Was it a macabre game?

[Javier]

Ladies and gentlemen of the forum, The case of the Diatlot group was a macabre game by high-ranking Russian government officials.
I point out here obvious mistakes that the Dyatlov group wouldn't have made:
They strayed from the established route and camped in an area very exposed to the weather.
With very low temperatures, they didn't turn on the stove.
At night the whole group went out barefoot and without clothes, knowing it would be a sure death from hypothermia.
Some of the hikers had injuries with signs of fighting and trauma that result from heavy hand-to-hand fights.
Some hikers had burns on their feet and hands. This might be because they were tortured when their killers suspected they had a chance of surviving after lighting a fire.
How many hikers who died on Mount Everest are subjected to radiation tests in their autopsies? As far as I know, none. The prosecutor who handled the case was subjected to strong threats, and he added this information to create confusion.
Why did they move the participants' bodies after they died? The hikers died somewhere else, and they moved them away from their planned route to hinder and delay the investigation.
Some of the hikers' injuries were caused by strong blows and they didn't use rifles to prolong their human hunting game.

[GlennM]

Javier. Your idea has a lot going for it. It explains much. I trust you will continue to add to it. I will contribute this thought. "All behavior is motivated".

[Ramsay]

Hello Javier, I would like to make some comments on your theory:
- In your opinion, why would it be necessary to carry out this type of mass murder with upright and dedicated young people in Soviet society? In a period when figures like Beria, Serov (a sadist, was removed from the KGB in 1958), Abakumov, and others no longer existed, who would benefit from this "macabre, high-risk game?", and why would it be necessary to cover it up and reenact everything in that way?

- The fact that the group left the tent at night poorly dressed is one of the most difficult parts of any theory to justify: in your opinion, what was the factor that caused those lucid and healthy young people to leave the tent in that way?

- When you claim that some corpses showed signs of physical struggle and combat, you contradict the official autopsy reports, which did not record defensive wounds on the hands and wrists, nor fractures typical of direct aggression, in addition to ignoring the continuous footprints preserved from the tent to the tent. - The fact that some clothing showed traces of radiation is concerning for most theories. However, careful analysis is needed: we know that Kolevatov and Krivonischenko (who even worked on the decontamination in Kyshtym in 1957) worked with radiation, but explaining why three pieces of clothing contained those specific isotopes requires a good explanation.

- What concrete elements or evidence (or at least similar historical parallels, that is, with a similar modus operandi) can you bring to confirm the thesis that there was a falsification of the crime scene? Who could do that in the 1950s and why?

[Javier]

Hello Javier, I would like to make some comments on your theory:
- In your opinion, why would it be necessary to carry out this type of mass murder with upright and dedicated young people in Soviet society? In a period when figures like Beria, Serov (a sadist, was removed from the KGB in 1958), Abakumov, and others no longer existed, who would benefit from this "macabre, high-risk game?", and why would it be necessary to cover it up and reenact everything in that way?

- The fact that the group left the tent at night poorly dressed is one of the most difficult parts of any theory to justify: in your opinion, what was the factor that caused those lucid and healthy young people to leave the tent in that way?

- When you claim that some corpses showed signs of physical struggle and combat, you contradict the official autopsy reports, which did not record defensive wounds on the hands and wrists, nor fractures typical of direct aggression, in addition to ignoring the continuous footprints preserved from the tent to the tent. - The fact that some clothing showed traces of radiation is concerning for most theories. However, careful analysis is needed: we know that Kolevatov and Krivonischenko (who even worked on the decontamination in Kyshtym in 1957) worked with radiation, but explaining why three pieces of clothing contained those specific isotopes requires a good explanation.

- What concrete elements or evidence (or at least similar historical parallels, that is, with a similar modus operandi) can you bring to confirm the thesis that there was a falsification of the crime scene? Who could do that in the 1950s and why?

Ramsay. Very few questions we are asked have answers, and that was precisely the researchers' purpose so that the facts would never be clarified.
You should keep in mind that not all of us are the same, and each person's nature is shaped by good things and sometimes by macabre acts.
Answering one of your questions, the forensic report quotes verbatim that some members of the group have multiple wounds on their hands (knuckles) such as those that occur in strong fights, swollen lips, a multitude of bruises all over their bodies, dried blood on their faces, apart from other injuries such as the one caused to Zinaida in the lower back, and almost her entire face destroyed by abrasions. I suppose you have already read the section on autopsies and you will be well informed like the rest of the participants of the forum.

As I was telling you, on this planet unfortunately there are people capable of anything. Recently, news broke that people with a lot of money had participated in human hunts during the war in the former Yugoslavia, and armed with rifles, they dedicated themselves to acting as snipers against civilians to satisfy their sadistic urges. So it wouldn’t be surprising if something similar happened to the Diatlov group, but in this case, they were tortured, beaten, and later left to die of cold. To this day, at my age, nothing would surprise me.

