We may never really know what happened

[WAB]

WAGS - can you explain what you think caused the extremely serious injuries to some of the hikers? Especially the crushing flail chest (rib cage) injuries suffered by Seymon & Lyudmilla?

1. I have a big request to you: You will first learn to write the name of the person you address correctly. This characterizes the level your professional competence.
2. All is well described in the article https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ey2F7ROB6ZXNJkp49tKPJE24iPP0nKRG/view?usp=sharing  . it is in Russian, but if you are really interested in understanding what you are asking, it should not stop for you.
3. There is this science as biomechanics. It uses mathematics explain what can and cannot be. The article describes everything at the simplest possible level so that even people with the minimum necessary knowledge could understand it. You should be able understand it.

Those injuries cannot be attributable to infrasound.

Unfortunately, I have already said several times (but you never got it) that these are different reasons, they are not related. But one event follows the other directly and the second event (injury) is a consequence of the first (escape from the tent in the conditions that were).
Is that clear to you? Or you will again give out the desire to most clearly and in detail explain what you yourself are asking, as "verbose".
If you are not able understand what you have written briefly, you have explain it long and tiresomely, because you do not understand, or pretend not understand.

[hoosiergose]

@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. 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. That tent was literally tore all to hell and rendered useless. Two hikers suffered massive chest injuries & others had skull fractures- and infrasound cannot do this to the human body. 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. Something so terrifying that it prevented them from returning to the tent to gather their warm clothing and footwear. Taking in all these facts- Occams Razor would dictate by mere basic simplicity that the 9 hikers were under some form of attack
attack - most likely human-
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 -
To solve any riddle or mystery it is necessary to look at and consider all the facts at hand. You cannot pick & choose certain facts just to suit your own hypothesis or personal agenda. Oh - btw - it does appear from the autopsy report that Igor Dyatlov’s ankles had injuries consistent with being garroted - someone tied his ankles. Don’t sound like Infrasound to me. They came under attack - human attackers. The next question is “WHO”??? Take care WAG & work on your English- Cheers!

[PJ]

Two hikers suffered massive chest injuries & others had skull fractures- and infrasound cannot do this to the human body

Hoosiergose, do you really can't understand WAB??
He never said that the infrasound or some other rare nature phenomenon cause the fatal injuries. It only ignite the action for leaving the tent immediately. This was the first stage of the tragedy. The physical injuries happens on the way down and after around the Cedar and Ravine.
There is a post about some ravine deaths theory:
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=398.0

And sure, this is just one of many theories, trying to explain the deaths without any help from other people.

[WAB]

@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.

[alecsandros]

@WAB
Your arguments are incomplete, to say the least.

For example:

"if someone needs to commit a crime, he must necessarily go to the North Pole for this?"
You avoid the critical aspect of maybe there wasn't a premeditated crime, but an accident that triggered an unfortunate crime and a cover-up.

"1. They didn't know where they were,
2. They didn't know where the tent was [...]"

How do you know that ? Have you talked to them during the accident ?
[...]
Etc, etc.

I understand that you visited the place and have formed some opinions, but they are not necessarily correct.

[Monika]

Hello, Mr.

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.

I am sorry, but the whole problem between us is probably in linguistic misunderstanding.

to clarify my sentences I wrote before:
to go upright I didn't mean to go straight in one line. It means walking to my feet without tripping and falling to the ground. The contours of the bodies were not found in the snow, only the contours of the feet. What I think is impossible if I'm affected by infrasound and mentally disoriented. And certainly in a disoriented state I will not be able to build a fire or build a den - this requires a certain "cold-bloodedness and logical action".

Zina has a large abrasion on the lower back, but it could only have occurred during her journey back towards the tent.

Yes, it's a very large area where the infrasound wave exists and that's why it wasn't the cause of this tragedy. They were no longer disoriented in the forest.

I did not mean saying that the infrasound would have to act on a very small discrete area, and the tent would be on directly inside. It is absolutely clear to me that infrasound has a long-range effect over long distances. And that is why I rule out the theory of infrasound as the cause of that misfortune.

