Dyatlov Pass Forum

Theories Discussion => Murdered => Topic started by: SteveCalley on February 26, 2018, 03:24:11 PM

Title: Murder Indead
Post by: SteveCalley on February 26, 2018, 03:24:11 PM
 excuseme
Title: Re: Murder Indeed
Post by: Armide on March 07, 2018, 12:35:17 PM
I think I can answer part of this! I know for a fact that the authorities were not looking for survivors at this point, but for bodies. The initial search was meant to be a search and rescue operation (hence the contaminating of the crime scene), whilst the search for the 'Last Four' was a matter of locating the corpses (and any evidence they were thought to bear). I remember reading that as a method of corpse detection (is that what it's called?) they had resorted to attaching meat hooks to wooden poles so as to stab into the snow and see what came up. I don't remember how successful this was. I read in Matveyeva's book though that the unfortunate parents of the 'Last Four' still kept a glimmer of hope that they had escape and were alive in a settlement somewhere in the Urals, although still unaccounted for. Honestly though, I think they knew they were long gone, but that they still had some hope that their child was alive somewhere :(

As for the police who had no real connection to the students, I think they thought that there was some kind of foul play at hand after they found the first bodies. I believe they were much more careful in dealing with the crime scene the second time around, and that in it itself seems to show that the authorities knew that they were dealing with some external influence on the case rather than deaths caused purely by weather conditions alone. As for whether they were suspects of murder, I can't help but think that the thought of the 'Last Four' being involved with the deaths of their comrades must've crossed their minds. As far as I know though, not many (official) police reports or documents have been released to date– or at least have been translated to English. EDIT: Let's not forget that the 'Last Four' had been missing for not days, but months at this point. Considering that missing persons cases are statistically less likely to be resolved after the 48h window in an urban setting, imagine what that would have been like for the Dyatlov group. I highly doubt that whatever police forces involved thought that they had managed to escape at all, perhaps the fact that they were aware that they had all died lowered the morale of the search group? I don't know. I can't speak on behalf of foul play coming from within the government, though.

It is still perfectly possible that someone in the police force was aware of what had happened. That being said, if we're going full Soviet-spy novel theory and we assume it was the work of any type of secret service, I don't know how much simple investigators would have known about the case. High-ranking officials– maybe, but not the men sent out for corpse detection.
Title: Re: Murder Indeed
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on March 12, 2018, 09:18:27 AM
I read in one of the russian articles where the reporter was interviewing one of the search teams leaders, and he stated how he found Dubinina with an avalanche probe/pole fitted with a specific attachment for bringing up flesh on the end.  Subsequently thats how they located the Rav4. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Marchesk on May 04, 2018, 01:09:07 AM
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.

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on May 04, 2018, 05:23:45 AM
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.


These are all important questions and it is good that we address them one by one.

1. Here we have several factors. It is a sad fact that the first people who came to the site, first assumed that the nine students were still alive and only had problems. Therefore the tent and the immediate area around the tent was not thought of as a crime scene. For this reason, evidence has likely been destroyed. The important factor here is that the Dyatlov group evidently died on the evening of February 1, but several weeks passed before a search was made. The tent was only found on February 26, that is almost a month after. Thus tracks made by the attackers would have disappeared in that time, especially since the attackers would likely have used skis. Most ski tracks made by the narrow sports skies used by the trekkers were erased, and tracks from wider mountain skies used by both local people and trained special forces would most likely be completely erased because wide mountain skies does not sink so deeply into the snow.

An absence of tracks from the attacking group is therefore not evidence that there was not an attack.

The conclusion that the Dyatlov pass incident was a crime can nevertheless be drawn with reason. The fact that they had gone far away from the tent in the cold and without proper clothing or gloves, is proof that some mortal danger forced them out of the tent. Careful consideration of the forensic evidence from the bodies and their injuries shows that their injuries can only have been caused by an attack by other humans.

2. When the Dyatlov group set out, they had made no secret of the fact that they planned to go to the Otorten peak. Thus their intent was known. There are two possibilities if they were indeed murdered - which every piece of evidence indicates they were.

- Possibility A: The Dyatlov group was killed as a result of a decision which was made already when they declared that they wanted to go to an area where they would observe something they were not supposed to see or know about.

- Possibility B: The decision to kill the Dyatlov group was made when they had entered an area where someone did not want them to be.

Until someone speaks out, or some irrefutable evidence is found, it cannot be determined whether possibility A) or B) corresponds to the fact. But the Dyatlov group had announced where they wanted to go. This means that if there was some activity or some places in the area at or around Kholat Syakhl which the nine hikers were not allowed to witness or visit the arrival of the Dyatlov group was known by those who might have wanted to prevent the presence of other people at all cost.

3. It is seriously mistaken that the camp was 60 kilometers from everyone else. It has been proven that the Mansi were in the area. In addition, they were active very close to the camp:

http://dyatlovpass.com/controversy

Mansi chum

"A Mansi chum (definition) was observed North-East from where Dyatlov group pitched their tent on the night of January 30. A trail leading to the chum was passing 200 feet from where they camped."

So it is misinformation to say that there were no other people in the area. The Mansi were present in the very area where the nine trekkers chose to camp.

