Teddy, I rarely appear here on the forum, but I think we need to dot our “i” (or “ё”, if that makes more sense to Igor). Unfortunately, this post of yours was full of emotion and says almost nothing about what I was talking about. So I think we should say calmly and without too much pathos what I wrote earlier.
I posted WAB's theory years ago, trying to swift through all the rambling. I didn't get it then either. Here is his theory, I give equal opportunity objectively. I don't judge before I understand. His theory I do not understand: https://dyatlovpass.com/ravine-borzenkov
Don't confuse the concepts and the meaning of what I wrote about.
1. I did not publish my "theory," I wrote individual notes on the questions I was asked or on the questions I wanted to say something about.
2. The fact that it is all incomprehensible follows from the fact that it is impossible to understand the whole meaning from individual excerpts, especially if there is no complete and practically confirmed idea of the whole event. Especially if you do not have a good knowledge of the place and conditions, and you want to say something else.
3. This reference is not a theory, but only a very small episode from the whole mass of events. By the way, all the details of this episode several times tested at this very place in a variety of winter conditions. To speak of it as a complete theory is analogous to taking one letter in a very long word and assuming that the whole word is wrong, just because you spelled everything with different letters.
Latest developments with Kuryakov's results from the place of the tragedy show the last four bodies found in May to be not where Borzenkov says they were. At least not what he said in this theory. https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=146.msg549#msg549
I do not understand why it is necessary to consider the Kuryakov expedition as the truth in the last degree? It was most talked about by representatives of the press and TV, for whom it was nothing more than a show for TV-screen. Now we have taken apart in detail many components of this expedition and found there a lot of mistakes, which have not been made by amateurs as explorers for a very long time. All can be read in the Russian forums. Not always officials and other official form of power provides reliable information in a private case, this happened because they originally took the wrong conditions, which were written in the book Evgeny Buyanov on the avalanche . but other specialists, such as Swiss glaciologists fell for this "fishing rod". They wrote a good article, but not about what is actually there, but about what could have been there if the information from Buyanov was correct and not made up. Neither Kuryakov nor any of the researchers can confidently say where the place is that you are trying to contradict me about. If many people talk about it, it is still not a fact, because it contradicts objective data (position of the sun at the time of shooting and the presence or absence of details, which are essential). It's not about the number of people who say something. It's like taking a vote to establish the truth. Try creating a vote on whether tomorrow the sun should rise in the west and not in the east? And what happens if the majority votes for the west? Will it rise there?
By the way, the difference in the position of this place has little effect, since the difference is 20...30 meters from what different people say, and the overall path turns out to be about the same. What is the argument for? To clarify 2 or 3 meters should we have gone further? Or will it affect the overall pattern of events? No, it won't. If you know well the topography of the place around the cedar, it is obvious, and if you do not know, then why start clinging to such small episodes?
If WAB is summarizing our theory as "the falling tree and the transfer of the tent" in here https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=924.0 I want his theory summary within the same amount of words.
This is utter nonsense. Demanding that someone write a book as long as the one they are trying to point out the absurdity of the claims in their book. I'm not a writer, I'm a researcher, I'm not interested in "literature," either as an art form or as a commercial project. I am interested in whether the thoughts that are supposed to be basic there are properly stated.
I know too well that place, the conditions, and all the specifics of the details in that place, to agree with what is not and cannot be there in principle. Especially since all the accompanying features you clearly have are made up, not taken from life.
Remind me, please, in 2019, when you were with Discovery on the pass, did you walk down to the cedar? If you hiked, what route was it? And what (what prominent items) do you remember around or near the cedar? This is important because there is a clear contradiction there with your statements in the book.
And I would also like to know when, at what time, and how much detail Igor could have explored this place, that he would write about the "fallen tree"?
Neither the tree itself, but the possibility of moving the tent is not possible in principle.
But first things first:
1. There was no way the Dyatlov group could have had this place to spend the night, unless they were considered complete idiots. On January 31, when they went upstairs, they could have easily gone down to this place, but they did not do so and returned to Auspia. The answer to this question can easily be found by any group leader with the same experience that Dyatlov had, and it has to do with such a concept as "winter ski travel tactics." To get to this place in their position is simply stupid and threatens to lose at least one strenuous walking day. In any case, either January 31 or February 01 they would have had to go overnight to at least the third tributary of the Lozva River or even farther. This would have been the right tactic. But Dyatlov decided to have a study overnight in a treeless area to prepare for travel to the Circumpolar Urals, so he stopped at the place where the tent was found. Any other option can only be perceived as an artificially contrived situation. It is necessary to know well the conditions and practice of such journeys, and not to make up tall tales.
