ISBN 978-5-0056-4255-4 (т. 1)

      ISBN 978-5-0056-4256-1

      Created with Ridero smart publishing system

      Foreword

      «The most important thing in research is not the amount of the information you have, but the skill how you use it.»

      After careful studying the criminal case files, I have made a disappointing conclusion regarding the investigation findings. They proved to be not only erroneous, but deliberately falsified. But this was not the main thing in this tragedy, but the fact that the researchers of the past, as if not noticing the obvious mistakes of the investigation, for many decades not only used the conclusions of the investigation, but in some cases, raised them to the rank of axioms. And, as you know, the thinking people profit by the other people’s mistakes, and do not use them in their reasoning’s. That was why so many versions of the tragedy appeared and none of them corresponded to reality. The thing is that it’s impossible to build a plausible version of the events on the erroneous conclusions, however hard you may try. Therefore, unlike the others, I have completely rejected the investigation conclusions and, comparing the available facts, drawn my own conclusions, which, in my opinion, are more consistent with reality than the previous ones.

      Chapter 1. Who cut a ski pole, and what for?

      As is known from the criminal case files, a ski pole cut into several pieces, was found in the tent, belonging to the hikers from Igor Dyatlov’s group, which was evidenced by the participants of the search and rescue operations, Vadim Brusnitsyn and Vladimir Lebedev. This looks very odd, especially with respect to what happened to the Dyatlov group on the slope of the height «1079».

      The Protocol of interrogation of the witness Vladimir Aleksandrovich Lebedev, April 20, 1959

      «In the tent, we found a ski pole, whose upper end was cut off along a neat end notch, and another notch was made. This suggests that someone seemed to stay in the tent much later than the others, maybe for a day, because no one would cut a pole, which might still be useful, out of sheer idleness.»

      A criminal case file, sheet 315

      Indeed, why cut a ski pole, which may still come in handy. Suppose the hikers needed just a cut pole, which, in their opinion, could no longer be useful for one reason or another. To hunt down this complicated issue, one should review the testimony on this point of another witness, which is available in the criminal case files.

      The Protocol of interrogation of the witness Vadim Dmitriyevich Brusnitsyn, May 15, 1959

      «On top of all the things, a ski pole cut into several pieces lay, whereon the northern ridge of the tent seemed to be fixed. To resolve upon rendering a ski pole unusable, taking into account that the group had no extra ones, was possible only on extraordinary occasions.»

      A criminal case file, sheet 368

      Hence, Vadim Brusnitsyn also confirmed the presence of a cut ski pole in the tent of the hikers, found on the slope of the height «1079», which lent this important information some credibility, since the students had no need to lie and mislead the investigation. Moreover, prior to the interrogation, they were made aware of Article 95 of the RSFSR Criminal Code on the responsibility for perjury.

      To figure out a secret of a cut ski pole is not an easy task, though it is all the same achievable. And unlike others, I will not read tea leaves, I will rather use what is available in the criminal case files. Thus, if the testimony of Vadim Brusnitsyn is taken as the basis for solving this issue, the two options for the development of the events are possible:

      1) the group should have had an extra pair of ski poles;

      2) some special events should have occurred, compelling the hikers to resolve upon rendering the ski pole unusable.

      Let’s start with the first case scenario, which, in my opinion, is easier than the second one. And, as is usually the case in the investigations, to find an answer to a difficult question one should sift the whole lot of materials through, before the answer comes to fruition, which will correspond to reality, i.e. be based on the reliable facts, confirming its correctness.

      Indeed, this matter is so intricate that it won’t be quite so easy to come to its understanding. Sometimes, the same people provide conflicting testimonies, which leads the researchers astray. And yet, if one does not jump to conclusions, but methodically compares the facts, it is possible «to separate the wheat from the chaff», as the saying runs.

      The Protocol of discovery of the Dyatlov group’s camp site, February 28, 1959

      «The overnight camp represents a snow-leveled site with 8 pairs of skis on the bottom. The tent is stretched out on the ski poles, fixed with the ropes. 9 backpacks, with various personal belongings of the group members, are laid down at the bottom of the tent, the quilted jackets, windbreakers are placed on their top, 9 pairs of ski boots are found where the heads should have been..»

      Junior Counsellor of Justice, Tempalov

      Witnesses: 1) Brusnitsyn, 2) Sharavin, 3) Kurikov, the Head of the detachment 4) Maslennikov.»

      A criminal case file, sheet 2

      It is strange, the Dyatlov group numbers 9 people, and there are only 8 pairs of skis, whereas 9 pairs of ski boots are found. Herewith, one pair of ski boots is found in the cache. Why do the hikers need 10 pairs of ski boots, having 8 pairs of skis? Something does not quite add up in the Protocol drawn up by Tempalov. To get to the bottom of the circumstances, one should review the testimonies of the witnesses, who were present during the inspection of the items in the tent.

      The Protocol of interrogation of the witness Vadim Dmitriyevich Brusnitsyn, May 15, 1959

      «8 pairs of skis were laid under the tent with their bindings facing down. Thanks to the dense snow cover, the tent was set up very firmly. Everything was covered with the packed snow, except for the southern ridge, fixed on a ski pole and tied to a pair of skis. No ski pole was under the northern ridge.»

      A criminal case file, sheet 367

      Now it becomes clear why Tempalov mentions 8 pairs of skis, rather than 9 pairs. The thing was that one pair was not under the tent, but next to it, as reported by Vadim Brusnitsyn. But he says nothing of the ski boots, so one should review the testimony of another witness, who was present during the inspection of the items.

      The Protocol of interrogation of the witness Yevgeniy Polikarpovich Maslennikov, March 10, 1959

      «In the Dyatlov group’s tent there were 9 backpacks, 10 pairs of skis, of which 9 pairs under the tent bottom, 8 pairs of ski boots, 3.5 pairs of felt boots (7 pcs.), several quilted jackets and other property. When the inspection of the tent was over, we dragged it to a helipad at a distance of 600—700 meters.»

      A criminal case file, sheet 70

      Actually, Yevgeniy Maslennikov reports of the 8 pairs of ski boots in the tent, rather than 9 pairs, which, in my opinion, is closer to the truth for a number of reasons, whereof I will tell you, but a little bit later. But the story with the skis has taken an unexpected turn. And now it is not clear who should we believe and who not. It turns out that on the slope of the height «1079» there were 10 pairs of skis, rather than 9 pairs. But one should not jump to conclusions, for, as a rule, this can mislead even an experienced researcher, without saying of those, who take only initial timid steps in this direction. So, please, arm yourselves with patience and hold onto your hat.

      Indeed, the events have taken an unexpected turn, and it proves that on the slope of the height «1079», there were 10 pairs of skis instead of 9 pairs. This seems to be fantastic, despite the fact that the hikers