Svetlana Oss in her book "Don't go there" also refers to this chom or choom. A member of the first rescue team testifies to the Mansi presence in the immediate area. On page 169 Svetlana Oss refers the testimony:

"One of the rescue team, then a cadet Khamsa Sinyukaev, recalls about tribal people coming out of the woods into the open near the slope as helicopters flew by. These were not those to take part in the rescue operation but others, who Khamsa called "the Khanty" or "the Mansi." According to Sinyukaev, they would quickly come on their reindeer to trade golden sand and valuable furs for food, vodka and bullets from the pilots. Therefore, the tribal people were in the area and it didn't take them long to show up at any moment."

Does this prove that the Mansi were responsible? No, by no means. It only proves that the Mansi were in the area.

It is very important that to remember that we must never accuse anyone of having committed murder without incontrovertible proof. It is a good principle that one must be considered innocent until proven guilty, and it has not been proven who were responsible for the death of the nine hikers at Kholat Syakhl. The Russian forensic expert Natalia Sakharova, who has worked for 25 years with crime investigation, is convinced that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was murder and that the murderers were professionals.

- To state who the killers were, is speculative until backed up with very precise evidence of the identity of the attackers.

- To state that the nine students were indeed murdered, is completely reasonable given the evidence we have.

4. The supplies of the Dyatlov group were left alone. This is fully understandable, and it shows that the attackers were not interested in robbery. The fact that nothing was taken from the tent, means that the reason for the attack had to to with the Dyatlov group's presence in the area and nothing else: The nine young and innocent students were killed because they had entered an area where they were not supposed to be, either because someone were afraid that they might observe something which they were not allowed to know about or because they had entered an area where outsiders were forbidden to go. Both are possible, but we cannot know the motive behind the decision to kill the Dyatlov group. However, we can still judge the evidence - which strongly suggests that this was not an accident.

Lastly, it is reasonable to ask why the nine were not simply shot or just "disappeared." It is tempting to conclude that a cold decision to kill them would mean a quick, efficient kill. But forensic history tells us that things are not so simple. Criminal history, both the history of ordinary crime and state killings, tells us that "accidents," "suicides," "heart attacks" and other seemingly normal or accidental deaths are regularly used by determined killers who want to conceal the fact of murder and make a homicide appear to be a perfectly normal death. The Dyatlov pass incident may more than likely have been such a case. To steal the belongings of the nine hikers would reveal that it was murder, as would wounds from knives or bullets.

It is reasonable to assume that those who attacked the nine hikers forced them out of the tent because they judged that their victims would soon perish in the cold winter night.

Then there are the cuts in their tent. Much has been made of the cuts in the tent, but it is not documented who made the cuts. Moreover, all the knives belonging to the nine students were found in the tents - and these knives were all in their sheaths. The first investigators concluded that the students cut their way out from the tent, but there is absolutely nothing that proves that it happened that way.

When the young and durable students did not die quickly from the cold, the attackers decided that more forceful action was needed to accomplish their mission. Thus they went to physical attack, while they were careful not to leave knife or bullet wounds. The last four who were found had the most severe injuries: Kolevatov, Zolotaryov, Dubinina and Thibeaux-Brignolle were much better dressed than the others. For this reason, they might have survived for days and the attackers could not risk that - they wanted to ensure that all were dead and that they could not leave any messages about what happened. So these last four were killed with greater force, and the autopsy reports also confirm that these suffered the worst injuries. The first five who were found were much less well dressed, and so less force was necessary to dispatch them since the cold completed the mission. Igor Dyatlov had marks on both ankles, with visible abrasions, with hemorrhage into the underlying tissue. This suggests that the leader of the group had been tied, and these marks are one of many injuries that strengthen the conclusion of murder.

What we do not know, is who were responsible for the deaths of nine young people at Kholat Syakhl or what their precise motive was. But we do the relatives and friends of the deceased a major disservice if we deny the obvious reality that it was a cold-blooded murder resulting from a resourceful and determined attack.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 04, 2018, 01:09:43 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on May 04, 2018, 03:57:59 PM
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.


Nothing can be considered a fact until incontrovertibly proven, so it must necessarily remain conjecture until then. So it is.

Still, it may be salutary to bear in mind that we do have evidence. The difficulty is that every piece of evidence is open to interpretation - that is why we have all the often conflicting theories in the absence of definite proof or a confession from someone who knows and is willing to finally talk. Even if the theories are largely conflicting, they all have their proponents.

Admittedly, the very act of analyzing a situation is likely to create opposition from other viewpoints. And then the stalemate continues. We have to admit that the question of what happened on February 1, 1959 has not yet been completely answered even if many books have been written by authors wherein each author claims to have found the answer.

Perhaps we can agree that there is a major watershed:

Between the theories that start from the premise that there was no attack and that the Dyatlov group died as a result of non-criminal but unfortunate circumstances, and on the other hand the theories that start from the premise that the death of the nine students was not an accident but caused by other humans.

It may be proposed that since dead persons do not lie and cannot lie, it is wise to start with the bodies. We might take a cold and detached look at the autopsy reports and ask ourselves:

"If we try our best to analyze all the available forensic evidence and above all the injuries, individually and in the highly significant context of virtually all the members of the Dyatlov group having received various kinds of bodily damage, what do we interpret as more likely - a series of unfortunate coincidences and tragic accidents or that we are dealing with a well-planned murder by unknown but resourceful perpetrators who must have calculated that it served their interests to make the killing look like an accident in the snow?"

