Recent Posts

11

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by Partorg on April 17, 2024, 04:13:49 AM »

относительно точности. Даже весьма приблизительный расчет технической погрешности при такого рода «измерениях» на месте дает погрешность +/- 10...12 м.

Я имел ввиду не координаты полученные с помощью засечек и разного рода фотопривязок, а место где КАН нашел шплинты от колец лыжных палок. А они могли быть брошены только там где кольца с палок снимали. Вот эти снятые кольца и видны на фото с только что разобранной и перетащенной на пару метров вверх палаткой.
Подсвечник, проволока, булавки, и что там ещё, были найдены там же (если я ничего не путаю), а  стало быть о дальнейших путях следования палатки говорить не имеет смысла.

лавины (неважно, что это — «доска» или свежий снег) никогда не «руководствуются» только одним параметром.

Разумеется. Я так и написал: «при определённых погодных условиях»  Если, например,  тёплый западный ветер «как при взлёте самолёта» вечера 31/01, к ночи ослабел до каких нибудь 2 - 4 м/с  и оставаясь при этом относительно тёплым (≥10°С > t° снежного покрова) омывал склон в течении нескольких часов, то склон вполне мог покрыться слоем поверхностной изморози которая и послужила «слабым слоем» для выпавшего днём из общей метели смеси свежего (атмосферного) и метелевого (перенесённого) снега.
Доски (snow slab) в этом случае конечно не было, был слаф, но и его могло хватить чтобы на первом этапе вогнать их в панику и заставить разрезать палатку  чтобы выбраться из под него, а потом заставить уйти в лес чтобы дождаться там когда ветер на склоне утихнет и можно будет вернуться к раскопкам.
Такая же ночь могла там случиться двумя – тремя неделями раньше и тогда поверхностная изморозь, накрытая сверху принесенным и слежавшимся снегом, стала бы «поверхностной погребённой», с теми же функциями «слабого слоя» для лежащей на ней ветровой доски толщиной 15 - 20 см.
Естественно, такая погодная комбинация складывается там не раз в неделю. Скорее всего даже не каждый год и надо строить зимовку на этом чертовом склоне чтобы хоть в чём нибудь убедиться.
Но IMHO, оба варианта достаточно правдоподобны и в отличии от всех прочих не умножают сущностей, ибо опираются на то что там реально имеется – снег и склон. Старик Оккам может спать спокойно.


                                         *****************

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.

I did not mean the coordinates obtained using serifs and various kinds of photo references, but the place where KAN found the cotter pins from the rings of ski poles. And they could only be thrown where the rings were removed from the sticks. These removed rings are visible in the photo with the tent just dismantled and dragged a couple of meters. The candlestick, wire, and pins were found in the same place (if I’m not confusing anything), and therefore there is no point in talking about further routes of the tent

avalanches (no matter what it is - "board" or fresh snow) are never "guided" by only one parameter.

Of course. That’s what I wrote: «under certain weather conditions» If, for example, a warm westerly wind «like when an airplane takes off» on the evening of 31/01, by nightfall weakened to some 2 - 4 m/s and, while remaining warm, washed the slope for several hours, then the slope could well be covered with a layer of surface frost, which served as a weak layer for the mixture of fresh (atmospheric) snow and transported blizzard snow that fell during the day from the general snowstorm.
In this case, of course, there was no snow slab, there was a slaf, but it could have been enough to drive them into panic at the first stage and force them to cut the tent to get out, and then force them to go into the forest to wait there until the wind on the slope subsides and it will be possible to return to the excavations.

The same night could have happened there two to three weeks earlier, and then the surface frost, covered on top with brought and compacted of vind snow, would have become «surface buried» with the same functions of a “weak layer” for lying on it the wind slab 15 - 20 cm. thickness
Naturally, such a weather combination occurs there more than once a week. Most likely, not even every year, and you need to build a winter hut on this damn slope to at least be convinced of anything.

IMHO, both options are quite plausible and, unlike all the others, they do not multiply entities, because they rely on what actually exists in fact - snow and slope. Old man Occam can sleep peacefully.

