October 23, 2021, 12:41:30 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Thoughts on the book  (Read 17139 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

April 23, 2021, 03:37:42 PM
Reply #90
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Hope the book is doing well.
It's doing very well. The Dyatlov Group Memory Fund is printing the book in Russian, and there is a great interest in the German edition that is coming out this year.

Although I believe this was an accident I do wonder if it was just the wind that caused a tree to fall, or something else.  Could the geological expedition have used explosives nearby and a shock wave caused a tree to fall?  Is it possible that there was some fault?

How can you tell? They are blasting all over - plenty of evidence about this. They find the site of the incident, the fallen tree, the tent the some of the bodies. They didn't panic right away, only when they learned that the a massive search is underway. No one was securing the area of blasting because no one was expected to be in the wilderness. There was no coordination between the Routing commission and the Northern Geological Expedition. There were accounts of people that happened to be in areas of exploration who found themselves in midst of a exploding mayhem, who threw themselves on the ground and prayed their life to be spared. They just happened to be in the middle of a blasting operation and lived to tell. No one made anything to make it safer. If Moscow hadn't been made aware of the tragedy the case would have ended after all the bodies were examined at the morgue, identified, and buried. If an expectation of the scene of the accident was not required the tent and all belongings would have been transported to Ivdel and later - to Sverdlovsk and given back to the UPI Sports club and families of the deceased. If the cause of death was called to be hypothermia (which would have been done without an autopsy) no one would have suspected any mystery. Usually an autopsy was required only if something seem amiss. The conspirators didn't do very good job staging it as a natural incident, and they didn't really know what would the autopsies show, but they were hoping for something "natural". And they almost got away... wait - they did get away, but not because they were Mensa smart. They couldn't be so effective in hiding the truth even if they wanted and planned it. The whole mess piled up by chance - light phenomenon, footprints, radioactive contamination, "survivor" (who survived nothing only turned back right on time to branch out whole universe of theories), late addition to the group (first to be exhumed), Lyuda's premonition, the traumas, the cuts, air force, discrepancies in the case files, investigator who knew nothing of mountaineering ... it goes on. It is a recipe for a mystery. It wasn't premeditated. They acted on an impulse, but once the wheels turn there was no stopping. I believe they were all deeply disturbed and sadden of the developments. There are more unsolved cases that we are aware of. All the publicity could entice someone to finally unburden from some information even only to say - yes, it was a tree that killed them but then...

That is it.  How can you tell?  Those involved were unlikely to know whether their actions were to blame or it was just a natural event.  But, they did not want an investigation to find out that it had something to do with their activities - they would rather not find out and face the potential consequences.  Therefore try to make it look natural.  But they created an even bigger mystery.  That is what I took away from it.

Glad tge book is doing well. It is a great piece of work.

Regards

Star man
 

April 23, 2021, 03:42:56 PM
Reply #91
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
If a tree fell in a forest and there was no one there to hear it would it make a sound?

This was an inspirational quote of the book while its work title was "Dead forest".
Unfortunately this particular tree made a tremendous and deadly sound because there were nine people to hear it.

Exactly. 
 

April 30, 2021, 07:59:29 AM
Reply #92
Offline

neni_cesty_zpet


Hello, I also read Theodora book and I agree that wounds are compatible with proposed theory but I must share some opinions of mine.

To my knowledge, no signs of outside damage to tent  was found.
I'd expect something like ripped tent/strings in case of tent installed in wood with supporting strings between trees. These tied strings are also essential for proper stove installation and there must be sufficient tension.

I cannot imagine someone staging natural cause. Was it weapon test - explosion that caused some nearby trees to fall ? Did something other fell from moving helicopter on tent, some kind of cargo?

If there was coverup, there were probably easier options for staging instead of moving tent from woods to slope risking some witnesses...

But wasnt the tent placed on slope to attract rescuers because of emergency situation in Dyatlov group that made them unable to return on skis - some members already seriously wounded? But then I would expect everyone properly dressed and most wounded members wrapped in blankets....

I dont rate this post much value but it may turn on red light in someone's head....

 

April 30, 2021, 07:01:24 PM
Reply #93
Offline

Dona


I haven't read any books on this but I think  she says that they were all dead before the tent was moved.
 

April 30, 2021, 07:37:57 PM
Reply #94
Offline

Manti


What are they doing in this photo then, if the tent was originally in the forest?

Not saying it's a bad theory, I think it's a very good theory, just wondering..
« Last Edit: May 01, 2021, 03:02:15 AM by Teddy »
 

April 30, 2021, 07:41:41 PM
Reply #95
Offline

Dona


Teddy said that this picture was unrelated to a film roll, loose.. and no evidence as to when it was taken.. Could have been the day before etc..

Also, without any background in the scene, this could be that flat area right next to the den..
« Last Edit: April 30, 2021, 07:53:24 PM by Dona »
 

May 01, 2021, 03:51:37 AM
Reply #96
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Teddy said that this picture was unrelated to a film roll, loose.. and no evidence as to when it was taken.. Could have been the day before etc..
Refer to the notes here: https://dyatlovpass.com/trek-photos#loose
... certain frames are known that are not part of the above mentioned films, and their corresponding negatives are unknown. It is known from memoirs that several UPI students printed photographs from the group's cameras already in Sverdlovsk at the request or assignment of the prosecutor's office: Bienko, Chubarev, Bychkov, Yudin, Sogrin, Shulyatiev, Stadnikov, Brusnitsyn, Plastun.

