy-report.png
That injury looks very unlike a result from any natural cause or accident. It is the distinctive mark of a hard, pointed blow, which is rather likely to have been made by the butt of a rifle.
As for the injuries of Dubinina and Zolotaryov, since there were no realistic natural forces in operation we have to look at what could cause such damage. It has not been established that these injuries were caused by one single impact. There is nothing that contradicts the more likely possibility: The damages to the rib cages were created not by one single blow, but by several repeated blows. It is conceivable that these two were hit by repeated elbow strikes by their killers, and if so a possible scenario is that one attacker holds the victim upright with his/her arms forced behind the back while another strikes the victim.
When dead bodies are found, the correct approach is to examine them to find the cause of death. The local investigators of 1959 was evidently prevented by orders from above from performing a full forensic investigation. To produce more evidence today, the skeletons of the victims should all be exhumed and examined with modern forensic methods.
We dont really have enough Evidence to say for certain that they were all walking down the slope side by side. Also I would have thought that if they were being escorted down the slope by other people then those people would prefer them more closely bunched together. And then it becomes even more of a Mystery! What happens at the Cedar Tree? Where are the escorts? And then those Injuries on Bodies at the so called Ravine? Injuries highly unlikely to have been caused by another person or persons. And then how come 3 of the Dyatlov Group make it part way back up the slope or so it appears? Whats the escorts MODUS OPERANDI?
There are some things from the extracts that I agree with, some that I disagree with and some further questions:
I agree that they were probably forced from the tent. The question is how, why and by what - human or animal
I also agree that they made an orderly retreat down the slope and that they were frightened. An orderly retreat down the slope though could be explained by either frog marching by humans or a careful retreat from a dangerous animal, or it was dark and dangerous and there was no other way to do it safely.
I agree that the injuries appear not to have been the result of an accident.
What is difficult though is why they would let the group take a flashlight, matches and knives with them? What does the book say about these?
Also the injuries - Thibo head injury doesn't resemble a blow from from the butt of a rifle or pistol. It's not the right shape. It is identical to the shape of the ball of a thumb in its proportions but bigger than a normal thumb shape.
I also struggle with the elbow strikes being the cause of Lyuda and Semyon chest injuries. If you look at the fracture lines they are all aligned as if they have been hit with a low number of massive blows that have caused the ribs to break at the same place which the highest stress point. Elbow strikes are unlikely to be able to cause such symmetrical breaks. How does the book explain this?
One other thing. If humans had been involved why did they leave Semyon's camera hanging in plain sight around his neck?
What was the motive for the attack?
Strangely I believe most of the events closely line up behind the Yeti theory. Or some kind of large ape like a Gorilla. Have a look at the “Exploring the Yeti Theory “ thread. Yes it seems bonkers but after looking at it subjectively it closely fits the events and available evidence. We just need the need the Yetis to come forward and admit they did it. whist1
Regards
Star man
So.... they were ordered out of the tent at gunpoint at which they all came slicing and dicing out the side of the tent like a bunch of Jack the Rippers at their assailants? Or would this narrative follow the idea they did not slash their way out of the tent?
There are some things from the extracts that I agree with, some that I disagree with and some further questions:
I agree that they were probably forced from the tent. The question is how, why and by what - human or animal
I also agree that they made an orderly retreat down the slope and that they were frightened. An orderly retreat down the slope though could be explained by either frog marching by humans or a careful retreat from a dangerous animal, or it was dark and dangerous and there was no other way to do it safely.
I agree that the injuries appear not to have been the result of an accident.
What is difficult though is why they would let the group take a flashlight, matches and knives with them? What does the book say about these?
Also the injuries - Thibo head injury doesn't resemble a blow from from the butt of a rifle or pistol. It's not the right shape. It is identical to the shape of the ball of a thumb in its proportions but bigger than a normal thumb shape.
I also struggle with the elbow strikes being the cause of Lyuda and Semyon chest injuries. If you look at the fracture lines they are all aligned as if they have been hit with a low number of massive blows that have caused the ribs to break at the same place which the highest stress point. Elbow strikes are unlikely to be able to cause such symmetrical breaks. How does the book explain this?
One other thing. If humans had been involved why did they leave Semyon's camera hanging in plain sight around his neck?
What was the motive for the attack?
Strangely I believe most of the events closely line up behind the Yeti theory. Or some kind of large ape like a Gorilla. Have a look at the “Exploring the Yeti Theory “ thread. Yes it seems bonkers but after looking at it subjectively it closely fits the events and available evidence. We just need the need the Yetis to come forward and admit they did it. whist1
Regards
Star man
Yes, these are good questions that many would ask. Thanks!
- What could possibly have forced them out from the tent:
A fierce animal dangerous enough to force nine students out from a tent would most likely have injured several of them, and none among the nine showed any signs of injuries from teeth or claws. Also, the orderly manner in which the students seem to have left the tent is much more typical of being forced out by a disciplined human attacking squad than anything else. An animal would likely have caused another behavior, since the first tracks observed indicated that the nine were forced in a row this is the opposite of what would have happened if there was a pack of wolves or an aggressive wolverine who forced them out. In such a situation, people cling together seeking mutual protection unless they are forced to walk in a row. And that strongly suggests that the nine unfortunates were indeed marched out at gunpoint by humans. Moreover, these students were skilled hikers and mountaineers. They knew that the safest way to move through unknown terrain is to walk forward one after another - not side by side. Particularly if it is dark and cold and they are in unknown terrain. So these nine evidently were forced to leave their tent. Realistically, the responsible can only have been other humans.
- The injury to the head of Nikolay Thibeaux-Brignolle: https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Nikolay-Thibeaux-Brignolle-autopsy-report.png
Well, I will say that this looks very like the result of a hard blow with a rifle butt. The edges of the impacted area are wider than the size of a rifle butt, but the shape itself is typical of the butt of a rifle. I would not expect a crushing blow from a rifle butt to have the exact size of it, unless the blow has an extraordinary high velocity. Moreover, bearing in mind that Tibo's head was protected by headgear, it is also as expected that the force from the impact would have less sharp edges than if the impacting object had hit him on his bare head.
- The likelihood that the crushed rib cages were caused by elbow strikes:
In my opinion, it is very possible and even probable that the severe damage was done with elbow strikes. It is clear that the fracture lines are aligned in a way that indicates that the victims were stationary and even fixated when the force was applied. This is however what is to be expected when a person is attacked by several assailants, and one or more of these secure the victim in a tight grip while another deals the lethal blows.
- Semyon's camera:
The attackers may not have viewed the camera as a threat. In the middle of the dark night, the slow films of the 1950's would be of little use unless the subjects were very bright or the camera was placed on a tripod. Semyon at this point was probably in no condition to use it anyway.
- The motive for the attack:
We simply cannot know with certainty. When bodies are found, we should first and foremost try to find out how they died. In other words, the cause and mechanism of death is the most important thing to find out. If everything points to homicide, is is more likely homicide even if we do not yet know the motive. The precise motive is of course dependent on the identity of the murderers.
It is however a safe assumption that the Dyatlov group was murdered in an intelligently orchestrated attack carefully designed to make the whole thing look like an accident, and that the attack was executed because the orchestrators had determined that the nine had entered an area where they were not supposed to be - and that the nine students must therefore be eliminated without fail.
If they were ordered out of the tent at gun point would you not think it would be sensible to search them to ensure none of them had a gun or other weapon? During such a search do you think they would have allowed the group to keep their knife/knives, their matches, their camera, and their flashlight?
