Unknown diary

[sarapuk]

sarapuk, they wanted to return the tent to the UPI tourist club, but the tourist club did not want to take it, since it was unfit for further use. That's why the tent was stored in the basement—the tourist club didn't take it, and there was no procedural document that would have sent it to the stove or the landfill.

Well, is that the official line?  I believe that certain things are missing from this Dyatlov Mystery, apart from documents. For instance, a camera's film may be missing. It may well be that the authorities no longer needed the tent, having decided that its usefulness as evidence was done. Or maybe that they got rid of it because modern forensic techniques could have revealed something not to their liking. Or maybe they still have it.

[Hunter]

Among the researchers is Vladimir Ankundinov. He worked in the Sverdlovsk forensic lab and saw this tent with his own eyes.
And he apparently said that the UPI travel club didn't want to take it back because it couldn't be used for its intended purpose. It's quite possible it had already been written off the travel club's balance sheet.

[ilahiyol]

sarapuk, they wanted to return the tent to the UPI tourist club, but the tourist club did not want to take it, since it was unfit for further use. That's why the tent was stored in the basement—the tourist club didn't take it, and there was no procedural document that would have sent it to the stove or the landfill.

Well, is that the official line?  I believe that certain things are missing from this Dyatlov Mystery, apart from documents. For instance, a camera's film may be missing. It may well be that the authorities no longer needed the tent, having decided that its usefulness as evidence was done. Or maybe that they got rid of it because modern forensic techniques could have revealed something not to their liking. Or maybe they still have it.

Russians don't throw away such items and evidence. It's likely hidden somewhere. But it may have decayed over the past 66 years because adequate preservation conditions likely haven't been provided. So, even if it were found, examining it would be impossible.

[Hunter]

After a criminal case is closed, evidence may be destroyed (discarded), returned to its owner, or stored with the case file. Sometimes evidence that should have been destroyed ends up in the "private collections" of police or prosecutors.

[sarapuk]

sarapuk, they wanted to return the tent to the UPI tourist club, but the tourist club did not want to take it, since it was unfit for further use. That's why the tent was stored in the basement—the tourist club didn't take it, and there was no procedural document that would have sent it to the stove or the landfill.

Well, is that the official line?  I believe that certain things are missing from this Dyatlov Mystery, apart from documents. For instance, a camera's film may be missing. It may well be that the authorities no longer needed the tent, having decided that its usefulness as evidence was done. Or maybe that they got rid of it because modern forensic techniques could have revealed something not to their liking. Or maybe they still have it.

Russians don't throw away such items and evidence. It's likely hidden somewhere. But it may have decayed over the past 66 years because adequate preservation conditions likely haven't been provided. So, even if it were found, examining it would be impossible.

Having stored a big canvas fishing umbrella for nigh on 50 years, my umbrella is still ok. If something is stored in reasonable conditions it should last a very long time.

[Ziljoe]

sarapuk, they wanted to return the tent to the UPI tourist club, but the tourist club did not want to take it, since it was unfit for further use. That's why the tent was stored in the basement—the tourist club didn't take it, and there was no procedural document that would have sent it to the stove or the landfill.

Well, is that the official line?  I believe that certain things are missing from this Dyatlov Mystery, apart from documents. For instance, a camera's film may be missing. It may well be that the authorities no longer needed the tent, having decided that its usefulness as evidence was done. Or maybe that they got rid of it because modern forensic techniques could have revealed something not to their liking. Or maybe they still have it.

Russians don't throw away such items and evidence. It's likely hidden somewhere. But it may have decayed over the past 66 years because adequate preservation conditions likely haven't been provided. So, even if it were found, examining it would be impossible.

Having stored a big canvas fishing umbrella for nigh on 50 years, my umbrella is still ok. If something is stored in reasonable conditions it should last a very long time.

The tent had been used for multiple seasons . In hot and cold weather , it had also been subjected to strong winds , out side fires and an internal wood stove. It had been stitched together, had many holes that had been repaired and left for three weeks to get blown about. To finish it all , it was ripped apart and dragged 800 metres .

Please be serious and don't compare the tent to a fishing umbrella. We have been told a number of times that it was just left on a shelf and thrown out.

[sarapuk]

sarapuk, they wanted to return the tent to the UPI tourist club, but the tourist club did not want to take it, since it was unfit for further use. That's why the tent was stored in the basement—the tourist club didn't take it, and there was no procedural document that would have sent it to the stove or the landfill.

