Exploring The Yeti Theory

[Star man]

I understand why some think that they may have been forced  under gun point.  It's not impossible, but I think it is very unlikely given the evidence at the scene. 

What evidence at the scene contradicts that possibility?

No sign of other people.  Nothing taken from the tent.  The way they left the tent and what they took with them - some well dressed, others half naked.  Some with boots, some with socks, some bare foot.  Rustem took one boot.  They took knives, matches, a camera, a flashlight, news paper, pens etc.  These are not the sorts of things you would allow people to take if you were sending them to their deaths in the cold?  Besides, they were in a desolate location, it was dark, in bad weather, with poor visibility.  Not the ideal place or time to man an attack, or even to find them.  There is no motive.  Why would anyone do it?

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

then I imagine that could have prompted a panic resulting in the need to make a new exit from the tent, by cutting a hole and then pulling at it to make it big enough to get through. 

If there was panic inside the tent with a hasty retreat the tent would reflect the hasty retreat. Nobody cuts out the side of their tent and then does an orderly evacuation.

There are no signs of an orderly evacuation.  Why would anyone leave with just one boot?  Why drop your flashlight 450m down the slope and not pick it back up again?  The terrain was difficult to navigate and dangerous.  It was dark.  You would only be able to move carefully and slowly.  The tent was not that orderly, 7 crumpled blankets, biscuits and pork loin crusts uneaten, disorderly pile of shoes, cuts made from inside the tent.

Regards

Star man

[Georgi]

1.  You remove their bodies from the area and dispose of them somewhere else.

How do you do that without the risk of walking in on another hiking group with 9 bodies in tow? Unless this was a platoon level operation this would not work and if it was a platoon level operation we would already know.

2.  The bodies would not be found if they were completely removed.

How do you remove 9 bodies, 9 rucksacks, 10 sets of ski's and remove your own equipment all without arousing suspicion of people you pass on your way out? The last think they would want is to leave witnesses or disappear another 9 or 10 people.

3.  They were experienced hikers, some were well dressed, they had matches and built a fire, they could build a shelter and survived.

For how long? You can build a shelter and you can build a fire but you cannot get too far from the fire or you freeze an you have to get relatively far from the attacking force to light a fire that wouldn't draw them to you, this means you have to travel at least 3, maybe 4km in the dark with no shoes, no gloves and minimal clothing. You have to do this with no tools or food as well, and this is done after a full day of working too so at this point they are exhausted.

To my understanding, some were better dressed then others but none of them were well dressed for winter.

4.  There was no motive to want to kill them.  They would have been difficult to find.  They would have needed to wait around.

How do you know there was no motive to kill them? Just because we don't know the reason someone did it doesn't mean there was no reason.

It most definitely wouldn't be difficult to find them, they have no reason to hide and they are making a trail, as long as someone is close enough behind them not to lose them it shouldn't be a problem.

And no they don't have to wait around, they had no reason to expect the Dyatlov group would pitch their tent there, so it had to have been someone following them or someone that stumbled on the group.

[Georgi]

No sign of other people.

Nobody was looking for signs of other people until the area was flooded with people. Once the area was flooded with people it would have been nearly impossible for anyone to determine which tracks were from the search party and which were from someone else. Another issue is that if it was a military unit, whether Soviet or western they would have been able to cover their tracks well enough for them not to be noticed until someone stated looking and by then it would be too late.

Nothing taken from the tent. 

And aparently the tent was not in complete chaos as one would expect from 7 hikers cutting their way out and running away in the dark. Just because nothing was missing doesnt mean noone was there, it just means they were not there for theft.

The way they left the tent and what they took with them - some well dressed, others half naked.

Some were better dressed then others, none were aparently dressed for the elements, even the guys who were likely outside at the time of the incident were wearing only the bear mininmum.

Some with boots, some with socks, some bare foot.  Rustem took one boot.

The boots the once who had them on were wearing would not have kept them warm for long.

They took knives, matches, a camera, a flashlight, news paper, pens etc.  These are not the sorts of things you would allow people to take if you were sending them to their deaths in the cold?

They had pocket knives, their real knives were in the tent along with their remaining ax. Everyone had matches but that would have helped them survive for a while not for days or weeks. I don't remember them having a flashlight as for the rest? That's all in the pockets, those people were in a life or death situation, all of those things could have helped them but ultimately this would also help any attacking force to get them to the cedar tree. If I was attacking the Dyatlov group I would leave them with just enough to give them hope but not enough to actually do much with, the whole point is to get them away from the tent, not have to shoot them or stab them in or around the tent. They could have forced them to strip down to their boxers and nothing else but that would just have forced the hikers into a brawl right by the tent and might have led to one or more of them being stabbed or shot which eliminates the mystery and narrows the suspect pool.

Leaving them with some cloths and a pocket knife or maybe even a finish knife would be a choice between certain death right now, or almost certain death in a few hours and most people will take the extra hours hoping against all hope that maybe something will fall their way in the few hours and they can get a chance to survive. But if you strip them of all their clothing and even their pocket knives they would have zero chance of making it to the trees let alone surviving the night. The Dyatlov group would have been the most dangerous if they were completely cornered with no way out and their only 3 options are stay and get killed, do as their told and die of the cold or fight and die but take some of them with you.

Besides, they were in a desolate location, it was dark, in bad weather, with poor visibility. 

And if someone had followed them they would have known that it was desolate(no witnesses, no chance of rescue), dark(cold, hard to find your way back to the tent), bad weather(hard to survive when only partially dressed) and poor visibility(cant see them come, cant find your way back into the tent).

Not the ideal place or time to man an attack, or even to find them.

That is precisely the place you want to stage an attack, they are isolated, dozens of km from help, under dressed, already exhausted, terrified, and they know no one is coming to save them. Sound travels further at night, and the hikers would have no reason to maintain light and sound discipline which means that there would be a way to find them even in the dark, go towards the sound.


 

There is no motive.  Why would anyone do it?

- maybe they were in the wrong place at the wrong time(Mistaken Identity)

-This could have been a murder because the wrong group of people just happened to cross the Dyatlov group and they felt like there would be no repercussions

- This could be an attack by the Government of the USSR, the KGB, the CIA, Soviet or western special forces for some betrayal by a member of the group.

-The group might have seen something, or they may have gone by something they didn’t notice but someone couldn’t take the chance.

-It could also have happened because one or more of the party were on the hike for something other than love of the sport and were working for the Soviet Government and/or the American government.

-One or more of the people in critical jobs could have been trying to defect.

-One of the girls could have been raped or someone important attempted to rape her and this was revenge for fighting them off or reporting them(read up on Lavrentiy Beria)

- This could have been a powerful person whose child was rejected from the hiking club(Wanda Webb Holloway).

- This could have been a powerful person whose child was rejected by one of the girls or guys and subsequently
committed suicide and this was retaliation.

-Zolotaryov could have made enemies during his time in the Soviet Military, just long enough for one of them to gain rank and power to retaliate.

-Maybe they met someone on the trail, a fight happened and they were subsequently ambushed later that day and killed because of that fight.

-This could also be something as stupid as one of the hikers telling somebody off at some point during the trip and that person could not take that insult so that person and their friends came to kill them.

- It could be completely random with a group of soldiers or special forces on an exercise in the region, cross the group, it might have started as a fun game for the attackers to scare them and one of the hikers died so subsequently they
decided to get rid of all the witnesses.

-Could have been prisoners who had escaped the gulag years ago and are living in the mountains, the group crosses them and they cant let them report the escaped convicts to the authorities so they kill them.(There were Japanese soldiers on various islands in the pacific that fought the war against the allies into the 70’s and 80’s)

-It could have also been retaliation for something one of the parents had done years before and this seemed like the perfect revenge, kill their child and leave them without knowing what happened for the rest of their lives and make sure no one gets suspicious by covering it up with 8 other murders.

-This could have been a message for the soviet government from another government and the Dyatlov Group just happened to be the unlucky one that was chosen.

-There could be hundreds of reasons, many of which would be so incredibly stupid that would make your brain hurt, but if you have someone powerful who is a psychopath, sociopath, extreme narcissist or some other personality disorder with access to trained killers it wouldn’t matter if it was a valid reason or not because to them its worth it. How many people have committed mass killings for incredibly stupid reasons?(eg:James Ruppert, Adam Lanza, George Pierre Henard, Marc Lepin etc… ) What is the motive to go into an elementary school and kill a bunch of 6 year old’s?

The list of potential motives is very long and worse, we might not consider a lot of things as motive for mass murder but someone who does not value human life much or at all and who believes himself to be above the law, might consider them valid reactions and if that person is in a position of power that gives them an outlet it gets done. Think about some of the terrorist attacks that were committed in the US and Canada over the last few years(Toronto van attack 2018, 2014 Isla Vista Killings, 2017 Las Vegas shooting) and tell me if they make sense or if there is motive you can get behind.  Why would anyone do it? Why would anyone kill a bunch of people because he couldn’t get a girlfriend?

Just because we don't have a clear motive doesn't mean its not there, and just because we cant pinpoint a solid motive doesn't mean this wasn't murder.

They have injuries that strongly suggest a fight happened, they left the tent under dressed in the middle of the night and walked down to the treeline, if they were running they would have been falling all over the place and it would have been obvious. The only event that could have had the universal reaction of everyone going to trees would be human attack, if it was infrasound what are the chances that everyone would have the same reaction? If it was the yeti, why didn't it destroy their tent? What else causes an orderly exit from the tent but makes them leave their shoes and outerwear inside?

[Georgi]

There are no signs of an orderly evacuation.

