July 20, 2024, 12:54:30 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Memorial conference (memory evening) of the Dyatlov group. February 2, 2024  (Read 8372 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 17, 2024, 03:33:33 AM
Read 8372 times

Elena Dmitrievska

Hello!My name is Elena Dmitrievskaya. I have been researching the Dyatlov Pass tragedy for more than 10 years. I represent the Independent Union of Tragedy Researchers and am the author of a unique version of the ritual murder, based strictly on the materials of the criminal case and ethnographic sources. She participated in the conference in Yekaterinburg in 2023 and 2024
I present to you the conference materials published by me and other participants.

Speech by P.I. Bartholomew.
The following users thanked this post: Teddy

February 17, 2024, 03:54:51 AM
Reply #1

Elena Dmitrievska

speech by S.N. Sogrin And V.G. Karelin

The second speech by P.I. Bartolomey and the report by Dmitry Kireev

video from the participant Dmitry Kireev
The following users thanked this post: Teddy

February 17, 2024, 03:57:52 AM
Reply #2


Hi Elena Dmitrievskaya

Can you give us a basic explanation of your version. I do look at many of the Russian or foreign videos but it can be a hard watch . Auto translation doesn't always work great.

So far  you say ritual murders. By who, the Mansi?

February 17, 2024, 06:07:56 AM
Reply #3

Elena Dmitrievska

Hi Elena Dmitrievskaya

Can you give us a basic explanation of your version. I do look at many of the Russian or foreign videos but it can be a hard watch . Auto translation doesn't always work great.

So far  you say ritual murders. By who, the Mansi?
Hello. Let me post all the conference materials first before I can start publishing my version.

February 17, 2024, 06:24:42 AM
Reply #4


Ok..you might get questions. I'm happy if you are.

February 17, 2024, 09:26:02 AM
Reply #5

Elena Dmitrievska

The following users thanked this post: Teddy

February 17, 2024, 09:45:21 AM
Reply #6

Elena Dmitrievska

The electronic version of the report by V.D. Ankudinov. (Lawyer, criminologist, worked together with the medical examiner Vozrozhdenny, finished his career as a federal judge)

