October 17, 2019, 02:08:06 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: New petition to the head of the Investigative Committee of Russia  (Read 1166 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

June 25, 2019, 11:25:33 PM
Read 1166 times
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
A petition to the head of the Investigative Committee of Russia, Alexander Bastrykin, from the Dyatlov Memorial Foundation will be presented in Yekaterinburg on June 26 at a round table, which will be held in the ITAR-TASS press center. The petition was signed by activists of the foundation, representatives of the Russian Geographical Society, as well as relatives of the dead hikers - Igor Dyatlov, Yuri Doroshenko and Rustem Slobodin.

It is expected that the sister of Igor Dyatlova Tatyana Perminova will personally take part in the round table. Participants will also perform a search job in 1959. Peter Bartholomew, Vladislav Karelin and Mikhail Sharavin, tragedy researchers Alexei Budrin, Alexander Alekseenkov and Vladimir Borzenkov, forensic expert Vladimir Ankudinov. “Russian Geographical Society” will be represented by extreme traveler Vladimir Rykshin and leaders Sverdlovsk Branch of the Russian Geographical Society.

Activists of the Dyatlov group’s memory fund and his supporters forced the prosecutor’s investigation into the death of Ural hikers to contact the Investigative Committee. Representatives of the supervisory authority stated that they stopped at three versions of what happened in 1959 on the Dyatlov Pass: a hurricane, an avalanche and a snowslab. Most of the activists of the Dyatlov Fund disagree with this - they insist on a “military version”, according to which Dyatlov group became witnesses or victims of weapon tests, after which they were eradicated.



"...While witnesses and participants of the search of those years are still alive, until the material evidences are not gone, until the environment of the incident is not trampled down, while the archives still store documents and evidence."


Letter is signed:
From relatives – Tatyana Perminova (Dyatlova)
From the Russian Geographical Society – Vladimir Rykshin
From Dyatlova Friends – Aleksey Budrin, Petr Bartholomew
From researchers – Vladimir Borzenkov
From advocacy – Evgeniy Chernousov

« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 01:20:59 PM by Teddy »


June 27, 2019, 10:18:30 AM
Reply #2
Offline

snaika1079


Yes. There is little need to know the background of the question. The kitchen so to speak of the relationship of different flows and structures. This is a very global issue and I will try to be as brief as possible.
 The situation in Russia has developed in such a way that mainly woodpeckers (studying the topic of HD or touched) took a break after the famous press conference of the representative of the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation (Sverdlovsk region) , "Komsomolskaya Pravda" and the Fund.  And because the major news there is, and time goes by, movements in the subject does not occur, a separate structure initiated by pushing the issue, especially that the original formula which promised the study of the versions have been extremely popular.  Statement : we will study the avalanche, snow Board and hurricane version ( snow Board = avalanche, everyone understands this).  It didn't look objective, if not completely unprofessional.

June 27, 2019, 10:19:27 AM
Reply #3
Offline

snaika1079


There was no need to declare priorities, of which 66% in favor of the avalanche. One could say that they would study all the versions, it would be more professional and not biased.  Why did the Foundation come to life if its representative Bartholomew was at the press conference?  Because the Fund does not have a single clear structure. Today on behalf of the Fund atkaya reaction, tomorrow is different. Basically it's two people - Professor UPI-USTU Bartholomew or Fund Manager kuntcevich. Nopo missile version of, which can be called "Technogen" their opinion always coincide. And they fall in relation to the avalanche. To the conductor of this version E. Buyanov. Here it should be noted that in the Urals, few people support the avalanche version. And if only Uralets has okazyvatsya in Moscow circles, which revolve E. Buyanov, for example in alpinistka community, he became a supporter of the avalanche version, as happened with the search engines Axelrod and Kobzevym. And once upon ask those who should not be denied, the Fund had a hand in the publication of the book Buyanov avalanche accident DG. But he did one izuitskuyu thing. The book includes an article mentioned Borzenkova, who criticized laminou version big stigma. This caused resentment Buyanov. In the future, strife and even hatred.

June 27, 2019, 10:20:49 AM
Reply #4
Offline

snaika1079


Then Buyanov managed what Kuntsevich could not. For example, to get access to some materials of the criminal case of Lev Ivanov. I must say that in Sverdlovsk could never put up with the avalanche variation of the accident, even in 1959, when the first time this option was proposed to stipulate in the case. The Prosecutor's office of the region and the same UPI were not inspired. Today, opponents are using their resources. You ask : why do they all need it? First, it was the case for the entire life of some famous dataweb. And secondly, it is also a small but business. Third, it is in the hands of those who distract from the main secret of the campaign, which is not really the cause of death. The reasons are allowed to argue until blue in the face. If only they did not touch the secret mission of tourists. And she Rakitino described in the right key, but with incorrect data on the composition of the working on the instructions of the KGB. By the way, the Rakitin Foundation also helped to produce the book. But Rakitin, as you can see, does not participate in the current passions.

June 27, 2019, 10:24:55 AM
Reply #5
Offline

snaika1079


I hope I do not interfere with researchers and they, if they see my words, will not call it gossip, because all the events described are set out in open sources of the Russian Federation. Plus Analytics. And this is not an attempt at defamation.This is the question of how and what is happening with the issue of disclosure of secrets, over which conjure such organizations as the Fund or the League Buyanova.

June 28, 2019, 12:27:02 AM
Reply #6
Offline

Aspen


Thank you Teddy for this information and the links to articles.  I translated one of the articles you listed, and posted it below.  (I hope that’s okay.)  Not sure if I got the name of the author correctly, but I was unable to read or translate the name of the website.  Is it “Ural KP”?  (Sorry, I don’t know a word of Russian.)

