October 29, 2025, 11:27:42 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: The distance covered until sunset  (Read 8749 times)

0 Members and 19 Guests are viewing this topic.

August 21, 2025, 02:55:23 PM
Read 8749 times
Offline

Axelrod


Thought about theur path with distance 1500 meter from tent to cedar.


A still of the sunset from the Japanese film «Rashomon» (1950).

After the Sun disappears behind the horizon, its rays, reflecting off the upper layers of the atmosphere, continue to illuminate the Earth. The lower the Sun goes behind the horizon, the fewer of its rays reach the Earth until complete darkness sets in. We cannot clearly determine to what time of day this period of twilight should be attributed – to day or to night.

And since, according to the law of the Torah, a new day begins in the evening (as it is said: «and there was evening and there was morning – one day» – Bereshit 1:5), there is doubt as to exactly when one day ends and another begins. The obligation to observe the Sabbath is a commandment from the Torah (and one of the most important). Therefore, it is natural that in everything that concerns the observance of the Sabbath, one should «strictly» observe the law, that is, begin the Sabbath a little earlier, while it is still obviously day, and end a little later, when it is definitely night – in order to avoid doubts.

It remains to find out when exactly this «uncertain» time from the point of view of Jewish law begins, how long it lasts and when it ends. For this, the Talmud provides various, sometimes contradictory, signs. There is also a dispute among the commentators of the Talmud as to how to understand these signs.

Next, according to https://toldot.com/urava/ask/urava_10068.html

We will not go into the details of this dispute, but will consider only the opinion accepted in the modern Jewish world, which was held by many outstanding Rishonim and Geonim, as well as outstanding sages of recent generations, such as the Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the Chafetz Chaim, Rabbi Y.-M. Epstein and many others.

According to this opinion, the period of «bein ha-shmashot» begins immediately after the sun sets below the horizon, and continues for the time required to walk three quarters of a mile (1500 cubits). And it ends with the appearance of the first three stars. Or, in language we understand, 13-18 minutes after sunset.


– I found a new comparison: 1500 cubits at sunset is probably 1500 meters of their flight from the tent to the cedar.

The Almighty punished them for not following the instructions by sending a heavenly punishment: e.g. a west wind that shook the stove, magnetic fields, infrasound, hurricabe, a temperature drop and a snow shift.




 

August 22, 2025, 04:29:23 AM
Reply #1
Offline

Axelrod


                                                                 Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone                                                          [/u]
You also operate with phrases from the Bible.

Although the Jewish religion and the mission of the preacher irritate you, this is the only explanation I see.
I am not a believer and I am not a preacher, but I observe a certain pattern here.
We are forced to turn to the developments of the Holy Scripture, as did primitive people, who couldn't explain more.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2025, 06:45:11 AM by Axelrod »
 

August 30, 2025, 05:57:40 AM
Reply #2
Offline

Axelrod


It is important to understand that this time (18.6 minutes after sunset) is relevant only for the latitude of the Land of Israel and Babylon, the places where the Talmudic sages lived, and only during the spring and autumn equinoxes. In summer and winter, the Earth's axis of rotation is tilted relative to the Sun, as a result of which the Sun passes the twilight strip "obliquely", which somewhat increases its duration.

In addition, with distance from the equator, the speed of the Earth's rotation slows down, so in northern countries the duration of twilight increases noticeably. In addition, in the north (for example, in St. Petersburg), the Sun "glides" over the horizon in summer, not dropping low enough for a long time, which increases the duration of "bein hashmashot" to an hour or more.

For example, on June 22 in Jerusalem, "bein ha-shmashot" lasts 22 minutes, in Paris - 33 minutes, in London - 36 minutes, in Moscow - 56 minutes, and in St. Petersburg - 1 hour 10 minutes! (According to the computer program kaluach). Therefore, the moment of the beginning of the new day, that is, the appearance of the first three stars, became the subject of computer calculations. This depends on the angle at which the Sun sets below the horizon 18.6 minutes after sunset - in the Land of Israel on the days of the spring and autumn equinoxes (that is, 4.8 degrees).

There is another reason why we begin the Sabbath earlier and end it later. This reason is the commandment "to add from the mundane to the holy" (see Shulchan Aruch, OrachChaim 261:2 and 293:1), that is, to begin observing the laws of the Sabbath on Friday and end it on Sunday, in order to sanctify the weekdays with the sanctity of the Sabbath.
 

