Why did Lyudmila have worst injuries?

[ElizabethHarris]

Does anyone have any theories on this? They were certainly all massacred but her injuries were extreme and the most horrific. It's as if she was picked out for a reason. Any ideas?

[Ziljoe]

What do you mean worst injuries? The four in the ravine had the most decayed bodies. They were under water, under 3-4 meters of snow for a good number of weeks. Roughly 4 months. It would seem her face would have taken the flow of the water by the way the body was situated . All the ravine 4 were in a state of decay. Much of the skin and tissue surrounding these orifices had started to decay and their skin was wrinkled from being submerged.

[ElizabethHarris]

Read detailed explanation of her injuries at www.russiantours/chapter14.com. I think it will shed light on just how severe she was tortured and beaten. Very little is postmortem.

[Ziljoe]

The link didn't work but I think I found it. Interesting stuff and I will look through it. If it is the same link ,they say the bodies were in the water for 6-15 days. I am no expert in this . However it is obvious that the bodies were rotting , it can be seen from the photos of the bodies and the reports. All we have is broken/fractured or displaced bones .missing soft tissues etc. ( I'm a bit lost about actual blood found)

If the eyes / tougne had been found missing on the first frozen 5 it might be more suspicious . I know my logic is poor but I'm just starting from the obvious. The ravine 4 are found under 3-4 meters of snow, harder snow than the surrounding area. They have broken ribs, bones etc, they also have missing eyes and soft tissue and are in water.

I have read a bit more about buttons not being fastened too. I do wonder if there hand mobility hand function had been compromised because of the cold.

I am also aware that hypothermia can kill without frostbite. The two can over lap but hypothermia is the killer,  frostbite is just the freezing. The lack of frost bite is an indication of dying by other means before frostbite freezes the extremities. I've read so much I forget and everyone is an expert but I appreciate the link.

[RMK]

Read detailed explanation of her injuries at www.russiantours/chapter14.com. I think it will shed light on just how severe she was tortured and beaten. Very little is postmortem.

Just so you know, your link (which does not work for me either) almost certainly is meant to point to a machine-translation, into English, of an essay written by author(s) known by the pen-name "Aleksei Rakitin", although it may not credit the original author(s) of the translated text.  The individual or group known as "Aleksei Rakitin" was one of the first major promoters of an espionage-related homicide theory of the Dyatlov Pass Incident.  I say this only to remark that the source you reference is definitely trying to promote a specific theory, so please read it with that in mind.  Also, you should be able to find a lot of criticism of the essay, both favorable and unfavorable, if you search for "Rakitin".

I believe the URL in your link is missing the top-level domain ".online", BTW.

[ElizabethHarris]

Thank you for the added info about the likely unreliable article. With so many theories out there and everyone trying to prove their own theory, it's hard to sort through what is fact and what is not. I have watched/read so many articles/docs about this case and the "facts" are always different and often contradictory. Recently saw one doc that purported Yeti prints were found at the scene as was evidence of a bomb. Its hard to sort through truth from fiction. (Also, I have no idea how to post links lmao)

[ElizabethHarris]

Ziljoe (sp?) I agree that everyone thinks their theory is the right one and I also am certainly no expert! Just a true crime afficionado 
And my computer skills are evidence of my 1990s education BUT I wonder if there would be significant decomp in bodies that are so frozen solid. I could be wrong but I would think it unlikely that animals would chew through ice? And if Ludye's tongue was consumed by scavengers, wouldn't it be torn with evidence of bite marks instead of missing completely? Don't know. Also, she is the one who was said to have argued with a Mansi at their stopover which would make sense for a removed tongue but again, that could be fiction. Also, I don't mean any of this argumentatively, just throwing my questions and ideas out there. It was posted here before somewhere but if you go to dyatlovpass.com there are autopsy diagrams with explanations of what each hiker sustained. Seems to me that Yuri, Dyatlov and Zina all fought for their lives at scene A and had corresponding defense wounds on their hands. Igor's bruises on his knees and backs of his ankles seems like evidence that he was hit twice by a blunt object, first in knees, then in ankles or vice versa. Scene B is much more of a mystery but still fits with the murder scenario IMO. I just cannot come up with another conclusion besides murder that I am comfortable with.  What do you think happened? I'm interested in your ideas.