As for when was this photo taken according to our account of events it was taken earlier at the day of the tragedy, while according to their plans the group was building a storage. We believe the storage was removed, the tent pitched on its place by the conspirators, and later when it became important to find the storage a labaz was built 10 meters from the trail from base camp to the pass. This is all explained in Chapter 25. This is a copyrighted drawing from the book for the purpose of discussion only the domain DYATLOVPASS.COM which includes the forum.

From "1079", chapter 25:
Quote
As a leader, Dyatlov stood out for being quite determined, even obstinate, when making decisions. There were no good reasons to reject the initial plan to make the storage in the area above the forest level. Igor may have expected to move further north, closer to Otorten, and into the valley of the 3rd Lozva tributary, and to go over the northeastern spur of height 1079 just in one passage. But again, like on the day before, the intensified wind interfered with his plans. With the north-western wind direction observed in the 2019 microclimatic examination in the area of Mt Kholat Syakhl, on February 2, 1959, there was no protection from the wind north of the spur in those days. The wind shadow zone was right on the site of the tent, which would be discovered on February 26 – in the exact location where the group must have laid a storage before going down into the valley of the 4th Lozva tributary for an overnight. The plan was that, on their return from Otorten, they would find the storage by means of a flag. The flag might have been tied to the circular cuts on the ski pole, which UPI searchers would later find in the tent discovered on the slope of height 1079.


Arguments in favor:
  • Anyone familiar with the Mansi culture and habits when asked to comment on the labaz says: What labaz? I see no labaz.
    If you build a storage in the forest it has to be elevated or animals will go through your supplies in no time. Dyatlov group had photographed a labaz earlier in the hike. Read more: https://dyatlovpass.com/labaz
  • 40 kg of food missing from the labaz. Form the book chapter 25: "The group lightened their backpacks, leaving behind supplies for five days, spare boots, a mandolin, a set of batteries, and a lamp. The cache site is called “labaz”, after the Mansi wooden structures raised above ground to leave game for later – and sometimes used for burials, too. But the Dyatlov group labaz didn’t look anything like that: the hikers dug a hole and marked it with ski propped in the snow and a torn gaiter slipped onto it. Researchers familiar with mountain trek rations claim there are 40 kg missing from the provisions."
  • The page with food supplies is conveniently missing from Dyatlov project plan. I am not saying someone took it, only lots of coincidences helped for this mystery to engross to such proportion.
  • All the food supplies could be replaced from the Ivdellag, there is nothing that you couldn't find there.
  • All discrepancies about skis, knives and ice axes can be attributed with tampering with both the tent and the storage.

Bottom line: we think Dyatlov group made their storage where later the tent was found, the photo presumed last is actually made earlier on the last of their days alive, then the group went down the slope, pitched the tent, and were victims of the fallen tree accident.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2021, 04:01:05 AM by Teddy »
 

May 01, 2021, 05:17:58 AM
Reply #97
Offline

marieuk


40 Kg of missing food sounds like a lot.  Does anyone know how long that amount of food would have kept the group going for please? 
 

May 01, 2021, 05:38:16 AM
Reply #98
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
There were 55kg of products found in the storage. Maslennikov said that the distribution of food was 1200g / person / day = 10.8kg / day / group (after Yudin left) i.e. in the food in the labaz would last for the remaining 9 members of the group for 5 days.
 
Calculations in the following table show that Dyatlov group lacked about 40 kg of food which according to same calculations would last 3-4 days. The main question is that the items found in the labaz don't add up.

 

May 01, 2021, 01:18:58 PM
Reply #99
Offline

marieuk


Thanks Teddy. 
 

May 01, 2021, 07:31:58 PM
Reply #100
Offline

Manti


So, yes, setting up the cache on the slope and the tent in the forest would  make sense.

But looking at that photo, there is a person on the left and then 5(?) others in the trench. I see
  • person facing away slightly bending down
  • another person with darker clothing facing the 1st person, you can see their left arm on the right clearly, holding on to the trench's edge
  • a person facing the camera
  • and then another person in lighter clothing behind, facing to the right
  • possibly, one more person, or it could just be a backpack
So there was 55kg of products in the cache. Another 41kg missing: 96kg in total, would this need such a large trench that fits 4 or 5 people?

And why did they turn back the previous day from a closeby location? They were above the treeline but Igor wrote that he cannot even begin to think about setting up a storage there.


(Some possibilities: the snow was not deep enough in that part of the pass, or they didn't have enough time left and needed to set up camp for the night. )

And do I understand correctly, that the storage in the Auspiya valley would only be staged later, when the search was already underway?
 

May 02, 2021, 12:28:21 AM
Reply #101
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
And do I understand correctly, that the storage in the Auspiya valley would only be staged later, when the search was already underway?
Yes.

