int unfureau(int time, int * slot);

At the some exibition held in Keiv, Ukraine it seams yet in 1995, an author of these lines met expert whos job to define origins of tapes, and other magnetic medias (disketes for example). Magnetic tape recorder (magnetophone) when make records on a tape, make a magnetic trace or traces by its magnetic head. This trace is a desposition of magnetic field on a surface of a tape.

At the picture you can see dust of magnetic material kept by the magnetic field of complex magnet at the places where magnetic field is stronger. To see the picture of magnetic field of the tape used another matherial which change its transparency according to magnetic field.

A magnetic head of tape recorder leaves trace on tape as a paint which make a trace by hand of painter. This trace is individual for the each magnetic head and its physical preset. Any stop of tape during record are also observable at the trace even if they are not hearable on record. Such examination allow to watch possible removes from speach important for context fragments.

It is also possible to study taperecorder with record on a subject, are they made with same, recorder. So magnetophonical dictaphone together with tape may be a source of protocol and expert conclusion which together may be an evidence in court. But what if a dictaphone is digital, which recordes sound on absolutely different principle, could Ukraine make expertise of such record?

When the tape scandal was begun was made expertice not the digital record, but the magnetophonic copy. Surely it was mastered and surely it was not original record. Could expertise of magnetophonic copy prove or reject possible manipulations in tapes of Melnichenko? Farther more could Ukraine at all make expertise on a subject of possible stylistic, syntactic and other manipulations in records of Melnichenko? The only stylistic expertise conducted in Russia was unique. Also there were a lot subjective opinions, for example it is clear why needed original tape, but it is not clear why it was asked original memory cheap from tape recorder. (May be to work at those who'll ask, - why?)

What if what spoke President Kuchma means not what as it was undertude after publication of records? If so participiant of conspiracy must be someone of those who spoke with the President, and may be a figurant of tapes.

Expertises of tapes were made in Netherlands and USA, which told about autenticity of tapes. Ukraine did not realized those expert conclusions. So if those who organized tape scandal and/or recording in presidental office was familiar with abilities of expertise in Ukraine they surely knew about inability to be evidences for records of Melnichenko.