August 20, 2019, 05:48:50 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Infrasound? Most unlikely.  (Read 8308 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

April 30, 2018, 05:59:21 AM
Reply #30
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


100% Nikolai Thibeaux died with a basilar displaced skull fracture from hitting head on rock peak. Such damage is not easily explained otherwise. A 3m fall onto rock is very considerable cause.
INDUBITABLY

 clap1


Well, such an injury is strongly indicative of a hard blow to the side of the head, a likely scenario is that this was an impact from a rifle butt.

April 30, 2018, 06:20:36 AM
Reply #31
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


Was infrasound subconsciously influencing them and making them lose their senses, so that they fled?

Yes, such can be under certain conditions. In it specify some researches, in particular works of such researchers as W Gavro (France), Tarozy (Austria) and some other.

I have learned that some believe that low frequency sounds which formed around the mountain where the nine members of the expedition camped could have influenced their psyche in such a way as to induce a flight reaction to the degree that they left their warm tent and fled underequipped and vulnerable into the dark and cold Siberian night.

There is such hypothesis. I think it is rather probable.

However, that theory is improbable to the point of being impossible.

Why?
There are researches in psychophysiology which confirm that if there are influences on a brain of the person in a resonance with brain biorhythms (scale - or delta - a range) such effect is possible quite. The infrasound which influences the person with certain frequency and intensity level, creates accumulation of a certain dose of absorption then there is an effect reminding "panic". It is called the changed Altered state of consciousness (ASС). Such medical researches too exist.
As mathematicians speak: on a place there are all necessary and sufficient conditions for such event.

These people were intelligent, experienced and evidently mentally as well as physically strong. It is likely that we can become nervous and even scared by sound frequencies that are capable of subconsciously influencing us.

Nature influence on the person is so great that it does not depend on its skills and desire and I.Q. Possibilities of the person to resist of the nature are limited. They are not infinite.

But it is unrealistic to assume that nine resourceful people would let panic overtake them to such a degree that they all would flee the tent. They all knew very well that to leave their shelter in -25 C in the middle of the dark night improperly dressed and without winter mittens, gloves and winter boots is a suicidal action which will invariably lead to death.

It is possible provided that their actions are made reasonably. However ASC it not so non-realised actions, and finish submission to instincts. In other words, it is sequence of behaviour which is caused by psychology - "panic" condition - an involuntary condition of fear - desire to escape from at place where there is a false sensation of danger.

The only possible reason why they still just did that, is that the nine members of the group faced a very tangible and real physical threat of the highest order.

The physical phenomenon - infrasound and its influence - also is " very tangible " (c) and “ physical threat of the highest order ” (c)


It is quite a stretch to state that nine resourceful people were scared by the alleged sonic phenomenon to the point that they even cut open their own tent and went out in the cold. It should also be mentioned that there is no proof whatsoever that the cutting of the tent were done by the hikers. Whether or not the tent was cut from the inside - and that is highly uncertain because there was no proper scientific investigation of the tent and its cuts - there is no reason to believe that the students did it. The assumption that the students cut their tent is a good example of an unfounded and rash conclusion.

As for the possibility that infrasound altered the minds of the nine unfortunates so that they performed a series of irrational actions, the one factor is that it is a very unlikely scenario that all nine students were so frightened that they not only fled far away from the tent but also did not return when it would soon after such an exit become clear that there was no danger present.

In addition it is physically impossible that such infrasound could occur on that day since the velocity of the wind on February 1 were insufficient to create the phenomenon. Svetlana Oss refers to the registered reports from three different weather stations: "Nyaksimvol - 6 m/sec, Ivdel - 5 m/sec and Troitsk-Pecherski 5.5 m/sec." According to the proponents of the infrasound theory themselves such velocities cannot create infrasound, and even if these three weather stations are not situated at the Dyatlov pass it has been shown that the combined data from these three stations together give a pretty accurate picture of the conditions at the site of the Dyatlov incident.

There simply was not enough wind in the area during the fateful night to create the hypothetical infrasound effect.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 06:44:28 AM by Per Inge Oestmoen »

April 30, 2018, 06:33:05 AM
Reply #32
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


Proofs do not arise from stubbornness.

Non acceptance of proofs always is a persistence direct consequence.

Nikolai Thibeaux died with a basilar displaced skull fracture contiguous with a ruinous temporal fracture. Such damage is not easily explained.

If we speak about crisis of basis of the skull (CBS) which was described by the forensic scientist it is easy to explain it. On a position of biomechanics of a skull at blow.
CBS this accompanying destruction at that trauma that was at Nikolas Thibeaux-Brignolles (getting wound of a skull in the right temporal area). The reason that the arch of a skull and the basis it is uniform mechanical system. Therefore at loading on the skull arch, the skull basis too it is deformed. If the module of elasticity of the arch of a skull on an order (in 10 times) is more than at the skull basis deformation of the basis of a skull will be in 10 times more too.
Presence of a through breach of the arch of a skull testifies that deformation of the basis of a skull will be more than critical and there will be a destruction of the basis of a skull.
Energy required for such destruction is small - approximately 35 … 40 J. It is equivalent to head falling (the weight is equal about 5 kg) from height about 0,8 m.
It is all is simple enough laws which are studied in the biomechanic of a head as it is physical model.
I was engaged this business professionally for research of processes and design protective equipment for aircraft and astronauts. For example, ejecting seat and protective helmets of a head.

A 3m fall onto rock is very unlikely cause.

For this purpose, what to receive such trauma it would be not necessary to fall from height of 3 m. the height of own growth and a sharp stone Suffices. For example, for Nikolas Thibeaux-Brignolles this stone was 2 х 3,5 sm ( 0.78 x 1.3 in) it see had a pyramid-shaped the form. Such as the expert in forensic medicine has described a getting wound at Nikolas Thibeaux-Brignolles. In addition there was still a developed area of crisis 7 х 9 sm ( 2.75 x 3.5 in) which is secondary at a breach of a temporal part of a skull.
Such trauma was easy for developed on the third line of a stone ridge. As is in this picture:



On this image show the quantity of snow more than was in 1959.

Coral Hull saying demon-possessed Yeti just as likely. 

Yeti is not my basis. I am technical physicist, instead of cryptozoologist.
And with “the black climber” I was not in time yet will get acquainted still too.  grin1

Physics is physics, no?

What exactly is not pleasant to you in such section of technical physics, how is biomechanic?

Also if people fly for an irrational reason, would they not fly in an irrational manner?

