November 22, 2019, 03:31:18 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Reopening the Dyatlov Pass Case  (Read 3515 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

May 12, 2019, 06:27:50 AM
Reply #30
Offline

gypsy


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.

May 12, 2019, 06:40:52 AM
Reply #31
Offline

Nigel Evans


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.
DPI      = "Unknown compelling force"
Skripal = “Russophobia”
Case reopened = "Avalanche theory"
« Last Edit: May 12, 2019, 10:16:51 AM by Nigel Evans »

May 12, 2019, 08:42:51 AM
Reply #32

tekumze

Guest
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.


May 12, 2019, 11:05:32 AM
Reply #33
Offline

WAB


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:







Such cut has as result turned out here:





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



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



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 )
 


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.



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.


 
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



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.



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



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






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...
« Last Edit: May 12, 2019, 11:18:25 AM by WAB »

May 12, 2019, 12:29:43 PM
Reply #34

tekumze

Guest
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.

May 12, 2019, 01:36:23 PM
Reply #35
Offline

Nigel Evans


Hi WAB, it's not clear from the translation what's the conclusion?

May 13, 2019, 02:22:04 AM
Reply #36

tekumze

Guest
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.

May 13, 2019, 03:59:01 AM
Reply #37
Offline

Nigel Evans


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.

May 13, 2019, 05:13:38 AM
Reply #38

tekumze

Guest
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.

May 13, 2019, 06:10:17 AM
Reply #39
Offline

Nigel Evans


Maybe WAB can enlighten us.

May 13, 2019, 06:20:27 AM
Reply #40

tekumze

Guest

May 13, 2019, 06:54:24 AM
Reply #41
Offline

Morski


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...

May 13, 2019, 08:27:51 AM
Reply #42

tekumze

Guest
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...

May 13, 2019, 12:55:52 PM
Reply #43
Online

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
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.
DB

May 13, 2019, 01:42:17 PM
Reply #44

tekumze

Guest
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

May 14, 2019, 01:49:54 AM
Reply #45

tekumze

Guest
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.

May 15, 2019, 03:46:33 AM
Reply #46
Offline

Aspen


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.

May 15, 2019, 04:57:42 AM
Reply #47

tekumze

Guest
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?

May 24, 2019, 02:28:43 AM
Reply #48

tekumze

Guest
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!

May 27, 2019, 09:54:25 AM
Reply #49
Offline

WAB


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.


May 27, 2019, 09:55:40 AM
Reply #50
Offline

WAB


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.

May 27, 2019, 09:57:59 AM
Reply #51
Offline

WAB


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.

May 27, 2019, 09:59:31 AM
Reply #52
Offline

WAB


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.

May 27, 2019, 10:05:15 AM
Reply #53
Offline

WAB


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.

May 27, 2019, 11:46:25 AM
Reply #54

tekumze

Guest
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 ...

May 27, 2019, 12:51:13 PM
Reply #55
Offline

Nigel Evans


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

May 28, 2019, 04:41:36 PM
Reply #56
Online

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
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  !  ?
DB

May 29, 2019, 03:47:48 AM
Reply #57

tekumze

Guest
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.


May 29, 2019, 07:40:20 AM
Reply #58
Offline

Nigel Evans



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.

May 29, 2019, 09:53:12 AM
Reply #59

tekumze

Guest
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 ...