Tragic events on the pass Dyatlova more than 50 years. But this mysterious incident is not forgotten, thousands of links on this topic on the web are proof of that. The mysterious death of nine young people in the mountains of the northern Urals is still haunted by many.
At first glance it may seem that this is a parochial theme, the lot of the Ufomans and paranormalschik, everything would be like that, but, “The dead do not lie ...”. The death of nine tourists is so mysterious and unusual, contains so many inexplicable facts that the investigation of this group murder is only on the strength of the legendary Sherlock Holmes with his deductive abilities.
The plot of events is worthy of a fantastic thriller, household and criminal versions disappear immediately. Even the official investigation ended with the formulation of a worthy tragedy of Shakespeare: "........ the cause of the death of tourists was the elemental force that people could not overcome."
Here is the paragraph from this decision to terminate the investigation:
A unique case - the domestic tragedy in the deaf Ural mountains that occurred more than 50 years ago is not forgotten, moreover, it is actively discussed and does not give rest to many researchers. There is only one explanation for this phenomenon; anyone who has become acquainted with these events has an unaccountable sense of anxiety and danger. Such an intuitive and subconscious identification of unknown dangers is a genetic feature of all of humanity, otherwise it would not have survived as a biological and social species.
Not secret materials
There is plenty of factual material for analyzing events on the Dyatlov Pass (as this place is now called), they are not secret and everything is publicly available, there are so many of them that it’s extremely easy to get confused in versions based on these documents. Therefore, as long as there are no versions of events, versions are already enough, everyone can choose the version of events to his own taste.
We will focus only on a few key facts, the correct assessment of which sharply narrows the circle of really possible versions of this tragedy. These facts are known to all who are interested in this topic, but behind the facts are the circumstances and this article is about the circumstances. Let everyone draws conclusions on the basis of these circumstances himself, I, of course, also made them for myself, and about this in the second part of the material.
In order that the name of the cause of these tragic events subconsciously does not put pressure on the readers' opinion, we shall call it neutral - “Factor”. In the first part of the material we will try to understand the nature of this “Factor”, here the main thing is to understand whether it was man-made, natural or reasonable. In addition, we will try to answer the fundamental question: was the meeting of tourists with him an accident, or was it a planned contact?
"Eh ... it's not like that, it's not like that guys! ....."
According to the trekking plan, the tourists had to spend the night on the border of the forest in the headwaters of the Auspie River, to set up a storage shed with things unnecessary for climbing to climb Mount Otorten. Actually from this moment, moving with lightweight backpacks, it began for them to climb Mount Otorten, which was supposed to take three days on the way back:
- For the first day, you had to walk from the labaza to the slope of Mount Otorten.
- On the second day to climb,
- On the third day, go back to the labaza for your things in the area of the river Auspii.
Here is their route application:
Day of the way
Name of the track
Way to travel
It was planned to spend three days and three nights for the whole ascent (the items related to the ascent are marked in red).
The official investigation, and behind it all subsequent events, is considered the night of 1 on 2 in February of 1959 as the date of the tragic accident. This dating is based only on the last entry in a hiking diary about an overnight stay on the forest border dated January 31 and a wall newspaper dated February 1.
The logic of the researchers is simple - if there are no records after February 1, then there are no more people alive.
The place to spend the night from January 31 to February 1 on the border of the forest from which the ascent began was discovered. There was also a storage shed, in which tourists stored unnecessary items for climbing Mount Otorten.
According to the general opinion of all the researchers of these events, February 1 tourists staged a storage shed and went to the slope of Mount Holatchahlyu (height 1079). They staged the night there, which was the last for them. Here is a picture of what rescuers found at the site of the last night (hereinafter all the materials from the criminal case):
According to the plan for passing the route, an overnight stay in approximately these places was assumed on the way back (the headwaters of the Auspi River), after the ascent.
However, without exception, researchers believe that the tourists stopped at this place before the ascent and to justify this, they present versions with errors in the route, tourists drowsiness, inability to quickly build a storage shed and other negative circumstances.
Or maybe it is not necessary to talk badly about the dead, maybe everything went according to plan, and this place of the night after the ascent? This option is indicated by many facts.
This is perhaps the most important one, look at the photo that the tourists made at the place where the tent was installed, the investigation believes that this is also the place where the abandoned tent was found and that the photo was taken on the evening of February 1:
Even an expert can see that the slope of the area and the level of burial in the snow of the tent site do not match in this photo, what is seen in the picture taken by the rescuers at the site of the detection of the abandoned tent.
These are different places.
If this is so, then according to the route plan, the tourists had to spend two nights at the foot of Mount Otorten and it is logical to assume that it was this moment that was taken by tourists. The photograph of the clearing of the place for the tent was actually made by 1 February, but in another place, on the slope of Mount Otorten.
They successfully spent the night with 1 on 2 in February at this place, made the planned ascent of Mount Otorten in the afternoon of 2 in February, once again spent the night in this place and 3 in February went back to the warehouse. But apparently they could not reach the labaza in one day (they did not reach about one and a half kilometers) and got up for the night in a place found by rescuers.
So it is quite possible that the events actually happened on the night from February 3 to February 4, which was the last for them.
To assume, as the investigation did, and all subsequent investigators followed it, that on the very first day of the ascent experienced tourists missed the route schedule incorrectly, there are no direct facts confirming this. Let us all the same assume that the experienced team maintained the schedule and the places of overnight stays corresponded to the stated route.
But this is not a fact, this is an assumption, now about the facts in support of the following event:
“Firstly, this is the content of the last document found — the“ Battle Sheet ”of the dated 1. It talks about the surroundings of Mount Otorten. Hardly in 15 kilometers of the way from the target (at the place of detection of the abandoned tent), we can talk about the surroundings of Mount Otorten, for this you need to get closer to her.
