Occam's razor says- homicide

[hoosiergose]

Yes, most or all of the hikers succumbed to hypothermia, this is an indisputable fact. However several of the Hikers suffered severe and very traumatic, and debilitating injuries. These injuries were likely cause by outside parties or possibly the hikers were actually fighting amongst themselves. We may never know. But there can be no doubt, there was human involvement here. This was undoubtedly a crime scene. 
According to the autopsy report Igor Dyatlov appeared to have rope tie injures around his ankles suggesting that he had been bound by someone.. one of his wrist also appears to have a rope tie injury.
Their tent was almost utterly destroyed. The hiker's tracks down the mountainside into the ravine appeared to be orderly and in a fairly straight line and not an indication of scattered footprints of someone running in panic helter skelter. There was order in their steps, no panic, not running amok in terror of something. For the most part the hikers appeared to stay together on the descent to the cedar tree and ravine.
At least one of the hikers climbed 20 feet in the cedar tree. I do not believe he was doing this to gather firewood. He was most likely climbing the tree to either get away from something. Or possibly gaining a better view to look back toward the tent to see if the threat was still there.
I simply do not believe that infrasound caused this event. (mainly because of the hiker's injuries)
We must also keep in mind that the area may have been staged by the perpetrators after the murders to throw off investigators.
As far as there were no tracks left by the attackers. The attackers could've easily use cedar branches to wipe away their tracks.
The had plenty of time to doctor the scene and remove their foot prints and traces before the search party showed up.
the haunting blurry out of focus photo showing a figure of a man. Could this have been one of their attackers following them?
I have read on the Dyatolov.com site where it is said that in the later photos the hikers appear to have a stark change in their demeanor and looks of worry, foreboding, and anxiety in there faces. As if they are very concerned or worried about something.
I have tried and tried and I am unable to find these pictures that show this. If this is true then this tells us that the hikers were either quarreling among each other or they were being stalked by someone. Apparently something was going on. If anyone on here can locate and share these photos with me, please do, I would appreciate it. I have looked and looked and cannot find them anywhere on that site.
Like I said before - we all long to know what happened. but alas we may never know.
its been so long, memories fade, and evidence gets lost or misplaced.

[Teddy]

According to the autopsy report Igor Dyatlov appeared to have rope tie injures around his ankles suggesting that he had been bound by someone.. one of his wrist also appears to have a rope tie injury.

Dyatlov Autopsy report: https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-120-126?rbid=17743
These you call rope injuries:
" ... There are abrasions of brown-red
Sheet 123
- 4 -
color in the area of the left ankle joint on the anterior lateral and on the posterior surfaces of both ankles hollowed over the surface of the skin and also on the skin level, sized 1 х 0.5 cm and up to 3 х 2.5 cm with hemorrhaging into the underlying soft tissues."

Where are the wrist injury? Please quote.

I have read on the Dyatolov.com site where it is said that in the later photos the hikers appear to have a stark change in their demeanor and looks of worry, foreboding, and anxiety in there faces. As if they are very concerned or worried about something.
I have tried and tried and I am unable to find these pictures that show this.

... because they don't exist. I don't which site is Dyatolov.com but if you mean DyatlovPass.com as its creator I can assure you that the only two "foreboding" photos are these two, and please see my comments before judging:

Dyatlov talking to Zolotaryov,  Kolevatov watching them. One one else cares.

Zolotaryov is in pensive mood.  I don't see a doom on his face though.

The only other place where my site says something about premonition are the entries of Dubinina about being in a bad mood. Man, you should see the entries in my diary when I am on the road...
https://dyatlovpass.com/dubininas-premonition

Overall the group was happy and well adjusted. Nothing foretold the imminent tragedy.

[MDGross]

Occam's razor is the principle that the simplest answer (lots of assumptions don't have to be proven) is often the best answer. I can see how that concept fits the scenario of the hikers splitting into two opposing groups and ending up in a serious fight. But intervention by the Soviet military or KGB involves all kinds of complexities. Most importantly, what was the motive to murder/execute the hikers? Did they see something that put their lives at risk? If so, what was it? Was one or more of them carrying secret documents? Which hiker? Why? Why choose the night of Feb. 1 to kill them? Why force them to march down to the woods instead of quickly executing them and disposing of the bodies? These and other questions would need believable answers.

