There was it in area 15: 30-16: 00. It is to this time that the beginning of the development of tragic events should be attributed.
At that time, the tourist group had almost finished setting up the tent, it only remained to hang the horse on the stretcher, but this work did not require the participation of all members of the group. Therefore, some of the tourists were already in the tent, and several people remained on the slope. It could be Simon Zolotaryov, Nikolay Thibault-Brignol, perhaps someone else, but guessing about the personalities in this case does not make much sense - these guesses do not give anything to understand the situation. But a very telling test is the fact that the jacket-storms of all 9 members of the group were ultimately removed and found in the tent - none of the "dyatlovites" went down the slope in such a jacket (although we see them in these jackets on the last photos). It is clear that the people in the tent were shooting storms that were wet from the accumulated snow, first of all, but since there were also those who remained "on the street" and suspended the horse without storms, this clearly indicates that none of the "dyatlovites" could not escape forced stripping. And more precisely, the very beginning of this action.
A photograph from the last campaign, giving an idea of the equipment of its participants: Nikolay Thibault-Brignol lies on the ground, without removing the backpack. On top of his warm fur jacket is a thin canvas hood with a hood. Storms protected thick winter clothing from getting wet, in addition, they performed the role of non-existent unloading waistcoats - in their pockets all sorts of small things were stored, which should always be at hand. In the pockets of this particular storm, rescuers will find a Finnish knife in the scabbard, owned by Thibault Brignoles, a penknife and a compass. Storms of all members of the group without exception were found in the tent (including Thibaut), which can not be considered very strange, taking into account the almost complete dressing of at least two of the nine people.
However, we know that Zolotarev and Thibaut were the most dressed of the whole group. How could this happen? The explanation for this may lie in the weakest point of the plan of their opponents, which should be mentioned. The weakest point of the plan to freeze the group, its main problem, was not the possible physical resistance of tourists (it is very unlikely, I must say), but the complexity of controlling a fairly large and unorganized group of people. Try to force to obey nine people! It turns out that one did not hear the command, another - he heard, but did not fully understand, the third - he heard, but did not follow, and the fourth one himself will start to command. Every commander knows that any unit takes some time to "make up", that is, to develop a habit of acting in concert with the team of the eldest. In this case, we do not see a military unit with a clear one-man management, but a group of jokey students, and moreover, in a company of girls, whose presence always definitely discourages the male team.
Therefore, it was unlikely that foreign agents would have been able to get the quick, unconditional and exact execution of orders from the "dyatlovists" even under the threat of automatic weapons. After the first shouts and threats, the phase of the conflict that could be conditionally called "wrangling" was followed. The attackers put forward a certain far-fetched explanation of their actions, demanded "explanations" from the group, forced everyone to leave the tent. And the tourists who got out of the tent, in turn, were obviously indignant both because of the pistols aimed at them, and because of the slander in their address. They demanded explanatory answers, argued and even threatened! In a word, noise, scammers, swearing, but in the first minutes all this remained within the limits of what was allowed. Tourists were still unaware of the degree of threat faced and it is possible that even Zolotarev, Kolevatov and Krivonischenko (the most informed of the group members) did not immediately realize that their operation was failed and what is happening only masks the upcoming massacre.
Here it is necessary to say a few words about those behavioral models that could guide tourists as the conflict develops. At the thematic forums devoted to the history of the death of Igor Dyatlov's group, one can sometimes come across arguments that according to them only a similarly numerous group could cope with seven young healthy men (and, moreover, in the company of two pretty girls). They say that the kind of weapons young men would scarcely frighten, and a small enemy, even with automatic weapons, would inevitably face an implacable resistance, and weapons would have to be used, willy-nilly. From this rather naive message, it is concluded that two even well-trained and armed saboteurs could not bring Igor Dyatlov's group to obedience, they say, the hand-to-hand fight and the skirmish would be absolutely unavoidable.