Have you ever left a 10 man tent in a hurry in the middle of winter? Because I have and we used the exit and we did it really quickly. When we came back after we were stood down we walked into a tent that looked like we had been fighting in there. If they were leaving in a hurry, the rucksacks that were inside the tent would be in total disarray, the food would be knocked about, their supplies would have been tipped over and/or stomped. Whoever was closest to the shoes and jackets would have grabbed as many of the jackets as they could.

https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search?flp=1#the-tent
Notice how it says that everything seemed orderly and normal?
Also notice how they found Dyatlov's jacket OUTSIDE the tent with his notepad and penknife? Who takes his jacket and then throws it down by the entrance next to the ax? If there are two things I wouldn’t be dropping out of the exit I wasn’t using to leave the tent it would definitely be the jacket and ax along with the working flashlight thrown away halfway down the hill. What it looks like to me is that the two men who were outside had a flashlight with them, when the attackers came they took the flashlight, turned it off and threw it on the opposite side of the tent. When Dyatlov heard the commotion he went outside with an ax and his jacket only to be met with a barrel of a rifle to the face, the others are ordered to come out, by which point they have boots on and are then ordered to take their boots off, some are left with socks only while others are left with felt boots on, the rest of the footwear is thrown back into their tent. They are ordered to march after Dyatlov drops the ax and the jacket. They are told to march and 400m down the slope they are ordered to drop the 2nd flashlight or they get shot...flashlight or bullet for everyone is not really that much of a choice.

https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-map-16.jpg
One flashlight was on the opposite side of their direction of flight, if I had a flashlight in my hand and I was running in panic in the dark I would bring the flashlight with me.

Notice how the second flashlight that was left on was about 400m away from the tent, who would be running away in the dark and decides you know what I don't need? A flashlight.


 

Why would anyone leave with just one boot?

I don’t know, but apparently he did.

Why drop your flashlight 450m down the slope and not pick it back up again?

Because whoever had it on was threatened with a rifle.

 

The terrain was difficult to navigate and dangerous.  It was dark. 

He had a flashlight, it was on the ground in the ON positon, if it was dark he should be able to see the light and where it landed.

You would only be able to move carefully and slowly.

  would be moving faster with a flashlight, and would improve his chances of finding the tent with a flashlight.

The tent was not that orderly, 7 crumpled blankets,

Yeah, 7 people were using their blankets, they were either ordered or there was a commotion outside so they didn’t bother folding them. If I had a blanket wrapped around me, and I suddenly was overcome with panic why would I throw away the blanket? For the guy who supposedly cut the side of the tent, why take the time to put the knife back in the tent? This is quite literally the exact opposite of what normal people would do. At least some of the people would have ran with their blankets, someone would have gone back to pick up the flashlight, the guy with the knife would have kept it and the two guys who were outside would have kept their flashlight and picked up Dyatlov’s jacket and ax from the front door. If there were no humans trying to kill them and no bigfoot those blankets, flashlights, knife and ax and jacket would have completely and totally changed the outcome. Even if it was bigfoot, I would drop the jacket and blanket before I drop the knife, ax or flashlight(s).

biscuits and pork loin crusts uneaten,

They were in the middle of eating, if they had left in a panic the food would have been stepped on or thrown/kicked away.


 

disorderly pile of shoes,

Which supports my theory that they were wearing the shoes outside the tent and were ordered to toss them back in.

cuts made from inside the tent.

Unless there was a surveillance video to confirm this we will never know if the tent was cut by them or by someone else.

[alecsandros]

1)How do you disappear someone in Siberia during February? The ground is frozen and covered in snow, the amount of effort it would take to dig a large enough hole from the frozen ground for 9 bodies and their gear would be immense and would either require the entire attack party to dig for quite some time, or there would have to be a lot more attackers than reasonable.

I also think that , had the military/KGB been involved, they wouldn't have made them to disappear. However, to answer your question, a simple way to "disapear" would have been by helicopter...

2)Despite the remoteness of the region, the expectation is that the bodies would eventually be found, if every trace of the party disappeared from that mountain I imagine that the immediate theory would be murder by the state and a coverup.

My thoughts exactly.

[alecsandros]

If there was someone watching the outside at all times they would have been very well dressed but more importantly, they would have made some sort of weapons and used the knives and axes for security. If they are forced to run they would not be throwing away their weapons and clothes .

Thibeaux and "Zolotaryov" were well dressed.
The need for weapons would arise only if they would expect an attack.

The knives were found inside the tent with their clothing, and from all account the tent was in orderly shape inside. If 7 people were inside what was for all intents and purposes two 4man tents sown together, and they were forced to run outside in haste the inside would appear like a brawl had happened rather than just 7 crumpled up blankets and shoes piled on each other.

One knife (I think Krivonishenko's) was found in the ravine. So they had at least one knife plus their pen knives.
The "brawl" that you mention would appear if there was no light , or little light inside the tent. If tehre was light - from a flashlight perhaps - they could have exited orderly through the cuts in the tent.

All of their knives were IN the tent in their sheaths, and if either one of them were to badly hurt by yeti they would have had significant problems making it down the slope. The last thing people running for their lives would be to throw away their weapons back into the tent.

Again, at least one knife was with them. Probably because of the haste and terror they couldn't take more.

If they were concerned about someone or something they would have been dressed and ready to leave on a moments notice rather than strip down to underwear when they believe they are in enough danger to require a sentry.

That would depend on their level of confort. They were all physically strong and, with guards outside, could potentially considered that they were "safe". They were 20 somethings after all.

You would be clearly able to see if someone is backing down the slope or if they are walking forward and the problem with carrying people down the slope in the cold with no shoes and no clothes would be that both Slopodin and Dyatlov would be completely exhausted well before they get to the tree.

Exhausted and hurt (in case of Slobodin).

No knives so they cant stab anyone/anything.

See above

So why are 4 of the most heavily injured people not by the cedar tree once found but in the Ravine? Two of them would have died immediatly or shortly after their injuries so early in the evening after the attack, they would be dead weight, so how did they get from the cedar tree to the  Ravine?

The question is - why was the den built 75meters away from the fire ?
I don't know.
Maybe it seemed like a better place to hide from the Yetis ?

Best,

[alecsandros]

I am not sure where the information about the depth (2 m.) comes from. I am also not sure whether anyone knows exactly where the place is, in order to claim certain depth. Anyway, to me, it looks like the one who is taking the photo is positioned a bit lower, as if he/she is on his knees or lying on the ground. Or, it could be that it is a natural difference in the terrain - a slope, which leaves the photographer lower, which may explain the "Yeti" height. Or even a snow mass in front of the legs of the "Yeti", creating optical illusion, that the legs are buried in deep snow.

Regards

Not 2 meters, 2 feet.
I agree it is not an exact measurement, but from the quantity of snow appearing in photo no17, I'd estimate a depth of about 60cm (2 feet).

[Georgi]

Thibeaux and "Zolotaryov" were well dressed.

From what I have read, they were well dressed compared to the others, but not dressed well enough for prolonged period outside.

The need for weapons would arise only if they would expect an attack.

If they felt threatened enough to require sentry's that would be enough cause to make a weapon, if nothing else have the knives and ax on them at all times.

One knife (I think Krivonishenko's) was found in the ravine.

They had the knife sheath but not the knife in the den. From everything I have read, the only place that states they found a knife is the report from Ivanov. They had pen knives but that's about it. I could be wrong.

The "brawl" that you mention would appear if there was no light , or little light inside the tent. If tehre was light - from a flashlight perhaps - they could have exited orderly through the cuts in the tent.

If you are cutting your only shelter for 40-50km in a desolate forest, in the middle of the coldest few months of the year at night it will not be orderly, the fact that it was orderly withdrawal tells me that at the time they may not have realized the seriousness of their situation.

Again, at least one knife was with them. Probably because of the haste and terror they couldn't take more.

And again, everywhere I read it says all the knives were in the tent save for the pocket knives and it only was added to the final report to have a satisfactory close. No knives were found in the Ravine and no Knives were found in the den or the cedar tree aside from the handful of pocket knives.

That would depend on their level of confort. They were all physically strong and, with guards outside, could potentially considered that they were "safe". They were 20 somethings after all.

If something spooked them enough to require a sentry, they would be ready to a) help the sentry and b)run on a moment's notice. This means they are dressed in warm clothes and they are carrying all of their weapons on their person at all times. So if they spend 5 nights without a sentry and sudenly something makes them want protection this escalates things, this would mean they should be ready to fight or flee. To me, if I am hiking and come to a point where I need sentry outside it is because of a threat to them, there is no point of having notice that you are under attack only to be in your underwear and have to retreat to your death without clothes or weapons.

Exhausted and hurt (in case of Slobodin).

If that was the case on the way down, it would be obvious, there would be places that the person falls or is dragged by the others, no such evidence.

The question is - why was the den built 75meters away from the fire ?
I don't know.
Maybe it seemed like a better place to hide from the Yetis ?

Dubina had a pierced heart, she wasn't going to make it very far or very long.

[alecsandros]

From what I have read, they were well dressed compared to the others, but not dressed well enough for prolonged period outside.

"Zolotaryov" was wearing 2 pairs of pants , and over them a pair of skiing pants for a total of 3 pants on him.
Nikolai Brignolles wore the following: "Nikolay wore a canvas fur hat and home knitted woolen hat. Upper body was protected from coldness by shirt, wool sweater worn inside out and a fur jacket on a sheepskin. Woolen gloves were found in the right pocket along with three coins, comb and several pieces of paper. Lower part of the body was protected by underwear, sweat pants, cotton pants and ski pants. On his feet he wore hand-knitted woolen socks and a pair of felt boots (valenki), Russian winter shoes perfect for Siberian cold."

