A problem with homicide theories

[RMK]

To me, the essential mystery of the Dyatlov Pass Incident (DPI) is the lack of satisfactory answers to 3 crucial Questions:

• Why did the Dyatlov hikers exit their tent, with mostly inadequate clothing and footwear for the Siberian winter?
• Having exited their tent under-dressed, why did the Dyatlov hikers descend the slope, moving away from their tent, and leaving behind useful tools?
• Having descended the slope, why did the Dyatlov hikers not return to their tent?

N.B. all three Questions do not necessarily need to have the same answer!  In particular, regardless of what the answer(s) to Questions 1 & 2 might be, the answer to Question 3 could easily be "by the time any of them tried to return to their campsite, they were too cold and fatigued to go uphill, against the wind, without boots."

However, all of the DPI homicide theories I have encountered propose that the answer to Questions 1 & 2 (and usually, 3 as well) is "the threat of lethal force from human assailants."  I am currently convinced that IF the DPI was a result of homicide, then the assailants were intelligent, trained, professional killers who knew what they were doing, and wanted to make the Dyatlov team's deaths appear as natural as possible.  And that brings me to the problem I have with homicide theories: if the killers were so smart and effective, then why didn't they do something about the "elephant in the room"--the complete lack of any apparent reason why the Dyatlov team left their tent under-dressed and then abandoned it by descending Kholat Syakhl?!  In other words, why didn't they stage or plant physical "evidence" that would provide credible answers to Questions 1 & 2 (and maybe even 3 as well)?

For instance, they could have buried the tent and its immediate vicinity in snow.  Then, the investigation could have concluded that the Dyatlov company barely escaped a mini-avalanche, which crushed their tent, and then it was only a matter of time before the elements and various misadventures claimed their lives.  Or, perhaps more plausibly, the assailants could have set the tent on fire.  They could have staged some sort of accident in which, apparently, one of the hikers spilled 100-proof vodka (accelerant) on dry clothes or blankets (fuel); the apparent ignition source could come from a lit flashlight that someone dropped and its bulb shattered, or from a lit cigarette that one of the guys dropped while sneaking a midnight smoke.

In summary, my point here is that, if the DPI was a result of homicide, then why didn't the presumably smart and capable attackers fabricate some explanation for the hikers' near-suicidal collective decision to exit their tent and abandon their campsite without gear necessary for survival?  If the attackers HAD done that, maybe we wouldn't be discussing the DPI more than 60 years later.

[sarapuk]

To me, the essential mystery of the Dyatlov Pass Incident (DPI) is the lack of satisfactory answers to 3 crucial Questions:

• Why did the Dyatlov hikers exit their tent, with mostly inadequate clothing and footwear for the Siberian winter?
• Having exited their tent under-dressed, why did the Dyatlov hikers descend the slope, moving away from their tent, and leaving behind useful tools?
• Having descended the slope, why did the Dyatlov hikers not return to their tent?

N.B. all three Questions do not necessarily need to have the same answer!  In particular, regardless of what the answer(s) to Questions 1 & 2 might be, the answer to Question 3 could easily be "by the time any of them tried to return to their campsite, they were too cold and fatigued to go uphill, against the wind, without boots."

However, all of the DPI homicide theories I have encountered propose that the answer to Questions 1 & 2 (and usually, 3 as well) is "the threat of lethal force from human assailants."  I am currently convinced that IF the DPI was a result of homicide, then the assailants were intelligent, trained, professional killers who knew what they were doing, and wanted to make the Dyatlov team's deaths appear as natural as possible.  And that brings me to the problem I have with homicide theories: if the killers were so smart and effective, then why didn't they do something about the "elephant in the room"--the complete lack of any apparent reason why the Dyatlov team left their tent under-dressed and then abandoned it by descending Kholat Syakhl?!  In other words, why didn't they stage or plant physical "evidence" that would provide credible answers to Questions 1 & 2 (and maybe even 3 as well)?

For instance, they could have buried the tent and its immediate vicinity in snow.  Then, the investigation could have concluded that the Dyatlov company barely escaped a mini-avalanche, which crushed their tent, and then it was only a matter of time before the elements and various misadventures claimed their lives.  Or, perhaps more plausibly, the assailants could have set the tent on fire.  They could have staged some sort of accident in which, apparently, one of the hikers spilled 100-proof vodka (accelerant) on dry clothes or blankets (fuel); the apparent ignition source could come from a lit flashlight that someone dropped and its bulb shattered, or from a lit cigarette that one of the guys dropped while sneaking a midnight smoke.

In summary, my point here is that, if the DPI was a result of homicide, then why didn't the presumably smart and capable attackers fabricate some explanation for the hikers' near-suicidal collective decision to exit their tent and abandon their campsite without gear necessary for survival?  If the attackers HAD done that, maybe we wouldn't be discussing the DPI more than 60 years later.

Well obviously there is no proof that the Dyatlov Incident was due to homicide. There are no indications of the presence of other people in the area. No footprints. Nothing to really suggest that other people were involved.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Well obviously there is no proof that the Dyatlov Incident was due to homicide. There are no indications of the presence of other people in the area. No footprints. Nothing to really suggest that other people were involved.

Everything we know points to homicide. The injuries to the bodies are only explicable by being caused by an attack with lethal intent, by other humans.

