Murder, execution, accidental death

[MDGross]

Most on this forum are agreed I think that the group was not murdered by the Mansi. And who else would have been following the group and decided to strike on the night of Feb. 1? Angry villagers? Escaped Gulag prisoners? What did the murderers have to gain? Nothing was stolen. I'm not certain how thorough the autopsies were, but nothing was reported about the two women being sexually assaulted.
Maybe the KGB or Soviet military had a reason for wanting to kill the group. But why not march them out of the tent, shoot them, clean up the site, leave a few tantalizing footprints in the snow and then dispose of the bodies. Who in the Soviet Union of 1959 was going to request an investigation or even ask questions? Why the elaborate ruse of marching the group to the tree line below? Then let them build a fire and dig out a now den. It becomes a chess game of complex moves, which would be made even more difficult considering the darkness and brutal weather conditions.
Perhaps they suffered accidental deaths from toxic fumes from an exploded missile. But after taking photos of the explosion and cutting slits in the tent to see what happened, wouldn't they believe that the danger had passed? It's unlikely that none of them knew about how missiles were fueled. How would they know that they were inhaling possible fatal fumes? And if acid rain began falling, why wouldn't they stay inside the tent, which would offer some protection?
If a couple in the group had come to blows and chased each other out of the tent, why not wait for them to wrestle in the snow a bit and then return to the tent? Why would all of them exit the tent with no shoes or coats and walk nearly a mile away from the tent?
Of course, any of these scenarios or others like it might have happened.
But the odds seem to favor a perceived natural disaster about to befall them or wildly irrational thought, perhaps from infrasound, something they ate or drank, or mass hysteria brought on by a person or persons who thought they were all about to die.

[Teddy]

A puzzle from hell indeed.

[Teddy]

...nothing was reported about the two women being sexually assaulted.

That's right

[Nigel Evans]

But the odds seem to favor a perceived natural disaster about to befall them or wildly irrational thought, perhaps from infrasound, something they ate or drank, or mass hysteria brought on by a person or persons who thought they were all about to die.Not really, Semyon and Lyudmila seem to have walked one mile from the tent and then suffered a superhuman crushing force. A bit more than misperception involved methinks.

[narvikk]

I'm not certain how thorough the autopsies were, but nothing was reported about the two women being sexually assaulted.

It is mentioned in the autopsy reports they were not assaulted.

Of course, any of these scenarios might have happened.

I don't think so.

[jarrfan]

The only explanation as far as KGB involvement, one would  have to turn back the clock and remember what Russian life was like in 1959. Stalin had died, the future of Russia was questioned. They were scary times for regular citizens who knew Stalin had killed so many people or put them away in Gulags for little more than stealing bread or just being suspected of it.

Why would the KGB hide this incident? Because that is what they did at the time. The case was closed, end of story. It seems most family members were certain it was some government incident and the commanders in power would not release the information, as usual which is what the families had experienced. Russia did not want mishaps or spy involvement known to the ordinary citizens and certainly not a missile launch gone wrong.

If there was suspicion about 1 or 2 hikers in the group using the hike to meet and sell info to the Americans, there would be no question they would all be separated, interrogated and killed. For all we know, Yuri Yudin may have spilled the beans and that was why he left the trek and remained quiet (just a theory).

Only when the government releases any information will this case be put to rest.

[MDGross]

It's possible that the KGB killed the group. Wouldn't make sense to kill one or two and leave the rest as eyewitnesses. My point is if the KGB was responsible, why stage such a complex ruse of marching the group down to the tree line? Then let them build a fire and dig out a snow den? Why not execute everyone outside the tent and then dispose of the bodies so that they would never be found? I agree that in the Soviet Union of that era, no one would question the government.

[jarrfan]

One possible scenario is they separated the group questioning them individually perhaps near the cedar tree, let them build the fire to stay warm letting them think they were not in danger and let the other 4 go and make a den, knowing they would not be able to survive out there anyway, perhaps that was the group that were not involved in any espionage. The 2 at the cedar climbed the tree after hearing screams from Slobodin and Dyatlov, Zinaida. Slobodin was hit in the head, Dyatlov appears to have bruises near his ankles and under his arms where he may have been forcibly carried, Zinaida with the rifle butt on her side; Maybe the 2 Yuri's climbed the tree to see the den 4 and yell for them to run. The last finished off were the ravine 4. They had to cross the ravine to make the den, so the ravine was not that deep (as shown in the summer pictures). They were beaten so they could not walk and the threat left them to die.

Maybe far fetched, but maybe not....

