March 29, 2024, 06:10:48 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: The tent location  (Read 5888 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


March 25, 2021, 08:27:28 PM
Reply #1
Offline

Игорь Б.


The finds confirm that the tent was located right here and nowhere else.


on my photos

1. cotter pins
2. washers
3. safety pin
4. wire
5. candlestick
An example of the impact of chemical weapons of a skunk (wolverine) in a tent:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=117054
 

March 26, 2021, 06:30:04 AM
Reply #2
Offline

Ziljoe


Привет Игорь Б,
Можете ли вы опубликовать еще свои фотографии вашего исследования местоположения палаток. Я видел их, но думаю, было бы полезно, чтобы другие увидели ваши выводы. Мне интересно увидеть расположение палатки и ориентацию тел.

Hi Igor B,
can you post more of your pictures of your research of the tents location. I have seen them but i think it would be good for the others to see your findings. I find it interesting to see the location of the tent and orientation of bodies. 
 


March 26, 2021, 09:00:38 AM
Reply #4
Offline

Игорь Б.


« Last Edit: March 26, 2021, 09:25:14 AM by Игорь Б. »
An example of the impact of chemical weapons of a skunk (wolverine) in a tent:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=117054
 

March 26, 2021, 10:30:53 AM
Reply #5
Offline

Investigator


That area is even more rocky that I had imagined.  I'm surprised they weren't more injured, but I guess that explains why they seem to have taken their time walking down the mountainside.
 

March 30, 2021, 10:46:56 PM
Reply #6
Offline

Игорь Б.


Photos of the 2013 expedition that located the tent and searched it.

https://disk.yandex.ru/d/-icQ8HMzowzfhA

Kozyrev, Koshkin, Panfilov:

https://disk.yandex.ru/d/-icQ8HMzowzfhA/IMG_3240.JPG
« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 10:54:16 PM by Игорь Б. »
An example of the impact of chemical weapons of a skunk (wolverine) in a tent:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=117054
 

March 31, 2021, 09:29:57 AM
Reply #7
Offline

WAB


Photos of the 2013 expedition that located the tent and searched it.

https://disk.yandex.ru/d/-

Why are you messing with people's heads (misleading) where they have very little reliable primary information?
In 2013 they came to the local place, which was known since 2008 with an accuracy of +/- 10...15 m (30...40 ft). They plotted, using the method you suggest, only one coordinate (they couldn't provide even less accuracy for the other) and were only able to do it with even less technical accuracy than it was done before them. Because the technical parameters of this action were absolutely not taken into account. And this is in addition to the fact that GPS coordinates by household meters have knowingly introduced error of +/- 6m (20 ft), and they did not even calibrate their device by google maps before going to the site.
You know very well that Timur Voskoboynikov compared the "accuracy" of Koshkin's measurement and this is what came out:
 


If readers here find it difficult read the Russian names, it should be clear to you how much the control points of the creek and cedar mouths "floated away" from the way they exist on the google map, and converged with several researchers back in 2008. There the differences among several researchers, even those with experience in sport orienteering and navigation, were virtually undetectable. This is  good illustration to the so-called "Koshkin (or KAN) accuracy".
When we were determining the location of the tent, and far more than once, both in summer and winter (snow levels and corrections for distortions in air transparency need to be taken into account? What do you think to it is?) then we got more accurate picture, IMO, but we do not claim to be more accurate than +/- 10 m (32.8 ft), because greater accuracy is simply impossible to achieve technically and physically. Therefore, all arguments about "super accuracy" in your links are nothing more than PR and bluff.
Apparently, neither you, nor Koshkin even thought about it. And I understood how well you" relate to physical concepts after our discussion several years ago, when you decided ignore the law of energy conservation when you thought that they had take heat from some unknown place, when they just burrow in the snow in their small clothes.