And again, I miss the extensive scientific and clinical study on the effects of infrasound on human behavior and under the same conditions as had the Dyatlov´s. Without proper verification of the effect of infrasound on a larger number of people / subjects in the same conditions as tourists had, the whole theory is only speculation. (I work in research as a researcher, as part of my work I sometimes evaluate projects of a medical nature and I know how important and necessary clinical studies directly on people are).

Finally, one note:
You wrote to hoosiergose: „I get the impression that you stubbornly do not want to understand something, but want to push your understanding at any cost, or unreasonably discredit what others offer“.
I hope you are not be offended, but I have the impression that it is you who discredit all the opinions from other contributors of this forum.

I really appreciate your knowledge in the field of physics, rocket engineering  , but you do not judge things from another point of view, e.g. medicine, psychology, etc.

[alecsandros]

"We may never really know what happened":

according to this article: https://lenta.ru/news/2017/02/09/topsecret/ ,
former governor of Sverdlovsk Region said that the Dyatlov Incident is still classified as "top secret".

[PJ]

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.

Woow, that's really blow my mind  I didn't consider this option but even from my own experience I know it is quite possible.
It was dark night(moon rise was at 3am), from last photos is clear that the weather wasn't good is very possible that after walking 40-50m from the tent they was not able to return to it.
It will explain why they climbed the Cedar and remove the branches: trying to locate the tent when weather improved and moon rise.
The very weak point of this theory is that all the footprints shows a straight walk down, if they will be lost for sure will be walking around for a bit and trying to locate the tent before giving up.

[MDGross]

My interpretation of WAB's thorough and professional work on the DPI is this:
Why add layers of complexity to events that can be explained by natural phenomenon?
First, the hikers exited the tent from the effects of infrasound, which studies have found can cause uneasiness, nervousness, even panic.
Second, the head injuries on a couple of the hikers was caused by falling with sufficient force onto rocks as they walked/stumbled down the slope. Rib injuries to Dubinina and Zolotaryov and skull fracture of Thibeaux-Brignolle caused by striking rocks when they fell into the ravine.

Certainly, this is a straight-forward scenario and doesn't involve the intervention by others (KGB) or things such as UFOs, ball lightening, missile explosions and so forth.
Is it truly what happened? No theory or scenario, including WAB's or anyone else's, offers indisputable proof.

[alecsandros]

Why add layers of complexity to events that can be explained by natural phenomenon?
First, the hikers exited the tent from the effects of infrasound, which studies have found can cause uneasiness, nervousness, even panic.

Where is proof of such a claim ?
Why aren't there other accounts of mountaineers experiencing mass panic on that mountain or on other mountains whatsoever ?

[alecsandros]

Rib injuries to Dubinina and Zolotaryov and skull fracture of Thibeaux-Brignolle caused by striking rocks when they fell into the ravine.

Problem is that anatomists studying the autopsy reports of Lyubidina and "Zolotaryov" said that such (extreme) rib injuries couldn't have come from a fall of 4-5meters (as they experienced), but were more likely to be obtained during a car crash or during a bomb explosion. As for Thibeaux-Brignolle, he couldn't have stricken rocks on both sides of his head at the same time...

[Tony]

Those injuries cannot be attributable to infrasound.

The infrasound theory was developed by Donnie Eichar and is thoroughly detailed in his book 'Dead Mountain.' In it, the infrasound/karman vortex street event is only responsible for the hikers leaving the tent and descending the slope. The injuries at the ravine were not caused by infrasound. Instead, they were caused by a fall into the ravine. All this is explained in the book. While I don't agree with the infrasound theory I highly recommend 'Dead Mountain.'

[Tony]

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.

Woow, that's really blow my mind  I didn't consider this option but even from my own experience I know it is quite possible.
It was dark night(moon rise was at 3am), from last photos is clear that the weather wasn't good is very possible that after walking 40-50m from the tent they was not able to return to it.
It will explain why they climbed the Cedar and remove the branches: trying to locate the tent when weather improved and moon rise.
The very weak point of this theory is that all the footprints shows a straight walk down, if they will be lost for sure will be walking around for a bit and trying to locate the tent before giving up.