If they felt threatened enough to require sentry's that would be enough cause to make a weapon, if nothing else have the knives and ax on them at all times.

It would be important to know why they were keeping watch. If they saw something strange on the Jan 31st/Fev 1st, they should have had weapons. Likewise against bears, wolves, etc.
If, on the other hand, they were keeping watch against a possible accumulation of snow, and/or risk of avalanche on the slope, then the weapons are not necessary.

They had the knife sheath but not the knife in the den. From everything I have read, the only place that states they found a knife is the report from Ivanov. They had pen knives but that's about it. I could be wrong.

You're right - but the branches at the den are considered to have been cut with Krivonishenko's knife.

If you are cutting your only shelter for 40-50km in a desolate forest, in the middle of the coldest few months of the year at night it will not be orderly, the fact that it was orderly withdrawal tells me that at the time they may not have realized the seriousness of their situation.

We don't know how they were sleeping and in what positions relative to the cuts made. Perhaps they heard screams outside, attempted to exit on the normal exit of the tent and discovered it blocked by a Yeti, then they attempted repeatedly to cut the tent to get out and help their friends. It is not necessary to throw everything into disarray.

And again, everywhere I read it says all the knives were in the tent save for the pocket knives and it only was added to the final report to have a satisfactory close. No knives were found in the Ravine and no Knives were found in the den or the cedar tree aside from the handful of pocket knives.

See above.

If something spooked them enough to require a sentry, they would be ready to a) help the sentry and b)run on a moment's notice. This means they are dressed in warm clothes and they are carrying all of their weapons on their person at all times. So if they spend 5 nights without a sentry and sudenly something makes them want protection this escalates things, this would mean they should be ready to fight or flee. To me, if I am hiking and come to a point where I need sentry outside it is because of a threat to them, there is no point of having notice that you are under attack only to be in your underwear and have to retreat to your death without clothes or weapons.

Again we don't know the reason for the sentry or their way of thinking. ALso I seem to remember they had a watch outside from the earlier nights ? [EDIT: from Dyatlov group diary, Jan 24th: "We took shifts to watch over our stuff all night long"]

If that was the case on the way down, it would be obvious, there would be places that the person falls or is dragged by the others, no such evidence.

The footprints disappeared about 500meters from the tent, therefore it is not known how they walked the following 1100meters until reaching the cedar tree.

Dubina had a pierced heart, she wasn't going to make it very far or very long.

Indeed...

[Star man]

There are no signs of an orderly evacuation.

Have you ever left a 10 man tent in a hurry in the middle of winter? Because I have and we used the exit and we did it really quickly. When we came back after we were stood down we walked into a tent that looked like we had been fighting in there. If they were leaving in a hurry, the rucksacks that were inside the tent would be in total disarray, the food would be knocked about, their supplies would have been tipped over and/or stomped. Whoever was closest to the shoes and jackets would have grabbed as many of the jackets as they could.

https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search?flp=1#the-tent
Notice how it says that everything seemed orderly and normal?
Also notice how they found Dyatlov's jacket OUTSIDE the tent with his notepad and penknife? Who takes his jacket and then throws it down by the entrance next to the ax? If there are two things I wouldn’t be dropping out of the exit I wasn’t using to leave the tent it would definitely be the jacket and ax along with the working flashlight thrown away halfway down the hill. What it looks like to me is that the two men who were outside had a flashlight with them, when the attackers came they took the flashlight, turned it off and threw it on the opposite side of the tent. When Dyatlov heard the commotion he went outside with an ax and his jacket only to be met with a barrel of a rifle to the face, the others are ordered to come out, by which point they have boots on and are then ordered to take their boots off, some are left with socks only while others are left with felt boots on, the rest of the footwear is thrown back into their tent. They are ordered to march after Dyatlov drops the ax and the jacket. They are told to march and 400m down the slope they are ordered to drop the 2nd flashlight or they get shot...flashlight or bullet for everyone is not really that much of a choice.

https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-map-16.jpg
One flashlight was on the opposite side of their direction of flight, if I had a flashlight in my hand and I was running in panic in the dark I would bring the flashlight with me.

Notice how the second flashlight that was left on was about 400m away from the tent, who would be running away in the dark and decides you know what I don't need? A flashlight.


 

Why would anyone leave with just one boot?

I don’t know, but apparently he did.

Why drop your flashlight 450m down the slope and not pick it back up again?

Because whoever had it on was threatened with a rifle.

 

The terrain was difficult to navigate and dangerous.  It was dark. 

He had a flashlight, it was on the ground in the ON positon, if it was dark he should be able to see the light and where it landed.

You would only be able to move carefully and slowly.

  would be moving faster with a flashlight, and would improve his chances of finding the tent with a flashlight.

The tent was not that orderly, 7 crumpled blankets,

Yeah, 7 people were using their blankets, they were either ordered or there was a commotion outside so they didn’t bother folding them. If I had a blanket wrapped around me, and I suddenly was overcome with panic why would I throw away the blanket? For the guy who supposedly cut the side of the tent, why take the time to put the knife back in the tent? This is quite literally the exact opposite of what normal people would do. At least some of the people would have ran with their blankets, someone would have gone back to pick up the flashlight, the guy with the knife would have kept it and the two guys who were outside would have kept their flashlight and picked up Dyatlov’s jacket and ax from the front door. If there were no humans trying to kill them and no bigfoot those blankets, flashlights, knife and ax and jacket would have completely and totally changed the outcome. Even if it was bigfoot, I would drop the jacket and blanket before I drop the knife, ax or flashlight(s).

biscuits and pork loin crusts uneaten,

They were in the middle of eating, if they had left in a panic the food would have been stepped on or thrown/kicked away.


 

disorderly pile of shoes,

Which supports my theory that they were wearing the shoes outside the tent and were ordered to toss them back in.

cuts made from inside the tent.

Unless there was a surveillance video to confirm this we will never know if the tent was cut by them or by someone else.

So do you think that they were followed for several days into the wilderness, and during that time the attackers were not spotted by the Dyatlov party?  If so why not attack the group on the first night in the wilderness.  They had no better chance of survival?  Why wait several days?

During the attack you think the attackers tried tailor the scene such that it would not look like they were attacked, by forcing them to leave the tent and wander into the frigid darkness to their dooms!  To avoid further suspicion and a confrontation, they allow so e of the hikers to wear boots, and order others to remove theirs, and to throw them back into the pile on left hand side of the tent?  And for others to put their shoes back where they had picked them up from?  But they decided that Dyatlov should leave his jacket just outside the entrance with ice axe?  To further draw suspicion away, they allow some of the hikers to take matches, paper, a knife and pen knives and a flash light with them?   Oh yes a d a camera?  Why would you let them take a camera when they may have snapped a photo of the attackers on it?  Then 450m down the slope they order them to drop the camera and continue?

What about the injuries of the rav 4?  They could not have sustained those very far from where the bodies were found.  How are these explained?  Especially the Lyuda and Semyon, who both have massive chest trauma with no soft tissue damage, and both have their eyes missing.  Lyuda's tongue is also missing a d her good bone with damage?  None of the have broken extremities or wrists, ankles.  Tbibi's skull injury which would have required at 450Kg of force is in exact proportion to the ball of a thumb on hand.  In this case it would had to  e a 30cm long hand which approximately the size of the hand of an ape.  The injuries of Lyuda and Semyon are also consistent with the attack of a large ape - dragged beaten with heavy blows to the chest at a very shallow angle while lying on the ground.  A large fleshy padded hand is less likely to cause soft tissue damage.  There is also evidence that Doroshenko climbed the cedar even though he had significant frost bite.  Why would he do that?

The problem with the human attack theory is that it requires a sequence of improbable unfortunate events to explain it.  Whilst the Yeti theory can be explained by ibe thing - a large powerful scary Yeti induced a panic and the hikers left in a hurry wearing and carrying whatever they had at the time.  At some point the rav 4 were attacked and mauled.  The others were lost in the dark and died from the cold.  The problem with the Yeti theory is that we dont have any Yetis.  But a large ape like a mountain gorilla would be just as capable of causing the events.

Regards

Star man

[Georgi]

"Zolotaryov" was wearing 2 pairs of pants , and over them a pair of skiing pants for a total of 3 pants on him.
Nikolai Brignolles wore the following: "Nikolay wore a canvas fur hat and home knitted woolen hat. Upper body was protected from coldness by shirt, wool sweater worn inside out and a fur jacket on a sheepskin. Woolen gloves were found in the right pocket along with three coins, comb and several pieces of paper. Lower part of the body was protected by underwear, sweat pants, cotton pants and ski pants. On his feet he wore hand-knitted woolen socks and a pair of felt boots (valenki), Russian winter shoes perfect for Siberian cold."

His legs were protected by a pair of socks and a pair of warm leather hand made shoes known as "burka". They probably couldn't keep him warm for a long time, but in the den it was sufficient in keeping the man alive.

https://dyatlovpass.com/death?flp=1#Zolotaryov

Like I said, from what I read the two men were better dressed then the rest but not dressed well enough to survive -20/-40 degree weather on a 40+km hike with no shelter, food or ski's. But you are right, it sounds like they were both dressed and could survive in the cold, whether they could survive or not is a different question. The fact that Zolotaryov also had a compass on his wrist means he might have a chance.

