A most likely explanation

[GlennM]

Everyone, then and now dies from anoxia. No exceptions.

[Почемучка]

Chinese runners were sweaty. If you have sweat on you, yes you can die in minus degrees in a few hours. This is possible. Because sweat makes you feel cold 2-3 times more!!! But it's impossible to die of cold overnight if you don't have sweat on you. And that night it was only -10 degrees and they got a little cold and they started a fire but they didn't stay by the fire long. Because the cold was not too much and did not affect their lives. If the weather was very cold, they would never leave the fire. In short, young people certainly did not die of cold.

Это кто Вам сказал что китайские бегуны вспотели? Марафон на длинные дистанции - это отнюдь не быстрый бег. Поищите ту историю в Гугле и почитайте условия и обстоятельства. Мне лень обеспечивать Вас такими рассказами, которые легко находятся поиском из двух ключевых слов по-английски.
Who told you that the Chinese runners were sweating? A long-distance marathon is by no means a fast run. Google that story and read the terms and conditions. I'm too lazy to provide you with such stories, which are easily found by a two-key word search in English.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Nature does not need a reason, people do.  Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. This conspiracists fall back on. I prefer Occam's razor. Natural causes compounded by unfortunate circumstance seems right. I like the slab slip idea as the precipitating incident.

The injuries found on the bodies tell their tale. Bodies do not lie.

[GlennM]

The reason there is no conspiracy, nor murder is because of the injuries to the bodies. 1. Any soldier with a gun can say, "leave your tent".,There is no need to lay a finger on the hikers. Fire a few bullets in the air and they will understand.Secondly, if chased away from the tent ,once the hikers got into the woods, they could just go through the forest and over the hill to their labaz.Third, a fire was made. Any fire is also a signal fire. The hikers could set the cedar on fire if they had to. They did not. Fourth, three bodies were found in the direction of the tent. If they fell when returning to the tent, there was no threat at the tent. If they fell leaving the tent, their bodies would not be injured, Also they would have more strength going downhill from the tent. Surely, they fell trying to regain the tent. Finally, if they were chased from the tent, someone would have gone inside to eat their food and drink their vodka, just out of meanness.

[ilahiyol]

Chinese runners were sweaty. If you have sweat on you, yes you can die in minus degrees in a few hours. This is possible. Because sweat makes you feel cold 2-3 times more!!! But it's impossible to die of cold overnight if you don't have sweat on you. And that night it was only -10 degrees and they got a little cold and they started a fire but they didn't stay by the fire long. Because the cold was not too much and did not affect their lives. If the weather was very cold, they would never leave the fire. In short, young people certainly did not die of cold.

Это кто Вам сказал что китайские бегуны вспотели? Марафон на длинные дистанции - это отнюдь не быстрый бег. Поищите ту историю в Гугле и почитайте условия и обстоятельства. Мне лень обеспечивать Вас такими рассказами, которые легко находятся поиском из двух ключевых слов по-английски.
Who told you that the Chinese runners were sweating? A long-distance marathon is by no means a fast run. Google that story and read the terms and conditions. I'm too lazy to provide you with such stories, which are easily found by a two-key word search in English.

Every running person sweats. And running people have empty stomachs and they can't generate internal heat either. And because they are sweaty, their little remaining body heat is also consumed very quickly. And runners don't have outer clothing anyway. And they can freeze and die within a few hours. However, it is definitely not possible for 9 professional mountaineers, who are not sweaty, have a full stomach and have outer clothes, to die of cold within 6 hours.

[Missi]

However, it is definitely not possible for 9 professional mountaineers, who are not sweaty, have a full stomach and have outer clothes, to die of cold within 6 hours.

I admit that homeless people are neither mountaineers nor do they have a full stomach, but nevertheless: There are many people that freeze to death during winter in our cities today, because they do not have shelter. Maybe they don't need 6 hours for it. But it is a danger. And you CAN freeze to death, even if it's more than 0°C.
You are right in saying sweat (and also for other reasons wet clothes) are an additional risk. As is the lack of nutrition, alcohol and the wind chill effect.
I'd say, there were some mildly sweaty clothes and the wind, that add to the severe risk of freezing for the DP9.

