Dyatlov Pass Forum

Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: tekumze on May 06, 2019, 08:01:30 AM

Title: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 06, 2019, 08:01:30 AM
Does anybody knows on this forum, what are conclusions of the official investigation of reopening case? If there is any official conclusion at all until now.
Thank you for any answer.
Best regards to all of you.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Teddy on May 06, 2019, 08:12:58 AM
The case hasn't been reopened. This is preliminary investigation and the Prosecutors office is not obliged to publicly report of its actions, findings and conclusions.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Clacon on May 06, 2019, 08:32:16 AM
The expedition to the site for the preliminary investigation is over, right?

Do you think they will release anything?
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 06, 2019, 08:47:28 AM
The expedition to the site for the preliminary investigation is over, right?

Do you think they will release anything?


The answer to the DPI lies within archives not with expeditions....
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Clacon on May 06, 2019, 09:01:44 AM
This is a good point Nigel - however, some archival evidence has been lost (tent), some may be inaccurate and some may not even have been released yet.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 06, 2019, 09:38:18 AM
This is a good point Nigel - however, some archival evidence has been lost (tent), some may be inaccurate and some may not even have been released yet.


It's my opinion that the case was understood by the Soviet hierarchy in 1959. This was also Okishev's view. Keith McCloskey has a good analysis of this in Journey to dyatlov pass. I'll post it when I'm at my laptop.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 06, 2019, 10:07:53 AM
How come suddenly:The case hasn't been reopened?
On Feb. 1, Russia’s Prosecutor General’s Office announced that it was reopening an investigation into a cold case that has stumped Russians for more than 60 years.
Firstly, it is being moved from the regional branch of the Investigative Committee to the federal branch.
Andrei Kuryakov, an official at the Sverdlovsk region prosecutor’s office, said at a press conference on Feb. 4 that the state prosecutor’s office has requested all documents relating directly or indirectly to the case.
If the prosecution is not obliged to publicly report  then I do not see any sense in the preliminary investigation.
And everything is exactly at the same point as it was 60 years ago. Looks like I missed something...


Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 06, 2019, 11:46:15 AM
Interview with Okishev - http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=290.msg2011#msg2011
Keith McCloskey's opinion :-
The interview with Evgeny Okishev shows that when the last four bodies were finally found, it was apparent that something very unusual had happened. However, the question must be asked – did they know anything before the arrival of Deputy Prosecutor General Urakov from Moscow? He (Okishev) mentions the fact that Klinov was present at the autopsies of the first five bodies in Ivdel and points out that this was highly unusual, particularly as Ivdel is 400 miles away from Sverdlovsk (644km). Why would Klinov have felt the need to go up there while the autopsies were being carried out, unless he had previous knowledge of some kind? Whilst Okishev was being fairly open in his interview with the Komsomolskaya Pravda journalists and his discussion with Leonid Proshkin, Proshkin himself points out that he felt Okishev was holding something back. In particular he mentioned the lack of a case number which supports the view that the real case file is elsewhere and that the one for public consumption is just a dummy as has long been suspected by many observers of the Dyatlov story. The arrival in Sverdlovsk of the Deputy General Prosecutor of the USSR - Deputy Prosecutor General Urakov is of great significance. The fact that one of the most powerful men in the Soviet legal system arrives from Moscow to deal with an accident to nine skiers and takes away the case files with him seems highly unusual. He appears to have no interest in what they had to tell him about the course of the investigation and before he leaves, he instructs them (Klinov, Okishev and Ivanov) to say that the deaths were due to an accident. It is worth repeating here what Okishev said about Urakov’s visit; 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! Okishev also says that in all his years as a prosecutor, this was the only one which involved a high ranking official arriving from Moscow and taking the case away with him. Would the second most powerful man in the Soviet legal system have bothered to travel from Moscow to Sverdlovsk if the Dyatlov group had died in an avalanche? A simple murder case involving locals? A wind vortex of some kind causing them to wander down the mountain to their deaths? Murder by escaped prisoners or locals (Mansi) etc, etc? It would have been more or less an open and shut case of murder or death by misadventure. Urakov reported directly to the chief prosecutor of the USSR, Procurator General, Roman Rudenko. Rudenko was from the Ukraine and not a man known for tender mercies. He had been the chief Soviet prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials and was the chief prosecutor in the trial of pilot Gary Powers. He had also been commandant of NKVD (The forerunners of the KGB) Special Camp No 7 at Weesow (later moved to Sachenhausen) where approximately 12,500 German prisoners and people sentenced by Soviet military tribunals, died of malnutrition and disease. Rudenko was also the judge who handed down the death sentence to former secret police chief, Lavrenti Beria at his trial. With people like this in the background, it can be understood that Ivanov, Okishev and Klinov and the local Sverdlovsk Communist Party hierarchy would be keen to be seen to follow orders.

McCloskey, Keith. Journey to Dyatlov Pass: An Explanation of the Mystery (pp. 170-172). Keith McCloskey. Kindle Edition.


 

Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 07, 2019, 05:07:04 AM
Thank you Nigel.
Maybe I'm the only person who thinks that since 1959 to this day, everything is the same game, and nothing has changed. In fact, nobody has any interest in closing this case definitely and for ever. Who actually works the fool from who? First they officially announce the reopening of the case with great pomp. Then after two months, when everyone expects at least some statement, we have found that in fact the case hasn't been reopened. And what does that mean? Maybe, after preliminary investigation will be main investigation and after that I don't know what kind of investigation... and common to all investigations is that are not obliged to nothing and nobody.
This metaphorically reminds me of Loch Ness, when everybody have interest and profit that it does not officially say that Nessie does not exist and never existed at all. Because there are too many interests behind.
It's the same here.
In reality, the state will never make a formal statement. For these or other reasons. More are the rumors and wrinkles are present the higher is the layer above the objective truth. The time moving away, and the tragedy on the Dyatlov pass gets more and more abstract. And then it's just a matter of time, when they slowly slip into myth and legend. And it seems that this is a major interest.
This is just my opinion...

Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Clacon on May 07, 2019, 08:23:53 AM
Completely agree "tekumze".

Some people say to me that I actually DON'T want a resolution to this case, so I can obsess and investigate and distract myself from the humdrum; so I don't have to adhere to and accept what happened in reality - I can wade around in conjecture and imagination and DPI limbo forever....

Its not true at all. I do want the truth - I still haven't lost sight of the fact that these were 9 human beings who died tragically and mysteriously. I want resolution to the case because their loved ones deserve it and because they themselves deserve to rest in peace. And the fact that the authorities aren't being transparent about this case for whatever reason boils my blood.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 07, 2019, 10:13:53 AM
In particular, I must emphasize that every honor and respect from me belongs to persons like Clacon and Nigel Evans on this forum. Two of you respond to each question, thesis or theory in an intellectual way, full of empathy and different viewpoints. Unlike someones which responses are distanced, exalted, and are intended  more for glorification of themselves than anything else.
Because, tell me what words you use and I will tell you who you are.

Legal caution: In the meantime, anyone who is familiar with the law of jurisdiction in any country with legal regulation, should know that any legal act in the field of official investigation of accidents or criminal offenses is always in the domain of the people. And its purpose  and the ultimate goal is not to be selfless but duty-bound to publicly. Of course this also applies to Dyatlov pass case.

Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 08, 2019, 01:52:49 AM
In particular, I must emphasize that every honor and respect from me belongs to persons like Clacon and Nigel Evans on this forum. Two of you respond to each question, thesis or theory in an intellectual way, full of empathy and different viewpoints. Unlike someones which responses are distanced, exalted, and are intended  more for glorification of themselves than anything else.
Because, tell me what words you use and I will tell you who you are.

Legal caution: In the meantime, anyone who is familiar with the law of jurisdiction in any country with legal regulation, should know that any legal act in the field of official investigation of accidents or criminal offenses is always in the domain of the people. And its purpose  and the ultimate goal is not to be selfless but duty-bound to publicly. Of course this also applies to Dyatlov pass case.
Hey, good comments!  kewl1
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Teddy on May 08, 2019, 02:05:55 PM
Hey, good comments!  kewl1
I uploaded new icon  good-posting
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 09, 2019, 01:21:11 AM
Hey, good comments!  kewl1
I uploaded new icon  good-posting
Testing testing.  good-posting
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 09, 2019, 03:34:55 AM
System employees have never done anything in the history of human civilization so far. It was always necessary to wait and hope that an individual would appear... and then we can count on solution of the problem.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Aspen on May 10, 2019, 02:38:23 AM
Is there an "Access to Information" law in Russia, by which citizens may request the COMPLETE Dyatlov case file, including the portions taken away by authorities in 1959?

When making a request under Access to Information law, the response should indicate whether or not all files are disclosed, and whether some remain classified.

Would the KGB have destroyed compromising files though?  I am reminded of the CIA's sordid MKULTRA project, where in the end they sought to destroy all documents.  However some records were 'mistakenly' not destroyed and eventually discovered by a journalist in 1977, which led to a state inquiry of the matter, an inquiry which revealed a lot.

Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: gypsy on May 10, 2019, 05:26:37 AM
Is there an "Access to Information" law in Russia, by which citizens may request the COMPLETE Dyatlov case file, including the portions taken away by authorities in 1959?

When making a request under Access to Information law, the response should indicate whether or not all files are disclosed, and whether some remain classified.

Would the KGB have destroyed compromising files though?  I am reminded of the CIA's sordid MKULTRA project, where in the end they sought to destroy all documents.  However some records were 'mistakenly' not destroyed and eventually discovered by a journalist in 1977, which led to a state inquiry of the matter, an inquiry which revealed a lot.

It does exist in a very limited scope and access to information pretty much relies on the individual decision as you said. (p.45 of the document below)

https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Opening_up_Russia_RTI_report_10.12.pdf
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: sarapuk on May 10, 2019, 11:29:37 AM
Is there an "Access to Information" law in Russia, by which citizens may request the COMPLETE Dyatlov case file, including the portions taken away by authorities in 1959?

When making a request under Access to Information law, the response should indicate whether or not all files are disclosed, and whether some remain classified.