The murder of the nine took place on February 1. The bodies were not found by the official search and rescue teams until February 26. Considering the fact that the attackers almost certainly arrived on skis an that the first searchers did not understand that they had arrived at a crime scene, it was a matter of course that no traces of the attackers were found.

There is more to say:

Significantly, the local police in Ivdel and the relatives of the nine students did not realize that something was wrong until February 12. Still, investigative actions had already been made on February 6. These investigative actions would most likely have been preceded by preparatory meetings. Thus, indications are that the authorities knew about the death of the nine long before anyone in Ivdel or Sverdlovsk had any reason to believe that something terrible had happened.

[RMK]

Everything we know points to homicide. The injuries to the bodies are only explicable by being caused by an attack with lethal intent, by other humans.

That is an overstatement.  Homicide theories are certainly worth considering, and I place some of them among the most credible explanations.  But most, maybe even all, of the injuries the "Dyatlovites" sustained can be attributed to misadventures, and to "routine wear-and-tear" that people would normally sustain when skiing cross-country, scrounging for firewood in bare hands in the dark, etc.

Considering the fact that the attackers almost certainly arrived on skis an that the first searchers did not understand that they had arrived at a crime scene, it was a matter of course that no traces of the attackers were found.

I actually agree with you there.  The lack of attackers' traces is to be expected if the attackers are professional assassins.  But, it is merely a rebuttal to an objection to homicide theories, and I think we would both have to concede that it is not a very persuasive argument in favor of homicide.

So, to bring this back to the topic of the thread...  Per Inge, why was it that the killers didn't fabricate some reason for the Dyatlovites to abandon their tent?

[sarapuk]

Well obviously there is no proof that the Dyatlov Incident was due to homicide. There are no indications of the presence of other people in the area. No footprints. Nothing to really suggest that other people were involved.

Everything we know points to homicide. The injuries to the bodies are only explicable by being caused by an attack with lethal intent, by other humans.

The murder of the nine took place on February 1. The bodies were not found by the official search and rescue teams until February 26. Considering the fact that the attackers almost certainly arrived on skis an that the first searchers did not understand that they had arrived at a crime scene, it was a matter of course that no traces of the attackers were found.

There is more to say:

Significantly, the local police in Ivdel and the relatives of the nine students did not realize that something was wrong until February 12. Still, investigative actions had already been made on February 6. These investigative actions would most likely have been preceded by preparatory meetings. Thus, indications are that the authorities knew about the death of the nine long before anyone in Ivdel or Sverdlovsk had any reason to believe that something terrible had happened.

Other Humans  !  ?  No proof.  No footprints. Also the fact that the Event takes place at several locations, ie. The Tent, The Cedar Tree, The Ravine.

[sarapuk]

Everything we know points to homicide. The injuries to the bodies are only explicable by being caused by an attack with lethal intent, by other humans.

That is an overstatement.  Homicide theories are certainly worth considering, and I place some of them among the most credible explanations.  But most, maybe even all, of the injuries the "Dyatlovites" sustained can be attributed to misadventures, and to "routine wear-and-tear" that people would normally sustain when skiing cross-country, scrounging for firewood in bare hands in the dark, etc.

Considering the fact that the attackers almost certainly arrived on skis an that the first searchers did not understand that they had arrived at a crime scene, it was a matter of course that no traces of the attackers were found.

I actually agree with you there.  The lack of attackers' traces is to be expected if the attackers are professional assassins.  But, it is merely a rebuttal to an objection to homicide theories, and I think we would both have to concede that it is not a very persuasive argument in favor of homicide.

So, to bring this back to the topic of the thread...  Per Inge, why was it that the killers didn't fabricate some reason for the Dyatlovites to abandon their tent?

No proof that any other Humans arrived at The Tent by Skis or walking.

[RMK]

No proof that any other Humans arrived at The Tent by Skis or walking.

Well, true, there's no "smoking gun".  But that's a problem with homicide theories different from the one this thread is about.

[mk]

I am currently convinced that IF the DPI was a result of homicide, then the assailants were intelligent, trained, professional killers who knew what they were doing, and wanted to make the Dyatlov team's deaths appear as natural as possible.  And that brings me to the problem I have with homicide theories: if the killers were so smart and effective, then why didn't they do something about the "elephant in the room"--the complete lack of any apparent reason why the Dyatlov team left their tent under-dressed and then abandoned it by descending Kholat Syakhl?!  In other words, why didn't they stage or plant physical "evidence" that would provide credible answers to Questions 1 & 2 (and maybe even 3 as well)?...

I dunno-- it seems like the most obvious way to make it look like a natural death in siberia would be to make sure they died of hypothermia.  Force the poorly-dressed campers into the forest and douse them in water. All this talk of highly-trained killing men with their specialized techniques seems so... Hollywood. 

For example, if the theoretical killers had simply suffocated the hikers and left their bodies in the woods, how would that have played out differently?  Frozen bodies would have been found and the assumption would have been death of hypothermia--just like now.  Autopsies would have been done and some anomalies found that indicated foul play--just like now.  And people would have shrugged and said something like, "Well, they were probably near-unconscious from the cold and fell into the snow and suffocated as they froze." 

If their injuries were the result of malevolent humans, it strikes me that the killers were rather unconcerned about making things look natural.  Flail chests aren't exactly natural.

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

Reply #5........

........................
No proof that any other Humans arrived at The Tent by Skis or walking.

