I agree fully with you on one aspect in the above: Because of the typography in mountain areas and in particular when there is a large massive where air is coming in from several directions with different temperatur and humidity, the weather can often change very fast and unpredictably. You are wholly correct in that observation.
However, the significance of the reports from the surrounding areas is that even if it is theoretically possible that there may locally have been a stormy weather in the Dyatlov pass area that possibility is not supported by the reports from the weather stations. So where does that leave us? There is a "might be" here, but the trouble is that the alleged storm is not indicated by any sources or traces. On the contrary, the conditions around the tent tend to indicate that there had been absolutely no snowstorm on February 1. Indications would rather point to the opposite: If there had been a violent storm on that evening, the footprints from the nine students down the slope towards the forest area would certainly have been erased that same night.
Further: I do not mean to be rude, but it has to be said that the videos presented above are not evidence of anything. These videos merely show us what it looks like in a particular type of weather. It does not prove what conditions were present at the Dyatlov pass on the evening when the students perished. It does not remotely prove that infrasound was the reason why the students left their tent.
Ever since 1959, official versions of what happened have maintained that the tragedy was due to accidents and "a series of mistakes by Igor Dyatlov," and it has been confirmed that it was signalled from above that the conclusion of the incomplete investigation should be that it was all an accident and that nothing else than natural forces were involved. Today we have theories about man-eating yetis, ball lighting, UFOs landing and killing the students, nonexistent fires and smoke in the tent, infrasound effects that supposedly scared nine adult people out of a tent and made them flee a mile away to their death in the cold, and even fighting between the students themselves has been proposed as the cause of the tragedy. It is perhaps time to try a more analytic and realistic approach, in accordance with the ideals and demands of fact-based science.
Whenever extraordinary claims are made, these claims must be backed up by some extraordinary strong evidence. To claim that infrasound was the culprit, and to further claim that the students were so mentally disordered with an altered consciousness that they cut their own tent and fled far away to a certain death, must be considered extraordinary claims. By the way: Even if the tent was cut from the inside, it still does not tell us who did the cutting. We do not know who cut the tent, and we do not know that the students left the tent throught the cuts either. This is just one of many unwarranted assumptions.
To finally claim that all the subsequent injuries (which were all consistent with a lethal attack by humans with evil intent) were due to an extremely improbable series of sub-events that by coincidence worked together to take nine lives in the course of a few hours, is so extraordinary that it exceeds the border of the realistic by quite some margin. Like ball lighting, the infrasound theory certainly makes a good history, but with risk of being offensive I can only say that the infrasound theory not only lacks substantial evidence. The hypothetical course of events that has to accompany the infrasound theory is neither indicated nor at all probable, and this is also shown by all the fantastic explanations that have to be invoked to dismiss the evidence that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was an act of violence amounting to merciless homicide.
I wrote that did interolation analysis of the information from nine "nearest" meteorological stations which are around. I have written "nearest" so-called because the nearest is on distance ~ 90 km (~60 miles). In addition, we observed weather in the winter 2013, 2014 and 2015 and compared that has been fixed on "the nearest" meteorological stations. Then having the information from them and actual weather on a place, we consider what it there could be with big a probability on February, 01st and 02 1959 by analogy. What to object concerning such way, it is necessary to have a minimum 10 times bigger volume of supervision and accurately to specify to us in what there is our error. Other objections simply are not serious and is estimated only by that the opponent wishes that that to object (for the process of objection), but it does not have any information.
To take the information on weather for 100 km from a place, it is equivalent to that it is necessary to take it in Africa. It will be another anyway.
No, it not so. I had to observe similar traces even longer time later and at strong winds. Besides, traces have remained in such places where on them the strong wind did not operate. These are features of a microrelief. They have disappeared for two reasons:
1. Them fell asleep snow and them could not find.
2. Them has destroyed a wind. If you read criminal case that should know that they were not at once about tent. It is that case when from has brought snow because at once on a tent place the slope excess (a little more abrupt part) begins and there snow was postponed. Therefore them there have not seen. Then there was a wavy slope where traces have remained in a concave part of a slope and have been destroyed in a convex part of a slope. After the first bushes have begun, traces have been again filled up by snow. There there is a zone of adjournment of snow. Under snow they were, but they could not be found. Generally speaking, traces were only small sites. They were far apart. But there was a possibility to track a direction and a movement trajectory very approximately. To track only on very small site.
