Trekking through the eyes of tourists. Communicative relations in the group of Igor Dyatlov on the basis of the analysis of marching photographs. Evidence of the presence of a large number of cameras among members of the group, rather than recorded in the materials of the criminal case.
Criminal psychologists have long noticed that a large amount of information relevant to the investigation can be obtained non-verbally, that is, without verbal contact with the source of information. People sometimes very much communicate about themselves, their mood and state of health with the language of postures, body movements, the motor skills of uncontrolled movements, etc. The theory of constructing an interrogation directly prescribes paying attention to the so-called. "Nonverbal sources of information" ("unconscious signals"), which this applied discipline carefully describes, classifies and studies.
The photo, although it carries only a static image, that is, it does not allow us to judge the dynamics of the movements of a fixed object, can nevertheless serve as a source of information that is very significant from the point of view of conducting operational search and investigative work. The photographer, taking a picture, actually fixes two information layers that can be divided according to the degree of their awareness (ie, realized at the time of photography and unconscious). The conscious part includes everything connected with the reasoning activity of the photographer - the choice of the photographing object, the "setting" of the frame (i.e., the choice of the optimal foreshortening, poses, remarks on the appearance of the survey object, if any, etc.). , choice of the background, intentional involvement of other persons, if this was the case. Also, to the layer "deliberately laid" in the photograph of the information should be attributed the general "plot" of the frame, that is, the idea, or the idea that the photographer wants to convey to the viewer.
However, in addition to this, the photograph contains information that the photographer either does not have time to realize at the time of production, or does not take into account, considering it unimportant, or does not even suspect about its existence. With very few exceptions, amateur photography carries information about the photographer's subconscious preferences (sympathies). It has long been noted that people avoid doing and storing pictures of people, unpleasant to them, events or objects. If all the same pictures are made, then usually to order (for relatives, friends, employers, etc.), but not for yourself. A group photograph fairly accurately characterizes the interpersonal relations that have developed between both the photographed persons and between them and the photographer himself. That is, the latter is also involved in the transmission of information not only about others, but about himself, even without suspecting it. It will not be a mistake to say that amateur photography largely expresses the individual personality traits of not only the person being photographed, but also the photographing person.
Of particular interest from the point of view of psychological analysis are "non-stop" group photographs, that is, photographs taken without first discussing them with the objects of the survey. Such pictures are made in moments, which for some reason seem to be photographing significant, interesting or amusing. It is not always possible to understand the peculiarity of such moments (unless the photographer himself gave explanations on this matter), but a lot of things can be said about the overall composition of such personnel. First of all, "non-stop" group shots express a kind of "rating of preferences" (or "rating of sympathies") of the photographer. Since he, based on his subconscious minds, will not place him in the center of a person's frame unpleasant, hostile or even simply indifferent. Almost always in such photos the center of the frame is occupied by the person causing the greatest liking of the photographer, the persons in the depth of the composition are less interesting to him. Those who got "under the cut" of the frame are at best indifferent or even directly antagonistic to him (the author of the photo would be glad not to see them, but they "fit" into the frame and he is forced to "rip" them mercilessly, even having sacrificed the semantic integrity of the photograph ).
Let's start with a review and find out what we have for this analysis?
From the materials of the criminal case, we know that the cameras were available for four members of the group: Dyatlova, Zolotarev, Krivonischenko and Slobodin. All these cameras were found in a tent in February-March 1959. In camera No. 488747 with a broken filter, belonging to Krivonischenko, there was a film with 34 footage taken. This film uniquely corresponds to the "film No. 1", presented by Alexei Koskin.
Zolotaryov's cameras (factory No. 55149239) and Slobodin (factory No. 486963) contained films with the same number of frames - 27. In the photo archive of Alexei Vladimirovich, we see two such films - under numbers 2 and 4. To which of the two possible candidates they belong We will try to understand later, for the time being we will only note that here we also see a complete coincidence with the materials of the investigation.