Okay, let's look into this particular aspect a bit closely. Let's look at what we know about what happened after the tent was recovered and investigated. I refer you to the Case Files.  Interview Maria Piskareva published 5/29/2013. Her mother was Genrieta Eliseevna, and she signed a non-disclosure of the secrets of the investigation in Dyatlov case, which she had access to as a forensic expert, and under no circumstances violated it. However, the known reports are obviously recorded for all to see.
''MP: Please allow me to disturb you again, for this reason. I read a new interview with the journalist A.Gushtin, he says the following: "Anatoly Gushtin: In the late nineties I had the opportunity to repeatedly communicate with a very important witness of those events - Genrietta Eliseevna Makushkina (in 1959 she had a different surname - Churkina). She did the examination of Dyatlov group tent, which is believed to be cut off by hikers with a knife when, in a panic, scared to death of something or someone, barely clad fled from it down the slope of the Otorten mountain, where then everyone died...

Genrietta Eliseevna was sure that the tent was cut not with an ordinary knife, but with a special one, clearly made of cold steel, but, on the other hand, she perfectly understood that this truth was contraindicated and could even be dangerous. Therefore, she recorded in the examination exactly what was required of her."
Igor Olegovich, maybe you know what your mother said about the blade? What were her assumptions?
As I see from the case materials, the knives were not sent for examination, the expert had nothing to compare the cuts of the tent with and whether it was cut precisely by their knives.
But maybe in the family circle, your mother could express her doubts about the blade, what was it like?

Afterword
I really wanted Igor Olegovich to tell someday about what impressions his mother had after she visited the scene. After all, no one knew about this, that forensic expert Genrietta Eliseevna Churkina was at the scene of the tragedy, and, according to her professional duties, studied the footprints found in the snow. In the Criminal Case, there is no information that the traks were studied by professionals. And this caused new bewilderment about the work of the investigation. Now I understand that the work on the slope was carried out, moreover professionally, but not all the results of the work done by the experts were included in the criminal case known to us, as well as other very important documents.
I would also like to get answers on questions about the physical and technical examination of Dyatlov group tent, and read the notes of Igor Makushkin on the so-called "royal examination" - identification of the remains of the family of Nikolai the Second.
With deep respect to Igor Makushkin, Genrietta Churkina and the entire glorious team of forensic experts,
Maria Piskareva.

So why is all this important and related to the whereabouts of the tent? Firstly, it's apparent that investigators were sworn to secrecy for some reason! If something is an ordinary accident or similar, it doesn't get sworn to secrecy. Non-Disclosure Documents had to be signed, and they lasted 25 years. Until the fall of the USSR, in fact. Also check out this: In memory of Igor Olegovich Makushkin
March 10, 2025. Olga Litvinova's conversation with Igor Makushkin took place on December 25, 2022. He was the son of the forensics expert who inspected the tent and other objects. Suggestion that the tent was indeed still classified as evidence until its 25-year expiration date regarding the Non-Disclosure Documents. The 25 years coincide nicely with the alleged damage caused by water flooding.

So, if you would like to post the evidence that the tent was offered back to the UPI Tourist Club?   

[Ziljoe]

From other parts of the interview with the son of the woman who inspected the tent and worked in the same building in the same job as his mother . i don't even know if this is true but it sounds reasonable. No one cared and after 25 years why not bin it?
Igor Olegovich Makushkin (son of Genrietta Eliseevna Churkina who inspected the tent) replies to the below questions about the tent and the false comments regarding his mother being able to tell what knife made the cut .

-One of the investigators in this case recalls that the tent was examined by a seamstress before it was sent for examination to Sverdlovsk.

"Well, some seamstress expressed her opinion. And right before my eyes, this tent was taken out and thrown into the trash."

– Have you seen Dyatlov’s tent?

- Well, yes. So I even came later and told my mother, "That's it, we've thrown out that tent of yours." The thing is, my mother quit that lab in '67, and I came to work there in '81. I worked there from '81 to '93.

- Was it kept there for that long?

"Yes, and they threw it out in '85 or '87, so basically, from '59 to '85, that's 25 years, and it sat there. Not only that—nowadays they call it corporate events, but back then, they went on outings, and they'd take this tent along so they wouldn't have to sit on the cold ground."

- Apparently because by then it had long since ceased to be considered material evidence.

Well, if only anyone had needed it. But it lay around, they moved it, moved it again, then the sewer burst, everything flooded, it started to mold, they threw it out, and that was it. And no one paid much attention to it back then; it was a routine matter for everyone. But maybe if no one had flown north by plane back then, if, say, Vozrozhdenny hadn't climbed into a barrel of alcohol after the autopsies, no one would have paid any attention at all. A routine criminal case.


The following also shows a sensible reply  answer to your quote sarapuk .