- - - - - - - - - - —— — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - -

For a correct understanding of what happened to Dyatlov's group, it is advisable to compile a register of factual information that is available in sources published to date and indicate the cause of the incident. So that everyone can get acquainted with what is available in this regard at this point in time and draw their own conclusions (not to come up with "versions", namely, to draw their own conclusions) about the cause of the incident with Dyatlov's group - this is on the one hand. And on the other hand, so that everyone can supplement this register with factual materials known to him, indicating the cause of the incident.
This register is not a "fitting" of evidence to any "version" or "theory", but a list of factual material, the primary sources of which anyone doubting the origin of the information included in it can easily find and verify.
We include only information about facts in this register. For example, a witness questioned in a criminal case reports in his testimony that he knows something personally or he knows something from someone. This is information about facts. But if a witness builds his "version" – for example, that one of the tourists left the tent "in need", and he was blown away by the wind, and his comrades rushed to help him out - then this is no longer information about facts, but speculation of this witness: ballast, which is suitable only for increasing the mass of the trash can. And this kind of speculation should not be included in this list.
This is the first criterion for selecting information. The second is that the information should relate to February 1, 1959. What happened after February 1 cannot be of interest.
The third criterion is that this information should be relevant to the cause of the incident. We discard everything else.
The fourth criterion is that the information must be from the original source, and not have a derivative generalized character. Such as, for example, the information specified in the resolution on the termination of the case dated May 28, 1959. We do not include such information here. They are completely unsuitable for their own conclusions based on the available facts.
The sources of this information are, first of all, the materials of a well-known case. In addition, there are certificates of competent persons who have become known by now. For example, information about the facts contained in the testimonies of persons who were directly involved in the 1959 investigation. They, more than anyone else, should have known about what they were investigating in 1959.
Here are the main provisions for compiling this registry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We are starting to compile this register, sifting out the garbage, of which whole mountains of incredible size have accumulated.
1. We begin, as required by forensic methods for the investigation of criminal cases, with the information obtained during the very initial inspection of the scene. The well-known inspection protocol is not suitable. It was compiled when the "pristine" situation of the scene had already been significantly disrupted by the search engines who discovered the tent. And we need information about how the scene of the incident looked at the time the tent was discovered. There is not much such information, but it is there. This information is contained in Slobtsov's testimony on case sheets 298-299. That's what Slobtsov saw.
"When we approached the tent, we found that the entrance of the tent protruded from under the snow, and the rest of the tent was under the snow. There were ski poles and spare skis in the snow around the tent - 1 pair. The snow on the tent was 15-20 cm thick, it was clear that the snow on the tent was inflated, it was solid. An ice axe was stuck in the snow near the tent next to the entrance..."
That's all there is about the actual circumstances at the time of the tent's discovery.
Therefore, it is immediately possible to summarize this kind of inspection of the scene: ski poles and skis stuck in the snow around the tent exclude snow mass movements on the tent in any form - in the presence of snow movements, ski poles and skis could not be in this position in any way.
The direct impact of any volumetric material physical object on the tent is also excluded.
And this, you must admit, is not so small: a whole "series" of possible reasons known to all immediately disappears! And in this "series" there are all kinds of snow "avalanches", "boards", "rubble-collapses", "wasps" and all that kind of stuff. And also - "aerosani", "balloon gondola", "direct fall of rocket or airplane debris on the tent", "attack of a connecting rod bear", "passage of a herd of reindeer through the tent", etc.
2. Forensic medical documents.
They are represented by reprints of acts of forensic medical examinations on l.d. 95-134, 345-357 (it should be noted at once that these reprints do not have the legal status of properly certified copies of documents attached to a criminal case - this should be borne in mind!) and the original protocol of the expert's interrogation at l.d.381-383 on the forensic medical examinations of the corpses of Kolevatov, Thibault, Zolotarev, Dubinina conducted by him on May 9, 1959.
Freezing was indicated as the cause of death of 6 people, three people died as a result of their injuries. Since three people were most seriously injured, freezing cannot be considered the cause of the death of Dyatlov's group as a whole. Therefore, the traumatic factor is crucial for solving the issue of the cause of the incident. And for its determination, the mechanism of injury is very important.
And that's what we have here.
According to Zolotarev. "... The above-mentioned multiple rib fractures in Zolotarev with the presence of hemorrhage into the pleural cavity occurred during his lifetime and are the result of the impact of great force on the chest area of Zolotarev at the time of his fall, compression or throwing ...".
According to Thibault. "... The above-mentioned extensive multi-comminuted fracture of the bones of the arch and base of the skull is of lifetime origin and is the result of exposure to great force followed by a fall, throw and bruise of Thibault-Brignol...".
By Dubinina. "... The above-mentioned injuries could have occurred as a result of exposure to great force, which resulted in a severe closed fatal chest injury in Dubinina. Moreover, the injuries are of lifetime origin and are the result of exposure to great force, followed by a fall, throw or bruise of the chest area of Dubinina ...".
As can be seen, the expert in all cases indicates the effect of "great force" and the subsequent effects of "throwing", "dropping", "falling", "bruising". These are very important circumstances, because they immediately allow you to exclude causes that do not have such a mechanism for injury.
In the protocol of the expert's interrogation (this is the only forensic medical document attached to the case in the form of an original, l.d. 381-383), which was conducted in accordance with Articles 169-173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR (1923) - that is, on the basis and based on the results of forensic examinations conducted by the same expert, the expert made additional conclusions on additional questions posed by the investigator.
