Karelin recollections

More than three decades separate our time from the events of that fateful winter of 1959, when in the early February morning on the slope of Mt. Kholat-Syakhl, which is located in the upper sources of the Lozva River, a group of hikers from the Ural Polytechnic Institute, led by Igor Dyatlov, died. "Na smenu!" featured in July of this year an article "Date with the Mountain of the Dead". In the same February, our hiking group was also in the area where the tragedy occurred. We were separated from the Dyatlov group by 10 days in time and 50 km in distance. On our way back the first person we met asked: "Are you the ones they are looking for?" My heart stopped: “Something happened.” A phone call to Sverdlovsk confirmed the worst. We left for Ivdel right away and participated in the search for half a month. We were on the first helicopter flight to the location. Over the past years, I went hundreds of times through various versions of what happened. In time more data and information became available. And a few years after the tragedy, I had an unequivocal opinion about the causes of the death of the group. Some interpreters of those events believe that there was some kind of an explosion in the area of the hiker's tent. The talk is even about military weapons testing. But with any explosion there must be an air wave. The absence of the latter is confirmed by a whole series m of facts. All things are in the tent. The stones on the slope did not crumble. On the border of the forest, even small bushes were not damaged, on which each branch, each needle was in its place. Finally, an explosion is a one-time occurrence. After the explosion, it is not necessary to urgently run away. Others, in their explanations, even go as far as an atomic micro-explosion, using in their arguments the fact of the presence of radioactivity on two or three items of clothing belonging to the victims. But this theory doesn't stick. No traces of an explosion, especially an atomic one, were found at the site of the tragedy. And traces of radioactivity were found only on things belonging to Yuri Krivonischenko, who worked at the disposal of nuclear waste at the notorious Chelyabinsk-40 enterprise. It was from industrial production that he brought radioactivity on his clothes. We already knew about this even then. The things on which radioactivity was found were on several of the victims. But they all belonged to one Yuri Krivonischenko and were removed from him after his death. If there was a sharp increase in the radioactive background at the site of the tragedy, this would affect all things, all hikers, without exception. It seems that this formidable "something" was an unsuccessfully launched space rocket. If the rocket could not develop the required speed, then it seemed to hover at a certain level above the ground. Until the fuel runs out. On the other hand, if the engines in the famous "bundle" of Sergei Korolev work asynchronously, and besides, the steering motors are switched on, then the rocket can have a lateral drift and move parallel to the earth's surface. This variant of an unsuccessful rocket launch could lead to its flight trajectory over the Northern Urals. I myself observed one of these unsuccessful launches on February 17, 1959 in the Northern Urals, in the upper reaches of the Vizhay River, just 50 km from the place of death of the Dyatlov group. It happened in the early morning, in the dark. It is extremely difficult in such conditions to determine the direction of movement of the rocket. I estimate it to be from south to north and from southeast to northwest. This, at one time, sounded very probable to me: it suggested the area of the Baikonur cosmodrome. The direction of launching space rockets in those years was exactly that. Suffice it to recall that the unsuccessful landing of Alexei Leonov and Pavel Belyayev (Voskhod 2)took place in the Perm region, by earthly standards, next to the Northern Urals. Observation of the launch of a space rocket at that time could only be described verbally. And there was no way to compare it with something already known: in those days, the launch of rockets into space was not shown on television yet. When, a few years later, I saw the launch of a rocket at the cosmodrome on the TV screen, I immediately recognized, when looking from below, what I had seen on the distant February morning. Rounded bright background. In the middle there is a brighter, vibrant glow. Shimmering character of color shades. The movement of gas streams. Everything, absolutely everything coincided in the form of what was then seen on the screen. I had no more doubts after that. On February 17, we saw the unsuccessful launch of a space rocket. The same unsuccessful launch was observed by the participants in the search work on the Auspiya River on March 31, 1959, when the rocket passed the same route as on February 17. With a high degree of probability, it can be assumed that on February 2, during the tragedy, an unsuccessfully launched space rocket also flew along the same trajectory. There is no documentary information about anyone seeing such a rocket. But there were vague rumors about it. Probably, conditions for observation on February 2 turned out to be bad - the sky was covered with clouds.

Why did the rocket scare the hikers? Maybe during the flight over the Ural Mountains it sank quite low. The stream of high-temperature gases flowing out of the nozzles of the rocket's jet engines at a high speed, having a considerable length, could have reached the earth's surface. Especially when you consider that the tent was on the side of a mountain, about 200-300 meters above the forest border. This scenario is very likely. Some of the hikers came out of the tent and saw that a glowing fiery whirlwind was moving right at them. But its thickness is not too great. If you quickly move away, then perhaps it will still be possible to avoid contact with this pillar of fire. Scream. The rest begin to crawl out of the tent. The latter, to speed up, cut the tent with a knife from the inside. But the fiery whirlwind has already covered them. It licked them with the tip of his tail. The temperature of the gases at the end of the gas stream is not high enough to burn. But the light radiation from the core of the gas jet blinded them for a while. Having lost their sight, the hikers groped each other and ran down, suspecting that the fiery whirlwind could repeat itself. Something like this could have happened on that tragic morning. And no explosion. No radiation. With this combination of circumstances, it becomes clear and the unusual color of the open (unprotected by clothing) parts of the body of the dead - dark purple-bronze, as a result of exposure to light. Unfortunately, the conclusion of the medical examination does not contain any considerations on this issue. The presence of injuries in three or four of the victims is explained by bruises on numerous stones during falls while descending the slope. Falling on the run is like a car hitting a standing person. Severe injuries are inevitable... Why are there no visible traces of a missile hit in the disaster area? Because it didn't fall there! It went above the mountains. And only slightly touched the mountainside with a gas jet. But this touch was a disaster for the group. And the rocket itself flew over the Ural Mountains and fell, most likely, somewhere far from the site of the tragedy. That is why in the area of the accident there were no material traces of a rocket. Thus, it seems that it was not an overwhelming force, as the investigation claims, but a real space rocket that caused the death of the hikers on the slope of Mt. Kholat-Syakhl. It was in 1959 that an intensive series of spacecraft launches began in the Soviet Union under the lunar exploration program. On January 2, 1959, the Luna-1 spacecraft was launched. And suddenly, for some reason, the Luna-2 and Luna-3 satellites were delayed: their launch was made only in September and October of the same year, eight (!) months later. This did not correspond to the approach of S.P. Korolev, as the chief designer, to the manufacture and launch of spacecraft. To recall 1957, when a series of launches were made in August, October and November, which led to the appearance of the first artificial earth satellites. Then in 1960 - a series of the same launches of Vostok spacecraft in unmanned modification (May, August and December). Finally, in 1961 - a series, as a result of which Yuri Gagarin went into space: two launches in March and one final one in April. We loved Sergei Korolev "trinity". But in 1959 there was a big time gap in the series. Why? I think this is not an accident. It can be assumed that in the interval between January and September 1959, more space rockets were launched, but of a slightly different design. Someone really wanted to launch them as soon as possible. Indeed, real events give us a new three - February 2 and 17 and March 31. And all three launches were unsuccessful. So it took Sergei Korolev time for reflection, after which the lunar series, which had begun in January, was continued. Have there been any unsuccessful launches of space rockets at Baikonur? Yes they were. This was mentioned in the years of Glasnost (see, for example, the article by Sergei Leskov "How We Didn't Fly to the Moon" in the Izvestiya newspaper, August 19, 1989). Therefore, it is likely that the February-March 1959 launches are a series kept in secret to this day.

