Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dyatlov Pass incident

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    Hello Abby,

    The problem is that a mile is actually a fairly long distance. The average hiking speed is about 2 1/2 to 3 miles an hour. And this is assuming an unencumbered hiker in good health on a flat surface. Here, the hikers had been hiking all day with a heavy pack, were in now below freezing temperatures at night, in their socks and hiking through deep snow. I would think under these circumstances that a pace of two miles an hour would be fairly generous and actually unreasonable. Even so, are we to believe that they somehow moved at a pace of two miles an hour for 30 minutes. Even in a panic that is hard to accept.

    c.d.
    Hi c.d.

    I'm working from memory here but yeah, I seem to recall that the bodies found at the cedar tree were around a mile from the tent.

    The journey was all down hill and I remember the footprints were deduced to show a steady, orderly walking pace with no signs of anyone running or panicking.

    I've postulated before that normal avalanche protocol would involve moving rapidly in a horizontal direction out of it's path, rather than vertically down the slope right in front of it.

    Am happy to be proved wrong on that.

    Despite that, I still lean towards avalanche as the most likely culprit, simply playing the odds, but agree that it's all pretty unfathomable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    Hello Abby,

    The problem is that a mile is actually a fairly long distance. The average hiking speed is about 2 1/2 to 3 miles an hour. And this is assuming an unencumbered hiker in good health on a flat surface. Here, the hikers had been hiking all day with a heavy pack, were in now below freezing temperatures at night, in their socks and hiking through deep snow. I would think under these circumstances that a pace of two miles an hour would be fairly generous and actually unreasonable. Even so, are we to believe that they somehow moved at a pace of two miles an hour for 30 minutes. Even in a panic that is hard to accept.

    c.d.
    hi cd
    we dont know how long it took them to get there, so trying to ascertain how fast they were going is impossible.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Hello Abby,

    The problem is that a mile is actually a fairly long distance. The average hiking speed is about 2 1/2 to 3 miles an hour. And this is assuming an unencumbered hiker in good health on a flat surface. Here, the hikers had been hiking all day with a heavy pack, were in now below freezing temperatures at night, in their socks and hiking through deep snow. I would think under these circumstances that a pace of two miles an hour would be fairly generous and actually unreasonable. Even so, are we to believe that they somehow moved at a pace of two miles an hour for 30 minutes. Even in a panic that is hard to accept.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post

    Cheers fellow traveller, the only drugs that help me now are a nice can of chilled Heineken, a large G & T, and the occasional burst of Tom Waits.

    Luckily I have all three to hand. I hope you're well.
    Thanks Barn, I'm happy to say I've made a pretty comprehensive recovery after the horrors of 1079.

    I mean, the occasional flashback or nightmare intrudes, but I'm learning to live with it.

    Keep up the booze and Waits medication!

    Leave a comment:


  • barnflatwyngarde
    replied
    Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

    Hang in there, buddy!

    We got through it together and you're not going to give in to it now.

    Drugs and talking therapies are available.

    Stay strong, Barn!
    Cheers fellow traveller, the only drugs that help me now are a nice can of chilled Heineken, a large G & T, and the occasional burst of Tom Waits.

    Luckily I have all three to hand. I hope you're well.
    Last edited by barnflatwyngarde; 11-03-2022, 10:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post
    Hi cd, I read, along with my three brave brethren, the book "1079", which is a very detailed analysis of the case. Unfortunately it was so bloody detailed and so strangely written, that I can remember nothing of any element of the case which would help you.

    I thought that I was over "1079", and then you come along and re-open all the old wounds again.
    Hang in there, buddy!

    We got through it together and you're not going to give in to it now.

    Drugs and talking therapies are available.

    Stay strong, Barn!

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    Rewatched Expedition Unknown again last night. One thing (well actually there are many things) I am confused about is that the rescue party found the first two hikers about a mile away from the tent. If the hikers were startled by what they thought was an avalanche and quickly cut the tent to get out, wouldn't they have only run a few yards without their boots before realizing that they were safe and the tent was still standing? Could it have been a weather event that caused a white out so they couldn't find the tent and got disoriented? Seems to me that something beyond the weather contributed to their panic and disorientation like chemical testing from the Russian Army perhaps?

    Any thoughts on this?

    c.d.
    Hi CD
    It was at night, freezing cold, a blizzard and or avalanche of some type, they could have been in a panic and gotten dissoriented and lost rather quickly.

