Low Yield Nuclear Test - Tragic Accident version 2

[Star man]

A neutron bomb, officially defined as a type of enhanced radiation weapon, is a low yield thermonuclear weapon designed to maximize lethal neutron radiation in the immediate vicinity of the blast while minimizing the physical power of the blast itself

I would think there would still be a significant explosion.. which there wasnt.  Also, you would think this would create MASS amounts of radiation... which there wasn't.

The explosion would have been several kilotonnes.  Still capable of destroying normal civil structures within 600m.  But if it was such a device it is likely to have detonated on the other side of the summit of Kholat Syakhl, and the tent would have been shielded from the worst of it.  If the explosion was 1 to 2 km away then the over pressure at the tent would only be several psi - not enough to cause significant damage to people.

Radiation.  Initially radiation levels would have been high.  But would decay quickly and be safe after two weeks.  Well before the search and rescue party arrived.  Also if there was fallout on the snow then it could have been scouted away by the wind in the same way it scoured away the snow around the compacted foot prints.  Also if there was further snow fall that could easily cover up the fallout and making it difficult to detect.

If there was a low yield device and significant fallout then the tree rings would hold the answers.

Regards

Star man

[sarapuk]

http://www.pravdareport.com/news/society/138398-dyatlov_pass/

The construction was found at a distance of ten kilometers from the site  !  ?  Thats a long way from the site. And its highly unlikely that any Nuclear Tests took place any where near the site.

[sarapuk]

A neutron bomb, officially defined as a type of enhanced radiation weapon, is a low yield thermonuclear weapon designed to maximize lethal neutron radiation in the immediate vicinity of the blast while minimizing the physical power of the blast itself

I would think there would still be a significant explosion.. which there wasnt.  Also, you would think this would create MASS amounts of radiation... which there wasn't.

The explosion would have been several kilotonnes.  Still capable of destroying normal civil structures within 600m.  But if it was such a device it is likely to have detonated on the other side of the summit of Kholat Syakhl, and the tent would have been shielded from the worst of it.  If the explosion was 1 to 2 km away then the over pressure at the tent would only be several psi - not enough to cause significant damage to people.

Radiation.  Initially radiation levels would have been high.  But would decay quickly and be safe after two weeks.  Well before the search and rescue party arrived.  Also if there was fallout on the snow then it could have been scouted away by the wind in the same way it scoured away the snow around the compacted foot prints.  Also if there was further snow fall that could easily cover up the fallout and making it difficult to detect.

If there was a low yield device and significant fallout then the tree rings would hold the answers.

Regards

Star man

There was no Nuclear explosion of any kind near the site of the Dyatlov Incident.  Too many things point to the Nuclear explosion theory as being highly unlikely.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident. 

[Star man]

Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

[sarapuk]

Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

Surely any explosion of that type would have severely damaged the Tent   !  ?

[Star man]

Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

Surely any explosion of that type would have severely damaged the Tent   !  ?

The tent like the tourists would have been sheltered behind the summit.

Regards

Star man

[sarapuk]

Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

Surely any explosion of that type would have severely damaged the Tent   !  ?

The tent like the tourists would have been sheltered behind the summit.

Regards

Star man

As an example of why hills may not provide the shelter that many people expect, I provide the following example ; At Mogi, 7 miles from X in Nagasaki, over steep hills over 600 feet high, about 10% of the glass came out. An interesting effect was noted at Mogi; eyewitnesses said that they thought a raid was being made on the place; one big flash was seen, then a loud roar, followed at several second intervals by half a dozen other loud reports, from all directions. These successive reports were obviously reflections from the hills surrounding Mogi.

[Star man]

Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

Surely any explosion of that type would have severely damaged the Tent   !  ?

The tent like the tourists would have been sheltered behind the summit.

Regards

Star man

As an example of why hills may not provide the shelter that many people expect, I provide the following example ; At Mogi, 7 miles from X in Nagasaki, over steep hills over 600 feet high, about 10% of the glass came out. An interesting effect was noted at Mogi; eyewitnesses said that they thought a raid was being made on the place; one big flash was seen, then a loud roar, followed at several second intervals by half a dozen other loud reports, from all directions. These successive reports were obviously reflections from the hills surrounding Mogi.

