a version that explains ALL the facts

[sanmigel]

Hi

Title: The Dyatlov Pass Case is Solved. Here Are the Facts.
Author: Михаил Орлов (Mikhail Orlov)

I’ve spent years studying the Dyatlov Pass case. I’ve read the criminal case files, the autopsy reports, the witness testimonies. And I’ve come to a conclusion that explains every single anomaly in this tragedy.

There is no need for yet another "theory." This is a reconstruction based on documents, logic, and one simple fact: the criminal case was opened on February 6, 1959. That’s three weeks before the bodies were found.

Here’s what actually happened, point by point.

The Seven Facts That Kill the "Official" Version
The Wrong River. The group was supposed to follow the Lozva river and turn onto the Auspiya. In bad weather, they missed the turn and followed the Purma river instead. This led them to the foot of Mount Puramunitur — a mountain that looks man-made from above. It is the perfect natural target for a military exercise.

The War Games. In February 1959, the Soviet military was testing the S-75 "Desna" surface-to-air missile system. Puramunitur was the target. The group was at the wrong place at the wrong time. They witnessed a launch or an impact.

The First Blast. Dubinina, Zolotaryov, and Thibeaux-Brignolles were closest to the explosion. The forensic expert, Vozrozhdenny, explicitly stated their injuries (crushed ribs, skull fracture) looked like those from a shockwave. The others were knocked down but alive.

The Capture. Soldiers appeared. They took the survivors. This explains the total lack of signs of struggle near the tent — the tent site was staged later.

The Weeks in Isolation. This is the smoking gun. Look at the autopsy reports:

Krivonischenko’s beard: 0.5 cm. That’s 12–17 days of growth. He died in mid-February, not on the 2nd.

Thibeaux-Brignolles’ beard: 1.0 cm. That’s 25–30 days. He was alive until February 20–22.
They were kept alive. Questioned. Housed somewhere warm. Then, when the decision came from above, they were executed.

The Staging. The bodies were flown back to the Kholat Syakhl slope by helicopter (military unit 32979 was stationed nearby). The tent was set up and cut from the inside to fake panic. The bodies were arranged.

Why is Dubinina’s face down but her lividity on her back? Because she died lying on her back elsewhere, and was turned over later.

Why is there radiation on the four bodies from the ravine (up to 9900 decays/min) but not on the others? Because they were closer to the blast, and the water in the ravine didn’t wash it all away.

The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth.

The Conclusion
The Dyatlov group did not die in a "spontaneous force" accident. They did not die in a panic, or an avalanche, or an infrasound hallucination.

They were killed by men in uniform following orders, to protect a state secret.

The case was opened on February 6th because the military knew exactly what happened, and they needed to control the investigation from day one. The bodies were staged to look like a freezing death. And everyone who knew the truth was silenced — just like the 45,000 soldiers at the Totskoye "Snowball" exercises in 1954, who never spoke a word about the nuclear blast they walked through.

The evidence has been in the case files for 60 years. It just needed someone to connect the dots.

You can read the full investigation (in Russian) here: https://author.today/work/564250
I am working on a full English translation.

[amashilu]

This interesting theory does explain a couple of things. For example, I remember reading in the autopsy reports that at least one of the hikers had wounds or bruises that had begun to heal over, indicating that their injuries had occurred days before death.

And also, Yuri Yuden was always puzzled by the clean feet and socks of the hikers; that is, how did their feet stay so clean after walking down from the tent in snow and ice?

And lastly, if there was a government cover-up, this would explain why. I imagine the government would never want to admit that it had killed the hikers.

In this theory, did the soldiers deposit and position the Ravine 4?

[sanmigel]

machine translation of the full version
https://disk.yandex.ru/i/z5LnNwGkwdeZ0A
and some pictures
Krivonischenko





possible wrong route (red). Although this does not particularly affect the version, they could have wandered to another place.

[sanmigel]

In this theory, did the soldiers deposit and position the Ravine 4?

All the dead bodies were brought to the pass. Similarly, all the items were also brought by the soldiers.