October 27, 2025, 07:48:10 AM
Reply #3
Offline

Axelrod


Semyashkin's Experiment. Version (2010) (text abridged):
   

Sergey [SEMYASHKIN]: They left the storage shed at 3:00 PM. There are no further records. After that, we were just discovering and wondering what had happened. So, they left the storage shed. My time interval was 1:40 (or 100 minutes) to the tent site. They made it through.


We were also hacking through the snow, and the same thing happened. We started hacking with shovels, and theirs broke. The snow was so dense that the shovels broke. Our shovels broke too. We chopped with axes, skis... The mountainside was sloping, and we needed to make this place horizontal. We tried to take photos from the same angles as those available online. We tried to replicate this for comparative analysis. We accomplished all of this.

It's known that they all went into the tent. One of them urinated there in front of the tent entrance. Our director also accomplished this.

We spread out our things. The stove was brought in, but not lit. We had a snack. There were some skins from bacon and pork loin. That was their simple snack. We accomplished all of this, too.

And when everything that Dyatlov's group had done up until their escape from the tent (which is what this experiment was for) was completed, I gave the command and timed it. It was 6 hours, 6 minutes (and 6 seconds), and I said, "Something happened at that time."

Why did we set this time? For comparison. In 1959, at 6:00 PM, a space rocket was launched, so to speak, or there was a meteorite fall. And to figure something out, we recorded this time. We understand that it's approximate. Somewhere we hesitated, somewhere they did something quickly. Everyone understands that this isn't a strict coincidence, but that's what the experiment is for. And we recorded everything. At 6:06 PM, for some reason, they began to urgently leave the tent.

There were three cuts in the tent. Either one person cut it three times, or three had knives, we don't know. And since I had young and eager tourists with me, I gave the knife to only one of them and said:

"Okay, you cut the tent, and everyone else runs out through this hole!"

And at this time, video footage was being taken of this whole thing. At the moment we ran out of the tent, at 6:06 PM, it was like this: we ran along the route where the tracks led in 1959. We ran downhill, and the time was recorded again.

We ran downhill quickly, but two of us had to simply descend on foot (following adjacent tracks).

We, like Dyatlov's group, reached the cedar in 10 minutes, but these two got there in, say, 16 minutes. We recorded all of this. Finally, we reached the cedar. They had a fire there.

Here I split the group. Two people stayed by the cedar to start the fire. Moreover, our fire had to be burning from the first gathering. Since the people found near the cedar were naked, they didn't even have shoes on. In that state, you can only go out once (for firewood), grab something, and light it, instead of running around collecting it. You'll freeze your feet in no time.


And another team of guys was making a platform. I gave them the same task: chopping down these firs and birches with knives, where there were 12-14 firs in the platform. They chopped them down the same way, but later they admitted to me that they got tired of chopping with knives and they chopped down the last two trees with an axe. All of this was done.


And when we did all of this, our fire burned out. I was informed that the platform was ready... Again, all of this was established. If a person lives, he constantly leaves traces of his life activity. He goes to the bathroom, he eats, he chops wood, fells branches, and so on. Something's always happening.

We did everything they did... I set the time to 7:45 PM. At that point, no one from Dyatlov's group was alive. Again, how much longer it could have taken them is debatable. My time was 7:45 PM (99-100 minutes later), and by that time they were all already dead... That's it.

The cause of death was the same for everyone: hypothermia. That's how the pathologist recorded it. The weather was, as in the case file, -25°C and hurricane-force winds. That's normal weather, when you can freeze to death. The concept of a hurricane-force wind doesn't just mean you'll freeze. It means the gale we had. And right there, as soon as I drove out there, my nose immediately turned white. My finger froze right off, in three minutes.

And I returned there 26 days later (February 26). We had abandoned the tent (February 2, 2010) and scattered the bodies (body bags where the bodies had been).

I conducted this experiment to compare the weather conditions of 1959 and 2010. But when I realized what kind of people I was talking to, I realized no one needed it. Everyone had their own opinions.

I had an argument with Buyanov. He was developing his avalanche theory that all the injuries were caused by an avalanche above, and they were bringing the bodies down. But his actual conclusion was based on the fact that there are bushes on this mountain, and there was abrasive processing of the tree trunks' bark. And he concludes: avalanches happen here regularly! Look, avalanches come one after another and whittle down these trees.
   
I start climbing and see the same thing, only from below, on another peak (on the way up). I conclude: it's not avalanches that are causing this. It's the wind, the drifting snow, blowing in one direction. And Buyanov writes a whole paragraph about this in his book. It all crumbles to pieces. Not a single fact, just speculation.