   Of course there is no proof ! And there will probably never be any.
To solve an enigma, whatever its playful or police nature, it is necessary to call on all human mental faculties to imagine one or more solutions that are capable of explaining all the known facts.

And it is likely that the state secret about DPI will last a very long time, because according to French political experts (but they are often wrong), currently in 2020, President Putin is determined not to reveal anything that could alter the reputation of previous regimes of the USSR (Stalin, Khrushchev ...) and even the reputation of the tsarist regime (Nicolas II ...) !!

...At least 4 questions arise  :  WHY...

• 1..hikers exit their tent....?
• 2..hikers descend the slope....?
• 3..hikers do not return to their tent....?
• 4..the cause of death of the hikers does not seem natural....?

...............................................

     

- 1 - Why did the Dyatlov hikers exit their tent, with mostly inadequate clothing and footwear for the Siberian winter?

  •  Which is the most difficult to reconstruct is the sudden and hurried exit from the tent without the short-handled axes that were inside.
Threats, e.g. with a firearm, would have warned the hikers of a danger and they would not have left the tent with their bare hands in order to defend themselves and eventually counterattack.
This is a remark first raised by alecsandros : Altercation on the pass > Altercation on the pass  -->Reply #32
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=411.msg9765#msg9765


  • Hypothesis N°1 :   By surprise the attackers made the atmosphere inside the tent unbreathable in a few tens of seconds.
It should be noted that the volume of air inside the tent is small, less than 5 m³, which makes this hypothesis N°1 particularly efficient.
The attackers (perhaps only three) triggered their first offensive just after the stove assembly was completed and the "battle sheet" "Evening otorten No. 1" was written, but before the hikers had time to fire the wood in the stove. Several possibilities :

   a) The attackers put a tear gas or a suffocating gas hand grenedade coming from the stocks of the army, the police, the guarding of the Gulag camps or bought illegally on the black market.

   b) The attackers used an Improvised Suffocating Device, for instance :  2.KNO³ + 4.S --> 3.SO² + N² + K²S or 2.KClO³ + 3.S --> 3.SO² + 2.KCl
KNO³, KClO³ and S are very common products that could easily be bought in the Ivdel drugstore.

  c) According to the more enigmatic of Anatoly Stepochkin the attackers launched "some kind of dope inside" the tent.   See :

https://dyatlovpass.com/dmitriy-borisov-2019-02-12

  • Hypothesis N°2 : The exit of the tent without the axes can be explained by cunning (trickery, deception, false flag...).
The attackers won the hikers' trust and recognition (during the first few minutes) with many kind and compassionate words.

A famous example of a ruse to succeed in killing a victim on his guard is the murder of Leon Trotsky by Ramon mercader, who for several months managed to convince Trosky of his  deep friendship (in order to be in a position to hit him mortally with a short-handled ice axe).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram%C3%B3n_Mercader

 To render this hypothesis N°2  more concretely here is an additional imaginary short tale whose spirit must be retained and not the letter.

In the tent on the slope of the Kholat Syakl, in the darkness, on February 1, 1959, around 8 pm, unexpectedly the 9 hikers heard... the leader of the (probably only 3) attackers - who was a good comedian - who shouted in a firm but almost panicky voice :

 - Sorry to bother you here.
 - You do not know me, but I am the general in charge of missile tests in the Sverdlovsk region...
( or Ivdel ...or xxx base ...there, to be more credible, the false and misleading speech can add some details about the current state of Soviet military technology in 1959. These are precisions or details which are certainly known by any student of the UPI.

( It is the "art" of deception (cheating) to incorporate exact details known to the person you want to fool (deceive) into the main important lie).

 - The place where you set up your tent three hours ago must be cleared immediately.

 - We have lost control of an experimental missile (here indication of a model that might be known to hikers) and I personally rush to warn you :

 - I have just learned that the latest prediction calculations indicate that the mad explosive projectile will fall exactly where your tent is. Luckily we succeeded in finding you so that we could warn you in time!

 - Hurry! Hurry! We  must all leave immediately, otherwise death is assured. Let us all go down quickly in the taiga where there is almost no wind. It is very close. (close ! : a little lie that goes unnoticed despite the fact that Dyatlov knew his position on the slope).

After hearing these friendly words, the hikers feel grateful to these new friends who come running in the bad weather and the darkness to save their lives.

So the 9 hickers leaved the tent immediately, (so to speak instinctively, because in case of unforeseen danger we have to react quickly), thinking that they will be able to go back in a few minutes.

It is here that it is useful to read Vietnamka   : General Discussion / Clothes => « on: March 26, 2019, 09:35:48 AM »
    https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=396.msg4583#msg4583

    "...Acute phase of stress.
    At this moment, in the cerebral cortex is formed a center of dominant arousal, all human mental activity is directed towards one thing - to get out from under the influence, to weaken its effect, to cope.
    If the house is on fire - people jump out in shorts and do not think that they will be cold. If there is a child in the house, the mother in the nightgown will run around the house and scream, not realizing how she looks and that she is cold.
    This is always accompanied by changes in the endocrine function (adrenaline is released) and the autonomic nervous system (the pupils dilate or contract, the heart begins to beat, the pressure rises, etc.).
         It is a fact that all these reactions are also protective against cold - heat production increases and a person not only may not feel cold, but may be feel hot.
    ............"