[Ziljoe]

Why Puramunitur Could Not Have Been a Target for an S‑75 Missile Test

The claim that Mount Puramunitur served as a “target” for an S‑75 Desna surface‑to‑air missile test shows a basic misunderstanding of both the weapon and Soviet military practice. A surface‑to‑air missile cannot be aimed at a mountain: it requires a radar lock on a moving aerial target, continuous command guidance, and open airspace. A stationary landform cannot be tracked, cannot be locked onto, and cannot serve as a valid target for the S‑75 guidance system. Even if someone attempted such a launch, the missile would lose guidance and self‑destruct long before reaching terrain. More importantly, the Northern Urals were never a missile test zone. All S‑75 launches in the 1950s occurred at established military ranges such as Kapustin Yar, Sary‑Shagan, and Ashuluk — thousands of kilometres away, with the required radar infrastructure, telemetry stations, and safety corridors. There is no record, no log, no veteran testimony, and no physical evidence of S‑75 activity anywhere near Dyatlov Pass. The idea that Puramunitur was a “target” is not supported by military history, physics, or the missile’s design; it appears only in the author’s narrative, not in the factual record.

[GlennM]

A gentle reminder, "Plausibility does not substitute for proof."

[Ziljoe]

On the Author’s Background and Authority

Before accepting any reconstruction of the Dyatlov Pass incident, it’s reasonable to ask a basic question: who is the author, and what qualifies him to reinterpret the case? In this instance, the answers are unclear. The writer presents himself as someone who has “studied the case for years,” yet there is no trace of him in any recognised Dyatlov research circles, no publications in historical or forensic journals, no interviews, no archival work, and no involvement with the Dyatlov Foundation or the Russian researchers who have spent decades with the primary materials. His name does not appear in academic literature, investigative reporting, or the glasnost‑era releases that brought the case back into public view.

The only place his work appears is on a self‑publishing platform used primarily for fiction, speculative narratives, and amateur investigations. That doesn’t disqualify him — but it does mean his authority rests entirely on the accuracy of his claims. And when the central pillars of his argument depend on misunderstandings of weapon systems, incorrect timelines, and events that contradict the case file, it raises a fair question about whether he is reconstructing history or constructing a dramatic story. A theory can be imaginative, but imagination is not the same as evidence. When an author’s background is opaque and the factual foundation is unstable, scrutiny isn’t hostility — it’s basic due diligence.

[sanmigel]

who is the author, and what qualifies him to reinterpret the case?

It doesn't matter who, it's important what you say.
Could the C-75 have deliberately fired at the mountain? ok. the rocket could have fallen in an emergency situation.
They could have been missiles and not the S-75. It could have been in ANOTHER place, but in the same area. What does this change for the version? Nothing. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. IT ALSO WORKS THE SAME WAY.

[sanmigel]

A gentle reminder, "Plausibility does not substitute for proof."

Could it be? IT COULD HAVE. Do you think otherwise? PROVE the opposite.

[sanmigel]

There is no need to rely on the personality of the author or the properties of the C-75. See the main thing. For 67 years, everyone has been hammering on the same night on February 1-2. The tourists were last seen on January 28 and found on February 26. AND NO ONE CAN RELIABLY SAY what happened to them during this month.

[GlennM]

Group Diary Jan 27

Second North is an abandoned geological site consisting of 20-25 houses. Only one is suitable for living. In complete darkness we found a village and the house. We started a fire with wood boards. Smoke came form the stove. Several people hurt their hands on old nails. Everything is well. Then the horse came. We were talking and joking till 3 in the morning.
Doroshenko

January 27 - Dyatlov group leaves 41st district with uncle Slava, backpacks on a sled pulled by a horse, skiing towards 2nd Norther setlement

Location, location, location

[sanmigel]

Group Diary Jan 27

Second North is an abandoned geological site consisting of 20-25 houses. Only one is suitable for living. In complete darkness we found a village and the house. We started a fire with wood boards. Smoke came form the stove. Several people hurt their hands on old nails. Everything is well. Then the horse came. We were talking and joking till 3 in the morning.
Doroshenko

January 27 - Dyatlov group leaves 41st district with uncle Slava, backpacks on a sled pulled by a horse, skiing towards 2nd Norther setlement

Location, location, location

Second North
61°37'40.8"N 59°57'24.5"E

41 District approximate coordinates
61.4340°N, 59.9423°E

The coordinates for the village of the second northern were found quite accurately, because the Severnoye Oboe deposit has an official passport in the Rosgeolfond system. The coordinates there are indicated as 61.6280° n, 59.956800° E (with an error of ± 60 minutes) . These data are used for state accounting of mineral deposits and have a high degree of reliability.