[Nigel Evans]

Igor's ankles could be explained by stumbling through tough undergrowth, brambles etc whilst suffering from hypothermia.

[Monty]

Not convinced the simplest explanation could involve a fall out. If that was the case they would have to be deluded to leave their tent in their cumulative state of dress. I agree there might have been a punch up, just not internally.

[Tony]

At least one of the hikers climbed 20 feet in the cedar tree. I do not believe he was doing this to gather firewood. He was most likely climbing the tree to either get away from something. Or possibly gaining a better view to look back toward the tent to see if the threat was still there.

Whomever climbed the tree did so to look at something. Nearly all of the investigators emphasized how difficult it was to break the branches and that the branches were broken specifically to clear a window to gain visibility to something. Since the window was cleared on the side of the cedar facing the tent, there is a possibility that the person(s) was trying to gain visibility of either the tent or the slope. In M. Sharvin's interview he said:

"For a fire, no one will climb to such a height to break off branches for a fire, when branches remained lower; the same trunk was two and a half meters bare, that is, it was broken off. Then, a row of branches. And already much higher, branches for this window are broken. I.e. it is obvious that it was used for surveillance. Nothing else could be seen from there. It turns out, most likely, I am inclined to the fact that it was one of them who made the observation window. Someone could have had enough strength. I don't think it was an outsider, it seems to me - no ... But who could have remained so strong? Only Kolevatov, maybe?"

To me it doesn't make sense to climb a tree and look back at the tent if they were led to the cedar by a third party.

I simply do not believe that infrasound caused this event. (mainly because of the hiker's injuries)

Again, infrasound was not responsible for the injuries at the ravine. Instead, they were caused by a fall. I don't agree with the infrasound theory, but I think the fall into the ravine (despite it's problems) is the most likely scenario for the injuries at the ravine. A fall is a perfect example of Occam's Razor.

I highly recommend reading Donnie Eichar's book 'Dead Mountain' that thoroughly details the infrasound theory.

[hoosiergose]

Occam's razor is the principle that the simplest answer (lots of assumptions don't have to be proven) is often the best answer. I can see how that concept fits the scenario of the hikers splitting into two opposing groups and ending up in a serious fight. But intervention by the Soviet military or KGB involves all kinds of complexities. Most importantly, what was the motive to murder/execute the hikers? Did they see something that put their lives at risk? If so, what was it? Was one or more of them carrying secret documents? Which hiker? Why? Why choose the night of Feb. 1 to kill them? Why force them to march down to the woods instead of quickly executing them and disposing of the bodies? These and other questions would need believable answers.

Did I say or mention KGB - nope - could’ve been the Mansi tribesman or someone from the logging/mining camp followed them. There were numerous injuries- these young people were fighting for their lives - that is obvious-There was someone or something that caused them to flee the tent- and the hikers that climbed the cedar was looking to see if the threat was still at the tent, to see if it was safe to return & retrieve there boots & clothing. At least I got everyone thinking and talking- that is good - like I said before- we may never know what really happened.

[hoosiergose]

Thank You Teddy for your response-
I am getting this info concerning the pictures where the hikers are showing a change in demeanor- I believe I saw it on Dyatlov pass.com
Not certain- but I think that is where I saw it. Obviously there is a lot of B/S out there put out by people who want to enhance the story. I am a successful private investigator- and I have enjoyed a successful career- I love a good mystery & I was hoping to bring my investigative talents to the table and help solve this enigmatic case. Fact- something caused them to leave their only Shelter & crucial personal belongings needed for survival. Obviously one of the hikers climbed the cedar tree to see if the threat was still at the tent. Perhaps hoping that it was safe to return & recover their gear. Almost all the hikers suffered various injuries to there arms faces & hands- several suffered very brutal injuries- skull fractures & crushed ribs. My gut feeling tells me that there was human involvement here and that someone helped them die - there are a universe of possibilities- Mansi tribesmen, the loggers from the last camp the visited, gulag escapees, KGB or militarily- who knows-Perhaps one of the hikers suffered a Psychotic event or mental breakdown and all hell broke loose.  it is interesting that the investigation was closed down prematurely & the Russian Government keep this event hushed and under wraps. So, we need to know the “WHO” and then the “WHY” like I said before - we may never really know what really happened to the hikers - unless some hidden document is discovered revealing what actually happened. Anyway I was successful at getting all you guys talking & that is a good thing. It’s called “brain storming”
Cheers

[sparrow]

Hi hoosiergose,
Yes brainstorming is good. I have noticed that in reading some of the theories (even if I don't agree with it) that I may discover some part of it that seems useful to me.  Some of them have caused me to think about things that I doubt I would have ever came up with on my own. I wish everyone on this site good hunting( for conclusions).