And thus all the 12 (3 attackers + 9 hikers) people started to descend along the line of greatest slope without undue haste (a military expression indicating that awareness of danger does not imply panic).


   

- 2 -   Having exited their tent under-dressed, why did the Dyatlov hikers descend the slope, moving away from their tent...

  • The snow-covered ground was slippery but quite hard. There was a slight downhill slope without deep holes.
For the first few minutes the hikers were not weakened by the intense cold. The hikers were sporty, young, agile and trained.
They had an excellent sense of balance and even if they stumbled on a slippery obstacle they got up immediately.
So I think the trip from the cedar tent (1500m) in complete darkness took less than 10 minutes (contrary to recent other opinions, look at GKM, WAB....).
       During this time the hikers could not calmly think about their strange situation.

  •  The attackers accompanied the hikers towards the cedar by making them believe that they were going to help them, or,

  •  on the contrary,  threatening them and starting to hit them.
    The attackers compelled the hikers to go down the slope by hitting them with blunt wooden objects judiciously carved (length=110 cm and weight=4 kg being held with two hand.
    If the attackers were strong it is probably enough to use 70 cm and 1.5 kg being held with one hands.
    In each case the energy of a blow can reach several hundred joules.

  • 300 m before reaching the cedar, the attackers disappeared in the night and the hikers found themselves alone.



   

- 3 - Having descended the slope, why did the Dyatlov hikers not return to their tent ?

  • It is there at the foot of the cedar that the hikers were fully aware that they had been fooled by the attackers
So a discussion begins and the separation of the 9 hikers into 2 groups occurs.
( Another senario is possible in which Kolmogorova, then Slobodin, have already been put out of action on the slope and lie unconscious in the 2 places where their bodies were found. In this case there are only 7 hikers remaining at the foot of the cedar).

  • Climbing up to find the tent was difficult in complete darkness: there was a great risk of passing within a few meters (e.g. 10 meters) of the tent without seeing it. And then there were no landmarks afterwards.
         You do not know where to search anymore: Where to go ? climbing up ? Going down ? Going left ? Going right ?

  • Zolotaryov (the oldest ...), Kolevatov (sojourn at Moscow ...), Nikolay Thibeaux-Brignolle (repression of his father Vladimir Iosifovich ...) are the most aware of the internal political situation of the USSR and think that the mysterious attackers are determined and really dangerous for their live .
 Zolotaryov, Kolevatov and Thibeaux-Brignolle therefore decide to go into hiding as best they can a little further away by building the Den and also persuade Dubinina to accompany them (for a reason which remains to be clarified).
 
  • On the contrary, Dyatlov, Doroshenko and Krivonishenko (the least politically aware) believed that the strange attackers were simply thieves who would leave after taking away the contents of the tent.
It was useless to try to go back up and risk receiving a knife wound.
So much for the hike, which was ruined. It would be relatively easy to go back through the nearby Labaz (full of food) and afterwards return safely to the Settlement 41.
The most important thing to do immediatly is not to freeze to death and they choose in priority to light a fire.

  • But when the attackers resumed their offensive around midnight at the foot of the cedar ................
      ...............to be continued at : Altercation on the pass > Altercation on the pass.

- 4 - the assailants were intelligent ...... and wanted to make the Dyatlov team's deaths appear as natural as possible

 • Deaths appear as natural as possible ==> On the contrary, the aim of the assailants was to make Khrushchev's government in Moscow understand perfectly that the massacre of the 9 hikers was a ferocious terrorist attack.

  • Assailants ==> Not necessarily very intelligent. The assailants knew above all how to hit hard with blunt objects (possibly wrapped in cloths) and judiciously adapted to be effectively grasped by the hands (important practical detail to use blunt objects as weapons).

 •   It should also be understood that the attackers were armed with rudimentary blunt objects and were also few in number. Probably only 3 mercenaries had been sent to the slope of the Kholat Syakhl by a rich commander, client, boss, sponsor... who had remained in Vizhay, (See also Aleks Kandr).

That is why I should logically write my posts in the Topic : Altercation on the pass and not in the Topic : Murdered.

So to speak, the movements of the Stalinists opposed to the Khrushchev Thaw were in the throes of a rout in 1959. (The Stalinist opposition of the former NKVD officer regained strength only with the coming to power of Brezhnev in 1964).

  • Look also at : Infra-sound/Gravity fluctuation/Teleportation => Infrasound? Most unlikely -> December 02,2020, 02:13:51 PM : Reply #105
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=116.msg11320#msg11320[/list]

[sarapuk]

Jean Daniel Reuss, you keep constantly reminding us of your theory. But you have provided no evidence or a realistic scenario. The injuries are of an unknown origin. A person dropped from an height could suffer such injuries. But that still wouldnt explain the missing eyes and tongue. No footprints other than those of the Dyatlov Group.  You state and I quote ;
   ''Of course there is no proof ! And there will probably never be any.
To solve an enigma, whatever its playful or police nature, it is necessary to call on all human mental faculties to imagine one or more solutions that are capable of explaining all the known facts.''
Isnt that a contradiction to say that there will probably never be any proof when you are trying to conjure up some proof with your theory. Also the way Detectives go about their work is not by imagining things its by constructing a case from material and facts.
 

[RMK]

Let me try to get this thread back to its topic.  If the DPI was really homicide, but the killers wanted to make it not look like homicide, why didn't they stage or fabricate some non-homicide reason why the hikers exited their tent and subsequently abandoned it?  For example, why didn't the killers manipulate the campsite to make it look like a tent fire or a small avalanche had occurred?

