Trekking through the eyes of tourists - part 2)

What about the person who took the camera, but did not take a single picture for a week? A lot of things.
   Firstly, his comrades were not very interested in the campaign. This does not mean that he showed detachment or "kept distance" - not at all! - he could seem "his in the blackboard guy," but internally, he distanced himself from the group. This could be due to the large age difference, the discrepancy of interests, as well as ... varying degrees of awareness of what was happening.
   Secondly, we can be sure that the camera was not so necessary to its owner. Zolotarev clearly was not a "fan" of the photo shoot, although he photographed qualitatively. But in this hike, he would easily have done without his "Zorkogo" under the factory number 55149239, because he did without him from January 23 to February 1, right? Nevertheless, despite the apparent uselessness of this "device," Simon dragged him with him ... For what?
   The answer may seem unexpected, but within the framework of the "controlled delivery" version it is logical and only true. The camera under the factory number 55149239, which Semyon never used during the campaign, was needed by Zolotarev in order to disguise the presence of his other camera. If this is strange, then only at first glance. If Semyon did not have a camera with him from the very beginning of the campaign, then on the afternoon of February 1 he could not hang a special camera around his neck, prepared in advance for use at a meeting with a group of foreign scouts. Just imagine how it would look in the eyes of others if Semyon, who did not have photographic equipment at first, on the eighth day of the trip would suddenly pull out his special camera from poсket! This first of all would cause the superfluous questions of his comrades, absolutely unnecessary to him in that situation. But to replace the familiar to all the usual "Sharp" similar, but with a special film, it was possible for a few seconds. And without the slightest difficulty. By the way, the second camera could not only be filled with a special film, but also have a special soundless mechanism. Such silently triggered KGB cameras at that time already had at their disposal, and outwardly similar special equipment was no different from the typical consumer goods. It was for the sake of an inconspicuous substitution of a conventional camera for others, special, this entire game was started. And we can not doubt that such a substitution was made - the camera, which was unnecessary to Zolotarev, under No. 55149239 remained in the tent, where it was found by the search engines, and Semyon carried the second, unknown camera, to the ravine.
   Thus. film No. 2 is proof that Semyon Zolotaryov went camping with a group of Igor Dyatlov, having photographic equipment, which he did not intend to use with the most obvious goal for any ordinary tourist - photographing his comrades and the circumstances of the campaign. In this campaign, Simon Zolotarev was not an "ordinary tourist", he solved his own specific tasks, acted according to his own scenario and was guided by his own logic when making decisions. Perhaps this was the source of problems for the whole group. But we can also assume the opposite: the group's inability to accept the logic of Zolotarev's actions in all ways predetermined the tragic outcome of the campaign.