The one facing the camera is Krivonischenko, you can tell by the badges on his breast pocket.



They were above the treeline but Igor wrote that he cannot even begin to think about setting up a storage there.
He is clearly saying the terrain is not easy to dig up a storage. I didn't know how did they find the snow drift the next day, but this is what the new investigation is implying they did - that they found the snow accumulation. If they did, then it is much easier to leave the supplies and go down light in the comfort of the forest. This is where their route will take them the next day, why cling to a barren slope with no wood to burn, and water supplies if there was no emergency as the new investigation proved from the meteorological records for that night.
 

May 04, 2021, 01:32:36 AM
Reply #102
Offline

bertie


Teddy you are a legend, hope you feel proud  clap1

Tree falls on tent due to natural causes, not hard to believe yet it explains the heaviest injuries and the cut tent in one stroke. Some higher-ups connect reckless blasting in the vicinity with the discovery of bodies under a tree, fear they could be asked uncomfortable questions so move the whole scene away from the forest, creating a tragic scene of slow death (similar to a well known one which really had happened a few years earlier). In other words, the handywork of that type of brainless, unprincipled and self-preserving official that has existed in every society, in every age.

Its the neatest theory I've heard and a worthy rival to WABs theory. I place little value on much else I've seen in 15 years.

Q. How come I'd never heard anything about blasting before??






 

May 04, 2021, 04:35:02 AM
Reply #103
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Q. How come I'd never heard anything about blasting before??

You have heard of the Northern Geological Expedition, right?
Or at least the name Sulman is on almost every radiogram. He is the chief of the prospecting party. Their work includes blasting.
Problem is that people don't look at who else was in the area at the moment of the tragedy. The widely accepted view is that there are only Yeti, Mansi and escapees from the Gulag roaming the taiga. Let's not forget occasional KGB and CIA spies. In reality there is a lot of mining and railroad construction going on in 1959.


Northern Expedition - festive procession along Trosheva St. in Ivdel. Around 1970. Photo from the archive of Boris Arhipovich Ezhov.
More photos from Ivdel

The 21st Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held from January 27 to February 5,1959. It was a mid-term congress, timed so that Khrushchev could try to consolidate his power over rivals after the attempted coup of the Anti-Party Group in 1957. We know that the Dyatlov group dedicated their trek to the congress. The fact is even mentioned in their “Evening Otorten №1”. Similar tributes were very popular at the time. The Northern Geological Expedition wants to find ore and mineral deposits to glorify the Communist Party.

The most valuable resource was uranium. In case of checking a gamma anomaly, given the limited capabilities, the works might be done with a method borrowed from the practice of the leasing system of excavation of the radioactive ore by the MVD of the USSR in 1945-48: "The works were conducted in the most primitive way – by manual short-hole drilling. Next, blasting out, collecting and sifting the chlopinite– a pitch-black uranium containing mineral. Antimagnetic anti-tank mines weighing up to 5 kg were used as explosives." Sinyukaev Hamza Fazilovich participated in the search. In 1959 he was a cadet of the division team in military unit 6602 (Ivdel). He remembers the cannonade of explosions that were so loud they had to send a request to Moscow to stop the blasting so they could work. The distance in his approximation was not more than 10 km from the search base camp, and the blasts were on the northern side of the ridge, on the side of the cedar tree. The searchers couldn’t stand it even though a mountain separated them from the explosions.The distance between Otorten and Dyatlov Pass is 13 km. The blasting was somewhere in between. The Sinyukaev division was dropped on the pass at the end of February.

In 1959 Georgiy Vasilyevich Novokreshtyonov was a judge in Ivdel. He remembers Tempalov, the Prosecutor of Dyatlov case, talking about craters in the ground in the area of the incident.

Many aircraft were flying in the skies above. In 1958 instead of retracing a map, a pilot offered Igor Dyatlov to fly him over the area to look around (https://dyatlovpass.com/gallery-1958-Subpolar-Ural). In a rescue operation of another accident the military helicopters were flying along a planned route and they were used to exchange information with short wave radio stations (https://dyatlovpass.com/chivruay-incident-2#13).

These maps show the magnetic anomaly lines along which the helicopters were flying in 1959 right on top of the pass:
https://dyatlovpass.com/aeromagnetic-survey-maps

There is a lot more information where this came from.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2021, 08:34:08 AM by Teddy »
 

May 04, 2021, 09:00:58 AM
Reply #104
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
This topic was split in two. You can follow Nigel here → Nigel's thoughts on the book
 

May 04, 2021, 01:19:21 PM
Reply #105
Offline

WAB


There were 55kg of products found in the storage. Maslennikov said that the distribution of food was 1200g / person / day = 10.8kg / day / group (after Yudin left) i.e. in the food in the labaz would last for the remaining 9 members of the group for 5 days.
 
Calculations in the following table show that Dyatlov group lacked about 40 kg of food which according to same calculations would last 3-4 days. The main question is that the items found in the labaz don't add up.