I doubt there would be much in the way of debris on Kholat Syakhl.  Maybe some loose rocks and ice.  The shock waves can be deflected around objects but it would be weakened and unlikely to cause any issues at 3 psi over pressure.  Actually it may be enough to cause a snow slide or snow slab to shift?  Reflections of the shock wave are unlikely to be amplified over the terrain.

Even so a nuclear detonation is far from a simple explanation and therefore has a low probability.  But a test of the  tree rings around the area could provide evidence for or against.

The low yield theory is based on the detection of radiation on all the clothing samples, the decision to close the area for 3 years and what seems to be a significant effort to cover up what happened.  The theory has sufficient scope to explain the events that night.  But, it's not my hot favourite.  I think there is a more simple explanation, but exactly what I don't know.  The infrasound theory is looking to be more credible the more Inthink about it.  Also the snow slide.  Neither explains the radiation, or cover up though, but they may be circumstantial or coincidental? 

I wouldn't rule out the low yield nuke test though unless the tree rings are tested.

Regards

Star man

Star man

[sarapuk]

Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

Surely any explosion of that type would have severely damaged the Tent   !  ?

The tent like the tourists would have been sheltered behind the summit.

Regards

Star man

As an example of why hills may not provide the shelter that many people expect, I provide the following example ; At Mogi, 7 miles from X in Nagasaki, over steep hills over 600 feet high, about 10% of the glass came out. An interesting effect was noted at Mogi; eyewitnesses said that they thought a raid was being made on the place; one big flash was seen, then a loud roar, followed at several second intervals by half a dozen other loud reports, from all directions. These successive reports were obviously reflections from the hills surrounding Mogi.

I doubt there would be much in the way of debris on Kholat Syakhl.  Maybe some loose rocks and ice.  The shock waves can be deflected around objects but it would be weakened and unlikely to cause any issues at 3 psi over pressure.  Actually it may be enough to cause a snow slide or snow slab to shift?  Reflections of the shock wave are unlikely to be amplified over the terrain.

Even so a nuclear detonation is far from a simple explanation and therefore has a low probability.  But a test of the  tree rings around the area could provide evidence for or against.

The low yield theory is based on the detection of radiation on all the clothing samples, the decision to close the area for 3 years and what seems to be a significant effort to cover up what happened.  The theory has sufficient scope to explain the events that night.  But, it's not my hot favourite.  I think there is a more simple explanation, but exactly what I don't know.  The infrasound theory is looking to be more credible the more Inthink about it.  Also the snow slide.  Neither explains the radiation, or cover up though, but they may be circumstantial or coincidental? 

I wouldn't rule out the low yield nuke test though unless the tree rings are tested.

Regards

Star man

Star man

I wonder if the Authorities have ever tested for such Tree Samples  !  ?  I mean its kind of the thing you would expect them to do as a matter of course in such an Investigation, where Geiger Counters have gone off the scale, according to Ivanov  !  ? 

[Star man]

Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

Surely any explosion of that type would have severely damaged the Tent   !  ?

The tent like the tourists would have been sheltered behind the summit.

Regards

Star man

As an example of why hills may not provide the shelter that many people expect, I provide the following example ; At Mogi, 7 miles from X in Nagasaki, over steep hills over 600 feet high, about 10% of the glass came out. An interesting effect was noted at Mogi; eyewitnesses said that they thought a raid was being made on the place; one big flash was seen, then a loud roar, followed at several second intervals by half a dozen other loud reports, from all directions. These successive reports were obviously reflections from the hills surrounding Mogi.

I doubt there would be much in the way of debris on Kholat Syakhl.  Maybe some loose rocks and ice.  The shock waves can be deflected around objects but it would be weakened and unlikely to cause any issues at 3 psi over pressure.  Actually it may be enough to cause a snow slide or snow slab to shift?  Reflections of the shock wave are unlikely to be amplified over the terrain.

Even so a nuclear detonation is far from a simple explanation and therefore has a low probability.  But a test of the  tree rings around the area could provide evidence for or against.