It is abstractly possible to tell everything. Let better speak for the obvious reasons, but with sufficient degree of knowledge in a conversation theme.


- What is the likelihood that Nikolas Thibeaux-Brignolles fell and hit a rock with the side of his head with the resultant injuries? There was not a true precipice at the spot, it was a relatively steep slope. Even if it is physically possible that the head might hit a rock if the person rolled extremely fast against it, such a scenario is far less likely than the more probable scenario that he was forcefully hit on his head with killing intent by another human being.

Why dismiss the more probable possibility?

From the start of the investigation in 1959, the authorities evidently tried to conceal the fact of murder. I think it is time to honestly re-examine all the old and new evidence, and accept that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was no mere accident. We are in fact obliged to do so, since the relatives of the unfortunate students have a legitimate right to know what actually happened.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 08:10:22 AM by Per Inge Oestmoen »


April 30, 2018, 02:35:05 PM
Reply #34
Online

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Dont get me wrong....   I believe it is very possible another human could have intentionally caused this scull fracture. BUT, why does it 'have' to be the butt of a rifle?  How do you know it was not a baseball bat size frozen log, or a bowling ball size rock someone smashed him with after pinning him down in a fight?

We simply do not know, and thats the only fact I see here.
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

April 30, 2018, 05:48:05 PM
Reply #35
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


Dont get me wrong....   I believe it is very possible another human could have intentionally caused this scull fracture. BUT, why does it 'have' to be the butt of a rifle?  How do you know it was not a baseball bat size frozen log, or a bowling ball size rock someone smashed him with after pinning him down in a fight?

We simply do not know, and thats the only fact I see here.


I fully agree with the above, it may have been be any kind of hard object. We cannot know with certainty what it was.

May 09, 2018, 11:48:05 AM
Reply #36
Offline

WAB



- What is the likelihood that Nikolas Thibeaux-Brignolles fell and hit a rock with the side of his head with the resultant injuries?

If to contemplate a problem from the point of view of biomechanics of a trauma it is equal practically 100 %. Well, well, let's take 97,5 %, and we will leave 2,5 % on uncertainty. But it should be proved rigidly. With instructions of the concrete reason, motive, a subject causing a trauma and mechanics of its reception.
Meanwhile I have a calculation (and I resulted it in last post), a rigid substantiation and place presence where such trauma could be received.
That you can result alternative. Except the general statements and the statement "I trust-not I trust"?

There was not a true precipice at the spot, it was a relatively steep slope.

At last post I have described in detail all. Please read once again and try to understand process details. For reception of such trauma the big inclination is not necessary. Final speed (speed of impact) is got sufficient for reception of such trauma even under usual conditions of district.

Even if it is physically possible that the head might hit a rock if the person rolled extremely fast against it, such a scenario is far less likely than the more probable scenario that he was forcefully hit on his head with killing intent by another human being.

Not probabilities define possibility of reception of such trauma. And conditions of district and the mechanic of event.
As to blow by other person there the mechanics is that that factors which the extraneous person to create not in a condition be required. Especially if to it to add conditions in which there were all events. You simply not so well represent, both the first, and the second. I would tell about it conditions especially.

From the start of the investigation in 1959, the authorities evidently tried to conceal the fact of murder. I think it is time to honestly re-examine all the old and new evidence, and accept that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was no mere accident. We are in fact obliged to do so, since the relatives of the unfortunate students have a legitimate right to know what actually happened.

Before speak about murder, it is necessary have the fact of such event. If who that is simple not a condition to explain that he does not understand, he starts to invent other reasons. Which on a place of events are simply impossible. If you have visited on a place in the winter and is simple walk on a slope in the afternoon, bat many inventions would simply be dissolved. And there events occurred at night (in a night-time), at very bad weather and in a condition of altered state of consciousness  (ASС).
If you speak: " We are in fact obliged to do so, since the relatives of the unfortunate students have a legitimate right to know what actually happened." (c), it quite right. Only they should not that who has thought up that, and that has occurred actually.

May 09, 2018, 11:49:40 AM
Reply #37
Offline

WAB


Dont get me wrong....   I believe it is very possible another human could have intentionally caused this scull fracture. BUT, why does it 'have' to be the butt of a rifle?  How do you know it was not a baseball bat size frozen log, or a bowling ball size rock someone smashed him with after pinning him down in a fight?

We simply do not know, and thats the only fact I see here.

In last post  WAB on April 22, 2018, 03:11:47 PM I have in detail described a subject to which such trauma could be put. Neither the butt, nor baseball bat do not correspond to these conditions. It is necessary to understand in detail details and trauma subtleties before to assume a subject.

May 09, 2018, 11:51:35 AM
Reply #38
Offline

WAB


Dont get me wrong....   I believe it is very possible another human could have intentionally caused this scull fracture. BUT, why does it 'have' to be the butt of a rifle?  How do you know it was not a baseball bat size frozen log, or a bowling ball size rock someone smashed him with after pinning him down in a fight?

We simply do not know, and thats the only fact I see here.


I fully agree with the above, it may have been be any kind of hard object. We cannot know with certainty what it was.

If professionally to understand details and subtleties of a trauma described of expert in forensic medicine we can say with the big confidence that it could be.
And I have resulted an approximate place of a trauma and real conditions on a place of events. What is incorrectly?

May 09, 2018, 12:12:08 PM
Reply #39
Offline

WAB


It is quite a stretch to state that nine resourceful people were scared by the alleged sonic phenomenon to the point that they even cut open their own tent and went out in the cold.

And in what there is a problem if there are also scientific researches altered state of consciousness  (ASС). Yes, it is an act as which it is possible to consider practically as suicide, but at ASС, the person does not understand that it does.

It should also be mentioned that there is no proof whatsoever that the cutting of the tent were done by the hikers. Whether or not the tent was cut from the inside - and that is highly uncertain because there was no proper scientific investigation of the tent and its cuts - there is no reason to believe that the students did it.

It is possible to doubt in everything. Even that this group in general existed. But it is not a constructive approach. There is a fact that the tent has been cut. Was examination which has unequivocally drawn the conclusion is spent криминалистическая that tent cut from within. That it there was who that another to declare it is not proved, because
1.It has Not been found traces of anybody another. And they remain always
2.The Area is so remote also approaches to it are well supervised by local residents what to speak about strangers is is to think out unnecessary essence. It is not a constructive approach also.


The assumption that the students cut their tent is a good example of an unfounded and rash conclusion.

