August 07, 2020, 05:12:59 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Infrasound? Most unlikely.  (Read 15794 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

December 28, 2019, 01:23:07 PM
Reply #90
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
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.

[....]

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.

[....]

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?


First: Why all this intense aggression?

Then: Newton's third law only says that for every physical action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Sorry, but I have to tell bluntly that there is nothing in Newton's law that contradicts the obvious fact that the injuries found on the nine bodies are all completely consistent with human attack by force. Please refrain from invective, because foul language and accusations of conspiracy thinking only shows that the originator of such language has a rather weak case.

It is true that for every physical action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. These reactions create impacts that lead to injury and death, when force strikes human bodies as was demonstrably the case in the Dyatlov pass tragedy. I must repeat that there is no difficulty for a human trained in close combat to crush rib cages by elbow strikes. The great force of which a trained killer is capable of generating, is more than enough to cause the injuries of Dubinina and Zolotaryov.

Also, let us point out a major error in reasoning:

"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."

Comment to the above:

Written into more fluent English, the above sentence states that "the most important thing is that you cannot really prove the reason for why they were killed." - Unfortunately, that is a truly fundamentally erroneous approach.

The question is this: When one, two, nine or more bodies are found, what should then be done?

Should we first ask: "Is there a clear motive for anyone to have caused these deaths?" and then dismiss the possibility of murder unless there is an obvious motive which is found immediately?

Or, should we rather ask: "What was the cause of these deaths, and how can we ascertain the cause of death?"

Of course, the latter approach is the only sensible and scientifically acceptable one. We must first and foremost find out the cause of death, in order to then investigate further into the matter.

Lastly, the infrasound theory is just a little bit less speculative than the aliens theory. After all, infrasound does exist. But there is no experimental of empirical evidence that infrasound can compel nine intelligent and healthy human beings to lose their senses completely in the same way and simultaneously. We can safely put the infrasound theory to rest.

Have you ever been involved in any Court Case in a Court Of Law  ?  All the evidence is presented and the outline of the known events and then you get cracking on trying to solve the Case.
DB

February 11, 2020, 09:04:32 AM
Reply #91
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


Have you ever been involved in any Court Case in a Court Of Law  ?  All the evidence is presented and the outline of the known events and then you get cracking on trying to solve the Case.


Yes, I have been present in two long court cases. But these cases were not about homicide.

We are however not close to a court case here. Before a trial, evidence has to be produced.

I assure you, the first thing that has to be done of a corpse (or several) are found is to ascertain the cause of death. That is how investigation starts, in order to find evidence.

Investigators do not ask whether there is an obvious motive for murder, and then conclude that the death(s) are natural unless there is an obvioius motive.

They start with a thorough examination of the dead person(s), with the purpose of finding the exact cause of death.

In this case, that was not done. On the contrary, there were orders from Moscow that the investigation must conclude that the Dyatlov group perished from an accident. But that was not the case. 

February 13, 2020, 11:37:32 AM
Reply #92
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Have you ever been involved in any Court Case in a Court Of Law  ?  All the evidence is presented and the outline of the known events and then you get cracking on trying to solve the Case.


Yes, I have been present in two long court cases. But these cases were not about homicide.

We are however not close to a court case here. Before a trial, evidence has to be produced.

I assure you, the first thing that has to be done of a corpse (or several) are found is to ascertain the cause of death. That is how investigation starts, in order to find evidence.

Investigators do not ask whether there is an obvious motive for murder, and then conclude that the death(s) are natural unless there is an obvioius motive.

They start with a thorough examination of the dead person(s), with the purpose of finding the exact cause of death.

In this case, that was not done. On the contrary, there were orders from Moscow that the investigation must conclude that the Dyatlov group perished from an accident. But that was not the case.

I dont know which Country you were in Court. In England it matters not what the offence is. A Jury will go about it the same way, ie, they will be presented with the outline of the case, and depending on the facts it could be a very detailed outline. Eventually as the Trial proceeds evidence will be presented in Court.
DB