Why did the Dyatlov group leave their tent?

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Why did they leave their tent?

That is a crucial question.

The tragedy started with their leaving their camp.

Everything that subsequently happened is connected to their fleeing their tent, and it is probable to the point of certainty that the unusual force that made them leave their shelter was also responsible for their deaths.

Leaving a safe shelter and fleeing out in the arctic winter in the middle of the night without proper clothing and moreover without proper protection of their feet and hands leads to certain death within a short time, and they must all have known that.

Being aware that staying outside half-dressed and with little or no protection for the most vulnerable parts of the body means death, the only possibility is that they found themselves faced with a situation that was so extraordinarily dangerous that staying where they were would result in immediate and violent inescapable death since the danger must have been so great and forceful that nine healthy people could not hope to fight it even if they had axes and knives. They somehow managed to grab with them some few items like matches, but they evidently did not have the time to put on their warm garments.

The immediacy and gravity of the threat they faced on that fateful night is the only possible reason why they left without taking the three to four minutes it would require to put on their winter clothes, boots and mittens/gloves.

What could it be? Let us consider some possibilities.

- An avalanche. That can be ruled out. The terrain was simply not typical of an area where avalanches occur. No avalanches were reported, and no traces of avalanches were found in the area.

- Atmospheric phenomena in the sky. We can also safely rule them out. These nine trekkers were gifted and knowledgeable people who must have been acquainted with both northern lights and other phenomena, and moreover they would not let themselves be scared out from the tent in a deadly vulnerable condition unless an immensely dangerous physical presence forced them to leave.

- Infrasound with subconscious psychological effects that led to their fleeing their tent. It is likely that we can become nervous and even scared by sound frequencies that are capable of subconsciously influencing us. But it is unrealistic to assume that nine intelligent, experienced and evidently mentally as well as physically strong people would let panic overtake them to such a degree that they would all flee. They all knew very well that to leave their shelter in -25 C in the middle of the dark night improperly dressed and without winter mittens, gloves and winter boots is a suicidal action which will invariably lead to death.

- Yetis do not exist, and even if they did they would most likely not be harmful to humans.

- UFOs do exist, but they are natural phenomena, not extraterrestrials that harm and kill people.

- Known animals can also be excluded. Predatory animals would have left characteristic damage on the bodies, and nothing points to an animal attack on any of the nine trekkers while they were alive.

Realistically, judging from the evidence which is known - including the fact that much of the bodily damage found on nearly all of the unfortunate victims was fully compatible with and even characteristic of forceful physical attack - there is only one natural phenomenon that can have caused the trekkers to leave the tent and thereafter caused their deaths. That phenomenon is an assault by human attackers, a powerful, compelling and relentless assault that were intended to kill all the nine members of the Dyatlov group and also achieved that violent and terrible goal.

That is, the tent and its nine occupants must have been attacked by human assailants during the fateful night of February 02, 1959.

[Loose}{Cannon]

This is above all the $9,000 question....  I agree

I do however believe there is a very real possiblity of the 9 becoming unfortunate victims of several events or (chain of events) in which lead to their deaths. 

#1.  Most of the intrigue of this mystery is due to the lack of evidence for all theories which leads one to rely on circumstantial evidence as the basis for the theory they subscribe to the most. 

#2.  Its a 50/50 chance said 'compelling' force came from outside of the tent, or within. I would lean more towards the latter given that the easiest explanation is usually correct.  People tend to focus on more on what compelling force would make them go down the slope rather then what made them leave the tent when approaching this.  For me, its a matter of what inside the tent would they want to flee from, not what is outside they would want to flee towards and subsequently be unprepared as described.    What may have been the reason within the tent for said departure I dont know...  But it shouldn't be overlooked yet alone ruled out.

#3.  The injuries.   I also believe most people tend to see the injuries as 'having' to be caused by someone from outside if the group.  In reality, most victims know their attacker in one way shape or form.  I do believe either case can be made, but I do not like to discount one over the other due to lack of evidence.    We know most sustained injuries consistent with hand/hand combat, but honestly we have no idea who inflicted said injuries..... Could have well been amongst themselves.   Another scenario that shouldn't be overlooked. 