[sarapuk]

Dont forget that the area was closed off to the general public for several years after the INCIDENT. Why such a long time  !  ?  Unless something extraordinary happened as was suggested by the use of the term OVERWHELMING UNKNOWN FORCE.

[Nigel Evans]

It's possible that the KGB killed the group. Wouldn't make sense to kill one or two and leave the rest as eyewitnesses. My point is if the KGB was responsible, why stage such a complex ruse of marching the group down to the tree line? Then let them build a fire and dig out a snow den? Why not execute everyone outside the tent and then dispose of the bodies so that they would never be found? I agree that in the Soviet Union of that era, no one would question the government.

The murder theory has to explain superhuman force and with what motive.

[jarrfan]

Correction to previous post: Yuri Doroshenko had bruises under his arms and his legs as if he had been forcibly carried. Dyatlov had them at his ankle area as if he may have been pulled....

[Monika]

Most on this forum are agreed I think that the group was not murdered by the Mansi. And who else would have been following the group and decided to strike on the night of Feb. 1? Angry villagers? Escaped Gulag prisoners? What did the murderers have to gain? Nothing was stolen. I'm not certain how thorough the autopsies were, but nothing was reported about the two women being sexually assaulted.
Maybe the KGB or Soviet military had a reason for wanting to kill the group. But why not march them out of the tent, shoot them, clean up the site, leave a few tantalizing footprints in the snow and then dispose of the bodies. Who in the Soviet Union of 1959 was going to request an investigation or even ask questions? Why the elaborate ruse of marching the group to the tree line below? Then let them build a fire and dig out a now den. It becomes a chess game of complex moves, which would be made even more difficult considering the darkness and brutal weather conditions.
Perhaps they suffered accidental deaths from toxic fumes from an exploded missile. But after taking photos of the explosion and cutting slits in the tent to see what happened, wouldn't they believe that the danger had passed? It's unlikely that none of them knew about how missiles were fueled. How would they know that they were inhaling possible fatal fumes? And if acid rain began falling, why wouldn't they stay inside the tent, which would offer some protection?
If a couple in the group had come to blows and chased each other out of the tent, why not wait for them to wrestle in the snow a bit and then return to the tent? Why would all of them exit the tent with no shoes or coats and walk nearly a mile away from the tent?
Of course, any of these scenarios or others like it might have happened.
But the odds seem to favor a perceived natural disaster about to befall them or wildly irrational thought, perhaps from infrasound, something they ate or drank, or mass hysteria brought on by a person or persons who thought they were all about to die.

I agree with you, why they would allow them to go to the forest, build a fire, leave them for 1.5-2 hours with fire, and allow the four to build a den. It's nonsense.
It is easier to dispose of them immediately, take away the bodies as well as the tent and clean up the space. No one would ever find them and their missing would be attributed to the difficult conditions in the mountains. Normally, many people disappear in the mountains (even in my country in the High Tatras, where many people are present), and they will never be found. And in the Urals, far beyond civilization, that would be so simple. No one should be suspected of fraudulent activity.

And if they were exposed to toxic substances, I can't imagine being able to go down in organized manner, build a fire and the den. No, these activities required a "clean head" and some cold-blooded action.

[Nigel Evans]

Most on this forum are agreed I think that the group was not murdered by the Mansi. And who else would have been following the group and decided to strike on the night of Feb. 1? Angry villagers? Escaped Gulag prisoners? What did the murderers have to gain? Nothing was stolen. I'm not certain how thorough the autopsies were, but nothing was reported about the two women being sexually assaulted.
Maybe the KGB or Soviet military had a reason for wanting to kill the group. But why not march them out of the tent, shoot them, clean up the site, leave a few tantalizing footprints in the snow and then dispose of the bodies. Who in the Soviet Union of 1959 was going to request an investigation or even ask questions? Why the elaborate ruse of marching the group to the tree line below? Then let them build a fire and dig out a now den. It becomes a chess game of complex moves, which would be made even more difficult considering the darkness and brutal weather conditions.
Perhaps they suffered accidental deaths from toxic fumes from an exploded missile. But after taking photos of the explosion and cutting slits in the tent to see what happened, wouldn't they believe that the danger had passed? It's unlikely that none of them knew about how missiles were fueled. How would they know that they were inhaling possible fatal fumes? And if acid rain began falling, why wouldn't they stay inside the tent, which would offer some protection?
If a couple in the group had come to blows and chased each other out of the tent, why not wait for them to wrestle in the snow a bit and then return to the tent? Why would all of them exit the tent with no shoes or coats and walk nearly a mile away from the tent?
Of course, any of these scenarios or others like it might have happened.
But the odds seem to favor a perceived natural disaster about to befall them or wildly irrational thought, perhaps from infrasound, something they ate or drank, or mass hysteria brought on by a person or persons who thought they were all about to die.