    Throw in something like a hungry predator and who knows. IMHO it was a natural occurrence or combo of natural events.

    Leave a comment:


  • barnflatwyngarde
    replied
    Hi cd, I read, along with my three brave brethren, the book "1079", which is a very detailed analysis of the case. Unfortunately it was so bloody detailed and so strangely written, that I can remember nothing of any element of the case which would help you.

    I thought that I was over "1079", and then you come along and re-open all the old wounds again.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Rewatched Expedition Unknown again last night. One thing (well actually there are many things) I am confused about is that the rescue party found the first two hikers about a mile away from the tent. If the hikers were startled by what they thought was an avalanche and quickly cut the tent to get out, wouldn't they have only run a few yards without their boots before realizing that they were safe and the tent was still standing? Could it have been a weather event that caused a white out so they couldn't find the tent and got disoriented? Seems to me that something beyond the weather contributed to their panic and disorientation like chemical testing from the Russian Army perhaps?

    Any thoughts on this?

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Filby View Post
    One could say I "completed" 1079 but have to admit to being very lame and scanning through much of it; especially the annoying mini-bios, which in my view, were nothing more than space fillers. The author's dangling questions were also annoying. However, the Cedar tree-fell theory did not seem to be unrealistic to me. At first. It aligned with the blunt-force injuries the group sustained and seems to reason why they'd have to cut their way out. In fact, I thought perhaps a fell-tree was perhaps more realistic than a freak-of-nature ice and snow slab incident whose calculus had to equate in order for the event to occur. However, this "Magic Tree" (kudos Herlock!) was where, exactly??? The last photo taken of the group digging out the ill-fated site indicates no trees anywhere unless it's behind the photographer? But the tree is also not in the rescue/search party photo either.

    (See Figure 1 from this site)



    Above is the article I was also discussing earlier that explains the calculus behind the snow/ice slab theory that I still accept unless something comes up a bit more convincing. Not that I understand the calculus of it beyond the 1st line. One of the authors (Gaume) are the engineers of the "Disney" research team who also emulate real-time snow and avalanches for the movie Frozen. These are the findings that appear in National Geographic article of (Jan 2021). The only concern to me is Disney, I believe, owns National Geographic and I have to wonder how that plays into this theory as well.

    But in summary, I think perhaps these snow/slab incidents may not be as rare as one would think given the terrain and vast area of northern Urals.
    Now you need to pour yourself a hefty drink, sit in your most comfortable armchair and book yourself a holiday to anywhere in the world apart from Siberia.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post

    Well done Filby, you're now in the "Gang of Four" who suffered, but survived the agony that was "1079".
    Perhaps the four of us should get matching tattoos to remind us of our triumph over adversity?!

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by Filby View Post
    One could say I "completed" 1079 but have to admit to being very lame and scanning through much of it; especially the annoying mini-bios, which in my view, were nothing more than space fillers. The author's dangling questions were also annoying. However, the Cedar tree-fell theory did not seem to be unrealistic to me. At first. It aligned with the blunt-force injuries the group sustained and seems to reason why they'd have to cut their way out. In fact, I thought perhaps a fell-tree was perhaps more realistic than a freak-of-nature ice and snow slab incident whose calculus had to equate in order for the event to occur. However, this "Magic Tree" (kudos Herlock!) was where, exactly??? The last photo taken of the group digging out the ill-fated site indicates no trees anywhere unless it's behind the photographer? But the tree is also not in the rescue/search party photo either.

    (See Figure 1 from this site)



    Above is the article I was also discussing earlier that explains the calculus behind the snow/ice slab theory that I still accept unless something comes up a bit more convincing. Not that I understand the calculus of it beyond the 1st line. One of the authors (Gaume) are the engineers of the "Disney" research team who also emulate real-time snow and avalanches for the movie Frozen. These are the findings that appear in National Geographic article of (Jan 2021). The only concern to me is Disney, I believe, owns National Geographic and I have to wonder how that plays into this theory as well.

    But in summary, I think perhaps these snow/slab incidents may not be as rare as one would think given the terrain and vast area of northern Urals.
    Nice work, Filby!

    You made it through too!

    Valid point about the lack of trees in the final photograph!!

