THE SUNRISE DYATLOV GROUP DIDN'T SEE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrfetHekn9o
Dyatlov Pass time lapse by Vitaly Dolmatov
A few words on the winter expedition 2024 to Dyatlov Pass.
I wrote these notes a long time ago (back in March-April) I had no time or no opportunity to write something....
Since this opportunity has just appeared, I want to use it, as I don't know what will happen next. I'm not a writer, but a researcher, so for me it's not the words that matter, but the meaning of what I've done. By the way, a writer is not called someone who writes, but someone who is read a lot, not for polemics, but for pleasure and understanding of the meaning.
However, from all such activities as expeditions and other events, one should draw conclusions and extract useful information, otherwise it all leads to a simple chatter about nothing....
So, let's summarize the results of this particular event.
It is possible to distinguish several different constituent parts:
1. Route.
It is clear that the time spent on the way to Ushma on skis is lost time and an opportunity to study the conditions on the spot. It is necessary to do either one or the other. It is not possible to combine the two. At least it exists for winter conditions. One must either take the route as intended or competently conduct on-site research.
About these features was said on this forum back in January 2024 (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1499.0 January 15, 2024, 11:28:53 Reply #4 ) and (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1529.0 January 15, 2024, 11:23:15 Reply #3 ).
From the published videos about this expedition, I would like to clarify a number of points discussed along the route:
I. There was a stated exploration of the terrain of section 41 when traveling from Vijay to Ushma. Unfortunately it was not observed anywhere, even the approximate location was not marked. It is clear that this section of the route was physically strenuous in terms of movement (and it was already mentioned in my note from January 15), but then why was it planned? Or it was done as on a joking principle of Chukchi : "It would be good, it would be good for us to catch a big walrus!" grin1 ?
II. It was already the next day - from Ushma to "Ilyich's base"... I was extremely surprised to see the discussion of rocks on the photo ( https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/5_06.jpg ) at the place of so-called "whale's mouth" (video https://youtu.be/LTqs5Teiy58 timing 41:00).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w8Z1187VmanCEidhlEpZ2yzoVjipFCmE/view?usp=drive_link
"diskussion point"
Here is my own winter shot of this place (the one on the video), only from a slightly different angle - a little bit downstream, literally 50...60 m (165 ...195 ft).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qFsK8j0HXsubqJtDzgInZhSl04IwiLwJ/view?usp=drive_link
These are completely different places, located very far away from each other.
The topographical map shows this very well.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pTKjzd6o1Ji9AgudrvuJN9C1zfG5tPLH/view?usp=drive_link
This distance is about 20 kilometers (~12.42 mi)
I don't know how well they (the members of this expedition) read Dyatlov's diaries and how well they know the topography of the area, but even logically it is obvious.
The rocks shown in the photo https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/5_06.jpg are located between "site 41st" and the mouth of the Ushma River. Ushma settlement did not exist in 1959 (it appeared after 1965) and there was only a bad fishing hut near the river (upstream), which the group did not see either. If we take into account that Dyatlov's group left "section 41" at about 14:00 (02.00 RM) local time, and passed the mouth of the Ushma at about 16:00 (04.00 RM), when it was already beginning to get dark, it turns out that the rocks were earlier than that time, and they could not see the "whale's mouth" in the dark at all. It could not have been earlier than 19:00 (07.00 RM). There was a distance of about 18...20 km (11...12.5 mi), and their speed was at most about 4...4.5 km/h (2.15...2.4 kt) - a lot for a skier of that level and that time. This is the point on the topographic map that is labeled as "diskussion point"
On modern (my) photos, winter, upstream of the river Lozva, for 1...2 km (0.6...1.2 mi).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wDH2g3GtZ8tjwDH-TKbmb0Im1MlLenn6/view?usp=drive_link
and on summer pich one taken from the very mouth of the Ushma River
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ez7owcpcWSmdQrh_H_fXUe3PiNCRw8yt/view?usp=drive_link
It is clearly visible where they are. Below this place, there was no way Dyatlov's group could have taken such pictures due to light conditions, insufficient film sensitivity and the existing technical characteristics of cameras of that time. On this day it was dark from 16:30 local time (04.30 RM) - sunset in cloudy weather practically in the forest.