[Ziljoe]

The animals have to live some where, they dig their holes. But I think the bacteria in the water would do the most damage. If you ever defrosted chicken, it recommends placing it ( in a bag!) In cold water. If you notice the edges defrost quite quickly, imagine running water for just 2 weeks. I think the internet has exaggerated some of the findings, the skin around the faces has gone. Plus to cut a whole tougne out is a bit of work. If anyone had cut it out ,I would still think there would be no way of knowing because of the state of the bodies.

Many of the marks are consistent with hypothermia , possibility of falling etc. If it was a fight in this desperate situation I would actually expect more marks but if a gun was produced  it would probably stop an all out fight leaving the group submissive.

1)I'm 90% with the Wolverine. Igor b goes a long way to explaining the deaths and injuries. He has a very logical argument to nearly all questions.

2) Outsiders, staged or murder
Teddy's book puts an interesting new slant on things and I recommend it. Lots of information. I can't rule out them being forced out of the tent by others, murdered or just made to survive in the cold and prevented from returning to their tent. I'm struggle with any motive for  murder with all the logistics but I'm willing to listen.

3)Some weather/natural force .

I think the missing eyes and tongue need to be put in a context of how the ravine 4 bodies were found.

I certainly don't think it's aliens zooming about the universe looking for human caviar to go with a nice bottle of wine.

[marieuk]

Do you have any more info on Lyuda's argument?  Would be interested to hear more about this.  I do wonder why she seemed to be acting out of character and imagine something must have happened, but don't really have any idea why her injuries were so bad.   It's difficult to say when we don't know for sure how they were caused.

[marieuk]

The animals have to live some where, they dig their holes. But I think the bacteria in the water would do the most damage. If you ever defrosted chicken, it recommends placing it ( in a bag!) In cold water. If you notice the edges defrost quite quickly, imagine running water for just 2 weeks. I think the internet has exaggerated some of the findings, the skin around the faces has gone. Plus to cut a whole tougne out is a bit of work. If anyone had cut it out ,I would still think there would be no way of knowing because of the state of the bodies.

Many of the marks are consistent with hypothermia , possibility of falling etc. If it was a fight in this desperate situation I would actually expect more marks but if a gun was produced  it would probably stop an all out fight leaving the group submissive.

1)I'm 90% with the Wolverine. Igor b goes a long way to explaining the deaths and injuries. He has a very logical argument to nearly all questions.

2) Outsiders, staged or murder
Teddy's book puts an interesting new slant on things and I recommend it. Lots of information. I can't rule out them being forced out of the tent by others, murdered or just made to survive in the cold and prevented from returning to their tent. I'm struggle with any motive for  murder with all the logistics but I'm willing to listen.

3)Some weather/natural force .

I think the missing eyes and tongue need to be put in a context of how the ravine 4 bodies were found.

I certainly don't think it's aliens zooming about the universe looking for human caviar to go with a nice bottle of wine.

I agree with you Teddy's and Igor B's are the best explanations I've read so far. 

[Manti]

Several things..

First of all, even dyatlovpass.com contains material from various different sources. The diagrams showing the injuries are just someone's interpretation of the autopsies and I would say aren't 100% accurate. If you ask me, the most authoritative account of the incident are the case files, these are also available on dyatlovpass.com. I recommend reading both volume 1 and volume 2. There are autopsies both translated into English and in original Russian (scanned pages).

Now about those found in the ravine... They were not frozen solid. They were in a stream... under snow. Even if above the snow, the air temperature is -30C (at night), snow is a very good insulator. And because there was constant flowing water, it acted as "heating". This flowing water was most likely 4C, below which point water's volume expands (causing mixing). So, while parts of their bodies that weren't touching water might have been frozen, the parts in water most certainly weren't. Also because they were in relatively warm temperatures, this might explain lack of frostbite.
Now, it is also possible that initially they were closed to the surface, and thus in -20C temperatures and frozen, and only later ended up in the stream as the snow shifted. But they weren't frozen when they were found.


It is true that the description of Lyuda's missing tongue is vague in the autopsy. However... it is also not very significant. I don't think it's a life threatening injury if someone loses their tongue. (Except it makes chewing food very hard). But it can't be the cause of death so maybe because of that was not fully described. But it wasn't just her tongue missing, if you'd like to see for yourself there are some fairly grisly photos also on http://dyatlovpass.com
I will add that I imagine it is very hard to "completely" remove someone's tongue with a knife without leaving obvious cuts on their face and mouth...