I do not assert that there there was a storm how much I investigated conditions, it turns out so that the wind was ~ 12 … 15 m/s (knots) and temperature ~-15 … 18С (F) on a tent place. In process of movement downwards, the wind has stopped a little above a place where have found Zinu, and the temperature was more low. By my approximate calculations, the cedar practically did not have a wind, but the temperature was ~-20 … 22С (F). It has been checked up in January 2015 when above (where there was a tent) there was a wind 20 … 25 m/s (knots).
Nevertheless, even absence of a storm creates conditions for this purpose that there would be an infrasound. But its parametres in the given conditions very much depend on many factors. For example, from a direction of a wind, temperature of a stream of air, humidity (depend on density of air which very much depends on humidity) an interval in flaws and etc. more precisely
This video is a weather illustration when many surrounding meteorological stations gave speed of a wind nearby 3. 5 km/s. And as to proofs, to be exact, as they are perceived by different people, this concept very subjective. For example, if will occur (I do not want it, this offer hypothetical) that in the winter, on the same place, happens too most with other group always there will be people who will confirm: «It not the proof, the head had other surname … year not is 1959 …. This group not from university UPI … and etc.»
And, even if in it there will be 9 persons, dates and weather … will coincide.
1. No official version existed and is not present in the nature in general. In total article of criminal case that has occurred is written absolutely precisely. But it not concrete instructions on the reason. Therefore everyone finishes thinking about all happened how he wants.
2. Igor Dyatlov did not make any errors. If you them name, will be the first who could make it. I well enough know all details of a route and I have level of the Master on ski travel already more than 40 years. Those opinions that you read, are no more than personal opinions and they are erroneous. I can prove you it, only I should understand that you have high enough skill level on the given travel. Otherwise it will be conversation about what that concrete, and is simple for the sake of conversation process.
Well so I to you also cite exclusively scientific data. And the information received directly in a place of events in similar conditions. But it does not mean that it is necessary to use any unchecked or impossible information in the nature. And what you can offer? Meanwhile I did not see any answer to some concrete questions which I set in last letters.
And what does not suit you in this case? That you tell all should be made and in other versions. However there it does not turn out at all a logical chain of events. For example, if you want to prove murder should show the real reason because of what it has been made. Then should show possibility to make such on a place of events and the same conditions. But even with the first point (reason) there will be insuperable difficulties. If you consider that all has been made simply because so it wanted, it is very naive representations.
And whenever possible simply to come on this place, you cannot offer anything at all. Because do not know logistics and movement conditions there.
Let's tell all precisely? You do not know it. I know what to get imperceptibly to this area and to find tent at night on a slope it is impossible. As the proof I am ready to see it on a place of events in the winter when you there will arrive. And to get you there should the same as there was group Djatlova, and after it your villains.
You are agree?
Anything improbable there was not. All chain of events turns out naturally. In all it is possible easily it will be convinced there on a place, of winter conditions. But you did not do it, and I did it some times. Therefore it turns out that you show only words which do not prove to be true practice, and I show the supervision on place with the big statistics.
What is the theory of "a shone sphere»? That theory is not present. There are many conversations that where that that was shone. But anything concrete it has not been told. It not the theory, it is simple conversations. There are attempts to prove what that a hypothesis that Woodpeckers the command was lost from what that shone, but there too only one conversations. The facts are absent completely. It has no relation to an infrasound. For a long time already have understood that supervision of these of "shone spheres» to within minutes have coincided with event of start of rockets from the cosmodrome Baikonur. Other supervision was not, there were only conversations about them. But no acknowledgement are present. There are only conversations about it.
You suggest to consider conversations by the facts?
I asked to tell it already some times: you can result what
concrete objections of probability of an infrasound? While you tell only the general words in which there is nothing concrete. If it simply your opinion anybody cannot forbid it. However it is not necessary to give out it for what that an objective estimation.
The course of events is already described for a long time, but you did not read it. It is in Russian. I have no possibility it to translate and adapt for understanding specially for you. There very much great volume of the text.
I understand what to convince you is useless, therefore and I am not going to do it later.
Topic: Infrasound? Most unlikely. (Read 178243 times)