According to Thibault, the expert compared the mechanism of injury with that which occurs when a car moving at high speed is injured - as a result of being thrown off during a traumatic impact and followed by a fall associated with a strong impact on the surface of the soil. And he pointed out that "... Such an injury could have occurred if Thibault was thrown by a gust of strong wind with a fall and bruising of his head on rocks, ice, etc."
That is, according to Thibault, the expert indicates the impact of great force and rejection with subsequent fall as mandatory elements of the injury mechanism.
All other traumatic effects that lack the above elements should be excluded from the possible causes of Thibault's death.
According to Zolotarev and Dubinina, the expert additionally indicates that their injuries "... are the result of exposure to great force, approximately the same as was used against Thibault. These injuries, namely with such a picture and without violating the integrity of the soft tissues of the chest, are very similar to the injury caused by an air blast wave.".
Accordingly, according to Zolotarev and Dubinina, all options
traumatic effects, in which there are no elements of the injury mechanism established by the expert, should also be excluded from the possible causes of death of Zolotarev and Dubinina.
3. Conclusion of the forensic examination of the tent, l.d.303-304.
The tent's incisions were made from the inside. That is, cutting the tent from the outside in order to penetrate it is excluded.
4. Witness statements.
But with this, as you can see - "tight"! About the reasons for this - separately.
There is only one document in the case file, which contains an indication of an event related to February 1, 1959. This is the protocol of the interrogation of the witness Krivonishchenko at l.d.273.
The witness reported the following: "After the burial of my son on March 9, 1959, students, participants in the search for nine tourists, were at lunch in my apartment. Among them were tourists who, in late January and early February, were hiking in the north, slightly south of Mount Otorten. There seemed to be at least two such groups, at least the participants of two groups said that they observed on February 1 in the evening a light phenomenon that struck them north of the location of these groups: an excessively bright glow of some kind of rocket or projectile. The glow was so strong that one of the groups, being already in the tent, getting ready to sleep, were alarmed by this glow, came out of the tent and observed this phenomenon. After a while, they heard a sound effect similar to strong thunder from afar...".
There is no more information related to February 1, 1959 in the case file. The available descriptions of events with other dates are not of interest to us in this case.
In addition to the case materials, information regarding facts directly related to the events of February 1, 1959, can be found in the published testimonies of Korotaev, Ivanov and Okishev.
5. Okishev informed journalists, and they published the following information in Komsomolskaya Pravda (in particular, this information can be found at these links https://www.kp.ru/daily/26120.4/3013200/
https://yandex.ru/video/preview/16832691216494068536 from 31 min.40 sec. at 32 min.20 sec., etc.).
In 1959, the investigation identified and interrogated employees of the N-240 Institution, who were returning home on the evening of February 1, 1959, after the end of the film session and saw a flash in the direction of Otorten. There are no interrogation protocols of these persons in the well-known case, although they existed in 1959.
It can be added here that the researcher of this topic, Roman Feldberg, found the daughter of the forester Rempel and had correspondence with Rempel's granddaughter. And the daughter of the forester Rempel reported that she and her father themselves observed the flash of the explosion, just at that time and in the direction where the tourists who visited Rempel before the start of the hike were supposed to be at that time. Feldberg published this correspondence in February 2019, however, as happens in such cases, this publication was "not noticed" in the woodpecker community. More precisely, they pretended that they "did not notice".
6. Ivanov, in well-known publications (for example, "Ural Worker", July 8-12, 1990), reported that he, along with Maslennikov, examined burnt tree branches on the border of the forest.
To Bogomolov (a journalist of the Uralsky Rabochy newspaper, published in 1990), Ivanov reported literally the following: "... The fact is that at the edge of the forest, where the tourists so hastily fled from the tent, the branches of the trees were singed, as it were… Not burned, not broken, but scorched.".
7. Korotaev, in newspaper publications ("Ural Worker, July 12, 1990, "On the shift" on February 14, 1991), regarding the factual circumstances related to February 1, 1959, reported the following.
"... Mansi Kurikov, who took part in the search, told Korotaev that he had found some kind of incomprehensible piece of iron in those places shortly after the tragedy..."
"... We managed to identify about a dozen Mansi witnesses who said that on the day of the murder of the students (I say "murders" because I am an investigator and I do not consider it just an "accident") some kind of balloon flew by. Witnesses Anyamov, Sambindalov, Kurikov - not only described what they saw, but also drew this disk. Now we can talk about the rocket. There were no televisions then, we,
I repeat, they did not know about any missiles, especially the Mansi population did not know about them. Later I went to Severouralsk. There, too, he established a witness who saw the flight of the fireball. Moreover, as I remember now, they all said that fire was "flying out" of the disc...".
"... Stepan Kurikov, for example, saw burnt tree branches and some kind of metal sheet in those places...".
Korotaev reports the following about the reason for the absence of all these protocols in the well-known "case without a number": "... All these materials were requested by the deputy prosecutor of the republic Urakov. I handed them over to Prosecutor Ivdel Tempalov, who took them to Sverdlovsk."
So all these facts were recorded in 1959 in the interrogation protocols in accordance with the procedure established by the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR, and the fact that these protocols were not found in the well-known case does not in any way affect the existence of information that was recorded in these protocols. Where did the protocols with the testimony of these witnesses go and why they are not in the well-known "case without a number" - Korotaev indicates specifically and definitely: these protocols were taken to Moscow in 1959 by the deputy prosecutor of the RSFSR Urakov, who arrived in Sverdlovsk.
The same is true with the protocols of interrogations of employees of the N-240 Institution, the existence of which was reported by Okishev.
All these protocols of interrogation of witnesses in 1959 were, and the above-mentioned witness statements recorded in them also existed. And if they are not in the well-known "case without a number", this means that they were taken by the deputy prosecutor of the RSFSR Urakov, who came from Moscow, for another criminal case, which so far remains "in the shadows". The main thing here is something else - the content of these testimonies, and not the fact that they are not in the well-known "case without a number".


