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.
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.