Generally speaking, "judging by the run-up," I expected a more professional approach to the analysis of such components of the Dyatlov hike. As they say in scientific circles, this product analysis is reminiscent of the "Spherical Horse in a Vacuum. There is such a concept. The easiest way to illustrate it is with a picture:

)

This means that this is either amateurish reasoning, or there are such inaccuracies there that reduce the meaning of what is said by at least half. If you go to the table and its content, such errors in assumptions and comparisons are obvious:

1.   They had loin or ham, or, more likely, the usual country pork bacon (in Western countries it is called "bacon," only there the amount of animal fat is much less) for daytime snacks and for such occasions of a woodless overnight stay. They would not plan for it in advance, but if it happened, they did it to the best of their ability. They had slices of sliced loin (I'll use that term for anything that might have been there in fact) found in their tent, both used (the skins from them were mentioned) and sliced and not yet had time to be used.
The normal rate for these uses is about 50 grams (0.11 lb). I'm writing approximately, because that's the norm for calculation, but it's impossible to cut it so precisely, it turns out that someone will get a little less, someone will get a little more, but they don't make a problem out of this. It is unlikely it will be used daily, it is usually used in one or two days. So you can agree with the calculation of 30 grams per day for 1 person.

2.   120 grams (0.265 lb) of stew per day for 1 person is a lot by the standards and practices of the time. And now, too, although the stew nowadays in travel at this level try not to take - it is replaced by freeze-dried meat, which is at least 4 times lighter. They took a maximum of 2 cans of 330 grams (0.728 lb) at one time, or 1 can of 560 grams (1.235 lb). Most likely that's what they took because it has the best gross/net ratio. I'm talking about the weight of the iron can itself. Total, it turns out 66 (0.146 lb) or 56 grams (0.123 lb) for 1 person 1 time.

3.   Cheese in winter travels try not to take at all, because it freezes in the cold and its use does not give a gain in calories, because you need to melt the frozen water if you want to eat it. By the way, I do not remember that the search participants mentioned cheese when they wrote about food.

4.   Oil (butter) on a winter trip is a major metabolic energy source. It is considered that 50 grams (0.11 lb) of butter per day per person is not enough. At low temperatures, the rate is brought up to 70 ... 80 grams (0.154 ... 0.176 lb) per day. So here it is necessary to increase it even more. For the remaining 10 days of the trip, they left 4 kg (8.818 lb). of oil in storage, which is about 44 grams (0.097 lb). per person per time. Additionally, they took some more on the Otorten. I think that they took it with some reserve, because all unused products will be used as additional (or specially arranged)on the route. Even taking these calculations into account, the conclusion is that they had not yet come to the conclusion that they needed to increase the oil ration. That was still ahead of them, but in 1964, when I went to the Circumpolar Urals, it was already in practice. True, it was not in the Sverdlovsk groups, but in Moscow.

5.   25 grams of salt (0.05512 lb). -This is a very excessive amount. The normal rate is 10 (0.02205 lb). to 17 grams (0.03748 lb).
6.    As far as I understand, by the term "porridge" here you mean cereals for cooking them? The norms for them are different, but at the time they tried to stick to these norms:
- buckwheat groats = 70 grams (0.154 lb.). per person per single cooking.
- Rice = 60 grams (0.11 lb). per person per single cooking.
- oats = 45 grams (0.11 lb). per person per meal.
-oatmeal = 40 grams (0.11 lb). per person per meal.
- This may also include pasta = 70...100 grams (0.154...0.22 lb) per person per single cook.
I found my 1962 instructor school outline that gave such norms. In all the time since then in my practice of difficult travel, the norms have hardly changed and have given a positive estimate in view of the difficulty of the trip. It should be clear that this is not a picnic where you can eat until you burst, but anything more than the minimum necessary norm must be carried on your back, which only increases the strain and energy expenditure, hence requiring more nutrition. On such journeys often lose their original weight when they "eat up" the accumulated reserve of energy. Gone are the fat tissues, for example.
Then if you count the average per day, and then multiply by all the days of the trip, it turns out: 70 + 60 +45 + 40 + 90 = 305 : 5 = 61 grams (0.134 lb). per day for 1 person. The table shows 200 grams (0.44 lb), so I do not understand, where did it come from?

7.    Dyatlov's group took soups and kissels in briquettes, which were then very widely used, weighing 200 and 220 grams. (0.44 & 0.485 lb).  For their group they had to use 2 or 3 briquettes (a briquette was calculated in the city for 4 people, although it was often used for 3 people in the conditions of such a trip), even at the rate of 10 people. That is, 1 person at a time is 66 grams (0.146 lb). In the table the rate is a little overstated, but it's not essential, although if you calculate it the way it was in practice, it may turn out (I'm sure it will) that there was not a shortage of products, but a "surplus". Of course they would have eaten it all anyway, but if you do the theory, you have to do it competently and accurately.
The compotes they took with them were a set of dried fruit, which in winter is not very convenient to prepare. It is a long process that follows the fact that you have to melt the snow into water, which you also need a lot of, which turns out to be very long in total and makes it impossible to do it often. Plus it requires a relatively large amount of sugar. I have no knowledge that they took this on this trip (I saw no record or recollection that there was dried fruit). The very vague record in the log of food availability in the stall suggests that there is no accurate record of a particular compote. It is quite possible that they used dried fruit from this compote as a daily supplemental feed. But there is no information on the weight fraction of that dried fruit in that section, so I wouldn't take that ingredient as even with the soursop (there were soup-like briquettes) since the usability is very different and the weight ratios are also very different. So the proportion of compote has to be measured by the rate of sourdough. They could only make it on the route two or three times during the entire trip. Otherwise it would have been a large and unnecessary expenditure of labor that provided no gain in application. Rather, it is an echo of summer travel that is difficult to apply to winter travel.
 
