21
General Discussion / Re: AVANLANCHE THEORY
« Last post by Axelrod on April 16, 2024, 05:22:48 AM »In general, the reason for Kuryakov’s dissertation was that when the first rescuers arrived at the site, they did not take photo of the tent. Now only Karelin says (he is still alive) that there were no signs of avalanche presence.
In Chernyshov’s description (see his witness testimony) it seems to be written that there were ski poles around the tent.
How can there be an avalanche if ski poles stick out half a meter around the tent?
Tempalov saw that there were no traces of an avalanche there, but did not take photographs for the others.
And now Kuryakov can defend his dissertations...
A separate interesting question: if there was no avalanche in February 1959, then could it ever be there? This is the question of this topic. An avalanche is only needed there to explain the absence of Bigfoot (Yeti), gnomes and other things in restricted set of versions.
Returning to the topic questions: I don’t think that this place on Earth (with multiple stones and human intact place) is one of those places where avalanches could occur at slope of 15 degrees.
In Chernyshov’s description (see his witness testimony) it seems to be written that there were ski poles around the tent.
How can there be an avalanche if ski poles stick out half a meter around the tent?
Tempalov saw that there were no traces of an avalanche there, but did not take photographs for the others.
And now Kuryakov can defend his dissertations...
A separate interesting question: if there was no avalanche in February 1959, then could it ever be there? This is the question of this topic. An avalanche is only needed there to explain the absence of Bigfoot (Yeti), gnomes and other things in restricted set of versions.
Returning to the topic questions: I don’t think that this place on Earth (with multiple stones and human intact place) is one of those places where avalanches could occur at slope of 15 degrees.