Such an evaluation of events is completely unjustified and has little in common with realities of life. Behavioral patterns that people will follow in conflict situations are explicitly associated with their psychotypes, which in turn are directly caused by nervous reactions. The latter clearly divide all people into two very different categories: some are capable of responding to the danger by violence, others are unable to do so under any circumstances. The regulator that "authorizes" the right to "protective" violence, or "categorically prohibiting" it, is not connected only with ethical notions and restrictions (as it may seem at first glance), but has in many ways an extra-rational nature.
Since consideration is rather unobvious, it makes sense to make a small digression. The human brain is designed in such a way that physical pain is experienced at once by several of its sites - this is the so-called. islet, thalamus, sensory cortex and gyrus cinguli gyrus. The role of the latter is especially important - it is responsible for the automatic regulation of heart rate and associated blood pressure. Pain causes a malfunction in the functioning of the cingulate gyrus and the stronger (and suddenly) the painful effect, the more imbalance in its functioning becomes apparent. It is noteworthy that for the experience of both physical pain and emotional suffering, which seemingly have a completely different nature, the same parts of the brain respond. Moreover, the same sites are also responsible for our empathy with someone else's pain, although the degree of "immersion in empathy" very much depends on the personality traits of the person and his spiritual affinity (connection) with the sufferer. This is all, so to speak, naked medical theory, from which it follows that the frequency and the fullness of the pulse, as well as the hormonal and chemical composition of human blood, depend to a great extent on the pains, emotions experienced and empathy for others' sufferings. But the consequence of this general message is quite unexpected.
For pain and suffering - own or experienced by another person - different people react not just differently, but diametrically opposite: some experience a shock with all the accompanying manifestations (trembling of hands, cold sweat, frequent low-pulse, narrowing of the pupils, etc.) ), while others experience an attack of anger (with adrenaline rushing into the blood and maximum activation of all life processes). In some categories of people, there may be deviations from the described reactions (for example, pregnant women or those who are in the altered consciousness), but in general the division into "shocked" and "experiencing anger" fairly accurately describes the basic human reactions to pain and danger. This was known to the ancient Greeks, who checked the suitability of men for military service by slapping them. Such a check is usually arranged by the trainer in martial arts or boxing, checking an inexperienced beginner in sparring with a knowingly stronger partner: it is clear that the newcomer will be beaten, but for the coach it is not the result of the fight on points that is important, but the reaction of the beginner to pain, humiliation and the ability to control own fear (it should immediately be noted that there are other ways to test a person's ability to aggression, which are well known to coaches and find application in practice). By the way, the coach of boxing and martial arts knows perfectly well that not every boy with good physical abilities can learn to fight; of course, anyone can learn, but not everyone will show the real result. Because apart from the mere physical inclinations, you also need "confinement to fight", readiness for aggression at the level of instinct, nervous reaction. And such, we repeat, is observed far not at everyone.
At once it is necessary to make a reservation that in the described reactions to pain there are no "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", they are just the same as they are. Often a shock is perceived as a sign of weakness or cowardice, but this is a purely subjective assessment. Much depends on the specific situation that causes the onset of pain, for example, uncontrollable anger experienced in the dentist's chair, can provoke a heart attack (such cases are known). Psychopaths in their majority react to aggression with a fit of rage, but no one will consider the psychopath as a model for imitation. So there is not much point in thinking about "how is it better?", It will always be better to act by nature, by nature ...
Now, after this necessary retreat into the field of sports pedagogy, we return to the consideration of behavioral reactions. It is clear that a person experiencing a shock at the sight of violence, with all his will, will not rush to the enemy with his fists, because he is not physically able to do this. His model of behavior will be reduced either to the scheme "to obey and try not to offend anyone", or - "to go unnoticed anywhere". Another type of people, experiencing anger at the appearance of danger, will react in a fundamentally different way, internally these people will be oriented to active actions. And those are reduced to the scheme "attack and win at all costs," or "to flee as long as you have enough strength." Flight in this case is not at all a sign of cowardice, but a deliberate choice of a variant of self-salvation, implying active actions (as opposed to the option "to go away unnoticed anywhere"). In fact, there are many more possible behaviors, but even those enumerated are sufficient to illustrate the thesis obvious to any psychologist - a group of people left to their own will never act uniformly. Different people, faced with the same problem, will see completely different (sometimes directly opposite!) Ways to solve it.
