Dear Monika !
Perhaps you are trying to confirm my fears that you should not discuss complex and little studied phenomena with people who have very little information about it.
However, I will try explain something to you personally by at least pointing out where you are wrong even in the assumptions and basic physical properties of infrasound (IS).
I have already written about it on this forum. Alas, I have repeat myself, but I understand that it's difficult look through everything because there's lot of written information here.
I'm not sure I'll do the same thing again for someone else unless they have the knowledge of the one I mentioned in my previous article and the phrase I left above.
At first, I wanted talk about the method of building our conversation. You have everything built like the majority: you've all fallen into one pile, you've mixed up facts and concepts and you don't understand small transitions (like halftones in photo).
I'll try to explain it to you on the model. When you make soup, it's not like you put uncut (or washed) food in pot, or try to eat it raw... just like here: You should arrange everything on the shelves (separate from the peel, cut into pieces, put each vegetable in its own time and in certain sequence) without rushing to think and gain knowledge as it is already customary in science (boil, but not digest...), add spices (practical knowledge) and get ready (and delicious) product.
But let us consider everything in order of your questions.
I am willing to believe that infrasound has developed in the place and that it may have influenced the behavior of tourists. They cut the tent in panic and left it. However, why did they go 1.5 km on their foot to the forest in an organized and "quiet" way.
You're confusing cause and effect. They only went there because they had nowhere else to go and had the strength and ability reach the places where they were found.
Speaking of which, they "go 1.5 km on their foot to the forest in an organized and "quiet"
way." (c) no such information. There is only talk of it and persistent myths. The error of this you will read below. Unfortunately, I do not fully understand your term "quietly", but I will leave it alone for now.
Footprints in the snow show that when they descended, they stood on their feet, no trace of the outline of the body or hand, etc., but only their footprint appeared in the snow. This means that in a dark, extreme cold and high snow, they went upright.
“upright" - what does that apply to? Is it straight line from tent to cedar? No, it's a very mistaken opinion.
1. It's impossible walk in straight line there. If you don't believe me, come to the slope in winter and try it. Anyway, it didn't work out for anyone who was there.
2. They were found in different places not on one straight line, the angle of scattering from the straight line is very large there. Someone has long said about the "straight line", not thinking very well about what it is, and everyone has been repeating it ever since, without thinking or checking it on the spot and on the points. I checked, and it didn't work out...
3. I've talked about footprints, too, and I've talked about them repeatedly. It's such meme, too. The traces were found at relatively long length (I will not go through who and how I said), but the maximum length that could be, it is 380 ... 400 meters. Further on, the zone of snow deposition began (a difference after the third stone ridge) and there the traces could not be found. Next, the tracks had no continuous path, where there were all traces, and even there were relatively long areas where there were no traces. All the photos you saw were 10...20 m and no more. Even if there were 10 of them, it wasn't continuous chain. And even they weren't on the same line. Look at the picture that Mikhail Sharavin drew when he was interviewed about it. There are traces that go at an angle of about 30 degrees towards the cedar. Do you know what the deviation would be if "they were walking in straight line"? Approximately 700 meters. with only two bodies found near the cedar. The others were found elsewhere, on the other side of the straight "tent - cedar". And you say "organized"...
4. The footprints didn't appear right behind the tent. The minimum distance where they could appear was -25...30 meters. Because right behind the tent there is inflection of the slope and there is much more snow than nearby, so they could not form there - the snow must be well squeezed, and it depends on the thickness. If you don't press the trail on the surface fix snow, the trail won't stay there for long time, even under the conditions that others will stay on better surface.
5. The total number of traces they have calculated only "integrally" - having traced the whole chain (in different places) throughout where the traces were at all. This is possible if there is experienced tracker. Alexey Chernyshov could have done it, he had lot of experience in it.
Do you have enough objections and justification for this in this question?
If they were hit / affected by infrasound, they would not be able to behave so “cold-blooded” and logical. Even when a person is in good mental condition, in the wind and in high snow it is strenuous to maintain balance and not to stumble.
What do you mean by "acting so 'cold-blooded' and logical" (c) ? Who could have determined that? I don't know someone who was there, saw everything and then (survived) told it all? If there is no such person, then do not use other people's fictions...