Camera roll No. 3 consists of 17 photographs. This film was not inside the camera, but was found in a tent, inside a tightly closed jar along with 9 more films (unused), a roll of film and 700 rubles. Photographic film No. 3 is so interesting that it is simply amazing why it did not attract the attention of investigator Ivanov (however, it is difficult to get rid of the feeling that the criminal forensic scientist did not understand much from the study of photographs, if he looked them, it was more like a grandmother album, rather than the most important thing).
   First, let's define the initial data.
   When was the film No. 3 shot? We can determine the period of photography quite accurately. The first shot was made during the preparation of the group to the exit from the village of the 41st quarter (similar footage is also present on the photographic film Nos. 4,5 and 6). As you know, the group Dyatlova left there, accompanied by Velikyavichus with a sleigh at 16:00 on January 27, 1959. This time is the beginning of the use of the film. The last shot was taken during the movement of the group along the "Mansi trail", ie, after the group had passed through the ice of Lozva and Auspia. This happened, as we know from the diaries of the group, on January 30th. Thus. in the evening of January 30, or in the morning of January 31, the film was removed from the camera, wrapped in black paper and placed in a hermetically sealed jar, which contained the "obshchak" of the group - money and spare photographic films.
   Could shoot this film Simon Zolotarev? No, because in his camera all the time was film number 2 with 27 "lenient" frames. Especially, as we found out, Zolotarev did not take pictures at all in this campaign.
   Could this film be shot by Georgy Krivonischenko? No, because in his camera, during the movement of the group on the ice of Lozva and Auspiya, there was film No. 1.
   Could shoot this film Rustem Slobodin? No, because in his camera there was film number 4, which contains pictures taken in the same village of the 41st quarter, as well as footage shot later on the ice of Lozva and Auspia.
   Finally, can this film belong to Igor Dyatlov? And again I have to give a negative answer, because on the fourth frame of this film you can see Igor with a camera in his hands, and not posing and obviously not suspecting that he is being photographed. Running a little forward, we note that the camera Igor Dyatlov in general, you can not communicate with any of the now known films.
   The conclusion turns out to be highly interesting and unpleasant for all supporters of non-criminal versions. We have to admit that Igor Dyatlov's group had more than four cameras that appear in the materials of the criminal case. Here we get an unexpected confirmation of the well-known statements of Yuri Yudin - the tenth and only surviving participant in the campaign - that the cameras of the members of the group had more than four, almost every tourist. Yuri Yudin generally adheres to the criminal version of events and says a lot that is extremely inconvenient to hear many researchers of the tragedy of the group. For example, the fact that the criminal case, which is now known, is strongly "cleaned up", "falsified", etc., that it lacks many important documents, for example, the results of a histological examination of the bodies of the "first five" (that is, those found in February-March). Yudin's utterances builders of all possible hypotheses usually ignore and in no way comment on, as if hinting that they argue with an elderly person, as if not with a hand ... However, we have just mathematically proved that Yudin is right and certainly there were more than four cameras. So far we believe that five.
   What about the unknown "fifth camera"? Quite definitely it can be associated with Nicholas Thibault-Brignol.
   In favor of this conclusion, several unrelated considerations work.

Firstly, the presence of auto-images on films No. 3 and No. 1. By chance, both pictures go under the numbers 4. Here they are:
        Changing cameras, Georgy Krivonischenko and Nikolay Thibault-Brignol photographed each other during a halt on the ice of Lozvy. Thus, their images remained on their own films. Images are clickable, photos can be viewed in an enlarged view. The photo on the left is a picture No. 4 from the film No. 1 found in the camera Krivonischenko, and on the right - a picture No. 4 from film No. 3.

After exchanging cameras, Georgy Krivonischenko and Nikolay Thibault-Brignol photographed each other. It is evident that the pictures are taken in one place and at the same time. Agree, it is difficult to imagine that Krivonischenko gave his camera to Thibault Brignol ("click me here, Kolya!"), And he took a camera, say, Zolotarev. Or Rustem Slobodin, who, by the way, is clearly visible behind him, retiring into the distance. No, Krivonischenko took the camera of the person to whom he gave his. Minute, you take a picture of me, and I - you.
   Secondly, the ownership of the film clearly indicates its content. Even if there was no previous paragraph, the conclusion about the ownership of the footage of Thibault Brignoles would be the most obvious of all. Of the 17 frames of this film 7 are devoted to Thibo Brignol (more than 40%). Thibaut clearly liked to be photographed - this is evident from the photographic films from other cameras, Nikolai always willingly posed for other photographers. It will not be a mistake to note that Nikolai was not deprived of a certain amount of narcissism (this definition of psychology usually defines a person's propensity for narcissism, narcissism, the desire to be in the center of attention). In principle, "narcissism" is not a negative characteristic - its manifestations can be seen in many artists, musicians and in general people of creative professions, but nobody really thinks they are bad people! Nikolay obviously liked to be photographed, he did it with pleasure and having his own camera did not deny himself this innocent entertainment. Photos No. 13-15 are clearly made using the self-timer, and in frame 13 it is clear that Thibaut did not have time to take a position in front of the lens and photographed in the fall, with the knee up, and at the very bottom of the frame. I clearly did not count the position of the camera. The two subsequent shots are more successful, apparently the photographer made the necessary correction and wasted a place in the right place in front of the lens.
   Thirdly, there is another strong evidence in favor of the fact that Nikolay Thibault-Brignol went camping with his own camera. Let's take a closer look at frame # 3 from film No. 1 (Krivonischenko). This photo is interesting because all the officially known photographers of the group are "assembled" in it. So, what do we see? Woodpeckers face the photographing Krivonischenko with a camera in his hands. Thibault-Brignol holds in his hands the open case of the camera (which is clearly seen when considering a picture in high resolution). Rustem Slobodin stands half-turned and, judging by the position of his arms raised, also seems to hold the camera in his hands (but this is inaccurate). Finally, Zolotarev, the extreme left, as we know for sure that no one photographed his "Zorky" and in other people's hands did not transmit it. The simplest calculation we get that photographers and cameras should be in the minimum 5!