I have always heard that the moon rise was at 3am until I recently downloaded a moon phase app. In it it shows that on the night of Feb 1st that the moon rise was at 11:39am and it set at 12:52am and was at 38%. Of course this could be wrong, but I've never seen a official report of the moon rise and set on that night in the Ural Mountains. Could someone clarify?

Recently, I was in the mountains during a no moon phase and it was completely dark - couldn't see a thing. If there was no moon that night, it would have been by absolute chance that they happened upon the cedar.

[Star man]

WAB's theory is certainly credible and simple in that it does not call on anything that is not normally present on the mountain.  I am not so convinced about the reason they left the tent though.   That's the bit I struggle with.  They were all experienced hikers.  If some of the group were feeling nervous, frightened or panicky due to infrasound I would think those that had not been affected would try to reassure the others?  The wind can make some strange sounds in the audible range too,   The hikers knew how important their shelter was.  It was their life boat.  If you were in a life boat at sea in a storm and the wind generated infrasound, could it affect people so  badly that they thought it would be better to jump into the sea and leave their life boat behind?

I think that after they left the tent then the rest could be as WAB describes.  It's a good theory.

Saying that,  I cant argue too much about rationality as I investigate the possibility of a Yeti 

Regards

Star man

[PJ]

I have always heard that the moon rise was at 3am until I recently downloaded a moon phase app. In it it shows that on the night of Feb 1st that the moon rise was at 11:39am and it set at 12:52am and was at 38%. Of course this could be wrong, but I've never seen a official report of the moon rise and set on that night in the Ural Mountains. Could someone clarify?

Recently, I was in the mountains during a no moon phase and it was completely dark - couldn't see a thing. If there was no moon that night, it would have been by absolute chance that they happened upon the cedar.

On 31st January 1959 the Moon was in the Third Quarter, it mean that it rise during the second part of the night, after midnight.
Maybe your app shows the Moon rise time in your local time?

And yeah, I agree with Star Man and WAB that all the injuries could happens in "natural" way as a results of different incidents on the way down and around Cedar/Ravine. The problem is why they left the tent. In my opinion the infrasound theory sounds impossible. Must be something different.

[Nigel Evans]

• I can understand that infrasound could make them withdraw from the tent but not half dressed. Rustem wore one valenki but didn't even pick the other one up.
• IS would not affect the whole group simultaneously. Some would succumb before others. Those still in control would collect some footwear at the very least even if they elected to join the others fleeing because the tent was too ripped to remain.
• Semyon and Nicolai appear to have been outside and the footsteps demonstrate they joined the main group a little further down the slope. The contours of the hill would have made IS variable and they would have quickly reached a quieter place to reconsider and for SZ/NTB to return to fetch clothing. But that didn't happen. They had a flashlight.
• IS didn't give three bodies marks of a similar pattern or signs of vomiting and bleeding head orifices, or Zina lying face down in her own blood.
• IS didn't cause strange photos across several cameras.
• IS didn't create curious snow effects, firn snow on the tent and surrounds and footsteps in snow as soft as a cow pat.

[sparrow]

Regarding the trip to the cedar and the injuries at the ravine, I have a number of questions (as usual). 

1) How did they find their way to the cedar?  If there was very little to no moon, they probably could not even see their hand in front of their face.  I know  of what I speak.
2) Why would Alexander lay down and die when he was supposed to have very few injuries and supposedly no serious ones?
3) How is it that they would think to take a flashlight with them but forget to put on warm clothes? 
4) How is it that the four in the ravine didn't have frost bite and the others did?  Didn't the rav4 help build it and if not why?

[Tony]

I have always heard that the moon rise was at 3am until I recently downloaded a moon phase app. In it it shows that on the night of Feb 1st that the moon rise was at 11:39am and it set at 12:52am and was at 38%. Of course this could be wrong, but I've never seen a official report of the moon rise and set on that night in the Ural Mountains. Could someone clarify?