III. The exploration of the 2nd North site was also done hastily and almost inconclusively. The fact that practically nothing was preserved there and with such amount of snow, which is usually there, it is impossible to conduct anything useful for the investigation of the case in winter, was already written in one of the popular Russian forums in 2013 and in the collection of the "Dyatlov Memorial Foundation" "research and materials (useful information)" in 2015. It is hard to imagine and believe that the organizers of this "research 2024" were not constantly present at that forum and do not read the main literature of the Foundation, where they constantly appear. The question then arises: why do it? Is it to "check the box" (make a mark) that they did it only by themselves and make them forget that it was done by other researchers a long time ago?
IV. At the very beginning it was announced (it was written a lot in the initial posts in the forums, including this one) that the group intended to completely pass the route of Dyatlov, so they were going to turn off at the mouth of the Aspia River and follow the river. In the same January post in this forum I showed some skepticism that this would work out, given the infinite number of tasks they had planned for themselves....
But that's no reason to engage in excuses (justifications for canceling). If such a goal was set, and promised, they should have done it. Or not plan such goals with great levity.
As an alternative, I can suggest how such a task was handled by the Swedish-Russian group in January 2019. https://www.arcdoc.se/se/blogg/dyatlov-expedition-new-theory-41712449 . they had only 4 people in their group : Richard Holmgren - the leader, and participants : Andreas Liljegren, Ekaterina Zimina and Artem Domogarov .
They were not "professional" travelers. Richard Holmgren is a well-known archaeologist, Andreas Liljegren is an ecologist, Ekaterina and Artem are employees of a travel agency in Ekaterinburg. They traveled the route from Ushma to the pass (and back) entirely along the path of Dyatlov's group. This is an example - if a group has set a goal, they look for a way to do it, not a reason not to do it.
If we evaluate the route of Dyatlov's 1959 group, they could easily have missed the mouth of the river. They had no detailed maps, descriptions or photos. If we take into account that they spent the night that day, 3 km (1.8 mi) above the mouth, it becomes clear that they could not have traveled only 5 km (3 mi) all that day, especially considering that there was no deep snow on the river. So they made a detour (zig-zag) through the upstream area.
This follows logically from the location of their starting point and their ending point that day.
It is possible that if there was no Auspia River route in this 2024 expedition it was the right decision, but then why pre-promote it?
On-site research assignments.
[/u]
A lot of research tasks were announced....
Unfortunately according to the principle - "the more, the better", and without a breakdown of what is real and what is not.
If we draw a line in what turned out, as well as to discard all the advertising words and take only the result, we can note only 2 points:
I. the so-called "avalanche research by named after S. Evdokimov",
II. The possibility of carrying (imitation of the possibility) an injured person from the tent to the cedar. Again according to the "version" of S. Evdokimov.
Practice shows that the on-site research efficiency is from 25 to 70%, depending on the weather. This refers to the fact that amii researchers have well conceptualized and fully thought through the technology of conducting research. In other words, they should have a good idea of what they want to get and what should depend on what. And also possible deviations.
If everything is thrown into one pile indiscriminately, then you get what you get....
The rest is something unintelligible from what was said as "the result of research".
So, item by item:
I. "avalanche research".
Glaciology is quite a complex science, so you need to have serious training for this kind of research. Well, at least just a basic one. And it is absolutely necessary to know what they want to get, and what should depend on what there.....
Unfortunately, it was obvious that this was not available even in the most elementary form....
For example: who can explain - why to do a big and unnecessary work in the form of a deep dug trench up the slope (across the slope), when for avalanche hazard studies it is necessary to "trim" the slope (along the slope formation - along the slope).
However, even from what was done some results could be obtained, but because it was done so carelessly, so the results were almost nil.
A) when excavating a trench (even in any direction) it was possible to study the layering of snow and separate the layers into fractions of different sizes. But for this purpose it was necessary to make a vertical cut very precisely without smoothing the cut itself. Then the layers (if they exist) will be clearly visible. In that case, the edges were dug so carelessly that it was impossible to see anything there.
B) determination of snow density was also done so carelessly that it is not clear where these "results" can be used?
The video shows that the snow block is cut very roughly and the measurements are made with destruction of the block edge. Therefore, the results are very questionable.
For example: the block is not geometrically aligned and the tape measure stop is pressed into the snow. Then, even if we use the dimensions that are voiced in the video, it turns out that - the verbal (said in the video) results are as follows: roughly measured dimensions in snow = 23 x 32 x 6.5 cm - these are very rough measurements, the voiced weight = 2.72 kG (193 pdl), whence volume = 0.0004784 m3 (29.19 in3); or specific gravity (attention! this is not density *) = 568.56 kG/m3 (kilograms of force per 1 cubic meter) or 6.611 pdl per 1 cubic inch.
In practice, this is very dense snow on the verge of ice flecks, which has never been observed locally at any time with respect to the January - March period. This is why there is reasonable doubt.
Further, if we assume that if there is an error of 1 cm on each side of the base (which can be seen although this is taken at a minimum), even if we ignore the inaccuracy of the geometry of the block, we get that volume = 0.0005544 m3 (33.83 in3); or specific gravity* = 490.62 kG/m3 or or 5.704 pdl per 1 cubic inch, which gives a difference of 15%. This is a closer result to the statistical result for the period. In January 2015, another (more accurate) method measured a density of 358.0 kG/m3 , in March 2019 - loose, freshly fallen snow - 138.54 kG/m3 , accumulated snow in the Cedar area - 261.46 kG/m3 , layers in the tent area - 364.58 kG/m3 , 402.08 kG/m3 , 486.46 kG/m3 .
It is enough to compare the results of measurements that the errors of this expedition would be clear.
In other words, this is not how research is done. It is just an imitation of stormy activity.
II. "Carrying the wounded man to the cedar".
Almost 60 years ago, the outstanding Russian and Ukrainian pedagogue V. A. Sukhomlinsky said: "Don't do things halfway - you will get nasty" (c) . This is exactly what happened as a result of this so-called "experiment".
The load that S. Evdokimov carried - 35...40 kGs (343...392N or 2500...2850 pdl) in no way corresponds to the weight of even the lightest of the victims. If we assume the weight of Lyudmila Dubinina on the 50th percentile, then for her height of 167 cm (5ft , 5in) her weight turns out to be 68 kGs (666,2 N or 4825 pdl). That's "live weight" without clothes or anything else. For Tibo, that's a bit of a stretch. For a height of 174 cm (5ft , 8in) and 70 centimeters (his build is more well-fed) it is 75+ kGs ( 735,5+ N or >5320 pdl).
In addition, the experiment was not done cleanly, since S. Evdokimov did not choose the path of travel, which is unnatural for the conditions of Dyatlov's group. The fact that it is impossible to compare a daytime crossing with a night crossing can't even be mentioned.
And then, there was no point in dragging something from the tent, as it is already clear that the injuries were received lower down the slope.
It turns out that if we make sense of these "experiments", they rather worsen the understanding of what happened than give any meaningful result.
III. No less incomprehensible is the attempt to analyze the equipment on this expedition, which was voiced in one of the videos....
For this purpose it is necessary not to enumerate what someone is wearing, but to sound the necessary minimum of necessary equipment and to tell about the properties it should satisfy. A hint about the names of those materials that have such properties is certainly a big plus in the discussion, but their name alone, without specifying the properties more resembles commercial advertising rather than a discussion of the properties of this equipment required for such expeditions.
It is very revealing that over S. Evdokimov constantly tried to tease about the maximalism of his equipment. I will not engage in moralizing, but will try to explain the basic principle by which equipment is selected for any sports trek (trip).
Please forward to Stas the image of my plaque describing this principle:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tAV30KsCnyvKOuludCTjYNK3uFiCFZqk/view?usp=drive_link
For non-Russian readers I can tell you equivalently what it says there:
On a hike (trip) you should take not the equipment that may come in handy (someday or somewhere), but that which you cannot do without at all (on this trip). (с) grin1
"He'll need to frame this picture, decorate it with flowers, and hang it over his bed to remind him of something every morning, all the time.
If he makes any progress in the rationality of preparing equipment for traveling, I will consider my life not wasted. grin1
If we summarize everything said here, then we can conclude that in this case it turned out to be just a fascinating walk to the pass, a commercial trip or, if we can put it this way, a "holy hajj" timed to the anniversary. The fact that people make such journeys is certainly good, but it would be desirable that it would give some substantial, reliable and meaningful result. What is not observed yet (I really hope that only yet).
Back in the XVI century W. Shakespeare wrote a play with this title (I have corrected it here only a little grin1 ) " Мно́го шу́ма, и ничего́ " (Much Ado, AND Nothing).
In the end, it can also be called the "research outcome" of this expedition.