a version that explains ALL the facts

[sanmigel]

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.

Give the facts that he DOESN'T EXPLAIN.

[sanmigel]

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?.

You say that the materials of the criminal case do not mention the activities of the military. If it were said, it would not be a case, but a sincere confession.
Say "substitutes facts." Okay, let's be specific. Which fact is "substituted", what it really is. Can't you bring it? So don't say that.
To prove it is to provide facts, documents or witness statements. And where is the EVIDENCE of avalanches, yetis, gas clouds, panic, and more? In this respect, ALL VERSIONS ARE EQUAL.
Criticism can be different. Specifically, "NO, author, you're wrong, because...". And demagogy (the Russians, again, have a good joke on the subject) And "prove it!" can be applied to any version. AND NO ONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING.

An anecdote about an elephant.
The new Russian shows off to his sidekick:
- I bought an elephant here, great!!! He knows how to do everything: he opens the gates when I arrive, and waters my garden, and works instead of guards, in short, I get high.
Well, the second one, of course, also wanted to.
"Sell it to me!"
- I can't, I need it myself.
- Well, sell it like a sidekick, I'll give you five million!
- No, I can't.
"Ten!"
- no.
"Fifteen!"!!! Well, sell it!!!!!!
- Well, okay, it's not a pity for a friend.
The next day, the call:
- What the **** did you sell me??? I brought the elephant home, and he broke my fence, trampled my lawn, took a **** everywhere, and crushed my car!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Not a brother, you can't sell an elephant like that...

The evidence has already been discussed above. Mikhail Orlov read the materials of the criminal case. Have you read it? Apparently not, as do most of the "researchers," because the autopsy reports of Dubinina and Zolotarev, along with the testimony of the medical examiner, at least kill most versions at once. If you're interested, I can show you where to look.

[Axelrod]

It's clear that this version is completely incorrect, despite its catchy name.
There's also the problem that those who have been studying this topic for a long time can't distinguish between the correct and incorrect moments.

Some people stick to their own invented concept for years (for example, the date February 6th categorically), and then they consider anything that contradicts this concept to be incorrect, even if it's correct (reasonable).

[sanmigel]

It's clear that this version is completely incorrect, despite its catchy name.
There's also the problem that those who have been studying this topic for a long time can't distinguish between the correct and incorrect moments.

Is it obvious? Where, how and why? Don't make unfounded statements, justify your words.

Some people stick to their own invented concept for years (for example, the date February 6th categorically), and then they consider anything that contradicts this concept to be incorrect, even if it's correct (reasonable).

I assume that you want to demonstrate by personal example your long-term faith in the version (avalanche, presumably), which contradicts the facts from the criminal case, but you have stubbornly believed in it for many years no matter what.

[GlennM]

Thank you for your contribution.

[Ziljoe]

Hi Sanmigel,

You are among friends and people who share the same interest.

I don't know how much you have read about the Dyatlov case but many , if not all the points from your example have been largely dismissed unfortunately. I've read a little of the book and the links you supplied . I'll note some points as much of it is not new.

The beard growth or what looks like beared growth is more than likely skin shrinkage. The skin tightens after death and cold adds other elements, thus exposing more of the hair follicle.

That people can't walk in socks 1.5 km in snow is utter nonsense . Its been proven many times which means the author is extremely ignorant of what can be done by humans in that environment.

And there is no need to test a rocket in the Urals and in winter. Its an extremely complex thing to and when you are testing you want to control everything, you need access , telemetry readings, radar , filming and to do such a thing in the wilderness in what can be an extreme environment of weather conditions is not logical. The rocket wasn't nuclear and the area is basically a national park for the local people and tourists.

We must understand the logistics of all the machinery, people, technicians , launchers ,paper work that would be needed.

If theres any possible argument, it could be said that they were testing against a drone jet high in the sky and things went wrong but to target a mountain in a small populated area could kill anyone. Its still the same problem for those that fired a missile.

The secret is , there is no secret....

[SURI]

The secret is , there is no secret....

It's not true.

[sanmigel]

Hi Sanmigel,

You are among friends and people who share the same interest.

I don't know how much you have read about the Dyatlov case but many , if not all the points from your example have been largely dismissed unfortunately. I've read a little of the book and the links you supplied . I'll note some points as much of it is not new.

The beard growth or what looks like beared growth is more than likely skin shrinkage. The skin tightens after death and cold adds other elements, thus exposing more of the hair follicle.

