a version that explains ALL the facts

[SURI]

Ivanov was a very smart and insightful person. He knew what had happened, but he couldn't say it. Even after so many years, he could not speak directly, only in hints. The truth was too devastating.

[Senior Maldonado]

Ivanov was a very smart and insightful person. He knew what had happened, but he couldn't say it. Even after so many years, he could not speak directly, only in hints. The truth was too devastating.

Ivanov should have known the truth only to certain extent. Urakov, who in my opinion had the main criminal case related to DPI, had not provided all the detaiis to the regional team. As Urakov had to intervene and urgently drive regional investigation to its closure, his bosses obviously decided that he failed to do a good job with the main case. Soon, Urakov was downgraded from republican Prosecutor's office to a regional one. Ivanov had been asked to relocate to Kazakhstan, where he was out of reach for hikers' relatives and friends, who kept asking questions.

[GlennM]

Are these demotions and transfers the result of the added expenses associated with the search? Are they associated administrative shuffling for political advantage? I could accept any of those reasons before believing that their changes in circumstance had anything at all to do with sadistic spooks driving college kids out into the cold.

[sarapuk]

From Grigoriev’s diary: "He went against the wind that blew on the rocks. Then he landed on gas, the wheels jumped, the wind blew away the helicopter. The engine and the wind roared. Soldiers quickly jumped out of it, one carrying a pipe for the stove, so that build it up in a tent. Wind and a stream of air from the huge propeller knocked down the soldier with the stovepipe, the pipe jumped over the stones. Then we ducked into the jumping helicopter, removing the footboard and slamming the door on the fly. The second helicopter made several attempts, but could not land. Protyazhenko landed." Grigoriev's "Snowstorm in the Mountains" - 3

A good reason to think that the tent was helicoptered in on 1079.

   A good reason !? It isn't even a reason.

[sarapuk]

The idea that the hikers took a different route, stumbled into a military death trap and then conspirators staged what is found in the case is an entertaining make believe story. The forum  is more interested in stitching together a story from the available evidence than literary invention. Thinking outside the box does not get one into the box, where the truth is.

There is one small nuance. This "story" explains ALL THE KNOWN FACTS. At the same time, it does not require anything extraordinary for its existence.

That is a very bold statement. And not correct.

ARE YOU CLAIMING that it IS INCORRECT? PROVE IT. Surely, there is nothing easier than to cite a FACT, at least one that this version does not explain. Can'T you? Stop selling the elephant, so you won't sell it.

Once again, I say, it's up to you to prove, and you haven't. You are defending something which is mostly speculation.

[sarapuk]

You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.

COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,

It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.

Once more and for the last time. If some version had EVIDENCE, then there would be no discussion about this story at all. But since it just so happens that we don't have a documentary video, we have to build versions. And NONE of the versions has any evidence. Because there is no way to find them decades later. Do you think otherwise? Please provide an evidence-based version.
Apparently, you consider the UFO version to be such a version. Of course, there is such "EVIDENCE" that there is simply nothing nearby. 

Well, once again, I say, I don't do versions, I do facts and what evidence we have. As for UFOs, well, unidentified lights were seen in the area at roughly the time of the incident. And the behaviour of the lights makes them UFOs. 

[sarapuk]

I'm surprised that this pure speculation is getting attention. Might as well join in the fun. The USSR is still seen by many as a sort of extreme regime that didn't care about the occasional demise of its own harmless people. Deliberately or accidentally. Provide clues/evidence that USSR soldiers brought the dead bodies and other items to the pass!

This story attracts attention. because it EXPLAINS ALL THE KNOWN FACTS.

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't.

ARE YOU CLAIMING that it doesn't explain? Prove it. Please provide AT LEAST ONE FACT that the version does not explain. There's nothing easier. But you prefer to chant meaningless mantras. As the Russian proverb says, no matter how much you say "halva," it won't get sweeter in your mouth.