Still, any attempt at answering will still be - yes, conjecture - until there is definite proof. There is no way around that. The best we can do is to analyze the evidence and hope that proof will eventually be produced.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Vietnamka on May 05, 2018, 10:33:38 AM
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.

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: WAB on May 06, 2018, 12:36:27 PM
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.

Hi, Galina, what for tiresomely to think out it? Maslennikov is better than others knew about inaccessibility of this place. How villains and murderers there could come? You can try to reach there. I offered it to you already. In the winter it is especially difficult. It is necessary to be able live some days without calling in the warm house. Very few people is capable of it. Especially it was at that time so.

Absence of traces in general can confirm or deny nothing. However they have found Dyatlov team`s traces, and extraneous traces have not found.
It does not speak about that that there was who that still. More likely all back.
It is impossible to prove absence. It is possible to prove presence only. Whether there is what that the facts confirming presence of extraneous (villains)? If they are not present, means it is not necessary to think out them.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Vietnamka on May 06, 2018, 08:48:58 PM
Hi, Vladimir Alekseevich! grin1
I just talking about that Maslinnikov wrote in his diary, didn't he?  wink1
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: WAB on May 07, 2018, 04:16:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on May 09, 2018, 01:50:15 PM
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.


Masiennikov wrote this in his diary:

"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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 09, 2018, 03:11:04 PM
Quote
"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? 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on May 09, 2018, 03:43:55 PM
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?


The thing is that we do not know that they cut their way out of the tent. That was an old assumption: If the tent was cut from the inside, the people who died must have done it. But how can we take that for granted? We do not know whether if the hikers were those who cut the tent, and finally we do not know whether or not the nine left the tent through the cuts.

If anything, the more reasonable assumption is that the students did actually not cut the tent. In fact, no knives were found except for the knives which were found in the tent - and those knives were all still in their sheaths. None of the nine who died, were found with knives.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 09, 2018, 06:45:12 PM
I knew there was 'something' we can agree on.    grin1
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Vietnamka on May 10, 2018, 01:25:27 AM
It's a interesting question about knifes.
Ivanov wrote: RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE CASE
Quote
Near 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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on May 10, 2018, 04:02:14 AM
It's a interesting question about knifes.
Ivanov wrote: RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE CASE
Quote
Near 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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Vietnamka on May 10, 2018, 04:20:04 AM
Igor Dyatlov had the
Quote
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
It looks as a sharp-force wound. Did he grabb a knife in self-defense?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 10, 2018, 05:45:05 AM
Yuri had a knife and Igor has a knife wound to the hand?

Interesting.   I remember the knife part, but never associated Igors hand wound to possibly being cut by a knife. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on May 10, 2018, 06:56:58 AM
Yuri had a knife and Igor has a knife wound to the hand?


Yuri Krivonischenko's knife was in the tent, and it was in its sheath.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 10, 2018, 07:10:04 AM
must...  have.... more.... coffee!

Ok, who had a knife outside of the tent?     
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 10, 2018, 07:11:35 AM
It's a interesting question about knifes.
Ivanov wrote: RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE CASE
Quote
Near 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.


See where the confusion is?

Is it possible Yuri had more then one knife?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Vietnamka on May 10, 2018, 11:52:30 AM
I'm pretty sure zolotarev had his own knife as a person passed through the 11 WW and tourist instructor. He must.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: CalzagheChick on May 11, 2018, 01:54:18 PM

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?

 lol1 lol1 lol1 lol1 lol1 lol2 lol2 lol2 lol2 lol2 clap1 clap1 clap1 clap1 clap1 Dude, you crack me up with some of the things you come up with in response...

I now have the clear picture in my head of a bunch of kids bursting through a tent like a bunch of Jack-the-Rippers
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on May 11, 2018, 05:45:32 PM
Bwahahahahahahahahaha.........

you love it.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Blkdahlia on August 14, 2018, 01:52:45 PM
It's a interesting question about knifes.
Ivanov wrote: RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE CASE
Quote
Near 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.

Autopsy of Slobodin noted he had a knife FYI
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Morski on August 16, 2018, 02:24:13 PM
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.

1. If other human beings are responsible for the Dyatlov Pass incident, which is not easy to prove, and not easy to reject, they should have been aware of the plan. Since Dyatlov didn`t leave any exact coordinates (except that they are heading towards Otorten), and since he changed the route/plan (and arguably had some sort of confrontation? with Zolotoryov, who could have been the second in command), it is highly unlikely to me, that there was someone waiting for them just there. No way for anyone outside the group itself after their departure, to know where they were going. But it all resulted in 9 fatalities, so whoever took care of them, must have been determined to do it. At all costs.
 
