Skocz do zawartości

Zawartość użytkownika fortyck

Odnotowano 420 pozycji dodanych przez fortyck (Rezultat wyszukiwania ograniczony do daty: 15-listopad 17 )

Sortuj według                Sortuj  

#20207 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w dziś, 09:54 w Jean-Michel Jarre

Tomorrow to the date 40 years ago EQUINOXE was released.


The rest is history....


I used the Watchers and what might have become of them as an inspiration to EQUINOXE INFINITIY.


I think Filip Hodas did a fantastic job in creating the two worlds I saw for the music of the album.


This is a little throw back to 1979 to the beginning of the EQUINOXE story.





























Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/

#20206 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w wczoraj, 20:27 w Jean-Michel Jarre

When I received the Stephen-Hawking-Medal last year, Professor Hawking shared with me that he believed that there will come a time when we will have to leave Earth for another planet, if we want to survive.


I like the idea of us becoming gypsies of time and space, moving somewhere else in order to survive, just leaving some audio information behind us on our way to find a place to live better nights and days, on our way to find ‘Equinoxe Infinity’.




















Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/

#20193 Tragedia na Przełęczy Diatłowa (1/2 luty 1959 r.)

Napisano przez fortyck w 12 listopad 2018 - 22:58 w Ogólne

All court refusals to reopen the case are based on this document.


The conclusion of the veteran investigator is that the death of Dyatlov group is caused by avalanche, deterioration of the weather, insufficient experience and preparation of the hikers for severe winter conditions.




The mystery of the death of Dyatlov group - criminalist conclusion
The topic of the death in 1959 of a group of tourists under the leadership of Dyatlov aroused considerable interest (see “The World of Criminology” №1 / 2017).
In continuation of the topic - an article by Sergey Yakovlevich Shkryabach, who in 2015 on behalf of the leadership of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, studied the materials of the discontinued criminal case about the death of a group of tourists under the leadership of Dyatlov in order to verify the completeness and objectivity of the investigation, the validity of the decisions made on it.
We present excerpts from the conclusion of S. Y. Shkryabach, made after the investigation of the criminal case.
They are also interesting because the author has extensive experience in mountain tourism, being a member of more than 25 ascents and 20 expeditions in the Pamir, Tien Shan, Caucasus, Altai, Eastern Sayan mountains, as well as in Kamchatka and the Arctic.
Shkryabach Sergey Yakovlevich,
veteran investigative and forensic services,
State Counselor of Justice Class 3,
Honorary Worker of the Prosecutor's Office of the RF,
Honorary Officer of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation The mystery of the death of Dyatlov group - criminalist conclusion
The present criminal case was instituted on February 26, 1959 by the prosecutor of the town of Ivdel, Sverdlovsk region, V. I. Tempalov on the fact (as stated in the resolution) the discovery on this day in the area of peak 1079 the bodies of Y. G. Krivonischenko, Z. A. Kolmogorova, I. A. Dyatlov and other hikers students of the Sverdlovsk Polytechnic Institute.
However, it follows from the case file that on February 26, 1959 the tent of the tourists was found on the slope of peak 1079 by a search team.
The bodies were discovered only on 27.02.59 - 4, 05.03.59 - 1 and 04.05.59 - 4.
From March 2, 1959, the prosecutor-criminalist of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Sverdlovsk Region was involved in the investigation.
Separate investigative actions, besides L. N. Ivanov and V. I. Tempalov, were also carried out by the investigator Ivdel Kuzminyh.
There is no decisions to assign L. N. Ivanov to lead the criminal case or to form an investigation team.
May 28, 1959, with the consent of the prosecutor of the Sverdlovsk region, L. N. Ivanov complying with paragraph 5 of Art. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, discontinued the investigation of this criminal case on the basis that overwhelming force was the cause of the death of the tourists, which they were unable to overcome, and that between the actions of those who allowed shortcomings in the sports activities, and
the death of tourists are not related, therefore there are no facts and circumstances constituting a breach of a law i.e. crime (Corpus delicti)
The investigation found the following.
January 23, 1959 a group of 10 tourists under the patronage of the sports tourist club of the Ural Polytechnic Institute led by student I. A. Dyatlov went on a ski trip with a total length of 300 km along the route: city of Sverdlovsk - city of Ivdel - village of Vizhay - village of 2nd Northern - Auspiya river - Mount Otorten - upper sources of Auspiya, Unya, Vishera and Niols rivers - Mount Oyka-Chakur - Northern Toshemka river - village of Vizhay - city of Ivdel - city of Sverdlovsk.
Besides I. A. Dyatlov the group includes: L. A. Dubinina, Z. A. Kolmogorova, A. S. Kolevatov, Y. E. Yudin, Y. N. Doroshenko - students of UPI; A. A. Zolotaryov - instructor Kourovskoy tourist base, as well as R. V. Slobodin, Y. G. Krivonischenko and N. V. Thibeaux-Brignolle - former students of UPI, currently engineers of the enterprises of Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk.
They traveled to the uninhabited village of the 2nd North by rail, road, and horse-drawn vehicles, and from there, on the morning of January 28, 1959, they began an independent skiing movement.
Ill Y. E. Yudin returned to Sverdlovsk.
According to the general diary of the group and the personal diary of Kolmogorova, by January 31, 1959, the group, observing the itinerary and traveling over 40 km, approached the branch of the Northern Urals in the upper sources of the Auspiya river and attempted to cross one of the tributaries of the Lozva river between peak 1079 ( currently denoted as Mount Kholat Syakhl with an altitude of 1096 m) and 880 (currently denoted as height 905 m).
However, when faced with a storm wind and icing of the slope, they returned to spend the night in the forest in the upper reaches of Auspiya river, where they found themselves sheltered from the wind, but in a very deep snow — up to 2 m.
After January 31, 1959, there are no entries in diaries.
According to the route plan, the group was supposed to pass between the heights of 1079 and 880 into the valley of the Lozva river and, moving north, north-west along the ridge to its source at the base of Mount Otorten, ascend around 2 February 1959.
Then go down the same way in the upper reaches of the Auspiya river and through the two passes, as well as the upper reaches of the Unya, Vishera and Nyols rivers, head south to Oyka-Chakur mountain (see pic 1-3).
There is no information on the group’s movement after January 31, 1959.
The route of the group ran through unpopulated territories and its participants did not have any means of communication ).
In accordance with the protocol of the Route commission of the Committee for Physical Education and Sport of the Sverdlovsk City Executive Committee, the deadline for receiving a telegram from Dyatlov about the end of the expedition was on February 12, 1959.
Following inquiries of friends and family of the missing tourists, the search started only on 20 February same year when the UPI management sent on the group's rout one group then some more
search groups of experienced mountaineers, units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, aircraft and helicopters of civil and military aviation.
Since the exact place where tourists could be, was not known, search groups of five people were sent and dropped off by helicopter to the main points of the route.
In the area of the Mount Otorten and the upper sources of Lozva and Austiya rivers were sent groups led by master of sports M. A. Akselrod and student B. E. Slobtsov.
February 26, 1959 on the eastern slope of Mount 1079 (1096) B. E. Slobtsov and a member of his group M. I. Sharavin found the tent of the Dyatlov group.
The tent was completely covered with snow. Outward on a few centimeters acted only the angle of the roof, supported by the remaining front pillar (ski pole).
From the words of B. E. Slobtsov and interviews of M. I. Sharavina (he was not interrogated, because during the period of investigation he was on treatment for the injury received during the search) the snow over the tent (after removing the upper thin layer) was so dense that it had to be cut out of the surface in daytime with an ice ax.
The skis used to support (hang - ed. note) the tent were dig out only after the tent was excavated.
In the tent there was practically all the equipment and personal belongings of the group members: backpacks, blankets (of which two were spread out), warm clothes, storm suits, hats and (with some exceptions) all shoes.
The entrance to the tent faced southeast at the remaining pillar was closed and blocked by a disassembled stove, dishes and other things.
Shoes and clothing were located near the side of the tent adjacent to the mountain.
The slope of the roof located on the opposite side and facing the side of the slope, in the direction of which (as it will be determined later) the tourists lay with their heads, was cut and torn in two places from top to bottom.
A fur jacket was tucked in a gap located closer to the entrance of the tent.
All pairs of skis were laid out under the tent, except for the one that lay next to it.
There were no signs of struggle or the presence of other people, as well as craters from explosions or any other cataclysms, either in or near the tent.
The scene of the incident was examined by the prosecutor of the city of Ivdel V. I. Tempalov. with the participation of the head of the search operation V. P. Maslennikov only February 28, 1959, when the tent was dug out and the roof racks were restored using skis.
According to this protocol, the tent was located on a 30° slope about 300 m below the top of 1079 (pic 4-6).
Down the slope for up to 500 m in the snow, there were traces of feet without shoes and individual traces of felt boots (8–9 pairs) going from the tent towards the forest.
Traces are preserved in the form of columns of pillars of snow several centimeters high.
Less dense snow blown around them by the storm wind.
The traces of tracks were located close to each other, converged and again dispersed close to one another.
Closer to the border of the forest, the tracks disappeared under the snow.
After discovering the tent, on February 27, 1959 all the search groups were called to the region of 1076 (Kholat Syakhl - 1097 mountain).
To the south of this mountain in the upper reaches of Auspiya river, near (as it turned out later) the campsite of Dyatlov group on the night of January 31, 1959, the search parties setup their base camp.
The search operation was headed by the master of sports E. P. Maslennikov.
On the same day - February 27, 1959 - down the slope in the direction whrere the footprints were headed the partially covered with snow bodies of Doroshenko and Krivonishchenko, lying next to each other, were found, and higher up the slope in the direction of the tent were found the bodies of Dyatlov and Kolmogorova.
According to the protocol of the inspection of the scene from the same date, the bodies of Doroshenko and Krivonischenko were stripped down to their underwear and were located 1,500 meters from the top of 1079 near the forest border under a single cedar tree near the remains of a fire.
According to the same protocol, 400 m from the fire in the direction of the tent, the body of Dyatlov was found covered with snow, and in the same direction 500 m above Dyatlov's body Kolmogorova’s body was found under the snow.
Both bodies were located in a straight line - from the fire to tent.
Dyatlov lay on his back near a small birch, head in the direction of the tent.
Kolmogorova lay face down in a dynamic posture of movement and "according to the position of the body, tried not to climb the mountain, but to stay in place".
The examination was carried out by the prosecutor of the city of Ivdel V. I. Tempalov with the participation of the head of search operation E. P. Maslennikov.
Later on, in the decision to terminate the criminal case L. N. Ivanov stated other information and assessments of these circumstances.
Including data on the distances of the bodies.
In his interpretation, all five bodies were found on February 26, 1959.
The distance from the location of the first two bodies is 1500 m to the tent, and not to the top of top 1079, as indicated in the inspection report of February 27, 1959.
The distance from these two bodies to Dyatlov's body has changed from 400 to 300 m, and from Dyatlov's body to Kolmogorova's body - from 500 to 330 m.
Further, in the materials of the criminal case, the angle of the slope at the place of detection of the tent decreased, compared to the protocol of the inspection of the scene from February 28, 1959 from 30 to 18–20°, and its location relative to the top 1079 from 300 to 150 m.
Most likely, a lot of this data was taken from the assumptions and estimates of the search eparticipnats, as well as from the reporting commissions of the Sverdlovsk Regional Executive Committee.
The distances to the location of the bodies are most likely taken from the testimony of the head of the search operation V. P. Maslennikov on March 10, 1959, and the calculations made by him in the scheme attached to his testimony.
Including complete information about the circumstances of the discovery of the body of the fifth hiker - R. V. Slobodin, who was found under a layer of snow (more than 20 cm) as a result of search efforts only on March 5, 1959.
There is no protocol of inspection of the place where the body of Slobodin was found.
According to the testimony of E. P. Maslennikov the body of Slobodin was headed in the direction of the tent in a straight line, as were the other bodies 180 m above the body of Dyatlov and 150 m below the body of Kolmogorova.
During search operations on March 2, 1959, when they were trying to locate where Dyatlov group spent the night of on March (January? - ed. note) 31, 1959 in the upper reaches of Auspiya river (100 m from the bank) and 300 m from the search base camp setup on February 27, 1959, search party found the cache site with product (labaz).
It is assumed that the storage site was built by Dyatlov group. According to the route plan, Dyatlov intended to return to the same place after the ascent to Otorten to continue the hike to the south.
According to the inspection report dated March 2, 1959, in the improvised warehouse built of logs, plywood and fir branches were stored food supplies, one pair of spare skis, two pairs of boots, ski mounts and two batteries with a light bulb.
The rescue expedition continued prospecting, including probing the area with avalanche probes (thin metal pins 1.5 m long), however, due to weather deterioration (a sudden increase in frost and stormy winds), and injuries to ice and rocky parts by several participants they were terminated on March 8, 1959.
When the searches were resumed on May 4, 1959 the bodies of the remaining four participants in the expedition were found deep under the snow.
According to the protocol of inspection of May 6, 1959, conducted by the prosecutor of the city of Ivdel V. I. Tempalov the bodies of L. A. Dubinina, A. S. Kolevatov, A. A. Zolotaryov and N. V. Thibeaux-Brignolle were in a strong putrefaction (“decomposed”) in the water near the bank of one of the tributaries of Lozva river under snow more than 2 m deep and 50 m (in the order to dismiss the case it was written - at a depth of 4–4.5 m and 75 m) from the single cedar - the place where the bodies of Doroshenko and Krivonischenko were found.
At 6 m higher under the snow at a depth of more than 3 m, a flooring of cut branches was found.
Analysis of photographs from the scene suggests that the bodies and the flooring (pile of branches) were under dense snow at a depth of more than 5 m.
Fragments of clothing cut off from the bodies of Doroshenko and Krivonischenko were found on the so-called flooring and near it.
The deceased Thibeaux-Brignolle and Zolotaryov were found better dressed than the others.
Dubinina was the last clothed of the four - her faux-fur jacket and cap turned out to be on Zolotaryov.
Dubinina’s bare foot was wrapped in a piece of Krivonishchenko woolen trousers.
According to the decision to stop the investigation, a Krivonischenko's knife was found near the bodies, with which young firs were cut off by the fire.
There is no mentioning of a knife in the inspection report dated May 6, 1959.
According to the findings of forensic investigations of teh bodies, Y. N. Doroshenko, Y. G. Krivonischenko, I. A. Dyatlov, Z. A. Kolmogorova, R. V. Slobodin and A. S. Kolevatov have no significant bodily injuries.
The death of these persons came from exposure to low temperatures (freezing).
According to forensic medical autopsy reports, L. A. Dubinina had symmetrical rib fracture: on the right 2, 3, 4, 5 and on the left 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and
hemorrhage in the myocardium.
А. А. Zolotaryov has fractures of the right ribs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 along the circumferential and midclavicular lines.
N.V. Thibeaux-Brignolle has an extensive hemorrhage in the right temporal muscle - correspondingly to it - a depressed fracture of the bones of the skull 3 x 7 cm in size.
I was specified that their injuries in conjunction with the effects of low temperatures led to their death.
These injuries are caused by a great force applied on a large area surfaces (there are no localized hemorrhages of the corresponding external surfaces of the body).
Also, expert studies have established that the tent roof panel on the right side has three cuts made from the inside.
The watches found on Dyatlov, Slobodin and Thibeaux-Brignolle were not investigated for the reason why did they stop (wound down, damage).
During the investigation test for radiation were carried out (with an incomprehensible purpose) of garments of the dead.
Their results have nothing to do with the causes and circumstances of the death of these individuals.
The declassified materials of the Central Committee of the CPSU on the ongoing inquiry about these events were also studied.
In them nothing more that it is already in the criminal case was found.
Analysis of the materials of the criminal case, as well as inspections of these events, conducted by various instances, points that there is no objective data on the involvement of any individuals, institutions or organizations in February 1959 in the Ivdel district of the Sverdlovsk region.
And if the final conclusion about the absence of corpus delicti (crime) in the actions of the officials involved in organizing this campaign can be conditionally considered correct, then the circumstances determining the presence or absence of a crime have not been fully investigated, which caused and causes doubts about the justification of the termination of the investigation.
The statement that "the cause of the death of tourists was overwhelming force, which they were unable to overcome", requires a clear argumentation with objective evidence the the investigation didn't provide.
The fact that they, in severe frost, half-clothed, left the tent on their own and six of them froze, and three died, including from serious injuries of internal organs, is no reason to relate everything that happened to the action of overwhelming force without studying and explaining the causes, circumstances and mechanism of these events.
This simplified attitude to decision making can only indicate a non-professional approach not only by L. N. Ivanov, but also by other persons who participated in the investigation to collect, research and evaluate objective data.
Most likely, they simply did not know how else to investigate these circumstances, so they made a possibly intuitively correct, but unreasonable decision.
This rightly caused many people, including professional lawyers, who did not know and understand the mechanisms of extreme situations, distrust of the results of the investigation and the belief that there was some kind of hidden secret information or ufo phenomena.
A study of the materials of the criminal case gives reason to believe that in fact in 1959 the investigation was conducted at a low (unfortunately, even at amateurish) level.
Landmarks and detailed photographs were not taken during the inspections of the incident sites.
Available photos can be called survey only conditionally.
Accurate measurements and reference to specific landmarks of detected objects and bodies are not available in the protocols.
Plans (schemes) were not drawn up by prosecutors and investigators.
It is almost impossible to establish from the investigation materials exactly where the tent and the bodies were found.
In particular, the incompleteness of the study of the sequence of events reflected on the objectivity of assessing the cause of death of A. S. Kolevatov, L. A. Dubinina, A. A. Zolotaryov and N.V. Thibeaux-Brignolle.
According to the findings of the forensic scientist, the death of L.A. Dubinina and A. A. Zolotaryov came from damage to internal organs as a result of multiple fractures of the ribs, and the death of N. V. Thibeaux-Brignolle - from hemorrhage due to a depressed fracture of the skull.
And all this in addition (it is not clear what is the connection) with the exposure to low temperature.
The expert made such conclusions only on the grounds that histological studies revealed hemorrhages in the places of fractures.
However, given the strong putrefactive changes in the internal organs of corpses, this can only indicate that the fractures were in vivo (pre mosrtem).
At the same time, all three corpses were found under a 3–5 meter layer of snow, in conditions and in postures that do not exclude the possibility of injury from compression, and the onset of death - from mechanical asphyxiation and hypothermia (freezing).
What can be concluded from the rib fractures on both sides of L.A. Dubinina and the absence in the areas of internal injuries on the external surfaces of all bodies traces of application of instruments with limited surface damage.
Since the histology test results were received on the day of the ruling on the termination of the criminal case, the circumstances, the mechanism and the real reasons for the death of S. A. Kolevatov, L. A. Dubinina, A. A. Zolotareva and N. V. Thibeaux-Brignolle were not investigated at all.
In fact, the circumstances of the events are not fully understood.
No answers were given to questions about the motives for setting up a tent on the mountainside, the reasons for leaving it, the sequence of events that led to the tragedy and death of all hikers.
The state and features of the area have not been studied.
Information about the weather and seismic activity in the area for the period of the tragic events were not requested.
No analysis of the level of extremity of the situation, readiness and psychology of behavior of the group members was conducted with the involvement of high-class specialists.
The opinions of individuals were taken as the basis for evaluating these tragic events, the insufficient experience of some of them not only did not meet the necessary requirements for this, but was also based on obvious delusions.
This includes the conclusions and doubts of L. N. Ivanov himself, who did not fully appreciate the situation that had developed during the period of the death of the Dyatlov group, which resulted in their misunderstanding of the whole mechanism of the incident.
Of course, even now, the investigation of these events has a certain complexity due to the impossibility in 56 years of time to carry out a full collection of the necessary additional information about the circumstances of this tragedy and materials about other events accompanying it.
However, in order to make a decision about the need for additional research and measures, a full assessment should be made of all the available objective data, as well as other information that is currently available.
First of all need to be analysed:
  • all available materials about the expedition and the participants;
  • information about the organization and the results of the search operation, including information from other sources, as well as evidence and reports from the search participants;
  • all objective data about the present material evidence and the bodies, their formal and informal examination;
  • declassified and other official materials related to this criminal case;
  • information and analytical studies of meteorological and seismic situations in the area (region) in the period of the tragedy;
  • available scientific and practical research in the field of similar extreme conditions and the psychology of behavior of participants in such events;
  • theories and opinions of prominent experts in the field of mountaineering and mountain tourism about the mechanism and causes of similar tragedies in high mountain and winter conditions.


