What happened to the Dyatlovites in 1959. The death of the Dyatlov group: the most murky case in the history of the USSR

Many terrible, inexplicable and mysterious stories are known to mankind. One of these chilling tragedies occurred in the middle of the last century in the USSR, in the Urals. The tragedy known as the “death of the Dyatlov group.”
In 1959, in the last days of January, a group of nine tourist skiers set off on a previously planned hike in the north of the Sverdlovsk region with the subsequent goal of climbing the Oiko-Chakur and Otorten mountains. None of them returned back. Searchers found an empty tent on the slope of Mount Kholatchakhl, and then the bodies of all the participants in the hike. The young people were undressed, brutally mutilated and were located at a distance of one and a half kilometers from the tent.
Back in 1959, investigators trying to find out the circumstances and cause of the death of Dyatlov’s tour group were faced with a huge number of inexplicable and strange facts. The investigation materials were later confiscated and classified. The tragedy was prohibited from being covered in the media, and the facts available to the investigation were prohibited from being widely publicized. And only in 1989 the secrecy was lifted, but only partially. The official version is as follows: “The death of Dyatlov’s group occurred as a result of an avalanche or other irresistible natural force.” There are several unofficial versions of the death of the Dyatlov group - from the version that the tourists became victims of special services to various paranormal versions.

BEGINNING OF THE STORY

So, January 23, 1959 a group of young people - members of the tourist club of the Ural Polytechnic Institute of the city of Sverdlovsk - went on a ski trip across the Northern Urals.
Initially the group consisted of ten people - eight young men and two girls. Six of them were UPI students, three were graduates of the same educational institution. And the tenth was the club instructor - the oldest of all in age. The group was led by Igor Dyatlov, an experienced tourist, 5th year student at UPI.

Despite the youth of all members of the group, they were already experienced tourists-skiers, experienced and hardy people. Here are their names:
Dyatlov Igor, 23 years old,
Kolmogorova Zinaida, 22 years old,
Slobodin Rustem, 23 years old,
Doroshenko Yuri, 21 years old,
Krivonischenko Yuri, 23 years old,
Thibault-Brignolle Nikolay, 24 years old,
Dubinina Lyudmila, 20 years old,
Kolevatov Alexander, 24 years old,
Zolotarev Semyon Alekseevich, 37 years old,
Yudin Yuri, born in 1937

Yuri Yudin is the only member of the Dyatlov expedition to survive. Just before entering the active part of the route, he fell ill and was forced to stay in a small taiga village, parting with his friends just a couple of days before their death.
The ski trip that Dyatlov’s detachment went on was timed to coincide with the upcoming 21st Congress of the CPSU. It belonged to the third (highest) category of difficulty according to the classification of sports hiking trips in force at that time. The goal of the hike is to ski a huge distance of almost 350 km through the forests and mountains of the Northern Urals in 16 days. At the end of which, climb the mountains Oiko-Chakur and Otorten. On Mount Otorten (translation from Mansi - “don’t go there”), Dyatlov’s group intended, according to established tradition, to leave their beacon and an Information Letter - a reminder.

THE MISSING EXPEDITION

According to a pre-developed plan, Dyatlov’s detachment was supposed to reach the final point of its route – the village of Vizhay – on February 12, from where it would send a telegram to the tourist club. And on February 15, the guys were already waiting at home - in Sverdlovsk. The tourists did not show up on the appointed days, so it was decided to start searching.
On February 22, a search party was sent along the group’s route. Search and rescue operations began.
On February 26, in the area of ​​an unnamed pass (later named after Dyatlov), on the slope of Mount Kholatchakhl (Kholat Syakhyl), a tent of tourists was discovered under a layer of snow. Right here, 1st of February the group stood up for their last night. One of the walls of the tent, facing down the slope, was cut from the inside in several places, although the entrance to the tent was open. A fur jacket was stuck in one of the cuts. All things, shoes, food, documents and maps - everything was in place. Everything except the people themselves.

SCARY FINDS

The next day, February 27, 1500m from the tent, the first bodies were found - Krivonischenko and Doroshenko. The bodies had numerous injuries and burns. A little further they found the body of Igor Dyatlov. And there are also wounds and abrasions on him. Three hundred meters from Dyatlov’s body was Kolmogorova’s body. On March 5, the body of R. Slobodin was found. He was less than two hundred meters from the bodies of Dyatlov and Kolmogorova. The body color of these three guys was reddish-purple. Further, as a result of phased searches from February to May, the remaining four bodies were found.
All nine bodies found had terrible injuries and wounds. Experts have established that these injuries were received by the boys while they were still alive, but what caused them is not clear. The appearance of radioactive substances on some parts of the clothes of the dead children also remained a mystery.

MANY VERSIONS

The many incomprehensible, mysterious facts of this tragedy have haunted researchers for more than fifty years and are the cause of the most controversial versions of the death of the Dyatlov group. Lots of unanswered questions:
The nature of the terrible injuries received by the tourists is unclear, as is the orange-red color of the skin of several of the bodies found.
It is unclear the reason that forced the tourists to leave the tent in a hurry, leaving all their belongings and food behind.
How did the tourists’ tent end up in this exact place, since the hike plan did not include entering Mount Kholatchakhl?
Whose, found near the tent, traces of shoes with heels (all tourists were found barefoot) and things that did not belong to the expedition - an extra pair of skis, a fabric belt, an ebonite sheath, a piece of a ski.
Why were criminal proceedings started on 02/06/1959 - earlier than search activities?
There are a considerable number of volunteers trying to understand the details of the case. But it is still not possible to find out the whole truth. But the facts available today are quite enough to excite minds and lead to the most fantastic versions of the death of the Dyatlov group.
None of us will most likely ever be able to fully understand all the circumstances of the death of the Dyatlov group and its true causes.

The authors express sincere gratitude for the cooperation and information provided to the Public Memory Fund of the “Dyatlov Group” and personally to Yuri Kuntsevich, as well as Vladimir Askinadzi, Vladimir Borzenkov, Natalya Varsegova, Anna Kiryanova and Ekaterinburg photo processing specialists.

INTRODUCTION .

In the early morning of February 2, 1959, on the slope of Mount Kholatchakhl in the vicinity of Mount Otorten in the Northern Urals, dramatic events occurred that led to the death of a group of tourists from Sverdlovsk led by 23-year-old student of the Ural Polytechnic Institute Igor Dyatlov.

Many circumstances of this tragedy have not yet received a satisfactory explanation, giving rise to many rumors and conjectures, which gradually grew into legends and myths, based on which several books have been written and a number of feature films have been made. We think we succeededto restore the true development of these events, which puts an end to this protracted story. Our version is based on strictly documentary sources, namely on the materials of the Criminal Case of the history of the death and search of the Dyatlovites, as well as on some everyday and tourist experience. This is the version we offer to the attention of all interested persons and the organization, insisting on its authenticity, but not claiming a new coincidence in detail.

BACKGROUND

Before finding themselves at the site of a cold overnight on the slope of Mount Kholatchakhl on the night of February 1–2, 1959, a number of events occurred with Dyatlov’s group.

So, the very idea of ​​this trek III, the highest category of difficulty, came to Igor Dyatlov a long time ago and took shape in December 1958, as Igor’s senior tourism comrades spoke about. *

The composition of the participants in the planned hike changed during its preparation, reaching up to 13 people, but the core of the group, consisting of UPI students and graduates with experience in tourist hikes, including joint ones, remained unchanged. It included - Igor Dyatlov - 23-year-old leader of the campaign, 20-year-old Lyudmila Dubinina - supply manager, Yuri Doroshenko - 21 years old, 22-year-old Alexander Kolevatov, Zinaida Kolmogorova - 22 years old, 23-year-old Georgy Krivonischenko , 22-year-old Rustem Slobodin, Nikolai Thibault - 23 years old, 22-year-old Yuri Yudin. Two days before the hike, 37-year-old Semyon Zolotarev, a veteran of the Great Patriotic War, a front-line soldier who graduated from the Institute of Physical Education, and a professional tourism instructor, joined the group.

At the beginning, the hike went according to plan, with the exception of one circumstance: on January 28, Yuri Yudin left the route due to illness. The group made the further journey with nine of them. Until January 31, the hike, according to the general diary of the hike, the diaries of individual participants, and the photos given in the File, was proceeding normally: difficulties were surmountable, and new places gave the young people new impressions. On January 31, Dyatlov’s group made an attempt to overcome the pass separating the valleys of the Auspiya and Lozva rivers, however, encountering strong winds at low temperatures (about -18) they were forced to retreat for the night to the forested part of the Auspiya river valley. On the morning of February 1, the group got up late, left some of their food and belongings in a specially equipped storehouse (this took a lot of time), had lunch, and at approximately 15:00 on February 1, set out on the route. The materials on the termination of the Criminal Case, apparently expressing the collective opinion of the investigation and interviewed specialists, say that such a late start on the route was first Igor Dyatlov's mistake. At the beginning, the group most likely followed its old trail, and then continued moving in the direction of Mount Otorten and at about 17 o’clock settled for a cold night on the slope of Mount Kholatchakhl.

To facilitate the perception of information, we present a wonderfully compiled diagram of the scene of events given by Vadim Chernobrov (Ill. 1).

Ill. 1. Map of the scene.

The materials of the criminal case say that Dyatlov “came to the wrong place where he wanted”, making a mistake in the direction and taking much to the left than required to reach the pass between heights 1096 and 663. This, according to the compilers of the case, was the second mistake of Igor Dyatlov.

We do not agree with the investigation’s version and believe that Igor Dyatlov stopped the group not by mistake, by accident, but SPECIFICALLY in a place previously planned in the previous transition.

Our opinion is not alone - an experienced tourist student, Sogrin, who was part of one of the search and rescue groups that found Igor Dyatlov’s tent, stated the same during the investigation. Modern researcher Borzenkov also speaks about the planned stop in the book “Dyatlov Pass. Research and materials", Yekaterinburg 2016, p. 138. What prompted Igor Dyatlov to do this?

COLD NIGHT.

Arriving as we believe , to the point pre-designated by Dyatlov, the group began setting up a tent, according to all “tourist and mountaineering rules.” The question of a cold overnight stay baffles the most experienced specialists and is one of the main mysteries of the tragic campaign. Many different versions have been put forward, including the absurd, saying that this was done for “training.”

Only we managed to find a convincing version.

The question arises whether the participants in the campaign knew that Dyatlov plans cold night. We think that they didn’t know*, but they didn’t argue, knowing from previous campaigns and stories about them about the difficult behavior of their leader and forgiving him for it in advance.

*This is indicated by the fact that the fire accessories (an axe, a saw and a stove) were not left at the storage shed; moreover, a dry log of wood was even prepared for kindling.

Taking part in the general work on arranging an overnight stay, only one person expressed his protest, namely, 37-year-old Semyon Zolotarev, a professional tourism instructor who went through the war. This protest was expressed in a very peculiar form, indicating the high intellectual abilities of its applicant. Semyon Zolotarev created a very remarkable document, namely Combat leaflet No. 1 " Evening Otorten.

We consider Combat Leaflet No. 1 “Evening Otorten” to be the key to solving the tragedy.

The name itself speaks about the authorship of Zolotarev “ Combat leaf." Semyon Zolotarev was the only veteran of the Great Patriotic War among the participants in the campaign, and a very well-deserved one, having four military awards, including the medal “For Courage.” In addition, according to the tourist Axelrod, reflected in the Case, the handwriting of the handwritten “Evening Otorten” coincides with the handwriting of Zolotarev. So, at first“Combat leaflet”, it is said that “according to the latest scientific data Bigfoot people live in the vicinity of Mount Otorten.”

It must be said that at that time the whole world was gripped by the fever of searching for Bigfoot, which has not subsided to this day. Similar searches were also conducted in the Soviet Union. We think that Igor Dyatlov was aware of this “problem” and dreamed of meeting Bigfoot and for the first time in the world and take a photo of it. From the materials of the Case it is known that Igor Dyatlov met with old hunters in Vizhay, consulted with them on the upcoming campaign, perhaps they were talking about Bigfoot. Of course, experienced hunters* told the “young” the whole “truth” about Bigfoot, where he lives, what his behavior is, what he loves.

*The case file contains the testimony of Chargin, 85 years old, that in Vizhay a group of Dyatlov tourists approached him as a hunter.

Of course, everything that was said was in the spirit of traditional hunting tales, but Igor Dyatlov believed what was said and decided that the outskirts of Otorten were just the ideal place for Bigfoot to live and it was only a matter of small things - getting up for a cold night, exactly cold, since Bigfoot loves the cold and out of curiosity he himself will approach the tent. The place for a possible overnight stay was chosen by Igor in the previous transition on January 31, 1959, when the group actually reached the pass separating the basins of the Auspiya and Lozva rivers.

A photo of this moment was preserved, which allowed Borzenkov to accurately determine this point on the map. The picture shows that, obviously, Igor Dyatlov and Semyon Zolotarev are arguing very fiercely about the future route. It is obvious that Zolotarev is against logically difficult to explain Dyatlov’s decision to return back to Auspiya and offers to “take the pass,” which was a matter of about 30 minutes, and go down for the night into the Lozva River basin. Note that in this case the group would have camped for the night just about in the area of ​​that same ill-fated cedar.

Everything becomes logically explainable if we assume that already at that moment Dyatlov was planning a cold overnight stay, right on the slope of Mountain 1096 *, which, if he spent the night in the Lozva basin, would have been on the sidelines.

*This mountain, called Mount Kholatchakhl in Mansi, is translated as “ Mountain of the 9 Dead". The Mansi consider this place “unclean” and avoid it. So from the Case, according to the testimony of student Slabtsov, who found the tent, the Mansi guide who accompanied them flatly refused to go up this mountain. We think that Dyatlov decided that if it’s impossible, then he needs to prove to everyone that it’s possible and he’s not afraid of anything, and he also thought that if they say it’s impossible, that means exactlyhere The notorious Bigfoot lives.

So, at approximately 5 pm on February 1, Igor Dyatlov gives unexpected the team, a group that had rested for half a day, stood up for a cold night, explaining the reasons for this decision with the scientific task of finding Bigfoot. The group, with the exception of Semyon Zolotarev, reacted calmly to this decision. In the time remaining before bedtime, Semyon Zolotarev produced his famous “Evening Otorten”, which is actually a satirical work, sharply critical established order in the group.

In our opinion, there is a justified point of view on the further tactics of Igor Dyatlov. According to the experienced tourist Axelrod, who knew Igor Dyatlov well from joint hikes, Dyatlov planned to raise the group in the dark, at about 6 o’clock in the morning, then go to storm Mount Otorten. Most likely this is what happened. The group was getting ready to get dressed (more precisely, put on shoes, since people slept in clothes), while having breakfast with crackers and lard. According to numerous testimonies from participants in rescue operations, crackers were scattered throughout the tent; they fell out of crumpled blankets along with pieces of lard. The situation was calm, no one, except Dyatlov, was seriously upset that the Bigfoot did not come and that, in fact, the group had undergone such significant inconvenience in vain.

Only Semyon Zolotarev, who was located at the very entrance to the tent, was seriously indignant at what had happened. His discontent was fueled by the following circumstance. The fact is that February 2 was Semyon’s birthday. And it looks like he started “celebrating” it by drinking alcohol already at night, and it looks like one, because According to Doctor Vozrozhdenny, no alcohol was found in the bodies of the first 5 tourists found. This is reflected in the official documents (Acts) given in the Case.

About a feast with chopped lard and empty flask with The smell of vodka or alcohol at the entrance to the tent where Semyon Zolotarev was located is directly indicated in the Case by the prosecutor of the city Indel Tempalov. A large flask of alcohol was seized from the discovered tent by student Boris Slobtsov. This alcohol, according to student Brusnitsyn, a participant in the events, was immediately drunk by the members of the search group who found the tent. That is, in addition to the flask with alcohol there was a flask with the same drink in the tent. We think that we are talking about alcohol, and not about vodka.

Warmed up by alcohol, Zolotarev, dissatisfied with the cold and hungry night, left the tent to go to the toilet (a trace of urine remained near the tent) and outside demanded an analysis of Dyatlov’s mistakes. Most likely, the amount of alcohol consumed was so significant that Zolotarev became very drunk and began to behave aggressively. Someone must have come out of the tent in response to this noise. At first glance, this should be the leader of the campaign, Igor Dyatlov, but we think that it was not he who came to the conversation. Dyatlov was located at the farthest end of the tent; it was inconvenient for him to climb over everyone and, most importantly, Dyatlov was significantly inferior in physical characteristics to Semyon Zolotarev. We believe that the tall (180 cm) and physically strong Yuri Doroshenko responded to Semyon’s demand. This is also supported by the fact that ice ax, found near the tent, belonged to Yuri Doroshenko. So, in the materials of the Case there was a note made in his hand: “go to the trade union committee, take mine ice ax." Thus, Yuri Doroshenko, atthe only one from the whole group as it turned out later, it was time to put on my boots. The footprint of the only person wearing boots was documented in the Act by prosecutor Tempalov.