I could be wrong but I would think it unlikely that animals would chew through ice?

There is a wolverine theory... while it doesn't pertain to the damage to those found in the ravine.. Wolverines live in this general area of Siberia and have teeth and jaws that are capable of chewing frozen meat, as well as huge claws, with which they are very skilled at digging metres deep in snow. You can find a documentary about wolverines on YouTube, highly recommended.
Although Lyuda's injuries are probably not from a wolverine.

[ElizabethHarris]

Manti, one of the reasons this is such an interesting and damn frustrating case is because of all conflicting pieces of evidence. Like you said, it's impossible to figure out which details are correct and which are not, not only because of all of the different "interpretations and theories" but because we are relying on 60+ years of evolving stories and "evidence" AND, even worse, translations!! We all know how things get misinterpreted or misstated in translation so how are we to know which of these are in fact correct and which are errors in 60 year old translated files that were classified by the Soviet govt for years and locked away somewhere?? Even the autopsies likely have omissions or misstatements, so it's hard to rely on that too. The fact that the Russians just recently tucked this case away as an "avalanche" accident, is absurd and suggests that they are STILL afraid to publicize the truth. Whether it's military/Mansi/aliens/Yeti, they are likely afraid of a public backlashing of some kind.
The only thing that is probably undoctored would be the crime scene photos. If we are to believe the autopsy, I believe that the first 5 at scene A were involved in a fight with unknown party which would coincide with the possible defensive wounds they all had, which the scene B victims did not. I think the first 5 were held captive while another unknown party took the other 4 elsewhere (scene B). Since the two groups of victims had very differing injuries, it would suggest 2 (at least, but I suspect more) assailants with very different methods of O and probably weaponry.  I am interested in the wolverine theory and will read up on that. Last thing, the missing tongue evidence...I read somewhere that there was copious amounts of blood in Ludye's stomach, which suggested she was alive when the tongue was severed. If that could be substantiated along with the type of tongue wound she had, we would be eliminating theories. And finally, an autopsy would be able to determine how the tongue was removed. Whether it was a clean wound or not would address the scavenger question. But autopsy results say nothing about that. We are only left to guess. This case can never be solved IMO but I think we can agree that somebody somewhere knew more information than was put in the files or recorded in the autopsy results.

[ElizabethHarris]

Ziljoe, is the wolverine theory suggesting that 1 wolverine killed 9 people? Even if someone suggested a bear did this, or even a gorilla (lol) I would never believe it could kill 9 people. But I understand why it's a tempting theory. A lot of it does fit, a lot of it doesn't. Just like all the theories. This story is driving me mad...

I'm wondering if you saw the recent documentary called "A Compelling Unknown Force." I think it was very well done in discussing the different theories and debunking some of them. I'm not sure the wolverine theory is mentioned though, I'd have to watch it again. Much recommended.

[ElizabethHarris]

Marieuk, sorry if I misspelled, I cannot remember exactly where I read that but I'm looking. If I find it, I'll post the link for you. There is another article which mentions a "quarrel with a Mansi" but does not specify who had the argument, what it was about, or how this was reported. So, once again, we are at the 'who knows what's true and what isn't" point where I normally throw my hands up and say, I'm so confused!!! But if you wanted to read the article that is very vague about the argument, you can read it on the Dyatlov Pass Incident-A tragic mystery with lots of loose ends, on nexusnewsfeed.com but there's not much of anything new in that article. Did you see 'Unknown Compelling Force"? It's a newer documentary on amazon. I thought it was really well done.

[Ziljoe]

Hi Elizabeth Harris. The Wolverine page is  under wolverine. Igor b has links to all his explanations.

The Wolverine theory is about it's spray, like a skunk. No one is suggesting it had a fight with the Dyatlov group and chased them down the slope .  It is suggested that it entered the tent for the smell of food. Everyone kicks off and the Wolverine sprays it's defensive chemical.( Basically at this point the Wolverines interaction is over and it can be forgotten.) . If this is the case it would of been overpowering and toxic. Hurting eyes , throats and nose. This is the suggested trigger for the evacuation and cutting of the tent in a hurry and not being able to gather more clothes etc.

They could not go back to the tent or maybe they tried but the stench was too much and decided to go down the slope. To perhaps rinse/wash in water. We don't know if it was morning or evening that the event took place . We don't know the weather conditions at that exact time either. They may  not have understood what  happened as little is known about the Wolverine today and it's spray and were worried as it can damage eyesight for a short period of time.