9.   Cocoa, coffee and tea. We tried not to take coffee on such trips, either. No one forbade it, but compared to a good tea, it did not give any advantages, and the difficulty of preparation was obvious. They could take (and I think they did) a little coffee, but only, as they say, for the soul. At the same time 20 grams of tea per person for 1 time is a bit much, because they used 1 pack of 75 grams at a time. But the tea was usually made in the morning and in the evening. In total it was 15 grams for 10 people. There were packets of tea made in China on sale
 


And a very common hour of Georgian.
 


The other varieties, could only be bought in specialized stores, and only in Moscow. No one has told me yet that there was such a store in Sverdlovsk at the time.
Chinese tea had to be brewed very carefully, otherwise it was very light in color and was not liked. Georgian tea was weaker in quality, but not in color, but there was always a lot of it, unlike the Chinese tea, so I think they only had it that way.
20 grams (0.044 lb) of cocoa per person for 1 time is also a lot. Back then they used (I remember it very well) packs of 100 grams (0.22 lb) of Zolotoy Yarlyk cocoa from the Moscow factory Krasny Oktyabr.
 


Only one packet was brewed at a time. That was enough for 10 360cc mugs. If they needed extra cocoa, such as for a warming pad or flask that they carried on them and then used on their day break, they used a second packet. It is quite possible that they could also buy a big tin can of cocoa from the factory named by Anastas Mikoyan (he had been the Minister of Trade a bit earlier and was good at introducing new and needed products into the USSR trade at that time). They were 250 gram (0.551 lb) cans. 
 


. But they only used ½ of a can at 1 time to make them. Then you get a one-time rate of 12.5 grams(0.02756 lb). But cocoa was not made every day.  I think they had to make it 3...4 times during the whole trip. On the night before February 01 they cooked cocoa, it is written about it in the report Tempalov, in the form of a reference to the fact that they found a flask with the remains of cocoa.

10.   The norm for milk powder (or cream) has always been 20 grams (0.04409 lb) per 1 person at 1 time. I can't even imagine when they would use it twice a lazy? Unless in the evening (or in the morning if they had an "inverted" peeing system) they could dilute it in addition to the buckwheat porridge. But that wasn't every day either, and even if you imagine they could use it no more than once every 3 days, you still don't get the norm of 20 grams (0.04409 lb) per person at 1 time. To dilute powdered milk in good condition in the cold takes a lot of effort and "intelligence". Especially by the end of the trip do not do it. And so there is fatigue of all kinds, so save labor costs.
11. I have noodles included in the "pasta", but 30 grams (0.06614 lb) of noodles for 1 person at 1 time is not enough. Even for a very liquid soup, you need at least 50 grams (0.11 lb). But to "fill up" the total weight, let it stay, there will still be excess food in this calculation.  grin1

12.   300 grams of breadcrumbs is the limit on use, although they will be eaten anyway. It will always and everywhere there are such journeys. However, dried breadcrumbs have the property that they have a large volume at a small weight (which can be difficult to fit intelligently in a backpack) and they crumble, which reduces the efficiency of their use. There is a certain amount of compromise needed. Norm of dried breadcrumbs can be left as a calculation on the maximum.
13.   Sugar. This is the most difficult question. Sugar can not be counted as a norm per day to make products only for tea, coffee cocoa, kissel and compote. Sugar is very often used as a supplement on crossings. Back then there was still very little use of dried fruit and often issued sugar not a snack during the day. Pictured are. 
(
Zina hands out sugar in the parking lot for "refreshment" during the transition. So if you take the norm of 4 pieces of pressed sugar at 1 time (that's 48 grams), and such times we get 3 a day (breakfast - tea or cocoa; snack instead of lunch), the total is 146 grams. In addition, sugar was usually used as an additive to milk porridge. But there they used 20 grams (0.04409 lb) per person at a time. However, one must take into account and subtract the fact that the use of halva and condensed milk (point below) allowed for no sugar in these cases. This was approximately (from practice) 25 ... 30% of all cases. Total, we can assume that 146 grams (0.322 lb) (main application) + 15 grams (0.03307 lb) (additional application with 25% deduction) were required per day. For sugar, there had to be a reserve in case the need for additional nutrition increased in difficult areas, losses for loss (e.g. soggy and melted sugar). Therefore it is possible to allow 200 grams (0.441 lb) for each day for 1 person, but this would also be a calculation on the absolute maximum.