Photographic film No. 1, frame No. 3. The picture was taken by Georgi Krivonischenko during one of the first halts on the ice of Lozvy. This snapshot is interesting in that it makes it possible to calculate the number of photographers and cameras available to the group. Careful calculation leads to the conclusion that photographers with their own photographic equipment, there were at least five in the group. By the way, this is not the final number, with some confidence we can assume that there were six of them.

Therefore, on the basis of all of the above, we can rightfully state that the photographers in the group were, as a minimum, five. The fifth was Nikolai Thibault-Brignol. He shot 17 frames on film number 3, after which on January 30, or on the morning of January 31, he reloaded the camera. This camera was not found among the group's things, which is a serious argument in favor of the assumption in this essay of the search for the group's belongings by assassins. We can confidently state that Thibault-Brignol did not take away his camera when the group was banished from the tent and did not transfer it to Zolotaryov - in other words, the camera found on Zolotaryov's corpse did not belong to Nikolai Thibault-Brignol (this thesis will be justified in the same section just below).
   However, we will finish with arithmetic and return to the analysis of the photographs available on the film.
   - It is possible to state quite definitely that the person who shot the film No. 3, in the interval of time when the survey was conducted, was in a calm, good-natured and even peaceful state. This he radically differed from the photographer who shot film No. 1 (Krivonischenko), whose internal tension increased sharply with the beginning of a completely autonomous trek through the uninhabited area. The number of photos without people is only 3 of 17, another 1 photograph contains an image of a retreating group against the background of the towering near the horizon of the Ural Mountains. In any case, the ratio of the number of photos of people and inanimate objects does not seem critical or suspicious - this ratio is within the average statistical sample;
   - About narcissism (narcissism, propensity to self-admiration), the photographer was already mentioned above. I would like to emphasize that narcissism is not a pronounced negative quality, in other words, it does not lead to cowardice, duplicity, lack of courage, ambiguity of sexual orientation, etc., shortcomings, potentially capable of creating communication problems in the team. "Narcissism" is not at all synonymous with the concept of "selfishness" - it is a defect of education, conditioned by the specific nature of the person's fomirovanie. Taking into account the circumstances of the child-youth of Thibo Brignol (born in a forced labor camp, who did not know his father and was brought up in conditions of extreme material restraint), such an assumption does not seem impossible. This feature of the personality of Nicholas could create certain problems for him in dealing with women, but in principle, had little or no influence on his relations in the men's team;
   - The photographer who shot the film number 3 left us, perhaps, the best photo portraits of Yuri Doroshenko and Semyon Zolotaryov. This indicates that Nikolai Thibault-Brignol easily fell into line with these unfamiliar people (frames 8 and 10) and they fell into the range of his "psychological comfort."

Photographic film No. 3, frames No. 8 and No. 10. These are, perhaps, the best photographs of Yuri Doroshenko and Semyon Zolotaryov made in the campaign. By the way, the picture No. 10 is especially interesting for us in that it clearly shows the impossibility of assuming that the film under consideration (No. 3) comes from the camera of Igor Dyatlov. This film could not remove the Woodpeckers, because the latter can be seen in the background of the picture No. 10, not suspecting the moment of shooting and not ready for it. This could not have happened if Dyatlov had given his camera to someone to be photographed. Pay attention to the lack of wind and, it seems obvious, quite comfortable weather conditions.