Anyway, what followed was a series of unfortunate events . Perhaps the weather changed and visibility became poor.   The main event being a collapse of a possible snow bridge/ cave at the ravine where the ravine 4 entered for shelter. This is part of the explanation of the broken ribs and damage done there. The way the bodies were lying and the nature of the fractures plus various differences to the other 5 with regards to autopsy findings.

There is supporting evidence in some of the case files / radiograms etc.

1) the behaviour of the search dogs when coming out of the helicopter . ( They had to be forced out and seemed reluctant. It's interesting that this was even recorded.)

2) that one of the senior searchers got some kind of reaction on his skin from retrieving the bodies from the ravine.

3) that one of the jumpers had yellow orange stains on return to the family. (This could be mistranslation)

I may have got some of these points wrong but Igor b goes into a lot of detail
and backs this up with links and reasons for his conclusions. It's worth the read even  for the explanation of the injuries alone and how previous deaths by hypothermia and in the cold affect the body and make marks on hands and faces. Methodical and logical along with the time events. I think the investigation team  didn't know what to look for and that's why we are left in limbo, they just don't know to this day.

I was all for an avalanche at the start and I got dragged into this mystery because the way it was sold,missing eyes/tongue ,the black and white  photos of frozen bodies etc.  It's a puzzle for sure.

[RMK]

Thank you for the added info about the likely unreliable article. With so many theories out there and everyone trying to prove their own theory, it's hard to sort through what is fact and what is not. I have watched/read so many articles/docs about this case and the "facts" are always different and often contradictory.

ElizabethHarris, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Rakitin's essay is "unreliable", but merely that it was written to argue for a specific theory about the Dyatlov Pass Incident.  Therefore, it offers a particular interpretation of the basic facts of the case that is consistent with that theory.  I do not recall that the essay actually has any significant factual errors, though I haven't read it recently.  For what it's worth: while I do not accept Rakitin's cloak-and-dagger, "spy thriller" theory of the Incident, their essay was what first led me to take homicide theories of the DPI seriously.

Manti, one of the reasons this is such an interesting and damn frustrating case is because of all conflicting pieces of evidence. Like you said, it's impossible to figure out which details are correct and which are not, not only because of all of the different "interpretations and theories" but because we are relying on 60+ years of evolving stories and "evidence" AND, even worse, translations!! We all know how things get misinterpreted or misstated in translation so how are we to know which of these are in fact correct and which are errors in 60 year old translated files that were classified by the Soviet govt for years and locked away somewhere?? Even the autopsies likely have omissions or misstatements, so it's hard to rely on that too. The fact that the Russians just recently tucked this case away as an "avalanche" accident, is absurd and suggests that they are STILL afraid to publicize the truth. Whether it's military/Mansi/aliens/Yeti, they are likely afraid of a public backlashing of some kind.
The only thing that is probably undoctored would be the crime scene photos.

ElizabethHarris, you seem to be frustrated with distinguishing primary facts of the case from secondary interpretation.  I second Manti's advice to read the primary legal documents of the DPI, i.e. the actual case files (start here).  Also, I started a thread, Which commonly "known" facts are not factual?, which may interest you.  I agree that the crime scene photos are also a trustworthy primary source. 

We don't know if it was morning or evening that the event took place . We don't know the weather conditions at that exact time either.

Whoa, hang on Ziljoe.  I thought Igor B. was quite clear that his theory posits that (1) the Dyatlov hikers pitched their tent on the slope of Kholat Syakhl around mid-day of February 1st, and that the wolverine interrupted their lunchtime; and (2) that it was relatively warm at that time, but they froze to death because of a sudden cold snap later in the afternoon.  Those seem like pretty crucial elements of the theory. 

Or, maybe I misunderstand you.  After all, it is certainly true that we don't actually know when the events took place, or exactly what the weather was like at that place and time.

Also, she is the one who was said to have argued with a Mansi at their stopover which would make sense for a removed tongue but again, that could be fiction.

ElizabethHarris, I'm going to need to see a good source for that, because it does not sound familiar to me at all.

Edit: fixed link to other thread.