Well, it's you who are pushing this stuff. So I have a right to respond. And as I said, I don't do versions, I do facts. And I don't see any facts that can or need to be explained because this so-called version thing doesn't make sense.

[sarapuk]

But it doesn't explain all the facts. Analyse it closely. It falls short on most of the supposed facts that it's trying to explain.

Give the facts that he DOESN'T EXPLAIN.

Well, first of all, Puramunitur was not a missile range. Missiles were tested at designated ranges, not willy-nilly all over the place. The injuries to the Dyatlov Group are not consistent with injuries that may be received from a missile explosion.

ок. The Puramunitur may indeed not be the target. it can be a place of chance. What does it change? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
About injuries. Have you read the criminal case?

This is a direct quote from the medical examiner's interrogation from the criminal case.

Question: How can we explain the origin of the injuries in Dubinina and Zolotarev - can they be combined by one cause?
Answer: I believe that the nature of the injuries in Dubinina and Zolotarev is multiple rib fractures.: Dubinina's is bilateral and symmetrical, Zolotarev's is unilateral, as well as hemorrhage into
the heart muscle in both Dubinina and Zolotarev with hemorrhage into the pleural cavities indicate their vitality and are
the result of exposure to a large force, approximately the same as
It was applied to Thibault. The specified damages, namely
with this picture and without violating the integrity of the soft tissues of the chest, they are very similar to the injury caused by an air blast wave.

But what about the following !? Nothing about air blasts!?

''They were crushed with immense force. Doctors compared the extent of the damage to being hit by a car''.

''Based on the forensic examination of the body of L. A. Dubinina, I think that the death of Dubinina was caused by massive hemorrhage into the right ventricle, multiple bilateral rib fractures, and internal bleeding into the thoracic cavity''.

''The said damage was probably caused by an impact of great force, causing severe, closed lethal trauma to the chest of Dubinina. The trauma was caused during life and is the result of a high-impact force with subsequent fall, throw or bruise to the chest of Dubinina.

[sarapuk]

The secret is , there is no secret....

It's not true.

What's not True?

It is not true that there is no secret.

Ivanov's words:
„Everyone was told that hikers were in an extreme situation and froze.

However, that was not true. The true causes of the deaths were hidden from the people...“

I have often believed that things were hidden and still are hidden from public view. And since the fall of the USSR, much information has been brought to light. This would be a very different Forum if we were still in the days of the USSR.

[sarapuk]

It is not true that there is no secret.

Ivanov's words:
„Everyone was told that hikers were in an extreme situation and froze.

However, that was not true. The true causes of the deaths were hidden from the people...“

@SURI:

Although the above remark is right to the spot, I am afraid that majority of the active Forum members will not agree. They think that Ivanov wrote the article "Mystery of the Fireballs" in 1990 because he wanted public's attention and money, and his words should not be taken into account. Meanwhile, his words are of great value, because he gave us a hint how he had received information about true cause of the DPI. He has named other people who knew about the DPI true cause: Klinov, Kirilenko, and Eshtokin. These 3 men were top leaders of Prosecutor's office and Communist party in the region. They had neither visisted the Pass nor investigated the case themselves, they got information from reports and other people. That makes to think that all of them received the information about true DPI cause from an external source, and it is not that difficult to guess who that source was.

From E.Okishev recollections:
"The deputy General Prosecutor of RSFSR, Urakov, arrived and took the case files in a hurry. He ordered to issue the case resolution statement. He went with Klinov to the regional party committee and Ivanov went with them."

It's not hard to understand that at the Committee Urakov, Klinov, and Ivanov met Kirilenko and Eshtokin. Thus we can see all the group together, and Urakov obviously told them something...

I'm not sure it's correct to say that most Forum members believe that Ivanov was after money by telling a sensational story. I think Ivanov was a very interesting source of information. He didn't come out and say what he said while the USSR was still functioning.

[GlennM]

Those who deal only in facts in this forum have, without exception, taken a leap of faith to propose a solution in whole or in part of the mystery. It is why we are here. It is also helpful to note that those who only deal in facts do reply to others with  an opinion. it is a double standard. So far nobody has a universally agreed upon explanation for the DPI. It does not make us bad people. Encouragement help more than challenges.