You say there is no evidence that they left in a panic. The state of dress of each of them is different, Slobodin had one boot on. Were their assailants not bothered about each persons ability to survive the cold?
Equally there is nothing that could be held up as evidence to conclude they left in an orderly way.
The tent may not have been damaged by the hikers but it equally could have been.
The injuries are the main difficulty. There are multiple forensic reports on this site that conclude that the chest injuries were likely made by single massive blows like a car crash or major fall. Elbow stiles are very unlikely.
When you put it all together it doesn’t rack up as likely.
Regards
Star man
We dont really have enough Evidence to say for certain that they were all walking down the slope side by side. Also I would have thought that if they were being escorted down the slope by other people then those people would prefer them more closely bunched together. And then it becomes even more of a Mystery! What happens at the Cedar Tree? Where are the escorts? And then those Injuries on Bodies at the so called Ravine? Injuries highly unlikely to have been caused by another person or persons. And then how come 3 of the Dyatlov Group make it part way back up the slope or so it appears? Whats the escorts MODUS OPERANDI?
1. Remember that the first searchers also observed that the tracks closest to the tent strongly suggested that the nine victims were forced to stand in line. That is precisely what is to be expected, if attacked by armed men. What we can say with a high degree of certainty, is that there is no indication that the hikers left their tent in a disorderly or panicked state. There is no particular reason why the attackers, who must have initially relied on the cold to take care of the matter, would want their victims to be more closely bunched together. On the contrary, when they were forced out - almost certainly at gunpoint - it made the most sense to ensure that they were spread in a line. That way, it becomes easier for the attackers to control them. Later, they probably spread while the attacking squad ransacked their tent and waited for the cold to do the killing. This is a rather probable sketch of what happened.
2. We cannot possibly know the all the details of what violent actions took place at the cedar tree, but it would seem that the two first victims found there had tried to escape their assailants by climbing the tree, but were probably dragged down - and there is every indication that they had been subjected to violent action from other humans. Also, there is no other sensible explanation why they would try to climb that tree. The fact of their damaged hands showed the utter desperation of their failed attempt to escape.
3. The injuries - and in particular the injuries found on these in the not-so-steep slope - are precisely indicative of human evil involvement. There were evidently no avalanches, no snow slabs in the area, and the "ravine" was neither deep enough nor steep enough to crush human rib cages in a fall - in addition to the fact that these injuries were not at all typical of what is seen when people are falling from great heights which were also not present in the area. The injury of Nikolay Thibeaux-Brignolle is very telling - this is the result of a pointed impact to the head: https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Nikolay-Thibeaux-Brignolle-autopsy-report.png. The damage even has a shape similar to that of a rifle butt. Kolevatov was killed in a manner which strongly suggests that his laryngal area was crushed. I have learned about lethal striking against vital points in jiu jitsu training, and such an injury is suggestive of having been killed by someone trained in advanced close combat systems. The crushed rib cages, likewise. To me, it seems to be the result of repeated elbow strikes. It is surprisingly easy to crush a human rib cage with strikes, especially if you trained in close combat skills. The intercostals - the muscles that sit between the ribs and assist the diaphragm during breathing - are easily torn, and if the beating continues the ribs will break - and that is what happened to Dubinina and Zolotaryov. When the injuries are that serious, internal bleeding starts and death is likely. All of these injuries are consistent with human involvement, and human involvement only.
4. The three who apparently tried to go back to the tent probably did so because they froze, and there is every reason to infer that they were stopped. They were found with injuries consistent with being attacked by human assailants who wanted to hasten their deaths.
Quote from Per Inge Oestmoen.
[[ 1. It is a matter of course that the victims must have been searched by their assailants before they were sent out in the cold. ]]
So are you saying that The Dyatlov Group were searched in the Tent ! ?
[1] When armed men attack in adverse weather conditions who can say what order the situation would take. And we can not say for certain in what state of mind the Dyatlov Group were when they left the Tent. And how can you state that they were certainly forced out of the Tent at Gunpoint. Was the Tent RANSACKED.
You seem to make an awful lot of ASSUMPTIONS given that there is not much Evidence available to us Investigators.
If they were ordered out of the tent at gun point would you not think it would be sensible to search them to ensure none of them had a gun or other weapon? During such a search do you think they would have allowed the group to keep their knife/knives, their matches, their camera, and their flashlight?
You say there is no evidence that they left in a panic. The state of dress of each of them is different, Slobodin had one boot on. Were their assailants not bothered about each persons ability to survive the cold?
Equally there is nothing that could be held up as evidence to conclude they left in an orderly way.
The tent may not have been damaged by the hikers but it equally could have been.
The injuries are the main difficulty. There are multiple forensic reports on this site that conclude that the chest injuries were likely made by single massive blows like a car crash or major fall. Elbow stiles are very unlikely.
When you put it all together it doesn’t rack up as likely.
Regards
Star man
1. It is a matter of course that the victims must have been searched by their assailants before they were sent out in the cold. As could be expected, no one of the dead students had a knife with them. All the large knives of the expedition members were in the tent, and no one of the killed had a sheath knife. The attackers may have not bothered with a camera and a flashlight, these items would not be of much help to the victims. The valenki on Rustem Slobodin is fully explicable if he was outside of the tent at the moment of attack and the attackers did not care much about his footwear as he was otherwise improperly dressed.
2. As a matter of fact there is still no evidence that they left in a state of panic. On the contrary, eyewitnesses from the first search testified that the tracks they saw indicated an orderly retreat, and that it looked like that the nine hikers were standing still in a row before their walking away. There is no similar testimony that indicates panic or disorder.
3. The tent: There is no reason why the hikers would destroy their own tent. Why assume that such was the case? It is evident that the authorities wanted the conclusion that the tent was cut from the inside, but the point here is that the cuts in the tent was never scientifically examined. So, when and how these cuts were made cannot be said with certainty - but there is no indication and no reason why the students would destroy their own tent and even less reason why they would exit their tent through these cuts. It has been suggested by investigators who, at the time, were heavily pressurized by the authorities to build up to a conclusion that the whole Dyatlov Pass tragedy was due to unfortunate circumstances and a series of accidents and to close the investigation rapidly with that conclusion. This whole sequence of events is as close as one can come to a confirmation that this was something very different from the officially dictated conclusion.
4. The injuries. After the bodies were found, the first leader of the investigation was fired because he did not believe in the conclusion that the authorities wanted. The statements that the massive chest injuries looked like having been caused by a car crash or a major fall are of course worthless: There were no signs of avalanches having occurred, moreover the terrain was hardly steep enough to allow avalanches, and above all there were no precipices deep enough to have caused the injuries by falling. Nor are the injuries typical of what happens when people fall. The crushed skull of Tibo does fit the shape of a rifle butt. The injuries of Kolevatov could not be caused by a fall, and are very typical of what happens when someone is attacked by a skilled close combat practitioner.
None of the injuries - none - fit any natural causes.
Realistically, we can rule out all the avalanche and fall theories.
The patterns of the damage found on the bodies is not what is seen when people stumble around in the dark.
That means, the deaths were demonstrably not natural deaths or accidents.
The long period between the attack on February 1 and the day where the dead were found on February 26 was almost a month, and together with the first rescuers' being unaware of the fact that they had entered a crime scene it fully explains why no traces of the attackers were found.