[GlennM]

Sad to even contemplate on the forum.

[SURI]

It is sad not to see the truth.
From Ivanov's letters and articles, which intertwine and complement each other, it is possible to deduce what event happened, who caused it, and why. Furthermore, it is clear from his text that he knew absolutely everything about this event and had it supported by the gathered evidence. Therefore, there is no need to speculate about an imaginary avalanche or a snow slab. There would have been no reason to hide something like that from the public.

[GlennM]

Truth, in this case meaning belief. Weather, time, location are objective truth. Homicidal interlopers is a belief about the collective misfortune of the DP9. All behavior is motivated. I think the motivation for the DP9 was to achieve advanced certification. Killing them? I believe driving nine people out in the woods without their overshoes is a poor way for a psychotic killer to have fun when there are guns, knives, slings, arrows and even the random bear trap for sadistic pleasure. You can look at the murderous intent differently, of course. Ivanov should have had the wisdom to follow his own investigative sense, but did not. What did he not do? He did not follow the money. Instead, he made money.

[bongyi]

It is sad not to see the truth.
From Ivanov's letters and articles, which intertwine and complement each other, it is possible to deduce what event happened, who caused it, and why. Furthermore, it is clear from his text that he knew absolutely everything about this event and had it supported by the gathered evidence. Therefore, there is no need to speculate about an imaginary avalanche or a snow slab. There would have been no reason to hide something like that from the public.

All I can find out from Ivanov's letters is that he talks back and forth.  His letters are suitable for this one thing, to present himself as untrustworthy. Journalists from Komsomlskaya Pravda itemize that he is claiming untruths.

You always act like you have a possible narrative. What Ivanov found out, you know too. But you never explain that!  This is frivolous! You always just say that you have to read Ivanov because he knew everything. I have already read Ivanov and nothing has been revealed! It's just that he's wrong or lying!

[bongyi]

The main argument against the murder theory is that there is no motive for it! These young people loved hiking and singing. Why would anyone want to hurt them?
Your argument is that you don't really need a motive.  Of course, you can assume a madman! In the case of a madman, obviously no one would insist on a motive!
My problem with armed coercion is as follows. So if someone took a gun on the hikers and forced them naked into the woods and into frostbite, it burdens the theory with explaining the following problem:
What if they resist? What if he has to use his gun? Then there will be clear clues! Then it will be seen that a murder has taken place! He couldn't have known in advance how the hikers would react! So in this case, should an explanation be given as to how the killer or murderers would escape their actions if the traces of the weapon are visible?

And without a weapon, how many could have forced 9 people?  Let's say 3 people could force 9 hikers? Or 5 people?

But I'm leaning towards this theory anyway, it's the least out of the question.  The Mansi would have been able to kill them this way and confuse the clues. They have perfect local knowledge. They know everything. 

But somehow I don't think that would have happened! Because in this case, the investigation would be clear! One would not have the feeling that the authorities were hiding things. Why did this case have to be classified at all, if the authorities don't have something to hide? And if the Mansi committed it - which I still don't want to believe - then why would the authorities cover it up?

[Ramsay]

Yes, it is very unfavorable to the assassination theories

[SURI]

It is sad not to see the truth.
From Ivanov's letters and articles, which intertwine and complement each other, it is possible to deduce what event happened, who caused it, and why. Furthermore, it is clear from his text that he knew absolutely everything about this event and had it supported by the gathered evidence. Therefore, there is no need to speculate about an imaginary avalanche or a snow slab. There would have been no reason to hide something like that from the public.

All I can find out from Ivanov's letters is that he talks back and forth.  His letters are suitable for this one thing, to present himself as untrustworthy. Journalists from Komsomlskaya Pravda itemize that he is claiming untruths.

You always act like you have a possible narrative. What Ivanov found out, you know too. But you never explain that!  This is frivolous! You always just say that you have to read Ivanov because he knew everything. I have already read Ivanov and nothing has been revealed! It's just that he's wrong or lying!

Now you write like Ramsay.

Since it was impossible for Ivanov to write the cruel truth about the DPI directly, he used a coded language, which is why many people have the impression that he knew absolutely nothing. However, his coded words match what can be seen at the crime scene and in the diaries.

[bongyi]

Now you write like Ramsay.

Since it was impossible for Ivanov to write the cruel truth about the DPI directly, he used a coded language, which is why many people have the impression that he knew absolutely nothing. However, his coded words match what can be seen at the crime scene and in the diaries.

I'm terribly sorry, but I can't find Ivanov's coded language in Google Translate!
It's not impossible for you to directly describe the terrible truth about DPI, is it?  And you seem to be the only one who understands Ivanov's supposed coded language!
Of course, it's also easy to imagine that you're just pretending to understand something, but you don't really understand any of it!  And that's why you're being secretive. Childish play is nothing more. Frivolous!