Therefore, being under the trunks aimed at them, the members of Igor Dyatlov's group could not think, and even more so act in the same way. Even with knives and axes in their hands, they would not sing Komsomol songs and would not rush into friendly ranks against the enemy simply because of psychological unpreparedness and inability to use weapons against people.
Most likely, one of them - most likely, the girls - began to argue with the unknown, someone silently performed their commands, and someone, on the contrary, silently did not perform, waiting for the situation to be resolved. We know that Lyudmila Dubinina was a very persistent girl, her younger brother's memories are known on this subject, and taking into account this trait of her character, one can assume that Lyudmila could easily enter into stubborn and even impudent quarrels with the unknowns ("What are you doing here?" frighten us, see how you yourself have not been imprisoned! "). In this, it was supported by one of the people around and this noise, it is quite possible, provoked the first use of violence on the part of persons who threatened weapons.
The assumption is, on the one hand, purely hypothetical, and on the other - close to the truth, well fitting into the facts known to us.
In analyzing the "natural science" and "ufological" theories, their supporters usually bypass modestly silent the fact that practically all the members of Igor Dyatlov's group had obvious physical injuries that do not pose a serious threat to health. Usually they mention the heavy injuries of Thibaut, Zolotarev and Dubinina, the most advanced investigators indistinctly mention the trauma of Slobodin, but at the same time they keep silent about the fact that in addition to these four people, all the other members of the group had physical injuries. In general, all! In fact, Zina Kolmogorova's face was all covered with bruises, which are clearly visible even under the layer of mourning makeup in photographs taken during the funeral; on the brushes of her hands marked numerous bruises and abrasions, especially the "talking" abrasion is a scalp wound of 3.2 cm long and 2 cm wide on the right hand. Supporters of "natural-scientific" hypotheses claim that she received these wounds when collecting brushwood and twigs at the bottom, at the cedar. But it is impossible to imagine how you can get a scalp wound, breaking fir branches with your bare hands, but the wound mechanism will be instantly understood if we imagine in the right hand of Zina a knife, which she tried to hold with all her might, and someone had this knife taken away from her. In George Kolevatov we see a broken nose, neck damage in the thyroid cartilage region and a "soft tissue defect" on the right cheek. Igor Dyatlov - a bruise on the back of the nose 2.0 cm long, clotted blood on the lips, abrasions on both cheekbones, and on the left cheekbone two abrasions have a length of 3.0 cm, and in addition to this - abrasions on the frontal tubercles and above the left eyebrow. Yuri Doroshenko, we again see, as in the case with Igor Dyatlov, blood on the lips, but in addition - blood in the nose and ear. On the lower third of his right forearm, the expert described at least three red-brown abrasions, and quite decent, 4.0 cm, 2.5 cm and 5.0 cm long. In fact, the entire lower part of Yury Doroshenko's right forearm was a solid bruise . It is absolutely impossible to understand how such abrasions can be obtained by breaking branches. But everything falls into place, if you remember that it is the right forearm that the right-handed man will cover his head from blows both in the standing position and lying down. And boxing or some special training is not needed for this - a person will cover his head simply because of congenital reflexes. The heavy and even fatal injuries of Thibault, Zolotarev and Dubinina mask the fact that these participants of the campaign had relatively minor (or non-dangerous - say) injuries. Ludmila Dubinina's nose was broken, plus there was a huge bruise on the hip of her right foot in front (size 10 * 15 cm), and also - damage to the skin on the crown, reaching the bone. Perhaps there were other injuries, but only the Renaissance by that time already tried not to notice them especially (as you can not remember, about the "unusual mobility of the hyoid bone", which the forensic expert did not want to recognize for a break, although strictly speaking, it was a turning point, believe in another "anomaly" is no longer possible). In Nicholas Thibault-Brignol we see an abrasion on the upper lip on the left side with dimensions of 3 * 4 cm (a good abrasion, by the way!) And again the strange mobility of the cartilage of the nose, on the basis of which the forensic expert did not wish to draw a conclusion about his fracture What is it, if not a fracture? Another "anomaly"?).