There is no information on how many frames were shot on the film found in the camera Dyatlova (factory number 55242643). With this camera in general there is some uncertainty associated with the fact that he appeared in the inventory of the group's items only at the end of March 1959. In the initial inventory compiled by the prosecutor Tempalov on February 27-28, 1959, only 3 cameras are mentioned. It can not be excluded that the camera Diatlov was removed from the tent by someone from the search engine immediately upon its discovery, that is, until the procurator began to draw up an inventory. This unknown search engine showed the film, filmed by Igor Dyatlov, most likely, hoping to independently understand the causes of the tragedy that had befallen the group. Since these actions could not be kept secret in secret, the resourceful student-searcher was recommended to hand over the camera and the film to the investigation, which, of course, he did. So by the end of March there was a fourth camera and, perhaps, a film of it without properly fixing the footage.
Since the cameras had only 4 tourists, and the film was found to be minimum, 6, we can reasonably assume that one of the photographers shot more than one film. In the role of such "ownerless" photographic films we find film No. 3 from the collection of Alexei Koskin with 17 footage and film No. 6 with 28 frames.
Quite definitely, we can assume that the film № 6 was filmed by Georgy Krivonischenko at the initial stage of the campaign - before the release of the group from the village "Severny-2". And when leaving the village, he replaced the film with a new one, which remained in the camera until the moment the group died. The fact is that the last frame of the "photographic film No. 6" is almost identical to the first frame of "photographic film No. 1". It's hard to get rid of the feeling that the photographer, having made sure that the film in his camera is running out, reloaded it, so that the limit of the remaining frames would not allow him to skip something interesting. As for film No. 3, it remains in some sense "orphan", we will prove that it could not be "snapped" by any of the cameras known to the investigation. The same can be said for the film number 5. This leads us to the fundamental conclusion that the number of cameras available to the members of the group exceeded 4. Moreover, having examined the contents of the films, with a certain degree of certainty it is possible to guess who exactly was the owner of the disappeared cameras.
So, we get the following summary sheet for films and footage (especially we will adhere to the numbering of films and the sequence of frames in them for the way they are presented in the photo archive of Aleksey Vladimirovich Koskin):
- Photographic film number 1 - 33 frames, one more frame in the middle of the film is spoiled, i.e., it is considered that the film contains only 34 frames; the film belongs to George Krivonischenko;
- Photographic film No. 2 - 27 footage, this film belongs to Semen Zolotarev (because another film with 27 footage frames - Slobodin, which will be proved in its place);
- Photographic film No. 3 - 17 footage, accessory is unknown (most likely, Thibault Brignoles);
- Film 4 - 27 footage, owned by Rustem Slobodin;
- Photographic film No. 5 - 24 footage shot, unknown accessory (as film No. 3);
- Photographic film number 6 - 36 of fairly high-quality photographs, of which 28 are associated with the participants of the campaign and the campaign itself. We can confidently believe that this film was filmed by Georgy Krivonischenko and it chronologically precedes "film No. 1" (to be quite accurate, it should be designated No. 0, since it ends where "film No. 1" begins).
- Photographs in bulk - 8 separate photographs clearly associated with the campaign of Igor Dyatlov's group, but not related to previous films. These frames are of understandable origin and incomprehensible belonging.
Now let's proceed to the subject analysis.
Camp photos begin with the tenth in the frame count. And on it the first discovery awaits us - we see Semen Zolotarev with a backpack and a bag of some kind of luggage on his shoulder. In fact, this is a photo portrait, Zolotarev knows that he is being "removed", goes directly to the photographing, he is in the frame alone. This is truly a "talking" frame - the first of all members of the group Krivonischenko photographed Zolotarev! Absolutely inexplicable choice of the object of the shooting, unless you admit that they were familiar before and know very well. Let's remember this moment ...
Photographic film No. 6, frame No. 10. The first participant of the hike, captured by Georgi Krivonischenko. The order of this photo, like the subsequent photographs of Semen Zolotarev, on the root destroy all the speculation that this person could serve as the cause of conflict within the group.
The eleventh photograph is also very interesting, not only from a psychological, but also an artistic point of view - this is a portrait of Zina Kolmogorova, made by surprise, unexpectedly for her. The owner of the device, apparently, asked Zina to turn around and what is called "caught the moment". The girl on it is very nice, such photo portraits are sometimes called "characteristic", because they perfectly convey the mood of the character at the time of photography. The photographer's sympathy for the object of shooting is quite obvious, he as if tells the viewer: look, there is a good photo of a good man in front of you!