That people can't walk in socks 1.5 km in snow is utter nonsense . Its been proven many times which means the author is extremely ignorant of what can be done by humans in that environment.

And there is no need to test a rocket in the Urals and in winter. Its an extremely complex thing to and when you are testing you want to control everything, you need access , telemetry readings, radar , filming and to do such a thing in the wilderness in what can be an extreme environment of weather conditions is not logical. The rocket wasn't nuclear and the area is basically a national park for the local people and tourists.

We must understand the logistics of all the machinery, people, technicians , launchers ,paper work that would be needed.

If theres any possible argument, it could be said that they were testing against a drone jet high in the sky and things went wrong but to target a mountain in a small populated area could kill anyone. Its still the same problem for those that fired a missile.

The secret is , there is no secret....

I haven't read much, just the Wikipedia article and the criminal case. Well, of course the forums are different. and so it's been 16 years :) About beards, yes, there is such an effect when the skin shrinks and the stubble "grows", but this manifests itself within 1 millimeter, not by 5 and, moreover, by 10.

What does it have to do with the statement that a person cannot walk 1.5 km in socks? On the contrary, I was looking for information about this, and the documentary is mentioned in the book, where they practiced the survival of astronauts after landing in the taiga in winter. A lightly dressed person can survive for more than a day without fire. But this is not the main thing, differently dressed, in different conditions, of different ages and genders, etc. people will freeze in DIFFERENT WAYS.

As for the tests, they are still being produced there :))) Well, not right on the pass, but in that region. For example, the Pemboy polygon. At the same time, it is not necessary to say that the goal was precisely the mountain where the tourists found themselves. It could have been some kind of emergency, a fall of something, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ESSENCE. Some remnants of missiles and other things have been repeatedly found in that region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalmer-Yu In 2019, people there almost got hit by rockets from firing practice. And what was happening there at the height of the cold War and the nuclear race?...

You made a good joke about the national park. The town of Ivdel, which tourists reached by train. It developed there in the 20th century as a place of mining (mines and mines, tourists also went to geological sites) and prisoners who were held in the camps of the Ivdellag worked there. And there were specialized military units guarding these camps, they even took part in the search later (Chernyshov and his men). Penal servitude is an area historically and the protection of convicts is not a national park. Even Uncle Slava, who was met by tourists on the way, who brought their things on a horse, is an ex-prisoner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivdel

And about the logistics of military equipment. In 1959, 19 air defense units with S-75 installations were deployed in that region. A year later, such an installation will bring down the American spy Powers in this region. The remains of his plane and personal belongings are still in the Museum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in Moscow. I saw it personally :)))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Gary_Powers

[Ziljoe]

Thanks for the detailed response — it’s good to see someone engaging with the material rather than just throwing out one‑liners.

Just to clarify a couple of points so we don’t mix different things together.

1. Penal servitude and the Ivdel camps 
Ivdellag definitely existed, but it was centred around the town and the logging/mining areas, not the northern mountains. 
The Dyatlov route wasn’t inside any camp zone, and the tourism bureau wouldn’t have approved it if it were restricted.

Camp guards were internal‑troops security, not specialised military units, and they weren’t deployed out in the mountains. Their job was guarding barracks and work sites, not running missile systems.

2. “National park” 
I didn’t mean an official national park — just that the area was open wilderness used by tourists and by the Mansi. 
It wasn’t a closed military range, and there’s no record of it ever being one.

3. Test ranges 
Pemboy and Khalmer‑Yu are hundreds of kilometres away and have fixed infrastructure, radar, roads, and safety corridors. 
The Dyatlov area has none of that. 
That’s why it was used for tourism and hunting, not weapons testing.

4. S‑75 deployment 
The S‑75 sites were positioned around Sverdlovsk city to protect industrial and military targets. 
They weren’t firing into the northern mountains, and there’s no evidence of launches or debris anywhere near Kholat Syakhl.

5. Accidents 
Accidents can happen anywhere, but the searchers didn’t report blast damage, shrapnel, burns, or impact debris. 
If anything like that had been present, it would have been the first thing they noted.

I’m not saying the USSR was gentle or transparent — just that the specific geography and logistics of the Dyatlov area don’t match missile testing or military exercises.

There were 2 other hikes or groups of tourists at the same time , their paths and routes covered a vast area and they were never stopped from going anywhere.