- Secondly, in the “Battle sheet” sarcastically it is said about the record for the installation of the stove. It is doubtful that this event refers to the previous overnight stays, most likely in the evening of February 1 the stove was actually installed. But in the tent at the site of the tragedy the stove was not installed.
- Thirdly, only one log was found in the tent, it’s unbelievable that if they were going to spend the 2-3 of the day in the mountains, they would have taken only one log with them on the treeless countryside. It is easier to assume that it remains the only one at the time of return.
- Fourth, the same situation with food, that's what remained in the storage shed:
1. Condensed Milk 2,5 kg.
2.Canned meat in cans 4 kg.
3.Sahar - 8 kg.
4. Butter - 4 kg.
5. Cooked sausage - 4 kg.
6. Salt - 1,5 k.
7. Kissel-compote - 3 kg.
8.Cat oat and buckwheat 7,5 kg.
9. Cocoa 200
10.Coffee - 200
11.Tea - 200 gr.
12.Koreyka - 3 kg.
13. Dry milk - 1 kg.
14. Sugar sand - 3 kg.
15. Crackers - 7 kg and Noodles - 5 kg.
But what is found in the tent:
1. Sukhari in two bags.
2. Condensed milk.
Strange and poor set of products in the tent regarding the abundance left in the storage shed. Assuming that the tourists did not take any canned food or sausage on the ascent, but only 100 grams of loin from a piece in 3k left in a labaze is absurd ...
One hundred grams of loin is a documented fact in the testimony of Tempalov V. I., he talked about the grams of chopped and not eaten loin found in the 100 tent, a logical explanation can be only one, the tourists finished the last products taken with them.
- Fifth, to move away from the installation site of a warehouse at a distance of one and a half kilometers (the same number ran barefoot into a tragic night) and it is illogical to stop for the night. Here is a photograph of tourists, which shows the conditions under which the ascent took place:
The conditions are of course extreme, but the depth of the snow, the wind load, and a gentle rise made it possible in such conditions to pass 2-3 kilometers per hour.
From the warehouse to the place of the abandoned tent, no more than a mile and a half, this distance, under the conditions visible in the picture, the tourists had to walk for 30-40 minutes, and they could not spend more than an hour on this distance.
It is ridiculous to assume that a group of 9 experienced tourists could think of such a thing - to spend an hour on the transition and start settling down for the night.
It was more reasonable and not to go on a route, but they were experienced and reasonable people.
There is not a single direct fact that would contradict the assumption of dating the tragedy from 3 to February 4, while returning to the labaz, there are only indirect circumstances, here they are:
- It is not clear why there is nothing in the diaries of tourists since February 1. But it could be simple fatigue - it was not up to it, and the extreme conditions along the way did not allow us to engage in the epistolary genre. Actually February 1 was written only "wall newspaper". Although, following the logic of the investigation, they had plenty of time that day, because, according to the investigators, the tourists stumbled around the warehouse all day.
- No pictures about the achievement of the campaign goal. But it certainly should have been. The materials of the Internet have all the frames that were found on 6 films, the last (and perhaps the last but one ...) is definitely the previously mentioned picture of clearing a place in the snow for a tent.
Dead end? No, the tourists had several coils of film for each camera, these coils were found in a tin can, one of the coils was even found near the tent, there are still shots with some kind of films (appear as “bulk shots”). So, it’s impossible to assert that everything shot by them during the hike is available, there are (were) other films that we don’t know on them.
We definitely do not know the two films being at the time of the tragedy in the cameras, the search engines gave the investigation three cameras with the number of shots indicated in the act: 34,27.27. There is a film with 34 frames, there is the last notorious frame of the “fireball”, but there are no films with 27 frames, there are films with a different number of frames.
Moreover, in addition to the four cameras found in the tent, there was a fifth one, although this camera does not appear in the investigation materials, it is clearly visible in the picture of Zolotarev’s body. It is clear that the frames from it have not been preserved, it was in flowing water, but probably the footage of the conquest of Mount Otorten and not only they could have been in it.
Does this interpretation of the date change the overall picture of those tragic events? Practically not, but maybe the problems of a group of tourists did not appear on the night of the tragedy, but earlier? We do not know what happened during the period, and these are two or even three days.
There are no accidents in this world, every step leaves a trace ...
Surprisingly, the events at the Dyatlov Pass are well documented, there are witnesses, there are materials from the criminal case. But the fact is not only a connecting point in the sequence of events, it is also the sum of circumstances. From this point of view, let us approach the assessment of key facts.
Here is one of the inexplicable facts:
The group left the tent down the hill at night. By the time of the discovery of the site of the tragedy, there remained a chain of traces of all nine tourists for at least half a kilometer (according to some eyewitnesses, almost a kilometer).
Tourists walked barefoot (most without shoes, but in warm socks).
Here is how a member of the search operation recalls this, who first discovered the place of the tragedy and, accordingly, could see traces in their natural, unworn form (Recording a conversation with Boris Xlobov 01.06.2006):
WB: How did they go about decay? Here's what happens. If this is a tent, but the horizontal, - they were walking a little apart?
They were walking, traversing the slope. Or in the direction of the decay itself?
BS: I think in the direction of the decay itself.
WB: That is, as if centered on the decay?
BS: Yes. Traces were also not single by one. They were ... a line, each running along its own trajectory. As I understand. I suppose they were strongly driven into the back wind. And they didn’t have shoes at all - someone had one boots, someone had socks, someone I didn’t know ..... In my opinion, no one found a serious shoe.