[Star man]

Good point.  I would like to know the answer to that question.

Regards

Star man

[mk]

Lets take it back a step.  Why do we think the murderers wanted to make it look "natural"?  As far as I can tell, we get that because there seem to be many easier & quicker ways of killing people.  (They weren't shot or stabbed, for example.)  But there is very little about their actual injuries that looks natural. Additionally, as you point out, no effort was made to provide an excuse for their injuries, or for their leaving the tent.  According to this theory, someone went to great trouble to cover up their own presence at the site, but no trouble at all to provide plausible excuses for the hikers leaving the tent or sustaining such injuries.

It looks to me, then, if this was the case, that the killers were only concerned with a very superficial "fooling" of the public.  KGB killers had to have known that autopsies would be done--and that the injuries of the hikers would be suspicious.  This implies that the killers felt responsible for not leaving any screamingly obvious signs of their own presence, but were relying on officials to make sure everything was properly swept under the rug in the end.

And, perhaps, that was done.

Personally, I am unconvinced by this theory.  Partly because of what I posted earlier about simpler ways of killing people, but also because of the responses of the families at the time.

I feel that the families' responses are usually a good guess when it comes to things like this.  Guesses, yes.  But they have intimate knowledge of the personalities of the hikers, as well as what to expect from the culture and the government. KGB Killers were quite well known to exist.  It was known that the government could make people disappear.  But the families seem much more concerned with the possibility of weapons testing.  While not a definitive answer, in my opinion, this lends a bit of weight to that theory.

While the families didn't have access to the specifications of the tragedy in the same way we do, they had the advantage of living at the same time, in the same place, and knowing the people involved.  This can be very important when it comes to understanding why people behave in curious ways.

[sarapuk]

Let me try to get this thread back to its topic.  If the DPI was really homicide, but the killers wanted to make it not look like homicide, why didn't they stage or fabricate some non-homicide reason why the hikers exited their tent and subsequently abandoned it?  For example, why didn't the killers manipulate the campsite to make it look like a tent fire or a small avalanche had occurred?

Yes thats what has been put a few times in this Forum. Why didnt any alleged killers do more to make it look like an accident. For the same reason that they left no footprints, or other traces. There were no human killers.

[sarapuk]

Good point.  I would like to know the answer to that question.

Regards

Star man

The answer is simple. There were no human killers. No footprints. No traces of any kind.

[sarapuk]

Lets take it back a step.  Why do we think the murderers wanted to make it look "natural"?  As far as I can tell, we get that because there seem to be many easier & quicker ways of killing people.  (They weren't shot or stabbed, for example.)  But there is very little about their actual injuries that looks natural. Additionally, as you point out, no effort was made to provide an excuse for their injuries, or for their leaving the tent.  According to this theory, someone went to great trouble to cover up their own presence at the site, but no trouble at all to provide plausible excuses for the hikers leaving the tent or sustaining such injuries.

It looks to me, then, if this was the case, that the killers were only concerned with a very superficial "fooling" of the public.  KGB killers had to have known that autopsies would be done--and that the injuries of the hikers would be suspicious.  This implies that the killers felt responsible for not leaving any screamingly obvious signs of their own presence, but were relying on officials to make sure everything was properly swept under the rug in the end.

And, perhaps, that was done.

Personally, I am unconvinced by this theory.  Partly because of what I posted earlier about simpler ways of killing people, but also because of the responses of the families at the time.

I feel that the families' responses are usually a good guess when it comes to things like this.  Guesses, yes.  But they have intimate knowledge of the personalities of the hikers, as well as what to expect from the culture and the government. KGB Killers were quite well known to exist.  It was known that the government could make people disappear.  But the families seem much more concerned with the possibility of weapons testing.  While not a definitive answer, in my opinion, this lends a bit of weight to that theory.

While the families didn't have access to the specifications of the tragedy in the same way we do, they had the advantage of living at the same time, in the same place, and knowing the people involved.  This can be very important when it comes to understanding why people behave in curious ways.

KGB  !  ?  The KGB did not have anything to do with the demise of the Dyatlov Group. Of course the KGB were good but not perfect, no one is. Not even they could cover their tracks and leave no traces in the conditions that existed on that Mountainside. And of course why would they want to kill all of the Dyatlov Group, it doesnt make sense. The Dyatlov Group were all good Communists.

[Star man]

Lets take it back a step.  Why do we think the murderers wanted to make it look "natural"?  As far as I can tell, we get that because there seem to be many easier & quicker ways of killing people.  (They weren't shot or stabbed, for example.)  But there is very little about their actual injuries that looks natural. Additionally, as you point out, no effort was made to provide an excuse for their injuries, or for their leaving the tent.  According to this theory, someone went to great trouble to cover up their own presence at the site, but no trouble at all to provide plausible excuses for the hikers leaving the tent or sustaining such injuries.

It looks to me, then, if this was the case, that the killers were only concerned with a very superficial "fooling" of the public.  KGB killers had to have known that autopsies would be done--and that the injuries of the hikers would be suspicious.  This implies that the killers felt responsible for not leaving any screamingly obvious signs of their own presence, but were relying on officials to make sure everything was properly swept under the rug in the end.

And, perhaps, that was done.