Obviously some words were lost in the translation, but overall it is a very interesting article, quoting one of the 1959 searcher, and it provides several new important details I hadn’t heard of before.

https://www.ural.kp.ru/daily/26995.4/4055537/

They were killed by a rocket and radiation: a Ural resident who met Dyatlov not far from the pass told his version of the tragedy.  He insists on the technogenic version.
(written? by?) DANIL SVETCHKOVLEV ISTOMIN  -  June 27, 2019

On Wednesday, June 26, (2019) a round table was held in Yekaterinburg, the participants of which discussed the death of the group of Igor Dyatlov, which occurred in 1959 on the pass, which is now known as the Dyatlov Pass. The visiting experts announced that on June 28 they would send a request to the Investigation Committee to conduct an investigation into the death of the tourist group. In addition, an expedition participant set out his version of events, who in February and March 1959 was looking for a dead tourist's pass.

SECRET TESTS

- We traveled at the same time with dyatlovtsy, but went south. I met with Igor Dyatlov in January 1959. When we went hiking, a man approached us and asked: are they looking for you? We immediately called Sverdlovsk, we were asked to go to the pass, - says Vladislav Karelin. - February 27, we came to the tent and saw traces. We were asked not to shoot them down, they were traces of the Dyatlov group in the form of a rank, they walked at arm's length and descended from the pass, holding hands.
According to a member of the search expedition, he still touched the footprint. It turned out to be icy. In addition, on the pass that year there was a layer of ice in many places, Karelin assures, although in subsequent years there was no ice anywhere else. This, according to researchers, indicates that at the time of the death of the group of tourists over the pass, something hot flew by that melted the snow, for example, a rocket.

- Another version brought me to the version about the technogenic reason for the death of tourists - on February 17, during a hike, at night we saw a bright spot over the tops of pine trees. We decided that this is a meteor, - says Vladislav Karelin. - But when after a few years there was a launch of a rocket from Baikonur, we saw the same picture. They began to check, it turned out that in February and in March there were launches from Baikonur, and on February 2, 1959 an emergency launch of the rocket took place from Kapustin Yar.
The researcher said that, perhaps, in the archives kept private information about the launches of other missiles.

“Below the tent we saw three stone ridges.” It was an ice field with stones sticking out of it, ”recalls Karelin. - In subsequent years, no one has seen anything like it there. These facts led me to the conclusion that there was a powerful man-made impact, which led to the tragedy.

“PSYCHOSIS IN TOURISTS CANNOT BE ABLE”

The version associated with the rocket does not exclude the well-known Ural traveler, master of sports of the USSR in mountaineering Vladimir Rykshin. The assumption that the tourists died because of the avalanche came down, it seems to him implausible.

- Avalanche can not cause such a psychosis. “You have to be a complete idiot to jump out of a tent and run down,” says Rykshin. - What caused the psychosis? We had a similar case at the volcano on the Kuriles: there was a release of hydrogen sulfide, we ran down, could not breathe. Maybe there was something like that. Maybe the rocket flew over the tent, leaving the exhaust behind it. The taiga is filled with debris from rockets and airplanes, which still radiate from radiation.
The version of the prosecutor's office about the snowboard or hurricane, which killed the tourists, the participants of the round table also questioned.

“We went on a hike with Igor Dyatlov a year before the tragedy,” recalls Peter Bartholomew. - We also found ourselves in a hurricane and could not put up a tent. So we just climbed inside, spread it out and kept the tent from the inside all night so that it would not take off. And forcing Igor to jump out of the tent because of some hurricane is nonsense.
In turn, lawyer Yevgeny Chernousov, who worked in the Ministry of Internal Affairs during the Soviet years, argues that when investigating the causes of the tragedy, much was done wrong.

“We demand a criminal case,” says Chernousov. - The Investigative Committee has the authority to do this. Conduct the investigation as expected: gather evidence, then we will get the right results. June 28, I will pass to the reception this appeal from the relatives of the deceased tourists. We believe that investigators should check the technogenic version of what happened. Even if the case is classified, I will demand that the relatives of the victims receive the right to participate in the investigation through a non-disclosure subscription.

« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 12:33:36 AM by Aspen »

June 28, 2019, 12:53:10 AM
Reply #7
Offline

Aspen


Hi Snaika, it's interesting that you say that few people in the Urals support the avalanche version.  The above article also debunks the hurricane version.  The 'secret' that you allude to, is it a missile launch that went wrong?  Are there records about this?

June 28, 2019, 01:47:03 PM
Reply #8
Offline

snaika1079


As I already noted, two powerful directions of this religion come from two strong teams: Buyanov's team (Buyanov and Ko) and Kuntsevich's team (Fund and Ko).  It's like established denominations. The Patriarch of the avalanche Buyanova own denomination.  The Patriarch technogenic (missiles) kuntsevych own denomination. And it's similar to the struggle Nanai boys. Truth is not around. These two directions are exotic for the Urals. These are, so to speak, diversions.  The cause of the accident, of course not one.  And here you can talk a lot about the particular and discuss every detail , which is probably thousands. And the ice. Karelin says it's because the rocket warmed up. But first of all, you should pay attention to the fact that the ice is formed as a result of atmospheric phenomena. But about the rocket just mysterious.  Bartholomew says he didn't get kicked hurricane from Dyatlov's tent. But it is necessary to understand what the whole would be Yes, not expelled. From damaged by burnout, destroyed when there are poisoning of the body, and the prospect of being overwhelmed