If to consider a situation, conditionally speaking, “lying on a sofa" their many acts are not rational. Absolutely clearly that this action is not correct and even mortally dangerous, but in altered state of consciousness  (ASС) they only and could arrive. It when the instinct of self-preservation with imaginary danger of death forces to run from this place, without realising consequences.

As for the possibility that infrasound altered the minds of the nine unfortunates so that they performed a series of irrational actions, the one factor is that it is a very unlikely scenario that all nine students were so frightened that they not only fled far away from the tent but also did not return when it would soon after such an exit become clear that there was no danger present.

I ask one more time: why you so consider? Such negation needs a rigid substantiation. Last time you have not answered to this question.

In addition it is physically impossible that such infrasound could occur on that day since the velocity of the wind on February 1 were insufficient to create the phenomenon. Svetlana Oss refers to the registered reports from three different weather stations: "Nyaksimvol - 6 m/sec, Ivdel - 5 m/sec and Troitsk-Pecherski 5.5 m/sec." According to the proponents of the infrasound theory themselves such velocities cannot create infrasound, and even if these three weather stations are not situated at the Dyatlov pass it has been shown that the combined data from these three stations together give a pretty accurate picture of the conditions at the site of the Dyatlov incident.

There simply was not enough wind in the area during the fateful night to create the hypothetical infrasound effect.

The information from meteorological stations which are in several tens (or hundreds) kilometres (or miles) from a place of events is big error to take. Besides, the place of events is in a mountainous part, and without wood. And meteorological stations are on plain, in a low part of district and in wood.
In addition it is necessary to notice that the Ural mountains on this site are border of two different climatic zones.
Before the Ural mountains influence of a current Gulf Stream in the northwest is felt. It is more damp and warm zone.
Behind the Ural mountains there is essentially colder zone which has influence from the Central Arctic regions. Collision of sites of weather leads to that it is a zone where are available very strong a wind. To 30 m/s at a difference of temperatures (and an arrangement of zones of a cyclone and an anticyclone) with very big gradient. We well observed it in January 2015 when on a place of events there were a wind even more than 30 m/s, and according to all specified meteorological stations of speed of a wind did not exceed 10 m/s.
•Look at video of similar winds in https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FaZ2RSUdFtdQLyCZXZBn0w1L01uB22cr?usp=sharing . The video shooting was spent at all at the strongest winds …
There more than enough conditions for occurrence infrasound.

May 09, 2018, 02:33:06 PM
Reply #40
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen



From the start of the investigation in 1959, the authorities evidently tried to conceal the fact of murder. I think it is time to honestly re-examine all the old and new evidence, and accept that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was no mere accident. We are in fact obliged to do so, since the relatives of the unfortunate students have a legitimate right to know what actually happened.

Before speak about murder, it is necessary have the fact of such event. If who that is simple not a condition to explain that he does not understand, he starts to invent other reasons. Which on a place of events are simply impossible. If you have visited on a place in the winter and is simple walk on a slope in the afternoon, bat many inventions would simply be dissolved. And there events occurred at night (in a night-time), at very bad weather and in a condition of altered state of consciousness  (ASС).
If you speak: " We are in fact obliged to do so, since the relatives of the unfortunate students have a legitimate right to know what actually happened." (c), it quite right. Only they should not that who has thought up that, and that has occurred actually.


We can safely assume that most thinking people are fully aware that it is physically possible that a person can fall from standing height and receive a deadly injury to his or her head under certain circumstances. It can happen if other energetic factors like the impetus of a strong wind or directional body rotation fortifies the energy that propels the movementl. Such biomechanical principles are used in close combat systems like jiu jitsu.

But to take it for granted that Thibeaux-Brignolles received his injury that way, and to proceed by saying that nine students died on an evening because of a series of coincidences of physically possible but highly improbable events, is to fly in the face of all available evidence and misrepresent it. That is the opposite of seeking the truth.

It is contrary to the interest of science, knowledge and truth to cultivate preconceived assumptions that the tragedy must have been an accident and thereby dismiss the extensive evidence that points in the direction that a criminal act took place at the Dyatlov pass on that fateful night in the early spring of 1959.

May 09, 2018, 03:21:02 PM
Reply #41
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen




As for the possibility that infrasound altered the minds of the nine unfortunates so that they performed a series of irrational actions, the one factor is that it is a very unlikely scenario that all nine students were so frightened that they not only fled far away from the tent but also did not return when it would soon after such an exit become clear that there was no danger present.

I ask one more time: why you so consider? Such negation needs a rigid substantiation. Last time you have not answered to this question.

In addition it is physically impossible that such infrasound could occur on that day since the velocity of the wind on February 1 were insufficient to create the phenomenon. Svetlana Oss refers to the registered reports from three different weather stations: "Nyaksimvol - 6 m/sec, Ivdel - 5 m/sec and Troitsk-Pecherski 5.5 m/sec." According to the proponents of the infrasound theory themselves such velocities cannot create infrasound, and even if these three weather stations are not situated at the Dyatlov pass it has been shown that the combined data from these three stations together give a pretty accurate picture of the conditions at the site of the Dyatlov incident.

There simply was not enough wind in the area during the fateful night to create the hypothetical infrasound effect.

The information from meteorological stations which are in several tens (or hundreds) kilometres (or miles) from a place of events is big error to take. Besides, the place of events is in a mountainous part, and without wood. And meteorological stations are on plain, in a low part of district and in wood.
In addition it is necessary to notice that the Ural mountains on this site are border of two different climatic zones.
Before the Ural mountains influence of a current Gulf Stream in the northwest is felt. It is more damp and warm zone.
Behind the Ural mountains there is essentially colder zone which has influence from the Central Arctic regions. Collision of sites of weather leads to that it is a zone where are available very strong a wind. To 30 m/s at a difference of temperatures (and an arrangement of zones of a cyclone and an anticyclone) with very big gradient. We well observed it in January 2015 when on a place of events there were a wind even more than 30 m/s, and according to all specified meteorological stations of speed of a wind did not exceed 10 m/s.
•Look at video of similar winds in https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FaZ2RSUdFtdQLyCZXZBn0w1L01uB22cr?usp=sharing . The video shooting was spent at all at the strongest winds …
There more than enough conditions for occurrence infrasound.


I agree fully with you on one aspect in the above: Because of the typography in mountain areas and in particular when there is a large massive where air is coming in from several directions with different temperatur and humidity, the weather can often change very fast and unpredictably. You are wholly correct in that observation.