It would be important to know why they were keeping watch. If they saw something strange on the Jan 31st/Fev 1st, they should have had weapons. Likewise against bears, wolves, etc.
If, on the other hand, they were keeping watch against a possible accumulation of snow, and/or risk of avalanche on the slope, then the weapons are not necessary.

It doesn't matter what they were worried about, if those two men were sentry's they would have had to have been armed if worried about animal/human attack while the rest of the group were dressed, packed and prepared for a hasty retreat and only  then do they go to sleep, dressed and ready to either evacuate immediately or fight to protect themselves. If those two men were sentry's the group failed miserably because they were unprepared for whatever befell them, or more likely from my perspective is that they were prepared, they went outside and were disarmed and forced to  undress and told to march, the two sentry's were released and told to go at the same time and no one bothered to force them to undress or in the dark the attackers underestimated the level of preparedness of the 2 men.

Sentry's give warning and the others respond because they are ready, having sentry's and being 2-5 minutes from being ready to respond to a threat negates the need for sentry's...unless this was in June/July high arctic and it was 24h days which would give them clear and high visibility for a couple of km from where the tent was situated. IF they were sentry’s, whatever they were worried about the group should have been ready to move on a moment’s notice, the Dyatlov group being scared enough to institute sentry’s but not enough to be prepared to react seems unlikely.

You're right - but the branches at the den are considered to have been cut with Krivonishenko's knife.

That’s part of my problem, all of the knives were found and accounted for as far as I know and all of the bigger knives were found in the tent. So there was 1 or more knives in the group that were used in the to cut the branches and the search party misplaced them, did not find them at all or mistook the knife for a search party knife and did not log it. Or the other options are the branches were cut by someone else before, the attackers had cut the wood or the hikers used their knifes to cut the wood and the knifes were taken away at some point in the night and returned to the tent after they were dead.

How else can you explain a knife being used, but no knife being found?

We don't know how they were sleeping and in what positions relative to the cuts made. Perhaps they heard screams outside, attempted to exit on the normal exit of the tent and discovered it blocked by a Yeti, then they attempted repeatedly to cut the tent to get out and help their friends. It is not necessary to throw everything into disarray.

It’s a small tent, they have 7 people and 9 rucksacks inside an 8 men tent, if they were in such a panic as not to remember to bring their blankets, knives, clothes or flashlight they will be in enough of a hurry to fall over and knock things over, the floor was likely cluttered with rucksacks they were using to sit on.

If
Again we don't know the reason for the sentry or their way of thinking. ALso I seem to remember they had a watch outside from the earlier nights ? [EDIT: from Dyatlov group diary, Jan 24th: "We took shifts to watch over our stuff all night long"]

That was while they were on route to start the hike, not on the hike.

And again, whether its fear of avalanche or fear of human/animal attack the sentry’s would be there to give warning, not deal with the problems by themselves. If they were worried about avalanche they should have been dressed and ready to evacuate in a moment’s notice with minimum supplies to be able to survive the night so they can recover their equipment later on, being undressed is not ready.

The footprints disappeared about 500meters from the tent, therefore it is not known how they walked the following 1100meters until reaching the cedar tree.

I don’t care about the last 1,100m my concern is the first few hundred meters. If they were in a panic at the tent, they should be in a panic in the first 500m, if they feel safe enough later on they can slow down or fatigue slows them down but to be in a panicked enough state to cut your only shelter in a Siberian forest at least 40km from civilization and leave in various states of undress I would expect the first few hundred meters to be a mad dash and the tracks should indicate that.

[Georgi]

So do you think that they were followed for several days into the wilderness, and during that time the attackers were not spotted by the Dyatlov party?

Depends on what the motive was. If they were specifically targeted on someone's orders they were followed and as a group of good citizens with nothing to hide they did not suspect being followed or take any precautions to lose the tail they didn't know they had. If on the other hand the motive was due to something that happened on the hike they may have been followed for a day or so before the attack.

  If so why not attack the group on the first night in the wilderness.  They had no better chance of survival?  Why wait several days?

If they were targeted from the beginning, then waiting until they were at least 40km from civilization which would make sense, even if one or more of them survived, the attackers can track them down and kill them before they make it to civilization and more importantly there would be a bigger chance of someone stumbling on the camp before the deed was completely done which means more bodies and harder explanation the closer to the beginning of the trek. Their goal if the group was targeted from the get go would be to do it far enough from civilization that the chances of someone accidently stumbling upon the hikers while the attack is ongoing or shortly after its done would be small and more importantly from the point of view of the attackers, they buy themselves at least 2 weeks to get out of the area and be somewhere else far far away before anyone starts looking into the missing hikers, and its 2 weeks for your trail to fade, there are ways to cover your tracks, but those  ways still leave a faint enough trail, but giving nature 2-3 weeks for nature to help you makes sense. The longer it takes someone to figure out something is wrong, and then to find the camp site the harder it is for the investigators to find out what happened.

During the attack you think the attackers tried tailor the scene such that it would not look like they were attacked, by forcing them to leave the tent and wander into the frigid darkness to their dooms!  To avoid further suspicion and a confrontation, they allow so e of the hikers to wear boots, and order others to remove theirs, and to throw them back into the pile on left hand side of the tent? 

Two of the hikers were out, they could have been 50 or 60m away or more taking pictures of something. In the darkness the attackers don’t see them, they get the others out of the tent and stripping them only to realize 2 are missing, by the time they find them the others are already marching so they send them along not bothering to force them to strip, they either underestimated the warmth of their clothes or assumed that the two men would redistribute some of their clothes to their fellow hikers, at least those that are the most exposed.

And for others to put their shoes back where they had picked them up from? 

They exited from the main entrance, on the way out they grabbed their boots which would be nice and orderly but once they were outside the attackers told them to throw them back into the tent. Logically the hikers would have kept their boots neat and paired so they can grab them quickly without disturbing their fellows if they needed to go out for whatever reason, pilling your shoes in one blob would be a big no-no for those hikers or most other people.

But they decided that Dyatlov should leave his jacket just outside the entrance with ice axe?

Maybe Dyatlov had the jacket and ax with him when he went to the cedar tree and the attackers grabbed both items and brough them to the tent, or more likely they went through the tent and looked at all of the journals to see if anything was amiss and tossed the jacket out because it was in their way.

To further draw suspicion away, they allow some of the hikers to take matches, paper, a knife and pen knives and a flash light with them?

Maybe they underestimated the groups ability to survive, or they wanted to give the group an illusion of a chance. How do you convince 9 fit individuals to willingly go to their own death without resorting killing them next to the tent with knifes and bullets? You give them a chance, a small chance but a chance non the less. It’s a choice between die right now, or most likely die in a few hours but the die later still gives them a tiny hope that they can survive or at least some of them can survive. The second you strip everyone to their boxers, take every chance of survival off of the table and tell them to march, they become trapped animals with absolutely nothing to lose.

The way it was done, option 1 was stay and die immediately, option 2 was fight and likely die immediately with maybe a tiny chance of survival depending on how many attackers there were or option 3 was go to the treeline with a bigger chance of survival. You give someone the illusion of a way out and see them go to their deaths willingly or give them no illusion of a way out, corner them and risk a fight that might end up in a literal bloodbath with stab injuries and bullet wounds that cannot be from the yeti, ufo, avalanche, katabatic wind, infrasound or the dozens of other possibilities. It becomes a question of who killed them rather than what happened.

As for the flashlight? That would be more for the attackers than the Duyatlov group, they are ordered to carry the flashlight and periodically shine it to the individual members  to make sure they were all there. Otherwise why drop it before they get to the treeline.

  Oh yes a d a camera?  Why would you let them take a camera when they may have snapped a photo of the attackers on it? 

What if it wasn’t with him initially? What if the attackers confiscated it and then subsequently placed it around his neck as a countermeasure?

Or since its 1959, they had a way to destroy the film without appearing to intentionally destroy the film.

Then 450m down the slope they order them to drop the camera and continue?

Yes, otherwise if the Yeti is after them why on earth would they toss it aside and not go back?

What about the injuries of the rav 4?  They could not have sustained those very far from where the bodies were found.  How are these explained?  Especially the Lyuda and Semyon, who both have massive chest trauma with no soft tissue damage, and both have their eyes missing.

I’m not a doctor so when I read the English version of the autopsy for Lyuda I didn’t really see where it said no bruising, but even if it does say that what could cause someone to get such damage with no bruising? Could the fact that it was cold slow down bruising?

Lyuda's tongue is also missing a d her good bone with damage?  None of the have broken extremities or wrists, ankles.

Which means none of them fell and also it means they were likely held down by someone because otherwise at least one of them would have serious defensive injuries on their hands.

Tbibi's skull injury which would have required at 450Kg of force is in exact proportion to the ball of a thumb on hand.  In this case it would had to  e a 30cm long hand which approximately the size of the hand of an ape. 

Or could it be that the temperature at the point of killing was low enough and their core temperatures were low enough to slow or prevent the bruising? Notice how there was a lot of bruising indicating of a fight for many of the hikers? So either it was two separate and unrelated incidents or the bruising was from earlier in the night when their core temperatures were higher because they were better dressed during the fight and had just come out of the tent and later on in the night they were significantly more cold due to being out in the elements for maybe as long as 8-10 hours so less bruising. I mean after all isn’t one of the actions to prevent or limit bruising adding ice to the area? And they will likely freeze soon after their deaths which wouldn’t have been that long after their injuries.

As for the deformed neck on Aleksander, did the yeti decide to break his neck rather than punch him?

The injuries of Lyuda and Semyon are also consistent with the attack of a large ape - dragged beaten with heavy blows to the chest at a very shallow angle while lying on the ground.  A large fleshy padded hand is less likely to cause soft tissue damage.