[Ziljoe]

It ok RMK, I wasn't quoting Igor B and yes he is specific with ideas and his theories to the snow/weather conditions that are needed to make the raised footprints amoungst other things. He also references his thought process on the time of day due to the photos and goes beyond the Wolverine and makes for a rather complete story over many of the questions we all have.  I'm sure the theory can handle a bit of flexibility and he is not rigid to all thoughts.

I don't think you misunderstood me, rather I haven't explained myself well. I was pondering  , or stating the fact that "we"don't know the exact time or weather conditions. I should maybe of put it in brackets .

Igor b's explanation of the weather conditions and time is not a factor to the Wolverine entering the tent but an explanation to why the raised foot prints exist, which would work in any theory I guess.

Although I champion the Wolverine theory I have some reservations about it also. Basically,how bad is that chemical weapon spray and if was nighttime, would I leave the area of the tent. That being said , I appreciate Igor's efforts in breaking down all the known injuries and autopsy reports, reasons for snow conditions, den, snow cave, burns, rib fractures , skin colour, marks on hands,the single skull fracture on Slobodin that could be from freezing, the clenched hands and body positions and a whole bunch of other details.  Doesn't mean he's correct on everything but it's the most complete version I've read and some of his observations could overlap with other people's thoughts.

[ElizabethHarris]

Hi, RMK. Thanks so much for all the info. Was that the article where they make the claim that oldest member of the group (can't spell his name well) was a "spy" or KGB affiliate? I don't have any faith in that theory at all but I definitely am convinced it was murder. Even though it has supposedly been officially 'debunked', the Mansi connection still interests me. They met with the Mansi before they left for their hike, the Mansi took them out to show them where to begin their hike so they knew where they would be, a Mansi tribe member was the person to find the scene B victims, a Mansi member came to assist in the search which often happens with perps joining the rescue, and the two Mansi brothers who were questioned had differing stories regarding what was sacred space on the mountain and what was not. I would think that brothers of the same tribe would both agree on what is sacred land and what is not. Igor's 'Mansi Mansi Mansi' journal entry strikes me as a little strange too but we don't have enough information about what he really meant there. While blaming the aborigine people strikes me as obvious, prejudicial, and unfair, it doesn't mean they should be excluded as potential suspects either. In my belief that they were murdered by a group of people, I believe it would have to be ppl who knew the mountain better than the hikers did, knew how to maneuver it better than they did, and were likely experienced hunters as per the injuries. I read that you are leaning towards the murder theory. What are you ideas or are you still on the fence?

[ElizabethHarris]

Ziljoe, I have not read the Igor B presentation of his theory so I know very little but your summary is very interesting. Do you know where the wolverine theory came from in the first place? What little I have read, it didn't move me very much. Seems somewhat far-fetched? Also, if the wolverine was attracted by the scent of their food, why was the food in the tent found untouched? That kind of kills the theory for me unless there is another explanation that I missed. Also, the fact that food was found intact in the tent weeks later, suggests to me that there was little, if any, animal activity in that spot, so an animal that would pass up readily available food for a living woman's tongue doesn't make sense to me. I'm not saying the theory is wrong, no one could, but I don't think anything would convince me that all of those injuries occurred by natural means. But I will remain open-minded to any theory I haven't heard about before.

[marieuk]

Marieuk, sorry if I misspelled, I cannot remember exactly where I read that but I'm looking. If I find it, I'll post the link for you. There is another article which mentions a "quarrel with a Mansi" but does not specify who had the argument, what it was about, or how this was reported. So, once again, we are at the 'who knows what's true and what isn't" point where I normally throw my hands up and say, I'm so confused!!! But if you wanted to read the article that is very vague about the argument, you can read it on the Dyatlov Pass Incident-A tragic mystery with lots of loose ends, on nexusnewsfeed.com but there's not much of anything new in that article. Did you see 'Unknown Compelling Force"? It's a newer documentary on amazon. I thought it was really well done.

Thanks ElizabethHarris I will look up the article.  No, I haven't seen the documentary unfortunately.  Did it have a favourite theory? 

[Ziljoe]

ElizabethHarris , no problem with questioning the Wolverine. I think the theory just evolved along with others by asking questions and trying to fit the events together. I would say it's no more far fetched than most.

The food and the bodies being untouched actually supports the theory if the nature of the Wolverine spray is true. It uses its glans to mark territory and food it buries. This is what many animals do. However when it feels stressed or frightened or needs to flee, which it only does on rare occasions , its spray has evolved to deter it's attacker , a different spray which the beast does not like it's self.. There's videos of dogs yelping and actually collapsing from being sprayed by skunks.

