Art Bell's radio show

[WAB]

For example: the official investigation concludes that the tent is cut form within but that contradicts with...
I can use it in the "shady investigation" part.

This statement does not contradict anything. Examination of cuts of a cotton fabric has history from a XIX-th century, therefore to the middle of the XX-th century examination already could tell precisely that the cut has been made outside or from within. The technique of definition of it has already been well fulfilled.
It is possible to doubt about everything. For example that all it is written by wrong first letter. 

[WAB]

I have a lot on my mind right now, so if you want to give me the essence of the board I would appreciated. The audience hears about the tent for first time and they have no visuals in front of them. They have no idea what the tent looks like when was found.

For example, it is necessary to try to describe its kind before to it participants of search have come. Here an example, of what be look it could on 99 %
 


It is our experimental tents in February 2014. It had completely corresponding sizes and has been established in the same way as how it have found by Boris Slobtsov and Michael Sharavin on February, 26th 1959. Its is kind in a day after we have established it.
All can be compared it to a photo which has been made on February, 28th 1959

https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-009.jpg

And here is that was with our tent through 2 … 3 weeks after we therefrom have left.
 


Unfortunately we, therefore photographed not a shooting foreshortening not absolutely the same
Compare to that was on February, 28th 1959. I speak about a snowdrift at an input in tent. It is ahead where the note for those who will look at it is attached after we will leave therefrom. It is a good illustration of aerodynamics of snow drifts of semifixed objects.
If you can describe by the own words those pictures which I here have placed it will be the fullest representation about tent for listeners of this show.
To it will be necessary to add only that Boris Slobtsov and Michael Sharavin by ice axe have damaged a part of a roof of tent.

[Loose}{Cannon]

I removed the shaded areas in this picture because they are fundamentally irrelevant regarding 'cuts made from the inside'.

Fact of the day,. The ONLY cuts EVER to have been identified as having been made from the inside are clearly labeled 1, 2, and 3.  Anything else is pure speculation!

[WAB]

I removed the shaded areas in this picture because they are fundamentally irrelevant regarding 'cuts made from the inside'.

Fact of the day,. The ONLY cuts EVER to have been identified as having been made from the inside are clearly labeled 1, 2, and 3.  Anything else is pure speculation!

No. Speaking in images: ”You have splashed out the child together with dirty water from bathtub” (c)
The cut № 3 is continuation of a cut №2. It is necessary to look not at a picture which is drawn again and corrected a photoshop, and on that which has been included in examination. That that this continuation has been declared on one of conferences by the same expert as Tchurkin, only by the modern. According with his experience in criminalistics.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Yes, but THAT is called speculation. 

Cuts 2 and 3 arc is completely opposite directions for one thing.  Secondly, there is absolutely NOTHING within the original case files regarding to 'cuts 2 and 3 are parts of the same cut'........   kinda the reason they don't share the same number.

[WAB]

I appear only for one moment

Yes, but THAT is called speculation.

I do not agree. You do conclusions of small quantity of not clear information. Now I will not be in time, but if insist, I can find a picture where in a photo even deformed (suspended in a room) tents it is possible to track a cut trajectory at left - to right (on plane of the photo).

Cuts 2 and 3 arc is completely opposite directions for one thing. 

I should send (once again) you to that scheme which is included in the original of examination, instead of to use copying and changes. It is reminds gamble a little too.

Secondly, there is absolutely NOTHING within the original case files regarding to 'cuts 2 and 3 are parts of the same cut'........   kinda the reason they don't share the same number.

In initial file there was no question on, whether is the cut № 3 continuation of a cut №2. Therefore on this question there is no answer. The expert should answer strictly only those questions which to it have set. The rest is not its duty and he should not answer these questions. This is strict position in the law.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Translation

There is zero evidence that cut 3 is a continuation of cut 2 and visa-versa.  Folks that are married to the Murder conclusion should be running rampant with this knowledge. 

[sarapuk]

I think people reading all this SPECULATION will be running rampant.  Teddy needs some simple easy to understand dialogue for the show. Not too much to ask surely. I think she can probably get through it on her own account. WAB is making out a case but its still lots of SPECULATION.

[Marchesk]

Speaking in images: ”You have splashed out the child together with dirty water from bathtub” (c)

 

That's a fantastic rephrasing of a common English metaphor! Sounds like something Venom (comic book character) would say.