Would the KGB have destroyed compromising files though?  I am reminded of the CIA's sordid MKULTRA project, where in the end they sought to destroy all documents.  However some records were 'mistakenly' not destroyed and eventually discovered by a journalist in 1977, which led to a state inquiry of the matter, an inquiry which revealed a lot.

All Governments will limit what information is available to the Public if such information is considered a SECURITY THREAT or some other risky matter. Thats the nature of STATES. Access to Information so long as that Information doesnt JEOPARDISE the STATE.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 10, 2019, 12:57:07 PM
Sarapuk and Gypsy thanks for the good thinking. I agree.
Here I will allow myself a little explanation:
First of all we must understand the concept of the state. In fact, the state is basically nothing else than (I apologize to all patriots) the authority over the territory. And throughout more or less of 15.000 years the history of human civilization, irrespective of the state system (feudalism, socialism, capitalism or any other  ...ism), the arrangement was always a pyramid scheme. The differences were always only in cosmetic corrections. The minor percentage of people at the top of the pyramid scheme has always created a legal basis for laws designed to preserve power over a particular territory. And even the state is so "democratic" always and firstly make sure that every freedom begins and ends when the government says, so.
And here is the main catch 22.
When the actors of the official investigation start began with the demagogic acrobatic evasions so-called "Reopening Dyatlov Pass Case" immediately meant that they will say only what the authorities allowed to tell. And here a reasonable suspicion arises that they will not say anything. And of course those: WHY? is getting bigger and bigger.
P..s.: You must know that at the moment when you think that you are free you are not free at all...

Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Aspen on May 11, 2019, 12:50:44 AM
Thanks Gypsy, great document.  Has there been any formal request by a Russian citizen for all records pertaining to the Dyatlov incident?  That would be an important first step.  The response might not be truthful nor complete, but at least they have to respond and that provides something to work with further.  Otherwise we are left to endlessly recycle theories one after another.

For example, if the response is that all files have been lost, could the individuals involved in covering up the data at the time be invited (or subpoenaed) to provide clarifications through an inquiry?   After all that time there isn’t likely to be much repercussions about revealing information on this case.

If I can use again the example of the ghastly MKULTRA project, when more information came up in 1977 indicating actual crimes were committed by the CIA against US and Canadian citizens, no one went to jail.  Eventually some of the victims were compensated, and recommendations were officially made to prohibit such projects.  (At least that is the official position, maybe not the reality…)

So, those investigators at the time of the Dyatlov case who said that higher authorities took the case away from them would be in a good position for making that request.  (Or relatives of the investigators and Dyatlov group.)  Has this been done formally?  In particular with the most recent 'reopening' of the case?
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Aspen on May 11, 2019, 01:44:37 AM
Another example of record search that could potentially be made:

Quoting former prosecutor Evgeniy Okishev’s comments from recent (date?) interview:

“Deputy Prosecutor General, comrade Urakov came to meet with us (in 1959) and gave orders that we were to all tell anyone who asked that the hikers’ 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.”
https://dyatlovpass.com/evgeniy-okishev-2013?rbid=18461

The above account does provide a trail that could be followed up: there could be a request made to research prosecutor Urakov’s files.  Was this request made? 
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 11, 2019, 03:29:25 AM
Aspen  thumb1 . Very good questions for the next cue. Which is the following: who of those (legal authority, some still alive witnesses...) who today can actually do something seriously, are ready to do honestly something at all? In fact, endlessly recycle theories one after another has been going on since 1995 until today.
And if you pay attention, you can find out that for each specific question, there is never a precise answer. And when we get to the point where a representative of the official authority should give the exact answer, it is in the style: This is preliminary investigation and the Prosecutors office is not obliged to publicly report of its actions, findings and conclusions. What a f...? And, of course, is everything  trapped in a never-ending vortex, intended only for itself.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 11, 2019, 04:08:38 AM
Freedom of Information requests from a government that has twice eliminated it's critics (here in the UK) with complete disregard for the safety of innocent civilians? Best of luck but i'm rolling my eyes....
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 11, 2019, 05:13:40 AM
Hey Nigel, I'm rolling my eyes too... thumb1
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: sarapuk on May 11, 2019, 12:50:38 PM
Not much seems to have changed in 60 years does it  !  ?  One could almost be forgiven for thinking that we are still in those primitive COLD WAR DAYS. Relations between Russia [ replacing the USSR ] and the USA are has bad now as they were then. No wonder the Authorities are reluctant to open up about the Dyatlov Pass Mystery. It looks like something extraordinary happened and the STATE had no choice but to close the matter. So why would they want to reopen the Case now.  !  ? 
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 11, 2019, 11:39:17 PM
Dear Sarapuk, I'm happy with your question (So why would they want to reopen the Case now. !?). That's also my question. Although I suspect that I know the answer: In fact, nobody really wants to open the case now. Everything is just a theater performance. This is just like the JFK case. On every round anniversary, they draw on the surface of infinite conspiracy theories. Because the public recalls on the anniversary of an unresolved mystical event from history. Then the month or maximum two official representatives of the authorities seemingly deal with the case. People are confused with a whole lot of irrelevant data. Life is flowing and very soon no one else understands nothing. Naturally, there are no concrete solutions. And interest disappears. And this is also the script here. Very soon, only a handful of enthusiasts will be discussing on the forums. The general public will to join on the next 100th anniversary. For a while. And the circus will be repeat.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: cennetkusu on May 12, 2019, 12:56:35 AM
So why would they want to reopen the Case now.  !  ? Because they don't know anything. And they're wondering about the Dytlov thing. They're even more curious than us. Because they have photos, articles and proofs that we don't know !!! That's why their curiosity is on line. And maybe they planned to open some new investigation and get some information. But they got a negative result. In fact, they can publicize these photos and evidence. But they still consider it convenient. In addition, there is no demand from the public.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 12, 2019, 01:58:19 AM
Thanks Cennetkusu, I think more or less in the same direction.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Aspen on May 12, 2019, 02:51:57 AM
On the contrary, there is huge public interest.  That is why world wide web sites like this one are focused on the Dyatlov incident.  The background info on this site shows that relatives and friends of the Dyatlov group were pressing the investigators for answers, and obviously still do, because the authorities are now going through the motions of 'reopening' the case.  A lot has changed in Russia since 1995.  The KBG no longer exists, for one thing.  Issues that couldn't be discussed publicly at the time are now openly talked about.  It is a matter of public interest to find out what happened to the group, as it might help to prevent another similar tragedy.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 12, 2019, 05:31:29 AM
On the contrary, there is huge public interest.  That is why world wide web sites like this one are focused on the Dyatlov incident.  The background info on this site shows that relatives and friends of the Dyatlov group were pressing the investigators for answers, and obviously still do, because the authorities are now going through the motions of 'reopening' the case.  A lot has changed in Russia since 1995.  The KBG no longer exists, for one thing.  Issues that couldn't be discussed publicly at the time are now openly talked about.  It is a matter of public interest to find out what happened to the group, as it might help to prevent another similar tragedy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/salisbury-novichok-attack-poison-sergei-skripal-nerve-agent-killed-thousands-police-dawn-sturgess-a8647246.html
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: gypsy on May 12, 2019, 06:27:50 AM
On the contrary, there is huge public interest.  That is why world wide web sites like this one are focused on the Dyatlov incident.  The background info on this site shows that relatives and friends of the Dyatlov group were pressing the investigators for answers, and obviously still do, because the authorities are now going through the motions of 'reopening' the case.  A lot has changed in Russia since 1995.  The KBG no longer exists, for one thing.  Issues that couldn't be discussed publicly at the time are now openly talked about.  It is a matter of public interest to find out what happened to the group, as it might help to prevent another similar tragedy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/salisbury-novichok-attack-poison-sergei-skripal-nerve-agent-killed-thousands-police-dawn-sturgess-a8647246.html

I would not be surprised had this Salisbury incident been labeled a result of "an unknown compelling force" by Russian "authorities" if there wasn't for CCTV all over the place in the UK.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 12, 2019, 06:40:52 AM
On the contrary, there is huge public interest.  That is why world wide web sites like this one are focused on the Dyatlov incident.  The background info on this site shows that relatives and friends of the Dyatlov group were pressing the investigators for answers, and obviously still do, because the authorities are now going through the motions of 'reopening' the case.  A lot has changed in Russia since 1995.  The KBG no longer exists, for one thing.  Issues that couldn't be discussed publicly at the time are now openly talked about.  It is a matter of public interest to find out what happened to the group, as it might help to prevent another similar tragedy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/salisbury-novichok-attack-poison-sergei-skripal-nerve-agent-killed-thousands-police-dawn-sturgess-a8647246.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/salisbury-novichok-attack-poison-sergei-skripal-nerve-agent-killed-thousands-police-dawn-sturgess-a8647246.html)

I would not be surprised had this Salisbury incident been labeled a result of "an unknown compelling force" by Russian "authorities" if there wasn't for CCTV all over the place in the UK.
DPI      = "Unknown compelling force"
Skripal = “Russophobia”
Case reopened = "Avalanche theory"
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 12, 2019, 08:42:51 AM
It is true that there is a public interest, but only at the level of the mystical story (of course, everyone who are emotionally connected are excluded). Because these news are being sold very easily.  In today's information age, such a news is interesting for a very short time. If there is no concrete explanation, interest most of the public is lost within a few days. About how the system of state power (not only in Russia) has changed recently, are well explained (with a little irony) by Nigel Evans and Gypsy.

Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: WAB on May 12, 2019, 11:05:32 AM
In March 2019 to Dyatlov pass go the command left representatives of Office Public Prosecutor by Sverdlovsk region, and press, and TV. It has been connected by that the Office Public Prosecutor has begun check under the statement of the press that on case of Dyatlov group it is necessary draw the official conclusion.
It does not mean opening has put again. Under the law it is cannot be made. It should be made for this purpose that it would be possible estimate correctness of conclusions case which it is closed in 1959

Some days before them we were on pass and have spent number of check experiments, on the same questions that the Office Public Prosecutor has presented. It has been made that it would be possible compare results and draw conclusions on truthfulness of this conclusion.
Here I have described one their such experiments which we have spent directly on a place of events.

