August 06, 2020, 05:45:50 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: The case for chemicals  (Read 728 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

June 11, 2020, 02:47:09 AM
Read 728 times
Online

Nigel Evans


I thought i'd develop the case for chemical exposure in this thread. 
.
  • They slash the tent at least 3 times - need for ventilation, noxious vapour.
  • They seem to exit the tent extremely quickly without collecting clothing - noxious vapour.
  • They do not return to the tent - noxious vapour.
  • The rescue team describe the snow on the tent as "firn snow" requiring use of an ice axe to break through it - softened in a chemical reaction and refrozen.
  • The photos of the footsteps suggest wet snow  - softened in a chemical reaction and refrozen.
  • Yuri K suffers a 30cm third degree burn to his lower leg and one side of one toe charred, the only possible explanations can be (a) a small campfire or (b) electrical (e.g. lightning) or (c) - a chemical reaction.
  • Significant number of burnt pieces of clothing found discarded around the campfire - as above.
  • Strange photos from several cameras - chemical reaction.
  • A lack of frostbite, even though most of the group are in their socks and for a considerable period (hours?) many of them display no frostbite - warming due a prolonged chemical reaction over a considerable area.
  • Signs of bleeding head orifices, vomiting, lung oedema - chemical poisoning.
  • Zinaida's face is recorded in the autopsy as "abrasions", curiously none of these abrasions show any direction of abrasion including an eyelid. - chemical peel.
  • In the morgue it is noted that the victims clothing displayed a purple glow - chemical luminescence.
  • At the funeral of Zinaida and Yuri D it is noted that their hands and faces are dark orange. Yuri D's skin tone being compared to an African - unknown reaction due to chemical exposure.
  • Lyudmila's face is recorded as "yellow brown" except that the morgue photo shows a white chin - chemical exposure with chin protected by clothing.
  • A number of the group display white hair where none previously existed - bleaching?
  • On dragging the tent to the helicopter land site it is noted that the fabric is weak and easily tears - chemical exposure
  • The tips of young firs at the treeline seem to have been burnt - killed due to chemical exposure.
  • Reports of orange snow. n.b.. afaik watermelon snow is always pink.
  • Yuri D's family kept his sweater which contains orange powder - remnants of an orange chemical.
The above evidence (combined with my conjecture) fits a scenario where a "corrosive chemical mist" is blowing across the location down the slope and into the forest, with this mist occasionally igniting.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 02:32:00 AM by Nigel Evans »

June 11, 2020, 08:34:49 AM
Reply #1
Offline

MDGross


Very convincing argument, Nigel. I guess the chemical would be nitric acid, correct? Did locals or anyone else mention seeing missile tests in this area before or after the DPI?

June 11, 2020, 09:00:08 AM
Reply #2
Online

Nigel Evans


Hi there.


The missile theory belongs to other threads (possibly including contributions from myself  kewl1 ).

Here i want to just examine the evidence from the perspective of chemical exposure in isolation from it's possible source. E.g. electrical discharge results in nitric acid.

June 12, 2020, 02:32:34 AM
Reply #3
Offline

sparrow


Hi Nigel.  I enjoyed reading your explanation of why it could be chemical exposure.  I also liked the fact that you took it out of the rocket theory for now.  But I do have a few questions.
*Wouldn't the tent have protected them from the exposure?
*The footstep looks fresh.  Does anyone mention it as frozen?
*Wouldn't chemical burns appear different from burns suffered from a campfire?  If so, wouldn't somebody notice?
*Lyuda's chin looks like it still has ice on it.  She also has white spots on her chest, shoulder and under her arm. (Obviously this is not a question but an observation.)


 

June 12, 2020, 02:38:56 AM
Reply #4
Offline

alecsandros


Hi there.


The missile theory belongs to other threads (possibly including contributions from myself  kewl1 ).

Here i want to just examine the evidence from the perspective of chemical exposure in isolation from it's possible source. E.g. electrical discharge results in nitric acid.
What is needed as an addition, IMHO, is a valid source emanating such chemical mist / cloud from the top of Mount Kholat Syakl (or near it's top). This source wasn't found during the official investigation, therefore, if it existed, it must have been removed from the scene after the fatal incidents occurred.