These tracks looked like pillars of compacted snow, which means that tourists were walking along loose snow, which was later blown off by the wind and remained only under the tracks due to compaction. Here are the tracks:
By the way, such characteristic tracks, not pressed in, and in the form of seals can occur only on loose and “sticky” snow, this indicates the temperature during the flight from the mountain - no more than minus 10 degrees. So, tourists were not so badly dressed for such weather, it was almost impossible for experienced people to freeze in a group, having access to a divorced campfire, in a forest where there is shelter from the wind.
And so, the route of movement is straightforward, traces went in parallel chains. This is a fact, now about the unobvious circumstances of this retreat to the edge of the forest:
Nine people were walking in a deployed system, although it was much easier to follow the trail in deep snow. It means that the extreme factor acted all the time of the movement and people instinctively sought to escape from danger with maximum speed, nobody wanted to be the last.
In such a situation, the location of the source of the threat that drove people out of the tent is clear - somewhere behind their backs. It is clear that they went to the nearest shelter, and the purpose of the movement (the shelter) was clearly distinguishable and realized by all members of the group.
Judging by the direction of the tracks, the tourists from the tent went straight to the glen (shallow ravine). Strangely, they were less than a kilometer away from the forest, and they are not going in the direction of the forest, but in the direction of a treeless ravine, and the path is twice as long. For some reason, it seemed to all of them that a safe shelter was located exactly in this place. And they, apparently, were not mistaken in their initial assumptions. This is evidenced by the fact of the device flooring of the trunks of small trees, covered with spruce branches in the deepest part of the ravine.
With regard to the purpose of the movement, everything is clear - this is the darkest and lowest place in the immediate vicinity. I paraphrase a well-known expression: “Tell me where you are running, and I will tell you who you are running from.”
So they do not run from the elemental force, they run from the extreme factor, the threat from which is associated with direct visual contact. At the time of departure from the tent, the goal of tourists was to hide, and not just exit from the zone of the extreme factor. Here is a photo to evaluate the shelter, which the tourists built themselves to wait out the effect of this extreme factor:
On a moonless night, even in the ideal conditions of a clear starry sky, it is difficult to see anything. Running in a straight line and a half kilometers on rough terrain, in deep snow, in the dark, is almost impossible.
To do this, you need a powerful light from the nearest peaks, and the light from the back, then the ravine, where they fled, will become a shaded place in which to hide.
The presence of two factors - the threat and highlight was hardly separate, it was a single factor, the fact that tourists ran towards the nearest shadow confirms this.
And there is no miracle and very rare coincidences ... ...
In the final part of the tragedy there is a similar fact of the straight-line movement of several tourists. Three people died in the movement towards a certain goal. Their bodies, and the point where they started their last movement (fire) are located on the perfect straight line.
It is possible to move back up the slope either to the tent, or to the source of danger that drove the tourists out of the tent, the third is not given. If the purpose of the upward movement was a tent, then most likely they would have gone to it returning in their own tracks, there is no other guaranteed way to get to it quickly. But they did not return in their tracks.
The straightness of their movement indicates that they clearly saw where they need to go, only a clear guideline can allow them to withstand a straight direction. It is impossible to see a tent in a snow in the dark from more than a kilometer away.
So they did not go to the tent, but to the source of danger that drove them from the mountain, they went to the "factor".
Unfortunately, the investigation did not exactly record on the map of the circumstances of the case, there are only two handwritten schemes, below is one of them. On it .хД, .хС, .хК are the points of detection of tourists' bodies, a Christmas tree with a cross, this is the location of the fire under the fir.
These four points are placed on one ideal straight line leading past the tent, in the direction of one of the nearest peaks, apparently they went there, most likely the source of danger was located there.
The diagram shows the point of detection of the lantern lost by tourists at the end of the third stone ridge, and the forest line is the dotted line, and this border at the point of flow of the stream is the place where the tourists made the flooring.
The tent, the lost flashlight, the place of flooring also form a perfect straight line. This fact agrees well with the words of Slobtsov, who argued that the traces went into decay and were straightforward throughout the visible area.
Here is the scheme, from the materials of the investigation:
And so we have two separated by time and place of fact indicating the straightness of the movement of tourists on rough terrain on a moonless night.
Of course, everything can be attributed to randomness, but, as a rule, randomness is an unknown pattern. In this case, these rectilinear movements of tourists can be explained only through the assumption of good visibility throughout the tragedy and the assumption that this good visibility was provided precisely by the source of the threat that drove the tourists out of the tent.
Summing up, it can be argued that the factor that caused the escape from the tent, had visual properties (quite a bright glow). In addition, this factor acted for a long time, and illuminated the area even during the attempt of three tourists to return to the mountainside.
Scary - interesting.
And so, the tourists in full force moved one and a half kilometers from the tent down the mountainside and stopped. So, this place seemed to them to be quite safe, otherwise they would not have started to construct a flooring from branches and make a fire. But between the fire and the flooring almost a hundred meters, and the flooring is clearly not designed for the whole group of 9 people.
Thus, we can state that at this critical moment there are two strategies in the group, the first is to hide (what is called “not to stick out”) and the second to find oneself (making a fire) and to make contact with the phenomenon that frightened them.
It is indicative of the distribution of people to these groups, in the first who decided to “keep a low profile”, these are the most adult tourists, the second group, which was interesting, consisted of young students.
The division of the group in an extreme situation is a very characteristic fact, which speaks of a non-standard phenomenon that caused them to leave the tent; it was not a natural elemental force known to them, such as an avalanche, an unknown biological object, such as a bear, a man, a snowman at last.
They were separated by a non-standard situation that did not fit into the usual patterns of behavior and each group, due to their life experience, reacted to this situation in its own way.
Here are specially selected photos from their last campaign, which best convey the character of the leaders in these two groups:
This is a photograph of the leader of the campaign Dyatlov, and he seems to have become the leader of a group of young people.