Recently, I was in the mountains during a no moon phase and it was completely dark - couldn't see a thing. If there was no moon that night, it would have been by absolute chance that they happened upon the cedar.

On 31st January 1959 the Moon was in the Third Quarter, it mean that it rise during the second part of the night, after midnight.
Maybe your app shows the Moon rise time in your local time?

And yeah, I agree with Star Man and WAB that all the injuries could happens in "natural" way as a results of different incidents on the way down and around Cedar/Ravine. The problem is why they left the tent. In my opinion the infrasound theory sounds impossible. Must be something different.

This site shows that on February 1st in the Ural Mountains that the moon rose at 9:28 am and set early on February 2nd at 12:16 am:

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/@1488441?month=2&year=2020

This one for Vizhay is showing that it rose at 11:38 am on the 1st and set at 2:07 am on the 2nd:

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/@829035?month=2&year=2020

These are all year 2020 which would be the same for 1959. Maybe I'm just reading this wrong but where does it show that the moon rose after midnight that night?

[PJ]

This site shows that on February 1st in the Ural Mountains that the moon rose at 9:28 am and set early on February 2nd at 12:16 am:

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/@1488441?month=2&year=2020

This one for Vizhay is showing that it rose at 11:38 am on the 1st and set at 2:07 am on the 2nd:

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/@829035?month=2&year=2020

These are all year 2020 which would be the same for 1959. Maybe I'm just reading this wrong but where does it show that the moon rose after midnight that night?

How do you check it? for me it shows that 1st February 1959 in Vizhay the Moon rise was at 2:40am

* All times are local time for Vizhay.

Why do you think that in 2020 and in 1959 should be the same time of Moon rise everyday? Of course it will not be the same.

[PJ]

Regarding the trip to the cedar and the injuries at the ravine, I have a number of questions (as usual). 

1) How did they find their way to the cedar?  If there was very little to no moon, they probably could not even see their hand in front of their face.  I know  of what I speak.
2) Why would Alexander lay down and die when he was supposed to have very few injuries and supposedly no serious ones?
3) How is it that they would think to take a flashlight with them but forget to put on warm clothes? 
4) How is it that the four in the ravine didn't have frost bite and the others did?  Didn't the rav4 help build it and if not why?

1. They was just walking down, once the terrain get more flat, close to the forest they could spot the Cedar contour on the skyline. It was one of the highest trees there so it was possible to see it on the sky even during very dark night. This is why they walk to it: high tree gives some sense of protection/shelter, wood for fire.
2. Probably the 4 in ravine die the last, and Aleksander as the one with not much injuries could be the last one. So all was already dead, he was exhausted, not sleeping for number of hours,  without any hope to be rescued. He just lay down, felt asleep and never wake up.
3. I think nobody knows the answer, sorry.
4.Only 3 of them had frostbites: Doroshenko, Krivonischenko, and Kolmogorova. Generally to get frostbites you have to first freeze and after rewarm body part. To get serious frostbites in short period of time you must get very deep freeze and rewarm it very fast too(close to heat source like fire) so looks like that only this three exposed hands and ears during the way down badly enough to get the 3rd and 4th degree frostbites in a short time after rewarm at the fire. The others for sure had some frostbites too but it takes long time to see it. They die before the frostbites show up or even never rewarm the frozen body parts.

[Tony]

This site shows that on February 1st in the Ural Mountains that the moon rose at 9:28 am and set early on February 2nd at 12:16 am:

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/@1488441?month=2&year=2020

This one for Vizhay is showing that it rose at 11:38 am on the 1st and set at 2:07 am on the 2nd:

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/@829035?month=2&year=2020

These are all year 2020 which would be the same for 1959. Maybe I'm just reading this wrong but where does it show that the moon rose after midnight that night?

How do you check it? for me it shows that 1st February 1959 in Vizhay the Moon rise was at 2:40am

* All times are local time for Vizhay.

Why do you think that in 2020 and in 1959 should be the same time of Moon rise everyday? Of course it will not be the same.