Possible sources of emission for the chemical gas are, IMHO:
- stray rocket (this assumes there was an accident)
- container(s) brought by tracked vehicle to conduct local experiment (this assumes no accident, but intent)

Quantity of gas is key. A large quantity of chemical gas was required to travel from the top of Mount Kholat Syakl downslope , and to still be able (be in sufficient quantity) to reach the forest.
What is working for this theory is that wind was probably blowing from West to East - i.e. downslope , into the forest.

Best,


June 12, 2020, 02:46:58 AM
Reply #5
Online

Nigel Evans


Hi Nigel.  I enjoyed reading your explanation of why it could be chemical exposure.  I also liked the fact that you took it out of the rocket theory for now.  But I do have a few questions.
*Wouldn't the tent have protected them from the exposure? To some degree of course but that's of no use if the interior is too unpleasant
*The footstep looks fresh.  Does anyone mention it as frozen? Your question is a little ambiguous, the condition of the snow on the tent and the surrounding area was very hard forcing the rescue party to dismount from their skis in order to reach the tent.
*Wouldn't chemical burns appear different from burns suffered from a campfire?  If so, wouldn't somebody notice? I don't think the standard of the autopsy was high enough to consider such details.
*Lyuda's chin looks like it still has ice on it.  She also has white spots on her chest, shoulder and under her arm. (Obviously this is not a question but an observation.) She was found in running water?

June 12, 2020, 04:40:37 AM
Reply #6
Offline

sparrow


Fair enough Nigel.

June 12, 2020, 09:53:16 AM
Reply #7
Offline

MDGross


Not sure what you are saying, Nigel. Are you searching for other sources to account for nitric acid besides fuel from an exploded missile?

June 12, 2020, 10:45:40 AM
Reply #8
Online

Nigel Evans


No the purpose is in the title and the first post.

June 12, 2020, 11:00:14 AM
Reply #9
Offline

alecsandros



      
  • The tips of young firs at the treeline seem to have been burnt - killed due to chemical exposure.
   

Do we know how tall the young firs were ?
Because chemical gas tends to hug the ground, it being heavier than air. Therefore, if they were tall, it would have been unlikely that the gas burnt them. However, the exhaust (engine thrust) of the potential delivery system (rocket ? fighter jet ?) may have burnt them before detonating and/or distributing the chemical gas.

June 12, 2020, 11:13:59 AM
Reply #10
Online

Nigel Evans


This is Ivanov's statement :-"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. This once again confirmed a source of heat ray or completely unknown to us energy acting selectively - the snow was not melted, the trees were not damaged.
Young trees at the forest tree line will tend to be short.

 

June 12, 2020, 12:19:50 PM
Reply #11
Offline

alecsandros


This reminds me of the 1943 bombing of Bari: during WW2, a devastating air attack was launched by Luftwaffe, against the ships anchored in the harbour of Bari. The German bombers attacked at sun-down, avoiding all air defences, and swooping down for the kill: the Ju-88s launched their bombs with clinical accuracy.
 
A large number of ships were sunk. Amongst them, a ship carrying a secret cargo, later proved to have been mustard gas - a type of chemical weapon stockpiled to be at hand in case the Germans decide to use gases on the battlefields of Italy. The ship blew up and the secret cargo spread amongst the burning ships and into the harbour. However, as the sailors from the ship were all dead, nobody knew about the existence of the gas. Later during the day , and days that followed, thousands of people were admitted into local hospitals after having been in contact with the gas.
But nobody knew about the gas, and the doctors did not know to treat the patients against it. What was initially a tragedy slowly turned into a humanitarian catastrophe, with hundreds dying of the effects of the gas, and thousands more scared for life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raid_on_Bari#John_Harvey

The parallel with Dyatlov Pass Incident is: perhaps the medics that performed the autopsies did not know to look for traces of gas on the bodies. Perhaps if they had looked for something like that, more information would have been found and written...
« Last Edit: June 12, 2020, 12:25:17 PM by alecsandros »

June 12, 2020, 12:28:00 PM
Reply #12
Offline

alecsandros


This is Ivanov's statement :-"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. This once again confirmed a source of heat ray or completely unknown to us energy acting selectively - the snow was not melted, the trees were not damaged.
Young trees at the forest tree line will tend to be short.
Agreed on the possible chemical burning of the young trees  wink1

June 12, 2020, 02:04:45 PM
Reply #13
Online

Nigel Evans


Thanks for the bari link. Interesting how mustard gas affected all the officers eyesight on one ship. The autopsies noted cloudy corneas in some cases.