June 30, 2019, 01:26:55 PM
Reply #9
Offline

WAB


On June, 26th in Ekaterinburg there has passed press conference by preliminary result of trip group Office Public Prosecutor Sverdlovsk area to Dyatlov pass. I took part in this press conference and I can tell some words about this event.
As has already written Teddy there 6 persons acted:
Vladislav Karelin - the participant of search, PhD1 (metallurgy of nonferrous metals), the Master sports USSR of difficult travel,
Yury Kuntsevich - the president Fund memory Dyatlov group.
Alexey Budrin - the skilled traveller, PhD2 (radio engineering and software), the Master sports USSR of difficult travel,
Evgenie Chernousov - the lawyer, PhD1 (jurisprudence),
I am - independent researcher of this event, PhD1 (aeronautics and the space technics), the Master sports USSR of difficult travel,
Vladimir Rykshin - the traveller of extreme direction, the Master sports USSR of difficult travel,
Peter Bartolomey - the participant of search, PhD2 (electric power industry),professor URFU(UPI), the Master sports USSR of difficult travel, Igor Dyatlov's friend.
The fullest text of the abstract performances can be read in Russian under the reference https://www.znak.com/2019-06-26/sestra_igorya_dyatlova_pogibshego_so_svoey_gruppoy_v_1959_godu_obratilas_k_bastrykinu . In English I have not found publications in press. Now only.
I still had difficult impression about results of this conference because most of all journalists paid attention to outer side of this case. On purely paper or formal aspects. And interest was rather superficial. Most of all time have lawyer Evgenie Chernousov who has decided to participate free of charge in case of reopening investigation on this event has occupied. He spoke much, rigidly and not clearly, as all lawyers. However I do not understand its legal basis for this purpose. Under the law of Russia if there was final decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and it has not been appealed against, any subsequent actions connected with investigation will be impossible. I spoke he about it on preliminary conversation, before press conference. He did not react to it in any way. Probably it simply course what make to itself loud name in circle of lawyers.
Submit such application to Investigatory committee of the Russian Federation it is useless. Even if it will accept, the Office of Public Prosecutor there and then will protest this decision. I entirely that for consequence under the law would make careful and objective investigation. However what for make absolutely unreal promises, I cannot understand. We will wait succession of events.
It is necessary tell two words concerning the decision of the Supreme court Russian Federation. It is result of very inept and illiterate actions of the known figure among the interested case of Dyatlov group - Alexander Nechaev from  Novosibirsk town, more known under nickname as "Navig". He has submitted the claim to municipal court of the Ivdel city, and very illiterate in essence and without the sufficient facts in substantiation of this claim. After the negative decision in Ivdel, he has appealed against it to regional court of Sverdlovsk region, and then when has received there too the negative decision, tried to appeal against in the Supreme court Russian Federation. There too it has been rejected. Then appeal term on board of the Supreme court Russian Federation has been passed, and the decision became definitive. Thus he behaved as elephant in crockery shop, without paying attention to those remarks which to it were done by people competent of jurisprudence.
I think that even if and there was no this decision this case all the same would not began renew because for long time has passed limitation period and as because with 1959 there was no what that of the new facts under which it is possible hold additional consequence.
If people want to understand that there has occurred it is not necessary to hope for whom another. There will be no Santa Claus who will come and will bring ready solution of this case in the bag for gifts.
Vladislav Karelin again told about the rocket theory. Surprisingly it is another. On the eve of this press conference we with it lot time discussed this question with that arguments and documents which I have brought to it. At us very much good relations with it, therefore we what that always exchanges the interesting information. As result he has agreed that this rocket here could not be there in any way. Its words as the resume were such: “It is very detailed and convincing!” (c). However at press conference he again spoke about the rocket. It is very difficult get off old and rigid myths.
Vladimir Rykshin told about found nearby (in radius of 50 km or 30 ml) from pass two planes of easy class. One of them, it is Patrushev's plane which is unequivocally defined from documents which writer Oleg Arhipov has geted from inspector Korotayev (he investigated this failure in 1961) and by those fragments of wing which have been represented in photos of Rykshin. He does not understand it, because his base formation it is the sports trainer. To me it is unequivocally clear, because ribs of wing of plane as Jak-12 on which Patrushev flied, have the unique form. My base formation – is the expert in the aviation and rocket technics. As to he it is not clear, why they have found out there radiation in 300 microX-ray at hour. It is in 15 times more above normal background of the earth. To me too it is unequivocally clear that it is trace from aviation devices which at that time became covered by shone radioactive structures. And on wing there were sensor of  icing of wing which too had radioactive isotopes as signal source. At them it was only 2 or 3 point source of such radioactive radiation, instead of the big area. The second plane -  single monoplane of foreign manufactured which have started appear to Russia only in 90th years, therefore say about it for that understanding that has occurred to Dyatlov group senselessly. It has well remained, as has made emergency landing in 10 km to West from pass, therefore it is not necessary even define its type on fragments, it is possible find its image on directory of small aircraft. However Rykshin all the same have opinion that both planes concern Dyatlov group. It is very easy for understanding, if there is no possibility professionally understand details.
Professor Peter Bartolomey said that the avalanche is the far-fetched theory and group could not throw all in any way and escape from tent. As well as in case with snow-storm ( strong wind). He considers that there was technogenic failure, but tell, what exactly and what signs it should possess it cannot. He very good expert in electricity power, but absolutely knows nothing about rockets and other military technology, but considers (just as Karelin) that «the rocket here is guilty!». It accepts objections silently, but can tell nothing in the answer.
I said to searchers that even if there were many conversations about rockets in 1959, it means nothing. About such in the beginning of last millenium the Chinese philosopher Konfutsy has told: „It is difficult find black cat in dark room... Especially, if it there is not present!“ (c)
For me have given least time, though Kuntsevich promised more, on what I counted, when wrote the performance abstract.
I have reported results researches March of this year on pass, approximately under the same program which declared command of Office of Public Prosecutor. Interest at correspondents was very weak. For certain they there simply have not understood much, and understand details it was difficult and boring. They at all have not understood that it completely contradicts that the Office of Public Prosecutor as preliminary theories declared. As well as that it «last nail to cover of coffin of the theory of Buyanov about avalanche».
At press conference there were no representatives of Office Public Prosecutor though Kuntsevich and organizers from ITAR-TASS invited them. Probably they silently sat in hall and listened, but in any way itself have not shown and have not made what that of statements.
Officially the Office Public Prosecutor promises declare check results in December 2019 or even in February 2020. They caused for Vladislav Karelin's poll, but have told nothing to it as result of conversation.

July 01, 2019, 12:30:17 PM
Reply #10
Offline

WAB


I...........

