My answer written was gone 2 days ago. I should repeat it
For one, the jiu jitsu elbow strikes would be expected to cause precisely such injuries as found on the rib cages of the two who suffered this kind of injury.
Do not tell obvious nonsense. If you have clung to these conjectures that it unequivocally shows that you do not understand the mechanic. Do not understand at all.
Count please (if you it allows you scientific level) localisation of pressure from «an elbow joint», points of the greatest pressure in edges, and with what speed should strike «an elbow joint». At all without considering possible reaction striking about a substrate and clothes reaction.
Still nobody could cancel Newton's third law.
And if you not in a condition such to make, and it is not necessary to tell the first got to a head (excuse for this word) "thought". It has not something in common with the validity.
Demolition of edges simultaneously from two parties and in those places where they are described by the expert, could be only at reaction with a platform of the big size. Большей than the area of a thorax. If you and it do not understand, in general it is better not to tell anything on this theme.
This direct consequence from mechanics of crises how them describe. If you do not understand it, it is rather a pity that you say wrong words of that you do not have not enough scientific preparation and you tell obvious nonsense.
Not by a single blow, but by repeated blows on a victim.
Aha, and so 6 +5 consecutive times at Dubinina? And then 5 more consecutive times at Zolotaryov? And they easy lay, turned and all looked as though it better it to substitute that it would look as blow about a plane
You understand, what you have told?
I never thought, said or assumed that the damage was caused by one single strike. The single strike theory was introduced by people who assumed - wrongly - that the Dyatlov Pass deaths were not murder.
Prove you assumption!
That says what it was murder? You can list on points signs and the facts from documents?
Or you consider, what everything about what you do not know are can always be only murder?
You can result nothing in this respect, except conjectures and is weaved any. It is because you do not have real and actual material, and all of you replace only with the imaginations.
But not it is the most important thing. The most important thing is that you cannot result and really prove the reason for this purpose that them have killed. And without this reason all conversations on "murder" mean nothing. It simply words for which is no point.
If you want to tell that there have come what to kill specially for Dyatlov group for no reason at all it means that you consider the listeners as idiots, and they are ready to listen to any words without reflecting on sense. It is characteristic for idiots - not to perceive the validity as it is.
The reason should be very considerable. Such that other possibility would not be.
The reason is necessary real, instead of simply decided or a mere verbiage because even to get on this place there is very big problem. You did not try it and have decided it to ignore. Even if not to tell what to find tent on a slope of mountain at night and at bad weather it is absolutely impossible.
You did not try it, and even far do not represent, and have decided it to ignore absolutely
I recommend look, what there happens weather, at least here on these video: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FaZ2RSUdFtdQLyCZXZBn0w1L01uB22cr?usp=sharing
These are day shootings. Add here darkness and try to find tent in mile from last trees. And above a wood zone on 500 foots on lifting height. In district which has no appreciable reference points.
Of course, if one starts from the mistaken premise that it was not murder one must assume that the injuries to the ribs was caused by one single blow.
Means you at first have decided that it was murder, and then under it select what that nonexistent reasons.
We have such fairy tale: "There are only two opinions:
1.- My opinions ultimate (that is yours!)
2. – it is wrong opinions another's ".
Here you precisely approach under the maintenance of this fairy tale …
Only the maintenance of events does not approach under this opinion.
There is no need to make a great song and dance about "conspirology." To try to discredit other people with such labels is an extremely impolite and above all extremely unscientific way of discussion, and that kind of labeling has no place in a serious discussion.
So in what you are engaged, absolutely precisely approaches under this term. You thinks out nonexistent crimes, and then all in the possible ways try to inspire it the rest.
In the east speak: "Even if 1000 times to tell a word halvah, in a mouth becomes more sweet not" (Therefore let's operate not with words about"murder", and the facts and scientific knowledge. And here with it at you very difficultly moves ahead. You yet have not answered one concrete and directly asked question. You have only one admonitions as on the sermon in church. It there is important - trust or not, that would not trust here is required, and knew.
And what you speak about "a scientific and unscientific way of discussion"? It is an admonition method is scientific? "Good" there should be this your "science" …
We need to approach the Dyatlov Pass deaths in a rational and investigative way.
And so also operate by means of the facts (fact it is that exists irrespective of your opinion. It or is, or it is not present in general), instead of by means of duplicating of own opinion which is equal to ignorance of about what speak.
The answer does not lie in the terrain.
You so well know district, what it confidently to deny?
At you the answer has hung in mid-air, or entirely is only in your imagination? Or you want to tell, what if district conditions (that is the facts) do not approach under your "theory" you think, what let it will be worse for these facts?
The answer does not lie in the infrasound theory, which is perhaps the most far fetched and unrealistic of all the speculative theories there are.
I have paid attention that the less person knows about that that he says, the it is more at it than hardness that the such does not exist.
Here also there was first "touchstone" for that finding-out that you mean in this theme. To be exact that do not know.
Tell, and what you know about an infrasound? Except the name?
Physicist of this phenomenon?
Conditions at which it is arises?
How operates on psychology and human physiology?
How operates on behaviour style of person after infrasonic influence?
If you not in a condition competently and in detail to answer these questions, it turns out that all your attempts that that to tell about it, are an empty phrase which does not contain any thought.
How you define degree of approach or removal from true of the given theory?
By a principle: it was pleasant to you personally, or it was not pleasant?
And you try to accuse others of that that they produce the false reasons.
Nine dead bodies were found. The only way, I repeat the only way, to approach such a find in a scientific manner is to perform a thorough examination of the bodies and of the injuries found on them.
It has already been made 60 years ago. New already never will be. If to you few those facts that already are, it is not necessary to think out (invented) "facts".
They is false.
Esteem please that moderator has written in theme heading. Can be though it will help to you.
•”Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts
.”© ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The answers lie in the bodies, and all of the bodies should ideally be exhumed for a thorough investigation with modern methods. That is the only way to dispel the false notion of a series of accidents being responsible for the Dytalov Pass tragedy in 1959.
Exactly: "Answers consist in bodies, and all bodies should be ideally dug out for full research with modern methods" (с)
And instead you result one spells about murder and do not result any arguments, and do not mention any scientific methods of research. You speak about a science much, and avoid use its methods.
Your persuasive attempt by all ways to translate attention from usual accident on murder involuntarily reduces all to conspirology. You do not accept any arguments and calculations in a unique science which can yield result - to the biomechanic, instead of it constantly repeating the same mantra: it was murder! Without resulting any arguments in a substantiation. About that there is no reason and possibility it to make on that place, you start to say that the district here is not necessary. Tell, please, and if it was on the North Pole, it too would be insignificant?