June 12, 2020, 04:34:11 PM
Reply #14
Offline

PJ


They slash the tent at least 3 times - need for ventilation, noxious vapour.
There is many other reasons why they cut the tent, the most likely to escape quickly.

They seem to exit the tent extremely quickly without collecting clothing - noxious vapour.
There is many other reasons why they escape the tent quickly (this is where all theories starts)

They do not return to the tent - noxious vapour.
In this environment: open space and windy any chemical pollution will be disperse quickly, so will be possible to return to tent except situation when the source of chemical was dropped and was released slowly.

The rescue team describe the snow on the tent as "firn snow" requiring use of an ice axe to break through it - softened in a chemical reaction and refrozen.
The rescue described the snow as "The snow on the tent was 15-20 cm thick, it was clear that the snow was fluffy on top of the tent, it was hard. "  - so generally snow deposited by wind as all the snow cover around the tent well visible on photos. Normal snow cover during winter in mountains.

The photos of the footsteps suggest wet snow  - softened in a chemical reaction and refrozen.
No. To make raised footprints you must step in the snow, the snow gets compressed and hardens, and then the wind blows the loose snow away. Wind will never blown out wet snow, and after the wet snow freeze again it is not possible for wind to blow it out too. So for sure nothing melt the snow on the night when they left the tent. The raised footprints are proof of it.

Yuri K suffers a 30cm third degree burn to his lower leg, the only possible explanations can be (a) a small campfire or (b) electrical (e.g. lightning) or (c) - a chemical reaction.
Most likely it was burn from fire. If he will got that serious burn injuries from "chemical mist" on his leg that was covered why nobody got it on face or hands as they was exposed? As well, any "chemical mist" will be inhaled so the damage/burns to the lungs and airways will be very bad.

Significant number of burnt pieces of clothing found discarded around the campfire - as above.
So as above, no signs to chemical burns to exposed parts of body. The fact the the clothing is found around campfire indicate that the campfire was the source of the burns.

Strange photos from several cameras - chemical reaction.
If the films will get in contact with some chemical component they will be all damaged so only possible in the case of Zolotaryov's camera.

A lack of frostbite, even though most of the group are in their socks and for a considerable period (hours?) many of them display no frostbite - warming due a prolonged chemical reaction over a considerable area.
The lack of frostbites suggest that the body parts never get warmed or the dead happens fast enough so was no time create the frostbites. Many people that die from hypothermia in winter do not have any frostbites.

Signs of bleeding head orifices, vomiting, lung oedema - chemical poisoning.
Bleeding/foam from nose and mouths is a sign of lung oedema. Vomiting and lung oedema happens during hypothermia, so no need of chemical poisoning to have bleeding head orifices, vomiting, lung oedema in this case.

   
  • Zinaida's face is recorded in the autopsy as "abrasions", curiously none of these abrasions show any direction of abrasion including an eyelid. - chemical peel.
  • In the morgue it is noted that the victims clothing displayed a purple glow - chemical luminescence.
  • At the funeral of Zinaida and Yuri D it is noted that their hands and faces are dark orange. Yuri D's skin tone being compared to an African - unknown reaction due to chemical exposure.
  • Lyudmila's face is recorded as "yellow brown" except that the morgue photo shows a white chin - chemical exposure with chin protected by clothing.
  • A number of the group display white hair where none previously existed - bleaching?
All bodies were at some stage of decomposition, autopsy of the first 5 was done days after bodies were found and already defrosted for some days, the last 4 were exposed for 3 months and already a bit defrosted too. Skin color changes is natural process during the decomposition so is relay hart to have any conclusion from it. It is normal that they not looks naturally.

On dragging the tent to the helicopter land site it is noted that the fabric is weak and easily tears - chemical exposure
It was old tent, some reports say that already repaired many times. Additional for the last 3 weeks exposed permanently to the elements make it even more weak so nothing strange that the fabric could break easily.

The tips of young firs at the treeline seem to have been burnt - killed due to chemical exposure.
No. It is natural thing in mountains or any other place where plants are exposed to strong winds and low temperatures. Winter burn tree.

Reports of orange snow. n.b.. afaik watermelon snow is always pink.
The watermelon snow could be bloody red too, and looks orange: https://snowbrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/44822364_1483226128479594_8034938209787817282_n-min.jpg
Plus there is many other possibilities of getting orange snow including industrial pollution or natural like sand from Sahara or Gobi.