The twelfth photo is also interesting and informative in its own way, only it must be properly "read". On it we see Igor Dyatlov and Nicholas Thibault-Brignol in a recognizable hat, chatting in some room like a hostel. You can see the backpacks of the members of the group, on the wall above Igor Diatlov's head hangs a mandolin. Particular attention is drawn to the third character, which fell under the very cut of the frame - it's Lyudmila Dubinina. The photographer did not need to turn the lens slightly to the right and place the girl in the frame, but he did not. Deliberately or unintentionally, he wished to exclude Lyudmila from the frame, thereby quite definitely informing us of his attitude towards her.
Photographic film number 6, frame number 12. Very interesting picture, therefore, is given here. The character of Igor Dyatlov attracts attention. The general picture of the photo resembles a household picture in the style of "old Flemish masters." Pay attention, as Krivonischenko "excluded from the frame" Lyudmila Dubinin, there can be no doubt that this was done intentionally and the result was very eloquent.
On frames Nos. 13-14 we see a group in the back of a truck and can accurately date them. Such a trip from Ivdel to the settlement of the 41st quarter by a passing car took place on the afternoon of January 26, 1959. These pictures can be considered formal - it was just necessary to photograph the whole group, George and photographed, the compositions - no really no, the footage is not " are built ", some members of the group can not be properly considered (Yudin, Kolevatov, Slobodin). For us, these shots are interesting, perhaps, only because we can see Lyudmila Dubinin and Yuri Doroshenko on them, which Georgy Krivonischenko almost did not photograph.
The next picture, which attracts attention, will be the fifteenth from the beginning. On it we see Kolevatov, running past the photographer. The picture is not staged, it is made on the move, as if on the sidelines. This is one of the few photographs with Alexander Kolevatov and, perhaps, the only one on which he was alone. Kolevatov clearly avoided being photographed - the study of this and all other films unambiguously suggest this idea.
Photo # 16, group, staged, the participants of the campaign photographed with their new acquaintances from the village of the 41st quarter (some military personnel, a woman wearing glasses, etc.). Attention is drawn to the distribution of our heroes in the group - Doroshenko next to Dubinina and Krivonischenko himself (the owner of the camera), and Dyatlov - in the opposite direction from Kolmogorova. Igor, probably, did not want to be photographed and approached the group at the last moment after insistent requests. As a senior hike, he could choose any place and George Krivonischenko, his friend, of course, would wait until Igor Dyatlov would be where he wanted. But no! Igor chose the place from the edge and, at the same time, kept some gap with the closest members of the group. It is noteworthy that although the street is clearly comfortable temperature and there is no wind (this can be judged by the unbuttoned collars of women), Alexander Kolevatov remained in a tightly buttoned gale and a thrown hood. Almost in all the photographs, where you can see Kolevatov, he appears in this form.
In the photograph No. 19 Zina Kolmogorova is photographed with a camera. Another personal photo of Zina and another vivid confirmation of the fact that Krivonischenko very well treated Zina.
Pictures № 25-26 captured, apparently, the moment of the separation of the group with the village workers. Tourists get up on skis and advance to the North-2. The photos are taken almost simultaneously, with an interval of several seconds. This pair of photos is interesting to us by the fact that in the second picture appeared Nikolai Thibault-Brignol, who was absent on the first. It was to capture him and make a second photo - George, without changing the point of shooting, "tapped" the camera for a few dozen degrees and "caught in the frame," Nicholas. But at the same time "excluded" from the frame of Alexander Kolevatov (on the first of the two photographs, he stands with his back to the photographer). This desire to capture Nicholas Thibault-Brignol, who is near the object of shooting, but not falling into the frame, Krivonischenko will demonstrate in the future. On the film No. 1 there will also be double shots with a similar "dodge" of the camera. This is absolutely unambiguous evidence of the special attitude of Krivonischenko and Thibault Brignoles. George clearly singled out Nicholas and treated him very well. The more curious for us is the division of the group at the cedar (theoretically, Krivonischenko should have stayed with Zolotarev and Thibaut, and not with Doroshenko). But we have to speculate on this especially.