I don't know what to think of the tent cuts anymore. Maybe they were cut for reasons other than exiting the tent?

Do you know whether there is evidence the entrance to the tent was unbuttoned or not when it was found?

[Teddy]

Do you know whether there is evidence the entrance to the tent was unbuttoned or not when it was found?

The only reliable fact is that the tent had buttons, but special ones - wooden toggles (клеванты).
All other things - was the tent fastened or not etc. are just speculations.
Read here →

[Loose}{Cannon]

Worst investigation.....    ever

[Teddy]

Worst investigation.....    ever

That's about the only thing everybody agrees with.

[Marchesk]

Worst investigation.....    ever

You haven't listened to enough true crime podcasts, then. There are some extenuating circumstances here. The search party didn't know to treat the tent scene like an investigation. The location was remote in the middle of winter. And then you have higher ups closing the investigation down.

I would say the JonBenet Ramsey case was handled worse, at least at the beginning.

[Teddy]

I would say the JonBenet Ramsey case was handled worse, at least at the beginning.

You have no idea how many times have I drawn a parallel to JonBenet Ramsey case. And this case is contemporary, taking place in the US.

[Nigel Evans]

Best of luck with the show, i'll have to miss it as it starts at 4am GMT. Unless it's recorded?

Regarding your facts, i'd offer the following corrections (in red) :-
    The tent had been cut open from within.
    Nothing was stolen from the tent - money, food, alcohol, clothes, shoes, backpacks​, gear, all this would have been very useful and wasn't cheap and accessible at the time.
    ​The two girls died virgin.
    No alcohol was found in any of the deceased.
    There were no indications of other people nearby on Kholat Syakhl apart from the nine hikers.
    No traces of avalanche were apparent or reported in the area.
    Footprints from the camp showed that all group members left the tent of their own accord, on foot, in an orderly way, nobody was running, limping, stumbling, dragged or falling on their way down the slope.
    ​Forensic pathologist​ ​Dr Vozrozhdenny stated that the fatal injuries of three ​of the ​bodies could not have been caused by another human being, "because the force of the blows had been too strong and no soft tissue had been damaged".
    ​Some clothes showed radioactive contamination that could not be attributed to an environmental exposure. We don't know that. A completely plausible theory is that they picked up contamination from exploring disused mines. Yudin was a geologist?
    Hikers were wearing the clothes from other ​members of the group. This is normal if presume the latter were dead already, but i still can't comprehend why Zolotaryov was wearing Lyudmila's hat and coat - they were dying together seem like it, and with similar injuries.Because the pathologist said she died quickly (max 10mins) and Semyon took longer to die (say 30mins), so her clothing was given to Semyon, simple.
​
Facts that are hugely blown out of proportion and context, things that are arguably facts or that can be explained:

    Frame №17 from Tibo camera
    Frame №34 from Krivo camera
    Fire balls in the sky reported in February and March 1959
    Where the tent was pitched (did they drift or get lost) Or was it intentional as suggested by Igor's last entry in the diary
    Lyuda's missing tongue
    Missing eyes on Lyuda and Zolotaryov   
    Orange skin reported at the funerals in March 1959 Imo this skin colour and Yuri D's foaming cheek are quite significant and reinforced by Chivruay. 
    More bodies reported at the Ivdel morgue
    Bodies reported being seen from the search helicopters lying around the tent
    Pilots of search helicopters being sabotaged and killed in the following years

Also i'd add :-

Ivanov and his superior state that after the discovery of the last bodies in May the order came to move all evidence to a secret archive and makeup a cover story and create an official report to support it. I think this fact flatly rules out a normal civilian murder case.
For me Ivanov's use of the term "fire orbs" is hugely significant. Q. Where did an experienced criminal investigator and barrister get this from, just a wild guess? A. No, from the confiscated evidence - perhaps the missing frames in Semyon's camera.
you don't mention that Semyon's camera frames can be interpreted as night shots of self illuminating aerial objects one of which is a perfect fit for the fireball reports (there are other theories such as water damage of course)

[Teddy]

Best of luck with the show, i'll have to miss it as it starts at 4am GMT. Unless it's recorded?

Thanks. It is live broadcast but it will be recorded, I will post a link for the podcast afterwards.

    Hikers were wearing the clothes from other ​members of the group. This is normal if presume the latter were dead already, but i still can't comprehend why Zolotaryov was wearing Lyudmila's hat and coat - they were dying together seem like it, and with similar injuries.Because the pathologist said she died quickly (max 10mins) and Semyon took longer to die (say 30mins), so her clothing was given to Semyon, simple.