You can, incidentally, give a completely different interpretation of these photographs - Nikolay Thibaut before the campaign managed to get acquainted with Doroshenko and Zolotarev, get along with them and develop a very definite - positive - attitude to both. In any case, the presence of the mentioned photographs on film No. 3 is another reason against any insinuations in the style of speculative theories about "opposing Zolotarev to the rest of the group". We can be sure that Zolotarev did not oppose himself to anyone, but, on the contrary, he managed to establish friendly relations with all "sign figures" from the group members - Krivonischenko, Thibo Brinolem, Slobodin (and Dyatlov too, there are quite certain memories on this score contemporaries, but now we are only interested in the information contained in the photographs);
   - Extremely interesting in the framework of our research is the fact of complete indifference of the photographer who photographed the film 3, to the girls-tourists. The fact that Lyudmila Dubinina fell out of the "area of ​​psychological comfort" Georgy Krivonischenko, was written above. But this did not stop Georgy very warmly and in a comradely attitude to Zina Kolmogorova. In the case of Thibault Brignoles, we do not even see this - he clearly did not want to photograph girls at all. If one of them got in the frame, it is by chance, as, for example, in photograph No. 9, on which we see Lyudmila Dubinin in the background and then only because the photo was taken not by Thibault-Brignol himself. He gave his camera to one of the members of the group, so that he made his "trip photograph on the ski track." Therefore, the question of including Dubinin in the frame was decided not by Thibaut at the time of photography. There is no doubt that if it were Nikolai who chose the camera angle for this picture, he would have done so that Lyudmila did not enter the frame. This observation, by the way, fully corresponds to what we will see in the behavior of Rustem Slobodin (see below). And the conclusion from this observation suggests quite obvious - no "struggle because of the girls" inside the group did not happen. At all. The group did not break up into subgroups around girls, which is sometimes observed in infantile, immature, unformed youth groups (by the way, such self-organization of youth groups around immature girls is very dangerous from the point of view of victimology and can give rise to conflicts that entail serious offenses). In the campaign Igor Dyatlov this was not in sight. This was known from the memoirs of contemporaries, now their statements are confirmed by silent witnesses of what happened - photos of their campaign;

Snapshot No. 9 from film No. 3, presumably originating from the disappeared Thibault Brignoles camera. Take a closer look, this frame contains a lot of interesting things.

- The mentioned frame № 9 from film № 3 is interesting to us and for other reasons. First of all, it is very expressive characterizes the weather, which stood in the valley of the Lozva and Auspiya rivers during the transition of the Djatlov group. By themselves, temperature indicators without knowledge of air humidity and wind speed have little to say about the comfort of the external environment. But Quilted Thibault Brignoles, removed from the body and thrown on the backpack, it is clear and moreover clearly shows that there were no other-day weather disasters at that time. Thibaut took off his cotton jacket ("quilted jacket"), threw it over the sweater, without zipping, the windbreaker and walked calmly along the ski track ... And he was ok, he was smiling, posing, to the photographer. No weather nightmare either in late January or February 1, 1959 in those places was observed and the said photograph is a vivid confirmation of this;
   "And one more important observation." We know that Nikolai Thibault-Brignol had an unregistered Finnish knife (that is, without a number and, most likely, self-made). In addition to him, the "Finns" had Kolevatov and Krivonischenko. At that time, the criminalistic concept of the "Finnish type knife" was the most common - it was understood as a knife with a blade with a shoe (i.e., one-sided sharpened) and a hand stop (guard). In the photo # 9 above, we see the handle of this knife and guard. To the guard is attached a simple device like a hook, with which the knife was suspended to the pocket. The knife was not adapted for concealed wearing, he was always on the lookout, like the "Finn" Krivonischenko, which can be seen on many of the marching photographs of George.
      Fragment of the snapshot No. 9 from film No. 3. On close examination, one can see on the left side of Nicholas Thibault-Brignol a homemade Finnish-type knife suspended from the pocket by a self-made device such as a hook. On the handle of the knife and the hook indicate the arrow. You can see even a part of the guard (an emphasis preventing the hand from slipping onto the blade). The knife is suspended "under the right hand," which indicates that Thibaut was right handed.
      - Nicholas's suspension of his knife on his left side clearly indicates that Thibault Brignol was right-handed. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the fact that shortly before his death he hid his woolen gloves in the right pocket of the fur jacket, which was at that moment on it. This is a natural, extravagant move for the right-hander. From the fact of finding both gloves in the right pocket of the jacket, some researchers have tried to draw far-reaching conclusions about Tybo's stay in the unconscious state and its warming by fellow travelers after receiving a fatal head injury. The logic of their reasoning was something like this: if Thibault were conscious and dressed himself, he would certainly have pulled the gloves out of his pocket. The more obvious idea is that Nikolai himself took off his gloves and, crumpling it, put it in his pocket-he did not attend bright heads of queer people. Meanwhile, the fact of finding both gloves in one pocket suggests that Thibaut hastily stuffed them into his pocket with his right hand while the left was occupied with something that Thibaut did not want to release from his hands. It could be a flashlight, or it could be a knife, depending on how Nikolai estimated the degree of danger that threatened him.