Photo # 28 - Dubinina, Zolotaryov and Kolmogorova were seated on cross-shaped devices for drying fish. The photographer, obviously, attracted the allegory of the scene, understandable to any Christian. Taking into account how, in a few days, the photographed will die, you can involuntarily feel the mystique of this photo. Each of the three seemed to have chosen at that moment his cross ... The picture was not staged and the more interesting that next to Zina Kolmogorova was Semyon Zolotarev. By the way, in many photos they are imprinted nearby (either talking, or just close to each other). This suggests that during the campaign, Simon and Zina talked quite a lot and the communication was quite friendly. And this observation becomes all the more interesting, as soon as we remember how the group divided the cedar - Zina did not remain with either Krivonischenko or Zolotaryov.
Snapshots No. 31-32 - again having fun Tybo. It seems that he overturned the goats and fell, one of the members of the group approached, picked up the goats (on the second photo they already stand) and began to help Nicholas climb. These two photographs are interesting in that they can be seen on the shoulders of Nicholas, those boots, laid out in a "marching", in which Thibault on February 1 will go down the slope. From here we can confidently conclude that the felt boots were Nikolai's "home shoes" and the dramatic events near the tent began to develop when he had already changed his shoes.
Snapshots 33-35 - parting with Yuri Yudin girls - Zina Kolmogorova and Lyuda Dubinina. Very touching, kind and warm photos.
Snapshot No. 3 is a group at halt. Participants in the hike are evenly distributed, there is no division into groups according to preferences, there is no feeling of tension or threat (in this case people in the photo would be facing each other and would be divided into pairs or formed a circle). Very peaceful photo.
Photo # 4 - George Krivonischenko handed over his camera to someone and was sealed on his own film. A peculiar "self-portrait". Almost on all photographs Krivonischenko can see his Finnish knife in the scabbard, George did not hide it at all. In this as a fleeting (and essentially deliberate) demonstration of weapons, the knife owner's desire to "gain solidity" in the eyes of others and, let it not be surprising, a subconscious feeling of insecurity, is felt. Kolevatov, as is known, also had a knife, but we will not see him anywhere. Is it any wonder that during the conflict on February 1, Krivonishchenko lost his knife, but did Kolevatov keep it? By the way, this small nuance (the knife, which was in sight, was thrown near the tent, and hidden under the clothes - safely carried down the slope) serves as another bar that confirms the violent nature of stripping the group at the tent.
Photographs 5,6 and 7 are well-known shots, on which one can see laughing tourists against the background of the steep bank of Lozva. Slobodin, Thibaut, Krivonischenko, Zolotarev and both girls got into these frames. The same scene is also present on other films ("No. 4" and "No. 5"). Apparently, the members of the group were in excellent spirits and had fun. It can not be ruled out that a good drink was helped by a good drink of alcohol or even by one. More similar shots in the campaign will not be.
Photo # 8 - Semyon Zolotaryov talks about something with Zina Kolmogorova. The picture is not staged, people are not aware of the fact that they are being photographed. On the right side of the frame is Nikolai Thibaut, a part of his foot is visible.
Photo 26. This and subsequent photographs clearly refer to the events of January 31-February 1, 1959, that is, the last day of the life of the members of the group (a clear correlation with the diary entries of Igor Dyatlov is seen). On the 26th frame Dyatlov was recorded, apparently during the ascent to the pass, already clearly above the forest boundary. Members of the group in the storms thrown over their heads and hoods are wind in the face.
Photo # 27 is an extremely interesting shot. Apparently, it was made at the moment when the group, having actually ascended to the pass, was ready to leave the valley of the Auspiya River and pass to the valley of the Lozva River (and thus to leave Mount Holat-Sahyl already on January 31, 1959). If the group continued its movement, then on February 1 the tent would not have appeared on the slope of Holat-Sahyl and it is quite possible that the tragedy would not have happened. But events began to develop in a different scenario. From the last entry in Diatlov's diary, we know that, having risen above the forest boundary, the group unexpectedly returned back and broke camp in the Auspii Valley. A logical explanation for this return is not and can not be, because the next day the climb had to be repeated!