[sanmigel]

The idea that the hikers took a different route, stumbled into a military death trap and then conspirators staged what is found in the case is an entertaining make believe story. The forum  is more interested in stitching together a story from the available evidence than literary invention. Thinking outside the box does not get one into the box, where the truth is.

There is one small nuance. This "story" explains ALL THE KNOWN FACTS. At the same time, it does not require anything extraordinary for its existence.

That is a very bold statement. And not correct.

ARE YOU CLAIMING that it IS INCORRECT? PROVE IT. Surely, there is nothing easier than to cite a FACT, at least one that this version does not explain. Can'T you? Stop selling the elephant, so you won't sell it.

Once again, I say, it's up to you to prove, and you haven't. You are defending something which is mostly speculation.

What do I have to prove? That you cannot object to the essence of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the above version and point out a contradiction to the FACTS? There's no need to prove anything. This is OBVIOUS, and you're doing a great job demonstrating it on your own.  ARE you SAYING that this is fiction? PROVE IT,

[sanmigel]

You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.

COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,

It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.

Once more and for the last time. If some version had EVIDENCE, then there would be no discussion about this story at all. But since it just so happens that we don't have a documentary video, we have to build versions. And NONE of the versions has any evidence. Because there is no way to find them decades later. Do you think otherwise? Please provide an evidence-based version.
Apparently, you consider the UFO version to be such a version. Of course, there is such "EVIDENCE" that there is simply nothing nearby. 

Well, once again, I say, I don't do versions, I do facts and what evidence we have. As for UFOs, well, unidentified lights were seen in the area at roughly the time of the incident. And the behaviour of the lights makes them UFOs.

"Having evidence"? Provide AT LEAST ONE proof of ANY version. Someone saw something, IT's NOT PROOF, it's just empty chatter. And yes, you are again very clearly demonstrating that you are very poorly acquainted with the materials of the criminal case. Fireballs are indeed mentioned in the case. Only on the date 02/17/1959.

[sanmigel]

I'm surprised that this pure speculation is getting attention. Might as well join in the fun. The USSR is still seen by many as a sort of extreme regime that didn't care about the occasional demise of its own harmless people. Deliberately or accidentally. Provide clues/evidence that USSR soldiers brought the dead bodies and other items to the pass!

This story attracts attention. because it EXPLAINS ALL THE KNOWN FACTS.

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't.

ARE YOU CLAIMING that it doesn't explain? Prove it. Please provide AT LEAST ONE FACT that the version does not explain. There's nothing easier. But you prefer to chant meaningless mantras. As the Russian proverb says, no matter how much you say "halva," it won't get sweeter in your mouth.

Well, it's you who are pushing this stuff. So I have a right to respond. And as I said, I don't do versions, I do facts. And I don't see any facts that can or need to be explained because this so-called version thing doesn't make sense.

Did you understand what you wrote well? You deal with the facts, but you don't see ANY FACTS. So you don't see ANY CONTRADICTIONS. Of course, your writing is meaningless, it's just banging your head against the wall, because you just said that YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to OBJECT to. Oh, yes, about "NONSENSE". ARE you SAYING that this is nonsense? PROVE it with your favorite FACTS.

[sanmigel]

But it doesn't explain all the facts. Analyse it closely. It falls short on most of the supposed facts that it's trying to explain.

Give the facts that he DOESN'T EXPLAIN.

Well, first of all, Puramunitur was not a missile range. Missiles were tested at designated ranges, not willy-nilly all over the place. The injuries to the Dyatlov Group are not consistent with injuries that may be received from a missile explosion.

ок. The Puramunitur may indeed not be the target. it can be a place of chance. What does it change? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
About injuries. Have you read the criminal case?

This is a direct quote from the medical examiner's interrogation from the criminal case.