If they were ordered out of the tent at gun point would you not think it would be sensible to search them to ensure none of them had a gun or other weapon? During such a search do you think they would have allowed the group to keep their knife/knives, their matches, their camera, and their flashlight?
You say there is no evidence that they left in a panic. The state of dress of each of them is different, Slobodin had one boot on. Were their assailants not bothered about each persons ability to survive the cold?
Equally there is nothing that could be held up as evidence to conclude they left in an orderly way.
The tent may not have been damaged by the hikers but it equally could have been.
The injuries are the main difficulty. There are multiple forensic reports on this site that conclude that the chest injuries were likely made by single massive blows like a car crash or major fall. Elbow stiles are very unlikely.
When you put it all together it doesn’t rack up as likely.
Regards
Star man
1. It is a matter of course that the victims must have been searched by their assailants before they were sent out in the cold. As could be expected, no one of the dead students had a knife with them. All the large knives of the expedition members were in the tent, and no one of the killed had a sheath knife. The attackers may have not bothered with a camera and a flashlight, these items would not be of much help to the victims. The valenki on Rustem Slobodin is fully explicable if he was outside of the tent at the moment of attack and the attackers did not care much about his footwear as he was otherwise improperly dressed.
2. As a matter of fact there is still no evidence that they left in a state of panic. On the contrary, eyewitnesses from the first search testified that the tracks they saw indicated an orderly retreat, and that it looked like that the nine hikers were standing still in a row before their walking away. There is no similar testimony that indicates panic or disorder.
3. The tent: There is no reason why the hikers would destroy their own tent. Why assume that such was the case? It is evident that the authorities wanted the conclusion that the tent was cut from the inside, but the point here is that the cuts in the tent was never scientifically examined. So, when and how these cuts were made cannot be said with certainty - but there is no indication and no reason why the students would destroy their own tent and even less reason why they would exit their tent through these cuts. It has been suggested by investigators who, at the time, were heavily pressurized by the authorities to build up to a conclusion that the whole Dyatlov Pass tragedy was due to unfortunate circumstances and a series of accidents and to close the investigation rapidly with that conclusion. This whole sequence of events is as close as one can come to a confirmation that this was something very different from the officially dictated conclusion.
4. The injuries. After the bodies were found, the first leader of the investigation was fired because he did not believe in the conclusion that the authorities wanted. The statements that the massive chest injuries looked like having been caused by a car crash or a major fall are of course worthless: There were no signs of avalanches having occurred, moreover the terrain was hardly steep enough to allow avalanches, and above all there were no precipices deep enough to have caused the injuries by falling. Nor are the injuries typical of what happens when people fall. The crushed skull of Tibo does fit the shape of a rifle butt. The injuries of Kolevatov could not be caused by a fall, and are very typical of what happens when someone is attacked by a skilled close combat practitioner.
None of the injuries - none - fit any natural causes.
Realistically, we can rule out all the avalanche and fall theories.
The patterns of the damage found on the bodies is not what is seen when people stumble around in the dark.
That means, the deaths were demonstrably not natural deaths or accidents.
The long period between the attack on February 1 and the day where the dead were found on February 26 was almost a month, and together with the first rescuers' being unaware of the fact that they had entered a crime scene it fully explains why no traces of the attackers were found.
3. The abovementioned conclusion of the investigation in 1959 is contradicted by literally all available evidence. The physical terrain in the area is not steep enough to allow an avalanche to form, and neither the tent nor the area around nor the surrounding area showed any trace of an avalanche. The slope wherein the four last victims were found was far from steep enough to kill people by the energy created in a fall. The injuries of all of the nine cannot be explained by accidents or natural causes, but are all consistent with what is typically seen as damage caused by a human attack with lethal intent.
We dont really have enough Evidence to say for certain that they were all walking down the slope side by side. Also I would have thought that if they were being escorted down the slope by other people then those people would prefer them more closely bunched together. And then it becomes even more of a Mystery! What happens at the Cedar Tree? Where are the escorts? And then those Injuries on Bodies at the so called Ravine? Injuries highly unlikely to have been caused by another person or persons. And then how come 3 of the Dyatlov Group make it part way back up the slope or so it appears? Whats the escorts MODUS OPERANDI?
1. Remember that the first searchers also observed that the tracks closest to the tent strongly suggested that the nine victims were forced to stand in line. That is precisely what is to be expected, if attacked by armed men. What we can say with a high degree of certainty, is that there is no indication that the hikers left their tent in a disorderly or panicked state. There is no particular reason why the attackers, who must have initially relied on the cold to take care of the matter, would want their victims to be more closely bunched together. On the contrary, when they were forced out - almost certainly at gunpoint - it made the most sense to ensure that they were spread in a line. That way, it becomes easier for the attackers to control them. Later, they probably spread while the attacking squad ransacked their tent and waited for the cold to do the killing. This is a rather probable sketch of what happened.
2. We cannot possibly know the all the details of what violent actions took place at the cedar tree, but it would seem that the two first victims found there had tried to escape their assailants by climbing the tree, but were probably dragged down - and there is every indication that they had been subjected to violent action from other humans. Also, there is no other sensible explanation why they would try to climb that tree. The fact of their damaged hands showed the utter desperation of their failed attempt to escape.
3. The injuries - and in particular the injuries found on these in the not-so-steep slope - are precisely indicative of human evil involvement. There were evidently no avalanches, no snow slabs in the area, and the "ravine" was neither deep enough nor steep enough to crush human rib cages in a fall - in addition to the fact that these injuries were not at all typical of what is seen when people are falling from great heights which were also not present in the area. The injury of Nikolay Thibeaux-Brignolle is very telling - this is the result of a pointed impact to the head: https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Nikolay-Thibeaux-Brignolle-autopsy-report.png. The damage even has a shape similar to that of a rifle butt. Kolevatov was killed in a manner which strongly suggests that his laryngal area was crushed. I have learned about lethal striking against vital points in jiu jitsu training, and such an injury is suggestive of having been killed by someone trained in advanced close combat systems. The crushed rib cages, likewise. To me, it seems to be the result of repeated elbow strikes. It is surprisingly easy to crush a human rib cage with strikes, especially if you trained in close combat skills. The intercostals - the muscles that sit between the ribs and assist the diaphragm during breathing - are easily torn, and if the beating continues the ribs will break - and that is what happened to Dubinina and Zolotaryov. When the injuries are that serious, internal bleeding starts and death is likely. All of these injuries are consistent with human involvement, and human involvement only.
4. The three who apparently tried to go back to the tent probably did so because they froze, and there is every reason to infer that they were stopped. They were found with injuries consistent with being attacked by human assailants who wanted to hasten their deaths.
There is no time stamp on the foot prints so there is no way of knowing for certain that they moved in an orderly way. Also, even if they did move orderly they still could have been scared.
If they had no knives what did they use to cut the clothes from their dead friends? I doubt that the attackers would have done that for them.
I don’t buy the camera and matches and pen knives being considered unimportant by attackers.
Why would the attackers march them down the hill and then leave them to climb trees make a fire and a den. Why did they allow Dyatlov Rustem and Zina to wander off.
I agree that the injuries are not an accident but how could they have been done by the attackers. They were single massive blows?
Regards
Star man
Hello,
I have a few observations.
