Dear Nigel Evans !
I promised make comments for long time on your theses from this message. I should apologise for delay, but these are my circumstances.
I have made it just now.
Hey Nigel, as I understand with my limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, is the conclusion that a potential action is possible in theory if all the complex factors coincide. I sent his work (WAB) to our institute and I will let you know what is their opinion as soon as possible.============================
My understanding of avalanche conditions including slab slides etc is that as snow builds up during the winter it consists of layers of different consistency which can include graupel which is dangerous because it has little friction, essentially a layer of little ball bearings made of ice. As the snow accumulates above this layer and it's mass increases and then it can be prone to sliding forward which then encourages more of the slope to do the same and you have an avalanche/slab slide depending on gradients etc.
So wrt the DPI my questions would be :-
- If the above is theoretically possible on slopes of almost any gradient in any year, what is the merit in investigating the snow conditions at the tent site in 2019? What does it tell us about 1959?
If approach to this experiment from position: “ I (that is - to you) anything it is impossible prove to me, because I do not want it the nobility!”, anything new or original in it is not present. We have simply made series standard researches of snow by which to us anybody and never did on this place. But we have information on snow condition in different years and in different months. Then on the basis this complex information it is possible draw conclusion that avalanche activity in this place is myth. Especially well it proves be true statistics poll different groups of travellers which took place this place in different years and in different conditions. Such groups it has been interrogated more than twenty.
For last 60 years the climate became warmer, therefore possibility formation avalanches (or even snow motions) became more. Therefore for 1959 this conclusion can be applied with more confidence.
- But why the interest in the avalanche theory at all? It doesn't explain the ravine injuries, the footsteps where of at least 8 able bodied people walking down the hill. If fewer people had made more journeys then why not put their boots on?
To these conclusions many human have come very much long time ago. It is More than 10 years ago. However you here think out hypothetical situation, and then start it deny with the big pathos. All these contradictions and absurdities of the avalanche theory very much are already published for long time. Personally I wrote all basic objections in 2008 before there was book Evgenie Buianov be pubished. There was consist 12 different positions of objections on 2 … 4 pages in everyone. Evgenie has simply ignored these objections as though they at all were not.
If the footsteps are invented then you have a different theory.[/li][/list]
It is not necessary invent anything. This is artificial removal from true. It is necessary have accurate knowledge. My knowledge is that anybody, except Dyatlov group there was not and could not be because district conditions and logistics of this place no present. For the present nobody could deny this my thesis.
- There are photos of before and after the event showing skis and poles pushed in the snow and undisturbed.
I at all do not understand that you wanted tell in this phrase. If it is probably "decipher" these thoughts. Please.
- It doesn't explain skin discolouration.
I already some (tens) times explained it of a variety of skin colours. I would not like to do it in … х10 time. Besides, skin colour is not connected in any way with avalanche event. It is necessary to consider all in the section. At us speak in the people (and Vladimir Putin too spoke it to officials): «It is necessary to display all separately - separately flies, separately beef steak!» (c)
- It doesn't explain the high level coverup clearly stated by Okishev and Ivanov.
No "cover" existed. It is fake statements which have appeared in unofficial conversations and widely extend "yellow press" and at forums separately being there conspirology-man. This history has not trivial explanations, therefore those who does not want to study deeply all this event prefer all to dump in false conspirology.
- It doesn't explain Ivanov's fascination with "fire orbs firing directed heat rays". Which is a very curious and specific assertion from a state prosecutor/barrister! Unless he was simply crazy he must have seen some evidence for this view. Okishev spoke highly of Ivanov - "thorough and meticulous".
Okishev it is «the separate song» …
Ivanov explained this event as result of meeting with UFO because he could not explain it other (more real) reasons. He is the lawyer, instead of the physicist and not the clairvoyant. All can be mistaken in understanding of processes. As far as I understand - we (as well as all the others) cannot be exception. It is not necessary dump all on Ivanov it result of level his knowledge of that period. Therefore it is not necessary jump over all time from concepts level for that time for modern level and back. So it is possible confuse more only all, instead find out all event.
So I don't get the interest in the avalanche theory, to me it seems one of the least probable theories and unable to explain key facts.
Basis for interest should be at first - possibility occurrence of this event in reality. And then maybe all the rest.
My personal opinion is that any avalanche (or similar) the phenomena on this place are impossible because it physical (natural) conditions no be present.