An unbiased analysis of the events on the slope of Holatchahl in the afternoon of February 1, 1959. The objectivity of the "factor of fear" that influenced decisions made by tourists.
Having convinced ourselves of the incompleteness of other versions, we will try to give our interpretation of what happened on the slope of the Holatchahl mountain near 16 hours on February 1, 1959.
As you know, the correctly asked question is half the answer, so we will try to correctly formulate the most important question that the researcher of the Diatlov's tragedy should ask himself after studying all available facts. To sound such a question, according to the author, should be so: what circumstances make the history of the death of this tourist group extremely confusing, incomprehensible and non-obvious? It can be said more simply: what exactly is confusing the researchers, what is the fundamental difference between the circumstances of the death of these tourists from a multitude of other deaths in tourist and mountaineering expeditions?
An exhaustive answer will enable us to understand the nature of the force that destroyed the tourists, its source and the features of the action.
So, let's try to list in order the most obvious, striking oddities of what happened on the slope of Holatchahl:
1) The obvious separation of the place and time of the influencing factors: near the tent on the slope there was "intimidation," or otherwise, "intimidating effect," but the fatal injuries that caused the death of people were caused far below - in the cedar and in the ravine. And, it happened after a few hours from the moment of "awesome impact" on the mountainside. Why the intimidating factor was not realized immediately at the time of the appearance near the tent? "Dyatlovtsy" left the tent on foot, without shoes, crossing three stony ridges, they could not escape from the threat that drove them down. However, what threatened them, for some reason did not kill any of them upstairs. The only exception is Rustem Slobodin, but this is an apparent exception, because he was also not killed near the tent. Whatever happened to him, Rustem moved for a while on his own and died on the slope from freezing. Why did not the murder happen near the tent? There may be several answers, and the first one can be formulated as follows: the one who intimidated the tourists did not want their corpses to be found near the tent. There is another answer, complementing the first: the one who was the source of the "awesome impact", it was difficult to control a fairly large group of tourists, it was easier for them to drive them away, in the hope that the cold and the wind would do all the work for him. This assumption is a weighty confirmation - Thibo-Brignol and Zolotarev managed to remain clothed and shod unlike the rest of the group. The assumption that they were worn by the rest of the group does not stand up to criticism, since it is impossible to imagine that Igor Dyatlov allowed to shoe Semyon Zolotaryov, completely alien to him, instead of Zina Kolmogorova, whom she openly sympathized with for a long time. Moreover, nobody would condemn Dyatlov, everyone would have understood his chivalrous behavior towards the girl. There is only one realistic explanation of the fact that Thibault and Zolotarev were shod and well-dressed (except for the windbreakers found in the tent), namely, for a period of time these two were out of control of their opponent and, using this, separated themselves from group.
2) Whatever the reason for the appearance of the "factor of fear" (it is deliberately not specified by us, since it deserves a separate discussion), the threat created by it objectively existed. Recall that Thibault Brignol and Zolotarev were dressed and shod, they were healthy and were not depleted by a long transition. Whatever force drove them out of the tent, they had to survive the night absolutely. Researchers of the "Dyatlov" tragedy like to talk about all sorts of Soviet special forces, which they understand as pigs in oranges, but they do not even seem to know that Soviet saboteurs did not have tents at all. In principle, they did not rely on them. Even in the Arctic, the Soviet special forces had to survive, as they say, in the snow. That flooring, that the four Zolotaryov-Dubinina-Thibault-Kolevatov made in the ravine called "Dyatlovtsy" "flooring" purely from ignorance - this is a typical guerrilla "asylum" (more precisely, one of the three main varieties of those). And this means that at least two members of the campaign - Thibault and Zolotaryov - were to survive the night without much damage to their health. However, did not survive. Why? Because they were killed. Whatever fear scares the tourists on the slope of Holatchahl, this fear descended after them into the valley of Lozva and finished them there.
3) Why did the cedar fire appear at all? What kind of functional load did he carry? The first thing that comes to mind - the fire gives warmth and the fire in the conditions of a winter night (evening) turns into a source of energy, strength and life itself. The explanation is seeming, since it is impossible to keep warm in the wind near the fire - the cooled area of the body will always be more warmed and all experienced tourists know this perfectly. The second explanation, less obvious, but more credible - the flame of the fire was a guide for the missing members of the group, first of all Slobodin, who clearly was not at the fire and died on the slope even while descending. The elevated position of the cedar seems to confirm this assumption. To warm the fire should be planted in a ravine, but there it could not serve as a landmark. And what happens? "Dyatlovtsy" were very frightened on the slope, but down below their fear went so far that they decided to breed a strong fire without thinking about the threat of unmasking themselves. And this is possible only if the breeders of the fire did not fear persecution. However, as it was said in point 2, the persecution still took place. That is, there is a mistake in determining the true intentions of the enemy.