MP: Please allow me to disturb you again, for this reason. I read a new interview with the journalist A.Gushtin, he says the following: "Anatoly Gushtin: In the late nineties I had the opportunity to repeatedly communicate with a very important witness of those events - Genrietta Eliseevna Makushkina (in 1959 she had a different surname - Churkina). She did the examination of Dyatlov group tent, which is believed to be cut off by hikers with a knife when, in a panic, scared to death of something or someone, barely clad fled from it down the slope of the Otorten mountain, where then everyone died...

Genrietta Eliseevna was sure that the tent was cut not with an ordinary knife, but with a special one, clearly made of cold steel, but, on the other hand, she perfectly understood that this truth was contraindicated and could even be dangerous. Therefore, she recorded in the examination exactly what was required of her."

Igor Olegovich, maybe you know what your mother said about the blade? What were her assumptions?

As I see from the case materials, the knives were not sent for examination, the expert had nothing to compare the cuts of the tent with and whether it was cut precisely by their knives.

But maybe in the family circle, your mother could express her doubts about the blade, what was it like?

- 10 -

IOM: Maya, it’s embarrassing for me to listen to your apology at the expense of my concern. I am glad to communicate with you, I am glad that at least with a small certainty I can bring clarity to some controversial issues.

About the blade. There was no talk about this. I think that if there was such a topic, it would be discussed more than once. There were always enough knives in the house, including some very interesting specimens. As a rule, experts have a certain amount of such "stuff".

There were cut damages on the tent, not stab cuts. By cut damage, it is not even possible to determine the shape of the blade. Only the presence of a cutting edge - the blade. You can’t even say if it was double-edged blade (a dagger having 2 cutting blades), or it was a knife. And as for cold weapons - this, in my opinion, is a far-fetched and given special significance. Cold weapons are only the presence of certain properties on the weapon, which are mainly characteristic of causing bodily harm. In the classical sense, cold weapons should not have household and industrial purposes. Very controversial issue. There are special knives, for example, medical or used for slaughtering cattle and carvinf meat. Despite the special conditions of use, such knives will never be considered cold weapons. It is impossible to determine the type of knife from the cuts in the tent.

[Hunter]

Regarding the expert examination, we need to look at the documents from those years—when an expert had the right to take the initiative in the examination, and when they could only examine an item and answer only the questions posed. Regarding the words "bladed weapon" in the expert examination text, it's worth disregarding—at that time, there were no clear criteria for classifying an item as a weapon. And even on a single knife, two experts could give conflicting conclusions back then.

[sarapuk]

From other parts of the interview with the son of the woman who inspected the tent and worked in the same building in the same job as his mother . i don't even know if this is true but it sounds reasonable. No one cared and after 25 years why not bin it?
Igor Olegovich Makushkin (son of Genrietta Eliseevna Churkina who inspected the tent) replies to the below questions about the tent and the false comments regarding his mother being able to tell what knife made the cut .

-One of the investigators in this case recalls that the tent was examined by a seamstress before it was sent for examination to Sverdlovsk.

"Well, some seamstress expressed her opinion. And right before my eyes, this tent was taken out and thrown into the trash."

– Have you seen Dyatlov’s tent?

- Well, yes. So I even came later and told my mother, "That's it, we've thrown out that tent of yours." The thing is, my mother quit that lab in '67, and I came to work there in '81. I worked there from '81 to '93.

- Was it kept there for that long?

"Yes, and they threw it out in '85 or '87, so basically, from '59 to '85, that's 25 years, and it sat there. Not only that—nowadays they call it corporate events, but back then, they went on outings, and they'd take this tent along so they wouldn't have to sit on the cold ground."

- Apparently because by then it had long since ceased to be considered material evidence.

Well, if only anyone had needed it. But it lay around, they moved it, moved it again, then the sewer burst, everything flooded, it started to mold, they threw it out, and that was it. And no one paid much attention to it back then; it was a routine matter for everyone. But maybe if no one had flown north by plane back then, if, say, Vozrozhdenny hadn't climbed into a barrel of alcohol after the autopsies, no one would have paid any attention at all. A routine criminal case.


The following also shows a sensible reply  answer to your quote sarapuk .

MP: Please allow me to disturb you again, for this reason. I read a new interview with the journalist A.Gushtin, he says the following: "Anatoly Gushtin: In the late nineties I had the opportunity to repeatedly communicate with a very important witness of those events - Genrietta Eliseevna Makushkina (in 1959 she had a different surname - Churkina). She did the examination of Dyatlov group tent, which is believed to be cut off by hikers with a knife when, in a panic, scared to death of something or someone, barely clad fled from it down the slope of the Otorten mountain, where then everyone died...