If dear public does not object, I would like add some words to already told …
Mr. snaika1079 has told almost all correctly, only it is necessary place correctly accents and specify some statements.
1.   Even to me it is not clear, what it is such "Nopo missile versio"? I would not tell that I badly know circumstances of this case, including all details of that occurs round it. If it is not difficult, please explain, what under it means?
2.   From Evgenie Buyanov (in "the Moscow circles"  grin1 ) there are no absolute adherents. They (if they exist in considerable quantity?) are in regular intervals distributed on all country and even here there are adherents of this theory. If I that do not know that, please inform it to readers of this forum. And at the same time inform, who such Kobzev, who is the participant of searches? I cannot remember, who he is  such?
3.   The Buianov Book has been published not only by fund, and community which exists inside UPI (trade unions, administration and separate professors of this university), at silent participation of Fund. Specified article (by the way there is Sergey Sogrin's even more volume article on the same problem) is included there at the persevering request professor P. Batolomey and other participants of search. Buianov was absolutely against. It is hes natural behaviour.
4.   Any hatred at Buianov and Borzenkov does not exist. Is very rigid opposition on approach questions of principle to estimation of this event. By the way, it opposition has begun still before the book has been written. Then separate articles have been written only. In other words, it was when there were unreal and dogmatic conclusions according to occurred event.
 5.   Buianov for the first time has had opportunity completely read criminal case not because Kuntsevich that is why that it has palmed off to Office of Public Prosecutor the version which suited them could. In difference from versions which were sounded by Kuntsevich. By the way they absolutely decided also do not contain even reality elements. Therefore and the Office of Public Prosecutor concerned them with such restraint. By the way, long before Buianov, it is Karelin, Yudin, Guschin got acquainted with it criminal case and some other. In 2007 (Buianov has got access to  body to criminal case only in 2010) at me was already 80 % texts and scans this case. A bit more already was available in Ekaterinburg from the end of 80th years. Buianov`s merit it is access consists that he has received official texts of criminal case.
6.   The avalanche Theory has been sounded for the first time Moiseei Axelrod in 1996 or 1997. In 1959 except the general conversations (as one of unreal assumptions) anything has not been summarised.
7.   The Rakitin theory is not real. It is the usual antiscience-fiction novel. Besides, it is the usual commercial project which has been finished, for this reason Rakitin (by the way, it is  pseudonym) and does not participate in discussions. He have other commercial plans. Practically 100 % information he has received the most part of the fact sheet from other researchers and at forums. By the way then in his book he has very badly and impudently responded about them some them. Neither Fund, nor Rakitin did not render the help each other, short of that the fund voluntary undertook extend his book. By the way, without commercial benefit for itself.
8.   Your words are not gossip, it is some characteristic state of affairs with studying of problem  case Dyatlov group, but it is not enough full, exact and objective. But this is normal state of affairs when the opinion only on the one hand is expressed. Unfortunately I have not seen here analytics. For this purpose it is necessary know condition of this cases much more deeply and directly from within (inside). Only Practically, instead of it is too superficial. For example, if be familiar with all parties of opponents personally. Excepting writers, especially fantastic orientation. It simply foam on beer … Or gamble on the untwisted information theme. If it speak definitely and rigidly.
9.   Does not exist “two strong teams: Buyanov's team (Buyanov and Ko) and Kuntsevich's team (Fund and Ko)” in reality. There are adherents of various theories who "live" only at forums and opinions that has occurred at different people. In the second case it is necessary divide people into participants of search, and as friends of Dyatlov group as time 1959, and all the others. Because it is based on absolutely different actual material. By the way, the opinion of Kuntsevich is supported by very small part participants of search. Kuntsevich is the author of the theory «зачистки» and the organised performance with tent statement on a slope. It that also was not defined with the initial reason. The most part of participants of search (instead of Kuntsevich) supports "the rocket" theory. Both that, and another grows out or inventions (Kuntsevich and To), or errors on the basis of that they far are on knowledge and formation from the rocket technics. Besides there are many people who preach many other theories. Therefore «all Nanaian population should participate in struggle» () if to use your metaphor (by the way very not clear for participants of this forum). But that is very characteristic, practically anybody from "preachers" of any theory has even no minimum experience of practical skills and the information which is necessary for reception of the real conclusions. Therefore so many a different fantasy and absurdities.
10.   The Question on why there was this ice crust has been put Sergey Sogrin and Rudolf Sedov on searches. Already later this phenomenon began put to any theory if it is favourable there. As far as I know from Sogrin and it is direct on place, it could be one of two reasons: or it is the frozen water from rains in the autumn when early and strong frosts have formed such ice crust, or it is error of sensation and instead of ice there was thin ice crust on snow surface. It is perceived quite equally. On slope very much slick even when there is no ice but if snow absorbs moisture from warmer air which comes from the West or the NorthWest. Snow is very much hygroscopic. The rocket here it is at all at what. If it has fallen, there would be big funnel. Round there would be many scattered stones. And heat allocation (if such also was) would be only local - in small radius from falling place. However anything such on place it was not revealed. As is in 1959, and as is now.

PS. It is interesting that in the beginning I (because of small resolution of the screen) have read in yours nickname letter “h” instead of “n”. grin1  Though there is also such informal quasi-organisation “from Chelyabinsk” which participates in dismantlings discussions on this theme. Those who well knows Russian can estimate it only.

July 01, 2019, 12:58:03 PM
Reply #11
Offline

tekumze


Dear Mr. WAB, thank you for your report.

Depending on how it all went through, it seems to me that everything is total chaos. Everyone defends his interests. Maybe is it only to me (according to my syndrome) that every expert in his field tries to decrypt the expert from another field?
I join the opinion of Nigel Evans ("And what is printed is unequivocal, when they found the ravine bodies the state removed the case from civil jurisdiction. Now there are only two reasons for this, (1) they knew the answer and wanted to enforce secrecy. (2) they did not know the answer and were concerned about the possibilities and therefore took control full control of the case"). In every legitimate democratic country with a regulated legal system, this means something is wrong. I do not know your legislation and if this is normal for you, I apologize.