[ilahiyol]

However, it is definitely not possible for 9 professional mountaineers, who are not sweaty, have a full stomach and have outer clothes, to die of cold within 6 hours.

I admit that homeless people are neither mountaineers nor do they have a full stomach, but nevertheless: There are many people that freeze to death during winter in our cities today, because they do not have shelter. Maybe they don't need 6 hours for it. But it is a danger. And you CAN freeze to death, even if it's more than 0°C.
You are right in saying sweat (and also for other reasons wet clothes) are an additional risk. As is the lack of nutrition, alcohol and the wind chill effect.
I'd say, there were some mildly sweaty clothes and the wind, that add to the severe risk of freezing for the DP9.

Most street people are sick. Their immunity is very weak. And they are very malnourished. And their death won't happen in a few hours. Because they stay out in the cold every night, they stay in the cold for weeks or even months and eventually die. And there are tens of millions of them on Earth, but only a few hundred of them die of cold per year. They may also be due to possible weakness of the body and other diseases. It is wrong to equate them with 9 professional mountaineers. And no one dies from cold at temperatures above 0 degrees. Give me an example. And it's not possible for the climbers to be sweaty that night...They would have to run for that. They didn't run. They walked calmly. And their stomachs were full. So they were not hungry. And they didn't drink alcohol. And there was no storm. The weather was calm.

[ilahiyol]

However, it is definitely not possible for 9 professional mountaineers, who are not sweaty, have a full stomach and have outer clothes, to die of cold within 6 hours.

I admit that homeless people are neither mountaineers  .

What must a person do to become a mountaineer? They did the toughest hike ever! In the Urals!!! And it is known that all of them took such long walks before. This makes them climbers. Of course, it is not in the sense of climbing the steep mountains that I am talking about here.

[Missi]

However, it is definitely not possible for 9 professional mountaineers, who are not sweaty, have a full stomach and have outer clothes, to die of cold within 6 hours.

I admit that homeless people are neither mountaineers nor do they have a full stomach, but nevertheless: There are many people that freeze to death during winter in our cities today, because they do not have shelter. Maybe they don't need 6 hours for it. But it is a danger. And you CAN freeze to death, even if it's more than 0°C.
You are right in saying sweat (and also for other reasons wet clothes) are an additional risk. As is the lack of nutrition, alcohol and the wind chill effect.
I'd say, there were some mildly sweaty clothes and the wind, that add to the severe risk of freezing for the DP9.

Most street people are sick. Their immunity is very weak. And they are very malnourished. And their death won't happen in a few hours. Because they stay out in the cold every night, they stay in the cold for weeks or even months and eventually die. And there are tens of millions of them on Earth, but only a few hundred of them die of cold per year. They may also be due to possible weakness of the body and other diseases. It is wrong to equate them with 9 professional mountaineers. And no one dies from cold at temperatures above 0 degrees. Give me an example. And it's not possible for the climbers to be sweaty that night...They would have to run for that. They didn't run. They walked calmly. And their stomachs were full. So they were not hungry. And they didn't drink alcohol. And there was no storm. The weather was calm.

I don't know, what it's like where you live. I can say for Berlin, where I live, that we do have shelter and homeless can get food and medical help. It just is not enough for everyone (plus some don't want to use it), so there are people freezing even in Berlin. Even if they are not per se malnourished and unhealthy.
Also I didn't equate them with the DP9, I only made a comparison. I'm well aware, that the DP9 were surely fitter but then again the surroundings were worse.

As for the freezing above 0°, I have no definite example, but maybe that statement is good enough:

How do you develop hypothermia?

    Hypothermia can develop with prolonged exposure to temperatures under 10°C, or after prolonged immersion in cold water of temperatures of less than 20°C..
    In colder conditions or when there is wind chill (the felt air temperature due to wind) it can occur within a shorter exposure.

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/factsheets/Pages/hypothermia.aspx

When looking for your example, I stumbled across a site mentioning, that one factor is the humidity in the air. I'm not sure about the humidity in the night of the incident, but it could be an additional factor.