Notes about expedition March 2019.
Or: A and B sit on pipe **pass with 6 to 12 March *).
*) letter A and B it is initial letters of surnames A – Aleseenkov (Shura), B - Borzenkov,
**) In Russian folklore there is such children's comic riddle: “A and B were sitting on the pipe, A has fallen, B be gone, what remains on the pipe?”©
Note #1. Snow research on Holatchahl mountain and near tent place.

First of all it is necessary describe shortly snow conditions of this year, and compare it to February, 1959.
During January current year and first half of February snow condition was little level, than it quite reminds circumstances of 1959. But since the middle of February( in this year), became abnormal from the point of view quantity the dropped out snow. For example, would be on "pass" since midday on March, 05th till early evening on March, 12th. At us in ravine valley “4th tributary of Lozva@ (acronym it is “4TL”) has falled out approximately 60 … 70 cm (2…3 ft) fresh snow. Till the morning on March, 11th, snow of different intensity went almost continuously. On several points which could be identified in photos of searches March, 1959, we have measured difference in height of snow 2019 and 1959. It made from + 40 cm (1?5 ft) to + 90 cm (3 ft) in different places. The height of snow cover of March 1959года was (by our estimations) from 60 to 90 cm (2…3 ft) from earth level. It would be desirable to hope that this level (earths) has not changed since then.
From here it is possible conclude that our snow measurements which be made on slope are excess over level of snow 1959. It has occurred about 2 reasons:
1. The climate in Earthe became warmer about 60 years ago, and as consequence, the saturation moisture of coming warm air has increased.
2. This year (from the middle of February) was is abnormal about snow level. We could compare it with January, 2015; February 2014; and March 2012 and 2013
Snow researches on mountain slope about possible snow troubles with Dyatlov group were one of the basic points of our menu  grin1 of our program. I mean any avalanches and "boards of snow ".
Unfortunately under the full program all did not manage be made, since there was only one day with decent weather, but also it has not been completely devoted purely to snow because it was necessary to make and something under other programs. We counted from 2 days, or well let at least, from 1,5 day.
What estimate possibility of snow motions and other troubles of this case I used techniques which were recommended by the senior lecturer of the Moscow State Lomonosov University Victor Vladimirovich Popovnin (one of the best specialist of world for avalanche), even before our departure to pass in 2015. Thanks him very much, about he has found time after all university affairs and has arrived to my home in evening before our departure to pass. It has spent time for me so much, how many it was necessary that I would try liquidate my stupidity in techniques of estimation study snow. ***) As I believe in damage own rest before next intensive working day.
***) Unfortunately I am not the expert in glaciology and avalanches. My range scientific interests is the aviation both space-rocket biomechanics and ergonomics. And as is survival rate in extreme conditions of environment on cold, and in the wild nature of the North.
The technique research consisted of following points:
1.   We must made measured and fixed place next parametres:
date and time,
place co-ordinates,
local steepness of slope,
air temperature,
direction and speed of wind.
The photo/video fixing of devices and tools which are used at research in addition becomes.
2. Snow comes off on depth to ground around the investigated phenomenon, cuts are levelled (are not smoothed down!) planes of cuts about revealing of division layers also are attentively studied. The photo and-or video shooting with the established ruler or roulette tape is made. Arrangements places of division depth of layers from ground level and are marked it.
3.On contrast background analysis of grains snow in 3 groups: <1 mm; 1 … 2 mm;> 3 mm (1 mm = 0.039 in). The shootting picture near to ruler with divisions in mm or becomes less.
4. The snow temperature is measured on layers and on border of division layers. Indications act in film through from 3 … 5 mines after sensor installation.
5. Is spent gauging density of snow in each layer.
6. Made measuring to downfall of reference rod to snow layer. The dynamometer measures value at which the rod has started move ahead into snow.
7.The “Shift test”: It can be columns as size 1 х 1 m  or 3 ft 3 in  x 3 ft 3 in  (as in special case - 20 х 20 cm or 0.656 x 0.656 ft) dig, and then the adaptation with two parallel plates makes attempt of shift each of layers (consistently on each layer) in parallel for plane of layer with use dynamometer and lever use (in case of need). If there is shift layer along loss of strong, we mast be fixed the maximum value of the indication dynamometer, and it be fixed. If there is a destruction of all snow layer this result is fixed.
8.The weather report for the previous time (change temperature data of air, parameters of wind, deposits) is whenever possible applied.
We had been chose a platform located of 20 m (~65 ft) to the north from prospective place of tent “as Harlan (оne from researchers of the given theme which very well understands positioning of a place of tent)” (**** - though I, and by an estimation with photoslides-film in 2015, and am speculative in March 2019, I read that it should be metres on 2. 3 above and on ~ 10 to the north. But now not about that speech). As Shura has told: “What not spoil to professionals on original place”. Under professionals he meant, public prosecutors and delegation “KP” (Komsomolskaya Pravda) -newspaper and TV showman Andrey Malakhov which there were in week after us and incorporated the professional Topographers and the glaciologist scientific who was the same V.V.Popovnin. The slope steepness in "our" place was more than on “ true place of tent” - about 20 degrees, against we (with Shura together) measure hour and one half before ~ 12 … 16 degrees. (***** - the data on gaugings see in the message of Shura from – it is in Russan forum). Therefore our experiment should be, as “restriction from above”.
Point #3 and #6 we did not: #3 - because was wind, though and not strong, but wind which us would not allow make all the same it (would blow off granules), and #6 - in kind of absence of suitable core and the adaptation to dynamometer – “ measure compression”.

Point #1 It is great difficulties has not caused. The data was such:
Date and time – 3/11/2019, have begun at 10.15 UTC; have ended at 12.59 UTC (Regional time is UTC+5)
Place co-ordinates - N = 61о 45,521 `; E = 59o 25,770 `; H = 2961 ft (902.5 m). Time 08:27.19 UTC
Local steepness of “our” slope is 19о
Air temperature is tо =-4,7C ( 23.5 F)
Direction and speed of wind - 6 … 8 m/s (9…15.5 kt), from Western.
Point #2. It is possible illustrated following pictures:

(https://b.radikal.ru/b05/1904/82/f84a9ec8ab16t.jpg) (https://b.radikal.ru/b05/1904/82/f84a9ec8ab16.jpg)

(https://c.radikal.ru/c14/1904/8e/51264d637794t.jpg) (https://c.radikal.ru/c14/1904/8e/51264d637794.jpg)

(https://b.radikal.ru/b08/1904/16/f3d0fe5fb2d9t.jpg) (https://b.radikal.ru/b08/1904/16/f3d0fe5fb2d9.jpg)

Such cut has as result turned out here:



(https://a.radikal.ru/a21/1904/3f/d506fb431fbbt.jpg) (https://a.radikal.ru/a21/1904/3f/d506fb431fbb.jpg)

Full thickness of layer of 1,86 m (6 ft 1 in) from the earth (on roulette). For scale nearby there is “one dummy ski by Shura”  grin1, height is 1,5 m (4 ft 11 in)
The work total amount can be estimated on the thrown out snow, but it is necessary to consider that all snow has got to shot

 (https://d.radikal.ru/d19/1904/92/cdb0a5d19d43t.jpg)  (https://d.radikal.ru/d19/1904/92/cdb0a5d19d43.jpg)

#4. We measured temperature of snow in 6 points:

 (https://a.radikal.ru/a39/1904/06/733fb1338b92t.jpg)  (https://a.radikal.ru/a39/1904/06/733fb1338b92.jpg)

1.   tо = - 7,2C ( 19 F) - layer top
2.   tо =-6,6C ( 20 F) - the layer middle
3.   tо =-4,9C (23 F) - a bottom top. A layer
4.   tо = - 5,7C( 21 F)  - the top compare a layer
5.   tо =-3,2C. ( 26 F) - the bottom of snow
6.   tо = - 2,9C ( 26.8 F) - at the earth
The temperature is resulted taking into account difference correction in indications of different thermometers. Checking was spent on the thermometer having the passport with instructions of the reference to the checking standard.

#5. Gauging of density every snow on different layers.
It has been revealed (at our uneducated sight) 4 layers of various snow (the professional can find and more to signs known to it, but these layers approximately differed) and the density 3 of them is measured:
The top layer, in the thickness ~ 84 cm (2.75 ft) had relative density 364,583 kp/m3 or 3.04 lb/gal, (sum 3 “bowl of Shura” as 1,6 litre (0.422 gallon) = 4,8 litre (1.268 gallon)  - weighed as 1,750 kp or 124 pdl )
 
(https://a.radikal.ru/a13/1904/ee/03a0a4e1a951t.jpg) (https://a.radikal.ru/a13/1904/ee/03a0a4e1a951.jpg)

The centre, in the thickness ~ 60 sm (2.0 ft) had relative density 402,083 kp/m3 or 3.35 lb/gal, (sum 3 “bowl of Shura” on 1,6 l (0.422 gallon) = 4,8 l (1.268 gallon) - weighed 1,980 kp(165 pdl) - character of snow reminded a croup though was not friable, and its structure was continuous.

(https://a.radikal.ru/a36/1904/35/7f5b99329dfet.jpg) (https://a.radikal.ru/a36/1904/35/7f5b99329dfe.jpg)

The bottom layer, in the thickness ~ 30 … 40 cm (1... 1.3 ft) had relative density 486,458 kp/m3 or 4.059 lb/gal, (sum 3 “bowl of Shura” on 1,6 l (0.422 gallon) = 4,8 l (1.268 gallon) - weighed 2,335 kp (165 pdl) - was characterised by word “as brick” (c) Shure.

 (https://b.radikal.ru/b42/1904/48/ff88355c5974t.jpg)  (https://b.radikal.ru/b42/1904/48/ff88355c5974.jpg)
 
The lowermost layer, in the thickness ~ 5 … 10 cm (2…4 in) we did not measure:
-1 because it was difficult for picking out, and in
-2 because it was close to ice (though and it is easier it) It has been directly linked to the earth and formed, most likely, in the earliest autumn when the dropping out sleet was taken by frosts. Its top part it is permanent passed in above layer and to it has been strongly linked. The border of layers has been washed away. Its bottom part has as though sprouted grassy plants.