I agree with you, why they would allow them to go to the forest, build a fire, leave them for 1.5-2 hours with fire, and allow the four to build a den. It's nonsense.
It is easier to dispose of them immediately, take away the bodies as well as the tent and clean up the space. No one would ever find them and their missing would be attributed to the difficult conditions in the mountains. Normally, many people disappear in the mountains (even in my country in the High Tatras, where many people are present), and they will never be found. And in the Urals, far beyond civilization, that would be so simple. No one should be suspected of fraudulent activity.

And if they were exposed to toxic substances, I can't imagine being able to go down in organized manner, build a fire and the den (some of them didn't get down the mountain? Those that did lit a fire as a beacon and shouted from a treetop for those left behind?. No, these activities required a "clean head" and some cold-blooded action.

[Tim]

 All theories posted here a very compelling and have given me additional substance to chew on.   In the book "The Death of Nine" Mrs or Miss  Anderson, who worked as a cryptologic for the US Air Force, makes some very compelling arguments on a number of subjects such as, the  tourist speed of decent to the trees, and a comparison to what was written in a diary concerning the  progress they were making in the snow single file heading toward the mountains. There are many more eye brow lifting scenarios she presents at first seem far fetched, but , It did get me to reconsider my hard line belief that this was a natural disaster. Now I have forced myself to believe what is in the autopsies is true and not a cover up, if it were a cover up the autopsies would read ,all died of hypothermia and snow pack compression for the broken bones and the running water aiding to the decay of the bodies in the stream and the burn marks speak for themselves in trying to stay warm...With over 80 injuries collectively on the bodies and where they were found this seems to be more consistent to the autopsy reports which suggests human intervention. Hypothetically, in mathematics, if I multiply one times zero equal one and build upon that more equations, when it came to the  proof, it would be dismissed single handedly. The same goes for the autopsy reports, they are the proof.  Lastly Mrs.or Miss Anderson goes into motive, but, that's for you to read which I highly recommend.  When emotions are taken out of an investigation, logic has a place to lay a foundation...Thanks for reading.

[Nigel Evans]

All theories posted here a very compelling and have given me additional substance to chew on.   In the book "The Death of Nine" Mr. Anderson, who worked as a cryptologic for the US Air Force, makes some very compelling arguments on a number of subjects such as, the  tourist speed of decent to the trees, and a comparison to what was written in a diary concerning the  progress they were making in the snow single file heading toward the mountains. There are many more eye brow lifting scenarios he presents at first seem far fetched, but , It did get me to reconsider my hard line belief that this was a natural disaster. Now I have forced myself to believe what is in the autopsies is true and not a cover up, if it were a cover up the autopsies would read ,all died of hypothermia and snow pack compression for the broken bones and the running water aiding to the decay of the bodies in the stream and the burn marks speak for themselves in trying to stay warm...With over 80 injuries collectively on the bodies and where they were found this seems to be more consistent to the autopsy reports which suggests human intervention. Hypothetically, in mathematics, if I multiply one times zero equal one and build upon that more equations, when it came to the  proof, it would be dismissed single handedly. The same goes for the autopsy reports, they are the proof.  Lastly Mr. Anderson goes into motive, but, that's for you to read which I highly recommend.  When emotions are taken out of an investigation, logic has a place to lay a foundation...Thanks for reading.

Launton Anderson is female - https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/18786994.Launton_Anderson

[lucid-nonsense]

It's possible that the KGB killed the group. Wouldn't make sense to kill one or two and leave the rest as eyewitnesses. My point is if the KGB was responsible, why stage such a complex ruse of marching the group down to the tree line? Then let them build a fire and dig out a snow den? Why not execute everyone outside the tent and then dispose of the bodies so that they would never be found? I agree that in the Soviet Union of that era, no one would question the government.

The murder theory has to explain superhuman force and with what motive.

And how they found them in the dark in a snowstorm. And why they were out at night in such weather. Either that or why they found them during the day and waited for them to put up their tent and start eating before attacking.

Dont forget that the area was closed off to the general public for several years after the INCIDENT. Why such a long time  !  ?  Unless something extraordinary happened as was suggested by the use of the term OVERWHELMING UNKNOWN FORCE.

Because they didn't know what happened, so they thought it might happen again.