There is no data on the presence or absence of alcohol in the body of 4 people found later (in May), and, specifically, Semyon Zolotarev in the Acts of Doctor Vozrozhdeniy, because The bodies had already begun to decompose at the time of the study. That is, the answer to the question: “Was Semyon Zolotarev drunk or not?” There is no case in the materials.

So, Yuri Doroshenko, wearing ski boots, armed with an ice ax and taking with him a Dyatlov flashlight for illumination, because... it was still dark (it was light at 8-9 am, and the action took place around 7 am), he crawls out of the tent. A short, harsh and unpleasant conversation took place between Zolotarev and Doroshenko. It is obvious that Zolotarev expressed his opinion about Dyatlov and the Dyatlovites.

From Zolotarev’s point of view, Dyatlov makes serious mistakes. The first of them was Dyatlov’s passage of the mouth of the Auspiya River. As a result, the group had to make a detour. It was also incomprehensible to Zolotarev that the group retreated on January 31 to the bed of the Auspiya River instead of going down to the bed of Lozva and, finally, absurd, and, most importantly, ineffective cold night. The dissatisfaction hiddenly expressed by Zolotarev in the newspaper “Evening Otorten” spilled out.

We think that Zolotarev proposed to remove Dyatlov from the post of leader of the campaign, replacing him with someone else, meaning primarily himself. It is difficult to say now in what form Zolotarev proposed this to us. It is clear that after drinking alcohol the form should be sharp, but the degree of sharpness depends on the person’s specific reaction to alcohol. Zolotarev, who knew war in all its manifestations, of course had a disturbed psyche, and could simply become agitated to the point of alcoholic psychosis, bordering on delirium. Judging by the fact that Doroshenko left an ice ax and a flashlight and chose to hide in a tent, Zolotarev was very excited. The guys even blocked his way into the tent, throwing a stove, backpacks, and food at the entrance. This circumstance, right down to the term “barricade,” is repeatedly emphasized in the testimonies of participants in the rescue operation. Moreover, at the entrance to the tent there was an ax, absolutely unnecessary in this place.

It is obvious that the students decided to actively defend themselves.

Perhaps this circumstance infuriated the drunken Zolotarev even more (for example, in the tent at the entrance, the canopy of the sheet was literally torn to pieces). Most likely, all these obstacles only infuriated Zolotarev, who was rushing into the tent to continue the showdown. And then Zolotarev remembered about the gap in the tent on the “mountain” side, which everyone had repaired together at the previous campsite. And he decided to get inside the tent through this gap, using “psychological weapons” so that he would not be hindered, as was done at the front.

Most likely he shouted something like "I'm throwing a grenade".

The fact is that the country in 1959 was still overflowing with weapons, despite all the Government Decrees on their surrender. Getting a grenade at that time was not a problem, especially in Sverdlovsk, where weapons were taken for melting down. So the threat was very real. And in general, it seems very likely that this was not just an imitation of a threat.

MAYBE THERE WAS A REAL COMBAT GRENADE.

Apparently, this is exactly what Investigator Ivanov had in mind when he spoke about a certain “piece of hardware” that he did not investigate. A grenade could be really useful on a hike, in particular, for killing fish under the ice, as was done during the war, since part of the route passed along rivers. And, quite possibly, front-line soldier Zolotarev decided to take such a “necessary” item on the campaign.

Zolotarev did not calculate the effect of his “weapon”. The students took the threat seriously and, in a panic, made two cuts in the tarpaulin and left the tent. This happened around 7 o'clock in the morning, as it was still dark, as evidenced by the flashlight in the lit condition, dropped by students and subsequently found by searchers 100 meters from the tent down the slope.

Zolotarev walked around the tent and, continuing to imitate a threat, decided to teach the “young people” while drunk. He lined up the people (as witnessed by all the people who observed the tracks) and commanded “Down,” giving the direction. He gave me one blanket with him, saying, keep warm with one blanket, as in that Armenian riddle from “Evening Otorten”. This is how the cold night of the Dyatlovites ended.

TRAGEDY IN THE URAL MOUNTAINS.

People went down, and Zolotarev climbed into the tent and apparently continued to drink, celebrating his birthday. The fact that someone remained in the tent is evidenced by the subtle observer student Sorgin, whose testimony is given in the Case.

Zolotarev settled down on two blankets. All the blankets in the tent were crumpled, with the exception of two, on which they found skins from the loin that Zolotarev had snacked on. It was already dawn, the wind had risen, passing through a hole in one part of the tent and cutouts in another. Zolotarev covered the hole with Dyatlov’s fur jacket, and had to deal with the cutouts in a different way, since the initial attempt to plug the cutouts with things, following the example of the hole, failed (so, according to Astenaki, several blankets and a quilted jacket were sticking out of the cutouts of the tent). Then Zolotarev decided to lower the far edge of the tent by cutting the stand - a ski pole.

Due to the severity of the fallen snow (the fact that there was snow at night is evidenced by the fact that Dyatlov’s flashlight was lying on the tent on a layer of snow about 10 cm thick), the stick was rigidly fixed and it was not possible to pull it out immediately. The stick had to be cut with the long knife used to cut lard. They managed to pull out the cut stick, and parts of it were found cut from the top of the backpacks. The far edge of the tent sank and covered the cutouts, and Zolotarev positioned himself at the front pole of the tent and, apparently, fell asleep for a while, finishing off the alcohol from his flask.

Meanwhile, the group continued to move down, in the direction indicated by Zolotarev. It is attested that the tracks were divided into two groups - to the left of 6 people, and to the right - two. Then the tracks converged. These groups apparently corresponded to the two openings through which the people had climbed out. The two on the right are Thibault and Dubinina, who were located closer to the exit. On the left are everyone else.

One man walked in boots(Yuri Doroshenko, we believe). Let us remind you that this is documented, in the Case, recorded by Prosecutor Tempalov. It also says that there were traces eight, What documented confirms our version that one person remained in the tent.

It was getting light, it was difficult to walk because of the snow that had fallen and, of course, it was desperately cold, because... the temperature was about -20 C with wind. At approximately 9 o'clock in the morning, a group of 8 tourists, already half-frozen, found themselves next to a tall cedar tree. Cedar was not chosen by chance as the point near which they decided to build a fire. In addition to the dry lower branches for the fire, which we managed to “obtain” with the help of cuts, an “observation post” was equipped with great difficulty to monitor the tent. For this purpose, Finnish woman Krivonischenko cut out several large branches that obstructed the view. Below, under the cedar tree, with great difficulty, a small fire was lit, which, according to the concurring estimates of various observers, burned for 1.5-2 hours. If you were at the cedar at 9 am, it took an hour to make a fire and plus two hours - it turns out that the fire went out around 12 noon.

Still taking Zolotarev’s threat seriously, the group decided not to return to the tent for now, but to try to “hold out” by building some kind of shelter, at least from the wind, for example, in the form of a cave. It turned out to be possible to do this in a ravine, near a stream that flowed towards the Lozva River. 10-12 poles were cut for this shelter. What exactly the poles were supposed to serve for is not clear, maybe they planned to build a “floor” out of them, throwing spruce branches on top.

Zolotarev, meanwhile, was “resting” in the tent, lost in an anxious drunken sleep. Having woken up and sobered up a little, at about 10-11 o’clock he saw that the situation was serious, the students had not returned, which meant they were “in trouble” somewhere, and he realized that he had “gone too far.” He followed the tracks downwards, realizing his guilt and already without a weapon (the ice ax remained at the tent, the knife in the tent). True, it remains unclear where the grenade was located, if indeed there was one. At about 12 o'clock he approached the cedar. He walked dressed and wearing felt boots. The footprint of one person in felt boots was recorded by observer Axelrod 10-15 meters from the tent. He walked down to Lozva.

The question arises: “Why is there no or not noticed ninth trail? The issue here is most likely the following. The students descended at 7 o'clock in the morning, and Zolotarev at about 11. By this time, at dawn, a strong wind arose, drifting snow, which partly blew away the snow that had fallen at night, and partly compacted it, pressing it to the ground. It turned out thinner, and most importantly, more dense layer of snow. In addition, felt boots are larger in area than boots, and even more so feet without shoes. The pressure from felt boots on the snow per unit area is several times less, so the traces of Zolotarev’s descent were barely noticeable and were not recorded by observers.

The people at the cedar, meanwhile, met him in a critical situation. Half-frozen, they unsuccessfully tried to warm themselves up by the fire, bringing their freezing hands, feet and faces close to the fire. Apparently due to this combination of frostbite and mild burns, an unusual red skin coloration of the exposed parts of the body was observed in the five tourists found in the first phase of the search.

People placed all the blame for what happened on Zolotarev, so his appearance did not bring relief, but served to further escalate the situation. Moreover, the psyche of hungry and freezing people, of course, worked inadequately. Possible apologies from Zolotarev, or vice versa, his command orders, obviously, were not accepted. Lynching has begun. We think that Thibault first demanded, as an initial measure of “retribution,” to remove his felt boots and then demanded that he give up the “Victory” watch, which reminded Zolotarev of his participation in the war, which, obviously, was a source of pride for him. This seemed extremely offensive to Zolotarev. In response, he hit Thibault with a camera, which he may have demanded to give up. And again he “didn’t calculate”, obviously there was still alcohol in the blood. I used the camera as sling* he pierced Thibault's head, effectively killing him.

* This is evidenced by the fact that the camera strap was wound around Zolotarev’s hand.

In the conclusion of Dr. Vozrozhdeniy it is said that Thibault’s skull is deformed in a rectangular area measuring 7x9 cm, which approximately corresponds to the size of a camera, and the torn hole in the center of the rectangle is 3x3.5x2 cm. This approximately corresponds to the size of the protruding lens. The camera, according to numerous witnesses, was found on Zolotarev’s corpse. The photo was saved.

After this, of course, everyone present attacked Zolotarev. Someone was holding hands, and Doroshenko, the only one with boots kicked him in the chest and in the ribs. Zolotarev desperately defended himself, hit Slobodin so that his skull cracked, and when Zolotarev was immobilized by collective efforts, he began to fight with his teeth, biting off the tip of Krivonischenko’s nose. This is apparently what they taught in front-line intelligence, where, according to some information, Zolotarev served.

During this fight, Lyudmila Dubinina for some reason she was counted among Zolotarev’s “supporters”. Perhaps at the beginning of the fight she sharply objected to lynching, and when Zolotarev actually killed Thibault, she fell into “disgrace.” But, most likely, the rage of those present turned to Dubinina for this reason. Everyone understood that the beginning of the tragedy, its trigger point, was Zolotarev’s intake of alcohol. The case contains evidence from Yuri Yudin that, in his opinion, one of the main shortcomings in organizing Dyatlov’s campaign was no alcohol, which it was he, Yudin, who failed to obtain in Sverdlovsk, but, as we already know, there was alcohol in the group after all. This means that the alcohol was bought on the road in Vizhay, in Indel, or, most likely, at the last moment before setting out on the route from the lumberjacks in the 41st forest area. Since Yudin did not know about the presence of alcohol, it was obviously kept secret. Dyatlov decided to use alcohol under some emergency circumstances - such as an assault on Mount Otorten, when his strength was running out, or to celebrate the successful completion of a campaign. But the supply manager and accountant Dubinin could not have known about the presence of alcohol in the group, since it was she who allocated public money to Dyatlov to buy alcohol on the road. People or Dyatlov personally decided that she was talking about it spilled the beans Zolotarev, who slept nearby and with whom she willingly communicated (photos have been preserved). In general, Dubinina actually received the same, even more severe injuries than Zolotarev (10 ribs were broken for Dubinina, 5 for Zolotarev). In addition, her “chatty” tongue was torn out.

Considering that the “opponents” were dead, one of the Dyatlovites, fearing responsibility, gouged out their eyes, because There was and still is a belief that the image of the killer remains in the pupil of a person who died a violent death. This version is supported by the fact that Thibault, who was mortally wounded by Zolotarev, had his eyes intact.

Let's not forget that people acted on the verge of life and death, in a state of extreme excitement, when animal instincts completely turn off acquired human qualities. Yuri Doroshenko was found with frozen foam at his mouth, which confirms our version of his extreme degree of excitement, reaching rabies.

It looks very much like Lyudmila Dubinina suffered without guilt. The fact is that with almost 100 percent probability Semyon Zolotarev was an alcoholic, like many of the direct participants in the fighting in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. The fatal role here was played by the “People’s Commissar” 100 grams of vodka, which were issued at the front every day during hostilities. Any narcologist will say that if this continues for more than six months, then dependence of varying severity inevitably arises, depending on the physiology of a particular person. The only way to avoid the disease was to refuse the “People's Commissars”, which, of course, is something that a rare Russian person can do. So it’s unlikely that Semyon Zolotarev was such an exception. An indirect confirmation of this is an episode on the train on the way from Sverdlovsk, described in the diary of one of the participants in the campaign, which is given in the Case. A “young alcoholic” approached the tourists, demanding the return of a bottle of vodka that, in his opinion, had been stolen by one of them. The incident was hushed up, but most likely Dyatlov “figured out” Zolotarev and, when buying alcohol, strictly forbade Lyudmila Dubinina to tell Zolotarev about it. Since Zolotarev nevertheless took possession of Dyatlov’s alcohol, and then everyone else decided that Dubinin’s caretaker was to blame for this, who let it slip, spilled the beans. Most likely this was not the case. Students in their youth did not know that alcoholics develop a supernatural “sixth” sense for alcohol and they successfully and accurately find it in any conditions. Just by intuition. So Dubinina most likely had nothing to do with it.

The described bloody tragedy occurred at about 12 noon on February 2, 1959, next to the ravine where a shelter was being prepared.

This time of 12 noon is defined as follows. As we already wrote, tourists in panic left the tent through the cutouts at about 7 o'clock in the morning on February 2, 1959. The distance to the cedar is 1.5-2 km. Taking into account the “nakedness” and “barefoot” and the difficulties of orientation, the difficulties of orientation in the dark and at dawn, the group reached the cedar in an hour and a half or two. It turns out 8.5-9 o'clock in the morning. It's dawn. Another hour to prepare firewood, cut branches for the observation post, prepare poles for the flooring. It turns out that the fire was lit around 10 o'clock in the morning. According to numerous testimonies from search engines, the fire burned for 1.5-2 hours. It turns out that the fire went out when the group went to sort things out with Zolotarev to the ravine, i.e. at 11.30 – 12 o’clock. So it comes out around 12 noon. After the fight, having lowered the bodies of the dead into the cave (dropping them), a group of 6 people returned to the cedar.

And the fact that the fight took place near the ravine is proven by the fact that, according to the expert opinion of Dr. Vozrozhdeniy, Thibault himself could not move after the blow. They could only carry him. And it was difficult for dying, half-frozen people to carry even 70 meters from the cedar to the ravine. obviously I can't do it.

Those who retained their strength, Dyatlov, Slobodin, and Kolmogorov rushed to the tent, the path to which was now clear. Exhausted from the fight, Doroshenko, the fragile Krivonischenko and Kolevatov remained at the cedar and tried to rekindle the fire near the cedar, which had gone out during the fight in the ravine. So, Doroshenko was found fallen on dry branches, which he apparently carried to the fire. But it seems they were unable to rekindle the fire. After some time, perhaps very short, Doroshenko and Krivonischenko froze to death. Kolevatov lived longer than them, and finding that his comrades were dead, and it was not possible to re-light the fire, he decided to meet his fate in the cave, thinking that one of those who were in it might still be alive. He used a Finn to cut off some of the warm clothing of his dead comrades and carried them to the “hole in the ravine” where the rest were located. He also took off Yuri Doroshenko’s boots, but apparently decided that they were unlikely to be useful and threw them into a ravine. The boots were never found, as were a number of other things of the Dyatlovites, which is reflected in the Case. In the Kolevatov cave, Thibo,

Dubinina and Zolotarev met their death.

Igor Dyatlov, Rustem Slobodin and Zinaida Kolmogorova met their death on the difficult path to the tent, fighting for life to the last. This happened around 13 o'clock in the afternoon on February 2, 1959.

The time of death of the group, according to our version, 12-13 o'clock in the afternoon, coincides with the assessment of the remarkable forensic expert Dr. Vozrozhdenny, according to whom the death of all victims occurred 6-8 hours after the last meal. And this reception was breakfast after a cold night at approximately 6 am. 6-8 hours later gives 12-14 hours of the day, which almost exactly coincides with the time we indicated.

A TRAGIC CONDITION HAS COME.

CONCLUSION .

It is difficult to find right and wrong in this story. Sorry for everyone. The greatest blame, as it was stated in the materials of the Case, lies with the head of the UPI Gordo sports club; it was he who should have checked the psychological stability of the group and only after that given the go-ahead to go out. I feel sorry for the perky Zina Kolmogorova, who loved life so much, the romantic, dreaming of love Luda Dubinin, the handsome foppish Kolya Thibault, the fragile Georgy Krivonischenko with the soul of a musician, the faithful comrade Sasha Kolevatov, the home boy of the mischievous Rustem Slobodin, sharp, strong, with his own concepts of justice, Yuri Doroshenko. I feel sorry for the talented radio engineer, but the naive and narrow-minded person and the useless leader of the campaign, the ambitious Igor Dyatlov. I feel sorry for the honored front-line soldier, intelligence officer Semyon Zolotarev, who did not find the right ways to make the campaign go as he probably wanted, as best as possible.