As you note:
„Remember that the first searchers also observed that the tracks closest to the tent strongly suggested that the nine victims were forced to stand in line.“
- This fact can be explained otherwise. Naturally, after escaping from the tent, at the beginning, people would all try to go as close as possible to each other while moving down to the forest. From a psychological point of view, I can imagine this because they would be as close to each other as possible to mentally support each other and thus feel safer. During the walk, in later stage, each of them had a different pace (this is related to the height of the figure, taller people have longer legs and walk faster). Therefore, over time, they could have moved a little bit apart. The strong wind could also play a role here when they had something to do to keep themselves upright and make their walk even harder. At this stage, they could focus more on themselves and keep on their feet. Of course, this is only a theoretical consideration, but it is certainly more realistic than the possibility that someone with a gun forced them to go down the slope.
If they were threatened, what would keep them from running far and wide? 1.5 km from the tent is quite a long distance from the attackers to try to run and not like "sheep" to go side by side down the slope.
„We cannot possibly know the all the details of what violent actions took place at the cedar tree, but it would seem that the two first victims found there had tried to escape their assailants by climbing the tree, but were probably dragged down - and there is every indication that they had been subjected to violent action from other humans. Also, there is no other sensible explanation why they would try to climb that tree. The fact of their damaged hands showed the utter desperation of their failed attempt to escape“.
- Their climb to the tree can also be explained by the fact that they wanted to check the situation in the tent. The tent could be visible from a distance of 1.5 km. Something was happening in the immediate vicinity of the tent, which prevented them from taking their clothes and boots, so they could try to check the situation around the tent. Why would someone climb on a tree to hide? This is absurd, for they would know they had no chance. If they wanted to hide from someone, they would go deeper into the forest and would not climb the sparsely leafed tree right at the edge of the forest.
As for the injuries and scratches, they could have been caused as they descended into the forest. When I watched a video on YouTube (Josh Gates's Expedition Unknown on Discovery Channel) I was surprised at how rocky the slope was, and despite the heavy snow cover, rocks stuck everywhere under the snow. Imagine that you are walking on such terrain, in the dark and in the strong wind, and even weakly dressed and without shoes. It must have been a terrible journey. Certainly they have fallen more and more times which resulted in bruises and even harder injuries.
Quote3. The abovementioned conclusion of the investigation in 1959 is contradicted by literally all available evidence. The physical terrain in the area is not steep enough to allow an avalanche to form, and neither the tent nor the area around nor the surrounding area showed any trace of an avalanche. The slope wherein the four last victims were found was far from steep enough to kill people by the energy created in a fall. The injuries of all of the nine cannot be explained by accidents or natural causes, but are all consistent with what is typically seen as damage caused by a human attack with lethal intent.
Avalanche
If it was a simple slide of snow on a smaller scale, would it be so obvious nearly a month later? The Expedition Unknown show just proved the slope is 20-25° at the tent and gets steeper above where they were... possibly 30-35°. A small scale slide could have happened above them and not necessarily reached the tent, but would create one hell of a motive to get out of the tent and not be so eager to go back in.
Fall
WAB says not far away there is a very steep and deep area in which they very well could have fallen, and don't forget about falling from great height from a tree.
Crushed
People seem to forget that this is also a possibility. If they did dig out a shelter cave and many tons of packed snow and ice collapsed onto them pinning/crushing/throwing them onto the ravine floor, this can be a cause for their injuries as well.
Quote3. The abovementioned conclusion of the investigation in 1959 is contradicted by literally all available evidence. The physical terrain in the area is not steep enough to allow an avalanche to form, and neither the tent nor the area around nor the surrounding area showed any trace of an avalanche. The slope wherein the four last victims were found was far from steep enough to kill people by the energy created in a fall. The injuries of all of the nine cannot be explained by accidents or natural causes, but are all consistent with what is typically seen as damage caused by a human attack with lethal intent.
Avalanche
If it was a simple slide of snow on a smaller scale, would it be so obvious nearly a month later? The Expedition Unknown show just proved the slope is 20-25° at the tent and gets steeper above where they were... possibly 30-35°. A small scale slide could have happened above them and not necessarily reached the tent, but would create one hell of a motive to get out of the tent and not be so eager to go back in.
Fall
WAB says not far away there is a very steep and deep area in which they very well could have fallen, and don't forget about falling from great height from a tree.
Crushed
People seem to forget that this is also a possibility. If they did dig out a shelter cave and many tons of packed snow and ice collapsed onto them pinning/crushing/throwing them onto the ravine floor, this can be a cause for their injuries as well.
- There was no sign of an avalanche in the camp area, and the tent had no damage apart from the inconclusive cuts of unknown origin. Even if there theoretically might have been an avalanche in the near area, it is quite a stretch to believe that a group of nine students where most if not all were experienced mountaineers would flee their tent without proper clothing, boots and without winter mittens. Also, in the event of a small avalanche they would not be likely to go far away. They must have known the mechanism of avalanches, and would have had no reason to go far away from the tent.
- There were steep areas at some distance from the site, but there were no precipitous area where the four last died and were found.
- There is no reason to assume that they fell from a tree, when nothing would indicate that they climbed any tree. Moreover, the injuries they had are not consistent with a fall of any kind. If there is a fall from a height, which here can be dismissed with a high degree of probability, usually the limbs and face are most severely impacted. People who fall typically do not fall with their rib cages first, and it would be a most unusual occurrence if two persons fell in a way so that their rib cages were smashed while their limbs escaped serious damage. The various explanations of an accident simply do not fit, and this becomes more obvious the more one delves into the available evidence.
- Crushed by snow: If the four last to die had died from being crushed by snow, the chest injuries of Zolotaryev and Dubinina would almost certainly have been accompanied by other injuries consistent with a snow slab scenario - and it is very likely that we would have seen dislocated limbs. There were none. Since the chest injuries of these two must have been caused by pointed hard blows and the two did not have any other injuries that could have been caused by an impact from a slab of snow, we can exclude that possibility with a rather high degree of certainty.
Everything points to something very different from any kind of natural disaster.
Quote from Per Inge Oestmoen.
[[ 1. It is a matter of course that the victims must have been searched by their assailants before they were sent out in the cold. ]]
So are you saying that The Dyatlov Group were searched in the Tent ! ?
Not necessarily inside the tent, but before they were sent away in the cold they were most probably searched.
By the way, their clothes and boots were found in heaps inside the tent, which is just another indication of something sinister having occurred. If the students has left the tent voluntarily, they would have tried to put on them winter clothing and boots.
[1] When armed men attack in adverse weather conditions who can say what order the situation would take. And we can not say for certain in what state of mind the Dyatlov Group were when they left the Tent. And how can you state that they were certainly forced out of the Tent at Gunpoint. Was the Tent RANSACKED.
You seem to make an awful lot of ASSUMPTIONS given that there is not much Evidence available to us Investigators.
1. We are not "Investigators." Unfortunately no one has access to the remaining skeletons, and they should of course have been exhumed.
2. The original ASSUMPTIONS were made by the investigators back in 1959, and not only that, these assumptions were made as a result of the investigators having been forced by the authorities to close the case with the conclusion that the deaths of the nine were the result of bad decisions by Igor Dyatlov and a series of unfortunate accidents.
3. The abovementioned conclusion of the investigation in 1959 is contradicted by literally all available evidence. The physical terrain in the area is not steep enough to allow an avalanche to form, and neither the tent nor the area around nor the surrounding area showed any trace of an avalanche. The slope wherein the four last victims were found was far from steep enough to kill people by the energy created in a fall. The injuries of all of the nine cannot be explained by accidents or natural causes, but are all consistent with what is typically seen as damage caused by a human attack with lethal intent.
