Four reasons for murder

[GlennM]

Fear, envy, anger and desire."  The mind wants peace, but needs conflict.Personally, in this tragedy, I find none of them fit with the bill. I think it is a natural disaster plain and simple.

[tenne]

Fear, envy, anger and desire."  The mind wants peace, but needs conflict.Personally, in this tragedy, I find none of them fit with the bill. I think it is a natural disaster plain and simple.

Are the only reasons that murder could happen the ones that you posted? Where would covering up a politically embarrassing secret fall in your four reasons because it seems there have been at least a few of those throughout history?

[GlennM]

Fear

[RMK]

Fear, envy, anger and desire."  The mind wants peace, but needs conflict.Personally, in this tragedy, I find none of them fit with the bill. I think it is a natural disaster plain and simple.

No offense, but what are you babbling on about here, GlennM?  It is generally accepted among criminologists that the three most common motives for murder are (in alphabetical order) money, revenge, and romantic jealousy.  Those three things constitute a more parsimonious account than "fear, envy, anger, and desire".

[Почемучка]

No offense, but what are you babbling on about here, GlennM?  It is generally accepted among criminologists that the three most common motives for murder are (in alphabetical order) money, revenge, and romantic jealousy.  Those three things constitute a more parsimonious account than "fear, envy, anger, and desire".

А как же идеологические - религиозные мотивы?
But what about ideological - religious motives?

[Missi]

Fear, envy, anger and desire."  The mind wants peace, but needs conflict.Personally, in this tragedy, I find none of them fit with the bill. I think it is a natural disaster plain and simple.

No offense, but what are you babbling on about here, GlennM?  It is generally accepted among criminologists that the three most common motives for murder are (in alphabetical order) money, revenge, and romantic jealousy.  Those three things constitute a more parsimonious account than "fear, envy, anger, and desire".

Well money and romantic jealousy can be considered envy, the latter maybe desire. Revenge is anger. So you only put it in finer categories.
As for religious or ideological reasons, they are probable mostly fear or anger.

Don't get me wrong, those are all valid points to look at. But I think one should be aware, that they finally come down to those four reasons for murder.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Fear, envy, anger and desire."  The mind wants peace, but needs conflict.Personally, in this tragedy, I find none of them fit with the bill. I think it is a natural disaster plain and simple.

How can you disregard all the evidence from the dead bodies, with injuries that is consistent with a lethal attack by professional killers who were skilled enough to know how to make it look like an accident?

And how to you explain the fact that the authorities knew that the nine students were dead long before anyone in Sverdlovsk or Ivdel had any reason to suspect that something was wrong?

Please read all the documentation. There is no doubt at all; this was a merciless killing performed by professionals.

[GlennM]

How can you disregard all the evidence from the dead bodies, with injuries that is consistent with a lethal attack by professional killers who were skilled enough to know how to make it look like an accident?

And how to you explain the fact that the authorities knew that the nine students were dead long before anyone in Sverdlovsk or Ivdel had any reason to suspect that something was wrong?

Please read all the documentation. There is no doubt at all; this was a merciless killing performed by professionals.

I leave it to you to explain the how. I've given you the why.

[Missi]

May I ask, how you can be so sure that it was professional killers that were skilled enough to make it look like an accident?
Either they were skilled enough to make it look like an accident, then why do you even suspect that it wasn't an accident? Every injury must therefore be also possible by natural courses. Or they were not skilled enough, then yes, there might be traces of human coursed injuries. But why do you suspect them being coursed by professionals?
That line of argumentation doesn't really make sense to me...

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Fear, envy, anger and desire."  The mind wants peace, but needs conflict.Personally, in this tragedy, I find none of them fit with the bill. I think it is a natural disaster plain and simple.

If the nine students discovered a state secret there in the Urals, they would become a threat to state security and must be eliminated.

No fear, no envy, no anger, no desire. Just cold, merciless calculation. Those who know what they were not allowed to know, will have to go.

[Missi]

You could argue, that this is the state's fear of having secrets exposed.