[alecsandros]

For me, having BOTH chief investigators into the case ending up with "murder" is more than enough.

[Nigel Evans]

Yes, most or all of the hikers succumbed to hypothermia, this is an indisputable fact. The rav4 didn't and YuriK probably died of shock. Some pathologists have stated that only Igor clearly died of cold. However several of the Hikers suffered severe and very traumatic, and debilitating injuries. These injuries were likely cause by outside parties or possibly the hikers were actually fighting amongst themselves. We may never know. But there can be no doubt, there was human involvement here. This was undoubtedly a crime scene.  So why did the Soviet authorities shut down the case as soon as the rav4 were discovered in May? Leaving nine deaths unsolved? Answer - because it wasn't a crime scene.
According to the autopsy report Igor Dyatlov appeared to have rope tie injures around his ankles suggesting that he had been bound by someone... one of his wrist also appears to have a rope tie injury.  Or stumbling through brambles etc
Their tent was almost utterly destroyed. The hiker's tracks down the mountainside into the ravine appeared to be orderly and in a fairly straight line and not an indication of scattered footprints of someone running in panic helter skelter. There was order in their steps, no panic, not running amok in terror of something. For the most part the hikers appeared to stay together on the descent to the cedar tree and ravine.
At least one of the hikers climbed 20 feet in the cedar tree. I do not believe he was doing this to gather firewood. He was most likely climbing the tree to either get away from something. Or possibly gaining a better view to look back toward the tent to see if the threat was still there.
I simply do not believe that infrasound caused this event. (mainly because of the hiker's injuries) agreed.
We must also keep in mind that the area may have been staged by the perpetrators after the murders to throw off investigators.
As far as there were no tracks left by the attackers. The attackers could've easily use cedar branches to wipe away their tracks.
The had plenty of time to doctor the scene and remove their foot prints and traces before the search party showed up.
the haunting blurry out of focus photo showing a figure of a man. Could this have been one of their attackers following them?
I have read on the Dyatolov.com site where it is said that in the later photos the hikers appear to have a stark change in their demeanor and looks of worry, foreboding, and anxiety in there faces. As if they are very concerned or worried about something.
I have tried and tried and I am unable to find these pictures that show this. If this is true then this tells us that the hikers were either quarreling among each other or they were being stalked by someone. Apparently something was going on. If anyone on here can locate and share these photos with me, please do, I would appreciate it. I have looked and looked and cannot find them anywhere on that site.
Like I said before - we all long to know what happened. but alas we may never know.
its been so long, memories fade, and evidence gets lost or misplaced.

[Nigel Evans]

For me, having BOTH chief investigators into the case ending up with "murder" is more than enough.

?????

[alecsandros]

For me, having BOTH chief investigators into the case ending up with "murder" is more than enough.

?????

The first chiev investigator, Tempalov , said that he thought that they were murdered.
The second chiev investigator, Lev Ivanov, wrote in 1959 that they succumbed to "an unknown compelling force" , and wrote an article in 1990, in which he wrote that he thought they were murdered by the mystery fireballs.

[Nigel Evans]

For me, having BOTH chief investigators into the case ending up with "murder" is more than enough.

?????

The first chiev investigator, Tempalov , said that he thought that they were murdered.
The second chiev investigator, Lev Ivanov, wrote in 1959 that they succumbed to "an unknown compelling force" , and wrote an article in 1990, in which he wrote that he thought they were murdered by the mystery fireballs.

Ivanov (and his superior Okishev) stated that they were ordered to invent a cover story of hypothermia for the first 5 deaths. When the rav4 were discovered it was clear that hypothermia couldn't apply to them so (after seeking permission from the hierarchy) the case was given "unknown compelling force". In 1990 during glasnost Ivanov apologised to the relatives for the coverup and suggested "fireorbs possibly piloted" as a cause. N.B. he didn't explore the species of the possible pilots.