According to the available materials on the preparation of the Dyatlov tourist group and data on the course of the hike itself, one can assess the degree of readiness of its participants for the negative development of an extreme situation.
Based on the available information, the level of preparation of the group was considerably overestimated by its assessment by the commission.
In fact, at that time, sports tourism was only in its infancy and only in the 70s began to be divided into mountain (traveling through the passes) and water (rafting on mountain rivers).
In the Urals, sports tourism was group travel using any means of movement (hiking, skiing, water) in
sparsely populated and difficult areas and was based only on the personal experience of its enthusiasts and local hunters.
These trips were divided into: weekend trips, 1st, 2nd and 3rd category of difficulty.
The combination of their number determined the assignment of sports categories.
The participants of these campaigns did not have serious climbing training.
In this region, mountaineering has not been developed, as the Urals, belongs to the old, not high and heavily destroyed mountains and does not have most of the peaks of even the lowest category of mountaineering complexity.
They presented a problem to traverse only in winter.
Most of the members of the group were participants of 4-6 trips for 3-4 years of study at the institute.
By the combination of the number of these trips, some of them could qualify for 2nd category of difficulty in tourism.
None of the hikers has ever participated in a winter expedition of 3rd category of complexity.
I. A. Dyatlov participated in only one trek of 3rd category (under the leadership of M. A. Akselrod) and is characterized as a strong and ambitious tourist.
In fact, he “stewed in his own juice” - of the 9 expedition he was part of he led 6.
It seems that I. A. Dyatlov lacked the level of experience that an expedition of this complexity required.
The preparation of the members of the group to participate in a difficult winter hike in the mountains was clearly insufficient.
The focus was on skiing, general equipment, products.
According to the plan of the expedition, they had to go through five passes and climb two peaks, but they did not have any safety equipment (ropes, strapping, carabiners, rappel gear), or any other climbing equipment (ice axes, crampons).
In the training materials, only a 20-meter-long prusik is mentioned (a thin auxiliary rope not suitable for securing), which was not found during inspections.
There was only one ice ax found at the tent and, according to the photos, belonged to A. A. Zolotaryov.
Meanwhile, in the winter, the Northern Urals are characterized by strong (to –50 °) frosts and storm winds.
Therefore, almost all passes and peaks have extensive ice and icy slopes of compacted snow (firn), which is very difficult to traverse without special skills and equipment.
On the negative results of this training, an entry in the group’s diary dated January 31, 1959 says that when they first tried to overcome an uncomplicated pass near 880, they did not have the necessary equipment and experience, having encountered an icy slope in strong wind and descended to the low of the river Auspiya.
It is difficult to imagine how they intended to overcome the five passes and climb two peaks in the days to come.
In addition, as follows from the materials of the criminal case, the group actually did not have a full-fledged map of the area (topographic maps of the General Staff were classified at that time), copies of forestry drawing topographic objects.
Given that their route was the first ascent, the group went almost at random.
It seems that the route of such a length (21 days) of length (about 300 km) and complexity this group could overcome without incident only with sufficiently favorable weather conditions and luck.
The main route ran two to four days from the nearest settlement.
In the event of injury or illness of any member of the expedition, it would take even more time to transport him.
It was not known whether emergency situations were worked out in the group, although the materials of the route commission allegedly contain information on the options for changing the group's route when weather conditions deteriorate.
In the materials of the criminal case, as in the materials of the group’s preparation, there is no data on attempts to get at least some information about the long-term forecast of meteorological conditions in the region.
Thus, although the decision to admit the group to the hike, taking into account the formal "experience" of its participants, was considered justified, the hike itself, given their actual readiness and lack of communication, was a dangerous and rather adventurous event.
Any significant error under extreme conditions and the lack of necessary knowledge of how to act when they occur inevitably lead to tragic consequences in such expeditions, and this is what happened.
When evaluating materials about the organization, the course and results of search activities, it is necessary to state the following.
There was no system in organizing such search operation in the region.
There wasn't (even formally) any dedicated voluntary search and rescue squad from among the most experienced tourists and climbers.
As a result, the search work actually began 22 days after the tragedy by hastily created search groups from among tourists, most of whom had experience not higher, but even lower than those missing.
Only one group was led by an experienced tourist M. A. Akselrod (who later gave the most realistic assessment of what happened).
Only by February 26, 1959, the master of sports E. P. Maslennikov headed the search expedition on his own initiative.
Later, from Moscow arrived a group of tourists headed by a member of the routing and qualification commission of the Presidium of the All-Union Tourism Section, master of sports K. I. Bardin.
In fact, all assessments on the detection of physical evidence and bodies in criminal case were based, as already noted above, on provisional data set forth by the said commission, and not on the results of investigative actions.
A tent on the slope was discovered and dug out of snow on February 26, 1959 by B. E. Slobtsov group ( a mountaineer with little experience at the time of the events). The site
was examined by the prosecutor of Ivdel only on February 28, 1959, after significant changes in the situation.
The body of R. V. Slobodin (found on March 5, 1959) and the place of its discovery were not examined at all.
The bodies of L. A. Dubinina, A.S. Kolevatov, A. A. Zolotaryov and N.V. Thibeaux-Brignolle were found on May 4, 1959 and examined on the spot on May 6, 1959.
At the same time the items found with the bodies are not mentioned in the protocol at all.
As already noted, the measurement data on the location of the tent and the bodies indicated in the inspection reports do not correspond to the data set out in the materials of the aforementioned commission and in the decision to terminate the criminal case.
There is no information about attempts to analyze weather conditions for the estimated period of death of the group and their changes until the moment of the search works in the criminal case or in the materials of the commission.
Meanwhile, the commission’s conclusion shows that if at the beginning of the search expedition the weather conditions were acceptable, by the end of February - the beginning of March the weather deteriorated sharply, the frost increased, and the blizzards and hurricane winds began, despite the fact that the bodies of four tourists were still missing, and served as the basis for the termination of the search on March 8, 1959.
There is no data on studies of the snow-ice cover in the area of the tragedy to determine the characteristics of its layers, stages and conditions for their formation.
With this in mind, no attempts were made to invite relevant specialists (meteorologists, seismologists, glaciologists, psychologists, climbers, etc.) to conduct case studies on the mechanism and sequence of the situation and the actions of the group members with the collection, analysis and evaluation of objective data.
The investigation did not even make an attempt to independently model the event mechanism, compare and analyze the position and condition of the tent at the time of its detection (and not at the time of inspection), traces around it to determine how could they leave, the sequence and direction of movement of the group, taking into account the characteristics of the terrain and wind.
Instead was taken into account the opinion of the often unseasoned tourists about the safety of the camp setup in such conditions and the allegedly sufficient experience among the hikers.
As a result of the amateurish assessment of this situation, the true causes and conditions for the emergency evacuation from the tent were not established, and a whole “bunch” of shady (not mentioned in the criminal case) versions of the existence of some unknown forces and secret events made the victims flee the tent in a panic, condemning themselves to death in conditions of snowstorms, hurricane winds and 40 degrees of cold.
This led to the appearance of information in the case of fireballs, radiological studies of the clothing of victims, etc., which, of course, did not provide anything for the investigation.
Only later, certain time after the end of the investigation, did the real version of the sudden avalanche emerge, which was supported by M. A. Akselrod and B. E. Slobtsov (pic 7-8).
This version was initially excluded on the basis of an erroneous assessment of the situation in connection with the following:
1. Most of the participants in the rescue operation and representatives of the prosecutor's office observed the scene in good weather 26 days after a significant change in snow cover.
This is evidenced by the detection of the distinctly protruding 5–8 cm traces of footprints of the members of the group down the slope from the tent.
Such traces of compaction can be formed by a person’s feet when moving in snow no less than 40 cm high and became embossed after blown by the wind (not below the storm level) around a less dense layer of snow for the same 40 cm.
This means that in the area of ​​the tent at the time of its leaving, the height of the snow was not less than 40 cm higher than when it was detected.
From the testimony of B. E. Slobtsov and from the words of a member of his search group M. I. Sharavin (not interrogated) it follows that on February 26, 1959, they found the front pole of the tent sticking out a few centimeters from under heavy snow, which they subsequently excavated.
This means that at the time when the members of the group left the tent there was at least 40 cm more of snow.
The supporters of the “exotic” versions claiming that the tent was allegedly covered with snow only after the tourists left it are not consistent, as then the group’s traces down the slope would have been completely covered by snow and wouldn't be visible at all.
Most of the fantastic versions were put forward on the basis of the general delusion that tourists left the tent not covered with snow, in a hurry cut out passages in its canopy to lower the slope, as the entrance to it was already blocked, and allegedly jumped out in such a way during normal visibility from a free-standing tent from some kind of inexplicable horror.
2. There is even among fairly experienced high mountain climbers, not to mention tourists, a massive misconception about the conditions and mechanism of avalanche and the consequences of such disasters.
The statistical data cited several years ago when the Mountaineers Club of St. Petersburg conducted the causes and conditions for the death of the Dyatlov group indicate that over 80% of the tourists (among all the dead) perish in avalanches.
Among climbers of even a very high class, a significant number die of avalanches as a result of a wrong choice of a place to sleep (bivouac installation) and errors when crossing avalanche prone slopes.
Cases of mass death of climbers in base camps and on the routes of movement take place in all known mountain ranges of the world, in
particular the Himalayas, the Pamirs, Tien Shan, the Andes, the Cordillera, the Caucasus, the Alps.
Personal experience of falling into avalanches and participation in rescue missions suggests that the most common mistakes about the mechanism of the formation of avalanches include:
  • wrong idea of snow as a light substance (it does not take into account the fact that the greater its mass and humidity, the greater its density);
  • wrong presumption that a large angle of inclination of the surface (at least 45–50°) on which the snow mass is located is necessary for an avalanche to descend, when in fact slopes above 50° avalanche are rare and avalanche is possible on an entirely non-steep slope.