I didn't state correctly what is bothering me - the pose Dubinina was found in doesn't suggest she was undressed post mortem as in the case of Doroshenko and Krivonischenko.

[Nigel Evans]

Imo they were rescued from the remains of the den and placed in a row. All oriented in the same direction. Subsequently the force of the meltwater pushed her over the small drop (which probably was filled by snow at the event).

[Teddy]

Imo they were rescued from the remains of the den and placed in a row. All oriented in the same direction. Subsequently the force of the meltwater pushed her over the small drop (which probably was filled by snow at the event).

I thought about that but Dubinina is the one body that can not wash down and rest the way she was found. It's impossible. I even rolled in a creak to try it.

[Nigel Evans]

Next time you're in the creek get someone to aim a firehouse at you.

[Nigel Evans]

Her body could have been disturbed by the digging. I don't see her position as significant.

[Teddy]

Next time you're in the creek get someone to aim a firehouse at you.

 

[Teddy]

Her body could have been disturbed by the digging. I don't see her position as significant.

That's the problem with this case. Unless 12 jurors agree on something and even then it's arbitrary. In Russia the decision is made by judges, not jurors. We will never agree on anything. i am not saying it because I think I ma right and you are wrong, but because I don't even know what "solving a case" means anymore.

[WAB]

Translation

There is zero evidence that cut 3 is a continuation of cut 2 and visa-versa. 

Specification of this transfer by transfer to by method from transfer back;
In this business there are no absolute proofs. It is possible to carp even at incorrectly established comma. Having cleaned absent pieces of tent, you do not see communication.
On the other hand reasoning it is possible to tell so:
1.If people have got out of tent, it is as?
2.Examination has established that all cut has been executed from within.
Whereas to explain, what they were on the street, if there are no signs that things located about an input are damaged? It would be obligatory. 9 persons could attack never thin things of type of an oven or buckets. As the alternative it can be offered only telekinesis.
Or you want to reject examination and to establish the own facts?

Folks that are married to the Murder conclusion should be running rampant with this knowledge.

What is this phrase and what does she think of a case with Dyatlov group can mean?

[WAB]

I think people reading all this SPECULATION will be running rampant.  Teddy needs some simple easy to understand dialogue for the show. Not too much to ask surely. I think she can probably get through it on her own account. WAB is making out a case but its still lots of SPECULATION.

What it is consists In … ?

[WAB]

Speaking in images: ”You have splashed out the child together with dirty water from bathtub” (c)

==========================
 

That's a fantastic rephrasing of a common English metaphor! Sounds like something Venom (comic book character) would say.

I do not know how much it is English phrase (though I at all do not exclude that it is) but I read it at Russian writers of a XIX-th century. Lev Tolstoi contemporaries.

I don't know what to think of the tent cuts anymore. Maybe they were cut for reasons other than exiting the tent?

Tent cutting it is equivalent to destruction of a unique place where they to survive in those conditions. What can be other case, except only heaviest?

Do you know whether there is evidence the entrance to the tent was unbuttoned or not when it was found?

The input from tent has not been clasped. There the big rag which it was possible to understand and enter into tent has been sewn. The rag closed automatically input and prevened cold air.
I know it both from own practice, and from Peter Bartolomey (it traveled with this tent), Vladislav Karelin and Yury Yudin. Yudin traveled with the same tent (not with this) earlier.
About it at various times to me spoke Boris Slobtsov and Michael Sharavin. They have found tent the first. In detail our conversation with Boris Slobtsov in Russian was on June, 01st 2006 and there is on a site http://perevaldyatlova.narod.ru/beseda_1.html   in there he about it speaks unequivocally.
I do not understand the term of "proof" which use at this forum. For me proofs it is that uses court.

[WAB]

Do you know whether there is evidence the entrance to the tent was unbuttoned or not when it was found?

===========================
The only reliable fact is that the tent had buttons, but special ones - wooden toggles (клеванты).
All other things - was the tent fastened or not etc. are just speculations.
Read here →

You have interesting method to find "proof". You do not work with witnesses of the first stage, do not have practice of application of equipment of that time, and considers that if where that that that is written, it is always correct. At us speak so: "On a fence and not such happens it is written. But all the same deceive. You open a gate, and see there is fire wood only!?" (c) 

[WAB]

Worst investigation.....    ever

========================
That's about the only thing everybody agrees with.