February 17, 2024, 09:51:29 AM
Reply #7

Elena Dmitrievska

8. The testimony of G.Batalova.

"Batalova G. - 04/25/2006

According to Galina Batalova, who heard from the stories of the search engine Boris Slobtsov (they worked together on p/ya 320), who, by the way, together with Mikhail Sharavin, were the first to discover the abandoned tent of the Dyatlovites, barely noticeable on the snow-covered slope of Mount Holat-Chakhl:

"There was a layer of black dust (black precipitation) under a layer of snow on the upper slopes of the tent of the dead Woodpeckers found. The tent was apparently shaken off during the subsequent evacuation, and cleared of suspicious dust before the final inspection in the Department. Eyewitnesses of the search work suggested one of the assumptions that this dust may have been formed from exploded rocket fuel (such as heptyl), which is toxic in terms of human effects." (from the archive of E.Zinoviev)".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That's all the information known at this time about the facts from published sources that are directly and directly related to the incident on February 1, 1959, which may indicate the cause of this incident. As you can see, everything was done in 8 points. There is very little factual material left after the "filtering" of the available information, which for the most part is the most ordinary piles of the most ordinary and unnecessary garbage.
If anyone finds any additional information, they can add this information to this registry.

And then we compare the above facts with each other and draw conclusions from them. Everyone can do it on their own, without outside prompts.
And it becomes generally clear what exactly happened to Dyatlov's group on the evening of February 1, 1959. We cannot know the details of the incident, but in general, we can form an idea of the cause of this incident - for our own understanding.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And now the question must inevitably arise: "Why are there so few factual circumstances in the well-known case indicating the cause of the incident?" That is, there is practically nothing there. And to find what you have, you need to understand criminal investigation issues well enough.
Why is that? Anyone who has read the case "from cover to cover" should have noticed a very remarkable circumstance: there are no materials in the case that contain specific information relating to February 1, 1959. This date is February 1, 1959 - in the protocols available in the case, it occurs only once - in the protocol of the interrogation of the witness Krivonishchenko at l. d. 273. But the incident took place on the evening of February 1, 1959. Why is that? There is everything in the case, but that's just not what you need!
And, of course, many theories have been built up about this. Those who do not understand anything about the investigation of criminal cases and have not investigated a single criminal case in their entire lives (which does not prevent these people from considering themselves "experts" in all these matters!), have built theories of the "sloppiness" of investigative workers, their blatant incompetence (turning into complete illiteracy in matters of investigation), "falsification" of case materials, etc., etc. It makes no sense to list all these "theories" here.
Those who understand something about the investigation of criminal cases, considered that in this case there is a fact of separation of this case from the materials of another case (which in fact is already a little closer to the truth).
But everyone proceeded and proceeds from the fact that the well-known "case without a number" is exactly the same criminal case in which the investigation of the incident with Dyatlov's group took place. In general, as it should be considered, if we approach this issue from stereotypical conventional positions, without going into what is a little "deeper".
I can speak for myself. Once, like everyone else, I believed that there was only the criminal case that Ivanov was investigating, and I knew what B.A. Vozrozhdeny told me at the time about the outcome of this case: that Ivanov was forced to "put the matter under the rug" (this is the expression of B.A. Vozrozhdeny) by the then First Secretary of the Sverdlovsk Regional Committee of the CPSU, A.P. Kirilenko. Vozrozhdeny really believed that everything was exactly like this: the expert is not acquainted with all the case materials - only to the extent that the investigator deems it necessary to familiarize him. But when I had to (solely by chance) get into this topic, I calculated from the materials hanging out on the Internet the fact of the existence of another, another criminal case, which "remained in the shadows." Therefore, at first I thought that there were two criminal cases - one that Ivanov was investigating, the other that was initiated by one of the special prosecutor's offices, which supervised the "mailbox" (as the design bureau and factories engaged in the development and production of military products were called in 1959), which conducted tests of the developed "product". And then it turned out that lawyer L. Proshkin came to the same conclusion (independently of me, and even earlier) - after he got acquainted with the materials of the well-known case at the GASO on behalf of Komsomolskaya Pravda. So, at that time I thought that after the investigations "crossed paths", Ivanov was forced to stop "his" case.
Then, when I purchased a full copy of the case materials and the supervisory proceedings (the book "Terminated criminal case on the death of tourists in the area of Mount Otorten...", Yekaterinburg, 2017, and its advantage is that it contains all the materials of the case and supervisory proceedings that are stored in the GASO, and this book itself is according to its status as an open and published source, which everyone can explore at their own discretion and link to it), and studied everything "from cover to cover", the conclusions turned out to be somewhat different- taking into account the conclusions drawn by lawyer Proshkin and what was reported by E.Okishev (who in 1959 was deputy head of the investigative department of the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor's Office).

And Okishev told the journalists of Komsomolskaya Pravda and lawyer L. Proshkin, who visited him in Chisinau, very important information. He reported all this "not on camera" - therefore, presumably, this information was not known while Okishev was alive. Because Okishev, as he himself reported, gave a non-disclosure agreement. Now this information has been partially published by O.Arkhipov in the book "Letters from Ivdel" on pp. 442-443 and is as follows. In 1959, the USSR Prosecutor's Office investigated a criminal case of a man-made accident. The investigative team
The groups included Okishev and Ivanov, and they were assigned an episode of the death of 9 tourists in this case. They were not privy to the contents of this case and non-disclosure (state secrets) subscriptions were taken from them.
And so, based on what has become known at this time, a very simple and understandable picture of the investigation carried out in 1959 is emerging. Moreover, it leaves no other options.