The above evidence (combined with my conjecture) fits a scenario where a "corrosive chemical mist" is blowing across the location down the slope and into the forest, with this mist occasionally igniting.
I do not say that "corrosive chemical mist" is not possible, just many things could happens in more natural way or have many explanation.
I think the type of the chemical agent is very narrowed now. It must be:
-creating burns to skin and fabric;
-leave orange sediment;
-possible to distribute in the form of mist;
I guess some expert of chemical stuff could know if something like that exist.

June 13, 2020, 04:32:45 AM
Reply #15
Offline

alecsandros


In this environment: open space and windy any chemical pollution will be disperse quickly, so will be possible to return to tent.
As I have told you before, chemical gas is almost always deployed in windy conditions and in open space !

Quote

The rescue described the snow as "The snow on the tent was 15-20 cm thick, it was clear that the snow was fluffy on top of the tent, it was hard. "  - so generally snow deposited by wind as all the snow cover around the tent well visible on photos. Normal snow cover during winter in mountains.
However the foot prints were clearly visibile, and not covered with snow of any thickness.

Quote
Additional for the last 3 weeks exposed permanently to the elements make it even more weak so nothing strange that the fabric could break easily.
It was a tent and that what it was supposed to do - stay outside.

No. It is natural thing in mountains or any other place where plants are exposed to strong winds and low temperatures. Winter burn tree.
Lev Ivanov knew the situation well and he described "traces of burning" (caused by the mysterious fireorbs) - see the quotation above.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2020, 04:40:10 AM by alecsandros »

June 13, 2020, 09:18:29 AM
Reply #16
Offline

PJ


As I have told you before, chemical gas is almost always deployed in windy conditions and in open space !
Yes, you write about it but you are not really right, the windy conditions count only for light wind: Quotation from book "Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Comprehensive Survey for the Concerned Citizen" - Wind speed and direction are likewise critical (low velocity and minimal turbulence), agents can be transported on the wind very effectively.
On that day there was strong wind and turbulence are always very strong in mountains so very bad place for deployed gas. You could read in many places that it not make senses to deployed gas in strong wind conditions because it will disperse and mix very quickly so will work not effectively.

However the foot prints were clearly visibile, and not covered with snow of any thickness.
Yes, because snow was blown out by wind, in other places the snow was deposited(for example on tent as it usually happens around objects), you could clearly see it on photos.

It was a tent and that what it was supposed to do - stay outside.
Yes, but it never last forever. Fabric is sensitive for UV and additionally they use stove in the tent so some part of it was exposed to high temps what weakens the fabric too. And they was dragging the tent to helicopter few hundred meters on frozen snow with exposed stones  - very easy to make some damage to it.

Lev Ivanov knew the situation well and he described "traces of burning" (caused by the mysterious fireorbs) - see the quotation above.
Ivanov Lev Nikitich was the Lead investigator, not sure what mountains experience he had but he simply interpreted the fact of winter burn to support his theory of fireorbs. But the burns have much simple, more natural explanation. Just a fact. Of course you could interpreting it as a result of a chemical agent activity.

June 13, 2020, 09:34:02 AM
Reply #17
Offline

alecsandros


On that day there was strong wind and turbulence are always very strong in mountains so very bad place for deployed gas. You could read in many places that it not make senses to deployed gas in strong wind conditions because it will disperse and mix very quickly so will work not effectively.
We do not have the exact wind conditions on DP, but we do have the wind condition on the nearest weather station (some 60km away). It was blowing from West to East at around 15m/s (54km/h)

Quote

Yes, because snow was blown out by wind, in other places the snow was deposited(for example on tent as it usually happens around objects), you could clearly see it on photos.
The tent was knocked down, so there was no reason why snow would "deposit" on it, and not on the snow tracks as well.

Quote
Fabric is sensitive for UV and additionally they use stove in the tent so some part of it was exposed to high temps what weakens the fabric too. And they was dragging the tent to helicopter few hundred meters on frozen snow with exposed stones  - very easy to make some damage to it.
Maybe.

Quote
Ivanov Lev Nikitich was the Lead investigator, not sure what mountains experience he had but he simply interpreted the fact of winter burn to support his theory of fireorbs. But the burns have much simple, more natural explanation. Just a fact. Of course you could interpreting it as a result of a chemical agent activity.
No, that was what he wrote in May 1959 and that is the only written statement we have on the burnt trees.