Kozyrev, Koshkin, Panfilov:

https://disk.yandex.ru/d/-icQ8HMzowzfhA/IMG_3240.JPG

Of all these figures, only Dima Kozyrev is worth noting as the person who brought the most value to the event. Dima is good photographer and was well prepared technically, if only because he found way take film camera with him and took lot of pictures with it. By the way, the method of "proving" "accuracy" with digital "soap boxes" with lens of 5 mm (0.19 in) fokus, and not considering spherical aberration (distortion), is also "good illustration" of how well your "company" understands what "accuracy" means.
What Dima was able to do is far more valuable than anything else.
Because everything else is just PR and narcissism. Everything was done before the bottom and 5 years earlier.

ЗЫ. Вы это лучше поймете, из цитаты к к/ф «Приключения Шурика»: «Все уже было украдено до вас…» (с)
 

March 31, 2021, 10:01:45 AM
Reply #8

trekker

Guest
Photos of the 2013 expedition that located the tent and searched it.

https://disk.yandex.ru/d/-

Why are you messing with people's heads (misleading) where they have very little reliable primary information?
In 2013 they came to the local place, which was known since 2008 with an accuracy of +/- 10...15 m (30...40 ft). They plotted, using the method you suggest, only one coordinate (they couldn't provide even less accuracy for the other) and were only able to do it with even less technical accuracy than it was done before them. Because the technical parameters of this action were absolutely not taken into account. And this is in addition to the fact that GPS coordinates by household meters have knowingly introduced error of +/- 6m (20 ft), and they did not even calibrate their device by google maps before going to the site.
You know very well that Timur Voskoboynikov compared the "accuracy" of Koshkin's measurement and this is what came out:
 


If readers here find it difficult read the Russian names, it should be clear to you how much the control points of the creek and cedar mouths "floated away" from the way they exist on the google map, and converged with several researchers back in 2008. There the differences among several researchers, even those with experience in sport orienteering and navigation, were virtually undetectable. This is  good illustration to the so-called "Koshkin (or KAN) accuracy".
When we were determining the location of the tent, and far more than once, both in summer and winter (snow levels and corrections for distortions in air transparency need to be taken into account? What do you think to it is?) then we got more accurate picture, IMO, but we do not claim to be more accurate than +/- 10 m (32.8 ft), because greater accuracy is simply impossible to achieve technically and physically. Therefore, all arguments about "super accuracy" in your links are nothing more than PR and bluff.
Apparently, neither you, nor Koshkin even thought about it. And I understood how well you" relate to physical concepts after our discussion several years ago, when you decided ignore the law of energy conservation when you thought that they had take heat from some unknown place, when they just burrow in the snow in their small clothes.

Kozyrev, Koshkin, Panfilov:

https://disk.yandex.ru/d/-icQ8HMzowzfhA/IMG_3240.JPG

Of all these figures, only Dima Kozyrev is worth noting as the person who brought the most value to the event. Dima is good photographer and was well prepared technically, if only because he found way take film camera with him and took lot of pictures with it. By the way, the method of "proving" "accuracy" with digital "soap boxes" with lens of 5 mm (0.19 in) fokus, and not considering spherical aberration (distortion), is also "good illustration" of how well your "company" understands what "accuracy" means.
What Dima was able to do is far more valuable than anything else.
Because everything else is just PR and narcissism. Everything was done before the bottom and 5 years earlier.

ЗЫ. Вы это лучше поймете, из цитаты к к/ф «Приключения Шурика»: «Все уже было украдено до вас…» (с)

Thank You for Your wast knowledge and accurate information. What is Your opinion of the place of tent in this report (Figure 2 of the report)? Is it correct according to location and terrain contours? Those small terrain contours and exact locations are important, if you try to explain this incident with release of snow slab. There must be quite steep angles if it was release of snow slab.



Link to report:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00081-8
 

March 31, 2021, 10:02:40 AM
Reply #9
Offline

Morski


This is off topic, but I am really glad to hear again from you, WAB!  thanky1
"Truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economize it." Mark Twain
 

March 31, 2021, 10:41:57 AM
Reply #10
Offline

Игорь Б.


« Last Edit: March 31, 2021, 05:23:45 PM by Игорь Б. »
An example of the impact of chemical weapons of a skunk (wolverine) in a tent:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=117054
 

March 31, 2021, 10:58:06 AM
Reply #11
Offline

RMK


This is off topic, but I am really glad to hear again from you, WAB!  thanky1
Yes, me too!
 