There was only one criminal case. It was initiated by one of the special prosecutor's offices overseeing the "mailbox" that conducted the tests. Then it was transferred for investigation to the Prosecutor General's Office of the USSR and an investigative group was created. This investigative group was to include Deputy Prosecutor of the RSFSR Urakov, who came to Sverdlovsk in 1959.
This case was initiated at the very beginning of February 1959, and not in connection with the death of tourists. The reason for the initiation of the case was the very fact of the incident, which took place on the evening of February 1, 1959. The defendants in this case were supposed to be persons from among the designers or "production workers" of the tested "product" that exploded on February 1, 1959. The death of 9 tourists who accidentally died during this incident had nothing to do with the initiation of this case.
But, since it turned out that 9 people who ended up in this place died as a result of this incident, their deaths were included in this case as a secondary (most likely) episode.
It was on this episode (the deaths of 9 tourists) that the prosecutor's office of the Sverdlovsk region was instructed to collect materials. The collection of materials took place in the order of investigative instructions (in accordance with Article 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR of 1923), and when the corpses were officially discovered (in fact, the corpses were found in early February, but for reasons of secrecy they were left at the scene - so that they would be "discovered" as a result of official searches, as those who died "from an accident the case of tourism"), then it was necessary to conduct a CME and the direct participation of investigators from the investigative group of the USSR Prosecutor's Office. To do this, Ivanov and Okishev were brought into the investigation team. And they were assigned to collect materials on the episode of the death of 9 tourists as part of this case. In particular, Ivanov, on his own behalf (as a member of the investigative group of the USSR Prosecutor's Office - so that the conclusions obtained could be used in the case investigated by the USSR Prosecutor's Office), had to appoint forensic medical examinations of the corpses of dead tourists. And also perform other investigative actions for this criminal case.
The Prosecutor's Office of the Sverdlovsk region for the criminal case, which was investigated by the Prosecutor General's Office of the USSR, first of all, required 9 conclusions of the CME. Because if there is a corpse in the case, it must necessarily be the conclusion of the CME on the cause of death. This is the requirement of the CPC for mandatory forensic examination, therefore it is subject to mandatory execution by the investigator, regardless of his desire or opinion. Moreover, from the standpoint of the CPC, the conclusions of the CME are of no fundamental importance: there must be the very conclusion of the CME in a criminal case - and that's the point! This is the requirement of the law. And what the expert will write there and what he will install (maybe he will not install anything, it is not always possible to install something)- it is no longer so important to comply with this requirement of the CPC (on MANDATORY examination). And for each conclusion of the SME, a resolution on the appointment of this examination should be filed with the criminal case. Therefore, the Prosecutor General's Office of the USSR should also have required 9 resolutions on the appointment of the CME. And these decisions should have been made by an investigator directly involved in the investigation of the case. That's why it was necessary to include Ivanov in the investigative group of the USSR Prosecutor General's Office. As Varsegova reported at the 2017 conference, it became known to her from Shkriabach that Ivanov began the investigation on March 2, 1959. So, presumably, on March 2, Ivanov was included in the composition of this investigative group.
Also, the Prosecutor General's Office of the USSR should have required materials to link the incident that took place on the evening of February 1, 1959, to the death of these tourists. This is in
First of all, the testimony of witnesses related to the event they observed, which took place on the evening of February 1, 1959. Specifically, these are the protocols of mansi interrogations, the existence of which was reported by Korotaev (interrogations of witnesses could be carried out in accordance with Article 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR in 1923 by an investigator who was not part of the investigative group), protocols of interrogations of employees of the N-240 Institution, the existence of which was reported by Okishev. It should also have been the protocols of the interrogations of those persons referred to by the witness Krivonishchenko on L.D. 273 (tourists of a "parallel" group who, on the evening of February 1, 1959, observed the flight of a rocket or projectile and then heard the sound of an explosion similar to "thunder from afar").
All these materials had to be sent to the Prosecutor General's Office of the USSR for inclusion in the criminal case (on the episode of the death of 9 tourists in the framework of that case), therefore, there are no materials in the "case without a number", except for the protocol of Krivonishchenko's interrogation, in which there is something related to February 1, 1959 but the specified protocol was no longer needed if the persons mentioned in it were interrogated.
Other materials could also be required for the criminal case, which was investigated by the Prosecutor General's Office of the USSR. All this was supposed to be collected and sent to Moscow by the investigative authorities of the Sverdlovsk region.
But the fact that it had nothing to do with the event that took place on the evening of February 1, 1959, did not interest the Prosecutor General's Office of the USSR. Because it was an unnecessary "ballast", "waste of production". But it was impossible to throw these materials in the trash. And on top of everything else, some of these materials might be required by the Prosecutor General's Office of the USSR. In addition, 9 corpses had to be processed in accordance with the established procedure. Therefore, the most reasonable and expedient thing was to form a separate case from this "garbage" and then archive it in order to comply with the necessary procedural requirements. Moreover, this does not contradict the requirements of the CPC in any way. So it turns out that such a case was created from "production waste". And then they stopped it by an appropriate decree. Because the resolution of February 26, 1959 could not have been issued on February 26 in any way - it contains information that Tempalov could not have known on February 26. This resolution was executed not on the "Tempalov" letterhead of the district/city prosecutor's office, but on the "exclusive" letterhead of the Sverdlovsk regional Prosecutor's office, which Tempalov should not have. And the decision to extend the investigation period was also made not "ahead of time", as it should be done, but "afterward". At the same time, Ivanov also "lost" two days somewhere. But these are all "little things" if the case was intended only for archival storage of unnecessary materials: none of the "outsiders" should have seen it, and after lying in the archive it should have been destroyed. And if this had happened, no one would have ever seen these "inconsistencies". And since there were 9 corpses in the case, in order to comply with the requirements established by the CPC, reprints of these acts were filed instead of the original acts of the CME, which went to Moscow.
Therefore, there is practically NOTHING LEFT in the "case without a number" (except for 3 documents: l.d.273, 370-377, 381-383) that would indicate the real cause of the incident. And that's why they didn't assign him a number: it was "a case that no one needed."
And it turns out that Ivanov knew from the very beginning what had happened –that's why in the resolutions on the appointment of the SME for the "top five" (these resolutions are referenced in reprints of the acts of the SME) and in the resolution on the appointment of a forensic examination of the tent at l.d. 301 Ivanov indicated the exact circumstances of the place and time of death of a group of tourists, and at the same time and in full force. The last decision on l.d. 301 was issued on March 16, 1959, when all the corpses had not yet been found, and at that time there was no information or grounds for the conclusions that Ivanov indicated in this decision in the section "Established" - where the facts established by the investigation are indicated: Ivanov could only get this information from an "outside" source.
Ivanov and Okishev (as
it is indicated in the book "Letters from Ivdel" - what Okishev told lawyer Proshkin) they gave subscriptions on non-disclosure of state secrets. After these subscriptions, they could "say anything to the public" - except for what they learned during the investigation of this criminal case. So they tried in every possible way not to violate the terms of these subscriptions, and to report what could be reported. And from here it turned out what happened, and all those illogicalities that can be seen in the testimonies of Ivanov and Okishev published "for the masses".