Plus: You can sweat without running. For example when setting up a tent against a strong wind, which is exhausting. Also the skiing probably did make them break a sweat, as suggests the fact, that at least one was wearing the pullover with the inner side out.

[ilahiyol]

However, it is definitely not possible for 9 professional mountaineers, who are not sweaty, have a full stomach and have outer clothes, to die of cold within 6 hours.

I admit that homeless people are neither mountaineers nor do they have a full stomach, but nevertheless: There are many people that freeze to death during winter in our cities today, because they do not have shelter. Maybe they don't need 6 hours for it. But it is a danger. And you CAN freeze to death, even if it's more than 0°C.
You are right in saying sweat (and also for other reasons wet clothes) are an additional risk. As is the lack of nutrition, alcohol and the wind chill effect.
I'd say, there were some mildly sweaty clothes and the wind, that add to the severe risk of freezing for the DP9.

Most street people are sick. Their immunity is very weak. And they are very malnourished. And their death won't happen in a few hours. Because they stay out in the cold every night, they stay in the cold for weeks or even months and eventually die. And there are tens of millions of them on Earth, but only a few hundred of them die of cold per year. They may also be due to possible weakness of the body and other diseases. It is wrong to equate them with 9 professional mountaineers. And no one dies from cold at temperatures above 0 degrees. Give me an example. And it's not possible for the climbers to be sweaty that night...They would have to run for that. They didn't run. They walked calmly. And their stomachs were full. So they were not hungry. And they didn't drink alcohol. And there was no storm. The weather was calm.

I don't know, what it's like where you live. I can say for Berlin, where I live, that we do have shelter and homeless can get food and medical help. It just is not enough for everyone (plus some don't want to use it), so there are people freezing even in Berlin. Even if they are not per se malnourished and unhealthy.
Also I didn't equate them with the DP9, I only made a comparison. I'm well aware, that the DP9 were surely fitter but then again the surroundings were worse.

As for the freezing above 0°, I have no definite example, but maybe that statement is good enough:

How do you develop hypothermia?

    Hypothermia can develop with prolonged exposure to temperatures under 10°C, or after prolonged immersion in cold water of temperatures of less than 20°C..
    In colder conditions or when there is wind chill (the felt air temperature due to wind) it can occur within a shorter exposure.

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/factsheets/Pages/hypothermia.aspx

When looking for your example, I stumbled across a site mentioning, that one factor is the humidity in the air. I'm not sure about the humidity in the night of the incident, but it could be an additional factor.

Plus: You can sweat without running. For example when setting up a tent against a strong wind, which is exhausting. Also the skiing probably did make them break a sweat, as suggests the fact, that at least one was wearing the pullover with the inner side out.

Places like Berlin may be an exception. And if there is a shelter, if he is fed enough and if he is not sick, and if he is adequately dressed, it is not possible for him to freeze from the cold. Those who are said to have died from cold, on the other hand, are a result for those whose cause of death is unknown. As a result, autopsies are not performed on those who die on the street and are said to have died from the cold. The quote you made is an assumption...an assumption made by scientists...There is no precedent in real life....There was no storm at the time of the incident, and there was no work to be overexerted. They just walked 1 mile downhill. The reason they turn their clothes inside out is because they are wet, not because of sweat. And these people also knew that they should not sweat at -10 degrees. And that's why they didn't rush even at the moment of exiting the tent. They just walked. And in extreme cold, you have to exert a lot of effort to sweat. And you have to be very cowardly and ignorant... they knew they would get hypothermia as soon as they sweat. They didn't.

[Missi]

What were the clothes wet from, if not from sweat? Did they take a bath with their clothes? Did they wash them and put on afterwards? I'm puzzled.
As for the freezing or not: I'm done. If you don't believe in what scientists have to say on that matter, I won't make you change your point of view. You won't change mine either, for I do believe in those statements, because they correlate with what I've learned about science.

[ilahiyol]

What were the clothes wet from, if not from sweat? Did they take a bath with their clothes? Did they wash them and put on afterwards? I'm puzzled.
As for the freezing or not: I'm done. If you don't believe in what scientists have to say on that matter, I won't make you change your point of view. You won't change mine either, for I do believe in those statements, because they correlate with what I've learned about science.