From the materials of a series of methodological manuals "School of Mountaineering" (M. 2003–2010), edited by Honored Master of Sports in Mountaineering, Honored Coach of the USSR P. P. Zaharov we can understand the following.
Avalanche is the result of gravity.
If you select a certain form of an element (for example, a cube) of snow thickness lying on a slope, then, considering its equilibrium under the laws of mechanics, you can establish the following: the component of gravity, directed parallel to the slope, tends to move the cube down.
This force increases whit the mass of snow and its density.
But there are forces that counteract this component: mechanical adhesion with the underlying layer of snow, soil, natural friction force, supporting force of snow lying down the slope and holding force of adhesion with overlying snow.
The last forces are called contour.
Proceeding from this, as well as from the diversity of the mechanical properties of snow and its low stability, one can speak of the diversity of the "trigger mechanism" of avalanches in various conditions.
Depending on the conditions, the avalanche speed can reach 500 km/h.
The movement of snow at a speed of less than 1 m/s is estimated as a slab - a snow slab.
But avalanches moving at low speeds are deadly.
Even falling into a small avalanche of several cubic meters could be fatal.
There are enough examples when a layer of snow about 20 cm thick (!) Measuring 3x3 m killed people.
A very small collapse (only 5 m3 of snow with a density of 0.2 t/m3) at a speed of 10 m/s will be equivalent to hitting a car at a speed of 30 km/h.
Even the simplest of avalanches - a landslide measuring 25 by 30 m with a thickness of 20 cm is equal in volume to 100 m3 and weighs 20–30 tons!
According to studies, there is a widespread misconception that an avalanche requires a steep slope - more than 45°.
In fact, snow is poured from steep slopes in the presence of scanty volumes, and on slopes above 55° it does not linger at all.
Therefore, in the northern regions, including in Russia, roofs of houses, as a rule, are built at an angle of at least 45°, and in mountainous countries - 60° or more.
The most optimal slopes for avalanches are 25–40°, and under certain circumstances, 15–20°.
Famous Russian (Soviet) avalanche specialist, Professor of the Department of Cryolitology and Glaciology, Faculty of Geography, MSU G. K. Tushinskiy systematically researched and classified avalanches according to the composition of the snow that forms them, the conditions and the “trigger mechanisms” of their descent, and the consequences that threaten a person if they hit them.
The main reasons for avalanches are that the critical mass of the snow volume exceeds the limiting possibility of its retention on the slope, i.e. the force of gravity, which tends to move it along a slope, exceeds the limit of the possibility of the contour forces to hold it.
But there are various factors that drastically change the balance of forces, provoking an avalanche coming down before it is fully "mature".
Such external influences, in addition to dynamic impacts in the form of eaves collapse, falling stones, earthquakes, and lightning discharges, include: cutting an avalanche-prone slope by climbers or skiers, as well as dramatically increasing or changing winds.
In mountaineering, there is a rule: not to go out in the highlands after a sharp deterioration in the weather with more than 30-40 cm of snow falling before its natural compaction, since this is a period of high avalanche danger.
This is due to the fact that in clear weather and constant winds on the slopes an icy (firn) layer, a kind of “ice slides”, is formed.
After a significant amount of snow falls on this “skating rink", the avalanche in many cases, before compaction and joining of the snow cap to the previous layer, is inevitable.
It is easy to provoke it, moving along the avalanche-dangerous elephant, couloir.
G. K. Tushinskiy recommends that the following factors be taken into account to determine the danger of avalanche:
  • the height of the snow cover in accordance with the slope steepness (the slope of the steepness of 150 can already be avalanche-prone);
  • condition of the underlying surface in case of newly fallen snow (possibility of the occurrence of layers and gliding planes);
  • new high snow that can cause an immediate avalanche (30 cm thick can be considered critical, especially if the snow is accompanied by wind);
  • intensity of snowfall, excluding the possibility of subsidence and stabilization (when the intensity of snowfall is more than 2 cm per hour, avalanches should be expected);
  • wind and intensity of snowstorm (the snowstorm factor itself should be considered as a sign of avalanche danger);
  • low air temperatures cool the surface, and the metamorphic processes inside the snow layer lead to the emergence of loosening horizons, causing the avalanche to disappear.