2. The "transfer of the tent" itself is an invention which was propagandized by Kuntsevich and some others personally for a long time, but they do not understand the simple truth: strangers could not do it in such a purely technical way, that they would not make gross mistakes, which would be immediately identified by the participants of the search, who constantly went to such journeys and did everything the same way as Dyatlov did. In terms of complexity, moving the tent is equivalent to a provincial painter making a Leonardo da Vinci painting "Mona Lisa" and none of the experts would have noticed it at all. There are many nuances, easily recognized by those who know everything well. How can the tent be moved "inconspicuously" without anyone noticing?
3. Now about the tree. If it was falling on the tent, where did it go? It evaporated in 3 weeks, until Sharavin and Koptelov arrived there, like the avalanche at Evgeniy Buyanov's? Just beyond the cedar (90 meters away) lies a large tree across the next creek bed, but it doesn't touch the ground, except at 2 points on different banks of the creek. I can cite a photo if you need one (and for all the fallen trees in the area, too)? This cedar is many years old (at least when Yakimenko's group was there in 1963, it was already there and was already very old). It (and some other trees) couldn't have disappeared, because everything that fell down is still there, or there are remnants of it in the form of stumps. Even found the big tree that Colonel Ortyukov's group used as a dam in the tributary channel in May 1959. There is a corresponding photo. https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/thumbs/6S-12.jpg
It is only the stumps that remain of the small birches, because they rot much faster than the cedars. By the way, the cedars are very sparse there, at least 100...150 m apart, and it is extremely difficult to find a place to set up a tent of the type "by the tree" that Dyatlov had there. In a large forest, they fastened the tent ropes to several trees. Where was the tent and the tree itself supposed to be located? Can you describe it? And show it out of place?
4. Hypothetically suppose the tree fell on the tent.... Then why did only four participants suddenly have such diverse and selective injuries? Is it a tree with precision infrared guidance and the latest generation of artificial intelligence? Why do only four people have injuries and not all? The topology of the tree's fall on the tent, just to have the kind of chest injuries that Semyon and Lyudmila had, would have to be such that the turf had to fall along the entire tent. Then where did the other members of the group go? But the injuries themselves are not consistent with the tree falling on them. It's all about how different objects react and the consequences that appear. I recently explained on another site the difference in injuries from different interactions between the human body and foreign objects. I can't find the link right now. I can e-mail it to anyone who wants it later if you want. But this is only after June 10, when I will have at hand the entire archive. If you look additionally at the injuries of Rustem and Nikolai's skull, it turns out to be complete nonsense. Where can the "tree" have such a sharp rectangular piece of 2 x 3.5 cm in hardness an order of magnitude greater than the skull biocomposite? The tree has all branches and protrusions that are round. The hardness of "average" wood and bone are commensurate in magnitude, with a preponderance in favor of bone (it is harder). And the hardness of cedar is almost the smallest of all woods. For the injury of the skull Rustem need a plane and a head speed of at least 3 m / s otherwise there can not appear internal bleeding without damaging the skull. This is the result of inertial displacement of the brain body inside the skull with a hydroshock damaging the brain vessels. This does not happen with a blow to a stationary head. The laws of physics, they are laws in Africa in the North Urals, and they cannot be broken arbitrarily, even if you really want to.
5. In order for this to look plausible it is necessary not the number of words, but compliance with natural laws. I will definitely not write a theory in its entirety here (for it is useless for understanding, as I can understand it) and don't demand it from me. Because it is not about my theory, but about those insurmountable errors, which you yourself have laid down in your theory, which you have described in the book.
I respect WAB (Borzenkov) for what he knows and the effort he makes for the forum, to give us valuable information, to keep the facts in check. But his theory I do not understand, and so far I haven't heard his feedback on particulars from our book. I don't see how can he have an opinion on a theory he hasn't read. In a perfect world he can elaborate on his theory, I can do the same on ours.
I have said many times that I am not discussing the book, but the framework you have put into it and voiced on this same forum. https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=925.0
I'm not interested in literature, you can write anything, paper can handle anything. All I'm saying is that if it purports to reveal a mystery, it should be truthful and not describe something that doesn't exist in nature.
So I'll say it again: I'm not talking about a book I haven't read, I'm talking about the idea that is the linchpin there and that is not true. These are different concepts and should not be confused. Many books have been written, but nothing has appeared that does not contradict what can be found (or not found) on a particular terrain. I have already quoted Bernard Shaw as saying, "If people don't know reality, they replace their claims with speculation." (с)
What I do not understand in WAB's theory is why would the hikers leave the tent by cutting it from inside. Let's start form there. He is an experienced hiker, he knows the mindset in the mountain. What would make the hikers cut up their tent and go slowly down a slope they haven't seen before, not having outer or footwear. Concentrate on this part only please.
It's all on the surface of thought. A normal person could never do that. So we have to look for the condition that led to this. Everything else is a consequence of the fact that they left the tent in such a state and in such clothes. Nothing had to be "finished" there, nature itself "finished" everything the way it does.