4) The division of the group that followed the cedar is clearly evident. We know for sure that the fourth, who went to the ravine, was under the cedar, perhaps even helped to build a fire, but subsequently refused to interact with the rest of the group. Why did this separation occur? It is fortuitous that the members of the group Zolotarev (born in 1921), Thibo Brignol (born in 1934) and Kolevatov (born in 1934), the oldest (and life-long) members of the group left the cedar. No matter how they motivated their intention to retire from the fire, their arguments proved sufficiently convincing for Lyudmila Dubinina, who joined them. It is noteworthy that the departed did not kindle anything like a bonfire under the cedar, although it would be logical at first glance, because it's good to hide from the wind in a ravine, but it's even better to get a fire there. Why did not the departed build a fire? The answer can only be one - their unwillingness to build a fire is explained by the fear of unmasking themselves, or otherwise, fear of possible persecution. Thus. we can state that the group was divided due to the apparent mismatch of the assessment of the enemy's danger. The older members of the group feared him more than the young ones.
5) If four tourists who hid in the ravine did allow the possibility of persecution, then why did they not make an attempt to go further into the forest? It would seem that you are afraid of an evil enemy that you can not cope with, so run that there are forces, use the resulting odds! However, this is only an apparent way out. Those who made the floor clearly measured their capabilities against the forces opposing them and chose the optimal solution. There is no doubt that the option of leaving deep into the forest, allowing several ways of realizing (breaking up into pairs, either by the whole group, moving to the storage, or simply leaving for the forest in an arbitrary direction) was considered and rejected. There could be many reasons for such a decision, but only one could be sure to refuse to escape by escape - the absence of skis, without which movement through the snowy forest was extremely difficult. In other words, people on the floor understood that they would not be able to escape in the event of a chase. And in the ravine they hid not only from the wind. Whoever chooses the position of the flooring - Zolotarev or someone else - he managed to find the best place possible. We have already cited the layout of the flooring in the ravine with respect to the cedar. From it you can see that the flooring, located south-west of the cedar, is an excellent place to observe the slope of the Holat-Sahyl. Seated people could notice the persecution while remaining in the dark (more precisely in a snow pit), while people at the cedar were deprived of this opportunity due to a well-known feature of the human eye (it is impossible to see poorly lit parts, being near a strong light source, which in our case there was a fire). Thus. the flooring in the ravine was not only a place of salvation from the wind, but also an observation point allowing to see and hear the approach to the cedar from the side of the slope of the opponent's Holatchahl. At the same time, the observers themselves remained unnoticed, since the track from the tent to the cedar passed from them somewhat to the side.
6) The absence of all members of the group of death records, shedding light on what happened in the last hours of life, raises suspicions about the search of bodies. Suspicion is further intensified if we take into account the absence of the notebook of Alexander Kolevatov, who, as it is known, was always with him, including in this campaign (as reported by Yuri Yudin). The suggestion that Kolevatova's notebook went to fire a fire can not be considered satisfactory, since the cedar-like people did not experience any special difficulties with combustible material. First, they had (and remained untouched) paper banknotes, and secondly, around grew birch. The best material for ignition than birch bark is difficult to come up with. Indirect indication of the search of corpses can serve as the fact that almost all the buttons on the pockets of the victims were unbuttoned. The feeling of the oddity of this search will intensify if we take into account that the valuables, money and documents of the deceased remained untouched (the same applies to the property in the tent, from which nothing was lost). This strange fact can be given the only reasonable explanation - material values were not of interest to those who organized this search, they were searching purposefully in the pockets of the deceased scraps, as well as a film from the camera of Semyon Zolotaryov, a mention of which is also absent in the criminal case.
7) The nature of the damage caused to the tent seems strange, illogical and at first glance inexplicable. Why is it caused such strange damages if, as was shown above, they were not used to determine the thickness of snow falling on the slope and did not serve to let the air in? One can give, perhaps, only one non-contradictory explanation for strange cuts made from within: short (mostly horizontal) and long vertical incisions were applied by criminals after the expulsion of tourists and served different purposes. The short ones were used to control the slope in the direction in which the "Dyatlovtsy" left, the long ones were applied in order to render the tent unfit for use, in order to exclude the possibility of its use in the future. These incisions were caused by the killers before leaving the camp and heading down to the fire they saw at the cedar. Perhaps the assassins suspected that the fire was used to distract their attention and while they were moving into the Lozva Valley, someone from the Dyatlov group would try to remove the tent or take things from it. Even if the team members Igor Dyatlov this trick succeeded, then the slope scraped by at least six long cuts significantly reduced the value of the received trophy.