In principle, we agree with the conclusions of the investigation that “the group was faced with natural forces that they were unable to overcome.” Only we believe that these natural forces were not external, but internal. Some were unable to cope with their ambitions; Zolotarev did not make psychological allowances for the young age of the participants in the campaign and its leader. And of course, Violation of Prohibition played a huge role during the campaign, which apparently officially operated among UPI students.

We believe that the investigation ultimately came to a version close to the one we voiced. This is indicated by the fact that Semyon Zolotarev was buried separately from the main group of Dyatlovites. But the authorities considered it undesirable for political reasons to publicly voice this version in 1959. Thus, according to the memoirs of investigator Ivanov, “In the Urals, there probably won’t be a person who in those days did not talk about this tragedy” (see the book “Dyatlov Pass” p. 247). Therefore, the investigation was limited to an abstract formulation of the reason for the death of the group, given above. Moreover, we believe that the materials of the Case contain indirect confirmation of the version of the presence of a combat grenade or grenades in the possession of one of the participants in the campaign. So in the Acts of Doctor Vozrozhdeniy it is said that multiple fractures of the ribs in Zolotarev and Dubinina could have occurred as a result of the action air shock wave, which is precisely generated by the explosion of a grenade. In addition, the prosecutor-criminologist, Ivanov, who conducted the investigation, as we already wrote about this, spoke about the “underinvestigation” of some piece of hardware found. Most likely we are talking about Zolotarev’s grenade, which could end up anywhere from a tent to a ravine. It is obvious that the people conducting the investigation exchanged information and, perhaps, the “grenade” version reached Doctor Vozrozhdeniy.

We also found direct evidence that already at the beginning of March, that is, in the initial phase of the search, the version of the explosion was considered. So investigator Ivanov writes in his memoirs: “There were no traces of the explosion wave. Maslennikov and I carefully considered this” (see in the book “Dyatlov Pass” the article by L.N. Ivanov “memories from the family archive” p. 255).

This means that there were grounds for searching for traces of the explosion, that is, it is possible that the grenade was found by sappers after all. Since the memoirs are about Maslennikov, this determines the time - the beginning of March, so Maslennikov subsequently left for Sverdlovsk.

This is evidence very significant, especially if we remember that at that time the main one was the “Mansi version”, that is, that the local residents of Mansi were involved in the tragedy. The Mansi version completely collapsed by the end of March 1959.

The fact that by the time the bodies of the last four tourists were discovered in early May, the investigation had come to certain conclusions is evidenced by the complete indifference of Prosecutor Ivanov, who was present when the bodies were dug up. The leader of the last search group, Askinadzi, speaks about this in his memoirs. So, most likely, the grenade was found not near the cave, but somewhere along the stretch from the tent to the cedar in February-March, when a group of sappers with mine detectors was working there. That is, by May, by the time the bodies of the last four dead were discovered, everything was already more or less clear to the prosecutor-criminologist Ivanov, who conducted the investigation.

Obviously, that this tragic incident should serve as a lesson for tourists of all generations.

And for this, the activities of the Dyatlov Foundation should, as we believe, be continued.

ADDITION. ABOUT FIREBALLS.

The monster is loud, mischievous, huge, yawning and barking

It is no coincidence that we cited this epigraph from the wonderful story of the enlightener A.N. Radishchev "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow." This epigraph is about the state. So how “evil” was the Soviet state in 1959 and how did it “bark” at tourists?

That's how. Organized a tourist section at the institute, where everyone studied for free and received a scholarship. Then this “evil one” allocated money in the amount of 1,300 rubles for the trip of his students, gave them free use of the most expensive equipment for the duration of the trip - a tent, skis, boots, windbreakers, sweaters. Helped with planning the trip and developing the route. And even arranged a paid business trip for the leader of the campaign, Igor Dyatlov. The height of cynicism in our opinion. This is how our country, in which we all grew up, barked at tourists.

When it became clear that something unexpected had happened to the students, they immediately organized an expensive and well-organized rescue and search operation involving aviation, military personnel, athletes, other tourists, as well as the local population of Mansi, who showed their best side.

What about the famous BALLS OF FIRE? Which tourists were allegedly so afraid of that they barricaded the entrance to the tent, and then cut it open in order to urgently get out of it?

We also found the answer to this question.

We were greatly helped in finding this answer by images that, using a unique technique, were obtained by processing film from Semyon Zolotarev’s camera, a group of researchers from Yekaterinburg. Recognizing the significant importance of this work, we would like to draw attention to the following easily verifiable and obvious data.

It is enough to simply rotate the resulting images to see that they do not depict mythical"fireballs" and real and quite understandable plots.

So if we rotate 180 degrees one of the images from the book “Dyatlov Pass” and called “Mushroom” by the authors, then we can easily see the dead face of one of the Dyatlovites who was the last to be found, namely Alexander Kolevatov. It was he who, according to eyewitnesses, was found with his tongue hanging out, which can be easily “read” in the photo. From this fact it is obvious that Zolotarev’s film, after the footage he shot during the campaign, filmed by the Askinadzi search group.

Ill. 3. “Mysterious” photo No. 7 *. Kolevatov's face.

This is the “Mushroom” object in Yakimenko’s terminology.

*Photos 6 and 7 are shown in the article by Valentin Yakimenko “Films of the Dyatlovites”: Searches, finds and new mysteries” in the book “Dyatlov Pass” p.424. This is also where the numbering of pictures comes from. This position is further proven by this frame called “Lynx” by the authors.

Let's rotate it 90 degrees clockwise. In the center of the frame, the face of a man from the Askinadzi search group is clearly visible. Here is a photo from his archive.

Ill.4 Asktinadzi group. By this point people already knew where the bodies are located and they made a special dam - the trap "in the photo" - to detain them in the event of a sudden flash flood. Photo from late April – early May 1959.

Ill. 5 “Mysterious” photo No. 6 (Lynx object) according to Yakimenko’s terminology and an enlarged image of the search engine.

We see that, in the center of the frame, from Zolotarev’s film, a man from the Askinadzi group.

We think that it was no coincidence that this man turned out to be in the center frame. Perhaps it was he who played the key, main, central role in the search - figured out where the bodies of the last Dyatlovites were. This is evidenced by the fact that even in the group photo of the search engines he feels like a winner and is positioned above everyone else.

We believe that All other photographs given in Yakimenko’s article are similar, purely earthly origin.

So, thanks to the joint efforts of specialists from Yekaterinburg, primarily Valentin Yakimenko and ours, the mystery of the “fireballs” was resolved by itself.

It simply never existed.

As well as the “fireballs” themselves in the vicinity of Mount Otorten on the night of February 1–2, 1959.

We respectfully present our work to all interested individuals and organizations.

Sergey Goldin, analyst, independent expert.

Yuri Ransmi, research engineer, specialist in image analysis.

On the night of February 1–2, 1959, a tragedy occurred on the slopes of Mount Otorten in the Northern Urals: a group of tourists led by Igor Dyatlov died under mysterious circumstances.

More than 50 years have passed since the death of the group, but the reason why the tourists, among whom were quite experienced people, died, is still unknown. A variety of assumptions have been put forward on this score. We decided to talk about ten secrets related to the death of Dyatlov’s tourist group.

Mysterious names

A group of students from the Ural Polytechnic Institute, led by an experienced leader Igor Dyatlov, went on a hike through the Northern Urals. Why did tourists go to the top of Otorten? Perhaps they were attracted by its mystery, which followed from the stories of hunters, and even by the name itself. According to some assumptions, it means “don’t go there.”

Dyatlov found himself in unfavorable overnight conditions and decided to pitch a tent on the slope of height 1079, so that in the morning of the next day, without losing altitude, he could go to Mount Otorten, which was 10 kilometers away in a straight line.

For the last night, the students settled down at the foot of Mount Kholatchakhl (translated as “mountain of the dead”). According to Vogul legend, the name was given long before the death of Dyatlov’s group because of the Mansi group that died here, which also included nine people.

Suddenly abandoned tent

The location and presence of objects in the tent (almost all shoes, all outerwear, personal belongings and diaries) indicated that the tent was abandoned suddenly and simultaneously by all tourists.

Moreover, as was later established by forensic examination, the leeward side of the tent, where the tourists placed their heads, turned out to be cut from the inside in two places, in areas that ensured the free exit of a person through these cuts.

Below the tent, for up to 500 meters in the snow, traces of people walking from the tent into the valley and into the forest were preserved... Examination of the traces showed that some of them were left by almost bare feet (for example, in one cotton sock), others had a typical display of felt boots , feet shod in a soft sock, etc.

The trails of tracks were located close to one another, converged and diverged again not far from one another. Closer to the forest border, the tracks were covered with snow. No signs of a struggle or the presence of other people were found either in the tent or near it.

Mysterious circumstances of death

1.5 kilometers from the tent, in the river valley, near an old cedar tree, the tourists, after escaping from the tent, lit a fire and here they began to die one by one. One man came out with his shoes off and wearing woolen socks. This trail of bare feet is then traced down into the valley. There was every reason to build a version that it was this man who gave the alarm and he himself no longer had time to put on his shoes. This means that there was some terrible force that scared not only him, but also everyone else. Something forced them to urgently leave the tent and seek refuge below, in the taiga.

On February 26, 1959, below, at the edge of the taiga, the remains of a small fire were discovered and the bodies of tourists Doroshenko and Krivonischenko, stripped to their underwear, were also found here. Then, in the direction of the tent, the body of Igor Dyatlov was discovered, not far from him two more - Slobodin and Kolmogorova. The last three were the strongest and most strong-willed individuals; they crawled from the fire to the tent for clothes - this is quite obvious from their poses.

A subsequent autopsy showed that these three died from hypothermia - they were frozen, although they were better dressed than others. Already in May, near a fire, under a five-meter layer of snow, experts discovered the dead Dubinina, Zolotarev, Thibault-Brignolle and Kolevatov. Upon external examination, there were no injuries on their bodies.

Unexplained injuries

During the autopsies of the corpses, surprising facts were discovered. Dubinina, Thibault-Brignolle and Zolotarev had extensive internal injuries incompatible with life. Lyudmila Dubinina had ten broken ribs, one fragment of a rib penetrated her heart.

Zolotarev had six broken ribs. Such injuries usually occur when a person is subjected to a large directed force, such as a car at high speed. But such damage cannot be caused by falling from your own height. In the vicinity of the mountain there were snow-covered boulders and stones of various configurations, but they were not in the path of tourists, and, naturally, no one threw these stones.

There are also no external bruises. Therefore, there was a directed force that acted selectively on individuals. The nature of the injuries to all members of the Dyatlov group suggests that these injuries were caused by exposure to an extremely powerful air blast wave. Indeed, at the moment of exposure to the force that caused the injury, all members of Dyatlov’s group were in different places, at a fairly considerable distance from each other.

Unusual skin color of the dead

On open areas of the skin of the face, neck and hands of people from the Dyatlov group, a “sunburn-tan” formed, which puzzled many researchers.

This effect can be explained if we assume that the tragedy is associated with the fall of a meteorite. According to the theory of electric discharge explosion of Alexander Nevsky, at the moment of formation of a pillar of an electric discharge explosion, powerful ultraviolet, infrared, X-ray and neutron radiation appears.

The tent of Dyatlov’s group turned out to be very close to the epicenter of the explosion, as a result of which people were exposed to a stronger impact of the electric discharge explosion, as evidenced by burns to the face, neck and hands, as well as severe injuries possibly received from exposure to the blast wave.

Methane explosion

According to another version, the cause of the tragedy could have been a methane explosion. Methane is formed during biological processes in swamps (anaerobic fermentation). Since processes in the depths of the swamp stop much later than on the surface, it is likely that methane accumulates under a layer of ice or dense snow.

The fire destroyed the cap covering the air-methane mixture and provoked an explosion of this mixture. You can simulate this effect by throwing a two-thirds or three-quarters spent lighter into a fire, and then imagine a much larger explosion. This version also explains the scorched branches.

Yuri Yudin, the only survivor, hugs goodbye to Lyudmila Dubinina. Behind is Igor Dyatlov, on the right is Nikolai Thibault-Brignolle. January 28, 1959, village of the 2nd Northern mine.

Extinguished fire

Researchers are wondering why the fire went out. Most likely, it went out not from a lack of fuel, but from the fact that the people who were at the fire did not see what to do, or were blinded. A few meters from the fire there was a dry tree, and under it there was dead wood that had not been used. If you have a fire, not using ready-made fuel is more than strange. The stored fuel remained intact.

Investigators noted the presence of burn marks on single trees. In order for the trunks to receive thermal burns, the temperature on their surface had to be about 500 degrees. The temperature of the electric discharge explosion column is at least 1500-2000 degrees. Some of the members of Dyatlov's group could have received light burns to their eyes from the bright flash of the explosion. Thus, the extinguished fire rather confirms the version of the electric discharge explosion, which led to the extinction of the fire and to the burns of the trees.

Secret tests

It is also interesting that former prosecutor Evgeny Okishev talks about a case when one of the military observed some flashes in the area where the tragedy occurred.

According to the former prosecutor, the regional prosecutor's office turned to the Prosecutor General's Office with a request to establish whether any tests were carried out at the place where the tourists died. After this, the Deputy Prosecutor General arrived at the scene and took the case. He instructed the regional prosecutor's office to explain the tragedy of the Dyatlov group as an accident.

According to some observers, a senior official in the prosecutor's office knew something that local prosecutors did not. He may have known about secret military tests being conducted in the area.

The group sets up a tent on the Kholatchakhl slope. Among the photographs released, this is considered one of the last, taken on February 1, 1959. According to investigators, it was done around five o'clock in the afternoon.

Northern lights

Some researchers believe that the deaths of tourists could be caused by the northern lights. It is known that when the aurora appears, some people go into a strange state. They completely detach themselves from the world around them, talk excitedly with an invisible interlocutor, and sway to the beat of imaginary music. They often move like sleepwalkers, leaving home for the tundra.

After this, people vaguely remember that they heard sounds of fabulous beauty and obeyed the North Star, calling them to their true habitat - the ancient land of their ancestors. The phenomenon was called “the call of the ancestors.” Scientists attribute this effect to low-frequency electromagnetic waves produced by the aurora.

In addition, such a natural phenomenon as the aurora is accompanied by infrasound. It is indistinguishable by ear, but biologically active. Under its influence, people experience incomprehensible fear and even horror, in panic they begin to behave in a completely unreasonable manner and ultimately abandon the ship. Perhaps something similar happened to tourists in the Northern Urals in 1959.

Unusual celestial phenomenon

On February 18, 1959, a note entitled “An Unusual Celestial Phenomenon” appeared in the Tagilsky Rabochiy newspaper. It told about a luminous ball that appeared in the area where Dyatlov’s group died: “At 6:55 a.m. local time yesterday, a luminous ball the size of the visible diameter of the moon appeared in the east-southeast at an altitude of 20 degrees from the horizon.

The ball moved in the east-northeast direction. The highest altitude above the horizon - 30 degrees - was reached at approximately 7:05 am. Continuing to move, this unusual celestial phenomenon weakened and blurred. Thinking that it was somehow connected with the satellite, they turned on the receiver, but there was no signal reception.”

Forty years after the closure of the case about the Dyatlov group, former prosecutor Ivanov gave his “testimony” to journalists: “In May 1959, we examined the area around the scene of the incident and discovered that some young fir trees on the border of the forest seemed to be burned - these traces were not concentric or there was no other form, there was no epicenter. This was also confirmed by the direction of the beam or strong, but completely unknown, at least to us, energy, acting selectively: the snow was not melted, the trees were not damaged.”

This information led many to believe that the expedition could have died due to the intervention of unusual natural phenomena (for example, ball lightning) or even aliens.

Why does this matter haunt me?
The main thing is that after reading thousands of articles and watching videos, I understand that all researchers are starting an investigation based on someone’s invented version of the development of events at the Dyatlov Pass.

I am confused by the cliches that seem to be embedded in the minds of researchers.

Stamp “Tourists cut the tent from the inside when something scared them.”
The tent could be cut by someone who wanted the tent to become lighter. Any person could have cut it, after the tourists had died.
Can you imagine a situation where a truck loaded with cognac suddenly crashes near your house? Anyone brave will want to take a bottle for themselves. And here is the same situation. Tourists died "near Mansi's house." It will be three weeks before the tent is officially located. During this time, “both a beetle and a toad” could have visited the scene of the tragedy.
Not all people are afraid of the dead. There could be different chains of traces there, why are these traces of tourists? Why do they think that the tracks appeared at the same time?