The Territorial Fund of Geological Information for the Ural Federal District contains detailed geological reports on this area. For example:

The report "Geological structure of the iron ore deposit of the second Northern mine" (author Ovchinnikov L.N., 1946-1950) with inventory number 12178.

A document with inventory number 26198 for the same deposit .

These materials contain accurate maps and diagrams that can be used to verify the location.

[Ziljoe]

If the weapon, location, mechanism, and evidence can all be swapped freely, then we’re no longer discussing a theory — we’re discussing a story. A theory requires specific claims that can be tested against the case file.

[sanmigel]

If the weapon, location, mechanism, and evidence can all be swapped freely, then we’re no longer discussing a theory — we’re discussing a story. A theory requires specific claims that can be tested against the case file.

Specific statements will be limited in the absence of CONCRETE FACTS, that is, they will cease to be SPECIFIC.

I'M NOT SAYING that this version is absolutely accurate and specifically describes what happened. I say this version describes WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN. If you think something COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED, PROVE IT.

There is a Russian saying "you can't see the forest behind the trees." This is exactly what has been happening for 67 years with this story. All versions took several facts and tried to explain them, but inevitably there were facts that contradict the version. Here we propose a version that CAN EXPLAIN ALL the FACTS and allows for the variability of the rest.

This is a paradigm shift. At least that you don't have to try to put what happened in one night. There is NO reason to think that NOTHING happened from January 29 to February 25.

[sanmigel]

Absolutely independently of the version indicated here, this article was published in the Russian media.

https://www.fontanka.ru/2026/03/15/76312565/

[Ziljoe]

Why the Fontanka Article Cannot Be Treated as Evidence

The article can’t even get the anniversary right — it says 77 years instead of 67. 
If a publication can’t handle basic chronology, its dramatic claims about mirrors, generals, and breathing bodies aren’t reliable evidence.

And this matters, because Fontanka is not an investigative journal. It’s a St. Petersburg online outlet known for:

- sensationalised Dyatlov pieces 
- dramatic retellings 
- unverified “new revelations” 
- mixing real experts with fictionalised anecdotes 
- publishing entertainment‑style narratives to drive clicks 

This isn’t a criticism — it’s simply the genre they operate in. 
They publish Dyatlov stories the same way tabloids publish “new Titanic theories” every year.

So when an article from Fontanka:

- misstates the timeline by a decade 
- describes a medically impossible mirror test 
- claims frozen bodies were “breathing” 
- introduces unnamed “officers” and “generals” 
- describes secret orders and tribunals 
- contradicts the 1959 case file at every point 

…it tells you you’re reading a dramatic narrative, not a factual report.

And the final detail makes the whole story collapse: 
the article claims they brought in a helicopter and then used an air‑turbine to clear an airfield. 
But a helicopter doesn’t need an airfield, and an airfield turbine is a multi‑ton runway machine that cannot be transported into a mountain ravine, cannot operate on slopes, and cannot erase footprints in deep snow. It’s runway equipment, not wilderness equipment. The logistics make no sense.

When a story contradicts basic physics, basic terrain, basic aviation, and basic chronology, it stops being evidence and becomes exactly what it reads... theatre.

[GlennM]

A couple of times recently,an idea has been put forward and refuted. The reply was what I believe is a " tu quoque"  logical fallacy. The translation is " if I am one, you are another", or " if I can't  prove my point, you can't prove yours either, go ahead and try it", This is poor thinking and a deflection. It is also a bit too obvious.

The idea that the hikers took a different route, stumbled into a military death trap and then conspirators staged what is found in the case is an entertaining make believe story. The forum  is more interested in stitching together a story from the available evidence than literary invention. Thinking outside the box does not get one into the box, where the truth is.