12

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by Partorg on April 17, 2024, 04:07:56 AM »

delete

13

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by GlennM on April 16, 2024, 07:07:04 PM »

With regard to those trace footprints, as grist to the mill, what self respecting assasin, convict, soldier or garden variety thug is going to go out in the middle of nowhere for the sole purpose of causing the demise of loyal Soviets and forget to put their boots on? Ziljoe is,right, prints don't lie.

14

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by Ziljoe on April 16, 2024, 05:47:01 PM »

The phrase "avalanche theory" does not cover all aspects of what is being debated when we talk about what made the hikers leave the tent.

As Glennm puts it , ( quite nicely)" a movement of snow". I believe there is a case for this. I don't argue an avalanche occurred and caused the injuries at the tent, I would however suggest that a snow slip or slide was possible and thus caused them to move away from the tent in a controlled retreat to a safer environment, the perceived safer environment being the resources of the trees for shelter .

The footprints can not be denied, bare feet, socks etc. Someone made these prints, even if outsiders did it , they were done by people not wearing boots/ shoes. The mechanic's of the snow that allows such foot prints is different to the hard snow that lies on the slope the majority of the time from what I can see in repeated videos.

To me, this anomaly of the footprints being left behind suggests fresh snow and a temperature change. The footprints would suggest no one else was there other than the hikers.

Was fresh snow falling and / or being drifted on the slope on the night the hikers chose to pitch their tent?. It would seem that is the case.

Could a not so insignificant amount of snow that had built up over a number of hours ( up to a foot deep) , slide in to the hikers cut out in the slope?.

 


Image courtesy of WAB in helping with my poor illustration. ( this does not mean WAB shares my view points. Many thanks to WAB for doing the image).

15

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by GlennM on April 16, 2024, 04:23:05 PM »

I have a feeling that these clarifications imply that while a movement of snow could ( and did) affect the tent and hikers, it was insufficient to cause the degree of personal harm seen on their remains. It was sufficient to cause the group to employ safety  practices out of an abundance of caution. Is this consistent with best practices of the time?  I believe so.

We need meteorological data for the weather conditions in that part of the Northern Urals at the critical times. This would reinforce the idea that snow buildup, a slide or slump and wind speed compromised the tent. Secondly, it lends credence to the necessity of the hikers to move downslope in two pushes to the tree line. It reinforces the idea that when the fire was lit at the cedar, the heat was rapidly carried off. It reminds us that you can do everything right and bad thingsnsrill happen.

16

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by Ziljoe on April 16, 2024, 01:48:51 PM »

Thanks WAB  .

17

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by WAB on April 16, 2024, 01:28:52 PM »

Thanks WAB.  Obviously it's not accurate and I'm happy for you to add accuracy. It was a scribble on my phone. But it's the only theory I can put forward for the reason for them to leave the tent. 

You have been there , so your input is always welcome . Obviously I'm a little stubborn in my thinking but I have little else to go with and nothing else seems to give us an explanation as to why they left the tent.

Dear Ziljoe, thank you for your feedback.
As I promised, I present you with a picture of clarification. It can be seen at the link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UUTldk64geeVY-cKZ_1XSLYcPvFOTWrQ/view?usp=sharing

I can add that the thickness of fresh snow there is never more than 30 cm (1 foot - I have a mistake in the picture, not 1 inch, but 1 foot!). and they did not bury the tent deep, but only leveled the site. as you can see in the picture on the link
https://disk.yandex.ru/i/cG0Vot7p3ZtAYA .

18

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by Ziljoe on April 16, 2024, 12:24:19 PM »

Thanks WAB.  Obviously it's not accurate and I'm happy for you to add accuracy. It was a scribble on my phone. But it's the only theory I can put forward for the reason for them to leave the tent. 

You have been there , so your input is always welcome . Obviously I'm a little stubborn in my thinking but I have little else to go with and nothing else seems to give us an explanation as to why they left the tent.

19

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by WAB on April 16, 2024, 12:17:07 PM »

I shall treat you to some high end graphics below. Self explanatory.....

Dear Ziljo, this picture is not entirely accurate. If I have the time and ability to work on the computer now, I will draw you a more accurate one.

20

General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY

« Last post by WAB on April 16, 2024, 12:10:57 PM »

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.