Camera roll No. 4 contains 27 footage and belongs to Rustem Slobodin. The trek begins with the 13th frame, i.e. the first 12 pictures contain "lenient" plots.

Picture No. 21, showing a group halt on the ice of the river, provides us with a wonderful opportunity to establish the identity of the photographic film. The picture shows the whole group, except for that person, of course, who holds the camera. So, we see (from left to right): Zolotarev, Doroshenko, Kolevatov (sitting on a backpack in a bow, with the hood of his recognizable dark windbreaker thrown as usual), Kolmogorov, Dubinin, Krivonischenko, Thibo Brinol, Dyatlov. It turns out that the photo was taken by Rustem Slobodin. The picture is not "staged", Zolotarev clearly does not pose and, most likely, does not even know that the owner of the camera is taking photos of the group. And so we can exclude the assumption that the camera belongs to Zolotarev, who gave it to Slobodin to take a photo of the owner. Hence it inevitably follows that "film No. 4" was extracted from Rustem Slobodin's camera, and "film No. 2" was extracted from Zolotarev's camera. And nothing else.

On this, in fact, the informative information on film 4 is exhausted. The remaining photographs are not informative: picture No. 23 is a panorama, made after the retreating group, photos No. 24, 26 and 27 are defective, made with a strong exposure. Frame number 25 is also partially illuminated, but you can still see the skier removed from the back. This is non-stop, depersonalized and uninformative for us.
   So, what about the person who photographed the film 4 and the communication relations that he recorded inside the group:
   - The photographer, that is, Rustem Slobodin, was certainly very friendly with Igor Dyatlov. You can hardly doubt that it was with him that Rustem had the most trusting relationship (of course, compared with other members of the group);
   - A small number of photographs of inanimate objects attests to the lack of internal stress of the photographer, his relaxed communication with the participants of the hike. There is no reason to believe that the photographer during the campaign lived with feelings of inner tension or anxiety, even remotely resembling those experiences that Georgi Krivonischenko was experiencing;
   - As in the case of the photographer who shot film No. 3 (Thibo Brignolem), we see Rustem Slobodin's distance from both girls who participated in the campaign. Perhaps, this "equidistance" was even demonstrative. For us, it does not matter what such behavior was dictated by, but it is important that this attitude minimizes the risk of conflict between members of the group due to competition for the attention of girls;
   - Noteworthy is the desire of the photographer to avoid personal photos. Rustem clearly preferred collective photos. This is a serious indication of the manner in which a person behaves within a group - he positions himself in a team that is equally accessible and does not have personal preferences (sympathies). He does not seem to single out anyone from the surrounding, with everyone is even, emphatically friendly.

On this, in fact, the informative information on film 4 is exhausted. The remaining photographs are not informative: picture No. 23 is a panorama, made after the retreating group, photos No. 24, 26 and 27 are defective, made with a strong exposure. Frame number 25 is also partially illuminated, but you can still see the skier removed from the back. This is non-stop, depersonalized and uninformative for us.
   So, what about the person who photographed the film 4 and the communication relations that he recorded inside the group:
   - The photographer, that is, Rustem Slobodin, was certainly very friendly with Igor Dyatlov. You can hardly doubt that it was with him that Rustem had the most trusting relationship (of course, compared with other members of the group);
   - A small number of photographs of inanimate objects attests to the lack of internal stress of the photographer, his relaxed communication with the participants of the hike. There is no reason to believe that the photographer during the campaign lived with feelings of inner tension or anxiety, even remotely resembling those experiences that Georgi Krivonischenko was experiencing;
   - As in the case of the photographer who shot film No. 3 (Thibo Brignolem), we see Rustem Slobodin's distance from both girls who participated in the campaign. Perhaps, this "equidistance" was even demonstrative. For us, it does not matter what such behavior was dictated by, but it is important that this attitude minimizes the risk of conflict between members of the group due to competition for the attention of girls;
   - Noteworthy is the desire of the photographer to avoid personal photos. Rustem clearly preferred collective photos. This is a serious indication of the manner in which a person behaves within a group - he positions himself in a team that is equally accessible and does not have personal preferences (sympathies). He does not seem to single out anyone from the surrounding, with everyone is even, emphatically friendly.