2. For what reason... We can only speculate. Just think about it - what can be the motivation to kill nine people, most of them so young (even Zolotoryov was in a great age - 37), healthy, educated people? Robbery is ruled out. Vendetta is a classic, but in those circumstances… I would say probably not. I find it hardly possible that they all did something terrible during their lifetime to deserve it. Or may be only some of them did. I imply the speculation, that one or some of them were actually agent/s or at least were involved in something regarding that speculation. Of course, you cannot waste only one or just few of them, therefore – all of them. Basically the same goes for the idea, that they entered an area, where they were not wanted, so the crime was not based on previous actions of a group member/s, but just because they were at the wrong place, in the wrong time. Both ways, that brings us to the question:

3.   Where was/were the murderers? Since it sounds irrelevant that someone was already waiting for them near Kholat Syakhl, the only reasonable possibility I see, is that someone (or a group of people more likely) was stalking and following them since the beginning of their trip. But we are talking about days of walking/skiing, sharing the same weather condition, physical and mental effort, difficulties etc. With the extra load of trying to be invisible as well as being close to the group so you can chose the right time to do the job. Sounds like too much effort to me. Unless you have some sort of a serious mental issue or a very damn good reason to do it.

4.   And what is more interesting, another group of people (even one person) still leaves traces. Yes, an experienced person could hide his traces and could stage the whole crime scene. But since we are talking about a large group of 9 people, well trained to endure and some of them physically well shaped, one of them with a whole World War in his CV, I would go for more than one assassins. Which means a lot more traces to delete on one hand, but less time to stage the scene on the other. If someone murdered the Dyatlov group, we are talking about a specially trained, well equipped assassins, who, with no regret and for a good reason committed a scandalous crime. And how about the Mansi? If they were not involved in the whole happening, is there a chance that they were able to notice the two groups of people? I mean, they live in the area, so it is a good chance that some of them (hunters or no) did. I am not sure whether the investigation was focused on any possible testimony or whether the Mansi were even asked for cooperation, or if they were – to what extent.


5.   Why was the signing of 25 years non-disclosure required and why was the access to the region prohibited for several years after the incident? That is a relevant question, if we go for the murderer theory. Of course, it always provokes speculations, that Dyatlov group was indeed assassinated and whatever the reason was, it implied certain time to pass, without anyone being able to go back there. I would say that is possible in favor of a total cleanup of any possible clues or evidence. Who has the capacity to secure that? Inside job? It is like common sense to ask. Meanwhile, we can argue if someone was really interested in doing what is possible to end the case as fast as possible, causing as less as possible transparency and publicity (failed, as far as I see), bury the bodies as well as getting rid of substantial evidence. I would be extremely surprised, if the tent for example, or all personal belongings, clothes and other stuff were given to the families, or if they are still present to this day at all.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on August 22, 2018, 05:45:26 PM
 Loose}{Cannon hits the nail on the head on this one. Definitely a case of over speculation on this murder subject.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: CalzagheChick on August 28, 2018, 03:29:45 PM
Loose}{Cannon hits the nail on the head on this one. Definitely a case of over speculation on this murder subject.

Again, a matter of opinion. Per and all others have held their ground in this discussion quite remarkably and although not everybody agrees with marriage to the murder theory as strongly as Per, his thoughts are highly respected and carry a ton of weight for Camp Murder. His points are concise, supported by existing evidence, and have the added luxury of being possible or probable.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on August 28, 2018, 04:43:39 PM
Hey,  could still be murder in my opinion.  I just HIGHLY doubt they came outta that tent slashing and dicing if there were assailants awaiting or giving the orders.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Martin Glaubitz on September 21, 2018, 02:44:39 PM
Hello there. Thank you for this great site and forum to discuss.

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

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

The authorities later came behind it, but decided to keep quiet to avoid uproar against the Mansi as they were convinced they were not guilty?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on September 26, 2018, 11:50:42 AM
Same as with 'The Whodunnit'.

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

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

In other words its extremely difficult for us modern day investigators of the 'Dyatlov Mystery' to try and establish if a crime has actually been committed, with no hard evidence [ except what has been reported already ] and events that happened about 60 years ago.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on October 14, 2018, 04:02:08 PM
And I would like to add that we can form our own judgements as to whether or not a crime as been committed but we do not have the luxury of having been at the site of the events of nearly 60 years ago and seeing any evidence at first hand, so that makes it even harder for us. I have done Jury Service in an English Criminal Court and can say that I found it an extraordinary experience. We had all the evidence there before us, although we didnt have to visit the alleged scenes of crime. So imagine now that we are a sort of jury trying to decide if a crime as been committed or not and the extreme difficulty we are bound to face, not least the time gap of 60 years.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Monika on December 03, 2018, 06:07:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on December 04, 2018, 06:26:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on December 04, 2018, 05:47:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Monika on December 05, 2018, 04:29:44 AM
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.

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: WAB on December 08, 2018, 02:26:55 PM
I personally do not believe they were murdered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the set questions and analysis points, it is told all. Other questions can be disassembled in detail another time and in a corresponding theme of a forum.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: WAB on December 08, 2018, 03:03:40 PM
I personally do not believe they were murdered.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

The word "obviously" constantly is applied more often by people who have nothing to show as the fact or reality. And you use it constantly and continuously. Read all your texts - everywhere same, but anywhere there are no facts (real, instead of invented) and the reasons for such actions. You have only arrangements and excuses.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: WAB on December 08, 2018, 03:19:21 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is all correctly. It is not necessary to consider other people as sillier, than the one who so considers. It have leads to occurrence conspirologing theories.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on January 17, 2019, 03:10:58 AM

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

[...]