« Last Edit: October 27, 2025, 08:14:53 AM by Axelrod »
 

October 27, 2025, 07:49:50 AM
Reply #4
Offline

Axelrod


Full Russian video is here:
 

October 27, 2025, 09:48:30 AM
Reply #5
Online

Ziljoe


Interesting but he doesn't really say anything.

Some thing's he states that I don't know if they are fact .;

No one knows if anyone urinated outside the tent . We do not know what time they left the labaz to go over the pass. We don't know the exact weather conditions or temperature but the raised footprints would suggest in was milder than stated. The Yuri's were found with less clothing but we're not naked and by all understanding, the two Yuri's had been better dressed at some point during the decent and at the ravine/ceder.

We know that walking in socks in snow is not a big problem, especially if the socks don't get wet . It would seem the snow can add some extra insulation properties to the socks but the negative would be not having a solid sole . Ultimately it is the sock that gives insulation to the feet in a boot , a hard boot has little insulation, if one wears two many socks in a hard shell boot , then it crushes the air gaps in the sock fibres and restricts blood flow.

If the walk only takes 10-16 minutes from the tent to the ceder then I would not worry about the feet.


I'm still interested in the raised footprints because this gives a very unique moment in time of the potential weather conditions  , it tells us something concrete although I can't pretend to fully understand how it works.

By searching Google and AI I get the following:-

Conditions required
For raised footprints to form, several specific environmental conditions are necessary:
Cold temperatures: The snow must stay well below freezing for a long time to prevent any melting and refreezing that would soften the footprints.
Dry snow: The snow must be loose and dry to allow for easy compression and to be easily moved by the wind.
Strong, consistent wind: High winds are needed to erode the loose snow around the compacted footprints.
Extended time: It can take weeks or even months for the wind to fully carve away the surrounding snow, so the footprints must remain undisturbed.


from my understanding,It's the raised footprints formation that suggests there was loose fresh snow on the slope when the hikers walked on that surface . Sucken foot prints were also reported lower down the slope.

I'm speculating that there must have been fresh snow fall in the time frame of leaving the labaz to pitching the tent and perhaps a good few hours whilst in the tent.

The tents erection doesn't necessarily suggest an emergency build from a pending storm , not that Igor would take that decision as he had a bad experience on another trip and would know to descend to the treeline. Plus, the tent couldn't be put up quickly or easily in an emergency situation as they had to dig a trench or platform, lay skis , use ski poles as anchors etc. This is not something to do when you have the comfort of the trees 10 minutes away.

Also , the lack of dress suggests that they had no fear of the tent being ripped apart by any poor or dangerous conditions otherwise they would dress accordingly,waiting to jump out or take action at any given moment.

I struggle to think why they chose to camp at that location for any solid reason . One of my thoughts is , if snow had been falling and there was little wind which would let the snow lie , the hikers may have chose to try and take advantage to do the route to Ortoten in reverse as planned. A random snow fall on the higher ground may have given them a faster and easier passage for the next day that was worth the waiting to see in the morning. They would have been able to ski along the ridges as opposed to walk them and avoided the slow arduous movement through the trees and rivers.


 

October 27, 2025, 02:20:28 PM
Reply #6
Offline

Axelrod


I agree with that diagram.
Slobtsov (sheet 298) talks about the urine trail. Since Slobtsov was the first to approach the tent, he clearly doesn't describe his own urine trail.
And who could have left it before him?

Semyashkin gives the time for the underground approach from the tent as 100 minutes (from 3:00 PM to 4:40 PM), 100 minutes for setting up and staying in the tent, and then 100 minutes for subsequent events.

It seems to me that each segment could have lasted from 1:30 to 3 hours. For example, at 9 AM they woke up and got up, between 11:45 AM and 12:00 PM they completed the tent and left (just as they left the 2nd Northern).
At 15-00 (3:00 PM) they began setting up the tent. They left the paddock between 17-00 (5 PM) and 18-06-06 (6/6/6 PM). By 9 PM, they were all dead on the snow.

Do you disagree? Will you express some kind of protest?
 

October 27, 2025, 02:59:27 PM
Reply #7
Online

Ziljoe


What's to disagree or agree with which diagram?

Slobstov says others informed him of possible urine AFTER he discovered the tent . Maybe the dog had a pee. I would question that urine in the snow would still be visible after 3 weeks of drifting snow . It does not give any details of the location of the yellow snow and even searchers will not hold in their  natural needs on a slope to relieve themselves, especially when they will not have been instructed to. The tent was found without suspicion of a crime . If you need to go , you go. No one is writing done when everyone has a pee. 

All times are an estimation, they vary wildly over the day and are based solely on photos and diary entries as far as I understand.
 

