I am sorry, but the whole problem between us is probably in linguistic misunderstanding.
Yeah, it's possible. But if you want to figure it out, I don't see a problem here. There is a method-- a method of sequential approximation.
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.
It's good thing we found out. It's also very unlikely in this place under those conditions. Even in better conditions, in the daytime, when you can see everything and you know where you can't go. Even if you have boots on your feet, or special shoes. There is a slight slope everywhere and the snow surface is hard crust. The feet are constantly sliding, so you have to either keep your feet supported with ski sticks or walk in a small step, very carefully choosing the path. See how Shura walked in the afternoon in our 2014 experiment.
. Note how he walked finely with his legs. I remind you that it was the afternoon and he knew very well where and how to go. And he knew where not go to it. In the conditions of that case, when there was a Dyatlov group, it was impossible walk like that (dark, stressful condition, many do not have shoes, valenki slide even more than foot only in one sock). It was impossible not fall in such conditions. A more stable position could be maintained only below the third stone ridge, when the snow started get deeper (10 ... 20 cm and more) and the slope became even softer. And it was in conditions when person could see something around him. If there was small dump ( small steeper section), the bangs are 99% more likely fall.
The contours of the bodies were not found in the snow, only the contours of the feet.
1. Falls was occurred mainly in rocky ridges, where there was no substrate nast (thin crust of ice over snow), which is required to form such traces.
2. Body pressure on loose snow in this case is low much (at least by an order of magnitude) less than when man steps to snow print of foot. Pressure is the main factor for the formation of traces.
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".
I've written about this before, but I'll say it again, but this will be the last time.
The stages of human exposure to infrasound at resonance with dangerous frequencies of brain biorhythms:
1. Collect the necessary cumulative dose of exposure, constantly feeling strange sensations and hidden dangers.
2. Get "anchor" signal, which will be the final event in increasing brain excitation ("last drop").
Zina has a large abrasion on the lower back, but it could only have occurred during her journey back towards the tent.
That's a very interesting consideration?
I'm surprised that when you move up, it's better opportunity than when you move down. When you move down, gravity of the ground adds damage forces, when you move up, then gravity of the ground reduces damage forces. Where's your logic in here?
On the way from the cedar to the place where it was found, there are no places where it can be damaged, and from the tent down to the place where it was found, it can only be reduced, but still more than enough.
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.
That's how it turns out. If you know what relaxation is and what helps, then this is where the answer is for you.
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.
I don't understand why it has operate at long distance and not at short distance. If there are no obstacles, it is like normal wave, fades in the proportions of the second degree. Only the attenuation coefficient for bass is lower than for higher frequencies.
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).
No one can stop you from doing such research. On your own. It's the only thing you'll have find your own money for. And it's going take lot money. Besides, you'll need find enough qualified specialists that no university has yet prepared. Because no one will spend money on something that will have no commercial effect.
Although there is already lot of applied research, but it is scattered and many of it is not published in wide print. They are in different countries and at different firms. Even if they exist, they exist in different languages and have not been translated into other languages. And they haven't been put on the Internet. Because many firms and people don't have that need. I'm talking about what I know myself, but I'm sure there are many more in other places.
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.
What do you call this term?
When a person operates with inaccurate (and therefore false) information and has been instructed to do so?
Or when he first talks about logic and immediately makes illogical conclusions? Has he been instructed to do so again?
I do not get reasonable arguments from those who try to discredit what I have researched in practice and have theoretical developments. And people want to seem knowledgeable, but in reality they do not even know the basics of what they are trying to talk about. I tell them exactly what I think about them. So it's up to you to decide how you can "discredit" the wrong opinion. It's either right or wrong, the other is out. So you have to be straight about it. It's only argued, which is what I do.
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.
Well, why not? If the questions are about injuries, I was engaged in biomechanics and we have studied all aspects of anatomy and pathology that we need well with the help and participation of leading specialists in medicine of our country. We have added physics and mathematics to this, which makes it possible to calculate injuries under the conditions given. I do not understand why it is bad? The result of our work is the development of safety and rescue equipment for aviation and spacecraft, and it is very difficult to find analogues for our developments. Moreover, there are very few competitors who can make a similar product (1...2...3). And here too, all our developments cannot be "found on the Internet".
I am not going speculate on how treat corona-virus or oncology. Although I already know lot about oncology.
As for psychology, I was specially engaged in these studies (in the same areas), before I started biomechanics. For example, we studied the processes in memory, get chance evaluate the "operator" fatigue. There, we needed to know lot of applied psychology. In addition, I made lot of observations in many travels. How person (different people) behaves in such conditions I know well in practice. Unlike many here who object to me and who only "lie on the sofa".
There are people here who have experience of different travels, but they ask competent and specific questions if there is a difference even in perception of what is being said. But these questions have a deep meaning, unlike what people here say who have an "opinion" and not knowledge.
Now you don't want change your mind about this?