Can you show me a picture of the large fleshy padded hand of a yeti?


 

There is also evidence that Doroshenko climbed the cedar even though he had significant frost bite.  Why would he do that?

Maybe he climbed up to see if the coast was clear to the tent, or maybe he climbed up there to try and hide out of desperation or maybe everyone else had a task(gather firewood, build a shelter etc) and he was the only one left capable of climbing the tree as an early warning that someone was coming. I would expect someone would be on the look out for whoever or whatever attacked them, so why not him if he couldn’t do anything else?

The problem with the human attack theory is that it requires a sequence of improbable unfortunate events to explain it.  Whilst the Yeti theory can be explained by ibe thing - a large powerful scary Yeti induced a panic and the hikers left in a hurry wearing and carrying whatever they had at the time.

The problem with the yeti is that no one has ever proven that the yeti exists to my knowledge and nothing of the sort has happened since in the region, whereas someone committing mass murder is almost a weekly occurrence in the world, it wouldn’t be the first time a governments secret police has murdered multiple people to get to one and it most likely will not be the last time a government murders multiple people to get to one or two people. Read up on Lavrentiy Beria and his actions and tell me how improbable it is that someone in a position of power in the Soviet Union in 1959 didn’t have the means order this for whatever reason they may have had.

At some point the rav 4 were attacked and mauled.  The others were lost in the dark and died from the cold.  The problem with the Yeti theory is that we dont have any Yetis.  But a large ape like a mountain gorilla would be just as capable of causing the events.

So would a well trained team of people who have institutional knowledge of how to hurt people, how to kill people and how to cover their tracks when necessary.

You are saying that a scenario that was very likely for the time is improbable so the most likely answer is the yeti? Why did the yeti chase them from the tent, wait a few hours and go back to finish the job down by the tree line? Was it so security conscious that it did not want to leave witnesses?

Igor, Zina, Rustem and Yuri K had evidence of a fight on their bodies, which leads me to believe that they fought with the assailants at the tent and were subdued. Nikolay and Semyon were outside of the tent and were likely subdued without giving them a chance to fight while the rest didn’t react to the fight quickly enough and were restraint immediately or were already subdued. Now either the group fought with someone else in the days before their deaths and didn’t journal the incident, they fought with someone that day on the trail and it was unrelated, they fought amongst themselves so that means Igor, Zina, Rustem and Yuri K fought amongst themselves or whoever attacked them did not manage to subdue those 4 before they started swinging but managed to subdue them without killing them immediately or using obvious weapons(shooting or stabbing). What’s more likely, one prolonged violent event that led to their deaths or 2 separate events one with a group of people or amongst themselves and the other with a yeti?

If a yeti had been at the tent site there would be evidence and bodies around the tent, the hikers would have ran down the slope with their blankets in hand and a flashlight and the knife would have been found with them rather mysteriously teleport back to the tent after they used it and died. The last thing they would have done is throw away an ax, a flashlight and not bother grabbing any blankets or more knives. If they were in a hurry the tracks in the snow would indicate haste, what they indicate are a group of people who are walking away. So they were either in a panic in the tent and not in a panic on the walk down or they exited the tent through its entrance and walked calmly because they had rifles pointed at their backs. An ax would have increased their survival chances against a yeti or a human unless the human specifically ordered them to drop it.

[alecsandros]

It doesn't matter what they were worried about, if those two men were sentry's they would have had to have been armed if worried about animal/human attack while the rest of the group were dressed, packed and prepared for a hasty retreat and only  then do they go to sleep, dressed and ready to either evacuate immediately or fight to protect themselves. If those two men were sentry's the group failed miserably because they were unprepared for whatever befell them, or more likely from my perspective is that they were prepared, they went outside and were disarmed and forced to  undress and told to march, the two sentry's were released and told to go at the same time and no one bothered to force them to undress or in the dark the attackers underestimated the level of preparedness of the 2 men.

Sentry's give warning and the others respond because they are ready, having sentry's and being 2-5 minutes from being ready to respond to a threat negates the need for sentry's...unless this was in June/July high arctic and it was 24h days which would give them clear and high visibility for a couple of km from where the tent was situated. IF they were sentry’s, whatever they were worried about the group should have been ready to move on a moment’s notice, the Dyatlov group being scared enough to institute sentry’s but not enough to be prepared to react seems unlikely.

You're right, the sentries would require weapons to be effective.
Also, if expecting an attack, the ones inside the tent would have been better dressed (ready to sortie fast) - and they were not.

I would propose a solution that I have shared before: perhaps they saw something on Jan 31st/Fev 1st, but thought that "most likely" it was a Mansi hunter. A very tall one. They decided to keep a rotational watch all night long however, just in case. The basic scenario here would be that of a trouble-free night. The watch would be there just in case.

How else can you explain a knife being used, but no knife being found?

By soldiers/3rd party messing around the scene after it was all over... Remember there was some sort of military-grade leg protection found inside the tent, and Yuri Yudin didn't recognize it as belonging to either one of the group.

It’s a small tent, they have 7 people and 9 rucksacks inside an 8 men tent, if they were in such a panic as not to remember to bring their blankets, knives, clothes or flashlight they will be in enough of a hurry to fall over and knock things over, the floor was likely cluttered with rucksacks they were using to sit on.

In this case we don't know. We don't know what light there was inside the tent (if any) when the sentries were attacked. We don't know who cut the tent and we don't know how close the 7 occupants were to the 2 holes cut through the fabric.

I don’t care about the last 1,100m my concern is the first few hundred meters. If they were in a panic at the tent, they should be in a panic in the first 500m, if they feel safe enough later on they can slow down or fatigue slows them down but to be in a panicked enough state to cut your only shelter in a Siberian forest at least 40km from civilization and leave in various states of undress I would expect the first few hundred meters to be a mad dash and the tracks should indicate that.

True. Perhaps the first 500meters they had the Yetis pursuing them, and they walked slowly , so as to keep an eye on the attackers, not do sudden moves, and be always on the lookout for any attack. Slow, deliberate walking, perhaps with the back on the slope (facing the tent and slowly moving away), in order not to disturb/challenge the animals anymore then they already were.

Best regards,

[Georgi]

You're right, the sentries would require weapons to be effective.
Also, if expecting an attack, the ones inside the tent would have been better dressed (ready to sortie fast) - and they were not.

I would propose a solution that I have shared before: perhaps they saw something on Jan 31st/Fev 1st, but thought that "most likely" it was a Mansi hunter. A very tall one. They decided to keep a rotational watch all night long however, just in case. The basic scenario here would be that of a trouble-free night. The watch would be there just in case.

With the fact that at night there might be limited visibility due to obviously the dark, clouds, high wind blowing the snow etc... if the two men outside were sentry's they did absolutely nothing to improve their chances because a 30s or 45s advance notice does the hikers absolutely no good if they are undressed and needing 2 or 3 or 5 minutes to get dressed and grab the basic necessaries for survival in Siberia without their shelter.

By soldiers/3rd party messing around the scene after it was all over... Remember there was some sort of military-grade leg protection found inside the tent, and Yuri Yudin didn't recognize it as belonging to either one of the group.

What were the military doing there? Some soldier picked it up and put it back in the tent but for what reason? And how would the Soviet military know what transpired in and around the tent?

In this case we don't know. We don't know what light there was inside the tent (if any) when the sentries were attacked. We don't know who cut the tent and we don't know how close the 7 occupants were to the 2 holes cut through the fabric.

That's the mystery here, cutting their own tent conveys unbridled panic while the scene in the tent, their footsteps and the general state of the camp indicated calm, collected and intentional movement. The fact that no one even brought a single blanket, ax and in fact dropped both flashlights on opposite sides of the tent with one of them being on their way down towards the treeline and no one bothered to pick it up indicates to me it was completely intentional on someone's instructions.

True. Perhaps the first 500meters they had the Yetis pursuing them, and they walked slowly , so as to keep an eye on the attackers, not do sudden moves, and be always on the lookout for any attack. Slow, deliberate walking, perhaps with the back on the slope (facing the tent and slowly moving away), in order not to disturb/challenge the animals anymore then they already were.

As far as I know none of the tracks indicate backing away, all of them indicate walking down the slope. But this brings me back to my point, the tent being cut indicates panic, you don't panic, cut your shelter and immediately turn calm and collected while the threat that forced you into a panic still exists.

[Star man]

You're right, the sentries would require weapons to be effective.
Also, if expecting an attack, the ones inside the tent would have been better dressed (ready to sortie fast) - and they were not.

I would propose a solution that I have shared before: perhaps they saw something on Jan 31st/Fev 1st, but thought that "most likely" it was a Mansi hunter. A very tall one. They decided to keep a rotational watch all night long however, just in case. The basic scenario here would be that of a trouble-free night. The watch would be there just in case.

With the fact that at night there might be limited visibility due to obviously the dark, clouds, high wind blowing the snow etc... if the two men outside were sentry's they did absolutely nothing to improve their chances because a 30s or 45s advance notice does the hikers absolutely no good if they are undressed and needing 2 or 3 or 5 minutes to get dressed and grab the basic necessaries for survival in Siberia without their shelter.

By soldiers/3rd party messing around the scene after it was all over... Remember there was some sort of military-grade leg protection found inside the tent, and Yuri Yudin didn't recognize it as belonging to either one of the group.

What were the military doing there? Some soldier picked it up and put it back in the tent but for what reason? And how would the Soviet military know what transpired in and around the tent?