Question: How can we explain the origin of the injuries in Dubinina and Zolotarev - can they be combined by one cause?
Answer: I believe that the nature of the injuries in Dubinina and Zolotarev is multiple rib fractures.: Dubinina's is bilateral and symmetrical, Zolotarev's is unilateral, as well as hemorrhage into
the heart muscle in both Dubinina and Zolotarev with hemorrhage into the pleural cavities indicate their vitality and are
the result of exposure to a large force, approximately the same as
It was applied to Thibault. The specified damages, namely
with this picture and without violating the integrity of the soft tissues of the chest, they are very similar to the injury caused by an air blast wave.

But what about the following !? Nothing about air blasts!?

''They were crushed with immense force. Doctors compared the extent of the damage to being hit by a car''.

''Based on the forensic examination of the body of L. A. Dubinina, I think that the death of Dubinina was caused by massive hemorrhage into the right ventricle, multiple bilateral rib fractures, and internal bleeding into the thoracic cavity''.

''The said damage was probably caused by an impact of great force, causing severe, closed lethal trauma to the chest of Dubinina. The trauma was caused during life and is the result of a high-impact force with subsequent fall, throw or bruise to the chest of Dubinina.

How is it nothing about the blast wave??? In plain text.

[sanmigel]

You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.

COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,

It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.

Once more and for the last time. If some version had EVIDENCE, then there would be no discussion about this story at all. But since it just so happens that we don't have a documentary video, we have to build versions. And NONE of the versions has any evidence. Because there is no way to find them decades later. Do you think otherwise? Please provide an evidence-based version.
Apparently, you consider the UFO version to be such a version. Of course, there is such "EVIDENCE" that there is simply nothing nearby. 

Well, once again, I say, I don't do versions, I do facts and what evidence we have. As for UFOs, well, unidentified lights were seen in the area at roughly the time of the incident. And the behaviour of the lights makes them UFOs.

Do you like facts and evidence? Would you share any thoughts about the existence of UFOs?

[GlennM]

The forum has about 20 different theories that explain all the facts to someone's satisfaction,  By loose reckoning, the " can't read a compass and map" theory has a 20:1 chance of being wrong. Instead, if we are charitable and accept only one other theory, as being the right one, then it reduces to 50/50. There can only be one truth. That consensus has not happened. People can be logicsl thinkers with contrary attitudes. It does not make them correct, only loud. We see it frequently on the forum when someone's sacred cow is led to slaughter.. There is a lot at steak, or should I say stake?

[sanmigel]

The forum has about 20 different theories that explain all the facts to someone's satisfaction,  By loose reckoning, the " can't read a compass and map" theory has a 20:1 chance of being wrong. Instead, if we are charitable and accept only one other theory, as being the right one, then it reduces to 50/50. There can only be one truth. That consensus has not happened. People can be logicsl thinkers with contrary attitudes. It does not make them correct, only loud. We see it frequently on the forum when someone's sacred cow is led to slaughter.. There is a lot at steak, or should I say stake?

Are they really explaining??? Give me an explanation about the method of getting injured by Dubinina, the words of the medical examiner that she could live for 10-20 minutes from getting injured and the location of cadaverous spots on her body. FOR THE BEGINNING.

DO YOU CLAIM that they explain? PROVE IT. Well, here's an example of at least one Dubinina.

[Ziljoe]

Sanmigel

Its for you to prove your believe. You quote a book and article that are know to sensationalise .

 They get the dates wrong of the incident by 10 years.

Invent special forces.

Invent rockets that can't travel the distance required.

Claim its impossible to walk in socks.

Don't understand what happens to the human body after death.

Explain no shrapnel wounds.

Claim that there was an airfield , where was the airfield?) then they use a wind machine to hide everything. What is this wind machine? , how did it get there and removed?

Zolo wasn't even meant to be on that hike and was no KGB agent. In fact it was a random group that ended up on the hike as others had pulled out.

The area was full of random tourists and Mansi so you don't fire rockets in to that area.

They didn't go to an area they weren't supposed to and hadn't already been planned. 