Here one cannot ignore the fact that the 21st Congress of the CPSU was held in late January and early February 1959. Three speakers spoke about space rockets. Igor Kurchatov briefly, in one phrase, assessed the launch of the spacecraft towards the Moon as a feat made shortly before the congress on January 2, 1959. Defense Minister Rodion Malinovsky devoted about a quarter of his speech to missiles. And the Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Dmitry Ustinov, who at that time was in charge of space programs, devoted more than half of his speech to rockets. It is symptomatic that all these three performances, as if by a wave of someone's "conductor's" hand, were read on February 3 and 4. Wasn't the political "conductor" expecting a message about a "new feat in space exploration" - to report to the congress, which at that time became a political fashion? The failure to launch on February 2 probably chilled the speakers' fervor somewhat. Nevertheless, in the speeches of the Marshal and the Council of Ministers' officer, the drumbeat of continuous victories and successes sounded. These two speeches were sharply at odds with the remarks of the Marshal of Artillery Mitrofan Nedelin, who when meeting with Igor Kurchatov, Sergei Korolev and Victor Glushko at this congress, looked very concerned and serious: "... we will not rest on our laurels. The time is not right, you yourself know..." This conversation is mentioned in one of the books dedicated to Sergei Korolev. Note that it was Mitrofan Nedelin who was in charge of space work in the field of weapons. In addition, he was at the congress a representative of the Sverdlovsk party organization. It is possible that he discussed with scientists the failed rocket launch on February 2, 1959. By the way, later Mitrofan Nedelin died at the cosmodrome during an unsuccessful rocket launch aka Nedelin catastrophe. It can be assumed that some of the high-ranking leaders (most likely Dmitry Ustinov) really wanted to time the "new victory in space" exactly at the time of the XXI Congress of the CPSU. Probably they were in a hurry with the launch of the new series of missiles. Unfortunately, all three launches of the new series were unsuccessful. And they were simply not mentioned anywhere, as if they never existed... Over the past years, I have addressed letters to many authorities and to individuals with the only question: "Were there any unsuccessful missile launches on February 2 and 17 and March 31, 1959?" But I have not received an answer to any of my letters. None of more than twenty of my addressees answered. It seems that an impartial documentary history can put the final point in my version of the cause of the death of the hikers. The archives of space research should store information about the launches of space rockets in February-March 1959. Which competent authority can provide an official historical reference? Glavkosmos? Space Research Institute? Management of the Baikonur cosmodrome? In any case, a historically realistic answer to my question is required... The hikers slowly advanced along their route in the Northern Urals. At the beginning of their journey, the rocket was only being prepared for launch. The hikers climbed to their last pass, and the rocket was already floating in oxygen jets. They lay down to sleep in a tent on the side of a mountain. The rocket was launched. In a few minutes it covered a long distance. By chance it passed exactly over the tent of the group. It was a case of a fatal coincidence! The paths of a group of hikers and a space rocket crossed with a tragic outcome for the people... If my version of what happened is confirmed by historical facts about unsuccessful rocket launches in those three days, then it will be possible to consider the dead hikers in the Northern Urals in 1959 as the world's first direct victims in the history of space research from those who launched space rockets.

V. Karelin, Master of Sports in Tourism.

Update

Andrey Kuryakov, Head of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Sverdlovsk Region at the time, in a press-conference held in Yekaterinburg on July 11, 2020, announced that he managed to establish that there really was a rocket launch at the time when Dyatlov group died. Only according to the now declassified data of the Ministry of Defense, it had no relation to the tragedy at the pass, because the rocket flew in a completely different direction and fell near the city of Emba in the Akhtyubinsk region of the Republic of Kazakhstan, covering a distance of 1,500 km.

Comment

So Karelin's deduction from the behavior of the officials was quite to the point that there must have been an unsuccessful rocket launch except it didn't apply to Dyatlov tragedy. This article is still very important because it portrays the mentality at the time of the 21st Congress of the CPSU and it also explains the myriad of rocket related scenarios. The truth was hidden from the public, so any number of theories could rise from the fact that in the name of the glory no human sacrifice was unacceptable. It is an interesting idea, but there is still no proof rocket flew over the pass that night.

There were nine

Yekaterinburg. The "round table" on the problems of the mysterious death of UPI hikers in the Northern Urals in 1959, organized by amateur researchers from Ural State Technical University - UPI, lasted for more than six hours.

They came up with all these fantastic hypotheses. On January 30 this year (1999), "Uralskiy Rabochiy" for the first time concluded that the long-standing accident was a murder. That it is directly related to the testing of rocket technology, and therefore - with a state secret. This article was called "The price of a state secret is nine lives". It caused a lot of conflicting responses.

Murder? Impossible!

"I am outraged by the version built by the 'researcher' A. Gushchin," writes an anonymous author to the editorial office. - How is it possible, without any evidence, to accuse the Soviet state of such a serious crime? Yes, for such liberty you should have brought in your correspondent!..."

"What is there to guess? - V. Stasenko, a pensioner from Yekaterinburg, responds. - In my opinion, everything is clear as daylight. The students were frightened by a bear. He threw himself on the tent with a roar, began to roar, they jumped out in what they were, ran away, and then froze..."