#7. The shift test.
The most interesting, and informative the test for efforts of shift which allow judge directly possibility of occurrence "board" in the given place in the given conditions was indicative.
As to do shift of layer in the size of 1 m Х of 1 m (3 ft 3 in x 3 ft 3in) we have counted not actual on presence of absence Gerakl and winner Japanese sumo wrestler, we were limited to carry out such test for columns size 20 Х 20 cm. And then it is possible count and effort at shift in 1 sq. m (10.7 ft2) of similar snow, and receive estimation possibility the most natural shift when the weight this column will be more than this effort. Its truth it is necessary still multiply by cos (cosine) of this angle bias of slope, but it is necessary do it already then.
The column of the specified size, by height border of division the top and following layer has been cut out. It was identified approximately. The top layer is that has dropped out practically at us and some previous days have been put on slope literally. The thickness of this layer has be 84 cm (2.75 ft); density - 364,583 кГ/м3 (3.042 lb/gal ), whence it is possible receive weight of this column = 14,583 kp (kg of force  or 1034 pdl)
The scheme of experiment is visually shown on this photo

(https://a.radikal.ru/a31/1904/7a/0dd2dcc4a303t.jpg) (https://a.radikal.ru/a31/1904/7a/0dd2dcc4a303.jpg)

The effort was put by means of the lever because need its size has turned out considerable. The dynamometer was used just the same, as well as what weighed snow.

(https://d.radikal.ru/d39/1904/a8/88d98e7fbef1t.jpg) (https://d.radikal.ru/d39/1904/a8/88d98e7fbef1.jpg)

On a following photo the moment of destruction (particularly - layer shift) is well visible

(https://d.radikal.ru/d05/1904/e7/ffb4fd7824d7t.jpg) (https://d.radikal.ru/d05/1904/e7/ffb4fd7824d7.jpg)

The effort which has been enclosed thus, was = 52,76 kp (3742.3 pdl)

(https://b.radikal.ru/b30/1904/b4/334738e8a204t.jpg) (https://b.radikal.ru/b30/1904/b4/334738e8a204.jpg)

(https://b.radikal.ru/b41/1904/cd/172769c7c241t.jpg) (https://b.radikal.ru/b41/1904/cd/172769c7c241.jpg)


The sequence of shift is visible in following photos. And all process can be seen on video under the reference: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i0Ko3-73B8SxsRCrg_xhDDCVj-GqZhKR/view?usp=sharing 

It is necessary notice that similar shift tests we have spent two. But on the first measuring we had not time notice the maximum indications number of dynamometer. It was necessary for me do all once again.

If the attentive reader notices, it will be clear that the dynamometer is calculated on efforts to 50 kg. At us it has turned out 52,76. For certain it has stock on range because differently it should break right after limit excess equal 50 kp. Even if behind limit of range it increases the set error (10 gramme on range border under passport for device) the effort has all the same exceeded that weight which had column of test snow in 3,617 times. Even if effort increase on cоs 19о = 0,94551 the effort demanded on shift in 3 times will exceed weight of the layer, and therefore such shift under natural conditions is simply impossible basically.

As inquiry: the force of shift for 1 sq. m (10.7 ft2) makes 1319 кp/m2 or (11.6 lb/gal) , thus the weight 1 м2 (1550 sq in) at height of 84 cm (2.75 ft) makes 291,13 kp (20650 pdl).
It was “the short answer with mathematics” to all fans of "boards of snow ", avalanches and other initial troubles for I.Dyatlov group in 1959. And then snow was more less.

********) I have forgotten to finish the small note... 
The motive power which should move layer of " board of snow " in absence of resistance, should be equal to the weight increased on sin (sine) by corner bias slope. Or, in our case:
291,13 Х 0,3255 (sin 19 degrey.) = 94,782 kp or in 13,9 times are less than effort to shift.
You mast made did deeper conclusions...
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 12, 2019, 12:29:43 PM
Dear WAB,  Thank you very much for your expertly supported work. Since I am from semantically generative profession and I am not so educated in your field, I will take your presentation in the following days to our Jozef Stefan research institute in Ljubljana. With all respect I will present your work to colleagues who are experts in this field. Thank you again.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 12, 2019, 01:36:23 PM
Hi WAB, it's not clear from the translation what's the conclusion?
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 13, 2019, 02:22:04 AM
Hey Nigel, as I understand with my limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, is the conclusion that a potential action is possible in theory if all the complex factors coincide. I sent his work (WAB) to our institute and I will let you know  what is their opinion as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 13, 2019, 03:59:01 AM
Hey Nigel, as I understand with my limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, is the conclusion that a potential action is possible in theory if all the complex factors coincide. I sent his work (WAB) to our institute and I will let you know  what is their opinion as soon as possible.
My understanding of avalanche conditions including slab slides etc is that as snow builds up during the winter it consists of layers of different consistency which can include graupel which is dangerous because it has little friction, essentially a layer of little ball bearings made of ice. As the snow accumulates above this layer and it's mass increases and then it can be prone to sliding forward which then encourages more of the slope to do the same and you have an avalanche/slab slide depending on gradients etc.
So wrt the DPI my questions would be :-So I don't get the interest in the avalanche theory, to me it seems one of the least probable theories and unable to explain key facts.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 13, 2019, 05:13:38 AM
Hi Nigel, I agree with you 100%. I'm a 20 year mountain rescuer. And just from the photo of the tent, on that tragic day/night I can tell that there was no snow avalanche. In the Julian Alps I have seen countless accidents due to a snow avalanche. However, no accidents are even roughly in line with the DPI. My friend was on Dyatlov Pass 2 years ago. As an avalanche expert, he claims that there was no possibility for the avalanche at all. That the practical possibility of an avalanche in that area is less than 5%. I am constantly aware that theoretical interpretations are always a problem.
In the theory we can always empirical calculate that a person can jump 10 meters in distance under certain conditions. But reality in practice is something else...
Anyway, I will check WAB calculations on the institute. I'm wondering what our results will be.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 13, 2019, 06:10:17 AM
Maybe WAB can enlighten us.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 13, 2019, 06:20:27 AM
 thumb1
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Morski on May 13, 2019, 06:54:24 AM
If I am not hugely mistaken, WAB implies, that there is little to no chance of avalanche or any other rolling/sliding/moving form of snow to blame for the initiate accident, since they estimated, that there was even less snow back in 1959, compared to when they made the estimations in March this year. I think only people who really want to see avalanche as the true reason, would find it possible. 
 
I would be "surprised" if the official team of experts provides a different conclusion, taking into account what they say they are looking for...
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 13, 2019, 08:27:51 AM
Morski - I would be "suprised" too. Theoretically, we can prove that is possible avalanche even in our living room
I'm still saying, you do not need to believe things just because you want to believe them or because they want that you believe them.
About legislation:
all crimes against humanity have always happened under the cover of current official legislation at that time. That were  sanctioned only when other official legislation came to power. That's why we have to separate: Something is what the law permits and the absolute other thing is what is human ethics and morality. Speaking of the law in cases like Dyatlov pass incident is generally pure demagogy and a matter of political interests. Often, the law is used only to hide behind...
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: sarapuk on May 13, 2019, 12:55:52 PM
Well I think we all really need to wait for the Authorities to make some kind of Statement. Otherwise we are off on the SPECULATIVE SLOPE again.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 13, 2019, 01:42:17 PM
Ha, ha, ha... I am only very afraid that the statement will be on that kind of manner, that in fact, nobody will not know  what they wanted to say with  statement. And we will bound to SPECULATIVE SLOPE again. thumb1
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 14, 2019, 01:49:54 AM
My colleagues from the institute sent me their findings regarding the data sent to me by Mr. WAB. They say that certain things for them are otherwise incomprehensible (probably something lost with the translation), but according to the obtained data, the possibility of landslide on this configuration over the past 100 years, regardless of weather changes, is almost 0. This is brief comprehensive a summary: "With the data obtained by theoretical algorithmic calculations, on such a terrain a snow avalanche would be possible in case of several layers snow cover of a thickness  at least 1m to cause start of rolling force on the  substrate which inclination angle is at least 28%. The condition should also be various temperature layers and structure of snow and wind from the top of the slope at an angle of 80-90% on a snow surface at a speed of about 200 km/h."

As far as I'm concerned, the official commission in all preliminary research and post research can find out that it was the perpetrator for Dyatlov Pass Incident avalanche - I personally ended up with a landslide theory for always.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Aspen on May 15, 2019, 03:46:33 AM
Hey Nigel, as I understand with my limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, is the conclusion that a potential action is possible in theory if all the complex factors coincide. I sent his work (WAB) to our institute and I will let you know  what is their opinion as soon as possible.
My understanding of avalanche conditions including slab slides etc is that as snow builds up during the winter it consists of layers of different consistency which can include graupel which is dangerous because it has little friction, essentially a layer of little ball bearings made of ice. As the snow accumulates above this layer and it's mass increases and then it can be prone to sliding forward which then encourages more of the slope to do the same and you have an avalanche/slab slide depending on gradients etc.
So wrt the DPI my questions would be :-
  • If the above is theoretically possible on slopes of almost any gradient in any year, what is the merit in investigating the snow conditions at the tent site in 2019? What does it tell us about 1959?
  • But why the interest in the avalanche theory at all? It doesn't explain the ravine injuries, the footsteps where of at least 8 able bodied people walking down the hill. If fewer people had made more journeys then why not put their boots on? If the footsteps are invented then you have a different theory.
  • There are photos of before and after the event showing skis and poles pushed in the snow and undisturbed.
  • It doesn't explain skin discolouration.
  • It doesn't explain the high level coverup clearly stated by Okishev and Ivanov.
  • It doesn't explain Ivanov's fascination with "fire orbs firing directed heat rays". Which is a very curious and specific assertion from a state prosecutor/barrister! Unless he was simply crazy he must have seen some evidence for this view. Okishev spoke highly of Ivanov - "thorough and meticulous".
So I don't get the interest in the avalanche theory, to me it seems one of the least probable theories and unable to explain key facts.