In this case we don't know. We don't know what light there was inside the tent (if any) when the sentries were attacked. We don't know who cut the tent and we don't know how close the 7 occupants were to the 2 holes cut through the fabric.

That's the mystery here, cutting their own tent conveys unbridled panic while the scene in the tent, their footsteps and the general state of the camp indicated calm, collected and intentional movement. The fact that no one even brought a single blanket, ax and in fact dropped both flashlights on opposite sides of the tent with one of them being on their way down towards the treeline and no one bothered to pick it up indicates to me it was completely intentional on someone's instructions.

True. Perhaps the first 500meters they had the Yetis pursuing them, and they walked slowly , so as to keep an eye on the attackers, not do sudden moves, and be always on the lookout for any attack. Slow, deliberate walking, perhaps with the back on the slope (facing the tent and slowly moving away), in order not to disturb/challenge the animals anymore then they already were.

As far as I know none of the tracks indicate backing away, all of them indicate walking down the slope. But this brings me back to my point, the tent being cut indicates panic, you don't panic, cut your shelter and immediately turn calm and collected while the threat that forced you into a panic still exists.

A few points to think about:

There isn't much room inside the tent to allow them to run around in a panic throwing things about.  If there was something outside at the entrance then you would probably try to keep quite even if you were petrified.  Also it is very difficult to run in deep snow on a rocky slope in the dark.  They probably moved carefully and tried to stick together.

The event must have happened before most of them retired to sleep, as no diaries had been written. 

The sentries were probably not on watch outside.  They may have gone outside to relieve themselves. 

If you were retreating from so e kind of animal you would want to walk slowly and calmly to avoid triggering an attack.  Reports of big foot attacks commonly suggest the animals are cautious, throwing things and making noises initially.  As they grow more confident they close in and become more aggressive.  Other encounters have them being just as surprised as the humans and making a quick retreat.  If the hikers were in their territory and wanted them out the first scenario is more likely. 

Regards

Star man

[alecsandros]

With the fact that at night there might be limited visibility due to obviously the dark, clouds, high wind blowing the snow etc... if the two men outside were sentry's they did absolutely nothing to improve their chances because a 30s or 45s advance notice does the hikers absolutely no good if they are undressed and needing 2 or 3 or 5 minutes to get dressed and grab the basic necessaries for survival in Siberia without their shelter.

Perhaps they thought that the watchmen would be sufficient to protect from the threats. That is, if they realy had watchmen. Because thinking more about it, it does make little sense not to have weapons at hand for them.

What were the military doing there? Some soldier picked it up and put it back in the tent but for what reason? And how would the Soviet military know what transpired in and around the tent?

My proposition is that a few days after the attack, some of the bodies were found by Mansi hunters, and they alerted the nearest military unit. The military sent an advance search team, that found some of the bodies, the tent and took some objects (cameras, films), and perhaps placed back other things - such as the knife. It may have been taken from curiosity , and later let down on the tent (perhaps someone gave an order to leave it).

That's the mystery here, cutting their own tent conveys unbridled panic while the scene in the tent, their footsteps and the general state of the camp indicated calm, collected and intentional movement. The fact that no one even brought a single blanket, ax and in fact dropped both flashlights on opposite sides of the tent with one of them being on their way down towards the treeline and no one bothered to pick it up indicates to me it was completely intentional on someone's instructions.

That - or perhaps a Yeti knocked them out of their hands...

As far as I know none of the tracks indicate backing away, all of them indicate walking down the slope. But this brings me back to my point, the tent being cut indicates panic, you don't panic, cut your shelter and immediately turn calm and collected while the threat that forced you into a panic still exists.

There is also the possibility that they exited through the normal exit of the tent, and the tent was sliced open later on , by the first military search (the one that put the knife back). The cuts could be made in order to search for documents hidden in the fabric.

[sarapuk]

The figure in the photo.  A photo which appears to be gaining notoriety.  Why ?   Well the figure looks to be well over 6 foot tall.  Presumably add 1 or 2 feet for the snow, and that rules out any of the Dyatlov Group.   In fact it would rule out most people, wouldnt it  !  ? 

[Georgi]

A few points to think about:

There isn't much room inside the tent to allow them to run around in a panic throwing things about.  If there was something outside at the entrance then you would probably try to keep quite even if you were petrified.  Also it is very difficult to run in deep snow on a rocky slope in the dark.  They probably moved carefully and tried to stick together.

The fact that it is a small and confined space leads me to believe that panic would have led to chaos inside due to the fact that everyone wants to leave at the same time. And since they were in a confined space and had to wait for the person cutting the tent to do so, one or more of them would have had the thought to reach out and grab a jacket or two, plus some boots and others would have grabbed their blankets, axes and knives. Afterall if there were 7 individuals inside the tent and they were thinking rationally and not in a state of panic, why didn't they reach out and grab a parka or two? Why didn't someone grab a pile of boots? Why didn't someone grab Blankets? They had to know if they are retreating in the cold, they might be gone for a long enough time for the axes, parka's, boots and blankets to come in handy. Instead they cut their tent and left with nothing, not a single person thought to keep a hold of their blanket, not a single person thought to reach and grab some boots or parka that was within arms reach.

As for something blocking the entrance? You may have a point if the tent was 30,40 or more feet long but the tent was barely 13 feet from one side to the other which is not that far and not something that would give them advantage in an escape, in fact if they were trying to escape it would be because someone/something was on the north side of the tent which is the exact opposite side of the cut and the hikers would be the furthest point from the threat at that point.

Panic and terrified are different things, they were all definitely terrified, whether it was humans, animals or some other force they were terrified, but panic is when people make decisions everyone will question because usually those decisions are made without too much thought and without too much higher control by the individuals, they commit to actions that might not be the best because they are in a state of panic and not thinking. Walking down the slope because its difficult/dangerous to do it at a run indicates they were thinking, panic would have them run without thinking, without consideration because they would want to put as much distance between themselves and the threat as they can.

The sentries were probably not on watch outside.  They may have gone outside to relieve themselves.

Then they were not sentry's, they were just relieving themselves and happened to be outside when the initial events unfolded, if a yeti was outside and it surprised them, they would be seriously injured and/or dead at the tent site rather than dying 1.6km away and a few hours later.

If you were retreating from so e kind of animal you would want to walk slowly and calmly to avoid triggering an attack.  Reports of big foot attacks commonly suggest the animals are cautious, throwing things and making noises initially.  As they grow more confident they close in and become more aggressive.  Other encounters have them being just as surprised as the humans and making a quick retreat.  If the hikers were in their territory and wanted them out the first scenario is more likely. 

If they had to cut out of their tent and retreat in little more then their thermals its a little too late to worry about triggering an attack, and seeing as there were 9 of them why didn't they turn and fight? I mean, I get fight or flight but out of the 9 of them no one chose fight? Fight for their only shelter, fight for their warm clothes, fight for their mode of transportation, fight for their food.

[Georgi]

The figure in the photo.  A photo which appears to be gaining notoriety.  Why ?   Well the figure looks to be well over 6 foot tall.  Presumably add 1 or 2 feet for the snow, and that rules out any of the Dyatlov Group.   In fact it would rule out most people, wouldnt it  !  ?

And you got the height based off of what? The fact that there is an obvious track and snow accumulation around that track that looks to be about 18 inches deep which just happens to bring it to about knee level of a man who is 5'9 or 5'10 indicated that it is a person, the fact that there is something on his right hip similar to a holster indicates its a man. The only thing that gives us an indication of height is the depth of the snow compared to the track and that is barely visible.

[Georgi]

My proposition is that a few days after the attack, some of the bodies were found by Mansi hunters, and they alerted the nearest military unit. The military sent an advance search team, that found some of the bodies, the tent and took some objects (cameras, films), and perhaps placed back other things - such as the knife. It may have been taken from curiosity , and later let down on the tent (perhaps someone gave an order to leave it).

If the Russian military was there and they informed higher, they could very easily have grabbed two of the bodies and their bags, all the camera's and journals and fired off a few rounds from a pistol into the tent and the cedar tree area and make it appear that both men were using the trek to disappear/defect and the others tried to stop them. Once that gets reported the military is called in to replace the civilians and bringing in 200-300 conscripts to "hunt the murderers" would completely destroy all the evidence and you end up with 7 victims of a crime and 2 murderers everyone is out to get not realizing those two men are dead as well. Instead, if they were there after the killings they did just enough to make it seem like they were responsible.

That - or perhaps a Yeti knocked them out of their hands...

If the Yeti was close enough to knock anything out of anyone's hands chances are those hands would suffer serious injuries and there might be bodies around the tent rather than the cedar tree and the ravine.

There is also the possibility that they exited through the normal exit of the tent, and the tent was sliced open later on , by the first military search (the one that put the knife back). The cuts could be made in order to search for documents hidden in the fabric.

Did they think whoever killed them would hide evidence in the fabric of the tent belonging to the 9 people they just murdered? Those cuts would have been intentional, after the fact to indicate panic, because panic is the only reason 9 hikers would leave the safety of their tent in the middle of the night during winter while poorly dressed and walk 1.6km. If there was no cut at the tent, there would be a lot more people pointing at murder rather than Yeti/UFO/Avalanche/Infrasound etc...

[alecsandros]

If the Russian military was there and they informed higher, they could very easily have grabbed two of the bodies and their bags, all the camera's and journals and fired off a few rounds from a pistol into the tent and the cedar tree area and make it appear that both men were using the trek to disappear/defect and the others tried to stop them. Once that gets reported the military is called in to replace the civilians and bringing in 200-300 conscripts to "hunt the murderers" would completely destroy all the evidence and you end up with 7 victims of a crime and 2 murderers everyone is out to get not realizing those two men are dead as well. Instead, if they were there after the killings they did just enough to make it seem like they were responsible.