But there was also an experienced tourism instructor, a professional, and just an adult, Zolotarev, here is a picture with the foreground:
Looks like he became the leader of a group of more adult and rational tourists.
By the way, in a very detailed, but rather controversial material by Rakitin's “Death following the trail,” there is a well-founded version of the fact that Zolotarev was a KGB officer and worked undercover. If this is true, then what did the KGB need in a group of students ?, certainly not observing their anti-Soviet sentiments, this is a rather ordinary informant, and not a regular officer. Here again I have to agree with Rakitin, Zolotarev was on some assignment, that's just hardly the one about which he writes, this is what is called fiction ...
In any case, even if he was a simple regular instructor of the TurBaz, even in this case he possessed sufficiently complete information about the area in which the route passed, it seems that something from this information kept him in suspense and that is why he turned out to be fully dressed by the time the beginning of the tragic events.
Another adult participant in the trip was Thibo-Brulyon, here in the photo they, along with Zolotarev:
It is immediately obvious that there is a certain friendly predisposition between these people who met only in this, their last campaign. Apparently they are like, older ones, to communicate with each other and it is quite possible that Zolotarev shared his fears with Tibo-Brulyon. And this may explain why it was he who became the second person fully dressed for the beginning of the tragic events.
In an extreme situation, the entire power of the government undoubtedly had to go to Zolotarev, both by status, by experience, and by its front-line past ... But the young people did not listen to him and, for the realization of their plan, simply went away.
That such a picture emerges ....
But I’ll finish on this lyrical and psychological digression and turn again only to the bare facts.
You are already far away ........., and before death there are four hundred steps ....
The route of the return of three tourists back to the top of the mountain contains another set of coincidences, which, from probabilistic considerations, is difficult to attribute to the category of accidents. The distance between the bodies of the dead tourists on the return route to the top of the mountain is equal intervals of 150-180 meters, no more accurate data (no one has measured the tape), but this fact is confirmed by all eyewitnesses and materials of the criminal case.
A bonfire and three bodies lie on one straight line, poses indicate directions of movement, equal distances between them, just like that of Stevenson in the book “Treasure Island”, only there is the author’s imagination, and here is a real tragedy. Four points that fit in a straight line mean the goal of movement on the continuation of this line, but this is not enough, there are equal distances between the bodies, how to understand this?
The mathematical probability that the sum of external natural factors (frost, wind) and the exhaustion of the internal individual physiological resource of tourists has led to such a coincidence of the intervals between the bodies is vanishingly small. Considering that the least physically strong girl went farther to the goal of the movement, this also violates the very logic of the statement that they died from the exhaustion of physiological forces.
It is more logical to assume that they were forcibly stopped by some external factor that has some causal logic in their actions.
There is also a third interval, which also fits into the fatal 150-180 meters, it is associated with the location of the first tourist body (in the diagram, the place of his body is indicated by a cross with the letter “D”) moving back to the top of the mountain. There is no exact data, no one measured it, but his body also seemed to be at a distance of 150-180 meters from the place from which the ascent to the mountain began. This can be argued only based on indirect data and pictures of the ravine. The fact is that the fire from which the movement began to the top of the mountain was located on another slope of the ravine. The width of the ravine, can be indirectly estimated from the images from the materials of the investigation, it is somewhere 200-250 meters.
Here is a snapshot of this ravine, with the numbers 1 and 2, respectively, marked the places where the floor was found (the previous photo) and the last bodies found near the floor of the four tourists who died on this fateful night:
Considering that the investigation materials indicate that the body of the first tourist was found at a distance of 400 meters from the fire, we get the same fatal interval.
It turns out such a reconstruction of events: the first tourist goes to the mountainside, in other words, falls on the line of sight from the top of the mountain, passes the notorious 150-180 meters and falls what is called "dead" (this is the second part).
The second tourist goes along the same route, departs from the body of the first tourist 150-180 meters and dies. The third tourist (woman) follows the same route from the second body, another fatal segment up the side of the mountain and also dies.
It is impossible to reliably establish how these three tourists moved, together or separately, there is only one indirect circumstance, indicating that the first tourist (Dyatlov himself) was walking alone and going the very first. The fact is that the body of this tourist clearly turned over after death in an already stiff state, which is indicated by the discrepancy between the position in which the tourist froze and the position of the body at the time of detection by the search engines.
Here is a picture of the body at the time of detection:
The man froze in his characteristic posture, the posture of the man, as mentioned earlier, who had fallen "dead". From the characteristic curves of the body and tightly folded knees one can see that at first he knelt, pushing the snow beneath him, and then fell forward on his chest, into the snow, and he did not make a single, even agonal movement.
But the body lies on its back, lying sideways to the branches of a stunted tree ..., then it was turned over after rigor mortis, and this should take at least 1-2hour hours taking into account the weather conditions. Moreover, his jacket was unbuttoned on his chest, apparently one of the tourists, having discovered his body, tried to find out if he was alive, for which he had turned his face upward, and unbuttoned his outer clothing.
An epic situation emerges, people go from the shelter, from the fire, near which they could endure this fateful night, towards their death, knowing exactly what was waiting for them ahead (at least two tourists), and in fact none of them turned back to safe on that moment place
Two by the fire
Two more tourists died at the fire, it is believed that they were frozen ... But it was strangely frozen, just like the three on the mountainside, falling “dead” in the snow. But so far not about this, it is important that the tourists made a fire and supported it at least 3 - or even 4 hours, all the search engines who saw this fire and agree on the volume of the burned out branches agree with this.
The bonfire is not big, although they did have the opportunity to make a really serious bonfire for escape from the cold, which means that the function of the bonfire is not to warm, but to indicate its presence.
The bonfire was bred near a tall tree, blood was left on the tree trunk, and tourists, according to the general opinion of search engines and investigators, used the tree for observation, climbing up to a height of about 5 meters.