And again, I ask you a question for which you do never take the time:
Because it seems to me that you are skillfully avoiding certain explanations and in any way disputes any reasonable/unreasonable suspicion or any other point of view which is not in accordance with your way of thinking in the forum, I would ask you a single personal question again:
After many years of your engagement in Dyatlov's tragedy, what do you personally think about what happened that fateful night? (if you have any opinion)
Best regards

July 01, 2019, 12:58:33 PM
Reply #12
Offline

WAB


The 'secret' that you allude to, is it a missile launch that went wrong?  Are there records about this?

Certainly, it is. I already wrote at this forum about it. On February, 02nd ~ 12AM from range Kapustin Jar has been started rocket R-5m, direction to Kazakh lake Balkhash. It has flown by 886 km and has fallen within range "Balkhash" or "Sary-Shagan". Its parts have been found out in that place



On scheme:
1 -  place of start of the rocket,
2 -  place of actual falling,
3 -  place of settlement falling,
4 -  arrangement of range "Balkhash",
5 - the pass location (the distance is equal 1670 km from a place of start of the rocket),
6 -  point of the maximum range flight R-5m rocket to pass direction (imaginary!).
Under the scheme very precisely it is visible that to pass this rocket get could not in any way. Under the fact sheet it was in we suck other place. This distance is more than 1700 km from pass.
Other data can be only invented.
It all before press conference I have informed to Vladislav Karelin personally and in detail. He has told (literally!): “It is very convincing!» (c). However at conference he again spoke about the rocket theory. Old myths very proof and refuse away from them it is very difficult.

July 01, 2019, 01:04:05 PM
Reply #13
Offline

WAB


Dear Mr. WAB, thank you for your report.

Depending on how it all went through, it seems to me that everything is total chaos. Everyone defends his interests. Maybe is it only to me (according to my syndrome) that every expert in his field tries to decrypt the expert from another field?
I join the opinion of Nigel Evans ("And what is printed is unequivocal, when they found the ravine bodies the state removed the case from civil jurisdiction. Now there are only two reasons for this, (1) they knew the answer and wanted to enforce secrecy. (2) they did not know the answer and were concerned about the possibilities and therefore took control full control of the case"). In every legitimate democratic country with a regulated legal system, this means something is wrong. I do not know your legislation and if this is normal for you, I apologize.

And again, I ask you a question for which you do never take the time:
Because it seems to me that you are skillfully avoiding certain explanations and in any way disputes any reasonable/unreasonable suspicion or any other point of view which is not in accordance with your way of thinking in the forum, I would ask you a single personal question again:
After many years of your engagement in Dyatlov's tragedy, what do you personally think about what happened that fateful night? (if you have any opinion)
Best regards

Dear tekumze!
I have already finished time to answers today.
Simultaneously at me today the bad traffic Internet.
I will answer you tomorrow or when there will be such possibility.
Thanks.

July 01, 2019, 02:04:31 PM
Reply #14
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
[[ I think that even if and there was no this decision this case all the same would not began renew because for long time has passed limitation period and as because with 1959 there was no what that of the new facts under which it is possible hold additional consequence. ]]  Thanks WAB for all your inputs on this great FORUM. It looks like the AUTHORITIES are still COVERING UP this  Dyatlov Case, as they have done for the last 60 years. Whatever reason they have it is down to them. I suppose we have to respect GOVERNMENTS  !  ?  Unless there is a good reason not to  !  ?   So God knows where that leaves us at the moment. I suppose we could still get an OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT sometime, regarding the latest INVESTIGATION, if thats what we can call it !  ? 
DB

July 02, 2019, 11:43:27 PM
Reply #15
Online

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
So it seems that the conclusion of the so called investigation of no real value other than it almost certainly wasn’t an avalanche.

Good work Sherlock! neg1

July 03, 2019, 02:18:24 PM
Reply #16
Offline

tekumze


So it seems that the conclusion of the so called investigation of no real value other than it almost certainly wasn’t an avalanche.

Good work Sherlock! neg1

Hi Star man!
Bravo! If you pay attention to this forum. The story goes like that: When you put a theory that basically proves the infinite empty talk (or incompetence) of official and semi-official investigators. Someone will be immediately take the time and in the answer for which he needs at least three hours try to prove that everything is transparent and legitimate and that it's probably a problem in you because you do not understand anything and you're stupid. They immediately begin to defend themselves and their national legislation. Just look, when I joked about their avalanche expert, how they were offended.

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark - William Shakespeare

July 03, 2019, 03:37:19 PM
Reply #17
Online

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
So it seems that the conclusion of the so called investigation of no real value other than it almost certainly wasn’t an avalanche.

Good work Sherlock! neg1

Hi Star man!
Bravo! If you pay attention to this forum. The story goes like that: When you put a theory that basically proves the infinite empty talk (or incompetence) of official and semi-official investigators. Someone will be immediately take the time and in the answer for which he needs at least three hours try to prove that everything is transparent and legitimate and that it's probably a problem in you because you do not understand anything and you're stupid. They immediately begin to defend themselves and their national legislation. Just look, when I joked about their avalanche expert, how they were offended.

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark - William Shakespeare

Hi Tekumze,

Yes.  I hear you.  It can be frustrating.  There are so many views, opinions, personalities and a koleidoscope of different theories.  But basically, nobody has figured this out yet. At least not with sufficient evidence that can be substantiated.  There seems to be politics too. Organisations, funds personal interests, reputations and probably even money.  These are things that I am not interested in.  I am only interested in understanding what happened to those unfortunate young people. 

I don't know if I am right about this but it seems to me that the path to truth has many branches and avenues that need to be explored.  The person who follows the same route day after day after day only sees what they have always seen.  My view is that if you have a theory but you can't produce a strong enough argument and or evidence to give good confidence in the theory then it is time to put the theory in the car park and try one of the other routes you haven't been down before.  Even if that road seems strange and alien to you.  You can always go back to the car park later on.  Also, my view is to  be confident in yourself and your ideas.  If you present a theory or idea on the forum, then listen to what people have to say and ask does what they say make sense and is it logical.  If iwhat they say doesn't obey the laws of logic and sense then no amount of accolades should sway your idea.  Apologies if I seem to be pontificating or seem patronising.  When I say "you" it is in the sense of " I, you, we, they etc etc.  just my tired thoughts coming out.