Only humans can murder humans.
Afaik neither Okishev or Ivanov believed in murder.

[alecsandros]

I understand. So the first investigator thought they were murdered, the second that they were killed.

[sarapuk]

Its pointless using 'Occams Razor'. The Dyatlov Mystery doesnt fit into any neat simplified package.  Lawyers worth their salt would not touch 'Occams Razor'.

[Manti]

Whomever climbed the tree did so to look at something. Nearly all of the investigators emphasized how difficult it was to break the branches and that the branches were broken specifically to clear a window to gain visibility to something.

I would say that there is no need to break off branches to "gain visibility". You can easily peer between leaves or branches, the same way a small hole on the door (peekhole) is enough to see who's outside. In fact, leaving the branches intact is better if the tree is used as a lookout, because they conceal the observer.

On the other hand, I think it makes sense to leave lower branches and break off higher ones when harvesting firewood. They provide a way for you to climb back onto the tree for more branches.

[Nigel Evans]

You don't need to break branches to see out of a cedar tree, unless they're covered in snow. Then if you also need firewood you break off the branches in the direction you want to view. I've read that the tent would only have been visible from the top half of the cedar. So it all fits.

[sarapuk]

Whomever climbed the tree did so to look at something. Nearly all of the investigators emphasized how difficult it was to break the branches and that the branches were broken specifically to clear a window to gain visibility to something.

I would say that there is no need to break off branches to "gain visibility". You can easily peer between leaves or branches, the same way a small hole on the door (peekhole) is enough to see who's outside. In fact, leaving the branches intact is better if the tree is used as a lookout, because they conceal the observer.

On the other hand, I think it makes sense to leave lower branches and break off higher ones when harvesting firewood. They provide a way for you to climb back onto the tree for more branches.

Why did they climb a tree. They could have got all the firewood they need from the various smaller trees / bushes.

[Manti]

You don't need to break branches to see out of a cedar tree, unless they're covered in snow. Then if you also need firewood you break off the branches in the direction you want to view.

This is true. Although the snow could have been shaken off.

Why did they climb a tree. They could have got all the firewood they need from the various smaller trees / bushes.

Also true.
Maybe the smaller bushes didn't burn well, but then again cedarwood doesn't either, but maybe they had no other choice.

To me the most logical reason to climb a tree is to escape something that can't climb, or hide from someone. But then, you wouldn't start breaking branches which is loud...

[Nigel Evans]

You don't need to break branches to see out of a cedar tree, unless they're covered in snow. Then if you also need firewood you break off the branches in the direction you want to view.

This is true. Although the snow could have been shaken off.

Why did they climb a tree. They could have got all the firewood they need from the various smaller trees / bushes.

Also true.
Maybe the smaller bushes didn't burn well, but then again cedarwood doesn't either, but maybe they had no other choice.

To me the most logical reason to climb a tree is to escape something that can't climb, or hide from someone. But then, you wouldn't start breaking branches which is loud...

My understanding is that cedar wood does burn well and would be dry compared to the green sapling wood at ground level.

[Manti]

My understanding is that cedar wood does burn well and would be dry compared to the green sapling wood at ground level.

Green sapling wood, in January/February? I would expect that in the spring.

Also, thinking about it, "cedar" is perhaps a mistranslation? Cedar as far as I know doesn't grow anywhere near the Urals. Maybe larch is meant?

The quality of the photos isn't great, regardless this looks like a live tree. So its branches wouldn't be dry, and not burn much better than saplings.

[Nigel Evans]

Nothing grows very quickly in Siberia, green saplings = young trees i think. The cedar could (must?) be of the fir/pine family which always burn well in my experience. Ever set light to a Xmas tree in January?

[mk]

The quality of the photos isn't great, regardless this looks like a live tree. So its branches wouldn't be dry, and not burn much better than saplings.

I don't know much about the species of trees in Russia, but obviously the higher the water content, the more difficult it is to burn.  Large trees with fir-like shape, however, often have many smaller dead branches inside & lower down.  This is true for most trees with heavy, thick crowns, including the pine, juniper, and water oak where I live.  The thick crowns shade the smaller branches underneath and the trees sort of self-prune.  It's quite possible that the hikers could have broken off enough small, dry branches to make a fire hot enough to burn small green branches.  In addition, if there were any conifers around, cones usually make excellent kindling.  It's true that starting a fire with green wood (i.e., any wood that has recently been alive and has higher water content) is very difficult, but a well-established fire can burn green wood.