And here the most important thing that tourists could see from the height of 5 meters and could not see from the ground at the campfire site? Oddly enough, this can be fairly accurately established even now, here is a modern picture of the mountainside, supposedly made from this cedar:
Over 50, the forest has grown considerably, but the mountain is clearly visible. It was just behind the top of the mountain, hidden from them from the ground level, by the steep opposite slope of the ravine and the forest that the tourists watched.
It is possible that the need for observation was due to anxiety for the comrades who had gone to the top, but this is hardly the only thing. Not least observers were interested in the mysterious phenomenon that drove them out of the tent. And it was visually accessible only from a height of 5 meters from ground level. Thus, the search engines and the investigation had the opportunity to accurately determine the location of the factor that caused these events, both in azimuth and vertically. But, unfortunately, search engines and the result did not take advantage of this opportunity to accurately determine the place of occurrence of the extreme factor ...
Let's go further, one of the tourist near the fire, according to the investigation and search engines, fell "dead" from the tree. Another tourist fell into the fire, his left leg was burned, then at the time of his death, no one could help him near the fire, there is only one explanation for this, there was no one to help.
At that moment, no one was capable of working near the fire, but after a while the body was moved, the clothing was cut off, and the tourists who remained on the floor from tree trunks did it, because fragments of clothing cut off from the bodies were found on the flooring itself and on the way from the fire to the flooring.
The body was not burned much, without charring, it means the help came quickly, you can walk 70-100 meters from the floor to the fire for 2-3, no more, judging by the description of the burns, it was just that the body lay in the fire .... Everything is logical, and at the same time immediately makes the version of freezing untenable ...
At the time of the death of a tourist caught in a bonfire, people on the floor heard, or saw something that made them rush to the fire. Most likely, the sound (flash?) Was due to the true cause of death of tourists near the fire. Confirmation of this statement is the breaking of the branches on the tree from the side of the mountain slope.
This fact is confirmed by all eyewitnesses, to assume after them that it was tourists who broke branches (up to 10 cm in diameter at a height of 3-5 meters) with their bare hands for a fire naively, moreover, these branches didn’t hit the fire.
What it was, we won’t guess, the other thing is important, the death of two tourists near the fire is not a quiet freezing stretched in time, but a certain clearly discernable lethal event that at the same time served as a signal for the surviving tourists to come up to the fire.
Apparently, three tourists on the mountainside perished in the same way, this explains their dynamic postures, which do not resemble the pose of a freezing person, - none of the bodies were found in this position.
Do not think about the minutes from high ....
On the bodies of the dead tourists found a watch. Naturally, by the time they were detected, they had already stopped. The clock stops for three reasons: the plant is over, the plant is broken, and the most exotic option, the mechanism froze in the cold. We immediately dismiss the option of freezing mechanisms, the clock readings were recorded both at the scene of events and during the examination of bodies in the morgue, their readings are the same, which means that the clock did not work after thawing.
But three hours stopped with a difference in the readings on the dial less than 30 minutes. If a random factor acted (the plant ran out), then the probability of such a coincidence is calculated mathematically, this is at the level of one-tenth of a percent ...
If we also take into account the coincidence of the readings of the clock with the estimated time of death of tourists, calculated according to the autopsy data and the time of the last meal, then the probability of such a coincidence becomes at the level of one case per ten thousand options, it is practically unreal ....
In addition to the probability theory of a watch malfunction, another fact also speaks; in the investigation materials there are draft records of the investigator, there he marked the watch belonging to specific people, and so the sign of the watch was the indication on the dial. So, four months after the events, the same readings remained on them as at the time of their stopping. It is impossible to believe that none of them tried to start, - they certainly tried, only because of this they did not work, which means they were broken.
Consequently, three hours broke in the interval of less than 30 minutes, only one factor could be the cause of the breakdown, which caused such a slight variation in the readings of the clock at the time of their stopping. For some reason they broke? Cases are not damaged, which means that the damage is of a dynamic nature (a powerful shake).
There are no exact data in the investigation materials, no expertise of watch movements. But there is no third given, either a natural reason and we agree that a unique event has occurred, which falls once per thousand, or we assume that a dynamic impact has been made on these watches with a time spread of no more than thirty minutes.
Four tourists died from injuries incompatible with life, and the injuries are strange, the bones are broken, and the skin is not broken, there is not even edema, only internal hemorrhages.
Such damage can occur only when dynamic loads are distributed over a sufficiently large area.
Yes, and the others died too quickly, falling face down into the snow (ceasing to move), they did not even have time to melt the snow with their breath, but had time to bleed from the nose, throat and ears into the snow ... Only one of the tourists has a clear sign of a long stay in the snow at one place in a live state.
It is possible that they also died from injuries, only these injuries occurred in places where there are no bones (stomach for example), or they died from severe contusion. But this fact does not change.
Signs of the cessation of the function of vital activity are similar in all - a blow to a large area of the body (in four tourists) and a quick death without damage (in three of them at least).
What it was, while we won’t guess, there are plenty of options from a fall from a height to a severe contusion. In the investigation materials there is a protocol of interrogation of the pathologist who carried out the autopsy of the bodies of tourists, in this document the physician directly indicates the possibility of causing such heavy injuries as a result of an explosive (shock) wave.
Here is an extract from the testimony of the pathologist who conducted the autopsy from the investigation file:
Response: I believe that the nature of damage in Dubinina and Zolotarev is a multiple fracture of the ribs: in Dubinina bilateral and symmetrical, in Zolotarev one-sided, as well as bleeding into the heart muscle in both Dubinina and Zolotarev with hemorrhage into the pleural cavities indicate their survival and are the result of a large force, approximately the same as that applied to Tibo. The indicated damages ... are very similar to the trauma caused by the air blast wave.