Clothes can get wet from snow or get wet from rain. Can you imagine a sweater getting drenched just by sweating? This can only happen in the bath. Or in a desert... And when it comes to scientists, take a look at a history and you won't believe how wrong scientists are!!! You will even laugh at them. scientists only guess, they can come out right or wrong...don't overestimate them...

[GlennM]

Scientists use a falsifiable hypothesis as their methodology. This means they make an educated guess which must be able to be proven false. The operant word is proven. To prove an assertion, it must be testable. The very best test is called an experiment. It is the only acceptable method. If a hypothesis can not be falsified, then the hypothesis becomes a theory. A theory is still a best guess supported by available evidence. Science has very, very few laws, or indisputable truths. For example, everything that is hot will get cold. No exceptions. It is the law of thermodynamics.

The difference between scientists and forum wags largely boils down to methodology. Scientists experiment. Forum members speculate,and argue in lieu of experimentation. Further, scientists will change their theory when their hypothesis can be falsified. Forum members just shout louder and become abusive and evasive to clutch their preferred point of view. As,a supreme irony, you will find forum participants vigorously arguing their point of view by falling back on the work of,scientists! Remember this, science is inherently self correcting. Personal bias and prejudice is not.

[Missi]

What were the clothes wet from, if not from sweat? Did they take a bath with their clothes? Did they wash them and put on afterwards? I'm puzzled.
As for the freezing or not: I'm done. If you don't believe in what scientists have to say on that matter, I won't make you change your point of view. You won't change mine either, for I do believe in those statements, because they correlate with what I've learned about science.

Clothes can get wet from snow or get wet from rain. Can you imagine a sweater getting drenched just by sweating? This can only happen in the bath. Or in a desert... And when it comes to scientists, take a look at a history and you won't believe how wrong scientists are!!! You will even laugh at them. scientists only guess, they can come out right or wrong...don't overestimate them...

It doesn't make much sense to turn a pullover left to right, if it got wet from the outside, does it?

And yes, there are again and again situations that need to modify scientific hypothesis. But until then, they hold according to experiments and all logic involved. So how can you prove your statement that no one freezes to death at above 0°C. temperatures?
Hypothermia is defined as the core temperature of the body getting too low. This can happen theoretically at each and every temperature that is lower than body temperature. Now you have to take into account, that the body itself produces heat. But why should that make the border of possible hypothermia exactly 0°C.?

[ilahiyol]

What were the clothes wet from, if not from sweat? Did they take a bath with their clothes? Did they wash them and put on afterwards? I'm puzzled.
As for the freezing or not: I'm done. If you don't believe in what scientists have to say on that matter, I won't make you change your point of view. You won't change mine either, for I do believe in those statements, because they correlate with what I've learned about science.

Clothes can get wet from snow or get wet from rain. Can you imagine a sweater getting drenched just by sweating? This can only happen in the bath. Or in a desert... And when it comes to scientists, take a look at a history and you won't believe how wrong scientists are!!! You will even laugh at them. scientists only guess, they can come out right or wrong...don't overestimate them...

It doesn't make much sense to turn a pullover left to right, if it got wet from the outside, does it?

And yes, there are again and again situations that need to modify scientific hypothesis. But until then, they hold according to experiments and all logic involved. So how can you prove your statement that no one freezes to death at above 0°C. temperatures?
Hypothermia is defined as the core temperature of the body getting too low. This can happen theoretically at each and every temperature that is lower than body temperature. Now you have to take into account, that the body itself produces heat. But why should that make the border of possible hypothermia exactly 0°C.?

Wearing clothes inside out will allow them to dry faster in the wind. We know that there is wind on the slope day and night. If no one has ever died, I'll believe it. Hypotheses say something. But in real life he says something. I believe more in real life. However, the thing is that above 0 degrees, a person does not have hypothermia and does not freeze. But if a person stays between 0-10 degrees for too long, it can cause his death. But it's not hypothermia. It occurs when the cold reduces his immunity and makes him sick or very weak. Is there a definite limit of 0 degrees? It is discussed. But the logic is this: If the water is freezing, I can freeze too. Because 70% of human is water. It was created from Sudan.