Stamp "The tourists have nothing missing." Judging by the way the investigation was conducted, no one really knew what things the tourists had. Yudin identified things, identification
was carried out negligently. I think food and shoes were stolen, and then to convince people that nothing was stolen, food had to be delivered and the stolen shoes had to be tracked down.

Stamp "Tourists frozen in dynamic poses." Where do you see dynamic poses? Lying on your back? Lying on your side? One hugging the other? Tourists froze in more than strange positions. Someone moved two people under the cedar - Krivonischenko and Doroshenko - after they died. I note that the bodies were moved before they became numb. The body of Lyuda Dubinina could not move from the bodies of the other tourists with whom she was found, thanks to the flow of water from the stream. The bodies of Kolevatov, Zolotarev, Thibault lay directly in the stream, in the flow of water, and did not move anywhere because 4 meters of compacted snow lay on top. The body of Lyuda Dubinina lay in accordance with the terrain on which it was located. This could only happen if Luda died in this particular position or if someone moved the body when it was not yet frozen. This is such a strange thing. The bodies were not numb, but were carried, turned over, and undressed. By the way, only Kolevatov and Zolotarev have a normal pose for those who are freezing (one warms the other with his body) and this would be normal if they had not been found in the stream. One researcher writes that tourists deliberately lay down in the stream to bask in the water, supposedly the water is warmer than the surrounding air. Sometimes I want to take researchers outside, to get away from computers and closer to reality.

The stamp “We walked from the tent to the cedar tree in socks, and then made a flooring and lit a fire.” In general, it is unrealistic to walk in the snow in socks. My legs immediately begin to hurt so much that I want to get on all fours just to avoid stepping on my frozen feet. It is impossible to walk in the snow without shoes! IMPOSSIBLE! Moreover, it takes a long time to walk, make a fire, carry wounded comrades, make flooring, and try to return to the tent. My feet immediately freeze and hurt so much that it is IMPOSSIBLE to step on them! Go and walk in the snow, check it out! At the site of the Dyatlov Pass, I would organize a 1.5 km race in socks for researchers, and I would give the Order of Dyatlov and the Mountains of the Dead to those who return to the tent!

And a bunch of other stamps: “No one escaped from the camps” (well, no one), “Not a single shot was fired,” “The tent was set up according to all the rules” (only Yudin could say whether it was set up according to all the rules), “At the site of the tragedy there were no more people" (and who then left a flashlight on the slope of the tent after the tent was covered with snow, who left a trace of urine near the tent, where did the extra skis come from)?
From article to article, researchers repeat these cliches like parrots.

It all happened on the night of February 2.
How is this proven? A photo of where the tent is being set up? Last diary entry? Nothing has proven this. Since the case began on February 6, the accident could have occurred from the night of February 2 to the evening of February 5. And this is three whole days! During this time it was possible to fly to Moscow and return. They keep telling us about February 2nd. Why and who needs it? It is beneficial for someone for three days to disappear, for the group’s route to disappear during these days. So that a large number of search engines slow down at the Dyatlov Pass and do not go further. The photo of the tent being set up is extremely strange. The slope is completely different, there is much more snow, it is impossible to identify the people in the picture, and the tourists had nothing with which to dig such a large hole; they did not have a single shovel.
They write that they dug the snow with skis. Do you remember those wooden skis, they could break, because the crust where the tent was set up was hard.

The storage shed is also a big oddity, both the place and the way it is installed. Only a complete fool could bury food in the snow and walk away from it for two days. In the snow, any animal will smell and dig up food supplies that are valuable for the winter. And Mansi hunters could find a storehouse and take precious products. The storage shed was made in a place where they did not intend to return; the storage shed was made not before the ascent, but far from Mount Otorten, where they were going to climb. I am especially pleased with the 4kg boiled sausage found in the store. Who needs to take boiled sausage on a hike? And if they did, they would eat it first.

The main thing is that the last four tourists were found with severe lifelong injuries.
Three - Zolotarev, Kolevatov, Thibault - were found in the stream. These three lay there as they died. And they should have been found on the flooring. They couldn’t spend the effort to make a flooring and die in a stream in the snow. This means that someone came after their death (if tourists made the flooring), on the sixth or seventh of February, removed the frozen bodies from the flooring, when they were not yet covered with snow, and put these bodies in the stream. And who could it be, if, according to the assurances of many researchers, there was no one at the pass except a group of tourists? Then LUDA Dubinina did it (Because Zolotarev took off her jacket and hat, deprived her of the last warm things)! Because only she is found in a dynamic pose! She killed them all, put the last ones in a stream and died of grief, praying on a stone. And then a mouse came and bit off her tongue. The mouse, comrades, is the reason for everything that happened! It's like a fairytale.

For those who think that tourists dug a den in the snow, not knowing that a stream flows under the den, there is one argument. We need to answer the question: what did tourists use to dig a den for four people if the skis were left under the tent? It is very important to look on the Internet how such dens are made (they are made for one person).

From the beginning of the opening of the case on February 6 until the discovery of the first corpses and the re-opening of the case on February 26, 20 days of investigative actions will pass about which we know nothing. During this time, the shoes will disappear from the corpses and will be transferred to the tent, the corpses will be carried, shifted, pockets turned out, clothes will be mixed up. An incomprehensible warehouse will appear, the products in which will be covered with cardboard, which no one in the group carried or took with them.

Who knew, but could not reveal to us - fools - the whole truth? And this is Lev Ivanov, the investigator on the case. Why did he write the article?
HE wrote the article and put the answer in plain sight! These are the words from the article.
“When we landed in the taiga and then climbed Mount OTORTEN on skis, we literally at the very top found and dug up a tourists’ tent covered with snow.” (From the article “The Mystery of Fireballs” by Lev Ivanov, an investigator in the case of the death of the group).
What do you think, Ivanov mistakenly named one mountain after another? Kholatchakhl confused with Otorten? Automatically, as they say now about Tempalov’s note, he automatically replaced the name because he was thinking about one mountain and named another?
Let me note that “literally at the very top,” literally! Was the tent found on the top of Mount Kholatchakhl? At least? No, on the slope.

The actions and responses of the modern prosecutor's office are simply ridiculous! Nothing has changed in the minds of the prosecutor’s office from “King Pea” to the present day. They say that prosecutor Tempalov made a mistake with the date in the memo. And the criminal case was also started by mistake on a different date (February 6, not 25-26, when the tent was found). And in this case, there are radiograms that contradict the general course of the search for the bodies of tourists.
This case is a matter of blunders and inconsistencies, or perhaps very thoughtful work.
The interesting thing is that the photo films were developed by the tourists themselves. When I read about this for the first time, I was very surprised. I myself have been involved in photography and I know that if the development is unsuccessful, the film can be ruined and exposed. The film was placed in a tank and the solution was poured in complete darkness. Leave such important documents to chance. "What negligence"! - I thought then.

Let's say everything went as usual. The tourists lost their minds and set up a tent 1.5 km from their storage facility on the mountainside during a hurricane wind. Then they left the tent and all went down the slope, where they died from freezing.
Someone, unknown, made a statement to the police that he saw an abandoned tent and several corpses of tourists. According to the statement, the investigator had to check the information and make sure that all the tourists died or come to the aid of those who survived. The police detachment went to the indicated place where they were convinced of the reliability of the information and had to carry out initial investigative measures - an inspection of the scene of the incident. This squad finds a tent and the corpses of tourists. This is absolutely incredible! Stormy weather continues and strong winds are blowing. The corpses of tourists are far from the tent. This detachment finds corpses, which they then search for and cannot find, groups of search teams, for some reason drags the corpses of Krivonischenko and Doroshenko, and covers them with a blanket, shifts the corpses of the last four into the stream and removes the shoes from the corpses of Dyatlov, Kolmogorova, Slobodin, then folds the shoes into the tent, cuts the ramp near the tent. And only then, when the relatives of the victims begin to “sound the alarm”, they forget about the place where they found the corpses and the tent, and search again, making a false storage facility. There are so many incredible actions in the ordinary death of tourists from hurricanes and frost.

1.1. One trace of urine. “When investigating cases, there are no minor details: investigators have a motto: attention to detail! Near the tent, a natural trace was found that one man was leaving it for minor needs. He came out barefoot, wearing only woolen socks (“for a minute”). This trail of bare feet is then traced down into the valley." (From Lev Ivanov’s article “The Mystery of Fireballs”).
Many will remain silent about this, as if they themselves have never seen a toilet. It is not customary to talk about this. And we'll talk. If you've been on a long winter hike with backpacks and a tent, then you don't need to explain how difficult it is to relieve yourself if there are two sexes on the hike, when girls go to the left and boys to the right. During a hike, when you need to pee, take off your backpack, skis, find a bush to hide behind, take off several layers of clothing and expose your butt to 20-degree frost, it is impossible to relieve yourself during the hike itself, it can be done only during halt and parking. It’s even more difficult when you want “big”, but there are no bushes and trees. Very soon tourists stop being shy during the hike. This happens in groups of athletes, when, for example, there is one locker room and boys and girls have to change clothes at the same time.
In short, we arrived at the parking lot and immediately decided where the toilet was. They trampled the snow and here you have nine traces of urine and nine “heaps”. And only then did we climb into the tent and begin to prepare for bed. But to think that you can leave the tent one at a time (climbing over others), or one peed and no one else wanted to, is stupid.
What follows from the fact that only one trace of urine was found? There was only one person in the tent.
I can't reconcile this conclusion with the whole story. Let’s say Kolmogorov remained in the tent, and everyone, immediately after setting up the tent, went towards the forest to look for bushes to relieve themselves.
Or, the fact that the tourists did not put up a tent in this place, but someone else installed it there.

1.2. Skis under the tent.
I recommend everyone to go on a winter hiking trip and try to put skis (9 pairs) under the tent. Very soon you will understand that the skis are hard and there is no heat from them, and they will also occupy an area equal to half of Dyatlov’s long tent. What about the other half? Skiing under a tent is kind of a mess. Skis are vital equipment. Without them it is impossible to move through the snow. Skis must be taken care of and always in combat readiness. For example, someone is going to go get firewood, and their skis are lying under the tent.
Conclusion? The tent was put up on skis by someone who doesn’t know how to take care of them during a hike, when the only way to move around is on skis.
Wooden skis could break if you stepped on them unsuccessfully, especially the bent nose of the ski could break. I know this because I often skied on these same skis as a child.

1.3. Cold overnight.
A cold overnight stay is an overnight stay in a tent at sub-zero air temperatures (outside). It’s very good if you can heat the tent with a stove on a cold night. A wood-burning stove is just like hemorrhoids. If the stove is heated, it gets very hot. There is always the possibility of fire. In order to light the stove, a person on duty is needed. He must monitor the stove, add firewood, make sure that no coal falls out, and that the stove does not smoke. This is a complex process. As is the installation of the stove, so is the process of melting and heating. It is impossible to light a stove with raw wood. There should always be a supply of dry firewood. It takes a lot of wood to burn wood all night. They must be dry, otherwise the oven will smoke. It is impossible to sleep in a smoky tent. After setting up the tent, you need to immediately put on the stove, remove the pipe, heat it, and then climb into the tent.
It is interesting that the tent was erected during the last night, but the stove was not assembled for heating. Or maybe the one who set up the tent didn’t know how to install the stove correctly?
Can a person spend the night in a canvas tent at minus twenty without a stove? I think that this must be a northern seasoned person. Special conditions are needed to survive here. For example, spend only one night in such conditions.
So the question is, where to get dry firewood? You can get them from local people, or you can find sushnina (dry standing tree) in the forest. Cut down a tree, cut it into logs, then split them with an ax into logs.
I think only in the most extreme case will a tourist set up a tent at a distance of one and a half kilometers from the nearest dry tree.

Now we are going camping with a gas stove and gas canisters. Even such a stove and cylinders have weight, but this weight is incomparably lighter than a stove with wood. The gas furnace is practically safe and does not require an attendant to keep an eye on it.

1.4. Excess weight.
A winter hiking trip, when you need to cover 300 km, even without luggage, along a beaten track and a flat road, is difficult. Don't believe me? Walk at least 100 km and let a car follow you, which will save you if something happens. And then there’s a hike with climbing peaks and spending the night in a tent. And now you need not only to move, but also to carry luggage. How much can a woman carry? We find the norm - 7 kg. If you start counting how much luggage weight each tourist had on a hike, you get large numbers (30 kg). Only food items were found in the warehouse weighing 55 kg. Add to them the weight of the tent, stove, ice ax, saws, and other equipment, add three liters of alcohol, felt boots, and firewood for the stove. Add to this figure the weight of things after Yudin left and you will understand that this is a lot, almost an prohibitive amount, especially for women. Researchers often write that women on a hike were sad for some unknown reason. Here's the reason - too much luggage. It’s not for nothing that the Dyatlovites are helped by locals and a horse-drawn cart.

1.5. Why did Yudin leave?
And he realized that he would not be able to carry the things that were loaded onto him for 300 km. He was the wisest in this whole story. As soon as the horse turned back, he turned back too. I look at Yudin’s smiling face in the last farewell photo and cannot believe that the man is very sick and left the race, citing illness. I watched an interview with Yudin and it was clear how carefully he thinks through his answers, how he avoids answering questions, how he is disingenuous in some places, how his eyes dart and how restlessly he behaves. It might not mean anything, or maybe he knew something that he couldn't tell people.

1.6. Discipline.
Reading the diaries, I was amazed at how lame discipline was in Dyatlov’s group. They got up late, took a long time to get ready, did stupid things, got into trouble. Responsibilities were not distributed. Suffice it to mention that during one of the overnight stays, the padded jacket burned down, and the torn tent was repaired during the hike. With such discipline in the conditions of a campaign of the third group of complexity, they would have died without any missiles, UFOs, evil military men, prisoners, Mansi and other people.

1.7. From the new.
It turned out that on February 2 all the tourists in the group were alive, a guide with a horse was found who brought their luggage, and this fact was reported to the public! This fact suggests that the Dyatlovites most likely climbed Otorten. And it was necessary to look for artifacts on Mount Otorten and not on the Dyatlov Pass.
Researchers found witness Salter P.I., who said that there were 11 bodies, that they were brought from the pass almost simultaneously, they were very dirty. Just think, where did they find dirt when there is snow all around? Did you fall into the mud in winter? Found a bunker, and there's dirt in there? Where is it wet and dirty in winter?
And the very latest news is that another person is buried in Zolotarev’s grave (which I doubt, such an important study was carried out too superficially and carelessly).

Researchers often give examples of seemingly similar cases of death of tourists, for example the death of Korovina’s group in the Khamar-Daban mountains. I think that the case of the death of the Dyatlov group is distinguished by one significant detail. When the Dyatlovites went down to the cedar, they were able to light a fire. I believe that a fire is a very important condition for survival. In this case, someone could die, but not the whole group. Korovina’s group was younger, with less experience (children).

I think we will find out exactly how the tourists died. The resonance is very great. A large number of people took up the search. Everything does not disappear and somewhere there is a document with the answer to all our questions. Nowadays private people have a lot of different machinery and equipment. Many tourists and researchers follow in the footsteps of the Dyatlov group.

Old.

This version arose as a result of many years of studying documents available on the Internet about the death of Igor Dyatlov’s group, thanks to tourist experience and spending the night in a tent at sub-zero air temperatures (from -5 to -15 degrees).
The case of the death of tourists in the area of ​​Mount Otorten began on February 6, 1959, how could this happen if the tent was found only on February 26? Very simple. Someone found the dead tourists and made a statement to the investigator. Who could it be? It could probably be a hunter or one of the tourists, the one who survived.
It was not the bird on its tail that brought the news.
- I know that the bodies of dead tourists lie on Mount Otorten. - The man said.
- So you killed them. - The investigator answered. (A typical situation for Russia).
What if four tourists went out to people, reported the death of their comrades, and died as a result of the work of a zealous investigator? Such cases are not rare in Russia.
Kill, as a result of investigative pressure, and then fall on supernatural forces. Do you remember the very good and revealing film “Cold Summer of ’53”? This was the time when tens of thousands of criminals were released from camps, and the main characters Kopalych and Luzga were serving their sentences - one as an “English spy”, and the second for being surrounded and only being in captivity for one day.
The interrogation of the head of the communications unit of the Vizhay forest department, V.A. Popov, began on February 6, 1959: “The witness testified: in the second half of January 1959, in the village of Vizhay, I saw two groups of tourists who were heading to the Ural ridge region.” There is a memo from the prosecutor of the city of Ivdel I.V. Tempalova dated February 15 “... due to the death of tourists, I have been summoned and am leaving for Sverdlovsk for 2-3 days”...

And they found the dead tourists in the area of ​​Mount Otorten, and not in some other place, this is also clear from the name of the case. Then the usual investigation begins, during which it turns out that the tourists died strangely and the damage to the bodies does not confirm freezing. They decide to keep the deaths of tourists secret and drag out the matter. Ivdel prosecutor Vasily Tempalov and investigator Vladimir Korotaev hid information about the death of the group.
And they delayed it in every possible way until May 26, 1959. This is how the case begins, which is being investigated until 2019 and so far there is no end in sight. First, the map of the group’s route was confiscated and it had to be restored (thanks to Rimma Kolevatova). It’s stupid to think that Dyatlov did not provide the group’s route to the UPI sports club.

