A rotating sphere of relativistic electrons will blow up into x-rays within a microsecond. They can't last.Not so, Professor Wu estimates up to 5 seconds for aerial objects. - https://www.nature.com/articles/srep28263
That article is:Well he's better qualified than me - https://person.zju.edu.cn/en/hcwu
1. awful and unsound
2. says nothing about rotating relativistic electron fields
3. is in a rubbish journal.
If relativistic electrons travel in anything but a straight path, they produce x-rays and bleed off energy, slowing down. This is true. CERN could not exist if it were not so.
I suppose the orange orbs could have been rocket gases. If they were Do you think the rockets had something to do with the deaths of the group?Rocket fuel could be N2O4 which would fit.
How would the ball lightning or roller sustain significant relativistic mass. The amount of energy required to develop a sign isn’t mass would be mind boggling wouldn’t it. Given E=MC2? If it managed to build up that much energy would it explode with immense destructive power? If so what sort of energy would it be?Enough energy to do this - http://www.kc4cop.bizland.com/first_installment_extreme_ball_lightning.htm
NOx or some other plume of noxious gas could have driven away from the camp site but given NOx is heavier than air and given their location on the slope and the high level of dilution of gases it would have to have been some very strange and extreme event. Nevertheless I don't think anything should be ruled out.Looks like something similar took place at Chivruay...
A logical break down of key events in the DPI
Assumption: The scene has not been tampered with and accurately reflects the events of that night.
Facts/analysis
1. The hikers left their camp site, leaving their boots, their warm weather gear, and many items of equipment that could have been used as a weapon. Some of them took their cameras.
Why did the hikers leave their camp site?
A: there was some external event outside of their influence that presented them with an immediate and significant threat to their lives.
B: they were forced to leave the tent and the camp site by other people.
For either of the above possibilities it is clear that the group as a whole were not anticipating any kind of threat to their lives for either scenario A or scenario B. if they had been anticipating something then they would have prepared themselves better. They would have been ready to leave their tent and or they would have collected equipment that could have been used as a weapon ( knives or ice axes etc). Whatever happened it was a surprise.
For option B if they were forced to leave the tent by a person or persons, then it would have to have been someone or some people from within the group itself as there were no other foot prints in or around the camp site.
2. The group made their way down the slope toward the cedar tree. They were not adequately prepared for this.
Some or all of the group made it to the cedar tree, where they gathered fire wood and made a fire in an attempt to keep warm. There is evidence that they climbed the cedar tree up to a height of 5 metres. If they were marched down to the cedar tree under duress, why would their attackers allow them to make a fire to survive? This wouldn't make any logical sense, unless their attackers didn't accompany them down the slope, but instead stayed at the camp site, or their attackers being a part of the group were also exposed to the cold and made some of the other group members build the fire. But why would the attackers leave the camp site unprepared. This wouldn't make logical sense, so it is likely that if they were attacked the attackers stayed at the tent area. Another possibility is that those who were better dressed were the attackers, but almost all of the group lacked adequate cold weather gear. So if they were attacked, the attackers may have not followed the hikers down the slope to the cedar tree. The hikers could then build the fire and observe the camp site from the tree ( depending on visibility). So if the attackers stayed at the camp site, then where are their foot prints. Maybe it was the three found dead on the slope between the camp site and the cedar tree? But why would they have left the campsite without boots and adequate clothing. Nope. There is another possibility. Someone in the group had a less than 100% morale constitution. The diaries speak of an incident on the train with an alcoholic who accused the group stealing his vodka. Maybe one of the group did? Also, the guys promised not to smoke on the trip, and apart from one packet of cigarettes no other smokes were found. Nicotine craving on a survival expedition is not a good combination. There were also underlying tensions as some of the group had broken the rules and were sitting by the fire before all the jobs were complete. Not repairing the tent holes when needed. The diaries speak of the guys being "outraged" by this. Underlying tensions around tent repairs, no cigarettes, and cold night on the mountain. Maybe someone thought it was a good idea to crack open the stolen vodka and have a few warming gulps, or maybe a bit more than a few. Fuelled by a lack of nicotine, too much alcohol and underlying tensions, maybe some words were said, and then some more, and maybe it got out of hand. In a fit of rage the intoxicated person grabbed a knife and slashed at tent shouting fix this, or words to that effect. A fight then breaks out. The tent is ruined and their only means of shelter. The situation escalates and the fighting becomes serious. The group know their lives are now in danger. The person responsible now fears for his own safety as he has put the rest of the groups lives at risk. He grabs a knife and one of the other group members and holds them hostage, threatening to kill them. He orders them to vacate the area and march down the slope. They all march down. Eventually the attacker succumbs to the cold and the rest of the group take back control. The problem with this is none of the group had alcohol in their systems and even if such events could have happened without alcohol consumption, it wouldn't explain why the attacker would not get his warm weather gear and boots.