"For theologians and ufologists, the mystery of the death of students has long ceased to exist," says G. Kopytov, a reader from Krasnoturyinsk. - The phenomenon of the tragedy is not physical, but psychophysical in nature..."

Dear reader, I leave all these responses without comment.

Here is an interesting letter by V. Korshunov, a resident of Yekaterinburg. According to him, in 1959 he served in Ivdellag and heard a lot about the death of students.

"In the summer of 1959," he says, "some of the people in the convoy liked to quote a poem about a camel:

"He walked chewing slowly,
Going with the beloved to the dunes,
Then he kissed her
And, as usual, he spat out."

They said that Igor Dyatlov wrote it. How could the convoy know these lines? From whom?

In those days, there was a secret military unit in Ivdellag - the "death squad". In a modern way, special forces. It was directly subordinate to Moscow. Its task is to suppress riots in the camps, to catch or eliminate fugitive prisoners.

At the end of January 1959, after killing two guards, taking their clothes and weapons, four hardened repeat offenders fled, led by a convicted thief named Ivan. A "death squad" was sent to capture them, without knowing about the hiking group that was in the area. Students on that fateful evening, having previously learned several thieves' songs in Vizhay, sang them in the tent. This is how they were mistaken for the runaway prisoners. The squad, confusing the hikers with the convicts, commits the gravest crime - bursts into the tent and inflicts fatal blows with rifle butts to four of them.

Then what? They report on the radio about the incident to the command. In theory, it is necessary to initiate a criminal case, to judge the special forces, and to punish the whole secret department. Since this is not likely to happen, it becomes a state secret. The order is "cover your tracks".

Because of this the investigation was quickly curtailed. At the same time a mystery with "flying balls" and missiles was circulated and even got the attention of the CIA. They sent Francis Gary Powers on a reconnaissance aircraft, which was shot down near Sverdlovsk on May 1, 1960, just on the way to Ivdel..."

Such an unexpected version. Vladislav Georgievich Karelin, one of the active participants in the 1959 search for the group, a former graduate of the UPI, who knew many of the members of the Dyatlov group, dismissed this version.

- The point is, - he said, - that the search brigade had a whole detachment of soldiers, led by officers. They said there had been no reports of escapes. In winter, prisoners rarely run away at all. The investigator-criminalist of the regional prosecutor's office Lev Ivanov, who was in charge of the case, was also interested in this information. If there had been an escape, and even with the murder of the guards, the whole Ivdellag would have known about it.

Dyatlov was not into writing poetry, his relatives can attest to this, including his brother, who studied with him at the same time at UPI.

In addition, the very fact of the deployment of a special forces unit called the "death squad" in Ivdel is also not confirmed. The author of the letter doesn't have proof of this. He even finds it difficult to name by name any of the witnesses or colleagues who could confirm this.

However, V. Karelin himself wrote about a possible attack on the hikers by an armed group of people in his protocol, as we remember from a previous publication.

- Yes, - Vladislav Gergievich does not deny. - It is in the case files. But I must note that this line appeared in my testimony thanks to Lev Nikitich Ivanov himself. He imposed it on me, asking a provocative question, and then demanded to be included in the protocol. That's why. In the first days of the investigation, Ivanov said only one thing: "The students did not die by their own death, this was a murder." We told him about "fireballs". But he was adamant. He tried to get this idea into the case files. And he managed to do that.

About 10 days after the start of the investigation, Ivanov was recalled to Sverdlovsk, and then sent to Moscow for several days. And so, when he returned, we did not recognize him. This was a completely different investigator, who was saying nothing about neither a murder nor "fireballs". And he often began to advise us: "Don't talk loosely..."

It was a rocket

Karelin's theory for the death of the Dyatlov group is an unsuccessful rocket launch.

“This is what I think happened, - he recalls. - On the day of the opening of the 21st Congress of the CPSU in the Kremlin, a rocket was launched. But it turned out to be unsuccessful. That is why, apparently, as the journalist Yaroslav Golovanov writes in one of the books, Sergei Pavlovich Korolev was so nervous during the congress. And there was no report on a victory in space. The worst thing is that the trajectory of this rocket and the path of the Dyatlov group crossed.

When they found the tent, I examined everything around it very carefully. The first thing that caught my eye was that the snow just down the slope was as if melted. A strip of crust on which the traces were preserved was quite clearly visible. The only problem with the footprints was that they seem to be eight, and not nine people. I have not seen a single one left with bare feet. And the traces stretched down from the tent not for 500 m, as Ivanov says in the case, but only for 250-300 m. And then they disappeared. Then they reappeared right in the forest, under the cedar, where there was a fire and where the bodies of Doroshenko and Krivonischenko were found. By the way there was no ski track from the hikers when they came up the slope.

It is evident that the tragedy occurred when the group was inside the tent. Perhaps they were getting ready for bed. At this time someone needed to go out for a relief, there was one "trace", and noticed a powerful column of fire approaching at a low altitude. After a few seconds, it became visible through the walls of the tent. There was a cry to run for their lives. They started to pop up in what they were wearing. There was no time to wrap up in quilted jackets. The pillar of fire is already near. The group, holding hands, rushed down. But the fire still covers them. The oxygen above them is almost burnt out, there is nothing to breathe. The hikers were blinded. It is possible that the components of the rocket fuel also got into the respiratory tract. They get lost on the slope, fall on stones and get injuries, as doctors say, incompatible with life. Those who find each other by the cedar, try to survive, make a fire, but their strength is already running out. Soon after they freeze..."

Pyotr Ivanovich Bartolomey, another member of the search for the Dyatlov group, now a doctor of sciences, professor of UPI, also likes this rocket theory. He confirms that the snow in the area of the tent was somehow melted. Although he thinks the rocket belongs to a military department rather than a space one, so the culpable parties are different.

Other participants in the events of 1959, the radio operator of the search group Yegor Semenovich Nevolin, and retired major Agofonov, who was then serving in Ivdel, explained the cause of the tragedy at the "round table" in a similar manner.

Lyudmila Dubinina's brother and Rustem Slobodin's brother also came to the same conclusion long ago.

- The entire group that was killed, - said one of them, - it's time to recognize the victims of missile tests. And finally remove the veil of secrecy that the authorities still keep.