Where would you go to look for the missing tourists of the Dyatlov group? Of course, to Otorten - this was the main peak that tourists were going to conquer. How long could traces of the group's presence remain there? Yes, not at all. There, no traces at all could have been preserved until February 26 (crust, wind and snowstorms hid all traces). There could only be a bookmark left by the Dyatlovites.
To remove traces of the group’s presence on Mount Otorten, it was necessary to remove the bookmark. One can only assume that there was a bookmark and it was “Evening Otorten” - a combat leaflet written on February 1, 1959. Otherwise, why call it that way for a message written on a piece of notebook paper, the original or a copy of which for some reason has not survived?

I note that to this day few people are looking for artifacts on Mount Otorten, because it is said clearly and definitely - a tent and corpses of tourists were found in the area of ​​the Dyatlov Pass (modern name). The tent was found by Slobtsov and Sharavin, they immediately realized that this was the tent of Dyatlov’s group and that the tourists left it in panic and ran down the slope. It was dark and the tourists left the tent, making cuts in the slope of the tent. They ran away, leaving warm clothes and shoes in the tent; they were so scared that they lost their minds. Where do such conclusions come from?
It is because of this cliche that many absurd versions were born.

We look at the map and see that you can go to Mount Otorten in several ways. One is to walk along the Lozva, from there turn onto the Auspiya tributary and walk through the mountains, the other is to walk along the Auspiya to Mount Kholatchakhl, cross the (Dyatlova) pass to the 4th tributary of the Lozva and walk along the Lozva tributary to Lake Lunthusaptur. Another interesting thing is that from the second Northern one you can go along Lozva straight to Otorten without turning onto Auspiya. Why do you need to walk along rivers (near rivers)? Because there is water and wood for the stove and there is less wind, and it is warmer. The river is the road. And from Anyamov’s testimony it turns out that in February they saw traces of the group in the upper reaches of the Lozva River.
But the path along Lozva was not easy. It froze badly and it was possible to fall through.

Some Dyatlov experts believe that the Dyatlovites slipped past the turn to Auspiya and walked another two km along Lozva, then returned and walked along Auspiya (made a detour).
In Dyatlov’s diary for January 31, it is written that on that day they made an attempt to climb Mount Kholatchakhl (We are moving away from Auspiya, a gentle climb began, we went beyond the border of the forest, the wind speed was similar to the air speed when lifting an airplane, we were very tired, we went down to Auspiya and stopped at overnight). At the same time (most likely) the Dyatlovites realized that it was impossible to walk along the top of the mountains and then they had to make the only right decision - to return to Lozva and walk along it, as the local residents advised. Instead of trying to cross the pass and look for the Lozva tributary on the other side in the deep snow, or, although it blows away, go through the mountains.

And, most likely, they returned to Lozva on February 1, and on February 2, their belongings were dropped off by a local resident and everyone was still alive. And then there is an explanation for the ski tracks of tourists in Lozva.
However, both the traces in the upper reaches of Lozva and the guide’s story may relate not to Dyatlov’s group, but to the second group of tourists.
They write that I.D. Rempel persuaded Dyatlov not to walk along this route, Gennady Patrushev persuaded him not to walk along the ridge and called him “hard-headed” because Dyatlov did not change the chosen route, and also, judging by the diary entry, Ognev persuaded them not to walk. I think he told the tourists various horror stories about the place where they were going to go, maybe that’s why the girls were in a bad mood. It was not for nothing that they were dissuaded from going along this route. Severe cold and hurricane winds in the mountains and the poorly frozen Lozva River.
Let's try to get back to that time for a minute. Auspia ended and the gentle ascent to the slope of Mount Kholatchakhl began. The slope is pure ice, the wind knocks you off your feet. The tourists were unable to get up and went down to Auspiya. During the day, as Dyatlov writes in his diary, they developed a new method of walking (two steps forward, one step back). In the evening we were very tired.
Now imagine the state of mind of tourists at this moment. It turned out that the ascent was impossible and it was impossible to go this route. That the second option - to cross the pass and follow the Lozva tributary - is also almost impossible. This tributary is a ditch, and the snow is 2 meters deep and the crust does not hold there. Dyatlov wrote that they walked 1-2 km in an hour. It also became clear that the weight of the luggage exceeded the capabilities of people. And also, at the top of the mountains it turned out that the group was poorly dressed for the frost and wind, and the tent was torn and blown in the wind. (From the general diary: “We agreed and went to the 41st site by car. We left only at 13-10, and in the 41st we were around 16-30. We were freezing cold, we were driving a GAZ-63 at the top.” We were still frozen when we were driving to car. There is no heavy wind or frost in the mountains yet).
Judging by the diary entries, the moral situation in the group was tense.
I think that the reason for this was the appearance of Zolotarev in the group. He was an adult, confident man, a camp instructor, was sociable, and knew a lot of new songs. Of course, two girls Dubinin and Kolmogorov paid attention to him. Naturally, the young men from Dyatlov’s group were jealous when Zina Kolmogorova was interested in someone. Igor Dyatlov liked Zina, Zina had not yet finally decided on her choice and was open to any new impressions (judging by the entries from her diary). Where tourists went there were few women and any free woman was an object of men's fascination and desire. And Zina was so pretty, so cheerful and sociable that everyone who saw her fell in love with her.
Imagine how Dyatlov felt when it turned out that he had chosen and insisted on a route that turned out to be impassable. And next to him was Zolotarev, who most likely realized faster than Dyatlov that the route was not passable and told him about it. Imagine how ashamed Dyatlov was at that moment in front of Zina, whom he loved, and how low he fell in her eyes as an experienced hike leader, how ashamed it was to return home to his comrades without completing the route. “Officially” the campaign of the Dyatlov group was timed to coincide with the 21st Congress of the CPSU. The Dyatlovites could not refuse to continue the hike even when they realized that the route was not passable. What will they say to their fellow Komsomol members and communists? How will the parties look in the face?
Imagine how Zolotarev felt when he went with Dyatlov only because he wanted to spend fewer days on the hike. And they were already delayed, trying to climb the ridge and lost a day, then they lost another day setting up a storage shed. I think that Zolotarev should have been very dissatisfied with Igor Dyatlov because he did not go along Lozva (along the river) to Otorten.
This was the moment of highest moral tension in the group. It was necessary to make a decision to return and walk along Lozva, or maybe not to walk at all.
This option could not suit Dyatlov. Then his authority was completely annulled.
Perhaps he insisted on walking along the ridge of the mountains, although he most likely realized that he was mistaken.
At this moment, any incident can become a mechanism that starts a chain of ridiculous deaths.
If everything was not staged and the tent really stood where it was found, then the wind was so strong that it tore and tore the old slope and it cracked. The tent immediately became unbearably cold. Someone (Tibault or Slobodin) came out to fasten the canvas of the tent slope, fell down the slope, hit his head on a stone and died almost immediately. The girls started getting hysterical. Tourists, who until then could barely contain their dissatisfaction with Dyatlov, began to shout at him that he was to blame for everything. Dyatlov jumped out of the tent and walked away (very soon his heart stopped). One of the tourists went to look for Dyatlov and froze.
Tent marks are often mentioned. You know, from my house to the bus stop there is a short road, in winter there are tracks in the snow. Just by looking at these traces, no one will think that people jumped out of the house at the same time for an unknown reason.
I read about other groups. The severe moral state of people, severe frost, hurricane squally wind, which intensified the frost and the body’s perception of frost, the absence of one leader, a torn tent, all this is quite a sufficient reason to die at such a distance from people and help.
Why did the case become so loud?
I think that some other circumstances came into play.
I think that if Zolotarev had not gone with them, Dyatlov might have admitted his mistake, returned to Lozva and successfully completed the route.
In other cases of the death of tourists, when this became known, no one was in a hurry to immediately go to the site of the tragedy, collect the bodies, and find out the reasons for the death of the group. In the case of Korovina’s group, the bodies lay there for a month. Shoes also disappeared and bodies were chewed by wild animals.
And they took off their shoes, expensive shoes. There were cases of missing shoes when other groups died. They removed it and then returned it because the case became very loud. The eyes and tongue were eaten by small rodents, which became more active by May. There is no mysticism if you think sensibly.
I think that Dyatlov did not change his mind about going to Otorten along the top of the mountains, which is why he decided to set up a storehouse at such a distance from Otorten. Otherwise, this storehouse cannot be explained at all. From Otorten, Dyatlov wanted to go along the other slope of the mountains and did not intend to return to the upper reaches of the Auspiya.
Someone else probably felt unwell. I think Luda. Everyone forgets that women have their periods and then: they have a headache, they can’t lift heavy things, and they generally feel bad. I can’t imagine how women felt among men on such days. There is no place to wash, no sanitary pads.
When I understand that tourists could simply quarrel (without any drinking), then other versions pale in comparison to this fact.
Read the diary entries! Where do you see a similar group? Entries from diaries from the Internet:
“Then the discussion resumes again and again, and all our discussions that were during this time were mainly about love.” (Kolya Thibault).
The initiator of these discussions is Zina Kolmogorova. They write that love passions were unknown to tourists of that time and they went on a hike without distinguishing between genders, like comrades. And they slept in the same tent, not feeling passion; they, they write, did not even know what sex was.
“It’s especially difficult to walk today. The trail is not visible, we often lose track of it or go groping our way. Thus we walk 1.5 - 2 km. at one o'clock.
We are developing new methods of more productive walking. The first one drops his backpack and walks for 5 minutes, after which he returns, rests for 10-15 minutes, and then catches up with the rest of the group. This is how the non-stop method of laying ski tracks was born. This is especially difficult for the second one, who walks along the track groomed by the first one, with a backpack. .. Tired, exhausted, they set about arranging for the night. There is not enough firewood. Frail, raw spruce." (Dyatlov).
Raw spruce does not burn in the stove, which means there is no firewood, there is nothing to warm the tent, and there is no way to dry clothes. Everyone is tired and exhausted. The day was wasted.
“Does he really think I’m some kind of fool? And in general, I like to add fuel to the fire, damn me... They saw off the Blinovites with tears. The mood is spoiled... The mood is bad and it will probably be for another two days. Evil as hell." (Luda) It is believed that Lyuda was in love with one of the Blinov Group (Zhenya?).
“As always, I’ve found some fellow countryman again... Will we go somehow? Music has had a terrible effect on me lately, guitar, mandolin, etc. Last night the boys made stupid jokes. In my opinion, you don’t need to pay attention to them, maybe they will be less rude. And so far nothing. It’s time to go out, but they’re still digging and digging. I don’t understand how it can take so long to get ready. The first 30 minutes have passed. Of course, the backpack is okay, it’s heavy. But you can go... The first day is always difficult. Sashka Kolevatov tested his device and quit. After lunch we made just one trek and stopped for a break. I was sewing up a tent. We went to bed. Igor was rude all evening, I just didn’t recognize him. I had to sleep on the wood next to the stove"… (Zina)
The girl is supposed to go out on the route, but she sleeps on the firewood, Igor, who is supposed to make sure that she gets enough sleep, is rude to her.
And Kolmogorova found a fellow countryman again. Any man dreams of being Zina’s fellow countryman and makes the entire group of tourists jealous; everyone likes Zina.
Kolevatov tried to carry weights on a sled, but the sled fell through, got stuck in the snow, and Kolevatov abandoned it. They take a long time to get ready, walk slowly, and sew up the tent.
“Lyuda quickly finished her work and sat down by the fire. Kolya Thibault changed his clothes. I started writing a diary. The law is this: until all the work is finished, do not approach the fire. And so they argued for a long time about who should sew up the tent. Finally, K. Thibault could not stand it and took the needle. Luda remained sitting. And we sewed holes (and there were so many of them that there was enough work for everyone, with the exception of two people on duty and Lyuda. The guys were terribly indignant).
Today is Sasha Kolevatov's birthday. Congratulations, we give him a tangerine, which he immediately divides into 8 parts (Luda went into the tent and did not come out again until the end of dinner)." (Unknown).
From what was written, it is clear that Dubinina was very offended by everyone, sat in the tent all evening, and did not get a tangerine. Or maybe she felt bad. This is before a hike of the third difficulty group, when you need to mobilize all the forces of the body.
Why do they always sew up holes in the tent? So - bad clothes. Dubinina forgot her sweater and her sweatshirt was accidentally burned. There are holes in the tent. In the combat leaflet "Evening Otorten" there is a note about one blanket that cannot be used to warm 9 tourists. It’s strange why there is only one blanket left and it is clear that it is very cold in the tent.
Once again, for a moment, let’s try to look into the Dyatlov group’s tent. It's -20 outside, hurricane winds, snow, blizzard. It is impossible to hang the stove (a strange design of the stove, suitable only for calm weather), there is no firewood, it is impossible to light a fire. The tent at this moment should “shake”, “sway” in the wind. It must be terribly cold inside the tent. On such a cold night it is difficult to withstand, survive, and not lose strength for the further journey.
Is it possible at this moment to undress for sleep, take off felt boots and sweatshirts and fall asleep sweetly?
Yes, this is delirium in delirium that the Dyatlovites set up a tent and undressed for the night, took off their shoes! They began to write a combat leaflet and cut the loin! After setting up a tent in such a squally wind, their clothes would become frosty, they would be very cold, and it would be impossible to stay warm in the tent. It was as cold there as outside, only there was less wind.
If at such a moment a rocket fell on the Dyatlovites, a yeti appeared, or the prisoners came to the light, then this is not just a blow of fate - it is a double blow. And so everything turned out very fatally, and then there was a rocket, like the killer’s final chord - a shot in the head. Finish it off - for sure.
I think that the decision to go to Otorten along the ridge of the mountains was made reluctantly, but by a majority vote. Otherwise, they would have split up before the storage shed was built.
It’s interesting that there are supporters of this version, but no one wants to hear this version. Because the intrigue disappears and a poorly planned tourist trip with gross miscalculations appears. The ideal tourist group disappears, and ordinary tourists (a bit slobs) appear with a not very experienced leader.
You see, there were enough circumstances to die. It is precisely in this combination of circumstances that one can see some kind of otherworldly intervention in the destinies of people. It was this case that became the most mysterious story and over time, interest in the case only grows.

I am re-reading the case materials for the thousandth time. Everyone writes that the group is ideal, the tourists are experienced, and the place where the group died is not dangerous - the slope is gentle, you can hold on in any wind, no avalanches were recorded during the period of the group’s accident.

So, they could have reached Otorten and died on the way back, when they were going to the storehouse. What does it change? This changes people's morale. From losers who failed the route, they turn into winners. It was difficult and there were some problems with discipline, love passions, clashes of characters, ailments, poor equipment not suitable for extreme cold and wind, but they were able to pass exactly as Igor Dyatlov planned - along the ridge, and to all the people who They tried to stop them, they proved that tourists are strength.

My old versions.
I. Don't go there.
1. They searched for the missing group thoroughly, extensively and for a long time.
I think we need to start getting acquainted with the case of the Dyatlov group by organizing a search operation. Four groups of students were assembled for the search and were transferred to Ivdel. They were joined by the military - "a group of captain A. A. Chernyshev and a group of operational workers with dogs under the command of senior lieutenant Moiseev, cadets of the sergeant school under the command of senior lieutenant Potapov and a group of sappers with mine detectors under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Shestopalov. The Mansi search engines were helped by the Kurikov family" .
And now, I'll tell you a secret. At that time and at a later time, both tourists and groups of tourists died. And no one was looking for them! Moreover, no one has searched on such a large scale and for such a long time. Just think about how much equipment was used for search operations, how much money was invested in the search.
Question: why were they looking for these particular tourists? They searched and found, although the search continued from February to May? Do you naively think that they would be searched for with airplanes, helicopters, and the military, if there was just an avalanche, a UFO flew by, or a yeti passed by? The case was related to the possible declassification of state secrets, which is why the search operation took so long and carefully.

My friends’ daughter went on hikes of moderate difficulty. The group did not return from one trip. The parents went to look for their daughter. They were told that several avalanches occurred along the route at that time. If the tourists don’t come out, then the parents will be given a certificate that their daughter is missing and that’s it. No one went to look for tourists (they didn’t fly on planes, they didn’t attract search dogs and sappers with mine detectors).
How long can you sit at home and talk about the fact that a person goes to bed warming a flask of coffee with his temple? Go on a hike and you will soon realize that survival on a hike is up to you. And if you die, then your body will remain where you died and no one cares about you! Go on at least one hike, and only then start drawing conclusions.