Yes, you're right. Wasn't thinking and didn't take into account the year and how the moon rotates around the earth. If this is the case, then it seems almost more strange that they wouldn't have been able to see the forest area until they were in it. I know they found a spent flashlight further down the slope but it wouldn't have helped much and, after it burned out, they wouldn't have been able to see anything. Why did they climb the cedar? Without the moon they would not have been able to see even a few feet in front of them. Unless they reached the cedar much later than we think and they were still after the moon rise.

[sarapuk]

@ Sarapuk -I serious doubt it - unless there is a document hidden away by the Soviet Govt that suddenly comes to light - this enigma will probably never be solved. There are well over 70 so called theories and counting. And honestly how can we expect archeology solve this mystery? Hmmmm?
If they do a dig there, what could they really possibly hope to find? What ? A note saying - Help- the mansi got us - Please give me a break Sir. SMH
I enjoy reading the comments on this blog and find some of the comments very amusing  - but I honestly see mostly bizarre & confounding statements & misleading conjecture and very little in the way of a viable plausible solution to what really happened to the Dyatlov Hikers.

Well I didnt actually mean that Archaeologists will help to solve this Dyatlov Mystery.  Iam just saying that stuff comes to light even after a very long time.  The fact that we are here using this Forum proves that.  And Teddys great Website is full of stuff that has come to light since the fall of the USSR.  There may well be Documents hidden away.  It doesnt mean that they will remain hidden for ever.

[Star man]

Regarding the trip to the cedar and the injuries at the ravine, I have a number of questions (as usual). 

1) How did they find their way to the cedar?  If there was very little to no moon, they probably could not even see their hand in front of their face.  I know  of what I speak.
2) Why would Alexander lay down and die when he was supposed to have very few injuries and supposedly no serious ones?
3) How is it that they would think to take a flashlight with them but forget to put on warm clothes? 
4) How is it that the four in the ravine didn't have frost bite and the others did?  Didn't the rav4 help build it and if not why?

1. They was just walking down, once the terrain get more flat, close to the forest they could spot the Cedar contour on the skyline. It was one of the highest trees there so it was possible to see it on the sky even during very dark night. This is why they walk to it: high tree gives some sense of protection/shelter, wood for fire.
2. Probably the 4 in ravine die the last, and Aleksander as the one with not much injuries could be the last one. So all was already dead, he was exhausted, not sleeping for number of hours,  without any hope to be rescued. He just lay down, felt asleep and never wake up.
3. I think nobody knows the answer, sorry.
4.Only 3 of them had frostbites: Doroshenko, Krivonischenko, and Kolmogorova. Generally to get frostbites you have to first freeze and after rewarm body part. To get serious frostbites in short period of time you must get very deep freeze and rewarm it very fast too(close to heat source like fire) so looks like that only this three exposed hands and ears during the way down badly enough to get the 3rd and 4th degree frostbites in a short time after rewarm at the fire. The others for sure had some frostbites too but it takes long time to see it. They die before the frostbites show up or even never rewarm the frozen body parts.

3.  One possibility is that the person who took the flashlight was already outside when they fled the tent.  He/she already had the flashlight with them.  Thibo and Semyon were likely on watch duty.  Maybe they both went outside.  Some thing "the thing" that made them fled happened while they outside with flashlight in hand.  The other flashlight may have been on the tent.

Regards

Star man

[Monika]

We are unable to answer the question of whether they had trouble finding their way to the forest or finding their way back to the tent. Because we don't know the time when they left the tent. They died 5-8 hours after the last meal, but here the question arises, it was dinner (1.2.) or early breakfast (2.2)? If it was just after breakfast, there was already some visibility / twilight outside.