Personally, I am unconvinced by this theory.  Partly because of what I posted earlier about simpler ways of killing people, but also because of the responses of the families at the time.

I feel that the families' responses are usually a good guess when it comes to things like this.  Guesses, yes.  But they have intimate knowledge of the personalities of the hikers, as well as what to expect from the culture and the government. KGB Killers were quite well known to exist.  It was known that the government could make people disappear.  But the families seem much more concerned with the possibility of weapons testing.  While not a definitive answer, in my opinion, this lends a bit of weight to that theory.

While the families didn't have access to the specifications of the tragedy in the same way we do, they had the advantage of living at the same time, in the same place, and knowing the people involved.  This can be very important when it comes to understanding why people behave in curious ways.

A weapon test is a good candidate I think.  Particularly a low yield neutron device.  This was one of my first thoughts after reading the case files.  I have considered most of the theories and this scores highly I think.  At the time a moratorium on testing had been signed (1958).  The East was lagging behind in the development of these weapons, so secret tests, away from the usual test sites would provide an opportunity to close the gap.  Select an isolated location, where nobody goes and where there is little game or livestock to raise suspicion.  "Dead Mountain" sounds ideal?  Undertake the test at night so nobody  can see the mushroom cloud before it disperses.

If the hikers were exposed to the deadly radiation they would have deteriorated fast,  within an hour or two, their bodies would begin to shut down, including their cognitive ability.  It would explain alot about the tent and its condition and why they left poorly dressed.  They may have felt like they were burning up.  The strange skin tone can be caused by exposure.  Traces of radiation on the clothes.  If you are interested in this idea, look up acute radiation exposure on Wikipedia.  Its interesting.

Regards

Star man

[mk]

KGB  !  ?  The KGB did not have anything to do with the demise of the Dyatlov Group. Of course the KGB were good but not perfect, no one is. Not even they could cover their tracks and leave no traces in the conditions that existed on that Mountainside. And of course why would they want to kill all of the Dyatlov Group, it doesnt make sense. The Dyatlov Group were all good Communists.

Sorry--I wasn't clear.  I was speaking in scare quotes; I ought to have used them in the text.  By "KGB Killers" I intended a sort of catch-all category for the stereotypical Jason Bourne (movie reference) type killers.  Not necessarily the literal KGB, but any government-sanctioned or high-up-authorized uber-trained assassins or what have you. 

I agree with you, actually.  I don't think it was an intentional massacre supported or facilitated by any government authorities.

[ninja]

Your data is not entirely correct from the point of view, if the data does not allow you to answer the question "what happened there?" - then the initial data are not correct, which ones?
we think that the group voluntarily went to sleep on the mountainside
we think the group died 1 to 2
we think it happened at night
why? because the killer wants us to think so
are you surprised at the absence of traces of strangers? but you are not looking for them ther

[RMK]

Your data is not entirely correct from the point of view, if the data does not allow you to answer the question "what happened there?" - then the initial data are not correct, which ones?
we think that the group voluntarily went to sleep on the mountainside
we think the group died 1 to 2
we think it happened at night
why? because the killer wants us to think so
are you surprised at the absence of traces of strangers? but you are not looking for them ther

ninja, I'm not sure I understand your point.  You claim that the group was murdered, sometime before February 1st?

[GKM]

Please make your point clear, just for the sake of argument. Are you suggesting the hikers died or were killed before February 1st, 1959?

[ninja]

Please make your point clear, just for the sake of argument. Are you suggesting the hikers died or were killed before February 1st, 1959?

да, именно это я утверждаю, группа совершенно точно не пережила 31 января

[ninja]

я так же проделал небольшую работу по поводу времени их гибели, известно, что студенты погибли спустя 6-8 часов с момента последнего принятия пищи, исходя из состояния их желудков, с огромной вероятностью можно заключить, что умирать они начали после завтрака утра 31 января, очевидно, что то, что они съели невозможно приготовить на склоне холат-чахля, ввиду отсутствия условий,для этого нужен костер, следы которого не были обнаружены на склоне, так же эти 6-8 часов доказывают, что они не были в локации, где была оставлена яма с "лишними вещами", они бы просто не успели проделать весь путь, все действия, которые им приписывают и замерзнуть, у меня есть раскладка по времени от "ямы", примерно 2 часа от неё до горы, около 30-60 минут для установки палатки и разбору вещей, около часа на спуск, в итоге к моменту, когда потух костер,который горел 2 часа и обжег ногу Юрия Кривонищенко, абсолютно все должны быть мертвы, но тогда кто срезал с него одежду ? и переносил её в овраг

[sarapuk]

я так же проделал небольшую работу по поводу времени их гибели, известно, что студенты погибли спустя 6-8 часов с момента последнего принятия пищи, исходя из состояния их желудков, с огромной вероятностью можно заключить, что умирать они начали после завтрака утра 31 января, очевидно, что то, что они съели невозможно приготовить на склоне холат-чахля, ввиду отсутствия условий,для этого нужен костер, следы которого не были обнаружены на склоне, так же эти 6-8 часов доказывают, что они не были в локации, где была оставлена яма с "лишними вещами", они бы просто не успели проделать весь путь, все действия, которые им приписывают и замерзнуть, у меня есть раскладка по времени от "ямы", примерно 2 часа от неё до горы, около 30-60 минут для установки палатки и разбору вещей, около часа на спуск, в итоге к моменту, когда потух костер,который горел 2 часа и обжег ногу Юрия Кривонищенко, абсолютно все должны быть мертвы, но тогда кто срезал с него одежду ? и переносил её в овраг

Could you put this in English please

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

This topic=744.0 is a continuation of the first posts sent by ninja, unfortunately in Russian, which makes these posts difficult to understand for the ignorant like me (I use Russian -> French machine translation software. I hope ninja will be able to use English -> Russian software). So preferably start by reading the topic=753.0 :
   
    Dyatlov Pass Forum > Theories Discussion > General Discussion > real timeline  (реальная хронология)
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=753.0
           

Reply #4

Ninja. What is that you are actually trying to say  !  ? 