In the photo, apparently, the moment of decision-making about the further movement of the group is imprinted - forward or backward. Quite eloquently the distribution of people in the picture: facing the Dyatlovu turned Zolotarev, Kolevatov and Krivonischenko (the latter takes pictures). The remaining five members of the group stand apart and in conversation with Dyatlov do not participate, they do not even look in his direction. They seemed to have withdrawn from an unpleasant conversation, perhaps because they were aware of their inability to influence the decision. And the fact that the conversation was unpleasant, you can conclude from the poses of its participants. Zolotarev partially deployed to the Dziatlov side, his head slightly tilted forward (the "head of the bull"), and both hands are advanced in front of the abdomen (experienced melee usually so disguises the intention to inflict a sudden, without visible preparation blow). Zolotarev is tense, his pose expresses a hidden threat, it is ideal for a sudden attack. The distance between Dyatlov and Zolotaryov is about 1.5 m - this is more than the distance on which a comfortable, friendly conversation is conducted (compare with the distances between five other participants of the hike standing in a separate circle - they conduct quite friendly conversation, one can not doubt). The woodpeckers in this photo look confused - their hands are lowered along the trunk, the head is held straight. This is the pose of a person caught off guard. Apparently he was not ready to hear what he was telling him at the time of the Zolotarev photo shoot.
There is no mention of this conversation in Diatlov's diary. On the one hand, this may mean that there was no such talk at all, and on the other hand, that the conversation was still held, but he ended in the psychological defeat of Dyatlov. To admit this, especially in his own diary, he could not, so the record on this topic did not leave. True, rather, the second assumption, otherwise the group's behavior (returning from the slope back to the forest in the valley of Auspii) has no logical explanation. Meanwhile, some arguments forced the group to turn and the next day make a very small transition. This strange at first glance, the group's behavior in the last 24 hours (already lagging behind the scheduled schedule!) Is a strong argument in favor of the fact that within the group there was a kind of "brake" that deliberately kept it in this area, as if waiting for certain events planned on the 1st of February. And if such an event was to be a meeting supposed in the framework of the version of the "controlled delivery", Igor Dyatlov's group could not pass the pass region before the scheduled time. However, in the essay this thesis is justified enough.
Photo # 28 - on it we see the camp, broken by the Igor Dyatlov group in the forest near the source of Auspia. Kolevatov and Thibaut against the background of the tent. They laugh, they discuss something vividly. The picture is not staged, those who are in the frame clearly do not know that they are being photographed. The photo shows that Alexander and Nikolai had good and quite friendly relations. This snapshot is also interesting because it makes it possible to get an impression of the difference in weather at the pass and below, within the boundaries of the forest. If there is a strong wind at the top and a low ground, then there is silence downstairs, the trees stand all in the snow. Full contrast! This observation can rightfully be attributed to the events of February 1 - the group left with a windswept sweep of the slope into the forest zone to find there protection against wind impact. The cedar area was also blown, because it was near the border of the forest and moreover in an elevated position. That is why the flooring in the ravine appeared: it was built below the ground level, it created a local "pocket", a section of the wind shadow. To reduce heat loss, this was much more important than a fire, and the construction of a flooring indicates that the members of the group were well aware of this.
Pictures № 29-30 - two production shots, on which Rustem Slobodin is posing in a quilted jacket. It is possible that the photographs were taken on the morning of February 1, 1959. Rustem has a great mood, he is cheerful and undoubtedly feels fine. His posture expresses calm, self-confidence, a certain amount of self-irony. Excellent photos, some of the most successful on this film.
On the last photographs we see a group climbing the slope of the Holat-Chahl. The pictures are taken above the forest border on a perfectly bare slope, a sweep of the ground, strong wind, poor illumination. The fact that the tent behind the back of one of the tourists is not properly folded (but lies with a wide roll) clearly indicates that the February 1 transition was originally planned in a treeless zone, to be precise - above the forest boundary.