Several amateur authors and podcasters have come and gone on the forum, each taking snippets of truth and buckets of spin in order to get some measure of fortune and fame off nine dead Soviets. My advice, don't give up your day job,

[sarapuk]

You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.

[sarapuk]

This interesting theory does explain a couple of things. For example, I remember reading in the autopsy reports that at least one of the hikers had wounds or bruises that had begun to heal over, indicating that their injuries had occurred days before death.

And also, Yuri Yuden was always puzzled by the clean feet and socks of the hikers; that is, how did their feet stay so clean after walking down from the tent in snow and ice?

And lastly, if there was a government cover-up, this would explain why. I imagine the government would never want to admit that it had killed the hikers.

In this theory, did the soldiers deposit and position the Ravine 4?

You mean this pure speculation. Bruises could have been gotten at any time during the hike. Well, the snow in those parts is going to be clean, I would have thought.

[sarapuk]

In this theory, did the soldiers deposit and position the Ravine 4?

All the dead bodies were brought to the pass. Similarly, all the items were also brought by the soldiers.

I'm surprised that this pure speculation is getting attention. Might as well join in the fun. The USSR is still seen by many as a sort of extreme regime that didn't care about the occasional demise of its own harmless people. Deliberately or accidentally. Provide clues/evidence that USSR soldiers brought the dead bodies and other items to the pass!

[sarapuk]

A gentle reminder, "Plausibility does not substitute for proof."

You said it. This so-called theory is pure speculation. There is no concrete, verifiable evidence whatsoever, obviously.

[sarapuk]

On the Author’s Background and Authority

Before accepting any reconstruction of the Dyatlov Pass incident, it’s reasonable to ask a basic question: who is the author, and what qualifies him to reinterpret the case? In this instance, the answers are unclear. The writer presents himself as someone who has “studied the case for years,” yet there is no trace of him in any recognised Dyatlov research circles, no publications in historical or forensic journals, no interviews, no archival work, and no involvement with the Dyatlov Foundation or the Russian researchers who have spent decades with the primary materials. His name does not appear in academic literature, investigative reporting, or the glasnost‑era releases that brought the case back into public view.

The only place his work appears is on a self‑publishing platform used primarily for fiction, speculative narratives, and amateur investigations. That doesn’t disqualify him — but it does mean his authority rests entirely on the accuracy of his claims. And when the central pillars of his argument depend on misunderstandings of weapon systems, incorrect timelines, and events that contradict the case file, it raises a fair question about whether he is reconstructing history or constructing a dramatic story. A theory can be imaginative, but imagination is not the same as evidence. When an author’s background is opaque and the factual foundation is unstable, scrutiny isn’t hostility — it’s basic due diligence.

There are plenty of exceptional amateur investigators, just like there are plenty of exceptional people in all walks of life. So we really need to look at what this particular investigator has to say and if it makes any kind of sense.

[sarapuk]

If the weapon, location, mechanism, and evidence can all be swapped freely, then we’re no longer discussing a theory — we’re discussing a story. A theory requires specific claims that can be tested against the case file.

Specific statements will be limited in the absence of CONCRETE FACTS, that is, they will cease to be SPECIFIC.

I'M NOT SAYING that this version is absolutely accurate and specifically describes what happened. I say this version describes WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN. If you think something COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED, PROVE IT.

There is a Russian saying "you can't see the forest behind the trees." This is exactly what has been happening for 67 years with this story. All versions took several facts and tried to explain them, but inevitably there were facts that contradict the version. Here we propose a version that CAN EXPLAIN ALL the FACTS and allows for the variability of the rest.

This is a paradigm shift. At least that you don't have to try to put what happened in one night. There is NO reason to think that NOTHING happened from January 29 to February 25.

You state, 'Here we propose a version that CAN EXPLAIN ALL the FACTS and allows for the variability of the rest'. But it doesn't explain all the facts. Analyse it closely. It falls short on most of the supposed facts that it's trying to explain.

[Javier]

Hi

Title: The Dyatlov Pass Case is Solved. Here Are the Facts.
Author: Михаил Орлов (Mikhail Orlov)

I’ve spent years studying the Dyatlov Pass case. I’ve read the criminal case files, the autopsy reports, the witness testimonies. And I’ve come to a conclusion that explains every single anomaly in this tragedy.