Avalanches are not uniform.
There is a natural compaction of snow under its weight.
Depending on the mass and humidity of snow, the lower layers of the avalanche mass can have very high density and hardness and multiply its destructive power.
A special danger of falling into an avalanche lies in the fact that, as a rule, the movement of significant layers of snow begins both above and below the cut-off area and in most cases with a very fast onset of speed, which often makes it impossible to avoid it in time.
Thus, the foregoing suggests that an avalanche (most likely, in the form of a slab) could really be the cause of an emergency abandonment of the tent by Dyatlov group.
The terms of this in accordance with the above research factors given by G. K. Tushinskiy could be: a significant increase in the mass of snow on the mountainside, strong wind and frost, as well as cutting the avalanche slope by tourists themselves by crossing it and setting up a tent with digging up a large area of ​​snow that prevented the layer of snow from above to slide downwards.
As noted above, the weather conditions in the area during the tragedy were not analyzed by anyone, and therefore the conditions that form the basis for the death of tourists were not studied.
Meanwhile, even from the data of a foreign site, it is clear that on February 1, 1959, Dyatlov's group was in the area of the cyclone.
According to the aforementioned studies conducted by the Alpinists of St. Petersburg club with the involvement of specialists, including in the field of meteorology, when analyzing data from Ivdel, Nyaksimvol and Burmatovo meteorological stations located in the places of the tragedy, respectively, 117, 95 and 66 km, in the area on the night of February 1, 1959, the cyclone front (with a duration of at least 10 hours) passed, accompanied by heavy snowfall, wind intensifying to hurricane (20–30 m/s) in the direction from north-west to south-east and a drop in temperature environment to –40° C.
If we take into account the fact that the snowstorm lasted all day on February 1, 1959 and only intensified towards its end, as evidenced by the last photos of the group members (pic 12), the establishment of a camp on the mountainside was a fatal mistake, and the tragedy was inevitable.
Considering the direction of the wind, on that day the bulk of the snow accumulated on the less-blown south-eastern slope of the mountain, where the tent was installed.
It seems that the situation unfolded as follows.
After an unsuccessful attempt to cross the pass on January 31, 1959 (later it will be called the Dyatlov Pass) and descend to the valley of the 4th tributary of the Lozva river on February 1, 1959 Dyatlov made a decision to go around 880 on the left along the slope of height 1096 (now Mount Kholat Syakhl), and then descend to the named tributary.
However, when crossing the slope of this mountain, the group fell into a strong storm, i.e. in fact, in the absence of visibility, she was unable to correctly orient herself and determine the direction of descent.
Perhaps an attempt to descend to the forest was, but
they stumbled upon stone crests and without having detailed maps, did not dare to continue down the path.
Apparently, Dyatlov made a decision to wait out the bad weather by setting up a tent on the slope, “buried” in the snow, as evidenced by the recent photographs of the participants of the march themselves (pic 9-10).
From the materials of the criminal case, it follows that many local tourists considered such a decision to be correct, referring to their own and others' experience.
However, they were simply lucky or at their time were not chosen to be avalanche-prone places on the mountain slopes.
It seems that the further course of events developed according to the following scenario.
Assuming a cold night, the group members had a dry dinner and lay down (tried to lie down) covered themselves with blankets, removing only their shoes and jackets.
Perhaps two of them put on valenki for the night.
The whole group was located across the tent with their feet to the mountain and heads towards the forest.
The snowstorm continued and after a while the mass of snow on the slope became critical.
The avalanche came down in the form of a slab, weighing at least several tons.
If the avalanche managed to pick up speed, the group members would most likely not be able to get out of the tent.
Initially, the sliding mass of snow was held back for a short time by the tension of the sinking tent.
The first obvious signs of an avalanche at night in the dark most likely caused panic.
The rapidly increasing pressure of the snow did not make it possible not only to take outerwear, but also to leave the tent in an organized manner.
Apparently this process took a few seconds.
The last of those who left the tent were already breaking through the ever increasing mass of snow, which forced the tourists to instinctively rush down the slope in the direction of the intended forest.
This was facilitated by the continuing storm and hurricane wind in the same direction (i.e. blowing in their backs - ed. note).
Major surface damage (surface wounds and abrasions), subsequently found on almost all bodies, could have been received by tourists both while leaving the tent and when overcoming the stone ridge between the slope and the first trees.
Within a few minutes, the start of the downward movement of the group members, taking into account the continuing storm and gale, could not detect the exact location of the tent buried under the snow, and given the high density of snow and the absence of any aids (ice axes, axes, shovels) in such a cold and dig it out.
The only opportunity to try to survive in those conditions for them was an attempt to descend into the forest as quickly as possible, create shelter and provide a warm night before the weather improves.
However, in severe frost, hurricane winds, and the difficulty of moving through deep snow and a stone ridge, it was almost physically impossible to reach the forest (more than 1.5 km from the tent) fast enough.
As follows from the materials of the criminal case, members of the Dyatlov group could accomplish this.
According to many experts, including the St. Petersburg Mountaineers Club, the survival rate in such conditions and in such a state of their clothing is limited to 2-3 hours.
Despite attempts to light a fire under the single cedar tree, the first, most likely, frozen were the worst dressed Y. N. Doroshenko and Y. G. Krivonischenko.
Erroneous but desperate and courageous attempts by I. A. Dyatlova, Z. A. Kolmogorova and R. V. Slobodin to break through the headwind wind to the tent led to death.
Not better by much were the chances of survival of L. A. Dubinina, A. S. Kolevatov, A. A. Zolotaryov and N. V. Thibeaux-Brignolle.
Most likely, they tried, using parts of the clothes of the already dead Y. N. Doroshenko and Y. G. Krivonischenko to go even lower along the slope to the 4th tributary of Lozva and there, digging in the snow, to setup a shelter.
However, a reckless choice of location also led them to death.
The practice has a significant amount of deaths of climbers and tourists as a result of falling into the hollows hidden under the snow.
From the studies of P. P. Zaharov, an honored master of sports in mountaineering, it follows that the direct causes of death when falling into avalanches can be injuries from blows of foreign objects in the avalanche mass, blows of a person in an avalanche on the ground and ridges of rocks, bones, damage to internal organs, deep cooling (freezing), exhaustion, shock and, most often, suffocation (i.e, mechanical asphyxia).
Of particular danger is the collapse of the snow-ice cornice and hidden snow bridges and grottoes, with a fall in the snow-covered crevices and cracks in glaciers and narrow rock falls, especially followed by the collapse of snow-ice masses from above.
In mountaineering, the overcoming of such areas is allowed with the observance of the maximum safety and by being tied with a rope to each other.
Most likely, L. A. Dubinina, A. S. Kolevatov, A. A. Zolotaryov and N. V. Thibeaux-Brignolle tried to settle in a slide not far from the aforementioned single cedar tree, not suspecting that they were above the grotto formed (washed) at the source by the tributary under the snow.
Apparently, the snow and ice bridge collapsed under their weight, and they were covered with a collapsed layer of frozen snow into a hole not less than 5 m deep, which resulted in serious injuries of L. A. Dubinina, A. A. Zolotaryov and N. V. Thibeaux-Brignolle.
Most likely, the death of all four in combination with injuries of the internal organs in three of them could occur both from freezing and from mechanical asphyxiation under the layer of snow falling on top of them.
However, this does not exclude the fact that part of the injuries they received in the process of leaving the tent and overcome the stone ridge.
Based on the above, the circumstances of the deaths of tourists have no hidden motive, and all the questions and doubts that have arisen are the consequences of lack of professionalism and incomplete work on the case.
However, to fill the gaps in the investigation, taking into account past years, there are currently only limited possibilities.
It seems that, given the lack of objective data on the involvement of anyone in the death of members
40. of Dyatlova tourist group, carrying out this work is possible without resuming the investigation - as part of an additional but official preliminary inquiry.
pic 1 On the map is an approximated route of Dyatlov group, according to the expedition plan below
pic 2. Dyatlov group route plan
pic 3. Organization of the search operation
pic 4. The place where the tent was found
pic. 5 The tent stretched for examination
pic 6. Study of the tent
pic 7. The place where the tent was found
pic. 8. The footprints found outside of the tent
pic 9. Last photos of the hikers
pic 10. Last photos of the hikers
pic 11 The scheme of events in the photograph from a height of 1096

#20191 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 12 listopad 2018 - 11:18 w Jean-Michel Jarre

I started this piece with quite a simple idea.


I had in mind the image of travelling on an endless road.


This journey could last an entire life.


It also conveys the simple idea of being able to leave the past behind in order to build the future, having learnt from the past.


Once you gained knowledge from the past, you can look into the future, you don’t need to look back.





















Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/

#20181 Tragedia na Przełęczy Diatłowa (1/2 luty 1959 r.)

Napisano przez fortyck w 09 listopad 2018 - 20:51 w Ogólne

Dyatlov Pass Mystery 


In January 1959, nine Soviet college students were killed under mysterious circumstances while hiking through the Ural Mountains in what's now known as the Dyatlov Pass incident.


On Jan. 31, of that year, 23-year-old ski hiker Igor Alekseievich Dyatlov and his team of eight experienced ski hikers from the Ural Polytechnical Institute embarked on a journey to reach the peak of Otorten, a mountain in the Northern Urals.


None of the hikers were ever seen alive again...


Special thanks to Sara for researching and sending me this script!


Much appreciated my friend.


Link to new theory about the initial findings on the hikers tent:


#20175 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 09 listopad 2018 - 11:12 w Jean-Michel Jarre

This is INFINITY the very last track to be pre-released before EQUINOXE INFINITY will be released next Friday.


With INFINITY I wanted to create a bridge, a connection with the first ‘Equinoxe' album with a piece of music that is rather joyful, just like 'Equinoxe Part 5' was.


It’s easy to be dark, I always thought it is always more difficult to create joyful music which had a certain kind of hidden melancholy attached to it.


Parts of the first 'Equinoxe' album were like that.


When I worked on this piece of music, I was thinking about these timeless Watchers looking at us in a virtual reality environment, us trying to survive in a hectic VR game with no real beginning and no real end, trapped in a world of "infinity“.


Listen to the track here:


YouTube video:





















Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/

#20174 Kitaro - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 09 listopad 2018 - 00:46 w Kitaro

Domo's Autumn Sale is now on.



50% off for our top 10 best sellers including Kitaro's Sacred Journey of Ku-Kai vol.5, Kojiki And The Universe, Live DVD Box set, Best Of Silk Road and more!


Offer ends on November 18th.

Shop now:



#kitaro #autumnsale #newage #domo



















#20173 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 08 listopad 2018 - 22:48 w Jean-Michel Jarre

Thank you for the nice review!





















Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/

#20172 Tragedia na Przełęczy Diatłowa (1/2 luty 1959 r.)

Napisano przez fortyck w 08 listopad 2018 - 22:03 w Ogólne



From Russia with Doubt
There is a book about art called that but I like the title all the same.
The sources for this article are Galina Sazonova and Komsomolskaya Pravda documentary "Dyatlov Pass. End of Story?"
Latest development on the attempts to reopen the case
Leonid Georgievich Proshkin
In 2014 Komsomolskaya Pravda (KP) (big Russian periodical) signed an agreement with Leonid Proshkin, a former investigator of the Russian Federation Investigative Committee (IC), and now a lawyer, to file a claim the case to be reopened.
In order to make a decision whether there are grounds for reopening, the IC began a preliminary inquiry.
Preliminary inquiry is when a decision has to be made if there is reason - new information, to open the case.
Investigation is when the case is open.
For the preliminary inquiry was appointed one of the leading investigators of Russia - Vladimir Nikolaevich Solovyev.
This preliminary inquiry lasted almost 3 years.
Vladislav Ivanovich Tuykov
The storage policy of the closed case files is that the documents can be disposed of 25 years after the case is closed.
According to the memoirs of the former criminalist and judge Vladimir Ankudinov, the prosecutor of the Sverdlovsk region Vladislav Ivanovich Tuykov decided the case files not to be destroyed as “socially significant”.
Not all physical evidence had the same good fortune.
Head of Sverdlovsk Forensic Science Laboratory K. P. Kretov kept the tent.
After Kretov died in the 80s the tent was taken to the garbage container, apparently water pipe burst back in the late 70s and the tent collected mold.
The storage policy for evidence as well as case files is that they can be destroyed 25 years after the case is closed.
We owe it to prosecutor Tuykov that we can actually leaf through the case files today.
Tuykov is now passed away, lets hope the case files don't have same fate as the tent.
Vladimir Nikolaevich Solovyev
Senior investigator and forensic expert at the General Directorate for Criminalistics (Forensic Center) of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.
In the period of 1991-2015 headed the investigation of the murder of the royal family.
As a result new archived documents came to light and were published by KP.
Two documents stand out - the telegram from Kolevatov sister Rimma addressed to Khrushchev and a special message from the Minister of the Interior Ministry.
He also found in the classified archive some documents on this case from Central Committee of the CPSU.
KP began the process of declassifying these documents and the bureaucratic procedure took took about a year.
In principle, there is nothing particularly new there, except for the memorandum of one of the party workers.
There is also nothing special in it except for one - it contains document numbers (everything is numbered in the Central Committee, each page) that were used in this note.
According to Natalya Varsegova in her speech at the Yekaterinburg conference in 2017 "some of these numbers were scratched with a razor" when declassified.
We also clearly see by the pagination that not all is declassified.
Some of the documents still remain classified.
The IC is not obliged to report what they are is doing, but they are by law required to issue a final conclusion.
We don't know all the actions of Solovyev during the preliminary inquiry.
From the movie “Dyatlov Pass. End of History?” one document gets into the frame 1:22:33 indicative that Solovyev conducted an officially recorded conversation with Okishev as part of the preliminary inquiry.
He analyzed the criminal case for procedural violations.
The conduct of a criminal case is regulated by law.
This is part of the explanation given by Okishev to investigator Solovyov.
You can see it in frame 1:22:40 that the criminal case was closed under pressure from above, and this confession on its own could have been the grounds to reopen the case.
After filing an application, the Investigation Committee initiated their own preliminary inquiry of the case materials in order to make a decision on its results - whether to open the case or not.
Evgeniy Fyodorovich Okishev
KP was able to find Okishev, who oversaw Lev Ivanov.
The interview taken in 2013 addresses the same questions to the investigator Solovyev asked Okishev as part of the preliminary inquiry.
Okishev states for the protocol that they were pressured, they were not allowed to investigate, and at the end they were removed from the case.
This fact only should be enough enough for the Investigative Committee to admit the violations and reopen the case.
Evgeniy Fyodorovich was 94 at the time of the interviews.
Despite his advanced age, Evgeniy Fyodorovich remembers those events very well, because in his prosecutor’s practice the case of the death of Dyatlov group became the most mysterious.
In 1959, Evgeniy Okishev was the Deputy Chief of the Investigation Department of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Sverdlovsk Region.
This is what he remembers:
Sergey Yakovlevich Shkryabach
According to KP journalist Natalya Varsegova, Solovyov was at some point removed from the case.
“Last year, his official representative Vladimir Markin resigned from the Investigative Committee - thanks to him, Komsomolskaya Pravda gets the conclusion [on the death of Dyatlov Group], which was written by another person - former investigator of the Investigation Committee Sergey Yakovlevich Shkryabach.
We invited him to the editorial office - the conversation turned out to be difficult, because, as it seemed to me, he was not very familiar with the material.
He is a mountaineer himself, with great experience, he has many ascents, and he is of the opinion that it was a snow slab (the main ambassador of this theory is St. Petersburg scientist and mountaineer Evgeniy Buyanov).
” “The conclusion is absurd and puts us at a dead end - says Natalya. - The IC would have made it public on television if Markin hadn’t resigned.”
After that, the IC summoned all interested parties and said that the case would not be reopened and because they are officially bound to give an answer why - they base their answer on Shkryabach’s conclusion that main role in the death of Dyatlov Pass played an avalanche."
In the interview is mentioned avalanche, bad weather, panic, disorientation and hypothermia.
The injuries of Dubinina, Tibo and Zolotaryov are explained with the choice of a bad spot for the den - on top of a grotto carved by the river which at some point collapsed underneath them and huge amount of snow fell on top of them.
Natalya Varsegova - "The fact that Shkryabach was retired from the IC at the time he wrote his conclusion hence didn't have the right to give an opinion was overlooked.
Shkryabach's opinion could not be the official response of the IC.
In theory, lawyer Proshkin, had all the opportunities at that time to demand an official response.
For some reason he didn't act on it.
Having assessed the whole situation, the KP came to the conclusion that it is impossible to achieve the truth in this way, the IC simply does not want to answer questions, even though it is obligated.
So we did the documentary "Dyatlov Pass. The End of History?"
What happened next and why is everything so secretive?
Fruitless and unnecessary application repeating same path, getting same answer
In 2018 Dyatlov foundation hires the same lawyer, who has been working on this case with Komsomolskaya Pravda for almost 3 years.
The fact that he didn't bring any results doesn't seem to matter.
Attorney Proshkin files an application with the same Investigative Committee as in 2014.
We don't know the text of the first request in 2014.
For the request in 2018 we can judge from the fund raising page for the balance of his payment.
"A loophole... in the regulations concerning reopening closed cases and with the aid of the descendants of Rustem Slobodin and Yuri Doroshenko...
The path that will be taken to reopen the case is the rights of the victims to a comprehensive and objective investigation of the case for which there is no legal obstacle."
This is not what the Investigative Committee thinks about that.
Here is the official response to that. Shkryabach all over again.
This is a text from the explanation given by Okishev to investigator Solovyov.
You can see it in frame 1:22:40.
Okishev clearly states that the investigation was pressured and they closed the case under duress from above.
In principle, this only would be enough to reopen the criminal case.
The Investigative Committee not only doesn't take this in consideration, but judging by the latest official response from 31 of August 2018 that lists at the bottom all previous unsuccessful claims to reopen the case: "Your complaints dated 21st November 2014 and 18th February 2015 were not officially registered or considered by the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation", no such application was ever received hence no conversation between Solovyov and Okishev ever took place?
We do not know whether Proshkin referred to Okishev in his appeal to the IC.
There is a one document gets into the frame direct connection between Okishev and Solovyev, but it is no proof if Proshkin used Okishev testimony for grounds of his claim.
* * *
I have been rooting through Russians forums and there are many claims for the case to be reopened, usually in the form of collective letters sent through Kremlin site.
To name a few:
– Request or open letter to the President of the RF (link to Russian forum) and the answer
– After the movie came out an official document shows in frame 1:22:33, a member of a Russian forum wrote a request to the IC for explaination on the basis was this official document created?
As part of what is the official preliminary inquiry?
And he received this answer - within the framework of the appeal of Komsomolskaya Pravda chief editor Sungorkin.
This doesn't explain anything.
The point is that the answers always repeat Shkryabach.