Very good analysis.  The above questions should be presented to those authorities presently 'reopening' the case.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 15, 2019, 04:57:42 AM
I agree Aspen. When (If) they will  ever give a formal statement (no doubt a snow avalanche, because "Unknown compelling force" was already used in 1959), they should be asked the following questions asked by Nigel Evans. So let's see them what will they do...
Probably the answer will be: "State authorities and Prosecutors office are not obliged for further comments about their statement  for the public report about of its actions, findings and conclusions..."
Do you know what I mean?
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 24, 2019, 02:28:43 AM
Published 7 February 2019:
»»»”Now, Russian officials have reopened the bizarre case as relatives, the media and the public still ask prosecutors to determine the truth and don’t hide their suspicions that something was hidden from them,” reported Alexander Kurennoi, the official representative of Russia’s Prosecutor General to CNN.
“The new investigation, however, will only take three theories into account that are exclusively limited to weather-related occurrences. All of them are somehow connected with natural phenomena,” said Kurennoi. “Crime is out of the question. There is not a single proof, even an indirect one, to favor this version. It was either an avalanche, a snow slab or a hurricane. Next month, prosecutors are scheduled to visit the Dyatlov Pass itself with a crew of rescue workers and experts, including forensic professionals.”
 “Next month prosecutors will fly to the site, and a range of experts and rescue workers will be involved in the investigation. Experts will conduct nine different examinations, including a forensic probe, which will help to fill in "a number of blank spots," Kurennoi added.
A spokesman for the prosecutor’s office for Russia’s Sverdlovsk region presented a 400-page file of original case documents and materials at a press conference.
The prosecutor’s office added they will be flying investigators out to the office to investigate the Dyatlov Pass Incident.” «««

Now you would think they would have their hands full—even the Russians acknowledge there are about 75 theories surrounding the deaths—however, they’re only going to look into three explanations. The office has officially written off any criminal explanation to the deaths, with Kurennoi saying “there is not a single proof, even an indirect one, to favor this (criminal) version. It was either an avalanche, a snow slab or a hurricane."
I’m not going to lie, at least to me, blaming the deaths on “either an avalanche, a snow slab or a hurricane” isn’t too far removed from the "spontaneous power of nature.”
From February until now, four months have passed. And what find out Alexander Kurennoi and his team with a crew of rescue workers and experts which including forensic professionals?
Does anyone else see the total bullshit from the official representative of the Russian Prosecutor's Office, in the statement from this February 2019?
It is like that the official authority on every anniversary of the Dyatlov Pass incident makes fools from the victims, relatives and finally from the world public. Shame!
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: WAB on May 27, 2019, 09:54:25 AM
If I am not hugely mistaken, WAB implies, that there is little to no chance of avalanche or any other rolling/sliding/moving form of snow to blame for the initiate accident, since they estimated, that there was even less snow back in 1959, compared to when they made the estimations in March this year. I think only people who really want to see avalanche as the true reason, would find it possible.

Perfectly. I can support this opinion completely.
 
 
I would be "surprised" if the official team of experts provides a different conclusion, taking into account what they say they are looking for...

While there are no comments. Recently I spoke on the phone with the expert who there conducted researches. He has told that yet has not written the conclusion, and my information represents for it interest. It is necessary to wait till August then they promise to publish the result.
Any glaciologist should have opinion that avalanches can be everywhere and always, but only under certain conditions.  grin1 differently it not the glaciologist.  grin1
Here it is necessary find out what it conditions and how much they correspond to that was in 1959 should be.

Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: WAB on May 27, 2019, 09:55:40 AM
I am only very afraid that the statement will be on that kind of manner, that in fact, nobody will not know  what they wanted to say with  statement. And we will bound to SPECULATIVE SLOPE again. thumb1

It cannot be excluded. However it is necessary wait when there will be month August. Can be they will tell that not found reason explanations, according to these theories which they checked have.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: WAB on May 27, 2019, 09:57:59 AM
My colleagues from the institute sent me their findings regarding the data sent to me by Mr. WAB. They say that certain things for them are otherwise incomprehensible (probably something lost with the translation), but according to the obtained data, the possibility of landslide on this configuration over the past 100 years, regardless of weather changes, is almost 0. This is brief comprehensive a summary: "With the data obtained by theoretical algorithmic calculations, on such a terrain a snow avalanche would be possible in case of several layers snow cover of a thickness  at least 1m to cause start of rolling force on the  substrate which inclination angle is at least 28%. The condition should also be various temperature layers and structure of snow and wind from the top of the slope at an angle of 80-90% on a snow surface at a speed of about 200 km/h."

All is true completely. I had just the same opinion when has come into place and have looked at slope in 2008. It was in the summer, but my experience of ski travel in mountains (by the way and rescue parties since 1971) has allowed make such conclusion. Then I have collected statistics of visiting of this place and supervision of the snow phenomena. Anybody and never saw on this place any motions of snow.
It is necessary notice that weather there such that fallout snow for once, is equal the maximum thickness as 30 sm (1 ft). Further it blows off a wind which there is present always. Same we observed in current of the last 5 expeditions to this place with research objective of conditions at Dyatlov incident.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: WAB on May 27, 2019, 09:59:31 AM
Hey Nigel, as I understand with my limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, is the conclusion that a potential action is possible in theory if all the complex factors coincide. I sent his work (WAB) to our institute and I will let you know  what is their opinion as soon as possible.
My understanding of avalanche conditions including slab slides etc is that as snow builds up during the winter it consists of layers of different consistency which can include graupel which is dangerous because it has little friction, essentially a layer of little ball bearings made of ice. As the snow accumulates above this layer and it's mass increases and then it can be prone to sliding forward which then encourages more of the slope to do the same and you have an avalanche/slab slide depending on gradients etc.
So wrt the DPI my questions would be :-
  • If the above is theoretically possible on slopes of almost any gradient in any year, what is the merit in investigating the snow conditions at the tent site in 2019? What does it tell us about 1959?
  • But why the interest in the avalanche theory at all? It doesn't explain the ravine injuries, the footsteps where of at least 8 able bodied people walking down the hill. If fewer people had made more journeys then why not put their boots on? If the footsteps are invented then you have a different theory.
  • There are photos of before and after the event showing skis and poles pushed in the snow and undisturbed.
  • It doesn't explain skin discolouration.
  • It doesn't explain the high level coverup clearly stated by Okishev and Ivanov.
  • It doesn't explain Ivanov's fascination with "fire orbs firing directed heat rays". Which is a very curious and specific assertion from a state prosecutor/barrister! Unless he was simply crazy he must have seen some evidence for this view. Okishev spoke highly of Ivanov - "thorough and meticulous".
So I don't get the interest in the avalanche theory, to me it seems one of the least probable theories and unable to explain key facts.

Very good analysis.  The above questions should be presented to those authorities presently 'reopening' the case.

Unfortunately the analysis very superficial also contains some erroneous assumptions or does not consider concrete conditions.
Unfortunately I now cannot stop on it in detail, but I will try make it in the future.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: WAB on May 27, 2019, 10:05:15 AM
Now you would think they would have their hands full—even the Russians acknowledge there are about 75 theories surrounding the deaths—

There are no 75 theories. It is a usual fake for “yellow press”. It is possible count 5 … 6 various theories, without repetition of the basic statements, but also from them more than half cannot be live.
It is good for the press and TV, when all is in considerable quantity. In life all is more prosy and easier.
If compete in inventing of fables that it is possible find 1000 theories.

however, they’re only going to look into three explanations. The office has officially written off any criminal explanation to the deaths, with Kurennoi saying “there is not a single proof, even an indirect one, to favor this (criminal) version. It was either an avalanche, a snow slab or a hurricane."
I’m not going to lie, at least to me, blaming the deaths on “either an avalanche, a snow slab or a hurricane” isn’t too far removed from the "spontaneous power of nature.”
From February until now, four months have passed. And what find out Alexander Kurennoi and his team with a crew of rescue workers and experts which including forensic professionals?
Does anyone else see the total bullshit from the official representative of the Russian Prosecutor's Office, in the statement from this February 2019?

I see there not bosh, and simply insufficient qualification for event estimation. They state many questions of legal side very correctly. But all trouble that they do not want to listen to "unformal professionals”.
I think that they should draw the conclusion that now they cannot draw the unequivocal conclusion because all events are insufficiently well worked from the scientific point of view. And it demands many expenses of time, means and resources which the state cannot resolve now.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 27, 2019, 11:46:25 AM
Of course, 75 or 1000  of theories (including aliens) in the syntax were meant as a cynical metaphor. It was a cynical opinion that official authorities are exploring only the possibility of a snow avalanche in its variations.

Finally, I am delighted that if nothing else we (more or less all) are united about the fact that in 1959 there was no  snow avalanche.

As for the topic of the Reopening Dyatlov Pass case, it is evident that it is an imaginary theater. If it is like the WAB said, " the case requires a lot of costs of time, means and resources that the state can not solve now."
 Then it is objectively stated that the deliberate opening of the case is merely deceit of the public. And it has no other purpose. Because the result of no result is already known in advance.
This is the same as if the official authority claims that we will fly this year to Mars. Then, when the public was waiting for the flight, the official authority would explain that unfortunately we do not have the knowledge, the sources, the means, the legal basis and the money. Cynicism unprecedented.
For a fair, objective study of the tragedy in 1959, it is essentially to start at two points:
1. Open all archives with documents on this case.
2. Excavate all the remains and make a modern DNA analysis.
Only on the basis of the results of the research of these two points is possible a further scientific discourse . Everything else is on the level of "what I think and what you think" and does not go anywhere.