The case files weren't top secret .

The ravine wouldn't have been ideal place to dump bodies , as it was either empty all the way to full. There would be no way to know if it would fill with snow .

The injuries are against the hard surface of the ground , this is indicative of compression and what about the cardaverous spots?.

Its a bunch of random ideas stitched together to make a story.

Ps: your caps lock button seems to be getting stuck. I suggest some WD-40.

[sanmigel]

Sanmigel

Its for you to prove your believe. You quote a book and article that are know to sensationalise .

 They get the dates wrong of the incident by 10 years.

Invent special forces.

Invent rockets that can't travel the distance required.

Claim its impossible to walk in socks.

Don't understand what happens to the human body after death.

Explain no shrapnel wounds.

Claim that there was an airfield , where was the airfield?) then they use a wind machine to hide everything. What is this wind machine? , how did it get there and removed?

Zolo wasn't even meant to be on that hike and was no KGB agent. In fact it was a random group that ended up on the hike as others had pulled out.

The area was full of random tourists and Mansi so you don't fire rockets in to that area.

They didn't go to an area they weren't supposed to and hadn't already been planned. 

The case files weren't top secret .

The ravine wouldn't have been ideal place to dump bodies , as it was either empty all the way to full. There would be no way to know if it would fill with snow .

The injuries are against the hard surface of the ground , this is indicative of compression and what about the cardaverous spots?.

Its a bunch of random ideas stitched together to make a story.

Ps: your caps lock button seems to be getting stuck. I suggest some WD-40.

Prove it? Easy. In mathematics, this is called a proof to the contrary. Are there any facts that contradict this version or evidence that it is incorrect?  No, it means it's true. AND IT WILL BE TRUE UNTIL YOU PROVE OTHERWISE, THAT's all the proof for you. At the same time, there are such facts for the other versions. The same injuries of Dubinina.

[sanmigel]

Its for you to prove your believe.

And try to EXPLAIN to me why I HAVE to prove my words, but you don't? All people are equal, why did you decide that you have an exclusive right that allows you to carry all sorts of UNSUBSTANTIATED nonsense?

[Ziljoe]

Its for you to prove your believe.

And try to EXPLAIN to me why I HAVE to prove my words, but you don't? All people are equal, why did you decide that you have an exclusive right that allows you to carry all sorts of UNSUBSTANTIATED nonsense?

Sanmigel,

I’m not asking you to prove anything in a personal sense. 
I’m only saying that when any of us propose a specific scenario — whether it’s missiles, special forces, an airfield, or anything else — the version has to match the physical evidence and the documents. That’s the same standard for every explanation, including mine.

Pointing out contradictions isn’t an attack, it’s just part of checking whether a version fits what we know. 
I’m not claiming exclusive rights or certainty — just trying to keep the discussion grounded in the material we have.

[GlennM]

Just between us, I do not think there will be any progress on this thread, only knives out.

[Ziljoe]

Just between us, I do not think there will be any progress on this thread, only knives out.

Agree, i will by pass this thread. Many thanks sanmigel .

[sarapuk]

You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.

COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,

It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.

Once more and for the last time. If some version had EVIDENCE, then there would be no discussion about this story at all. But since it just so happens that we don't have a documentary video, we have to build versions. And NONE of the versions has any evidence. Because there is no way to find them decades later. Do you think otherwise? Please provide an evidence-based version.
Apparently, you consider the UFO version to be such a version. Of course, there is such "EVIDENCE" that there is simply nothing nearby. 

Well, once again, I say, I don't do versions, I do facts and what evidence we have. As for UFOs, well, unidentified lights were seen in the area at roughly the time of the incident. And the behaviour of the lights makes them UFOs.

Do you like facts and evidence? Would you share any thoughts about the existence of UFOs?

How long are you going to bang on with all this nonsense? I've already brought up the subject of UFOs over the years. Go look at some of the old posts; Many of them are very good.

 

[sarapuk]

Just between us, I do not think there will be any progress on this thread, only knives out.

