to Dyatlov’s group have been found, there were no irrelevant things at the place of the accident and nothing of Dyatlov’s group belongings, including valuable ones, disappeared from the Tragedy scene.
Many searchers of Dyatlov’s group and a lot of skilled tourists supported the «technogenic» versions (including «UFO version»). It seemed that they had solid validation by way of facts about «fiery spheres» flight and the fact of radiation found on clothes of Dyatlov’s group. But these facts were weak because they lacked any explanation: what kind of phenomenon these «fiery spheres» were and where this «radiation» came from. There was no explanation how these strange phenomena affected the accident, whether there was a direct link or any influence and its importance. At the place of the accident there were no signs of these influences: neither traces of falling «rocket» nor increased radiation have been found. Therefore in order to analyze the role of these facts in the accident they were to be checked and explained. Below we give these explanations and they show the real worth of these facts and how they were connected with the accident and with legends about it.
To explain the accident «technogenic» and «criminal» versions were trying to be united. These attempts have resulted in «elimination» and «imitation» versions. The «elimination» version means intended extermination of Dyatlov’s group to keep «privacy» of some «tests», what participants of group witnessed accidentally. The «elimination» was also suggested as a result of mistaken extermination of escaped criminals. Except that the elimination was quite strange without any evidences of weapon impact. This difference was eliminated by «imitation» versions. The «imitation» was described as a special murder with evidences fabrication on the crime scene which led to that uncertain picture at the place of the accident. But all arguments about «elimination» and «imitation» nevertheless were unconvincing because of the absence of motive for the crime. They became solid and valid only together with «technogenic» version. Otherwise there were no explanations for authorities’ cruelty towards ordinary group of tourists and for the presence of criminals in this god-forsaken place. It is impossible even to reach this place without necessary winter equipment and marching skills, products and terrain knowledge saying nothing of surviving there. To prove «elimination» and «imitation» versions there were also different «arguments» and «evidences» which reduced to the proof of presence of outsiders in the zone of the accident. All these «additional» facts didn't pass the verification that is told in the article «Destruction of unchecked facts and misconceptions. Why and how the accident traces have been lost».
For the correct understanding of the accident we had to collect all relating to the investigation information with the unchecked and false facts and to explain these facts in a proper way. It was necessary to remove all «dust» of misconceptions collected for 49 years which didn’t let to understand the accident correctly. And then to explain the accident on the basis of the verified facts, evidences of witnesses and the conclusions of skilled experts.
When building a working version of events it must be kept in mind that the major events of the accident always have their logic and integrity, their cause and effect. If cause-and-effect relations cannot be put together that means the absence of the version and there is only unconfirmed assumption. And in fact, there is no «version» if it is based on the unchecked facts. The working version cannot be based on gossips. When building the authentic version of events external factors proving «possibility of events» should be enforced by the facts from the accident scene proving that the «accident» really took place. And the authentic version should also give a consistent explanation to all accompanying facts. Every accident is developing according to the same scenario with only one cause and effect chain. That is what the authentic version should explain. If the investigation pretends to be complete there cannot be any «parallel chain» and any «other» explanations. Some facts certainly can contain some kind of ambiguity and blind spots. But all major events of the accident and the causes of group death should be definitely explained by the authentic version. Any «polysemy» and break of cause-and-effect relations means that investigation has just begun and tries to make up a working «version» and this «version» is rather ambiguous.
Besides, in the process of any investigation a «version» is considered to be valid only if it was found to be corresponding to the similar versions and explanations from investigative practice. In this particular case it was necessary to find analogies to some other «tourists’ accidents» or «crimes» if there were any crimes. As well as analogies to the accidents caused by some «other» reasons (e.g., technogenic or anomaly) similar to the reasons of this Tragedy.
A statement: «All versions have the right to exist» can be true only at the beginning of investigation. Those «versions» which are not based on established facts, don't explain a course of events and don’t have similarities with other tragedies should be rejected as doubtful. Only people who understood almost nothing and made no certain conclusions can speak about «equality of versions». Only having proved by reliable facts a «version» can have the «right to exist». The process of investigation is rather deep and developed only when the main version resolutely «presses» all the rest versions or uses them to explain some fragments of events. And the «non-specific» position means incompleteness and misunderstanding of events. We believe people are mistaken if they think that the version of serious accident can be based only on one «occasional» fact. There should be a lot of such facts which have to explain a course of accident as a whole. And first of them just «puts on the right track» of the accident. Injuries of Dyatlov’s team and damage of their tent are becoming «suggestive» and «key» facts in Dyatlov's accident. Any «version» doesn’t cost anything if it cannot reasonably explain an origin of injuries and a cause of death.
Our way to Dyatlov's accident (digression by Evgeny Buyanov)
Active studying and investigation of the tragedy of Dyatlov’s group for us (for me and for the experts who helped me) began at the end of December 2005 when being at the meeting of climbers in St. Petersburg I have accidentally bought a book «Dyatlov's Pass» by Anna Matveeva. The book was both a «harlequin novel» and a nonfictional narration of Dyatlov’s group story containing a lot of details which I hadn’t known before. But I knew very well the other book that I’ve already read in the 70s – this is a novella «The difficulties of highest degree» written by Yuri Yarovoy. I was surprised that a story about search of Igor Dyatlov’s group gave rise to this novella. The summary (synopsis) of this novella is given in the appendix B; it is possible to read it and a full text can be found on the Internet (see Appendix A). Unfortunately, Yarovoy and his wife were lost in the car accident in 1980, – at night driving at great speed he ran into the sand dune on the road and lost control of the car Volga.
Yuri Yarovoy and his book
Anna Matveeva and her book
Note: Yuri Evgenievitch Yarovoy (born Kosobryukhov). He was born on April 11th, 1932 in the Far East (a station Mezha in Far East Region), his father was a railway worker (his brother Oleg Evgenievitch was born in 1936). Before war a family lived in Aktyubinsk When he was a schoolboy he finished part-time courses of junior geologists and during summer vacations worked as a collector in Mugodjarsk geological gold mining expedition. From 1949 till 1956 he has been a student of power plant faculty of Leningrad polytechnic institute named after M.I. Kalinin (graduated with a degree of mechanical engineer in «Combustion engines»). In November 1955 he changed his last name having married with Zoya Alekseevna Yarovaya, a student of Moscow Aviation Institute. After graduation he worked in many factories in Sverdlovsk, then took up another job in Komsomol (as a work-free secretary of plant All-Union Lenininst Young Communist League (VLKSM committee) and then went to journalism: worked as a head of department in the newspaper «Let’s take over!», an executive editor in the newspaper «The young of Altay», a special correspondent of Sverdlovsk television and radio broadcasting committee, a head of department in the newspaper «Ural searcher». In 1959 he became a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (KPSS). He was keen on tourism, took part in mountain and water tours around Ural and Altay. In 1959 he was a participant of one of the searching teams which were created as a result of Dyatlov’s group lost. Stanislav Meshavkin,