And what happens? The conclusion can be only one - almost the whole group was evenly beaten. And it happened at the top, near the tent, where all the "dyatlovists" were together. No "gathering of branches", no "attack of moose" or "mad wolverine", the preparation of such wounds can not be explained. That is, you can try to explain, but only nonsense will turn out and explanations, these do not unite the whole amount of facts - they will be missing, like that "trishkina kaftan", which no matter how tight, it will still be small. It is enough to look more closely at the localization of injuries on the bodies of the affected tourists to understand that 90% of those are concentrated on the left side of the body, and therefore, are caused by the right-hander. If the nature of bruises and abrasions were not related to the human factor, we would see a uniform distribution of injuries between the right and left sides of the body. And if there had been a self-destruction of the members of the group, the wounds would have been concentrated just on the right halves of the bodies, because in right-handers it is such in the motor relation is more active.
In February 2008, a group of enthusiasts with the greatest accuracy repeated the descent of Igor Dyatlov's group from the place on the slope of Holat-Sahyl, where a tent was installed, to the valley of Lozva, followed by the kindling of a fire at the cedar. The volunteers carried out the reconstruction of the events of February 1959 with the maximum approximation to the circumstances recorded in the criminal case - the participants of the experiment acted in their socks, without gloves and outer clothing (I must say that this reconstruction was repeated in February 2010 by another group, but in In this case, volunteers acted in shoes). For this enthusiasts should say many thanks, because their reconstruction, they very simply and clearly debunked some of the truly idiotic hypotheses of professional "woodpeckers", which for many years proved with foam at the mouth. One such idiotic hypothesis is the blinding of members of the Djatlov group, which was the result of chemical poisoning (rocket fuel or technical alcohol - it is not important). In support of this extremely strange assumption, the professional "researchers" cited the following absurd argument: "dyatlovtsy" broke green coniferous branches, not noticing that the nearby stands dead, suitable for a fire is not an example better. So "dyatlovtsy" acted on touch! Ah, what a terrible-and-as, hydrazine burned out their eyes, ah-ah, how cruel is the Soviet military, who killed the unfortunate blind, barefooted and frozen students ...! However, the re-enactors were also forced to break fir branches, but not because they were blinded by rocket fuel. Everything was much easier - the branches they threw under their feet for better thermal insulation, so as not to stand on the snow with bare feet. The fire really went dead, but lapnik - under the feet. But how to come up with this simple "woodpecker", tourists with many years of experience, right? Before the non-existent ballistic missile in 1959 on hydrazine fantasy, the "researchers" had enough time to think of, and see a sound, reasonable and, in general, obvious solution to the problem of thermal insulation of the feet, well, in any way!
Indeed, comrades "professional researchers", not with your enchanting talents to investigate crimes and analyze puzzles ... In general, the full-scale experiments of 2008 and 2010, for the supporters of all the "non-criminal" versions, the results were directly discouraging - none of their participants caused themselves scalped hand wounds, did not break ribs and noses, and did not even break the scalp to the skull bones (meanwhile, such "skin breakdowns" are marked at least two "dyatlovtsev" - Dubinin and Kolevatov).