However, the significance of the reports from the surrounding areas is that even if it is theoretically possible that there may locally have been a stormy weather in the Dyatlov pass area that possibility is not supported by the reports from the weather stations. So where does that leave us? There is a "might be" here, but the trouble is that the alleged storm is not indicated by any sources or traces. On the contrary, the conditions around the tent tend to indicate that there had been absolutely no snowstorm on February 1. Indications would rather point to the opposite: If there had been a violent storm on that evening, the footprints from the nine students down the slope towards the forest area would certainly have been erased that same night.

Further: I do not mean to be rude, but it has to be said that the videos presented above are not evidence of anything. These videos merely show us what it looks like in a particular type of weather. It does not prove what conditions were present at the Dyatlov pass on the evening when the students perished. It does not remotely prove that infrasound was the reason why the students left their tent.

Ever since 1959, official versions of what happened have maintained that the tragedy was due to accidents and "a series of mistakes by Igor Dyatlov," and it has been confirmed that it was signalled from above that the conclusion of the incomplete investigation should be that it was all an accident and that nothing else than natural forces were involved. Today we have theories about man-eating yetis, ball lighting, UFOs landing and killing the students, nonexistent fires and smoke in the tent, infrasound effects that supposedly scared nine adult people out of a tent and made them flee a mile away to their death in the cold, and even fighting between the students themselves has been proposed as the cause of the tragedy. It is perhaps time to try a more analytic and realistic approach, in accordance with the ideals and demands of fact-based science.

Whenever extraordinary claims are made, these claims must be backed up by some extraordinary strong evidence. To claim that infrasound was the culprit, and to further claim that the students were so mentally disordered with an altered consciousness that they cut their own tent and fled far away to a certain death, must be considered extraordinary claims. By the way: Even if the tent was cut from the inside, it still does not tell us who did the cutting. We do not know who cut the tent, and we do not know that the students left the tent throught the cuts either. This is just one of many unwarranted assumptions.

To finally claim that all the subsequent injuries (which were all consistent with a lethal attack by humans with evil intent) were due to an extremely improbable series of sub-events that by coincidence worked together to take nine lives in the course of a few hours, is so extraordinary that it exceeds the border of the realistic by quite some margin. Like ball lighting, the infrasound theory certainly makes a good history, but with risk of being offensive I can only say that the infrasound theory not only lacks substantial evidence. The hypothetical course of events that has to accompany the infrasound theory is neither indicated nor at all probable, and this is also shown by all the fantastic explanations that have to be invoked to dismiss the evidence that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was an act of violence amounting to merciless homicide.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 03:31:37 PM by Per Inge Oestmoen »

June 13, 2018, 12:43:00 PM
Reply #42
Offline

WAB



Unfortunately I have possibility to write very seldom on this site.
Therefore I ask to excuse for a delay and the big text at once.
The text is difficult for breaking under paragraphs, therefore I will give completely the objections and judgements.



It is quite a stretch to state that nine resourceful people were scared by the alleged sonic phenomenon to the point that they even cut open their own tent and went out in the cold. It should also be mentioned that there is no proof whatsoever that the cutting of the tent were done by the hikers. Whether or not the tent was cut from the inside - and that is highly uncertain because there was no proper scientific investigation of the tent and its cuts - there is no reason to believe that the students did it. The assumption that the students cut their tent is a good example of an unfounded and rash conclusion.

As for the possibility that infrasound altered the minds of the nine unfortunates so that they performed a series of irrational actions, the one factor is that it is a very unlikely scenario that all nine students were so frightened that they not only fled far away from the tent but also did not return when it would soon after such an exit become clear that there was no danger present.

In addition it is physically impossible that such infrasound could occur on that day since the velocity of the wind on February 1 were insufficient to create the phenomenon. Svetlana Oss refers to the registered reports from three different weather stations: "Nyaksimvol - 6 m/sec, Ivdel - 5 m/sec and Troitsk-Pecherski 5.5 m/sec." According to the proponents of the infrasound theory themselves such velocities cannot create infrasound, and even if these three weather stations are not situated at the Dyatlov pass it has been shown that the combined data from these three stations together give a pretty accurate picture of the conditions at the site of the Dyatlov incident.

There simply was not enough wind in the area during the fateful night to create the hypothetical infrasound effect.

Any proofs does not exist. That there was that that another, except a case of natural damage. It is thought out by people who cannot understand physics of process of reception of damages under natural conditions.
Proofs are not conversations on theme, and material traces which are a consequence of real actions, instead of thought up.
Besides, they would like to find what that criminal events. So it is more interesting to them to understand this case. But between desires and truth there is a science which is called biomechanics of reception of a trauma. To a natural case detailed consideration of topology of traumas deviates. It is impossible to strike in a ju-jitsu a plane of very big sizes or a narrow superfirm subject of the conic form 3,5 х 2 sm (1,5 х 1 in). It will be surrealism.
To accept or not to accept as obvious to any person, it is subjective opinion. The opinion depends only on desire of the person, instead of from an objective reality.
You persistently do not want to accept a condition and the district characteristic because you them did not see and cannot imagine them.

There are no numerous certificates and, especially, objective data that it was a crime. It simply ideas of people which gravitate to conspirology. I studied this case directly on a place, professionally was engaged in researches in the biomechanic, studied all available documents and talked practically to all participants of events who were live to 2006, any objective certificates was not present. There are very indistinct memoirs which are accompanied by touch of hearings and legends. But no confirmed certificates are present. Many people far from professionals think out any improbable versions which are impossible actually. There is no objective information more. I hope that you understand a difference that what that the person speaks words, and in practice it appears, it not so. It is called as subjective opinion. More often this opinion appears incorrect. As it are takes place in this case.


June 13, 2018, 12:50:32 PM
Reply #43
Offline

WAB



I agree fully with you on one aspect in the above: Because of the typography in mountain areas and in particular when there is a large massive where air is coming in from several directions with different temperatur and humidity, the weather can often change very fast and unpredictably. You are wholly correct in that observation.

However, the significance of the reports from the surrounding areas is that even if it is theoretically possible that there may locally have been a stormy weather in the Dyatlov pass area that possibility is not supported by the reports from the weather stations. So where does that leave us? There is a "might be" here, but the trouble is that the alleged storm is not indicated by any sources or traces. On the contrary, the conditions around the tent tend to indicate that there had been absolutely no snowstorm on February 1. Indications would rather point to the opposite: If there had been a violent storm on that evening, the footprints from the nine students down the slope towards the forest area would certainly have been erased that same night.

