E. Buyanov - Mystery of the Dyatlov group death

For some years the authorities didn't allow the organized tourist groups to visit the accident site. But several tourists without official route request visited the place of accident trying to find new evidences and a key to an accident. The first organized group (Valya and Toma Yakovenko, Yura Yudin, Zhora Kuntsevich, Sasha Danilin, Volodya Andrushechkin, Olya Khvatkova, Ira Tkachenko) visited the place of Tragedy in August 1963 and on the island hill fixed up a memorial gravestone made by a sculptor A.F. Karas upon the project of Gennadiy Ptitsyn and Yakov Ruvimov.

And right at the beginning of the article Ivanov made a conclusion: «…True causes of death were kept from people, just a few persons knew about them: the former first secretary of regional committee A.P. Kirilenko, the second secretary of regional committee A.F. Eshtokin, prosecutor of the region N.I. Klinov and the author of these lines, who were engaged in a legal investigation. At the moment neither Kirilenko nor Eshtoknn nor Klinov are not alive…».

Pictures from cameras and belongings of Dyatlov’s team made it through to the investigator Ivanov, and after their studying Ivanov allowed Vadim Brusnitsin and Yury Yudin assisted by Boris Bychkov and Evgeny Chubarev to make photos for victims relatives. So there were "photo albums" about Dyatlov’s group which belonged to the families, searchers and case investigators. Over time they were also «added» by pictures from the previous campaigns of Dyatlov’s group and pictures of participants of the search. The photos in the albums were mixed as for time and place. There was no «privacy» in procedures regarding pictures. In 2009 L.N. Ivanov’s daughter handed over the films she kept to the «Dyatlov’s group Fund» (Fund of Dyatlovtsev) to the investigation volunteers Yu.K. Kuntsevich and A.A. Koskin. Some of these pictures can be seen here. In the belongings of Dyatlov’s group there were found 4 cameras which were given back to the relatives of victims, but numbers of all cameras and their owners are known from materials of volume 2 of the case.

A. Mokhov and Buyanov are standing at the memorial gravestone in the island hill of Dyatlov pass in August 2008

25 years after termination the case of Dyatlov’s group death could be erased "under the normal procedure" according to retention period. But the prosecutor of the region Tuykov instructed not to erase a case like "socially significant". Therefore it was kept safe in the archives of Sverdlovsk region and remained intact.

A chronology of searching works (? – the dates cannot be defined exactly):

23.02–05.03 – Slobtsov’s group (from 27.03 – master of sports Maslennikov, a leader of composite group of Slobtsov-Karelin-Chernyshov+Moiseev and Mostovoy with dogs);

27.02–10.03 – Karelin’s group

1.03.59 – (12.03?) – Akselrod-Sogrin’s group.

3.03 – 8.03 – a group of masters Bardin, Baskin and Shuleshko from Moscow (Shuleshko left on March, 9).

7.03 – (17.03?) – A.K. Kikoin’s group (alpinists from UPI)

12.03 (?) – 23.03 – the first group of Martushev.

?.03 —?.03 – a group of military students from Ivdellag NCO school under the direction of senior lieutenant Potapov – 10 students.

?.03 —?.03 – a group of sappers with mine detectors under the direction of lieutenant Shestopalov – 7 sappers.

?.03 —?.04 – a group of sappers of railway troops under the direction of lieutenant Avenburg;

25.03–06.04 – Sogrin’s group;

06.04–17.04 – the second group of Martushev;

17.04–25.04 – Blinov’s group (the relocation of the camp from Auspia to Lozva from April 19 till 22.04.59);

25.04–07.05 – a group of Askinadzi and Nicolay Kuznetsov (till the end of the rescue operation and camp evacuation).

Different people had numerous assumptions, gossips and misconceptions about the reasons of the accident and the accident itself. They came from the incomplete information, uncertainty of conclusions of the investigation and the general misunderstanding of specific nature of camping trips including environmental conditions.

Dozens of various «versions» are thought up. But in fact most of them were only assumptions which tried to explain some facts and events, but contradicted to other facts and events. These contradictions didn't allow to put all known facts together in an integral scene of events and to explain all unclear facts. To think up your own «version» of events turned out to be rather easy but it was much more difficult to prove it and to connect with known facts. Researchers didn't succeed in it and the accident was still covered with veil of secrets.

Among numerous «versions» there were also «absurd» ones which reflected the opinion of some citizens, authorities and even investigators. Before Dyatlov’s group has been found there were suggestions that the tourists could «run away abroad». "Such versions" could only belong to those who haven’t travelled even one kilometer through taiga with a backpack (to reach the sea Dyatlov’s group would have to cover the distance 4 times more than all their route). There was also an «internal» criminal «version» according to which the accident could happen because of some intragroup conflict, drunken brawl or fight «for girls». Such «assumptions» were met with indignation and resolute rebuff from the experts who knew very well the true worth of these statements.

There were «versions» mocking at obvious nonsense. For example, «Aktrida dwarfs» «versions» which said about «kidnapping of tourists by malicious «Aktrida dwarfs» living underground as well as the «Aryan version». «Aktrida dwarfs» version probably came from the legends about «the people «sikcherty» (сикхерти») who lived in Yamal in dwellings like «dugouts» or originated from stone dolmens a few hundreds of which had been found in the north of Sverdlovsk region and described by regional ethnographers, according to Alexey Slepukhin. These «versions-parodies» are barely laughing at those who take them seriously. Serious «versions» arise from the following statements:

1 – the accident was a «natural» accident caused by strong natural environmental influence and some actions of group on a route in the conditions of environmental pressure.

2 – the accident was a consequence of «technogenic» factors («technogenic accident») resulting from some technical impact from weapon tests – missile, vacuum, radioactive or technogenic actions in the process of mining or from factories activities (explosions, poison or combustible gases, etc.).

3 – the accident was caused by a criminal action ("criminal" accident) such as attack of criminals or a crime committed by authorities which killed the tourist group having mistaken them for a gang or in order to keep some «secrets» or to carry out criminal «experiments». All versions anyhow related to criminal or secrets keeping are «conspiracy» assumptions which connect the tragedy with some «plot» aiming to commit a crime and hide evidences and traces. This is a conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theory is effective if the «plot» to commit a crime and to hide evidences can be proved by facts but in this case the question is who devised a plot and why. But without these facts the conspiracy versions are baseless and have to be avoided because trying to prove such version one has to give validity facts, i.e. names of conspirators and their motivation. If the elements and motives of crime cannot be proved a conspiracy theory becomes harmful because it distracts from true reasons of the accidents and disturbs to prevent them in future. And sometimes it becomes even dangerous because in this case it gives way to slanderous attacks.