In passing, Christmas trees burned in January have usually been dead for at least 3 weeks--sometimes even 6 weeks.  They are rather small, as trees go, and the smaller-diameter trunk and limbs dry out more quickly in the environment of a warm, dry house. 

I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has experience starting fires with the wood available in the Urals or other places similar to where they were hiking.

[Nigel Evans]

https://www.hunker.com/12318038/the-flammability-of-pine-trees

[sarapuk]

You don't need to break branches to see out of a cedar tree, unless they're covered in snow. Then if you also need firewood you break off the branches in the direction you want to view.

This is true. Although the snow could have been shaken off.

Why did they climb a tree. They could have got all the firewood they need from the various smaller trees / bushes.

Also true.
Maybe the smaller bushes didn't burn well, but then again cedarwood doesn't either, but maybe they had no other choice.

To me the most logical reason to climb a tree is to escape something that can't climb, or hide from someone. But then, you wouldn't start breaking branches which is loud...

Its all about seasoning the wood after its been cut. Cedar needs months of seasoning before using it as fire wood. I have always doubted that they climbed the Cedar tree for its use as fire wood. More likely to escape from something.

[sarapuk]

You don't need to break branches to see out of a cedar tree, unless they're covered in snow. Then if you also need firewood you break off the branches in the direction you want to view.

This is true. Although the snow could have been shaken off.

Why did they climb a tree. They could have got all the firewood they need from the various smaller trees / bushes.

Also true.
Maybe the smaller bushes didn't burn well, but then again cedarwood doesn't either, but maybe they had no other choice.

To me the most logical reason to climb a tree is to escape something that can't climb, or hide from someone. But then, you wouldn't start breaking branches which is loud...

My understanding is that cedar wood does burn well and would be dry compared to the green sapling wood at ground level.

Cedar wood still needs seasoning. They might as well have tried collecting brush wood from the forest.

[sarapuk]

My understanding is that cedar wood does burn well and would be dry compared to the green sapling wood at ground level.

Green sapling wood, in January/February? I would expect that in the spring.

Also, thinking about it, "cedar" is perhaps a mistranslation? Cedar as far as I know doesn't grow anywhere near the Urals. Maybe larch is meant?

The quality of the photos isn't great, regardless this looks like a live tree. So its branches wouldn't be dry, and not burn much better than saplings.

I think you will find the name Cedar tree to be a misnomer. Its really the ''Siberian Cedar Pine Tree'', in other words its a member of the Pine family. And it would still need seasoning.

[sarapuk]

Nothing grows very quickly in Siberia, green saplings = young trees i think. The cedar could (must?) be of the fir/pine family which always burn well in my experience. Ever set light to a Xmas tree in January?

Well I havnt noticed the Pine tree to be a quick burner just after its been cut down.

[sarapuk]

The quality of the photos isn't great, regardless this looks like a live tree. So its branches wouldn't be dry, and not burn much better than saplings.

I don't know much about the species of trees in Russia, but obviously the higher the water content, the more difficult it is to burn.  Large trees with fir-like shape, however, often have many smaller dead branches inside & lower down.  This is true for most trees with heavy, thick crowns, including the pine, juniper, and water oak where I live.  The thick crowns shade the smaller branches underneath and the trees sort of self-prune.  It's quite possible that the hikers could have broken off enough small, dry branches to make a fire hot enough to burn small green branches.  In addition, if there were any conifers around, cones usually make excellent kindling.  It's true that starting a fire with green wood (i.e., any wood that has recently been alive and has higher water content) is very difficult, but a well-established fire can burn green wood.

In passing, Christmas trees burned in January have usually been dead for at least 3 weeks--sometimes even 6 weeks.  They are rather small, as trees go, and the smaller-diameter trunk and limbs dry out more quickly in the environment of a warm, dry house. 

I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has experience starting fires with the wood available in the Urals or other places similar to where they were hiking.

But I hardly think that the Dyatlov Group had time for a well established fire. Therefore because they were all experienced hikers does it make sense that they would climb the said tree for green wood to try and start a fire in those conditions.