The above scenario is highly unlikely. It is unlikely that any of the hikers, assuming they were of sound mind would create such a situation, and leave the camp site unprepared. This would mean that if they were attacked it would probably have to have been by outsiders. But if this happened then they would have had to be really good at leaving no evidence or clues that they were there, and why would the hikers have their cameras on their bodies without attempting to photograph their attackers. There are a lot of problems with the idea that they were attacked, by either someone within the group or outsiders. This makes scenario B highly improbable.
That mean option A is a more probable scenario. Something significant happened that was outside of their influence. Some natural or man made event that made them panic and believe that their lives were in danger if they did not move away from the camp site as quickly as possible. This scenario does require any complex explanations. They rapidly put distance between themselves and tent/camp site. Their next best chance of survival was to make a fire which they did as soon as they found some fire wood at the tree line. The fire was not sufficient to keep them warm and the snow not deep enough to build a snow shelter. So they needed to relocate. It's not clear whether the three on the slope died going back to the tent or on their way to the cedar tree. They have though it would be better to return to the tent and died on the way. The rav 4 may have been waiting by the fire for their return or they may have gone further into the woods to look for more shelter and a place to build a snow den. If it was dark, and they were already weak and fighting the cold, it's possible they all stumbled into the ravine and fell sustaining the injuries discovered on 3 of the rav 4. The remaining surviving member of the rav 4 tries to build a shelter and drag his dying or dead friends into the den, but he dies of the cold before he can them into the den. The missing eyes and tongue are just natural decay.
Obviously all of the above is open to discussion.
A low yield tactical nuclear weapon detonated as an air burst would vaporise any metal parts. There is anecdotal evidence that Ivanov saw the tops of the trees scorched. Also, there were reports of orange orbs from geolists over 70km away from the pass. A 500m fire ball viewed from 70km would appear as about 24 seconds of arc. This is about two thirds the size of the moon in the night sky.
There are also reports from pilots who say they saw glowing spheres in the sky, and that this was followed by the plane vibrating and their instruments going crazy. It would be typical of a such a detonation. The plane would be buffeted by the residual shock wave and also hit with an EMP pulse that would have caused the instruments to go crazy.
There also reports of rockets/missiles being seen that night.
It would also explain the 3 year refusal of issuing passes to travel tithe area.
Why did they ask for radiation surveys?
I'm not convinced it was some nuclear test that Dyatlov group got caught up in but it is a possibility.
Quote from: Star man on December 09, 2018, 04:27:45 PM A low yield tactical nuclear weapon detonated as an air burst would vaporise any metal parts. There is anecdotal evidence that Ivanov saw the tops of the trees scorched. Also, there were reports of orange orbs from geolists over 70km away from the pass. A 500m fire ball viewed from 70km would appear as about 24 seconds of arc. This is about two thirds the size of the moon in the night sky. There are also reports from pilots who say they saw glowing spheres in the sky, and that this was followed by the plane vibrating and their instruments going crazy. It would be typical of a such a detonation. The plane would be buffeted by the residual shock wave and also hit with an EMP pulse that would have caused the instruments to go crazy. There also reports of rockets/missiles being seen that night. It would also explain the 3 year refusal of issuing passes to travel tithe area. Why did they ask for radiation surveys? I'm not convinced it was some nuclear test that Dyatlov group got caught up in but it is a possibility. >>. It's a good question and I will attemp to answer this for you: If this was a tactical nuclear test, then the core temperature of the device will reach up to 100 million degrees Celsius within less than a second. Any material that the device is made of is then consumed, vaporised and even turned into a plasma that becomes a part of the expanding fire ball. These devices are not immediately lethal at ranges greater than about 600 metres due to the heat, blast and wind blast. The radiation is lethal up to 1 to 2 km, but won't kill them immediately. It will make them feel very I'll though. The shock wave and wind blast may have given the tent one hell of a kick, but it wouldn't t have torn it have and fried it. It would certainly have been enough to cause panick. What followed would have been poor decision making to leave the tent poorly dressed. It wasn't the nuc that killed them in the end it was the poor decision making and the cold. The Nuc was what stared the chain of events. Yes but then the question would be ; how does the nuke manage to vaporise any metals and still kill all the Dyatlov Group without destroying the TENT and flattening bushes and TREE's etc etc. |
No. I don't think they were killed by a nuclear weapon. I think it is one possibility that could have been terrifying enough for them to leave the tent without their clothing and shoes.
If it was a tactical nuclear weapon there would still be evidence of it today. In or around the area.
It would depend on fallout, detonation location, place and altitude and wind speed.
Plume dispersion models could calculate where any fallout may have come down. If core samples are then taken and analysed it may help determine if such a test did occur.
There may also be evidence in the bodies and autopsy reports. Key things to look for would be deterioration of their stomach lining, and signs of bacteria in their blood streams (sepsis).