P.s.: When I told in the Institute that the Russian glaciologist will announce his conclusions in August, my colleagues started laughing and I think they are still  lol2  lol2  lol2  lol2 ...
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 27, 2019, 12:51:13 PM
Hey Nigel, as I understand with my limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, is the conclusion that a potential action is possible in theory if all the complex factors coincide. I sent his work (WAB) to our institute and I will let you know  what is their opinion as soon as possible.
My understanding of avalanche conditions including slab slides etc is that as snow builds up during the winter it consists of layers of different consistency which can include graupel which is dangerous because it has little friction, essentially a layer of little ball bearings made of ice. As the snow accumulates above this layer and it's mass increases and then it can be prone to sliding forward which then encourages more of the slope to do the same and you have an avalanche/slab slide depending on gradients etc.
So wrt the DPI my questions would be :-
  • If the above is theoretically possible on slopes of almost any gradient in any year, what is the merit in investigating the snow conditions at the tent site in 2019? What does it tell us about 1959?
  • But why the interest in the avalanche theory at all? It doesn't explain the ravine injuries, the footsteps where of at least 8 able bodied people walking down the hill. If fewer people had made more journeys then why not put their boots on? If the footsteps are invented then you have a different theory.
  • There are photos of before and after the event showing skis and poles pushed in the snow and undisturbed.
  • It doesn't explain skin discolouration.
  • It doesn't explain the high level coverup clearly stated by Okishev and Ivanov.
  • It doesn't explain Ivanov's fascination with "fire orbs firing directed heat rays". Which is a very curious and specific assertion from a state prosecutor/barrister! Unless he was simply crazy he must have seen some evidence for this view. Okishev spoke highly of Ivanov - "thorough and meticulous".
So I don't get the interest in the avalanche theory, to me it seems one of the least probable theories and unable to explain key facts.

Very good analysis.  The above questions should be presented to those authorities presently 'reopening' the case.

Unfortunately the analysis very superficial also contains some erroneous assumptions or does not consider concrete conditions.
Unfortunately I now cannot stop on it in detail, but I will try make it in the future.


Looking forward to it  dance1
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: sarapuk on May 28, 2019, 04:41:36 PM
From what I have seen and heard so far from the Authorities about the REOPENING of the Investigation of the Dyatolv Case, Iam not impressed at all. It looks like an exercise in placating the general public. The Authorities no doubt have their reasons for this. Fair enough. But lets get one thing CRYSTAL CLEAR. This is not a proper Investigation by the Authorities at all. You dont reopen a World Famous Case and straight away tell everyone that only a few theories will be considered. But we still need to wait and see what comes of this latest effort  !  ?
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 29, 2019, 03:47:48 AM
A few days ago, I spoke with a Slovenian pathologist. I asked him to examine the publicly available report of the autopsy of 1959.  And he wondered how on the basis of previous basic autopsies no criminal prosecution was initiated against an unknown third person? He fully agrees with the findings of Mr. Eduard Tumanov. Already only on the findings of external injuries anyone with a basic knowledge of medicine will have a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense. It agrees that, according to data and photos (otherwise poor), no serious pathologist can ignore at least the suspicion of physical violence against these people. It is absurd to go all the way together with the finding of all the general sub cooling. In the case of three victims, it is obvious that they were hit by a "train" and the official final conclusion is:  "Unknown compelling force". These are the injuries that were not incurred by 9 people because they are slipped on the snow or hit the stone or tree by accident ...
The solution to this question is to dig out all the corpses and make a complete DNA analysis and 99.999999% answer is there. But it's clear to everyone that this will not happen.
And this is exactly what is becoming an interesting for the outside observer:
The 2019 "Reopening Dyatlov Pass Incident" opens with the only snow slide theory and they hysterically claim again and again:“Crime is out of the question. There is not a single proof, even an indirect one, to favor this version. It was either an avalanche, a snow slab or a hurricane." (Quoted Mr. Alexander Kurennoi)
There is a well-founded question: WHAT is the real reason that this year the authorities officially opened the case of Dyatlov? Because it's more than obvious that they do not want to find anything, regardless what Russian glaciologist will announce August (which year?) in his conclusions.

Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 29, 2019, 07:40:20 AM

There is a well-founded question: WHAT is the real reason that this year the authorities officially opened the case of Dyatlov? Because it's more than obvious that they do not want to find anything, regardless what Russian glaciologist will announce August (which year?) in his conclusions.

Either they do know the cause and want to continue the coverup.

OR
They don't know any more than us and didn't in 1959.


Both options are fascinating.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on May 29, 2019, 09:53:12 AM
I agree with you, Nigel.  thumb1
But no matter on both of your options.
The way of this "official research" is catastrophic disaster, not worth one serious scientific approach, at the level of the worst amateurs. I just hope they don't know any more than us and didn't in 1959. Then they would somehow be forgiven for this circus, which is being incapacitated from the start. But if all this is, as I'm afraid, only for the sake of further concealment of facts due to some perfidious interests, then ...

Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: WAB on June 05, 2019, 12:30:35 PM

I want no be erroneous, but it seems to me that that you write, is a syndrome of the person which has decided that he knows others all better. As in nature you saw nothing and try do from  position of the nonspecialist the definitive conclusions. It is not necessary hurry up and do conclusions superficial estimations.

A few days ago, I spoke with a Slovenian pathologist. I asked him to examine the publicly available report of the autopsy of 1959.  And he wondered how on the basis of previous basic autopsies no criminal prosecution was initiated against an unknown third person? He fully agrees with the findings of Mr. Eduard Tumanov.

I spoke with Tumanov too, and I still had opinion that it as all medical workers very poorly understands the physicist, especially in the biomechanic reception of traumas. Its estimations are based on the statistican of city criminal cases or traumas in the result, received in conditions of life, on transport and at building. It absolutely does not have experience with climbing or ski travellers. Its visit on pass consisted from this that it has passed way part (incomplete way) and has sat nearby place where has been Dyatlov found. By the way, at mark which we have left week earlier. About it knew the correspondent of the newspaper which Shura has informed on it.
I was engaged biomechanics of shock conditions professionally. We developed devices of rescue and protection for aircraft and space flights. At us very serious work on working out of the theory human head, as mechanical system has been done. Though we were engaged not only head mechanics, but also bodies of the person entirely. Though it were already less important directions of researches. When I have shown Tumanov mathematical calculation of head injury of Tibo, and he at all has not understood that this such though I there specially did not begin use the differential equations, tensor calculation, and tried state all on base of physics average link of the preparatory school. Therefore I can tell that Tumanov estimates that Boris Vozrozhdenny not better than he wrote. The estimation is made taking into account the amendment on medicine progress for 60 years and that he already knows result and numerous opinions in view of that. Itself Tumanov alive did not see a body at opening, therefore it can домысливать that wrote Revived somehow. It is elementary psychology: when a lot of not clear and all say that there is a crime, involuntarily fantasy to this direction. If understand deeply there all according to physics laws, is more exact than mechanics + very unevident changes from decomposition of bodies which are found in May. I faced the such, when was engaged in search and research works with travellers in the winter and in the spring in 1973.
That standing from outsets Dyatlov bakhils he tries give out attritions for linkage of his feet was very indicative also. Though that such bakhils and as they are applied (especially with what they were then) he does not know in general.
In general, I have left very disappointed from he.
I assure you that anybody another on this place during a case with Dyatlov group was not, and could not be. Owing to features of district, logistics and level development of traficabilities at that time
I have made this addition for this purpose that people would not be fond superfluous essence, as for example of crime. It just as consider that at landing of Americans to the moon, there too there were strangers. Who that would not speak from theorists, who not can independently (only using the forces and possibilities) there get. If the person there have resulted also it there «did not look neither to the right, nor to the left» he of anything cannot tell, be it any expert, only from other section of knowledge.

Already only on the findings of external injuries anyone with a basic knowledge of medicine will have a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense.

Suspicions it is emotions, profound knowledge, not only medicine, but also applied sciences because the mechanics of get damages to city conditions and on the nature will be different though signs of damages (but only signs without studying of important details) will be approximately identical is necessary. Here it is very easy change for one another. That about what I tell (biomechanic) can calculate physical parametres precisely enough. It not too most what he must remember: «Was, if I correctly remember, such case at autofailure ….» and consider that if the admission it is + / - 100 %, this it is one and too.

It agrees that, according to data and photos (otherwise poor), no serious pathologist can ignore at least the suspicion of physical violence against these people.

Once again I want remind - suspicion, these are emotions, it would be desirable that that more tangible - for example calculation of mechanics of damages.
If you read in Russian, here is the reference to all my elementary statements mechanics of traumas (with instructions to the most probable places of their reception) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ey2F7ROB6ZXNJkp49tKPJE24iPP0nKRG/view?usp=sharing 

It is absurd to go all the way together with the finding of all the general sub cooling. In the case of three victims, it is obvious that they were hit by a "train" and the official final conclusion is:  "Unknown compelling force". These are the injuries that were not incurred by 9 people because they are slipped on the snow or hit the stone or tree by accident ...

Death of 6 persons has come from overcooling (freezing), it is the medical fact. Other real reasons are not present. At the others death from the traumas, complicated by cold. For certain Slobodin could remain is live, if to it in time have rendered the qualified medical aid. Too most it is possible tell and about Simeon Zolotarev. Though at he trauma is heavier. Tibo and Dubinina hardly could survive with the big degree of probability. With such traumas there are not enough chances survive. The reason here not available strangers, and that in such conditions and at such possibilities it is simply impossible. Very few people can theoretically present itself (himself) conditions and possibilities of that place to that time. Therefore people also try simplify all to crime. Bernard Shaw spoke: «If people do not know anything, they replace it with conjectures». (c)

The solution to this question is to dig out all the corpses and make a complete DNA analysis and 99.999999% answer is there. But it's clear to everyone that this will not happen.