Can't leave out the Special forces

As we know from the previous publication, there is another version, which is defended by a former UPI graduate, an amateur researcher of this tragedy, Yuri Konstantinovich Kuntsevich. Having studied in detail the materials of the criminal case, he came to the conclusion that a certain special forces had liquidated the group, since the students turned out to be unwitting witnesses of military tests, and couldn't be trusted with state secrets. This unit flew in by helicopter - to look at the results of the explosion. They saw the hiking group. The Spec Ops receive an order to destroy the witnesses! And then it’s all staged as natural death in extreme conditions...

Many disagree with Yuri Kuntsevich's version. Including Pyotr Bartholomey and Vladislav Karelin. I got letters from people.

Nikolay Ivanovich Kuzminov from Nizhnyaya Salda writes: "In 1959 I served in Ivdel and took part in the search for the Dyatlov group. We were led by the head of the military department of the UPI, Colonel Ortyukhov. We lived in a tent in the forest.

I remember finding the last four. First, the Mansi Kurikovs found branches in the melted snow, which were, as it were, thrown by someone. Their trail stretched to the ravine. We began to clear a deep snowdrift and soon stumbled upon a flooring made of spruce branches. On top of them were some clothes. On the second day, the corpse of a man was dug up; it had three watches and two cameras on him”...

As we know from the case, Thibeaux-Brignolle had two watches on his hand, and they stopped at about the same time - at eight o'clock. Approximately the same time as Slobodin's watch. As for the cameras, this is not what the case files say. The reports say the cameras were found in the tent. Either the author of the letter is mistaken, or this important fact is not reflected in the case.

Further Kuzminov writes: "I cannot agree with the conclusions that the Dyatlov group was destroyed by the military. Nonsense, inventions of a journalist! I believe that the "fireballs" are to be blamed for the hikers' death. We also saw them one night, and then after 5-6 minutes we felt a clouding of the mind. We even began to scatter, like sleepwalkers, wandering... Later we were told that a new type of hydrogen fuel was being tested and there was nothing life-threatening in this..."

In the same spirit and even with undisguised irritation, Gennadiy Konstantinovich Grigoriev, the former staff correspondent of "Uralskiy Rabochiy", also writes to the editorial office.

“Aleksandr Gushchin, with the help of other dreamers, sent Soviet soldiers into the mountains, who not only killed the hikers, but also threw them from a helicopter. What nonsense! This crosses out all belief in the veracity of the case..."

After reading and hearing dozens of recollections, I came to the conclusion that this story was overgrown with an incredible amount of speculation, some must be taken with a grain of salt. Moreover, many saw and knew at that time, apparently, very little, but today they weight everything as main witnesses.

The most complete picture of the tragedy is still only given by a criminal case. Although it is clear it's sewn with white threads. And yet, it is in it that we find those facts that do not allow us to agree with Grigoriev and others like him.

But not only. There are other witnesses, so to speak, more important. One of them is Genrietta Eliseevna Churkina, now Makushkina. She examined the tent. Here is what she said: “It was not difficult to determine whether the tent was cut from the inside or from the outside. However, we could also tell when the cuts were made with an accuracy of one day, and also the thickness of the knife blade. But these parameters were not required from us. The task was set specifically and only one: to say if the tent was cut from inside or outside. That's all. Which is what we did...

I was also present at the medical examination of corpses, which was carried out by Boris Vozrozhdenniy. I remember well when they took off their clothes and hung them on the ropes, we immediately noticed that it had a strange light purple hue, although they were of very different colors. I asked Boris: "Don't you think that the clothes have been processed by something?" He agreed.

When it turned out that Dubinina had no tongue, we were even more confused. "Where is it?" I asked again. But Boris just shrugged his shoulders. It seemed to me that he was depressed and even scared..."

By the way, Genrietta Eliseevna was not surprised by the conclusions drawn in the article "The price of a state secret is nine lives". But, probably, it's time to draw a conclusion on our own.

So, most researchers believe that the death of the group is directly related to the missile tests. Even the investigator Lev Ivanov himself said when the case was declassified that the hikers were killed by a UFO. At the same time, he admitted that the version of "fireballs" did not work out. But if on the whole that version is not rejected, then why do we ignore the fact that a special unit could have been sent to the area? It's not logical. After the launch, and even more so unsuccessful, it simply had to fly for some time. The searchers arrived at the place of death of the group almost a month later and saw a different picture.

It seems to me that the father of Lyudmila Dubinina, Aleksander Nikolaevich, was right when he said in his testimony: "If some kind of shell was launched, and it deviated and did not hit the target range, then, in my opinion, the department that released this shell should have been sent to the place its fall and rupture an aerial reconnaissance."

- So what? - say the opponents of this hypothesis. - Did the special forces arrive and kill the hikers?

Without evidence, guessing in this direction is pointless. Because maybe they didn't kill them. Maybe everyone was already dead when they flew in. Perhaps the students received such a dose of exposure that they were found on the spot already in a hopeless state. Maybe they even tried to save them, but they couldn't.

It is beyond our capabilities to restore this picture. Only the state knows the secret. But it's in no hurry to reveal secrets. Therefore, not everything is so simple in this matter.

Today we know only the general contours of the tragedy: “fireballs” were seen in the sky, and a group of hikers died in the mountains. The state authorities immediately classified the investigation into the case. Where is the material evidence from the case - diaries, films, we don't know. When the dead were found, they were all, as it were, scattered along the slope, without shoes, without warm clothes. Some had severe injuries, while others had only numerous abrasions and scratches. Some, as noted by the forensic medical examination, were obtained during life, others - posthumously. There are no traces of blood on the snow or on the clothes. At the same time, everyone has a reddish-purple skin color, which, as a rule, occurs with some poisoning. Everyone who froze and died of wounds had their last meal at the same time, 7-8 hours prior to death. The clothes on the corpses were mixed up. In the backpacks too. The tent was cut open, but there is order inside, things are laid down, not in clutter. The stove was not mounted, and nine people brought only one log of firewood that they did not burn.

Besides the tent many strange details caught the eye of the searchers near the cedar, by the fire. In their opinion, it was impossible to break the thick branches on the cedar alone, and the fire went out not because the firewood ran out, but because they stopped throwing twigs into the fire. The amount of work done - dozens of cut top branches, the flooring built in the ravine - suggests that there were more than two people at work. Doroshenko and Krivonischenko's clothes were found near the bodies of Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov. However, none of the freezing ones took advantage of it, including Kolevatov, who had no injuries. Of the four in the ravine he was the only one who froze, the others, as you know, died of their wounds.