[Armide]

Adding onto Per's point: I'm also willing to believe that they were attacked, and I've found a tiny piece of potential evidence that may support it. We all know that the autopsies were done sloppily and that the descriptions are totally vague, but I noticed how on Igor's body– more specifically his ankles- he had brownish scratches and haemorrhaging to the underlying tissue of both his ankles:

"There are scratches of brown-red color in the area of the left ankle joint on the anterior lateral and on the posterior surfaces of both ankles hollowed over the surface of the skin and also on the (illegible) skin, sized 1 х 0.5 cm and up to 3 х 2.5 cm with hemorrhaging into the underlying soft tissues."

The coroner makes no comment on what may have caused this, but I really think that such symmetrical bruises, especially to the extremities seems to show that he may have been bound at the ankles at one point.

Now I'm no doctor, hell, I haven't even looked at anything biology-related in years, but I'm not the only who believes this might be the case. There's an article in Russian [that Google Translate add-on may come in handy here] in which journalists asked a modern forensic expert his opinion on the odd injuries. He clearly say that "he could not have gotten these bruises falling around in the snow, but rather from circular compression around the ankle, for example as a result of binding from a rope."

I think it's a sign that they may have very well been attacked and bound at one point. By whom? No clue, but it is all quite suspicious.

A bit of a tangent on my part but I think it does reinforce Per's point on the group being attacked; their injuries are just too odd to be natural.

LC, I am willing to believe it is possible that they may have fought between themselves, but as with every other murder theory, my question is simply: Why?

Even if there was some head-butting going on between the leader figures, even if there was some weird romantic-triangle situation, why would they risk their lives to beat the daylights out of each other in such a dangerous area? They were educated young people, even if their disdain for each other grew stronger than their maturity to just let it slide, why would they not wait one more week before beating each other up? It's just odd to me.

Going back to the original point, I don't think that the danger came from inside the tent. Unless one of them in the group was some sort of a psychopathic murder  with suicidal intentions, I can't see why the danger would come from inside the tent...

[SteveCalley]

One metric to determine way to conclude the presence of outside combatants is the difference between punches thrown, and blows received. The hikers seemed to have much more fist and knuckle injury than facial strike marks.   They fought well, but lost. There must have been outside persons, or they thrashed the cedar tree! 

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

One metric to determine the presence of outside combatants is the difference between punches thrown, and blows received. The hikers seemed to have much more fist and knuckle injury than facial strike marks.   They fought well, but lost. There must have been outside persons, or they thrashed the cedar tree!

It is very telling that all those found dead bore the unmistakable marks of being attacked. Even Dyatlov, who bore marks that indicate his being tied before death.

As for the signs that there was a fight, the outside of the knuckles is not where you will find marks if people fall in the snow.

Even more telling is the fact that those who supposedly died last, those down at that so-called "den" beside the little brook, show equally unmistakable signs of being attacked with lethal force - with the intention of killing. It is not possible that these injuries could be the result of a fall, they were all recognizable as typical injuries made by humans with evil intent.

It is important to note it does not take a bomb blast or superhuman strength to cause injuries like the broken ribs of Dubinina and Zolotaryov. Repeated very hard blows to the rib cage or the jumping up and down on the person might well accomplish that. The absence of bruises on the rib cages of these two is as expected, as they were rather well dressed. The same is true for Thibeaux-Brignolles. He had massive head trauma with multiple fractures of the skull without damaged skin, and this was natural when he wore headgear that protected the soft tissue but could not stop the forces from the hard blows which crushed bone. The injuries of Kolevatov also demonstrated that he had been attacked. Broken nose couid have resulted from a fall and the same with the deformed neck, but not the wound behind his ear - and together these injuries strongly suggest that Kolevatov was killed with intent.

As for the theory that these people killed each other, there is no evidence that the death of any of the nine trekkers was caused by fighting within the group. The diaries and the photos that were taken all showed that there was a friendly atmosphere within the group.

One detail regarding the tent: It has been proposed that the tent may have been cut from the outside and not from the inside. However, even if the forensic examination of the damage of the tent may have been lacking in scientific rigor we do not have information that enables us to draw conclusions about who cut it.

But, and there is a big "but": Even if the tent was likely cut from the inside, that does not tell us who cut the tent. The knives belonging to the trekkers stayed in their sheaths inside of the tent, and no knife was ever found outside - not at the fire under the cedar and not at the "den" where the last four members of the team had fled from their attackers. It is entirely possible that the attackers cut the tent, either in the process of forcing the nine victims out or because they wanted to render the tent unusable.

This seems to have been a very calculated, well planned killing with strong intent and where the murderers were very careful not to leave any bullet wounds or knife cuts on the bodies.

[Loose}{Cannon]

The novice search team was instructed by Ivanov to use pick axes to chop the tent out of the solidified snow/ice.  The contents extracted from the tent prior was then piled onto the tattered canvas and drug over rocks and ice to the helicopter landing pad. 

[BottledBrunette]

Hello.  I'm brand new.  A few years ago, I saw some little blurb about these mysterious deaths, but, didn't give it much thought.  Then, saw something about it, and looked it up, which lead me to purchasing the book, "Dead Mountain" by Donnie Eichar, and doing lots and lots of looking up as much as I can that my computer will let me.  This brings me to the point.  While looking at all the information, there is another author, Keith ****, I think, who wrote a book and has a website.  This is pretty interesting and fit the mystery of the death, and WHY, for the love of Pete, the hikers left their tents, why some of the hikers had skull fractures and weird things wrong with them that would suggest beatings.  On the website, he has all the reasons why the hikers died, sort of like what is on here.  A psychic medium, bought his book, looked at the pictures of some of the hikers, and then did a thing where she contacted them.  Lyuda was the main speaker. She said they were attacked by some men who had spears that were jabbing and stabbing their tent---hence, the strange holes.  She said they were sticking their spears through the tent at them because they were angry that they were there.  Someone, who was in the front of the tent was grabbed and thrashed over, and they forced all of them out of the tent and forced them to walk down the hill.  I guess some of the men tried to fight them, and that's why they have the wounds they have.  Rustem said they killed him.  Zina said she was frozen.  Lyuda said they killed her.  I can't remember what the other ones said, but, she didn't talk to Kolevatov and Zolotaryov, only because the pictures of them were blurry, which I didn't understand.  The men, who were sort of a tribe that lived on the mountain and they kept telling the hikers, they didn't belong there, and that's why they killed them.  Makes sense to me and explains a lot of things.  I'm sure there will be others who don't agree, but, to me, this answers a LOT of the questions of why in the heck, they all ran out not fully dressed for the weather.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Hello Bottled!

Here are the tent holes/tears for your viewing.

[BottledBrunette]

Thank you for putting that up for me, Loose Cannon. 

[CalzagheChick]

Hello.  I'm brand new.  A few years ago, I saw some little blurb about these mysterious deaths, but, didn't give it much thought.  Then, saw something about it, and looked it up, which lead me to purchasing the book, "Dead Mountain" by Donnie Eichar, and doing lots and lots of looking up as much as I can that my computer will let me.  This brings me to the point.  While looking at all the information, there is another author, Keith ****, I think, who wrote a book and has a website.  This is pretty interesting and fit the mystery of the death, and WHY, for the love of Pete, the hikers left their tents, why some of the hikers had skull fractures and weird things wrong with them that would suggest beatings.  On the website, he has all the reasons why the hikers died, sort of like what is on here.  A psychic medium, bought his book, looked at the pictures of some of the hikers, and then did a thing where she contacted them.  Lyuda was the main speaker. She said they were attacked by some men who had spears that were jabbing and stabbing their tent---hence, the strange holes.  She said they were sticking their spears through the tent at them because they were angry that they were there.  Someone, who was in the front of the tent was grabbed and thrashed over, and they forced all of them out of the tent and forced them to walk down the hill.  I guess some of the men tried to fight them, and that's why they have the wounds they have.  Rustem said they killed him.  Zina said she was frozen.  Lyuda said they killed her.  I can't remember what the other ones said, but, she didn't talk to Kolevatov and Zolotaryov, only because the pictures of them were blurry, which I didn't understand.  The men, who were sort of a tribe that lived on the mountain and they kept telling the hikers, they didn't belong there, and that's why they killed them.  Makes sense to me and explains a lot of things.  I'm sure there will be others who don't agree, but, to me, this answers a LOT of the questions of why in the heck, they all ran out not fully dressed for the weather.

I totally read that document on the book's website and I loved every second of reading it. I actually felt comfortable with her "telepathic conversation" in a really weird way

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Hello.  I'm brand new.  A few years ago, I saw some little blurb about these mysterious deaths, but, didn't give it much thought.  Then, saw something about it, and looked it up, which lead me to purchasing the book, "Dead Mountain" by Donnie Eichar, and doing lots and lots of looking up as much as I can that my computer will let me.  This brings me to the point.  While looking at all the information, there is another author, Keith ****, I think, who wrote a book and has a website.  This is pretty interesting and fit the mystery of the death, and WHY, for the love of Pete, the hikers left their tents, why some of the hikers had skull fractures and weird things wrong with them that would suggest beatings.  On the website, he has all the reasons why the hikers died, sort of like what is on here.  A psychic medium, bought his book, looked at the pictures of some of the hikers, and then did a thing where she contacted them.  Lyuda was the main speaker. She said they were attacked by some men who had spears that were jabbing and stabbing their tent---hence, the strange holes.  She said they were sticking their spears through the tent at them because they were angry that they were there.  Someone, who was in the front of the tent was grabbed and thrashed over, and they forced all of them out of the tent and forced them to walk down the hill.  I guess some of the men tried to fight them, and that's why they have the wounds they have.  Rustem said they killed him.  Zina said she was frozen.  Lyuda said they killed her.  I can't remember what the other ones said, but, she didn't talk to Kolevatov and Zolotaryov, only because the pictures of them were blurry, which I didn't understand.  The men, who were sort of a tribe that lived on the mountain and they kept telling the hikers, they didn't belong there, and that's why they killed them.  Makes sense to me and explains a lot of things.  I'm sure there will be others who don't agree, but, to me, this answers a LOT of the questions of why in the heck, they all ran out not fully dressed for the weather.

As for the psychic medium, some people believe in such abilities whereas other do not. Therefore I am a little afraid that some will draw the unfounded conclusion that "because a psychic medium said that they were killed, they were not killed." Here I want to point out that even if one does not believe in psychics, people claiming to have such abilities often have good knowledge and understanding and are no less skilled than others when it comes to interpreting a phenomenon or an event.

More importantly, a close and unprejudiced look at all the injuries of the unfortunate nine hikers leads to the inevitable conclusion that they were killed by human attackers. This is evidenced by the autopsy reports and descriptions of injuries and damage to the bodies that can only have been the result of an attack by humans. This fact of murder was for some reason suppressed, and the first investigators refrained from coming out with the conclusion back in 1959. Why it was so is a separate question, and several explanations are possible.

Svetlana Oss has written a book which in English is named "Don't Go There." That book contains a lot of valuable information about how the fact of murder was concealed by the authorities, and is a must read in particular for anyone who might have any doubts that the nine hikers were victims of homicide. I do not agree with all her conclusions, for example no superhuman strength or stimulants are necessary to break the bones of a human being. But Svetlana Oss' references to forensics and descriptions of injuries are solidly founded and are the strongest part of the book. Also, even if her final conclusion about who the perpetrators were is a possibility it is by no means proven.

Personally, I am of the opinion that we cannot say with certainty who murdered the nine students until someone who knows will tell. The thing that can be said with certainty is that they were attacked and murdered.

[CalzagheChick]

This is above all the $9,000 question....  I agree

I do however believe there is a very real possiblity of the 9 becoming unfortunate victims of several events or (chain of events) in which lead to their deaths. 

#1.  Most of the intrigue of this mystery is due to the lack of evidence for all theories which leads one to rely on circumstantial evidence as the basis for the theory they subscribe to the most. 

#2.  Its a 50/50 chance said 'compelling' force came from outside of the tent, or within. I would lean more towards the latter given that the easiest explanation is usually correct.  People tend to focus on more on what compelling force would make them go down the slope rather then what made them leave the tent when approaching this.  For me, its a matter of what inside the tent would they want to flee from, not what is outside they would want to flee towards and subsequently be unprepared as described.    What may have been the reason within the tent for said departure I dont know...  But it shouldn't be overlooked yet alone ruled out.

#3.  The injuries.   I also believe most people tend to see the injuries as 'having' to be caused by someone from outside if the group.  In reality, most victims know their attacker in one way shape or form.  I do believe either case can be made, but I do not like to discount one over the other due to lack of evidence.    We know most sustained injuries consistent with hand/hand combat, but honestly we have no idea who inflicted said injuries..... Could have well been amongst themselves.   Another scenario that shouldn't be overlooked.

First, your point in #2 is amazing. I've never thought of it that way and I think you're absolutely right--perhaps we should be much more careful when considering the question as it quickly does seem to become confused with the other and they're two totally separate animals in terms of possibilities.

Second, you know I haven't really thought much more beyond this until this moment that you bring it up in point #3, but most everybody was pretty bruised and beaten up in some way, shape or form so why couldn't it just be that they were all throwing blows amongst each other--men and women! they all had facial abrasions for the most part and/or bodily harm. Why does it have to be an outsider at all? Because it's unfathomable for us to imagine men beating on women?

[Loose}{Cannon]

Now your cookin with peanut oil!   

Its like the US spies VS KGB...... Who done it?  Welp,  who would be angry at the group for betraying their country by handing off secret information?  Its a no-brainer... common sense stuff!

[Armide]

I used to be super into the whole self-destruction theory until recently, funny enough. But one thing that just doesn't stick right with me is that it's not that easy to collapse someone's chest with your fists alone. Is it doable? Sure, but probably not likely. I'd actually be more willing to believe that if they were attacked, their attackers had some kind of weapon that could concentrate more pressure onto a single point, like a rifle butt or something.

[CalzagheChick]

I used to be super into the whole self-destruction theory until recently, funny enough. But one thing that just doesn't stick right with me is that it's not that easy to collapse someone's chest with your fists alone. Is it doable? Sure, but probably not likely. I'd actually be more willing to believe that if they were attacked, their attackers had some kind of weapon that could concentrate more pressure onto a single point, like a rifle butt or something.

Oh goodness I don't think they killed one another with crushing blows and cutting out of glossal muscles... I was just thinking that for all of them being flown off that mountain slope battered, cut, and bruised...like they'd all been in some MMA Jiu Jitzu brawl in an octagon cage, why not entertain the fact that they may have all been physical with one another at some point that evening. I mean, I hate thinking that men pummeled women , but Zinaida's face looked like a domestic abuse case. Obviously the rav4 are out of the question in this mystery because of their deterioration (it hurts me more that Lyuda's legacy goes down in the books as a half deteriorated corpse--her final photographs a naked skeleton, breasts exposed as well as autopsy incisions, no dignity... she was beautiful in her own right and it's no surprise her father passed out on the spot when he was at the very least allowed to see that she was properly dressed for burial... just how inhumane! If people are responsible for those kids--to have left them to rot beyond recognition, their families' final memories to be disturbing images that are hard to even comprehend 60 years later after the end of the Cold War era where most Americans' idea of Russian women are the mail-order brides or sex trafficking victims/forced prostitutes and the idea of men are this very cold-hearted, Russian mafioso covered in tattoos that speak a sinister language all their own) as far as judging having been tossed around and battered.

With so many people putting an emphasis on the condition of the bodies it just occurred to me that there doesn't HAVE to absolutely have been another presence at that camp site. They all looked like they'd been in a cartoonesque brawl just shy of a ACME anvil falling on them from the sky.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

I used to be super into the whole self-destruction theory until recently, funny enough. But one thing that just doesn't stick right with me is that it's not that easy to collapse someone's chest with your fists alone. Is it doable? Sure, but probably not likely. I'd actually be more willing to believe that if they were attacked, their attackers had some kind of weapon that could concentrate more pressure onto a single point, like a rifle butt or something.

This injury is one of the illustrative ones:

http://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Nikolai-Thibeaux-Brignolle-autopsy-report.png

It does not have to have been a rifle butt, it may have been a baton filled with lead or any hard object. But it is not unreasonable to assume that it could have been a rifle butt. It is bordering on the impossible that nine students would leave their tent and walk into their certain death unless they were forced to do so at gunpoint.

It has been suggested that the place was inaccessible and that there were no other people in the area. It is a remote area, but there were many local people in the area - a fact which does not prove that the local indigenous people were responsible for the nine deaths. The point is that this was no desolate no-man's land.

Kholat Syahkl is far from inaccessible if you have a helicopter and/or a trained group of combat ready men on broad mountain skis. Those who orchestrated and performed their murderous work on February 1, 1959 were no ordinary villains, robbers or street thugs. People who are resourceful enough to meticulously and intelligently orchestrate a murder of nine human beings in such a way that it would appear to be a series of accidents, will certainly have the means to access the area.

A human chest can be broken with repeated elbowing or kicks as well as with some hard object, without great difficulty. I have no particular opinion about exactly how Dubinina's and Zolotarev's chests were broken or what tools were used.

But I know that the breaking of a collarbone and subsequent follow-up with lethal techniques is a known pattern when professional murderers do their work. Svetlana Oss refers to a Natalia Sakharova, a policewoman with 25 years of experience, who said: "After reviewing the trauma of the last four I can guess that the murderers were professionals. The ribs fractures were specific - they could have been the result of jumping on the victim's chest. The skull injuries can't be the result of falling upon rocks."

Nathalia Sakharova, a retired police colonel, is not in doubt that the Dyatlov pass incident was murder.

[Loose}{Cannon]

can't be the result of falling upon rocks

Did she say anything about being hit by a wall of ice and being thrown onto rocks?   Or did she just cover the "oopsie I fell down" narrative she was given? 

[CalzagheChick]

"People that had the resources and intelligence to orchestrate a murder to look like an accident..." is rather the problem here:

It doesn't look like any accident. It didn't in 1959, and it still doesn't going into 2019. Not to mention the "why?" It would have been more resourceful to clean up the entire area and dump the bodies in an incinerator of a nearby facility equipped to burn the dead that way there's zero evidence to have been found as the odds of anybody rolling up on that mountain after the fact were slim to none. A quick and brief cleaning then leaving nature to wind-sweep the rest would have been sufficient enough to orchestrate a great mystery case of disappeared individuals. And hell! There'd still have been all the makings for typical aliens theorists had this been a missing persons case instead--prime example of abduction--if they wanted a cold case to follow history. Higher ups could propose that these young students fled to Norway to live abroad (as had been suggested to Yuri Yudin at one point I believe very early on) and that's why there's zero trace of their belongings. Some people could leave tracks suggesting as much. I mean... all of that would have been a heck of a lot more resourceful and much cleaner than the mess that we continue to investigate to this day.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

 

"People that had the resources and intelligence to orchestrate a murder to look like an accident..." is rather the problem here:

It doesn't look like any accident. It didn't in 1959, and it still doesn't going into 2019. Not to mention the "why?" It would have been more resourceful to clean up the entire area and dump the bodies in an incinerator of a nearby facility equipped to burn the dead that way there's zero evidence to have been found as the odds of anybody rolling up on that mountain after the fact were slim to none. A quick and brief cleaning then leaving nature to wind-sweep the rest would have been sufficient enough to orchestrate a great mystery case of disappeared individuals. And hell! There'd still have been all the makings for typical aliens theorists had this been a missing persons case instead--prime example of abduction--if they wanted a cold case to follow history. Higher ups could propose that these young students fled to Norway to live abroad (as had been suggested to Yuri Yudin at one point I believe very early on) and that's why there's zero trace of their belongings. Some people could leave tracks suggesting as much. I mean... all of that would have been a heck of a lot more resourceful and much cleaner than the mess that we continue to investigate to this day.

The Dyatlov pass incident definitely does not look like an accident. To an unprejudiced eye, it never did. You are absolutely right in saying so.

However, it has turned out that the unknown killers were correct if they assumed that they could fool the public into believing that the Dyatlov pass incident was no more than a tragedy, albeit a terrible one. There have been many books, theories and speculations. Most of the theories have evidently been colored by the official first interpretation that the tragedy was a series of - rather improbable - accidents that took nine lives during the evening of February 1, 1959. In my opinion, an analysis of the whole thing indicates that this situation was precisely what the organizers of the killings wanted to accomplish.

If the nine students had just "disappeared" without trace or if they had been shot and put in closed coffins, the public might have viewed it as more obvious that the official conclusion of an accident was wrong and that a terrible criminal act had occurred.

The way the whole thing happened, means that it can always be claimed that this and that injury was caused by the unfortunates stumbling around in the snow and falling almost every meter, non-existent avalanches, groundless infighting between the students themselves, undocumented altered states of consciousness, falling down into a not very precipitous ravine and mysteriously receive injuries that kill several people by damage typical of something very different from a fall. There has been no lack of official attempts and present tendencies to avoid the most probable conclusion, and this is the result of the way this deed was done. If the killers were indeed resourceful and intelligent professionals, they accomplished just what they wanted: To leave the incident in such a way that the murder could not be easily proven. Past and present history is full of arranged "accidents," "suicides," "heart attacks" and other more or less plausible causes of death that in reality were planned and intelligently executed murders. It is conceivable that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was a case in point.

The group which attacked the hikers could have faced logistic challenges - it is possible that they needed to exit the area fast in order to avoid being observed or because they had to leave immediately after the mission was accomplished. It is very possible that the attackers had expected their victims to perish sooner after having been forced out in the cold. When the young and strong students survived longer than assumed because the weather was only moderately cold, the whole process took longer than expected. That scenario would also explain why Dubinina, Kolevatov, Zolotarev and Thibeaux-Brignolle had the most serious injuries - they were better dressed and they had to be expedited fast and forcefully to ensure their death.

But the exact details are uncertainties. We cannot know for sure. It depends on who the murderers were. If they were less sophisticated and non-professionals, then I agree completely with your statements above. Still, it is clear that the killers must have taken great pains to avoid leaving any bullet wounds and knife cuts that would conclusively prove murder. That is a strong indication that the killers were very far from common criminals and thugs.

[SimplyMadness]

It’s interesting that the oldest theory seriously considered by the investigators at the time was that the Mansi people had something to do with it. Why was that a gut reaction? The idea of an armed man/men forcing 9 hostages out of their shelter isn’t hard to believe at all.

Personally I’ve always found the defense of the Mansi to be a bit weak. About how peaceful they are and how they didn’t have a reason or history of attacking anybody. Of course the Mansi as a people might not have attacked them but it would only take a few disgruntled hunters.


But then there are also many things that don’t sit right with me about this theory either. How do you get into fist fights with armed men and not get shot / stabbed? Why would the bodies be dispersed like they were? Why would captors bent on killing their victims allow them to apparently swap clothing and even climb up a tree to make a fire?
Why would killers allow their victims to have cameras?

There are other things but it’s been awhile and I’ve started to forget a few of the details... I just don’t know.

I’m also no medical expert and sometimes the ultra precise descriptions of the wounds get a bit confusing but anytime I’ve been out in the woods or fields hunting or working I always come back with scratches bruises and cuts. You don’t even know you were injured most of the time, it happens fairly easily to the human body. It’s really not hard for me to visualize getting banged and scraped to hell while stumbling around on the side of a mountain at night. 

[sarapuk]

Obviously its all speculation as to why they left their tent. Any ones guess. Not enough evidence. We have been told that the tent was cut from the inside. But what happened to the tent after it was taken away for investigation ? Could the tent have been cut from the outside ? And if so, then what by ? A knife ? The claws of a creature of some kind ?

[Loose}{Cannon]

Why would killers allow their victims to have cameras?

Common sense....   I like it

[Blkdahlia]

Oh the Tent...
Here in America there is an intelligent TV star by the name of Judge Judy. Her saying clings to my mind in reviewing this case. She says “ If something doesn’t make sense, it’s because it’s a lie.”
Scratching my head over this tent, I stumbled across the article :
THE DEATH OF TOURISTS 1959 - KIZILOV GENNADY IVANOVICH
Pilot Titov flew over the area where the tent was found on Feb 24th and did not see a tent.
Interestingly enough, Karpushin flew over the area on the morning of Feb 25th and spotted the tent... with no snow on top and spotted 2 bodies a male and female beside it.
The weather was fine during this time so nothing happened for snow to magically appear over the tent by the time search team arrived on Feb 26.
I suspect the tent was staged and holds no clues as to what actually happened because I cannot fathom any logical reason for the group to cut their way out from the inside while they could easily exit.
The only conclusion I can come to concerning tent is that it’s destruction was not caused by any Dyatlov group members.
The members of the Dyatlov group were mentally sound experienced campers. None of them would destroy their shelter for any reason at all.
The holes in the tent were either made during the sloppy transporting it off the mountain or stratigically places by an outsider or outsiders. Someone wanting to distract from the actual evidence staged the tent scene in order to prevent focus on other clues and create scenarios broadening room for speculation and possibilities.
Personally, I’m inclined to believe Karpushin. It makes far more sense concluding the incident was staged vs. having to explain all of the mysterious unexplainable circumstances surrounding it. Based on the testimony of Karpushin alone I have formed the opinion that the tent is irrelevant because the condition it was found in can be explained in no acceptable way aside from the holes being intentionally done by the individuals who were responsible for the death of Dyatlov group. Removing the tent evidence opens new possibilities and closes old ones.

[CalzagheChick]

Loose Cannon did a beautiful expose of the tent in one of the evidence threads in the materials section (The Tent I believe it's called). You should read it. He blew every one of us away and even convinced many to cross over to the dark side of discrediting the tent as significant in this case.

[sarapuk]

The Tent is a vital piece of evidence, and its missing. Well that is to say its not for public consumption but probably in some vaults somewhere along with other missing evidence.

[CalzagheChick]

Like I said, you'd have to read LC's article on the tent to understand why many of us feel that it should NOT be credited as a critical piece of evidence in the case.

[sarapuk]

i have read all the articles.

[sarapuk]

i have read all the articles.

[beanie07]

https://translate.google.com.sg/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.alpklubspb.ru/ass/dyatlov.htm&prev=search


Hi guys.. not sure if anyone posted this link before.
Its a russian website dedicated to the dyatlov's incident.
The text is in russian, but google translate was able to translate it fairly well to be understood in english.

Inside, it does seem to have extensive information backed up with detailed research not found in many english sites.
Think its a good trove of info to explore for new insights as to what happened.


https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.com.sg&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&u=http://www.alpklubspb.ru/ass/dyatlov_12.htm&xid=17259,15700019,15700124,15700149,15700186,15700191,15700201&usg=ALkJrhjkjrBsgpYV9NCO-h-r7UIu_gTymg
This is their explanation as to why the Dyatlovs left the tent.. (sounds highly plausible imo)..

[sarapuk]

A very detailed article about avalanches. But by all accounts the location and conditions on the hillside where Dyatlov sited the tent were not conducive for an avalanche. Also in most avalanche scenarios the victims are overcome by the avalanche and may or may not survive. The Dyatlov group by all accounts walked or run away from the tent without taking any equipment with them  !  ?  And they did this for a mile.  Surely an avalanche of any force as is inferred in the article would create a different outcome for the Dyatlov group ! ?