About the beard growth,the 1 mm figure is for early post‑mortem change. 
In prolonged cold exposure, especially with wind and dehydration, the skin can contract several millimetres. 
That’s why mountaineering and avalanche victims often show 5–10 mm of apparent stubble.  We also have to add a few days of normal growth from when they were alive in the days before and then up to 3 months before discovery.

And to add, the link you supplied states that you can't walk more than a 100meters in socks. That is just not true and shouldn't be stated as fact.

The 2019 incident i believe was some journalists on or in a bombing range and from air to ground missiles. Bombs on a bombing range is not unusual.

[sanmigel]

No, in 2019, an incident occurred with nomadic reindeer herders.

Speaking of beards.
https://0209gorojanin.blogspot.com/2020/01/monthly-stubble-of-thibo-brignoles.html

[Ziljoe]

Sanmigel,

Thanks for raising the point about Thibeaux‑Brignolle’s stubble — it’s a topic that comes up often, so it’s worth looking at it with what we know from actual forensic work in cold‑weather fatalities.

1. Post‑mortem “beard growth” isn’t growth — it’s skin contraction 
In cold environments, the skin dehydrates and contracts. 
This exposes more of the hair shaft that was already under the skin. 
It’s well‑documented in avalanche victims, mountaineering deaths, and polar expeditions.

It’s not hair growing — it’s the skin shrinking.

2. The 1 mm figure online is for early post‑mortem change 
The “maximum 1 mm” claim you see on blogs applies to bodies kept at room temperature for a short time. 
It doesn’t apply to:

- weeks of sub‑zero exposure 
- wind desiccation 
- freeze–thaw cycles 
- partial mummification 

Under those conditions, 5–10 mm of exposed stubble is normal. 
Forensic literature on alpine fatalities confirms this.

3. Facial hair follicles are deeper than the blogger claims 
Human beard follicles can sit 3–5 mm below the skin surface, sometimes more in dense‑bearded individuals. 
If the skin recedes by that amount — which it does in prolonged cold — the stubble appears dramatically longer.

This is why Everest victims and avalanche victims often look like they “grew a beard” after death.

4. Thibeaux was a dark‑haired, heavy‑bearded man 
On someone with dark, dense facial hair, even a few millimetres of exposed shaft looks like a lot. 
The Dyatlov bodies were exposed for weeks, so the appearance is exactly what you’d expect.

5. Nothing about this requires forgery or altered dates 
The photos of Thibeaux alive show normal stubble. 
The post‑mortem photo shows cold‑weather skin recession. 
There’s no contradiction — just physiology.

If the expedition or the photos had been forged, we’d expect inconsistencies in equipment, clothing, weather, shadows, camera models, or film stock. 
None of that appears in the case file.

6. The forensic report doesn’t suggest anything unusual 
The pathologists in 1959 didn’t treat the stubble as evidence of a later death. 
They’d seen cold‑weather bodies before. 
If something had looked inconsistent, they would have noted it.

So the “1 cm stubble = staged expedition” idea doesn’t really hold up once you look at how the human body behaves in prolonged cold.

Near misses happen in bombing ranges in the uk too.

Happy to keep discussing — it’s good to go through these details carefully rather than jump to dramatic conclusions.

[GlennM]

2.54 cm = 1 inch. That is the distance between the lower two knuckles on your index finger.An inch of beard might be worth noting. A centimeter, not so much.

[sarapuk]

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.

Most people in the World have probably never heard of the Dyatlov Pass Incident. You are suggesting that most people in the World are ignorant? Strange things to say.

[sarapuk]

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.
[/quote

That is a very bold statement. And not correct.

[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.

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

It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.

[sarapuk]

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.

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't.

[sarapuk]

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.

Give the facts that he DOESN'T EXPLAIN.

Well, first of all, Puramunitur was not a missile range. Missiles were tested at designated ranges, not willy-nilly all over the place. The injuries to the Dyatlov Group are not consistent with injuries that may be received from a missile explosion.

[sarapuk]

The secret is , there is no secret....

It's not true.

What's not True?