Genrietta Eliseevna was sure that the tent was cut not with an ordinary knife, but with a special one, clearly made of cold steel, but, on the other hand, she perfectly understood that this truth was contraindicated and could even be dangerous. Therefore, she recorded in the examination exactly what was required of her."

Igor Olegovich, maybe you know what your mother said about the blade? What were her assumptions?

As I see from the case materials, the knives were not sent for examination, the expert had nothing to compare the cuts of the tent with and whether it was cut precisely by their knives.

But maybe in the family circle, your mother could express her doubts about the blade, what was it like?

- 10 -

IOM: Maya, it’s embarrassing for me to listen to your apology at the expense of my concern. I am glad to communicate with you, I am glad that at least with a small certainty I can bring clarity to some controversial issues.

About the blade. There was no talk about this. I think that if there was such a topic, it would be discussed more than once. There were always enough knives in the house, including some very interesting specimens. As a rule, experts have a certain amount of such "stuff".

There were cut damages on the tent, not stab cuts. By cut damage, it is not even possible to determine the shape of the blade. Only the presence of a cutting edge - the blade. You can’t even say if it was double-edged blade (a dagger having 2 cutting blades), or it was a knife. And as for cold weapons - this, in my opinion, is a far-fetched and given special significance. Cold weapons are only the presence of certain properties on the weapon, which are mainly characteristic of causing bodily harm. In the classical sense, cold weapons should not have household and industrial purposes. Very controversial issue. There are special knives, for example, medical or used for slaughtering cattle and carvinf meat. Despite the special conditions of use, such knives will never be considered cold weapons. It is impossible to determine the type of knife from the cuts in the tent.

But lets look at this a bit more closely.

"Yes, and they threw it out in '85 or '87, so basically, from '59 to '85, that's 25 years, and it sat there. Not only that—nowadays they call it corporate events, but back then, they went on outings, and they'd take this tent along so they wouldn't have to sit on the cold ground."
 ''Apparently because by then it had long since ceased to be considered material evidence''.

So according to that he does think that it was material evidence.

''Well, if only anyone had needed it. But it lay around, they moved it, moved it again, then the sewer burst, everything flooded, it started to mold, they threw it out, and that was it. And no one paid much attention to it back then; it was a routine matter for everyone. But maybe if no one had flown north by plane back then, if, say, Vozrozhdenny hadn't climbed into a barrel of alcohol after the autopsies, no one would have paid any attention at all. A routine criminal case.''

Well it certainly was not a routine criminal case. It was subject to the USSR's version of an Official Secrets Act. The area where the incident took place was also sealed off for a long time. It may have started as a search for hikers involved in an accident but it then became something else. 

[Hunter]

If the tent were evidence in the case, it wouldn't have been stored in a simple basement, and it wouldn't have been dragged to picnics as a mat.

[sarapuk]

If the tent were evidence in the case, it wouldn't have been stored in a simple basement, and it wouldn't have been dragged to picnics as a mat.

But do we have any information on the building where it was kept. Was it a simple basement. And what proof do we have that it was dragged away to picnics, other than one persons word that may or may not be correct. Do we have multiple witnesses to this story.

[Ziljoe]

If the tent were evidence in the case, it wouldn't have been stored in a simple basement, and it wouldn't have been dragged to picnics as a mat.

But do we have any information on the building where it was kept. Was it a simple basement. And what proof do we have that it was dragged away to picnics, other than one persons word that may or may not be correct. Do we have multiple witnesses to this story.

At some point we have to work with facts or at least assumed facts and the evidence we have. The tent was no longer of use as a tent. The person that says that the tent was thrown out was the son of the woman that did the investigation and worked in the same building as his mother as I understand it. He may still be alive.

He himself highlights the issues with the case and why certain things reported are just not how they happen. I believe he means how later written statements have little or no meaning.

If the tent had some sort of hard evidence in ,or on it, then so would everything else , all the blankets , clothes and equipment that were returned for example. Many of the searchers saw and cut the tent , it was years old and had been dragged from the tent location, put in a helicopter and eventually taken to where it was examined. A basement is a perfectly adequate place to store old case file materials as they do in museums and many other organisations.  Something might be stored on a top shelf, eventually it goes to the bottom shelf regarding it's importance over time.

It's an old tent , many people saw it and touched it , it has no use left ,1 year or 60 years later . Given the state of it , I don't even imagine it would be much use as a ground sheet but that is irrelevant. At some point you clear stuff out as there's more important things ....