Nevertheless, I think that I have understood the most important thing. ninja explains to us that the hikers were slowed down by the deep soft snow in the Auspiya valley. That is why, during the last 2 days (January 31 and February 1), the hikers were only able to progress over a very short distance and also why the hikers did not have time to write in their diary.
     ninja will also soon explain why he suspects that Zolotaryov is playing a disastrous role...(I may be mistaken).

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

I agree, the photos " N°11 and N°12, Loose photos, https://dyatlovpass.com/loose-photos ", of the intallation of a tent were taken on the evening of January 30 and NOT on the evening of February 1.

It does not matter where the tent is exactly located on the night of January 30 to January 31.
ninja  indicates this location by the red cross with the indication "30.01" on the map below.
In my opinion the location of the tent could also be two kilometres further south, at the end of the purple line.

The hikers found themselves in a very soft snow, which made the progression difficult and slow even with skis.
It was this kind of soft snow, but it is not the same place :

See also :
Manti :  Theories Discussion > General Discussion > Walking a km in deep snow
   https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=740.0

Remark N°1 : The Mansis seem to be better equipped for winter than the hikers --> wider skis, thicker clothes....

Remark N°2
 • While approaching the summits of the Kholat Syakhl (1079) and Otorten by the Auspiya valley the hikers probably followed a short itinerary in distances but longer in time because they had to cross deep and soft snow areas.
It is a "slow" itinerary but sheltered from the wind, which I will henceforth call "the Auspiya Valley itinerary".

 • On the contrary, the hikers would probably have been faster  (would have taken less time)  if they had skied on the hard snow, above the taiga, on the hillsides, following the crest line defined by the peaks :
     706 - 833 - 813 - 968 -937 - 1034 - 1051 - 994 - 1079(Kholat Syakhl)
 
These peaks are visible on the above good map sent by ninja

This route may start with the dotted line (east to west) at the bottom right of the map.
This is a "fast"route on hard snow but exposed to cold wind, which I will henceforth call "the ridge itinerary".

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

The arguments of ninja - if I have understood correctly - are based on the fact that we probably do not have any photos or writing on diaries made after January 30, since the "Leaflet Evening Otorten N°1" was recopied and so the date could have been easily changed.

However I think that the details, certainly interesting, which are brought by ninja do not prove that the hikers were not killed during the night of February 1 to February 2.

On the contrary, I think that the hikers were very much alive on January 31 and February 1. After the 30th of January the hikers peacefully went on their way and set up the tent where the rescuers found it on the Kholat Syakhl slope on the evening of the 1st of February.

  • Because how else to explain this picture of the tent :

 

  • And also how to explain the presence of the Labaz containing 50 kg of food, which took several hours to install on the evening of January 31 or on the morning of February 1.

  • And also how to explain the location of the corpses of Kolgomora, Slobodin and Dyatlov on the slope of the Kholat Syakhl (because according to my hypothesis N°3 nobody made the effort to move the bodies away from the place where they fell, stunned or mortally wounded, and never stood up again).

[RMK]

     ninja will also soon explain why he suspects that Zolotaryov is playing a disastrous role...(I may be mistaken).

Dear Jean Daniel Reuss: you are referring to this post by ninja, https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=753.msg11502#msg11502 , correct?  I cannot tell if (1) ninja means that Zolotaryov betrayed the other Dyatlov hikers, or (2) if ninja merely means that the Semyon "Sasha" Zolotaryov that joined the Dyatlov expedition was not who he claimed to be.  Come to think of it, he could mean both of those things.

я так же проделал небольшую работу по поводу времени их гибели, известно, что студенты погибли спустя 6-8 часов с момента последнего принятия пищи, исходя из состояния их желудков, с огромной вероятностью можно заключить, что умирать они начали после завтрака утра 31 января, очевидно, что то, что они съели невозможно приготовить на склоне холат-чахля, ввиду отсутствия условий,для этого нужен костер, следы которого не были обнаружены на склоне, так же эти 6-8 часов доказывают, что они не были в локации, где была оставлена яма с "лишними вещами", они бы просто не успели проделать весь путь, все действия, которые им приписывают и замерзнуть, у меня есть раскладка по времени от "ямы", примерно 2 часа от неё до горы, около 30-60 минут для установки палатки и разбору вещей, около часа на спуск, в итоге к моменту, когда потух костер,который горел 2 часа и обжег ногу Юрия Кривонищенко, абсолютно все должны быть мертвы, но тогда кто срезал с него одежду ? и переносил её в овраг

Could you put this in English please

Yes, ninja, as the original poster of this thread, I must ask that you post in my thread in English.  Posting in English is the norm in this community.  On this forum, the burden of machine-translation is on the author of the post, not the reader of the post.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

In summary, my point here is that, if the DPI was a result of homicide, then why didn't the presumably smart and capable attackers fabricate some explanation for the hikers' near-suicidal collective decision to exit their tent and abandon their campsite without gear necessary for survival?  If the attackers HAD done that, maybe we wouldn't be discussing the DPI more than 60 years later.