The case, which was investigated by the Prosecutor General's Office of the USSR, could have two outcomes. It could have been terminated. In this case, it should be kept in the "closed" archive of the former Prosecutor's Office of the USSR. It could have been sent to court and ended in a verdict. In this case, it should be stored in the archive of one of the former special courts (these courts had numbers instead of names: for example, in the Sverdlovsk region they were "Court 100", "Court 200", etc.). The supervisory proceedings in this case should be stored in the archive of the former Prosecutor's Office of the USSR. In this regard, the materials under the number "3/2518-59" are of interest - this number is mentioned twice in the supervisory proceedings: in Kamochkin's request and in Terebilov's telegram. And if it were possible to see these materials, perhaps everything would be clarified.
But if there is a "vulture" on these materials to this day, then none of the "outsiders" will see them until this "vulture" is removed.

And this is probably all that can be obtained from the analysis of open and published sources known at this time.

Hence, practical recommendations for those who wish to independently understand the circumstances of the incident with the tourists of the Dyatlov group.
The first recommendation.
One should not make judgments about the work of the investigative bodies investigating this incident - in general, and Investigator Ivanov - in particular, on the basis of those materials contained in the well-known "case without a number". These materials are not a complete reflection of the entire investigation process of this incident and the entire volume of investigative actions carried out in this case.
Recommendation two.
It is not necessary to reconstruct the incident based solely on what was discovered as a result of official search activities.
Because the situation at the scene that was discovered as a result of these search activities was not the original situation at the scene. Prior to the start of official search activities, "outsiders" visited the scene (let's call them that), as a result of whose actions the original situation of the scene was modified. It happened in the early days of February 1959, about February 5, 1959 - when Vladimirov from the Shumkov group from Mount Chistop observed the launch of a signal or lighting rocket.
And if we do not know what modifications to the original situation of the scene were made by those who had been there earlier, then proceeding from what was discovered is obviously getting an erroneous result from such a reconstruction. But this is exactly what woodpeckers usually do. Therefore, they inevitably fall into dead ends, into which they drive themselves.
And after that, they joyfully declare that it is impossible to reveal the "Secret of Dyatlov Pass".