[GlennM]

Can we make a distinction between hypothermia and freezing? I believe there is one.

[Missi]

Can we make a distinction between hypothermia and freezing? I believe there is one.

Yes, there is one, although the phrase "freeze to death" means to die because of low temperature and has nothing to do with freezing in the sense of being frozen like ice or frozen peas.
In the latter sense you can't freeze at temperatures above 0°C. In the first sense you can.

[GlennM]

Do I understand where this is going? Ruffians assaulted the DP9 and made them work up a collective sweat. The inefficiency of their clothes induces a lowering of core body temperature.  Their subsequent  behaviors can not reverse the effect of cold and in fact exacerbates it, leading to frozen death for all. The ruffians monitor this for the duration of their agony. When the last of them dies, the ruffians leave, and leave no trace. If this explains the how of their death, all that remains is the why. Care to supply that?

[Missi]

I don't know, where this is going. All I wanted was to object to the notion, that healthy young people can't freeze in the circumstances present at the pass in the night of the incident.
I follow a completely different theory at the moment. But maybe ilahiyol will explain his theory?

[WinterLeia]

I tend to argue against theories rather than for them. This is not to be negative, but simply because I don’t believe one single theory is fully supported by all the evidence. All of them have problems, even the official avalanche theory, which is why I object so strongly to it being the official theory. It could be the right one, but no studies have proven that to be the case over the other ones. About the only thing I can say is that I lean toward some type of unexpected event causing the hikers to leave their tent, that they were not killed, but there was a cover-up after the fact. It’s kind of hard, though, to set anything in stone when you have to at least accept a few assumptions to argue any single theory. No one survived and the collection of evidence to begin with was less than the rigorous scientific method law enforcement is expected to adhere to these days. Whether this was for a nefarious reason or simply because the search party thought they would find them alive is a matter of conjecture. The uncertainty it invariably injected into the case still applies either way, though. Just take the footprint evidence, for instance? Are they the footprints of the group? We’re they made by bare or shod feet. The search party said they didn’t make them, but how can we be sure? People have argued these questions every which way to Sunday, and depending on the interpretation, it greatly affects the conclusion you come to. Obviously, if they belong to the group, that would suggest something other than if they belonged to persons unknown. And if it’s the search party, then they’re irrelevant. That is unfortunately the uncertainty we have to deal with, but to be unwilling to believe it’s there doesn’t really help in getting any closer to the truth.

[Loose}{Cannon]

All theories are flawed

[GlennM]

All theories are subject to falsification through testing. If in light of a new fact, the theory is revised, you could say it was a flawed theory. The term" flaw"is tricky.Lay people will assign a value judgement of  goodness or badness to the change as opposed to correctness. Human nature is such that it is common to extrapolate the good/bad judgment as an assessment of the theorist. Members of the forum by and largely subscribe to some type of theory. The stiff necked minority who won't entertain findings from thought experiments, or real world tests are dogmatic, that is, rigid in their thinking. Also, not much fun. It results in ad hominem attacks going after the contributor, not the topic.Loose Cannon and Teddy have had to sanction members for this reason. It also manifests in the general discussion like in MDGross' recent call to order post.

To advance our research, the best way to procede is to employ "if/then" hypotheses. For example, I hypothesize that if Nurse Solter acquired new clothes for the corpses, then it was she who paid for those garments with her own money. With this hypothesis clearly stated, a course of action can follow. The investigation proceeds.

[Missi]

To advance our research, the best way to procede is to employ "if/then" hypotheses. For example, I hypothesize that if Nurse Solter acquired new clothes for the corpses, then it was she who paid for those garments with her own money. With this hypothesis clearly stated, a course of action can follow. The investigation proceeds.