June 13, 2020, 10:24:21 AM
Reply #18
Offline

hoosiergose


@ Nigel - very interesting post - very analytical & thought provoking-
Exposure to a chemical agent or toxic gas would explain a lot of things that happened that night.
Does not explain why one or two of the hikers Chose to  climb 20 foot into the cedar tree. Unless...- the gas or chemical agent was clinging close to the ground and they chose to climb up higher to escape the deadly fumes.
But... it does seem to explain why they abruptly left their tent & the strange skin tone and gray hair noted at the autopsy. Also would explain why the Soviet Goverment promptly shut down the investigation & hushed everything up. I have felt all along that the powers that be at the time were hiding something.
This could be a very plausible explanation to the Dyatlov Pass event.
Cheers
« Last Edit: June 13, 2020, 10:33:00 AM by hoosiergose »

June 13, 2020, 10:36:45 AM
Reply #19
Offline

PJ


We do not have the exact wind conditions on DP, but we do have the wind condition on the nearest weather station (some 60km away). It was blowing from West to East at around 15m/s (54km/h)
As this was in mountains and higher, probably the wind was stronger. But even 54km/h is about 7 in Beaufort Scale: High wind, moderate gale, near gale. Low velocity winds are up to 20km/h so looks like the conditions was far from good to deploy any gas, it will disperse and mix very quickly.

The tent was knocked down, so there was no reason why snow would "deposit" on it, and not on the snow tracks as well.
We dont know when the tent got knocked down, probably on the night when cut off, it lost the stability but the front was still up so it disturbed the wind and snow was deposited on it as on and around any obstacles.

No, that was what he wrote in May 1959 and that is the only written statement we have on the burnt trees.
But he was the only one that notice it as something unusual, there was many people with mountains experience and nobody say nothing about it, it was normal winter burn for them, it is quite common in Ural as the temperatures are very low and winds are strong.

I do not say that it is not possible that there was some chemical agent involved in this story but generally everything could be explained in other, more nature way. Additionally, the conditions for deploy the gas was far from perfect. As well how it will come there? Even Soviet Union was doing live tests very carefully in very isolated and controlled places, so maybe just lost load from passing transport aircraft... it happens many times, including nuclear weapons explode1
« Last Edit: June 13, 2020, 10:42:26 AM by PJ »

June 13, 2020, 11:10:27 AM
Reply #20
Offline

alecsandros


As this was in mountains and higher, probably the wind was stronger.
"Probably" we don't know.
Quote
But even 54km/h is about 7 in Beaufort Scale: High wind, moderate gale, near gale. Low velocity winds are up to 20km/h so looks like the conditions was far from good to deploy any gas, it will disperse and mix very quickly.
Some examples of chemical gas dispersing and mixing very quickly at that wind velocity ?

Quote
We dont know when the tent got knocked down, probably on the night when cut off, it lost the stability but the front was still up so it disturbed the wind and snow was deposited on it as on and around any obstacles.
20cm of snow "depositing" needs to be visible as well on the tracks/foot prints. It wasn't.

Quote

Additionally, the conditions for deploy the gas was far from perfect. As well how it will come there? Even Soviet Union was doing live tests very carefully in very isolated and controlled places, so maybe just lost load from passing transport aircraft... it happens many times, including nuclear weapons explode1

Lost load perhaps, rogue rocket or controlled experiment are the variants that I'm thinking of.

June 13, 2020, 12:02:12 PM
Reply #21
Offline

PJ


20cm of snow "depositing" needs to be visible as well on the tracks/foot prints. It wasn't.
There is lots of snow deposited in forest and about 500m before forest where all the footprints are not visible and terrain get more flat.
From the slopes the snow is blown out by wind, and only deposited around some objects as stones etc, you could see it well on this pic:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-010.jpg
So nothing unusual that the footprints are visible in one place and not in other, it happens often. 

June 14, 2020, 01:25:36 AM
Reply #22
Online

Nigel Evans


They slash the tent at least 3 times - need for ventilation, noxious vapour.
There is many other reasons why they cut the tent, the most likely to escape quickly. Err yes, but the argument that there are other narratives is not an argument against any one of them?