Further: I do not mean to be rude, but it has to be said that the videos presented above are not evidence of anything. These videos merely show us what it looks like in a particular type of weather. It does not prove what conditions were present at the Dyatlov pass on the evening when the students perished. It does not remotely prove that infrasound was the reason why the students left their tent.

Ever since 1959, official versions of what happened have maintained that the tragedy was due to accidents and "a series of mistakes by Igor Dyatlov," and it has been confirmed that it was signalled from above that the conclusion of the incomplete investigation should be that it was all an accident and that nothing else than natural forces were involved. Today we have theories about man-eating yetis, ball lighting, UFOs landing and killing the students, nonexistent fires and smoke in the tent, infrasound effects that supposedly scared nine adult people out of a tent and made them flee a mile away to their death in the cold, and even fighting between the students themselves has been proposed as the cause of the tragedy. It is perhaps time to try a more analytic and realistic approach, in accordance with the ideals and demands of fact-based science.

Whenever extraordinary claims are made, these claims must be backed up by some extraordinary strong evidence. To claim that infrasound was the culprit, and to further claim that the students were so mentally disordered with an altered consciousness that they cut their own tent and fled far away to a certain death, must be considered extraordinary claims. By the way: Even if the tent was cut from the inside, it still does not tell us who did the cutting. We do not know who cut the tent, and we do not know that the students left the tent throught the cuts either. This is just one of many unwarranted assumptions.

To finally claim that all the subsequent injuries (which were all consistent with a lethal attack by humans with evil intent) were due to an extremely improbable series of sub-events that by coincidence worked together to take nine lives in the course of a few hours, is so extraordinary that it exceeds the border of the realistic by quite some margin. Like ball lighting, the infrasound theory certainly makes a good history, but with risk of being offensive I can only say that the infrasound theory not only lacks substantial evidence. The hypothetical course of events that has to accompany the infrasound theory is neither indicated nor at all probable, and this is also shown by all the fantastic explanations that have to be invoked to dismiss the evidence that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was an act of violence amounting to merciless homicide.

I wrote that did interolation analysis of the information from nine "nearest" meteorological stations which are around. I have written "nearest" so-called because the nearest is on distance ~ 90 km (~60 miles). In addition, we observed weather in the winter 2013, 2014 and 2015 and compared that has been fixed on "the nearest" meteorological stations. Then having the information from them and actual weather on a place, we consider what it there could be with big a probability on February, 01st and 02 1959 by analogy. What to object concerning such way, it is necessary to have a minimum 10 times bigger volume of supervision and accurately to specify to us in what there is our error. Other objections simply are not serious and is estimated only by that the opponent wishes that that to object (for the process of objection), but it does not have any information.
To take the information on weather for 100 km from a place, it is equivalent to that it is necessary to take it in Africa. It will be another anyway.

No, it not so. I had to observe similar traces even longer time later and at strong winds. Besides, traces have remained in such places where on them the strong wind did not operate. These are features of a microrelief. They have disappeared for two reasons:
1. Them fell asleep snow and them could not find.
2. Them has destroyed a wind. If you read criminal case that should know that they were not at once about tent. It is that case when from has brought snow because at once on a tent place the slope excess (a little more abrupt part) begins and there snow was postponed. Therefore them there have not seen. Then there was a wavy slope where traces have remained in a concave part of a slope and have been destroyed in a convex part of a slope. After the first bushes have begun, traces have been again filled up by snow. There there is a zone of adjournment of snow. Under snow they were, but they could not be found. Generally speaking, traces were only small sites. They were far apart. But there was a possibility to track a direction and a movement trajectory very approximately. To track only on very small site.
I do not assert that there there was a storm how much I investigated conditions, it turns out so that the wind was ~ 12 … 15 m/s (knots) and temperature ~-15 … 18С (F) on a tent place. In process of movement downwards, the wind has stopped a little above a place where have found Zinu, and the temperature was more low. By my approximate calculations, the cedar practically did not have a wind, but the temperature was ~-20 … 22С (F). It has been checked up in January 2015 when above (where there was a tent) there was a wind 20 … 25 m/s (knots).
Nevertheless, even absence of a storm creates conditions for this purpose that there would be an infrasound. But its parametres in the given conditions very much depend on many factors. For example, from a direction of a wind, temperature of a stream of air, humidity (depend on density of air which very much depends on humidity) an interval in flaws and etc. more precisely

This video is a weather illustration when many surrounding meteorological stations gave speed of a wind nearby 3. 5 km/s. And as to proofs, to be exact, as they are perceived by different people, this concept very subjective. For example, if will occur (I do not want it, this offer hypothetical) that in the winter, on the same place, happens too most with other group always there will be people who will confirm: «It not the proof, the head had other surname … year not is 1959 …. This group not from university UPI … and etc.»
And, even if in it there will be 9 persons, dates and weather … will coincide.

1. No official version existed and is not present in the nature in general. In total article of criminal case that has occurred is written absolutely precisely. But it not concrete instructions on the reason. Therefore everyone finishes thinking about all happened how he wants.
2.  Igor Dyatlov did not make any errors. If you them name, will be the first who could make it. I well enough know all details of a route and I have level of the Master on ski travel already more than 40 years. Those opinions that you read, are no more than personal opinions and they are erroneous. I can prove you it, only I should understand that you have high enough skill level on the given travel. Otherwise it will be conversation about what that concrete, and is simple for the sake of conversation process.

Well so I to you also cite exclusively scientific data. And the information received directly in a place of events in similar conditions. But it does not mean that it is necessary to use any unchecked or impossible information in the nature. And what you can offer? Meanwhile I did not see any answer to some concrete questions which I set in last letters.

And what does not suit you in this case? That you tell all should be made and in other versions. However there it does not turn out at all a logical chain of events. For example, if you want to prove murder should show the real reason because of what it has been made. Then should show possibility to make such on a place of events and the same conditions. But even with the first point (reason) there will be insuperable difficulties. If you consider that all has been made simply because so it wanted, it is very naive representations.
And whenever possible simply to come on this place, you cannot offer anything at all. Because do not know logistics and movement conditions there.

Let's tell all precisely? You do not know it. I know what to get imperceptibly to this area and to find tent at night on a slope it is impossible. As the proof I am ready to see it on a place of events in the winter when you there will arrive. And to get you there should the same as there was group Djatlova, and after it your villains.
You are agree?