The fact of the beating is absolutely obvious to any unbiased researcher, although the supporters of the version of the "falling balloon of the American balloon" and its similar bastards will, of course, puff up, trying their best to prove otherwise. But in this case, we are not interested in the objections of low-minded demagogues, but in the very important consequence that results from the fact of "primary violence" that has been proved above in the tent. When the first resentful tourists were brutally beaten (it is possible that they were Dubinin and Kolmogorov), the very mechanism of behavior in the stressful situation described above was involved. Each member of the group was faced with the choice of the behavioral model and everyone made this choice independently, because there was no time to consult a neighbor. As soon as the attackers turned to gross violence and, say, slapped Zina Kolmogorova or Thibaut, or someone else, Semyon Zolotaryov left the group, using the turmoil and poor visibility. Perhaps he took with him Thibault Brignoles, and perhaps Tibo himself took the same decision as Zolotarev. It happened, we emphasize, at the very beginning of the band's undressing. Those who fled have lost only mittens and windbreakers - and these details of clothing were filmed in the first place (of course, from those members of the group who did not leave their windbreaker and mittens in the tent, for some of the tourists were already in it at the time of the attack). Nicholas Thibault-Brignol had thin woolen knitted gloves, but it was not "outer clothing", gloves were worn over these gloves, or these gloves were used during a stay in a cold tent. Once again, we emphasize that both Thibaut and Zolotarev have lost their windbreakers and mittens, like the rest of the group, indicating their presence near the tent at the beginning of the group's forcible stripping procedure. But they kept their jackets and shoes, which clearly shows that they did not wait for the end of this procedure, because they disappeared earlier.
It is noteworthy that all non-criminal versions ("avalanche", "gondola-balloon", "aerial bomb", "mansi-mystical", etc.) clumsily explain the fact of Zolotaryov and Thibo Brignol's dressing, found, as we know, traumatized. Supporters of these versions agreed that the wounded in the tent of tourists were warmed by their comrades, selflessly fighting for their lives right on the slope. Comrades, they say, courageously threw themselves into the thick of the snow, neglecting the fear of a new avalanche (or "gondola"), looking in the dark for touch clothes and shoes injured, dressed and shod in the cold, and then gently transported down (no one was transferred to weight, and affectionately supporting under arms or hand!). There are even powerful arguments in favor of the fact that it was so. For example, woolen gloves in the right pocket of the Thibault jacket and a crumpled sock in the left felt boots, according to the supporters of these versions, testify that Thibaut was insulated when he was unconscious. The fact that this may be different, much more prosaic explanations, into the bright heads of the supporters of non-criminal versions does not come. At the same time, they can not think of anything to explain why the "woodpeckers" did not "insulate" Lyudmila Dubinin and did not pull out their boots, jackets and hats from the tent. In general, it is absolutely impossible to understand their logic, as they say, this mystery is great.
Blame Zolotarev and Thibault Brignoles in flight from the tent is impossible, because this kind of choice lies outside the ethical coordinates "good" - "bad" ("worthy" - "unworthy"). Semyon Zolotarev was the first to understand how serious the danger was to the group and, without even knowing the intentions of the enemy, unerringly determined what the result of the attack that was to begin should be. His self-salvation is an absolutely logical and justified choice; to die in the same ranks with the rest would not only be suboptimal, but just stupid. About the Thibo Brignoles, you can say the same, although he, unlike Semyon, was much less informed about the background of what was happening, and therefore did not understand everything. But we can not doubt that the fugitives did not rush into the darkness, where their eyes are looking, but stayed somewhere nearby, watching the development of events.
And further, the attackers demanded of tourists to drop their cotton jackets and take off their shoes, again, with threats and abuse (all those who are not oriented in tourist equipment of that time will tell you that the "cotton jacket" (padded jacket) and "storm" (storm) is different parts of clothing, the canvas overcoat was worn over the quilted jacket to prevent the latter from getting wet in the event of snow melting around the campfire.Therefore, first the members of the group were forced to remove the storm jackets with hoods and only after that the team had to remove the quilted jackets. But these commands were carried out without beatings, because the physical violence was required by the attackers only to subordinate the group and they did not want to abuse the beatings. These people understood perfectly well that extra beatings are unnecessary traces, at least potentially. Yes, and what there is a sin to conceal, members of the group Igor Dyatlov at some point were psychologically suppressed by what was happening and were not capable of active resistance. All but one.