by Simon Skeptic

[Teddy]

I don't believe in a natural cause of the deaths any more, but rather a criminalistic. That is why I don't promote the deadly cold theory any more. But this is a very different topic, which I would like to discuss with you. ~ Simon Skeptic

[Skeptic X]

The Deadly Cold Theory, in short, tries to explain the hikers death by a sudden drop of temperature which forced them to abandon the tent and seek shelter from the wind down in the valley. I theorize that they left their shoes and clothes in the tent, because they were frozen and/or wet.

But with time I realized the weaknesses of this theory. Let me list some of them:

1. The hikers posessed outer wear  (like jackets, ski boots, gloves etc ) as well as clothes for sleeping  (felt boots, warm fur wests, caps etc)
This means even if their outer wear became wet, they would have had enough dry clothes to protect them from the worst cold. That they abandoned their outer and inner shoes can not be explained by this.

2. If they were freezing, it would have made little sense starting a fire at the wind exposed cedar. They would have made it in the ravine rather

3. I simply dont believe they would have mistaken the Lozva for the Auspiya valley. They were not stupid.

4. I said that Slobodin and Dyatlov started a fight. But it is hard to believe that a struggle between friends would end in one of them dying from a both sided fractured skull. That would be too brutal of a fight with the intent to kill.
(I should add that although he officially died from hypothermia, he would have died from his injuries eventually)

Well, these are some of my thoughts on this theory. Please consider them while watching the video

[DH106]

4. I said that Slobodin and Dyatlov started a fight. But it is hard to believe that a struggle between friends would end in one of them dying from a both sided fractured skull. That would be too brutal of a fight with the intent to kill.
(I should add that although he officially died from hypothermia, he would have died from his injuries eventually)

Well, these are some of my thoughts on this theory. Please consider them while watching the video

In the postmortem reports for Slobodin & Thibeaux-Brignoll (the 2 hikers who suffered skull fractures), I don't see that it's explicitly stated that these injuries happened BEFORE death, although it could perhaps be inferred by the way the autopsy performer commented and speculated as to the causes.

The reason I mention this is that I was going to add to Simon Skeptic's "Deadly Cold Theory" by mentioning that I have see a reference to a report written concerning several  autopsies of deaths occurring  in conditions of extreme hypothermia (very cold conditions) where the rapid freezing of the brain has caused expansion (like water turning to ice expands) which has cracked the skull from the inside. It has always struck me as very odd that these 2 hikers had cracked skulls but little or no tissue damage above - a possible solution?

[Skeptic X]

Hi DH106,

Slobodins injuries must have occured while he was alive.
There are two reasons:

1. There were edemas and swellings on his head. This only happens when the blood circulation is working properly  (an indication that he was still very warm when he recieved them)

2. Even if the cranium can crack through freezing, it would break open at the seams where the bone plates meet. This was not the case with Slobodin. I cant post the drawings of his head right now, but you can look it up. The cracks where in the middle of the bone plate. Only violent trauma can do this. This would correspond with the injuries on his fists.
There is little doubt in my opinion: Slobodin was beaten up badly.

[Skeptic X]

Here you go. Note that the seam is right behind (!) the fracture

[DH106]

Ok - fair enough. 

[sarapuk]

Well the deadly cold would certainly have finished off the members of the group irrespective of what injuries they had. In those type of sub zero temperatures no one will survive long in the open without being properly clothed. Serious injuries  + inadequate clothing + exposure to sub zero temperature conditions = DEMISE.

[BottledBrunette]

Well, didn't they all freeze to death, so wouldn't they have all the same cracked skulls like Rustem and Nicoli?  Weren't they they only two who had massive head injuries?  If they all froze to death, why wouldn't all of the hikers have the same fractured skulls? 

[gypsy]

Well, didn't they all freeze to death, so wouldn't they have all the same cracked skulls like Rustem and Nicoli?  Weren't they they only two who had massive head injuries?  If they all froze to death, why wouldn't all of the hikers have the same fractured skulls?

Unfortunately, freezing to death itself does not explain the events of the incident. Biological cause of death is insufficient.

To draw an example, let's imagine a situation where a group of people is locked out from a house in sub zero temperature without proper clothing. Technically, they would die of hypothermia, but legally speaking it's homicide.

[sarapuk]

Well, didn't they all freeze to death, so wouldn't they have all the same cracked skulls like Rustem and Nicoli?  Weren't they they only two who had massive head injuries?  If they all froze to death, why wouldn't all of the hikers have the same fractured skulls?

People have froze to death in much lower temperatures and not had any cracking of bones let alone skulls.  So the cracked skulls in the Dyatlov Incident were not caused by freezing conditions. They were caused by something else. The freezing conditions merely exacerbated the situation.