Exhumation, the media charade


Something really sensational needs to happen in order for the claim to stand a chance.
When the exhumation of the remains of Zolotaryov took place on 12 of April, 2018 i don't think anybody expected the media charade that followed, but at least something was happening.
Komsomolskaya Pravda is on the look for a reason to reopen the case.
From the interview with Shkryabach:
– In your opinion, should the case be reopened?
– No.
To reopen a case one needs newly discovered specific circumstances.
And we do not have that.
– What about exhumation?
– In this case, we can only see the nature of the fractures.
And that's all.
This procedure will lead to nothing more.
And it didn't, but we were put on a roller coaster to believe that this is not Zolotaryov.
The bomb shell of the first DNA analysis was not overwritten by the second DNA showing a match.
As of today, 7 of November 2018 Wikipedia still says "the DNA analysis did not reveal any similarity to the DNA of living relatives".
No update on the second DNA analysis.

#20171 Tragedia na Przełęczy Diatłowa (1/2 luty 1959 r.)

Napisano przez fortyck w 08 listopad 2018 - 21:54 w Ogólne



«My opinion is that there are no mysteries in the case of the death of Dyatlov group»
Sergey Shkryabach, a veteran of the investigating authorities and a mountaineer, commented on the air of Radio Komsomolskaya Pravda his opinion on the results of the inspection of the Russian IC of the case of the tragic death of a group of tourists led by Igor Dyatlov in the Urals in 1959
All rights belong to Komsomolskaya Pravda.
Authors Nikolay Varsegov, Vladimir Sungorkin, Natalya Varsegova and Ramil Farzutdinov
Veteran of the investigating authorities and mountaineer Sergey Shkryabach. Photo: Personal Archive
Recall that in the winter of 1959 in the mountains of the Northern Ural nine tourists disappeared, who went hiking under the guidance of Igor Dyatlov.
A month later, rescuers discovered their cut tent.
And within a radius of one and a half kilometers from it - five frozen bodies.
The corpses of the rest were found only in May.
Almost all the tourists were barefoot and half-dressed.
Some had fatal injuries.
It is still not solved why the hikers ran away to the bitter cold and their doom.
According to the former investigator for particularly important cases and the head of the investigative units of various levels, Sergey Shkryabach, Dyatlov’s group died because in the storm the tourists chose an unsuitable place to stay for the night and made a camp, having dug deep into the snow on the mountainside.
As a result, an avalanche descended into a landslide covered their tent.
In a hurry after leaving it in a gale and strong frost, all members of the group died.
Sergey Shkryabach came to our studio radio "Komsomolskaya Pravda" (97.2) to talk more about this tragedy.
– Sergey Yakovlevich, we have been dealing with the history of the Dyatlov Pass for three years already.
And during this time we have not formed a specific version of what happened.
We read your conclusion and wanted to discuss this story with you, as an expert and a climber.
In the case of the avalanche, it is not entirely clear why they ran so far from the tent (1.5 km, - Ed.)? Could stay in place and dig up the tent.
– They fled to the forest because it was the only way out for them.
The same thing, probably, we would have done with you in order to survive in this storm.
It was necessary to create some conditions.
At least a fire.
On the slope blown they would not have lit.
They did not know exactly how far the forest was, since they actually had no map.
I studied this question.
The exact maps of the General Staff at that time were classified.
They had some forestry maps.
But this is not serious.
– This, by the way, completely breaks the spyware version.
If the KGB had sent tourists to the mountains, they would have a decent map.
– This was the first ascent.
They followed a route that was not known.
Therefore, when they jumped out of the tent, they intuitively went down, not knowing that there were three stone ridges and icing there.
Their movement was very heavy.
Many had minor injuries.
They did not even reach the forest, stopping at a lone cedar.
Severe frost, wind, they are half-dressed ...
For more than two hours no one could stretch under such conditions.
– Three of them were very well dressed.
That is the question.
– No, it was they who later dressed, taking off their clothes from the dead Doroshenko and Krivonischenko.
– And why did they climb cedar?
– For firewood.
– We all know very well that in life we will not climb on any cedar behind the branches when it is full of dry wood.
– Nothing like this.
There was nothing there.
Cedar alone stood.
There you can see even by photos.
And they needed a fire.
– There were twigs, dry wood, fir branches.
They covered the flooring with it.
– Not them.
This is the last four that went further into the ravine.
– It is known that in the fire were quite thick branches.
One even burned out.
Why they did not maintain the fire?
– How it really happened there, I do not know.
By itself, the fire will not save from the cold, if you do not create conditions.
– Dig a den?
– At least.
– We assume that there was a snowstorm.
But the corpses in relation to the tent lay in a straight line.
As if they saw a tent.
– Not. They just walked down the slope.
And about the same direction they tried to go back..
– In its wake?
Why was the end of the tent open?
The horse was visible.
– From the tent down were protruding tracks.
These columns were due to the fact that the wind blew a layer of snow about 40 cm thick around the tracks pressed by the feet.
This means that the tent also initially had about as much snow, which was also boldly blown away.
– Some of your colleagues are surprised that the case was closed at the end of May, when even the snow did not come down in those places.
Why did the investigation turn so sloppy?
– I tell you as a practitioner, as an investigator I explain that there are situations when the prosecutor sees that you will not find anything in this matter, but there is a stir around him.
And he stops the case.
Although then it was impossible to do.
Yes, Ivanov was a competent investigator, but he did not involve people who understand something in extreme situations, avalanches, into the investigation.
He did not even collect weather information.
– You say that Ivanov did not attract any specialists.
But Sverdlovsk athletes Maslennikov and Akselrod, and representatives of the Moscow Tourism Federation worked on the scene.
– Specialists arrived at the site when the tent was already excavated. Everybody, including Maslennikov.
Therefore, they did not understand the situation.
The entire slope was trampled by this time.
– Why did they have to bring mountaineers from Moscow?
– Because the consent to go ahead with this expedition was issued by the regional tourism federation.
So they had to figure what went wrong with it.
– Why did they submit their report to the CPSU Central Committee?
– Sorry, nine people died! And one takes responsibility for this.
The Central Committee, most likely, received many complaints.
So the Committee requested information.
– Military was greatly involved in the search.
There is a version that they were called because the death of tourists is the fault of some military department.
– This is not true.
Where else to get so many people to search?
You need to bring the military.
So they combed the whole huge slope.
– There is an opinion that the existing criminal case is a fake, and the real one lies somewhere else.
– You can think what you want.
– So the lack of professionalism of the investigation played a significant role?
– The investigation simply approached the situation amateurishly.
Prosecutors saw the tent, which was already excavated, and began to draw conclusions based on what they saw.
(The snow on the tent was really raked, the search engines Slobtsov and Sharavin cut down with an ice pick, - ed. note).
You shouldn't do that.
– Sergey Yakovlevich, have you been surprised that there are not many procedural documents in the case?
For example, protocols on the decision of a forensic medical examination.
– There were documents, they just did not arrive at the right time.
Sometimes they were not fastened properly, but they were there.
– What do you think about the opening date of the case - February 6, 1959?
(This date is indicated on the cover, and the protocol of initiation of a criminal case of February 26, 1959, - ed. note).
– Sometimes investigators make mistakes.
I had a situation when I interrogated an assassin per hire, it was Sunday.
But I questioned him on Saturday.
The case came to court, only there could I see the confusion with the dates.
– Many forensic pathologists are surprised by the nature of the injuries on the hikers bodies.
– You mean those found in the creek?
As a specialist in murder cases, I will say that a bilateral fracture is a result of pressure.
According to the forensic report, there are no point marks of blows and hemorrhages on the bodies.
This suggests that there was a wide area of the application.
Such damage can occur from pressuring with great force.
– And where did they get these injuries?
– They were found at the source of the Lozva tributary.
In a place that does not freeze completely.
It is covered with snow first, then the snow melts and freezes, and the water below remains running.
As in any river. And there was a grotto, over which accumulated a lot of snow and ice.
Hikers decided to hide from the cold in this place (not knowing that there is a grotto under them).
They made the flooring, brought some clothes there, the vault of the grotto collapsed and the four of them collapsed down.
They covered almost 5-meter layer of snow and ice.
Hence the injuries.
– Why testing for radiation then?
– They tried to find out maybe some data.
They thought that something else had happened, and not an avalanche.
Investigator Ivanov had a poor understanding of the mechanism of this investigation.
He was not on the pass at the time of the excavation of the tent, Ivdel prosecutor wasn't present either.
He arrived only two days later.
– But radiation was found!
– radiation was found on the clothes of tourists who worked in closed factories.
That is, perhaps, they brought it to the pass from the factories.
– Tourists, unfortunately, died and die often. But why such an interest in this story?
– The whole problem lies in the fact that the investigator made a vague decision on the case with the formulation of elemental force.
Intuitively, he was right, because it is an overwhelming natural force, but he did not have proof.
Did not carry out the analysis.
This is where so many versions came from and people are still puzzled over various theories.
And the only most clear-cut version of the development of events is what I have outlined.
Everything else is mystification.
There were no traces of unauthorized persons at the scene of the incident, traces of fire, explosion - nothing like that was found.
– In your opinion, should the case be reopened?
– No.
To reopen a case one needs newly discovered specific circumstances.
And we do not have that.
– What about exhumation?
– In this case, we can only see the nature of the fractures.
And that's all.
This procedure will lead to nothing more.
– Anyway, we have a feeling that there is some kind of mystery.
– For many years I worked as an investigator and investigated so many different situations, criminal cases, that I clearly know that very often everything is much simpler than we initially think, and everything ultimately yields to logical judgment.
There is no mystery in this matter.
You can, of course, conduct an investigative experiment - estimate the territory, based on the materials of the case, roughly outline where the tent was, see the structure of this place, the nature of the rocks, snow cover, intensity and direction of the winds, as well as simulate the mechanism and sequence of movement of each member of the group.
And as a result, analyze the situation together with specialists who can be drawn from various structures, including the Emergency Ministry Tsentrospasa.


















#20170 Tragedia na Przełęczy Diatłowa (1/2 luty 1959 r.)