March 31, 2021, 01:19:44 PM
Reply #12
Offline

marieuk


This is off topic, but I am really glad to hear again from you, WAB!  thanky1
Yes, me too!

Me too. Brought a smile to my face
 

March 31, 2021, 04:20:47 PM
Reply #13
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
This is off topic, but I am really glad to hear again from you, WAB!  thanky1
Yes, me too!

Me too. Brought a smile to my face

Yes its good to see WAB appear again. He certainly has a lot of knowledge under his belt. And he brings intelligence in no small measure.
DB
 

April 01, 2021, 05:23:17 AM
Reply #14
Offline

WAB


Thank You for Your wast knowledge and accurate information. What is Your opinion of the place of tent in this report (Figure 2 of the report)? Is it correct according to location and terrain contours? Those small terrain contours and exact locations are important, if you try to explain this incident with release of snow slab. There must be quite steep angles if it was release of snow slab.



Link to report:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00081-8

Unfortunately, this is a very small scale map, so that you can put a place on it very accurately.
We exchanged a few e-mails with Prof. Puzrin and clarified some details.
I would not want before the end of our correspondence and without Prof. Puzrin's permission disclose our information, because it is matter of ethics. However, I can state very firmly that that paper was written at a good scientific level and contains no errors in the research methodology, the model presented, or the mathematics. However, they were given the wrong initial conditions for modeling. More precisely, they were given these conditions from the other side. These conditions are not at all suitable for the northern Urals, but very familiar in the Alps and the Caucasus. So the final conclusion was wrong
I absolutely do not support the view that there could have been a slab or any movement of snow. Because there are no conditions for this. Even the most rigorous experiments confirm this. The whole difference in the assessment of such a possibility arises from the lack of consideration of these different conditions.
 

April 01, 2021, 05:24:12 AM
Reply #15
Offline

WAB


This is off topic, but I am really glad to hear again from you, WAB!  thanky1

Dear Martin! I am very grateful for your kind words. By some miracle everything has turned out all right so far, but it's still a long way to go until I'm back to normal. I've started to "resurrect" a little, but I can't write much yet. I will write to everyone who remembers me, but only later.
Thank you.
 

April 01, 2021, 05:36:54 AM
Reply #16
Offline

WAB


They plotted, using the method you suggest, only one coordinate...
======================
One:
https://disk.yandex.ru/a/ulbky3rh3V9woF/5ae9691cedce975f9c7014e2

Two:
https://disk.yandex.ru/a/ulbky3rh3V9woF/5ae9691cedce975f9c7014e1

Don't make me and everyone else laugh. This "second coordinate" is so blurry that I would be ashamed to talk about it at all. Don't kid yourself and the rest of the public.

The finds confirm that the tent was located right here and nowhere else:
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=864.msg14471#msg14471

They do not confirm anything. The tent could have been at any distance from that location. as it was being moved from where it was to where the helipad was. It could have just fallen out along the trajectory of the movement. In addition, we still have to prove that these items are the property of the Dyatlov group, and did not appear there already afterwards. So far it was just announced that it was from the Dyatlov group and nothing else was presented. The participants in the search answered the question of whether these items were the property of the Dyatlov group in the negative. More precisely, they did not deny, but also did not confirm such a possibility.

Chuckcha ne chitatel:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=63482

You have a well-developed sense of self-criticism and a desire to pass off what you want as what it really is. And not something else.

When we were determining the location of the tent...
=====================
This is your tent location:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=92733
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=92778
Your mountains have moved.