October 28, 2025, 07:05:22 AM
Reply #8
Offline

Axelrod


We need to base our reasoning on something.
To determine whose urine stain it might have been, we need data on the fullness of the bladders.
It definitely wasn't Dyatlov winth 1 leter of urine in his bladder.later .

It could have been Thibxaux-Brignolle. His bladder was empty, according to the examination on May 9.
If his bladder was supposed to have filled up within 100 minutes, he could have emptied it a second time, as he had no problem doing so.
The presence of shoes also fits this. He could have stepped aside wearing a felt boot.
 

October 28, 2025, 08:26:56 AM
Reply #9
Online

Ziljoe


It might be best to see if we can eliminate the urine , plus what purpose does it serve ?

The reporting of the tent site, it's condition and contents were woeful at best. It was not detailed and changed several times.

The best thing would be to find a slope of snow in -25 weather conditions, urine on the snow and see if you can find again after 3 weeks?
 

October 28, 2025, 11:13:34 AM
Reply #10
Offline

WAB


It might be best to see if we can eliminate the urine , plus what purpose does it serve ?

That's the right question. The presence of this stain doesn't help us understand what happened. Did the man leave the tent? What could that mean? Nothing that would determine the cause of the events... There's a 90% chance he returned to the tent.
What's the point? It's completely unnecessary for determining the cause.


The reporting of the tent site, it's condition and contents were woeful at best. It was not detailed and changed several times.

I know very well how and why such reports are produced. In 100% of cases, they are the same, or even worse. You simply don't understand the conditions and technology of how it's done. There is no intent behind it.
As one philosopher said: "Being determines consciousness!" (c)
The quality of the report was determined by the conditions on the ground. We must also consider the qualifications of those who compiled them. At that time, the qualifications were (as you said) depressing.

The best thing would be to find a slope of snow in -25 weather conditions, urine on the snow and see if you can find again after 3 weeks?

So why bother searching? Here's what was there at that very spot, but 55 years later:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZmD1AM-E37-mEoqcGrx9tQ2MGfRrRmOI/view?usp=sharing

The answer to the question of whether a footprint is preserved can vary greatly. Again, it all depends on the conditions -> snow-covered, -> blown by the wind, and so on. If such a footprint is in a depression, it may be covered and invisible. If such a footprint is in a raised area, it will be visible even after three weeks or more. In any case, the icy framework will remain until the snow melts completely in the summer.
 

October 28, 2025, 01:12:55 PM
Reply #11
Online

Ziljoe


It might be best to see if we can eliminate the urine , plus what purpose does it serve ?

That's the right question. The presence of this stain doesn't help us understand what happened. Did the man leave the tent? What could that mean? Nothing that would determine the cause of the events... There's a 90% chance he returned to the tent.
What's the point? It's completely unnecessary for determining the cause.


The reporting of the tent site, it's condition and contents were woeful at best. It was not detailed and changed several times.

I know very well how and why such reports are produced. In 100% of cases, they are the same, or even worse. You simply don't understand the conditions and technology of how it's done. There is no intent behind it.
As one philosopher said: "Being determines consciousness!" (c)
The quality of the report was determined by the conditions on the ground. We must also consider the qualifications of those who compiled them. At that time, the qualifications were (as you said) depressing.

The best thing would be to find a slope of snow in -25 weather conditions, urine on the snow and see if you can find again after 3 weeks?

So why bother searching? Here's what was there at that very spot, but 55 years later:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZmD1AM-E37-mEoqcGrx9tQ2MGfRrRmOI/view?usp=sharing

The answer to the question of whether a footprint is preserved can vary greatly. Again, it all depends on the conditions -> snow-covered, -> blown by the wind, and so on. If such a footprint is in a depression, it may be covered and invisible. If such a footprint is in a raised area, it will be visible even after three weeks or more. In any case, the icy framework will remain until the snow melts completely in the summer.

Hi WAB , it is good to know you are with us and I hope you are well.

The reported urine stain is vague. I cannot see it's relevance to soling the mystery. The urantion may have occurred before the setting up of the tent , it could be someone being sick and vomiting fluids , hence the choice of pitching the tent there and then. We don't know if it was urine from man or beast or some other substance.

I agree and think we have the same perspective but to clarify I will be a bit more detailed in my assumption. I think the searchers , students, military etc were only doing a search and rescue in the first instance. None of them arrived with the context of a murder or crime scene. It was purely  practical without the instruction to dissect everything in a detailed account. For those that first came across the tent , there was no training or instructions.

What made the yellow stain in your photo?