I agree. It's getting nowhere, time to depart this one and move on to pastures new. Well, pastures that we've probably been to before, but let's try to seriously look for anything that might shed some light on where we all are these days, if that makes sense.

[sanmigel]

Its for you to prove your believe.

And try to EXPLAIN to me why I HAVE to prove my words, but you don't? All people are equal, why did you decide that you have an exclusive right that allows you to carry all sorts of UNSUBSTANTIATED nonsense?

Sanmigel,

I’m not asking you to prove anything in a personal sense. 
I’m only saying that when any of us propose a specific scenario — whether it’s missiles, special forces, an airfield, or anything else — the version has to match the physical evidence and the documents. That’s the same standard for every explanation, including mine.

Pointing out contradictions isn’t an attack, it’s just part of checking whether a version fits what we know. 
I’m not claiming exclusive rights or certainty — just trying to keep the discussion grounded in the material we have.

Fine. The version outlined in the first post of this topic corresponds to ALL KNOWN FACTS. What don't you like?

There is only one way to evaluate versions - compliance or non-compliance with known facts. At the moment, no one has provided any facts that the version discussed here does not correspond to. If you think otherwise, give facts, not just words.

Regarding the article on fontanka.ru . I did not say that the article fully confirms or corresponds to the version. I just said that it was released on the same day as the book's publication. The only interesting thing about the article is that the media started talking about military involvement. So don't waste your time refuting the article. And yes, the demonstrated method "I refute one thesis, so everything else is wrong, using the example of 77 years" does not work.

[sanmigel]

Just between us, I do not think there will be any progress on this thread, only knives out.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Because this version explains ALL the facts. Therefore, it will not be possible to find contradictions.

[sanmigel]

You state;
''The Motive. Why go through all this? Because a failed top-secret missile test was a disaster for the military command. Nine students saw something they shouldn’t have. In the Cold War, that made them a threat to state security. The cover-up was easier than the truth''.
This is really far-fetched. And no evidence, obviously. Pure speculation.

COULD IT BE? It could have. Do you think that's far-fetched? Prove that this could NOT be,

It's not for me or anyone else to prove that what you are saying is far-fetched. It's for you to prove what you have been stating, and you haven't done that.

Once more and for the last time. If some version had EVIDENCE, then there would be no discussion about this story at all. But since it just so happens that we don't have a documentary video, we have to build versions. And NONE of the versions has any evidence. Because there is no way to find them decades later. Do you think otherwise? Please provide an evidence-based version.
Apparently, you consider the UFO version to be such a version. Of course, there is such "EVIDENCE" that there is simply nothing nearby. 

Well, once again, I say, I don't do versions, I do facts and what evidence we have. As for UFOs, well, unidentified lights were seen in the area at roughly the time of the incident. And the behaviour of the lights makes them UFOs.

Do you like facts and evidence? Would you share any thoughts about the existence of UFOs?

How long are you going to bang on with all this nonsense? I've already brought up the subject of UFOs over the years. Go look at some of the old posts; Many of them are very good.

Nonsense? Can you prove that this is nonsense? UFOs? prove that it exists.
I didn't start it, you have everything you need to stop it.
And for a LONG TIME, the Aztecs sacrificed captives for centuries so that the sun would continue to rise and be kind to their empire. It didn't help. So your long-term fascination with fairy tales does not translate quantitatively into quality.

[sanmigel]

By the way, I looked at the essence of what they are writing, I will give a few general explanations, regardless of the versions.

About the secrecy of the criminal case. It was indeed classified on July 1, 1959 and formally declassified in 1989. But not completely, fragments of it have been removed, that is, they are still classified.

about the ravine
It seems that some people think of it as a gorge in the mountains. in fact, this is a small washout from the stream that a person can jump over.
what it looked like in 1959

and now



about snow
the wind blows almost constantly in that place and blows the wind down from above. That is, it is easily moved by the wind. If it is necessary to create artificial wind, everything is trivial.