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


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

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

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

If you cannot relate to the evidence - the evidence found in the bodies of the nine victims of the Dyatlov Pass killings - a serious discussion is unfortunately not possible.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on January 17, 2019, 03:21:09 AM
Re  PER INGE OESTMOEN.  QUOTES BELOW.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

3. Some governments want, in some situations, to kill people in a dramatic way so as to frighten others from opposing the authorities. At other times, operations are conducted in great secret, and the killing becomes an "accident," "heart attack" or "suicide." It is also necessary to point out that none of us can say precisely who killed the Dyatlov group. The traces of the killers have escaped us, but the bodies tell their tale.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on January 17, 2019, 03:23:50 AM
I personally do not believe they were murdered.

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


As a matter of fact, the signs of precisely such an event are plentiful.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on January 17, 2019, 04:09:16 AM
I still do not believe anyone waited a couple of hours for the tourists to freeze and then “finished” them. And where 'were those people yet? Somewhere hidden? Because tourists spent some time around the fire and in the wood, and those murderers were where?
And as I said, once citizens of SSSR needed permission from the authorities to move in their own country. And the expedition was far ahead approved and claimed. The KGB had own agents everywhere, even at schools also among students and teachers and the military had to know that there will be tourists in the area. Dyatlov group got off the original route, but only a little. If anyone wanted to test their weapons, they will be sure that no one will be in a wide area (even hundreds of kilometers).
And with regard to the murdering the four at the ravine, why was not the last of them killed in the same way as the trio, but he froze?
And I still insist that the army would get rid of unwanted witnesses quickly and they would disappear without a trace. In nature, someone will often disappear. No one would set up a plan to liquidate people such amateurish.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The one realistic explanation of this tragedy is rather more mundane, but also terrible, heartbreaking and above all frightening. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 17, 2019, 03:07:42 PM
Well I have used the term HIGHLY UNLIKELY.  I do not say that it is impossible that they may have been murdered by other humans. Looking at all the recorded injuries and taking into account the circumstances of this whole case it appears that what happened was of an unusual nature. But the injuries to DUBININA are the most perplexing. And it is these injuries that Iam particulary interested in. I do not believe that decomposition was the cause of the missing eyes and tongue.  And I do not believe that the rib injuries were the result of force from another human.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on January 17, 2019, 11:48:34 PM
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
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 18, 2019, 02:46:15 PM
Just o thought on the making the murder look like an accident.

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

Who would want to go to such extremes to make it look like an accident  !  ? 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Angel1 on January 20, 2019, 04:18:03 PM
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".

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 20, 2019, 04:34:25 PM
IMHO it was murder.  And whoever staged it was brilliant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Well there is absolutely no proof that it was a MURDER EVENT or EVENTS.  And there is absolutely no proof that Princess Diana was MURDERED.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Angel1 on January 20, 2019, 04:46:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on January 20, 2019, 08:53:10 PM
Good points all.... 

Welcome to the Pass Angel1.   thumb1
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 21, 2019, 02:22:00 PM
As I pointed out, the things that would point irrefutably to hand to hand assaults was not detailed in the autopsy.

The other injuries were attributed to "possible falls".

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

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


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

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on January 21, 2019, 03:44:42 PM
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
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 21, 2019, 03:58:04 PM
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

And why leave behind CAMERAS and FILM and DIARIES ETC. Any so called Murderers could have took lots of things and no one would have been any the wiser.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Angel1 on January 22, 2019, 01:58:49 AM
The good points you raise support my point - this a a well staged crime scene.  Suppositions are made believing the "found" crime scene was as it  actually unfolded.  There are dozens of theories as to what happened based on what was found and the recollections of the first responders, who as I pointed out were students and soldiers, not crime scene investigators.  You have 60 years of speculation with no definitive conclusions.  They did a damn good job.

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

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

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on January 22, 2019, 04:46:01 AM
So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 22, 2019, 11:08:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on January 22, 2019, 03:12:58 PM
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?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 23, 2019, 12:30:50 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on January 23, 2019, 02:29:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on January 23, 2019, 06:02:54 PM
http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=333.new#new
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Vietnamka on January 23, 2019, 10:40:55 PM

Per Inge Oestmoen
Quote
no bullet wounds or knife cuts
To 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)

Quote
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot
the victims were  injured with one blow. Simply  and effectively.
Quote
But 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) 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.

Quote
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.

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.




Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on January 24, 2019, 12:23:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: varuna on February 14, 2019, 11:47:43 PM

Per Inge Oestmoen
Quote
no bullet wounds or knife cuts
To 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)

Quote
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot
the victims were  injured with one blow. Simply  and effectively.
Quote
But 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) 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.

Quote
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.

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.

I do not believe in a hostage-taking situation, because it is an anachronic option for 59 in USSR : to get what ? It is not so easy to organize a thing like that in these conditions -plus some of them had foliowed  a basic military training-
knife wounds , all the evidence modified, all the stoy : tnet cut, the hove , the cave hiding make possible a cover for a military trained group action, wrong or not , by accident or not .
no shot : ordered so
no evidence of lethal agression ; the same

the goal : they are to die of exhaustion or cold
note
During the lLgerian war, around 58-62, some unofficial services made some killing actions in several places, against mostly OAS( secret organisation for keeping the ante situation ) ; they made a lot of mistakes , some are documented and a few had been in court  long after  .
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 15, 2019, 12:07:19 PM

Per Inge Oestmoen
Quote
no bullet wounds or knife cuts
To 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)

Quote
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot
the victims were  injured with one blow. Simply  and effectively.
Quote
But 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) 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.