Anything improbable there was not. All chain of events turns out naturally. In all it is possible easily it will be convinced there on a place, of winter conditions. But you did not do it, and I did it some times. Therefore it turns out that you show only words which do not prove to be true practice, and I show the supervision on place with the big statistics.

What is the theory of "a shone sphere»? That theory is not present. There are many conversations that where that that was shone. But anything concrete it has not been told. It not the theory, it is simple conversations. There are attempts to prove what that a hypothesis that Woodpeckers the command was lost from what that shone, but there too only one conversations. The facts are absent completely. It has no relation to an infrasound. For a long time already have understood that supervision of these of "shone spheres» to within minutes have coincided with event of start of rockets from the cosmodrome Baikonur. Other supervision was not, there were only conversations about them. But no acknowledgement are present. There are only conversations about it.
You suggest to consider conversations by the facts?

I asked to tell it already some times: you can result what concrete objections of probability of an infrasound? While you tell only the general words in which there is nothing concrete. If it simply your opinion anybody cannot forbid it. However it is not necessary to give out it for what that an objective estimation.
The course of events is already described for a long time, but you did not read it. It is in Russian. I have no possibility it to translate and adapt for understanding specially for you. There very much great volume of the text.
I understand what to convince you is useless, therefore and I am not going to do it later.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2018, 12:20:16 PM by WAB »

August 17, 2018, 06:19:07 AM
Reply #44
Offline

Morski


Hello. WAB, I`ve red your discussion with mr. Per, and both of you give interesting food for thought.
I find your opinion and explanation for the Dyatlov tragedy very interesting. To be honest, ever since I am familiar with the case, I have never thought about the actual biomechanics of physical injuries and the probability of how and when the Dyatlov group suffered their injuries. As far as I can tell from your words, it is highly unlikely, that the group died because of murder from other human beings, and the most probable reason is the impact of Infrasound and the subsequent effecst and misfortunate chain of events.
What is your opinion about the investigation itself? Why the people who were involved in the investigation had to sign documents for 25 years of non-disclouser of information about the incident, and the area was closed for several years afterwards? I really want to know what are your thoughts.
Greetings from Bulgaria!

August 22, 2018, 01:12:24 PM
Reply #45
Offline

WAB


Hello, Морски !

Hello. WAB, I`ve red your discussion with mr. Per, and both of you give interesting food for thought.
I find your opinion and explanation for the Dyatlov tragedy very interesting. To be honest, ever since I am familiar with the case, I have never thought about the actual biomechanics of physical injuries and the probability of how and when the Dyatlov group suffered their injuries. As far as I can tell from your words, it is highly unlikely, that the group died because of murder from other human beings, and the most probable reason is the impact of Infrasound and the subsequent effecst and misfortunate chain of events.

For me very interesting your understanding of a problem and opinion about it. Really hypothesis about Infrasound gives the chance without everyone superfluous essence explain all from the beginning to the end absolutely natural order. You have written about it too. Only it is necessary understand that except Infrasound and its actions there was one more considerable factor - a cold complicated by a wind in the top part of a slope. And still it is necessary to understand that all occurred in a night-time as there in January and the beginning of February light day proceeds only 6 … 6,5 hours. In the rest of time it is dark. The moon that day should ascend only after 4 hours АМ.

The question of get traumas too not so is combined, if it do to estimate on base of biomechanics. If you can read in Russian, I can send the reference to the big article about these traumas. For a long time ago I freely read Bulgarian magazine « Радио, Телевизия, Електроника », and I would not have problems with that that all to understand very well. I hope as in Bulgaria still can read on Russian and understand all correctly.

I will answer on your questions:

What is your opinion about the investigation itself?

I have not so well understood a question. What do you mean? A criminal investigation?
Then I can tell that it is spent well enough. I can compare that was in many similar cases (I have an expert about such 20 cases), from them I dealt with investigation in 10 … 12. There was much more admissions of the necessary information and investigation defects. All concern in specific conditions and unprepared of city inspectors to work in mountains and on a frost. Because such cases are very unique. Them are units or some tens on all world during more than 50 years.


Why the people who were involved in the investigation had to sign documents for 25 years of non-disclouser of information about the incident,

It is one of widespread myths in this history. Anybody from searchers of such subscription did not give. Because anybody did not demand it from them. I have personally interrogated many person from teams of searchers (Bartolomey, Karelin, Brusnitsin, Slobtsov, Sharavin, Mohov, Askinadzi, Koptelov …) and Yury Yudin. Anybody from them such subscription did not give also it at anybody did not demand. In criminal case there are 2 subscriptions (Maslennikov and Yarovoy), but these are subscriptions only about nondisclosure of secrecy of the investigation for a while when it went. There articles of the law which it concern are accurately specified.

and the area was closed for several years afterwards?

It too a myth on one half. How you represent possibility close not occupied territory of a taiga size is about Belgium? There have simply forbidden to direct travellers. But only officially. It influenced only that for these travel they could not raise sports degree. And it is all. The one who wanted to pass there without any official registration of travel, that could go there freely. Then (from March till September 1959), some groups of travellers there went.

I really want to know what are your thoughts.

It is very indistinct concept of question. If you formulate what that concrete questions I will try to answer them. Thanks for attention to my modest opinion.

Greetings from Bulgaria!

Big gratitude for it too. I was not travel to Bulgaria, unfortunately. It has not turned out. And very much I regret.

PS. I have problems with access to the Internet, therefore ask to excuse that I answer not so quickly and in detail. I can come on this site seldom.


August 22, 2018, 06:48:17 PM
Reply #46
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
How does a noise account for all the bodily injuries.
DB

August 23, 2018, 09:22:39 AM
Reply #47
Offline

WAB


How does a noise account for all the bodily injuries.

I already wrote about it on April, 19th, 2018, 6:25:09 AM the Answer # 5
Shortly it is possible answer so: Infrasound only promoted that they would escape from tent in that kind in what them have found. All the rest were made by the nature: a cold, a wind, darkness, a stressful condition.
It is all very visually if you are on that slope in the winter of January or February.
But it is very difficult for feeling if you are at home, in heat and behind the computer.

August 24, 2018, 04:41:55 PM
Reply #48
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I do not subscribe to the belief that NOISE was responsible for the chain of events. I believe that THE EVENT that caused them to leave the tent also continued to play its part throughout their ordeal.
DB

August 28, 2018, 01:22:32 AM
Reply #49
Offline

CalzagheChick


And clearly you have no idea exactly who Vladimir (WAB) is either.... Here's a hint: it is not advisable to dismiss his extensive notes/work/personal experience/actual photographic evidence from his MANY trips to the Dyatlov Pass in favor of a 2014 mockumentary by the Discovery Channel about a mythical creature known as the Yeti. neg1

But that's none of my business....