Following is the original story. As I research the case, many things change in my thoughts, but for now I left it.
2. How they told me about the Dyatlov group.
In the five-story building in which I lived as a child, five Jewish families lived. At that time, I knew nothing about the fact that they were Jews and no special attitude towards this fact was formed in my mind. I learned that my Jewish friend was at the time when I was studying at the institute. We were friends because we lived in the same house, went to the same class and the same school. She was an unusually smart girl. And life in these families was different from life and way of life in Russian families. I was very interested and curious about everything that I heard from my friend, now I think that all the topics that my friend conveyed to me were simply discussed in this family over evening tea.
I was born in 1967. Around the age of ten, I heard from a friend about nine tourists who died in the mountains. The main information that I heard then was that a group of young people died from incredible fright. This is what a friend told me: “All night someone scary walked around the tent in which the young people were sitting. They heard footsteps and saw light breaking through the tent flap. In horror, the tourists cut the tent and jumped out of it. And after some time, all the tourists were found dead in different places near the tent. Their faces were distorted with fear, their bodies were frozen, they lay in unnatural positions, and the skin on their faces was orange.”
My friend's story shook me to the core. I was an impressionable girl whose family traveled a lot and spent the night in an ordinary four-person canvas tent. In my family, no such events were ever discussed. My parents were atheists. The life of my family was prosaic and all relationships within the family were purely everyday. I had to wash floors and dishes, carefully prepare homework, in the summer weed grass in a potato field and take care of animals. There was no question of any dead tourists in my family.
It becomes clear why I still remember this story, told to me by a friend in childhood.

3. You can understand what happened only by knowing and understanding that time.
Now, when many versions have appeared, when many people have carefully studied the material about the cause of the death of the group, and the main thing is that these materials have become publicly available, it makes it possible to consider this story both from the point of view of known facts and from the point of view of their everyday experience, with a look a person who lived in that Soviet post-war era.
I am sure that modern youth, no matter how hard they try, will not be able to fully understand the whole history, will not be able to appreciate everything, getting used to the course of events and trying them on for themselves, because the youth now are completely different, they have different values ​​and completely different outlook on life.
Looking at the photographs taken by Dyatlov’s group on this hike, I see and feel more of the lively, cheerful faces of tourists. I also had a FED camera; many children were involved in photography back then. And I have a lot of black and white photographs with different groups of people in them. This happened in many families. So at that time they tried to capture many events of their lives. Sometimes I go through these photographs and look at them. Many of the people captured in these photographs are no longer alive. What can you do, such is life. The only thing that pulsates in the mind is that these people from Dyatlov’s group were still very young, now from the height of their age, I would say – just children. But again, I’ll make an allowance for the fact that the time was completely different. And at 24 years old, a young man, boy or girl, was already an adult, a fully formed individual. Now these are children. And then, they were already adults. People with inner qualities, which are so few in modern youth. These were young people with deep love for their Motherland, with patriotism, with clear political views and convictions. They were characterized by heroism and self-sacrifice to save other people. They were united by a feeling of friendship, strong and indestructible. Nowadays it is so difficult for young people to understand. There are no feelings for the Motherland, no patriotism. Heroism to save others has become extremely rare. The friendship disappeared completely. There is no friendship now in the concept in which it was then.
And we were atheists. And they didn’t believe in other worlds and phenomena at all. And such phenomena happened extremely rarely. To a greater extent, these were horror stories, similar to fairy tales, than real facts. There were wolves, bears and wild boars in the forests, and there were plenty of stories about them, and they often approached houses in villages, and they were much more terrible than flying balls.
My grandparents (Kingdom of Heaven to them) talked a lot about the war and we children lived as if this war had not spared us. We played war and clearly knew how to defend the border of our Motherland and that the enemies do not sleep and we need to always be on the alert. These stories instilled in us a certain suspicion towards possible enemies of the Motherland and communism. The young people from Dyatlov’s group were much closer in time to the war. All these feelings were heightened in them. They knew for sure who was a friend and who was an enemy. These were very weighty concepts, absorbed with the war that took place in the country, with a clear political ideology in the country. Now they will begin to convince you that young people tend to rebel and go against the policies of the entire country. Yes, there were few such rebels then. “The party said: we must! The Komsomol answered: yes! And this political slogan is not a joke or a hoax, but a clear guide to action, absorbed into the blood with mother’s milk from early childhood.
It is absolutely impossible to understand this whole story without taking into account these facts. People have changed a lot, their worldview has changed.

4. The best detective story.
I looked through a lot of information, what I found about the Dyatlov group, those documents that are known to the entire Internet community, reconstructions of the death of the group, as well as comments on them. Now I can’t tell you the best author and the best version. My opinion on this matter changes as I delve deeper into the information on the case.

5. What evil force was chasing the Dyatlov group?
It is very easy and simple to explain everything by the fact that, as they say: “A brick fell on your head.” Or it can be explained differently, say, by a coincidence. But the brick, you see, falls precisely on the person’s head, creating one single connection. A brick fell on his head and the man died. All and no human walks after this event are envisaged. Fell - died. One connection.
In many explanations of the situation with the death of the Dyatlov group, it turns out to be some kind of multi-step approach. The brick fell, and fell, fell, fell, and always landed squarely on his head. But the falling of a brick is just a random coincidence. Even a shell does not fall into the same crater twice, so they say. And then the blast wave hit, hit and finished off the entire group. Well, how can one believe in such versions?
So the story with the dead group suggests that although something terrible happened, people put up worthy resistance, showed that, although they were scared, they did not give in to the circumstances, but took quite sufficient actions to survive in the situation that had arisen. They didn’t get completely confused, didn’t scatter in different directions, didn’t freeze individually, but grouped together and began to survive: they broke branches, built a flooring, insulated themselves with the clothes they could get, and lit a fire. They had a knife, matches and firewood. All you had to do was wait out the dark and go to your storehouse, where there were food and things and spare skis. And, after all, if you think about it deeply, then they had chances for survival, not for the whole group, but for some. They absolutely had to survive in that situation. But this would be the case if the matter concerned otherworldly forces, or individual natural phenomena. It is only in horror films that an evil force chases the heroes until they finish everyone off. In life, a case is isolated, that’s why it’s a case. And everything else is already a pattern and cannot be attributed to the horror stories about the Mountain of the Dead, the warnings of the Mansi: “Don’t go there,” and the mysterious number 9. All this is just a warning that going there is dangerous, that people have already died there when something people. Dangerous does not mean necessarily fatal. After all, just like pilgrims, tourists now go there and, laughing at Mansi’s warning, go in a group of 9 people.
Then, the Mansi have holy places there. They had to invent all sorts of horror stories so that tourists would not come and spoil their way of life and their well-established life with their clumsy actions. If faith in shrines had been as deep among the people of that time as the feeling of patriotism, then no one would have died. Why do they tell us: “Don’t go there”! Are we stubbornly climbing? Where it's dangerous. They warned that it was dangerous, why go? Why casually brush aside the traditions and beliefs of other peoples, other cultures and other views on life, believing that your views and beliefs are the only correct and true ones: “And we are knee-deep in the sea. But we don’t believe and we don’t believe, but we will go anyway. We want to pull death’s whiskers!”
Everything is clear in the case when a group of tourists is buried in an avalanche. This is comparable to falling bricks. Action and result. And that’s it, no further debugging occurs. I am writing this for those who offer versions akin to a fallen brick and then suppress all other facts. And the people from Dyatlov’s group still walked, and lived, and acted. All the same, they would freeze, so they explain what importance is where, and in what order.
What kind of EVIL POWER do you have? So he’s chasing after the Dyatlovites. And this never happens in the nature of things.

7. Why did the tourists leave the tent?
Here we would have competed in inventing horror stories, if there had been no chains of traces left indicating that the Dyatlovites did not run away from fear in different directions, but came out as a group in full force or one less, we will say that it was quite full force. We left the tent, going out into the cold, leaving warm clothes in the tent.
For example, ball lightning appeared, a UFO, a rocket flew by. Why cut the ramp if ball lightning quickly reaches the ramp? Or did the snow cover the entrance so much that the tent had to be cut open?
I dismiss the avalanche versions and the possibility that a snow slab slid onto the tent, because if the injuries to Dubinina, Zolotarev, Thibault-Brignolle were received at the beginning of the incident, then who fought for their lives if the rest were without shoes?
For example, an animal came, jumped on the tent, and fell on it. The tourists began to hit it with an ice ax and cut the ramp, the animal ran away. They got out through the cut. The animal returned, wounded and angry (left no traces, no blood on the tent or around).
Fear forced them to cut the tent, but they did not run, but walked away from the tent, leaving there the most necessary things for survival (shoes, warm clothes, food).
Such actions can only be explained by general insanity, but subsequently the work necessary for survival was done, logical actions were taken.
But the cuts on the tent, this fact in itself, can be placed as a point on a straight line, literally anywhere. The fact itself does not mean that it happened exactly at the moment in time in which we want to see it. The cuts could have appeared during the event that forced the Dyatlovites to leave the tent, as well as after it.
I found that the searchers who discovered the tent shoveled the snow and cut the slope with an ice ax in two places; they even said that a piece of the tent came off.

8. When did tourists receive injuries incompatible with life?
The second conclusion relates to the final injuries with which the tourists were found. This fact, it seems, can also be placed at any point during the entire duration of the events, while the last of the Dyatlovites remained alive. But here it is quite obvious that with such injuries no one will walk one and a half kilometers in the snow, no one will fight hard for their lives: walk, collect brushwood and branches, climb a cedar tree for branches for flooring, make a fire. Having such injuries, a person needs help and needs someone who will fight for him and make selfless efforts to save him.
And this is a very big job, considering that the group of Dyatlovites, at a time when they had to fight not only for their lives, but also for someone else’s, even for the life of their best friend, found themselves at that moment half-naked in bad weather and severe frost. So, the amount of work that would go to those who did not receive serious injuries incompatible with life exceeded the capabilities of these people. They would have to carry the wounded, take care of them, and not about themselves. Dubinina, Zolotarev, and Thibault-Brignolles had injuries incompatible with life and, meanwhile, turned out to be better dressed than anyone else and were for some time in the best living conditions. They had a flooring of branches in a ravine, protected from the wind. Even if they were dragged, laid out, dressed, dying, moaning, on the verge between life and death. This is easy to write, but you carry the wounded on yourself with only socks on your feet! Place Zolotarev on your back and make efforts to save yourself and him. And yet you dragged him to the cedar, and then what? Some more time will pass until a place for the flooring is found, until this place is prepared, branches are broken and trained, and laid on the flooring. Where were the wounded all this time? Did they lie side by side in the snow and wait until everything settled down and they were seated on the flooring? But they show no signs of frostbite.
Versions that Zolotarev, Dubinina and Thibault-Brignolles were injured at the very beginning of the unfolding tragedy seem devoid of any meaning to anyone who has dealt with snow, frost and understands what a person can and cannot do while being in the snow wearing only socks.
Please note that Doroshenko, Krivonischenko, Kolmogorova and Dyatlov, who, as it were, bore the brunt of working in the snow under the cedar tree, were found wearing socks and only Slobodin had one felt boot, and Zolotarev and Thibault, who in the course of such versions should They only had shoes to save them, Zolotarev was in burkas, and Thibault was in felt boots.

9. Zolotarev Sasha - why do we single him out?
And Zolotarev in this story is a very extraordinary person. “Semyon (Alexander) Alekseevich Zolotarev, born in 1921, was one of the conscripts of 1921-22. He went through almost the entire war, was a battalion Komsomol organizer, and after the war he joined the party. He had 4 military awards, after the war he worked as a tourism instructor at the Artybash tourist center (Altai), then moved to the Sverdlovsk region, where he got a job at the Kourovskaya tourist center as a senior tourism instructor.”
War does not leave a random person alive. Only a person who is very adapted to life, who has an animal instinct and global intuition, who has intelligence and common sense, who can soberly assess the situation and find the only correct way out, who knows how to use the human resources around him, will survive. This is not just a lucky person who “is afraid of a bullet and does not take a bayonet”, this is a person who knows how to survive in any situation, having the main goal - survival, and not unjustified heroism inspired by time.
And if you ask me who was sure to survive, I will answer that it was Zolotarev. To survive, he had to be prepared for any difficult situation that happens on campaigns. In the tent, he undoubtedly had to occupy the best place in order to leave it faster in case of danger. Zolotarev, of course, had to be the best dressed. And he had to take the most reliable measures for his salvation and the salvation of the people with whom he found himself in the group. In general, being next to Zolotarev at the time of a tragic situation meant surviving or holding out as long as possible. Being capable of survival, Zolotarev also saved others to the best of his ability.
And if you tell me that, contrary to the laws of nature, in a difficult situation that takes a long time to overcome, some lucky Vasya will survive, and Zolotarev will die because he was simply unlucky, then I will never believe it. Zolotarev was not just the oldest of the guys. He was much wiser and more experienced, went through military school from the very beginning and received a reward for being unsinkable - his own life. And if he did not die immediately and was not initially significantly injured, then it was he who should have rallied around himself a group of tourists who would ultimately survive. And that’s exactly what most likely happened. It was these four people who lasted the longest, they were the ones who were better dressed than others and had shelter to hold out until daylight and go to the storehouse where there were things and food. Zolotarev and Thibault also had no signs of frostbite, and this was another plus for further survival. In general, they had no reason to die at all, and they had to continue to fight the natural phenomenon and overcome it. And I cannot attribute everything here to the fact that Zolotarev could succumb to emotions, a sense of guilt for his dead comrades; it was Zolotarev who should not have been prone to sentimentality and disgust about the clothes taken from his dead friends. They're dead anyway and don't need clothes. But we need it alive. What kind of sentimentality is there? It was Zolotarev, like no one else, who was ready for death, he saw death, he got used to death as much as possible, he did not experience the emotions about death that anyone who has not dealt so closely with death experiences.
Now, if you were in that situation, it would take time, say, a week of a very difficult existence, to part with some of your moral principles. For example, would you dare to go to dead bodies at night to take off their clothes?
Doroshenko and Krivonischenko were found under a cedar tree almost naked, in shirts and underpants. They could not have been undressed by accident or undressed themselves; parts of their clothes were found not far from the cedar or on the flooring in different places.
It is also obvious that at the moment of making a decision about what to do and how to proceed next, the group of tourists split up: two tourists, led by Dyatlov, went towards the tent (walked away from the tent), two remained at the cedar, and three remained with Zolotarev at flooring
If the situation is complex, then there should be only one leader and decisions should be made by one person, like a captain on a ship.
What could be done in a situation where most of the group is standing in the snow wearing only socks? The most important thing is to keep your feet warm! First, insulate your feet, and then everything else: dragging, chopping, lighting. What is the fastest way to insulate everyone’s feet? You can only make a flooring of branches, laying these branches for the flooring in a windless place.
It is not surprising that Dubinina ended up with Zolotarev, a girl who proved her ability to endure and wait when she was shot in the leg on another hike. WITH
Kolevatov turned out to be this group - efficient and pedantic. All the men in this group were older than the rest of the tourists in age.
And the fact that Krivonischenko and Zolotarev were buried separately from the entire group, in another cemetery, side by side in closed coffins, also remains a fact that is not entirely clear: one was found with the first group of dead tourists, the second with the second group. For the first one, the parents asked, they wanted him to be buried at the Ivanovo cemetery, and why was Zolotarev separated from the second group of bodies found?
To give the whole story a modern twist, I want to believe that Zolotarev did not die then. That another person was buried instead of him. After all, he was identified twice, confused with Doroshenko. And then they buried him in a closed coffin. I want to believe that Zolotarev completed the task that he was entrusted with. That he, as befits such a person, could not die so easily and surrender even to a superior enemy.

10. Other people.
It is obvious to me that there were other people involved in this tragedy. Because a footprint was found from a boot that did not belong to members of the group, a scabbard and a piece of overcoat cloth and a soldier’s winding. Yes, these strangers had to be there only because Zolotarev, Dubinina, Kolevatov, Thibault-Brignolles had to survive, had to overcome the elements. Why was there a need to hide the flooring if the threat could not come down to them and cause them harm?
Only other people could and did finish off, something that any natural phenomenon will never do to you. The story about when the evil force returned, not from the anomalous (parallel) world, it concerns only the relationships between people.
Surely these strangers had weapons with which they could threaten. Most likely this weapon was not a firearm. Because it is impossible to hold a group of nine people if you never use your firearms. Those you are holding will very quickly realize that not a single shot was fired at them and will simply stop being afraid.
But I can’t really imagine a very large group of other people in those conditions, because the traces of their presence would have been more numerous. And this is someone else’s ski track, and the Mansi hunters would probably have known about the presence of some other people in the territory where the tragedy took place.
But this, of course, is already speculation. I think it is impossible to clean the place without leaving traces. Didn't these people appear out of thin air? They had to pass through the villages, had to be noticed by the local population, before they got to this place. If they arrived by helicopter, then there should have been a trace of the helicopter landing.
They also could not hide the flooring, but simply choose a windward place. After all, there was nothing to dig a den in the snow with, there was no shovel. They write that they even dug a place for a tent with skis. (When traveling in winter, we always took a shovel, or even two. We need to clear the area of ​​snow, level the area, clear the snow around the tent; if it snows all night, then the person on duty must monitor and clear the snow near the entrance, sweep the snow from the tent. This is a lot of work. If there is only one shovel, then one person digs, and the rest freeze in the cold).
From the point of view of the appearance of strangers, everything is clear. They drove the Dyatlovites out into the cold almost naked, drove them away from the tent and decided to wait until they froze. Then they saw that the tourists were not frozen, but even lit a fire and, perhaps, warmed up and were ready for a retaliatory attack, they went to look for them, found those who did not die from freezing, killed them, then covered their tracks and left.
For example, prisoners who escaped from a colony. There are correctional labor colonies around the scene of the incident. They reject this version because presumably no one escaped from the colony at that time, and they don’t, they say, in the winter. There is nothing to eat in the forest, it’s cold, you can find it by following the tracks.
An interesting version of the group’s meeting with poachers.
I don't think it was a planned murder. Perhaps Dyatlov's group met another group of people who could not have been there at that moment. And the Dyatlovites not only suspected them, but also openly expressed their doubts. True, I’m not smart enough to put forward versions of a more complex plan. Involving criminals, the KGB, and spy groups in their reasoning. I don’t really believe that there could have been a planned delivery, because the creators of this version themselves understand how difficult it was for two groups not to diverge in time and such a complex space, in the event that part of the group is not dedicated to the whole story and is not understands why wait time. This would be a very complex operation, completely uncontrollable, where any miscalculation would lead to a fatal result.