They seem to exit the tent extremely quickly without collecting clothing - noxious vapour.
There is many other reasons why they escape the tent quickly (this is where all theories starts)

They do not return to the tent - noxious vapour.
In this environment: open space and windy any chemical pollution will be disperse quickly, so will be possible to return to tent except situation when the source of chemical was dropped and was released slowly. Not if the source continues to release?

The rescue team describe the snow on the tent as "firn snow" requiring use of an ice axe to break through it - softened in a chemical reaction and refrozen.
The rescue described the snow as "The snow on the tent was 15-20 cm thick, it was clear that the snow was fluffy on top of the tent, it was hard. "  - so generally snow deposited by wind as all the snow cover around the tent well visible on photos. Normal snow cover during winter in mountains.They had to dismount from their skis to reach the tent and had to use an ice axe to get through the snow on the tent. This is not normal for three week old wind drift?

The photos of the footsteps suggest wet snow  - softened in a chemical reaction and refrozen.
No. To make raised footprints you must step in the snow, the snow gets compressed and hardens, and then the wind blows the loose snow away. Wind will never blown out wet snow, and after the wet snow freeze again it is not possible for wind to blow it out too. So for sure nothing melt the snow on the night when they left the tent. The raised footprints are proof of it.True, but these footsteps have "squelched sideways". I assert that this is due to wet snow. Dry snow cannot do this?


Yuri K suffers a 30cm third degree burn to his lower leg, the only possible explanations can be (a) a small campfire or (b) electrical (e.g. lightning) or (c) - a chemical reaction.
Most likely it was burn from fire. If he will got that serious burn injuries from "chemical mist" on his leg that was covered why nobody got it on face or hands as they was exposed? Like Zinaida perhaps?
As well, any "chemical mist" will be inhaled so the damage/burns to the lungs and airways will be very bad. Like Yuri D perhaps?

Significant number of burnt pieces of clothing found discarded around the campfire - as above.
So as above, no signs to chemical burns to exposed parts of body. Wrong? The fact the the clothing is found around campfire indicate that the campfire was the source of the burns. Imo this is a very interesting facet that rarely gets discussed. How do you burn (a significant amount of) clothing on a campfire in -20C? Wouldn't you prefer to wear it? Even if you want to dry it out? AND EVEN IF IT WAS SCORCHED WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DISCARD IT IN MINUS20C? The rav4 sensibly scavenged clothing from the 2 Yuris but ignored burnt clothing? Why? Even a scrap could be wrapped around a hand  for protection? Answer - was there something on these pieces that had to be avoided? They were removing contaminated sections?

Strange photos from several cameras - chemical reaction.
If the films will get in contact with some chemical component they will be all damaged so only possible in the case of Zolotaryov's camera. All the cameras would protect their loaded films?

A lack of frostbite, even though most of the group are in their socks and for a considerable period (hours?) many of them display no frostbite - warming due a prolonged chemical reaction over a considerable area.
The lack of frostbites suggest that the body parts never get warmed or the dead happens fast enough so was no time create the frostbites. Many people that die from hypothermia in winter do not have any frostbites. But YuriK and YuriD had significant frostbite and they clearly died before the rav4 who display virtually none?

Signs of bleeding head orifices, vomiting, lung oedema - chemical poisoning.
Bleeding/foam from nose and mouths is a sign of lung oedema. Vomiting and lung oedema happens during hypothermia, so no need of chemical poisoning to have bleeding head orifices, vomiting, lung oedema in this case. Agreed hypothermia is an alternative explanation.

   
  • Zinaida's face is recorded in the autopsy as "abrasions", curiously none of these abrasions show any direction of abrasion including an eyelid. - chemical peel.
  • In the morgue it is noted that the victims clothing displayed a purple glow - chemical luminescence.
  • At the funeral of Zinaida and Yuri D it is noted that their hands and faces are dark orange. Yuri D's skin tone being compared to an African - unknown reaction due to chemical exposure.
  • Lyudmila's face is recorded as "yellow brown" except that the morgue photo shows a white chin - chemical exposure with chin protected by clothing.
  • A number of the group display white hair where none previously existed - bleaching?
All bodies were at some stage of decomposition, autopsy of the first 5 was done days after bodies were found and already defrosted for some days, the last 4 were exposed for 3 months and already a bit defrosted too. Skin color changes is natural process during the decomposition so is relay hart to have any conclusion from it. It is normal that they not looks naturally. ?