9 ski hikers go missing on their level 3 difficulty ski tour in the Urals. 3 weeks later they find a tent and several bodies. Autopsy reports say they died of hypothermia. A few months after that the remaining bodies are found under 15 feet of snow with strange physical injuries.
Simple question:
Why request radiation checks of the bodies as part of the investigation?
9 ski hikers go missing on their level 3 difficulty ski tour in the Urals. 3 weeks later they find a tent and several bodies. Autopsy reports say they died of hypothermia. A few months after that the remaining bodies are found under 15 feet of snow with strange physical injuries.
Simple question:
Why request radiation checks of the bodies as part of the investigation?
This is one of the aspects of the Dyatlov Case that is still puzzling. It crops up regularly on this Forum. And still no satisfactory answer of course. Maybe the Authorities wanted to show that no Nuclear Weapons had been tested in the area. I understand that at that time many people in the USSR who by now had heard of the tragedy suspected a Nuclear Accident of some kind. Or maybe there is another reason for testing for Radiation, a reason that is still Top secret.
9 ski hikers go missing on their level 3 difficulty ski tour in the Urals. 3 weeks later they find a tent and several bodies. Autopsy reports say they died of hypothermia. A few months after that the remaining bodies are found under 15 feet of snow with strange physical injuries.
Simple question:
Why request radiation checks of the bodies as part of the investigation?
This is one of the aspects of the Dyatlov Case that is still puzzling. It crops up regularly on this Forum. And still no satisfactory answer of course. Maybe the Authorities wanted to show that no Nuclear Weapons had been tested in the area. I understand that at that time many people in the USSR who by now had heard of the tragedy suspected a Nuclear Accident of some kind. Or maybe there is another reason for testing for Radiation, a reason that is still Top secret.
It's not puzzling at all, Ivanov presented his evidence for fire orbs to the Central Committee and they ordered a radiation check.
No. I don't think they were killed by a nuclear weapon. I think it is one possibility that could have been terrifying enough for them to leave the tent without their clothing and shoes.
If it was a tactical nuclear weapon there would still be evidence of it today. In or around the area.
It would depend on fallout, detonation location, place and altitude and wind speed.
Plume dispersion models could calculate where any fallout may have come down. If core samples are then taken and analysed it may help determine if such a test did occur.
There may also be evidence in the bodies and autopsy reports. Key things to look for would be deterioration of their stomach lining, and signs of bacteria in their blood streams (sepsis).
Its a shame that the Case has not been reopened yet, because then we may get to some of the answers we need. A thorough Forensic investigation of the Site these days and also any other real evidence still remaining.
]]
Quoted from Starman ;
[[ Maybe there is still some concern that it would be embarrassing for the government or the info on the weapons is still classified.
Given that this happened 60 years ago and if it was a nuclear test then it is likely to have been an accident then I don't think it would be . I can't see that this could have been deliberate. Why would you want to harm 9 of the countries young and good citizens. At the endof the day bad things happen so personally I wouldn't be pointing a finger at any government or organisation. I am just interested in the truth. So you are right, I don't see why they don't put the remaining relatives mind at peace.
Is it,possible that they did actually tell the families the truth but made them sign a secrecy disclosure?
]]
Quoted from Starman ;
[[ Maybe there is still some concern that it would be embarrassing for the government or the info on the weapons is still classified.
Given that this happened 60 years ago and if it was a nuclear test then it is likely to have been an accident then I don't think it would be . I can't see that this could have been deliberate. Why would you want to harm 9 of the countries young and good citizens. At the endof the day bad things happen so personally I wouldn't be pointing a finger at any government or organisation. I am just interested in the truth. So you are right, I don't see why they don't put the remaining relatives mind at peace.
Is it,possible that they did actually tell the families the truth but made them sign a secrecy disclosure?
Yes, Time heals as they say. Well there must still be relatives alive today. But back to Topic and Military accident theory, not only is there not enough evidence, obviously, but also what evidence there is does not point to a Military accident theory.
]]
Quoted from Starman ;
[[ Maybe there is still some concern that it would be embarrassing for the government or the info on the weapons is still classified.
Given that this happened 60 years ago and if it was a nuclear test then it is likely to have been an accident then I don't think it would be . I can't see that this could have been deliberate. Why would you want to harm 9 of the countries young and good citizens. At the endof the day bad things happen so personally I wouldn't be pointing a finger at any government or organisation. I am just interested in the truth. So you are right, I don't see why they don't put the remaining relatives mind at peace.
Is it,possible that they did actually tell the families the truth but made them sign a secrecy disclosure?
Yes, Time heals as they say. Well there must still be relatives alive today. But back to Topic and Military accident theory, not only is there not enough evidence, obviously, but also what evidence there is does not point to a Military accident theory.
Maybe there is enough evidence to solve the DPI. We just need to understand it.