July 29, 2021, 05:08:16 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Nigel's thoughts on the book  (Read 762 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 25, 2021, 12:56:32 PM
Reply #30
Offline

Nigel Evans


you can't make something radioactive by firing high energy particles at it.

thats how c14 is formed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14


a concentration of c14 being an explanation for the higher radiation levels.

I stand corrected, but a half life of 5700 years... that's going to be a tiny amount, would a geiger counter even pick it up?

And it only affected the clothes of Krivonischenko, who happened to work in a nuclear facility on the Kyshtym disaster cleanup?


I'm pretty sure that Lyudmila's sweater was tested as well.

February 27, 2021, 02:02:15 AM
Reply #31
Offline

Nigel Evans


Sorry this is not related to the book but as mentioned above, the investigation can be shut down for innocent reasons. For example, Ivanov for whatever reason ordered radiation testing, but when word of this gets to Moscow... This is information they would not want to become public either because it can lead to rumors about the Kyshtim incident and the extent of contamination (even though I would say that can almost certainly be ruled out as the source of the radiation on the clothes, but they wouldn't know at the time), or it can raise suspicions in the US about a nuclear test and thus a treaty violation. And we know pages pertaining to the radiation report were removed from the case files and only reinstated in modern times. Such a "coverup" can be carried out without the soviet state or radiation having to do anything with the actual incident.
Innocent reasons  ! ?  Bit confused.  The Case was closed down very quickly after the last 4 bodies were found, some of which had extraordinary injuries. The area was then closed down for several years. Hardly innocent.


Innocent = National security perhaps.

March 08, 2021, 09:00:38 AM
Reply #32
Offline

Nigel Evans


2 Tupolev Bears flew over the Urals that night. Reconnaissance mission?

Note the dates here for the Bear B and the Kangaroo - https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm"Series production of the TU-95K began in the spring of 1958, with operational deployment beginning in September 1959."
Sounds like they had initial versions airworthy in Feb 1959?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2021, 01:59:34 AM by Teddy »

March 08, 2021, 12:16:24 PM
Reply #33
Offline

Nigel Evans


2 Tupolev Bears flew over the Urals that night. Reconnaissance mission?

Yes he was talking about them dropping parachute mines, iirc.


I'm thinking more about the Kangaroo missile...
« Last Edit: July 27, 2021, 01:59:52 AM by Teddy »

March 12, 2021, 01:47:13 AM
Reply #34
Offline

Nigel Evans


2 Tupolev Bears flew over the Urals that night. Reconnaissance mission?

Yes he was talking about them dropping parachute mines, iirc.


I'm thinking more about the Kangaroo missile...

It's an interesting idea, we need a Russian aviation buff to comment on kh-20 tests, maybe Igor looked into it when writing the book?

According to wiki, trials commenced Oct 1958 and ran for 12 months, and 5 out of 16 test flights failed. But I would have thought they'd test it out to sea, and they wouldn't fit a nuclear warhead so early in the test programme, especially given the problems they were having with accuracy.
It's about the Atmospheric Electricity Theory, if the photos are genuine (and i think they are) then light emitting objects were being created that night. Light is of course just electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength and if these natural objects are emitting EM across a broad range of frequencies then they would be picked up on radar.... So you scramble a couple of state of the art bombers for a recon loaded with SOTA missiles to have a look see. The crews observe lights and a radar signature = craft, radio that back to base and the order is given to fire on it.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2021, 02:00:04 AM by Teddy »

March 12, 2021, 04:47:07 AM
Reply #35
Offline

Nigel Evans


2 Tupolev Bears flew over the Urals that night. Reconnaissance mission?

Yes he was talking about them dropping parachute mines, iirc.


I'm thinking more about the Kangaroo missile...

It's an interesting idea, we need a Russian aviation buff to comment on kh-20 tests, maybe Igor looked into it when writing the book?

According to wiki, trials commenced Oct 1958 and ran for 12 months, and 5 out of 16 test flights failed. But I would have thought they'd test it out to sea, and they wouldn't fit a nuclear warhead so early in the test programme, especially given the problems they were having with accuracy.
It's about the Atmospheric Electricity Theory, if the photos are genuine (and i think they are) then light emitting objects were being created that night. Light is of course just electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength and if these natural objects are emitting EM across a broad range of frequencies then they would be picked up on radar.... So you scramble a couple of state of the art bombers for a recon loaded with SOTA missiles to have a look see. The crews observe lights and a radar signature = craft, radio that back to base and the order is given to fire on it.