When will you stop passing off Koshkin's fantasies as true events? His twisted thoughts and words have already been demonstrated by his own "exact measurements. For the rest, I could have said even more clearly:
1. These are not my points, but the fact that Koshkin with his level of "qualification" "assigned" them there. If he cannot translate the coordinates from degrees, minutes and seconds and tenths and hundredths of a degree on his own, it already says exactly how "competent" he is in such definitions.
2. he fraudulently obtained my rough (field) records of 2008 (having deceived Timur that it was necessary for another purpose) and began demonstrate his unintelligent notions. Draft records and were meant for more detailed research, not for other people's and empty fantasies.
3. neither you nor he were present at the place and time it was done, so you can't honestly say what was there. And yours and his perceptions are perverse.
4.Besides purely abstract and measurable components, it is necessary to take into account how the participants of this trip did it, and you and he generally ignore this as a component. Koshkin "assigned" supposedly "my places" to such points, which they could not dream even in a terrible dream. This is because his practice of such travel is not even zero, but negative. His fantasies are very different from reality. It's much easier for me here, I've had to camp this way many dozens of times (more than 100). No one is going to create a lot of extra work for themselves, much less "bury" it deep. It makes no sense even because of snow drifts It is enough only to level the site. Therefore it is not necessary to consider Dyatlov's group for idiots who think up for themselves a lot of superfluous difficulties. That is the difference between my tent positions and what Koshkin cracks about for a long time. All of this we have already demonstrated many times in photos and videos. But, apparently, it never "got" to you. Как шифровка до Штирлица.
5.The most competent theoretical construction was made by a person under a pseudonym harlan. He has everything approximately converges at least because he accurately determined the direction of the axis of the tent on the slope = 12 degrees from the north-south direction. This is completely (+/- 1 degree) consistent with what it actually is, because the tangent to the formative curvature of the site in that area has exactly that direction. Where it is positioned by Koshkin according to your methodology, there are noticeable differences in that direction.
6.If you impose these coordinates in the edition of Koshkin on google-model surface, then there coordinates of height will not come together, somewhere at 10 meters (30 ft)-in height! -, and somewhere by 15 or more. This means that his coordinates were put completely thoughtlessly and unqualified.
7.When determining the location, I used not one pair of reference points, but several, and then I optimized it all. If you, in your method, also take different pairs of guides, you will get different position points with a large variation. If you didn't take that into account or didn't know, that's an indication of your skill level.
8.The question of accuracy is artificially created to give you more of your own importance. It has no practical value whatsoever. Because +/- 100 meter (330 ft) shift in the north-south direction, 10 meters to the east, and 20 meters to the west, will make absolutely no difference in analyzing the behavior of the group in that location, even in the minutiae. Everything is the same there. If you do not understand it, because you have not been on site and did not explore it practically, then do not hide behind what would juggle with abstract numbers. Chasing imaginary accuracy is reminiscent of wanting the Schnobel Prize (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize). It is a prize for scientific and futile achievements. Apply for it, then you will definitely get it.
9.In winter conditions in 2014 Shura put on GPS coordinates all known points, which were determined theoretically. They hit the area with a spread of ~10 m (33 ft). My refinement (in real winter conditions, taking into account all natural variations and corrections) gave a difference of 8 m (24 ft) on the laser rangefinder, almost exactly north. With that difference, what is there to talk about if the technical accuracy of the plotting is possible within ~ +/- 20 m (66 ft)?
10.To talk about priority, we should have come to this place before 2008, when nothing was known about this place and it was theoretically located with an accuracy of +/- 300 ... 500 m. And not to come to the ready-made, which has already been clarified several times. Including in 2013, when Shura and Timur worked there. And Koshkin himself was present. After that attempts exalt oneself at the expense of "clarification" "by 2...3 mm (0.1 in)":) look ridiculous or as slyness.

**************************************
The answers to all the questions related to the death of Dyatlov group:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=107299

"The answer to all questions" is bluff. It is impossible answer to "all questions" correctly. More than half of your "answers" resemble nonsense, which can easily be determined by direct practice in the field under similar conditions. If you don't take that into account, you can narcissize yourself ad infinitum.
 

April 01, 2021, 05:53:21 AM
Reply #17

trekker

Guest
Thank You for Your wast knowledge and accurate information. What is Your opinion of the place of tent in this report (Figure 2 of the report)? Is it correct according to location and terrain contours? Those small terrain contours and exact locations are important, if you try to explain this incident with release of snow slab. There must be quite steep angles if it was release of snow slab.