If two essentially identical facts (cessation of the functioning of clocks and human organisms) have the most likely cause of a dynamic impact, then the coincidence of the heterogeneous factors that caused these events is almost unbelievable.
The conclusion can be the only one - the death of a person and the stopping of the clock is a consequence of the action of a single factor, and these events took place (the death of a person and the breaking of a clock on his hand) at the same time.
Fact - the obvious amount of unobvious circumstances ... ..
There is a fact indicating that the tourists themselves tried to push us to this version. On the hand of one of the tourists two watches were found at once. Some are his own, while others are removed from the body of a comrade who had already died by that time. The difference in their testimony 25 minutes, and later stopped his own hours.
What motives can a person take off a watch from the hand of his dead comrade, putting this watch on his own hand next to his own still working hours? Moreover, this tourist, in order to take off his watch and put on his hand before that, took off his gloves (found in his pocket), and did not have time to put on his clothes again. His own hours stopped after 25 minutes after stopping the clock from the tourist who had already died.
The only explanation for this behavior, the remaining tourists already knew how to kill them, and to suggest the cause of the incident with them focused on the characteristic feature of the murder weapon.
There was another illogical treatment of the camera with one of the tourists. Already mentioned Zolotarev with a camera around his neck, he died with him.
Here is a picture of the body of this tourist:
Why did he carry a camera on himself all this time, and indeed, how he was on it, given that there was clearly no way for him to have a tent on his neck (why he was in darkness and crampedness). And this camera did not belong to him (his own camera was found in a tent).
It turns out that in an extreme situation a person instead of collecting warm things takes an absolutely unnecessary item.
If we assume an accident, then we must assume that the two most experienced tourists panicked and committed illogical actions in the heat of passion. The extremely unlikely hypothesis, if only because these people were best prepared to leave the tent, were almost completely dressed (in shoes and warm clothes).
One of them, a front-line soldier (Zolotarev), went through the whole war had four combat awards and clearly possessed the skills of effective behavior in extreme situations, the other (Tibo-Brillon) also had a difficult fate. It is more logical to assume that these were meaningful actions in an extreme situation and these people wanted to tell us something, even after death.
There was another fact of the inexplicable, and he was again connected with the camera. This is the notorious last frame of one of the cameras found in the left tent. It depicts an incomprehensible, but apparently explaining why Zolotarev did not part with the camera to death. Here is the frame:
In the frame of the two luminous object, one round and less bright, it is most likely the illumination from the diaphragm. The second object has a rectangular shape, and during the exposure of the 0,1-0,5 frame of a second it moved along a complex trajectory.
Of course, one can guess what it is, but the main thing is not that, Zolotarev had a motivated reason to carry a camera with him in the cold, apparently there were pictures on him that clarified the situation that the tourists got into. But unfortunately this device, as already mentioned, was lying in the water and the pictures from it have not survived.
Exceptions confirming rule
In all the above arguments, the emphasis is on homogeneous facts in a homogeneous situation, but there are also anomalies that oddly enough only confirm the general patterns. Now about anomalies in the facts confirming the patterns.
Three people attempted to return to the top of the mountain, like they all fit into a single motivational logic, they died almost the same, but the tourist who died in the middle falls out of the picture, and falls on several grounds.
About him you can say like the others, fell dead. But he did not die, and he continued to lie in this fixed posture for a sufficiently long time, sufficient to melt the snow beneath him (the so-called “freezing bed”). This is a documented fact in the materials of the investigation, the time of formation of such ice about an hour.
This tourist, the only one who attempted to return to the mountainside, recorded a head injury without breaking the skin, is the same in nature as the rest of the injured, but in a completely different place, near the floor.
And his watch was the most recent (six minutes after Tiboh’s stop) ...
It turns out that it belongs to two sequences of cause and effect relationships, first the causal connection of returning to the mountainside, and then the cause and effect relations of “stripping” all potential witnesses.
In other words, they “drove” him like the rest near the fire and on the mountainside, and already finally finished off as fours near the flooring of trees. And finished off the last, when all the others were already dead.
There is another circumstance that at first glance falls out of the picture, it concerns the dead near the flooring. The fact is that of the four killed in the movement from the flooring, only three are injured, the fourth (Kolevatov) had no visible injuries. The exception is again, but ... judging by the location of the bodies, this tourist, at the time of his departure from the flooring, could no longer move on his own, was wounded, Zolotarev was dragging him on his back.
Where it was given incomprehensibly, but this alone can explain the posture of Zolotarev and their practically “stuck together” bodies. Apparently, he either was already dead by the time Zolotarev was injured, or he was finished off with what got to Zolotarev.
And these two exceptions give new characteristics of the deadly factor that put the final point in this tragic stories.
The deadly factor had a clear causal motive - “if you die, then die,” he did not touch the dead, he chose only the living.
The truth is somewhere near…..
But so far we have been talking only about people, now let's see what this extreme factor itself was like. Obviously, we have nothing but a hypothetical snapshot about him, but he influenced the behavior of people, he influenced their death, and this is all documented with factual materials. Therefore, it is possible to deduce obvious corollaries from the facts.
First, during the retreat to the forest from the tent, no one died or even got injured, this is indicated by the presence of traces of all tourists and signs of activity at the point of retreat.
Secondly, at a distance of one and a half kilometers from the tent, people felt safe and made the decision to wait out events in this place, but they did not return. So all this time, this extreme factor continued to operate.
In the third, people began to die only when some of them (three) went back, and judging by the route, not to the tent itself, but towards this extreme factor.
Fourthly, after the people involved in the movement and its maintenance (two by the fire) died, the place that had previously been considered safe by them became a dangerous place. The rest tried to get away from the previously safe flooring, but were able to move only 6 meters away and died in motion, three of which were clearly killed in a violent way.