They would use specialised interceptors such as the Mig 19, armed with air-to-air missiles, for that purpose. They were designed to get to the target area (and altitude) as fast as possible. The kh-20 was an air-to-surface cruise missile, it would take the best part of 24 hours to get a Tu-95 into the air armed with one. It wasn't operational at that time, anyhow.
Some thoughts :-
  • Nothing about Tu-95s precludes other interceptors being used. In fact it fits, air to air missiles failing to have an effect so dial up "bigger stuff".
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-20 states that arming was reduced to 4 hours but doesn't give a timeline. Plus the 16 tests over say 51 weeks is 1 per 3 weeks so a good chance that they good to go that night irrespective of arming delay. Also arming delay might well have been due to setting up the thermonuclear warhead (can't rush it and risk dropping the ball with that one) and a conventional warhead could have been easier and even preloaded for the trials.
  • Above link states it was operational for trials?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2021, 02:00:41 AM by Teddy »

March 12, 2021, 06:20:06 AM
Reply #36
Offline

Nigel Evans


2 Tupolev Bears flew over the Urals that night. Reconnaissance mission?

Yes he was talking about them dropping parachute mines, iirc.


I'm thinking more about the Kangaroo missile...

It's an interesting idea, we need a Russian aviation buff to comment on kh-20 tests, maybe Igor looked into it when writing the book?

According to wiki, trials commenced Oct 1958 and ran for 12 months, and 5 out of 16 test flights failed. But I would have thought they'd test it out to sea, and they wouldn't fit a nuclear warhead so early in the test programme, especially given the problems they were having with accuracy.
It's about the Atmospheric Electricity Theory, if the photos are genuine (and i think they are) then light emitting objects were being created that night. Light is of course just electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength and if these natural objects are emitting EM across a broad range of frequencies then they would be picked up on radar.... So you scramble a couple of state of the art bombers for a recon loaded with SOTA missiles to have a look see. The crews observe lights and a radar signature = craft, radio that back to base and the order is given to fire on it.

They would use specialised interceptors such as the Mig 19, armed with air-to-air missiles, for that purpose. They were designed to get to the target area (and altitude) as fast as possible. The kh-20 was an air-to-surface cruise missile, it would take the best part of 24 hours to get a Tu-95 into the air armed with one. It wasn't operational at that time, anyhow.
Some thoughts :-
  • Nothing about Tu-95s precludes other interceptors being used. In fact it fits, air to air missiles failing to have an effect so dial up "bigger stuff".
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-20 states that arming was reduced to 4 hours but doesn't give a timeline. Plus the 16 tests over say 51 weeks is 1 per 3 weeks so a good chance that they good to go that night irrespective of arming delay. Also arming delay might well have been due to setting up the thermonuclear warhead (can't rush it and risk dropping the ball with that one) and a conventional warhead could have been easier and even preloaded for the trials.
  • Above link states it was operational for trials?

Operational means "in service" i.e. completed trials. It was still being tested, there's no way they'd use it on a live target, and it was a ground attack weapon. There were various Mig 19 airbases nearby that could intercept an airbourne target in minutes (they were used to attack Power's U2, they even shot one down with their own SAMs iirc).

There might have been a kh-20 test flight, but I expect that would be out to sea given they were air launched.
Seems like a disagreement over the meaning of operational vs in service or in commission. For me operational means "capable of being operated". I'm thinking of a much bigger radar signature than of an aircraft. Some UFO signatures are the size of aircraft carriers. Soviet invasion protocols would override any trial procedures. Testing at sea is unlikely as it would be difficult to accurately analyse the distance off target without an impact site?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2021, 01:37:31 AM by Teddy »

May 04, 2021, 03:00:09 AM
Reply #37
Offline

Nigel Evans


Its the neatest theory I've heard and a worthy rival to WABs theory. I place little value on much else I've seen in 15 years.

Rolls eyes.  lol4
« Last Edit: May 04, 2021, 08:43:20 AM by Teddy »

May 04, 2021, 03:39:34 AM
Reply #38
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Its the neatest theory I've heard and a worthy rival to WABs theory. I place little value on much else I've seen in 15 years.