On dragging the tent to the helicopter land site it is noted that the fabric is weak and easily tears - chemical exposure
It was old tent, some reports say that already repaired many times. Additional for the last 3 weeks exposed permanently to the elements make it even more weak so nothing strange that the fabric could break easily. No i don't agree. There seem to be many tears near the apex of the tent. Flapping in the wind wouldn't stress this area much. Not that it did a lot of flapping given the rock hard ice that was found on top of the tent and a flashlight still in position on top of the tent.

The tips of young firs at the treeline seem to have been burnt - killed due to chemical exposure.
No. It is natural thing in mountains or any other place where plants are exposed to strong winds and low temperatures. Winter burn tree. Your answer depends on Ivanov failing to recognise the difference.

Reports of orange snow. n.b.. afaik watermelon snow is always pink.
The watermelon snow could be bloody red too, and looks orange: https://snowbrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/44822364_1483226128479594_8034938209787817282_n-min.jpg
Plus there is many other possibilities of getting orange snow including industrial pollution (or military pollution?  kewl1 ) or natural like sand from Sahara or Gobi.

The above evidence (combined with my conjecture) fits a scenario where a "corrosive chemical mist" is blowing across the location down the slope and into the forest, with this mist occasionally igniting.
I do not say that "corrosive chemical mist" is not possible, just many things could happens in more natural way or have many explanation.
I think the type of the chemical agent is very narrowed now. It must be:
-creating burns to skin and fabric;
-leave orange sediment;
-possible to distribute in the form of mist;
I guess some expert of chemical stuff could know if something like that exist.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2020, 02:28:40 AM by Nigel Evans »

June 14, 2020, 01:41:55 AM
Reply #23
Online

Nigel Evans


Does not explain why one or two of the hikers Chose to  climb 20 foot into the cedar tree. Unless...- the gas or chemical agent was clinging close to the ground and they chose to climb up higher to escape the deadly fumes.
Hi, I've read that a good explanation for the climbing the tree is that cedar branches burn very well and that most of the other available firewood (young birch?) was very green/wet wood and wouldn't burn well at all.


June 14, 2020, 02:57:09 AM
Reply #24
Offline

alecsandros


20cm of snow "depositing" needs to be visible as well on the tracks/foot prints. It wasn't.
There is lots of snow deposited in forest and about 500m before forest where all the footprints are not visible and terrain get more flat.
From the slopes the snow is blown out by wind, and only deposited around some objects as stones etc, you could see it well on this pic:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-1959-search-010.jpg
So nothing unusual that the footprints are visible in one place and not in other, it happens often.
You're right - I wasn't thinking about that.  thumb1

June 14, 2020, 07:59:30 AM
Reply #25
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Case for Chemicals  !  ?  There was no indication at any time during the recovery of the bodies or the equipment or autopsies on bodies later, or investigation of equipment later, that Chemicals were involved in the demise of the Dyatlov Group. And obviously there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.
DB

June 14, 2020, 08:23:26 AM
Reply #26
Offline

MDGross


There's no way to know for certain if toxic missile fuel caused the Dyatlov tragedy. But to be believable, a scenario should offer reasonable explanations to the many baffling questions. At the very least, the toxic missile fuel scenario does that.

June 14, 2020, 09:08:55 AM
Reply #27
Offline

PJ


There's no way to know for certain if toxic missile fuel caused the Dyatlov tragedy. But to be believable, a scenario should offer reasonable explanations to the many baffling questions. At the very least, the toxic missile fuel scenario does that.
Except the fact that it was not possible for missile* (except small one carried by aircraft but they not have much of toxic fuel) to be around Dyatlov Pass and still burn or have some fuel, the only missile will be ballistic one in the last stage of flight - without fuel so no toxic fumes.

*Edit: The R-7 could reach that place but it was huge rocket and all launches are well documented.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2020, 09:32:42 AM by PJ »

June 14, 2020, 09:33:42 AM
Reply #28
Offline

alecsandros



*Edit: The R-7 could reach that place but it was huge rocket and all launches are well documented.
Unless it was a secret launch with a secret cargo, case in which it may still be secretised in the archives...

There is also the radiogram about the meteorological rocket seen in Ivdel on Fev 1st. Meteorological rockets of today are quite large... DOn't know about what they were using in 1959 though.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2020, 09:41:01 AM by alecsandros »