[GlennM]

From Grigoriev’s diary: "He went against the wind that blew on the rocks. Then he landed on gas, the wheels jumped, the wind blew away the helicopter. The engine and the wind roared. Soldiers quickly jumped out of it, one carrying a pipe for the stove, so that build it up in a tent. Wind and a stream of air from the huge propeller knocked down the soldier with the stovepipe, the pipe jumped over the stones. Then we ducked into the jumping helicopter, removing the footboard and slamming the door on the fly. The second helicopter made several attempts, but could not land. Protyazhenko landed." Grigoriev's "Snowstorm in the Mountains" - 3

A good reason to think that the tent was helicoptered in on 1079.

[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.

That is a very bold statement. And not correct.

ARE YOU CLAIMING that it IS INCORRECT? PROVE IT. Surely, there is nothing easier than to cite a FACT, at least one that this version does not explain. Can'T you? Stop selling the elephant, so you won't sell it.

[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,

It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.

Once more and for the last time. If some version had EVIDENCE, then there would be no discussion about this story at all. But since it just so happens that we don't have a documentary video, we have to build versions. And NONE of the versions has any evidence. Because there is no way to find them decades later. Do you think otherwise? Please provide an evidence-based version.
Apparently, you consider the UFO version to be such a version. Of course, there is such "EVIDENCE" that there is simply nothing nearby. 

[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.

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't.

ARE YOU CLAIMING that it doesn't explain? Prove it. Please provide AT LEAST ONE FACT that the version does not explain. There's nothing easier. But you prefer to chant meaningless mantras. As the Russian proverb says, no matter how much you say "halva," it won't get sweeter in your mouth.

[sanmigel]

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.

Give the facts that he DOESN'T EXPLAIN.

Well, first of all, Puramunitur was not a missile range. Missiles were tested at designated ranges, not willy-nilly all over the place. The injuries to the Dyatlov Group are not consistent with injuries that may be received from a missile explosion.

ок. The Puramunitur may indeed not be the target. it can be a place of chance. What does it change? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
About injuries. Have you read the criminal case?

This is a direct quote from the medical examiner's interrogation from the criminal case.

Question: How can we explain the origin of the injuries in Dubinina and Zolotarev - can they be combined by one cause?
Answer: I believe that the nature of the injuries in Dubinina and Zolotarev is multiple rib fractures.: Dubinina's is bilateral and symmetrical, Zolotarev's is unilateral, as well as hemorrhage into
the heart muscle in both Dubinina and Zolotarev with hemorrhage into the pleural cavities indicate their vitality and are
the result of exposure to a large force, approximately the same as
It was applied to Thibault. The specified damages, namely
with this picture and without violating the integrity of the soft tissues of the chest, they are very similar to the injury caused by an air blast wave.

[Ziljoe]

"Similar to an air blast wave” ≠ “caused by an air blast wave.” 
  He’s using a comparison, not a diagnosis. 
  Forensic language often uses analogies: “like a car crash”, “like a fall from height”, etc.

- Many mechanisms can produce that pattern of injury. 
  Bilateral rib fractures + internal hemorrhage + minimal external damage can come from:
  - heavy compressive loading (snow slab, collapse, log, rock) 
  - being crushed between surfaces 
  - a fall with chest impact against a broad object 
  - avalanche‑type loading 

- If it were a missile or explosive blast, we’d expect other signs:
  - burns 
  - shrapnel wounds 
  - embedded fragments 
  - blast damage to clothing 
  - damage to trees, ground, tent, and surrounding snow 
  None of that is in the case file.

- The same doctor also says the injuries are compatible with compression. 
  In other parts of the material, the experts explicitly mention:
  - heavy weight 
  - broad area impact 
  - no soft‑tissue tearing 
  That’s classic for compression, not fragmentation or direct blast.

[SURI]

The secret is , there is no secret....

It's not true.

What's not True?

It is not true that there is no secret.

Ivanov's words:
„Everyone was told that hikers were in an extreme situation and froze.

However, that was not true. The true causes of the deaths were hidden from the people...“

[sanmigel]

"Similar to an air blast wave” ≠ “caused by an air blast wave.” 
  He’s using a comparison, not a diagnosis. 
  Forensic language often uses analogies: “like a car crash”, “like a fall from height”, etc.

- Many mechanisms can produce that pattern of injury. 
  Bilateral rib fractures + internal hemorrhage + minimal external damage can come from:
  - heavy compressive loading (snow slab, collapse, log, rock) 
  - being crushed between surfaces 
  - a fall with chest impact against a broad object 
  - avalanche‑type loading 

- If it were a missile or explosive blast, we’d expect other signs:
  - burns 
  - shrapnel wounds 
  - embedded fragments 
  - blast damage to clothing 
  - damage to trees, ground, tent, and surrounding snow 
  None of that is in the case file.