And about the balance and tripping, you're obviously overreacting with these assumptions. Zina has large abrasion on the lower back, Nicholas Thibault habened through wound of the skull and could not go on his own, almost everyone has skin abrasions and damage to clothing, which can be obtained only on the stones of the third stone ridge or slightly higher. The tailwind and darkness contributed greatly to this. There were only very small number of places where you could get abrasions, but not as much injury as Thibault. Maybe you know place like this and you can tell me where it is.
Their cold-bloodedness also manifested itself in the forest, where they were able to build a campfire and a den.
This theory would apply only if the infrasound maintained only at the tents and in close proximity.
You have very vague ideas about infrasound and its properties. Why do you think it was only in the tent? It's very large area where the sound wave exists and can't "break" and fade from distance. For example, it can be changed by reflection or diffraction from other small objects that it envelops. I do not know where you get these properties from, but they have nothing to do with the real IS properties. At sea, this kind of sound wave extends over many hundreds of kilometres. But to do that, you have have many almost identical sea wave troughs. Here it does not exist, but the wave propagation in forestless zone (or above the trees) may well be many tens of kilometers with gradual and small fading.
But the footprints of the tourists appear relative near the tent.
No, it's not, but I wrote little higher about it.
The infrasound would have to act on a very small discrete area, and the tent would be on directly inside. That would have to be an incredible coincidence.
Once again, this is false idea of such waves. The attenuation depends on the length of the sound wave, according to the principle: the longer the wave, the smaller the attenuation value. I do not understand, where did you get the information about IS properties?
But yes, I am also a supporter of the theory that the whole event was triggered by some natural phenomenon, perhaps very rare and not yet explored by humans.
Your position is clear and I can support it, but, unfortunately, your knowledge level about IS properties and it characteristics is very low. Perhaps this is the reason why you do not want accept this phenomenon as the cause of events.
Would you like to cite something as an alternative to this phenomenon?
What I miss in Eichar's book are serious surveys from doctors about the effect of infrasound on people, Eichar did not take their opinions into account at all, he did not address any doctor. He focused only on the physical side of things. For this reason, his book, and therefore his theory, is only speculation, just like other theories.
You want lot of things... He almost accidentally found Dr. Bernard at NOAA. I thought that when he was coming back to America from Ekaterinburg, and was in Moscow only one day, I would be able introduce him and get good consultation from Professor Valery Gordienko from Moscow State Lomonosov University. But Gordienko was not in Moscow in that day and he could not get it.
So let's count how many people in the world deal with such acoustic problems. The very physics of this phenomenon is engaged in: 2 people in Russia, 3 people in the USA (one in them is from Russia), let's say 10 more countries (this is when they were engaged in development of non-lethal weapon) + 15...20. Practically that's all. I take only the right level of researchers and those who are engaged in aeronautics of ultra-low frequencies. There are many others who deal with ultra-low-frequency waves in the sea (here the needs are much greater from military sailors), but these are specialists of different profile. Around as if someone were doing conductors, against semiconductors or dielectrics. Do you understand my comparison?
Specialists of different profile are not suitable for us.
We got about 30 people in total. All over the world!
There are even fewer physicians and physiologists. There's no systematic or in-depth research. Do you know why? Because you won't get a commercial product as result.
I don't take those who write safety instructions that say IS exists, it can be dangerous and you should avoid frequencies below 16 Hertz. This is more about vibrations, but they know something about aeroacoustics, if anything, it's just the name itself.
That's why he didn't give these opinions. That he just hasn't found someone who knows something about it well.
By the way, I was deeply impressed by one objection to me after the publication of article in the newspaper "Komsomolskaya Pravda" from medical doctor with scientific degree. The article with my interview was organized by the newspaper itself. He said that all this is possible, but it's not infrasound, but change in pressure. "Wonderful" medical doctors know physics... :))) A sound wave is what? Is it not pressure change (fluctuation)? They teach it even in usual school.
Now I say resume: in order speak on this subject you need know the subject of the conversation well. It is not your fault, it is the trouble of everyone who thinks that simple methods can solve complex and poorly studied issues.
Much, on which you have built questions, arose only on the basis of outside conversations, which does not stand even small check on the validity. That is, again, there is construction of conclusions on the unreliable information. It turns out that you can not only get reliable conclusions, but also understand what should follow.