14.    Condensed milk and halva. I did not see where they had records about halva, but let's say that they ate it on the first days (1 or 2 times) and took it with them to Otorten - 1 time.  Then they should have used 1 pack (270 grams -0.595 lb) for 4 or they were more comfortable using halva for 3 people 1 pack. Because they had 9 people. That makes 9 packs of 270 grams = 2,430 grams. Then you have to take away the sugar of 81 people X 48 grams = ~ 3800 grams.  They should have had condensed milk in 380 gram cans. This is a standard can according to the state standard. However, as all other products were given on the same basis.  The condensed milk was also used as a whole can at 1 time. Otherwise, it was difficult and inconvenient to pack and carry an open can. In addition, some of that product was lost there, so it wasn't done that way, but used to the exact unit of packaging. An additional advantage was that it was easier to count products and assign quantities to be used that way.
There were still cans of condensed milk of 3.05 kg (6.724 lb) on sale (in those days), but they were inconvenient to carry and use. Therefore, although there was a big loss in weight due to the iron cans, but it was much more convenient and reliable to use. Such cans were used by the participants of the search, but they were based on a stationary camp. We found remnants of such cans in the 2009 expedition, at the site of the 1959 Auspia search camp. On this basis (as well as finding the remains of batteries for the radio station) the exact location of this camp was established.
15.    I will not change the column "other", because it is not clear what is meant by this. If it is pepper, bay leaf and other spices, as well as vitamins (although no one remembered about them either) and other things, then we can leave it like that.  And if it were to be ingredients such as garlic, candy, the tangerine mentioned in the "unknown diary" and other things, then 20 grams (0.04409 lb) per 1 person per day would still be a lot. For 20 days and 10 people that works out to 4 kG (8.818 lb), which is critical for unaccounted for or extra foods. If it is personal weight, then 400 grams (0.8818 lb) per person will not work. Someone will have to carry a whole kilogram or more.

Of course, there was some confusion about food in this group. As they themselves wrote, they took 3 kg of salt (6.614 lb), which makes 15 grams (0.146 lb) per person per day for the entire trip of 20 days and for 10 people. This is at the upper level of consumption, which in general rarely occurs, especially on ski trips. Usually 10...12 grams(0.022...0.02646 lb) is quite sufficient. Although half of this amount they left the labase (stock). Nevertheless, this is an excessive amount. But this is a consequence of too much haste and confusion, which is typical for students when they take exams and at the same time prepare something for the trip. It's hard to do everything optimally. In addition, the young age and inexperience in some domestic matters makes such mistakes.
If you calculate everything, you get the following picture: the total daily norm for 1 person in reality is: 831 grams (1.832 lb) per day for 1 person. For convenience, this can be rounded upwards, that is, to 900 grams (1.984 lb) per day per person. Then for the 20 days counted in the table (I don't understand where this figure comes from, if even by maximum calculations they had to plan for 16 days?) would be (166.2 kg or 366.408 lb) or 180 kg (396.832 lb) if you round up the daily rate. Since they were already on a journey for 6 days (after Vijaya, they ate only from their own food), so we must subtract 9kG or 19.842 lb (10 people) for 3 days = 27 kg (69.525 lb), and 8.1 kg or 17.857 lb (9 people) X 3 days = 24, 3 kg (53.572 lb), the total is 51.3 kg (113.097 lb). They left 61, 6 kg (69.525 lb) of food in the warehouse. It turns out that 112.9 kg (248.902 lb), out of 166.2 (366.408 lb), or 180 kg (396.832 lb), the balance is 53.3 kg (118.829 lb), This is what they had to take for the 3 days trip to Otten and back. Then it turns out that it is 5, 92 kG (13.051 lb) per participant or 2.97 kG (6.548 lb) of food per day per person, which is an excess of almost 2.5 times the practical norm calculated from practice at most.

So not only did they not have a shortage of food, but they had a surplus for 1.5 days.  grin1
If you do not use jokes, it turns out that they ate even more modestly than I thought and did not find in this position any crime or lack. Although, to be honest, on such trips you always want to eat, and a lot.  grin1
It is necessary to know how to subordinate their desires to the circumstances in such events.
The standards and methods of calculation I took from my own practice of more than 100 different trips (more than 60 were winter trips - on skis) and some specifications I got from those who were on the peaks Dyatlov in 1959. Most of all Peter Bartolomei, professor at UPI University, and Vladislav Karelin, doctor of special metallurgy, helped me the most. They both (like me) have a master's degree in such journeys.
It should be noted that there were experiments in nutrition on such trips, when the ration was calculated at 400 grams (0.882 lb) per day for 1 person. In December 1979 and January 1980 we went to the Polar Urals (this is north of Vorkuta) "in polar night", there our female part (3 people) and three men tried to use such a ration of 400 grams (0.882 lb). However we (3 other men) have refused such experiments and have made our own ration of 750 grams (1.653 lb), which we carried as our own cargo, against the public cargo, which was calculated very strictly for the whole event. On the route we were 13 days and walked more than 200 km. We started the route from the settlement of Halmer-Yu (it doesn't exist now), and finished in the settlement of Amderma on the shore of the Kara Sea. There were interesting psychological moments after the end of this trip, connected with restoration of a diet regime after this trip.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2021, 01:49:52 PM by Teddy »
 

May 04, 2021, 05:13:31 PM
Reply #106
Offline

RidgeWatcher


Thank you, Professor WAB and Teddy,

This really explained the nutrition and wise caloric intake during that time. I can't imagine going anywhere without cheese! But after you explained the wasted effort in the sub-arctic I can see the wasted energy. The Dyatlov Skiers were true athletes to be commended.