Nevertheless: If they discovered a state secret, what could that have been? I started out by believing, there had been something military gone wrong that the students witnessed. But I couldn't find anything in terms of military basis, testing grounds or whatnot, they could have stumbled across. Want to enlighten me?

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

May I ask, how you can be so sure that it was professional killers that were skilled enough to make it look like an accident?
Either they were skilled enough to make it look like an accident, then why do you even suspect that it wasn't an accident? Every injury must therefore be also possible by natural courses. Or they were not skilled enough, then yes, there might be traces of human coursed injuries. But why do you suspect them being coursed by professionals?
That line of argumentation doesn't really make sense to me...

The most intelligent way to kill people in a winter environment is to make the killing look like an accident involving death from hypothermia.

The nine students evidently left their tent improperly dressed. Would they leave their tent voluntarily in these wintery conditions, or is it more likely that they were forced out from their tent?

During the night between February 1 and February 2, 1959, there was a sudden and unexpected rise in temperature.

If that rise in temperature had not happened, no one would have suspected anything criminal.

Since there was a rise in temperature, the nine students did not die and had to be hunted down an killed by force since the temperature was too high to bring about the desired result.

The injuries speak for themselves - they are consistent with human attack and human attack only. This has been elaborated on by several knowledgeable persons on this forum.

Look at the injuries. The Soviet authorities and the present-day Russian authorities maintain that the killing agency was an avalanche. The avalanche theory has by the way been completely disproven.

But let us look at the injuries, what do they look like?:

https://dyatlovpass.com/death

[Loose}{Cannon]

Fear, envy, anger and desire."  The mind wants peace, but needs conflict.Personally, in this tragedy, I find none of them fit with the bill. I think it is a natural disaster plain and simple.

If the nine students discovered a state secret there in the Urals, they would become a threat to state security and must be eliminated.

No fear, no envy, no anger, no desire. Just cold, merciless calculation. Those who know what they were not allowed to know, will have to go.

Except the route had to be approved by authorities…. I haven’t seen any evidence for this motive, only conjecture. 

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

You could argue, that this is the state's fear of having secrets exposed.

Nevertheless: If they discovered a state secret, what could that have been? I started out by believing, there had been something military gone wrong that the students witnessed. But I couldn't find anything in terms of military basis, testing grounds or whatnot, they could have stumbled across. Want to enlighten me?

That is a very interesting question. Of course it is. We cannot know. Only the Russians know.

What we can know is the demonstrable reality that the nine students were murdered.

[Почемучка]

That is a very interesting question. Of course it is. 1) We cannot know. Only the Russians know.

2) What we can know is the demonstrable reality that the nine students were murdered.

Вы не можете точно знать что это было убийство. Именно потому что у Вас нет знаний по первому пункту, то у Вас не может быт знаний - и по второму.
You can't know for sure that it was murder. Precisely because you do not have knowledge on the first point, then you cannot have knowledge on the second.

[GlennM]

Therefore, if there is compelling evidence of how murder was done, it will narrow down the number of people who are suspected owing to how they did it.  Next, the shortlist of those murderers must be included or excluded by the four motives I've named. To date,  there is no satisfactory answer save for one. Nature. It needs no reason.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

You can't know for sure that it was murder. Precisely because you do not have knowledge on the first point, then you cannot have knowledge on the second.

We can with certainty say that it was murder.

What we do not presently know, is exactly why the decision to kill was taken.

The fact that we do not know "why" something happened, does in no way prevent us from  understanding "what" happened.

[Почемучка]

We can with certainty say that it was murder.

What we do not presently know, is exactly why the decision to kill was taken.

The fact that we do not know "why" something happened, does in no way prevent us from  understanding "what" happened.

Нельзя выводить следствие без причины. Не бывает яиц без курицы.
Если у Вас нет представления о причине - положите свое следствие в лице убийства в мусор.
Потому что Вы прост занимаетесь плохим и неэффективным гипнозом. Вы не имеете базы под мнение. Вы - в воздухе.
You cannot infer an effect without a cause. There are no eggs without a chicken.
If you have no idea about the cause - put your consequence in the face of the murder in the trash.
Because you are just doing bad and ineffective hypnosis. You have no basis for an opinion. You are in the air.