- When nine human beings are found dead, and there are no natural physical circumstances or possible accidents that fit the nature of the injuries, it is a safe assumption that the injuries and deaths are caused by something else than natural forces and accidents.
- When nine human beings are found dead, and it is beyond reasonable doubt that the deaths are caused by something else than natural forces and accidents, one must look at all the available evidence and adopt an analytical approach. If that is done in the Dyatlov Pass case, it emerges that the only conclusion that harmonizes with all the evidence is the conclusion of a well-planned, intelligently executed mission to kill these students in a way designed to make the whole operation look like an accident.
Hello,
I have a few observations.
As you note:
„Remember that the first searchers also observed that the tracks closest to the tent strongly suggested that the nine victims were forced to stand in line.“
- This fact can be explained otherwise. Naturally, after escaping from the tent, at the beginning, people would all try to go as close as possible to each other while moving down to the forest. From a psychological point of view, I can imagine this because they would be as close to each other as possible to mentally support each other and thus feel safer. During the walk, in later stage, each of them had a different pace (this is related to the height of the figure, taller people have longer legs and walk faster). Therefore, over time, they could have moved a little bit apart. The strong wind could also play a role here when they had something to do to keep themselves upright and make their walk even harder. At this stage, they could focus more on themselves and keep on their feet. Of course, this is only a theoretical consideration, but it is certainly more realistic than the possibility that someone with a gun forced them to go down the slope.
If they were threatened, what would keep them from running far and wide? 1.5 km from the tent is quite a long distance from the attackers to try to run and not like "sheep" to go side by side down the slope.
„We cannot possibly know the all the details of what violent actions took place at the cedar tree, but it would seem that the two first victims found there had tried to escape their assailants by climbing the tree, but were probably dragged down - and there is every indication that they had been subjected to violent action from other humans. Also, there is no other sensible explanation why they would try to climb that tree. The fact of their damaged hands showed the utter desperation of their failed attempt to escape“.
- Their climb to the tree can also be explained by the fact that they wanted to check the situation in the tent. The tent could be visible from a distance of 1.5 km. Something was happening in the immediate vicinity of the tent, which prevented them from taking their clothes and boots, so they could try to check the situation around the tent. Why would someone climb on a tree to hide? This is absurd, for they would know they had no chance. If they wanted to hide from someone, they would go deeper into the forest and would not climb the sparsely leafed tree right at the edge of the forest.
As for the injuries and scratches, they could have been caused as they descended into the forest. When I watched a video on YouTube (Josh Gates's Expedition Unknown on Discovery Channel) I was surprised at how rocky the slope was, and despite the heavy snow cover, rocks stuck everywhere under the snow. Imagine that you are walking on such terrain, in the dark and in the strong wind, and even weakly dressed and without shoes. It must have been a terrible journey. Certainly they have fallen more and more times which resulted in bruises and even harder injuries.
Hello!
It is very welcome that you present your thoughts. It is important to go through all the possibilities so that we can have a clearer picture of what we need to look for, and it is not at all unlikely that all of us have overlooked some important details. So we go through the observations.
1. The exit from the tent and the walk down from the slope.
- Yes, it is not only possible but very probable that after having walked out from the tent the nine initially tried to keep close to each other to protect themselves and their fellows. That is the natural thing to do, when people walk out in a dark, cold environment. But that is equally true regardless of whether the people leave their tent voluntarily or not. Humans normally stick together for mutual comfort and protection when in a stressful situation. Over time, they drifted apart. That is also natural and also inevitable because in a group of humans improperly dressed in the winter night there will be different levels of physical capability, different psychological reactions and also different ideas about what to do. This is borne out by the fact that the students evidently drifted apart.
- Moreover, this very natural and highly likely scenario in no way contradicts the overwhelming indications that the reason they left the tent was a human attack by people who forced them out from their tent. The suggestion that the students were forced away from their camp at gunpoint is very reasonable since such an operation must have been carefully orchestrated and executed. An attacking squad on a mission to kill nine young and capable humans in their prime will rarely perform their mission unarmed.
- The point here is that since there were no avalanches or natural forces that destroyed the camp area, there is no realistic reason why the nine students would ever leave their tent without proper winter clothing and then walk far away from their camp unless they were forced to do so. There is still less reason to walk 1.5 kilometres - one mile - away if there is a disaster in the tent, which it was evidently not. The only damage to the tent were some cuts of unknown cause, and these cuts were never scientifically examined. Thus, we are left with what we know, which is that the nine victims left their tent without any objective reason why they would do so.
- The conclusion that they were forced out from the tent by other humans is the most sensible one, and in fact also the one probable explanation why they left their tent, their camp and went far away in the dark and left almost all their winter clothing in the tent. This makes perfect sense if the orchestrators of the deadly mission had determined that the best way to accomplish the operation was to kill the students in such a way as to make it look like an accident. As we see, if this is what actually happened those who decided the fate of the Dyatlov group were largely successful. Even sixty years after the tragedy many people still assume that the original conclusion - which was evidently forced on the local investigators from above - of an unfortunate accident is true, and many fantastically impossible theories ranging from one member of the group going mad to Yetis, infrasound and UFOs have been proposed. However, it is quite correctly said that dead bodies do not lie. The final answer could and should have been found in the bodies, but the local investigators in Sverdlovsk and Ivdel were prevented from stating openly what they found. The first leader of the investigation, Ivanov, was even fired because he refused to comply with the official explanation dictated to him - in all probability directly from Moscow.
2. The two of them - Doroshenko and Krivonischenko - climbing the tree:
- Why would someone climb a tree to hide? Well, first we have every indication that Doroshenko and Krivonischenko not only tried to climb the tree, but did so in a desperate situation. Their damaged hands indicated what happened. It is not likely that such desperation and obvious haste could be caused by the two wanting to just look towards the tent. Further, this scenario is extremely likely if the attackers went after them shortly after they forced the Dyatlov group out from their tent because the assailants understood that the temperature in the area was not sufficient to kill the victims rapidly as they had originally planned. When Doroshenko and Krivonischenko saw the attackers coming after them, the only thing they could possibly do was to make a last futile attempt to escape. To do this by climbing a tree is of course an act of utter desperation, but it is likely given the circumstances. They were improperly dressed, while their assailants had winter garments and in all probability skis and snowshoes - there was no way to escape for these tormented souls and they understood that to try to run from their attackers barefoot in the snow would just mean they were hunted down immediately. Yes, they know that they had no chance, but to climb the tree was their last effort in life - there was no other options available to them if this scenario is what in fact occurred. Chances are that it is, and it all fits in with an attack by a group of trained killers who were careful not to leave any bullet wounds or knife cuts on their victims.
- The above scenario is rather more likely than a theory that the two climbed the tree to observe the camp area. Also, during a winter night in February in this area, it would be a very dark night and therefore no possibility of observing anything that happened a mile away.
3. The injuries.
- We might go through all the injuries described on this site in the document https://dyatlovpass.com/death.
- But first, the very fact that they were out in the cold and the dark demonstrates that something terrible forced them not only out from their tent but away from the camp area. Nine intelligent students do not do that unless an overwhelming force compels them to do so. Since there were demonstrably no natural forces that could have caused them to leave the safety of their tent with insufficient protection against the winter, there is the possibility that they were forced out from the tent by other humans.
- Then, we have the documented injuries. No, it is impossible that all these injuries could have been caused by the students' stumbling around in the dark. They were not merely minor scratches, but serious bodily damage. Crushed larynx, smashed skulls, crushed rib cages, abrasions consistent with beatings, we could go on in detail. Every single injury is consistent with what can be expected in a lethal attack.