There is no need for yet another "theory." This is a reconstruction based on documents, logic, and one simple fact: the criminal case was opened on February 6, 1959. That’s three weeks before the bodies were found.

Here’s what actually happened, point by point.

The Seven Facts That Kill the "Official" Version
The Wrong River. The group was supposed to follow the Lozva river and turn onto the Auspiya. In bad weather, they missed the turn and followed the Purma river instead. This led them to the foot of Mount Puramunitur — a mountain that looks man-made from above. It is the perfect natural target for a military exercise.

The War Games. In February 1959, the Soviet military was testing the S-75 "Desna" surface-to-air missile system. Puramunitur was the target. The group was at the wrong place at the wrong time. They witnessed a launch or an impact.

The First Blast. Dubinina, Zolotaryov, and Thibeaux-Brignolles were closest to the explosion. The forensic expert, Vozrozhdenny, explicitly stated their injuries (crushed ribs, skull fracture) looked like those from a shockwave. The others were knocked down but alive.

The Capture. Soldiers appeared. They took the survivors. This explains the total lack of signs of struggle near the tent — the tent site was staged later.

The Weeks in Isolation. This is the smoking gun. Look at the autopsy reports:

Krivonischenko’s beard: 0.5 cm. That’s 12–17 days of growth. He died in mid-February, not on the 2nd.

Thibeaux-Brignolles’ beard: 1.0 cm. That’s 25–30 days. He was alive until February 20–22.
They were kept alive. Questioned. Housed somewhere warm. Then, when the decision came from above, they were executed.

The Staging. The bodies were flown back to the Kholat Syakhl slope by helicopter (military unit 32979 was stationed nearby). The tent was set up and cut from the inside to fake panic. The bodies were arranged.

Why is Dubinina’s face down but her lividity on her back? Because she died lying on her back elsewhere, and was turned over later.

Why is there radiation on the four bodies from the ravine (up to 9900 decays/min) but not on the others? Because they were closer to the blast, and the water in the ravine didn’t wash it all away.

The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth.

The Conclusion
The Dyatlov group did not die in a "spontaneous force" accident. They did not die in a panic, or an avalanche, or an infrasound hallucination.

They were killed by men in uniform following orders, to protect a state secret.

The case was opened on February 6th because the military knew exactly what happened, and they needed to control the investigation from day one. The bodies were staged to look like a freezing death. And everyone who knew the truth was silenced — just like the 45,000 soldiers at the Totskoye "Snowball" exercises in 1954, who never spoke a word about the nuclear blast they walked through.

The evidence has been in the case files for 60 years. It just needed someone to connect the dots.

You can read the full investigation (in Russian) here: https://author.today/work/564250
I am working on a full English translation.

From the beginning, this was my most accurate theory, but the forum members did not share it; however, I still think that something very similar could have happened to the group of hikers. 
A few days ago, I listened to an interview about 'The Dyatlov Pass incident' with the Russian-born writer and anthropologist, Mercedes Pullman, in which she suspects that the deaths of the hikers were a consequence of the Soviet army, for unclear reasons, but possibly something they saw that they were not supposed to see, and as a drastic result, the bodies were thrown from helicopters into the forest, with the intention of getting rid of the bodies, because there, in the middle of nowhere in a Siberian forest, the army assumed they would not be found, (I suppose that’s the reason for the severe injuries, trauma, scratches, fractures, etc.

He also noted a fact that seemed strange to him, and points out that Semyon Zolotaryov commented during his journey that upon his return he would be famous. This comment from Semyon Zolotaryov to Mercedes Pullman did not make sense to her, and she wondered why a physical education teacher would return famous for undertaking a mountain journey. Another fact that Mercedes Pullman does not believe is that the group could walk so many kilometers with their backpacks over those Siberian terrains, because in later expeditions with very modern mountain equipment, they could hardly complete the same journey that Diatlov's group did. I think the matter of the footprints, they could have faked and erased them. I personally have never stepped on snow.