Quote
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.

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.

[1]  We dont know if any one died at the TENT   

[2] We dont know the exact causes of deaths i e if they died from single blows or multiple blows or whatever.

[3] We dont know if any one was tortured or abused.

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: knocker on February 18, 2019, 04:05:05 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: knocker on February 18, 2019, 04:10:13 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: varuna on February 18, 2019, 04:38:57 AM
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 .
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Puchiko on February 18, 2019, 09:59:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 18, 2019, 11:54:25 AM
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.   

All that can be deduced from what information we have is that the EYES WERE MISSING. Nothing to suggest gouging out etc.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 18, 2019, 11:58:03 AM
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.

Its an interesting point you raise.  But if it was something of such an enormity that it needed to be covered up , then it may be unlikely that we will ever know. Unless of course that were the case and eventually the Authorities opened up and let the facts be known to the whole World.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 18, 2019, 12:01:32 PM
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  !  ? 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Puchiko on February 18, 2019, 12:22:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Puchiko on February 18, 2019, 12:33:55 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: knocker on February 18, 2019, 12:42:50 PM
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 .

I think you're probably right.  It seems Dyatlov and Kolmogorova who froze to death got away and escaped the initial, "unknown force," that killed the four with the worst wounds.  I don't doubt they escaped that and lived for a few hours after.   But in the end they wound up dead like the rest, so in a sense I guess they didn't escape anything.   
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: gypsy on February 18, 2019, 01:21:49 PM

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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 18, 2019, 04:50:25 PM
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.

Apologies.  I take it that Predation includes organisms that eat the flesh etc of bodies that have died. I didnt mean the predator that actually killed the body in question. There was no reports of such activity i e no organisms were found feeding on the dead bodies. And there were no signs of such organisms.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 18, 2019, 04:56:31 PM
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.
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.

What misunderstanding  ! ? It is always a decision left to the Authorities whether or not to open a Criminal Investigation. it is never a given. Who suggested that strong evidence was needed to open a Criminal investigation. And you are wrong when you say that most suicides trigger a Criminal Investigation. I know of many suicides that looked suspicious but no Criminal Investigation took place.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 18, 2019, 05:02:09 PM

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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: gypsy on February 18, 2019, 10:33:29 PM

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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 19, 2019, 12:49:47 PM

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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: gypsy on February 19, 2019, 02:23:32 PM

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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 19, 2019, 06:19:28 PM

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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: gypsy on February 20, 2019, 01:47:13 AM

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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 20, 2019, 04:10:28 AM

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.

Good reply. I wont argue with that and I dont think it needs arguing with because there were clearly problems in the Soviet System, which also helped in its eventual downfall. The Soviet System was an experiment that didnt work out properly for whatever reason. And it has to be taken into account when looking at THE DYATLOV CASE. However we must remember that people are people no matter what the System, so we need to be careful with The Dyatlov Case, it may well be an event of such profoundness that would have taxed any System. Maybe any System would have needed to cover it up, we dont know because we are lacking all the evidence, etc. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: knocker on February 20, 2019, 11:32:56 PM
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.     
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: knocker on February 20, 2019, 11:46:47 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 21, 2019, 11:18:07 AM
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.   

Do really think a person could inflict all those very serious injuries  !  ?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on February 21, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: varuna on March 19, 2019, 03:00:31 AM
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 .
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on April 24, 2019, 12:59:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on April 25, 2019, 12:31:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on April 25, 2019, 12:34:26 AM
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





Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on April 25, 2019, 05:02:24 PM
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  !  ? 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on April 25, 2019, 11:37:41 PM
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
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: cennetkusu on May 09, 2019, 06:58:55 PM
A person with a knife can have no chance against 6 men and 2 women. Most of the other youngsters also had knives. None of the teenagers have a knife injury. It is not possible for these professional young people to find a tent in only 1.5 km. Whatever the weather conditions.Already there is an almost straight line from the tent to the cedar tree. I mean, even a normal person can find the tent at night. But it can be a little difficult. It is much simpler for these young people to be professional.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on August 26, 2019, 04:13:56 AM
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  !  ?


There is no ground for assuming that any of the group members had any role in the tragedy other than being victim. They were all victims.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on August 26, 2019, 04:56:17 AM

Quote
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot
the victims were  injured with one blow. Simply  and effectively.
Quote
But 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.

Quote
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.


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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on August 26, 2019, 10:39:19 PM
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
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on August 27, 2019, 02:01:34 AM
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


That was precisely what happened.

The local police in nearby Sverdlovsk and Ivdel would not know what happened.

Therefore, when the local police made their official investigation in the last days of February almost a month after the tragedy they only understood that the Dyatlov group was missing. They of course had no reason to assume anything criminal. The nine failed to meet at an agreed meeting point on February 12, and after that people in the area began to worry. Had the group met difficulties in the cold winter? 

The first leader of the investigation was a man named Vladimir Korotaev. When the bodies were found, he was instructed by high officials to say that the deaths were due to freezing. He refused, because his findings suggested otherwise. Then he was fired, and there is every indication that the order to say that the deaths were an accident caused by freezing came directly from Moscow.