August 28, 2018, 06:41:12 PM
Reply #50
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Actually maybe there was a noise , the noise of an animal of some kind, but not infrasound.
DB

August 29, 2018, 01:15:55 AM
Reply #51
Offline

Morski


Hello, Морски !

Hello. WAB, I`ve red your discussion with mr. Per, and both of you give interesting food for thought.
I find your opinion and explanation for the Dyatlov tragedy very interesting. To be honest, ever since I am familiar with the case, I have never thought about the actual biomechanics of physical injuries and the probability of how and when the Dyatlov group suffered their injuries. As far as I can tell from your words, it is highly unlikely, that the group died because of murder from other human beings, and the most probable reason is the impact of Infrasound and the subsequent effecst and misfortunate chain of events.

For me very interesting your understanding of a problem and opinion about it. Really hypothesis about Infrasound gives the chance without everyone superfluous essence explain all from the beginning to the end absolutely natural order. You have written about it too. Only it is necessary understand that except Infrasound and its actions there was one more considerable factor - a cold complicated by a wind in the top part of a slope. And still it is necessary to understand that all occurred in a night-time as there in January and the beginning of February light day proceeds only 6 … 6,5 hours. In the rest of time it is dark. The moon that day should ascend only after 4 hours АМ.

The question of get traumas too not so is combined, if it do to estimate on base of biomechanics. If you can read in Russian, I can send the reference to the big article about these traumas. For a long time ago I freely read Bulgarian magazine « Радио, Телевизия, Електроника », and I would not have problems with that that all to understand very well. I hope as in Bulgaria still can read on Russian and understand all correctly.

I will answer on your questions:

What is your opinion about the investigation itself?

I have not so well understood a question. What do you mean? A criminal investigation?
Then I can tell that it is spent well enough. I can compare that was in many similar cases (I have an expert about such 20 cases), from them I dealt with investigation in 10 … 12. There was much more admissions of the necessary information and investigation defects. All concern in specific conditions and unprepared of city inspectors to work in mountains and on a frost. Because such cases are very unique. Them are units or some tens on all world during more than 50 years.


Why the people who were involved in the investigation had to sign documents for 25 years of non-disclouser of information about the incident,

It is one of widespread myths in this history. Anybody from searchers of such subscription did not give. Because anybody did not demand it from them. I have personally interrogated many person from teams of searchers (Bartolomey, Karelin, Brusnitsin, Slobtsov, Sharavin, Mohov, Askinadzi, Koptelov …) and Yury Yudin. Anybody from them such subscription did not give also it at anybody did not demand. In criminal case there are 2 subscriptions (Maslennikov and Yarovoy), but these are subscriptions only about nondisclosure of secrecy of the investigation for a while when it went. There articles of the law which it concern are accurately specified.

and the area was closed for several years afterwards?

It too a myth on one half. How you represent possibility close not occupied territory of a taiga size is about Belgium? There have simply forbidden to direct travellers. But only officially. It influenced only that for these travel they could not raise sports degree. And it is all. The one who wanted to pass there without any official registration of travel, that could go there freely. Then (from March till September 1959), some groups of travellers there went.

I really want to know what are your thoughts.

It is very indistinct concept of question. If you formulate what that concrete questions I will try to answer them. Thanks for attention to my modest opinion.

Greetings from Bulgaria!

Big gratitude for it too. I was not travel to Bulgaria, unfortunately. It has not turned out. And very much I regret.

PS. I have problems with access to the Internet, therefore ask to excuse that I answer not so quickly and in detail. I can come on this site seldom.

I see. Turns out, that two of the many very important (for me) questions (1.The 25 year non-diclousre; 2.The closed area) have a more reasonable explanation. Thank you for claryfying these questions for me. Your opinion and answers are helping to put some order in the chaos of the incident. Still, the more I read from the documents and various opinions, the more questions I have. Same as all of us, I believe.

By the way, you can probably still read in bulgarian with no problem. Our languages, grammar and spelling are similar to a certain extent. I can read and comprehend russian very well, but my speaking is... Terrible, or at least amusing for native russian speakers.
Anyway, it is never to late to come go Bulgaria. Probably it is easier then ever before.

Cheers!
« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 11:53:32 PM by Морски »

August 29, 2018, 01:25:00 AM
Reply #52
Offline

Morski


Actually maybe there was a noise , the noise of an animal of some kind, but not infrasound.

Why so sure, that it is more likely to be a sound from animal, rather then infrasound?
As far as I can tell based on reading about the case and the experiments in the last 4-5 years, the area around Kholat Syakhl is better known for the extremely windy conditions, and not so much for the animals or creatures wandering around. Of course, I cant rule out the posibility of animal sounds, but even more cant rule out the infrasound. 

August 29, 2018, 05:25:01 PM
Reply #53
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Well its a bit like putting the pieces of a jigsaw together. But there arent too many pieces in the Dyatov Case. Infrasound is not a piece nor is an animal sound. But an animal of some kind could make a noise at THE TENT and then follow through its actions. Infrasound cant follow through its actions.
DB

September 09, 2018, 11:58:43 AM
Reply #54
Offline

WAB


Actually maybe there was a noise , the noise of an animal of some kind, but not infrasound.

And why the sound of animal cannot contain infrasound? Dolphins basically and communicate. But the matter is that on a place there are no animals who could publish such "sounds", because of which Dyatlov group has escaped from the tent. And for availability infrasound a natural origin such conditions are also they is very qualitative.

September 09, 2018, 12:07:28 PM
Reply #55
Offline

WAB



I see. Turns out, that two of the many very important (for me) questions (1.The 25 year non-diclousre; 2.The closed area) have a more reasonable explanation. Thank you for claryfying these questions for me. Your opinion and answers are helping to put some order in the chaos of the incident. Still, the more I read from the documents and various opinions, the more questions I have. Same as all of us, I believe.

Certainly, it is possible to explain all quite usually, without presence superfluous essence. However it not so is interesting to some people. They should decide, what they though to receive? Or they want to write the scenario for a detective film (as a variant - for a horror film) or they want to find out that there was actually?.

By the way, you can probably still read in bulgarian with no problem. Our languages, grammar and spelling are similar to a certain extent.