[sarapuk]

A couple of times recently,an idea has been put forward and refuted. The reply was what I believe is a " tu quoque"  logical fallacy. The translation is " if I am one, you are another", or " if I can't  prove my point, you can't prove yours either, go ahead and try it", This is poor thinking and a deflection. It is also a bit too obvious.

The idea that the hikers took a different route, stumbled into a military death trap and then conspirators staged what is found in the case is an entertaining make believe story. The forum  is more interested in stitching together a story from the available evidence than literary invention. Thinking outside the box does not get one into the box, where the truth is.

Several amateur authors and podcasters have come and gone on the forum, each taking snippets of truth and buckets of spin in order to get some measure of fortune and fame off nine dead Soviets. My advice, don't give up your day job,

Sounds a bit tough on amateur investigators. But you have a point. Everyone really needs to try to stay on track and not drift badly off course into realms of make-believe.

[Ziljoe]

The issue here isn’t whether someone is an amateur or a professional — it’s whether the claims match the documented evidence. 

A reconstruction that relies on weeks of secret detention, executions, helicopter staging, soldiers transporting all bodies and items, and a missile test at a specific place and time that isn’t evidenced anywhere in the case file isn’t “explaining the facts,” it’s replacing them. 
 
>Saying “this could have happened” is not the same as showing that it did happen. And shifting the burden to “prove it couldn’t have happened” is just reversing logic. The burden of proof sits with the person making the positive claim, especially when that claim contradicts the existing record. 
 
 A theory that can explain everything only because it allows itself to change the weapon, the location, the mechanism, the timeline, and the handling of the bodies whenever needed isn’t really explaining the facts — it’s absorbing them into a story. 

 That’s why Glenn’s point about the tu quoque fallacy matters. Critique isn’t hostility. It’s how we separate evidence‑based reasoning from narrative invention. 

Nobody is being hard on amateur investigators. Plenty of excellent ones exist. The point is simply that evidence has to lead the theory, not the other way around.

To title a thread " a version that explains ALL the facts" is a claim that i cannot support. It is a stupid and pointless claim. It is not evidence . It doesn't even suggest that Mikhail Orlov read the case files?.

[GlennM]

I draw comparison to Philip P. Dick's The Man in the High Castle. The gist of it is that there are parallel realities which by dint of luck, or serious inquiry, some people get a peek through the "looking glass". The sub rosa message is that everything changes,. That is the norm, not the exception.

The alternate reality posted in this thread has given several of us a chance to use the " looking glass" and attest to what we understand to be real and true. It is different from the point of view of the alternate scenario of the event. The comparison  allows us to confirn that our deductions are logical based on evidence be understand to be truthful. It is saying " this thing( the case files) could be real and true because that thing( alternate parallel scenario) could never be real and true". Again, the alternative reality of the DP9 event allows us to slip between parallel explanations for the tragedy and get insight into what does and does not fit.

Time and again we come up against the question of whether if what is real and true actually are real and true. Some of us have no faith at all and will argue anything just for the sake of doing so. Alternate realities are all well and good, but remembering that we are grounded in reality will get us to the why of things.

There is a trap. Most people in the world have little if any understanding of the Dyatlov Pass Incident. Their ignorance/ naivety makes them ripe for sensationalism. That separates them from their money. We, at the forum stitch the how of it to get to the why of it. If an alternative reality scenario is seen as a tool, it is of some use. If it is a proposition to " throw the baby out with the bath water", then it becomes more of an annoyance than a curiosity.

[sanmigel]

The idea that the hikers took a different route, stumbled into a military death trap and then conspirators staged what is found in the case is an entertaining make believe story. The forum  is more interested in stitching together a story from the available evidence than literary invention. Thinking outside the box does not get one into the box, where the truth is.

There is one small nuance. This "story" explains ALL THE KNOWN FACTS. At the same time, it does not require anything extraordinary for its existence.

[sanmigel]

You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.

COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,

[sanmigel]

I'm surprised that this pure speculation is getting attention. Might as well join in the fun. The USSR is still seen by many as a sort of extreme regime that didn't care about the occasional demise of its own harmless people. Deliberately or accidentally. Provide clues/evidence that USSR soldiers brought the dead bodies and other items to the pass!

This story attracts attention. because it EXPLAINS ALL THE KNOWN FACTS.