Objectively, no findings contradict the murder theory whereas everything fits it. So where does all this leave us?
It is difficult to avoid inclining towards the theory that nine members of the Dyatlov group were all killed, meticulously and in cold blood by people who were on a mission and knew what they were doing.
The group spent the night at a cedar and there was killed. Someone came in the morning and attacked the tent. Wanted to intimidate and that the take from. Tourists fled. Krivonischenko climbed up a cedar. Doroshenko did not have time. He was accidentally killed. Leaned in and he couldn't breathe. Then fell with cedar Krivonischenko. Die too. That settled it. The rest were killed as witnesses.More details can be found on my video. It's subtitled.
https://youtu.be/Szb-nVdPBRU
Also on the channel a lot of videos explaining my conclusions and answering many questions. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnbics7Bd6yjjt4jJ5DJioQ?view_as=subscriber
It is difficult to avoid inclining towards the theory that nine members of the Dyatlov group were all killed, meticulously and in cold blood by people who were on a mission and knew what they were doing.
None of this proves anything. Why would anyone risk their own lives in such extreme weather conditions in a remote part of the Urals to murder the Dyatlov Group. And why would the so called murderers allow the Dyatlov Group to separate. And the injuries to Dubinina could not have been caused by another Human.
It is difficult to avoid inclining towards the theory that nine members of the Dyatlov group were all killed, meticulously and in cold blood by people who were on a mission and knew what they were doing.
None of this proves anything. Why would anyone risk their own lives in such extreme weather conditions in a remote part of the Urals to murder the Dyatlov Group. And why would the so called murderers allow the Dyatlov Group to separate. And the injuries to Dubinina could not have been caused by another Human.
1. The evidence is to be found in the bodies. Dubinina is a clear example of that. Dubinina's injuries could not merely be caused by a human, her injuries could realistically only be caused by other humans. These injuries could not be caused by a fall, and they could not be caused by a non-existent avalanche. Moreover, the combined injuries of Dubinina and the other three who were the last to die do not show the pattern of injuries caused by any kind of natural disaster.
2. There is no reason to assume that the murderers put their own lives in any form of hazard. Throughout history, killing squads have been sent out to kill people on purpose, and such trained killers on a mission have both the physical ability and the resources to achieve their purpose. The only reason to kill the Dyatlov group was that someone had decided that the nine students were at the wrong place at the wrong time, and the decision to kill them may therefore have been a preventive measure to ensure that no one of them could ever tell anyone what they had observed. There is also the possibility that local people committed the act because they were offended by the presence of these tourists - but it would seem far less probable albeit not entirely impossible. Further; there is evidence that the government authorities knew about the death of the Dyatlov group already in the first days of February, that is long before anyone in Sverdlovsk or Ivdel had any suspicion that the nine students were missing. The government also evidently wanted and forced the conclusion that the tragedy was caused by natural causes and the "mistakes of Igor Dyatlov," which is a conclusion that is contrary to available evidence. On top of all this, when the local police wanted to investigate more deeply, the investigation was stopped - by the central authorities in Moscow. That is very significant.
3. The killers would have made sure that the Dyatlov group were insufficiently dressed for the winter, and here we have rather compelling evidence: The nine left their tent without proper clothing and walked one mile away without winter mittens, and everyone who knows the principles of survival in the cold is aware that such an action in the cold means certain death. The only exception was one man who had valenki on his feet, which may be explained by his being outside of the tent at the moment of attack. These nine, intelligent students would never leave their tent without winter clothing and mittens unless they were forced to. Since there were evidently no avalanches or natural disasters that could have forced them out from the tent and made them flee far away, that leaves us with other humans as the force that attacked them. The men who attacked the Dyatlov group knew that the students had no chance of escaping without proper winter gear and on their feet in the cold. However, the weather was relatively mild that evening of February 1, 1959. That explains how their nine victims did not perish as the killers had expected, and every injury found on the nine is consistent with them being killed after having been hunted down by their murderers.
Yes, the nine students were all killed deliberately, and the perpetrators were and could only have been human attackers.
The men who attacked the Dyatlov group knew that the students had no chance of escaping without proper winter gear and on their feet in the cold. However, the weather was relatively mild that evening of February 1, 1959. That explains how their nine victims did not perish as the killers had expected, and every injury found on the nine is consistent with them being killed after having been hunted down by their murderers.
Yes, the nine students were all killed deliberately, and the perpetrators were and could only have been human attackers.
Bold Statements with no supporting EVIDENCE. And you State, Men when it could have included Women. You State that it was relatively mild that evening of February 1 1959, thats news to Me ! ? By all accounts the weather was awful and life threatening to any one not properly dressed. Etc.
Bold Statements with no supporting EVIDENCE. And you State, Men when it could have included Women. You State that it was relatively mild that evening of February 1 1959, thats news to Me ! ? By all accounts the weather was awful and life threatening to any one not properly dressed. Etc.
Bold Statements with no supporting EVIDENCE. And you State, Men when it could have included Women. You State that it was relatively mild that evening of February 1 1959, thats news to Me ! ? By all accounts the weather was awful and life threatening to any one not properly dressed. Etc.
One of the most recent books on the Dyatlov pass killing is written by Svetlana Oss, "Don't go there." Although I strongly disagree with her rather sensational and completely unsubstantiated theory of the identity of the killers, the book is extremely valuable because Svetlana Oss has brought forward new valuable information.
Part of that material is the reports from the nearest weather stations. The nearest weather stations are Nyaksimvol (59 miles north-east of Kholat Syakhl) and Burmantovo (41 miles north-east of Kholat Syakhl). On February 1, 1959, the temperatures were as follows:
Burmantovo
02:00-07:00: -5.9C
08:00-13:00: -6.3C
14:00-19:00: -10.2C
20:00-01:00: -18.1C
Nyaksimvol
02:00-07:00: -6.9C
08:00-13:00: -9.0C
14:00-19:00: -13.8C
20:00-01:00: -18.0C
On February 2, the temperature dropped to around -28C. But then, the attack had already taken place and the students were almost certainly already dead. How can we say that with certainty? We can know that the disaster must have struck on February 1 because the nine students infallibly wrote in their diaries, and the last diary was written on January 31. There was no diary entry from February 1, and this demonstrates that the disaster - that is the attack - must have taken place on February 1.
Thus, it is evident that when the students were forced to leave their tent the temperatures were relatively mild. So it makes perfect sense that the attacking group had to hunt down their victims in order to accomplish their mission.
As for the possibility that the group that murdered the nine students could also have included women, it is unlikely. Trained, professional killers are generally males.
If we go for the "must be a murder" theory, few of the main questions I see reasonable are:
1. Who is responsible for that brutal act?
2. What was the motive?
3. Where was/were the murderer/s?
4. What happened to their own traces?
5. Who is pulling the strings of the investigation and why the participants of the search/investigation had to sign a 25 year prohibition to disclose information
Quote from: Morski Re: Murder Indead on August 16, 2018, 02:24:13 PM Reply #26If we go for the "must be a murder" theory, few of the main questions I see reasonable are:
1. Who is responsible for that brutal act?
2. What was the motive?
3. Where was/were the murderer/s?
4. What happened to their own traces?
5. Who is pulling the strings of the investigation and why the participants of the search/investigation had to sign a 25 year prohibition to disclose information1. Who is responsible for that brutal act ?