All this in the article "The price of a state secret is nine lives", it seems to me, is described in sufficient detail, and therefore I would not like to repeat myself. Yes, probably, and these facts are enough to draw the conclusion once again: this is not a clean case. And most importantly, it cannot be explained by the rocket version alone...

The participants of the "round table", including the relatives of the victims, made an important decision - to file an application with the regional prosecutor's office to reopen criminal case №659!

A. Gushchin
"Uralskiy Rabochiy" ["Ural worker"] March 3, 1999

Hi, Olga
Briefly answering your questions

1. Cedar:
   1.1. I remember: the silence, the composition of the bodies under the cedar, the slight powder snow on top of the corpses and the fire pit. Regarding the "colossal amount of work done by the hikers at the cedar" ask those searchers who said it. I estimate this volume of broken branches on the cedar significant, but not "colossal".
   1.2. When we examined the place near the cedar for the first time on February 27, I did not distinguish any separate things: attention was not focused on small details.
   1.3. The well-known photographs of corpses near the cedar, presented on the Internet, taken, most likely by the prosecutor's camera, probably date back to February 28 - on that day we lifted the corpses from the cedar to the helipad. These famous photographs show two characteristic details: 1) snow has been swept away from the corpses; 2) there are traces left by the searchers in the snow around the corpses. All these famous photographs capture not the original, but a changed picture of the cedar. I have a photo of the cedar, taken on February 27, which shows the primary picture and does not show any traces around the corpses.
   1.4. On February 27 I noticed broken branches on a cedar.
I didn't pay much attention to the broken chopped fir trees near the cedar: I could see 2-3 pieces. Later, as the snow melted, after my departure, their number increased significantly. However, their exact number is not recorded in any document, as well as the number of branches on the flooring (as well as trunks).

2. Tent:
   2.1. I myself did not see the urine trail near the tent. I do not know who saw this trail of urine.
   2.2. I am convinced that only Slobtsov and Sharavin could see the original position of the tent and all items. But they did not have a camera and they did not fix the initial position of the tent and belongings with some kind of description. Further, the position and condition of the tent and items changed several times until the moment recorded on February 28 by famous photographers.
   - On February 26, Slobtsov and Sharavin searched inside the tent and changed its original state because they thought there might be bodies inside.
   - On February 27 the skis were taken from under the tent.
Therefore, the actual initial position of the tent and all things remains completely unknown. The recollections of the searchers on the position and condition of the tent and all things do not correspond to their original state.
I don't remember the position of the small items around the tent.

3. Searches with dogs
   3.1. I was not in the area when the guides with the dogs were near the tent.
   3.2. I was not in the area when the dogs discovered Kolmogorova.
   3.3. I myself did not examine the contents of the pockets of the corpses. But judging by the stories of other searchers in the base camp, the pockets on the clothes of the hikers were examined.

4. Footprints on the slope:
   4.1. I was not involved in finding the flashlight on the slope of the 3rd ridge.
   4.2. The Mansi examined the tracks in the snow leading down the slope from the tent. They muttered something among themselves. But I don’t know the essence of their conversation.
   4.3. After the third stone ridge, we carefully searched for traces. But they became less and less, as the thickness of the snow increased. After the third stone ridge, I saw no traces of dragging.

5. Discovery of Slobodin.
   5.1. Slobodin was found on March 5. My probe hit something solid at a depth of only about 30 cm. A soldier came up to me and tried with his probe - someone is there. So they found Slobodin.
Before Slobodin was found, none of the authorities came.
Evgeniy Polikarpovich Maslennikov wrote a draft for Slobodin's inspection report. Date - March 6. First, the formal phrases - who made the act (protocol). Further - "the present act is drawn up in the following": Then - an empty space on the page (there are no entries). And on the back of the sheet are the originals of the signatures: Maslennikov, Vlasov, Verhovskiy, Baskin. And the actual text of the act is missing. I also have the original of the unfilled act.
   5.2. I do not know who took part in the transfer of Slobodin to the traditional helicopter landing site (near the outlier on which the memorial plaque is now installed). I can't say anything about Slobodin's hat.

6. Landing site:
   6.1. An attempt was made to clear a landing site near the base camp on Auspiya River. The search party cut down trees and leveled the site in the snow. But the helicopter pilots refused to land on such a "platform". They demanded a clean approach (to the site) 100 m long.

7. Timing and more:
   7.1. During the search, I saw the following "non-searchers": 1) Tempalov, 2) Ivanov and three Muscovites , 3) Baskin, 4) Bardin и 5) Shuleshko.
I have a complete list of searchers in the base camp as of March 8, 31 people in total. The list is signed by Maslennikov. This list is at the Dyatlov Foundation.
   7.2. I took part in the search from February 27 to March 9 or 10 (I don't remember exactly). We flew away on the helicopter that brought the group of Martyushev (Bartholomey).
I have answered all your questions as I remember.

I beg your pardon, but I consider almost all of these issues not fundamental. The main thing is what made the Dyatlov group leave the tent and run down the mountainside, into the forest. At one point I promise myself not to write anything about the tragedy of the Dyatlov group until the main reason for their death is convincingly proven: not to speak, not to write. But your earnest request made me break my promise.

02.10.13      /подпись/      (V.G. Karelin)

Источник: Алексей Парунин

Answers by V.G. Karelin to the questions from V. Kudryavtsev forum.

1. I think the questions asked are not fundamental. The main thing is what made the Dyatlov group leave the tent and run down the mountainside, into the forest. The further course of events is extremely difficult to analyze due to the lack of factual information, and this becomes a fertile ground for a large number of unconvincing and unprovable versions of events expressed in literature, shows and web forums. At one point I promise myself not to write anything about the tragedy of the Dyatlov group until the main reason for their death is convincingly proven: not to speak, not to write. But sometimes I have to break my promise, as in this case. However, excuse me - I will be very brief.

2. The entry in my testimony that "the other four probably were not around the fire or came later, when Krivonischenko and Doroshenko were already frozen," was made as presumption, and not affirmation. Later, from the case files, which I first got acquainted with back in 1983, it became known that someone came to the cedar and took off a piece of clothing from the frozen bodies. And these cut off clothes ended up on the bodies found in the ravine of the stream, near the den. Apparently, one of the remaining hikers form the group came to the cedar. But who exactly remains unknown.