Rolls eyes.  lol4

Nigel, seriously, start a topic where you can trash my book but leave at least one place where I can reply constructively with information I have. You are not welcome on this board. Open another one. Can you at least give me this for the sake of all the work I am doing?
Your hatred can only chase me out of my own forum. I do have information that other people find useful.
Leave this board PLEASE.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2021, 08:43:28 AM by Teddy »

May 04, 2021, 03:54:12 AM
Reply #39
Offline

bertie



Rolls eyes.  lol4

Its ok, after all you're the 'lightning did it' guy, I will always be amazed at your ability to keep writing so much having so little worth saying....
« Last Edit: May 04, 2021, 08:43:36 AM by Teddy »

May 04, 2021, 03:57:27 AM
Reply #40
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Nigel was the reason Igor is not participating in this forum. When I created Igor's account to answer question about the book his first comment was: This Nigel, what's his problem?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2021, 08:42:31 AM by Teddy »

May 04, 2021, 05:58:00 AM
Reply #41
Offline

Nigel Evans


Nigel was the reason Igor is not participating in this forum. When I created Igor's account to answer question about the book his first comment was: This Nigel, what's his problem?
This Igor, what's his problem?  bigjoke
« Last Edit: May 04, 2021, 08:43:43 AM by Teddy »

May 04, 2021, 06:12:41 AM
Reply #42
Offline

Nigel Evans



Rolls eyes.  lol4

Its ok, after all you're the 'lightning did it' guy, I will always be amazed at your ability to keep writing so much having so little worth saying....
That's the problem with internet cafes, people become regulars and just pop in for a chat with others. Should be outlawed. It would be much better if no one was interested in the mystery at all.

Btw it's Ivanov's theory, the chief investigator, and this is what Sharavin one of the first people on the scene said :-Flash and explosion. And then just rocket fuel. They have traces of obvious poisoning for everyone. They all had nasopharynx filled with foam, these are clear signs of poisoning.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2021, 08:43:52 AM by Teddy »

May 04, 2021, 10:26:25 AM
Reply #43
Offline

Nigel Evans


Its the neatest theory I've heard and a worthy rival to WABs theory. I place little value on much else I've seen in 15 years.

Rolls eyes.  lol4

Nigel, seriously, start a topic where you can trash my book but leave at least one place where I can reply constructively with information I have. You are not welcome on this board. Open another one. Can you at least give me this for the sake of all the work I am doing?
Your hatred can only chase me out of my own forum. I do have information that other people find useful.
Leave this board PLEASE.


Will do, can i assume that the dp photos are public domain?




Best to all.

May 10, 2021, 08:28:08 AM
Reply #44
Offline

Jacques-Emile


I should say that in the matter of the demise of the innocent hikers, I am not convinced that the book has published the last word, the definitive chapter on what happened.  I imagine something different.  This causes me no distress.  The book has been encyclopedic in its presentation of facts, and I will not consider that I have read it thoroughly until a few more go-rounds.  My ego need not be stroked constantly.

For instance,  the bowl in the snow near the barren tent-site was twice described, but not analyzed, as I recall after one hasty reading.  It was perhaps 7-8 meters wide, and from what I recall, a meter deep.  This is the profile that one would expect to see if a helicopter is hovering above snow, even perhaps ten to twenty meters above snow.  So why don't you set down a helicopter in the snow?  It is incredibly dangerous, even to be twenty meters above the ground if there are the risk of down-drafts.  And when you set your trusty helicopter down in snow, does it have a special "keel" for landing in snow?  Otherwise, it sinks to the level of the firm rock.  If that is three meters, the whole body of the helicopter is sunk in the snow to the level of the doors, which is bad.  And the main blades and the tail blades get uncomfortably close to the snow.  If they touch the snow, they suddenly decelerate, and are flung off, destabilizing the rotor entirely, such that it will explode into shrapnel.  Very messy.  If you survive, you have to explain this to your chief.  Also very messy. 

As for phrase "overdetermined system is almost always inconsistent, it has no solution" that is not necessarily true.  Overdetermined systems can be congruent.  Perhaps what should be thought of is "chaos theory" which insists that infinitesimal variations in starting conditions   Within a period called Lyupanov time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_time the system becomes chaotic.  After a Lyupanov interval has elapsed, one cannot look back and see the starting conditions whatsoever.  I am more comfortable with using the understanding of chaos theory in pondering the issues of 1079 than I am with simple linear matrix algebra of overdetermined systems.  For anyone who does not find any meaning in this paragraph, don't worry.

It is hard for us now to understand the depth of fear that the name Lavrenty Beria used to strike into the heart.  A story was that Beria had gone to meet Stalin at his dacha, not knowing he was elsewhere.  Stalin panicked because Svetlana his daughter was home, and he was afraid Beria would rape her.  If you can frighten Stalin, you can frighten anyone.

And as a general observation, I suggest that although farts are flammable, they are not especially useful in illuminating the environment. whacky1

May 14, 2021, 04:24:46 AM
Reply #45
Offline

Teddy

Administrator