8) The presence on the roof of the tent of the serviceable flashlight belonging to Igor Dyatlov seems illogical and incomprehensible from the point of view of common sense. Recall, it was thrown directly on the ramp and beneath it was a layer of snow (up to 10 cm). It would seem that the departing group had to take it with them. However, the flashlight was thrown and after a considerable time since the installation of the tent (after all, we must not forget that a certain layer of snow was poured onto the ramp by the wind!). Why? There is only one reasonable answer - the flashlight was left by Dyatlov not voluntarily, but under duress. And after that, the flashlight was used by those who threatened the group and drove it out to the frost. For what purpose could a flashlight be used? Obviously, in order to inspect the vicinity of the tent in the dark. From the same series, and the question about the shirt-a cowboy Dyatlova with wrapped slippers and socks, found at a distance of about 10 m from the tent. Of course, Igor would have taken her down with him if he could, especially since she was clearly in his hands when he left the tent. However, he had to throw it aside and he did it obviously involuntary. And this means that those who intimidated the group, tried to ensure that tourists did not carry anything away with them.
9) In the development of point (8) we can point to another serious, but not attracting attention at first glance, absurdity. Six of the nine dead tourists were wiped off, if exactly - they were in their socks. The seventh - Rustem Slobodin - was shod in one boot. But all the members of the group had a change of shoes to stay in the tent. If a person was skiing in boots, then in the evening he was wearing boots (or vice versa, as it is seen in the photographs that you could get up on skis and having felt boots on your feet, a leather fastening allowed it). By the way, slippers were also used as replacement shoes - two pairs of those were described among the things found in the tent. Remember the insoles found on Rustem Slobodin's chest - he pulled them out of his shoes, shod in boots, one of which remained on his leg. In any case, stay inside the tent in the socks was not supposed - the feet were freezing (the tent was cold all the time in a cold overnight stay). It is easy to understand that the re-training was carried out rather quickly, because no one obviously froze his feet for half an hour. However, on the corpses of the dead we see something average - the "woodpeckers" turned out to be without boots, and without shoes, and without slippers. Even if some threat forced them to leave the tent at the time of re-training, people would jump out of their hands and jump out of their hands, as the most logical thing in this situation is to protect them from freezing their legs. However, almost the entire group of legs were not protected from the cold. Why did it happen so? What versions do not invent, which aliens or snowmobiles are not included in the plot, can not escape from the very obvious answer: the one who threatened tourists near the tent, demanded that the "dyatlovtsy" take off their shoes.
10) There is another hard-to-explain strangeness, confusing by seeming illogicality - finding the last four bodies away from the flooring in the ravine. And the bodies of the dead were placed very compactly, on the square hardly in 4 sq.m. (and even less)! If the dead were lying on the floor, it would look logical, understandable and would not cause any questions. But why were the bodies outside the floor, at a distance that excludes the self-moving movement of corpses? The answer can exist only one - they were moved aside from the floor intentionally in the hope that finding the floor by the search engines will not lead to the discovery of corpses. There may be another answer, quite equiprobable - the murderers corny did not find the flooring in the dark and threw the bodies into a snowy ravine, just like a common grave.
11) Finally, why did the victims not use pieces of clothing cut from the bodies of Krivonischenko and Doroshenko? Only Lyudmila Dubinina shook her leg with half of the cut jacket, and then her own! At the same time, Lyudmila wore Krivonischenko's trousers and sweater, which had already been removed from the corpse (it was on these garments that the physical and technical expertise revealed traces of radioactive dust.The third radioactive item, as we know, was Thibault's sweater, but it could also belong to Krivonischenko ). Why did it happen so? The answer can be only one - the corpses of Doroshenko and Krivonischenko were subjected to undressing in several ways (that is, at least twice). In other words, at some point the entire four left the flooring, one of the members of this small group approached the cedar and performed the initial stripping of the bodies of the victims, taking possession of the pants and two sweaters. After a while, it was decided to finish the case and the members of the fourth came to the bodies of Krivonischenko and Doroshenko again. Then a partial cutting of pieces of clothes was made, but the members of the group did not use the cut things. Death came earlier.
This chain of strange events can be continued, but even the above is more than enough to make an unambiguous conclusion: in the role of "factor of fear" and the killers were people. Malicious, purposeful, guided by logic, which we, knowing the outcome of the tragedy, we can fully calculate. No ball lightning or gondola of an American balloon, an aerosleigh ski or the curse of a Mansi shaman, a snow storm or a terrible infrasound can not pursue a group at intervals of several hours, can not search the dead and throw their bodies into a common snow grave in a ravine.