3. It is not known whether anyone from the three trying to return to the tent (Dyatlov, Slobodin, Kolmogorova) was at the cedar tree.

4. I was on search from February 27 to March 9 or 10 (I don't remember exactly). By March 5-6, it became clear to the searchers that no one else from the Dyatlov group would be found on the slope of the mountain, since the entire slope had already been surveyed.

5. In my analysis until April 15 (the date of my interrogation), I did not admit the thought that the "four" was lost on the slope. Indeed, the lower the slope, the fewer the tracks. But this does not indicate that the group was divided into subgroups. A patch of deep snow has just begun, on which all traces have gradually disappeared. If the group had been divided into subgroups, then where traces of one subgroup were preserved, at the same level of the slope, traces of another subgroup should have been preserved, somewhat to the side. But we did not see this: the number of tracks decreased in a relatively narrow corridor.

6. By the time of my interrogation on April 15, I had no information about the number of cut "stems" in the cedar zone. This information came later, when the snow began to melt. At the time of my interrogation, I did not know anything about the bedding of the cut "trunks", as well as about the "den" in the snow.

7. Unfortunately, the discovery of the last four in the ravine of the stream did not shed any more light about what had happened.

02.10.13         V.G. Karelin

Answers by V.G. Karelin for additional questions on the forum

1. I do not see any facts indicating Slobodin got lost on the slope, as well as indicating that Slobodin did not reach the stream and the fire.

2. I have always said, and I confirm this now, that all the injuries of the Dyatlov group were received on the mountainside, during the descent in the dark of the day, when crossing the three ridges of stones, with flat and sharp edges protruding above the surface of a slippery, almost firn cover. When passing these stone ridges during the search, we, including myself, repeatedly slipped and fell.

3. I do not see any facts indicating that Kolmogorova did not reach the stream.

4. Evgeniy Polikarpovich Maslennikov and Vladislav Georgievich Karelin were together at the tent not on February 27, but on February 28 (see photos).

5. Aleksey Chernyshov's group came to the search area on skis, and did not arrive by helicopter.

6. I am convinced that only Slobtsov and Sharavin could have seen the original position of the tent and all the items. But they did not have a camera and they did not fix the initial position and condition of the tent. Further, the position and condition of the tent and belongings changed several times until the moment recorded by famous photographs:
   - On February 26, Slobtsov and Sharavin searched inside the tent and changed its original state because they believed that there could be bodies inside;
   - On February 27 the skis were taken from under the tent.
Therefore, the actual initial position of the tent and all things remains completely unknown. The recollections of the searchers on the position and condition of the tent and all things do not correspond to their original state.

02.10.13      /signature/      (V.G. Karelin)

Источник: Тaina.li (Helga)

Helga: Well, I finally caught you.

Карелин В.Г.:: Will you attend?

Helga: Do not run away, please, I have been catching you for the second year. I will, I will.

Karelin: Я не убегу. Will you attend?

Helga: Well, I will, I guess. In general, my plan for today today is to meet with Sakhnin. I can see Sasha's film without him. I really want to put a chronology from the day you arrived: that is, what time, what helicopter did you arrive with - the very first? Who did you fly with, etc. What was the second helicopter? Just so that there is some order, so that we can follow the events.

Karelin: Well, that's how I can answer now. This means that we definitely flew the first helicopter.

Helga: How many did you fly?

Karelin: Who are we? We. Who are we?

Helga: Well, we are... who?

Karelin: Our group is five people. And there were two more complete strangers with us.

Helga: And did the dogs fly with you?

Karelin: The dogs flew by the next helicopter.

Helga: And what time did you take off?

Karelin: It was somewhere between ten and eleven.

Helga: What happened then? You boarded the helicopter or you arrived at the pass?

Karelin: I cannot clarify this - we did not time it.

Helga: Well, okay. Do you remember yourself at the airport?

Karelin: Of course.

Helga: How it was? Morning, dusk, or was it already daylight?

Karelin: It was already light. It was light. It was ten o'clock, not earlier. Not earlier. Not bedore ten.

Helga: Ok.

Karelin: From ten to eleven, that's about.

Helga: Well, it’s an hour to fly.

Karelin: ... how long it took to fly.

Helga: Then what?

Karelin: And there were us... And there were five of us, plus these two. We didn't know them. And the second helicopter, those who flew in with the dogs. And some sappers arrived, or someone else. I can not tell.

Helga: And Ortyukov you can't miss him... you begin to notice him right away, he walks as if he is God himself?

Karelin: I didn't see Ortyukov at all.

Helga: Didn't see him at all?

Karelin: Didn't see him at all. We flew away from the pass somewhere on either the ninth or the tenth of March. I don't remember exactly. But Ortyukov was not there, he was in Ivdel.

Helga: I got it. It is strange to me that Ortyukov never visited during this time, out of curiosity...

Karelin: In charge was Maslennikov.

Helga: I will tell you why I am asking. A pilot told me that he brought Ortyukov. He looked around for an hour or two, chatted and flew away.

Karelin: Do not remember that.

Helga: So, on the twenty-seventh, you went to the tent, what next?

Karelin: Twenty seventh?

Helga: Well, yes, the first day. When you arrived.

Karelin: Twenty seventh?

Helga: Yes.

Karelin: We arrived but I didn't go to the tent on the twenty-seventh.

Helga: I see.

Karelin: On the twenty-seventh, Atmanaki went to the tent. With Koptelov. I've already said that. To the three of us they showed the cedar, and we went there. Then we climbed back to the pass. There was already a second helicopter. They disembarked from the second helicopter and began to discuss where to make the base camp. Decision was made to go to Auspiya River. Why? There were two considerations. The first is to be closer to the landing, and the second, Slobtsov's group that was the first on location (Slobtsov, Sharavin, Koptelov), were morally depressed. So it was decided to set up a camp in Auspiya [and not on the other side of the mountain where the bodies were found]. As far as I remember on the twenty-seventh no one else went to the tent.

PostV: Depressed, then, when only two were found, is it?

Helga: So they still have no one, as I understand it, but they found two.

Karelin: Two were found, but on the slope they have not yet been found.

Helga: I think about the slope, about the slope.

Karelin: Found. They were…

Helga: But yes

Karelin: And they were very

PostV: ... already depressed.

Karelin: Already depressed.

Helga: Yes, I am afraid that they drank alcohol the day before and were depressed today. Purely physiologically.