And to understand physics and psychophysiology of what happened you should have a lot of specific knowledge of those phenomena, which have not been studied to the end yet. Therefore, it is not surprising that so many people do not understand it. This is a normal natural process. For example, how many people could have known and discussed anything specific about electricity in the middle of the 18th century? Or about radiation in the very beginning of the twentieth century? No more than a dozen of these people in the sum of these concepts....
But I'll say it again: this is not about everything or anything in particular, but only about the fact that there are completely insurmountable contradictions in the proposed description, so one cannot speak of it as the truth. The book is an entirely different concept and it exists apart from the truth on this event.
No confusing maps, not unconfirmed trajectories of hiking to a crevice nowhere near their path only to jump one after another, as far as I understood on top of each other?? like suicidal lemmings.
This is emotion, behind which there is only resentment for the fact that there is more concrete knowledge. Besides, I wish you would have figured it out first (very well, if you want to do so in great detail) and then said all sorts of unconvincing words... So far, this has not been observed....
When I published this page https://dyatlovpass.com/ravine-borzenkov Borzenkov (aka WAB) said that this photo is from the time when he was presenting the rocket theory.
My God, when did I try to promote "rocket theory"? Is that with my specialty and knowledge of the history of rocket engineering? Did you get the wrong idea....? Do you have me confused with anyone else? There were no missiles there. They could not have flown there from where they could have been. Even more so, they couldn't have gotten there from where they couldn't have been....
This is now Kuntsevich's theory.
What does this have to do with me? This theory comes entirely from Kuntsevich. Kuntsevich has already been "reprimanded" by me for his speculations, and you are confusing everything here and trying to wish for reality. Kuntsevich is on his own, and I am a completely independent researcher, both from Kuntsevich and even from his foundation. But we often work together, each in his field. This helps this story develop. And our views on what happened do not have to coincide. Although our relationship is quite friendly. It's also a completely different concept.
This means Borzenkov is prone to change theories, and I know for a fact that he is currently working on his "version of events" [sic]. Not sure if this means a brand spanking new theory or just his final revision of Donnie Eichar's book, but I am all ears to check it out when it's ready and available.
This is complete nonsense. Donnie Eichar and I collaborated when he wrote his book in 2012 and 2013. After that, he sent me the first autographed edition of his book and we pretty much stopped emailing each other. The last thing was that about 3 or 4 years ago (no, I looked at the email now, the last email was March 03, 2016) he sent a message that scientists from NOAA, wanted to do a mathematical model of the terrain at Mt. And test the physics of the phenomenon on it. I sent them many fragments of topographic maps and photos of the area, which would clarify the details of this model. But I never got the result. Maybe they didn't do that, so they couldn't send the result. There are a lot of unknown parameters, so there is nothing surprising in the negative result. Not everything is immediate and final.
Even the fact that there were several editions of his book, I only learned about it from you personally, not from other sources. So I'm not aware of what might be new there...
By the way, it should be noted that it was me who consulted him, not him who consulted me. And I did it at Kuntsevich's request. Perhaps because Donnie Eichar in 2012 had (independently of me!) exactly the same idea that I had back in 1984. So I have no reason to promote his idea or anything else, especially since I don't know what it might be about.
In summary, I must say that if criticism of unrealistic ideas, no matter what they are written in someone's book, is not welcome here in any way, then I will easily stop writing here, especially since I have many additional difficulties even for this action.
But such actions are actually an attempt to prevent my opponent from making his arguments, which is a deception of the public. But I don't insist on anything at all. It's not my site and it's not my business. You are free to continue to "deal with the situation" in any way you wish, further and quite independently.
I have neither the desire nor the physical ability to write a thick book. And it's not about the book, the right ideas will come to life anyway, but don't rush it. Cognition cannot be accelerated by any stimulus, except as it exists in life and happens naturally.
By the way, about Shura Alesenkov's evaluation of the book. He evaluated only the book (as a text), not the idea of "the tree and the transfer of the tent. Indeed, a lot of work has been done, the book has been written, etc. Who could object? But he says nothing about the very idea of "tree and carry." It is nonsense, and he understands it well. At any rate, that was the case the last time we talked. He has this idea of a "winter thunderstorm" and getting chest injuries from a fall from a cedar tree. Not about the tree falling on the tent down by the cedar. Although I have told him about these "inconsistencies" with his injuries from falling from the tree.
And I'm also afraid that his expression about "Newton's binomial" you understand is completely misunderstood. One of the Russian classical writers of the late 19th century wrote about this expression as a sign of incomprehensibility and complexity. But there is nothing complicated about the expansion of a function of two variables into a power series. At least for anyone who successfully mastered preparatory school in the USSR. It is ordinary middle level mathematics. In his interpretation, it sounds like the fact that the storyline of what's going on is too confusing. So, don't try to divide us on the principle of different initial conditions of events. And different views on some of the events within this story. This is normal for ordinary people and will get us nowhere.
It turns out that this book of yours is no more plausible than Rakitin's book, which made a lot of noise, but so turned out to be fantasy .