We will not draw global conclusions; we restrict ourselves to the obvious; in the course of the tragic events, this extreme factor changed its behavior. At first, it manifested itself as a threat, and at the end it began to act in a lethal manner. In addition, the change in the behavior of the extreme factor correlates with the change in the behavior of tourists. He did not intend to liquidate the tourists during their departure from the tent and arrange temporary shelter, but after the tourists tried to approach him, he ruthlessly dealt with them. Famous elemental and man-made forces do not act that way.
As the attentive reader should have noticed the conclusions that follow from the above analysis of the facts, sharply narrow the range of possible versions.
On the other hand, everything that can with absolute certainty confirm the conclusions of this article remained beyond the scope of the investigation. There is no map of the area with the route of movement of tourists, the location of the objects and bodies found.
No protocols for technical expertise hours.
There are no protocols for the examination of cameras and frame binding to specific cameras.
There is not even a description of the list and the number of products found in the tent.
A lot more is not there ...
What is this incompetence, accident, malice?
Secrecy of the investigation
The mystery of the investigation begins with the title page of the case of the death of tourists, this is not at all the case that 28 initiated in February 1959, the prosecutor Mr. Ivdel Tempalov.
Before us is the case of the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor's Office dated 6 February 1959, in this case there is no document in support of his excitation. This can be only in one case, the case of the regional prosecutor’s office arose from some other matter, and the date of its discovery migrated to the case of the regional prosecutor’s office.
On any territory of the USSR, there were three prosecutor's offices, district (city) provincial and military, and the KGB had its own investigative unit. It is natural to assume that the case of the regional prosecutor’s office arose from military materials. The regional prosecutor's office did not have the opportunity to refer to these secret documents and the only thing that transferred them to their file is only the date of the beginning of the investigation.
The military prosecutor's office, on the basis of some unknown documents, filed an 6 case of its own in February, when the tourists were still to be on the march.
The military, or the KGB officers knew about the incident, immediately reported to the command and, based on their reports, an investigation was opened in the military prosecutor's office with February 6 dating, the events themselves most likely took place on February 4-5.
In the investigation materials there is another document dated 6 of February, the protocol of interrogation of the witness Popov, the questions related to the passage of tourist groups through the settlement. See in the second half of January.
So the error in the dates is excluded, the authorities began to deal with the situation on the Dyatlov Pass much earlier than the time when the search engines found an abandoned tent.
The investigation materials do not comply with the requirements of the procedural code, this is only part of the documents, too much material is missing. There are no precisely those documents that shed light on the true circumstances of events. I will list the most obvious exemptions:
- There is no inspection report of the last three bodies at the site of detection. There is only an act of inspection of the body Dubinina.
- There is no mention of the camera on the body of Zolotarev, although it is clearly distinguishable in the photographs.
- There is no interrogation protocol of the most important witness Sharavin, his testimony contradicts the version of the investigation.
- There is no inventory of films from cameras and from banks with captured films, the frame to which the investigation refers is not present at all on films attached to the file.
- In the pictures from the investigation materials there is a retouch, and precisely those places on the bodies where there should be mechanical damage.
- There are no protocols for examining cameras and stopped hours.
The absence of these mandatory documents indicates the existence of another, unknown to us, effect. A civil investigation was conducted in the regional prosecutor's office, and the other, secret investigation was conducted by the military prosecutor's office and the materials were separated between these consequences.
The military prosecutor's office, realizing that the death of 9 tourists could not be hidden, notified the regional prosecutor's office and went into the shadows, obtaining the necessary information from her by the hands of general civil investigators. This explains the strange circumstances of the investigation, about which investigator Ivanov spoke, for example, a barrel of alcohol, into which everyone who participated in the autopsy was forced to plunge.
There is clear evidence of this double investigation, some of the most important things at the time of the official investigation were absent, it was specifically at the disposal of investigator Ivanov what was called the “complex household appliances” of tourists, watches and cameras. This is not a mere allegation, there are acts of identifying the things of the dead tourists by their relatives, Ivanov, in the course of the investigation, presented them with all the things they had, and immediately after the identification on receipt he issued these identified things to the relatives. But among the presented things there was not a single camera and not a single watch.
Watches and cameras were given to relatives only a month after the completion of the investigation. This is documented in the investigation materials with the corresponding receipts.
In order not to be unsubstantiated, here are scans of the protocol for identifying Dyatlov's things and a receipt for their receipt (decorated as one document):
But a receipt for receiving a camera and Dyatlova watches a month after the end of the official investigation:
With respect to the rest of the cameras and watches, the same picture, unequivocally, the investigator Ivanov did not have these items during the official investigation, they only came to him a month after the completion of the official investigation.
The only reason for this lack of significant evidence may be their being at the disposal of completely different investigators and forensic experts.
Ivanov undoubtedly contacted the investigation of the military prosecutor's office, some of these contacts led him to a very extravagant conclusion at the time about the cause of the tragedy.
Till the end of his days, investigator Lev Ivanov was convinced that UFOs had destroyed the tourists, even formulating a decision to stop this case, he referred to an unnamed “elemental force” that the tourists could not overcome. In the case file, he entered information directly relating to the observation of “fireballs” during this period, as it was then called, but he was not given a lead in this direction, although he had witnesses.
Specifically, a group of tourists from the pedagogical institute under the leadership of Shumkov was 4-5-6 in February in 33 kilometers from the scene, on Chistopa mountain, and the participants of this hike said that they observed strange light effects as Dyatlov Pass, which they took to be signal flares. In particular, the participant of this campaign Vasiliev claims that he saw such an outbreak in the area of the Dyatlov Pass at night on February 4.