- The same doctor also says the injuries are compatible with compression. 
  In other parts of the material, the experts explicitly mention:
  - heavy weight 
  - broad area impact 
  - no soft‑tissue tearing 
  That’s classic for compression, not fragmentation or direct blast.

Don't engage in demagoguery and don't try to make white black. He said, "IT COULD HAVE BEEN A BLAST WAVE." He did not state, "IT DEFINITELY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A BLAST WAVE."

Again, no one can say EXACTLY what WAS THERE. THAT'S WHY the medical examiner uses the phrase "COULD HAVE BEEN." If you are so smart, then give examples of versions about which you can say not "could have been", but "definitely was". Was there an avalanche? Was there a UFO? Stop making my sneakers laugh.

[Ziljoe]

Demagoguery is:

- emotional manipulation 
- appeals to fear or outrage 
- attacking the person 
- using ridicule 
- using absolutist language 
- trying to sway the crowd through heat rather than clarity 

Now, of course the injures could be caused by a number of things. By process of elimination we can maybe get closer.

[sanmigel]

Demagoguery is:

- emotional manipulation 
- appeals to fear or outrage 
- attacking the person 
- using ridicule 
- using absolutist language 
- trying to sway the crowd through heat rather than clarity 

Now, of course the injures could be caused by a number of things. By process of elimination we can maybe get closer.

Demagoguery is a set of oratorical and polemical techniques aimed at misleading the audience, manipulating feelings and achieving selfish (often political) goals through false reasoning, substitution of concepts and distortion of facts. SO, DON'T TRY TO TURN "IT COULD HAVE BEEN" into "IT DEFINITELY COULDN'T HAVE BEEN."

[Ziljoe]

Demagoguery is:

- emotional manipulation 
- appeals to fear or outrage 
- attacking the person 
- using ridicule 
- using absolutist language 
- trying to sway the crowd through heat rather than clarity 

Now, of course the injures could be caused by a number of things. By process of elimination we can maybe get closer.

Demagoguery is a set of oratorical and polemical techniques aimed at misleading the audience, manipulating feelings and achieving selfish (often political) goals through false reasoning, substitution of concepts and distortion of facts. SO, DON'T TRY TO TURN "IT COULD HAVE BEEN" into "IT DEFINITELY COULDN'T HAVE BEEN."

Sanmigel,

I’m not turning “could have been” into “couldn’t have been.” 
I’m saying that an analogy in a forensic interview doesn’t uniquely identify a cause.

“Could have been” applies to several mechanisms that produce the same injury pattern. 
That’s why the examiner also mentions compression as compatible. 
It’s not a contradiction — it’s how forensic comparisons work.

The only reason to talk about burns, shrapnel, embedded fragments, or environmental blast damage is because those are the physical signatures that would support an actual explosion. They aren’t present in the case file or the search reports.

So the point isn’t to claim certainty about what wasn’t there. 
It’s simply to look at what is there, and what isn’t, and narrow the field based on evidence rather than analogy alone.

[Senior Maldonado]

It is not true that there is no secret.

Ivanov's words:
„Everyone was told that hikers were in an extreme situation and froze.

However, that was not true. The true causes of the deaths were hidden from the people...“

@SURI:

Although the above remark is right to the spot, I am afraid that majority of the active Forum members will not agree. They think that Ivanov wrote the article "Mystery of the Fireballs" in 1990 because he wanted public's attention and money, and his words should not be taken into account. Meanwhile, his words are of great value, because he gave us a hint how he had received information about true cause of the DPI. He has named other people who knew about the DPI true cause: Klinov, Kirilenko, and Eshtokin. These 3 men were top leaders of Prosecutor's office and Communist party in the region. They had neither visisted the Pass nor investigated the case themselves, they got information from reports and other people. That makes to think that all of them received the information about true DPI cause from an external source, and it is not that difficult to guess who that source was.

From E.Okishev recollections:
"The deputy General Prosecutor of RSFSR, Urakov, arrived and took the case files in a hurry. He ordered to issue the case resolution statement. He went with Klinov to the regional party committee and Ivanov went with them."

It's not hard to understand that at the Committee Urakov, Klinov, and Ivanov met Kirilenko and Eshtokin. Thus we can see all the group together, and Urakov obviously told them something...