The low yield theory is based on the detection of radiation on all the clothing samples, the decision to close the area for 3 years and what seems to be a significant effort to cover up what happened.  The theory has sufficient scope to explain the events that night.  But, it's not my hot favourite.  I think there is a more simple explanation, but exactly what I don't know.  The infrasound theory is looking to be more credible the more Inthink about it.  Also the snow slide.  Neither explains the radiation, or cover up though, but they may be circumstantial or coincidental? 

I wouldn't rule out the low yield nuke test though unless the tree rings are tested.

Regards

Star man

Star man

I wonder if the Authorities have ever tested for such Tree Samples  !  ?  I mean its kind of the thing you would expect them to do as a matter of course in such an Investigation, where Geiger Counters have gone off the scale, according to Ivanov  !  ?

The tree rings test was successfully demonstrated at Hiroshima.  Fixed sr 90 and mobile Cs.

Regards
Star man

[Loose}{Cannon]

I think examining tree samples is an outstanding idea.     

[Star man]

Above is frame 34 from Krivo's camera.  You have probably seen it before.

Now look at it with enhanced exposure and rotated through 90 degrees.




Regards

Star man

[Star man]

Here is a slightly more enhanced image.  Look carefully at the bottom right corner of the image.  There is damage to the image, but you can make out some geometric lines.




Regards

Star man

[Monty]

Mushroom cloud. The geometric lines?

[Star man]

Mushroom cloud. The geometric lines?

The geometric "straight" lines that form the outline of what looks like the silhouette of the tent, that is in the foreground of the shot, at the bottom of the image.  You can see the corners of the back of the tent.  Just to the right of the back of the tent, there is a person standing up.  They are half in and half out of the image.  The top of the tent lies slightly below the shoulder.  The person has their back to the camera.  They are wearing a coat with a hood.  The hood is down.  They are also wearing a hat.  The top of the hat is dark and there is band of lighter material around the circumference of the hat,  the person is looking at the mushroom cloud (as you would probably expect).  Although the image seems damaged, you can see the darker tent as you move from right to left along the bottom of the image. Only the top half of the tent is in the image.  There is more damage to the image on the left hand side, but you can see the change in brightness as you get to the front of the tent.  The tent is fairly parallel with the respective to the image, which means the mushroom cloud is over the summit and probably behind it to some extent on the South is the mountain and up wind more or less.  Based on the scale presented by the size of the person in the image, the dark outline of the tent is about 4 metres long - which is about right.

You will need to zoom in to the image to see it more clearly.  I would suggest you look at it in a darkened room too.

The mushroom cloud still appears to have incandescent gases in it which creates a big contrast difference .  The original image is also very under exposed for the light conditions and damaged in places.  Not sure if the cloud has smoldering debris falling from it or if this is just damage to the chemical film.

If I'm right then this image could show the beginning of the events that led to the death of the hikers.

Regards

Star man

[mk]

I'm trying to see what you describe, but with no luck.  Could you trace the outlines on the picture so we can see what you mean?  I can't find a tent or a person or anything except the obvious white shapes.

[Star man]

I'm trying to see what you describe, but with no luck.  Could you trace the outlines on the picture so we can see what you mean?  I can't find a tent or a person or anything except the obvious white shapes.

Have highlighted the areas where the head, body and tent may be.  Note this is speculative.  The frame was quite badly damaged.  What I find more interesting is that the frame which was under exposed, when enhanced results in an image which has symmetry about the centre when turned through 90 degrees.  That is 90 degrees to how the photo is normally presented.  If we assume that the photograph was a deliberate shot rather than an accidental shot (which it still could well be), then it is likely that the person taking the shot would centre the image being photographed in the frame.  If you were taking a shot of a tall column of smoke and flame, you would need to turn the camera through 90 degrees to fit it in better.  Have a closer look at the areas highlighted by zooming in on the images in the previous posts.

Regards

Star man

[mk]

Ahhh... I see what you're saying. That makes sense--thanks!

ETA:  That's a good point about the symmetry and composition of the photo if turned 90 degrees.

[mk]

Where are we getting the 'burnt treetops' from?

Didn't Ivanov mention them in an interview back in 1990. Or is this fake news? Some way or another it would be consistent with the low yield nuke theory.

And then again these burned tree tops can be neglected.