[sparrow]

Thanks PJ and Starman.  1) I think they must have had some daylight or they could NOT have done everything they supposedly did.  When it is pitch black, everything is done by feel alone. 2) Regarding Alexander  ( if he was the last one to die), He was young and fit, the tent was still standing and he could have gone back to it at some point and he could have taken valenki (and more) from Simon and Nickolas.  3)  I don't think Simon and Nickolas were "on watch".  Somewhere on this forum, it was stated  that they didn't need watchmen ( outside of the tent).  They would have only needed watchmen to watch their property while they were stuck in a train station (for example) or to watch the stove while it was burning (which it wasn't that night).  4) If the rav4 supposedly fell into the ravine and died where they lay, could someone   please explain to me how Lyuda fell facing one direction and hit full force facing another and also further away than the others.  If the water was not frozen,  then how is it that she and Nickolas didn't drown (their faces were in the water).  I read about the unfrozen stream  somewhere on this forum also. ( There is so much information on this forum it is hard to keep track of it all.  THANKS TEDDY.)

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me how (or tell me about a site) hypothermia and frostbite come to be and its progress.  I have looked online and could not find what I thought was a good site.  I think someone once may have posted a site but I could not find that either. Thanks.

[alecsandros]

Thanks PJ and Starman.  1) I think they must have had some daylight or they could NOT have done everything they supposedly did.  When it is pitch black, everything is done by feel alone.

Or perhaps they had flashlights, but they disappeared from the scene (just as several cameras and films had).

2) Regarding Alexander  ( if he was the last one to die), He was young and fit, the tent was still standing and he could have gone back to it at some point and he could have taken valenki (and more) from Simon and Nickolas.

From what I understand from the autopsy report, he had his neck "deformed" and an open wound behind his ear. Doesn't seem uninjured to me.

  3)  I don't think Simon and Nickolas were "on watch".  Somewhere on this forum, it was stated  that they didn't need watchmen ( outside of the tent).  They would have only needed watchmen to watch their property while they were stuck in a train station (for example) or to watch the stove while it was burning (which it wasn't that night).

The fact that they were significantly better dressed then the others suggests they were planning to stay outside for some time. Why ? Keeping watch is a possible explanation. After all, the emplacement of the tent high on the barren slope (instead of at the forest's edge) is curious in itself. Perhaps they were trying to have a good vantage point (strategic) to protect themselves from someone/something - case in which keeping watch is mandatory.

  4) If the rav4 supposedly fell into the ravine and died where they lay, could someone   please explain to me how Lyuda fell facing one direction and hit full force facing another and also further away than the others.  If the water was not frozen,  then how is it that she and Nickolas didn't drown (their faces were in the water).  I read about the unfrozen stream  somewhere on this forum also. ( There is so much information on this forum it is hard to keep track of it all.  THANKS TEDDY.)

It's more likely they were already dead when they fell into the ravine...

[Monika]

Thanks PJ and Starman.  1) I think they must have had some daylight or they could NOT have done everything they supposedly did.  When it is pitch black, everything is done by feel alone. 2) Regarding Alexander  ( if he was the last one to die), He was young and fit, the tent was still standing and he could have gone back to it at some point and he could have taken valenki (and more) from Simon and Nickolas.  3)  I don't think Simon and Nickolas were "on watch".  Somewhere on this forum, it was stated  that they didn't need watchmen ( outside of the tent).  They would have only needed watchmen to watch their property while they were stuck in a train station (for example) or to watch the stove while it was burning (which it wasn't that night).  4) If the rav4 supposedly fell into the ravine and died where they lay, could someone   please explain to me how Lyuda fell facing one direction and hit full force facing another and also further away than the others.  If the water was not frozen,  then how is it that she and Nickolas didn't drown (their faces were in the water).  I read about the unfrozen stream  somewhere on this forum also. ( There is so much information on this forum it is hard to keep track of it all.  THANKS TEDDY.)

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me how (or tell me about a site) hypothermia and frostbite come to be and its progress.  I have looked online and could not find what I thought was a good site.  I think someone once may have posted a site but I could not find that either. Thanks.

Regarding to 4) If the rav4 supposedly fell into the ravine and died where they lay, could someone   please explain to me how Lyuda fell facing one direction and hit full force facing another and also further away than the others.