Photographic film number 5, picture number 1. It seems almost incredible that Igor Dyatlov gave someone his camera to be photographed, but at the same time he turned to the photographer with his back and was sealed from the back.

It is unlikely that Igor Dyatlov, having prepared his camera for shooting, suddenly handed it over to one of his friends, so that he captured him along with his comrades on a march, but a few meters away, turned his back on the photographer and stayed so. Pose, you see, a little differently. You can, of course, assume that the photographer took a picture before Dyatlov became "in the system" with the others, but for the overall composition of the picture and the static pose of Igor, it does not seem that he is going somewhere to move.
   Yes, and in the next photograph, Igor is clearly not posing. Still, people approach their own photography more responsibly. Especially in cases when they know that the picture is intended for a loved one and will be kept in the house for many years, recalling the past events.

Obviously, the presence of a camera in his hands or hanging on his neck does not mean possession of it. It is known that Zolotarev had his own camera, but only on photographs from the campaign he was nowhere to be seen. The content of film No. 5 also does not help much to shed light on its belonging. A fairly simple analysis of "falling into the frame" and "dropping out of the frame" of people can make sure that the camera, which was loaded with film number 5, enjoyed several people. That is, rigorous analysis does not allow us to make any unambiguous (or at least, very probable) conclusion.
   If we approach the solution of the question of the belonging of the mysterious camera intuitively and irrationally, then a reliable but still controversial conclusion arises: the "fotik" was Zina Kolmogorova. On "film number 5" she is more often than others in the frame - it's in the pictures in the village of the 41st quarter, then during the halt on the ski track. For girls and women is characterized by a love for photography, so from the girl's point of view it is logical and justifiable to transfer her camera to a friend, in order to make either her personal photos or group photos, but with her participation. In men, this behavior is manifested, still, not so convex. Yes, the participants of the march passed cameras to each other, did "auto pictures" and even photographed themselves with the help of the self-timer (as Thibaut Brignol did three times on film No. 3), but their cameras still did not walk on their hands as in the case of camera, which contained film number 5. In addition, the film we are interested in contains only 1 landscape frame, the remaining 23 are photographs of people. Women are less inclined to abstract admiration of inanimate objects than men (this does not mean that they have no sense of beauty, they simply experience it differently, their experiences are more specific, discrete, momentary.) Men are more susceptible to impressions from global, abstract, amazing objects or On the one hand, this feature does not have a mathematically clear expression, but on the other hand, the landscapes painted by men and women can be fairly confidently divided by the sex of the artist, lku intuitive person is able to understand that it is like a man, and that - a woman).
   The author does not insist on the unconditional correctness of his assumption and believes that the question of belonging to the "sixth camera" still requires further clarification. But believes that at this stage an unknown camera, which was photographed film No. 5, can be conditionally considered belonging to Zina Kolmogorova.
   This film is especially interesting in that it contains several individual photographs (photo portraits) of the participants in the hike. They can see Nicholas Thibault-Brignol, Yuri Doroshenko and Semyon Zolotarev.

Since there is no certainty that film No. 5 or a significant part of it has been photographed by one person (and there is certainty in the opposite direction), the analysis of the frames contained in it does not make much sense. If the "portrait" photos of Thibault Brignol, Doroshenko and Zolotarev are made by the owner of the camera, then this may indicate her sympathy for these people. But there is no certainty that Zina Kolmogorova made these pictures, on the contrary, it seems that Zina is seen in the background of photograph No. 10 (where Semyon Zolotaryov is seen filming snow from the ski). If this is true, it turns out that Zolotareva was photographed by someone else.
   Nevertheless, this film is extremely important for understanding the events associated with the campaign of Igor Dyatlov's group, since by the very fact of its existence it forces us to assume that the sixth camera belongs to the members of the group.