If the attackers had dug down the tent in order to make it look like an avalanche, that not-so-smart cover up would have been too obvious since it would be easily documented afterwards that there had been no avalanches in the area. The orchestrators of the Dyatlov pass tragedy were way too smart for that.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

No proof that any other Humans arrived at The Tent by Skis or walking.

The nine students died during the night of February 1-2. No other tracks than the tracks of the nine were found, and that is to be expected. Their killers could not have arrived by foot. It can be taken for granted that the attacking group used wide mountain skis, which would leave only superficial tracks in the snow.

The first search and rescue team did not arrive until February 26. This long interval ensured that any tracks from mountain skis were completely erased. Small wonder then, when no tracks from the killers were found.

Again; The injuries of the nine were not only strongly indicative of human attack. They can in addition only be explained by a determined attack from other humans, an attack with lethal intent and result.

The corpses did not lie. They were all murdered.

[sarapuk]

No proof that any other Humans arrived at The Tent by Skis or walking.

The nine students died during the night of February 1-2. No other tracks than the tracks of the nine were found, and that is to be expected. Their killers could not have arrived by foot. It can be taken for granted that the attacking group used wide mountain skis, which would leave only superficial tracks in the snow.

The first search and rescue team did not arrive until February 26. This long interval ensured that any tracks from mountain skis were completely erased. Small wonder then, when no tracks from the killers were found.

Again; The injuries of the nine were not only strongly indicative of human attack. They can in addition only be explained by a determined attack from other humans, an attack with lethal intent and result.

The corpses did not lie. They were all murdered.

The exact time and date of death of the Dyatlov Group is not known.
It would be extremely difficult for someone or some persons on Ski's to kill all of the Dyatlov Group. The several Events ie at The Tent, The Cedar Tree, The Ravine, seem to rule out attack by anyone on Ski's.
In fact its highly unlikely that any other person or persons were involved in the demise of the Dyatlov Group.

[armyeng]

To me, the essential mystery of the Dyatlov Pass Incident (DPI) is the lack of satisfactory answers to 3 crucial Questions:

• Why did the Dyatlov hikers exit their tent, with mostly inadequate clothing and footwear for the Siberian winter?
• Having exited their tent under-dressed, why did the Dyatlov hikers descend the slope, moving away from their tent, and leaving behind useful tools?
• Having descended the slope, why did the Dyatlov hikers not return to their tent?

N.B. all three Questions do not necessarily need to have the same answer!  In particular, regardless of what the answer(s) to Questions 1 & 2 might be, the answer to Question 3 could easily be "by the time any of them tried to return to their campsite, they were too cold and fatigued to go uphill, against the wind, without boots."

However, all of the DPI homicide theories I have encountered propose that the answer to Questions 1 & 2 (and usually, 3 as well) is "the threat of lethal force from human assailants."  I am currently convinced that IF the DPI was a result of homicide, then the assailants were intelligent, trained, professional killers who knew what they were doing, and wanted to make the Dyatlov team's deaths appear as natural as possible.  And that brings me to the problem I have with homicide theories: if the killers were so smart and effective, then why didn't they do something about the "elephant in the room"--the complete lack of any apparent reason why the Dyatlov team left their tent under-dressed and then abandoned it by descending Kholat Syakhl?!  In other words, why didn't they stage or plant physical "evidence" that would provide credible answers to Questions 1 & 2 (and maybe even 3 as well)?

For instance, they could have buried the tent and its immediate vicinity in snow.  Then, the investigation could have concluded that the Dyatlov company barely escaped a mini-avalanche, which crushed their tent, and then it was only a matter of time before the elements and various misadventures claimed their lives.  Or, perhaps more plausibly, the assailants could have set the tent on fire.  They could have staged some sort of accident in which, apparently, one of the hikers spilled 100-proof vodka (accelerant) on dry clothes or blankets (fuel); the apparent ignition source could come from a lit flashlight that someone dropped and its bulb shattered, or from a lit cigarette that one of the guys dropped while sneaking a midnight smoke.

In summary, my point here is that, if the DPI was a result of homicide, then why didn't the presumably smart and capable attackers fabricate some explanation for the hikers' near-suicidal collective decision to exit their tent and abandon their campsite without gear necessary for survival?  If the attackers HAD done that, maybe we wouldn't be discussing the DPI more than 60 years later.

I dont think it was this smart or replanned - I believe it was a haphazard occurrence, angry retaliation, or confusing in the moment. I don’t believe it was the intention of the attackers to kill, but to beat and retrieve information/investigate/force out of the area etc I believe after the initial attack there was a standoff and shouting back and forth, maybe some skirmishing and hand to hand fighting, both parties adrenaline was pumping and the attackers told the hikers to leave and not to return. This could easily line up with a military unit securing a perimeter or area, or a team suspicious the hikers (gulag prison guards of others) were an enemy political/military unit (they look like one age/equipment). Perhaps this also implies that they were not trained and eager killers but just suspicious and angry locals, situation got out of hand. But this would have to line up with my tent ambush theory and explain the slow departure from site.