Another investigator, Lev Ivanov, was appointed. He also concluded that the nine had been murdered, and he even initiated and examination of the clothes of the dead. When high radiation values were found, the investigation was suddenly closed with the conclusion that the deaths were due to unfortunate accidental circumstances and to "a series of mistakes made by Igor Dyatlov." Again there is every indication that Ivanov was ordered by high officials to stop his work. However, Ivanov evidently was a smart fellow. He chose his words so that they would suggest that the deaths were not accidental.

"At the time Korotaev was helping Tempalov, the prosecutor in the criminal case. After this visit, Korotaev was unexpectedly fired from the investigation all together. On May 28, 1959, investigator Lev Ivanov closed the case, was promoted to the prosecutor of the Kostanay region, and the annals of Soviet jurisprudence were supplemented with a sophisticated formulation: "The reason for the death of students was overwhelming force which they were unable to overcome."

(https://dyatlovpass.com/korotaev)

So, the closing of the case by orders from above, and with a conclusion ordered from above, was precisely what happened.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on August 27, 2019, 04:32:48 AM
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
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on August 27, 2019, 05:35:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on August 27, 2019, 04:01:51 PM
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
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on August 28, 2019, 02:38:04 AM

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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on August 28, 2019, 11:56:20 AM
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

1 against 9 ! ? Its pushing it. Even if that 1 was armed I would have thought that 9 could have managed to overcome the 1. For that matter even several against 9.  And then the separate parts of this Mystery just dont seem to fit together for that kind of scenerio.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on August 28, 2019, 12:13:07 PM

Quote
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot
the victims were  injured with one blow. Simply  and effectively.
Quote
But 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.

Quote
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.


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.

But why would any other people want to go to that much trouble to Murder them ?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on August 28, 2019, 12:17:59 PM
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

Another little gem. And of course you are correct. If it was meant to be Murder dressed up as an Accident it was a right old mess up. The Murderers failed in that case. I dont subscribe to any Murder Theory by other people. Note : I say other People.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: varuna on August 28, 2019, 12:33:29 PM
Hello all .
I was travelling . not so far .   whist1
I think we must work by parts before choosing a theory or whatever.
- material possibilities
-whodunit
-the context
I have no positive idea of the 2+ 3° point. Not enough knowledge .
For the first , a strong and deadly action without USING of firearms is possible .
1) a wrong time at  the wrong place
2) push at point blank ( or with dagues or kukhri or othes on throats, not slide but edge ) all the group outside
3) start to walk and wait for instructions .. did not come
4) some escaped or try to, not easy to maintain the threat outside with bad weather, no visibility and group of young athletes
5) several murders , maybe the last two died of starvation
6) wash out tracks and leave stuff , to hurry or too upset or both
5 people could have been enough . some ideas who ?  bang1

Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on August 28, 2019, 12:36:33 PM

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 ?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on August 28, 2019, 10:49:05 PM

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.

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
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on August 29, 2019, 11:59:03 AM
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
« Last Edit: August 28, 2019, 11:46:11 PM by Star man »


Yes it is strange but all the different parts could fit together if we included a YETI or some such Being.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on August 29, 2019, 01:23:38 PM
Yes, replace human with large ape like creature and it fits nicely.

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 04, 2019, 10:05:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on September 04, 2019, 10:16:34 AM
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?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 04, 2019, 11:21:59 AM

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. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 04, 2019, 11:26:19 AM
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 is no evidence, absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that these nine students in fact cut open their own tent, and there is no evidence that they left the tent through these slashes.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on September 04, 2019, 11:46:13 AM
 thumb1
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on September 04, 2019, 11:45:51 PM

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



Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 05, 2019, 04:08:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on September 05, 2019, 04:23:22 AM
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.


[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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on September 05, 2019, 04:28:48 AM
Quote from Per Inge Oestmoen

[[  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. ]]

Safe assumption  !  ?  Nothing appears to be safe about The Dyatlov Mystery. Plenty of ASSUMPTIONS though.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on September 05, 2019, 04:39:37 AM
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 ! ?
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 05, 2019, 05:00:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 05, 2019, 05:17:46 AM

[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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on September 05, 2019, 06:20:17 AM
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.

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
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Loose}{Cannon on September 05, 2019, 06:49:04 AM
Quote
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.

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. 
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Monika on September 05, 2019, 11:19:42 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 06, 2019, 01:55:27 AM

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


1. The point with the footprints is that the first people who arrived at the scene reported two things:

- Rather close to the tent, they saw footprints from a group of people standing in a row, before these tracks went down the hill.

- It was possible to follow the footprints for some distance from the tent, and they showed no sign of panic in any way.

- Of course they must have been scared. They understooe that they were in mortal danger, and we can only imagine what torments they went through, sensing clearly that they would probably not survive this. They were intelligent students, and certainly understood that these assailants attacked them for a reason and that they would not be allowed to escape with their life. But they seemed to have been forced out in an orderly way, judging after the tracks which were found by the first rescue team.

2. All sheathed knives remained in the tent. If they had left voluntarily, it is for certain that they would have taken with them one or more large knives. A pen knife is not of much help in a survival situation, neither for fighting nor for cutting firewood. It was also claimed, without any hard evidence, that the students had cut the tent themselves and exited the tent through these cuts. These claims have never been backed up in any way, and when the bodies were found they had no knives suitable for making large slashes into a heavy cotton fabric either.