Teper is a pioneer of the m and t and a few podzatyavshegosya analysis of photographs:
   - In the group clearly distinguished "core", consisting of Igor Dyatlov, Rustem Slobodin, George Krivonischenko and Nikolai Thibault Brignol. These persons produced mutual photography and therefore were more likely to be included in the frame. "Kernel" is formed by graduates of UPI (about Dyatlov too it is possible to speak as a graduate, since he actually finished his studies and was preparing for the defense of the diploma). Undoubtedly, the members of the "core" knew each other well for a long time and the relations between them could be characterized as comradely, trusting and full of sincere sympathy;
   - In the mentioned "core" Semyon Zolotarev fit organically. By the frequency of his photographing the participants of the campaign, he is perhaps the leader. In any case, if he lags behind Thibault Brignoles in the number of his portraits, then not much. There is no doubt that Semyon, if he was initially met with caution by the members of the group, managed very quickly and cleverly to melt all the ice in his relations with them. The analysis of camping photographs allows us to state categorically that Semion Zolotarev was not a source of tension within the group, he did not oppose himself to Igor Dyatlov and all versions of the internal conflict connected with the presence of Zolotarev in the group of "alien" students can be safely dismissed as completely untenable;
   - Accordingly, the existence of the "core" must exist and the "periphery" of the group (which is always observed in a fairly large groups of like-minded people, regardless of the purpose of creating such groups). To such "periphery" can be attributed to Alexander Kolevatov, Yuri Doroshenko, Zina Kolmogorov and Lyudmila Dubinin. Yuri Yudin also got into the "peripheral composition" until he separated from the group;
   - The latter circumstance (that is, the absence of girls in the "core" of the group) sharply reduces the likelihood of conflicts in one way or another related to the "female factor." In principle, the presence of girls or women in a team with a predominance of men, from the point of view of victimology, can serve as a serious destabilizing factor, and due to a variety of circumstances (if we talk about it in very general words, the cause of conflicts and related criminal acts may be is connected both with the struggle of men for the attention of women, and with the struggle of women between themselves for influence on men.Usually in such groups can work complex combinations of the most contradictory motifs, in which there is no point now it is important to note that to launch a "conflict chain" a woman or a girl must get into the "dominant core" and be able to impose their own judgments on him). The fact that both girls were outside the "dominant core" of the group, in fact, nullified the threat of internal conflict caused by the "female factor." Neither the struggle for the sympathy of the girls, nor their games in favoritism, could not destroy the integrity of the group simply because the "core" would not allow it. There can be no doubt that the presence of girls in the group was not a source of tension and did not create internal conflicts. All the versions, or rather the speculation, playing up the "female factor", which provoked the conflict between the participants of the campaign of Igor Dyatlov's group, can be rightly attributed to speculative and completely groundless;