February 18, 2024, 07:58:46 AM
Reply #8

Elena Dmitrievska

Audio of Valery Belonozhko's speech


Valery Belonozhko's website, where you can find out his version

Sergei Fadeev's version of " The State Secret of the Mountain of the Dead"
Video report by Theodora Hadzhiyskaya
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.p ...
Video report by Evgeny Noskov on linking the route to the area
Report by Alexander Alekseenkov (Shura)
Report by Elena Dmitrievskaya

      The electronic version of the report by Elena Dmitrievskaya

     Тhe Injuries of the Dyatlov group members in the light of the ritual practice of the Ob Ugrians
   Hello dear organizers and participants of the conference. I present to you my comparative research based on the study of the criminal case and a large amount of ethnographic material.
  To understand what happened at the pass, it seems to me that it is necessary not to go from one's theories, ready-made scenarios and versions, but empirically, critically approaching known facts, using the method of exclusion to approach the truth.
   The problem is that the UD itself, in its current form, does not contribute to the cause of death being identified. Many documents are missing, and the media reports of the expert Vozrozhdeny contain, according to his modern colleagues, a number of errors, inaccuracies, contradictions and are generally incomplete.
    Let me quote the well-known forensic expert Eduard Tumanov on the topic of the tragedy : "All protocols of inspection of the place of discovery of corpses and forensic medical examinations were done, roughly speaking, carelessly:

1. The examination was carried out without the participation of a specialist doctor in the field of forensic medicine, which is a violation of the procedure for examining corpses at the place of their discovery.
The presence and localization of cadaveric spots and the condition of the skin as a whole are not described, visible injuries on the body are only partially described.
The clothes and position of the corpses are described very superficially.

2. Forensic photography of the scene was not carried out, the photos are uninformative, closer in execution to artistic photography than to forensic photography.

3. The conclusions of the first five acts of the forensic medical examination were written as a carbon copy:
...the death of Doroshenko (or Krivonishchenko, Kolmogorova, Dyatlov, Slobodin) occurred as a result of exposure to low temperature,
as evidenced by swelling of the meninges, sharp fullness of internal organs, overflow of liquid dark blood into the cavities of the heart,
the presence of Vishnevsky spots on the gastric mucosa, frostbite of the fingers of the extremities…
Even those diagnoses that are put forward as hypothermia are not justified. Because there is a certain diagnostic complex,
which the expert must find during the sectional examination in order to diagnose: death from hypothermia. The revived one
does not find any of these signs, but at the same time, almost totally to everyone, he diagnoses death from hypothermia.

4. In each of the nine acts, the expert indicates that pieces of internal organs were taken for histological examination, but the results are in the criminal case
there are only the last four - Thibault-Brignol N. V., Kolevatov A. S., Zolotarev A. A. and Dubinina L. A.
It can be assumed that the histology of the first five corpses was deliberately hidden, as it was clearly more informative
than that of the corpses found two months later.

5. In each of the nine acts, the Revived One writes that pieces of internal organs were taken for forensic chemical examination. But
there is not a single result of a forensic chemical study in the case file, which at least should show the presence or absence of alcohol.
But, a small nuance – blood and urine are taken to determine alcohol. Vozrozhdenny also points out that parts of internal organs were taken for forensic chemical examination.
This means that he directed the authorities to a forensic chemical study not only for alcohol, but also for the presence of poisons.

6. And finally, the location of the cadaverous spots does not coincide with the position of some corpses at the time of their discovery.
Rustem Slobodin and Yuri Doroshenko were found face down, and the expert described the cadaverous spots on the back of the torso.
The same description is given by Zinaida Kolmogorova, who, as indicated in the examination report, was found lying on her side.

7. The Reborn explosion was very much mistaken.
Under the action of an explosive wave with sufficient force to break the bones of the chest, there will be completely different injuries and a different localization of fractures.
No need to repeat mistakes after the Reborn."

  During the exhumation of S. Zolotarev, it turned out that some injuries were not described by him in the media report

 So, injuries that require explanation and which can be divided by localization.
1. Skull injuries: Thibault, Krivonishchenko, conditionally Zolotarev according to the results of exhumation. All injuries are localized on the right. Slobodin has a fractured skull on the left. Kolmogorova, according to Maslennikov, has a broken head, which means there was also some kind of impact.
2. Injuries to the ribs of Dubinin and Zolotarev, presumably Thibault, since part of the rib was taken for histology, and only damaged tissues are taken for it.​​​​​​​
3. Dubinina and Zolotarev's eyes and tongue and mouth diaphragm are missing without a comment from the medical examiner. Movable horns of the hyoid bone.