The tent, food and bodies were contaminated so the theroy is other natural predators would just avoid them. Again this supports the reaction of the search dogs having to be dragged out of the helicopter.

As ever, it's all open for debate. Igor b explains it better than I can.

Having followed the links by RMK  I forgot about the inconsistent statements over the tent and it's cuts.

[ElizabethHarris]

Marieuk, I think the doc did the usual, going over all of the theories but the general consensus at the end in talking to different experts was that it was homicide. I really recommend it. If you get amazon, it's on there.

[ElizabethHarris]

Ziljoe, ok now I understand better. So the wolverine, in is panic over getting caught in the tent, sprayed and send the hikers running and contaminated the food enough so that even the wolverine wouldn't eat it. That does follow. I know you are leaning towards this, but do you really think all of those injuries were caused by natural, unfortunate events? I just can't get over the autopsy. As for the tent, I heard that even though an 'expert' said that it was cut from the inside, I also heard that it might not be so, that it wasn't a certain, proven fact of the case and was probably disputable. That also makes me wonder if the tent mystery isn't all that mysterious after all, which would be the case if it as proven that the tent was NOT cut from the inside but that's evidence we'll never have unfortunately. I do think the condition of the tent holds the answer but since it does not appear to exist anymore, there is no more information to be had from it. Imagine all the testing that could be done on it today. It would break the case wide open IMO and give us a reliable solution.  Also, the dogs and the helicopter....I think a lot of the theories could benefit from this event if it is indeed true. The UFO and Yeti crowd could make the case that dogs are sensitive to paranormal events, which "proves", they were afraid of the paranormal events that occurred there. Dogs also being sensitive to danger/tiny changes in the environment could also support the avalanche theory, even the murder theory. I'm not sure what to make of the dog behavior. But I'm not convinced it wasn't just another of the many strange coincidences present here.

[ElizabethHarris]

One last thing about the wolverine, as Manti wrote in an earlier post, Ludye's wounds aren't consistent with an animal attack IMO. I truly believe that if there was evidence of animal activity in her mouth and eye sockets, it would have been obvious. Bite marks vs. sharp force injuries look very, very different postmortem. Whoever conducted the autopsy would have immediately recognized animal interference with the remains and made note of it but he did not. In fact, the autopsy specifically says it was removed, not chewed. Those are two very different things and I think any coroner would be able to determine removal vs animal activity.

[ElizabethHarris]

I just read that Zina's death was ruled 'hypothermia and violence." How was that overlooked and why was the coroner not made to expound on this conclusion? That stinks of coverup, but not because of UFO/Yeti/Military involvement. Perhaps they knew it was murder and were protecting the Mansi because of previous tension between them and the Soviets?? Perhaps it was just much too dangerous a climate to get involved with more tension between the two. Finally, if the autopsy confirmed that zina died from violence, this shuts down the avalanche theory completely, so why has no one made a further inquiry and concluded that something is very wrong with the natural elements conclusion based on the coroner's own words?

[Ziljoe]

Forget the Wolverine and any teeth marks from any animal. The Wolverine only plays it's part up to the point of the group exiting the tent. ( Think pepper spray/ tear gass) The missing eyes , tongue, skin along with the other 4 in the ravine are most likely to do with the natural expersoure to where they were found and they had been in water and under 3-4 meters of snow for 4 months.It actually reports bath hand and they were in a state of a decay. What we are left with is the fractured ribs,skull fractures , burns and some body marks etc across all the victims.

It's how we put these injuries together. I think the report says the tongue was missing , not removed . Heres the quote, (you made me go and look!!!! )

"There is an absence of the soft tissue from the upper lip on the right with thinning of its edges,exposing the alveolar edge of the upper jaw and teeth. The teeth are regular, intact. The tongue in the oral cavity is absent. The oral mucosa are of grayish green color."

That's it as far as I know from the autopsy report on this site....the tongue is absent!

The report about the dogs means nothing by itself. It's the collective narrative of all things combined that puts the Wolverine theory up there in my opinion. It's how everthing links together that makes it interesting but you will need to read it for yourself and decide, not listen to me giving out scraps.

