I agree, the vacuum bomb is a few clicks away , as is much scientific information and data.
This thread has become a mess as it's unclear what is being debated .
That's what I'm talking about as the most important thing. You can't do everything at once. You have to deal with one issue and draw conclusions first, and then research the next one.
It was interesting for translation of some of the YouTube videos from Russian to English but unfortunately it has become confused .
Yes, of course. Only it should be a very high quality work. And it needs explanations on various issues, from different understanding of terms in different languages to interpretation of concepts for the level needed by different readers. If this is not done, then you get a lot of nonsense. There are a lot of words, but no concepts.
The vacuum bomb I understand well enough in concept but it's where it came from ,
I have already explained that all the work on such munitions was already after all the events for more than 10 years. So I don't understand what there is to discuss in connection with the Dyatlov group?
where is the so called secret base , how did it get there and why are they building secret bases in winter where people roam quite freely.
This is a typical example of empty fiction as a subject for blatant chatter. I think that we should not fall for it, because it is elementary contrary to common sense.
I might add that the area is generally difficult to access, both now and then. This is especially important for the winter period. The reason for such idle talk appears because most of the readers of the forum do not visualize this aspect. And some "writers" blatantly use it for their own PR. They have no other tasks, for example, to honestly inform the readers of the forum. That is why there are attacks on those who inform about the actual state of information.
A fallen test stage of a rocket gone wrong perhaps, a slim change I guess but testing vacuum bombs at random , a secret base? there would be no point. Rockets , missiles and weapons were not secrets , the only secrets were the capabilities and numbers of rockets to the west.
The rocket version in general here is a consequence of many rumors (= speculation ) and gossip (or piece of scandal) - these are two different concepts in Russian.
I, as a specialist, can confidently say that in January 1959 there were no missiles that could fly to the pass from the places that were really available at that time.
All deployments of missile forces were at the borders of the country, they were not needed elsewhere. From the nearest place of such deployment were distances about 2 times the range of missiles that were in such troops.
There simply could not be other places, as they had to be only to fire only at their own, not at enemy positions.
This is elementary common sense.
However, rumors, supplemented by secrecy (no matter whether necessary or not) are always very stable among the ordinary population, so in Sverdlovsk at that time there were a lot of them. Because the "rocket theme" was then in "very big and fashionable".
In fact I think there was a whole nuclear city in the south Urals that was secret, but only to the west...
If you are saying that there were "closed cities" where there were nuclear industry plants, that is absolutely true. So too, there was Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or Site Y, LASL) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in the US, and there was nothing special about that. It's a peculiarity of the time. By the way, continuing to this time....
This clip below is 1957 and a military parade of rockets etc, in the USSR.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=oyt_RjDfah4&si=F9aNYa0tBoQSN0v9
This was shown in 1957, but by 1959 almost nothing had changed in this technique. Of course, there were still new developments, but in appearance they were almost unchanged.
I can comment on this rocket video as follows:
1. 6 min 06 sec - the missiles of the S-75 air defense system are demonstrated. Such missile in May 01, 1960 was shot down U-2 airplane near Sverdlovsk.
2. 6 min 40 sec - R-11 type missiles are demonstrated. It is a ground forces missile with a range of 150...270 km (90...165 mi). Its modifications are known as "Scud".
3. . 6 min 55 sec - 2k4 or 2k5 missiles are demonstrated with very short range - up to 25 km (15 mi), but with the possibility of installing a nuclear warhead. This missile is supposed to be a development of field artillery.
4. 7 min 15 sec - R-5 type missiles are demonstrated. This is an operational-tactical missile with a range of 1200 km (750 mi). Exactly such missile was launched on February 02, 1959 from the area of Kapustin Yar in the eastern direction for the purpose of military tests. But even if we assume fantastically that it would have flown towards the pass, it still could not have flown because the distance there is 1640 km (1020 mi). Although it actually flew ~750 km (460 mi) towards Kazakhstan (east).
There could still be presented a rocket R-7 (such in 1957 was launched the first satellite, and then, its modification in 1961 was launched cosmonaut Gagarin), but it was very large and could not fit on the transport for transportation.
The frustration is, Axelrod seems to be debating several theories at once, which has got confusing.
Unfortunately that is not what is most wrong. He is so amateurish in his presentation of this information that it is almost impossible to understand even someone who is well versed in what is written there....
I have zero concern regarding the school and I don't understand what Axelrod is trying to communicate about the schools name or number.
This refers to minor details of the route of the Dyatlov group and does not affect the final accident in any way. I wrote about it only because if a writer wants to assert something, he should do it as accurately as possible and with a deep understanding of what he wants to say....
The diary entries seem to fit logically, it gives the story of the start of the hikers journey, singing, a telling off for singing by the police , a drunk on the train , going for a walk and missing the bus , the talking to children about their adventures and then films ,songs with the locals. It seems like normal people doing normal things , I can't see anyone doctoring diaries that would expose so many witnesses to the hikers diary.
You are absolutely correct here. If not to delve into unnecessary conspiracy, nothing foreshadowed the final event and the group's demise. This means that all the answers should be sought in the causes on the very last leg of their travel.
The footprints are probably the biggest indicator that the tent was pitched where it was found and the 9 hikers descended to the ceder area. The foot prints are also the best evidence that no one else was involved.
Yes, you're absolutely right here too, but we need to find a distinction in which facts of their reflective details of events are important and which are irrelevant. That is the difficulty of this investigation.
It takes a very significant amount of scientific and practical training to be able to distinguish between such details of events.
This is especially important as many things have changed over time (65+ years!).
For example, weather parameters, societal psychology, the basis for action assessments, the ability to reach the scene, and much more.
It is necessary, as they say in science, which I now have to do, to be able to solve inverse problems. That is, using the available objective data now, to reconstruct the picture that was then.
This is all the more difficult, because you have to take into account a lot of different parameters and conditions... And this is almost impossible for one person, if you go very deeply into this case....
***********************************
Unfortunately, lately the substance of this thread is more and more filled with conspiracy theories, dilettantism at the level of medieval ignorance and just plain chatter. I'm already tired of trying to explain something in more detail and closer to life. Probably, in the nearest future I will simply destroy my archive and stop saying anything on this topic at all.
I just have to write a couple of notes on the subject of this winter expedition, as there are monstrous errors in this "research".
This will reinforce the tendency that the reasons will never be known.
Much later they (these reasons) will be found, but a great deal of time will have passed, too much effort and intelligence will have been expended.
But this is already possible only with a completely new and from scratch informational approach. Now it is impossible to do it, because the mass of unreliable and "garbage" information is piling up all the time. And there is nothing that can be done about it.
It is necessary to stop and start all over again. And it should be done by specialists acting simultaneously in different fields of knowledge. Dilettantes and fictitious people cannot do complex and complicated cases.
The received information should be carefully analyzed for reliability and weed out everything that does not meet the criteria of compliance with the laws of nature, correspondence to historical realities and common sense. This is especially important if there are multiple layers of different factors. Moreover, specialists should be practitioners, not "doing philosophy sitting on the sofa".
And it is always necessary to have an answer to the questions:
- why any action is done there and
- how possible is it to do it in those conditions?
Topic: Another interesting version (Read 53018 times)