It was well known that the skiers did not have fire arms , and besides why would the military fire bullets ? As it was, the "natural deaths" explanation was put forward anyhow (it is still put forward in current years).
My thought is of a search mission - to discover what happened to the group. 

If the Yeti was close enough to knock anything out of anyone's hands chances are those hands would suffer serious injuries and there might be bodies around the tent rather than the cedar tree and the ravine.

It depends on how the hits are made. The flashlight can be hit independently from the hand in some cases. Also , wounded comerades could be carried away by their friends, while the other members fight on.

Did they think whoever killed them would hide evidence in the fabric of the tent belonging to the 9 people they just murdered?

No, they would look for documents the skiers had themselves hid in the fabric.
"Zolotaryov" is a key figure here: he joined the group only days before departure. His DNA does not match that of other Zolotaryov relatives. This means he wasn't Semyon Zolotaryov at all. We don't know who this man was or why he joined the group, or why did he say before departure "after this excursion we will become famous around the world".

[Georgi]

It was well known that the skiers did not have fire arms , and besides why would the military fire bullets ? As it was, the "natural deaths" explanation was put forward anyhow (it is still put forward in current years).
My thought is of a search mission - to discover what happened to the group. 

The problem is that if the Soviet Government knew about the deaths in early February, a week or two before the search started in earnest then they really screwed up the investigation. Either they knew what happened and tried to cover it up the worst way possible or they had no interest in finding out what happened and closed the investigation early to do just that. Or there is a 3rd option and that is the government did a secret investigation to figure out what happened.

If they knew about the hikers before their bodies were discovered by the search and they either knew what happened to them or didn't care what happened to them and wanted to cover it up in a believable fashion it would be to grab two of the hiker's bodies, get rid of them and blame them for the 7 deaths. Firing off a few rounds explains how the two men controlled the other 7 and forced them to leave the safety of the tent and it also coincidently gives the Soviet Authorities the pretext to take complete control of the investigation, send away all civilians because this becomes a manhunt for armed criminals and they control the narrative, they control the crime scene and they control the evidence.

Instead if they were there in early February and they only moved the knife and maybe made a cut or two it make the investigation harder, and there were too many witnesses to their coverup which combined with the obvious tampering with the crime scene makes the government the number one suspect. If they knew they wanted to bury this case and any secrets that might come out of it, they went about it the one way it guaranteed to be a topic for discussion for years after it was shut down.

It depends on how the hits are made. The flashlight can be hit independently from the hand in some cases. Also , wounded comrades could be carried away by their friends, while the other members fight on.

Wounded comrades would be very heavy in the cold night for their comrades to carry while mostly without warm clothing. There would be evidence that some of them were wounded on the decent based on their tracks as most likely if one of the mortally wounded people would either be completely carried by their friends or will be carried/dragged to safety. And even fi they were, they would have been found with the two men under the tree because they would have died shortly after they made it to the tree or even before. 

No, they would look for documents the skiers had themselves hid in the fabric.
"Zolotaryov" is a key figure here: he joined the group only days before departure. His DNA does not match that of other Zolotaryov relatives. This means he wasn't Semyon Zolotaryov at all. We don't know who this man was or why he joined the group, or why did he say before departure "after this excursion we will become famous around the world".

Documents proving what? The only reason the Soviet army, or KGB or anyone would be cutting up anything to look for documents the skiers hid would be if they suspected the Dyatlov group or members of the Dyatlov Group of doing something against the Soviet government.


As for Zolotaryov:
https://dyatlovpass.com/semyon-zolotaryov

But even if it wasn't him, that is all that much more evidence that this was the work of one of the government agencies or a foreign government agency, because why would they look for evidence unless they suspect something and if they suspect something what are the chances that the yeti kills a guy who may very well be a western spy.

[alecsandros]

The problem is that if the Soviet Government knew about the deaths in early February, a week or two before the search started in earnest then they really screwed up the investigation. Either they knew what happened and tried to cover it up the worst way possible or they had no interest in finding out what happened and closed the investigation early to do just that. Or there is a 3rd option and that is the government did a secret investigation to figure out what happened.

I'm thinking many times along the same lines.

If they knew about the hikers before their bodies were discovered by the search and they either knew what happened to them or didn't care what happened to them and wanted to cover it up in a believable fashion it would be to grab two of the hiker's bodies, get rid of them and blame them for the 7 deaths. Firing off a few rounds explains how the two men controlled the other 7 and forced them to leave the safety of the tent and it also coincidently gives the Soviet Authorities the pretext to take complete control of the investigation, send away all civilians because this becomes a manhunt for armed criminals and they control the narrative, they control the crime scene and they control the evidence.

Adding bullets would be an unnecessary complication for them. As it was, the crime scene appeared to be the result of a hurricane or avalanche (those were the first theories put forward and the avalanche theory is the foremost investigated in the 2019 official re-examination of the case). Adding bullets would add a weapon. From where could the students get a weapon ? Etc.

Instead if they were there in early February and they only moved the knife and maybe made a cut or two it make the investigation harder, and there were too many witnesses to their coverup which combined with the obvious tampering with the crime scene makes the government the number one suspect. If they knew they wanted to bury this case and any secrets that might come out of it, they went about it the one way it guaranteed to be a topic for discussion for years after it was shut down.

Most likely , the early search party (say Fev 10th-11th) found a few bodies, the tent, and probably thought the skiers succumbed to the elements.
Looking for documents, especially important ones, they might have cut open the tent...

Wounded comrades would be very heavy in the cold night for their comrades to carry while mostly without warm clothing. There would be evidence that some of them were wounded on the decent based on their tracks as most likely if one of the mortally wounded people would either be completely carried by their friends or will be carried/dragged to safety. And even fi they were, they would have been found with the two men under the tree because they would have died shortly after they made it to the tree or even before. 

That is one of the aspects I find weary for this theory of Yeti: if tehre was an attack near the tent, no evidence remained (thrashed snow for example). The "8 or 9 set of footprints" also indicate that each skier walked on his/her own, or at least apparently (if there were 8 tracks, then the 9th could have been carried).

Documents proving what? The only reason the Soviet army, or KGB or anyone would be cutting up anything to look for documents the skiers hid would be if they suspected the Dyatlov group or members of the Dyatlov Group of doing something against the Soviet government.

Absolutely so.
There is one theory that postulates that "Zolotaryov" and Dyatlov were KGB agents tasked with an important mission...

But even if it wasn't him, that is all that much more evidence that this was the work of one of the government agencies or a foreign government agency, because why would they look for evidence unless they suspect something and if they suspect something what are the chances that the yeti kills a guy who may very well be a western spy.

Exactly. He may have been checked because he was expected to be having important documents on him.

Best Regards,

[sarapuk]

The figure in the photo.  A photo which appears to be gaining notoriety.  Why ?   Well the figure looks to be well over 6 foot tall.  Presumably add 1 or 2 feet for the snow, and that rules out any of the Dyatlov Group.   In fact it would rule out most people, wouldnt it  !  ?

And you got the height based off of what? The fact that there is an obvious track and snow accumulation around that track that looks to be about 18 inches deep which just happens to bring it to about knee level of a man who is 5'9 or 5'10 indicated that it is a person, the fact that there is something on his right hip similar to a holster indicates its a man. The only thing that gives us an indication of height is the depth of the snow compared to the track and that is barely visible.

I got the height based on an educated guess. The snow is probably between 1 to 2 foot deep. The visible figure looks nearer to 6 foot than 5 foot.  So add at least 1 foot for the snow and you get at least 7 foot. 

[Morski]

The figure in the photo.  A photo which appears to be gaining notoriety.  Why ?   Well the figure looks to be well over 6 foot tall.  Presumably add 1 or 2 feet for the snow, and that rules out any of the Dyatlov Group.   In fact it would rule out most people, wouldnt it  !  ?

And you got the height based off of what? The fact that there is an obvious track and snow accumulation around that track that looks to be about 18 inches deep which just happens to bring it to about knee level of a man who is 5'9 or 5'10 indicated that it is a person, the fact that there is something on his right hip similar to a holster indicates its a man. The only thing that gives us an indication of height is the depth of the snow compared to the track and that is barely visible.

I got the height based on an educated guess. The snow is probably between 1 to 2 foot deep. The visible figure looks nearer to 6 foot than 5 foot.  So add at least 1 foot for the snow and you get at least 7 foot.

Educated guess? And still - based on what? It is more like just a wanna-be-true guess, not very educated. All those "measures" are pure wild speculation. You have absolutely no idea where the photo was taken, what was the actual depth of snow, or a clear view of the surrounding trees and environment, or how far was the one who took the photo from the subject... Looking at the picture, what only seems clear, is that whoever took the photo, stood lower - deliberately or because of the terrain.  You see there are chunks of snow blocking the view to the actual height of the body of the "creature", especially in front of "its" right (from our perspective - left) leg. All in all the terrain is rough and uneven.

So, is it better to refuse the most obvious and natural explanation, that it was a human, and more so - a member of the group, in favor of a mythical creature for which we have absolutely zero evidence?! And think about afterwords - what? They took a picture of a "creature", and they just went on their way as if nothing happened. Seeing a Yeti/Menk/Chupacabra/ALF deserves a little more attention, don`t you think? Oh, they wrote a whole line in the obviously satirical pamphlet, yeah.