[Hunter]

If the tent had been of any significance to "plainclothesmen" (a colloquial term for KGB officers), it wouldn't have been left in the Sverdlovsk Ministry of Internal Affairs forensics lab. It would have been taken away. And it would have been burned or stored in the KGB basements.

[Ziljoe]

If the tent had been of any significance to "plainclothesmen" (a colloquial term for KGB officers), it wouldn't have been left in the Sverdlovsk Ministry of Internal Affairs forensics lab. It would have been taken away. And it would have been burned or stored in the KGB basements.

I would have to agree. It would seem no one was interested in it and if for example there was some cover up , it probably still had no significance to be used at a later date.

[Hunter]

The tent didn't contain any information that would contradict the official version. If there had been traces of fuel, radiation, or anything else, it wouldn't have been offered to the hiking club for safekeeping, nor would it have been left with forensic investigators.

[sarapuk]

If the tent were evidence in the case, it wouldn't have been stored in a simple basement, and it wouldn't have been dragged to picnics as a mat.

But do we have any information on the building where it was kept. Was it a simple basement. And what proof do we have that it was dragged away to picnics, other than one persons word that may or may not be correct. Do we have multiple witnesses to this story.

At some point we have to work with facts or at least assumed facts and the evidence we have. The tent was no longer of use as a tent. The person that says that the tent was thrown out was the son of the woman that did the investigation and worked in the same building as his mother as I understand it. He may still be alive.

He himself highlights the issues with the case and why certain things reported are just not how they happen. I believe he means how later written statements have little or no meaning.

If the tent had some sort of hard evidence in ,or on it, then so would everything else , all the blankets , clothes and equipment that were returned for example. Many of the searchers saw and cut the tent , it was years old and had been dragged from the tent location, put in a helicopter and eventually taken to where it was examined. A basement is a perfectly adequate place to store old case file materials as they do in museums and many other organisations.  Something might be stored on a top shelf, eventually it goes to the bottom shelf regarding it's importance over time.

It's an old tent , many people saw it and touched it , it has no use left ,1 year or 60 years later . Given the state of it , I don't even imagine it would be much use as a ground sheet but that is irrelevant. At some point you clear stuff out as there's more important things ....

It was the USSR era so I guess things worked a little differently in those times. No doubt that the tent was examined forensically. And no doubt that it was stored away, along with other items. Any radiation on the tent could have long dispersed. Same as with clothing. So there would naturally come a point in time when those items were no longer considered important enough to keep. That time could have been days or months or years. As far as the tent is concerned its alleged removal coincided with the end of the USSR.

   

[sarapuk]

If the tent had been of any significance to "plainclothesmen" (a colloquial term for KGB officers), it wouldn't have been left in the Sverdlovsk Ministry of Internal Affairs forensics lab. It would have been taken away. And it would have been burned or stored in the KGB basements.

As it happened it was stored for up to 25 years before its disappearance.

[sarapuk]

The tent didn't contain any information that would contradict the official version. If there had been traces of fuel, radiation, or anything else, it wouldn't have been offered to the hiking club for safekeeping, nor would it have been left with forensic investigators.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that it was offered straight away to the hiking club. Any radiation on the tent would not necessarily pose a risk. Depending on the type of radiation dispersal could be days or weeks or months or years. Same with clothing.

[Hunter]

One of the modern-day researchers of the tragedy worked for the forensic service where the tent was stored. He repeated Churkina's son's account of the tent's fate. He also claimed that after the investigation, the hiking club was offered the tent, but refused.
If there had been anything on the tent that undermined the theory that the group died as a result of natural causes, not only would it not have been offered back, but it would have either been destroyed or taken away from the Ministry of Internal Affairs forensic experts.

[sarapuk]

One of the modern-day researchers of the tragedy worked for the forensic service where the tent was stored. He repeated Churkina's son's account of the tent's fate. He also claimed that after the investigation, the hiking club was offered the tent, but refused.
If there had been anything on the tent that undermined the theory that the group died as a result of natural causes, not only would it not have been offered back, but it would have either been destroyed or taken away from the Ministry of Internal Affairs forensic experts.

So someone simply repeated Churkina's son's account. Hardly evidence though. 

[Hunter]

Sarapuk, it's not just anyone. This man worked in the Sverdlovsk forensic lab. He saw the tent and spoke with the Resurrectionist. His name is Vladimir Ankundinov.

[sarapuk]

Sarapuk, it's not just anyone. This man worked in the Sverdlovsk forensic lab. He saw the tent and spoke with the Resurrectionist. His name is Vladimir Ankundinov.

But he wasn't at the original investigation. He has studied the autopsy reports. He has his own theories. Lots of people have seen the tent.