@WAB - to be clear - it is very difficult to understand what you are saying or the message you are trying to convey. I honestly don’t think you have a complete grasp of the English Language & there lies part of our problem. It has been said “communication is everything” you Sir need to work on your English language skills- I say this most respectfully and with no malice in my heart.
Sir, I have suspicion that you're trying dissuade yourself from answering questions you've been asked directly and specifically.
I know I have very little English conversation practice. However, I have no difficulty understanding what is written to me in almost any European language. This appeared long time ago, when I had translate and competently understand technical texts that had concepts in several sections of knowledge: mechanics, electronics, medicine, programming, ballistics. Nothing, we have successfully coped with it and now all that I understand and do not try hide behind the fact that literally in my language it is called abracadabra. I can claim to you that you do not know Russian, and therefore you cannot understand the meaning of what is written in criminal case, especially given that you do not know the legislation of that period either. Therefore, you are not able to qualify the reasons and events at all.
In addition, I know that others understand me. And if not, they ask questions which I try to answer in detail.
You do not have look for reason not to do certain thing, you have look for way to do it. Otherwise it turns out, as we have in the proverb: "Bad dancer during the dance are hampered by some genitals" (c)
So, you understand?
And I will ask you again: will you answer the questions you have been asked? Because it has all the answers to all your mistakes and biased judgments.
We obviously do not agree & I won’t waste Your time or my time quibbling with you any longer. The facts as I see them - the hikers suddenly came under attack at the tent- the damage to the tent was far too extensive for just merely making a quick exit.
With this, you confirmed exactly what I told you - you absolutely do not know the terms and substitute it for your own misconceptions. If you had even a mute knowledge of the logistics of this place (the way, conditions and means to get there), you would not have built such fantastic theories. The fact that nowhere there is any sign of other people being there, you just deliberately ignore it.
If you spoke about "logic", then say: if someone needs to commit a crime, he must necessarily go to the North Pole for this? And the logistics of this place is a little inferior to such movement. Even now, when there are additional roads and means of transportation.
That tent was literally tore all to hell and rendered useless.
What's the point of this statement? It's a consequence of another reason why it started. Where's your "logic"?
Two hikers suffered massive chest injuries & others had skull fractures- and infrasound cannot do this to the human body.
You need to repeat the individual letters again (apparently, you can't read - in the sense that you have familiar letters there, and you do not understand the meaning): They are different:
1. Stages of events by time,
2. It has different reasons,
3. One is independent of the other, but is a consequence of a sequence of events.
Are you gonna pretend again that you don't understand anything?
If so, tell me what you don't understand here (in detail and item by item), because I can't understand at all what might be unclear here.
One or two of the hikers climbed almost 20 feet into the cedar tree. I believe they climbed the tree because they were fleeing from something that was after them.
For detective, "faith" is not professional concept.
It's only in the church it's obligatory and indisputable. We're not in church.
It's true that they went up tree. I watched it on the spot - in winter, at the cedar itself, and I believe that only one person went up there at time. The other person could only get in the way. For him, there was no job or place where he could fit. But that doesn't mean that someone was chasing them. There's no connection or logic. This is your fantasy (or someone else you are recklessly repeating).
They had another and more important reason get in there: there was no other firewood around (within movement without skis). The main thing they needed was source of heat. If they had been chased, they would not have started fire that would not have been detected. Your "logic" is limping on all four legs.
Something so terrifying that it prevented them from returning to the tent to gather their warm clothing and footwear.
This statement of yours once again confirms that you are completely unaware of the conditions and invent fantastic fables.
They couldn't go back to the tent for other reasons:
1. They didn't know where they were,
2. They didn't know where the tent was,
3. They didn't know the distance, and they didn't know the direction to the tent very well.
4. They didn't have any guidance that could help them at that time.
5. The weather and conditions interfered with them: darkness and backwind.
I will not be able explain anything to you until you (perhaps with me for insurance) in winter and at night, can go down from the tent to the cedar (or any place) and try find the tent where we came from. I am 150% sure that you (or those same overconfident people) can't do that. This is understandable because we (Shura and I) have already gone there several times in winter and at night in different weather. We walked both together and alone, so we have enough observations and conclusions. But we already know everything so well that we can walk even with our eyes closed.
Taking in all these facts-
You didn't bring single fact. Everything you have said is your (or someone else's) fiction. On the spot, you can see it right away and very well.
Occams Razor would dictate by mere basic simplicity that the 9 hikers were under some form of attack
You have very bad idea about Ockham's Razor: he said there that you shouldn't introduce any extra entities, and you added it lot them. That's why you need correct your knowledge here, too. It doesn't have to be so superficial that you only know the name.
attack - most likely human-
Here we go! That's another superfluous entity that Occam was talking about.Have you even thought about how and why he might have gotten there? And you haven't even thought about how and why he might have got there? Could he have done something there without leaving trace? If you knew the conditions that existed there, especially if it was valid in 1959, you wouldn't say such ridiculous things.
NOT - infrasound- WAB - respectfully- your English is very Dutchy & very hard to understand- I honestly almost need a translator. I am through arguing with you - Let us agree to disagree Sir -
Sir, you don't need an interpreter for words, you need interpreter for understanding, and since you don't know the physics of infrasound or its properties, you'd better not talk about it. And not to be ridiculous when you claim that if you don't know it, it doesn't exist. And if not give away your own gaps in education. Again, you don't even understand the difference in the sequence of events, because you're talking about the same thing to the wrong place.
To solve any riddle or mystery it is necessary to look at and consider all the facts at hand.
You have not been given even single fact, everything you have said is purely speculation and nothing more.
You cannot pick & choose certain facts just to suit your own hypothesis or personal agenda.
I don't choose anything and I don't miss anything. Everything fits the facts very well, but not the fiction of people who know very poorly what they are talking about.
Oh - btw - it does appear from the autopsy report that Igor Dyatlov’s ankles had injuries consistent with being garroted - someone tied his ankles.
Sir, you're "stepping on the same rake again" is a semantic expression. Just so you're clear, I'll get the picture:
This is because you don't know the nature of the activity you're trying to talk about at all. And you're not the only one. The same medical expert, Eduard Tumanov, does the same thing because he doesn't know the features that come with such travels either. He and I talked about it on TV. I have already written on the same forum: https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=96.0
response # 9 from 01 April 2018 08:07 AM
It's clear from here that ignorance of what you're talking about is forcing you substitute your speculation for the facts.
Don’t sound like Infrasound to me.
It's only natural. You can only talk about it with more literate and educated people. Who understand much more about what they are talking about it.
They came under attack - human attackers. The next question is “WHO”???
This is the result of your actions: first you created false picture yourself, called it "facts", and then immediately proceed find someone to hang charges on.
It's a method that in our detectives have been prosecuted for, called: "false accusations."
Is that how you work at home, too?
Take care WAG & work on your English- Cheers!
Thank you for tip.
It just won't change the way you show very amateurish approach to this story. You're trying cover up for not being given everything ready and in way that suits you.
I'm not covering up for something I don't understand. There are many different ways understand - dictionaries, textbooks, datasheet... if you wanted understand, then everything would be right.