First, the actual location of the tent is a mattter of dispute
====================
The location of the tent was established with an accuracy of ±5 meters in 2013
I have to disagree.
1. regarding accuracy. Even a very approximate calculation of the technical error in this kind of "measurements" on the spot, gives an error of +/- 10...12 m.
That is why different "clarifiers" have constantly diverging points of the final place.
This can be deliberately neglected, but it is unproductive to argue with the laws of physics (nature).
But it is not only that. If this point will "float" in the range of +/- 50 meters in the direction west - east, nothing will change. Natural conditions even in microscopic differences will be negligible. From the east the place "holds" the bend of the slope, to the west you can move 1...10 m without any changes in conditions. Therefore, numerous "refinements" are meaningless now and, as designers say, are "catching fleas". You can play this game to infinity, but why do it in the case of a tent site? There is an analogy in history: the Parisian Academy of Sciences stopped accepting the " PI " number refinement back in the 19th century. Because it doesn't make any sense, almost all technical calculations are done at 3.1415.
2 Regarding history. In 2013, this trio already had the coordinates of the place with an accuracy of +/- 10 meters, which was determined in 2008 and clarified in 2009. Silence about such information is a forgery. It is interesting that the winter refinement in 2014 gave a difference of 8 m, relative to 2008.
3. On-site coordination. Usually "previous" points are established by GPS coordinates, which were given by their authors. But the usual (not military!, and not geodetic!) gives an error of +/- 6 m in advance and deliberately put there. This is done by government agencies for military security reasons. That is why there are often disputes about "previous researchers" giving an inaccurate location.
by detecting some small objects that in 1959 could have been lost in the immediate vicinity of tent.
These finds cannot give too exact position of the site. Because the specific location of this find lies on the way from the place where the tent was dismantled to the place of sending by helicopter - not far from the obelisk to the memorial plate. It is clear at least because all small objects were thrown directly on the fabric of the tent. When it was carried by drag to the helicopter, they fell there quite densely. What does not happen when one throws without any special intention.
For example, the fastening parts of the “baskets” of ski poles, which at an early stage of the search, rescuers removed from the poles in order to use the latter as avalanche probes. These “baskets”, removed and thrown into the snow next to the tent, which was moved a couple of meters up, are visible in some photos. In addition to them, other small items were found that belonged to the Dyatlovites and apparently fell out of the Tent when it was moved.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. There's a lot of controversy about something like the KAN-delabre, but that's because it's a very obscure design for traveling back then, with a lot of insurmountable flaws. So there is no point in drawing any conclusions about it, as it can't change anything. This is in addition to the fact that none of the search participants identified it and all the time they were surprised by the irrationality of the design and inconvenience in operation.
The 2019 Pokurorsky expedition ignored the exact coordinates of the Tent Place provided to them by the authors of the finds and determined its own, which is located approximately 115 meters north of the true one.
I think that no one can give instructions or advice to the representatives of legal services, but if they did so, it only shows their illiteracy in working in such field studies. And also that they did not aspire to such tasks.
A survey of the slope profile above tent place carried out at 2.5 m intervals in the winter of 2014, shows a snow surface steepness of 16 to 20°.
This is where I want to be clear. The slope above the tent, from the top of the northeastern spur of the mountain to the tent site, according to the results of double measurements in winter (2014 and 2019) had an almost constant slope of 18 degrees. Only at the very top (2...3 meters along the formation) and below the tent the slope was steeper - up to 20...21 degrees. But these were also short sections.
Methodological materials on safety in the mountains, reference and scientific literature on avalanches say that sometimes, under certain weather conditions, snow movement is possible even on slopes 15°
Yes, such a figure (as the most gentle!) is constantly mentioned by glaciologists and not only them. But avalanches (no matter what it is - "board" or fresh snow) are never "guided" by only one parameter. A whole bunch of such conditions is required there: snow condition, presence of voids - deep frost, roughness of the "substrate", difference in plasticity or fluidity of snow and other. I asked many people, including the respected Prof. Victor Popovnin (he was there with a group of prosecutors, TV and newspaper in 2019) to list all those parameters at which an avalanche can descend from a slope of 15 degrees in a given place. I didn't get an answer, apparently more time was needed to give a definite answer.
PS. There is a lot more to say here about all sorts of components of this phenomenon and details of the place, but unfortunately I do not have the opportunity to write here much and often.
Recent Posts