If you look at the picture -  3D model of the ravine by Vasilii Zyadik (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1822311798064754&type=3), it is clear that all four were lying next to each other, and when the snow began to melt and the bodies fell into the stream of creek, Lyuda's body turned by 90º due to melting and the flow of water.

[sparrow]

Hi Monika.  The people that claim the rav4 died where they landed because the injuries matched some of the rocks they were laying on,cannot have it both ways.  She died where she landed and she was washed to where she was found.  It has to be one or the other but not both.

[RidgeWatcher]

Thank you WAB,

I was amazed to hear you talk about the early online forum connected with  travel site, I think I may have known this site as "Ermak TraveL" correct me if I am wrong. I posted on this site a lot. It was my introduction to the Dyatlov Pass Incident, and mystery.


Your quote: "Then, in 2005 and (mainly) in 2006, there was a broad discussion of this topic on the Internet. Originally it was on the site of TAU (Ural TV Agency), the general producer of which was Anna Matveeva's mari Innokenty Sheremet. Everything that I now say at this forum, I began say back there. During this time there have been practically no changes in my main statements. The only thing that has increased is that I have made 5 winter and 2 summer (the very first and basic for this study) expeditions to the pass".

I have many questions but about your post which is very interesting and informative.

I spoke with my father about Russian Missiles and Rockets in 1959, he worked in Navigation and Guidance on missiles and rockets, particularly the gyroscope technology, which as you know is all done by lasers today. He said that Russian rocketry and missile guidance was very advanced at that time, as much as he heard about it. He mentioned what was probably the best missile system at that time being made by the Russians. He also said that the finances, work, time and precision parts it took to manufacture a missile or rocket was not inexpensive. He said neither the Russians or the Americans would just shoot them randomly over the Urals or New Mexico or the South Pacific.

WAB,

1) In your opinion, do you think that a rocket or missile or some other projectile fell on Kholat Syakhl that night?

2) Why have you gone to Dyatlov Pass so many times? Are you working on a present theory?

3) What is your opinion on whether the Dyatlov Pass Incident will ever be solved?

[Tony]

Thanks PJ and Starman.  1) I think they must have had some daylight or they could NOT have done everything they supposedly did.  When it is pitch black, everything is done by feel alone. 2) Regarding Alexander  ( if he was the last one to die), He was young and fit, the tent was still standing and he could have gone back to it at some point and he could have taken valenki (and more) from Simon and Nickolas.  3)  I don't think Simon and Nickolas were "on watch".  Somewhere on this forum, it was stated  that they didn't need watchmen ( outside of the tent).  They would have only needed watchmen to watch their property while they were stuck in a train station (for example) or to watch the stove while it was burning (which it wasn't that night).  4) If the rav4 supposedly fell into the ravine and died where they lay, could someone   please explain to me how Lyuda fell facing one direction and hit full force facing another and also further away than the others.  If the water was not frozen,  then how is it that she and Nickolas didn't drown (their faces were in the water).  I read about the unfrozen stream  somewhere on this forum also. ( There is so much information on this forum it is hard to keep track of it all.  THANKS TEDDY.)

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me how (or tell me about a site) hypothermia and frostbite come to be and its progress.  I have looked online and could not find what I thought was a good site.  I think someone once may have posted a site but I could not find that either. Thanks.

Regarding to 4) If the rav4 supposedly fell into the ravine and died where they lay, could someone   please explain to me how Lyuda fell facing one direction and hit full force facing another and also further away than the others.

If you look at the picture -  3D model of the ravine by Vasilii Zyadik (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1822311798064754&type=3), it is clear that all four were lying next to each other, and when the snow began to melt and the bodies fell into the stream of creek, Lyuda's body turned by 90º due to melting and the flow of water.

Per the autopsy reports it is likely that both Lyuda and Sasha were both alive and somewhat mobile a moderate amount of time after their injuries. It is possible that she moved herself to that area or, that the snow melt (stream) caused a position change or, that someone moved her i.e. Kovlevatov.

Although the fall theory has many problems it has the least amount of problems and is the most likely cause of the injuries at the ravine.