I always thought there was something strange about that platform cache down by the Auspiya, it never made sense to me but in the book it made a lot more sense to me that the strange was up on Kholat Syakul where there would be a lot less wildlife foraging through the drift snow and ice.

 

May 07, 2021, 01:45:38 AM
Reply #107
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Greatly appreciated the information. WAB is in his apogee!
 

May 10, 2021, 07:47:02 AM
Reply #108
Offline

Jacques-Emile


I find the book a true luxury for anyone interested in the matter of the Dyatlov Pass.  I suggest that nobody REALLY can understand the topic without the forum AND the book.  You must purchase it!

There is a quote attributed to Nietzsche that I cannot find in his writings - "A bad reader is like an invading horde - they grasp a little, scatter the rest, and ride off after making a mess of things."  Does anyone know the source?  Yes, yes, I know what Google is, thank you, and I cannot find this citation online easily.
I am not yet sure if my prejudices concur with the reasoned and tireless authority of these two authors.  That is because my prejudices are still held from the lack of information.  I wish to be open not stubborn.

That being said, I have a little I would ask the authors to add in the second edition (for I am sure there will be a second edition.)
  • What were these towns along the way at the time of the travel?  What was Vizhay?  Certainly not a bustling metropolis with streetcars, but what?
  • What on God's earth were these Ural Mountains?  Wikipedia offers The Uralian orogeny refers to the long series of linear deformation and mountain building events that raised the Ural Mountains, starting in the Late Carboniferous and Permian periods of the Palaeozoic Era, c. 323–299 and 299–251 million years ago (Mya) respectively, and ending with the last series of continental collisions in Triassic to early Jurassic times. They are old, so old.  What did they look like? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralian_orogeny
  • What does the forest at the liminal ring about the mountains look like?  Is is shrubbery, or tall tree?  The imagination can mislead.
  • May I now dub a person who on this board is annoying, a Russian name:  Yuri Nal or is that childish?
I offer gratitude to the authors for their hard-fought work.  Their trek earns them a Level Three, that's for sure.
 

May 10, 2021, 07:58:07 AM
Reply #109
Offline

Jacques-Emile


More thought - only a group led by a Дятлов could die in the presence of a дятел.
And another - see the question of the tree and making a noise.  Very profound at the heights of the Urals.
 

May 10, 2021, 08:00:44 AM
Reply #110
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
 

May 10, 2021, 09:27:32 AM
Reply #111
Offline

Jacques-Emile


I seem to be chatty today.
Source of thoughts for me:
https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/229chpt2.pdf
 

May 10, 2021, 03:56:57 PM
Reply #112
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Thank you for the quote.

There is a quote attributed to Nietzsche that I cannot find in his writings - "A bad reader is like an invading horde - they grasp a little, scatter the rest, and ride off after making a mess of things."  Does anyone know the source?

"The worst readers are those who behave like plundering troops: they take away a few things they can use, dirty and confound the remainder, and revile the whole."
― Friedrich Nietzsche
 

May 14, 2021, 04:23:13 AM
Reply #113
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
This was posted on Nigel's board but I am going to respond here.

For instance,  the bowl in the snow near the barren tent-site was twice described, but not analyzed, as I recall after one hasty reading.  It was perhaps 7-8 meters wide, and from what I recall, a meter deep.  This is the profile that one would expect to see if a helicopter is hovering above snow, even perhaps ten to twenty meters above snow.  So why don't you set down a helicopter in the snow?  It is incredibly dangerous, even to be twenty meters above the ground if there are the risk of down-drafts.  And when you set your trusty helicopter down in snow, does it have a special "keel" for landing in snow?  Otherwise, it sinks to the level of the firm rock.  If that is three meters, the whole body of the helicopter is sunk in the snow to the level of the doors, which is bad.  And the main blades and the tail blades get uncomfortably close to the snow.  If they touch the snow, they suddenly decelerate, and are flung off, destabilizing the rotor entirely, such that it will explode into shrapnel.  Very messy.  If you survive, you have to explain this to your chief.  Also very messy. 

There are very deep roots in any fact cited in the book that can and should be traced back to its origin.
------------------------------------------------
Maria. Михаил Шаравин отвечает на вопросы участников группы "Перевал Дятлова". (samlib.ru)
Question: In one of your interviews you said that not far from the Dyatlov group's tent, a small area of ​​blown snow in the form of a circle was clearly visible. Do you think it could have been from a helicopter landing there? At the time you saw many times helicopters landing and taking off. Can you compare with the tracks they left?
Or was the snow melted and icy, but again, in the form of a circle?