This is a crystal clear case of a "black cat" here. You see what you want to see, dismissing all the relevant/natural options and explanations, and that is one of the reasons why we have 59283757252 theories.

[sarapuk]

The figure in the photo.  A photo which appears to be gaining notoriety.  Why ?   Well the figure looks to be well over 6 foot tall.  Presumably add 1 or 2 feet for the snow, and that rules out any of the Dyatlov Group.   In fact it would rule out most people, wouldnt it  !  ?

And you got the height based off of what? The fact that there is an obvious track and snow accumulation around that track that looks to be about 18 inches deep which just happens to bring it to about knee level of a man who is 5'9 or 5'10 indicated that it is a person, the fact that there is something on his right hip similar to a holster indicates its a man. The only thing that gives us an indication of height is the depth of the snow compared to the track and that is barely visible.

I got the height based on an educated guess. The snow is probably between 1 to 2 foot deep. The visible figure looks nearer to 6 foot than 5 foot.  So add at least 1 foot for the snow and you get at least 7 foot.

Educated guess? And still - based on what? It is more like just a wanna-be-true guess, not very educated. All those "measures" are pure wild speculation. You have absolutely no idea where the photo was taken, what was the actual depth of snow, or a clear view of the surrounding trees and environment, or how far was the one who took the photo from the subject... Looking at the picture, what only seems clear, is that whoever took the photo, stood lower - deliberately or because of the terrain.  You see there are chunks of snow blocking the view to the actual height of the body of the "creature", especially in front of "its" right (from our perspective - left) leg. All in all the terrain is rough and uneven.

So, is it better to refuse the most obvious and natural explanation, that it was a human, and more so - a member of the group, in favor of a mythical creature for which we have absolutely zero evidence?! And think about afterwords - what? They took a picture of a "creature", and they just went on their way as if nothing happened. Seeing a Yeti/Menk/Chupacabra/ALF deserves a little more attention, don`t you think? Oh, they wrote a whole line in the obviously satirical pamphlet, yeah.

This is a crystal clear case of a "black cat" here. You see what you want to see, dismissing all the relevant/natural options and explanations, and that is one of the reasons why we have 59283757252 theories.

59283757252 theories  !  ?  Well I have never stated that it was anything other than a figure. I havnt said it was a YETI.  Yes it was my educated guess based on my knowledge of the great outdoors in various conditions, and also Tracking wild animals like Deer. I like others will have to guess the depth of snow where the figure appears. The Ski Tracks help a bit. And have you noticed the amount of snow on the Tree Trunks. That suggests to me that a lot of fresh snow fell in this area and therefore I would expect a lot of snow to be on the ground. At least a foot or maybe 2 foot of fairly fresh snow. My EDUCATED GUESS.

[Georgi]

Adding bullets would be an unnecessary complication for them. As it was, the crime scene appeared to be the result of a hurricane or avalanche (those were the first theories put forward and the avalanche theory is the foremost investigated in the 2019 official re-examination of the case). Adding bullets would add a weapon. From where could the students get a weapon ? Etc.

That's the thing though, you paint them as something more than students. They were defector/spies and the other 7 were good communists and loyal soviet citizens, you add the pistol as a means to explain how the 2 men controlled 7 fit individuals and then you also use the pistol as a means to bring in the army to search for those "defector/spies/murderers" and kick out all the civilians. When the army controls the entire mountainside it becomes an open and shut case, two men were using the hike as a cover to defect, they were confronted by the other 7 students and subsequently they pull pistols out and control the 7 people, order them out to the trees at gun point and a fight ensues, shots are fired and the group is once again subdued. The USSR blames the US for killing the hikers because those 2 men were obviously American spies, what is the US going to do? Deny it? How exactly would the US prove those two aren't somewhere in the US at the time of the funerals drinking beer getting debriefed? How do they prove they had nothing to do with it and none of their agents or SF teams were anywhere near the area in the time frame?

Most likely , the early search party (say Fev 10th-11th) found a few bodies, the tent, and probably thought the skiers succumbed to the elements.
Looking for documents, especially important ones, they might have cut open the tent...

It’s a tent, the door was a lot easier to open than cut the tent, if they were looking they would open the door especially if they were local hunters or other hikers. If it was anyone other than Soviet Military they would have taken some pictures to show the authorities, taken a bearing and designated it on the map and then gone and shown the authorities. There would have been zero reason for anyone to cut the tent after the death of the hikers unless they were trying to create more doubt in the finding of a future investigation.

That is one of the aspects I find weary for this theory of Yeti: if tehre was an attack near the tent, no evidence remained (thrashed snow for example). The "8 or 9 set of footprints" also indicate that each skier walked on his/her own, or at least apparently (if there were 8 tracks, then the 9th could have been carried).

The most likely explanation is that the two men who were outside were already subdued and could not fight back, as the 7 hikers from inside the tent walked out and we know that 4 of them, Krivoshenko, Slobodin, Dyatlov and Zinaida had injuries that appear to have been sustained in a fight. Those 4 start a fight, they are quickly overwhelmed but not before putting up some serious punches (evidenced by their injured hands) and Zinaida might have suffered her torso injury at that point. Once subdued they see that there is no way they can win and do as they are told while likely still holding on to the hope that they will get out of this alive by some miracle.

Absolutely so.
There is one theory that postulates that "Zolotaryov" and Dyatlov were KGB agents tasked with an important mission...

The KGB were not armatures, they would have been able to stage the scene convincingly to answer most questions and leave anyone with doubt on the outside, instead what they had was a crime they knew about, handled so poorly by the authorities that here we are, more than 60 years later still discussing this and asking questions.

Exactly. He may have been checked because he was expected to be having important documents on him.
 

So what are the chances that 1 or two KGB agents and 7-8 hikers were killed by a yeti while on a mission?

[Georgi]

I got the height based on an educated guess. The snow is probably between 1 to 2 foot deep. The visible figure looks nearer to 6 foot than 5 foot.  So add at least 1 foot for the snow and you get at least 7 foot.

My guess is based on the fact that I can just make out the tacks of their skis, one foot on the track and one foot knee deep in snow. The figure is not standing on the snow, he is knee deep in the snow. It's not one foot for the snow plus 6 feet, its one foot of snow in the 6 feet height.

[alecsandros]

That's the thing though, you paint them as something more than students. They were defector/spies and the other 7 were good communists and loyal soviet citizens, you add the pistol as a means to explain how the 2 men controlled 7 fit individuals and then you also use the pistol as a means to bring in the army to search for those "defector/spies/murderers" and kick out all the civilians. When the army controls the entire mountainside it becomes an open and shut case, two men were using the hike as a cover to defect, they were confronted by the other 7 students and subsequently they pull pistols out and control the 7 people, order them out to the trees at gun point and a fight ensues, shots are fired and the group is once again subdued. The USSR blames the US for killing the hikers because those 2 men were obviously American spies, what is the US going to do? Deny it? How exactly would the US prove those two aren't somewhere in the US at the time of the funerals drinking beer getting debriefed? How do they prove they had nothing to do with it and none of their agents or SF teams were anywhere near the area in the time frame?

It's way to complicated to stage the scene like that. For starters, the 2 men would require fire arms. From where ? How would they get into possession of firearms ?
Then what would be the motive ? Everyone knew that the group was well welded together and they were good friends. This entire scenario would require a completely different group to work.

It’s a tent, the door was a lot easier to open than cut the tent, if they were looking they would open the door especially if they were local hunters or other hikers. If it was anyone other than Soviet Military they would have taken some pictures to show the authorities, taken a bearing and designated it on the map and then gone and shown the authorities. There would have been zero reason for anyone to cut the tent after the death of the hikers unless they were trying to create more doubt in the finding of a future investigation.

I was saying about looking for documents hidden in the fabric of the tent...

The most likely explanation is that the two men who were outside were already subdued and could not fight back, as the 7 hikers from inside the tent walked out and we know that 4 of them, Krivoshenko, Slobodin, Dyatlov and Zinaida had injuries that appear to have been sustained in a fight. Those 4 start a fight, they are quickly overwhelmed but not before putting up some serious punches (evidenced by their injured hands) and Zinaida might have suffered her torso injury at that point. Once subdued they see that there is no way they can win and do as they are told while likely still holding on to the hope that they will get out of this alive by some miracle.

That would be the case if they were attacked by military or other forces...

The KGB were not armatures, they would have been able to stage the scene convincingly to answer most questions and leave anyone with doubt on the outside, instead what they had was a crime they knew about, handled so poorly by the authorities that here we are, more than 60 years later still discussing this and asking questions.

It is very likely that it was a crime.

So what are the chances that 1 or two KGB agents and 7-8 hikers were killed by a yeti while on a mission?

Very remote.
But we don't know a lot of things:
- why did Zolotaryov say "we will be famous around the world" before leaving on the hike ? What did he expect to encounter/do on Mount Otorten or nearby that would be so important ?
- why did the skiers pitch their tent on the slope, in an exposed position to wind ? It was a realy bad place to camp. And it was completely different from what they've been doing the previous days (pitching tent in the forest).
- where is Zolotaryov's notebook (containing presumably his journal) ? How did it disappeared ?
- what are the mystery fireballs reported by eye-witnesses in the night of Fev 1st ?
- what caused Zolotaryov, Lyubidina's and Thibeaux-Brignolles's fractures ?
- what is the cause of the Mansi legend of the nine dead hunters on Kholat Syakl ?
- what is the cause of the Mansi legend about the people-abducting Menk ?

Those questions, and others like them, paint a complicated picture. It is possible that the group encountered something truly extraordinary on Fev 1st/2nd.

Best Regards,