Not all. I am not agree for it categorically. For this purpose what to define that is good, and that is bad, it is necessary to compare one and another. I observed is a little put on similar cases. This business is one of the best. The problem consists that inspectors which work in a city at all do not know and are not adapted, as it is necessary to work in such cases. Complications appear and that such affairs very big rarity, therefore experience of inspectors cannot collect and be systematised. In all guidebooks for inspectors there are no special sections to which it is written as it is necessary to study such cases.
Separately it is necessary to tell that in the opposite direction it is always easier to time criticise, than all it make correctly beforehand.
In case there are many defects and admissions of the necessary information. But it is admissions for researchers now, instead of for inspectors when they searched only for one: whether there is there a criminal aspect. And if it have not found, means its modern researchers can think up. As it is in the majority of such discussions. Though really there are no signs of a crime. These signs too think out. If in this case to understand in details and with profound knowledge all turns out quite naturally. Well and if who that wants to write the scenario for a criminal film or a horror film it can make any, only if it has a talent.

[WAB]

You haven't listened to enough true crime podcasts, then. There are some extenuating circumstances here. The search party didn't know to treat the tent scene like an investigation. The location was remote in the middle of winter. And then you have higher ups closing the investigation down.

Here it too should be considered. You have noted it perfectly.

[WAB]

I have some specifications:

Best of luck with the show, i'll have to miss it as it starts at 4am GMT. Unless it's recorded?

Regarding your facts, i'd offer the following corrections (in red) :-
    The tent had been cut open from within.
    Nothing was stolen from the tent - money, food, alcohol, clothes, shoes, backpacks​, gear, all this would have been very useful and wasn't cheap and accessible at the time.
    ​The two girls died virgin.
    No alcohol was found in any of the deceased.
    There were no indications of other people nearby on Kholat Syakhl apart from the nine hikers.
    No traces of avalanche were apparent or reported in the area.
    Footprints from the camp showed that all group members left the tent of their own accord, on foot, in an orderly way, nobody was running, limping, stumbling, dragged or falling on their way down the slope.
    ​Forensic pathologist​ ​Dr Vozrozhdenny stated that the fatal injuries of three ​of the ​bodies could not have been caused by another human being, "because the force of the blows had been too strong and no soft tissue had been damaged".
*************************************

    ​Some clothes showed radioactive contamination that could not be attributed to an environmental exposure. We don't know that. A completely plausible theory is that they picked up contamination from exploring disused mines. Yudin was a geologist?[/color]

No. It not a plausible explanation. Yudin studied on economic branch of university UPI.
It is the most probable that contamination having radiation was a soil part on which secondary deposits from tests of the nuclear weapon in 1958 on island Novaya Zemlya dropped out. That year many tests in atmosphere have been spent and there was a carrying over to atmosphere in the form of a dust and a deposit in the form of a rain. Radiation background was very small. The maximum background was approximately 9900 disintegrations in a minute, from the area of 150 sq. sm that is only 166 Bq (Becquerel). Or it is ~ 66 Bq on 1 sq. sm. For example, 1,3 kg of bananas on isotope K₄₀ have such activity.
Contamination had more likely alluvial character. That is small fragments of radioactive deposits were washed off in a stream and this soil намывалась on separate fragments of clothes. Many other fragments of clothes had no background excess above than it there was a natural background.
It is not excluded (but it is improbable) and that could bring it not to clothes Yury Krivonishchenko (it worked at industrial complex "Majak" near Chelyabinsk when there for 1 year prior to the beginning of its work there was a large nuclear failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster ) or Alexander Kolevatov (he studied on branch of nuclear physics and technics UPI and did lab work with presence radioactive materials).

    Hikers were wearing the clothes from other ​members of the group. This is normal if presume the latter were dead already, but i still can't comprehend why Zolotaryov was wearing Lyudmila's hat and coat - they were dying together seem like it, and with similar injuries.Because the pathologist said she died quickly (max 10mins) and Semyon took longer to die (say 30mins), so her clothing was given to Semyon, simple.
​
Facts that are hugely blown out of proportion and context, things that are arguably facts or that can be explained:

    Frame №17 from Tibo camera
    Frame №34 from Krivo camera
    Fire balls in the sky reported in February and March 1959
    Where the tent was pitched (did they drift or get lost) Or was it intentional as suggested by Igor's last entry in the diary
    Lyuda's missing tongue
    Missing eyes on Lyuda and Zolotaryov   

**********************

    Orange skin reported at the funerals in March 1959 Imo this skin colour and Yuri D's foaming cheek are quite significant and reinforced by Chivruay.  [/color]

I have not understood. What exactly proves to be true with Chivruey?

    More bodies reported at the Ivdel morgue

It is hearings which were informed by Pelagea Solter at the age of 90 years. They anything, except its words do not prove to be true. Wrong messages have been found in conversations with it more many.

    Bodies reported being seen from the search helicopters lying around the tent

It too gossips which have appeared because of the journalist. Because of that that he has not correctly understood pilot Karpushin. The body on a slope (among stones) cannot be seen during flight for 30 kilometres from hill. You read article oneself? You have understood all in it very well?
Besides, participants of searches did not see on a slope of any body, and almost all bodies have been completely covered by snow.

    Pilots of search helicopters being sabotaged and killed in the following years[/i]

It in general set of gossips which are scattered in a dust as soon as you start to analyze all these failures in detail.

Also i'd add :-

Ivanov and his superior state that after the discovery of the last bodies in May the order came to move all evidence to a secret archive and makeup a cover story and create an official report to support it. I think this fact flatly rules out a normal civilian murder case.

It is wrong. Case never no was confidential, because the decision was not made what to make its confidential.
Case have simply put in confidential archive that the small quantity of people could read it. Because the consequence could not give exact the answer to a question: that there is a reason of the beginning of this case. If on this question there is no answer in 60 years after why they should be cleverer or possess the big knowledge then?

For me Ivanov's use of the term "fire orbs" is hugely significant. Q. Where did an experienced criminal investigator and barrister get this from, just a wild guess? A. No, from the confiscated evidence - perhaps the missing frames in Semyon's camera.
you don't mention that Semyon's camera frames can be interpreted as night shots of self illuminating aerial objects one of which is a perfect fit for the fireball reports (there are other theories such as water damage of course)
[/color]

The film of Simeon's camera could not remain. Because its camera was in water long time. If who that of readers of a forum was engaged in a chemical photo (shooting on a film and chemical processing) should know that:
1.Emulsion of films get sodden it will be washed off by water
2.Even if it not so transportation and processing of this film will be almost impossible because it слипнется on air and it will be impossible to develop without fatal damage.

[WAB]

Imo they were rescued from the remains of the den and placed in a row. All oriented in the same direction. Subsequently the force of the meltwater pushed her over the small drop (which probably was filled by snow at the event).

To search for that is ostensibly latent in confidential archive in a current of 60 years, it is search for a black cat in a dark room when it there is not present.
It «Fiery spheres» all not so is difficult. First it is necessary to find authentic certificates on 100 %. It is not that there is in conversations, and that there are judicial indications. That is people have sworn before the inspector that they answer in criminal court. Such cases during travel of Dyatlov group and searches was two: on February, 17th and on March, 31st. If compare time on which witnesses it coincides with accuracy + / - 15 … 30 minutes with in the meantime in which from rocket base "Baikonur" rockets R-7 were started specify. It was possible to see display of such starts on very big distance because these rockets fly up on height about 200 km (~ 150 miles). Certainly it can be seen only at good weather. On February, 17th and 31марта there was a cloudless weather during dark time. Therefore travellers, military and other people it saw and have described it in papers of a consequence with an oath about responsibility. About other days there were only conversations of 1 or 2 persons and weather was such what to see that that it was impossible. All starts of rockets for 1959 can be found in the Internet on such sites.
In 2009 I have brought and Karelin (which «the Fiery sphere» 1959 saw on February, 17th such and has written it in judicial indications) has shown to the participant of searches video and a photo of space shots of companion "Union". He has told that it is very similar that they then saw. In 2011 there was a start into a polar orbit (such starts very rare and to 1975 were not spent) which trajectory passed over Ekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk), it too was similar to their memoirs. Here is picture of start on May, 4th, 2011.




In this picture rocket passes on distance ~ 500 km and at height of ~70…80 km above city of Ekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk).
On February, 17th they saw the same picture on distance more than 1800 km and at height about 200 km from them. Therefore its kind was a little smaller, for example such.



That's all that it is possible to tell about "Fiery spheres". If consider that "Fiery spheres" and a Fireball this same it will be wrong.