Regards

Dominov

Fake news

If it's fake news, Ivanov himself is guilty of spreading the falsehood.  This is from the article by Lev Ivanov, ("Leninskiy Put", Kustanay, 22 and 24 November 1990):

"When already in May we examined the scene of the incident with E. Maslennikov we found that some young trees on the forest tree line have traces of burning, but they are not in concentric shape or any other system. There was no epicenter."

https://dyatlovpass.com/lev-ivanov?lid=1

[Star man]

Ahhh... I see what you're saying. That makes sense--thanks!

ETA:  That's a good point about the symmetry and composition of the photo if turned 90 degrees.

Also interesting is the pattern on Dyatlov's wooley hat.  Still speculative.

Regards

Star man

[GKM]

Is it possible to find a different source then Wikipedia? Injuries from falls I mean. Perhaps the WHO? Wikipedia, in my opinion, is not always the greatest source of information.

[Star man]

Is it possible to find a different source then Wikipedia? Injuries from falls I mean. Perhaps the WHO? Wikipedia, in my opinion, is not always the greatest source of information.

Wikipedia is useful, but agree it is not entirely trustworthy.  However for the injuries we don't need Wikipedia.  There has been several examinations of the chest injuries by people on the forum who all conclude similarly on the amount of force and type of impacts needed to cause the injuries.  They were caused by a massive blow of high speed.  A fall or impact beyond physical human capability.

Regards

Star man

[Ryan]

I see a lot of evidence against a low yield nuclear test.

1. Clothing is contaminated with beta only. Fission products include gamma and beta. I’d expect Cs-137 and Cs-134. Mobility of Cs relative to Sr is not an answer; there’s plenty of Cs left in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

2. Khrushchev was primarily responsible for negotiating a testing moratorium with the US and UK as of Nov ‘58. Khrushchev had more to gain from the test ban (since an arms race would bankrupt the Soviets before it could hurt the US), which is probably why the US and UK initially weren’t interested but joined begrudgingly. Khrushchev isn’t going to cheat by conducting an atmospheric nuclear test in the Urals three months later, seeing as he has more to lose.

3. The US only agreed to the moratorium because they were fairly confident that they could detect cheating. They were highly confident in their ability to detect atmospheric tests, slightly less so for underground. Atmospheric tests spew radionuclides into the atmosphere. The US would have pounced on any sign of Soviet cheating, as Eisenhower was facing political heat for agreeing to it in the first place. But the US detected nothing.

4. It takes a lot of infrastructure to conduct nuclear weapons tests and get reliable data. The need for secrecy is especially strong because they are violating an international commitment. This area is too populated. There are indigenous residents. People would notice the test and the military buildup. Soldiers would talk. Something like this couldn’t be kept secret.

[sarapuk]

I see a lot of evidence against a low yield nuclear test.

1. Clothing is contaminated with beta only. Fission products include gamma and beta. I’d expect Cs-137 and Cs-134. Mobility of Cs relative to Sr is not an answer; there’s plenty of Cs left in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

2. Khrushchev was primarily responsible for negotiating a testing moratorium with the US and UK as of Nov ‘58. Khrushchev had more to gain from the test ban (since an arms race would bankrupt the Soviets before it could hurt the US), which is probably why the US and UK initially weren’t interested but joined begrudgingly. Khrushchev isn’t going to cheat by conducting an atmospheric nuclear test in the Urals three months later, seeing as he has more to lose.

3. The US only agreed to the moratorium because they were fairly confident that they could detect cheating. They were highly confident in their ability to detect atmospheric tests, slightly less so for underground. Atmospheric tests spew radionuclides into the atmosphere. The US would have pounced on any sign of Soviet cheating, as Eisenhower was facing political heat for agreeing to it in the first place. But the US detected nothing.

4. It takes a lot of infrastructure to conduct nuclear weapons tests and get reliable data. The need for secrecy is especially strong because they are violating an international commitment. This area is too populated. There are indigenous residents. People would notice the test and the military buildup. Soldiers would talk. Something like this couldn’t be kept secret.

Yes a lot of people over look the fact that the area contained indigenous tribes who would certainly know if such things went on. The Mansi in particular were well aware of everything that went on it that part of Siberia. They knew about the legends of the Menk. And they knew about the strange lights in the sky, UFO's. Etc.