11. Consequence.
The investigation was conducted as it always is in our country - under pressure from above, and this makes it seem: careless, chaotic, stupid, strange.
The first version of the investigation was an attack on a group of tourists by Mansi hunters. After all, it was their interests that were affected, their shrines were disturbed. The Mansi had a very good reason to scare the tourists and drive them away from the sacred territory. But the Mansi had no reason to destroy and finish off a group of tourists. And it was the Mansi, from whom nothing escapes in their forest, who saw someone else’s ski track. It’s very strange that they were released; it was so convenient to blame the whole tragedy on them.
In the version about the death of a group of tourists at the hands of people, many see that the tent was not robbed, food, alcohol, valuables and many other things were not lost. (Some notebooks, diaries, photographic films were missing, six out of ten were missing, no one knew exactly how many things there were and what kind of things they were, the belonging of the things was determined approximately).
No firearms, if any, were fired at any of the group members. But this only proves that these strangers did not need the valuables and alcohol found in the tent. The tragedy most likely occurred by accident.
Of course, investigator Ivanov was forced to present everything as he was ordered. And also the case could not disappear completely, dissolve into oblivion; the fathers of Slobodin and Dubinina could demand an objective investigation into the deaths of the children. Especially Dubinina’s father, because her body was found in a very terrible state. Looking at his daughter’s body, the father could not help but understand that she was not just frozen. He could not be satisfied with this result of the investigation.
It is obvious here that the investigation had a directive to present everything as an accident, and whoever ordered this was aware of the events that happened at the pass or what reasons could have led to such tragic consequences. I think that the investigation would not have hidden the meeting between the Dyatlov group and the spy group if it all came down to this. Why hide the fact that tourists showed vigilance during those difficult post-war times for the country? It was necessary and necessary to hide in the event that one’s own people destroyed their own. After all, this fact would be impossible to clearly explain to the people. It was necessary to hide if our people were engaged in some secret developments or tests in this deserted place, which no one needed to know about.

12. Orange skin of the dead.
There was still a very big resonance among the people. There were many search engines who probably shared information, Yudin survived, who was also not satisfied with the progress of the investigation, and there were a large number of people at the funeral. For whom the color of the skin of the dead was a fact that stirred the imagination. So much so that many years later, I learned from a friend that the skin color of the dead tourists’ faces was orange! Many people unsuccessfully try to explain this orange skin color and often simply brush it aside (the name of the color may be the perception of each individual person, from here one thing is clear that the skin color of tourists was not common for a frozen deceased person, I think among the people present at the funeral there were people who had seen frozen dead people before this incident, had experience, and to them, like many others, the skin color was strange, this color defied logic and experience). And the first thing that might come to mind is radiation or chemical poisoning. And a radiation test was carried out. Otherwise, why would they hold it? No one checks frozen bodies for the presence of radiation. And radiation was found on the clothes of the victims.

13. Strange act.
Krivonischenko’s action at the station also seems strange. Entry from the diary of Lyudmila Dubinina: “January 24. (...) One small incident occurred - Yurka K. was taken to the police, accusing him of deception. Our Yura decided to walk around the station with his hat, and performing some kind of song. Yurka I had to help out (....)". A strange incident, because this trick jeopardized the entire campaign, or the participation of Krivonischenko himself in it. Nowadays it is more common for young people to fool around, knowing that this will not entail any consequences. At that time, they fooled around with caution, and illegal songs were sung and lyrics were rewritten, but everything was in the strictest confidence, and not at the station, not in front of strangers. Self-discipline and self-control were more developed. And then there was such unjustified tomfoolery - he held out his hat and asked for alms. I sang a song at the station, where there was a patrol and singing was prohibited. All this can only be understood if Krivonischenko, under some pretext, needed to get to the police station, so that the group would not suspect anything. A merry fellow would certainly be taken on a hike, but a fool would not. This is an insignificant fact, which, in general, does not prove anything, but is very strange in light of the fact that the entire group of tourists died.

14. Where did the language go?
Another fact that disturbs the minds of people researching the death of the Dyatlovites is the absence of eyeballs from Zolotarev and Dubinina and the absence of a tongue from Dubinina. This is the most explainable phenomenon. And I wonder why anyone thinks people did that. They killed and then mocked the bodies. For what? Or were they interrogated by squeezing out eyeballs? For what? And what was there to question? The entire group was already dead by this time. But if a person’s tongue is pulled out or his eyeballs are squeezed out, then he will definitely never tell anything. I think that in this case everything is more prosaic. After death, Dubinina’s mouth was open, and her face was turned to the side where animals or birds could reach, which always eat out the eyes and tongue first. The bodies of Dubinina and Zolotarev were not found longer than others and were subject to greater decomposition and greater change. If they had lain there for another month, not a trace would have remained of them.

II. Logical chains.

1. Let's return to Zolotarev.
I'll start with the personality of Sasha Zolotarev. From the forensic examination report: “On the back of the right hand at the base of the thumb there is a tattoo “Gena.” On the back of the right forearm in the middle third there is a tattoo with the image of a beetroot and the letter C, on the back of the left forearm there are tattoos with the image of “G + S”, “DAERMMUAZUAYA”, a five-pointed star and the letter C, the letters “G + S + P = D” and “ 1921." You can find many forums and websites where people try to unravel the meaning of these tattoos. Basically, all the reasoning boils down to the fact that the body that was buried was not the body of Semyon Zolotarev, that, most likely, it was Gena (Gennady), a prisoner from the colony, of which there were many in the place where the tragedy occurred. "DAERMMUAZUAYA" - words that were filled in with a new tattoo in order to hide the meaning of the old one. For example, it is difficult to fill in the letter M with a new letter, but the letter G may well turn out to be the letter E, you just need to add two lower sticks to it; from the letter L you can make the letter A by adding a crossbar. There are no real witnesses to that story and it is impossible to know for sure whether the body was identified and whether Zolotarev’s mother really came to the funeral.
But there was another story known to me, which I know for certain, when a mother did not identify the body of her dead son. It is impossible to find out in a situation where the body and, especially the face, have undergone significant changes. You can only reliably identify things if you have information about things. But many parents, unless their children live with them full-time, have little knowledge about their child's belongings. It is possible to identify teeth and crowns if such information is available, but many parents do not know this for sure. But Zolotarev lived separately for a long time and, as you know, visited his mother only occasionally. DNA testing would help in this case; only this could clarify and finally confirm whether Zolotarev, with whose identity there are so many questions, inconsistencies and inconsistencies, was really found and buried. Let's look at the monument erected in memory of a group of tourists at the Mikhailovskoye Cemetery (Ekaterinburg) and find that A. I. Zolatarev is buried, we find, for example, a party card, and there Semyon Alekseevich Zolotarev, we find other documents where Semyon Alekseevich Zolotarev is listed and We also read the plaque on the personal monument at the Ivanovo cemetery. We also learn that Zolotarev asked to be called Alexander.
Here's the version. Eight people were immediately found, all except Zolotarev. Let's just say he went missing. But this cannot be revealed to the public. Endless questions and suspicions will arise. In this case, it is much easier to stage it, hide the bodies, disfigure faces beyond recognition, delay the investigation, and wait until everyone gets tired of waiting for the outcome. The first bodies of tourists were buried in front of a large crowd of people, but Zolotarev was only 12 people. He was buried in a closed zinc coffin in another cemetery.

2. Versions of the division of power and conflict over the right to women.
Let’s assume that the incident that led to the death of the tourists was a very ordinary one: they didn’t divide the power, they didn’t divide the girls.
Looking at the photographs of the Dyatlov group’s campaign, I see that in some photographs Zolotarev is talking with Kolmogorova, it is noticeable that he is paying attention to the beautiful girl. Zina Kolmogorova has complex relationships with the men in the group. Igor Dyatlov likes her, and they find a photo of Zina in his possession. Here are lines from Zina Kolmogorova’s diary: “After lunch, we made just one trek and stopped for a rest. I sewed up the tent. We went to bed. Igor was rude all evening, I just didn’t recognize him. I had to sleep on the wood by the stove.” There are many other entries from the girl’s diary that directly indicate that there were no ideal relationships in the group of young tourists. What does the phrase say that Igor was rude?
And the fact that there was no sex between them does not affect the relationship at all. Rather, it intensifies passions even more.
Before the trip, Zina had a relationship with Yura Doroshenko, you can find information that they were going to get married, but something went wrong between them, in a letter to a friend, on the train, the girl writes: “He walks hand in hand with some of the girls I'm jealous." "We are together and not together." Here a whole tangle of love, an explosion of passions, immediately arises.
How can one discard all these facts when talking about UFOs, rocket launches, control deliveries? The relationships of tourists on a hike can ruin any ideal situation.
Both women could become a detonator, a trigger mechanism, and provoke the situation and consequences with any of their inappropriate actions.
Will you say that these were disciplined, marching women who did not know the passions of rebellion and inappropriate behavior?
Reading the wall newspaper that the tourists allegedly made on the day of their death, one cannot help but notice that there are hints of love affairs in the group. “Let's welcome the XXI Congress with an increase in the number of tourists!”
I also noticed how different the worldview and understanding of events in the brain are between men and women. Men will notice the note about sleighs and Bigfoot and ignore the tourist birth rate recorded in the first paragraph.
A quarrel over girls could happen either within the group or with someone whom the group might meet on a hike, any group of men (In such remote places there are always fewer women and they can always become a cause of interest and a cause of disputes between men).
There was also a possible conflict of leaders in the group. Researchers write that only the leaders went on this campaign. But Dyatlov was not an ideal group leader. In a difficult situation, no single decision was made; it is clear that the group was divided.
It can definitely be said about a group, about three tourists, and possibly Luda Dubinina, who were found nearby, with a certain interaction with each other (lying next to each other, one hugging the other).
All the other tourists did not form a group, split up, and found them in different places. Krivonischenko and Doroshenko did not die in the positions in which their bodies were found under the cedar tree (the body is elongated, the arm is thrown behind the head). They (or one of them) could be found and brought under a cedar tree, undressed and left to lie there.
3. Before or after climbing Otorten?
I also often think that the tragedy occurred after climbing Mount Otorten; there are several clues about this. So the newspaper is called “Evening Otorten”, why call a wall newspaper that if the job has not been done yet? Why was there only one log when the ascent was ahead? Why did you park so quickly when the storage shed is only 2 km away? Did you walk away a little and immediately get up? Or maybe we didn’t get there a little on the way back? And the last photo, where they put up a tent on the mountainside and the place where it was found, the researchers notice that the slopes are different, in the photo the slope is greater. Although, you could be wrong here. I often take photographs while hiking. Photographs of the slopes do not convey the steepness of the slope. The tent in the photo was photographed from different points: from the bottom and from the top. The steepness of a slope always appears less in a photograph.

4. Anomalous versions.
I’ll be honest, I don’t consider anomalous versions of events. On two overnight stays, Sergei and I saw a UFO in the sky, but so what? The UFO was flying high in the sky and did not touch us. Not a terrible thing.
I was afraid of wild animals, and Sergei was afraid of people. Very often he chose places to spend the night that were remote from people and habitation.
Many times we found ourselves at the cemetery in the late evening, after nine o'clock in the evening, and once we spent the night near the cemetery. Nothing abnormal happened even once!

5. From the experience of winter overnight stays.
I'll tell you a little about winter overnight stays. I was very surprised by the fact that experienced tourists do not share their experiences of their overnight stays. So, we spent the night at minus 20 degrees in a three-person nylon tent with a double layer of the thinnest material. Such two-layer tents undoubtedly retain heat better, provide excellent protection from the wind, and get little wet. We had a small Pathfinder gas stove. On the last night the snow was 30 cm high. The operation of the gas stove immediately makes the tent warm; after 15 minutes you can sit in the tent in just shorts, it’s so warm there. On our last night we slept without the gas stove on. We warmed things up and turned them off. We didn't experiment with cold and survival, it was just warm. At night, if they wanted to pee, they went out wearing rubber boots, but they barely dressed, they were lazy, even though it was cold outside. Only one night Sergei jumped out of the tent naked, without shoes. On that cold autumn night, it seemed to him that mermaids were swimming in the lake next to which we set up our camp.
Looking at the photographs where the Dyatlovites are standing in thin hats, with open windbreakers, without scarves, it is hard to believe that the temperature is minus 20 degrees. At minus 20 degrees, frost freezes on parts of clothing close to the face from walking. Frost freezes from breathing when walking. The hat, the collar near the face, everything becomes white and needle-like.
True, on hikes there were often times when the weather changed rapidly, and the wind in open areas was so strong that it knocked you off your feet and made it impossible to walk, just crawl on all fours.
Also, Sergei noticed that such traces as those found near the tent could only form if the snow was wet. Only in this case the snow is compressed and then, after melting, the tracks appear like columns. In such an open place where the Dyatlovites’ tent stood, there was a very strong wind, and wind causes much more inconvenience than frost. For people who found themselves without clothes, it was important to quickly find shelter from the wind. At the same time, being in the snow without shoes meant quickly dying. I find versions that one tourist was blown away by the wind when he went out to pee, and others rushed to help, and they were also blown away by the wind. It may well be, but why cut the tent?
One day we swam in a spring at minus 20 degrees. On that trip I wore nylon tights and thin socks. It was not cold to swim in the cold. It was cold to stand on the frozen floor and pull on nylon tights. While I was trying to quickly put on my shoes, I almost froze my feet. I dressed poorly, one sock got stuck inside the shoe. She cried from the cold. What saved me was that we came to the monastery; it was warm there. I took off my shoes and for about half an hour tried to warm my feet and howled in pain when my feet began to gradually move away. While I was putting on tights, I stood completely naked, in the cold, after swimming and my body was not frozen at all, only my legs were frozen. Since then, I am sure that being left without shoes is certain death, and if you had to stay in the cold without shoes, you need to take off your clothes and insulate your feet.
Secondly, you need to walk or collect firewood while a person is moving, even with little clothing, but with insulated legs, he has less chance of freezing. Third, you need to look for shelter as soon as possible.
The conclusion is simple. Any person who has a little experience of surviving in cold conditions will not walk in the snow wearing only socks; he will very quickly begin to redistribute his clothes, tear off the sleeves from the jacket (cut with a knife) and wrap his legs. If experienced people did not do this, it means they did not go down to the cedar, did not drag the bodies of their injured comrades there, did not collect brushwood for the fire, which means they died on the way down from the tent, and not while climbing up to it.
The fire near the cedar could well have been a signal (if the tourists did not go to the tent, but got lost on the way from it and was intended to gather everyone in one place), but most likely it was intended for heating. It’s very logical to go down and make a signal fire, but how can you find a tent after walking away from the fire into the darkness of the night if you’ve moved a distance of one and a half kilometers? This is completely impossible, that’s what I know for sure, unless the same signal fire is burning near the tent (They write that there was a large signal lantern on the tent, that’s why it was visible).
There were times when, during winter fishing, we went one and a half to two kilometers into the lake on ice, and then we had to return to the car to get something. The car was always clearly visible from the fishing spot and it seemed that it would be easy to go back and find our fishermen. But on the shore it turned out that it was very difficult to find the way back. All the fishermen looked the same from afar. Everyone was sitting on boxes, wearing chemical protective raincoats. From a distance they all looked the same. The trajectory of the path was quickly forgotten, it was impossible to find the way back unless one of his friends gave a noticeable signal from the shore (Usually stood up and waved his arms, when the bottom was clear and visibility was good).
Even during the day, I don’t believe that it was easy to find a tent if it was easy to walk from the cedar. At night, it was completely unreal. Therefore, Kolmogorova, Dyatlov and Slobodin were most likely the first to die when they descended from the tent. They did not insulate the legs. We fell behind the group and got lost in the confusion. I find versions that they were blinded, so they crawled towards the tent. You see, even if there was good visibility, it was difficult to find the tent and find the direction to it. It was easy to get away from it, but very difficult to return, up the slope in strong winds and frost, poor visibility (unrealistic for a healthy person). If it was necessary to find a tent, then one would have to follow their own tracks to it, but these three did not follow the tracks.
I'll add about the equipment. In 10-15 degree frost they dressed like this: a cotton undershirt, a sweater, a padded jacket (quilted, quilted), a cotton scarf on the head, a hat with earflaps (rabbit, beaver) on top, the ears of the hat were tied, cotton tights and quilted quilted trousers on the legs, plain and woolen socks and felt boots with chemical protective stockings. Over the padded jacket I wore a raincoat with a hood, and a chemical protection raincoat on top. The hands are covered with fur coated mittens. It was always much colder on the lake, and a strong piercing wind blew. We went 5 km into the lake while we were walking, but it was hard to walk, it was hot. They came, drilled holes, and sat down. It got cold very quickly. My feet and hands were freezing in felt boots. To protect from the wind, fishermen sew a bag from transparent film, which they put on top.
Yesterday, the air temperature just happened to be minus 20 degrees. I was dressed warmly and immediately froze in the wind. I thought about those who talk, sitting in warm apartments, about what could and could not happen: about hurricanes and the difficulties of the route, about sub-zero temperatures, about wet sleeping bags, about a wet tent.
The fire that was lit near the cedar, if it was not a signal fire, was most likely built in a place where it was easier to gather wood for kindling. As winter nights have shown, green spruce burns best, flares up and burns like gunpowder, but dry trees that have been under the snow burn poorly, so that such firewood would require diesel fuel, they stubbornly did not want to flare up. At first, while there were a lot of branches, there was enthusiasm, because around the fire, even in severe frost, it quickly becomes warm. Once you warm up a little, you don’t want to leave the fire. Very quickly it becomes clear that such fuel will not last long, because it burns instantly, and for new branches I had to climb higher and higher and break them off with the weight of my body.
People who find themselves in such a situation must set themselves a specific goal, do this and that, then all actions will have meaning. If you understand that you will certainly die when the available branches of the cedar run out, then very soon you will no longer want to do anything, realizing the pointlessness of actions.