3. In all probability, the attackers had planned the operation so as to look like an unfortunate accident in the cold. The proper way to do that in these circumstances was to force their nine victims out from the tent, ensure that they were improperly dressed, and then chase them away at gunpoint and let the winter do the job. That explains why not only Igor Dyatlov, Rustem Slobodin and Zinaida Kolmogorova but the whole group was allowed to walk away from the tent - that simply was part of the attacking squad's plan. The only obstacle was that at that night it was only moderately cold, hence the injuries which must have been caused by the attackers' need to expedite the desired outcome. Neither a camera, nor a small pen knife, nor some matches that could easily have been overlooked by the assailants primarily concerned with getting them out from the tent without proper winter clothing would be of great help in their situation.

4. The injuries of all the nine students are consistent with an attack scenario. There is not a single injury that is likely to have been caused by natural causes, accidents or stumbling around. In particular this is true for the massive damage on the last four, who are supposed to be the last to die. This is significant, because the last four were better dressed than the others and had gone furthest from the tent. The attacking squad therefore had to use the greatest force against them, hence the more severe injuries. The massive blows cannot have been caused by falls or avalanches, because there was no avalanches in the area and an avalanche would be very unlikely to crush rib cages and leave the arms and legs unharmed and there were no deadly precipices where these last four were found. There must have been repeated blows in the same direction and angle, perfectly consistent with hard blows dealt possibly by elbow strikes. It is also significant that the injuries of the last four were different, in addition to the fact that these injuries do not at all fit any accident theory. Kolevatov had a crushed laryngeal area and a wound behind the ear, which is highly unlikely to have been caused by anything "natural," Thibeaux-Brignolle had a crushed skull which evidently is caused by an impact by a hard blow which could not realistically be caused by a fall down a moderate slope or a non-existent avalanche. Dubinina and Zolotaryov had crushed rib cages. But there were no natural forces in the area that could possibly have caused such massive trauma to their chests.

All this leaves us with murder, a planned and intelligently orchestrated murder as the - by far - most likely explanation.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 06, 2019, 03:24:13 AM

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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 06, 2019, 04:00:56 AM
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on September 06, 2019, 04:59:38 AM
Quote
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.

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.

Personally, I agree with everything you have said above.  Bravo.  The only thing I disagree with is who or more precisely what did it.

As very strange as it sounds if you replace the word “human “ with “large powerful ape like creature “. Then we would be in complete agreement.  Now, Before anyone starts with the Yeti ‘s don’t exist response - a large powerful Gorilla is capable of inflicting those injuries and it would not have been bothered about them taking knives, matches or a camera with them when they left the tent.

So where did this ape come from you may ask.  Well if a military test of some kind was being executed in the area then you would want to know the effects that such a test would have in biological creatures such as humans and I doubt there would be many willing volunteers.  Hence you fly in some test subjects and position them strategically in the test zone.  Now how would you ensure that the test subjects stay where they are supposed to be - maybe a cage or a tether of some kind?  But Gorillas are very strong and can bend iron bars and escape.  Also in cold temps steel can become brittle.  So if this creature (s) escaped and found the Dyatlov camp then the rest is self explanatory.  Note that such an ape is unlikely to have been well treated, may be injured and will certainly not be happy about humans.

I might have to elaborate a bit more in one of my other theories in the general discussion section

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on September 07, 2019, 05:42:30 PM
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.

Some were better dressed than others. Finding clothes and boots in heaps inside the tent along with other life support equipment may suggest something sinister.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on September 07, 2019, 05:51:14 PM

[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.

[1] But we are investigators.

Nothing is beyond reasonable doubt in the Dyatlov Case. More like a Case of ALL OPTIONS ARE OPEN.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on September 07, 2019, 06:04:14 PM

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.

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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: gildar on September 09, 2019, 09:50:46 AM
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
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on September 21, 2019, 12:03:16 PM
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

Its an interesting proposition re the potential Camp at the Cedar Tree. I have thought that that may be a possibility, ie, that the Dyatlov Group or some of them Camped at the Cedar Tree purposely. But I just can not bring Myself to believe that all of the Dyatlov Group were killed deliberately by other people.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 29, 2019, 04:08:04 AM

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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Star man on September 29, 2019, 02:40:59 PM

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.

You are right that it was no accident.  However, the injuries indicate that they were attacked by something With hands the size of an A4 piece of paper.  Thibo's depressed fracture is identical in proportions to the ball of the thumb of very large hand and the injury is indicative of that very large hand applying a force in excess of 450kg by either crushing his against the snow, or bringing the palm of its hand down onto his skull hard.  Then when you look at the forces required to cause the rib fractures something with a hand 30cm long and 16cm wide makes sense.  Question is what was it?  A Gorilla is only think that I know of that matches the description. 

Regards

Star man
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on October 08, 2019, 12:30:51 PM

 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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on October 10, 2019, 06:50:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Murder Indead
Post by: sarapuk on November 06, 2019, 11:33:27 AM
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.

Well as you must be aware weather can change dramatically in any location and 40 or 50 miles away is a long way. So its not possible to know with any certainty the exact weather conditions. For the record, I dont believe that the Dyatlov Group were killed by other Humans. But I think you will find that the USSR had highly trained men and women capable of killing.