Finally, a picture No. 33, depicting the same "luminous object" around which the abnormal "dyatlophagi", in the measure of the severity of personal diagnoses, built a lot of various speculations. The playful little hands of some "explorers" were played with "Photoshop" and found in the light flare of the features of the human face, the fantasies of others without any "photoshop" allowed to consider in the picture those "luminous spheres" that do not prove anything and explain nothing, then they are considered to be the perpetrators of the death of the group. Particularly advanced "constructors of hypotheses" even came up with a script explaining the appearance of the picture, by someone's hostile attempt to look into the tent (Krivonischenko, he said, grabbed the camera and photographed the face of the "looker." In fact, Krivonischenko in such a situation would rather grab for his Finnish knife, but this idea is not available to the understanding of "experienced tourists with the practice of winter nights"). But - alas! - the origin of this frame is so ordinary, so prosaic that it makes even a little awkward for idiots who have not bothered during many years of their ridiculous "brainstorming" simply to consult with a photographer from any criminalistic laboratory. Since any forensic photographer will explain the origin of this photograph without the slightest difficulty.
The fact is that the photographer of the forensic laboratory, who received a camera equipped with a film, must remove this film, after having rewound it back into a cassette from which it was "stretched" the frame by frame during the photographing. This cassette is located inside the camera body. However, the film can not be "wrapped" back into the cassette when the shutter is cocked. The cameras "Zorky", produced in the 50-ies. In the last century, the state of the shutter was checked very simply - by pressing the shutter release button. There were no special signs (turning flags, scratches, washers) that signaled the cocking of the shutter, these cameras did not have. If the bolt was cocked, then it worked and made one more frame, if not, then, accordingly, did not work: the shutter button was pressed and nothing happened. That's all! After this, the film was rewinded from the roller back into the cassette (inside the camera body).
What happened in this case? Prosecutor Ivanov handed over cameras found in a tent of disappeared tourists to the forensic laboratory with the task of extracting photographic films, processing them and returning them to him, the investigator, to get involved in the case (or non-disclosure - this he had to decide after assessing the importance of the information captured by the photographs). His order was fulfilled. Checking each of the cameras, a laboratory employee pressed the shutter release button before proceeding to rewind the film. The shutter of the camera, Georgy Krivonischenko, was fired, which helped to work and on the film appeared the same picture number 33, which for the last 10 years had burned the brains of "gouged woodpeckers" and made them believe in the presence of aliens. The gates of other cameras were not cocked, so on other films we do not see similar frames. But if they also stayed in charge, we would get a whole collection of "fireballs" and a version of a massive alien invasion, not otherwise.
Thus. the notorious "33rd frame" - this is not a picture of a UFO, not the face of a person looking into the tent, not a picture of a "fireball" or a working engine of a falling rocket - not at all! This frame can be called "technological", his appearance is due to the processing of the film in the photo lab. There is no riddle! It is not at all, did not exist initially. Any criminalist, who had worked with other people's cameras and showed someone else's photographic films, had to see dozens of such "fireballs" and "working engines of falling rockets" dozens of times. By their birth, these phenomena are due to highlights in windowpanes, table lamps and even cigarettes sitting opposite colleagues. In general, what fell into the field of view of the lens when you press the shutter, it turned out to be sealed. That is why the investigator Ivanov did not give the last shot the slightest significance - he just knew his origin and understood that there was absolutely nothing to talk about.
The very picture No. 33 of film No. 1, which for the past decade has dried up the brains of the most impressionable "researchers". This is not even the marriage of a criminalist - it's just a consequence of his work with photographic film, because of negligence or forgetfulness, which fell into the hands of an investigator instead of a trash can.