Eduard Tumanov also emphasizes that not all, but some, have injuries and abrasions characteristic of a fight.
According to Tumanov, the injuries to the skull could have been caused by a hard blunt object with a limited surface. Rib injuries , "it can be assumed that this is compression by some kind of object, and flat and hard. And the compression occurred with considerable force, which led to
to the deformation of the chest frame and the formation of such fractures. This is indicated by the fact that the fractures are all on the same line. Either very heavy or hard, and with considerable force. Let's put it this way: this object had sufficient
energy and sufficient strength, and sufficient size - three conditions. And energy is either at the expense of mass or at the expense of speed."
 Despite the fact that the absence of eyes and tongue is most often explained by small rodents, and there remain questions why the Reborn did not indicate the presence or absence of a tongue in the oral cavity in all acts and why the characteristic signs of the presence of animals, which are more than known and described in manuals of that time, are not indicated.
  That is why there was an assumption about the criminality of the injuries inflicted on the guys. And accordingly, it is necessary to understand who and for what purposes could have inflicted them.
First of all, their excessive redundancy is striking. You don't need to inflict so many different injuries to kill a person even without a firearm.
 The first researcher who began to seriously study the ritual practice of the Ob Ugrians in connection with this unusual case was the most famous researcher of the topic Maya Leonidovna Piskareva. It was she who drew attention to the similarities of the above injuries with injuries that can be inflicted during certain rituals in her work "Mansi trace"
 Subsequently, I supplemented it from other sources. The localization of such injuries clearly corresponds to the concept of a soul container among the Ob Ugrians. Men have 5 souls, women have 4.
The second soul (is) – "going down the river", "big soul" – had the shape of a body or a bird. It was believed that she lived in a person's head, leaving him only in a dream in the form of a bird or a mosquito. Ancient burials with broken human skulls are still being found in the Urals. The shadow soul was in the heart, tongue, or liver. There was also a rite of violation of the upper part of the skeleton, the ribs. It is primarily connected with the prevention of the subsequent reincarnation of the soul.In the traditional environment of the Khanty and Mansi, it is also considered that the safety and integrity of bones are of exceptional importance for the subsequent reincarnation of both humans and animals.
All these ideas formed the basis of the Vogul heroic epic "Songs of the Patron Saints", contained in the II volume of the Collection of Vogul Epic Poetry by Bernat Munkaci, published in Budapest in 1892.
1. "The tale of the birth of Mir-Susne-Huma, Ekva-pyg-pygrishcha"
Context: a woman cheats on her husband, her husband kills her.
"... and two of her ribs were broken from the blow."
2. "The song about the upbringing of Mir-Susne-Huma, the growing son of Numi-Torum"
-My children! We will be making a sacrifice to Torum soon. Go and bring the tender tongue of the boy I killed, bring him a soft eye to me!"
3. ""If you ruin my brother,
You will be taken by death.
Under the board of the Zyryansk boat
You'll finish your way, youngster ..." Execution with the use of a board.

This is only a small part of what was found. The research is ongoing. But we must understand that we will never come to the solution of the mystery of the pass unless we understand that only modern methods of examining bone remains after exhumation will give an exhaustive answer about the cause of death.  Provided that the investigation into the death of the group is resumed strictly within the framework of the criminal case .

Sources :
UD vol.1
Forum "Spur 1079 " Topic "E. Tumanov's opinion on DT" https://svotrog1079.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=81
Piskareva M.L. "Mansiysk trail" http://samlib.ru/p/piskarewa_m_l/mansled3.shtml
Ivanova V.S. The essence of the soul in the representations of the northern Mansi https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/suschnost - dushi-v-predstavleniyah-severnyh-mansi-soputstvuyuschaya-leksika/viewer
Sherstobitova O.S. The phenomenon of death-transcendent infinity (on the problem of understanding the symbols of death in ancient traditional societies)
​​​​​​​Wolf A.E. On the disappearance of cannibalism in the military culture of the indigenous peoples of Western Siberia
Serikov Yu.B. Human sacrifices on the cult monuments of the Urals//Peoples and Religions of Eurasia, 2010.
Voldina T.V. The symbolic meaning of bone, stone and metal in the context of the traditional ideas of the Ob Ugrians about reincarnation, 2019
Orlov V.B. Vogulsky heroic epic in an artistic and literary (Russian-speaking) interpretation.- Shadrinsk: House of Printing, 2014.​​​​​​​
« Last Edit: February 19, 2024, 03:36:04 AM by Олег Таймень »
The following users thanked this post: Teddy, Ziljoe

February 18, 2024, 09:51:05 AM
Reply #9

Олег Таймень

If a mountain comes towards you, and you are not Mohammed, then it is a rockfall.

April 03, 2024, 04:56:50 PM
Reply #10


Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Very interesting to hear about the BLACK DUST  ! ? Never heard of that before.