Here is what investigator Ivanov said in one of his interviews:
I know all the details of this incident and I can say that only those who were in these balls know more about these circumstances. And whether there were "people" there and whether they are always there - nobody knows yet ... .. "
This is said by a professional who presented the picture of the incident better than us and knew much more than us, I personally trust him.
Two dates are fundamental for us; 2 and 6 February. The first is the date of the tragedy according to the version of the general civil investigation. Based on the second, indicating the beginning of the investigation, it can be assumed that this tragic story occurred on February 4-5.
In the first case, the tourists were not in the area of Mount Otorten, and in the second they were there. It has already been said that the version with the date 2 February is doubtful, much more evidence suggests that tourists were returning from this ascent and not all of them were in order by that time.
I will not be unfounded, this is how the tent should have stood:
This is exactly the unfortunate tent set by all the rules, just a snapshot from another hike. Note the two skis used to keep the skate in the center of the tent. Search engines claim that one pair of skis on the pass was also not laid in the base of the tent and lay beside it separately.
But somehow the center of the tent needs to be maintained, and for this, tourists cut a ski stick along the length to use it as a backup, the fact of having such a trimmed ski stick inside the tent was recorded by the investigation.
At the last moment, it is only urgently necessary to abandon the use of already prepared skis and to spoil the ski pole, they did not have spare ski poles. It is simply impossible to go without a ski pole, which means they were returning and hoping to replace it in a shed, which was less than two kilometers away, they had a spare set of skis there.
After the ascent, the tourists should have been in these places in the evening of February 4, so the tragedy on the night from February 4 to February 5 is confirmed by the date of the beginning of the investigation in the regional prosecutor's office and the testimony of another group of tourists about the flash of light in the 1079 area.
Inconvenient witness and extra people
One of the search engines, Sharavin, who first discovered the tent and the bodies near the cedar, claims that these bodies were covered with a blanket, no one else saw this blanket.
Looks like Sharavin is telling the truth, look at the picture:
The bodies seem to be really covered in the chest area, but this is snow, it cracked and acquired the shape of the folds of matter, and the legs of the first body are also visible on the shin.
Strange snow, this is possible only in one case, when bodies sprinkled with soft snow were covered with heavy matter (blanket) and under the weight of matter snow acquired the shape of natural folds of the blanket. Then someone removed the blanket, and the print of the folds remained on the packed snow.
It means that the bodies were covered not immediately after death, but later, when there was at least a centimeter of 5-10 snow on them. Why it was done clearly, the bodies were damaged by birds, someone, in violation of instructions, regretted and covered them. And after the discovery of the bodies by the search engines, someone else removed this blanket.
There is no protocol of interrogation of Sharavin in the investigation materials, but the investigators took testimony from him. These testimonies of Sharavin could not get into the materials of the open investigation in principle, they are stored in a completely different place. For us, this means that, at least immediately after the events and before the arrival of the search engines, this area was under secret control.
At the scene of the incident, things not belonging to the group of tourists were found, the investigator reluctantly wrote them into the investigation materials, in particular the witness and participant in the events Udin said. It is possible to understand the investigator, to litter the investigation by ascertaining to whom what kind of rag he did not want.
But there are other facts about the presence of strangers after the tragedy, and moreover, after the search engines arrived there.
Firstly, there is no tent stand on the north side, several search engines stated this at the interrogations at once. It turns out that the stand was somewhere removed by unknown people.
The second fact concerns a pair of skis prepared for the device of the central stretching of the tent. In the pictures of the investigation, these skis are stuck in the snow, but not in those places where they have to stand in order to fulfill the role of stretch marks.
According to the same Sharavin, who first discovered the tent, this pair of skis lay in the snow in front of the tent entrance. Here is how he personally displayed it on the diagram:
In addition, there is evidence of witnesses about the presence of a trace in the shoe, there is a snapshot of this trace, a dubious fact, but in the aggregate, it confirms the suspicion of the presence of unauthorized people.
Just Sasha and an extraordinary orderly
The key figure in these events is Semyon Zolotarev, who asked to call him, “just Sasha,” when meeting a group. The man for the participants of the campaign is completely unfamiliar, a front-line soldier, a graduate of the institute of physical culture. These institutions, in addition to civilian specialists, trained professionals and a completely different profile. The ups and downs of his front-line and life journey, the strangeness of the funeral, speak of Zolotarev’s belonging to the KGB.
Another fighter of the invisible front, Colonel Ortyukov, head of the search operation, took part in the events. During the war he was the orderly of Marshal Zhukov, at least the searchers speak about this with his own words.
Here is what officially known about Ortyukov:
So the personality is not at all ordinary, by the way, the set of awards for Zolotarev and Ortyukov is almost the same, and this is only an apparent coincidence.
First, the obvious circumstance underlying the events:
- The meeting of tourists with "Factor" was not an accident, it was a planned event.
The KGB organized this entrance to the locality for its employee under the cover of a group of unsuspecting tourists. Zolotarev was not alone, the group of tourists was secretly accompanied by other people, otherwise it is impossible to explain the fact that already on February 6, three weeks before the official discovery of the abandoned tent, the prosecutor's office and the police began to stir.
The presence of witnesses to the events on the Dyatlov Pass is confirmed by the strange circumstances of finding the flooring in the ravine. Look again at the picture of the excavation flooring in the ravine (picture above). The "point" excavation, as if they knew where to dig. Actually, this was the case, according to the recollections of search engines, in an order of theirs, they indicated a point where they needed to dig. Dug up and found the flooring ...
And now about the "Factor":
- “Factor” had a reasonable nature and reacted to the behavior of tourists.
- The liquidation of tourists was a reaction to their specific actions, and maybe not only them, but also to the actions of the group of secretive accompaniment of tourists.
Everything else in the second part of the series of articles ...