6. Sequence of deaths.
I come to almost the same conclusion as in the first part. Three tourists died almost immediately, six people went down. Two more died under the cedar, and four on the flooring lived longer than the others, because they had everything to survive: they had a good organization and one leader, they were wearing shoes and clothes, they were sheltered from the cold and wind, they could wait until morning and go to a tent or storage shed for skis and clothes. Everyone who could disrupt the unity of the group and decision-making, namely Kolmogorova, Dyatlov and Doroshenko, was no longer alive. But for some reason they didn’t go, but were found with broken ribs and faces changed beyond recognition, with radiation on their clothes. Although it is complete nonsense, the conclusion suggests itself that at that moment, when a group of four tourists took refuge in a ravine, that ill-fated snow slab came down on them (an explosion occurred with the release of radiation), which killed the survivors.
If the sequence is this: three got lost and died, two lit a fire and waited for those three, hoping that they were alive, and four hid on the flooring. Here there is a division of the group into smaller groups of people: Kolmogorov and Dyatlov, separately from them Doroshenko, separately from them Zolotarev and the people who joined them. This is exactly how they should have parted if it was about love and sharing power. Dyatlov could not be next to Zolotarev, Doroshenko could not be next to Dyatlov. Here you have a close-knit, similar, carefully selected group of people.
The four from the deck really could have lived, and maybe they did, longer. Zolotarev could have left for help altogether. I realized how hopeless everything was and left. And the criminal case into the death of tourists was opened on February 6. This means that someone reported that the tourists had died. Although, this person could not have been Zolotarev, but Sasha Kolevatov. There is almost no debate about it on websites. And Sasha was also a leader of tourist trips and had the qualities of a leader.

7. Put forward versions, do not discard the facts.
But no matter what versions we consider, we must not forget about the main fact that stirred up and intrigued the public. And, ultimately, I was not left indifferent to that old story. The faces of the dead were unnaturally orange. On the Internet you will find disputes and forums regarding the name of the color. The skin color of the dead was given to me as a child and it was orange, not brown or burgundy-red. Most likely, everyone had this skin color, but it was the first five tourists found and buried that attracted the attention of the public (a large number of people).
On the Internet you will find many different opinions about the skin color of the dead, saying that search engines and people who came to the funeral could not correctly describe the color of the skin because they did not deal with frozen people, did not have experience, and the skin color of a frozen person might seem unnatural to them, but in fact, this is natural and normal, and it’s not a matter of poisoning or radiation. But I think that on the contrary, among those who came to the funeral there were people who were well acquainted with what frozen people look like, it was they who were surprised by the unnatural color of their skin, and so surprised that 17 years later, in the story told to me, this was the most important and frightening fact.

There are several stories similar to this one. The story of the Korovina tour group (the tragedy on Khamar-Daban), where 6 people died and only one girl survived. In March 1963, a group of the Moscow city tourist club “Spartak” passed the Chivruay-Lada pass in the opposite direction - from Umbozero to Seydozero (everyone survived). Sergei Sogrin’s group also found itself in a “cold” critical situation in the Subpolar Urals. As a result of a stove fire at night, part of their tent burned down; the group lost their home at night (everyone remained alive).

8. New finds.
I am constantly interested in new ideas on a topic. I see how people explore and find new ways to develop the investigation, how new facts arise, inconsistencies are found, new questions are born.
We found a document that says that during the search operations there was not one tent, but several. The document says tents. It is also possible that extra people were found. They said that Dyatlov dragged his wife on himself, and her arms and legs were broken. Kolmogorova and Dyatlov were found in different places. Student Nikitin is also buried next to the Dyatlov group.
Researchers find oddities in photographs of those involved in the case. I can attribute the oddities to the poor quality of the photographs, but in some cases I agree with the researchers.

9. Non-standard versions.
Why do seemingly delusional versions arise? Because there is nothing to explain the injuries of three tourists (multiple fractures).
While watching films, I came across non-standard ideas that talked about experiments on people. An American film about the Dyatlov group touches on this topic. Everyone who has seen the film talks about the stupidity of the storyline. I do not think so. I was a reader and the first science fiction works did not seem so fantastic to me: “The Head of Professor Dowell” (1925), “Amphibian Man” (1927), “Heart of a Dog” (1925). Do you know what these works were about? They were about human experiments. The main part of the storyline was built on the fact that human-animal hybrids ran away from the experimenter and lived their lives as they wanted.
No science fiction is born out of nowhere, a person is not capable of inventing anything on his own, I know that for sure. Experiments on people were carried out in concentration camps during the Second World War, and then carried out in the USSR, but were classified. If you are interested in this topic, you will find articles about experiments on people in the Gulag camps (not for the faint of heart, I watched the video, I was shocked by what I saw). It is precisely these experiments that the American film talks about. This film says that the Dyatlov group stumbled upon a secret base where such experiments were carried out. Nonsense? Don't tell me. The Americans put forward a very bold version (and perhaps they knew more than we do). This is not an anomalous version, not parallel worlds, not fairy-tale elves and giants. These were experiments on connecting a person and an animal (monkey), the severed head of a dog lived connected to devices with blood circulation, one dog was sewn to another, the corpses of dead people were revived. I don’t want to believe in such versions; it would be better if they were blown away by the wind, and then thrown and thrown around the mountain until everyone died.
Where is the base where the tourists snuck in? In Mount Otorten. And not at the Dyatlov Pass. That’s where no one is looking, that’s where you need to go and look.

10. Dramatization.
And the latest version - everything connected with the Dyatlov case is a dramatization. In a country where people were imprisoned for collecting ears of corn from the field, people could be killed for a small crime, or because of the suspicion that they had done something that threatened the disclosure of state secrets. And then, when popular unrest began, they decided to stage the freezing. Back then, the people who were doing this didn’t try very hard. That’s why there are so many inconsistencies in the case: mixed up clothes, strange position of the corpses, lack of wounds on the feet, although they ran almost barefoot along the kurumniks, it’s unclear how they made the flooring when there was only one knife, what they used to dig up the snow to make a windward place, complete leapfrog with the dates . The series of inconsistencies is reinforced by woodpecker experts, fueling interest in the matter.
This business is an endless source of income. Thousands of articles, television programs, videos.

I think that the search for the missing tourists was carried out on such a large scale and was classified because Georgy Krivonischenko was an engineer at a sensitive facility in the Chelyabinsk region, where they worked with plutonium, a substance intended for the creation of nuclear weapons. Rustem Slobodin also worked there. It was assumed that the young people wanted to fly abroad and sell the secrets of the enterprise.
The more I read, the more mysterious this story becomes. The more questions. After all, they deliberately confuse us, and all important documents were removed from the case. And although these may be coincidences, there are too many of them in such a strange, complicated case. And the existence of radioactive things is an irrefutable fact, things that, for unknown reasons, were included in that campaign, but it is clear that if they were prepared for transfer, they were never transferred.
In my reasoning, I do not want to hurt their memory, or somehow humiliate or elevate any of them.
Blessed memory to all those who died on that fateful day, may they rest in peace. Happy memory to all tourists who died from avalanches and other natural phenomena.

On the night of February 2, 1959, a group of tourists died under mysterious circumstances in the Ural mountains. The group was led by Igor Dyatlov. The mystery of this tragedy has not yet been solved, but there are several versions of what happened.

The small mountain Kholat-Syakhyl in the north of the Urals has long been notorious. Its name in the language of the local aborigines – Mansi – means “Mountain of the Dead”. The legend tells about 9 hunters who died here in ancient times.
Since then, a curse has hung over the mountain: if 9 people find themselves on it, they will die. The Mansi laughed at the superstitions, but in February 1959 the legend recalled itself: for unknown reasons, 9 young tourists, led by Igor Dyatlov, died on the mountainside. Judging by the latest entries in the diaries of the hike participants, Dyatlov’s group reached the Kholat-Syakhyl slope on February 1 and settled in for the night. What happened next is unknown. Rescuers found the group's tent with food, equipment and... shoes. Judging by the remaining traces, the tourists suddenly left their shelter without having time to put on their shoes or even get fully dressed. After a long search, rescuers found the bodies; they were located almost in a straight line from the tent for more than 1.5 kilometers. Everyone was struck by the unnatural skin color of the deceased - orange-red. Some of the bodies were terribly disfigured: one of the girls had no eyes and tongue, two young men had broken ribs, and a third had a broken skull. What happened?

Avalanche?

According to one version, tourists left the tent due to a sudden avalanche falling from the mountainside. A layer of snow fell during the night, catching the group by surprise. This explains the severe injuries of several tourists, the disarray of clothing (they grabbed the first thing that came to hand) and the hasty evacuation from the danger zone. The version is good, but... implausible. None of the rescuers, among whom there were many experienced climbers, saw any traces of an avalanche or a snow “slab” that crushed the tent. On the contrary, the tourists chose a good place for the tent and set it up professionally. It could not collapse on the sleeping “Dyatlovites” - there was simply no avalanche danger.

Conflict with hunters?

The first suspects were local Mansi hunters. According to investigators, they quarreled with tourists and attacked them. Some were seriously injured, others managed to escape and then died from hypothermia. Several Mansi were arrested, but they categorically denied their guilt. It is not known what their fate would have been (the law enforcement agencies of those years mastered the art of obtaining recognition to perfection), but the examination established that the cuts on the tourists’ tent were made not from the outside, but from the inside. It was not the attackers who were “breaking” into the tent, but the tourists themselves were trying to get out of it. In addition, no extraneous traces were found around the tent; the supplies remained untouched (and they were of considerable value to the Mansi). Therefore, the hunters had to be released.

A mistake by the special forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs?

One version of conspiracy theorists: the Dyatlov group was liquidated by a special unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was pursuing the escaped prisoners (it must be said that there were indeed quite a few “zones” in the northern Urals). At night, special forces encountered tourists in the forest, mistook them for “prisoners” and killed them. At the same time, for some reason the mysterious special forces did not use either bladed weapons or firearms: there were no stab or bullet wounds on the bodies of the victims. In addition, it is known that in the 50s. escaped prisoners at night in the wilderness were not usually pursued - the risk was too great. They handed over directions to the authorities in the nearest settlements and waited: you couldn’t last long in the forest without supplies; willy-nilly, the fugitives had to go to “civilization.” And most importantly! Investigators requested information about escapes of “prisoners” from the surrounding “zones.” It turned out that there were no escapes at the end of January - beginning of February. Therefore, there was no one for the special forces to catch on Kholat-Syakhyl.

Elimination of witnesses?

But conspiracy theorists are not appeased: there were no special forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which means there were “special forces of the KGB,” and the Dyatlov group was eliminated as unwanted witnesses to the testing of some secret weapon. But why does the almighty KGB create so many difficulties for itself: allow dozens of rescuers to the test site for testing “superweapons”, allow them to thoroughly examine the area? Isn’t it easier to announce that the tourists were covered by an avalanche and not allow any investigations? If there were no legends about the “mystery of the Dyatlov group” that excite the imagination then, only a few lines of the newspaper obituary would remain. Since 1959, many people have died in the mountains; how many do we remember today?

Agents of a foreign intelligence agency?

And here is the most “exotic” version: it turns out that the Dyatlov group was liquidated... by foreign agents! Why? To disrupt the KGB operation: after all, the student tour was only a cover for the “controlled supply” of radioactive clothing to enemy agents. The explanations for this amazing theory are not without wit. It is known that investigators found traces of a radioactive substance on the clothes of the three dead tourists. Conspiracy theorists connected this fact with the biography of one of the victims, Georgy Krivonischenko. He worked in the closed city of nuclear scientists Ozersk (Chelyabinsk-40), where plutonium for atomic bombs was produced. Samples of radioactive clothing provided invaluable information for foreign intelligence. Krivonischenko, who worked for the KGB, was supposed to meet with enemy agents at Mount Kholat-Syakhyl and hand over radioactive “material” to them. But Krivonischenko made a mistake on something, and then the enemy agents, covering their tracks, destroyed the entire Dyatlov group. The killers acted in a sophisticated manner: threatening with weapons, but not using them (they didn’t want to leave traces), they drove the young people out of the tent into the cold without shoes, to certain death. The saboteurs waited for some time, then followed in the footsteps of the group and brutally finished off those who were not frozen. Thriller, and nothing more! Now let's think about it. How could the KGB officers plan a “controlled delivery” in a remote area that was not controlled? Where they could neither observe the operation nor protect their agent? Absurd. And where did the spies even come from among the Ural forests, where was their base? Only the invisible man will not “show up” in small surrounding villages: their residents know each other by sight and immediately pay attention to strangers. Why did the adversaries, who had planned a clever staging of the death of tourists from hypothermia, suddenly seem to go mad and begin to torture their victims - breaking ribs, tearing out tongues, eyes? And how did these invisible maniacs manage to escape the persecution of the omnipresent KGB? Conspiracy theorists have no answer to all these questions.

Testing a nuclear weapon or ballistic missile?

Having dealt with the enemy’s machinations, let’s consider the version of the secret test of nuclear weapons in the area where the Dyatlov group was located (this is how they try to explain the traces of radiation on the clothes of the dead). Alas, from October 1958 to September 1961, the USSR did not conduct any nuclear explosions, observing the Soviet-American agreement on a moratorium on such tests. Both we and the Americans carefully monitored the observance of “nuclear silence.” In addition, during an atomic explosion, traces of radiation would have been on all members of the group, but the examination recorded radioactivity only on the clothes of three tourists. Some “experts” explain the unnatural orange-red color of the skin and clothing of the deceased by the fall of a Soviet R-7 ballistic missile in the Dyatlov group’s campsite: it supposedly frightened the tourists, and the fuel vapors that ended up on the clothes and skin caused such a strange reaction. But rocket fuel does not “color” a person, but kills instantly. Tourists would have died near their tent. In addition, as the investigation established, no rocket launches were carried out from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in the period from January 25 to February 5, 1959.

Meteorite?

The forensic medical examination, examining the nature of the injuries inflicted on the group members, concluded that they were “very similar to injuries caused by an air blast wave.” While examining the area, investigators found traces of fire on some trees. It seemed as if some unknown force was selectively influencing both the dead people and the trees. At the end of the 1920s. Scientists were able to assess the consequences of such a natural phenomenon. This happened in the area where the Tunguska meteorite fell. According to the recollections of the participants of that expedition, the heavily burnt trees at the epicenter of the explosion could have been located next to the survivors. Scientists could not logically explain such a strange “selectivity” of the flame. Investigators in the Dyatlov group’s case were also unable to find out all the details: on May 28, 1959, a command came from “from above” to close the case, classify all materials and hand them over to a special archive. The final conclusion of the investigation turned out to be very vague: “It should be assumed that the cause of the death of tourists was a natural force that people were not able to overcome.”

The mystery of the Dyatlov group has never been solved. From time to time, researchers climb the "Mountain of the Dead" in search of answers. But even the most desperate extreme sports enthusiasts never dare to go to Kholat-Sakhyl in a group of 9 people.