- Analysis of marching photographs, suggests that the number of cameras available to participants in the campaign exceeded the number recorded by the investigation. The cameras were more than the four pieces that the investigators found in the group's tent and returned the relatives of the deceased tourists. The arrangement of cameras according to their accessories gives the following, extremely unexpected result: two cameras were at the disposal of Semyon Zolotaryov (one of them remained in the tent, the second was carried to the ravine), one was available to Rustem Slobodin, Igor Dyatlov, Georgy Krivonischenko and Nikolai Thibaut -Brignola (presumably). Another camera at this stage can be considered "an unidentified accessory, possibly belonging to Zina Kolmogorova";
   - Is it possible to admit that the camera of Thibault Brignol was carried away by the last to the ravine and subsequently this camera was found on the corpse of Zolotarev? In other words, does the author consider "one fluke for two"? This assumption, frankly speaking, seems illogical and internally contradictory. First of all, because Thibaut and Zolotarev were dressed equally well and Tibo simply had no reason to transfer his camera to Semyon: he had a chance to survive the night no more than Nicholas himself. If Thibault Brignoles really managed to carry his camera out of the tent, then most likely, the last one would have been found on his corpse. It is possible, however, to assume that Zolotarev took the camera from the corpse of Nikolai Thibault-Brignol and carried it around his neck until his own death, but this assumption also looks weakly motivated. Why should Semyon take the camera, if for his survival at that time the knitted gloves of Thibault Brignoles and his jacket on the sheepskin were of far more importance? There is no reasonable answer, and can not be, especially if we take into account that the body of Thibaut Brignol was not undressed by his comrades and he died, apparently, one of the last. All this reasoning reinforces the belief that the above-mentioned layout of the cameras is correct and the camera of Thibo-Brignol is not related to the camera that was found on the corpse of Zolotarev;
   - The assumption that the group members have more than 4 cameras, discovered by investigators in the tent, makes you think about what was the fate of the disappeared photographic equipment? In the accidental loss of two cameras at a time and the subsequent accidental death of the whole group is not believed at all - simply because common sense denies the probability of simultaneous implementation of such unrealistic accidents. An assumption is made about the relationship or even the mutual conditioning of these events. The sequence of events on the slope of the Holat-Sahyl in the first approximation. "It has already been pointed out that a number of serious, albeit indirect, evidences testify to the search conducted in the tent of tourists (the broken filter of the Krivonischenko camera, the not fully clipped ski pole of bamboo, short cuts the slope of the tent, turned down along the slope, scattered biscuits, etc.). It was during the search and could disappear the 5th and 6th cameras of tourists, which we provisionally secured for Thibo-Brignol and Kolmogorova. Why did one or two cameras disappear, but four others remained? What could be the criterion for the selection of cameras by mysterious abductors? The remaining cameras "Zorky" were relatively new: Zolotarev and Dyatlov owned cameras in 1955 release, and Krivonischenko and Slobodin - in 1954. In principle, they all looked the same, because they were the same type. Apparently, those cameras that were stolen, something markedly different from them.

Although from the point of view of mechanics, optics and kinematics of work, the camera "Zorky" was an exact copy of FED cameras and even had the same dimensions with them, they could not be confused. "Loud" (the picture on the left) from the very beginning of its release in 1948 was completed with the lenses "Industar-22" with enlightened optics (which was manufactured on machines exported from the defeated Germany due to post-war reparations). Meanwhile, FED cameras up to 1955 (and FED-2 until 1956) received Industar-10 lenses with unenlightened optics. The enlightened and unenlightened lenses easily differed visually because they had different light reflectance values, so that the clarified optics seemed to be much darker. In addition, the lenses "Industar-22" and "Industar-10" had different marking of the end surfaces (in the extreme right figure it is marked pos.22). The presented photos are interesting for us also because in the picture of "Zorkogo" you can see a yellow filter, similar to that owned by Georgy Krivonischenko. This filter was found in a tent of tourists with cracked glass.

We can easily understand that it could be for the differences, if we remember that the standard lenses of the camera "Zorky" were the first products of this kind in the USSR, which had an enlightened optics. The lenses "Industar-22" (and all subsequent models) had enlightened lenses thanks to German machines exported from Germany due to post-war reparations. Since the launch of "Zorkih" at the plant in the Moscow region of Krasnogorsk, these cameras were equipped with lenses "Industar-22". Meanwhile, FED cameras up to 1955 (and FED-2 up to 1956) continued to receive unenlightened lenses "Industar-10", as German machine tools were simply not enough for all the factories of the Soviet Union for the production of optics. Visually "Industar-10" and "Industar-22" are easily distinguishable - the enlightened lens seems darker and in oblique light gives a color highlight (usually blue), unenlightened much brighter. In addition, the end surfaces of both lenses had different markings, which was clearly evident from a distance of even a few meters. At its cost, "Zorky" with "Industar-22" almost 1.5 times exceeded FED with "Industar-10", which, in general, looks justified due to the increased consumer properties of the first (370 rubles and 250 rubles. respectively). Therefore, there is nothing strange in that low-income Tibo-Brignol and Kolmogorov owned cameras of the lowest price category. The one who searched the tent of tourists was not interested in "Zorky" cameras, because they were searching purposefully for a camera that was different from "Zorky". Having found these two cameras, this man did not puzzle over what exactly he needed and took both;
   - The absence of a film from the camera Igor Dyatlov and simultaneous presence of marching photographs of incomprehensible origin ("pictures scattered"), suggests that at the moment Alexei Vladimirovich Koskin collected and systematized not all the photographic films associated with the tragic campaign. Perhaps further search in this direction will lead to new discoveries of varying degrees of unpredictability.