You're possibly right there. I keep forgetting, that people tend to judge theories by terms of right/wrong only, because I keep relating to the circumstances of the origin (which makes it sometimes hard for me, but that's another story entirely...)
But to employ if-then-statements is a little stiff. Especially when it's often not the actual implication people argue about, but the premise. Plus sometimes we don't even have to argue about the implication. Take for example the theory, that the lights in the sky that night were UFOs of an extraterrestrial kind. Then it's not a big deal to agree on the fact, that those UFOs made the hikers leave their tent of fear. I'd completely buy that. Yet I'm strongly averse to the theory of aliens visiting the pass that night.
And then there's also the question of wording. Referring to your example of the buying of clothes. Does pay mean the action of giving money away for getting clothes? Or do you mean it was her money she gave? In the first case, I'd agree. Not in the latter, because she might have gotten the money back afterwards. Or maybe she got money beforehand, which she spend.

Communication can be so difficult, but it is so important...

[WinterLeia]

To advance our research, the best way to procede is to employ "if/then" hypotheses. For example, I hypothesize that if Nurse Solter acquired new clothes for the corpses, then it was she who paid for those garments with her own money. With this hypothesis clearly stated, a course of action can follow. The investigation proceeds.

You're possibly right there. I keep forgetting, that people tend to judge theories by terms of right/wrong only, because I keep relating to the circumstances of the origin (which makes it sometimes hard for me, but that's another story entirely...)
But to employ if-then-statements is a little stiff. Especially when it's often not the actual implication people argue about, but the premise. Plus sometimes we don't even have to argue about the implication. Take for example the theory, that the lights in the sky that night were UFOs of an extraterrestrial kind. Then it's not a big deal to agree on the fact, that those UFOs made the hikers leave their tent of fear. I'd completely buy that. Yet I'm strongly averse to the theory of aliens visiting the pass that night.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it just isn’t there for that particular theory. That there were strange lights in the sky over the region is pretty well-documented. Several groups of people, independent of each other, saw the lights at the same time and their descriptions match to a great extent. Plus, they were not likely to be lying out of a quest for fame or fortune since the government was not real happy at people spreading such stories. However, it can’t be ruled out that these were man made objects. Some people just interpret any reports that way because they believe in extraterrestrials visiting earth and are always on the lookout for evidence for it. However, it’s also a failing of human nature that we gravitate toward the sinister and the strange without ruling out the innocent and mundane. It makes the mystery much more interesting. If I were making a fiction movie about Dyatlov Pass, I would definitely consider abducted and murdered by aliens a much more entertaining and likely successful plot line than strong winds, or an avalanche, or their stove catching on fire. Real life, though, is rarely that entertaining, and usually the mystery is so much more interesting than the actual solution.

[Ziljoe]

Почемучка brought attention to rocket launches in the area. These light effects happen at specific times at twilight. See video below.




It seems plausible and certainly ties in with witnesses at the time. These sightings may run in parallel with DPI and have raised speculation ever since. There may be no link at all with the deaths. Just rocket launches at twilight. A rare phenomenon in its self as there needs to be certain conditions according to the video. Going by the statements of those that observed the sky  , their descriptions seem to indicate a similar observation.

This video is worth a look, it can give us a possible answer to the lights in the sky.

[GlennM]

Choose a particular item such as lights in the sky. Hypothesize.,I predict that if there were lights in the sky in the vicinity of 1079 on the night of Feb 1, 1959,then those lights were from a terrestrial source. Now, a specific goal and an opportunity to gather facts to validate the hypothesis is defined. Finally, in the methodology of science, it is perfectly acceptable to find that a hypothesis is wrong. It is unacceptable to lie about it. This is how progress is made. Science is a way of thinking that has produced more and better results than any other form of mental endeavour.

[Ziljoe]

The video is describing a terrestrial cause. I just use the phrase" lights in the sky " as an example.

From Atmanaki Georgiy Vladimirovich testimony.