The feedback I have read on the official investigation on this site seems to suggest that it was far from objective.  It appears to be almost as sloppy if not more so than the original investigation.  But that is just my opinion because I am nowhere near an expert on Russian legislation or politics.  But I am fairly proficient in common sense.

Regards

Star man


July 06, 2019, 11:28:50 AM
Reply #18
Offline

WAB


Dear Mr. WAB, thank you for your report.

It is not necessary thanks, I only have executed that I promised ago.

Depending on how it all went through, it seems to me that everything is total chaos. Everyone defends his interests. Maybe is it only to me (according to my syndrome) that every expert in his field tries to decrypt the expert from another field?

1.In this research there is no rigid order, this absolutely correct assumption. Each theories party tries “ pull blanket to site our party.
2.In it there are many different parties and they are not connected in any way one with another.
3.Those who should answer do not possess sufficient knowledge in trifles which define assence of this case. It is usual situation when it is required consider experts opinions from different areas of knowledge, and the moderator does not have necessary knowledge. Then he is compelled solve in own intuition, and it (intuition) not always gives the correct or unequivocal decision. All it can become complicated and desire answer as the compromise of different (incompatible) opinions.

I join the opinion of Nigel Evans ("And what is printed is unequivocal, when they found the ravine bodies the state removed the case from civil jurisdiction. Now there are only two reasons for this, (1) they knew the answer and wanted to enforce secrecy. (2) they did not know the answer and were concerned about the possibilities and therefore took control full control of the case").

It is possible tell more shortly and it will be more the right answer on this problem: “They no knew the answer!” (c) It is Point (End)! And be add: “Also do not know the answer till now!” (c). Therefore have not told anything because cannot tell anything. The indicator of it is that different words which mean nothing speak many. Because speak nothing they cannot, and trustworthy information at them is not present. For this purpose it is not necessary that hide. I already be spoke about “ black cat”.

In every legitimate democratic country with a regulated legal system, this means something is wrong. I do not know your legislation and if this is normal for you, I apologize.

Here only it is not necessary speak apropos “ democratic countries” in which lies level reads off scale. And the adjusted legal system does not exist in no one country. Always there are situations when “there is no adjusted basis”. At us it is so much times this system tried (and constantly try) to "regulate" that "бардак brothel" (confusion) are inevitable. In any legislation (in any state) there can be principle of "strike of the Italian railwaymen» - they start work strictly under instructions, and through small time all transport movement appears paralysed (blocked).
At our public prosecutors the same situation: “Wanted make as better, and it has turned out as always there is  result” (c) Victor Tchernomyrdin. He was the prime minister at Yeltsin.
And all becomes complicated that there is opinion from more known people (writers, for example or literary opinion of the our employees) which they consider. And as there is opinion about which do not know or do not want consider, because it is people less known. And distinguish one opinion from other opinion, they cannot, because there is no knowledge in specific branches in which they have not got education. Last versatile person - Leonardo da Vinci has died already almost 500 years ago, and the science has promoted far to forward.
And such situation exists not only in our country.

And again, I ask you a question for which you do never take the time:
Because it seems to me that you are skillfully avoiding certain explanations and in any way disputes any reasonable/unreasonable suspicion or any other point of view which is not in accordance with your way of thinking in the forum, I would ask you a single personal question again:
After many years of your engagement in Dyatlov's tragedy, what do you personally think about what happened that fateful night? (if you have any opinion)

I remember that you asked this question, but I had no possibility answer it while.
I already many times answered such question: I have my hypothesis which can logically explain without essential (and furthermore decided) contradictions that has occurred on pass in 1959. I already stated it at this forum separate pieces in different themes. Unfortunately, in different themes. As the answer to different questions. If it is interesting to you, then esteem my messages at this forum, under references of my nickname.
I would not want constant circulation on the same circle “round the same tree” … Meanwhile at me it turns out unequivocally clear conversations only with physicists of special sections of physics (over low-frequency acoustics) and biophysicists (physiologists) who study specially these phenomena. Unfortunately, the most part of my opponents (examples at this forum are) does not know this section of knowledge. More precisely, they know only the name, and his one's own opinion. And it is more than anything.

Therefore I do not try write about it much. It is useless and it is necessary spend lot of time for nothing. For me it is inadmissible luxury.
Even with obvious answers at this forum I often am late for long time.
For example, as to this your message.

July 06, 2019, 11:32:06 AM
Reply #19
Offline

WAB


[[ I think that even if and there was no this decision this case all the same would not began renew because for long time has passed limitation period and as because with 1959 there was no what that of the new facts under which it is possible hold additional consequence. ]]  Thanks WAB for all your inputs on this great FORUM. It looks like the AUTHORITIES are still COVERING UP this  Dyatlov Case, as they have done for the last 60 years. Whatever reason they have it is down to them. I suppose we have to respect GOVERNMENTS  !  ?  Unless there is a good reason not to  !  ?   So God knows where that leaves us at the moment. I suppose we could still get an OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT sometime, regarding the latest INVESTIGATION, if thats what we can call it !  ?

1.That the Office of Public Prosecutor does, it not new investigation (they cannot make it under laws of the Russian Federation), and they check only three versions.
2.That the authorities if they do not know what there has occurred can cover?
3.They promised give the Official answer in August 2019, but there can be delay till December 2019 or February 2020. It can be made, because it is authorised by Russian Federation law.

July 06, 2019, 11:40:52 AM
Reply #20
Offline

WAB


These are things that I am not interested in.  I am only interested in understanding what happened to those unfortunate young people. 
I don't know if I am right about this but it seems to me that the path to truth has many branches and avenues that need to be explored. 