What will give DNA analysis? What there (in tombs) there are other people? That would be already ridiculous, if it was not so sadly. Already there was exhumation Zolotaryov body. And than it has come to end? Anything, except new conjectures which gradually too have died. At those soils which are in Ural Region`s, in 60 years it is impossible even distinguish details of crises. Places of crises can be defined. But it and so it is known from reports of the pathologist. What additional information will be appear? There acid soils, calcium fragments very quickly degrade. It at the analysis of Russian imperator family should be established who there is. It is they or not they? And what is the time and forces on it was required? Who and for what means will do similar analyses for Dyatlov group? Or you consider what important only loudly speak all, and the volume let will be everything? The main thing – it is designate itself…

And this is exactly what is becoming an interesting for the outside observer:
The 2019 "Reopening Dyatlov Pass Incident" opens with the only snow slide theory and they hysterically claim again and again:“Crime is out of the question. There is not a single proof, even an indirect one, to favor this version. It was either an avalanche, a snow slab or a hurricane." (Quoted Mr. Alexander Kurennoi)

1.It is not Reopening, is check of separate parts old criminal case at the desire of public organisations and private persons. Reopening it is impossible owing to in force in general law. Besides there were no new facts, there are only loud statements and articles in press.
2.Nobody is going approve anything, it is check «could be so, or could not». The answer to it yet was not, and the criticism already goes with might and main though it is intervention in check action.
3.They have chosen only these 3 directions because they were widespread in books, and they cannot be denied in advance legally. In difference from other criminal and conspyrologe theories. If you are assured of these theories, please result your arguments, and proofs. If they are not present, and there are only suspicions it is necessary wait while there will be proofs, and only after that it will be necessary check these theories.
4.   They did not spend logistics and psychological experiment on place because Tumanov has drawn the conclusion that it is dangerous. I and Shura many times did these experiments with logistics on slope. In January and February, day and night, but we do not consider, it is dangerous though our possibilities (us was only two, and the nearest people for 60 km from us) were much weaker, than in expeditions of Office Public Prosecutor, the newspaper and TV. A difference that at us vocational training minimum 10 times more, than at this expedition. Psychological experiments should be spent in public which are not familiar with place because I and Shura has told, know place not worse than own ranch. I offered these experiments to Discavery channel group when they in January travelled to pass. But they even did not react in any way to it. I with Shura could there was be stand by this experiment, but it interested nobody. Too most is and with this expedition. The correspondent of the newspaper knew about it, but it was not interesting to them also it too does not happen. If spend what that experiments on logistics or on psychology in other place, especially near to city, it is similar to what spend them in Africa.

There is a well-founded question: WHAT is the real reason that this year the authorities officially opened the case of Dyatlov?

It is reaction to numerous articles in newspapers and TV expedition. The leading role is played here by the newspaper with very big circulation and foreign groups of TV which go to pass. And they, in turn, were inspired by that this year 60 years since event were executed. Besides there were some references of private persons. In them there was nothing concrete, but them was much. It is as no rather. As it is known: “the quantity passes to quality”. It has bothered them also they has solved that make.
In Main Investigatory Committee one of their veterans has written article which was engaged earlier in mountaineering. How much I can understand, he has seen on the book of Buianov and Slobtsov “The mysteries of Dyatlov group dead” familiar surname as Boris Slobtsov because he somewhere met it in mountains. Therefore he has believed to that there is written as truth without check. At lawyers, as well as in medicine:  “If the higher chief so has told, it is impossible doubt!”. There have decided that they well know he, that it is all means it correctly.
However, I was very well sign with Boris Slobtsov, and he did not consider that there could be an avalanche, or that that of this kind. It was persuaded by Evgenie Buianov become the co-author, and Slobtsov when has once one's consent, did not want it break. Therefore supported Buianov a little. However he said to me that though does not trust in avalanche, but recede from the given word cannot.
Here such intrigue develops with this check.
To us do not want listen, because we people modest, the book we do not write, but actual material at us more than at all the others. A case not in the one who knows, and in the one who is more known more.
Too most occurs also many participants of searches. Very many we can tell Vladislav Karelin, Sergey Sogrin, Peter Bartolomei … With all from them repeatedly I talked and periodically we correspond on an e-mail. At all of us opinion concerning these reasons obviously is negative, but there use other experts.

Because it's more than obvious that they do not want to find anything, regardless what Russian glaciologist will announce August (which year?) in his conclusions.

What for you have started attack to glaciologist? To it have appointed term of granting conclusion till August, therefore it there has given it already. It are results of check will be declare in August. At them such term according by plan.
With Victor Popovnin we are familiar for long time. I have passed to he my records, it has considered it. That will be in its conclusion, it will be known only when the Office of Public Prosecutor declares result. What for before this time attack the expert, at all without knowing, what he has written? Popovnin is expert of very high level (international), it the serious man and it is still not clear, how the Office of Public Prosecutor will interpret its conclusion.
Principle: «I did not read, but already I condemn!» (c), this very bad relation to problem. It is very assessment.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: WAB on June 16, 2019, 11:33:32 AM
Dear Nigel Evans  !

I promised make comments for long time on your theses from this message. I should apologise for delay, but these are my circumstances.
I have made it just now.

Hey Nigel, as I understand with my limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, is the conclusion that a potential action is possible in theory if all the complex factors coincide. I sent his work (WAB) to our institute and I will let you know  what is their opinion as soon as possible.
============================
My understanding of avalanche conditions including slab slides etc is that as snow builds up during the winter it consists of layers of different consistency which can include graupel which is dangerous because it has little friction, essentially a layer of little ball bearings made of ice. As the snow accumulates above this layer and it's mass increases and then it can be prone to sliding forward which then encourages more of the slope to do the same and you have an avalanche/slab slide depending on gradients etc.
So wrt the DPI my questions would be :-
  • If the above is theoretically possible on slopes of almost any gradient in any year, what is the merit in investigating the snow conditions at the tent site in 2019? What does it tell us about 1959?

If approach to this experiment from position: “ I (that is - to you) anything it is impossible prove to me, because I do not want it the nobility!”, anything new or original in it is not present. We have simply made series standard researches of snow by which to us anybody and never did on this place. But we have information on snow condition in different years and in different months. Then on the basis this complex information it is possible draw conclusion that avalanche activity in this place is myth. Especially well it proves be true statistics poll different groups of travellers which took place this place in different years and in different conditions. Such groups it has been interrogated more than twenty.
For last 60 years the climate became warmer, therefore possibility formation avalanches (or even snow motions) became more. Therefore for 1959 this conclusion can be applied with more confidence.

   
  • But why the interest in the avalanche theory at all? It doesn't explain the ravine injuries, the footsteps where of at least 8 able bodied people walking down the hill. If fewer people had made more journeys then why not put their boots on?
To these conclusions many human have come very much long time ago. It is More than 10 years ago. However you here think out hypothetical situation, and then start it deny with the big pathos. All these contradictions and absurdities of the avalanche theory very much are already published for long time. Personally I wrote all basic objections in 2008 before there was book Evgenie Buianov be pubished. There was consist 12 different positions of objections on 2 … 4 pages in everyone. Evgenie has simply ignored these objections as though they at all were not.

If the footsteps are invented then you have a different theory.[/li][/list]

It is not necessary invent anything. This is artificial removal from true. It is necessary have accurate knowledge. My knowledge is that anybody, except Dyatlov group there was not and could not be because district conditions and logistics of this place no present. For the present nobody could deny this my thesis.

   
  • There are photos of before and after the event showing skis and poles pushed in the snow and undisturbed.

I at all do not understand that you wanted tell in this phrase. If it is probably "decipher" these thoughts. Please.

   
  • It doesn't explain skin discolouration.

I already some (tens) times explained it of a variety of skin colours. I would not like to do it in … х10 time. Besides, skin colour is not connected in any way with avalanche event. It is necessary to consider all in the section. At us speak in the people (and Vladimir Putin too spoke it to officials): «It is necessary to display all separately - separately flies, separately beef steak!» (c)  grin1

   
  • It doesn't explain the high level coverup clearly stated by Okishev and Ivanov.

No "cover" existed. It is fake statements which have appeared in unofficial conversations and widely extend "yellow press" and at forums separately being there conspirology-man. This history has not trivial explanations, therefore those who does not want to study deeply all this event prefer all to dump in false conspirology.

   
  • It doesn't explain Ivanov's fascination with "fire orbs firing directed heat rays". Which is a very curious and specific assertion from a state prosecutor/barrister! Unless he was simply crazy he must have seen some evidence for this view. Okishev spoke highly of Ivanov - "thorough and meticulous".

Okishev it is «the separate song» …  grin1
Ivanov explained this event as result of meeting with UFO because he could not explain it other (more real) reasons. He is the lawyer, instead of the physicist and not the clairvoyant. All can be mistaken in understanding of processes. As far as I understand - we (as well as all the others) cannot be exception. It is not necessary dump all on Ivanov it result of level his knowledge of that period. Therefore it is not necessary jump over all time from concepts level for that time for modern level and back. So it is possible confuse more only all, instead find out all event.


So I don't get the interest in the avalanche theory, to me it seems one of the least probable theories and unable to explain key facts.

Basis for interest should be at first - possibility occurrence of this event in reality. And then maybe all the rest.
My personal opinion is that any avalanche (or similar) the phenomena on this place are impossible because it physical (natural) conditions no be present.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on June 17, 2019, 09:40:29 AM
Dear WAB,
First I must apologize for the glaciologist. I believe that he is a great man and an expert in his field.
That's exactly why I joke about his report in August. Since after all these years, when everyone is clear about the snow avalanche, it is necessary to admit that it is silly to wait for one more expert conclusion which will tell us, that there  was no snow avalanche.
It is also quite clear that the re-opening of the Dyatlov pass does not exist at all like you said. All together on this anniversary year,  is only one media theater that everyone has succumbed to.
And if in 60 years we have not come to an objective conclusion, which would explain things once for all, then I am sure that this year will be no different. And not for the next years.
Perhaps 60 years ago, on the day of the tragedy, nothing really happened, except an ordinary accident that followed the complex coincidence.
And according to my syndrome (I can be mistaken), it seems to me that this tragedy will always remain the starting point for endless theories and guesses.
People enjoy it.
Because it seems to me that you are skilfully avoiding certain explanations in the forum, I would ask you a single personal question:
After so many years of yours engaging in the Dyatlov's tragedy, what do you personally think about what happened that fateful night (if you have any opinion)
Best regards from Slovenia and no offense.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on June 17, 2019, 03:40:44 PM
Dear WAB, good to hear from you. I'm currently busy but will reply soon.


Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Teddy on June 19, 2019, 06:19:19 AM
June 26 in Yekaterinburg will be held a press conference about preliminary results of the Prosecutors office expedition in March 2019 testing theories on Dyatlov Pass. WAB has been invited as an expert. We expect him to report back to us.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on June 19, 2019, 07:06:03 AM
We all expect this and we are grateful to Mr WAB if he will report to this forum.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: sarapuk on June 19, 2019, 11:51:37 AM
If there is a Press Conference on June 26 2019, then we should expect Local and National and maybe International Press in attendance.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: tekumze on June 21, 2019, 05:33:29 AM
I agree with you Sarapuk. That's the least what we expect on June 26. from the Prosecutor's Office.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on June 29, 2019, 10:18:26 AM
Dear WAB, replying as promised, (in red)
Dear Nigel Evans  !

I promised make comments for long time on your theses from this message. I should apologise for delay, but these are my circumstances.
I have made it just now.

Hey Nigel, as I understand with my limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, is the conclusion that a potential action is possible in theory if all the complex factors coincide. I sent his work (WAB) to our institute and I will let you know  what is their opinion as soon as possible.
============================
My understanding of avalanche conditions including slab slides etc is that as snow builds up during the winter it consists of layers of different consistency which can include graupel which is dangerous because it has little friction, essentially a layer of little ball bearings made of ice. As the snow accumulates above this layer and it's mass increases and then it can be prone to sliding forward which then encourages more of the slope to do the same and you have an avalanche/slab slide depending on gradients etc.
So wrt the DPI my questions would be :-
  • If the above is theoretically possible on slopes of almost any gradient in any year, what is the merit in investigating the snow conditions at the tent site in 2019? What does it tell us about 1959?

If approach to this experiment from position: “ I (that is - to you) anything it is impossible prove to me, because I do not want it the nobility!”, anything new or original in it is not present. We have simply made series standard researches of snow by which to us anybody and never did on this place. But we have information on snow condition in different years and in different months. Then on the basis this complex information it is possible draw conclusion that avalanche activity in this place is myth. Especially well it proves be true statistics poll different groups of travellers which took place this place in different years and in different conditions. Such groups it has been interrogated more than twenty.
For last 60 years the climate became warmer, therefore possibility formation avalanches (or even snow motions) became more. Therefore for 1959 this conclusion can be applied with more confidence.
It seems we agree that no avalanche happened. But i'd suggest some caution concerning temperature. There are a substantial set of facts suggesting it was unusually warm that night - persistent footsteps, lack of frostbite.

   
  • But why the interest in the avalanche theory at all? It doesn't explain the ravine injuries, the footsteps where of at least 8 able bodied people walking down the hill. If fewer people had made more journeys then why not put their boots on? [/l][/l]
To these conclusions many human have come very much long time ago. It is More than 10 years ago. However you here think out hypothetical situation, and then start it deny with the big pathos. All these contradictions and absurdities of the avalanche theory very much are already published for long time. Personally I wrote all basic objections in 2008 before there was book Evgenie Buianov be pubished. There was consist 12 different positions of objections on 2 … 4 pages in everyone. Evgenie has simply ignored these objections as though they at all were not.

If the footsteps are invented then you have a different theory.[/q][/q]


It is not necessary invent anything. This is artificial removal from true. It is necessary have accurate knowledge. My knowledge is that anybody, except Dyatlov group there was not and could not be because district conditions and logistics of this place no present. For the present nobody could deny this my thesis.

So you agree that the group walked down the hill uninjured?
   
  • There are photos of before and after the event showing skis and poles pushed in the snow and undisturbed.

I at all do not understand that you wanted tell in this phrase. If it is probably "decipher" these thoughts. Please.
The photos of vertical ski poles (before and after) argue against an avalanche/slide.

   
  • It doesn't explain skin discolouration.

I already some (tens) times explained it of a variety of skin colours. I would not like to do it in … х10 time. Besides, skin colour is not connected in any way with avalanche event. It is necessary to consider all in the section. At us speak in the people (and Vladimir Putin too spoke it to officials): «It is necessary to display all separately - separately flies, separately beef steak!» (c)  grin1
Your answer does not translate very well. As we have discussed 10x  kewl1 , i like the theory that the group were exposed to nitric acid at the tent with Yuri D getting the worst exposure (darkest skin and signs of pulmonary edema) due to him being outside going to the toilet. The asymmetric colouring of the groups faces suggests to me that their exposure to the cause of this colouring was also asymmetric. Imo this argues against "erythema of cold" which does not fit with the description of the colouring (orange brown not red) and doesn't explain Yuri D's foam and could be expected to affect the group more equally.As to the source of the nitric acid the best theory is missile propellant such as used with the second stage of the SA75 being developed at the time and to down a U2 spy plane 15 months later. Military activity then fits with other facts - a team of sappers deploying metal detectors ostensibly to search for bodies and commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel!!!! (that single fact solves the case imo!  kewl1 )As you know the ravine deaths can (imo) be best explained by crushing by a tracked vehicle.So i'm with the military theory solution and that the answer lies within state archives. If that's not the case then the only other possible theory is atmospheric  electrical phenomena.


   
  • It doesn't explain the high level coverup clearly stated by Okishev and Ivanov.

No "cover" existed. It is fake statements which have appeared in unofficial conversations and widely extend "yellow press" and at forums separately being there conspirology-man. This history has not trivial explanations, therefore those who does not want to study deeply all this event prefer all to dump in false conspirology.
Well it's a question of weight. Lets say your opinion weighs 10kg and my opinion weighs 5kg. Now lets say Ivanov's opinion weighs 100kg and Okishev's opinion weighs 200kg. I think that's fair. If you can show that these interviews are complete fabrications by disingenuous people then you have the burden of proving this. Otherwise i have to accept what is printed. And what is printed is unequivocal, when they found the ravine bodies the state removed the case from civilian jurisdiction. Now there are only two reasons for this, (1) they knew the answer and wanted to enforce secrecy. (2) they didn't know the answer and were concerned as to the possibilities and hence took control full control of the case.

   
  • It doesn't explain Ivanov's fascination with "fire orbs firing directed heat rays". Which is a very curious and specific assertion from a state prosecutor/barrister! Unless he was simply crazy he must have seen some evidence for this view. Okishev spoke highly of Ivanov - "thorough and meticulous".

Okishev it is «the separate song» …  grin1
That doesn't translate well. I'm assuming that you are negative concerning Okishev. I'd be interested in your explanation for this.

Ivanov explained this event as result of meeting with UFO because he could not explain it other (more real) reasons. He is the lawyer, instead of the physicist and not the clairvoyant. All can be mistaken in understanding of processes. As far as I understand - we (as well as all the others) cannot be exception. It is not necessary dump all on Ivanov it result of level his knowledge of that period. Therefore it is not necessary jump over all time from concepts level for that time for modern level and back. So it is possible confuse more only all, instead find out all event.
Your statement is fair, however Ivanov was describing a rare phenomena, and exactly so, that does seem to exist. I have (many times, much more than 10x  kewl1 ) posted reports of ball lightning included ones "firing directed heat rays". This is a remarkable guess from a lawyer and non physicist! Unless this remarkable guess was assisted by photographic evidence perhaps?


So I don't get the interest in the avalanche theory, to me it seems one of the least probable theories and unable to explain key facts.

Basis for interest should be at first - possibility occurrence of this event in reality. And then maybe all the rest.
My personal opinion is that any avalanche (or similar) the phenomena on this place are impossible because it physical (natural) conditions no be present.
I am pleased we agree on this part of the case.
Best regards.

[/list]
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Per Inge Oestmoen on August 23, 2019, 03:10:28 AM
My personal opinion is that any avalanche (or similar) the phenomena on this place are impossible because it physical (natural) conditions no be present.


That is very true, and it is very important.

There is no reason to assume that an avalanche or other form of natural disaster was responsible for the deaths of the nine.

Sadly, since a thorough and impartial forensic examination was not performed in 1959 we today have this fruitless discussion about what caused the tragedy. Even if the injuries are strongly indicative of homicide by some very resourceful attackers who used a combination of exposure and physical force to accomplish their mission, people still discuss motives. Which is a blind alley.

When dead people are found, the first and only correct way to proceed with an investigation is to find out the cause of death.

The first investigators must have known the fact that the nine students were murdered, but they could not tell the truth.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on August 23, 2019, 10:47:05 AM
The first investigators must have known the fact that the nine students were murdered, No Ivanov believed they were killed by fire orbs, firing directed heat rays, possibly piloted. N.B. the internet provides reports of similar objects which presumably Ivanov never saw.
but they could not tell the truth. Ivanov gave his "fire orbs" opinion 30 years later when he felt it was safe to do so. Ditto his superior Okishev who clearly stated that there was a coverup. It would be fair comment that a lot of this (the deaths, the fire orbs and the coverup) could be explained by highly secretive testing of surface to air missiles capable of downing U2 spy planes (Gary Powers incident in May 1960). But Ivanov doesn't seem to agree with this view.

Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: jarrfan on August 23, 2019, 11:17:59 AM
If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: sarapuk on August 23, 2019, 11:38:02 AM
If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on August 23, 2019, 01:52:55 PM
If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...
The clothes did show signs of being burnt as did two of the victims.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Nigel Evans on August 23, 2019, 01:55:08 PM
If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?
Or natural phenomena.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Morski on August 23, 2019, 02:22:22 PM
If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?

And those very advanced species happened to be exactly at Kholat Syakhl, just in time to annihilate nine fine young people. Using advanced technology from their spaceship. NO.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: sarapuk on August 24, 2019, 11:57:04 AM
If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?

And those very advanced species happened to be exactly at Kholat Syakhl, just in time to annihilate nine fine young people. Using advanced technology from their spaceship. NO.

Or YES. Because there is no proof either way. YET.
Title: Re: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case
Post by: Morski on August 24, 2019, 02:19:03 PM
If they were fired upon by these orbs with fire, how could their clothes and the tent not show signs of being burned? That would be my question...

Maybe its time to use the term SPACESHIP. Sounds better than Piloted Fire Orbs. In which case we are then most likely dealing with ALIENS. And then its highly likely we are dealing with very advanced  species with very advanced technology. YES or NO  !  ?

And those very advanced species happened to be exactly at Kholat Syakhl, just in time to annihilate nine fine young people. Using advanced technology from their spaceship. NO.

Or YES. Because there is no proof either way. YET.

This hardly makes the alien spaceship above Kholat Syakhl a YES, but fine, whatever makes you happy then.