Karelin: They were very, very depressed. And these two factors, they made us set up camp on Auspiya...

Helga: So you have decided that the camp would be on Auspiya, then as the day goes on. Zina and Igor. Who finds them, how, under what circumstances? That is, now here is the pass, here it is - in front of you in the palm of your hand.

Karelin: I cannot tell. I didn’t take part in finding them two. I found Slobodin the next day, on the twenty-ninth.

Helga: That is, you, too, it turns out, left at this moment, as a matter of fact?

PostV: March twenty-ninth...

Karelin: On the twenty-seventh I did not go to the tent. I was on the twenty-eighth at the tent.

Helga: Ok.

Karelin: Twenty-eighth. This is famous in the photograph. We were dismantling there, which means that this is the whole tent, that means. And on the twenty-ninth we were lifting the corpses.

PostV: To the pass?

Karelin: To the pass.

Helga: Here's another question. Koptelov said that the bodies of Zina and Igor were lying, they seemed to be dug up, and they were lying right up to the moment when you went, when you found Slobodin. That is, this is how this picture would have been, that three bodies lie on the slope. Was it like that?

Karelin: When all three were found, then this line become apparent.

Helga: Well, they were found, and they were lying, or Zina was carried away and Igor was carried away?

Karelin: This is how difficult this detail is for me again. Because I was not involved in their discovery.

Helga: And who carried away Zina, who carried away Igor?

Karelin: I did not participate in the transportation of either Kolmogorova or Dyatlov. Nor Slobodin. I took part in the transportation of the first two found under the cedar. We did this on the twenty-ninth. This was the task we were given. And someone else transported the other corpses.

Helga: I want to find people who...

Karelin: Who? I do not know. I don’t know, I can’t say.

PostV: So again, after all, it turns out that Slobodin was found when Kolmogorova and Dyatlov were gone?

Karelin: They have already been found. Slobodin was last.

PostV: Have they already been raised to the pass?

Helga: Have you seen them - here lying Zina and Igor, lying on the ground?

Karelin: Igor? I saw Igor, Zina I didn't.

Helga: So, then since you didn't see them on the first day of their discovery, you say they were gone by the twenty-seventh?

Karelin: Didn't see them on the twenty-seventh.

Helga: When then?

Karelin: The twenty eighth.

Helga: The twenty eighth? Still went down and looked, right? And when you found Rustik, they were gone? The bodies? Well, in general, somehow there must have been a feeling where they were lying, Zina and Igor, right in the middle of this vast space? What do you see? And they are not disturbed.

Karelin: There was no feeling. Every evening we discussed the day in this large army tent, the events of the day. And then one day, one such evening, this straight line, which Maslennikov drew, emerged. In a straight line. Maybe there were some deviations.

PostV: No, well, of course, this is not an ideal straight line, some kind of corridor.

Karelin: So this is the line.

Helga: Well, of course it is not a perfect line.

PostV: Not a string, of course.

Karelin: Yes, but this line sounded over the radio. It sounded on the radio and was reflected in his diary.

Helga: And here is the second question. Look, I had such an idea, if Zina and Igor were brought to the outlier, already raised, you would probably walk past the two of them and then look for Slobodin.

Karelin: They all lay. All corpses.

Helga: All four?

Karelin: All the corpses were lying.

Helga: Or two?

Karelin: All the corpses were lying. They were not taken out for several days.

Helga: Why was that? The pilots flew in, looked and, in principle, they could not load there and there was the weather. The weather there was problematic, they flew away and came back in a few days.

Karelin: Moreover, there was a day with a blizzard. One day we did not search at all.

PostV: Didn't work at all. First, in my opinion, March.

Karelin: It was March first.

PostV: And also these two who flew with you in the helicopter - did you see them there later or not?

Karelin: I didn't get it.

PostV: the two strangers that flew in with you in the helicopter. Did you see them again, what were they doing?

Karelin: They were in our army tent, but we still do not know who they are.

Helga: They were not Ivanov and Tempalov?

Karelin: Nope! No, it is not him.

Helga: I thought here you meant Ivanov and Tempalov.

Karelin: This is not Ivanov, quite clearly.

PostV: What did they do? You don't know?

Karelin: I don't.

Helga: You don't remember anything about them?

Karelin: Do not know. Can't say anything.

PostV: With a tape measure, without a tape?

Karelin: No, I can't say anything.

PostV: There is one with a camera there. And they flew away when, don't you know either?

Karelin: It can be established, probably, when they flew away. I gave a list to the Fund, of who was there on the seventh, or something, number. They, in my opinion, must be on that list.

Helga: Well, look, who is this, can you tell? And here's another question, this kind of airfield, as the pilots call it, a well, who and when cut it down? How did it all happen? You practically appeared there almost on the first day.

Karelin: I don't understand the word "airfield".

Helga: Here is the helicopter landing pad that was made at Auspiya.

Karelin: Yes.

Helga: Can you tell us something about it? Where was it in relation to your camp?

Karelin: To the camp? Literally 20-30 meters away.

Helga: This is not Kuntsevichevskaya, where he is now setting up camp?

Karelin: I don't know, I can't say where Kuntsevich is.

Helga: You never went with him later?

Karelin: I have been to those parts, but we went on hikes, and I was not in Auspiya. But an attempt to make a helipad, which means it was next to our ... army's big tent.

Helga: And the helicopter landed there, right?

Karelin: Nope. No no.

Helga: No, there was one landing.

Karelin: So I don't remember.

Helga: But the helicopter pilot himself says that he landed, but "I will not do this mistake again."

Karelin: I don't remember. I don’t remember. Maybe he sat down while we were working somewhere up on the mountain.

Helga: He sat down. But he is a champion in some kind of helicopter sport in Russia or the Union.

Karelin: The fact that they were masters - yes.

Helga: Do you remember how many aircraft worked there?

Karelin: Well, at least four aircraft.

Helga: Four!

Karelin: I remember four, yes.

Helga: And how can you tell them apart, these four aircraft you remember?

Karelin: By numbers! Then we distinguished them by the numbers.

Helga: Were they all military aircraft?

Karelin: Yes, military.

PostV: With red stars?

Karelin: Stars.

PostV: Were the stars red?

Karelin: Stars.

Karelin: Either the eighth or the ninth.

Helga: Here. Around the ninth to you flew aircraft with four side numbers: this is the sixteenth, fourteenth.