[ElizabethHarris]

Ziljoe, Thank you for clarifying and looking that up!! Ahh, so tongue is absent is all it said. No forensic explanation given at all. Bizarre.  I wasn't suggesting the wolverine fed on the remains, but other animals lurking around the site for those few weeks. If this case happened now, we would have so much more to go on. Such a shame that cases like this occur in an era of limited medical and scientific knowledge. If you don't mind, because I would like to know myself, what makes you think that this wasn't a murder? I'm open to everything now since I am even more confused now than I was when I knew nothing about this case.

[Ziljoe]

 Some kind of murder is not out of the realms of possibility. But logistically it's got to add up. I would expect more injuries for fight for survival against whoever might be the enemy. More footprints, theft of belongings and all photos/ cameras to have been destroyed.
If they were forced out of the tent by others I would expect them all to have no boots or coat . Plus running away in the tree line . Any attackers , especially if they were outnumbered would have to consider that they might fight back and the outcome in that remote area could lead to their own death. But as you like crime mysteries etc. The closest thing that could be looked at was the trail of the hunter the day before ,that they followed. So someone else was about . Distance and time wise we don't know but there were other humans.

[ElizabethHarris]

Interesting. I still think that if a group of heavily armed persons forced them out of the tent, it would explain those neat, precise lines of footsteps from the tent. I think we have plenty of evidence that several hikers defended themselves, but how well could anyone defend themselves with a bunch of firearms in their faces? (This is why I believe guns had to be involved.) Attackers would have no worry about being hurt by the hikers because of this, especially if they knew prior how many hikers there were, plus 2 females were not going to be much trouble for them (they probably believed.) I believe that is why the group was purposely separated, leaving 5 in group A and four in group B. This was to avoid all 9 getting together and fighting back. I also think that the attackers had one agenda and that was to kill the 9. They weren't interested in stealing anything, in fact, they were smart not to. They wanted zero link to the scene and they succeeded. Anything stolen could have been found in their possession and linked them directly. Also, whoever killed these people knew that mountain forward and backward, more so than the hikers themselves probably, and had no fear of getting lost or injured. The only possible explanation I can come up with about why some were dressed better than others, is that those who were not the first to leave the tent saw what was happening and acted quickly to try and dress themselves before it would be their turn to be taken outside. One of the hikers only had one boot on and I could be wrong, but I thought that none of the hikers at scene A were fully dressed and those at scene B that were, had taken the clothing of those at group A. This could have been another act of depravity. Imagine having to undress your friend's bodies and wear their clothes. Since the hikers at scene B were put in a dugout, this shows that they were meant to stay alive longer than the others, probably for a longer period to sustain torture. We have no idea how long they were kept there alive. It could have been for days. Finally, once again, I'm not sure that any other theory accounts for the calm footprints. I believe they were marched away calmly under the control of someone they could not defend themselves from. They were taken away from the tent to keep all potentially defensive objects out of their grasp (knives, axe etc.) Though it is obviously not a simple case, this seems to me like the simplest and most likely explanation. IMO, the evidence adds up without trying to account for every single detail that is perplexing.

[RMK]

ElizabethHarris, sorry I didn't respond sooner.  You mentioned me by name, so I feel I owe you a reply.

Hi, RMK. Thanks so much for all the info. Was that the article where they make the claim that oldest member of the group (can't spell his name well) was a "spy" or KGB affiliate?

If you're referring to Rakitin's work, then yes, Rakitin claims that Semyon Zolotaryov (Семён Золотарёв) was a KGB asset.

Even though it has supposedly been officially 'debunked', the Mansi connection still interests me.

I do not believe the Mansi were involved.  Although I acknowledge that Mansi people would have had means and opportunity to commit homicide, I find no credible motive.  To me, theories that implicate the Mansi of violence against the Dyatlov Nine reek of orientalism, and of the scapegoating of indigenous peoples.

I read that you are leaning towards the murder theory.

You misunderstand my post, but that's on me for not writing more clearly.  What I meant is that, when I first became interested in the Dyatlov Pass Incident (DPI), I considered homicide theories to be preposterous ("no evidence of anyone there but the Dyatlov Nine!", etc.).  Then--although I did not accept their particular theory--reading Rakitin's work was what led me to actually accept homicide as a possible cause of the DPI.

If you had asked me, say, 13 months ago, I would have told you something like "DPI was murder!".  But since then?...
Today, I regard homicide as an unlikely, but possible, cause of the DPI.

What are you ideas or are you still on the fence?

That's a question big enough to warrant a separate post