Sharavin: The circle of blown snow was larger than that of a helicopter propeller.
This was reported in the search radiograms. Later, this notebook with a record of all messages from the search was confiscated by the "competent" authorities, the room was closed and the watch was stopped. This is evidenced by one of the then on duty Galya ... who made a repentance, that is, a statement 50 years later.
------------------------------------------------

It is up to you what do you make out of this information. Our (the authors of "1079") comment is the following:

We are extremely skeptical about this information:
- this swept-out circle is not visible in any search photograph of 1959, although many of them show the slope in the area of ​​the tent;
- not mentioned in the case files;
- it is not clear whether Sharavin himself saw it, or repeats from the words of Batalova, who could have misinterpreted something said in the radiograms. The radiogram itself has not survived if ever existed.
 
This information is often used by supporters of conspiracy theories that someone flew to the slope in helicopters, collected fragments of missiles, laid out bodies, etc.
To our knowledge the slope is too steep to land especially since there is an even and very convenient terrain nearby, used by the helicopters to land in 1959 (well documented). Why risk to land a helicopter on the slope?
 
We are using this information in a different context. If the conspirators wanted to recreate a snowed-in tent they could have removed snow to pile up on top of the tent.
It could be traces from some activity around the tent. We do not have information about how wide, or deep, or shaped this track was. It is all made up.

This is a perfect example how to build a theory on a sinking sand. The fact is not important for our theory at all, but we have tried to mention in the book all "popular" facts so people could question and trace them before starting using them as supportive facts for a scenario.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2021, 09:28:14 AM by Teddy »
 

May 14, 2021, 08:10:40 AM
Reply #114
Offline

Jacques-Emile


We humans have an irresistible temptation to ask "why" that often leads to peril.
I am tempted to bicker with the fellow who is the source.
Helicopters almost always carry main rotors approximating the length of the craft. See https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13278/what-is-the-relation-between-a-helicopters-length-and-rotor-diameter but studious pursuit of the irrelevant leads to more solidly proven irrelevance. So I concede that any dip in the snow adds nothing to the story.
 

May 14, 2021, 09:13:13 AM
Reply #115
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
I am tempted to bicker with the fellow who is the source.


 

May 15, 2021, 06:38:12 AM
Reply #116
Offline

Jacques-Emile


 

May 17, 2021, 11:11:47 AM
Reply #117
Offline

Mars


First of all, I have to congratulate you on an extensive book that I have read very carefully. Before that, I knew very little about the events. Then I also got acquainted with your website that you run. I'm very impressed with all details which this website offer to readers.
I was very impressed by the book and I must say that it convinced me with its chronology of events and explanation of the concluding theory of tragic events.
Because the book convinced me of the sequence of events, I have no theory of my own given my poor knowledge of the facts. I am only interested in how it is that only 62 years have passed since the accident and that no witness has appeared anywhere to confirm this theory.
And when reading the members on the forum, by far the most scientific reference is Professor WAB. Accurately, scientifically answer all these or other theories. And he is also a historical connoisseur of these places and those times. It surprises me that I didn’t come across it to support the theory from the book. And on the other hand, I also didn’t come across any critical comments. As a great connoisseur of the Dyatlov accident and a connoisseur of historical events at the time, he can certainly confirm or deny some of the statements. Given that he is a highly respected connoisseur, his opinion would be very welcome.
Unless he refuses to do so because the book’s author is also the founder of Dyatlovpass.com
 

May 17, 2021, 02:17:29 PM
Reply #118
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
First of all, I have to congratulate you on an extensive book that I have read very carefully. Before that, I knew very little about the events. Then I also got acquainted with your website that you run. I'm very impressed with all details which this website offer to readers.

Thank you for reading the book. Please leave a review on Amazon if you can spare the time.

Unless he refuses to do so because the book’s author is also the founder of Dyatlovpass.com

Please do not go into politics straight from your very first post. WAB has very directly expressed his opinion about the theory and the authors at the end of this post.
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=924.msg16009#msg16009

In short according to WAB (who hasn't read our book) the mere fact that we believe the tent was moved makes us Kuntsevich and Rakitin entourage and the theory "fiction" and "nonsense". I repeat - WAB has not read "1079" which is available in both Russian and English. I am happy to give it to him if he wants me to. But I think he doesn't have the time since he is working on his own theory which I am curious about. So far what I know about his theory is infrasound made them leave the tent and then.... I am not sure what happened after that. They seem to die from... confusion. Donnie Eichar book is 50% Borzenkov and the rest is about his trip to Yekaterinburg in 2012. It would be like me filling up the book with Expedition Unknown. Igor solved the case without setting foot on Dyatlov Pass. I prefer WAB to explain his theory and not criticize a book he hasn't read. Maybe WAB has gained some new perspective on the case since 2012.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2021, 10:36:50 PM by Teddy »
 

May 17, 2021, 08:19:29 PM
Reply #119
Offline

RidgeWatcher


Teddy,

You said that you were collecting autopsy photos of tree fall victims. I want to ask you with respect to the victims and the Dyatlov tourists, how similar are the injuries?

I remember when "An unknown compelling force" had me mesmerized. I remember thinking what out there in the forest could have done that to the group.
It's as if we couldn't visualize the tree through the forest.

It was Victor Hugo who said "We are all born straddling the grave, we are just given an indefinite reprieve". No truer words were spoken in the Urals on that day

I found this recently from my neck of the woods: