Recent Posts

81

General Discussion / Re: Dyatlov group's footprints on the slope, why icy?

« Last post by Osi on December 20, 2025, 08:03:27 AM »

Let's say you're standing on a layer of snow that fell days earlier. You're trying to make a footprint by stepping on this snow. In a compacted and hardened snow cover, you either won't leave any trace, or at best, you might get a footprint 1-2 cm deep. Then, using a cutting tool, cut a cube measuring 30x30x30 cm from that area. Crush that cube by slamming it violently against the asphalt, and then fill the hole where the cube was removed with the crumbled snow. Now you have a chance to get a footprint 7-8 cm deep. As a result, the path the group took from the tent to the forest had both natural snow cover and snow that had rolled down the slope and crumbled. The snow was probably fresh. Otherwise, the footprints wouldn't have been possible. On the day we moved to the tent, it started snowing heavily in warm weather. It snowed all night. Perhaps a cornice accumulation or a freshly fallen layer hit the northeast slope of the tent and flowed downwards around 10 o'clock. Then, depending on the slope, the route evolved from the tent down to the divan. After the avalanche stopped, the children got out of the tent. First, they trampled on the natural snow untouched by the slab movement. As they went further down, they trampled on the drifted snow. I think this is the most likely explanation for the raised footprints.

82

Avalanche / Re: Snow Slab or Snow Cornice?

« Last post by Senior Maldonado on December 16, 2025, 06:25:57 AM »

I just turned on the dosimeter and applied it to three bags of potatoes (60-70 kg) standing in the dark hallway.
The dosimeter showed 11 microroentgens of gamma radiation.
In another part of the room, the dosimeter shows 10 microroentgens, but this value varies from measurement to measurement, so it's difficult to determine that 70 kg of potatoes create any radiation.

I am a little anxious about WAB, as his potato is pure beta emmiter and 2kg of it provide contamination above sanitory norm for nuclear workers -- norm for external (not internal !) contamination. Is his farm close to a nuclear powerplant?

83

Avalanche / Re: Snow Slab or Snow Cornice?

« Last post by amashilu on December 16, 2025, 06:07:59 AM »

WAB posts: As for the biomechanics of injury, it can now be discussed more precisely without invoking a "shock wave"(с) and other unnecessary entities. Would you like me to provide a link (unfortunately in Russian) where the mechanics of the injury are described in detail, including the specific locations at the pass where it occurred and the reasons why it happened?

Yes, WAB, please share this link with us.

84

Avalanche / Re: Snow Slab or Snow Cornice?

« Last post by Axelrod on December 16, 2025, 05:50:59 AM »

ABOUT RADIOACTIVITY

I just turned on the dosimeter and applied it to three bags of potatoes (60-70 kg) standing in the dark hallway.
The dosimeter showed 11 microroentgens of gamma radiation.
In another part of the room, the dosimeter shows 10 microroentgens, but this value varies from measurement to measurement, so it's difficult to determine that 70 kg of potatoes create any radiation.

Bananas are probably more radioactive, but I don't have 70 kg of bananas in my apartment.

85

Avalanche / Re: Snow Slab or Snow Cornice?

« Last post by Senior Maldonado on December 16, 2025, 01:57:07 AM »

@WAB

I am glad that you like my ideas and my posts. )

The maximum level of radioactivity was roughly equivalent to the radiation from 2 kg of potatoes (165 Bq). Do you want to talk about it?

Not in this topic, as it is about snow attacks. I just want to mention that contamination level of 3 pieces of hikers' clothes was above sanitary norm for USSR's nuсlear workers. If Dubinina and Kolevatov had worked at a nuclear facility, they would have been asked to change their work clothes, as they had exceeded acceptable level of contamination. But they were not nuclear workes but rather winter hikers.

Would you like me to provide a link (unfortunately in Russian) where the mechanics of the injury are described in detail, including the specific locations at the pass where it occurred and the reasons why it happened?

I am always ready to practice my russian. Please, go ahead and provide the link.

This is another blunder of yours.
1. The "Central Committee of the Communist Party"(с) did not send Urakov to Sverdlovsk, and could not have done so, since Urakov worked in the Prosecutor's Office of the RSFSR. Can your party "Renaissance" also send high-ranking prosecutors anywhere? In our system, each department worked (and still works) autonomously. If information is required, other entities simply request it and do not interfere in the work of other departments.

My russian is not so good, but is not this document saying just the opposite?

86

Avalanche / Re: Snow Slab or Snow Cornice?

« Last post by WAB on December 15, 2025, 03:53:33 PM »

If it had changed course to fly towards the Dyatlov Pass, it would have disintegrated under the influence of Coriolis acceleration. These are basic considerations of the strength of thin-walled structural shells. There are very high speeds and too large a turning angle.

This sounds too scientific, and I leave this topic to be discussed between you and Roscosmos.

You did the right thing in this case. It's better not to talk about what you know little about

Obviously, Roscosmos does not know about such limitations and launches successfully space rockets with satellites to low Earth orbits from Baikanur. Second stages of those rockets fall in the North Ural's, south of Ivdel. You better hurry up to tell Roscosmos that they are doing wrong and impossible things. )

Dear Senior Maldonado! Either you are not carefully reading what I wrote, or you are trying to divert the conversation from what you do not want to discuss due to your limited familiarity with reliable information. I wrote: "Р7 (Russian designation) at that time did not fly from Tyura-Tam (Baikonur) in these directions." (с) The first launches from Baikonur to polar orbits (where the trajectory passes near (!!) the pass ) were only in the early 2000s, specifically in 2006. Therefore, until you manage to invent a time machine, talking about rockets over the pass in 1959 makes no sense. And the second stage falls during these launches (there were only 4) did not fall on the pass "south of Ivdel," (с) but more than 40–50 km away and 150 km from the pass. Why discuss in this topic something that happened in the wrong place and at a completely different time (50 years later)?

The next launch of R-7 to the Moon was on 12 September 1959.

This is wrong. Next one was in June 1959.

The launch on 18 June 1959 did not take place due to a rocket accident at takeoff. Let's be accurate in our statements…
You are using unreliable information
Or do you want to demonstrate how skillfully you can change the topic when you fail to say something necessary on the right subject?

Well, coming back to avalanches. When we talk about DPI we cannot avoid two topics: radioactive material found on Ravine-4

The maximum level of radioactivity was roughly equivalent to the radiation from 2 kg of potatoes (165 Bq). Do you want to talk about it?

clothes and shock wave, mentioned by Vozrozhdenny in the case files.

Boris Vozrozhdenny spoke about the equivalent impact on a person's body, not about whether such a wave actually existed. It was easier for him to explain the injury this way. As for the biomechanics of injury, it can now be discussed more precisely without invoking a "shock wave"(с) and other unnecessary entities. Would you like me to provide a link (unfortunately in Russian) where the mechanics of the injury are described in detail, including the specific locations at the pass where it occurred and the reasons why it happened?

Alas, an avalanche cannot provide any of that. There is no sence to make an avalanche a top secret and camouflage it in the criminal case final statement.

Are you changing the subject again? I think we have already said quite a lot about the avalanche...

Central Committee of Communist party would had never sent Urakov to Sverdlovsk to stop the investigation abruptly, if prosecutors had been almost ready to accuse the avalanche.

This is another blunder of yours.
1. The "Central Committee of the Communist Party"(с) did not send Urakov to Sverdlovsk, and could not have done so, since Urakov worked in the Prosecutor's Office of the RSFSR. Can your party "Renaissance" also send high-ranking prosecutors anywhere? In our system, each department worked (and still works) autonomously. If information is required, other entities simply request it and do not interfere in the work of other departments.
2. The investigation was closed exactly within the period stipulated by law: 2 months for the main investigation and 1 month for the additional investigation. It started on 28 February, was extended on 28 April, and concluded on 28 May. If each investigation were carried out indefinitely, none would ever be concluded. Moreover, in the case of the Dyatlov group, no criminal trace was found. One can invent a criminal trace, which is what some "investigators" are doing here. But why is this necessary for a just outcome?
3. Conversations about the "avalanche" began roughly 30–40 years after the events themselves. Especially even later.... In 1959 it was not even mentioned in the case or in the participants' search discussions. Why constantly stir up discussions about it again?

Nobody cares about avalanches' innocence, so the investigation team would had been allowed to continue their criminal case.

According to the law, the continuation of the case would only be possible if:
1. new and indisputable facts were discovered,
and
2. with the permission of the republican prosecution.
No facts or even reliable information were obtained, and obtaining permission from the republican prosecution would require such significant legal costs that it was not even requested.
So, what are we talking about?

87

Avalanche / Re: Snow Slab or Snow Cornice?

« Last post by Ziljoe on December 13, 2025, 04:45:57 PM »

I'm not sure the model of assuming it was an avalanche and those at the top knew it was , covered it up. That's not what's reported.

Dear Ziljoe! Unfortunately, I am unable to write here regularly, but allow me to comment on what you have written here… 1. Regarding the content (by the title) of the topic. Based on my own numerous on-site investigations, I must state unequivocally that in no local place where the events occurred could there have been any avalanches, cornice collapses, or anything of that sort for physical reasons. There are simply no conditions for this. All discussions on forums, in the press, and elsewhere are fabrications by those who have not been there and cannot even imagine the conditions even approximately.
2. In order to hide something, one must have a very significant reason. Can you (or anyone else on this forum) point to such a significant reason that it should be hidden for more than 65 years, especially considering that many more significant events have been published during this time? Perhaps it is logical to assume that there is nothing to hide, because there is nothing special?

The tent is found empty on the , 26 th , that's the first part of something being wrong and reviewing the need for an investigation. That has its own merit in seriousness and concern. Less than 24 hours later , 4 bodies are discovered . It would seem that this is written or communicated at least a day later than the the 26th of February . It can't be written before the 26th of February, it may be a wrong date by the author or the thought that it's appropriate to say the case started on the 26th in hindsight of finding the tent.

Let's clarify these points based on current legislation and the practice of investigating such criminal cases at the time…
1. As my old friend, who is a senior employee of one of the federal archives, told me, on the cover of a completed case, in the 'start' and 'end' fields, the law requires the dates of the earliest (or latest) document contained therein to be entered, even if it is incorrect. If a date error is discovered that does not affect the events themselves, a very lengthy and costly procedure is required to correct the date in the document. This procedure is not used in 99% of cases because it does not affect the results of the investigation.
2. A criminal case can be opened based on the fact of the event or by the decision of a prosecutor who has information about the event. Therefore, it does not matter when the case was opened: 26 or 28 February. Prosecutor Tempalov knew that the group had gone missing in his jurisdiction even before that. Therefore, the date he opened the case is his prerogative. No one can change this if the law is followed. In this case, the case was opened based on the discovery of the bodies when the prosecutor confirmed it himself.

The chronological order of what is in the text fits with what is being written about. I would expect errors and contradictions in a case to a certain degree as that's the nature of files and it is the best source of information we have. We can't dismiss the case files because of a difference in a days documented date? By two separate authors .

You are absolutely right. I provided the justification for this in the text above. Whoever writes what, everything must be done according to the law in force at the time. One must also consider the practice of conducting such investigations at that time. This adds to the understanding of what constitutes 'disagreements'. The attempt to 'correct' what happened on the principle of 'it should have been this way' is nothing more than fantasy. 'History does not tolerate the subjunctive.' (с)
 

It could be the other way round regarding Ivanov's article.  The publication is being used to sell . I doubt that lvanov even said half those things. The article is full of mistakes ,and , to put it politely, full of sensationalism. If !Ivanov knew something he could just say it but it's obvious that he didn't or his name is being used.

You are also completely right about this. One must take into account the time when Ivanov wrote his article (and many letters to the press and authorities). It was a time of complete recklessness in judgments, when many wanted to blame the past and align themselves with the 'new times'. Therefore, I do not believe that what Ivanov wrote was untrue; he simply 'shifted the emphasis' in a way that was convenient and 'pleasing' to the authorities of that time.
 

The case is as many , "unknown" . Over whelming force is the basic answer , it could be avalanche, crashed rocket , hurricane, infrasound but the truth is the investigation didn't find out what happened, not because it was covered up.

Yes, you are right that the reasons were not really explained because there was not enough knowledge at the time. I can clarify a lot here as a specialist in these fields of knowledge.
1. Avalanche. I managed to conduct extensive on-site research regarding the snow conditions at the tent location and the surrounding area. If you recall our correspondence with Alexander Puzrin (professor at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)) after he published an article on the 'Dyatlov Pass avalanche' in 2021, I wrote to him that there is a location not far from the tent site where the conditions for an avalanche are much greater than at the actual event site (the tent). Interestingly, a year later, there was a complex snow situation, and a landslide occurred exactly in the place I had pointed out, about 700 metres from the tent site. However, at the site where the tent was in 1959, there were no movements.
It's roughly the same as blaming a car driver for hitting a pedestrian if another car, with a different driver, hit a person on the adjoining street.

2. War Missile. If we stick to what actually happened, rather than the fantasies of amateurs, there were no missiles at that time and on that day that could have somehow reached the pass. I am a specialist in this field and can examine any fantasies in detail. They have absolutely no basis.

3. Hurricane. There are no wind speeds in nature that can carry a person far in any condition. This has been tested in practice at speeds up to 50 m/s (2.23 mph or kt). At such speeds, a person is knocked down onto the snow and may be dragged to the nearest obstacle (snow drift, rock, tree, etc.), and then pressed down without moving. The distance can be up to 10–15 m (30–40 ft), but no more… These are rather fantasies that have existed since the 1959 searches. They arose because the search participants at the time could not explain the reasons for leaving the tent…

4. I will not say anything about infrasound (neither - 'yes', nor - 'no') because almost none of the forum readers have enough knowledge to competently judge this physical phenomenon. As a result, many constantly repeat various myths and fakes, completely misunderstanding the physics and nature of the phenomenon.

Dear WAb ,first of all, thank you for your comments and constructive feedback. I respect your communication and when you guide me. I have never felt offended by your comments, so please continue when you can..

I wish to explain my approach to the DPI , although I assume you you will understand where I'm coming from and I suspect you are a few years ahead of me in knowledge and having been physically present at the location.

Unfortunately, I can not be there although I would like to view the location in the fist person. I totally understand the extremely low level of the possibility of an avalanche at the tent location, however, I do this because it seems to be the most logical explanation.

This is only an anchor of reality in my mind and plausible. Again I understand there's strong evidence that an avalanche it is just not possible , so I am somewhat grounded and also listen to those that say so..

I may have not communicated well enough or you are explaining my thoughts in your post, for clarification , I do not think the case files are fake or trying to hide anything.. everything is done by the book and I agree with you..

The point I make about tempolov statement from the 26th of February, about the criminal case being started is with regards to him( or others) not being able to pre fabricate the statement. My argument, or point is that this could not be written ,pre-discovery of the tent and bodies as no one could predict which and what bodies were found first. I don't aim this at you , more at other readers of the forum. There's a genuine chronological order of of events that couldn't be manipulated in the case files. To me , this makes the case files authentic and the witnesses.

I can only conclude that the investigation couldn't find anything, time and money was ticking on and they just wanted the case closed. The low level radioactive readings leaves a small question mark but also the reason for their existence having been in water doesn't fit with my understanding.

88

Avalanche / Re: Snow Slab or Snow Cornice?

« Last post by Senior Maldonado on December 13, 2025, 12:28:28 PM »

If it had changed course to fly towards the Dyatlov Pass, it would have disintegrated under the influence of Coriolis acceleration. These are basic considerations of the strength of thin-walled structural shells. There are very high speeds and too large a turning angle.

This sounds too scientific, and I leave this topic to be discussed between you and Roscosmos. Obviously, Roscosmos does not know about such limitations and launches successfully space rockets with satellites to low Earth orbits from Baikanur. Second stages of those rockets fall in the North Ural's, south of Ivdel. You better hurry up to tell Roscosmos that they are doing wrong and impossible things. )

The next launch of R-7 to the Moon was on 12 September 1959.

This is wrong. Next one was in June 1959.

Well, coming back to avalanches. When we talk about DPI we cannot avoid two topics: radioactive material found on Ravine-4 clothes and shock wave, mentioned by Vozrozhdenny in the case files. Alas, an avalanche cannot provide any of that. There is no sence to make an avalanche a top secret and camouflage it in the criminal case final statement. Central Committee of Communist party would had never sent Urakov to Sverdlovsk to stop the investigation abruptly, if prosecutors had been almost ready to accuse the avalanche. Nobody cares about avalanches' innocence, so the investigation team would had been allowed to continue their criminal case.

89

Avalanche / Re: Snow Slab or Snow Cornice?

« Last post by WAB on December 13, 2025, 10:50:13 AM »

War Missile. If we stick to what actually happened, rather than the fantasies of amateurs, there were no missiles at that time and on that day that could have somehow reached the pass. I am a specialist in this field and can examine any fantasies in detail. They have absolutely no basis.

We should not underestimate military guys, they are very creative.

At one time, I too did not escape the fate of serving in the army (Air Force). And later I spent a lot of time developing various military equipment. Therefore, I can say that military personnel are much less cunning than amateurs who want to show off their "scholarship". Their imagination often exceeds the limits of common sense and basic real knowledge.

At least two their products could easily reach the Pass at that time. R-7 could be launched from Baikanur, and B-350 could be launched from Vladimirovka.

They couldn't. Only in the minds of unscientific fantasists. The Р-7 (Russian letter) did not fly from Tyura-Tam (Baikonur) in these directions at that time. The trajectories were aimed at E-M-E, on the Tyura-Tam to Omsk segment. If it had changed course to fly towards the Dyatlov Pass, it would have disintegrated under the influence of Coriolis acceleration. These are basic considerations of the strength of thin-walled structural shells. There are very high speeds and too large a turning angle. The exact designation of the cruise missile 'Burya' is: В-350 (Russian letter). At that time, such launches did not occur (as with Р-7 launches). This is definitively established from primary sources.
"Burya" flew on 28 December 1958 and 19 April 1959. On 20 February 1959 there was no launch, the launch installation did not work. Any other dates exist only in the fevered imagination of amateurs. Launches of the R-7 (Russian letter) occurred only on 2 January (towards the Moon) and 17 February 1959 (this launch was observed by Vladislav Karelin's group during their expedition). There were no launches in between because there were no rockets. The one-off manual assembly had already been discontinued, and the production plant could only send a rocket in February. According to available data, on 2 February 1959 there was a launch from Vladimirovka of the R (Russian letter)-5m rocket. Its maximum (calculated) range was 1208 km (750 mi), and the distance to the pass was 1670 km (1037 mi).
About 10 years ago, I made a diagram of this launch specifically for Vladislav Karelin: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L5z6WKpFXu8s7Q07qFjnr1QhH66_v7hq/view?usp=sharing. The labels are in Russian, but they can easily be translated in any programme by typing them manually. It is easy to see there that, in any case, it would not have reached the pass. The structural considerations are exactly the same as those I mentioned above. Therefore, considering it is extremely unserious.

And we should keep in mind space rockets as well. On January 2nd they launched the Luna-1 probe to the Moon and almost reached the target. So reaching the Pass on February 1st with space technology of that time was a piece of cake.

The next launch of R-7 to the Moon was on 12 September 1959. You have a too simplistic view of rockets at that time. For example, to launch on 1 February (even hypothetically!) some kind of rocket would have been needed, but there were none available until mid-February. And then, the preparations for a launch at that time took 7–10 days… Moreover, lunar launches were not a priority then. A series of tests of military rockets was being conducted. The setup and support for space and military rockets were very different…

90

Avalanche / Re: Snow Slab or Snow Cornice?

« Last post by Senior Maldonado on December 13, 2025, 06:56:37 AM »

Avalanche. I managed to conduct extensive on-site research regarding the snow conditions at the tent location and the surrounding area. If you recall our correspondence with Alexander Puzrin (professor at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)) after he published an article on the 'Dyatlov Pass avalanche' in 2021, I wrote to him that there is a location not far from the tent site where the conditions for an avalanche are much greater than at the actual event site (the tent). Interestingly, a year later, there was a complex snow situation, and a landslide occurred exactly in the place I had pointed out, about 700 metres from the tent site. However, at the site where the tent was in 1959, there were no movements.
It's roughly the same as blaming a car driver for hitting a pedestrian if another car, with a different driver, hit a person on the adjoining street.

Clear and correct. Avalanche at the tent's site, RIP.

War Missile. If we stick to what actually happened, rather than the fantasies of amateurs, there were no missiles at that time and on that day that could have somehow reached the pass. I am a specialist in this field and can examine any fantasies in detail. They have absolutely no basis.

We should not underestimate military guys, they are very creative. At least two their products could easily reach the Pass at that time. R-7 could be launched from Baikanur, and B-350 could be launched from Vladimirovka. And we should keep in mind space rockets as well. On January 2nd they launched the Luna-1 probe to the Moon and almost reached the target. So reaching the Pass on February 1st with space technology of that time was a piece of cake.