Napisano przez fortyck w 08 listopad 2018 - 21:12 w Ogólne



The criminal case can not be trusted
This is the conclusion of authors Nikolay Varsegov and Natalya Varsegova.
All rights belong to Komsomolskaya Pravda 2-Jan-2014
Leonid Proshkin, prominent lawyer and former criminal investigation prosecutor joined our investigation.
For the first time 55 years after the tragedy, Evgeniy Okishev is holding a copy of the case files
Last summer, we found a very important witness to that tragedy - Evgeny Okishev, who oversaw the investigation of the death of tourists.
Read the interview with Evgeniy Fyodorovich “We were told to say that they were killed in an accident”.
Evgeny Fyodorovich is 94 years.
But, despite the advanced age, he perfectly remembers those events.
In 1959, he was Deputy Head of the Investigation Department of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Sverdlovsk Region.
Leonid Proshkin, prominent lawyer and former criminal investigation prosecutor joined our investigation.
Recently Leonid Georgievich met with Evgeny Fedorovich and we recorded their conversation.
L. Proshkin: – I have thoroughly studied the Dyatlov case.
I have one question to ask: Why there is no case number on the file?
E. Okishev: – I really don’t know how this could happen.
Maybe because the case was altered later?
– From what documents are available we see that criminal proceedings on the case were initially carried out by Ivdel prosecutor Tempalov.
Then all of a sudden we learn that it is taken over by criminal prosecutor Ivanov.
However the file contains not a single order on institution of proceedings on the case!
– Look here, all the documents had been in place.
I remember that well.
– And had there been any orders on expert examinations?
They are missing in the case too.
– All these orders were in place.
Otherwise no experts would have started working.
I don’t know what had become of them.
Maybe someone had had a relation to that case, and the documents of importance had been taken away by someone later?
– I worked a long time in investigating murders as a criminal investigator for the Kemerovo Oblast.
We kind of competed with your Sverdlovsk Oblast in the number of murders.
– Right.
– Anyway, I can’t say I ever heard of the Oblast Prosecutor being present at autopsies.
But, in the Dyatlov case, Sverdlovsk Oblast Prosecutor Klinov must have had some reason to come to Ivdel and spend three days in the morgue observing autopsy of the five bodies.
– This is the only case in my practice, too.
– Does this mean that investigation was regarded as one of special significance?
– This means that the Party organs took control over the case.
Note, control not just at the Oblast, but at the Central Party organs level.
Before Klinov took this position, he worked at the Oblast Party Committee and maintained good contacts afterwards.
I remember well that he had connections among his former colleagues.
He had probably been prompted to take the case up himself, this being too serious a matter.
Who could advise him?
Eshtokin (Second Secretary of Oblast Committee in 1959 – Komsomolskaya Pravda journalists identifying his position) could well be such a person, or that might be anyone else, even Kirilenko himself (First Secretary of Oblast Committee – Komsomolskaya Pravda journalists identifying his position).
By the way, Kirilenko was later transferred to Moscow.
In what concerned the autopsy, I remember it was mentioned that one of us had to be present in the morgue.
I also remember well that Klinov said we would do everything ourselves.
– I was pleasantly surprised to see the name of Eshtokin in the case.
After Sverdlovsk, Eshtokin worked in Kemerovo as the First Secretary of the Oblast Committee.
I reported to him on several concrete cases.
But now, tell me why, after the snow melted away, there was no repeated examination of the incident scene carried out?
As you know, repeated examination can bring even more important results.
– When the version of military tests arose, we considered visiting the site one more time, with soldiers, for detailed examination as the snow would be melting away.
We even included the trip in our investigation work plan.
We wanted to make a thorough study of rags (clothes, tent), and all kinds of expert examination.
But nothing came out of it.
– Why?
– Taboo! No permit.
For that reason no repeated examination was conducted.
– Was it for the same reason that there were no radiation tests on the site, when the last four bodies were found?
– Our investigation team did not conduct site radiation tests.
But such tests had definitely been carried out because after the last four bodies were found, all who had been in contact with the items at the Pass were sent for radiation examination.
But for us, other events were unfolding at that time.
Deputy Federal Prosecutor for Investigations Urakov arrived and immediately asked us to bring him the case. He told us to write the closing statement.
He went to the Oblast committee and took Klinov and Ivanov with him.
When Ivanov cane back he told me that an order was to close the case.
We argued: how can we close it, on which grounds?
There are nine dead bodies in it!
– Yes, the proceedings were instituted on finding of dead bodies!
– Right. But at that moment we knew nothing about radioactive contamination.
We, Ivanov and I, then decided to close the case with regard to organizing a trip, but only suspend proceedings on the case of the dead bodies.
Hoping to continue after a respective permit is obtained.
A bit later I received an express order from Urakov to tell parents it was an accident.
We all then felt something strange about this case.
We suspected this to be something connected either with rockets or some tests.
It was the most we could do and what we really did.
Anyway, the case was already taken away from us.
No doubt, Urakov could have told us, but preferred not to.
Because he himself must have received orders from the Procurator General who, in his turn, executed orders from his superiors.
And it looks like so: all of a sudden, in the midst of investigation, there comes Urakov and closes down all work.
– How long had Ivanov worked as a criminal prosecutor?
– Since early 1954, from the moment this position was created.
– Was he a good investigator?
– I reckon, excellent.
Meticulous and very thorough.
– This explains his appointment.
I understand this as a former criminal prosecutor myself.
But tell me, with your transfer, was there any pressure on you at that time?
– No. They only asked what I thought about a transfer.
And I had no arguments to say no.
Klinov was against my departure, but he had to carry out the Procurator General’s orders.
And so I was transferred to the position of Deputy Head of an Investigation Department.
– Lets get back to Dyatlov pass incident.
Who photographed the bodies at the scene?
– The scene investigator.
I don’t know details how this work was organised, this was done either by himself or someone under his guidance
– And what about weather conditions as of the time of the incident, were they studied?
– Of course! I remember low temperature and piercing wind were mentioned.
There was such a document in the file.
– But it is missing now.
And this is an important point.
– I remember the detailed description of snow, and foot tracks on the slope.
As far as I know, there was a snowfall after the tragedy.
When Ivanov came back from the Pass he gave me a detailed account.
We discussed possible versions together.
It was clear that the Tourists left the tent in a panic and were undressed.
The tent was ripped.
Later Dyatlov, the group leader, was found lying closest to the tent.
And then those dead matches scattered under the cedar tree in attempts to make a fire …
– The closing statement on the case says that the Tourists’ death was caused by forces they were unable to overcome.
What hides behind this phrase?
– (sighs heavily) Whet else would you hear from an investigator when no version has been fully verified?
With any development of the main radioactivity version being simply banned.
Just look: where could radiation come from in the open?!
Only tests, I am sure of that.
Deputy Head of the Investigative Division of Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor's Office Lev Ivanov's supervisor
– This is going to be kind of a personal.
When you get an order to stay away, when it is explained to you that it’s taboo, such words, as a rule, will only arouse interest to what really happened there?
It’s true, the official investigation was closed, but interest in the matter must have remained all the same?
Such is human nature.
– It is exactly for this reason that I got interested in the matter.
Could there be some tests conducted?
I got a clue from some nuclear specialists who mentioned the existence of a nuclear test field in one of the republics in the Caucasus.
But in the late 50s a moratorium was called on nuclear tests*.
Western intelligence agencies knew about that test field and kept an eye on it.
Ivanov and I then suggested that tests might have been moved to the North Urals.
The same mountainous terrain, with neither people, nor inhabited areas for 100-150 kilometers around.
I asked the above nuclear specialist (I don’t remember his name now), do you admit tests could be conducted at the time of the moratorium.
He smiles and says: “look, let’s not discuss that, I have no right to talk about such things”.
* In 1958, the USSR, USA and Great Britain entered into a nuclear weapons testing moratorium which was observed during 1959, 1960 and the first six months of 1961 until in the middle of 1961 it was violated by Khrushchev.
– Maybe he refused to talk because he himself participated in violating the moratorium?
There was a situation when, at one stage, I stood at the head of a group investigating events in 1993.
In particular, we investigated the Ostankino incident in which many people were killed.
Reportedly, first there was a shot made from a grenade gun, and then the Special forces (original “Knights” group) started shooting at people.
When we examined the scene we understood that there was no shooting from a grenade gun. If it were so, this would have caused much greater destruction.
A “Knights” man was killed then, he was posthumously awarded the Title of Hero of Russia.
Then we drew specialists into our investigation.
Once when we relaxed and had a drink together, a specialist from the Ministry of the Interior suddenly says, “you know I was in Ostankino at that time, and I know of the death of a soldier from an explosion of some special weapon.
The said “Knights” had just come back from the North Caucasus bringing their special weapons with them.
I know what had exploded there but cannot tell you what”.
When I tried to press on him to tell more, he refused point-blank.
Just can’t talk, and that’s that!
But let’s get back to the Dyatlov theme.
At a glance the case suggests a complex set of questions; there is no case number, it lacks expert examination reports and other procedural instruments.
It is unclear who investigated the matter.
Tempalov initiates the investigation and then we see him being interrogated himself.
How can that be?
I have a feeling that case papers had been thoroughly “tidied up”.
– Sure!
It can’t be called a criminal case in the full sense of the word, it is only scraps left over and raising no suspicion.
No conclusion can be based on such fragments.
Hackwork, nothing else.
An awful example of an investigation case.
It’s worlds different from what we had done then, like night and day.
– But there is an inventory list for the case compiled by Ivanov!
Does it mean that Ivanov was making a list of an already sanitized case?
– He did what his superiors told him to do, and the case had to look exactly so.
What else could he do?
– But there’s also the Oblast Prosecutor’s signature under the statement.
Was he aware of its content?
It might well be that he just signed without looking.
– Oh no.
We finalized the text of the statement together.
We were both bound hand and foot.
All we had to do is close the case, having nine dead bodies left and without knowledge of what had caused their deaths.
We go to prosecutor Klinov and ask him, do you agree to close the case the way we are doing it, putting the blame on the administration for negligence?
He only lifts hands in dismay: there’s no alternative.
I can only add this; should I meet such an investigator in another situation, I would kick him out for a statement like this.
Dead bodies in the case, and the blame for them being put on the people having absolutely no relation to them.
Can you imagine how painful it was for Ivanov and me to carry out Urakov’s order?
At the height of the work we get a slap on the wrist.
Klinov calls us and says; round it off, orders must be executed, without discussion.
It was at that moment that we put in this phrase about a “compelling elemental force”.
– I read in reminiscences that on 25 February one of the fliers saw a tent at the pass, and that practically near it, two bodies lay in the snow.
One of them had long black hair, presumably it was a woman.
– I am a former flier myself and I know well how one may be visually mistaken.
Once, when I was getting near the airfield, looking down from the altitude of 300 m (the first approach circle) I had a feeling that we were at 10 metres, not 300.
Low enough to jump down! Such was the illusion.
I therefore suggest that the flier might be mistaken in his eye estimation of the distance between bodies and tent.
– I wonder about one thing.
From the first moments of the search there are 5 to 6 radio-telegrams every day filed in the case.
But exactly on the 25th when the flier had reportedly seen the dead bodies, there are none.
While the same are present for the 24th and 26 th.
How can that be?
– I don’t remember such details.
– Back to radioactivity.
I am sure the terrain was then checked for radiological contamination.
But that was done outside the framework of this particular criminal case.
– Of course!
– Because at that time the word “radiation” itself was pronounced ... with awe!
– And not just this.
Suppose there had been some tests, then every piece of evidence had to be cleared out.
Prompt measures had to be taken.
I wouldn’t exclude some special orders coming from the top.
And the same top people might have introduced their amendments.
Ivanov and I came to understand this when the question of secrecy arose.
So, our theory concerning presence of a test field may appear to be true.
– Tell me, in your days as an Investigator, can you name any other criminal cases taken for investigation from the Sverdlovsk Oblast to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s office, or even that of the USSR?
– No, nothing of the kind.
In my long practice the Dyatlov case was the only one ever taken to Moscow.
We can only guess how much importance was attached to it.”
Afterwards lawyer Proshkin told us about his impressions of the meeting with Okishev:
Former criminal prosecutor and now a laywer Leonid Proshkin
I am sure Evgeny Fyodorovich has told us almost all he remembered.
But still there was something he kept back.
As a former criminal prosecutor myself I asked him many procedural questions.
He gave clear-cut answers, adding details, but when I asked him why the case had no number, he looked slightly at a loss and could not give a definite answer.
There is not a single document in the case that could point to who was carrying out the investigation.
That is, we have Ivdel prosecutor Tempalov instituting the criminal proceedings.
And that is clear. Some investigative actions are carried out by Ivdel investigator Korotaev.
And that is clear, too.
Although he must have been included in the investigation team, and the case should have carried some notice of that.
But there is none.
Furthermore, the investigation on the case is being carried out by Oblast criminal prosecutor Ivanov.
That makes sense, but is such be the case that he takes over further processing, there must be notice of him being included in the investigation team, while the latter, judging from the documents in the file, had not been formed at all (!).
Note, the case was under control of the Federal or even the USSR Prosecutor’s office.
There was attention to it at the regional party committee level, too.
It is worth noting that at that time the party committee was the top administrative organ in the Oblast.
Therefore such procedural omissions are absolutely unexplainable.
Or rather, they may be explained by one fact: the whole case is a fake.
And one more interesting aspect.
The Ivdel prosecutor opens up and then investigates the case.
Then he gets interrogated as a witness, and after that continues the investigative actions.
This is not permissible, absolutely.
A person can never appear as a prosecutor, an investigator and a witness at one and the same time.
I got an impression that as the investigation was going on everything had been clear well beforehand.
People continued working but someone else had already decided that all necessary materials would be extracted to another case, leaving the remaining part as a dummy.
The more so, there is one curious procedural moment to which Evgeny Fyodorovich has given a good answer.
Here we have an order on institution of criminal proceedings into the fact of the deaths of the Dyatlov group.
But the order on closing down the investigation refers not to the death of people but to neglectful bureaucratic actions of the UPI workers.
It also mentions that the Tourists had become victims of an unnamed force.
Okishev wrote those lines together with Ivanov, the closing statement was approved by the Oblast Public Prosecutor Klinov.
In answer to my question about such formulation he said, “We realized that it was wrong to close the case this way.
The death of the Tourists had remained under-investigated but we had no alternative”.
I understand and am absolutely sure that prosecutors of that time would not have written SUCH a statement for no particular reason.
They deserve credit because they did not fear to write such a statement and did not write lies.
While they had been under pressure, there is no doubt about it.