"On February 17, I and Vladimir Shavkunov got up at 6 am to prepare breakfast for the group. After making a fire and preparing everything necessary, we waited for the food to get ready. The sky was gray, there were no clouds, but there was a slight haze, which usually dissipates with the rising of the sun. Sitting facing north and accidentally turning my head to the east, I saw 30° high in the sky a milky white blur about 5-6 moons in diameter and a series of concentric circles. It resembled a halo around the moon in a clear frosty weather. I made a comment to my partner, that's how they painted the moon. He thought and said that in the first there is no moon, and besides, it should be on the other side. From the moment we noticed this phenomenon, it lasted 1-2 minutes, and how long it was there
before we noticed it we don't know. At this moment, at the very center of this spot, an asterisk flared up, which for a few seconds remained the same size, and then began to increase sharply in size and rapidly move in a western direction. Within a few seconds, she grew to the size of the moon, and then tearing off the smoke screen or clouds appeared a huge milk disc of milky color, 2-2.5 moons in diameter, surrounded by the same rings of pale color. Then, remaining the same size, the ball began to fade until it merged with the surrounding halo, which in turn spread out across the sky and went out. It was dawn. The clock was 6.57, the phenomenon lasted no more than a half minutes and produced a very uneasy impression. Initially, we did not pay attention to it, but then, when the glowing disk itself appeared, we were amazed. Personally, I had the impression that some heavenly body was falling in our direction, then, when it had grown to such enormous dimensions, a thought flashed through my head that another planet came into contact with the Earth, that now a collision would follow and nothing would remain of all earthly things. We were already awake for more than an hour, so we were well awake and didn't believe in hallucinations, but we just stood there hypnotized and only when the disc began to fade we rushed to the tent back

to wake up our comrades and show them the unusual phenomenon. I do not know how Karelin managed to jump out of the sleeping bag at lightning speed and run outside the tent in his underwear wearing only socks. He managed to see the disc losing its outline and the bright spot spreading across the sky."

We have the time of day and the date. The time of day fits with the said twilight effect . The description of what was sounds similar to what we can see on the video. I would put this forth as" a most likely explanation" . A rocket getting launched .

[GlennM]

Based on your evidence, a rocket launch is a valid conclusion. If a single rocket launch produced lights in the sky and if a Soviet rocket circa 1959  is a single point light source, then multiple points of light signifies a detonation of the rocket. If the detonated rocket produced fragments and those fragments were in proximity to 1079,,then those fragments may be found. Has the discovery been made?

[Ziljoe]

I'm out of my depth GlennM but others might be able to help.

Depending on the rocket ( I'm having a search) it might have stages that break off and cause the effects seen like in the video. The sun reflecting off the rocket thrusts would be brighter causing a number of visual  illusions.

Also , these rocket(military?) launches  may have happened on a regular bases for testing but only observed from the ground if launched at twilight and clear skies.

Fun fact:

Interestingly Luna 1 space rocket was launched on 2nd of January 1959.

On 2 January 1959, after reaching escape velocity, Luna 1 separated from its 1472 kg third stage. The third stage, 5.2 m long and 2.4 m in diameter, travelled along with Luna 1. On 3 January, at a distance of 113,000 km from Earth, a large (1 kg) cloud of sodium gas was released by the spacecraft. This glowing orange trail of gas, visible over the Indian Ocean with the brightness of a sixth-magnitude star, allowed astronomers to track the spacecraft. It also served as an experiment on the behavior of gas in outer space. Luna 1 passed within 5995 km of the Moon's surface on 4 January after 34 hours of flight. It went into orbit around the Sun, between the orbits of Earth and Mars.

The spacecraft contained a 19.993 MHz system which transmitted signals of 50.9 second duration, a 183.6 MHz transmitter for tracking purposes, and a 70.2 MHz transmitter. Four whip antennas and one rigid antenna mounted on the sphere provided the communications link. Power was supplied by mercury-oxide batteries and silver-zinc accumulators. There were five different sets of scientific devices for studying interplanetary space, including a magnetometer, geiger counter, scintillation counter, and micrometeorite detector, and other equipment. The measurements obtained during this mission provided new data on the Earth's radiation belt and outer space, including the discovery that the Moon had no magnetic field and that a solar wind, a strong flow of ionized plasma emmanating from the Sun, streamed through interplanetary space.

[GlennM]

I would surmise that a failed major rocket launch,would certainly not be a secret for long. If the launch was successful, then it is only a curious distraction and not essential for our investigations. What do you think, Ziljoe.