    FWIW I'm still leaning avalanche, but need to get my head around that study that contradicts Puzrin - Gaume.

    Leave a comment:


  • barnflatwyngarde
    replied
    Originally posted by Filby View Post
    One could say I "completed" 1079 but have to admit to being very lame and scanning through much of it; especially the annoying mini-bios, which in my view, were nothing more than space fillers. The author's dangling questions were also annoying. However, the Cedar tree-fell theory did not seem to be unrealistic to me. At first. It aligned with the blunt-force injuries the group sustained and seems to reason why they'd have to cut their way out. In fact, I thought perhaps a fell-tree was perhaps more realistic than a freak-of-nature ice and snow slab incident whose calculus had to equate in order for the event to occur. However, this "Magic Tree" (kudos Herlock!) was where, exactly??? The last photo taken of the group digging out the ill-fated site indicates no trees anywhere unless it's behind the photographer? But the tree is also not in the rescue/search party photo either.

    (See Figure 1 from this site)



    Above is the article I was also discussing earlier that explains the calculus behind the snow/ice slab theory that I still accept unless something comes up a bit more convincing. Not that I understand the calculus of it beyond the 1st line. One of the authors (Gaume) are the engineers of the "Disney" research team who also emulate real-time snow and avalanches for the movie Frozen. These are the findings that appear in National Geographic article of (Jan 2021). The only concern to me is Disney, I believe, owns National Geographic and I have to wonder how that plays into this theory as well.

    But in summary, I think perhaps these snow/slab incidents may not be as rare as one would think given the terrain and vast area of northern Urals.
    Well done Filby, you're now in the "Gang of Four" who suffered, but survived the agony that was "1079".

    Leave a comment:


  • Filby
    replied
    One could say I "completed" 1079 but have to admit to being very lame and scanning through much of it; especially the annoying mini-bios, which in my view, were nothing more than space fillers. The author's dangling questions were also annoying. However, the Cedar tree-fell theory did not seem to be unrealistic to me. At first. It aligned with the blunt-force injuries the group sustained and seems to reason why they'd have to cut their way out. In fact, I thought perhaps a fell-tree was perhaps more realistic than a freak-of-nature ice and snow slab incident whose calculus had to equate in order for the event to occur. However, this "Magic Tree" (kudos Herlock!) was where, exactly??? The last photo taken of the group digging out the ill-fated site indicates no trees anywhere unless it's behind the photographer? But the tree is also not in the rescue/search party photo either.

    (See Figure 1 from this site)



    Above is the article I was also discussing earlier that explains the calculus behind the snow/ice slab theory that I still accept unless something comes up a bit more convincing. Not that I understand the calculus of it beyond the 1st line. One of the authors (Gaume) are the engineers of the "Disney" research team who also emulate real-time snow and avalanches for the movie Frozen. These are the findings that appear in National Geographic article of (Jan 2021). The only concern to me is Disney, I believe, owns National Geographic and I have to wonder how that plays into this theory as well.

    But in summary, I think perhaps these snow/slab incidents may not be as rare as one would think given the terrain and vast area of northern Urals.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Hi Abby,

    Theres no doubt that the authors knew their subject all ends up. They’ve clearly lived and breathed the case for years so there has to be at least a chance that they might have gotten it right but…. as Barn and Ms D have both said the book should have been passed onto someone before hand who, a) had a better grasp of the English language, and b) would knew a readable book when they read one. A real wasted opportunity as, apart from the solution which is always going to be debatable, this book should have been the ‘Bible’ of the subject.
    well thats the rub isnt it? you can be an expert and have vast amounts of knowledge of something but if your analysis/conclusions are ridiculous whats it all amount to?zip.

    I dont how many people i know who are extremely knowledgeable AND smart yet draw the most stupid conclusions. In this case- a falling tree and government cover up?!? lol. what a bunch of nonsense. I wouldnt trust anything from these authors-it would make me question even their basic "facts" they present.

    Its like cornwalls book on sickert. I had to stop reading after a few chapters when she started claiming most/all the ripper letters were from not only the same person, and the ripper-- but sickert?! I didnt trust anything else she said and the book was pointless to me for that reason.

    the facts AND analysis have to both be correct and reasonable-if either is not-then it leads to questioning one or the other-and the whole things credibility falls apart.

    I absolutely can not stand books of "non-fiction" like this.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X