In some sense, one could say symbolically that the responsible is the voucher:
Igor Dyatlov has " a travel certificate and a trade union voucher, in which he addressed the leaders of Soviet, party and public organizations, "to render all possible assistance" in providing the Dyatlov group of hikers campaign XXI° Congress of the CPSU, the opening of which was scheduled for January 28, 1959.e from the leadership of the settlement-colony.
In Serov, Ivdel and Vizhay Dyatlov's group had exhibited its voucher - Note the difference with Blinov's group which did not show a voucher.
Thus the 9 hikers appeared as to be official (or semi official) representatives of the Soviet government in the eyes of :
a) - Hypothesis N°2 - A few foreign ex-zeks and patriots from countries suffering from Soviet oppression who had not yet been allowed (or able) to leave the Vizhay region.
b) - Hypothesis N°2-bis - A few Stalinist Russians opposed to the reforms which had become more pronounced since the XXth (1956) Congress of the Communist Party in 1956 who lived in the Vizhay region.2. What was the motive ?
Indeed for historians, the period 1953-1964, (which is called the Khrushchev epoch or the Khrushchev thaw), is particularly complicated (and also not well known) because Khrushchev met opponents in all (Stalinist) strata of Russian society (Army, Gulag Administration, Nomenklatura, etc.). See by way of introduction:
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=433.msg10160#msg10160
It should not be forgotten that for military theorists a terrorist attack is a form of asymmetric warfare, with various motivations (revenge, intimidation, example, provocation, tactics ....) and consequences very variable and always difficult to predict.
DPI should be classified in the vast category of terrorist attacks in the broad sense. In any case, 61 years after the DPI compelled the current Russian authorities to make a fool of themselves with manifestly absurd statements.
Hypothesis N°2
External (international) opposition of patriots from countries in conflict with Russian and Soviet oppression who saw themselves as unfiltered warriors in a war that was not yet over.
Hypothesis N°2-bis
Internal Stalinist opposition coming from several Gulag leaders, and powerful camp commanders, who with Khrushchev's reforms were losing their power and privileges. These Stalinists also feared that the XXI° st (1959) Congress of the PCUS would be even more devastating for them (this was inaccurate).
because the XXI° st Congress of the PCUS had little influence on the desalinization.3. Where was/were the murderer/s ?
Hypothesis N°2
Three ex-Zeks who lived and worked in the Vizhay region who grabbed this wonderful opportunity for them (since the route of the 9 hikers was approximately known in Ivdel) to succeed in a spectacular action.
It is hard to determine whether these ex-zeks were : Chechens, Ingush, Crimean Tatars, Poles, Czechoslovakians, Hungarians, Romanians, Moldovans, Ukrainians, Koreans, Germans, Bulgarians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians... or from other countries ?
The Poles are well positioned because of Katyn (1940) and the Polish October (1956), followed by the pro-Soviet politics of Gomulka, which discouraged some Polish ex-zeks from returning to Poland.
There is also Maslennikov's sybilline allusion : Reasons for leaving...from the tent..."come out one by one, run (Caucasus)."
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=464.msg9152#msg9152
Hypothesis N°2-bis
Aleks Kandr proposes a complete and coherent explanation (but it is in Russian, which is hard for me to read). See
http://mystery12home.ru/t-ub-gr-dyatlova
There was one commanditaire (client) that remained in Ivdel "which could be one of the leaders of the colony 64 at the SCh/349-Ivdellag" (USh/349 or SCh/349).
The commanditaire (client) had hired three mercenary killers who were guards (or former guards) of one of the Gulag camps. These former guards specialized in pursuing the few prisoners who escaped over the barbed wire. The high Soviet administration had naturally forbidden to entrust firearms to such guardian-killers, who were efficient but whose loyalty to the regime was not assured.
4. What happened to their own traces ?
• On February 26th, on the slope of the Kholat Syakhl as well as around the cedar, all traces had been erased by the wind, except for a few due to random effects (chance) which are intrinsic to Fluid Mechanics.
• In the Auspiya Valley the attackers (or murderers if you prefer) carefully followed the tracks of the hikers from North-2 to the tent.
• On February 2, 1959 the attackers first cut the tent before leaving. To get from the tent to North-2 the attackers carefully followed the same tracks (which had been marked by 12 skiers = 9 hikers + 3 attackers).5. Who is pulling the strings of the investigation
(Why the participants of the search/investigation had to sign a 25 year prohibition to disclose information. ---> Read the explanations in the posts of WAB )
Khrushchev ---> Khrushchev's close collaborators in Moscow ---> In the Sverdlovsk region the KGB and the CPSU ... whatever the details, the main thing is to remember that the DPI had been a bitter failure for the KGB, which had been proved incapable of protecting the 9 hikers...°°°°°°°
To be continued -works in progress - go to : Altercation on the pass > Altercation on the passhttps://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=411.30
Quote from: Morski Re: Murder Indead on August 16, 2018, 02:24:13 PM Reply #26If we go for the "must be a murder" theory, few of the main questions I see reasonable are:
1. Who is responsible for that brutal act?
2. What was the motive?
3. Where was/were the murderer/s?
4. What happened to their own traces?
5. Who is pulling the strings of the investigation and why the participants of the search/investigation had to sign a 25 year prohibition to disclose information1. Who is responsible for that brutal act ?
In some sense, one could say symbolically that the responsible is the voucher:
Igor Dyatlov has " a travel certificate and a trade union voucher, in which he addressed the leaders of Soviet, party and public organizations, "to render all possible assistance" in providing the Dyatlov group of hikers campaign XXI° Congress of the CPSU, the opening of which was scheduled for January 28, 1959.e from the leadership of the settlement-colony.
In Serov, Ivdel and Vizhay Dyatlov's group had exhibited its voucher - Note the difference with Blinov's group which did not show a voucher.
Thus the 9 hikers appeared as to be official (or semi official) representatives of the Soviet government in the eyes of :
a) - Hypothesis N°2 - A few foreign ex-zeks and patriots from countries suffering from Soviet oppression who had not yet been allowed (or able) to leave the Vizhay region.
b) - Hypothesis N°2-bis - A few Stalinist Russians opposed to the reforms which had become more pronounced since the XXth (1956) Congress of the Communist Party in 1956 who lived in the Vizhay region.2. What was the motive ?
Indeed for historians, the period 1953-1964, (which is called the Khrushchev epoch or the Khrushchev thaw), is particularly complicated (and also not well known) because Khrushchev met opponents in all (Stalinist) strata of Russian society (Army, Gulag Administration, Nomenklatura, etc.). See by way of introduction:
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=433.msg10160#msg10160
It should not be forgotten that for military theorists a terrorist attack is a form of asymmetric warfare, with various motivations (revenge, intimidation, example, provocation, tactics ....) and consequences very variable and always difficult to predict.
DPI should be classified in the vast category of terrorist attacks in the broad sense. In any case, 61 years after the DPI compelled the current Russian authorities to make a fool of themselves with manifestly absurd statements.
Hypothesis N°2
External (international) opposition of patriots from countries in conflict with Russian and Soviet oppression who saw themselves as unfiltered warriors in a war that was not yet over.
Hypothesis N°2-bis
Internal Stalinist opposition coming from several Gulag leaders, and powerful camp commanders, who with Khrushchev's reforms were losing their power and privileges. These Stalinists also feared that the XXI° st (1959) Congress of the PCUS would be even more devastating for them (this was inaccurate).
because the XXI° st Congress of the PCUS had little influence on the desalinization.3. Where was/were the murderer/s ?