I hope that it is valid so. However while I do not have that interesting on the Bulgarian. That magazine has ceased to be published for a long time already. Or it does not arrive to them to our country …

I can read and comprehend russian very well, but my speaking is... Terrible, or at least amusing for native russian speakers.

It is not important. Any Russian person who wants understand that speak on the Bulgarian is able to do it always in 80 % of cases. I mean a natural dictionary fuse. For a long time already (some tens years) I communicate with my Ukrainian friends everyone in the language. It occurs to those who prefers to speak in an Ukrainian. And we speak and we understand each other absolutely freely without any inconveniences.
So it is not necessary to hesitate to speak, very big percent of our people will quite friendly apprehend about what they speak. If that does not understand that - means will ask again or will specify.
And here with gestures " yes " also " not ", here there can be comical situations. They is at us opposite. :)


Anyway, it is never to late to come go Bulgaria. Probably it is easier then ever before.

Thanks. Unfortunately now at me it is too much difficulties what to go where that, besides, that is necessary on emergency.

Cheers!

It is a toast?

September 09, 2018, 01:06:31 PM
Reply #56
Offline

WAB


And clearly you have no idea exactly who Vladimir (WAB) is either.... Here's a hint: it is not advisable to dismiss his extensive notes/work/personal experience/actual photographic evidence from his MANY trips to the Dyatlov Pass in favor of a 2014 mockumentary by the Discovery Channel about a mythical creature known as the Yeti. neg1

But that's none of my business....

Dear CalzagheChick, it is not necessary so desperately to attack the person who has other opinion. And my trips, here are weak argument, what to it that that to prove.
Here compete not authorities, and knowledge and erudition. And they at all different. As well as have desires develop it.
The forum is a place where it is necessary to mention the facts and arguments, instead of opinions or belief (as in church). I have stated the opinion and have added personal observations. If with it who that does not agree, it will be its private affair. However this opinion needs check by practice. From the opponent I have not heard what that of convincing objections. I think it exists in the absence of practice in those conditions on which he argues.
As to a film of 2014 of TV of channel Discovery we before a trip on pass in February met in Ekaterinburg about it group.

--------------------------------------

Group Discovery at conference in UPI February,  01th 2014

And as, we talked, for example, with mansi Valery Aniamov,

-----------------------------------------
 

Valera Anjamov at a sign where his father (it was the participant of searches of Dyatlov group) has extracted a bear in 1958. These are the same signs which were drawn by Zina in the diary. Also be on a photo of Krivonishchenko and Kolevatov. Their decoding me managed to be received in 2008 at brother Valera - Roman. Valera has ended the Moscow university of cinematography as the operator of documentary cinema, then was assistant the deputy Hunts and Mansi region. Now he lives in settlement Ushma because there lives his old mother.

------------------------------------------------------------

which they have interview. He to us has told that they used from this interview only those phrases which were necessary to them for the version about Yeti. And not completely in some places. It as usual becomes on TV. In many places he saw subsequently at all that sense which he wanted to tell. Probably he has not absolutely well understood about what it asked. Or it has not absolutely correctly formulated the answer because he has not understood a question well.
The film has turned out pseudo-documentary really.

September 10, 2018, 03:55:22 PM
Reply #57
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Bears probably hear in the ultrasonic range of 16-20 megahertz.

 "The normal range of human hearing includes sound frequencies from about 20 to about 20,000 waves, or cycles, per second." That is ; about 20 HZ [ HERTZ ] to 20 KHZ [ KILOHERTZ ]. 

Ultrasound waves have a frequency above the normal range of human hearing. That is ; above 20 KHZ [ KILOHERTZ ].

 Infrasound has a frequency below normal hearing. That is ; below 20 HZ [ HERTZ ].
DB

September 10, 2018, 04:15:16 PM
Reply #58
Offline

cz


Valera Anjamov at a sign where his father (it was the participant of searches of Dyatlov group) has extracted a bear in 1958. These are the same signs which were drawn by Zina in the diary. Also be on a photo of Krivonishchenko and Kolevatov. Their decoding me managed to be received in 2008 at brother Valera - Roman. Valera has ended the Moscow university of cinematography as the operator of documentary cinema, then was assistant the deputy Hunts and Mansi region. Now he lives in settlement Ushma because there lives his old mother.

Dear WAB, very interesting material. It may not be the most fitting thread, but because you mentioned this here, could you explain in a little more detail what you mean when you write that his father extracted a bear in 1958? Was there one? Do these signs indicate the presence of a bear in Mansi notation?

September 11, 2018, 06:28:01 AM
Reply #59
Offline

WAB


Bears probably hear in the ultrasonic range of 16-20 megahertz.

Please, do not forget to put smilies after you speak about megahertzgrin1  Сertainly if it is joke. Or dimension of units of frequency in this you paragraph should be changed to KILOHERTZ.

"The normal range of human hearing includes sound frequencies from about 20 to about 20,000 waves, or cycles, per second." That is ; about 20 HZ [ HERTZ ] to 20 KHZ [ KILOHERTZ ]. 

Ultrasound waves have a frequency above the normal range of human hearing. That is ; above 20 KHZ [ KILOHERTZ ].

 Infrasound has a frequency below normal hearing. That is ; below 20 HZ [ HERTZ ].

In the rest it is the usual information which at us usually inform schoolboys in 6 or 7 class of basic school at physics lessons. I know about it already very long as perfectly. Thanks

But we in this theme say not that can be hear the person, and about that what influence has infrasound (below 20 Hz [HERTZ].) on mentality of the person. These researches are very exclusive and not many numerous. Many people usually do not know even very simple properties of infrasound. For example some persons say that they listened to infrasound through ear-phones and have heard nothing and have not felt. But ear-phones  can not reproduce infrasound purely for technical reasons. It is the usual technical physics. Or it is separate sections of reproduce`s acoustics. For reception of good properties of infrasound by artificial way premises where the minimum size (any party is required are necessary!) approximately to 10 times more lengths of a wave of the necessary frequency. For frequency at 6 or 7 Hz the length of wave air (at a sea level) makes 47 … 55 metres (155 … 180 foots), mean, for laboratory the premise of size  minimum 500 х 500 х 500 m (1650 х 1650 х 1650 foots) is required.

Therefore so few direct researches of the necessary ranges of an infrasound in air. They can be made only in the conditions of the nature. And it almost that is impossible. At least because that it is much more than expensively. And, the most important thing, it does not promise what that notable commercial effect. Then for the sake of what they need to be spent?
As you can see here all exists very difficult …