Link to report:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00081-8

Unfortunately, this is a very small scale map, so that you can put a place on it very accurately.
We exchanged a few e-mails with Prof. Puzrin and clarified some details.
I would not want before the end of our correspondence and without Prof. Puzrin's permission disclose our information, because it is matter of ethics. However, I can state very firmly that that paper was written at a good scientific level and contains no errors in the research methodology, the model presented, or the mathematics. However, they were given the wrong initial conditions for modeling. More precisely, they were given these conditions from the other side. These conditions are not at all suitable for the northern Urals, but very familiar in the Alps and the Caucasus. So the final conclusion was wrong
I absolutely do not support the view that there could have been a slab or any movement of snow. Because there are no conditions for this. Even the most rigorous experiments confirm this. The whole difference in the assessment of such a possibility arises from the lack of consideration of these different conditions.

Thank You for answer. You have surely vast knowledge as You have also discussed with Prof. Puzrin. To me this study surely is correct with method and model, but I have my doubts because it is not tested by experiments in real location. To my understanding this study does not take into account of the weather and snow conditions in winter season 1958-1959 so modelling snow and its layering is based on assumptions.
 

April 02, 2021, 07:47:18 AM
Reply #18
Offline

WAB



Thank You for answer. You have surely vast knowledge as You have also discussed with Prof. Puzrin. To me this study surely is correct with method and model, but I have my doubts because it is not tested by experiments in real location. To my understanding this study does not take into account of the weather and snow conditions in winter season 1958-1959 so modelling snow and its layering is based on assumptions.

Thank you for your assessments.
I will agree with you with a slight correction. The whole difficulty in estimating there is not only the conditions of the 1958/59 winter, but also what are the standard conditions of snow formation on the slope. There's not a lot of snow accumulation there. In 2014 about us it snowed for 3 days with almost no wind (this is very rare at this location, usually the wind blows away almost all the fresh and loose snow) and it only accumulated 30 cm (1 ft) in thickness. Usually on a slope the thickness of this snow is no more than 5 cm, with a constant wind.
The aerodynamics of the slope are such that the shape of the slope from the top of the NE spur is very smooth and convex, so the snow does not accumulate as a large snowdrift. It's not a few dozen yards up and away from the tent. Even if there is a large transport of snow from the western slope (it falls much more there than on the eastern slope), it is captured by the large valley of the third tributary of the Lozva River. This valley is located on the path of the wind from the western slopes to the tent site. It turns out that there are no conditions for the formation of any snow movements above the tent site. This entire slope is made up of packed snow.
In conversations there is sometimes such term as firn snow, but this is a mistake. Firn is perennial snow that is close to ice in consistency. There is no such snow there, because in the summer, almost all the snow that has accumulated over the winter thaws. However, in Yekaterinburg very many travelers often confuse the two concepts. This must be taken into account when reading the recollections of the search participants.
In addition to the amount of snow you must also take into account the nature of the traction between the layers of snow. We have never seen conditions and the very fact of formation of a layer of deep frost (hoarfrost), because it is formed after the first high temperature (for example -5C or 23F), and then sharply and for a long time (several days minimum) comes the low temperature, for example -5C or -13F. Then the high temperature layer evaporates (sublimates) and a void is formed. This can often happen in the Alps (where Swiss scientists did their experiments), but almost never in the S. The Ural Mountains, because during all winters (from November to March), there are no thaws or sharp increases in temperature there. Average temperature in February is -25С, high temperatures are very seldom, but they are equal to -15С or 5F (this is considered "warm" there), and low temperatures are as low as -50С or -58F. But "high" and low temperatures are not held there for a long time, usually 1...2 days.
In addition, the layers along the slope accumulate as concave in shape, which also prevents any snow shift.
In March 2019, we did an experiment to determine the shear force on the weakest layer. We ended up with a force that was 4 times the weight of the fragment we were shifting. And if we take the force, which should move this fragment due to the forces of gravity of the earth, it was 13 times greater. And that was without taking into account the fact that we had to tear this fragment away from the snow above.
Here is link to description of this action, but it is in Russian.  grin1 https://taina.li/forum/index.php?topic=12445.30  , note #55 of 04/04/2019   00:42 MCK
But even if you have trouble googling it, there are plenty of pictures and figures there that don't require translation.  grin1