#20169 Tragedia na Przełęczy Diatłowa (1/2 luty 1959 r.)

Napisano przez fortyck w 08 listopad 2018 - 21:01 w Ogólne




«We were told to say that they were killed in an accident»
Interview with Evgeniy Okishev who supervised the investigation into the death of tourists in the mountains of the Northern Urals in 1959. 
This interview is very important as it covers the basis of the officially recorded conversation between him and him and Senior investigator and forensic expert Vladimir Nikolaevich Solovyev as part of the preliminary inquiry of the Investigative Committee for grounds to reopen the Dyatlov Pass case.
This will be explained in more details in the articles that will follow after this one.
All rights belong to Komsomolskaya Pravda 15-Aug-2013
The Ural events of 1959 still haunt the former prosecutor Evgeniy Okishev. He is confident that the tourists were victims of military tests.
Correspondents "Komsomolskaya Pravda" continue to investigate the secrets of the Dyatlov Pass, looking for new witnesses of those fatal events.
Recall that in the winter of 1959, nine tourists led by Igor Dyatlov disappeared in the mountains of the Northern Urals.
A month later, rescuers discovered their cut tent.
And within a radius of one and a half kilometers from it - five frozen bodies.
The bodies of the rest were found only in May.
Almost all the tourists were barefoot and half-dressed.
Some have fatal injuries.
It is still not solved why the hikers ran away to the bitter cold and their doom.
Evgeniy Fyodorovich is now 94 years.
Lives abroad.
We will not specify where, in order to save the veteran from private investigators.
Despite his advanced age, Evgeniy Fyodorovich remembers those events very well, because in his prosecutor’s practice the case of the death of Dyatlov group became the most mysterious.
In 1959, Evgeniy Okishev was the Deputy Chief of the Investigation Department of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Sverdlovsk Region.
This is what he remembers.
– When it became clear that the tourists had died, we organised an investigation team under the direction of criminal prosecutor Lev Ivanov, and I was appointed to supervise their work.
The impression of the examination of the tent, with its cuts and remains of food inside, was that the tourists had just sat down to supper and suddenly felt panic that made them all rush out.
We tried to collect more facts about the Pass.
We learned that the location was a sacred site of the Mansi, and that women were not allowed to go there.
Since the tourists’ group included two girls, the Mansi were the first we suspected.
However this version was soon discarded.
– How did you follow on this version? What made you discard it?
– I called the Ivdel district prosecutor and asked him to find a literate Mansi, an activist with whom I could talk.
So, when I came to Ivdel, there were already three Mansi men coming there at the prosecutor’s request, one of them a quite literate person, People’s Deputy to the Regional Council.
I had booked a room for the three of them at an Ivdel hotel.
But they refused to stay in it.
They preferred to sleep outside, in the snow, with their dogs.
This is how the Deputy (Mansi) explained it to me: “I ride my sledge dogs even when I go to attend a session of the Regional Council, and I always sleep with them because I feel it hard to stay indoors”.
We talked with him about the Mansi and their traditions.
He asserted that the place where the tourists died was in no way sacred.
On the contrary, any Russian appearing among them would be looked upon as something divine.
People would try to touch such a person, make him their guest, as this holds good promise to all.
It was absolutely clear from his behavior that the man was telling the truth.
After this talk the assassination by Mansi theory became irrelevant.
But the question of panic remained.
It is worth noting that, for some reason or other, the two men that were found in the forest under the cedar tree had been trying to make a fire for quite a long time: the proof to that was a great number of dead matches found scattered around.
Do you remember this for sure, had there really been dead matches?
– Absolutely, matches were also mentioned in the on-site inspection report.
In a month’s time matches should have been covered with snow?
– I believe the inspection report.
(The copy of criminal case in the Sverdlovsk archives doesn't mention matches.
So, this is one more mystery of the Dyatlov Pass. - ed. note)
Search operation in May 1959
Why was the military involved in the search?
– This was on our request.
And there were reasons for that.
Shortly before that we met with a worker of one of the prison camps in the North Urals.
He described strange flashes of light which he and his wife saw late that evening on their way home from the cinema.
The light came from the direction of the supposed accident with the tourists.
We also received evidence from other local residents, and all of them spoke about a similar phenomenon, all testimonies were entered on our records of interrogation.
We got a suspicion of existence of a military test field somewhere around, could that be true? Could flashes be caused by a failed rocket launch that had killed the tourists?
But, again, there is no such record in the criminal case! So, what happened then?
– A group of the military under the command, if I am not mistaken, of Colonel Artyukov, arrived.
I talked to him, and he convinced me that no such facilities were nearby and no possibility of missile launches.
But, there was one instance that put us on the alert.
When the last bodies were found later in May, an order came to collect all items found at the pass and send them for radiological examination.
Also, all people who had been in contact with the things found in the tent and nearby were ordered to undergo body counting.
So it was done, but neither a reassuring, nor any other results were made known to us.
And again, the fact of some secret military tests being held was coming to mind.
We applied with a letter signed by the Oblast Prosecutor to either the Prosecutor General of the USSR or the Federal – I don’t remember exactly now – asking to explain what really we were investigating into?
And how it was related to radiation?
Could it be so that even the top commandant of the Urals Military District knew nothing of any tests of armaments held there?
In response to our letter, Deputy Prosecutor General, comrade Urakov came to meet with us and gave orders that we were to all tell anyone who asked that the tourists’ death was an accident.
Urakov evaded all our direct questions about tests of armaments.
I mean, he did not deny this version, but simply avoided direct answers.
What’s more, Urakov took absolutely no interest in the course of our investigation, as if the picture of the scene was absolutely clear to him already.
He, however, took the case away with him.
With that, our investigation came to an end.
Just imagine: at the very height of the investigation, when dead bodies with strange injuries have just been found, the case is being taken away!
And I clearly remember when we were signing our letter in the office of Oblast Prosecutor Klinov, he himself asked in doubt whether we had omitted something and had not fully checked one or the other evidence?
We told him that if the top officials discard the military incident version, then all is left to us is to consider other possible versions.
He found our considerations convincing, and signed the letter.
But, again, the reaction from Moscow was such that our suppositions of a military involvement had been neither confirmed nor disproved...
What is your opinion, why Urakov ordered everybody to say that was an accident?
– It was, obviously, an order from the Central Committee of the CPSU .
Deputy Head of the Investigative Division of the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor's Office, Lev Ivanov's supervisor
Was it possible that other structures did parallel investigations into this case: the KGB, for example, or some other agency?
– I think they had been involved, really, only I was not let in on that.
The KGB investigators must have been attracted. Such was the usual practice then.
I can even suppose that while we sweated over fact-finding they had already known more – with their powers.
We have recently got through to the then head of the KGB Investigative department for Sverdlovsk Oblast.
The officer’s answer was “we were not engaged in that case, definitely”.
He, however, refused to meet with us in person.
– So much for their involvement: why did he refuse to meet with you if the KGB had reportedly not been involved?
Why then should he fear to repeat that to you openly?
It may well be that his department had really had a hand in the investigation.
This is the function of investigators of the Committee (KGB – transl.). Such was their top secret activity.
And your interlocutor had simply no right to discuss their work with you.
Lets say the tragedy was caused by some tests.
From the very beginning the KGB performed their own investigation into the case.
They quickly find out that, say, the plane had dropped the bomb in a wrong place.
A disgrace at government level that must be concealed by all means.
It may well be that it was decided to bury the worst injured bodies in four meters deep snow in hope to find some better solution before they are found.
Meanwhile the case was assigned to a civilian investigating office, which, on Urakov’s instruction, would file the case away in storage as an accident …
– We can suppose many things here, but I prefer not to, in the absence of facts.
According to eyewitnesses, when the last bodies were found, prosecutor Ivanov’s behaviour changed abruptly.
He looked depressed and in despair.
Could this change be related to Urakov’s order to write it all off to an accident?
– I don’t know what to relate it to.
We, Ivanov and I, were in a very difficult situation then.
Parents of the young people came to my office, some of them cried and called us fascists trying to hide the truth from them.
I lost sleep after such charges.
But could tell them nothing beside what I was instructed to tell by my superiors.
Just imagine the situation; mother or father of a student in my office.
They come crying, saying they had lost their only son, or daughter.
Like you want to ignore it altogether, don’t do any real investigation, allude to an accident.
We told them it might be an earthquake, a storm or anything like that … But look, what else could we tell them?
We knew absolutely nothing ourselves.
Parents wrote letters to the authorities at all levels, I think, to Khrushchev too, asking for investigation to be continued.
The investigation was nevertheless closed – not on our initiative.
Many people mentioned the unusual red color of skin of the deceased.
– Yes, the skin color was really unusual.
Ivanov mentioned this in his report to me.
Who else would have known such things if not him, a war veteran and a criminal investigator, he had seen many people frozen to death before.
But nothing like this, ever.
So what could have happened to them?
– I have a strong suspicion, after all those expert examinations (particularly after the radiation analysis made by some order from the top authorities), that there had been tests of some secret weapon or a launch failure.
By that time the USSR and the USA had signed the test-ban and nuclear weapons production cut-back treaty.
New extra-power devices needed to be created.
It may well be that due to special secrecy, tests were conducted at locations unknown to the enemy.
The students might have walked into a test area and got injured by fragments of a missile or something of the kind.
Right, and forensic expert Vozrozhdenny, too, described heavy injuries as if bodies had been hit by an automobile.
So, talking of rocket fragments, where could they have disappeared?
– The military might have collected them.
And where could the notebooks of some of the tourists have gone?
Also the film strips from the tourists’ cameras?
– You are putting me in an awkward position.
I would then have to disclose our work methods.
There could be anything; withdrawal of documents, other material evidence.
Anything that might expose, unfavorably, the involvement of the top authorities had to be destroyed.
But, at the same time, a few undeveloped films were found left in the tent, and you took them.
The military, or whoever else, could not have left a film so you could find it; it could carry shots of armament tests.
– It may as well be that no orders were given to doctor the films.
The thought is important to take away shrapnels as the most compromizing evidnece.
I also admit those people had been in a big hurry and overlooked some details.
And could it be this way; the KGB officers develop a film and understand there is nothing special on it.
Then they superimpose the developed film on the undeveloped one and after exposure obtain a “negative-positive”, develop the second film and again superimpose it on the third one.
After exposure the third film presents an exact copy of the original film.
This last copy may be loaded back into the camera, and now let the investigator develop it...
– I don’t know how much technically feasible this could be, but it is a fact that the KGB could work miracles in those years.
Let me tell you one story.
In summer of the same year 1959 Richard Nixon comes to the USSR and visits Sverdlovsk.
And there, in Sverdlovsk he asks: May I visit the Beloyarskaya nuclear station construction site.
The people who escort him are at a loss; not just myself, but even much higher authorities did not know anything about construction of a nuclear power station in Beloyarka.
How could Nixon know about that? And what to do?
At last, after consultations with Moscow, the permit is given. So he goes there with a crowd of his journalists.
The KGB people somehow manage to arrange it so that not one of them photographs anything.
God knows how they did it, closed the lens with their bodies, or what.
Nixon photographed too, and who would dare to obstruct the lens for him?
He took quite a few shots of different secret facilities.
However on the same night his escort persuades Nixon to visit the Russian steam baths, where, needless to say, all steam room attendants happen to undercover KGB officers.
So while some attended to him in the steam bath, others spoiled all his films.
I heard that later he felt much upset.
In some sources we read that in the fifties, after Beria’s old guard people were dissolved, the KGB men were no good at all: mostly green and cowed.
– Right, different people could be met in this service then: Baboons after hardly six classes at school, and true professionals as well.
It is said that had there been any cover-up of the events at the Pass it must have involved many people, and later someone would inevitably have spoken up.
But no such testimonies have been made so far …
– But who knows the destinies of, for example, the military men who participated in the search?
You don’t? I don’t know either.
What has happened to colonel Artyukov, do you know?
As far as we know, he soon died of cancer.
– There now, make your own conclusions …
Case file receipt

















#20161 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 07 listopad 2018 - 10:37 w Jean-Michel Jarre

Do you feel watched?