Hypothesis N°2
Three ex-Zeks who lived and worked in the Vizhay region who grabbed this wonderful opportunity for them (since the route of the 9 hikers was approximately known in Ivdel) to succeed in a spectacular action.
It is hard to determine whether these ex-zeks were : Chechens, Ingush, Crimean Tatars, Poles, Czechoslovakians, Hungarians, Romanians, Moldovans, Ukrainians, Koreans, Germans, Bulgarians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians... or from other countries ?
The Poles are well positioned because of Katyn (1940) and the Polish October (1956), followed by the pro-Soviet politics of Gomulka, which discouraged some Polish ex-zeks from returning to Poland.
There is also Maslennikov's sybilline allusion : Reasons for leaving...from the tent..."come out one by one, run (Caucasus)."
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=464.msg9152#msg9152
Hypothesis N°2-bis
Aleks Kandr proposes a complete and coherent explanation (but it is in Russian, which is hard for me to read). See
http://mystery12home.ru/t-ub-gr-dyatlova
There was one commanditaire (client) that remained in Ivdel "which could be one of the leaders of the colony 64 at the SCh/349-Ivdellag" (USh/349 or SCh/349).
The commanditaire (client) had hired three mercenary killers who were guards (or former guards) of one of the Gulag camps. These former guards specialized in pursuing the few prisoners who escaped over the barbed wire. The high Soviet administration had naturally forbidden to entrust firearms to such guardian-killers, who were efficient but whose loyalty to the regime was not assured.
4. What happened to their own traces ?
• On February 26th, on the slope of the Kholat Syakhl as well as around the cedar, all traces had been erased by the wind, except for a few due to random effects (chance) which are intrinsic to Fluid Mechanics.
• In the Auspiya Valley the attackers (or murderers if you prefer) carefully followed the tracks of the hikers from North-2 to the tent.
• On February 2, 1959 the attackers first cut the tent before leaving. To get from the tent to North-2 the attackers carefully followed the same tracks (which had been marked by 12 skiers = 9 hikers + 3 attackers).5. Who is pulling the strings of the investigation
(Why the participants of the search/investigation had to sign a 25 year prohibition to disclose information. ---> Read the explanations in the posts of WAB )
Khrushchev ---> Khrushchev's close collaborators in Moscow ---> In the Sverdlovsk region the KGB and the CPSU ... whatever the details, the main thing is to remember that the DPI had been a bitter failure for the KGB, which had been proved incapable of protecting the 9 hikers...°°°°°°°
To be continued -works in progress - go to : Altercation on the pass > Altercation on the passhttps://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=411.30
This is a great explanation of the internal frictions in society that I have heard no one explain yet. Makes perfect sense to me and I would imagine any conflict veteran that might be reading.Agreed. It's one of the best homicide theories I know of.
Loose Cannon, I still have doubts it was cut from the inside at all. I saw a demonstration once about the difference in cuts from a sharp object when cutting through canvas from both inside and out. There wasn't an obvious difference in places. Also, where were these knives they cut the tent with? It was clearly more than 1 that shredded the thing as it did, so where are they? The knives found in the tent were still in their cases and not found near the opening of the tent at all. Its a mystery.
Per Inge OestmoenQuoteno bullet wounds or knife cutsTo be honest, we have some evidence of knife cuts.
Autopsy report of Igor Dyatlov:
In the area of the palm surface of the second and fifth fingers there is a skin wound of irregular linear shape with regular edges located transverse to the length of the fingers; the surface wounds are up to 0.1 (or 0.2 – note) cm deep.
(https://enigma-project.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ladonj-2.jpg)QuoteBut the main question of why the victims were not simply shotthe victims were injured with one blow. Simply and effectively.QuoteBut the main question of why the victims were not simply shotthe simplest answer is - attacers didnt have weapons.
Weapons were strictly prohibited in USSR except for hunting weapons. If it is correct assumption, we can exclude some categories of people attacker did not belong
1) sololders (army, KGB)
2) hunters
3) organized criminal groups
But the blows were very effective. This tells us that attackers were very well trained to kill. Special Forces? Without weapons? nea1
What about the people who had have this training and took part in еspecial forces operations during the WWII? They were 30+ in 1959.
All the deaths are consistent with exposure and hypothermia. The avalanche theory varies from snow slide to slip of a small amount of snow. Not some tidal wave of endless amount of snow.
I interpret it to being the reason of leaving the tent. All injuries occurred after the exit of the tent, whether that be physical attack, environment , Wolverine . I struggle to get my head round the logistics of murder of 9 people. There's easier ways to do it. Plus , I've said before and I'll say it again. An organised/ planned murder would not leave any film from cameras behind. If one is trained in killing and on a mission, you take away all potential from being found.
If it was murder it's not premeditated in my opinion. It's sloppy.
All the deaths are consistent with exposure and hypothermia. The avalanche theory varies from snow slide to slip of a small amount of snow. Not some tidal wave of endless amount of snow.
I interpret it to being the reason of leaving the tent. All injuries occurred after the exit of the tent, whether that be physical attack, environment , Wolverine . I struggle to get my head round the logistics of murder of 9 people. There's easier ways to do it. Plus , I've said before and I'll say it again. An organised/ planned murder would not leave any film from cameras behind. If one is trained in killing and on a mission, you take away all potential from being found.
If it was murder it's not premeditated in my opinion. It's sloppy.
The many injuries cannot be explained by accidents, and since there were injuries that were either directly lethal or lethal in combination with exposure it is fully conceivable that the killers orchestrated their cruel mission precisely in such a way as to make it look like an accident.
There are clearly easier ways to kill nine people, but there is hardly any more intelligent method than to do it in such a way as was in all probability done: Chase the victims out from their tent and let the cold do the job. Had the temperature been a little lower, it would have been a perfect mission. Since the victims did not die as fast as planned, the killing squad had to expedite the outcome. Hence the injuries.
There was no sign of an avalanche in the area, and the injuries are of course not consistent with such a natural phenomenon.
I don't know how to argue the point and I'll repeat, I don't rule out outsiders , I would rather rule out natural possibilities, then consider outsiders. As you suggest, it's an odd way to kill people.
I don't know how to argue the point and I'll repeat, I don't rule out outsiders , I would rather rule out natural possibilities, then consider outsiders. As you suggest, it's an odd way to kill people.
What I clearly stated, is that to let the cold to the grisly job is a very intelligent way of killing people: To make it look like an accident in the cold. Almost any other way of killing them would have been too obviously a murder. This method would have been a complete success, if the temperature had been low enough to kill the nine without further intervention. To chase the victims out of their tent and into the cold - what method of killing can be more cruelly intelligent, if the order from above was to make the deaths look like an accident?
Why would the investigators be instructed to close the investigation down prematurely with the conclusion that it was an accident, unless it was something entirely different?
The injuries tell their tale, and they can only be explained by lethal attack by other humans.
If I'm not mistaken (I don't remember the exact wording and name), there was an expert leading the autopsy who said that some of the injuries could not have been caused by a human! This is a professional conclusion and a professional opinion. I have to respect that. But let's just put this assumption and conclusion aside for a moment. Is it impossible under certain conditions, with certain means?
So why are there no traces of the perpetrators? I would like to answer, but I have nothing smart to say. But I am sure that hiding the traces is not an impossible task.