Karelin: No, it wasn't like that. During this entire period - from the twenty-seventh - different aircraft flew in. The side numbers were different. This does not mean that all four of them were together at the same time.

Helga: I understand, here is two of them standing together. And then there are sixty-eighth or sixty-seventh, devil only knows whose helicopters.

Karelin: I remember it like that.

PostV: And there were still civilians flying there?

Helga: Yes, and civilians also flew and they landed.

Karelin: I am not insisting that there were exactly four. About four. Four, it looks like.

PostV: That is, not two, but more?

Karelin: More, of course.

Helga: And they were all Mi-4s, or were they MI-1s?

Karelin: No, big ones. Large, all four.

Helga: Here. Then what is more curious - after all, the pilots, they said that the military pilots, they did not land, they did not pick up the groups. That selection - Chernyshov was picked up on the route, picked up...

Karelin: Chernyshov? Chernyshov was not picked up.

Helga: Well, I don't know, but he writes in his testimony.

Karelin: Chernyshov? Chernyshov came on skis, they were dropped off, and they came to the pass on skis. They were dropped off.

Helga: Well, I don’t know, he himself says in his testimony, he says that a helicopter picked them up and took them to the pass. This is what the testimony says.

Karelin: I have to remember. They just appeared as a group on the pass, walking.

Helga: Where were you at that time?

Karelin: We were at the pass.

Helga: Where did they come from?

Karelin: They did not rise, but they seemed to cut off, cut off the slope at Kholat Syakhl, along the slope to Auspiya.

PostV: Traversing?

Karelin: Traversing. And climbed to the pass.

Helga: This is where the source of Auspiya is now, right?

Karelin: Yes, yes. They went from the source of Auspiya to the pass. I saw them at the pass. Chernyshov.

Helga: You're sure this was the Chernyshov group? You could not confuse them with someone else? Well, it just surprises me, he wrote with his, as they say, hand in the criminal case. Strange.

Karelin: This could be anything. Maybe it was convenient for some reason to say it like that.

Helga: I don't mean it like that. What I mean is that military pilots did not make picks and landings anywhere. Potyazhenko says: "I flew only to two points: one point is Ivdel, the second point is the pass." Hence, he was the best (military) pilot. So, the civilian flew, landed on Gumpkopay: it means, the civilian picked up Akselrod from Otorten.

Karelin: I can't say anything.

Helga: Well... it is. These are already mine, as they say, toys with pilots in tin soldiers.

PostV: I understand correctly that ... how to say ... if you look from the top of the tent, that is just a great photo, where there are searchers down here like this, standing right like a corridor. And now Bartholomey said that this straight line, as it were, pseudo-straight, yes, it turns out to the left of their tracks. So it turns out that if they returned, they did not return in their tracks? Is this right?

Karelin: Absolutely correct.

PostV: That is, how would the traces go there, do they actually go to the left there? Absolutely correct.

Helga: Wait, to the left - in the sense of the north?

КАН: Yes, yes.

Karelin: But this corner, the corner between the straight line on which the corpses seem to lie, and the straight line along which the footprints go, and this corner (shows the diverging angle with his hands) is 20 degrees.

PostV: That is, if you look from the tent, then the straight line to the cedar goes like this, and the tracks go there?

Helga: Plainly speaking, they were not lying on the tracks of footprints at all!?

Karelin: They go there.

PostV: At the confluence of the first stream and...

Karelin: No, and they get, they fall first on the rocky ridges. On the rocky ridges, they received all these injuries.

PostV: Well, again, traces and straight lines - is it not possible to say that they returned in their own footsteps?

Karelin: No. No. And only three returned. They returned along this straight line, which was to the right in relation to the direction of their own tracks.

PostV: If they returned in a straight line, as it were, exactly cedar-tent... Then it was daylight, they saw where they were going.

Karelin: Of course they did. It was already morning.

PostV: That is, not dark when ...

Karelin: Morning. Morning, they saw where they were going.

PostV: That is, this is specific: there is a tent, we are going there.

Karelin: Yes. Yes. They saw. It was already morning.

Helga: I will have another question. You know, now the most popular version is the version of murder by some people. When you saw the bodies, did the question arose that they were killed? That is, when you did look like this.

Karelin: Didn't even cross my mind. Even in a drunken delirium, one could not even come up with such a thing.

Helga: Why? Well, now there is a theory that there are even German prisoners of war there.

Karelin: I don't care about these theories.

Helga: There was no impression of any kind?

PostV: Only what could be substantiated.

Karelin: This is how all the injuries were received, I once showed a journalist - here's the slope... the stone ridge, after all, it's like on the surface...

PostV: And everything is covered in ice.

Karelin: And they are, as it were, pressed upwards. Slippery. They fell there on this stone ridge. If it was at night they didn't really see anything. They are all there, falling on stones, bruising, breaking ribs. Fell on a stone that sticks out and broke his head.

Helga: But he got up and went again?

Karelin: We do not know whether he got up or walked, or was carried or led away. We don't know anything. One can only guess.

Helga: But if someone needs to be carried they will go very slowly.

Karelin: Let's not scratch our heads on these topics. We will never know what happened with them. Even why they left the tent, we will never know.

Helga: By the way, about the tent. Slobtsov says there were some slippers, hats near the tent. You dismantled the tent. What was it? Who found them, these slippers, hats and some other articles?

Karelin: I can't say anything. Ask Slobtsov. I do not remember anything. No slippers, no hats.

Helga: In general, what did it look like? So they dug up there with Sharavin, trying to find something on the twenty-sixth. Then went away. The next ones are coming. And what does it look like? Is it at least visible that they were poking around there?

Karelin: Here is a photo.

Helga: Here it is rearranged and standing up?

Karelin: Yes Yes. On the twenty-eighth, I saw this already torn apart, turned inside out, everything was rearranged and taken out.

PostV: And when you dismantled the tent without a protocol or inventory? That is, you just took out, folded, assembled and piled everything up? Then the tent was spread out and everything was folded back?

Karelin: There was no description.

PostV: So something could be lost?

Karelin: It was useless to lie, to describe something. Because everything was contaminated. It did not correspond to the real situation, the primary one.

PostV: I understand. The quality, so to speak, did not match, but the quantity still had to match?

Karelin: The quantities were drawn up in Ivdel when everything was brought there.

Source: Conference 2015
Transcript: Тaina.li (Laura)