WAB. You say and I quote ;
''The information in diaries has enough for that understanding that occurred. But for this purpose what to read that that (as at us speak) to be able «to read between lines»(с) , it is necessary to have practice of such travel. Then it is possible to understand by analogy to that much as it happens usually on such travel. There is in general an unequivocal understanding, but for the people much, which experts of such travel have no, it looks unusually and not clearly.''
A diary is usually meant to be a record of EVENTS, whatever form those events take. The writer of a diary may input their own personal feelings. The point is that there is not much in all of those diaries that help us regarding the last day or so before the big event. Very little information. So how is it possible to form an understanding of what happened ! ?
I suggest us understand these questions under the following scheme:
1.Diaries on such travel happen two updatings: personal diaries and the general diary of all group.
2.It is necessary to consider who wrote it and that he wrote about concrete local event.
3.In diaries write not only that already was, but also about that that plan to make. Besides can be also different thoughts on extraneous things and events.
4.Very often even very insignificant notes will be clear that who much and long participated in similar travel and are not clear to other people because they are not familiar with it and cannot present itself it.
I ask you, please, analyse all that information taking into account all these points. That is all information which it seems to you as considerable and not clear.
I am ready to answer all particularly put questions.
Also, and I quote ;
''The group completely adhered to the initial plan. If you see differences from it, please say them. I do`t see them.'' =======================================
Its known that the Dyatlov Group intended to cross through near the forest area, which probably means about a kilometre aprox from their actual course. Why did they not keep to this intended course ! ? Instead they took a course that took them on to an EXPOSED MOUNTAIN SIDE IN BAD WEATHER CONDITIONS.
Why you consider, what "that the of Dyatlov group intends to be crossed about the wood area" (c)? Especially me interests, why you have decided, what it should be made "approximately in kilometre from their actual course" (c)? You well know this place? To the fine details? As far as I know there there are some different variants of construction of a local route. They should take place depending on concrete conditions: weathers, conditions of district, specific targets for the present day. I specially analyzed movement variants in this place from a position of the person of 50 similar 50 similar or more difficult travel having more, and is direct in that place, in completely similar conditions and at a various condition of weather. I do not have doubts that Igor Dyatlov has arrived incorrectly or in what that has broken traditional system of the approach to the decision of problems on a route. In what concrete section you see it not correct actions. I ask: It is not necessary to say (once again) that in wood it would be more safe. It is trivial point view of laymans.
Should repeat again that the weather estimation ("took them on EXPOSED MOUNTAIN SIDE IN BAD WEATHER CONDITIONS." (c) in this case is too subjective and does not correspond to an estimation of the decision of Igor to go in безлесную a zone.
If to alter words of one classic it is possible to tell: "
Marxism the travel plan
not dogma, and the guide to action!" (c)
Should repeat again that weather was quite comprehensible to their experience and concrete conditions. Such weather happens in 50 … 70 % of cases at present year. In 5 … 10 % - weather happens better this, in the others 20 … 45 % weather happens much more bad. Once again I advise to look at video of our visits of this place http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=6.0
on March, 31st 2018, 4:36:32 AM to Answer # 2 or https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FaZ2RSUdFtdQLyCZXZBn0w1L01uB22cr?usp=sharing
By the way, there certain sarapuk
has left the comment even October 09, 2018, 2:34:07 AM PM.
Iam not an experienced mountaineer
I think that many not understood questions it is possible explain to these. By the way, that we discuss, does not concern mountaineering. It is a separate branch of sports travel: long winter ski travel. A difference in them (if to speak conditionally and emotionally) approximately same as at the car and a motorcycle.
but I have been on a mountain in snow conditions and I would certainly not want to pitch a tent in such conditions and nor would experienced mountaineers if they could help it.
And you consider, what it is enough of it for this purpose, what skilled argue into behaviour of group in long winter ski travel?
Also, and I quote ; ''I many times talked with searcher Vladislav Karelin and he has agreed with me (having read that I have written in article) that its estimation of actions of group in 1959 was to year a little emotional. Then at it was not enough experience of travel by woodless region. Level of sports skill at our us about identical now. He is much better me knows travel on all mountains of Ural Mountains, except the most northern - Polar Ural Mountains. Especially it concerns Subpolar Ural Mountainsat.''
Emotional. What is that supposed to mean ! ?
It means that during concrete time (1959) Vladislav Karelin considered that travel in woodless zone are very dangerous, but then (when at it has appeared a lot of experience of travel on woodless zone is already after 60th and the beginnings of 70th years) he has changed the opinion.
However we do estimations now, already having a wide experience of such travel. And it opinion is much more objective.
Sometimes peoples initial reactions and observations are the correct ones.
However, happens so is more often that with reception of additional knowledge and practical experience, there is revaluation of the opinion.
They may change their minds later on for some reason but that doesnt mean that their first thoughts are wrong.
Certainly it is so. However I have say reason of change of this concrete opinion. Karelin's thoughts 1959 were not erroneous, but insufficiently proved, as has led to their revaluation further.