[Missi]

You can't know for sure that it was murder. Precisely because you do not have knowledge on the first point, then you cannot have knowledge on the second.

We can with certainty say that it was murder.

Why? Please explain.
As for me, I still can see how an accident was tried to cover up in order to save oneself from being charged of negligence.

[ilahiyol]

If the government at that time had done this, not a single corpse would have been left behind, not even a single item. And the marchers were said to have been lost and not found. Why is the event staged when there is such an easy and simple solution? Dealing with this for hours, days, months??? This is not the job of the state and the military... But they certainly know some facts that the public does not know..

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

You cannot infer an effect without a cause. There are no eggs without a chicken.
If you have no idea about the cause - put your consequence in the face of the murder in the trash.
Because you are just doing bad and ineffective hypnosis. You have no basis for an opinion. You are in the air.

If the effect - in this case dead humans - can be demonstrated, one first of all has to ask what created the effect.

Was it an accident, was it suicide, was it a natural death, was it murder?

After having determined the answer to these questions, one can ask why it happened and for what if any reason. However, if the reason or motive cannot be established the fact still remains.

When one or several victims of homicide are found, the conclusion of homicide is still valid irrespective of whether or not the motive is or becomes known.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

If the government at that time had done this, not a single corpse would have been left behind, not even a single item. And the marchers were said to have been lost and not found. Why is the event staged when there is such an easy and simple solution? Dealing with this for hours, days, months??? This is not the job of the state and the military... But they certainly know some facts that the public does not know..

If all the students had just disappeared withour trace, everyone would have understood that something very sinister had taken place.

The most intelligent way of removing a real or perceived threat to state security is to create an "accident" or a "natural death." 

[GlennM]

If all the students had just disappeared withour trace, everyone would have understood that something very sinister had taken place.

The most intelligent way of removing a real or perceived threat to state security is to create an "accident" or a "natural death.

Good reasoning! Yet, an avalanche or a snow collapse in a ravine could take them all at once, naturally. Creating an accident is more diffucult than words can tell. Every event of the staged accident will leave a trace. Every trace causes a question. Only force or the threat of force will silence the inquiry. I suggest you follow that line of reasoning and explain why the area of 1079 was closed after,the disaster.

[ilahiyol]

If the government at that time had done this, not a single corpse would have been left behind, not even a single item. And the marchers were said to have been lost and not found. Why is the event staged when there is such an easy and simple solution? Dealing with this for hours, days, months??? This is not the job of the state and the military... But they certainly know some facts that the public does not know..

If all the students had just disappeared withour trace, everyone would have understood that something very sinister had taken place.

The most intelligent way of removing a real or perceived threat to state security is to create an "accident" or a "natural death."

The condition of four of the bodies indicates that there could be no accident or natural death. In that case, everyone would have completely disposed of the bodies. He would have lost at least the last 4 of them. But they were also found by the Mansi. Here we can say that it was not the government that killed them.

[Почемучка]

If the effect - in this case dead humans - can be demonstrated, one first of all has to ask what created the effect.

Was it an accident, was it suicide, was it a natural death, was it murder?

After having determined the answer to these questions, one can ask why it happened and for what if any reason. However, if the reason or motive cannot be established the fact still remains.

When one or several victims of homicide are found, the conclusion of homicide is still valid irrespective of whether or not the motive is or becomes known.

Вы всякий раз настаиваете, что туристов - убили. За что?
Приведите хотя бы примерный список действительно реальных причин.
Я Вам помогу. Допустим Огненные Шары. Упоминание их в Уголовном Деле - максимально из всех причин. Именно ими вызвано то, что и группа Кикоина приезжала на поимки с дозиметром, и затем Иванов заказывал экспертизу - Левашову.
Их наблюдали очень часто, не имея точного знания что это, но предполагая военные секретные испытания.
Наблюдали Огненные Шары - 17 февраля туристы группы Крелина. Карелин был самым первым из поисковиков и разумеется поделился со следствием о своих знаниях. Что-то огненное наблюдали участники гр. Шумкова в первых числах февраля. 30 марта - это видели все участники поискового лагеря.
Но - эти наблюдатели все остались живы и преуспевали в дальнейшем в своей жизни. Хотя не молчали и все подробно рассказывали.

Продолжайте свой список убийственных наблюдений - и я опровергну его весь.

Every time you insist that the tourists were killed. For what?
Give at least an approximate list of really real reasons.
I will help you. Let's say Fireballs. The mention of them in the Criminal Case is the most of all reasons. It was they who caused the fact that Kikoin's group came to the capture with a dosimeter, and then Ivanov ordered an examination - Levashov.
They were observed very often, without having an exact knowledge of what they were, but assuming military secret tests.
Watched the Fireballs - February 17 Crelin group tourists. Karelin was the very first of the search engines and, of course, shared his knowledge with the investigation. Something fiery was observed by the participants gr. Shumkov in early February. March 30 - this was seen by all participants in the search camp.
But - these observers all survived and prospered later in their lives. Although they were not silent and told everything in detail.

Continue your list of killer sightings and I will refute it all.

[Missi]

Для того, чтобы убить 9 туристов в уральской тайге, совсем не обязательно применять приемы, ломающие ребра и черепа!
Достаточно забрать у ребят СПИЧКИ!
Можно  воду , или еду которую они пили и ели отравить. Для этого хватит одного человека!
Для того,чтобы "Заткнуть" рот ребятам, в то время было масса способов у власти. Миллионы людей молчали и молчат до сих пор!
Они живы.
Я, могу сто причин рассказать против убийства группы Дятлова.

We'd appreciate it, if you'd share your reasons in English. ;)
Although there are ways to make fire without matches, I pretty much agree with you.

If the government at that time had done this, not a single corpse would have been left behind, not even a single item. And the marchers were said to have been lost and not found. Why is the event staged when there is such an easy and simple solution? Dealing with this for hours, days, months??? This is not the job of the state and the military... But they certainly know some facts that the public does not know..

If all the students had just disappeared withour trace, everyone would have understood that something very sinister had taken place.

The most intelligent way of removing a real or perceived threat to state security is to create an "accident" or a "natural death."

The condition of four of the bodies indicates that there could be no accident or natural death. In that case, everyone would have completely disposed of the bodies. He would have lost at least the last 4 of them. But they were also found by the Mansi. Here we can say that it was not the government that killed them.

It was not the Mansi, who found the last 4, it was the search groups alltogether. You're right that it was a Mansi and his dog, who found the trace leading to the den.
Anyway, I'm with you that it wasn't the government who killed them. I'd also say that it wasn't the government who covered up the situation. I find Teddy's theory that it was a group not acting on behalf of the government, but nevertheless kinda official, very convincing.

[GlennM]

There are 4 reasons. Conspiracy theorists can choose any one, but can not prove their point.It would be better for conspiracy theorists to try to dismantle their own theories as a test of strength.Then, we would would show greater interest. As of now, these ideas are like listening to a baby rattle. Much noise, signifying nothing.

[Larisa]

Для того, чтобы убить 9 туристов в уральской тайге, совсем не обязательно применять приемы, ломающие ребра и черепа!
Достаточно забрать у ребят СПИЧКИ!
Можно  воду , или еду которую они пили и ели отравить. Для этого хватит одного человека!
Для того,чтобы "Заткнуть" рот ребятам, в то время было масса способов у власти. Миллионы людей молчали и молчат до сих пор!
Они живы.
Я, могу сто причин рассказать против убийства группы Дятлова.

Larisa, please translate your message into English and post it here.

In order to kill 9 tourists in the Ural taiga, it is not at all necessary to use tricks that break ribs and skulls!
It is enough to take the MATCHES from the guys!
You can poison water, or food that they drank and ate. One person is enough for this!
In order to "shut up" the mouth of the guys, at that time there were a lot of ways in power. Millions of people were silent and silent until now!
They are alive.
I can tell a hundred reasons against the murder of the Dyatlov group.