Family watching television, circa 1958. 




#ArtificialIntelligence #EQUINOXEINFINITY #Wearewatchingyou#watchers #machinesarelearning


(Original Source: Evert F. Baumgardner, National Archives and Records Administration/Wikimedia)



















Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/

#20154 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 06 listopad 2018 - 20:33 w Jean-Michel Jarre

Thanks for all the great feedback on ROBOTS DON'T CRY.


I really appreciate it.




Remember you can win a signed copy of the album Test Pressing following this link -



















Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/

#20153 Tragedia na Przełęczy Diatłowa (1/2 luty 1959 r.)

Napisano przez fortyck w 06 listopad 2018 - 20:27 w Ogólne

Тайна раскрыта? 


Перевал Дятлова


#20151 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 05 listopad 2018 - 21:21 w Jean-Michel Jarre

Just stopped by at Zenith on my way to Belgium to salute David Byrne and attend his fantastic show.


A rare moment of perfection!




















Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/

#20144 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 05 listopad 2018 - 10:15 w Jean-Michel Jarre

First composed this track for this album, before I played it at the Coachella Festival in the summer of 2018: I thought that this piece would be a great opening-track for my festival-appearance and for my US-tour.


Actually, that led me to work on the live-version before I recorded the studio-version with a different approach.


So, both pieces are related to each other, but they are not exactly the same.


For the studio album I went back to my original idea, which is kind of a momentum where a huge gate is opening onto something & somewhere else - Watchers opening doors onto virgin territories, the future being virgin territory for us.


'The Opening', was never meant to be the opening for the album but more as a passage to a next stage.


Pre-order Equinoxe Infinity here:





















Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/

#20138 Erich von Däniken - info i aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 04 listopad 2018 - 12:30 w Erich von Däniken

Ladies and Gentlemen,


Welcome to our RAMAR X-File prologue episode featuring Erich von Däniken.


In the future we will post weekly a new mystery based on facts.


RAMAR stands for: Research of Ancient Mysteries and Anomalies for Reevaluation Let's discover the mysterious facts!


We're about the smoking gun.


Stay tuned with us if you are tired watching xy documentations and you don't anymore know which information is true and coming from a reliable source.


You can trust us, because we don't claim we are right or know the truth, we just research and evaluate the facts existing about the mysteries, then we present you the facts.


No long blabla and hours of prose without structure.


RAMAR has a structured system and the information is distilled to bring up and show the points which really count.


Have an inspiring fine time.






Subscribe here:


Visit our website:


Submitt a mystery based on facts on our website:


Submitt a comment, question or information on our website:


Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook...pages/catego...

#20132 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 03 listopad 2018 - 22:54 w Jean-Michel Jarre

Machines are learning, 1952 (Original Source NASA) 


#EquinoxeInfinity #Wearewatchingyou #Watchers





















Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/

#20128 Tragedia na Przełęczy Diatłowa (1/2 luty 1959 r.)

Napisano przez fortyck w 03 listopad 2018 - 22:33 w Ogólne

Перевал Дятлова - Навстречу гибели


#20126 Tragedia na Przełęczy Diatłowa (1/2 luty 1959 r.)

Napisano przez fortyck w 02 listopad 2018 - 22:03 w Ogólne



Court’s decision from 8/31/2018 to refuse the application to reopen the case
2 Tecknichesky Pereulok, Moscow
Russia 105005
31.08.2018 No. OTKP-214/1-20530-18/7254
Moscow Bar Association
M A Firsova
L G Proshkina
G L Proshkin Flat 5, 30 3rd Parkovaya St, Moscow 105264
Dear Maria Alexandrovna, Leonid Georgievich and Georgiy Leonodovich,
The Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation examined your complaints dated 20th July 2018 and 17th August 2018 regarding the unsatisfactory investigation (unnumbered case) into the tragic death of nine tourists headed by a student of the Ural Polytechnic Institute IA Dyatlov which happened in February 1959 in Ivdel District, Sverdlovsk Region.
Following your application we studied the case materials and the investigation materials, prepared by the Communist Party authorities from the Sverdlovsk Region which were forwarded to the Central Committee of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) in 1959 as well as other documents.
The criminal case was initiated on 26th February 1959 by the Prosecutor for the town of Ivdel, Mr VI Tempalov upon the discovery of the corpses of student tourists in the mountains at an altitude of 1079m in the Ivdel District, Sverdlovsk Region.
The case was terminated on 28th May 1959 by the prosecutor for the Sverdlovsk Region, LN Ivanov on the grounds of Article 4, Part 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) (version of the RSFSR Criminal Procedure Code as in force in 1923).
During the original investigation it was found that the group of students of the Ural Polytechnic Institute (UPI) dedicated their expedition to the XXI Congress of the CPSU.
The participants were to ski at least 300 km along the northern part of the Sverdlovsk Region and to reach two peaks in the Northern Urals: Otorten and Oika-Chakur.
On 23rd January 1959 10 amateur skiers started their expedition along the route: Sverdlovsk - Ivdel - 2nd Severniy Village - Mount Otorten - Mount OikaChakur - Northern Toshemka River – Vizhay village - Ivdel - Sverdlovsk. The group included: Igor Dyatlov, a student of the Ural Polytechnic Institute and head of the group; LA Dubinina, ZA Kolmogorova, AS Kolevatov, Yu E Yudin, Yu N Doroshenko, they were the UPI students; AA Zolotarev - Instructor from the Kourovsky tourist base, RV Slobodin, Yu G Krivonischenko, NV TiboBrignol - engineers from Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk (Yu E Yudin returned to Sverdlovsk due to illness at the initial stage of the expedition).
The order for the termination of the case states: “Based on the diary entries, sketches of the route and developed films, it was found that on 28.01.1959 the group went up along the Lozva river; the group continued moving on 30.01.59, on 31.01.59 the group came to the Auspia river where they tried to get through to the Lozva river valley, however due to the low temperature and strong wind they were forced to go back down and stop for the night.
On 01.02.59, the tourists built a storage facility at the upper reaches of the Auspia river where they left some food supplies and all excess equipment.
Later it was established that moving towards the fourth tributary of the Lozva River, the group took 500- 600 meters to the left and instead of the going through the pass formed by peaks 1079 and 880, they reached the eastern slope of peak 1079.
It follows from the case materials that on 1st February 1959 the group members pitched a tent on the slope of peak 1079 at around 5 pm in bad weather conditions that were unfavorable for staying the night.
The court resolution noted that the members of the group were preparing for the night “in strong wind conditions, which was typical for that area and low temperatures of about -25-30 °C....
No recordings or photographs were found after that time.”
On 12th February 1959 the group leader Igor Dyatlov was to telegraph the UPI Sports Club and the Physical Education Committee about their arrival in the village of Vizhay.
The search began on 20th February 1959, when the UPI sent a search team along Dyatlov’s route, followed by several more groups.
Later soldiers and officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, airplanes and civil and military helicopters were involved in the search.
On 25th February 1959 Boris Slobtsov, his search partner Mikhail Sharavin and hunter Ivan Pashin discovered the tent, which was located on the northeast slope of Mount Holatchakhl (height of 1079 m) and positioned at an angle of 30° to the mountain slope.
According to the case materials, “The location and the presence of items in the tent (almost all shoes, all outerwear, personal belongings and diaries) indicated that the tent was abandoned suddenly by everyone, it was established later in the forensic examination, that the leeward side of the tents where the tourists had their heads was cut from the inside in two places in such a way that made possible for a person to leave the tent freely”.
On 26th February the searchers from the Slobtsov’s group found the bodies of Krivonischenko and Doroshenko.
At the same time, the Mansi hunters found the body of Igor Dyatlov.
The same evening, the body of Zinaida Kolmogorova was found by a search dog.
On 5th March, 180 meters from the place where Dyatlov's body was found, the corpse of Rustem Slobodin was discovered.
In March 1959, due to poor weather conditions, the search was suspended and resumed in May 1959.
The bodies of Lyudmila Dubinina, Tibo-Brignol, Kolevatov and Zolotarev were found under a layer of snow 2-2.5 m thick.
At the time of the discovery report, all the corpses were in the water and were described as decomposed.
The decree for the case termination stated: “A forensic examination established that Dyatlov, Doroshenko, Krivonischenko, Kolevatova and Kolmogorov died from low temperature (froze), none of them had injuries, aside from minor scratches and abrasions.
Slobodin had a fracture to the skull 6 cm long, which increased to 0.1 m, but Slobodin died from freezing”.
The crack in Slobodin’s skull could be caused due to brain enlargement during freezing.
“Dubinina, Tibo-Brignol and Zolotarev’s deaths resulted from multiple injuries.
Dubinina had a symmetrical fracture of the ribs: 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the right and 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 on the left and an extensive hemorrhage in the heart.
The presence of the injuries on the corpses is consistent with the idea of the people falling from height while trying to save themselves.
The investigation did not establish the presence of other people in the area that height on 1079 on 1st or 2nd February 1959, except for the Dyatlov’s group.
According to the ‘Report for the Results of the Death Investigation of the Sverdlovsk Tourists’ dated 23rd March 1959 which was forwarded to the Central Committee of the CPSU, “it is clear from the diaries that the weather was gradually getting worse during those days - the wind increased and the temperature dropped to -25°. According to the Ivdel weather station the weather in the mountains was -30-35°С and the wind reached 25-35m/s the night of 1st - 2nd February”.
The study of the case materials revealed that the most likely reason for the death of the tourists could be a confluence of adverse circumstances and the violation of safety rules in difficult conditions of mountainous terrain (temperatures ranging from -30 to -35°C, a snowstorm with a wind speed of 25-35 m/sec., darkness and the location of the tent on a steep slope).
Panic among the people could have occurred due to an avalanche and snow falling on the tent.
The death of all nine people occurred from frostbite and injuries caused by falling from height.
There is no data supporting the presence of man-made factors associated with the death of the tourists in the case.
The case materials indicate that the death of the people from an attack by unknown persons, animals or conflicts within the group were ruled out.
Given the above, there are no grounds for resuming the preliminary investigation.
The decision to terminate the criminal case dated 28th May 1959 on the grounds of Article 4 Part 5 of the RSFSR Criminal Procedure Code 1923 (ld 384 - 387) was made by the Prosecutor L.N. Ivanov in coordination with the Deputy Head of the Investigative Department of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office, EF Okishev and approved by the Prosecutor for Sverdlovsk Region? N.I. Klinov.
Considering that the decision to terminate the criminal case was made by the prosecuting authorities, and the criminal case was not transferred to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, the above decision can only be overruled by the prosecutor or the court in accordance with Articles 37 and 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
Your complaints dated 21st November 2014 and 18th February 2015 were not officially registered or considered by the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation.
Deputy Head of the Forensic Science Department A I Sazonov
Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation 2 Tecknichesky Pereulok, Moscow, Russia
105005 BLA-51-1/27
Mail of Russia
Bar code 111767 27 01332 9
Leonid Georgievich Proshkin
Flat 5, 30 3rd Parkovaya St, Moscow 105264 
No. OTKP-214/1-20530-18/7254


















#20123 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 02 listopad 2018 - 20:36 w Jean-Michel Jarre

Experience “Robot’s Don’t Cry” now here 




















Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/

#20122 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 02 listopad 2018 - 20:33 w Jean-Michel Jarre

Robots Don´t Cry is the track I get asked about most in Interviews.


It really seems to leave an impression on people.


So I wanted to make sure you also get to listen to it sooner rather than later.


Here it is. 


Full video on Youtube: and


Audio on all streaming plattforms: 


Don't forget to pre-save the album:


















Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/

#20121 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 02 listopad 2018 - 20:32 w Jean-Michel Jarre

Here is another video clip we created for Planet Jarre.


This one is for Heart of Noise from the Electronica Record.


I hope you like it.


Watch it now on YouTube ►





















Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/

#20106 Jean-Michel Jarre - aktualności

Napisano przez fortyck w 31 październik 2018 - 12:09 w Jean-Michel Jarre

Today we release the final Episode of the "Planet Jarre - The Podcast"


Podcast with a bonus about "Sounds of Oxygene".


Thanks again Matt Berry for the fun conversations and the time you took to visit me in Paris.


For everyone listening - I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.


If there is anything else you are keen to know, maybe we can continue this series.


Please let me know in the comments what you thought of it. 
























Żródło: https://www.facebook...eanmicheljarre/