As usual you push your nonsense hard.
You're talking complete nonsense.
1. In order to say that a fall is not the cause of injuries, you need to know the biomechanics of impact injuries. You don't know her at all if you say those words.
2. There was no murder there at least because other people couldn't get there for the usual reasons: strong remoteness of the terrain and lack of possible routes. So, you don't know the terrain and the logistics of communication routes for a given place either.
3. Neither by October, nor until mid-March, there is not much snow in the ravines, even now that the climate has become warmer, and therefore there is much more rainfall. Here is a photo - as a place in a small ravine (there is a depth of about 1.5 m (5 ft) looks like in November:
The snow depth there is about 20 cm (8 in). In early February 1959 there was a little more snow there, about 30 cm (12 in). I would like to remind you that the winter of 1959 was abnormally low in snow.
4. In May 1959, there was about 2.5 metres of snow above the bodies and about 30 cm underneath. That is, after the events in February, March and April, it fell out and was moved from above, this amount of snow.
It turns out so that you not only use unreliable information, but also compose it on purpose.
You even don't have other words not to repeat what you were just told? It's called pinched self-love without intellectual support.
1. First Okishev is dismissed, then Ivanov, now Vozrozhdenny? (rolls eyes).
Don't make up fiction. Where did you find Renaissance here?
Rolling your eyes and telling you trivial things with pathos judging by what you're writing is professional.
You, however, constantly twist other people's words to suit your own opinion. I specifically said that they both have words that are not true. You obviously ignore that. In other words, you're trying to misrepresent the distorted information as absolute truth. That's where it all comes from.
I have much more knowledge now (at the moment of analysis) than Okishin has with Ivanovo in 1959, with the addition of the fact that the age of both of them at the moment of their interview and the period after the events were significant. This is not conducive to the objectivity of information, if only because the more time has passed, the more noisy information appears .Do you even know what it is? Or should you tell us about it? This "noise information" outweighs what is factual after it is checked.
2. So the Soviet military couldn't have killed them because it's too remote for them? (rolls eyes again).
Your eyes will roll up all the time because you don't know what you're talking about. Or rather, you've made up your own situation, but it turns out to be false. Neither the military nor anybody else showed up at that place in winter. And now they have nothing to do there, because they are not interested in this area. Military operations are for infrastructure, not empty taiga.
Even Mansi hunters used walk their permanent trails (once in 3 weeks or one month) no closer than 12...15 km (~ 9 mi) from the pass. They would check the traps for sable beasts. Otherwise, to the nearest place, where at least sometimes people lived permanently, there was at least 60 ... 80 km (35 ... 50 mi). In order get to the place where Dyatlov's group died it was necessary to walk on snow with depth from 1 to 2 meters (3 ... 7 ft) in frost which in Western Europe is met once in 50 ... 100 years... And here it holds almost half of the winter.
If you have no idea what it is, then our conversation on this topic makes no sense until you (without any help!) go through it all, at least in less severe frost than it was in 1959.
Besides, the military needs to have at least some goal for its actions. It is completely absent here. A reasonable target, anyway. If you consider others stupider than yourself, it will have a big impact on your own reputation and not only on it. For example, you can't even come up with such a goal, but you operate with abstractions.
3. Tempalov made his formal statement wrt his visit on 28.02.59 - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312?rbid=17743"At the bottom of the mountain flows a river up to 70 cm deep in a ravine where the depth of the snow in places reaches 2 to 6 m thick."
Yes! Tempalov 28.02.59 made a statement about the depth of snow that was in May? Or did you decide to play demagoguery again, with the expectation that no one would notice it?
Then you obviously do not perceive adequately what you are writing: 6 meters of snow at a depth of 0.7 meters is nonsense.
Besides, you are deceiving the readers, neither in the protocol of 28.02 nor in the description of the camp site of the group from 27.02 there are no such words. You can not deceive me, I know it well and from the first source. I read the documents in photocopies of the original text in my native language and I understand perfectly well, even where I could have made a mistake automatically when reprinting them on a typewriter.
And we can do the rest, especially those who just showed up. For a while. Then everyone will understand who they're dealing with and stop reacting to you. Apparently, that's what you're trying to do.
Who do you believe more:
- You are the same fictitious words of Tempalov, who was there for 3 days, and who has absolutely no knowledge about the peculiarities of this place (because he has never been there before and said it from the words of less literate people);
- or Vladislav Karelin, who was a professional in such travels, had been in the area many times before, and spent almost 3 weeks in search of the total time?
Their readings are too different.
By the way, the protocol, the date of which is 28.02, Tempalov wrote much later, already in Ivdel. You have absolutely no idea how such documents are prepared, where and when they are written.
However, you are constantly playing the connoisseur with reference to words whose meaning you do not understand in principle.
4. In February the ravine snow was too deep to probe.
Where'd you get that from? The source, please, make it public?
Eventually they built a dam to catch any bodies traveling downstream in the spring thaw
It's a good illustration of what I'm talking about all the time: you jump from one to the other every time, and it confuses other readers. And yourself, too.
It was in May, so it had nothing to do with what we just talked about.
What were we talking about? About the amount of snow in February? Then what does May's condition have to do with it?
The amount of snow in February 01 and May was very different. And you all fall into one pile and try to assert something on it. Sort out your thoughts before you assert something.
and following advice from the Mansi removed 1 meter of snow to probe the 2.5 metres below with extra long probes.
Don't make up fiction. The Mansi know even less about the use of avalanche probes than African tribes know about building igloo huts. You've misrepresented it again.
Mansi (Stepan Kurikov - that's specific) pointed out that pieces of herringbone (fir - to be more precise), which like a path went down - under the snow, can mean that something is below. And that's it. The decision about the rest and the search technology was made by Vladimir Askinazi together Colonel Ortjukov. Nobody "removed 1 meter of snow" (c) did anything - this is your fiction. It does not make the slightest sense. They first conducted probing, and when they found the artifacts of Lyudmila's body, they started digging in this place, and then near it.
2.5 meters of snow you put in the wrong place. That's the amount of protocol snow that was over the bodies. If you analyze the depth of snow from photographs where there is an avalanche (snow probe) of maximum length, it turns out that the snow is slightly more than 2 meters. Therefore, there was no "1 meter of snow removed"(s) from above. You constantly compose some fairy tales, and then confuse the readers in them. And you get confused in them yourself. Almost nobody can object to your luck, because almost nobody here has such information as I do. And I have my knowledge practical and obtained directly on the spot, and in the same exact conditions.
So you show your stupidity here yourself and very clearly.
The search photos show that they were not lying on 30cm of snow.
You can't show it in photos, don't make up nonsense. It is written in the protocol: "den is 30 cm above ground level." Read carefully and do not distort the real picture.
If you talk about how they were lying, they were directly in the water, that is, directly on the ground. The snow under them thawed. It should be noted that this is only a part of their bodies, which can be seen in the photo. The participants of the search describe that the other part - which was closer to their feet, was embedded in snow of different thickness, but not more than 30 ... 40 cm above the ground. There was no melt water from the stream flowing in that place. It was slightly elevated in height.
By the way, Vladislav Karelin also said that the snow in February was about 30 cm or slightly more. I don't think you know the amount of snow better than the person who was there then and saw everything. His skill level leaves no doubt about his objectivity.