In it you are absolutely right. But only as essentially.
But if be engaged only in it is infinite, we never will come to the problem final decision. It is impossible as do all by infinite quantity of variants. That is necessary on what will be limited by principle: we must reject obviously unreal and far-fetched variants. As those variants which have no natural bases. Because it conducts to usual imaginations, which do not have basis. And it necessarily should be. At least in the form of the physical phenomena and material traces. If those are not present or they unequivocally are not found out, they should not be thought out in addition. It will result in deadlock, then lot of time of forces will be spent for them in vain and on empty basis.

My view is that if you have a theory but you can't produce a strong enough argument and or evidence to give good confidence in the theory then it is time to put the theory in the car park and try one of the other routes you haven't been down before. 

It is not argument. Or this statement is not detailed and basic. There are many accompanying restrictions to possibility proof already available physical phenomena: research cost, duration of the researches, necessary scientific potential (if it exists actually in general …) and etc.
If other ways conduct in deadlock (and it is obvious), why it is necessary come back indefinitely to them? For the sake of fulfilment of process and only?

The feedback I have read on the official investigation on this site seems to suggest that it was far from objective.  It appears to be almost as sloppy if not more so than the original investigation.  But that is just my opinion because I am nowhere near an expert on Russian legislation or politics. 

1.I think that to this case, in any way it is impossible carry policy. It will confuse understanding only.
2.In the Russian legislation all is simple. Much easier, than, for example, in English lows. There are values which are stipulated by the law as admissible, and there are what cannot be possible under the law. It are unequivocally impossible. For example, it is opening of new criminal case. Because already there was decision of the Supreme court Russian Federation to it. It has played dirty trick (on thoughtlessness and self-confidence) one person from the Novosibirsk city.

But I am fairly proficient in common sense.

As Albert Enshtein spoke: “Common sense are those prejudices which collect in human head at the age of less than 18 years (or 20, it is unimportant, important that at young age).” (c)
It he has told concerning what not all obvious is correct. There are physical phenomena which are not known yet more parts of the population of our planet.
I think that it is our case. But it is not example for UFO, Yeti or other imagination (or not having physical acknowledgement).

July 06, 2019, 04:29:51 PM
Reply #21
Online

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
These are things that I am not interested in.  I am only interested in understanding what happened to those unfortunate young people. 
I don't know if I am right about this but it seems to me that the path to truth has many branches and avenues that need to be explored. 

In it you are absolutely right. But only as essentially.
But if be engaged only in it is infinite, we never will come to the problem final decision. It is impossible as do all by infinite quantity of variants. That is necessary on what will be limited by principle: we must reject obviously unreal and far-fetched variants. As those variants which have no natural bases. Because it conducts to usual imaginations, which do not have basis. And it necessarily should be. At least in the form of the physical phenomena and material traces. If those are not present or they unequivocally are not found out, they should not be thought out in addition. It will result in deadlock, then lot of time of forces will be spent for them in vain and on empty basis.

My view is that if you have a theory but you can't produce a strong enough argument and or evidence to give good confidence in the theory then it is time to put the theory in the car park and try one of the other routes you haven't been down before. 

It is not argument. Or this statement is not detailed and basic. There are many accompanying restrictions to possibility proof already available physical phenomena: research cost, duration of the researches, necessary scientific potential (if it exists actually in general …) and etc.
If other ways conduct in deadlock (and it is obvious), why it is necessary come back indefinitely to them? For the sake of fulfilment of process and only?

The feedback I have read on the official investigation on this site seems to suggest that it was far from objective.  It appears to be almost as sloppy if not more so than the original investigation.  But that is just my opinion because I am nowhere near an expert on Russian legislation or politics. 

1.I think that to this case, in any way it is impossible carry policy. It will confuse understanding only.
2.In the Russian legislation all is simple. Much easier, than, for example, in English lows. There are values which are stipulated by the law as admissible, and there are what cannot be possible under the law. It are unequivocally impossible. For example, it is opening of new criminal case. Because already there was decision of the Supreme court Russian Federation to it. It has played dirty trick (on thoughtlessness and self-confidence) one person from the Novosibirsk city.

But I am fairly proficient in common sense.

As Albert Enshtein spoke: “Common sense are those prejudices which collect in human head at the age of less than 18 years (or 20, it is unimportant, important that at young age).” (c)
It he has told concerning what not all obvious is correct. There are physical phenomena which are not known yet more parts of the population of our planet.
I think that it is our case. But it is not example for UFO, Yeti or other imagination (or not having physical acknowledgement).

Hi WAB,

Please see my response below.  Your text in bold by response follows each bold section.

In it you are absolutely right. But only as essentially.
But if be engaged only in it is infinite, we never will come to the problem final decision. It is impossible as do all by infinite quantity of variants. That is necessary on what will be limited by principle: we must reject obviously unreal and far-fetched variants. As those variants which have no natural bases. Because it conducts to usual imaginations, which do not have basis. And it necessarily should be. At least in the form of the physical phenomena and material traces. If those are not present or they unequivocally are not found out, they should not be thought out in addition. It will result in deadlock, then lot of time of forces will be spent for them in vain and on empty basis.


It is true that for an infinite number of possible variants it is not possible to have enough time and resource to examine each and every one of them in detail.  Consequently, it is necessary to eliminate those that are most unlikely or simply cannot be real.  I agree with you on this.  In my post I was not suggesting that we should examine every butterfly to try to find out which one caused the hurricane.   It was more about keeping an open mind, believing what you see and looking at what you see from different perpectives.  In this respect it is useful to question the conclusion which is obvious.   When trying to solve a problem caution is required.  This is because no matter how technically intelligent someone is, human psychology can affect our problem solving abilities and our biases can steer us away from the truth. I have seen it many times.  It is human nature to cling to what is accepted and obvious.  Example - the world is not flat anymore and the earth is not the centre of the universe after all.  This can also happen with much smaller problems.  I have seen people who have been presented with an overwhelming amount of data deny the true conclusion because it simply can't be true to what they believe.