So, finishing the analysis of the films photographed by Georgi Krivonischenko, let us summarize:
- First of all, it should be noted that the "range of psychological comfort" of the photographer did not include all the members of the tourist group. Unconditional interest and sympathy of George was caused by Simon Zolotarev, Nikolay Thibault-Brignol, Zina Kolmogorova, Igor Dyatlov and Rustem Slobodin (named persons are listed in order of decreasing degree of sympathy). This is a very interesting discovery, which from now on can be considered mathematically proven: the group was by no means monolithic, but divided into subgroups;
- Krivonischenko ignored Yuri Doroshenko and Lyuda Dubinina. It should be specially emphasized that we are not talking about antagonism or manifestations of hostility, it's more correct to say that George had no points of contact with them, perhaps they did not like him in some way. The reason for this relationship could be circumstances unknown to us, as well as the difference in age and interests, the degree of general development, as well as mutual psychological non-complementarity ("non-complementarity") with these persons. There is nothing fatal about this, in any working group, every normal person has colleagues who fall into his personal "zone of ignoring" (and at the same time gets himself into similar "ignoring zones" existing in other people);
- Judging by the photographs, Alexander Kolevatov kept himself somewhat apart from the group. He obviously shied away from photographing, perhaps copying the manner of Semyon Zolotarev, who also did not climb into the frame. At all, with rare exceptions, photographs, where Kolevatov is present, we see him without demonstrating any emotions, in a thrown hood (only in one photograph he is visible with the headpiece and hood removed), which can be regarded as evidence of the "closure" of this person before strangers. Alexander's behavior can be characterized as detachment from others and what is happening around, Kolevatov, apparently, did not identify himself with the group and participants in the campaign;
- In a lot of photos we see Zolotarev with his head down, although he clearly guesses that he is being photographed. This suggests that Semyon did not like to be photographed, or did not want his pictures to fall into the wrong hands. The only staged photographs with Zolotarev's participation, where we see him clearly playing along with the photographer, were made at the very beginning of the campaign on the Lozve River. Looking at the fun of the participants of the photo session, it is difficult to resist the assumption that then they allowed themselves a bit of alcohol "for tonus." Perhaps, this explains the similar, obviously uncharacteristic for Semyon, attitude to photography;
- A significant number of photographs with nature views or inanimate objects (44% of the total number of frames on film No. 1) is a signal of the photographer's increased internal stress by February 1, 1959. For a typical amateur photographer, the number of shots without people tends to fluctuate around 20%. The explanation that George felt like a photo artist and practiced in an art photo should be regarded as a formal excuse, which explains nothing. On film, which recorded the beginning of the campaign (under No. 6), "inanimate" photographs are very few, within the norm (if to be quite accurate, then of the 28 photographs associated with the campaign, do not contain images of people 5, ie, 18%) . It is difficult to assume that after leaving Severny-2 Georgi Krivonischenko sharply got carried away by an artistic landscape photograph. A sharp increase in photographs of inanimate objects suggests an increase in internal tension, feelings of anxiety, guilt, uncertainty. Sometimes this may indicate a disease of the photographer, but this is unlikely to apply to this case. This feeling of internal discomfort began to increase after the group's exit from the village of Severny-2, that is, with the beginning of a completely autonomous movement. If we assume that Georgy Krivonischenko knew more about the goal of the campaign than the other participants and assumed a possible negative development of events, such internal tension gets a quite reliable and logical explanation;
- The camera was left with the cocked shutter, which is clearly evidenced by the appearance of photograph number 33. Already after in the conditions of poor visibility photos were taken on the slope, George prepared a camera for immediate photographing. The camera Krivonischenko was the only one of the four cameras found in the tent, left with the cocked shutter. It is possible that this is just a habit and George always did this (although this habit should be considered quite unusual for an experienced photographer, because it would have to lose a few frames from each film, which is unreasonable). But it seems more likely that Georgi intended to photograph the strangers who came up and prepared for it. We do not know exactly how Zolotarev, Krivonischenko and Kolevatov supposed to "play" the meeting, it is quite possible that Krivonischenko with his camera should have been distracting attention to himself, giving Zolotarev the opportunity to make his business inconspicuous. By the way, most likely, Semyon did it, otherwise he would not have kept his second camera until his death. The cocking of Krivonischenko's camera shutter is a very important signal for us, indicating that George was preparing for some events on the slope, unlike the owners of other cameras - Dyatlov and Slobodin. Along with other oddities of the last day (the ascent and descent from the pass on January 31, very small in terms of distance and time, the daily transition on February 1), the cocked shutter makes you think that some members of the group were preparing for some planned and expected events in the afternoon of February 1 in this area, but these events, for reasons unclear to us, led to a tragic denouement.