1.I think that to this case, in any way it is impossible carry policy. It will confuse understanding only.
2.In the Russian legislation all is simple. Much easier, than, for example, in English lows. There are values which are stipulated by the law as admissible, and there are what cannot be possible under the law. It are unequivocally impossible. For example, it is opening of new criminal case. Because already there was decision of the Supreme court Russian Federation to it. It has played dirty trick (on thoughtlessness and self-confidence) one person from the Novosibirsk city.


My understanding is that the supreme court has ruled against re-opening the case and this cannot be reversed, therefore any discussion about re-opening it is just a PR stunt?  But as I say I am not familiar with this.


As Albert Enshtein spoke: “Common sense are those prejudices which collect in human head at the age of less than 18 years (or 20, it is unimportant, important that at young age).” (c)
It he has told concerning what not all obvious is correct. There are physical phenomena which are not known yet more parts of the population of our planet.
I think that it is our case. But it is not example for UFO, Yeti or other imagination (or not having physical acknowledgement).
[/quote]


Yes - although common sense is essential to function normally, there is obviously a limit to common sense and it's important to understand where that limit lies.  Even common sense must be questioned else it contradicts what I have previously said.  Einstein would surely understand the limitations of common sense given that he struggled to break free of its bonds.  Hence "the cosmological constant".

Regards

Star man

July 07, 2019, 12:46:27 AM
Reply #22
Offline

tekumze


Dear Mr Wab,
 I'm still waiting for your answer. When you have a good connection to the Internet, I would ask for an easy answer on my simple question. Just because, that someone would not to think that is present a syndrome of accidentally  avoiding to certain issues.
Best regards

P.s.: Can you comment the latest news conference by Mr. Thumanov?

July 08, 2019, 04:07:05 PM
Reply #23
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
[[ I think that even if and there was no this decision this case all the same would not began renew because for long time has passed limitation period and as because with 1959 there was no what that of the new facts under which it is possible hold additional consequence. ]]  Thanks WAB for all your inputs on this great FORUM. It looks like the AUTHORITIES are still COVERING UP this  Dyatlov Case, as they have done for the last 60 years. Whatever reason they have it is down to them. I suppose we have to respect GOVERNMENTS  !  ?  Unless there is a good reason not to  !  ?   So God knows where that leaves us at the moment. I suppose we could still get an OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT sometime, regarding the latest INVESTIGATION, if thats what we can call it !  ?

1.That the Office of Public Prosecutor does, it not new investigation (they cannot make it under laws of the Russian Federation), and they check only three versions.
2.That the authorities if they do not know what there has occurred can cover?
3.They promised give the Official answer in August 2019, but there can be delay till December 2019 or February 2020. It can be made, because it is authorised by Russian Federation law.

Thank you WAB.  I think the Russian Authorities are COVERING UP, and have done so for the last 60 years. I think they know a lot more than they have been telling. But thats OK if its in the PUBLICS INTEREST. Somethings are maybe much too sensitive to divulge.  Like I said,we have to respect Government decisions, unless there is a good reason not to. The English Law System is the best in the World. If a similar Investigation took place in British Jurisdiction it would COVER ALL AREAS, unless as I have suggested there is a good reason not to. I  / WE wait patiently for any signs of PROGRESS from the Russian Authorities.
                                                                                                                                                                                                 
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 04:14:38 PM by sarapuk »
DB

July 20, 2019, 01:51:49 PM
Reply #24
Offline

tekumze


Dear members of this forum.
 I have already asked Mr. WAB several times what is his DPI theory. But he has not given me a satisfactory and so far understandable answer yet. Except he explained that he has this mentioned several times on this forum. But I did not manage to find anything. So I would ask if anyone else on this forum can tell me what is Mr. WAB DPI theory.
 I thank you in advance for any reply.

July 20, 2019, 02:11:31 PM
Reply #25
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

July 20, 2019, 02:32:13 PM
Reply #26
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
https://dyatlovpass.com/ravine - you can find links to:
Ravine by Borzenkov
Ravine by Sharavin
Ravine by Alekseenkov and KAN
Ravine by Rakitin

https://dyatlovpass.com/ravine-borzenkov

Borzenkov has indeed written his theory in this forum, I just need time to find it.

July 20, 2019, 02:37:21 PM
Reply #27
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=146.msg549#msg549

WAB has many posts. If you search for a member WAB under his profile pic placeholder there is a link Show posts.
You will see 12 pages of posts by WAB only.

July 20, 2019, 11:27:25 PM
Reply #28
Online

Morski


Also, there is a somehow long conversation between WAB and another member of the Pass forum (mr. Per) here: http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=116.0 
It is not a complete theory of "what, why, when" from A to Z, but you can get an impression.

July 21, 2019, 07:40:25 PM
Reply #29
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Ah.. yes, Think I remember now.

As detailed in his map, they fell at a different location from where they were found.  A much higher fall location and were subsequently moved by the remaining uninjured.




Quote
Explanatories to the scheme of reconstruction of events at a cedar.

1.   The First right (near) stream, inflow to 4 TofL
2.   The Second right (distant) stream, inflow to 4 TofL
3.   The Left stream, inflow to 4 TofL
4.   Place find of part of clothes about a cedar
5.   Place find of knife presumably the sample 1959 on expedition 2009
6.   Place of the found 4 bodies in May,1959 under the version of some researchers
7.   Place of the found 4 bodies in May,1959 under my version. On this place there is a sharp fall of a channel 4TofL. It corresponds to the sizes more which is visible on pictures 1959. Besides it is corresponds to visible position of the sun on the known picture 1959 for photographing time.
8.   Place of a high slope (8 m or 26 ft heights)
9.   Place with which shooting the panoramic picture by searches in March 1959*
10.   Mouth of the second right (distant) stream
11.   Here there was a search team camp in May 1959
12.   Settlement border of deep snow in February 1959. Without having skis Dyatlov team could not pass further it.
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!